[Rush87]

(10-18-2017 10:22 AM)fenetre Wrote:  

Faber just put his whole reputation, $100s of thousands of income, his professional relationships all on the line for what he believes in.

And he refused to apologise. Balls, and principles.

Disagree. He's the rights equivalent to someone putting a French flag over their FB profile pic after a terrorist attack.

He went on an anti pc rant no different to what thousands of dudes do on social media daily (Except they arent millionaires who can hide in the jungle with their Thai wives).

The big difference, his rant wasnt so much anti pc as it was uneducated and unneccesarily bitter to an entire race. This is just an old dude having a meltdown.

In contrast we have guys like Trump who destroy pc culture and have used their wealth to actually help the nation that gave him so much. He's the type of dude who gets my respect. Not this chump. That said, this whole thing doesn't bother me enough to have a real back and forth argument. He can do whatever he wants.

[fenetre]

(10-18-2017 02:44 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

BB:

For me, I this guy as a rich douchebag talking shit.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's wrong, and he's slandering black people with malicious lies.

Black people have contributed just as much as anyone else to the US's history. They've sacrificed a hell of a lot to the US and this little Swiss pussy has no right to say otherwise. Fuck him, and the horse he rode in on.

That's all I want to say about it.

Sick of these rich race-baiters and plutocrats trying to divide us as Americans with this toxic racial bullshit. This is all part of the plutocratic insurgency: set people against each other, plant the seeds of division and animus, and stoke the fires of hostility and resentment.

And meanwhile chickenshits like Faber live in mansions and mountaintops in Switzerland.

Don't take the bait.

I'm dumbfounded by your post. Having read your two of your books I had not expected this, and I say that with the utmost of respect to you.

Your claims are patently untrue. A man with your intellect cannot be so blind as to believe this nonsense? And your visceral vitriol - where does that come from?

There are countless upstanding and outstanding black men on this forum and the wider world but they themselves cannot honestly argue with the reality of life in black countries or black-majority population centres.

Blacks were not the only enslaved peoples. Their lands were not the only ones colonised. Everybody makes excuses for black people and thereby implying that they be held to a different standard. Which is itself racialized thinking.

You sound like a rabid SJW with your rhetoric.

Whatever happened to the truth?

The divisions in the US, for example, are brought about by the criminality of young black males, who make up over 50% of violent crime but account for 6% of the population.

The pain these men cause the innocent people in society is then multiplied by the humiliation these people suffer as the elites, politicians and media somehow blame white society (the victims) for the crime.

The same white society that chose a black man to be president, supreme court justice, multi-million $ sports star, musician, and so on.

It's pure madness.

The people are set against each other before any of this discussion of race takes place.

The only slander present here is yours against this accomplished man. This man of action, not just words.

He may be comfortable in his existence and it may be easy for him in your eyes to make statements as he did, but at least his strike at the truth, whereas yours are borne out of some frustration at what is plain and obvious to most.

BB put it well when he said racism is a feature of every tribe. And it always will be because humans can see with their own eyes the differences between their tribe and another's.

The sooner we can constructively talk about the nature of the problems facing the West, brought about in this case by demographic changes, the sooner we can solve the problem.

Until then, leaving the festering country behind is the only logical, healthy thing to do.

And the next best thing is to write about it so as to convince people of the facts of the matter before it comes to blood being spilled.

[Rush87]

(10-18-2017 09:11 PM)fenetre Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 02:44 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

BB:

For me, I this guy as a rich douchebag talking shit.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's wrong, and he's slandering black people with malicious lies.

Black people have contributed just as much as anyone else to the US's history. They've sacrificed a hell of a lot to the US and this little Swiss pussy has no right to say otherwise. Fuck him, and the horse he rode in on.

That's all I want to say about it.

Sick of these rich race-baiters and plutocrats trying to divide us as Americans with this toxic racial bullshit. This is all part of the plutocratic insurgency: set people against each other, plant the seeds of division and animus, and stoke the fires of hostility and resentment.

And meanwhile chickenshits like Faber live in mansions and mountaintops in Switzerland.

Don't take the bait.

I'm dumbfounded by your post. Having read your two of your books I had not expected this, and I say that with the utmost of respect to you.

Your claims are patently untrue. A man with your intellect cannot be so blind as to believe this nonsense? And your visceral vitriol - where does that come from?

There are countless upstanding and outstanding black men on this forum and the wider world but they themselves cannot honestly argue with the reality of life in black countries or black-majority population centres.

Blacks were not the only enslaved peoples. Their lands were not the only ones colonised. Everybody makes excuses for black people and thereby implying that they be held to a different standard. Which is itself racialized thinking.

My compatriots, the Irish, suffered terribly as a result of colonisation, enslavement and forced labour. The signs outside many pubs in England in the 1950s said, "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs." The Irish built much of the infrastructure in England and the US over the last centuries.

But that's beside the point.

You sound like a rabid SJW with your rhetoric.

Whatever happened to the truth?

The divisions in the US, for example, are brought about by the criminality of young black males, who make up over 50% of violent crime but account for 6% of the population.

The pain these men cause the innocent people in society is then multiplied by the humiliation these people suffer as the elites, politicians and media somehow blame white society (the victims) for the crime.

The same white society that chose a black man to be president, supreme court justice, multi-million $ sports star, musician, and so on.

It's pure madness.

The people are set against each other before any of this discussion of race takes place.

The only slander present here is yours against this accomplished man. This man of action, not just words.

He may be comfortable in his existence and it may be easy for him in your eyes to make statements as he did, but at least his strike at the truth, whereas yours are borne out of some frustration at what is plain and obvious to most.

BB put it well when he said racism is a feature of every tribe. And it always will be because humans can see with their own eyes the differences between their tribe and another's.

The sooner we can constructively talk about the nature of the problems facing the West, brought about in this case by demographic changes, the sooner we can solve the problem.

Until then, leaving the festering country behind is the only logical, healthy thing to do.

And the next best thing is to write about it so as to convince people of the facts of the matter before it comes to blood being spilled.

You're missing his point. There is a huge difference between what you just said and what Faber said.

You used logic to address the facts of history. Faber is just being a cunt.

[Going strong]

To be honest, I have been to Chiang Mai (interesting, safe, cheap and quite lively place), and well, living in a nice mansion in Chiang Mai does not qualify as "living deep in the jungle", "fearing human contacts".

In any case, Faber is not making a politically-useful statement here; and as a side note, I hope for him that he has Thai citizenship (or he might find himself in hot waters at some point, deported maybe - even though most Thai people would agree with his simplified analysis, I guess).

[Fortis]

Honestly, am I the only person who thought this was some silly joke?

I was laughing out loud when I read the part about "the right to enslave other people." That was delicious, delicious troll. I'm surprised guys are finding such deep meaning in all of this.

Rich guy says outrageous thing
More people sign up to his newletter/training course/whatever
Profit

[Laska]

(10-18-2017 09:11 PM)fenetre Wrote:  

umbfounded by your post. Having read your two of your books I had not expected this, and I say that with the utmost of respect to you.

I've known plenty of people who studied the classics (I take it that Quintus has done a moderate amount of that), and all of these people are quite intelligent. I think Quintus would be a little below average in such company, which would be extremely respectable. However, intelligent individuals don't think alike, and a keen mind can more easily see principles, and can also readily rationalize, which is why intelligence may or may not grant greater wisdom. Thus, the whole thing comes down to the arguments, not intelligence.

I would like to hear Quintus explaining what he means by black contributions, it'll surely be enlightening. He's probably considering things in a different direction than we are.

[Beyond Borders]

(10-18-2017 10:00 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

Honestly, am I the only person who thought this was some silly joke?

I was laughing out loud when I read the part about "the right to enslave other people." That was delicious, delicious troll. I'm surprised guys are finding such deep meaning in all of this.

Rich guy says outrageous thing
More people sign up to his newletter/training course/whatever
Profit

That's not what he actually said, though:

Quote:

"The very same people" he wrote of U.S. liberals "are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved."

Could have worded it a lot clearer, but his essential point was that these people were upholding a 5,000-year trend and were basically about the same as any other people, of all races, that lived within those five millenia. So, while they were doing something unethical, that doesn't necessarily make them unethical people - they were people of their time and no guiltier than most other humans who've lived on Earth.

Absolutely his "thank God blacks never ran the country" comment was sure to enrage people, but I don't think we should twist his words, as the media will do a fine job of that themselves.

You could be right about the troll job, but I kind of doubt it. He'll pick up subscribers, but he probably lost a lot as well, and it's clear his business interests have been compromised, which he should have expected. I think he most likely actually believes what he's saying. More likely than not he's losing some of his "good judgement" upstairs and went on a rant without thinking the consequences through(?).

Here was the section of the newsletter in a more complete form:

Quote:

I don't want to enter into a serious discussion of the tearing down of monuments of historical personalities, but I cannot omit mentioning how the liberal hypocrites condemned the Taliban when they blew up the world's two largest standing Buddhas (one of them 165 feet high), situated at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains of central Afghanistan, in 2001. But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved. And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority. I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out as well. (And let's not forget that the African tribal heads were more than happy to sell their own slaves to white, black, and Arab slave dealers.)

[Fortis]

I didn't mean to twist his words, I read that a few days ago when this thread was in its infancy. Either way,

Quote:

"The very same people" he wrote of U.S. liberals "are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved."

sounds trolly as hell. Sounds like pure trollbait or outrage trolling.

If he's not trolling, then it's a shame that someone so talented is so small-minded. Can't be helped either way.

[Going strong]

(10-18-2017 10:40 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

Quote:

I don't want to enter into a serious discussion of the tearing down of monuments of historical personalities, but I cannot omit mentioning how the liberal hypocrites condemned the Taliban when they blew up the world's two largest standing Buddhas (one of them 165 feet high), situated at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains of central Afghanistan, in 2001. But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved. And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority. I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out as well. (And let's not forget that the African tribal heads were more than happy to sell their own slaves to white, black, and Arab slave dealers.)

^That changes things quite a lot. Now, his analysis, especially comparing Leftists + BLM people (who destroy historic statues) with Talibans (who do just the same), though over-simplified, makes more sense.

No wonder MSM left out the best part , the Taliban comparison.

Should be a lesson for all of us: Never believe lying MSM and their truncated quotes, go look for the original, uncut quote from the accused man. MSM also carefully left aside the truthful part about how African tribes sold each other to Arab merchants.

[Number one bummer]

(10-18-2017 10:43 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

I didn't mean to twist his words, I read that a few days ago when this thread was in its infancy. Either way,

Quote:

"The very same people" he wrote of U.S. liberals "are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved."

sounds trolly as hell. Sounds like pure trollbait or outrage trolling.

If he's not trolling, then it's a shame that someone so talented is so small-minded. Can't be helped either way.

Humans have been enslaving each-other for a couple hundred thousand years.

That quote you brought up is probably the most accurate thing he said. Think about the left uses cultural relativism. They only apply relativism to modern day stone age cultures(goatfuckers). However, if anyone else tries to apply relativism to western cultures of the past, such as 19th century America, it is racist and inappropriate. The left tells us that modern day goat fuckers are an equal culture, but any past western culture is instantly labeled evil. Relativism should only be applied when you are looking back in time at a culture. In a recent Gavin McInnes episode, he brought up how people view the history of the west. He rough statement was "when you(western males) are behind every facet of modern human civilization, every invention, philosophy, government, industry, technology, weapon and everything else, you are going to do some bad things(slavery), however everyone else has done bad and the west was key in ending them."

[Leonard D Neubache]

The dude is an incredibly rich cuck faggot.

Any multi-millionairre is by definition completely red-pilled on (((them))) and (((their))) influence, which has not only been the downfall of blacks but everyone else in Western civilisation.

When he was tapping out his little cuck faggot screed he undoubtedly gave some thought to placing the blame on certain Jewish lines before he determined that bitching about blacks was an economically survivable outlet for his grievances.

It's arguable that (((they))) are behind his message because it stirs divisions that empower (((them))). As if some millionaire living in Asia gives a single fuck about the societal depredations of low-class blacks.

Don't be played.

[Fortis]

(10-19-2017 12:58 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The dude is an incredibly rich cuck faggot.

Any multi-millionairre is by definition completely red-pilled on (((them))) and (((their))) influence, which has not only been the downfall of blacks but everyone else in Western civilisation.

When he was tapping out his little cuck faggot screed he undoubtedly gave some thought to placing the blame on certain Jewish lines before he determined that bitching about blacks was an economically survivable outlet for his grievances.

It's arguable that (((they))) are behind his message because it stirs divisions that empower (((them))). As if some millionaire living in Asia gives a single fuck about the societal depredations of low-class blacks.

Don't be played.

[Higgs Bosun]

(10-19-2017 12:58 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The dude is an incredibly rich cuck faggot.

Any multi-millionairre is by definition completely red-pilled on (((them))) and (((their))) influence, which has not only been the downfall of blacks but everyone else in Western civilisation.

When he was tapping out his little cuck faggot screed he undoubtedly gave some thought to placing the blame on certain Jewish lines before he determined that bitching about blacks was an economically survivable outlet for his grievances.

It's arguable that (((they))) are behind his message because it stirs divisions that empower (((them))). As if some millionaire living in Asia gives a single fuck about the societal depredations of low-class blacks.

Don't be played.

Damn dude, so much hate and vitriol here, and why? You repeatedly call this man a "cuck faggot" and yet here you are, typing about (((them))) on an anonymous forum. I'm going to take a wild, crazy shot in the dark here and guess that your real name isn't actually Leonard D Neubache? I'll also venture that you'd find yourself drenched in the cold sweat of a panic attack if you suddenly saw your real name and photograph bandied about in the worldwide media in association with what you type anonymously on RVF. I mean shit, I know I would, so this isn't a dig at you or anything.

What is a dig is that you're calling Faber a "little cuck faggot" for doing something you yourself would almost certainly not have the guts to do. Is Trump a cuck faggot for not calling "them" out and talking about the Clintons and illegal immigrants instead? You know, there are ways to fight political correctness besides jumping straight to the JQ. In an ideal world I'd have liked for Faber to have taken a different approach but at the end of the day I'll take whatever I can get since I'm not the one sticking out my neck and becoming an instant international pariah within both my social circle and the world at large.

We've all heard the phrase "don't let the great be the enemy of the good." Faber did the commendable by calling out the hypocrisy of anti-white racism and he sustained real financial and social costs that will run into the millions over it. And what is the response by some on our side?

Didn't call out the Jews! Ha, cuck faggot!

What's next?

Ha, called out the Jews but started a sentence with a preposition! What a little cuck faggot!

It's tiresome. More importantly, we have too many enemies and too few friends to throw potential allies under the bus when they stick their necks out for us.

[Genghis Khan]

(10-18-2017 01:58 PM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 09:09 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 08:04 AM)MrRemi Wrote:  

It's all staged. With world-wide news coverage he must have gained a shitload of new subscribers for his 300$ newsletter. Maybe 10'000 new subscribers, that would be 3 million cash. That goes a long way in Thailand. Faber surely never got rich following his own investment advice.

The same tactic all these internet marketers use - create outrage porn, have media networks pick it up, have social media/forums (such as ours) discuss. Suddenly the guy is on the radar of a lot more people than he was yesterday. I've never heard of the guy...until this thread.

The race angle - he might not even mean it, he may just see which way the winds are turning in terms of PC culture and decided to cash in on it.

Well played indeed. I'm sure his newsletter saw a healthy spike in new subscriptions.

I don't think you guys have a good grasp of who Marc Faber is. He's not an "internet entrepreneur" eking out a living in a Chiang Mai hostel by churning out newsletters. If you'd read the first line of the article, you'd have seen that he was forced out of multiple directorship positions at several billion dollar corporations over his statements, something he definitely knew would be forthcoming before he published the letter. There goes at least $500k of annual income for attending cocktail parties and applying the rubber stamp. He was also a frequent contributor on major financial news networks, obviously he kissed that goodbye. I sure hope he did his ROI calculations on the hypothetical increase in newsletter sales he is likely to get in exchange...

If he genuinely lost a significant amount of income, I misjudged him then. Apologies on my end as I have developed a bit of a knee-jerk reaction after seeing plenty of stuff online where people say outrageous things to feed their own brand and online business/book sales. I think I need to lay off the internet for a while.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(10-19-2017 01:57 AM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  

...More importantly, we have too many enemies and too few friends to throw potential allies under the bus when they stick their necks out for us.

You're being played.

Every time whites are compelled to go against blacks then the Jews step in an use it as grounds to stomp us 'racist nazis' into paste.

You are being played.

They set you up in a fight against an enemy they don't give a shit about and when your back is turned to them they shiv you from behind.

You are being played.

You don't think it's a tiny bit odd for an offshore millionaire in Asia to suddenly go on a rant about blacks? What was the last time you think he even saw a black person?

You. Are. Being. Played.

p.s. "Wouldn't have the guts to do?"

Wire me a few million bucks and I'll start up a Hitler fan club. Unlike Faber I still have to work for a living. Unlike Faber, going on an anti-semitic rant isn't going to be the difference between my fifth mansion having 34 rooms or 35.

[fenetre]

Sometimes conspiracy/alternate theories are apt.

But sometimes a 71-year-old-old-school-zfg- living-life-on-his-own-terms guy is just that.

I feel there’s a misunderstanding of who Faber is. Nothing in his past behaviour is indicative of the race baiting he’s being accused of.

He’s another Doug Casey type. He’s not a damned Al Sharpton.

Again, more emotional ad hominem attacks against a man who is more or less in our corner on a wide range of issues.

[Fortis]

On the topic of his mentioning of slavery and why I think it's a troll point:

I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone on this forum condoning slavery in this day and age. Hell, I imagine you'd find very few Westerners who find the idea of enslaving other groups appealing.

I took his point on slavery as some tongue 'n' cheek jab at one of the holy cows of American politics (anti-slavery rhetoric). If he's actually trying to say "yay! slavery!" then I stand by my point that's a really weird thing coming from anyone who considers themselves a Westerner. I read it as something sarcastic and put in for humor. Sorta like the "let's eat babies" thing from Swift's Modest Proposal.


It makes a scathing attack on American politics into a tirade of head-scratching quality.

[Conscious Pirate]

(10-18-2017 06:50 PM)Conscious Pirate Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 04:51 AM)fenetre Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 04:45 AM)Conscious Pirate Wrote:  

^ Not an argument, sure. And the swedes are not the swiss. And neither of you have any fucking arguments. Here & herein lies the confusion.

I've no idea what your post means.

Faber deserves respect for speaking his mind, especially due to the special place race holds as an utterly off-limits topic for any public discussion.

He didn't back down and apologise like many, many others.

If anyone is interested they can drop Faber a line through his website https://www.gloomboomdoom.com/contact/contact-form/

fenetre, I too have no idea what my post means. I know I was drunk when I wrote it & of high negative emotion.

I owe you a sincere apology. I have no idea why I attacked you in this way but it was entirely uncalled for and I will own that.

I had to leave work today because I was a liability rather than an asset. In other words, I am having an episode & need to take stock of it. Thank you for pointing this out to me & please accept my apology. You did not deserve that.

Just heard from my housemate that he copped a spray from me last night too, about the same time I laid into you.

He told me "it was like watching a 12yr old girl with a beard, storm off to bed".

Haha.

[Enigma]

(10-19-2017 03:44 AM)Fortis Wrote:  

On the topic of his mentioning of slavery and why I think it's a troll point:

I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone on this forum condoning slavery in this day and age. Hell, I imagine you'd find very few Westerners who find the idea of enslaving other groups appealing.

I took his point on slavery as some tongue 'n' cheek jab at one of the holy cows of American politics (anti-slavery rhetoric). If he's actually trying to say "yay! slavery!" then I stand by my point that's a really weird thing coming from anyone who considers themselves a Westerner. I read it as something sarcastic and put in for humor. Sorta like the "let's eat babies" thing from Swift's Modest Proposal.


It makes a scathing attack on American politics into a tirade of head-scratching quality.

As Beyond Borders pointed out, he's not condoning slavery at all. No offense, but I'm honestly confused as to how people are interpreting that line as anything approaching "yay! slavery!"

Faber is simply taking the stance that slavery has been the norm for most of human history, so you can't judge whether historical figures are "good" or "bad" based solely on whether they owned slaves or not.

Should we bring back slavery? No. But is everyone who owned slaves or condoned slavery between 200 and 10,000 years ago an evil bastard? Also no.

There are certainly some fucked up people who owned slaves in the past. But there are also plenty of otherwise decent men who owned slaves at a time when it was considered normal.

Yet as Faber pointed out (and we already know), many of these statues are targeted simply because "they owned slaves".

[Beyond Borders]

(10-19-2017 03:44 AM)Fortis Wrote:  

On the topic of his mentioning of slavery and why I think it's a troll point:

I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone on this forum condoning slavery in this day and age. Hell, I imagine you'd find very few Westerners who find the idea of enslaving other groups appealing.

I took his point on slavery as some tongue 'n' cheek jab at one of the holy cows of American politics (anti-slavery rhetoric). If he's actually trying to say "yay! slavery!" then I stand by my point that's a really weird thing coming from anyone who considers themselves a Westerner. I read it as something sarcastic and put in for humor. Sorta like the "let's eat babies" thing from Swift's Modest Proposal.


It makes a scathing attack on American politics into a tirade of head-scratching quality.

With all due respect, Fortis, I think you're still missing the point. He's not condoning slavery and certainly not saying "yay slavery."

What he's saying is it's silly to demonize men who had slaves in a time when having slaves had recently been an acceptable practice and had been for thousands and thousands of years.

For example, every country on this Earth has killed other men in the name of what we call war. Some people might find this barbaric beyond comprehension, and if you read "On Killing," it does seem to collide with our nature.

It seems an outlandish idea, but hypothetically, let's say we reached a point in human "evolution" where we managed to abolish all killing of another country's men in the name of war.

Imagine then, that at least one half of one country held out longer than the others and continued this practice (actually there are still places around the world where people have slaves now), but finally they had a civil war and were forced to surrender on the issue and join the rest of their country in moving past the practice.

While they had lost, their countrymen allowed them to largely hold on to their culture and the statues of their heroes, as is often done in war to minimize resentment in a defeated enemy. It does not behoove a victor to grind an enemy, especially when they have to live with that enemy on a daily basis, into the ground with their booth after victory.

Now imagine a century and half later a moral outcry arose in that country among the young people in that nation, folks who had never lived in a time when killing in combat existed. And they suddenly decided not that any person who had engaged in this primitive act was evil but only that the people who'd done it in their country were.

So they decided to go to those states and spit in the faces of these descendants of their long-dead enemy, and tear down the statues of long-dead heroes, statues that were often put up for all sorts of reasons that had nothing to do with killing. Completely ignoring that these folks had simply been the last hangers-on of a primitive practice that, until 150 years ago, had existed in all cultures since the dawn of humanity.

You may still disagree that tearing those statues down would be wrong, but can you see that arguing this is not promoting slavery but simply trying to put it in the context of the times, so as to assert that attacking these statues and these people is wrong? That the tearing-down behavior was an unnecessary stirring of the pot that just created further animosity between the races, between the north and south, for no logical reason?

Slave-owners were not evil.

Humanity, however, has been known to do evil things, and the everyday custom of one time is the barbaric abomination of another.

Every white man believes he would be the one to protest slavery if he were born into times when slavery was the norm. Every black man likes to think he would refuse to enslave others if he were of a time and people holding the keys to the shackles. Every single human on Earth loves to believe that if they'd been German in the Holocaust they'd have turned their rifle on their countrymen and sounded the alarm.

These are naive assumptions about the nature of evil that lies within us all.

And by refusing to see that the slave owners were not necessarily any different than others, we not only ensure we'll never understand those who disagree on the issue, but we ignore the true lessons of history and condemn ourselves to one way or another repeat them.

Anyhow, that was his point about slavery (obviously I've elaborated on the general stance here). The other stuff he said is pretty trollish, but this particular one about tearing down statues is valid, in my opinion, and one held by many of us.

Moving on, and this isn't directed at you, Fortis, because I didn't see you saying it, I don't get the people lashing out at him specifically because he's rich.

Case in point: The dude is an incredibly rich cuck faggot.

You tack "incredibly rich" on there like it's some kind of insult?? Then you complain about how many rooms are in his mansions and that you still have to work for a living.

Whoah. What is with the hating on rich people?

He's racist. I get it, and while I think he has some poignant points, I agree he's racist. Dislike him for that then.

But this forum is one of the last places I expect to see people exhibit socialist tendencies like expressly pointing at success as a reason for livid resentment. I expect to see this sort of emotional disdain for winners in the living rooms of my friends and family in liberal North California when I visit home but I don't expect to see it here.

It reminds me of the way leftists constantly point and scream "rich old white man."

If a rich old man is an asshole, fine, he's an asshole.

But he's not necessarily an asshole because he's a rich old white man.

[Johnnyvee]

Not to sound like an arrogant cunt myself, but many guys posting about Faber in this thread seem to know very little about who he really is personally, and what he stands for.
Having been a fan since say 2005 I know a bit about the man.

First of all he`s not super-rich as some claim. Wealthy yes, but relatively modest.
Accusing him of racism when he lives in Thailand and is married to a Thai woman not very clever.
He has also donated a lot towards the education of impoverished children in Thailand, so again
hard to accuse him of racism.
I`m very surprised that a hardcore red-pill, non-PC guy who`s in our corner as someone said above is attacked by so many ROK forum members. (People I respect a lot I might add.)

Of course he is not always right, but he`s certainly been more right than wrong over the years.
It still remains to be seen however, whether his main prediction throughout the last couple of decades will come to fruition, which would be hyperinflation and/or debt default in the US, and a resulting global financial cataclysm the likes of which the world has never seen.
Unfortunately I think he will be proven right on this eventually.

[Laska]

Isn't racism just a word people use to accuse others of overestimating racial differences in some way?

[fenetre]

Response from Faber to an email message I sent:

(It's a generalised response he's obviously sending out to all those who contact him. The italicised text appears to be general questions he's been receiving.)

Quote:

This is the context in which I wrote my view. Please see page 6.

Furthermore, some issues are addressed below.


I understand the context of what your wrote, but regardless people are interpreting it as racist as you are clearly stating the superiority of the whites in comparison to blacks.

From the perspective of economic progress and development clearly.

Is the world a better place after 200 years of Western economic and political as well as military superiority? No, we whites have been extremely cruel, but I sometime wonder if other ethnic groups would have been any better????


Do you have any regrets about that or do you stand by your comments?

Why should I regret stating historic facts?


Is there anything you would take back if you had to do it again?

No


Would you still write what you wrote knowing what has transpired? i.e. big backlash in the public, and being sacked from the 3 boards in Canada.

If saying what I said leads to these consequences I prefer not to be on these boards.


Does the backlash bother you, or are you immune to this?

It bothers me greatly that I had to hear all the time I was at school and at University about enlightenment, freedom of speech and of expression and that the media nowadays did not find anything better to do than to label me as racist. To call someone a racist is a form of low blow insult. Insult is the response of the weak to strength of character.


Will the financial impact from losing income from those lost board seats impact you in a big way, or does it not really matter?

It will be a huge loss. I shall go back to being a waiter.


Have you had a significant amount of subscribers cancel their subscriptions to your newsletter as a result of the controversy?

No, I think most people actually agree with me and certainly defend freedom of expression even if it does no coincide with their views.


Does it bother you that the U.S. business channels say you will no longer be welcome as a guest?

It bothers me greatly that the media has become this biased against people with a different view.


Do you think the actions of the three companies (Ivanhoe, Sprott & Novagold) to ask you to resign was appropriate, or do you think you should be allowed to keep those board seats?

I think the corporate world is now run by compliance people. In this context I understand their firing me. In the meantime another two companies asked me to resign - so 5 in one day.


Do you see any hypocrisy at all from the three companies in asking for your resignation?

Unfortunately, Western societies have become extremely hypocritical. Their so called moral superiority will take them down.


Are these companies as moral and upstanding as they profess to be? Below is what the three companies released yesterday. As you can see Sprott and Ivanhoe clearly state they have certain values that they uphold rigorously. Do you think they actually adhere to these values or is this lip service designed to protect themselves?


Morals in the corporate world? "When it comes to money, everybody is of the same religion" = Voltaire. I am not God. I am not here to judge other people. One CEO stated that I must have been on some drugs when I wrote my Gloom Boom & Doom report. Since I have only taken Cocaine three times and marijuana about ten times in seventy years, I did not think these were appropriate comments.


Have any of the companies privately told you something different than what is in the statements below?


Numerous board members have expressed their regrets that I am leaving their board and actually invited me to stay at their homes.


Kind regards

Marc

[Fortis]

(10-19-2017 01:18 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 03:44 AM)Fortis Wrote:  

On the topic of his mentioning of slavery and why I think it's a troll point:

I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone on this forum condoning slavery in this day and age. Hell, I imagine you'd find very few Westerners who find the idea of enslaving other groups appealing.

I took his point on slavery as some tongue 'n' cheek jab at one of the holy cows of American politics (anti-slavery rhetoric). If he's actually trying to say "yay! slavery!" then I stand by my point that's a really weird thing coming from anyone who considers themselves a Westerner. I read it as something sarcastic and put in for humor. Sorta like the "let's eat babies" thing from Swift's Modest Proposal.


It makes a scathing attack on American politics into a tirade of head-scratching quality.

With all due respect, Fortis, I think you're still missing the point. He's not condoning slavery and certainly not saying "yay slavery."

What he's saying is it's silly to demonize men who had slaves in a time when having slaves had recently been an acceptable practice and had been for thousands and thousands of years.

For example, every country on this Earth has killed other men in the name of what we call war. Some people might find this barbaric beyond comprehension, and if you read "On Killing," it does seem to collide with our nature.

It seems an outlandish idea, but hypothetically, let's say we reached a point in human "evolution" where we managed to abolish all killing of another country's men in the name of war.

Imagine then, that at least one half of one country held out longer than the others and continued this practice (actually there are still places around the world where people have slaves now), but finally they had a civil war and were forced to surrender on the issue and join the rest of their country in moving past the practice.

While they had lost, their countrymen allowed them to largely hold on to their culture and the statues of their heroes, as is often done in war to minimize resentment in a defeated enemy. It does not behoove a victor to grind an enemy, especially when they have to live with that enemy on a daily basis, into the ground with their booth after victory.

Now imagine a century and half later a moral outcry arose in that country among the young people in that nation, folks who had never lived in a time when killing in combat existed. And they suddenly decided not that any person who had engaged in this primitive act was evil but only that the people who'd done it in their country were.

So they decided to go to those states and spit in the faces of these descendants of their long-dead enemy, and tear down the statues of long-dead heroes, statues that were often put up for all sorts of reasons that had nothing to do with killing. Completely ignoring that these folks had simply been the last hangers-on of a primitive practice that, until 150 years ago, had existed in all cultures since the dawn of humanity.

You may still disagree that tearing those statues down would be wrong, but can you see that arguing this is not promoting slavery but simply trying to put it in the context of the times, so as to assert that attacking these statues and these people is wrong? That the tearing-down behavior was an unnecessary stirring of the pot that just created further animosity between the races, between the north and south, for no logical reason?

Slave-owners were not evil.

Humanity, however, has been known to do evil things, and the everyday custom of one time is the barbaric abomination of another.

Every white man believes he would be the one to protest slavery if he were born into times when slavery was the norm. Every black man likes to think he would refuse to enslave others if he were of a time and people holding the keys to the shackles. Every single human on Earth loves to believe that if they'd been German in the Holocaust they'd have turned their rifle on their countrymen and sounded the alarm.

These are naive assumptions about the nature of evil that lies within us all.

And by refusing to see that the slave owners were not necessarily any different than others, we not only ensure we'll never understand those who disagree on the issue, but we ignore the true lessons of history and condemn ourselves to one way or another repeat them.

Anyhow, that was his point about slavery (obviously I've elaborated on the general stance here). The other stuff he said is pretty trollish, but this particular one about tearing down statues is valid, in my opinion, and one held by many of us.

Moving on, and this isn't directed at you, Fortis, because I didn't see you saying it, I don't get the people lashing out at him specifically because he's rich.

Case in point: The dude is an incredibly rich cuck faggot.

You tack "incredibly rich" on there like it's some kind of insult?? Then you complain about how many rooms are in his mansions and that you still have to work for a living.

Whoah. What is with the hating on rich people?

He's racist. I get it, and while I think he has some poignant points, I agree he's racist. Dislike him for that then.

But this forum is one of the last places I expect to see people exhibit socialist tendencies like expressly pointing at success as a reason for livid resentment. I expect to see this sort of emotional disdain for winners in the living rooms of my friends and family in liberal North California when I visit home but I don't expect to see it here.

It reminds me of the way leftists constantly point and scream "rich old white man."

If a rich old man is an asshole, fine, he's an asshole.

But he's not necessarily an asshole because he's a rich old white man.

Sup, BB.

I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but a few people seem to be putting words in my mouth. I did not say he was condoning slavery. I even said that few Western men would condone such an act. Faber is a Swede IIRC so he would be included in that group of Western men.

I never said he was racist. I generally avoid throwing that term around since, much like the JQ, it tends to take the wind out of the sails of an otherwise good discussion.

Whatever we might say about Faber, I don't think we would say that he's maniacally rubbing his hands together at the idea of a new era of slavery. I never said that and I hope that my writing did not come across as me accusing him of saying that.

But that is exactly why I read the entire thing as a big troll. While he might have thrown in some cool facts,

I never really touched on the point of tearing down statues, so I'm not really gonna bother addressing that. Hope you get where I'm coming from on that. It's largely a *shrug* thing for me. Whether or not those statues remain standing, I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing.

I am puzzled about many things in the elaborate Faber troll though.

He gets fired from companies that he built up and decides to, metaphorically, die on the hill of "thank god the world is run by blacks?" That's a very bizarre point to go out on. It may or may not be the truth. I sure as fuck don't know. I've never lived in A predominantly Black nation, but I've also never really entertained the idea of "what would the world be like if it were run by Race (X)." That really is just something I'd be out of my depth even speculating on. Faber's probably a lot smarter than me, being a rich dude living the life in Thailand, but I read the entire thing as him trying to have a last Hurrah of riling people up before returning to his Thai lair. Whatever floats his boat.

I suspect that this might have even been an attempt to smudge the image of the companies he was working with. I really don't know.

I read it as spiteful trolling. It may have very well triggered some people, but it also seemed like it was written by a guy who had been triggered by something and decided to use his reach to try and swipe out at whatever may have triggered him.

Anyway, BB, I hope that cleared up my position a bit better.

Time for my tangent

Ultimately, I don't see this as a sign that rich "boomercucks" are suddenly waking up. We've already seen what happens when you go too hard after the beliefs of certain segments of the population. I know I've done it with game knowledge. Very rarely does it lead to an actual change. More often than not, you just further reinforce the person's worldview. I think we call it the backfire effect?

I'm pretty sure Faber might have buttressed the lefty world views of many of his lefty readers out there.

But hey, I love a delicious troll as much as anyone and Faber delivered.

[Bill Brasky]

I've never been one for being gratuitous with offensiveness but it's the left that makes this sort of thing almost relieving to hear. Mostly just because it pisses the left off. It's like San Hyde's standup routine in Brooklyn where he sits in front of a bunch of shitlibs on stage and just starts reciting statistics about homosexuality nearly verbatim, triggering everyone in the room. I can't watch that video without laughing my ass off and being in a good mood the rest of the day.

SJWs have turned their torment into my best form of entertainment.

I'll also say that I agree with QQ that the guy probably is a fucking old Swiss prick and probably shouldn't be an example to emulate. There is a fine line between necessary realtalk and indulging in just being offensive for its own sake.

EDIT: I'll also add that the left has also made outbursts like this monetizable. Sure many would be fired over this but someone like Farber is going to actually make money from this regardless of being off the boards of a few organizations.