What do you guys think of this?

Dr. David Duke: Ambassador of Peace?

Amazing Video: http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=938#

Fucking nutball. Man, why hasn't anyone shot this fuck yet?
Really. He was in the KKK, he runs a neonazi website, and he is a blatant racist. Why has no one assassinated David Duke yet?

Fucking nutball. Man, why hasn't anyone shot this fuck yet?

If we shot every "nutball" on the planet, how many people would be left?

Baron Max

Nutballs are fine. Racist nutballs should be shot, because they are following an ideology that is outdated, and gets us nowhere fast.

Actually it seems to me that it's integration that's causing all the damned problems in the world today! Everywhere we turn, one culture/race/religion is in violent conflict with another in the same area! If they were all separated, they might not fight so damned much.
If the Palestinians were over near China, do you think they'd be blowing up Israelis every day? And vice versa, of course.
If the Sunni Muslims were at the North Pole and Shiite Muslims were at the South Pole, do you think there'd be so much conflict between them?
If there were no Muslims in France, do you think the violent riots of the past weeks would have happened?

Baron Max

if there were no humans, do you think there would be war?

yes folks, an incredibly moronic argument
that however never stopped our very own resident genius baron max, from using it

you go boy! ;)

*stay in school kids

"if there were no humans, do you think there would be war?"
yes folks, an incredibly moronic argument

What's "moronic" about that statement? Please explain.

Baron Max

Actually it seems to me that it's integration that's causing all the damned problems in the world today! Everywhere we turn, one culture/race/religion is in violent conflict with another in the same area! If they were all separated, they might not fight so damned much.
If the Palestinians were over near China, do you think they'd be blowing up Israelis every day? And vice versa, of course.
If the Sunni Muslims were at the North Pole and Shiite Muslims were at the South Pole, do you think there'd be so much conflict between them?
If there were no Muslims in France, do you think the violent riots of the past weeks would have happened?

Baron Max

You are quite skilled at your rhetoric, Max, but you make statements with little reference to reality. Let's start with France. You are correct in saying that if there were no Muslims in France then there would have been no riots. But the implication that the "integration" of African and Arab Muslims into French society is the proximate cause of those riots is flatly and demonstrably wrong. For one thing, Muslims are not integrated. They are relagated to the worst neighborhoods, considered only fit for the worst jobs (or no jobs), politically disenfranchised and socially outcast. And these are the people with Freench citizenship - resident aliens are treated even worse. So let's not suggest that integration is the problem. People with different cultural traditions living close by is not an inherent problem, it's when one culture insists on shitting all over another that creates a problem.

Consider Jerusalem prior to, say, World War One. Here you had Muslim, Jew and Christian all living, working and trading in the same city. Everything was going just fine, and the model worked in other mideast cities like Damascus and Beirut. There was plenty of money to be made and people had to get along because no one group had the upper hand and peaceful competition was the heathiest environment for business. Then the Allies came in and created political realities that threw the old balance right out the window. Britain, France and later the U.S. created nations where none existed, set up ruling classes where none existed, gave preferred status to one group over another, and generally upset the apple cart. In short, external political interference created the situation we have today. Now, I'm not going to tell you that everything was sweetness and light before we turned up. There were plenty of small-scale and low-level antagonisms that you might find in any society, but they could never brew up into full-scale war. But the actions of the West did just that.

Same goes for Africa. Low-level tribal conflict was a stable norm for thousands of years. It took the interference of two hundred years of European colonialism plus Cold War sponsorship of ethnic rivalries to stir up the genocidal brew. Africa will probably never recover, what with AIDS and endless war.

So to sum up so far, I argue that it is outside interference that created or spurred ethnic and cultural conflict to the level we see it at today, not the mere proximity of different cultures to each other.

To finally demolish your position, I ask you this: If you are in favor of segregation as a means of keeping the peace, then how far do you intend to take it? Separate Muslim and Christian? Fine. Then you will have to separate Baptist from Protestant. Then Southern Baptist from Reformed Baptist from Free Will Baptist. Then my congregation from yours. Then you from the others in your congregation. Then what?

Once you start splitting one from another, then I suggest it is a slippery slope - since when you argue that bad things are caused by congregation, and when the first segregation doesn't solve the problems (and it can't), then you have to continue down that road indefinitely. It's called Balkanization, by the way.

Since you don't like to read long posts, let me sum up again since you probably skipped to the end.

1. Different peoples living together do not cause conflict. External forces create conflict or greatly exacerbate minor problems, and do this to advance their own purpose.

2. Segregation is not the solution to interpersonal strife, and only leads to further segregation until the whole society is fragmented beyond repair.

For one thing, Muslims are not integrated. They are relagated to the worst neighborhoods, considered only fit for the worst jobs (or no jobs), politically disenfranchised and socially outcast.

Ya' mean sorta' like the Mexicans in the USA? But the Mexicans didn't/haven't rioted and burned down their own area of town ...why not? The Mexicans have worked and voted and have become a main force in their communities ...THEY have integrated, not the other way around!!

If the Muslims don't like their situation in France, they should go somewhere that will provide what they want and need. Those wants and needs are NOT the responsibility of the French government OR the French peope.

So let's not suggest that integration is the problem. People with different cultural traditions living close by is not an inherent problem,...

Integration of differing cultures, religions, races, et al, has been the main cause of almost all of the conflicts in the world!! If you can't see that, then there's definitely something wrong with you.

So to sum up so far, I argue that it is outside interference that created or spurred ethnic and cultural conflict to the level we see it at today, not the mere proximity of different cultures to each other.

What "outside" interference caused the riots in France?

"Birds of a feather flock together." And when you put foxes in the henhouse, you should expect problems!

2. Segregation is not the solution to interpersonal strife, and only leads to further segregation until the whole society is fragmented beyond repair.

I think ye're wrong! I think "forced" integration is the main cause of most of the conflicts on Earth, and has been for centuries.

Fragmented? Yeah, because most people REALLY don't want other people who are so different to live with them or in the same town or in the same area! It does nothing but cause conflicts ...as you should be able to see, except your blind idealism keeps your eyes convienently averted.

Can you name a place on Earth where integration has actually worked in the past? ...where there is no strife or has been no strife?

Baron Max

Okay, taking your points one at a time:

Ya' mean sorta' like the Mexicans in the USA? But the Mexicans didn't/haven't rioted and burned down their own area of town ...why not? The Mexicans have worked and voted and have become a main force in their communities ...THEY have integrated, not the other way around!!

Probably because they thought they had a chance at "making it" in the United States. That's one of the strengths of our system - a person of any ethnicity is permitted to rise to the elite levels of society, setting an example and presenting a hope to his / her ethnic group. Not that this ethnic group can hope to rise as a group, though. An excellent system of control.

There have been riots, as a matter of fact. Not by Mexicans, as far as I know, but by blacks in Los Angeles from time to time, and on a smaller scale in other urban centers. Drugs and black-on-balck crime seems to siphon off most of the rage that could otherwise spark an explosion like the one we saw in France.

And no, Baron, I don't think that the Mexicans have integrated. Not culturally. They hold the jobs and play the game and fit in where they must, but they have a strong identity as a community. Bringing up the example of Mexicans in America simply undermines your own argument. Compare to lots of other examples in the U.S. - Cubans, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Jamaican. They all maintain strong communities that for the most part are not integrated in the sense of or to the extent of the Italians, Irish or Germans in America. My point was that the French are not willing to give the Muslim immigrants ANY sort of economic or political opportunities. So they got pissed off. Burning down their neighborhoods wasn't a real smart move, but it got the government's attention.

If the Muslims don't like their situation in France, they should go somewhere that will provide what they want and need. Those wants and needs are NOT the responsibility of the French government OR the French peope.

Yes, they are. The African- and Arab-Muslim population of France is composed of several generations of those who came into France from its colonial outliers. Especially Algeria, where France waged a horrific counterinsurgency in the '50s and '60s. France allowed these people into the country after they had fought for French interests in various places over the years. Kind of like when we allowed thousands of Vietnamese and Cubans into the U.S. after our adventures went sour and they ended up on the wrong side. Anyway, the French never gave them full status in the country, their birthrate was considerably higher than "indigenous" French, the government never even bothered to include them in the census, and so here we are. France has an impossible situation on its hands. There's nowhere for the Muslims to go back to and France is reponsible for them to the extent that any government is responsible for any of its residents.


Integration of differing cultures, religions, races, et al, has been the main cause of almost all of the conflicts in the world!! If you can't see that, then there's definitely something wrong with you.

I reject your premise. You gave the specific example of Palestinian vs. Israeli. This is not due to the mixing of the two cultures. As I said before, Jews and Arabs peacefully coexisted in Palestine for a thousand years. The Allies created the state of Israel, stealing the best part of Palestine to do so, kicked out hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homes and relegating them to a marginal existence.

Same with Sunni and Shia. They more or less got along (as much as anybody did in the bedouin-tribal world) for many centuries until a succession of Ottoman Turks, French, British and now American overlords played one against the other.


What "outside" interference caused the riots in France?

France's own interference in the independence movements of north Africa. The riots themselves are just a long-delayed result. Just like the Watts riots of 1968 were the long-delayed result of a hundred years of rage in the post-slavery era.

I'm not sure I want to know what your "fox in the henhouse" comment is really driving at.



I think ye're wrong! I think "forced" integration is the main cause of most of the conflicts on Earth, and has been for centuries.

Fragmented? Yeah, because most people REALLY don't want other people who are so different to live with them or in the same town or in the same area! It does nothing but cause conflicts ...as you should be able to see, except your blind idealism keeps your eyes convienently averted.

Can you name a place on Earth where integration has actually worked in the past? ...where there is no strife or has been no strife?

Are you by any chance the "victim" of forced integration?

The U.S., by the way, is a place where integration of different ethnicities worked pretty well. I'm talking about early on, not in the place where you grew up. I'm guessing maybe Boston in the 1970's?

And no, Baron, I don't think that the Mexicans have integrated. Not culturally. They hold the jobs and play the game and fit in where they must, ...

That's what we all do! And until only recently, it's been good enough for everyone who ever immigrated to the USA ...then we started pandering to people, giving handouts and giving foodstamps and giving, giving, giving, giving, .......until we've given them everything, and they still expect more!

And I think ye're wrong ....for the most part, the Mexican LEGAL immigrants have integrated quite well into out society. They've begun to realize their voting potential and it shows well in So. California ....and soon in Texas. And they don't bitch n' complain all the fuckin' time. I consider them, now, Americans!

Compare to lots of other examples in the U.S. - Cubans, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Jamaican. They all maintain strong communities that for the most part are not integrated...

Compare them if you'd like! You'll find that they've integrated quite well into our society and most are working and, in fact, saving their money and opening their own businesses! That's a good example of the power of our system of free enterprise and hard work ....unlike some people!!

Well, if France is responsible for all of those people, then aren't they also responsible to see that ALL Frenchmen have jobs and housing and healthcare, etc? ..in equal portions? If France gives ANYTHING to the Muslims, how can they NOT give the same to other Frenchmen?

No, it's not the task of the French government to give those Muslims jobs or housing or anything else! It's the responsibility of the Muslims to eke out a living just like all other Frenchmen.

Integration is the worst possible thing to ever happen to humans since they stood upright on the African plains. It's been the cause of almost all of the human conflicts since that time .....and it's only getting worse.

Baron Max

If there were no Muslims in France, do you think the violent riots of the past weeks would have happened?
Actually, I liked the violence in France. I was hoping for another Revolution, 1789-style. :D

What's wrong with racism? Who died and made you moral cop?

Besides, racism makes for an exellent nationalist mobilizer. And isn't that what gets you wet, Hapsburg?

What's wrong with racism?

I still haven't fully figured that out yet! I've asked here before, but all I get is just psycho-babble bullshit about how other races "make a society stronger/better", or some bullshit about "universal human morality", or some such crap. ...none of which is anything but idealistic spoutings.

Baron Max

Baron Max,
I still haven't fully figured that out yet!

I can tell you what's wrong with it. It's judging someone on something that they haven't yet done. Just because someone's black doesn't make them a criminal. It's a judgement not on actions but skin color, which is a very nefarious way to judge an individual.

Besides that, who are we supposed to call the superior race? What if you get stuck in the inferior category?

As a native American, I'm sure you're aware that your people are the laziest, dirtiest, most ineffectual people in all of America, yes?

You are the poorest of the poorest, the most ignorant of slovenly, uneducated starving trash.

How do all these words make you feel, me just spouting off based on your race alone? Not to great, huh. Or at the very least, unfair and untrue?

Which leads me to this:

all I get is just psycho-babble bullshit

Well, it's psycho-babble bullshit that keeps you safe at night. It's psycho-babble bullshit that gies us all these great laws keeping Uncle Sam from taking your posessions and torturing you to death for holding religious or political views that disagree with the State.

Pretty goddamn cushy if you ask me.

Roman, i have a new, deep founded respect for you!! What an excallent reply ;) :m:

I can tell you what's wrong with it. It's judging someone on something that they haven't yet done.

So what? We do it all the time in normal, everyday life. I'm not saying it's "good or bad or anything else", it's just what humans do. To deny it is nothing more than not being aware of one of the things that makes us human.

It's a judgement not on actions but skin color, which is a very nefarious way to judge an individual.

Some people make judgements based on the size of the nose, or the type of eyes, or the height, or the size of their tits, or..... So what? All ye're saying is that it's "wrong" to do that. Who are you to make that judgement?

Besides that, who are we supposed to call the superior race? What if you get stuck in the inferior category?

Who said anything about "superior" or "inferior"? If someone doesn't want to do business or have personal dealings with someone with a big nose, why is it your place to judge that person's judgement?

How do all these words make you feel, me just spouting off based on your race alone? Not to great, huh. Or at the very least, unfair and untrue?

That's your opinion, and while I don't agree with it, I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

Baron Max

Baron,
Some people make judgements based on the size of the nose, or the type of eyes, or the height, or the size of their tits, or..... So what? All ye're saying is that it's "wrong" to do that. Who are you to make that judgement?

I'm not saying it's "wrong," I'm saying that racism runs contrary to the Golden Rule. How would you like to be categorically discriminated against based soley on your appearance? Now, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Of course it happens. For hyperbole's sake, so does muder and rape, but just because something occurs doesn't mean society needs to value it.

Race is a flimsy construct, and can turn on anyone. If racism is categorically bad (regardless of how accurate or true stereotypes are), then we deny everyone a chance to attack anyone based on something as insubstantial as color.

Which is a Good thing.
It means that when social or political winds change, no group of people will be persecuted for something entirely out of their control– their ancestry.

And this is an important thing to you as you cannot predict who the next racial group society targets is. If you don't let society target any racial groups, you save yourself from being targeted.

An anti-racism clause is quite similar to an anti-establishment clause, as both prevent favoritism, which invariably ends up with a great deal of injustice for everyone.

That's your opinion, and while I don't agree with it, I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

Quaint sentiment, but I like it.
Sanctified racism would deny a person the right to express their opinion, as the discriminated group loses the privelages of the rest of the group.

Am I making any sense? I don't feel like I am.


A few questions, Baron. Are you special, or worthless? What makes you special? Do you share these special characteristics with anyone? Since you share these similarities, do you think both you and those with the similarities should share similar protection?

And by the way,
That's your opinion, and while I don't agree with it, I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

nice psycho-babble bullshit :).

Baron, ...but just because something occurs doesn't mean society needs to value it.

I never said that society or anyone should "value" racism. But "judging people" something that is done by almost everyone on a regular basis using a variety of traits. I don't think it's something that should be "valued" or "condemned", it's just something that ...IS.

If racism is categorically bad (regardless of how accurate or true stereotypes are), then we deny everyone a chance to attack anyone based on something as insubstantial as color.
It means that when social or political winds change, no group of people will be persecuted for something entirely out of their control– their ancestry.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have laws making it illegal to "attack" anyone? For any reason? Why should the reason of "race" be any different to any of the other reasons?

Am I making any sense?

No, not really. Ye're just spouting same bullshit that's been used thousands of times before in a wordy attempt to condemn something that humans do regularly and, in my opinion, naturally. It's sorta' like condemning fuckin' ...while everyone is doing and loving it! Just words without much meaning to reality.

A few questions, Baron. Are you special, or worthless? What makes you special?

I'm only "special" by virtue of how much I contribute to my society and/or to the people with whom I associate. Other than that, no one knows me from Adam! And rightly so. I'm no one to you or anyone who does not know me or associate with me. If I were killed in a car accident, you nor most of the people on the planet would even know it or feel any effect from it.

Special? No, only to very, very close individuals. When one begins to think that he's really "special" to society, his ego has simply gone the way of fantasy and insanity!

Protection? I have that protection in the laws of the nation. Laws protecting one "race" above others is nothing more than "racism" in itself. "Hate Laws" are legal discrimination and legal racism.

Baron Max

There seems to be a lot of defensive psychobabble that is diluting the crux of the arguement. I believe the original impetus of the thread (I'm only invoking that now because attacking Baron Max seems to be the mode of operation throughout this entire thread all the way to the end) was the concept of race and culture and whether both could co-exist in a given society.

Although many of you have cited the recent fragmentation in France, many more of you like to focus on the foundation of the so-called "free" spirit that the United States was founded on. All I'm going to say about that, is that the man who framed the tenets of liberty in the Declaration of Independence from King George in 1775, was also the same man who declared that "both races (referring to black and white at the time) equally free, could not exist at the same time in the same place."

In that vain, I would also like to counter the recurring arguement of whose "responsibility" it is to enfranchise the Muslims of France. It can all be summed up here:

http://www.nazi.org/community/nations/india/policy.htm

...Even the Muslims had an Islamic socialist state thriving at one point in history where they were the main contributors to the technological and social advancement of the entire world. Once they allowed themselves to be corrupted by the new-millenium concepts of integration, they've became reduced to reactionary barbarism. This is not just an Islamic issue, Israel is the major world issue. On a smaller scale, so is the unrest in France, Ireland and the U.K. National socialism is not just an old German dictator's rant as it has been popularized as such by neo-cons of international jewry. It is a concept of future salvation.

And just in case there are those of you who are ready to lash out about the character of Hitler or Nazism in general. Here's some food for thought:

http://www.nazi.org/community/columns/smith/

http://www.**********.org/whitehistory/gerjews.htm

That's your opinion, and while I don't agree with it, I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.
Finally he says something with some semblace on sanity. Or, rather, Voltaire did, and Freiherr Max stole the quote.