Post: #526

I think it is pretty clear by now that Excelsior is a Muslim whose reasoning is tarnished by that religion. He will find excuses for everything. In addition he has drunk on the cup of black victim culture.

I don't even know why and how you use this White Supremacy definition because it seems that you use it exactly the same way that SJWs do.

White Supremacy: the belief that the White race due to some inherent racial superiority shall rule over all other races

Black Supremacy: I would rather call it a belief that is combining supremacy based on victim culture and some We-waz-kangz mentality in some cases. Any White person who does not grovel in eternal submission for the past sins of slavery, white privilege and other sins must be exterminated. The reason for this again is just based on one race.

Islamic Supremacy: actually this one is fully based in Islam itself which clearly states that Muslims are superior to anyone else, in the end Islam shall rule over all and the world shall become Muslim. The perfect divine system of sharia shall rule over humanity until eternity, all Jews will be exterminated in the end (Allah will even tell Muslims under which stone they have hidden themselves). Islam is the perfect system and shall reign until the end of days.

Your statements of white privilege are SJW terms that are based on imaginary privilege victim scale.

And now going back to the topic - here a good interview part:





Muslims in denial about Islam, Islam being innocent.

Change first the foreign policy, then fight against the terror-committing Muslims and everything will be alright.

And the host of the program clearly points out - the reason and core of the terror is Islam and it will never stop.





Here what happened to Lebanon - a predominantly Christian country that out of compassion accepted plenty of Muslim refugees from the region. They descended into civil war and now are being pushed into an Islamic theocracy step by step - Muslims in the country are already calling the shots and they are not peaceful shots.

This is the future of Sweden and other countries. This has nothing to do with the foreign policy of Lebanon.

But I don't expect a Muslim apologist and partial drinker of the victim-culture cool-aid to speak out on that with honesty.

This will never end with Islam. There will be more Muslims and there is not one chance in hell that a predominantly Muslim Sweden won't be a far more shitty place to live in. Anyone who is disputing that and claiming that the Satanic Religion of Peace will be fine and ruling a country in peace and prosperity is utterly deluded. But again - we know that Muslims will defend their religion even if they see ancient Alien-created videos of Mohammed beheading innocent women and screaming about in a schizophrenic stupor because he thought that he saw some angels or jinns and flew on his winged horse to the moon. It would not matter if we have actual proof, because the Quran came directly from God, every word is 100% truth, but ISIS and terrorists who quote those verses by heart - they are all twisting the truth.





We will be here in a few days or weeks before the next one starts killing and slaughtering women and children and again the Muslim apologists will come out of the woodworks.

P.S.: I personally don't give a shit about anyone's race or avg. IQ or "privilege". I think that reincarnation is true and you are as Soul having experiences in all races, so you better not get attached too much with that one particular body - it is but one of many. Ideologies are far more lasting across bodies than races, but even they die too. Islam will have to disappear one day, because it is just too evil at the core. Maybe they will save it by taking Rumi as the core prophet of the new Islam. That would work, because Rumi was a great saint, but certainly not Mohammed the warlord.

And please let us leave this White Supremacy bullshit. Any remnant was based purely on the fact of the dominance of White Western culture in the last 200 years, because Europeans made the jump to industrialization and science before China, Japan or India. A few other cultures could have made the cut as well - even Africa given enough time and the right circumstances.

We may meet cultures in the future off-the-planet who are thousands of years before us in tech. Shall we all grovel before them like morons just because they developed some tech before us?


Currently we are living in cool times, where anyone across the globe can make good or even very good cash, can even make a fortune, can bang girls of all races and cultures without too much opposition. I don't give a rat's ass who steers mothership earth so long as those opportunities are still open.

Post: #527

(06-10-2017 08:49 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Excelsior Wrote:There is nothing "fake or bullshit" about white supremacy (or privilege, whatever you're calling it today).

I can't believe I have to do this. White supremacy and white privilege are not even close to the same thing.

White supremacy is an ideology that maintains white people are better than everyone else and therefore should rule over them. Without that second part, it's not supremacy. Small 'n' white nationalists are not typically supremacists. People who believe in human biodiversity because that's what evolution predicts and what data has thus far confirmed, may not even be nationalists of any sort, much less supremacists. Right now, the only reason WS/WN correlate with HBD enthusiasts is that leftists have made everyone else absolutely terrified of discussing the topic.

White privilege is a postmodern intersectional studies concept that essentially means white people are privileged and oppress non-whites simply by virtue of their skin. It means that anything good a white person has, they have it at the expense of a brown person. It means that a white people enjoy the oppression of non-white people simply because they live in a stable western liberal democracy. It is a racist concept that assumes just because a political leader is white, that leader will automatically look out for white interests at the expense of non-white interests. It is a prejudice that ignores wealthy and high-status black men, and ignores poor and low-status white men. The primary use of the term "white privilege" is to use it as an accusation against any white person who expresses an opinion that runs contrary to intersectional dogma, in order to discredit them and shut down their speech. It breeds seething resentment and hatred among non-white people against white people.

It's seems to me the Muslims (and other people of color) are white supremacist. They insist on living in white dominated countries. There are many Muslim countries they could live in , but they choose to leave their Muslim homelands and move to white societies. Their revealed preference shows they find white societies better ( or you might say "supreme").

Post: #528

I love how East Asian Americans are completely kept out of these conversations about white, black, latino supremacy. I would have mentioned South Asians too, they have too many IRT whiners though so they get thrown into the victim club.

As if the East Asians have a magic potion, just shut up keep to themselves, and make money. There's no way that can be replicated by anyone else!

Post: #529

(06-10-2017 08:27 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  There's zero point trying to "reach" Excelsior. He conjures up racism out of thin air. Islam is now apparently a race, which until this point is something I'd never heard declared on this forum or indeed by anyone other than a progressive.

It's a pretty damning indictment since progressives are the only ones that simply shout racism when they're losing an argument. He didn't even ask for a qualifier ("gee, Leonard, are you sure you don't hate islam just because most of its adherents are brown?")

No different from the Confederate Statue thread where he tells us "I don't know if you neo confederates are super racist or just mildly racist". At the time I thought that perhaps the issue was triggering to him for obvious reasons and that on other topics like this he might be somewhat more measured, but this little dialogue has made it pretty clear that he finds he has more in common with the "brown/black hordes" of islam, despite the fact that majority white Western nations are literally statistically the safest place for a black man in the world, while in any islam dominated nation he'd have considerably less rights, be in considerably more danger and suffer vastly higher degrees of racism.

Perhaps what triggers him the most is that when he used the dreaded R word we didn't all scurry backwards, bowing and scraping and desperately pleading our cases like he's probably used to elsewhere.

In any case, the future will be an interesting place for Excelsior if he doesn't abandon his bizarre BLM delusions. As attitudes harden against the death cult of islam, if he sticks true to his supposed morals and throws in with all those poor oppressed islamists then he'll find out the hard way who holds the lion's share of prejudice.

What precisely made you think I believed that even mentioning or implying the presence of racism here would get people to "bow and scrape"? That's never happened here before (and, remember, I've been here quite a bit longer than you have - I would know). Also, that's not even the purpose. I don't talk about racism or hate to get bowing and scraping. I talk about them to get honesty.

Samseau is an open racial supremacist. He's been very clear about his views on "lesser peoples" relative to "higher cultures" and who they are. I don't mention that to get bowing and scraping, I just want there to be honesty and clarity as to where he's coming from when he talks about certain topics where said objectivity is relevant. I think it best to simply call it like it is - if you think certain folks are inferior to others and that is bleeding into your evaluations of certain topics, you ought to admit that and get it out in the open. Don't feign objectivity you do not have.

You hate muslims. That's very clear to me and anyone reading what you write. I don't mention this to get you bowing and scraping. I mention it because I want you to simply admit the reality and quit wasting our time with BS designed to cover it up because you're too damn insecure to just say what you really mean, even anonymously over the internet. You despise muslims and that is guiding your evaluation of the solutions proposed in this thread. There's no point in hiding that and playing pretend.

And honestly, something like this:

Quote:Because the most important thing in the world is that the "peaceful" members of the death cult get to sit their ass down in these lands and enjoy the benefits of a civilisation that they could never have created themselves and in fact undermine by their very way of life.

These people are not white - they are black and brown. You're justifying their expulsion and your plans for mass annexation of their homelands because these non-white people are, in your view, unworthy of western civilization because they "could not have created it".

That sounds to anyone viewing with an objective eye like a claim of supremacy being used to justify policy. If it isn't, the rational response is to simply explain why it is not. The irrational response is to lose your mind and go on rants about how horrible it is that someone has dared to imply something about you that you don't like.

There's not much point in trying to reach you, to be honest. You conjure up hateful madness that does not make sense and when you're called out on it and asked to just admit where you really stand, you pull into the "oh no, I've been called a big bad racist" shell and start threatening to run to moderators.

You want to know who was really "triggered" here? Just read this:

(06-10-2017 05:11 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Accuse me unjustly of racism again (second time now) and you'll be reported.

You've run up in this thread and, on multiple occasions, leveled a host of rather specious accusations at me. You've claimed, simply on the basis of my even mentioning the existence of white supremacy, that my concerns were false, I lived in "cloud cuckoo land", and was just a walking victim complex who solutions and ideas were not borne of objective analysis or knowledge, but of an unwarranted (and in your eyes, very silly) sense of victimhood. That's before you wrote everything I said off as utter nonsense to be invalidated by what you believed to be the aforementioned "racial victim complex".

Now, to be honest, I did not and do not respect that kind of dismissal. I found that all to be pretty offensive and rather infuriating (my concerns are not manufactured as I'm smarter than that, I don't live in cuckoo land, and I don't have a victim complex - I don't take kindly to such accusations), but what did I do about your specious claims?

Did I try to pull rank on you and report you for something?
Did I threaten to run to the moderators for the accusations and the "disrespect"?

No. I pretty much just took it and stayed on topic.

But when I responded and made an implication you did not like, what happened? Suddenly, I've got a threat to bring moderators into the picture.

So, here's how this seems to work in your world: you are free to accuse me of being whatever you think I am because my points of view differ from yours. They're not sensible at all, just a manifestation of a victim complex.

But when I make any sort of implication about your motives that you do not like (ex: implying that there is a racial motivation, or alternatively suggesting that you just hate muslims), you very quickly threaten to run to moderators, report, and (ultimately) silence me.

The responses since only seem to bolster this point. The underlying issue here that we are actually talking about is the validity of your solutions (read: annexing sovereign nations) and your claim that my own are nonsense by comparison. I challenged that claim directly. You haven't said very much about that, but you have spent a lot of time going on about how you've been implied to be a racist and how that bothers you. I have yet to get a substantive response from you as to the fact (which I pointed out earlier) that your "solution" will lead to millions of deaths relative to my supposed "nonsense" proposals (hence my claim that my proposals are not, in fact, nonsense by comparison), but I have gotten PLENTY from you about how I implied you're a racist, and how I did that in some other thread, and how I must be an SJW who supports BLM. You've taken yourself COMPLETELY off topic.

You want to talk about triggering? Sounds like you need to take another look in the mirror. You look very much like someone who is triggered by any mention of racism. The mere implication has thrown you completely off.

You make damaging implications about other people and their motivations (i.e. "just a victim complex", "delusional", "cuckoo land", etc, etc) that totally dismiss their capacity as rational and intelligent actors all day and they just take it. But let one of them come to you and even imply that you're even a little racist?
"I'm getting the moderators!!!"

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, just like an SJW. Two sides of the same coin, really.

Post: #530

(06-10-2017 08:49 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Excelsior Wrote:There is nothing "fake or bullshit" about white supremacy (or privilege, whatever you're calling it today).

I can't believe I have to do this. White supremacy and white privilege are not even close to the same thing.

You don't have to do anything. I already know the difference. The terms were being used interchangeably by Samseau in his response to my posts about white supremacy, so I responded in kind.

(06-10-2017 09:16 AM)Blaster Wrote:  However, in my view, your solution neglects to recognize the current conditions on the ground in the West which is that criticism of Islam is treated as heresy by most of the political left and the establishment right.

Then explain to me how a ban or moratorium on Muslim immigration specifically is even remotely plausible.
You have admitted that conditions in the west are such that criticism of Islam is "heresy" in the eyes of most (all the left, and the "establishment right" which is most of the right). How is a ban very explicitly designed to target muslims going to go over in such an environment? The country won't hear any "heresy" against Islam, but will sit back quietly as the government enacts a ban specifically targeting muslim migrants?

This is what I'm not getting. You guys say my solutions cant work under current western conditions - they're not realistic. Yet you support proposals that are vastly less realistic under the same conditions. It makes no sense.

My plan in step 1 singles out terrorists and in step 2 calls for foreign policy to take a less damaging approach to muslim countries. I can tell you right now that most of the political left can get on board with step 2 and be moved on step 1. The establishment right is likely on board with step 1 and can be moved on step 2. There's a feasible political path here.

Your idea, on the other hand, seems to have no such path at all. How is your plan, which can't be viewed as anything but a discriminatory action aimed at muslims (a ban focused on just the muslim migrants) somehow more amenable to the political left and the establishment right than what I'm talking about?

Post: #531

I do not object to any details of your plan as I understand it.

Quote:Your idea, on the other hand, seems to have no such path at all. How is your plan, which can't be viewed as anything but a discriminatory action aimed at muslims (a ban focused on just the muslim migrants) somehow more amenable to the political left and the establishment right than what I'm talking about?

The more polarized an electorate becomes, the more feasible extreme solutions become. If the only options are "Complete Ban on Muslim Immigration" and "Fling Open the Borders and Allow Hundreds of Colonizing Migrants into Your Country," then whoever can win the political game will be able to implement their policy. And as 2016 proved, when given the choice between two extremes, there is plenty of support for the conservative closed-border position.

I do believe solving the problems of multicultural ideology and victim ideology are more pressing than preventing Muslim immigration, though not by much. They are both important. Multiculturalism and grievance mongering are tearing up our society from the inside. Islam is a threat from the outside. Giving up on one because of the other would just be stupid. Certainly, the gay rights folk didn't give up on their agenda because it was "unpalatable" at the time. Secular modernists (or teh jews if you're into conspiracies) in the West have been very successful attacking Christianity and neutralizing its influence. Too successful I'd argue, but that's for another thread.

We have a right to be as discriminatory as we want to be when it comes to allowing immigration into the country. There is no fundamental right to immigrate, so you can always start from the presumption that you're banning everyone and then add criteria that would allow the kind of people we want in the US to be welcome to immigrate. As for the actual details of how the ban would be implemented: of course that can't be summed up in two words. The system is very complex. You'd make it a goal to reduce the number of Muslims coming into the country. Maybe the first thing to do is look to see if there are any policies that are specifically being exploited by Muslims to increase the rate of migration vs non-Muslims, such as refugee policies, and address those first. As far as outright bans, there's plenty of history implementing country-of-origin travel bans.

Post: #532

People of all backgrounds come from all over the world to be murdered by islamists in London.

Post: #533

If only we could use that famed White Supremacy to... You know...Stop white nations from being completely overran by non-whites?

If there is supposed to be some sort of White supremacy, well then we're pretty SHIT at it for at least a few centuries now. I have no idea how can one be in such a negative demographic situation, constantly attacked based on imaginary privilege, repeatedly hit by a foreign ideology that seeks to assert dominance and taking it like cowards, and still be supposed to hold some sort of Supremacist beliefs. All I see is collective masochism.

Post: #534

(06-10-2017 07:15 PM)iop890 Wrote:  People of all backgrounds come from all over the world to be murdered by islamists in London.

Wonderfully diverse corpses!

Post: #535

(06-10-2017 04:52 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  My plan in step 1 singles out terrorists and in step 2 calls for foreign policy to take a less damaging approach to muslim countries. I can tell you right now that most of the political left can get on board with step 2 and be moved on step 1. The establishment right is likely on board with step 1 and can be moved on step 2. There's a feasible political path here.

Your idea, on the other hand, seems to have no such path at all. How is your plan, which can't be viewed as anything but a discriminatory action aimed at muslims (a ban focused on just the muslim migrants) somehow more amenable to the political left and the establishment right than what I'm talking about?

Honestly you are not even realizing the full extent of the changes you propose - they are as realistic as the retaking of Constantinople.

No seriously

Step 1 - Demand for the globalists to stop meddling in the Middle East and all Muslim countries - they are meddling since their beginning, they are not going to stop for anyone

Step 2 - you think that it is realistic in the current climate to deport or arrest all ready potential known Islamic terrorists? The London Commissioner just praised the recent attack and the diversity it showed! The cops have recently stormed a garden party that played an anti-Osama-Bin-Laden song!
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cam...y-13097525
They have arrested and incarcerated a man for leaving bacon in front of mosques - and that guy was likely killed in prison because Muslims are such large parts of the prison population:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...tence.html
They are actively arresting Islamophobic posters on social media:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...media.html
They have arrested this guy's dog because he made funny vids about the Nazi-pug - he is by the way a liberal:



The Muslim-Nazi mayor is rather having a 900-strong hate-crime squad than an anti-terror unit: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017...-terrorism

So this is the climate we are dealing with. Islam is coddled, constantly protected and that is why the Pakistani rape gangs are still grooming 12yo girls and will continue to do so.

Your Step 2 is about as realistic as demanding Mars colonies from the government. It is as realistic as the long-term ban on Islam and the closure of all mosques.

Nothing will happen.

Now I tell you what will happen with very high likelihood:

1) More Muslims will be entering the West
2) More terror, more extremism, more rapes, more gang rapes, more enrichment will happen
3) The anger will rise, but the Western governments will keep on cracking down rather on that and will prevent only the guys who try to buy explosives off agents
4) The anger in the West among the locals will keep on rising over the years and decades
5) The Middle East will keep on getting "liberated", will erupt in ever greater chaos and Caliphate loving structures
6) Then one day one of those 2 things will happen:
A) The situation will become so unbearable that they will manage to convince the population that everyone needs to be chipped in Orwellian fashion and then they might finally crack down on Islamic terror or what is more likely:
B) A total destructive war with Islam will start after some particularly nasty attack - dirty nuke and millions dead in a major European city - maybe even tens of millions dead in many Western cities - that war will wipe out all Muslim countries anyway and destroy Islam in the current form

Either way - your idea of reform are UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC. You just don't see it, because you do not perceive how pro-idiotic Islam and pro idiotic mass immigration the powers are. The same powers are also anti-White, anti-Western, anti-male, but you are likely seeing only White Supremacy as the boogieman who will try to gas every brown girl out there any day now.

In the end Islam will fall anyway, since the globalist have no intention of making Europe into a Caliphate, they just want to fuck up the Western potential unity and later destroy Islam since the entire religion does not fit into the docile consumer-producer citizen of their Brave New World.

P.S.: Everyone should hate Islam frankly. Hating all Muslims is counter-productive - the first victims of Islam are Muslims.
As for Samseau being a White Supremacist - stating that some cultures at one time or another are superior to others on a variety of factors - by jolly - this should be a no-brainer, because no way in hell are all cultures and all religions equally good at the same time. The cult of Baal and their child-sacrifices, the Aztecs with their daily killings, previous cultures with massive slave trades including the esteemed Romans, current culture of Islam - they are all far inferior to many other cultures that we have now. This is shown in a multitude of observable facts. Are the people of those cultures worthy of saving and compassion? Yes - of course - the tribes of those systems can adapt and create a new culture, but their initial system was just inferior to many others that we have now.

Post: #536

He tried to warn you. Why couldn't you dumb bastard Brits listen?

Post: #537

(06-10-2017 11:12 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(06-10-2017 04:52 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  My plan in step 1 singles out terrorists and in step 2 calls for foreign policy to take a less damaging approach to muslim countries. I can tell you right now that most of the political left can get on board with step 2 and be moved on step 1. The establishment right is likely on board with step 1 and can be moved on step 2. There's a feasible political path here.

Your idea, on the other hand, seems to have no such path at all. How is your plan, which can't be viewed as anything but a discriminatory action aimed at muslims (a ban focused on just the muslim migrants) somehow more amenable to the political left and the establishment right than what I'm talking about?

Honestly you are not even realizing the full extent of the changes you propose - they are as realistic as the retaking of Constantinople.

No seriously

I disagree with you.

And, even if I did agree, the cold hard fact of the matter is that every proposal I have made in here is VASTLY more realistic than any of the solutions being proposed by others here, so that' doesn't say much for you lot.

Quote:As for Samseau being a White Supremacist - stating that some cultures at one time or another are superior to others on a variety of factors - by jolly - this should be a no-brainer, because no way in hell are all cultures and all religions equally good at the same time.

The cult of Baal and their child-sacrifices, the Aztecs with their daily killings, previous cultures with massive slave trades including the esteemed Romans, current culture of Islam - they are all far inferior to many other cultures that we have now. This is shown in a multitude of observable facts. Are the people of those cultures worthy of saving and compassion? Yes - of course - the tribes of those systems can adapt and create a new culture, but their initial system was just inferior to many others that we have now.

Cool. So what happens when you've established that the people themselves are "lesser peoples"?

(06-09-2017 03:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ....All of the lesser people's you've mentioned with higher birthrates around the world are doing is relying on feeding on the developed countries to sustain their bastard birthrates.

(06-09-2017 03:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ....All of the lesser people's you've mentioned with higher birthrates around the world

(06-09-2017 03:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  lesser people's

If you read the context of that discussion, you'll note that the "lesser people's" he was referring to amount to basically everyone outside of Europe and Northeast Asia.

So, here's where we are in the logic being presented:
1. Europeans and East Asians = "higher cultures". Everyone else (even the folks who aren't sacrificing children or anything approaching that level of barbarity - the absence of said barbarity doesn't get you into the "higher culture" camp) = lower cultures.
2. Everyone with roots outside of Europe/East Asia: "Lesser people's"

Explain to me how I'm supposed to look at that and not conclude that the individual making said statements doesn't firmly believe in the inferiority of my race and my people relative to his race and his people (who, conveniently, are among the "higher cultures").

It's great fun watching the lengths to which some folks will go to try and excuse ideas like this. I'm interested to see what you come up with.

Post: #538

(06-10-2017 06:25 PM)Blaster Wrote:  I do not object to any details of your plan as I understand it.

Quote:Your idea, on the other hand, seems to have no such path at all. How is your plan, which can't be viewed as anything but a discriminatory action aimed at muslims (a ban focused on just the muslim migrants) somehow more amenable to the political left and the establishment right than what I'm talking about?

The more polarized an electorate becomes, the more feasible extreme solutions become. If the only options are "Complete Ban on Muslim Immigration" and "Fling Open the Borders and Allow Hundreds of Colonizing Migrants into Your Country," then whoever can win the political game will be able to implement their policy. And as 2016 proved, when given the choice between two extremes, there is plenty of support for the conservative closed-border position.

OK, 2 points here:

1. 2016 proved that there is support for the conservative position in the USA. That support is much more tenuous in France, Germany, the Netherlands, or anywhere in Scandinavia, among other places - several of these nations have outright rejected the conservative option in recent elections (Austria, France, and the Netherlands come to mind). Even in the UK, it's tough to argue that the "shutdown the borders" option (nevermind the "shutdown the borders to muslims in particular" option) is really going to gain a ton of traction. The snap elections we just saw should make it clear that that will be tough to accomplish.

2. Even in the place where this conservative position seems to have the most traction, there's evidence of very little progress. Trump's Muslim ban has failed...twice. He can't get it into law. There are serious questions as to whether or not the conservative position can get any actionable law on the books even in the more favorable USA.

In short, I don't see anything to strongly contradict my claim that the conservative position we're discussing here (re: banning muslim migration) is implausible, and it's the mildest of the positions proposed by most on this sub-forum. It can't get any traction at all in most of the developed world and even in the one place it might stand a chance (the USA), it is hitting a legal brick wall. Even his "watered down, politically correct version" of the order can't avoid getting stuck in legal mud. And, as someone who has read that ban and the many challenges to it, it isn't hard to see why: the ban (and anything like it) fails the Lemon Test pretty clearly. The establishment clause challenges are formidable. And that's just the start of the problems.

It isn't going to make it. And if it can't make it here in the USA, it is quite unlikely to make it anywhere else in the western world.

Post: #539

(06-11-2017 01:27 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  It's great fun watching the lengths to which some folks will go to try and excuse ideas like this. I'm interested to see what you come up with.

I would start by stopping to be so anal about it. Samseau sometimes writes very harshly about the machinations of Talmudic Jews - essentially a tribe with an IQ over 112. He can defend himself. I personally would not take much importance to those things if I were you.

Cultures can be inferior which some people in some circumstances can call "people", but it is more in connection to referring to a given culture at a given time.


As for your recommended policies - no - they have 0% chance of being implemented and are as realistic as anyone else's.

You are frankly way too much mired in the victim complex-seeking on every scale where the White Devil is showing his alleged superiority over you.

You should maybe listen a bit to this young US immigrant from Jamaica: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-uP8fC...kUw/videos
She has no trouble talking about race and IQ, multiculturalism, victim culture, because why should she even if the data is true? She is smart, cute and happy. If someone thinks she is a "lesser person" just for being black, then it is his problem. And the verdict is still out on Samseau.

-------------

Back to the topic here - a good vid showing the utter lunacy of Reza Azlan and Islam:





Gavin McInnes talks clearly why we don't want more Muslims in Europe and a stop to Muslim immigration is as feasible as your outright incarceration of all known ISIS supporters (that list would not be 3500 in the UK, but more likely way beyond 20.000+)

Post: #540

This article may have already been posted.

It says that the recruiter who radicalized the three London Bridge attackers was protected by MI5, because they were recruiting British Muslims to fight abroad.

Article Wrote:The terrorists who rampaged across London on the night of June 3 were part of a wider extremist network closely monitored by MI5 for decades. The same network was heavily involved in recruiting Britons to fight with jihadist groups in Syria, Iraq and Libya.

*skipping*

Choudary was convicted in 2016 for supporting and encouraging support for ISIS. Yet the press has largely ignored the extent to which Choudary’s uncanny freedom to operate in Britain, and to send British Muslims to fight in foreign theaters, was linked to his opaque relationship to Britain’s security services.

*skipping*

According to the Telegraph, Redouane fought with the Libyan Islamist militia unit Liwa al-Ummah to topple Muammar Qaddafi. Libyan security and diplomatic sources told the paper this militia sent foreign fighters to Syria after the NATO-backed revolution, many of whom “went on to fight alongside Al-Qaeda extremists in Syria."

Post: #541

Quote:It's great fun watching the lengths to which some folks will go to try and excuse ideas like this. I'm interested to see what you come up with.

What is there to excuse? You either believe in standards, or you don't.

How can such an assertion be dismissed with the empirical evidence at hand?

Put it this way, are people from certain cultures seeking to migrate to locales where the population is different, to improve the quality of life of the former, due to the culture of the latter?

Is there an immigration wave in reverse remotely close in scale?

Post: #542

(06-10-2017 04:51 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  ...
You hate muslims. That's very clear to me and anyone reading what you write. I don't mention this to get you bowing and scraping. I mention it because I want you to simply admit the reality and quit wasting our time with BS designed to cover it up because you're too damn insecure to just say what you really mean, even anonymously over the internet. You despise muslims and that is guiding your evaluation of the solutions proposed in this thread. There's no point in hiding that and playing pretend.

And honestly, something like this:

Quote:Because the most important thing in the world is that the "peaceful" members of the death cult get to sit their ass down in these lands and enjoy the benefits of a civilisation that they could never have created themselves and in fact undermine by their very way of life.

These people are not white - they are black and brown. You're justifying their expulsion and your plans for mass annexation of their homelands because these non-white people are, in your view, unworthy of western civilization because they "could not have created it".

That sounds to anyone viewing with an objective eye like a claim of supremacy being used to justify policy.
...

The rest is blah blah blah.

I've made it perfectly clear that I hate ISLAM and I hate such muslims THAT HATE US, but to a progressive I understand that there are no equivocations asked for nor indeed tolerated.

As for that last part, it's just one more demonstration that you are completely incapable of divorcing the concept of race and religion. By your yard marker, if all of these brown people were neo-Nazis it would still be racist to treat them as hostile, deny them entry, deport them and annex their lands if attacked.

Again, you ignore my support of Coptic Christians and my suggestions that real refugees from the ME like Jews and Christians should be given first and probably ONLY preference. Obviously I'm a little confused about how this racial supremacy thing works since the vast majority of those people would be horribly un-white.

But when I say "they" inferring "muslims" could never have built this civilisation then you immediately see nothing but racism, where the rest of us see nothing but an obvious fact.

I wish you all the best in unfucking your world view and dumping this racial baggage you carry. Apparently being the only one jumping at the shadows of white supremacy on a very diverse forum doesn't trigger the acknowledgement that perhaps it's you that's conjuring up this nonsense and demanding "real talk" about our supposed inherent racism.

Or you can keep strolling through the land of micro-aggressions and mental illness.

Your call.

Post: #543

(06-11-2017 01:27 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  If you read the context of that discussion, you'll note that the "lesser people's" he was referring to amount to basically everyone outside of Europe and Northeast Asia.

So, here's where we are in the logic being presented:
1. Europeans and East Asians = "higher cultures". Everyone else (even the folks who aren't sacrificing children or anything approaching that level of barbarity - the absence of said barbarity doesn't get you into the "higher culture" camp) = lower cultures.
2. Everyone with roots outside of Europe/East Asia: "Lesser people's"

Explain to me how I'm supposed to look at that and not conclude that the individual making said statements doesn't firmly believe in the inferiority of my race and my people relative to his race and his people (who, conveniently, are among the "higher cultures").

It's great fun watching the lengths to which some folks will go to try and excuse ideas like this. I'm interested to see what you come up with.

Average IQ by country (70 is the cutoff for mental retardation):



There are lesser peoples, yes, but it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. People living in a country determine what the country is like and on that note I would rather live in Japan than Somalia - because Japan is objectively better.

Post: #544

Guys, we should just roll over and die.

Post: #545

(06-11-2017 02:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(06-11-2017 01:27 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  It's great fun watching the lengths to which some folks will go to try and excuse ideas like this. I'm interested to see what you come up with.

I would start by stopping to be so anal about it. Samseau sometimes writes very harshly about the machinations of Talmudic Jews - essentially a tribe with an IQ over 112. He can defend himself. I personally would not take much importance to those things if I were you.

Cultures can be inferior which some people in some circumstances can call "people", but it is more in connection to referring to a given culture at a given time.

Those are some impressive mental gymnastics you're working there. Not a bad effort. It falls short, of course (this is really just too blatant to be written off with an "oh, he just meant cultures" excuse), but it's a solid try.

Quote:As for your recommended policies - no - they have 0% chance of being implemented and are as realistic as anyone else's.

As realistic as annexation of sovereign nations followed by the mass displacement of all residents of said nations in favor of western colonists?

Yeah, there's clearly nowhere left for this discussion to go. Can't engage with logic that divorced from reality.

Quote:You are frankly way too much mired in the victim complex-seeking on every scale where the White Devil is showing his alleged superiority over you.

Translation: "Dude just shut up about it"

Response: No.

Quote:You should maybe listen a bit to this young US immigrant from Jamaica: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-uP8fC...kUw/videos
She has no trouble talking about race and IQ, multiculturalism, victim culture, because why should she even if the data is true? She is smart, cute and happy. If someone thinks she is a "lesser person" just for being black, then it is his problem.

As usual, you underestimate me.

I don't need to listen to her. I'm far more well read on those topics than she is now or ever will be. I have been reading into race, IQ, multiculturalism, and other such topics for over a decade now. This is not new. She is where I was in 2004, when I first discovered these topics and began discussing them online.

I read the Unz Review. I read IQ and the Wealth of Nations. I view VDare, viewed Stormfront (back before it started its decline), and every other corner of the web where Race/IQ discussions were common. I know all about conceptions of regression to the mean, r/K-selection, and just about anything else you can think of on the topic of race, IQ, HBD, and multiculturalism.

This is not new to me. I have, in all likelihood, been in these corners of the web reviewing these discussions for longer than you have. I have most certainly been at that for much longer than she's been on the internet talking about it. I've come to my own conclusions in this arena after engaging with far more information over a far longer time than your girl here. She has literally nothing to teach me on this topic, and neither do you.

As for her approach, that's up to her. According to you, she's decided that folks who hold certain supremacist views aren't such a big deal and has no trouble talking about them.

Frankly, we're not so different in that regard. As I made abundantly clear in this post you probably ignored, I don't see the existence of folks who believe in the inferiority of my people as a barrier to success. They haven't stopped me so far. They won't stop me later.

That doesn't mean, however, that I am going to quietly tolerate or ignore them when I see them. I resent their points of view. I resent their ideology. I resent their goals and the methods with which they seek to accomplish them. I resent their misinformation and ignorance. I will not, as you suggest, sit back and tolerate them. I will call them out when I see them and give their views and ideology the attacks they deserve.

Quote: And the verdict is still out on Samseau.

No, the verdict is in. It's about as obvious as a gorilla in a standard New York Studio Apartment. You refuse to see it, and because I dare to point it out you accuse me of having all manner of issues and "victim-complex seeking".

I don't have those issues and there is no complex. I just refuse to sit quietly in the face of people who insult literally everything that I am and fight to create a world more hostile to my very being. I choose to call them out instead.

You wouldn't sit quietly either (and you don't when faced with similar attacks on your being), so don't insult me by asking me to do the same. Deal with it or don't, that's up to you.

(06-11-2017 03:50 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Quote:It's great fun watching the lengths to which some folks will go to try and excuse ideas like this. I'm interested to see what you come up with.

What is there to excuse? You either believe in standards, or you don't.

How can such an assertion be dismissed with the empirical evidence at hand?

Put it this way, are people from certain cultures seeking to migrate to locales where the population is different, to improve the quality of life of the former, due to the culture of the latter?

Is there an immigration wave in reverse remotely close in scale?

Just to make sure I have you right: your argument is that the "lesser peoples" mentioned in my post above are, indeed, "lesser peoples", and you're using migration patterns (among other empirical data you may have in mind) as justification.

Have I got that correct?

(06-11-2017 04:07 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The rest is blah blah blah.

No, the rest is calling you out on your hypocrisy and insecurity. Naturally, you ignore it.

Fair enough, though - can't offer answers you don't have.

Quote:Again, you ignore my support of Coptic Christians and my suggestions that real refugees from the ME like Jews and Christians should be given first and probably ONLY preference. Obviously I'm a little confused about how this racial supremacy thing works since the vast majority of those people would be horribly un-white.

Yes, we'll overlook the fact that you condemn over 90% of the ME population because you throw token support to a few religious minorities. Cool. Clearly no issue here.

Quote:I wish you all the best in unfucking your world view and dumping this racial baggage you carry. Apparently being the only one jumping at the shadows of white supremacy on a very diverse forum doesn't trigger the acknowledgement that perhaps it's you that's conjuring up this nonsense and demanding "real talk" about our supposed inherent racism.

You honestly believe I'm the only person here with the concerns I've expressed about the direction the forum has gone and some of the attitudes that have taken hold here (some of the more virulent of which have made themselves visible in this thread)?

You've seen the tip of the iceberg, bro. The rest is under the surface (and will probably stay there).

Quote:Or you can keep strolling through the land of micro-aggressions and mental illness.

Your call.

LOL

I'm just fine. You need to take a good, long look in the mirror and fix yourself before you endeavour to start advising anyone else.

Good luck on your new crusade.

Post: #546

(06-11-2017 07:06 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

(06-11-2017 01:27 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  If you read the context of that discussion, you'll note that the "lesser people's" he was referring to amount to basically everyone outside of Europe and Northeast Asia.

So, here's where we are in the logic being presented:
1. Europeans and East Asians = "higher cultures". Everyone else (even the folks who aren't sacrificing children or anything approaching that level of barbarity - the absence of said barbarity doesn't get you into the "higher culture" camp) = lower cultures.
2. Everyone with roots outside of Europe/East Asia: "Lesser people's"

Explain to me how I'm supposed to look at that and not conclude that the individual making said statements doesn't firmly believe in the inferiority of my race and my people relative to his race and his people (who, conveniently, are among the "higher cultures").

It's great fun watching the lengths to which some folks will go to try and excuse ideas like this. I'm interested to see what you come up with.

Average IQ by country (70 is the cutoff for mental retardation):


There are lesser peoples, yes, but it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. People living in a country determine what the country is like and on that note I would rather live in Japan than Somalia - because Japan is objectively better.

Yes, now we're in some familiar territory.

First, I'm familiar with Lynn and Vanhanen. I'm also familiar with their methods, which were less than satisfactory and throw the validity of that whole list into question.

Second, the worth of human populations is not measured by IQ and IQ alone. That is asinine.

Third, it is not entirely the case that people living in a country determine what a country is like. Geo-politics are not that simple.

Fourth, things change. You would not prefer to live in Sudan over Norway today. That is understandable, as there are stark differences between the two. That being said, the differences we see today were not always present. Things change. People change. You should expect more change in time.

Finally, this data is often used as justification for claims about the deleterious impacts of the migration of said "lesser peoples". It is not fit for that purpose, partly because of the first point I made above and also in part as a result of the data's failure to account for the environmental components of IQ (which most of the HBD/ethnonationalist/racialists advocating for said positions tend to give short thrift).

Post: #547

Quote:Just to make sure I have you right: your argument is that the "lesser peoples" mentioned in my post above are, indeed, "lesser peoples",

It is indisputable that at any one time there are lesser cultures, just as in academia there are lesser students, and in the sporting field there are lesser athletes.

You even provided an example yourself with a comparison between Norway and Sudan.

Quote:and you're using migration patterns (among other empirical data you may have in mind) as justification.

Have I got that correct?

Nope, you haven't got that correct.

I'm using migration patterns as an indicator that people are gravitating to the areas of the world where higher levels of human order occur, in terms of prosperity, transparency of governance and social safety nets. I also point to the inverse, where there is a lack of migratory movements to countries where these indicators are low by the standards in the rest of the world.

Basically, people move to white countries because the social order is such they are prosperous, have welfare with little obligation and white people are the least racist of all humans.

No large migratory movements go towards lesser cultures because they lack the afore mentioned things.

Post: #548

(06-11-2017 07:57 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-11-2017 07:06 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

(06-11-2017 01:27 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

Average IQ by country (70 is the cutoff for mental retardation):


There are lesser peoples, yes, but it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. People living in a country determine what the country is like and on that note I would rather live in Japan than Somalia - because Japan is objectively better.

Yes, now we're in some familiar territory.

First, I'm familiar with Lynn and Vanhanen. I'm also familiar with their methods, which were less than satisfactory and throw the validity of that whole list into question.

Second, the worth of human populations is not measured by IQ and IQ alone. That is asinine.

Third, it is not entirely the case that people living in a country determine what a country is like. Geo-politics are not that simple.

Fourth, things change. You would not prefer to live in Sudan over Norway today. That is understandable, as there are stark differences between the two. That being said, the differences we see today were not always present. Things change. People change. You should expect more change in time.

Finally, this data is often used as justification for claims about the deleterious impacts of the migration of said "lesser peoples". It is not fit for that purpose, partly because of the first point I made above and also in part as a result of the data's failure to account for the environmental components of IQ (which most of the HBD/ethnonationalist/racialists advocating for said positions tend to give short thrift).

I agree with Excelsior here.

IQ does not equate worth and IQs of tribes change.

Otherwise you might just as well say that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest tribe IQ and are now eternally declared rulers of the earth (and we should all be slaves to them just as said in Talmudic lore).

African IQs are significantly lower - there have been other tests done, the difference was found to be sometimes 10 points higher than in the list above.

That does not make them lesser, at best badly suited for modern Western economy and that is why Mike Cernovich' proposal of accepting only immigrants with IQs above 110 would be good.

Mental habits influenced and created by religion also matter greatly in the list. But here religion is the lesser one - Islam, Cult of Baal, Aztec sun worship, Satanism etc.

Post: #549

Excelsior Wrote:Frankly, we're not so different in that regard. As I made abundantly clear in this post you probably ignored, I don't see the existence of folks who believe in the inferiority of my people as a barrier to success. They haven't stopped me so far. They won't stop me later.

That doesn't mean, however, that I am going to quietly tolerate or ignore them when I see them. I resent their points of view. I resent their ideology. I resent their goals and the methods with which they seek to accomplish them. I resent their misinformation and ignorance. I will not, as you suggest, sit back and tolerate them. I will call them out when I see them and give their views and ideology the attacks they deserve.

There's this YouTube channel, Just Thinking Out Loud, which features this low-20s Black girl, with an accent. I suck at accents, but I think she was born in America. She's smart (for real smart, not pretentious girl smart), articulate, thoughtful, and reasonably attractive.

The only video I've seen of hers is this one.





She accurately describes the book (or lecture series) on racial differences in IQ, in a way that makes it obvious that she understands the material well enough to mask her political agenda. Yes, she has one. And, yes, you can probably guess what it is - but her agenda doesn't prevent her from accurately understanding the material.

Compare the first video to this trainwreck interview of Carolyn Rouse for instructive contrast.






Anyway, Just Thinking Out Loud clearly belongs in this country. If she were born in the Republic of Congo (known for its massive human rights violations), I wouldn't prevent her from immigrating into America. Just hearing her speak let's me know she belongs.

Her political agenda manifested itself when she revealed that she wants to be a neurologist, and that she wants to be seen as being in control of her own success. (Meaning, of course, that she doesn't want her blackness - her objectively belonging to a genetic group that has significantly lower IQ such that it's much more difficult to imagine any of them becoming a neurologist - to prevent her from becoming a neurologist.)

But that's really dumb.

To become a neurologist means she needs to exploit the continued existence of many crucial institutions. The Institutions of Science, Medicine, Law, Commerce, and Government need to perpetuate, or else she's much less likely to become a neurologist. (In fact, deporting her to the Republic of Congo - which I don't support - *IS* to prevent her from becoming a neurologist. And telling her she could totally become a neurologist in the Republic of Congo, if she works hard enough, is an outright lie. Because it's the fucking Congo.)

Her problem is that she conspires to bring down those Crucial Institutions by advocating for an egalitarian immigration policy that refuses to discriminate based on IQ. She FEELS that a 75 IQ Somali has just as much right to immigrate as a 110 IQ Belarusian, even though she KNOWS (or maybe she doesn't) that a flood of those Somalis isn't the same as a flood of those Belarusians!

At least she's nice about it, though.

You, Excelsior, can resent who you want, and attack who you want. But you're attacking people while living under THEIR Crucial Institutions that you exploited to make yourself Oh-So-Successful. It'd be one thing if you attacked those people while living under YOUR Crucial Institutions, but it's quite another to attack those people while living under THEIR Crucial Institutions.

Post: #550