Andrew Gold Tackles The Taboo Topic Of Race Realism

Agobard Admirer said:
Yes but you could argue that those things are not in absolute contradiction- that someone manifest and knows their universal human essence exactly through loyalty the ethnic essence which God has given them and that to melt down the different ethnicities into a nondescript sludge of biomass is to attack the Universal God of Creation.
Click to expand...
I remind you, there are people of the ethnos who do not worship Christ as King. What are you proposing to do with this "biomass"? 🤔
 
Diarmuid said:
If it was more profitable for women to stay married and have babies rather than have abortions and divorces, they would all be trad wives.
Click to expand...

Being a "Trad Wife" is a luxury- unless they are going to seriously do without which some are willing to do most working class and lower middle class families cannot afford the whole "Trad Wife" thing. Also you were talking about back to the "Clann"-in Clann situations women always have people they can go to, in a nuclear family style marriage "Trad Wife" situation they do not have that, and actually it was that "hot house" situation that gave rise to Feminism as a mass movement. There is a lot evil about it but "The Female Eunuch" makes valid points.
 
The Equalizer said:
I remind you, there are people of the ethnos who do not worship Christ as King. What are you proposing to do with this "biomass"? 🤔
Click to expand...

That is the problem with Christian Nationalism.

Mark Collett actually had a much better discussion with Daniel Haqiqatjou in their "Islamism versus White Nationalism". It was very clear that Mark Collett had no respect for "Bob" and that "Bob" felt embarrassed even being there.
 
Agobard Admirer said:
to melt down the different ethnicities into a nondescript sludge of biomass is to attack the Universal God of Creation.
Click to expand...

Agree. There is plenty of theological backing for ethno-nationalism. It's actually obligatory.Your first duty of care is to your family, then neighbours, then fellow tribesmen, then the nation.

If helping a persecuted Nigerian christian involves damaging your own family or nation, then you must not do it.

As long as you are not cruel, if apartheid from afros is best for your family and neighbours, then it is the christian thing to do...
 
The Equalizer said:
LOL

"Bring in Sikhs! Bring in Hindooos!" -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G6GYRhN5980&t=52m56s
Click to expand...



First off he has always comes off to me as much more angry and bitter than Mark Collett (who I think has other character flaws). Secondly I don't have a high opinion of Sikhs because they usually, maybe always, have this sycophantic clawing and cheesy "God Bless the Queen Mum" type British "Patriotism" that calls to mind the song below. I think people like him hate Muslims because they feel that Muslims do not give British Imperialism and themselves the respect they feel those things deserve. Imperialism at certain stages needs "race blindness", especially in this time when people are trying to weaponize Christianity in Africa against the People's Republic of China which "Bob" is tied into.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hkCKN1xCLQ
 
The Equalizer said:
Haha.. Tmw Mark knew this was going to be easy :) -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G6GYRhN5980&t=11m56s
Click to expand...


When "Bob" talks about Fascists in Latin America I wonder who he is referring to?- I had been under the impression that he is a Pinochet fan so is he talking about Peronists? By the way I agree that Pinochet was not a Fascist at all. Historically "Christian Nationalism" was focused on coming up with a system that was socially just but was not Marxist Socialism and opposing Jewish power (I am thinking about people like Adolf Stoecker and Father Vincent McNabb). Okay he is not a Nationalist but you still see this with E Michael Jones. Hitlerism was in essence anti-Christian but you cannot say the same thing at all about Portuguese and the Legionary wing of Romanian Fascism- saying that is not an endorsement of those movements just a historical fact.
 
Diarmuid said:
Agree. There is plenty of theological backing for ethno-nationalism. It's actually obligatory.Your first duty of care is to your family, then neighbours, then fellow tribesmen, then the nation.
Click to expand...

Yeah what if your family contains more than one ethnicity?

A good argument against "Bob"'s position also is that both women and men can be and are Christians but Christianity still distinguishes between male and female, it goes not abolish gender just because both are Christian, so similar it does not abolish blood ethnicity. The come back to that is that ethnicity is categorically different for ethnicity.

My position is that ethno-nationalism is compatible with Christianity but not obligatory for Christians.
 
Christianity also encourages segregation of the sexes: men and women used to sit separately in church. So racial segregation is also fine.

I'd say a certain amount of ethno-nationalism is obligatory for christians. Your duty of care to family and neighbours is much higher than to foreigners, even if they claim to be christians.
 
Agobard Admirer said:
When "Bob" talks about Fascists in Latin America I wonder who he is referring to?- I had been under the impression that he is a Pinochet fan so is he talking about Peronists? By the way I agree that Pinochet was not a Fascist at all. Historically "Christian Nationalism" was focused on coming up with a system that was socially just but was not Marxist Socialism and opposing Jewish power (I am thinking about people like Adolf Stoecker and Father Vincent McNabb). Okay he is not a Nationalist but you still see this with E Michael Jones. Hitlerism was in essence anti-Christian but you cannot say the same thing at all about Portuguese and the Legionary wing of Romanian Fascism- saying that is not an endorsement of those movements just a historical fact.
Click to expand...
Did he talk about fascists other than in the lefty way to call Collett one?
 
The Equalizer said:
Did he talk about fascists other than in the lefty way to call Collett one?
Click to expand...

Yes he said that Latin America was held back because of Fascism and Communism there.

I thought it was interesting that Mark Collett admires the Roman Empire- that is quite a divisive issue among White Nationalists. By the way the technological development as the key measurement of social success idea which they both seemed to accept is often used by both right wing and left wing atheists against Christianity- also White Nationalists very often tend to romanticize the Europe of a lot less technologically advanced times.

You could also sense that neither "Bob" or Mark wanted this debate.
 
Agobard Admirer said:
Yes he said that Latin America was held back because of Fascism and Communism there.
Click to expand...
Agobard Admirer said:
I thought it was interesting that Mark Collett admires the Roman Empire- that is quite a divisive issue among White Nationalists.
Click to expand...
Not really :)

Obviously Bob gives the credit to Christianity for civilisation so Mark, who puts it down to race, counters with pre-Christian times. Similarly he mentions African countries that are predominantly Christian and still sh1tholes.

Agobard Admirer said:
By the way the technological development as the key measurement of social success idea which they both seemed to accept is often used by both right wing and left wing atheists against Christianity- also White Nationalists very often tend to romanticize the Europe of a lot less technologically advanced times.
Click to expand...
Agobard Admirer said:
You could also sense that neither "Bob" or Mark wanted this debate.
Click to expand...
I honestly think Bob wasn't even listening to what Mark was saying at times. I think he'd be better suited to monologues than debates.
 
The Equalizer said:
Not really :)

Obviously Bob gives the credit to Christianity for civilisation so Mark, who puts it down to race, counters with pre-Christian times. Similarly he mentions African countries that are predominantly Christian and still sh1tholes.



I honestly think Bob wasn't even listening to what Mark was saying at times. I think he'd be better suited to monologues than debates.
Click to expand...

His thing against Fascism in Latin America threw me.

He made his career out shouting at and trolling educationally challenged "Dawah Bros" in Hyde Park. For all their preening huffing and puffing machismo Sunni Muslims are often utter push overs (there are exceptions to this such as Chechens and Afghans) as can be seen looking at geopolitical realities but shouting at them looks courageous and daring to people who have absorbed a lot of anti-Muslim hyperbolic propaganda so Yanks sent money to his paypal. He doesn't seem though to have been seriously interested in converting Muslims.

The UK State still has pretensions of being a world power and therefore adopting openly "race realism" would be damaging to it. "Bob" realizes that. That literally is it.

What is interesting is the whole fake Christianization of the Tommy movement of which Bob is a part of which includes some rather eccentric characters.
 
Agobard Admirer said:
His thing against Fascism in Latin America threw me.

He made his career out shouting at and trolling educationally challenged "Dawah Bros" in Hyde Park. For all their preening huffing and puffing machismo Sunni Muslims are often utter push overs (there are exceptions to this such as Chechens and Afghans) as can be seen looking at geopolitical realities but shouting at them looks courageous and daring to people who have absorbed a lot of anti-Muslim hyperbolic propaganda so Yanks sent money to his paypal. He doesn't seem though to have been seriously interested in converting Muslims.

The UK State still has pretensions of being a world power and therefore adopting openly "race realism" would be damaging to it. "Bob" realizes that. That literally is it.

What is interesting is the whole fake Christianization of the Tommy movement of which Bob is a part of which includes some rather eccentric characters.
Click to expand...
I think you're wandering away from the subject of the debate a little bit..

Bob's people are Christeeuns (that's how he pronounces it :)). Mark's people are English (and more broadly British), who are white.
 
The Equalizer said:
I think you're wandering away from the subject of the debate a little bit..

Bob's people are Christeeuns (that's how he pronounces it :)). Mark's people are English (and more broadly British), who are white.
Click to expand...

I don't see Christians as an ethnic group; nor do most Christians.

Cardinal Robert Sarah said it is okay for Catholics to vote for parties like the National Party, understandable even.

It is ages since I read but I remember that in their debate with Brian Schwertley the Faith and Heritage lads gave a good Scriptural defense of ethno-nationalism so it is not as simple as Bob wants it to be.

faithandheritage.com

Kinist Orthodoxy: A Response to Brian Schwertley, Part 1 | Faith & Heritage

faithandheritage.com faithandheritage.com

What exactly is "Bob"'s authority? He has the annoying habit of saying "Chresteeuns believe..." when actually he should be saying "Bob" believes.
 
Agobard Admirer said:
I don't see Christians as an ethnic group;
Click to expand...
They aren't.

But Bob repeatedly refers to his people as the "people of the covenant", from his opening statement -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G6GYRhN5980&t=82

Agobard Admirer said:
nor do most Christians.

Cardinal Robert Sarah said it is okay for Catholics to vote for parties like the National Party, understandable even.

It is ages since I read but I remember that in their debate with Brian Schwertley the Faith and Heritage lads gave a good Scriptural defense of ethno-nationalism so it is not as simple as Bob wants it to be.

faithandheritage.com

Kinist Orthodoxy: A Response to Brian Schwertley, Part 1 | Faith & Heritage

faithandheritage.com faithandheritage.com
Click to expand...
Agobard Admirer said:
What exactly is "Bob"'s authority?
Click to expand...
Bob :)

Agobard Admirer said:
He has the annoying habit of saying "Chresteeuns believe..." when actually he should be saying "Bob" believes.
Click to expand...
Well, he was arguing the case as a Christian nationalist versus an actual nationalist. Twas easy work for the nationalist.

You can of course be a nationalist and a Christian but Christian nationalism is incoherent.
 
The Equalizer said:
Bob :)


Well, he was arguing the case as a Christian nationalist versus an actual nationalist. Twas easy work for the nationalist.

You can of course be a nationalist and a Christian but Christian nationalism is incoherent.
Click to expand...

Which is to say that he has no real authority. Bob has the stamp of approval of Tommy Robinson which is what makes him slightly important.

There is not one understanding of Christian Nationalism by people who self-identify as such, Mark actually acknowledged this.

Bob's certainly is- how I don't think the same necessarily applies to other forms of it.
 
Roc_ said:
Yes, yet another thoroughly dishonest thing you do is you continually conflate anti-Muslim sentiment with anti-Islamist sentiment to further your antisemitic agenda. The problem people have is not with Muslims per se. E.g.
Click to expand...

"Bob" claims that he does not hate Muslims only "Islamists". What exactly does Islamist mean to you in these contexts? Is the UAE for instance "Islamist" (it is governed, officially at least, but what I would consider a problematic interpretation of Shariah)? It seems that al-Jolani is no longer considered an "Islamist" now that he has well and truly humiliated himself and Sunni Muslims more generally because Trump, Macron and the Zionist Project all of whom are their not exactly hidden enemies of Islam which they have the utmost contempt for.

If you had the equivalent of Gad Saad and Douglas Murray going on constantly about Jews you would really be in a panic about Auschwitz re-opening for business. Don't worry you are not going to get much sympathy for either Muslims or "Islamists".

The great Scottish contemporary Sociologist David Miller has shown that the term "Islamist" used to mean an scholarly expert on Islam in the Western Academy but after the Iranian masses overthrow the murderous SAVAK regime and also rejected Marxist-Leninist aggressive secularism Zionists began to redefine the term which is used now to demonize any Muslim who is not a complete cuck.
 
An Islamist is someone who insists their religious beliefs do not rightly belong only in the sphere of individual private life, but rather in the public political and social sphere, and towards that they actively participate or lie (including the lie of omission) about the more than 48,000 Islamist terror attacks across over 70 countries since 9/11, or even about the 250,000 girls raped in the UK by Pakistani Muslims, or the fourteen centuries of Islamic conquest, or the eighty years of religious war against the Jewish state, or the 57 Islamic countries that were once 100% non-Islamic, or the divine mandate to take over the world and establish the caliphate, or the killing of artists who draw Muhammad, or the killing of apostates, or the killing of authors, or the turning of women into property, or the sex slavery and the mass murder of enemies by their Islamic "brothers", etc. It's pretty obvious what people mean - it's only radicalised terrorist apologist ideological fuck ups like yourself or David Miller who feign incomprehension, owing mostly to being superlatively stupid and odious cunts with empty lives I would say.
 
Agobard Admirer said:
... IIt seems that al-Jolani is no longer considered an "Islamist"...
Click to expand...
"Islamism" is a wide spectrum.

As I said, at base, an Islamist is basically an idiot who believes that Islam has something to say beyond the personal sphere, whereas non-Islamist "Muslims" are happy enough with Islam being restricted strictly to private life.

Of course there are all sorts of idiots under that wide "Islamist" umbrella.

In your example of Syria, for instance, well you had varieties of Islamist there including Salafis, Jihadis, Al-Qaeda and Takfiris.

Islamism is the superset, and Salafis, Jihadis, Al-Qaeda are successive subsets. (Salafis are Islamists but not all Islamists are Salafis. Jihadis are Salafis but not all Salafis are Jihadis. Al-Qaeda are Jihadi Salafis but not all Jihadi Salafis are Al-Qaeda, etc. etc.).
 
Islamists generally believe their "Prophet" established a unique form of government in Medina, an Islamic state. But they are deeply divided about how much of this "state" is mandated and so on. Note none of this, yet again, has anything to do with the great red herring, "race".
 
Roc_ said:
As I said, at base, an Islamist is basically an idiot who believes that Islam has something to say beyond the personal sphere, whereas non-Islamist "Muslims" are happy enough with Islam being restricted strictly to private life.
Click to expand...

So every Muslim who does not see Religion as merely about private comfort and who divorces Religion from Ethics is an Islamist?

What should we call all the Jews who refuse to do similar? Judaists?
 
I didn't say anything about divorcing religion from ethics, did It? I'm talking about imposing those beliefs on others.
 
Amos basically mirrored our modern secular concepts of universal human rights and social justice that Islamists and their progressive left apologists continuously and actively try to undermine, corrupt and subvert to Islamist agendas.
 
Roc_ said:
Amos basically mirrored our modern secular concepts of universal human rights and social justice that Islamists and their progressive left apologists continuously and actively try to undermine, corrupt and subvert to Islamist agendas.
Click to expand...

The Book of Amos is full of "Thus Saith the Lord..." and the idea that God not only punishes individuals but societies for their sins. Anyway who is the "our" here? Rabbi Jonathan Sacks- who I hope you are not going to claim was some fringe wackjob- was clear in his teaching that the concept of universal human rights is "antisemitic".


Also what we consider to be good citizenship and basic human decency Zionists consider to be pathetic weakness, the ultimate in wretchedness even;

www.latimes.com

It's a Sin to Be a Sucker in Israel

Fear of being seen as a freier creates an unbending approach to life--from parking to peace talks. Israelis say the desire to be tough is rooted in history of survival.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

And of course for the State you believe serves as a model for humanity committing war crimes are literally it's military doctrine.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJzyreTdQXA&t=4s
 
Agobard Admirer said:
... Rabbi Jonathan Sacks... was clear in his teaching that the concept of universal human rights is "antisemitic".
Click to expand...
Sacks was referring to its subversion that I also referred to.

NGOs Make War on Israel

The horrors of the Holocaust and the outrage over the failure of Allied powers to intervene provided the impetus for the creation of today's international human rights system, anchored in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[1] The United
www.meforum.org www.meforum.org

Coalition for the International Criminal Court | Global justice for atrocities

www.coalitionfortheicc.org www.coalitionfortheicc.org

And of course Islamists even though they've got themselves on all the boards and councils of international "human rights" bodies hold a certain view.

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights

CC – Subtitles available in Spanish and Russian The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights was a document put together in 1990 after the United Nations had come out with its Universal Human Rights. The Muslims looked at it and said: “We don’t like universal human rights. We will put together an...
politicalislam.com politicalislam.com
 
Roc_ said:
Sacks was referring to its subversion that I also referred to.

NGOs Make War on Israel

The horrors of the Holocaust and the outrage over the failure of Allied powers to intervene provided the impetus for the creation of today's international human rights system, anchored in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[1] The United
www.meforum.org www.meforum.org

Coalition for the International Criminal Court | Global justice for atrocities

www.coalitionfortheicc.org www.coalitionfortheicc.org

And of course Islamists even though they've got themselves on all the boards and councils of international "human rights" bodies hold a certain view.

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights

CC – Subtitles available in Spanish and Russian The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights was a document put together in 1990 after the United Nations had come out with its Universal Human Rights. The Muslims looked at it and said: “We don’t like universal human rights. We will put together an...
politicalislam.com politicalislam.com
Click to expand...

No he said quite clearly that belief in universal human rights is akin the anti-Jewish claims of racial scientists in the 19 th and first half of the 20 th century and Christian opposition to Jews and Judaism in the Middle Ages. Sure I have as Catholic a different view of what counts as intrinsic human rights than Amnesty International do or whoever but we both agree on that there are such things as universal human rights. So do the majority of Muslims (which is why ISIL freaked out deeply a large majority of Sunni Muslims). With people like Rabbis Jonathan Sacks and David Bar Hayim there is a strong opposition to the very claim that there are such things as universal human rights (which is why the majority of Jews have been happy to go along with the Gazan policies when they are not calling for them to be even more harsh and murderous?).

People like Tommy Robinson and "Bob" appear to believe that the blood and property of Muslims is kosher to take. I find this an incredibly dangerous idea.
 
Agobard Admirer said:
No he said quite clearly that belief in universal human rights is akin the anti-Jewish claims of racial scientists in the 19 th and first half of the 20 th century and Christian opposition to Jews and Judaism in the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...
Here's a suggestion for you - would you ever shut your stupid fucking hole, and all your inane bigoted rabbiting on, with your stupid lying shit that you obviously pluck straight out of your crusty old hole - it's just the rhetorical equivalent of crusty dingleberry after crusty dingleberry with you.

Did Rabbi Sacks ever say anything even resembling the claim that belief in universal human rights is akin the anti-Jewish claims of racial scientists in the 19th and first half of the 20 th century and Christian opposition to Jews and Judaism in the Middle Ages?

No, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks never said that the belief in universal human rights is akin to medieval Christian anti-Judaism or 19th-century racial pseudoscience. Instead, he argued the exact opposite in his writings and speeches: that the concept of universal human rights is deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible and stands as a signal of hope for humanity. [1, 2]

What Rabbi Sacks Actually Said
    • The Roots of Human Rights: He frequently stated that the foundational Western idea of universal human dignity—that humans are created in the image of God and possess inalienable rights—entered civilization through the Hebrew Bible. [1, 2]
    • The Mutation of Antisemitism: In his famous analysis of how antisemitism adapts across eras, he noted that bigots always use the highest cultural authority of their time to justify hatred. In the Middle Ages, they used religion; in the 19th and early 20th centuries, they used science (such as Social Darwinism and racial pseudo-science). [1, 2, 3]
    • The Critique of Contemporary Rhetoric: Sacks argued that in the modern era, the highest source of global moral authority is the language of human rights. He cautioned that modern antisemites and political actors hostile to Israel have weaponized this specific vocabulary—subverting a noble concept—to single out and delegitimize the Jewish state, effectively turning "human rights" into a modern mask for old prejudices. [1]
He never equated the genuine, universal moral framework of human rights with racism or medieval persecution; rather, he criticized the perversion of human rights language as a tool to target Jews.
 
Agobard Admirer said:
Which is to say that he has no real authority. Bob has the stamp of approval of Tommy Robinson which is what makes him slightly important.

There is not one understanding of Christian Nationalism by people who self-identify as such, Mark actually acknowledged this.

Bob's certainly is- how I don't think the same necessarily applies to other forms of it.
Click to expand...
Mark wouldn't acknowledge any form of nationalism (so-called) that isn't ethnic nationalism.
 
Roc_ said:
Here's a suggestion for you - would you ever shut your stupid fucking hole, and all your inane bigoted rabbiting on, with your stupid lying shit that you obviously pluck straight out of your crusty old hole - it's just the rhetorical equivalent of crusty dingleberry after crusty dingleberry with you.

Did Rabbi Sacks ever say anything even resembling the claim that belief in universal human rights is akin the anti-Jewish claims of racial scientists in the 19th and first half of the 20 th century and Christian opposition to Jews and Judaism in the Middle Ages?

No, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks never said that the belief in universal human rights is akin to medieval Christian anti-Judaism or 19th-century racial pseudoscience. Instead, he argued the exact opposite in his writings and speeches: that the concept of universal human rights is deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible and stands as a signal of hope for humanity. [1, 2]

What Rabbi Sacks Actually Said
    • The Roots of Human Rights: He frequently stated that the foundational Western idea of universal human dignity—that humans are created in the image of God and possess inalienable rights—entered civilization through the Hebrew Bible. [1, 2]
    • The Mutation of Antisemitism: In his famous analysis of how antisemitism adapts across eras, he noted that bigots always use the highest cultural authority of their time to justify hatred. In the Middle Ages, they used religion; in the 19th and early 20th centuries, they used science (such as Social Darwinism and racial pseudo-science). [1, 2, 3]
    • The Critique of Contemporary Rhetoric: Sacks argued that in the modern era, the highest source of global moral authority is the language of human rights. He cautioned that modern antisemites and political actors hostile to Israel have weaponized this specific vocabulary—subverting a noble concept—to single out and delegitimize the Jewish state, effectively turning "human rights" into a modern mask for old prejudices. [1]
He never equated the genuine, universal moral framework of human rights with racism or medieval persecution; rather, he criticized the perversion of human rights language as a tool to target Jews.
Click to expand...

Are you also going to deny his deep connections to the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the encouragements he gave to Kahanism also?



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Back
Top Bottom