Home
By:
Filters

Chat ðŸ”¥ðŸ¤¬General Chat Thread

roc_abilly said:
Also:

“Pride is thinking more highly of oneself than is just, out of love for oneself" (Spinoza)

So there is a big difference between how gays, black people, Jews and others, in the attempt to deal with a legacy of bigotry and oppression against them, need to become proud of their differences, recognise their own cultural contributions, raise their self-confidence in the interest of a normal living together with those who once oppressed them.

As opposed to a pride based in the claimed superiority that your fucked up nazi race science and IQ tests, and videos about the great achievements of medieval white social elites, systematically, through repetition, tries to drum into such inferior specimens of the human race as you and your compadres on Arsefields and Stormfront.org, who all as Orwell points out have chosen to sink their own individuality into some greater collective, such as some so called "white race" (sic) in your own case.
Click to expand...
I'm not an 'IQ nationalist' or a "white supremacist". I'm an ethnic and white nationalist as well as a race realist.

You are consistent liar and defamer who, thus far, has refused to answer a simple question in post #1,029

Jews huh, not just slippery when wet 😂
 
Truth League said:
Have you ever expressed an opinion on Muslim immigration that isn't positive?
Click to expand...
First, unlike you I don't judge people on whether they're Muslim or Catholic or brown or white. I judge them on their character.

Second, I have on these fora expressed misgivings about the need for better representation of the interests of those who may not benefit from immigration, to balance the representation of the interests who do benefit from it.

In this regard I have pointed out that your type of racist negates the voices of those trying to articulate those interests - your white supremacism (and similar "far right" nonsense) is negatively tainting as racists anybody who is trying to actively work in a positive way towards those interests.

On another note I have also raised my voice against the migratory waves in this country of bland new money blow-ins, "celtic tiger" cretins, often country people, driving giant cars for status, and queueing for lattes and "gourmet" twaddle on the weekends, subjecting everyone within earshot to an insipid monoculture revolving around property, finance, IT, spiritual retreatism and US inspired fad diets.

They are also a type of migrant. And as I said at the outset, I judge on character, not on these stupid categorisations emphasised by people like you. So let's get these type of characterisations out of the discussion, they have nothing to do witrh anything, really.

Judge people by their character. So I have no opinion, nor am I even a part of the discussion, when you talk about categorisations like Muslims or blacks or gays, or whatever, as being somehow significant to the discussion. Therefore I have never expressed an opinion about particularly "Muslim" immigration, as long as they don't insist their personal beliefs should be brought into the public sphere.

If and when that happens (and I see no real likelihood of it at the current juncture), then I will have a problem with it. For now, you and your type are the problem, while you insist your equivalent beliefs about "race" should be brought into the public sphere. So let's focus on what's actually happening, the actual empirical, observable facts. That is my position.
 
roc_abilly said:
First, unlike you I don't judge people on whether they're Muslim or Catholic or brown or white. I judge them on their character.

Second, I have on these fora expressed misgivings about the need for better representation of the interests of those who may not benefit from immigration, to balance the representation of the interests who do benefit from it.

In this regard I have pointed out that your type of racist negates the voices of those trying to articulate those interests - your white supremacism (and similar "far right" nonsense) is negatively tainting as racists anybody who is trying to actively work in a positive way towards those interests.

On another note I have also raised my voice against the migratory waves in this country of bland new money blow-ins, "celtic tiger" cretins, often country people, driving giant cars for status, and queueing for lattes and "gourmet" twaddle on the weekends, subjecting everyone within earshot to an insipid monoculture revolving around property, finance, IT, spiritual retreatism and US inspired fad diets.

They are also a type of migrant. And as I said at the outset, I judge on character, not on these stupid categorisations emphasised by people like you. So let's get these type of characterisations out of the discussion, they have nothing to do witrh anything, really.

Judge people by their character. So I have no opinion, nor am I even a part of the discussion, when you talk about categorisations like Muslims or blacks or gays, or whatever, as being somehow significant to the discussion. Therefore I have never expressed an opinion about particularly "Muslim" immigration, as long as they don't insist their personal beliefs should be brought into the public sphere.

If and when that happens (and I see no real likelihood of it at the current juncture), then I will have a problem with it. For now, you and your type are the problem, while you insist your equivalent beliefs about "race" should be brought into the public sphere. So let's focus on what's actually happening, the actual empirical, observable facts. That is my position.
Click to expand...
 
DESPITE roc_abilly roc_abilly's waffle post above (containing lies, talking points and mealy-mouthedness that I'm familiar with), I'm going to give him (or her) some benefit of the doubt. And I will discuss both protagonists (Sword and roc) but let us first begin with a definition of counter-jihad.

Counter-jihad - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Counter-jihad, also known as the counter-jihad movement,[1] is a self-titled political current loosely consisting of authors, bloggers, think tanks, street movements and campaign organisations all linked by beliefs that view Islam not as a religion but as a worldview that constitutes an existential threat to Western civilization. Consequently, counter-jihadists consider all Muslims as a potential threat, especially when they are already living within Western boundaries.[2] Western Muslims accordingly are portrayed as a "fifth column", collectively seeking to destabilize Western nations' identity and values for the benefit of an international Islamic movement intent on the establishment of a caliphate in Western countries.[3][4]

As you can read, counter-jihad specifically concerns itself with Muslim immigration and "Islamism" in the West.

Now for the protagonists..

1. Sword

Sword has asked me before if I think that she's anti-white and whilst I don't think she really is as such, she isn't pro-white (white ethnocentric) as I am. So Sword's definition of counter-jihad may simply not contain any reference frame of our (white) countries.

2. roc

After a brief perusal of his or her posting history on Gaychat (only searching for posts with the word 'Tommy' in it), I didn't find any strong evidence to suggest that the one 'far right' figure who roc supports is for much more of a reason than him (Tommy) being a fellow Zionist.

Consider this post (by roc) -

Post in thread 'Israel's Fascist sideshow takes center stage' https://politics.ie/threads/israels-fascist-sideshow-takes-center-stage.270418/post-13279935

Obviously you have some on the right who support Israel, like Tommy Robinson, mainly because as a result of his own projections he sees the Israelis as being engaged in a fight against Islamicism, that he contemns [sic]

So roc may have never expressed any opinion against Islamic immigration to the West per se and didn't have any road to Damascus moment, as it were. He, or she, has simply always been committed to the abolishment of the white race (by any means necessary).
 
Swords only "reference frame" is a diseased and twisted body, mind and soul. Stop talking about that creepy weirdo as if there is something to its foul utterances.

In the post you cite there was nothing in that post expressing support for Robinson, I was merely illustrating something to another idiot, of another type.

Honestly I couldn't give a shit who supports Zionism or not, my only concern in the 'Jew' debate is with Irish antisemites masquerading as something else who flock to lies stoking anti-Zionist sentiment (often not realising they do so, they are mostly idiots ideologically in thrall to a heinous propaganda. Anti-Zionism is another really fucked up -ism, another heinous "nationalism" of the same type discussed above).

Separately, and I don't know if I ever posted about it, I am sympathetic towards Robinson, not to his ideas, or his movement, and not because he is pro Israel or anti Muslim, or anything like that, but because I heard him express what I judge as understandable, rational, honest arguments, speaking from his own experience, not repeating stupid ideology like you and Swords do, and I thought he should be permitted to express that, not be locked up for it.

What I heard that moved me to that judgement was this speech of his. Have a listen.

 
roc_abilly said:
Swords only "reference frame" is a diseased and twisted body, mind and soul. Stop talking about that creepy weirdo as if there is something to its foul utterances.

In the post you cite there was nothing in that post expressing support for Robinson, I was merely illustrating something to another idiot, of another type.

Honestly I couldn't give a shit who supports Zionism or not, my only concern in the 'Jew' debate is with Irish antisemites masquerading as something else who flock to lies stoking anti-Zionist sentiment (often not realising they do so, they are mostly idiots ideologically in thrall to a heinous propaganda. Anti-Zionism is another really fucked up -ism, another heinous "nationalism" of the same type discussed above).

Separately, and I don't know if I ever posted about it, I am sympathetic towards Robinson, not to his ideas, or his movement, and not because he is pro Israel or anti Muslim, or anything like that, but because I heard him express what I judge as understandable, rational, honest arguments, speaking from his own experience, not repeating stupid ideology like you and Swords do, and I thought he should be permitted to express that, not be locked up for it.

What I heard that moved me to that judgement was this speech of his. Have a listen.

Click to expand...

LMAO

You seem to have an INORDINATE amount of time to listen to the 'far right' when they're 'Islamophobic' and Zionist.

As well as everything else, you have to be the biggest phucking phony I've ever encountered. Do us all a favour and fuck off back to Israel.
 
It's coming back to me now.

Do I recall that you think Tommy Robinson is some kind of "anti-nationalist"? (In inverted commas because I'm referring to the white supremacist conception of "nationalism").

He's "anti-white" or something? How does that work again, run us through the logic of your tiny mind in that, just for the laugh. Is it that he doesn't buy into your fairy tales about "race" etc?

There's a bang of Gemma off you, you know. Anyway, explain to us. You're a boring and dumb prick, but this "far right" cloak and dagger stuff can sometimes be good for a laugh at your expense.

Do oblige us. Or else no one's going to know what the fuck you're on about, as usual.
 
How much longer will Putin rule? Human history has taught us that Roman emporers could not forever hold their grip on absolute power by murdering all their opponents, which is what Putin seems to be intent on doing, but in the process, as in Rome, for all those you kill, you create more enemies. Eventually ones control only extends so far, and plots of usurpment and assassination begin to grow. By wiping out Prigozhin and his top commander, he has just created more enemies, these as well armed and as just as battle tested, and actually more seasoned, as those troops in the regular army.

Will the Muslim horde continue to act as his personal bodyguard, or will they strike a deal? They would have to turn on Putin, probably. You are talking about a den of snakes here, all of them poisonous.

 
roc_abilly said:
It's coming back to me now.

Do I recall that you think Tommy Robinson is some kind of "anti-nationalist"?
Click to expand...
Tommy Robinson isn't a nationalist, and he calls nationalists - the "far right" and "Nazis" (if you want to call that "anti-nationalist", sure)

roc_abilly said:
(In inverted commas because I'm referring to the white supremacist conception of "nationalism").

He's "anti-white" or something? How does that work again, run us through the logic of your tiny mind in that, just for the laugh. Is it that he doesn't buy into your fairy tales about "race" etc?

There's a bang of Gemma off you, you know. Anyway, explain to us. You're a boring and dumb prick, but this "far right" cloak and dagger stuff can sometimes be good for a laugh at your expense.

Do oblige us. Or else no one's going to know what the fuck you're on about, as usual.
Click to expand...
 
odanny said:
How much longer will Putin rule? Human history has taught us that Roman emporers could not forever hold their grip on absolute power by murdering all their opponents, which is what Putin seems to be intent on doing, but in the process, as in Rome, for all those you kill, you create more enemies. Eventually ones control only extends so far, and plots of usurpment and assassination begin to grow. By wiping out Prigozhin and his top commander, he has just created more enemies, these as well armed and as just as battle tested, and actually more seasoned, as those troops in the regular army.

Will the Muslim horde continue to act as his personal bodyguard, or will they strike a deal? They would have to turn on Putin, probably. You are talking about a den of snakes here, all of them poisonous.

Click to expand...
Good to see you in political conversation on hoi polloi, I mean Isle Poli, O Danny Boy :)

This racist meme is 4 free -

 
David said:
Always found this hilarious,

"This country was founded by slave owners...who wanted to be free"
Click to expand...

Nothing more side-splitting than getting stuck in a George Carlin loop of an evening.

Knowing how much Jambo hates him makes it all even sweeter.

George Carlin: American anti-American anti-white anti-establishment observational comedian of Irish descent: loved by black people, yellow people, red people, and even pink people.

Jambo Dawson: unhinged anti-everyone unemployable mongrel-mutt with a bone bitten off the leg of a Muslim shoplifter from Afghanistan.

I know which one makes me laugh the most.

How about you?

 
Mowl said:
Nothing more side-splitting than getting stuck in a George Carlin loop of an evening.

Knowing how much Jambo hates him makes it all even sweeter.
Click to expand...
Mowl said:
George Carlin: American anti-American anti-white anti-establishment observational comedian of Irish descent: loved by black people, yellow people, red people, and even pink people.
Click to expand...
lol

Mowl said:
Jambo Dawson: unhinged anti-everyone unemployable mongrel-mutt with a bone bitten off the leg of a Muslim shoplifter from Afghanistan.

I know which one makes me laugh the most.

How about you?

Click to expand...
 
Mowl said:
That must have exhausted you.

Take a knee.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll try harder (hang on a second)..

Comment from the (Odysee) video I posted above (the part in bold reminded me of you) -

I remember listening to Carlin and Hicks as a teenager and it was 'thrilling' to hear bombastic loud statements against the system (or so I thought). Later in life, as I gained more experience and figured out things, I found the material tedious and flat. It wasn't actually funny, just anger dripping in sarcasm. The sets I had enjoyed once became tedious to listen to. There are few clever jokes, with set ups and pay offs, nothing. Most of it is just ranting, with hatred, dressed up as being funny. In the clips, most people in the audience aren't even laughing because its funny but cheering because they agree. Today, it is clear that these men were part and parcel of the erosion of the cultural fabric. As the video points out, nothing they said is any different from the ruling progressives in the media and academia today.
 
Mowl said:
That must have exhausted you.

Take a knee.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll try harder (hang on a second)..

Comment from the (Odysee) video I posted above (the part in bold reminded me of you) -

I remember listening to Carlin and Hicks as a teenager and it was 'thrilling' to hear bombastic loud statements against the system (or so I thought). Later in life, as I gained more experience and figured out things, I found the material tedious and flat. It wasn't actually funny, just anger dripping in sarcasm. The sets I had enjoyed once became tedious to listen to. There are few clever jokes, with set ups and pay offs, nothing. Most of it is just ranting, with hatred, dressed up as being funny. In the clips, most people in the audience aren't even laughing because its funny but cheering because they agree. Today, it is clear that these men were part and parcel of the erosion of the cultural fabric. As the video points out, nothing they said is any different from the ruling progressives in the media and academia today.
 
So millions of people the world over are all wrong - and you're right?

Is that your tack?

Tell you what: forget taking a knee, try a hip replacement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom