Fun With Stormfront

Typical Stormfront counter-argument.

Stormfront, for those who don't know, is the major online gathering place for white nationalists and
supremacists.

And when I say "major" - it literally is the oldest and largest white nationalist organization on the internet.

Well, some members of Stormfront found my blog last week and decided to post it on their forums. And, despite many posters claiming they had no interest in my views, others claimed that they'd like to know what I had to say about their counter-arguments. Here, I'll be responding to them.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before I continue, I want to mention another blogger who attacks "scientific" racism:

Racial Reality

Anthropology, Genetics, and Human Biodiversity Blog

Please check out and follow their blog! You can also find a permanent link to them in the "affiliates" bar to the right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Stormfront thread starts things off right, with the good-ol' ad-hominem logical fallacy technique. This advanced debate tactic is often used by white nationalists against "anti-whites" with devastating effects. /Sarcasm.

Note: Click on images if they're too small to read. The full-size image was too big to fit in the blog's format.

You claim I don't understand white nationalism, then just spam parts of "The Mantra"? So that's the basis of your ideology? You know I debunked "The Mantra" already, right? Or maybe "debunk" isn't even the right word. There really wasn't anything in it to debunk: "The Mantra" itself doesn't provide any evidence to support its outrageous claims.

• "He very arrogantly suggests (in his comments section) that he completely debunks White-Nationalist ideology, despite never really penetrating the surface of what we say."

What is beyond the surface of what you say, exactly? I would expect you to here provide an example which exemplifies a deeper facet of white nationalism, but instead, you cite the international definition for "genocide" (despite the fact that nobody's deliberately inflicting conditions on white people calculated to bring about their physical destruction). I still haven't seen anybody provide any proof that Jews are deliberately doing this.

Then you quote "The Mantra". Yeah, like I said, I debunked that already.

Take note of the fact that this post was edited again after it was initially posted: it was posted at 4:02 PM, and then edited later, at 11:37 PM. This becomes important later.

Actually no, I did not argue that "whites are not killed physically so it's not a genocide". I actually provided an argument that encompasses the international definition of genocide.

Couldn't I say the same about you? You're emotionally involved in your side too, are you not? So you will never admit that you're wrong, correct?

On the other hand, if I did in fact have "a black bf", I would consider this no excuse for being illogical. I am first and foremost a skeptic and rationalist. I value truth and honesty above all other values. Therefore, if anybody provides objective evidence to support the tenets of white nationalism, of course I will concede to it. So far however, no facts have been presented to me which support this ideology.

I am aware that I cannot prove this statement however, as it is a personal statement about my beliefs, and will only be evidenced by my continuing campaign for facts against racist ideology. At this point, I don't expect you to take my word for it, so do with this claim as you please.

No, that's not the ultimate justification for my beliefs. My point here was debunking the idea that a worldwide "white genocide" is happening.

Also, you're admitting I'm right here. You're really admitting that a worldwide "white genocide" is not occurring? Somehow I doubt you're actually conceding to this fact.

As to the supposed reasons you list:

1) What foreign influences? Who's "forcing" you to live with "less intelligent", "more violent" people? And who are these people? I think I know which people you're referring to, however I find it interesting how you make these claims and don't even bother trying to support them with any facts.

2) If this is true, then why are whites less likely to live in poverty, and more likely to attend college, and graduate than most other races (comparable only to Asians, and even then, whites still have a lower poverty rate). I'm no fan of Affirmative Action either, but you can't claim it hurts whites. It doesn't.

3) Non-white women have higher rates of abortion than white women. You don't think it's ravaging their family structure? Also, feminism doesn't only affect white people.

4) This affects non-whites too, not just whites.

5) What? Since when? When I went to public school I learned about Christopher Columbus (white guy who discovered the Americas), Thomas Edison (white guy who invented the light bulb), Galileo (white guy who proposed that the world was round and improved on the telescope), among others.

Every year around the holiday known as Fat Tuesday or Mardi Gras, the grocery stores (around here anyway) all get Paczis in stock - this is a part of white culture, is it not? And what about Oktoberfest? This is a German tradition which is still held in Germany, and also has counterparts in the United States. Nobody is telling you that you don't have a culture or that you can't celebrate it...people do it multiple times a year. Nobody is saying that it's racist (nobody worth giving any attention, anyway).

Also, white people actually aren't going extinct. This was an error on my part in conceding that they are, although even if they were, I disagree that civilization would go extinct at the same time.

I don't recall you conducting a psychological and mental evaluation of me, Dr. SILNI. Do tell: which mental illness are you diagnosing me with?

As a side note, your "Location" data is hilarious, considering that George Orwell was a liberal Marxist.

I'm not interested in HungarianMadman's post as much as what he's replying to. Remember me pointing out that George Arouet's post was edited after it was originally posted? Now you see why. You see how George Arouet said "She's probably fat and ugly too so she can't get a white man"? He went back and took that part out! What's the matter George? Did you realize that not every white man is under the delusion that they're part of some elite secret club who exclusively date supermodels? Or did you figure ad-hominem was a logical fallacy and reflected badly on the great institution of Stormfront?

Erm...your question is quite clearly answered in the quote of mine you're citing. My response is that it's a severe breach of basic human rights.

How do you know she's mentally unbalanced? Are you, or were you, her therapist? If so, you should know that it's illegal to break doctor-patient confidentiality, even if she isn't your patient anymore, except in extreme situations. You can actually be sued for this type of breach of conduct.

However, I find it unlikely you were ever her therapist, since you apparently live in Scotland, and Barbara lives in the United States. In this case, you actually have no authority to say that she is "mentally unbalanced".

Also: I don't mind being compared to her whatsoever, just so you know.

Aww, you like my Futhark runes and valknut? So do I! I like your ironic signature banner which I think indicates (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think Australia ought to be a white country.

By the way, I'm allergic to soy, don't drink caffeinated drinks aside from the occasional tea (absolutely no coffee), and I'm not middle class, I'm poor (though well-educated).

Here's the difference between your claim and my claim:

My claim has factual evidence to support it. Yours doesn't.

I provide link to a source which talks about the holocaust, and you provide a link to a news article saying that white babies are becoming a minority. Your article makes no mention of Jews talking about a "race problem" or their proposed solution.

Whoops. Your link is broken.

Wait, so is my name Lauren Kocher or Lauren Kircher?

What do you hope to accomplish by doing this, anyway? I fail to see your point.

I pointed it out to you before George, and I'll do it again: you came on here and compared homogeneous white countries to mixed countries. You did that initially, not me. Then when I do the same and point out that your comparison is flawed, somehow it's "apples and oranges"? Make up your mind.

If anybody wants to see this go down, head over to this post (his name is mooting and he's since given up, however).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm quite open to the possibility that the Human Development Index is wrong, and that the United States does not have a higher standard of living than Finland. I'm open to the possibility that there are many ways to evaluate the standard of living in a nation.

That doesn't change the fact that you guys keep citing correlations as causations, a blatant logical fallacy, and ignoring the fact that there are white countries that almost undeniably have lower standards of living than mixed countries (Northern Ireland). And yes, it's fallacious to compare the two, but you guys are the ones prompting this comparison, insisting all homogeneous white countries are more successful than mixed ones, and that this correlation is in fact the cause for said success. Please clarify what your claims actually are if you don't like me comparing standards of living.

Also, again with the "she's emotionally involved" cop-out? Please explain to me how racial segregation is the "key" to human progress. Go ahead. I want to see your proof. You have nothing to lose.

The "biased and irrational" accusation is ironic.

 Yes, very nicely put. Make sure not to back up any of your claims with, you know, facts.

Explain how facts are "worthless".

Doesn't change the fact that homogeneous societies are not always more prosperous or peaceful than "mixed" ones.

At times it was, and at times it wasn't. It's not as black and white as labeling all assimilation and extinction as "healthy" or "unhealthy".

When people start abusing their power and committing genocides upon each other, that's when I start to question whether the event is "healthy" - although the point can also be made that many forms of genocide are the result of resistance to assimilation. And resisting assimilation is quite justified if it's forced, but if it's not, I don't think there's rational justification for it.

When assimilation is done with consent, as it often is, and groups of people come together to share their cultures (and their genes) with each other, it's not genocide.

Biology isn't propaganda.

• "I'd like to know what she'd have to say in a hypothetical situation that Whites were champion breeders and blacks weren't breeding much at all. If MILLIONS of Whites started flooding into African countries and started replacing native Africans. Shock, horror, blacks were on a course for extinction through a non-violent, 'natural biological process.' No black men for her to date Would she still see it the same way?"

 If millions of whites were flooding into African countries, I'd probably be among them. This kind of mass immigration tends to happen when some nations have a higher standard of living than others. This is attractive to people from countries with low standards of living.

I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing". Nobody's being replaced. Immigration is not the same as replacement.

I wouldn't care if there were no black men for me to date. I've dated white men before. "Race" doesn't matter to me whatsoever.

• "I know what her answer would be, Yes (....) She'd say yes to not look like a hypocrite, but she'd be mortified if that scenario were real and she knows it."

Since when can you read minds?

I don't hold double-standards. I'm just as apathetic towards "black", "Asian", "Native American", or any other people as I am to white people. They're all basically the same. They've all (or almost all) committed genocides upon other groups of people, they've all shown to be equally weak against the vices of greed, ignorance, and power, and they've all claimed an inherent superiority over others. Any ones who haven't just haven't gotten the chance to.

• "There's no two ways about it. FORCED multi-culturalism of ALL White countries and ONLY White countries IS genocide."

So it wouldn't be genocide if other countries were experiencing it too? Because you know other countries are experiencing genocide, right? The definition of genocide that you cite (a definition I have no qualms with) does not specify that genocide has to be occurring in "ALL" societies of a particular cultural or ethnic type, and "ONLY" in societies of a particular cultural or ethnic type. Genocide can in fact occur in multiple locations at once, to multiple groups of people at once.

However, it's not happening to "white" people. Multiculturalism is not genocide, and it isn't forced. You have the free will to live wherever you want and almost do whatever you want: you are not forced to give up your native language, to marry a non-white person, or to take on new cultural practices or religions which you do not agree with. These are all still personal freedoms which are allowed in most Western countries.

• "Truth be told, in my hypothetical situation, breeding programs would be set up by bleeding heart liberals for blacks to continue their survival."

No they wouldn't.

• "It's truly bizarre how little liberals value everything White."

I value every group of people the same amount. My "little" amount of value towards "everything white" is actually not exclusive to everything white.

To propose that culture should be "preserved" is insane. If "white" people had cared about preserving their culture during the last Ice Age, we wouldn't have created any of the art, music, or technology we see in modern times. Culture is not stagnant, and it never will be. To argue that it should be is just ridiculous.

Same with "ethnic people". No group of humans has gone without diversifying gene flow for an extended period of evolutionary time. Evolution and genotypes are not stagnant and never will be.

Are you referring to the photo that was posted? I do not function as that man's "meal ticket", and I'm not sure why you think "ugly lesbians" would have an interest in me. What's your point?

It's observed in nature. That's the definition of "natural". Sorry.

You've also just compared sexual attraction between two consenting adults of the same species and same subspecies to sexual attraction involving non-consenting children and animals.  How do you reconcile that with the fact that men and women are often naturally attracted to each other, despite the fact that they invariably have different traits? Where are you drawing your line where attraction to other consenting adults becomes unnatural? Is it also unnatural if you're attracted to someone with different colored- or shaped-hair than you?

Sam Owl really has no patience for any of you. I don't really blame him, but I'm kind of the opposite in this respect. Did you pay a visit here and try to talk to me? Comments are not moderated and I don't block people unless they post ads.

I'm curious to know what the "right questions" are that you're referring to.

I give you credit for being rational about "race-mixing", but I never said that non-whites need whites to live a better life.

No it isn't.

Also, did you really mean to say "for anti-multiculturalism propaganda", or did you mean to say "against multiculturalism propaganda"? Because it looks like you're actually admitting that your "anti-multiculturalism" stance is propaganda from the way you word it here.


Well, that's where the thread ends. I hope this cleared some things up!