[Simeon_Strangelight]

(06-16-2017 10:29 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

This is how retarded political correctness is in the UK - watch what happens when the Muslim cop has to catch a guy on the run in the woods:

Watch until 21:00

As I said before - the problem is not eating. The problem is not drinking water during strenuous activities for 15 hours.

The Muslim world is crazy for not letting them drink water, for smokers not letting to smoke or for pregnant women not to drink and eat during Ramadan. They estimate that Ramadan shaves off another few IQ points: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...10055.html

Some leaders try to exempt pregnant women, but it does not work, because when everyone is doing it the pregnant woman feels forced to do it. Also Islamic scriptures which are directly from God tell them so, so it has to be done.

-----------------



I listened an interview of this half-Syrian/half-Polish Miriam Shaded.

Her recommendations regarding Islam are:

+ stop all Muslim immigration
+ teach the truth about Islam since hundreds of thousands of European women regret their decision of having married a Muslim man, many convert - not knowing jack shit about the religion and culture
+ cut all funding from abroad of any mosques, schools and Imam
+ Imams have to be completely educated from above

and here where it gets more shitlordy:
+ register all Muslims and all Muslim organisations with the government
+ all mosques and Muslim organisations under constant surveillance and supervision - those that are more radical to be closed instantly
+ she advocates also either a ban or an enforced reformation of Islam - reform in her opinion would only be possible by cutting out the 61% of verses in the Quran which preach violence and hatred on the basis of being opposed to every Western constitution. Actually something similar did the founders of the US once. According to her estimates only 30% of the Quran would be left and be educated by state-controlled Imams. But she concedes that outright banning it would probably be easier.

Islam is indeed opposing to the constitution. The funny part is that she mentioned that the EU is fighting very heavy handed against all kinds of "hate-speech" on the internet or in public, whenever someone mentions even a bad word against a migrant or even Islam. The same metric can easily be applied against Islam which preaches hate and intolerance against all unbelievers, violence against women, hatred against dogs, violence against homosexuals (I don't want it to be promoted, but I don't want them to be punished either).

Essentially Islam is a religion that should be banned in the West for hate speech.

The best comparison would be if you imagine a people coming into your country who are all 1930s German Nazis. It has become an intergenerational belief system where everyone in the Nazi-temples gets taught that they are the Herrenrasse, they are the racially pure while everyone should serve them, that there will come a time when all other races and tribes will serve them in submission or die, that there will come a time when they will finally exterminate all the Jews and where in the end Nazism will reign across the planet and the Nazis will have hundreds of slaves each of the lower races and tribes. Imagine that after a longer period some Nazis are only nominal Nazis - they do the Heil Hitler in the morning, go to the Hitler demonstrations and Nazi celebrations only occasionally, they only fast during Hitler's birth-month not drinking and eating until the sun settles.

They are the nominal Nazis.
Then there are the moderate Nazis who sometimes applaud what the SS Nazis do, but they generally try to live a normal life and steer in the middle. Their beliefs are sometimes different - some just want gays to be gassed, others prefer them to live in concentration camps while a few are more tolerant.
The final group are the SS fundamental Nazis. They too live in relative peace in the West and enjoy welfare and perks. They are busy spending time advocating for the 1000 year Reich, some even go to the newly created International SS in Syria - in short called ISSIS, where the most convinced Nazis already managed to establish a New Naziland where they can finally live the life of a Nazi exactly as commanded by the holy prophet Hitler.

Of course most Nazis get terribly upset when someone does cartoons of the holy man Hitler, they kill and maim hundreds all across the world each time this happens or someone burns a copy of the Mein Kampf. Recently the Western governments were very helpful by fighting against all this Naziphobia and they arrested many people for Nazi-hatespeech. Not all Nazis commit acts of terror and randomized blitzkrieg. Yes the radical SS-Nazis kill a few hundred here and there, but the moderate Nazis sometimes get paid by CNN to stage a protest and they do it gladly. The Nazi reformers are also busy preaching their message of peace and convincing the Western public, that Nazism is just like Christianity or Buddhism. The direct commandments of Hitler in the noble Mein Kampf, the commands for daily Blitzkrieg and more Lebensraum (living quarters) for the Aryan supreme race - all of this has to be taken in the right historical context and we have to stress constantly how the bible is violent as well.

And indeed the next time a Nazi blows himself up screaming "Heil Hitler" at the top of his lungs or runs through a crowd of Untermenschen with a massive Volkswagen truck, then we should put down candle vigils, sing songs, hug a Nazi and repeat constantly the mantra of "Not all Nazis - not all! We stand united against Naziphobia!"





I would end with a "Sieg Heil", but don't want to to offend any Nazis here by engaging in cultural appropriation.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Funny vid by Syeten once again:

He raises a good point - most recent Ramadan bombings - even the ones in the Muslim world happened at evening after sundown. The reason for this is that the true Muslims by then should be at home breaking fast with their families, so anyone caught in the crossfire of the car, bomb or knife is either an unbeliever or a mischief spreading Muslim and both thus not innocent and deserving to die.

That is why in Iraq the real devout Muslims targeted a popular ice cream shop at midnight in Baghdad. Any true Muslim would be spending time at home with his family or in prayer.

Ice cream is just the decadent invention of Western degenerates.

[nomadbrah]

(06-16-2017 10:55 PM)Travesty Wrote:  

I love and embrace the term whitey, it may be my favorite word in the entire English language.

I'm surprised at the lack of effective slurs against whites. Cracka for example, who cares? Gringo? Nah, not offended.

The reason nig*er is an offensive word is because it is dehumanizing. Paki is only offensive because it is depersonalizing. It is the same sort of slur as farang. Gwailo might be more along with nig*er, as it has a very negative, dehumanizing origin. Farang is depersonalizing since it removes personal qualities and substitutes ethnicity. That's the same as Paki but not nig*er.

An effective slur against white people would be on lower testosterone, lower athletic ability. That's why when a black basketball player wants to talk trash they say "white boy" and it will sting far more than cracka or cac or whatever else people come up with.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

There is a slur for Whites that will increase in power: CUCK.

In the coming decades this will become more apparent as Whites have literally been:

+ cucked out of their home nations by hostile elites and of the course the drive for "diversity" and anti-White policies
+ cucked in the truest sense due to ever more women either run the carousel or even outright demand marriages where they are allowed to fuck more Alpha men for fun while the Western Cuck is paying the bill and is supposed to like it
+ cucked because the entire society, media, entertainment, academia and almost all Christian churches demand constant prostration before women, before backwards rapefugees (since they have true culture). They all demand that the Western Cucks atone for the sins of the 10 years of the German Nazi party, of the relatively short time and restricted period of Western slavery, for the conquest which every other culture was doing, but Whites were doing more effectively in the 18th and 19th century (never mind that Western conquest brought science and technology, while other conquests in history often only destroyed or took).
+ cucked because we cannot even fight back against all this suicidal cultural madness and are almost powerless to observe and watch how White Western countries are utterly wiped out
+ cucked because even if we protest and demand a stop to it, then we are called White Supremacists, Nazis, Bigots, Xenophobes, Islamophobes, racists etc. Every tribe is allowed to have a home country if the tribe is strong enough to uphold it. Only the Western Cucks despite overwhelming strength are stripping down their own wives and letting everyone run train over them. The Western Cuck is expected to give his wife to every rapefugee and bow down to every demand.
+ The Western Cuck is expected to remain civil when the new immigrants rape, kill, slaughter, gang-rape your children and your women. The Western Cuck is expected to lay down flowers and sing songs and not get angry.

Whites have become the Western Cucks. In a few decades they will laugh about the White Cucks how they still continued to elect ridiculously clear traitors like Macron or Merkel (again). At least the Americans voted in for a change. Even if Trump betrays us, then at least it is a clear sign to the globalists that they cannot continue with the fast butt-fucking like under Obama.

The European Cucks and most Western Cucks will be a laughing stock of history books and an example how effective propaganda from a hostile elite can be. The Western Cucks will witness not only the loss of their home countries but also the loss of most of the middle class - something which has been fought and accomplished by their great-grandparents by massive labor protests and bloody internal conflicts (which is willingly barely mentioned during history lessons).

The White Western Cuck comes in many forms and shapes:




I can really imagine a talk in 40 years in Shanghai where the Chinese laugh about the moronic White Cucks who have destroyed most of their own home countries by sheer stupidity and inability to see through the machinations of a tiny but very intelligent elite.

[Blaster]

(06-17-2017 03:16 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 10:55 PM)Travesty Wrote:  

I love and embrace the term whitey, it may be my favorite word in the entire English language.

I'm surprised at the lack of effective slurs against whites. Cracka for example, who cares? Gringo? Nah, not offended.

Racial slurs: Redneck, hick, white trash, SWPL, WASP, white boy.

These are insults usually directed at white people but are not explicitly racial slurs:

racist
nazi
neckbeard
basement-dweller
manlet
cuck
oppressor
privileged

And then there is "straight white male" which, when spoken by an SJW, means basically Hitler.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Many so called racial slurs were not originally slurs but simply descriptors that eventually became slurs when that specific group gathered a bad reputation through the average public behaviour of the individuals there-in.

As was noted earlier, Someone from Sweden (for now) being called a Swede is not a slur because until recently Swedes had never conducted themselves on a large scale in a disruptive or anti-social manner.

We are seeing this in the US in fast forward where the mainstream media has to perpetually shift from term to term to describe black people because the stories are too routinely of a negative nature, to the point now that people are beginning to joke somewhat seriously about when the term "youth" is going to be considered a racial slur, already manifesting in the term "yoof".

Having said that, I would personally address my friends as they request to be addressed. From well-meaning strangers I'll take advice on those matters. However, social justice warriors attempting to police the language I use by citing their own standards as some sort of self-ordained law will be roundly told to fuck off.

In this regard the American Irish are indeed a worthwhile study case. They were discriminated against quite heavily due to their earned reputation for drunken-ness and disorderly behaviour, and at one stage calling someone a Paddy or Mick were slurs, but as the Irish eventually normalised into American society the words lost their connotation and were seen more in the context they were used rather than being presumptively derogatory.

That shift wasn't won through social justice speech policing. It was won through the evolution of the IrishAmericans as people.

Anyone thinking that so-called racism can be abolished by speech-policing is kidding themselves. The new terms will become as charged as the old terms, and once that cycle has run three or four times then the cat will be out of the bag and people will rightfully see the entire business as an utter joke.

[Kieran]

(06-17-2017 03:16 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 10:55 PM)Travesty Wrote:  

I love and embrace the term whitey, it may be my favorite word in the entire English language.

I'm surprised at the lack of effective slurs against whites. Cracka for example, who cares? Gringo? Nah, not offended.

The reason nig*er is an offensive word is because it is dehumanizing. Paki is only offensive because it is depersonalizing. It is the same sort of slur as farang. Gwailo might be more along with nig*er, as it has a very negative, dehumanizing origin. Farang is depersonalizing since it removes personal qualities and substitutes ethnicity. That's the same as Paki but not nig*er.

An effective slur against white people would be on lower testosterone, lower athletic ability. That's why when a black basketball player wants to talk trash they say "white boy" and it will sting far more than cracka or cac or whatever else people come up with.

Paki is a lot more connected to racism than words like Farang in the UK because of the history of skinhead's with 'Paki bashing' etc.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(06-17-2017 11:41 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Someone from Sweden (for now) being called a Swede is not a slur because until recently Swedes had never conducted themselves on a large scale in a disruptive or anti-social manner.

Don't destroying themselves and contributing to destruction of Europe count as "large-scale disruptive or anti-social manner"?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Love this guy - Larry Elder - hope Excelsior sees it, but I don't want to warm up the topic that came up in the thread:

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Now I feel guilty for enjoying this Uncle Tom's acting.

[AnonymousBosch]

Quote:

An effective slur against white people would be on lower testosterone, lower athletic ability.

Some fun statistics from various Leftist Social Justice orgs:

Quote:

African-American males are twice as likely to be Gay than White males.
AA males are four times as likely to be bisexual than White Males.

As for athletic ability:

Quote:

69% of African American Men are overweight or obese.
82% of African-American Women are are overweight or obese.

Higher than Whites.

Quote:

Overweight and obesity rates also tend to be higher among African American children compared with White children, with obesity rates increasing faster at earlier ages and with higher rates of severe obesity.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(06-18-2017 02:16 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 11:41 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Someone from Sweden (for now) being called a Swede is not a slur because until recently Swedes had never conducted themselves on a large scale in a disruptive or anti-social manner.

Don't destroying themselves and contributing to destruction of Europe count as "large-scale disruptive or anti-social manner"?

Like I said, "until recently".

Now in certain circles the term Swede carries the connotation of a spineless progressive cuck.

Yet in a hundred years if they'd once again paved the road to cultural homogeneity with the blood and bones of their detractors then the term Swede would have an entirely different connotation.

[WalterBlack]

"He's a true hero": Triple H presents off-duty police officer injured in London terror attack with WWE Championship

Quote:

The off-duty police officer who was seriously injured in the London Bridge terror attack has been presented with a honorary WWE Championship belt.

Legend Triple H , WWE’s Executive Vice President of Talent, Live Events & Creative, jetted into the capital to personally pay tribute to PC Charlie Guenigault.

The 25-year-old is making good progress in his recovery just two weeks after he suffered stab wounds to his head, leg, back and stomach when he ran towards the knife-wielding attackers to protect others.

At the time of the attack, Guenigault was wearing a t-shirt of his favourite WWE superstar Sami Zayn.

And the WWE paid him the ultimate honour as they presented him with a championship belt, inscribed with a touching message: “To Charlie. Thank you to a true hero”.

Unbeknown to the police officer, Guenigault was transported in secret to a London hotel in a limo to meet his idol Triple H, who hailed the Londoner’s “exceptional bravery”.

Triple H, whose real name is Paul Levesque , said: “The highest recognition a WWE Superstar can get is winning the WWE Championship. But this honour is also reserved for those in real life who go above and beyond.

“To run in the direction of a scary situation that can’t even be described in words, to help others, for that to be your instinct to help others – that is a hero.

“People say a lot of times that they watch WWE because these guys are like real-life superheroes. Well, Charlie is a real hero."

Following the encounter, Charlie said: “It was an absolute pleasure to meet one of the greatest Superstars ever.

“My comments when he first walked in the room are probably not suitable for a PG audience!”

Triple H also played out a personal video message recorded by Sami Zayn to Charlie.

“You put yourself in the line of danger at a time when you really had no obligation to do so,” said Sami.

“I can’t tell you how much respect I have for you. The fact you were wearing my shirt at the time really puts it into perspective for me.

“Sami Zayn has always been the guy known to stand up to the bad guys, but you did it in the most horrific of circumstances.

"Man, I’m just blown away, I really am.”

[Excelsior]

(06-14-2017 07:20 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

The bottom line of this is that this bunch of white racists managed to govern a country better than the patriotic and selfless black ones. That doesn't bode well. And as much as I know this post can spark controversy, I ask those who respond to spare me their drama and give me facts. How can you explain that literal racist segregationists had, by comparison, a much better stint at ruling black African countries than the revolutionary black Africans that succeeded them?
The evil white supremacists are doing a better job of raising the income of black people that live in their countries than the actual African leaders, but oh, let me guess, African leaders are corrupt and dysfunctional because they inherited that from the evil colonialists? Right? Right.

Zimbabwe is shit now, Mugabe is shit, and so is the ANC. All they have done with their decisions since independence is engage in mass retributive racism while handing white supremacists and their sympathizers more ammo to shit on blacks while simultaneously fucking up their countries. There is nothing patriotic or selfless about them. Their nations have done nothing to move forward because the people leading them are nothing and haven't the capability to be more than that.

That being said, Rhodesia was not the utopia it is made out to be.

The usual story goes as follows: ““Rhodesia and South Africa were advanced nations inherited by blacks, which have now been destroyed”

Both nations were not particularly well developed. Their HDIs were both inferior to the likes of Jamaica at the time of independence. We have measures of their Human Development Indexes from which to draw comparison. The HDI is the most well respected measure of human development we have. It gives nations a score ranging from 0 to 1, with any score closer to 1 being better (higher development).

The highest scores are the usual suspects: Norway (0.949) is the most developed nation on Earth. Australia (0.939), Singapore (0.925) and Germany (0.926) are not far behind. The bottom of the list is filled with some other names you probably would expect to find there: The Central African Republic is currently the least developed nation on earth (0.352), with Niger (0.353) and Chad (0.396) rounding out the list.

https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index/

The data here goes back to 1980. Let’s look at Zimbabwe’s HDI in 1980 – this is immediately after the end of Rhodesia. Mugabe has not yet had any time to make any negative changes. He has inherited Rhodesia essentially as it was under white rule.

In 1980, Zimbabwe had an HDI of 0.437.
Jamaica: 0.648
Ghana: 0.415
Botswana: 0.453

Rhodesia at its end had a level of human development FAR lower than that of Jamaica, a tick lower than that of Botswana, and just a tick above that of Ghana. It’s measure of 0.437 compares poorly to that of modern Botswana (0.698), Jamaica (0.719), Ghana (0.579) and Nigeria (0.514).

If Rhodesia is the bar at which we measure “first world”, then the fact is that there were many first world nations in Africa at the time of Rhodesia’s fall (1980) and are many more today.

But what abouth South Africa? Let’s take a look at their measure in 1990: 0.621

That’s quite a bit higher than Rhodesia’s measure and indeed much higher than most of its African peers. This is also while SA was still under white rule, so we can eliminate the expected rebuttal re: “the blacks had already dragged the country down after inheriting it!”

However, how does this compare to other black nations at the time? This is a relevant question since South Africa’s allegedly sky-high development at the time of white rule followed by its alleged decline is used as evidence of the notion that blacks can’t really run a country and, in fact, can only decrease development whenever they are put in charge of one after white rule (read: blacks need whites to rule them).

Jamaica in 1990: 0.671
Trinidad and Tobago: 0.670
Barbados: 0.714
Botswana: 0.584
Namibia: .578
Gabon: 0.620

How well developed are these nations?

Say all you want about the misguided governance in the former Rhodesia and in South Africa, and I’ll agree with you – they are shitshows. I do not support the ANC nor do I support Mugabe. They are clueless, ignorant autocrats using history and retributional racism to prop themselves up without actually doing anything meaningful to really build a future for their nations or their people.

What I will not concede, however, is this notion (one you subtly implied in your post) that both Rhodesia and SA prove that blacks need white people to rule them to attain reasonably high living standards. Rhodesia and SA were nothing special that could not be surpassed by halfway competent black governments. The reason those two nations have not been surpassed is simple: the new governments they have had since the end of white rule are shit. Both constitute the absolute lowest bar for governance and leadership, and that’s a bar that quite a few black leaders have already surpassed and more will surpass in the future.

[Excelsior]

I was wrong to think that the time for me to step away from this community was coming. Recent events have shown me that said time is not coming, but is in fact already here.

I only have one more response to make. This is going to be my final word in this thread.

(06-14-2017 02:08 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:

The problem I am having with Excelsior's method of debate is that he is personally attacking people's character in order to present his perspective.

Not going to go back and re-read the whole thread but my recollection was that accusations were directed at him first and he was responding in kind (more or less). I believe it was comments calling him a progressive or SJW or something like that. Muslim maybe, also.

No need to go back, Blaster. You’re correct, and I’ll prove it for you. LDN has given his account of this thread. He has, as expected, left out quite a few details and used those omissions to paint me in as dim a light as possible.

Here’s where we really are – posts will be linked directly to facilitate verification of my account. All are in chronological order, from first to last.

Post 1: thread-63079...pid1586759 This is the post that started things. I post a tweet storm showing how muslim extremists have been elevated and supported by the British media against the desires of most muslims. Nothing personal here.

Zelcorpion responds: post-1587025...pid1587025 Nothing personal here.

Post 2: thread-63079...pid1587067 My response reiterates belief that few muslims actually support extremism embodied by the likes of Choudhary and they are effectively being marginalized by British media. Nothing personal here.

Zelcorpion responds: thread-63079...pid1587081

Post 3: thread-63079...pid1587122 My response to Zelcorpion.

Note that there have been no personal attacks so far from either side.

Zelcorpion’s response: thread-63079...pid1587138 Labels me a progressive, posts meme claiming I am an SJW, claims I have “outed myself”

Have we gotten personal yet?

Leonard responds: thread-63079...pid1587161 Nothing personal here. He does contend that Neo-Nazis are more fit for western civilization than muslims, a claim I found pretty absurd but definitely not personal.

Post 4: thread-63079...pid1587493 My response to Zelcorpion. Nothing personal in it.

Another response to valentine: thread-63079...pid1587494 Again, nothing personal.

Zelcorpion’s respone: thread-63079...pid1587507 Equates me to May, Macron, Merkel. Personal? Debatable, but getting there.

Zelcorpion response: thread-63079...pid1587524 Excelsior is an SJW again. Is that personal?

Again, don’t take my word for it. I’m linking you to the posts – go back and read them. I will submit to you that you will not find a personal attack from me through this stage of the discussion, but you will have already seen at least two (3 if you count the equation to the notorious May/Merkel/Macron triumvirate) from others directed at me.

Post 5: thread-63079...pid1587583 I contend that I actually have nothing to do with Macron, Merkel, or May and have very different ideas. Nothing personal here – read and see for yourself.

Valentine responds: thread-63079...pid1587618 Questions my numbers and asks what my solution is. Nothing personal.

Post 6: thread-63079...pid1587935 I pose some solutions and back up the numbers I posted earlier. Nothing personal here – read it and see for yourself.

Post 7: thread-63079...pid1587936 Response to several members here. I attempt to back up my reasoning for not supporting broader anti-muslim policies and for proposing the solutions I mentioned above. Nothing personal.

Zelcoprpion: thread-63079...pid1587938 “On Huffpo, NYT and every other mainstream media fake-news outlet they would applaud you. Feminsts would sing your praise and Antifa would invite you into their ranks. Congratulations.” Zelcorpion also calls me an Islam Lover and implies that I am semi-autistic.

Is that personal?

Post 8: thread-63079...pid1587939 Mostly a response to Samseau. I accuse him of using red herrings and displaying historical ignorance.

Zelcorpion’s response: thread-63079...pid1587940 He jokingly asks what my solutions would be before suggesting that I would probably propose “hug a muslim” campaigns and flower processions.

Post 9: thread-63079...pid1587943 I imply that, by referring to Islam as an evil cult, Zelcorpion was promoting an islamophobic line of reasoning. Personal? You can make the case.

LDN: thread-63079...pid1587971 LDN wants me to imagine being “a black man or a Jew living in a nation where 591,850 people polled that they supported the creation of a thousand year white supremacist state”

Zelcorpion: thread-63079...pid1587979 Finally gives up claiming that I am an SJW.

Post 10: thread-63079...pid1588455 response to LDN by noting that I do live in a country where there are millions of people who support white supremacy. I say, specifically:

Quote:

I am black and I live in a nation where millions of people openly support not only the marginalization and disenfranchisement of people like myself (who they relentless dog as low iq genetic inferiors lacking in history/civilization, and unfit for western society), but also support white supremacy and policies designed to further it (up to and including neo-Nazism). I live in a nation where I would not even be a citizen if tens of millions of folks had their way, and quite a few more would prefer I not even be in the country.

HCE responds: thread-63079...pid1588520 Apparently, my claim is impossible.

Blaster also says the claim cannot be taken at face value. Valentine says I sound like a refugee activist. thread-63079...pid1588583

Post 11: thread-63079...pid1588456 Response to zelcorpion and HCE. Nothing personal.

Post 12: thread-63079...pid1588644 I post some data to back up my claim that there are indeed millions of people in the United states who believe in the inferiority of black people.

Kabal joins the fray and suggests that the real problematic enemies are not feminists, but “dysgenic immigration” that brings blacks, Hispanics, and muslims. (I’m black and a product of immigrants, for the record – personal? Debatable, but getting there). thread-63079...pid1588646

Post 13: thread-63079...pid1588751 Response to Kabal clarifying my claims RE: white supremacy. I insist it was not designed to guilt anybody and was a matter of fact response to a question. I suggest he do more to name the “dysgenic” enemy he alluded to.

Kabal’s response: thread-63079...pid1588812 This roughly translates to “You’re a feminist”. Implies victim-complex. Basically calls me a feminist SJW.

Personal or no? You be the judge.

Also, there’s a back-and-forth between me and Paracelsus about the geo-political implications of the solutions I proposed. That ends amicably here – nothing personal from either side: thread-63079...pid1588839

LDN: thread-63079...pid1588855 Implies here that I have called America a “festering Nazi scab waiting to erupt”. Says my statements are clownish and nonsensical. Claims I live in a dark cuckoo land and am wrapped in a racial victim complex (remember: my claim that galvanized all of this was that there were millions of white supremacists in the United States). Claims my solutions are utter nonsense.

I have a victim complex (implying that my opinions derive not from reasoned opinion but from emoton, not unlike an SJW) and my logic is clownish. Personal, or no?

Post 14: thread-63079...pid1588872 My response to LDN pushing back against the claims that what I said was nonsensical, clownish, etc.

Zelcorpion: thread-63079...pid1588878 Partially agrees with my plan.

HCE says I have an ego problem because I disagree with him (personal?). thread-63079...pid1588892

Blaster at least admits white supremacy is real: thread-63079...pid1588996

Samseau responds: thread-63079...pid1589196 Presents some pretty faulty statistics regarding the slave trade, implies that I have “Stockholm syndrome” because of the arguments I have made so far in the thread regarding Islam.

I have stockholm symdrome because I have suggested taking a path to engaging with Islam and its adherents that differs from the mainstream consensus on the forum. Personal, or no?

Post 15: thread-63079...pid1589422 I call out Samseau for the false numbers and also claim that he is a white supremacist (personal? Yes) based on what he said in another thread (where he implied that East Asians and Whites were not only higher cultures, but higher peoples). I also attack LDN for claiming that my plan is nonsense when his alternative was an outright war.

LDN responds: thread-63079...pid1589448

Post 16: thread-63079...pid1589459 I imply that LDN hates muslims and wants to keep non-whites out – my reasoning is that this is the only way that someone could support an outright war as an alternative to the solutions I proposed, even though the reasoning given for opposing my solutions was their supposed propensity to create low level civil war. Personal? Yes.

LDN: thread-63079...pid1589474 Threatens to report me for implying that he is a racist.

Post 17: thread-63079...pid1589481 I claim that LDN could not possibly hold the position he holds if he did not hate islam/muslims. I note in gif form that I don’t care about getting reported.

LDN: thread-63079...pid1589533 Excelsior conjures racism from thin air, expected cowtowing/bowing, is a progressive who only shouts racism when he’s losing an argument, and is a deluded member of BLM. Personal? Yes.

Zelcorpion: thread-63079...pid1589714 Excelsior is a muslim

Post 18: thread-63079...pid1589772 Response to LDN. Very personal at this point.

LDN: thread-63079...pid1590007 Excelsior is a mentally ill progressive.

I can go on, but you guys can read. It’s all downhill from here. There's your account of the thread.

Several members took great offense to the claim that multiple millions of white supremacists could exist in a country of 300 million. This apparently is the sign of someone with a victim complex.

LDN will have you believe that “millions of Americans are demonstrably not having conversations about IQ/race/history/civilization” and that all I have done is “turned this issue into a society-wide surrogate for his lamentations of the shift in the forums' political direction”. Nevermind the fact that the recent election (which placed the man very well understood to be the chosen candidate of the HBD/Alt-right/ethno-nationalist sphere in the white house), coupled with the growth of alt-right mediums like Breitbart and Amren (as well as the morphing of others, like ROK, into similar spaces) make it pretty clear that conversations like that ARE taking place in millions of households across the country. We wouldn’t be seeing the level of societal tension in the USA we are seeing today if these things were not being discussed. Anyone who lives here (especially as a person of color) and experiences that tension first hand can see this.

To that end, I could also point out to you the absurdity of a white Australian telling a black resident of the USA (who has grown up in the USA and has first hand experience of many of the phenomena he is talking about re: blacks, whites, supremacy, etc) that he’s just “making everything up”, as if he would somehow know more about what the experience for people of color living in the USA is than actual people of color in the USA.

But there’s little point to me mentioning this reality here. As I said before, no claim of supremacy or even general racism from a person of color can be taken seriously in this sphere – people of color either totally disabuse the notion of white supremacy/racism or they are labeled folks with a delusional BLM conscious/victim complex. There is no middle ground.

You’d figure that after 7 years here as a contributor who has never had a reputation for mass-posting dishonest bullshit or failing to be objective, things would be a little different. You’d figure my first hand experience and objectivity, which has served this community well in legions of other discussions I’ve participated in over the years, might get some deference. Just a little – I’m not talking about agreement by default (nobody deserves not to be questioned), I’m talking about just enough measured skepticism to prevent folks from immediate dismissal of the experience as soon as I type it out and to prevent the immediate presumption that I would mention something (the existence of white supremacists) that I hadn’t seen with my own eyes or dealt with myself.

LDN has attempted to claim that my pointing this out is a sign of mental illness. After 7 years here and all of the positive, objective contributions I have made in that time, you’d figure I’d have done enough to at least earn a rebuttable presumption against the notion that I’m a madman. However, it seems instead (judging by the sheer number of supportive likes generated by the post in which the aforementioned claim of madness was raised and others like it) that most of the folks here would disagree. Just chalk it up to “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and be done.

That’s where this community has come today. I will not be changing any minds, and I have to accept this.

Suffice it to say the following:

thread-63079...pid1592667

(06-14-2017 01:21 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

The problem I am having with Excelsior's method of debate is that he is personally attacking people's character in order to present his perspective. A lot of the pushback he is experiencing is more from people defending their character as men rather than politically disagreeing with him. If Excelsior focused on explaining in a calm way how people's ideas were misguided, I believe he would be getting a much better response from people.

Edit: I just want to say that calling someone to their face (or over the forum in this instance) a white supremacist or white nationalist is a pretty deeply personal attack on that person's character as a human being. If the focus of the debate was more on how someone's ideas or beliefs were misguided and then explaining rationally how those beliefs were misguided, I believe that they debate would be more productive and bear more fruit in changing people's minds.

All or Nothing has claimed that this debate has been undermined by personal attacks on others’ character as human beings. He suggests that I have employed too many of these attacks and implies that I’m the main source of that problem and the negative reaction. LDN has, as we would expect, made a similar conclusion.

Respectfully, All or Nothing, I disagee. I will submit to you, and the record should show above, that this is not the case. I did not come in here and kick things off by personally attacking anyone. I came in and made an argument in good faith with regard to my disagreement on the forum consensus with regard to Islam and Muslims. When countered, I responded with reasoned, impersonal explanations as to why those beliefs were misguided and proposed my own solutions to the problems being debated. The first several posts chronicled above back up this account. Don’t take my word for it – read them yourself, they’re linked right above.

In return, I was pretty much immediately labeled an SJW progressive and refugee activist. Users claimed that I was a semi-autistic member of antifa. It was also argued that I am a muslim and that I have Stockholm syndrome. Another user essentially called me a feminist.

And all of that happened before I even dared to throw out what you will claim to be a personal attack: calling Samseau a white supremacist (which I felt justified in doing, btw, because of a post made in another thread that pretty clearly implied a racial hierarchy). Once that happened and I mentioned the notion that white supremacy exists in the United States, I was claimed by some users here to have a mental illness.

I will therefore submit that I followed your advice, All or Nothing. I tried to explain in a calm way how I felt the views here were misguided with regard to Islam and muslims. I could not do that for long without being dismissed as a semi-autistic SJW (a completely unprovoked personal attack), so I conclude that this approach is not effective and never could have been. There was really no way for this not to devolve.

Why? I already mentioned why. There’s been a change. This is not about personal attacks, it is about a fundamental hostility to certain views. That fundamental hostility is the reason why personal attacks on my character (forcing me on the defensive against claims like SJW, autist, etc) were leveled before any similar provocation could come from my end. I did not need to attack anyone’s character to get that kind of vitriol – I just needed to hold a point of view hostile to the mainstream consensus. Even if reasonably argued in good faith, that view was going to get a personal reaction, and it did. It is simply too offensive to many people here.

People like me no longer belong here, nor are they welcome here if they are unwilling to fully embrace views and ideologies that are entirely hostile to themselves, their heritage, and their cultures. That is made clear by the discussion in this thread: even a reasonable, good faith effort to push back against some of the rhetoric here with regard to islam gets you labeled an SJW with Stockholm syndrome. It’s not even a discussion that can be had here anymore. Pointing out the hypocrisy and clear madness of calling enhanced policing/alternative foreign policy suggestions “too dangerous” while simultaneously promoting all-out war gets me labeled delusional, and has me facing implications of being a BLM supporter with a mental illness. Even attempting to note that there might exist millions of white supremacists in the USA (not a difficult feat in a nation of 300 million people) gets you the “victim complex” tag, even after you attempt to offer data to back it up.

I was suspended for personal attacks (linked to LDN in another thread) for several days last week – that’s the first time that’s happened to me here. We have said nothing of the personal attacks leveled at me here and described above, none of which have resulted in suspensions. I get suspended for, and I quote, “crossing the line into personal insults”, but that same member is free to claim I am mentally ill for disagreeing with him, and others still are free to label me a semi-autistic SJW feminist with Stockholm syndrome because I had a view of Islam that didn’t amount to “Islam is cancer”.

Meanwhile, a user with less than 50 posts openly expresses hatred for blacks and muslims, defends his hatred of blacks (claims he’s “forced” to do it), and defends the merits of using the term “paki” to describe other people. He hasn’t been banned, from what I can see. The few who are critiquing him are told by others to “get over it, it’s just a word”.

Credit to Blaster for calling him out, and credit to the handful of others who have joined him in this. The fact that there are still a few of you here gives me hope that there are still pieces of the old RvF left, and perhaps the old community isn’t irrecoverable after all.

…but the fact remains that his continued presence here makes my point, as do many of the other posts here tacitly or explicitly endorsing similar ideology. Also making the point is the silence of so many of the members here with regard to these posts – a few, like Blaster, Matsufubu, WalterBlack, and Teedub have rightfully called him out, but several of those who were most vocal about the notion that my concerns about racism were overblown, how I’ve “made it all up” and overplayed a “boogeyman” by talking about it, etc, etc, have had nothing at all to say to this user and have (in the case of at least one member) handed him rep points instead. I suspect he won’t be seriously punished here because he’s simply done nothing wrong, at least not on the forum as it exists now. This is his space. That’s the community this has become, and I don’t think I belong in it.

The unavoidable reality (one made abundantly clear by the discussion in this thread) is that myself and those like me no longer really match up well with this sphere. Having seen the shift take place I accepted a while back that, at some point, I would have to decrease my presence here so as to increase my presence in other spheres in which there was a greater match with my values and mindset. This is unavoidable and I hate that because, as I said before, I love this place. I grew up here. It’s been a home for me and many others like me.

But times change. People change. This community has changed, as have those affiliated with it. This has become a place increasingly tolerant, if not downright welcoming, to people who openly denigrate the culture and history of many people of color, all the while implying their own genetic racial superiority. I can’t stop that change – I’ve no power to do so, nor have I the right (it isn’t like I own the space – it is Roosh’s decision as to what he does and doesn’t endorse), but I can’t co-exist with it either. This shift is unstoppable and, as some have rightly noted, was perhaps always inevitable (especially given the fact that the societies around us are changing too).

This discussion has clearly run its course. I do hope that, over time, this community can evolve into something more closely resembling the space it used to be. If that happens, I’m hopeful I’ll get a chance to be a regular part of it again. For now, at least, I think it is best I step back.

The last word is yours. Good luck with your community going forward.

[Teedub]

Don't leave mate, and thanks for the mention. I did flag that poster you mentioned to the mods but to no avail. Call it "running to teacher", but what he was saying was genuinely out of order, specifically about blacks and whites in the UK. I can't stand that shit, loads of my mates are black or mixed so I am perhaps biased.

My good friend Nascimento, of this very forum, said recently to me privately that as long as you stay out of the politics threads the forum is basically the same as it was years ago. I, admittedly, to partake in those threads—in particular in regards to Tommy Robinson, but I do understand quite a few of your gripes. Please reconsider you decision to take a hiatus.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Wow - you are really nitpicking it in detail.

I have said later in the thread, that I take some of my quite personal comments back. Sometimes I do speak hotter than I actually act. Also I contacted you directly and said so. As far as I am concerned it is all tantamount to a heated debate in parliament, then afterwards all going for a beer together, but obviously you feel this to be different.

You started the thread by the assumption that the terrorists are essentially all aided and even created by the governments. And frankly that may even be the case for many, but the main doctrine is the main culprit for their radicalization and not the system.

We can all disagree on a majority of issues and frankly there are a ton of educated black people who strongly disagree with you - some of them probably smarter and more in tune with the problems facing Africa or blacks in America.

Personally I think that your opinions are clearly influenced by the radical left, which is currently the mainstream. You clearly deny everything that might even counter your narrative, then you come up with anything in terms of obfuscated data or video tidbits that might confirm your fixed opinions. Sure - we all do that to a certain degree, but it seems to me that you often throw away everything that person has ever said or will say in the future just because of the use of one word, which in your mind is proof of "white supremacism". When someone says that he would welcome Middle Eastern Christians or non-Muslims while banning all Muslims from immigration, then you call him a racist and White Supremacist. That both groups actually look the same, speak the same Arabic language and have very similar DNA - that is irrelevant to you I guess. That guy is still a racist for daring to stop Muslim immigration.

I frankly don't see how you want to debate things, when you are absolutely fixed in your ideology. Personally I am willing to discard pretty much anything if I see proof of the opposite.

Again - I apologize if I have become too personal in some comments, but my opinions regarding your views about many things are unchanged. Your basic ideology fueling you seems to be obsessed with certain issues which are absolutely identical to current-day SJWs, Black-Lives-Matter activists and the political left. There are even sane Hoteps and African (from Africa) reformers who would defend many of our positions or go a different route than yours.

[Valentine]

(06-23-2017 06:05 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

Why? I already mentioned why. There’s been a change. This is not about personal attacks, it is about a fundamental hostility to certain views. That fundamental hostility is the reason why personal attacks on my character (forcing me on the defensive against claims like SJW, autist, etc) were leveled before any similar provocation could come from my end. I did not need to attack anyone’s character to get that kind of vitriol – I just needed to hold a point of view hostile to the mainstream consensus. Even if reasonably argued in good faith, that view was going to get a personal reaction, and it did. It is simply too offensive to many people here.

Personal attacks become inevitable when people insist on being evasive. They happened a bit too much too soon, but after a few of my initial messages to you it began to boggle my mind just how much rationalisation you were doing.

You completely avoided the fact that - yes Islam is a hateful murderous ideology, and refused to admit it whatsoever. You never once accepted anyone pointing out the long history of violence nor addressed what is actually written in their guidebook for death. If someone doesn't accept that they are not being intellectually honest and I could never trust their opinion on the matter.

If someone admits that but then suggests the alternative means you have then I'd freely accept it's just different approaches to the same goal. But the fact that you didn't spoke volumes to me.

Nor did you sufficiently address what to do with the hundreds of millions of Muslims who have views which are incompatible to Western society. Having the police monitor a few thousand of the most obvious jihadis does nothing to prevent these beliefs being held and spread through reproduction and propaganda.

And that you later reframed anti-Islam arguments to being racism against blacks and browns rather than deeply held convictions about one ideology just dashed your credibility on this argument entirely in my eyes.

There is no racist turn in the forum which you seem to imply. You should see the groups of RVF men I meet - nearly every nationality is represented and we're more aligned than ever on identifying what the great threats to our lives are and how we can best live freely.

I have great respect for you and all the value you have brought to this forum, but just accept that this is one line of debate where your views have been clouded by personal bias.

[LEMONed IScream]

Excelsior is a smart guy and I have read many intelligent posts by him over the years. However I cannot even understand this "argument". Your points on Islam and the sudden surge of "dozens of millions" of white supremacists reek of SJW-ism. They remind me of what the current establishment parties in Europe and North America are doing. Well, less terrible than those surely. So I don't understand why it would be so personal and so offensive to call you an SJW or an Islam apologist after that, AND considering the fact that everyone seems to be a white supremacist now and they're against the poor blacks or something like that. Who has caused the illegitimacy rate to get into 70% and basically destroyed black families per instance? Maybe it was the Jews as usual or something like that.

Most of these contentious issues seem to have been raised by you. There is indeed a lot of resentment in there for some reason. And while you mention the tension and how POC are suffering you forget to mention the crime rate in America is indeed majorly increased by said POC. Is there no responsibility on the matter? Is it only the evil whites? Would these people would be better in their countries of origin or in the countries of their ancestors? It's really easy to beat up on the USA while ignoring the alternatives. Most direct ailments that befall POC come from other POC. I think the government has done some shitty things as well like the drug war which has imprisoned many blacks unnecessarily. But that doesn't explain everything, drug dealers are a small segment of society. And while there has been negative discrimination there has also been positive one, like Affirmative Action, quotas, whatever. you will probably agree with me regarding the fact that it would be preferable that no discrimination at all existed.

[LEMONed IScream]

It's not as much a matter of blacks needing whites to rule them. But a matter of a precedent in which whites have ruled black countries better than blacks have. These are two different things. I haven't seen an example of the opposite. I could also mention Haiti, blacks killed all the whites and mulattos, and Haiti has been a failed state for centuries.

As for Rhodesia, using HDI is a somewhat questionable move taking into account that there are other indexes to be considered. Particularly economic ones . If you look at the economic history of Rhodesia there has been quite balanced economic growth , and what preceded the 1980 Zimabwe's HDI? ONE DECADE of international sanctions and WAR. So why should the low HDI of Zimbabwe come at a surprise? I don't understand how you failed to mention this. It completely changes the outlook of the data.

Again, using only HDI to measure this is completely one sided. Until very few years ago China had the same HDI as some of those African nations you are mentioning, were they not a rising power and an extremely promising country in economic terms? This is like looking at the bushes and ignoring the many trees and their branches. In the same way it's dishonest to compare the previous potential for economic growth with the current one, logistics are better, international trade is better, all sorts of transportation has improved. Countries have generally at least slightly better institutions than the post colonial ones, there are plenty of factors to be considered here.

On a sidenote: Saudi Arabia has a current HDI of 0.847. I'm sure they're a fair and balanced nation with their public beheadings, stonings, lashing, and all the other sort of repression they use on their population, along with the "social customs police". Very progressive. As a comparison, the undoubtedly poorer but certainly safe and free country of Slovakia has a similar HDI of 0.845. I think this tells us quite a lot as to how the ranking is made.

Ok, so any nation with decent black rulers could surpass Rhodesia and South Africa back in the day. Currently I see half of Africa under China's thumb. I see debt, demographic explosion, and quite a few other things, among the most promising countries I suppose we could count Ghana, Nigeria, and while I am sure Africa is growing, but we will see how it bodes long term.There are a million problems yet to be solved. And surely they have surpassed that low bar. Eventually Africa will be growing steadily but there is a lot to suffer until that happens. And I know most african rulers are better than SA and ZW, but let's be honest, that's not quite an achievement.

(06-23-2017 06:03 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 07:20 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

The bottom line of this is that this bunch of white racists managed to govern a country better than the patriotic and selfless black ones. That doesn't bode well. And as much as I know this post can spark controversy, I ask those who respond to spare me their drama and give me facts. How can you explain that literal racist segregationists had, by comparison, a much better stint at ruling black African countries than the revolutionary black Africans that succeeded them?
The evil white supremacists are doing a better job of raising the income of black people that live in their countries than the actual African leaders, but oh, let me guess, African leaders are corrupt and dysfunctional because they inherited that from the evil colonialists? Right? Right.

Zimbabwe is shit now, Mugabe is shit, and so is the ANC. All they have done with their decisions since independence is engage in mass retributive racism while handing white supremacists and their sympathizers more ammo to shit on blacks while simultaneously fucking up their countries. There is nothing patriotic or selfless about them. Their nations have done nothing to move forward because the people leading them are nothing and haven't the capability to be more than that.

That being said, Rhodesia was not the utopia it is made out to be.

The usual story goes as follows: ““Rhodesia and South Africa were advanced nations inherited by blacks, which have now been destroyed”

Both nations were not particularly well developed. Their HDIs were both inferior to the likes of Jamaica at the time of independence. We have measures of their Human Development Indexes from which to draw comparison. The HDI is the most well respected measure of human development we have. It gives nations a score ranging from 0 to 1, with any score closer to 1 being better (higher development).

The highest scores are the usual suspects: Norway (0.949) is the most developed nation on Earth. Australia (0.939), Singapore (0.925) and Germany (0.926) are not far behind. The bottom of the list is filled with some other names you probably would expect to find there: The Central African Republic is currently the least developed nation on earth (0.352), with Niger (0.353) and Chad (0.396) rounding out the list.

https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index/

The data here goes back to 1980. Let’s look at Zimbabwe’s HDI in 1980 – this is immediately after the end of Rhodesia. Mugabe has not yet had any time to make any negative changes. He has inherited Rhodesia essentially as it was under white rule.

In 1980, Zimbabwe had an HDI of 0.437.
Jamaica: 0.648
Ghana: 0.415
Botswana: 0.453

Rhodesia at its end had a level of human development FAR lower than that of Jamaica, a tick lower than that of Botswana, and just a tick above that of Ghana. It’s measure of 0.437 compares poorly to that of modern Botswana (0.698), Jamaica (0.719), Ghana (0.579) and Nigeria (0.514).

If Rhodesia is the bar at which we measure “first world”, then the fact is that there were many first world nations in Africa at the time of Rhodesia’s fall (1980) and are many more today.

But what abouth South Africa? Let’s take a look at their measure in 1990: 0.621

That’s quite a bit higher than Rhodesia’s measure and indeed much higher than most of its African peers. This is also while SA was still under white rule, so we can eliminate the expected rebuttal re: “the blacks had already dragged the country down after inheriting it!”

However, how does this compare to other black nations at the time? This is a relevant question since South Africa’s allegedly sky-high development at the time of white rule followed by its alleged decline is used as evidence of the notion that blacks can’t really run a country and, in fact, can only decrease development whenever they are put in charge of one after white rule (read: blacks need whites to rule them).

Jamaica in 1990: 0.671
Trinidad and Tobago: 0.670
Barbados: 0.714
Botswana: 0.584
Namibia: .578
Gabon: 0.620

How well developed are these nations?

Say all you want about the misguided governance in the former Rhodesia and in South Africa, and I’ll agree with you – they are shitshows. I do not support the ANC nor do I support Mugabe. They are clueless, ignorant autocrats using history and retributional racism to prop themselves up without actually doing anything meaningful to really build a future for their nations or their people.

What I will not concede, however, is this notion (one you subtly implied in your post) that both Rhodesia and SA prove that blacks need white people to rule them to attain reasonably high living standards. Rhodesia and SA were nothing special that could not be surpassed by halfway competent black governments. The reason those two nations have not been surpassed is simple: the new governments they have had since the end of white rule are shit. Both constitute the absolute lowest bar for governance and leadership, and that’s a bar that quite a few black leaders have already surpassed and more will surpass in the future.

[Blaster]

Quote:

You completely avoided the fact that - yes Islam is a hateful murderous ideology, and refused to admit it whatsoever.

Excelsior's detailed, logical, direct-response posting style is almost certainly time-consuming. It would take me 5 hours at least to produce something like Excelsior's post #765, and it would be riddled with typos and disjointed paragraphs. He's probably faster than me, but regardless, it's time-consuming. I would not take failure to overtly acknowledge and concede every valid counter-point to mean he's being evasive. It's just not worth the time. Plus, accepting new ideas that require you to rethink existing beliefs is difficult and can be very time-consuming. It can take me weeks to reconcile some new idea that I don't want to believe.

Quote:

And that you later reframed anti-Islam arguments to being racism against blacks and browns rather than deeply held convictions about one ideology just dashed your credibility on this argument entirely in my eyes.

It's a reasonable position. White defensiveness has been bad for blacks, historically, and it's very noticeably white people who are most defensive about encroaching Islam. I think it's a mistake, in this case, to attribute concerns about Islam to racism, but it's not crazy.

[atlant]

(06-23-2017 06:29 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Wow - you are really nitpicking it in detail.

I have said later in the thread, that I take some of my quite personal comments back. Sometimes I do speak hotter than I actually act. Also I contacted you directly and said so. As far as I am concerned it is all tantamount to a heated debate in parliament, then afterwards all going for a beer together, but obviously you feel this to be different.

You started the thread by the assumption that the terrorists are essentially all aided and even created by the governments. And frankly that may even be the case for many, but the main doctrine is the main culprit for their radicalization and not the system.

We can all disagree on a majority of issues and frankly there are a ton of educated black people who strongly disagree with you - some of them probably smarter and more in tune with the problems facing Africa or blacks in America.

Personally I think that your opinions are clearly influenced by the radical left, which is currently the mainstream. You clearly deny everything that might even counter your narrative, then you come up with anything in terms of obfuscated data or video tidbits that might confirm your fixed opinions. Sure - we all do that to a certain degree, but it seems to me that you often throw away everything that person has ever said or will say in the future just because of the use of one word, which in your mind is proof of "white supremacism". When someone says that he would welcome Middle Eastern Christians or non-Muslims while banning all Muslims from immigration, then you call him a racist and White Supremacist. That both groups actually look the same, speak the same Arabic language and have very similar DNA - that is irrelevant to you I guess. That guy is still a racist for daring to stop Muslim immigration.

I frankly don't see how you want to debate things, when you are absolutely fixed in your ideology. Personally I am willing to discard pretty much anything if I see proof of the opposite.

Again - I apologize if I have become too personal in some comments, but my opinions regarding your views about many things are unchanged. Your basic ideology fueling you seems to be obsessed with certain issues which are absolutely identical to current-day SJWs, Black-Lives-Matter activists and the political left. There are even sane Hoteps and African (from Africa) reformers who would defend many of our positions or go a different route than yours.

Really no need to take anything back.

If you manage to make your way through the mountain of vacuous, self-victimizing nonsense, you'll find that he sums up exactly what it's about:

Quote:

You’d figure my first hand experience and objectivity, which has served this community well in legions of other discussions I’ve participated in over the years, might get some deference.

His ego, nothing more.

Like many others of his ilk he is completely dumbfounded that whites are now daring to talk back to him about issues that they previously weren't given any right to speak on.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

[Samseau]

I was planning to continue this conversation, and I was enjoying the debate, but like many things I take my time to think of the best possible arguments.

I agree that people were too harsh on Excelsior. Even if he's confused and working out his brainwashing, it isn't a reason to call a longstanding and respected member an SJW or some other bullshit like that. But I thought early on people came in to defend Ex? Blaster made the post I believe, I liked it, and moved on.

What is most striking about post 765 is despite all the other guys throwing out words that could be considered insults, not once did I ever attack Excelsior, and yet I got the most hate from him! I don't have the same ego most guys do, I don't really care when people insult me, and I've been temp banned at least 5 times from this forum, yet I never once have taken anything personally or seriously.

As for the faulty statistics you spoke about Ex, all I see is poor reading comprehension from you or me - but it seems to be you. The original quote from Wikipedia:

Quote:

"The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)." He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and [/b]eleven to twenty million[/b] (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean"

Excel wrote:

Quote:

Case in point: your numbers here. You got them from Wikipedia, which is fine (it's the underlying source that matters - wikipedia is fine so long as the underlying sources are vetted, as I believe they are here). The issue here is that you did not read your source and are completely misinterpreting it. The numbers you are quoting here come from Elikia M’bokolo's "Le monde diplomatique" and very explicitly include both African and European slavery.

Don't believe me? Here's what you need to do: click your link to wikipedia (the one you posted above). Find the footnote that follows the block of text you quoted. Go to that footnote. Read what it says very carefully:

Quote:

[/b]Please note : The numbers occurring in the source, and repeated here on Wikipedia include both Arab and European trade. M’bokolo, Elikia (April 1998).[/b]

The eleven to twenty million across the Atlantic are part and parcel of the European trans-Atlantic slave trade. This means a total for the European trans-Atlantic slave trade of anywhere from 11 to 20 million accumulated over about 4 centuries.

He then mentions 4 million via the Red Sea, 4 million via the Swahili ports, and 9 million via the trans-saharan caravan route. That's 17 million. That is your total for the Arab slave trade over 1000 years.

And the reading comprehension fail is that you assume the eleven to twenty million slaves sent across the Atlantic was done exclusively by Europeans, but when in fact it was participated in heavily by the Muslims themselves. Hence the bolded parts above - the paragraph, quoted from a leftist Newspaper in France of all places, says the Muslims were the ones benefiting from the trade across the Atlantic. Like I said earlier in this thread, "Who do you think was selling the slaves to the Whites? The Whites were just getting into the slave game the Muslims had cornered for centuries."

Whether or not I am historically ignorant of Africa, when in fact there is so little written record of Africans (considering half of African didn't know what a wheel was when the Europeans were exploring it), you are wrong to assume I don't know my European history and where exactly they got their slaves from. They got them mainly from Muslims first (and many Jews). These are the facts, and for someone who claims to be so much in favor of the Black cause yet defend Islam (because they look Black after having enslaved and raped tens of millions of Black women, Muslims used to look like Nassim Taleb) is yes indeed, Stockholm Syndrome. You are defending one of the chief historical oppressors of the Black race, ones that make Whites look like amateurs.

Either you condemn the Muslims, you cannot condemn the Whites for their past. Simple as that. And this simplistic analysis completely ignores how powerless and clueless the average White was about the nature of the slave trade in the 1600's, whereas any Muslim man knew that the Koran justifies and promotes slavery.

Quote:

Even if I agree with every single thing you said about the relationship between blacks and Arabs, I would still maintain that my proposed solutions (Step 1 and 2 - better law enforcement/political determination and a pullback on regime change and meddling in the Arab world) would make for better long-term solutions to the current issue at hand than the proposals you and your peers here are making, which amount to the following:

1. Ban islam
2. Annex sovereign muslim nations and give their land to the soldiers engaging in said annexation
3. Deport all muslims
4. Ban all muslim migration

Whether I agree with you or not, I still favor my plan to any of your own. I still believe my steps are more effective, efficient, and practical solutions than any of your own. I don't think that any of the alternatives (just about all of which are presented above) are viable. My agreement with you on the topic of black african and arab relations is not at all dispositive on this. It has no impact at all on my current conclusion.

That is why it is a classic red herring, because deep down you're fully aware of this. You introduce a topic you know a) has no relevance to the topic at hand and b) has no dispositive impact on the determination of the solution at issue because you want to distract, not discuss.

The relevance to the topic at hand is that you're being inconsistent with your previously stated views so critical of Whites. That's numero uno.

The second part is that your proposed solutions wouldn't work in the long run, because they ignore the historical true nature of Islam. It is at it's core a violent supremacist ideology, which is why tens of millions of Blacks were brutalized and enslaved by Muslims.

Quote:

Only 2-5% of white believe in white supremacy over blacks?

You got a source for that? Actually, don't bother, I don't need one, I've seen my own. I'm calling bullshit.

Easy to estimate the percentage of White Supremacists based on their websites and organizations around the country. The same methods I used to predict a Trump win and earned 10x what I betted. You can doubt me, but it won't make a difference. It isn't my fault you don't understand how statistical sampling works; look at the visits of White Supremacist sites, compare it to total American web traffic as a whole (minus by 1/3 so you get White numbers only) and viola the process is done. It's tiny.

Meanwhile, we can't even go a week without a Muslim committing some atrocity or another, and you still believe in the boogeyman of White Supremacism?

Quote:

Here I have someone who has openly endorsed the notion of white supremacy over blacks (and other "lesser" peoples) telling me that white supremacy is not a threat and I therefore must hop on the "ban islam bandwagon" (because he's not biased at all).

I never endorsed shit, your poor reading comprehension is causing you to see things that do not exist. Just because someone is better than someone else at something does mean they will

a.) Always be that way
b.) Deserve to have unrestricted rule over anyone else.

Likewise, just because someone is worse than someone else at something does not mean

a.) It will always be this way
b.) Do not have any rights against those who are superior in the moment.

This would be rejected by any White supremacist website, and yet, would also be rejected by any Communist Leftist thinking as well. That's how I know I'm right; getting rejected by the extremes shows nuanced thinking that avoids reductionistic simplistic thinking.

And it's not my problem if you're offended at some groups of people being better than others. I didn't make the world this way and getting angry at me for pointing out the obvious isn't going to change anything.

Quote:

You are the last person here fit to lecture me about cognitive dissonance. The very last.

No idea what you're talking about.

Also, I've never endorsed Leonard D Neubache's ideas. Annexation of failed states sounds like a bad idea to me, and trying to govern people who can barely get their shit together sounds like a massive waste of time.

Quote:

Quite a few of you are so convinced of that Islam is inherently evil and all its followers such devilish cultists that any solution that implies something short of "send them back" is just not workable. You don't want to hear it. You don't want a solution that keeps you sharing a country with folks you consider to be evil. You want a solution that either makes life a living hell for them or gets them far away for good.

Why should we share our country with people who hate our values and promote violence? You've shown the stats that at least 15% of Muslims are insane zealots, why the hell would we want to immigrate people from such a population? Not once have you answered this question.

You speak of there being some kind of obligation to invite the world's hordes to developed countries, and yet there is no such obligation. I certainly wouldn't think I could go to China and demand they take care of me, could I? Where is your argument?

Lots of words, little reasoning.

[Roosh]

(06-23-2017 06:05 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

I was wrong to think that the time for me to step away from this community was coming. Recent events have shown me that said time is not coming, but is in fact already here.

I only have one more response to make. This is going to be my final word in this thread.

(06-14-2017 02:08 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:

The problem I am having with Excelsior's method of debate is that he is personally attacking people's character in order to present his perspective.

Not going to go back and re-read the whole thread but my recollection was that accusations were directed at him first and he was responding in kind (more or less). I believe it was comments calling him a progressive or SJW or something like that. Muslim maybe, also.

No need to go back, Blaster. You’re correct, and I’ll prove it for you. LDN has given his account of this thread. He has, as expected, left out quite a few details and used those omissions to paint me in as dim a light as possible.

Here’s where we really are – posts will be linked directly to facilitate verification of my account. All are in chronological order, from first to last.

Post 1: thread-63079...pid1586759 This is the post that started things. I post a tweet storm showing how muslim extremists have been elevated and supported by the British media against the desires of most muslims. Nothing personal here.

Zelcorpion responds: post-1587025...pid1587025 Nothing personal here.

Post 2: thread-63079...pid1587067 My response reiterates belief that few muslims actually support extremism embodied by the likes of Choudhary and they are effectively being marginalized by British media. Nothing personal here.

Zelcorpion responds: thread-63079...pid1587081

Post 3: thread-63079...pid1587122 My response to Zelcorpion.

Note that there have been no personal attacks so far from either side.

Zelcorpion’s response: thread-63079...pid1587138 Labels me a progressive, posts meme claiming I am an SJW, claims I have “outed myself”

Have we gotten personal yet?

Leonard responds: thread-63079...pid1587161 Nothing personal here. He does contend that Neo-Nazis are more fit for western civilization than muslims, a claim I found pretty absurd but definitely not personal.

Post 4: thread-63079...pid1587493 My response to Zelcorpion. Nothing personal in it.

Another response to valentine: thread-63079...pid1587494 Again, nothing personal.

Zelcorpion’s respone: thread-63079...pid1587507 Equates me to May, Macron, Merkel. Personal? Debatable, but getting there.

Zelcorpion response: thread-63079...pid1587524 Excelsior is an SJW again. Is that personal?

Again, don’t take my word for it. I’m linking you to the posts – go back and read them. I will submit to you that you will not find a personal attack from me through this stage of the discussion, but you will have already seen at least two (3 if you count the equation to the notorious May/Merkel/Macron triumvirate) from others directed at me.

Post 5: thread-63079...pid1587583 I contend that I actually have nothing to do with Macron, Merkel, or May and have very different ideas. Nothing personal here – read and see for yourself.

Valentine responds: thread-63079...pid1587618 Questions my numbers and asks what my solution is. Nothing personal.

Post 6: thread-63079...pid1587935 I pose some solutions and back up the numbers I posted earlier. Nothing personal here – read it and see for yourself.

Post 7: thread-63079...pid1587936 Response to several members here. I attempt to back up my reasoning for not supporting broader anti-muslim policies and for proposing the solutions I mentioned above. Nothing personal.

Zelcoprpion: thread-63079...pid1587938 “On Huffpo, NYT and every other mainstream media fake-news outlet they would applaud you. Feminsts would sing your praise and Antifa would invite you into their ranks. Congratulations.” Zelcorpion also calls me an Islam Lover and implies that I am semi-autistic.

Is that personal?

Post 8: thread-63079...pid1587939 Mostly a response to Samseau. I accuse him of using red herrings and displaying historical ignorance.

Zelcorpion’s response: thread-63079...pid1587940 He jokingly asks what my solutions would be before suggesting that I would probably propose “hug a muslim” campaigns and flower processions.

Post 9: thread-63079...pid1587943 I imply that, by referring to Islam as an evil cult, Zelcorpion was promoting an islamophobic line of reasoning. Personal? You can make the case.

LDN: thread-63079...pid1587971 LDN wants me to imagine being “a black man or a Jew living in a nation where 591,850 people polled that they supported the creation of a thousand year white supremacist state”

Zelcorpion: thread-63079...pid1587979 Finally gives up claiming that I am an SJW.

Post 10: thread-63079...pid1588455 response to LDN by noting that I do live in a country where there are millions of people who support white supremacy. I say, specifically:

Quote:

I am black and I live in a nation where millions of people openly support not only the marginalization and disenfranchisement of people like myself (who they relentless dog as low iq genetic inferiors lacking in history/civilization, and unfit for western society), but also support white supremacy and policies designed to further it (up to and including neo-Nazism). I live in a nation where I would not even be a citizen if tens of millions of folks had their way, and quite a few more would prefer I not even be in the country.

HCE responds: thread-63079...pid1588520 Apparently, my claim is impossible.

Blaster also says the claim cannot be taken at face value. Valentine says I sound like a refugee activist. thread-63079...pid1588583

Post 11: thread-63079...pid1588456 Response to zelcorpion and HCE. Nothing personal.

Post 12: thread-63079...pid1588644 I post some data to back up my claim that there are indeed millions of people in the United states who believe in the inferiority of black people.

Kabal joins the fray and suggests that the real problematic enemies are not feminists, but “dysgenic immigration” that brings blacks, Hispanics, and muslims. (I’m black and a product of immigrants, for the record – personal? Debatable, but getting there). thread-63079...pid1588646

Post 13: thread-63079...pid1588751 Response to Kabal clarifying my claims RE: white supremacy. I insist it was not designed to guilt anybody and was a matter of fact response to a question. I suggest he do more to name the “dysgenic” enemy he alluded to.

Kabal’s response: thread-63079...pid1588812 This roughly translates to “You’re a feminist”. Implies victim-complex. Basically calls me a feminist SJW.

Personal or no? You be the judge.

Also, there’s a back-and-forth between me and Paracelsus about the geo-political implications of the solutions I proposed. That ends amicably here – nothing personal from either side: thread-63079...pid1588839

LDN: thread-63079...pid1588855 Implies here that I have called America a “festering Nazi scab waiting to erupt”. Says my statements are clownish and nonsensical. Claims I live in a dark cuckoo land and am wrapped in a racial victim complex (remember: my claim that galvanized all of this was that there were millions of white supremacists in the United States). Claims my solutions are utter nonsense.

I have a victim complex (implying that my opinions derive not from reasoned opinion but from emoton, not unlike an SJW) and my logic is clownish. Personal, or no?

Post 14: thread-63079...pid1588872 My response to LDN pushing back against the claims that what I said was nonsensical, clownish, etc.

Zelcorpion: thread-63079...pid1588878 Partially agrees with my plan.

HCE says I have an ego problem because I disagree with him (personal?). thread-63079...pid1588892

Blaster at least admits white supremacy is real: thread-63079...pid1588996

Samseau responds: thread-63079...pid1589196 Presents some pretty faulty statistics regarding the slave trade, implies that I have “Stockholm syndrome” because of the arguments I have made so far in the thread regarding Islam.

I have stockholm symdrome because I have suggested taking a path to engaging with Islam and its adherents that differs from the mainstream consensus on the forum. Personal, or no?

Post 15: thread-63079...pid1589422 I call out Samseau for the false numbers and also claim that he is a white supremacist (personal? Yes) based on what he said in another thread (where he implied that East Asians and Whites were not only higher cultures, but higher peoples). I also attack LDN for claiming that my plan is nonsense when his alternative was an outright war.

LDN responds: thread-63079...pid1589448

Post 16: thread-63079...pid1589459 I imply that LDN hates muslims and wants to keep non-whites out – my reasoning is that this is the only way that someone could support an outright war as an alternative to the solutions I proposed, even though the reasoning given for opposing my solutions was their supposed propensity to create low level civil war. Personal? Yes.

LDN: thread-63079...pid1589474 Threatens to report me for implying that he is a racist.

Post 17: thread-63079...pid1589481 I claim that LDN could not possibly hold the position he holds if he did not hate islam/muslims. I note in gif form that I don’t care about getting reported.

LDN: thread-63079...pid1589533 Excelsior conjures racism from thin air, expected cowtowing/bowing, is a progressive who only shouts racism when he’s losing an argument, and is a deluded member of BLM. Personal? Yes.

Zelcorpion: thread-63079...pid1589714 Excelsior is a muslim

Post 18: thread-63079...pid1589772 Response to LDN. Very personal at this point.

LDN: thread-63079...pid1590007 Excelsior is a mentally ill progressive.

I can go on, but you guys can read. It’s all downhill from here. There's your account of the thread.

Several members took great offense to the claim that multiple millions of white supremacists could exist in a country of 300 million. This apparently is the sign of someone with a victim complex.

LDN will have you believe that “millions of Americans are demonstrably not having conversations about IQ/race/history/civilization” and that all I have done is “turned this issue into a society-wide surrogate for his lamentations of the shift in the forums' political direction”. Nevermind the fact that the recent election (which placed the man very well understood to be the chosen candidate of the HBD/Alt-right/ethno-nationalist sphere in the white house), coupled with the growth of alt-right mediums like Breitbart and Amren (as well as the morphing of others, like ROK, into similar spaces) make it pretty clear that conversations like that ARE taking place in millions of households across the country. We wouldn’t be seeing the level of societal tension in the USA we are seeing today if these things were not being discussed. Anyone who lives here (especially as a person of color) and experiences that tension first hand can see this.

To that end, I could also point out to you the absurdity of a white Australian telling a black resident of the USA (who has grown up in the USA and has first hand experience of many of the phenomena he is talking about re: blacks, whites, supremacy, etc) that he’s just “making everything up”, as if he would somehow know more about what the experience for people of color living in the USA is than actual people of color in the USA.

But there’s little point to me mentioning this reality here. As I said before, no claim of supremacy or even general racism from a person of color can be taken seriously in this sphere – people of color either totally disabuse the notion of white supremacy/racism or they are labeled folks with a delusional BLM conscious/victim complex. There is no middle ground.

You’d figure that after 7 years here as a contributor who has never had a reputation for mass-posting dishonest bullshit or failing to be objective, things would be a little different. You’d figure my first hand experience and objectivity, which has served this community well in legions of other discussions I’ve participated in over the years, might get some deference. Just a little – I’m not talking about agreement by default (nobody deserves not to be questioned), I’m talking about just enough measured skepticism to prevent folks from immediate dismissal of the experience as soon as I type it out and to prevent the immediate presumption that I would mention something (the existence of white supremacists) that I hadn’t seen with my own eyes or dealt with myself.

LDN has attempted to claim that my pointing this out is a sign of mental illness. After 7 years here and all of the positive, objective contributions I have made in that time, you’d figure I’d have done enough to at least earn a rebuttable presumption against the notion that I’m a madman. However, it seems instead (judging by the sheer number of supportive likes generated by the post in which the aforementioned claim of madness was raised and others like it) that most of the folks here would disagree. Just chalk it up to “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and be done.

That’s where this community has come today. I will not be changing any minds, and I have to accept this.

Suffice it to say the following:

thread-63079...pid1592667

(06-14-2017 01:21 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

The problem I am having with Excelsior's method of debate is that he is personally attacking people's character in order to present his perspective. A lot of the pushback he is experiencing is more from people defending their character as men rather than politically disagreeing with him. If Excelsior focused on explaining in a calm way how people's ideas were misguided, I believe he would be getting a much better response from people.

Edit: I just want to say that calling someone to their face (or over the forum in this instance) a white supremacist or white nationalist is a pretty deeply personal attack on that person's character as a human being. If the focus of the debate was more on how someone's ideas or beliefs were misguided and then explaining rationally how those beliefs were misguided, I believe that they debate would be more productive and bear more fruit in changing people's minds.

All or Nothing has claimed that this debate has been undermined by personal attacks on others’ character as human beings. He suggests that I have employed too many of these attacks and implies that I’m the main source of that problem and the negative reaction. LDN has, as we would expect, made a similar conclusion.

Respectfully, All or Nothing, I disagee. I will submit to you, and the record should show above, that this is not the case. I did not come in here and kick things off by personally attacking anyone. I came in and made an argument in good faith with regard to my disagreement on the forum consensus with regard to Islam and Muslims. When countered, I responded with reasoned, impersonal explanations as to why those beliefs were misguided and proposed my own solutions to the problems being debated. The first several posts chronicled above back up this account. Don’t take my word for it – read them yourself, they’re linked right above.

In return, I was pretty much immediately labeled an SJW progressive and refugee activist. Users claimed that I was a semi-autistic member of antifa. It was also argued that I am a muslim and that I have Stockholm syndrome. Another user essentially called me a feminist.

And all of that happened before I even dared to throw out what you will claim to be a personal attack: calling Samseau a white supremacist (which I felt justified in doing, btw, because of a post made in another thread that pretty clearly implied a racial hierarchy). Once that happened and I mentioned the notion that white supremacy exists in the United States, I was claimed by some users here to have a mental illness.

I will therefore submit that I followed your advice, All or Nothing. I tried to explain in a calm way how I felt the views here were misguided with regard to Islam and muslims. I could not do that for long without being dismissed as a semi-autistic SJW (a completely unprovoked personal attack), so I conclude that this approach is not effective and never could have been. There was really no way for this not to devolve.

Why? I already mentioned why. There’s been a change. This is not about personal attacks, it is about a fundamental hostility to certain views. That fundamental hostility is the reason why personal attacks on my character (forcing me on the defensive against claims like SJW, autist, etc) were leveled before any similar provocation could come from my end. I did not need to attack anyone’s character to get that kind of vitriol – I just needed to hold a point of view hostile to the mainstream consensus. Even if reasonably argued in good faith, that view was going to get a personal reaction, and it did. It is simply too offensive to many people here.

People like me no longer belong here, nor are they welcome here if they are unwilling to fully embrace views and ideologies that are entirely hostile to themselves, their heritage, and their cultures. That is made clear by the discussion in this thread: even a reasonable, good faith effort to push back against some of the rhetoric here with regard to islam gets you labeled an SJW with Stockholm syndrome. It’s not even a discussion that can be had here anymore. Pointing out the hypocrisy and clear madness of calling enhanced policing/alternative foreign policy suggestions “too dangerous” while simultaneously promoting all-out war gets me labeled delusional, and has me facing implications of being a BLM supporter with a mental illness. Even attempting to note that there might exist millions of white supremacists in the USA (not a difficult feat in a nation of 300 million people) gets you the “victim complex” tag, even after you attempt to offer data to back it up.

I was suspended for personal attacks (linked to LDN in another thread) for several days last week – that’s the first time that’s happened to me here. We have said nothing of the personal attacks leveled at me here and described above, none of which have resulted in suspensions. I get suspended for, and I quote, “crossing the line into personal insults”, but that same member is free to claim I am mentally ill for disagreeing with him, and others still are free to label me a semi-autistic SJW feminist with Stockholm syndrome because I had a view of Islam that didn’t amount to “Islam is cancer”.

Meanwhile, a user with less than 50 posts openly expresses hatred for blacks and muslims, defends his hatred of blacks (claims he’s “forced” to do it), and defends the merits of using the term “paki” to describe other people. He hasn’t been banned, from what I can see. The few who are critiquing him are told by others to “get over it, it’s just a word”.

Credit to Blaster for calling him out, and credit to the handful of others who have joined him in this. The fact that there are still a few of you here gives me hope that there are still pieces of the old RvF left, and perhaps the old community isn’t irrecoverable after all.

…but the fact remains that his continued presence here makes my point, as do many of the other posts here tacitly or explicitly endorsing similar ideology. Also making the point is the silence of so many of the members here with regard to these posts – a few, like Blaster, Matsufubu, WalterBlack, and Teedub have rightfully called him out, but several of those who were most vocal about the notion that my concerns about racism were overblown, how I’ve “made it all up” and overplayed a “boogeyman” by talking about it, etc, etc, have had nothing at all to say to this user and have (in the case of at least one member) handed him rep points instead. I suspect he won’t be seriously punished here because he’s simply done nothing wrong, at least not on the forum as it exists now. This is his space. That’s the community this has become, and I don’t think I belong in it.

The unavoidable reality (one made abundantly clear by the discussion in this thread) is that myself and those like me no longer really match up well with this sphere. Having seen the shift take place I accepted a while back that, at some point, I would have to decrease my presence here so as to increase my presence in other spheres in which there was a greater match with my values and mindset. This is unavoidable and I hate that because, as I said before, I love this place. I grew up here. It’s been a home for me and many others like me.

But times change. People change. This community has changed, as have those affiliated with it. This has become a place increasingly tolerant, if not downright welcoming, to people who openly denigrate the culture and history of many people of color, all the while implying their own genetic racial superiority. I can’t stop that change – I’ve no power to do so, nor have I the right (it isn’t like I own the space – it is Roosh’s decision as to what he does and doesn’t endorse), but I can’t co-exist with it either. This shift is unstoppable and, as some have rightly noted, was perhaps always inevitable (especially given the fact that the societies around us are changing too).

This discussion has clearly run its course. I do hope that, over time, this community can evolve into something more closely resembling the space it used to be. If that happens, I’m hopeful I’ll get a chance to be a regular part of it again. For now, at least, I think it is best I step back.

The last word is yours. Good luck with your community going forward.

Quote:

We have said nothing of the personal attacks leveled at me here and described above

Multiple members have been suspended for attacking you (MMX2010 just today). I can only view attacks that get reported. If you don't report offenders, they will think their attacks are within the realm of the rules and keep going, even though it's usually a case that the mods didn't see it. There are over 500 posts a day here. Even if I add many more mods, things would get missed without active reporting.

Quote:

Meanwhile, a user with less than 50 posts openly expresses hatred for blacks and muslims, defends his hatred of blacks (claims he’s “forced” to do it), and defends the merits of using the term “paki” to describe other people.

Why didn't you report that? Someone else did, and that user was suspended for 1 week.

Your complaints would be more justified if you were active in reporting the problems you just described. Every member has the power and influence to shape the community by helping the mods enforce the rules. If you don't report things, you're waiting for someone else to make the change you want to see. I do act on most reports.