3 ms·

Thank you for your pedantry - You are indeed correct that the author of the linked site does not appear to be a current member of a political party that ceased

Thank you for your pedantry - You are indeed correct that the author of the linked site does not appear to be a current member of a political party that ceased to exist some 70+ years ago. He or she does, however, appear to be a neo-Nazi, a white nationalist and a white supremacist.

paulddraper 8y ago
CommieBobDole, it's not pedantics; I simply saw his public denouncement of white nationalism/white supremacy/neo-Nazism (while still supporting general nationalism/cultural unity) and took it at face value. If you disagree, you might explain why.
- CommieBobDole 8y ago
  Here's an article from the site calling for less race-baiting because it's harmful to the public perception of white nationalism, thereby hindering white nationalists from reaching their goals: https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2015/05/you-can-fight-for-racial-nationalism.html https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2015/05/you-can-fight-for-rac... Here's an article that suggests it's counterproductive to beat up gay people because again, it's unpopular, and instead advocates that they be segregated and their behavior outlawed as an unpleasant nuisance: https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-word-on-homosexuals.html https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-word-on-homosexuals... Here's a link to a donation campaign being run by the organization "White Revolution" with the context that if white nationalist groups were more practical like this, the author would like them more. https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2011/04/unbelievable-white-nationalists-do.html https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2011/04/unbelievable-white-na... Here is a link to a lighthearted funny meme about Anders Breivik, a neo-nazi who murdered 77 people. https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2014/01/anders-breivik-king-of-all-media.html https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2014/01/anders-breivik-king-o... The general tone of the site seems to be that of a white supremacist and neo-nazi who believes that others who share his or her goals are not effective and should adopt other tactics in order to achieve their aims. If you're not able to see this, I have to question whether you've reviewed the material your commenting on, or if you're incredibly politically naive, or if perhaps your questioning is not entirely in good faith.
  - true_religion 8y ago
    So the author is calling for less violence against minorities, wants to remove racist language from public discourse, but he must still be racist because he does not totally condemn racists who happen to want the same goals as he does? Not criticizing, I just want to know if this is a fair assessment. I do not know how I feel about this in general, but in specific, his short term goal of reducing violence makes him a more tollerable enemy.
    - krapp 8y ago
      > but he must still be racist because he does not totally condemn racists who happen to want the same goals as he does? Yes, because those goals are racist. He's racist because of his belief in and support for white nationalism and racial segregation, and the genetic and cultural superiority of the white race, and his definition of "western civilization" in purely (pun intended) racial terms. He's racist because he views the presence of non-white people as a form of pollution and believes in racist conspiracy theories like white genocide. Being racist and civil is still being racist.
      - paulddraper 8y ago
        I'm not sure "genetic superiority" is in his list of claims. But in any case, going back to the original point, there's some real muddling of terminology here. Racist != Nazi My great grandmother was racist. Woodrow Wilson was racist. Neither one was a Nazi.
        krapp 8y ago
        >My great grandmother was racist. Woodrow Wilson was racist. Neither one was a Nazi. Fair enough. Racist but not full Nazi.
- nazihunter1234 8y ago
  This is you: https://i.imgur.com/vFVtVSV.png https://i.imgur.com/vFVtVSV.png

paulddraper 8y ago

CommieBobDole, it's not pedantics; I simply saw his public denouncement of white nationalism/white supremacy/neo-Nazism (while still supporting general nationalism/cultural unity) and took it at face value. If you disagree, you might explain why.

CommieBobDole 8y ago
Here's an article from the site calling for less race-baiting because it's harmful to the public perception of white nationalism, thereby hindering white nationalists from reaching their goals: https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2015/05/you-can-fight-for-racial-nationalism.html https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2015/05/you-can-fight-for-rac... Here's an article that suggests it's counterproductive to beat up gay people because again, it's unpopular, and instead advocates that they be segregated and their behavior outlawed as an unpleasant nuisance: https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-word-on-homosexuals.html https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-word-on-homosexuals... Here's a link to a donation campaign being run by the organization "White Revolution" with the context that if white nationalist groups were more practical like this, the author would like them more. https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2011/04/unbelievable-white-nationalists-do.html https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2011/04/unbelievable-white-na... Here is a link to a lighthearted funny meme about Anders Breivik, a neo-nazi who murdered 77 people. https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2014/01/anders-breivik-king-of-all-media.html https://penetrate.blogspot.com/2014/01/anders-breivik-king-o... The general tone of the site seems to be that of a white supremacist and neo-nazi who believes that others who share his or her goals are not effective and should adopt other tactics in order to achieve their aims. If you're not able to see this, I have to question whether you've reviewed the material your commenting on, or if you're incredibly politically naive, or if perhaps your questioning is not entirely in good faith.
- true_religion 8y ago
  So the author is calling for less violence against minorities, wants to remove racist language from public discourse, but he must still be racist because he does not totally condemn racists who happen to want the same goals as he does? Not criticizing, I just want to know if this is a fair assessment. I do not know how I feel about this in general, but in specific, his short term goal of reducing violence makes him a more tollerable enemy.
  - krapp 8y ago
    > but he must still be racist because he does not totally condemn racists who happen to want the same goals as he does? Yes, because those goals are racist. He's racist because of his belief in and support for white nationalism and racial segregation, and the genetic and cultural superiority of the white race, and his definition of "western civilization" in purely (pun intended) racial terms. He's racist because he views the presence of non-white people as a form of pollution and believes in racist conspiracy theories like white genocide. Being racist and civil is still being racist.
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      I'm not sure "genetic superiority" is in his list of claims. But in any case, going back to the original point, there's some real muddling of terminology here. Racist != Nazi My great grandmother was racist. Woodrow Wilson was racist. Neither one was a Nazi.
      - krapp 8y ago
        >My great grandmother was racist. Woodrow Wilson was racist. Neither one was a Nazi. Fair enough. Racist but not full Nazi.
nazihunter1234 8y ago
This is you: https://i.imgur.com/vFVtVSV.png https://i.imgur.com/vFVtVSV.png