[Kapanda]

(12-06-2017 11:34 AM)Bill Brasky Wrote:  

I've never been more convinced that western governments utterly hate their citizens and would mass murder everyone if they could get away with it.

The fact that Roosh was banned yet imams call for Jihad and blatantly state that they want to bring sharia to the west are completely protected by the state has left me with no other conclusion.

You're going too far. They deal in votes. Public sentiment is such that the imams have some popular support beyond Islam - although, I know that under Blair hateful imams were swiftly deported, and I am a little inclined to believe more that these imams are tasteless, and their tastelessness is here being stretched to "jihad".

Anyway, Roosh does not even register regarding votes. They could have made a principled decision that could then be weaponized against them in the popular progressive circles, or just ban him and end the story. Practically speaking, the decision was easy.

[EvanWilson]

Wait, am I understanding this correctly?

The Home Secretary issued the ban on Feb 05 2016, but only informed Roosh on November 22, 2017; and only after someone (Roosh?) made a records request?

Prior to the records request, no one, including Roosh, knew that the Home Secretary had issued such a ban?

As a followup, I do seem to recall or thought I heard mentioned in one of the debates, one of the MPs mentioning having either MI5 or MI6 'look into the group' i.e. all of us here?

I also seem to recall that there was one brief mention on the floor of the EU, shortly after the House of Commons mention; although I suppose it would be kind of humorous, in a dark humor manner, if somehow all of us got banned from the EU, mean while, there are non profit groups that apparently go to the Libya coast and illegally shuttle boat loads of refugees to Europe with no problem, plus set them up with living arrangements at the governments expense.

[Mercenary]

(12-07-2017 09:48 PM)EvanWilson Wrote:  

Wait, am I understanding this correctly?

The Home Secretary issued the ban on Feb 05 2016, but only informed Roosh on November 22, 2017; and only after someone (Roosh?) made a records request?

Prior to the records request, no one, including Roosh, knew that the Home Secretary had issued such a ban?

The ban was decided 4th of Feb as stated in the letter, the same day as the parliamentary debate...not 5th Feb as you wrote above.

He mentions at the start of the video he got a letter back in 2016 but his father threw it out (or lost it) cause he was getting so much hate mail back then. Don't forget, in February 2016 the hacking group anonymous published his private address online back then and put Roosh and his entire family at serious risk of attack.

Roosh addresses most of this madness during his epic & legendary press conference in Washington DC on the evening of 6th of February 2016 just after the worldwide meetups were cancelled.

[fuckoff]

Roosh not welcome!!
ISIS welcome!

Who cares if you're banned from a western country. I would be so depressed if one of my Eastern countries banned me, fuck the west!!!

[fuckoff]

All Roosh has to do if he wants in is dress up as a Muslim child and he will be welcomed in tomorrow!

[Conscious Pirate]

^ Even their beards are not as impressive as Roosh's growth. Notice the subtle grey hues? Delightful. He'll have a hard time with that plan. He's better off with a burka.

[Buck Wild]

Don't worry Roosh--all you need to do is dress up like a radical iman and preach death to their citizenry and they'll readmit you at once.

[Samseau]

https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/m...ranslation

Quote:

* (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

* (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

Once upon a time, the English had balls. How the mighty have fallen.

[EvanWilson]

(12-07-2017 10:12 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 09:48 PM)EvanWilson Wrote:  

Wait, am I understanding this correctly?

The Home Secretary issued the ban on Feb 05 2016, but only informed Roosh on November 22, 2017; and only after someone (Roosh?) made a records request?

Prior to the records request, no one, including Roosh, knew that the Home Secretary had issued such a ban?

The ban was decided 4th of Feb as stated in the letter, the same day as the parliamentary debate...not 5th Feb as you wrote above.

He mentions at the start of the video he got a letter back in 2016 but his father threw it out (or lost it) cause he was getting so much hate mail back then. Don't forget, in February 2016 the hacking group anonymous published his private address online back then and put Roosh and his entire family at serious risk of attack.

Roosh addresses most of this madness during his epic & legendary press conference in Washington DC on the evening of 6th of February 2016 just after the worldwide meetups were cancelled.

I do remember watching the press conference video, both live and then a replay later.

I think the thing that shocked me the most about the press conference was when Roosh asked who had read his article, and we found out that NONE of the reporters had read it! How can a reporter write a news story on an article if they did not read it?

[kuros]

(12-06-2017 08:47 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Link to the official letter Roosh got from the UK government:


https://imgur.com/a/ovlOF

How did you get this personal letter that was addressed to Roosh himself?

[Renton1875]

[Mercenary]

(12-12-2017 09:27 AM)kuros Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 08:47 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Link to the official letter Roosh got from the UK government:


https://imgur.com/a/ovlOF

How did you get this personal letter that was addressed to Roosh himself?

Roosh posted it in a link below his youtube video.

[david.garrett84]

[911]

(12-07-2017 10:12 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 09:48 PM)EvanWilson Wrote:  

Wait, am I understanding this correctly?

The Home Secretary issued the ban on Feb 05 2016, but only informed Roosh on November 22, 2017; and only after someone (Roosh?) made a records request?

Prior to the records request, no one, including Roosh, knew that the Home Secretary had issued such a ban?

The ban was decided 4th of Feb as stated in the letter, the same day as the parliamentary debate...not 5th Feb as you wrote above.

He mentions at the start of the video he got a letter back in 2016 but his father threw it out (or lost it) cause he was getting so much hate mail back then. Don't forget, in February 2016 the hacking group anonymous published his private address online back then and put Roosh and his entire family at serious risk of attack.

Roosh addresses most of this madness during his epic & legendary press conference in Washington DC on the evening of 6th of February 2016 just after the worldwide meetups were cancelled.

Good conference, thanks for sharing.

The message from Roosh's infamous rape article-parody is basically the same one that Camille Paglia articulated recently about the campus rape hysteria: that women share a degree of responsibility. They've asked for and obtained greater sexual freedom in the 1960s, but they've essentially refused to acknowledge that with that new freedom comes a degree of responsibility, which they are failing to live up to.

I think Roosh should point this out whenever he is attacked on this subject, the fact that a fairly respected, objective, intellectual feminist is in complete agreement with his seemingly controversial stance.

[roc_student]

"don't use physical force and don't keep going if she says no or stop...
Having sex with a girl who does not want to have sex with you is rape."
(from Roosh's book "Bang", p. 111)

Sure doesn't sound like a rapist to me.