As

As "opinions not being facts" could very easily be my own mantra it's both ironic and ridiculous suggesting it ought to be accepted by me.

It's ironic because it's what I often complain about about some of the attitudes of other posters here. It's ridiculous because I completely accept it. There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion forcibly and believing it to be a fact. Facts are very slippery, and many things can logically be subject to a degree of doubt. Exactly the same can be said about lies! Those whose opinion is what someone else says is a lie are, most of the time, believing their own opinion is a fact. It isn't. They are sharing opinions.

My daily life is nobody's business but my own. I don't though have a set routine, other than trying to get a good night's sleep. You might find me here at midnight, 7 in the morning, as today, or anytime in between. When I am overseas it could also be during the UK night.

I might be 77 but so what? Life is there to be lived, and I do. I am lucky, I might have a cancer, but it doesn't impair me in any way I cannot cope with. I am fit and active, and my brain is as sharp as it ever was. I might not work any more, but I play bowls several times each week (Monday, Thursday, Friday and tomorrow this week) help administer my club and, just recently, have accepted a position at County level.

Ever heard of u3a? Some folk here would benefit hugely from getting involved with it:-

[Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I didn't say it wasn't edited! Every piece of journalism is. What I said was Theroux didn't edit out his interviewees explanations and justifications of their positions. He let them speak, rather than put himself over them. He inserted any of his own comments later. He even included himself being filmed by others and allowed them to explain why. Somehow I doubt whether these "versions" will be quite so fair and objective, given everything else that was to be seen.

Fuentes may well be a "rising star" but he is a very sad reflection of the state of part of the younger age group in the USA, which is leaking over here too it seems. Gamers with only a tenuous grip on reality, being led by a young man with an extremely limited world view, with an undisguised white supremacist agenda (although routinely denied as such). Fuentes is a regressive. His obviously traditional Catholic upbringing, the impact of which I am very familiar with, delivers attitudes unsuited to the modern world. These lie at the base of almost everything he believes in. Things he believes as fact, but are not at all. They are outdated, even in today's Catholic Church, let alone the rest of the modern world.

Holding onto strict personal views of what constitutes moral behaviour is fine. Seeking to impose those on others is not.

Theroux's film is a very important exposé and warning. I hope it is viewed by everyone, not least our policymakers. Getting a handle on this and finding ways to counter these influences is vital for our future.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

"White supremacist" isn't my description. It's a well-used and recognised term for a specific ideology. One that Fuentes clearly holds, given all he has to say. His denials, along with anyone who tries to apologise for them, are paper thin excuses that may satisfy the need for justification for the like-minded, but they won't for anyone with any kind of objectivity.

A simple examination of one of his main claims proves that. He claims the "white man" created America. This is a lie. These are the facts. Native Americans were there long before anyone else arrived. Immigration created modern America! Some of it by Europeans seeking new opportunities, some fleeing oppressive ideologies. Some immigrants arrive against their will, taken as slaves from Africa by those Europeans. Other immigrants followed from all over the world, many escaping poverty or famine. All were immigrants. All helped build America, and continue to do so.

The idea that "white" people exist as a group and somehow are threatened is the worst kind of rabble-rousing fearmongering nonsense which springs from these kind of attitudes promoted by Fuentes.

Another of his beliefs, which indicates just how regressive he is, is that women ought not have the vote, or participate in politics. This is unreal in 2022.

The "modern state" doesn't impose anything on anyone, in a democracy. It reflects the standards held by, and voted for by the representatives it chooses. Fortuntunately Fuentes would need to jump that hurdle too, so we can be confident his extremism won't ever go too far.

So the analogy isn't accurate. Most politicians leave their faith outside the door when they enter politics. Kennedy did it. Even Rees-Mogg appears to. It might inform their morality, but it does not control their policies. My objection to the Fuentes approach is that he seems not to have grasped the need to do that.

I don't wish to deny anyone being able to participate in, or seek, religion. All I seek is the removal of it from places shared by non-believers. I no more want non-believers pushing non-belief than believers pushing belief. Making the information available is fine. Fuentes claim, which is mirrored by the likes of Andrew Torba, the CEO of Gab, that America is a "Christian" country is very offensive to someone like me. It is also a lie. Which is confirmed by their constitution.

I don't post on Gab under this name. So either I am being trolled in some way, so my real identity has been found, or someone else is using this identity. I would be glad to know which is true.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

What gives you the right to be offended by someone describing America in a certain way. Being offended for things that don't directly concern you is very self absorbed in my opinion.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

If you use an anti white term then take responsibility for it. These claims are lies used by leftists or those who have bent the knee to their terminology for era acceptance.

There are no 'apologies' to make as human race supremacy doesn't exist only averaged differences that are easily proven. No one is at fault for how they are born and individuals or any race can be more gifted or less gifted than the average. You simply used a slur to demonize those who are against global village politics and for majority homogeneous societies related to an appreciation of historical ancestry.

At the bottom of this post will be an image showing attendees for AFPAC 3 (you saw clips of Fuentes in the documentary at AFPAC 2 (Fuentes himself obviously has Mexican heritage)). In that image you will see both a main speaker is black as there are non whites as special guests.

If 'white supremacy' was a truthful and honest description of the ideology then non whites wouldn't be there nor given such standing. So this term is pure is used as either a demonstration of a lack of understanding or just a preference for dishonest demonizations of positions you don't agree with......Essentially the distortion and manipulation of language to frighten people away from speaking up.

A nation is a concept, it's meant to be codes of law and a culture of rituals carried out by a cohesive peoples who recognise a bond. America was created by European immigrants from Europe with the eventual dominant founding being the British. They set up the laws and created the systems that created the civilisation from European practice. Any denial of that is pure leftist revisionism in my view.

The country or land was taken by conquest from the native Americans. This was of course unethical as was the nature of the time. Their nation...a loose term, considering how they thought of it, that the native Americans lived in was called Turtle island. I note with amusement your sudden recognition of indigenous populations.

As stated I regard your thought process is a complete twisting of reality and only a very recent retelling.....again, only recognised by leftist thought.

There are so many examples of this now that it seems almost amusing to read your denialism....similar to your occasional race denialism. I could site both governmental and corporational biases against whites. However, I'll take the most recent example I noted that shows the large corporational money and power that is now openly sitting behind anti white propaganda.

I could talk about the BBC's 'Whiteness' programme but Showtime's 'Everything's gonna be all white' is now out for all to see. I urge people to watch it, here's the trailer and then re-read WE's comment above.

[Link]

Accepted.

While I understand and share the criticism of modern feminism I don't agree with either the level or extent of Fuentes's views on this topic. I also totally reject the commentary by 'Beardson' in the commentary which I regarded as disgraceful....I've heard he has since personally apologized to Brittany Venti since, which I imagine a requirement for him to remain.

That statement is frankly just not true. Whether the state system is a democracy or communism/fascism or anything in-between the state imposes its laws upon the individual.

You yourself stated that representative democracy has at its core the right of the representative to decide themselves what is best for society and hence bequeath that the individual. That does not give the individual themselves any say, hence laws are indeed, 'imposed' and they are carried out under the threat of violence if resisted.

Once again, you have demonstrated disingenuous commentary that just suggests an unnecessary contrarian stance.

Long after Kennedy America politicians have spoken of god relating to their decisions. I can remember it from Reagan and I can remember it from George W Bush for example. Today politicians often speak of religion though mainly on the Republican side....though it's certainly less of a requirement.

Personally I view Fuentes's commitment to Catholicism as more a unifying technique, not that he isn't a Catholic but rather that it's a tool to distinguish between forms of traditionalism and nihilism to enable group cohesion. That's a strength of religion that means those as diverse as Fuentes and Milo Yiannopoulos can break bread together.

You comments on religion are just more flannel in my view and no one is fooled by your desire for its riddance.

When Fuentes and Torba talk of America being a Christian country they are more accurate of its past than its present. However America is mainly still a Christian country in its Republican or traditionalist areas....how actually committed they are in practice I couldn't say, but that's how they describe themselves.

I'm not really aware of what you are talking about here.

If someone is trying to use your identity on another site without your permission you have my sympathy as I don't support that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Feb 2022 12.54pm)

Attachment: AF3.JPG (165.54Kb)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I believe this to be a deliberately complicated reply to try to divert attention away from the central issues. So I won't respond to every line. Only those I consider salient.

"White supremacy" is not an "anti-white" term. There is no such thing as "anti-white", as "whiteness" is a false construct. I reject all such racist symbolism, from wherever it springs. There is only one race, the human race. There are ethnicities and nationalities within the human race. There is nothing which bonds people together who happen to possess similar skin tones. "White-supremacy" is a term correctly applied to those who reject this fact, and then seek to establish rights and privileges on the back of their false belief.

Window dressing. People get sucked in for many reasons. Fig leaves cannot disguise obvious ugliness.

The above is the revisionism, the rewriting of history to suit a desired narrative. Taking one element of any nation's history and implying it's the whole, is disingenuous at best. America's history started long before the arrival of anyone from Europe, who weren't by any stretch of the imagination a homogeneous group, all intent on the same objective. Many groups, from all over the world, have contributed to building America and continue to do so. There's nothing political, left or right, about it. It's just a statement of fact.

This is complete bs. A total misunderstanding and misrepresentation of today's world. That some disadvantaged groups are now being recognised and encouraged to participate is not the same as those who previously were privileged, being treated poorly. It's nothing more than positive efforts at trying to develop a level playing field. Those who seek to divide people by the colour of their skin, and not by the opportunities they have, are not only wrong, they are spectacularly missing the point. There is no "anti-white" propaganda. It is an impossibility if "whiteness" is a racist construct.

This concerned my claim that the state cannot impose its will. Which is true in a democracy, because it's the people, not the state, whose will is imposed via duly enacted laws. Of course individuals must obey those laws. That's what happens as soon as individuals bond as societies. They give up individual freedoms in their mutual best interests. This is quite different from any group, religious or not, seeking to impose its will outside the democratic process. So long as we protect that, all is well. Which is why any support for Trump's position is unacceptable.

There is a big difference between expressing a general belief in "God" and wanting the traditional values of one religion to be applied to a whole country. I can live with the first. Not the second.

I don't. Having lived in a country where the Catholic Church has wielded huge political power, which has resulted in poverty, misery and a lack of progress, I know only too well where this kind of fervent fanaticism can lead. It's born out of ignorance, no less so than that we can see in other religions. As with them, education and experience are the keys to overcoming it, but the impressionable need to know where it comes from, and where it can lead to.

They aren't accurate at all. America is a secular country. This is guaranteed by their constitution. How many members of any particular faith live there doesn't change that. What Fuentes and Torba appear to want to do is establish a special place for Christianity, above other religions, and not just a recognition of the cultural role that Christianity has bestowed. This is divisive and dangerous.

I thought it was obvious, but let me requote what was posted:-

"Anyone balanced who read your disgraceful posts on Gab could come to little other conclusion."

So either the poster has gone out of his way to try to trace my real identity and discover what pseudonym I use on Gab, because I don't use this one, or someone else is using this one.

I haven't posted on Gab for nearly 4 months and have only ever posted a handful of times. Most times I go there it's to keep abreast of Andrew Torba, who I regard with contempt, as he allows his site to be filled with hate and division. Nothing I have ever posted there could be thought "disgraceful". They have all been polite and reflect views I express here.

So which is it? Am I being stalked, or is someone using my identity? An extract from one of the posts would quickly confirm which it is. Doesn't have to be the complete post. Just enough words for me to identify.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.