Here is the link to The little white book.

[Harry]

https://web.archive.org/web/2016053...6blacksun.angelfire.com/Little_White_Book.pdf

 

[ShadowTheRaven]

I think that "21st century Robespierre" is referred to Harry, not Klassen.

No, I was comparing Robespierre to Klassen because Robespierre attempted to start a deistic cult called "The Cult of the Supreme Being" which was to replace Catholicism as the official religion of the First French Republic but has went terribly wrong after Robespierre cut everybody's head off until someone eventually got mad and cut his head off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

I'm saying "Creativity" is the new "Cult of the Supreme Being" and it's not going to take off imo.

 

[Stormblood]

I think that "21st century Robespierre" is referred to Harry, not Klassen.

No, I was comparing Robespierre to Klassen.

Then I was wrong. Okay.

 

[ShadowTheRaven]

I'm not an Arab OMG. :roll: The Arab race is the mix between the white and the black race which creates the Arab race. and I'm not mixed and my nose is not big or hocked and i don't have any Semitic traits.

Their is a difference between being born in a region and being part of a race.

it's a huge confusion world wide which always pisses me off when i think about it but i hope that it will end ASAP.

i also get offended when people call me an Arab.
I'm part of the Greek sub-race.

It only took me 5 seconds to do a reverse image search on that guy and find out that he's Marios Lekkas, a model born in Athens, Greece.

I never said Greek people are Arab, and no, Arab people are not the result of black and white mixing. Races evolve because of their regions. Native Americans were originally Siberians that crossed the Bering Straight into North America and dwelled for tens of thousands of years causing them to appear distinct from a typical Siberian. So wouldn't it make more sense to say that Arabs dwelled around Iraq, Syria, and Iran coming out of the Caucasus Mountains? How do you think white people became white people? Because we've lived in cold climates for tens of thousands of years, so our skin tones are lighter because we require less sunlight to maintain homeostasis. It's basic science, dude.

 

[Harry]

I'm not an Arab OMG. :roll: The Arab race is the mix between the white and the black race which creates the Arab race. and I'm not mixed and my nose is not big or hocked and i don't have any Semitic traits.

Their is a difference between being born in a region and being part of a race.

it's a huge confusion world wide which always pisses me off when i think about it but i hope that it will end ASAP.

i also get offended when people call me an Arab.
I'm part of the Greek sub-race.

It only took me 5 seconds to do a reverse image search on that guy and find out that he's Marios Lekkas, a model born in Athens, Greece.

I never said Greek people are Arab, and no, Arab people are not the result of black and white mixing. Races evolve because of their regions. Native Americans were originally Siberians that crossed the Bering Straight into North America and dwelled for tens of thousands of years causing them to appear distinct from a typical Siberian. So wouldn't it make more sense to say that Arabs dwelled around Iraq, Syria, and Iran coming out of the Caucasus Mountains? How do you think white people became white people? Because we've lived in cold climates for tens of thousands of years, so our skin tones are lighter because we require less sunlight to maintain homeostasis. It's basic science, dude.

the real Arabs right now are from the gulf countries which are saudi arabia, bahrain,uae,oman,Kuwait. iran etc and Egypt and the Levant are not Arab countries but white countries becouse they are white majority but the yehuborim did alot of confusion which resulted in this situation. I'm sure that you will know the truth soon on your own.

Anyways I'm not an Arab my ancestors immigrated from Europe a long time ago to Egypt and me being born in Egypt doesn't mean that I'm an Arab.

 

[Aquarius]

I'm not an Arab OMG. :roll: The Arab race is the mix between the white and the black race which creates the Arab race. and I'm not mixed and my nose is not big or hocked and i don't have any Semitic traits.

Their is a difference between being born in a region and being part of a race.

it's a huge confusion world wide which always pisses me off when i think about it but i hope that it will end ASAP.

i also get offended when people call me an Arab.
I'm part of the Greek sub-race.

It only took me 5 seconds to do a reverse image search on that guy and find out that he's Marios Lekkas, a model born in Athens, Greece.

I never said Greek people are Arab, and no, Arab people are not the result of black and white mixing. Races evolve because of their regions. Native Americans were originally Siberians that crossed the Bering Straight into North America and dwelled for tens of thousands of years causing them to appear distinct from a typical Siberian. So wouldn't it make more sense to say that Arabs dwelled around Iraq, Syria, and Iran coming out of the Caucasus Mountains? How do you think white people became white people? Because we've lived in cold climates for tens of thousands of years, so our skin tones are lighter because we require less sunlight to maintain homeostasis. It's basic science, dude.

We are white because our Gods are white, lol, not some kind of ice age that never happened.

 

[Harry]

I'm not an Arab OMG. :roll: The Arab race is the mix between the white and the black race which creates the Arab race. and I'm not mixed and my nose is not big or hocked and i don't have any Semitic traits.

Their is a difference between being born in a region and being part of a race.

it's a huge confusion world wide which always pisses me off when i think about it but i hope that it will end ASAP.

i also get offended when people call me an Arab.
I'm part of the Greek sub-race.

It only took me 5 seconds to do a reverse image search on that guy and find out that he's Marios Lekkas, a model born in Athens, Greece.

I never said Greek people are Arab, and no, Arab people are not the result of black and white mixing. Races evolve because of their regions. Native Americans were originally Siberians that crossed the Bering Straight into North America and dwelled for tens of thousands of years causing them to appear distinct from a typical Siberian. So wouldn't it make more sense to say that Arabs dwelled around Iraq, Syria, and Iran coming out of the Caucasus Mountains? How do you think white people became white people? Because we've lived in cold climates for tens of thousands of years, so our skin tones are lighter because we require less sunlight to maintain homeostasis. It's basic science, dude.

the real Arabs right now are from the gulf countries which are saudi arabia, bahrain,uae,oman,Kuwait. iran etc

By bad, the Arab thing is a jewish shit to make people one mixed race that’s all
And the people of gulf are part of the white race it’s white majority so the gulf countries are actually white countries with some blacks and mixed(arabs). You can even Search it out online.
Have fun.

 

[ToZ Forum Contributions]

That is the reason the Gods are physical and created a physical race. This is why the genetics show such.

Apparently you are not familiar with Satanism. Whites are the direct blood descendants from the Gods, which is why we are White like them. Please study, before stating bullshit and harmful theories that the yehuborim have taught us. Because yes this is harmful, as it makes Whites forget our ancestry.

Jewish teachings have NO PLACE in this subforum.

....are you fucking kidding me? I'm not denying that whites are the blood descendants from the Gods I'm saying that the Gods coming down to Earth, and poof, all of a sudden white people exist sounds like complete nonsense there must be a physical reason why white people are white people. Please quote where I have denied such?

 

[ToZ Forum Contributions]

I went through the WOC infomation back in the day, it was Hale's tour that got me interested in WN and then Rockwell that brought me to WW2 regime. Klassen was part of the American WN world and his works about non-Whites are taken straight from Christianity Identity which dominated the WN world at the time and Klassen was very close to them. That's the major issue within the WOC and the lack of anything spiritual. Klassen was a materialistic atheist and total left brained person he was also a successful technological inventor and business man for this reason. But because at the time there was no scientific data on spiritual practices he had no model to study or compare as part of his studies so that has to be understood. The works of Klassen reflect the amount of information Klassen had in the time he lived.

 

[ShadowTheRaven]

@ShadowRaven, it sounded like you were talking about the out of africa theory, mentioning whites getting white skin simply from living north.

Oh, no, I know the "Out of Africa" theory is debunked. If we were all out of Africa, how come the earliest civilizations began where India, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, Afghanistan, etc. are today? The earliest being India, and even India alone has many differences in appearance.

Where South India has more brown and dark-skinned people, and North India has more fair, kinda Persian looking people? Even that can make a complete difference in your race and how you look, if it isn't, then why do subraces exist?

 

[SilentFlame]

Its foolish to compare Klassen's racial socialism which is his version of WW2 regime expanded to all White People to Communist China which is just run by Yehuborim to prey on Gentiles.

I didn't say that they are the same though. I just pointed out that there is a key similarity, both his ideal system and China's have a militaristic state and a system of human rights where anyone deemed genetically unfit can be sterilized/euthanized/etc by the State. His ideal system claiming to have a good goal of improving the race doesn't change that it's totalitarian and requires military rule to be enforced. Fundamentally, if you're a citizen in his ideal state, you're subject to government approved violence at any time.

It is not like a normal legal system where if the laws are changed, anything deemed an offense by the new laws cannot be punished if it was committed before. His belief system that anyone can be punished automatically or expelled and etc if deemed racially inferior goes fundamentally against the morality behind the constitutions of European states and the USA. For example, there is a dictator in both Communist China and in Klassen's ideal state. Yes, Communist China is all about destroying the populace, but I think you're not fundamentally understanding the different view of human rights and morality here. It's not just about the end result, even though that is very important. It is also about the fundamental view of what constitutes a crime. Is existing a crime if you're the wrong race, or are crimes based on your actual actions? It's a very important distinction which most normal people would quickly point out to you in an argument. Doesn't seem like it's discussed that much here, but it's of great importance and skipping it is basically skipping the entire premise of morality.

 

[Aquarius]

Its foolish to compare Klassen's racial socialism which is his version of WW2 regime expanded to all White People to Communist China which is just run by Yehuborim to prey on Gentiles.

I didn't say that they are the same though. I just pointed out that there is a key similarity, both his ideal system and China's have a militaristic state and a system of human rights where anyone deemed genetically unfit can be sterilized/euthanized/etc by the State. His ideal system claiming to have a good goal of improving the race doesn't change that it's totalitarian and requires military rule to be enforced. Fundamentally, if you're a citizen in his ideal state, you're subject to government approved violence at any time.

It is not like a normal legal system where if the laws are changed, anything deemed an offense by the new laws cannot be punished if it was committed before. His belief system that anyone can be punished automatically or expelled and etc if deemed racially inferior goes fundamentally against the morality behind the constitutions of European states and the USA. For example, there is a dictator in both Communist China and in Klassen's ideal state. Yes, Communist China is all about destroying the populace, but I think you're not fundamentally understanding the different view of human rights and morality here. It's not just about the end result, even though that is very important. It is also about the fundamental view of what constitutes a crime. Is existing a crime if you're the wrong race, or are crimes based on your actual actions? It's a very important distinction which most normal people would quickly point out to you in an argument. Doesn't seem like it's discussed that much here, but it's of great importance and skipping it is basically skipping the entire premise of morality.

All you’re doing is comparing a communist jewish system with a White socialism that is meant to save and preserve our race. From what you’re saying it seems you don’t really understand much about WW2 regime. In Ben Klassen’s system nobody is gonna kill non whites unless there is a violent opposition towards Whites themselves. It’s not like you get killed based on your race.

 

[ToZ Forum Contributions]

I am not arguing your strawman.

I didn't say that they are the same though. I just pointed out that there is a key similarity, both his ideal system and China's have a militaristic state and a system of human rights where anyone deemed genetically unfit can be sterilized/euthanized/etc by the State. His ideal system claiming to have a good goal of improving the race doesn't change that it's totalitarian and requires military rule to be enforced. Fundamentally, if you're a citizen in his ideal state, you're subject to government approved violence at any time.

It is not like a normal legal system where if the laws are changed, anything deemed an offense by the new laws cannot be punished if it was committed before. His belief system that anyone can be punished automatically or expelled and etc if deemed racially inferior goes fundamentally against the morality behind the constitutions of European states and the USA. For example, there is a dictator in both Communist China and in Klassen's ideal state. Yes, Communist China is all about destroying the populace, but I think you're not fundamentally understanding the different view of human rights and morality here. It's not just about the end result, even though that is very important. It is also about the fundamental view of what constitutes a crime. Is existing a crime if you're the wrong race, or are crimes based on your actual actions? It's a very important distinction which most normal people would quickly point out to you in an argument. Doesn't seem like it's discussed that much here, but it's of great importance and skipping it is basically skipping the entire premise of morality.

 

[ToZ Forum Contributions]

I am not arguing your strawman.

I didn't say that they are the same though. I just pointed out that there is a key similarity, both his ideal system and China's have a militaristic state and a system of human rights where anyone deemed genetically unfit can be sterilized/euthanized/etc by the State. His ideal system claiming to have a good goal of improving the race doesn't change that it's totalitarian and requires military rule to be enforced. Fundamentally, if you're a citizen in his ideal state, you're subject to government approved violence at any time.

It is not like a normal legal system where if the laws are changed, anything deemed an offense by the new laws cannot be punished if it was committed before. His belief system that anyone can be punished automatically or expelled and etc if deemed racially inferior goes fundamentally against the morality behind the constitutions of European states and the USA. For example, there is a dictator in both Communist China and in Klassen's ideal state. Yes, Communist China is all about destroying the populace, but I think you're not fundamentally understanding the different view of human rights and morality here. It's not just about the end result, even though that is very important. It is also about the fundamental view of what constitutes a crime. Is existing a crime if you're the wrong race, or are crimes based on your actual actions? It's a very important distinction which most normal people would quickly point out to you in an argument. Doesn't seem like it's discussed that much here, but it's of great importance and skipping it is basically skipping the entire premise of morality.

 

[SilentFlame]

Its foolish to compare Klassen's racial socialism which is his version of WW2 regime expanded to all White People to Communist China which is just run by Yehuborim to prey on Gentiles.

I didn't say that they are the same though. I just pointed out that there is a key similarity, both his ideal system and China's have a militaristic state and a system of human rights where anyone deemed genetically unfit can be sterilized/euthanized/etc by the State. His ideal system claiming to have a good goal of improving the race doesn't change that it's totalitarian and requires military rule to be enforced. Fundamentally, if you're a citizen in his ideal state, you're subject to government approved violence at any time.

It is not like a normal legal system where if the laws are changed, anything deemed an offense by the new laws cannot be punished if it was committed before. His belief system that anyone can be punished automatically or expelled and etc if deemed racially inferior goes fundamentally against the morality behind the constitutions of European states and the USA. For example, there is a dictator in both Communist China and in Klassen's ideal state. Yes, Communist China is all about destroying the populace, but I think you're not fundamentally understanding the different view of human rights and morality here. It's not just about the end result, even though that is very important. It is also about the fundamental view of what constitutes a crime. Is existing a crime if you're the wrong race, or are crimes based on your actual actions? It's a very important distinction which most normal people would quickly point out to you in an argument. Doesn't seem like it's discussed that much here, but it's of great importance and skipping it is basically skipping the entire premise of morality.

All you’re doing is comparing a communist jewish system with a White socialism that is meant to save and preserve our race. From what you’re saying it seems you don’t really understand much about WW2 regime. In Ben Klassen’s system nobody is gonna kill non whites unless there is a violent opposition towards Whites themselves. It’s not like you get killed based on your race.

I read through his whole thing and he phrases it all in a way where the 'mud races' are scum and the enemy. Just what do you even think he believes? He directly says the 'mud races' should be diminished whenever possible. Please state a one or two paragraph summary of what you think he believes, or better, what you personally believe. Let's just go through the list.

I am not arguing your strawman.

If it's a strawman, then what is the right view that you think is correct? If debate shuts down the moment I ask about specific issues there's no way to get to the heart of things and all the detailed answers. That just shuts down conversation and prevents the full truth from being revealed. For the sake of simplicity I'm going to ask the same list of questions from you and Aquarius as I am looking for a clear answer here. Either on your own personal moral views of what's right and wrong, what you think Ben Klassen's were, or both.

On race-mixing, do you think there should be laws banning or limiting it again?
On forced sterilization, do you believe it is morally wrong or can it be fine as long as it improves Whites? And if forced sterilization is ok, how far can this go?
On immigration, do you think the migrants in Europe should be forcibly expelled in some way? Or should the immigration into the countries be the only thing stopped? Disincentivizing welfare leeching is also an option in combination with incentivizing white birth rates and the return of migrants to their home countries. But I want to know which of these things you believe in.
On genocide, do you think this is morally bad? I would agree that it is. But in that case, we need to get to analyzing the reason for it being bad. Is it bad because of utilitarian reasons(EX:yehuborim genociding whites is bad because the white race is superior/better and/or Whites genociding yehuborim would not be bad if it benefits Whites) or because of reasons of principle(Genocide in itself is fundamentally wrong regardless of whether it guarantees a good result or not)? Utilitarian morality is much more of a slippery slope for reasons I am sure you can understand.
What about segregation? Do you think de-segregation was a good or bad thing or what mix of both? And would re-segregation be a good thing to you in any way?
On eugenics, do you think there should be laws incentivizing people for doing marriages that are seen as eugenic by the government?

Anyway, that should be a good list, if you want to give the answers it would be a real help to clarifying your world view or Klassen's. When you simply call what I say a strawman because I made an analysis of what Ben Klassen's views seemed to be to me based on his book's central principles, it proves nothing and provides no meaningful knowledge to anyone.

His own book directly shows that I am not strawmanning, he directly says that "Whatever is good for the White Race is the highest virtue, and whatever's bad for the White Race is the highest Sin'. That's a direct statement that all that matters to him is the end result of Whites winning and that the means justify the ends. Morally speaking, the only thing that makes this different from any other totalitarian ideology is that Ben Klassen may not think that totalitarianism is the most effective way for Whites to survive. But that doesn't change his set of principles. Again, if you think that all that matters is the end result of Whites succeeding, the only reason not to do things like forced sterilization or anything else is because it is not effective, not because it is morally wrong, as a utilitarian morality forbids the notion of anything being morally wrong. That's of incredible importance here.

Now it could be argued that because he was an Atheist, he couldn't believe in moral right or wrong and found it logically incoherent, but didn't directly want to be a dictator or to make genocide happen or forced sterilization or etc. That's probably true, but it doesn't change that there's a severe fundamental problem in a purely utilitarian view which has no objective moral principles. It's very subject to slippery slopes and value drift. It basically is a fast track to nihilism and the worldview that reality is completely amoral and all that matters is power, the Might makes Right philosophy. Hopefully you or Aquarius see the problem with that.

 

[Aquarius]

I didn't say that they are the same though. I just pointed out that there is a key similarity, both his ideal system and China's have a militaristic state and a system of human rights where anyone deemed genetically unfit can be sterilized/euthanized/etc by the State. His ideal system claiming to have a good goal of improving the race doesn't change that it's totalitarian and requires military rule to be enforced. Fundamentally, if you're a citizen in his ideal state, you're subject to government approved violence at any time.

It is not like a normal legal system where if the laws are changed, anything deemed an offense by the new laws cannot be punished if it was committed before. His belief system that anyone can be punished automatically or expelled and etc if deemed racially inferior goes fundamentally against the morality behind the constitutions of European states and the USA. For example, there is a dictator in both Communist China and in Klassen's ideal state. Yes, Communist China is all about destroying the populace, but I think you're not fundamentally understanding the different view of human rights and morality here. It's not just about the end result, even though that is very important. It is also about the fundamental view of what constitutes a crime. Is existing a crime if you're the wrong race, or are crimes based on your actual actions? It's a very important distinction which most normal people would quickly point out to you in an argument. Doesn't seem like it's discussed that much here, but it's of great importance and skipping it is basically skipping the entire premise of morality.

All you’re doing is comparing a communist jewish system with a White socialism that is meant to save and preserve our race. From what you’re saying it seems you don’t really understand much about WW2 regime. In Ben Klassen’s system nobody is gonna kill non whites unless there is a violent opposition towards Whites themselves. It’s not like you get killed based on your race.

I read through his whole thing and he phrases it all in a way where the 'mud races' are scum and the enemy. Just what do you even think he believes? He directly says the 'mud races' should be diminished whenever possible. Please state a one or two paragraph summary of what you think he believes, or better, what you personally believe. Let's just go through the list.

I am not arguing your strawman.

If it's a strawman, then what is the right view that you think is correct? If debate shuts down the moment I ask about specific issues there's no way to get to the heart of things and all the detailed answers. That just shuts down conversation and prevents the full truth from being revealed. For the sake of simplicity I'm going to ask the same list of questions from you and Aquarius as I am looking for a clear answer here. Either on your own personal moral views of what's right and wrong, what you think Ben Klassen's were, or both.

On race-mixing, do you think there should be laws banning or limiting it again?
On forced sterilization, do you believe it is morally wrong or can it be fine as long as it improves Whites? And if forced sterilization is ok, how far can this go?
On immigration, do you think the migrants in Europe should be forcibly expelled in some way? Or should the immigration into the countries be the only thing stopped? Disincentivizing welfare leeching is also an option in combination with incentivizing white birth rates and the return of migrants to their home countries. But I want to know which of these things you believe in.
On genocide, do you think this is morally bad? I would agree that it is. But in that case, we need to get to analyzing the reason for it being bad. Is it bad because of utilitarian reasons(EX:yehuborim genociding whites is bad because the white race is superior/better and/or Whites genociding yehuborim would not be bad if it benefits Whites) or because of reasons of principle(Genocide in itself is fundamentally wrong regardless of whether it guarantees a good result or not)? Utilitarian morality is much more of a slippery slope for reasons I am sure you can understand.
What about segregation? Do you think de-segregation was a good or bad thing or what mix of both? And would re-segregation be a good thing to you in any way?
On eugenics, do you think there should be laws incentivizing people for doing marriages that are seen as eugenic by the government?

Anyway, that should be a good list, if you want to give the answers it would be a real help to clarifying your world view or Klassen's. When you simply call what I say a strawman because I made an analysis of what Ben Klassen's views seemed to be to me based on his book's central principles, it proves nothing and provides no meaningful knowledge to anyone.

His own book directly shows that I am not strawmanning, he directly says that "Whatever is good for the White Race is the highest virtue, and whatever's bad for the White Race is the highest Sin'. That's a direct statement that all that matters to him is the end result of Whites winning and that the means justify the ends. Morally speaking, the only thing that makes this different from any other totalitarian ideology is that Ben Klassen may not think that totalitarianism is the most effective way for Whites to survive. But that doesn't change his set of principles. Again, if you think that all that matters is the end result of Whites succeeding, the only reason not to do things like forced sterilization or anything else is because it is not effective, not because it is morally wrong, as a utilitarian morality forbids the notion of anything being morally wrong. That's of incredible importance here.

Now it could be argued that because he was an Atheist, he couldn't believe in moral right or wrong and found it logically incoherent, but didn't directly want to be a dictator or to make genocide happen or forced sterilization or etc. That's probably true, but it doesn't change that there's a severe fundamental problem in a purely utilitarian view which has no objective moral principles. It's very subject to slippery slopes and value drift. It basically is a fast track to nihilism and the worldview that reality is completely amoral and all that matters is power, the Might makes Right philosophy. Hopefully you or Aquarius see the problem with that.

Let me guess, all of this offends you and you probabily aren’t white right?
All you’re doing is preaching your own mental weaknesess and insecurities. It seems like you are against the White race to survive. I don’t think you realize this is White countries we’re talking about. OUR countries. What is the best for our people has to be done. One of your questions is literally is if eugenics has to be incentivised, like wtf, does that scare you lol? That’s what had been done in National Socialist Germany.

 

[Ol argedco luciftias]

........

In all your time here, you always sound like some liberal extremist "journalist." All you do is make these weird strawman statements posed as questions, but they are not actual questions. You are always trying to lure people into saying things which you would then use to try to make us all look bad. But what really bothers you is we are not making the statements that your bullshit strawmans are designed to try to get us to say. The only reply you get is to say stop being a dumbass because we aren't going to give any validation to your strawmans. This is exactly what you are usually doing, and you've been doing this since the moment you made your account.

If you had any actual genuine questions, they wouldn't always be so rediculously strawman and bullshit. But every single time, you make it so obvious that your entire intention is just to lure us into saying some strange thing that sounds bad, so then you can just turn it right around and show your boss "Look what they just said! Look what I got them to say!" Your questions are always just like "So you all are saying [something that could sound bad if taken out of context]? Now as your answer, repeat back to me that thing that could sound pretty bad. So that I can use that as some kind of proof in my journalism that you Satanists are bad people."

But we recognize that these "questions" from you are always just these exact same kinds of strawmans and lures. We recognize that you are not being genuine and honest, and your motives are not as good as you say they are. The thing avout having a big group of people with strong healthy souls, is we have sensitivities that most people don't have. We can feel people's energies and intentions, we can see exactly what they are doing, we see how they are trying to trick us. Then we just laugh at them for being dumb and thinking that they could actually trick us.

 

[SilentFlame]

........

In all your time here, you always sound like some liberal extremist "journalist." All you do is make these weird strawman statements posed as questions, but they are not actual questions. You are always trying to lure people into saying things which you would then use to try to make us all look bad. But what really bothers you is we are not making the statements that your bullshit strawmans are designed to try to get us to say. The only reply you get is to say stop being a dumbass because we aren't going to give any validation to your strawmans. This is exactly what you are usually doing, and you've been doing this since the moment you made your account.

If you had any actual genuine questions, they wouldn't always be so rediculously strawman and bullshit. But every single time, you make it so obvious that your entire intention is just to lure us into saying some strange thing that sounds bad, so then you can just turn it right around and show your boss "Look what they just said! Look what I got them to say!" Your questions are always just like "So you all are saying [something that could sound bad if taken out of context]? Now as your answer, repeat back to me that thing that could sound pretty bad. So that I can use that as some kind of proof in my journalism that you Satanists are bad people."

But we recognize that these "questions" from you are always just these exact same kinds of strawmans and lures. We recognize that you are not being genuine and honest, and your motives are not as good as you say they are.

It isn't a 'lure', though. You keep seeing it that way but it's not, I am trying to figure out people's positions on specific issues which don't get explained in detail by the admins, they don't cover these things. I already pointed out the specific list of issues I wanted answered since I think they're pretty important. On what you think of laws banning immigration, laws expelling migrants back to homelands, laws relating to forced sterilization, etc. Do you think the Nazis did forced sterilization on those deemed genetically unfit? As that's what the official narrative of the mainstream media says. I don't even know what the official view here is on that, on what is a hoax and what is not. I know everyone here believes the WW2 is a hoax, and I think there's some evidence for that, like the wooden doors that couldn't stop gas, there only being 4 actual crematoriums which couldn't do it anywhere near fast enough, etc. But the WW2 isn't everything the Nazis are claimed to have done, not by a longshot.

Here's a link explaining the forced sterilization done on the disabled in Nazi Germany:
http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/535eed207095aa0000000243
Is that all a hoax too? I actually believe the WW2 might have been a hoax like everyone says here, but never have I seen it actually argued by alt right people or whoever else that all the forced sterilization was a hoax too. Or if part of that was a hoax, how much was a hoax and what parts weren't a hoax? I believe that those claims might all be a hoax too, but I've never seen a clear systematic review by the alt right of all the claims against the Nazis which dismantles all of them on one site with clear organization. Not here or anywhere else. I don't even know what the mainstream view here is on whether they happened or not. I do know, at the very least, that Mageson said sterilizing the severely retarded is common sense when talking about those so badly damaged that they could kill the people forced to take care of them on accident, so I doubt somewhat that everyone here rejects forced sterilization on the principle of bodily autonomy alone. That could already be a significant departure from standard western autonomy based ethics, but I will preserve the benefit of the doubt and not simply assume this is the belief of everyone or even a majority here.

The thing avout having a big group of people with strong healthy souls, is we have sensitivities that most people don't have. We can feel people's energies and intentions, we can see exactly what they are doing, we see how they are trying to trick us. Then we just laugh at them for being dumb and thinking that they could actually trick us.

[/quote]

I actually do believe many people here have healthy souls and that the meditations work, which I know from experience, but it seems it doesn't make you or anyone else here perfect. No, I am not lying to you, I'm genuine with these questions. It's unfortunate that you don't understand that. It seems I can't ask someone 'do you agree with x or think x person thought y?', or they won't give a direct response. Aquarius, at the least, did respond with his view, but didn't elaborate much on the specifics. You are responding in the same line as Mageson, just with multiple paragraphs.

I would prefer if you were more objective, and if rather than dismissing my entire question because of the way it was phrased, you answered with your true opinion on the raised issues. This entire 'bait' narrative you have going here is wrong. I made it abundantly clear that I disagree with the things i bring up like forced sterilization, genocide, and so on, and I am inviting you to also disagree with these things. I only failed to clarify my disagreement with such beliefs on my 1st post describing them a single time, that one time i talked to Zevios when he called me a jew immediately as an immediate response to this. I get the impression that your perspective on me is colored by that example and unfairly biased. Let me just summarize:

I am certainly not trying to tell you 'Hey, go and believe in things like genocide, forced sterilization, etc, they're great ideas that definitely won't get other people to call you insane!'. That seems to be your impression of me, and it's not correct. Rather, I'm telling you, 'Here are several very major problems with these 'Nazi' beliefs which I think you should be concerned with, as I am. So, do you also disagree with them?'. If i'm 'baiting' anyone to do anything, it's to convince them to disagree with specific beliefs like genocide, forced sterilization, preventing the 'unfit' from being allowed to marry and so forth. I'm not arguing out of some sort of malicious intent, I'm trying to get people to understand that there is a lot of ideology associated with the alt right in general that they shouldn't so easily let themselves believe in.

I hope that's enough for you to understand. Me wanting people to define their positions on certain ideological issues which are not this site's 'main focus' is not some sort of malicious attack or bait, it simply shows that I want to know more of what people think on these issues. On the contrary, I am trying to hopefully convince some people that many of these alt right beliefs aren't ethically sound and violate general principles of bodily autonomy and more, and generally, trying to persuade people that autonomy based western ethics are a good thing and should be preserved as much as possible. I have no idea how that could seem malicious to you.

 

[SouthernWhiteGentile]

........

In all your time here, you always sound like some liberal extremist "journalist." All you do is make these weird strawman statements posed as questions, but they are not actual questions. You are always trying to lure people into saying things which you would then use to try to make us all look bad. But what really bothers you is we are not making the statements that your bullshit strawmans are designed to try to get us to say. The only reply you get is to say stop being a dumbass because we aren't going to give any validation to your strawmans. This is exactly what you are usually doing, and you've been doing this since the moment you made your account.

If you had any actual genuine questions, they wouldn't always be so rediculously strawman and bullshit. But every single time, you make it so obvious that your entire intention is just to lure us into saying some strange thing that sounds bad, so then you can just turn it right around and show your boss "Look what they just said! Look what I got them to say!" Your questions are always just like "So you all are saying [something that could sound bad if taken out of context]? Now as your answer, repeat back to me that thing that could sound pretty bad. So that I can use that as some kind of proof in my journalism that you Satanists are bad people."

But we recognize that these "questions" from you are always just these exact same kinds of strawmans and lures. We recognize that you are not being genuine and honest, and your motives are not as good as you say they are.

It isn't a 'lure', though. You keep seeing it that way but it's not, I am trying to figure out people's positions on specific issues which don't get explained in detail by the admins, they don't cover these things. I already pointed out the specific list of issues I wanted answered since I think they're pretty important. On what you think of laws banning immigration, laws expelling migrants back to homelands, laws relating to forced sterilization, etc. Do you think the Nazis did forced sterilization on those deemed genetically unfit? As that's what the official narrative of the mainstream media says. I don't even know what the official view here is on that, on what is a hoax and what is not. I know everyone here believes the WW2 is a hoax, and I think there's some evidence for that, like the wooden doors that couldn't stop gas, there only being 4 actual crematoriums which couldn't do it anywhere near fast enough, etc. But the WW2 isn't everything the Nazis are claimed to have done, not by a longshot.

Here's a link explaining the forced sterilization done on the disabled in Nazi Germany:
http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/535eed207095aa0000000243
Is that all a hoax too? I actually believe the WW2 might have been a hoax like everyone says here, but never have I seen it actually argued by alt right people or whoever else that all the forced sterilization was a hoax too. Or if part of that was a hoax, how much was a hoax and what parts weren't a hoax? I believe that those claims might all be a hoax too, but I've never seen a clear systematic review by the alt right of all the claims against the Nazis which dismantles all of them on one site with clear organization. Not here or anywhere else. I don't even know what the mainstream view here is on whether they happened or not. I do know, at the very least, that Mageson said sterilizing the severely retarded is common sense when talking about those so badly damaged that they could kill the people forced to take care of them on accident, so I doubt somewhat that everyone here rejects forced sterilization on the principle of bodily autonomy alone. That could already be a significant departure from standard western autonomy based ethics, but I will preserve the benefit of the doubt and not simply assume this is the belief of everyone or even a majority here.

The thing avout having a big group of people with strong healthy souls, is we have sensitivities that most people don't have. We can feel people's energies and intentions, we can see exactly what they are doing, we see how they are trying to trick us. Then we just laugh at them for being dumb and thinking that they could actually trick us.

I actually do believe many people here have healthy souls and that the meditations work, which I know from experience, but it seems it doesn't make you or anyone else here perfect. No, I am not lying to you, I'm genuine with these questions. It's unfortunate that you don't understand that. It seems I can't ask someone 'do you agree with x or think x person thought y?', or they won't give a direct response. Aquarius, at the least, did respond with his view, but didn't elaborate much on the specifics. You are responding in the same line as Mageson, just with multiple paragraphs.

I would prefer if you were more objective, and if rather than dismissing my entire question because of the way it was phrased, you answered with your true opinion on the raised issues. This entire 'bait' narrative you have going here is wrong. I made it abundantly clear that I disagree with the things i bring up like forced sterilization, genocide, and so on, and I am inviting you to also disagree with these things. I only failed to clarify my disagreement with such beliefs on my 1st post describing them a single time, that one time i talked to Zevios when he called me a jew immediately as an immediate response to this. I get the impression that your perspective on me is colored by that example and unfairly biased. Let me just summarize:

I am certainly not trying to tell you 'Hey, go and believe in things like genocide, forced sterilization, etc, they're great ideas that definitely won't get other people to call you insane!'. That seems to be your impression of me, and it's not correct. Rather, I'm telling you, 'Here are several very major problems with these 'Nazi' beliefs which I think you should be concerned with, as I am. So, do you also disagree with them?'. If i'm 'baiting' anyone to do anything, it's to convince them to disagree with specific beliefs like genocide, forced sterilization, preventing the 'unfit' from being allowed to marry and so forth. I'm not arguing out of some sort of malicious intent, I'm trying to get people to understand that there is a lot of ideology associated with the alt right in general that they shouldn't so easily let themselves believe in.

I hope that's enough for you to understand. Me wanting people to define their positions on certain ideological issues which are not this site's 'main focus' is not some sort of malicious attack or bait, it simply shows that I want to know more of what people think on these issues. On the contrary, I am trying to hopefully convince some people that many of these alt right beliefs aren't ethically sound and violate general principles of bodily autonomy and more, and generally, trying to persuade people that autonomy based western ethics are a good thing and should be preserved as much as possible. I have no idea how that could seem malicious to you.[/quote]


You are a complete joke. Who is sending you here? “Exposing JoS” or some other creeps obsessed with us? No one has responded to you since January and for good reason. However I will take your bait and answer any questions you have for me.