This venue does not seem constituted as a suitable forum for race related debate. The Terms Of Service state that
* It is Network54's function to operate as an Internet Service Provider,
* facilitating the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and information.
* However, Network54 prohibits content or links to content or Network54
* Resources that contain(s): Hatred and racism of any kind.
There are two sides to the race debate: (1) the liberal side, which promotes the doctrine of racial equality and attempts to explain apparent differences as the product of social or environmental influences, and (2) the racist side, which asserts that the liberal dogma is fictitious and tries to show that racial differences are mostly genetic and heritable.
Liberals usually control debates on race in order to give an illusion of free speech while, in fact, preventing it. One of their commonest excuses is to portray their opponents as "haters" whose opinions need not be heard.
A sports analogy might be appropriate. Suppose that a high school football team was afraid that it would probably lose next Friday's game to the team from the competing school, so they send somebody to sabotage their team bus in order to prevent them from showing up on the field. The intent of the sabotage is to give the home team an excuse to declare victory by default when the visiting team doesn't appear at the stadium.
That's what this "rule" against racism seeks to do: permit liberals to win through a dishonest declaration of default by racists.
There is only one reason to suppress a viewpoint in preference to debating it, namely, that the censorer knows that he is suppressing the truth. That alone should tell honest people that the racists are probably right.
Let this rule be lifted to the point at which I can post unfettered by the rule that imposes a priori judgments on the relative moral worth of different opinions, and I will prove that the racists are right in a more positive sense.
Jerry Abbott
|