Frog wrote:
Ah I get it now.
Us pesky anarchist extremists lol

andyh wrote:
I'm not sure how you manage to lump anarchist in to the equation, but then it's a word which has lost any real defined meaning so it's open to interpretation. For me someone smearing shit on a public wall isn't an anarchist in the true sense of the word.

I guess you would be the best judge of what groups you see yourself as a member of. It would be pretty hard to argue with that. As an outside observer I can say that the particular cap seems to be a little too big for your head - as staggering as that concept may seem to some.

People who view the DIF for the first time, maybe are gonna think that it is a Pro-Nazi type forum, but maybe I'm wrong there, I dont know. It's easy to make a group of people who belong to a "group" look like they are bad guys - Just get a bunch of infultraters with an agenda to join the "group" and make their voices heard louder than the rest of the group.

David Icke is NOT Pro-Nazi at all IMO. And I reckon that the vast majority of the Icke forum members (most of whom dont bother posting very often now for various reasons) are NOT pro-Nazi either. I reckon that the DIF has been infultrated with members who have an agenda, and are posting stuff that goes against the stuff Icke puts out there. A good way to discredit a group of people.

Steevo wrote:
Yeah, I think the overwhelming majority of people on there are just regular folk being into what they're into be it UFOs, 911 or lizards or whatever. But if you go to a party of 150 people and 10 of them are stood around waring swastika t-shirts and talking very loudly about how great Hitler was, they're the people you're going to notice. Scanning the forum gives a pretty unavoury view, even though it's a vocal minority who are respnsible. particularly as they tend to favour the general section which is, well, the general section that seems the most heavily used. It's known people have deliberately come over from Stormfront and I think some people do see it is a potential recruiting zone.

Steevo wrote:
Indeed it's a good way to tarnish anything good that was on the site - make it look like there is a hardcore on there that is just a ranting hating racist or a nazi talking a load of bollox. Soon make people have 2nd thoughts about what they're getting into if they'd just had a scan.
That's what I didn't get about Hadaka_Jimmy & Gonzo... they truly didn't have a fucking clue what they were talking about. They started a thread about that guy from C18, who they denied had anything to do with C18. I posted up the guy actually talking about being in C18 ... but still I was a liar who didn't know what he was talking about!
Then Jimmy referred to somebody as a shmuck... totally baffled me.
It's a conspiracy!

Frog wrote: anarchist [ˈænəkɪst]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who advocates the abolition of government and a social system based on voluntary cooperation

I can't see anything about smearing shit on the wall lol.

Fits just fine if you go by the dictionary. Ofc if you go by gremlin it doesn't lol.

andyh wrote:
Again context seems to be an issue. This thread isn't about anarchists (political ideals or cooperatives) in the true sense of the word. My contribution which you seem to be taking some exception to was absolutely not related to anarchists. Unless you use the common misconception of its meaning! In which case it would fit with the smearing of shit variety. Again people can use their own discernment to form their own opinion. As has been pointed out the person addressed managed to grasp what was said and why - what anyone else takes from it is down to them.

Dogsmilk, I'm not at all interested in getting involved with another one of your fallicies arguments. But I will say my peice nevertheless. I never bigged up hitler at all, you took the comment completely out of context, the thread in question was comparing Cameron to hitler, of which I posted a comment and then decided better of it, just incase some PC lemming took it out of all context to misrepresent what I was saying. Another important fact you fail to mention is that it was said tongue in cheek, but then i wouldn't expect somebody like you to see the funny side anyway, and that's one of the reasons I deleted the post. Others can make of that what they will, but I certainly wouldn't take your word for it dogsmilk if I was them. My username is none of your damn business either btw. Do I question why you call yourself dogsmilk? No, because I simply couldn't give a damn what username you choose, that's your business not mine. You and I will always be on the otherside of the fence, and I also think you are partly responsible for the milk turning sour between some members here, and over at the DI forums. You even proudly admitted a number of times to ''winding people up'' to flame a debate. I can see straight through your hollow rhetoric. Me thinks you protest too much about some things too. Like for instance political correctness, which is what spawned this particular thread in the first place. Can you name one prominent person in the ''truth community'' that isn't outspoken against PC? I find it rather starnge that people would go out of their way to defend PC, especially somebody who calls himself an ''anarchist'', you could have fooled me. Any anarchist I ever met hated PC with vengeance. What are you then, some kind of PC version of an anrchist? Anyway I'm done here, I've said my piece and I'm not sticking around here to waste my time treading water with the likes of you.

Dogsmilk, I'm not at all interested in getting involved with another one of your fallicies arguments. But I will say my peice nevertheless. I never bigged up hitler at all, you took the comment completely out of context, the thread in question was comparing Cameron to hitler, of which I posted a comment and then decided better of it, just incase some PC lemming took it out of all context to misrepresent what I was saying. Another important fact you fail to mention is that it was said tongue in cheek, but then i wouldn't expect somebody like you to see the funny side anyway, and that's one of the reasons I deleted the post. Others can make of that what they will, but I certainly wouldn't take your word for it dogsmilk if I was them.

My username is none of your damn business either btw. Do I question why you call yourself dogsmilk? No, because I simply couldn't give a damn what username you choose, that's your business not mine. You and I will always be on the otherside of the fence, and I also think you are partly responsible for the milk turning sour between some members here, and over at the DI forums. You even proudly admitted a number of times to ''winding people up'' to flame a debate. I can see straight through your hollow rhetoric. Me thinks you protest too much about some things too. Like for instance political correctness, which is what spawned this particular thread in the first place. Can you name one prominent person in the ''truth community'' that isn't outspoken against PC? I find it rather starnge that people would go out of their way to defend PC, especially somebody who calls himself an ''anarchist'', you could have fooled me. Any anarchist I ever met hated PC with vengeance. What are you then, some kind of PC version of an anrchist? Anyway I'm done here, I've said my piece and I'm not sticking around here to waste my time treading water with the likes of you.

ronisron wrote:
I'm open to reason with any Neo-Nazi (real or perceived), but reason is not precisely one of the fortés of this people. At the contrary, they tend to impose their believes by force (the force for repetition by numbers in this case). And I'm not saying this because I'm trying to make fun of them; I'm saying this because it's a fact: Nazism was based on action on instinct rather than on reason, on imposing their will power regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

Once you've been discussing with them for a while, you realise that every single issue follows a pattern:
1 - They make a false claim, for which they usually have little or no evidences
2 - You try to reason with them and prove them wrong
3 - Total denial
4 - The insults, personal attacks, and the character assassination (you are a: troll, hasbara, jew, whatever)
5 - They completely forget about it, and they make the exact same claim the next day, starting all over again.

How are you supposed to reason with that, when the cycle has been repeated a dozen times?... Are you suppose to let them take over because they don't attend to reason, and because it's more convenient? is that why Germany really fell under Nazism? Are we suppose to let them spread whatever hateful disgusting lie because they are Neo-Nazis?

And about whether they are Neo-Nazis and anit-Semites:
- A Neo-Nazi is someone who supports Nazism... period.... and They showed this quite clearly in many occasions... most of them.
- And an anti-Semite is someone who simply has prejudices against the Jews... against which they are bashing all day long... all of them; even though they deny anti-Semitism even exists.

If they were not Neo-Nazis or anti-Semites, they would not feel offended by those words. The proof is that they do feel identified when you call a Nazi supporter a Neo-Nazi, and prejudices against the Jews anti-Semitism.

Depends if calling out racists is 'PC' I guess.
Most nazis just use the 'you're being pc' label as an excuse to be racist cunts.
Sometimes whats politically correct can also just be 'correct'.

Darkmoon wrote:
Free speech innit!

As an advocate of freedoms what are your thoughts on freedom of movement?

Frog wrote:
Nice edit.

OK, 6 million Jews didn't die in WWII, now what?

In your own time....

Flyermay wrote:
So true.

Oh yeah, ignoring fascists/Nazis never got rid of them before, I doubt it will now.

¡No pasarán!

Has anybody seen the evidence that Stalin killed 20 million?

Funny how certain 'questioners' couldn't give a fuck about alleged Commie holocausts.

oioioi wrote:
Nothing to do with editing I quoted the element that was at issue and relevant. Now what?

Frog wrote:
You wouldn't be avoiding the obvious conclusion to this line of questioning now would you?

oioioi wrote:
What would the obvious conclusion be that you have come to? In plain concise English as opposed to insinuation.

ronisron wrote:
Can we do one thing?... Can you show us any discussion where me or Dogsmilk began by trying to impose our views by force?... I mean, can you show us any discussion in which we first abandon reason to engage in denial, personal attacks, or trolling?

I know It's easy to get that impression when you find a thread that's been going on for a while, you just read the last posts, and you figure that we're just trying to be disruptive. But that's how all discussions end with them: a simple childish exchange of insults... they simply won't shut up when they run out of arguments, and I'm not going to allow them to bully me because they have the numbers and the support of the mods.