User talk:Etikelama

Look, your banning does not indicate that there's a "Jewish cabal" running Wikipedia; that's simply laughable. Even on StormFront, people laughed at you. Are you so blind? The truth is simply that most thinking people strongly oppose Neo-Nazism; they're not Jewish or controlled by Jews. The result: some go to questionable lengths to oppose it, but everyone involved in the debate over your blocking opposes the beliefs you espouse. Your block was ultimately sustained because of the list of users you posted on StormFront. I disagreed, but don't think that you find much sympathy from me. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, Matt, sure. We all understand that you have to say that or your cover here would be blown. Maybe you should ban me as well just to save your credibility. Etikelama 13:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, my secret cover. How did you know about that? Of course, when needed, I can safely communicate with my "true associates" using my mad super-l33t cryptography skillz. I'm working on a new cipher to communicate with my fellows, it's called "writing things backwards". I think it r0xx0rs. &mdash; Matt Crypto 13:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Matt, re-read the Stormfront post. Amalekite is not concerned with why you took the stand that you did, merely that you did take such a stand. The truth is, Amalekite was blocked from Wikipedia unfairly, and the subsequent posts on Stormfront which were used after the fact as a pretext to permanantly ban him probably would never have occured if he hadn't been blocked unjustly to begin with. Why should Amalekite (or any other editor) follow the rules of Wikipedia if the administrators themselves are not following them in their dealings with Amalekite? Hypocrisy and double standards undermine the credibility of the entire Wikipedia project. Amalekite's main concern when he first came on Wikipedia was with writing a fair, impartial, factually correct article about Eustace Mullins, which is impossible to do here, given a set of circumstances which you deny even exist. Amalekite does not care about your political orientation or about whether you share his opinions or not, merely that you had the backbone to stand up for truth and justice when no one else in your position would. Be graceful and learn to take a damn compliment, will you? Etikelama 13:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Reread my comments to you. What I was addressing was this quite irrational belief that there's some Jewish cabal running Wikipedia. I've no idea where you get such ideas from, but, as I mentioned earlier, even StormFront people thought they were ludicrous. There's certainly plenty of anti-Nazism on Wikipedia, but that's "grassroots" anti-Nazism, not coordinated by some secret controlling organisation of Jews. You won't understand or accept this, but people actually oppose your beliefs because they judge them to be false by themselves, not because they're controlled by "cabals". &mdash; Matt Crypto  14:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding certain aspects of Amalekite's beliefs and ascribing to him things he never said, perhaps because you are focusing more on the popular connotations of the words he uses rather than on the literal meanings themselves. Dictionary.com defines a "cabal" as "A conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers; A secret scheme or plot." This definition most certainly does apply to the behavior of a group of loosely(?)-organized editors/admins here at Wikipedia. Amalekite was banned five times on the same day by the very people he identified as being members of this group; and yet he's crazy for calling them a "cabal"? Etikelama 14:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To quote you, "the so-called "Elders of Wikipedia" (the Zionist cabal which has Wikipedia in its grip)". Hmm..sounds fairly crackpot to me, but don't just take my word for it. Here's the response to your posts from a StormFront moderator: "So far we have a claim from you that a "Zionist Cabal" is taking over Wikipedia...It seems you imagine all opposition to WN is "jewish" - something which, I have to tell you, is far from the truth. Most ordinary whites despise White Nationalists as "neo-nazis". The ground for that despite is their perception that we have a crazy and irrational obsession with jews. Much of what you have posted in this thread, in sober fact, does betray an unbalanced and irrational obsession with jews, as opposed to a clear and accurate understanding of them. Much of what you have posted, whether you understand it or not, will tend to confirm that despite, and to work against our interests." &mdash; Matt Crypto 14:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Matt, as you should be able to tell by Amalekite's responses to JohnJoyTree's posts at the Stormfront forum, Amalekite is well aware of JohnJoyTree's opinions. There is no need for such extensive quotes, unless you're simply determined to waste Wikipedia's bandwidth. Since you seem to think JohnJoyTree is pretty right on the mark with his comments, does that mean you also agree with him when he writes: "I am perfectly well aware of the jewish control over most avenues of information"? As for the term "Elders of Wikipedia", I seem to recall Amalekite stating that it was coined by a Jewish editor named Gzuckier. Perhaps you should take up any objections you have with the term with him instead. Etikelama 14:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is this: how do you expect people to take your "Jewish cabal" claims seriously when even White Supremacists &mdash; people who are most likely to be sympathetic to your claims &mdash; think that you sound like a crackpot? Anyway, your point about wasted bandwidth is well taken; I don't intend to further this conversation. &mdash; Matt Crypto 15:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why did you initiate this conversation in the first place, Matt? Etikelama 15:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You initiated this conversation, dude, so you lose! Ha! Oh, no, wait, you tricked me into replying again by posting a stupid answer! Cunning, but it won't work a second time. &mdash; Matt Crypto 15:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Cunning"? "Tricked" you? Now look who's starting to sound like a crackpot! Etikelama 15:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)