These two Canadians are in Australia now, preaching racism together. It’s kind of damning that Southern would want to be associated with raving loon Molyneux, and that Molyneux would want to be associated with slimy dirtbag Southern, but I guess they were made for each other.
Southern did her usual schtick of seeking out what she calls “no-go zones” to show how racist they are, as if she thinks racism is a bad thing. So she walks into an area with a high proportion of Muslims with camera and sound guy in tow, making a little bit of a spectacle of herself, and notices how suspiciously people are looking at her (surprise!) and that some people are yelling in Arabic (oh my god), and starts to head down a street to a mosque to stir up some real juicy footage. She’s stopped by a policeman, who tells her no: he knows that she’s there to provoke trouble, so he tells her that she may not go there. He also informs her that local white people have no trouble coexisting in this neighborhood — making it clear that the problem isn’t with respectful citizens, it’s specifically with her and her actions.
So she declares that this Australian neighborhood is under Sharia law. She knows nothing.
Molyneux was no better. He spoke to a packed house of cheering Aussies and delivered blatant racism against Australian aboriginal culture. There’s also some epic irony.
I want you you remember that great evils were halted with the advent of whites to Australia as great evils were halted with the advent of whites to South Africa
I don’t like the idea of racial pride” Molyneux says after talking about how amazing it was when whites came to Australia
We in the west have extended ethics beyond the in group. That’s why we have human rights, that’s why we ended slavery, that’s why we extended rights to minority group’s. We are the only culture to have done that. Other cultures are not Universalist but we are.
Oh, well. I guess it should be reassuring that the US doesn’t have a monopoly on evil wankers. Canada and Australia have got them, too.
At this point you have to work very, very hard to find no-go areas in the major Australian cities, and you’d have to work even harder to find somewhere that’s a no-go zone because of Muslims, which rather spoils the argument they’re trying to make.
Besides, the current racist demon de jour is “African” “gangs”. Muslims are yesterday’s news!
… a policeman, who tells her no: he knows that she’s there to provoke trouble, so he tells her that she may not go there.
The cop, from all evidence, had it right in this case – but I worry how police in Oz apparently have the power to control people in such a way without (sfaict) harm having been done or imminently threatened.
@Matt Cramp #1:
That’s unfortunately way too idealistic because you derive it from a common experienced and shared reality. Contrast that with the conservative Comic-Con in Transylvania, which just ended.
There, Mr. Orbán has practically redefined Europe as white and Christian, whose union is to be led by them, y’know, white and Christian. While he tries to be vague (and make the far right a scapegoat for any xenophobic attack) on citizens of the EU of non-white origin, he pretty much acknowledged that to his ilk, a “no-go zone” won’t be areas of lawlessness, but ones not traditionally European.
I laud every born Westerner, but at some point, it should be recognized, that there are plenty of poor Caucasians who are buying the conspiracy of their ethnicity disappearing. Molyneux and Bannon are less important compared to those who support them. In late May, Yiannopoulos could earn 20k for a keynote speech, after he was fired from CPAC for making supporting comments on pedophilia, and his hosts are still proud of him (even though they’re massive homophobes).
Take note that thanks to Billy Graham Jr., more impoverished regions of Caucasians latched fast onto the idea of the American brand of Christianity, and this type of hate could just as well be successful. What started out as rejecting war-torn refugees have expanded into the shared delusion of every non-white person is a paid shill of a culture war. Worst of all, in every non-English speaking region, they have a total control over the narrative, as most locals don’t understand other languages, but their own.
Meanwhile this research is making the news : https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/27/evidence-of-250-massacres-of-indigenous-australians-mapped
Wait, the British Empire is superior to the indigenous Australian culture because it ended slavery…that never existed in Australia until the British Empire introduced it?
You know, I’m quite happy to give the British Empire a lot of moral credit for ending slavery, but it can’t be extended to completely wipe the slate clean on its prior rapacious involvement in the slave trade let alone every other every atrocity the empire committed, nor does it create a moral exculpation trump card for all white people when, as anyone with even a shred of historical knowledge would understand, the most vocal opponents of abolition were also white people. It’s almost as if the whiteness of the people involved in the abolition conflict had nothing to do with their moral values!
I don’t find this reassuring at all! I’d much rather evil wankery be confined to one country.
But you’re right. My most recent appalling moment of social disgust was when a person told me they were going on a tour of Dubrovnik and Croatia and I said something to the effect that it would be an interesting trip but I’d feel uncomfortable given the ethnic cleansing in the 1990s. They replied, “We’re looking forward to being in a country where the ethnic cleansing has already happened and it wouldn’t be a bad thing if it happened here.” So, a big yay for Australian values.
@chrislawson #6:
It’s not like it’s a resolved conflict. Sadly the only thing post-Yugoslavian citizens agree on is that The Hague had no business judging them. The recent second place in the world cup has only emboldened Croats to the point they use a chant originating from WWII that has lyrics describing hunting down Serbs in their own country.
The more Russia and concurrently Turkey meddles in Balkan affairs, a new ethnic war isn’t out of the question. That reminds me: regardless of how many Latin American elections the US has influenced, the power play between Russia and Turkey goes back to the 1880s, it’s still the same thing, as par course for the region.
The dumb blonde bigot complained during her walk that there were no shop signs in English. Every shop in the phot of her walking down the street was in English. Most signs in other langauges which include Arabic, Korean and Chinese, (Lakemba is quite an ethnically mixed community) are bilingual so “Skippies” as the darker skinned inhabitants call whiter Australians can read them. She also complained there were no pubs at which point she was directed to the one across the road. While there is a substantial Muslim presence in Lakemba with the second largest mosque in Sydney, it also has a thriving Uniting Church and a church school. Lakemba however is the prime target for Islamophobes and the right wing Limited News media to stage a walk through every time they want the obligatory threatening photo of a veiled woman pushing a pram down the main street.
As for Molyneux and his claims of Britisn Civilsation and superiority compared to Australian aboriginals ther is currently a project mapping massacres of aboriginals by settlers. It has passed 250 massacre sites and is still growing. It is also interesting to compare the interaction between aborigines and Molyneux’s other targets, Muslims who were in Australia well before the arrival of Europeans. They engaged in trade and commerce via verbal contract and treaties. In return for trade goods the Muslims were allowed to harvest trepang (beche-de-mer) and trochus shell. This resulted in cultural exchanges via importation of words into languages of both sides, local artworks and intermarriage. This was a thriving trade until the British colonial powers regulated it out of existence. It was replaced with the pearl trade which saw British owners importing Indonesians and Malays for use as virtual slave labour from the very islands that once traded with the natives. So superior British civilistion? More like Brutish.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-27/map-of-indigenous-massacres-grows-to-include-more-sites/10040206
secondtofirstworld@7–
I didn’t ask any further because I just wanted to end the conversation as quickly as possible at that point, but I suspect that she wasn’t talking about Serbs v. Croats; it was the likely the winnowing of Muslims that appealed to her.
The police response to Southern can be understood in the context of a series of Mosque invasions that have taken place in various parts of Australia by the extreme right. The police have been criticised in fact for their reluctance to act, despite these being actual invasions, not just events on the street outside. We can only imagine what the response would have been from the police and the media if a group of Muslims had invaded a Christian church in the same way.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/two-men-charged-over-brisbane-mosque-confrontations-20180706-p4zpzb.html
garydargan@8–
I have lived in Australia pretty much my whole life, and there has never been a part of the country that didn’t have clear English signage, even in ethnic enclaves like Chinatown or Little Vietnam in Melbourne. Sure, there are non-English languages on shop signs and occasionally street signs, but there has never been any difficulty finding your way around in English. (And most of these enclaves are a few blocks at most; they’re hardly large parcels of the city.) There has never been sharia law in Australia and I doubt there ever will be. Of course there have been cases of Muslims doing things that are unacceptable or even illegal in Australia — but then this is also true of many other groups, including our major Christian churches, both Catholic and Anglican, that were up to their eyeballs in protecting child sex abusers for many decades.
@chrislawson #10:
In that case, she would have made a wrong assumption. While undeniable that most atrocities have been committed against Bosnians and was committed by Serbs, the Yugoslavian Wars were not fueled primarily by religious spat.
The Serbs have governed the confederation with an iron fist after Tito, believing themselves to be the patrons, and it was a major blow to their pride, that central planning made Bosnia the poorest (and yet Sarajevo got to host the Olympics).
Furthermore, even bigots should know that during WWII the SS Handjar and Skander Beg, comprised of Albanian and Bosnian Muslims fought side by side with the ustase, who were Croats.
And the funniest thing? Australia is 90% white. It’s over reaction, scaremongering BS.
I’m all for hating religion, but they/media never take the same stance on Christianity. They’ll say it’s Islam they’re afraid off, and some are, but a lot are there because it’s none white christian culture they’re afraid off (before the “war on terrorism”, it was the Asians we were fixated/hated on – something we’ll get back to once this has died down).
White people moved in to a black mans country, in Asian and complain about all the black men and Asians, while being 90% white. What a country…
@11 Yeah I thought of that story too, but didn’t get around to posting it. Cheers.
Also I’m glad they deported the bullshit leader of a bullshit church back to New Zealand.
garydargan @9
I expected as much. Any time you hear bigots running their mouths off about how awful the indigenous people their ancestors subjugated were, it’s guaranteed that the colonizers did far worse shit than anything they were supposedly putting a stop to.
secondtofirstworld@13–
No, it was not a false assumption. While the trigger for the Balkan wars was Serb-v-Croat tensions following the breakup of Yugoslavia, it’s not like ethnic supremacist lunatic militias are are going wage war on one antagonist and not use the opportunity to cleanse other minorities while they’re at it. At Srebrenica, the Army of Republika Srpska murdered around 8,000 Muslim men and children and expelled another 25,000+ Muslims from the region.
Alt-X@14–
Yep. Muslims make up 2.6% of the Australian population and the traditionalist Muslim population is obviously even smaller than that — surveys estimate that more than half our identified Muslims are non-practising — and it’s not like Australian Muslims are a monobloc: we have Sunnis and Shiites and Sufis and Amadiyaas and Ibadis and Druzes, and even within those groups there are with different applications of sharia at the community level from different countries. Even in Muslim-minority countries that have allowed limited sharia law (e.g. Israel!, England!), it is usually only for family disputes and still must remain compatible with overarching legal system of the nation.
None of this is to defend sharia, which I believe is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of liberal democracy and can only functionally co-exist in very limited ways, but the idea that sharia law is about to pose any realistic threat to Australian legal norms is a complete fiction designed to foment bigotry. And it’s certainly not even close to the greatest threat to Western liberal democracy today…
@chrislawson #17: That’s what we agree on, that it was an ethnic cleansing aimed at ensuring Serbian supremacy (and to a lesser extent, a Croatian one). Yet, if it had been a religious war, it’d still go on, both there and in Kosovo, not to mention there’d be a coalition against a Greater Albania.
There isn’t one though since as we both know the alliance with Montenegro and Macedonia died out exactly because Serbia had problems treating her own allies right. Regardless if America calls it patriotism or others nationalism, the process has stages until such time a nation gives birth to a unique character (and accepts the trade as means instead of warfare). The Balkans is not yet there, nor is the former Eastern Bloc. Heck, they just joined the EU so they must not have to trade with each other, and they joined Nato to enjoy protection should the other attack them.
In contrast, the Yazidis were slaughtered for nothing more than their faith, but there too has to be noted, that it happened because faith took the place of social institutions.
Interesting you call this site freethoughtblogs.com. Apparently some thoughts are not so free, as the ones SM and LS are trying to express. You may not agree with them, but you may at least give them the space to hear them out w/o just writing them off as “racist” (which is not an argument you know, just an ad hominem, right out of “Rules for radicals” by Saul Alinsky, rule nr 13; “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” This is getting rather tiresome as even Alinsky admits in rule nr 7 “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” ). Whatever happened to; “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Evelyn Beatrice Hall). Whatever happened to freedom of speech, the cornerstone of democracy? Sad times we live in….
@Joe emerging from the cave #20:
I bite and for the sake of argument, I accept the phony premise that all content is equally worthy. The dumb thing is though that both Southern and Molyneux, by their own volition became members of a social network which is chock full with white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
They could have been Stalinists, the point is, they don’t believe in the values you claim everyone must adhere to. Nobody buys it, that members on Gab joined because brown shirts, black jackboots, and swastikas are the new fashion accessories. They do so because of signing values to themselves by arbitrary virtue, like being white and/or Christian and denigrate others simply because they’re not them, to which Mein Kampf is the blueprint.
Furthermore, the guaranteed free speech regulates the relationship between the government and others, not between people, or people and corporations. It also doesn’t guarantee a listening crowd. That sh*t needs to be earned.
Stop pretending George Wallace fared better, he too got the same treatment as all bigots should. The day after Hitler became chancellor, he had outlawed the multiparty system and the free press (and the right to assemble, etc.) You would only live under sad times if such rights were not only stripped from you, but you’d have to accept the official line, that it never existed, nor can exist. Not that that would be your biggest issue when going to the store you find mostly empty shelves. When I lived that, I don’t remember meeting you, so be as kind as to not even try to compare your red cups killing Christmas kind of first world problem to actual situations.
@secondtofirstworld
As I said, more of Alinsky’s infamous rule nr 13; sling mud, mud and more mud, and see what sticks. Nazi, stalinist, brown shirt, white supremacist, swastikas. Sigh, how predictable, How outdated. So here we go again, no real arguments to rebut Molyneux’s views, merely “guilt by association”, when you mention “neoNazis”, “white supremacists”, “brown shirts” and swastikas. I guess most people fall for this Nazi stuff, because it gets them off the hook to form their own opinions, Nazis, no we can’t listen to this guy, he’s a Nazi. This is so easy…., yet so outdated. I have never heard Molyneux mention Nazis, or state that he supports Nazis in any way, shape or form, In fact he rejects violence all together, especially with regard to children (spanking and the like). Have you ever even heard one of his videos on Youtube, or are you just getting your information from other sources, like most people. As Mark Twain already knew; “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
Then you compare Molyneux and Southern to stalanists, which is even more astonishing. If Molyneux doesn’t agree with one group of people it’s with stalinists/communists. In his shows he regularly points out that under Stalin and the rest of the communist regime in the former USSR an estimated 60-70 million people have perished. But I guess you weren’t really paying attention to that, were you? The people in the US today that advocate socialism/communism (like Ocasio-Cortez) should really take a little time to study history, real history, instead of some pipe dream! If they want a first hand account of how wonderful socialism/communism really is they can take a good look at Venezuela, that socialist utopia where people are fighting over a few tacos and toilet paper. From here you go back to jackboots, swastikas etc and magically end up with white people and or Christians, as if that is necessarily the same thing. I’m white, but not Christian,as I think all religion is just BS to control the people. Interestingly, anybody can be proud of anything nowadays, being black, gay, transgender, Indian, native american, Latino etc. etc. except when you’re white, because then you are, simply by default, racist. Ah, the logic in that. Almost as if there is an agenda (there is actually, just go straight to the horse’s mouth and you find out all you need to know, now I didn’t make this up! From the (1925!) book Practical Idealism (Praktischer Idealismus) by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, one of the founding fathers of the present day EU;”The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi
Amazing don’t you think, how the “elites” planned this whole thing from A to Z?
Anyway, free speech should apply to any individual in any situation, or we might as well start setting up the gulags/concentration camps once more.
Finally, you drag in George Wallace, what does he have to do with Molyneux, ah, another attempt at “guilty by association”. Sigh. Anyway, the man renounced his views on segregation anyway, but fell victim to a cowardly attack which put him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. Sort of reminds me of the tactics on the left side of the political spectrum nowadays, who won’t shun violence to silence their opponents. And you seem to think this is a good thing! Wow, just wow. No arguments please, just violence, that will teach them a lesson alright! Then you go rambling on about meeting in another lifetime or something (you see, we do heve something in common after all). Pointless, I won’t even go into that.
Sad, very sad indeed! No arguments, no coherence, no logic, just incoherent rambling. No wonder you people are so afraid of people like Molyneux. In a debate he would just chew you up, but that’s something that’s probably never going to happen…..As I said before, even Alinsky admits in rule nr 7 that “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
@Joe emerging from the cave #22:
You seem to be unfamiliar with what fruit of the poisonous tree means, or what’s more likely, deliberately apply whataboutism. Once you by your own volition join a social service that is home to neo-Nazis and white supremacists, despite knowing that they represent a discredited ideology, don’t expect different treatment. I know you demand it, but you’ll only get what you give to other people. It’s cute you try to present Molyneux in any other light in which he was already presented namely him being banned from the UK for being a danger to children. He’s also a misogynist, plus it doesn’t answer why he is freely associating himself with neo-Nazis.
Mate, you misconstrue my remark on Stalinism. People like Southern, Molyneux, Spencer, Bannon et al. are so anti-democratic that you could swap their beliefs for Stalinism, they’d still use the same antidemocratic tools.
You ignored my previous warning: I have first-hand experience from a police state, what you have is a first world problem. An imaginary, how did you call it? Pipe dream. Yes, they’re coming for your guns and red cups kill Jesus in Starbucks, that kind of thing. I’m not a betting man, but I’m 85% sure you never questioned or analyzed what Southern and Molyneux are claiming, but took all of it at face value simply because it already reaffirms what you believe.
It speaks volumes when you say it’s in any way disadvantageous to be white or it’s racist. If that’s from personal experience, it has nothing to do with being white (otherwise I’d be that too). What’s more likely is that you get into confrontation into perceived values that you have or assigned values you imagine about others. Examples include threatening to call ICE despite America not having an official language, nor will English be an exclusive one, calling the cops on people doing nothing but drinking coffee, calling the cops on movie stars, or a little girl selling water. Generally when you believe you deserve a way fairer shake from life just because you belong to the majority.
Living in a far left dictatorship almost void of minorities, life taught me early on, being class elite is just as bad a racially discriminative system. That’s something you luckily never experienced, but for some reason believe to know very well. Fact is you don’t so it’s quite a bit hubris to oppose those who do. For the moment it seems my old country is falling into an autocratic far-right Christian influenced directed democracy with sham elections. Only because you live in a country with high democratic traditions it doesn’t mean you can’t have people, nay, don’t have people who don’t share those values.
If you’d be right, Molyneux would have said to Southern that “as a learned man, I have discovered Muslims only make up 2% of the population so it wouldn’t be wise to provoke the sentiment of the public. Think of the children. You know the ones I never denied wanting to separate from their parents”. He doesn’t and he won’t nor will Southern. That’s why their opinions are weighed in as much as they are actually worth, maybe even more.
Again, because this seems to be a point of contention: you having the right to speak freely does not entitle you to us listening, much less paying for it. Not that they need it, there’s Gab and fanboys galore for such purposes. Call a spade a spade, they do, so you have no reason not to.
You just can’t stop, can you? Neo-nazis, white supremacists, mysogenist, you just regurgitate whatever your brainwashers have been putting inside your head. Mate (I use this word since this is your way of addressing me as well, Australia?), what I have tried to do by putting up this post on this one-track mind article is defending SM’s right to have his own views and to express them. This does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything SM has to say, or is too hard for you to make the distinction? I don’t know what it is, but coming from a far left dictatorship (Hungary, Poland?), it seems that you haven’t grasped the basic concept of what democracy is all about. Just for good measure, let me explain; free speech (for everyone that is, not just for people you agree with) is THE CORNERSTONE of democracy, as is admitted even by Wikipedia;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
I don’t need or want “protection” from these “poisonous” ideas, I can make up my own mind, thank you very much. What you advocate is censorship, which always leads to gulags and concentration camps, because once started it never stops. We’re already on a very slippery slope towards a police state, and people like you enable the transition towards one. But don’t take it from me; “To prejudge other men’s notions before we have looked into them is not to show their darkness but to put out our own eyes.”
John Locke
What I would like to hear from you, is not endless name-calling a la Salinsky, but explanations as to WHY SM’s views are flawed. And some of them are, I assure you. As for all the rest of your exposé, it just gets a little tiresome that you seem to know what I think, where I have lived or how I have come to my own opinions. Jumping to conclusions like that is very premature to say the least, and I won’t indulge you any longer with a response, because it will not lead anywhere anyway. Instead I will leave you with a few quotes from a few gentlemen that knew how to mould the public mind like no other (yes, also and especially in so-called democracies). These people are the real enemy, not people like SM.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Edward Bernays
“To play those millions of minds, to watch them slowly respond to an unseen stimulus, to guide their aspirations without their knowledge – all this whether in high capacities or in humble, is a big and endless game of chess, of ever extraordinary excitement.”
Sidney Webb, founder of the Fabian Society
Soren Kierkegaard was absolutely right when he observed;
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to accept what is true”
Good luck with finding out the truth….
Just for sh*ts and giggles, mate is used by Brits as well, but I get why Australia is the first thought.
Sure, peddle the idea of democracy and “I don’t agree with what X is saying, but” when you frequently quote Alinsky, who’s a whistle word on the alt-right, largely thanks to Dinesh D’Souza. Actual individualists lay more emphasis on how they themselves came to conclusion. Because democracy must mean that everyone is equally heard. No, that’s not the case. You have to right to speak and other have the right not to listen to you.
It’s irrelevant what Molyneux thinks are great ideas in need of hearing. He got lucky he was arraigned in the UK. Since you seem to ignore it, he has a track record of cult-like suggestions to minors on how they should ditch their parents. Southern is also banned from entering the UK, for a blatantly simple reason: they’re people who wish to look intellectual but only leave riots of their fans behind.
If you really truly paid attention in philosophy or political science if you learned either, you’d be well aware that radicals abuse the democratic system to gain narcissistic popularity that they repay with denigrating others. That is where your plea fails on both levels: one, the darndest if you try, your “victory” won’t exonerate anyone. Occam’s razor, do I trust people more who have way bigger experience with it, or should I trust you, whose open-mindedness somehow ended up on the far right? You’re ignoring content.
For starters, just like the scientific theory, social subject matters need to be falsifiable, it has to accept the human behind labels (which is where your heroes massively fail on purpose) and it needs to be able to predict. Southern, Molyneux, Yiannopoulos, they all talk unwaveringly and unchangeably about the human evil that’s somehow always tied to a faith that isn’t Christian and to skin color that isn’t white. Milo doesn’t even deny it, he earned 20k this year by holding an hour-long keynote speech where the press, who could ask hardball questions was banned.
That’s reason number two while I’m not inclined to buy the “but this is just democracy”. If it were, you wouldn’t defend them, for the simple reason as seen above, they don’t believe in democracy. What they’re selling is that whites are in mortal danger. Now I’m not claiming all of them truly believes that either, rather that that crowd buys books like drones follow the bee queen.
What you’re demanding is positive exposure everyone else gets, but see that’s the thing, people get that because they’re respectful. Treat others as trash, but don’t act surprised people hate you. That is what’s happening, and that’s not censorship or ignorance. Last but not least, if you truly think religion is a smokescreen (in which case you shouldn’t quote Mark Twain, he was a devout Christian), you absolutely have no business defending Southern who’s being praised as a Christian conservative. Also, not that it matters much, yes there are things are still experience about democracy, but that bears no relation to your 0 experience on what dictatorship and censoring are. Count that as your blessing, and if you haven’t before, read First they came from Martin Niemöller, now that’s a good lesson hubris fueled by the belief that belonging to a group saves you from persecution. If you believe in democracy, you’re their enemy too.
1] Sigh, yes this is what is to be expected “debating” a leftie, they just ignore the arguments and keep harping on about the same issues over and over again. Racism, white supremacism, mysoginism, etc. etc on and on and on. The message that I’m defending MS’s right to express his views and not his views per se doesn’t seem to resonate with you; I’m not sure if you’re aware of it but you’re simply a living example of Alinskyism, despite of how much you love to deny it.
2] The reason we’re able to have this conversation at all is free speech. In many countries around the world this exchange wouldn’t even be allowed. Ever heard of the first amendment of the US constitution. No? You should read it sometime, and marvel at the intellectual prowess and progress of the West and the fach that this was thought up more than two centuries ago. W/o it the US would have been on par with the UK, which is already far down the rabbithole towards totalitarianism, given the recent treatment of Tommy Robinson and others.
3] You’re free to think of SM and his ideas whatever you like, but apparently a lot of people think otherwise. What gives you the right to shut him down? Are you morally superior? Really? Why? Aren’t people able to make up their own mind? Do they need “protection” from his ideas, What a perfect pretext for censorship. What role are you going to play in this 1984 horror show?
4] I don’t know much about LS, but a quick search on the web resulted in finding out that she was banned from entering the UK for reasons of “racism”. So she didn’t leave behind leave behind any rioting fans, as she didn’t even enter the country, as you’re suggesting. Please get your facts straight, oh right facts don’t matter anymore!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/28108/lauren-southern-detained-banned-entering-uk-racism-james-barrett
The whole racism thing is really quite interesting, as authorities in the UK, Australia and other countries go out of their way to “protect” the feelings of the members of a very intolerant religion, I really wonder why that is, do you?
5] Regarding your discourse in paragraph 4 & 5, really kind of poorly formulated and once again confirming my idea that you’re not at all listening to the message I’m trying to get across. Anyway, has it ever ocurred to you that in this hierarchical sytem we live in, it is always the socio/psychopathic narcissists that somehow make it to the top. They’re called politicians, CEO’s, anchors in news shows, university professors, bishops and popes and other “dignitaries” of the system that are there to make sure that the peasants are kept in their proper place. Sort of comes with the territory, these people don’t have any scruples whatsoever and will do whatever it take to make it to the top.
Then you ramble on about scientific theory, and I’m quoting here; “social subject matters need to be falsifiable”. What? Social science falsifiable? Since when is that possible? So this is just one big experiment and we can somehow repeat the whole thing to see if it has a different outcome. Mate, I hate to break this to you, the social sciences aren’t sciences at all, but merely excuses for the rich and powerful to have their way. This is why economics is such a poor predictor of the economy. Economists are just well paid bootlicking lackeys that use unintelligable language like QE, MBS, operation twist, balance sheet reduction, etc. etc. in order to disguise that the “elites” are screwing over the public.
But, talking about individuals and groups, it is possible to say something about a group in general, although this may not apply to each and every one individual in a group per se. Muslems and Jews generally speaking don’t eat pork, but you will find exceptions. Yes, so what? Not really sure what your point is.
6] I have stated very clearly before that I’m white but not a Christian so don’t bring on all this Christian BS. And leave Yiannopoulos out of it, as I don’t care much for him. And stop suggesting these people are my heroes, they’re not. Religion is BS to control the masses and unfortunately still works marvously well.
7] Mark Twain was a devout Christian so I can’t quote him as a non-Christian. Sigh.
Firstly, we all make mistakes, even Mark Twain. Secondly, would he have lived now, chances are he would have been an atheist, as I probably would have been a devout Christian living in his time.
I also quote Edward Bernays, this doesn’t mean I like him, I despise him.
8] If you has eyes to see you would notice that there is (and has been) a steady influx of non-westerners in western society. As I told you before, this is by design. Some people say they make good voters for the left, some say they make good laborers for the right, some say they are essential to keep a debt based Ponzi scheme economy going. Whatever the reason is, they’re here and that will change western countries, whether you’re aware of it or not, doesn’t matter. You can’t expect these people to magically behave and look like natives just because they have crossed a border. This will also change the ethnic make-up of western nations, so yes, you may want to deny it all you want, but this will have consequences.
8] This brings me to my last point. SM may be a paid shill/controlled opposition as far as I know. Well, guess what, so is Noam Chomsky. Controlled opposition. Gate keeper. This doesn’t mean he doesn’t have interesting things to say. The people at the top of the foodchain hire these people to sow discord and create confusion.
First we had the left-right thing (Labor vs Tories, Democrats vs Republicans etc.). Now we have the nationalist vs globalist thing, where the pro-globalists portray the nationalists as backward rednecks (the word “deplorables” comes to mind) while the nationalists see the globalists as the gullible useful idiots to bring about the wet dream of the world’s so-called “elite”. One world government, a one world currency, a (sort of) one world religion. Once again, don’t take my word for it, listen to Rockefeller lackey Heinz Kissinger; “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” Spoken like a true megalomaniac. Well guess what mate, I’m not interested in all that, and neither should you be. We need decentralization instead of centralization. Decisions that affect people in their daily lives should be taken at the lowest possible level, not by some technocratic clique of psychopathic control freaks whose only goal is to enslave humanity. So in the end, they are the enemy of humankind, not some poor schmuck on the other side of the political spectrum, nor SM. The fact that we’re bickering about this, mate, they love it, as it directs attention away from them and their unholy satanic plans.
9] This will be my last post on this blog as I have been wasting enough of my time on this already, as it will probably not be received and decoded in the way it should be. The only response I will probably get is another round of “racism, white supremacy, misogyny” and so on and so on, dragging in ever more people like Yiannopoulos and others to try to prove your point and to convince yourself of your moral superiority and righteousness. And that mate, is just plain boring. This leaves me with one quote from somebody I admire very much, although he’s German and I’m not;
“Few people have the imagination for reality.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Good luck mate!
You’re still misconstruing free speech. Like any right, it has two components, the idea and the ability to exercise it. This is why convicts can’t exercise their rights guaranteed in the 4th to 6th Amendment when the prison search their cells (nor must they alert them in advance), and especially can’t exercise their 2nd Amendment to carry guns. Yet for some silly reason, you don’t cry foul at that. There are, as the NKVD then put it some useful idiots who confuse liberties with the ability to exercise them and declare everyone every time is entitled to it. You claim we can talk like this because of free speech and yet again you forget that regulates your position to the government, not this site. Private individuals always have and will have the right to decide which content they agree with. Outright rejecting is not censorship. It wasn’t me but you who started to peddle the idea your heroes are demoted merely based on hearsay, which in itself is an unfalsifiable promise. The one thing you constantly failed to say is this: those believing in free speech dare to speak anywhere, and don’t reduce themselves to a crowd that doesn’t believe in it. I’m sorry but Southern and Molyneux being racists isn’t my opinion but a fact. Many people like them? That deserves a Nobel Prize in Physics, ’cause that’s an alternate universe.
In many of your points, you boil down content to this: “I’m in possession of a special knowledge and you can too, and you not seeing that is you being snotty”. Get off that conceited horse. Your heroes are being sidelined because of their content. Their lack of basic respect for other human beings. You decry others noticing that. Since most people are not antisocial, the plan to make them look cool will never work. Again with 1984. Dude, your time spent in a regime is 0 seconds. Write your fanfiction somewhere else. Your fears are so far removed from reality it’s visible from Andromeda. Not surprising either, if you actually knew human nature, you’d know how regimes are formed.
Your search was pretty quick. She was banned for endangering human life. See, there’s this crazy new thing called Law of the Sea Treaty which regulates who can do what, and her action amounted to act as a state actor which she wasn’t carrying out “duties” nobody asked her too. Don’t ask anybody to get their facts straight when you’re ever so eager to omit everything not to your liking. The riots were in Australia, of which this article is about.
Quite telling that your opinion on the human condition is, “well, that’s not science”. Recently kindergarten kids were subjected to a study examining how eager they were to help or were subject to the bystander effect. So, mate, yeah, you can see it again how people react under different circumstances. It’s also quite telling how on the one hand you acknowledge successful people have dirt and that your heroes are popular, but would I dare to point out, that other than narcissism, Southern as a Canadian had no business on the Mediterranean, you’d be quick to defend with something like it’s her right and such and such, totally not racism.
I call them your heroes for the simple reason of vehemence in defending them. Southern provoked Aussies with asking them if they should kill her. Such a narcissist needs neither your defense of her free speech nor a right to have one, she’d talk anyway. I thought you were aware that Molyneux and Yiannopoulos are friends and coworkers. Dude, if you think religion, a phenomenon with unchangeable tenets is BS, why do you see fascism differently? In case you missed it they peddle 1930s solutions to 21st-century problems.
You missed out on the American embassy being moved to Jerusalem. Twain was there, he praised the “authentic biblical locations”. While he wasn’t so devout he waited for the Rupture, plenty of Evangelicals are. To answer your hypothesis, yes Twain would still be very much a devout Christian. As for you being one, only you know what choices made you who you are.
No mate, he doesn’t. He hates women, everybody who’s not white, he’s been accused multiple times of running a cult, he tried convincing kids to abandon their parents. Charles Manson believes this climate change is human-made. It doesn’t become true from him believing it. So whatever useful Molyneux could say is said by others. Except others don’t lie with pigs and wonder why they stink.