Post: #51

^^ Mate, many of us know here each other offline already. There is a lot of discussion that doesn't get posted and for good reason. I suggest meeting up with some of the RVF guys in your area to get started.

Post: #52

(11-30-2015 12:35 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 12:07 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  Personally, I think it's in bad taste to do something as petty as put pork in a halal section.

There are also many Muslim groups and sects that are against radical Muslims and such. Same thing with nonwhite people.
There are plenty of groups of color that participate in self protection.

The average muslim is only against radical Islam to the degree that they dislike the violence. When you poll Muslims the majority want it to be illegal to criticize their religion or to surreptitiously drop strips of raw bacon in their womenfolk's purses when they aren't looking.

What polls are these and where are they sourced?

Post: #53

(12-01-2015 06:50 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 12:35 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 12:07 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  Personally, I think it's in bad taste to do something as petty as put pork in a halal section.

There are also many Muslim groups and sects that are against radical Muslims and such. Same thing with nonwhite people.
There are plenty of groups of color that participate in self protection.

The average muslim is only against radical Islam to the degree that they dislike the violence. When you poll Muslims the majority want it to be illegal to criticize their religion or to surreptitiously drop strips of raw bacon in their womenfolk's purses when they aren't looking.

What polls are these and where are they sourced?

The majority supporting making it illegal to criticize Islam is one I've heard repeatedly, but here's the first thing that popped up on google:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/...-polls.htm

I'll admit to having made up the part about bacon.

Post: #54

(11-17-2015 01:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 01:04 PM)Fortis Wrote:  ^ Is that necessary? Why can't brown guys and non-brown people be in the same militia?

Because there isn't enough room in White countries for every Brown guy to come over. Of course the ones already here can join. But worldwide, Brown men outnumber White men 3:1, so why is it up to White guys to do everything?

I'm a black American, so why can't I join an American militia with white and black people.

Post: #55

If we're talking about organizing resistance I think we need to keep a few basic principles in mind. I like the chivalric order idea, but here's how to maximize it, in a way.

1. It's an international coalition to promote nationalism, a sort of solidarity among peoples that can rightly be seen as a friendship but also a desire to maintain their respective cultures. This forum is a good example of that.
2. Read the first act of the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It goes over organizational structures and subversive strategies to undermine regimes. It's fiction, but Heinlein was well-versed in history and was more prophetic than many of us would like. It should be organized in a form of cell structure with local chapters based on municipality. Perhaps there should be a public front to conceal more private moves (Law 3: Conceal Your Intentions).
3. There should be ranks and rituals that reward good behavior. This may sound odd, but these kinds of things promote brotherhood and status within the group, incentivizing people to do more and form social bonds.
4. There needs to be an agreement on overall doctrine. Anti-globalist liberalism is a given, but what else? The doctrine needs to encompass the group's overall objectives but be flexible enough to meet conditions on the ground in various localities.
5. While our order should be a fraternal one only comprised of men, we should make the effort to coordinate with red pill women and have them form and operate a sister organization. Even non-red pill women, if they're sufficiently attractive enough and suspicious of the goings-on in the world, should be invited and molded under the leadership of the real deal red pill women in the tradition of Marine Le Pen, for instance. Never underestimate the power of women to get men to do things. If more attractive women were less pliant, a lot more men would also be less pliant. That's just the way things are.
6. Roosh and Quintus mentioned on the last podcast that we need to get off the internet. I agree. Local leaders should hold routine conferences and meetups (perhaps part of that public distraction), higher profile guys should do an international tour, and the group should cooperate to get out the published works and businesses of members not only to spread the message but to help enrich them and thus make them independent of the corporate SJW-controlled power structure. Helping fellow members attain independent and livable sources of income should be a priority.
7. Likewise, we need to have good ways of raising revenue for the organization in general.
8. This one is more my opinion, but white nationalists and the like should not be welcome. Reading the response to Forney's article on ROK yesterday is just more evidence that these guys are more interested in ascribing magical powers to Jews and white knighting for white women than in actually promoting nationalism or combating the left. Roosh ("the Muslim") and Mike (whose wife is not white) have done more damage to the left than any of these guys ever have. We should have a "no enemies to the right" strategy (within limits) but be picky with who we ourselves associate with.

An appropriate post for #1776.

Post: #56

Lots of excellent suggestions in this thread. Although the name of this thread is a mess, its a good argument for commas. I first read it as resistance to the islamic invasion of this board or something like that lol.

I know people already know each other and meet up offline here, but I'm just saying I would encourage it more and not only to people in your area but worldwide.
In addition could we just create a group here, although people won't feel comfortable sharing their facebook details with everyone else here, is there a good anonymous chatgroup sort of thing we could do? This isn't an anti-islam group though, more just mutual support, self improvement, gaming even whatever.

Post: #57

(11-17-2015 12:19 AM)Roosh Wrote:  We did that for the Ukraine crisis and it did seem to work well. I shuffled those threads back to EE when things calmed down.

We'd have to decide what topics would go in the new subforum. Possibly these: European politics, immigration, terrorist attacks, Middle Eastern wars, traitors in European political and media elite.

I´d be curious whether the creation of a sub-forum is still on the agenda or not.
It could provide an opportunity for deeper discussion and more variety of threads for the members interested in those topics.

Currently everything gets shuffled into the massive Migrant Invasion thread and it´s not easy to keep track of what has already been discussed and what not, which has resulted in a few dupe threads and lots of dupe posts.

In a sub-forum those discussions could be split into some more precise and focused threads, which would make it more convenient to stay up to date and participate.

Post: #58

(11-17-2015 12:19 AM)Roosh Wrote:  We did that for the Ukraine crisis and it did seem to work well. I shuffled those threads back to EE when things calmed down.

We'd have to decide what topics would go in the new subforum. Possibly these: European politics, immigration, terrorist attacks, Middle Eastern wars, traitors in European political and media elite.

That last one is actually rather important to me. Years from now I would very much like to be able to draw from a list of offenders who are responsible. Even IF we somehow manage to turn the tide (doubtful but I'll bite) there will be a lot of blood to be paid. There will be suffering and huge personal sacrifices will have to be made in order to repair the damage and cultural reprogramming that are currently foisted upon us. We need to make sure that the people responsible will be held to account and most likely that will be a long long list. Because when shit hits the proverbial fan you just know that these same cats are all going to disappear to their respective offshore hideouts, leaving the mess for others to clean up.

Post: #59

(12-01-2015 12:51 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  Lots of excellent suggestions in this thread. Although the name of this thread is a mess, its a good argument for commas. I first read it as resistance to the islamic invasion of this board or something like that lol.

I know people already know each other and meet up offline here, but I'm just saying I would encourage it more and not only to people in your area but worldwide.
In addition could we just create a group here, although people won't feel comfortable sharing their facebook details with everyone else here, is there a good anonymous chatgroup sort of thing we could do? This isn't an anti-islam group though, more just mutual support, self improvement, gaming even whatever.

Guys I caution everyone to be be careful - this would probably require some intermediary who properly vets people. The other day some cat sent me a very suspicious private message here referring to the Europe Migration thread and trying to get me to connect via skype or email in order to buy knives and other weaponry from him. I reported it to Roosh who immediately banned the guy but I wonder how many others wound up responding with personal info.

Keep in mind that the enemy may be reading this forum and they probably would love to get their hands on our personal info. If you're lucky it's some SWJ dickweed trying to get you fired or embarrass you on social media - and if you're not it may be some ISIS sympathizer out for blood.

Post: #60

I don't like the proposed title for the new subforum, but I vouch for the concept.

A 'Politics' subforum would be ideal. 'Everything Else' can be for social topics with some political discussion, while 'Politics' can be for discussion of strictly political topics (Ex. Syrian Civil War, elections, new legislation, refugee crisis, etc).

Post: #61

(12-01-2015 03:08 PM)redpillage Wrote:  If you're lucky it's some SWJ dickweed trying to get you fired or embarrass you on social media - and if you're not it may be some ISIS sympathizer out for blood.

You have to worry about some doxxing SJW faggot much more than some ISIS guy. ISIS is only interested in shooting innocent unarmed people and anyone that looks like they will remotely put up a fight they will shrivel like an old man's bean bag.

Post: #62

(12-01-2015 07:09 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(12-01-2015 06:50 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 12:35 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 12:07 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  Personally, I think it's in bad taste to do something as petty as put pork in a halal section.

There are also many Muslim groups and sects that are against radical Muslims and such. Same thing with nonwhite people.
There are plenty of groups of color that participate in self protection.

The average Muslim is only against radical Islam to the degree that they dislike the violence. When you poll Muslims the majority want it to be illegal to criticize their religion or to surreptitiously drop strips of raw bacon in their womenfolk's purses when they aren't looking.

What polls are these and where are they sourced?

The majority supporting making it illegal to criticize Islam is one I've heard repeatedly, but here's the first thing that popped up on google:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/...-polls.htm

I'll admit to having made up the part about bacon.

Muslims seem to have a lot of problems and opinions.. but I don't believe all the random polls that come out. Many of them seem like they are sourced from blogs and such.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-lea...88204.html

Quote:It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and "studies" about the threat of shariah, and was administered using an unreliable methodology. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide.

42% of Americans period said public speech offensive to religious groups should not be allowed. I'm sure that there aren't that many Muslim American to sway those numbers.
You go anywhere in the South and you'll find a boatload of shotgun holding people saying it should be offensive to talk against the bible.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madi...survey.pdf
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/sofa


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/01...-49-R-46-O It appears that wentzel is pretty shitty as a poling source all together.

Post: #63

^ I would say, Sourcecode, that there's a lot of smoke coming from the Religion of Peace. And also plenty of fire.

Post: #64

Why would you read huffington post, let alone take it seriously? There should be a rule here against that.

There will always be lefties who cast doubt over the validity of the studies done, and then suggest that they probably have sinister ulterior motives. "oh well they didn't ask EVERY muslim, and it was kind of an unfair question. Plus they have a history of saying mean things about islam, so its bullshit".

These are the same tactics lefties use to try and discredit the entirety of evolutionary psychology and anthropology because they can't handle the racist and sexist truth that comes out of those studies.

Huffington Post is where you will find those people, because they simply cannot accept that it's not a religion of peace.

Lefties seem to have a hard time understanding generalisations and rules and always scream loudly about the exceptions they think of and how the studies weren't fair in someway.

No study is perfect and there will always be exceptions, so don't fall for lefties pointing that out.

Add all the studies up together with your experience of what muslims do and how offended and extreme they get in comparison to other religions and it will make sense.

There are loads of studies mentioned here about how many Muslims support Sharia Law and other extreme things. They all come to roughly the same amount each time. Are all of these studies using biased unfair questions as well?

Post: #65

First step: Define objective goals without buzzwords/jingoism which alienate partially compatible allies.

FOr instance: "the number of immigrants from MENA countries should be under X per year and based on higher education standards of Y or Z. "

Post: #66

(12-01-2015 10:34 AM)Libertas Wrote:  8. This one is more my opinion, but white nationalists and the like should not be welcome. Reading the response to Forney's article on ROK yesterday is just more evidence that these guys are more interested in ascribing magical powers to Jews and white knighting for white women than in actually promoting nationalism or combating the left. Roosh ("the Muslim") and Mike (whose wife is not white) have done more damage to the left than any of these guys ever have. We should have a "no enemies to the right" strategy (within limits) but be picky with who we ourselves associate with.

An appropriate post for #1776.

This is hugely relevant. People of every race and religion can agree that the global situation is heating up and we are going through a dangerous period in our history. They can also agree that we are in a state of cultural decline, and that our foreign policy in the Middle East has had disastrous effects across the world.

Western support for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States has given them free reign to spread their Wahhabbi ideology to every corner of the Islamic world. This ideology has preyed upon preexisting poverty and social problems and created a festering extremism that shows no signs of declining. Similarly, we've taken down secular dictators who, while brutal, were a necessary element in suppressing the radical Islamism propagated by Saudi-funded mullahs and madrassas. In short, this has created a situation of global Islamic terrorism that cannot actually be combated. Ideas are bulletproof, and the evil, anti-human ideology of Saudi Arabia has proliferated from France to Indonesia, from western China to Central Africa. These groups are starting to coalesce into larger bodies like Boko Haram and ISIS, but even if we hammer them with on-the-ground invasions and widescale bombing, their fundamental principles will be almost impossible to eradicate. Why? Because Western violence against Islamic countries are the soil that Wahhabism requires in order to grow, and poverty, poor infrastructure, and a lack of opportunity are its water and sunlight. Until these fundamental problems are addressed, this backwards, barbaric interpretation of Islam will never go away, and, like any virus or disease, will simply grow stronger and more resilient over time.

People of every race and religion across the world can agree that this needs to change. This interpretation of Islam has sown death and destruction across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, and it is beginning to seep into Europe and the United States. Once we start seeing more attacks like this in the western world--and, unfortunately, I believe that we will--there will be intense social discord. Americans and Western Europeans haven't faced such a visceral, in-your-face threat since the Nazis, and our hedonistic, disparate society will go insane in the face of it. Literally every party in the western world, from college libtards to mouth-breathing white nationalists, will explode into conflict. The contemporary west is a drought-stricken forest, and terrorism is the spark that will set the whole thing on fire. Racial strife, gun control, abortion--all of these are on the precipice of creating extreme violence.

While this process is unlikely to completely destabilize the western world, it will likely be extremely unpleasant, and most people, regardless of their background, would prefer to avoid it. And once most people learn the extent of our elites' treachery--their role in destablizing the Middle East, and fostering the extremism that endangers our entire society--they will likely coalesce around an ideology that seeks to fix our foreign policy and address the deep-seated cultural issues that afflict our side of the world.

Therefore, let's not adopt the ideas of lunatics who blame the Jews for every modern problem and want to return to a 1950's style racial situation. I have friends of every race who disagree with Germany's handling of refugees. I have friends of every background who disagree with our constant political idiocy, to say nothing of American involvement in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. If we are staging a political resistance to our elites, be it through lobbying or through other means, there's no need to adopt a racial stance--I can assure you that people of every race and religion are similarly disgusted with the current state of affairs.