David Duke DEFENDS the rights of other races and cultures!

Post Reply New Topic

I know that David Duke has a reputation of being a racist. But based on what he claims he is a separatist rather than racist. He supports the separatism of whites, just as much as he supports the separatism of other cultures. He basically opposes globalization in order to preserve every unique culture the way it is meant to be, whether white or otherwise. While most of his work defends white ppl against globalization, he also defends other cultures against that same threat as well: consider the following quotes (comming from here http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-li ... sm_11.html ) :

Yup. Anywhere but Here.

He wants Negros and Jews born in the U.S. to go away or to live separately from the other white folk. What Duke wants is Aparthiedt.

ruveyn

Separate and Apart is Equal topic

Sounds like the rantings of someone who used to post here.

Yeah, not all self-proclaimed white nationalists want to kill other races. That's a hugely wrong stereotype. I've actually dug around on Stormfront.com because I was curious to see what they really think (as opposed to what the corporate media tells us). Guess what? They don't even agree with each other. Their membership ranges from "if you even have one drop of non-white in you, you shouldn't be alive" to "if you act white and look white enough, whatever". Most of the people on there just seem to want each 'race' to stay in their own ancestral homelands and not mix. I don't know how they plan to do that though, since they can't even agree on what constitutes a "white" person.

Tribal primates like that should just be killed to allow the rest of society to progress already.

An interesting proposition to create anti-racist brutality. Evidently the enthusiasm of humanity for brutality in any form cannot be quelled.

You're gullable. I you belive that you will belive anything. David Duke is a convicted fraudster.

Here is a talk with Nick Griffin and David Duke.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw[/youtube]

wanting each "race" to "stay" in their "homeland" is utter utter BS and nothinb but utter utter BS

whats the "homeland" of a texan? texas?
if texas is the homeland of a texan, why isnt norway homeland of a black-as-coal ghanese? he was born here.

The Japanese are very "racist" in that they love the Japanese race and culture. They see no reason that they should allow millions of foreigners into their country.

I do not see that I am "better" than a Japanese or Greeks or Russians or Irishmen or Chinese or whatever.

I will allow them their pride and their country.

I just want MY pride and MY country.

A Modest Proposal indeed but I would rather not wait for the dregs to die off and allow society to catch up.

In other words, you wish to respond to people you disagree with or don't like with brutality, hatred, and intolerance.

How the hell does that make you any different from the nut cases at Stormfront?

You already have your country. To find your pride, search your accomplishments.

ruveyn

Because I actually wish to move the culture and society forward rather than regress it. Early man must die for modern man to thrive. The base racial tribalism results in hatred and intolerance that stands as a wall on the direct path toward societal progress. That wall clearly must be destroyed in order to continue forward.

...And you still fail to see that I tend to express myself in hyperbole more than in literalism.

There's nothing wrong with judicious use of intolerance. Intolerance for exclusive tribalism and the intolerances that it breeds is not a bad thing at all.

Afterall, if you tolerated everything, then you'd have to tolerate murderers, rapists, and that ilk as well. Last I checked, you don't. Quit the BS half-thought-out morality trip. You're SUPPOSED to be smarter than that.

[Godwin]The Nazis also thought they were moving culture and society forward.[/Godwin] Basically, you are advocating advancing your vision of how the world should be through the barrel of a gun.


On an Aspie forum, do you expect your comments to be taken any way other than literally?


Tolerance of other's opinions is important. Tolerance of actions that harm others is not. There is an important difference- freedom of conscience is a pillar of any free society. You can not legislate what the "correct" view on any issue is. You can outlaw causing direct harm to others.

What society doesn't have its vision of the world enforced and advanced through the point of a gun?

You might wanna check out what the cops wear again and all the new technology coming out under the category of "riot control".

Your ideals aren't even expressed in reality anywhere nor do they have any basis in reality.




It's also part of my personality that I express things through more blunt and blatant hyperbolic visuals.




Tolerance of opinions is a weak and veiled means of being able to hold flawed ideals despite their being wrong.

Though I think it's hilarious that you're standing up for the racists. David Duke would be proud.