The Metro: Morrissey’s pro Black Lives Matter tweet dragged on social media (June 3, 2020)

Why would using the word be wrong in the 21st century when there's still sodomites running around? Why aren't you offended by the word retard or stupid or necrophilia? Just as bad. But like the typical weak male of the 21st century your butthole puckers up when you hear words like n*****, f*****, sodomite.. You're mentally weak and if you wear a mask in public mocking me is a waste of time cause you already lose plus you pretend you have a family which is almost as pathetic as @Ketamine Sun 's attempt at music

You're not a waste of time, you're a waste of a skin - big difference. On your other idiotic points, i'm not offended by any of the words that you use, I'm pointing out that it's only poorly educated fools like you that would use words like that in this day and age. Im certainly not weak neither physically nor mentally, however somebody like yourself who likes to call others weak or wimps, clearly has self esteem issues.

I actually feel sorry for you as it must be hard to accept that you are one of life's losers.
 
Verso doesn't dispute anti-racism being a religion. He claims that all ideologies are religions. Hardly.

Look at this.

You've got the washing of feet.


That's straight out of the new testament.

And what does this look like to you?



What would you say that looks more like: a political rally or a religious ritual?

To me, that looks like a religious ritual. You've got the hands in the air, the call and response, the somber tone. It has all the markers.

Or this. What's this look like?



If you didn't give me any context and just showed me this video, I would think this was some kind of Evangelical revival. Republicans don't act like this when one of their people died. They didn't act that way when Reagan died.

And what's all this about?


And then you got this.


They are literally trying to get white people to start worshiping blacks.

And the concept of "whiteness" as anti-racists describe it is just a stand-in for original sin. Transcending ones whiteness is the equivalent of being "saved".

Now you might make the case that all ideologies contain SOME elements of religion in the sense that they have doctrines and heresies. But they don't have all the corny rituals. You might say the tiki torch march at Charlottesville LOOKED kind of like a religious ritual but really that was just a larp and embodied with several layers of irony.
 
Part of it is that people do want to believe that they live in a just world.

People know that injustice occurs. They know that bad things happen to good people and all that. But at heart, people like to believe as MLK said that "the moral arc of history bends towards justice". That's why you always hear liberals talking about "being on the right side of history". That phrase "the right side of history" implies a faith in the universe it is ultimately good and moral. That while the bad guys may get the upper hand for a time, in the end, the good guys always win.

The scale of deception being perpetrated on society by our overlords is of such an extraordinary magnitude that it boggles the mind. People don't want to believe that their own society is capable of that level of dishonesty. Maybe that sort of thing happens in North Korea. Maybe it happened in Stalin's Russia or in Nazi Germany. But MY society? Surely MY society is capable not of that level of dishonesty. The idea that EVERYONE is lying to them, the media, academia, the politicians, the celebrities, big business.... People don't want to believe that level of deception is even possible.
And people would like to believe that surely there must be mechanisms in place that would make that level of deception impossible. If the BBC started lying to them, then Sky News would call them out. If the New York Times started making up bullshit, then the Boston Globe would reveal the lie. Surely in a "free society" the truth must ultimately and always prevail.

So I get people being suspicious of me. Because if what I am saying is true, then that means all of society is lying to them. On a pure emotional level, it just feels more likely that I, some random dude on the internet, am full of shit than that all of society is lying to them. That if I was telling the truth, then surely they would be hearing it from people with more credentials and trapping of authority than I have. I understand that feeling.
If there were in any doubt at all, then you would think there would at least be a debate about it going on. But there is no debate. Democrats and Republicans, Labor and Tory, Fox News and MSNBC, Christians and atheists, Blood and Crips, they may all disagree ferociously on a whole spectrum of issues from taxes to abortion to anthropogenic climate change. But there is one thing all them agree on and that's that all races are equal and that racism is the absolute worst thing in the world. They may disagree on absolutely every other issue under the sun but that's the one thing that EVERYONE agrees on. Who are you go to believe: me or all of society?

So when people say things like "all the evidence shows", they probably believe it does. But they don't believe that because they personally have seen that evidence. They just assume that it MUST be out there. It MUST be. Mountain of evidence. The size of Mount Everest. And that evidence absolutely 100% says what they think it says.
When Verso says stuff like "If you said that in a room full of academics, they would laugh at you", he probably believes that. It's his way of saying "While I personally can't explain to you why you are wrong because I've never really taken the time to look into the evidence, SURELY those big brains in the university who HAVE looked into this stuff could debunk it six ways to Sunday."

And do you know why they think that? Because if that's not the case, if the evidence isn't there and it isn't overwhelming and incontrovertible, then that means all of society is lying to them and people don't want to believe that is possible. That would make the world they live in not just unjust, not just dishonest, but unimaginably cruel. It means their society has been manipulating their emotions their entire life, guilting them and making them feel like shit with lies. And people do not want to believe that their own society is capable of that level of cruelty.
What an absolute waste of time it was to type up this heap of self-aggrandizing nonsense. This is dorm room-level discourse. Who are you even talking to? I don't think there's a single person participating in this conversation over the last couple weeks who thinks that the media and the government operate out of a place of honesty or altruism. Maybe try this one on the playground.
 
Part of it is that people do want to believe that they live in a just world.

People know that injustice occurs. They know that bad things happen to good people and all that. But at heart, people like to believe as MLK said that "the moral arc of history bends towards justice". That's why you always hear liberals talking about "being on the right side of history". That phrase "the right side of history" implies a faith in the universe it is ultimately good and moral. That while the bad guys may get the upper hand for a time, in the end, the good guys always win.

The scale of deception being perpetrated on society by our overlords is of such an extraordinary magnitude that it boggles the mind. People don't want to believe that their own society is capable of that level of dishonesty. Maybe that sort of thing happens in North Korea. Maybe it happened in Stalin's Russia or in Nazi Germany. But MY society? Surely MY society is capable not of that level of dishonesty. The idea that EVERYONE is lying to them, the media, academia, the politicians, the celebrities, big business.... People don't want to believe that level of deception is even possible.
And people would like to believe that surely there must be mechanisms in place that would make that level of deception impossible. If the BBC started lying to them, then Sky News would call them out. If the New York Times started making up bullshit, then the Boston Globe would reveal the lie. Surely in a "free society" the truth must ultimately and always prevail.

So I get people being suspicious of me. Because if what I am saying is true, then that means all of society is lying to them. On a pure emotional level, it just feels more likely that I, some random dude on the internet, am full of shit than that all of society is lying to them. That if I was telling the truth, then surely they would be hearing it from people with more credentials and trapping of authority than I have. I understand that feeling.
If there were in any doubt at all, then you would think there would at least be a debate about it going on. But there is no debate. Democrats and Republicans, Labor and Tory, Fox News and MSNBC, Christians and atheists, Blood and Crips, they may all disagree ferociously on a whole spectrum of issues from taxes to abortion to anthropogenic climate change. But there is one thing all them agree on and that's that all races are equal and that racism is the absolute worst thing in the world. They may disagree on absolutely every other issue under the sun but that's the one thing that EVERYONE agrees on. Who are you go to believe: me or all of society?

So when people say things like "all the evidence shows", they probably believe it does. But they don't believe that because they personally have seen that evidence. They just assume that it MUST be out there. It MUST be. Mountain of evidence. The size of Mount Everest. And that evidence absolutely 100% says what they think it says.
When Verso says stuff like "If you said that in a room full of academics, they would laugh at you", he probably believes that. It's his way of saying "While I personally can't explain to you why you are wrong because I've never really taken the time to look into the evidence, SURELY those big brains in the university who HAVE looked into this stuff could debunk it six ways to Sunday."

And do you know why they think that? Because if that's not the case, if the evidence isn't there and it isn't overwhelming and incontrovertible, then that means all of society is lying to them and people don't want to believe that is possible. That would make the world they live in not just unjust, not just dishonest, but unimaginably cruel. It means their society has been manipulating their emotions their entire life, guilting them and making them feel like shit with lies. And people do not want to believe that their own society is capable of that level of cruelty.
(y)
 
But like the typical weak male of the 21st century your butthole puckers up when you hear words like n*****, f*****, sodomite..

As you are no doubt aware, I am no squish when it comes to violating liberal taboos. However, I don't think that using language like that is particularly helpful.

Being edgy is fun. Seeing liberals get offended is fun. But the thing is that the ideas are already edgy. There's no need to spice them up with a bunch of slurs that people have been programmed to have to have automatic negative emotional responses to. People will still be 90% as offended without them.
All slurs do is give people an excuse to not engage with what you are saying. People will still find excuses not to engage with them but there's no reason to just GIVE them one with a giant bow on top.

Mencius Moldbug once said "The one thing you really don’t wanna do is inhabit the stereotypes of your opponents." There is deep wisdom in that. It ain't 2016 anymore. The zeitgeist has totally change. Even the Daily Stormer (THE DAILY f***IN' STORMER!!!) recently announced that they would no longer be using racial slurs in their articles.

Now, I'm not "offended" by such language per se. I just don't think it's helpful. If it were, I'd say knock yourself out. And if this was an explicitly right-wing space, I wouldn't care. But it's not. You just have ask yourself: are you actually trying to win people over or are you just trying to get your dopamine?

I'm not telling you what to do. Just giving you my opinion.
 
You are utterly clueless as to whom is running things and you don't actually oppose any of their underlying moral premises.

You attack the cape rather than the matador.

? & when did you work in politics? Or do you get all your inside information from the internet?
 
Freud would have a field day...
?
Radish I think Freud would have more fun with your avatar TBH

have you now taken over the 'surface' posts FFS? hes making weak minded posts like never before.:lbf:
 
You don't know how to change it and the left is all the adjectives you just described. If you're still playing football LvR than you're lost. That games been played for too long. Stop whining. You complain about whites, you complain about injustice and racism yet you don't offer any answers in any one of your 1,000 posts because you have none. So instead of trying to lecture everyone with your indoctrinated talking points how bout go think up some solution's. And saying things need to be reformed isn't an answer. Saying everything is wrong but not coming up with solution's makes you a nag. You're female so without a man's guidance you couldn't come up with a solution anyways

We have manifestos.
 
? & when did you work in politics?

Depends on how you define "in politics". Is Ash Sakar "in politics"? Is the Anti-Defamation League political? Maybe the ADL does not involve itself in electoral politics but there are political ramifications to its existence.

Politics does not begin in the political realm but in the personal.

Or do you get all your inside information from the internet?

There you go again. Appealing to the establishment (who you hate in theory) to be the arbiters of truth. If it doesn't come from establishment approved outlets, it can not be trusted.
 
?
Radish I think Freud would have more fun with your avatar TBH

have you now taken over the 'surface' posts FFS? hes making weak minded posts like never before.:lbf:
I grow radis noirs, that's the reason I took the name. That you clearly see a big black cock is, I'm afraid, down to your psychological inadequacy, not mine. As for being weak-minded, there's no-one on here who writes more cretinous drivel than you.
 
Depends on how you define "in politics". Is Ash Sakar "in politics"? Is the Anti-Defamation League political? Maybe the ADL does not involve itself in electoral politics but there are political ramifications to its existence.

Politics does not begin in the political realm but in the personal.



There you go again. Appealing to the establishment (who you hate in theory) to be the arbiters of truth. If it doesn't come from establishment approved outlets, it can not be trusted.

Ash is a pundit. The ADL is a pressure group.

The internet is full of unevidenced bullshit.

But, I'll take it that's a no. You have never worked in politics & all your information comes from the internet.
 
Big Trav thinks that because he's written a few articles for a racist blog, he's "in politics." He should run for office and see how far the white nationalist rhetoric goes when delivered in that effete, lisping tone of his.
 
The internet is full of unevidenced bullshit.

The MSM is full of unevidence bullshit too.
The entire mainstream media spent two years promoting a convoluted conspiracy theory that Donald Trump was a secret Russian agent only for to come out that it was all a bunch of bullshit from the beginning.
You know who was saying it was bullshit all along? The internet.

So there’s bullshit everywhere. The only rational thing to do is take it all in and make up your own mind.
 
The MSM is full of unevidence bullshit too.
The entire mainstream media spent two years promoting a convoluted conspiracy theory that Donald Trump was a secret Russian agent only for to come out that it was all a bunch of bullshit from the beginning.
You know who was saying it was bullshit all along? The internet.

So there’s bullshit everywhere. The only rational thing to do is take it all in and make up your own mind.

You don't have to get your information from the mainstream media.

There's books, documents, talking to people involved, working in the field...
 
You don't have to get your information from the mainstream media.

There's books, documents, talking to people involved, working in the field...

What makes you think I do do those things? I just personally think it looks pretentious to talk about the books I’ve read.
Morrissey agrees.
“With no reason to talk about
the books I read but still I do”

Did I not post a 60 page peer reviewed scientific study on race and cognitive ability that you refused to look at? Or does that not count because I read it on the Internet rather than than mailing off for a hard copy?
 
Back
Top Bottom