Why is the LEFT howling about Brexit and racist/xenophia....

[silverhandorder]

Early Americans actually did try to genocide the Indians. Africans are mostly killing Africans. Your vision of a Jewish new world EU trying to genocide "whites" is a figment of your own meticulously constructed fantasy world, and reveals more about the rottenness at the core of your own soul than anything else.

The only place I am "blaming whitey" is in the bowels of your fevered imagination.

It's crap like this that convinces me you and your ilk are full of baloney sausage.

Pray tell me who were the early Americans that tried to genocide the Indians? Must have been brown and green or w.e immature response you had in the past posts.

[erowe1]

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

Bingo. Here is where I get to say, "I told you so." That is the website of Simon Sheppard.

In truth, Jews made up a small minority of Bolsheviks. They also made up a small minority of its Council of Peoples' Commissars and its Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets. And those Bolsheviks who were of Jewish parentage were generally opposed to Judaism.

[silverhandorder]

Aren't Jews a tiny minority in Russia?

Just looked it up less then 1%.

[erowe1]

@Bryan, are we still not allowed to call @silverhandorder and @susano trolls?

If not, how far are you going to take this? And when are you going to start being honest about whatever it is you're up to here?

[erowe1]

Aren't Jews a tiny minority in Russia?

Just looked it up less then 1%.

The Bolsheviks were in the early 20th century, before so many Russian Jews moved to Israel and elsewhere, or got killed by the Bolsheviks. Not today.

[silverhandorder]

Ok so what percent you think it was. I am going to dig around. My bet less than 5.

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire_Census
Look at that less than 5%.

[erowe1]

Ok so what percent you think it was. I am going to dig around. My bet less than 5.

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire_Census
Look at that less than 5%.

I agree less than 5%. More like 3% (i.e. three times as much as your 1%). So your point is that people of Jewish parentage were slightly overrepresented among Bolsheviks, while still comprising a small minority of them, including in their leadership?

That is a far cry from calling Bolshevism a Jewish movement.

In comparison, Jews today make up a third of the present Supreme Court, nearly a third of Obama's cabinet, and 5% of Congress (while being 2% of the US population, which is less than the percentage of Jews in 1926 Russia).

Of course, I won't be surprised to learn that for you and susano, that means that "the J00s" run the USA.

[silverhandorder]

I just called bs on your statement and made you walk it back. I don't think Jews are evil master minds.

The fact that they are over represented can have something to do with them being extremely smart especially in verbal IQ.

[erowe1]

I just called bs on your statement

Really? Please quote the statement I made that was BS. Provide my own words that you think were false.

The fact that they are over represented can have something to do with them being extremely smart especially in verbal IQ.

Exactly. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Bolshevism being a Jewish thing.

Now, which of the two of us is walking back what they said?

P.S. You're a troll.

[silverhandorder]

.In truth, Jews made up a small minority of Bolsheviks. They also made up a small minority of its Council of Peoples' Commissars and its Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets. And those Bolsheviks who were of Jewish parentage were generally opposed to Judaism.

What does this mean?

I am not a troll you are an idiot. I don't agree with soosano.

[erowe1]

What does this mean?

Is there something unclear about it? No.

Is there something false about it? No.

Is this your attempt to back up your claim that you called me out on BS? If so, thanks for proving my point, troll.

And if you disagree with susano, then what is it you're arguing for here? Are you also going to pretend that you're not one of the Trump trolls?

[silverhandorder]

Is there something unclear about it? No.

Is there something false about it? No.

Is this your attempt to back up your claim that you called me out on BS? If so, thanks for proving my point, troll.

And if you disagree with susano, then what is it you're arguing for here? Are you also going to pretend that you're not one of the Trump trolls?

Jews were over represented in Bolsheviks circles. W.e the reason for that does not matter. It makes your statement that they were a tiny minority contextually untrue.

I am arguing against liberal coolaid. Where you jump in to defend Jews by trying to disregard the fact that they are over represented. And how gunny $#@!ing sings poems about colors when talking about race.

[erowe1]

Jews were over represented in Bolsheviks circles.

I have never once disputed that., nor even so much as implied anything contrary to it.

However, they were only slightly over-represented (despite their natural advantages that would impel them into positions of leadership). And they made up only a small minority of the Bolsheviks and their leadership, far too small to support the antisemitic canard you two trolls were trying to push. That is my statement. It was true when I said it in its original context, and it's true now. Their slight overrepresentation takes nothing away from my claim's truth and relevance.

You're not arguing against liberal Kool-Aid, unless you mean liberal in the classical sense, in which case, that's exactly what you're doing. But then why would someone do that on this website? Answer: Because they're a troll.

[silverhandorder]

You should have pointed this out in the first place. You did not. Mostly because you either don't know how to argue or being deceptive.

Idc about what you and soosano were arguing about. So stop trying to lump me in.

[erowe1]

You should have pointed this out in the first place.

It wasn't necessary. My words conveyed my point accurately. People who can read had no difficulty with them.

Idc about what you and soosano were arguing about. So stop trying to lump me in.

You already lumped yourself in. And once again, notice who here is walking back their words.

[silverhandorder]

It wasn't necessary. My words conveyed my point accurately. People who can read had no difficulty with them.



You already lumped yourself in. And once again, notice who here is walking back their words.

Provide quotes.

It was necessary for me to point out that you are spreading bs. I think I did a good job of it making you acknowledge that Jews are over represented.

[erowe1]

It was necessary for me to point out that you are spreading bs

Now that it has been proven that I didn't spread bs, we are left with the more obvious explanation. You took susano's side. Don't blame me. You should have been smarter. Sadly, that's asking too much.

[silverhandorder]

Lol Ok I am happy for the readers to decide for them selves.

[dannno]

Early Americans actually did try to genocide the Indians. .

Well they didn't do a very good job, then.

[Bryan]

@Bryan, are we still not allowed to call @silverhandorder and @susano trolls?

If not, how far are you going to take this? And when are you going to start being honest about whatever it is you're up to here?

I'm honest about enforcing the guidelines, and there are many violations here-- not that they were flagged, which is extremely helpful for the site to be run properly since the staff can't read everything. And no, it is not acceptable to call members in good standing "trolls"; nor does it really make sense to call someone that who has been here for 9 years.

I have reviewed much of the discussion and agree you make some excellent points here. Sometimes we allows some latitude of discussion if there is a large degree of value and there can be some positive education on the matter within our member base. It just helps to know how to get people to change their perspective on some things, mocking them and calling them trolls doesn't help. If you want to make a different you need to challenge people intellectually. For example, here's is an attempt on that for this thread:

Thank you. It's about undermining the dominant culture which poses an obstacle for whomever wants to gain control.

I would agree this is what is going on, any most specifically, the elites don't care about race issues, they care about control issues and they will destroy what is needed to get what they want. Many races have fallen victim to this and more will in the future if they are not stopped.


That said, I have some specific questions for you that I'd like answered.


1) If the issue is about "undermining the dominant culture", then why is this not your primary message vs. one of race?


2) If the underlying matter is not racism, why try to spin it as racism?


3) Would trying to spin this into a race issue be akin to playing a race victim card?


4) Regardless of a specific application of this tactics used by the elites that has some people being used as pawns that has some possibility of being racist, do you understand the potential barriers you will create against your valid points by trying to spin it as racism?


5) Do you agree that the elites use race, color, religion, etc. to try and divide the people against each other?


6) Could you agree with the logic that for every case where anyone focuses on the elite created divides that they are doing the bidding of the elite?


7) Could you agree with the logic that the liberty movement has a stronger message by exposing and focusing on the divide and conquer techniques of the elites? Could you agree this is a message that unifies all victims?

Thanks.

[susano]

Bingo. Here is where I get to say, "I told you so." That is the website of Simon Sheppard.

In truth, Jews made up a small minority of Bolsheviks. They also made up a small minority of its Council of Peoples' Commissars and its Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets. And those Bolsheviks who were of Jewish parentage were generally opposed to Judaism.

I looked at the Wiki on that guy and I would call it the usual Wiki smear/hit piece. Granted, it says the guy was a member of the BNP and they are "Britain first" white separatists (I think). I notice he was prosecuted for SPEECH, too. However, Wiki takes issue with the anti communist bent of this guy and while I'm not a white separatist I am an anti communist and that's what's relevant as far as the Bolsheviks.

Can you refute the lists I posted? I don't have time right now to go digging through Marxist sites which are also likely to have those lists but will try later. Assuming the lists are accurate, they break down like this:

Central Committee: 9 of 12 or 75% Jews
Council of People's Commissars: 17 of 22 or 77% Jews
Central Executive Committee: 43 of 60 or 72% Jews
Extraordinary Commission of Moscow: 25 of 36 or 69% Jews

This in a country that was 3% or 5% or even 10% Jews is hardly a "small minority". It's the opposite. It's a massive over representation of a tiny part of the population and their revolution went on to murder millions of Christian Russians, taking direct aim at their Orthodox religion, clergy and churches in the process.

While you can attack the source of a website, I notice you avoided Churchill, Solzhenitsyn and Putin who have all said the same thing because it's true.

[Chieppa1]

Technically the EU has only existed since 2007.

The reasons for the EU sound solid: "To assure the free movement of goods and people within the borders."

Or 1993.

Like any other managed trade agreement. Always called "Free Trade".

[susano]

I'm honest about enforcing the guidelines, and there are many violations here-- not that they were flagged, which is extremely helpful for the site to be run properly since the staff can't read everything. And no, it is not acceptable to call members in good standing "trolls"; nor does it really make sense to call someone that who has been here for 9 years.

I have reviewed much of the discussion and agree you make some excellent points here. Sometimes we allows some latitude of discussion if there is a large degree of value and there can be some positive education on the matter within our member base. It just helps to know how to get people to change their perspective on some things, mocking them and calling them trolls doesn't help. If you want to make a different you need to challenge people intellectually. For example, here's is an attempt on that for this thread:




I would agree this is what is going on, any most specifically, the elites don't care about race issues, they care about control issues and they will destroy what is needed to get what they want. Many races have fallen victim to this and more will in the future if they are not stopped.


That said, I have some specific questions for you that I'd like answered.


1) If the issue is about "undermining the dominant culture", then why is this not your primary message vs. one of race?


2) If the underlying matter is not racism, why try to spin it as racism?


3) Would trying to spin this into a race issue be akin to playing a race victim card?


4) Regardless of a specific application of this tactics used by the elites that has some people being used as pawns that has some possibility of being racist, do you understand the potential barriers you will create against your valid points by trying to spin it as racism?


5) Do you agree that the elites use race, color, religion, etc. to try and divide the people against each other?


6) Could you agree with the logic that for every case where anyone focuses on the elite created divides that they are doing the bidding of the elite?


7) Could you agree with the logic that the liberty movement has a stronger message by exposing and focusing on the divide and conquer techniques of the elites? Could you agree this is a message that unifies all victims?

Thanks.

Bryan, I just saw your post and thanks for the thoughtful questions. I will answer all of them later. I have guests coming and don't have time, ATM, and want to give well thought out answers which will take a little time. I'll try to address this later tonight.

[tod evans]

Technically the EU has only existed since 2007.

The reasons for the EU sound solid: "To assure the free movement of goods and people within the borders."

The agenda came to light today;

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ate-Superstate

[erowe1]

I'm honest about enforcing the guidelines, and there are many violations here-- not that they were flagged, which is extremely helpful for the site to be run properly since the staff can't read everything. And no, it is not acceptable to call members in good standing "trolls"; nor does it really make sense to call someone that who has been here for 9 years.

You say you are honest about enforcing the guidelines. But you're really only honest about enforcing your make believe version of them. The published guidelines include nothing about calling trolls trolls. Conspicuously, you don't deny that they are trolls. Nobody should have to go tattling to mods every time some troll trolls here. We who stand for what this site claims to stand for (it remains to be seen if it really still does) should be allowed to take matters into our own hands by humiliating and mocking trolls until they run away with their tails between their legs, just like has always been done here.

If you want to have guidelines that say we can't do that any more, then stick your neck out and change the guidelines.

It just helps to know how to get people to change their perspective on some things, mocking them and calling them trolls doesn't help. .

As you can tell, I and many others here virulently disagree with you on this. So does the history of this site. So do the published site guidelines.

[erowe1]

Can you refute the lists I posted? I don't have time right now to go digging through Marxist sites which are also likely to have those lists but will try later. Assuming the lists are accurate, they break down like this:

Central Committee: 9 of 12 or 75% Jews
Council of People's Commissars: 17 of 22 or 77% Jews
Central Executive Committee: 43 of 60 or 72% Jews
Extraordinary Commission of Moscow: 25 of 36 or 69% Jews

Yes. I already have refuted it. In truth, Jews only made up about 5% of all of the above groups.

You already proved my point. You never studied this critically. You just copied and pasted what you got from a racist source, and when you finally did provide your source after repeatedly avoiding it, you proved I was right about it.

[Brian4Liberty]

You say you are honest about enforcing the guidelines. But you're really only honest about enforcing your make believe version of them. The published guidelines include nothing about calling trolls trolls.

Here are the relevant guidelines:

Being Respectful
Maintaining a proper decorum is essential for any group, and is critically important for online political forums. Being respectful of others is an important part of that and required by the Community Guidelines. Here are some examples of being respectful vs. not:

"You're an idiot for thinking that." -- not respectful since the statement is based on an insult.
"Your delusional thinking" -- not respectful since your statement is based on an insult.
"Here are the problems with your line of thinking..." -- respectful, you don't have to agree and can present logical counter-arguments.
"Troll" -- calling other members a troll is not respectful and implies you know the intent of the member.
Religious context: See this special instructional thread.
...
If you take issue with another member:

Do:

Debate the issues. Attack bad ideas and questionable information.
If a user keeps rehashing the same debate, call for a "Site Issue Evaluation" debate thread on the issues in accordance with our "Site Issue Evaluations - Managing Contentious Issues" policy. Message the staff for details if needed.
Put the user on your ignore list.



Don't:

Do not call other members names such as idiot, troll, liberal (unless self-labeled) or other names.
Do not antagonize other members by calling them out in thread titles.
Do not hunt down random posts by a user to apply negative reputation points.
Do not use PMs or rep messages as a backhanded way to break the guidelines.
Do not attempt to rally a negative campaign against the member.
Do not accuse others of violating the guidelines.
Do not retaliate if attacked; refocus the discussion to the topic, call for the discussion to be kept civil or do not respond.
...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989

The point being that civil discourse is preferred over name calling. That's pretty standard for moderated forums.

Conspicuously, you don't deny that they are trolls. Nobody should have to go tattling to mods every time some troll trolls here. We who stand for what this site claims to stand for (it remains to be seen if it really still does) should be allowed to take matters into our own hands by humiliating and mocking trolls until they run away with their tails between their legs, just like has always been done here.

The membership of the forum is fairly diverse. People align on certain issues, but that changes over time and depending upon the issue. There is no static "we" on every issue, and you certainly do not speak for this forum, let alone for any other individuals.

[erowe1]

Wow. When did the troll part get added to that?

What's the point of having this website if we can't even criticize people for trolling?

As I see it, if people don't want to be called trolls, they shouldn't troll.

[erowe1]

The membership of the forum is fairly diverse. People align on certain issues, but that changes over time and depending upon the issue. There is no static "we" on every issue, and you certainly do not speak for this forum, let alone for any other individuals.

In addition to the guidelines is a mission statement. And among the guidelines you neglected to mention are some requiring no supporting of agendas counter to our mission and no supporting of mission-supporting activism efforts.

Also, note that even in the part you copied and pasting about the use of the word troll, it is presented in a context of replying to arguments. You can't say, "Here are the problems with your line of thinking," when there is no line of thinking but just pure trolling.

And who do you think you are anyway, telling me I can't speak for this forum but you can?

[Bryan]

You say you are honest about enforcing the guidelines. But you're really only honest about enforcing your make believe version of them.

I certainly disagree with your characterization, but you're welcome to point out flaws in the moderation; I understand things aren't perfect and we aim to do better.

The published guidelines include nothing about calling trolls trolls.

Brian pointed out the issues here.

Conspicuously, you don't deny that they are trolls.

I don't deny that some members are using arguments that I do not see as helpful to our movement. I do not question their intent or motives however, it doesn't matter if I did anyway. With the right due-process, long time members can be banned but I'm not going to railroad anyone who has been here 5+ years. They have earned more than that, just like you have earned more than that. Still, I'm not afraid to hit anyone up side the head with good arguments.

Nobody should have to go tattling to mods every time some troll trolls here.

I get that, but it's the situation we are in give that the site does not have the resources to pay someone to read, parse and moderate every post. Regardless, replies must still be in the guidelines.

We who stand for what this site claims to stand for (it remains to be seen if it really still does) should be allowed to take matters into our own hands by humiliating and mocking trolls until they run away with their tails between their legs, just like has always been done here.

By all means you can beat someone up with good arguments, and if that humiliates them to leaving that is their choice. If people don't leave and keep causing a problem the staff will deal with the situation.

If you want to have guidelines that say we can't do that any more, then stick your neck out and change the guidelines.

The guidelines had recently changes to become more strict. The goal was to improve the discourse of the site to make it more intellectually functional.


I'll split all of this side discussion off if you want to keep discussing it.

Thanks.