Quote from: FingerRod on March 31, 2022, 07:29:37 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 31, 2022, 06:24:09 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AM
But enough talk of a dead man. He's just the Troyan Horse, their real target IS the fundation and their destruction, maybe to put some of them in charge.

This isn't the everyone-I-don't-like-is-a-Nazi. We're talking about a pro-Nazi novel and a Holocaust denial journal. Which you're defending with this conspiracy theory.

How was Geeky defending a pro-Nazi novel and Holocaust denying journal exactly? Pretty serious claim.

I'm a path of least resistance believer when it comes to people. That path 100% supports that Barker wrote the book and sat on the board because he wanted to. That path also means that TF sat on their hands, most likely to stay out of the spotlight and preserve their business.

What I have a massive problem with is how third parties from all different places are handling the situation. I brought up inconsistencies in what OP originally said they knew about Barker, therefore I must be a sympathizer. Another poster asks the question of, so what? Immediately, he is a cunt or a Nazi. And now Geeky questions the motives of the people going after TF, and he is defending a pro-Nazi novel and denial journal with a conspiracy theory.

Agreed and seconded

If you notice most posters like myself are simply not engaging in the conversation anymore. One way or the other it's going to be twisted into a carefully constructed personal narrative, any anything and everything that goes against said narrative is to be summarily ignored. So why bother at this point.

Quote from: Pat on March 31, 2022, 08:04:10 AM
To continue, I don't think anyone in the thread woke up one morning and said "hey, defending Nazis sounds like a great idea!". Instead, it appears to be pure partisanship. We must defeat the Enemy at any cost, even if it means defending Nazis!

Look at how much of the reaction has been specifically targeted at the Tubesock Troll, and how that's used to "prove" this is a nefarious plot by the SJWs. But why is that even the slightest bit relevant? The basic facts have been confirmed by multiple independent sources. The alignment of the person who first posted it shouldn't matter.

I've always been a political iconoclast, so I have hard time grokking the sectarian way of thinking. Which is probably why this whole thing has felt so utterly bizarre to me.

From what you have said so far, Pat, it sounds like me and you are in full alignment on Barker and TF.

Where we do not share full alignment is having questions, taking a wait and see approach, or doubting the motives of people who want to occupy Tekumel is a direct (or dotted) line to the defense of pro-Nazi propaganda. Geeky's claim, true or not, that TF is the real target to perhaps allow others to take over the IP is in no way a defense of Barker or pro-Nazi propaganda.

And the personal painting of me playing the moderate card in your previous post is a ridiculous attack meant to isolate me as soft or indecisive, of which, I am neither. My position in this thread has been clear.

Quote from: Abraxus on March 31, 2022, 08:20:55 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on March 31, 2022, 07:29:37 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 31, 2022, 06:24:09 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AM
But enough talk of a dead man. He's just the Troyan Horse, their real target IS the fundation and their destruction, maybe to put some of them in charge.

This isn't the everyone-I-don't-like-is-a-Nazi. We're talking about a pro-Nazi novel and a Holocaust denial journal. Which you're defending with this conspiracy theory.

How was Geeky defending a pro-Nazi novel and Holocaust denying journal exactly? Pretty serious claim.

I'm a path of least resistance believer when it comes to people. That path 100% supports that Barker wrote the book and sat on the board because he wanted to. That path also means that TF sat on their hands, most likely to stay out of the spotlight and preserve their business.

What I have a massive problem with is how third parties from all different places are handling the situation. I brought up inconsistencies in what OP originally said they knew about Barker, therefore I must be a sympathizer. Another poster asks the question of, so what? Immediately, he is a cunt or a Nazi. And now Geeky questions the motives of the people going after TF, and he is defending a pro-Nazi novel and denial journal with a conspiracy theory.

Agreed and seconded

If you notice most posters like myself are simply not engaging in the conversation anymore. One way or the other it's going to be twisted into a carefully constructed personal narrative, any anything and everything that goes against said narrative is to be summarily ignored. So why bother at this point.

Good point. I've said my peace on this topic.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AM
Riddle me this: Why are the charges of nazi anti-semite and not of muslim anti-semite?

Because he wrote a novel about neo-nazis taking over the world, had it published by a neo-nazi publisher and served on the editorial committee of a neo-nazi journal. That's why.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AMI'll tell you why, the left condenms nazis but looks the other way and/or makes excuses when it's muslims.

No, it's because of all the nazi connections.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AMBut enough talk of a dead man. He's just the Troyan Horse, their real target IS the fundation and their destruction, maybe to put some of them in charge.

Also, sure Tekumel where being white is seen as bad is an anti-semite/pro nazi setting... The mental gymnastics...

Not everything that happens is a result of some leftist woke conspiracy. Sometimes a nazi is just a nazi.

Quote from: Blankman on March 30, 2022, 07:45:08 AM

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM
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.

No, it changes rather a lot if you're not even a grad student vs if you have a PhD.

If you're in college or university it means you know how to read, and it means you will read something. He didn't convert to Islam with no knowledge of the Quran's contents. He read it, saw the hate in it, and thought it was OK, and then converted.

Quote

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM2. 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.

If it was tolerated, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Look at where we're having this conversation. See if it's being discussed in any mainstream venue.

Quote
And again, how you perceive things to be now (which isn't connected to roleplaying at all so I'll leave it there) is irrelevant to what was going on in 1951 when Barker converted. The Women's march happened years after Barker had died, and more than half a century after he converted to Islam. He didn't plan his conversion to Islam based on what some people were going to do more than 60 years into the future. You also stated that as a Muslim, he wouldn't need to hide his antisemitism, yet he did hide it. If he hadn't, the information in this thread wouldn't have been surprising to anyone.

It isn't about what happened 60 years into the future, it's what has been happening for over a millennium into the past before he converted. The Women's march is proof that Muslim hatred of Jews is tolerated. You can kill Jews, and the mainstream doesn't bat an eye as long as you're Muslim. That's what the tolerance is like now, and there hasn't been a time when you couldn't just do that. It was being tolerated before modern Israel was a state.

Quote

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM4. 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.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. Polytheism is the belief in many gods. You cannot be an atheist polytheist. Hinduism isn't really a religion but a term for a set of cultural beliefs shared by several different religions, but you can't actually be an adherent of a Polytheistic religion without believing in the existence of gods. You can be a spiritualist, and you can deny the existence of a creator god and believe the gods came in after the world was made, but if you don't believe in any gods, you're not a polytheist.

You can believe in gods one year, and not believe in them the next. Hindus don't make a big deal of whether you believe or not. Christians do (with the exception of some minority sects like Unitarian Universalists). This obsession with whether you believe in a god at all is characteristic of the Abrahamic religions. The others don't, which is why you can be both atheist and polytheist, because your status in the community doesn't change as your personal beliefs change.

Quote

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AMSikhs, 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.

Huh, and I could have sworn that there was Sikh sectarian violence in India (see the Sikh-Nirankari clash) and a Sikh separatist movement in India that culminated in Operation Blue Star in the 1980s when Indira Gandhi ordered the army to attack the holiest Sikh site, the Golden Temple. Then Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in revenge for this, after which followed riots and violence directed specifically against Sikhs. Huh, almost looks like religious tensions from here, but clearly those are impossible if an Abrahamic religion isn't involved.

How many examples do you think you can bring up of that? You know how easy it will for me to find 10 examples for every one you provide with Abrahamic religions. With non-Abrahamic religions it can be said to be an isolated incident. With Abrahamic religions it's not isolated. With Islam all the time now, with Christianity and Islam all the time in the past, and Judaism plenty too if you go back far enough.

Quote from: migo on March 31, 2022, 01:19:55 PM

Quote from: Blankman on March 30, 2022, 07:45:08 AM

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM
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.

No, it changes rather a lot if you're not even a grad student vs if you have a PhD.

If you're in college or university it means you know how to read, and it means you will read something. He didn't convert to Islam with no knowledge of the Quran's contents. He read it, saw the hate in it, and thought it was OK, and then converted.

... ok, go to a college campus and do a survey of how many people have actually read the Koran. Shit, do a survey on how many have read the Bible (especially the parts in the Old Testament with really heinous and hateful stuff in it).

Quote from: migo on March 31, 2022, 01:19:55 PM

Quote

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM2. 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.

If it was tolerated, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Look at where we're having this conversation. See if it's being discussed in any mainstream venue.

I haven't seen this not being discussed anywhere anyone talks about rpgs online. You think this discussion is being silenced? What the hell are you talking about? How delusional are you?

Quote from: migo on March 31, 2022, 01:19:55 PM

Quote
And again, how you perceive things to be now (which isn't connected to roleplaying at all so I'll leave it there) is irrelevant to what was going on in 1951 when Barker converted. The Women's march happened years after Barker had died, and more than half a century after he converted to Islam. He didn't plan his conversion to Islam based on what some people were going to do more than 60 years into the future. You also stated that as a Muslim, he wouldn't need to hide his antisemitism, yet he did hide it. If he hadn't, the information in this thread wouldn't have been surprising to anyone.

It isn't about what happened 60 years into the future, it's what has been happening for over a millennium into the past before he converted. The Women's march is proof that Muslim hatred of Jews is tolerated. You can kill Jews, and the mainstream doesn't bat an eye as long as you're Muslim. That's what the tolerance is like now, and there hasn't been a time when you couldn't just do that. It was being tolerated before modern Israel was a state.

The Women's March is again something that happened in the past few years, what does it have to do with the past millenium, or even 70 years ago? Before modern Israel was a state, there was this thing called the holocaust, and before that there were all kinds of pogroms against Jews, off an on for hundreds of years. You're completely unhinged here.

Quote from: migo on March 31, 2022, 01:19:55 PM

Quote

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM4. 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.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. Polytheism is the belief in many gods. You cannot be an atheist polytheist. Hinduism isn't really a religion but a term for a set of cultural beliefs shared by several different religions, but you can't actually be an adherent of a Polytheistic religion without believing in the existence of gods. You can be a spiritualist, and you can deny the existence of a creator god and believe the gods came in after the world was made, but if you don't believe in any gods, you're not a polytheist.

You can believe in gods one year, and not believe in them the next. Hindus don't make a big deal of whether you believe or not. Christians do (with the exception of some minority sects like Unitarian Universalists). This obsession with whether you believe in a god at all is characteristic of the Abrahamic religions. The others don't, which is why you can be both atheist and polytheist, because your status in the community doesn't change as your personal beliefs change.

Your status in the community is completely different to whether or not you're a believer. No one cares if you're Christian or not in Sweden, that doesn't mean there are atheist Christians, it just means no one gives a shit.

Quote from: migo on March 31, 2022, 01:19:55 PM

Quote

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AMSikhs, 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.

Huh, and I could have sworn that there was Sikh sectarian violence in India (see the Sikh-Nirankari clash) and a Sikh separatist movement in India that culminated in Operation Blue Star in the 1980s when Indira Gandhi ordered the army to attack the holiest Sikh site, the Golden Temple. Then Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in revenge for this, after which followed riots and violence directed specifically against Sikhs. Huh, almost looks like religious tensions from here, but clearly those are impossible if an Abrahamic religion isn't involved.

How many examples do you think you can bring up of that? You know how easy it will for me to find 10 examples for every one you provide with Abrahamic religions. With non-Abrahamic religions it can be said to be an isolated incident. With Abrahamic religions it's not isolated. With Islam all the time now, with Christianity and Islam all the time in the past, and Judaism plenty too if you go back far enough.

I don't live in India, so it will be harder for me just on that score, but yes, it will be easier to dig up examples of religious intolerance when it involves either of the two biggest religions on the planet, that's only natural. There's over 2 billion Christians, there's close to 2 billion Muslims, there's 26 million Sikhs. That's two orders of magnitude.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 31, 2022, 11:12:10 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 31, 2022, 08:04:10 AM
To continue, I don't think anyone in the thread woke up one morning and said "hey, defending Nazis sounds like a great idea!". Instead, it appears to be pure partisanship. We must defeat the Enemy at any cost, even if it means defending Nazis!

Look at how much of the reaction has been specifically targeted at the Tubesock Troll, and how that's used to "prove" this is a nefarious plot by the SJWs. But why is that even the slightest bit relevant? The basic facts have been confirmed by multiple independent sources. The alignment of the person who first posted it shouldn't matter.

I've always been a political iconoclast, so I have hard time grokking the sectarian way of thinking. Which is probably why this whole thing has felt so utterly bizarre to me.

From what you have said so far, Pat, it sounds like me and you are in full alignment on Barker and TF.

Where we do not share full alignment is having questions, taking a wait and see approach, or doubting the motives of people who want to occupy Tekumel is a direct (or dotted) line to the defense of pro-Nazi propaganda. Geeky's claim, true or not, that TF is the real target to perhaps allow others to take over the IP is in no way a defense of Barker or pro-Nazi propaganda.

And the personal painting of me playing the moderate card in your previous post is a ridiculous attack meant to isolate me as soft or indecisive, of which, I am neither. My position in this thread has been clear.

I don't think we disagree significantly on the details about Barker. I also don't think we disagree at all in having questions. I explicitly said I think it bears more investigation in that very post, after all. And I've repeatedly said something similar.

Where we do disagree is further out, toward the "wait and see approach" you mentioned. Because the evidence at this point is basically indisputable. We can certainly add more detail and context, but there's essentially no chance anything could come up that would clear Barker, or the Tekumel Foundation of not coming forward with the information.

Yet we have a thread full of people attacking people for saying the Tekumel Foundation should be put on the red list. Often combined with virulent, emotional attacks, and often involving accusations of being SJWs, or at the very least claiming this is all a plot by the SJWs to destroy Tekumel. And you're defending that position. That's why I said you were falsely positioning yourself as a moderate. I wasn't calling you soft, but if you want to call yourself indecisive I'm fine with that. But being indecisive about whether gravity works isn't the moderate position, and neither is this. Sure, we want to know more about gravity, and what we learn might change out mind about a few specific details. But the moderate position is gravity works, and it's completely irrelevant who started the thread.

Quote from: Blankman on March 31, 2022, 12:15:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AMBut enough talk of a dead man. He's just the Troyan Horse, their real target IS the fundation and their destruction, maybe to put some of them in charge.

Also, sure Tekumel where being white is seen as bad is an anti-semite/pro nazi setting... The mental gymnastics...

Not everything that happens is a result of some leftist woke conspiracy. Sometimes a nazi is just a nazi.

Agreed. And even if the leftists jump on it, it still doesn't change the facts.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AM

Quote from: Blankman on March 30, 2022, 07:45:08 AM

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM
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.

No, it changes rather a lot if you're not even a grad student vs if you have a PhD.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM2. 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.

If it was tolerated, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And again, how you perceive things to be now (which isn't connected to roleplaying at all so I'll leave it there) is irrelevant to what was going on in 1951 when Barker converted. The Women's march happened years after Barker had died, and more than half a century after he converted to Islam. He didn't plan his conversion to Islam based on what some people were going to do more than 60 years into the future. You also stated that as a Muslim, he wouldn't need to hide his antisemitism, yet he did hide it. If he hadn't, the information in this thread wouldn't have been surprising to anyone.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM3. 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.

No, Barker is absolutely being excoriated, but he is, as you say, dead. People don't get excoriated for hiding the bad beliefs of someone if whoever held the beliefs wouldn't get slammed for holding them.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM4. 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.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. Polytheism is the belief in many gods. You cannot be an atheist polytheist. Hinduism isn't really a religion but a term for a set of cultural beliefs shared by several different religions, but you can't actually be an adherent of a Polytheistic religion without believing in the existence of gods. You can be a spiritualist, and you can deny the existence of a creator god and believe the gods came in after the world was made, but if you don't believe in any gods, you're not a polytheist.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AMSikhs, 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.

Huh, and I could have sworn that there was Sikh sectarian violence in India (see the Sikh-Nirankari clash) and a Sikh separatist movement in India that culminated in Operation Blue Star in the 1980s when Indira Gandhi ordered the army to attack the holiest Sikh site, the Golden Temple. Then Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in revenge for this, after which followed riots and violence directed specifically against Sikhs. Huh, almost looks like religious tensions from here, but clearly those are impossible if an Abrahamic religion isn't involved.

Riddle me this: Why are the charges of nazi anti-semite and not of muslim anti-semite?

Because he was writing for a Neo-Nazi anti-semitic publisher and was a board member of a neo-Nazi anti-semitic holocaust denial magazine.
And not, as far as we know, writing for an anti-semitic muslim publisher.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 31, 2022, 07:55:44 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AM

Quote from: Blankman on March 30, 2022, 07:45:08 AM

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM
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.

No, it changes rather a lot if you're not even a grad student vs if you have a PhD.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM2. 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.

If it was tolerated, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And again, how you perceive things to be now (which isn't connected to roleplaying at all so I'll leave it there) is irrelevant to what was going on in 1951 when Barker converted. The Women's march happened years after Barker had died, and more than half a century after he converted to Islam. He didn't plan his conversion to Islam based on what some people were going to do more than 60 years into the future. You also stated that as a Muslim, he wouldn't need to hide his antisemitism, yet he did hide it. If he hadn't, the information in this thread wouldn't have been surprising to anyone.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM3. 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.

No, Barker is absolutely being excoriated, but he is, as you say, dead. People don't get excoriated for hiding the bad beliefs of someone if whoever held the beliefs wouldn't get slammed for holding them.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM4. 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.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. Polytheism is the belief in many gods. You cannot be an atheist polytheist. Hinduism isn't really a religion but a term for a set of cultural beliefs shared by several different religions, but you can't actually be an adherent of a Polytheistic religion without believing in the existence of gods. You can be a spiritualist, and you can deny the existence of a creator god and believe the gods came in after the world was made, but if you don't believe in any gods, you're not a polytheist.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AMSikhs, 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.

Huh, and I could have sworn that there was Sikh sectarian violence in India (see the Sikh-Nirankari clash) and a Sikh separatist movement in India that culminated in Operation Blue Star in the 1980s when Indira Gandhi ordered the army to attack the holiest Sikh site, the Golden Temple. Then Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in revenge for this, after which followed riots and violence directed specifically against Sikhs. Huh, almost looks like religious tensions from here, but clearly those are impossible if an Abrahamic religion isn't involved.

Riddle me this: Why are the charges of nazi anti-semite and not of muslim anti-semite?

Because he was writing for a Neo-Nazi anti-semitic publisher and was a board member of a neo-Nazi anti-semitic holocaust denial magazine.
And not, as far as we know, writing for an anti-semitic muslim publisher.

So, him being a muslim had nothing to do with it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 08:16:46 PM
So, him being a muslim had nothing to do with it.

Geekybugle, you cant just go around throwing accusations that Muslims are anti-semetic when not all Muslims want to do that.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 31, 2022, 07:55:44 PM

Because he was writing for a Neo-Nazi anti-semitic publisher

and was a board member of a neo-Nazi anti-semitic holocaust denial magazine.

And not, as far as we know, writing for an anti-semitic muslim publisher.

1: False: By Barkers own statement to a non-nazi publisher... he just wrote the book. Then sent it off to various publishers. The why of it remains unknown. And again. Also by Barkers statement the book was not accepted by neo-Nazi publishers. Which might suggest the original book had something in it that they all did not like. Which suggests that it might have been a jab at them somehow. Assuming all that is true then we come back to the possibility the publisher altered and published the book without Barker knowing.

2: Which, as has been pointed out by others, could be for reasons other than support. Research, watchdog, etc. But that works only if Barker intended the book as some sort of jab at neo-nazis.

3: See my observations earlier in the thread. The book is oddly non-anti-semetic. The chapters I have read the characters do not so much deny the holocost as they downplay it. They might have done so in a part I had not gotten too.  But I was a 4th of the way through and did not see anything that stood out. Again. Its weird the lack of the expected elements. What the book and Barkers statement do is make Israel the main antagonist. Though Barkers stated reason differs from the books.   

x: So we come back to things that do not match up in one form or another. And without more information it could go either way. And the more the woke lie the more people are going to resist, or fight back against, a one-sided accusation. Especially when there are discrepancies in the narrative.

Quote from: Omega on April 01, 2022, 12:48:19 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 31, 2022, 07:55:44 PM

Because he was writing for a Neo-Nazi anti-semitic publisher

and was a board member of a neo-Nazi anti-semitic holocaust denial magazine.

And not, as far as we know, writing for an anti-semitic muslim publisher.

1: False: By Barkers own statement to a non-nazi publisher... he just wrote the book. Then sent it off to various publishers. The why of it remains unknown. And again. Also by Barkers statement the book was not accepted by neo-Nazi publishers. Which might suggest the original book had something in it that they all did not like. Which suggests that it might have been a jab at them somehow. Assuming all that is true then we come back to the possibility the publisher altered and published the book without Barker knowing.

2: Which, as has been pointed out by others, could be for reasons other than support. Research, watchdog, etc. But that works only if Barker intended the book as some sort of jab at neo-nazis.

3: See my observations earlier in the thread. The book is oddly non-anti-semetic. The chapters I have read the characters do not so much deny the holocost as they downplay it. They might have done so in a part I had not gotten too.  But I was a 4th of the way through and did not see anything that stood out. Again. Its weird the lack of the expected elements. What the book and Barkers statement do is make Israel the main antagonist. Though Barkers stated reason differs from the books.   

x: So we come back to things that do not match up in one form or another. And without more information it could go either way. And the more the woke lie the more people are going to resist, or fight back against, a one-sided accusation. Especially when there are discrepancies in the narrative.

This isn't accurate. Barker stated, in a letter, that "I cannot even sell it to the Neo-Nazi presses here; they would not accept the idea of an Indian girl marrying the hero." That does not indicate he tried, that indicates he thought the idea of them accepting it was doomed. Why he thought that is also clearly laid out, it's not some subtle jab at nazis, it's the hero marrying an indian girl. He doesn't in fact mention sending it off to any publishers, he just says he doesn't think anyone could publish it. Turns out he was wrong about the neo-nazi press.

Quote from: Blankman on April 01, 2022, 03:54:45 AM

Quote from: Omega on April 01, 2022, 12:48:19 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 31, 2022, 07:55:44 PM

Because he was writing for a Neo-Nazi anti-semitic publisher

and was a board member of a neo-Nazi anti-semitic holocaust denial magazine.

And not, as far as we know, writing for an anti-semitic muslim publisher.

1: False: By Barkers own statement to a non-nazi publisher... he just wrote the book. Then sent it off to various publishers. The why of it remains unknown. And again. Also by Barkers statement the book was not accepted by neo-Nazi publishers. Which might suggest the original book had something in it that they all did not like. Which suggests that it might have been a jab at them somehow. Assuming all that is true then we come back to the possibility the publisher altered and published the book without Barker knowing.

2: Which, as has been pointed out by others, could be for reasons other than support. Research, watchdog, etc. But that works only if Barker intended the book as some sort of jab at neo-nazis.

3: See my observations earlier in the thread. The book is oddly non-anti-semetic. The chapters I have read the characters do not so much deny the holocost as they downplay it. They might have done so in a part I had not gotten too.  But I was a 4th of the way through and did not see anything that stood out. Again. Its weird the lack of the expected elements. What the book and Barkers statement do is make Israel the main antagonist. Though Barkers stated reason differs from the books.   

x: So we come back to things that do not match up in one form or another. And without more information it could go either way. And the more the woke lie the more people are going to resist, or fight back against, a one-sided accusation. Especially when there are discrepancies in the narrative.

This isn't accurate. Barker stated, in a letter, that "I cannot even sell it to the Neo-Nazi presses here; they would not accept the idea of an Indian girl marrying the hero." That does not indicate he tried, that indicates he thought the idea of them accepting it was doomed. Why he thought that is also clearly laid out, it's not some subtle jab at nazis, it's the hero marrying an indian girl. He doesn't in fact mention sending it off to any publishers, he just says he doesn't think anyone could publish it. Turns out he was wrong about the neo-nazi press.

Yeah, Omega, this just isn't accurate. You keep going back to that statement from Dave Morris' blog, and it's just not what you seem to think it is: Read it aloud, in a speaking voice; it just sounds as if Barker was batshit insane. I agree with you that the whole matter would do well with some additional context, and there's a TON of open questions - but it's to the TF to provide the answers, not to us. Given that they've already made their statement, and given that they are, for better or worse, supposed to be the biggest Barker experts in the world, I'm inclined to take that statement at face value. Like, it's in their best interest to defend Barker; if they don't, why should anyone else?

I'm surely as offended as you are, and I have to really take care not to say something tasteless about the antics we're seeing from some of the "professional hobbyists" and grifters as they do their usual "mistakes were made, but not by me" routines. But the matter itself seems not to be overly complex: Barker wrote the novel, Barker was okay with the novel as it was released - or at least, we have no specific indication to believe he wasn't. (As in, there are no known statements from him on the matter AFTER publication.) And, of course, Barker remained an active anti-Semite afterwards, through his connection with the magazine. However exactly we label him, the evidence quite simply indicates that he was a total cunt.

Whatever the consequences of all this might be on a larger scale, I'm not precisely feeling the itch to play in a Tekumel game, right now. Does anyone, really? - Don't think that's going to change any time soon. Maybe that will change again if the TF indeed does their "due diligence". But if it doesn't, then, well -  then there will be other games to play.

Hence why I say we just do not have enough information to say either way. Read it one way and he did it deliberately. Read it the other and he did it as a gag.

Problem is that if it is a gag. Its a rather tasteless one unless the original book was somehow far different in tone.
Problem is that if it is serious then its a rather bland example unless the original was somehow different in tone.

I keep coming back to the first point as a problem for me that Barker was seriously considering sending it off to neo-nazis at all. And then DID! It just feels so completely crack-headed a stunt to pull for some sort of joke. And that he sat on the publication board at all. If he was researching then surely he did not need to be on the board to do that? Unless I am missing some quirk of academia access?

Another thing that bugs me is the timeline for all this. The publisher did not exist till the early 2000s. When did Barker actually write the book and how long was he submitting it to various publishers good and bad?

But if he was a neo-nazi then why was he concerned about sending the book to a Jewish publisher he knew? Why not fuck with them and submit it?

Thus why I say if you follow one path it leads to Barker being up to no good. And if you follow the other its some sort of joke. And there is information that contradicts one or the other or both. And the more you dig the stranger it gets. And not in a good way. Every time I did deeper the pendulum swings anew.

Mr Barker. Would you please stop pushing the damn pendulum back to "GUILTY"?