Home
By:
Filters

The Flat Earth Thread

So you just pulled the figure out of your hole? Or if not, and you are not citing anyone, how was your figure calculated, what is it based on, what are the sources of the data you are using?
 
I find Muslim rape gang denial one of the most prutid things an anti-white can do.. If anything proves that you're sociopaths, it's that
 
Read what I wrote you thick cunt.

But portraying those who disagree with you as supporting child abuse is just playing the usual emotional and moral blackmail card of your cult.

Whereas if you do agree with their narratives about "white genocide" and being under "invasion" by "Muslim rape gangs", then you must be on the side of "good and right".

Saving the children. Protecting them from harm. Making yourselves out to be the heroes.

Just more emotional and moral blackmail to force people to be in accord with the cult. Reversion to the emotional argument, to make feelings trump facts.

What's putrid is the cult thinking, a dogma based on lies, or occasional half truths, and is most of all a masquerade.
 
Fuck knows what you even mean by that.

I guess though you must be referring to Noel Ignatiev's insights, that he especially wrote about in his book 'How the Irish became White'.

About how under the English we ourselves were considered less than "white", less than human, and only became accepted as white when we supported slavery and violence against black people in the US and thereby achieved better jobs at higher wages and were finally accepted as full citizens in what was still a juridically white republic.

So that whiteness becomes this ideological, psychological, social and political construct. Where 'whiteness' emerged directly and almost exclusively through its connection to imperialism/colonialism, slavery, genocide and modern-day racism.

And that our participating in the humiliation and extermination of black people is the most enduring identifying marker of whiteness. And therefore you can never rip the racism out of whiteness, as it is the very core of whiteness.

Thus the only way to abolish racism is to abolish whiteness.

Hmm. Well truth is Jambo, I hadn't thought much about it before. But the more I listen to you, the more rational and right it sounds, the more I am drawn to it. So I might just be an "anti-white" in those terms after all. But certainly I wasn't before I started listening to you.
 
roc_abilly said:
Fuck knows what you even mean by that.

I guess though you must be referring to Noel Ignatiev's insights, that he especially wrote about in his book 'How the Irish became White'.

About how under the English we ourselves were considered less than "white", less than human, and only became accepted as white when we supported slavery and violence against black people in the US and thereby achieved better jobs at higher wages and were finally accepted as full citizens in what was still a juridically white republic.

So that whiteness becomes this ideological, psychological, social and political construct. Where 'whiteness' emerged directly and almost exclusively through its connection to imperialism/colonialism, slavery, genocide and modern-day racism.

And that our participating in the humiliation and extermination of black people is the most enduring identifying marker of whiteness. And therefore you can never rip the racism out of whiteness, as it is the very core of whiteness.

Thus the only way to abolish racism is to abolish whiteness.

Hmm. Well truth is Jambo, I hadn't thought much about it before. But the more I listen to you, the more rational and right it sounds, the more I am drawn to it. So I might just be an "anti-white" in those terms after all. But certainly I wasn't before I started listening to you.
Click to expand...
I don't ever recall you not being anti-white

But now that you've owned up to it I guess we could call that progress
 
Btw, for those of you who don't know, Noel Ignatiev was a notorious race denying, hate-filled American Jew (nothing Irish or white about him).. Who I presume is now rotting in hell.
 
Truth League said:
You hate white people
Click to expand...
Ignatiev always insisted that he didn't hate white people. Here is what his actual position was:

"... We do not hate you or anyone else for the color of her skin. What we hate is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their color. It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color. When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category. Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them. In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages..."
 
roc_abilly said:
Ignatiev always insisted that he didn't hate white people. Here is what his actual position was:

"... We do not hate you or anyone else for the color of her skin. What we hate is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their color. It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color. When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category. Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them. In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages..."
Click to expand...
Firstly, Ignatiev was a race denier. Anyone who calls race a "social construct" is a race denier.

Secondly, the idea that a (low IQ, hate-filled) 'POC' or white leftist would completely disassociate "whiteness" (and his call for it to be abolished) with white people is laughable. And even if the claim is that he just wanted white people to be disenfranchised (and not actually literally abolished), that itself is anti-white, of course it is. You'll wrap that up, of course, in a claim of "systemic racism" and "social (in)justice".

Ignatiev was just a(nother) Jewish anti-white academic, his only claim to fame is that he was a particularly notable one. And now he's in hell.
 
Who's the fucking race denier here in truth?

It would seem to me that Ignatiev was far more of a "race realist" than you or your white supremacist buddies.

You who are so concerned about the definition of words.

A realist is one who accepts and deals with things as they really are. They take the pragmatic view of things, they see the world as it actually is.

All the science today says “biological races” in the human species do not exist. They cannot be determined by either physical or genetic measures.

No, rather, what we think of as “races” are socially assigned sets of characteristics that change depending on context.

So Ignatiev is the one on solid ground, not you. Affirming the science an pointing out we are far and away primarily dealing with a "social construct" is actually being a race realist.

While you are the race denier in truth. As you are basing your claims in pseudo science.

Newsflash for you. Your nazi race science was a crock, James.
 
A race realist is someone who believes that race is real, not a "social construct", or a "skin color".

Ignatiev was undeniably a race denier. Who hated white people. Why he hated white people you'd have to ask him although thankfully he's dead.
 
Truth League said:
A race realist is someone who believes that race is real
Click to expand...
By the exact same logic you would say that a kid who believes Santa is real is therefore a "santa realist".

Neither race or santa have ever been satisfactorily evidenced by currently accepted science.

Truth League said:
Ignatiev was undeniably a race denier.
Click to expand...
No he was a race realist, as I explained above. You're the race denier, in truth.

Truth League said:
Who hated white people.
Click to expand...
I showed above that he didn't, rather he hated the system of privilege implicit in white race as a social category.
 
roc_abilly said:
By the exact same logic you would say that a kid who believes Santa is real is therefore a "santa realist".

Neither race or santa have ever been satisfactorily evidenced by currently accepted science.
Click to expand...
Your "currently accepted science" is race denialism

roc_abilly said:
No he was a race realist, as I explained above.
Click to expand...
Nope, he was a race denier.

There's really not much point in you adopting a term and then adding a bunch of (your own) convolution to it

roc_abilly said:
I showed above that he didn't, rather he hated the system of privilege implicit in white race as a social category.
Click to expand...
You can reframe his anti-white hatred any way you like..
 
roc_abilly said:
So then why do you believe that your position is any different to that of the flat earthers.
Click to expand...
So previously you had Santa and now flat Earth 🙄

I don't deny that "science" is, for want of a better word, political. Medical "science", climate "science", race denial "science"..

Real science isn't particularly, and it's hard to think of a better example of that than physics. Yes, there may be people chasing dollars in that too but it's not particularly political. Race denialism is pretty much a hundred percent political, not least because it's a complete lie.
 
You aren't dealing with bias in such as you would in the social sciences, or with non linear complex systems like in climate science, or double blind cohorts and the rest of it as in medical science. The science behind genes in this question is now straightforward, and the science is clear and unambiguous.
 
roc_abilly said:
You aren't dealing with bias in such as you would in the social sciences, or with non linear complex systems like in climate science, or double blind cohorts and the rest of it as in medical science. The science behind genes in this question is now straightforward, and the science is clear and unambiguous.
Click to expand...
lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom