White males should organize.

[Libsmasher]

Why is it that every single conceivable gender/racial/sexual orientation group there is has political groups which lobby on their behalf, except white males?

20 million white people are in poverty:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DC163FF932A3575AC0A96E9482 60&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FC% 2FCensus

It is exactly these people who will be kept down when they get the "affirmative action" door slammed in their face. White males (obviously, I exclude the white establishment which supports anti-white discrimination, and most of all, white uncle toms) should organize and fight back. What is the likely outcome, when every conceivable group politically organizes in interests, but one doesn't?

Why should a white middle class male get the door slammed in his face by "DI-versity", the rational logical ethical reason being he has white skin, and some people 150 years ago who were mean to minorities had white skin too?

Anyone here have guts enough to really debate this?

[9sublime]

I do agree with you, political correctness has gone overboard. For example, its fine for a "Black womans magazine", but not a white woman's magazine.

2 choices. Ban all racial organizations, or allow every ethnic group to make them. I don't want to ban them because its an infringement on peoples rights.

I just think we shouldn't be so shallow as to organize ourselves by our skin colour in the first place and as a result this issue really doesn't carry any weight for me. I don't want to be part of an all white organization.

[Libsmasher]

I do agree with you, political correctness has gone overboard. For example, its fine for a "Black womans magazine", but not a white woman's magazine.

2 choices. Ban all racial organizations, or allow every ethnic group to make them. I don't want to ban them because its an infringement on peoples rights.

I just think we shouldn't be so shallow as to organize ourselves by our skin colour in the first place and as a result this issue really doesn't carry any weight for me. I don't want to be part of an all white organization.

It's a free country, and anyone should be allowed to create legal organizations for any cause they want. I don't particularly like that such organizations exist, but that they exist for everybody except one group is suicide for the excluded group - congress responds to political pressure, and if you aren't the one speaking up, you'll get screwed - this is just what has happened to many white males. Apparently, you are in a socio-economic class, or have other protections or special circumstances where it hasn't happened to you, so you aren't interested.

[9sublime]

No, its not my socioeconomic status that stops me from not wanting to be recognized by my race rather than real merits, its just my personality. I feel secure enough with myself that I don't need to feel pride in my skin colour, something I never chose or earnt and never had any ability to choose or earn. Instead, I prefer to stand for things with real meaning behind them. Me being white means nothing to me.

[pocketfullofshells]

because we don't need it? God I makes me just hurt thinking about the plight of the poor white man, it must suck being the gender who gets the best jobs , more pay, and runs most companies and government. ooo the tears of agony of being white, in a nation of white people where we are the majority and we have held back almost everyone else for years. Boo Hooo, I just don't know how I get threw the day living the life to the poor mistreated , misunderstood white man. Help me , I need to organize to make sure that ...well really I don't know why, but everyone else is doing it, I want to do it to....

Maybe I will send you some flowers or a teddy bear to help you get threw the day in your time of need.

[Andy]

in a nation of white people where we are the majority and we have held back almost everyone else for years.

Justification of racist policies right there. And here people have said I'm racist, what a joke.

[9sublime]

While as a race, white people may have an advantage, so many white people live in squalor that what should and shouldn't be allowed should apply to all races. It is only logical.

[pocketfullofshells]

Justification of racist policies right there. And here people have said I'm racist, what a joke.


I know, I should be a black panther or something. Damn I am white I can't.

Sorry if can't Cry about my horrible status as a white male. Blacks, Mexicans, Woman, Hmong...they all have it so much better.

[pocketfullofshells]

While as a race, white people may have an advantage, so many white people live in squalor that what should and shouldn't be allowed should apply to all races. It is only logical.

agreed

[top gun]

because we don't need it? God I makes me just hurt thinking about the plight of the poor white man, it must suck being the gender who gets the best jobs , more pay, and runs most companies and government. ooo the tears of agony of being white, in a nation of white people where we are the majority and we have held back almost everyone else for years. Boo Hooo, I just don't know how I get threw the day living the life to the poor mistreated , misunderstood white man. Help me , I need to organize to make sure that ...well really I don't know why, but everyone else is doing it, I want to do it to....

Maybe I will send you some flowers or a teddy bear to help you get threw the day in your time of need.

We already had an all White male political group it was called the KKK... really didn't work out so well. :(

I don't think we all need to make a call to Mr. Obvious to know the reason why there's not an official White lobby. It's because the establishment itself is White. White males totally dominate government & big business.

Bottom line: In America... anyone with a good education and/or job training, a good attitude and a good work ethic can get ahead. Is there some help for those less fortunate due to their social economic conditions (of any race or gender), or for groups that have been discriminated against in the past to help give them a decent chance to succeed if they work hard toward a positive goal... sure.

But come on... having a pro White lobby in the US would be like going to the NBA and firing up a Black lobby... because there just isn't a fair amount of Black representation in pro basketball. :)

It's silly... we're all Americans. Let's act like it!

[Libsmasher]

No, its not my socioeconomic status that stops me from not wanting to be recognized by my race rather than real merits, its just my personality. I feel secure enough with myself that I don't need to feel pride in my skin colour, something I never chose or earnt and never had any ability to choose or earn. Instead, I prefer to stand for things with real meaning behind them. Me being white means nothing to me.

You sort of miss the point. In the US (I don't know about the UK and elsewhere) government and private entities have just bald-facedly selected white males out for discrimination. I don't like race-based groups either, but in this case it's a matter of self defense. By analogy you might not like that there are standing armies in the world, but if everyone else has one, you better have one too.

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketfullofshells
in a nation of white people where we are the majority and we have held back almost everyone else for years.

Justification of racist policies right there. And here people have said I'm racist, what a joke.

Right, but in ps's comment, you see the irrational root of the racist policies supported by libs: Notice where he used the word "we". As Ayn Rand use to imply, your warning lights should all go red when someone uses "we" in a historical or political discussion. Of course, "we" didn't do any such thing. "We" weren't even alive when it happened, and for most of "us" white folks, neither did even our ancestors have anything to do with any harm to minorities. Here's the path of illogic -

Fact: A relatively few whites did bad things to blacks a long time ago.

Illogical Inference: All whites are responsible for what a few whites did.

Illogical Conclusion: Any white TODAY can be penalized for what a few whites did a long time ago.

[Bunz]

No, its not my socioeconomic status that stops me from not wanting to be recognized by my race rather than real merits, its just my personality. I feel secure enough with myself that I don't need to feel pride in my skin colour, something I never chose or earnt and never had any ability to choose or earn. Instead, I prefer to stand for things with real meaning behind them. Me being white means nothing to me.

Excellent post 9sublime. If I didnt know any better, I would have thought American was your native language :D

I am what many would consider a mixed race heritage. Native/Euro American. I was born that way, have no choice in the matter, and cant change it short of having the kind of money Michael Jackson has.

I just try to do what right on a daily basis, earn money, pay my bills, and support my family. Anything more than that is just seal oil on the salmon.

[Libsmasher]

Excellent post 9sublime. If I didnt know any better, I would have thought American was your native language :D

I am what many would consider a mixed race heritage. Native/Euro American. I was born that way, have no choice in the matter, and cant change it short of having the kind of money Michael Jackson has.

I just try to do what right on a daily basis, earn money, pay my bills, and support my family. Anything more than that is just seal oil on the salmon.

And you're going to duck my rebuttal of that post? Don't blame you. ;)

[Bunz]

You sort of miss the point. In the US (I don't know about the UK and elsewhere) government and private entities have just bald-facedly selected white males out for discrimination. I don't like race-based groups either, but in this case it's a matter of self defense. By analogy you might not like that there are standing armies in the world, but if everyone else has one, you better have one too.

You raise an interesting point here Libs. But I tend to disagree. Firstly, any discimination you percieve towards white males is not bald faced, but instead rather subdued. Especially compared to the issues faced by other groups, whereas those are/have been bald faced.

[Bunz]

And you're going to duck my rebuttal of that post? Don't blame you. ;)

No, I was replying to it, when in your consistent trolling beat me to it. To be honest, I got done only an hour or so ago, from 14 solid hours of rigging my boat. I am a little slow today.

[Libsmasher]

No, I was replying to it, when in your consistent trolling beat me to it. To be honest, I got done only an hour or so ago, from 14 solid hours of rigging my boat. I am a little slow today.

Ok, but don't call me a "troll". Nowadays, that's basically nothing more than an insult, which is forbidden by the rules.

[pocketfullofshells]

Funny the guy you attacks "libs" all the time, does not want people to say we ...when in a debate talking about whites as a race, where I am white.

[Libsmasher]

Funny the guy you attacks "libs" all the time, does not want people to say we ...when in a debate talking about whites as a race, where I am white.

Why don't you just scuttle on out of here and leave this thread to those who want to debate the issue?

[Libsmasher]

You raise an interesting point here Libs. But I tend to disagree. Firstly, any discimination you percieve towards white males is not bald faced, but instead rather subdued.

This is flatly nonsense. "Affirmative action" - wait I forgot the latest euphemism - "DI-versity" - infests most significant institutions in this country - from the military to every corporation under the sun to labor unions to universities to police and fire departments to government contracts. And anti-white male discrimination is a zero-sum game - benefitting someone because of their race or gender is inseperable by definition from penalizing someone else because of their race or gender, and the group that will get screwed the most by this is the group that has both the "wrong" race and the "wrong" gender - white males.

Especially compared to the issues faced by other groups, whereas those are/have been bald faced.

To solve problems in the past connected with racial discrimination, by creating even more racial discrimination, is like filling in a hole in your front lawn by digging another hole to get the fill dirt.

[Bunz]

Ok, but don't call me a "troll". Nowadays, that's basically nothing more than an insult, which is forbidden by the rules.

If you insist on making Liberal a bad curse word as you have, turning into nothing more than an insult, I will glady you call you a troll. You responded to a post I made not in regards to you, before I have even a chance to respond to your post. What I often do, especially after not visiting a thread for awhile is to respond to each respective post individually and work my way down the list. You jumped in with nothing to respond to. Troll. :D

[Libsmasher]

If you insist on making Liberal a bad curse word as you have, turning into nothing more than an insult, I will glady you call you a troll. You responded to a post I made not in regards to you, before I have even a chance to respond to your post. What I often do, especially after not visiting a thread for awhile is to respond to each respective post individually and work my way down the list. You jumped in with nothing to respond to. Troll. :D

I HAVEN'T used "lib" as "a bad curse word" - you can't show a single example.

[SW85]

We already had an all White male political group it was called the KKK... really didn't work out so well.

Funny, no one says the Crips or the Black Panthers should disqualify blacks from lobbying, or that the MS-13 should disqualify South American immigrants.

[Libsmasher]

Funny, no one says the Crips or the Black Panthers should disqualify blacks from lobbying, or that the MS-13 should disqualify South American immigrants.

His comment was assinine and not really worthy of a response. What do you think of the OP?

[Dr.Who]

The need for a white group, the present status of a white so called majority, or the history of any white groups are all irrelevent.

If some white people wanted to start a white magazine, white lobby, or even a countryclub, they would be called racists and the law would even come down on them.

There should be no restriction on why people want to form groups. Didn't I see that in the constitution somewhere?

[SW85]

His comment was assinine and not really worthy of a response. What do you think of the OP?

I am not really convinced by it. History has shown affirmative action and similar initiatives can be defeated without appeals to racial sensibilities.

Not to mention it would just legitimize all the race hustlers on the left.

[pocketfullofshells]

The need for a white group, the present status of a white so called majority, or the history of any white groups are all irrelevent.

If some white people wanted to start a white magazine, white lobby, or even a countryclub, they would be called racists and the law would even come down on them.

There should be no restriction on why people want to form groups. Didn't I see that in the constitution somewhere?

I would not call them racist just dumb ****'s

[Libsmasher]

I am not really convinced by it. History has shown affirmative action and similar initiatives can be defeated without appeals to racial sensibilities.

Not to mention it would just legitimize all the race hustlers on the left.

History does not suggest you are correct about defeating "affirmative action". What I call the "new era" in "affirmative action" began with the Nixon administration's Philadelphia Plan in 1969. (The initial instance was Roosevelt's wartime executive order to the defense industry to hire blacks.)
So it's been almost 40 years, and "affirmative action" is alive and well. If you go back and look at the political and legal commentary leading up to the USSC Gratz and Grutter cases (which were decided in favor of upholding the University of Michigan's racist admission policies) you'll see that all the predictions were that this would be the death knell for "affirmative action". Instead, "thanks" to the soon to depart from the court Sandra Day O'Connor, "affirmative action" got a huge revival under the new euphemism "diversity". There is no indication, therefore, that it will depart anytime soon. White males therefore have to organize and fight it (and similar anti-WM trends) in the only arena left in the US that counts - politics.

[SW85]

History does not suggest you are correct about defeating "affirmative action". What I call the "new era" in "affirmative action" began with the Nixon administration's Philadelphia Plan in 1969. (The initial instance was Roosevelt's wartime executive order to the defense industry to hire blacks.)
So it's been almost 40 years, and "affirmative action" is alive and well. If you go back and look at the political and legal commentary leading up to the USSC Gratz and Grutter cases (which were decided in favor of upholding the University of Michigan's racist admission policies) you'll see that all the predictions were that this would be the death knell for "affirmative action". Instead, "thanks" to the soon to depart from the court Sandra Day O'Connor, "affirmative action" got a huge revival under the new euphemism "diversity". There is no indication, therefore, that it will depart anytime soon. White males therefore have to organize and fight it (and similar anti-WM trends) in the only arena left in the US that counts - politics.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Where affirmative action has been defeated (California and Michigan spring to mind, but other states did it as well, all by ballot initiative), it has been done without appeals to white racialism.

[Libsmasher]

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Where affirmative action has been defeated (California and Michigan spring to mind, but other states did it as well, all by ballot initiative), it has been done without appeals to white racialism.

Now it seems we have a total disconnect. I have not called for "white racialism", the organization I imagine would be no more "racialist" than the NAACP used to be. If you're talking about California Prop 209 passed in California in 1996, then you are apparently unaware that it has been widely ignored by state officials, especially university officials, who are more concerned with getting illegal aliens into university than whether white males are treated fairly. It also gave rise to racist scholarship funds, for which white males need not apply:

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

Ward Connerly's other efforts in this regard (if that is what you are talking about - not sure anymore) have had a very spotty success, with some going down to defeat at the polls, and others regularly tied up in court challenges when they have succeeded. The racist policies in the corporate world remain firmly institutionalized, and are only extremely rarely challenged. Really, why should the establishment end of all of this crap, if the afflicted group never speaks up for itself?

[SW85]

Now it seems we have a total disconnect. I have not called for "white racialism", the organization I imagine would be no more "racialist" than the NAACP used to be. If you're talking about California Prop 209 passed in California in 1996, then you are apparently unaware that it has been widely ignored by state officials, especially university officials, who are more concerned with getting illegal aliens into university than whether white males are treated fairly. It also gave rise to racist scholarship funds, for which white males need not apply:

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

Ward Connerly's other efforts in this regard (if that is what you are talking about - not sure anymore) have had a very spotty success, with some going down to defeat at the polls, and others regularly tied up in court challenges when they have succeeded. The racist policies in the corporate world remain firmly institutionalized, and are only extremely rarely challenged. Really, why should the establishment end of all of this crap, if the afflicted group never speaks up for itself?

OK, but:

(1) The NAACP is a highly racialist organization, so saying it would be no more racialist isn't much of an assurance.

(2) White racialism will not make public officials in California obey the law; that's up to the people and the government they elect. They deserve whatever the tribalistic Marxist governments they keep electing foist on them.

(3) White racialism will not make Ward Connerly's efforts any more successful (probably less so -- isn't he black?). I acknowledge he hasn't always been successful, which is just evidence that the electorate is not categorically opposed to affirmative action (or rather, that it can go either way). This doesn't, however, negate my main point: that where affirmative action has been defeated, it has not relied on appeals to white racialism.

I use the term "racialism" loosely here, meaning appeals to racial identity/group interest politics.

[Libsmasher]

OK, but:

(1) The NAACP is a highly racialist organization, so saying it would be no more racialist isn't much of an assurance.

Note that I said HOW THEY USED TO BE.

(2) White racialism will not make public officials in California obey the law; that's up to the people and the government they elect. They deserve whatever the tribalistic Marxist governments they keep electing foist on them.

Once again, I am not supporting "white racialism".


(3) White racialism will not make Ward Connerly's efforts any more successful (probably less so -- isn't he black?). I acknowledge he hasn't always been successful, which is just evidence that the electorate is not categorically opposed to affirmative action (or rather, that it can go either way). This doesn't, however, negate my main point: that where affirmative action has been defeated, it has not relied on appeals to white racialism.

I use the term "racialism" loosely here, meaning appeals to racial identity/group interest politics.

How many times will you bring up this strawman? It is VERY bizarre that in a society that f__ks the hell out of one and only one group, that a suggestion that they organize politically and fight back is termed "racialism". The only racialism present is that used against white males!! Excuse me, but you have things 100% backwards. But that IS the standard liberal gamut - attempts by white males to resist anti-white male racism would be itself racism. I think a lot of white males have been subtly brainwashed by this absurd reverse thinking - it's actually Orwellian, I think you may have been affected by it, and I call on you to recognize it for what it is, and reject it.

It is also bizarre that tens of millions of brainwashed, docile, discriminated-against white males rely on only a single heroic black man to stand up for their rights! Obviously, if those tens of millions of non-establishment white males organize and use their votes, things will change, and change consistently.

[9sublime]

You sort of miss the point. In the US (I don't know about the UK and elsewhere) government and private entities have just bald-facedly selected white males out for discrimination. I don't like race-based groups either, but in this case it's a matter of self defense. By analogy you might not like that there are standing armies in the world, but if everyone else has one, you better have one too.

What would this "white organization" stand for? In what way would it support the white man? Whatever reason you think of, I doubt I would count it as being a neccessary element of self defence.

I think you are very scared of standing armies that don't really exist. I doubt "Ebony Magazine" is causing any real threat to me.

[Libsmasher]

What would this "white organization" stand for?

You're STILL asking that, in post 33 of the thread???

It would stand for an end to racial discrimination by public and private entities. Real radical notion, right? Secondarily, it would oppose the pervasive racist characterizations of white males in the media.

I think you are very scared of standing armies that don't really exist. I doubt "Ebony Magazine" is causing any real threat to me.

Whaaaaaaattttttttttt??????? :rolleyes:

[SW85]

Note that I said HOW THEY USED TO BE.

My mistake, but is there any reason to believe that a NAAWP would not be diverted down the same intellectual ratholes?

Once again, I am not supporting "white racialism".

Insofar as racialism is the deliberate political emphasization of race (i.e., identity politics), you are.

How many times will you bring up this strawman? It is VERY bizarre that in a society that f__ks the hell out of one and only one group, that a suggestion that they organize politically and fight back is termed "racialism". The only racialism present is that used against white males!!

Do you think I'm denying that the left is racialist (and, let's face it, frequently racist to boot)?

I'm saying that co-opting their methods is (a) unnecessary, since again, everywhere it has been defeated it has been done without appeals to whites specifically (who are not the only ones screwed over by this), and (b) will probably be destructive in the long run, because it will make the right vulnerable to the same irrational tribalistic impulses that have infected the left.

It would stand for an end to racial discrimination by public and private entities.

There are plenty of organizations that do this successfully without appeals to white interest.

The fact that the battle against affirmative action is ongoing and the outcome isn't entirely clear does not hinge on the fact that white conservatives have not adopted the sluttish and unethical tactics of black liberals. It's mostly because the right has, for too long, been feckless about this kind of thing, doing nothing about university extremism, caring not the slightest bit about the appointment of rational court justices, etc. The tide is beginning to turn because they're now paying attention.

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Note that I said HOW THEY USED TO BE.

My mistake, but is there any reason to believe that a NAAWP would not be diverted down the same intellectual ratholes?

Because one organization becomes intellectually corrupt, that means a new one will, too? I don't get you.

Quote:
Once again, I am not supporting "white racialism".

Insofar as racialism is the deliberate political emphasization of race (i.e., identity politics), you are.

How is an organization to fight racial discrimination against it's represented group except by "emphasizing race"?

Quote:
How many times will you bring up this strawman? It is VERY bizarre that in a society that f__ks the hell out of one and only one group, that a suggestion that they organize politically and fight back is termed "racialism". The only racialism present is that used against white males!!

Do you think I'm denying that the left is racialist (and, let's face it, frequently racist to boot)?

No but you are confusing them with what I propose.

I'm saying that co-opting their methods is (a) unnecessary, since again, everywhere it has been defeated it has been done without appeals to whites specifically (who are not the only ones screwed over by this), and (b) will probably be destructive in the long run, because it will make the right vulnerable to the same irrational tribalistic impulses that have infected the left.

I do not suggest co-opting their methods - any comparison is specious. They get elected by promoting racial identity politics, by seeking ever more privileges for their client groups. I propose a group, which will necessarily be mainly constituted by the last group in the country to face widespread discrimination - white males, but others of good will will be welcome to join. The purpose is to end racial discrimination - not seek special privilege for white males. The difference between that and what libs do is the difference between night and day.

Quote:
It would stand for an end to racial discrimination by public and private entities.

There are plenty of organizations that do this successfully without appeals to white interest.

There's almost NOBODY that does it - Connerly's American Civil Rights Institute is the only one I can think of, and the whole establishment - the media, universities, judiciary, military, mainstream churches, corporations have lined up solidly in favor of anti-white discrimination.

[9sublime]

You're STILL asking that, in post 33 of the thread???

It would stand for an end to racial discrimination by public and private entities. Real radical notion, right? Secondarily, it would oppose the pervasive racist characterizations of white males in the media.



Whaaaaaaattttttttttt??????? :rolleyes:

Your missing my point.

How would this organization go about promoting its "ideals"? How would it stop this racism in the media of supporting minorities? Would it start its own news channel? I'm not sure it would get a big enough audience to change the way the whole media works.
Would it send letters of complain to media channels instead? I don't think that would go very far.

This is a cultural thing, and making a white organization isn't really going to do a lot of good except make people like you feel a tiny bit more secure.

My last analogy is that you claim the other races have standing armies working against white people like me and you, and that we need an equivilant in response. What I am saying is that something like a black magazine is not really a standing army in my opinion as its causing very little danger.

[Libsmasher]

Your missing my point.

How would this organization go about promoting its "ideals"? How would it stop this racism in the media of supporting minorities? Would it start its own news channel? I'm not sure it would get a big enough audience to change the way the whole media works.
Would it send letters of complain to media channels instead? I don't think that would go very far.

This is a cultural thing, and making a white organization isn't really going to do a lot of good except make people like you feel a tiny bit more secure.

First, you are focussing on the secondary thing I mentioned - the lib media defamation of the white male identity. The primary thing is anti-white male discrimination - did you forget that? As to the media defamation - an organization such as I envision could eg do studies to document scientifically what is obvious to anyone who looks at the media often enough - that it has a relentless campaign to defame white males. Then petitions could be presented to the FCC. Those would seek that the studied networks/local stations broadcast licenses not be renewed, insofar as they have not carried out their mandate to operate in the public interest - the systematic defamation of one gender/racial group not being in the public interest.

My last analogy is that you claim the other races have standing armies working against white people like me and you, and that we need an equivilant in response. What I am saying is that something like a black magazine is not really a standing army in my opinion as its causing very little danger.

First, I DIDN'T say the defensive techniques would be like the offending techniques. Eg, I don't want to acquire a broadcast license and defame another group.

Secondly, reducing the offense against white males to a "black magazine" is missing the point entirely, and also scoping it wayyyyyyyyy down.

In regard to the media defamation, that is done by WHITE people who control the media. WHY they do it is partly a puzzle. Advertisers are inured to the tiresome ploy of showing a stupid prson and contrasting that with a smart person - the stupid persone will 95% of the time be guess who - the only group it is still PC to ridicule. Also "women's networks" like Lifetime and Oxygen, run by feminists, do it because its part of their strategy to bring down the "patriarchy: - their code word for white males.

But once again - the media stuff is secondary - the main thing is anti-white male discrimination by employers, universities, etc.

[SW85]

OK Libsmasher, I clearly don't understand where you're coming from here.

Are you proposing the establishment of an organization made up explicitly of white men to combat affirmative action? Or are you merely saying white men should be more active in combatting it?

[Libsmasher]

OK Libsmasher, I clearly don't understand where you're coming from here.

Are you proposing the establishment of an organization made up explicitly of white men to combat affirmative action? Or are you merely saying white men should be more active in combatting it?

Neither. An organization should be formed that will primarily consist of white males, since they are the ones being discriminated against. Other persons who dislike injustice would be welcome to join, just as white people belonged to the NAACP when it was actually fighting for civil rights. There definitely should be an organization - only in that way can forces be combined in ways, eg for lobbying, that has any possibility of having an effect.

[9sublime]

First, you are focussing on the secondary thing I mentioned - the lib media defamation of the white male identity. The primary thing is anti-white male discrimination - did you forget that? As to the media defamation - an organization such as I envision could eg do studies to document scientifically what is obvious to anyone who looks at the media often enough - that it has a relentless campaign to defame white males. Then petitions could be presented to the FCC. Those would seek that the studied networks/local stations broadcast licenses not be renewed, insofar as they have not carried out their mandate to operate in the public interest - the systematic defamation of one gender/racial group not being in the public interest.

So you are suggesting limiting the freedom of speech of your countrys media stations, by telling them to pump out pro-white propaganda?

Don't like the sound of that.

Not to mention that the petition would be turned down, thus making your organization a giant wet blanket.

First, I DIDN'T say the defensive techniques would be like the offending techniques. Eg, I don't want to acquire a broadcast license and defame another group.

So you don't want to speak out yourself, you just want to silence others? Isn't this completley in contradiciton to the idea of allowing white groups to exist? While I agree that white groups should be allowed in the same way black groups are even though I wouldn't join one, the angle you are tackling it at is logically flawed.

Secondly, reducing the offense against white males to a "black magazine" is missing the point entirely, and also scoping it wayyyyyyyyy down.

No, its a practical example that would actually happen on a small scale.

In regard to the media defamation, that is done by WHITE people who control the media. WHY they do it is partly a puzzle. Advertisers are inured to the tiresome ploy of showing a stupid prson and contrasting that with a smart person - the stupid persone will 95% of the time be guess who - the only group it is still PC to ridicule. Also "women's networks" like Lifetime and Oxygen, run by feminists, do it because its part of their strategy to bring down the "patriarchy: - their code word for white males.

If white people own the media, what chance do you have of your petitions to the FCC making any difference?

But once again - the media stuff is secondary - the main thing is anti-white male discrimination by employers, universities, etc.

Oh, and please give examples of white discrimination YOU personally have faced. And its easy to lie on the internet, I hope you wont do that just for the sake of argument.

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
First, you are focussing on the secondary thing I mentioned - the lib media defamation of the white male identity. The primary thing is anti-white male discrimination - did you forget that? As to the media defamation - an organization such as I envision could eg do studies to document scientifically what is obvious to anyone who looks at the media often enough - that it has a relentless campaign to defame white males. Then petitions could be presented to the FCC. Those would seek that the studied networks/local stations broadcast licenses not be renewed, insofar as they have not carried out their mandate to operate in the public interest - the systematic defamation of one gender/racial group not being in the public interest.

So you are suggesting limiting the freedom of speech of your countrys media stations, by telling them to pump out pro-white propaganda?

Don't like the sound of that.

Ooooooooo - serious debate index just dropped to 3% -- sure you're not Top Gun in disguise?? :rolleyes:

Not to mention that the petition would be turned down, thus making your organization a giant wet blanket.

I don't get the "wet blanket" business - and if the FCC DOES turn it down, they are setting a precedent - racism on the licensed airwaves is OK by the FCC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
First, I DIDN'T say the defensive techniques would be like the offending techniques. Eg, I don't want to acquire a broadcast license and defame another group.

So you don't want to speak out yourself, you just want to silence others?

The FCC already "silences" plenty - pornography, dirty words. The airwaves are held to higher standards than ordinary speech. The purveyors of anti-white male racist speech would be free to take their garbage out to the street and the gutter - where it belongs.

Isn't this completley in contradiciton to the idea of allowing white groups to exist? While I agree that white groups should be allowed in the same way black groups are even though I wouldn't join one, the angle you are tackling it at is logically flawed.

Are you SURE you're not Top Gun? You sound like you stopped listening to me about three posts back. I didn't advocate forming a "white group".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Secondly, reducing the offense against white males to a "black magazine" is missing the point entirely, and also scoping it wayyyyyyyyy down.

No, its a practical example that would actually happen on a small scale.

No, it's a comment that evades the serious issues by bringing up the most trivial example. A white male who works hard all through high school and all through an undergraduate degree and earns the grades and makes the test scores and then gets the door to law school slammed in his face because he's white is a much better example.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
In regard to the media defamation, that is done by WHITE people who control the media. WHY they do it is partly a puzzle. Advertisers are inured to the tiresome ploy of showing a stupid prson and contrasting that with a smart person - the stupid persone will 95% of the time be guess who - the only group it is still PC to ridicule. Also "women's networks" like Lifetime and Oxygen, run by feminists, do it because its part of their strategy to bring down the "patriarchy: - their code word for white males.

If white people own the media, what chance do you have of your petitions to the FCC making any difference?

Don't understand your question at all. The whites who run corporations have become the lap kitties of the left. Among many other things they do, is pander to the supposed anti-white male resentment of minorities with racist portrayals. If the licensed airways are being used to peddle racism, it doesn't matter at all what color the peddlers are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
But once again - the media stuff is secondary - the main thing is anti-white male discrimination by employers, universities, etc.

Oh, and please give examples of white discrimination YOU personally have faced. And its easy to lie on the internet, I hope you wont do that just for the sake of argument.

I won't lie, but I don't give a sh__ whether you believe it or not. And let's face it - no matter what I say, you'll find some bogus way to just discount them. But I'll play the game, although the level of your debate seems to be losing any seriousness. Two from grad school:

1. When I was a second year astronomy grad student, one day I was walking in the physics building, and saw a flyer up on the grad student bulletin board. The flyer offered National Science Foundation internships with NSF scientists in several science fields for the coming summer. (Let me point out that this would be a MONUMENTAL opportunity for a grad student.) It included a living stipend ANNNNNNNNND round-trip airfare. I thought "Geez, what's not to like - this is is GREAT! Where do I sign up!!!" That's when I noticed in small (embarassed?) print at the very bottom of the flyer the words "Minority and Female Students Only".

2. In my department, university fellowships were very rare - about one per entering class. Also research fellowships were rare because the faculty at that time weren't particularly interested in adding money for that to their grant applications. So nearly everyone worked as a TA - a teaching associate. They said it should take 20 hours of your week, but it took 30 hours easily. A grad student in the physical sciences is VERY busy. Then one day I read in the student newspaper about the university hosting a group of recent graduates from "historically black colleges". There was nothing about the students being otherwise any kind of select or accomplished group. They were going to offer all that would accept it up to 100 grad school university fellowships. In case you don't know - a fellowship includes a stipend and fee and tuition waiver in return for - nothing. Just being your sweet little (black) self. Meanwhile, the rest of us (white) folk are plodding along minus 30 hours a week, before we can get to our studies.

I can give MANY examples.

[Libsmasher]

Hey gosh - look at this!

https://www.gmsp.org/GMSP_App/images/GMSLogo1.gif

Lessee what this is about:

The Gates Millennium Scholars Program (GMS), established in 1999, was initially funded by a $1 billion grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Great! Great! Lessee what the requirements are!

Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they: •Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American

Oh. No whites need apply. There must be many tens of thousands of poor white students who could use this. Too bad they're the wrong color.

http://www.gmsp.org/default.aspx

[9sublime]

Ooooooooo - serious debate index just dropped to 3% -- sure you're not Top Gun in disguise?? :rolleyes:

Unbelievaly poor comeback. What you are saying is that you want the media to be censored to fit your views. It seems you only want a free society when it suits you.

The FCC already "silences" plenty - pornography, dirty words. The airwaves are held to higher standards than ordinary speech. The purveyors of anti-white male racist speech would be free to take their garbage out to the street and the gutter - where it belongs.

Nobody is allowed to be racist on air like that. That is not the postion you have been taking. You have been complaining about the lack of support for the white race, not the amount of attack it faces on air, because it doesn't face any.

Are you SURE you're not Top Gun? You sound like you stopped listening to me about three posts back. I didn't advocate forming a "white group".

Haha, you must be kidding me! Do you want me to find a couple of quotes, or have you gone back and edited your posts before you came out with that ridiculous statement!!

No, it's a comment that evades the serious issues by bringing up the most trivial example. A white male who works hard all through high school and all through an undergraduate degree and earns the grades and makes the test scores and then gets the door to law school slammed in his face because he's white is a much better example.

Yes, thats why there's no white lawyers anymore. Absoloute rubbish.

Don't understand your question at all. The whites who run corporations have become the lap kitties of the left. Among many other things they do, is pander to the supposed anti-white male resentment of minorities with racist portrayals. If the licensed airways are being used to peddle racism, it doesn't matter at all what color the peddlers are.

But if the white bosses of the media are the ones you are trying to appeal to, don't you see that they would have done it themselves if they wanted to by now.

I won't lie, but I don't give a sh__ whether you believe it or not. And let's face it - no matter what I say, you'll find some bogus way to just discount them. But I'll play the game, although the level of your debate seems to be losing any seriousness. Two from grad school:

I have not given any bogus ways to discount them, I have only quesitoned tthe logic of how your white group would go about changing society. If your ideas cannot stand up to critism maybe you should leave the thinking to other people better equipped.

1. When I was a second year astronomy grad student, one day I was walking in the physics building, and saw a flyer up on the grad student bulletin board. The flyer offered National Science Foundation internships with NSF scientists in several science fields for the coming summer. (Let me point out that this would be a MONUMENTAL opportunity for a grad student.) It included a living stipend ANNNNNNNNND round-trip airfare. I thought "Geez, what's not to like - this is is GREAT! Where do I sign up!!!" That's when I noticed in small (embarassed?) print at the very bottom of the flyer the words "Minority and Female Students Only".

Well thats totally ridiculous and I agree that shouldn't be happening anymore, and I agree that people should be allowed to form white groups, I just don't believe they would serve any benefit except to segregate society.

2. In my department, university fellowships were very rare - about one per entering class. Also research fellowships were rare because the faculty at that time weren't particularly interested in adding money for that to their grant applications. So nearly everyone worked as a TA - a teaching associate. They said it should take 20 hours of your week, but it took 30 hours easily. A grad student in the physical sciences is VERY busy. Then one day I read in the student newspaper about the university hosting a group of recent graduates from "historically black colleges". There was nothing about the students being otherwise any kind of select or accomplished group. They were going to offer all that would accept it up to 100 grad school university fellowships. In case you don't know - a fellowship includes a stipend and fee and tuition waiver in return for - nothing. Just being your sweet little (black) self. Meanwhile, the rest of us (white) folk are plodding along minus 30 hours a week, before we can get to our studies.

I can give MANY examples.

Once again, its wrong and shouldn't happen.

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Ooooooooo - serious debate index just dropped to 3% -- sure you're not Top Gun in disguise??

Unbelievaly poor comeback. What you are saying is that you want the media to be censored to fit your views. It seems you only want a free society when it suits you.

Mine was an excellent come-back to an absurd thing you said - that I want the media to disseminate "pro-white propaganda" - I said NOTHING of the kind, and that's a bald-faced strawman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
The FCC already "silences" plenty - pornography, dirty words. The airwaves are held to higher standards than ordinary speech. The purveyors of anti-white male racist speech would be free to take their garbage out to the street and the gutter - where it belongs.

Nobody is allowed to be racist on air like that. That is not the postion you have been taking. You have been complaining about the lack of support for the white race, not the amount of attack it faces on air, because it doesn't face any.

When argument fails, trot out the strawmen eh? I complained about anti-white racism from the very beginning in the OP. Now, everyone go back and look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Are you SURE you're not Top Gun? You sound like you stopped listening to me about three posts back. I didn't advocate forming a "white group".

Haha, you must be kidding me! Do you want me to find a couple of quotes, or have you gone back and edited your posts before you came out with that ridiculous statement!!

Yeah, go back and show me. Be sure you include the place where I said everyone would be welcome to join.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
No, it's a comment that evades the serious issues by bringing up the most trivial example. A white male who works hard all through high school and all through an undergraduate degree and earns the grades and makes the test scores and then gets the door to law school slammed in his face because he's white is a much better example.

Yes, thats why there's no white lawyers anymore. Absoloute rubbish.

Cowardly evasion - whether or not there are white lawyers anymore has NOTHING to do with whether or not whites are discriminated against NOW trying to enter law school. Lessee what's your count now? Two strawmen and an irrelevent evasion - GOOD WORK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Don't understand your question at all. The whites who run corporations have become the lap kitties of the left. Among many other things they do, is pander to the supposed anti-white male resentment of minorities with racist portrayals. If the licensed airways are being used to peddle racism, it doesn't matter at all what color the peddlers are.

But if the white bosses of the media are the ones you are trying to appeal to, don't you see that they would have done it themselves if they wanted to by now.

Incoherent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
I won't lie, but I don't give a sh__ whether you believe it or not. And let's face it - no matter what I say, you'll find some bogus way to just discount them. But I'll play the game, although the level of your debate seems to be losing any seriousness. Two from grad school:

I have not given any bogus ways to discount them, I have only quesitoned tthe logic of how your white group would go about changing society. If your ideas cannot stand up to critism maybe you should leave the thinking to other people better equipped.

They stand up fine - and I've yet to read a single valid word of criticism form you. As for how to change society, it would be gone down the well worn path (created by libs unfortunately) that it has always changed: organization, lobbying, public condemnation, voting at the polls, boycotts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
1. When I was a second year astronomy grad student, one day I was walking in the physics building, and saw a flyer up on the grad student bulletin board. The flyer offered National Science Foundation internships with NSF scientists in several science fields for the coming summer. (Let me point out that this would be a MONUMENTAL opportunity for a grad student.) It included a living stipend ANNNNNNNNND round-trip airfare. I thought "Geez, what's not to like - this is is GREAT! Where do I sign up!!!" That's when I noticed in small (embarassed?) print at the very bottom of the flyer the words "Minority and Female Students Only".

Well thats totally ridiculous and I agree that shouldn't be happening anymore, and I agree that people should be allowed to form white groups, I just don't believe they would serve any benefit except to segregate society.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
2. In my department, university fellowships were very rare - about one per entering class. Also research fellowships were rare because the faculty at that time weren't particularly interested in adding money for that to their grant applications. So nearly everyone worked as a TA - a teaching associate. They said it should take 20 hours of your week, but it took 30 hours easily. A grad student in the physical sciences is VERY busy. Then one day I read in the student newspaper about the university hosting a group of recent graduates from "historically black colleges". There was nothing about the students being otherwise any kind of select or accomplished group. They were going to offer all that would accept it up to 100 grad school university fellowships. In case you don't know - a fellowship includes a stipend and fee and tuition waiver in return for - nothing. Just being your sweet little (black) self. Meanwhile, the rest of us (white) folk are plodding along minus 30 hours a week, before we can get to our studies.

I can give MANY examples.
Once again, its wrong and shouldn't happen.

Great - your blinders are falling away.

[9sublime]

Your failing to see my basic point.

While I agree that discriminating against whites in the examples you have given me is wrong, I don't agree that a white group would be able to change anything and would only segregate society further.

If whites wanted to change all this, they could have done, under no official banner. However, they haven't, and I don't think making a formal pressure group would be of any benefit.

[Libsmasher]

Your failing to see my basic point.

While I agree that discriminating against whites in the examples you have given me is wrong, I don't agree that a white group would be able to change anything and would only segregate society further.

Segregation is not the issue - discrimination and racist defamation are the issues.

If whites wanted to change all this, they could have done, under no official banner. However, they haven't, and I don't think making a formal pressure group would be of any benefit.

First of all, it's white males, not "whites" - white women have been the biggest beneficiaries of "affirmative action" (although even they sometimes get ripped off as Gratz and Grutter showed) and are treated as the queens of the universe by the media - only black males are treated better.

Some white males have been intimidated into silence by the usual Orwellian lib ploy that complaining about anti-white racism is itself racism. Others have been brainwashed by the ever-present corporate and lib media and government propaganda into supporting their own destruction. White males are individualists and competitors and don't have the herd instinct of other groups, but in a democratic polity it is exactly such group action to which the establishment responds - blacks eg have used it to become society's only super-citizens. Because of their aggressive and competitive nature, many white males see that the system is rigged against them, but believe that they are smart enough to outwit the system and come out OK - sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. The purveyors of anti-white male racism/sexism probably understand this individualistic nature of white males (eg, white males don't get together and go out and burn down cities when something happens that they don't like) and know it can be used against them, as part and parcel of the strategy to buy off with privileges organized minorities who are a potential threat because they ARE organized. White males need to have their consciousness raised, to use an old feminist phrase.

[9sublime]

Segregation is not the issue - discrimination and racist defamation are the issues..

Making a group for white males sounds like it will encourage segregation, even if it is not your personal intention.

First of all, it's white males, not "whites" - white women have been the biggest beneficiaries of "affirmative action" (although even they sometimes get ripped off as Gratz and Grutter showed) and are treated as the queens of the universe by the media - only black males are treated better..

Petty semantics, and more segregation.

Some white males have been intimidated into silence by the usual Orwellian lib ploy that complaining about anti-white racism is itself racism. Others have been brainwashed by the ever-present corporate and lib media and government propaganda into supporting their own destruction. White males are individualists and competitors and don't have the herd instinct of other groups, but in a democratic polity it is exactly such group action to which the establishment responds - blacks eg have used it to become society's only super-citizens. Because of their aggressive and competitive nature, many white males see that the system is rigged against them, but believe that they are smart enough to outwit the system and come out OK - sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. The purveyors of anti-white male racism/sexism probably understand this individualistic nature of white males (eg, white males don't get together and go out and burn down cities when something happens that they don't like) and know it can be used against them, as part and parcel of the strategy to buy off with privileges organized minorities who are a potential threat because they ARE organized. White males need to have their consciousness raised, to use an old feminist phrase.

Yes, we established this. However, your not debating the point anymore, your just repeating why you think we should have a white male organization. However, when I've asked you about it, you've just said this stuff over and over again.

[Sihouette]

There are two angles to consider with racism:

1. suppressing someone in spite of their acheivements due to the color of their skin.

2. elevating someone in spite of their acheivements due to the color of their skin.

Both devalue the individual. For sexism just use gender instead "the color of their skin".

****
My own knowledge of people is that they are all equal in spirit no matter what flesh they happen to wear. When we focus on either aspect of racism we focus on the flesh and not the person. I think all job applications should be blind ones that do not ask for gender or race on the application. They should only list past experience and performance. Anyone caught circumventing this should be heavily fined and even serve jail time.

In a perfect world.

[9sublime]

It's a good point, but we don't live in a perfect world and instead we live in a world where people do base judgement on the colour of skin.

But instead of being irrational and allowing black but not white organizations, either both need to be allowed, or both need to be banned. The more preferable option is to allow both of them, but that is as far as I agree with libsmasher.

My issue is: of what benefit would there be of forming a white group to help white "surpression" or whatever bigged up word you want to call it. There is none, and the very objection he has to black groups should rationally be the same objection he has to a whites only group and thus he should have no desire in joining one.

And thats why I think his desire for a white group highlights an underlying insecurity with skin colour and how the world is moving on.

[Libsmasher]

Making a group for white males sounds like it will encourage segregation, even if it is not your personal intention.


Libs encourage segregation all the time, eg the implicit segregation from their "multi-culturalism", and their support for huge numbers of unassimilable hispanics who form virtually a separate nation within US borders.


Petty semantics, and more segregation.

Get a dictionary, and read it every day.

Yes, we established this. However, your not debating the point anymore, your just repeating why you think we should have a white male organization. However, when I've asked you about it, you've just said this stuff over and over again.

You continue to duck and evade. Did you protest black organizations? Hispanic? Womens? Gays? No, you appear to have only only found your voice when it comes to white males, because everyone except WMs is supposed to organize and get privileges - WMs exist just to get f__ed over by a PC culture.

[Libsmasher]

It's a good point, but we don't live in a perfect world and instead we live in a world where people do base judgement on the colour of skin.

But instead of being irrational and allowing black but not white organizations, either both need to be allowed, or both need to be banned. The more preferable option is to allow both of them, but that is as far as I agree with libsmasher.

Then you agree completely re the subject of this thread (maybe you should go back and reread it here? :rolleyes:) - because that's all I said.

My issue is: of what benefit would there be of forming a white group to help white "surpression" or whatever bigged up word you want to call it. There is none, and the very objection he has to black groups should rationally be the same objection he has to a whites only group and thus he should have no desire in joining one.

This is a bald-faced blowing away of the facts -

1. white males are the only ones who don't get "affirmative action"

2. "affirmative action" is a zero sum game: There only so many employees a company needs, there only so many slots open at harvard; accepting some because of their (non-white) skin color or (non-male) genitals is LOGICALLY INSEPARABLE from racial discrimination against white males.

3. "Affirmative action" is pervasive - it happens at ALL universities, ALL professional and grad schools, HUGE numbers of scholarships, fellowships, internships; police and fire departments, union apprenticeships, various government jobs; the military; government contracts; ALL big corporations.

And thats why I think his desire for a white group highlights an underlying insecurity with skin colour and how the world is moving on.

Right, someone who complains about massive, pervasive racial discriminastion is "insecure".

Someone who can't face the facts and debate them is insecure.

[9sublime]

This is going round in circles.

If you are so against ethnic only groups, it seems irrational to me that you are so keen to form a white one.

[Libsmasher]

This is going round in circles.

If you are so against ethnic only groups, it seems irrational to me that you are so keen to form a white one.

I'm not for a "white one", but rather one to end "affirmative action" and racial disparagement in the media, racist practices in the current era that are directed largely against white males. Anyone who opposes this supports racism.

[9sublime]

I'm not for a "white one", but rather one to end "affirmative action" and racial disparagement in the media, racist practices in the current era that are directed largely against white males. Anyone who opposes this supports racism.

So now you don't think white males should organise? Sounds like you should change the thread title.

[Libsmasher]

So now you don't think white males should organise? Sounds like you should change the thread title.

Any serious argument from you ended about three posts ago. End of thread. :rolleyes:

[9sublime]

Any serious argument from you ended about three posts ago. End of thread. :rolleyes:

You titled the thread, white males should organise. Now you are telling me white males shouldn't organise. Maybe you don't see the serious contradiciton, but I do.

[Libsmasher]

You titled the thread, white males should organise. Now you are telling me white males shouldn't organise. Maybe you don't see the serious contradiciton, but I do.

The contradiction exists only in your head. You switched the thread from a substantive debate on the issues, to you essentially arguing with yourself over your own misunderstanding of what I said.