Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Absolam · 05-03-2016 3:55am

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

An out group can be defined in a myriad of ways, immigrants, religious zealots, political extremists. Most common would be religious zealots and immigrants in the modern context, but in the 70's the likes of the Baader Meinhoff and various leftists would be out groups trying to take down their "host state".

So... immigrants then?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What the EU and Peter Sutherland suggest as regards immigration and sovereignty, would constitute a plan for demographic replacement in my book.

Can you say what this is exactly? Rather than me forming an opinion on what other people say it is, and wondering if my opinion matches your opinion of what they say?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Thats exactly what I am suggesting. I make no bones about it. Ireland is the country of the Irish people as a whole, we have already seen the northern quarter lopped off by mass immigration, its not like we dont have current examples of this happening the world over, see "Kosovo", a heap of muslim Albanians carving out their own state in Serbia, the "Rohyingya", aka Bangladeshi muslims in Burma etc etc.

So the Irish people as a whole don't include immigrants? If we're excluding planters, are we excluding Normans? Vikings? Celts? What does it take to be part of the whole?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Ireland is the state of the Irish people, a demographic homeland. For a minority so somehow have the right to advocate for demographic change to our disadvantage, its insanity. Its colonialism under a liberal, "right on" cloak.

When did Ireland become a single demographic (nor yet the homeland of one)? We may not be the most diverse population in the world, but we've a bit. Are we to disenfranchise everyone who falls outside your demographic? And still, we now have to contend with the concept of advocating for demographic change on top of demographic replacement. Can you explain what that's supposed to mean? Is it simple as people from Pakistan ought not to be allowed express the opinion that it would be nice if their family could come live with them?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Yes it is, but when you are planning a soft coup/soft colonialism, you lose that right. You are acting against the interests of the host nation and host people. Its borderline treason.

I have a feeling we're dipping our toes in the murky waters of another forum here, but.... soft coup/colonialism? I'm not aware of anything that says you lose a right because you're planning something that's not a crime, are you? Is there an agency somewhere that keeps tags on people planning this stuff? Has anyone granted them authority to remove peoples rights? In short, are we talking men in black and tinfoil hats?

Nodin · 05-03-2016 6:52am

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

That is the only research I have found on the subject, what he is, is irrelevant, his paper on that issue is correct. I havent seen a rebuttal of it, if you have one, post it. Id be more than happy to read it.

He's an anti-semetic white supremacist, so it sort of does it for itself.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Why do people and various special interest groups call for mass immigration? Its not specifically "multiculturalism".
Depends on the group, I could list the motivations, or try to, their motivations are irrelevant really, stopping conflict, multiculturalism, religious reasons, fear of persecution, fear of nationalism, ethnic solidarity, religious solidarity, breaking down national homogeneity in the case of the EU/Peter Sutherland, marxist workers type stuff, it really doesnt matter.
.

It does, so do please explain.

JPNelsforearm · 05-03-2016 5:27pm

Nodin wrote: »

He's an anti-semetic white supremacist, so it sort of does it for itself.

It does, so do please explain.

Fair enough, I thought it was a good read.

Why does someones motivations, or rather, a groups motivations matter when the end result is the same? Its not a court of law, motive is irrelevant. Their stated goal is all that matters.

Take for instance Paul Murphy and Peter Sutherland, they both support open borders, their motivations for doing so are entirely different.

Why should I, or anyone, care what direction or political bent their motivations stems from? Why does it matter when the end result both are looking for is the same?

JPNelsforearm · 05-03-2016 6:54pm

Absolam wrote: »

So... immigrants then?

Not in the Irish case, religious groups, NGO's alongside various lefties and pro EU politicians are the main groups promoting open borders. At last count there are over 200 NGO's involved in "refugee" aka mass immigration industry, lobbying, compared to two in the contra camp.
Immigrants in Ireland are not the outgroup who are setting policy, or lobbying for policy change. Their numbers as a whole are not problematic. They are at a small and stable level, hence we dont have all of the problems the British, Scandavians and those on the continent have. Immigrants in Ireland are not the outgroup, Irish people themselves are.

Can you say what this is exactly? Rather than me forming an opinion on what other people say it is, and wondering if my opinion matches your opinion of what they say?

What do you want to know exactly,so many utterances, his twitter is goldmine for how far removed the EU fossils are from reality, still stuck in the post ww2 utopianism. Im actually going to start a thread on him, he would be hilarious if he wasnt a man of influence. I'll just post a few of his twitter utterances, but there are heaps of videos of the man on YT. "demographic replacement"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395
https://twitter.com/PDSutherlandUN/status/703488738165465088?lang=en
https://twitter.com/PDSutherlandUN/status/683364450800386048?lang=en
https://twitter.com/PDSutherlandUN/status/674750330140295169?lang=en
https://twitter.com/PDSutherlandUN/status/647524803117719552?lang=en
https://twitter.com/PDSutherlandUN/status/644064750482141184?lang=en
https://twitter.com/PDSutherlandUN/status/643824517547204613?lang=en

So the Irish people as a whole don't include immigrants? If we're excluding planters, are we excluding Normans? Vikings? Celts? What does it take to be part of the whole?

"Planters", British colonisers excluded themselves and eventually carved out their own state, as happens the world over, no exclusion on my part or anyone's for that matter.
The Irish genetic make up is fairly consistent, simply fitting that rough template, halpogroups et all would indicate one is Irish.... We have been on this Island for what 3k years?

When did Ireland become a single demographic (nor yet the homeland of one)? We may not be the most diverse population in the world, but we've a bit. Are we to disenfranchise everyone who falls outside your demographic? And still, we now have to contend with the concept of advocating for demographic change on top of demographic replacement. Can you explain what that's supposed to mean? Is it simple as people from Pakistan ought not to be allowed express the opinion that it would be nice if their family could come live with them?

Well, it really is the wrong thread for this, but Ireland has been the homeland of a fairly consistent demographic(looking at it genetically) for longer than it has been a state. Aside from genetic similarity, we have language, culture, shared history and identity, national sport etc. We were in essence a single demographic up until the early nineties.

The Pakistani family, or any immigrant family are not the issue, they are individuals who have come here legally and are availing of their right to a family life etc, protected under the constitution and Im sure many other treaties etc.

I wouldnt overtly disenfranchise any immigrant group, I would have a referendum before any group has the weight of numbers to make disenfranchisement necessary and institute constitutional amendments, eg like the 27th amendment. But as I said above, immigrant groups are not the problem, I dont think you will find a post from me laying into anyone who has legally immigrated to Ireland simply by dint of them being an immigrant.

Institute immigration and EU treaty reform, setting realistic and healthy limits for the type of person you want entering the nation. Take for instance, 39% of African immigrants to Ireland are unemployed, is that healthy? For them? for the state? Is that a trend we should embrace? Its basically breeding the poverty and segregation that exists in the US, Britain and Central and Northern Europe. But hey Irish exceptionalism will kick in and this wont be a problem...

I have a feeling we're dipping our toes in the murky waters of another forum here, but.... soft coup/colonialism? I'm not aware of anything that says you lose a right because you're planning something that's not a crime, are you? Is there an agency somewhere that keeps tags on people planning this stuff? Has anyone granted them authority to remove peoples rights? In short, are we talking men in black and tinfoil hats?

Well, its not a "crime" in the conventional sense, but it is against international law, every peoples have a right to a homeland,, the EU, and it is the EU(along with their Irish lackeys) we are talking about, they are setting the tone. A tone of "demographic change" and a "destruction of national identity and homogeneity", and "mass immigration being a permanent and positive reality".

You cant really get more clear cut than that, talk about native Americans in that way or any self identified group, whether they have a genetic basis or not, and people would call you a racist, a supporter of colonialism and imperialism, because that is what it is imo, soft colonialism couched in the language of economics and PC speak.

No we are not talking tinfoil hat stuff.I can verify anything you want. I get my information from government stats, press releases, demographic trends etc.

Nodin · 05-03-2016 6:57pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Fair enough, I thought it was a good read.

Why does someones motivations, or rather, a groups motivations matter when the end result is the same? Its not a court of law, motive is irrelevant. Their stated goal is all that matters.

Take for instance Paul Murphy and Peter Sutherland, they both support open borders, their motivations for doing so are entirely different.

Why should I, or anyone, care what direction or political bent their motivations stems from? Why does it matter when the end result both are looking for is the same?

Yes, once you're all marching towards ze the same goal its grand, isn't it.

=JPNelsforearm wrote:

No we are not talking tinfoil hat stuff.I can verify anything you want. I get my
information from government stats, press releases, demographic trends etc.

Many conspiracy theorists thrive on facts. They can do so because they come to erroneous conclusions based on them, make false linkages and so on.

jpnelsforearm wrote:

Depends on the group, I could list the motivations, or try to, their motivations are irrelevant really, stopping conflict, multiculturalism, religious reasons, fear of persecution, fear of nationalism, ethnic solidarity, religious solidarity, breaking down national homogeneity in the case of the EU/Peter Sutherland, marxist workers type stuff, it really doesnt matter.

Please do so, with regards to the Jewish groups in particular. Your own words please.

Nodin · 05-03-2016 7:01pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

My goodness, this thread has gotten very full of dog whistles recently.

I thought I heard singing myself.....
"Die Fahne hoch, Die Reihen fest geschlossen!......" or something along those lines

JPNelsforearm · 05-03-2016 7:28pm

Nodin wrote: »

Please do so, with regards to the Jewish groups in particular. Your own words please.

Why jewish groups? Why not Hispanic groups or Catholic groups? This is irrelevant in the Irish and European context anyway, I dont really care, the only reason I ever mentioned them was you bringing up the SPLC.

My own words, as in my interpretation of what they say? Or what I think their motivations are? Beyond the obvious "humanitarian" "one world" love speak? I already posted what the head of the "Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society" said.

I'll post it again.
http://forward.com/news/179296/jews-unite-behind-push-for-immigration-reform/
"“It’s the ethical thing to do,” said HIAS president and CEO Mark Hetfield, of the community’s immigration reform activism. But he quickly added, “It’s in our strategic interest.”

"As Jews, we should promote policies that fulfill the Torah’s mandate to “welcome the stranger because we were strangers in the land of Egypt.” We have a long history as a people of migration, and we know that generous and effective immigration policies have often made the difference between life and death, between grinding poverty and the opportunity for success.

As Jews, we must remember that we are commanded to welcome the strangers — not because they are Jews, but because we are Jews."

As an addendum to that.

Salas counted efforts by Jewish organizations as second only to Catholic groups in their impact.

But hey though, anti semitism is an easier sell than anti catholicism, I understand.

Are they driven by some form of religious compunction? a drive to subvert the demographic make up for the same reason Peter Sutherland has, a fear of war and ethnic cleansing driven by a nationalist state? The same fears any minority has, that the majority will turn on them, so they promote immigration out of some form of solidarity?

I dont know why jewish groups in the US promote mass immigration, how can I know? Im not a psychologist. I'll readily admit my lack of knowledge as to motivation, as I said before motivations are irrelevant.

Nodin wrote: »

I thought I heard singing myself.....
"Die Fahne hoch, Die Reihen fest geschlossen!......" or something along those lines

Of course, "the n...n...n.....nazies":rolleyes: Because everyone who is anti immigration is a totes fascist loike.

preview.jpg~original

Nodin · 05-03-2016 9:33pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I dont know why jewish groups in the US promote mass immigration, how can I know? Im not a psychologist. I'll readily admit my lack of knowledge as to motivation, as I said before motivations are irrelevant.

But you just listed some reasons and earlier linked to a well known anti-Semite and white supremacist..........

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Of course, "the n...n...n.....nazies":rolleyes: Because everyone who is anti immigration is a totes fascist loike.

You regard the "jews" as a fifth column and are a racist. If somebody makes the leap from that to "Nazi" its not exactly a giant one.

Why are you aiming "totes facist loike" at me, might I ask? Am I supposed to be some upper class person with that kind of accent?

JPNelsforearm · 05-03-2016 10:03pm

Nodin wrote: »

But you just listed some reasons and earlier linked to a well known anti-Semite and white supremacist..........

You regard the "jews" as a fifth column and are a racist. If somebody makes the leap from that to "Nazi" its not exactly a giant one.

Why are you aiming "totes facist loike" at me, might I ask? Am I supposed to be some upper class person with that kind of accent?

I linked to that pdf as it is a good a read as any on the issue, as I said find me a rebuttal. the whole "muh racism, muh antisemitism" when it comes to immigration issues is so 1970's, its tiresome. Baby boomer bull****, the whole nazi stuff, just lol, its from a bygone era.

I regard jewish groups who promote mass immigration as a fifth column yes, same way I regard catholic groups, or hard left/marxist groups or EUrocrats in Ireland who do the same. Any group really, demographic replacement is a subversive and racist act, colonialism by any other name.

I am a "racist", yes, of course, we haven't heard this refrain before...

Quote anything racist I have said, ever, go on, you tried for three pages of ****e on another thread and still couldnt muster anything, but hey keep banging that marxist agitprop drum that anti-immigration=racism.

Your posts strike me as some "right on" Paul Murphy/Aodhan O Riordan champagne socialist type, so yes

Bristolscale7 · 05-03-2016 10:08pm

Trump supporters aren't the brightest. Let me explain. The general explanation of Trump's rise is that the ordinary republican voter has seen his or her standard of living decrease (average wages down by 10% or so since 2000) and for the past 12 to 16 years has voted the Republicans into power everywhere except the Presidency to 'fix' the economy. Well lo and behold, the dumb ****s, they're just now realizing that the Republican Party stands for corporate power (they're people afterall) and the 1%. Who'd a thunk it? So now you add Trump's Boulangism and these economic malcontents who can barely hold on to their used bass boats have a champion. It is of course delightful to see the Republican Party implode. The only downside is that the Democrats are putting up Hillary Clinton who is a corrupt, corporate hack, less human and more of a machine programmed with an electability algorithm. Trump vs. Clinton means a lot of voters on the left will stay home on election day. He's got real shot at it.

Nodin · 05-03-2016 10:24pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I linked to that pdf as it is a good a read as any on the issue, as I said find me a rebuttal. the whole "muh racism, muh antisemitism" when it comes to immigration issues is so 1970's, its tiresome. Baby boomer bull****, the whole nazi stuff, just lol, its from a bygone era.

You repatedly throw out racist and anti-Semitic nonsense from racists and anti-semites. People therefore draw the conclusion that you are in fact a racist and anti-Semite. Given the nonsense about Sutherland people may also presume you believe in some conspiracy theory or other, though which has not yet become clear.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Your posts strike me as some "right on" Paul Murphy/Aodhan O Riordan champagne socialist type, so yes

Your innocence is amusing is about all I can say to that. Believe what you will though.

KingBrian2 · 05-03-2016 11:14pm

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Trump supporters aren't the brightest. Let me explain. The general explanation of Trump's rise is that the ordinary republican voter has seen his or her standard of living decrease (average wages down by 10% or so since 2000) and for the past 12 to 16 years has voted the Republicans into power everywhere except the Presidency to 'fix' the economy. Well lo and behold, the dumb ****s, they're just now realizing that the Republican Party stands for corporate power (they're people afterall) and the 1%. Who'd a thunk it? So now you add Trump's Boulangism and these economic malcontents who can barely hold on to their used bass boats have a champion. It is of course delightful to see the Republican Party implode. The only downside is that the Democrats are putting up Hillary Clinton who is a corrupt, corporate hack, less human and more of a machine programmed with an electability algorithm. Trump vs. Clinton means a lot of voters on the left will stay home on election day. He's got real shot at it.

Trump has said some very mean spirited stuff live on air. That stuff won't sit well for many Republicans let alone Americans. Does he have a lot of support yes he does so did Bush. Bush was a populist president and he told a pack of lies to get the Nation to war. This coming from a man who was touted as a good Christian small gvt GOPer since then we have Rhino Republicans Neo Cons, Paleoconservatives, Libertarians, the Evangelicals. Trump can't take back the terrible statements he made. He has already written off a huge portion of the electorate to endear himself to the base. Enter Clinton the adversary of all GOP supporters.

Absolam · 06-03-2016 1:17am

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Not in the Irish case, religious groups, NGO's alongside various lefties and pro EU politicians are the main groups promoting open borders.

So, people who promote open borders are out groups, not immigrants? Where does that leave the planters now?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Immigrants in Ireland are not the outgroup, Irish people themselves are.

I think you need to explain a bit more. I'm really not getting anything like a coherent idea of what an out group is supposed to be?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What do you want to know exactly,so many utterances, his twitter is goldmine for how far removed the EU fossils are from reality, still stuck in the post ww2 utopianism.

Like I said, I want to know what you think demographic replacement is. What you think someone else thinks is really sort of second hand stuff.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"Planters", British colonisers excluded themselves and eventually carved out their own state, as happens the world over, no exclusion on my part or anyone's for that matter.

That's a pretty simplistic view of the plantations but doesn't answer my question; if the planters are excluded from your concept of the Irish people as a whole because they are immigrants what about the Normans, Vikings, and Celts? How are you deciding which immigrants are to be included?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The Irish genetic make up is fairly consistent, simply fitting that rough template, halpogroups et all would indicate one is Irish.... We have been on this Island for what 3k years?

The Irish genetic makeup is quite consistent with the Western European haplogroup R1b (which includes the likes of the planters) ; 3,000 years ago the most common haplogroup is thought to have been G. That's about 1% of the population now; should we be treating the other 99% as an 'out group'?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well, it really is the wrong thread for this, but Ireland has been the homeland of a fairly consistent demographic(looking at it genetically) for longer than it has been a state. Aside from genetic similarity, we have language, culture, shared history and identity, national sport etc. We were in essence a single demographic up until the early nineties.

I think you're stretching the word demographic; certainly genetically speaking you're miles wide. Culturally you can say the same about any country at all, it's not particularly noteworthy that the culture of one country is different from another, but I don't think student of demography would separate populations by political borders. Aren't the usual criteria things like factors such as age, race, sex, economic status, level of education, income level, employment, that sort of thing? By demographic criteria I would have said we have a plethora of demographics in Ireland, not just one.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The Pakistani family, or any immigrant family are not the issue, they are individuals who have come here legally and are availing of their right to a family life etc, protected under the constitution and Im sure many other treaties etc.

So, how big a family does it take to be colonialism under a liberal, "right on" cloak?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I wouldnt overtly disenfranchise any immigrant group, I would have a referendum before any group has the weight of numbers to make disenfranchisement necessary and institute constitutional amendments, eg like the 27th amendment. But as I said above, immigrant groups are not the problem, I dont think you will find a post from me laying into anyone who has legally immigrated to Ireland simply by dint of them being an immigrant.

But you would amend the Constitution to prevent them becoming citizens? Is that not pretty much the definition of overtly disenfranchising them? And why would anyone want to disenfranchise them anyway?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Institute immigration and EU treaty reform, setting realistic and healthy limits for the type of person you want entering the nation. Take for instance, 39% of African immigrants to Ireland are unemployed, is that healthy? For them? for the state? Is that a trend we should embrace? Its basically breeding the poverty and segregation that exists in the US, Britain and Central and Northern Europe. But hey Irish exceptionalism will kick in and this wont be a problem...

I'm a little supsicious of what you consider 'healthy limits for the type of person you want entering the nation', but we don't have an open immigration policy now. What specifically are you wanting to change and why?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well, its not a "crime" in the conventional sense, but it is against international law, every peoples have a right to a homeland,, the EU, and it is the EU(along with their Irish lackeys) we are talking about, they are setting the tone.

What international law? And where does it say every peoples have a right to a homeland, and what exactly is a people?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

A tone of "demographic change" and a "destruction of national identity and homogeneity", and "mass immigration being a permanent and positive reality".

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here, but I am concerned that you're proposing Constitutional change based on a 'tone'. And as Nodin has pointed out the 'tone' of terms like "destruction of national identity and homogeneity" is decidedly Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei type stuff.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

You cant really get more clear cut than that, talk about native Americans in that way or any self identified group, whether they have a genetic basis or not, and people would call you a racist, a supporter of colonialism and imperialism, because that is what it is imo, soft colonialism couched in the language of economics and PC speak.

I'm sure you could if you tried. how about soft coup/colonialism is specifically xxxx, as demonstrated by xxxx, and this is supported by xxxx. Because really this whole palaver about people setting tones and homelands and demographics without any sort of specifics.... it sounds a bit dodgy, you know?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No we are not talking tinfoil hat stuff.I can verify anything you want. I get my information from government stats, press releases, demographic trends etc.

Sure; you could answer the questions I asked and verify your answers with information from government stats, that would be good. Press releases probably not so convincing, and after your post I have to say you'd need to work hard to convince me about anything you're basing on 'demographic trends'.

Samaris · 06-03-2016 11:18am

Not to deliberately stir the pot or anything, but a bit more immigration would do the Irish haplogroups and whatnot no harm at all. Might reduce the levels of recessive gene illnesses (such as cystic fibrosis) expressing in our island-population stock.

recedite · 06-03-2016 1:17pm

Samaris wrote: »

a bit more immigration would do the Irish haplogroups and whatnot no harm at all. Might reduce the levels of recessive gene illnesses..

A certain amount is beneficial, provided they do in fact integrate and assimilate into the host population.
Whether that means "more" immigration is beneficial is another matter. Something like 100,000 naturalised citizens over the last year or so is a lot for a population of our size.

Then there is the question of integration versus multiculturalism. The points being made in relation to jewish efforts to influence policy in the USA are relevant, in the sense that their primary motivation is to allow minority cultures to exist independently. Jews are a pretty racist religion, in the sense that you don't just walk into a synagogue and say you want to join. They prefer that the members are born into it. They prefer to keep genetically and culturally segregated. An open borders policy helps their cause. And yet anyone who points this out is branded a racist... as can be seen over the past few pages of this thread.

Catholics and protestants in Ireland historically pursued a multicultural policy, whereas in England they did not. Which worked out better?
Nowadays in England you see muslims pushing a multicultural agenda.

Nodin · 06-03-2016 1:28pm

recedite wrote: »

A certain amount is beneficial, provided they do in fact integrate and assimilate into the host population.
Whether that means "more" immigration is beneficial is another matter. Something like 100,000 naturalised citizens over the last year or so is a lot for a population of our size.

Then there is the question of integration versus multiculturalism. The points being made in relation to jewish efforts to influence policy in the USA are relevant, in the sense that their primary motivation is to allow minority cultures to exist independently. Jews are a pretty racist religion, in the sense that you don't just walk into a synagogue and say you want to join. They prefer that the members are born into it. They prefer to keep genetically and culturally segregated. An open borders policy helps their cause. And yet anyone who points this out is branded a racist... as can be seen over the past few pages of this thread.

Catholics and protestants in Ireland historically pursued a multicultural policy, whereas in England they did not. Which worked out better?
Nowadays in England you see muslims pushing a multicultural agenda.

Sweet jesus.....that has to be the biggest mask drop of all time....

recedite · 06-03-2016 1:55pm

Mask drop? I am very open about being a secularist. There is always a balance to be drawn between integration/social cohesion on the one hand, and self-segregated groups/multiculturalism on the other hand. IMO the state should allow the latter, but should encourage the former.

Custardpi · 06-03-2016 2:08pm

An open borders policy helps their cause

I'm actually not sure that this is the case, at least in Europe. There has been a rise in anti-semitic attacks across Europe in the past few years. Much of that has been at the hands of radicalised Muslims, though the more traditional white power groups are well represented in the Jew hatred too. Given that fact, should Jewish organisations not be calling for restrictions on immigration from countries which have a tendency towards the more extreme interpretations of Islam? Pakistan & some of the gulf states spring to mind. I can get why they wouldn't given the history of the Jewish people - a stateless diaspora for so long, but the aggression stirred up by the Wahhabi & Deobandi strains of Islam & their followers represent a real threat to Jewish life & limb.

Nodin · 06-03-2016 2:27pm

recedite wrote: »

Mask drop? I am (............)encourage the former.

While I bite the bullet and endlessly explain that there are various branches of Islam and varying degrees of orthodoxy within those, I'll be fucked if, in 2016, I'm going to lower myself to having to explain the same about jews.

recedite · 06-03-2016 3:04pm

Custardpi wrote: »

I'm actually not sure that this is the case, at least in Europe.

Good point. In the USA, "open borders" mostly means an influx from South America. In Western Europe we could say there have been three main groups; the predominantly Christian and white influx from the former eastern bloc countries which is coming to an end, the predominantly Islamic influx from the Middle East and Asia via Turkey, and the mixed Islamic and Christian group from sub-saharan Africa via Libya. The first two of these groups are likely to create more problems for jews than they solve.
So the same strategy that works in favour of Jewish interests in the USA may not be very effective in Europe.

Links234 · 06-03-2016 6:10pm

I didn't know this guy was posting on boards now?

Seriously though, what the **** am I reading? I think I miss JimiTime and the like compared to this tripe.

Nodin · 06-03-2016 6:57pm

Links234 wrote: »

I didn't know this guy was posting on boards now?

......

Is he one of those "return of kings" people?

PopePalpatine · 06-03-2016 7:49pm

Nodin wrote: »

Is he one of those "return of kings" people?

Nope, he doesn't have a neckbeard. I think that's Stefan Molyneux.

Custardpi · 06-03-2016 8:36pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

neckbeard

I've always been interested to know where exactly the idea of assigning a beard style to those you don't agree with came from. I mean the Amish men wear a neckbeard style but I doubt this guy posts on MRA websites. Before the Atheism+ crowd & internet radfems started using it as a general form of abuse the most common use for it I saw (going back a few years now) was by Christians against atheists or secularist critics of religion. Can anyone shed more light on its etymology?

Links234 · 06-03-2016 8:46pm

Nodin wrote: »

Is he one of those "return of kings" people?

He's the joke of a man who wrote this. I'd say to brace yourself for a bizarre racist, misogynistic rant, but welll, you've been reading this thread lately, so...

Custardpi · 06-03-2016 9:00pm

Links234 wrote: »

He's the joke of a man who wrote this. I'd say to brace yourself for a bizarre racist, misogynistic rant, but welll, you've been reading this thread lately, so...

In the internet of artificially amped up outrage which we currently inhabit terms like "racist" & "mysogynist" have become overused to the extent that they've almost lost any meaning or worth as descriptors. Every so often though (assumng one doesn't actively seek out stuff to be offended by) one does come across a piece of writing that makes you sit up & exclaim "holy mother of bejaybus, that guy really hates women & black people!". This is one of those times.

While I'd agree that The Force Awakens is perhaps not as great a film as the hype about it suggested - I saw it in the cinema & enjoyed it pretty well though - this is just a nasty incoherent rant, much of which is nothing to do with the actual film. I'd hate to be stuck next to this guy on a long flight as he really comes across as a tedious asshole.

Samaris · 06-03-2016 9:46pm

Links234 wrote: »

He's the joke of a man who wrote this. I'd say to brace yourself for a bizarre racist, misogynistic rant, but welll, you've been reading this thread lately, so...

What a weirdly pathetic little man.

PopePalpatine · 06-03-2016 10:07pm

Custardpi wrote: »

I've always been interested to know where exactly the idea of assigning a beard style to those you don't agree with came from. I mean the Amish men wear a neckbeard style but I doubt this guy posts on MRA websites. Before the Atheism+ crowd & internet radfems started using it as a general form of abuse the most common use for it I saw (going back a few years now) was by Christians against atheists or secularist critics of religion. Can anyone shed more light on its etymology?

The way I think of it, the term "neckbeard" is pretty self-explanatory in terms of its origin - it implies that the person on the receiving end of the insult is a social outcast who lives in a squalid basement/shoebox flat, spending their spare time trying to make the most bigoted comment on a 4chan thread - hence its association with radical MRAs/redpillers, "racial realists"/Internet racists and "Dark Enlightenment" types.

Oh, and it turns out that guy whose picture Links posted is a Return of Kings contributor.

Custardpi · 06-03-2016 10:15pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The way I think of it, the term "neckbeard" is pretty self-explanatory in terms of its origin - it implies that the person on the receiving end of the insult is a social outcast who lives in a squalid basement/shoebox flat, spending their spare time trying to make the most bigoted comment on a 4chan thread - hence its association with radical MRAs/redpillers, "racial realists"/Internet racists and "Dark Enlightenment" types.

Would you not agree though that it's become way overused in the past while? I've seen it applied to even the most reasonable of critics of radical feminism for example. Not everyone who has different ideas to you is a social outcast, no matter how much you might like to project that image onto them. I've no time for the "red pill" crowd either, much of their rhetoric simply bores me to tears. However, the use of lazy ad hominems in this & any other context I've always felt said more about the user than anything he/she was trying to attack, giving the intended target reflected credibility by default, since it fails to analyse or refute in even the most superficial way their ideas (which may well be deeply flawed).

Custardpi · 07-03-2016 2:37am

OK, to get back on topic here's a clip from Bill Maher's most recent show where he discusses Trump's colourful approach to language & demonstrates what a future State Of The Union Address might look like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqFGZOUhO1M

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Comments