New Guy charged into Stormfront with all the standard anti stuff and ran straight into me.
He gave me the usual anti “All of you are just ignorant line” line and said I didn’t know
what economic rationality was.
He had the usual anti assumption that none of us ever went to college.
I pointed out that I was an economics professor spciailizing in Public Choice and that the
second reader on my dissertation was a Nobel Prize winner in Public Choice, so I had a
pretty good idea what economic rationality was.
On another thread, he lectured me on writing, something Mommy Professor told him us racists
wouldn’t know about.
I told him I was a professional writer, a member of the writers guild, a competitive service
waulified writer for the Voice of America, and the author or two books that made the Review
of Reviews.
There’s more, but I think my point was made.
I haven’t heard from Newguy since, but during his spate of standard and packaged anrti-stuff
he sent a comment here:
“Please define who you consider an anti? If it’s someone who disagrees with the White
Nationalist agenda, you my freind, have just named 98% of the population.”
Comment by Newguy
MY REPLY:
If you get beyond the history spoon fed to you by Mommy Professor, you will find that 98% of
the population has always been wrong about many very critical things.
There are always people like you who believe they must be right since most of them believe
it. There are always people like us to straighten them out.
Here is the definition of anti, again:
” Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says
this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and
ONLY into white countries.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or
Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote
assimilating unquote with them.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY
white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if
hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black
countries?”
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am
talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black
man wouldn’t object to this?”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the
white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a
naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
#1 by chicago.style on 05/02/2006 - 6:41 pm
Since the mods haven’t let my response to you through yet, let me tell you what I will say. I never assumed that you didn’t go to college. You might well have been a professor of economics. You still don’t understand economic rationality. I have disagreed with professional intellectuals on all sorts of subjects when I know I’m right. I am not afraid of your credentials.
Also, the fact that you were a professional writer doesn’t mean you know how to write properly. The world is full of writers who are witty and clever, but do not understand logic and thus cannot articulate their positions well enough to pass the scrutiny of people who DO understand logic. If your standard of argumentative writing is that arguments should be clearly stated with easy to understand trains of reasoning then the writers I refer to are poor writers, no matter how much money they make at their trade. Since we were having an argument, argumentative standards are the only proper standards to apply to the quality of our writing. So the fact that you have made a large amount of money at writing does not tell me that you are a good argumentative writer. It might just tell me that you are witty and clever, but don’t understand logic. This seems quite likely.
I did not write the comment about defining antis.
#2 by Al Jolson on 05/02/2006 - 7:33 pm
Trying to teach an anti (95-98% of the popualtion) to take quality over quantity is like trying to teach a bear not to you know what in the woods.
Y’know, I’ve actually had some of them admit that I was right and then turn around and tell me that I wasn’t supposed to think that way.
P.S. Bob, you have to be a little more careful with your mantra, you probably gave the poor guy a brain aneurism.
#3 by Dennis on 05/03/2006 - 5:47 am
What is interesting, is that the questions the anti’s have about what we say, are vague. Having followed the thread, it is intersting to note that anti’s say, and I’m paraphrasing here “I don’t understand”. What they fail to ask for is, is clarification on the parts they don’t understand.
If you are posed a question or a position which you are trying to respond to, and you do not understand part of it. You question the writer on the section that you didn’t understand. This is the standard response when someone genuinely doesn’t understand.
If they don’t understand any of it, then either they are too intellectually challenged to make a coherent argument, or they are trying to avoid the question being posed.