GTX0 Announcements | RoadmapFeedbackHelp | SandboxNewest Posts | Replies | Hottest
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Politics & Religion


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"My family is more important than my party." - Zell Miller


http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/richard-spencer-the-alt-right-is-not-pro-free-speech/
Just in case anyone was still confused about the alt-right’s intentions, despite their constant claims that they care so deeply about free speech. They don’t give a damn about free speech or any principles other than greed and racism, and here we have Spencer himself admitting it on video. Free speech just a pet issue they’ve attached themselves to in order to recruit new members. In fact, the reality is, Spencer and his minions actively want to censor speech they dislike. Remember this the next time they cry, “Muh free apeech”.

Oh, and btw, the fiercest ACTUAL free speech adovcate in America is the evil librul commie ACLU.

settingsOptions
There are 51 Replies

The alt-right, as currently defined, is a reaction against the censoriousness and group-based identity politics of the "liberal" left. As such, it has pretty much replicated it. It just represents (or purports to represent) the interests of whites rather than some other racial group.

It falls into the same trap that all identity politics does. It puts the group above the individual and has no room left for liberty. Antifa and the alt-right are two sides of the same coin. Fortunately, both seem to be in a tiny minority, though they are causing mischief beyond their numbers.

Edited May 30th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

^ i never see the left blaming conservatives for problems with other leftists, but the right blames the left for right wing racism all the fucking time. it's absolute nonsense. if anything, the alt right is a reaction to a black president and a more tolerant society. those are good things. blame the rwcost tards for their stupid reaction, not us.

Posted May 30th by poptart!
poptart!
 



Posted May 30th by #85
#85

Same old tired Horseshoe theory.

As if you are going to get ISIS, MS-13, Communists, etc to read and embrace John Locke.

There is plenty of precedent for speech censorship. What the left always tries to get censored is "hate speech" which is not only arbitrary, but ruled by the Supreme Court as protected. Case law Bradenburg v. Ohio.

Communism itself is a seditious ideology. You have antifa who want to fundementally teardown the system and are protected by the establishment media. They were never even named before the alt right marched in Charlottesville.

You have a law still on the books, the Communist Control Act. You had congressmen trying to name the communists and you had JFK, as we learned in the recently declassified JFK files, was assassinated in a Communist plot.

Karl Marx own doctrine is all spelled out. He advocates violent revolution. In countries which are more democratic, the route he suggests to follow is much slower. Transitioning eventually from democratic socialism to full blown communism.

No, Marxist ideologies should not have free speech. Only right wing speech is censored, however. It shows who really is the establishment here.



Edited May 30th by #85
#85

So much for free speech.

Posted May 30th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Spencer is correct.

Posted May 30th by #85
#85

No he is not. You sound like those ethnic studies students from my university. Who protested to get an alt right nut job expelled from the campus. You can't pick and choose what stays and what goes. It opens up a huge can of worms. What happens when every one starts swinging to the middle and whats to ban far right views?

Posted May 30th by S.o h
S.o h
 

As I said, far right views are already being banned while far left views are promoted.

As I said there is precedent. Aliens and Seditious Act, Communist Control Act, Internment of the Japanese, etc.

Treasonous, seditious acts are not protected. Pointing out something factual but "offensive" should be protected.

Posted May 30th by #85
#85

Look at Tommy Robinson. I'm not a fan, because he is a zionist shill. But he was simply covering a story about Muslim rape gangs grooming and trafficking children. This happened in more than one area, over decades, to thousands and thousands of children. Police overlooked it, but arrested a native for daring to talk about it.

Posted May 30th by #85
#85

i never see the left blaming conservatives for problems with other leftists, but the right blames the left for right wing racism all the fucking time.

That's because the left hardly ever see the problem with other leftists.

I'm not blaming the left entirely for the alt-right, but I do think it grew out of the narrative that society is a set of competing identities. It was inevitable that out of this, straight, white males would think "if this is how it's got to be, then why don't we stand up for our own identity?"

There are plenty of problems on the right that have nothing to do with the left. Homophobia on the right, for example. Or anti-Semitism on the right. Or the right's position on abortion.

But I do think there is a connection between identity politics and the rise of the alt-right.

Posted May 30th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

There is a precedent

acts supported more or less by those on the right.

you don't strike me as some one who would be against the internment of the Japanese. Or the condemning of communist.

as for tommy Robinson. The UK has a long history of censorship. What else is new.

the government is not gonna crack down or censor your views. Society however will ostracize you for being so backward.



Edited May 30th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

SOHA CHECK THE SEVEN YWSRBOOD BLOODT BELOW THAT YOU RESPPNDED TO.

Posted May 30th by Weid man
Weid man
 

that society is a set of competing identities.

Sounds like nature/the natural order to me. Yes it's real.

Posted May 30th by #85
#85



Tommy did the thing a lot of people on the "soft right" (as I call them) do. The rights equivalent of virtue signaling to the left (how is that for a horseshoe?)

Still got locked up.

Posted May 30th by #85
#85

Pardon my caps lock. My thumbs are bad at hitting the shift key.

Posted May 30th by Weid man
Weid man
 

I'm not sure if its fair to compare the "free speech" of the UK to that of the U.S. it is my understanding that their free speech is a Helluva lot more restricting than ours and was recently established and implemented under common law close to 20-30 years ago if memory serves me right.

Like o said I don't see the feds cracking down on the extreme right. Now if members of the extreme right are planning another terrorist attack like the one carried out in the 90s I'm all for shutting down those particularly violent groups. (Same goes for radical Muslim groups)

Posted May 30th by S.o h.
S.o h.
 

Richard Spencer website was shut down, many far right banned from twitter. Nothing violent said.

Posted May 30th by #85
#85

Those weren't shut down by the governemnt. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government not from privately owned platforms.

The NFL is cracking down on foot ball players,ergo employees?, who practice their first amendment right. But you are strangely quiet when it comes to that.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up Twitter. The Donald, the president of the united states, is blocking users and you scuffed at the idea that he was infringing on peoples first amendment rights.

So which is it?


The only thing the government has shut down recently to my knowledge is various escort sites. Funnily enough this did very little to combat human trafficking and works against sex workers.

Posted May 30th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Sounds like nature/the natural order to me. Yes it's real.

It didn't used to be that way. Seems like there was a time when all that mattered was that you were an American.

Tommy did the thing a lot of people on the "soft right" (as I call them) do. The rights equivalent of virtue signaling to the left

Tommy has never shown any sign of racism, homophobia, or any sort of bigotry. He has only ever expressed concern over the creeping influence of Islamism, and the effect it has had, in particular, on working class communities.

That tweet wasn't virtue-signalling, it was his genuinely held beliefs. Tommy is a liberal. He has never had any truck with Nazis. He spent much of his time in the EDL fighting against BNP knuckleheads. It's a sign of our times that a man who 50 years ago would have been regarded as a liberal is now regarded as "far-right". He isn't. He's just a working class bloke with a troubled past who has concerns about Islamism.

Still got locked up.

He got locked up because he breached the terms of his parole.

I'm not sure if its fair to compare the "free speech" of the UK to that of the U.S. it is my understanding that their free speech is a Helluva lot more restricting than ours and was recently established and implemented under common law close to 20-30 years ago if memory serves me right.

Britain has a tradition of "fair play" and an unwritten constitution. Our rights and liberties were not enshrined in law because it was felt they didn't need to be. The British tradition of free speech is older, and inspired the US Constitution.

But our refusal to write anything down has been a historical error. The founding fathers recognised that liberty must be enshrined in law to protect it. The first amendment has guaranteed Americans free speech, whereas ours has been eroded away.

Yours would too if it weren't for the Constitution. Excuses are always being made to curb speech. It is only the first amendment that has protected you.

Posted May 30th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple


That tweet wasn't virtue-signalling, it was his genuinely held beliefs. Tommy is a liberal. He has never had any truck with Nazis. He spent much of his time in the EDL fighting against BNP knuckleheads. It's a sign of our times that a man who 50 years ago would have been regarded as a liberal is now regarded as "far-right". He isn't. He's just a working class bloke with a troubled past who has concerns about Islamism.

As Americans we should not be comparing our liberals and conservatives to those of other countries. What runs as a liberal here is on par with what a French man Frenchman or Englishman would consider to be a conservative and vice versa.

I dont think this tommy fellow would agree with the politics of 85. If anything I would bet good money hed try to punch 85 after a few beers for spewing nonsense.


Yours would too if it weren't for the Constitution. Excuses are always being made to curb speech. It is only the first amendment that has protected you.

I'd say its the combination of the first and second amendment. But thank s for the history lesson.

Posted May 30th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

As Americans we should not be comparing our liberals and conservatives to those of other countries. What runs as a liberal here is on par with what a French man Frenchman or Englishman would consider to be a conservative and vice versa.

We have actually prevented what Americans regard as conservatives from entering the country because they were deemed to pose a threat to peace in this country. We're a fucking joke.

I dont think this tommy fellow would agree with the politics of 85. If anything I would bet good money hed try to punch 85 after a few beers for spewing nonsense.

Couldn't agree more.

I'd say its the combination of the first and second amendment.

Well, I don't know how much of an effect the second amendment has had on protecting the first. But it seems like the reverence Americans have for their Constitution, and the taboo there is against amending it, has served to protect Americans' rights while across the rest of the Western world our rights are under threat.

Posted May 30th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

Tommy was in the BNP himself. There is this thing some conservatives do where they have to be zionist or else they won't get Jew money.

Posted May 30th by #85
#85

We have actually prevented what Americans regard as conservatives from entering the country because they were deemed to pose a threat to peace in this country. We're a fucking joke.

any sources on this? Something tells me you don't want people like 85 migrating to the UK. Unless you are talking about Milo. Nothing about him screams American conservatism imo. Actually I find it hilarious that any American "conservative" would want to move to the UK or Europe in general. These people bitch about socialism and the welfare state but want to move to a place that is more or less the thing they bitch about. Thats wild to me

served to protect Americans' rights while across the rest of the Western world our rights are under threat.

I guess that's what happens when those rights were never jotted down on paper and rooted into your legal documents. I wonder if they would be under threat if the lot of you had access to weapons. I dont believe the average militia would be able to deter any modern army or the state from doing what it wanrs but its enough to be able to bargain against any state entity.

the attack on free speech isn't exclusive to the UK while 85 moans about the left wanting to do away with free speech the reality of the situation is that right wing leaders have done more to strip away free speech than any leftist has.

Posted May 30th by S.o h.
S.o h.
 

The alt-right, as currently defined, is a reaction against the censoriousness and group-based identity politics of the "liberal" left. As such, it has pretty much replicated it.

I would agree with that to an extent. It’s just important to remember that the SJW wave was not random; it was a reaction to the Tea Party, Birtherism and the fag-obsessed evangelical movement of the mid 2000s like poptart hinted at.

Antifa and the alt-right are two sides of the same coin.

Again, I agree to an extent. The thing is, there are two different antifas: there are the wannabe revolutionary rich college kids who like to deplatform and yell about privilege, and then there are the working class Joes who have largely grown up around casual white supremacy, who know about the history of racialist movements in the US and who go out to protest when literal Nazis come marching into their hometowns chanting threatening slogans. I would actually liken the alt-right more to Tumblr feminists and SJWs than antifa, though obviously there is some overlap when it comes to campus “anti fascists”.

That's because the left hardly ever see the problem with other leftists.

Lol. If this is what you think, you definitely need to check out Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski.

Also, if you want a more centrist (but still sincere) left wing voice, look up Howard Bloom if you haven’t before. I don’t always agree with him, especially on foreign policy, but he is sensible, respectable and very interesting to listen to. He has also had an interesting life. Dealt with chronic fatigue where he couldn’t leave his bed for several years, mostly a scientist but also a former PR guy who worked with the likes of Michael Jackson. Also likes to credit himself with starting the 60s counterculture lol.

the narrative that society is a set of competing identities.

You know, “identity politics” used to be a problem almost exclusively on the right, with various incarnations of racial and/or identitarian movements promoted as a divide and conquer tactic by the ruling classes throughout history. But now it seems to be almost as big of a problem on the left, which is intriguing and a bit troubling. Traditionally the left bickers among itself over policy, economic justice and ideology, but now it has a sort of racial/gender/regional hierarchy of its own which mirrors the identitarianism often seen on the right, only it is based on supposed victimhood status rather than supposed superiority.


It didn't used to be that way. Seems like there was a time when all that mattered was that you were an American.

American history is rife with racial and tribal conflict. Don’t let the relative serenity of post-WW2/post-segregation America fool you. What we are seeing now is pretty much how America has been for a good 80 percent of its history.

My theory is, the wealth of post-WW2 America made it so that even the poorest were much better off relatively speaking, so tribal fear and distrust were kept to a minimum, which allowed for shaky but mostly successful desegregation, tolerance and even cohesion between the races. The second you bring back economic despair or especially inequality to the masses, tensions begin to build again. Ironically, liberal and social democratic economic policies helped maintain the status quo for a long time in America. But all of that is breaking down as our government becomes more right wing, and more importantly, more subservient to corporations and organizations as opposed to the citizens.

The founding fathers recognised that liberty must be enshrined in law to protect it. The first amendment has guaranteed Americans free speech, whereas ours has been eroded away.

Our founders were absolute geniuses for immortalizing free speech. As much as everyone (myself included sometimes) whines that free speech in America just ain’t what it used to be (and there are legitimate grievances), we actually have more freedom of speech and expression now (circa 1960s-70s to present) simply because nearly every American reveres the concept and expects/demands it. I don't think this would be the case if we didn’t have the First Amendment, and there is a reason it is first.





Edited May 30th by pacman
pacman
 

Remember this the next time they cry, “Muh free apeech”.

There's only one reason that "free speech" is a rallying cry on the right, and it's because the radical left is censorious and to the apparent apathy of the institutionalized center left. There is no better example of this relationship at work than our universities that see college administrators acquiescing to the commissars within their student population.

The right, particularly as it manifests on the internet and in new media (though these things are all now bleeding into the mainstream) possesses a counter cultural bend to it. It's occasionally hilarious, and occasionally troubling, but mostly I get to derive some personal satisfaction now that the left has managed to lose something, meaning a perception of itself, that it has cherished for decades. They are no longer rebels, but they pretend to be even as they simultaneously posture as moral guardians against the evils of everything from Halloween costumes to firearms to benign affirmations that it is okay to be white. Even the #resistance has this sort of sanitized, lifeless character to it, with the full support of the powers that be (to the extent that they are). What bigger giveaway was there than the hashtag, after all? Put another way, the left as it currently exists is a perfectly logical abstraction of Tom Morello. Someone needs to tell grandpa that he's a part of the system and has been for years.

Posted May 30th by Famov
Famov

By “they”, I mean alt-right Richard Spencer types whose ideologies actively oppose free speech even though they benefit from that very freedom and even use it as an insincere talking point so they can recruit those who might otherwise be well-meaning. This isn’t really related to the rest of the right, amd certainly not your brand of conservatism.

Mainly, I posted this article/video as proof that 85 and people like him on the alt right aren’t pro free speech. In fact they very much oppose it as he is proving in this thread, so we ought to conceive of someone like 85 as a totalitarian who despises free speech, rather than some edgy, countercultural renegade as they are often presented even by much of their opposition.

Posted May 30th by pacman
pacman
 

we actually have more freedom of speech and expression now (circa 1960s-70s to present) simply because nearly every American reveres the concept and expects/demands it. I don't think this would be the case if we didn’t have the First Amendment, and there is a reason it is first.

I agree but At the same time disagree. The 1968 Civil Rights Act gave the government the power to shut down free speech specifically ones ability to protest. The government has the ability to interpret any form of protest as a riot, shut it down, and imprison those behind it regardless of what their intentions are. (They have the power to shut down peaceful protest) Last I checked this legislation has not been repealed.


There is no better example of this relationship at work than our universities that see college administrators acquiescing to the commissars within their student population.

This is a load of bullshit. Im from California a haven for all liberals. And our institutions have defended free speech for both sides. Currently UC Merced is backing the Republican club on its campus which is primarily composed of Trump Era Republicans who go out of their way to antagonize and troll the other leftist clubs on campus. Said clubs have moved to remove and defund the republican club but the University of California have moved to protect the clubs and its various members right to free speech.

In my university the administration refused to expel a member of the Alt Right from the campus. Once again protecting that individuals right to free speech against those on the left who wanted him removed. You have to be extremely delusional to believe that modern day Universities are willingly catering to the "commissars" of their respective student bodies.

If you are talking about Universities refusing to host Milo or other far right "leaders" on their campus, than surely you of all people are intelligent enough to understand that hosting said individual may result in serious property damage for said school if and when "protesters" show up and take it too far. Additionally, said protests would create bad PR for the school which in the long run will cost them money. End of the day I disagree with this, but I am sure if you are anything like me you would prefer your tax paying dollars go to something other than covering the property damage of a University.



Edited May 30th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

I agree but At the same time disagree. The 1968 Civil Rights Act gave the government the power to shut down free speech specifically ones ability to protest. The government has the ability to interpret any form of protest as a riot, shut it down, and imprison those behind it regardless of what their intentions are. (They have the power to shut down peaceful protest) Last I checked this legislation has not been repealed.

You’re completely right about this. When the masses really started demanding their individual freedoms and autonomy in the 50s and 60s, the government naturally did a big reining in of liberty - massive drug crackdown, crackdown on protest and antiwar activity, FBI stalking and threatening civil rights leaders, etc. So, in the short term, there was a definite crackdown on free expression, but over the long term these battles changed the way Americans think about their own freedoms, the way we think about civil righte, profanity, sex, drugs, protest, “official government stories”, etc. And despite (or perhaps because of) said government crackdowns, modern generations from the 1960s onward are constantly asking “Is this constitutional?” “Does this violate the First Amendment?” Basically, the idea of a regular citizen defending his/her rights is much more prominent in the political zeitgeist than it ever has been.

But of course, now that our wealth and power are in decline, there seems to be a renewed emphasis on stability and making the country strong while rights and liberty will eventually become backseat issues at best.

Edited May 30th by pacman
pacman
 

Basically, the idea of a regular citizen defending his/her rights is much more prominent in the political zeitgeist than it ever has been.

I agree with your interpretation.

Posted May 30th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

I mean alt-right Richard Spencer types whose ideologies actively oppose free speech even though they benefit from that very freedom and even use it as an insincere talking point so they can recruit those who might otherwise be well-meaning

I mean what do you think all these Marxists are doing ? Why are masked communist thugs showing up to Richard Spencer's events and trying to shut it down ? It's not just "alt right" types they are doing it to. Even milktoast on the right like Tommy Robinson or Milo or Lauren Southern. The left is about censoring speech, not preserving it.

In fact they very much oppose it as he is proving in this thread,

And yet still no counters to the judicial and legislative points I made.

conceive of someone like 85 as a totalitarian who despises free speech

Free speech is a good idea, sure. I don't support giving an enemy tools, however.

rather than some edgy, countercultural renegade as they are often presented even by much of their opposition.

That's exactly what we are doing, though. A good book covering this is fascist philosopher Julius Evola's "Revolt Against the Modern World". That is what we are doing and rejecting.

Posted May 30th by #85
#85

The left is about censoring speech, not preserving it.


Free speech is a good idea, sure. I don't support giving an enemy tools, however.



????????????????


Lmao further proving that you are against free speech and a bigger threat than any marxist nut job.

THE LEFT WANTS TO CENSOR FREE SPEECH....FREE SPEECH IS NOT SOMETHING THE LEFT CAN HAVE.- 85.





Posted May 30th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Very happy to see that no one (not even 85) has disputed what I said about the ACLU.

Posted May 30th by pacman
pacman
 

I'll dispute it. (While you will ignore mine because they are uncounterable facts)

Charlottesville the ACLU agreed to represent the alt right and protect their right to free speech.

Now they aren't doing anything. And it was a 1st amendment violation if you read the Haephy Report the city government and police colluded to shut it down.

Posted May 30th by #85
#85

I made that last post with the sole intention of baiting you to make a post attempting to attack the ACLU, likely with no success. Holy shit you’re predictable lol

Posted May 30th by pacman
pacman
 

(While you will ignore mine because they are uncounterable facts)


I loled.

Posted May 30th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

"That's because the left hardly ever see the problem with other leftists"

maybe you don't see it because you're not in the bubble, but leftist infighting is a meme at this point. mainstream democrats might try their hardest not to acknowledge anything further to the left than them, but the bernie progressives/SJWs/dirtbag left/anarchists/stalinists/libcoms/etc. are constantly arguing, and i haven't even begun to split those groups - anarcho-syndicalists, ancoms, anprims.

"It was inevitable that out of this, straight, white males would think "if this is how it's got to be, then why don't we stand up for our own identity?""

this is nonsense, and you're making excuses for their despicable views. they're rising up because they think the US is a White Country and that their birthright is being taken away from them. they were always racist. you think richard spencer wasn't a racist until a few years ago? you think #85 wasn't? don't even try to say he wasn't - you've seen his racism for years.

and now they're admitting that they're the authoritarian thugs we've been telling you they are, and you want to make excuses?

punching a nazi is self defense and always has been.

Posted May 31st by poptart!
poptart!
 

#85's never been threatened by a black person in his life but he breaks out in hives when he sees anyone darker than a frappucino

Posted June 1st by Pink Peruvian Flying Bear
Pink Peruvian Flying Bear

they're rising up because they think the US is a White Country and that their birthright is being taken away from them.

Where is the lie ?

When an objective person goes at looks at the numbers, no conclusion can be reached other than white people are being targeted for demographic replacement. Its genocide by any definition.

I was a libertarian several years ago. Live and let live. Don't bother me i won't bother you. This ideology is too soft to give a proper response to the Reds that plague the entire world.

Despite media brainwashing, for example pushing the crazy white mass shooter meme, one looks at the numbers and finds gun murders are done majority by black males.

Despite the education system, brainwashing whites full of white guilt, that their ancestors were "immigrants" rather than settlers and conqueror, people are still going to the source and reading the truth.

This is why the far left seeks to no platform the far right. Its not just because our ideas are popular with many people, openly or secretly, it's because our ideas are the truth. They cannot argue.

Our patience has its limits !

Posted June 1st by #85
#85

Where is the lie ?


This country stopped being white the second we brought African slaves over.

Despite media brainwashing, for example pushing the crazy white mass shooter meme, one looks at the numbers and finds gun murders are done majority by black males.


The fact that gun murders in general are perpetrated more by black males but mass murder/spree killing in America tends to be weighted towards white males is not contradictory.

Posted June 1st by nullfather
nullfather

one looks at the numbers and finds gun murders are done majority by black males.

Isn't this largely against other blacks though?

Posted June 1st by Fox Forever
Fox Forever

proof of what i'm saying: #85's rant. look at his reaction to the idea that his White Country is being taken away.

white supremacists have been a problem in this country since whites first landed here and started murdering natives, since we brought the aforementioned African slaves over, since the Civil War, since the '60s... it's absolutely ignorant to say that it's "partially" the left's fault for creating racists when they've always been a tumor on American society.

Posted June 1st by poptart!
poptart!
 

The overwhelming majority of the nomadic people occupying the country prior to the settlers were killed by disease, without ever even seeing a white man.

The left has created this meme of the white man, as soon as he sets foot off the boat and onto American soil, he immediately begins slaughtering entire villages of men women and children. This is not the case. Its the type of anti white far left propaganda that gets indoctrinated in them very young in the public education system. One can find unlimited examples of marxist professors spewing anti white propaganda. For a "white supremacist" country, you'd think these colleges would be spewing "white supremacy".


I'm going to make an interesting thread on slavery soon. Will show who was really behind it. Hint : it wasn't white people and it starts with a J.

Posted June 1st by #85
#85

"The left has created this meme of the white man, as soon as he sets foot off the boat and onto American soil, he immediately begins slaughtering entire villages of men women and children"

did i say this? condensing hundreds of years of history into a single clause sounds inaccurate, yes, you're technically correct. good job, you big smart boy!

Posted June 1st by poptart!
poptart!
 

I'm going to make an interesting thread on (insert subject here)

you have been saying that for the last two years


The overwhelming majority of the nomadic people occupying the country prior to the settlers were killed by disease, without ever even seeing a white man

diseases brought over from the old world into the new world did contribute to the deaths of the natives. But that does not change the notion that the european settlers did in fact wage a systematic war against them and even utilized said diseases to wipe out the natives.

additionally the settlers exploited the natives, pushed them into slavery, and worked them to death.

we have been over this before when it came to light that you were very much ignorant of the atrocities carried out by Columbus and co.

The jews are behind (blank)

can't wait bud.

it is worth noting that there is enough historical evidence suggesting that the native population size through out the Americas was significantly smaller at the arrival of the Europeans than it had been decades before said arrival.

this decline in population before the arrival of the europeans can be attributed to war, famine, and a plague like disease that wiped out a significant portion of the population.




Edited June 1st by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

"The left has created this meme of the white man, as soon as he sets foot off the boat and onto American soil, he immediately begins slaughtering entire villages of men women and children

the source of inspiration for this meme is rooted in facts more or less.

there are plenty of primary sources highlighting that when columbus and co found the new world they carried out exactly what you described.

it is easy to see how those interactions would be painted to eventually include native and European interactions on what would eventually become U.S. soil.


Posted June 1st by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

This country stopped being white the second we brought African slaves over.

They weren't even considered people and several attempts were made to send them back. Just because they are "here" doesn't mean anything.

The fact that gun murders in general are perpetrated more by black males but mass murder/spree killing in America tends to be weighted towards white males is not contradictory.

The fact that the gun murders far outweigh the occasional "white spree" does make the argument very weak.

Posted June 1st by #85
#85

That is not true at all. Not all the blacks who came here were brought over as slaves. Some came over as freemen. That helped to build what would become modern day America . so no sorry this notion of the U.S. being a place for only whites is laughable at best.

Especially when you take into consideration the various mestixo groups we incorporated Into the nation after we took over the respective territories of both Spain and later Mexico.

Nice try though.

Posted June 1st by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

The fact that the gun murders far outweigh the occasional "white spree" does make the argument very weak.

The fact that you don't recognize the difference between gang violence perpetrated by and against gang members and violence perpetrated by and against people without prior history of violence makes your counterargument deeply disingenuous.

They weren't even considered people and several attempts were made to send them back. Just because they are "here" doesn't mean anything.

I'd be happy to talk about sending the black people back to Africa once we've finished sending the white people back to Europe, but it's not like you give a damn about consistency. Have fun with that logistics nightmare.

Posted June 3rd by Pink Peruvian Flying Bear
Pink Peruvian Flying Bear
Reply to: Richard Spencer: I’m not for free speech

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on