[soup]

(11-17-2013 05:19 AM)scandibro Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 05:07 AM)soup Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 02:41 AM)scandibro Wrote:  

It's strange that a smart guy like Tuthmosis can be so completely irrational when dealing with things like this. I've never understood that leftist selective irrationality. It's like a girl throwing a hissy fit and refusing to accept reality. Is it some kind of temporary cognitive dissonaince breakdown?

Gypsies are generally trash, lets not beat around the bush. Anyone who have them in their backyard know this. They have resisted and refused countless attempts to 'domesticate' them.

A civil war in Europe seems inevitable. Muslims vs white vs gypsie etc. It's the Balkan War v.2.

Que bono?

First of all, you should talk with respect to Tuthmosis. Who are you?

You sound like a

I've read many of his articles on ROK. He is a public person through that. Who are you to tell me how to 'talk' to someone online, if I am overstepping some line, certainly someone will ban me. I've contributed data sheets and advice on making money in other threads, which people have found valuable.

Everyone has their weak points, I have many myself. Just because you're A+ in one area, doesn't mean it carries over. It's like when an artist think they have a say in politics. If you're debating, you debate the statement, not the reputation in another field.

It's ok to post good stuff in one area, but how does that give you reign to troll like you did in your post?

[Teedub]

(11-16-2013 01:40 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

They are the most xenophobic people I've seen, and I've been to a number of countries. No offence to anybody on this forum.

You haven't been to France!

(11-17-2013 05:25 AM)soup Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 05:19 AM)scandibro Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 05:07 AM)soup Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 02:41 AM)scandibro Wrote:  

It's strange that a smart guy like Tuthmosis can be so completely irrational when dealing with things like this. I've never understood that leftist selective irrationality. It's like a girl throwing a hissy fit and refusing to accept reality. Is it some kind of temporary cognitive dissonaince breakdown?

Gypsies are generally trash, lets not beat around the bush. Anyone who have them in their backyard know this. They have resisted and refused countless attempts to 'domesticate' them.

A civil war in Europe seems inevitable. Muslims vs white vs gypsie etc. It's the Balkan War v.2.

Que bono?

First of all, you should talk with respect to Tuthmosis. Who are you?

You sound like a

I've read many of his articles on ROK. He is a public person through that. Who are you to tell me how to 'talk' to someone online, if I am overstepping some line, certainly someone will ban me. I've contributed data sheets and advice on making money in other threads, which people have found valuable.

Everyone has their weak points, I have many myself. Just because you're A+ in one area, doesn't mean it carries over. It's like when an artist think they have a say in politics. If you're debating, you debate the statement, not the reputation in another field.

It's ok to post good stuff in one area, but how does that give you reign to troll like you did in your post?

Soup mate, criticizing doesn't equal trolling. I too was a bit confused by Tuth's 'progressivism' in regards to this issue, considering he most certainly isn't 'progressive' when it comes to feminism/'rape culture'/sluts etc.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

While criticism certainly isn't trolling, branding someone "leftist" and "rightist" (? conservative ?) is certainly needless and communicates that the person in question is more considered wrong because of his overall point of view rather than the specific one being discussed. It's the same reason why I've stopped reading threads about USA politics, just way too many labels being thrown around.

[lskdfjldsf]

I've been in the UK for about 2.5 months now and it's been a pretty eye-opening experience seeing how another Western country relates to foreigners and immigration. Several observations based on people I've gotten to know and coworkers here:

- Muslims here are a problem, more so than in Germany, Holland, or France, and it comes down to the country of origin rather than the religion itself. Pakistanis (largest immigrant group) tend to hold more extreme views and their native culture clashes to a greater extent than Turkish immigrants in Berlin, for example. It is fair to call this out.

- The British are the most tolerant people I've met when it comes to foreigners and immigration. Even the most right-wing people I know believe multiculturalism is rooted in the country historically, going back to Britain's role as a world power and melting pot for colonies and overseas territories. The difference is that they draw a very clear line in the sand when it comes to abiding by the law of the land, and tend to be more vocal if immigrants don't integrate into society.

Britain has problems, but the fact that they are vocal and willing to speak up about it doesn't point to xenophobia, it's a positive sign that they're more willing to defend their culture, language, and history compared to countries like Sweden and Germany, where criticism of multiculturalism can cost you your career and friends.

[scandibro]

(11-17-2013 06:28 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

While criticism certainly isn't trolling, branding someone "leftist" and "rightist" (? conservative ?) is certainly needless and communicates that the person in question is more considered wrong because of his overall point of view rather than the specific one being discussed. It's the same reason why I've stopped reading threads about USA politics, just way too many labels being thrown around.

Yeah I agree, that was a poor choice of words, but things do get a little difficult when you want to convey meaning in politics in a second language across different meanings culturally. In any case, my point was not to call Tuthmosis a leftist, but rather how I don't understand how some normally smart and rational people are - in my opinion - irrational when certain subjects come up. In my experience, they're usually liberals/leftists, but that of course doesn't mean that is the case here.

[WanderingSoul]

I've never understood how letting poor and uneducated immigrants into a country is supposed to help that country.

Can someone explain it to me? I only went to a state university, sorry.

[Libertas]

There's a difference between irrational xenophobia (kind of redundant, but there you go), and being against the negative consequences of constant, mass, unchecked, immigration, especially when those said immigrants bring a lot of baggage with them and then demand that their bad behaviors be tolerated by the local population.

It's like kosko said on the first page- Japan seems to be at one end of the spectrum while Britain is the other extreme.

Fortunately we here in the U.S. do seem to have it relatively good regarding immigration.

(11-16-2013 04:58 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

The eventual fate of the Native Americans if anything just serves as a prime example of what happens when you don't protect your home turf.

That was pretty much my thought. The fate of the Native Americans is the ultimate example of what happens when a people are either unwilling or unable to muster power in the defense of their homeland.

(11-17-2013 05:03 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

While I agree in principle, it's worth noting that the Native American cultures would have been destroyed even if they all banded up on the first white man to step foot on their shore and engaged in fierce resistance right off the bat. It would have just taken a little longer. It was more a case of war than an immigration.

On the other hand, it's fun to imagine what the world would be like had this fierce resistance eventually caused the European colonist nations to give up and recognize the Native American tribes as some kind of state to have diplomatic relations with. Of course, the tribes were very fragmented and far from a single diplomatic entity, but one can fantasize.

Actually, if they mounted an effective resistance, they may have survived. A large portion of the Europeans' success in the New World was the result of divide and conquer tactics. There really weren't enough of them to be overwhelmingly dominant until around the 19th century.

That's why there were strict laws in place banning the trade of iron or firearms with native peoples.

[Don]

(11-16-2013 01:57 PM)Agent 47 Wrote:  

Xenophobia? Really? I don't see Xenophobia displayed by our chaps across the pond. The problem is not that foreigners are moving to their country, it is that these parasites who probably couldn't hack it in their own backwater shithole, bring their useless hides and have the audacity to ask for "RESPECT, TOLERANCE, UNDERSTANDING" when they themselves do not give one ounce to the british people. If these muslims and romanians would mind their buisness and be grateful that somebody let them get out of their shithole and improve their situation, we would not have this problem.

Fuck these parasites.

I am literally one step away from driving my fist up my fucking monitor. Let me give you a lesson in history short, concise and clear enough that your brain can comprehend it:

Via Wikipedia

Quote:

The Romani people, also referred to depending on the sub-group as Roma, Sinti, Kale, Romani or Gypsies, are an ethnic group who live primarily in Europe. They originated in the region of India[1] and, possibly, Pakistan.[2] Their ancestors left North India sometime between 6th and 11th century[1] and then migrated to Europe and North Africa[citation needed], crossing Iran.[3]
According to a new genetic study made by Pompeu Fabra University, the Romani people migrated from northwest India 1,500 years ago. [4]

Via romaniancoins.org/history

Quote:

The basic body of the Romanian people are the ancient Dacians and the culture and speech are due to the Romans from which they inherited so much. The Romanians have had a unitary historical evolution within the Carpathians and Danubian area comprised between the present borders of Romania, Republic of Moldavia and even more. Despite territorial division owing to various factors - the most important being the incorporation of Transylvania into the Hungarian Empire and later in the Austria-Hungarian Empire - the Romanian population of the three separate feudal states - Moldavia, Walachia and Transylvania - shared common features thanks to their unity of descent, language and customs and their uninterrupted economic, political and cultural interrelations.

Gypsyes(NOT "ROMA PEOPLE") are a parasite that unfortunately has its nest in our tiny helpless little country. They have NO TIES TO ROMANIANS. Saying that gypsyes in UK are Romanians is like me saying that Pakistanis are BRITISH PEOPLE just because right now there are a lot of them in the UK.

I'm going to iterate something, you can take this affirmation and sleep on it and tell it to everyone in any argument that arises from here on now on this subject:
100% of the working, educated Romanians have a deeper hatred than you can imagine on this parasite known as gypsyes. If the Human Rights, UN and The Government wouldn't stop us we would kill them with our bare hands, all of them.

This is how an average romanian neighbourhood looks like
Google Maps picture
It's pretty clean, civilized, obviously not very rich but still decent. People are usually friendly and social, and they live normal productive adult lives working in normal jobs. It's hard to raise a kid in Romania even if both the parents work, and obviously even harder to have 2 that's why there are few middle-class romanians that have more than 2 kids. Because Romania hasn't been hit by feminism so hard the marriage culture is still pretty big, people getting married at around 25.

THIS is a gypsy community. Houses are made out of horse shit and debris, women have 8 or 9 kids on average. They live off social security, begging, stealing and searching through trash.

This is a place in our capital infected to the bone by gypsyes. There's a lot of mugging, murdering and trug trafficking in this area.


For the love of God, please, stop confusing Romanians from Romania with gypsyes from India which are the scum of the earth. They not only completely and irreversibly destroyed our image in the world but they are also raping, murdering, pimping, racketeering, begging, stealing, doing human and drug trafficking all over our country. I undestand that you probably don't give a shit, that you only care about them coming back from where you've seen them coming from - Romania - but just take a second and think about the 12 million people that not only have had their country ravished by this disease..but also have people like you that are just rubbing salt in the wound from calling "the criminal" by the same name as the victim. It's unfair and overkill for a group of innocent people that are constrained by their own laws and morals to act in the only rational way that would solve this problem.

[scandibro]

^ Yeah, that is going to be hard to swallow for some, bro.

[WanderingSoul]

Wait, so the Romani are actually trolling an entire continent? The greatest IRT's in the history of mankind?

[Teedub]

Yeah Romani gypsies are actually Indians. You can tell they're not indigenous Europeans by looking at them. I think it must seriously enrage Romanians when the Western MSN lumps them in together, so as not to be 'racist'.

[scandibro]

Indian? More like Pakistani. North-West Indian is a politically correct euphemism for Pakistani. Seeing as how they left Pakistan between the 6th and the 11th century, it is not unlikely that they're refugees from the muslim terror invaders who made their way to Pakistan during the 7th century and as always made sure to kill thousands of people and take the women as sex slaves. Islam just keeps on giving, here 1300 years later.

It is rather ironic though that the lifestyle of the gypsies is pretty much the same as rural areas in current Pakistan. I can better understand why Indians hate to be mistaken for Pakistani now.

[Vice]

(11-17-2013 07:12 AM)scandibro Wrote:  

In any case, my point was not to call Tuthmosis a leftist, but rather how I don't understand how some normally smart and rational people are - in my opinion - irrational when certain subjects come up.

So if anyone doesn't side with your position, he's automatically irrational?

[scandibro]

(11-17-2013 09:22 AM)Vice Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 07:12 AM)scandibro Wrote:  

In any case, my point was not to call Tuthmosis a leftist, but rather how I don't understand how some normally smart and rational people are - in my opinion - irrational when certain subjects come up.

So if anyone doesn't side with your position, he's automatically irrational?

Strawman argument.

The irrational comes from attributing xenophobia to people of whom you know little to nothing of their inner workings. Calling some xenophobes is not an argument any less than if I called you a communist and left it at that.

[WanderingSoul]

Looking back, I may have lived with two Gypsies in Spain. It was a big shared flat, most of us language students. There was also a Romanian couple though. Mid to early twenties, I was 19. They said they were Romanian. The girl was pretty good looking. She had strange eyes though. They looked good, but were noticeably different than what most peoples eyes looked like. At least different than what I was used to back in California.

The boyfriend seemed cool. He was always fucking with me in a friendly way since I was so young. He had somewhat darker skin than his girl, but her skin was also fairly tanned looking. He had long hair and a goatee. Could almost have passed for a Mexican. The girl would always cook big meals with lamb and stuff and give it to me. Pretty good food.

After I moved out my friend told me the boyfriend locked her and himself Into their bedroom with a kitchen knife threatening to kill himself. The girl was hysterical. By the time the other roommates were able to get the door open he had cut his arms all up.

Next day he was walkin around the flat being his jolly ole self like nothing had happened. No idea if they were actually Gypsies, but looking back, It makes me wonder.

[Teedub]

(11-17-2013 09:21 AM)scandibro Wrote:  

Indian? More like Pakistani. North-West Indian is a politically correct euphemism for Pakistani. Seeing as how they left Pakistan between the 6th and the 11th century, it is not unlikely that they're refugees from the muslim terror invaders who made their way to Pakistan during the 7th century and as always made sure to kill thousands of people and take the women as sex slaves. Islam just keeps on giving, here 1300 years later.

It is rather ironic though that the lifestyle of the gypsies is pretty much the same as rural areas in current Pakistan. I can better understand why Indians hate to be mistaken for Pakistani now.

Not really mate, Pakistan was founded in the 1900's due to reasons surrounding the British empire. Indians and Pakistanis are the same people really, but do indeed appear to have different cultures. That said, Indian immigrants to Europe are usually well educated, whereas the Pakistanis are usually from backwards rural villages and they bring their tribal practises with them.

[Vice]

(11-16-2013 03:33 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

What does "xenophobia" even mean?

There are membership standards and rules for this forum. Excluding feminists, white knights, and manginas isn't based on a phobia or fear. It's based on the real-world recognition that bringing in people from the bottom doesn't bring them up: It brings everyone else down.

Why shouldn't there be admissions standards for a country?

How is your "admission standards" spiel even relevant to the roma?

Fact:

Quote:

Romani people migrated from northwest India 1,500 years ago

Europe in 650 AD:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...nd_650.jpg

[soup]

Hey guys maybe we shouldn't let beta males into the forum. They are never going to improve and are clearly stuck as losers.

[Teedub]

(11-17-2013 11:14 AM)soup Wrote:  

Hey guys maybe we shouldn't let beta males into the forum. They are never going to improve and are clearly stuck as losers.

Betas can improve in months, the Roma Gypsies have had 1,500 years and are still the same!

[Mikev75]

Are the Roma gypsies genetically related to Travelers?

[Teedub]

(11-17-2013 11:45 AM)Mikev75 Wrote:  

Are the Roma gypsies genetically related to Travelers?

No, most travelers are Irish. They also pose a bit of a nuisance with their camps and what not, but the Roma people on a whole other level.

[rudebwoy]

I have lived and worked in the UK, 90% of Muslims are decent hard working people.
Roma's are a different breed altogether, funny enough gypsies use to be problem in the 70s.
They don't live in London because it is expensive to live there, they tend to live in rural areas.

[Citlalli]

I find it strange that almost all of the UK posters here read the Daily Mail and the rest of you think its a reliable news source. But ask any halfway intelligent person here about the Daily Mail and they will tell you its BS. Lmao and the way you titled this thread "Invade England" this article is just about one area in Sheffield.

The things that they criticise them for too "Locals complain about crowds of unruly men spending their days and welfare handouts in the local betting shop and about aggressive gangs of youths pushing old people into the road as they barge past" You call 'unbelievable?' This is normal what do you expect when you walk into a betting shop, a group of 9s and 10s waiting to be approached? And 'aggressive gangs of youths' c'mon where in the world does this not exist.

Damn, the entire wealth and prosperity of the United Kingdom is a result of hundreds of years of REAL invasions and the extreme exploitation of other countries, but 900 Gypsy families coming here and receiving some benefits thanks to EU convention (btw you are entitled to these extra benefits too, and you already do benefit from free health care and education) are called 'parasites'.

Concerning Tuthmosis' opinions , there is nothing incongruent about them. There is nothing unprogressive about what he or a lot of people write here or on ROK. At the end of the day their goal is to promote a wholesome dating culture, self-development and healthy family dynamics. If people think this forum is just a big hate campaign against feminism then I think you've missed the more significant bigger picture. I don't care about what connotations the word "progressive" has in our current cultural climate, but get it out of your heads that being progressive is somehow a bad thing.

[Teedub]

^

1) The DM gets the amount of hate it gets because it's the only paper that isn't completely ravaged by cultural marxism. Sure, it over exaggerates and gives immigrants (amongst other things) too much stick, but every paper has an editorial agenda. It is also trendy to knock the Mail, and most people who think they are "halfway intelligent" as you put it, usually aren't. Heck, go and look on the Guardian website and read through the comments sections... All those people will think they're super smart intellectuals, when the actuality is far different.

2) True, but why import more problems. Especially, when you're paying for the people to behave that way.

3) They're called 'parasites' because most haven't paid anything in. Ever.

4) I didn't call Tuthmosis anything, scandibro did. However, I did agree partially in the fact that he appears to be 'progressive' in certain areas, but not in most. I don't know what the big deal is.

Finally, you seem very defensive and almost angry that I made this thread, why? Are you really suggesting that Roma Gypsies are a good, productive, polite group of people to live side by side with?

[InternationPlayboy]

I think a few of us still have the Romani and the Romanians confused. Totally different people.