The new and improved defender of RPGs!

Wednesday 1 June 2016

Political Wednesday: "I Stand With Hate Speech"

This is a tag on Twitter that was trending, until Twitter blacklisted it, in an incredibly un-self-aware act of irony.  "I Stand With Hate Speech" is on account of how Social Media sights, subverted by the Regressive Left, have been censoring and banning free speech activists under the banner of 'stopping hate speech'.  One of these people was literally banned for no other reason than criticizing Facebook's censorship policies.

Now, the unspeakably leftist unspeakably corrupt EU government is obliging (a very willing) Facebook and Twitter to censor any number of people who are conservative, libertarian, atheist, anti-EU, anti-Islamism, etc. under the banner of 'hate speech'.

So what can you do, in times like these, but stand up for hate speech?

Stand up to anyone who wants to tell you what to do, what you should be allowed to think or not think, buy or not buy, play or not play; stand up to anyone who thinks they should get to decide what YOU are allowed to read, or write, or how you can choose to dress, or what you want to choose to eat or drink or smoke or otherwise consume, or what you want to do with your sexuality.

Facebook, along with Twitter, and pushed by Regressive Left pseudo-activists in the US and Europe, is censoring people who stand up for free speech.
Fuck them. The answer is to make more noise. If someone is offended, and think that offense entitles them to silence me (especially when their 'offense' was caused by my merely disagreeing with them), then the answer is to be MORE OFFENSIVE. 

I dare you to share this message, because in this day and age, when free speech has gone from a treasured value of our civilization to something the people who want to run our lives find 'offensive', the only true rebellion and appropriately brave response is to offend and offend often.


Currently Smoking:  Ben Wade Canadian + Image Latakia

P.S. In the spirit of the times and our struggle, I, the RPGPundit, promise to try my best to be more offensive than I have been until now. To get us started, here's a video from another great hero of free speech, Milo Yiannopoulos, at the UCLA stop of his "Dangerous Faggot Tour", where offended people have been trying very hard to censor him. He's being interviewed by Dave Rubin (one of the tiny remnant of endangered free-speech liberals), and listen to what Milo has to say. Warning: if you were to actually listen, you might start thinking!


  1. While I do not agree with the EU's actions in this instance it is unfair to label it an attack on anti-EU sentiment. The EU is a democratic organization open for ex- and internal criticism on all levels. This right is utilized often and effectively, and rules are enforced through negotiation with national governments, rarely if ever by force. I never got the distinctly American hatred for the organisation as a whole. It's a right-wing free trade project that is into its very core anti-socialist/leftist with strongly protectionist overtones like the agricultural subsidize. Protectionism of the agricultural sector being an issue on which the American government itself, republican and democratic, has been a forerunner since the 60s.

    1. One can only assume you are being sarcastic when you state this.

    2. Why would you assume that? And what specific point(s) do you consider sarcastic? I am all for having a discussion, but you are giving me very little to work with here.

    3. Please. The EU is NOT democratic. The higher executive of the EU are completely UNELECTED, and there is no mechanism for the people to remove that executive. To quote Farage: Nobody wanted you.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. The European parliament is an elected body which oversees EU functions and the only one with legislative powers. It is an essential organ for the smooth running of the European Union's primary functions, and represents the people. Hardly an institution that indicates a dictatorial body.

      That being said I do believe that we as a people should be ever vigilant for the misuse of power. The EU is held accountable for the actions of its officials through various institutions, most obviously the European Parliament. This does not mean that we should rest on our laurels so to speak. As long as the people is engaged in the political process and hold their leaders accountable we are upholding democratic traditions, and in that we should never falter.

  2. You realize most Americans don't think about the EU at all except now and then to wonder, "Why can't those wealthy, ungrateful cowards defend themselves?"

    1. You are making a number of assumptions here. Firstly what most Americans think. I'll let that pass as I also generalized about American anti-EU sentiment. Then 'why can't those wealthy, ungrateful cowards defend themselves?' This makes the assumptions that
      1. European Union members are wealthy. There are huge discrepancies within EU average incomes and state budgets, many countries being way under average American numbers, and comparatively less affluent.
      2. 'Ungrateful' here you will have to explain for what the EU as a whole is ungrateful for.
      3. Can't defend themselves; I'm assuming against external enemies, but you are being rather vague. Firstly I don't think there's much basis for assuming European countries do not have the military means to do so. While the military downsizing has been notable since the end of the Cold War that hardly leaves most countries defenseless. The French, British, Greek and Polish armies are examples of modern and well-armed forces with generally good combat records. The second part of the statement, that Europeans share a cowardly streak, seem unfounded. If we look at the aforementioned militaries, the Polish, British, French and Greek services respectively, only Greece uses compulsory service. Yet only the British army have manpower issues, and that due to cuts on a political level rather than a lack of recruits.

      These are all conclusions supported by facts gathered from the CIA World Factbook and various NATO sources. I cannot be bothered to do more exhaustive rebuttal to your rather shaky statements; suffice to say it does not seem your points really hold up, and nor will they if what you assumes about general American attitudes are correct.

    2. Ungrateful for saving you from the very nation that is now trying to once again rule over Europe from within. The EU is nothing more than the Fourth Reich.

      Of course, you're Danish, right? You come from a nation of collaborators. I think most of Europe never got over the psychic shock of how fucking worthless and cowardly they were in WWII, except for the UK and Poland of course, which were the only two countries worth a fuck.

    3. I do not think that's true. The EU, or coal and steel union, started out on French initiative and is hardly lead by the German state. Nor is it a federation. It is an economic organisation that admittedly has been stretched in many different directions by various interests over the years.

      I really would have thought national stereotypes beneath you. I'm sad that they are not. Do you consider these traits, collaboration in my case, inherent? Perhaps on a biological level? Because you certainly seem to. I think that's pissing on the graves of those of your ancestors who died in the concentration camps, facing a foe that most certainly believed in inherent psychological traits.

      From a factual standpoint I'd like to remind you of the Greek, Norwegian and Yugoslavian efforts as just some examples of nations that fought hard, however ineffectually. You might argue their respective impact on the course of the war, but to deny the sacrifices they made is simply counter factual.

    4. Not inherent, cultural. And please, the start of the EU in ancient history has fuck all to do with the anti-nationalist megastate that is basically an extension of whatever the fuck Angela Merkel wants. It USED to be the "France & Germany" show, but for the last decade or more it is realistically all about Germany.

      I hope the UK will abandon the EU shortly, and be followed by others, until this anti-democracy anti-free-speech monstrosity collapses.

    5. So culturally inherent? Negative traits associated with some cultures, positives with other. A hierarchy of lesser and greater cultures?

      You've revealed yourself as a lesser man than I thought you were. To disagree is natural, discussion is an essential part of democracy, and I can respect an opinion even if it differs from mine. But to see you go this low is shattering. To see you judge others by what they are rather than what they do is impossible for me to combine with the harsh, honest and proud RPGpundit. I say this because you've never been one for pulling punches, and in honor of the person I thought you were I will not do so either.

      Returning to the EU; Angela Merkel has no positions in the EU. The German state does not have any special control over the organization. Frankly, who decides what is one of the biggest hot potatoes in Europe. It is not an organization bound to any one person. The idea that the Germans run the whole show form the shadows is simply unfounded.

      I wouldn't call the origins of the organization irrelevant either. The Union was and is a tool not only for collaboration between former enemies, to use the term positively, but also for peace. There has not been a war in Western Europe for sixty years, something almost unprecedented. I believe the EU is one factor in this, and that alone makes it worth fighting for.

    6. "Germany doesn't run the show" in the EU is one of the biggest disingenuous statements I've ever read. That's what Germany says to assuage the French.

    7. Are you seriously trying to pretend cultures don't impress ideas and values and characteristics on people? And that some of these could be better or worse? And that as a whole we could judge this?

      I'm not judging you by what you are, I'm judging you by what you're saying. You're defending a transnational state run by unelected bureaucrats who want to forcibly impose their ideas on millions of people, and publicly resent even the opportunity of letting those people democratically vote on whether they want to be in or not as "dangerous".

      There hasn't been a war in western europe in 60 years because of the United States (and the cold war).

    8. Again with Germany. The European Union is an international organization with a political and bureaucratic structure that is partly directly elected, the European Parliament, partly appointed by member states and partly employed by the Union itself.

      The European parliament is a directly elected body. They have legislative powers, and policies need to be debated in the parliament before they can be enacted into law. It does not in itself have the right to propose legislation. This can be done by nation states in the Union. Representation in the union is done not by 'one man, one vote' but is weighted to give smaller and larger nations a more even distribution. Malta for example has more votes than its population would entail, to ensure that coalitions of smaller nations are not simply trampled by big ones. This is similar to the US presidential system, where delegates in individual states are weighed to ensure the states retain influence regardless of population.
      It is entirely true that bigger nations have more members of parliament. Germany does have the largest number of MPs, with a little under a hundred. With over seven hundred members of the parliament, this hardly means Germany can trump other nations. Wide coalitions are a necessity in the EU parliament, which is also why MPs gather in blocks according to values rather than nationality. Anti-EU parties make out a large part of the parliament, and ensure opposition to pro-EU forces.

      Beyond that the Council of the EU and the European Council (rather confusingly named here) are both made up from heads of states and members of the member states' respective governments, as appointed by the member states. These represent individual governments, and ensure that talks between EU heads of state are possible.

      The European Commission is the organ representing the organizations itself. Their power is severely limited, and decisions cannot be taken behind the backs of neither parliament nor two councils.

      So, while it is true that Germany have a larger proportion of votes in the parliament that advantage is not enough to wield totalitarian powers. The influence of larger member states is actually weighted down exactly to prevent this. EU politics are carried out in a interplay between elected representatives, national governments and EU appointed technocrats. With two thirds of the EU's leadership institutions being either directly or indirectly democratically appointed I hardly consider it fair to say that 1. the EU is a totalitarian organization 2. Germany has all the power.

      We might look at less formal power structures. In the actual politics carried out by the EU, Germany does not seem to have a huge advantage over others. Some of the most recent issues of transnational handling of the refugee crisis, the Greek economic crisis and the forthcoming 'Brexit' vote have been handled almost entirely through EU institutions, and not always in Germany's favor. Looking back, neither have the German government simply been able to steam roll national votes or to go over the heads of other member countries on EU matters. A more thorough analysis of German EU relations is of course imperative for a complete understanding of the issue, but that's not something I'm gonna do here and now.

    9. On the issue of cultures; I do fin that we, as individuals and nations, have the right to say 'no' to cultural practices that we will not tolerate. I also believe there are certain values that trump individual cultures. The right to free expression and freedom from oppression being some of those. What I object to is to paint cultures in broad strokes.
      Culture is practice, and if something stops being practiced that is no longer a part of the culture. Cultures change, are affected by individuals, groups and changes all over the world. Values imposed by cultural norms also change. To simply state that certain traits are integral part of certain cultures is plainly unsubstantiated. The people who murdered your grandparents believed in cultural traits being inherent in individual values, greedy jews, slave-mentality slavs, superior German fighting spirit etc. To see you uncritically abandoning classic liberalism, that all men are born free and equal, to hide behind social-Darwinist cultural hierarchies is simply saddening. Partly because I expected better, partly because it is cowardly.
      If an alien race landed in America during the Trail of Tears or the slave period would they deem a culture that allowed this worthy to continue living? What if they landed in Europe during the witch hunts? India during the post-independence partition? Is 'southern pride' practices of praising slave-owning genrals and politicians a part of American culture? In my case, your exact words where

      "Ungrateful for saving you from the very nation that is now trying to once again rule over Europe from within. The EU is nothing more than the Fourth Reich.

      Of course, you're Danish, right? You come from a nation of collaborators."

      When I read this, I assumes that your assertion here is that me being from a culture of collaborators is what makes me have a different opinion than you. And in that cross-field of jingoism and critique of the individual opinion voiced you put yourself squarely on the side of putting an opinion voiced down to the culturally inherent values of the speaker. What you are doing is exactly equal to measuring noses. I have heard worse, I have heard more hurtful insults, and not really cared. But hearing it come from someone I thought was above it is what makes me so sad.

      AS for wars in Western Europe I'm sure the US, the Cold War and the NATO alliance has something to do with it. What I do not agree with is that these factors exist in a vacuum. The cooperative heart of the EU has held countries together not by mutual threat of by force, but by offering an effective way of dealing with transnational issues without resorting to the politics of violence. That is something more than what a solely military alliance has done, although that certainly has also played a part.

    10. No you ass, the people my ancestors fought against and your nation's ancestors mostly collaborated with did not believe in cultural values, they believed in GENETIC values. They believed that an Aryan was implicitly genetically superior to a slav, or a jew, or anyone else.
      What I'm talking about is that if you have been raised your entire life in a culture that has taught you in school and on TV that Big Nanny State Government watches out for you and is good, and that people who object to a unified Europe are evil and racist and bad, and that Germans are right about what's best for Europe, then you will believe those things, not because it's in your genes, but because you've been brainwashed into it like a good little moron.

      So fuck off with trying to compare me to a nazi when your country is backing the literal fourth fucking reich and letting Europe fall to a censorship state. Your "powerless" EU has just ORDERED Twitter, Facebook and other sites to ban a long list of everyone they think should be banned. That's fucking LITERAL CENSORSHIP. These are the pieces of garbage YOU SUPPORT.

      So go fuck yourself you nazi-backing cunt. You aren't inferior to me because of your genes. You're inferior to me because you're a spineless fucking imbecil whose been spoonfed a leftist fantasy and has bought it to the point that he's now on his knees sucking germany's cock while wiggling his ass invitingly for the Islamists to come in and rape his country. Because haven't you heard? Now it's totally tolerant to throw gays off tall buildings, and you're an Islamophobe if you object.

    11. My grandfather used his convenience store to hide weapons for the Danish resistance. I won't consider that strictly collaboration. And yes, genetics (or 'race', the field of genetics hadn't really taken off yet) were a large part of nazi ideology, just as the inheritable nature of cultural traits were. The superiority of the German people to other Aryans were largely founded in this perceived cultural superiority, as attested by the focus on 'pure art' as opposed to 'degenerate art' influenced by lesser cultures. You presume to draw direct lines between cultures over decades of societal change, without evidence to back your claims and aimed at individuals. While you are entirely correct that racial 'science' was a part of it the same kind of hierarchical broad-stroke lesser-and-greater cultures you propose are exactly nazi ideals in a new coat. And this is how you disrespect those ancestors that fought against those same ideals.

      I can also tell you that EU skepticism has been on a constant rise in Denmark since the 70s. Denmark is in fact on of the only countries in the EU to retain four ultimate exceptions to EU involvement (on the areas of citizenship, coinage, defense and over-national governance). I would like to point out that I began my first comment stating that I personally did not agree with the recent anti-hate speech measures. But that's not good enough for you. On account of the culture that is apparently inherent in me regardless of my words and actions I support it.

      I'm not going to go further into the nature of the European Union's power structures. I've explained very thoroughly how these work and supported my arguments with facts. Your argument rest solely on the assertion that I am brainwashed and a cocksucker. Keeping general Danish EU skepticism in mind I don't think that pro-EU brainwashing by the school system has a large influence on most Danes. I certainly don't remember it from any part of my school education. Still, because you happen to have certain assertions about my culture you assume that I share its values and that justifies your assertions. Would a man who despise black people for the inherent traits of 'black culture' and not for their race qualify as non-racist in your book? If yes, then I take it all back. If no, then that's exactly what I'm talking about here.

      As a last note no, I haven't heard it's legal to kill gays (presumably in the EU, but you aren't specific) because it is not. That is what we call factually incorrect.

    12. I presume at this point you are making this idiotic argument solely to piss me off. No Nazi ever believed that if you took a Slav (much less an African) and encouraged them to study and understand certain civilizational values, they would end up being just like Aryans.

      The ideals I'm talking about are nothing to do with Nazi ideals, they're the opposite. They argue that civilization is a concept that can be open to anyone, that anyone can develop because all human beings are EQUAL.

      I get that as a completely corrupted European post-modernist you might have a literal inability to tell the difference between civilization and Nazi ideology.

      Also, there's no such thing as a monolithic 'black culture', you fucking racist.

      As for Sharia law, just give it time. Gays are already prohibited from marching through Muslim neighborhoods of certain European cities. We all know that to the Regressive Left, for reasons no one could understand if we didn't grasp that the Regressive Left is fundamentally anti-western, an Islamist Muslim that despises everything the leftists pretend to stand for trumps LGBT people at Identity Politics Poker.

    13. Trumps women too, given that the Regressive Left's response to the Islamist rape gangs in Cologne, Rotherham and elsewhere is that european women are the ones who have to adjust and not dress so provocatively and not be such sluts.

    14. What I have been saying from the get go is the nazis distinguished between cultural and racial purity. Aryans could be more or less developed according to what degree they followed 'real Aryan values'. You say that sure, all people are born equal, and then some get corrupted by degenerate art and postmodernism apparently. And this bring them on the path away from true civilization, which is as far as I can tell unchanging and objective. This is no different from a nazi spouting his trash on how modern art destroying young minds.

      I did put little inverted commas around 'black culture' to show a distance to the term. The point of my example was that I have heard the argument before, people stating that they can't be racist because their hate is based on 'black culture' rather than racial prejudice.

      You quickly assert the existence of a monolithic Danish culture, and judge me accordingly. If someone else supposed the existence of other monolithic cultures would that make it okay for them to hate according to those beliefs? You never answered that question. Instead you made some random assertions. That's all you ever do, avoid explanations and throw around names. And that both saddens and angers me.

  3. Let people be known by their words and actions. Censorship just let's the real rat-bastards hide how vile they are.

  4. I am glad this is happening. Those SJW's are assholes and need to go away and go away quickly. If you look at Anita Sarkeesians youtube channel, she is changing her focus because no one bought her BS about video games and people pointed out her bullshit.

    The faster these scumbag SWJ's go away, the better.

  5. You trying to piss-off the Lefty that supports you?

    1. Any lefties that support me should be more pissed off about what the Regressive Left has done to their causes than I am.

    2. I'm a "lefty" and I support Pundit...the real kind of "lefty" that is for freedom, not the fake kind that is for censorship and banning books and anything that might conflict with my credulous worldview.

  6. I shall attempt to boost the signal on my blog later tonight.

  7. I have a problem with this in that I have had just as much bad experiences with the alt-right movement as I have had with the outrage brigade. On Breitbart, Return of Kings etc. I showed some sympathy to points of their beliefs but skeptical of the presentation of their Nationalism. As a Native American I didn't like the implications their rhetoric had to myself. Instead I got called a Troglodyte, savage, and a Morlock. For those who don't get it, a cave dweller and a racist epithet. I will defend their right to free speech but don't need to be called a Troglodyte by the right and toxic, and "problematic" by the left. In the middle I will stand because either direction is dominated by those I don't want to stand with. In conclusion, I really hope this blog doesn't become another bastion of alt-right views, because I really enjoy most of the views of the pundit.

    1. You didn't get called a 'cuck'? That's their favorite, and most fucking stupid, derogatory term. It's just so utterly lame and uncreative.

      Don't worry, if by alt-right you mean neo-nazis, anti-semites or anti-democracy fascists, you won't be seeing that here. I defend their right to have and state their views, and I can also call them fucking stupid at the same time. And denounce them for being just as "free-speech of convenience" as the Regressive Left or Islamists, who will talk about free-speech FOR THEM but advocate the silencing (sometimes violently) of others.