In one age, called the Second Age by some,
   (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
      someone claiming to be White-Knight wrote
         in message <BBFABC65.60F%White-Knight@White-Country.org>: 

  [snip]

>>>>>>>>>> So what physical attributes distinguish whites from
non-whites other
>>>>>>>>>> than skin colour?

>>>>>>>>> If you have to ask that question then you probably would
not under
>>>>>>>>> stand my answer or my way of thinking.

>>>>>>>> That may be because your thinking is incomprehensible.

>>>>>>> It is only incomprehensible to you because you are not a white
>>>>>>> separatist.

>>>>>> That's right. And in the world of reason it isn't required for
>>>>>> everyone to be the same sort of person in order to communicate ideas
>>>>>> to one another.

>>>>> No, but it sure helps

>>>> ... when one is attempting to advance an irrational agenda and have it
>>>> accepted as rational to have everyone being irrational in the same way.

>>> How do you know that my argument is irrational?

>> Because you have been singularly unable to offer a rational basis for
>> it.

>I think you do understand but you are in denial.

I never said I did not understand.  I understand fully that your
argument is irrational.

What is it you think I am denying?

>>>>>> A little reflection would convince a rational person that this is
>>>>>> how it has to be, otherwise rational discourse would be impossible.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The fact that you make such an argument is just more proof that you
>>>>>> actually don't really know what you mean when you utter your
>>>>>> nonsense, that your position isn't based on reason but on brute
>>>>>> emotion.

>>>>> So what you are saying I am not allowed to hold the view I have.

>>>> No, William has not said anything of the sort, nor even anything that
>>>> a rational person would interpret as support for such an idea.
>>>> 
>>>> Quite obviously, William is saying that your "you have to be like me
>>>> to understand my logic" claim simply points out the fundamental
>>>> illogic of your position.

>>> Well you certainly don't understand my point of view.  So what is wrong with
>>> my point of view?

>> Its irrationality, as demonstrated by the fact that no one has said
>> they do not understand it -- we understand all too well that you have
>> no rational, objective basis for excluding anyone from your
>> hypothetical homeland, nor any rational, objective reason for even
>> needing such a homeland.

>The reason a homeland is needed is that many people like me desire a
>homeland.  

Then it is not needed, it is wanted.  And you still have no rational
reason for your want.

>And I bet you would be happier if people like me were not in your
>multi-racial society.

Why would you think so?

>>>>>>> And you will not accept that anyone else has the right to think
or to
>>>>>>> live
>>>>>>> differently to the way you think the world should be. Now that
would
>>>>>>> probably make you the bigot.

>>>>>> That's a rather stupid thing to say when you're accusing me of being
>>>>>> a multi-culturalist, isn't it? After all, I'm not the one arguing
>>>>>> for the right to force people out of my country who aren't of my
>>>>>> 'race,' even though I can't figure out what I mean when I utter the
>>>>>> word 'race.

>>>>> I am not trying force anyone out.

>>>> Just keep them out.
>>>> 
>>>> *Big* difference there.

>>> You got that right.

>> < shakes head in amazement >
>> 
>> There is a difference in the mechanics, not the motivation -- which
>> was what was being discussed.

>So what are you trying to say?  It sounds like babble to me.

I am trying to say that the "reasons' behind wanting to force someone
out and wanting to keep them out are the same.

And it is the irrationality of these "reasons" that we are discussing.

Or do you need me to use single syllable words?

>>>>>> Remember, freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In fact, by you making your rejoinder it's clear that it's you who
>>>>>> are attempting to shut me up by claiming that my opposition makes me
>>>>>> a 'bigot.'  That's a rather stupid argument, however. A bigot is
>>>>>> someone, like you, who judges people they've never interacted with
>>>>>> on the basis of irrational criteria which they can't even
>>>>>> ennunciate. I, on the other hand, am judging you on the basis of a
>>>>>> rationale I most certainly can ennunciate and because of the
>>>>>> experience I have of you through your own pronouncements.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Two completely different cases.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nevertheless, I still defend your right to hold and express your
>>>>>> beliefs, even though they are morally repugnant and, as far as I'm
>>>>>> concerned, the sign of a diseased spirit. It's when you try to act
>>>>>> upon them those views that we would part company.

>>>>> Well parting company is what I want.

>>>> Then stop whining and do something about it -- just be sure to find
>>>> some place no one else is already living.

>>> At this stage there is no such country.

>> But there *are* expanses of land available.  As big a group as you
>> would have wouldn't even be noticed setting up shop on Antarctica, for
>> example.

>What we need is a country that is independent so we can live under our own
>laws.  

And what is stopping you from moving to Antarctica and establishing
such a country?

>And it would have to be a place where we can grow and prosper as a
>people.

And what is stopping you from growing and prospering as a people
there?

Or is the real problem that you want to simply take over an existing
country / government?  What do you plan to do with everyone else
already living there?

>>>>>>>>> That is why I want to live in a country separate to the
>>>>>>>>> multi-racialist like yourself.  If you detest people like
me then
>>>>>>>>> you should want the same thing.  I would like to point
out I do
>>>>>>>>> not hate you or wish you harm.  I just do not wish to live
in the
>>>>>>>>> type of society you do.  How ever I respect your right
to live in
>>>>>>>>> a society that you advocate.  In return I just ask that
you
>>>>>>>>> respect my right to live my live in a way I see fit.

>>>>>>>> Then go find a country for yourself, if you can, but be warned:
you
>>>>>>>> don't get to force people out merely because you want a certain
type
>>>>>>>> of country. You don't have a premium on righteousness, particulary
>>>>>>>> if you can't even defend your position beyond "if you have
to ask
>>>>>>>> that question then you probably won't not even under stand
[sic] my
>>>>>>>> answer or my way of thinking."

>>>>>>> Well the jews have forced people out and are forcing people out
of
>>>>>>> isreal.

>>>>>> Even if true, you'd hardly need this excuse, would you?  You'd
>>>>>> attempt to force people out even if no one provided you with a
>>>>>> fallacious rationale. It's the sort of person you are.

>>>>> As I have said before I am the one that is willing to move.

>>>> There's the door....

>>> But where is there a white nation to move to?

>> The whitest place on Earth:  Antarctica.  I'd even start a fund raiser
>> to pay for your ticket, as long as you promise not to come back.

>I think I have all ready cover this one in my above reply.

No, you haven't.  What *specifically* is wrong with Antarctica?

>>>>>>> I take it you and your kind think that you are the only ones to
have a
>>>>>>> "premium on righteousness."

>>>>>> And of what 'kind' am I?

>>>>> Certainly not the some kind of person I am!

>>>> Nice dodge.  Answer the question.

>>> From what I can tell a multi-racialist.

>> Which term you have also yet to define.

>Maybe you could look it up in a dictionary they are the best source of word
>definitions.

Maybe you could tell us in which dictionary you find the term
multi-racialist?

>>>>>>> It may be a good idea to remember that the point of view that I
have
>>>>>>> is growing stronger everyday and especially in Europe. And to avoid
>>>>>>> the sort of bloodshed that is going on in isreal today we will
have
>>>>>>> to eventually come up with an amenable solution.

>>>>>> LOL! You'd better go look up what 'amenable' means before you use it
>>>>>> again.

>>> I meant amicable solution.  Dam spellchecker corrected it and I didn't see
>>> that it was the wrong word.

>> That really didn't help much...

>Entry:  
>amicable
>
>Function:  
>adjective
>
>Definition:  
>friendly
>
>Synonyms:  
>accordant, agreeing, amiable, brotherly, civil, clubby, concordant, cordial,
>courteous, cozy, empathic, fraternal, good-humored, harmonious, kind,
>kindly, like-minded, mellow, neighborly, pacific, peaceable, peaceful,
>polite, regular, sociable, sympathetic, understanding
>
>Antonyms:  
>aggressive, hostile, nasty, unfriendly
>
>Concept:  
>friendship

So, you think that your isolationist policy will make things
*friendly* in the Middle East?