That sites a police-state pile of bullshit.
Results 1 to 20 of 28
That sites a police-state pile of bullshit.
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
Try this instead: http://www.onepeoplesproject.com
Onepeoplesproject doesnt have any way to track these groups, klanwatch does.
You have to get in with the OPP people and groups like ARA to start having access to their information networks, though sometimes this just means joining a listserv.
The SPLC ("klanwatch") doesn't give you detailed information about groups and individuals, just little images on a map. So in terms of personal profiles on people active in the hate movement, OPP blows klanwatch away.
The SPLC magazine Intelligence Report can be quite good, though.
Maybe, but with the SPLC you can get the adresses of their HQs and thats the most valuable info of all(wink-wink).
Have you ever tried to roll up on the national HQ of something like the National Alliance?
They're rarely just "sitting there waiting for you to hit them"
Addresses of (well-guarded) national offices are actually pretty much public information. The groups listed are not secret nazi armies, they're usually just a handful of propagandists who WANT people to know who they are.
The juicy information, as with all our enemies, are their individual home addressesh34r:
Yeah. This is how people die. :POriginally posted by Nachie@Jun 9 2006, 06:41 PM
The juicy information, as with all our enemies, are their individual home addresses
Considering how many of our Brothers have died at the hands of the white man its only justice.Originally posted by Jello+Jun 10 2006, 02:25 AM--> (Jello @ Jun 10 2006, 02:25 AM)Yeah. This is how people die. :P [/b]@Jun 9 2006, 06:41 PM
The juicy information, as with all our enemies, are their individual home addresses
I feel your broad accusation could be in dangerous territory.
And as a white man, I take exception to being grouped in with blue eyed devils.
Lets take a look....:
According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.
In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).
1. The American Negro, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.
2. Black Masters. A Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.
3. The Forgotten People, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
4. Men and Wealth in the US., 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/...laveowners.htm
( I do not support the articles use of the antiquated and offensive term-negro-)
Then stop identifying yourself as a "white man."Race traitors unite!
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
The guy who looks back at me in the mirror is me. Hes perceived as white. Deal.Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jun 10 2006, 11:07 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Jun 10 2006, 11:07 PM)Then stop identifying yourself as a "white man."
[/b]
Workers of all races unite.
:hammer:
Just because people perceive you a certain way doesn't mean you have to go along with it. Reject race.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
Whats good for you may not be good for everyone.
I believe that we should maintain the amazing diversity that we have here on our collective planet.
A future where we all speak English and wear Mao outfits and look and act the same doesnt appeal to me, sorry.
If people percieve me in a certain resentful way , then I hope you understand why I would take exception to it.
Those who target others different from them and single them out, should reject race.
Me too, which has absolutely nothing to do with abolishing the ridiculous social construct known as "race." Culture isn't race.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
But I did not say culture I said diversity.
I would feel a bit better,BBBG, if you could also share your insight with our new black nationalist/supremacist/seperatist* member also.
*
(In anticipation of your response, let me say that the 3 desciptive terms were used by the member in recent posts to describe his own ideology.)
dude, check out Florida.
Jeb has done well to end hate. [/sarcasm]
Abolishing race won't change the melanin content of our skin, don't worry. And having different skin color isn't really much in the way of diversity, I don't consider a room full of people with different color eyes "diverse." Its culture and such things that make diversity.
I'm sympathetic to Black nationalism, I can understand those who've been treated like shit for the color of their skin for 500 years standing up for themselves. White folks haven't had such an experience, so we should get on with abolishing race (abolishing whiteness!
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
Hm, abolishing race wont change the colour of skin....? ok.
Abolishing race or abolishing racial barriers?
You seem to be speaking in a deliberately coy fashion, BBBG.
Ok perhaps you missed Johnny Anarchos sig and the links therein.
Or perhaps you chose to miss them.
One was for the Nation of Islam and another is for the "New" Black Panther Party.
I am quite interested to know your feelings on those groups. I suspect you have a convenient double standard. At least your zeal to oppose anything related to whites and your lack of vigilance when blacks are involved leads me to percieve that.
I could be wrong, but thats how it looks to me.
There you go again with your double speak.so we should get on with abolishing race (abolishing whiteness!
If you mean the social construct, why not just say it? Why be cryptic?
You wont get far speaking outside of the activist culture with the workers we must reach in the consumer culture by speaking in such fashion.
(P.S. we re on the same side) :hammer:
Abolishing race. Race is a social construct with no basis in biological reality. There is no such thing as "race" in a real, genetic sense. Its a leftover creation of when Europeans decided African slavery would be a good idea, and needed a decent excuse to justify it.
I'm aware of the reactionaries he links to in his signature, but from what I've seen from him, he doesn't support the reactionary parts of their ideology. More likely, he links to them for the active black nationalist politics that are empowering communities, and perhaps also as a nice "Fuck you" to all of the people who've been railing on black nationalism on this board.
Anti-semitic, homophobic reactionaries, but not entirely bad and I can see why people would be attracted to them (as with any such group, white, black or otherwise).
Not really. I oppose all reactionaries and think they should be dealt with as the situation dictates. Of course, I recognize the inherent difference between white supremacy and black "supremacy," namely that one is coming from a position of power with violence behind it, while the other isn't.
I don't think the Nation Of Islam should be beaten with clubs in the streets like I think White Revolution should, no, but that isn't a lack of zeal, its recognizing the dynamics involved. Of course, if the NOI began actively threatening communities like WR does (unlikely), I'd probably take a different approach.
Well what else could I be referring to when I say race, and when I say whiteness? There is nothing but the social construct!
If this is true, then its true for about 97% of the conversations that occur on this message board.
I know.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
