What's this allbuch.online?
I was checking Google pagerankings of Rightpedia stuff and I found this. http://www.allbuch.online/
http://en.allbuch.online/wiki/Main_Page is a complete copy of Rightpedia from early June 2016. The site however does not give credit and says, "Its current 15,294 articles have been mostly created in cooperation with the English language Metapedia." The site also forgot to include the photos. Well if they want to keep a backup of Rightpedia, they better keep it updated as Rightpedia is updated regularly. I still need to get the backups of image and category text restored which I don't have time for yet. The German section appears to be from the German Metapedia but it has 20,000 additional articles and I'm not sure what of since I only compared a few articles and checked the total article counts at each site. It seems to be run by this group http://www.therebel.is/ . Wyatt (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is their email:To cooperate in ALLBUCH, please send an e-mail to Allbuch_at_protonmail.com and enter your desired user name and a temporary password to. The administrators will then set up an author account. url for this: http://en.allbuch.online/wiki/Help:Cooperation Vajna (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Allbuch is connected with therebel.org, ziopedia.org, rebelnews.org and 300spartans.com.au. I emailed the owner of the those websites and he spoke perfect English, but he said he did not run Allbuch. The person who runs it never responded but he changed "Metapedia" to "Metapedia and Rightpedia" even though he directly exported all the pages from Rightpedia. Since that main page change, there have been no edits to the site at all. I am fine with a backup of Rightpedia, but that is a poor backup and they didn't save the images which are the largest and most annoying thing to back up. The German section of Allbuch has several times the number of articles the German Metapedia so I don't know where they got all their content from. I see them uploading images on that site. Pages pretty much look the same as the German Metapedia  vs . Wyatt (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- There was some other German named guy editing on there very recently actually.--Ａｒｙａｎ Ｍａｃｈｉａｖｅｌｌｉ (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles with differentiated concepts or mishmash articles?
I do not maintain that what I write is perfect. But when I created the pages “Deduction” (with the intention to compare it with Induction, “Analytical thinking” (with the intention to compare it later to “Synthetic thinking”) and “Logic” (which I created, too). Connor Machiavelli was not satisfied to undo all that I wrote on these pages. (I do not say, that what I wrote was perfect, but it was at least a first impulse.) But what I did not understand was, why he redirected all these distinguished pages to the page “Reason”, although "reason" is something which is not identical with Reasoning-Deduction-Induction-AnalyticalThinking-SyntheticThinking-Logic(-InformalLogic). Now we have the problem there that we should simultaneously speak about deduction, induction, analytic thinking, synthetic thinking and logic and Informal Logic (etc. etc.). My opinion is that this is a mental overload. It should be kept in mind that there are even much more concepts like abduction, analogy, causality, fallacy, argumentation, concept, rhetoric, sophistry, intuition, argumentation scheme, argumentum ad hominem, which could all be redirected to the site reason which would be a bit imbecile. :-)
The direct consequence is that all these concepts cannot any longer be discussed in comparison to each other. This is like a One-World-Government.
My question is now: Is what Connor Machiavelli did here the official style of Rightpedia, or shouldn't he be reprimanded by an administrator? My humble opinion is that the purpose of an encyclopedia is diversity of concepts, and not mishmash of concepts, although this would perhaps be a comfortable, lazy “solution”. --SalianLaw (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't like all his edits, but he tends to make less stuff I don't like than you. He generally corrects your mistakes I find. Like here, logic isn't about humor. I don't want to make anyone an administrator unless it is needed, that is vandals strike. On a wiki generally everyone has a different idea of what an article should be and this is normal. If we get vandals and I have to make someone an administrator, I'd have to make you both administrators and with the instructions to only deal with vandals, not with people who annoy you. It's pretty standard on wikis for other editors to annoy you and write content you don't like, but if everyone writes content themselves then things go at a really slow pace unless you spend 70 hours a week like Andrew Anglin. Also this content he removed at the Reason article needs to go somewhere else unless it's already been moved somewhere. And on the Deduction article, I just see you redirect it one place and him another so it could be a disambig page. Wyatt (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @SalianLaw Those concepts you bring up do belong to reason, though. Meh. I just disliked those stubs you wrote that didn't make much sense. But, those are philosophical concepts. Also, you can work on the Philosophy section of Reason, then, instead of it being redirected to that. I'll be more easy on the redirecting on your article stuff but it definitely needed a whole lot of improvement, and that Reason article is small and could definitely be filled up with more than some guys saying they disagree with Logic. Oak = tree, tree = plant, oak = plant. Very many people will even say they dislike this idea because of their own feelings, in my own experience they have. --Ａｒｙａｎ Ｍａｃｈｉａｖｅｌｌｉ (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Wyatt: Of course, it is difficult for you to reconstruct all that we did here. My work here is more difficult than Machiavelli’s, because I want to introduce dissident ideas about the way we must go. Logic has really to do with humor, because it does not produce something new. It has no contact to the substance of things (and this is really somehow ridiculous, and this is an important thought, and this has something to do with the Jews!).
So, what is now your advice? Shall I just reflect a bit about what Connor Machiavelli intends to tell me each time by his actions, and when I do not agree with him after reflecting it, I just partly undo what he did? – This is Socratic (or Hegelian?) dialectic. By the way: such a procedure was especially forbidden in the German Metapedia (no editing fights!), that's why it confuses me a bit (we always had to communicate one day or so in advance, on the talk site, if we wanted to delete something). ... Now we will see whether a constructive work will be possible like that. ... Holmes laughed at Lestrade and Lestrade laughed at Sherlock Holmes .... --SalianLaw (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Wyatt: What I deleted wasn't a comment of Machiavelli but simply a hate speech. This is noxious to the project, so I deleted it, because it was insulting. In the German Metapedia this is allowed.
- Machiavelli does not understand much of reasoning, so he should not work there as author. I never looked up the Wikipedia article about deduction (because I am thinking for myself, as an exercise, and you said, when I started here, that the readers here like if someone thinks himself, even if it is wrong (which latter is not the case with me, though I am not perfect). But see yourself:
- "Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. It differs from inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning." (Copy from Wikipedia, Boldface is from me)
- Reasoning is not just reasoning. Deduction is certain reasoning (because it is tautological or circular) and then there are a lot of other uncertain kinds of reasoning, and these are the interesting ones. They cannot be understood by logic, because logic does not deliver the substance to understand something. It is just a formality. Macchiavelli seems to ignore this because he is Aryan.--SalianLaw (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is very funny. – Macchiavelli just entered the talk with his nonsense comment in order to disturb it. And he succeeded, since you didn't answer my question above. The question was (because I am not accustomed to do so when working in Metapedia): I just partly undo what he did, and this is allowed? And this will make sense? He undoes what I did, and I do it again, and he undoes again... etc. without any further rules? —The preceding comment was added by SalianLaw (talk • contribs) who did not sign their post. It's four tildes (~~~~).
- @SalianLaw Hate speech includes comments too. I'd say criticism can be very useful and it's not noxious to any project requiring collaboration. "Hate speech" or criticism can be seen all throughout Rightpedia to point out who is very dangerous and not. There was a point behind my castigation of you. Snide remark about my Aryanism there. --Ａｒｙａｎ Ｍａｃｈｉａｖｅｌｌｉ (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
On two fundamental questions concerning Rightpedia: General deleting manners of user Machiavelli and Jewish cause of WW II
In Europe, the World War(s) I and II were caused by international Jewry. Or isn't this true? If so, why not write it as I have done here: , (and here I mentioned the cause why they invaded in such great number the USA before the world war: , hence this was the cause why they could establish their power in France, England and the USA more and more until they caused World War II). USA, England and France were controlled by Jewry/Freemasonry, these countries acted obviously in the name of the “Ghoules of Darkness”. And Germany was the opposition (Light). But, what of the role of Japan? Japan fought against these Ghoules, too. It took a long time until I saw through the lies disseminated by the Allies about Germany. How could I study the same question concerning Japan? I cannot read original texts there. So why not propose as a first approximation that Japan was a good force, too, since in some sense they aided Germany. Why not play with this hypothesis?
And finally why not ask, why Germany came in such a situation that it had to endure such a horrific defeat. Why not play with this question. If we just do not ask it, how can we ever rescue Germany or the white race? Why not be a bit bold and ask questions, not only in the backyard but here in the article.
I do not understand how it comes that a person like user Machiavelli just decides like an autocrat what has to be deleted, in a hurry, often without reflecting much. And I would like that this practice should be discussed here. We should ask, whether he shouldn't reflect more and not always meddle by deleting any new idea, which he is not accustomed to. I think it should be introduced as a general and obligatory practice/rule that if someone (and especially user Machiavelli) deletes something, he should in advance explain in the talk what his reflections are, which incline him to delete something. And he should wait for an answer before deleting something. -- This is just minimal politeness. So he would have to reflect a bit before he acts. User Machiavelli should anyway be a bit more polite, and I also don't like it below the belt ("screw off"  etc.). Sorry, but sometimes when I see user Machiavelli's behaviour, I think he is like a sub-Sahara negro. --SalianLaw (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes Jews manipulated things to cause WWI and WWII (Hitler even said so) but your "ghouls of darkness" and "warriors of light" thing with an unclear Lord of The Rings reference  is some mystical incoherentness with unfalsifiable metaphors. For  it seems the conflict is if (1) Russia kicking out the Jews is why international jewry caused WWI and WWII or if it's something else. There's no evidence cited and I've heard the zionist bankers would have done it anyway since many of the Rothschilds were in England. I also don't like the "so ugly" part as the reason they kicked them out unless it can be backed up with evidence--usually Jews are kicked out because they conflict with society and harm the majority. (2) For "from a white nationalist point of view" removing, well lots of ethnic groups hate international jewry so it's limiting so say why one group alone does. ... and to your question, "how can we ever rescue Germany or the white race?" well to quote , "Germans want to punish themselves for the Holocaust by erasing themselves by allowing Arabs to breed with their women." --Wyatt (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
(1) Jews are ugly, of course in their behaviour, I do not see what's the problem here. And further in your argument you say that the Rothschilds would have done it anyway, but if they hadn't invaded Europe (since Charlemagne and the Tsar, this all belongs together) they wouldn't have come to the powerful positions (which were granted them by the European Kings) and wouldn't have settled together with the other Europeans in the USA. For (2) this was not a point that I mentioned. And quite generally I am a bit sad because of the fact that you are so superficial in your reasoning. I raised the question of the reason for the defeat (the Nürnberger holocaust incrimination is just a consequence of this defeat). There exists a reason why Europeans/Germans go into this fatal direction. Sorry, but if you say feeling guilty about the holocaust is the reason for this fatal direction, this is a stupid argumentation, since the holocaust story etc. is just a consequence, not the cause or reason. Sorry but you argue, continually, like a sub-Sahara negro, too.
- Ugly refers to physical appearance. If it's behavior, it should not be a metaphor. The Russia argument probably should be explained as the for and against arguments. As for me not addressing all your arguments, you speak English badly and write like your mind is incoherent. Wyatt (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The Cambridge dictionary  says under position 2 that ugly means "unpleasant, threatening and violent". And because the Jews were "unpleasant, threatening and violent" (= ugly) the Tsar did not want them any longer in Russia (John Coleman discusses this in (the German Edition of) "The Tavistock Institute ..." [Chapter 1]).
Wyatt how can you know that I speak English badly since I never speak here? I am sure that my mind is not incoherent. I'm just the only one person who really seeks coherences. And you are just not accustomed to it, and hence it irritates you somehow. I understand that. But please do not nerve me to much.--SalianLaw (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jews often have ugly physical features so there would be confusion. Wyatt (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
A fundamental problem
I do not really believe in this line, I think that the jews only intensified and conserved a negative character that exists since thousands of years, also with the Greeks.
But, Machiavelli is very illogical: He insists that synopsis in English means “a short description”. But, for the Greek language “opsis” surely did not mean “description” (and anyway “syn” did not mean “short”). Hence it has been created by the European elite and belongs to modern science and would (according to Machiavelli) be bad. Machiavelli claims that he is an exemplar of a logical thinker. But, nonetheless he insists that “synopsis” may only have this bad, modern (newspeak)-meaning.
When I say something critical about logic, he deletes everything at once etc. etc. – But, in his acting he 1.) works obviously against logic (as demonstrated above) and 2.) he promotes kikes with their newspeak (and their bad science) though he claims that his “kike-killing power is 9001” whatever this means.
- You're smoking crack. Look up for yourself what good science is. It normally is that it follows the scientific method. Bad science is bad when it is fraudulent. Next, look up "synopsis" in any English dictionary, not some foreign dictionary that looks at its etymology. You not only don't understand English at a basic level, you are really arrogant about your ignorance. SalianLaw are you on any medications? Wyatt (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- What you answer is just a pretext because you intend to distract from the important and painful truths that I raised about your chum Machiavelli. Kings (or you two seniors here) often hated and killed the licensed fools. But Owlglass was clean. His cap was the symbol of intuition and is the true interpretation and precursor of the swastika. He is the true apical ancestor of the national socialists, and you should feel bad to talk such nonsense about him. ----- File:The analogy between the duncecap and the swastika must be studied.jpgSalianLaw (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
And I told you that your question is just one of the most primitive red herrings anyway. Why should I? A week ago I took a homeopathic globuli. Do you want to know what for? – Would you prefer me to take any strong medications? :-))
I am not interested whether you take yourself any medications. This is private, I wouldn't ask such questions. My politeness would forbid me to do this. But if you want, you may report about it as well. But I would rather be happy if you or Machiavelli would at last explain (and try to excuse) the illogicality and maleficence of the behavior of user Machiavelli, that I reported above. This is the reason why we are here on Rightpedia. Did you forget that? You have a general tendency to make rhetorical distractions (this is not the first time that I perceive this with you). And at the same time, you say that I produce gibberish though it's obviously you who produce gibberish by your frivolous manner of communication. You are wasting our time!
- You have a general tendency to communicate manipulatively. You should be more mindful regarding that.