Wikipedia - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Sports, Hobbies and all things unrelated to Politics.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By noemon
#14904615
Heisenberg wrote:Jared Taylor is a self-declared white nationalist who believes in racial segregation because black people are incapable of civilisation. Getting all rage-teary about whether he is a "white supremacist" is splitting hairs in the extreme. :lol:


I think that wikipedia describing him as a "white-supremacist" in the first sentence is very bad practice and wrong regardless on whether he actually is. The authors have an entire article to elaborate on his white-supremacist views, associations, works and opinions.

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white supremacist.[2] He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a white supremacist online magazine.


Consider that all politicians, journalists, authors are described by their more general identity. Barack Obama, politician, served as Xth President, not Barack Obama, leftist liberal, served as Xth President.

It should read, "Jared Taylor, American author. Publisher of the white-supremacist American....."
By Agent Steel
#14904636
"Jared Taylor is an American author and journalist, best known for publishing American Renaissance, a scholarly magazine which focuses on racial issues in contemporary America. Taylor is primarily an advocate for white civil rights and white racial consciousness.

Taylor has been accused by some to promote racist ideologies and white supremacy."

That's how the beginning should read. And then, I would include a subsection devoted to all the sources that have given Taylor's books critical acclaim. It isn't fair to only include his detractors without mentioning those who have written good things about the man.

It's interesting to note that despite what certain mainstream organizations have written about Jared Taylor, the public is largely supportive of his views and his message. His book "Paved with Good Intentions" holds a score of 4.4/5.0 based on 63 Amazon reviews. He also runs a successful youtube channel in which even blacks and other minorities have left comments of approval.
User avatar
By MistyTiger
#14904660
Editing on wkipedia gives me a headache. I even read some wiki articles and I cringe at the formatting.

I made an edit account but gave up on it.

Anyone with time to write can have at it!
By Agent Steel
#14904888
I am a metal elitist, and properly classifying metal subgenres is therefore very important to me. I should be allowed to say what style an album is, instead of some mallcore cockjockey who doesn't even listen to metal.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905443
Technically, Jared Taylor is more of an Asian supremacist, he has higher views of Asians as far as their inherent and natural abilities than he does for whites and he wrote a whole book on that very topic, though strongly tempering fears of their immanent economic conquest which were propagated in the west during the 1980s (think the billboard in Blade Runner etc.).

He seems to be a well tempered white nationalist and I think that is probably how he should be labeled, I have found that the equating of white nationalism/identity with white supremacy is a intentionally slanderous equivocation on the part of many on the left and shows an utter disinterest to offer any attempt in properly labeling varying groups on the right and for reasons of pure malice.

Even white nationalists who are also western supremacists still cannot be called white supremacists, that is technically inaccurate as well.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14905446
Just because people like Jared Taylor are smart enough not to express themselves in the same manner as a typical knuckle-dragging skinhead, it doesn't mean their ideas are actually any more sophisticated.

Look past the suit and tie and the pretentious accent ("huwhite") and it's ultimately crude generalisations based on skin colour coupled with a refusal to believe that history exists.

I don't really see why those of us who see this game for what it is, should be expected entertain the idea that it's a deeply intellectual and interesting worldview.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905451
Heisenberg wrote:Just because people like Jared Taylor are smart enough not to express themselves in the same manner as a typical knuckle-dragging skinhead, it doesn't mean their ideas are actually any more sophisticated.

Look past the suit and tie and the pretentious accent ("huwhite") and it's ultimately crude generalisations based on skin colour coupled with a refusal to believe that history exists.

I don't really see why those of us who see this game for what it is, should be expected entertain the idea that it's a deeply intellectual and interesting worldview.


I would not suggest any of that, I am just saying that there is an actual ideological difference between genocidal white supremacists and white nationalists.

The former want to, quite literally, white-wash the world and believe they are inherently superior based on their biology. White nationalists merely believe that self-identifying ethic-groups have the right to national self-determination just as the milder Zionist Jews believe. They believe and merely want their own nation and believe they should have the right to exist as such.

My only point is that labeling white nationalists as white supremacists is inaccurate and malicious.....I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, so I don't have a dog in this fight per se, but am bothered by it only inasmuch as intellectual honesty free of polarizing sentimentalism is something sorely lacking in political dialogue.

You are not advancing debate by intentionally and maliciously mislabeling people in order to silence them, that is true whether you agree with their views or not.

That is all that I am saying.
By Agent Steel
#14905455
As I say, the "white supremacist" label is a very recent one that has been attributed to Taylor. You can look back through all of his edit history and the label was never there. It's only now that he is gaining popularity that certain groups getting afraid and desperate. So they fling mud at the man and call him a "racist" because that's all they can do.

The people know better. No one in their right mind could think Taylor is a white supremacist. Lies do not hold up over time. Taylor's wisdom and intelligence is overpowering people and hurting their feelings, so naturally they call him a white supremacist.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14905457
@Victoribus Spolia
The problem is that you are assuming that white supremacy necessarily entails genocide.

The Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa were both clearly white supremacist states, but neither was genocidal. It's not "malicious" to identify them as white supremacist, and it doesn't imply that they were therefore the same as Nazi Germany.

And Taylor does believe that white people are "inherently superior based on their biology", at least to black people and "Hispanics" (another invented "race"). This is stated throughout his writing. It's hard to claim you aren't a white supremacist while also saying that "When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears."

I am aware that he sees East Asians as even better than white people, but the political implications of his views in the United States - i.e. where they are most relevant - are a white supremacist state that either deports or subjugates non-white people.

So yes, at least in an American context, Taylor is a white supremacist, but he does not advocate genocide - merely ethnic cleansing. How noble. :lol:
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905462
Heisenberg wrote:The problem is that you are assuming that white supremacy necessarily entails genocide.

The Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa were both clearly white supremacist states, but neither was genocidal. It's not "malicious" to identify them as white supremacist, and it doesn't imply that they were therefore the same as Nazi Germany.


Eh... but Taylor is not advocating that whites have the right to enslave others and ought to rule over all others races because of their inherent awesomeness. He might believe that there is a relation to genetics and I.Q. and the reproductive strategies of different races (evolutionary speaking), but that only means that in regards to intelligence and the requisite ability to develop sophisticated civilizations that different nations have relative gifts/abilities.

Just because I believe Germans are better at makings cars than Russians, does not make me a German supremacist. Thats kinda silly on the face of it, what if we applied the same principle to developing complex pieces of music? On the face of it, a generalization in that category could very well be misconstrued as some sort of supremacy, but that would not be quite accurate either.

I would also contend your claim that the Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa were white supremacist even if they were discriminatory. Early SA apartheid was more religious than racial and became so more overtime and the Confederate systems was originally based on belief in the right to own slaves and likewise became more racial overtime. So those examples are kinda complicated in my opinion.

Nazi Germany does seem to have believed and even created a mythology of white and ever nordo-germanic superiority to all other peoples and that all other peoples are ispo facto sub-human. That is the essence of supremacist thinking and why such is almost invariably destined towards genocidal tendencies. But once again, such is a very narrow and specific belief. You are using a very polarizing and stigmatizing term way too"broadly." That would be like labeling anyone who claimed to believe in the resurrection of the Christ as a "fundamentalist." the overlapping similarities between the two does not justify using that latter term as label for the former and if you were to see such in a wikipedia article ascribed to YOUR beliefs, you would likely see it as a "hit."

Heisenberg wrote:I am aware that he sees East Asians as even better than white people, but the political implications of his views in the United States - i.e. where they are most relevant - are a white supremacist state that either deports or subjugates non-white people.


Well you can't be a white supremacist if you believe Asians are superior :lol:

Plus, we have plenty of Asians in the American context, so you are stretching that point a bit. That being said, I don't think he advocated "subjugation of all other races," but deportation is consistent with white nationalism as much as it would be with white supremacy for if you believe in an ethnic-state then maintaining multi-ethnic demographics wouldn't make a lot of sense. You don't have to be a "supremacist" to believe that. Hell, even Israel deported "ethiopian" Jews and arguably for this same reason, in spite of their claims to be the "lost tribe." :lol:

Heisenberg wrote:So yes, at least in an American context, Taylor is a white supremacist, but he does not advocate genocide - merely ethnic cleansing. How noble


No, by definition he cannot be a white supremacist, regardless of context, and I don't really understand your beef with requiring him to be labeled in a way that can only be accurate if you unduly shrink its relative context...

Why not just say he is a white nationalist, which is true in any context, and leave it at that? What is the necessity of attaching an inaccurate label that we all know is instantly stigmatizing?

I can't see a rational reason to do so, but I can definitely see emotional reasons to do so, and that is what concerns me as an intellectual.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14905474
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Eh... but Taylor is not advocating that whites have the right to enslave others and ought to rule over all others races because of their inherent awesomeness. He might believe that there is a relation to genetics and I.Q. and the reproductive strategies of different races (evolutionary speaking), but that only means that in regards to intelligence and the requisite ability to develop sophisticated civilizations that different nations have relative gifts/abilities.

No, but he is advocating ethnic cleansing.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I would also contend your claim that the Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa were white supremacist even if they were discriminatory. Early SA apartheid was more religious than racial and became so more overtime and the Confederate systems was originally based on belief in the right to own slaves and likewise became more racial overtime. So those examples are kinda complicated in my opinion.

I can't be bothered to have this argument with you, since you've demonstrated in other threads a belief in weird pro-apartheid conspiracy theories, such as the Dutch predating Africans in Africa. And I've been through the obvious, explicit white supremacy of the Confederacy so many times on this forum in the past couple of years that I see no point in going through the motions with someone who is obviously intelligent enough to know better.

Suffice it to say that a state described by its own founders as white supremacist, is white supremacist.

Alexander Stephens wrote:Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery --subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

That is not complicated.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:No, by definition he cannot be a white supremacist, regardless of context, and I don't really understand your beef with requiring him to be labeled in a way that can only be accurate if you unduly shrink its relative context...

For what it's worth, I don't really care how he is labelled. I am not insisting that he be described as a white supremacist, simply taking issue with Agent Steel's complaint that his Wikipedia description is some sort of outrage. I've come across enough suit-and-tie racists in the past that I am not impressed by them or their pathetic claims of victimhood. We can split hairs all day over whether advocating for a state founded on ethnic cleansing of non-white people is "white supremacist", but it's going to come down to our own views rather than objective truth.
By Agent Steel
#14905478
Heisenberg wrote:@Victoribus Spolia

And Taylor does believe that white people are "inherently superior based on their biology", at least to black people and "Hispanics" (another invented "race"). This is stated throughout his writing. It's hard to claim you aren't a white supremacist while also saying that "When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears."

So yes, at least in an American context, Taylor is a white supremacist, but he does not advocate genocide - merely ethnic cleansing. How noble. :lol:


You demonstrate that you have not actually read his writing at all. Show me where he has ever said white people are "inherently superior based on their biology". Literally nowhere in his writings does he say that.

People like you are the reason wikipedia presents inaccurate information. Why don't you try reading what JT has actually said instead of reading what other people have said about him?
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14905484
Agent Steel wrote:Show me where he has ever said white people are "inherently superior based on their biology". Literally nowhere in his writings does he say that.

His entire career is based on the idea that black people are less intelligent and are inherently violent criminals. I've already provided you his quote on how "whenever blacks are left to their own devices, any civilisation disappears".

And I've already discussed - and agree - that Taylor is too smart to use crudely racist language. The fact that he doesn't, for instance, call black people "N*****" or talk about carving out Lebensraum does not mean his actual views are particularly nuanced. This is the essence of suit-and-tie racism, and you've obviously fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Get angry at me all you like, but it's not going to persuade me that a self-declared white nationalist who wants a segregated, ethnically cleansed "white homeland" is actually a non-racist. :lol:
By Pants-of-dog
#14905491
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

    White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacy, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and other analysts.[7][8] White nationalist groups espouse white separatism and white supremacy.[9] White separatism is the pursuit of a "white-only state"; supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to nonwhites, taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism.[4][10] White nationalists generally avoid the term "supremacy" because it has negative connotations.[11][12]

So, they are basically synonymous, but racists do not like to be called “racist” or “white supremacist” so they call themselves “white nationalist”.

From a functional perspective, they amount to the same thing.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905494
Heisenberg wrote:but it's not going to persuade me that a self-declared white nationalist who wants a segregated, ethnically cleansed "white homeland" is actually a non-racist.


I don't think that anyone is trying to convince you that he isn't a white nationalist, but you do not have to be a white supremacist because you believe in a white homeland.

Furthermore, part of the argument or irritation by some who defend Jared Taylor (and I am not speaking of myself here in this case), is that they feel that this sort of labeling is not appropriately or proportionally appended to other identitarian groups.

Thus, if Jared Taylor is an insufferable racist because he advocates a white homeland, then under such a definition anyone that argued for a ethnically defined nation-state is also an insufferable racist, and yet we do not see prominent Zionists being labeled Jewish supremacists et. al.

Would you say that those who advocate for a ethnically Jewish nation-state, an "Israel for the Jews!" sorta thing, that they too are ipso facto racists? No matter how sophisticated they may act?
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905495
Pants-of-dog wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacy, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and other analysts.[7][8] White nationalist groups espouse white separatism and white supremacy.[9] White separatism is the pursuit of a "white-only state"; supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to nonwhites, taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism.[4][10] White nationalists generally avoid the term "supremacy" because it has negative connotations.[11][12]

So, they are basically synonymous, but racists do not like to be called “racist” or “white supremacist” so they call themselves “white nationalist”.

From a functional perspective, they amount to the same thing.


The subject of the debate on this thread is that Wikipedia is misusing terms and that many white nationalists themselves deny an inherit superiority on the part of the white race.

Thus, you bringing up that contested definition (the point on this conversation) is begging the question.
By Pants-of-dog
#14905499
Thought you would like that.

But the piint remains that there is no significant qualitative difference between white nationalism and white supremacy.

If you are going to ethnically cleanse some country in the name of white nationalism, then you are clearly using force to dominate over other races, which is exactly what white supremacy is.
By Agent Steel
#14905519
Heisenberg wrote:His entire career is based on the idea that black people are less intelligent and are inherently violent criminals. I've already provided you his quote on how "whenever blacks are left to their own devices, any civilization disappears".


Yet you totally neglect to mention that JT has also repeatedly pointed that he believes blacks are superior to whites in certain areas. That proves he isn't a white supremacist. He is, as he says, a racial realist. He acknowledges all the differences between the races, both good and bad.

I acknowledge that east Asians are on average more intelligent than whites. Does that offend me or hurt my feelings? No, because it's the TRUTH. Likewise, as the evidence very clearly shows, blacks are on average less intelligent than whites.

I have a hypothetical question for you. If the statement I just made about IQ is in fact the truth, is there any way to speak the truth without being a white supremacist? If not, then I would say that it's a meaningless label and we should get rid of it.
By Pants-of-dog
#14905524
Agent Steel wrote:Yet you totally neglect to mention that JT has also repeatedly pointed that he believes blacks are superior to whites in certain areas. That proves he isn't a white supremacist. He is, as he says, a racial realist. He acknowledges all the differences between the races, both good and bad.


Lol. So if I argue that whites should control society and politics and the economy, I am a white suprmacist, but if say the exact same thing and also say that blacks are good at track and field and playing sax, I am not?

I acknowledge that east Asians are on average more intelligent than whites. Does that offend me or hurt my feelings? No, because it's the TRUTH. Likewise, as the evidence very clearly shows, blacks are on average less intelligent than whites.

I have a hypothetical question for you. If the statement I just made about IQ is in fact the truth, is there any way to speak the truth without being a white supremacist? If not, then I would say that it's a meaningless label and we should get rid of it.


You seem to be confused, as you think IQ and intelligence are the same thing. They are not.
Vote For Me You Lying Racist!

2020 is shaping up to be even crazier and more fun[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Barr is the Senate confirmed US Attorney General […]

Nadler himself lectured that a partisan impeachmen[…]

You cannot govern when you have zero credibility.[…]