From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun  8 07:19:56 PDT 1996
Article: 21873 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 14:14:34 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <31B89BBA.75C9@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4o6nfv$pqp@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4omiq6$a2t@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4on4la$2l6@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833624833snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4osj8s$sc <4ov3ab$oc5@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <4p005c$17de@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host07.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:21873 soc.culture.african.american:119182 talk.politics.european-union:3680 alt.politics.usa.republican:211284

Scott Erb wrote:

> Because, quite simply, there IS NO SUCH THING!

Nonesense.
 
> Modern science and biology has shown that race is not a scientific concept.
> It has been debunked.  The only people who believe such crap are
> (usually) people who are probably so pathetic and insecure in their personal
> lives that they feel a need to define themselves as part of an allegedly
> superior group.

Prove your statement that "Modern science and biology has shown that race is not
a scientific concept." According to my readings, race is a definitely used
anthropological statement. And even if scientists stopped using that term to
describe what they're talking about, that would prove only that race is an
ethnological term synonymous with ethnic group (which is what I contend exactly
what it is). Therefore, for you to say that modern science and biology has shown
that race is not a scientific concept" is ridiculous. What I have read is that
most scientists view most usages of the term "race" synonymously with "ethnic
group." Hence, if ethnic groups exist, race exists.
 
> When I think of a bunch of fat good ol' boy red necks guzzling beer and not
> being able to speak properly, and then hear them calling themselves racially
> superior, the irony is extreme!  

When I think of a bunch of ignorant, in-bred liberals guzzling down "java" at
their local Java Gulch, pondering how "equitable" and truly compassionate they
are, the irony is even more extreme!

> Or when I imagine a bunch of Bavarian workers meeting at the Hofbraeuhaus in
> 1939 and thinking themselves superior to Einstein and other Jewish leaders, I
> have to shake my head in wonder.

So, are you saying that Jews are superior to Whites?

> (That is not an insult to die Bayer -- i mog de Bayer und a de Woizenbier!)
> Individuals are responsible for their choices and lives, c'est la realite.
> Race is not a scientifically valid concept.

Prove your statement. What is a "scientifically valid concept?" Make a point.
Better yet, make sense.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun  8 07:19:57 PDT 1996
Article: 21875 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 14:18:33 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <31B89CA9.40F5@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4o6nfv$pqp@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4omiq6$a2t@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4on4la$2l6@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833624833snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4osj8s$sc <4ov3ab$oc5@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <4p005c$17de@sol.caps.maine.edu> <31B54613.6AE1@ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host07.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:21875 soc.culture.african.american:119185 talk.politics.european-union:3682 alt.politics.usa.republican:211287

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

-> A large number of degreed whores of academe would say so -- but then,
-> they also think that Bill Moyers can be taken seriously.
-> 
-> There is a political agenda behind the "there is no such thing as the
-> White race" malarky, and it exposes itself every time the obvious
-> corollary is stated: If there is no such thing as the White race, then
-> there is no collective responsibility for the real and imagined sins it
-> committed against the equally imaginary African, Amerind, etc., races
-> which stand impatiently in the handout and favoritism lines for a few
-> cents of tax money after the middle-man has taken his cut.
-> 
-> No more affirmative action -- races do not exist!
-> 
-> No more Holocaust reparations -- races do not exist!
-> 
-> No more "diversity" requirements or training -- races do not exist!
-> 
-> Oh, that would never do. It is only the White race which does not --
-> cannot -- exist. It cannot exist, because if its existence were admitted,
-> then the genocide which is now being practiced against it would become
-> immediately obvious. And even a few honest liberals might pale at that,
-> and spoil the whole show.

Actually, races do exist and they are AT LEAST as significant as ethnic groups.
But, then they also want to refuse to accept that we too have ethnic rights.
That's because THEY'RE the bigots and haters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 13 06:48:46 PDT 1996
Article: 32093 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:17:25 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32093 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22500 alt.discrimination:48380

Cthulhu wrote:
> 
> In article <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:
> >
> >Barnacle and liberals are a lot alike - they latch on to something (a boat
> >hull in the former case, an idea in the latter), and simply will not let
> >go, unless a scraper is applied to remove them.
> 
> And that "something" is truth, justice and human rights.
> 
> All are things which racists hate.

Cthulu-wanna-be, get real. Liberals are *NOT* for truth, justice or human rights.
Quite the opposite. The truth is that racism is a right, and it is an injustice
for liberals to misrepresent it. Whites too have human rights although I have
never heard a liberal admit it yet.

Can you admit it?

Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
Q: Is it justice to deny Whites their ethnic and racial rights?
Q: Do Whites have human rights too? (i.e. self-determination, ethnicity etc.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 13 07:09:26 PDT 1996
Article: 22497 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:23:46 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host51.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22497 talk.politics.european-union:3845 soc.culture.europe:45421

In article <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, msr16@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) writes:
 
>Race is essentially a
>cultural, not a genetic phenomenom. 
Let's assume you're right. Then that means that race is ethnicity. Therefore,
we are just as justified as ever to be racists since race is ethnicity. Of
course, there is an ethnic component to racial identity although race has
its underlying reality in blood relations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 13 07:09:27 PDT 1996
Article: 22500 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:17:25 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32093 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22500 alt.discrimination:48380

Cthulhu wrote:
> 
> In article <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:
> >
> >Barnacle and liberals are a lot alike - they latch on to something (a boat
> >hull in the former case, an idea in the latter), and simply will not let
> >go, unless a scraper is applied to remove them.
> 
> And that "something" is truth, justice and human rights.
> 
> All are things which racists hate.

Cthulu-wanna-be, get real. Liberals are *NOT* for truth, justice or human rights.
Quite the opposite. The truth is that racism is a right, and it is an injustice
for liberals to misrepresent it. Whites too have human rights although I have
never heard a liberal admit it yet.

Can you admit it?

Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
Q: Is it justice to deny Whites their ethnic and racial rights?
Q: Do Whites have human rights too? (i.e. self-determination, ethnicity etc.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 14 12:06:07 PDT 1996
Article: 48380 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:17:25 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32093 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22500 alt.discrimination:48380

Cthulhu wrote:
> 
> In article <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:
> >
> >Barnacle and liberals are a lot alike - they latch on to something (a boat
> >hull in the former case, an idea in the latter), and simply will not let
> >go, unless a scraper is applied to remove them.
> 
> And that "something" is truth, justice and human rights.
> 
> All are things which racists hate.

Cthulu-wanna-be, get real. Liberals are *NOT* for truth, justice or human rights.
Quite the opposite. The truth is that racism is a right, and it is an injustice
for liberals to misrepresent it. Whites too have human rights although I have
never heard a liberal admit it yet.

Can you admit it?

Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
Q: Is it justice to deny Whites their ethnic and racial rights?
Q: Do Whites have human rights too? (i.e. self-determination, ethnicity etc.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 14 15:34:07 PDT 1996
Article: 22642 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:41:58 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <31C15E16.2056@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host12.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22642 talk.politics.european-union:3893 soc.culture.europe:45458

Laura Finsten wrote:

> Sure would be nice if you White Power Rangers would get your story straight.

White Power Rangers? Yuck, yuck. Our "story?" which story is that Laura?

> See, an awful lot of white supremacist rhetoric focuses on the inherent
> inferiority of non-Whites. 

Right, but that's not my point (because I'm not a White Supremacist). My point is
the fact that people like you recognize that this phenomenon called "racism" is 
essentially equivalent to ethnicity yet refuse to treat our ethnicity like other's.

> Since these are essentially biological
> arguments, the validity of the biological concept of "race" is indeed
> highly relevent.

My arguments aren't biological.

> "Racial identity"?  See, this is where this gets real confusing.  If
> "race" is a real biological category when it comes to humans, then it
> ought to be objectively definable and unchanging over time. 

I don't really care if it is a "biological category." Anyways, although I'm
not saying that this is the definition I support, statistical relations can
be defined "objectively" and "unchanging over time." Since race rests on composite
properties, it could probably only be defined statistically (although that wouldn't
make it invalid).

> No one expects this of ethnicity, because we pretty much all acknowledge that
> ethnic identities are socially constructed.  This is why you folks can
> do such a quick turn on the Irish, for example. 

Oh, so you're admitting that this phenomenon you call "racism" is just a
manifestation of ethnicity? Then why are you expecting that it be more
consistent than ethnicity?

As to "you folks," I don't know with whom you're associating me. I've never
changed my viewpoint with regard to the Irish: they're White.

> I would argue instead that externally imposed "racial identities" (that are *not*
> meaningfuly, biologically) create ethnic identities like "African American",
> "black", or "non-white".

O.K. then don't "impose" identities on anyone. I'm White and that is the most
important identity that I hold.

> Of course, "blood relations" don't matter on an individual level, do
> they?

Of course they do. They're called "family." Extended beyond the family, they're
called "race" (to include those people who one is related to by blood relations).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 14 15:34:08 PDT 1996
Article: 22666 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: 14 Jun 1996 16:24:13 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 275
Message-ID: <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host46.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22666 alt.politics.white-power:32321 alt.discrimination:48448 alt.atheism:27020 alt.christnet:72203 alt.christnet.evangelical:9023 alt.homosexual:57575 alt.feminism:120456

> Has anyone ever noticed how SIMILAR the Radical Religious Right and
> the Neo-Nazi movement are?

Has anyone ever noticed how SIMILAR the radical left and the Communist
movement are?

> They both refer to everyone that they don't like, regardless of
> political leaning, as "liberals".

They both refer to everyone that they don't like, regardless of
political leaning, as "racists."

> They use "politically-correct" as a general-purpose perjorative term
> that refers to anything they disagree with.

They INVENTED the term "politically-correct" to describe things that
they like.

> They both view themselves as superior to everyone else.

They both view themselves as superior to everyone else

> They both seek to create a country in which they could oppress
> everyone else.

They both seek to create a world free of racial/ethnic identity.

> They both megalomanically view themselves as following divine guidance.

They both megalomaniacally view themselves as following divine guidance
even though they don't believe in a divinity.

> They both base much of their rhetoric on a parody of Christianity.
> Nothing to do with real Christianity, of course.

They both base much of their rhetoric on an attempt to destroy
Christiniaty, the West and the White race.

> They both want to censor books that they disagree with.

They both want to censor books and speech with which they don't agree.

> They both seek censorship of the arts, the Internet, and the mass media

They both seek censorship of the arts, the Internet, and the mass
media.

> They both have an extensive propaganda machine.

They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.

> Every day James Dobson  and Ernst Zundel churn out literature designed
> to stir up hatred against the threat-of-the-month

They constantly stir up untold hatred towards Whites and then claim
to represent "human rights."

> They both use transparent propaganda that anyone with a brain could
> see through.

They both use highly sophisticated propaganda that anyone who studies
can see through.

> They both seek their guidance from leaders whom they follow like
> lambs, unable to think on their own.

Although they claim to be "independent" thinkers, they all mouth
the same garbage reflexively.

> They are both actively seeking to destroy my life and everything I love.

They are both actively seeking to destroy my life and everything I love.

> I am, BTW, a rap-loving Atheist. A Canadian who traces his roots to
> the far East, and one who understands science. I'm not gay but I
> don't have to be. Every aspect of my personality already makes me
> a target.

I am, BTW, a classical-loving athiest. A White person who traces his
roots to Europe and who understands science. I'm not gay but I never
could be. Every aspect of my personality already makes me one of their
targets since I love my European/White heritage.

> When the two speak against homosexuals, they are utterly impossible 
> to tell apart.

When a homo or a leftist promotes homosexuality, who can tell the
difference? One does it to serve his own personal desires, but so
does the other.

> They both hate feminists, and view the white male as the cornerstone
> of society.

They both hate White people and need to view the White male as their
oppressor in order to advance their sick agenda.

> The both want a return to the oppressive society of the past, a past
> in which those who were not white, straight Christian males had
> absolutely no chance of success.

They both want to deny our national, ethnic and racial existence and
want to transform our society into something harmful to us.

> This fact is not incidental to their goal, but the reason for it.

This fact is not incidental to their goals, but the reason for it.

> They both are getting into the game of politics as a step in
> destroying people like me.

They both deny that Whites have any right to self-determination and
seek to remove our political voice as a people.

> David Duke and Ralph Reed, racists in Alabama.

Todd Gitlin and Tom Hayden, both leftists in California.

> They both hate any kind of truth that contradicts their myths. 

They both hate any kind of truth and pretend that they don't have
myths.

> Does anyone really see much difference between the tactics of the
> creationists and the tactics of the holocaust deniers?

Does anyone see any difference between these buttheads?

> Both root themselves in pseudoscience: creationism, effects of
> environment on i.q., and, common to both, biblical inerrancy

Both root themselves in "social justice" although they have been
responsible for over 100 million deaths this century.

> Neither know much of anything of the things that they attack: White
> Wolf hates Asians but has never been inside a Chinese restarant before!

I like Chinese food. I like Chinese too; in China.

> Likewise, RRR leaders dishonestly claim that atheism has something to
> do with nihilism.

They really are Nihilists, just like Camus talks about in _The_Rebel_.

> They hate multiculturalism. Why do fundamentalists hate it? 

They both love and promote multiculturalism (except White culture).

> You can ask why, but their literature does attack it: read 
> "The War Against The Family", by Jack Gardner for an example.

Read "Twilight of Common Dreams" by Todd Gitlin. You'll see what
these sickos are really all about.

> They both lie to make their enemies more villainous.

They both lie to make their enemies more villainous.

> In The War Against The Family, some of the quotes from a book it was
> inventing were not taken out of context but MADE UP ENTIRELY. 

In most books about racists, the quotes are entirely taken out of
context.

> And we all know how neo-Nazis lie, right?

And we all know how leftists lie, right?

> In their propaganda, they both claim to be saving something:
> white culture and traditional traditional family values being two.

In their propaganda, they both claim to be promoting something:
human rights. However, they clearly can't read since every statement
of human rights applies to us as well.

> For  some reason, they both hate Clinton and love the Republicans.

For some reason, they both hate Reagan and love Democrates. They also
claim we love Republicans when we don't.

> And finally: they are both right-wing political movements.

And finally, they classify anything that they don't agree to as
a "right-wing" movement (whatever that means) and use THEIR OWN
classification as proof of collusion.

> Alright, Christians. You are probably getting pretty pissed off at me
> for this cheap bit of guilt-by-association. :) If you're not with
> these people then you have to prove it by publically denouncing them.

Alright liberals. Show that you are really for human rights by saying
that Whites to have human rights. Say that:

      Whites have a right to exist
      Whites have a right to ethnicity
      Whites have a right to self-determination
      Whites have a right to representative government
      Whites have a right to political participation

> You're either with the Nazis or you are with the rest of mankind.

You're either with the communists or you are with the rest of mankind.

> Now that I've pointed out how similar you are to them I hope you
> want to change. 

Now that I've pointed out how similar you are to them, I hope you
want to change.

> Or at least make up for your similarities by proving that you're
> NOT with them.

Or at least make up for your stupidity by proving that you're NOT
with them.

> Notice that I am not pointing out similarities between them and
> Christians. 

Notice that I am not pointing out the similarities between them and
thoughtful people (since the two groups don't intersect).

> I am pointing out similiarities between racists and the Religious
> Right, which is a whole different matter.

I'm pointing out similarities between leftists and Communists.

> No apologies to any white supremacists who were offended by this.

No apologies to any Marxist, no matter what the kind, who is offended 
by this.

> With the consistent hatred that they show for any type of  truth, it
> is only to be expected that they would be offended by this.

With their consistent hatred toward any kind of truth, it is only
expected that they would be offended by my truth.

> To my fellow atheists. I'm baaaack! Did you miss me? 

To this liberal puke, Fuck off.

> I was getting  the scoop on the greatest enemies we're  ever likely
> to face. Yes, people, they are worse than the Christian Coalition
> because they follow no law. 

I was getting the scoop on the greatest enemies we're ever likly
to face. Yes people, they are worse than the Communists (and
flower children) because they don't bathe or wash their hair.

> They are the absolute worst type of fundamentalist because they
> justify murder with Christian theology.

They are the absolute worst type of geeks because they justify
their murder with Marxist ideology.

> You know what to do. You know EXACTLY what to do. This is the
> greatest threat facing our planet today.

You know what to do (heh, heh). You know EXACTLY what to do (heh,heh).
This is the greatest threat facing our race today.

> Well, I've never had anything against the non-fundamentalist
> Christians, and it's time that US AND THEM UNITE AGAINST THIS
> COMMON THREAT.

I've never had anything against someone who recognize that Whites
have rights too.

> To homosexuals and feminists: you are targets of these people too.
> But then, you already knew that. Right?

To conservatives and republicans, don't join the types of the
homosexuals and feminists. You'll be the targets of these people too.
But then, you already know that. Right?




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 14 18:21:22 PDT 1996
Article: 22673 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:34:55 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <31C1E90F.74C1@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmmo5$msh@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22673 talk.politics.european-union:3902 soc.culture.europe:45466

M.S. Robb wrote:
> 
> In article <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com>,
> Arthur LeBouthillier   wrote:
> 
> >>Race is essentially a
> >>cultural, not a genetic phenomenom.
> 
> >Let's assume you're right. Then that means that race is ethnicity. Therefore,
> >we are just as justified as ever to be racists since race is ethnicity.
> 
> You wouldn't be justified in racism if that were true.

Of course I would be. That would be like saying that because there is no
underlying verification to Judaism that it is not justified to be Jewish.
Race does have an underlying reality: blood relations.

> >course, there is an ethnic component to racial identity although race has
> >its underlying reality in blood relations.
> 
> So anglo saxons differ from the galls by which genetic criteria?

I don't know. Do you?
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 14 22:18:15 PDT 1996
Article: 22689 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:38:15 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <31C1E9D7.31F8@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmmo5$msh@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pmrm0$18le@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22689 talk.politics.european-union:3908 soc.culture.europe:45471

Scott Erb wrote:

> You are right, he would not be justified. 

In your (not humble) opinion.

> Take former Yugoslavia: three different groups that are very closely related,
> but separated by religious cultures.  That creates different ethnic groups,
> though a 'racist' would be have to say that they are all slavs, very closely
> related through history (the moslems were converts during the Ottoman Empire).
> The difference is sociological and cultural, though Serbs now sometimes call
> Croatians "sub-human" and other such racist-sounding terms.

So? What's your point? There are different ethnic groups within closely-related
peoples. So what?
 
> Ethnicity is socially constructed.  We are all different, and grouping of
> particular differences is a cultural and social act.

Right. You and I are ethnically different. I'm White, you're not.
 
> I have a feeling that many racists can't understand social science and will
> simply insult it.

Duh. Your "feelings" don't count for much.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 15 11:57:03 PDT 1996
Article: 22703 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!pravda.aa.msen.com!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!yama.mcc.ac.uk!warwick!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:24:24 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <31C210C8.3181@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com>  <4pnb13$nqg@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host21.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22703 talk.politics.european-union:3912 soc.culture.europe:45477

james@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>Arthur LeBouthillier (pendragn@cyberg8t.com) wrote:
>> Let's assume you're right. Then that means that race is ethnicity.
>> Therefore, we are just as justified as ever to be racists since race is
>> ethnicity.
>I don't see how the third statement follows from the second. Can
>you elaborate?

Racism is a particular kind of ethnicity, but it is nonetheless ethnicity. We
are justified in being ethnics (ethnicists?) therefore we are justified in
being racists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 15 11:57:03 PDT 1996
Article: 22732 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:55:46 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <31C21822.7535@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <834085830snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4p82um$3gl@molokini.conterra.com> <834313449snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4pft7f$fu8@news.usaor.net> <4pia48$17s@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host21.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32425 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22732 alt.discrimination:48483

Cthulhu wrote:

[Deletia]

> >The all-time champions of animalistic brutality are the left. And from
> >the looks of some of the posts from the "Apostles of Tolerance and
> >Brotherhood", I can very easily imagine them salivating at the
> >prospect of continuing that hideous tradition.

[Deletia]

> So your point is?
> 
> Do you have one?
> 
> I didn't think so.

I think what he's trying to say is that you're a hypocritical asshole who,
given free reign, would kill in great numbers with as much of the righteous
indignation your type have mustered in the past.

But I can't speak for him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 15 11:57:04 PDT 1996
Article: 22760 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 07:45:19 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <31C2CC7F.A0D@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pq704$9un@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host25.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32464 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22760 alt.discrimination:48493

Cthulhu wrote:
> 
> In article <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com>, Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
> >Cthulhu wrote:
> 
> >Cthulu-wanna-be, get real. Liberals are *NOT* for truth, justice or human
> > rights.
> >Quite the opposite. The truth is that racism is a right, and it is an injustice
> >for liberals to misrepresent it.
> 
> No, racism is a WRONG! Yes, they have the right to be wrong. And we have the
> right to point out the fact that they are wrong.

Racism is wrong IN YOUR OPINION. You have the right to point out that you think
we are wrong but we have the right to correct you TOO.

> >Whites too have human rights although I have
> >never heard a liberal admit it yet.
> 
> A stupid strawman argument.

I know you are but what am I?
 
> >Can you admit it?
> 
> Okay, repeat-after-me. "whites have human rights." There. I said it.

Right. That means we have a right to exist as an ethnic group. We don't have
to want to "integrate." We don't have to accept the U.S. Gov't's attempt to
suppress our existence and we don't have to accept the misuse of our property
to ends inimical to our own.

We have a right to separate schools, separate communities, political representation
as Whites and a host of other things that you "liberal barnacles" don't like
because it doesn't fit into your Marxist visions of a proletarian wet-dream.
 
> >Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
> 
> They have a right to be stupid and wrong, yes.

As do liberals. However, when your wrongness imposes on our rights, we have a
right to respond, violently if you refuse to yield to recognition of our rights.
 
> And I also have the right to point out the fact that racism is stupid and
> wrong.
> 
> >Q: Is it justice to deny Whites their ethnic and racial rights?
> 
> And what are these ethnic and racial rights? When you use emotionally-laden
> propaganda terms, you have to define them.

"Emotionally-laden propaganda terms?" Oh! Sure! You would NEVER use emotionally
laden propaganda terms, right?

Can't you read. Do I have to do your thinking for you? You liberals pretend
you're for "Human Rights" and then don't know what they say?

Let me look at one from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

            1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

            2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied
               the right to change his nationality. 

That means we don't have to accept YOUR definition of who we are. We can be
White as a nationality as it suits us.

            3. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
               association with others. 

That means we have property rights and that we don't have to accept the violation
of those rights by you "liberal barnacles." We Whites also have a right to own
community property as a group.


            4. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
               religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion
               or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others
               and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
               teaching, practice, worship and observance. 
 
We Whites can exist as a group whether your kind likes it or not.

            5. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this
               right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
               to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
               media and regardless of frontiers. 

Despite the attempts of your kind to silence "hate speech" (which is just another
name for speech with which you disagree), we have a right to express our existence
as Whites.


> >Q: Do Whites have human rights too? (i.e. self-determination, ethnicity etc.)
> 
> Hell yes. The VAST MAJORITY of whites have these qualities WITHOUT being
> racist.

But see, RACISTS have those rights too. Moreover, race, as recognized by
most authorities is equivalent to ethnicity. We Whites are an ethnic group
which calls itself a race. Although you don't like our existence, tough.
If you want to have any kind of recourse for recognition of your rights,
you'd better recognize those same things for us.

But this is evident of how ridiculous your kind is. On the one hand you want
to scream like village idiots "America is a racist nation," "racism is
everywhere!" Yeah, so? That's because most Americans want to maintain at
least some vestige to traditional communities and identities. An identity based
on race (lineage and ethnicity) is a valid identity despite the fact that creeps
like yourself don't like it.

So, Whites have rights, individually and as a group. If you want us to recognize
that you do too, you'd better stay out of our way.

> Oh. So you're a white supremacist. This explains your ignorance.

No, I'm a White nationalist. That explains my reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 15 15:08:54 PDT 1996
Article: 32425 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:55:46 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <31C21822.7535@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <834085830snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4p82um$3gl@molokini.conterra.com> <834313449snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4pft7f$fu8@news.usaor.net> <4pia48$17s@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host21.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32425 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22732 alt.discrimination:48483

Cthulhu wrote:

[Deletia]

> >The all-time champions of animalistic brutality are the left. And from
> >the looks of some of the posts from the "Apostles of Tolerance and
> >Brotherhood", I can very easily imagine them salivating at the
> >prospect of continuing that hideous tradition.

[Deletia]

> So your point is?
> 
> Do you have one?
> 
> I didn't think so.

I think what he's trying to say is that you're a hypocritical asshole who,
given free reign, would kill in great numbers with as much of the righteous
indignation your type have mustered in the past.

But I can't speak for him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 15 15:08:55 PDT 1996
Article: 32464 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 07:45:19 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <31C2CC7F.A0D@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pq704$9un@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host25.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32464 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22760 alt.discrimination:48493

Cthulhu wrote:
> 
> In article <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com>, Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
> >Cthulhu wrote:
> 
> >Cthulu-wanna-be, get real. Liberals are *NOT* for truth, justice or human
> > rights.
> >Quite the opposite. The truth is that racism is a right, and it is an injustice
> >for liberals to misrepresent it.
> 
> No, racism is a WRONG! Yes, they have the right to be wrong. And we have the
> right to point out the fact that they are wrong.

Racism is wrong IN YOUR OPINION. You have the right to point out that you think
we are wrong but we have the right to correct you TOO.

> >Whites too have human rights although I have
> >never heard a liberal admit it yet.
> 
> A stupid strawman argument.

I know you are but what am I?
 
> >Can you admit it?
> 
> Okay, repeat-after-me. "whites have human rights." There. I said it.

Right. That means we have a right to exist as an ethnic group. We don't have
to want to "integrate." We don't have to accept the U.S. Gov't's attempt to
suppress our existence and we don't have to accept the misuse of our property
to ends inimical to our own.

We have a right to separate schools, separate communities, political representation
as Whites and a host of other things that you "liberal barnacles" don't like
because it doesn't fit into your Marxist visions of a proletarian wet-dream.
 
> >Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
> 
> They have a right to be stupid and wrong, yes.

As do liberals. However, when your wrongness imposes on our rights, we have a
right to respond, violently if you refuse to yield to recognition of our rights.
 
> And I also have the right to point out the fact that racism is stupid and
> wrong.
> 
> >Q: Is it justice to deny Whites their ethnic and racial rights?
> 
> And what are these ethnic and racial rights? When you use emotionally-laden
> propaganda terms, you have to define them.

"Emotionally-laden propaganda terms?" Oh! Sure! You would NEVER use emotionally
laden propaganda terms, right?

Can't you read. Do I have to do your thinking for you? You liberals pretend
you're for "Human Rights" and then don't know what they say?

Let me look at one from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

            1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

            2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied
               the right to change his nationality. 

That means we don't have to accept YOUR definition of who we are. We can be
White as a nationality as it suits us.

            3. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
               association with others. 

That means we have property rights and that we don't have to accept the violation
of those rights by you "liberal barnacles." We Whites also have a right to own
community property as a group.


            4. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
               religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion
               or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others
               and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
               teaching, practice, worship and observance. 
 
We Whites can exist as a group whether your kind likes it or not.

            5. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this
               right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
               to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
               media and regardless of frontiers. 

Despite the attempts of your kind to silence "hate speech" (which is just another
name for speech with which you disagree), we have a right to express our existence
as Whites.


> >Q: Do Whites have human rights too? (i.e. self-determination, ethnicity etc.)
> 
> Hell yes. The VAST MAJORITY of whites have these qualities WITHOUT being
> racist.

But see, RACISTS have those rights too. Moreover, race, as recognized by
most authorities is equivalent to ethnicity. We Whites are an ethnic group
which calls itself a race. Although you don't like our existence, tough.
If you want to have any kind of recourse for recognition of your rights,
you'd better recognize those same things for us.

But this is evident of how ridiculous your kind is. On the one hand you want
to scream like village idiots "America is a racist nation," "racism is
everywhere!" Yeah, so? That's because most Americans want to maintain at
least some vestige to traditional communities and identities. An identity based
on race (lineage and ethnicity) is a valid identity despite the fact that creeps
like yourself don't like it.

So, Whites have rights, individually and as a group. If you want us to recognize
that you do too, you'd better stay out of our way.

> Oh. So you're a white supremacist. This explains your ignorance.

No, I'm a White nationalist. That explains my reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 15 16:36:13 PDT 1996
Article: 48483 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:55:46 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <31C21822.7535@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <834085830snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4p82um$3gl@molokini.conterra.com> <834313449snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4pft7f$fu8@news.usaor.net> <4pia48$17s@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host21.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32425 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22732 alt.discrimination:48483

Cthulhu wrote:

[Deletia]

> >The all-time champions of animalistic brutality are the left. And from
> >the looks of some of the posts from the "Apostles of Tolerance and
> >Brotherhood", I can very easily imagine them salivating at the
> >prospect of continuing that hideous tradition.

[Deletia]

> So your point is?
> 
> Do you have one?
> 
> I didn't think so.

I think what he's trying to say is that you're a hypocritical asshole who,
given free reign, would kill in great numbers with as much of the righteous
indignation your type have mustered in the past.

But I can't speak for him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 15 16:36:14 PDT 1996
Article: 48493 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 07:45:19 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <31C2CC7F.A0D@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pq704$9un@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host25.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32464 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22760 alt.discrimination:48493

Cthulhu wrote:
> 
> In article <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com>, Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
> >Cthulhu wrote:
> 
> >Cthulu-wanna-be, get real. Liberals are *NOT* for truth, justice or human
> > rights.
> >Quite the opposite. The truth is that racism is a right, and it is an injustice
> >for liberals to misrepresent it.
> 
> No, racism is a WRONG! Yes, they have the right to be wrong. And we have the
> right to point out the fact that they are wrong.

Racism is wrong IN YOUR OPINION. You have the right to point out that you think
we are wrong but we have the right to correct you TOO.

> >Whites too have human rights although I have
> >never heard a liberal admit it yet.
> 
> A stupid strawman argument.

I know you are but what am I?
 
> >Can you admit it?
> 
> Okay, repeat-after-me. "whites have human rights." There. I said it.

Right. That means we have a right to exist as an ethnic group. We don't have
to want to "integrate." We don't have to accept the U.S. Gov't's attempt to
suppress our existence and we don't have to accept the misuse of our property
to ends inimical to our own.

We have a right to separate schools, separate communities, political representation
as Whites and a host of other things that you "liberal barnacles" don't like
because it doesn't fit into your Marxist visions of a proletarian wet-dream.
 
> >Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
> 
> They have a right to be stupid and wrong, yes.

As do liberals. However, when your wrongness imposes on our rights, we have a
right to respond, violently if you refuse to yield to recognition of our rights.
 
> And I also have the right to point out the fact that racism is stupid and
> wrong.
> 
> >Q: Is it justice to deny Whites their ethnic and racial rights?
> 
> And what are these ethnic and racial rights? When you use emotionally-laden
> propaganda terms, you have to define them.

"Emotionally-laden propaganda terms?" Oh! Sure! You would NEVER use emotionally
laden propaganda terms, right?

Can't you read. Do I have to do your thinking for you? You liberals pretend
you're for "Human Rights" and then don't know what they say?

Let me look at one from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

            1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

            2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied
               the right to change his nationality. 

That means we don't have to accept YOUR definition of who we are. We can be
White as a nationality as it suits us.

            3. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
               association with others. 

That means we have property rights and that we don't have to accept the violation
of those rights by you "liberal barnacles." We Whites also have a right to own
community property as a group.


            4. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
               religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion
               or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others
               and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
               teaching, practice, worship and observance. 
 
We Whites can exist as a group whether your kind likes it or not.

            5. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this
               right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
               to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
               media and regardless of frontiers. 

Despite the attempts of your kind to silence "hate speech" (which is just another
name for speech with which you disagree), we have a right to express our existence
as Whites.


> >Q: Do Whites have human rights too? (i.e. self-determination, ethnicity etc.)
> 
> Hell yes. The VAST MAJORITY of whites have these qualities WITHOUT being
> racist.

But see, RACISTS have those rights too. Moreover, race, as recognized by
most authorities is equivalent to ethnicity. We Whites are an ethnic group
which calls itself a race. Although you don't like our existence, tough.
If you want to have any kind of recourse for recognition of your rights,
you'd better recognize those same things for us.

But this is evident of how ridiculous your kind is. On the one hand you want
to scream like village idiots "America is a racist nation," "racism is
everywhere!" Yeah, so? That's because most Americans want to maintain at
least some vestige to traditional communities and identities. An identity based
on race (lineage and ethnicity) is a valid identity despite the fact that creeps
like yourself don't like it.

So, Whites have rights, individually and as a group. If you want us to recognize
that you do too, you'd better stay out of our way.

> Oh. So you're a white supremacist. This explains your ignorance.

No, I'm a White nationalist. That explains my reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 15 16:36:14 PDT 1996
Article: 48514 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:32:34 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <31C2F3B2.A43@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pq704$9un@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32503 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22795 alt.discrimination:48514

Cthulhu wrote:

> >Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
> 
> They have a right to be stupid and wrong, yes.
> 
> And I also have the right to point out the fact that racism is stupid and
> wrong.

However, are you going to condemn Jews, Blacks et alia for being "stupid
and wrong" because they identify themselves on unproven religious foundations
or racial heritage?

> Oh. So you're a white supremacist. This explains your ignorance.

And you're a liberal supremacist. That explains your ignorance. Do words have
to mean anything to you or are they merely convenient labels to be thrown around
to name-call those with whom you disagree? Are you anything more than hatred with
a big mouth, Cthulu-wannabe?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 15 17:41:22 PDT 1996
Article: 22795 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:32:34 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <31C2F3B2.A43@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pq704$9un@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32503 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22795 alt.discrimination:48514

Cthulhu wrote:

> >Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
> 
> They have a right to be stupid and wrong, yes.
> 
> And I also have the right to point out the fact that racism is stupid and
> wrong.

However, are you going to condemn Jews, Blacks et alia for being "stupid
and wrong" because they identify themselves on unproven religious foundations
or racial heritage?

> Oh. So you're a white supremacist. This explains your ignorance.

And you're a liberal supremacist. That explains your ignorance. Do words have
to mean anything to you or are they merely convenient labels to be thrown around
to name-call those with whom you disagree? Are you anything more than hatred with
a big mouth, Cthulu-wannabe?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 15 17:42:18 PDT 1996
Article: 32503 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:32:34 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <31C2F3B2.A43@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pq704$9un@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32503 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22795 alt.discrimination:48514

Cthulhu wrote:

> >Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
> 
> They have a right to be stupid and wrong, yes.
> 
> And I also have the right to point out the fact that racism is stupid and
> wrong.

However, are you going to condemn Jews, Blacks et alia for being "stupid
and wrong" because they identify themselves on unproven religious foundations
or racial heritage?

> Oh. So you're a white supremacist. This explains your ignorance.

And you're a liberal supremacist. That explains your ignorance. Do words have
to mean anything to you or are they merely convenient labels to be thrown around
to name-call those with whom you disagree? Are you anything more than hatred with
a big mouth, Cthulu-wannabe?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 16 09:20:08 PDT 1996
Article: 22845 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Qn 38
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 07:59:09 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <31C2CFBD.7AF8@cyberg8t.com>
References: <834588503snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host25.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)

Caesar wrote:
> 
> Do you want a "white nation"?

We ARE a White Nation. We want a White nation-state.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 16 09:20:09 PDT 1996
Article: 22868 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:51:20 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host21.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32605 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22868 alt.discrimination:48547

Laura Finsten wrote:
 
> Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
> 
> >Can you admit it?
> 
> I'll bite.

Ouch.

> >Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
> 
> No one has a right to be racist, if by racist you mean (as do most people
> who use this term) to jump to conclusions about individuals' qualities and
> character based on the perceived "racial" group to which you assign them,
> and to proceed to discriminate against them on those erroneous grounds.

Of course I don't mean that. By racist I mean to identify their ethnicity by
blood relations and to call that group a "race." Do Whites have the right to
organize ourselves as an ethnic group and to call that group a race?

> >Q: Is it justice to deny Whites their ethnic and racial rights?
> 
> Uh, who has "racial rights", and what "ethnic rights" are you referring
> to?

The right to self-identify with a group which one identifies as an ethnic
grouping (in our parlance, a "race").

But you seem to make such a stink about attaching the word "race" to "rights."
However, even the United Nations recognizes that races have the right to exist
and that therefore, as a member of such groups, one may make claims on that
basis (i.e. racial rights). Do Whites, as a "race," have those rights that are
extended to all such classifications of humans?

Second, "ethnic rights" means the right to belong to such a grouping and for
groupings of such people to work toward their mutual self-interests in a way
that does not violate others rights.

Do you recognize that any such rights extended to other "ethnic" or "racial"
groupings in a general fashion ALSO apply to White groups? I know you have a
problem with this question since you have refused to answer it since the last
time I asked it. Let me ask you again, Laura:

       Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
       you do not also extend to Whites?

> >Q: Do Whites have human rights too? (i.e. self-determination, ethnicity etc.)
> 
> Are you referring to the UN resolutions protecting the right to self-
> determination of indigenous peoples contained within states? 

First, since you are stating that such rights (which you acknowledge in
this sentence) do NOT apply to Whites as well. Again, are you saying that
you recognize and extend certain rights to non-Whites which you don't also
extend to Whites? I have asked this question repeatedly and you have failed
to answer it. Please answer my question.

Second, in my readings of such declarations, there is no mention of limitations
on such things to ONLY "indigenous peoples contained within states." In some
cases, such rights are included in what are called "The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights." Are you saying that that declaration (among others such as
the Universal Declaration of Cultural Rights (title?)) do not apply to Whites?

> If not, I truly don't see what you are talking about here. 

Are you merely pretending that you don't understand what I'm talking about or
are you simply refusing to answer these questions (which I have repeatedly asked
you in the past).

> If you are, you seem to be ignoring the very different historical contexts of
> those who are protected by such rights to self-determination.

Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to non-Whites which
you also don't extend to Whites?

> Tell me, Mr. LeBouthillier, do you think that any group that decides it is
> an ethnicity should have the right to establish its own state?  

Yes.

> For example, suppose that you succeeded in establishing a "White" state. 
> How would you respond to a group who decided that they wanted their own 
> "Scottish-Irish- Norwegian" state within it?

It is their right to do so. No one has a right to rule over another against
his will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 16 09:20:10 PDT 1996
Article: 22880 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!mr.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: White's Rights Still Being Violated
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:20:04 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <31C2FED4.3E0D@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host57.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)

LIBERALS MISS A VIOLATION OF WHITE'S RIGHTS

WNN (14 June 1996)- In yet another unexplainable oversight on their
part, those who claim to represent "truth, justice and human rights"
have missed yet another opportunity to find violations of such.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, White's rights have been violated
for years by the gerrymandering of districts to give non-Whites
over-representation in the legislative process. Although it had
recently found such violations in other states like Georgia, it
also said that White's rights were violated in Texas and North Carolina.

Misappropriately-called "Civil Rights" activists loudly complained
that the ruling was a blow to equal representation, despite the fact
that they don't support such districts for Whites. Seeking to create
Black and Mexican voting-blocks, they have been strangely hostile to
the same idea when applied to Whites. Additionally, there appeared to
be little evidence that the current Black voting block, the Congressional
Black Caucus, would be severely impacted by the ruling.

Legal director of the liberal ACLU, Steven Shapiro, showing his
own double standard, said that the ruling would "perpetuate an
unfortunate double standard" that protects white incumbents and
knocks down newly elected minority representatives, even though the
courts have shown that such newly-elected representatives come at
the expense of White's rights to representation. Lamenting the loss
of an effective tool to disenfranchise Whites, the ACLU's Laughlin
McDonald said that the decision "will further cripple one of the most
effective pieces of civil rights legislation that this country has
ever enacted."

How have those claiming to represent "truth, justice and human rights"
been so blind to the truth of the violation of justice and human
rights to Whites? Is it a mere error on their part or is it part
of an overall program to obsfucate the fact that they are really
agents for minority interests at the expense of Whites?



--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 16 14:04:56 PDT 1996
Article: 22937 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 08:06:04 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <31C422DC.616A@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com>   <31C210C8.3181@cyberg8t.com> <4pt9qo$163i@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host28.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22937 talk.politics.european-union:3956 soc.culture.europe:45519

Scott Erb wrote:
> (snicker)

I've seen 5-year old children snicker like that but at least they had a good
reason to do it.
 
> Sorry, your logic is extremely wrong.  Race is an arbitrary categorization or
> a social construction.  

Race is not "arbitrary." Race represents lineage, bloodline, or the perception
thereof. What you refer to "arbitrary" is people's understanding of the trait
(or indicators) of that bloodline. The problem you have is summed up in the
old saying "can't see the forest for the trees."

> That means that there is nothing special about race as opposed to any other
> construction.  Therefore being either racist or ethnicists is unjustified. 

You're obviously a complete idiot to have said something like that. "Humanity"
is a an arbitrary abstraction. "Good," "bad," and "rights," are arbitrary
constructions. As to whether or not there is anything "special" to race is
subjective. To me, race represents the most important thing.

Saying that a thing is "nothing special" merely means that you don't view it
that way, not that it isn't seen that way by some. 

For example, the concept of rights is a social construct. Do you advocate that
we do away with that? On what basis can you say that I shouldn't kill you the
first time I see you? Do you have a reason? If so, what is the objectivity of
that reason? On what basis can you appeal to me not to do so? Is it an "arbitrary"
justification? Is the basis of your appeal for "humanity" any less arbitrary
than what you claim race is?

Of course the issue related to people's rights isn't that YOU see those issues
as being something "special" in the makeup of their social reality but that
THEY see them as being something "special."

ALL, I repeat *ALL*, social bases of unification are based on "arbitrary"
social constructs. I challenge you to provide me one that isn't. Using race
as the basis of one's social organization is a much more vital and important
way to organize oneself than any other.

> You apparently have difficulty following logic.

No, you apparently don't understand logic. First there are premises, then there
is logic. Premises are beyond logic you idiot. Let me sum it up this way:
epistemology precedes logic. If you don't understand that, go get your dictionary.
If you still don't understand, take a course in logic then come back and talk to
me.

> That is unsurprising, given the idiocy of your posts.

Scott, you prove to me that you are an ignoramous with each and every post.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 16 14:04:57 PDT 1996
Article: 22938 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 08:19:26 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <31C425FE.2D1E@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmmo5$msh@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C1E90F.74C1@cyberg8t.com> <4pssd1$lss@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host28.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22938 talk.politics.european-union:3957 soc.culture.europe:45520

Scott Erb wrote:
> 
> In article <31C1E90F.74C1@cyberg8t.com>, pendragn@cyberg8t.com says...
> 
> >Of course I would be. That would be like saying that because there is no
> >underlying verification to Judaism that it is not justified to be Jewish.
> >Race does have an underlying reality: blood relations.
> 
> Yikes, your example disproves your case!

Yikes! You don't make any sense.

> One is only Jewish if one believes in the religion.  

Shut up you stupid fuck. Being Jewish has nothing to do with the religion. I know
athiestic Jews. I know of Christian Jews. Our friend (snicker) Andrew Mathis said:

	Fact is, Mr. Hitler, is that there are many ways of being Jewish, and
	many forms of Jewishness.  Ultimately, the best definition is tribal.
	You belong to this tribe called Judaism, which you can be born into if
	you have matrilineal descent (as designated by Ezra), or you can convert
	into. One of the aspects of this tribe is that it ascribes one to believe
	in a certain religion.  You can reject the religion, but your tribal
	affiliation remains, unless you convert outright to another religion.
	Then you're not in the tribe anymore.  Most converts into the tribe are
	required to accept the religion of the tribe.  Once converted, though,
	the descendants of that convert are still members of the tribe, though
	they may reject the religion.

	The tribe is not ethnic or racial.  Members come from all races and all
	areas of the world,though the vast majority are of Eastern European
	descent.

See, asshole? You have this problem of thinking you know about things that you
know nothing. Before you open your mouth again, read a book you twit.

> If I were convert to judiaism, then I would become Jewish.

To SOME Jews. To some Jews, there is no such thing as a convert, dimwit.
To SOME Jews, being Jewish is a racial thing defined by matriliny. To others,
it is a purely religious thing. For yet others, it is an ethnic identity devoid
>from  the other distinctions.

> If a Jewish person converts to anything else, be it atheism or Christianity or
> whatever, he or she would cease being Jewish.

Are you Jewish? Do you know anything about which you talk?

> Yet they would still be related by to their family.
> (What "blood" has to do with this, I don't know.  Blood types are a whole
> different matter.  If you mean it metaphorically, it's confusing, and I would
> request you be more precise.)

By "blood," I mean "descent" or "familial relations" or such kinds of relations.
It is one of the common meanings; look in your dictionary. Webster's New World
Dictionary provides these as some of the meanings of blood:

	  7. parental heritage; family line; lineage          
          8. relationship by descent in the same family line; kinship

These are the senses in which I use that word.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 16 14:04:58 PDT 1996
Article: 22939 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 08:22:42 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pddj4$4uc@news.usaor.net> <4pk5ci$o7c@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pme9c$kjj@news.usaor.net> <4ps1f3$bm9@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host28.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22939 talk.politics.european-union:3958 soc.culture.europe:45521

Fragano Ledgister wrote:

[deletia]

> As a decent dictionary would tell you 'gallic' means 'of Gaul', and
> therefore connotes things French.  You're a prat.

[deletia]

> Then how come they think they're different?

Fregano, if I recall properly, you're a Sociology major at UCSD. You know the
answer. The answer is called "ethnicity." One may have several ethnicities
some of which one sees as more primary than others. Therefore, one may see
himself as both French (Gallic) as well as White (Aryan) and the two do not
conflict. I am both Gallic and Aryan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 16 14:04:59 PDT 1996
Article: 22941 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 09:19:50 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 227
Message-ID: <31C43426.2544@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16.2056@cyberg8t.com> <4ps0n1$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host18.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22941 talk.politics.european-union:3960 soc.culture.europe:45522

Laura Finsten wrote:
 
> Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
> >Laura Finsten wrote:
> 
> >> Sure would be nice if you White Power Rangers would get your story straight.
> 
> >White Power Rangers? Yuck, yuck. Our "story?" which story is that Laura?
> 
> Funny, eh?  And folks say we "race traitors" have no sense of humour!
> I guess the story is the mish-mash of vitriol about "non-Whites" that
> underpins the rhetoric of the vast majority "white separatist"
> argumentation.

You've proven yourself to be true comedians in all of your endeavors on this
net. :-)

> >Right, but that's not my point (because I'm not a White Supremacist). My point is
> >the fact that people like you recognize that this phenomenon called "racism" is
> >essentially equivalent to ethnicity yet refuse to treat our ethnicity like other's.
> 
> Well, I think that you are wrong.  You may say that the bottom line of your
> ethnic category of "White" is not biological, and that no assumptions are made
> about the inferiority or superiority of different "ethnic" groups.  But I just
> plain don't see it, Mr. LeBouthillier.  

Without going into a long dissertation of logic, let me say that one cannot see
what is not there; one may only see what IS there.

> And the reason I don't see it is because your "White ethnicity" is nothing more
> than a fancy name for racism.  

No, White ethnicity *IS* racism. White racism is White ethnicity.

> It has no historical validity whatsoever.  

Thomas Jefferson penned a law called the Immigration and Naturalization Act of
1792 in which he said that only whites could become citizens of the United States.

Anyways, what exactly do you mean by "historical validity?" How does one prove
"historical validity?" What I'm talking about has existed throughout the history
of the last several hundred (if not thousand) years.

> When in history have Celtic, Germanic and Slavic speakers been united in a sense
> of common identity over and above any other identity, Mr. LeBouthillier?  

Now. In the last several hundred years. In Rome? Isn't that what you pretend is
at least one aspect of "Canadian" existence (or American)? Aren't you saying that
the Celts, Germanics, Slaves and a host of other peoples have foregone their
historical identities in favor of a "Canadian" or "American" identity (with a
whole bunch of other people like the Chinese and Tutsis and Hutus and other
stuff)? However, for some of us, being Canadian or American has never gone
beyond being a national or ethnic identity composed of various European peoples
(because that is how it was intended that it be).

> It is an emergent phenomenon among those who wish to promote the false notion of
> a "White nation" in order to rid themselves of those who are "non-White", not
> because of culture or language, but because of "blood relations", because of
> biology.

Whether it is an "emergent" phenomenon or not, you recognize that it exists.
As to the reason it is being done, you can ask any of them whether they are
trying to protect the existence of their race or eliminate all other races.
I think that with but a few exceptions, they [we racists] would all say that
they end that they seek is the survival of their race. You are attributing
ends to people which they do not themselves attribute to themselves.

I might just as easily say that the reason that you have a problem with this
is because you want to eliminate the White race (even though you yourself might
deny this). Who knows your (or my) motivations better than you (or I).

Please, tell me, what is a "false notion" of a nation? How can a nation be "false?"
We Whites are a nation. Whiteness is the underlying basis of the American nation.

> >> Since these are essentially biological
> >> arguments, the validity of the biological concept of "race" is indeed
> >> highly relevent.
> 
> >My arguments aren't biological.
> 
> Except for the oh-so-important bottom line of "blood relations", Mr.
> LeBouthillier.

Right, but blood relations are "lineal" not "biological." To me, "biological"
means justifying in terms of a biological framework (i.e. "all animals do it,
why don't we?")

> >> "Racial identity"?  See, this is where this gets real confusing.  If
> >> "race" is a real biological category when it comes to humans, then it
> >> ought to be objectively definable and unchanging over time.
> 
> >I don't really care if it is a "biological category." Anyways, although I'm
> >not saying that this is the definition I support, statistical relations can
> >be defined "objectively" and "unchanging over time." Since race rests on composite
> >properties, it could probably only be defined statistically (although that wouldn't
> >make it invalid).
> 
> No, perhaps you don't care whether race is a real biological category.  It
> doesn't matter, because you have transformed ethnicity into one.  Changed the
> label, so to speak.

No, the "label" has historically meant what I mean by it. What little
research I've done on the topic has shown me that "Ethnicity" didn't come into
common parlance until after World War 2. Prior to that, there were "races" (i.e.
the British race, the French race, the Black race, the Tutu race, the Jewish
race etc.). However, as Mr. Mathis, one of our Jewish friends on this discussion
group has stated:

      Fact is, Mr. Hitler, is that there are many ways of being Jewish, and
      many forms of Jewishness.  Ultimately, the best definition is tribal. 
      You belong to this tribe called Judaism, which you can be born into if
      you have matrilineal descent (as designated by Ezra), or you can convert
      into.
 
As we see, underlying Judaism is a "racial" aspect similar to what I'm talking
about (matrilineal descent). There is a "racial" component to Judaism.

> >Oh, so you're admitting that this phenomenon you call "racism" is just a
> >manifestation of ethnicity? Then why are you expecting that it be more
> >consistent than ethnicity?
> 
> Not exactly, no.  I'm suggesting that the category called "blacks" in the
> US and Canada has emerged as an ethnic group through the dialectic of
> racial categorisation (which is falsely employed, because it lumps together
> tremendous variation in ancestries) externally imposed and the search for
> an identity in a society which by and large excludes them as a group.

"Dialectic?" Do I sense a seed of Marxism (or at least Hegelianism)? What's
your point? Even were that merely the case, what is your point? The fact is
that people *DO* identify themselves that way and they have the right to do
so. As such, they have a right to organize themselves as they see fit. Are
you pretending to be some kind of overseer who can tell people which identities
are "OK" and which aren't? If so, on what basis?

We Whites don't have to see blacks as members of our ethnic group. We have a
right to define ourselves as we see fit. Even though you don't like, you are
obligated to accept it.

Exactly what the cause of those ethnic groups and the dialectic process which
formed it does not make it any less valid that it has occured. If you want
to rewrite history and forget that it has happened, you're trying to do the
impossible.

> Perhaps we do need a new phrase, but I believe that "ethnic nationalism"
> historically has often had both the same basis and same effect as racism.

Yeah? So? What's your point? Are you fool enough to think that you can stop
those effects? Anyways, what exactly are you implying are those "same effects?"

One might just as well say that people like you have always had the same effect
in trying to pursue your dream of a universal humanity: universal human death.
Marxist and Communists have tried to suppress ethnicity for a century or so now
and the result has always been the same: human death and suffering. The reason
for that is your arrogant assumption that you know what is better for me than
do I. Tell me Laura, do you think you know what is better for me than do I and
therefore you can decide how I should conduct my affairs?
 
> >As to "you folks," I don't know with whom you're associating me. I've never
> >changed my viewpoint with regard to the Irish: they're White.
> 
> No, you haven't.  But the Irish are an excellent example of how identities
> are socially constructed, and how that process externally-applied labels
> and categories rely on false constructions of "inherent nature", whose
> bottom line is, of course, "blood relations".

Let me state the truth: identities are socially constructed. *ALL* identities
are socially constructed. In fact, psychologists have largely found that the
"self" is a socially constructed entity, are you going to say we should do away
with "selves?" Are you going to say that there is no "individual?"

Even the identity you are trying to promote is socially constructed (although
one foreign to me or at least with which I disagree). You see, "humanity" as
some larger grouping of homo-sapiens to which one has a greater obligation
than his own or personal group affinity, is a social construction too.

Again, what's your point? Identities are social constructs. That cannot be
escaped and, despite the fact that you might disasgree, cannot be changed.
 
> >> I would argue instead that externally imposed "racial identities" (that are *not*
> >> meaningfuly, biologically) create ethnic identities like "African American",
> >> "black", or "non-white".
> 
> >O.K. then don't "impose" identities on anyone. I'm White and that is the most
> >important identity that I hold.
> 
> But in the process of so identifying yourself, you must necessarily identify
> the "other", as well.

So? What's your point. There is "us" and there is "them." You cannot erase that.
In fact, as I understand anthropology, in-group identification is an innate
characteristic of human existence (if not primate existence). In other words,
biology cannot be undone by your wishes that it be otherwise. That is the problem
which people like you have always faced since the origination of your kind of
viewpoint (i.e. other Marxists): every communist movement has become a nationalist
movement. Hah! Hah! You people have never been able to change the ultimate course
of history because you base your ideas on a false conception of human nature.
Marx was not a god. He could put forth his claptrap about "social justice" but
he couldn't change the underlying nature of the animal: that it is tribal.

You don't escape the "us" and "them" categorization. Obviously, for you, we racists
are the "them." You don't hate us any less than you think we hate our opposition.
 
> >> Of course, "blood relations" don't matter on an individual level, do
> >> they?
> 
> >Of course they do. They're called "family." Extended beyond the family, they're
> >called "race" (to include those people who one is related to by blood relations).
> 
> So tell me, Mr. LeBouthillier.  If someone had one Jewish grandparent and one
> Irish Catholic grandparent on the paternal side, and their father was raised
> as a Catholic, and a Scottish Catholic mother, could they be White?  

Yes. To me.

> Would their "tainted blood relations" outweight their cultural, linguistic and
> religious upbringing?

No, but if they are "White" then, to me, they see their Whiteness as a fundamental
organizing principle of their ethnicity (not their Judaic heritage).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 16 19:39:13 PDT 1996
Article: 22971 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 16:44:25 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 386
Message-ID: <31C49C59.5DDB@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4pte0f$gds@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host08.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22971 alt.politics.white-power:32721 alt.discrimination:48585 alt.atheism:27358 alt.christnet:72746 alt.christnet.evangelical:9107 alt.homosexual:57715 alt.feminism:120586

Andrew Mathis wrote:
> 
> pendragn@cyberg8t.com wrote:
> 
> >> Has anyone ever noticed how SIMILAR the Radical Religious Right and
> >> the Neo-Nazi movement are?
> 
> >Has anyone ever noticed how SIMILAR the radical left and the Communist
> >movement are?
> 
> Your point being?  The radical left IS communist in most cases. 

No argument there.

> Has anyone notice what an idiot Artie Bootheels (not his real name) is?

Who?

> >They both refer to everyone that they don't like, regardless of
> >political leaning, as "racists."
> 
> Untrue!  I often use the term "antisemite."  "Asshole" is one I save
> for non-racist conservatives.

What's an anti-semite?

> >They INVENTED the term "politically-correct" to describe things that
> >they like.
> 
> I never use that term.

What? Ashamed of your true ideological heritage?
 
> >> They both view themselves as superior to everyone else.
> 
> >They both view themselves as superior to everyone else
> 
> I am superior to everyone else, especially A.B.

A.B.? My initials are A.L.

> >> They both seek to create a country in which they could oppress
> >> everyone else.
> 
> >They both seek to create a world free of racial/ethnic identity.
> 
> And this is wrong because.....?

Because people have a right to ethnicity. To seek to deny them that is
called genocide.
 
> >> They both megalomanically view themselves as following divine guidance.
> 
> >They both megalomaniacally view themselves as following divine guidance
> >even though they don't believe in a divinity.
> 
> Untrue!  I am a leftist Jew.

I got the inside poop from Jew at work. He said that only practicing Jews are
real Jews. Is that true?

> >They both base much of their rhetoric on an attempt to destroy
> >Christiniaty, the West and the White race.
> 
> Oh please; and does the Queen of England deal drugs too? 

I don't know. Ask her.

> I dont' give a frog's fat ass about Christianity as long as you keep it out
> of my face.

Tough.

>  As for the West, I live in it.  As for the White race, it's an
> accident of birth.

Just like your Jewishness?
 
> >They both want to censor books and speech with which they don't agree.
> 
> Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will
> not put.

Funny guy!
 
> >They both seek censorship of the arts, the Internet, and the mass
> >media.
> 
> True.

There's no doubt about that. However, the "both" refers to leftists and communists.
 
> >They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.
> 
> Most?  Interlinked?  Explain?

As you agreed earlier, most leftists are communists. Ergo, their propaganda
machines are intertwined.
 
> >They constantly stir up untold hatred towards Whites and then claim
> >to represent "human rights."
> 
> What?  If someone tells the truth about the slaughter of 11 million
> innocents by the Nazis, they are stirring up hatred against all White
> people?  Methinks you sound paranoid, Artie...

Well if someone tells the truth about the slaughter of 111 million by
leftists, they aren't stirring up hatred against them, merely telling the
truth.
 
> >They both use highly sophisticated propaganda that anyone who studies
> >can see through.
> 
> Studies what?

A prepositional phrase often refers to the noun that immediately precedes it.
 
> The old proverb still holds true: two Jews will give three opinions.

So, what's your point? Two Whites will give three opinions.
 
> >They are both actively seeking to destroy my life and everything I love.
> 
> What you love I hate, so I guess you're right.

I'm right.
 
> I am a Jew of European descent, and not an atheist.  I love rap and
> classical.  I understand science.  I'm not gay, but I believe if
> Arthur finds the right man, he could be.  Every aspect of my
> personality makes me a hell of a great guy.

A hell of a goy...

> >When a homo or a leftist promotes homosexuality, who can tell the
> >difference? One does it to serve his own personal desires, but so
> >does the other.
> 
> To protect the rights of homosexuals is not to promote Arthur.

No, you're not promoting Arthur.
 
> >They both hate White people and need to view the White male as their
> >oppressor in order to advance their sick agenda.
> 
> Sick is a matter of opinion, n'est-ce pas?

Oui, c'est vrai.
 
> >They both want to deny our national, ethnic and racial existence and
> >want to transform our society into something harmful to us.
> 
> You're raving, Arthur.

Ditto.
 
> >This fact is not incidental to their goals, but the reason for it.
> 
> We don't have "goals" besides surviving one day to the next.

Bull. Then what do you call this unending tirade of yours on the internet?
 
> You have all the self-determination you want, Bucky-boy; as far as
> your arm extends and DOESN'T TOUCH ME.

Whatever.

> >They both hate any kind of truth and pretend that they don't have
> >myths.
> 
> Sure we have myths!  Noah, Abraham, even Moses were probably mythical
> figures.  And we revere them all.

What? Are you saying that your Jewishness is a social construction?

> >Does anyone see any difference between these buttheads?
> 
> You mean you and Beavis?  Not really.  Beavis is a little smarter
> maybe.

No, I was referring to Mathis and Butthead.
 
> Marxists claiming to be leftists are not leftists; they employed the
> repressive tactics of the far right in order to carry out these
> murders.

But that's your ideological heritage. Anyways, Marxists are leftists, or as
they like to now call themselves "progressives."

> >I like Chinese food. I like Chinese too; in China.
> 
> I don't you, Arthur.  I wish you'd put yourself out of my misery.

See! We have so much in common: we don't like each other.

> >They really are Nihilists, just like Camus talks about in _The_Rebel_.
> 
> Camus was a famous pro-semite, and an extreme leftist.  You're outta
> your league here, tiny.

Right, but he warned against the kind of people that you are. Don't think that
just because he might have been "pro-semite" (isn't Semite a racial classification?
I thought that being Jewish had nothing to do with race).

> Multiculturalism by definition would include European as well as
> non-European culture.

Hollow words from a straw man.
 
> Read "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler; you'll see what Arthur is about.
> Then read "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" by Noam Chomsky and
> see what a real leftist looks like.

I've read Noam Chomsky. He is a marxist and I don't like what he says.

> >They both lie to make their enemies more villainous.
> 
> I never lie.  Arthur is an idiot.  I never lie.

O.K. come on now, you're pulling my leg.

> >In most books about racists, the quotes are entirely taken out of
> >context.
> 
> "All that is not race is trash."  Adolf Hitler.  Now how can that be
> taken any differently in its context?

What's the context?
 
> >And we all know how leftists lie, right?
> 
> I never lie.  Arthur is a sheisskopf.  I never lie.

Ignorance is not an excuse for being wrong; you're still wrong.
 
> >In their propaganda, they both claim to be promoting something:
> >human rights. However, they clearly can't read since every statement
> >of human rights applies to us as well.
> 
> Right, as I said before.  Your rights end where my body begins.  

You have a truly childish understanding of what rights are if you say something
like that.

> Don't f**K with me and I won't kill you.

Shut up.

> Reagan is a demented cartoon of a man.  I understand he also has
> Alzheimer's disease.

QED.
 
> >And finally, they classify anything that they don't agree to as
> >a "right-wing" movement (whatever that means) and use THEIR OWN
> >classification as proof of collusion.
> 
> Collusion with whom?

With each other.

> >      Whites have a right to exist
> 
> Absolutely

That's right. Both individually and as a group.
 
> >      Whites have a right to ethnicity
> 
> No problem

Right. Keep your nose out of our affairs.
 
> >      Whites have a right to self-determination
> 
> As long as my rights are also protected, I don't have to move, and no
> one even tries to harm me, sure.

Are you saying that rights are conditional?

> >      Whites have a right to representative government
> 
> As long as I'm represented as well.

I don't care about you.

> >      Whites have a right to political participation
> 
> Absolutely.

Absolutely.

> >> You're either with the Nazis or you are with the rest of mankind.
> 
> >You're either with the communists or you are with the rest of mankind.
> 
> I'm with the rest of mankind, but against you Arthur, so I guess that
> makes you a communist.

Definitely not. So I guess that makes you confused.

> >Now that I've pointed out how similar you are to them, I hope you
> >want to change.
> 
> Nah, I like the clothes I'm wearing now.

The emperor has no clothes.

> >Or at least make up for your stupidity by proving that you're NOT
> >with them.
> 
> Nah, I'm with them.  And I'm not stupid, thank you very much.

I know you're with them. That's my point.

> I am a leftist and a thoughtful person.  Intersection, ami.

Delusions on your part ... mere delusions.

> Some leftists are Communists, but not all.

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Ergo, Socrates is mortal.

> >No apologies to any Marxist, no matter what the kind, who is offended
> >by this.
> 
> Marxists are idiots.  Why apologize?

Tsk, tsk. Breaking ranks with your ideological breathren?

> >With their consistent hatred toward any kind of truth, it is only
> >expected that they would be offended by my truth.
> 
> "My truth": I like that.  Can I quote you?

Quote away ... or was that "go away?"

> Very eloquent.

It's my specialty.

> Um, I do both....tooth-brushing I'm not real fond of, but my
> girlfriend got used to it.

Both? Come on!

> >They are the absolute worst type of geeks because they justify
> >their murder with Marxist ideology.
> 
> I'm not a Marxist and I don't commit murder.

Great, I've never murdered anyone either.
 
> >You know what to do (heh, heh). You know EXACTLY what to do (heh,heh).
> >This is the greatest threat facing our race today.
> 
> As I said above, f**k with me and forfeit your life.

Ditto.

> >I've never had anything against someone who recognize that Whites
> >have rights too.
> 
> Then that makes us buds, eh?

Probably not.

> >To conservatives and republicans, don't join the types of the
> >homosexuals and feminists. You'll be the targets of these people too.
> >But then, you already know that. Right?
> 
> Right.

Right.

> Gee, that was fun.

We'll have to do it again sometime.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 16 21:20:15 PDT 1996
Article: 22988 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:12:40 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 221
Message-ID: <31C4B108.3BD4@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4psovl$bm5@aphex.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host59.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22988 alt.politics.white-power:32744 alt.discrimination:48594 alt.atheism:27371 alt.christnet:72765 alt.christnet.evangelical:9112 alt.homosexual:57726 alt.feminism:120589

Cthulhu wrote:

> No. That's something that you think because you've been reading too
> much of the literature of fundies and Nazis (they both say that because
> they're both notorious for hatred and lying).

Oh right, I'll take your word for that. Why don't you grow up and
recognize the ideological heritage of the left: Marxism. I don't need
to refer to "fundies" and "Nazis." Ideas originate somewhere and the
development of a movement can be tracked by the ideas it holds to.
The left's ideas originate in Marxism. Their ideas of social justice,
economic and historical determinism, and their hatred of "bourgois"
society can all be tracked to its source. They both claim to promote
"democracy" but what they both really mean is "social democracy" which
is not democracy at all. Those who are afraid or ignorant of their
true heritage (or who are liars) call themselves "progressive" but
that too is a misnomer.

>>They both refer to everyone that they don't like, regardless of
>>political leaning, as "racists."
>
> I don't like the NRA, but I don't refer to them as racists. Next!

Truthfully? Why aren't you correcting the asshole I was parodying
for making the same mistake? Oh, wait. You are the asshole.

>>They INVENTED the term "politically-correct" to describe things that
>>they like.
>
> Reference?

"Politically Correct" was a term used by early communists to describe
the things that were correct in terms of Marxist/Leninist thought. I
don't have a source; you don't have to believe me.

>Paranoid ramblings. No basis in fact.

Paranoid ramblings. No basis in fact.

>> They both megalomaniacally view themselves as following divine
>> guidance even though they don't believe in a divinity.
> 
> Really? I kinda don't think that we here on alt.atheism don't
> consider ourselves to be following divine guidance. Rather, we
> don't consider "divine guidance" to even exist.

Duh...

>> They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.
>
> Yes, the truth is the most extensive, interlinked propaganda machine
> of all.

You wouldn't know truth if it kicked you in the teeth (which it will
do one of these days).

> Oh. Like what? You mean like the fact that skin color has no bearing
> on intelligence? Or do you mean the fact that no-one's ever provided
> any existence for a god?

Ever heard of a strawman? I think that's your God.

>> Although they claim to be "independent" thinkers, they all mouth
>> the same garbage reflexively.
>
> Mainly because this "garbage" is true.

Prove it. I challenge you to prove your statements.

> Well if you love a racist cult, then yes that's true. If you are a
> Christian fundamentalist who basis his life on delusions, then that's
> true again. We're perfectly justified though.

I'm not in love with a "racist cult" but with my race and nation.

> I would much rather be associated with a "homo" than with a racist cult.

You'd rather be associated with a homo cult? Stay away from me you
nasty boy.

[ Much deletia ]

> You know, paranoia is a curable mental illness.

If you're speaking from personal experience, it failed.

> Paranoids always claim all sorts of elaborate "truths".

First he says:

          - Yes, the truth is the most extensive, interlinked
            propaganda machine of all.
          - Mainly because this "garbage" is true.

Then he says:

          - Paranoids always claim all sorts of elaborate "truths".

I rest my case.

> I see. When you can't refute something, resort to name calling.

Oh, and YOU would never engage in namecalling!

>> Both root themselves in "social justice" although they have been
>> responsible for over 100 million deaths this century.
>
> Far less than fundies and nazis put together.

So you suffer from a mathematical disfunction as well?

>> They both love and promote multiculturalism (except White culture).
>
> Define "white culture". I've been waiting for a racist to do that for
> some time now. And while you're at it, please define the fundy term
> "traditional values". I've waited years for a definition of that one
> too.

Culture - a people's program of existence

White Culture - that culture which promotes White existence.

Values - the differential and hierarchical ranking of beliefs
         stating goal preferences relative to each other.

Family - A man, his wife, and any children they sire or adopt.

Traditional Values - those values which are supportive of a traditional
           societal system based on the family as the primary social
           institution which is deemed to be deserving protection and
           promotion since it is seen to be the fundamental socializing
           and welfare institution in society. This differs from making
           government and government programs the central socializing
           and welfare institutions (as liberals want).

           The major reason that liberals tend not to want traditional
           values is because they permit religious and ethnic identity
           to flourish, which is a condition which liberals abhor.

>> Read "Twilight of Common Dreams" by Todd Gitlin. You'll see what
>> these sickos are really all about.
>
> Not analagous. "Twilight of Common Dreams" is not used as a bible by
> those who are not fundies and nazis.

Perfectly analogous because "The War Against The Family" is not a
"bible" to its adherents because "The Bible" is their bible.

>> And we all know how leftists lie, right?
>
> Name one example.

The historical inevitability of Socialism. I "never inhaled" Bill
Clinton. Racism is about hatred. The United States was never
intended to be the government of a White nation. Bob Dylan can sing.
The "Red Scare" was all a bunch of lies. That Jesse Jackson is a
charismatic leader. That the Constitution was intended to apply to
blacks and other non-Whites. That "All men are created equal" means
that we can't discriminate against non-Whites. That unchecked
immigration is good for the economy. That all expression of White
existence and identity implies the violation of non-Whites' rights.

> If you are not a fundy or a Nazi, then why the hell are you even
> objecting?

Because I'm a racist and you're an asshole.

>>      Whites have a right to exist
>>      Whites have a right to ethnicity
>>      Whites have a right to self-determination
>>      Whites have a right to representative government
>>      Whites have a right to political participation
>
> Gee, I said it. Now that I've stated the obvious, now what do you
> want me to do?

Live up to the obligations that your recognition implies.

> Remember that you are talking about EVERYONE who's not a
> fundy or a Nazi, so don't even bother talking about communist
> countries.

One other thing that I should have said about your kind is that
you can't read (or think). My parody started out:

       Has anyone ever noticed how SIMILAR the radical left and
       the Communist movement are?

>> I've never had anything against someone who recognize that Whites
>> have rights too.
>
> And who doesn't?
>
> How many Nazi pamphlets have you read?

Quite a few.

>> I've never had anything against someone who recognize that Whites
>> have rights too.
>
> And who doesn't?

People like you.

>> To conservatives and republicans, don't join the types of the
>> homosexuals and feminists. You'll be the targets of these people too.
>> But then, you already know that. Right?
>
> Again, get your lies straight. Previously you've said that you DON'T
> love the Republicans.

I don't. I was merely warning them of your kind (as well as parodying the
stupidity of the original author).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 16 21:23:30 PDT 1996
Article: 32744 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:12:40 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 221
Message-ID: <31C4B108.3BD4@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4psovl$bm5@aphex.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host59.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22988 alt.politics.white-power:32744 alt.discrimination:48594 alt.atheism:27371 alt.christnet:72765 alt.christnet.evangelical:9112 alt.homosexual:57726 alt.feminism:120589

Cthulhu wrote:

> No. That's something that you think because you've been reading too
> much of the literature of fundies and Nazis (they both say that because
> they're both notorious for hatred and lying).

Oh right, I'll take your word for that. Why don't you grow up and
recognize the ideological heritage of the left: Marxism. I don't need
to refer to "fundies" and "Nazis." Ideas originate somewhere and the
development of a movement can be tracked by the ideas it holds to.
The left's ideas originate in Marxism. Their ideas of social justice,
economic and historical determinism, and their hatred of "bourgois"
society can all be tracked to its source. They both claim to promote
"democracy" but what they both really mean is "social democracy" which
is not democracy at all. Those who are afraid or ignorant of their
true heritage (or who are liars) call themselves "progressive" but
that too is a misnomer.

>>They both refer to everyone that they don't like, regardless of
>>political leaning, as "racists."
>
> I don't like the NRA, but I don't refer to them as racists. Next!

Truthfully? Why aren't you correcting the asshole I was parodying
for making the same mistake? Oh, wait. You are the asshole.

>>They INVENTED the term "politically-correct" to describe things that
>>they like.
>
> Reference?

"Politically Correct" was a term used by early communists to describe
the things that were correct in terms of Marxist/Leninist thought. I
don't have a source; you don't have to believe me.

>Paranoid ramblings. No basis in fact.

Paranoid ramblings. No basis in fact.

>> They both megalomaniacally view themselves as following divine
>> guidance even though they don't believe in a divinity.
> 
> Really? I kinda don't think that we here on alt.atheism don't
> consider ourselves to be following divine guidance. Rather, we
> don't consider "divine guidance" to even exist.

Duh...

>> They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.
>
> Yes, the truth is the most extensive, interlinked propaganda machine
> of all.

You wouldn't know truth if it kicked you in the teeth (which it will
do one of these days).

> Oh. Like what? You mean like the fact that skin color has no bearing
> on intelligence? Or do you mean the fact that no-one's ever provided
> any existence for a god?

Ever heard of a strawman? I think that's your God.

>> Although they claim to be "independent" thinkers, they all mouth
>> the same garbage reflexively.
>
> Mainly because this "garbage" is true.

Prove it. I challenge you to prove your statements.

> Well if you love a racist cult, then yes that's true. If you are a
> Christian fundamentalist who basis his life on delusions, then that's
> true again. We're perfectly justified though.

I'm not in love with a "racist cult" but with my race and nation.

> I would much rather be associated with a "homo" than with a racist cult.

You'd rather be associated with a homo cult? Stay away from me you
nasty boy.

[ Much deletia ]

> You know, paranoia is a curable mental illness.

If you're speaking from personal experience, it failed.

> Paranoids always claim all sorts of elaborate "truths".

First he says:

          - Yes, the truth is the most extensive, interlinked
            propaganda machine of all.
          - Mainly because this "garbage" is true.

Then he says:

          - Paranoids always claim all sorts of elaborate "truths".

I rest my case.

> I see. When you can't refute something, resort to name calling.

Oh, and YOU would never engage in namecalling!

>> Both root themselves in "social justice" although they have been
>> responsible for over 100 million deaths this century.
>
> Far less than fundies and nazis put together.

So you suffer from a mathematical disfunction as well?

>> They both love and promote multiculturalism (except White culture).
>
> Define "white culture". I've been waiting for a racist to do that for
> some time now. And while you're at it, please define the fundy term
> "traditional values". I've waited years for a definition of that one
> too.

Culture - a people's program of existence

White Culture - that culture which promotes White existence.

Values - the differential and hierarchical ranking of beliefs
         stating goal preferences relative to each other.

Family - A man, his wife, and any children they sire or adopt.

Traditional Values - those values which are supportive of a traditional
           societal system based on the family as the primary social
           institution which is deemed to be deserving protection and
           promotion since it is seen to be the fundamental socializing
           and welfare institution in society. This differs from making
           government and government programs the central socializing
           and welfare institutions (as liberals want).

           The major reason that liberals tend not to want traditional
           values is because they permit religious and ethnic identity
           to flourish, which is a condition which liberals abhor.

>> Read "Twilight of Common Dreams" by Todd Gitlin. You'll see what
>> these sickos are really all about.
>
> Not analagous. "Twilight of Common Dreams" is not used as a bible by
> those who are not fundies and nazis.

Perfectly analogous because "The War Against The Family" is not a
"bible" to its adherents because "The Bible" is their bible.

>> And we all know how leftists lie, right?
>
> Name one example.

The historical inevitability of Socialism. I "never inhaled" Bill
Clinton. Racism is about hatred. The United States was never
intended to be the government of a White nation. Bob Dylan can sing.
The "Red Scare" was all a bunch of lies. That Jesse Jackson is a
charismatic leader. That the Constitution was intended to apply to
blacks and other non-Whites. That "All men are created equal" means
that we can't discriminate against non-Whites. That unchecked
immigration is good for the economy. That all expression of White
existence and identity implies the violation of non-Whites' rights.

> If you are not a fundy or a Nazi, then why the hell are you even
> objecting?

Because I'm a racist and you're an asshole.

>>      Whites have a right to exist
>>      Whites have a right to ethnicity
>>      Whites have a right to self-determination
>>      Whites have a right to representative government
>>      Whites have a right to political participation
>
> Gee, I said it. Now that I've stated the obvious, now what do you
> want me to do?

Live up to the obligations that your recognition implies.

> Remember that you are talking about EVERYONE who's not a
> fundy or a Nazi, so don't even bother talking about communist
> countries.

One other thing that I should have said about your kind is that
you can't read (or think). My parody started out:

       Has anyone ever noticed how SIMILAR the radical left and
       the Communist movement are?

>> I've never had anything against someone who recognize that Whites
>> have rights too.
>
> And who doesn't?
>
> How many Nazi pamphlets have you read?

Quite a few.

>> I've never had anything against someone who recognize that Whites
>> have rights too.
>
> And who doesn't?

People like you.

>> To conservatives and republicans, don't join the types of the
>> homosexuals and feminists. You'll be the targets of these people too.
>> But then, you already know that. Right?
>
> Again, get your lies straight. Previously you've said that you DON'T
> love the Republicans.

I don't. I was merely warning them of your kind (as well as parodying the
stupidity of the original author).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Jun 17 15:09:26 PDT 1996
Article: 48594 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:12:40 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 221
Message-ID: <31C4B108.3BD4@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4psovl$bm5@aphex.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host59.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22988 alt.politics.white-power:32744 alt.discrimination:48594 alt.atheism:27371 alt.christnet:72765 alt.christnet.evangelical:9112 alt.homosexual:57726 alt.feminism:120589

Cthulhu wrote:

> No. That's something that you think because you've been reading too
> much of the literature of fundies and Nazis (they both say that because
> they're both notorious for hatred and lying).

Oh right, I'll take your word for that. Why don't you grow up and
recognize the ideological heritage of the left: Marxism. I don't need
to refer to "fundies" and "Nazis." Ideas originate somewhere and the
development of a movement can be tracked by the ideas it holds to.
The left's ideas originate in Marxism. Their ideas of social justice,
economic and historical determinism, and their hatred of "bourgois"
society can all be tracked to its source. They both claim to promote
"democracy" but what they both really mean is "social democracy" which
is not democracy at all. Those who are afraid or ignorant of their
true heritage (or who are liars) call themselves "progressive" but
that too is a misnomer.

>>They both refer to everyone that they don't like, regardless of
>>political leaning, as "racists."
>
> I don't like the NRA, but I don't refer to them as racists. Next!

Truthfully? Why aren't you correcting the asshole I was parodying
for making the same mistake? Oh, wait. You are the asshole.

>>They INVENTED the term "politically-correct" to describe things that
>>they like.
>
> Reference?

"Politically Correct" was a term used by early communists to describe
the things that were correct in terms of Marxist/Leninist thought. I
don't have a source; you don't have to believe me.

>Paranoid ramblings. No basis in fact.

Paranoid ramblings. No basis in fact.

>> They both megalomaniacally view themselves as following divine
>> guidance even though they don't believe in a divinity.
> 
> Really? I kinda don't think that we here on alt.atheism don't
> consider ourselves to be following divine guidance. Rather, we
> don't consider "divine guidance" to even exist.

Duh...

>> They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.
>
> Yes, the truth is the most extensive, interlinked propaganda machine
> of all.

You wouldn't know truth if it kicked you in the teeth (which it will
do one of these days).

> Oh. Like what? You mean like the fact that skin color has no bearing
> on intelligence? Or do you mean the fact that no-one's ever provided
> any existence for a god?

Ever heard of a strawman? I think that's your God.

>> Although they claim to be "independent" thinkers, they all mouth
>> the same garbage reflexively.
>
> Mainly because this "garbage" is true.

Prove it. I challenge you to prove your statements.

> Well if you love a racist cult, then yes that's true. If you are a
> Christian fundamentalist who basis his life on delusions, then that's
> true again. We're perfectly justified though.

I'm not in love with a "racist cult" but with my race and nation.

> I would much rather be associated with a "homo" than with a racist cult.

You'd rather be associated with a homo cult? Stay away from me you
nasty boy.

[ Much deletia ]

> You know, paranoia is a curable mental illness.

If you're speaking from personal experience, it failed.

> Paranoids always claim all sorts of elaborate "truths".

First he says:

          - Yes, the truth is the most extensive, interlinked
            propaganda machine of all.
          - Mainly because this "garbage" is true.

Then he says:

          - Paranoids always claim all sorts of elaborate "truths".

I rest my case.

> I see. When you can't refute something, resort to name calling.

Oh, and YOU would never engage in namecalling!

>> Both root themselves in "social justice" although they have been
>> responsible for over 100 million deaths this century.
>
> Far less than fundies and nazis put together.

So you suffer from a mathematical disfunction as well?

>> They both love and promote multiculturalism (except White culture).
>
> Define "white culture". I've been waiting for a racist to do that for
> some time now. And while you're at it, please define the fundy term
> "traditional values". I've waited years for a definition of that one
> too.

Culture - a people's program of existence

White Culture - that culture which promotes White existence.

Values - the differential and hierarchical ranking of beliefs
         stating goal preferences relative to each other.

Family - A man, his wife, and any children they sire or adopt.

Traditional Values - those values which are supportive of a traditional
           societal system based on the family as the primary social
           institution which is deemed to be deserving protection and
           promotion since it is seen to be the fundamental socializing
           and welfare institution in society. This differs from making
           government and government programs the central socializing
           and welfare institutions (as liberals want).

           The major reason that liberals tend not to want traditional
           values is because they permit religious and ethnic identity
           to flourish, which is a condition which liberals abhor.

>> Read "Twilight of Common Dreams" by Todd Gitlin. You'll see what
>> these sickos are really all about.
>
> Not analagous. "Twilight of Common Dreams" is not used as a bible by
> those who are not fundies and nazis.

Perfectly analogous because "The War Against The Family" is not a
"bible" to its adherents because "The Bible" is their bible.

>> And we all know how leftists lie, right?
>
> Name one example.

The historical inevitability of Socialism. I "never inhaled" Bill
Clinton. Racism is about hatred. The United States was never
intended to be the government of a White nation. Bob Dylan can sing.
The "Red Scare" was all a bunch of lies. That Jesse Jackson is a
charismatic leader. That the Constitution was intended to apply to
blacks and other non-Whites. That "All men are created equal" means
that we can't discriminate against non-Whites. That unchecked
immigration is good for the economy. That all expression of White
existence and identity implies the violation of non-Whites' rights.

> If you are not a fundy or a Nazi, then why the hell are you even
> objecting?

Because I'm a racist and you're an asshole.

>>      Whites have a right to exist
>>      Whites have a right to ethnicity
>>      Whites have a right to self-determination
>>      Whites have a right to representative government
>>      Whites have a right to political participation
>
> Gee, I said it. Now that I've stated the obvious, now what do you
> want me to do?

Live up to the obligations that your recognition implies.

> Remember that you are talking about EVERYONE who's not a
> fundy or a Nazi, so don't even bother talking about communist
> countries.

One other thing that I should have said about your kind is that
you can't read (or think). My parody started out:

       Has anyone ever noticed how SIMILAR the radical left and
       the Communist movement are?

>> I've never had anything against someone who recognize that Whites
>> have rights too.
>
> And who doesn't?
>
> How many Nazi pamphlets have you read?

Quite a few.

>> I've never had anything against someone who recognize that Whites
>> have rights too.
>
> And who doesn't?

People like you.

>> To conservatives and republicans, don't join the types of the
>> homosexuals and feminists. You'll be the targets of these people too.
>> But then, you already know that. Right?
>
> Again, get your lies straight. Previously you've said that you DON'T
> love the Republicans.

I don't. I was merely warning them of your kind (as well as parodying the
stupidity of the original author).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Jun 18 10:47:59 PDT 1996
Article: 23133 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: White's Rights Still Being Violated
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 16:33:39 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <31C5EB53.75A9@cyberg8t.com>
References: <31C2FED4.3E0D@cyberg8t.com> <834928443snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host05.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)

Caesar wrote:

> There is no over-representation of blacks in Congress.
>
> 
> IIRC, the Congressional Black Caucus has 41 members (there
> are 435 members of the House and 100 senators in total).

Are you counting Jews as White? If so, on what basis?
 
> Blacks are 12% of the US population. Having less than 10% of
> Congressional representation is not "over-representation" or
> "gerrymandering" by the civil rights movement.

Who cares what the so-called "civil-rights" movement says? No me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Jun 18 10:48:00 PDT 1996
Article: 23134 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:23:56 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <31C5F71C.2068@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pq704$9un@orb.direct.ca> <19960616.005356.777278.NETNEWS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host32.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32930 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23134 alt.discrimination:48692

misha wrote:

> Could you perhaps let the readers of this ng know a little bit about
> yourself? Nothing personal, just explain how you came to be what you
> term a "white nationalist", etc.......

I am White and I am promoting White national existence, therefore,
I am a White nationalist.

First, to know what I personally believe, you could check out the
web page listed at the bottom of this posting. You will find a
glossary of terms there that I find quite acceptable in defining
my own viewpoints.

Second, with regard to how I became a "White nationalist," it is
a political viewpoint I acquired after carefully reviewing my own
ideals and values over several years.

Although I have always had a White identity, its importance was not
always so strong to me until about 8 years ago. At that time, I
realized that all that I thought that was important was endangered.
I noticed that there were too many non-White immigrants, I noticed
that no one in the political process seemed concerned about the
trends (in fact were promoting the evils that I saw). I noticed that
liberals and non-Whites had terrorized Whites into silence in an attempt
to suppress White existence. I also realized that the "conservatives" didn't
care about conserving anything but their own sordid financial interests. I
realized that unless someone took decisive action, all that I held as
important would disappear. 

At first I realized what I was against: I didn't like this, I didn't
like that, I didn't want this other thing. Finally, I started to
think about what I *DID* want and I answered to myself: a White
nation and our own country. I am a White nationalist; I seek the
continued existence of a White nation in North America, just as
Thomas Jefferson did.

> You racists seem to be very reticent to talk about yourselves in
> that manner.

With whom do you think we should be so friendly? The people who hate
us are hardly worth the effort of kindness.

> You must realise that others are eager to understand you.

It's very easy, you can ask us personally (i.e. via e-mail) in a
non-hostile manner and most of us will be quite congenial.

> Unless you are willing to explain how you arrived at your state
> of mind, the vast majority of people will regard you as idiots.

Are you saying that you speak for "the vast majority of people?" ;-)


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 19 01:13:02 PDT 1996
Article: 23194 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:53:41 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <31C73375.1E7E@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmmo5$msh@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C1E90F.74C1@cy <31C425FE.2D1E@cyberg8t.com> <4q1ec8$184m@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host38.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23194 talk.politics.european-union:4036 soc.culture.europe:45572

Scott, Erb wrote:

> Ah yes, Arthur still is calling names.

What's your point?

>> Being Jewish has nothing to do with the religion.
>
> Being Jewish has nothing to do with religion?  

Not in its entirety. It is obviously an ethnic identity supported (for
some) by their religion. There are athiest Jews (which you call
non-practicing). There are others that deem it to be a racial thing.

> Right here you show your ignorance.

Are you denying what I'm saying? Are there athiest Jews? Is religion
any part of their Jewishness? If they are Jews (by your own reckoning,
obviously whatever makes thems Jews has nothing to do with their
religion). Is Howard Stern a Jew? Was Marx a Jew? Is Cathy Lee Gifford
a Jew?

> Being Jewish has everything to do with the religion.

For some Jews, yes.

> I had a Jewish girlfriend with whom I thought seriously of marrying
> (we are still friends, but alas, 1500 miles apart).  We had long
> discussions and did a lot of research about what conversion would
> entail.  One thing is clear from all the books I looked at: being
> Jewish is being part of the faith.

Look, that's what you would like it to be. The empirical fact is that
being Jewish does not implying a faith of any kind. Now, if you want
to say that athiest Jews are not Jewish, then obviously you have a
different concept for the word "Jewish" than I am using.

> Now, there have been Jewish racists who make other claims -- they
> are nonsensical and unscientific, however.

No, YOU'RE being nonsensical and unscientific. You still refer to them
as Jews yet you admit that race is the basis of their Jewishness.

What does "scientific" mean? At least in one aspect it means that
one examines things with regard to an empirical reality. The empirical
reality is that there are Jews (whom both I and they recognize as being
Jews) who are Jews, not by religion, but by ethnicity or race.
The most all-inclusive definition of that class of entities called
"Jews" recognizes that religion is not the essential characteristic
of Jewishness. Why don't YOU be "scientific?"

> But suffice it to say that your claim that being Jewish has nothing
> to do with religion is totally bogus.

You're the one who is being ridiculous and inconsistent. You've proven
in your statements that there are non-religous Jews. Therefore, the
over-riding class of Jews is identified by their ethnicity, whether
they are religious or not.

> Hmmm, the weaker Arthur's argument, the more he calls names.

No, when people refuse to see the obvious (or if I don't like them)
I will call them names.

> Ironically the long quote (deleted -- you can look it up in his post
> preceding this one) doesn't at all prove his point.

No, the long quote proved my point precisely. There are athiestic
Jews.

>>> To others, it is a purely religious thing.
>
> Er, Arthur, I thought you said it has nothing to do with religion.
> Ah, a contradiction!  Not surprising.

No, not a contradiction. A single word may have several underlying
concepts. English (like all natural languages) is ambiguous. If you
cannot identify the different referents underlying a single lexeme,
then ask for clarification (or go away).

For example, there are many religious Jews who still recognize that
non-religous Jews are still Jews. Although their personal definition
of Jewishness may require them to be religious, it does not require
that the larger class of Jews all be religous in order to be identified
as Jews. Do you recognize that there are non-religious Jews? Is your
good buddy Andrew Mathis a Jew?

>> For yet others, it is an ethnic identity devoid
>> from the other distinctions.
>
> But there is no "jewish race".  That is patently absurd.

It depends on your definition of race. If a race is an ethnic group
which defines itself by its lineage, then yes, Jews are a race.
In discussion with one Jew about what constituted her Jewishness,
she said that it was a belief that she was descended from Abraham.
Therefore, although she was a religious Jew, underlying it was a
fundamental racism.

People like you are so inconsistent. On the one hand you pretend
that race is an invalid term, and then it flows from your mouth like
pepper in Cajun cooking. Which is it? What *DO* you mean by race when
you use (and you *DO* use it).

> So is every family their own race?  

Potentially.

> Should we be racially pure and marry and breed only within our own
> small family circles? 

I thought you already did. But no, I'm not advocating that. Isn't that
the cause of Tay-Sachs among Jews?

> If we did, we'd soon see why biologists say the greater the
> intraspecies variety the better for the species!

I agree.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 19 01:13:03 PDT 1996
Article: 23198 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:18:47 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <31C73957.71E8@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4pte0f$gds@news1.panix.com> <31C49C59.5DDB@cyberg8t.com> <4q2b8t$buv@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host38.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23198 alt.politics.white-power:33012 alt.discrimination:48732 alt.atheism:27590 alt.christnet:73162 alt.christnet.evangelical:9176 alt.homosexual:57810 alt.feminism:120672

Andrew Mathis wrote:

>>> Has anyone notice what an idiot Artie Bootheels (not his real name) is?
>
>>Who?
>
> You, idiot.  Arthur Lebouthillier is not your real name, coward.

Hey Scott Erb!!!! He's calling me names!!!

>> What's an anti-semite?
>
> Look in a freaking mirror.

Hey Scott Erb!!! He's evading questions....

>> A.B.? My initials are A.L.
>
> I am superior to everyone else, especiallly A.L.

Oh, so you're a Studidity Supremacist.

>>Tough.
>
> Shoving your religion down my throat is proof of your insecurity.

Shoving your religion down my throat is proof of your insecurity. I'm
not Christian.

>> Just like your Jewishness?
>
> No, i converted to Judaism; it was a choice, though ethnically, I am
> 1/4 Ashkenazic.

Please tell the world the significance of this "Ashkenazic" ethnicity.

>>Well if someone tells the truth about the slaughter of 111 million by
>>leftists, they aren't stirring up hatred against them, merely telling the
>>truth.
>
> You're right.  But these leftists are hardly to be admired.

But you admit that they're leftists, just like you.

>>A hell of a goy...
>
> No thanks, I'm a Jew.

Oh, I'm sorry, I misspelled that. I meant "guy."

>> Bull. Then what do you call this unending tirade of yours
>> on the internet?
>
> You mean this particular one by me, or some imaginary collusion by
> world Jewry to control the internet (whoops!  let that one slip)

The particular one.

>>What? Are you saying that your Jewishness is a social construction?
>
> No, I'm saying that certain parts of our liturgy is.

I assume you have scientific proof for the rest of it.

> Pro-semite as in the opposite of antisemite.  Now go get your
> dictionary and look up antisemite. Back yet?  

Yeah, I looked it up. It said that it included a whole bunch of
people including Palestinians and Arabs. I take it back. You
Jews are anti-semitic. Or is that anti-Hamite?

> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  Chomsky is about as much of a Marxist
> as Hitler was.  Chomsky is a far left anarchist, and has been highly
> critical of Marx and Marxism in all its form in all of his writings.

You might make a distinction but to me the Anarchists and the
Marxists dream of the same world. At the very least, I believe
that Chomsky could be called a "Social Democrat" since I believe
he supports the Democratic Socialists of America. I don't make
a distinction between Anarchists and Marxists: they both dream of
the same kind of future.

> OK, then, what kind of people are "the kind of people that you are."

People who disagree with me?

> Non-Marxist, leftist Jews? I'd say he and Sartre would enjoy my company.

Good, go join them and chat all you want.

>>> Don't f**K with me and I won't kill you.
>
>>Shut up.
>
> Wanna make me?

I'm rubber and you're glue. Everything you say bounces off me and
sticks to you.

>> Are you saying that rights are conditional?
>
> Of course, the only rights that aren't conditional are HUMAN
> rights--rights to life and limb; all other rights "civil rights"
> are afforded by social contract.  Read your Rousseau and get back
> to me.

What is your source of what "human rights" are? Please
enumerate them. I've read Rousseau; he wasn't postulating a
general social contract but a particular one. However, Rousseau
wasn't talking about "human rights" but natural rights. There is
a difference. Which one are you advocating?

>>> Some leftists are Communists, but not all.
>
>>All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Ergo, Socrates is mortal.
>
> Your point being....?

My point was that I can recognize basic sets.

>>> Marxists are idiots.  Why apologize?
>
>>Tsk, tsk. Breaking ranks with your ideological breathren?
>
> No, just calling a spade a spade.

Oh boy! Can we be friends now that we've found something in common?

> At least we agree on something; you can count on me not being the
> aggressor, though.

Oh bull. I've seen your kind provoke fights and then say "See! He
started it!"


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 19 01:13:04 PDT 1996
Article: 23200 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:26:55 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <31C73B3F.6DEE@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <834854936snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host38.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23200 alt.politics.white-power:33016 alt.discrimination:48733 alt.atheism:27597 alt.christnet:73167 alt.christnet.evangelical:9178 alt.homosexual:57813 alt.feminism:120674

Caesar wrote:

>> They both refer to everyone that they don't like, regardless of
>> political leaning, as "racists."
>
> Actually, communists tend to call their enemies "borgouise capitalist
> lackeys"

Actually, I wouldn't know what they call their enemies in private.
However, in public, the term is "racist!"

>> They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.
>
> Oh yes, there's a giant worldwide Communist Jooooooish Conspiracy NOT!

I'm not saying that, but if you are, I'll take your word.

>> When a homo or a leftist promotes homosexuality, who can tell the
> difference? One does it to serve his own personal desires, but so
> does the other.
>
> So what?
>
> If people want to be gay, what's wrong with that?

What's right about it? People have a choice to be gay just like they
have a choice to be child molesters or drug addicts.

> People have the right to choose their sexuality.

I have a right not to find it acceptable too. So what's your point?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 19 01:18:55 PDT 1996
Article: 33012 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:18:47 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <31C73957.71E8@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4pte0f$gds@news1.panix.com> <31C49C59.5DDB@cyberg8t.com> <4q2b8t$buv@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host38.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23198 alt.politics.white-power:33012 alt.discrimination:48732 alt.atheism:27590 alt.christnet:73162 alt.christnet.evangelical:9176 alt.homosexual:57810 alt.feminism:120672

Andrew Mathis wrote:

>>> Has anyone notice what an idiot Artie Bootheels (not his real name) is?
>
>>Who?
>
> You, idiot.  Arthur Lebouthillier is not your real name, coward.

Hey Scott Erb!!!! He's calling me names!!!

>> What's an anti-semite?
>
> Look in a freaking mirror.

Hey Scott Erb!!! He's evading questions....

>> A.B.? My initials are A.L.
>
> I am superior to everyone else, especiallly A.L.

Oh, so you're a Studidity Supremacist.

>>Tough.
>
> Shoving your religion down my throat is proof of your insecurity.

Shoving your religion down my throat is proof of your insecurity. I'm
not Christian.

>> Just like your Jewishness?
>
> No, i converted to Judaism; it was a choice, though ethnically, I am
> 1/4 Ashkenazic.

Please tell the world the significance of this "Ashkenazic" ethnicity.

>>Well if someone tells the truth about the slaughter of 111 million by
>>leftists, they aren't stirring up hatred against them, merely telling the
>>truth.
>
> You're right.  But these leftists are hardly to be admired.

But you admit that they're leftists, just like you.

>>A hell of a goy...
>
> No thanks, I'm a Jew.

Oh, I'm sorry, I misspelled that. I meant "guy."

>> Bull. Then what do you call this unending tirade of yours
>> on the internet?
>
> You mean this particular one by me, or some imaginary collusion by
> world Jewry to control the internet (whoops!  let that one slip)

The particular one.

>>What? Are you saying that your Jewishness is a social construction?
>
> No, I'm saying that certain parts of our liturgy is.

I assume you have scientific proof for the rest of it.

> Pro-semite as in the opposite of antisemite.  Now go get your
> dictionary and look up antisemite. Back yet?  

Yeah, I looked it up. It said that it included a whole bunch of
people including Palestinians and Arabs. I take it back. You
Jews are anti-semitic. Or is that anti-Hamite?

> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  Chomsky is about as much of a Marxist
> as Hitler was.  Chomsky is a far left anarchist, and has been highly
> critical of Marx and Marxism in all its form in all of his writings.

You might make a distinction but to me the Anarchists and the
Marxists dream of the same world. At the very least, I believe
that Chomsky could be called a "Social Democrat" since I believe
he supports the Democratic Socialists of America. I don't make
a distinction between Anarchists and Marxists: they both dream of
the same kind of future.

> OK, then, what kind of people are "the kind of people that you are."

People who disagree with me?

> Non-Marxist, leftist Jews? I'd say he and Sartre would enjoy my company.

Good, go join them and chat all you want.

>>> Don't f**K with me and I won't kill you.
>
>>Shut up.
>
> Wanna make me?

I'm rubber and you're glue. Everything you say bounces off me and
sticks to you.

>> Are you saying that rights are conditional?
>
> Of course, the only rights that aren't conditional are HUMAN
> rights--rights to life and limb; all other rights "civil rights"
> are afforded by social contract.  Read your Rousseau and get back
> to me.

What is your source of what "human rights" are? Please
enumerate them. I've read Rousseau; he wasn't postulating a
general social contract but a particular one. However, Rousseau
wasn't talking about "human rights" but natural rights. There is
a difference. Which one are you advocating?

>>> Some leftists are Communists, but not all.
>
>>All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Ergo, Socrates is mortal.
>
> Your point being....?

My point was that I can recognize basic sets.

>>> Marxists are idiots.  Why apologize?
>
>>Tsk, tsk. Breaking ranks with your ideological breathren?
>
> No, just calling a spade a spade.

Oh boy! Can we be friends now that we've found something in common?

> At least we agree on something; you can count on me not being the
> aggressor, though.

Oh bull. I've seen your kind provoke fights and then say "See! He
started it!"


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 19 01:18:57 PDT 1996
Article: 33016 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:26:55 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <31C73B3F.6DEE@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <834854936snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host38.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23200 alt.politics.white-power:33016 alt.discrimination:48733 alt.atheism:27597 alt.christnet:73167 alt.christnet.evangelical:9178 alt.homosexual:57813 alt.feminism:120674

Caesar wrote:

>> They both refer to everyone that they don't like, regardless of
>> political leaning, as "racists."
>
> Actually, communists tend to call their enemies "borgouise capitalist
> lackeys"

Actually, I wouldn't know what they call their enemies in private.
However, in public, the term is "racist!"

>> They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.
>
> Oh yes, there's a giant worldwide Communist Jooooooish Conspiracy NOT!

I'm not saying that, but if you are, I'll take your word.

>> When a homo or a leftist promotes homosexuality, who can tell the
> difference? One does it to serve his own personal desires, but so
> does the other.
>
> So what?
>
> If people want to be gay, what's wrong with that?

What's right about it? People have a choice to be gay just like they
have a choice to be child molesters or drug addicts.

> People have the right to choose their sexuality.

I have a right not to find it acceptable too. So what's your point?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 19 14:19:05 PDT 1996
Article: 48732 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:18:47 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <31C73957.71E8@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4pte0f$gds@news1.panix.com> <31C49C59.5DDB@cyberg8t.com> <4q2b8t$buv@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host38.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23198 alt.politics.white-power:33012 alt.discrimination:48732 alt.atheism:27590 alt.christnet:73162 alt.christnet.evangelical:9176 alt.homosexual:57810 alt.feminism:120672

Andrew Mathis wrote:

>>> Has anyone notice what an idiot Artie Bootheels (not his real name) is?
>
>>Who?
>
> You, idiot.  Arthur Lebouthillier is not your real name, coward.

Hey Scott Erb!!!! He's calling me names!!!

>> What's an anti-semite?
>
> Look in a freaking mirror.

Hey Scott Erb!!! He's evading questions....

>> A.B.? My initials are A.L.
>
> I am superior to everyone else, especiallly A.L.

Oh, so you're a Studidity Supremacist.

>>Tough.
>
> Shoving your religion down my throat is proof of your insecurity.

Shoving your religion down my throat is proof of your insecurity. I'm
not Christian.

>> Just like your Jewishness?
>
> No, i converted to Judaism; it was a choice, though ethnically, I am
> 1/4 Ashkenazic.

Please tell the world the significance of this "Ashkenazic" ethnicity.

>>Well if someone tells the truth about the slaughter of 111 million by
>>leftists, they aren't stirring up hatred against them, merely telling the
>>truth.
>
> You're right.  But these leftists are hardly to be admired.

But you admit that they're leftists, just like you.

>>A hell of a goy...
>
> No thanks, I'm a Jew.

Oh, I'm sorry, I misspelled that. I meant "guy."

>> Bull. Then what do you call this unending tirade of yours
>> on the internet?
>
> You mean this particular one by me, or some imaginary collusion by
> world Jewry to control the internet (whoops!  let that one slip)

The particular one.

>>What? Are you saying that your Jewishness is a social construction?
>
> No, I'm saying that certain parts of our liturgy is.

I assume you have scientific proof for the rest of it.

> Pro-semite as in the opposite of antisemite.  Now go get your
> dictionary and look up antisemite. Back yet?  

Yeah, I looked it up. It said that it included a whole bunch of
people including Palestinians and Arabs. I take it back. You
Jews are anti-semitic. Or is that anti-Hamite?

> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  Chomsky is about as much of a Marxist
> as Hitler was.  Chomsky is a far left anarchist, and has been highly
> critical of Marx and Marxism in all its form in all of his writings.

You might make a distinction but to me the Anarchists and the
Marxists dream of the same world. At the very least, I believe
that Chomsky could be called a "Social Democrat" since I believe
he supports the Democratic Socialists of America. I don't make
a distinction between Anarchists and Marxists: they both dream of
the same kind of future.

> OK, then, what kind of people are "the kind of people that you are."

People who disagree with me?

> Non-Marxist, leftist Jews? I'd say he and Sartre would enjoy my company.

Good, go join them and chat all you want.

>>> Don't f**K with me and I won't kill you.
>
>>Shut up.
>
> Wanna make me?

I'm rubber and you're glue. Everything you say bounces off me and
sticks to you.

>> Are you saying that rights are conditional?
>
> Of course, the only rights that aren't conditional are HUMAN
> rights--rights to life and limb; all other rights "civil rights"
> are afforded by social contract.  Read your Rousseau and get back
> to me.

What is your source of what "human rights" are? Please
enumerate them. I've read Rousseau; he wasn't postulating a
general social contract but a particular one. However, Rousseau
wasn't talking about "human rights" but natural rights. There is
a difference. Which one are you advocating?

>>> Some leftists are Communists, but not all.
>
>>All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Ergo, Socrates is mortal.
>
> Your point being....?

My point was that I can recognize basic sets.

>>> Marxists are idiots.  Why apologize?
>
>>Tsk, tsk. Breaking ranks with your ideological breathren?
>
> No, just calling a spade a spade.

Oh boy! Can we be friends now that we've found something in common?

> At least we agree on something; you can count on me not being the
> aggressor, though.

Oh bull. I've seen your kind provoke fights and then say "See! He
started it!"


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 19 14:19:06 PDT 1996
Article: 48733 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:26:55 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <31C73B3F.6DEE@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <834854936snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host38.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23200 alt.politics.white-power:33016 alt.discrimination:48733 alt.atheism:27597 alt.christnet:73167 alt.christnet.evangelical:9178 alt.homosexual:57813 alt.feminism:120674

Caesar wrote:

>> They both refer to everyone that they don't like, regardless of
>> political leaning, as "racists."
>
> Actually, communists tend to call their enemies "borgouise capitalist
> lackeys"

Actually, I wouldn't know what they call their enemies in private.
However, in public, the term is "racist!"

>> They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.
>
> Oh yes, there's a giant worldwide Communist Jooooooish Conspiracy NOT!

I'm not saying that, but if you are, I'll take your word.

>> When a homo or a leftist promotes homosexuality, who can tell the
> difference? One does it to serve his own personal desires, but so
> does the other.
>
> So what?
>
> If people want to be gay, what's wrong with that?

What's right about it? People have a choice to be gay just like they
have a choice to be child molesters or drug addicts.

> People have the right to choose their sexuality.

I have a right not to find it acceptable too. So what's your point?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 19 22:25:47 PDT 1996
Article: 33237 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:12:01 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 205
Message-ID: <31C87B31.C8C@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4psovl$bm5@aphex.direct.ca> <31C4B108.3BD4@cyberg8t.com> <4q4na3$5gf@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host33.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23327 alt.politics.white-power:33237 alt.discrimination:48806 alt.atheism:27736 alt.christnet:73415 alt.christnet.evangelical:9214 alt.homosexual:57873 alt.feminism:120728

Cthulhu wrote:

>> Those who are afraid or ignorant of their true heritage (or who are
>> liars) call themselves "progressive" but that too is a misnomer.
>
> Aaah, guilt-by-association.

No, guilt by ideological premises.

>> Paranoid ramblings. No basis in fact.
>
> Exactly. You're the one who somehow thinks that there's a CONSPIRACY
> to destoy the white race!

I've never said that. I challenge you to prove that I have. There are
people who are quite open about it.

>>>> Although they claim to be "independent" thinkers, they all mouth
>>>> the same garbage reflexively.
>>>
>>> Mainly because this "garbage" is true.
>>
>> Prove it. I challenge you to prove your statements.
>
> Sure. Name one example of "garbage" and I'll tell you why it's true.

       Whites don't have a right not to do business with Blacks.

       "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence
       means that we cannot discriminate against non-Whites.

       All men are created equal.

Before you answer these, please define your terms and show your line
of reasoning leading to the conclusion that proves/disproves each
of these statements.

> Translation: you're a paranoid moron.

Still practicing psychology without a license?

>>If you're speaking from personal experience, it failed.
>
> Certainly. I've never been able to cure your paranoia.

It's because you can't cure what's not there.

> Thank you, Arthur, for showing us the art of taking things out of
> context.

In case you couldn't figure it out, the context was your entire post.
Citing references from several locations in a single larger tract
is not "taking things out of context."

>>> Far less than fundies and nazis put together.
>>
>>So you suffer from a mathematical disfunction as well?
>
> No. You do. And how many deaths would the crusades, the inquistions,
> and the Holocaust combined be?

First, are you saying that these are related in any way?

Second, the sum would still only come up to about tens of millions,
not over a hundred million.

>> Family - A man, his wife, and any children they sire or adopt.
>
> The law's been changed. Get in touch.

Since when have leftists cared what the law said? That is a
cultural statement, not a legal one. The law should reflect our
culture and morality.

>>Traditional Values - those values which are supportive of a traditional
>>           societal system based on the family as the primary social
>>           institution which is deemed to be deserving protection and
>>           promotion since it is seen to be the fundamental socializing
>>           and welfare institution in society. This differs from making
>>           government and government programs the central socializing
>>           and welfare institutions (as liberals want).
>>
>
> So specifically state what these "traditional values" are. No, I
> don't want vague propaganda like you posted above.

I don't claim this is an exhaustive list. It's merely a few of them:

     A man and a woman should not have children out of wedlock.
     A man should seek to financially support his own children.
     A woman should seek to have children from one man (whom she has
        already married).
     A man should seek to have children from one woman (whom he has
        already married).
     People must seek to financially support themselves to the greatest
        degree possible, not depending on outside support such as the
        government.
     Homosexuality is wrong.
     Divorce is bad.
     Men and women are responsible for their own actions and should
        be held accountable for them.
     People should work to maintain a cohesive family (defined as
        a man a woman and their children).
     Children are obligated to show respect for their elders.

>> Racism is about hatred.
>
> It is, moron.

No, it's not moron. Racism is devotion to one's race.

>> The United States was never intended to be the government of a
>> White nation.
>
> It hasn't been since Lincoln's time.

Right, but you didn't disprove my point. Moreover, it wasn't Lincoln's
intention that it be what it is now.

>> The "Red Scare" was all a bunch of lies.
>
> And a lot of right-wingers were buying into it too.

No, recently-released records have proven that many of those charged
with being Communists were, in fact, communist supporters. The evidence
could not be brought out because it would reveal the degree of the
U.S.'s code-breaking capabilities.

>> That Jesse Jackson is a charismatic leader.
>
> So what kind of leader is he?

A Black leader.

>>That the Constitution was intended to apply to blacks and other
>> non-Whites.
>
> It is, moron.

No, it wasn't, moron. Read the Dred Scott decision.

>> That "All men are created equal" means that we can't discriminate against
>> non-Whites.
>
> It does, moron.

No, it doesn't. It means that, well, all men are created equally free
and that no one has a right to rule over another without their consent.
Read some books on Natural Law, which was the context in which that
statement was said. In fact, the very man who penned that line was
himself a racist (Thomas Jefferson) who didn't want Blacks to be citizens.

>> That unchecked immigration is good for the economy.
>
> You can attribute that "lie" to no-one.

It is attributable to one fellow who I saw in a debate whose last
name was Ungar (I don't remember his full name or the book he wrote).

>> That all expression of White existence and identity implies the
>> violation of non-Whites' rights.
>
> Depends on the "expression".

Right, but the statement was a universal. It said "all." 

>>> If you are not a fundy or a Nazi, then why the hell are you even
>>> objecting?
>>
>> Because I'm a racist and you're an asshole.
>
> Figures...

Right, it figures that I would object to people like you littering-up
a newsgroup created for the benefit of White people.

>> Live up to the obligations that your recognition implies.
>
> You've already got all of the above, moron. Just as much as anyone
> else does.

Bull. There are numerous federally- and state-funded "ethnic studies"
programs for non-White ethnic groups. Show me where there is ONE in a
federally- or state-funded one.

>>One other thing that I should have said about your kind is that
>>you can't read (or think). My parody started out:
>>
>>       Has anyone ever noticed how SIMILAR the radical left and
>>       the Communist movement are?
>
> Stupid assumption on your part: that  everyone who's not a fundy or
> a Nazi is part of the radical left.

First, I didn't make that assumption. Prove that I did.
Second, it was a parody; a near-word-for-word substitution. The
logical errors are largely the source of the originator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 19 22:25:48 PDT 1996
Article: 33239 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:32:16 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 496
Message-ID: <31C88E00.449F@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4pte0f$gds@news1.panix.com> <31C49C59.5DDB@cyberg8t.com> <4q6e0g$pc8@columbia.acc.brad.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23328 alt.politics.white-power:33239 alt.discrimination:48807 alt.atheism:27740 alt.christnet:73420 alt.christnet.evangelical:9215 alt.homosexual:57876 alt.feminism:120729

xian the desk lisard wrote:

> 
> thus spake Arthur LeBouthillier in talk.atheism...

The state is the coldest of cold monsters. And coldly it lies too! And this
lie creeps from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people!" Thus spake Arthur
LeBouthillier (Of the New Idol).

> and there are important parts of the radical left that do _not_ fall
> into that mould.  (spot a hopelessly mauled metaphor...)

Big deal.
 
> . > Has anyone notice what an idiot Artie Bootheels (not his real name) is?
> 
> . Who?
> 
> you, clot.

I'm rubber and you're clue. Everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
 
> . What's an anti-semite?
> 
> christ! do you really need this explained?

Yes. Is it a meaningful term? Are those people who are supposed to be the
objects of "anti-semitism," really "semites?" If so, prove it. Is being
"anti-Semitic" any worse than being "anti-White?"
  
> actually, you'll probably find that the term "politically correct" was
> conceived by the right as a term of scorn.  the ideological heritage
> of the left comprises an increase in personal freedom in every aspect,
> except where it clashes against other freedoms.

One source which I no longer have referenced it as being a term
used by early Marxists. You don't have to believe me. The reason
it was resurfaced by the "right" is that it has a double meaning.

> racist ideologies,  being inherently undemocratic (in that sense), forfeit
> their right to free expression.

"Racist ideologies" are undemocratic!? Don't you mean "Un-social-Democratic?"
Democracy is a process whereby the values of a people on particular issues is
determined by vote. Whereby, the will of the majority is taken to be the will
of the people. Anything but that isn't democracy.

>  (nonetheless, libertarianism grew out of the left,
> and it would hold that the right to freedom overrides the right of
> society; i would support that notion.  when it comes down to it,
> racism is simply daft, and any attempt at explaining or justifying it
> looks just that.  it should be exposed, not feared.)

When it comes down to it, liberalism is simply daft, and any attempt at explaining
or justifying looks just that. It should be exposed, not feared.
 
> . > >> They both view themselves as superior to everyone else.
> . >
> . > >They both view themselves as superior to everyone else
> . >
> . > I am superior to everyone else, especially A.B.
> 
> (this statement does not help, andrew; you are not superior to me.)
> 
> . A.B.? My initials are A.L.
> 
> ask a frenchman to confirm.

In the English-speaking realm, it is A.L.
  
> it's interesting that even you, by your juxtaposition of these
> concepts, link racial indentity with oppression.  but to attempt to
> claim that the coalescence of racial identity is called genocide is
> entirely ridiculous! 

I've never claimed such things.

> genocide has a very precise meaning: "attempting to eliminate an entire race".

Not according to the sources that I've read. Look at the U.N.'s definition.

>  idi amin and hitler both had a good stab at it; amin succeeded. 

Sort of like Joseph Stalin with the Ukrainians?

> moreover, the american nation tried it with the indigenous peoples.

After the indigenous peoples tried it to us.

>  i can only conclude that your attempt at redefinition is only a prelude to
> claiming that the suppression of races you judge inferior is in no way
> genocide, or even wrong.  please  surprise me.

Be surprised. The suppression of any race can be genocide.
 
> as for people having a "right" to ethnicity:  people are born into a
> culture.  it is the _culture_ that grants them ethnicity, not their
> inherent genotypes.

First, saying it don't make it so.
Second, huh? What's your point? Are you claiming I'm asserting something that
I'm not?

> and yes, people do have a right to their own culture; but they also have an
> equal right to any other culture they pleased.

Right, but I'm not necessarily obligated to like them or support their "choices."

>  what nobody has the right to do is to _force_ a particular ethnicity upon
> anybody, as hitler did, apartheid did, and racists still attempt to do today.

Great, then don't force an ethnicity on me. I'm White; I always will be.

> please explain what divine guidance you're referring to here?

Look, it's a parody of what the original fool was saying. 
 
> . > Untrue!  I am a leftist Jew.
> 
> . I got the inside poop from Jew at work. He said that only practicing Jews are
> . real Jews. Is that true?
> 
> i really doubt that any jew could bring themselves to talk to you.

I'm a lovable guy. Trust me. ;-)
 
> . > >They both base much of their rhetoric on an attempt to destroy
> . > >Christiniaty, the West and the White race.
> 
> crap.  though the western economic system needs destroying, before it
> destroys the planet.

I agree. We must destroy the capitalists as well as the socialists.
 
> . > I dont' give a frog's fat ass about Christianity as long as you keep it out
> . > of my face.
> 
> . Tough.
> 
> oh, so you _are_ undemocratic and anti-freedom.

Prove that saying "tough" implies that.
 
> . >  As for the West, I live in it.  As for the White race, it's an
> . > accident of birth.
> 
> . Just like your Jewishness?
> 
> racial jewishness is an accident of birth.  judaism, the religion, can
> be chosen or abandoned.  the jewish culture can likewise be chosen or
> abandoned.  besides, there is no "white race"; there are a profusion
> of whiter races, most of which are hopelessly cocktailed together in
> america and europe.

Of course there's a White race. There exists a race of people who call
themselves White.
 
> . > >They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.
> . >
> . > Most?  Interlinked?  Explain?
> 
> . As you agreed earlier, most leftists are communists. Ergo, their propaganda
> . machines are intertwined.
> 
> you haven't explained "most".  it can be clearly seen that the most
> effective propaganda machine in the world is not sponsored by any
> government, and anyone with enough money can buy some time using it;
> yet it remains a propaganda machine, and supremely effective as such.

Don't ask me to prove that assertion. I was merely repeating what that other
person was saying. Challenge him.
  
> except that stalin's agenda was not marxist, but as authoritarian and
> fascistic as hitler's; only the race component was absent. 

Oh baloney.

> besides, totalling up the numbers exterminated by left-wing dictatorships and
> right-wing dictatorships results in an even balance; on the right,
> they were killed because of their race, and on the left, because of
> any number of alternative, arbitrary reasons.  what can we conclude?
> only that dictatorships are to be avoided in general.  so..?

Add them up and prove your statement. I want to see actual numbers and not
wild assertions on your part. Again, I challenge you to support your statement.
 
> . > >They both use highly sophisticated propaganda that anyone who studies
> . > >can see through.
> . >
> . > Studies what?
> 
> . A prepositional phrase often refers to the noun that immediately precedes it.
> 
> funny; most of the left-wing propaganda (and here i mean true marxist,
> not stalinist, leninist, or any other dictatorship) i have seen is
> actually clipped directly from trade journals, corporate reports, or
> the autobiographies of industry figures.

Stalinists, Leninists and Marxists all fall under commonly recognized definitions
of leftists.
 
> . > The old proverb still holds true: two Jews will give three opinions.
> 
> . So, what's your point? Two Whites will give three opinions.
> 
> and two racists will give no opinions.

I'm a racist. My opinion is that you're rambling.
 
> . > >They are both actively seeking to destroy my life and everything I love.
> . >
> . > What you love I hate, so I guess you're right.
> 
> . I'm right.
> 
> move to the right.  now stay to the right.  just a little further to
> the right.
> 
> now burn those crosses...

What's your point?
 
> . > I am a Jew of European descent, and not an atheist.  I love rap and
> . > classical.  I understand science.  I'm not gay, but I believe if
> . > Arthur finds the right man, he could be.  Every aspect of my
> . > personality makes me a hell of a great guy.
> 
> . A hell of a goy...
> 
> you ask what an anti-semite is?  take a look in a nearby mirror.

What is anti-Semitism? Please, define it and show that it means something.
Are those who are the objects of anti-semitism, actually "semites?"
 
> now this doesn't even make sense.  what are you drivelling on about?
> when leftists explain, very patiently and for the hundredth time, that
> there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that it should be freely
> permitted, that is _not_ promotion; and yet we hear, over and over
> again "leftists promote homosexuality".  

now this doesn't even make sense. What are you drivelling on about?
when racists explain, very patiently and for the hundredth time, that
there is nothing wrong with being racist and that it should be freely
permitted, that is _not_ promotion; and yet we hear, over and over again
"racists promote racism!"

> nobody should or should not be homosexual; they just are or are not.
> it's their right to do as they wish.  

What a ridiculous statement. Do you know what ethics is? Why don't you go
read a book or three on the subject, evaluate that first sentence and then
prove that you have said something correct ethically. Short of that, what
you're saying is ridiculous. Just saying it doesn't make it so. If so, can
I merely replace the word "homosexual" with whatever I want?

     Nobody should or should not be racist; they just are or are not.
     Nobody should or should not be a Democrat; they just are or are not.
     Nobody should or should not be a murderer; they just are or are not.
     Nobody should or should not be a Capitalist; they just are or are not.

> they harm nobody else, except for a few small-minded fascists with an insatiable
> curiosity as to what other people get up to in their own beds.

You obviously can't reason morally. Typical of your kind.
  
> well, since the white male is the historic oppressor, that doesn't
> really present any problem, does it?

Oh, I see. You hate Whites and you want to imply that all current individuals
are responsible for things that they didn't do. Pretty good logic on your part.

However, using your logic, I seem to recall that Egyptians are historic oppressors
as well as Chinese, Communists, various African peoples as well as the Mayans.
Let's see ... did I leave anyone out?
  
> racism is the poison of society, not integration. 

Liberalism is the poison of society, not racism.

> why are you so scared of not being a "pure" person any more?  

I've never said that I was. Ever heard of a strawman?

> has it occurred to you that you probably have so many cocktails of blood
> flowing through you already that there is no way you could be regarded as
> "pure"?  

What's your point? Do you have one? Are you saying that you know my bloodline?

> or that most blacks are a damned sight more racially pure than most white
> racists?

Wait, racial purity doesn't exist except in blacks? Oh, I see.
 
> hardly an unending tirade, and in any case, you are in scarce position
> to answer.

Blah, blah, blah.
  
> . What? Are you saying that your Jewishness is a social construction?
> 
> isn't it?

Of course it is. However, these Jews seem to be saying that anything that
is a social construct is not an adequate basis for a social identity. That
is obviously a ridiculous position for them to hold.
  
> . But that's your ideological heritage. Anyways, Marxists are leftists, or as
> . they like to now call themselves "progressives."
> 
> this is crap!

No, it's not.
  
> well, if they were all in china, you'd be stuck in france (well, half
> in france, half in italy, and various other bits all over the world)
> and you wouldn't have had the chance to taste their food.  

No I wouldn't. Prove your ridiculous statements twisted logic.

> so even here, you are severely contradicting your own position, simply by your
> own tastes.

No, I'm not.
 
> hmmm.  except that you've just classified him as _one_of_ "the kind of
> people that you are".  don't you have _any_ capacity for logical
> argument???

One of the kind of people that I am? What's your point? I didn't say on
the important issues. Obviously we both have heads, ears, fingers and so
forth. We are alike in many ways (except the important ones).
 
> . > Multiculturalism by definition would include European as well as
> . > non-European culture.
> 
> . Hollow words from a straw man.
> 
> oh, right.  you don't understand them, yes?

I understand them quite well. I've just never seen such an adage practiced
by those who are saying it.
 
> . > Read "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler; you'll see what Arthur is about.
> . > Then read "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" by Noam Chomsky and
> . > see what a real leftist looks like.
> 
> . I've read Noam Chomsky. He is a marxist and I don't like what he says.
> 
> right, give me a detailed critique of it then.

I don't have a "detailed" critique of him. I've read some of his stuff. Some
of his political writings. I've read more of his linguistic stuff. However,
I know enough of his position to know that I dream of a completely different
world than he does.
 
> . You have a truly childish understanding of what rights are if you say
> . something like that.
> 
> whereas your understanding of them is truly frightening.  you endanger
> me; i merely cause you some mental discomfort, generated by your won
> narrow-mindedness.  we are not comparable.  and i occupy the moral
> high ground.

I "endanger" you? Prove that. Prove that you don't "endanger" me. Additionally,
you don't know what the moral highground is. I'm sorry, I happen to occupy
that ground.
 
> . > Don't f**K with me and I won't kill you.
> 
> . Shut up.
> 
> what a pointless response!

Meaningless threats are so demeaning.
 
> . > >      Whites have a right to exist
> . >
> . > Absolutely
> 
> . That's right. Both individually and as a group.
> 
> yes, but what kind of a group?  any attempt to found a group based
> upon "racial purity" is doomed to failure anyway; that concept is a
> nonsense.

I've never said that I was trying to do that. Anyways, even were I doing
that, it would merely be your opinion that it is "doomed to failure."
 
> . > >      Whites have a right to ethnicity
> . >
> . > No problem
> 
> . Right. Keep your nose out of our affairs.
> 
> he's probably white too.  his nose is automatically in your affairs.
> for that matter, i am definitely white, and so my nose is in.  you
> just awarded me the right to speak; i use it to denounce you entirely.
> you shouldn't have a problem with that...

What do you mean by white? First people like you say "Race doesn't exist"
and then you proceed to pepper your speech with the word. How are he and
I both "white?" On what basis can you make that assertion?

> but whites have already got the best of all of these rights.

No, I'm sorry, we don't.

> existence, ethnicity, self-determination, representative government,
> and political participation, are far FAR more open to white people
> than they are to anyone else, indeed disproportionately so. 

No, they're not.

> and you want to increase that disproportionality?

No, I want a White nationalist government to represent us. The current
government does not look out for White people's interests. In fact, it
is extremely hostile to us and our collective interests.

> black people, and every other racial group, have exactly the right you list
> above, _by_your_own_admission_; 

Yeah, so what's your point?

> yet increasing white influence will merely oppress them further, in lands that
> already morally belong to them.

Morally? Gosh, you sure use that word alot without explaining what it means.
Explain moral thought to me so I can understand what kind of twisted thinking
you have.

> how does that square?  aren't you being hugely contradictory there?
> or are you just a real, hood-wearing, cross-burning klansman?

No, I'm not contradictory. I am concerned about the welfare of White people,
first, above all other considerations. To me, good is that which serves the
White nation. Anything less than that is bad.

> . Definitely not. So I guess that makes you confused.
> 
> no, i think you'll find it makes you self-contradictory.

I think if you examined the sets that I put forth, then you will find
that I am not "self-contradictory."

> . > I am a leftist and a thoughtful person.  Intersection, ami.
> 
> . Delusions on your part ... mere delusions.
> 
> ohhhh,  riiiighhht.  so only racists are intelligent people.  

If you say so.

> yeah, sure.  that would explain the mental prowess of hitler, or the
> gleaming intelligence of david duke.

I don't understand what you're saying. Please explain.
 
> spot is a dog.  tibs is a cat.  dogs and cats are both animals.  thus
> spot and tibs are the same.  (would be rather more akin to your
> reasoning.)

No, that's your reasoning.
 
> they most certainly are not!!!!!  marxism arose as a result of
> history-watching, drawing certain conclusions and trends out of the
> established facts.  what's idiotic about that?

Their ideas are based on false perceptions of human nature. They miss much
of the obvious and therefore come to many wrong conclusions about what can
be. Moreover, they are so often inconsistent that it is obvious that they
don't analyze the things that they say or think.

> but i'm not fucking with you; i just want to prevent you from imposing
> your shit on those who reject it.  that's not infringing your
> liberties.

"Imposing?" What's that? Does that mean expressing myself through the
internet is "imposing" my "shit" on you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 19 22:25:49 PDT 1996
Article: 33253 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:24:33 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <31C87E21.1037@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ps39i$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com> <4q3tcd$dc4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host33.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33253 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23334 alt.discrimination:48810

Laura Finsten wrote:

> What is the purpose of taking a commonly understood word and using
> it to mean the virtual opposite of its commonly understood meaning?

First, common definition are only useful when dealing with things in
a common manner. I'm using things in a specific context and therefore
my meanings are specific. I've defined my terms.

Second, the current common definition is wrong. It is the product of
half a century of political finagling by those who seek to destroy
the White race. One of the ways they are doing that is by defining
words in a way that does not serve our interests. Many dictionaries
prior to World War 2 defined racism as I use it. Therefore, I am
at least merely using an older (if not more precise) aspect of the
word. At the very least, I am using it in a particular cultural
connotation.

Third, a particular "-ism" can include many different "sub-isms."
There is no general "nationalism" but only particular nationalisms.
Sure, there are similarities but no one follows the general idea
but only their particular nationalisms. Therefore, to speak broadly
in terms of "nationalism" requires careful qualification. In the
same way, "racism" contains many different "sub-isms." My particular
racism is different from many others but is consistent in many
other ways.

Fourth, I might ask the same of people like you. Why do you take
a word which has a particular meaning and use it to mean the
complete opposite. Racism is the promotion of one's race, just
as Communism is the promotion of (perhaps) a communal society,
nationalism is the promotion of one's nation, Catholicism is the
promotion of Catholic Christianity, Marxism is the promotion of
Marx's ideas etc. Racism is the promotion of one's race. End of
discussion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 07:46:30 PDT 1996
Article: 23324 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!slider.bme.ri.ccf.org!kira.cc.uakron.edu!ns.mcs.kent.edu!news.ysu.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!news.vbc.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!hustle.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.clark.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:29:52 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <31C87F60.76EF@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com>   <31C210C8.3181@cyberg8t.com> <4pt9qo$163i@sol.caps.maine.edu> <31C422DC.616A@cyberg8t.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host33.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23324 talk.politics.european-union:4063 soc.culture.europe:45597

Holger Skok wrote:

> This, my dear Sir, is contradictory. I have nothing against a concept of
> race based on lineage and bloodline. The two are objectively verifiable
> and they DO deal with who was offspring of whom. That will determine
> the genes of the descendants for the most part (mutations happen, but
> they don't change much of our genome in each generation).

I've said as much.
 
> The PERCEPTION of one's ancestry is a different thing entirely. It is
> certainly not objective and it is determined by one's upbringing and
> one's schooling, ie. it is a cultural construct.

I've said as much.
 
> Of course, since most of your arguments seem to rely on hopelessly
> mangling the two, you wouldn't be ready to admit the difference,
> would you?

Of course I would. However, that doesn't change my position any.
 
> And by the way: Attributing any importance to the rather small
> differences in human genome observable throughout humankind,
> or - more specifically - giving utmost importance to just SOME
> of them, is decidedly a cultural phenomenon and thus arbitrary.

Ah!! The old strawman arises. I've never attributed much importance to
"rather small differences in human genome." However, your point that
it is merely cultural is my point exactly. On that basis, it is our culture
to believe that race is a significant factor. It will continue to be so
for as long as my people exist.

However, your apparent argument that "one shouldn't judge another on the
basis of his race" is also a cultural argument (however, not one that I
share with you).


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 07:46:31 PDT 1996
Article: 23327 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:12:01 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 205
Message-ID: <31C87B31.C8C@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4psovl$bm5@aphex.direct.ca> <31C4B108.3BD4@cyberg8t.com> <4q4na3$5gf@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host33.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23327 alt.politics.white-power:33237 alt.discrimination:48806 alt.atheism:27736 alt.christnet:73415 alt.christnet.evangelical:9214 alt.homosexual:57873 alt.feminism:120728

Cthulhu wrote:

>> Those who are afraid or ignorant of their true heritage (or who are
>> liars) call themselves "progressive" but that too is a misnomer.
>
> Aaah, guilt-by-association.

No, guilt by ideological premises.

>> Paranoid ramblings. No basis in fact.
>
> Exactly. You're the one who somehow thinks that there's a CONSPIRACY
> to destoy the white race!

I've never said that. I challenge you to prove that I have. There are
people who are quite open about it.

>>>> Although they claim to be "independent" thinkers, they all mouth
>>>> the same garbage reflexively.
>>>
>>> Mainly because this "garbage" is true.
>>
>> Prove it. I challenge you to prove your statements.
>
> Sure. Name one example of "garbage" and I'll tell you why it's true.

       Whites don't have a right not to do business with Blacks.

       "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence
       means that we cannot discriminate against non-Whites.

       All men are created equal.

Before you answer these, please define your terms and show your line
of reasoning leading to the conclusion that proves/disproves each
of these statements.

> Translation: you're a paranoid moron.

Still practicing psychology without a license?

>>If you're speaking from personal experience, it failed.
>
> Certainly. I've never been able to cure your paranoia.

It's because you can't cure what's not there.

> Thank you, Arthur, for showing us the art of taking things out of
> context.

In case you couldn't figure it out, the context was your entire post.
Citing references from several locations in a single larger tract
is not "taking things out of context."

>>> Far less than fundies and nazis put together.
>>
>>So you suffer from a mathematical disfunction as well?
>
> No. You do. And how many deaths would the crusades, the inquistions,
> and the Holocaust combined be?

First, are you saying that these are related in any way?

Second, the sum would still only come up to about tens of millions,
not over a hundred million.

>> Family - A man, his wife, and any children they sire or adopt.
>
> The law's been changed. Get in touch.

Since when have leftists cared what the law said? That is a
cultural statement, not a legal one. The law should reflect our
culture and morality.

>>Traditional Values - those values which are supportive of a traditional
>>           societal system based on the family as the primary social
>>           institution which is deemed to be deserving protection and
>>           promotion since it is seen to be the fundamental socializing
>>           and welfare institution in society. This differs from making
>>           government and government programs the central socializing
>>           and welfare institutions (as liberals want).
>>
>
> So specifically state what these "traditional values" are. No, I
> don't want vague propaganda like you posted above.

I don't claim this is an exhaustive list. It's merely a few of them:

     A man and a woman should not have children out of wedlock.
     A man should seek to financially support his own children.
     A woman should seek to have children from one man (whom she has
        already married).
     A man should seek to have children from one woman (whom he has
        already married).
     People must seek to financially support themselves to the greatest
        degree possible, not depending on outside support such as the
        government.
     Homosexuality is wrong.
     Divorce is bad.
     Men and women are responsible for their own actions and should
        be held accountable for them.
     People should work to maintain a cohesive family (defined as
        a man a woman and their children).
     Children are obligated to show respect for their elders.

>> Racism is about hatred.
>
> It is, moron.

No, it's not moron. Racism is devotion to one's race.

>> The United States was never intended to be the government of a
>> White nation.
>
> It hasn't been since Lincoln's time.

Right, but you didn't disprove my point. Moreover, it wasn't Lincoln's
intention that it be what it is now.

>> The "Red Scare" was all a bunch of lies.
>
> And a lot of right-wingers were buying into it too.

No, recently-released records have proven that many of those charged
with being Communists were, in fact, communist supporters. The evidence
could not be brought out because it would reveal the degree of the
U.S.'s code-breaking capabilities.

>> That Jesse Jackson is a charismatic leader.
>
> So what kind of leader is he?

A Black leader.

>>That the Constitution was intended to apply to blacks and other
>> non-Whites.
>
> It is, moron.

No, it wasn't, moron. Read the Dred Scott decision.

>> That "All men are created equal" means that we can't discriminate against
>> non-Whites.
>
> It does, moron.

No, it doesn't. It means that, well, all men are created equally free
and that no one has a right to rule over another without their consent.
Read some books on Natural Law, which was the context in which that
statement was said. In fact, the very man who penned that line was
himself a racist (Thomas Jefferson) who didn't want Blacks to be citizens.

>> That unchecked immigration is good for the economy.
>
> You can attribute that "lie" to no-one.

It is attributable to one fellow who I saw in a debate whose last
name was Ungar (I don't remember his full name or the book he wrote).

>> That all expression of White existence and identity implies the
>> violation of non-Whites' rights.
>
> Depends on the "expression".

Right, but the statement was a universal. It said "all." 

>>> If you are not a fundy or a Nazi, then why the hell are you even
>>> objecting?
>>
>> Because I'm a racist and you're an asshole.
>
> Figures...

Right, it figures that I would object to people like you littering-up
a newsgroup created for the benefit of White people.

>> Live up to the obligations that your recognition implies.
>
> You've already got all of the above, moron. Just as much as anyone
> else does.

Bull. There are numerous federally- and state-funded "ethnic studies"
programs for non-White ethnic groups. Show me where there is ONE in a
federally- or state-funded one.

>>One other thing that I should have said about your kind is that
>>you can't read (or think). My parody started out:
>>
>>       Has anyone ever noticed how SIMILAR the radical left and
>>       the Communist movement are?
>
> Stupid assumption on your part: that  everyone who's not a fundy or
> a Nazi is part of the radical left.

First, I didn't make that assumption. Prove that I did.
Second, it was a parody; a near-word-for-word substitution. The
logical errors are largely the source of the originator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 07:46:32 PDT 1996
Article: 23328 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:32:16 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 496
Message-ID: <31C88E00.449F@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4pte0f$gds@news1.panix.com> <31C49C59.5DDB@cyberg8t.com> <4q6e0g$pc8@columbia.acc.brad.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23328 alt.politics.white-power:33239 alt.discrimination:48807 alt.atheism:27740 alt.christnet:73420 alt.christnet.evangelical:9215 alt.homosexual:57876 alt.feminism:120729

xian the desk lisard wrote:

> 
> thus spake Arthur LeBouthillier in talk.atheism...

The state is the coldest of cold monsters. And coldly it lies too! And this
lie creeps from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people!" Thus spake Arthur
LeBouthillier (Of the New Idol).

> and there are important parts of the radical left that do _not_ fall
> into that mould.  (spot a hopelessly mauled metaphor...)

Big deal.
 
> . > Has anyone notice what an idiot Artie Bootheels (not his real name) is?
> 
> . Who?
> 
> you, clot.

I'm rubber and you're clue. Everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
 
> . What's an anti-semite?
> 
> christ! do you really need this explained?

Yes. Is it a meaningful term? Are those people who are supposed to be the
objects of "anti-semitism," really "semites?" If so, prove it. Is being
"anti-Semitic" any worse than being "anti-White?"
  
> actually, you'll probably find that the term "politically correct" was
> conceived by the right as a term of scorn.  the ideological heritage
> of the left comprises an increase in personal freedom in every aspect,
> except where it clashes against other freedoms.

One source which I no longer have referenced it as being a term
used by early Marxists. You don't have to believe me. The reason
it was resurfaced by the "right" is that it has a double meaning.

> racist ideologies,  being inherently undemocratic (in that sense), forfeit
> their right to free expression.

"Racist ideologies" are undemocratic!? Don't you mean "Un-social-Democratic?"
Democracy is a process whereby the values of a people on particular issues is
determined by vote. Whereby, the will of the majority is taken to be the will
of the people. Anything but that isn't democracy.

>  (nonetheless, libertarianism grew out of the left,
> and it would hold that the right to freedom overrides the right of
> society; i would support that notion.  when it comes down to it,
> racism is simply daft, and any attempt at explaining or justifying it
> looks just that.  it should be exposed, not feared.)

When it comes down to it, liberalism is simply daft, and any attempt at explaining
or justifying looks just that. It should be exposed, not feared.
 
> . > >> They both view themselves as superior to everyone else.
> . >
> . > >They both view themselves as superior to everyone else
> . >
> . > I am superior to everyone else, especially A.B.
> 
> (this statement does not help, andrew; you are not superior to me.)
> 
> . A.B.? My initials are A.L.
> 
> ask a frenchman to confirm.

In the English-speaking realm, it is A.L.
  
> it's interesting that even you, by your juxtaposition of these
> concepts, link racial indentity with oppression.  but to attempt to
> claim that the coalescence of racial identity is called genocide is
> entirely ridiculous! 

I've never claimed such things.

> genocide has a very precise meaning: "attempting to eliminate an entire race".

Not according to the sources that I've read. Look at the U.N.'s definition.

>  idi amin and hitler both had a good stab at it; amin succeeded. 

Sort of like Joseph Stalin with the Ukrainians?

> moreover, the american nation tried it with the indigenous peoples.

After the indigenous peoples tried it to us.

>  i can only conclude that your attempt at redefinition is only a prelude to
> claiming that the suppression of races you judge inferior is in no way
> genocide, or even wrong.  please  surprise me.

Be surprised. The suppression of any race can be genocide.
 
> as for people having a "right" to ethnicity:  people are born into a
> culture.  it is the _culture_ that grants them ethnicity, not their
> inherent genotypes.

First, saying it don't make it so.
Second, huh? What's your point? Are you claiming I'm asserting something that
I'm not?

> and yes, people do have a right to their own culture; but they also have an
> equal right to any other culture they pleased.

Right, but I'm not necessarily obligated to like them or support their "choices."

>  what nobody has the right to do is to _force_ a particular ethnicity upon
> anybody, as hitler did, apartheid did, and racists still attempt to do today.

Great, then don't force an ethnicity on me. I'm White; I always will be.

> please explain what divine guidance you're referring to here?

Look, it's a parody of what the original fool was saying. 
 
> . > Untrue!  I am a leftist Jew.
> 
> . I got the inside poop from Jew at work. He said that only practicing Jews are
> . real Jews. Is that true?
> 
> i really doubt that any jew could bring themselves to talk to you.

I'm a lovable guy. Trust me. ;-)
 
> . > >They both base much of their rhetoric on an attempt to destroy
> . > >Christiniaty, the West and the White race.
> 
> crap.  though the western economic system needs destroying, before it
> destroys the planet.

I agree. We must destroy the capitalists as well as the socialists.
 
> . > I dont' give a frog's fat ass about Christianity as long as you keep it out
> . > of my face.
> 
> . Tough.
> 
> oh, so you _are_ undemocratic and anti-freedom.

Prove that saying "tough" implies that.
 
> . >  As for the West, I live in it.  As for the White race, it's an
> . > accident of birth.
> 
> . Just like your Jewishness?
> 
> racial jewishness is an accident of birth.  judaism, the religion, can
> be chosen or abandoned.  the jewish culture can likewise be chosen or
> abandoned.  besides, there is no "white race"; there are a profusion
> of whiter races, most of which are hopelessly cocktailed together in
> america and europe.

Of course there's a White race. There exists a race of people who call
themselves White.
 
> . > >They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.
> . >
> . > Most?  Interlinked?  Explain?
> 
> . As you agreed earlier, most leftists are communists. Ergo, their propaganda
> . machines are intertwined.
> 
> you haven't explained "most".  it can be clearly seen that the most
> effective propaganda machine in the world is not sponsored by any
> government, and anyone with enough money can buy some time using it;
> yet it remains a propaganda machine, and supremely effective as such.

Don't ask me to prove that assertion. I was merely repeating what that other
person was saying. Challenge him.
  
> except that stalin's agenda was not marxist, but as authoritarian and
> fascistic as hitler's; only the race component was absent. 

Oh baloney.

> besides, totalling up the numbers exterminated by left-wing dictatorships and
> right-wing dictatorships results in an even balance; on the right,
> they were killed because of their race, and on the left, because of
> any number of alternative, arbitrary reasons.  what can we conclude?
> only that dictatorships are to be avoided in general.  so..?

Add them up and prove your statement. I want to see actual numbers and not
wild assertions on your part. Again, I challenge you to support your statement.
 
> . > >They both use highly sophisticated propaganda that anyone who studies
> . > >can see through.
> . >
> . > Studies what?
> 
> . A prepositional phrase often refers to the noun that immediately precedes it.
> 
> funny; most of the left-wing propaganda (and here i mean true marxist,
> not stalinist, leninist, or any other dictatorship) i have seen is
> actually clipped directly from trade journals, corporate reports, or
> the autobiographies of industry figures.

Stalinists, Leninists and Marxists all fall under commonly recognized definitions
of leftists.
 
> . > The old proverb still holds true: two Jews will give three opinions.
> 
> . So, what's your point? Two Whites will give three opinions.
> 
> and two racists will give no opinions.

I'm a racist. My opinion is that you're rambling.
 
> . > >They are both actively seeking to destroy my life and everything I love.
> . >
> . > What you love I hate, so I guess you're right.
> 
> . I'm right.
> 
> move to the right.  now stay to the right.  just a little further to
> the right.
> 
> now burn those crosses...

What's your point?
 
> . > I am a Jew of European descent, and not an atheist.  I love rap and
> . > classical.  I understand science.  I'm not gay, but I believe if
> . > Arthur finds the right man, he could be.  Every aspect of my
> . > personality makes me a hell of a great guy.
> 
> . A hell of a goy...
> 
> you ask what an anti-semite is?  take a look in a nearby mirror.

What is anti-Semitism? Please, define it and show that it means something.
Are those who are the objects of anti-semitism, actually "semites?"
 
> now this doesn't even make sense.  what are you drivelling on about?
> when leftists explain, very patiently and for the hundredth time, that
> there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that it should be freely
> permitted, that is _not_ promotion; and yet we hear, over and over
> again "leftists promote homosexuality".  

now this doesn't even make sense. What are you drivelling on about?
when racists explain, very patiently and for the hundredth time, that
there is nothing wrong with being racist and that it should be freely
permitted, that is _not_ promotion; and yet we hear, over and over again
"racists promote racism!"

> nobody should or should not be homosexual; they just are or are not.
> it's their right to do as they wish.  

What a ridiculous statement. Do you know what ethics is? Why don't you go
read a book or three on the subject, evaluate that first sentence and then
prove that you have said something correct ethically. Short of that, what
you're saying is ridiculous. Just saying it doesn't make it so. If so, can
I merely replace the word "homosexual" with whatever I want?

     Nobody should or should not be racist; they just are or are not.
     Nobody should or should not be a Democrat; they just are or are not.
     Nobody should or should not be a murderer; they just are or are not.
     Nobody should or should not be a Capitalist; they just are or are not.

> they harm nobody else, except for a few small-minded fascists with an insatiable
> curiosity as to what other people get up to in their own beds.

You obviously can't reason morally. Typical of your kind.
  
> well, since the white male is the historic oppressor, that doesn't
> really present any problem, does it?

Oh, I see. You hate Whites and you want to imply that all current individuals
are responsible for things that they didn't do. Pretty good logic on your part.

However, using your logic, I seem to recall that Egyptians are historic oppressors
as well as Chinese, Communists, various African peoples as well as the Mayans.
Let's see ... did I leave anyone out?
  
> racism is the poison of society, not integration. 

Liberalism is the poison of society, not racism.

> why are you so scared of not being a "pure" person any more?  

I've never said that I was. Ever heard of a strawman?

> has it occurred to you that you probably have so many cocktails of blood
> flowing through you already that there is no way you could be regarded as
> "pure"?  

What's your point? Do you have one? Are you saying that you know my bloodline?

> or that most blacks are a damned sight more racially pure than most white
> racists?

Wait, racial purity doesn't exist except in blacks? Oh, I see.
 
> hardly an unending tirade, and in any case, you are in scarce position
> to answer.

Blah, blah, blah.
  
> . What? Are you saying that your Jewishness is a social construction?
> 
> isn't it?

Of course it is. However, these Jews seem to be saying that anything that
is a social construct is not an adequate basis for a social identity. That
is obviously a ridiculous position for them to hold.
  
> . But that's your ideological heritage. Anyways, Marxists are leftists, or as
> . they like to now call themselves "progressives."
> 
> this is crap!

No, it's not.
  
> well, if they were all in china, you'd be stuck in france (well, half
> in france, half in italy, and various other bits all over the world)
> and you wouldn't have had the chance to taste their food.  

No I wouldn't. Prove your ridiculous statements twisted logic.

> so even here, you are severely contradicting your own position, simply by your
> own tastes.

No, I'm not.
 
> hmmm.  except that you've just classified him as _one_of_ "the kind of
> people that you are".  don't you have _any_ capacity for logical
> argument???

One of the kind of people that I am? What's your point? I didn't say on
the important issues. Obviously we both have heads, ears, fingers and so
forth. We are alike in many ways (except the important ones).
 
> . > Multiculturalism by definition would include European as well as
> . > non-European culture.
> 
> . Hollow words from a straw man.
> 
> oh, right.  you don't understand them, yes?

I understand them quite well. I've just never seen such an adage practiced
by those who are saying it.
 
> . > Read "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler; you'll see what Arthur is about.
> . > Then read "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" by Noam Chomsky and
> . > see what a real leftist looks like.
> 
> . I've read Noam Chomsky. He is a marxist and I don't like what he says.
> 
> right, give me a detailed critique of it then.

I don't have a "detailed" critique of him. I've read some of his stuff. Some
of his political writings. I've read more of his linguistic stuff. However,
I know enough of his position to know that I dream of a completely different
world than he does.
 
> . You have a truly childish understanding of what rights are if you say
> . something like that.
> 
> whereas your understanding of them is truly frightening.  you endanger
> me; i merely cause you some mental discomfort, generated by your won
> narrow-mindedness.  we are not comparable.  and i occupy the moral
> high ground.

I "endanger" you? Prove that. Prove that you don't "endanger" me. Additionally,
you don't know what the moral highground is. I'm sorry, I happen to occupy
that ground.
 
> . > Don't f**K with me and I won't kill you.
> 
> . Shut up.
> 
> what a pointless response!

Meaningless threats are so demeaning.
 
> . > >      Whites have a right to exist
> . >
> . > Absolutely
> 
> . That's right. Both individually and as a group.
> 
> yes, but what kind of a group?  any attempt to found a group based
> upon "racial purity" is doomed to failure anyway; that concept is a
> nonsense.

I've never said that I was trying to do that. Anyways, even were I doing
that, it would merely be your opinion that it is "doomed to failure."
 
> . > >      Whites have a right to ethnicity
> . >
> . > No problem
> 
> . Right. Keep your nose out of our affairs.
> 
> he's probably white too.  his nose is automatically in your affairs.
> for that matter, i am definitely white, and so my nose is in.  you
> just awarded me the right to speak; i use it to denounce you entirely.
> you shouldn't have a problem with that...

What do you mean by white? First people like you say "Race doesn't exist"
and then you proceed to pepper your speech with the word. How are he and
I both "white?" On what basis can you make that assertion?

> but whites have already got the best of all of these rights.

No, I'm sorry, we don't.

> existence, ethnicity, self-determination, representative government,
> and political participation, are far FAR more open to white people
> than they are to anyone else, indeed disproportionately so. 

No, they're not.

> and you want to increase that disproportionality?

No, I want a White nationalist government to represent us. The current
government does not look out for White people's interests. In fact, it
is extremely hostile to us and our collective interests.

> black people, and every other racial group, have exactly the right you list
> above, _by_your_own_admission_; 

Yeah, so what's your point?

> yet increasing white influence will merely oppress them further, in lands that
> already morally belong to them.

Morally? Gosh, you sure use that word alot without explaining what it means.
Explain moral thought to me so I can understand what kind of twisted thinking
you have.

> how does that square?  aren't you being hugely contradictory there?
> or are you just a real, hood-wearing, cross-burning klansman?

No, I'm not contradictory. I am concerned about the welfare of White people,
first, above all other considerations. To me, good is that which serves the
White nation. Anything less than that is bad.

> . Definitely not. So I guess that makes you confused.
> 
> no, i think you'll find it makes you self-contradictory.

I think if you examined the sets that I put forth, then you will find
that I am not "self-contradictory."

> . > I am a leftist and a thoughtful person.  Intersection, ami.
> 
> . Delusions on your part ... mere delusions.
> 
> ohhhh,  riiiighhht.  so only racists are intelligent people.  

If you say so.

> yeah, sure.  that would explain the mental prowess of hitler, or the
> gleaming intelligence of david duke.

I don't understand what you're saying. Please explain.
 
> spot is a dog.  tibs is a cat.  dogs and cats are both animals.  thus
> spot and tibs are the same.  (would be rather more akin to your
> reasoning.)

No, that's your reasoning.
 
> they most certainly are not!!!!!  marxism arose as a result of
> history-watching, drawing certain conclusions and trends out of the
> established facts.  what's idiotic about that?

Their ideas are based on false perceptions of human nature. They miss much
of the obvious and therefore come to many wrong conclusions about what can
be. Moreover, they are so often inconsistent that it is obvious that they
don't analyze the things that they say or think.

> but i'm not fucking with you; i just want to prevent you from imposing
> your shit on those who reject it.  that's not infringing your
> liberties.

"Imposing?" What's that? Does that mean expressing myself through the
internet is "imposing" my "shit" on you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 07:46:33 PDT 1996
Article: 23329 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: MY OBSERVATION OF WHITE SEPARATISTS
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:43:03 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <31C89087.3570@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4q5hbj$5a6@library.airnews.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)

Peace Frog wrote:
 
> I have noticed that all the White Separatists who ever appear on TV
> (with the exception of Tom Metzger), are the biggest bunch of inbred,
> toothless, ignorant, jobless, unmotivated hicks.  However, any Black
> Supremacists represented on TV such as Louis Farrakhan, et. al., are
> very articulate, well groomed individuals.  

Duh, has it ever occured to you that it is because the TV talk-show
hosts want it that way?

I had a friend who was called by the Montel Williams show who said
that they wanted a racist. My friend said "that's me." Then they said
that they wanted him to talk about how he hates blacks and so forth.
When my friend said, "Well, what I'm really about is loving my race
and promoting good for it...," then they said. "O.K. Thanks, we're not
interested." Click. And they hung up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 07:46:34 PDT 1996
Article: 23332 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:13:53 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <31C87BA1.27F0@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16.2056@cyberg8t.com> <31C477C2.589C@cam.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host33.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23332 talk.politics.european-union:4067 soc.culture.europe:45600

Achim Recktenwald wrote:


> Ethnicity is a neutral term, based on the fact that people in different
> areas of the world live in different cultures.

No, that is academic ethnicity. Real ethnicity is far from a "neutral"
identity. It requires that the individual sacrifice much for the benfit
of the ethnos. For example, is Northern Ireland an example of "neutral"
ethnicity? Is Serbia/Croatia an example of "neutral" ethnicity? Is
the Tamil/Sinhalese conflict in Sri Lanka an example of "neutral"
ethnicity? No, there is no such thing as "neutral" ethnicity. If it
*IS* neutral then it is merely symbolic or sham ethnicity.

> It does not rate, neither the cultures nor the people.

You obviously are ignorant of the great number of problems around
the world. Please show me some examples of "neutral" ethnicity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 07:46:35 PDT 1996
Article: 23334 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:24:33 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <31C87E21.1037@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ps39i$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com> <4q3tcd$dc4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host33.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33253 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23334 alt.discrimination:48810

Laura Finsten wrote:

> What is the purpose of taking a commonly understood word and using
> it to mean the virtual opposite of its commonly understood meaning?

First, common definition are only useful when dealing with things in
a common manner. I'm using things in a specific context and therefore
my meanings are specific. I've defined my terms.

Second, the current common definition is wrong. It is the product of
half a century of political finagling by those who seek to destroy
the White race. One of the ways they are doing that is by defining
words in a way that does not serve our interests. Many dictionaries
prior to World War 2 defined racism as I use it. Therefore, I am
at least merely using an older (if not more precise) aspect of the
word. At the very least, I am using it in a particular cultural
connotation.

Third, a particular "-ism" can include many different "sub-isms."
There is no general "nationalism" but only particular nationalisms.
Sure, there are similarities but no one follows the general idea
but only their particular nationalisms. Therefore, to speak broadly
in terms of "nationalism" requires careful qualification. In the
same way, "racism" contains many different "sub-isms." My particular
racism is different from many others but is consistent in many
other ways.

Fourth, I might ask the same of people like you. Why do you take
a word which has a particular meaning and use it to mean the
complete opposite. Racism is the promotion of one's race, just
as Communism is the promotion of (perhaps) a communal society,
nationalism is the promotion of one's nation, Catholicism is the
promotion of Catholic Christianity, Marxism is the promotion of
Marx's ideas etc. Racism is the promotion of one's race. End of
discussion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 07:46:36 PDT 1996
Article: 23368 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:35:45 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <31C88ED1.223A@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4psovl$bm5@aphex.direct.ca> <31C4B108.3BD4@cyberg8t.com> <834998693snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23368 alt.politics.white-power:33319 alt.discrimination:48832 alt.atheism:27784 alt.christnet:73474 alt.christnet.evangelical:9225 alt.homosexual:57890 alt.feminism:120738

Caesar wrote:

> The political left predates Marxism by over a century. The
> term "left-wing" came into use after the French revolution of
> 1789. Marx's work wasn't written til the 1840s.

On this aspect, I'll agree with you. However, those who are leftists
today share little commonality with those who were traditionally left.
The current left owes more of its ideology to Marxism than to any
other ideology. For example, the left during the French Revolution
often based their ideas on Rousseau but his ideas are hardly representative
of today's leftists (quite the opposite since they were adopted by early
German nationalist philosophers).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 07:47:51 PDT 1996
Article: 33319 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:35:45 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <31C88ED1.223A@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4psovl$bm5@aphex.direct.ca> <31C4B108.3BD4@cyberg8t.com> <834998693snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23368 alt.politics.white-power:33319 alt.discrimination:48832 alt.atheism:27784 alt.christnet:73474 alt.christnet.evangelical:9225 alt.homosexual:57890 alt.feminism:120738

Caesar wrote:

> The political left predates Marxism by over a century. The
> term "left-wing" came into use after the French revolution of
> 1789. Marx's work wasn't written til the 1840s.

On this aspect, I'll agree with you. However, those who are leftists
today share little commonality with those who were traditionally left.
The current left owes more of its ideology to Marxism than to any
other ideology. For example, the left during the French Revolution
often based their ideas on Rousseau but his ideas are hardly representative
of today's leftists (quite the opposite since they were adopted by early
German nationalist philosophers).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 10:15:23 PDT 1996
Article: 23397 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:20:33 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <31C87D31.6C1E@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com>   <31C422DC.616A@cyberg8t.com> <4q1dqf$184m@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host33.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23397 talk.politics.european-union:4080 soc.culture.europe:45617

Scott Erb wrote:

> Er, Arthur, I think you'd best think before you post.  Your post
> contains so many internal contradictions and leaps of illogic that
> it's hard to follow.

It's a difficult subject. Perhaps you can try concentrating harder.

> Furthermore, you provide no evidence at all for your claims, not even
> an argument.  You simply assert. 

This is not a formal debate, nor is it an essay-writing endeavor. My
detractors are not overflowing with an abundance of deep thought; the
amount of effort I put into the issue is directly related to the effort
of my opponents.

> My, my Arthur.  First you deny that race is an arbitrary social
> construction, and then you say ALL (and you even repeat it!)
> distinctions are social constructions.

There is a difference between the underlying reality of a thing and
its social perception. The reality of race is underlying blood
relations. However, even those must be melded into a coherent
social viewpoint based on incomplete and impossible-to-attain
information. Therefore, there is a "real" component as well as a
"socially constructed" component.

For example, take a car accident. Suppose there is a real car
accident and then interview several people about what happened.
The result is what would appear to be nothing consistent in the
observations despite the reality of the car wreck. There is a "real"
aspect to the crash as well as the "social" aspect of the individual
interpretations. Race is the same way; there is a "real" aspect
to it as well as the individual interpretations.

>  You also admit that race is only important to you subjectively,
> meaning that you are granting me my point.

I'm not "granting" anything.

What does it mean for something to be important "subjectively?"
Are religions based on "objective" criteria? Hardly. The integration
of factual data into a personal framework requires personal
interpretation as well as valuation.

Can something be important to someone in any way other than
"subjectively?" If so, on what basis?

> In short, you contradict yourself and make wild assertions without
> backing them up with either evidence or argumentation.  Grade: F

Your grade means nothing to me.

> Uh, Arthur, I think you need to go to a logic course.  Premises are
> not outside of logic; premises themselves can be tested and can come
> from the use of logic.

Really? Prove it. Prove that Diet Pepsi is better than Diet Coke.
Prove that the REAL pronunciation of tomato is "toe may toe" and
not "tah mah toe."

There are two kinds of knowledge: positive and normative. Normatives
are not "provable" and hence are beyond "logic." As such, they are
the "premises" of a logical statement. Things can be derived from
them but they are beyond proof.

> Epistemology is how we "know" something (an epistemological issue is
> how do we know things about the world).  Why do you claim that logic
> is separate from epistemology?

Fine, you know the dictionary definition of epistemology.

Are definitions provable? No. They are definitions. You must start
with them and then derive based on them. Logic is a process but it
needs symbols on which to operate. The definition of symbols 
(epistemology) precedes logic. I don't really care if you agree with
me or not; I don't care to prove my own philosophy in an environment
like the Internet. But, perhaps this is more an ontological than an
epistemological issue. It doesn't matter; definitions precede logic.

If I am making a mathematical proof, I have to say Let X be this
that or the other thing and then I can assert Y and Z.

> You don't seem to be able to provide much of an argument Arthur...

Blah, blah, blah. Because you don't follow the argument doesn't
mean that I don't have one. Before I am going to engage in more
rigorous discussion, I would expect a commitment from you that
you too would be rigorous.

>> Scott, you prove to me that you are an ignoramous with each and
>> every post.
>
> ...but you certainly can call names!

So? What's your point? This is the internet, not a debate club
which follows rules and politeness. Obviously your side isn't
capable of following rules or being polite; don't expect of me
what you yourself won't do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 14:02:45 PDT 1996
Article: 48806 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:12:01 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 205
Message-ID: <31C87B31.C8C@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4psovl$bm5@aphex.direct.ca> <31C4B108.3BD4@cyberg8t.com> <4q4na3$5gf@orb.direct.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host33.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23327 alt.politics.white-power:33237 alt.discrimination:48806 alt.atheism:27736 alt.christnet:73415 alt.christnet.evangelical:9214 alt.homosexual:57873 alt.feminism:120728

Cthulhu wrote:

>> Those who are afraid or ignorant of their true heritage (or who are
>> liars) call themselves "progressive" but that too is a misnomer.
>
> Aaah, guilt-by-association.

No, guilt by ideological premises.

>> Paranoid ramblings. No basis in fact.
>
> Exactly. You're the one who somehow thinks that there's a CONSPIRACY
> to destoy the white race!

I've never said that. I challenge you to prove that I have. There are
people who are quite open about it.

>>>> Although they claim to be "independent" thinkers, they all mouth
>>>> the same garbage reflexively.
>>>
>>> Mainly because this "garbage" is true.
>>
>> Prove it. I challenge you to prove your statements.
>
> Sure. Name one example of "garbage" and I'll tell you why it's true.

       Whites don't have a right not to do business with Blacks.

       "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence
       means that we cannot discriminate against non-Whites.

       All men are created equal.

Before you answer these, please define your terms and show your line
of reasoning leading to the conclusion that proves/disproves each
of these statements.

> Translation: you're a paranoid moron.

Still practicing psychology without a license?

>>If you're speaking from personal experience, it failed.
>
> Certainly. I've never been able to cure your paranoia.

It's because you can't cure what's not there.

> Thank you, Arthur, for showing us the art of taking things out of
> context.

In case you couldn't figure it out, the context was your entire post.
Citing references from several locations in a single larger tract
is not "taking things out of context."

>>> Far less than fundies and nazis put together.
>>
>>So you suffer from a mathematical disfunction as well?
>
> No. You do. And how many deaths would the crusades, the inquistions,
> and the Holocaust combined be?

First, are you saying that these are related in any way?

Second, the sum would still only come up to about tens of millions,
not over a hundred million.

>> Family - A man, his wife, and any children they sire or adopt.
>
> The law's been changed. Get in touch.

Since when have leftists cared what the law said? That is a
cultural statement, not a legal one. The law should reflect our
culture and morality.

>>Traditional Values - those values which are supportive of a traditional
>>           societal system based on the family as the primary social
>>           institution which is deemed to be deserving protection and
>>           promotion since it is seen to be the fundamental socializing
>>           and welfare institution in society. This differs from making
>>           government and government programs the central socializing
>>           and welfare institutions (as liberals want).
>>
>
> So specifically state what these "traditional values" are. No, I
> don't want vague propaganda like you posted above.

I don't claim this is an exhaustive list. It's merely a few of them:

     A man and a woman should not have children out of wedlock.
     A man should seek to financially support his own children.
     A woman should seek to have children from one man (whom she has
        already married).
     A man should seek to have children from one woman (whom he has
        already married).
     People must seek to financially support themselves to the greatest
        degree possible, not depending on outside support such as the
        government.
     Homosexuality is wrong.
     Divorce is bad.
     Men and women are responsible for their own actions and should
        be held accountable for them.
     People should work to maintain a cohesive family (defined as
        a man a woman and their children).
     Children are obligated to show respect for their elders.

>> Racism is about hatred.
>
> It is, moron.

No, it's not moron. Racism is devotion to one's race.

>> The United States was never intended to be the government of a
>> White nation.
>
> It hasn't been since Lincoln's time.

Right, but you didn't disprove my point. Moreover, it wasn't Lincoln's
intention that it be what it is now.

>> The "Red Scare" was all a bunch of lies.
>
> And a lot of right-wingers were buying into it too.

No, recently-released records have proven that many of those charged
with being Communists were, in fact, communist supporters. The evidence
could not be brought out because it would reveal the degree of the
U.S.'s code-breaking capabilities.

>> That Jesse Jackson is a charismatic leader.
>
> So what kind of leader is he?

A Black leader.

>>That the Constitution was intended to apply to blacks and other
>> non-Whites.
>
> It is, moron.

No, it wasn't, moron. Read the Dred Scott decision.

>> That "All men are created equal" means that we can't discriminate against
>> non-Whites.
>
> It does, moron.

No, it doesn't. It means that, well, all men are created equally free
and that no one has a right to rule over another without their consent.
Read some books on Natural Law, which was the context in which that
statement was said. In fact, the very man who penned that line was
himself a racist (Thomas Jefferson) who didn't want Blacks to be citizens.

>> That unchecked immigration is good for the economy.
>
> You can attribute that "lie" to no-one.

It is attributable to one fellow who I saw in a debate whose last
name was Ungar (I don't remember his full name or the book he wrote).

>> That all expression of White existence and identity implies the
>> violation of non-Whites' rights.
>
> Depends on the "expression".

Right, but the statement was a universal. It said "all." 

>>> If you are not a fundy or a Nazi, then why the hell are you even
>>> objecting?
>>
>> Because I'm a racist and you're an asshole.
>
> Figures...

Right, it figures that I would object to people like you littering-up
a newsgroup created for the benefit of White people.

>> Live up to the obligations that your recognition implies.
>
> You've already got all of the above, moron. Just as much as anyone
> else does.

Bull. There are numerous federally- and state-funded "ethnic studies"
programs for non-White ethnic groups. Show me where there is ONE in a
federally- or state-funded one.

>>One other thing that I should have said about your kind is that
>>you can't read (or think). My parody started out:
>>
>>       Has anyone ever noticed how SIMILAR the radical left and
>>       the Communist movement are?
>
> Stupid assumption on your part: that  everyone who's not a fundy or
> a Nazi is part of the radical left.

First, I didn't make that assumption. Prove that I did.
Second, it was a parody; a near-word-for-word substitution. The
logical errors are largely the source of the originator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 14:02:46 PDT 1996
Article: 48807 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:32:16 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 496
Message-ID: <31C88E00.449F@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4pte0f$gds@news1.panix.com> <31C49C59.5DDB@cyberg8t.com> <4q6e0g$pc8@columbia.acc.brad.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23328 alt.politics.white-power:33239 alt.discrimination:48807 alt.atheism:27740 alt.christnet:73420 alt.christnet.evangelical:9215 alt.homosexual:57876 alt.feminism:120729

xian the desk lisard wrote:

> 
> thus spake Arthur LeBouthillier in talk.atheism...

The state is the coldest of cold monsters. And coldly it lies too! And this
lie creeps from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people!" Thus spake Arthur
LeBouthillier (Of the New Idol).

> and there are important parts of the radical left that do _not_ fall
> into that mould.  (spot a hopelessly mauled metaphor...)

Big deal.
 
> . > Has anyone notice what an idiot Artie Bootheels (not his real name) is?
> 
> . Who?
> 
> you, clot.

I'm rubber and you're clue. Everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
 
> . What's an anti-semite?
> 
> christ! do you really need this explained?

Yes. Is it a meaningful term? Are those people who are supposed to be the
objects of "anti-semitism," really "semites?" If so, prove it. Is being
"anti-Semitic" any worse than being "anti-White?"
  
> actually, you'll probably find that the term "politically correct" was
> conceived by the right as a term of scorn.  the ideological heritage
> of the left comprises an increase in personal freedom in every aspect,
> except where it clashes against other freedoms.

One source which I no longer have referenced it as being a term
used by early Marxists. You don't have to believe me. The reason
it was resurfaced by the "right" is that it has a double meaning.

> racist ideologies,  being inherently undemocratic (in that sense), forfeit
> their right to free expression.

"Racist ideologies" are undemocratic!? Don't you mean "Un-social-Democratic?"
Democracy is a process whereby the values of a people on particular issues is
determined by vote. Whereby, the will of the majority is taken to be the will
of the people. Anything but that isn't democracy.

>  (nonetheless, libertarianism grew out of the left,
> and it would hold that the right to freedom overrides the right of
> society; i would support that notion.  when it comes down to it,
> racism is simply daft, and any attempt at explaining or justifying it
> looks just that.  it should be exposed, not feared.)

When it comes down to it, liberalism is simply daft, and any attempt at explaining
or justifying looks just that. It should be exposed, not feared.
 
> . > >> They both view themselves as superior to everyone else.
> . >
> . > >They both view themselves as superior to everyone else
> . >
> . > I am superior to everyone else, especially A.B.
> 
> (this statement does not help, andrew; you are not superior to me.)
> 
> . A.B.? My initials are A.L.
> 
> ask a frenchman to confirm.

In the English-speaking realm, it is A.L.
  
> it's interesting that even you, by your juxtaposition of these
> concepts, link racial indentity with oppression.  but to attempt to
> claim that the coalescence of racial identity is called genocide is
> entirely ridiculous! 

I've never claimed such things.

> genocide has a very precise meaning: "attempting to eliminate an entire race".

Not according to the sources that I've read. Look at the U.N.'s definition.

>  idi amin and hitler both had a good stab at it; amin succeeded. 

Sort of like Joseph Stalin with the Ukrainians?

> moreover, the american nation tried it with the indigenous peoples.

After the indigenous peoples tried it to us.

>  i can only conclude that your attempt at redefinition is only a prelude to
> claiming that the suppression of races you judge inferior is in no way
> genocide, or even wrong.  please  surprise me.

Be surprised. The suppression of any race can be genocide.
 
> as for people having a "right" to ethnicity:  people are born into a
> culture.  it is the _culture_ that grants them ethnicity, not their
> inherent genotypes.

First, saying it don't make it so.
Second, huh? What's your point? Are you claiming I'm asserting something that
I'm not?

> and yes, people do have a right to their own culture; but they also have an
> equal right to any other culture they pleased.

Right, but I'm not necessarily obligated to like them or support their "choices."

>  what nobody has the right to do is to _force_ a particular ethnicity upon
> anybody, as hitler did, apartheid did, and racists still attempt to do today.

Great, then don't force an ethnicity on me. I'm White; I always will be.

> please explain what divine guidance you're referring to here?

Look, it's a parody of what the original fool was saying. 
 
> . > Untrue!  I am a leftist Jew.
> 
> . I got the inside poop from Jew at work. He said that only practicing Jews are
> . real Jews. Is that true?
> 
> i really doubt that any jew could bring themselves to talk to you.

I'm a lovable guy. Trust me. ;-)
 
> . > >They both base much of their rhetoric on an attempt to destroy
> . > >Christiniaty, the West and the White race.
> 
> crap.  though the western economic system needs destroying, before it
> destroys the planet.

I agree. We must destroy the capitalists as well as the socialists.
 
> . > I dont' give a frog's fat ass about Christianity as long as you keep it out
> . > of my face.
> 
> . Tough.
> 
> oh, so you _are_ undemocratic and anti-freedom.

Prove that saying "tough" implies that.
 
> . >  As for the West, I live in it.  As for the White race, it's an
> . > accident of birth.
> 
> . Just like your Jewishness?
> 
> racial jewishness is an accident of birth.  judaism, the religion, can
> be chosen or abandoned.  the jewish culture can likewise be chosen or
> abandoned.  besides, there is no "white race"; there are a profusion
> of whiter races, most of which are hopelessly cocktailed together in
> america and europe.

Of course there's a White race. There exists a race of people who call
themselves White.
 
> . > >They both have the most extensive (interlinked) propaganda machine.
> . >
> . > Most?  Interlinked?  Explain?
> 
> . As you agreed earlier, most leftists are communists. Ergo, their propaganda
> . machines are intertwined.
> 
> you haven't explained "most".  it can be clearly seen that the most
> effective propaganda machine in the world is not sponsored by any
> government, and anyone with enough money can buy some time using it;
> yet it remains a propaganda machine, and supremely effective as such.

Don't ask me to prove that assertion. I was merely repeating what that other
person was saying. Challenge him.
  
> except that stalin's agenda was not marxist, but as authoritarian and
> fascistic as hitler's; only the race component was absent. 

Oh baloney.

> besides, totalling up the numbers exterminated by left-wing dictatorships and
> right-wing dictatorships results in an even balance; on the right,
> they were killed because of their race, and on the left, because of
> any number of alternative, arbitrary reasons.  what can we conclude?
> only that dictatorships are to be avoided in general.  so..?

Add them up and prove your statement. I want to see actual numbers and not
wild assertions on your part. Again, I challenge you to support your statement.
 
> . > >They both use highly sophisticated propaganda that anyone who studies
> . > >can see through.
> . >
> . > Studies what?
> 
> . A prepositional phrase often refers to the noun that immediately precedes it.
> 
> funny; most of the left-wing propaganda (and here i mean true marxist,
> not stalinist, leninist, or any other dictatorship) i have seen is
> actually clipped directly from trade journals, corporate reports, or
> the autobiographies of industry figures.

Stalinists, Leninists and Marxists all fall under commonly recognized definitions
of leftists.
 
> . > The old proverb still holds true: two Jews will give three opinions.
> 
> . So, what's your point? Two Whites will give three opinions.
> 
> and two racists will give no opinions.

I'm a racist. My opinion is that you're rambling.
 
> . > >They are both actively seeking to destroy my life and everything I love.
> . >
> . > What you love I hate, so I guess you're right.
> 
> . I'm right.
> 
> move to the right.  now stay to the right.  just a little further to
> the right.
> 
> now burn those crosses...

What's your point?
 
> . > I am a Jew of European descent, and not an atheist.  I love rap and
> . > classical.  I understand science.  I'm not gay, but I believe if
> . > Arthur finds the right man, he could be.  Every aspect of my
> . > personality makes me a hell of a great guy.
> 
> . A hell of a goy...
> 
> you ask what an anti-semite is?  take a look in a nearby mirror.

What is anti-Semitism? Please, define it and show that it means something.
Are those who are the objects of anti-semitism, actually "semites?"
 
> now this doesn't even make sense.  what are you drivelling on about?
> when leftists explain, very patiently and for the hundredth time, that
> there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that it should be freely
> permitted, that is _not_ promotion; and yet we hear, over and over
> again "leftists promote homosexuality".  

now this doesn't even make sense. What are you drivelling on about?
when racists explain, very patiently and for the hundredth time, that
there is nothing wrong with being racist and that it should be freely
permitted, that is _not_ promotion; and yet we hear, over and over again
"racists promote racism!"

> nobody should or should not be homosexual; they just are or are not.
> it's their right to do as they wish.  

What a ridiculous statement. Do you know what ethics is? Why don't you go
read a book or three on the subject, evaluate that first sentence and then
prove that you have said something correct ethically. Short of that, what
you're saying is ridiculous. Just saying it doesn't make it so. If so, can
I merely replace the word "homosexual" with whatever I want?

     Nobody should or should not be racist; they just are or are not.
     Nobody should or should not be a Democrat; they just are or are not.
     Nobody should or should not be a murderer; they just are or are not.
     Nobody should or should not be a Capitalist; they just are or are not.

> they harm nobody else, except for a few small-minded fascists with an insatiable
> curiosity as to what other people get up to in their own beds.

You obviously can't reason morally. Typical of your kind.
  
> well, since the white male is the historic oppressor, that doesn't
> really present any problem, does it?

Oh, I see. You hate Whites and you want to imply that all current individuals
are responsible for things that they didn't do. Pretty good logic on your part.

However, using your logic, I seem to recall that Egyptians are historic oppressors
as well as Chinese, Communists, various African peoples as well as the Mayans.
Let's see ... did I leave anyone out?
  
> racism is the poison of society, not integration. 

Liberalism is the poison of society, not racism.

> why are you so scared of not being a "pure" person any more?  

I've never said that I was. Ever heard of a strawman?

> has it occurred to you that you probably have so many cocktails of blood
> flowing through you already that there is no way you could be regarded as
> "pure"?  

What's your point? Do you have one? Are you saying that you know my bloodline?

> or that most blacks are a damned sight more racially pure than most white
> racists?

Wait, racial purity doesn't exist except in blacks? Oh, I see.
 
> hardly an unending tirade, and in any case, you are in scarce position
> to answer.

Blah, blah, blah.
  
> . What? Are you saying that your Jewishness is a social construction?
> 
> isn't it?

Of course it is. However, these Jews seem to be saying that anything that
is a social construct is not an adequate basis for a social identity. That
is obviously a ridiculous position for them to hold.
  
> . But that's your ideological heritage. Anyways, Marxists are leftists, or as
> . they like to now call themselves "progressives."
> 
> this is crap!

No, it's not.
  
> well, if they were all in china, you'd be stuck in france (well, half
> in france, half in italy, and various other bits all over the world)
> and you wouldn't have had the chance to taste their food.  

No I wouldn't. Prove your ridiculous statements twisted logic.

> so even here, you are severely contradicting your own position, simply by your
> own tastes.

No, I'm not.
 
> hmmm.  except that you've just classified him as _one_of_ "the kind of
> people that you are".  don't you have _any_ capacity for logical
> argument???

One of the kind of people that I am? What's your point? I didn't say on
the important issues. Obviously we both have heads, ears, fingers and so
forth. We are alike in many ways (except the important ones).
 
> . > Multiculturalism by definition would include European as well as
> . > non-European culture.
> 
> . Hollow words from a straw man.
> 
> oh, right.  you don't understand them, yes?

I understand them quite well. I've just never seen such an adage practiced
by those who are saying it.
 
> . > Read "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler; you'll see what Arthur is about.
> . > Then read "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" by Noam Chomsky and
> . > see what a real leftist looks like.
> 
> . I've read Noam Chomsky. He is a marxist and I don't like what he says.
> 
> right, give me a detailed critique of it then.

I don't have a "detailed" critique of him. I've read some of his stuff. Some
of his political writings. I've read more of his linguistic stuff. However,
I know enough of his position to know that I dream of a completely different
world than he does.
 
> . You have a truly childish understanding of what rights are if you say
> . something like that.
> 
> whereas your understanding of them is truly frightening.  you endanger
> me; i merely cause you some mental discomfort, generated by your won
> narrow-mindedness.  we are not comparable.  and i occupy the moral
> high ground.

I "endanger" you? Prove that. Prove that you don't "endanger" me. Additionally,
you don't know what the moral highground is. I'm sorry, I happen to occupy
that ground.
 
> . > Don't f**K with me and I won't kill you.
> 
> . Shut up.
> 
> what a pointless response!

Meaningless threats are so demeaning.
 
> . > >      Whites have a right to exist
> . >
> . > Absolutely
> 
> . That's right. Both individually and as a group.
> 
> yes, but what kind of a group?  any attempt to found a group based
> upon "racial purity" is doomed to failure anyway; that concept is a
> nonsense.

I've never said that I was trying to do that. Anyways, even were I doing
that, it would merely be your opinion that it is "doomed to failure."
 
> . > >      Whites have a right to ethnicity
> . >
> . > No problem
> 
> . Right. Keep your nose out of our affairs.
> 
> he's probably white too.  his nose is automatically in your affairs.
> for that matter, i am definitely white, and so my nose is in.  you
> just awarded me the right to speak; i use it to denounce you entirely.
> you shouldn't have a problem with that...

What do you mean by white? First people like you say "Race doesn't exist"
and then you proceed to pepper your speech with the word. How are he and
I both "white?" On what basis can you make that assertion?

> but whites have already got the best of all of these rights.

No, I'm sorry, we don't.

> existence, ethnicity, self-determination, representative government,
> and political participation, are far FAR more open to white people
> than they are to anyone else, indeed disproportionately so. 

No, they're not.

> and you want to increase that disproportionality?

No, I want a White nationalist government to represent us. The current
government does not look out for White people's interests. In fact, it
is extremely hostile to us and our collective interests.

> black people, and every other racial group, have exactly the right you list
> above, _by_your_own_admission_; 

Yeah, so what's your point?

> yet increasing white influence will merely oppress them further, in lands that
> already morally belong to them.

Morally? Gosh, you sure use that word alot without explaining what it means.
Explain moral thought to me so I can understand what kind of twisted thinking
you have.

> how does that square?  aren't you being hugely contradictory there?
> or are you just a real, hood-wearing, cross-burning klansman?

No, I'm not contradictory. I am concerned about the welfare of White people,
first, above all other considerations. To me, good is that which serves the
White nation. Anything less than that is bad.

> . Definitely not. So I guess that makes you confused.
> 
> no, i think you'll find it makes you self-contradictory.

I think if you examined the sets that I put forth, then you will find
that I am not "self-contradictory."

> . > I am a leftist and a thoughtful person.  Intersection, ami.
> 
> . Delusions on your part ... mere delusions.
> 
> ohhhh,  riiiighhht.  so only racists are intelligent people.  

If you say so.

> yeah, sure.  that would explain the mental prowess of hitler, or the
> gleaming intelligence of david duke.

I don't understand what you're saying. Please explain.
 
> spot is a dog.  tibs is a cat.  dogs and cats are both animals.  thus
> spot and tibs are the same.  (would be rather more akin to your
> reasoning.)

No, that's your reasoning.
 
> they most certainly are not!!!!!  marxism arose as a result of
> history-watching, drawing certain conclusions and trends out of the
> established facts.  what's idiotic about that?

Their ideas are based on false perceptions of human nature. They miss much
of the obvious and therefore come to many wrong conclusions about what can
be. Moreover, they are so often inconsistent that it is obvious that they
don't analyze the things that they say or think.

> but i'm not fucking with you; i just want to prevent you from imposing
> your shit on those who reject it.  that's not infringing your
> liberties.

"Imposing?" What's that? Does that mean expressing myself through the
internet is "imposing" my "shit" on you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 14:02:46 PDT 1996
Article: 48810 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:24:33 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <31C87E21.1037@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ps39i$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com> <4q3tcd$dc4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host33.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33253 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23334 alt.discrimination:48810

Laura Finsten wrote:

> What is the purpose of taking a commonly understood word and using
> it to mean the virtual opposite of its commonly understood meaning?

First, common definition are only useful when dealing with things in
a common manner. I'm using things in a specific context and therefore
my meanings are specific. I've defined my terms.

Second, the current common definition is wrong. It is the product of
half a century of political finagling by those who seek to destroy
the White race. One of the ways they are doing that is by defining
words in a way that does not serve our interests. Many dictionaries
prior to World War 2 defined racism as I use it. Therefore, I am
at least merely using an older (if not more precise) aspect of the
word. At the very least, I am using it in a particular cultural
connotation.

Third, a particular "-ism" can include many different "sub-isms."
There is no general "nationalism" but only particular nationalisms.
Sure, there are similarities but no one follows the general idea
but only their particular nationalisms. Therefore, to speak broadly
in terms of "nationalism" requires careful qualification. In the
same way, "racism" contains many different "sub-isms." My particular
racism is different from many others but is consistent in many
other ways.

Fourth, I might ask the same of people like you. Why do you take
a word which has a particular meaning and use it to mean the
complete opposite. Racism is the promotion of one's race, just
as Communism is the promotion of (perhaps) a communal society,
nationalism is the promotion of one's nation, Catholicism is the
promotion of Catholic Christianity, Marxism is the promotion of
Marx's ideas etc. Racism is the promotion of one's race. End of
discussion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 14:02:47 PDT 1996
Article: 48832 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:35:45 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <31C88ED1.223A@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4psovl$bm5@aphex.direct.ca> <31C4B108.3BD4@cyberg8t.com> <834998693snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23368 alt.politics.white-power:33319 alt.discrimination:48832 alt.atheism:27784 alt.christnet:73474 alt.christnet.evangelical:9225 alt.homosexual:57890 alt.feminism:120738

Caesar wrote:

> The political left predates Marxism by over a century. The
> term "left-wing" came into use after the French revolution of
> 1789. Marx's work wasn't written til the 1840s.

On this aspect, I'll agree with you. However, those who are leftists
today share little commonality with those who were traditionally left.
The current left owes more of its ideology to Marxism than to any
other ideology. For example, the left during the French Revolution
often based their ideas on Rousseau but his ideas are hardly representative
of today's leftists (quite the opposite since they were adopted by early
German nationalist philosophers).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 20 19:37:14 PDT 1996
Article: 23428 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:20:40 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 187
Message-ID: <31C9F8E8.78B4@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com>   <31C87D31.6C1E@cyberg8t.com> <4qa9dg$1i7s@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host73.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23428 talk.politics.european-union:4099 soc.culture.europe:45633

Scott Erb wrote:

> Fine.  But don't be surprised if no one believes your assertions.  They lack
> evidence, they are contrary to current understandings in science and
> academia, and seem bizarre.  That alone doesn't make them false. 

First, I challenge you to prove to me that what I am saying is "contrary to
current understanding in science and academia." If you would like to address
this issue at length, I would be fully welcome. However, I'm not going to be
the only one who is rigorous in his evidence. I would expect the same from you
at the very least. Perhaps it may also require that engage in a more reclusive
arena in order to avoid distracting comments from the peanut gallery. However,
until I have a commitment on your part to at least try to follow rules of rational
debate, I will do nothing other than to state my opinions at length.

> But that and a lack of any evidence or argumentation to support them certainly
> makes them dubious.

Ha! From my viewpoint you're the one who has the dubious position.

I don't care if you agree with me. This is a pro-White newsgroup set up for
the benefit of Whites and it is my preference that it be that way. I merely
wish that you race haters would go away.
  
> >There is a difference between the underlying reality of a thing and
> >its social perception. The reality of race is underlying blood
> >relations.
> 
> Hardly.  By such a definition clans are all different races, Bavarians are a
> different race than northern Germans, Minnesotans are a different race than
> Alabamans. 

No, you obviously have a problem reasoning. Are different branches from a tree
different trees? No.

> What does blood mean?

"Blood" means lineal descent from a given population.

> Where do you draw lines based on race?

Wherever I feel like it.

> In fact, what are blood relations?  What if I marry a black woman and have
> children?

What of them? You're White. Your children are not.

> You are dabbling in some rather bizarre ideas, but you won't really explain why,
> or what consequence they have.  

Of course, you're the one with the bizarre ideas.

> You can of course believe these things and even live your life according to them.

Thanks, but I don't need your permission.

>   But since you're posting on the internet, I get the sense you wish to persuade
> others or argue for some policy change.  

I am a White nationalist, I seek to motivate Whites toward national existence.

> If so, please be specific on what this all means and why anyone should take
> it seriously.

You don't have to take me seriously. However, I am seriously pursue what I
am talking. There will be side-effects of this which may affect you. If you
want to understand what is going on, you might want to understand what I/we
are talking about. Otherwise, go to alt.liberal.whiners because I would prefer
that this newsgroup be kept pro-White.

> The "real" component is still a social construct even in your example. 

No it's not. But moreover, so what?

> Why bloor relations and not geographic location? 

No, the question should be why geographic location and not blood relations.
Geographic location is guarantee of nothing.

> What does "blood relations" mean?  Why your meaning and not someone else's?

If you want to understand what I'm talking about you should probably understand
the terms that I'm using.

> How far back do you go (after all, all humans are related by blood if you back
> far enough)?  

An indefinite period. How far do your geographic regions extend? When do you
say "These people are not members of my social group?" And, if people migrate
(or invade) into a region, on what basis can you say that they are not members
of that group? Yours is the incoherent position.

> Drawing those lines and setting those definitions are where the social
> construction comes in.

So? What's your point? Any kind of positive obligation you can try to
impose upon me is a "social construction." Any of your ideas of good or bad
are "social constructions." You can't escape from the same things you're
complaining of me. However, there *ARE* several components which make my
position more tenable than yours. What I am talking about is the product
of a historical society (which even your kind admits exist, and for which
you have nothing but the most extreme hatred and contempt). Additionally,
the basis of which we are talking about has underlying biological issues
which are significant, whereas your position is purely arbitrary.

> The reality is simply that a world is.  What it means is something
> else.

I can make incoherent statements too. What exactly do you mean "The reality
is simply that a world is?"
 
> As for your ramblings about philosophy of science.  I've studied this pretty
> thoroughly, everything from Braithwaite to Lakatos, Kuhn, Feyerabend, and
> Foucault.  You've vastly oversimplified notions of uncertainty, epistemology,
> and the role of logic.  

In your opinion. My own background is many years study of computer science (hence
an in-depth understanding of logic), mathematics (I was a math major until I
got sick of it), philosophy ( a personal love of mine ), cognitive psychology
and artificial intelligence.

> You've also completely ignored disagreements between different schools of thought. 

There are disagreements BECAUSE they're different rules of thought. Have you
ever heard of Godel's Theorem? It states that a particular system is only
coherent within its own scope and that particular propositional systems cannot be
proven from outside of themselves (roughly).

> But I fail to see what point your discussion has on anything.

That's because I'm hardly talking to you. I would rather that you go to
alt.politics.marxist or something like that. This is a newsgroup for the
promotion of pro-White issues.
 
> You haven't denied an inherent contradiction in your thinking. 

Like I said, a particular propositional system can only be self-consistent.

> You admit "race" is a socially constructed phenomenon, though you assert there
> is an underlying "real" aspect to it.  

Let's select a language in which to think about these things. Let's use the
terminology of anthropology. Is that acceptable to you? I don't claim any
advantage in that arena, only that I think that it offers the best language
in which to express some of these ideas. Is that acceptable to you?

> You are unclear on what that real aspect is and what it means, you just call
> it "blood relations."  

I'm not unclear, YOU'RE unclear of my meaning.

> You are silent on why they should be considered important, or what the point
> of making this  distinction is.

Let me put it this way. Is your life important? If so, on what basis? How
do you "prove" such a thing?

> Obviously, you are not providing a debate with evidence, so in that sense you
> aren't proving anything, and lurkers can make their own decision about the
> worth of your argument. 

But then, neither are you. They can make the same decisions about the
worth of your argument.

> However, if you want to have these beliefs, no one is saying you can't.  But
> you just better damn well not try to force your particular view of reality on
> the rest of us!  

Of course I can! What does "force" mean? I state my viewpoints and opinions.
When I feel like it, I support them. That is no less than what your kind is
doing.

> You can have only people from your "race" (what is that -- white people?  
> Your extended family?  Your particular clan?  I mean, "blood relations is vague)
> in your circle of  friends, etc.  It's your loss, I think.

Right, but that's merely YOUR opinion. It is not one with which I (and people like
me) agree.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 21 08:56:46 PDT 1996
Article: 23434 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 21:07:45 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 175
Message-ID: <31CA2011.6371@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmmo5$msh@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C1E90F.74C1@cy <31C73375.1E7E@cyberg8t.com> <4q8q3p$bvm@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23434 talk.politics.european-union:4100 soc.culture.europe:45634

Scott Erb wrote:

> If they are athiest, they are no longer Jewish.

Well, there are a damned lot of secular Jews. I don't have the figures handy
but it is in the millions. What are these people if they are not Jews? They
call themselves Jews. And then, just because YOU or someone else says "No,
it is only a religious thing." So what? Who cares what you think? Not me,
and probably not secular Jews. The issue isn't what YOU consider them to
be, but what THEY consider themselves to be.
 
> But, now you are saying that being Jewish seems to refer just to
> self-perception of a cultural community.  Does this mean that you are
> dropping a claim that there is a "Jewish race?"  

No.

> If so, then perhaps we can agree on this issue.  If you still want to claim
> it's a race, you need more evidence than simply saying that former Jews still
> consider that a kind of ethnic identity due to their traditions, etc.

No, if you want to claim they are not a race, then YOU need to define what
a race is so they cannot be one. As I define race, they are a race. Please
explain how you define race so we can decide whether or not you are consistent.
  
> Yes, I have the concept of Judiaism as being a religion.  I know a friend who
> is atheist, but still considers herself Catholic because she was raised that
> way.  To her, it's like an ethnic identity. 

Right. "Like" an ethnicity.

> In former Yugoslavia, those religious distinctions are also the basis of conflict.
> It is true that for some the identity lingers after the religious belief fades.  

Yeah, because the group comes to define itself by other common characteristics
(such as historical heritage and so forth).

> But the category is essentially based on religion, and you still have said
> NOTHING (and I can see why, it's impossible to prove) to support your assertion
> that there is a Jewish "race."

You haven't provided a definition to prove that they aren't. By my definition,
they are a race.
  
> So there is a Croatian race?  A Serbian race?  A Bosnian muslim race? 

Yes.

> My god, you've gotten the concept so twisted that it is useless. 

No, it is not useless. I guess one has to wonder what uses one might put it
towards. So, what use do see that such a definition would be useless for?

> If a close family has numerous ties and considers themselves a "clan,"
> are they then a race?

You said that they consider themselves to be a clan, not a race. However,
suppose we took a bunch of people, one from China, one from India, one
>from  the U.S. and one from Germany without any near blood relationship.
Are those people a race? No. Are they a clan? No, not if by Clan you
mean closely related by blood. A race is larger than a clan. One
definition might include something like it being the largest human
grouping which believes itself descended from a certain population.
However, I believe that also must be an historical community with
shared culture.

> Your dilemma is that racism is untenable.  You are honest enough to
> admit that, but rather than adjust your beliefs, you try to say that
> racism is ethnicity, so the same beliefs are justified within a
> different set of terms.

You obviously misunderstand what I'm saying if you think that I think
race is "untenable." Race is "tenable."

> However, once "race" means "culturally self-defined ethnic group,"
> then you are dealing with a very different concept, and should drop
> the word "race."

I disagree with you. It doesn't mean "culturally self-defined ethnic
group" but "culturally self-defined ethnic group linked by common
descent from an historical population."

> In science, race tends to refer to a certain way of cateogrizing some
> of the differences between humans.

In "science?" Science is a broader classification with many sub-fields
each with their own languages. Biologically, race means a particular
thing. It means, basically, a population which due to isolation has
come to acquire particular identifiable patterns of traits. On that
basis, one may say that there is a biological "White race" although
I am not using the term "race" in a biological manner, but in an
ethnological manner.

> Once you accept culture as being the definition, it is untenable to
> consider "blood" as very important. 

Nonsense. The issue is that it is a culture which holds its blood
relations (kinship) as the basis of its social grouping. In that
context, the kinship (blood relations) is of the most vital aspect
to in-group identification.

> It could be blood, it could be religion, it could be anything. 

Again, what's your point. It could be foot size, but it isn't for
us Whites. For us Whites, it is our historical blood relations
and the consequent common phenotypic patterns which is derived from
that. Whatever it could be is inconsequential, the issue is what
it ACUALLY IS. I am a member of an historical society based on
blood relations from at least Northern Europe but extending to
those throughout most of Europe who evidence traits similar to us.

> You've moved to self-identitification.  Also, once you move to
> using culture, it is possible to have anti-racial cultural
> identifications, such as "being American" or whatever. 

Right, but what's your point. What is possible and what is good
are two different things. Good is that which serves the White nation.

> You also give up any claim that there are essential differences
> based on skin color and the like.  

Nonsense. Those of our bloodline exhibit certain patterns of traits,
among which are light skin, multi-colored eyes and hair, certain
body proportions and so forth. All of those are indicators of
bloodline.

> So really, while your honesty in moving from "race" to "ethnicity"
> is commendable, making that move destroys the coherence of an
> argument which sees ethnic identity as biological or stable.  

You'd like us to believe so, but I'm sorry, it really doesn't.

> It is suddenly cultural, and can be changed and can infact be
> multiracial and even multicultural (most 'homogenous' cultures
> today were once mixes of different cultures).

No, it cannot "suddenly" be multi-cultural since our society has
as its first premise our blood relations. To put forth any idea
other than that is to put forth something that is bad. I have said
so, I will say so again. I am a member of an historical society
which is founded in blood relations. On that basis, I will do what
I believe is good to maintain that society and promote its interests.
If you seek to do that group harm, you are our enemy.

> So I would recommend taking the next step; putting aside any
> essentialist notions of identity and recognizing that if it is a
> human construction, there is no right way.  

Nonsense. Like I've said, the concept of "rights" is a human
construction. Are you saying that it has no validity? In fact,
all societies are "social constructions" and it is the particular
bases of identification that defines them.

> You can subjectively choose to have only white friends and
> mates if you want, and stick with them.  But you have no right
> to try to tell others they need choose the same; 

Of course I do. I can tell them anything I want. I don't have
to like them and I can choose to exclude them from certain
benefits that I may extend to members of my race.

> they may simply have different conceptions of what their culture
> is, and what ethnicity means to them.

Yeah, so? They are wrong if they think that our relationship (the
relationship between me and them) is anything other than one of
race.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 21 08:56:47 PDT 1996
Article: 23447 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:55:39 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <31C9F30B.146B@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pddj4$4uc@news.usaor.net> <4pk5ci$o7c@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pme9c$kjj@news.usaor.net> <4ps1f3$bm9@news1.ucsd.edu> <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com>  <4qc65b$i32@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host73.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23447 talk.politics.european-union:4103 soc.culture.europe:45637

Laura Finsten wrote:

> Ouch!  But this is an interesting idea, isn't.  If in Mr. LeBouthillier's
> conceptual world, race=ethnicity, and "[o]ne may have several ethnicities
> some of which one sees as more primary than others", then individuals
> can be multiracial!!!  So how could anybody then argue against what white
> power rangers call "miscegenation"?

This is typical of liberal thinking. They think that everything must be
deemed of equal value when that is obviously not true. First, one may
deem that certain heritages are "good" while others are bad. Second,
one may deem some better than others. Is this so hard for you to imagine?

However, the ridiculousness of your viewpoint is obvious when one regards
all other ethnic groups. Does every ethnic group deem every other group
to be equally valuable as their own? No.

Do you really have such a problem thinking or are you merely trying to
be funny?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 21 08:56:48 PDT 1996
Article: 23467 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 05:33:45 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <31CA96A9.5D83@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16. <31C87BA1.27F0@cyberg8t.com> <4qbgn9$1clo@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23467 talk.politics.european-union:4107 soc.culture.europe:45645

Scott D. Erb wrote:

> How do you come off claiming that you know the definition of "real"
> ethnicity, while people who make a living studying these things (the
> academics you dismiss) have a different notion?  Why is your idiosyncratic
> belief better than that of those who devote their lives to understanding
> these issues?

Perhaps I don't understand what he's saying. However, by "neutral" I took
to mean that one holding ethnicity didn't "judge" others. IN other words,
one made no positive or negative assertions regarding the relationship with
another.
 
> Where is your evidence for your assertions?  Ah, I guess it's just academics
> who need evidence.  You're dismissing academics, so I guess all you need is
> whatever opinions you fancy to hold.  Is that it?

I provided plenty of examples. I showed how various instances of "purely
ethnic" conflicts abound. On that basis, it is obvious that ethnicity is
not a "neutral" thing.
 
> You must be reading-challenged.  Ethnicity is a neutral term is what Adam
> claimed.  The impact of ethnicity can be diverse from a simple desire to hold
> on to one's perceived culture, to fighting over different perceived issues.

What does he mean by "neutral." He must be using it in some very specific
way (which he did not mention that he was). I could find no standard
definition of "neutral" that implied I was wrong in any way. Please provide
a definition that you believe supports his claim. He claimed it was "neutral"
(whatever HE meant with that regard) and I showed plenty of examples to the
contrary (based on my understanding of what he was saying).
 
> > No, there is no such thing as "neutral" ethnicity. If it
> >*IS* neutral then it is merely symbolic or sham ethnicity.
> 
> This is a bizarre statement - who are you to claim that some ethnicity is
> sham?  The term is neutral because it has no natural meaning.  Ethnicity is
> not set in nature, but is a human construction.  The impacts of those
> constructions vary.  Anyway, I think you willfully misunderstood Adam's very
> correct point.

The bizarreness is all your own. A "term is neutral because it has no natural
meaning?" In what way is this "neutral?" Neutral as you use it has no meaning
to me.

I did not "willfully misunderstand his statement. I believed (and still believe)
that he was/is wrong in his assertions. I challenge you to define neutral and
show how ethnicity is exactly that.
 
> Arthur, you obviously are ignorant of how to use the human language.  The
> term ethnicity is neutral.  The term.  Take time, think about what is
> written. 

I have given it time. I can still find no common definition for neutral that
would support his statement. Again, please provide a definition.

> Your reply was irrelevant and unresponsive, and it did nothing to
> deny Adam's point.

Quite the opposite. I showed that there are numerous examples where ethnicity
is far from "neutral."

> Plus, given you originally were trying to claim that "white" ethnicity was
> important, the fact that you are talking about ethnic differences between
> people you claim are of the same race are suddenly as important as ethnic
> differences between "different races" seems to show that racism is wrong.  

White ethnicity is important; racism is not wrong.

> Congratulations -- you fail to disprove Adam's point, but you do prove that
> racism is misguided.

Saying it's so doesn't make it that way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 21 08:56:49 PDT 1996
Article: 23471 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 21:16:02 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <31CA2202.40E2@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C210C8.3181@cyberg8t.com> <4pt9qo$163i@sol.caps.maine.edu> <31C422DC.616A@cyberg8t.com> <4q8e0d$27p@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23471 talk.politics.european-union:4108 soc.culture.europe:45646

M.S. Robb wrote:

> >Race is not "arbitrary." Race represents lineage, bloodline, or the perception
> >thereof.
> 
> The last phrase damages your argument. I could perceive myself to be
> anything.

Not and be truthful to yourself with regard to your kinship.

> It might make me part of that race, especially if others
> accepted me, but then it is wholly arbitrary, even if the participants
> then give it some meaning.

The last argument doesn't damage my argument. People's understanding of
things is not complete. 

> >You're obviously a complete idiot to have said something like that. "Humanity"
> >is a an arbitrary abstraction. "Good," "bad," and "rights," are arbitrary
> >constructions. As to whether or not there is anything "special" to race is
> >subjective. To me, race represents the most important thing.
> 
> So it is arbitrary.

What does "arbitrary" mean in this context. It is not arbitrary. Obviously
when people say "The White race came and took America from the Indians..."
to whom are they referring? They are grouping a bunch of people and claiming
that a broader abstractions of individual events are somehow related. In other
words, first one boat came, then another and then another. Are they related?
Could be. This constant arrival of boats to what we Whites call America was
the arrival of a whole group of people who were related. They were related
both in their kinship (lineage) as well as in their perception of being
related in some way (as well as their ideals of who they should be into the
future).

> >For example, the concept of rights is a social construct. Do you advocate that
> >we do away with that?
> 
> Don't know about Scott, but no. The reasons for that is primarily because
> racism is divisive and demeaning, whereas most social rights are
> liberating and unifying. I agree that value judgements are arbitrary .
> Some are useful, some are not.

So, now who's being arbitrary? When some ideas are useful for maintaining
those of us of European heritage, you call it "arbitrary." When ideas
serve your ideals, then it is not "arbitrary." I think you're the one who
is arbitrary.
 
> No. But if all things are arbitrary, then only liberal tolerance makes
> sense. Imposing on others lacks any justification other than the pleasure
> of exercise of power.

Oh? "Everything is false therefore liberalism is true" appears to be
what you're saying. Well, everything is not false. I am a member of
an historical group which defines itself by race. That is a fact as
much as anything can be fact. On that basis, I choose to continue that
social contract we have among ourselves. If you think our (your and my)
relationship is based on anything other than race, you're wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 21 08:56:50 PDT 1996
Article: 23480 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!icarus.lon.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!warwick!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.be.innet.net!INbe.net!news.nl.innet.net!INnl.net!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 21:21:35 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <31CA234F.216D@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmmo5$msh@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C1E90F.74C1@cyberg8t.com> <4q61df$880@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23480 talk.politics.european-union:4109 soc.culture.europe:45647

M.S. Robb wrote:

> The point of my original remark was to say that there was no
> justification nin treating all members of any grouping as the same, even
> if there was a reason for making the grouping in the first place. This is
> especially true when talking about large poopulatioins and 'soft'
> critieria like IQ.

I don't understand the point you're making in the first sentence. I've never
said that I treated all members of any grouping as the same.
 
> No the point of the remark is to indicate tat the definition of race is a
> cultural phenomenon. Some like whites and blacks, some like anglo-saxons
> and clets and so on. How you draw those boundaries seems to depend on the
> original prejudices of the person.

Race is a cultural phenomenon based on a real thing: lineage. But, let's
assume that it is what you call merely a "cultural" thing. Again, all that
proves is that there is a large historical cultural group which views itself
as existing based on some common characteristic (which is their understanding
of their blood heritage). But let's assume that we take that aspect away,
in other words, there exists an historical group which views itself
as existing based on some common characteristic (let's say language or
some other characteristic). Do "languages" exist in the manner that you
say that race doesn't exist? On that basis do you also seek to destroy
any such cultural groups based on language? If so, who the hell do you
think you are telling people what they can base their lives on? Really,
who do you think you are to destroy ethnic groups because YOU don't like
what they stand for?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 21 08:56:51 PDT 1996
Article: 23482 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 21:25:09 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <31CA2425.24A7@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com> <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33547 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23482 alt.discrimination:48894

Laura Finsten wrote:
> 
> Mr. LeBouthillier, I've got a bunch of UN Human Rights
> documents now.  Want to talk rights?

Yes. I am willing to talk about rights. First, however, let me say that
I don't think that many of those things called "rights" in the UN Human
Rights documents actually ARE rights. However, that is an issue we can
discuss.

First, do you recognize the difference between natural rights and legislated
rights? In other words, natural rights refer to things that exist in nature
prior to governments whereas legislated (i.e. Civil) rights refer to opportunities
to make a claim created by the government.

Second, let's deal with rights in the more abstract sense. Let's look at
what rights are and aren't and when rights are violated and when they're not
(both natural and legislated rights). OK?


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 22 10:44:40 PDT 1996
Article: 23542 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.serv.net!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-11.sprintlink.net!tezcat.com!news.ner.bbnplanet.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:44:48 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <31CB25E0.15DC@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <834854936snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31C73B3F.6DEE@cyberg8t.com> <4qc0se$e3k@news0-alterdial.uu.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23542 alt.politics.white-power:33695 alt.discrimination:48930 alt.atheism:28056 alt.christnet:73867 alt.christnet.evangelical:9298 alt.homosexual:57955 alt.feminism:120847

Suzane Oliver wrote:

> *> If people want to be gay, what's wrong with that?
> 
> *What's right about it? People have a choice to be gay just like they
> *have a choice to be child molesters or drug addicts.
> 
> The choice is more like a choice to have freckles or blue eyes or heart disease.

Oh, so you're saying it is a genetic disease? That's fine, someday it wil be
curable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 22 10:44:41 PDT 1996
Article: 23548 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 05:45:06 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <31CBEAD2.703D@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16. <31C87BA1.27F0@cyberg8t.com> <4qbgn9$1clo@sol.caps.maine.edu> <31CA96A9.5D83@cyberg8t.com> <4qeem8$i6s@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23548 talk.politics.european-union:4121 soc.culture.europe:45666

Sam J. Turner wrote:
> 
> Arthur LeBouthillier (pendragn@cyberg8t.com) wrote:
> : Scott D. Erb wrote:
> 
> : > How do you come off claiming that you know the definition of "real"
> : > ethnicity, while people who make a living studying these things (the
> : > academics you dismiss) have a different notion?  Why is your idiosyncratic
> : > belief better than that of those who devote their lives to understanding
> : > these issues?
> 
> : Perhaps I don't understand what he's saying. However, by "neutral" I took
> : to mean that one holding ethnicity didn't "judge" others. IN other words,
> : one made no positive or negative assertions regarding the relationship with
> : another.
> 
> What purpose do your (self-admitted) arbitrary lines serve,
> if you do not make judgements based upon them?

First, the lines are not arbitrary. They are blood relations.
Second, who said that I don't make judgements based on them? I most
definitely do. It was the person to whom I was responding that tried to
claim that ethnicity was a "neutral" identity. I was merely stating that
I thought I understood what he was saying (although I disagree with him).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 22 10:44:42 PDT 1996
Article: 23549 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 05:48:39 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <31CBEBA7.5883@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pddj4$4uc@news.usaor.net> <4pk5ci$o7c@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pme9c$kjj@news.usaor.net> <4ps1f3$bm9@news1.ucsd.edu> <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com> <4q3duf$32u@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23549 talk.politics.european-union:4122 soc.culture.europe:45667

Fragano Ledgister wrote:

> : Fregano, if I recall properly, you're a Sociology major at UCSD. You know the
>  ^^^^^^^^^
> Who he? Perhaps he's a sociology major, but then I've never heard of
> him.

whatever. If you don't know who you are, then wonderful. Are you denying that
you're a sociology major?
 
> : answer. The answer is called "ethnicity." One may have several ethnicities
> 
> Ethnicity is a social construct which can be defined in different
> ways at different times. Your point is?

Ethnicity may be  a social construct but it is hardly different at different
times. My point is that one may hold several identities in a hierarchy.
 
> : some of which one sees as more primary than others. Therefore, one may see
> : himself as both French (Gallic) as well as White (Aryan) and the two do not
> : conflict. I am both Gallic and Aryan.
> 
> The point about ethnicities is that one is usually forced to choose
> between them, or give primacy to one.

Yeah, so? That is the point I am expressing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 22 10:44:43 PDT 1996
Article: 23550 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 06:49:27 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <31CBF9E7.6D77@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ps39i$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com> <4q3tcd$dc4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C87E21.1037@cyberg8t.com> <4qbt97$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33708 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23550 alt.discrimination:48935

Laura Finsten wrote:

> >First, common definition are only useful when dealing with things in
> >a common manner. I'm using things in a specific context and therefore
> >my meanings are specific. I've defined my terms.
> 
> Yes, you have defined your terms, but in doing so as you have, you
> make dialogue with you rather difficult.  I use the word "racist" to
> mean the opposite of what you do (and most people understand
> its meaning in the same way that I do).  

Yes, there is a difference in opinions on certain definitions.

> As a consequence, you can and often do, intentionally I think, misinterpret
> and misrepresent what I and others say. Is this part of your game,
> Mr. LeBouthillier?

Often I do play games with my detractors, without a doubt. However I seem
to find their total lack of ability to understand the points I am making
quite frustrating. It appears to me that they are purposely refusing to
consider the ideas I/we put forth and purposely misrepresent our own ideas
to advance their own agendas. When that happens, I come to the conclusion
that true discussion is impossible and I choose to make use of them as they
suit my own needs.

> To use semantic play to push those who disagree with you to either
> adopt your peculiar definitions, or be left talking in circles since
> you seem to change your interpretation to suit your ends?

First, I don't think I'm engaged in "semantic play." I'm quite serious
about what I'm doing. Second, I think the opposition does exactly that
for their own reasons. Like I've stated previously, the Internet is not
a debating club. There are no rules for our discussion techniques.

I don't believe that most of you are seriously here to consider and weigh
whether White Power ideas have merit. You have a political agenda (as do I)
and you will ignore things that don't serve your purposes either. That's
fine; just don't expect me to be more rigorous than you are.

> How does the current, commonly understood definition of "racism"
> contribute to an (imagined) effort to destroy the "White race",
> Mr. LeBouthillier?  How does defining "racism" as a belief that
> human abilities are determined by "race", and/or that any "race"
> is superior to others fail to serve your interests?

Because racism as you use it can only have a negative connotation. From
my perspective, it can only have a positive connotation. The word "race"
is not free of ideological baggage or history. As I've stated before,
it does not originate among all peoples of the world, but primarily
>from  Europeans. It is part of our own culture. It is the basis
on which we describe ourselves historically. Therefore, it puts us at a
disadvantage if it has a negative connotation since it is the word we
have traditionally taken to mean "ethnic group" (with our own particular
twist). We don't use the word very often to describe ourselves. For example,
although your side doesn't seem to like it, there is an English race, an Irish
race, a German race, a French race, so forth and so on. You don't have to like
it but that is how we use the term. I might reference a recently-published
work in the mainstream media entitled "How the Irish Race saved Civilization."

However, that use of race is not unique among those of us who consider themselves
White. Mexicans speak of "La Raza" which is Spanish for race and then pretend
that the connotation is "the people." Whatever. You are inconsistent if you
refuse to recognize that that usage is common. In fact, many dictionaries
have similar definitions of "race" while only older ones use the positive
connotation of "racism."

> What utter nonsense.  You are making a false distinction between
> a general concept and particular operationalisations or expressions
> in different settings.  This is tantamount to saying that there
> is no history, there are only histories.

Quite the opposite. I say that there is history and histories and the usages
of the two are not equivalent. I am saying that there is racism and racisms.
There is world history and there is United States history. Why is one missing
ideas from the other? Because it is a particular usage of history for a
particular context. Just the same, there is "racism" (meaning all doctrines
of race) and "racism" (the particular doctrine of which you are speaking which
bases itself on particular ideas of eugenics and superiority).

History is a broad and somewhat objective consideration of general trends
around the world throughout time. However, history is not a positive science;
it is a normative one. That means that the individual must assume that certain
things are first significant and then explore the temporal relations between
them (while disgarding numerous things not felt to be relevant). There is no
universal history. There are an infinite number of historical events (and
ways in which they can be interpreted) and history is most often used to
convey certain political ideas. I might suggest that you read Nietzsche's "On
the Advantage and Disadvantage of History" (full title?).

> Well I can't speak for anyone else, but my reading of the meanings
> and derivation of the suffix "-ism" in the Oxford Concise Dictionary
> suggests to me that you are totally off base.  One meaning of -ism
> is as you suggest.  But a more apt one in this case, in my opinion,
> is "of typical conduct or condition, denoting classes or qualities".
> Examples given are heroism, barbarism, and diamagnetism.

Right, but I have defined the manner of my usage and shown why I use it
the way that I do. What I'm talking about is a "race" "-ism." It is a
doctrine of or devotion to one's race. Additionally, that definition more
properly puts the common usage by racists into proper perspective (at least
historically if not contemporarily). Words (as lexical units) may have any
particular meaning (semantics) attached to them. The attachment between the
two is entirely cultural and not objective. When two lexical units do not
share the same semantic unit, then they are called homonyms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 22 10:47:03 PDT 1996
Article: 33695 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.serv.net!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-11.sprintlink.net!tezcat.com!news.ner.bbnplanet.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:44:48 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <31CB25E0.15DC@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <834854936snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31C73B3F.6DEE@cyberg8t.com> <4qc0se$e3k@news0-alterdial.uu.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23542 alt.politics.white-power:33695 alt.discrimination:48930 alt.atheism:28056 alt.christnet:73867 alt.christnet.evangelical:9298 alt.homosexual:57955 alt.feminism:120847

Suzane Oliver wrote:

> *> If people want to be gay, what's wrong with that?
> 
> *What's right about it? People have a choice to be gay just like they
> *have a choice to be child molesters or drug addicts.
> 
> The choice is more like a choice to have freckles or blue eyes or heart disease.

Oh, so you're saying it is a genetic disease? That's fine, someday it wil be
curable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 22 10:47:03 PDT 1996
Article: 33708 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 06:49:27 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <31CBF9E7.6D77@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ps39i$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com> <4q3tcd$dc4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C87E21.1037@cyberg8t.com> <4qbt97$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33708 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23550 alt.discrimination:48935

Laura Finsten wrote:

> >First, common definition are only useful when dealing with things in
> >a common manner. I'm using things in a specific context and therefore
> >my meanings are specific. I've defined my terms.
> 
> Yes, you have defined your terms, but in doing so as you have, you
> make dialogue with you rather difficult.  I use the word "racist" to
> mean the opposite of what you do (and most people understand
> its meaning in the same way that I do).  

Yes, there is a difference in opinions on certain definitions.

> As a consequence, you can and often do, intentionally I think, misinterpret
> and misrepresent what I and others say. Is this part of your game,
> Mr. LeBouthillier?

Often I do play games with my detractors, without a doubt. However I seem
to find their total lack of ability to understand the points I am making
quite frustrating. It appears to me that they are purposely refusing to
consider the ideas I/we put forth and purposely misrepresent our own ideas
to advance their own agendas. When that happens, I come to the conclusion
that true discussion is impossible and I choose to make use of them as they
suit my own needs.

> To use semantic play to push those who disagree with you to either
> adopt your peculiar definitions, or be left talking in circles since
> you seem to change your interpretation to suit your ends?

First, I don't think I'm engaged in "semantic play." I'm quite serious
about what I'm doing. Second, I think the opposition does exactly that
for their own reasons. Like I've stated previously, the Internet is not
a debating club. There are no rules for our discussion techniques.

I don't believe that most of you are seriously here to consider and weigh
whether White Power ideas have merit. You have a political agenda (as do I)
and you will ignore things that don't serve your purposes either. That's
fine; just don't expect me to be more rigorous than you are.

> How does the current, commonly understood definition of "racism"
> contribute to an (imagined) effort to destroy the "White race",
> Mr. LeBouthillier?  How does defining "racism" as a belief that
> human abilities are determined by "race", and/or that any "race"
> is superior to others fail to serve your interests?

Because racism as you use it can only have a negative connotation. From
my perspective, it can only have a positive connotation. The word "race"
is not free of ideological baggage or history. As I've stated before,
it does not originate among all peoples of the world, but primarily
>from  Europeans. It is part of our own culture. It is the basis
on which we describe ourselves historically. Therefore, it puts us at a
disadvantage if it has a negative connotation since it is the word we
have traditionally taken to mean "ethnic group" (with our own particular
twist). We don't use the word very often to describe ourselves. For example,
although your side doesn't seem to like it, there is an English race, an Irish
race, a German race, a French race, so forth and so on. You don't have to like
it but that is how we use the term. I might reference a recently-published
work in the mainstream media entitled "How the Irish Race saved Civilization."

However, that use of race is not unique among those of us who consider themselves
White. Mexicans speak of "La Raza" which is Spanish for race and then pretend
that the connotation is "the people." Whatever. You are inconsistent if you
refuse to recognize that that usage is common. In fact, many dictionaries
have similar definitions of "race" while only older ones use the positive
connotation of "racism."

> What utter nonsense.  You are making a false distinction between
> a general concept and particular operationalisations or expressions
> in different settings.  This is tantamount to saying that there
> is no history, there are only histories.

Quite the opposite. I say that there is history and histories and the usages
of the two are not equivalent. I am saying that there is racism and racisms.
There is world history and there is United States history. Why is one missing
ideas from the other? Because it is a particular usage of history for a
particular context. Just the same, there is "racism" (meaning all doctrines
of race) and "racism" (the particular doctrine of which you are speaking which
bases itself on particular ideas of eugenics and superiority).

History is a broad and somewhat objective consideration of general trends
around the world throughout time. However, history is not a positive science;
it is a normative one. That means that the individual must assume that certain
things are first significant and then explore the temporal relations between
them (while disgarding numerous things not felt to be relevant). There is no
universal history. There are an infinite number of historical events (and
ways in which they can be interpreted) and history is most often used to
convey certain political ideas. I might suggest that you read Nietzsche's "On
the Advantage and Disadvantage of History" (full title?).

> Well I can't speak for anyone else, but my reading of the meanings
> and derivation of the suffix "-ism" in the Oxford Concise Dictionary
> suggests to me that you are totally off base.  One meaning of -ism
> is as you suggest.  But a more apt one in this case, in my opinion,
> is "of typical conduct or condition, denoting classes or qualities".
> Examples given are heroism, barbarism, and diamagnetism.

Right, but I have defined the manner of my usage and shown why I use it
the way that I do. What I'm talking about is a "race" "-ism." It is a
doctrine of or devotion to one's race. Additionally, that definition more
properly puts the common usage by racists into proper perspective (at least
historically if not contemporarily). Words (as lexical units) may have any
particular meaning (semantics) attached to them. The attachment between the
two is entirely cultural and not objective. When two lexical units do not
share the same semantic unit, then they are called homonyms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 22 14:30:24 PDT 1996
Article: 48930 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.serv.net!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-11.sprintlink.net!tezcat.com!news.ner.bbnplanet.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:44:48 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <31CB25E0.15DC@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <834854936snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31C73B3F.6DEE@cyberg8t.com> <4qc0se$e3k@news0-alterdial.uu.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23542 alt.politics.white-power:33695 alt.discrimination:48930 alt.atheism:28056 alt.christnet:73867 alt.christnet.evangelical:9298 alt.homosexual:57955 alt.feminism:120847

Suzane Oliver wrote:

> *> If people want to be gay, what's wrong with that?
> 
> *What's right about it? People have a choice to be gay just like they
> *have a choice to be child molesters or drug addicts.
> 
> The choice is more like a choice to have freckles or blue eyes or heart disease.

Oh, so you're saying it is a genetic disease? That's fine, someday it wil be
curable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 22 14:30:26 PDT 1996
Article: 48935 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 06:49:27 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <31CBF9E7.6D77@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ps39i$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com> <4q3tcd$dc4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C87E21.1037@cyberg8t.com> <4qbt97$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33708 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23550 alt.discrimination:48935

Laura Finsten wrote:

> >First, common definition are only useful when dealing with things in
> >a common manner. I'm using things in a specific context and therefore
> >my meanings are specific. I've defined my terms.
> 
> Yes, you have defined your terms, but in doing so as you have, you
> make dialogue with you rather difficult.  I use the word "racist" to
> mean the opposite of what you do (and most people understand
> its meaning in the same way that I do).  

Yes, there is a difference in opinions on certain definitions.

> As a consequence, you can and often do, intentionally I think, misinterpret
> and misrepresent what I and others say. Is this part of your game,
> Mr. LeBouthillier?

Often I do play games with my detractors, without a doubt. However I seem
to find their total lack of ability to understand the points I am making
quite frustrating. It appears to me that they are purposely refusing to
consider the ideas I/we put forth and purposely misrepresent our own ideas
to advance their own agendas. When that happens, I come to the conclusion
that true discussion is impossible and I choose to make use of them as they
suit my own needs.

> To use semantic play to push those who disagree with you to either
> adopt your peculiar definitions, or be left talking in circles since
> you seem to change your interpretation to suit your ends?

First, I don't think I'm engaged in "semantic play." I'm quite serious
about what I'm doing. Second, I think the opposition does exactly that
for their own reasons. Like I've stated previously, the Internet is not
a debating club. There are no rules for our discussion techniques.

I don't believe that most of you are seriously here to consider and weigh
whether White Power ideas have merit. You have a political agenda (as do I)
and you will ignore things that don't serve your purposes either. That's
fine; just don't expect me to be more rigorous than you are.

> How does the current, commonly understood definition of "racism"
> contribute to an (imagined) effort to destroy the "White race",
> Mr. LeBouthillier?  How does defining "racism" as a belief that
> human abilities are determined by "race", and/or that any "race"
> is superior to others fail to serve your interests?

Because racism as you use it can only have a negative connotation. From
my perspective, it can only have a positive connotation. The word "race"
is not free of ideological baggage or history. As I've stated before,
it does not originate among all peoples of the world, but primarily
>from  Europeans. It is part of our own culture. It is the basis
on which we describe ourselves historically. Therefore, it puts us at a
disadvantage if it has a negative connotation since it is the word we
have traditionally taken to mean "ethnic group" (with our own particular
twist). We don't use the word very often to describe ourselves. For example,
although your side doesn't seem to like it, there is an English race, an Irish
race, a German race, a French race, so forth and so on. You don't have to like
it but that is how we use the term. I might reference a recently-published
work in the mainstream media entitled "How the Irish Race saved Civilization."

However, that use of race is not unique among those of us who consider themselves
White. Mexicans speak of "La Raza" which is Spanish for race and then pretend
that the connotation is "the people." Whatever. You are inconsistent if you
refuse to recognize that that usage is common. In fact, many dictionaries
have similar definitions of "race" while only older ones use the positive
connotation of "racism."

> What utter nonsense.  You are making a false distinction between
> a general concept and particular operationalisations or expressions
> in different settings.  This is tantamount to saying that there
> is no history, there are only histories.

Quite the opposite. I say that there is history and histories and the usages
of the two are not equivalent. I am saying that there is racism and racisms.
There is world history and there is United States history. Why is one missing
ideas from the other? Because it is a particular usage of history for a
particular context. Just the same, there is "racism" (meaning all doctrines
of race) and "racism" (the particular doctrine of which you are speaking which
bases itself on particular ideas of eugenics and superiority).

History is a broad and somewhat objective consideration of general trends
around the world throughout time. However, history is not a positive science;
it is a normative one. That means that the individual must assume that certain
things are first significant and then explore the temporal relations between
them (while disgarding numerous things not felt to be relevant). There is no
universal history. There are an infinite number of historical events (and
ways in which they can be interpreted) and history is most often used to
convey certain political ideas. I might suggest that you read Nietzsche's "On
the Advantage and Disadvantage of History" (full title?).

> Well I can't speak for anyone else, but my reading of the meanings
> and derivation of the suffix "-ism" in the Oxford Concise Dictionary
> suggests to me that you are totally off base.  One meaning of -ism
> is as you suggest.  But a more apt one in this case, in my opinion,
> is "of typical conduct or condition, denoting classes or qualities".
> Examples given are heroism, barbarism, and diamagnetism.

Right, but I have defined the manner of my usage and shown why I use it
the way that I do. What I'm talking about is a "race" "-ism." It is a
doctrine of or devotion to one's race. Additionally, that definition more
properly puts the common usage by racists into proper perspective (at least
historically if not contemporarily). Words (as lexical units) may have any
particular meaning (semantics) attached to them. The attachment between the
two is entirely cultural and not objective. When two lexical units do not
share the same semantic unit, then they are called homonyms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 23 11:52:13 PDT 1996
Article: 23573 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 06:19:31 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <31CBF2E3.332B@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com> <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qef35$fq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33754 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23573 alt.discrimination:48952

Laura Finsten wrote:
 
> I'm actually responding to your reply, Mr. LeBouthillier,
> but for some reason it isn't appearing on my server right
> now.  Cranky computer, I guess.

That's fine. I too have computer problems sometimes.

> I'm willing to engage in a discussion of "natural rights",
> but as I'm sure you've gathered, I don't have much of a
> grounding in philosophy (except in philosophy of science).
> Would this be the sort of rights that are described in
> international accords as "inherent rights"?  Could you
> recommend some reading material?  I'm always willing to
> learn, although I gather that I lack the exalted level
> of intellect required.

That's fine. I won't pretend I'm an expert on the issue of rights. I've read
some of the classical works and since they have been a major issue for leftists,
I have spent some time coming to understand them.

We don't have to make this a hostile discussion. Let's agree to work together
to come to some understanding on what rights are. On that basis, whatever
cooperation we engage in may only be temporary.

First, some of the basic works on natural rights are:

           Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
           John Locke, Two treatises on Government (Title?)
           Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract.

Additionally, there are other sources which are good for basic ideas of
what rights are such as Blacks Law dictionary. As you read these, you'll
see that there are some basic agreements about what rights are although
there are disagreements. The above three works are not easy reading. They
are often in obscure older English and so difficult to understand at times.
However, they're a good original source on many of the ideas related to
rights, natural rights, law and society. Finally, even Thomas Jefferson
puts forth ideas on law, rights and the nature of government to which we
can look.

I am flexible and will seriously consider works that you offer (assuming I
can either find them or obtain copies of the resources themselves). In some
cases, I will simply take your word. However, in all cases, we must look for
the underlying bias in the author's viewpoint and consider that certain
conclusions and statements are indicative of that bias. All of the authors
above had biases and intentions in their writings. Hobbes wanted to justify
monarchy. Locke wanted to justify non-monarchic governments and Rousseau,
well, he wanted to justify the social contract and deligitimize France as it
was.

Finally, in the next few days I will look for what I think are other important
references that will be important to this understanding. If necessary, I will
be willing to mail you copies of pages from references should I have them and
for which you're unable to obtain copies.

> I think you said something about "before government".
> More clarification of concepts please - do you mean
> "before states"?  Before modern European states?

Well, I guess by "before government" I mean, "inherent." By "before government"
I mean that governments are not the source of rights but their supposed protectors.
Although, I'm not naive-enough to say that governments do not violate rights
and that they may not be justified in doing so, there are some things that an
individual is just in claiming a government may not do.

Additionally, one must recognize that the natural rights viewpoint is merely
a theory about the relationships between people. Just because Rousseau or
some other socio-political author stated it doesn't make it so. They are not
Gods and they don't have divine insight. However, I am willing to consider
that their ideas are very important on these issues.

Additionally, it is my preference that the discussion be centered only on
alt.politics.nationalism.white because I do respect the wishes of others
not to have our discussions overflow to other places. After this message
I will methodically delete cross-postings to other newsgroups. I find it
acceptable that you may bring in others who may help you or us in this
discussion although I may purposely ignore people whom I don't feel are
naturally part of this discussion or not serious enough. As I see it, this
discussion is primarily between you and I, although if you ask that I
consider someone else's ideas, I will do so. I am also willing to change
certain of my own ideas to suit whatever evidence may exist (within certain
limits which we can discuss in the future).

What do you think? It is my opinion that newsgroups are poor discussion
places but can be made into useful places of discussion forums by the
discipline of the participants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 23 11:52:14 PDT 1996
Article: 23581 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:34:38 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <31CB237E.636B@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C422DC.616A@cyberg8t.com> <4q8e0d$27p@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CA2202.40E2@cyberg8t.com> <4qdsje$5pe@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23581 talk.politics.european-union:4132 soc.culture.europe:45685

M.S. Robb wrote:

> >Not and be truthful to yourself with regard to your kinship.
> 
> Perhaps. But more seriously I could perceive myself to be anglo saxon,
> Australian, British, Scottish, English, Nordic and so on. (My parents are
> Australian, their's came from Scotland originally), and they m,oved to
> england before I was born.)

Right. And that is the competition between ideologies. There is no doubt
that there are different groups competing for the loyalty of the individual.
However, like I said, not all identities must be of equal "ordinality." Some
may be deemed to be more significant than others.

> >The last argument doesn't damage my argument. People's understanding of
> >things is not complete.
> 
> For sure. But perhaps there is a semantic difference betweenus. For me
> something can be both arbitrary and meaningful. Do you see it the same
> aay (genuine question).

I need to know more of what you mean by "arbitrary." I'm not sure I understand
what you mean by it.
 
> >> So it is arbitrary.
> >
> >What does "arbitrary" mean in this context. It is not arbitrary. Obviously
> >when people say "The White race came and took America from the Indians..."
> >to whom are they referring? They are grouping a bunch of people and claiming
> >that a broader abstractions of individual events are somehow related. In other
> >words, first one boat came, then another and then another. Are they related?
> >Could be. This constant arrival of boats to what we Whites call America was
> >the arrival of a whole group of people who were related. They were related
> >both in their kinship (lineage) as well as in their perception of being
> >related in some way (as well as their ideals of who they should be into the
> >future).
> 
> So in this example, 'white race' is a useful grouping. It's not useful to
> describe the racism of the english and irish for example.

In what way is it useful? For giving blame on non-Indians? We are an ethnic
group. White existence didn't start with the arrival of Whites to North America
but preceded it. Shakespeare talks about "Moors," which although some may say
it merely means dark-skinned peoples, there is no doubt that there is an
identification by Europeans as being "non-Moors" and everyone else being "Moors."

> Not quite. I think that racism is divisive. IMO that's clear and
> objective. What is arbitrary is that I have called that a good thing.
> Others disagree.

Racism is cohesive to the race that it identifies and divisive for those
social groupings not based on race. Big deal. I am opposed to multi-racial
societies. Racism holds a group together with two aspects: amity and enmity.
There exists amity and cooperation within the race and enmity and divisiveness
outside of it. That's good to me.
 
> >Oh? "Everything is false therefore liberalism is true" appears to be
> >what you're saying.
> 
> Not at all. Only that there are a number of competing belief systems. As
> belief in any one of them (including liberalism) is arbitrary, then the
> most tolerant one is more socially useful IMO, as it leads to less death
> nd conflict. Some revel in conflict and do not share this opinion.

But belief in things is NOT arbitrary. Beliefs are not randomly structured
and chosen. They are hierarchical and goal-oriented. Usually, one can identify
a clear "final end" which all other (or a collection of sub-beliefs) serve.

> > Well, everything is not false. I am a member of
> >an historical group which defines itself by race. That is a fact as
> >much as anything can be fact.
> 
> Sure.

Right, the existence of that historically existing group is truer than
random ideas. The values that I hold exist to serve that group. However,
it is not a mere "robotic" adherence to those beliefs because I believe
that they represent something fundamentally good: the biological and social
existence of my people. And, it is in service to that end that I judge things.

> > On that basis, I choose to continue that
> >social contract we have among ourselves. If you think our (your and my)
> >relationship is based on anything other than race, you're wrong.
> 
> ? Other than the fact that we are arguing about race I don't think I follow.

Well, obviously your justification for laws that violate certain of my rights
will be that you and I exist under some "social contract." All I'm saying is
that the only social contract that I will recognize is one that supports my
people or at least recognizes that they have a right to exist. For example,
on what basis can you advocate the violation of White's rights in order to
extend benefits to non-Whites? Obviously you believe that there is some larger
social grouping that is more significant than my people. I don't accept that
and recognize your advocacy (and practice) of such activities as nothing short
of an attempt to do harm to my people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 23 11:52:15 PDT 1996
Article: 23592 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:41:56 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <31CB2534.6CEA@cyberg8t.com>
References: <1996Jun20.130444.19@ittpub>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23592 talk.politics.european-union:4135 soc.culture.europe:45690

Paul Allen wrote:

> So your argument is that ethnicity cannot be neutral because there
> is no such thing as neutral ethnicity. - sounds rather circular
> to me.

No, that's your argument. The trick is called the strawman. I am saying that
the "neutrality" of a thing is entirely subjective.

I think I finally understand what he meant by "neutral." I think ( and the
original poster can correct me if I'm wrong) that he was saying that ethnicity
does not bear a negative connotation (at least by him) whereas race and racism
does. However, the connotation of a word is merely a subjective phenomena. For
example, race and racism have positive connotations to me. Words are only
"neutral" or "positive" or "negative" with regard to particular values one holds,
not in an objective manner.

> Ethnicity is a problem when people make it so. 

Whether a problem exists or not can only be measured with regard to particular
goals one has. Your goals are not universals (as much as you'd like to believe
otherwise).

> The conflicts you
> cite have been caused by arguments which run along the lines
> of:
> 
> Only the people defined by characteristic X are entitled to
> live in this region.  Any one not an X has no right to be here
> and should be kicked out.

> A logically and morally indefensible argument, BTW.

Prove your logic. Please. I don't think you know how to. Please, you know what
a proof is don't you? First, you state your definitions and premises and
then you show how the conclusion is arrived at from those. Please, do some
hard thinking and show me how you reach that conclusion.

>From  my opinion, those are logically defensible viewpoints (although I may
not morally agree with them).

> Ethnicity, race, call it what you want.  It's just a label.
> It has as much to do with the person behind it as the price
> tag on a sweater.

That is merely your opinion. Ethnicity and race are the basis of most societies
of the world. Problems arise when you try to ignore that people are pursuing
different ideals of society. You have a different ideal than do I. I don't and
I won't share your ideals (just as you apparently won't accept mine). Great,
then war is inevitable; I accept that the existence of my people may come at
the expense of others at times.

> Unfortunately, it's also a useful tool for people who wish
> to stir up trouble.

Like you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 23 11:52:16 PDT 1996
Article: 23597 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nwgw.infi.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!mhv.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:46:06 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <31CB262E.68A8@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <834854936snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31C73B3F.6DEE@cyberg8t.com> <835206424snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23597 alt.politics.white-power:33798 alt.discrimination:48975 alt.atheism:28174 alt.christnet:74091 alt.christnet.evangelical:9337 alt.homosexual:57990 alt.feminism:120921

Caesar wrote:

> > What's right about it? People have a choice to be gay just like they
> > have a choice to be child molesters or drug addicts.
> 
> Child molestors harm children without consent.
> 
> Drug-addicts and homosexuals do not necessarily harm others.

Right, and none of them do anything positive for my race.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 23 11:52:16 PDT 1996
Article: 23612 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 20:15:11 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <31CB653F.6CDD@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com>   <31C87D31.6C1E@cyberg8t.com> <4qa9dg$1i7s@sol.caps.maine.edu> <31C9F8E8.78B4@cyberg8t.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host41.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)

Holger Skok wrote:

> Sorry, bo, it ain't. If you could read your newsgroup lines - and I suppose
> you can, given the fact that you are answering to someone in, well, let's
> call it earnest - you would know that your WAR (white aryan rubbish) is
> being cross-posted.

I'm sorry, but I have no affiliation with WAR. I am merely responding to
others who are spread across numerous discussion groups. I have removed
all other newsgroups from my postings list.

> I'll stick to that as long as your writings appear in the newsgroups I am
> reading. Take them out, and be done listening to anybody but yourself.

You're gone.

> That about sums up your mode of thinking. Logic is whatever I feel it
> is today, evidence likewise.  Oh well.

Oh well. Just don't pretend you're any more "objective."

> As long as you stick to talking and writing and glueing posters onto walls,
> fine. Force does usually include the notion of using physical violence to
> achieve ones aims, though. And should you consider that one of the "side
> effects"

It is one of the side effects of your political system. I don't have the
exact quotation handy, but Max Weber defined a state as something like "that
institution which commands complete authority in the use of force." Every
state must use force to acquire its ends. Whether that use is legitimate or
not is another issue. Liberal states cannot escape the force they use (or
the threat thereof) no matter how much they veil it with rhetoric about
"social justice." The stealing of my property to serve ends hostile to
my people's interests is illegitimate in my eyes.

> you mentioned earlier, then be prepared to meet with some resistance.

Drop dead. You're the side that has been violating White rights for too
long now. It is you who had better watch your backside.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 23 11:52:17 PDT 1996
Article: 23622 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!gatech!rutgers!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 20:07:01 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <31CB6355.381A@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C1E90F.74C1@cyberg8t.com> <4q61df$880@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CA234F.216D@cyberg8t.com> <4qe6o2$dpq@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host41.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23622 talk.politics.european-union:4142 soc.culture.europe:45695

M.S. Robb wrote:

> Ok, try similar as opoosed to identical. Racists use possibly spurious
> tests to determine IQ of races and then say 'blacks are dumb, whites are
> medium, Asians are bright'. Why? It means nothing in any practical sense.
> Treating each as an individual makes far more sense.

In my opinion, Darwinism has destroyed racism. On that basis, I think that
issues of intelligence are not all that relevant to our racial survival.
If you look at the web page listed at the bottom of the page, you will
find "Founding Ideas of the National Party." In there, you will find it
said that we believe that the White nationalist movement is not one of
superiority or inferiority but one of national survival. I believe that.

I always argue with "old-line" racists about this idea and it is difficult
for them to accept but a number have come around to agreeing with me. I am
opposed to eugenics, but nonetheless, I am a racist.

You see, eugenics and racial superiority are the issues that you are really
about, not White survival. On that basis, I can agree that eugenics and racial
superiority are not necessary for White existence. There are other racists
who will disagree with me, but I've thought long and hard about the issue
and that's the conclusion that I've come to.
 
> Chill out. Saying that the basis upn which people chose to decide which
> grouping they belong to is not the same as making an attempt to "destroy
> ethnic groups". You make it sound as if I am a genocidal maniac.

Great, I'm glad you agree with me. Saying that we Whites exist and that
we have rights is not saying that we hate and want to see the destruction
of other racial/ethnic groups. However, we are concerned about our people,
their interests and future.
 
> If people want to say that they are part of an ethnic group, then fine.
> But there's no especially rational basis for this.

Of course there's a rational basis for it; it is the basis of our social
cooperation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 23 17:52:30 PDT 1996
Article: 23636 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: White's Rights Still Being Violated
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:54:33 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <31CB2829.6D89@cyberg8t.com>
References: <31C2FED4.3E0D@cyberg8t.com> <834928443snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31C5EB53.75A9@cyberg8t.com> <835127288snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host49.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)

Caesar wrote:

> > Are you counting Jews as White? If so, on what basis?
> 
> I'm counting everyone who describes themselves as "black" as
> black to see if blacks are over-represented in Congress due
> to gerr-mandering (which they are not).

Right, but it is only your opinion that they are "under-represented."
First, the courts have not recently found any cases where their civil
rights have been violated. Any lack of "proportional representation"
then would be due to the nature of the political process AND the
particular living arrangements blacks choose for themselves. If blacks
distribute themselves widely and sparsely in partitioned regions composed
mainly of non-Blacks, then it is a mathematical fact that they will then
not have representation equal to their percentage in the population.

However, if you want to say that that is the "evil" of the Winner-take-all
regional political districting, then I would agree with you. At this time,
I would tend to prefer a "Proportional Representation" political process.
However, even then, there is no guarantee that Blacks would have representation
equal to their percentage of the population because there are numerous factors
which affect that (including their own voting and living behavior).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Jun 24 08:14:24 PDT 1996
Article: 23641 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 08:41:13 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <31CD6599.46CD@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com> <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qef35$fq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31CBF2E3.332B@cyberg8t.com> <4qha28$11d@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)

Laura Finsten wrote:

> I agree that this does not have to be a hostile discussion.  We may also
> find ourselves able to see where our ideas diverge and explore the reasons
> for that divergence.

Good. I don't think we'll find much in disagreement since I think that we'll
just review the classical literature and ideas. Later, we can take them and
apply them to our own particular viewpoints and then we will probably disagree.
 
> I can get Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau from the library, and they have
> Black's Law dictionary, although it is noncirculating, but that's OK.
> I'll try get started over the weekend, but I still have to plough
> through a huge genetics book I have for only another week on interlibrary
> loan.  I recall from a philosophy course I took that it can be fairly
> tough sledding at times, but I'll give it a whirl.

Don't rush, I'm not in a hurry. Although I have those books that I listed,
I will need to do some additional research of my own.

I merely cited Blacks Law because it will have a definition of "rights" which
might carry a lot of authority. You can probably just xerox the page with the 
definition.

Like I said, don't rush. We can discuss these at your leisure.
 
> I have a friend who does philosophy of law, so I will ask him to recommend
> some reading.  And several who do legal anthropology and indigenous rights,
> so they might have some interesting recommendations.  I also know someone
> who is into international justice and human rights who might be able to
> suggest some material.  Anything that you can't get and I can't get to you,
> we'll scrap from the list (unless you're willing to trust me to cite
> accurately - I always do, but I can understand your reluctance to take my
> word).

I'll trust you. However, just because someone says it doesn't mean that I will
always agree. Any individual can make all manner of claims and statements
which do not necessarily conform with the theoretical basis being discussed.
Additionally, as I've said previously, there is a difference between a Civil
Right (a legislative right) and a natural right (which you have called Human
Rights). To me, it is important to make a distinction between Human Rights and
Natural Rights. What has come to be documented in such places as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is often little more than a civil right at the
global level by an entity which seeks to become the world government.

> >Finally, in the next few days I will look for what I think are other important
> >references that will be important to this understanding. If necessary, I will
> >be willing to mail you copies of pages from references should I have them and
> >for which you're unable to obtain copies.
> 
> Fine,  I can do the same.

Good.
 
> So these would be rights that accrue irrespective of government (in theory, of
> course)?

No, not necessarily, but they represent the rights an individual has in a state
of pure freedom. I recognize that that state cannot exist because the very nature
of government and society requires a trade-off between rights and benefits. IN
other words, to give certain benefits, a government must curtail certain rights.
In order to rightfully demand certain benefits, an individual must willingly
give up certain rights.
 
> >Additionally, one must recognize that the natural rights viewpoint is merely
> >a theory about the relationships between people. Just because Rousseau or
> >some other socio-political author stated it doesn't make it so. They are not
> >Gods and they don't have divine insight. However, I am willing to consider
> >that their ideas are very important on these issues.
> 
> Sure.  So it might also be interesting to read some social theorists on
> the issue of rights, as well.

Definitely. As long as we recognize their own biases.
 
> I have no problem with limiting the discussion to apnw.  I often forget to
> look at the list of groups things are posted to (sloppy netiquette, I'm
> afraid), and I have set this reply for posting to that group only.  I never
> bring other people into discussions, Mr. LeBouthillier.  I have talked about
> things with friends to clarify my thinking on some matters under discussion
> from time to time, and emailed to (and been emailed by) other participants
> in discussions, but I have never solicited the participation of another person
> in a thread and am not about to start.  But if someone makes what you or I think
> is a valid and relevant point, I don't think that it would make sense to ignore it.

Nor do I.

> We'll just have to see what happens, no, and see if we can, when necessary,
> agree to disagree where we must and still be able to discuss things.

Sure.
  
> I'm willing to give it a try.

I like doing this kind of thing (which I have done once or twice in the past,
most in private e-mail) because it speaks to me of the potential to use this
technology (computers and Internet) in a way that is more rigorous and controlled
and which might actually be useful.

Great, let's give it a go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Jun 24 08:14:25 PDT 1996
Article: 23651 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:09:14 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <31CDA46A.E37@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pddj4$4uc@news.usaor.net> <4pk5ci$o7c@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pme9c$kjj@news.usaor.net> <4ps1f3$bm9@news1.ucsd.edu> <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com>  <4qc65b$i32@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C9F30B.146B@cyberg8t.com> <4qf5ji$611@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23651 talk.politics.european-union:4152 soc.culture.europe:45708

Laura Finsten wrote:

Laura Finsten wrote:

> I don't know about "they", but I certainly do not think that everything must
> be deemed of equal value.

Good.

> I was attempting to make the point that there is a contradiction in your
> thinking about "national identity".  It is very convenient for you to equate
> "blood lines" (biology) and "ethnicity" for some purposes, and you do this
> without batting an eye.  It is a way for you to identify yourself and restrict
> the group to which you owe your primary allegiance in a way that suits your
> racist agenda.  My use of "racist" here should work for both of us in this
> context, since it conveys my intended meaning whether one understands it to
> have the commonly understood meaning or the newspeak one you prefer.

Oh, but of course, yours is the newspeak.

> The contradiction emerges when you apply *your* criteria for *self*-identification
> to others.  You say that people may have many ethnicities, but they will assign
> different priorities to them.  I can certainly understand that, being one of those
> whose heritage is all over the place.  No problem.  But in another thread, you
> responded to a question from me in a way that suggested that if a person whose
> "blood relations" included a Jewish grandparent, they could be "White".  

Many European Jews are merely Whites who have adopted the Jewish faith, or who
have minimal amounts of non-European heritage. On that basis, their bloodlines
are acceptable. However, they must come to see that they are first and foremost
Whites above all other interests.

> I still haven't seen your answer to my followup, which asked if they could still
> be "White" if they converted to Judaism.  In other words, if they began to practice
>  the Jewish religion.

As I understand the Jewish religion (and despite the claims of some religious
Jews on this discussion group), the Jewish religion rests on a belief that
they are descended from Abraham (via Shem), whom they view as being "Semitic"
as opposed to being descended from Japheth (from whom I believe their religion
says Whites are descended). Therefore, there is a logical inconsistency. However,
inconsistency in ideology/identity is not unknown among humans.

For example, we have seen athiestic Jews and religious Jews define Jewishness
in different ways. The ethnic Jews admit that religion can be a component but
is not the sole component. The religious Jews say that if you're not religious,
you're not a Jew. Which is it for them? Who cares? That's between them to work
out. Are you going to harangue them for inconsistency? If so, go spend all of
your time interfering with alt.soc.jewish or somesuch.

As I define White, it is a two-component ethnic identity based on lineage and
value. The lineal component rests on a non-Semitic heritage (in particular a
"European" or "Aryan" component, of if you prefer, a "Japhethian"  bloodline).
The group identity rests on European culture and the viewing that as one's
primary ethnic group. In my mind what distinguishes us is our own particular
lineal heritage and our desire to maintain ourselves as a distinct people.

In other words, I think Jewishness is inconsistent with being White. It is
inconsistent because one says "We are a people based on lineal heritage
derived from European/White blood" and the other says something else. Now, I
do believe it is fine for someone to say "I am derived primarily of European
heritage (although I have some non-European heritage) and my people is
defined by its European heritage and the desire to maintain and promote that."
That is not inconsistent. To convert to Judaism is to me, to say that some
group other than "Whites" is one's primary social group. Most especially when
we hear the Jews repeating that Judaism is inconsistent with racism (even
though they're wrong because Judaism *IS* one form of racism).

> If they chose also to recognise that "additional ethnicity",
> in your language, I think.  Am I wrong that your answer would be no, they
> could not be "White"?

I would say no. The reason being that one may only have one primary ethnicity
(i.e. one with highest ordinality). Without a doubt, there are many Jews who
consider themselves White, but they only mean it as being "of light-colored
skin." But they would most likely consider their Jewishness as their primary
cultural group.
 
> If your answer is yes, though, substitute "black" or "African" for Jewish  "blood
> relations" and leave out the part about religion.  How does this one work for you?
> Does your theory of ethnicity still enable a person to have multiple ethnicities and
> recognise them, albeit to different degrees?  Or does *your* definition of *their*
> heritage become paramount?

First, it is not "my theory of ethnicity." What I am speaking of is what I
understand anthropologists and ethnographers to be saying. What might be called
"my theory" are my views of Whiteness. Second, the lineage and its associated
traits negate the possibility of "black" or "African-Americans" being a member
of my society. A small percentage of European ancestry is not good enough
although I would think that their loyalty to European interests would be good.

> Does the externally imposed identification of "other" override the individual's
> self-identification?

I don't know what you mean by "externally imposed." I have my own definition
which I use. That certain peoples might consider themselves "White" as do
some Hispanics, does not affect my own valuation of them.

> Have you decided that for some people, their different ethnicities must be
> mutually exclusive, or that they are incapable of determining for themselves
> which ones to grant highest priority?

I didn't substitute "yes." However, I recognize that people have multiple
ethnic identities. Without a doubt, there are people of mixed lineal heritage
(i.e. African and European) who don't have a preference for either. I will
recognize that. However, my experience is that they define this new entity
called "American" which they define as including both. I don't share their
viewpoint. My own definition of Whiteness does not include someone who deems
non-European heritages as significant WRT Whiteness.

However, I can never "decide for someone else." I can only state my own
viewpoints and understandings and if they want to accept them, then fine.
I'm not obligated to accept their definitions either. I am telling you
what is of highest priority to me. Those who refuse to hold certain
valuable priorities are not members of my society.

> Well, Mr. LeBouthillier, I found your argument amusing (no insult intended),
> and I did attempt to respond in an ironic vein.  But I can't seem to win for
> losing on the humour front, so maybe I should just go back to humourless mode.
> I apologise for expressing myself so poorly and will endeavor to  bring my
> argumentation up to your standards.

No biggie. I always find your posts "amusing" for their inconsistencies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Jun 24 21:51:25 PDT 1996
Article: 23699 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.miracle.net!newsfeed.randomc.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!ratty.wolfe.net!news.aa.net!ixa.net!news.ironhorse.com!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: 24 Jun 1996 16:25:22 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <4qmfhi$9f8@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmmo5$msh@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C1E90F.74C1@cy <31CA2011.6371@cyberg8t.com> <4qksak$12la@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host05.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23699 talk.politics.european-union:4169 soc.culture.europe:45733

Scott Erb,  says:

> Fine.  As I define race, they are not.  Where does that get us?  

Talking about different things.

> The European Jews are white. 

Then they're not "semitic" and to be anti-Jewish is not to be
"Anti-Semitic." Again, what does anti-Semitic mean?

> You should be welcoming them as family and blood relations.

If they would work cooperatively for the benefit of the White
race, I might.

> Yet you don't?  Why?

Because they say that their beliefs are inimical to racialism.
Therefore, they are hostile to the basis of whatever community
we might work in.

>  Ah, more irrationality, it seems.  

It seems that way to you.

> Irrationality you'll defend because you'll see you want to have
> your irrationality your way.

Please define irrationality.

>  Don't be surprised if you don't find many to agree!

I really don't care.

>> You obviously misunderstand what I'm saying if you think that I think
>> race is "untenable." Race is "tenable."
>
> Why?

Because it represents an historical community defined by blood
relations. As such, it is both cultural and genetic.

> Well, that and a quarter will buy you a phone call.  But there is
> no logical reason for you to feel such concern over your skin color
> and your imagined historical society.

The issue of which I'm talking is not merely about skin color. It
is about culture and society, race and community.

>  Most of us Americans hold quite different views, and most in Europe
> do too.

Now you're claiming to speak for "most Americans!"

>  But feel free to live in your own little fantasy.

No, you feel free to live in your own little fantasy. Don't interfere
with my race and society.

> Nope, you have as your first premise blood relations.  Our society
> believes in families, which may include adopted children.  Then,
> beyond family, there is community, which is increasingly
> multicultural, and will be more so with greater communication,
> transportation, etc.  Family, then community, and then global
> cooperation.

That's your liberal wet-dream fantasy world, not a real community.
Besides, I'm not a member of your community.


> Hardly much of a threat since I doubt they (or I) would want any of
> the benefits you'd be able to extend.

Great, then why are you wasting your time on our newsgroup?

14 Words,
Arthur Lebouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Jun 24 21:51:26 PDT 1996
Article: 23701 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!jussieu.fr!u-picardie.fr!utc.fr!univ-lille1.fr!ciril.fr!news.imag.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!in2p3.fr!swidir.switch.ch!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 08:16:52 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <31CD5FE4.2E61@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <834854936snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31C73B3F.6DEE@cyberg8t.com> <835206424snz@augur.demon.co.uk>,<31CB262E.68A8@cyberg8t.com> <4qhd05$ijl@fnnews.fnal.gov> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host27.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23701 alt.politics.white-power:33970 alt.discrimination:49045 alt.atheism:28308 alt.christnet:74335 alt.christnet.evangelical:9394 alt.homosexual:58027 alt.feminism:120983

In article <4qhd05$ijl@fnnews.fnal.gov>, cinar@D0SB01.FNAL.GOV wrote:
 
> Arthur LeBouthillier  writes:
> >Caesar wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> Drug-addicts and homosexuals do not necessarily harm others.
> >
> >Right, and none of them do anything positive for my race.
>
> Excuse me for not seeing how being a homosexual prevents one from
> contributing to the human race. Care to explain??

As homosexuals, they don't contribute and they seek to denigrate values
which are positive toward our existence as a people.

> (BTW, I sincerely hope you meant the 'human race' (?) ).

No, I meant the White race.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Jun 24 21:52:52 PDT 1996
Article: 33970 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!jussieu.fr!u-picardie.fr!utc.fr!univ-lille1.fr!ciril.fr!news.imag.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!in2p3.fr!swidir.switch.ch!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 08:16:52 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <31CD5FE4.2E61@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <834854936snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31C73B3F.6DEE@cyberg8t.com> <835206424snz@augur.demon.co.uk>,<31CB262E.68A8@cyberg8t.com> <4qhd05$ijl@fnnews.fnal.gov> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host27.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23701 alt.politics.white-power:33970 alt.discrimination:49045 alt.atheism:28308 alt.christnet:74335 alt.christnet.evangelical:9394 alt.homosexual:58027 alt.feminism:120983

In article <4qhd05$ijl@fnnews.fnal.gov>, cinar@D0SB01.FNAL.GOV wrote:
 
> Arthur LeBouthillier  writes:
> >Caesar wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> Drug-addicts and homosexuals do not necessarily harm others.
> >
> >Right, and none of them do anything positive for my race.
>
> Excuse me for not seeing how being a homosexual prevents one from
> contributing to the human race. Care to explain??

As homosexuals, they don't contribute and they seek to denigrate values
which are positive toward our existence as a people.

> (BTW, I sincerely hope you meant the 'human race' (?) ).

No, I meant the White race.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Jun 25 07:43:46 PDT 1996
Article: 23710 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: The Aryans and "slaves"
Date: 24 Jun 1996 17:07:00 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4qmhvk$bdj@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@ly <4q9g2t$7k1@shore.shore.net> <4q9j0n$1fmi@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4q9nhf$hjr@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <4qa0tr$e8v@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <4qc7n9$a5n@globe.indirect.com> <4qk2qg$i0g@kuikka.inet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host05.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23710 talk.politics.european-union:4174 soc.culture.nordic:46069

> Aryans are (thanks to Mr. Hitler) usually agreed to be kind of master
> race. That's why it was very funny to read, that the Finnish word for
> slave, "orja" probably originates to aryans. So in Finnish aryan
> ("orja") and slave had same meaning in the time we were neighbours...

Then you're probably a descendent of a Germanic slave...

Ha!

14 Words,
Art



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Jun 25 10:44:08 PDT 1996
Article: 49045 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!jussieu.fr!u-picardie.fr!utc.fr!univ-lille1.fr!ciril.fr!news.imag.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!in2p3.fr!swidir.switch.ch!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.homosexual,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: call to battle
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 08:16:52 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <31CD5FE4.2E61@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4poc65$5ir@aphex.direct.ca> <4ps3nd$bmp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <834854936snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31C73B3F.6DEE@cyberg8t.com> <835206424snz@augur.demon.co.uk>,<31CB262E.68A8@cyberg8t.com> <4qhd05$ijl@fnnews.fnal.gov> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host27.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23701 alt.politics.white-power:33970 alt.discrimination:49045 alt.atheism:28308 alt.christnet:74335 alt.christnet.evangelical:9394 alt.homosexual:58027 alt.feminism:120983

In article <4qhd05$ijl@fnnews.fnal.gov>, cinar@D0SB01.FNAL.GOV wrote:
 
> Arthur LeBouthillier  writes:
> >Caesar wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> Drug-addicts and homosexuals do not necessarily harm others.
> >
> >Right, and none of them do anything positive for my race.
>
> Excuse me for not seeing how being a homosexual prevents one from
> contributing to the human race. Care to explain??

As homosexuals, they don't contribute and they seek to denigrate values
which are positive toward our existence as a people.

> (BTW, I sincerely hope you meant the 'human race' (?) ).

No, I meant the White race.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Jun 25 19:10:15 PDT 1996
Article: 23753 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!yama.mcc.ac.uk!warwick!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 16:12:35 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <31D07263.879@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16. <31CA96A9.5D83@cyberg8t.com> <4ql07r$1ii0@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host31.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23753 talk.politics.european-union:4201 soc.culture.europe:45777

Scott Erb wrote:
>
> No, that's not what neutral means.  Remember he said the CONCEPT is neutral,
> not any given activity by groups identifying themselves as ethnic groups.
> Ethnicity is a neutral term because it does not require that a group identify
> itself in any particular way, such as superior or separate.  One can have an
> ethnic identity and consider all other ethnic groups as being just as
> valuable and important to them, and think that it's better to have many
> ethnic groups live together and interact, and learn from each other.  Some
> may even have an ethnic identity and believe that it is unimportant, and not
> worry (as you do) about keeping it "pure" or even relevant.  (I for one,
> would have no qualms about marrying and having children outside of my ethnic
> group if I was in love.  To me, love is more important than arbitrarily
> defined ethnic groupings)  Some (look you) have a racist view of ethnicity.
> It's neutral because the term itself does not necessitate any one set of
> attributes.

So you've proven me right. Ethnicity does not "necessitate" those attributes,
although it may.

> I suggest you take a few courses and learn how to use this sort of
> vocabulary.  It's not that difficult.  You might learn something.

Oh, Scott, you certainly are the God of Rhetoric! Please teach me how to
think in as twisted a way as you!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 26 22:02:35 PDT 1996
Article: 23802 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!warwick!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 16:14:14 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <31D072C6.60E@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pddj4$4uc@news.usaor.net> <4pk5ci$o7c@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pme9c$kjj@news.usaor.net> <4ps1f3$bm9@news1.ucsd.edu> <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host31.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23802 talk.politics.european-union:4229 soc.culture.europe:45813

Eugene Holman wrote:

> Impossible and contradictory. Don't you know that "Wogs start at Calais"?
> The French, like the Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, and especially
> Romanians are by definition 'Wogs' and thus non-Aryan.

How could that be? I always heard that Wogs start at Istanbul. What's going
on here? Are you telling lies again?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 26 22:02:36 PDT 1996
Article: 23809 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 05:29:40 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 283
Message-ID: <31CFDBB4.4227@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com> <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qef35$fq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31CBF2E3.332B@cyberg8t.com> <4qha28$11d@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host03.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)

Laura Finsten wrote:

> Depends on what "organising as an ethnic group" entails, naturally.
> You can call yourselves the twenty-first century's Martians for all
> anyone cares, but I do not understand why you insist on using "race"
> to describe what you repeatedly claim is a group which is *not* based
> primarily on biological relatedness, when contemporary usage gives
> it exactly that meaning.

Why I insist on using "race" to describe what I repeatedly claim is
a group which is *not* based primarily on biological relatedness...?"
Because my usage is the proper and historical definition. Look in
your favorite dictionary. There you will find a definition similar
to my own; mine is the common usage of that term. Yours is not the
common usage, but the technical usage. In a technical setting, using
common terms is improper, but so is using a technical term in a
common context. Moreover, since you acknowledge that I am using
a different connotation, and I have publicly stated that is the
definition that I'm using, why are YOU confusing the issue by
mixing the two?

Webster's New World dictionary defines it as such:

    Race - 1) any of the different varieties or populations
           of human beings distinguished by a) physical traits
           such as hair, eyes, skin color, body shape, etc:
           traditionally, the three primary divisions are
           Caucasoids, Negroid, and Mongoloid, although many
           subdivisions of these are also called races b) blood
           types c) genetic code patterns d) all their inherited
           characteristics which are unique to their isolated
           breeding population 2) a) the state of belonging to
           such a population b) the qualities, traits, etc
           belonging or supposed to be belonging to such a
           population 3) loosely, a) any geographical population
           b) any population sharing the same activities, habits,
           ideas, etc. 4) any group of people having the same
           ancestry; family; clan; lineage 5) Biol. a) a subspecies
           or variety b) BREED 6) [Rare] distinctive flavor, taste,
           etc., as of wine - the (human) race: all people collectively.

Since you have acknowledged that dictionaries reflect common usage,
we see that my particular definition is coincident with common
usage. Do you have any more word games you'd like to play to
continue this charade that you don't recognize my definition as
a common one?

> I have no problem with whatever label you want to attach to yourself.
> It is the rest of it that becomes problematic.

I'm supposed to care what you think is "problematic?" Do you care
what I think is problematic?

> The only stink I detect is a usage of "race" that seems to be
> designed, at least in part, to cleanse the concept of "racism"
> of its negative connotations.

My usage of race is a commonly recognized usage. It is obvious
that you, recognizing the importance of language to convey concepts,
merely want to ensure that no one has a positive connotation of it.

Anyways, the connotations of a word are purely subjective. For example,
"Pagan" has a positive connotation to Pagans and a negative one
to Christians. The connotation merely signifies your particular
values, nothing more.

> Do you have the wording on that UN convention about "races hav[ing]
> the right to exist"?  My head goes in circles with your conflation
> of race and ethnicity.  I guess I shouldn't read that human biology,
> it only confuses me about what "race" really means.

Obviously you ARE confused. As I've shown, the common usage reflects
my own usage. It is you who is using language improperly by not
restricting words to their adequate domains. However, if you would
be reasonable in these discussions, we could arrive at an understanding
on these issues. Being the great "modern" anthropologist which I
recall you saying you were, I'm sure you have a definition of
ethnicity which is recognized to be scientifically accurate?
Please provide it for me.

> So races emerge and dissolve just like ethnic groups do?  Why use
> two words to mean the same thing, Mr. LeBouthillier, especially when
> one of them has a very different meaning in both common and scientific
> parlance?

Two words to mean the same thing? Haven't you listened to what I
have constantly said? They are not the same thing. It is obvious
to me that you are playing a silly little word game which is
given the name of "equivocation" in logic.

As to whether "races" emerge and dissolve, what's your point? The
biological definition does not preclude that and neither does the
ethnological usage. Are you stating that, in accordance with the
biological usage, "races" cannot merge and dissolve?

> In answer to your question, though, I truly do not think that the
> UN conventions were intended to do what you suggest they should.

What I am intending here is that the UN Conventions state universal
rights that the UN recognizes (although most often they are merely
United Nations Civil Rights). I am merely saying that when the
conventions say that something is a right of all people that they
also refer to Whites. In other words, I'm using an interpretation of
their statements which accords rights equally to all peoples of the
world. Do you have a problem with that?

>> Second, "ethnic rights" means the right to belong to such a grouping
>> and for groupings of such people to work toward their mutual self-
>> interests in a way that does not violate others rights.
>
> Well, throwing a whole bunch of people off your territory would have
> to do that, though, wouldn't it?  Pity it isn't still the 17th century
> when aboriginal peoples' rights were ignored.

Laura, you're playing another game. First, you're throwing up the old
strawman again. When have I ever advocated "throwing a whole bunch
of people off my territory?" Second, the issue isn't whether aboriginal
peoples' rights were ignored throughout history, but exactly what are
the rights of ethnic groupings (including Whites).

Obviously you're purposely misrepresenting my point since as I stated
in the sentence previously "in a way that does not violate others
rights."

>> Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
>> you do not also extend to Whites?
>
> [Deletia]
>
> In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the
> rights of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within
> nation-states as requiring distinct protection.  Examples of such
> groups would include the Australian Aborigines, and Native peoples
> of the western hemisphere.

So in other words Laura, you've just stated unequivocally that you
are NOT for "equal rights." You have stated here that you seek to
deny Whites certain rights which you will extend to non-White
peoples. Therefore, I would be morally right to secure my "equal
rights" under the organizations that refuse to extend them equally.

> Of course "Whites" have human rights.  The intention of the UN accords
> is to extend to every human being some basic rights, and the
> inhabitants of all signatories to those accords, at least in theory,
> have those rights.  On a more philosophical level, I believe that
> there are fundamental rights that all humans must have, with or
> without their government's signatures on a piece of paper.

Fine, I accept that. But what does it mean to have a right? Does
it impose obligations on those who say they are promoting and
protecting them?

> The self-determination is a bit more problematic, though, because by
> this you seem to mean that any group of people who choses to identify
> itself as an ethnic group should have the right to its own territory,
> complete with political autonomy and with the right to deny fundamental
> rights to others.  That I do not accept.

So all states are correct and perfect and there can be no other
organization of political power structures other than currently
existing states? What is the basis of states? The will of the people.
Lacking that will, the state is illegitimate. If a sizeable population
deems that it must have political autonomy, then that in itself
justifies to me their political structure. Short of that, you have
rule by decree. Whether a people likes their particular political
situation or not, Laura Finsten has declared that they must accept it.

I disagree with you position wholeheartedly. As Thomas Jefferson
stated in The Declaration of Independence:

       We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
       are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
       with certain unalienable Rights, that amongst these are
       Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

       That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
       among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent
       of the governed.

       That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
       to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
       abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
       foundation on such principles and organizing its powers
       in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
       their Safety and Happiness.

Being the great "human rights" advocate (which you imply is
equivalent to "natural rights), you must recognize that this
is the basis of legitimate power of a government. Is that so?

> The ethnicity thing is a non-issue, as I see it in this context.
> Call yourself whatever you like.

Great, then we are race, which is at least a kind of ethnic group.

> Well, I confess I still haven't read the UN declarations you mention.

Laura, please tell me how you think you are a "human rights" advocate
if you haven't read the documents which describe them.

> I didn't know whether you were asking about rights as codified by
> particular international declarations (and my interpretation of them),
> or whether you were posing broader, more philosophical questions.

I am posing the broader, more philosophical questions since I don't
think that tthose things codified in the international declarations
are anything more than "civil rights" created by an organization
bent on being the world's government (which I feel is illegitimate).

>> Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to
>> non-Whites which you also don't extend to Whites?
>
> Absolutely, in certain circumstances.

Therefore, you are not promoting "equal rights" for Whites. Therefore,
by your own admission, you are discriminating against Whites.

But anyways, what are those "circumstances" for which you will
discriminate against Whites?

>>> Tell me, Mr. LeBouthillier, do you think that any group that
>>> decides it is an ethnicity should have the right to establish
>>> its own state?
>>
>>Yes.
>
> Wow.  What chaos would ensue.  How large does an "ethnic group" have
> to be before the parent state has to give it a land grant?

That I think they have the right to aspire to it does not mean that
I think every group would. For example, in Canada, you have the
Quebecois who use the threat of secession for their own political
interests. That is good. After all, when have you "Canadians" ever
historically been kind to us French by recognizing our rights and
interests? Might I suggest you read Evangeline by Nathaniel Hawthorne?
That is Canada's heritage towards the French.

If the state is to maintain its legitimacy, it must address the needs
and interests of the people. But, I think that the U.N.'s policy on
this issue is that such a people must have at least one metropolitan
area and a sizeable agricultural region. I don't think this is a bad
requirement. Still, that I don't automatically say "yes" to every
group doesn't mean that I don't recognize that they have legitimate
issues of concern or rights to exist and self-determination.

> Sadly, in a democracy, no one every gets 100 percent of the vote, so
> one might say that a lot of people are being ruled "against their will".

Obviously you have a piss-poor understanding of democracy. In order
to be a valid democracy, there must exist a commonality on the basic
issue that they are one polity. Lacking that, you have merely forced
conflicting interests together.

> So you would just keep carving up your White nation-state into
> smaller and smaller pieces so that everybody could have their
> own cacicazgo, sort of like a little fiefdom?

Now you're pretending to know my position on issues without my
consultation! I would not "keep carving up [my] White nation-state
into smaller and smaller pieces..." I would recognize the validity
of particular people's interests and accomodate them (unlike you
who seem ready to tell them that they can't determine for themselves
what is good for themselves). What an arrogant one you are! Of
course, there would be sub-divisions such as Town, City, County,
State.

> I find that difficult to believe, Mr. LeBouthillier, since if I
> recall correctly you have said that you would use whatever force
> was necessary in order to establish your "White" homeland.  It
> seems rather inconsistent to give away so easily what you appear
> to willing to kill to achieve.

As I've shown, the perceived inconsistency is merely due to your
mis-understanding of my position.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL:   Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to
       non-Whites which you also don't extend to Whites?
Laura: Absolutely, in certain circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Jun 26 22:02:37 PDT 1996
Article: 23810 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!news.fibr.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 18:57:31 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <31D1EA8B.1AF@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CA234F.216D@cyberg8t.com> <4qe6o2$dpq@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CB6355.381A@cyberg8t.com> <4qmjr3$gj4@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4qpal0$2hu@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4qpc2p$lp7@sun4.bham.ac.uk> <31D07127.3F74@cyberg8t.com> <4qr8p5$ba9@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host34.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23810 talk.politics.european-union:4246 soc.culture.europe:45823

Sam J. Turner wrote:

> That's funny. I restated them in a different post and
> you made a weak attempt which is currently running.

You're certainly very good at lying. Anyone who wishes to can look back at
earlier posts and see that when I asked you to repost them, you said basically
"never mind." Now you're claiming that you've reposted them when you have not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL: Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
     you do not also extend to Whites?
LF:  In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the
     rights of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within
     nation-states as requiring distinct protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 27 08:46:39 PDT 1996
Article: 23820 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Your Stolen Future!
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 08:26:23 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <31CD621F.3D9D@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4qhvmc$p45@alpha.sky.net> <4qiil9$88k@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)

Andrew Mathis wrote:

> Hey Frank, just wondering....
> 
> Why are you posting this on a White Racist newsgroup?
> 
> Yours truly,
> Andrew Mathis

Hey Andrew, just wondering....

Why are you posting this on what you admit is White racist newsgroup?
Are you saying you're a White racist now?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 27 08:46:40 PDT 1996
Article: 23828 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 15:58:20 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <31D06F0C.5DBB@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmmo5$msh@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C1E90F.74C1@cy <4qmfhi$9f8@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4qmrss$ngq@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host31.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23828 talk.politics.european-union:4256 soc.culture.europe:45835

Scott Erb wrote:

> Well, I'm white and non-Jewish, and I'm certainly going to do all I can to
> oppose "racialism" in any community I'm in.  So you really still have no
> reason to separate out Jews from other whites in terms of "race."  

But you have made no statement at all! I'm White and I support racialism.

> Most "european" whites have beliefs which are inimical to racialism.

Are you claiming to speak for "most europeans?"

>  Most Jewish people work to the good of their communities in places like the
> U.S. without regard to irrational ideas such as "racialism." 

Ever heard of a strawman? I'm sure you have since you've just made one up.

>  You have no logic for your position, and definitely no evidence.

Of course I have logic to support my position. You haven't shown any logic
so you can't say anything of the sort.
 
> (On race:)
> 
> >Because it represents an historical community defined by blood
> >relations. As such, it is both cultural and genetic.
> 
> No, only cultural.  In terms of genetics intra-race variation is as huge as
> variation between "races." 

So you admit races exist then.

> When you talk about huge groups like so-called "whites," the cultural links and
> "historical community" aspect is very weak. 

Please support your statement. I can show historical support for my position,
yet you ignore it. For example, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of
Independence and the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1792 in which he
said only Whites could become US citizens. There is one piece of proof of
the historical community of which I'm speaking. The Dred Scott decision
also stated that the U.S. Gov't was established to represent Whites, yet
more historical proof of my position. Are you claiming you have refuted this
evidence? You have not: I am supported on my historicity position.

> The populations are varied in different historical communities and cultural
> beliefs.  You really have no coherent reason for seeing race as important.

That is a specious argument. I have many coherent reasons for seeing race
as important. That you finally say "well I disagree with you" on particular
values does not disprove my position.
 
> People within a so-called "race" may have very different communities and
> cultures.  Black and white people in the U.S. often have more community in
> common than black people in the U.S. with blacks in Africa, or white people
> in the U.S. and whites in Europe.

Perhaps in your case, but not mine.

>  You have no logical reason to stick "race" in there.  If you talk about culture,
> society and community, then you still have no reason for why that culture should
> remain homogeneous. 

We have not even begun to delve into these issues and already you're claiming
victory! Hah, you really are an arogant S.O.B. Just because we have only
addressed (roughly) a few issues does not mean you understand all of what I'm
talking. In fact, I would gladly continue this discussion to prove your
own illegitimacy on this issue.

> Is it just that you fear people who are different than you?  

Not at all. I have particular values which I would like to see promoted.
Are you perhaps, putting up a strawman again? Better yet, is that the only
argument technique you have?

>Is your fear so strong that you want those of us who get along quite fine and
> even have close friendships with others to give them up in order to separate
> into different "nations"?

Is your fear that I'm right so strong that you can't even think properly about
what I'm talking because your whole fantasy world would crumble around your
head?

> If so, I think you probably need some professional help.  This isn't an
> intellectual issue, it's a pathology of your mind.

I think you should stop pretending you can perform psychiatry over the Internet.

> Whose interfering with you?  And what do you mean by "your race"?  How does
> one interfer with "your race"?

One promotes conditions which are inimical to our existence. One promotes
policies which deny our rights.
 
> Nope, I described reality.  Why is it that it scares you so?  What is it
> about a group of people from different cultures working together that makes
> you hostile?  Hmmmmmm?

Reality? Obviously you know nothing of it to say that. Why are you so scared
to consider that White people have rights? Why are you so scared that you
have to falsely portray White people's love and preference for their own
as fear and hatred? Do you hate Whites that much?

> Why are YOU wasting time in talk.politics.european-union?  That's where I'm
> reading this and responding from.  If you stop posting here, I guarantee you,
> I won't post in your news group.

No, you're crossposting on my newsgroup. I merely responded to something that
you had said (or you had crossposted onto alt.politics.nationalism.white).
I have never read posts from any location other than alt.politics.nationalism.white.
But, if you're afraid to be proven wrong, I won't pursue you if you stop posting
on alt.politics.nationalism.white.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Jun 27 22:57:19 PDT 1996
Article: 23887 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:05:47 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 422
Message-ID: <31D33DFB.4688@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pddj4$4uc@news.usaor.net> <4pk5ci$o7c@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pme9c$kjj@news.usaor.net> <4ps1f3$bm9@news1.ucsd.edu> <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com>  <4qc65b$i32@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C9F30B.146B@cyberg8t.com> <4qf5ji$611@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31CDA46A.E37@cyberg8t.com> <4qon7i$lqh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host21.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23887 talk.politics.european-union:4291 soc.culture.europe:45872

Laura Finsten wrote:

> OK, let us just agree that your understanding of the term "racism" is pretty much
> the direct opposite of the meaning it has for most people today.  Can we do that?
> Can we make it clear that your meaning of this word and mine are pretty much
> diametrically opposed?

Our definitions are pretty much diametrically opposed.

>  The only way I can see any degree of overlap in our different usages of this
> term is if you think that your sense of the word entails the contemporary one,
> i.e., if one can only feel pride and a sense of identification with one's "lineal"
> group (or at least parts of it) if one associates particular traits and
> characteristics with social groups called races (lineal groups in your terminology)
> [Do you see what I mean about the communication problem?  I have to qualify
> everything I say.]

I can admit that racism, as I mean it can entail some of what you're talking
about (i.e. hatred of other races).

> An aside.  I was trying to think of a good analogy for the dispute we have over
> the meaning of "racism".  The best one that has come to mind is a sexual harassment 
> case I read about at an American university where a groups of female students
> complained that a male professor's use of the phrase "rule of thumb" constituted
> sexual harassment.

That's pretty hilarious. Boy! See what madness you liberals have created!

> Their argument was based on the original meaning of the phrase (the thickness
> of a rod with which a husband could beat his wife without incurring legal
> penalty in England).

Right, see? His definition was something like "a rough rule without specific
guidelines" and they interpreted it as what? I don't know. I couldn't even
pretend to understand what their ridiculousness implied.

But your point is well-taken. People interpret things differently.
 
> Well, my hypothetical example did not specify that the Jewish grandparent would
> have been Ashkenazi.  Would it make a difference if they were Sephardic?  Would
> that taint their bloodlines beyond acceptable limits?  Can you specify what the
> acceptable limits are?

To the point where they do not exhibit traits which are significantly from those
I recognize as "the norm."

> >As I understand the Jewish religion (and despite the claims of some religious
> >Jews on this discussion group), the Jewish religion rests on a belief that
> >they are descended from Abraham (via Shem), whom they view as being "Semitic"
> >as opposed to being descended from Japheth (from whom I believe their religion
> >says Whites are descended). Therefore, there is a logical inconsistency. However,
> >inconsistency in ideology/identity is not unknown among humans.
> 
> Yup.  And I suspect that with the exception of Orthodox Jews, for many this part
> of Biblical history is taken as literally as the Bible is as a historical document,
> word for word, by most nonfundamentalist Christians.  I'm thinking specifically
> of the Book of Genesis and the creation story, Noah's Ark and the great flood,
> and those sorts of things, rather than the birth and crucifixation of Christ. 

Yes, many people believe it as it says it; others see it as allegory or
analogy.

> No, but you seem to be seeing the edge of my point.  Isn't it up to the individual,
> rather than some group, to decide his/her identity?  To determine which aspects or
> elements of his/her identity s/he wishes to weigh in what ways?

No. They may do those things anyways. Obviously, when they do things that are
against the interests of those groups, then one is obligated to correct them
(as I assume you're trying to do with me because you want to include me in
"your" group whereas I don't accept its tenets).

There are many different groups, and they make varying demands on the individual.
Ultimately, though, I think most people say that there is a highest group (perhaps)
to which they identify. For example, if you believe that you and I have any
moral obligations towards each other, then on what basis do you make those
claims? Because we're  "humans?" What does that mean? Humans kill each other
all the time.

>  I think that social groups do indeed have a great affect on identities, both
> ones to which an individual belongs through birth or ancestry and ones to which
> they don't (and often, by definitions like yours, can't) belong.

They most certainly do.

>  I imagine you'll be amused at what may appear here to be an inconsistency, but
> I'll pick up on this again further along. 

I don't see many inconsistencies.

> My general point is that individual identities emerge, are constructed, within
> a social context.  Individuals make choices, some conscious and others not, and
> some constrained or limited by  by external groups who seek to define themselves
> in opposition to them.

Yeah. I don't doubt that happens. I think it is unfortunate that many Whites
define themselves by what they're not. I think they should define themselves
by what they ARE, by what they WANT TO BRING ABOUT ON THAT BASIS. I've
received letters from people who support me saying that they read my viewpoints
and that they had so much trouble actually trying to define themselves positively
instead of negatively. However, they said that they came to a greater and more
meaningful understanding of who they are because of that. To me, that's good.
That's good not only for Whites, but for all peoples, including the Jews on
this board.

> I'm not interested in "interfering with alt.soc.jewish" (actually I think it is
> soc.culture.jewish).  I introduced a hypothetical example to try to understand your
> model of ethnic identity better.  I chose this example with a single Jewish
> grandparent, in fact, because I wondered if physically identifiable "blood
> relations" are significant.

I think they are. I have seen you say in other posts that you could accept
that familial relations were motivated by underlying biology. I accept that
too. In fact, I think if you examine the underlying reality of almost every
social group it is motivated by perceived blood relations. For example,
the rallying cry for even the Communists is "Brotherhood!" Gee, isn't it
amazing that they make a plea for unity based on an imaginary blood relation?
If blood were not an important unifier for people, then they could just as
easily plea for "Nobodyness! Let's all join together because we're not
related in any way!" Senetor Daniel Patrick Moynihan has defined nation as
"The largest social grouping which believes itself linked by blood relations"
(or something very similar to that). Gee, isn't it odd that he would do that?
How about the biggest liberal argument that blacks contain some white blood in
them? Are they implying that it should mean something? The fact is that kinship
is the most vital human social motivator. My belief is that it is because we
have underlying biological "interests" which seek to maximize cooperation among
those with close genetic "distance." On that basis, I think that it is something
good. Obviously, if we remove the biological benefit that an ideology must
bring then it could just as easily be harmful as non-harmful to life itself.

> And you see "lineage" and "value" as inextricably (causally?) intertwined?

No, I value lineage. They are not the same. For me, I use "value" in a way
synonymous with "ordinality." To say "I value X" means that "X holds a high
ordinality in my estimation of things that are important (obviously with
regard to particular goals)."

> This is where I have a real problem with your concept of a "White ethnic group",
> because you view culture as inherent, deriving from "blood lines" (I prefer to
> say "genes", but we don't have to quibble over that unless you want to).  
> Everything I know about culture tells me that this isn't so.

I've never said that I see culture as inherent or derived from "blood lines."
I believe that culture develops in conjunction with them. But unline the
supremacists, I don't view that blood necessarily sets limits on what one
can do with cultural ideas.

In fact, I constantly advocate against those kinds of ideas. There are many
"supremacists" who don't like my viewpoint because I challenge their viewpoints
on that issue. I state it clearly and plainly:

          The White nationalist movement is not one of supremacy or superiority
          but one of national survival.

>> Most especially when we hear the Jews repeating that Judaism is
>> inconsistent with racism (even though they're wrong because Judaism
>> *IS* one form of racism).
>
> I always thought that it was adopting a religion, sort of like being baptised
> and then confirmed in the Catholic Church.  Your last sentence really has 
> me confused, because it sounds like you are using both my definition *and* yours of
> racism. 

No, I only meant it in the positive way (my definition). In this case
I'm not indicting Jews for anything. I'm merely saying that they do
certain things to maintain their group.

> If they are wrong, and you are using your definition of "racism" in
> the parenthetic remark, what is the problem?

I don't have a problem with Jewish racism as long as it doesn't
get advanced at the expense of Whites.

> I think that you are very wrong in believing that for most Jews,
> their Jewishness supercedes any other identity they have.  But I
> didn't intend this to be a discussion specifically of Jewish identity,
> so I don't think that there is much point in arguing about it.  

I've read a lot of historical, military and espionage books. In that
literature it is well-known that Jews have a "dual loyalty." I've
even read books by Jews that express this. It appears to me that
most Jews hold their Jewishness above all else (or can be made to
view it that way because it is a quasi religious/God ordained entity
with strong moral connotations for them).

> Your answer clarifies some things for me about where you are coming from,
> though.

I don't expect you to agree with me. But I have no problem explaining
myself to people who are willing to understand. Contrary to what some
might say on this newsgroup, I have had many non-White friends.
 
> >First, it is not "my theory of ethnicity." What I am speaking of is what I
> >understand anthropologists and ethnographers to be saying. What might be called
> >"my theory" are my views of Whiteness. Second, the lineage and its associated
> >traits negate the possibility of "black" or "African-Americans" being a member
> >of my society. A small percentage of European ancestry is not good enough
> >although I would think that their loyalty to European interests would be good.
> 
> Well, I'm not up on that literature, so I can't cite any specific arguments to
> the contrary right now.  I'll see if I can find the time to do a bit of reading, though.

I'd like that. I'd like to discuss these issues with someone who wants to 
think about them rationally and in depth.

> Is it, in part, because such a person does not "look white"?  A related question is
> whether a Sephardic grandparent would be acceptable if that element of his/her
> "lineal history" were not visibly apparent.

I don't have a problem with that.

>  You are saying that 75 percent is a "small percentage"?
>  You are saying that "loyalty to European interests" (I take this to
> mean culture and values) is insufficient?  Blood lines are paramount?
> Genes, biology, rule?

No, they're both important.

>> I don't know what you mean by "externally imposed." I have my own definition
>> which I use. That certain peoples might consider themselves "White" as do
>> some Hispanics, does not affect my own valuation of them.
> 
> Sure it does, because you don't think of them as "White", and you say below that
> your "White ethnic group" is your highest priority, what you value most highly.

There are white (and White) "Hispanics." I work with White Cubans (who
will tell you regularly "I'm not a Hispanic and I'm not a Latino; I'm
a Cuban").

> Unless you believe that genes determine culture and values, there is no a priori
> reason why a person who has 50 percent African and 50 percent English ancestry,
> and who is born and raised in England by an English (white) parent might not think of
> themselves as English, first and foremost. 

Perhaps they might. However, using the racial interpretation of things,
they can never be (although some far off descendent might eventually
be English).

Look, ethnicity merely implies group membership on an ideological
or cultural basis. In this way, there are black, white and Asian
Hispanics. That is because being an Hispanic implies no particular
origin or lineage. Being White, British, German, French, or other
European ethnicities does not imply merely an ideological or
cultural basis to me. Therefore, there could be Ethiopians in
England for a century and they're still not English.

> S/he would be English in language, culture and values, and in half
> of her "blood relations". 

Yeah, I know of people like that. It's pretty funny to me, especially
since I have such a close connection with British/English culture
(my mother being Welsh). It seems foreign and wrong to me. However,
the Pakis in London will always be Pakis.

> I'll just go with 'she', because the pronoun equity is getting silly.

That's fine.

>  She, of course, would not be unaware of her African heritage. 

Hopefully the English, Welsh, Irish and Scotts (not to speak of
the French, German, Swedes) and others there will constantly
remind her.

> I would say that even if she were blind she could not be unaware,
> because it is the element of her heritage that others would ensure
> she was aware of. 

I hope so.

> That others would, in a  sense, impose upon her externally.

"Impose" in this way, merely means to vocalize one's own
preferences.

> Elements of individual identity related to group membership are
> constructed through both individual (internal) and external (social
> or interactive) processes, working together (the feedback from some
> other post).  

That's true.

> In other words, I think that often, the weighting given to different
> identities has at least as much to do with a person's or a subgroup's
> acceptance by other elements of the larger group to which
> (theoretically, at least) both belong as it does with anything else.

Of course, "valuation" (the act of valuing things) is important.
Actions effect and change the world. One's values affect one's
actions. Values and goals are extremely important. One maintains
group relations by bringing values in accordance with the interests
of the group.

> But your emphasis on blood lines is exclusionary, whatever their
> preference, whatever their culture and values. 

Yeah.

> You allow yourself "multiple ethnic identities" (Gallic and "White"),
> but not those whose other identities are not European.  

No, not those that are not part of my own heritage. For example,
I don't permit myself to be "German" because I have no German
ancestry. I'm not an Indian because I have no Indian ancestry.
Even if I had some degree of either, in accordance with my culture,
to stress them is wrong.

> So you indeed are making decisions for others about the compatibility
> of their different identities.

I can never "make a decision for others." I can hold to certain
values and expect that they conform as well. However, there is
little coercion other than social stigma, banishment, refusing to
associate that I can place on them to make them change.

> You are in a sense creating a model in which some "multiple identities"
> exist in a kind of nested hierarchy, while for others their different
> identities must be warring away inside them because of their presumed
> incompatibility.

So? Too bad for them. They can do what is right and I will consider
them good. If they don't, then I won't.

> I thought that since the Revolution, most Americans of European
> origin were pretty clear to distinguish themselves from Europeans.

How could that be? From the beginning Americans have always seen
themselves as fundamentally of European heritage. Thomas Jefferson
defined the American Nation as being composed of Europeans who were
fed up with the misrule of Europe. He purposely did not include
non-Whites in that.

> At least for certain purposes.  Not in relation to aboriginal people
> and slaves, of course. 

Of course.

> Maybe we can explore the relationship between political processes and
> group identity formation.  [I must have missed something somewhere, I
> don't know what you mean by "WRT Whiteness".]

WRT = "With Respect To"

Sure, let's discuss political processes and group identity formation.

> But you do decide for others, Mr. LeBouthillier, and this discussion
> has made this clearer to me.  You have explicitly said that Jews,
> whatever their "blood relations", are Jewish first and foremost,
> whatever they might say.  

Right, but that's not "deciding things for others." I have merely
stood firm to particular positions which are supportive of my people.

> You have explicitly said that whatever their ancestry and whatever
> they think of themselves, Hispanics cannot be "White". 

Hispanic is an ethnicity (which may have been constructed by the
U.S. Gov't) which is defined as being of multiple racial sources.
We Whites do not include people who are from "multiple racial
sources." We accept other Whites but that's not the same.

> You have said that whatever their primary sense of self, culture
> and values, a person who has 25 percent African ancestry cannot be
> "White". 

Again, this "deciding for others" is meaningless. I can decide with
whom I will associate. Doing it does not violate anyone's rights.
They're not obligated to associate with me.

Although this is not considered a comprehensive statement of 
John Locke's views, in Chapter 8 of the Second Treatise of
Government he said:

        Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free,
        equal and indendent, no one can be put of of this
        Estate and subjected to the Political Power of
        another, without his own Consent. The only way whereby
        any one devests himself of his Natural Liberty, and
        puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing
        with other Men to joyn and unite into a Community,
        for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living
        one amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of their
        Properties, and a greater Security against any that
        are not of it. This any number of Men may do, because
        it injures not the Freedom of the rest; they are left
        as they were in the Liberty of the State of Nature.

We have a right to form a community and not include others.
They don't have a right to be included. If they want to form
their own communities fine. If we, together wish to form a
community, then we must all consent and agree on certain
things.

> You do indeed decide for others, by determining which
> groups they cannot belong to,
> what their alternative choices are.

Again, I can never "decide for others" unless they let me do it.
I cannot put ideas in their heads, even death is not sufficient
threat for someone who is strong to their moral ideals.
 
> Do tell me what amuses you about this one, eh?

Actually, I rather enjoyed this one. There wasn't much that
amused me here. One thing that I have found particularly amusing
is your particular position that you are supportive of the idea of
equal rights and then you say that you support unequal rights with
regard to Whites. Which is it? Are you for equal rights or for
unequal rights? What is an "indigenous" person? I'm "indigenous"
to North America. In fact, by that basis, I'm a "native American."
Are you saying that some people are more "indigenous" and more
"native?" If so, on what basis?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL: Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
     you do not also extend to Whites?
LF:  In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the
     rights of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within
     nation-states as requiring distinct protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 28 12:32:35 PDT 1996
Article: 23925 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 20:13:58 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <31D1FC76.3452@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CA2202.40E2@cyberg8t.com> <4qdsje$5pe@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CB237E.636B@cyberg8t.com> <4qmh04$emk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host55.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23925 talk.politics.european-union:4307 soc.culture.europe:45891

M.S. Robb wrote:

> >Right. And that is the competition between ideologies. There is no doubt
> >that there are different groups competing for the loyalty of the individual.
> >However, like I said, not all identities must be of equal "ordinality." Some
> >may be deemed to be more significant than others.
> 
> But the assignment of significance is arbitrary.

Perhaps your choices are arbitrary, but most of us choose such things because
they best reflect our own values and interests.

Your position of "arbitrary" is completely ridiculous. You seem to be saying
that because a person "can" choose something else, that they must. That a
person can choose to be a liberal means that he must and if he doesn't that
he is "arbitrary." No, I'm sorry. People, as individuals, have values, dreams
and hopes. It is on the basis of the consideration of their full beliefs that
they choose such things. Their choices (and mine) are not arbitrary but
careful considerations of a wealth of experiences and consideration of
things with regard to values, ideals and hopes. On that basis, they are
absolutely not arbitrary, unless you want to say that everything you believe
is arbitrary (which it probably is). In that case, you've made no point other
than to show that my own views are no less "arbitrary" than everyone else's
in the world.

For example, do you place significance on your own life? If so, on what basis?
Under your criteria, it would merely be "arbitrary" to do so. Is your choice
to call yourself an "American" arbitrary? Couldn't you just as easily call
yourself a Mexican? or Zulu? Why don't you? Because it's not true.
 
> >> For sure. But perhaps there is a semantic difference betweenus. For me
> >> something can be both arbitrary and meaningful. Do you see it the same
> >> aay (genuine question).
> >
> >I need to know more of what you mean by "arbitrary." I'm not sure I understand
> >what you mean by it.
> 
> There's no objective, rational, emprical reason for it. So whilst there may
> be a non-arbitrary reason for associating oneself with white (lack of
> malanin), the assignment of significance to this (over, say, allying
> oneself with males) is arbitrary.

Do you have an empirical, rational basis for defining "arbitrary"
in that way or are you merely being arbitrary? How can I empirically
verify that?

Second, white is not the lack of melanin. Whites have varying degrees of
melanin. An albino is someone who lacks melanin. I have never advocated
assigning significance to albinism. Do you have an objective, rational,
empirical definition of whiteness?

Third, by your definition of "non-arbitrary," can you explain to me a
"non-arbitrary" basis of human societies?

> So we differ over an arbitrary judgement. I am surprised that you consider
> emnity to be a good thing. But I can't fault it.

You're showing enmity towards me. I'm surprised that someone like you can
be so surprised that another might think enmity is useful.
 
> Belief it arbitrary. By definition. Knowledge is not.

Do you have a non-arbitrary means to prove this? Am I supposed to take
your word for this? I don't share that definition of belief.

On that definition of beliefs, is your belief that you exist "arbitrary?"
Please empirically prove your conscious existence.

> The goals you speak of are arbitrarily chosen from an infinite number of
> possible goals.

No, they are not chosen from an infinite number of possible goals. They
are chosen in such a way as to maintain consistency among a body of
a-priori beliefs with varying values which existed prior to my
consideration of these issues.

Why don't you choose a different goal than being ridiculous on the internet?
Or, are you merely being arbitrary in your choice to engage in this discussion?

> >Right, the existence of that historically existing group is truer than
> >random ideas.
> 
> Sure.

Great. I'm glad you agree.
 
> > The values that I hold exist to serve that group.
> 
> I don't agree, but I'll let that slide.

They are chosen particularly to serve that group and its interests (as
I understand them). If you can show how they don't serve that group, 
then we can discuss that in another discussion.
  
> Ok. But it is arbitrary to say that the preservation of the white race is
> good. ALL value judgements are arbitrary.

O.K. Fine. It is also arbitrary to say that your life has any value. It is
also arbitrary to say that the human specie has any value. It is arbitrary
to care whether any people's rights are being violated (especially since
rights are an aribitrary social construction). All this merely shows is that
you're ridiculous. Garbage in, garbage out.
 
> >Well, obviously your justification for laws that violate certain of my rights
> >will be that you and I exist under some "social contract." All I'm saying is
> >that the only social contract that I will recognize is one that supports my
> >people or at least recognizes that they have a right to exist.
> 
> OK.

Fine.

> > For example,
> >on what basis can you advocate the violation of White's rights in order to
> >extend benefits to non-Whites?
> 
> Because I think that the separation of people into whites and non-whites is
> a waste of time. And so do most people.

No, no. I'm not saying "Whites" as an arbitrary collective, but individual
Whites. Obviously their rights are being violated for some end and you've
shown that all beliefs are arbitrary. Therefore, you're being arbitrary
in this whole discussion. Better yet, please let me know of someone (anyone)
who is not being "arbitrary."
 
> >Obviously you believe that there is some larger
> >social grouping that is more significant than my people. I don't accept that
> >and recognize your advocacy (and practice) of such activities as nothing short
> >of an attempt to do harm to my people.
> 
> Fine. But there's nothing you can do about it. And your support for the
> divisive policies of nationalism merely promote wars, damage free trade,
> act to increase fear and superstition, reduce travel and so on. So you will
> always be opposed by the majority, who consider these things, (as well as a
> whole range of moral considerations) to be more important than petty
> distinctions based on race.

Petty distinctions? You haven't proven that. If anything, all you've proven
is that ALL people are arbitrary. You haven't proven that you aren't
arbitrary in disagreeing with me. You haven't, in fact, proven anything.
In other words, you've proven that what I'm talking about is no less
arbitrary than what anyone else is promoting. However, I'm not being
arbitrary, I'm promoting my values, what I think is good.

On what basis can you say that wars, free trade and so forth are good?
You would merely be arbitrary because you have no objective basis to
prove that.

Better yet, I take that back. You've lost this argument. Logically,
and empirically, you have proven that you are wrong. In a proof, if
you start with a body of premises and then you derive something that
contradicts your premises, you have chosen false premises. Your premises
appear to be that:

          Arbitrariness is bad.
          Anything not objective and empirical is arbitrary.
          Every belief is arbitrary.
          A belief is a statement which is not "arbitrary"

      By deduction, we can show that:
          - "Arbitrariness is bad" is a belief (it cannot be empirically proven).

      Therefore, we have proven that:

          - Some of your premises are bad. QED.

      The only way that we can make this a true argument is to
say that "Arbitrariness is good," Change your definition of
arbitrary, or change your definition of belief. Please dig yourself
out of this deep shithole you've dug for yourself with that twisted
logic you call thinking.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL: Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
     you do not also extend to Whites?
LF:  In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the
     rights of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within
     nation-states as requiring distinct protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 28 12:32:37 PDT 1996
Article: 23933 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!news.mindspring.com!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!nntp.msstate.edu!night.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 17:05:20 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <31D321C0.BD4@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16. <31C87BA1.27F0@cyberg8t.com> <4qbgn9$1clo@sol.caps.maine.edu> <31CA96A9.5D83@cyberg8t.com> <4qeem8$i6s@sun4.bham.ac.uk> <31CBEAD2.703D@cyberg8t.com> <4qgqss$cki@sun4.bham.ac.uk> <31CDA4EB.4B3E@cyberg8t.com> <4qlt0u$e7r@sun4.bham.ac.uk> <4qpbm6$2hu@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4qpdd2$lp7@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host54.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23933 talk.politics.european-union:4309 soc.culture.europe:45893

Sam J. Turner wrote:

> : Could you please explain what YOU mean by "non-arbitrary?"
> : For example, are any social groups "non-arbitrary" in the way
> : that you mean it? Are Jews, for example, based on arbitrary
> : criteria?
> 
> Sorry. Forgot you were a lighweight.

OK, by your reckoning, I'm a lightweight.
 
> Non-arbitrary means in a way which isn't arbitrary.

Great, define "arbitrary." I hope it's better than M.S. Robbs' definition
because he'll have a hell of a time proving he is not being arbitrary.

> Which means in a way that has some strict and repeatable
> rules which regulate how the decision is made.
> 
> I can use smaller words if you like.

"Strict and repeatable rules" means not-arbitrary. OK. Fine. What about
those rules themselves?

Obviously that is the issue. Are there any "rules" which you don't consider
arbitrary?

However, I've always stated that I have one major "rule" from which I
make my decisions. That "rule" is:

             Good is that which serves the White nation.

Therefore, since all of my activities can be deemed from this "rule," I am,
by your own definition, "not-arbitrary."
 
> : From my position, your "non-arbitrary" characteristic is
> : ridiculous since it might be said that a particular social
> : group might define themselves in any way. For example, we
> : could say that instead of believing that they follow "Yahweh"
> : or whatever they call the highest god of their pantheon, rather
> : than, say, "Satan." Couldn't we say that "Americans" might suddenly
> : start believing in Budha and define themselves by that characteristic
> : rather than their belief that they are members of a country defined
> : by the United States Gov't? What validity does you "arbitrariness"
> : carry when referring to social groups?
> 
> What on earth are you waffling about, wart?

Oh, I forgot, you're a lightweight.

> You said the lines you drew were not arbitrary.
> 
> I asked in what way.
>
> You cannot answer.

I said by lineage and identity.

> What the fuck has yaweh and satan got to do with it?

Yahweh and Satan have "the fuck" to do with something because you still
have not explained what relation "arbitrary" or "non-arbitrary" have to
do with anything.

If Jews can decide to believe in Satan, and they don't, aren't they being
"arbitrary" by your standards? It appears so. If Americans can decide to
believe in Buddha, en-masse, and they don't aren't they being "arbitrary?"
 
> Fine. Define where you draw these genealogical lines.
> 
> And explain how this is not arbitrary.

You said: "Strict and repeatable rules" means not-arbitrary." Fine, as I
have said the rules are:

A White is someone who:

          Originates among the original peoples of Germanic, Celtic and
          Slavic heritage or is descended primarily from them.

          Believes that those heritages are the basis of his society.

I have said that

          Good is that which serves the White nation.

Those are my rules. If I follow them, I am not being arbitrary by your
own definition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL: Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
     you do not also extend to Whites?
LF:  In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the
     rights of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within
     nation-states as requiring distinct protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Jun 28 14:00:15 PDT 1996
Article: 23940 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.reed.edu!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!sgigate.sgi.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:11:23 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <31CDA4EB.4B3E@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16. <31C87BA1.27F0@cyberg8t.com> <4qbgn9$1clo@sol.caps.maine.edu> <31CA96A9.5D83@cyberg8t.com> <4qeem8$i6s@sun4.bham.ac.uk> <31CBEAD2.703D@cyberg8t.com> <4qgqss$cki@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23940 talk.politics.european-union:4312 soc.culture.europe:45896

Sam J. Turner wrote:

> You said both that `the lines are arbitrary' and that
> you do not make judgements based on them.
> 
> I'll repost your words is you like.

The lines are not arbitrary and I *DO* make judgements on them. If I said
otherwise, I mis-spoke. Please, repost what I said.
 
> Try explaining them, eh?

Please repost them and then I will respond.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 29 09:01:34 PDT 1996
Article: 23979 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:36:31 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <31D31AFF.4340@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmmo5$msh@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C1E90F.74C1@cy <4qmfhi$9f8@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4qmrss$ngq@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host54.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23979 talk.politics.european-union:4324 soc.culture.europe:45906

Scott Erb wrote:

> Well, I'm white and non-Jewish, and I'm certainly going to do all I can to
> oppose "racialism" in any community I'm in.

What do you mean you're "white?" What does it mean?

>  So you really still have no reason to separate out Jews from other whites in
> terms of "race."  

If you listened to what I was saying, I said I separated them based on values.

> Most "european" whites have beliefs which are inimical to racialism.  Most Jewish
> people work to the good of their communities in places like the U.S. without
> regard to irrational ideas such as "racialism."  You have no logic for your
> position, and definitely no evidence.

All of that is merely your opinion.

> >Because it represents an historical community defined by blood
> >relations. As such, it is both cultural and genetic.
> 
> No, only cultural.  In terms of genetics intra-race variation is as huge as
> variation between "races."  When you talk about huge groups like so-called
> "whites," the cultural links and "historical community" aspect is very weak.

But I'm not talking about variation. You are!

> The populations are varied in different historical communities and cultural
> beliefs.  You really have no coherent reason for seeing race as important.

Of course that's a ridiculous argument. The populations are varied in
different historical communities and cultural beliefs IN ANY POPULATION.
The issue is the degree of and whether or not there is a common definition
of identity.
 
> People within a so-called "race" may have very different communities and
> cultures.

What's your point?

>  Black and white people in the U.S. often have more community in
> common than black people in the U.S. with blacks in Africa, or white people
> in the U.S. and whites in Europe.

Perhaps they have more in common with you, but not with me.

>  You have no logical reason to stick "race" in there.  If you talk about
> culture, society and community, then you still have no reason for why that
> culture should remain homogeneous.  

I have every reason to stick "race" in there. That you don't understand the
reasons does not mean that I don't have them. Just because we've engaged
in a bout of name-calling for about a week here does not meant that we have
exhausted the discussion.

> Is it just that you fear people who are different than you?  

Is it just that you fear people who are like you?

> Is your fear so strong that you want those of us who get along quite fine and
> even have close friendships with others to give them up in order to separate
> into different "nations"?

Ever heard of a strawman? That "fear" argument is the biggest strawman you
liberals have. You have not established this so-called fear that you're talking
about and now you want to go on with that as a premise. Grow up. I have
preferences, one of which is not to see my people dissolved into all of
the non-White peoples of the world.

> If so, I think you probably need some professional help.  This isn't an
> intellectual issue, it's a pathology of your mind.

I think you need professional help. But that's merely my opinion.
 
> Whose interfering with you?  And what do you mean by "your race"?  How does
> one interfer with "your race"?

By putting forth policies, laws which are harmful to its existence. By
assuming control of its instutions and using them in ways that are inimical
to its interests. By interfering with good positive discussions we're trying
to have on our newsgroup. After all, aren't you saying that I'm "interfering"
with your discussion on the European-union newsgroup?
 
> Nope, I described reality.  Why is it that it scares you so?  What is it
> about a group of people from different cultures working together that makes
> you hostile?  Hmmmmmm?

You wouldn't know reality if it bit your nose. However, you're the one who
is hostile; I'm merely defending my people and their future.

> Why are YOU wasting time in talk.politics.european-union?  That's where I'm
> reading this and responding from.  If you stop posting here, I guarantee you,
> I won't post in your news group.

No, you're posting on alt.politics.nationalism.white. That's where I'm
reading this and responding from.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL: Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
     you do not also extend to Whites?
LF:  In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the
     rights of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within
     nation-states as requiring distinct protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 29 09:01:36 PDT 1996
Article: 23980 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 17:27:25 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <31D326ED.26BA@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16. <31CA96A9.5D83@cyberg8t.com> <4ql07r$1ii0@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host54.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23980 talk.politics.european-union:4325 soc.culture.europe:45907

Scott Erb wrote:

> No, that's not what neutral means.  Remember he said the CONCEPT is neutral,
> not any given activity by groups identifying themselves as ethnic groups.

I think this idea of "neutrality" in concepts is ridiculous. It makes no
sense that I can see. Please explain when a concept is "neutral" according
to your criteria, when it is not "neutral" and why your use of the term is
anything less than arbitrary (as you've defined it).

> Ethnicity is a neutral term because it does not require that a group identify
> itself in any particular way, such as superior or separate.  

So, where have I defined White as either "superior" or "being separate?" You
liberals are so twisted! I've merely said "We exist. We should exist. It is
good that we exist."

However, that ethnicity "does not require that a group identify itself"
in any particular way doesn't mean that they don't define themselves in
particular terms. You people are so ridiculous. First, you claim that I've
said things that I haven't and then you go on with ridiculous statements that
have no bearing to the discussion.

> One can have an ethnic identity and consider all other ethnic groups as being
> just as valuable and important to them, and think that it's better to have many
> ethnic groups live together and interact, and learn from each other. 

Umm... I don't think so. Do you have an ethnicity? (Actually I know that you
do). I'm also of Acadian heritage, have lived in a Acadian community for extended
period of time and think I know what it means to be Acadian. From my perspective,
none of what you're talking about reflects my own ethnicity. Additionally, I have
studied ethnicity and sociology for some time and I have yet to have seen any
of those characteristics described or evidenced. However, let's assume that it
is possible that a particular ethnicity might reflect itself in that way. On
that basis, so what? That one or some ethnicities reflect that does not imply
that all others must.

> Some may even have an ethnic identity and believe that it is unimportant, and
> not worry (as you do) about keeping it "pure" or even relevant.

So? What's your point. Someone may hold an ethnicity and not do what is good
in accordance with that ethnicity. That merely shows that there are people for
whom ethnicity is arbitrary (sort of like your own). For you, it is like your
shoe size. You have it, occassionally you have to consider it, but it doesn't
affect your life because you haven't defined it in terms meaningful for life.

>  (I for one, would have no qualms about marrying and having children outside of
> my ethnic group if I was in love.  To me, love is more important than arbitrarily
> defined ethnic groupings)

I think you're twisted.

>  Some (look you) have a racist view of ethnicity.

What does "racist" mean in this context?

> It's neutral because the term itself does not necessitate any one set of
> attributes.

Right, but what's your point? An ethnicity is a group identity (self-identification
with a group). However, that group becomes meaningful when you see it as the
basis of one's self-identity and worth promoting. For you, your ethnicity is
meaningless because you make it that way. However, this lackluster involvement
in your community is probably reflected in all that you do. You probably think
your consumerist existence is a community and society. Guess what? It's not.

However, belonging to such groups is in no way "neutral." Groups exist only
by the common sacrifices and involvement of their members. They don't exist
like shoe size. If its members do not act in accordance with the basis of
that community, then that community ceases to exist. If ethnicity is merely
a "neutral" phenomena as you suggest, then it will quickly dissipate and
disappear. The idea that one should be "neutral" with regard to his ethnicity
is not consistent with the existence of that ethnicity.
 
> I suggest you take a few courses and learn how to use this sort of
> vocabulary.  It's not that difficult.  You might learn something.

Scott, oh Scott. You truly show yourself to be a legend in your own mind.
But please, that is not how to address my questions, merely avoid them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 29 09:01:37 PDT 1996
Article: 23984 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!news.erinet.com!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:24:52 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <31D31844.4437@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16. <31D07263.879@cyberg8t.com> <4qq78p$koo@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host54.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23984 talk.politics.european-union:4326 soc.culture.europe:45908

Scott Erb wrote:

> Since I think the "racists" have clearly been shown to be devoid of logic and
> evidence, I am ceasing virtually all response to them so they can stop
> polluting talk.politics.european-union.  I think readers have enough info to
> judge their arguments.

You mean that since the racists have shown you to be mean-spirited and
arbitrary haters, you're ceasing the discussion before your whole fanciful
world crashes around you like a house of cards.
 
> Here, though, I can't resist.  Arthur says that ethnicity does necessitate
> those attributes, although it may.  Arthur, your sentence makes no sense.  If
> something does not necessitate something else, then it is false to say that
> that thing may necessitate something else.  The two phrases are logically
> opposed.

Isn't this typical of a liberal! First, they misunderstand what you say (or
purposely misrepresent it) and then they use that misrepresentation as the
basis of their own proof!

I will admit that I could have been clearer in my statement. I said:

        Ethnicity does not necessitate those attributes, although it may.

What I should have said is:

        Ethnicity does not necessite those attributes, although it may include
        them.

I have a limited amount of time and I tend to use elipsis too much as the 
means to simplify my statements. AS such, all I've stated is that those
properties are not the qualifying criteria. Just as the color of a car is
not the qualifying criteria of "carness." It would be analogical to say:

        Being a car does not necessitate those attributes (the color red for
        example), although it (a car) may include an attribute color of red.
 
> So who has the twisted thinking, hmmmm?  Geez.  This is typical of the type
> of argument by assertion and lack of evidence generated by the racists.

Geez, this is typical of retarded liberal thinking. Arguing with liberals is
like arguing with the three stooges. First they misunderstand you and then
they use their own silliness as basis of their proof. Then, they run around
yelling "I win! I win! yuck yuck yuck."  All I've got to say "Oh, a wise guy!"

> Arthur claims a post proves his point (it doesn't -- nor does he show why it
> supposedly does), then makes an illogical and in fact impossible sentence to
> try to show why.  It would be comical if it wasn't based on misguided,
> dangerous thinking.  C'est la vie.

But of course, it is YOUR thinking that is dangerous.
 
> But to those in the group who correctly point out that this discussion does
> not belong in talk.politics.european-union, I promise I'll cease virtually
> all posts on these threads.  You are right -- we don't need to talk with
> these idiots on this forum.

Blah, blah, blah. Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL: Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
     you do not also extend to Whites?
LF:  In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the
     rights of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within
     nation-states as requiring distinct protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 29 13:18:32 PDT 1996
Article: 49401 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Good Is Your Freedom To Assemble If You Can't Discriminate?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:45:04 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <31D46070.2897@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q4otf$pbg@panix2.panix.com> <4qac8o$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>   <31CD7A93.2B5F@unb.ca> <4qkmu1$l8r@tribune.concentric.net>  <4qn33v$kpe@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4qtp05$km8@news1.ucsd.edu> <4qu5ib$as6@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host43.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:34469 alt.politics.nationalism.white:24035 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:328649 alt.discrimination:49401

JeffL wrote:
> 
>     Are you going to rely upon a judge to tell you who you can assemble
> with and who you can't assemble with?
> 
>     Why do we have laws against Discrimination when in fact they are
> blocks against your freedom to assemble?
> 
>     Freedom is a very scary thing (for some) when you get to personally
> decide things for yourself.

How right you are.

The government does it for an obvious reason: divide and conquer. In this
way, it is the sole force powerful enough to control the factions it has
created.

The liberals have their own reasons for doing it. I won't pretend that
I understand all of their inanity although some of it is obviously outright
hatred for Whites.

However, as John Locke stated in his Treatise of Government (book 2, Chapter 8):

       Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and
       independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected
       to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent. The
       only way whereby any one devests himself of his Natural Liberty,
       and puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other
       Men to joyn and unite into a Community, for their comfortable, safe
       and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of
       their Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of
       it. This any number of Men may do, because it injures not the Freedom
       of the rest; they are left as they were in the the Liberty of the State
       of Nature.

Additionally, as Rousseau says in _On_The_Social_Contract: Chapter 10:

       Just as the private will acts constantly against the general will,
       so the government makes a continual effort against sovereignty.
       The more this effort increases, the more the constitution is altered.

This outlines the conditions which we face today. AS the first shows, we
have a right to form our communities, and as Rousseau explains, the
government continually works against the will of our nation for its own
power. Rousseau goes on to say:

        And since there is here no other corporate will which, by resisting
        the will of the prince [the government] would create an equilibrium
        with it, sooner or later the prince must finally oppress the sovereign
        [the people] and breaks the social treaty.
 
The government is on a course which will destroy our people. We have a right
to demand redress or threaten to "abolish" it as said in the Declaration of
Independence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 29 13:45:17 PDT 1996
Article: 24035 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Good Is Your Freedom To Assemble If You Can't Discriminate?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:45:04 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <31D46070.2897@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q4otf$pbg@panix2.panix.com> <4qac8o$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>   <31CD7A93.2B5F@unb.ca> <4qkmu1$l8r@tribune.concentric.net>  <4qn33v$kpe@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4qtp05$km8@news1.ucsd.edu> <4qu5ib$as6@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host43.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:34469 alt.politics.nationalism.white:24035 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:328649 alt.discrimination:49401

JeffL wrote:
> 
>     Are you going to rely upon a judge to tell you who you can assemble
> with and who you can't assemble with?
> 
>     Why do we have laws against Discrimination when in fact they are
> blocks against your freedom to assemble?
> 
>     Freedom is a very scary thing (for some) when you get to personally
> decide things for yourself.

How right you are.

The government does it for an obvious reason: divide and conquer. In this
way, it is the sole force powerful enough to control the factions it has
created.

The liberals have their own reasons for doing it. I won't pretend that
I understand all of their inanity although some of it is obviously outright
hatred for Whites.

However, as John Locke stated in his Treatise of Government (book 2, Chapter 8):

       Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and
       independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected
       to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent. The
       only way whereby any one devests himself of his Natural Liberty,
       and puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other
       Men to joyn and unite into a Community, for their comfortable, safe
       and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of
       their Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of
       it. This any number of Men may do, because it injures not the Freedom
       of the rest; they are left as they were in the the Liberty of the State
       of Nature.

Additionally, as Rousseau says in _On_The_Social_Contract: Chapter 10:

       Just as the private will acts constantly against the general will,
       so the government makes a continual effort against sovereignty.
       The more this effort increases, the more the constitution is altered.

This outlines the conditions which we face today. AS the first shows, we
have a right to form our communities, and as Rousseau explains, the
government continually works against the will of our nation for its own
power. Rousseau goes on to say:

        And since there is here no other corporate will which, by resisting
        the will of the prince [the government] would create an equilibrium
        with it, sooner or later the prince must finally oppress the sovereign
        [the people] and breaks the social treaty.
 
The government is on a course which will destroy our people. We have a right
to demand redress or threaten to "abolish" it as said in the Declaration of
Independence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Jun 29 13:46:50 PDT 1996
Article: 34469 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Good Is Your Freedom To Assemble If You Can't Discriminate?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:45:04 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <31D46070.2897@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q4otf$pbg@panix2.panix.com> <4qac8o$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>   <31CD7A93.2B5F@unb.ca> <4qkmu1$l8r@tribune.concentric.net>  <4qn33v$kpe@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4qtp05$km8@news1.ucsd.edu> <4qu5ib$as6@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host43.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:34469 alt.politics.nationalism.white:24035 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:328649 alt.discrimination:49401

JeffL wrote:
> 
>     Are you going to rely upon a judge to tell you who you can assemble
> with and who you can't assemble with?
> 
>     Why do we have laws against Discrimination when in fact they are
> blocks against your freedom to assemble?
> 
>     Freedom is a very scary thing (for some) when you get to personally
> decide things for yourself.

How right you are.

The government does it for an obvious reason: divide and conquer. In this
way, it is the sole force powerful enough to control the factions it has
created.

The liberals have their own reasons for doing it. I won't pretend that
I understand all of their inanity although some of it is obviously outright
hatred for Whites.

However, as John Locke stated in his Treatise of Government (book 2, Chapter 8):

       Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and
       independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected
       to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent. The
       only way whereby any one devests himself of his Natural Liberty,
       and puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other
       Men to joyn and unite into a Community, for their comfortable, safe
       and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of
       their Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of
       it. This any number of Men may do, because it injures not the Freedom
       of the rest; they are left as they were in the the Liberty of the State
       of Nature.

Additionally, as Rousseau says in _On_The_Social_Contract: Chapter 10:

       Just as the private will acts constantly against the general will,
       so the government makes a continual effort against sovereignty.
       The more this effort increases, the more the constitution is altered.

This outlines the conditions which we face today. AS the first shows, we
have a right to form our communities, and as Rousseau explains, the
government continually works against the will of our nation for its own
power. Rousseau goes on to say:

        And since there is here no other corporate will which, by resisting
        the will of the prince [the government] would create an equilibrium
        with it, sooner or later the prince must finally oppress the sovereign
        [the people] and breaks the social treaty.
 
The government is on a course which will destroy our people. We have a right
to demand redress or threaten to "abolish" it as said in the Declaration of
Independence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                       http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 30 12:01:04 PDT 1996
Article: 24121 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: 25 Jun 1996 18:37:58 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4qpbm6$2hu@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16. <31C87BA1.27F0@cyberg8t.com> <4qbgn9$1clo@sol.caps.maine.edu> <31CA96A9.5D83@cyberg8t.com> <4qeem8$i6s@sun4.bham.ac.uk> <31CBEAD2.703D@cyberg8t.com> <4qgqss$cki@sun4.bham.ac.uk> <31CDA4EB.4B3E@cyberg8t.com> <4qlt0u$e7r@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host03.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:24121 talk.politics.european-union:4366 soc.culture.europe:45950


> OK. If you are changing your mind, or if you were
> misunderstood there is no point repeating it. Could
> you instead explain how these lines are decided in
> an non-arbitrary way?

Could you please explain what YOU mean by "non-arbitrary?"
For example, are any social groups "non-arbitrary" in the way
that you mean it? Are Jews, for example, based on arbitrary
criteria?

>From  my position, your "non-arbitrary" characteristic is
ridiculous since it might be said that a particular social
group might define themselves in any way. For example, we
could say that instead of believing that they follow "Yahweh"
or whatever they call the highest god of their pantheon, rather
than, say, "Satan." Couldn't we say that "Americans" might suddenly
start believing in Budha and define themselves by that characteristic
rather than their belief that they are members of a country defined
by the United States Gov't? What validity does you "arbitrariness"
carry when referring to social groups?

However, the lines are not "arbitrary" because they refer to
real blood relations (i.e. geneological lines).

> And what judgements are made based upon these lines once drawn?

The judgement is that a certain grouping of blood relations
constitute a group called "a race." A race is defined to be
an ethnic grouping defined by its particular lineage (or the
perception thereof). As such, that group defines good to be what
serves its interests and judges all in accordance with that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL:   Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to
       non-Whites which you also don't extend to Whites?
Laura: Absolutely, in certain circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 30 12:01:05 PDT 1996
Article: 24122 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: 25 Jun 1996 18:41:10 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4qpbs6$2hu@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C422DC.616A@cyberg8t.com> <4q8e0d$27p@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CA2202.40E2@cyberg8t.com> <4qdsje$5pe@lyra.csx <31CB237E.636B@cyberg8t.com> <4qm3hr$1ctc@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host03.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:24122 talk.politics.european-union:4367 soc.culture.europe:45951

Scott Erb said:

> And there exists amity and cooperation BETWEEN "races, and enmity and
> divisiveness INSIDE "races".  These internet interactions are example
> enough.

Right, but we hold the ideal that amity is good within our race.
Whereas enmity within a race is bad.

So, you've agreed that there exists both amity and enmity within
and without a race. Big deal, you've said nothing new.

Obviously what defines me is my belief that amity should exist
among a certain body of people, my race and that amity without
should only exist in a manner that doesn't harm our social group.

> So again, you haven't give much of a reason for your little cause.

Nor have you given much of a reason for your little "arbitrary"
cause.



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 30 12:01:06 PDT 1996
Article: 24151 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nwgw.infi.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!tezcat.com!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: 25 Jun 1996 18:20:16 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4qpal0$2hu@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CA234F.216D@cyberg8t.com> <4qe6o2$dpq@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CB6355.381A@cyberg8t.com> <4qmjr3$gj4@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host03.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:24151 talk.politics.european-union:4372 soc.culture.europe:45955


> Fine, marry your own, and don't mix with others. Your loss. Just don't
> stop them living where they want and doing what they want to do.

Dont' be an arrogant bastard and tell me what to do.





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 30 12:01:06 PDT 1996
Article: 24152 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nwgw.infi.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!tezcat.com!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: 25 Jun 1996 18:18:43 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <4qpai3$234@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31C1E90F.74C1@cyberg8t.com> <4q61df$880@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CA234F.216D@cyberg8t.com> <4qe6o2$dpq@lyra.csx <31CB6355.381A@cyberg8t.com> <4qm3f0$1ctc@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host03.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:24152 talk.politics.european-union:4373 soc.culture.europe:45956



> What's the point?  Why worry about "white survival" as opposed to
> "brown eyed survival" or "left handed survival"?  Why choose this
> strange cause?

You're the one with the "strange" cause. I am merely continuing
the generations-long society that was layed-down by my ancestors.
It is what I feel to be the best society to serve my interests and
the accomplish what I think is good.

>  Why not enjoy and live life, learn what you can, and the humans 
> who come later will make their own choices. 

Who says I don't "enjoy and live life?" I most definitely do. However,
I see myself as one link in an ongoing society. In my view, one
has obligations to prepare the way for future generations. That
makes me civilized and you less than that.

> It seems a rather silly, pointless, endeavor on your part. I mean,
> even if everyone mixed, and races as we know them disappeared,
> so what?

It will mean that the best people in the world failed to ensure
a good society for themselves. But you are completely ridiculous.
I ask you why you're so concerned with something that hardly effects
you.

> Genetically, our genes would exist in a more varied (and thus more
> healthy) gene pool, our cultures would be learning from each other,
> and life could be fun and interesting. 

Oh come on! Even biological viewpoints could not support your statement.
There are conditions to what you've stated.

> But I doubt if everyone is going to mix like that. Chances are skin,
> hair and eye color will still be distinct even in a multicultural
> world.  So, again, what's the point?

Because I am part of an on-going historical community that defines
itself in a particular way. As such, this society is the best one
that I can imagine.

>  Why your silly cause?

For freedom and goodness, justice and life.

> Just to give you something dramatic to believe in so you can fancy
> yourself as some kind of crusader?

Excuse me, you're the one who portrays himself as some kind of
Don Quixote who fights with windmills because you don't like them.
We have rights, values and dreams of our own; we are simply pursuing
what we know to be good. If you don't like that, tough.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL:   Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to
       non-Whites which you also don't extend to Whites?
Laura: Absolutely, in certain circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 30 12:01:07 PDT 1996
Article: 24153 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nwgw.infi.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!tezcat.com!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: 25 Jun 1996 18:28:20 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <4qpb44$2hu@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com>   <31C9F8E8.78B4@cyberg8t.com> <4qkrpj$12la@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host03.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:24153 talk.politics.european-union:4374 soc.culture.europe:45957


>>First, I challenge you to prove to me that what I am saying is
>> "contrary to current understanding in science and academia."
>
> I'll let readers decide on that point.  I think it's pretty obvious.
> If you disagree, fine.  I care less about you than other readers in
> the myriad of newsgroups you're posting too.

That's fine. I knew you were full of shit.

>> I don't care if you agree with me. This is a pro-White newsgroup set
>> up for the benefit of Whites and it is my preference that it be that
>> way. I merely wish that you race haters would go away.
>
> Race haters?  Nah, I don't mind the Indy 500.

Yuck, yuck.

> Anyway, this subject appeared here talk.politics.european-union. If
> you want to stick with pro-whites, then just post to each other.  
> You brought me and others into this debate by cross posting.

No, this discussion is appearing on alt.politics.nationalism.white.
You're the one who entered the discussion by crossposting.

> But they are blood related to me, so they are my race.  Your concepts
> don't make sense when applied practically.

Right, but a good portion of their blood originates outside of Europe.

> Fine.  I'm a believer in multiculturalism as the way to strength, and
> I seek to motivate all people to work together.

Oh, gosh, you're so good and noble! NOT! 

> You've proven that.  You've also shown that you really don't
> understand the issues at play here.  You have your own emotional
> reasons for your "white nationalism" stuff, but you ignore science,
> academic research, sociology and everything else which disagrees. 

Quite the opposite. You have some ridiculous notion that there is
some kind of world community to which we all belong. That community
is only a wet-dream in your twisted mind.

> It's a religion to you.

It's a religion to you.

> Face it -- you're dealing with an arbitrary concept, race, and
> trying to pretend it's important for some reason that only you
> seem to know. 

Face it -- you're dealing with an arbitrary concept, humanity, and
trying to pretend it's important for some reason that only you
seem to know.

> You get upset that I would dare suggest that this is an illogical
> and silly endeavor, but you can't prove or show why it's important.

You get upset that I would dare suggest that this is an illogical
and silly endeavor, but you can't prove or show why it's important.

> In short, you're an intellectual light weight.

In short, you're an intellectual light weight.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL:   Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to
       non-Whites which you also don't extend to Whites?
Laura: Absolutely, in certain circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Jun 30 16:17:58 PDT 1996
Article: 24171 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 16:07:19 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <31D07127.3F74@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CA234F.216D@cyberg8t.com> <4qe6o2$dpq@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <31CB6355.381A@cyberg8t.com> <4qmjr3$gj4@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4qpal0$2hu@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4qpc2p$lp7@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host31.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:24171 talk.politics.european-union:4377 soc.culture.europe:45960

Sam J. Turner wrote:

> I tell you what. Why don't you stop being an
> ignorant bastard and address the points I made
> a few days ago instead of indulging in these
> self-congratulatory King Arthur waffles?

I asked if you would repost your issues and you decided that it wasn't
necessary. As I asked previously, if you would like me to address the
points, please repost them.
 
> Because you can't, basically.

I don't have a record of your previous posts. I asked you to repost them,
you decided that it wasn't important. If you're going to ask me to
address your points, please repost them.
 
> You may adopt whatever silly little airs you choose,
> it doesn't stop you from appearing stupid and cowardly.

I can tell when a liberal is losing an argument because they start getting
indignant and call names.
 
> Fine traditions to preserve for the coming generations.
> 
> Dickhead.

You certainly reflect what I think are the highest values. NOT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn
AEL: Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
     you do not also extend to Whites?
LF:  In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the
     rights of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within
     nation-states as requiring distinct protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor