Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
Derek Black: Have Stormfront Founder’s Son’s Politics Changed?
There was a time, not so long ago, when Lamb and Lynx Gaede, daughters of an infamous Montana neo-Nazi, were considered the next big thing in the white supremacist movement. They were blonde, blue-eyed teenagers given to swastikas and Hitler worship, and they formed a white-power musical group called Prussian Blue, named after the color of Zyklon B residue in the Nazi gas chambers.
But then the twins grew older, rejected the views of their mother April Gaede, took up for the medical marijuana that alleviated their serious medical conditions, and said they’d come to “a place of love and light.” “We’re healers,” is how Lamb put it. “We just want to exert the most love and positivity we can.”
Could Derek Black be headed down the same road? Or is the son of Don Black, the former Alabama Klan leader who runs the racist Stormfront forum from his home in West Palm Beach, Fla., trying to have it both ways?
The evidence is mixed. But Derek Black, who has engaged in racist activism in the past, in recent weeks posted a remarkable statement on a students-only Web forum at the elite New College of Florida, where he is in his third year.
Derek Black, far left, stands with his fellow students at New College during his freshman year.
In it, he sought to respond to fellow New College students who had expressed fears of him, based largely on reports about his father’s views and articles about his own past racist activities, including one on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) website. He clearly said he is not a white supremacist, a neo-Nazi or a Klansman and does not hold such views. He said he doesn’t dislike anyone “on account of their race, religion, or anything similar.” “I do not believe people of any race, religion, or otherwise should have to leave their homes or be segregated or lose any freedom or whatever other terrifying similar-vein ideas have been posted in threads about me,” he said. “If anyone cares,” he added, “I’m also pro-choice (regulated by states), pro-gay marriage (with gov’t not defining marriage between people), and anti-death penalty (regulated by the states).”
Describing a 2008 episode in which he won election to the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee but was ousted because he failed to sign a GOP loyalty oath, Derek Black said he ran “based on the libertarian-ish views I hold (such as protection of personal liberty, no foreign wars without imminent threat), as well as regulation for environmental conservation and an inclination toward protection of domestic industry.” He said that although he had moderator privileges on Stormfront, by far the largest racist Web forum in the world, he does not exercise them.
Reached via E-mail by Hatewatch today, Derek Black confirmed that he had sent the statement to fellow students “in response to uncomfortable feelings about me some students at my college held. I had never publicly commented on the huge, heated threads about me.” But he added that he had not abandoned his view that white assimilation in a multicultural society is harmful to whites. “Everything I said is true,” he said of his statement to students, “and I also believe in White Nationalism. My post and my racial ideology are not mutually exclusive concepts, and people can believe both. WN [white nationalism] doesn’t dictate specific creeds so much as my concern about white assimilation, which I still think is very much a problem.”
Derek Black’s current political views, assuming his recent statement accurately reflects them, do seem to have moderated. By the age of 12, he had created a children’s page on his father’s website, complete with white pride songs and anti-Martin Luther King Jr. bedtime stories. At around the same time, he was profiled in a USA Today article and an HBO documentary, both about organized racism. He accompanied his father to large numbers of white supremacist events.
As late as 2010, when he had a radio show on WPBR radio in South Florida, his first scheduled guest was Gordon Baum — the head of the Missouri-based Council of Conservative Citizens, which has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity” — a far cry from Derek Black’s claim that he dislikes no group. And just this September, he spoke at Stormfront’s “Practical Politics Seminar” in Gatlinburg, Tenn., on how to advocate for white people effectively. During the same month, he attended a meeting of the European American Leadership Seminar for the second year in a row. The SPLC plans to list the group as a hate group in 2013.
In his recent comments — his first public statement at the school on his politics — Black described some reaction to him at New College: “glares” at public lectures, “the occasional middle finger in the library,” a few “threatening emails.” But he concentrated on others’ fears of him, saying he’d heard “that people might be scared or intimidated or even feel unsafe” because of his purported views, and inviting students to E-mail him personally about his politics. “Making these statements obviously does not instantly create comfort or security for everyone who’s uncomfortable,” he concluded, “but I hope it might help slightly.”
on December 18th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
The problem with this is that there are racists as I have meant who will smile and act friendly only to try to further push their hate agenda.
Anyone who ever subscribed to Neo Nazism and claims to have converted well that’s all fine and good but I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with them. What I have seen is that racist now have more clandestine operations and are given to using great methods of deception.
on December 18th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Nope, sorry Derek. You can’t have it both ways.
Either you’re a WN or you’re not. There is no middle ground.
on December 18th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
I don’t understand , why do you attempt to defeat and label as “hate” any interest that Europeans might have in the preservation of their peoples and heritage? Why is this okay for others but for Europeans it’s racism? Aren’t these double standards? I was born in Russia, is that a sin? I don’t understand America.
peace
on December 18th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Hello
Quick question: why do you seek to defeat or label as “hate” any interest that Euro-Americans have in preserving their peoples or heritage? Is this not a Double standard? I was born in Russia, is that a sin? I’ve noticed that other groups are allowed–even encouraged–to form race-based groups in America, but it’s discouraged for white people–why? This is the most racist country I have ever encountered! I don’t understand America, everyone here is so obcessed with race and creating race-problems.
peace
on December 18th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Call me a cynic but I don’t believe this kid for a second. It’s worth noting that New college is a highly selective public institution. Black must have had well above-average grades and board scores for admission.
on December 19th, 2012 at 1:48 am
White nationalists come in many views. Some even are as liberal as Derek. You can be nice and friendly to people of other races, just don’t breed with them. It was never a problem in third reich even! HJ and BDM had in mind to make kids to get penpals all over the world and learn a new language so they would grow up to be cosmopolitan.
on December 19th, 2012 at 7:25 am
Sounds like he needs to “assimilate” into society more often, before he will be able to ditch the virulent WN ideology altogether. Holding unto “moderate” WN views isn’t so bad. After all, we all know many Republicans hold those same views.
on December 19th, 2012 at 8:17 am
I submit that, especially given his upbringing, Derek is still young enogh to be confused.
on December 19th, 2012 at 8:25 am
Aleksandr, there are any number of secular and religious cultural oganizations for ethnic Russians in this country. I know, because I’ve been a member of quite a few, and I’m not even an ethnic Russian. You have no excuse to pout and act deprived, and I caution you that if you hang around here with that self-indulgent attitude, you’ll get a whuppin’.
on December 19th, 2012 at 8:38 am
I wouldn’t be surprised if the African-American kid in the picture near Derek talks more about race than he does.
on December 19th, 2012 at 8:59 am
To build on what Reynardine said, young people often hold views that they get from their parents initially–and then modify or totally reject them as they mature and gain their own life experiences. I would expect that everyone who comments on this site probably had preconceptions or attitudes instilled by relatives and other friends and acquaintances that they ultimately shed as they got a few more years and experiences under their belts.
I hope that this young man finds his way away from the WN camp. Considering how enmeshed he was as a kid (webpage at 12), the fact that he has journeyed thus far should be an encouraging sign.
Rejection of noxious worldviews–especially when they are learned in a family setting–can be a long process. Intelligent people feel their way along, replacing negative views with questioning and, hopefully, more positive views over time. They need to be allowed the space to do this; after all, their transformation should be coming from within.
on December 19th, 2012 at 9:04 am
One of the things I like about the SPLC is their sense of ultimate reality and their perpensity for spelling it out for people who deny it. Sure it is possible that DB is changing his views, we all do as we age. But he seems to be thinking that he can just walk away from his heritage. Sure, in an ideal America this might be possible, but a person’s reputation is of substantial value in America. Consider how George Wallace is remembered; only for a line in the sand. Nobody talks about his pro-black agenda that raked in black votes and kept him on Perry street for several terms. Like it or not, his reputation was cast and his pandering didn’t wash it away. Watching DB try to play the victim while conveniently ignoring his family’s past is delusional. If anything he would gain far more respect by simply being what everyone already seems to know he is. One point though that I wish I could have an answer about (and never get) is this: In what way can white American celebrate their white heritage without stirring up cries of racism? Is there any way a white person can show as much racial pride as a non-white person? Or is the double-standard just the reality we all need to learn to live with?
And if that’s the case, aren’t we inviting disaster from white Americans?
Grobbbbbbbbbbbbb
on December 19th, 2012 at 9:12 am
Shane, which African-American kid? There are several. Talk about race where, how, and to whom? At a time when the University of Miami was predominantly white, I belonged to a political debate society- composed of white students- who discussed it frequently because it was an issue of our times. It should no longer be an issue, but people like Beck, Limbaugh, Fox Newsies, dog-whistling politicians…and you…keep it so. And if you made half the effort that Derek seems to be making, you wouldn’t be dribbling your snivelling little buugers all over our threads.
on December 19th, 2012 at 9:20 am
Alexsandr A asks a reasonable question which is why in America do we make any distinction between the formation of racial pride groups.
He suggests that if minority groups should be allowed to form, then groups for the dominant race in society — i.e. whites — should also be acceptable. And in fact to condemn white nationalist groups is tantamount to racism, since it implies a double standard.
Clearly, Alexsandr has not looked into the reality of race and privilege in the United States. Even a half hour spent researching differences of opportunity, basic nutrition, health care, income, and other such social data will provide plenty of evidence that white people, as a racial group, are privileged in America. Specifically, white males. Another half hour spent researching the history of the country and its roots will explain why that is. So Alexandr, the burden is upon you to be informed.
Briefly, however, there is a simple answer:
Groups which unite minority races are fundamentally democratic because they protect the weak from the strong. Groups which unite the dominant race are fundamentally tyrannical because they ensure the strong can manipulate the weak.
We are not talking here about Scottish Highland Games or other cultural expressions which exist benevolently within the greater social fabric. We are talking about white people who insist upon privilege and deny that virtually the entire history of Europe has been one of exploitation to benefit white people.
on December 19th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Well said, aadila. Your “briefly” summation really makes the essential points.
on December 19th, 2012 at 9:49 am
Well, Grob, if that is your name, please have reference to what I said, and what Aadila said. There are any number of cultural groups which you can enjoy. The rest speaks for itself.
on December 19th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Thank you, Mark.
I would like to add it’s not just about “white people”. The same could be said of Han culture in Asia. It depends on the local dynamics.
on December 19th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
“I don’t understand , why do you attempt to defeat and label as “hate” any interest that Europeans might have in the preservation of their peoples and heritage?”
1. Derek Black is not European.
2. Neither are you, according to most Europeans and many Russians for that matter.
” Why is this okay for others but for Europeans it’s racism?”
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but people do celebrate their European heritage in America all the time. Ever hear of something called “St.Patrick’s Day”, for example?
on December 19th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
“Black must have had well above-average grades and board scores for admission.”
LoL.
“Even a half hour spent researching differences of opportunity, basic nutrition, health care, income, and other such social data will provide plenty of evidence that white people, as a racial group, are privileged in America”
I’ve always interpreted “White Privilege,” as just being statistically more likely to be born in a 2-parent household.
Also by those standards, Jewish privilege likely tops America’s problems, followed by Asian privilege, and then maybe Mormon privilege.
Apparently the SPLC has its work cut out fighting all this privilege.
on December 19th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
“I’ve always interpreted “White Privilege,” as just being statistically more likely to be born in a 2-parent household.”
Well, that’s obviously a stupid interpretation.
The U.S. Census Bureau recently reported statistical percentages of divorce by ethnicity.
Native American/Alaskan 12.6%
Black or African American 11.5%
White 10.8%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 8%
Hispanic/Latino 7.8%
Asian 4.9%
So, as you can see, white people are statistically very likely to be divorced in America, and accordingly not raising children in a two-parent household.
Therefore white privilege does not refer to the number of parents in the household. It does however refer to being proud of one’s ignorance.
on December 19th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
aadila’s batting a thousand today. Succinct, smart, lethal.
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
To enlarge on aadila’s first comment, I think that some “white” people get defensive over discussion of “white privilege” because they think that it requires something of them. It does: acknowledgement that “white privilege” exists and an open-minded awareness that some persons of color have to surmount obstacles that have they have never even considered surmounting. This acknowledgement and awareness should extend to helping others and extending to them the same assistance that many “whites” may receive without ever thinking that much about it.
I equate this level of understanding to the struggle that a lot of women went through (and still do, although to a much lesser extent) when they were attempting to make inroads into “man’s work.” I have lost count of the many times when male (white male, in almost all cases) casually mentioned that they didn’t understand why women complained about lack of opportunity–and then recounted anecdotes about how some white, male mentor helped them along, smoothed the way, got them a job, made sure they got the promotion, etc. Many of these guys were very competent — but then, so were women who were routinely passed over because they didn’t spark the recognition, “this young guy reminds me of me starting out” from the old white guys in charge. A lot of the young guys didn’t see this (or they did and didn’t care, because so long as they gained an advantage from it, why should they?)
Acknowledgement and awareness of “white privilege” shouldn’t result in unending guilt. But it should very definitely result in an awareness of the many experiences and difficulties EVERYONE struggles with (although some more than others). It should also result in a willingness to embrace and acknowledge diversity, and the fact that together, we are stronger. Having worked in a technical field for most of my working life (environmental consulting), I have had the opportunity to work with people of many backgrounds, races, ethnicities, religions, and it was a wonderfully dynamic work environment.
I would like to add, however, that economic stratification is also a very serious issue in terms of opportunity and access. I often work in rural areas that are inhabited primarily by lower-income “whites” who, by virtue of their lack of money and the sparseness of the population, have become evermore disenfranchised politically and in regard to economic opportunity. In fact, the changing structure of rural populations (e.g., agro-business displacing family farms and turning farmers into modern-day share-croppers; destruction of local economies because the agro-businesses don’t spend nearly as much locally as is the case with independent farms) is creating yet another seriously at-risk group, regardless of race (although being Hispanic or African-American can certainly exacerbate the marginalization and discrimination).
Although “race” continues to be a (or “the”) dominant factor in regard to economic opportunities, the ever-gaping chasm of income inequality means that we have to be aware of that, as well. I dare say that one of the reasons a lot of WNs continue to be so rabid is because they see that many “whites” are hurting in terms of income and opportunity. What they miss is that this isn’t due to “minorities,” it’s due to an increasingly inequitable income distribution as unions decline and Corporate America becomes ever more obsessed with holding down wages for rank-and-file workers to the point where a significant percentage of workers in some industries qualify for food-stamps because they are so poorly paid (which means that tax payers are subsidizing these poor-paying employers) while the “bosses” reap obscene bonuses and salaries.
As the bumper sticker says, “We all do better when we all do better.”
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
*does the wave for aadila*
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I’ll give Derek Black the benefit of the doubt here and agree with Reynardine that he might be exhibiting understandable symptoms of a young man who has on the one hand to deal with his past and his extremist father and on the other to contend with…reality. I recall some confused, fence-sitting kinds of words coming from one or the other or both of April Gaedes’s daughters that showed a similar struggle and then finally they appeared to have largely broken free of that world. I hope that Derek comes ultimately to the realisation that both embracing “White Nationalism” and not disliking anyone based on race, religion, etc. is impossible, because the two approaches are intrinsically at odds with each other. I hope he sees too that, despite the love and respect he feels for his father, the former approach is the manifestation of a group delusion, while the latter is a healthy way to live with others.
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Have you ever heard of an anti-racism campaign that targeted any non-White group as having “privilege”?
Of course not. They ONLY attack White “privilege” (a future for White children) in ALL & ONLY White countries.
All you anti-Whites ever do is make excuse after excuse to turn every White country into a brown mix of this and that.
To: aadila
All you anti-Whites ever do is justify innocent White children living in poverty as minorities in every country their ancestors built.
All you anti-Whites ever do is justify genocide of White children; a future without White children.
Now you see why anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Aadila, from an innocent greenhorn on this strife-torn turf, you have become a skilled and indomitable warrior for human justice.
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Adamhill I suppose I’ve been a little irritable really. I’ve been fasting and the headaches and hunger pains are starting to weary me.
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
“They ONLY attack White “privilege” (a future for White children) in ALL & ONLY White countries.”
Time to ask Santa for some meds.
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Coral’s comment seems right. Racial privilege is not necessarily something someone does, it’s just something that is. Of course the question of whether or not it exists is answered by the venomous responses when you point to it lurking in the shadows.
Racial privilege doesn’t _want_ to be found out.
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Well, Trema, the Hole in the Head, is back.
In general, now that official colonialism is almost a thing of the past, white privilege is generally exercised in majority-white countries (as we would class them). And, see here, Hole, if you want to prevent the genocide of white children, why don’t you agitate for gun control?
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Aadila, that’s the best and most precise explanation I have heard for a question that has also puzzled me. BTW, Prussian Blue may have been the color of the Zyclon-B residue, but the name has been around since 1710. Look it up, it is an interesting story.
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Aadila, maybe fasting has brought you great clarity about the true nature of our trolls.
on December 19th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
The fact is that white privilege – like male privilege – is so entrenched and insidious that it becomes difficult to detect because it is simply seen as the norm. Thus, because racism and sexism is the norm in this society, white privilege is not seen as something exceptional. It hides in plain site.
The fact is that the people who deny white privilege exists tend to be people who seem to believe that they should have all of the jobs, money, and education simply by virtue of their skin color. They have no other qualification for any of that other than their skin color and simply cannot figure out why they are not allowed into the right club. What they do not realize is that they will never be allowed through the doors in the true centers of white male privilege because white privilege and racism has always been a way for the ultra rich to divide the poor among racial lines so they do not unify along class lines.
on December 19th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
If white people who don’t perceive they possess privilege because of their skin color were magically to be able to walk around for even a few days with a different skin color, they would understand on a gut level just how different it is when one doesn’t have white skin. But one doesn’t need magic to do this. One only needs some empathy and intelligence.
on December 19th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Sam,
Thank you for saying so but this view is informed by history. Democracy arose in Greece because there was the legitimate social problem of powerful kings arising to become tyrants. “Tyrants” didn’t mean cruel rulers, it meant they usurped power.
So what do you do if an individual could arise with sufficient strength to wipe out law and all the protections it represented? If you read commentaries from the day, the Greeks were not exactly too friendly with each other. Democracy was defined by fear of tyranny, not by brotherly love.
Accordingly I think it makes a lot of sense to look at how minorities protect themselves in the context of our society which was founded by wealthy white men. To this day, America esteems wealthy, white, heterosexual men above all others — just look at the composition of most grand juries or corporate board of directors. What do we call that if not privilege?
That doesn’t mean every wealthy white straight male is going to be in a position of power. That doesn’t mean white people are coming up with ways to suppress minorities. But in large groups the trend appears, so what do we do about it?
One way to accomplish this is for minority communities to band together in opposition to the power of the elites. Just like any democracy.
on December 19th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Rey,
I always see the trolls for what they are…but when fasting it’s harder to contain my anger. Which is why I fast to begin with…in order to conquer such impulses through mental discipline.
on December 19th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
It’s not skin colour is the birth right of being the sprog of one’s ancestors who worked, fought and died for our nations. It may be somewhat different in the USA but in Europe white people’s lives are becoming more and more difficult as more and more non-European invaders come only, not to fit in, just to make more money, have more kids, spread their alien (to Europe) religion.
Nobody hates these people as long as they stay in their own countries or come to study, and go back to improve their nations, etc. It cannot be though that the solution to problems in other nations is to let them all come to European countries and put the future of our children in danger. We’ve seen many riots and ethnic conflicts in the past already, it will only get worse.
Nations like Israel keep foreigners out, Japan isn’t full of non-Japanese…only European countries should be, for some reason. I think the reason is that many people want to destroy European culture and simply want to have what our European ancestors have built. Ours, not theirs. Europeans have a right to a homeland as well, just like other people.
on December 19th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Sad use of statistic aadila. Divorce rates are a lackluster predictor for the probability of being raised by one parent, for obvious reasons. How about actually, you know, just being born by one parent!
“Large racial differences remain: 73 percent of black children are born outside wedlock, compared with 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites. And educational differences are growing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02.....p&
Damn
I love the SPLC, its like the onion for me.
on December 19th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Assuming someone does indeed have access to a privilege of some kind, never mind arguments to the contrary, what kind of person would want to give up or relinquish a privilege he/she posesses? Other than someone with some kind of masochistic mental disorder?
on December 19th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
In re: Prussian Blue: it’s actually an oil pigment, one of the more durable ones used by artists, and useful besides in dressing steel. It’s true that reactions of cyanide gas produce this harmless pigment, and that’s why traces of it at Auschwitz, where it could not remotely have come from any legitimate use, were indicative that the masonry had been exposed to Zyklon B. I would add, however, that my paternal family tree has a branch which originally came from Freyberg an der Unstrut and produced some hard-ass liberals, which makes those, at least constructively and in part, Prussian Blues.
on December 19th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
I am an old man and I have known Derek since he was a boy. Took him bike riding with me one time to Okeheelee Park in WPB.
In building the park they had used the spoils from digging out the lakes to build a good size hill. Riding up that hill on my bike was pretty good exercise.
So I told Derek, lets ride to the top of bicycle mountain there. So we started up and when I got to the top I looked back, Derek had bogged down.
He was mortified that a fifty something year old man had made it and he hadn’t. I told him, no big deal.
But nothing would have him until he rode that bicycle to the top of that hill. It took him two or three tries, but he finally made it. The boy has grit.
I knew that the boy was smart and I am glad to see here that he is also evidencing a good level head.
I have been around the kind of white people that the SPLC demonizes as white supremacists for a long time. And yes, they are white. And yes, they do seem to have an affinity for their own race and culture. Is that so bad?
Let me suggest to you demonizers of white racialists, watch that reality TV series, 48 hours. What you will see is case after case of predominantly young black men killing other young black men.
The race denominator of that program is so pronounced as to constitute an expose of the sub-culture of African Americans. A sub culture quite so caustic as to cause draw back even on the part of it’s own members.
If African Americans can abhor the horror of the personal and societal criminal chaos that infects so much of black society, must we as white people pretend that it doesn’t exist?
And, as to the other half of the condemnation of white dissidents, the Jews: Does anyone not understand that the Jews have put together a political machine headed by AIPAC that virtually controls US policy as regards the Middle East and Israel?
Google this string: Israel AIPAC Zionist Matrix of Power
Surely these realities demands a vigorous and open debate without being condemned as racist or anti-Semitic.
Maybe we need young people that will stand in the face of political correctness and address the real issues.
on December 20th, 2012 at 6:45 am
A pointless topic considering that Stormfront is ‘controlled opposition’. Pretending it’s not is disingenuous.
on December 20th, 2012 at 8:07 am
@whowillstopthekardashians?
Out of wedlock doesn’t mean out of the home, dummy:
41% of first births by unmarried women are born to cohabiting partners. – Bumpass, Larry and Lu, Hsien-Hen. 2000. “Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Contexts in the United States.” Population Studies, 54: 29-41.
on December 20th, 2012 at 8:24 am
Even in Florida, there is no guarantee you won’t open your eyes one morning and find the flakes are thick around you. More detailed comment to follow. Just this, for now:
I do not want to enjoy any kind of *privilege* that is arbitrarily denied another. I wish the *rights* of each person to be recognized, and the *blessings* of society to be within their reach. And a *reality* show is not *reality*.
on December 20th, 2012 at 8:38 am
Adamhill, it happened. Back in the early Sixties, a young man took a medication that darkened his skin and then toured the South. His book, “Black Like Me”, was an eye-opener.
I have had an experience somewhat in reverse. Because of a surname which is often Islamic, Arabic, or Turkish, I have, sight unseen, been subjected to the kind of treatment that professionals would seldom use on a ril uhMericuhn colleague. Later, I have sat in proximity to these same colleagues for over an hour, unrecognized by them. When they found out who I was, their expressions were priceless.
on December 20th, 2012 at 8:42 am
Brock,
The problem is as you describe.
White privilege feels threatened by the rise of minority power. The backlash against Obama’s first term was a perfect example. It wasn’t just that he unsettled white privilege. He was elected on the principle of destabilizing the status quo of the elites who enjoyed pornographic profits during the Bush years.
Does anyone think the elites who originally ruled Athens actually _wanted_ to be ruled by a forum of citizens with random, rotating selection of officials? I’m sure they were choking on their grapes.
My point is that it is fundamentally a democratic proposition for minority groups to mobilize against white power groups, because whites represent the largest cross section of elites in America.
Alexandr cited a very reasonable egalitarian principle of a single standard for everyone, whites and non-whites. As I have shown, however, the underlying social conditions are not equal for whites and non-whites, and the mere formation of racial groups is not the test upon which a fair society is judged. There are historical variables which tilt conditions in favor of whites in America, regardless of who is forming groups.
In other words, supporting white groups on the basis of a “single standard” would be to paint a veneer of egalitarianism over what is, at a deeper level, an elitist and racist society which maintains a double standard in terms of education, income, opportunity, criminal justice, basic nutrition, violence, and many other categories which are far more relevant.
on December 20th, 2012 at 8:53 am
“If African Americans can abhor the horror of the personal and societal criminal chaos that infects so much of black society, must we as white people pretend that it doesn’t exist?”
Norman, white males account for about 35% of our population, but represent the majority of mass shooting culprits and serial killers. Based on your own argument, shouldn’t we be talking here about the inherent problems with the white culture that spawns such basic disregard for human life?
By the way, statistically close to 80% of whites killed with guns are killed by other whites. Your point of blacks killing blacks is meaningless diatribe. It IS a social problem but not as you describe.
And regarding your hypothesis that Jewish people are conspiring to corrupt politics, not only is that bigoted and offensive, it neglects the obvious factor that the biggest ally of the United States in a region that is hostile to our interests happens to be Israel.
Frankly Norman, as an American, you embarass me.
on December 20th, 2012 at 9:29 am
“It may be somewhat different in the USA but in Europe white people’s lives are becoming more and more difficult as more and more non-European invaders come only, not to fit in, just to make more money, have more kids, spread their alien (to Europe) religion.”
Well Steven, have you asked yourself why that is happening?
From the ancient empires of Europe forward, European people have invaded other regions, not to fit in, just to take resources, enslave the populations, and spread their alien (to the rest of the world) religion.
The reason why Europe is a locus of immigration today is directly a result of the expansion of European hegemony that dates back to at to at least 300 BCE, reaching its apogee with the rise of colonialism in more recent centuries.
If Europe for thousands of years had been concerned with the economic prosperity of other regions, there would be no need for people to immigrate today. Rooster meet roost.
on December 20th, 2012 at 11:48 am
I hope Derick is heading in the direction away from Stormfronts views and will change his racial activity and walk away from it!
on December 20th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Geez, louise! Aadila is on FIRE!!! *Applauds loudly.*
on December 20th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Reynardine,
“I do not want to enjoy any kind of *privilege* that is arbitrarily denied another.”
The home you said you own says otherwise.
on December 20th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
A minor correction Mark. Prussian Blue staining is found in the delousing facilities at Auschwitz, less so or not at all in the gas chambers. This is due to the fact that killing lice required much higher concentrations of Zyklon B than killing humans. The absence of Prussian Blue has been cited by holocaust deniers as evidence that the gas chambers were in fact bomb shelters, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked. It was this connection that Prussian Blue cited (according to Wikipedia) as well as their presumed Prussian heritage and blue eyes. While Prussian Blue colored the uniforms of the Prussian army through the 18th and 19th centuries, including, I believe, the coat my grandfather wore in his spiked helmet photo, it is much darker than the eyes of the Gaedes sisters. Happy holidays to you and your family!
on December 20th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
brock leave rey alone. having shelter is a basic human right, not a privilege.
on December 20th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
I would like to thank Norman for reminding us that wisdom does not always come with age.
on December 20th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Brock, I want everyone to have a home. You have just demonstrated yourself to be a specious (peace, Hays Office).
on December 20th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
If he still believes in White Nationalism, and has attended recent events for racists, I don’t see how he has changed at all.
Am I missing something here?
on December 20th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Steven, have you ever taken a look at immigration laws by nation? You would realize nobody is forcing these governments to accept people from other nations. You would also realize there are a lot of Chinese and European folks in various African countries and there are non-Japanese folks in Japan. But you wouldn’t know that because of the bubble you live in. And if you’re an American, you’re not European.
Norman, I’ve seen 48 Hours. I’ve seen the cases you mentioned. I’ve also seen cases involving whites killing other whites. Why did you neglect to mention that?
“I wouldn’t be surprised if the African-American kid in the picture near Derek talks more about race than he does.” – Shane
How would you know? Do you know the black guy in the photo? Or are you just making an assumption about someone you don’t know just because he’s black?
on December 21st, 2012 at 5:58 am
Brock, my adorable Dum Dum Lollypop, only a complete sociopath would wish to limit a privilege (which while called a privilege, white privilege* involves several fundamental Constiutional rights) to a small group of people who look like them and deny it to everyone else.
Of course, all one has to do is read your “theory” of Constitutional law** to know you are a complete wacko. In fact, from your “theory” of Constitutional law, we know that you would limit the ability to vote to only white male property owners. In fact, you seem like you’d be totally down with bringing back slavery which makes you a neo-confederate twit.
But really, you can’t expect someone who thinks that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect states to have a problem with say pretext stops for the crime of “driving while black” or random searches of everyone on the wrong side of town. Or see a problem with allowing only white males to receive a good education or reserving all high paying powerful jobs for white males who belong to the right clubs.
However, all you white nationalists out there – you may be a white male but do not belong to the right club. Sexism and racism is just there to distract you while the rich run off with everything. The rich are laughing all the way to the bank with you – and you get them in private moments (in their private little white boys clubs – seriously, they might as well have a sign out front which says “No Girls [unless you are a date or a cocktail waitress] No Blacks [unless you are a cook or a waiter] No Hispanics [unless you clean the toilets or are a groundskeeper], No Jews [relaxed considerably today, but the most elite clubs still are WASP only] No Catholics [see Jews] No Asians [see Jews], No Dogs!” and they will say the worst stuff about you. In fact, they probably hate poor whites more than they hate minorities – after all, at least they would let blacks through the service entrance to work there.
And now, because clubs are all about business, the restrictions on religion are largely gone, Asian businessmen are welcomed with open arms because the economy has gone global, Hispanic businessmen are welcomed for the same reason, and the few black business executives around are welcomed as well. However, there is a reason why they are called “tokens” – and at least at country clubs this has largely been driven by the desire to secure the prestige and revenue that golf tournaments bring
But the “No Girls Allowed [unless you are a date]” rule is still very strong. Very many elite clubs only allow women – even the wives or daughters of members – as “guests.” They are not allowed to be seen as members in their own right. That is one reason why white privilege should really be called white male privilege.
And if you are poor, forget it. They will never ever allow you in their club. If you have to ask where is white male privilege, you don’t got it. You will never get it. Racism has always been used by the rich to keep the poor and middle class whites from uniting politically with minorities – the Ku Klux Klan was often funded by business interests (even large corporations) which used it as a tool to divide the poor – especially in the 1930s and 1940s used prior to fight unions in the South.
* which really should be called white male privilege because the people pushing it want to keep white women from occupying positions of power as well.
** See the secession article. As far as i can tell this guy actually believes that the Constitution is illegal.
on December 21st, 2012 at 9:38 am
Just like his father, and his father’s close associate, David Duke, there is absolutely no statement that he can make – either orally or in writing – that should be given any credibility. There is no such thing as “rehabilitation” for people like them, and there is absolutely no set of circumstances of any kind or nature whatsoever under which they can or should be trusted.
on December 21st, 2012 at 10:40 am
People have been cured of bigotry, especially when the attitude is one assumed, not out of personal choice, but out of indoctrination in youth. It doesn’t happen overnight.
Housing, like food, water, clothing, public education, and medical care, is something to which everyone should have access. It is a right, not a prvilege, even though some are denied their rights.
On three occasions, I have taken people in, and on the fourth, paid a client’s rent. And you, Brock, what have you done for anybody who wasn’t of personal benefit to you?
As a color, Prussian blue is a slightly greener shade of navy.
on December 21st, 2012 at 2:55 pm
While in my own personal dealings with the kla the guy who was the one inthe place where I went to mddle school (i am now 40 years old) he posed as Rave dancer for techno parties but turned out he was the haead of the KKK .I refused the guys “advances” my reward was i was pulled out of a truck in warnner Robins G.A. and repeatly beaten until sunup then iwas given an application of vick vapor rub on my genitils and throat and am still not able to stand the smell of .But I have become well aware of the Avon polotics of Mr. Mistykiss and the KU Klux Klan. P.s . last time I wrote you I think it made somekind of impact not sure how but did. sincerly Robert Geserick
on December 21st, 2012 at 3:27 pm
aadila,
“having shelter is a basic human right, not a privilege.”
Does the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be the law of the land here in America, recognize that right? An individual civil right so universally recognized takes drastic measures to enforce. How do you propose that be done?
Erika, switch to decaf. I’m from California, so the economic systems and structures the Southern states ought to create for themselves is no concern of mine, and nor am I a neo-Confederate or white nationalist.
on December 21st, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Brock,
No, dummy.
The Constitution recognizes civil rights. Human rights are a question of conscience.
on December 21st, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Brock why don’t you educate yourself before coming here to debate….it’s embarassing to have to explain these things to Americans because it shows how weak our educational system is. It’s not my job to answer questions you yourself should be able to answer.
Here’s the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, established by the United Nations and undersigned by its member nations:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Do your homework and get back to us.
on December 21st, 2012 at 8:37 pm
I would like to direct those aadila to an article written by a Jewish conservative Ron Unz in the American Conservative.
http://www.theamericanconserva.....ritocracy/
Here Unz’s data shows that the most underrepresented group in America at prestigious universities, WHEN IQ AND SECONDARY SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, are actually non-Jewish whites.
You should check it out.
The concept of “white privilege” is an inherently racist ideology. No one would allow me to question why Jewish Americans, who represent less than 2% of the population, are about 40% of America’s billionaires.
No one would allow me to criticize Asians children for the fact that their parents are good parents.
You have to remember that whites have built the majority of America, and completely built European societies. Blacks building slave-owner mansions don’t count. I’m talking about the Hoover Dam, the space program, the Ivy Leagues where they are discriminated against by Jewish Americans, and the culture of “privilege,” which is really just their success.
This goes to show the inherently anti-White nature of people on the far-left who hide behind fuzzy, ambiguous moral ideas and masquerade as legitimate people who have their interests of everyone in minds.
They don’t.
on December 22nd, 2012 at 6:47 am
There is way too much Hate , Racism , & injustice in our world , a world where life , liberty , and the peaceful pursuit of happiness is being marred/ blurred by misguided , hateful organizations which brainwash their children into starting/living their lives hating others. When it comes right down to it , our creator , whom I choose to believe is God the Father , and his only begotten son , the Lord Jesus Christ , created all of us as brothers and sisters. We all his ( GODS) children created in his image !!!!!!!!!!!!! I feel pity / and sorrow for these misguided , hateful persons!!!!!!
on December 22nd, 2012 at 8:44 pm
In the 1960′s anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white countries to open the borders to massive non-white immigration. Then anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white people to “integrate” or face consequences for being “naziswhowantokill6millionjews.” Now these anti-whites are calculating and praising the day when ALL and ONLY white children will be minorities and extinct EVERYWHERE. It’s Genocide. “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white.
on December 23rd, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Interesting. Derek is on the receiving end of actual hate at his new school (middle fingers from strangers for instance. I strongly suspect they’re white radicals rather than minorities). Lots of this real hate has been fueled by splc of course, with nothing better to do than pick on utterly marginalized whites with eccentric or antiquated racial ideas. but here we are trying to determine whether derek has stopped his “hating.”. I’ve never experienced more hatred than from a fellow white liberal angered at my interest (not uncritical by the way) in American Renaissance or Steve Sailer.
on December 25th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
The Prussian Blue girls haven’t changed; they simply use medical marijuana and have chosen to distance themselves from the center of attention, deciding against joining the frontlines of white separatism with their mother April Gaede.
I say the same for Derek. The three still believe in white separatism and pride but aren’t active anymore in the movement. And in addition, the SPLC can only quote one or two phrases to justify their suspicions of “hate,” suspicions which are as unsupported as their assumption of change for Derek and April’s daughters. Sorry but I must interject that no change has arisen amongst these young nationalists, and we cannot support any change through quotes of single statements they may have uttered over the course of many years.
on December 26th, 2012 at 10:16 am
White Rabbit, dumb bunnies end up as hasenpfeffer.
on December 26th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
HASENPFEFFER
1 big, dumb White Rabbit, cut up into serving pieces.
2 cups vinegar
2 cups water
1 medium onion, sliced
12 cloves
2 bay leaves
6 peppercorns
2 tsp salt
4 tbsp butter
1 cup cream, either sour or heavy.
Make marinade of vinegar, water, and all the spices, including onion. Marinate cut-up rabbit in refrigerator for two days, turning as necessary. Drain and reserve liquid. Heat butter in frying pan and brown rabbit thoroughly on all sides. When rabbit is well-browned, add marinade, cover, and simmer slowly until rabbit is fork-tender to bone. Turn off heat, stir in cream, and serve over noodles or rice.
That’s the recipe as handed down to me. However, if the White Rabbit is southern, then you:
Substitute 1 young magnolia leaf and a palm full of Florida redcedar berries for the bayleaf and cloves, and an equal amount Coca Cola for the vinegar
Strain seasonings out of marinade before heating
thoroughly blend a flat Tbsp gravy flour to cream before adding, and stir for 5 minutes
Mmmm, good!
on December 26th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
aadila,
Is the UNDHR the law of the land in America, binding upon us? No matter the answer to that question, how is a universal charter of positive individual liberties supposed to be recognized?
on December 26th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
I’m not gonna lie, Rey. That sounded dee-lish!
on December 27th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Years since I cooked either version, Aron, at least with rabbit, out of respect for the late Mr. Winter. But either recipe works with poultry.
on December 27th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
As anyone with any brains at all knows, my dear Brock, the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not disparage others not so named. The United States Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling. And now, my witless badger, if you want to flaunt your snugness and smugness in some society where people are foodless, houseless, comfortless, and beset by plagues, you can find many such around the world, but don’t be shocked when the hungry hounds come twist you out of your sett.
on December 27th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Well, we hear from “White Rabbit,” who has written here under various other names:
“In the 1960’s anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white countries to open the borders to massive non-white immigration. Then anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white people to “integrate” or face consequences for being “naziswhowantokill6millionjews.” Now these anti-whites are calculating and praising the day when ALL and ONLY white children will be minorities and extinct EVERYWHERE. It’s Genocide. “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white.”
We’ve seen you make sporadic appearances on this website, under various names, repetitiously spouting your line, “Anti racist is anti white.” You must have that on a shortcut on your keyboard! You pop up under a variety of names, and once you even included your website address. Boy, that’s a lot of effort to spout more drivel about the efforts to exterminate white rabbits.
Anyway, back to your main points, which are repeated ad nauseum, referring to your earlier attacks, mostly to remind your potential converts:
1. Ruslan Amikrhanov has posted many more times here than you have, for many years, and I have read his and your posts at great length. I have NEVER seen him advocate “threats, intimidation, harassment, loss of employment, physical violence, and prison time” or “forced assimilation” in any of his posts.
2. Freedom of Speech is not “freedom from speech.” If you spout stuff in the public arena, be prepared to be called out and held accountable for it. If you say stuff that offends people, expect them to be offended and argue back. If you annoy people, they’re not going to just sit there and “take it.” You don’t like getting yelled at? Tough beans, kiddo. Welcome to democracy. We have the right to tell you what we think of you. That’s why Carl Pavano gets booed every time he comes to Yankee Stadium, and Vince Coleman will never visit Citi Field.
3. If you engage in behavior that embarrasses your employer or breaks the law, expect to be fired by your employer or go to prison. That’s true in any country, even ones that don’t offer their citizens freedom of speech, regardless of the country’s philosophies or ethnicities. It’s a simple rule of employment: torque off the boss, he or she can fire you. If you don’t believe me, stick a crowbar in your wallet and chat with an employment lawyer.
4. You have come here repeatedly and whined about “forced assimilation,” but have yet to prove that whites are being forced to marry blacks or vice versa. The burden of proof is on you, not your cartoon rabbits.
5. Please share with us actual occasions when you, personally, have been subjected to “threats, intimidation, harassment, loss of employment, physical violence, and prison time” for your behavior. Your web page up and running? No KGB, FBI, or KAOS agents dragging you off to prison? You ever been fired from a job? Better yet, have you ever held a job? And if you’re suffering from threats and intimidation, was that because you refused to marry a black, Latino, or Asian girl? Has any government agent or job superior actually come to your parents’ home, descended into your basement, and said to you, “Hey, dum-dum, you are now required by law to marry this black girl. If you do not do so and present our glorious leader with seven biracial kids in eight years, you will go to prison?” Actually, I hope someone does. Watch how fast your attitudes and priorities in life change once you’re married, responsible, and having kids. Far less time to sit at the computer in the basement and whine, hey?
I won’t bother to use the usual argument about “Defining white culture” on you, because you’ve heard it here numerous times before, and you’re not listening. You’re just hoping one person out of 20,000 reads your rubbish and says, “This guy is cool. I’m going to join his army and send him my life savings from my grandfather’s trust fund,” so you can move out of your parents’ basement into your own apartment, hire some servants, and spend the rest of your life whining on the internet, and not worry about paying for it or cooking your own food. Unfortunately, while you’ll probably get some hits on your website, I don’t think you’ll get that $30 million check.
Incidentally, a big portion of “culture” is food, and I’ve heard of Italian food, French food, German food, Russian food, English food, Spanish food, Portuguese food, Polish food, Greek food, Turkish food, Jewish food, Arab food, African food, Haitian food, Mexican food, Caribbean food, Japanese food, Thai food, Chinese food, Indian food, and even Australian food (“shrimp on the Barbie”), and fast food.
Never heard of “White food.” Care to define “White cuisine” for us? Mayonnaise on everything? Big Macs or Whoppers?
Now, can you please share with us the actual laws, regulations, and policies, naming the countries, that created this non-existent situation that you decry? For this required commingling of the races to take place, there must be laws and policies on the books, in nations like Britain, Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Bermuda.
Please present us with proof of this fascinating theory. Not cartoons of white rabbits or snarky satire about English troops invading Virginia in 1607. Proof, with footnotes, academic sourcing, and actual links to sites not run by driveling paranoids and racists.
And then show us, as I said earlier, how white men are being forced to mate with black women and white women forced to mate with black men. With the same levels of proof.
In my case, I don’t think I’d have to be forced to mate with Kerry Washington, Halle Berry, or Sanaa Lathan, just to pick on three. ROWRF! Hubba Hubba! Would you? Anybody forcing you to do so?
And if not, why haven’t you just married a girl with blonde hair and big shoulders, someone who looks like Linda Evans or Morgan Fairchild, or both, and created a whole baseball team of kids for the white race? What’s stopping you? Could it be failure to use deodorant or failure to get a full-time job?
While you’re at it, see if you can write in something other than mind-killing jargon and buzzwords.
on December 27th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Well, Norman, sorry I haven’t taken you to the woodshed yet, but it’s pretty obvious that you’re a “hit-and-run” kind of guy, who just leaps in to defend his buddy and the white race, in no particular order, from the Jews, blacks, and Reds you hate, which are probably pretty much interchangeable in your mental three-card monte game.
“Let me suggest to you demonizers of white racialists, watch that reality TV series, 48 hours. What you will see is case after case of predominantly young black men killing other young black men.
“The race denominator of that program is so pronounced as to constitute an expose of the sub-culture of African Americans. A sub culture quite so caustic as to cause draw back even on the part of it’s own members.
I”f African Americans can abhor the horror of the personal and societal criminal chaos that infects so much of black society, must we as white people pretend that it doesn’t exist?”
“48 Hours” is not a realistic depiction of American life, it’s merely a news show, and one that survives on violence and mayhem, pandering to its audience and advertisers. If that’s your sole contact with African-Americans, you have — despite your age — a lot to learn. And saying that all blacks are responsible for the behavior of African-American criminals is like saying that all whites have to be responsible for the moral filth of Vietnam, Watergate, Irangate, Enron, Ivan Boesky, Exxon Valdez, and the BP scandals. Or the incomprehensible deeds of Adam Lanza, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Richard Speck, and Jeffrey Dahmer.
Or that all whites are responsible for the horrific acts of the Klan, the neo-Nazis, the Order, Glenn Miller, Louis Beam, Tom Metzger, and the other white sadists and brutes who have committed heinous racial crimes over the past three decades. Just as Derek Jeter is not responsible for David Muhammed, I am not responsible for Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.
Obviously, your view of blacks was formed long ago, and little has changed, beyond your age.
“And, as to the other half of the condemnation of white dissidents, the Jews: Does anyone not understand that the Jews have put together a political machine headed by AIPAC that virtually controls US policy as regards the Middle East and Israel?
“Google this string: Israel AIPAC Zionist Matrix of Power
“Surely these realities demands a vigorous and open debate without being condemned as racist or anti-Semitic.
Maybe we need young people that will stand in the face of political correctness and address the real issues.”
Well, it’s obvious that you also have a special and greater loathing for Jews than you do of blacks, which is typical of the white nationalist movement. They hate blacks, but they hate Jews even more, cloaking that with codewords about “Zionism.”
Anyway, if the Jews and AIPAC really controlled American foreign policy, they are doing a fatuous job of it…it would have been a lot easier for the Jews, AIPAC, and the American leadership if Israel did control the Middle East, and all the Arab leadership was whacked…no problems with Arab terrorism, no danger of Iran building nuclear weapons that could devastate Israel and the Arab oil fields, and greater prosperity for oil companies and arms dealers.
(Remember that arms dealers do much better not from actual wars, but from tension between nations — they can sell guns to both sides, and keep getting new orders and maintenance contracts. If actual war breaks out, they lose the contracts on one side, and can’t keep up with the demand on the other.)
The canard that Jews sit around planning all kinds of deviltry to cause chaos to Christians, profit to themselves, and destruction of the planet to hand it to Satan is a pretty ancient lie, and it has been perpetuated by the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” and somewhat more efficiently for the uneducated by Henry Ford’s “The International Jew,” and it’s apparent that you’ve swallowed these lies from top to bottom. Very sad.
What’s sadder still is that you are an old man, living a life wrapped up in the wasteland of white nationalism and ethnic hatred. What good has any of this done the world? Have you achieved in any of your objectives? No. More importantly, what good has your lifelong espousal of this cause done you, your family, or your loved ones? Has it given you any happy moment? Has it atoned for your personal failures?
Do you seriously believe that the melanin content of your skin gives you a greater entitlement in life than others — people of greater energy, education, and commitment to excellence? What have you done to make the world, or your corner of it, a better place for all?
When you go to your Maker, and they bury you, as Lyndon Johnson observed, they will write on your tombstone, “He hated,” and that will be the final score on your innings. What a pathetic legacy.
on December 27th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Hi SPLC,
I am actually the person who ‘started’ the NCF Derek Black controversy by ‘outing’ him on the student discussion board. Previously to my post there, no one knew he was a white nationalist.
DB continues to record and post a White Natonalist radio show. He continues to be active in the White Nationalist community. I understand that he probably feels pressured because his entire familial upbringing is White Nationalist and he probably has immense personal ties to and financial dependency upon those people.
But reporting what is essentially slapping a smiling face on racism – a PR move by one of the leaders of the White Nationalist community – as a “change in beliefs” is disingenuous and counter to your stated mission of combating racism.
DB’s entire post, in context, does NOT mean he is moderating his beliefs. He is merely less virulent in spouting them – which is to be expected, because he goes to a school filled with extremely liberal hippie/hipster students. I find it amazing that you read DB’s post and reached this conclusion: he spends several paragraphs detailing all the ways in which he does not wish hate on people, but never once even mentions what his beliefs actually are. That is because he knows to the people he was writing to, they are indefensible.
on December 28th, 2012 at 10:12 am
If Joseph Hoffman (the last name sounds Jewish) thinks no other group contributed to the building of the U.S., he’s stupid and needs a history lesson.
on December 28th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Why do you give this racist so much press? Doesn’t that help his racist cause? This guy is now semi-famous for all this controversy over a school not denying him access based on his political views.
on December 30th, 2012 at 11:26 am
I regularly use White Privilege against businesses on behalf of my two best friends. If they’re making a major purchase, I’m the first voice & face the company encounters. (We live in a small town in the south, so I’ve dubbed the process “cracker control”, which makes them roll their eyes in disbelief).
Once I’ve got the sales person on the hook for a ball park figure, I introduce the real buyer — both of whom are also police officers. The looks on their little racist faces is priceless.
on December 30th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
The slaughter of ‘innocent’ trolls is just priceless on this thread…their level of inbred troglodyte intelligence doesn’t stand a chance…thanks for the giggles. (A) /// <3 (E) !
on December 31st, 2012 at 11:39 am
Aadil…
It’s funny to watch you quote so many things that I would say we’re written by white men in a time of white men.
Also, you went from being informative to mostly attacks on people…the whole board did.
There’s also a radical miscontextualization of many terms in this thread. Plus a huge blurring of multiple issues into race issues. It’s funny to watch a bunch of people try to act smart on the Internet.
I have no skin on the game and just stumbled here but it’s been a funny read.
on January 1st, 2013 at 1:53 am
Speaking as a former family member of a WN leader who has successfully reclaimed my life, we should be helping people leave the movement, not degrading those who are showing signs of wanting to leave – ESPECIALLY the kids of people involved! The kids had no choice! Why make leaving the movement harder than it already is? You do realize that when you are the child or significant other of a high profile WN that you are in danger if you leave and speak out, don’t you? You have enemies on both sides – WNs and anti-racists. I still have nightmares about anti-racists trying to kill me and my new family (we attend syngogue btw). There is a high prevalence of domestic violence in WN families (this should surprise no one). Many of them have been beaten into submission (literally and figuratively) and have severe trust issues with the outside world. WN is a cult and you have been conditioned to fear outside authorities. Very few survive mentally and physically intact. It’s no different than leaving the Westboro Baptist Church or similar cult.
on January 2nd, 2013 at 8:41 am
Talia, I sympathize with you. I don’t think this boy is faking; I do think at this point he is ideologically disoriented and confused. Because he was an active participant in the WN movement since youth, albeit not exactly from free choice, he is going to have some backsliding movements and people will look at him funny. I’ve had to “detox” occasional young people with pathogenic backgrounds, and it’s a slow and painful process. In time, this young man (with his poor little pink hide scorching in the Florida sun) should make friends with real people of different backgrounds, and that’s better than all the lecture halls in the world.
on January 4th, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Brock, my tender little vegan coconut macaroon, if you want to employ the socratic method, it helps if you know the answers to your questions first. Otherwise, you are groping around in the dark without anything meaningful to add to our discussion.
on January 6th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
aadila,
I do know the answer to my question. Being a charter of so-called positive liberties, as opposed to the so-called negative liberties explicitly stated in our Bill of Rights, the UNDHR cannot be authentically recognized unless it is enforced by some type of administrative government apparatus. Only an imperial and tyrannical monster-state could even attempt such a thing, needless to speak of a “successful” attempt. I’m sure you would smile at all the bloodshed that would ensue, of course. All those oppressive people getting what they deserve for failing to recognize that there are, of course, only two dimensions of human existence, the individual and the state.
Excuse the sarcasm, if you will. Just trying to communicate at your level.
on January 7th, 2013 at 8:55 am
Brock, that adorable peach cobbler a la mode is back to provide more of his insights in Constitutional law. And as before, his insights are such that one wonders whether he actually has bothered to read the Constiution.
In any case, Brock apparently missed Article I,. Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution – remember Article Article, Section 8 begins: “Congress shall hae the power to”
“to define and punish Piracies and Felonies on the high Seas, and offenses against the law of Nations.”
Congress has done so since basically the beginning with what is called the Alien Tort Law, codfied at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1350) which allows for a person to file a law suit in American federal courts for violations of international law. See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (1980) specifically related to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That interational law – whether written through treaties or customary has bound the United States has been recognized since 1776. Customary international law is international law which is viewed by the practce of nationals (specifically western European nations). See e.g. The Pacquette Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900) regarding whether the seizure of fishing vessals was permitted under customary international law. It is clear that the founding fathers in writing the Constitution intended that the U.S. be bounded by customary international law looking specifically to the practice in western Europe and entering into treaties with various states ranging from England and France to the Barbury States between 1780 and 1820 which is the period where the founding fathers were still runnign things .
While not binding, the UN Declaration on Human Rights was passed unamimously by the UN General Assembly (at a time when it was primarily the countries of western Europe and Latin America). It has been widely recognized as stating customary international law. In any case, much of the UN Declaration on Human Rights is similar rhethorically to the U.S. Declaration of Independence and is completely consistent with the Constitution. Since it was passed that the time when the U.S. and western Europe essentially controlled the U.N. that is hardly surprising. The U.S. cases which have looked at it has held that it is binding under American courts as stating customary international law which allows under the Constitution and laws immediately passed by Congress to enforce those cases.
Basically Brock, it seems that you are objecting to the U.N. Delcaration of Human Rights for the same reason why you are objecting to the 14th Amendment – that it gives rights to black people and prevents states from discriminating against people they do not like. That marks you as being a neo-Confederate twit. Quite simply,. you would allow states to engage in pure tryannical actions without limit.
And you really should seek a refund of whoever it was who taught you history and Constitutional law. You have all of the markings of the self educated who gets information from self educated charalatans like Glenn Beck. You know what they about a lawyer who represents himself, right?
on January 7th, 2013 at 9:05 am
Brock, you have ceased to make sense either logically or etymologically (and maybe entomologically, because you are talking like your brain is full of instars). Get medical attention.
on January 7th, 2013 at 10:48 am
Brock, I think what you are saying is that the United States is not obliged to keep its word on human rights because superior firepower gives us the right to violate any and all agreements.
And you wonder why America is hated.
on January 7th, 2013 at 11:03 am
By the way Brock, I must add that your notion of international law as being of and by necessity a monster state is simply not true.
International law functions with mutally agreed terms among states that are then taken to national governments for ratification and implementation. Every state does this differently, but it is already the status quo of how things operate. In the U.S. the executive can negotiate with other states but Congress must ratify any and all agreements.
Other states, where there are broader exective powers simply sign executive decrees that have force of law until ratified by national assembly. There are many other variations of this process but none require nor imply a superstate. International law simply requires homologous laws within each national government.
Enforcement then takes place at an internatonal forum, such as the U.N., WTO or in extreme cases, through joint military action. The U.N doesn’t force anyone to do anything. The U.N. is a meeting place for national government, providing transparency and democracy, something which apparently you loathe.
on January 7th, 2013 at 2:48 pm
aadila,
“Brock, I think what you are saying is that the United States is not obliged to keep its word on human rights because superior firepower gives us the right to violate any and all agreements.”
No. I’m not. Not even close. Who is “us,” by the way?
“. . . your notion of international law as being of and by necessity a monster . . .”
I believe the subject of this discussion was just ONE international treaty, the UNDHR.
“Enforcement then takes place at an internatonal forum, such as the U.N., WTO or in extreme cases, through joint military action. The U.N doesn’t force anyone to do anything.”
Are you aware that those two sentences contradict each other?
“. . . democracy, something which apparently you loathe.”
Yes, of course I do. I’m an American.
As for you, Erika, sweetcheeks, must we start a whole new thread over this? Let’s go back to the Radical Right Secession thread and pick it up where we left off there. Again, I don’t read or listen to people who call themselves American conservatives yet speak to crowds at events held at the LINCOLN Memorial, and invoke MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. as their inspiration. With fake tears in his eyes as well, so I heard. Pathetic clown.
Wow . . . so, nothing imperial or tyrannical about a so-called “federal” government doing what it did here in America from 1861-77. But the people of the states – who entrusted themselves to the care of that government – doing nothing more than governing themselves the way they always traditionally had in the past, or at least trying to, is where the real tyranny is. Yep, and the sky is below my feet and the ground is above my head. And Mommie Dearest is a much better movie than The Godfather.
on January 7th, 2013 at 3:40 pm
Brock,
“Who is “us,” by the way?”
The American people, obviously.
“I believe the subject of this discussion was just ONE international treaty, the UNDHR. ”
Brock, in your own words you took the discussion from the UDHR to a hyperbolic description of the U.N. as “an imperial and tyrannical monster-state.”
“Are you aware that those two sentences contradict each other?”
No contradiction. The U.N. doesn’t have any military force, it all comes from Member States. Enforcement of U.N. resolutions comes from the direct participation of member states, not from the U.N. itself, and member states are not obliged to participate. Therefore your statement is proven false.
You might as well accept your argument just took one under the stack and head back to the minor leagues where you belong.
on January 7th, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Also Erika, if you could take a deep breath and let your raging female emotions dissipate just long enough to remember and acknowledge what we have so far discussed, on this thread and the Radical Right/Secession thread, you would understand that 1) I do in fact have notably different reasons for opposing the UNDHR and the Reconstruction amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and 2) again, the attempted secession of the states comprising what is now the south-central to the southeastern U.S. a century and a half ago has little to do with my beliefs, because I am from California. The former Confederacy is many hundreds of miles away from me. Ergo, I am not a neo-Confederate. I am not in favor of the idea of my state being in any kind of confederate or federal government with any other states, in fact. I am a secessionist, however. Get out your silly label-maker and stick that on my forehead if you want. Have a nice day, kitten.
on January 7th, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Brock, the Confederacy became a more and more tryannical government as the Civil War progressed including forced military service, murders of Southerners who opposed the Confederacy, war crimes violations, torture, and many other increasingly tryannical means. Had the Confederacy won, there is little doubt that the Southern states would have been increasingly totalitarian in their effort to protect slavery. In fact, in many Southern states, before the Civil War, it was punishable by death to advocate for abolition of slavery. Even after the defeat of the Confederacy, former Confederates engaged in terror campaigns seeking to prevent democratic action such as elections in the former Confederacy. Indeed, as soon as reconstruction ended, many of the former Confederate states adopted draconian and discriminatory laws aimed at preventing people from exercising their rights. That you do not know that indicates that you know almost nothing regarding history
The actions of the U.S. government during the Civil War was not tryannical – it was instead an effort to save large numbers of Americans from coming under a tyrnnical government.. There was a legitimate threat of tryanny taking over a large section of the American government, but it was the increasingly centralized and totalitarian Confederacy which represented that threat.
on January 7th, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Excuse me, did that one just say “raging female emotions”?
Brock if you pull you head up from Call of Duty and internet porn for a while a look around you, you might realize you are the last person to inspire female emotions.
What sort of person “opposes” a declaration of human rights agreed to as the basis for a civilized society by pretty much the entire world?
on January 7th, 2013 at 11:35 pm
aadila,
Are you saying all of the American people have bombed Iraq and Afghanistan? To say that a nation of people and their government are so inextricably tied to each other that the former is directly and completely responsible for the actions of the latter is indicative of a totalitarian mind, precisely because it is nonsense. As for your statement that the U.N. doesn’t have a military, I’m sure the Katangans would have begged to differ 50 years ago.
About the UNDHR, I postulated the THEORY that only a HYPOTHETICAL international monster-government could realistically make the UNDHR into more than just a document, enforce it, that is. Pretty sure the U.N. isn’t doing that right now, or else my parents would have been, ahem, visited 20 years ago about their illegal imposition of Christianity upon me.
Erika, snookums, about all this laughable silliness:
“The actions of the U.S. government during the Civil War was not tryannical – it was instead an effort to save large numbers of Americans from coming under a tyrnnical government.. There was a legitimate threat of tryanny taking over a large section of the American government, but it was the increasingly centralized and totalitarian Confederacy which represented that threat.”
I just ADORE satire! Call The Onion right now. Low-brow, farcical, and rife with Orwellian projection. It’s got all I could ever want! Yeah, the U.S. government in reality earned its first of many Most Bloody and Murderous Imperial Regime in World History badges during that conflict, but in the above piece THEY’RE the noble liberating and peacekeeping saviors and their OPPONENT
is the oppressive totalitarian dictatorship. I get it! Hilarious!
I hear you’re a lawyer. Know the one about you and a thousand of your other partners in crime chained down on an anchor at the bottom of the ocean? I’m sure you do. Have fun in court the next time you’re there, Counselor.
on January 8th, 2013 at 9:23 am
Brock, try reading histories of the Confederacy written by actual historians. That the Confederate government became increasingly centralized and totalitarian is not disputed by anyone serious. The only people who deny that are neo-Confederates steeped in the myth of the lost cause.
on January 8th, 2013 at 9:50 am
“Are you saying all of the American people have bombed Iraq and Afghanistan?”
No, just those of legal voting age. We are a democracy and the actions of our leaders are representative of the People, per the Constitution. Every American has blood on their hands. Only some of us are trying to change that through anti-war activism. Sitting on the couch munching taquitos and watching NFL football while schools and hospitals are burned by American forces is the same as being responsible for the violence.
on January 8th, 2013 at 10:00 am
Brock
U.N. Resolution 143 of July 14, 1960 authorized the deployment of a peacekeeping force, ONUC, to Congo which included troops from (attention please) 30 states. The U.N at no time sent its own troops.
Thank you, please come again.
on January 8th, 2013 at 10:20 am
Judging by what Brock just wrote, he’s only twenty years old.
So I think that accounts for his naïvté perfectly.
on January 8th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Also Brock it occurs that what may be immediately obvious to some is still obscured to others, so I would like to point out your error of logic.
You stated:
“About the UNDHR, I postulated the THEORY that only a HYPOTHETICAL international monster-government could realistically make the UNDHR into more than just a document, enforce it, that is. Pretty sure the U.N. isn’t doing that right now..[].”
Yours is a good literal example of what a slippery slope fallacy is…taking rational facts to support an irrational conclusion when taken to theoretical or hypothetical lengths. Thus, I was precisely pointing to the slippery slope fallacy inherent in your argument, which you have sadly failed to rebut.
To wit, the UDHR does not require a monstrous superstate to be implemented; it merely requires local legislative action homologous to the declaration. Since there is nothing left of your argument to stand upon but sour grapes, I will consider this matter settled.
on January 8th, 2013 at 3:03 pm
aadila,
Please demonstrate that there is a difference inherent in that distinction you made concerning U.N. troops. What is irrational about being frightened of the potential for a global forum to become a global police force? Please substantiate your claim that the American government created by the Constitution of the U.S. is a democracy, using the words of the Founding Fathers and the parties who ratified it. If you can’t, I will assume that you’re not being honest with that statement.
Aron,
Twenty-eight in a week and a half. What does my age have to do with anything?
on January 8th, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Ah yes, my example I used about UNDHR enforcement. That was just a number that came to my mind, Aron. 15, 20, 25 years ago, during my upbringing is the span of time I was shooting for.
on January 8th, 2013 at 3:22 pm
aadila,
“What sort of person “opposes” a declaration of human rights agreed to as the basis for a civilized society by pretty much the entire world?”
Are you sneering at my opposition, or believing that it isn’t real? You don’t need to attach quotation marks so far as I can see. The answer to your question is somebody and anybody who realizes that IT ISN’T the basis for a civilized society.
on January 8th, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Brock, I will indulge your high-school level query only once more on this topic.
The U.N. is not a state. The U.N. is a global forum that indeed becomes a global police force, but that force comes not from the U.N. per se but its Member States, as I have stated accurately now three times. Belgium in the case of Resolution 143 had every reason to be frightened because Belgian troops were about to be attacked by 30 countries. The irrational part is thinking that the U.N. as an entity is responsible for military action, when such action takes place by individual states on a voluntary basis according to the will of national governments.
Secondly, defining our system of government does not require using the words of the Founders, so I will not indulge in your word games. Ours is by definition, both a democracy and a republic. If you haven’t learned that by now, it would not be the least bit surprising given the ignorance you have displayed on other topics.
on January 8th, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Brock it was a reference to your political naïvté.
Generally it’s only young, gullible men who are attracted to the Alex Jones.
And I know I’m turning twenty-six on the thirteenth. But I like to think my head is better screwed onto my neck than most guys my age.
If you view this as hypocrisy (in which I fully admit to revel), I will appeal to older friends on the site.
on January 8th, 2013 at 5:16 pm
I am looking right now at pages upon pages of documents from the Founding generation. Debates during the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, ratification statements from the statehouses, etc. Sorry, aadila, they refute and discredit what you said. There are many quotes which reiterate the common-sense piece of wisdom that a democracy is a horrible type of government, which is why the government created by the people of the United States in 1789 ISN’T one. I don’t deny that there are characteristics of democracy in it, just to clarify. Just ask me to post whatever quotes and statements which provide ample enough evidence to teach and educate you about the American government created back in the late 18th century, and I will. Erika chickened out when I challenged her on this over at the Radical Right Secession thread. Hating the words of the Founding generation of American people concerning their thoughts on government and the government the Constitution created seems to be a common theme here on the SPLC blogroll. No wonder it has been officially listed as an alienist and xenophile organization.
Ah, then again, what have we here?
“defining our system of government does not require using the words of the Founders”
Thank you! Finally a leftist just comes out and says what they all really think regarding that stodgy, arcane, oppressive, regressive, and undemocratic legal document. You wish to completely ignore and sweep under the rug of history the most authoritative – of course – voices on the matter of what kind of government the Constitution created. They are a pesky barrier to democracy, socialism, human rights, and the overall Marxist revolution, aren’t they, aadila?
on January 8th, 2013 at 5:39 pm
Aron, I don’t read/watch/listen to Alex Jones. Most people who are as politically conservative as myself are much OLDER than me. Meaning they have a lot MORE life experience than me. Naivete? Don’t think so.
on January 8th, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Straw man, Brock. Let me set your fallacy ablaze.
I stated that describing our government as a democracy does not _require_ using the words of the Founders. I did not say that it was not possible to use the words of the Founders to describe our democracy, nor that the words of the Founders were meaningless or irrelevant. At no point did I say that the words of the Founders are stodgy, arcane, oppressive, regressive and undemocratics, nor do I feel this way. Therefore you have presented a straw man argument, and this is a fallacy.
While it is certainly true that ours is not a “direct” democracy, it is undeniably a representative democracy. Specifically, to ensure the maximum representation for the will of the People, our Congress is structured with a House of Representatives to ensure the greatest possible representation by geographic population.
As I stated above the United States government is both a republic and a democracy. Hence, your argument is again not relevant and fails miserably to rebut my affirmations.
It pains me to say this but it is obvious your education is simply not of sufficient quality to justify your arguments, nor have you presented an argument which can stand up against any reasonable test of logic.
As an aside, you may think that it is an original idea or that I have never heard the argument that America doesn’t have a democracy. But that is really a topic for the neophytes of political science. So I suggest debating that with your peers instead of coming here where people actually know what they are talking about.
on January 8th, 2013 at 6:21 pm
By the way Brock, I am not a leftist. I am rather conservative, really. Ruslan is a leftist.
on January 8th, 2013 at 8:19 pm
I agree that Brock sounds like one of Limbaugh’s interns, probably home schooled as well.
on January 9th, 2013 at 8:49 am
My guess is that Brock was raised in an authoritarian household where his natural tendencies as a child were stifled and he was forced to “comply”. Chances are his parents were rabidly conservative, probably divorced or perhaps his mother was subservient and he veers toward his male role model given the subtle aggression against women evident in his comments.
He could be home schooled as evidenced by the faulty critical thinking and reliance upon a specific subset of ideas he feels he has mastered and it is to these ideas he tries to lead us to in debate.
I see this a lot here actually, where these right wing ideologues try to set the “rules” of the debate and channel conversation along very narrow lines to a pigeon hole that represents their predetermined worldview. Usually their arguments come from third party sources (such as Limbaugh), so they are not very well equipped to cope with a debate outside those narrow lines. Very much an “either-or” thinking process, and of course, closed minded.
There are a lot of these right wing memes: that liberalism is a “religion” full of zealots; that progressives shun “individual responsibility”; the media is a “leftist” conspiracy; and on and on, always with narrow, limited definitions and prefabricated arguments that soon crumble under scrutiny. Is it any wonder that even veteran GOP strategists like Nicole Wallace are now frustrated at representing the “stupid party” (see link above)?
The religious ideologue who insisted upon universal moral absolutes and was eventually perplexed by the pineapple was another example of someone who has a lot of information but lacks the educational foundations to cope with critical challenges.
It would be nice if we could get some real debate going here. This is like fishing in a barrel.
on January 9th, 2013 at 9:10 am
and here i was sure that brock was an old Tea Party type – but a jobless homeschooled child of old Tea Party types who lives in his parent’s basement also makes perfect sence. Probably lives in Orange County in a house with a shrine to John Wayne and Ronald Reagan.
And Brock, you can put all of the words from a debate you want to and it will not change the fact that the result – the Constitution does not support your interpretation. And believe me, if you try to say that Thomas Jefferson said something, i am going to want to see that quote being sourced to documents (and even then Thomas Jefferson is just one person who ultimately was on the losing side of the debate at the writing of the Constitution and retreated fast from his stated positions once he actually became President). What part of “debate” do you fail to understand?
The Constiuttion was a result of compromise – however, the Federalist faction won. In fact, your interpretation of the Constitution is completely and totally looney. The fact that you think that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect states says that you have extreme trouble with reading comprehension. The fact that you claim that every Supreme Court Justice since John Marshall is completely wrong about the Constitution speaks volumes about where your head is at (and also means that you really do not understand the British Common Law traditiion at all).
And honestly, if you were swaddled in the Confederate flag at birth by Confederacy worshiping neo-Confederate parents who would watch The Birth of a Nation every Friday night, you would actually make more sense. Then you would just be a neo-Confederate twit rather than whatever it is that you are. Your ideology is such that it may well defy categorization. i mean, who actually pines for a return to the Articles of Confederation?
on January 9th, 2013 at 10:19 am
You are right, Erika. Brock needs to run, not walk to his nearest e-retailer, and obtain a copy of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, before he can make any pronouncements about what the Founders were thinking. English common law was de facto American law before the Constitution. Blackstone is still cited in SCOTUS rulings today.
on January 9th, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Ugh, I sit down to a nice lunch and this is what I find? So many falsehoods, so little . . . oh wait, there’s still 13 days until my college semester begins. In that case, I’ll take it slow but steady:
aadila the hun,
“As an aside, you may think that it is an original idea or that I have never heard the argument that America doesn’t have a democracy.”
Eleven score and a few years more is roughly the age of that fact.
“I am rather conservative, really.”
All available evidence says you’re not.
I didn’t have as many freedoms as most other kids in modern-day America growing up, but my household wasn’t authoritarian by a long shot. My parents are happily married, 31 years and counting. My axe to grind with the female sex is my own. You see, WOMEN are a vanishing endangered species. But there’s plenty of females out there, being everything EXCEPT women. Forgive me if I am tired of seeing women turn into female competitors with their male counterparts rather than look to men for a symbiotic relationship in which they are and loved and cared for, not to mention reproduced, by their husbands.
I went to public schools all my life including higher ed, with the exception of a couple of years of Christian preschool.
Anybody who believes I listen to a laughable non-conservative buffoon on his twentieth marriage – Rush Limbaugh, in total spite of the fact that I’m a conservative: I DON’T.
Erika,
Elk Grove, Sacramento County. where I live on my own. I stated previously that I’ve gone to public schools all my life. I like many of The Duke’s movies, and even a few of Reagan’s are rather good. But with a place like Hollywood being the industry in which those 20th-century American pop culture icons originated, why would an American CONSERVATIVE idolize them at all, much less to the point of posters on the wall? Weren’t there several marriages and a few affairs between the two of them? Needless to speak of Reagan’s governance of both California and the whole country.
Haven’t seen Birth of a Nation or any silents. I prefer sound. While of course I am loyal to the rule of law that has been legally, duly, and freely ratified by the people of the U.S. as the Constitution of the U.S., the answer to your question about the Articles is anybody who would want the maximum amount of freedom and liberty won by the American people at Yorktown. Anybody who is wise to the devious designs and intentions of people like yourself.
on January 9th, 2013 at 5:20 pm
I would refer to the virtues of parthenogenesis at this moment but Reynardine has forbidden it, and she, as the doyen of this stammtisch, merits considerable respect. I would therefore suggest Brock give up his search for a woman and invest in a nice pink inflatable doll, which will come closer to fulfilling his fantasies, and no doubt relieve the good people of Sacramento. I am not a specialist in such matters but I believe with a little bit of searching he might find an “obedient housewife” model that says yes dear, yes dear, yes dear.
on January 9th, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Patrick Henry:
“That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a Government, is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration of those Gentlemen,–but, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People. My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States.”
James Madison, in reply:
“Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of America, I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal. Who are parties to it? The people — but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment; and, as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining states would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it. Were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this state, without having had the privilege of deliberating upon it. But, sir, no state is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent. Should all the states adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen states of America, not through the intervention of the legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular respect, the distinction between the existing and proposed governments is very material. The existing system has been derived from the dependent derivative authority of the legislatures of the states; whereas this is derived from the superior power of the people. If we look at the manner in which alterations are to be made in it, the same idea is, in some degree, attended to. By the new system, a majority of the states cannot introduce amendments; nor are all the states required for that purpose; three fourths of them must concur in alterations; in this there is a departure from the federal idea. The members to the national House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people at large, in proportion to the numbers in the respective districts. When we come to the Senate, its members are elected by the states in their equal and political capacity. But had the government been completely consolidated, the Senate would have been chosen by the people in their individual capacity, in the same manner as the members of the other house. Thus it is of a complicated nature; and this complication, I trust, will be found to exclude the evils of absolute consolidation, as well as of a mere confederacy.”
And even though Senators have been chosen directly by the people for almost a century, it still retains that characteristic totally inimical to a consolidated popular democracy – equal representation amongst the States which greatly differ in population, 2 each.
Thirteen separate sovereignties . . . your reading comprehension skills are good enough to understand that, aren’t they? The people of Massahampshorkylvanialina never existed.
Yes, consistent with your tendency to be right about many things, you’re also mostly right about the subjects being addressed in the Bill of Rights – mostly people in their individual capacities, not States . . . except for that pesky 10th, though!
The Form of the Ratification of Massachusetts:
“. . . And as it is the opinion of this convention, that certain amendments and alterations in the said constitution, would remove the fears, and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this commonwealth, and more effectually guard against an undue administration of the federal government, the convention do therefore recommend, that the following alterations and provisions be introduced into the said constitution: First. That it be explicitly declared, that all powers, not expressly delegated by the aforesaid constitution, are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised. . . .”
The above is part of a ratification document, which is of course the final word concerning what a legal document under consideration is to mean, not the intentions of the few power-hungry aspiring rulers who wrote it and framed it. This is not to say the latter does not matter, quite the contrary, it matters a lot.
on January 10th, 2013 at 9:58 am
“And even though Senators have been chosen directly by the people for almost a century, it still retains that characteristic totally inimical to a consolidated popular democracy – equal representation amongst the States which greatly differ in population, 2 each.”
*Sigh*
I anticipated your argument, because as I said there is nothing new in what you are saying. Please have the courtesy to go back and read what I said about the House of Representatives, to wit:
“Specifically, to ensure the maximum representation for the will of the People, our Congress is structured with a House of Representatives to ensure the greatest possible representation by geographic population. ”
So you see, Brock, I can anticipate and debunk your arguments even before you manage to formulate them because what you are arguing is predictable, stale, and threadbare. You might as well argue that the earth is the center of the solar system because it looks that way to you. Saying so doesn’t make it so.
on January 10th, 2013 at 4:22 pm
So you really think that I was not aware of the difference between the House and the Senate, even though I just posted a transcript of dialogue between Madison and Henry during the Virginia Ratification Convention which covered that exact subject, aadila? In point of fact I was just making an addendum underlining the main premise of Madison’s statement ABOUT THE HOUSE, that it is the only legislative feature of the government under consideration which passes for being truly democratic, that is. Even then its consolidated populism indicative of one single unitary American State – Erika’s dream – is reigned in by the much less democratic Senate.
on January 11th, 2013 at 6:21 am
Brock, you have to be joking – so basically your argument is based upon a James Madison quote which explicitly refutes what you are arguing (that the U.S. is a confederation of independent sovereign states). The U.S. is a federal system – the Constitution clearly made the federal government supreme.
The Massachusetts statement also refutes what you are saying – Massachusetts was recommending what became the Tenth Amendment. Also note, that was a recommendation only – Congress was free to ignore it – they were going to ratify the Constitution only (and note that contrary to what you are trying to argue, most of the original 13 states ratified the Constiution before the Bill of Rights was passed). However, the actual Tenth Amendment passed by Congress and ratified by the states contains one change from that it says that powers are reserved to the states or the people.
So basically what you are taking is a few documents from a debate out of context and claiming that they show that your opinion which actually gets refuted even within the documents you are quoting is wrong.
You also seem to ignore the fact that the Constitution not only makes the federal government supreme, it contains no provisions allowing for the states to leave – only for new states to be admitted. That indeed makes me believe and feel really confident in that you’ve never actually bothered to read the Constitution.
And the Senate – of course, you would make that argument – however, far from showing that the states are supreme, it shows the opposite. Namely, that the U.S. is a Federal Republic. A Federal Republic is one where the overall sovereign government is comprised of subservient states which are able to set local laws (and thus are not mere administrative regions). The states must obey federal laws and are prohibited from exercising the powers generally accorded to a sovereign state under international law. Thus, many of the reserved powers are day to day things such as criminal law, traffic laws, traffic registration, etc. However, the states are prohibited from engaging in foreign relations, regulating interstate or international commerce, declaring war, immigration law, and the other powers expressly given Congress or the President. States are also prohibited from setting their own citizenship rules. And guess what – those powers are the powers which sovereign nations have under international law. Therefore the states are not sovereign nations and the U.S. is not a union of sovereign nations. Your entire premise is therefore completely wrong. The Senate does not change the fact that the U.S. is a federal republic – every federal republic gives a certain degree of latitute towards individual states. However, a federal republic is not a Confederacy (a union of indepedent states who independently have the sovereign powers of an independent nation) or a body like the European Union.
You claim to be in college – given how ignorant you are about basic early American history, one wonders whether that college is actually accredited. But assuming you are going to a legitimate instiution, try taking a class about early American history. It may not help since your ignorance is pretty entrenched – and its quite possible you may have and had a complete nutcase of a professor and you have not learned basic logic yet (basic logic, look at the underlying premises of a statement – if false, then the statement is false).
Maybe if you get more education you can learn. Or maybe you are just hopelessly ignorant. If so, there is nothing i can do for you. i can’t help those who are unwilling to try to help themselves. Its hard for me to give up trying to help because i’m an attorney and its my job to help people. If i give a person bad advice and it hurts them, i have trouble sleeping at night. If i give a person good advice and they don’t take it and act against my advice and hurt themselves, i shrug my shoulders and sleep soundly. All i can do is show a person the way. Its like the saying about leading a horse to water – trying to teach people is the same way.
Brock, i have a feeling that you belong to the terminally ignorant group so there is nothing that anyone can do to try to teach you better. Good thing your ignorance is about basic historical fact and not say ignorance of the basic sciences of say gravity or electricity. Ignorance of those subjects could be fatal – ingorance in basic historical facts and our Constitutional system of government just makes you an American :)
on January 11th, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Erika, a government which is absolutely supreme over STATES with them having no recourse or refuge to remedy abuses by said government ceases to be FEDERAL at the point in time total unlimited supremacy, with no concern over whether its actions are truly pursuant to its constitutional powers, becomes a reality. At that point in time it becomes an EMPIRE. Especially if the states are rendered subservient – that explicitly totalitarian word you used – by force. Provinces? Counties? Those are a different story, of course. If all the American states had always been nothing more than administrative units such as those, there would be no debating your position. In fact, there would be no need for federalism. The American people would have formed a unitary national state. Kind of like what the most radical members of your precious ill-named Federalist Party wanted! Hey, what do you know, it’s all adding up! As for your claim that the states ARE MORE than just administrative units even under the current imperial regime you love and worship, because they do have the right to set some of their own laws, please give the entire list of the rights our present so-called states can make now in 2013 without Capitol Hill and the White House declaring war on THEIR OWN PEOPLE, just like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Now make that same list for the 1850s. Yeah. Something’s missing.
States, by the very definition of the term, are sovereign countries. France is a state. Kazakhstan is a state. The Central African Republic is a state. They call the shots in matters of giving up whatever measures of sovereignty. Argue that point, then you are arguing nonsensically that 1) the American states weren’t ever truly STATES, 2) the American states ceased to BE STATES upon the effect of the Constitutional government, 3) The American government created the so-called states, not the other way around, so top-down rule, not bottom-up, is the name of the game, or 4) yeah the American states did create the federal government but they gave up ALL of their independence and sovereignty . . . even though they had JUST BECOME INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN by winning their independence from George III . . . thereby doing nothing but exchanging the British Empire for a new American one.
And I think I’ve been rather clear in conceding the obvious, that yes, the American states did give up a tad bit of their powers as completely independent sovereign states when ratifying the Constitution. Meaning they were no longer completely independent. The Articles of Confederation DID in fact expire when the Constitution went into effect. Assuming I never argued to the contrary, and I don’t think I ever did, then please consider that straw man you put together – my claim that the Constitution created a confederation – devoid of a leg to stand on.
The States did ratify the Constitution. And they gave up an exclusively defined list of powers which 100% sovereign and independent nation-states, on the other hand, do possess. Coining money, taxing imports and exports, forming treaties with other states, joining with one or more other states to become one, becoming a dictatorship or any other type of government except a republic. But ALL OTHERS not listed in the original seven articles, yeah I think there was this last amendment in the Bill of Rights which mentioned something about that.
As I said, super-power-hungry Federalist Party apparatchiks, plus especially the monarchists, would have loved for there to be no Bill of Rights at all, just like yourself, but wow, that’s a really big insult to the people who ratified that document – trivializing its first ten amendments as though the states ratifying the Constitution didn’t really care about them. Literally just a recommendation. Give me a break. Yeah, and I RECOMMEND taking some water with you on a 5-mile walk through Dallas, TX in the summer. Why don’t we give the good people of the Bay State and all the others in the late 1780s the benefit of the doubt that they really meant that exact word? All other evidence from the Debates says otherwise. No people of any state, fresh from a war of independence, would ever freely give people like you and your ideological ancestors any legal wiggle-room or justification to create a Napoleonic empire over their homes and land. The so-called Anti-Federalists – in reality, Republicans – made sure of that.
Assurances that all other forms of functional sovereignty not being given up by the states would remain with the states and that they were not being circumvented, bypassed, or much less eliminated, also came from most of the good Federalists, anyway. Richard Henry Lee, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and James Wilson said such things. Want me to post the quotes? Nah, I’ll go easy on you and just leave one, from Mr. Madison, Federalist 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”
on January 14th, 2013 at 8:48 am
Brock, you really do not know when to quit and are extremely good at posting arguments which manage to refute themselves. In fact, at this point, there is very little need for anyone to even refute you since you have just entirely refuted your own point. Now go back to high school and retake that Government class you must have skipped. In failing to even keep your arguments straight and refuting yourself, you have ceased being an interesting plaything for me.
And honey, you also reveal yourself as being a hardcore neo-Confederate white supremacist by your question: the main freedom that states had in 1850 that they do not have in 2013 was the right to compltely deny some people their rights. You do not care at all about individual rights – instead, you have revealed himself as someone who wants to bring back slavery.