It’s not about politics

The username is just to wind up righties. Stalin was scum and betrayed everything that Lenin wanted. I might be a lefty, but I ain't no tankie.
But, at least the Soviet Union saved Europe from fascism.
Lenin - Can you dig the f***er up to help because fascism in Europe is once again spreading fast - this time round it's called ISLAM.
 
Nazi scum.

By the way, thanks for the attempted insult, but unfortunately for you I'm immunized against all labels, it all runs off me like water off a raincoat.

But on this subject, here's what renowned 20th century Nazi, Winston Churchill, had to say back in 1920, in a newspaper article entitled 'Zionism vs Bolshevism': :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Learn your history!

https://ia601304.us.archive.org/5/i...ionism vs Bolshevism by Winston Churchill.jpg

"In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part playedby the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
""
 
By the way, thanks for the attempted insult, but unfortunately for you I'm immunized against all labels, it all runs off me like water off a raincoat.

But on this subject, here's what renowned 20th century Nazi, Winston Churchill, had to say back in 1920, in a newspaper article entitled 'Zionism vs Bolshevism': :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Learn your history!

https://ia601304.us.archive.org/5/items/ZionismVsBolshevismByWinstonChurchill/Zionism vs Bolshevism by Winston Churchill.jpg

"In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part playedby the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
""

I do know my history. My assessment of Churchill that he was indeed a scumbag, and British people look at him through rose tinted glasses. He was a great war time leader, no doubt about that, and he was great in an era of "great" men (Stalin, Roosevelt, Mussolini, Hitler), but other than that, he held some pretty abhorrent views on race, women etc.
 
Also, don't try and use Churchill to defend your shitty anti-Semitism.

I have no need to try to defend anything; you don't have arguments, you only have labels, and I already explained in a post earlier in this thread why I don't acknowledge those words. If you want to use them, knock yourself out. But like with Peterson, you do it because you have to believe other people are "pseudo-intellectuals" or "nazis" and "anti-semites" for you to be able to continue to function as normal in this world.

If you had to stop for a second and consider that we're actually making points that are worth taking a look at, then you'd also have to consider that parts of your life up to this point have been a lie, and obviously you're not willing to do that. You're shielding yourself from critical self-analysis with terms like "anti-semite" and "pseudo-intellectual", none of that means anything to me; it has more to do with you being able to keep dragging yourself out of bed every morning.

If I lived my life governed by words like "anti-semite" or "islamophobic" or "racist" then I would never look into anything beyond the limitations that people with your sort of views put in place; with anyone who deviates from the accepted narrative being assigned one of the above labels. They're control words, used to try to contain unrestricted thought, which we see with you being unable to counter anything I've said and instead delving right into your trusty bag of labels and isms. The same thing that UncleThinSkin regularly does.

But keep it up if it stops your equanimity from being disrupted, and I'll keep disregarding people like you while continuing to look into where the truth lies beyond the controls placed on language and thought :thumb:

But just for the hell of it: since you called me a Nazi, would you also label Winston Churchill a Nazi since he went further in what he wrote than anything I have said in this thread?
 
Also, don't try and use Churchill to defend your shitty anti-Semitism.


Didnt you just tell the anon that Churchill was a 'scumbag'? Are you a new variety of "Surface" bot?

Be honest to the forum, stand up and face forward: Now answer, How many years have you been on the dole?:straightface:
I detect, a thread through your incoherent loon ramblings a certain need to lounge about in avoidance of work.:neutral:
 
I do know my history. My assessment of Churchill that he was indeed a scumbag, and British people look at him through rose tinted glasses. He was a great war time leader, no doubt about that, and he was great in an era of "great" men (Stalin, Roosevelt, Mussolini, Hitler), but other than that, he held some pretty abhorrent views on race, women etc.

If you think Churchill was a racist you should have seen the other guy.
 
It is ridiculous to seek to apply the moral codes and social mores of today to any moment in history, even something as relatively recent as the Second World War. A good rule of thumb is if you weren’t there you’ll never really know, however well documented the events might have been.

Was Churchill a racist by today’s standards? Perhaps. Growing up born into great wealth in Imperial Britain might do that to you. We should not however forget that being a racist by today’s Twitter and Instagram standards includes not liking Stormzy’s latest single.
 
For the tenth time why is racism the largest topic of conversation in Europe? It's 100% natural and maybe even required to survival to exclude a group of people from your country. Poland is excluding Muslims because they are a Christian country and want to stay that way. It's their right to choose. You don't have to include people in your country and certainly not give them $1000 a month. Is Europe out of their fking minds?
 
For a racist Churchill certainly let in a lot of beautiful people of colour.

Churchill feared growing 'coloured population'

12:01AM BST 05 Aug 2007

Winston Churchill considered blocking all immigration to Britain because he feared a growing "coloured population" was posing a threat to Britain's social stability.

Churchill, then 79, told Cabinet colleagues that he did not "want a parti-coloured UK". At a Cabinet meeting on February 3, 1954, the prime minister told colleagues: "Problems will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in UK?"

Churchill said immigrants were attracted to Britain by the welfare state and he said: "Public opinion in UK won't tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559503/Churchil-feared-growing-coloured-population.html

Perhaps if he hadn't been so gung-ho for war there never would have been any "colour problems" in the 1950s and beyond, Hitler had tried to make peace with Churchill on numerous occasions.

Hitler 'stopped advancing on British troops at Dunkirk for a PEACE treaty' author claims
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/7...-2-peace-treaty-British-Winston-Churchill/amp

Nazis tried to make truce with Britain in 1941; In exchange, they wanted an unobstructed attack on USSR
"Rudolf Hess, known Deputy of Adolf Hitler, was said to have tried to offer Winston Churchill a peace pact. In exchange, the Nazis wanted to invade Russia without any intrusion from Britain."
 
Churchill feared growing 'coloured population'

12:01AM BST 05 Aug 2007

Winston Churchill considered blocking all immigration to Britain because he feared a growing "coloured population" was posing a threat to Britain's social stability.

Churchill, then 79, told Cabinet colleagues that he did not "want a parti-coloured UK". At a Cabinet meeting on February 3, 1954, the prime minister told colleagues: "Problems will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in UK?"

Churchill said immigrants were attracted to Britain by the welfare state and he said: "Public opinion in UK won't tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559503/Churchil-feared-growing-coloured-population.html

Perhaps if he hadn't been so gung-ho for war there never would have been any "colour problems" in the 1950s and beyond, Hitler had tried to make peace with Churchill on numerous occasions.

Hitler 'stopped advancing on British troops at Dunkirk for a PEACE treaty' author claims
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/7...-2-peace-treaty-British-Winston-Churchill/amp

Nazis tried to make truce with Britain in 1941; In exchange, they wanted an unobstructed attack on USSR
"Rudolf Hess, known Deputy of Adolf Hitler, was said to have tried to offer Winston Churchill a peace pact. In exchange, the Nazis wanted to invade Russia without any intrusion from Britain."
Considering is different to doing.
Churchill and his advisers are responsible for changing the face of the UK - forever.
Thank you Churchill, you're such a racist!
 
Jordan Peterson is a pseduo-intellectual, who uses big words and false profundity to appear a genius, but you're anti-semite scum.

You can both go f*** yourself.

Calling Jordan Peterson a pseudo-intellectual is like calling Cristiano Ronaldo a pseudo-goal-scorer. I'm sorry, but their track-records over long periods of time speak for themselves. However, you are still free to have unduly low opinions of people despite the respective bodies of evidence seeing as we live in free societies. Just don't expect many people to agree with you.
 
Peterson may be smart, in that he got his PhD, and lectured at renowned universities, but he isn't an intellectual, and there is a distinction between the two. Read his books, then you'll know he's a pseduo-intellectual. Here, I'll give you an extract:

"Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others."

He wraps his writing up in common known truths, such as "tidy your room", as you said, and his books are essentially self-help books. But between all of these known truths, he writes things that sound really profound and intellectual, yet they don't make any sense, nor can they be proven in any way. This the sort of writing that is written to make the reader feel stupid or that they can't understand it because it is profound. Because of this, they believe that Peterson surely must be right, great and highly intelligent, yet, he doesn't actually say anything of any worth or intellectual value, and he doesn't say anything that can be proven or disproven.

Furthermore, because his ideas can't be disproven or proven this is why he appears to "win" debates. Because of the seeming profundity of his ideas and writing, when he debates and his opponent challenges his views, he tells them that isn't what he meant or that they are interpreting it incorrectly, as happened when he was interviewed by Cathy Newman of Channel 4. In this sense, he is very similar to the sort of religious fundamentalist Dawkins or Hitchens would debate, in that their ideas couldn't be proven or disproven.

He isn't the intellectual people make him out to be, and he certainly isn't a new Messiah.

This is a terrible argument. Replace "Peterson" in the above with anyone else and you will likely come to the same conclusions. Unlike many intellectuals, Peterson has actually conducted his own studies and refers to empirical findings wherever possible. The same cannot be said for many others.
 
Jordan Peterson is a pseduo-intellectual, who uses big words and false profundity to appear a genius, but you're anti-semite scum.

You can both go f*** yourself.
I always smile with glee when a leftie gets wound up, steam puffing out of their ears. Everyday life is so outrageous to these people. Me, I prefer to smile and laugh.
 
Last edited:
liberals.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom