Post: #1

Link

Saw this on Instapundit. Admits this view is common in academia.

He is a fellow at Harvad's leading black studies department. Meaning this sentiment is well received by blacks in that department. Anyone on here care to defend Noel Ignatiev? Also, I used to think Heartiste was an extremist. Now I think he's just got his head on straight. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. I used to think liberals were just naive. I'm starting to not buy it anymore. I don't understand how you can be red pill and a liberal. Liberals in academia applaud and accept a man who claims white men don't deserve to live and are a disease. I'll make sure to remember that next time a liberal talks about race.

Another thing, I'm not a Republican. I've never voted for a Republican. My definition of liberal is someone who supports the policies of nation building, foreign wars, curtailing of civil liberties, massive immigration, higher taxes on small business while cutting deals with billionaires so they're buddies are tax exempt, and generally shitting on the American people.

Post: #2

What is the answer?

A landmass to ourselves where no one else will come, where we are perpetually isolated?

Or is the solution "final"?

Post: #3

I'm going to have a moment of drunk honesty here. I'm a /pol/lock (and a pollock). I've banged and dated many a non white women. I love my latinas, but if I'm going to breed, it's gotta be with a slav woman. I wanna keep my genetic line as pure as possible. If I have a son, I'm going to name him Alaric and hope that he tears down the power structure, much like his namesake.

Post: #4

I'm half british and half scottish, def going Slav too.

Post: #5

The problem with categorising things as either liberal or conservative is you really need at least two dimensions to properly describe the various ideologies. Both sides (and politicians everywhere these days, not only in the US) are on the totalitarian side of the 'freedom' dimension.

IMO, red pill is somewhere between where Jefferson and Ralph Nader are in the following chart:

   


P.s. Slavs (Russian ones anyway) make difficult wives. They're selfish and manipulative... be careful!

Post: #6

(11-25-2013 11:13 PM)DaveR Wrote:  P.s. Slavs (Russian ones anyway) make difficult wives. They're selfish and manipulative... be careful!

I come from a line of men that get drunk and chase their women around with knives. I wouldn't say I'm that extreme, but I'm at a point in my life where I'm not afraid to lay down the law.

Post: #7

When I was in college (late 90s) there was a group called the Society for the Abolition of Whiteness. Mostly rich white kids, which I'm sure surprises no one here. I'll be interested to learn what this professor thinks about "How the Irish Became White", though.

Post: #8

(11-25-2013 11:18 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 11:13 PM)DaveR Wrote:  P.s. Slavs (Russian ones anyway) make difficult wives. They're selfish and manipulative... be careful!

I come from a line of men that get drunk and chase their women around with knives. I wouldn't say I'm that extreme, but I'm at a point in my life where I'm not afraid to lay down the law.

Yeah, but the actual law is not on your side in terms of child support and divorce settlements. Women are biologically designed to always be searching... for the best deal. Just like we're designed to always be closing.

Anyway, that's off topic. All I was trying to say was that if you're planning on long-terming a Russian girl, don't expect it to be forever because they won't expect that themselves.

Post: #9

This man defines male hamsterism. He makes the ridiculous assumption that war, genocide, and conquest have only been committed by white males, and that if white males were to become extinct, none of those things would exist.

There is no possible way that he is ignorant of the atrocities that have been perpetrated throughout history and are even happening today by non-white people. The Aztecs, Mongols, Zulus, Hatians, Persians, Chinese, Koreans and too many more to list have all committed genocide, waged wars, and conquered. Rwanda and Sudan are two of the most recent genocides.

None of that matters to him and his ilk though. They know that logic and reason will destroy their idea of a utopia, so they have to use the only effective tools available to them which are demagoguery, sophistry, and racism to guilt one party and instill fear in the rest.

Post: #10

(11-25-2013 11:27 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 11:18 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 11:13 PM)DaveR Wrote:  P.s. Slavs (Russian ones anyway) make difficult wives. They're selfish and manipulative... be careful!

I come from a line of men that get drunk and chase their women around with knives. I wouldn't say I'm that extreme, but I'm at a point in my life where I'm not afraid to lay down the law.

Yeah, but the actual law is not on your side in terms of child support and divorce settlements. Women are biologically designed to always be searching... for the best deal. Just like we're designed to always be closing.

Anyway, that's off topic. All I was trying to say was that if you're planning on long-terming a Russian girl, don't expect it to be forever because they won't expect that themselves.

Honestly, wasn't thinking Russian. I'm a pollock. All you need to do is look at what happened at the European Championships in Poland to see what my "ilk" think of them. Not that I hold those sentiments, but I'd be looking for a Polish girl to breed with.

I'm torn in a way because I know that breeding is a bad move on my part, but Ted Kaczynski said that if you hate the system the best thing you could do is have many children because you would have influence over them. His words were before our time I suppose...

Post: #11

(11-25-2013 10:41 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Link

Saw this on Instapundit. Admits this view is common in academia.

He is a fellow at Harvad's leading black studies department. Meaning this sentiment is well received by blacks in that department. Anyone on here care to defend Noel Ignatiev? Also, I used to think Heartiste was an extremist. Now I think he's just got his head on straight. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. I used to think liberals were just naive. I'm starting to not buy it anymore. I don't understand how you can be red pill and a liberal. Liberals in academia applaud and accept a man who claims white men don't deserve to live and are a disease. I'll make sure to remember that next time a liberal talks about race.

Another thing, I'm not a Republican. I've never voted for a Republican. My definition of liberal is someone who supports the policies of nation building, foreign wars, curtailing of civil liberties, massive immigration, higher taxes on small business while cutting deals with billionaires so they're buddies are tax exempt, and generally shitting on the American people.

Yes, liberals today can be bothersome. But this is more complicated than him being "a liberal." Bill Clinton is a liberal and looking at this guy's bio, I don't see one thing either of them have in common.

He's the male version of what feminists are: theorists who come up with wacky ideas that have nothing to do with science. One of his ideas is that race is a "social construct." Right off the bat he's wrong: the very fact that some medicines work on some races than others proves that, as do race-specific diseases like Sickle Cell Anemia.

If you want to reject something, reject academia. Universities have given this guy license to spread hatred -- and non-scientific hatred at that. And no one seems to realize he's doing it in schools founded by white men, built by whites, etc.

There's more in his Wikipedia entry: apparently he's Jewish, yet likened Israel to Nazi Germany.

When kids come up with these concepts, they get detention. When academics dream them up, they get tenure and publicity.

Post: #12

I disagree with the placement of Lincoln and Reagan/Bush on the above chart...because I agree with standards of a "liberal" as defined in the OP by KorbenDallas.

Lincoln should be near Lenin and Stalin.
Reagan/Bush should be nowhere near Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin.

Reagan raised taxes (Tax Reform Act of 1986, Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act – the largest tax increase in American history up to that time), tripled the debt, etc.) despite all his avuncular speeches that suggested the opposite.

That's why I can't stand so-called "Conservatives" (the DittoHead/Fox News crowd).
They are such hypocrites.

At least Liberal Demo-rats are much more honest...they say they want to raise taxes and make government bigger.
Conservative Republi-cons only TALK about low taxes and less government and do the exact opposite.

Post: #13

That guy is monstrous, both as a human and a "scientist". There is not one redeeming quality about his work. Not only does he spend his days spewing bullshit, he engages in parasitism on a mass scale. His life consists of throwing other people under the bus.

That said, I don't find his extreme-left view to be representative of the common "liberal". He is a product of that establishment gone wrong (in the sense that it dominates the national opinion and is lost to reason, not economics) and that should be tamed, but all extremes are a) just as bad and b) just as removed from the common adherent of that philosophy. Go to more conservative countries and observe far-right lunatics spouting hatred against everything, complete with actual calls for genocide like this.

To me, the left-right axis isn't a line with two opposite extremes, it's a circle, with Noel Ignatius, Hitler, Idi Amin and Pol Pot all standing at the top, side by side no matter how "opposite" they are. Most of the people on the circle, left or right, are fairly normal and can actually get along fairly well.

Post: #14

(11-25-2013 10:41 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Link

Saw this on Instapundit. Admits this view is common in academia.

He is a fellow at Harvad's leading black studies department. Meaning this sentiment is well received by blacks in that department. Anyone on here care to defend Noel Ignatiev? Also, I used to think Heartiste was an extremist. Now I think he's just got his head on straight. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. I used to think liberals were just naive. I'm starting to not buy it anymore. I don't understand how you can be red pill and a liberal. Liberals in academia applaud and accept a man who claims white men don't deserve to live and are a disease. I'll make sure to remember that next time a liberal talks about race.

What does it mean to be a 'fellow' at Harvard's black studies department? Is Harvard (and indirectly the US government) funding the spewing of this absolutely idiotic rhetoric disguised as academic writing? Honestly it wouldn't look out of place on a reverse stormfront style website, especially with all the posing and pretending to have in any way a legitimate argument.

Good news is, nobody takes these guys seriously.......right?

Post: #15

I don't know what it means to be a fellow. I almost regret posting this. I just wanted to throw it out there, because it shows that the left's posturing on race is just a weapon to get what they want. Because if the left really took racial issues seriously they would be just as mad at this guy as they would be at a KKK leader. You don't see that being the case. They not only accept this guy, he rises in academia!

Post: #16

self-loathing Jew. Pitiful yet hilarious.

Does the following make sense to anyone:

Quote:We do not hate you or anyone else for the color of her skin. What we hate is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their color. It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color. When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category. Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them. In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages.

How can you do away with a crown without doing away with the king? Strip the king of his title and he is no longer a king.

Likewise by this guy's definition you can remove someone's whiteness without getting rid of their skin color, which is just a play on words and lacks any substantive argument.

If his argument was to merely state that whites have too much power why couldn't he state it so succinctly? Because then he wouldn't appear radical enough to fit in. He has to use the term "whiteness" in a dogmatic way in order to seem extreme enough to fellow academics.

Basically this guy is a real piece of shit, an intellectual prostitute if you will.

Post: #17

From Ted Kaczynski's Manifesto:

Quote:Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (...) Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. (...) He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

Post: #18

(11-25-2013 11:21 PM)JackDavey Wrote:  When I was in college (late 90s) there was a group called the Society for the Abolition of Whiteness. Mostly rich white kids, which I'm sure surprises no one here. I'll be interested to learn what this professor thinks about "How the Irish Became White", though.

How quickly people forget, or how ignorant they are. This is always a good point.



That sign was printed in 1916.

Post: #19

(11-26-2013 05:41 AM)Icarus Wrote:  From Ted Kaczynski's Manifesto:

Quote:Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (...) Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. (...) He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

If only the RVF existed back then, perhaps he would have become a legendary manosphere figure instead of blowing things up. That passage is sublime.

Post: #20

I'm pretty sure the original article is from a satire site.

Post: #21

(11-26-2013 03:59 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  I don't know what it means to be a fellow. I almost regret posting this. I just wanted to throw it out there, because it shows that the left's posturing on race is just a weapon to get what they want. Because if the left really took racial issues seriously they would be just as mad at this guy as they would be at a KKK leader. You don't see that being the case. They not only accept this guy, he rises in academia!

No, I'm glad you posted it.

It's an important post because we're always talking about how higher education is useless if not outright harmful and this exposes that. It's almost as if this guy was a comedian satirizing the absolute worst excesses of academia.

Parents are paying for this. They should know that. Alumni are donating to support this guy. The more this gets out, the more they'll open their eyes.

Post: #22

(11-26-2013 07:24 AM)Collide Wrote:  I'm pretty sure the original article is from a satire site.

This. You've been had.


Other articles:

BREAKING NEWS: GEORGE ZIMMERMAN EATS 3-EGG OMELET

SIX YEAR OLD TRANSGENDERED GIRL SUFFERS FROM HATE CRIME IN SCHOOL RESTROOM

BRAVE WOMAN COMES FORWARD TO DENOUNCE FORMER HUSBAND’S REPEATED RAPES


From their Progressive Editorial And Ideological Guidelines:

Quote:African Americans are superior to whites as athletes in all fields. Whites do not enjoy any special abilities and are inferior to all other races in every way. The greatest honour that a white woman can ever have is to sleep with a black man, to become an African American’s girl friend or marry an African American man. If a white woman ever refuses the sexual advances of an African American, it is because she is a racist. Billboards, ads, television shows and movies must promote White woman and African-American man couplings in order to combat racism and solve the race problem.

Quote:There are no self made men, as Che Geuvara observed. All wealthy or rich people are class-oppressors who have wronged all poor people. The wealthy are created by inheritance, class-oppression and criminality never by hard work or self-sacrifice. To be poor, is to be honest, virtuous, uncompromised and noble. The homeless are homeless because of class oppression, no person chooses to be homeless and only the most ignorant believe that any are homeless owing to laziness, idleness or some type of inferiority.

Quote:Gender is not determined by biology or appearance but by the feelings of the individual. If a so-called “male” believes he is female inside, that establishes her true gender. Persons who will not recognize the true gender of an individual are ignorant bigots. A transgendered person may be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, polyamorous, heteroflexible, homoflexible, bi curious, vortex bisexual, androphile, gynephile, asexual or two-spirit. Ambisexterous persons are sometimes but not always transgendered. Third gender or intersex persons are neither male nor female.

etc.

Post: #23

(11-26-2013 08:42 AM)Soma Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 07:24 AM)Collide Wrote:  I'm pretty sure the original article is from a satire site.

This. You've been had.

Other articles:

BREAKING NEWS: GEORGE ZIMMERMAN EATS 3-EGG OMELET

SIX YEAR OLD TRANSGENDERED GIRL SUFFERS FROM HATE CRIME IN SCHOOL RESTROOM

BRAVE WOMAN COMES FORWARD TO DENOUNCE FORMER HUSBAND’S REPEATED RAPES


From their [url=http://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/diversity-chronicle-is-looking-for-writers/]Progressive Editorial And Ideological Guidelines:...

etc.

Yeah, I think some of the members of this forum are too eager to hang onto whatever appeals to their confirmation bias, even if it's a piece of satire/trolling.

Taking the red pill does not mean that you should let go of critical thinking, and especially not your sense of humour.

It's strange that we laugh at all the women who over-reacted to Tuthmosis' eating disorder article and yet on this forum there is routine hate being thrown at random internet articles too.

Post: #24

(11-26-2013 08:42 AM)Soma Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 07:24 AM)Collide Wrote:  I'm pretty sure the original article is from a satire site.

This. You've been had.

So why is there a Washington Times link?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002...657-6385r/

Post: #25

(11-25-2013 10:41 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  He is a fellow at Harvad's leading black studies department. Meaning this sentiment is well received by blacks in that department. Anyone on here care to defend Noel Ignatiev? Also, I used to think Heartiste was an extremist. Now I think he's just got his head on straight.

"Black Studies" departments are part of the progressive eunuchs' plan to civilize the black man. Deep inside progressives fear blacks. Therefore, progressives want to "educate" blacks, i.e., they want to domesticate them.

That is why progressive eunuchs love Obama. Obama is the quintessential domesticated negro. He talks like a Brahmin, is kind of a wuss, etc. He's the neutered negro, totally harmless. The progressive plan is yielding results!!! Soon, peace on Earth!!! We are getting there!!!

Progressives are non-theistic Christians. They believe that bliss will come in this life, not in the afterlife, but only if all humans are spiritually castrated. It's a non-theistic religion for modern slaves, eunuchs, and women. They fear freedom too much, which is why they hate Roosh. A free man is always subversive.