posted November 23, 2007 06:58 PM              

racists and low i.q.
~ http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm ~

my theory .. right or wrong ..
give the racists a country or state all to themselves to the exclusion of all others ..
.. or even better a planet all of their own ..
in a short matter of time they will be at each others throats ..
they will find someone or something to blame for their problems ..
no doubt drawing on some mythical theory of some nature .. to validate their ideologies ..

many of them ( the racial superiority lot ) have no capabilty to empathise ..
without the capabilty to empathise .. co-operation goes out the window ..
without co-operation .. the human species for the most part .. would probaly cease to exist ..

so in effect .. the racists themselves .. are the dysfunctional lot ..

posted November 23, 2007 08:22 PM              

I found it illuminating to say the least. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

I went to the sight, and just read down a few ticks. One woman's location read (I kid you not on this) : The negro infested South (Florida)

I found myself wondering how this happens still in this day and age, such ignorance and hate. Guess it's part of human nature, just like the other parts.

This is a somewhat related article, though I won't post it here, just give the link for any who might want to read it. It's about some of the reasons that suburbs came into existance. http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2886/81/

posted November 24, 2007 10:54 PM              

narcissistic suburbanites living in the shadow of post euro-american colonial white supremacy...the apartheid of sun-belt democratic capitalistic corporate politics...fascinating. and a rule for no race-mixing thrown in for good measure! wow...a mind-boggling admixture of thought and thinking to be sure. (that was trippin' mass of ideas to get through Goatgirl ....very in depth analysis.)

posted November 27, 2007 07:40 PM            

Here's a more accurate view of Ron Paul:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm

The people at Stormfront were divided about him last time I checked (a few months ago), when I got curious as to why he had support from that quarter. Most who support him see him as COINCIDENTALLY supporting their agenda, like with getting the UN out of the US (same goal, but for very different reasons).

Others in Stormfront don't like Ron Paul. While some support him as "the least evil" of all candidates, some could not overlook his libertarian leanings (as these individual members of Stormfront are staunch national socialists, about the exact opposite of libertarianism), and others didn't like that Ron Paul wasn't racist enough (granted, Stormfront has "high standards").

As for them having low IQs, actually many of them are very intelligent. I've met neonazis who are far more intelligent, educated, and sensible than most other people who stick their nose up at them.

Let me point out that I don't support their beliefs. Being that I'm in a lesbian relationship with a blasian, and my best friend is so black that even other blacks give her a hard time, and having a mentor of mine that's Jewish, they won't care much for me, and the antipathy is mutual. I'm just calling 'em as I see them, and some of them are VERY intelligent. Don't fool yourself in thinking they're all trogs (though plenty of them are also that, too).

Plus, I'm creeped out by the 14 words of theirs, which means promoting the survival of the "white race" by any means necessary. That includes promise of rape of women like me (I'm blonde, blue-eyed) if I don't willingly spread my legs for them. One, a white separatist (which is supposed to be just for separation rather than achieving racial supremacy, and in theory are less inclined to violence) even advocating the promise of that to encourage white people who couldn't get a woman otherwise to join up in a revolt. So no, I don't like them. I'm just not going to lie to myself and say they're all idiots.

But as for tearing each other apart, I can believe that. When I was 15, there were fights between various skins and neo-nazis that claimed to be the "REAL white power." It even ended in a gun fight once. The only time they could unite was when they feared the rest of us coming down on them at the club we all met at together (which included anarchists punks that were bitter rivals of the skinheads and neo-nazis, and krews of runaway kids). But otherwise, as far as I could tell they tore each other up (both verbally and physically) far more than anyone else.

posted November 27, 2007 11:50 PM              

perhaps it will appear some day....maybe when he answers the questions put to him by the open letter at town hall? i would like to see that, really. and although he has taken personal responsibility for the words, he never revoked them, nor apologized for them. and he did let them circulate for over five years, before disclosing the 'truth' about them.

posted November 28, 2007 12:02 PM              

Laws banning miscegenation

Main article: Anti-miscegenation laws

Laws banning "race-mixing" were enforced in Nazi Germany, in South Africa during the Apartheid era and in individual U.S. states from the Colonial era until 1967. All these laws primarily banned marriage between spouses of different racially or ethnically defined groups, which was termed "amalgamation" or "miscegenation" in the U.S. The laws in Nazi-Germany and South Africa under Apartheid, and many of the U.S. state laws, also targeted sexual relations between such individuals.

In the United States, the various state laws prohibited the marriage of whites and blacks, and in many states also the intermarriage of whites with Native Americans and/or Asians. In the U.S., such laws were known as anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced such laws.[3] Although an "Anti-Miscegenation Amendment" was repeately proposed in United States Congress, in 1871, in 1912-1913 and in 1928,[4] [5] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them.

The laws in Nazi Germany, South Africa and in U.S. states all based themselves on concepts of racial purity and white supremacy. The Nazi ban on interracial marriage and interracial sex, part of the Nuremberg laws, classified Jews as a race and based itself on the racist concept of the superiority of Germans as members of the "Aryan race".

Enacted by the National Socialist government in September 1935 as part of the Nuremberg Laws, the Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre (The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour) forbade marriage and extra-marital sexual relations between persons of Jewish origin and persons of “German or related blood”. Such intercourse was marked as Rassenschande (lit. race-disgrace) and could be punished by imprisonment (usually followed by the deportation to a concentration camp) and even by death.

The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act in South Africa, enacted under Apartheid in 1949, banned intermarriage between whites and non-whites. The Immorality Act, enacted in 1950, also made it a criminal offense for a white person to have any sexual relations with a person of a different race. Both laws were repealed in 1985.

posted December 08, 2007 10:13 PM            

In 2004, Freepers were even trying to paint Badnarik as a member of Al Qaeda. Looks like they're gonna try it again to make sure another corporate ***** (preferably Republican in their view, but the people--primarily the CFR, owner of National Review and the NYT as well as FOX NEWS and liberal channels, and is the USA version of the old Soviet nomenklatura--who sponsor their propaganda also sponsor the propaganda of the Democrats, too) gets it. Why assassinate the man when you can assassinate the character?

Personally, that Ron Paul has stated his view on race and I linked to it above is enough for me.

Even IF, for the sake of argument, Ron Paul endorsed (or at least tolerated) that 1 racist editorial decades ago, people do change. Heck, in less than 10 years John Kerry went from decrying the Defense of Marriage Act to supporting it while Dennis Kucinich went from being pro-life to pro-choice. In much less time than that, Jerry Sanders of San Diego went from not even supporting the "separate and definitely not equal" civil unions for gays to full marriage rights for gays. IOW, many people change over time, and I hardly care what someone thought back in the 70s (I wasn't even born until late 1982).

posted December 09, 2007 05:39 AM              

quote:

---

But, why would they tend to be hypochondriacs? Perhaps they blame their body parts for imaginary illnesses in the same way they blame parts of society for imaginary social illnesses.

---

posted December 09, 2007 05:43 AM              

He just seems compassionate and,
I dont know, "not the type".

But maybe I'm naive to think there's a type.

Anyway,
I dont see anything wrong with
taking money out of the hands of bad guys
to put it to better use than they would have.

Robin Hood did it.

Why give the donations back?
Why not put them to good use?

posted June 17, 2013 03:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thorshammer:
SO are you promoting STORMFRONT here or are you just stating in general that the faction exist and that if anyone thought it was null...they have been rightfully mistaken?

I can't tell what is going on...if you believe in White Supremacist or you are saying that PAUL does and no one sees it and you are against it.

because this being a site dedicated to Linda Goodman, I know she was totally for Civil Rights and not one group who thinks they are truly the majority?

Can you tell me Zanya if you are a White Supremacist or you are against them and Ron Paul? Becuase I have always been one to think if you believe it...speak it out loud and not talk about others that we assume are those things.

I think you are just telling us that its out there...don't forget...eyes wide open, but I would like you to set the record straight if you believe in this and are promoting it or if you are just speaking it as something that has a cloak over it so no one notices.

---

posted December 06, 2015 07:29 PM            

I do not understand this, but racism is still alive and kicking.

posted December 06, 2015 07:35 PM            

Just, I don't know, signed up and took over? Started preaching love, tolerance, and personal development?

Those people would have no idea what hit them. I wish someone would stage a social media campaign and do this to every hateful webforum out there.

posted December 19, 2015 12:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sibyl:
HOW GREAT WOULD IT BE IF WE ALL STAGED A COUP OF STORMFRONT?

Just, I don't know, signed up and took over? Started preaching love, tolerance, and personal development?

Those people would have no idea what hit them. I wish someone would stage a social media campaign and do this to every hateful webforum out there.

We could drown out their voices and make them loose themselves in loving 'noise'.

---

You wouldn't reach them...if anything, you'd make them feel more self-important and/or inspire them to do the same thing in turn. Throw in that many are old and very set in their ways while many others join sites like Stormfront because they feel terrible about themselves to begin with (and blame others for why they're in a rut despite being white), such good vibes would just bounce right off them.

That said, some people make the mistake of believing they're in a majority because they limit their associations (online and off) to people who share their views, and they're more likely to reveal what they really think, as opposed to those who know to hide their beliefs. I prefer they get lulled into a sense of complacency where they let their bigotry shine for all to see because they forget their extreme views are not mainstream. The ones that bother me are the ones who know to hide their racist views and act upon them in secret and with plausible deniability.