Quote from: DocJones on March 29, 2022, 12:42:38 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 29, 2022, 04:52:27 AM
Did they go back in a time machine and convince Barker to publish an SS fanboy novel with an infamous neo-nazi publishing house and serve on the board of the most notorious American holocaust-denial magazine?

Most are focusing on the Nazi fanfic, but the magazine is the topper for me.
It's like finding out Varg Vikernes wrote Tekumel.

At least Varg comes with the benefit of spewing hilarious dumb takes on twitter like clock work.

Quote from: DocJones on March 29, 2022, 12:42:38 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 29, 2022, 04:52:27 AM
Did they go back in a time machine and convince Barker to publish an SS fanboy novel with an infamous neo-nazi publishing house and serve on the board of the most notorious American holocaust-denial magazine?

Most are focusing on the Nazi fanfic, but the magazine is the topper for me.
It's like finding out Varg Vikernes wrote Tekumel.

If I suddenly found out that Varg is capable of writing that's not a complete and utter trash I'd get a heart attack.

Quote from: DocJones on March 29, 2022, 12:42:38 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 29, 2022, 04:52:27 AM
Did they go back in a time machine and convince Barker to publish an SS fanboy novel with an infamous neo-nazi publishing house and serve on the board of the most notorious American holocaust-denial magazine?

Most are focusing on the Nazi fanfic, but the magazine is the topper for me.
It's like finding out Varg Vikernes wrote Tekumel.

Except, you know... We still dont know why he was on that board. As had been noted. He was against these people and so for all we know he sat on the board to keep an eye on them. Or he sat on the board to do research for the book.

So... Again this amounts to exactly what the JSWs do to people all the time, every iteration.

As said earlier. Which is more likely? That he was anti-nazi and wrote the book to fuck with them somehow? And if his letter is correct then far as he knew at the time of writing the book was not accepted by them? And the published book does not quite match his synopsis? Which suggests the publisher altered it?

Or that he was a neo-nazi and hid it from everyone. Or that everyone has been concealing that he was all these decades? Some massive conspiracy? Why does one person get a pass for hiding this and another does not?

Unfortunately I know exactly a designer who's done some pretty wretched things and so far kept it concealed for decades. So I can not discount any angle. But current indicators are that no he was not a neo-nazi without something more to tip the scales other than screaming NAZI!

Quote from: Omega on March 30, 2022, 03:42:00 AM
Except, you know... We still dont know why he was on that board. As had been noted. He was against these people and so for all we know he sat on the board to keep an eye on them. Or he sat on the board to do research for the book.

So... Again this amounts to exactly what the JSWs do to people all the time, every iteration.

As said earlier. Which is more likely? That he was anti-nazi and wrote the book to fuck with them somehow? And if his letter is correct then far as he knew at the time of writing the book was not accepted by them? And the published book does not quite match his synopsis? Which suggests the publisher altered it?

Or that he was a neo-nazi and hid it from everyone. Or that everyone has been concealing that he was all these decades? Some massive conspiracy? Why does one person get a pass for hiding this and another does not?

Unfortunately I know exactly a designer who's done some pretty wretched things and so far kept it concealed for decades. So I can not discount any angle. But current indicators are that no he was not a neo-nazi without something more to tip the scales other than screaming NAZI!

He was a Muslim, and Muslim's are notorious for being anti-Jewish and for being Holocaust-deniers. They do it openly and don't get criticised for it by people on the left. And he wasn't just any Muslim, he was a Muslim convert. And not just any Muslim convert, but one who had a PhD before converting.

He knew what he was converting to, which means he knew Islam was anti-Jewish before he converted. He did so anyway. And then he sat on the board of a Holocaust-denying journal, and wrote a Neo-Nazi Sci-Fi. By far the most likely explanation is that he hated Jews, and as a Muslim he didn't even need to hide it. And the suggestion that he was against it all and 'keeping an eye on them' while possible, is completely implausible.

If he were literally on trial, would we have to give him the benefit of the doubt? Yes. But he's not on trial, and he's dead. We don't have to go that far, we just need to look at what was most likely. And that's obvious.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 04:00:54 AM

Quote from: Omega on March 30, 2022, 03:42:00 AM
Except, you know... We still dont know why he was on that board. As had been noted. He was against these people and so for all we know he sat on the board to keep an eye on them. Or he sat on the board to do research for the book.

So... Again this amounts to exactly what the JSWs do to people all the time, every iteration.

As said earlier. Which is more likely? That he was anti-nazi and wrote the book to fuck with them somehow? And if his letter is correct then far as he knew at the time of writing the book was not accepted by them? And the published book does not quite match his synopsis? Which suggests the publisher altered it?

Or that he was a neo-nazi and hid it from everyone. Or that everyone has been concealing that he was all these decades? Some massive conspiracy? Why does one person get a pass for hiding this and another does not?

Unfortunately I know exactly a designer who's done some pretty wretched things and so far kept it concealed for decades. So I can not discount any angle. But current indicators are that no he was not a neo-nazi without something more to tip the scales other than screaming NAZI!

He was a Muslim, and Muslim's are notorious for being anti-Jewish and for being Holocaust-deniers. They do it openly and don't get criticised for it by people on the left. And he wasn't just any Muslim, he was a Muslim convert. And not just any Muslim convert, but one who had a PhD before converting.

He knew what he was converting to, which means he knew Islam was anti-Jewish before he converted. He did so anyway. And then he sat on the board of a Holocaust-denying journal, and wrote a Neo-Nazi Sci-Fi. By far the most likely explanation is that he hated Jews, and as a Muslim he didn't even need to hide it. And the suggestion that he was against it all and 'keeping an eye on them' while possible, is completely implausible.

If he were literally on trial, would we have to give him the benefit of the doubt? Yes. But he's not on trial, and he's dead. We don't have to go that far, we just need to look at what was most likely. And that's obvious.

I'm pretty sure most legal systems only require something to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt conjured up by fanciful scenarios that have absolutely nothing backing them up.

As for the religion, eh, it's not like Christianity has been particularly friendly toward Jews either. Monotheistic religions tend to be like that.

Quote from: Omega on March 30, 2022, 03:42:00 AM

Quote from: DocJones on March 29, 2022, 12:42:38 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 29, 2022, 04:52:27 AM
Did they go back in a time machine and convince Barker to publish an SS fanboy novel with an infamous neo-nazi publishing house and serve on the board of the most notorious American holocaust-denial magazine?

Most are focusing on the Nazi fanfic, but the magazine is the topper for me.
It's like finding out Varg Vikernes wrote Tekumel.

Except, you know... We still dont know why he was on that board. As had been noted. He was against these people and so for all we know he sat on the board to keep an eye on them. Or he sat on the board to do research for the book.

So... Again this amounts to exactly what the JSWs do to people all the time, every iteration.

As said earlier. Which is more likely? That he was anti-nazi and wrote the book to fuck with them somehow? And if his letter is correct then far as he knew at the time of writing the book was not accepted by them? And the published book does not quite match his synopsis? Which suggests the publisher altered it?

Or that he was a neo-nazi and hid it from everyone. Or that everyone has been concealing that he was all these decades? Some massive conspiracy? Why does one person get a pass for hiding this and another does not?

Unfortunately I know exactly a designer who's done some pretty wretched things and so far kept it concealed for decades. So I can not discount any angle. But current indicators are that no he was not a neo-nazi without something more to tip the scales other than screaming NAZI!

It's lamentably not like that. Barker, likely not a liberal because of his religious choices, wrote a number of fantasy texts that, while not particularly anti-Semitic or pro-nazi, seem quite backwards and reactionary, even for the genre of epic fantasy. (Tekumel, the setting, and Tekumel, as per his novels.) In addition to that, he actively pursued tasks that link him to nazi enterprises, like the publisher, the dreadful novel, or the magazine. And even in the passage of the letter in which he delivers a brief description of the novel (as quoted by Dave Morris), he fantasizes about the Mossad assassinating him.

That he likens himself to Salman Rushdie in this context, as if Rushdie's writings were somehow even remotely comparable to his nazi fapfest, is also rather worrisome - first, because it points to serious delusions of grandeur, and second, because it might point to Barker believing the fake Islamist narrative (at the time) that the assassination attempt against Rushdie in 1989 had actually been orchestrated by the Mossad, and not by a Muslim extremist.

https://fabledlands.blogspot.com/2022/03/was-professor-m-r-barker-nazi.html

Quote"The only people I can imagine enjoying this book would be skinheads and Sir Oswald Mosley. It would probably create as much fuss as Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and could not be published under my own name. Both the author and the publisher would become the target of many rude remarks, letter-bombs, hand grenades, and visits from Mossad. I mentioned this book just to show you that I am not completely dead -- yet. Still alive and working. I don't expect you to want to publish it. Nobody will. I cannot even sell it to the Neo-Nazi presses here; they would not accept the idea of an Indian girl marrying the hero."

Doesn't look like there's any nuance here, for now. --- If the TF provided other, additional documentation, maybe. But given that they have, so far, fully owned that Barker did the things he did, and explicitly ask their readers that these things would need to be "recognized as part of Professor Barker's past", and are even already trying to move on from the issue itself, I wouldn't be holding my breath.

It would be nice if some kind of saving grace could be found for Barker, but in the texts the public was so far provided with, they are plainly not enough - as are, at this point, any statements from Barker's inner circle, given how they had intentionally been withholding this information until called out.

- I guess, sometimes, somethings are just what they seem.

Quote from: Blankman on March 30, 2022, 05:00:44 AM

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 04:00:54 AM

Quote from: Omega on March 30, 2022, 03:42:00 AM
Except, you know... We still dont know why he was on that board. As had been noted. He was against these people and so for all we know he sat on the board to keep an eye on them. Or he sat on the board to do research for the book.

So... Again this amounts to exactly what the JSWs do to people all the time, every iteration.

As said earlier. Which is more likely? That he was anti-nazi and wrote the book to fuck with them somehow? And if his letter is correct then far as he knew at the time of writing the book was not accepted by them? And the published book does not quite match his synopsis? Which suggests the publisher altered it?

Or that he was a neo-nazi and hid it from everyone. Or that everyone has been concealing that he was all these decades? Some massive conspiracy? Why does one person get a pass for hiding this and another does not?

Unfortunately I know exactly a designer who's done some pretty wretched things and so far kept it concealed for decades. So I can not discount any angle. But current indicators are that no he was not a neo-nazi without something more to tip the scales other than screaming NAZI!

He was a Muslim, and Muslim's are notorious for being anti-Jewish and for being Holocaust-deniers. They do it openly and don't get criticised for it by people on the left. And he wasn't just any Muslim, he was a Muslim convert. And not just any Muslim convert, but one who had a PhD before converting.

He knew what he was converting to, which means he knew Islam was anti-Jewish before he converted. He did so anyway. And then he sat on the board of a Holocaust-denying journal, and wrote a Neo-Nazi Sci-Fi. By far the most likely explanation is that he hated Jews, and as a Muslim he didn't even need to hide it. And the suggestion that he was against it all and 'keeping an eye on them' while possible, is completely implausible.

If he were literally on trial, would we have to give him the benefit of the doubt? Yes. But he's not on trial, and he's dead. We don't have to go that far, we just need to look at what was most likely. And that's obvious.

I'm pretty sure most legal systems only require something to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt conjured up by fanciful scenarios that have absolutely nothing backing them up.

As for the religion, eh, it's not like Christianity has been particularly friendly toward Jews either. Monotheistic religions tend to be like that.

Yes Christianity has been very unfriendly towards Jews, but if you're a Christian and you talk about your hatred of Jews, or even just about how Jews are bad, you'll get pounced on instantly, and it has been like this since the end of WW2. Want to trash talk Jews and get away with it? Be a Muslim. Islam may not be any more anti-Jewish than Christianity when it was at peak Jew-hating, but it's the only religion with peak Jew-hating now, because it's the only religion where hating Jews is tolerated by the left.

And it's only Christianity and Islam that are exceptionally unfriendly towards Jews. Sikhism, which is also a monotheistic religion, doesn't have any ill will towards Jews.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 05:17:51 AM

Quote from: Blankman on March 30, 2022, 05:00:44 AM

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 04:00:54 AM

Quote from: Omega on March 30, 2022, 03:42:00 AM
Except, you know... We still dont know why he was on that board. As had been noted. He was against these people and so for all we know he sat on the board to keep an eye on them. Or he sat on the board to do research for the book.

So... Again this amounts to exactly what the JSWs do to people all the time, every iteration.

As said earlier. Which is more likely? That he was anti-nazi and wrote the book to fuck with them somehow? And if his letter is correct then far as he knew at the time of writing the book was not accepted by them? And the published book does not quite match his synopsis? Which suggests the publisher altered it?

Or that he was a neo-nazi and hid it from everyone. Or that everyone has been concealing that he was all these decades? Some massive conspiracy? Why does one person get a pass for hiding this and another does not?

Unfortunately I know exactly a designer who's done some pretty wretched things and so far kept it concealed for decades. So I can not discount any angle. But current indicators are that no he was not a neo-nazi without something more to tip the scales other than screaming NAZI!

He was a Muslim, and Muslim's are notorious for being anti-Jewish and for being Holocaust-deniers. They do it openly and don't get criticised for it by people on the left. And he wasn't just any Muslim, he was a Muslim convert. And not just any Muslim convert, but one who had a PhD before converting.

He knew what he was converting to, which means he knew Islam was anti-Jewish before he converted. He did so anyway. And then he sat on the board of a Holocaust-denying journal, and wrote a Neo-Nazi Sci-Fi. By far the most likely explanation is that he hated Jews, and as a Muslim he didn't even need to hide it. And the suggestion that he was against it all and 'keeping an eye on them' while possible, is completely implausible.

If he were literally on trial, would we have to give him the benefit of the doubt? Yes. But he's not on trial, and he's dead. We don't have to go that far, we just need to look at what was most likely. And that's obvious.

I'm pretty sure most legal systems only require something to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt conjured up by fanciful scenarios that have absolutely nothing backing them up.

As for the religion, eh, it's not like Christianity has been particularly friendly toward Jews either. Monotheistic religions tend to be like that.

Yes Christianity has been very unfriendly towards Jews, but if you're a Christian and you talk about your hatred of Jews, or even just about how Jews are bad, you'll get pounced on instantly, and it has been like this since the end of WW2. Want to trash talk Jews and get away with it? Be a Muslim. Islam may not be any more anti-Jewish than Christianity when it was at peak Jew-hating, but it's the only religion with peak Jew-hating now, because it's the only religion where hating Jews is tolerated by the left.

And it's only Christianity and Islam that are exceptionally unfriendly towards Jews. Sikhism, which is also a monotheistic religion, doesn't have any ill will towards Jews.

M.A.R. Barker lived in Minneapolis, not in Riyadh. It wasn't Christians who decided that antisemitism was bad after WWII, it was the western world as a whole, and Barker lived in that western world.

As to whatever something something about "the left" now, well, Barker converted to Islam on a trip to India in 1951, 71 years ago. Your thoughts about what leftists do or don't believe today has no bearing on his conversion. Also your idea that he knew what he was getting into as he had a PhD doesn't hold up, because he was 22 at the time of his conversion and didn't have a PhD yet. And he converted while in India, far removed from Israel and Palestine and having its own sectarian conflict between Hindus and Muslims that would overshadow anything to do with Judaism then and there.

Sikhism has not quite twice the adherents Judaism has, around 20-30 million, 90% of whom live in Hindu-dominated India. it simply does not have the standing anywhere to be intolerant of any other religions.

It doesn't matter where in the world you live, as long as it's not Israel, hatred of Jews is tolerated if it comes from Muslims and isn't tolerated if it comes from anyone else. You could be a Jew-hating Christian in a Muslim dominated area, but you can't be a Jew-hating Christian in a Christian dominated area (anymore).

Sikhism isn't tolerant towards Jews because they can't afford to be intolerant, Sikhism is tolerant towards Jews because it's not an Abrahamic religion, and it's the non-Jewish Abrahamic religions that have the hate-on for Jews. Hinduism is dominant in India, and there's no Jew-hatred coming from Hindus.

Jew hatred comes from Christianity and Islam because Judaism was the original religion, and if they come up with a revision of the Abrahamic religion, of course they have to trash the version that came first. Non-Abrahamic religions don't need to do that, because they have a completely different foundation.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 05:42:06 AM
It doesn't matter where in the world you live, as long as it's not Israel, hatred of Jews is tolerated if it comes from Muslims and isn't tolerated if it comes from anyone else. You could be a Jew-hating Christian in a Muslim dominated area, but you can't be a Jew-hating Christian in a Christian dominated area (anymore).

Sikhism isn't tolerant towards Jews because they can't afford to be intolerant, Sikhism is tolerant towards Jews because it's not an Abrahamic religion, and it's the non-Jewish Abrahamic religions that have the hate-on for Jews. Hinduism is dominant in India, and there's no Jew-hatred coming from Hindus.

Jew hatred comes from Christianity and Islam because Judaism was the original religion, and if they come up with a revision of the Abrahamic religion, of course they have to trash the version that came first. Non-Abrahamic religions don't need to do that, because they have a completely different foundation.

1: You forgot to acknowledge that you were wrong about when Barker converted.
2: You forgot that 1951 was not 2022, and that an attitude you think is prevalent now among the left has nothing to do with Barker's conversion to Islam back in 1951.
3: No, antisemitism is not tolerated if it comes from a Muslim. If it was, there would be no uproar about Barker being one.
4: There is quite a lot of intolerance between Muslims and Hindus in South Asia, and they don't have the same religious foundation at all. Sikhs and Muslims also have a lot of bad blood, and after an orgy of violence with hundreds of thousands of dead Sikhs and Muslims moved en masse to India after the participation created muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Turns out that religious hatred and persecution has a lot more to do with different religious groups living in close proximity to each other and how that intersects with secular authority than it does with what foundation the religion is based on.

Quote from: Blankman on March 30, 2022, 06:01:42 AM
1: You forgot to acknowledge that you were wrong about when Barker converted.
2: You forgot that 1951 was not 2022, and that an attitude you think is prevalent now among the left has nothing to do with Barker's conversion to Islam back in 1951.
3: No, antisemitism is not tolerated if it comes from a Muslim. If it was, there would be no uproar about Barker being one.
4: There is quite a lot of intolerance between Muslims and Hindus in South Asia, and they don't have the same religious foundation at all. Sikhs and Muslims also have a lot of bad blood, and after an orgy of violence with hundreds of thousands of dead Sikhs and Muslims moved en masse to India after the participation created muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Turns out that religious hatred and persecution has a lot more to do with different religious groups living in close proximity to each other and how that intersects with secular authority than it does with what foundation the religion is based on.

1. I never said anything about when he converted.
2. 1951 is after 1945, which is after the point that Islam was the only religion that openly encouraged being against Jews.
3. Hating Jews is absolutely tolerated when it comes from a Muslim, and has never been seriously condemned by the majority.
4. The friction between Muslims and Hindus has nothing to do with Hindus, and everything to do with Muslims. It's not only Jews that they hate, but literally anyone who isn't monotheistic, whether polytheistic or atheist. As Hinduism is fundamentally polytheistic and completely compatible with atheism, it's incompatible with Islam. Hindus in Bali, being in a Muslim dominated nation, re-imaged Hinduism as a monotheistic religion to avoid being persecuted. Anywhere Islam goes, you'll see conflict because they haven't yet figured out peaceful coexistence. Hell, they can't even keep from killing each other (Shia and Sunni). Christianity absolutely was like that in the past, but it isn't anymore.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 06:12:35 AM

Quote from: Blankman on March 30, 2022, 06:01:42 AM
1: You forgot to acknowledge that you were wrong about when Barker converted.
2: You forgot that 1951 was not 2022, and that an attitude you think is prevalent now among the left has nothing to do with Barker's conversion to Islam back in 1951.
3: No, antisemitism is not tolerated if it comes from a Muslim. If it was, there would be no uproar about Barker being one.
4: There is quite a lot of intolerance between Muslims and Hindus in South Asia, and they don't have the same religious foundation at all. Sikhs and Muslims also have a lot of bad blood, and after an orgy of violence with hundreds of thousands of dead Sikhs and Muslims moved en masse to India after the participation created muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Turns out that religious hatred and persecution has a lot more to do with different religious groups living in close proximity to each other and how that intersects with secular authority than it does with what foundation the religion is based on.

1. I never said anything about when he converted.

I see, so this quote was written by someone else then? Or are you under the impression that Barker had a PhD when he was 22? Bolding mine.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 04:00:54 AMHe was a Muslim, and Muslim's are notorious for being anti-Jewish and for being Holocaust-deniers. They do it openly and don't get criticised for it by people on the left. And he wasn't just any Muslim, he was a Muslim convert. And not just any Muslim convert, but one who had a PhD before converting.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 06:12:35 AM
2. 1951 is after 1945, which is after the point that Islam was the only religion that openly encouraged being against Jews.

What Islam encourages or not doesn't really have anything to do with it here, it is about you saying it is tolerated by others if it is a Muslim, which is simply not true.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 06:12:35 AM
3. Hating Jews is absolutely tolerated when it comes from a Muslim, and has never been seriously condemned by the majority.

No it is not. As proof, I offer the example of M.A.R. Barker and the posthumous revelation that he was an antisemite, and how he has been roundly condemned for this. Since he kept this relatively secret as well means he himself obviously did not think he could just spout off these antisemitic ideas publicly and be excused for them simply because he was a Muslim.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 06:12:35 AM4. The friction between Muslims and Hindus has nothing to do with Hindus, and everything to do with Muslims. It's not only Jews that they hate, but literally anyone who isn't monotheistic, whether polytheistic or atheist. As Hinduism is fundamentally polytheistic and completely compatible with atheism, it's incompatible with Islam. Hindus in Bali, being in a Muslim dominated nation, re-imaged Hinduism as a monotheistic religion to avoid being persecuted. Anywhere Islam goes, you'll see conflict because they haven't yet figured out peaceful coexistence. Hell, they can't even keep from killing each other (Shia and Sunni). Christianity absolutely was like that in the past, but it isn't anymore.

Polytheism is not compatible with atheism no, and saying that means you don't understand what either of those words mean. Friction between Muslims and Hindus are not on Muslims alone, there's a long history there. And ultimately, that long history is what drives these continuing religious conflicts, everywhere they occur. It has nothing to do with whether two religions have a common origin, it has everything to do with whether adherents of those religions are living in close proximity to each other.

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 05:04:25 PM
what about Cherine who learned this apparently a decade ago. And yet on this very forum has said not a damn thing about it?

Oh yeah he's busy throwing this forum under the bus on TBP after being accused of associating with the right wing extremists here.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 21, 2022, 03:17:42 PM
The SJWs are not lying, they believe that you are a literal Nazi. Yet you throw around the exact same accusation and then expect everyone to believe you but not believe them.

And I'm not saying that Barker wasn't a Nazi, I'm just saying that you shouldn't be so quick and eager to make that accusation considering how many have done the same thing to you.

So we shouldn't accuse someone of something we ourselves are accused of?

Sorry, but unlike the SJWs his accusations are based on evidence, and so far there's plenty of evidence that Barker was on the board of a Nazi 'historical' society, wrote a novel about Nazis, sought out Nazis to publish it, and was then paid by them. And that book is still being used for propaganda today.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 29, 2022, 04:52:27 AM
I'm not too sure how that would be the "plan" of the SJWs. For starters, an awful lot of them seem to love Tekumel. Jeff Dee is an SJW and published a Tekumel book, and he's been having fits all over the internet trying to make it super clear he had no idea about Barker's other writings.

Speak of the devil he's now playfully pushing #OccupyTekumel to remove the 'problematic' elements of the setting on #Facebook...

Quote from: Jeff DeeJust a random brain fart in the midst of all the recent horrific revelations...

We're always being reminded that Barker used to encourage people not to be constrained by what he'd written about Tekumel, but rather to *make it our own*.

So let's take him at his word. Let's have a slave revolt. Let's throw the Tlakotanis out on their resplendent asses. Let's have equal rights for the lower status clans. And whatever else we can come up with, particularly if it might make a Nazi cry. OCCUPY TEKUMEL. Who's with me?

...and just in case you're hoping for any self-awareness among the replies...

Quote from: Jeff DeeOh and also, let's discover that there are Jews on Tekumel. Maybe in cryo-sleep or something, but yeah. They survived the atomic war on Earth. You know who didn't? Nazis.

Quote from: David AckermanThere's a covert Jewish Temple that has existed for thousands of years and is leading a quiet, subversive long term revolt against the rigid autocracies of the Five Empires.

Of course, we'd better find someone Jewish to write this.

...because I'm sure adding a covert Jewish revolt bent on subverting the current regime will go over swimmingly after this fiasco as long as we have a Jewish writer.

Oy Vey!

Quote from: Omega on March 30, 2022, 03:42:00 AM

Quote from: DocJones on March 29, 2022, 12:42:38 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 29, 2022, 04:52:27 AM
Did they go back in a time machine and convince Barker to publish an SS fanboy novel with an infamous neo-nazi publishing house and serve on the board of the most notorious American holocaust-denial magazine?

Most are focusing on the Nazi fanfic, but the magazine is the topper for me.
It's like finding out Varg Vikernes wrote Tekumel.

Except, you know... We still dont know why he was on that board. As had been noted. He was against these people and so for all we know he sat on the board to keep an eye on them. Or he sat on the board to do research for the book.

You mean the book that portrays Nazis in a positive light?

I get that some people will stretch the evidence in the favor of someone they like. But this is far beyond stretching. You're fabricating a conspiratorial motivation with no grounding in reality and no supporting evidence to counter extremely strong evidence that blows any reasonable doubt out of the water.

1. I see, I was wrong about when he had his PhD. That doesn't change anything significantly - he was still university educated when he converted to Islam, which means he knew what he was converting to.

2. You're simply wrong about this. It is tolerated. Louis Farrakhan is only criticised by a small portion of the right wing, his open hatred of Jews is tolerated. Linda Sarsour and Rasmea Odeh - the latter who hated Jews so much she killed them - was openly welcomed in the Women's March. You're unaware of it being tolerated because it is tolerated so much the left simply doesn't talk about it.

3. It's the Tekumel foundation that's being condemned for keeping it hidden more than Barker himself - obviously there isn't much point in condemning someone who's already dead.

4. Polytheism is absolutely compatible with atheism - perhaps not in every variant of polytheism, but there are atheist Hindus and there are polytheist Hindus. Just as there were atheist Hellenists and polytheist Hellenists, and they live together (and lived together in the case of the Hellenists) without any friction. If you think they're incompatible, you don't understand pagan beliefs.

Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, Hindus - they can all live in close proximity to each other without any problems. Muslims can't live in close proximity with other - but different - Muslims without having conflict. And Christianity used to be like that. It's not that 'all religions are like that', it's specifically Abrahamic religions that are like that. Judaism used to be like that, Christianity used to be like that, and Islam still is like that.