Banning racists

[Baron_Corvo]

I don't know how many of you can see this thread, but here's a discussion on a left-wing British board about whether or not they should let "racists" debate with them;

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/banning-racists.284117/

I think you have to log in to read it, which means you have to be a member of that board.

Well, supposing they said yes (the discussion's still under way), would those of you who hold views they would consider "racist" (I'm assuming you know who you are) be willing to go over and debate with them? If not, why not?

(BTW, I haven't said I'm linking to their thread on here. Certain people there mightn't be happy if they knew. ("Banning racists" is the actual thread title btw).

[O'Zebedee]

The main enemy of humankind are those people who collect and enjoy showing you those "Love Is..." comics; I think we can all agree that they need to be banned from life.

[Baron_Corvo]

Guess this thread died a death then.

[Felix the Cat]

Are these racists Catholic or Protestant?

[Baron_Corvo]

Are these racists Catholic or Protestant?

I don't know, probably some of each. I can't see why it would matter.

[Ponerologist]

I was banned from that forum several years ago for having non-PC views. Therefore I don't think I would bother registering there again.

I have tried debating with my political adversaries on several forums, but usually my posts are censored and/or I am simply banned.

I have predicted an economic slump for many years, which I attributed to Peak Oil. I believe that when the British public really endure economic hardship Enoch's prophecies will be realised. I think that all the economic benefits cited for mass-immigration and multiculturalism are spurious and that people will soon understand that they have been tricked.

Unfortunately, I believe the last government constructed the state apparatus required to suppress the people and that we'll suffer many turbuelnt years before regaining what is rightfully ours.

[Charlie Robespierre]

I'm familiar with the type. They are liberals and have a very restricted space on what values they find acceptable to discuss. Stray outside a number of tight liberal boundaries on a range of issues and they become emotionally disturbed. Unable to digest said argument, then rejecting said argument outright because it troubles them emotionally, the interaction then proceeds on the presumption that one is criminal/insane. Beyond watching them disintegrate emotionally, debating them is completely pointless.

[Felix the Cat]

Are these racists Catholic or Protestant?
This was a joke about the confessional clusterfuck going on in the other thread
I'm familiar with the type. They are liberals and have a very restricted space on what values they find acceptable to discuss. Stray outside a number of tight liberal boundaries on a range of issues and they become emotionally disturbed. Unable to digest said argument, then rejecting said argument outright because it troubles them emotionally, the interaction then proceeds on the presumption that one is criminal/insane. Beyond watching them disintegrate emotionally, debating them is completely pointless.
^^ does free discussion of this topic lead to wars and massacres? Many people believe it does. They aren't necessarily stupid or ignorant either.

[Baron_Corvo]

^^ does free discussion of this topic lead to wars and massacres? Many people believe it does. They aren't necessarily stupid or ignorant either.

Maybe not, but I've never heard a good argument in support of this view.

[Baron_Corvo]

I'm familiar with the type. They are liberals and have a very restricted space on what values they find acceptable to discuss. Stray outside a number of tight liberal boundaries on a range of issues and they become emotionally disturbed. Unable to digest said argument, then rejecting said argument outright because it troubles them emotionally, the interaction then proceeds on the presumption that one is criminal/insane. Beyond watching them disintegrate emotionally, debating them is completely pointless.

True, but on the other hand on boards like this one where it is acceptable to discuss said issues, left-wingers and liberals are and would be massively outnumbered, which isn't good for debate either. So what's the solution, if you believe these subjects ought to be debated properly?

[Felix the Cat]

Maybe not, but I've never heard a good argument in support of this view.Should Hitler and his mob been allowed to promote their views in the 1920s and 1930s? If not, why not?

[Baron_Corvo]

Should Hitler and his mob been allowed to promote their views in the 1920s and 1930s? If not, why not?

Hitler was right about certain things. The Versailles treaty was grossly unfair to Germany, some Jews did profiteer during WWI, and communism was a serious threat (Stalin was busy murdering millions whilst Hitler was coming to power). If he'd just left it there he'd have been fine and in fact German conservatives largely agreed with him. His problem IMO was that he didn't stop there, but created a complete fantasy about what Germany could and should be like which he persuaded millions of Germans to go along with, and which relied on the psychological mechanism of projection and the constant creation of enemies which had to be vanquished. He did the latter in spades.

I once read J H Brennan's book "The Occult Reich", and since then I've believed that you cannot understand Nazi Germany without understanding the occult, and that Hitler was a powerful black magician as were the other main Nazi leaders. It wasn't just a question of the considered presentation of a rational argument.

[Felix the Cat]

Interesting response. I wasn't expecting that from you. You've clearly joined the Dark Side. I don't think your friends at U75 are going to want you posting there if you hold those views.

[Vindex]

The joke is always on the anti-racists, as the social engineers who manufactured this ideology, they then socially conditioned them with. Don't believe one word of it themselves and infact hold a supremacist view of the world on every level.

The ideology was just mental slop for the Goyeem to soften them up for greater globalist rule.

[Vindex]

Hitler and his fellows noticed one glaring fact. The Jews are behind Communism and the creators and spreaders of it. Infact Jews are the cause of Communism.

It was also noted the Jews where destroying Germany on every level. Freedman in his warnings to America admitted Hitler was right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijEXO9QTKS4

The Jews have been collectively kicked out of dozens of different nations 109 times for a reason. Germany was just 109 on a already long and ancient list.

I also note the anti-racist crowd are for the most part near magically quite on the Jews and their global racism and racial supremacy towards all Gentiles whom they regulate to subhuman status and believe they are nothing more then chattel property of the "Chosen People."

But then again I also can't help but to notice many of the anti-racists when they run around without their hankies on their faces, have a large Jewish looking block amongst them....:hm:

Hitler was right about certain things. The Versailles treaty was grossly unfair to Germany, some Jews did profiteer during WWI, and communism was a serious threat (Stalin was busy murdering millions whilst Hitler was coming to power). If he'd just left it there he'd have been fine and in fact German conservatives largely agreed with him. His problem IMO was that he didn't stop there, but created a complete fantasy about what Germany could and should be like which he persuaded millions of Germans to go along with, and which relied on the psychological mechanism of projection and the constant creation of enemies which had to be vanquished. He did the latter in spades.

I once read J H Brennan's book "The Occult Reich", and since then I've believed that you cannot understand Nazi Germany without understanding the occult, and that Hitler was a powerful black magician as were the other main Nazi leaders. It wasn't just a question of the considered presentation of a rational argument.

[Felix the Cat]

If he'd just left it there he'd have been fine and in fact German conservatives largely agreed with him. His problem IMO was that he didn't stop thereThe "slippery slope". This is the argument which is usually advanced to justify shutting down these discussions. Talk about Black muggers or Muslim rapists needs to be suppressed because it will inevitably lead to general persecution of all racial minorities, or even another major war. (I've noticed on U75 that threads about subjects like this are immediately shut down.)

[Kodos]

I once read J H Brennan's book "The Occult Reich", and since then I've believed that you cannot understand Nazi Germany without understanding the occult, and that Hitler was a powerful black magician as were the other main Nazi leaders. It wasn't just a question of the considered presentation of a rational argument.


Himmler was the one big into the occult, Hitler thought it was all nonsense.

[Felix the Cat]

He wasn't religious in any conventional sense, but does seem to have believed that he was under some sort divine guidance and/or protection.

[Kodos]

He wasn't religious in any conventional sense, but does seem to have believed that he was under some sort divine guidance and/or protection.

He thought all the pagan nordic thule society occult stuff Himmler believed (and perhaps Hess and Rosenberg) was nonsense (at least according to Speer who in wanting to whitewash himself had no cause to praise the man) but Hitler unlike Stalin generally did not like to micromanage (he liked to remain the arbiter of big decisions by giving people overlapping areas of responsibility so big decisions would have to be made by the Fuhrer) and as long as he believed his subordinates were loyal to him let them do prettymuch what they wanted.

Himmler was good at internal security, so he could be allowed to spend insignificant amounts of money looking for his occult obsessions. It kept him happy.

[Baron_Corvo]

Interesting response. I wasn't expecting that from you. You've clearly joined the Dark Side. I don't think your friends at T75 are going to want you posting there if you hold those views.

I know. I used to have "Nazi apologist" as my user title on here too :)

Seriously, I don't think anything I said in my first paragraph at least is controversial amongst mainstream historians.

[Felix the Cat]

I've been browsing it for years but have never posted there because it's incredibly claustrophobic. There are just so many things you can't talk about.

There was a recent thread there about whether fascism could return to Europe which was unreal to read, not because of what was said, but because of what wasn't said - notably there was no mention of communism, or Jewish immigration.

'Fascism' to these people is like bad weather - a random force of nature that just appears out of nowhere for no reason whatsoever.

[Charlie Robespierre]

True, but on the other hand on boards like this one where it is acceptable to discuss said issues, left-wingers and liberals are and would be massively outnumbered, which isn't good for debate either. So what's the solution, if you believe these subjects ought to be debated properly?
If we can find people able to discuss charged issues and retain their composure than we found rare gems and they should be embraced in debate. In the past this board used to have a higher number of those. I'm not privy to the discussion on the OP board but in my experience the majority of such fora are populated by people whom, when they sense counter-intuitive arguments on charged issues, presume insincerity and dishonesty on reflex. The few golden nuggets with tough temperaments usually emerge on their own volition if they can overcome the substantial hurdle of peer group pressure and have a genuine thirst for counter-intuitive debate.


^^ does free discussion of this topic lead to wars and massacres? Many people believe it does. They aren't necessarily stupid or ignorant either.
If the mere potentiality towards 'massacre' was the metric to forbid discussion, there would be little discussion on politics. Rightists often rebut accusations that they are the 'genocide ideology' by listing off communist massacres but what about massacre unleashed by democratic ideology? The millions dead due to wars in Iraq and Vietnam to name but two examples? Rather The Road Auschwitz is a canard used as a device by the governing system to shut down debate and reinforce the current ideological system, a system itself deeply implicated in death.

My own preference is for the Swiss system. Stridently neutralist, a tacit, firm ethnocentricity but neither hardline racialist nor totalitarian, with a citizenry trained in the art of wise participatory government. System-ideologues are quite suspicious of the Swiss system, but struggle to muster the kind of critique that they'd channel towards other Western nations with their assigned genocidalist baggage.

[Errigal]

I think the idea has now taken on almost religious weight that frank talk on immigration, race, ethnic friction, the historical and current role of protected ethnic groups will lead to genocide or some sort of mass violence. People who were adults in the 1950s or 1960s seem to have been legitimately concerned about the dangers of ideologues, mass movements, lover's of state power etc. People who came after seem to have become more hysterical and driven by emotion on such matters and the two or three later generations seem to have gotten worse and worse in this way. Now I think people who freak out and start screaming at any patriotic or nativist talk are most often genuinely scared; they genuinely think that such talk will bring down lightening bolts of genocide. These are degenerated people.

[Felix the Cat]

I think the idea has now taken on almost religious weight that frank talk on immigration, race, ethnic friction, the historical and current role of protected ethnic groups will lead to genocide or some sort of mass violence. People who were adults in the 1950s or 1960s seem to have been legitimately concerned about the dangers of ideologues, mass movements, lover's of state power etc. People who came after seem to have become more hysterical and driven by emotion on such matters and the two or three later generations seem to have gotten worse and worse in this way. Now I think people who freak out and start screaming at any patriotic or nativist talk are most often genuinely scared; they genuinely think that such talk will bring down lightening bolts of genocide. These are degenerated people.This reminds me of the hysterical warnings from otherwise sensible Jewish commentators that Mel Gibson's Passion movie would lead to pogroms.
Seriously, I don't think anything I said in my first paragraph at least is controversial amongst mainstream historians.I'm sure that saying "Hitler was right" about anything will get a historian into big trouble. (David Irving notably comes to mind.)

[Ponerologist]

does free discussion of this topic lead to wars and massacres? Many people believe it does. They aren't necessarily stupid or ignorant either.

On the contrary, I believe that a society's failure to discuss such things, especially when coupled with mass-immigration, is likely to cause (interncine) conflicts and massacres.

Enoch Powell warned of the consequences of not talking about these things. He accurately predicted the demographic composition of the United Kingdom at the turn of the century:

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643826/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html

He warned that if the changing demographics continued unabated into the next century, of the gradual resentment that would be felt as a consequence:

What we do know is that upon any conceivable assumptions, short of wholly new policy initiatives, the New Commonwealth immigrant and immigrant-descended population will continue to grow not only absolutely but proportionately until far into the next century. This is implicit in the age-structure of that population, apart from any other causes whatsoever. Thus of the two differentiated populations, one will be advancing and the other retracting, both numerically and territorially. The significance of this fact is again enhanced by the pattern of distribution The picture is not that of a province or corner of the country occupied by a distinct and growing population, though that would be perilous enough. It is of the occupation, more and more intense, of key areas—and, it may be added, of key functions—in the heartlands of the Kingdom. The process is one of which both populations will continuously and increasingly be conscious. It is this fact which, added to all the rest, points to the prospect of eventual conflict upon a scale which cannot adequately be described by any lesser term than civil war.

He also warned of the 'uniform of colour':

Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers.

Moreover, the uniform of color, because it is involuntary and irremovable, becomes an irresistible force for dominating and disciplining those who wear it. They are literally marked people, expected to rally to whatever is designated as their cause and treated as manifest traitors if they fail to do so.

Now I'd say that intuitively it would seem Enoch was right, because massacres and ethnic conflict are obviously more likely to occur in a racially plural society like the United Kingdom, rather than a racially homogenous one like Japan.

That we've never been consulted about this fundamental change to our society, and that anybody who spoke out about the propensity for conflict and trouble (including Enoch) has been demonised and vilified, has effectively meant that this censorship will have been the cause of such terrible conflict.

The vast majority of Britons have always been opposed to mass-immigration. Poll after poll suggested there was a huge gulf between the majority of people and the ruling elite - the media, politicians, academics, etc.

With the economy now looking precarious, people's living standards in decline, welfare cuts and austerity measures being implemented, an education system thet churns out semiliterates, a woeful health service and the likelihood of perpetual recession due to Peak Oil, were our immigration policies not utterly ludicrous? Politicians have already given up any pretence that they have benefitted the economy.

I think Powell understood these U75 morons quite well, when he said:

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

[Chip Farley]

Beyond watching them disintegrate emotionally, debating them is completely pointless.

No, there may be lurkers (and on the internet that number can reach into the hundreds or even thousands) who may be swayed by a presentation from a Far Rightist perspective.

[Count Sudoku]

No, there may be lurkers (and on the internet that number can reach into the hundreds or even thousands) who may be swayed by a presentation from a Far Rightist perspective.

Correct sir.

[Errigal]

This reminds me of the hysterical warnings from otherwise sensible Jewish commentators that Mel Gibson's Passion movie would lead to pogroms.
....

I get the impression many of these people aren't faking their fear.

[Felix the Cat]

^^ assuming it is sincere and not just an act, to what degree should society tolerate censorship so that paranoid Jews and other minorities can feel safe?

[Errigal]

^^ assuming it is sincere and not just an act, to what degree should society tolerate censorship so that paranoid Jews and other minorities can feel safe?

They should not be tolerated at all. Their feelings cannot be the guide to laws on such things.

[Chip Farley]

I get the impression many of these people aren't faking their fear.

It is called a guilty conscious.

The Jews know damn well they have been doing many immoral dastardly things (sinister banking machinations, promoting racial genocide through images of miscegenation on television, etc.,) and they greatly fear a re-emergent Aryan Justice. :hitler:

[Felix the Cat]

The Passion story is a good example of this since it is highly offensive to Jews - it accuses them of deicide and curses them and their posterity. Jews are understandably unhappy with this and will not feel comfortable living in a society where this story is publicly celebrated.

OTOH, it's an integral part of the christian narrative and can't be ignored by any serious christian.

How should people of good will, who don't want to cause offense to anyone, handle this situation?

The post-war consensus seems to be that Christians should indeed ignore or tone down the anti-Jewish parts of their religion out of deference to Jewish sensibilities. Most Western Churches have gone along with this.

[Felix the Cat]

He thought all the pagan nordic thule society occult stuff Himmler believed (and perhaps Hess and Rosenberg) was nonsense (at least according to Speer who in wanting to whitewash himself had no cause to praise the man) but Hitler unlike Stalin generally did not like to micromanage (he liked to remain the arbiter of big decisions by giving people overlapping areas of responsibility so big decisions would have to be made by the Fuhrer) and as long as he believed his subordinates were loyal to him let them do prettymuch what they wanted.

Himmler was good at internal security, so he could be allowed to spend insignificant amounts of money looking for his occult obsessions. It kept him happy. It's interesting that the most notorious anti-semite of modern times, Hitler, never actually made the accusation of deicide against the Jews. He accused them of a lot of things but not this. Were he a Christian you would expect him to have done so.

In fact, the Nazis seem to have ignored all of the old Christian accusations against Jews - deicide, ritual murder, poisoning wells, etc.

(Interestingly, the old accusation of Jews secretly poisoning Christians did reappear in the 20th Century, but in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctors_Plot) of all places - presumably the last place in the world you would expect such a thing.)

[Felix the Cat]

Given that Hitler did not attack the Jews in the name of Christianity, it's interesting that so many Christians feel guilt over the holocaust.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/6369/image2lz.jpg

[Chip Farley]

Given that Hitler did not attack the Jews in the name of Christianity, it's interesting that so many Christians feel guilt over the holocaust.

Judeo-Christianity is an inherently masochistic 'religion' that revels in self-flagellation (sometimes literally! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellation#Christianity ) and is full of sick-minded ressentiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment#Kierkegaard_and_Nietzsche )

[Felix the Cat]

That fellow appears to be Canadian, presumably Anglican

[Ponerologist]

Given that Hitler did not attack the Jews in the name of Christianity, it's interesting that so many Christians feel guilt over the holocaust.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/6369/image2lz.jpg

Looking at that guy's countenance, I'd not be terribly surprised if he wasn't a Christian...

[Felix the Cat]

I think I've found him

http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/en-us/5222143.html
Poland, A photo of Sigmund Sobolewski, chairman of the Auschwitz Awareness society organization, at an event marking the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, sponsored by the president of Poland Lech Walesa, on 26-27/01/1995. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Sobolewski

[Baron_Corvo]

If we can find people able to discuss charged issues and retain their composure than we found rare gems and they should be embraced in debate. In the past this board used to have a higher number of those. I'm not privy to the discussion on the OP board but in my experience the majority of such fora are populated by people whom, when they sense counter-intuitive arguments on charged issues, presume insincerity and dishonesty on reflex. The few golden nuggets with tough temperaments usually emerge on their own volition if they can overcome the substantial hurdle of peer group pressure and have a genuine thirst for counter-intuitive debate.

Good points.

I've spent a lot of time on another board trying to get people of differing views to sign up and debate with us, and IMO the biggest hurdle debate boards face is that, since no one gets paid to post anywhere, people will only post on a board if they think there's something in it for them.

Human nature being what it is, what that means in practice is that most people looking for a board to post on seek "online comfort zones" where the majority of the posters are of the same mind as they are. It's one reason why I couldn't get significant numbers of Stormfront posters to post on an anti-racist board; they wouldn't have been as "at home" there as they were on SF.

The Phora claims and for the most part is a free speech board, but even so it has its foibles, Dan's well known antipathy to what he calls "online pyjama parties for teenagers" is one, as was the kerfuffle a while back when nitemare and Sandee joined up and actually started talking amongst themselves like women.

Maybe, just as Ronald Reagan was undoubtedly right to say that a political party can't be all things to all people, an online forum can't be either.

[Felix the Cat]

You complain about the tendency of internet forums to turn into gossipy social clubs of friends that exclude outsiders, while also condemning DD for trying to prevent this place from ending up the same way?

[Baron_Corvo]

You complain about the tendency of internet forums to turn into gossipy social clubs of friends that exclude outsiders, while also condemning DD for trying to prevent this place from ending up the same way?

No, not at all. I wasn't referring to the social aspects of forums primarily, but their more intellectual, debate-centred aspects.

Having said that, I think the two can coexist, and they do on Urban within the confines, as you say, of what you're allowed to talk about on there. I don't think there's a problem with a board being at least in part a "gossipy social club", as long as those people there who want to debate can do it without the "gossip" getting in the way.

I think what pissed Dan off when he debated on MSF was that just as he'd posted a 2,000 word article for people to read, nitemare would post a Youtube vid of herself and most of the blokes there would ignore Dan's article and see whether nitemare was taking her kit off in the video.

[Felix the Cat]

I assume this "nitemare" was a political opponent of DD? If so, that could be considered an amusing sort of trolling

[Baron_Corvo]

I assume this "nitemare" was a political opponent of DD? If so, that could be considered an amusing sort of trolling

Yeah, she was half-Panamaian and her original username was "WNs hispanic nitemare," later shortened to just "nitemare". And yes, she was an anti-racist though quite popular on the whole with the racisty / WN posters there.

I don't think it was intentional trolling on her part so much as responding to demand from the males there (she was certainly an attractive girl in a studious kind of way). I had an argument with Bip in the MSF shoutbox once when she told me it was OK for Todd to ask nitemare for some pics of herself, but not for me to do so, because the age difference in Todd's case was smaller. I called her ageist for saying that, and that's when the fun started.

But we're digressing here.

[Baron_Corvo]

Basically, it's horses for courses.

I needed some high strength painkillers recently, and not knowing what the side effects of each were I started (or rather, bumped) a thread on Urban asking what people know about them. I was rewarded with over a dozen replies offering support and good advice.

I don't believe that would have happened on here, but maybe I'm being unfair.