Re: Personal attacks etc (was Re: USA: National Security Strategy...)
Leftists hate everyone, troll? From each according to their ability; to each according to their need... Sure sounds hateful. Rr Ps. The revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love, motherfucker. A certain Cuban said that, scumbag. To the Junkfile with you null
On 1/4/2018 11:08 AM, g2s wrote:
Ps. The revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love, motherfucker.
Let us always remember that until 1932, every leftist everywhere, including the New York Times, supported the liquidation of the kulaks, And that until 1978 December, every leftist everywhere supported the Cambodian autogenocide. (And if any leftist failed to do so, he was deemed a nazi)
On 1/4/2018 1:25 PM, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
And that until 1978 December, every leftist everywhere supported the Cambodian autogenocide. (And if any leftist failed to do so, he was deemed a nazi)
And let us also remember that though a few brave leftists did criticize the Khmer Rouge before 1978 December (and were immediately demonized and cast out of the left) every single academic in the entire western world entirely without one single solitary exception supported the Khmer Rouge until 1978 December, at least to the extent of remaining piously silent, smiling, and uncritical while everyone around him cheered the Khmer Rouge without reservation.
A tiny handful of leftists did criticize the Khmer Rouge before 1978 December, and got called fascists, nazis, and admirers of Adolf Hitler. But no one academic in the entire western world, not a single one, risked his tenure by criticizing the Khmer Rouge until authorized to do so in December 1978.
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 7:53:38 PM PST, <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
A tiny handful of leftists did criticize the Khmer Rouge before 1978 December, and got called fascists, nazis, and admirers of Adolf Hitler.
But no one academic in the entire western world, not a single one, risked his tenure by criticizing the Khmer Rouge until authorized to do so in December 1978.
I'm waiting to see if someone tries to contradict you! Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/04/2018 03:54 AM, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 7:53:38 PM PST, <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
A tiny handful of leftists did criticize the Khmer Rouge before 1978 December, and got called fascists, nazis, and admirers of Adolf Hitler.
But no one academic in the entire western world, not a single one, risked his tenure by criticizing the Khmer Rouge until authorized to do so in December 1978.
I'm waiting to see if someone tries to contradict you!
LoL ! My mother was an academic in '78 and she criticised the Khmer Rouge all the time. She was basically a leftist gone liberal. We had a cat - felix who would kill litterally hundreds of moles, mice and ground squirrels. His nickname was "Pol Pot". I guess Jim does not hail from academia. Of all the professors i have known i actually can't think of any of them that supported the Khmer Rouge and i can't think of any that would have hesitated to criticize them. After all they did massacre intellectuals - so it was a bit personal. - --- Marina
Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGzBAEBCAAdFiEEo8txa89xQ0v6g7ID+f9jkVc9tEIFAlpOaiAACgkQ+f9jkVc9 tEKIMAwAsVseDmI8vrTaUMWZsD2o14rvnlxO98b05/nHFNywSHVOIxe1p8+GtcOK uTyiv67lnaZX6Z8cTy6JOb6XBy0LLRxUxNFN2UJIAZ/ATwDvetln1OwEIRHA3Um1 UWTVPax2+TfaMIfm3Ct4ypVTjfTxWQ5Yl2T4dwLY6bW7gcX1nxBWQpafYD/9MdYG KCP/WfWsqvECQ4dR8MDVMnrU86Td41jc0HgEQtMA//VYs13iOT3vPic664bZHHeI fCk/mFnJq1tjtpWpZ2MrVSbfkN/6t1ekw7oQteEL93OjAVJrqgp5GUchT4yVXW/Y 3P2bCk0f2J7YTD++c7Y9pPlQWfJ4yhVDQkqykhEdaTXpiWJk4MbbBQ0E8bm/7+6c WZ7VWZ+wvhy/6GqSm48Gt3O/KWLr6zFUORsTwQzvl7rWDbPwXzuHoi6iytxC9iHC dc0ZyQE43WRb4Saj7+p69JJhb4pbbPZmz2kn/fv97JTe/mVTQP2dyd2HbCoO7acP K/3iOX7O =KlPq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 7:53:38 PM PST, <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
A tiny handful of leftists did criticize the Khmer Rouge before 1978 December, and got called fascists, nazis, and admirers of Adolf Hitler.
But not one academic in the entire western world, not a single one, risked his tenure by criticizing the Khmer Rouge until authorized to do so in December 1978.
On 1/5/2018 3:53 AM, Marina Brown wrote:
LoL ! My mother was an academic in '78 and she criticised the Khmer Rouge all the time.
Liar If she criticized the Khmer Rouge before December 1978, give us a link, either to her criticisms, or to her receiving the shitstorm of venemous and vicious condemnation that invariably followed such premature criticism. The fact that she did not lose tenure on the grounds of fascism and nazism shows she did not criticize the Khmer Rouge in public before December 1978 To claim that an academic criticized the Khmer Rouge before December 1978 is like claiming that a Silicon Valley company in 2018 has a job notice saying "No n*****s need apply". If such a thing had happened there would be such drama as to create evidence that it happened.
On 1/5/2018 3:53 AM, Marina Brown wrote:
LoL ! My mother was an academic in '78 and she criticised the Khmer Rouge all the time.
If your mother criticized the Khmer Rouge out loud before December 1978, there would be one academic in the entire western world who criticized them *in* *writing* before December 1978 Link to that Academic writing. If your mother criticized the Khmer Rouge out loud before December 1978, there would have been a thousand indignant demands that she should be stripped of tenure, many of them in writing. Link to those written demands. You are a liar, your mother was a fan of one group of torturers and mass murderers when it was politically correct to support them, and, like the mob in Orwell's "1984" during hate week, in December 1978 or early January 1979 abruptly switched in mid slogan to condemning them and supporting an entirely different group of torturers and mass murderers.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:54:35 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 7:53:38 PM PST, <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
A tiny handful of leftists did criticize the Khmer Rouge before 1978 December, and got called fascists, nazis, and admirers of Adolf Hitler.
But no one academic in the entire western world, not a single one, risked his tenure by criticizing the Khmer Rouge until authorized to do so in December 1978.
I'm waiting to see if someone tries to contradict you!
No doubt commies suck but what arch fascist donald is saying about commies is 100% mccarthyst propaganda. It is just typical americunt war propaganda with completely made up numbers.
Jim Bell
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 7:53:38 PM PST, <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
A tiny handful of leftists did criticize the Khmer Rouge before 1978 December, and got called fascists, nazis, and admirers of Adolf Hitler.
But not one academic in the entire western world, not a single one, risked his tenure by criticizing the Khmer Rouge until authorized to do so in December 1978.
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm waiting to see if someone tries to contradict you!
On 1/5/2018 4:03 AM, juan wrote:> No doubt commies suck but what arch fascist donald is saying
about commies is 100% mccarthyst propaganda. It is just typical americunt war propaganda with completely made up numbers.
So give me a link to a tenured academic who criticized the Khmer Rouge before December 1978.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 05:38:47 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 7:53:38 PM PST, <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
A tiny handful of leftists did criticize the Khmer Rouge before 1978 December, and got called fascists, nazis, and admirers of Adolf Hitler.
But not one academic in the entire western world, not a single one, risked his tenure by criticizing the Khmer Rouge until authorized to do so in December 1978.
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm waiting to see if someone tries to contradict you!
On 1/5/2018 4:03 AM, juan wrote:> No doubt commies suck but what arch fascist donald is saying
about commies is 100% mccarthyst propaganda. It is just typical americunt war propaganda with completely made up numbers.
So give me a link to a tenured academic who criticized the Khmer Rouge before December 1978.
I don't know what 'tenured academics' said nor I give a fuck. I'd of course point out that you right wing statists are fully responsible for the existence of 'tenured academics' anyway. What i said is that the numbers about commie killings are fake. Now, if you are so kind, enlighten me about the 'race' of the corpotarist scum that rules the western world. (and good portions of the non western world). Also, enlighten me about your stance regarding property rights and the corporatist, anti libertarian, anti free market scum who rules the western worlds. In other words stop pretending that you care about property rights or freedom, except to destroyt it. You are the very same anti libertarian scum that commies are.
jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
So give me a link to a tenured academic who criticized the Khmer Rouge before December 1978.
On 1/5/2018 5:58 AM, juan wrote:
I don't know what 'tenured academics' said.
Well I quite certainly do know what they said. And if you do not know what they said, then you are in no position to contradict me. If I say "no flying saucers exist", it is the job of those who doubt me to produce evidence of flying saucers And saying "My mother used to ride a flying saucer to Mars every morning on Sunday" is unconvincing. If your mother rode a flying saucer to Mars every morning on Sunday, drama would have ensued resulting in photographs of her boarding a flying saucer. And similarly, if a tenured academic criticized the Khmer Rouge before 1978 December, even behind closed doors with the curtains drawn and his voice lowered, someone would have ratted him out, and drama would have ensued, some of it in writing. And if you say, "Oh criticism of the Khmer Rouge was so common and routine that no drama would have ensued", then a tenured academic would have existed who criticized the Khmer Rouge *in* *writing* before 1978 December.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 07:13:08 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
So give me a link to a tenured academic who criticized the Khmer Rouge before December 1978.
On 1/5/2018 5:58 AM, juan wrote:
I don't know what 'tenured academics' said.
Well I quite certainly do know what they said.
And if you do not know what they said, then you are in no position to contradict me.
except I was not talking about what 'academics' said regarding some particular historical fact - I said and repeat, your comments on commie killings are right wing propaganda. Pretty sure lefty parasites in universities lied about crimes commited by commies. But that doesn't mean your right wing version of the story is true either. Now what about you applying your racial science to the thieves in wall street? What, you don't have the BALLS to do that? You must be a member of the fair sex after all... But really, a scientific racial analysis of the wall street thieves and other corporatist thieves should be enlightening. Why would such a champion of 'property rights' like you avoid the topic?
On 1/5/2018 7:29 AM, juan wrote:
I said and repeat, your comments on commie killings are \ right wing propaganda
If you talk to any Cambodian, (a lot of donut shops seem to be operated by Cambodians) you will learn that several members of his family were murdered regardless of their real or imagined politics. Which indicates total killings of several millions, approximately consistent with the new government's house to house survey and their exhumation of the killing fields. The testimony of any one Cambodian proves that the new government's estimates are plausible, are in the right ballpark. If you visit the Khmer Rouge killing fields, you will be shown evidence that guards who could read numbers were replaced by innumerate guards, indicating that the former guards were killed by the same apparatus of mass murder that they themselves operated, consistent with reports that towards the end of 1978, few Khmer Rouge remained, as a result of Khmer Rouge torturing other Khmer Rouge to death. And if you yourself did not intend to torture tens of millions of Americans to death, you would have no inclination to deny the obvious and undeniable truth about the Khmer Rouge - and every radical left regime starting with the French Revolution. Leftists hate everyone, and they hate those nearest to themselves more, and they hate themselves the most. This is obvious every time they open their mouths, and proven by the historical record.
On 1/5/2018 7:29 AM, juan wrote:
Now what about you applying your racial science to the thieves in wall street?
That the thieves on wall street are predominantly Jewish, most notoriously Bernie Madoff, former Chairman of the NASDAQ stock market, is well known. And of the thieves on wall street that are not Jewish, the remainder are for the most part middle easterners or South Asians. Though I suspect that you classify *everyone* on wall street as a thief, in which case you will come to a different conclusion. If you classify them all as thieves, Jews are still disproportionately over represented, but not by nearly as much. Also, the second most notorious thief on Wall Street is Jon Corzine, who is undeniably white anglo saxon protestant, so Jews are not in themselves the problem. If we had adequate enforcement, Jews would cut out their predatory misconduct. The problem is not Jews, it is inadequate enforcement. But just as if you allow people to commit burglary, you will find that most of your burglars look remarkably like Trayvon Martin, if you allow people to defraud investors, you will find that most of your fraudsters look remarkably like Bernie Madoff. Similarly trading in "Binary Options". That scam is as Jewish as a Bar Mitzvah. Maybe other scams are not so one sidely Jewish - obviously Jon Corzine's operation in European debt were not especially Jewish, and the great Mortgage meltdown was primarily "white hispanic" rather than Jewish. (Goldman Sachs had its fingers in that pie, but Israeli banks would not touch it with a ten foot pole)
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 11:22:30 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/5/2018 7:29 AM, juan wrote:
Now what about you applying your racial science to the thieves in wall street?
That the thieves on wall street are predominantly Jewish, most notoriously Bernie Madoff, former Chairman of the NASDAQ stock market, is well known.
And of the thieves on wall street that are not Jewish, the remainder are for the most part middle easterners or South Asians.
that's not correct.
Though I suspect that you classify *everyone* on wall street as a thief, in which case you will come to a different conclusion.
that is correct
If you classify them all as thieves, Jews are still disproportionately over represented, but not by nearly as much.
right, so the majority of wallstreet thieves are, gasp, white christians. Or 'jewish'(who are a mix of white and arab at best)
Also, the second most notorious thief on Wall Street is Jon Corzine, who is undeniably white anglo saxon protestant, so Jews are not in themselves the problem.
oh, I wasn't implying, at all, that the financial mafia is just jews. I know that's not the case. What I am getting at, is that the biggest thieves on the planet are 'white'. But that FACT doesn't agree with your 'racial theories' does it? Because you seem to believe that white people are genetically honest and black people are genetically thieves?
If we had adequate enforcement, Jews would cut out their predatory misconduct.
not really the point...
The problem is not Jews, it is inadequate enforcement. But just as if you allow people to commit burglary, you will find that most of your burglars look remarkably like Trayvon Martin, if you allow people to defraud investors, you will find that most of your fraudsters look remarkably like Bernie Madoff.
Similarly trading in "Binary Options". That scam is as Jewish as a Bar Mitzvah. Maybe other scams are not so one sidely Jewish - obviously Jon Corzine's operation in European debt were not especially Jewish, and the great Mortgage meltdown was primarily "white hispanic" rather than Jewish.
hispanic? do you mean that the CEOs of american banks were 'hispanic'(whatever the fuck 'hispanic') means? again, no, I'd assume the CEOs of citibank, morgan stanley, BoA etc etc are mostly 'white'.
(Goldman Sachs had its fingers in that pie, but Israeli banks would not touch it with a ten foot pole)
On 1/5/2018 1:15 PM, juan wrote:
What I am getting at, is that the biggest thieves on the planet are 'white'.
Only if you declare all capitalists and all kulaks are thieves. If one thinks that wealth earned from property and enterprise is legitimate, non Jewish white thieves are absolutely insignificant compared to thieves of every other major race. And even if you declare that all capitalists are thieves, looks like the number and wealth of East Asian capitalists and kulaks is approximately equal to the number and wealth of non Jewish capitalists and kulaks.
hispanic? do you mean that the CEOs of american banks were 'hispanic'(whatever the fuck 'hispanic') means?
"Hispanic" means that Angelo Mozilo got charge of a bank by affirmative action, and got other banks handed to his control by affirmative action. Initially a white anglo guy had the real control, and Angelo Mozillo was just there for the bank to get favorable treatment by the regulators, the token minority with the big desk in the big office, but no meaningful stuff in his in tray, but then his sponsor retired, Angelo Mozilo got real charge of the bank, and totally screwed everything up. And then he got real charge of a bunch of other banks, thanks to escalating favorable treatment by the regulators. And then proceeded to run his bank, and the entire banking system, into the ground in the great Minority Mortgage Meltdown. Subsequently he faced a bunch of criminal charges for numerous fraudulent activities, bribery, and corruption. Hard to say if he was actually criminal and fraudulent, or just too hopelessly incompetent to do banking regulatory paperwork correctly and keep proper track of bank assets. (Which assets tended to disappear into his pockets and the pockets of the regulators, which tendency definitely hints at crime, fraud, and corruption, or at least a curious level of forgetfulness on his part and the part of the regulators. Search for "Friends of Angelo" to get more details.)
again, no, I'd assume the CEOs of citibank, morgan stanley, BoA etc etc are mostly 'white'.
You would be wrong: CEO Citigroup who fucked up during the great mortgage minority meltdown and stole everything not nailed down, was Vikram Shankar Pandit, South Asian. South Asians are massively over-represented when financial crime goes down, even more overrepresented than Jews. Not that there are not plenty of Jews at Citigroup, but it seems that at Citigroup, the great Minority Mortgage Meltdown was a South Asian caper, not a Jewish caper. Morgan Chase has a Jewish CRO, who is notoriously hostile to hasidic Jews, and notoriously ethnic nepotist towards reform Jews, but does not seem to be associated with anything obviously dishonest. In particular, did not get his hands all that dirty during the great Minority Mortgage Meltdown, unlike his co-religionist, Jordan R. Belfort, also known as "the wolf of wall street" Bank of America, yes, run by non Jewish white people last I heard. Also, last I heard, not involved in anything obviously dishonest.
james - please relax your mind and soul. Yoga, a toke or a nice peace of ass is always nice. -------- Original Message -------- On Jan 4, 2018, 9:45 PM, wrote:
On 1/5/2018 1:15 PM, juan wrote: > What I am getting at, is that the biggest thieves on the planet > are 'white'. Only if you declare all capitalists and all kulaks are thieves. If one thinks that wealth earned from property and enterprise is legitimate, non Jewish white thieves are absolutely insignificant compared to thieves of every other major race. And even if you declare that all capitalists are thieves, looks like the number and wealth of East Asian capitalists and kulaks is approximately equal to the number and wealth of non Jewish capitalists and kulaks. > hispanic? do you mean that the CEOs of american banks were > 'hispanic'(whatever the fuck 'hispanic') means? "Hispanic" means that Angelo Mozilo got charge of a bank by affirmative action, and got other banks handed to his control by affirmative action. Initially a white anglo guy had the real control, and Angelo Mozillo was just there for the bank to get favorable treatment by the regulators, the token minority with the big desk in the big office, but no meaningful stuff in his in tray, but then his sponsor retired, Angelo Mozilo got real charge of the bank, and totally screwed everything up. And then he got real charge of a bunch of other banks, thanks to escalating favorable treatment by the regulators. And then proceeded to run his bank, and the entire banking system, into the ground in the great Minority Mortgage Meltdown. Subsequently he faced a bunch of criminal charges for numerous fraudulent activities, bribery, and corruption. Hard to say if he was actually criminal and fraudulent, or just too hopelessly incompetent to do banking regulatory paperwork correctly and keep proper track of bank assets. (Which assets tended to disappear into his pockets and the pockets of the regulators, which tendency definitely hints at crime, fraud, and corruption, or at least a curious level of forgetfulness on his part and the part of the regulators. Search for "Friends of Angelo" to get more details.) > > again, no, I'd assume the CEOs of citibank, morgan stanley, BoA > etc etc are mostly 'white'. You would be wrong: CEO Citigroup who fucked up during the great mortgage minority meltdown and stole everything not nailed down, was Vikram Shankar Pandit, South Asian. South Asians are massively over-represented when financial crime goes down, even more overrepresented than Jews. Not that there are not plenty of Jews at Citigroup, but it seems that at Citigroup, the great Minority Mortgage Meltdown was a South Asian caper, not a Jewish caper. Morgan Chase has a Jewish CRO, who is notoriously hostile to hasidic Jews, and notoriously ethnic nepotist towards reform Jews, but does not seem to be associated with anything obviously dishonest. In particular, did not get his hands all that dirty during the great Minority Mortgage Meltdown, unlike his co-religionist, Jordan R. Belfort, also known as "the wolf of wall street" Bank of America, yes, run by non Jewish white people last I heard. Also, last I heard, not involved in anything obviously dishonest.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:45:04 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/5/2018 1:15 PM, juan wrote:
What I am getting at, is that the biggest thieves on the planet are 'white'.
Only if you declare all capitalists and all kulaks are thieves.
For the purpose of this exercise I declare all scum on wall street to be thieves. I further note that wall street scum is mostly anglo-white-jewish. There are no blacks on wall street, you know... And I then note that your bullshit about blacks and crime is both incredibly dishonest and incredibly stupid because a casual look at 'race' and crime shows that whites got the world record on crime. Overall I notice that your rants about people not respecting property rights are laughably biased. You seem to whine about street muggers and SOME statists while being completly blind to what the biggest statist thieves on the planet do. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on and just parrot right wing propaganda of the white supremacist kind. Oh and by the way, wall street's motto is "private gains, socialized losses" - guess which other political mafia has that modus operandi? your beloved commies.
if one thinks that wealth earned from property and enterprise is legitimate, non Jewish white thieves are absolutely insignificant compared to thieves of every other major race.
nonsense - make the list of white banks - I bet they are bigger than the joo banks as to other non-banking, mercantilistic criminal organizations, of course lots of them are run and owned by white criminals. This is the ABC of LIBERTARIAN economics, which correctly sees privileged businesses as thieves who steal from consumers.
And even if you declare that all capitalists are thieves, looks like the number and wealth of East Asian capitalists and kulaks is approximately equal to the number and wealth of non Jewish capitalists and kulaks.
hispanic? do you mean that the CEOs of american banks were 'hispanic'(whatever the fuck 'hispanic') means?
"Hispanic" means that Angelo Mozilo got charge of a bank by affirmative action, and got other banks handed to his control by affirmative action.
oh you got one 'hispanic' in the whole history of american banking? anyway, my point remains, there are lots of white, non joo banks.
Initially a white anglo guy had the real control, and Angelo Mozillo was just there for the bank to get favorable treatment by the regulators, the token minority with the big desk in the big office, but no meaningful stuff in his in tray, but then his sponsor retired, Angelo Mozilo got real charge of the bank, and totally screwed everything up.
And then he got real charge of a bunch of other banks, thanks to escalating favorable treatment by the regulators.
And then proceeded to run his bank, and the entire banking system, into the ground in the great Minority Mortgage Meltdown. Subsequently he faced a bunch of criminal charges for numerous fraudulent activities, bribery, and corruption. Hard to say if he was actually criminal and fraudulent, or just too hopelessly incompetent to do banking regulatory paperwork correctly and keep proper track of bank assets. (Which assets tended to disappear into his pockets and the pockets of the regulators, which tendency definitely hints at crime, fraud, and corruption, or at least a curious level of forgetfulness on his part and the part of the regulators. Search for "Friends of Angelo" to get more details.)
again, no, I'd assume the CEOs of citibank, morgan stanley, BoA etc etc are mostly 'white'.
You would be wrong: CEO Citigroup who fucked up during the great mortgage minority meltdown and stole everything not nailed down, was Vikram Shankar Pandit, South Asian.
South Asians are massively over-represented when financial crime goes down, even more overrepresented than Jews. Not that there are not plenty of Jews at Citigroup, but it seems that at Citigroup, the great Minority Mortgage Meltdown was a South Asian caper, not a Jewish caper.
Morgan Chase has a Jewish CRO, who is notoriously hostile to hasidic Jews, and notoriously ethnic nepotist towards reform Jews, but does not seem to be associated with anything obviously dishonest. In particular, did not get his hands all that dirty during the great Minority Mortgage Meltdown, unlike his co-religionist, Jordan R. Belfort, also known as "the wolf of wall street"
Bank of America, yes, run by non Jewish white people last I heard. Also, last I heard, not involved in anything obviously dishonest.
On 1/6/2018 3:49 AM, juan wrote:
And I then note that your bullshit about blacks and crime is both incredibly dishonest and incredibly stupid because a casual look at 'race' and crime shows that whites got the world record on crime.
You definition of "crime" is a rationalization for liquidating the kulaks You imply an intention to murder all whites, but not racist grounds, oh no, no, on anti racist grounds. But people who murder outgroups on such grounds, wind up murdering ingroups on such grounds, as the Khmer Rouge wound up not only three million Khmer, but also most of the Khmer Rouge.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 05:09:17 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/6/2018 3:49 AM, juan wrote:
And I then note that your bullshit about blacks and crime is both incredibly dishonest and incredibly stupid because a casual look at 'race' and crime shows that whites got the world record on crime.
You definition of "crime" is a rationalization for liquidating the kulaks
my definition of crime is the libertarian one "The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion " https://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390 let me know when petty thieves steal 29 trillions.
You imply an intention to murder all whites, but not racist grounds, oh no, no, on anti racist grounds.
But people who murder outgroups on such grounds, wind up murdering ingroups on such grounds, as the Khmer Rouge wound up not only three million Khmer, but also most of the Khmer Rouge.
Now what about you applying your racial science to the thieves in wall street?
That the thieves on wall street are predominantly Jewish, most notoriously Bernie Madoff, former Chairman of the NASDAQ stock market, is well known.
It's unfair to Jews to classify these people as "jews". I think it's mostly anti-semitic overgeneralization. If they don't believe in the story of Moses and GOD himself, they aren't really Jews, and they shouldn't call themselves Jews. It's like Africans in England calling themselves "slaves".
And of the thieves on wall street that are not Jewish, the remainder are for the most part middle easterners or South Asians.
Though I suspect that you classify *everyone* on wall street as a thief, in which case you will come to a different conclusion. If you classify them all as thieves, Jews are still disproportionately over represented, but not by nearly as much.
Again, this is generally anti-semitic hogwash. They are no more Jews than you or me. I don't blame you for it, but if you trace the origins of all of these claims, they're always anti-semitic: either Christian or athiests. Mark Janssen (non-Jewish name!), PhD
Now what about you applying your racial science to the thieves in wall street?
That the thieves on wall street are predominantly Jewish, most notoriously Bernie Madoff, former Chairman of the NASDAQ stock market, is well known.
On 1/9/2018 5:02 AM, \0xDynamite wrote:
It's unfair to Jews to classify these people as "jews". I think it's mostly anti-semitic overgeneralization. If they don't believe in the story of Moses and GOD himself, they aren't really Jews, and they shouldn't call themselves Jews. It's like Africans in England calling themselves "slaves".
Fair enough. Certainly religious Jews do not cause the problems that secular Jews cause. Religious Jews tend to be unsympathetic to non Jews, but you don't see them defrauding non Jews. When the diamond trade was in the hands of religious Jews, worked fine. When it became "diverse", went to hell in a handbasket. However, religious Jews have departed a long way from the religion founded by Moses, Solomon, and Mattathias. Judaism is a religion of exile. Judaism needs to return from exile. Judaism needs to give a lot more attention to the final commandment, and a lot less to boiling a young goat in its mother's milk, needs restore the Temple and the Kohen of the line of Mattathias. If Judaism became once again a religion of Israel, rather than exile, if the Pharisees hung up their hats and declared their job done and over with the restoration of the temple, Judaism would be far less irritating to non Jews. Judaism is an obnoxious religion (though genuine Jewish believers are massively under represented among criminals, even in the crime of white collar fraud) because its exilic nature makes it hostile and angry. The religion has a permanent chip on its shoulder. Jews have returned. Judaism needs to return. Religious Jews are still pissed about the temple, which theoreticaly they want back. Actually they do not want it back because of the theological implications. They could easily take it back, but would rather have something to be permanently pissed about. They need to take back the Temple and return to the Judaism of Mattathias.
It's unfair to Jews to classify these people as "jews". I think it's mostly anti-semitic overgeneralization. If they don't believe in the story of Moses and GOD himself, they aren't really Jews, and they shouldn't call themselves Jews. It's like Africans in England calling themselves "slaves".
Fair enough. Certainly religious Jews do not cause the problems that secular Jews cause.
However, religious Jews have departed a long way from the religion founded by Moses, Solomon,
Not within the orthodoxy, like those still in Israel. Only those who followed Gregorian calendar really.
Judaism is a religion of exile.
Not at all. It is the West which has exiled them, particularly science itself. Science and nearly everyone in the West has ostracized the very religion and truth of the Jews. It has, effectively, excommunicated them from participation by laughing at their very basis: that they came from a divine being rather than recent, speculative theories of evolution. Even if evolution is true in various ways, it takes nothing from the Jews. To my knowledge they have no explanation for the American Indians for example.
Judaism needs to return from exile.
But it is indeed the West which has exiled itself from its own homeland and forgotten itself. Now, in America, apart from the fundamentalist Christians, nearly 100% of people are now schizoid on the issue of where they came from.
Judaism needs to give a lot more attention to the final commandment,
Orthodox Jews do not really covet, they recognize all that the West has made without them, yet they cannot break their loyalty to GOD, so they remain in cycle of either waiting for the Messiach to clear things up, or to abandon their GOD -- not a very good situation.
and a lot less to boiling a young goat in its mother's milk,
Much of these, I claim, including the news on television is myth-making, governed by the ambivalence of the West towards Israel. Even Christians don't care where Jesus lived and loved.
Judaism is an obnoxious religion (though genuine Jewish believers are massively under represented among criminals, even in the crime of white collar fraud) because its exilic nature makes it hostile and angry.
No, very few, understand the othodoxy, because they still believe that they are superior for being a Westerner. The West acted the same way towards the Indians: they NEVER understood them and still don't -- they just rest on their lazy ass as if they're superior.
The religion has a permanent chip on its shoulder.
They were the only ones who remained loyal, Christians erected an alternative God. Muslims got lost in being chosen for a prophesy, some of which got fulfilled in 2001, and most others seemingly have abandoned the whole enterprise entirely. Neither you, nor I, can say that they are wrong. Nor any scientist. I've explored all the pseudo-scientific arguments against theism -- they are all flawed and mostly amount to: "Well, we can't PROVE that GOD exists" or "we found these bones buried in the ground that are humanoid" -- an unscientific basis in which to conclude that those who immigrated into the lands of the Americas were those buried people's descendants. Anyway, there's a lot of loose talk about nothing, and a lot of concrete needs to fix the world, none of which the secularists have moved hardly an inch of Earth for. There a lot of unearned pride among secularists, too, so be careful calling the kettle black, when your the pot. Mark
Judaism is a religion of exile.
On 1/9/2018 10:27 AM, \0xDynamite wrote:
Not at all.
No temple, don't actually want the temple back, because of the disturbing theological implications of actually having the temple, because actually having the temple immediately re-activates a pile of ancient Jewish law that today's pharisees do not want to touch with a ten foot pole. If you don't genuinely want the temple back, then modern Judaism is a religion of exile and not a religion of Israel. The Maccabees wanted the temple back. Do you think Jonathan Maccabee would be wailing at the western wall? Israel was founded by secular socialist Jews, because religious Jews were frightened of getting the temple back, and still are frightened of getting the temple back. If you get the temple back, sixteen hundred years of excuses and rationalizations for phariseeism vanish, and the pharisees are back to being the guys who lost the war and caused the exile, while the Kohens are the guys who won the war with the Greeks. The Kohens defeated a mighty formidable enemy, which victory looked astonishingly like a divine miracle, so the Pharisees thought that they would Jew God by provoking an even bigger war with an even more formidable enemy. And then destroying their own food supplies while under siege to force a miracle. Did not work out as well for them as it worked out for the Kohens.
Judaism needs to give a lot more attention to the final commandment,
Orthodox Jews do not really covet
Yet they devote a thousand times as much energy, effort, and thought to that line about the boiling a kid in its mother's milk, than they devote to the final commandment. When Jews try to wreck Christmas, is that not coveting? When Jews demanded that they be allowed to join the golf club, was that not coveting?
The [Jewish] religion has a permanent chip on its shoulder.
They were the only ones who remained loyal, Christians erected an alternative God.
If you had remained loyal, you would have taken the temple mount back, rebuilt the temple, staffed it with Kohens, and put a Kohen in the line of Jonathan Maccabee in charge of it. If you had remained loyal, you would have given effect to the law of Deuteronomy and Proverbs, the law of Moses and Solomon, on marriage and the family. If you had remained loyal, you would be entirely untroubled by other people celebrating Christmas.
On Thursday, January 4, 2018, 10:04:44 AM PST, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:54:35 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 7:53:38 PM PST, <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
>A tiny handful of leftists did criticize the Khmer Rouge before >1978 December, and got called fascists, nazis, and admirers of Adolf Hitler.
But no one academic in the entire western world, not a single one, risked his tenure by criticizing the Khmer Rouge until authorized to do so in December 1978.
I'm waiting to see if someone tries to contradict you!
> No doubt commies suck but what arch fascist donald is saying about commies is 100% mccarthyst propaganda. It is just typical americunt war propaganda with completely made up numbers. I don't find that calling it "mccarthyist propaganda" is particularly persuasive. We may hate Joseph McCarthy for his tactics, but there WERE many valid reasons to object to Communism and Socialism in the early 1950's. As for the "completely made up numbers", which numbers do you believe to be valid? I frequently say that in the 20th Century, about 250 million people were killed by government, including in wars. Far more of those deaths seem to be caused by Communist/Socialist governments than by Fascist governments. And, as you might recall, I was reminded nearly two years ago (from the Wikipedia article on Benito Mussolini) that "Fascism" is essentially Socialism, and probably doesn't deserve to be called "right wing" as many people seem to do at this point. Jim Bell
Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/04/2018 03:21 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, January 4, 2018, 10:04:44 AM PST, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:54:35 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com>> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 7:53:38 PM PST, <jamesd@echeque.com <mailto:jamesd@echeque.com>> wrote:
A tiny handful of leftists did criticize the Khmer Rouge before 1978 December, and got called fascists, nazis, and admirers of Adolf Hitler.
But no one academic in the entire western world, not a single one, risked his tenure by criticizing the Khmer Rouge until authorized to do so in December 1978.
I'm waiting to see if someone tries to contradict you!
No doubt commies suck but what arch fascist donald is saying about commies is 100% mccarthyst propaganda. It is just typical americunt war propaganda with completely made up numbers.
I don't find that calling it "mccarthyist propaganda" is particularly persuasive. We may hate Joseph McCarthy for his tactics, but there WERE many valid reasons to object to Communism and Socialism in the early 1950's.
As for the "completely made up numbers", which numbers do you believe to be valid? I frequently say that in the 20th Century, about 250 million people were killed by government, including in wars. Far more of those deaths seem to be caused by Communist/Socialist governments than by Fascist governments. And, as you might recall, I was reminded nearly two years ago (from the Wikipedia article on Benito Mussolini) that "Fascism" is essentially Socialism, and probably doesn't deserve to be called "right wing" as many people seem to do at this point.
Jim Bell
Governments seem to be one of the most effective forces in getting people to abandon their objections to killing. Nationalism and racism are common tools they use to convince people to kill. Even if fascism has been less deadly than communism, i don't find that an argument that would make me adopt fascism. After all most forms of fascism on the planet advocate killing me. Honestly i see the ramping up of white nationalism and things like that as a prelude to genocide. - --- Marina
Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGzBAEBCAAdFiEEo8txa89xQ0v6g7ID+f9jkVc9tEIFAlpOmS0ACgkQ+f9jkVc9 tELShQv/WIE1zY5c0D1HXE0wv5pB7aeKqjj++caJ6NiLLDQstwipDkAVN5A8QunH VPkmszhnmE6L/djxsWy8iZVt0dMxbIjPBbcgCYOVe2rGtE6bISeM4uVD9a8OPxod mBm/QgQSNFtLyGiHuhF9Ekm2r2qCt/QdxzogHPK814DGmdyD3aQUirEcWtuzDXh2 f6CZLglP7F9VePjUmOXnEgiekqEhAKYHdVafQ92hnnOsXnv1Pk2XZdZw9LPdUsUj pidbhxyZ3YguGDgc422aKrBN37X8GQ1Oo9qBemceCdXXGDaaWhkPrP/JfpPu2+FP hVLTQ9F68v0VOsvQ6FKA94J+k+uiytW6y6KUMJ0Y6TvlntzCO1SI3KeAfC0fGY1g a0fGlw684wx78ZRaAn5NVbK7WDOTpOoeJik/I8mcBGW8cL7KYFmFTFCu2Jwxw7ZH QDorYEErp9KwOOYpXTKOjT+GI2svl8sbOXz3Wopu+7RdPOhXUwfbsf2i+gJyeg2I n7DHtGvt =xVV1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday, January 4, 2018, 1:13:27 PM PST, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 01/04/2018 03:21 PM, jim bell wrote:
> I don't find that calling it "mccarthyist propaganda" is
> particularly persuasive. We may hate Joseph McCarthy for his
> tactics, but there WERE many valid reasons to object to Communism
> and Socialism in the early 1950's.
>
>
>> As for the "completely made up numbers", which numbers do you
>> believe to be valid? I frequently say that in the 20th Century,
>> about 250 million people were killed by government, including in
>> wars. Far more of those deaths seem to be caused by
>> Communist/Socialist governments than by Fascist governments. And,
>> as you might recall, I was reminded nearly two years ago (from the
>> Wikipedia article on Benito Mussolini) that "Fascism" is
>> essentially Socialism, and probably doesn't deserve to be called
>> "right wing" as many people seem to do at this point.
>
>> Jim Bell
>Governments seem to be one of the most effective forces in getting
people to abandon their objections to killing. Nationalism and racism
are common tools they use to convince people to kill.
No doubt of that. Which is why I was a minarchist libertarian before 1995, and an anarchist libertarian 1995 and afterwards.
>Even if fascism has been less deadly than communism, i don't find that
an argument that would make me adopt fascism.
Are you implying that I was suggesting that you adopt fascism? Sounds like a strawman argument from here.
>After all most forms of fascism on the planet advocate killing me.
Actually, most forms of totalitarian governments advocate killing people, including their own citizenry. Why narrow down your objections, artificially, to "fascism"?
>Honestly i see the ramping up of white nationalism and things like that
as a prelude to genocide.
- --- Marina
Whereas, I view such worry as ALMOST ENTIRELY propaganda. (Not that I'm somehow defending "white nationalism")
And I think I can prove it. "white nationalism", as a term, has existed for years. But, use the Google program, "Google Trends".
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=white%20nationalism
Set the viewed timeline to around 2 years. You can easily see that "white nationalism" wasn't a "thing" until the week AFTER the 2016 elections! There was very little coverage the week of the election, or any prior week. (Except that back in March 2006, there was a peak. Dunno why...)
What does this tell me? The way "white nationalism" has been used, within the last 14 months, as been essentially A HOAX. A FRAUD. A SHAM. A CONCOCTED DISPUTE. A NON-ISSUE.
SUDDENLY, only after the results of the election came in, SOMEBODY in a powerful position of authority decided to make "white nationalism" a "thing". I suspect Hillary Clinton, or maybe the Democrats, or maybe Obama. Or a combination of them.
If "white nationalism" had been an important, genuine issue, it would have at least have been an important campaign issue, or have been heavily discussed for years prior to 2016. It obviously wasn't. It's virtually all propaganda.
Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/04/2018 05:03 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, January 4, 2018, 1:13:27 PM PST, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 01/04/2018 03:21 PM, jim bell wrote:
I don't find that calling it "mccarthyist propaganda" is particularly persuasive. We may hate Joseph McCarthy for his tactics, but there WERE many valid reasons to object to Communism and Socialism in the early 1950's.
As for the "completely made up numbers", which numbers do you believe to be valid? I frequently say that in the 20th Century, about 250 million people were killed by government, including in wars. Far more of those deaths seem to be caused by Communist/Socialist governments than by Fascist governments. And, as you might recall, I was reminded nearly two years ago (from the Wikipedia article on Benito Mussolini) that "Fascism" is essentially Socialism, and probably doesn't deserve to be called "right wing" as many people seem to do at this point.
Jim Bell
Governments seem to be one of the most effective forces in getting people to abandon their objections to killing. Nationalism and racism are common tools they use to convince people to kill.
No doubt of that. Which is why I was a minarchist libertarian before 1995, and an anarchist libertarian 1995 and afterwards.
Even if fascism has been less deadly than communism, i don't find that an argument that would make me adopt fascism.
Are you implying that I was suggesting that you adopt fascism? Sounds like a strawman argument from here.
I'm not arguing with you. Just discussing things. I know you don't push fascism.
After all most forms of fascism on the planet advocate killing me.
Actually, most forms of totalitarian governments advocate killing people, including their own citizenry. Why narrow down your objections, artificially, to "fascism"?
Good point. I've experienced autoritarian/totalitarian governments in my life. They all sucked, though the scariest moment before this year was passing through E Germany in 1973. Nowadays my emotional reaction to TSA and the like is about the same as it was as a kid passing through E. Germany. PAPERS PLEASE !
Honestly i see the ramping up of white nationalism and things like that as a prelude to genocide. - --- Marina
Whereas, I view such worry as ALMOST ENTIRELY propaganda. (Not that I'm somehow defending "white nationalism")
There are quite a few dead bodies to go along with that propaganda now.
And I think I can prove it. "white nationalism", as a term, has existed for years. But, use the Google program, "Google Trends".
Yes - of course. I've been watching it grow from a joke back in the 80's and 90's to a mainstream movement now.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=white%20na
tionalism
Set the viewed timeline to around 2 years. You can easily see that "white nationalism" wasn't a "thing" until the week AFTER the 2016 elections! There was very little coverage the week of the election, or any prior week. (Except that back in March 2006, there was a peak. Dunno why...)
What does this tell me? The way "white nationalism" has been used, within the last 14 months, as been essentially A HOAX. A FRAUD. A SHAM. A CONCOCTED DISPUTE. A NON-ISSUE.
Tell that to people who get harrassed by white nationalists for just existing.
SUDDENLY, only after the results of the election came in, SOMEBODY in a powerful position of authority decided to make "white nationalism" a "thing". I suspect Hillary Clinton, or maybe the Democrats, or maybe Obama. Or a combination of them.
If "white nationalism" had been an important, genuine issue, it would have at least have been an important campaign issue, or have been heavily discussed for years prior to 2016. It obviously wasn't. It's virtually all propaganda.
I wish i was as optimistic as you, but i have had to deal with the very real aftermath of people incited by white nationalism. I knew the woman in Reston who was killed by the nazi kid. I advise a person on electronic security who gets constantly harrassed by white nationalists - for some reason they stick to her like ticks and rarely a month goes by without her having to deal with them. Which brings us back to electronic security. I have advised my friend to use ricochet.im to communicate where possible. It keeps location more secure and does reasonable encryption. She is very leery of signal running on android as she does not trust the platform - i agree. - --- Marina
Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGzBAEBCAAdFiEEo8txa89xQ0v6g7ID+f9jkVc9tEIFAlpOsJcACgkQ+f9jkVc9 tEJdUQv/dIyoieCEu7Gncd+O1uEusA6VL/5pHGINhsOJK/zl74VQrG7U78Yen9/M 5+Uj5hoaU/BGO8ZYNVaJJonFKch2807cS4JXZfic/EX0BDRM2t7qVHC5SlIvSGe7 kpCqfEABAYBIgde3R1y3RRZONL/uG1lacuo4g3KgNdkY16XBzOz3y7QoSCi77fJX Zvk2W2+gXZlJ8D4B7aVDKkDbRMQcoBlNOWoI1loqsxIciky1AFOC5SN5tx1qIFlk E+S8lJTb+4/SvM5nn3YyXqlzqva2TXyDML6BLkFGBAo+UnA2EPPvxXP12sCIh9vb TJIQDifGf6WocL45eNKAQN6mnfnXrfH5CQMNVok7MAueMeUxJvmltiPsdPgAtjZB rlSg8thMsE/UWw7IvTM16s39AhHOx9h5bkKs6JguFHW2fCP90zpn6yNhsac7Ik8m 8yhjGYwc8gw06/QedZkdaVedCm627c9V+sKES61wVt6pXKEqPWK++yF6STCzcnFX iZnB1eLw =0/i8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 1/5/2018 8:54 AM, Marina Brown wrote:
I knew the woman in Reston who was killed by the nazi kid.
The "Nazi kid" was driving a car that came under attack by antifa thugs. The windows were smashed in. Trying to get away, he crashed at high speed into another car, which was pushed into another car, which was pushed into a several people, among them the fat woman, who was injured, along with several other people. Her injuries were not particularly serious, but she had a heart attack as a result of this incident. "The Nazi kid" did not intentionally kill anyone. There is no persuasive evidence he intended to harm anyone. At most he recklessly caused collateral damage during his efforts to get away from antifa. If he had been trying to harm people, it would have been _his_ car that hit her.
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 09:50:31AM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/5/2018 8:54 AM, Marina Brown wrote:
I knew the woman in Reston who was killed by the nazi kid.
The "Nazi kid" was driving a car that came under attack by antifa thugs. The windows were smashed in. Trying to get away, he crashed at high speed into another car, which was pushed into another car, which was pushed into a several people, among them the fat woman, who was injured, along with several other people. Her injuries were not particularly serious, but she had a heart attack as a result of this incident.
Oh wow! That is quite a different story than came out in the Glorious Main Stream Media back when it happened. You know, from those honourable, upstanding and completely agenda-free Jews who own, control and run almost every aspect of all the world's major media outlets (and the banks, and Hollywood, and much of the Western world's corporations, most of Silicon Valley, and ...).
"The Nazi kid" did not intentionally kill anyone. There is no persuasive evidence he intended to harm anyone. At most he recklessly caused collateral damage during his efforts to get away from antifa.
If he had been trying to harm people, it would have been _his_ car that hit her.
Indeed.
On 1/5/2018 8:03 AM, jim bell wrote:
Actually, most forms of totalitarian governments advocate killing people, including their own citizenry. Why narrow down your objections, artificially, to "fascism"?
Fascist governments most certainly do not advocate killing their own citizenry, but are apt to define "citizen" in an alarmingly narrow fashion. From her name, I would suspect that Marina might not necessarily be defined as a citizen were a fascist government take power in America. Left wing governments generally advocate killing class enemies, or royalists, or aristocrats, and this time around will probably advocate killing "racists" and "sexists" At the time that they start killing people belonging to this category, no one remains who believes that they belong to this category, but pretty soon, very large numbers of people belonging to this category are discovered. And soon after that, even larger numbers of such wicked people. And not long after that, even more. Right wing dictatorships generally forbid interest in politics. As Charles the first told us, politics is the King's business and no one elses. Thus right wing political killings are necessarily self limiting. If you start killing large numbers of people for taking excessive interest in politics, people lose interest in politics. Left wing dictatorships generally insist on interest in politics. The personal is political. Which rapidly becomes terrifying, and soon after that, increasingly terrifying. Thus left wing political repression, unlike right wing political repression, is not self limiting. Reflect on the infamous "Dear Colleague" letter from the Obama administration, recently rescinded by the Trump administration. The practical effect of the letter is that if a third party deems some woman has been raped the evil rapists life must be very publicly destroyed without bothering with any inconveniences like charges, investigation, or evidence. The circumstances leading to this letter was that we established the principle that women always tell the truth about rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Well, actually we established the principle that women always lie when they deny rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, but if a woman arguably changes her story during a struggle session after three big fat hairy lesbians have been screaming in her face for two hours straight, *then* she is telling the truth. Hence the significance of the reference to "third parties" in the Dear Colleague letter. Note that the accused cannot cross examine the complainant, or even learn who the complainant is. Recollect that when Crystal Mangum was detained by police for drunken violence after a night of industrious whoring, she gave numerous different stories, only one of which accused the Duke University sports team of rape, but the authorities insisted on going with the story that accused the sports team. She could easily have been steered towards a less dramatic story, or steered to claiming flying saucer abduction, or best of all, steered to confessing to drunken violence after a night of industrious whoring. But hey, if sexual violence is on the table, women are always the victims, and men always the aggressors, even if it needs two cops to restrain the "victim". So if police catch a drunk woman in a criminal act, she just has to say "sexual assault, domestic abuse, domestic violence", and she is golden. Just as restraining illegal immigrants who murder white people for racial reasons might deter illegal immigrants from exercising their rights, restraining drunken violent women from criminal acts might deter them from complaining about sexual harassment and sexual violence. And we cannot have that, can we? We also saw this principle in operation in the safe space conflict. If someone said something that might make a member of the umpteenth gender uncomfortable, no actual complainant of the umpteenth gender need to be produced, nor any evidence that a single member of the umpteenth gender exists anywhere near the incident. And what with "microaggression" the possibility of making someone of an ever increasing number of ever smaller categories uncomfortable expands without limit.
On 1/5/2018 7:14 AM, Marina Brown wrote:
Even if fascism has been less deadly than communism, i don't find that an argument that would make me adopt fascism.
If you are a fascist, and a fascist government takes power, it is highly unlikely to kill you. If you are a communist, and a communist government takes power, it is highly likely to kill you. Communists hate everyone, and they hate those closest to themselves the most. Fascists are, at worst, untroubled by the deaths of those far from themselves, and those very different from themselves.
On 1/5/2018 6:21 AM, jim bell wrote:
As for the "completely made up numbers", which numbers do you believe to be valid? I frequently say that in the 20th Century, about 250 million people were killed by government, including in wars. Far more of those deaths seem to be caused by Communist/Socialist governments than by Fascist governments.
In context, Juan is probably referring to the claim that the Khmer Rouge murdered one hell of a lot Cambodians, and especially murdered the Khmer Rouge themselves. The new government (nominally communist) did a house to house survey, asking people about disappearances. Found about three million missing. Which is consistent with what individual Cambodians I have met tell me, were telling people well before 1978 December. Defenders of the Khmer Rouge regime claimed that was just commies defaming other commies. The new government proceeded to dig up the killing fields. Found a bit over two million people dumped in mass graves. So, not entirely made up. Supporters of terror, torture, and mass murder, will condemn such numbers, but will never propose any substantially lower alternate numbers.
On 1/4/2018 11:08 AM, g2s wrote:
The revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love, motherfucker.
Let us recollect the Khmer Rouge. Before 1973 the Khmer Rouge were brutal totalitarian terrorists who infamous for sometimes practicing one way portage. You need to transport supplies from A to B, so you round up some peasants at A and have them carry your stuff to B. You don't feed them, but you tell them there will be food and water at B. When you arrive at B, you kill them. And of course, most tenured academics in the western world thought they were great guys, and if any tenured academic doubted it, he remained silent. If there was a single tenured academic in the entire western world who doubted their goodness and greatness, he remained silent. After 1973, the Khmer Rouge were brutal totalitarian terrorists who engaged in red terror, endlessly searching for imaginary capitalists, kulaks, capitalist roaders, elitists, and CIA agents. And of course, most tenured academics in the western world thought they were great guys, and if any tenured academic doubted it, he remained silent. If there was a single tenured academic in the entire western world who doubted their goodness and greatness, he remained silent. Around 1978 or so, the Khmer Rouge went far out rabid space bat crazy, torturing to death everyone who fell short of the immeasurable goodness and greatness of the Khmer Rouge, including, indeed especially, their fellow Khmer Rouge. And of course, most tenured academics in the western world thought they were great guys, and if any tenured academic doubted it, he remained silent. If there was a single tenured academic in the entire western world who doubted their goodness and greatness, he remained silent. Towards the end of 1978 the Khmer Rouge were running seriously short of Khmer Rouge, and those few who remained were generally under sentence of death by torture. And of course, most tenured academics in the western world thought they were great guys, and if any tenured academic doubted it, he remained silent. If there was a single tenured academic in the entire western world who doubted their goodness and greatness, he remained silent. Towards the end of December 1978, or early in January 1979, the Khmer Rouge, those of them still alive, lost power. And then every academic everywhere felt free to criticize the Khmer Rouge. Which they did by claiming that the Khmer Rouge had been installed in power by Ronald Reagan and the CIA.
participants (8)
-
\0xDynamite -
g2s -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
jim bell -
juan -
Marina Brown -
rooty -
Zenaan Harkness