'Nazi' as an insult

[The Retard]

I think calling someone a "tub of lard" violates that persons human-rights. I think we need stricter laws to anyone that discriminates against the obese. :nono:

Fat-ist
n.
1. The belief that weight accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular weight is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on weight.

By the way, Starr should leave her hatemongering comments to herself.

[Thomas777]

LOL. That is because you are not a human being. Every time you open your mouth, everyone but the worst of the forum guttersnipes - your ideological allies included - winces with embarassment.




See, this is what I am talking about. "You are not a human being!" Your melodramatic musings make you impossible to take seriously.

I have news for you man...spitting out tired, secular humanist platitudes that you learned during your halcyonic days at Degrassi Jr. High does not made you ballsy, a "rebel", or a righteous soldier in the fight against "invidious discrimination".

I think that DR ANTI-CHRIST and Sturmwaffen are a little bit misguided, but they are full of piss and vinegar and at least they have the guts to think for themselves...even if they indulge in a bit of "renegade youth" posturing. Nobody defends Nazism in order to "fit in".

You on the other hand are in a perpetual state of jerking yourself off over your wonderful ability to regurgitate safe, conventional, Establishment thinking without any modicum of insight or reflection. Please excuse me for not clapping you, A. Radek and SallytheDictator on the backs for your masturbatory acumen.

[Dan Dare]

There's a difference between legitimate criticism and the vitriolic bile you and your Nazi comrades spew here each day. You simply don't realise it because you are so subsumed by your own degeneracy at the Phora that you don't have to recognise how the real, civilised world operates.

People in my part of the world don't go around calling everyone with whom they have a mild disagreement a Nazi.

[Donny the Punk]

People in my part of the world don't go around calling everyone with whom they have a mild disagreement a Nazi.
If I were Jewish, or black, or gay, or whatever, you can imagine that my enmity for you after reading the snide and malicious comments you and others make about the "Jewish Question" et. al. would be far greater. As it stands, you are simply offensive to me, and describing you as a Nazi is a more or less accurate description of your point of view. Certainly not on par with the "nigger-loving pseudo kike" line you greeted me with when I returned. So please, save your tears for someone who cares.

[Starr]

You are not a human being? Nazi scum? I see your phony tolerance crap only applies to people who think just like you. I am, of course, shocked.:rofl:

Do you think normal human beings post on the Phora, surrounded by types like you, to fit in? Or is it more likely that all the dysfunctional rejects of the world flock here to find solace in the loving bosom of lockstep thinking?

In your definition of normal, no, I guess not. That is what I like about the Phora. And if you think that most people are singing "we are the world" and thinking just like you behind closed doors, you are living in a fantasy world.
I have known enough "normal human beings" in my life to be quite aware that is not the case.

[Thomas777]

Being taken seriously by Nazi scum is to be accepted by them, since anything which doesn't fit into their precarious delusions is immediately dismissed in the above manner or as a "Jewish conspiracy."
This is a joke. Calling anybody who does not agree with you "Nazi scum" is a pathetic ad hominem.
A good example is Tom's frantic posturing in the Hitler thread, where all he could do to reply to historicity was flap his arms and make some tired quip about Star Wars. To be dismissed by Nazi scum is the highest of compliments.
No. You claimed that Nazism was not some unique, German phenomenon...so I asked you where else it has occured...you could not give me any examples, so the issue sort of died...you lost.

If I were interested in proving myself to a bunch of nerds in brown shirts, I guess I might lift the collar of my bomber jacket, get on my motorcycle and ride. :p But I'm not.
Are you really this square?

Adhering to an ideology is "thinking for yourself,"
Yeah...unless that is your chosen ideology's icons are emblazoned on T-shirts you can buy at "hot topic"...Canadian tykes who like to indulge in Communist kitsch come to mind.

is it? :rofl: Do you think normal human beings post on the Phora, surrounded by types like you, to fit in? Or is it more likely that all the dysfunctional rejects of the world flock here to find solace in the loving bosom of lockstep thinking?
I don't see any lockstep thinking here...outside of your blanket endorsement of the "values" which are touted by your nation's civic culture.

Fap fap fap.

With all due respect (and this may be my Yankee myopia) you sould like a douche bag when you throw this little gem around.

[Donny the Punk]

This is a joke. Calling anybody who does not agree with you "Nazi scum" is a pathetic ad hominem.
Sulla and I don't agree over a lot of things, same with eggheadbanga, same with the old crew of Britt, Nys, g_m, etc. None of them were Nazi scum. You, however, are Nazi scum. And so are most of your pals. If you don't want to be branded as such, don't act as such. If you're not ashamed of your dissolute behaviour, then why aren't you proud of the accompanying label?

No. You claimed that Nazism was not some unique, German phenomenon...so I asked you where else it has occured...you could not give me any examples, so the issue sort of died...you lost.
Rofl. I invite interested observers to go back and check the thread. Tom claimed that Hitler came to power in Germany because Nazism was a latent and ubiqutious force emanating from the walls which was just waiting for a leader. He ignored my last reply about Hitler having invented Nazism and that Socialism and Catholic Conservatism were the most popular beliefs of the time and never came back. It was especially funny given that despite the repeated questions I asked him, he could obviously produce no actual historical knowledge about Germany in the 20s and 30s, because he had none. This is what Tom would call "winning." Laughable, but pitiable too.


Are you really this square?

Yeah...unless that is your chosen ideology's icons are emblazoned on T-shirts you can buy at "hot topic"...Canadian tykes who like to indulge in Communist kitsch come to mind.

I don't see any lockstep thinking here...outside of your blanket endorsement of the "values" which are touted by your nation's civic culture.
Tom's canderous insistence that the value of an ideology is inversely proportionate to its popularity is touching, if only because it tells me that the age of innocence is not yet over. Stick it to the man with your free thinking, Tom. :p

With all due respect (and this may be my Yankee myopia) you sould like a douche bag when you throw this little gem around.
Fap fap fap.

[Thomas777]

Sulla and I don't agree over a lot of things, same with eggheadbanga, same with the old crew of Britt, Nys, g_m, etc. None of them were Nazi scum. You, however, are Nazi scum. And so are most of your pals. If you don't want to be branded as such, don't act as such. If you're not ashamed of your dissolute behaviour, then why aren't you proud of the accompanying label?
Calling me a "Nazi" betrays a lack of understanding of political theory. Furthermore, outside of Anti-Racist community centers, nobody really talks about "Nazis" because they no longer exist...anymore than Tammany Hall exists or the Barbary Pirates exist.

Rofl. I invite interested observers to go back and check the thread. Tom claimed that Hitler came to power in Germany because Nazism was a latent and ubiqutious force emanating from the walls which was just waiting for a leader. He ignored my last reply about Hitler having invented Nazism and that Socialism and Catholic Conservatism were the most popular beliefs of the time and never came back. It was especially funny given that despite the repeated questions I asked him, he could obviously produce no actual historical knowledge about Germany in the 20s and 30s, because he had none. This is what Tom would call "winning". Laughable, but pitiable too.
Mass movements aren't created by "bad guys" with media saavy. The German-American Bund was well funded and very visible...yet America did not become a Nazi state...how come? Could it be that geographic, historical, and cultural variables accounted for its success in Germany? It sure seems so...that is why no other country in the world has ever created a Nazi state. This is really not controversial stuff here.


Tom's canderous insistence that the value of an ideology is inversely proportionate to its popularity is touching, if only because it tells me that the age of innocence is not yet over. Stick it to the man with your free thinking, Tom. :p
Its a bit ironic when a college commie/anti-Racist kid like you starts accusing other people of lacking in original thought. You have a lot to learn about the real world.

[Donny the Punk]

This does tend to indicate a certain incapacity for nuanced thought on your part in that disagreement with the current received wisdom concerning cultural Marxism, multiculturalism and political correctness does not necessarily equate to an embrace of an outmoded and alien National Socialist ideology. I invite you to reconsider.
I fail to see any significant difference between your beliefs and those avowedly Nazi, except that the nationality has changed, especially when you phrase your beliefs in identical language and spend all day trying to rehabilitate the régime with your Holocaust denial.

It is worth noting, however, that Dan has tried to shift the topic from hate speech to ostensibly inaccurate labels while apparently offering the two as being equal. No, Dan, calling someone a Nazi because they're a Nazi and calling someone a 'nigger-loving pseudo-kike' because they endorse multiculturalism are not the same thing. People, no matter what part of the world you're from, would punch you in the face if you said that to them, and rightly so. This exemplifies the total disconnect you have between the real world and the internet world.

[Fade the Butcher]

I don't want to have to close down this thread.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/announcement.php?f=82

-- No flaming
-- Show respect for other users.
-- Keep discussions civil, clean, and productive at all times.

[Donny the Punk]

You are without a doubt the most uncivil poster here.
Says Fade as he hoots and hollers in delight as his ideological allies set fire to the records of history, with a few dead Jew jokes thrown in. :rolleyes:

I don't pretend to be nice to Nazis, but it is far more civil and honest to tell someone directly what you think of their beliefs and behaviours than to chortle and froth in ecstacy at the thought of genocide while simultaneously denying it, all so you can spread racial and religious hatred through insinuation.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I'm sorry, I honestly don't see the objection to the use of the word 'Nazi'. Since you disagree with none of what we consider the OFFENSIVE elements of the regime, the only qualm is that it isn't 'entirely accurate'.

Its laughable to think that I would be in tears if someone called me a "libertarian", which is the equivalent in this situation. For the things that Nazism is notorious for, I see very little disagreement here. Potyondi isn't calling you Nazis to suggest that you believe in Speer's economic model for 21st century industry. :p

[Dan Dare]

I fail to see any significant difference between your beliefs and those avowedly Nazi, except that the nationality has changed, especially when you phrase your beliefs in identical language and spend all day trying to rehabilitate the régime with your Holocaust denial.

Again, you are being simplistic. A scepticism about elements of the standard account does not signify a wish to reinstate the Third Reich. Actually as someone with family members who had to live through the Blitz and six years of war, and have fought and died fighting the Nazis I quite resent your insinuations.

It is worth noting, however, that Dan has tried to shift the topic from hate speech to ostensibly inaccurate labels while apparently offering the two as being equal. No, Dan, calling someone a Nazi because they're a Nazi and calling someone a 'nigger-loving pseudo-kike' because they endorse multiculturalism are not the same thing. People, no matter what part of the world you're from, would punch you in the face if you said that to them, and rightly so. This exemplifies the total disconnect you have between the real world and the internet world.

I actually find that many people in the real world, particularly those who have empirical knowledge and experience of of making their own way in the world, are often quite in accord with my views. My own views have altered very significantly since the time I was a carefree student with no responsibilities for anyone other than myself.

[Donny the Punk]

Calling me a "Nazi" betrays a lack of understanding of political theory. Furthermore, outside of Anti-Racist community centers, nobody really talks about "Nazis" because they no longer exist...anymore than Tammany Hall exists or the Barbary Pirates exist.
See my reply to Dan and Sulla's post.


Mass movements aren't created by "bad guys" with media saavy. The German-American Bund was well funded and very visible...yet America did not become a Nazi state...how come? Could it be that geographic, historical, and cultural variables accounted for its success in Germany? It sure seems so...that is why no other country in the world has ever created a Nazi state. This is really not controversial stuff here.
I already pointed out the numerous differences between America and Germany at the time. If you don't want to respond to those in that thread, don't repeat yourself here.


Its a bit ironic when a college commie/anti-Racist kid like you starts accusing other people of lacking in original thought. You have a lot to learn about the real world.
As I'm neither, you have a lot to learn about me. :p

[Fade the Butcher]

Says Fade as he hoots and hollers in delight as his ideological allies set fire to the records of history, with a few dead Jew jokes thrown in.

I don't make a habit of personally insulting people I disagree with in the highbrow forums. I don't like name calling. We don't need any of that here either. It drags down discussions into the gutter. If you have a problem with someone, then address what they have to say, not the person.

I don't pretend to be nice to Nazis, but it is far more civil and honest to tell someone directly what you think of their beliefs and behaviours than to chortle and froth in ecstacy at the thought of genocide while simultaneously denying it, all so you can spread racial and religious hatred through insinuation.

You are throwing around insults (although you are not the only one here doing so). I advise you to desist.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Again, you are being simplistic. A scepticism about elements of the standard account does not signify a wish to reinstate the Third Reich. Actually as someone with family members who had to live through the Blitz and six years of war, and have fought and died fighting the Nazis I quite resent your insinuations.


A Nazi doesn't need to support attacks on Britain. That isn't an element of Nazism. Thats a consequence of what one group of Nazis did. One doesn't need to support the Soviet Union to be a Communist. One doesn't need to support the United States to be a capitalist.

Being British isn't a disqualifier for being a Nazi. :p

[Fade the Butcher]

I'm sorry, I honestly don't see the objection to the use of the word 'Nazi'.

Potyondi flings out Nazi. WFHermans responds with kike. Let's not become a more diverse VNN.

[Fade the Butcher]

Being British isn't a disqualifier for being a Nazi. :p

I have known Dan for several years. He is most certainly not a Nazi. My first introduction to Dan was in his old Trial of Winston Churchill thread.

[Dan Dare]

A Nazi doesn't need to support attacks on Britain. That isn't an element of Nazism. Thats a consequence of what one group of Nazis did. One doesn't need to support the Soviet Union to be a Communist. One doesn't need to support the United States to be a capitalist.

Being British isn't a disqualifier for being a Nazi. :p

It's clear that your capacity for nuance is on a similar level to Potty's.

[Donny the Punk]

Again, you are being simplistic. A scepticism about elements of the standard account does not signify a wish to reinstate the Third Reich. Actually as someone with family members have lived through the Blitz, and have fought and died fighting the Nazis I quite resent your insinuations.
Your Holocaust denial is an element of the description, not its entire basis. If you're going to get huffy, don't ignore the bulk of what I wrote. Again, your resentment is meaningless as someone who engages in wholesale slander of entire religious and ethnic groups on a daily basis.

I actually find that many people in the real world, particularly those who have empirical knowledge and experience of of making their own way in the world, are often quite in accord with my views.
I'm sure. :rolleyes: The picture you're trying to paint us goes something like this, I imagine:

BBC: Excuse me sir, we're asking people for a national poll whether they support multiculturalism. Do you?
Dan Dare: What are you, some kind of nigger-loving kike?
BBC: Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh sir, my empirical knowledge and experience of making my own way in the world allows me to understand you perfectly. I am quite in accord with your views.

You honestly have no idea how vile your vituperation sounds outside the realm of this insular, racist community. How horribly offensive it is to everyone who isn't just like you and Tom and Starr.

My own views have altered very significantly since the time I was a carefree student with no responsibilities for anyone other than myself.
And? Dan Dare is hardly the measure of all things.

[Starr]

Its laughable to think that I would be in tears if someone called me a "libertarian", which is the equivalent in this situation. For the things that Nazism is notorious for, I see very little disagreement here. Potyondi isn't calling you Nazis to suggest that you believe in Speer's economic model for 21st century industry.

If I am objecting to anything it is just the way he throws the word around, in that it is pointless. I personally don't care if he calls me, nazi, bigot, hater, evil whatever. But it just gets old. You don't see me throwing the words, liberal, egalitarian, multiculturalist,etc. at everyone I don't agree with, just because that would seem stupid to me.

that being said, I agree with Fade. the thread has gone completely off topic(I am just as guilty of causing that as anyone else) and needs to get back on track.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Potyondi flings out Nazi. WFHermans responds with kike. Let's not become a more diverse VNN.

It would be a slur if there wern't those among you who ARE Nazis, including "Dr. Anti-Christ" with his repulsive little picture, who is an admitted Nazi. It isn't an attack. He SAYS he's a Nazi.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I have known Dan for several years. He is most certainly not a Nazi. My first introduction to Dan was in his old Trial of Winston Churchill thread.

What substantial objection do you have to stated Nazi policy?

[Dan Dare]

...Dan's refusal to acknowledge that his vitirol has no place in a civilised world is indicative of the kind of attitude produced by inhabiting a racist milieu.

You are confusing mockery with vitriol, they are not the same thing.

[Donny the Punk]

You are confusing mockery with vitriol, they are not the same thing.
Although not a member of any of the groups you belittle, I find it offensive. I think that counts as having traversed the line into serious venom.

Unless you have some more subtle distinctions to point out.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Not that it matters much

True. Where you live doesn't matter much.

[Starr]

Dan's refusal to acknowledge that his vitirol has no place in a civilised world is indicative of the kind of attitude produced by inhabiting a racist milieu. Immersion in or even prolonged exposure to racism has a deleterious effect on the weak-minded. I remember that months ago, Sinclair was parroting many of the same lines as his racist fellow-posters. Anima Eternae, whom I'm told is half-asian, has also begun to tow the line. One of dod's formerly best posters, bone_vulture, became racist after too much exposure to this sort of environment. Just look at mazdak, Jesus. What's saddest about the last case is that despite his swarth and frizzy dark hair, Mazdak styles himself a Nordic viking and can't stop himself from denigrating blacks at every chance.

racism and tension is naturally going to occur when you throw a bunch of competely different people, with completely different cultures together, and tell them they absolutely must get along. Attempting to force them to with all kinds of bizarre laws that tell them how they can and can't act, speak, and think is like putting a band aid on a gaping wound that is one day going to start hemorrhaging.

And what makes you so quick to assume that anyone you mention here or similar people were not already "racist" and now just have become more comfortable expressing themselves, when they find like-minded people? I have known quite a few people just in everyday life that will say and talk about certain things when they become aware that I am not going to call them a bigot or tell them they are wrong or bad for believing in certain things.

[Dan Dare]

Although not a member of any of the groups you belittle, I find it offensive. I think that counts as having traversed the line into serious venom.

Unless you have some more subtle distinctions to point out.

I hadn't realised you were quite such a sensitive soul. Perhaps this might not be quite the right place for someone of such delicate sensibilities.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I hadn't realised you were quite such a sensitive soul. Perhaps this might not be quite the right place for someone of such delicate sensibilities.

Maybe you can let him borrow your hankerchief, now that you're done talking about how grievously offended you are by the term Nazi. :p

[Donny the Punk]

racism and tension is naturally going to occur when you throw a bunch of competely different people, with completely different cultures together, and tell them they absolutely must get along. Attempting to force them to with all kinds of bizarre laws that tell them how they can and can't act, speak, and think is like putting a band aid on a gaping wound that is one day going to start hemorrhaging.
Of course, this is a mischaracterisation of Canadian multiculturalist policy, and the vast majority of people in this country would have no idea what you're talking about. I live in the most conservative city in the most conservative province in this country, and I've yet to meet the card-carrying Tory who had a problem with minorities. Most of them are quite stridently in favour of these laws. Many of them are Indian or Chinese. It furthermore ignores the fact that you people specifically target Jews for your hatred, despite the fact that they've been here for generations and are completely assimilated (and in most cases unrecognisable).

And what makes you so quick to assume that anyone you mention here or similar people were not already "racist" and now just have become more comfortable expressing themselves, when they find like-minded people? I have known quite a few people just in everyday life that will say and talk about certain things when they become aware that I am not going to call them a bigot or tell them they are wrong or bad for believing in certain things.
Because I've known Sinclair, Mazdak and bone_vulture for four years, far longer than you. Otherwise, this sounds like something out of Lord of the Flies. Some utopia.

I hadn't realised you were quite such a sensitive soul. Perhaps this might not be quite the right place for someone of such delicate sensibilities.
I have thick skin and don't squeal like a girl when someone calls me a name I don't fancy, like 'Nazi.' My resilience, however, does not excuse your kind's attempts to make minorities feel unwelcome in my country.

[Dan Dare]

The only problem I have being called a Nazi is that in my case it's inaccurate. Other than that it's just another content-free slogan that gets bandied about by intellectual pygmies.

[Fade the Butcher]

What substantial objection do you have to stated Nazi policy?

We have been through this a million times.

[Fade the Butcher]

I have thick skin and don't squeal like a girl when someone calls me a name I don't fancy, like 'Nazi.'

Would you like to be addressed as kike from now on?

[Fade the Butcher]

It would be a slur if there wern't those among you who ARE Nazis, including "Dr. Anti-Christ" with his repulsive little picture, who is an admitted Nazi. It isn't an attack. He SAYS he's a Nazi.

It's not a slur to call someone a Nazi who is a Nazi. It's a slur to sling around Nazi as an unwarranted epithet. It does nothing but poison discussions.

[Donny the Punk]

Would you like to be addressed as kike from now on?
Feel free to do so; many of the other members already do. It will serve to illustrate my point about your degeneracy quite nicely.

[Fade the Butcher]

Even on the Phora, many posters (some recently) have left because they couldn't stand the hateful attitude of the place.

Who has recently left The Phora?

Immersion in or even prolonged exposure to racism has a deleterious effect on the weak-minded.

Who are you to call these people weak-minded?

[Starr]

The only problem I have being called a Nazi is that in my case it's inaccurate. Other than that it's just another content-free slogan that gets bandied about by intellectual pygmies.


Calling someone a Nazi is the easiest way to ensure you are going to get the upper hand against anyone you disagree with, by playing to all kinds of sensitivity/guilt bullshit. Who isn't a Nazi these days? George bush is a nazi, Pat Buchanan is a nazi, the minutemen are nazis, even some extreme Zionist Jews get called Nazis from time to time.:222:

[Fade the Butcher]

Feel free to do so; many of the other members already do. It will serve to illustrate my point about your degeneracy quite nicely.

That's okay. We have rules here that address these things. I think these rules are for the best. They were put in place to prevent discussions in the highbrow forums from degenerating into slurs and shouting matches.

[Donny the Punk]

Who has recently left The Phora?
Actually, I specifically mentioned no names because I wasn't sure that said parties would want their decision publicised if they didn't do so themselves. You will have to take my word that I get PMs about these sorts of occurrences.

Who are you to call these people weak-minded?
A reasonable man. :p Anyone who cannot maintain his own values in the face of legions of opposing ones is weak-minded.

[Fade the Butcher]

Anyone who cannot maintain his own values in the face of legions of opposing ones is weak-minded.

This doesn't follow.

[Donny the Punk]

Calling someone a Nazi is the easiest way to ensure you are going to get the upper hand against anyone you disagree with, by playing to all kinds of sensitivity/guilt bullshit. Who isn't a Nazi these days? George bush is a nazi, Pat Buchanan is a nazi, the minutemen are nazis, even some extreme Zionist Jews get called Nazis from time to time.:222:
Around here, it's practically a compliment. I do it because I find it too tiring to use all the various euphemisms you employ to describe racist ideology.

[Kodos]

Around here, it's practically a compliment. I do it because I find it too tiring to use all the various euphemisms you employ to describe racist ideology.

I don't hate jews( and other then Dan Dare I've never met a holocaust denier who I didn't want to kill on the grounds of stupidity) and generally don't apply my "racism" to individuals I know well... but I have a general dislike of hispanics( particulary Ricans) for example...

So am I a nazi?

[Donny the Punk]

This doesn't follow.
It does. There's nothing wrong with adding to or modifying your beliefs over time as you gain more knowledge. But it is a sign of weakness to completely change your core ideas about right and wrong to accomodate the overwhelming influence of an alien ideology.

[Fade the Butcher]

It does. There's nothing wrong with adding to or modifying your beliefs over time as you gain more knowledge. But it is a sign of weakness to completely change your core ideas about right and wrong to accomodate the overwhelming influence of an alien ideology.

You are saying that Mazdak, the Stalinist, has changed his core ideas about right and wrong? And Sinclair?

[Fade the Butcher]

So am I a nazi?

You are a member of the Cult of Fade. :p

[Sulla the Dictator]

Would you like to be addressed as kike from now on?

LOL In another thread you've said there were 'good and bad things' about the Nazis. That doesn't sound like a description of a slur, it sounds like a lukewarm endorsement of an ideology, which is what it was.

"Kike" is a slur, not a political ideology.

[Donny the Punk]

You are saying that Mazdak, the Stalinist, has changed his core ideas about right and wrong? And Sinclair?
It's hard to tell with Sinclair, as this was a while ago and he doesn't post much these days. As for Mazdak, definitely. His Nordic obsession, his vehement racism and his focus on a racially pure society were never part of his character back in the day.

[Kodos]

You are a member of the Cult of Fade. :p

I'm neutral...( and certainly still consider Edana a friend though I don't like the whole using the gay thing to piss people off schtick... since I'm extremely "homophobic" on a personal level).

[Fade the Butcher]

LOL In another thread you've said there were 'good and bad things' about the Nazis.

Yes, I did. I also said there are good and bad things about FDR. Do you remember that?

That doesn't sound like a description of a slur, it sounds like a lukewarm endorsement of an ideology, which is what it was.

I haven't endorsed National Socialism.

"Kike" is a slur, not a political ideology.

I agree. I don't want to see discussions littered with Potyondi the Kike, Dan the Nazi, Sulla the Nigger etc.

[Fade the Butcher]

It's hard to tell with Sinclair, as this was a while ago and he doesn't post much these days.

I don't think Sinclair has changed much at all over the years. He is still the perennial fence-sitter that I have always known. He has always styled himself as a "moderate" and still does to my knowledge.

As for Mazdak, definitely. His Nordic obsession, his vehement racism and his focus on a racially pure society were never part of his character back in the day.

Mazdak has a picture of Stalin in his signature right now. I'm not seeing this night and day core change that you are seeing at all. If Mazdak was running around posting articles from CapMag, then I would believe you, but that is not the case.

[Starr]

Mazdak absolutely does not strike me as a weak minded type. the thought of that is almost funny.:rofl:

[Fade the Butcher]

The only person that seems to have really changed their core values is Edana.

[Vindex]

Your objection to National Socialism is most likey not because of the violence the Nazi party used as you yourself use a handle named after one of the most violent and brutal Roman Dictators. But after seeing what is claimed to be a photo of you, I now understand why you oppose a Ideal which centers Racial purity as one of it's core componets.



It would be a slur if there wern't those among you who ARE Nazis, including "Dr. Anti-Christ" with his repulsive little picture, who is an admitted Nazi. It isn't an attack. He SAYS he's a Nazi.

[Donny the Punk]

Of course Mazdak's changed his moral stance viz. racism, which proves the point I made above about its corrosive influence. So far no one's bothered to actually argue against the laws themselves. Am I to take it that you all agree?

[Sulla the Dictator]

I don't think Sinclair has changed much at all over the years. He is still the perennial fence-sitter that I have always known. He has always styled himself as a "moderate" and still does to my knowledge.


There is no 'moderation' with racism. Sinclair has since rejected any vestige of it.


Mazdak has a picture of Stalin in his signature right now. I'm not seeing this night and day core change that you are seeing at all. If Mazdak was running around posting articles from CapMag, then I would believe you, but that is not the case.

So if you became an egalitarian while keeping all the other ideas of economics and history, you 'wouldn't have changed much'?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Yes, I did. I also said there are good and bad things about FDR. Do you remember that?


And calling someone a "New Dealer" isn't a slur.


I haven't endorsed National Socialism.


You sure seem to endorse more about it than you oppose. And those actions you denounce are policies of a Nazi government, not nazism itself.


I agree. I don't want to see discussions littered with Potyondi the Kike, Dan the Nazi, Sulla the Nigger etc.

Two of those are slurs, one is not. One is a term you find inaccurate.

And Potyondi and I already deal with those actual slurs on a regular basis.

[Fade the Butcher]

Of course Mazdak's changed his moral stance viz. racism, which proves the point I made above about its corrosive influence.

You said that Mazdak has changed his core values. I won't answer for Mazdak, but I don't think that is the case at all, as he strikes me as fundamentally the same person I have always known (some type of Stalinist). I think you might be projecting yourself here. LaundryBob pointed out the other day that you used to blast Christianity all the time several years ago. Do you remember the time you literally drove Mike off the forum doing this? He wasn't a Christian when he came back. Also, I remember several years ago when you quit the internet to live a life of poverty as some sort of ascetic Hindu. So, I ask who are you to say that other people are weak-minded?

So far no one's bothered to actually argue against the laws themselves. Am I to take it that you all agree?

Which laws are you referring to?

[Donny the Punk]

This has got to be the sloppiest thread split ever. :p

[Donny the Punk]

You said that Mazdak has changed his core values. I won't answer for Mazdak, but I don't think that is the case at all, as he strikes me as fundamentally the same person I have always known (some type of Stalinist). I think you might be projecting yourself here. LaundryBob pointed out the other day that you used to blast Christianity all the time several years ago. Do you remember the time you literally drove Mike off the forum doing this? He wasn't a Christian when he came back. Also, I remember several years ago when you quit the internet to live a life of poverty as some sort of ascetic Hindu. So, I ask who are you to say that other people are weak-minded?
Not in the least. It's evident to all of us that Mazdak has changed his morals as a result of racist influence - you're quibbling.

Which laws are you referring to?
The anti-hate speech legislation that ignited all the scintillating exchanges you see before you in this butchered vestige of a thread. :p

[Fade the Butcher]

And calling someone a "New Dealer" isn't a slur.

It would be a slur to call a reform liberal a communist.

You sure seem to endorse more about it than you oppose.

If you haven't noticed, I don't spend much time bashing the Soviet Union either.

And those actions you denounce are policies of a Nazi government, not nazism itself.

I don't denounce every ideology I disagree with.

Two of those are slurs, one is not. One is a term you find inaccurate. And Potyondi and I already deal with those actual slurs on a regular basis.

We should make an effort to keep the highbrow forums free of such slurs. It should be noted that you have the power to do just that.

[OVERWATCH]

Here resides forty-seven(47) off topic posts split from another thread.

This is a worthy subject for exploration, however.

My stance is thus:

The term 'nazi' is far too overused. To use a ragnoism, it is the 'handy pocket demonizer'. examples:

George Bush is a 'nazi'.

Marlon Brando was a 'nazi'.

Ronald Reagan was a 'nazi'.

David Duke is a 'nazi'.

ad nauseam

The terms 'nazi' and 'communist' (amongst others) are buzzwords designed as a plea to emotion, based on some usually dubious link between some 'nazi idea' and the target who is to be demonised.

Just so that everyone knows, a modern-day nazi will almost always look like this:

http://img20.imagevenue.com/loc227/th_72630_NSM_salute.jpg (http://img20.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc227&image=72630_NSM_salute.jpg)
Simply being 'racist' does not a nazi make. Nor an 'antisemite'.

Here's the more salient characteristics of a true nazi':

1. superiority of his race
2. the fuehrerprinzip/divine right
3. a quasi-religious devotion to militarism, struggle, and conquest
4. a belief that Jews(and/or other races) are subhuman
5. a religious devotion to the cult of Adolf Hitler

The haphazard and ill-fitting (and often repeated) use of buzzwords like 'commie' or 'nazi', says more about it's employer than anything else.

[Fade the Butcher]

Not in the least. It's evident to all of us that Mazdak has changed his morals as a result of racist influence - you're quibbling.

Mazdak has not changed his core values, Potyondi. You, however, profess to be a Christian when you used to bash Christianity all the time several years ago.

The anti-hate speech legislation that ignited all the scintillating exchanges you see before you in this butchered vestige of a thread. :p

Do I approve of "hate speech legislation" and "human rights inquisitions"? Of course not.

[Fade the Butcher]

Potyondi certainly likes to throw around the term Nazi. :p

I had the beginnings of a religious debate on ICQ with an unnamed person, and I thought you'd like to read it. I'll update it as we continue. I am agnostic and my friend is a fundamentalist Christian, just for clarification.

Stephen: by the way, i feel the need to mention that your religion still bugs me
#####: I know it does
Stephen: "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." - Ephesians 5:22-24
#####: Now your playing to my feminist side
what about the verse that orders husbands to work and live for the good of their wives, and that all they do must be in the best interest of their wives

Stephen: I've read it, but you can't deny that the bible tells women to be subservient to men. "The wicked shall be burned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." - Psalm 9:17
#####: then repent and turn to god
Stephen: so free thought and belief is a sin that is punished by eternal damnation?
#####: it depends on if your free thoughts and believes deny the existence of God or not
Stephen: and if they do?
#####: damnation
Stephen: how quaint. Sounds like nazi Germany to me. Tell me, are people saved by faith or by deeds?
#####: Faith, however good deeds follow faith
Stephen: so a serial killer/rapist who accepts Jesus into his life and loves God on death row goes to heaven whilst the agnostic who saves babies from burning buildings, volunteers at a homeless shelter 5 days a week, donates his income to the poor and works as a physician in third world countries goes to hell?
#####: First of all, if you are a serial killer/rapist the chance that you loved God when you did is non-existant. However if he repents whilst in the electric chair and his heart is deemed truly sorry by sources greater than me, then yes, he could go to heaven. As for the agnostic savior of babies, if he deny's the existence of God then yes he could go to hell. It's not pretty, but it's true, and redemption and salvation revolves around faith
Stephen: that sounds a lot like self-righteous drivel to me. Are you actually saying that the "soul" of the rapist murderer deserves to go to heaven more than that of the non-believer simply because he denies the existence of God?
#####: That's not for me to judge
Stephen: but you believe it to be true?
Stephen: Is God benevolent?
#####: I believe that everyone can be redeemed and that belief in Jesus is the way to heaven yes. who goes and who doesn't isn't for me to judge
#####: Yes
you must fear and love god, and with that comes salvation and eternal life
Stephen: so God is so benevolent that he damns 5 billion people on this earth to an eternity of suffering because they don't unequivocally worship him?
#####: But if you do worship him, you enter his kingdom for eternity
Stephen: But that is what benevolence is, right? According to you? Benevolence is damning 5 out of 6 people to eternal suffering because they don't believe you exist?
#####: That's where the fear and punishment aspects arise. Benovalance is willingess to accept those that believe into heaven, sending his son to die on the cross for us
Stephen: by corrolary, that means benevolence is also an unwillingness to accept those who do not believe in heaven. is that true?
#####: I suppose so

You're not going to alter my beliefs you do realize, and I understand that I'm not going to alter yours
Stephen: Changing your views isn't my goal at all.

"I am not a liberator. The people liberate themselves." - Che Guevara

My only job is to point out your hypocrisy and get you thinking critically about the validity of your beliefs.
#####: I don't believe it's hypocrisy

I have to leave right now. This is not an attempt to duck out of this conversation because I know that it will come up again sometime. I truly have to go
Perhaps I will be on later tonight, but I'm going to a movie with #####
#####: cya
Stephen: so by your own definition, God is an elitist, bigoted, intolerant, narrow-minded supremacist who damns all those who do not worship him?
Stephen: righto
*** ##### signed off at Tue Mar 26 16:59:49 2002.
Session Close (#####): Tue Mar 26 17:09:40 2002

[Donny the Punk]

Do you want to start this all over again, Fade? I'm more than willing to write pages and pages about your neverending contradictions and shifts of ideology. The last time it happened, you got the last word in and then walked off in a huff after locking the thread. Is that going to happen again or are you going to actually stay on topic?

[Fade the Butcher]

Do you want to start this all over again, Fade? I'm more than willing to write pages and pages about your neverending contradictions and shifts of ideology. The last time it happened, you got the last word in and then walked off in a huff after locking the thread. Is that going to happen again or are you going to actually stay on topic?

I thought you were talking about how Mazdak had fundamentally changed his core values.

[Donny the Punk]

I was talking about how immersion in and prolonged exposure to racist environments influences the weak-minded. Mazdak, among others, is an undeniable example of that phenomenon.

Like I said, are you going to stay on topic? Because if not, my next post will make the Chronicles of Fade look like Cato the Elder's track record.

[Fade the Butcher]

I was talking about how immersion in and prolonged exposure to racist environments influences the weak-minded.

<edited> In fact, I distinctly recall an old post of yours where you claimed that posting on The Phora desensitized you to racism. Maybe this has something to do with your apparent psychological need to insult others whom you disagree with. I personally don't see any reason to do this. I can have a cordial civil conversation with just about anyone. I disagree with Kamandi on just about everything, but I don't go around calling Kamandi a kike.

Mazdak, among others, is an undeniable example of that phenomenon.

I will let Mazdak answer that for himself. You have asserted that he has changed his core values. I don't think that is the case at all. Mazdak was something of a Stalinist when he came to The Phora several years ago. He is still something of a Stalinist today. OTOH, I can think of several people who have done ideological 180s in recent memory.

Like I said, are you going to stay on topic?

Has prolonged exposure to a racist environment ever influenced you in such a way?

Because if not, my next post will make the Chronicles of Fade look like Cato the Elder's track record.

I don't think you want me to post the Chronicles of Potyondi.

[Donny the Punk]

Edit: ignoring extraneous verbiage, back on topic.

I will let Mazdak answer that for himself.
Canadian hate-speech legislation is designed to prevent what would otherwise be a torrent of racist diatribe, negatively influencing the young (in particular) to hold values contrary to their own culture and destructive to their society. It is also meant to protect immigrants and other minorities from unwarranted abuse, seeing as they came here to live better lives.

Has prolonged exposure to a racist environment ever influenced you in such a way?
No, I have never had racist beliefs. I am not everyone, however.

Fine, no 'flaming'. Reported instead.

[Fade the Butcher]

I'm sure you distinctly recall whatever's convenient - likely whatever I said referred to the same point I'm making now; that the Phora is very insidiously corrosive in many ways.

I like to think that I have an extraordinary, almost photographic memory; that I have a definite talent for remembering obscure comments buried in lengthy texts that the average person would otherwise forget.

I have left the Phora in disgust before, though, for obvious reasons.

*taps fingers on desk, yawns*

As I pointed out to Tom, I disagree with many people without ever feeling the need to comment on their behaviour.

I feel a sermon coming on.

However, there is no polite tête-à-tête to be had with people who make statements like "I wrote 6 pages of stereotypes about bush niggers for my white guilt class" or "blacks can never be assimilated" and "what should we do about the Jewish Question?" as they are repugnant to the core.

*squints eyes*

It's very easy to complain about being personally attacked when every other post you make is a slur against entire communities who've no chance to defend themselves. It's very dishonourable, too.

The door has always been open here. You know that. There is nothing stopping anyone from coming here and defending their beliefs and/or community provided they do so in a civil fashion.

Who decides what is hate speech and what is not?

As can we all. :p Canadian hate-speech legislation is designed to prevent what would otherwise be a torrent of racist diatribe, negatively influencing the young (in particular) to hold values contrary to their own culture and destructive to their society.

Canadian hate-speech legislation is designed to criminalize thought and establish liberalism as an official state dogma.

[Fade the Butcher]

I was talking about how immersion in and prolonged exposure to racist environments influences the weak-minded. . . . I've never held any racist sentiments . . .No, I have never had racist beliefs. I am not everyone, however.

Are you weak-minded, Potyondi? :p

"I agree with quite a few of the things said in this thread, though I wouldn't describe racism as a mental illness, merely a mentality.

I spent close to one and a half years debating on the phora and all of its previous incarnations. There, I was surrounded by every single manner of racist, from people like Frank, to neo-nazis and national socialists, to southern confederate racists, to simply white nationalists. I became inundated with racist, "racialist," and anti-semitic though, and more. Recall that this persisted for more than a year, where such attitudes were the norm as opposed to the fringe radical exception.

In time, I came to understand the racial/racist mindset. It was impossible to debate against it and be around it without coming to grips with its origins, arguments, and practices. I am still very well-versed in all the racist arguments. More frightening, however, was that the occurence of racism became so banal that it was almost accepted as a given instead of rebuked in some cases. Having understood the racists, it became easier to sympathize with them and realize why it was that they were this way.

Now I never became a racist, and I always clung to my original set of beliefs. However, my thinking about race and racism had been significantly altered. Subconsciously, I even began thinking in racial terms to a small extent: seeing a group of blacks hanging around in a parking lot conjured images of FBI criminal reports stating that a majority of crime was committed by blacks, and so on.

Now, since the phora has been gone, I've been posting only here and on various history boards. None of that thought exists in either copious amounts or in a socially accepted manner here or there. I have noticed that my "racial thought" has all but disappeared. I attribute this in no small part to the prevailing mindset.

Now, a few vague conclusions can be drawn from this:

First, being totally surrounded by an accepted norm made it much easier to both understand and accept racist arguments. I attribute such cultures in no small part to the perpetuation of racial thought. When people go to places such as SF, they are not encouraged to think for themselves, but rather the belief that drew them there in the first place is fostered.

However, there is a caveat to attributing racial thought to group influence. On DA, the majority of thought and those who speak loudest are conservative Americans. Yet I have not come to either understand conservative thought nor have I had any sympathizes towards it. Moreover, I never became a racist at the phora.

Thus, while existing in a world of racism can contribute to racist thought, one can NEVER exclude the ultimate responsibility of the individual for his or her own actions.

Heh, end ramble."
--Potyondi (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=295771&postcount=42)

[Donny the Punk]

Here resides forty-seven(47) off topic posts split from another thread.

This is a worthy subject for exploration, however.

My stance is thus:

The term 'nazi' is far too overused. To use a ragnoism, it is the 'handy pocket demonizer'. examples:

George Bush is a 'nazi'.

Marlon Brando was a 'nazi'.

Ronald Reagan was a 'nazi'.

David Duke is a 'nazi'.

ad nauseam

The terms 'nazi' and 'communist' (amongst others) are buzzwords designed as a plea to emotion, based on some usually dubious link between some 'nazi idea' and the target who is to be demonised.

Just so that everyone knows, a modern-day nazi will almost always look like this:

http://img20.imagevenue.com/loc227/th_72630_NSM_salute.jpg (http://img20.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc227&image=72630_NSM_salute.jpg)
Simply being 'racist' does not a nazi make. Nor an 'antisemite'.

Here's the more salient characteristics of a true nazi':

1. superiority of his race
2. the fuehrerprinzip/divine right
3. a quasi-religious devotion to militarism, struggle, and conquest
4. a belief that Jews(and/or other races) are subhuman
5. a religious devotion to the cult of Adolf Hitler

The haphazard and ill-fitting (and often repeated) use of buzzwords like 'commie' or 'nazi', says more about it's employer than anything else.
David Duke is/was a Nazi, if I recall correctly. :p http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/images/David-Duke-pix-2.jpg

Your description does (admittedly) cast Nazism in a more religious than ideological framework, which I believe is wrong. Historically true, but not in the "neo-" sense. I used to call Phorites 'racists' but was told they were rather 'racialists' or 'racial collectivists'. Or I was told that the label was incorrect since many of them didn't necessarily believe in the superiority of the white race, just that they wanted it pure. Whatever. Rather than let them call themselves something political correct (or refuse to comment at all, as with Dan Dare), I use the term Nazi for convenience's sake. I doubt many racists here take great umbrage at the ideology, so it's more or less accurate.

[Vindex]

It is a insult to call person a Nazi, when they have not earned such a honourable title. Looking at the original Nazis they where the very meaning of the term Noble, they fought against the tide for National Socialism, many of them gave everything they had even there life in the end for the cause. Most of them where driven by a strong love for there people, and the Ideal of a Higher World beyond the current fallen one. Only in such a low and jewish age could the very core traits of what is Aryan, be treated as a smear term.

As for the other smear of Hitler cult, would a christian be a christian without christ. Would a National Socialist be a National Socialist without having a deep respect for the Great Man against Time, Adolf Hitler. In this degenerate world respect for a Aryan leader who dedicated his life to his people, is a cult. Where jumping up and down for a nigger cause he throws a ball in a hoop, and worship for a old jew fag in a bathrobe who is flanked by whores, is approved and the in thang.

[Donny the Punk]

You forgot to highlight the most important parts, unsurprisingly: Now I never became a racist, and I always clung to my original set of beliefs.[..]Moreover, I never became a racist at the phora. So no, as I never succumbed to such beliefs, I had the strength of mind to consciously resist such influences. That's the opposite of weak-mindedness: to remain true to yourself in spite of nonstop opposition to your ideals.

This serves to demonstrate what I was talking about all along, actually. That being submerged in a racist environment does make one prone to thinking about such things. It's more pronounced here because there is a great deal of 'friendly banter' which insinuates those premises. See il ragno's humour for an illustration.

[Donny the Punk]

The door has always been open here. You know that. There is nothing stopping anyone from coming here and defending their beliefs and/or community provided they do so in a civil fashion.
Obviously the Jewish and black communities aren't going to register and debate you, though, and you know it. So it is backhanded.

Who decides what is hate speech and what is not?
We're not children, we all know what racial/religious hate speech is.

Canadian hate-speech legislation is designed to criminalize thought and establish liberalism as an official state dogma.
Thought is not speech or publication, and opposition to racism has nothing to do with liberalism, so wrong on both counts.

[Fade the Butcher]

Historically true, but not in the "neo-" sense. I used to call Phorites 'racists' but was told they were rather 'racialists' or 'racial collectivists'.

A racist is someone who believes that some races are superior to others. A racialist is someone who acknowledges the existence of racial differences and believes they are relevant to public policy. That's a very significant distinction.

Or I was told that the label was incorrect since many of them didn't necessarily believe in the superiority of the white race, just that they wanted it pure. Whatever.

A white supremacist is a racist who believes that whites are superior to all other races and that whites should dominate other races as a consequence. There are very few people here who could be described as white supremacists. As Jared Taylor recently pointed out, "if anything, we're yellow supremacists because the IQ data, the general social dysfunction data, suggest that Asians are superior to whites." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5645400,00.html)

Rather than let them call themselves something political correct (or refuse to comment at all, as with Dan Dare), I use the term Nazi for convenience's sake. I doubt many racists here take great umbrage at the ideology, so it's more or less accurate.

I object to terms like racist, white supremacist, and Nazi because they aren't descriptive of my ideology.

[Donny the Punk]

A racist is someone who believes that some races are superior to others. A racialist is someone who acknowledges the existence of racial differences and believes they are relevant to public policy. That's a very significant distinction.

A white supremacist is a racist who believes that whites are superior to all other races and that whites should dominate other races as a consequence. There are very few people here who could be described as white supremacists. As Jared Taylor recently pointed out, "if anything, we're yellow supremacists because the IQ data, the general social dysfunction data, suggest that Asians are superior to whites." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5645400,00.html)
'Racialist' is a PC term for a racist. I don't entertain distinctions that are propagated for the sake of being media-friendly.

I object to terms like racist, white supremacist, and Nazi because they aren't descriptive of my ideology.
You don't have an ideology, you have a premise, which is racism.

[Fade the Butcher]

Obviously the Jewish and black communities aren't going to register and debate you, though, and you know it. So it is backhanded.

Blacks and Jews are welcome to register here and engage us in debate provided they do so in a civil fashion. We have had several such members in the past.

We're not children, we all know what racial/religious hate speech is.

This is nonresponsive. Who decides what is hate speech and what is not?

Thought is not speech or publication

Criminalizing so-called hate speech is nothing more than a tactic to restrict the boundries of thought by narrowing the values that people are exposed to. You said so yourself.

. . .and opposition to racism has nothing to do with liberalism, so wrong on both counts.

The criminalization of "racism" has everything to do with liberalism.

[Petr]

'Racialist' is a PC term for a racist.
And "multiculturalist" is a PC term for a multi-cultist.


Petr

[OVERWATCH]

Racist (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racist)
Racialist (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racialist)
Nazi (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nazi)

[Sulla the Dictator]

Here resides forty-seven(47) off topic posts split from another thread.

This is a worthy subject for exploration, however.

My stance is thus:

The term 'nazi' is far too overused. To use a ragnoism, it is the 'handy pocket demonizer'. examples:

George Bush is a 'nazi'.

Marlon Brando was a 'nazi'.

Ronald Reagan was a 'nazi'.

David Duke is a 'nazi'.

ad nauseam

The terms 'nazi' and 'communist' (amongst others) are buzzwords designed as a plea to emotion, based on some usually dubious link between some 'nazi idea' and the target who is to be demonised.


I disagree. One can't be expected to say this one is a 'racial communitarian', this one is a 'Nazi', this one is a 'white seperatist', this one is a 'racial nationalist Lenninist-Marxist' and of course, here's our 'fundamentalist Christian white nationalist' talking to the 'Anglosphere Imperialist white supremacist'.

Of course not. No 'racialist' on this board says "Thats Sulla, an American free market Conservative who isn't a racist". They say "egalitarian" or "anti-racist". Neither of these things are accurate.

But the question is, are they SLURS? Of course, I'm well aware of how 'white nationalists', 'white seperatists, etc might feel about the use of the word Nazi. But its a catch all for a reason. There's simply too many little ideologies with more or less one person in them on this board.

And where do you stop? Is racist also taboo? I see people objecting to that term. I see them object to being called 'anti-semites' or 'white supremacists' too.

But is it a slur to call someone suggesting there's a Jewish conspiracy to dominate aspects of society an anti-semite? Of course not. Its accurate if you don't accept the premise, which many of us don't.

And who are those complaining to talk? I see Starr throwing words like "nigger" and "kike" around like they're going out of style. Anti-Christ just suggested a similar deal. People post vulgar anti-semitic pictures with regularity.

Of course, this is a board with racialist overtones. But I would think, considering the content, that its a bit over the top to be so sensitive. Don't mistake the fact that this reply is to 88mmflak with a suggestion that HE'S sensitive. This is obviously addressed to others in this thread.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Obviously the Jewish and black communities aren't going to register and debate you, though, and you know it. So it is backhanded.


Those opposed to racism are given honorary Jewish and Black status, it seems. :p

[Fade the Butcher]

'Racialist' is a PC term for a racist.

This is false. There is a huge difference between acknowledging the existence of racial differences on the one hand and constructing racial hierarchies on the basis of them. There are few people here who would deny that Jews and East Asians are on average more intelligent than whites or that blacks are better sprinters whereas whites are better swimmers. Guess what? There are various plant animal species that live longer lives, are faster than humans, stronger than humans, can smell better than humans, can breathe underwater, can see, taste, and hear better than humans, and can even fly through the air.

I don't entertain distinctions that are propagated for the sake of being media-friendly.

I have always called myself a racialist. Do you honestly believe that I do so for the sake of being media friendly when I hold all sorts of politically incorrect views?

You don't have an ideology, you have a premise, which is racism.

Whatever. You are irrational.

[Donny the Punk]

Blacks and Jews are welcome to register here and engage us in debate provided they do so in a civil fashion. We have had several such members in the past.
You are dodging the point and you know it. If you insult me, I can very easily insult you back. We're on equal footing that way. If you say, however, that The Jews are ruining America, The Jews are not going to be able to come back at you. So it is hypocritical to get indignant about being personally attacked while at the same time attacking millions of people who have no voice on the Phora.

This is nonresponsive. Who decides what is hate speech and what is not?
In this case, the government has. I can't say I disagree with their definitions:
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.318.html
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.319.html

Criminalizing so-called hate speech is nothing more than a tactic to restrict the boundries of thought by narrowing the values that people are exposed to. You said so yourself.
No, I made some very clear points which you are misrepresenting. Hate speech is and should be banned because:
1. It is contrary to Canadian values
2. It sows discord and strife in society
3. It is designed to inflict emotional and intellectual harm on certain groups
4. It often advocates violence or contains threats directed against said groups
5. Its prevalence can create and foster more racism, to which we are opposed for reasons 1-4.

The criminalization of "racism" has everything to do with liberalism.
Rubbish. A totalitarian state where hate speech is illegal is easily imaginable. Quit trying to drag the discussion off-course with your segues into liberalism.

[Fade the Butcher]

Those opposed to racism are given honorary Jewish and Black status, it seems. :p

Do you know how many times I have been called a Jew?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Do you know how many times I have been called a Jew?

Not as many times as me, thats for sure.

[Fade the Butcher]

You forgot to highlight the most important parts, unsurprisingly

I highlighted the most important parts of your response. You have mounted your high horse and are going around saying that others are weak-minded and impressionable because they are have been immersed in a racist environment, but in 2003 you were saying your own views were significantly influenced by your stay here. In other words, this whole time you have just been projecting your own insecurities upon others and compensating for your own self-doubt by lashing out at others with ad homimen attacks.

[Sulla the Dictator]

This is false. There is a huge difference between acknowledging the existence of racial differences on the one hand and constructing racial hierarchies on the basis of them.


Your racialism isn't aimed at simply talking about racial differences. You all, without exception, seek to institute policies ON race if at all possible.

[Donny the Punk]

This is false. There is a huge difference between acknowledging the existence of racial differences on the one hand and constructing racial hierarchies on the basis of them. There are few people here who would deny that Jews and East Asians are on average more intelligent than whites or that blacks are better sprinters whereas whites are better swimmers. Guess what? There are various plant animal species that live longer lives, are faster than humans, stronger than humans, can smell better than humans, can breathe underwater, can see, taste, and hear better than humans, and can even fly through the air.
You seem to be describing a biologist, in which case 'racialist' is indeed a redundant and meaningless term.

I have always called myself a racialist. Do you honestly believe that I do so for the sake of being media friendly when I hold all sorts of politically incorrect views?
Actually, I think you go to great lengths to make your otherwise 'contentious' views palatable.

[Fade the Butcher]

Not as many times as me, thats for sure.

I will have you know that KING KIKEALIKE is my title, not yours. :p

I'm simultaneously denounced as a Jewish infiltrator and a Nazi. Am I therefore a Jewish Nazi?

[Fade the Butcher]

Your racialism isn't aimed at simply talking about racial differences. You all, without exception, seek to institute policies ON race if at all possible.

Didn't I just say that a racialist is someone who believes that racial differences exist and that they are relevant to public policy?

[Sulla the Dictator]

I will have you know that KING KIKEALIKE is my title, not yours. :p


According to Wehrmacht your Jewishness is due primarily to your relationship with me. :p

That is, when I'm not busy being Samuel L. Jackson.

I'll point out that I never complained or reported posts as I suffered the outrageous slings and arrows that the WORST elements of Internet Nazism had to throw at me. :p

So I can hardly see any justification for complaining about this Nazi business.


I'm simultaneously denounced as a Jewish infiltrator and a Nazi. Am I therefore a Jewish Nazi?

Your views on Nazism have changed, remember? :p

[Donny the Punk]

I highlighted the most important parts of your response. You have mounted your high horse and are going around saying that others are weak-minded and impressionable because they are have been immersed in a racist environment, but in 2003 you were saying your own views were significantly influenced by your stay here. In other words, this whole time you have just been projecting your own insecurities upon others and compensating for your own self-doubt by lashing out at others with ad homimen attacks.
You mischaracterise what I wrote. Prior to coming to the Phora, I had never had a single thought about race. None. After being exposed to non-stop obsession over race, though, and participating in many, many race-related debates in which I argued against racism and its proponents, that was evidently no longer possible. It was that shift in perspective I was describing, which could hardly be avoided, now could it?

However, I made it perfectly clear that my beliefs weren't affected in the least by my presence there. I said so twice, in fact. That you deliberately ignored those two statements is tantamount to a lie. :nono:

[Sulla the Dictator]

Didn't I just say that a racialist is someone who believes that racial differences exist and that they are relevant to public policy?

What type of public policy? Expulsion. Eugenics. Deportation. Property confiscation.

One race stays, the other one is forced out.

[WFHermans]

What type of public policy? Expulsion. Eugenics. Deportation. Property confiscation.

One race stays, the other one is forced out.

That's a perfect description of zionism.

[WFHermans]

The word nazi is a slur, like kike or nigger. If you use it against a member of the forum, it's flaming. If you start flaming, be prepared to be flamed back if the initial flame isn't removed fast.

[Donny the Punk]

Out of curiosity, why do you consider 'Nazi' to be a slur? Aren't you very pro-Nazi?

[Sulla the Dictator]

The word nazi is a slur, like kike or nigger. If you use it against a member of the forum, it's flaming. If you start flaming, be prepared to be flamed back if the initial flame isn't removed fast.

If we were to enforce these slur rules, you'd lose half your post count.

[Fade the Butcher]

You are dodging the point and you know it.

I haven't dodged any point. There is no ideological or racial litmus that determines who posts here. In fact, we have gone out of our way to encourage people who disagree with us to register here and participate.

If you insult me, I can very easily insult you back. We're on equal footing that way.

Potyondi,

It has already been pointed out to you that insults are not allowed in the highbrow forums. It seems your posts have been edited as well. So, don't push the envelope

If you say, however, that The Jews are ruining America, The Jews are not going to be able to come back at you.

I don't say that and even if I did Jews would be allowed to post here and dispute my claims.

So it is hypocritical to get indignant about being personally attacked while at the same time attacking millions of people who have no voice on the Phora.

There is no hypocrisy whatsoever, as personal attacks of any fashion are not tolerated here. The same standards apply to everyone.

In this case, the government has. I can't say I disagree with their definitions

I didn't ask you for a definition of hate speech. I asked you who decides what is hate speech.

No, I made some very clear points which you are misrepresenting. Hate speech is and should be banned because

There is no valid reason to criminalize "hate speech."

1. It is contrary to Canadian values

It's nice to see Canada has "official values" now and has chosen to criminalize thought on the basis of them with an official inquisition. I believe that was my point. Similarly, Jewish values don't conflict with the German way of life, as was pointed out by the Nazis.

2. It sows discord and strife in society

Multiculturalism is the chief source of strife and discord in Canada. Racism isn't the cause of your country's perpetual identity crisis.

3. It is designed to inflict emotional and intellectual harm on certain groups

Should fat jokes be banned too?

4. It often advocates violence or contains threats directed against said groups

Such laws legitimize state violence against certain groups.

5. Its prevalence can create and foster more racism, to which we are opposed for reasons 1-4.

Who decides what is hate speech?

Rubbish. A totalitarian state where hate speech is illegal is easily imaginable.

i.e., Canada.

Quit trying to drag the discussion off-course with your segues into liberalism.

It's a very queer thing; authoritarian liberalism, but then, liberalism itself is inherently irrational.

Note: It is funny to see you come out in favor of hate speech legislation. You are one of the most hateful people that I know.

[Fade the Butcher]

What type of public policy? Expulsion. Eugenics. Deportation. Property confiscation.

Social policy, of course: immigration, education, law enforcement, health care and so on.

One race stays, the other one is forced out.

That's racial nationalism, not racialism.

[WFHermans]

Out of curiosity, why do you consider 'Nazi' to be a slur? Aren't you very pro-Nazi?
Out of curiosity, why do you consider 'Kike' to be a slur? Aren't you very pro-Kike?

[Fade the Butcher]

You mischaracterise what I wrote.

I transcribed your entire post. The gallery is free to discern for themselves whether or not I mischaracterized it.

Prior to coming to the Phora, I had never had a single thought about race. None. After being exposed to non-stop obsession over race, though, and participating in many, many race-related debates in which I argued against racism and its proponents, that was evidently no longer possible. It was that shift in perspective I was describing, which could hardly be avoided, now could it?

Curious. You said that you lost your racial thought once you stopped posting here and attributed that to the prevailing mindset on other forums. This seems to suggest that you are weak-minded and impressionable; that you are projecting this onto others in order to compensate for your own insecurities.

However, I made it perfectly clear that my beliefs weren't affected in the least by my presence there. I said so twice, in fact. That you deliberately ignored those two statements is tantamount to a lie. :nono:

I didn't deliberately ignore those statements. I posted them for all to see.

[Donny the Punk]

I haven't dodged any point. There is no ideological or racial litmus that determines who posts here. In fact, we have gone out of our way to encourage people who disagree with us to register here and participate.
Again, dodging the point.

Potyondi,

It has already been pointed out to you that insults are not allowed in the highbrow forums. It seems your posts have been edited as well. So, don't push the envelope
Fade,

It is evident that you've been trying to use this thread to bait me for the last 50 posts or so. It seems I edited my own post out of respect for 88mmFlak's request. My restraint is the only reason your past isn't all over these pages. So don't get too smarmy.

I don't say that and even if I did Jews would be allowed to post here and dispute my claims.
Missing the point again.

There is no hypocrisy whatsoever, as personal attacks of any fashion are not tolerated here. The same standards apply to everyone.
1. That's obviously a lark.
2. Missing the point again.

I didn't ask you for a definition of hate speech. I asked you who decides what is hate speech.
And I told you.

There is no valid reason to criminalize "hate speech."
Sure there is. I gave you five, among many.

It's nice to see Canada has "official values" now and has chosen to criminalize thought on the basis of them with an official inquisition. I believe that was my point. Similarly, Jewish values don't conflict with the German way of life, as was pointed out by the Nazis.
Canada has a culture. It has an interest in preserving that culture, and part of it is manifested in values. I really couldn't care less what a racist American has to say about what my country should do domestically.

Multiculturalism is the chief source of strife and discord in Canada. Racism isn't the cause of your country's perpetual identity crisis.
My country has no strife and discord. :p

Should fat jokes be banned too?
Yawn.

Such laws legitimize state violence against certain groups.
Rofl, Fade apparently believes that fining a neo-nazi for advocating the genocide of Jews is the same as that neo-nazi putting a baseball bat to the head of some 'wog' he doesn't like the look of.

Who decides what is hate speech?
See above.

i.e., Canada.

It's a very queer thing; authoritarian liberalism, but then, liberalism itself is inherently irrational.
More irrelevancies.

Note: It is funny to see you come out in favor of hate speech legislation. You are one of the most hateful people that I know.
It's not only cathartic to hate Nazis for their beliefs, but it's morally wholesome, too. :) You won't see me hating a Nazi for his skin colour or accent, though.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Out of curiosity, why do you consider 'Kike' to be a slur? Aren't you very pro-Kike?

WFH is not an unusual poster here in the use of slurs. This type of stuff comes from him often, as it does others.

And we're up in arms about the word Nazi?

[Fade the Butcher]

You seem to be describing a biologist, in which case 'racialist' is indeed a redundant and meaningless term.

No, I'm describing a racialist. A racialist is someone who 1.) accepts the existence of racial differences and 2.) believes they are relevant to public policy. A racialist is not necessarily a biologist (although such a combination is possible)

Actually, I think you go to great lengths to make your otherwise 'contentious' views palatable.

il ragno is going to be on the floor when he hears this one.

[Sulla the Dictator]

No, I'm describing a racialist. A racialist is someone who 1.) accepts the existence of racial differences and 2.) believes they are relevant to public policy. A racialist is not necessarily a biologist (although such a combination is possible)


What happens to the Jewish population of the United States when a 'racialist' takes office?

[Donny the Punk]

I transcribed your entire post. The gallery is free to discern for themselves whether or not I mischaracterized it.
They can and will. Especially when you claim you highlighted all the important parts, which is evidently false.

Curious. You said that you lost your racial thought once you stopped posting here and attributed that to the prevailing mindset on other forums. This seems to suggest that you are weak-minded and impressionable; that you are projecting this onto others in order to compensate for your own insecurities.
Yes, "lost my racial thought," i.e. stopped thinking about race. That's hardly adopting racism as a creed. It seems to me that this argument of yours is fallacious and hollow. You are trying to say that apples and oranges are the same thing. But we all know that Fade only belabours the point to shift attention away from his instantaneous adoption of whichever intellectual fad comes his way. ;)

I didn't deliberately ignore those statements. I posted them for all to see.
You deliberately refused to highlight the most relevant portions of the post, which belie everything that you were trying to imply with what you did highlight. Naughty. :nono:

[OVERWATCH]

I consider the usage of the word 'nazi', when directed at another member here, to be considered a minor insult, unless that person considers themselves to be such. e.g., 'you are a nazi'

I consider ethnic slurs like 'nigger', 'kike', etc, when when directed at another member here, to be considered a major insult and will be treated as such without question. e.g., 'you are a kike'.

[Donny the Punk]

I consider the usage of the word 'nazi', when directed at another member here, to be considered a minor insult, unless that person considers themselves to be such. e.g., 'you are a nazi'

I consider ethnic slurs like 'nigger', 'kike', etc, when when directed at another member here, to be considered a major insult and will be treated as such without question. e.g., 'you are a kike'.
Then why is WFHerman not in the forum gulag? :confused:

[OVERWATCH]

Then why is WFHerman not in the forum gulag? :confused:

If you have examples of him directly calling someone here, in the Lyceum, a racial slur, then make it known to the staff via report- because I/we can't read every single post.

thanks

[WFHermans]

Hitting back at someone who hit you first shouldn't be considered the same as hitting first, and should certainly not be considered as a worse slur.

[Fade the Butcher]

Again, dodging the point.

This is nonresponsive.

Fade,

It is evident that you've been trying to use this thread to bait me for the last 50 posts or so. It seems I edited my own post out of respect for 88mmFlak's request. My restraint is the only reason your past isn't all over these pages. So don't get too smarmy.

This matter has already been settled. There are established rules that govern the discourse that goes on in the highbrow forums. No flaming. Keep discussions civil and productive. Show respect for other posters. I shouldn't have to explain to you why these rules are necessary. Moving on.

Missing the point again.

This is nonresponsive.

1. That's obviously a lark.
2. Missing the point again.

Ditto.

And I told you.

You have still yet to tell us who decides what is hate speech.

Sure there is. I gave you five, among many.

You have argued in favor of thought crimes and advocated the use of force to curtail such crimes on the grounds that they conflict with "official values." In other words, you believe that force, not reason, should arbitrate values.

Canada has a culture. It has an interest in preserving that culture, and part of it is manifested in values.

This is laughable. What is Canadian culture? I didn't see this culture when I visited your country. I was struck however by the noticeable absence of culture though: a mosque here, a Greek restaurant there, an Indian bum begging for change on the sidewalk, a synagogue, an Eastern Orthodox Church and so on.

I really couldn't care less what a racist American has to say about what my country should do domestically.

Here is an idea for you. You Canadians should build up a little culture of your own. Come back and talk to us about it after you have done so.

My country has no strife and discord. :p

The irony of a country that seem to be perpetually within a whim of falling apart being held up as a model worthy of imitation amuses me.

Yawn.

It's a serious question. Fat jokes demean a group of people. Are fat jokes hate speech?

Rofl, Fade apparently believes that fining a neo-nazi for advocating the genocide of Jews is the same as that neo-nazi putting a baseball bat to the head of some 'wog' he doesn't like the look of.

You would use force, not arguments, to silence those you disagree with; those who hold dissenting political opinions. And yes. There is a difference. The neo-nazi is held accountable for his actions. The state is not.

See above.

You still haven't told us who decides what is hate speech. Your inquisition, I assume?

More irrelevancies.

It doesn't surprise me that an irrational political philosophy would spawn irrational public policies.

It's not only cathartic to hate Nazis for their beliefs, but it's morally wholesome, too. :) You won't see me hating a Nazi for his skin colour or accent, though.

You don't have any problem with hatred per se, as you are driven by hatred in many ways. You just want to criminalize thought.

[Donny the Punk]

No, I'm describing a racialist. A racialist is someone who 1.) accepts the existence of racial differences and 2.) believes they are relevant to public policy. A racialist is not necessarily a biologist (although such a combination is possible)
You're not making any ground here.

rac·ism Audio pronunciation of "racist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

There is no meaningful difference between a racist and a racialist. The latter is a dressed-up PC term.

il ragno is going to be on the floor when he hears this one.
That you think I can't make judgements about your actions without consulting il ragno first is very weird. He's not exactly a font of wisdom, and I've known you much longer.

[Fade the Butcher]

What happens to the Jewish population of the United States when a 'racialist' takes office?

A racialist isn't necessarily an anti-semite just as an anti-semite isn't necessarily a racialist. In fact, I seem to recall Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton having Jewish ancestry. Michael Levin (author of Why Race Matters) is Jewish himself. You may notice that his book is prominently displayed on the Amren frontpage.

[Sulla the Dictator]

A racialist isn't necessarily an anti-semite just as an anti-semite isn't necessarily a racialist. In fact, I seem to recall Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton having Jewish ancestry. Michael Levin (author of Why Race Matters) is Jewish himself. You may notice that his book is prominently displayed on the Amren frontpage.

I don't quite understand how this is a response. Does this mean that Jews stay in a racialist America?

[Donny the Punk]

You have still yet to tell us who decides what is hate speech.

You still haven't told us who decides what is hate speech. Your inquisition, I assume?
I already have. I don't see why you play this yes/no back and forth game when you just have to look through my earlier posts.


You have argued in favor of thought crimes and advocated the use of force to curtail such crimes on the grounds that they conflict with "official values." In other words, you believe that force, not reason, should arbitrate values.

I have never used the term official values; that's your idea, not mine. The reasons I listed for hate-speech legislation are firmly rooted in reason. All laws and the penalties for breaking them are enforced by force. Are you an anarchist now? Which book are we reading today?

This is laughable. What is Canadian culture? I didn't see this culture when I visited your country. I was struck however by the noticeable absence of culture though: a mosque here, a Greek restaurant there, an Indian bum begging for change on the sidewalk, a synagogue, an Eastern Orthodox Church and so on.
Indeed, multiculturalism at its finest. A core Canadian value, part of our culture and our identity.

Here is an idea for you. You Canadians should build up a little culture of your own. Come back and talk to us about it after you have done so.
Canada doesn't need the permission of internet racists to decide what is in its own best cultural interests. :p

The irony of a country that seem to be perpetually within a whim of falling apart being held up as a model worthy of imitation amuses me.
I assume you're referring to Quebecois separatism here. As that issue has nothing to do with either immigration or multiculturalism, it's not exactly relevant.

It's a serious question. Fat jokes demean a group of people. Are fat jokes hate speech?
Fat jokes do not meet the Criminal Code of Canada's legal critera for hate speech which I posted above, so this is an irrelevancy.

You would use force, not arguments, to silence those you disagree with; those who hold dissenting political opinions. And yes. There is a difference. The neo-nazi is held accountable for his actions. The state is not.
There is no content with which to disagree in a statement like "According to jews like Sulla, a child that is raped by a jew is guilty, because "the child put the jew in trouble"." It's not an idea, it's an attack. Fade was so proud the other day of the fact that internet typings could cause violence. In the case in question, they were violence.

You don't have any problem with hatred per se, as you are driven by hatred in many ways. You just want to criminalize thought.
You're free to think whatever you want. You're not free to attack people. It's perfectly legitimate to criticise someone's behaviour, but not things like their background which are entirely beyond their control.
This is nonresponsive.

This matter has already been settled. There are established rules that govern the discourse that goes on in the highbrow forums. No flaming. Keep discussions civil and productive. Show respect for other posters. I shouldn't have to explain to you why these rules are necessary. Moving on.

This is nonresponsive.

Ditto.

It doesn't surprise me that an irrational political philosophy would spawn irrational public policies.

[Fade the Butcher]

You're not making any ground here.

Potyondi: selective, dishonest, and misleading as always. How about a meaningful comparison?

Racialism

An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racialism

Racism

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism

There is no meaningful difference between a racist and a racialist. The latter is a dressed-up PC term.

This is false. There is an important difference between the two terms, as the gallery can see. A racialist isn't necessarily a supremacist. A racist is.

That you think I can't make judgements about your actions without consulting il ragno first is very weird. He's not exactly a font of wisdom, and I've known you much longer.

I would say that you are more interested in talking to yourself than making meaningful points.

[Fade the Butcher]

I don't quite understand how this is a response. Does this mean that Jews stay in a racialist America?

You asked what happens to the Jews when a racialist is elected. I pointed out that this depends; that there are also racialist Jews.

[Donny the Punk]

Potyondi: selective, dishonest, and misleading as always. How about a meaningful comparison?

Racialism

An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racialism

Racism

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism
You've already stated in this thread that you racists believe in the intellectual superiority of Asians. You've also stated that you wish to institute political policies based on racial prejudice & discrimination. Finally, you've stated that you believe in racial differences. Those three things amount to the dictionary definition of racist. Note also: Racialism: 2. Chiefly British. Variant of racism. As we don't speak American English here, there is no difference here.

This is false. There is an important difference between the two terms, as the gallery can see. A racialist isn't necessarily a supremacist. A racist is.
I don't see anything about supremacy, just the notion of superiority, to which you've admitted.

I would say that you are more interested in talking to yourself than making meaningful points.
I'm not the one constantly trying to drag the discussion off-topic so that I can monologue about my Liberalism fetish. :p

[WFHermans]

Modern dictonaries are tools of political correctness and linguistical wrongness.
They are not trustworthy if you want want to know what a politically charged word means.

[Fade the Butcher]

I already have. I don't see why you play this yes/no back and forth game when you just have to look through my earlier posts.

Potyondi ducks the question.

I have never used the term official values; that's your idea, not mine.

It's an adequate description of your position. You have argued that Canada has values; that these values should be enshrined in law and that those who dissent from these values should be prosecuted. Thus, Potyondi endorses the concept of "official values" and state inquisitions to prosecute heretics for thought crimes.

The reasons I listed for hate-speech legislation are firmly rooted in reason.

Your argument is rooted in force and irrationality, not reason. It's inspired by hatred and intolerance at that. The only purpose such laws serve is to establish "official values" and criminalize those who disagree with them under the rubric of positive law.

All laws and the penalties for breaking them are enforced by force.

I have made this point over a dozen times now to Sulla: force isn't justice. A law isn't just because it happens to be a law.

Are you an anarchist now? Which book are we reading today?

I haven't endorsed anarchism.

Indeed, multiculturalism at its finest. A core Canadian value, part of our culture and our identity.

Correction. Multiculturalism is symptomatic of your absence of culture and absence of identity.

Canada doesn't need the permission of internet racists to decide what is in its own best cultural interests. :p

Here is another idea for you. If Canadians weren't so culturally impoverished, then maybe they wouldn't be attempting to laughably substitute foreign cultures for their own lack of culture. Your idea of culture is like microwavable dinners. It's not the real thing. It's a zero.

I assume you're referring to Quebecois separatism here. As that issue has nothing to do with either immigration or multiculturalism, it's not exactly relevant.

It has everything to do with multiculturalism, as multiculturalism in Canada has always been a sop to keep Quebec in Canada.

Fat jokes do not meet the Criminal Code of Canada's legal critera for hate speech which I posted above, so this is an irrelevancy.

As I pointed out above, who decides what is hate speech is everything. There is no rational justification for such laws. They are not even consistent with their own ostensible justifications.

There is no content with which to disagree in a statement like "According to jews like Sulla, a child that is raped by a jew is guilty, because "the child put the jew in trouble"." It's not an idea, it's an attack.

I'm glad you see that. If you would stop using similar unwarranted attacks in your arguments, then perhaps people would consider what you have to say.

Fade was so proud the other day of the fact that his internet typings could cause violence. In the case in question, they were violence.

I believe ideas can be a form of violence. In fact, I would argue in favor of the primacy of ideas. The ideas seize control of the human raw material and structure the actions of individuals. A case in point: Galton's simple proposition in my signature. There is a clear example of what I am talking about. The ramifications of that single idea in the twentieth century were profound. This is why I prefer to work with ideas. They are far more effective.

You're free to think whatever you want.

The object of such laws is to narrow the range of thought by criminalizing political dissent. Why criminalize thought? Because that is how you control people.

You're not free to attack people.

Correction. You are free to attack racists all you want. Racists are not free to respond. This is because the only purpose of such laws is to buttress political power.

It's perfectly legitimate to criticise someone's behaviour, but not things like their background which are entirely beyond their control.

This is nonsense.

[OVERWATCH]

There is no meaningful difference between a racist and a racialist. The latter is a dressed-up PC term.


Granted, there is no clear, universal distinction between 'racist' and 'racialist'; there is usually a lot of overlap.

However, the term 'racialist' is by no means a 'politically correct' one. 'Media friendly', yes, but the term 'racialist' is used as a self-descriptor by the most politically incorrect segments of society.

When was the last time you heard a modern politician or newscaster, use the term 'racialist'? They don't- and these are the folks most given to the PC lexicon- they generally use the term 'racist'.

[Donny the Punk]

Granted, there is no clear, universal distinction between 'racist' and 'racialist'; there is usually a lot of overlap.

However, the term 'racialist' is by no means a 'politically correct' one. 'Media friendly', yes, but the term 'racialist' is used as a self-descriptor by the most politically incorrect segments of society.

When was the last time you heard a modern politician or newscaster, use the term 'racialist'? They don't- and these are the folks most given to the PC lexicon- they generally use the term 'racist'.
That's because most politicians using the term are using it to describe other people, so they have no motivation to pretty it up. Those who want to make it more palatable are those who would use it to describe themselves, i.e Fade.

[Fade the Butcher]

You've already stated in this thread that you racists believe in the intellectual superiority of Asians.

Yes. I believe that certain races can be categorized relative to certain traits, say, intelligence, but not as races as such, as race subsumes all such traits. Thus, I can't say that whites are racially superior to blacks because blacks happen to be better than whites at certain things and vice versa. Hence, I am not a racist, but a racialist. Got it? It's really quite simple to understand. Even you should be able to grasp the abstract distinction.

You've also stated that you wish to institute political policies based on racial prejudice & discrimination.

This is true. I'm a racialist. I believe race is relevant to public policy.

Finally, you've stated that you believe in racial differences.

Of course. Do you deny the existence of racial differences?

Those three things amount to the dictionary definition of racist.

This is false.

Note also: Racialism: 2. Chiefly British. Variant of racism. As we don't speak American English here, there is no difference here.

The term racialism is not being used that sense, as you well know.

I don't see anything about supremacy, just the notion of superiority, to which you've admitted.

This is false. I have no desire to live amongst and dominate other races. I don't think whites are racially superior to nonwhites either.

I'm not the one constantly trying to drag the discussion off-topic so that I can monologue about my Liberalism fetish. :p

Liberalism is relevant to this discussion.

[Fade the Butcher]

That's because most politicians using the term are using it to describe other people, so they have no motivation to pretty it up. Those who want to make it more palatable are those who would use it to describe themselves, i.e Fade.

I want to make my views more palatable to Americans. That is why I spend so much time attacking democracy, capitalism, and liberalism (which count amongst their most cherished beliefs).

or

Potyondi is just irrational.

The simplest conclusion tends to be the true one.

[Donny the Punk]

Potyondi ducks the question.
Fade is evidently too lazy to scroll up to where I answered the question. There's no compelling reason for me to repeat myself to serve your obtuseness.

It's an adequate description of your position. You have argued that Canada has values; that these values should be enshrined in law and that those who dissent from these values should be prosecuted. Thus, Potyondi endorses the concept of "official values" and state inquisitions to prosecute heretics for thought crimes.
Canadian values enshrined in law are those contained in the BNA Act and the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, neither of which are under discussion here. Canada takes legal measures to prohibit actions which undermine the kind of society that it wants to be. Laws against murder are one such example. Thus, Fade is actually arguing for the irrationality of all measures intended to protect law and order and to maintain civilisation. He is claiming that nations have no right to defend their citizens. He is advocating anarchy. Fade: "the courts are tyrannical inquistions."

Your argument is rooted in force and irrationality, not reason. It's inspired by hatred and intolerance at that. The only purpose such laws serve is to establish "official values" and criminalize those who disagree with them under the rubric of positive law.
My argument is rooted in rationality and civilisational ideals. It is inspired by the desire to create and maintain a desireable society which seeks to guarantee human rights and dignities. These laws serve the purpose of ensuring that reactionary bigots don't undermine the fabric of Canadian society or bring harm to its citizens.

I have made this point over a dozen times now to Sulla: force isn't justice. A law isn't just because it happens to be a law.
Fade concedes the point that all laws must be enforced.

I haven't endorsed anarchism.
You have argued against the founding principle of jurisprudence as an institution dedicated to upholding preserving the order of society. A society without laws is anarchic. Hence, you are endorsing anarchism.


Correction. Multiculturalism is symptomatic of your absence of culture and absence of identity.
Correction. Canadians take great pride in their ethnic and religious tolerance, as well as their ability to co-exist not only peacefully, but with meaningful interchange. The rambling perspectives of an American outsider do not factor into the equation. In fact, no one in Canada cares what Americans think about Canadian multicultural policy.

Here is another idea for you. If Canadians weren't so culturally impoverished, then maybe they wouldn't be attempting to laughably substitute foreign cultures for their own lack of culture. Your idea of culture is like microwavable dinners. It's not the real thing. It's a zero.
Canadian culture is constantly made richer and more vibrant by its external cultural additions. As each particular ethnic and religious group weaves itself into the cultural tapestry, it not only adds to what already existed, but adapts itself to fit into a Canadian clime. There is no clash of civilisations in Canada. Its immigrants are constantly innovating to create new, uniquely Canadian cultural institutions, foods, music, etc. Much the same way the Japanese first adapted Chinese imports and later Western ones. All of this relies on a shared understanding of the virtues of tolerance, acceptance, and respect. Canada has every reason to wish to maintain these ideals.


It has everything to do with multiculturalism, as multiculturalism in Canada has always been a sop to keep Quebec in Canada.
Another Jew-led conspiracy theory, no doubt.

As I pointed out above, who decides what is hate speech is everything. There is no rational justification for such laws. They are not even consistent with their own ostensible justifications.
This has been addressed above. Fade has taken to repeating himself to embellish the pitiful substance of his objections.

I'm glad you see that. If you would stop using similar unwarranted attacks in your arguments, then perhaps people would consider what you have to say.
http://www.wholewheatblogger.com/weblog/images/potandkettle250x150.jpg

I believe ideas can be a form of violence. In fact, I would argue in favor of the primacy of ideas. The ideas seize control of the human raw material and structure the actions of individuals. A case in point: Galton's simple proposition in my signature. There is a clear example of what I am talking about. The ramifications of that single idea in the twentieth century were profound. This is why I prefer to work with ideas. They are far more effective.
Fade concedes the point that the hateful screed which was brought down legally was an instance of violence. We have laws against other forms of violence, such as assault, rape, armed robbery, and so on. As with this.

The object of such laws is to narrow the range of thought by criminalizing political dissent. Why criminalize thought? Because that is how you control people.
Fade is so easily manipulated that a law preventing him from advocating genocide will narrow his thought process. It's no wonder, then, that he's so opposed to such common-sense measures.

Correction. You are free to attack racists all you want. Racists are not free to respond. This is because the only purpose of such laws is to buttress political power.
I am not free to commit violences on racists. I am not free to threaten violence against racists. Both of these are illegal acts. The purpose of all such restrictive laws is the maintenance of peace.

This is nonsense.
Fade believes we should denigrate people based on their skin colour but not on their behaviours. Noted.

[Petr]

Also it should be noted that National Socialism is an ideology of Peace.
Oh, Nazi please! :p


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade is evidently too lazy to scroll up to where I answered the question. There's no compelling reason for me to repeat myself to serve your obtuseness.

Potyondi never answered the question.

Canadian values enshrined in law are those contained in the BNA Act and the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, neither of which are under discussion here.

I will remind the gallery that these so-called Canadian values are socially and historically situated. Canadian values in the nineteenth century were quite different.

http://www.constitutional-law.net/chartersample.html

"In the 19th century, attitudes to what we now know as racism and discrimination were very different. So it is perhaps not remarkable that in 1899, the Privy Council had to consider a British Columbia statute, the Coal Mines Regulation Act, which prohibited the employment of "Chinamen" in mines regulated by the statute. Or that in 1903, the Privy Council had to consider provincial legislation which disentitled a Japanese person, whether naturalized or not, from having his name placed on the register of voters or from being entitled to vote. Or again, that in 1914, the Supreme Court of Canada had to consider provincial legislation prohibiting "Chinamen" from employing white females. The response of the Court was cast in federalist terms: the courts asked whether the legislation affected exclusive federal power in relation to naturalization and aliens. In Union Colliery v. Bryden, [1899] A.C. 580, the court found that the Coal Mines Act was in relation to exclusive federal jurisdiction concerning naturalization and aliens, and that the provincial legislation was, for that reason, invalid. In Cunningham v. Tomey Homma, [1903] A.C. 151 and Quong Wing v. The Queen, [1914] 49 S.C.R. 440, the response of the court was different. The B.C. legislation which took away voting rights from Japanese-Canadians was held to be within provincial power and suffered from no constitutional objection; so too, provincial legislation singling out "Chinamen" from the ability to employ white female Canadians was found to be unobjectionable as not being aimed at federal jurisdiction over naturalization and aliens."

Canada takes legal measures to prohibit actions which undermine the kind of society that it wants to be.

Canada has established an official ideology and has taken measures to criminalize those who dissent from that ideology. This is essentially what happened in Nazi Germany.

Laws against murder are one such example.

Laws against murder are not specific to Canada. They are universally valid because they reflect natural law.

Thus, Fade is actually arguing for the irrationality of all measures intended to protect law and order and to maintain civilisation. He is advocating anarchy.

This is a straw man. I have argued against unjust legislation. This is far from being an endorsement of anarchy.

He is claiming that nations have no right to defend their citizens.

Canada isn't defending its citizens. I will tell you what is actually going on here. This law reflects the distribution of power in Canada and the interests of powerful groups. These groups have an interest in passing such legislation because they want to control thought. It's necessary to control thought to control people.

Fade: "the courts are tyrannical inquistions."

Potyondi: The state should establish an inquisition to prosecute those who fall afoul of "official values."

My argument is rooted in rationality and civilisational ideals.

This is nonsense. Such laws have nothing whatsoever to do with rationality and civilization. It's not a crime to hurt someone's feelings. This is mere rhetoric. They are simply the arbitrary preferences of powerful groups. That's why they are so inconsisent.

It is inspired by the desire to create and maintain a desireable society which seeks to guarantee human rights and dignities.

I see. If I poke fun at Jews, then I can be charged with inciting hatred, but if I were to ridicule fat people as a Canadian, that's fine.

These laws serve the purpose of ensuring that reactionary bigots don't undermine the fabric of Canadian society or bring harm to its citizens.

The purpose of these laws is to control people by controlling thought and to control thought by criminalizing dissent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting Canadian citizens. In fact, the object of such laws is to protect the powerful from Canadian citizens.

Fade concedes the point that all laws must be enforced.

Laws that are unjust should not be enforced. They should be repealed.

You have argued against the founding principle of jurisprudence as an institution dedicated to upholding preserving the order of society.

The object of such laws is not to preserve order, but to preserve the dominance of the ruling class by criminalizing their critics.

A society without laws is anarchic. Hence, you are endorsing anarchism.

This is a straw man.

Correction. Canadians take great pride in their ethnic and religious tolerance, as well as their ability to co-exist not only peacefully, but with meaningful interchange.

You mean their indifference; their lack of culture, right? Boundries are an essential aspect of culture. As I pointed out before, Canadians should come up with a little more culture of their own before lecturing others.

The rambling perspectives of an American outsider do not factor into the equation. In fact, no one in Canada cares what Americans think about Canadian multicultural policy.

You live in a culturally impoverished society; that equates its lack of an identity with identity. Canadians laughably try to make up for it by ransacking other cultures as if they were at a god damn yard sale. You even have the audacity to claim that the pathetic state of culture in Canada is somehow indicative of cultural dynamism, not cultural sterility. Do you have a pink flamingo in your yard? :p

Canadian culture is constantly made richer and more vibrant by its external cultural additions.

Why do Canadians feel impelled to decorate their land with foreign restaurants and peoples? It's a pathetic attempt to make up for their own lack of culture. Does anyone seriously associate great culture with Canada; with a kitsch assortment of ethnic restaurants in Toronto?

As each particular ethnic and religious group weaves itself into the cultural tapestry, it not only adds to what already existed, but adapts itself to fit into a Canadian clime.

Canada is like a cultural black hole sucking in people and cultures from around the world and destroying them in the process.

There is no clash of civilisations in Canada. Its immigrants are constantly innovating to create new, uniquely Canadian cultural institutions, foods, music, etc.

What are these? I'm scratching my head trying to think of uniquely Canadian foods, cultural institutions, and music. Please help.

Much the same way the Japanese first adapted Chinese imports and later Western ones. All of this relies on a shared understanding of the virtues of tolerance, acceptance, and respect. Canada has every reason to wish to maintain these ideals.

Where do you get off comparing Japan to Canada? The Japanese would never degrade their society in a million years in the way that Canadians have done.

Another Jew-led conspiracy theory, no doubt.

This is a straw man.

This has been addressed above. Fade has taken to repeating himself to embellish the pitiful substance of his objections.

This is nonresponsive.

Fade concedes the point that the hateful screed which was brought down legally was an instance of violence.

A different class of violence.

We have laws against other forms of violence, such as assault, rape, armed robbery, and so on. As with this.

See above.

Fade is so easily manipulated that a law preventing him from advocating genocide will narrow his thought process. It's no wonder, then, that he's so opposed to such common-sense measures.

Interesting. If such laws were common sense like, say, laws against murder and rape, then why are they so socially and historically specific?

I am not free to commit violences on racists. I am not free to threaten violence against racists. Both of these are illegal acts. The purpose of all such restrictive laws is the maintenance of peace.

The purpose of such restrictive laws is to maintain the dominance of powerful groups and to legitimize the use of violence to suppress their enemies.

Fade believes we should denigrate people based on their skin colour but not on their behaviours. Noted.

Potyondi believes one's ancestry is irrelevant to one's constitution. Gotcha.

[Donny the Punk]

This is a straw man.
This is a straw man.
This is nonresponsive.
See above.
Potyondi never answered the question.
Fade's laziness has sent this to... the rubbish bin! Way to go.

I will remind the gallery that these so-called Canadian values are socially and historically situated. Canadian values in the nineteenth century were quite different.

http://www.constitutional-law.net/chartersample.html

"In the 19th century, attitudes to what we now know as racism and discrimination were very different. So it is perhaps not remarkable that in 1899, the Privy Council had to consider a British Columbia statute, the Coal Mines Regulation Act, which prohibited the employment of "Chinamen" in mines regulated by the statute. Or that in 1903, the Privy Council had to consider provincial legislation which disentitled a Japanese person, whether naturalized or not, from having his name placed on the register of voters or from being entitled to vote. Or again, that in 1914, the Supreme Court of Canada had to consider provincial legislation prohibiting "Chinamen" from employing white females. The response of the Court was cast in federalist terms: the courts asked whether the legislation affected exclusive federal power in relation to naturalization and aliens. In Union Colliery v. Bryden, [1899] A.C. 580, the court found that the Coal Mines Act was in relation to exclusive federal jurisdiction concerning naturalization and aliens, and that the provincial legislation was, for that reason, invalid. In Cunningham v. Tomey Homma, [1903] A.C. 151 and Quong Wing v. The Queen, [1914] 49 S.C.R. 440, the response of the court was different. The B.C. legislation which took away voting rights from Japanese-Canadians was held to be within provincial power and suffered from no constitutional objection; so too, provincial legislation singling out "Chinamen" from the ability to employ white female Canadians was found to be unobjectionable as not being aimed at federal jurisdiction over naturalization and aliens."
I will remind the gallery that scores of posts ago, I was the first and only to mention that multiculturalism became a part of Canadian culture and identity during and after the Trudeau era. Fade is trying to respond to my point about the CR&F (which was draughted in 1982 under Trudeau) by reiterating my own point back to me. Thanks for the intellectual exercise Fade, but I could have managed that logical leap without your help. To follow it up, Fade offers us the product of 6 years of university education, the platitude that values change over time. Simply amazing, folks. :p I guess it never occurred to Fade to discuss the present, since he doesn't have a leg to stand on in this current argument.

Canada has established an official ideology and has taken measures to criminalize those who dissent from that ideology. This is essentially what happened in Nazi Germany.
I see, now Fade is comparing Canada to Nazi Germany. :rofl: Honestly, I don't even care about the debate any more, we're all just laughing at you.

Laws against murder are not specific to Canada. They are universally valid because they reflect natural law.
Natural law, what's that?

This is a straw man. I have argued against unjust legislation. This is far from being an endorsement of anarchy.
Fade has yet to explain why this is unjust legislation, and on what basis. Since he has nothing but contempt for the individual, it can't be according to that. As he now believes in the ultimate good of the collective, he surely can't help but agree that these laws do exactly that.

Canada isn't defending its citizens. I will tell you what is actually going on here. This law reflects the distribution of power in Canada and the interests of powerful groups. These groups have an interest in passing such legislation because they want to control thought. It's necessary to control thought to control people.
Ah yes, the old ZOG conspiracy again. :p I guess Fade would consider things like movie ratings an example of thought control as well. According to him, we should let five year-olds watch women get raped with scissors in A Clockwork Orange and soldiers with their guts strewn all over a beach in Saving Private Ryan because to forbid them to do otherwise is 'thought control.' It couldn't possibly be that we enforce such draconian strictures because we care for our kids. Tell me, Fade, which special interest group wants to oppress the poor Canadian children in order to control them? :rofl:

Potyondi: The state should establish an inquisition to prosecute those who fall afoul of "official values."
From this quote we can deduce the following:
1. Fade believes that courts of law are "inquistions" (presumably the Spanish kind that torture people)
2. Fade believes that the desire for peace and order are tantamount to "official values" which are enforced in Nazi-esque ways.
3. Violent criminals are 'heretics' being persecuted for their thoughts.

Any other gems of insight for us today?

This is nonsense. Such laws have nothing whatsoever to do with rationality and civilization. It's not a crime to hurt someone's feelings. This is mere rhetoric. They are simply the arbitrary preferences of powerful groups. That's why they are so inconsisent.
Fade, in a debate about Canadian hate-speech laws, has done everything he can to avoid actually discussing these same laws. I posted them above, so he's obviously not ignorant of their content. As he knows full well that there's no provision against hurting someone's feelings contained therein, Fade is making up everything he says as he goes along, as usual. Oooh, "powerful groups." Tinfoil hats at the ready!

I see. If I poke fun at Jews, then I can be charged with inciting hatred, but if I were to ridicule fat people as a Canadian, that's fine.
You don't 'poke fun' at anyone, you regularly implicate Jews in massive conspiracies whose effects are ruining white civilisation, not to mention implying that they're all liars by denying their mass murder during the war. It's only fun for your equally anti-social Nazi pals.

The purpose of these laws is to control people by controlling thought and to control thought by criminalizing dissent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting Canadian citizens. In fact, the object of such laws is to protect the powerful from Canadian citizens.
Minus the political correctness filters: The object of such laws is to protect nefarious, conspiratorial Jews from benevolent racists. Erm, something like that. :p

Laws that are unjust should not be enforced. They should be repealed.
Fade still hasn't given us a good reason why it should be legal to advocate the genocide of an ethnic group.

The object of such laws is not to preserve order, but to preserve the dominance of the ruling class by criminalizing their critics.
LOL your beloved "third world immigrants" are the ruling class?

You mean their indifference; their lack of culture, right? Boundries are an essential aspect of culture. As I pointed out before, Canadians should come up with a little more culture of their own before lecturing others.
I mean exactly as I say. The collected accomplishments of Alabama could fit on a post-it note. "George Wallace's grandson" is in no position to be strutting over the cultural richness of his backwards southern hinterland.

You live in a culturally impoverished society; that equates its lack of an identity with identity. Canadians laughably try to make up for it by ransacking other cultures as if they were at a god damn yard sale. You even have the audacity to claim that the pathetic state of culture in Canada is somehow indicative of cultural dynamism, not cultural sterility. Do you have a pink flamingo in your yard? :p
We're quite happy with what we have up here. Your churlish snipes mean nothing to us, nor have any bearing on our wish to preserve our current ways of life.

Why do Canadians feel impelled to decorate their land with foreign restaurants and peoples? It's a pathetic attempt to make up for their own lack of culture. Does anyone seriously associate great culture with Canada; with a kitsch assortment of ethnic restaurants in Toronto?
We like it. :)

Canada is like a cultural black hole sucking in people and cultures from around the world and destroying them in the process.
ROFL. First all we can do is populate our country with and steal from immigrants, now we destroy them. :p It may surprise you to know that people all over the world are begging to come here in droves, and that they're more than happy to contribute to their adoptive society once they arrive. We're not a melting pot; no annihilation of identity here. Time to get your stories straight! :O

What are these? I'm scratching my head trying to think of uniquely Canadian foods, cultural institutions, and music. Please help.
Certainly. Foods: back bacon, caesars, ginger beef, maple syrup, pemmican, poutine (ew), Nestle chocolate, Tim Horton's coffee, Red Rose tea, Tourtiere, Cipaille, feves au lard, penuche, tournedos, agneau au four, baked quahaugs, beaver tails (not from actual beavers), Nanaimo bars, boudin du pays, cape breton scones, soupe au huitres de noel, fricot a la belette, maple tourlouche, miel au trefles, Queen Elizabeth cake, Saskatoon pie, etc., etc. Music: www.tupelohoney.ca ; http://www.k-osmusic.com/ ; http://www.theoryofadeadman.com/ ; http://www.larastjohn.com/ ; http://www.theweakerthans.org/ ; http://www.thecarnations.com/ ; http://www.billytalent.com/bt_flash.html ; http://www.arts-crafts.ca/stars/ ; http://www.hedleyonline.com/ ; http://www.dianakrall.com/ ; http://www.bedouinsoundclash.com/ ; more here http://particle.physics.ucdavis.edu/Canadians/musicians.html ; etc., etc. Institutions: peacekeeping, multiculturalism, the "free books for all" movement, Winnipeg folk fest, prairie literature (Stegner, Mitchell & Vanderhaeghe), the Calgary Stampede, Carnaval, Cirque du Soleil, the Group of Seven, the Toronto film festival, etc., etc.

Has anyone else noticed that Fade's completely gotten off the topic? :confused: Yes? Good. That's because he has nothing important to say.

Where do you get off comparing Japan to Canada? The Japanese would never degrade their society in a million years in the way that Canadians have done.
ROFLMAO the Japanese imported not only their religion and their civil administration from China, but also their entire written language. Let's not even get into the Meiji Restoration and the post-war aping of America. Really, Fade, if you have no idea what you're talking about, don't.

A different class of violence.
Violence nevertheless, which must needs be countermanded by law.

Interesting. If such laws were common sense like, say, laws against murder and rape, then why are they so socially and historically specific?
Do you also believe in exposing female babies to the elements and worshipping snakes, Fade? Celtic druids used to stab sacrificial victims in the back and divine the future from their death spasms. I guess that's what Fade means by common sense. :p

The purpose of such restrictive laws is to maintain the dominance of powerful groups and to legitimize the use of violence to suppress their enemies.
These laws criminalise violence and prevent subversive groups from undermining the peace and order of Canadian society.

Potyondi believes one's ancestry is irrelevant to one's constitution. Gotcha.
Potyondi doesn't believe in putting people in cattle cars and shipping them back to the third world because their skin's not quite as alabaster as his. Gotcha indeed.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The purpose of these laws is to control people by controlling thought and to control thought by criminalizing dissent.

The liberal conception of free speech doesn't work. If you grant free speech rights to the enemies of free speech, then what is to stop them from gaining power and changing the system in their favor once they do?

[Helios Panoptes]

The liberal conception of free speech doesn't work. If you grant free speech rights to the enemies of free speech, then what is to stop them from gaining power and changing the system in their favor once they do?

Sounds like government by the people to me. Who are you to tell them what sort of system should rule them? Some elitist who knows better than the majority? :nono:

[Blaphbee]

Potyondi, I'd advise you to stop speaking of all Canadians universally. There are no "universals", especially none that apply to Canada.

[Blaphbee]

Sounds like government by the people to me. Who are you to tell them what sort of system should rule them? Some elitist who knows better than the majority? :nono:
Not to mention someone who is very quick to reference the "majority opinion" that, for example, race doesn't exist.

The liberal conception of free speech doesn't work. If you grant free speech rights to the enemies of free speech, then what is to stop them from gaining power and changing the system in their favor once they do?
Maybe I just don't "get" your "logic" here, but free speech implies freedom of all speech. Censoring certain strains of speech which aren't agreeable to a certain ideological stance - multiculturalism - is not a freedom, it is instead a strictly defined limitation to that supposed "freedom".

Is there an option within democratic principles to vote against democracy? No. Thus, it isn't based on some absurd notion of freedom of thought/idea. The people who are the most vociferous defenders of democratic ideals defend it against what could oppose it, i.e. an ideology with a goal in mind beyond stasis via economic wage slavery.

[Blaphbee]

A question to the "Nazi" ad hom'ers:

Why don't hate speech laws apply to people that hate Nazis? You are no different than what you oppose.

This entire discussion has been one long argument to try and support the notion of rationalizing the use of ad hominems against people who subscribe to a racialist ideology, as if calling someone a Nazi actually pertains to an argument carried out between the participants. Calling someone a Nazi is nothing more than an ad hominem distraction. It serves no purpose other than to demonize the offending party. It is not permitted in any debate to direct ad hom attacks against anyone; why is the anti-racist camp here arguing in favour of being allowed to utilize ad homs at their discretion, not to mention using pathetic semantic arguments - "if it doesn't describe you, why are you offended?" - and insipid appeals to emotion to justify their positions?

If these labels of "kike", "nigger", and the like aren't personally relevant to you, why are you offended by their usage?

[Fade the Butcher]

I see I have been wasting my time.

[Billy Score]

i was in no wahy going to read the whole thread but i read everything that pertained to me.
Poty- my first banning on any forum was when che lives banned me for saying that marijuana should remain illegal and that prostitution should be illegal and the death penalty on those involved. I advocated banning alcohol and cigarettes also. At the very most liberal days i felt that homosexuals should be tolerated as human beings, but keep their behavior in the closet. Abortion at best i felt should be used by the state and while not admirable or something to be proud of, should be permitted. Today i feel that it should only be permitted in cases the state deems as worthwhile reasons, or according to a eugenic policy. The only thing which i am against now which i was not against 4 years ago is miscegeny, and this is more because of the taboo nature of the subject.

I was an authoritarian who supported stalin four years ago. I am an authoritarian who supports stalin now. Where is the difference? Where have i radically changed??

And what nordic obsession?? I despise the scandinavians. I am hardly nordic, and as far as i am concerned, nordics are only a pretty version of huns in terms of achievements (the huns raided all over europe. the vikings raided all over europe. one was short and asiatic one was.... nordic.) They had their achievements but the romans and the greeks were a far more advanced peoples, i can't see how anyone could argue otherwise. The nordic spirit was admirable, but saying this hardly makes me some nordicist?

[Sulla the Dictator]

A question to the "Nazi" ad hom'ers:

Why don't hate speech laws apply to people that hate Nazis? You are no different than what you oppose.

This entire discussion has been one long argument to try and support the notion of rationalizing the use of ad hominems against people who subscribe to a racialist ideology, as if calling someone a Nazi actually pertains to an argument carried out between the participants. Calling someone a Nazi is nothing more than an ad hominem distraction.


Is calling a Nazi a Nazi an ad hominem now? :p

There are ADMITTED Nazis on this board. In the Adolf Hitler thread there's a fellow saying that "Hitler will return one day"!

Calling a black person a nigger or a Jewish person a kike IS an ad hominem attack.

Obviously. What about this don't you understand?


If these labels of "kike", "nigger", and the like aren't personally relevant to you, why are you offended by their usage?

Are you serious? Why should people who dislike racism have a problem with racial slurs? Thats an actual question you're asking?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Maybe I just don't "get" your "logic" here, but free speech implies freedom of all speech. Censoring certain strains of speech which aren't agreeable to a certain ideological stance - multiculturalism - is not a freedom, it is instead a strictly defined limitation to that supposed "freedom".


Maybe you aren't arguing with something that I said.

[Hannibal]

i was in no wahy going to read the whole thread but i read everything that pertained to me.
Poty- my first banning on any forum was when che lives banned me for saying that marijuana should remain illegal and that prostitution should be illegal and the death penalty on those involved. I advocated banning alcohol and cigarettes also. At the very most liberal days i felt that homosexuals should be tolerated as human beings, but keep their behavior in the closet. Abortion at best i felt should be used by the state and while not admirable or something to be proud of, should be permitted. Today i feel that it should only be permitted in cases the state deems as worthwhile reasons, or according to a eugenic policy. The only thing which i am against now which i was not against 4 years ago is miscegeny, and this is more because of the taboo nature of the subject.

I was an authoritarian who supported stalin four years ago. I am an authoritarian who supports stalin now. Where is the difference? Where have i radically changed??

And what nordic obsession?? I despise the scandinavians. I am hardly nordic, and as far as i am concerned, nordics are only a pretty version of huns in terms of achievements (the huns raided all over europe. the vikings raided all over europe. one was short and asiatic one was.... nordic.) They had their achievements but the romans and the greeks were a far more advanced peoples, i can't see how anyone could argue otherwise. The nordic spirit was admirable, but saying this hardly makes me some nordicist?
You most certainly have changed. Most of the garbage you spew here could be easily be mistaken for a passage off VNN and other batshit crazy racialist forums.

You have become a odious little vermin racist like the many VNN refuse whom you share great company with, only with a slight nuanced fetish in Stalin and cockroaches. And we all know your objection to miscegenation and other pro WN idiotlogy stems from your extreme self hate and your miserable failure as a human being.

[Billy Score]

Excellent post hannibal. I'll be sure to report it.:)

I am not a white nationalist, i am barely "white" by any standards. Whites are eunuchs who hate themselves and are selling their cultures and souls. This isn't WN "garbage' this is truth. I didn't need the phora to tell me that, or some tom metzger figure.

Who do i share great company with by the way? Of the people here the only ones i speak to outside of this forum are generally people i BROUGHT HERE (ie nuctemeron, rice, alvaro, etc). I speak to vaszoly or helios at times, but no one else. So who corrupted me. Who brainwashed me into joining the KKK?

[Blaphbee]

Is calling a Nazi a Nazi an ad hominem now? :p

There are ADMITTED Nazis on this board. In the Adolf Hitler thread there's a fellow saying that "Hitler will return one day"!

Calling a black person a nigger or a Jewish person a kike IS an ad hominem attack.

Obviously. What about this don't you understand?
It always has been an ad hom. It's the same as slander, and is just as reprehensible as calling Africans a nigger, or calling Jews a kike. Either way, it serves no purpose, and does nothing to refute the viewpoint of another individual. You're transparent attempt to legitimize the usage of "Nazi" as an acceptable ad hom is ridiculous, especially in view of the fact that you view "kike" as something reprehensible - I thought Jews weren't a race? Liberal ideology holds that Judaism is nothing more than an ideology. This is something that almost all liberals chirp on about, and then claim that Jewishness is something beyond a Jewish person's control, when the word "kike" gets tossed around. Which is it? Potyondi has already referenced his own slandering numerous times in this thread, and it's something that obviously bothers him, even though I'm not certain he is actually a Jew.
Are you serious? Why should people who dislike racism have a problem with racial slurs? Thats an actual question you're asking?
Yes, it's a serious question. What is your problem with racism, if it doesn't effect you personally? Bear in mind here, that I am not personally a racist, and I will not speak disparaging things about other races. I'm simply questioning your logic.

[Jofreidr_1488]

Oh, Nazi please! :p


Petr

I am not a 'nazi' (an almost meaningless term when one sees arabs calling zionists 'nazis'), have never been a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party, worn a brown uniform, a swaztika armband (although I do consider it a Sacred Pagan Symbol), or read 'Mein Kampf'. In short: Some nazis are Pagans, but not all Pagans are nazis. I am however an Odinist.

Perhaps if you took your face out of the jew book and jew history books you would know when even teenage Aryan Olsen Twins know that National Socialism is an ideology of Peace.

Performed by Prussian Blue

Sacrifice


He fought so strong for our race. We're finally back in our place. It took his life, my dear son, and now it's over the war is won. Our Race was saved because the lives that were sacrificed: those men that died...

Sacrifice , they gave their lives. All those men who have died. Sacrifice, they gave their lives, all those men who have died.

Warrior poet, I sing his songs. Ian Stuart, with his voice so strong. Remember his words, as we sing along.

Rudolph Hess, man of Peace. He wouldn't give up and he wouldn't cease, to give his loyalty to our Cause. Remember him and give a pause.

Robert Matthews knew the Truth. He knew what he had to do. He set an example with Courage so bold. We'll never let that fire grow cold.

Dr Pierce, a man so wise, helped so many of us open our eyes, and see the future for what it could be: a future for our Race’s eternity.

[OVERWATCH]

I am not a 'nazi' (an almost meaningless term when one sees arabs calling zionists 'nazis'), have never been a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party, worn a brown uniform, a swaztika armband (although I do consider it a Sacred Pagan Symbol), or read 'Mein Kampf'. In short: Some nazis are Pagans, but not all Pagans are nazis. I am however an Odinist.

Perhaps if you took your face out of the jew book and jew history books you would know when even teenage Aryan Olsen Twins know that National Socialism is an ideology of Peace.

Their mother (April Gaede) has infuenced their "decisions" exceptionally well.

[cerberus]

I first heard of these young ladies when reading a review of an IHR conference written by MArk Weber.
Mr. Weber notes how the two girls sang " Inspirational Songs".
Now to be honest the blue stains so often talked about sprang to my mind , why allow your children to sing under such a name.
More resently I found a small movie clip of the girls being interviewed - its out there on Google for any who want to look for it.
As Flak 88 puts it (so very well) their mother has completely influenceed her daughters thinking to the point of brain washing them- they would seem only to have known racist terms and conditioning.

I think their mother is a little unique to say the least. Magada G. does spring to mind.

[cerberus]

Rudolph Hess, man of Peace.
Is this the same man the Fuhrer said was mad , the man he disassociated himself from ?
Seems that this loyality to the Fuhrer causes some problems , men like Hess and Himmler who had problems with are still held as heros.
Poor old Herman G. - never forgiven.
nazi an insult - depends on the context.
Nazis would feel that you have paid them the highest compliment that they might accord themselves , those who are not a "Nazi" would rightly feel insulted.
As for Sulla and I calling for cxhildren to be raped I think WFH is just sore beacuse i have not called him a "Nazi".
OK WFH you are a true blue Nazi in the same mold as Himmler or Fegelein .:)
I think your Fuhrer said one was a coward and a traitor and the other one was a coward or and a traitor as well.:)

[Slavic Enforcer]

Yes, Nazi is definitely a terrible insult.

[il ragno]

Yesterday this thread didn't even exist and now it's 15 pages long - yowza!

A weenie calling a race-realist "Nazi scum" is rope-a-dope.

The idea is for the boxer to lie on the ropes of a boxing ring, conserve energy and allow the opponent to strike him repeatedly in hopes of making him tire and open up weaknesses to exploit for an eventual counter-attack.

Weenies are at their most vulnerable talking about the here-and-now. Rope-a-dope takes the race-realist away from his winning strategy, and makes him play to the weenie's strong suit (drama-queen speeches about Evil and Hitler and How Free Association Inevitably Leads To Human Soap Production).

The worst thing the RR could do is rise to the bait and get into protracted defenses of Hitler, Nazism, etc, just to take an adversary position. The weenie counts on you punching yourself into exhaustion over this peripheral sidebar.

Don't buy into it. Nobody, but nobody, dislikes the idea of living among niggers because of some passage from MEIN KAMPF. Race-realism begins with the evidence of one's eyes and ears and personal experience and then extrapolates outwards into theory, history, ideology, etc.

When a Potyondi covers up with "Nazi scum", lure him back into the middle of the ring with current FBI crime statistics and the Grand Canyon-wide disparity between Jews' percentage of population and their overrepresentation in politics, the media and academia.

[Starr]

My argument is rooted in rationality and civilisational ideals. It is inspired by the desire to create and maintain a desireable society which seeks to guarantee human rights and dignities.

So , through force, people are going to reach a point where we will all love each other and "just get along?" You need to come out of your little dream world and step into reality.

do you actually believe half of what you are saying, or does it just make you feel good to say it?

Originally Posted by SullatheDictator
The liberal conception of free speech doesn't work. If you grant free speech rights to the enemies of free speech, then what is to stop them from gaining power and changing the system in their favor once they do?

You are right. The evidence of this is, currently, all around us

[Die]

Concerning free speech, what's with the removal of my posts? Am I considered a threat to someone or something?! :rofl:

[Donny the Punk]

So , through force, people are going to reach a point where we will all love each other and "just get along?" You need to come out of your little dream world and step into reality.
The dream world is the one you inhabit here at the Phora and in your mind. In the real world, most people are more than liable to get along when placed alongside one another. The only force in question here is that which you dream of using to deport Jews and other racial 'undesireables' from North American shores. If any of you bloody people would actually READ the Canadian laws which I provided above, you'll see they are specifically designed to abnegate the incitement of racial violence, which is no different from making death threats illegal.

do you actually believe half of what you are saying, or does it just make you feel good to say it?
Both.

You are right. The evidence of this is, currently, all around us
The funny thing about all this is that you, fade and others despise "decadent Jewish democracy" at the same time as you cower behind the right it affords you to make such criticism.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The funny thing about all this is that you, fade and others despise "decadent Jewish democracy" at the same time as you cower behind the right it affords you to make such criticism.


Its a testament to their weakness that they're unable to make any progress despite our tolerance of them. :p

[Dan Dare]

The funny thing about all this is that you, fade and others despise "decadent Jewish democracy" at the same time as you cower behind the right it affords you to make such criticism.

Is democracy a Jewish invention? I had been completely unaware of it if that has actually been the case.

[Vindex]

Looking at soviet canukistand they are not far away from declaring it illegal to be White. There already halfway there, which makes the white social marxist(useful idiots) happy, till they are smacked by reality.

[Helios Panoptes]

The funny thing about all this is that you, fade and others despise "decadent Jewish democracy" at the same time as you cower behind the right it affords you to make such criticism.

While it is true that I do not favor unmitigated free speech, I criticize in a Hegelian manner. That is, I find latent antinomes and draw them to the surface. A fundamental principle underlying liberal democracy is the idea that the masses(the voters) possess an adequate capacity for discursive thought and sufficient knowledge of political, economic, and social affairs to make decisions about the state. However, Sulla tells us that free speech rights cannot be granted to its enemies because they may use it to establish a platform, enrapture the masses with their demagoguery, and do away with free speech. If the masses were as capable as they are taken to be in the first place and democracy is, in fact, the best system for them, this should be no concern.

In addition, like Dan Dare, I did not know that the Jews invented democracy.

[Sulla the Dictator]

However, Sulla tells us that free speech rights cannot be granted to its enemies because they may use it to establish a platform, enrapture the masses with their demagoguery, and do away with free speech. If the masses were as capable as they are taken to be in the first place and democracy is, in fact, the best system for them, this should be no concern.


Thats from the Chronicles of Fade, not me. :p

[Die]

My objections to racists are usually their heads. :222:

[Blaphbee]

It always has been an ad hom. It's the same as slander, and is just as reprehensible as calling Africans a nigger, or calling Jews a kike. Either way, it serves no purpose, and does nothing to refute the viewpoint of another individual. You're transparent attempt to legitimize the usage of "Nazi" as an acceptable ad hom is ridiculous, especially in view of the fact that you view "kike" as something reprehensible - I thought Jews weren't a race? Liberal ideology holds that Judaism is nothing more than an ideology. This is something that almost all liberals chirp on about, and then claim that Jewishness is something beyond a Jewish person's control, when the word "kike" gets tossed around. Which is it? Potyondi has already referenced his own slandering numerous times in this thread, and it's something that obviously bothers him, even though I'm not certain he is actually a Jew.

Yes, it's a serious question. What is your problem with racism, if it doesn't effect you personally? Bear in mind here, that I am not personally a racist, and I will not speak disparaging things about other races. I'm simply questioning your logic.
Do you make a habit of not responding to people when they speak to you Sulla?

Answer the questions above, please.

If you're going to give me horseshit about there being "no questions" in the above post, then I will ask you to respond the above post with your thoughts. Your semantic runarounds get tiresome.

[Billy Score]

Thats from the Chronicles of Fade, not me. :p
I must interject- this is DODGING THE ISSUE. Fade made an excellent point here. I may despise libertarians but at least when they spout their democracy/freedom of speech nonesense, they actually mean it. You are openly advocating hypocrisy on this level as you are against freedom of speech for your enemies.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I must interject- this is DODGING THE ISSUE.


Of course you must, because despite being a STALINIST you support freedom of speech insofar as it means attacking blacks and Jews.


Fade made an excellent point here.


Which point? Where he supports free speech or where he opposes it?


You are openly advocating hypocrisy on this level as you are against freedom of speech for your enemies.

That was a quote from FADE, which he knew, and which is why he didn't respond. :p

In fact, that was a quote from the free speech sticky at the top of this topic.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Excellent post hannibal. I'll be sure to report it.:)

I am not a white nationalist, i am barely "white" by any standards. Whites are eunuchs who hate themselves and are selling their cultures and souls. This isn't WN "garbage' this is truth. I didn't need the phora to tell me that, or some tom metzger figure.


What is this? What "white culture"? You're supposedly a STALINIST. Which white culture do you feel is being destroyed, concrete block architecture or May day parades?

[Jimbo Gomez]

A 16 page thread I haven't replied to yet. I'll have none of that.

[Helios Panoptes]

People are making a mistake by assuming that because one finds a contradiction between the foundational assumptions of the current system and the restriction of free speech that one favors free speech.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Its a 16 page thread. Stuff gets missed.

It always has been an ad hom.


No. There are Nazis. There are, in fact, Nazis on this board. And then there are those who say they aren't Nazis but still have nothing but praise for Hitler and Nazism. I don't see a significant difference. I don't see the exaggerated care in properly diagnosing MY ideology.


It's the same as slander, and is just as reprehensible as calling Africans a nigger, or calling Jews a kike.


Thats a laughable comparison. Nazism is an IDEA, a shared association. The notion that calling someone who refers to Hitler as "a Golden soul" a Nazi is the same as calling someonea 'nigger' or a 'kike' is BEYOND absurd.

If I were to say "Christ was the most perfect person the world has ever seen" and then scream SLUR when someone called me a Christian, I would be ridiculous. So to, this outrage is insane.


Either way, it serves no purpose, and does nothing to refute the viewpoint of another individual. You're transparent attempt to legitimize the usage of "Nazi" as an acceptable ad hom is ridiculous, especially in view of the fact that you view "kike" as something reprehensible - I thought Jews weren't a race?


Jews aren't a 'race', they're an ethnic group, like Irishmen and Germans and Italians.

This is actually farse. Lets apply your TEST now:


Liberal ideology holds that Judaism is nothing more than an ideology. This is something that almost all liberals chirp on about, and then claim that Jewishness is something beyond a Jewish person's control, when the word "kike" gets tossed around. Which is it?


What is this 'liberal ideology'?? I'm not a liberal. Now according you to, I've been slurred. Just as your 'Anglosphere racialist unitarian nationalist bolshevik communitarian seperatist' friends who 'hate niggers and kikes' are dealt a grevious insult when called Nazis, so too have I been WOUNDED at the suggestion that I'm a 'liberal'. :rolleyes:

Here you fall, without thinking, into the same dichotomy that we're being accused of. Anyone who isn't a racist on this board must be a liberal. I don't care so much, why do you?


Potyondi has already referenced his own slandering numerous times in this thread, and it's something that obviously bothers him, even though I'm not certain he is actually a Jew.


Since these people think that Jews are the worst thing on Earth, they're trying to insult him. It doesn't matter if Potyondi is offended when we're talking about slurs or insults or flaming. Its intent. They're intending to insult him, which is why its bullshit. :nono:


Yes, it's a serious question. What is your problem with racism, if it doesn't effect you personally? Bear in mind here, that I am not personally a racist, and I will not speak disparaging things about other races. I'm simply questioning your logic.

Its vulgar and hateful. I have friends of a variety of races, and I like these fellows. I don't recognize the critiques as valid.

Of course, in addition to being hateful, I've rarely seen a racist who is a patriot.

[Starr]

Since these people think that Jews are the worst thing on Earth, they're trying to insult him. It doesn't matter if Potyondi is offended when we're talking about slurs or insults or flaming. Its intent. They're intending to insult him, which is why its bullshit.

Potyondi is a white gentile correct? Why do I get the feeling that with someone like pot, if a nigger were to call him a cracker or honkey, he would not be nearly as "offended" as if he heard a white person use the word nigger?

Its vulgar and hateful. I have friends of a variety of races, and I like these fellows. I don't recognize the critiques as valid.

so why does it bother you so much?And most of us can recognize that when we talk about niggers or their common behaviors that does not neccessarily apply to all blacks. So you know some "good blacks" wow, impressive. I have come into contact with a few myself.

[Helios Panoptes]

No. There are Nazis. There are, in fact, Nazis on this board. And then there are those who say they aren't Nazis but still have nothing but praise for Hitler and Nazism.

What about the anti-Hitlerite Nazis? ;)

[infoterror]

People in my part of the world don't go around calling everyone with whom they have a mild disagreement a Nazi.

PM me that location; I'm moving.

[infoterror]

Potyondi is a white gentile correct?

Not all "whites" are alike. Some are spiritual wiggers who need to be bred into large Hispanic populations to dilute their DNA and confine it to genetic blueprint hell.

[Slavic Enforcer]

A real Nazi jerks to Mein Kampf.

[Eisenhans]

Anarchist and panic-mongering rabble.

[Billy Score]

What is this? What "white culture"? You're supposedly a STALINIST. Which white culture do you feel is being destroyed, concrete block architecture or May day parades?
Both, actually.

I apologize for not knowing my role and sticking to dialectic materialism and quoting verses from the Gospel according to Marx. I am sorry that i do not fit your niche definition of what a "stalinist" is. Infact, i don't even refer to myself as a "stalinist." I support stalin, juche, and many tenets held by the soviets but i am not a communist. I agree with yockey on many things but i am not a fascist. Hell i even agree with the goddamned jewish taskforce on certain issues.

and not WHITE culture, but the various nationalities of europe etc. What is the point of having an ireland/france/spain/england/albania if they are ALL THE SAME multicultural cesspools.

[Thomas777]

Well, I think a little too much time is devoted to the "Nazi" epithet.

The fact is that "Nazis" have not existed since 1945...and serious people do not indulge in fantasies of their continued existence.

Sure, NeoCons like Sulla, Cultural Marxists like Potyondi, and paranoid ideologues like Abe Foxman like to trot out photographs of no account jackasses like Jeff Shoep and pretend that the fact that an emotionally disturbed, unemployed man dresses up in a poor reproduction Nazi costume is proof positive of the existence of a Nazi movement, but the fact remains that even they do not believe in the continued existence of "Nazism". They merely throw around the term as a poor ad hominem to evoke an emotional response from the uninitiated.

Calling somebody a "Nazi" is like accusing somebody of being loyal to the King of England...or accusing somebody of engaging in Piracy on the High Seas. As the Duke would have said, "its re-goddamn-diculous".

[Donny the Punk]

What is a cultural Marxist? :p

[Thomas777]

What is a cultural Marxist? :p

Antonio Gramsci is the father of cultural Marxism, IMO.

[Billy Score]

What is a cultural Marxist? :p
An amoral degenerate who basks in the pleasures of the senses above all else and makes this his only purpose. ie YOU

[Donny the Punk]

I am getting conflicting definitions here. :confused:

[Dan Dare]

What is a cultural Marxist? :p

This may help. Cultural Marxism is sometimes defined in the words of Gramscian disciple and former Baader-Meinhof associate Rudi Durschke as the "Long March through the Institutions".

Toward the Total State
by William Norman Grigg

Has the left won America’s culture war? Some observers, including political organizer Paul Weyrich (who coined the term "moral majority"), appear to think so. For many Americans who cherish our nation’s traditions of individual freedom, limited government, and personal moral responsibility, the Clinton impeachment melodrama abounded in evidence that America has undergone a dramatic transformation.

If one were to credit the ubiquitous opinion polls and the outpourings of the "mainstream" media, the American people were nearly unanimous in their support for President Clinton, despite his ongoing personal depravity and his willingness to abuse both the powers of his office and the institutions of our judicial system in order to retain his position as the nation’s chief executive. The only holdouts were to be found among the "religious right," which — according to the custodians of "respectable" opinion — is a marginalized group unworthy of political influence.

While the outcome of impeachment was largely a product of the gangland tactics (including blackmail and character assassination) employed by the Clinton Administration against its opponents, as well as the institutional cowardice of the Senate, there is no doubt that America’s culture has undergone a dramatic transformation — a transformation engineered by the radical left. Writing in the Winter 1996 issue of the Marxist journal Dissent, Michael Walzer enumerated some of the cultural victories won by the left since the 1960s:

• "The visible impact of feminism."
• "The effects of affirmative action."
• "The emergence of gay rights politics, and … the attention paid to it in the media."
• "The acceptance of cultural pluralism."
• "The transformation of family life," including "rising divorce rates, changing sexual mores, new household arrangements — and, again, the portrayal of all this in the media."
• "The progress of secularization; the fading of religion in general and Christianity in particular from the public sphere — classrooms, textbooks, legal codes, holidays, and so on."
• "The virtual abolition of capital punishment."
• "The legalization of abortion."
• "The first successes in the effort to regulate and limit the private ownership of guns."

Significantly, Walzer admitted that these victories were imposed upon our society by "liberal elites," rather than being driven "by the pressure of a mass movement or a majoritarian party." These changes "reflect the leftism or liberalism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, professors, school teachers, social workers, journalists, television and screen writers — not the population at large," noted Walzer. Rather than building "stable or lasting movements or creat[ing] coherent constituencies," the left focused on "winning the Gramscian war of position."

While most Americans would be mystified by Walzer’s reference to Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, those who wish to understand the ongoing culture war must first have some understanding of the Gramscian concept of the "long march through the institutions." The process described by Walzer, in which the cultural and bureaucratic organs of our society have fallen under the influence of "progressive" forces devoted to transforming our nation, is derived directly from Gramsci’s blueprint for Marxist subversion. Gramsci’s distinctive insight, as we will shortly see, was that the construction of the total state requires the seizure of the "mediating institutions" that insulate the individual from the power of the government — the family, organized religion, and so forth — and a systematic redefinition of the culture in order to sustain the new political order.

That process is well underway in our nation — and if it is consummated, Americans will learn that the culture war is a deadly serious effort to destroy the institutions and traditions that have protected Americans from the horrors of the total state.

"The scientific concept of dictatorship," wrote Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin, "means nothing else but this: power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules." Benito Mussolini’s totalitarian formula was even more concise: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Whatever its specific configuration or ideological pretext, the total state always requires that all human activities be made subject to its power. But to exercise that power, the total state relies, to a remarkable extent, on the cooperation of its victims.

No matter how vast the instrumentality of coercion or how vicious the intentions of the ruling elite, the masters of the total state are always dramatically outnumbered by their victims. No army of occupation is large enough to exercise total control over a tyrannized population; no secret police is capable of exercising incessant and all-encompassing surveillance. The triumph of the total state is made possible by the conquest of the human mind. "We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission," explained O’Brien, an agent of Big Brother’s "Ministry of Love" in George Orwell’s 1984. "When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us.... We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him."

"Death by Government"

Of course, wholesale murder is very much a part of the totalitarian experience, as a way to dispose of those who prove unsuitable for "conversion." Lenin’s "scientific concept of dictatorship," when put into practice by criminals in positions of political power, has led to unimaginable horror. In the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and elsewhere, the unchecked power of the state "has been truly a cold-blooded mass murderer, a global plague of man’s own making," writes Professor R.J. Rummel in his study Death by Government.

During the first nine decades of the 20th century, writes Rummel, "almost 170 million men, women, and children" have been destroyed through the "myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people." In a particularly sobering observation, Rummel points out that while "library stacks have been written on the possible nature and consequences of nuclear war and how it might be avoided, in the life of some still living we have already experienced in the toll from democide (and related destruction and misery among the survivors) the equivalent of a nuclear war, especially at the high near-360 million end of the estimates."

America has been spared such horrors because it is uniquely blessed among all nations with a tradition of ordered liberty and limited government. Our nation’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, embrace a concept of government diametrically opposed to the Leninist "scientific concept of dictatorship": the rule of law, administered by a government that is itself subject to the law, deriving "its just powers from the consent of the governed," and created for the exclusive purpose of protecting the lives, rights, and property of the law-abiding.

But these institutional safeguards of liberty and the rule of law are dependent on a culture conducive to freedom. In a self-governing society, public morality and private morality cannot be compartmentalized; people who have abandoned what George Washington referred to as the "eternal rules of order and right" will be incapable of exercising the self-discipline necessary to maintain a free government. In his Farewell Address, Washington advised that there is "no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity." When such habits of virtue are cultivated and preserved, society can enjoy the blessings of limited government — one that will, in Jefferson’s words, "restrain men from injuring one another, [and which] shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Quiet Revolution

In principle, and to a limited extent in practice, Bill Clinton and his Administration have embraced Lenin’s "scientific concept of dictatorship." Consider, for example, the fact that Mr. Clinton has brazenly and repeatedly ignored Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war — most notably in the undeclared Kosovo War, which Mr. Clinton has conducted in defiance of a pointed refusal on the part of the House of Representatives to declare war against Yugoslavia. In domestic affairs, Mr. Clinton has made good on his stated intention to bypass Congress entirely, ruling instead by executive decree. Former Clinton Administration lackey Paul Begala memorably summarized Mr. Clinton’s ruling doctrine in these terms: "Stroke of the pen, law of the land — kinda cool."

Just as disturbing is the fact that much of the Senate, and a significant portion of the House of Representatives, have embraced a complementary concept taught by Adolf Hitler: fuhrerprinzip, or the "leader principle." Under that doctrine, an autocratic executive claims access to the "collective will of the people," exercises power that is "independent, all-inclusive, and unlimited," and considers himself responsible "only to his conscience." Thus, the legislature exists merely to rubber-stamp the decisions of the imperial leader.

Obviously, America was not conquered by the Soviet Union or by National Socialist (Nazi) Germany. The institutions of our federal system of government still exist, albeit in a somewhat distorted form. Elections still occur at regular intervals, and citizens can still exercise their right to petition their elected representatives and express their political opinions in the public square. Nonetheless, the chief tenets of the most murderous dictatorships in history are now the operative principles of our national government. How did this dire situation come about? How can it be reversed?
America has undergone what historian Garet Garrett described as a "revolution within the form." Although the "forms of republican government survive," wrote Garrett, "the character of the state has changed." To illustrate how this was accomplished, Garrett quoted this observation from Aristotle’s Politics: "People do not easily change, but love their own ancient customs; and it is by small degrees only that one thing takes the place of another; so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about a revolution in the state." (Emphasis added.)

Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci urged those who sought to bring about a "revolution in the state" to pursue the course described (although not endorsed) by Aristotle: The steady, incremental subversion of free societies by conducting a "long march through the institutions" that define such societies. In some ways the Gramscian approach is kindred to that pursued by Britain’s Fabian socialists, who chose "patient gradualism," rather than violent insurrection, as the most effective means to collectivize society. Gramsci’s distinctive insight was to urge Marxists to escape from the shackles of economic theory and focus instead on society’s cultural organs — the press and other media, education, entertainment, religion, and the family. In order for revolutionaries to establish "political leadership or hegemony," advised Gramsci, they "must not count solely on the power and material force of government"; they must change the culture upon which that government was built.

Cultural commentator Richard Grenier recalls that during Gramsci’s incarceration in one of Mussolini’s prisons, he "formulated in his Prison Notebooks the doctrine that those who want to change society must change man’s consciousness, and that in order to accomplish this they must first control the institutions by which that consciousness is formed: schools, universities, churches, and, perhaps above all, art and the communications industry. It is these institutions that shape and articulate ‘public opinion,’ the limits of which few politicians can violate with impunity. Culture, Gramsci felt, is not simply the superstructure of an economic base — the role assigned to it in orthodox Marxism — but is central to a society. His famous battle cry is: capture the culture."

Gramsci recognized that the chief "fortresses and earthworks" impeding the triumph of Marxism were precisely those institutions, customs, and habits identified by Washington and the other Founding Fathers as indispensable to ordered liberty — such as the family, private initiative, self-restraint, and principled individualism. But Gramsci focused particularly on what Washington described as the "indispensable supports" of free society — religion and morality. In order to bring about a revolution, Gramsci wrote, "The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism."

Layers of Strength

At this juncture, a question naturally arises: If the conspiracy to undermine our culture and constitutional system has enjoyed such success, why aren’t Americans living in abject, undisguised tyranny? If Lenin’s "scientific concept of dictatorship" and Hitler’s fuhrerprinzip have been accepted as ruling tenets by our apostate political elite, where are the gulags and gas chambers?
The answer to this question is quite simple: The institutions referred to by Gramsci as "fortresses and earthworks" have not yet been completely overcome by the forces of revolution. Yes, the American family is under siege, but its resilience has proven to be formidable. Parents still seek to instill habits of self-discipline, honesty, and genuine public service in their children. Millions of Americans from all religious denominations and traditions remain committed to living honorable lives defined by God’s law, and insist that their elected representatives, for the most part, pay at least nominal homage to that standard as well. The American tradition of individualism remains a vivid part of our national heritage. And despite decades of mass indoctrination regarding the supposed glories of collectivism, most Americans still cherish their individual rights — and are provoked to militancy when those rights are threatened.

These admirable traits — the "fortresses and earthworks" Gramsci sought to overcome — were celebrated by Robert Welch — a devoted champion of freedom — as "layers of strength" that should be fortified by conscientious Americans. The reason the enemies of freedom must pursue Gramsci’s long-term subversive strategy rather than more overt measures is because most Americans will not meekly submit to the will of their would-be masters.

Yes, our situation is grave. No, America does not enjoy any privileged immunity to the horrors that have descended upon many other countries during this century of rampant democide. In order to preserve our existing freedoms, and to restore those that have been stolen from us, it is necessary for Americans to understand the tactics, strategies, and objectives of the Gramscian conspirators who are waging a culture war against us.


http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/toward_the_total_state.htm