I'm wonderful? Hooray!
Hip hip hooray!
You have forgotten one name - Tony Whitemore.
Andy is: Anti Apartheid, Anti Capitalism, Anti Colonial, Revolutionary --- hell, just say he is ANTI-WHITE!
Tony,
Unlike yourself, I don't believe that apartheid, capitalism, colonialism and revolution are exclusively "White" domains. To put it in a language you might understand: kiss my white anarchist arse.
Cheerio,
@ndy.
"Unlike yourself, I don't believe that apartheid, capitalism, colonialism and revolution are exclusively "White" domains..."
Oh, Mr Andy trying to tell me the same old melody: "We don't believe that racism is exclusively White..."
Well, under my own observations: every time you mention racism, it always, and only, denotes white people; you support homogenity, and sovereignty for the indigenous (may it be Australian or otherwise) -- however -- show the determination to have those rights stripped from Europeans. I could endeavour to clip-up more of your hypocrisies, but I think you catch my drift.
"To put it in a language you might understand: kiss my white anarchist arse."
For future references, please, back up what you say, because it opens you up like a can of baked beans... You don't see myself promoting Hitler, then claim not to be a neo-Nazi.
Who's "we"? I speak for myself.
On racism: obviously, this is not a white phenomenon, but a human one. As such, all individuals are capable of expressing 'racist' ideas, as well as embarking upon 'racist' courses of action. Nevertheless, as a white Australian, I regard racism among the white population of Australia (and other, predominantly white societies) of more importance than instances of same among non-white populations within these territories. This is because expressions of racism among whites are more politically significant.
To take the Australian example, the invasion and subsequent occupation of the continent was justified (if not entirely explicable) on explicitly racist, imperialist grounds. When the formation of the Australian state was formally pronounced in 1901, it was done so on the explicit basis of a White Australia policy, both in law (The Immigration Restriction Act), culture, and popular discourse. While the White Australia policy has been abandoned (a lengthy process culminating in the 1960s), its legacy remains, especially (but not only) as a potential source of political expression and mobilisation (see, for example, Pauline Hanson's ONP).
The primary focus of my own writings on the subject is indeed limited, generally, to contemporary manifestations of white racism and white supremacy; especially as they are to be found among a small number of 'white nationalist' organisations. In which context, it's worth adding that 'racism' may be understood as being both the perspective of individuals and groups, but also an institutional process or social structure. For example, the social conditions experienced by contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations may be best understood not as the outcome of the decisions made by consciously racist individuals but an historical reality that is embedded in social institutions. More generally, my focus is upon racism as expressed by organisations of the far right (AFP, ALOR, APP, B&H, KKK, NR, PYL, SCHS, WPCA, et cetera).
I don't support 'homogeneity', nor do I support the removal of human rights from whites on the basis of their 'whiteness'. What I do is expressed, in brief, above. Feel free to address it, as well as to consume baked beans; if I don't see you promoting Hitler, nor claiming to be a neo-Nazi, this may be because I have absolutely no idea who you are -- nor do I especially care.
"Nevertheless, as a white Australian, I regard racism among the white population of Australia (and other, predominantly white societies) of more importance than instances of same among non-white populations within these territories. This is because expressions of racism among whites are more politically significant."
That's an illogical statement.
Neo-Nazis and National movements have very little political support in Australia, or any other country for that matter. Name me one country which is >98% white - and doesn't promote multiculturalism institutionally? I cannot think of one.
"To take the Australian example, the invasion and subsequent occupation of the continent was justified (if not entirely explicable) on explicitly racist, imperialist grounds. When the formation of the Australian state was formally pronounced in 1901, it was done so on the explicit basis of a White Australia policy, both in law (The Immigration Restriction Act), culture, and popular discourse. While the White Australia policy has been abandoned (a lengthy process culminating in the 1960s), its legacy remains, especially (but not only) as a potential source of political expression and mobilisation (see, for example, Pauline Hanson's ONP."
That's the whole point of these organisations to begin with. The fact is, not everybody wants to see European culture and identity disintegrate... that's why multiculturalism is just a racist ploy to destroy everything European. That also goes for all other cultures.
" I don't support 'homogeneity'"
More of your lies!
How about your link to Ana ( http://uriohau.blogspot.com/ )
She supports 'homogeneity'!
"nor do I support the removal of human rights from whites on the basis of their 'whiteness'"
You are pro anything non-white, and anti everything that is pro-white...
It's simple, you promote the removal of rights from White Europeans - this includes their right to have a predominately white nation free of the guilt which the white population is forced to bear under the banner of multiculturalism.
To put it simply: You are a hypocrite!
Dear Tony,
Your argument claiming my statement was illogical would be more convincing -- possibly -- if it made any sense. For some reason, you appear to believe that noting that a) neo-Nazism and 'White Nationalism' are marginal political tendencies within Australia and b) the fact that I haven't nominated a country with a White population of greater than 98% that doesn't also promote 'multiculturalism' means... what? That "racism among the white population of Australia (and other, predominantly white societies)" is NOT "more important than instances of same among non-white populations within these territories"?
That argument, which appears to be yours, is not only illogical -- that is, its conclusion doesn't follow from its premises -- but inaccurate and irrelevant. To begin with, 'racism' isn't confined to the far right ('Neo-Nazis' and 'White Nationalists'), and I've never claimed otherwise. In fact, in the above comment, I explicitly stated that racism can be understood both as an individual disposition and as a social structure. Secondly, I'm not aware of any country whose population is 99% or 100% 'White'. Iceland, perhaps?
"That's the whole point of these organisations to begin with. The fact is, not everybody wants to see European culture and identity disintegrate... that's why multiculturalism is just a racist ploy to destroy everything European. That also goes for all other cultures."
You don't explicitly state which organisations you're referring to, but I'll assume you mean the ones I've already listed: AFP, ALOR, APP, B&H, KKK, NR, PYL, SCHS, WPCA, blah blah blah. The point of these organisations, and leaving aside whatever differences they may have, is the (re-)creation of a White Australia. The pursuit of this goal requires, obviously, the purging of Australia of its non-'White' inhabitants. (The matter of the relationship between the indigenous and non-indigenous population is another matter.) This has very little to do with the maintenance of European identity and culture; unless, of course, one maintains that such identity and such culture can only be 'preserved' within societies in which 'Europeans' ('Whites') are the sole members.
There's a number of problems with this approach.
First, and most obviously, it leaves 'European identity and culture' undefined.
Secondly, it assumes that 'European identity and culture' is a homogeneous mass, containing no conflicts, contradictions, or differences.
Thirdly, it assumes that 'European identity and culture' is fantastically weak, and unable to survive except in societies where this undefined, undifferentiated mass is the sole member of society.
In reality, 'European culture and identity' is not one fat white blob, gasping for air and having its oxygen stolen by nefarious 'un-European' forces, but a living, breathing, evolving and contradictory creature with a history that can be traced back to Ancient Rome and Greece. The history of 'Europe' and its many peoples is wonderfully complex, and continues to be: the Celts are a case in point.
The Celtic people originate from that part of Europe that is now known as Austria and Czechoslovakia (Czech Republic and Slovakia). One of the earliest known tribes were the Boii who gave their name to Bohemia. The Greeks gave them the name Keltoi (the meaning of this term has been lost to us). They called what we now call France 'Keltanike'. Pytheas, the famous Greek traveller, called Britain Pretanike, from which the Romans derived Britannia. (The Romans named Ireland Hibernia; Scotland, Caledonia -- but Scotland is actually named after an Irish tribe that emigrated to northern Britain called, by the Romans, the Scotii.)
A number of Celtic tribes, named by the Romans, have given their names to places. For example, Paris is named after the Parisii; Belgium is named after the Belgae; Batavia (northern Holland) is named after the Batavii. The Celtic god Lugh, rendered today as the name Leigh, gave his name to the Roman garrison town of Lugdunum, today known as Lyons.
About 1000BC, the Celtic peoples spread across Europe in all directions, settling in what is known today as Ireland, Britain (contemporary England, Scotland and Wales), Germany, France and Spain.
The Celtic people were metal workers and salt miners, as well as farmers. They built roads (but these roads did not survive as they were built of wooden planks); they wore pants, and a coarse tartan cloak, made from wool in a check-pattern, dyed blue from the woad plant, and held together with a brooch made either of bronze or silver.
The Romans regarded the Celts as savages. The Romans thought that the red-haired Celts were the most savage, a stereotype of red-haired peoples which remains in circulation today. More than one Greek writer remarked upon their "milk-white" skin.
The Celts ravaged and rampaged throughout Greece and eventually settled in a part of northern Turkey still known today as Galatia (from the Roman name Gaul).
About 2-300BC, Germanic peoples spread out into Europe from Scandanavia, and largely displaced the original Celtic inhabitants of what is now known today as Germany (another Roman name for the lands beyond the Rhine, which they called the Rhenus). The Romans found themselves -- beginning in the 2nd century BC -- in constant conflict with Celtic tribes in France (Gallia), Spain (Hispania) and Britain (Brittania). So impressed with the standard Celtic armament -- a short sword -- were the Romans, that it was adopted by them and called the Gladius Hispaniensis (the Spanish sword).
Many Celts served in the Roman army, as well as the Carthaginian army during the Punic Wars. Indeed, two thirds of the Carthaginian army were Celtic warriors reruited from Spain. The Carthaginians themselves made up the officer class.
During the time of the Roman Empire, most Celtic tribes became Romanized. This describes the history of Britain until the 5th century.
After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, Germanic tribes over-ran the Western Empire and settled in Britain (Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Fresians), France (Visigoths, Franks, Burgundians), Italy (Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Langobards), north Africa (Vandals) and the Iberian peninsula (Visigoths and Suevi). The Goths also settled in the Balkans, Greece, Bulgaria and along the Black Sea coast.
Much later, beginning in the 8th century, a second irruption of Scandanavian peoples, known as the Vikings, spread out over Europe and settled in places such as Ireland (Dublin), France (Normandy, named after the Northmen) and England (the Danelaw).
Even accepting the category of Caucasian as a race (a social construct, hence in many ways problematic), there was no difference between Germans and Celts (and indeed, Slavs). What we are actually discussing is differences in culture, particularly language and religion.
The racial purity of the White race is entirely a myth, as most of Europe, at one time or another, has come under the influence of Asian peoples (Huns, Cumans, Pechenegs, Bulgars, Magyars, Ottomans) and Arabic peoples (the Muslim invasion of Spain and France in the 8th century). The cultural foundation of Western Europe is Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian culture, which has nothing in common with Celtic or Germanic culture. Indeed, it was the Celts and the Germans who became Romanized and Christianized, and this is demonstrated today in extremis by the United States of America...
Hmmm, you claim that Europe has undergone bastardisation and isn't just 'One fat white blob'... I don't think myself, or anybody else for that matter, have said otherwise. Maybe the statement should be: "What is European".
If this wasn't the case: Europe would still be in the neolithic stages; Italy, Greece, Britain would never exist.
However, 70% of pondering has F' all to do with my original argument. My original argument was: "Well, under my own observations: every time you mention racism, it always, and only, denotes white people; you support homogeneity, and sovereignty for the indigenous (may it be Australian or otherwise) -- however -- show the determination to have those rights stripped from Europeans. I could endeavour to clip-up more of your hypocrisies, but I think you catch my drift."
You have failed to prove that stanza wrong in all cases.
Your conclusive response is:
"The racial purity of the White race is entirely a myth, as most of Europe, at one time or another, has come under the influence of Asian peoples (Huns, Cumans, Pechenegs, Bulgars, Magyars, Ottomans) and Arabic peoples (the Muslim invasion of Spain and France in the 8th century)."
...previously you tell of the great expansion of Rome, creation of The Gaul, etc... Thus, you fail to differentiate between European and Non-European... The Asiatic and Arabic influences in Europe are only a fraction of what the nightmare of this multicultural propaganda is doing to European societies. During this time, Europeans made up roughly 30-40% of the world's population -- now, it's around 5%. The fact is, Europeans are being displaced around all corners of the globe.
On Iceland: http://tandis.odihr.pl/index.php...p?
p=country,isl
Anyway, beside your trying to convince me (LOL!) that Europeans don't exist, you never question the motives behind Australian Indigenous movements, nor question the fact it's probable they aren't the origin inhabitants of this land... Rather, you question our movement which seeks to preserve the European Identity.
Therefore, you are a hypocrite!
It doesn't matter either way, the fact is, Europeans are being denied their rights for a nation free of multiculturalism.
You like exclamation marks! Don't you Tony!
Unfortunately, their addition doesn't add anything to your case, which is basically nonsensical, and rests on a whole series of highly questionable assumptions. You also appear to have some trouble comprehending my responses -- which probably explains why you appear incapable of responding to their contents -- so I'll try again (but without much hope).
You write:
"Hmmm, you claim that Europe has undergone bastardisation and isn't just 'One fat white blob'... I don't think myself, or anybody else for that matter, have said otherwise. Maybe the statement should be: "What is European"."
Actually, no. By referring to European history, I wasn't claiming that "Europe has undergone bastardisation"; rather, I was suggesting that the very notion of 'Europe' that you employ is a product of history, a complex and contradictory one. Further, that in seriously examining this history, it will be discovered that 'Europe' (and 'European culture and identity') is the product of multiple forces. Therefore, to seek a 'pure' European identity and culture is nonsense.
On the other hand, even if a unitary European identity and culture could be defined (something which you fail to do), this would not constitute an argument in favour of the expulsion of 'non-Whites' from White-dominated societies such as Australia. In other words, what do you mean by 'European identity and culture', and why should anyone be concerned with its preservation, over and above any other political consideration? Further, if anarchism and anti-fascism, for example, may be considered as being in some important respects a product of this culture, why shouldn't anarchist and anti-fascist concerns be embraced by proponents of 'European culture and identity'? Obviously, this is because under the mask of 'European culture and identity' is a (politicised) version of a racialised account of culture, identity, and history. What you espouse is a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.
"If this wasn't the case: Europe would still be in the neolithic stages; Italy, Greece, Britain would never exist."
This statement makes no sense. In fact, neither does the rest of your comment.
"However, 70% of pondering has F' all to do with my original argument. My original argument was: "Well, under my own observations: every time you mention racism, it always, and only, denotes white people; you support homogeneity, and sovereignty for the indigenous (may it be Australian or otherwise) -- however -- show the determination to have those rights stripped from Europeans. I could endeavour to clip-up more of your hypocrisies, but I think you catch my drift."
I've already explained why my discussions of the issue of race and racism assume the shape that they do. "You have failed to prove that stanza wrong in all cases" is a daft thing to state, not only because that stanza is not a stanza, but also because merely repeating your insistence on being correct doesn't actually constitute an argument in support of this contention. Hint: an argument consists of a logically-structured series of propositions which support a conclusion, and for which evidence is provided as to demonstrate the truth of its premises.
"...previously you tell of the great expansion of Rome, creation of The Gaul, etc... Thus, you fail to differentiate between European and Non-European... The Asiatic and Arabic influences in Europe are only a fraction of what the nightmare of this multicultural propaganda is doing to European societies. During this time, Europeans made up roughly 30-40% of the world's population -- now, it's around 5%. The fact is, Europeans are being displaced around all corners of the globe."
1) I don't 'fail' "to differentiate between European and Non-European"; what I've done is demonstrate that 'Europe' didn't fall from the sky, but is a particular form of identity which is the product of historical events. Further, that the substance of 'being European' has changed dramatically over the course of the previous two millenia or so, and especially since the formation of modern Europe, something which has only emerged in the last few centuries, and one which is still undergoing change.
"During this time, Europeans made up roughly 30-40% of the world's population -- now, it's around 5%. The fact is, Europeans are being displaced around all corners of the globe."
Huh? During what time? What are you talking about? Further, what do you mean by "displaced"?
Read a book, for both our sakes.
For further discussion on race, see:
Anarchy 101 : Race
http://slackbastard.anarchobase....base.com/?
p=652
Anarchy 102 : Race
http://slackbastard.anarchobase....base.com/?
p=658
Hey, that's funny, I never mentioned race on neither one of my comments -- trying to pull that 'Race doesn't exist' non-sense, garbage, rot on myself. Just explains your ignorance and prejudice for not throwing that towards the Indigenous Australia's when they plea for their God-given rights.
Oh, yeah, is you believe race doesn't exist, why are you able to make distinctions?
...that's right, it's because you wish to see White Europeans destroyed.
===
Tony: "During this time, Europeans made up roughly 30-40% of the world's population -- now, it's around 5%. The fact is, Europeans are being displaced around all corners of the globe."
Andy: Huh? During what time? What are you talking about? Further, what do you mean by "displaced"?
===
http://www.deathreference.com/
im..._02_img0114.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...5061401340.html
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Pa...r/
nohumans.html
Stop playing!
Just admit what you are and stop interfering with Europeans' future.
(I'll post your article 'Anarchy 102' on Storm Front to get responses.)
...I forgot, you are a hypocrite!
"In other words, what do you mean by 'European identity and culture'?"
That is a fairly dickhead question, so I'll make it nice and simple.
Here's a map of Europe:
http://
www.transitionsabroad.com...rope_abroad.jpg
Here's the contents of Europe:
http://www.destination360.com/eu...rope/
europe.jpg
http://www.travelswise.com/Trave...avel-
Europe.jpg
http://www.destinationbride.com/...ions/
europe.jpg
http://
windowseat.travelocity.co...t.M2.europe.jpg
"Further, if anarchism and anti-fascism, for example, may be considered as being in some important respects a product of this culture, why shouldn't anarchist and anti-fascist concerns be embraced by proponents of 'European culture and identity'?"
First of all, anarchism is not a product of Europe:
"3rd intermediate period (1070-712 B.C.) Another period of anarchy and chaos. For a short time the Libyans conquered Egypt and ruled as part of the 22nd dynasty."
http://library.thinkquest.org/16...325/e-
main.html
"The Warring States period is usually interpreted as a time of endless brutal wars that came as a result of friction among the seven states and that this unfortunate state of affairs could end only with one state bringing all into one empire. This interpretation is probably propaganda for the "One China" policy. First of all the Warring States period was not so bleak. It was a time of great intellectual ferment. The Confucian philosophers Mencius and Hsun-tzu taught and wrote during the period. Administrative systems were developed for territorial states to replace the methods that worked only for relatively small city states. The wars that [ocurred] were not generally ones due to diplomatic or territorial frictions among the seven states but instead were wars stemming from one state attempting to conquer and control all of the states. In other words, the formation of the empire came not as a result of anarchy but as a result of greed and drive for power. The wasteful and bloody conquest of the separate states was justified as an unfortunate necessity to end the era of anarchy, but the wars were primarily those of empire-building"
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/
watk...rringstates.htm
...and define 'Anti-Fascism"?
Can you prove that the [arbitrary] term ' Anti-Fascism' doesn't necessarily = anti-white?
"Anarchy 101: Race
Anarchy 102: Race"
Those articles are a mere representation of yourself: long... and makes very little sense... but more importantly, doesn't answer my questions.
Jesus wept.
"Jesus wept."
Hey, you're the one that said Europeans don't exist.
Andy, I can see what you are trying to get across (European culture is changing, and Indigenous issues are for political reform). However, the original argument was: "Why are European's [no apostrophe required] being denied access to their own nation"?
Most of your answers were in the lines of: "They shouldn't, because it's silly". The inconsistencies with this answer is that it fails to explain "Why you don't want Europeans to do so". Either way, the facts are, White Europeans are being denied their rights to build a society that serves only Europeans.
That's what I am trying to get at.
With that all said, do you oppose European's settling in a nation that I described, or "Just think it is silly"?
Tony, have you considered pursuing a career on the international lecture circuit?
"Tony, have you considered pursuing a career on the international lecture circuit?"
Cam, have you ever thought of maybe leaving innocent people alone who wish to sustain a white society free of prejudice?
You never seem to attack Jews for their beliefs [in] the state of Israel, so don't attack us!
See: http://slackbastard.anarchobase....ase.com/?
p=1150
"Hey, you're the one that said Europeans don't exist."
Earth to Tony: No, I didn't. Europeans exist. So do Africans, Asians, North and South Americans, and many others. About six billion or so members of the species inhabit the third rock from the sun. What I have questioned is what a European is. In other words, how do you define a European. This, it seems to me, is necessary in order to understand whatever (special) rights you believe should be accorded to Europeans.
A note on the use of quotation marks: In standard English, these are used when someone is quoting. That is, literally reproducing what someone else has said or written. Here are some inappropriate uses of quotation marks:
1) "Why are European's [no apostrophe required] being denied access to their own nation?"
2) "They shouldn't, because it's silly."
Please be more careful in future.
You profoundly misunderstand me, and the arguments I present to you. You don't understand anything about anarchism, or its history, and confuse anarchism with the existence of warring kingdoms in Ancient Egypt and China. Hint: try the mid-1800s. The links you've provided do nothing to bolster your case, and in fact appear to be only loosely, if at all, related to your central claims, which are:
1) I am 'anti-White' and 'anti-European': "Andy is: Anti Apartheid, Anti Capitalism, Anti Colonial, Revolutionary --- hell, just say he is ANTI-WHITE!" "You are pro anything non-white, and anti everything that is pro-white...".
2) I support 'homogeneity' and the removal of 'rights' from 'Europeans', on no other basis than their being 'European': "you wish to see White Europeans destroyed".
3) "[M]ulticulturalism is just a racist ploy to destroy everything European".
4) Assorted other, conjunctural nonsense.
If you wish to continue to make bizarre, unsupported proclamations such as these, feel free to do so on my other blog, as all future comments of yours on this thread I will be deleting.
Tony, I'm on your side! Why should your towering intellect be limited to the comments thread of an abandoned blog? Yours is a voice that could echo throughout the globe! Your ideas could very well birth a new era of enlightenment... IF YOU COULD JUST LET THEM BE FREE!
Hey Andy .. I can't get onto your blog at anarchobase. Is it still working or is it down again?
Works fine for me?
I have tried everything. At first I thought maybe my firewall is causing the problem. It does not appear to be that .. I have emailed my provider to find out if they are blocking the site or something.
So .. at present I am not able to read your wonderful posts. Fingers crossed problem will be resolved shortly.
Bummer. Afaik, you're the only person to have problems viewing the site...
Yes I am certain it is down my end I just cannot find what the problem might be. Still waiting to hear from my provider though I cannot see why they would block any internet content. In fact I would be quite upset if they did block internet content.
I will keep working on it and in the meantime I'll have to read the blog when I'm on campus.
xx
Site is down for me @ndy.
Server Default page
If you see this page it means:
1. hosting for this domain is not configured
or
2. there's no such domain registered in Plesk
What you can do:
* Using Plesk, you can create domains with web hosting on a single physical server.
Yep. Should be fixed now...?
Commenting by HaloScan
