Page 2 of 2 [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

31 Jan 2009, 6:58 pm

Fnord wrote:
codarac wrote:
Organized Jewry opposes free speech.

* NEWS FLASH! *

Every religious organization opposes free speech!

Especially when what is being said involves a scientific interpretation of reality.

The jews are no better or worse at it than any pseudo-teutonic national-socialist wannabe party, papist, or anti-papist sect.


Well said!


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Jan 2009, 9:16 pm

Thank God for the First Amendment! Baruch ha'Shem!

Just for the record I am a highly organized Jew and I do not oppose Free Speech, even if it is anti-semitic. Everyone has the right to his own opinion. What he does not have a right to is his own personal facts.

ruveyn



Ah_Q
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 565
Location: The Freezer

31 Jan 2009, 10:49 pm

codarac wrote:
I’ve made several posts in this forum pointing out the peculiar situation in the Western world where the white majority (too preoccupised with questions like Democrats v Republicans or Dallas Cowboys v Denver Broncos or whatever) almost never organise along racial lines (or are demonised for doing so) whereas the non-whites among them organise along racial lines constantly.

It's never good anytime a whole bunch of white people get together and start organizing around their interests as white people. It always leads to trouble. First World whites are not oppressed and there is no good reason for them to be organized as such.


_________________
I live!


history_of_psychiatry
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,105
Location: X

01 Feb 2009, 12:48 am

Ah_Q wrote:
codarac wrote:
I’ve made several posts in this forum pointing out the peculiar situation in the Western world where the white majority (too preoccupised with questions like Democrats v Republicans or Dallas Cowboys v Denver Broncos or whatever) almost never organise along racial lines (or are demonised for doing so) whereas the non-whites among them organise along racial lines constantly.

It's never good anytime a whole bunch of white people get together and start organizing around their interests as white people. It always leads to trouble. First World whites are not oppressed and there is no good reason for them to be organized as such.


That's almost as stupid as what codarac said. Sure white people are probably the least oppressed of the races, but reverse descrimination will always exist in some form. Also, just because a bunch of whites get together doesn't mean they are all racist.


_________________
X


history_of_psychiatry
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,105
Location: X

01 Feb 2009, 12:54 am

codarac wrote:
Orwell wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Keep up with the times, man. Don't you know it's the Illuminati/Freemasons who are responsible for everything that's gone wrong ever? (Or at least, they are this year)


Actually, it's the NWO in general.

And the reptilians. Don't forget the reptilians.


Well I imagine that straw man might raise a chuckle among the easily amused.

sartresue wrote:
Using the outdated terminology "Jewry" gives his hiding place away.



God help us ...
Right, so the powers that be dictate what language is acceptable, and anyone who doesn't keep up is a thought criminal.
That reminds me, I haven't chastised my grandmother lately for referring to 'coloureds’.

Delirium wrote:
Kevin MacDonald? You have to be f***ing sh*****g me.

He is a JOKE. The only people that take him seriously are neo-Nazis that want somebody to back up their repugnant views.



Who told you that? The SPLC? The ADL? Fox News?

California State University clearly took him seriously enough to make him a tenured professor.

history_of_psychiatry wrote:
Ohh, god. It's the white supremacist buttmunch again. "Waaa! Blacks and Jews are terrible! Wahhhh!"


Who are you?

Orwell wrote:

Besides, given your history here, all your posts follow an identical pattern: Jews are evil and part of a massive conspiracy to enslave the world.



Rubbish.
I’ve made several posts in this forum pointing out the peculiar situation in the Western world where the white majority (too preoccupised with questions like Democrats v Republicans or Dallas Cowboys v Denver Broncos or whatever) almost never organise along racial lines (or are demonised for doing so) whereas the non-whites among them organise along racial lines constantly. Jews would be included in the latter category, and Jewish ethnic activism is noteworthy for the fact that (i) its influence is disproportionately large, and (ii) it is often dressed up as something else (eg, ‘fighting hate’) and we are not even supposed to notice it.

I know this is a sensitive subject. I know how shocked I was when I first came across Kevin Macdonald’s columns.
But seriously, is it really the job of the United States to monitor global antisemitism or to lecture the Poles on what their attitudes to homosexuality should be?


Who am I? I may be a lot of things depending on who you ask. And know what? I don't agree with zionism or organized religion either. But that doesn't mean that "organized jewry" (or organized christianity or islam) as a whole is against free speech.


_________________
X


Fluffybunnyfeet
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 113
Location: New Zealand

01 Feb 2009, 12:56 am

I'm more worried about Disorganized Jewry. A klutz can do a lot of damage.

Please do not feed the troll.



Rjaye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 823

01 Feb 2009, 2:49 am

Fluffybunnyfeet wrote:
I'm more worried about Disorganized Jewry. A klutz can do a lot of damage.


And we have a winner!



Ah_Q
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 565
Location: The Freezer

01 Feb 2009, 3:09 am

history_of_psychiatry wrote:
Ah_Q wrote:
codarac wrote:
I’ve made several posts in this forum pointing out the peculiar situation in the Western world where the white majority (too preoccupised with questions like Democrats v Republicans or Dallas Cowboys v Denver Broncos or whatever) almost never organise along racial lines (or are demonised for doing so) whereas the non-whites among them organise along racial lines constantly.

It's never good anytime a whole bunch of white people get together and start organizing around their interests as white people. It always leads to trouble. First World whites are not oppressed and there is no good reason for them to be organized as such.


That's almost as stupid as what codarac said. Sure white people are probably the least oppressed of the races, but reverse descrimination will always exist in some form. Also, just because a bunch of whites get together doesn't mean they are all racist.

That is not what the post is refering to. Read. The post was a response to Codarac justifying white nationalism. Read. The post was about white nationalism. Not about any group that happens to be majority white. Do you think white nationalism is OK? If you do then I have nothing else to say to you.


_________________
I live!


history_of_psychiatry
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,105
Location: X

01 Feb 2009, 3:15 am

Ah_Q wrote:
history_of_psychiatry wrote:
Ah_Q wrote:
codarac wrote:
I’ve made several posts in this forum pointing out the peculiar situation in the Western world where the white majority (too preoccupised with questions like Democrats v Republicans or Dallas Cowboys v Denver Broncos or whatever) almost never organise along racial lines (or are demonised for doing so) whereas the non-whites among them organise along racial lines constantly.

It's never good anytime a whole bunch of white people get together and start organizing around their interests as white people. It always leads to trouble. First World whites are not oppressed and there is no good reason for them to be organized as such.


That's almost as stupid as what codarac said. Sure white people are probably the least oppressed of the races, but reverse descrimination will always exist in some form. Also, just because a bunch of whites get together doesn't mean they are all racist.

That is not what the post is refering to. Read. The post was a response to Codarac justifying white nationalism. Read. The post was about white nationalism. Not about any group that happens to be majority white. Do you think white nationalism is OK? If you do then I have nothing else to say to you.


I was disagreeing with him as well. I don't think supremacy is ok period. I guess I just misunderstood you.


_________________
X


Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

01 Feb 2009, 3:38 am

I didn't read your first post either. The first rule in persuasion is to assume you are speaking to 5th graders. KISS. Keep it short and simple. t

If at first you don't succeed try again. I totally support PETA and the whores in Reno!! ! :smurfin:



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

01 Feb 2009, 4:04 am

codarac wrote:
California State University clearly took him seriously enough to make him a tenured professor.


"California State University" is not the name of a legitimate state U in California.
You mean "CSU - Long Beach." Kevin MacDonald is a professor of "evolutionary psychology," which is about as scientific a field as phrenology.

Being a tenured professor does not necessarily mean that one is not a quack; tenure at most universities is based first on how much one has published, second on how much one's published work has been cited by others, third on how popular one is with students, and only lastly on whether or not the university endorses the content of the published work. If this guy vomits up a paper a year on how evil this or that (non-white) group is, backed up by any numbers at all (no matter how dubious), and that work is regularly cited by its captive audience of loser-skinhead-drones, he'd be almost guaranteed to get tenure.