Snappy Refutations, Exercise 4

Posted by Englander on April 10, 2009, 08:14 PM | #

I look forward to the series entitled ‘Thorough refutations’, which I think will actually be more useful in the long run.

Posted by Captainchaos on April 10, 2009, 08:56 PM | #

Calling the bluff of the challenger, taking a DNA test and publishing the results would be a serious, thorough refutation of Whites as mongrels, if not social construct, meme.  I think the popularization of DNA testing amongst Whites to reaffirm identity and for mate selection is of immense utility for White preservation.

JWH definitely thinks so.

Posted by Captainchaos on April 10, 2009, 09:17 PM | #

If it be our destiny to be swamped by the Third World we’ll need methods of ensuring our genetic continuity and establishing group cohesion.  Popularization of DNA testing could serve as a useful ritual on both counts.

Posted by danielj on April 10, 2009, 09:48 PM | #

I’m watching Birth of a Nation with my English wife and she just said this:

“Give a nigger 40 acres and a mule and all you’ll end up with is 16 fallow hectares and a dead mule”

I had to post it now because I was laughing so hard I almost pissed my pants. It doesn’t really fit in with the “Snappy Refutations” project but it was amusing.

Posted by exPF on April 11, 2009, 12:08 AM | #

theoreticals

“If I was 98% English, would my claim to an English identity be void?

Conversely, if I am in fact 100% English, would you grant the legitimacy of my position?”

turnaround

“Does that mean that recent immigrants, having 0% English ancestry, should have no say in the
debate?”

comparison

“So if an Indian person can be shown to be part Turkish - do they lose all claim to an Indian identity?”

argument

“Even if I’m only 95% English, do I not have a right to attempt to stay that way?”

nya-nya-You’re-Hitler smear

“Well, well, well - the racism of the left comes out. It turns out my ability to make arguments
is constrained by the purity of my blood - will you be measuring the slope of my nose, next,
Professor Goebbels?”

apply it to everybody

“If the legitimacy of my defense of the rights of the English people to exist depends on a blood sample,
will other participants in the discussion of matters central to English identity likewise also submit to a blood test? The bar should be raised that high for everyone, regardless of their stance.”

“If it turns out that I’m more English than some of the other commentators and journalists - will my opinion count for more than theirs?”

[I actually made the same point about 5 times here, kind of boring]

We really need Svigor, q, Lurker and The Narrator to get on this, they have a knack for this stuff.

Posted by Mentious on April 11, 2009, 02:43 AM | #

Not boring at all. Good ones. Interesting.

Posted by danielj on April 11, 2009, 06:11 AM | #

I think you might have exhausted all the possible angles PF.

Posted by Dasein on April 11, 2009, 07:26 AM | #

It’s a bizarre request.  They might as well ask for a picture of your genitals to prove that you’re a man.  Your argument would be valid regardless of whatever race you really were- the test would only prove that you are insincere and lying about your racial makeup.  I don’t think anyone should be sending their DNA sequence to others, especially publishing it on the Internet.  The participants in the Personal Genome Project (at least the ones I’ve seen interviewed) seem very naive about the dangers of exposing themselves in this manner.

This is a good blog for keeping track of developments in personal genomics:
http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/

As for the Guardianistas, perhaps the best tack is to take up their admission that there is such a thing as the English ethny.

Posted by the Narrator... on April 11, 2009, 08:50 AM | #

Go and take a DNA test then publish the result here so we can all see if you are as English as you think you are.

I think exPF is on the right course here. Of course it depends on how you are interacting with the people you are debating/discussing with…the history, the back and forth, the tone and so on…..if they would acknowledge when you were making a point for illustration and such.
.
.
.

But I’d be tempted to come back with an answer such as, “Well, it turns out I’m 75% English, 20% Polish and 5% Italian.”

It would be interesting to see how they would respond.

If they except the results and say, “see, we told you so”, then they will have just admitted that English, Italian and Polish people exist as distinct groups. After all you can’t be a percentage of something that doesn’t distinctly exist (and recognized as such) to begin with.

If they reject the results then they will have made null and void their appeal to the DNA testing, thus relenting and retreating in that angle of attack…

.

Posted by Loriver on April 11, 2009, 09:59 AM | #

IF they had already made a complaint about picking and choosing as regards a policy of allowing European-derived people to remain in Britain, I would call them out for hypocrisy:

Either there is a distinct British people, in which case we should think hard about deporting people like Poles, or we are actually a mongrel ethny, in which case pan-Europeanism would seem a much sounder option. Because if I was 95% British and 5% West African, I would still be within the European genetic area; clearly we can at least be confident of that.

So what exactly are you trying to prove by asking me for a DNA test? In any case, DNAPrint and such things cannot tell me if I’m ‘100% British’, they emphatically do not provide a genealogy test (much as Channel 4 would have you believe that).

Posted by Ernest Wesley on April 11, 2009, 02:03 PM | #

Who I am is irrelevant to the idea the British people deserve their homeland.

So you’re saying a member of another race might propose this, doesn’t that mean its not racist?

Posted by Armor on April 11, 2009, 05:52 PM | #

As tactics go, it’s a smear really, the unspoken inference being that somewhere lurking in my ancestral history are a whole stack of Somalis and Afghans. (—Guessedworker)

That kind of silly ad hominem is an impertinent way to end the discussion by changing the subject. Isn’t there an all-purpose proverb that can be used to reply to all ad-hominems? Maybe you could say that “truth knows no race”. (it will sound awkward if your point is that race exists)

And it’s a variation on the old tactic of claiming that our people don’t exist or can’t be defined, and so there’s nothing to preserve.

My suggestions (not snappy) :

- My poodle has wolves in its ancestry, but wouldn’t last long in a pack of wolves. Race matters even if you are not pure race.

- The English may have had some African DNA in very small amount prior to the 20th century, but they are still recognizable from Africans. There is still something to preserve.

- There has been some non-white admixture in the past, but today’s immigration is a phenomenon of a much higher magnitude.

Posted by Lurker on April 11, 2009, 10:47 PM | #

exPF - Wow! Thanks for the endorsement. Ive tried to learn from Svi, Narrator and the others.

Posted by Tanstaafl on April 12, 2009, 01:49 PM | #

Go and take a DNA test then publish the result here so we can all see if you are as English as you think you are.

Go and take an IQ test then publish the result here so we can all see if you are as smart as you think you are.

Go and take an AIDs test then publish the result here so we can all see if you like taking tests and making the results public.

Go and take a long walk off a short pier so we can all see if a man-sized turd floats or sinks.

OK, turns out I’m 100% English. Your turn!

I like this testing idea. Let’s test everybody and find out what they are.

We don’t need any test to see who hates the English.

Posted by Wandrin on April 12, 2009, 03:38 PM | #

Go and take a DNA test then publish the result here so we can all see if you are as English as you think you are.

So you accept that there is a genetic basis to nationality?

Posted by Ben Tillman on April 12, 2009, 03:44 PM | #

They are implying that.

Posted by Wandrin on April 12, 2009, 03:53 PM | #

They are implying that.

Yes, but they’re unlikely to mean it so you put them back on the spot.

Posted by stari_momak on April 13, 2009, 12:23 PM | #

I think, sir, you have me confused with a Sicilian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXjcf47y-zk

Posted by Collector on April 15, 2009, 05:10 PM | #

The degree of genetic difference between a sausage dog and a greyhound is negligible….... until you put them in a race.

By denying that Europeans have a unique genotype you are validating multiculturalism and the continued and unprecedented mass immigrations into European homelands, but people do not object to these immigrations on the basis of genetic uniqueness, they object to the loss of cultural continuity and identity. Identity is not about genes per se, it is about the association of shared genes with shared cultural and historical identity. This is really a question of ethnicity and not race, a concept that is not even accepted by science in the first place, which you introduce merely as a strawman. In reality you are using ill defined scientific interpretations of race to avoid addressing a genuine issue of social and cultural development.

Posted by Gudmund on April 15, 2009, 10:02 PM | #

In reality you are using ill defined scientific interpretations of race to avoid addressing a genuine issue of social and cultural development.
>Collector

Ho, ho, ho!  So race-replacement is “development” now?  Well:  a.)  Bullshit.  b.)  Go fuck yourself.

Btw, race is well-defined scientifically, the “science” of your Boasian idols notwithstanding.

Posted by Gudmund on April 15, 2009, 10:07 PM | #

This is really a question of ethnicity and not race, a concept that is not even accepted by science in the first place, which you introduce merely as a strawman.
>Collector

If “scientists” won’t accept race, then they aren’t scientists.  They’re Jewed.  Fuck what “they” say about race, it doesn’t matter.  “They”‘re a bunch of tomfools.

Posted by Gudmund on April 15, 2009, 10:30 PM | #

To race-blind old “Collector”:

“A leopard doesn’t change his spots just because you bring him in from the jungle and try to housebreak him and turn him into a pet. He may learn to sheathe his claws in order to beg a few scraps off the dinner table, and you may teach him to be a beast of burden, but it doesn’t pay to forget that he’ll always be what he was born: a wild animal.” 
-George Lincoln Rockwell

That’s the only information you’ll need about other races, fuckface.  I don’t need a scientist to tell me that our adversaries are wild-fucking-beasts.

Posted by Collector on April 16, 2009, 08:55 PM | #

Groan! I am telling you what I would say to a liberal. By reminding them that race is not accepted as a scientific concept among the “intelligentsia” I am highlighting the invalidity of his exercise using his own definitions. I would highlight the cultural differences between racial groups and their consequences without making a connection between the racial status of the groups in question, in order to withhold an easy “you are just a racist” get out of gaol card from my opponent. A refutation like this has the advantage that it can be made in “polite company”. Obviously I know that race is established by science and that race directs and defines culture. By cultural “development” BTW, I meant OUR, white European/English culture, which is being prevented from developing and evolving because of mass invasion of our homelands. Judeo-liberalism is a fairly solid fortress, it’s not going to be brought down by suicidal frontal assaults.

BTW, I am not “old” and I’m not too keen on being called “fuckface”.

Posted by Gudmund on April 16, 2009, 09:23 PM | #

BTW, I am not “old” and I’m not too keen on being called “fuckface”.
> Collector

Oh, cry me a river.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 17, 2009, 04:18 AM | #

Gudmund,

Your commentary is welcome and often interesting, but the epithets here are beneath you.

Collector: Identity is not about genes per se, it is about the association of shared genes with shared cultural and historical identity

“Identity” is a slippery Marxian slope that leads us straight to self-authorship and the choice of the individual.  Of course everyone uses the term, but that doesn’t negate its lack off serviceability to our ends.  We would benefit ourselves by developing the idea of a partition of the ways between “knowing thyself” as a European man or woman, rather than simply as an individual, and self-estrangement.  The spiritually deracinated prisoner of his or her own time can have his “identity”.  But we wish to open the doors of what could be called the eternal European nation, or the European soul - which, of course, can never be chosen.

If we concentrate on this we can do that uniquely difficult thing and unify genes and culture and we can extirpate from our minds all that belongs to The Other.

Posted by Svigor on April 18, 2009, 11:22 PM | #

It’s a bizarre request.

As much as I’d like to live up to ex-PF’s expectations, I have to agree with Dasein.  It’s friggin’ bizarre, and I can only think of one reply:

“Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.”

Obviously, there are many ways of saying the same thing:

“So, if I say stealing is wrong, and you prove I’m a thief, that means stealing is not wrong?”

Posted by Svigor on April 18, 2009, 11:29 PM | #

And obviously, after the response “well if you aren’t English enough, you’ll be kicked out if your own rules are followed,” (assuming I actually proposed such rules, otherwise I’ll be tearing my interlocutor a new ass for putting words in my mouth), the obvious counter-response is, “well, I believe in freedom for ethnic nationalism for everybody, and since everybody includes me last time I checked…”

Posted by Guessedworker on May 09, 2009, 05:37 AM | #

By way of a thanks to you guys I thought you might be interested in a demonstration of the efficacy of this pooling of ideas.

Yesterday evening on this Guardian thread ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/08/eu-economic-immigration-poland?commentpage=3

a commenter style cmnimo instructed me thus:-

“So you want to reclaim your England? ... go and have a DNA test first. All kinds of surprises swirling around in there.

... to which I flew back to this thread, cobbled together a reply as follows:-

Better still, go and have a DNA test

Well, well - the racism of the left comes out. It turns out my ability to make arguments is constrained by the purity of my blood - will you be measuring the slope of my nose, next, Dr Goebbels?

It’s a bizarre request, of course. Does it mean that post-1948 immigrants, having 0% English ancestry, should have no say in the debate? But no, you wouldn’t have that, would you? Hypocrite.

At least you accept that there is a genetic basis to peoplehood. So you must also accept that the English exist and, therefore, have rights that other peoples have, including the right to their ancestral land.

Ultimately, this demand to take a DNA test is just another smear ... another collapse of the space between dumb white ethno-suicide and rabid Nazis, with nowhere for normal ethnoccentrism to be espoused by the English. It’s just a piece of hate.

It is based, I suppose, on the “old” DNAPrint technique, now totally outclassed by multi-array analysis that can pin down subject origin to within 100 miles. Get up to speed, and don’t talk to me like that again.

... and lo and behold, this morning I find my interlocutor baffled and silenced:-

Although that was the most wonderful piece of work it would be wiser if I just chuckled, savoured it for a while longer and left it there.

The Retro English Policy. Oh boy, where to start. Best not.

Thank you very much.

Posted by Ben Tillman on May 09, 2009, 01:09 PM | #

Very well done.