MSF is down

[Baron_Corvo]

again:

http://www.racedebate-msf.org/forums/index.php

It may only be temporary, but all the same as someone who's invested a lot of time and effort in the place and was twice on staff there, it gives me an opportunity to start a discussion about race debate in general, wherever it takes place. Does MSF still have a place in the "forum universe", and if so, what is it?

Look, I know a few people here hate our site, and they and I mostly know who they are so I don't see the point of them chiming in here to say so.

But there is a question here; how do you best do race debate, and does it require a specialist race debate site, like MSF, to do it?

The trouble is that without a specialist board, people on the anti-racist side are usually hopelessly outnumbered by their opponents since so many anti-racists refuse to get into any kind of debate with "fash" - indeed, there is a long established "no platform for fascists" policy amongst the British antiracist movement.

Also, a number of people on MSF, like Otter and youknowzit for example, simply won't come here so "let them all decamp to the Phora" isn't a solution.

What do you think?

[Monty]

http://craphound.com/images/1482849745_241a57d9b8_z.jpg

[Baron_Corvo]

Some people would say the same about this site :shrug: They certainly would about SF.

It tells us nothing at all about why you feel that way.

Come on, you can do better than that.

[Basil Fawlty]

The trouble is that without a specialist board, people on the anti-racist side are usually hopelessly outnumbered by their opponents since so many anti-racists refuse to get into any kind of debate with "fash" - indeed, there is a long established "no platform for fascists" policy amongst the British antiracist movement.In the "real world" anti-racism is the norm and it is legally enforced making free and frank discussion of race questions impossible in western societies. Both of these positions are militant stances on the race question. However, one is enforced, the other forbidden and I abominate censorship and bullying. I'm not a racist but neither am I an anti-racist but I am interested, to some extent, in genuine discussions about race.
I've noticed over the years that anti-racists are generally afraid of discussion and hide behind moral posturing. They also have the luxury of espousing a cause that is enforced by the establishment. Curious, as these people often claim to be radicals, yet they do the bidding of the very powers they claim to be opposed to. This is why I refer to the self-styled radical left as useful idiots.

[Baron_Corvo]

In the "real world" anti-racism is the norm and it is legally enforced making free and frank discussion of race questions impossible in western societies. Both of these positions are militant stances on the race question. However, one is enforced, the other forbidden and I abominate censorship and bullying. I'm not a racist but neither am I an anti-racist but I am interested, to some extent, in genuine discussions about race.

I've noticed over the years that anti-racists are generally afraid of discussion and hide behind moral posturing. They also have the luxury of espousing a cause that is enforced by the establishment. Curious, as these people often claim to be radicals, yet they do the bidding of the very powers they claim to be opposed to. This is why I refer to the self-styled radical left as useful idiots.

Good points here Basil. I must confess I'm at a loss for an answer concerning the part of your post I've bolded in particular. Maybe it's because one can be an anti-racist for either idealistic reasons (because you genuinely believe that our similarities are more important than our differences) or cynical ones (because one worker or consumer is much the same as any other).

[Ahknaton]

Curious, as these people often claim to be radicals, yet they do the bidding of the very powers they claim to be opposed to. This is why I refer to the self-styled radical left as useful idiots.
Being a radical doesn't mean you have to disagree with the establishment about everything. That would be pretty much impossible to do consistently anyway, since you would end up with a hodge-podge of radical and reactionary points of view.

For example, if someone was an anti-racist, but also an anti-capitalist and against all of America and NATO's wars, then they could justifiably call themselves a radical.

[Basil Fawlty]

Good points here Basil. I must confess I'm at a loss for an answer concerning the part of your post I've bolded in particular. Maybe it's because one can be an anti-racist for either idealistic reasons (because you genuinely believe that our similarities are more important than our differences) or cynical ones (because one worker or consumer is much the same as any other).This touches on something else I've noticed about racists/anti-racists. They both hold views that generally ignore vitally important things like history, culture and politics. Anti-racists think that such things are not as important as features that are common to all, whereas racists think that such things are trivial compared to biological similitudes. For example, I can't tell you the number of times I've heard WN-types haranguing Irish nationalists for refusing to abandon their aspirations in favour of some kind of spurious white solidarity. Interestingly this "white solidarity" always involves Ireland taking a subordinate position to British or Anglo-American leadership, in other words its just recidivist colonialism. Setting aside the cynical spokesmen for such views, those who sincerely believe it are obviously politically naive but then so too are the anti-racists One-worlders, the kind of people who think the lyrics of John Lennon's 'Imagine' are profound and express a realisable future.

[Basil Fawlty]

Being a radical doesn't mean you have to disagree with the establishment about everything. That would be pretty much impossible to do consistently anyway, since you would end up with a hodge-podge of radical and reactionary points of view.I agree, but these people always seem to espouse officially sanctioned causes, be it anti-racism or "gay rights", feminism and all the rest of it.
For example, if someone was an anti-racist, but also an anti-capitalist and against all of America and NATO's wars, then they could justifiably call themselves a radical.If they were genuine anti-capitalists they would oppose mass immigration, but they don't. If they do, they are daubed as racists, but they are few and far between.

[Baron_Corvo]

Being a radical doesn't mean you have to disagree with the establishment about everything. That would be pretty much impossible to do consistently anyway, since you would end up with a hodge-podge of radical and reactionary points of view.

For example, if someone was an anti-racist, but also an anti-capitalist and against all of America and NATO's wars, then they could justifiably call themselves a radical.

Yep, good point.

[Ahknaton]

I agree, but these people always seem to espouse officially sanctioned causes, be it anti-racism or "gay rights", feminism and all the rest of it.
Yes, that's true on the whole. A lot of left-wingers seem genuinely oblivious to the fact that their points of view represent the establishment. In their world they are perpetually under seige by the "religious right" in the culture wars, and any gains that may have been made in the past are "being rolled back" as a result of a backlash. To be fair some right-wingers are like this when it comes to economic policies, crying about "socialism" and so on even as managerial capitalism rules the world.
If they were genuine anti-capitalists they would oppose mass immigration, but they don't. If they do, they are daubed as racists, but they are few and far between.
I guess that's true pragmatically, but I think in principle someone could be an anti-racist who wanted to live in some kind of open-borders socialist utopia. It's pretty naive fantasy but it's not a blatant self-contradiction.

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes, that's true on the whole. A lot of left-wingers seem genuinely oblivious to the fact that their points of view represent the establishment. In their world they are perpetually under seige by the "religious right" in the culture wars, and any gains that may have been made in the past are "being rolled back" as a result of a backlash. To be fair some right-wingers are like this when it comes to economic policies, crying about "socialism" and so on even as managerial capitalism rules the world.The right has traditionally been hamstrung by a lack of coherent theorising. What these people call socialism is nothing of the kind but rather essential features of the managerial society. The permanent underclass has to be kept quiescent for the sake of civil peace. Civil peace is a necessary condition for commercial society.
This was thoroughly understood by the early bourgeois thinkers of the 17th century who espoused "religious tolerance" and who thus sought to privatise religion. The first modern social welfare system was introduced by Bismarck in order to pacify the working class and thus deny the emergent bourgeoisie of their "footsoldiers", i.e. to avoid the dynamics of the French Revolution where the lower classes were used by the bourgeoisie as a battering ram against the ancien regime.
I guess that's true pragmatically, but I think in principle someone could be an anti-racist who wanted to live in some kind of open-borders socialist utopia. It's pretty naive fantasy but it's not a blatant self-contradiction.Hence the label 'useful idiots'. They fantasise about their utopia whilst serving the interests of transnational capital.

[Monty]

For example, I can't tell you the number of times I've heard WN-types haranguing Irish nationalists for refusing to abandon their aspirations in favour of some kind of spurious white solidarity.

The world isn't getting any bigger and Irish nationalism becomes more of an anachronism every day.

[Basil Fawlty]

The world isn't getting any bigger and Irish nationalism becomes more of an anachronism every day.
See what I mean?

[Monty]

See what I mean?

My point is that a PC social democracies in English-speaking countries look pretty much alike. One group of social engineers promoting diversity and tolerance is just like another. So basically you're fighting who gets to control the civil service jobs.

If cultural differences implied relevant institutional differences, you might have a point. But in 2011, there's nothing.

[Morpheus]

As a long-time member I have two issues with Mootstormfront.

1. Name and Direction

2. Traffic

Regarding issue #1: I think that an anti-racist or Egalitarian board is good and MSF is the only anti-racist board on the internet with any kind of name recognition. However I see absolutely no point in a board called MootStormfront. The poster Descendant who founded MSF did so because he wanted a message board that was meant to be the "real opposing views" of Stormfront. Stormfront moderation at the time was very Draconian and biased against "antis." MootStormfront was supposed to be a place where anti-racists who would otherwise be posting on Stormfront could go to debate the racist White Nationalist members of Stormfront on an equal playing field. It's name means "Discuss Stormfront."

But how long as it been since there was any kind of focus on Stormfront on that board? Who even cares about Stormfront anymore? If you want to debate racists there are other places you can go like The Phora to do that. MootStormfront has just been about open debate with racists for years. I see absolutely no point to keeping that name. I was going to start a board of my own with a different name but decided that it was not worth my money.

Regarding issue #2: Let's face it. MootStormfront has been dead for awhile. There's barely any traffic. The Admins and Mods themselves hardly post.
Hardly anyone at all for that matter posts. Why would you keep up a dead board? It's a waste of money and a waste of time for the little amount of time that anyone is involved. If MSF is to be revived I would suggest that people in staff make an honest effort to attract more members. There are people on the internet who are debating racism including opponents of racism. They just aren't doing it on MootStormfront. Youtube has alot of race discussion. Why not recruit posters commenting on race-related videos from there? If the board has no traffic it's a waste of time. I won't worry about it too much because it won't be my time or money being wasted but I have to question the wisdom of trying to keep a dead board alive.

[Baron_Corvo]

As a long-time member I have two issues with Mootstormfront.

1. Name and Direction

2. Traffic

Regarding issue #1: I think that an anti-racist or Egalitarian board is good and MSF is the only anti-racist board on the internet with any kind of name recognition. However I see absolutely no point in a board called MootStormfront. The poster Descendant who founded MSF did so because he wanted a message board that was meant to be the "real opposing views" of Stormfront. Stormfront moderation at the time was very Draconian and biased against "antis." MootStormfront was supposed to be a place where anti-racists who would otherwise be posting on Stormfront could go to debate the racist White Nationalist members of Stormfront on an equal playing field. It's name means "Discuss Stormfront."

But how long as it been since there was any kind of focus on Stormfront on that board? Who even cares about Stormfront anymore? If you want to debate racists there are other places you can go like The Phora to do that. MootStormfront has just been about open debate with racists for years. I see absolutely no point to keeping that name. I was going to start a board of my own with a different name but decided that it was not worth my money.

Regarding issue #2: Let's face it. MootStormfront has been dead for awhile. There's barely any traffic. The Admins and Mods themselves hardly post.
Hardly anyone at all for that matter posts. Why would you keep up a dead board? It's a waste of money and a waste of time for the little amount of time that anyone is involved. If MSF is to be revived I would suggest that people in staff make an honest effort to attract more members. There are people on the internet who are debating racism including opponents of racism. They just aren't doing it on MootStormfront. Youtube has alot of race discussion. Why not recruit posters commenting on race-related videos from there? If the board has no traffic it's a waste of time. I won't worry about it too much because it won't be my time or money being wasted but I have to question the wisdom of trying to keep a dead board alive.

Good post Morpheus.

Otter posts a lot, but the other admins don't. Some are busy, fair enough, but apart from that no one has even 3,000 posts on a board which has been up for nearly three years. That's very slow by internet forum standards IMO.

I think MSF survives as it does because it's an online comfort zone for a few people (including me to be honest). Maybe I shouldn't speak for him but I doubt that Rune for example is all that bothered about anti-racism one way or the other, but he gets to post his babe pics by the score and several people including me post music links, in an atmosphere which is reasonably friendly to us. Race debate isn't the sole point of MSF any more.

The main reason I'm glad MSF is there is that when I'm on SF and see a young person in particular on SF like Cosmo_doll (who was one of my invites to MSF) who's getting a hard time from the WNs there, I can pm them and tell them to come and join us instead. Or, if I see someone on SF who's being bombarded with pro-WN arguments and think there's a good rebuttal to them on MSF, I can point them to a link to it on our board. So it does serve a practical purpose, IMO.

[Baron_Corvo]

Morpheus,

You mention recruitment, and the fact that the staff aren't trying hard enough to get new members.

To be honest it's a bit unfair. In the past I've worked hard at trying to get people to join us, but I honestly think pretty much everyone who was going to join us from either SF, this board or Urban75 (a left wing British board where a number of MSFers post or have posted) has already done so.

The board is at the moment very hostile to WNs and openly so, and the current staff apart from perhaps Dark Reaver like it that way so that makes it difficult to get pro-WN posters. I've been told by WN posters on SF that the board is in their view both too hostile and too small for them to be interested in posting there. There was even one lady on SF who I became friendly with, and I couldn't even ask her to join us because I knew the usual suspects would rip into her. She gets "down" and upset and I didn't feel I could do that to her.

We also have trouble hanging onto posters, and I don't know what we do about that; what happened to Eddy, for example, who was a brilliant poster on MSF for a few years? Anayansi, who posts a lot on SF, is another fine anti-racist poster who came, stayed and made only about a half dozen posts before leaving.

[Morpheus]

Well that was the original purpose. Recruit posters from Stormfront's Opposing Views section and get White Nationalists from Stormfront to debate so you're doing work the board was attended for but I don't think enough people are doing it to justify keeping "MootStormfront" alive as a board with that purpose.

I personally don't care about Stormfront. When I first posted there I got treated unfairly. My posts often didn't get through and some were even edited to say things I didn't say so I found MSF to be refreshing.

But that was a long time ago and now I don't think the board has the type of focus nor do I think it's necessary to have that sort of fixation on Stormfront.

In fact you could do that exact same thing from time to time and have an original board that isn't focused on Stormfront. I just think that name is pointless. Who really cares about getting Stormfront posters specifically to debate anymore? The scope is to narrow.

[Errigal]

I've noticed over the years that anti-racists are generally afraid of discussion and hide behind moral posturing. They also have the luxury of espousing a cause that is enforced by the establishment. Curious, as these people often claim to be radicals, yet they do the bidding of the very powers they claim to be opposed to. This is why I refer to the self-styled radical left as useful idiots.

Good points here Basil. I must confess I'm at a loss for an answer concerning the part of your post I've bolded in particular. Maybe it's because one can be an anti-racist for either idealistic reasons (because you genuinely believe that our similarities are more important than our differences) or cynical ones (because one worker or consumer is much the same as any other).

I think the politically correct coalition of anti-racists, anti-sexists, anti-homophobics currently running around are the product of an education and media campaign originally approved by what you could only call industrialists. Back in the 1950s, '60s and '70s they would give a green light to what they would have seen as a safe outlet for rebelliousness when compared to real street fighting Reds. At a higher level the industrialists would also recognize the anti-patriarchal, anti-nationalist, anti-kinship message of the New Left to be good for business, good for their larger projects. My guess is that our current trash culture supported by PC bullying is not something the old Rockefeller or Carnegie Foundation types would have wanted but it's a bit late now. In any case their own heirs are almost entirely insulated.


This touches on something else I've noticed about racists/anti-racists. They both hold views that generally ignore vitally important things like history, culture and politics. Anti-racists think that such things are not as important as features that are common to all, whereas racists think that such things are trivial compared to biological similitudes. For example, I can't tell you the number of times I've heard WN-types haranguing Irish nationalists for refusing to abandon their aspirations in favour of some kind of spurious white solidarity. Interestingly this "white solidarity" always involves Ireland taking a subordinate position to British or Anglo-American leadership, in other words its just recidivist colonialism. Setting aside the cynical spokesmen for such views, those who sincerely believe it are obviously politically naive but then so too are the anti-racists One-worlders, the kind of people who think the lyrics of John Lennon's 'Imagine' are profound and express a realisable future.

The anti-racist liberal-progressive types are similar to WNs in another way: they are themselves some of the most bigoted supremacists. The automated response one would get from PC types is that all other cultures are better than the West and we have so much to learn from them. Go a little farther with them and they will make clear that apart from a retaining a few superficial bits of local colour, the PC types really think the rest of the world should become like them.

As for the similarities between WNs and anti-racists on Irish nationalism, that too comes from the common ideological roots of the two groups: they both are shaped by Yankee/Manchester Liberalism. Patriotism, patriarchy, traditionalism, clannishness, regionalism, minority languages, religion are all causes of friction which hamper the free flow of commerce and cheap labour. Old Europe hang-ups get in the way of both selling Coca Cola and engaging in wars. WNs are really an internet only phenomenon but they're pulled from a cultural pool of American supremacists only recently alienated from their government. The anti-racist types are just as much the great-grandchildren of the sanctimonious Yankee missionaries who tut-tutted at the backwardness of everyone from Samoans to Italian counts; ignorant and malicious busybodies.

[Baron_Corvo]

Well that was the original purpose. Recruit posters from Stormfront's Opposing Views section and get White Nationalists from Stormfront to debate so you're doing work the board was attended for but I don't think enough people are doing it to justify keeping "MootStormfront" alive as a board with that purpose.

I personally don't care about Stormfront. When I first posted there I got treated unfairly. My posts often didn't get through and some were even edited to say things I didn't say so I found MSF to be refreshing.

But that was a long time ago and now I don't think the board has the type of focus nor do I think it's necessary to have that sort of fixation on Stormfront.

In fact you could do that exact same thing from time to time and have an original board that isn't focused on Stormfront. I just think that name is pointless. Who really cares about getting Stormfront posters specifically to debate anymore? The scope is to narrow.

You're right.

To be honest it's Otter's board now and has been for a long time, and he pretty much decides what happens there and what its purpose and function is.

It's a while since I've been on staff there but I don't get the impression that the other admins dissent from his view of things significantly if at all. The only exceptions I'm aware of are babe threads, which he tolerates but doesn't welcome (and he's said so on the open board), and ethnic slurs, which both he and I felt there was no place for on an anti-racist board but we lost the argument on that one to the pragmatists who thought a prohibition would deter WNs from posting.

[Errigal]

....
This was thoroughly understood by the early bourgeois thinkers of the 17th century who espoused "religious tolerance" and who thus sought to privatise religion. The first modern social welfare system was introduced by Bismarck in order to pacify the working class and thus deny the emergent bourgeoisie of their "footsoldiers", i.e. to avoid the dynamics of the French Revolution where the lower classes were used by the bourgeoisie as a battering ram against the ancien regime.
......

It's interesting how much Bismarck is still a figure of hatred for that. American libertarians in particular still get bent out of shape by Bismarck.

[Crowley]

This touches on something else I've noticed about racists/anti-racists. They both hold views that generally ignore vitally important things like history, culture and politics. Anti-racists think that such things are not as important as features that are common to all, whereas racists think that such things are trivial compared to biological similitudes. For example, I can't tell you the number of times I've heard WN-types haranguing Irish nationalists for refusing to abandon their aspirations in favour of some kind of spurious white solidarity. Interestingly this "white solidarity" always involves Ireland taking a subordinate position to British or Anglo-American leadership, in other words its just recidivist colonialism. Setting aside the cynical spokesmen for such views, those who sincerely believe it are obviously politically naive but then so too are the anti-racists One-worlders, the kind of people who think the lyrics of John Lennon's 'Imagine' are profound and express a realisable future.

Funny, but I never read this. I'm not saying it doesn't exist somewhere, but to present this view as fundamental to the white "racist" worldview is misleading.

[Errigal]

Funny, but I never read this. I'm not saying it doesn't exist somewhere, but to present this view as fundamental to the white "racist" worldview is misleading.

I myself have seen it expressed numerous times. It is just a variation on the Borg-like attitude many Americans can have toward Canadians, or many Anglo Canadians towards Francos or similar Anglospherical system loyalists.

[Crowley]

I myself have seen it expressed numerous times. It is just a variation on the Borg-like attitude many Americans can have toward Canadians, or many Anglo Canadians towards Francos or similar Anglospherical system loyalists.

Expressed by whom, Brits? White Nationalism, so called, does not have a plank in its platform subordinating Ireland to British interests, unless you are speaking of Northern Ireland, and even then the general White person of nationalist tendency does not have a clear idea or opinion about all of that.

[Errigal]

Expressed by whom, Brits? White Nationalism, so called, does not have a plank in its platform subordinating Ireland to British interests, unless you are speaking of Northern Ireland, and even then the general White person of nationalist tendency does not have a clear idea or opinion about all of that.

Basil said the common WN position "always involves Ireland taking a subordinate position to British or Anglo-American leadership, in other words its just recidivist colonialism". This is true and is very similar to their view on Canada or any other smaller country. It really is just a variation on the views of Don Rumsfeld or or Dick Cheney; the rest of us should drop our stupid squabbling and get in line with their big project.

[Charlie Robespierre]

Expressed by whom, Brits? White Nationalism, so called, does not have a plank in its platform subordinating Ireland to British interests, unless you are speaking of Northern Ireland, and even then the general White person of nationalist tendency does not have a clear idea or opinion about all of that.
White Nationalism' unique selling point is putting aside one's "petty nationalisms" for the good of the white race and so forth. In reality any issue that WASP WNs in America don't understand or are bored with seem to fall into the category of "petty nationalisms".

Even nations in conflict can vote in the one direction in international fora like the EU parliament or the UN. Even dissident leftists and rightists can move in the one direction on issues like the prevention of EU integration and so on it goes. This fruitful white cooperation that WN advance as something unique to their ideology is never outlined in detail. In reality this unified white world advanced by WN is just keyboard ego stroking and has no relationship to any political realities that I'm aware of.

[Basil Fawlty]

Funny, but I never read this. I'm not saying it doesn't exist somewhere, but to present this view as fundamental to the white "racist" worldview is misleading.It is my experience from interacting with WN and certain types of - but not all - BNP supporters online for some years. Monty has already given an example in this thread. His message is basically this - you can't have these aspirations.

[007]

To be honest it's Otter's board now and has been for a long time, and he pretty much decides what happens there and what its purpose and function is.


There's your problem in a nutshell. Why would anybody want to post on a board run by a vindictive fag?

[Basil Fawlty]

Basil said the common WN position "always involves Ireland taking a subordinate position to British or Anglo-American leadership, in other words its just recidivist colonialism". This is true and is very similar to their view on Canada or any other smaller country. It really is just a variation on the views of Don Rumsfeld or or Dick Cheney; the rest of us should drop our stupid squabbling and get in line with their big project.That's exactly right and it matters not whether the big project is neoliberalism or some kind of WN utopia it amounts to the same thing.

[Errigal]

That's exactly right and it matters not whether the big project is neoliberalism or some kind of WN utopia it amounts to the same thing.

It's the Ugly American attitude that pushed for the EEC and EU behind the scenes as a way to corral "Old Europe", who want NATO to be on 24hr standby for whatever project the White House staff dream up. It's exactly the sort of people de Gaulle warned us about and worked against. WNs are just Ugly Americans now alienated from their own governing class for domestic reasons.

[Crowley]

Basil said the common WN position "always involves Ireland taking a subordinate position to British or Anglo-American leadership, in other words its just recidivist colonialism". This is true and is very similar to their view on Canada or any other smaller country. It really is just a variation on the views of Don Rumsfeld or or Dick Cheney; the rest of us should drop our stupid squabbling and get in line with their big project.

Sorry I don't have the time to respond to everyone's reply, so I will just do it here. The idea that "WN" is somehow fundamentally attached to the position that Ireland must quit squabbling with England (or Great Britain) is inaccurate. There is no way ethnic communities, or white nationalities within Europe, will ever stop squabbling. Neighbors squabble by the nature of their situation, and neighbors with a history of squabbling are locked into squabbling forever. What WN must say is that White people, or Europeans (and all White people are Europeans in the sense that Chinese people born outside of China remain Chinese people) must have some common cause against non European expansionism or colonialism into Europe. That is the only plank relative to this subject of inter-ethnic conflict amongst Whites that is by reason necessary to a White Nationalist or European Nationalist program. The rest is just personal grievance on the part of individual people calling themselves WN, or not calling themselves that, as the case may be.

[Basil Fawlty]

Sorry I don't have the time to respond to everyone's reply, so I will just do it here. The idea that "WN" is somehow fundamentally attached to the position that Ireland must quit squabbling with England (or Great Britain) is inaccurate. There is no way ethnic communities, or white nationalities within Europe, will ever stop squabbling.You are unwitttingly displaying the very attitude I'm identifying! It's your use of the word "squabble".
I only used the example of Ireland as it is the one I know best, but the same attitude crops up again and again in respect of European ethno-nationalists, their concerns and aspirations.

[Dan Dare]

This touches on something else I've noticed about racists/anti-racists. They both hold views that generally ignore vitally important things like history, culture and politics. Anti-racists think that such things are not as important as features that are common to all, whereas racists think that such things are trivial compared to biological similitudes.

This seems to me to be too broad-brush a treatment, especially in its characterisation of racists as tending to deprecate the importance of history, culture and politics. In this context, I am taking the term to include anyone whose views on racial questions run counter to the officially approved template. Many 'racists' become that way in the first place precisely as a result of their interest in such matters. Of course some will have come to despise blacks or whomever because of some unfortunate personal interaction or experience but I'd tend to consider that as emotional racism rather thanrational or analytical.

For example, I can't tell you the number of times I've heard WN-types haranguing Irish nationalists for refusing to abandon their aspirations in favour of some kind of spurious white solidarity....

WNism as has been mentioned is almost exclusively an American phenomenon so I am unclear it should be considered to be synonymous with 'racist'. British racists, for example, might also have difficulty with Irish nationalists' aspirations, but that does not mean they are necessarily also WNists.

[Dan Dare]

It's interesting how much Bismarck is still a figure of hatred for that. American libertarians in particular still get bent out of shape by Bismarck.

I can't resist the temptation to note that Bismarck's social welfare policies provided the inspiration for Chuchill's crusade for similar provisions in Britain during his time at the Board of Trade and as Home Secretary. The end result was the National Insurance Act 1911, for which he was the ministerial sponsor.

[Errigal]

I can't resist the temptation to note that Bismarck's social welfare policies provided the inspiration for Chuchill's crusade for similar provisions in Britain during his time at the Board of Trade and as Home Secretary. The end result was the National Insurance Act 1911, for which he was the ministerial sponsor.

That seems out of character for him. I wonder what he was getting up to? There had to have been something in it for Churchill personally.

[Basil Fawlty]

This seems to me to be too broad-brush a treatment, especially in its characterisation of racists as tending to deprecate the importance of history, culture and politics. In this context, I am taking the term to include anyone whose views on racial questions run counter to the officially approved template. Many 'racists' become that way in the first place precisely as a result of their interest in such matters. Of course some will have come to despise blacks or whomever because of some unfortunate personal interaction or experience but I'd tend to consider that as emotional racism rather thanrational or analytical.I really was talking about the WN types familiar from these venues for whom the complexities of age-old European divisions and disputes are trivial. Everything must be subordinated to mythical white solidarity.
WNism as has been mentioned is almost exclusively an American phenomenon so I am unclear it should be considered to be synonymous with 'racist'. British racists, for example, might also have difficulty with Irish nationalists' aspirations, but that does not mean they are necessarily also WNists.I had in mind those of an imperial recidivist orientation who resent Ireland leaving the grasp of Britain. By no means all British nationalists would be of this type but a good many of them. I've heard this white solidarity = Anglo leadership line coming form British sources as well as American WN types. English nationalists are refreshingly free of such attitudes.

[Dan Dare]

That seems out of character for him. I wonder what he was getting up to? There had to have been something in it for Churchill personally.

Churchill's letter to Asquith of 29.12.1908 sets out his proposed programme and the motivations for doing so. It is reproduced in full in Jenkins (pp 146-7) so I will leave it as an exercise for you to look it up.

[Dan Dare]

I really was talking about the WN types familiar from these venues for whom the complexities of age-old European divisions and disputes are trivial. Everything must be subordinated to mythical white solidarity.

Thank you for the clarification. It's important I feel to emphasis that not all those tagged as 'racist' by the Righteous are advocates for white nationalism, or would describe themselves as white nationalist..

I had in mind those of an imperial recidivist orientation who resent Ireland leaving the grasp of Britain. By no means all British nationalists would be of this type but a good many of them.

I should have thought such types were vanishingly rare these days.

I've heard this white solidarity = Anglo leadership line coming form British sources as well as American WN types. English nationalists are refreshingly free of such attitudes.

As a Festung Europa sort of chap, I would be more inclined to view Anglo-German leadership as the best form going forward, particularly for smaller, peripheral states which would have difficulty staying afloat in a world in which membership of one power bloc or another is necessary for maintaining propsperity.

[Man of Ash]

The world isn't getting any bigger and Irish nationalism becomes more of an anachronism every day.
Is the nationalism of every nation now an anachronism? Or only the Irish?

[Man of Ash]

I should have thought such types were vanishingly rare these days.
AFAIK, that is the official view of the BNP, i.e. that England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland form a historical and cultural unit and Ireland should be 'invited' back in.

[Basil Fawlty]

Thank you for the clarification. It's important I feel to emphasis that not all those tagged as 'racist' by the Righteous are advocates for white nationalism, or would describe themselves as white nationalist.. That is true and you mentioned the emotional racists. Another kind might be the type that is interested in the scientific data and then draws conclusions from that sans the WN nonsense. However, I have in mind those who for whatever reasons have embraced a politicisation of racism that involves heavy emphasis on white solidarity in which all other factors are reduced to trivialities. Such people are, at bottom, historically illiterate and politically ignorant.
I should have thought such types were vanishingly rare these days.One would have thought, but they seem to proliferate on the internet. One doesn't really come across them IRL anymore.
As a Festung Europa sort of chap, I would be more inclined to view Anglo-German leadership as the best form going forward, particularly for smaller, peripheral states which would have difficulty staying afloat in a world in which membership of one power bloc or another is necessary for maintaining propsperity.We've touched on this before and you may recall that an aim of mine would be to get things beyond the consumer-capitalist system therefore my priorities would be of a different order.
I also see serious difficulties with an Anglo-German model. I know you are fond of this one, and I can see its merits, but there are deep differences between these two which can be best registered philosophically. Defeat in the wars has contributed significantly to a progressive German alienation from their own spiritual-intellectual traditions. If they were to undergo a restoration, which I would welcome, it would impede such a union, given the very different tradition associated with the English-speaking peoples of the Anglo-Scot dispensation, the so-called Anglosphere.

[Basil Fawlty]

AFAIK, that is the official view of the BNP, i.e. that England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland form a historical and cultural unit and Ireland should be 'invited' back in.This is true, but I think they have been diluting this one. They are in a bit of a bind. One the one hand they came to the conclusion that they need Irish support to make breakthroughs in the cities, on the other, they need to retain a commitment to unionism. In other words, they needed to square the circle. Attempts to woo the Irish both in the UK and in Ireland itself have largely failed. I like to believe that myself and some other colleagues in some small part contributed to their failed Ireland expedition.

[Baron_Corvo]

Thank you for the clarification. It's important I feel to emphasis that not all those tagged as 'racist' by the Righteous are advocates for white nationalism, or would describe themselves as white nationalist.

True, but every time someone calls you (meaning in general) anything at all of less than five syllables, you object to it.

TBH, I think you're stuck with the word "racist" for no other reason than that it's short and snappy.

[Crowley]

You are unwitttingly displaying the very attitude I'm identifying! It's your use of the word "squabble".
I only used the example of Ireland as it is the one I know best, but the same attitude crops up again and again in respect of European ethno-nationalists, their concerns and aspirations.

What word would you prefer, war? I never denied the obvious observation that peripheral European groups may not, in fact certainly do not, have a strong focus on Irish politics. Why would they?

[Baron_Corvo]

White Nationalism' unique selling point is putting aside one's "petty nationalisms" for the good of the white race and so forth. In reality any issue that WASP WNs in America don't understand or are bored with seem to fall into the category of "petty nationalisms".

Even nations in conflict can vote in the one direction in international fora like the EU parliament or the UN. Even dissident leftists and rightists can move in the one direction on issues like the prevention of EU integration and so on it goes. This fruitful white cooperation that WN advance as something unique to their ideology is never outlined in detail. In reality this unified white world advanced by WN is just keyboard ego stroking and has no relationship to any political realities that I'm aware of.

I can see the point of it though, if you believe as many WNs do that they're up against a powerful and ruthless enemy. I've seen them say on SF that it's no good countries trying to "go white" all on their own because "the jew" would pick them off one by one, so they have to stand together - which is similar to what you're saying with this "unified white world".

[Crowley]

True, but every time someone calls you (meaning in general) anything at all of less than five syllables, you object to it.

TBH, I think you're stick with the word "racist" for no other reason than that it's short and snappy.

Racist, the word, was coined as an aspersion and it remains that way to this day. Why on earth any group should label themselves using the pejorative term of their enemies is beyond me.

[Basil Fawlty]

What word would you prefer, war?There are many disputes and differences and each should be described using the appropriate term. I never denied the obvious observation that peripheral European groups may not, in fact certainly do not, have a strong focus on Irish politics. Why would they?I did say that the Irish situation is only an example of a general trend and I used it because I know it best, not because it is of huge importance in the great scheme of things.

[Dan Dare]

... I also see serious difficulties with an Anglo-German model. I know you are fond of this one, and I can see its merits, but there are deep differences between these two which can be best registered philosophically. Defeat in the wars has contributed significantly to a progressive German alienation from their own spiritual-intellectual traditions. If they were to undergo a restoration, which I would welcome, it would impede such a union, given the very different tradition associated with the English-speaking peoples of the Anglo-Scot dispensation, the so-called Anglosphere.

We should probably take this elsewhere if there is an interest in developing the topic, however I'd like to close here with a couple of brief comments. The first is that since late medieval times the English (and then British) tradition has been radically different to the continental European one, not just the German, and in many respects the two traditions are complementary, not adversarial. Second, Anglo-German emnity is a relatively recent phemomenon and one that is not, in my view, deeply rooted in either nation.

[Dan Dare]

True, but every time someone calls you (meaning in general) anything at all of less than five syllables, you object to it.

TBH, I think you're stick with the word "racist" for no other reason than that it's short and snappy.

I hope you don't imagine that the maunderings and facile sloganeering of the Antifa Brigade and its empty-headed camp followers carry any sting, do you?

[Basil Fawlty]

I can see the point of it though, if you believe as many WNs do that they're up against a powerful and ruthless enemy. I've seen them say on SF that it's no good countries trying to "go white" all on their own because "the jew" would pick them off one by one, so they have to stand together - which is similar to what you're saying with this "unified white world".Once again, real European ethno-nationalists have developed contacts with each other across the borders on the recognition that they need to coordinate and develop solidarity if they are to succeed. No serious nationalist believes in going it alone or isolationism. WNism is irrelevant to all this apart from being a mild irritant.

[Crowley]

There are many disputes and differences and each should be described using the appropriate term.

I agree. In the future I will use the term revolt or rebellion. Something more serious than squabble, but what exact point that proves I'm not sure.

[Dan Dare]

Once again, real European ethno-nationalists have developed contacts with each other across the borders on the recognition that they need to coordinate and develop solidarity if they are to succeed. No serious nationalist believes in going it alone or isolationism. WNism is irrelevant to all this apart from being a mild irritant.

One of my largest bones of contention with the BNP is that it has fetishised exactly this 'go-it-alone' mindset. TBH, it's eerily reminiscent of the Ourselves Alone mantra often associated with Irish nationalism.

[Basil Fawlty]

I agree. In the future I will use the term revolt or rebellion. Something more serious than squabble, but what exact point that proves I'm not sure.Squabble is derogatory and trivialises, which was the point I was making.

[Man of Ash]

White nationalism seems to have two distinct meanings, at least. 'White' can refer to the whole biological race - and it's this form that's being criticized here, I believe. 'White' in the American context, however, can refer to an ethnos with a shared history, made up of the the founding stocks of America and, more controversially, whatever European immigrants they have managed to integrate. In this sense it's a form of ethnonationalism, perhaps more properly called 'White-American nationalism', that could seek alliance with European nationalist groups.

[Man of Ash]

the Ourselves Alone mantra often associated with Irish nationalism.
I'm not sure where that mistranslation originates. Sinn is a first person plural pronoun, and féin is reflexive; it just means 'we ourselves'.

[Errigal]

We should probably take this elsewhere if there is an interest in developing the topic, however I'd like to close here with a couple of brief comments. The first is that since late medieval times the English (and then British) tradition has been radically different to the continental European one, not just the German, and in many respects the two traditions are complementary, not adversarial. Second, Anglo-German emnity is a relatively recent phemomenon and one that is not, in my view, deeply rooted in either nation.

Dan how does your Spitfire Ale, Bomber Harris act work with Germans? Does it help strengthen Anglo-German unity?

[Crowley]

Squabble is derogatory and trivialises, which was the point I was making.

Speaking for proper use of words, calling squabble derogatory isn't precise either. You see the rest of the world grows tired of interminable regional conflicts such as yours and may at times use words that don't live up to your more pristine and idealized version of the conflict.

[Basil Fawlty]

Speaking for proper use of words, calling squabble derogatory isn't precise either. You see the rest of the world grows tired of interminable regional conflicts such as yours and may at times use words that don't live up to your more pristine and idealized version of the conflict.Who is this "world" you speak of? Americans?

[Baron_Corvo]

Dan how does your Spitfire Ale, Bomber Harris act work with Germans? Does it help strengthen Anglo-German unity?

Nothing wrong with Spitfire Ale (except that it's so moreish I can't start drinking it if I want to stay sober).

[Baron_Corvo]

I hope you don't imagine that the maunderings and facile sloganeering of the Antifa Brigade and its empty-headed camp followers carry any sting, do you?

'Course not you nazi :)

I had to laugh at that guy who called you "shlomo" though :D I can imagine THAT might have hurt someone of your views.

[Baron_Corvo]

Once again, real European ethno-nationalists have developed contacts with each other across the borders on the recognition that they need to coordinate and develop solidarity if they are to succeed. No serious nationalist believes in going it alone or isolationism. WNism is irrelevant to all this apart from being a mild irritant.

I'd love to take this argument (and indeed this whole thread) onto SF and see what they make of it. This is still all very cloudy to me TBH.

[Baron_Corvo]

White nationalism seems to have two distinct meanings, at least. 'White' can refer to the whole biological race - and it's this form that's being criticized here, I believe. 'White' in the American context, however, can refer to an ethnos with a shared history, made up of the the founding stocks of America and, more controversially, whatever European immigrants they have managed to integrate. In this sense it's a form of ethnonationalism, perhaps more properly called 'White-American nationalism', that could seek alliance with European nationalist groups.

Yes, except for one thing; it's mostly very insistent that "White America" or a White state within America, should be exactly that, i.e. no non-whites whatsoever. My understanding of ethnonationalism comes from Dan's take on it, i.e. numbers are of the essence.

[Baron_Corvo]

There's your problem in a nutshell. Why would anybody want to post on a board run by a vindictive fag?

I don't know if Otter reads this or not, but I can understand and sympathise with at least part of this :) Vindictive or no, he certainly doesn't play nice with people on "your side." I've criticised him for it in the past so there's no secret here.about my views on this.

But for a while, I had to put up with an admin here who said in his user title that he was "pro-rape". I probably found that as offensive as you seem to find posting on a forum run by a "fag".

If you know of any perfect boards, I don't.

[Errigal]

.....

I have in mind those who for whatever reasons have embraced a politicisation of racism that involves heavy emphasis on white solidarity in which all other factors are reduced to trivialities. Such people are, at bottom, historically illiterate and politically ignorant.

....

These are also the type who talk about Christianity as a Jewish religion, or about "worshipping a Jew on a stick". These people don't have any sense of the last 2,000yrs.

[Petr]

These are also the type who talk about Christianity as a Jewish religion, or about "worshipping a Jew on a stick". These people don't have any sense of the last 2,000yrs.
Yes, such people probably do not have an inkling of how powerful forms of egalitarian tyranny were seen already in ancient Greece - even in places like Sparta! - well before the advent of Christ:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70968&page=11

[Dan Dare]

Dan how does your Spitfire Ale, Bomber Harris act work with Germans? Does it help strengthen Anglo-German unity?

The real ones seem to be able to take in their stride, it's the faux Krauts who infest boards like this one who take umbrage.

[007]

I don't know if Otter reads this or not, but I can understand and sympathise with at least part of this :) Vindictive or no, he certainly doesn't play nice with people on "your side." I've criticised him for it in the past so there's no secret here.about my views on this.

But for a while, I had to put up with an admin here who said in his user title that he was "pro-rape". I probably found that as offensive as you seem to find posting on a forum run by a "fag".

If you know of any perfect boards, I don't.

Who was that?

I do know of a perfect board but modesty prevents...

Spitfire Ale FTW

[Errigal]

The real ones seem to be able to take in their stride, it's the faux Krauts who infest boards like this one who take umbrage.

Didn't you post a long selection of Germans who don't seem to find it funny or charming?

[Helios Panoptes]

Who was that?

I do know of a perfect board but modesty prevents...

Spitfire Ale FTW

Let's not exaggerate. I wouldn't call The Beer Barrel perfect, but sure, it's damned good and Macrobius is an excellent admin, unlike the wannabe limey who owns that other forum. What's that board called again? I can't remember. I guess it doesn't even matter because the managerial whiz who runs the place drove off 70% of his membership and replaced them with a loud-mouthed harpy from NYC and other assorted cretins.

[Felix the Cat]

I had in mind those of an imperial recidivist orientation who resent Ireland leaving the grasp of Britain. By no means all British nationalists would be of this type but a good many of them. I've heard this white solidarity = Anglo leadership line coming form British sources as well as American WN types. English nationalists are refreshingly free of such attitudes.The argument that white solidarity = German leadership is more common. I'm surprised nobody has commented on it. How often have discussions about race and immigration ended up as squabbles about Danzig, Versailles, and Hitler's ambitions in Russia?

[Baron_Corvo]

Who was that?

Helios. It may have been a joke but not one in very good taste IMO.

I do know of a perfect board but modesty prevents..

OK.

Spitfire Ale FTW

Yeah, good stuff. We have some great beers down here though, including some from the Penpont brewery at Altarnun on Bodmin Moor.

http://www.penpontbrewery.co.uk/

Beer's one thing that's really improved in this country over the last few years.

[Masty]

What do you think?LLOL @ MutantSpunkFruits. Who the fcuk do they think they are, leeching onto the w.w.w. the world white web.

[Crowley]

Who is this "world" you speak of? Americans?

I, representative of Americans, have shown my dastardly side by describing your precious conflict as a squabble, thus proving everything you have ever said about the Americans. It is all very neat how this comes together for you. Now, what is the point again?

[Helios Panoptes]

Helios. It may have been a joke but not one in very good taste IMO.





MeltingPot, I'm not going to flame you. You seem like a nice person. Perhaps a bit soft, tenderhearted, and wishy washy for a male, but amicable just the same. Unfortunately, you're an old guy from an earlier generation and you just don't fit in with the internet crowd and its nihilistic, antisocial brand of humor. This is not the place for you.

[Vindex]

Foolish and disconnected people want to bump their head against the wall of nature in protest of its creations and laws, and never learn. But wish to punish those who are wiser and have taken the noble path of truth.

This is an unsane society and as such its claimed morality can not be taken seriously, its simply deranged. Evidenced by the fact this society is in a state of rapid decay, mental illness, corruption, mediocrity, instructed ignorance and generally diesease ridden on every level. This is not a life giving civilization and has become so perverted its being cannibalized from the life cycle.

By their fruits you shall known them.

[Monty]

MSF works for me. And Everybody:
http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.racedebate-msf.org

[Monty]

Is the nationalism of every nation now an anachronism? Or only the Irish?

Our only hope of resisting the ascendancy of the managerial elite (and its anti-white underclass flunkies) is through Western solidarity. By definition, this must transcend the divisions of region, class, and party.

Both sides of Northern Ireland face the same PC, experience the same deracination, and therfore ought to be come together to meet the threat. The real political divisions are between cosmopolitan elites and white non-elites. Instead of nursing old wounds from people of British loyalties, the Irish should join with them against the New World Order and continuing expansion of a multicultural tyranny that acts to benefit their common enemies.

[Baron_Corvo]

MeltingPot, I'm not going to flame you. You seem like a nice person. Perhaps a bit soft, tenderhearted, and wishy washy for a male, but amicable just the same. Unfortunately, you're an old guy from an earlier generation and you just don't fit in with the internet crowd and its nihilistic, antisocial brand of humor. This is not the place for you.

Really? You think people of your generation have a monopoly on sick humour? I wish I had a penny for every joke about the Nazis, leprosy, serial killers and necrophilia I've heard growing up in in England in the 1960s and 1970s (and some in the 1980s too). Yes, I'll be honest I hated some of them but there were some I laughed at, and maybe some I even told especially after a pint or two. (Heard the one about the Ethiopian abortion clinic? That'd be me gone from MSF if I told the punch line of that one on there).

Joking about rape is just a step too far from me, for a number of reasons and some of which are personal. Sorry.

[Baron_Corvo]

Helios,

I hope I'm allowed an additional comment since you've as good as told me to piss off from here (albeit politely). Sorry if this is a bit of a rant but I've got quite a lot to say.

TBH, there's an additional problem. I've been posting here since 2007, and my post count's now into four figures, so I have absorbed a fair dose of the Phora culture along the way.

I may be too liberal and "faggy" for this place (and it's not the first time I've thought so) but, inasfar as I'm allowed to speak my mind, I've become way too non-PC for the run of the mill boards out there. Even if I wasn't in the first place. That's a measure of just how far the Phora is from what's normally said out there in the MSM and in mainstream middle-class (which nowadays means liberal) society.

There probably isn't just a board just for me. Maybe I could just turn into Kane and conduct a constant online vendetta against those dimwits at the Phora who couldn't recognise my genius (j/k).

Final point.

I think there's a certain amount of reaction formation going on here. Although this board touts itself as a free speech board, what it in fact seems to have become is a safe haven for people who have had a bellyful of political correctness and want to say what they really think and feel. Fine - but when someone shows up here spouting liberal views and sentiments, it's as though a kind of immune system kicks in. "We don't want him here! Negrep and flame the bastard!"

I've said before that the loneliest person on the Internet is a liberal posting on the Phora, and it seems to be still true.

You know what I'd really like to see this place become? A board where liberals, conservatives, fascists, communists et al. get together and really let it all hang out, say what they believe and why - but without any taint of personal animosity. It was like that at university a bit - you'd have people of all views having a good ding-dong argument about politics and then going down the pub together for a beer afterwards. (Maybe I just want to be a student again?).

That's what I wanted MSF to become, but Otter won't have it. Sadly I can't see it happening here either, for the opposite reason.

[Helios Panoptes]

You've misinterpreted me. I wasn't telling you to piss off, politely or otherwise. I'm not apologetic about having "pro-rape" as a custom title. I have a picture of Ted Bundy as my avatar on The Beer Barrel right now. I am being perfectly honest when I say that I don't remember having that title; that is how insignificant it is to me. I've made it clear during multiple discussions on this board that rape is the most overemphasized and overdramatized crime. I suspect that a large part of the reason why women make such a big deal about it is that society is fixated on how horrible it is. If you tell women that it's the worst thing that can happen to them and it will ruin their lives, it just may do that. Anyway, I don't have a problem with your posts or your presence on The Phora. I meant that you do not have the constitution to take the things that posters say here in stride, not that you should leave.

[Helios Panoptes]

Also, a number of people on MSF, like Otter and youknowzit for example, simply won't come here so "let them all decamp to the Phora" isn't a solution.


Those people don't want to post here because they wouldn't be able to be thought police anymore. This Otter character needs to rule over his playpen with an iron fist. Unfortunately, there aren't many folks out there who want to be his bitch, so he's forced to censure the Google spider for impure thoughts.

MSF isn't even worth lurking on once every few months. I'd advise the person who pays the bills to pull the plug. It's one of the least active and least interesting dark, fetid corners of cyberspace. If the homosexual is footing the bill, it will always stay up, though. If there's one human on the planet who is willing to tolerate his sanctimonious nitpicking and obsessive moderation, that is all of the motivation he needs and if that person doesn't exist, the queer will expect him to be born tomorrow.

[Basil Fawlty]

This Otter character is very obnoxious and is almost certainly the main cause for the decline of MSF.

[Errigal]

This Otter character is very obnoxious and is almost certainly the main cause for the decline of MSF.

Is he Canadian? He sounds like a type that's common here.

[Basil Fawlty]

Is he Canadian? He sounds like a type that's common here.I believe he is.

[Errigal]

I believe he is.

There you go, and I honestly don't know him from Adam. That's funny in a depressing sort of way.

[Helios Panoptes]

I believe he is.

He said something about being German, but that may be his ethnicity. I don't know his background. I'm sure Corvo knows.

[Baron_Corvo]

He said something about being German, but that may be his ethnicity. I don't know his background. I'm sure Corvo knows.

I hope this is right. He's a Canadian from northern Germany who also has Danish ancestry. His parents emigrated from Germany in the early 50's (when he was about two or three).

I don't know how much I want to say about him on a board where he doesn't and doesn't want to post (one reason is he's busy with the harvest - he owns and runs a farm), apart from to say what I've already said about his role in MSF.

[Baron_Corvo]

You've misinterpreted me. I wasn't telling you to piss off, politely or otherwise. I'm not apologetic about having "pro-rape" as a custom title. I have a picture of Ted Bundy as my avatar on The Beer Barrel right now. I am being perfectly honest when I say that I don't remember having that title; that is how insignificant it is to me. I've made it clear during multiple discussions on this board that rape is the most overemphasized and overdramatized crime. I suspect that a large part of the reason why women make such a big deal about it is that society is fixated on how horrible it is. If you tell women that it's the worst thing that can happen to them and it will ruin their lives, it just may do that. Anyway, I don't have a problem with your posts or your presence on The Phora. I meant that you do not have the constitution to take the things that posters say here in stride, not that you should leave.

OK, sorry for the misunderstanding.

But on the subject of rape. It's true that some women don't make a big deal about rape, but IMO they've been desensitised in some way, either by heavy promiscuity or by childhood sexual abuse. I don't think that holds true for the vast majority of women.

My friends and I used to pass around Xaviera Hollander's "Happy Hooker" books in the 1970s, and in one of them Xaviera tells of being taken from behind by a stranger in a nightclub and really enjoying it (I think the Beatles' "Come Together" was playing at the time :) ).

Well, that was her, and I don't think it's coincidental that she made her living as a prostitute and didn't have a problem with it.

It's my opinion however, borne out from some knowledge of the women I know, that most women really hate any unasked for violation of their personal space by men - even a kiss on the cheek which they've not invited, let alone rape.

So yes, it is a big deal for most women IMO. Maybe you should ask the females on this board if they agree (or even with how they feel about an unwanted peck on the cheek).

[Monty]

My friends and I used to pass around Xaviera Hollander's "Happy Hooker" books in the 1970s....

At this point, someone is supposed to point out her Jewish ancestry. I drew the short straw.

Not the prettiest of women, either:
http://vinylminerecords.com/LPs/thumb/tLP07185.jpg

[Helios Panoptes]

It's my opinion however, borne out from some knowledge of the women I know, that most women really hate any unasked for violation of their personal space by men - even a kiss on the cheek which they've not invited, let alone rape.

So yes, it is a big deal for most women IMO. Maybe you should ask the females on this board if they agree (or even with how they feel about an unwanted peck on the cheek).

Yes, I know that it can be a big deal. I remember being in a darkened auditorium and trying to get the attention of the girl next to me while a movie was playing. I wasn't having any success with waving or trying to talk in a low voice, so I reached out and touched her thigh. She looked at me with a wild expression that appeared theatrical. Her mouth was open like she was going to scream and I'd only tapped her. I flashed her a smile and she relaxed a bit. I thought it was amusing. I like to startle girls and grab them from behind and apply a rear naked choke; just joking around of course. As long as I smile and laugh, they tolerate it.


I think women are taught to be absurdly sensitive to having their personal space violated. They're taught that no one should touch them unless they invite it, they must be suspicious of men at all times, etc. The crime of rape is built up in their minds into a constant threat and one which will almost certainly send them running to a psychologist to try to reconstruct their shattered psyches. I suspect we'd be better off if women were told that they have sex with virtual strangers anyway. Rape is scary because the rapist may get violent, but it's nothing women haven't done before voluntarily.

[007]

Helios. It may have been a joke but not one in very good taste IMO.


Well, Helios suffers from a mental defect that makes him socially inept.


Yeah, good stuff. We have some great beers down here though, including some from the Penpont brewery at Altarnun on Bodmin Moor.

http://www.penpontbrewery.co.uk/

Beer's one thing that's really improved in this country over the last few years.

Next time I'm home I'd like to visit the West Country. You've got the third highest inn in England down there, I believe.

[Helios Panoptes]

Well, Helios suffers from a mental defect that makes him socially inept.


I disagree. I'm a likeable, easygoing, and fun person. I have a morbid sense of humor, but I wouldn't be described as a social misfit.

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't dispute my analysis of TBB and SI; instead you chose to badmouth me. SI was trending in the wrong direction when I left months ago, but I'm surprised you made SWB a moderator. That's as bad as it gets. I understand that you tried to befriend Commander Chimpout, General Secretary of the Lemon Party, but it didn't work out for you. It sucks when that happens.

[Dan Dare]

... Although this board touts itself as a free speech board, what it in fact seems to have become is a safe haven for people who have had a bellyful of political correctness and want to say what they really think and feel. Fine - but when someone shows up here spouting liberal views and sentiments, it's as though a kind of immune system kicks in. "We don't want him here! Negrep and flame the bastard!"...

On the other hand, to my knowledge nobody has been banned for expressing liberal sentiments here. If you have a thick enough skin you can stay and post whatever you like, which is in marked contrast to every 'anti' forum that I'm aware of. Although to be fair MSF in its more recent incarnations has also been open to dissenters, as long as they don't use naughty words as proscribed by Otter.

The real truth of the matter is that lefties and liberals are piss-poor debaters and that as much as anything is what gets up ones nose.

[Errigal]

.....
The real truth of the matter is that lefties and liberals are piss-poor debaters and that as much as anything is what gets up ones nose.

Well they have literally be taught to not think. Even worse, they were taught by people run through the same system so they are distillations of distillations, sometimes to the fourth generation (or degeneration). The public school systems, to varying degrees, were expressly designed to produce such people.

[Baron_Corvo]

On the other hand, to my knowledge nobody has been banned for expressing liberal sentiments here. If you have a thick enough skin you can stay and post whatever you like, which is in marked contrast to every 'anti' forum that I'm aware of.

True, but it's not just having a thick skin - try carrying an argument, all on your own, against at least a half dozen people whose average IQ is around 130 plus (at a guess), maybe 140 plus. I had a go at that in the Flash Riots thread, and I pretty much ground to a halt. :) Bloody hard going.

Although to be fair MSF in its more recent incarnations has also been open to dissenters, as long as they don't use naughty words as proscribed by Otter.

It has, but as someone on SF recently told me by PM, what WN wants to post on a board as small and hostile as MSF? (Actually two people there have told me that, now I think of it). There's pretty much only you, Death Legion and sometimes Starr left now in the "away" (as opposed to the "home" camp. (I'm not going to ****ing write out "ethnonationalist" every time :D)

I have a friend on SF who's a very committed WN from Iceland, and I wanted to ask her to debate on MSF but I didn't feel I could because I knew Otter and Kamandi (especially Otter) would rip into her. She gets upset and "down" and I just couldn't do that to her.

The real truth of the matter is that lefties and liberals are piss-poor debaters and that as much as anything is what gets up ones nose.

Have to admit you have a point. One of the reasons I used to like reading Roger Scruton, even the stuff I disagreed with, was that he knew why he thought the way he did about various issues and could unfold his arguments in depth. I struggle to think of any left-wing or liberal writer who can do that, anything like as well. The only one I know of who comes close is Will Self (I expect we'll disagree about that but he is formidably bright). Scruton and Self once debated live on one of Melvin Bragg's Radio 4 arts programs and my impression was that Will Self just edged it.

Left-wing and liberal writers tend to assume all their suppositions are held by all right-thinking people, whereas Scruton doesn't (or didn't when I used to read his columns in The Times in the 80's).

That's probably why they're poor at defending them; they're rarely challenged to do so. Peregrine Worsthorne once said that for every Roger Scruton there are probably 100 Eric Hobsbawms.

[Basil Fawlty]

On the other hand, to my knowledge nobody has been banned for expressing liberal sentiments here. If you have a thick enough skin you can stay and post whatever you like, which is in marked contrast to every 'anti' forum that I'm aware of. Although to be fair MSF in its more recent incarnations has also been open to dissenters, as long as they don't use naughty words as proscribed by Otter.

The real truth of the matter is that lefties and liberals are piss-poor debaters and that as much as anything is what gets up ones nose.I think part of this is that they are so used to having their own way - they need only incant magic spells like 'racist!' or 'homophobe!' for their victims to be paralysed into fearful acquiescence - that when they encounter those for whom such charms fail to work they are left without resources. There is simply no Plan B with most of these people.

[007]

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't dispute my analysis of TBB and SI; instead you chose to badmouth me.

Well, I naturally thought you were bright enough to know that I would disagree with your "analysis". I didn't "badmouth" you for that but rather in response to Corvo's disapproval of your former usertitle. IMO, that explains why you do things like that.

[Felix the Cat]

Is it permissible to promote falsehoods in pursuit of benevolent social goals? What is the difference between teaching young children to believe in Santa Claus so they don't misbehave, and telling young adults that all nations are equal in order to stop them fighting with foreigners?

[Errigal]

Is it permissible to promote falsehoods in pursuit of benevolent social goals? What is the difference between teaching young children to believe in Santa Claus so they don't misbehave, and telling young adults that all nations are equal in order to stop them fighting with foreigners?

The problem is that you end up having adults who genuinely believe these Santa Claus stories, write textbooks including him as a fact, pass laws making Santa Claus denial a crime and raise generations of Santa Claus scholars paid for by taxpayers to expand the story of Santa Claus to include almost anything. Other people like this so much that they apply the Santaclausology Method to prove all sorts of convenient things.

[Basil Fawlty]

Is it permissible to promote falsehoods in pursuit of benevolent social goals?I don't think one could answer that question until such time as one could establish to a high degree of certainty that the projected aims really are beneficial. Believing that one's aims are benevolent is totally inadequate as just about everyone believes this. The old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions comes to mind. Tony Bliar's defence for lies in the service of the Iraq war boiled down to "my intentions were good".
What is the difference between teaching young children to believe in Santa Claus so they don't misbehave, and telling young adults that all nations are equal in order to stop them fighting with foreigners?Does anyone argue the latter?

[Felix the Cat]

I remember a few years ago watching with fascination Kamandi twisting and turning for days on end in a debate about black intelligence, and never ever conceding the point, regardless of the strength of the arguments against him. He did make one very interesting and revealing comment however: that if an idea is socially harmful in some way, its advocates must present incontrovertible proof for it before it is accepted.

Of course this is impossible outside of pure mathematics. Even physicists can't do this for most of their theories.

It's what Steve Sailer calls "Occam's Butterknife" - the accepted explanation in these situations is never the simplest and likeliest one, but always the politically correct one, regardless of how convoluted and shaky the "logic" behind it may be.

[Felix the Cat]

Does anyone argue the latter?There can be no doubt that the decrease in inter-European conflict over the past 60 years is at least partially due to this new kind of thinking.

Something like the EU could never have come into existence if there hadn't been a major change in mentality among Europeans along these lines.

[Errigal]

I remember a few years ago watching with fascination Kamandi twisting and turning for days on end in a debate about black intelligence, and never ever conceding the point, regardless of the strength of the arguments against him. He did make one very interesting and revealing comment however: that if an idea is socially harmful in some way, its advocates must present incontrovertible proof for it before it is accepted.

Of course this is impossible outside of pure mathematics. Even physicists can't do this for most of their theories.

It's what Steve Sailer calls "Occam's Butterknife" - the accepted explanation in these situations is never the simplest and likeliest one, but always the politically correct one, regardless of how convoluted and shaky the "logic" behind it may be.

To be fair, Kamandi is an Ostjude; they seem to genuinely put faith in the power of lies and lying. "We create our own reality" seems to be an article of faith with them. I'm not just saying that to be cute either.

So there's polite lies, white lies, self-dillusion, propaganda and then there's kabbalistic lying, which seems to take on a sacred and cosmic importance. Not believing a kabbalistic lie is a kind of blasphemy. It's weird but it seems to work that way.

[Basil Fawlty]

I remember a few years ago watching with fascination Kamandi twisting and turning for days on end in a debate about black intelligence, and never ever conceding the point, regardless of the strength of the arguments against him. He did make one very interesting and revealing comment however: that if an idea is socially harmful in some way, its advocates must present incontrovertible proof for it before it is accepted.Ok, so this presupposes that the idea is true but the implications are somehow unwelcome. The onus would be on the one claiming that a (true) idea could be harmful to show how this is possible. They would also have to show how the truth could ever be harmful. Then they would need to establish the conditions under which substitution of lies for truth could be a good. I'd hate to have to defend that argument as on the face of it is a contradiction.

Where is that revolting sophist anyway?

[Basil Fawlty]

There can be no doubt that the decrease in inter-European conflict over the past 60 years is at least partially due to this new kind of thinking.

Something like the EU could never have come into existence if there hadn't been a major change in mentality among Europeans along these lines.But this is not true as voting is weighted according to size.

[Errigal]

There can be no doubt that the decrease in inter-European conflict over the past 60 years is at least partially due to this new kind of thinking.

Something like the EU could never have come into existence if there hadn't been a major change in mentality among Europeans along these lines.

The big lies of the EU are a great example of the generational effect of propagandistic lies: the first generation of European federalists spread around polite fictions to make the Coal & Steel and then the EEC unions work. That generation raised a generation who believed these polite fictions as absolute truths and would ban anyone who didn't from mainstream political life. To not believe the Greeks have the same attitude to civic responsibility and the state as Germans do is to be someone who wants a new Hitler. See how that's turning out.

[Helios Panoptes]

Well, I naturally thought you were bright enough to know that I would disagree with your "analysis".

Do you concede that a sizable chunk of the core membership of your forum (as of 2 years ago) no longer posts there, but chose to defect to a rival forum instead? If so, why has this mass migration occurred? I haven't been following SI at all, but the last time I logged in there, the place was almost dead (3-6 months ago). It was approaching MSF's level of desolation. I don't know much about your current staff, but I've been informed that SWB and Halder are mods now. They were both nonentities when I was active on the board. It's almost as though you ran out of people and these were the only ones left. None of this is promising.

I hope you appreciate that I've tried to inquire about the state of your forum politely in this post.

I didn't "badmouth" you for that but rather in response to Corvo's disapproval of your former usertitle. IMO, that explains why you do things like that.

I see, but I am not socially inept. I realize that using "pro-rape" as a user title would be considered offensive by some members. I understand human social interactions fairly well. I know what makes people indignant, saddened, compassionate, insulted, etc. I'm not autistic. I cross boundaries occasionally because I don't care, not because I don't know any better.

[Winston]

Anyone, including a liberal, can become liked and respected at this forum, and the healthy array of green rep icons Baron Corvo is sporting are and indicator of this. Sulla was a supermod and his politics are some of the some loathsome and destructive going.

The people who lash out the hardest at liberals on here are also those most likely to be engaged in 'rep wars', shoutbox feuds, etc. with phorans of an identical political persuasion.

Try being 'right-wing' on mainstream boards and you'll quickly know the definition of lonely.

[Felix the Cat]

But this is not true as voting is weighted according to size.I was thinking of "nations" as biological/cultural/religious entities rather than mere states. Of course larger states have a bigger say than smaller ones, but this is based on a pure headcount rather than any other criteria. (Any Englishman of former times would have baulked at the idea of joining an organization that regards 1 Frenchman as the equal of 1 Englishman.)

[Basil Fawlty]

I was thinking of "nations" as biological/cultural/religious entities rather than mere states. Of course larger states have a bigger say than smaller ones, but this is based on a pure headcount rather than any other criteria. (Any Englishman of former times would have baulked at the idea of joining an organization that regards 1 Frenchman as the equal of 1 Englishman.)Ok, so what's wrong with the idea that nations are equal? Equal/unequal in respect of what? What kind of (non question-begging) criteria would be needed?

[007]

I hope you appreciate that I've tried to inquire about the state of your forum politely in this post.

Alright, if you are genuinely interested, although I can't imagine why you would be... the forum is very slow not because of the split so much as the fact that posters like Masty, Ron Hitler and Albert Dryden are busy with real life and don't post as much anymore. I don't post as much myself. I don't know who Halder is, but SWB is an active member who spends a lot of time at the board so is likely to be present in case somebody posts something illegal or grossly offensive which is all the moderation we require.



I see, but I am not socially inept. I understand that using "pro-rape" as a user title would be considered offensive by some members. I understand human social interactions fairly well. I know what makes people indignant, saddened, compassionate, insulted, etc. I'm not autistic. I cross boundaries occasionally because I don't care, not because I don't know any better.

Fair enough. So you're not inept, you're an asshole? :p

[Felix the Cat]

Ok, so what's wrong with the idea that nations are equal? Equal/unequal in respect of what? What kind of (non question-begging) criteria would be needed?The doctrine that 8 million Irishmen should count for as much in European affairs as 80 million Germans is (of course) an Irish Nationalist one. I'd expect nothing less from your good self. :p

However you're surely aware that most Europeans, especially the ones in the worlds of academia/culture/media, no longer think this way. They have no problem (or far less of a problem than they used to) with treating foreigners as they do themselves.

Many people on this board (expecially Americans) like this change in mentality and are glad that it happened, but want it to stop at Europeans, and not be indiscriminately extended to the rest of the world.

However, is this possible?

[Dan Dare]

... It's what Steve Sailer calls "Occam's Butterknife" - the accepted explanation in these situations is never the simplest and likeliest one, but always the politically correct one, regardless of how convoluted and shaky the "logic" behind it may be.

In similar vein, here is an extract from AEF Edwards' classic essay debunking the "Lewontin Fallacy":

... Lewontin used his analysis of variation to mount an unjustified assault on classification, which he deplored for social reasons. It was he who wrote ‘‘Indeed the whole history of the problem of genetic variation is a vivid illustration of the role that deeply embedded ideological assumptions play in determining scientific ‘truth’ and the direction of scientific inquiry’’.(5)

... A proper analysis of human data reveals a substantial amount of information about genetic differences. What use, if any, one makes of it is quite another matter. But it is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.

One is reminded of Fisher’s remark in Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference(12) ‘‘that the best causes tend to attract to their support the worst arguments, which seems to be equally true in the intellectual and in the moral sense.’’[emphasis added]

[Helios Panoptes]

Alright, if you are genuinely interested, although I can't imagine why you would be... the forum is very slow not because of the split so much as the fact that posters like Masty, Ron Hitler and Albert Dryden are busy with real life and don't post as much anymore. I don't post as much myself. I don't know who Halder is, but SWB is an active member who spends a lot of time at the board so is likely to be present in case somebody posts something illegal or grossly offensive which is all the moderation we require.

Halder is Kristian Kowalski or something like that. I was told he's a mod on SI and I don't remember him.

Why did you lose so many members? I gather that there was a big feud about something and the forum split. You probably didn't personally get along with many of them, but they added activity and entertainment value to the board. Surely you realize that if you had those posters, it would not be so noticeable that 4 people are busy at the current time. McCarthy, Cheesypie, and Ixabert talking endlessly about the Muslim problem is a poor substitute for the established posters who hit the road. I cannot comment without knowing the specifics, but you probably should have made a greater effort to compromise and retain them. I always got the impression that you were too unyielding as an admin and too biased towards your favorites. I'm sure you don't miss me, but I can use myself to illustrate the point. I go to TBB now when I want to interact with the SI crowd.



Fair enough. So you're not inept, you're an asshole? :p

I wouldn't choose to put it that way, but I don't care if I offend others. In real life, I have to pretend to be compassionate and caring, although, I'm blessed with an extremely cold and callous nature. The internet allows me to let the hidden part of my personality rise to the surface.

[Baron_Corvo]

Anyone, including a liberal, can become liked and respected at this forum, and the healthy array of green rep icons Baron Corvo is sporting are and indicator of this.

Took me long enough, but you're right.

Sulla was a supermod and his politics are some of the some loathsome and destructive going.

Maybe, but where's Sulla now though? Or Eddy and Kamandi, two other liberals who used to post here? Chloe, whatever her username was, who was apparently told she "dripped menstrual blood" all over this place? Not many libs tend to stick around here. That German mixed race guy (whose name I forget) is one, as is Shez who gets negrepped half to death but is a pretty decent poster IMO, but they are few.

The people who lash out the hardest at liberals on here are also those most likely to be engaged in 'rep wars', shoutbox feuds, etc. with phorans of an identical political persuasion.

Could be.

Try being 'right-wing' on mainstream boards and you'll quickly know the definition of lonely.

I'll take your word for that. I know people on other boards who would be banned in a flash if they posted in mainstream boards. Probably some here who would too.

[Helios Panoptes]

Maybe, but where's Sulla now though? Or Eddy and Kamandi, two orther liberals who used to post here? Chloe, whatever her username was, who was apparently told she "dripped menstrual blood" all over this place? Not many libs tend to stick around here. That German mixed race guy (whose name I forget) is one, as is Shez who gets negrepped half to death but is a pretty decent poster IMO, but they are few.

Sulla stopped posting on his own. He's busy with real life or just burned out on internet posting. Nobody ran him off, if that is what you are implying. Eddy left the internet to the best of my knowledge. She's not on MSF, either. I haven't the slightest idea what happened to Kamandi. Ask him on MSF if he still posts there. Chloe was an annoying slut who tried to attract attention by putting up avatar photos with max cleavage. She posts on TBB now.

Sheza is a drunk. Not the worst poster, but not anything particularly worthwhile, either. Larrikin (the German Negro) is a quality poster.



BTW, did you see my post addressing the rape issue above?

[007]

Halder is Kristian Kowalski or something like that. I was told he's a mod on SI and I don't remember him.

OK, yes, KK is a mod as well. Same as Barb he was active and interested so I invited him to join the staff.

Why did you lose so many members? I gather that there was a big feud about something and the forum split. You probably didn't personally get along with many of them, but they added activity and entertainment value to the board. Surely you realize that if you had those posters, it would not be so noticeable that 4 people are busy at the current time.

What you say is true enough, but if I had compromised and allowed them to dictate to me for the sake of forum activity, then I'd be saddled with reading their tripe every day. There was a certain group of people who insisted on dragging the forum deeper and deeper into the sewer. Ironically, it's come to my attention that some of them are now realizing the difficulty of attracting and retaining new members at QB in the face of excessive trolling and baiting.
BTW, those four names were just examples, not a complete list. People come and go all the time
McCarthy, Cheesypie, and Ixabert talking endlessly about the Muslim problem is a poor substitute for the established posters who hit the road. I cannot comment without knowing the specifics, but you probably should have made a greater effort to compromise and retain them. I always got the impression that you were too unyielding as an admin and too biased in favor of your boys. I'm sure you don't miss me, but I can use myself to illustrate the point. I go to TBB now when I want to interact with the SI crowd.

We lost a few good posters during the forum split such as Intrepid, Tricknologist and Billy Boatrocker to name just a few. But some of those who left would have needed to be banned eventually anyway.

Joe McCarthy actually left us as well and Ix doesn't post much either, the good news is that we have some fresh faces from outside the CofC who bring a different perspective to our favourite topics

[Baron_Corvo]

Sulla stopped posting on his own. He's busy with real life or just burned out on internet posting. Nobody ran him off, if that is what you are implying. Eddy left the internet to the best of my knowledge. She's not on MSF, either. I haven't the slightest idea what happened to Kamandi. Ask him on MSF if he still posts there.

Fair enough, I think both Kam and Eddy are busy with real life at the moment.

Chloe was an annoying slut who tried to attract attention by putting up avatar photos with max cleavage. She posts on TBB now.

OK, I didn't really know her.

Sheza is a drunk. Not the worst poster, but not anything particularly worthwhile, either. Larrikin (the German Negro) is a quality poster.

Yes he is.

BTW, did you see my post addressing the rape issue above?

Yes I did. I'll get round to it soon.

[Basil Fawlty]

The doctrine that 8 million Irishmen should count for as much in European affairs as 80 million Germans is (of course) an Irish Nationalist one. I'd expect nothing less from your good self. :pI talked about weighted voting earlier but you said that was not what you meant, but now you revert to this aspect. I don't know of any Irish nationalist who thinks that Ireland's input into Euro affairs count as much as Germany's. That is obviously ridiculous.
However you're surely aware that most Europeans, especially the ones in the worlds of academia/culture/media, no longer think this way. They have no problem (or far less of a problem than they used to) with treating foreigners as they do themselves.This is an entirely different point. I thought we were talking about in/equality amongst nations. Now you refer to a belief in the equality of individuals.

[Crowley]

Ahem, there is no such thing as a "German Negro". There are of course mutts of half German and half African ancestry.

[Jake Featherston]

'Course not you nazi :)

I had to laugh at that guy who called you "shlomo" though :D I can imagine THAT might have hurt someone of your views.

One day, someone will make a poast here at The Phora, and no one will draw the conclusion from the contents of that poast that its author was a Jew. On on that day, I shall cease poasting here, for that is the day that the very forum itself will have become Jewish.

Anyhoo, I haven't posted at MSF in two-and-a-half years, but based on total number of posts, I'm still one of its principle users (and my account is still active; I oddly checked about two weeks ago). And I left because of Daryl LaMont Jenkins. I'm not posting anywhere where an actual enemy may very well choose to use information I post in order to harm my real-world interests (such as with employers, for example). And that's pretty much what that guy was all about, right? His whole organization (which consists mainly of just him) is dedicated to that approximate goal.

So I'll resume posting there when DLJ is banned, but not before.

[Jake Featherston]

I remember a few years ago watching with fascination Kamandi twisting and turning for days on end in a debate about black intelligence, and never ever conceding the point, regardless of the strength of the arguments against him. He did make one very interesting and revealing comment however: that if an idea is socially harmful in some way, its advocates must present incontrovertible proof for it before it is accepted.

What Kamandiesque sophistry. The very notion that the truth could ever be "socially harmful" is absurd, and borders on being actually offensive. What is socially harmful is basing public policy on "facts" that aren't accurate. This should be obvious to even a small child, let alone one of Kamanadi's doubtless 120+ IQ & years of experience.

[Jake Featherston]

Try being 'right-wing' on mainstream boards and you'll quickly know the definition of lonely.

You'll be viciously insulted for a brief spell prior to your banning, or just banned on first sight. Those are the only two options. I don't doubt Baron Corvo is genuinely unaware how difficult it is to find a place where people like us (that is, assuming we're not interested in StormFront), can just say what we happen to think, without immediately having our account deleted. Unless you've experienced it, you wouldn't know.

[Errigal]

What Kamandiesque sophistry. The very notion that the truth could ever be "socially harmful" is absurd, and borders on being actually offensive. What is socially harmful is basing public policy on "facts" that aren't accurate. This should be obvious to even a small child, let alone one of Kamanadi's doubtless 120+ IQ & years of experience.

I just copied and pasted this text from a post I made a few weeks ago:

Jonathan Kay, the managing editor for Comment at the National Post and the author of Among the Truthers: A Journey into the Growing Conspiracist Underground of 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, Armageddonites, Vaccine Hysterics, Hollywood Know-Nothings and Internet Addicts said he learned "how dangerous the internet is. I mean I'm not an advocate of censorship but I don't think we have come to grips, even come close to coming to grips with what a radical democratization effect the internet has had. Twenty years ago people like you and me, we could guide the marketplace of ideas, now we can't and we haven't come to terms with the kind of world that's produced."

Comment was made on Canada's nationwide state radio network as part of their coverage of the 10th anniversary of 9/11. It is made at the 19:20 mark in the "Hour Three" audio file:

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/shows/2011/09/11/ten-years-later-1/

Rationing truth and reshaping reality with the magical power of lies is what it's all about. They've collectively bitten off far more than they can chew but they think the same old shell game they pulled on Russian and Polish peasants can work on global scale. We might be right now living at the moment their biggest con job comes crashing down.

[Jake Featherston]

They've collectively bitten off far more than they can chew but they think the same old shell game they pulled on Russian and Polish peasants can work on global scale. We might be right now living at the moment their biggest con job comes crashing down.

I certainly hope so. I could die happy, knowing they had lost their grip on power.

[Errigal]

I certainly hope so. I could die happy, knowing they had lost their grip on power.

Well the web bypasses the economic and information choke points they love so much. They've also burnt through mountains of goodwill over the last 10yrs at a time when millions of us could look up information on them and check their wild claims. Then there's the brutal reality of the world financial crisis. Whatever comes next will be different from what was normal before. Kay is right about that.

[Monty]

We lost a few good posters during the forum split such as Intrepid, Tricknologist and Billy Boatrocker to name just a few. But some of those who left would have needed to be banned eventually anyway.

Who is "we" and what did you split over?

[Helios Panoptes]

One day, someone will make a poast here at The Phora, and no one will draw the conclusion from the contents of that poast that its author was a Jew. On on that day, I shall cease poasting here, for that is the day that the very forum itself will have become Jewish.

Anyhoo, I haven't posted at MSF in two-and-a-half years, but based on total number of posts, I'm still one of its principle users (and my account is still active; I oddly checked about two weeks ago). And I left because of Daryl LaMont Jenkins. I'm not posting anywhere where an actual enemy may very well choose to use information I post in order to harm my real-world interests (such as with employers, for example). And that's pretty much what that guy was all about, right? His whole organization (which consists mainly of just him) is dedicated to that approximate goal.

So I'll resume posting there when DLJ is banned, but not before.

Why would you want to post there anyway? Unless a person is a moronic troll, posting on a forum is like writing for a publication. By making "good" posts (posts that are interesting to read, humorous, educational, etc.), you are contributing value to the site. You don't get paid like the writer who contributes to a magazine, but you are making the forum more attractive to current and prospective members, which is similar to what the writer accomplishes wrt readers. I don't grasp why you would want to help out an obnoxious control freak who thinks you unworthy of breathing the air that rightfully belongs to queers, Negroes, feminazi dykes, brave antifa resistance fighters, etc. Have some self-respect and don't dance around like an animal in this faggot's thought criminal circus.

[Baron_Corvo]

Why would you want to post there anyway? Unless a person is a moronic troll, posting on a forum is like writing for a publication. By making "good" posts (posts that are interesting to read, humorous, educational, etc.), you are contributing value to the site. You don't get paid like the writer who contributes to a magazine, but you are making the forum more attractive to current and prospective members, which is similar to what the writer accomplishes wrt readers. I don't grasp why you would want to help out an obnoxious control freak who thinks you unworthy of breathing the air that rightfully belongs to queers, Negroes, feminazi dykes, brave antifa resistance fighters, etc. Have some self-respect and don't dance around like an animal in this faggot's thought criminal circus.

That is pretty much the way he thinks, you're right, and he says so pretty much every time he posts so it's not like there's any secret about the matter. It's one of the main reasons I'm not on staff there any more (another was the lack of time, though that's a joke nowadays).

But there's another aspect of this to be considered. Every time someone like Jake posts something worth reading, and he did when he was with us (I used to enjoy his contributions about American politics in particular), Otter's ability to present people like him in the way you describe is a little bit weaker because people can see for themselves that they're looking at the writings of an intelligent and thoughtful person. It's probably the main reason Dan still posts there.

[Baron_Corvo]

You'll be viciously insulted for a brief spell prior to your banning, or just banned on first sight. Those are the only two options. I don't doubt Baron Corvo is genuinely unaware how difficult it is to find a place where people like us (that is, assuming we're not interested in StormFront), can just say what we happen to think, without immediately having our account deleted. Unless you've experienced it, you wouldn't know.

You're probably right Jake, I'm not fully aware of it although I have heard stories on SF to that effect. A senior mod on SF was apparently banned on CNN before he'd even started posting there; someone must have recognised his Stormfront handle just after he'd registered.

[007]

Who is "we" and what did you split over?

Stumble Inn forum and the split was over a dispute about the practice of stickniggering. A group of dedicated "neggers" took offence at my posrepping some of their victims and set up their own forum.

[Winston]

You'll be viciously insulted for a brief spell prior to your banning, or just banned on first sight. Those are the only two options. I don't doubt Baron Corvo is genuinely unaware how difficult it is to find a place where people like us (that is, assuming we're not interested in StormFront), can just say what we happen to think, without immediately having our account deleted. Unless you've experienced it, you wouldn't know.


But there's another aspect of this to be considered. Every time someone like Jake posts something worth reading, and he did when he was with us (I used to enjoy his contributions about American politics in particular), Otter's ability to present people like him in the way you describe is a little bit weaker because people can see for themselves that they're looking at the writings of an intelligent and thoughtful person. It's probably the main reason Dan still posts there.

These two things are inextricably linked. 'Racists' are banned from forums, and the antifa 'no platform' exists, precisely because they know how well 'racists' can put across their case and how good that case is.

It must be a heck of a shock to ordinary folk when they actually read what a 'Dan' or a 'Jake' has to say.

[Apocales]

Stumble Inn forum and the split was over a dispute about the practice of stickniggering. A group of dedicated "neggers" took offence at my posrepping some of their victims and set up their own forum.
You straight up edited people's reputation to your liking.

You also neutered the reputation system to where it benefiting solely you, I heard you can barely even sticknigger on SI now (sticknigger snivel rights).

You also deleted many posts that didn't meet your warlordish standards or those that dare criticize you.

Whatever the split is the split, you can have your British Free Republic we will have our Free Speech Zoo.

[Jake Featherston]

I don't grasp why you would want to help out an obnoxious control freak who thinks you unworthy of breathing the air that rightfully belongs to queers, Negroes, feminazi dykes, brave antifa resistance fighters, etc. Have some self-respect and don't dance around like an animal in this faggot's thought criminal circus.

You make a strong case, but I think we both know the likelihood of DLJ being banned hovers somewhere between "nil" and "zero," ergo the issue at hand is something of an abstraction.

[007]

You straight up edited people's reputation to your liking.

You also neutered the reputation system to where it benefiting solely you, I heard you can barely even sticknigger on SI now (sticknigger snivel rights).

You also deleted many posts that didn't meet your warlordish standards or those that dare criticize you.



Bullshit. :rolleyes:

[Macrobius]

White nationalism seems to have two distinct meanings, at least. 'White' can refer to the whole biological race - and it's this form that's being criticized here, I believe. 'White' in the American context, however, can refer to an ethnos with a shared history, made up of the the founding stocks of America and, more controversially, whatever European immigrants they have managed to integrate. In this sense it's a form of ethnonationalism, perhaps more properly called 'White-American nationalism', that could seek alliance with European nationalist groups.

I think there is very little question that, historically and in an American context (only), and certainly from 1689 to 1920 minimum, 'White' has referred to the class of persons who could endogamously breed, legally, with other Whites, that is, a class of persons closed under the relation of potential pairwise monogamy. To do otherwise would be miscegenation, which was in many places and times in this country either a crime or else subject to penal provisions as harsh as any crime.

It is only since the dissolution of Jim Crow and deliberate social engineering that any uncertainty over what 'White' meant was even possible here. Over its entire course, there were (at least) three legal theories supporting classification. However, in the bulk, there was never any ambiguity about the persons, their culture, or membership in the class that gave meaning to the word. The legal tendency was to become more restrictive, not less, which is probably why the Race regime of Jim Crow was overthrown -- through hubris and overfussy and ill-advised application of its own principles.

There were, by the way, much more restrictive terms than 'White' available, and the term was inclusive and maximal, hardly exclusive, in its time. Plenty of immigrants were proud to be White, when they were excluded from society and culture in practically every other way.

Once we lose historical perspective and start inventing play definitions with no grounding in the culture, we could make 'alliances' but nothing will come of them. One's connection to the past -- for We Ourselves -- is an all in sort of thing.

[Monty]

Stumble Inn forum and the split was over a dispute about the practice of stickniggering. A group of dedicated "neggers" took offence at my posrepping some of their victims and set up their own forum.

I've maintained for a long time that the reputation system is unhealthy. It creates bad feeling and encourages feuds and flame wars. So forums are better off without them. The "thanks" button works just fine as a replacement.

Worse, moderators use the rep system to harass users, then refuse to subject themselves to the rules they impose upon others. Then they moan and cry that their forums are dying out because people leave.

But nobody listens. The obvious is not elusive. Get rid of rep points.

[von Sternberg]

http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/7966579-418/more-hispanics-listed-themselves-as-white-on-us-census.html
“What’s white in America in 1910, 2010 or even 2011 simply isn’t the same,” said Robert Lang, sociology professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, citing the many different groups of European immigrants in the early 20th century who later became known collectively as white. He notes today that could mean a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant in upstate New York or Jews and Italians in the lowest East side of Manhattan. Predicting a similar shift for Hispanics, Lang and others noted that mixed marriages are now more common between whites and Hispanics. U.S.-born Latino children of immigrants also are more likely than their parents to identify as white. “The definition of white has always been expansive,” he said. “I could see the census in 2030 or 2040 dropping the differentiation between Hispanics and whites.”

[Macrobius]

I've maintained for a long time that the reputation system is unhealthy. It creates bad feeling and encourages feuds and flame wars. So forums are better off without them. The "thanks" button works just fine as a replacement.

But nobody listens.

I had to posrep this one.

[Macrobius]

http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/7966579-418/more-hispanics-listed-themselves-as-white-on-us-census.html

Yes, the notions of 'White' and 'Nationalism' have *always* been on the cutting edge of social subversion. They cut two ways. That of course is the point -- circumscribing the vanguard in the interests of 'even more extreme race-mixing' is, well, restrictive. And in the interests of someone, I should say, who is easy to spot.

[Monty]

I heard you can barely even sticknigger on SI now (sticknigger snivel rights).

Why would any sane person allow a practice called "stickniggering?" Do people want a successful community or not? If people want to tell bad jokes and boast of their PUA/drug habits/crime sprees, 4chan and its many spinoffs are full of that. And it is unreadable.

[Macrobius]

Why would any sane person allow a practice called "stickniggering?" Do people want a successful community or not? If people want to tell bad jokes and boast of their PUA/drug habits/crime sprees, 4chan and its many spinoffs are full of that.

The theory of positive and negative rep in social networks very closely follows this mathematical treatment (chapter 5):

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/

The primary observation is that triangles in which A pos reps B and C both, but B and C neg rep each other, are socially unstable. Sociologists have been discussing this since the 50s, and the conclusions are well known. There are plenty of instances of this observation, and its consequences for stability in detail, near at hand.

I will leave my observations in silence, but anyone who is able can write down the graphs among the various forums and learn quickly enough what's what.

[Monty]

The theory of positive and negative rep in social networks very closely follows this mathematical treatment.

If Facebook had negreps, it would collapse tomorrow. In fact, it designs its structure to hide any negativity. Unfriending someone is not reported to the target.

The only places I've seen people care about negreps is this little subculture. Elsewhere, I see the thanks button or nothing at all.

[Macrobius]

If Facebook had negreps, it would collapse tomorrow. In fact, it designs its structure to hide any negativity. Unfriending someone is not reported to the target.

The only places I've seen people care about negreps is this little subculture. Elsewhere, I see the thanks button or nothing at all.

The negative levers are always there. Not seeing them, is to miss the obvious. One must, always, rebalance the farce.

[Monty]

The negative levers are always there. Not seeing them, is to miss the obvious. One must, always, rebalance the farce.

Other boards don't give Martin Lindstedt super negrep power to chimpout in the reputation system. Besides, if people don't appreciate the people on a forum, they simply leave.

Besides, the sort of people who often make the best forum posters often wind up simply blogging because there's no hassle of moderators, rep points, trolls (except in comments). Also, if you want any kind of audience, the potential readership on even the biggest forums is what? A few dozen people?

[Macrobius]

Other boards don't give Martin Lindstedt super negrep power to chimpout in the reputation system. Besides, if people don't appreciate the people on a forum, they simply leave.

Besides, the sort of people who often make the best forum posters often wind up simply blogging because there's no hassle of moderators, rep points, trolls (except in comments). Also, if you want any kind of audience, the potential readership on even the biggest forums is what? A few dozen people?

I've never observed Martin to rep anyone one way or another, but perhaps he does. You for example? Somewhere? Otherwise why mention him?

In any event, are you saying that if I go on Free Republic and start talking about how Israel did 9/11, nothing bad will happen to me, except the odd 'thanks' button click from a few positive-thinking souls? And that their size is a direct consequence of this positive attitude they have?

I have another interpretation: most social groups maintain harmony by exiling and marginalising everyone who disagrees with them. The notion that one can have free speech without the capacity to criticise anyone ever is, well, very Canadian (http://forum.thebeerbarrel.net/showthread.php?9076-Internet-Hate-Speech-Repeal-in-Canada).


“If something is deemed to be a hate crime it should go to court. Anything else that is not deemed to be a hate crime [under the Criminal Code] people should be allowed to say whether you agree or vehemently oppose it. Thankfully, we live in a country where we’re allowed to speak our mind.”

And that's all I have to say about that.

[Helios Panoptes]

If Facebook had negreps, it would collapse tomorrow. In fact, it designs its structure to hide any negativity. Unfriending someone is not reported to the target.

The only places I've seen people care about negreps is this little subculture. Elsewhere, I see the thanks button or nothing at all.

The idea that FB would collapse if it had neg rep contradicts the statement that we're the only ones who care about it. People everywhere would care about their precious colored squares. Some sites deny them the privilege in the interest of protecting delicate feelings.

MSF has only pos rep.

[Baron_Corvo]

The idea that FB would collapse if it had neg rep contradicts the statement that we're the only ones who care about it. People everywhere would care about their precious colored squares. Some sites deny them the privilege in the interest of protecting delicate feelings.

MSF has only pos rep.

So does SF. They tried negrep, but it caused a lot of ill feeling apparently.

Our experience with it was that when we tried it, certain posters like benfromcanada really went to town with it and apparently negrepped everything in sight that they didn't agree with, or by posters they didn't like. It was like a negrep blitzkrieg. Dan was sufficiently upset about it to start a thread on the board making an issue of it.

The Phora doesn't have the same problem because the number of posts you can rep in a day here is much smaller in proportion to the total number of posts made on the board each day.

[Macrobius]

The idea that FB would collapse if it had neg rep contradicts the statement that we're the only ones who care about it. People everywhere would care about their precious colored squares. Some sites deny them the privilege in the interest of protecting delicate feelings.

MSF has only pos rep.


FB would also collapse if they took away Farmville. I'm not sure what he was trying to prove.

http://www.robcottingham.ca/cartoon/wp-content/webcomic/noise-to-signal/2011.09.25.anxiety.png

Source: http://www.robcottingham.ca/cartoon/archive/plus-ca-change-plus-cest-different/

Another week, another massive change to Facebook. I’ve done the developer workaround to get Timeline added to my profile, and now I have to plow through several years of my life to remove hideously embarrassing incidents lend some coherence to it.

And listen, I’m all in favor of them innovating and offering amazing new features to their users. I haven’t decided whether I actually like Timeline yet, but I’m impressed as hell with what they’ve done with it.

That said, hold up, guys. Being a Facebook user these days is like being a hamster belonging to a five-year-old who lives on a diet of Froot Loops and espresso, and has a limitless supply of Habitrail parts: “What the hell… my water bottle was right here a second ago! And the food pellets… what do I click to get to the damn food pellets?!” Before you know it, you have to supplement their diet with Rativan.

Take a breath, Facebook, and let the community catch up.


It's all about the food pellets, FB or anywhere.

Not even the Lord God saw fit to eliminate all evil from creation, but a Yankee Presbyterian like Monty, well, he has a thing or two to say about that to His Omnipotence, like a good Scot.

[Helios Panoptes]

So does SF. They tried negrep, but it caused a lot of ill feeling apparently.

Our experience with it was that when we tried it, certain posters like benfromcanada really went to town with it and negrepped everything in sight that they didn't agree with. It was like a negrep blitzkrieg. Dan was sufficiently upset about it to start a thread on the board making an issue of it.

The Phora doesn't have the same problem because the number of posts you can rep in a day here is much smaller in proportion to the total number of posts made on the board each day.

You can learn a lot about humans from the internet and I don't mean by researching psychology and anthropology or by chatting with someone in an exotic land about his way of life. No, you learn that when you give adults the ability to send each other positive and negative feedback in the form of rep points, it sets off a hilarious chain of events. Posters will neg rep each other like angry monkeys with crude and hateful messages. Those who are losing the rep wars or aren't aggressive enough to compete will start threads lamenting the injustice of the situation and calling for reform. These backfire 99% of the time (as in prison, nobody likes a rat). Posters who have more neg rep than positive (rare here, but fairly common on forums that allow unrestricted repping, like The Beer Barrel) are attacked and taunted mercilessly whenever they post. You've got your bullies and your crybabies, just like in the 5th grade. Take the cuffs off by giving grown ups anonymity and you're instantly transported to the jungle, where civility is equivalent to weakness.

Baron, do you have a link to Dan Dare's complaint thread on MSF? BTW, are you gong to respond to my PM? I'm not rushing you; just curious.

[Monty]

Not even the Lord God saw fit to eliminate all evil from creation, but a Yankee Presbyterian like Monty, well, he has a thing or two to say about that to His Omnipotence, like a good Scot.

Don't you claim to live in the West Coast?

Anyway, if you want good conversation, there are ways to promote that. If you want an adolescent playground, you can have that too. If you reward or protect incivility, you will get more of it.

All the sites mentioned in this thread go the wrong way and their audiences are almost nonexistent. All chase after a dwindling number of regulars. For example, there just aren't many folks interested in collecting rep points.

People just don't want to deal with the personality conflicts or use forums as a test of manhood. Mental cases and pranksters love all that, however, but there's already a cottage industry serving them.

[Monty]

As I've said before, we extremists are caught in a Catch-22. We need anonymity to talk, but the anonymity it tends to promote disruption and flame wars. After all, Right-wing views are generally punishable by social, if not legal, consequences. Yet the very policy of anonymity both enables discussion and destroys it.

Look, the one and only reason I'm here is because this board offers an opportunity to discuss civilization questions without PC browbeating or WN rabble-rousing. (Civilization questions include not only race, but cultural, folkways, moral codes and religion.) If such discussion is not possible, this board serves no purpose.

[Helios Panoptes]

As I've said before, we extremists are caught in a Catch-22. We need anonymity to talk, but the anonymity it tends to promote disruption and flame wars. After all, Right-wing views are generally punishable by social, if not legal, consequences. Yet the very policy of anonymity both enables discussion and destroys it.

Look, the one and only reason I'm here is because this board offers an opportunity to discuss civilization questions without PC browbeating or WN rabble-rousing. (Civilization questions include not only race, but cultural, folkways, moral codes and religion.) If such discussion is not possible, this board serves no purpose.

There's no need to tell us, Monty. We know that you are a Serious Poster™.

[007]

I've maintained for a long time that the reputation system is unhealthy. It creates bad feeling and encourages feuds and flame wars. So forums are better off without them. The "thanks" button works just fine as a replacement.

Worse, moderators use the rep system to harass users, then refuse to subject themselves to the rules they impose upon others. Then they moan and cry that their forums are dying out because people leave.

But nobody listens. The obvious is not elusive. Get rid of rep points.

You are correct, Monty. SI limits the amount of rep a user can give in 24 hours for that reason. We left it higher than here so the system can still be used to send a quick message usually of agreement rather than spamming the thread. The Thanks button would be even better.

[Baron_Corvo]

At this point, someone is supposed to point out her Jewish ancestry. I drew the short straw.

Not the prettiest of women, either:
http://vinylminerecords.com/LPs/thumb/tLP07185.jpg

She's still going, and has a house in Amsterdam which offers a bed for the night and breakfast in the morning (do you have bed-and-breakfast establishments in North America, as you do in Europe?) Pardon my ignorance.);

http://www.xavierahollander.com/hooker

And you're right, she is half Jewish (though on the wrong side of the family to qualify as such herself).

Helios, I haven't forgotten to have a look at what you said on the subject of rape but I'm a bit behind with stuff atm.

[Felix the Cat]

I can't resist the temptation to note that Bismarck's social welfare policies provided the inspiration for Chuchill's crusade for similar provisions in Britain during his time at the Board of Trade and as Home Secretary. The end result was the National Insurance Act 1911, for which he was the ministerial sponsor. This would have been soon after the Tonypandy disturbances, for which Churchill is still an object of hatred in some parts of Wales.
As a Festung Europa sort of chap, I would be more inclined to view Anglo-German leadership as the best form going forward, particularly for smaller, peripheral states which would have difficulty staying afloat in a world in which membership of one power bloc or another is necessary for maintaining propsperity. "Anglo-German leadership" is unrealistic due to the imbalance of size between the parties. It would be a similar to the current "Anglo-American leadership" but with Britain being reluctantly dragged into Eastern European quarrels rather than Middle Eastern ones.

France, in spite of its cultural and racial disimilarities to Britain, would be a more natural partner given its similar size, strategic position and history. However the events of 1940 and 1956 have tended to discredit that idea on both sides of the Channel.

[Frank]

Regarding issue #1: I think that an anti-racist or Egalitarian board is good and MSF is the only anti-racist board on the internet with any kind of name recognition.

Which is likely to happen when most of your name is stolen from a more popular forum.

[Felix the Cat]

The big lies of the EU are a great example of the generational effect of propagandistic lies: the first generation of European federalists spread around polite fictions to make the Coal & Steel and then the EEC unions work. That generation raised a generation who believed these polite fictions as absolute truths and would ban anyone who didn't from mainstream political life. To not believe the Greeks have the same attitude to civic responsibility and the state as Germans do is to be someone who wants a new Hitler. See how that's turning out.Yes, the people pushing this stuff now are true believers. They aren't opposed to racism, nationalism and religious bigotry because these things lead to wars, but because these things are simply "evil". They support the immigration of great masses of violent and unassimilable foreigners because this helps combat racism, etc., and they don't understand that this policy will inevitably bring about the very disaster their parents and grandparents wanted to prevent.

[Felix the Cat]

Ok, so this presupposes that the idea is true but the implications are somehow unwelcome. The onus would be on the one claiming that a (true) idea could be harmful to show how this is possible. They would also have to show how the truth could ever be harmful. Then they would need to establish the conditions under which substitution of lies for truth could be a good. I'd hate to have to defend that argument as on the face of it is a contradiction. Such a person will not admit the truth of such a truth. They will deny it stubbornly and persistently against all opponents and arguments for as long as necessary. The 'debate' then becomes a test of endurance rather than logic. Eventually people of opposing viewpoints will give up out of exhaustion or exasperation, and the subborn fanatic will claim 'victory' and declare that his opponents have conceded his point that black is white, or up is down, or whatever.

[Felix the Cat]

What Kamandiesque sophistry. The very notion that the truth could ever be "socially harmful" is absurd, and borders on being actually offensive. What is socially harmful is basing public policy on "facts" that aren't accurate. This should be obvious to even a small child, let alone one of Kamanadi's doubtless 120+ IQ & years of experience. Taking up the Santa Claus analogy, is it really "wrong" for parents to lie to their children about the existence of someone who "knows when you've been good or bad" so they don't misbehave?

Why shouldn't 120+ IQ people tell similar lies to people of ordinary intelligence so they don't misbehave (by e.g. persecuting racial minorities?)

[Monty]

Taking up the Santa Claus analogy, is it really "wrong" for parents to lie to their children about the existence of someone who "knows when you've been good or bad" so they don't misbehave?

You mean like how if you play by the rules, stay out of trouble and get good grades, society will reward you with a rewarding career, a happy family and a stable home?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Dw903e1ObE8/TgjKt0rLe3I/AAAAAAAAMr8/UBYCpWsbaZo/s1600/american%2Bdream.jpg

[Errigal]

Taking up the Santa Claus analogy, is it really "wrong" for parents to lie to their children about the existence of someone who "knows when you've been good or bad" so they don't misbehave?

Why shouldn't 120+ IQ people tell similar lies to people of ordinary intelligence so they don't misbehave (by e.g. persecuting racial minorities?)

Some reasons:

1) People with 120+ IQs are often stupid outside their narrow area of interest, they are prone to hubris, they can be very bigoted toward the "non-progressive".

2) Some people with 120+ IQs are malicious and downright evil. So are some people with an IQ of 100.

3) We are not actually governed by high IQ people.

[Crowley]

Originally Posted by Basil Fawlty
Ok, so this presupposes that the idea is true but the implications are somehow unwelcome. The onus would be on the one claiming that a (true) idea could be harmful to show how this is possible. They would also have to show how the truth could ever be harmful. Then they would need to establish the conditions under which substitution of lies for truth could be a good. I'd hate to have to defend that argument as on the face of it is a contradiction.

Men get sick and die. There is a truth that is harmful.

[Felix the Cat]

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wilson01.html
Here then is the argument in its raw form: only an anti-reductionist, non-bourgeois science can help humanity attain the highest goal, which is a socialist world. In the 1984 book Not in Our Genes, Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin, all worthies of radical science philosophy, explained their purpose as follows:We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just--a socialist--society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today's science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race. This belief--in the possibility of a critical and liberatory science--is why we have each in our separate ways and to varying degrees been involved in the development of what has become known over the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States and Britain, as the radical science movement.

[Helios Panoptes]

Men get sick and die. There is a truth that is harmful.

You cannot possibly think that's what he meant.

[Helios Panoptes]

Taking up the Santa Claus analogy, is it really "wrong" for parents to lie to their children about the existence of someone who "knows when you've been good or bad" so they don't misbehave?

Why shouldn't 120+ IQ people tell similar lies to people of ordinary intelligence so they don't misbehave (by e.g. persecuting racial minorities?)

If you lie about it, then you render yourself unable to address the problem. For example, if it is true that a specific group of humans is predisposed to being disproportionately stupid, unproductive, and criminal, you won't be able to stop members of that group from immigrating to your country if you lie about their characteristics.

[Monty]

In the 1984 book Not in Our Genes, Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin, all worthies of radical science philosophy, explained their purpose as follows:

BTW, Lewontin is memorable for saying:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

[Crowley]

You cannot possibly think that's what he meant.

Here is the quote once again:

Originally Posted by Basil Fawlty
Ok, so this presupposes that the idea is true but the implications are somehow unwelcome. The onus would be on the one claiming that a (true) idea could be harmful to show how this is possible. They would also have to show how the truth could ever be harmful. Then they would need to establish the conditions under which substitution of lies for truth could be a good. I'd hate to have to defend that argument as on the face of it is a contradiction.

Here is "a" true idea that is harmful: People get sick and die.

[Errigal]

Here is the quote once again:



Here is "a" true idea that is harmful: People get sick and die.

It's harmful for people to know we all get sick and die? Don't we all know this? How could anyone even attempt to hide such a bit of knowledge?

[Helios Panoptes]

Here is the quote once again:



Here is "a" true idea that is harmful: People get sick and die.

Basil is talking about the idea that perhaps we should refuse to state certain truths because they'd have socially harmful consequences if they were known. He says the onus is on those who believe in the value of the "noble lie" to show that the truth is sometimes harmful. It's obvious that this is what he means from the context and the language used in his post ("they would need to establish the conditions under which substitution of lies for truth could be a good.").

[Basil Fawlty]

Here is "a" true idea that is harmful: People get sick and die.Just to add to what Helios has said already, the idea, or more properly the proposition, "People get sick and die" expresses a truth about the human condition, i.e. humans are mortal. If you negate this, i.e. humans are immortal, you end up with a falsehood. This falsehood would obviously be harmful to anyone who affirmed it, that is, believing that you are immortal is going to result in serious problems for the one who affirms it.

Anyone who believes that the truth could be harmful and if so should be replaced with a falsehood, is claiming that the truth can be harmful and, conversely, falsehood can be beneficial. On the face of it this makes no sense at all because falsehoods have the effect of concealing reality, as the above example demonstrates. Inhabiting a delusion is harmful as well as being degrading.

We would need some very strong arguments to establish that sometimes the truth should be concealed and substituted with falsehood for the sake of the good.

[Dan Dare]

This would have been soon after the Tonypandy disturbances, for which Churchill is still an object of hatred in some parts of Wales.

Churchill's letter to Asquith was written two years before the Tonypandy episode, while he was still at the Board of Trade.

"Anglo-German leadership" is unrealistic due to the imbalance of size between the parties. It would be a similar to the current "Anglo-American leadership" but with Britain being reluctantly dragged into Eastern European quarrels rather than Middle Eastern ones.

France, in spite of its cultural and racial disimilarities to Britain, would be a more natural partner given its similar size, strategic position and history. However the events of 1940 and 1956 have tended to discredit that idea on both sides of the Channel.

This is simply muddle-headed but I don't propose to go to the trouble of making a full rebuttal and have it submerged in a thread about MSF.

[Delmac]

Churchill's letter to Asquith was written two years before the Tonypandy episode, while he was still at the Board of Trade.



This is simply muddle-headed but I don't propose to go to the trouble of making a full rebuttal and have it submerged in a thread about MSF.

Could you make a new thread perhaps? It's a very interesting subject, tho' surely the main problem is that no-one is going to get a cigarette paper between the French and the Germans ever again?

[Felix the Cat]

^^ the German-French alliance is less than ideal from a French perspective, just as the US-British alliance is from the British one. Formerly Britain and France preferred to work with each other, since this was a partership more or less of equals.

However Britain and France united are simply not strong enough to stand up to the Germans (1940) or Americans (1956), and so both countries have had to come to other arrangements. This was not from first choice however.

[Baron_Corvo]

I can think of a harmful truth, if you assume certain religious / metaphysical facts.

Suppose that Lobsang Rampa (whose books I once read) was right about life on Earth being essentially a school, and that we come here to learn lessons which we then take with us into the next world when we die. Also, that life in the next world is generally a lot better than life on this one.

Armed with both those facts, a lot of people would probably choose to commit suicide to get into the next world prematurely, and thus shortcircuit the process of learning on this world (which would presumably otherwise occur). So, its better that we all think death is worse than life, even if it (or its aftermath) is actually a lot better for most of us.

[Baron_Corvo]

Boy this thread's all over the place isn't it? Kind of an all-purpose discussion thread, meandering in and out of several subjects within a few pages :)

[Morpheus]

Boy this thread's all over the place isn't it? Kind of an all-purpose discussion thread, meandering in and out of several subjects within a few pages :)

Mootstormfront is up so this thread is pretty much useless now. :p

[Baron_Corvo]

Mootstormfront is up so this thread is pretty much useless now. :p

Yeah I know, but if there's anything worth replying to here we may as well :)

[Errigal]

Is Mootstormfront where Morpheus is protected from racists who use words to hurt?

[Morpheus]

Is Mootstormfront where Morpheus is protected from racists who use words to hurt?

Under the current rules you are allowed to use racial slurs but calling a poster a racial slur is considered flaming. If I had it my way racists would be walking on eggshells concerned with using appropriate language at all times. :whip:

[Baron_Corvo]

Is Mootstormfront where Morpheus is protected from racists who use words to hurt?

No one's allowed to use racial slurs in direct converation with others, otherwise no one's protected. Dan Dare once called Mr A a "slitty-eyed kike-loving nig-nog" on MSF - is THAT protection?

[Errigal]

No one's allowed to use racial slurs in direct converation with others, otherwise no one's protected. Dan Dare once called Mr A a "slitty-eyed kike-loving nig-nog" on MSF - is THAT protection?

Everybody knows Dan says all sorts of things. it's only here at the Phora that he's taken seriously.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

No one's allowed to use racial slurs in direct converation with others, otherwise no one's protected. Dan Dare once called Mr A a "slitty-eyed kike-loving nig-nog" on MSF - is THAT protection?

A forum for sensitive faggots :thumbsdown:

[Frank]

No one's allowed to use racial slurs in direct converation with others, otherwise no one's protected. Dan Dare once called Mr A a "slitty-eyed kike-loving nig-nog" on MSF - is THAT protection?

And MSF accuses Stormfront of heavy moderation. One of the reasons "antis" are so regulated on the SF forum is due to their trolling and misbehaviour.

You see there is a need for forum moderation on such politically charged issues.

[Charlie Robespierre]

People who are worried about naughty 'words' are too fragile for life. All that kind of censorship just clogs up the flow of the ideas and the whole thing becomes a pink-yes chamber.

[Baron_Corvo]

And MSF accuses Stormfront of heavy moderation. One of the reasons "antis" are so regulated on the SF forum is due to their trolling and misbehaviour.

You see there is a need for forum moderation on such politically charged issues.

Er, Dan isn't an anti :confused:

SFers do plenty of "misbehaving" too, there are severe double standards on that board. Anti-racists would be banned from SF in a trice for using the same insults which WNs throw at them.

[Charlie Robespierre]

SFers do plenty of "misbehaving" too, there are severe double standards on that board. Anti-racists would be banned from SF in a trice for using the same insults which WNs throw at them.
Yes, SF are as disastrous and as highly strung as MSF. Although SF crosses the sensitivities of the dominant liberal-value system whereas MSF consciously backs up that system. Both are in severe error nonetheless.

[Frank]

Er, Dan isn't an anti :confused:

SFers do plenty of "misbehaving" too, there are severe double standards on that board. Anti-racists would be banned from SF in a trice for using the same insults which WNs throw at them.

Maybe I was not clear in what I was saying. Sometimes there is a need for heavy forum moderation. On SF "antis" were heavily regulated due to their behaviour while on MSF regulation is required to maintain the integrity of your forum.

See where I am going?

[007]

Under the current rules you are allowed to use racial slurs but calling a poster a racial slur is considered flaming. If I had it my way racists would be walking on eggshells concerned with using appropriate language at all times. :whip:

The forum isn't slow enough to suit you?

[Captain Blackbeard]

MSF is a cross between a great idea and reality.

Reality wins every time.

[Ahknaton]

Taking up the Santa Claus analogy, is it really "wrong" for parents to lie to their children about the existence of someone who "knows when you've been good or bad" so they don't misbehave?

Why shouldn't 120+ IQ people tell similar lies to people of ordinary intelligence so they don't misbehave (by e.g. persecuting racial minorities?)
Before you ask if it's OK to lie to stupid people, you need to ask if it's even possible to meaningfully tell them the truth. Like the Russell quote goes: "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand".

If you tell someone the plain unvarnished truth, but you know that they are going to misinterpret it as something else, is that not something akin to lying? If so, and it's not really possible to communicate the truth to them meaningfully, isn't it better to just go with whatever simplification (i.e. not the whole truth, at least partly a lie) works out best for social harmony?

This is obviously relevant to racial issues, because a lot of people don't seem to be able to properly understand simple statistical facts and there's no point trying to explain it to them. That may sound elitist, but I think it's true. I was in denial about it for a long time myself. For example if someone says that Blacks are X percent more likely to commit crime or their IQs are Y percent lower than Whites, it just seems to get translated into blanket statements like "Black people are criminals" and "Black people are stupid". It also accounts for why anti-racists will say things like "That's not true, I know this one Black guy who is pretty smart" as if that one example disproves a statistical difference.

In this case I would approve of a little bit of socially responsible BSing in theory, but it would have to be carried out with one proviso, namely that the elite must themselves never start believing their own BS, and quietly implement policies based on a sober assessment of the facts. In practice almost the opposite happens (the elite "get high on their own supply" and believe their own lies because they live in a bubble, and the plebs aren't fooled because they have their day-to-day experience to go by), so there's no point.

[Crowley]

Ahk, all that is too complicated. People should simply endeavor to tell the truth, unless one is in a work environment and dissimulating in order to complete the project, whatever that might be. Or at a family reunion and dissimulating in order to keep the peace. If people are too stupid to understand then say nothing.

[Captain Blackbeard]

People should simply endeavor to tell the truth

Okay! Let's give that a go....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oixzxxaMtQ0&feature=related

Yep! That was blown down.

[Felix the Cat]

Ahk, all that is too complicated. People should simply endeavor to tell the truth, unless one is in a work environment and dissimulating in order to complete the project, whatever that might be. Or at a family reunion and dissimulating in order to keep the peace. If people are too stupid to understand then say nothing. So we should tell the truth, unless it's inconvenient, in which case we should lie :D

[Felix the Cat]

Another example - is it wrong for teachers to tell dim children that if they work hard in school they can grow up to become astronauts, or brilliant scientists, or presidents and prime ministers?

Of course they're not going to do any of those things, but if saying this encourages them to not abandon their studies they will still do better in life than if they did otherwise.

(However, a danger here would be the frustration of unfulfilled expectations. Later in life, people like this can come to believe that the reason they failed to succeed is not because of their own incapacity, but because they have been victims of discrimination or persecution or some other malevolent action.)

[Dan Dare]

Another example - is it wrong for teachers to tell dim children that if they work hard in school they can grow up to become astronauts, or brilliant scientists, or presidents and prime ministers?

Yes it is very wrong. Teachers should be honest with their charges and direct them into endeavours more suited to their aptitudes and intellectual gifts. Dim children might make very good plumbers or hairdressers, or shop assistants in Boots, but they can never become astronauts or brilliant scientists no matter how hard they they work. Prime ministers are of course another matter.

I feel very strongly about this following the experiences of two young relatives who were recipients of just this 'all shall have prizes' mentality but who were both in reality as thick as two short planks. One managed to scrape through his A-levels somehow and was accepted at a new university in the North of England to study Sport Science (whatever that is) but on graduation was unable, not surprisingly, to find employment in his 'field'. He now works as a door-to-door salesman for a company which flogs imported Chinese air-conditioning units. His sister enrolled in a PE degree programme at another northern university, flunked even that but was taken on somehow by an obscure third-rate college in the Northeast US on a 'soccer scholarship'. Having failed to make the grade there academically, she now works in some clerical capacity at a young offenders institution in the northwest of England.

Had they not been the recipients of such duff guidance, and had not Nulabor artificially inflated the university system to accommodate such dubious entrants on a variety of bullshit courses, and had not their parents been duped into supporting them for several unproductive years out of the labour market, they might now have lucrative careers in the plumbing and hairdressing industries, respectively, perhaps even running and managing their own businesses by this time. Now however they stuck in dead-end jobs, with worthless qualifications or even none at all, and all because the people who should have been looking after their interests were instead genuflecting to the false gods of egalitarianism and modish voodoo economics.

[Jake Featherston]

So we should tell the truth, unless it's inconvenient, in which case we should lie :D

Its more than just a matter of convenience, however. Maintaining employment, and a certain level of familial comity, can literally be the difference between life & death for people. Maybe not in a European-style social democracy, but in the USA? Yeah. No income + no family = no shelter + minimal food = get sick & die

[Baron_Corvo]

Yes it is very wrong. Teachers should be honest with their charges and direct them into endeavours more suited to their aptitudes and intellectual gifts. Dim children might make very good plumbers or hairdressers, or shop assistants in Boots, but they can never become astronauts or brilliant scientists no matter how hard they they work. Prime ministers are of course another matter.

I feel very strongly about this following the experiences of two young relatives who were recipients of just this 'all shall have prizes' mentality but who were both in reality as thick as two short planks. One managed to scrape through his A-levels somehow and was accepted at a new university in the North of England to study Sport Science (whatever that is) but on graduation was unable, not surprisingly, to find employment in his 'field'. He now works as a door-to-door salesman for a company which flogs imported Chinese air-conditioning units. His sister enrolled in a PE degree programme at another northern university, flunked even that but was taken on somehow by an obscure third-rate college in the Northeast US on a 'soccer scholarship'. Having failed to make the grade there academically, she now works in some clerical capacity at a young offenders institution in the northwest of England.

Had they not been the recipients of such duff guidance, and had not Nulabor artificially inflated the university system to accommodate such dubious entrants on a variety of bullshit courses, and had not their parents been duped into supporting them for several unproductive years out of the labour market, they might now have lucrative careers in the plumbing and hairdressing industries, respectively, perhaps even running and managing their own businesses by this time. Now however they stuck in dead-end jobs, with worthless qualifications or even none at all, and all because the people who should have been looking after their interests were instead genuflecting to the false gods of egalitarianism and modish voodoo economics.

How about late developers then Dan? My tutor at university had a Ph D in pure maths (and you can't get one of those if you're not very bright indeed) despite having failed his 11+. (The experience gave him a lifelong hatred of psychologists and he was most uncomplimentary when I told him I was taking courses in that subject. :))

Having said that, you do have a point. Some people will make it in life and some won't whatever you do - the trouble is that we're nowhere near good enough yet at determining at an early age who's who to be able to make once-and-for-all decisions as how best to support them in their aspirations.

[Dan Dare]

By the time pupils reach an age when they are likely to encounter a career counsellor (15 or 16 in the UK) it should be obvious whether they are university material or not.

By university I mean of course traditional universities with robust curricula and rigorous standards not the fly-by-night American-style new 'universities' that have sprung up in the last 20 years and which offer a variety of useless bullshit courses (often "Studies" in something or other) while granting admission to anyone who can raise the tuition fees.

Why do you always whine about late developers whenever this topic is raised? You know as well as I do that anyone who failed the 11+ had later opportunities to transfer to grammar school if they were able to pass the 13+ or 15+. And even a (very) late developer would have been able to take A-levels at a college of further education or even via correspondence course if he were motivated enough.

You bleeding hearts are always whingeing about isolated boundary cases which, according to you, should be used to define public policy in all cases. For example, a Homeward Bound scheme could never work because we wouldn't know what to do with half-breeds. Bullshit!

[il ragno]

My curiosity was piqued by the sustained, continuing activity on this thread about this one day last year when MSF was down for a few hours.

May I respectfully suggest that this thread be retitled "Racially Classify This Slitty-Eyed Kike-Loving Nig-Nog"?

[Baron_Corvo]

My curiosity was piqued by the sustained, continuing activity on this thread about this one day last year when MSF was down for a few hours.

At the time, no one knew how long it would be down for. Seemed like more than a few hours though, it was more like a day.

May I respectfully suggest that this thread be retitled "Racially Classify This Slitty-Eyed Kike-Loving Nig-Nog"?

Your call :)

[Baron_Corvo]

By the time pupils reach an age when they are likely to encounter a career counsellor (15 or 16 in the UK) it should be obvious whether they are university material or not.

If you take 16 as the bifurcation point, I wouldn't disagree for the most part. In the more rural areas of Cornwall where not every school has a 6th form, there's a 6th form college system which gets good results - the "feeder" schools are non-selective. Even there though, my old school takes boys from across the Tamar if they're considered able enough.

By university I mean of course traditional universities with robust curricula and rigorous standards not the fly-by-night American-style new 'universities' that have sprung up in the last 20 years and which offer a variety of useless bullshit courses (often "Studies" in something or other) while granting admission to anyone who can raise the tuition fees.

I agree with that, although I think modular courses where you can take a subject for a year and then drop it if you don't take to it are a good idea that we can usefully borrow from the American system, and some universities already have. My own degree was of this type (and before you start tittering it was bloody hard work, especially in the final year).

Even the transition from school maths to university maths is a difficult one for a lot of people, so the ability to sample the subject, or another one you've previously done at school, at university level is not to be despised IMO.

Why do you always whine about late developers whenever this topic is raised? You know as well as I do that anyone who failed the 11+ had later opportunities to transfer to grammar school if they were able to pass the 13+ or 15+.

Because that's simply not true, is why as I believe I've said before. The opportunities to transfer simply weren't there for most 11+ failures.

Take my experience as a guide. During our first couple of years at grammar school those of us who didn't "toe the line" or make an effort with our studies were told that if we didn't shape up there were others out there ready and willing to take our place.

Well, that was the theory. Come the event, I don't think more than one person did go at 12 or 13 and even then the reason was unclear. I don't recall anyone leaving us at all for the 15+ So the idea that the 13+ and 15+ provided opportunities for anyone who met the required standard is just bull frankly.

Being a school in a naval city, we had a few boys joining and leaving us when their fathers had postings but the joiners weren't former 11+ failures.

And even a (very) late developer would have been able to take A-levels at a college of further education or even via correspondence course if he were motivated enough.

Yes, it could be done but it was normally after a day's work. My form master at one point had been a PE teacher who had done a degree in biology in his own time and got the qualifications to teach biology that way. Only exceptional people back then (and he was one IMO) did that though.

So why make it that hard for people to do so?

You bleeding hearts are always whingeing about isolated boundary cases which, according to you, should be used to define public policy in all cases. For example, a Homeward Bound scheme could never work because we wouldn't know what to do with half-breeds. Bullshit!

Well if we didn't the lawyers would, they'd get very rich off such cases.

Anyway, a final word on education; what's your view of the Open University? It was Harold Wilson's idea, bitterly opposed by Iain Macleod when he was in opposition and even Tony Crosland (about whom I'll say no more) apparently didn't have much enthusiasm for the idea and even considered dropping it, if your "friend" Roy Hattersley is any guide. And yet no one would dream of scrapping it now.

Times do change.

[Baron_Corvo]

Just one last bite at this;

Dan, if you don't like the idea of people studying useless subjects when they leave school, what's the difference between Truro College in Cornwall offering a degree in contemporary world jazz (I kid you not);

http://www.whatuni.com/degrees/courses/Degree-details/Contemporary-World-Jazz-BA-Honours-Degree-University-of-Plymouth-course-details/22563267/7019/cdetail.html

and the likes of Jeff Beck, Keith Richards and Pete Townshend going to art college, as many working class youngsters did in the early 60's? I believe some of the Beatles did too.

I can't see a lot of difference, apart from perhaps numbers.

[Basil Fawlty]

Just one last bite at this;

Dan, if you don't like the idea of people studying useless subjects when they leave school, what's the difference between Truro College in Cornwall offering a degree in contemporary world jazz (I kid you not);

http://www.whatuni.com/degrees/courses/Degree-details/Contemporary-World-Jazz-BA-Honours-Degree-University-of-Plymouth-course-details/22563267/7019/cdetail.html

and the likes of Jeff Beck, Keith Richards and Pete Townshend going to art college, as many working class youngsters did in the early 60's? I believe some of the Beatles did too.

I can't see a lot of difference, apart from perhaps numbers.Baron, I think you are missing Dan's point. He is talking about the self-damaging delusions that rampant equalitarianism has put into the heads of people who would be better off acquiring a genuine and marketable skill as opposed to nonsense studies which might please the ideologues but does a great disservice to these people of lesser intellect. He mentioned two junior relatives of his and I think we all know of such people who have missed their calling thanks to the meddling of the "everyone's a winner" nitwits.

[Baron_Corvo]

Baron, I think you are missing Dan's point. He is talking about the self-damaging delusions that rampant equalitarianism has put into the heads of people who would be better off acquiring a genuine and marketable skill as opposed to nonsense studies which might please the ideologues but does a great disservice to these people of lesser intellect. He mentioned two junior relatives of his and I think we all know of such people who have missed their calling thanks to the meddling of the "everyone's a winner" nitwits.

Thanks for commenting Basil, but no I don't think I missed it and nor am I really arguing with what Dan's saying.

I'm merely saying in response that: a / it isn't a new problem, insofar as it is one in the first place as opposed to a natural desire for youngsters to try their hand at different things before they settle down and/or know what they want to do, and b / there was wastage in the old system too. A lot.

FWIW, I don't actually think there is a perfect education system. Grammar (selective) schools seems to be better for bright youngsters, but non-selective schools seem to be better for everyone else (and also the late developers).

[Dan Dare]

Just one last bite at this;

Dan, if you don't like the idea of people studying useless subjects when they leave school, what's the difference between Truro College in Cornwall offering a degree in contemporary world jazz (I kid you not);

http://www.whatuni.com/degrees/courses/Degree-details/Contemporary-World-Jazz-BA-Honours-Degree-University-of-Plymouth-course-details/22563267/7019/cdetail.html

and the likes of Jeff Beck, Keith Richards and Pete Townshend going to art college, as many working class youngsters did in the early 60's? I believe some of the Beatles did too.

I can't see a lot of difference, apart from perhaps numbers.

BC, as is so often the case your efforts at rebutting my argument have had the opposite of the intended effect.

Truro College is *exactly* the sort of institution I am complaining about and is offering *exactly* the sort of useless courses that I am concerned with. Glorified Mechanic's Institutes like Truro should not be in the business of awarding degrees, in any subject. The subjects they are offering degrees for, like silversmithing, sports coaching, education and training are vocational pursuits which do not require degree-level training. As for contemporary jazz, words fail me.

I fail to see what parallel you are trying to draw by bringing in stray personalities from the pop world, or art colleges in the 1960s.

You have an infuriating habit of arguing from the particular to the general, typically larding your case with anecdotal reportage peopled with personal acquaintances and trowelling on references to locations with which you are familiar, or ephemeral personalities from the field of pop music. It is a very feminine way of conducting a discourse and I wish you would desist. I will demonstrate for you how lame it is by countering your dismissal of the 13+/15+ transfer system - on the grounds that it didn't happen round your parts - with some anecdotal evidence of my own, actually concerning someone who attended the same grammar school as I did.

I was a 15-plus transferee (http://eichgallery.org/pollocksepicurus/ipbiography.html)

So there.

[Baron_Corvo]

Well I'm talking about a whole school - mine - and what I saw went on there. Since it was, in the company of two other boys' grammars, serving a city of 250,000 people it IMO is an effective counterexample to your claim that there were plenty of opportunities for youngsters who failed the 11+ to get into grammar schools later on. It's not the same as one individual person's experience of the system as it applied to them alone.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you about Truro College or a degree in jazz (even I have to admit I laughed when I saw that one), but if they are remiss in offering that option so were the art schools in the 60's who persuaded their charges that careers in the art world awaited them all, which is why I raised them - to say it's not a new problem as you appear to be claiming. Keith Richards et al. were merely the best known people who took that route.

As for whether or not my style of argument is feminine - you have that observation in common with a (communist} member of Urban who also thought I posted like a girl. But at the end of the day, I'm either telling the truth or part of it - and I believe I am - or I'm not, and that's all that matters here. Even if I was posting in the style of a f***ing Klingon that would still be the case.

[Errigal]

Well another problem with pushing everyone into university is that the genuinely brighter students can get lost in the crowd of mediocre and no-talent students clogging up the lecture halls and taking up their professor's time. Of course, as the universities expand, quite a few of these mediocre students can go on to teach themselves and even further drive away the worthwhile students.

[Baron_Corvo]

Well another problem with pushing everyone into university is that the genuinely brighter students can get lost in the crowd of mediocre and no-talent students clogging up the lecture halls and taking up their professor's time. Of course, as the universities expand, quite a few of these mediocre students can go on to teach themselves and even further drive away the worthwhile students.

I briefly had a problem with your use of the phrase "teach themselves". I thought you were getting at some kind of auto-didacticism :)

In the UK though (I don't know what it's like in Canada), everyone knows which are the worthwhile and which are the less worthwhile universities. If you get into a Russell Group university over here, you won't have too many problems getting a decent education, and there are others like that even besides them.

[Dan Dare]

Well I'm talking about a whole school - mine - and what I saw went on there. ....

See you're at it again, I do wish you'd put a sock in it.

If you intend to present a counter-argument to my claim that there were opportunities for bright pupils to transfer into the grammar school system after the 11-plus, then in order for your case to be a persuasive one you're going to need to expend a bit of effort and come up figures which confirm that most or even many of the 1200-odd grammar schools did not accept transfers at 13 and 15.

Simply digging into your grab-bag of personal anecdotes isn't going to cut it.

[Baron_Corvo]

I've looked and can't find one, one way or the other. It remains my contention that such transfers, whilst they may have existed (which I don't dispute) weren't the norm for bright people who managed to fail the 11+. If you can find a link which proves otherwise, I'm more than willing to concede the argument, but I'd be surprised if any such exist.

This may be a point against my argument but it could be that the Plymouth experience of selection was atypical. Plymouth has a naval dockyard which for most of its history needed a high intake of technically competent young people, and probably for this reason Plymouth encouraged the "B" sector of the Butler-approved education spectrum (the so-called technical schools) more than most other educational authorities did. This would account for the fact that almost no 13+ and 15+ successes transferred to my school; they'd more likely have gone to a "B" school instead if there'd been places there.

(Grammar schools were the "A" schools, secondary moderns the "C"s).

[Helios Panoptes]

Baron, it appears that you don't want to continue our discussion for some reason. It would be best if you replied to my PM. I sent it a week ago and so far nothing.

[Felix the Cat]

To a conspiracy-theorist the abolition of the 11+ and grammar schools would look suspiciously like an attempt by the Boomers to kick away the ladder they themselves used to rise socially. To get a first rate education nowadays a child must have wealthy parents.

[Baron_Corvo]

To a conspiracy-theorist the abolition of the 11+ and grammar schools would look suspiciously like an attempt by the Boomers to kick away the ladder they themselves used to rise socially. To get a first rate education nowadays a child must have wealthy parents.

I agree that it looks that way to many, but I don't think that argument holds much water. The great majority of decisions made to abandon selection in British schools were made before 1980, when the boomers were mostly too young to be in any position of power and influence in either local or national government.

It also doesn't account for the fact that one of the prime instigators in the move to abandon selection was Edward Boyle (an education minister in Harold Macmillan's government in the early 60's) or that Margaret Thatcher, whom one might expect to approve of grammar schools as a former grammar school girl herself, in fact approved more than 90% of applications from local authorities to end selection. She actually got rid of more grammar schools than Shirley Williams (her Labour successor) did.

IMO, a more likely engine in this change was the role of middle class parents of less bright children, who didn't want competition from brighter and poorer children for the plum jobs and university courses. Everyone likes the upside of meritocracy - some people moving up - but not everyone its corollary - others moving down.

The other point I'd make is that these days, to pass the 11+ and thus get into grammar school you normally need to be coached (which costs money) or to have a good feeder school, and these are mostly in middle class areas (the ones in Plymouth tend to be, anyway). David Willetts had a look at the case for returning to selection but eventually decided against it for this reason, despite the fact that grammar schools are very popular with the Tory rank and file.

The speech he gave in which he announced this decision is a long one, so I'd just direct you to the subsection headed "Is selection the answer?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551714/David-Willetts-speech-on-grammar-schools.html

[Baron_Corvo]

Baron, it appears that you don't want to continue our discussion for some reason. It would be best if you replied to my PM. I sent it a week ago and so far nothing.

You're probably right, but I've promised I'll have a look at it and I will.

[RuneX2]

Oy! It's down again. It goes up and down like a Bristol whore's panties.

[Morpheus]

I wonder what happened this time.... :confused:

[Baron_Corvo]

Oy! It's down again. It goes up and down like a Bristol whore's panties.

Bristol prostitutes in particular? :)

Morpheus, you're right. Mr A said he paid off the fees but it's down again. Goodness knows what the problem is now.

I'll say one thing; I don't think you'll find a more technically competent forum admin than Dark Reaver, so I doubt it's a technical problem.

[Helios Panoptes]

Mr. Angry has a stickied thread that says he'll keep the board up as long as there's one anti who wants to post there. Unintentional comedy FTW.


N.B. I'm not saying it's funny because it's always down. Sure, that's comical, too, but it's the kind of comedy that you laugh at when you're watching a blooper reel. The deeper humor is found when it dawns on you that he thinks MootStormfront is a socially valuable site. This kind of humor is reminiscent of the "I could have saved one more Jew...and I didn't! *sob*" melodrama at the end of Schindler's List. Mr. Angry inhabits a world of LARPing where he fights scary neo-Nazis and rope carrying KKK members with his trusted side kick, Daryl Lamont Jenkins (who looks and talks like Shaft in Mr. Angry's fantasy).

[Dan Dare]

I've looked and can't find one, one way or the other. It remains my contention that such transfers, whilst they may have existed (which I don't dispute) weren't the norm for bright people who managed to fail the 11+. If you can find a link which proves otherwise, I'm more than willing to concede the argument, but I'd be surprised if any such exist.

A closer reading will confirm that I never claimed they were the 'norm', but rather provided an avenue for progression for bright children who somehow were unable to make the grade at 11. Whether or not such children took advantage of the opportunity would have depended upon a number of factors, of which probably the most important would have been the attitude of the parents.

[Baron_Corvo]

A closer reading will confirm that I never claimed they were the 'norm', but rather provided an avenue for progression for bright children who somehow were unable to make the grade at 11. Whether or not such children took advantage of the opportunity would have depended upon a number of factors, of which probably the most important would have been the attitude of the parents.

True, but (and here's the substantive point as far as I'm concerned) the vacant places in the schools being transferred to had to exist in the first place, in sufficient numbers to accommodate all, or even the majority, of those children who were wrongly classified at 11 and (as you state) had supportive parents who would have eased them through this transition.

So far, the discussion's hit a brick wall for want of hard factual evidence to support either your view that this was the case or mine that it wasn't.

[Baron_Corvo]

Mr. Angry has a stickied thread that says he'll keep the board up as long as there's one anti who wants to post there. Unintentional comedy FTW.


It's his call, if he's paying the bills. But I have to admit that just one person wouldn't be enough in my view to justify the board's long term survival. It makes us look bad, apart from anything else, if we only have one active member.

You could have a blog for just one person, you don't need a whole forum - in fact, Tuoni's blog in 2004 was a kind of embryonic MSF with a number of people who later went on to post on MSF posting there.

N.B. I'm not saying it's funny because it's always down. Sure, that's comical, too, but it's the kind of comedy that you laugh at when you're watching a blooper reel.

I can accept that some people see it that way, sure. In a grim sort of way I can see a sort of humour in it - just as you do when it rains day after day when you're on holiday somewhere.

The deeper humor is found when it dawns on you that he thinks MootStormfront is a socially valuable site.

I think the value it has is the value people give it. Is the Phora valuable? It is if you post or browse here and value free speech, i.e. most Phoraites. Your average antifa wouldn't agree.

This kind of humor is reminiscent of the "I could have saved one more Jew...and I didn't! *sob*" melodrama at the end of Schindler's List. Mr. Angry inhabits a world of LARPing where he fights scary neo-Nazis and rope carrying KKK members with his trusted side kick, Daryl Lamont Jenkins (who looks and talks like Shaft in Mr. Angry's fantasy).

I won't comment, but here's an opportunity to post a cool tune;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHbYLjWEEQA

[Dan Dare]

True, but (and here's the substantive point as far as I'm concerned) the vacant places in the schools being transferred to had to exist in the first place, in sufficient numbers to accommodate all, or even the majority, of those children who were wrongly classified at 11 and (as you state) had supportive parents who would have eased them through this transition.

So far, the discussion's hit a brick wall for want of hard factual evidence to support either your view that this was the case or mine that it wasn't.

Actually I think the more substantive point is whether of not your supposition that a significant number of children were wrongly classified at 11 has any basis in fact.

Apart from the 'late developers' who seem to be your prime concern and who were, to the extent possible, accommodated by the transfer system, I've never seen any evidence or even any serious claim that there were.

In my view, the good aspects of the 11 plus far outweighed the bad, particularly since it allowed many more bright children from the working class to attend grammar school and then go on to university than would otherwise have been the case.

[Dan Dare]

...I think the value it has is the value people give it. Is the Phora valuable? It is if you post or browse here and value free speech, i.e. most Phoraites. Your average antifa wouldn't agree.

The fundamental issue with MSF is the dearth of quality posters, or even many with entertainment value like Mr A himself. Most these days seem to dull-witted, parochial American negros of the Daryle Lamont Jenkins stamp.

Why shouldn't those few who can hold their own in 'mixed company' migrate over here where they can establish a quorum in, say, the Color-Blind section?

[Baron_Corvo]

The fundamental issue with MSF is the dearth of quality posters, or even many with entertainment value like Mr A himself. Most these days seem to be dull-witted, parochial American negros of the Daryle Lamont Jenkins stamp.

Why shouldn't those few who can hold their own in 'mixed company' migrate over here where they can establish a quorum in, say, the Color-Blind section?

You should ask them. Otter won't post here, nor will Mal (I don't think) or youknowzit, to name just three. So it's just not going to happen, whether you think it should or not.

But in any case, I think the Phora has a quite different character from MSF. We have babe threads for a start, this place doesn't. We even have a humour forum, if anyone remembers to post or start a thread there. (And with all these downtimes, we're going to damn well need one when we come back up!)

[Dan Dare]

You should ask them. Otter won't post here, nor will Mal (I don't think) or youknowzit, to name just three. So it's just not going to happen, whether you think it should or not.

But in any case, I think the Phora has a quite different character from MSF. We have babe threads for a start, this place doesn't. We even have a humour forum, if anyone remembers to post or start a thread there. (And with all these downtimes, we're going to damn well need one when we come back up!)

It wasn't my impression that babes or lame jokes formed a major part of MSF's raison d'être although such topics do seem to generate the most interest, as they do here.

I'm really at a loss to understand why Antifa zealots like those you mention don't relish the opportunity to put themselves about inside the opposition camp. I would love to be able to do so at any number of so-called progressive venues, but unfortunately am already banned from all those in which I might have an interest.

MSF does have merit in that it will tolerate dissent as long as posters take care not to offend Otter's schoolmarmly prissiness. The problem with it is, however, that the regular posters are deathly dull, present company and a very few others excepted.

[Baron_Corvo]

Actually I think the more substantive point is whether of not your supposition that a significant number of children were wrongly classified at 11 has any basis in fact.

Apart from the 'late developers' who seem to be your prime concern and who were, to the extent possible, accommodated by the transfer system, I've never seen any evidence or even any serious claim that there were.

In my view, the good aspects of the 11 plus far outweighed the bad, particularly since it allowed many more bright children from the working class to attend grammar school and then go on to university than would otherwise have been the case.

Fair enough. Despite appearances, I'm not actually saying the old system was worse; I don't have the facts at hand to make such a judgment. I think there were advantages and disadvantages to both systems, and winners and losers in each case. Bright people probably did mostly do better under the old system than they do now, particularly if they were from modest backgrounds, but I don't think everyone else did.

I never really understood why the second tier of the Butler proposals - which proposed the creation of so-called "B" or tech schools - wasn't taken up more enthusiastically by local authorities in the old days.

We had three in Plymouth (if memory serves) and they seemed to work very well in giving the youngsters who went to them a good basic no-frills education, e.g. French but no Latin, and also a good grounding in technical subjects. One was next to us and we even had some of our lads do things like "A" level Metalwork with them because they had the facilitities for it and we didn't.

[Baron_Corvo]

It wasn't my impression that babes or lame jokes formed a major part of MSF's raison d'être although such topics do seem to generate the most interest, as they do here.

They certainly do. Here's a 2,000 word article about Muslim immigration in Sweden on one page, and on another page, a picture of some attractive model or actress in a bikini - strange how many people look at the latter rather than the former, isn't it? :) Maybe that's why this place doesn't have them.

As for the jokes - Otter's aquatic take on the Dean Martin classic "It's A Moray (Eel)" was pretty funny IMO. (Say it out loud). I think he admitted he saw it on another board.

I'm really at a loss to understand why Antifa zealots like those you mention don't relish the opportunity to put themselves about inside the opposition camp.


I think numbers is one reason - the more even the numbers between the two sides, the better the debate IMO, and nearly always on most boards where these topics are debated the numbers are very uneven.

Which brings me onto one of my peeves - Stormfront is pretty much impossible to debate on nowadays. Unlike this place, people don't always debate honestly, goal posts get moved, insults thrown and there's a lot of tag-teaming and a**-covering going on when a WN gets into difficulties there. So much so that I don't bother posting there anymore (though I still exchange pms there). No secret about this - I've said so in posts there more than once before I eventually quit.

I would love to be able to do so at any number of so-called progressive venues, but unfortunately am already banned from all those in which I might have an interest.

That's a shame. I have in the past enquired on Urban about why you were banned there, but no one seems to know.

MSF does have merit in that it will tolerate dissent as long as posters take care not to offend Otter's schoolmarmly prissiness.

Yeah, we've always prided ourselves on that.

The problem with it is, however, that the regular posters are deathly dull, present company and a very few others excepted.

Thanks for the compliment, which I'm happy to return - we're lucky to have you amongst our regulars. It'd just be DL (and occasionally Starr) on your side otherwise, and he's either happy to play along with the Punch and Judy show his exchanges with Otter have become or he hasn't realised it yet..

[Thinker]

Sooooo ... is it gone for good? Or just down temporarily? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Baron_Corvo]

No idea I'm afraid; I've long been out of the MSF "loop" and don't get told such things.

The best way to find out is; if anyone knows either Mr Angry's or Otter's e-mail addy, ask them. They're the two most likely to know. Possibly Kam too, though he isn't around much.

If I had to guess though, I'd say it's temporary. Neither Mr A or Otter wants to see the place gone for good and they both call the shots (especially Otter, as the rest of the admin team look up to him).

[Baron_Corvo]

I'm just wondering whether or not we've been Kaned? He had a grudge against us for some reason and it'd be just like him to do something like that (hack us down). If it was a financial problem it'd have been settled by now.

[Lily]

I'm just wondering whether or not we've been Kaned? He had a grudge against us for some reason and it'd be just like him to do something like that (hack us down). If it was a financial problem it'd have been settled by now.

No one else is to blame, nor is it prudent to speculate that it is.

If you wish to know the ins and outs of it then you're better off contacting DarkReaver. But as it stands, it appears that if people want MSF to return they will have to make it so themselves.

[Morpheus]

Baron if the current Admins aren't going to openly explain what is going on I recommend starting over and making a new board rather than depending on them.

[Baron_Corvo]

No one else is to blame, nor is it prudent to speculate that it is.

Perhaps, but you can hardly blame people for speculating when they've been given no information for over a week and there isn't an obvious other reason why the board went down (for the second time in a week).

If you wish to know the ins and outs of it then you're better off contacting DarkReaver. But as it stands, it appears that if people want MSF to return they will have to make it so themselves.

Yes, it seems that way. But while we're on the subject, I'd be interested in your answer to this;

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1043782&postcount=1

[007]

(especially Otter, as the rest of the admin team look up to him).

I didn't realize that was even possible.

[Baron_Corvo]

I didn't realize that was even possible.

I replied to this earlier, but deleted my comments. TBH, I'm not sure that a board which nails its colours firmly to one side of an argument the way MSF does, doesn't need someone like Otter to run it, or at least head it up - just as Stormfront probably needs someone like the similarly trenchant and intransigent Jack_Boot to head up that site. Were I to try it, I'd probably come across as weak and vacillating by comparison.

I'd like to think I was wrong about this, though.

[007]

I replied to this earlier, but deleted my comments.

I'm sorry I missed them ;)

TBH, I'm not sure that a board which nails its colours firmly to one side of an argument the way MSF does, doesn't need someone like Otter to run it, or at least head it up - just as Stormfront probably needs someone like the similarly trenchant and intransigent Jack_Boot to head up that site. Were I to try it, I'd probably come across as weak and vacillating by comparison.

I'd like to think I was wrong about this, though.

I think you are and the state of MSF is the proof. All a site needs is a good set of rules and staff that apply them even-handedly.

[Lily]

Yes, it seems that way. But while we're on the subject, I'd be interested in your answer to this;

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1043782&postcount=1

I have no interest in answering that question, sorry. As of late my general feeling towards issues of race can be summed up as apathetic at best.

[Baron_Corvo]

No problem.

[Jake Featherston]

I'm bothered by the fact that no one has yet used the phrase "Poofter Ponderosa" in this thread.

I have rectified the matter, accordingly.

[DarkReaver13]

Oh, I've been trying to register -- but forgot I'd already registered ages ago as DarkReaver13.

Don't suppose they allow name changes here?

Well yeah, MSF is down as the hosting hasn't been paid for. All the files and the database have most likely been wiped now.

I'm considering installing everything from the backup on my own hosting, but disabling registrations and logging in so just so it's there as an archive, at least for the time being.

[Baron_Corvo]

Oh, I've been trying to register -- but forgot I'd already registered ages ago as DarkReaver13.

Don't suppose they allow name changes here?

Well yeah, MSF is down as the hosting hasn't been paid for. All the files and the database have most likely been wiped now.

I'm considering installing everything from the backup on my own hosting, but disabling registrations and logging in so just so it's there as an archive, at least for the time being.

Hi Dark,

Thanks for the info. Yeah, they certainly allow name changes - as long as you put your old name in your sig. I've lost count of all Stan (Jimbo Gomez)'s.

An archive of previous posts sounds like a good idea. I felt the site was in a rut anyway tbh, which is why I started this thread.

Baron Corvo / SmokeOnTheWater.

[RuneX2]

I'd like a msf->phora name translation table.

[O'Zebedee]

O'Zebedee = Dan Dare.

YI Otter = New Dawner

RuneX2 = Lily

[RuneX2]

I'm a sexy 22yo girl :thumbsup:

[Baron_Corvo]

Dani = Poison Ivy on here (she doesn't mind that being known)

God knows who Stan (Jimbo Gomez) was on MSF, I can't keep up with all his names even on here. All I remember of his time there is his Che Guevara "Muerte?" avatar.

[Baron_Corvo]

I'd like a msf->phora name translation table.

Rune, someone must like your posts all of a sudden - you were into the dark reds the last time I looked :eek:

[Baron_Corvo]

O'Zebedee = Dan Dare.

I think you could translate to Orville Jackson on the old MSF (user_name on ODF, I don't know if he posts here); you have a similarly wacky sense of humour despite your differing views on things.

[Dan Dare]

I had several noms de plume on the old MSF, all of which were banned by the original proprietor (Descendant) who had convinced himself I was really Jack_Boot from SF and refused to let me post until I used my real that is, Stormfront, name.

[Baron_Corvo]

I had several noms de plume on the old MSF, all of which were banned by the original proprietor (Descendant) who had convinced himself I was really Jack_Boot from SF and refused to let me post until I used my real that is, Stormfront, name.

Really? Have to admit I never really liked or trusted Descendant; I always thought he was a slippery character.