White Power -- LiveWire Teen Forums

You don't sound like someone "dying out" Or maybe you do.

Statistics speak for themselves.

The numbers of Whites are falling rapidly - in their own countries.

False dilemma.

How so? You think that Whites aren't dying out? Need statistics?

HOW were they "destroyed"? They are all THRIVING WITHIN argentina!
Italian culture in Argentina is one of the strongest outside of Italy!

How was it destroyed? It no longer exists...

Why doesn't Italian culture stay in Italy? Well, I DID think about going to Argentina - but I'd rather not now...

Didn't you say you wanted argentine culture to be arngetinian? You didn't think it was "horrible" then. You though it had to be "preserved"

I dodn't know it was only a fusion of other cultures. I mean, if it had a few additions here and there it'd be different - but it's just a mix of other cultures, nothing I'd pay hundreds to see.

So why use it to prove your point that argentinian culture must remain argentinian?

I didn't think it was mixed like that - now I know.

It doesn't really have it's own unique culture to preserve.

Theres all kinds of differnet greens. Some are more yellowish more are more blueish.
theres forest green, aquamarine, moss green etc.
BTW if you are talking of color models you have to see which one you really use. If you are talking of inks then you use the CMYK model but you speak of light the model to use is the RBGB model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_colors
So your example really fails.
In fact the four pure colors are
red, yellow green and blue

I was using the RYB color model.

It wasn't really an example, just a comparison of the RYB model.

Not all shades are the exact color either.

What does it have to do with what I said?
All you said in response is "it matters"

And I further explained AFTER I said that it matters.

It matters WHAT specific information is present.
Some things, as I said, are tabooed.

You will get nothing on a "Trusted" site about race and intelligence, for example, but it's still a debate that race and intelligence correlate in many ways.

IF it COULD be proven without FAIL or data that contradicts it then yes it would

The Holocaust can't be proven without FAIL or data that contradicts itself.

See how much that is taught?

Many sicentists have proven it.

We're not even using an example for this.
You're just saying they prove everything...

Define "thoroughly". The fact that those studies have been DISPROVED by some evidence and newer DATA mesns we can longer use them with CONFIDENCE. Thats all really.
We don't have to PROVE this or that. All we have to say is that the evidence we have now puts DOUBT and even contradicts the race theories.

But some people use studies as proof for something the studies don't prove - such as race having no biological basis.

For example when we have new evidence that shows that Lamarcks theories are not completely valid we ca't ue them to prove anything about evolution. We don't even have to say they are totally not valid . Some of Lamrack's theories are ok.
But we have an ew theory now from Darwin wich is BETTER supported by evidence. If new evidence shows up that puts DOUBT or contradits Darwin's theory thn we'll have to change it and find some NEW explanation that includes that newdata and the data before.
Its not because of date in history. Its because of NEW DATA. New understanding, new information
The 19th century racial theorists only worked with skulls and bones. The gentic data doesn't show as clearl any DIFFERENCE between races.
It doesn't mean race doesn't exist or cannot be used for social reasons if ppl want. But it means it doesn't have the BIG MEANING it used to have anymore.

What big meaning did it have?

What meaning does it not have?

They only worked with averages - not certainties.

Much of what people said earlier was partially, if not fully, correct. It's just been revised, edited, and even proven.

The only difference is even if some studies contradict others - one is favored by scientists.

Ever heard of Guns, Germs, and Steel?

Well, it's about everything being cultural. The thing is - people used this ONE book as proof and said it disproved everything geneticists/anthropologists/historians said about race.
They accpted it because they WANTED it.

But, in reality, people are mocking that book left and right.

But, then again, it is STILL used as a source and people swear by it.

BTW while you're at it PROVE this if you can.

Well, much of it is people calling me racist in real life. I can go up to any American really and say "The average Black American IQ is 15 points lower than the White IQ"
That has been proven by tests (I won't get into WHY for the sake of starting some 1000 post argument again).

I can say, with almost 100% certainty, that they will call me racist (if not think it).

It's just what information I select.
It fits the points:
1. They probably wouldn't agree with it.
2. It's not Politically correct due to it showing bad differences among race - something PC tries to destroy.
3. If I was talking to a Negro it would make him fell bad, no doubt.

whether you like it or not they are the most active members in the white nationalist movement...

No they aren't!

Where did you get that idea?

Seriously, they only allow people from ONE state in anyway.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

Because of drastically falling reproduction not because of mixing.
http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/~hpkohler/papers/Low-fertility-in-Europe-final.pdf

So mixing doesn't do anything?

There is more than one factor...

Here is what False filemma means
...

Alright - come up with a way that Whites can keep themselves alive, their culture alive, their race alive, strong, and free.

Come up with a way that Whites can live as Whites - not just remnants of their people inside of mixed people.

Italian culture doe s EXIST in Argentina. Have you even READ the links? Hmm I bet not.

Some of it must have been lost when parts of it were replaced by others.

Beause some crazy italians went to Argentine to immigrate?

Damn Italians.

Why didn't they adapt to the culture in Argentina?

Hahaha,

If I want Italian culture, I'll go to Italy (In the parts that haven't been overrun by immigrants)
If I want whatever other cultural influence they have - I'll go to THAT country.

Oh? You mean you used that example not even knowing wtf you talking about?

I didn't know there was much multiculturalism in Argentina.
I forgot about the White Nationalist movement over there.
Ever heard of "Viva la raza blanca!"?

It does have a pretty UNIQUE culture actually. Kinda like American culture in some ways.
Guess you WONT be moving there soon then...

Unique
existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics

The only thing is that specific distribution of foreign culture is unique - the culture itself isn't.

I wasn't thinking about MOVING their anyway - just visiting...

Not the best model when you talking color.

Ok then, I'll use rocks.

You've said that - since there is controversy on what race to label each person (Be it Negroid, Caucasoid, European, African, Black, White, etc) because there are no certain boundaries or sudden leaps in changes.
That isn't proof.

hTe difference between a diorite and granite rock is somewhat less than that between two races of human. Consider this quotation from a first-year geology course:

Some diorites contain biotite as well as hornblende, and some contain up to 10% quartz. If you have more than 10% quartz, you probably have a granite on your hands. If you clearly have abundant K-feldspar, you probably have a granite on your hands.
http://www.pitt.edu/~cejones/GeoImages/2IgneousRocks/IgneousCompositions/4Diorite.html

In other words, race and rock-types are defined in pretty much the same way - By general guidelines. The point here is that classification systems aren't natural, specific properties of the world - but our inventions - which are defined by humans for the purpose of making information easier for other people to access, gather information from, and pass on.

So the argument, "There is such thing as race, because I say there is," is actually somewhat valid - scientists themselves using that would make it more valid - as would more humans using it.

You also use "There is no certain list of traits that makes you one or another race" as proof. That isn't so either.

Disease diagnosis also works by this principle: If you have 7 of 10 "symptoms" you fall into a category (have a specific diseas). Someone with the flu won't have the same exact symptoms as everyone else, and this year's virus doesn't resemble last year's strain, but we can still define this disease as "influenza".

Scince doesn't care about taboos.
The scinece of the 19th century was INCOMPLETE. It worked on incomplete data. In the 21 century we have more data. If science changes it things around and PROVE absolutely that race determines EVERYTHING then I'll shut up.

Nobody said race determines everything - but many people say genetics determine nothing (Which is obviously false - but I assume they mean that humans aren't diverse enough to be able to have differences based on genetics - apart from certain disorders).

The new science has disproved most of the race science of the 19th century.
So its pointless to go back to those theories.

Name some of the theories it disproved.

The fact that things are "taboo" doesn't bother scientists half as much as when they are INACCURATE.

Oh yes it does.
Some science itself will be frowned upon if you just test it - and you can be called a racist by the media, no matter WHY you tested.

History is another totally different ball of wax. History of california is taught differently in the US and in Mexico.

Yes, but "Facts" are taught and questioning them can put you in jail for over 10 years in some countries (The USA is covered by the first Amendment or something I believe)

If those studies are not reputable then their claim is AS HHOLLOW as yours.

It just matters - some scientists don't want to have anything to do with race as they're afraid of being called racists.

Race has a BIG MEANING to YOU. Or are you denying that?

I am irrelevant - what big meaning does it not have that people think it does?

People are still debating about race and how we make differences between races.

Yes. They've established that race EXISTS, biologically, but nobody will ever really agree on the classifications in my opinion.

Well its as pointless.
Everything is not 100% cultural or 100% biological,

Well - nobody really says things are 100% biological.
But, people DO say that everything is 100% cultural - something I am very against.

You reason the same exact way.

Not really - I didn't want to believe the "Racist" stuff I believe now at first.

Well I have not done this.

Others have though. How much did you say that genetics played in the role of intelligence?

Well I can't help that.
I think you are way too obsessed about race thats for sure. And your reasons for segregation like "survival" of whites is totally wacko and untrue.

You thinking that Whites can survive as remnants inside of nonWhites is wacko and untrue.

Some of what you say is pretty racist and the fact that you call ppl "mongrel" and "nigger" does not help.

Nothing I say is racist - if you can find ONE thing that specifically says I hate one race or find one inferior - link me to it.

Basically most of your ideas are common to WS and neo-nazi extremists. You share their admiration for Hitler. Younshare their idea that Holocaust is a myth. You share their idea that jews are nonwhite. You share their idea that whites need to be seperated from nonwhites, you share their ideas that nonwhites don't contribute much to society. You share their words such as "Nordic race", "Aryans" to define whites.

1) You don't have to be a "Neo-Nazi" to admire Hitler. His slate isn't 100% clean, of course, but he was a great man. He just had some people that didn't like him in his country - and wouldn't leave.
2) The Holocaust hasn't proven that it existed AT THE EXTENT PEOPLE SAY. Bud himself (You seem to use as a perfect example of everything) doubts the "Facts" about it - something that would land him in prison in quite a few European countries.
3) Jews descend from Semites (nonWhite), Khazars, and a few other peoples. Many mixed with European Whites, of course, but they're not White.
4) I think that they should be separated to combat racism, genocide, and many disagreements and to preserve differences among all people - and to help people experience other cultures.
5) I never said nonWhites didn't contribute to society IN GENERAL - but it would be a stretch to say Blacks contributed as much as Whites in Sweden - but it would also be a stretch to say Whites contributed as much as East Asians in China or Japan.
Each race contributed - just in different places.
6) What's wrong with using the "Nordic race"? It's a classification of race proposed by Joseph Deniker. I don't believe that it created civilization and is the superior race like a few people do.
7) Aryan is pretty much replaced with "Indo-European" in modern speech - it became less used after WWII for obvious reasons.

Most of your reasons for doing all that don't have much to do with anything that makes sense except to you and ppl who think that race is the most important factor for all things.

I don't think it's the most important and only factor in most things - but it's not a diminutive factor like many anti-racists seem to think.

And don't claim the WN has nothing to do with WS and the KKK and Neo-nazism
Don Black is White nationalist who is ALSO the grand wizard for the KKK and the American Nazi party.
So are you surprised that ppl think that you are really a closet racist?

Many WN's used to be racist. David Duke is probably the best example.

He was strapped to a lie detector test and asked "Are you racist?" and all of the three main definitions of racism. He answered "No" to all of the questions and it didn't say he lied.

Was he a former racist? I'm 99% sure he was, but people can CHANGE.

He doesn't support the KKK or any hate groups anymore - watching him being interviewed would be proof of that.

The question is WHY do you do that? When in what context?

Well I'd only do it to see their reaction.
I'd probably get punched if I did it to some Black guy

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

931 users online 222848 members 978 active today Advertise Here