Post: #176

First time I've ever heard of this King David Hotel bombing. Very interesting.

Post: #177

(04-07-2014 05:56 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 02:56 PM)soup Wrote:  What would happen if someone here made a thread called:

"Blacks"

?

or

"Whites" ?

There's a 40 page thread on Indians.

If someone started a thread on bad things that white people have done, there would be a shit storm around here.

Post: #178

(04-06-2014 02:51 PM)The Trader Wrote:  The Israelis are the original terrorists of the region but their overwhelming control of the education and media around the world does an impressive job at covering this up. They can whack 1000 palestinians but if a palestinian got lucky and whacked one of them with a home made rocket (think about that level of desperation) it will be around the world in headlines in a day and the response would be overwhelming.

I don't know where you live but it's overwhelmingly the opposite in most of the world. Criticism of Israel for killing Palestinians is MUCH more widespread in the media than outrage over Hamas attacks that kill Israeli civilians. Why? Beats me.

Democratic Israel is held to a higher moral standard in the media than its surrounding Arab neighbours. And as for Islamic terrorist organizations, they are just fighting for Palestinian freedom. Obviously.

Say what you like about the Jews but I'd rather live in Israel over Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt or any other country in the Middle East.

Post: #179

Maybe we could get all this shit settled with a poll.

Whose done more/worse things:

Jews?
Black?
Whites?
Asians?
American Indians?

Post: #180

(04-07-2014 10:46 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 05:56 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 02:56 PM)soup Wrote:  What would happen if someone here made a thread called:

"Blacks"

?

or

"Whites" ?

There's a 40 page thread on Indians.

If someone started a thread on bad things that white people have done, there would be a shit storm around here.

Wrong. No one would care, the thread would die within a few days.

Quote:Maybe we could get all this shit settled with a poll.

Whose done more/worse things:

Jews?
Black?
Whites?
Asians?
American Indians?

In general, I believe whites and chinese have done the most violence, but we cannot be sure since whites and chinese were the only ones to keep accurate historical records. For all we know, the lack of historical records is a strong indicator that these other races were so violent, no historical records survived the constant warfare.

Post: #181

(04-07-2014 02:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 10:46 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 05:56 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 02:56 PM)soup Wrote:  What would happen if someone here made a thread called:

"Blacks"

?

or

"Whites" ?

There's a 40 page thread on Indians.

If someone started a thread on bad things that white people have done, there would be a shit storm around here.

Wrong. No one would care, the thread would die within a few days.

Quote:Maybe we could get all this shit settled with a poll.

Whose done more/worse things:

Jews?
Black?
Whites?
Asians?
American Indians?

In general, I believe whites and chinese have done the most violence, but we cannot be sure since whites and chinese were the only ones to keep accurate historical records. For all we know, the lack of historical records is a strong indicator that these other races were so violent, no historical records survived the constant warfare.

I disagree. People around here would be up in arms saying that white people get shit all the time etc.
What's your evidence for Chinese being the worst?

Post: #182

I am white and British.

I am not bothered about discussing the bad things those two groups have done.

Indeed I actually think the British Empire was probably pretty evil.

http://exiledonline.com/book-review-anot...-genocide/

The above is a review written by War Nerd (John Dolan). A caustic and hilarious writer on war, history and geopolitics. He gives a persuasive account of the matter.

And lets not forget how badly the settlers treat the Native Americans. The Nazis on trial at Nuremberg referred to those atrocities as a way of trying to exculpate what Hitler did. The settlers must have been pretty bad if even Nazis use it to try and justify the Holocaust.

I dunno' if it is a British thing. But we are pretty chill about discussing the bad things our ancestors did. I couldn't care less either way what they did - since it is a subject I can look at objectively. Trying to pick a side and come up with a biased interpretation when studying history just confuses me.

It is retarded.

Post: #183

(04-07-2014 02:23 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I am white and British.

I am not bothered about discussing the bad things those two groups have done.

Indeed I actually think the British Empire was probably pretty evil.

http://exiledonline.com/book-review-anot...-genocide/

The above is a review written by War Nerd (John Dolan). A caustic and hilarious writer on war, history and geopolitics. He gives a persuasive account of the matter.

And lets not forget how badly the settlers teat the Native Americans. The Nazis on trial at Nuremberg referred to those atrocities as a way of trying to exculpate what Hitler did. The settlers must have been pretty bad if even Nazis use it to try and justify the Holocaust.

I dunno' if it is a British thing. But we are pretty chill about discussing the bad things our ancestors did. I couldn't care less either way what they did - since it is a subject I can look at objectively. Trying to pick a side and come up with a biased interpretation when studying history just confuses me.

It is retarded.

I guess those Nazi arguments didn't work very well. The only thing comparable to the Nazi exterminations was the trail of tears, but even that wasn't close to the scale of the death camps.

Post: #184

(04-07-2014 02:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 10:46 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 05:56 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 02:56 PM)soup Wrote:  What would happen if someone here made a thread called:

"Blacks"

?

or

"Whites" ?

There's a 40 page thread on Indians.

If someone started a thread on bad things that white people have done, there would be a shit storm around here.

Wrong. No one would care, the thread would die within a few days.

Quote:Maybe we could get all this shit settled with a poll.

Whose done more/worse things:

Jews?
Black?
Whites?
Asians?
American Indians?

In general, I believe whites and chinese have done the most violence, but we cannot be sure since whites and chinese were the only ones to keep accurate historical records. For all we know, the lack of historical records is a strong indicator that these other races were so violent, no historical records survived the constant warfare.

If we're talking about what ethnic group has inflicted the most violence on OTHER ethnic groups, my pick would be Anglos and Spaniards.

Chinese have mostly inflicted pain and suffering on their own people. They've had less foreign wars in their 5000 year history then the US has had in it's 300 year history. Mostly they've fought each other in the various civil wars and dynasty changes.

Post: #185

Looking at modern Chin in that light is dull witted at best. Those smaller nations that compose the larger Chinese republic today saw their lands as autonomous as any other country would. to attempt differentiating who is 'less bad' by who they went to war with, by those means, is intellectually dishonest

Post: #186

(04-07-2014 04:06 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 02:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 10:46 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 05:56 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 02:56 PM)soup Wrote:  What would happen if someone here made a thread called:

"Blacks"

?

or

"Whites" ?

There's a 40 page thread on Indians.

If someone started a thread on bad things that white people have done, there would be a shit storm around here.

Wrong. No one would care, the thread would die within a few days.

Quote:Maybe we could get all this shit settled with a poll.

Whose done more/worse things:

Jews?
Black?
Whites?
Asians?
American Indians?

In general, I believe whites and chinese have done the most violence, but we cannot be sure since whites and chinese were the only ones to keep accurate historical records. For all we know, the lack of historical records is a strong indicator that these other races were so violent, no historical records survived the constant warfare.

If we're talking about what ethnic group has inflicted the most violence on OTHER ethnic groups, my pick would be Anglos and Spaniards.

Chinese have mostly inflicted pain and suffering on their own people. They've had less foreign wars in their 5000 year history then the US has had in it's 300 year history. Mostly they've fought each other in the various civil wars and dynasty changes.

The vast majority of white wars have been amongst themselves. The amount of violence whites have inflected on other people's is approximately half of what they have inflected on themselves according to white history. Whites are an incredibly violent race.

For most of white history, the only times of white land expansion on non-white lands occurred during Alexander the Great, Imperial Rome, and America. That's only about 1200 years of history, out of a recorded 2500, and even during these times of expansion the civil wars within, or between, white tribes never ended. So at best you're looking at a 2:1 ratio.

The reason whites invade other lands is because of the never-ending conflicts they have between each other. Colonialism, the Cold War, you name it - all invasions of other lands start as white vs. white conflict.

The invasion of Sicily by Athens during the Peloponnesian War is a great example of this phenomena.

I don't really get when minorities say they have been victimized by whites, because I think they mis-interpret actions of whites as racially based when in fact whites simply have a strong evil streak in them. Whites can and will take advantage of anyone that benefits them; they have no prejudice about what race of the person is.

I agree that all races are already like this, but my studies tell me whites are more prone to betrayal, ruthlessness, and sheer opportunism than most others.

What other race can boast that they sacked one of their own capital cities for profit?

The amount of scheming, lying, and backstabbing in most white history and current society was the main reason Puritans left for America. They wanted to get away from all of that.

Post: #187

What about the Spanish in Central and South America or the British and other Europeans carving up Africa?

On the other hand, you could argue that the reason the whites have been responsible for so much colonialsim is simply because unlike other ethnicities, they had not only the means but also the desire to explore outside of their realm. Most non-whites just never seem that interested in seafaring or going out of their ways to explore the globe. They either didn't have the technology to or they didn't have the desire to ie. Zhang He and his treasure fleet that was exploring the west coast of Africa which was eventually stopped because the Chinese Imperial court simply was not interested in continuing the voyages and thought it was a waste of resources. Perhaps if Africans or Azetcs/Incans/Mayans had the same technology that Europeans did, they would have been going out there conquering other peoples the same way Europeans did.

Post: #188

^^^^^^^^^^ Every single race has colonised or being colonised by outsiders the only reason why you say "whites have been responsible for so much colonialism" is because its been the most documented and studied.

What about the ottoman empire that ruled large parts of the middle east and large parts of eastern europe and nearly conquered western europe as late as the 17th century.

People also forget that europe only managed to defeat the last of the muslims in mainland europe in 1492 when the spanish defeated the last of the moors in present day spain.

Africa and the Americas were also full to a diverse range of waring tribes who competed to build empires the Aztects being an example in Central America and the Kongo Empire in Africa.

Post: #189

Men just have a predisposition to kill each other. Has been going on for thousands of years.

Doesn't matter what race they may be.

Post: #190

(04-07-2014 02:23 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Indeed I actually think the British Empire was probably pretty evil.

You can't be an empire without being an evil empire.

Post: #191

(04-07-2014 02:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I guess those Nazi arguments didn't work very well. The only thing comparable to the Nazi exterminations was the trail of tears, but even that wasn't close to the scale of the death camps.

Of course, there are many who say there never were any death camps. That movement seems to gaining ground and momentum, with this film coming out just recently.

http://gaschamberhoax.com/jewish-gas-chamber-hoax/

Post: #192

(04-07-2014 02:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I guess those Nazi arguments didn't work very well. The only thing comparable to the Nazi exterminations was the trail of tears, but even that wasn't close to the scale of the death camps.

No one compares to Stalin.

Post: #193

Mao Ze Dong out did Stalin in terms of mass murdering of his own people.

Post: #194

^^ Massive amounts of people died in the Congo ontop of that...

Something like 8 million died through that decade conflict.

Plus there were the tens of millions hacked and killed during the Belgium butchering during colonial times. Congo is sadly up there as one of the few nations with obscene death counts from conflicts and mass killings.

Post: #195

(04-07-2014 08:06 PM)Vacancier Permanent Wrote:  Mao Ze Dong out did Stalin in terms of mass murdering of his own people.

Post: #196

Very interesting video! Thank you for sharing this tiggaline!

(04-07-2014 07:49 PM)tiggaling Wrote:  Of course, there are many who say there never were any death camps. That movement seems to gaining ground and momentum, with this film coming out just recently.

http://gaschamberhoax.com/jewish-gas-chamber-hoax/

Post: #197

A few pages back, one of board members, soup, asked this question:

Quote:What would happen if someone here made a thread called:
"Blacks"
?
or
"Whites" ?

I don't want to speak for him, but I think his point was that people feel free to say nasty things about the Jews, at least here, that they wouldn't feel free to say about other groups.

Now, maybe that's true, and maybe it isn't, but I have to say that I was highly impressed by what I saw. In this thread people made arguments, and the Jews on the forum showed up and answered them. Honestly, I thought the Jewish people (or their defenders) had the upper hand, but I learned a lot from reading it. I was particularly impressed by Roosh's hands-off approach, and the fact that it resulted in an actual discussion as opposed to people simply hurling insults at each other.

I think this forum is one of the few places left where you can have a discussion like that. The only other place I can think of where you're even allowed to question if a group might have positive or negative aspects is something like Stormfront, and God help the Jew who shows up to defend his people there. We've become so terrified of the labels "anti-semite" or "racist" that nobody talks. Any time you have an "honest discussion on race", a phrase we heard often during the Treyvon Martin trial, what you end up with is a bunch of hurled accusations. There's no exchange of knowledge, and nobody's changing their opinion or learning anything.

And I think that's dangerous, not only because of its effects on society, but it's dangerous to the groups themselves. I'll give you an example from the early page of the other thread. Samseau wrote that the reason the Jews were so successful is that they stick together; they'll gladly conspire to screw over an outsider. Is this true? I don't have any personal experience in the matter, but I know for a fact that:
A.) Jewish people occupy positions of power and influence in the US far disproportionate to their numbers.
B.) Any racial or religious group has a tendency to favor its own people over others. I know from experience (and I'm sure you all do too) that people are more comfortable with their in-group than they are with outsiders, and there's no reason to assume that the Jews are any different.

So on the surface, it seems like a fairly plausible argument! But Athlone McGinnis's article for RoK, which I assume was written in response, makes what seems to me to be a much stronger argument. He links their success to IQ and possibly cultural factors.

I can tell you how this discussion would've go down in most places. Samseau would've made his argument, and he would've been immediately shouted out of the room. "You are Hitler," he would've been told. "You want a second holocaust." No one would bother refuting his argument because the operating premise would be that he's a monster and therefore there's no need to even consider what he says. But what does this mean to an unbiased observer, who doesn't know a lot of Jews, doesn't think about them a lot, and doesn't really care?
Samseau makes an argument, and instead of a counter-argument, the only response he gets is a flurry of ad hominem. When that happens, the only conclusion that can be drawn in that circumstance is that SAMSEAU IS RIGHT. If he wasn't, somebody would've called him on it. Like the lawyers say, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When they're not, pound the table. So if somebody's pounding the table, it usually means he can't win the argument on his own. That's why ad hominem is a losing strategy, and unfortunately it's one that minority groups are very fond of these days. I worry that it's going to blow up in their face.

Post: #198

(04-07-2014 09:35 PM)kosko Wrote:  ^^ Massive amounts of people died in the Congo ontop of that...

Source validity is always a concern and I haven't verified this, but in reference to Kosko's fact, and the original thread premise: http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/..._congo.htm

After reading Athlone's piece in RoK today, I'll drop something more substantial in here later on when I have some time.

Post: #199

Quote:And I think that's dangerous, not only because of its effects on society, but it's dangerous to the groups themselves. I'll give you an example from the early page of the other thread. Samseau wrote that the reason the Jews were so successful is that they stick together; they'll gladly conspire to screw over an outsider. Is this true? I don't have any personal experience in the matter, but I know for a fact that:
A.) Jewish people occupy positions of power and influence in the US far disproportionate to their numbers.
B.) Any racial or religious group has a tendency to favor its own people over others. I know from experience (and I'm sure you all do too) that people are more comfortable with their in-group than they are with outsiders, and there's no reason to assume that the Jews are any different.

So on the surface, it seems like a fairly plausible argument! But Athlone McGinnis's article for RoK, which I assume was written in response, makes what seems to me to be a much stronger argument. He links their success to IQ and possibly cultural factors.

It's a combination of the two.

Your typical gang will stick together and fight to the death for one another but they don't have the brainpower to do much beyond the area they physically occupy.

On the flipside, the smartest guy around isn't going to go far without some networking. Hell, networking is basically the biggest selling point of college anymore.

Jews simply combine the two better than other groups. To use the religion angle, I'm catholic but I don't take that into account when making a business or personal relationship decision. I'm not familiar with anyone that does and much of my family does go to church and have businesses.

Jews on the other hand are famous for working within their group and it pays off for them as they are able to squeeze out others that are not as coordinated. I commend them for it.

When discussing this the "Skull and Bones" society comes to mind as they seemingly operate the same way, scratching each other's back on the way to the top. I recall the society being talked about disparagingly during W's presidency, yet it is not PC to discuss the way Jews operate in polite society...

Thank the Holocaust and the free reign it delivers for that.

Post: #200

(04-07-2014 07:49 PM)tiggaling Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 02:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I guess those Nazi arguments didn't work very well. The only thing comparable to the Nazi exterminations was the trail of tears, but even that wasn't close to the scale of the death camps.

Of course, there are many who say there never were any death camps. That movement seems to gaining ground and momentum, with this film coming out just recently.

http://gaschamberhoax.com/jewish-gas-chamber-hoax/

Another massive conspiracy depending on hundreds of thousands of people lying or remaining silent, including Generals Eisenhower and Patton, Field Marshal Montgomery and many many UK and US soldiers! Who knew?

There are "many people" who say the world was created in 4004 BC, the moon landings were faked and the WTC went down in a controlled detonation, too.

Those comments at Athlone's article on ROK are quite a cesspool.

This racist / anti Semite stuff is going to ruin the men's movement.