Please note that this “professor” definitively states that he is not “alt-left” but is “just an actual communist”.
They just can’t help themselves. Every so often they burst and can’t help but revealing their real agenda.
This is also significant because “they” (pick your group) have also been hard at work trying to deny White Genocide.
Look, this is very easy. Is there anyone that hates Islam and is in an immediate position to be existentially threatened by it and simultaneously historically hates Whites or all peoples in the out-group, and have religious/political texts dictating such (there is more than one group that could fit this profile)? But who has the most to gain, who has the power in western culture? Is there a group that happens to be grossly overrepresented in the areas of power (media, politics/lobbying, finance, culture etc.) that are frequently the mouthpieces for anti-white/anti-western/pro-globalism organizations? Is there a group that would have a vested interest in seeing mass migration continue to flood western nations? Is there a group you are not allowed to ask questions about, and in fact is specifically illegal in some countries? Do these groups all happen to be the same?
If the answer is in the affirmative, perhaps it is not unreasonable to take this into consideration. If you come up with two or more groups, ask yourself if there is any relation between them.
Anyone notice his name?
If this sounded mealy-mouthed, that’s because it was. Unfortunately, current circumstances makes it almost obligatory.
Remember when “anti-white” was just a “racist conspiracy theory”?
Ciccariello-Maher, which is Italian and Irish in origin. Yet from your post I distinctly get the impression you’re suggesting Jews are behind it. You know Breitbart is Jewish, right?
But what would the premature folding of the bankers accomplish? Back to barter, bit coin? Plastic maybe, but with half the population near Bankruptsy, they do not qualify for credit.
Pay as you go cards? Nahhhhhhh, not every company pays through direct deposit.
Finally, it would defeat the positive notion associated with prophecy, which has gone on too long not to effect the future.
Finally it is for the want of synthesis that still offers the most hope, there are no other segments to place into the picture of the jigsaw.
Therefore all workable elements need to be sustained, not gotten rid of.
Yes I am fully aware. You are making the mistake of hearing the argument and automatically assuming I am being absolutist in my notion of grouping. For clarification, I am not.
You yourself say “yet from your post I distinctly get the impression”. Why? Let’s examine that instead of the one-liner about his name. Are you saying that Jews fit this profile? No of course not, right? You’re really saying that “that’s what anti-semites say”, right?
Let us assume that is the group I was referring to (though you must admit there is more than one group that today could fit this profile, including the very self-described identity this “professor” ascribes to himself). Would you disagree with that? Could you provide any evidence that it isn’t the case? Is there any reason why the possibility shouldn’t be explored?
For the record Maher has more than one etymological source. Just so you know, the clue in his name isn’t specifically “Maher” alone.
Doesn’t look that much Jewish (though I wouldn’t rule it out completely, in some degree).
He does look homosexual. An effeminacy about him and more importantly a pride of said effeminacy.
Personally I don’t care whether he is Jewish or not, that wasn’t really the point. The point is to stop deluding ourselves. A good first step would be to start recognizing patterns and asking the question “Why?”. Wherever that leads to.
I’m also surprised that nobody picked up in the article that he rails against “Jews” as well. Did you read the article?
The point is it doesn’t matter what I, myself believe the pattern to be, I am quite secure in my ability to at least recognize the patterns and analyze them. I cannot say the same for others. The reply to my point about his name is a perfect example this. As I stated “Maher” is not specifically what I was referring to.
A Drexel Professor just called for white genocide, but the real story here is whether or not the guy on the internet you heard it from is a closet anti-semite? Ok.
Railing against Jews - Did he say something against Breitbart?
If he is a communist, as he claims, then I find it strange that he would be at odds with Jews.
When Breitbart writes that he’s also railing against Jews then I imagine that probably the majority of their readers think that that’s another big negative in his resume. Me, my first thought is - “Really?”
There are some Jews who criticise the tribe but they are very, very few.
In America, anti-semitism and anti-poc and anti-homosexual is much more offensive than being anti-white. And I’m talking about the sentiments among Whites themselves. Even among many Republicans. And so even on Breitbart, they will add “and he said something bad about the Jews or some Jew too!”.
Why is that?
Do Whites think of themselves as invincible? Is it meant as a display of strength in a society which very much into slave morality?
Anyway, it’s not coming across as a display of strength to anybody. No noble self-flagellation points awarded. Well, maybe among dummy Whites, usually highly educated dummy Whites.
Anti-White sentiment is nothing new, it has been propagated at universities for a long time. It’s just that it was theoretical at first with less physical or material consequences. Or at least, they could be denied. Again, denied by Whites themselves. - “No, no, I am fine. Thank you very much. Gotta heal the world n’ stuff.”
A combination of being sheltered and cowardice is a factor in this denial.
But at the same time, this doesn’t mean that this isn’t and wasn’t exploited and fostered to come about.
There are many angles to approach this all.
Notice how Jews don’t like Evangelical, even less than Muslims.
And notice that Evangelicals like Jews best other than themselves.
If this is true - and it is approximately the case - can you then imagine that Jews might want to get rid of Whites in America?
I didn’t “automatically assume” anything. I read your OP. In it, you strongly suggest a single group. No need for “absolutism”, unless you think Breitbart is an exception.
Not “of course not”. I’m not saying Jews (though not ‘the Jews’) do not fit the profile. But yeah, I’m certainly saying “that’s what anti-semites say”.
Nope, go explore it by all means.
I browsed it. In any case, all it contains to that extent is the mere claim that “[t]he professor’s Twitter feed is filled with […] attacks on Jews”, without any screenshots or even typed examples.
I for one responded to the OP, not to the article linked to. To be sure, though, the professor and the OP aren’t equally just individuals; Drexel is not very heterodox:
The thing about the professor and his kind is of course that they blame “whites” for having exercised their will to power (in being slave-drivers on Haiti, for instance), when they themselves are also solely driven by that; the only difference is that the “whites” were actually in power whereas the Haitian slaves were not–until, like the professor and his kind today, they were…
So I guess what I’m hearing and more importantly not hearing, from those who replied (except Ucci) and those that did not reply but read, is that it is perfectly OK to call for White Genocide, even as a University Professor.
LOL, I knew that’s the response you were going to give yet still decided against child-proofing the statement. Despite the poor sentence structure, my intent with the statement is known to you, and your response just underlines my point. Pathetic. Truly.
Your responses are starting to give the impression that you have a dog in this fight.
Edit: NVM, just had a look at your post history. It all becomes clear.
You’re talking about “making a point”? Please… All you have done is cast the predictable smoke and mirrors that come with this subject matter (of the original link). You haven’t even addressed the subject matter in any meaningful way. You have made no argument whatsoever.
And yeah, your post history makes it very clear what your purpose is here in this thread.
I’m still trying to grasp what’s so telling about the name George Ciccariello-Maher. Could it be the dash? Could that imply he’s married and he’s the “wife”?
The subject matter of this thread is not the subject matter of the original link, but of your OP–which, to be sure, includes that link, but then draws a conclusion from it in a way that’s as careless as your way of putting it is, unfortunately, not.
Simply to do what you’re doing. Dragging out the conversation into non-productive lines of discussion, moving as far away from the original topic as possible. Denying that the topic is the topic but really my commentary (trying to tell the OP what the OP is…) Whether you know you’re doing it or are just playing out conditioned response, that is all you are doing. Smoke and mirrors. Just like playing tug-of-war with a dog, the only point to your type of response is to wear the dog out, so that it has no fight left in it, or it gives up in frustration. It is predictable and typical.
Care to comment on the original link? Which, I will clarify for you right now IS THE ORIGINAL TOPIC. The rest was my commentary on that topic.
Reason why nobody else is getting involved in this thread is because is is Nazi Porn, we’ve had a million racist threads in the past and just don’t care anymore. A Drexel Professor isn’t in a position to be taken seriously by people, and we here mostly don’t want to get involved in retarded pointless race wars.
The people hitching about race are the least impressive specimens of posters we have on this forum, and I oppose racists of every color. I’ve made it very clear in the past, and nothing convinces anyone on thus subject. I have never seen anyone choose NOT to be a racist after a debate here. It isn’t a ideology based on reasoning ideas, butba prejudiced that seeks out ideas, any idea, however incoherent, into a network of supportive claims, with the most unstable syllogisms imaginable.
If I took Issydorph’s matrix, and refuted it, it wouldn’t change his opinion one damn bit. Jews = Bad always. Sauwelios is always gonna be a pathetic racist. They aren’t based ultimately on ideas, but discomfort around foreigners, xenophobia, and a need for self aggrandizement not based on individual merit, but common traits they inherited, like skin color. That’s pathetic, and most of us know this, and nobody cares about this shit anymore. They are like the flies that emerge from poop.
I see. So your OP was already a subdiscussion within the actual discussion, and pursuing that subdiscussion is off-topic. So your OP was off-topic. Fascinating!
As I’ve already indicated, I think the sentiment expressed as “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide” is misguided and should say “All I Want for Christmas is Human Genocide”–i.e., the slaughter of the human race, if not of all living beings. For hatred of the “white race” is ultimately hatred of the will to power.
It was simultaneous attraction both erotically and regionally, a society putting itself together.
The case for race is a modern byproduct of Europeans coming into contact with Africans, Native Americans, Chinese, with territorial ambitions, and in most areas a unwillingness to step on one another’s imperial toes till the Napoleonic Wars and WW1 and WW2 blew that conception out of the water. Then race became a sidelined rhetorical tool, and the great powers started chasing after one another’s colonies, especially at crucial junctions, such as Egypt. They had no issue using troops of any color or ethnicity to right one another even in Europe.
It is all bullshit, Sauwelios Teleological presumption of White Identity. White People only are in reference to others, and can only be by ceasing under the confines of Aphrodite Pandemos. The very second you introduce people into the community, they become eroticize. It’s why every society has marriage laws dealing with foreigners, because it happens so damn much. Doesn’t matter if the are invaders, equals, or indentured or slaves, people fuck them, they have offspring, they get worked in, and their descendants leap all the wild fuck over the confines of class and caste within a few generations through attractiveness, merit, good fortune, friendship, or adultery.
Just the way it is. People of different races have been becomming whites for centuries, and some rather backwater, slow witted fools (cough, the Dutch, cough cough) have only been on the scene of note for a few centuries, and were completely disregarded in antiquity (they tried to Ally with Caesar, Caesar slaughtered a whole tribe of them, how lowly Rome looked on them).
Dutch, unlike the British and French, only had one damn colony of worth- Indonesia- plenty of population, couldn’t fuckimg hold it. Last years, only the lowest riffraff were sent to colonize, and the Indonesians didn’t hesitate to kick them out. Where was this white race then? Wasn’t no where, just a bunch of wooden shoe pirates sent packing back on their pirate ships to return home to their sad, flat, sickly little island.
They utter lack in the principles of Pandemos Aphordite. Had they had this, the Indonesians would of loved them, literally. Their women would of craved them, while the dutch women would of married the strongest Indonesian men. Only then could you speak of a White Race. That’s what antiquity, when stoics speak of a city of love, talk about. World is a constant flow of immigrants, only the best, in terms of meritorious actions to their society, deserve to be seen as cultural icons. Has nothing to do with infantile connections to skin color, and idiots making the claim of color alone, without having merit in their own actions, utterly don’t deserve to be held in societal esteem. They essentially fall out of that culture, are effeminate parasites, like Nietzscheans all too often shamelessly are.
