Yet another Muslim invader drives a car into a throng of indigenous Germans, killing, maiming and injuring dozens. How's the magic dirt working out for you, EU? The real problem is the AfD, don't you know?
In their defense, free speech there has been restricted since the end of World War 2 to where "hate" has been criminalized, their ability to have any sort of army is legally restricted to a tiny standing army permitted to act only in self defense and they are even more bombarded with Western propaganda (LGBTQ agenda, pro Israel, anti China and so on) than anywhere else.
But effectually yes, Germany has gone the way of the others.
Sooner or later, someone's gonna rebel and say "No more!" It's already happening in Ireland and the Netherlands. Even in places as cowed as Europe, you still find a few people with spines left.
There are people like that. In the end though it's a numbers game; between the ever declining birth rate of native Europeans, whether through the side effects of cultural indoctrination of the likes of feminism or LGBT, or economic reasons, and the ever increasing proportion of immigrants and their proportionally higher birthrates, the probability of any successful rejection of these movements will become increasingly lower over time.
I unfortunately don't see it happening now, and even less so in the future.
Perhaps the ones with common sense will come over here to America and escape. Someday maybe a war can allow us to repopulate Europe and rebuild, and clean up what the brown tide destroyed.
When liberal Angela Merkel opened the door to one million (1,000,000) Muslims Germany was forever changed…and not to the good. The EU reminds me of a honky-tonk tune “No Balls At All”. When a country has an “open door” policy and sanctuary cities there’s going to be problems. It’s too late for the EU, but thank the Good Lord we have Donald Trump, although I disagreed with him when he pardoned/commuted the sentences of known protesters/rioters who assaulted our police officers.
When liberal Angela Merkel opened the door to one million (1,000,000) Muslims Germany was forever changed
Fitting that this is the 10th anniversary of merkel sending germany to hell by bringing in all that human garbage into the country.
Not surprising considering that Angela Merkel is an East German communist. What did the krauts think would happen if they put someone like her in charge of their country? The bitch couldn't even speak English fluently, she was worthless.
reply share
As in Germany, crime against “infidels” increased exponentially via rape and stabbings. The infiltrators cordoned off areas from the rest of the country in order to live by their own laws. Each country’s law enforcement did not police those areas.
Same thing happening right now in Sweden, who took in more 3rd world trash per capita than anyone else. There's 'No go' areas everywhere full of gang violence, local swedish girls being harassed and groped on public transit and on the streets. Just the kind of multicultural utopia that wokesters dream of.
While the term "no-go areas" is sometimes used in the media to describe certain areas in Sweden with high crime rates, especially in some suburbs, it's important to note that Sweden does not officially have designated "no-go zones" where authorities cannot operate.
reply share
Of course they don't. It would be a tacit admission that the policies they forced on the population, that their religious faith in the blank slate and magic dirt has been an utter failure.
Come on Film, are you really going to dismiss anything that isn't official state propaganda as a conspiracy theory? Surely you can see with your own eyes that these conspiracy theories are true. They are happening right in front of your eyes.
Any particular ones, or all of them? People are generally attracted to conspiracy theories because they want more certainty, to feel in control, and maintain a positive image of their self and group. That's why they are popular.
Not all of them, of course. But the idea that the government can’t officially acknowledge what’s happening because it would undermine their policies should be obvious — it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a conspiracy fact.
Or take George Soros, for example. The so-called conspiracy theories about him are demonstrably true. Just recently, Senator Kennedy spoke on the Senate floor about how Soros used his influence to purchase a radio station in Louisiana to spread his Open Society progressive propaganda. He strong-armed his way in, bought out the station, and miraculously had every Democrat he donated to expedite the approval process.
Then there’s the well-documented scandal of Soros funding District Attorneys across the U.S. who push a progressive, soft-on-crime ideology. These DAs — all backed by Soros — refuse to prosecute black criminals under some warped notion of social justice — once again, the direct influence of his Open Society Foundation. He clearly has an agenda, and he uses his wealth and power to fund political campaigns that implement it. This isn’t speculation; it’s fact.
And of course, there’s his well-documented support for mass migration, openly advocating for the demographic transformation of White Western countries into multicultural, multiracial societies. He’s a major proponent of the so-called Great Replacement and funds propaganda — seen across state and corporate media — designed to brainwash the public into not only accepting their own displacement but celebrating it.
Yet, every time I provide these examples, you dismiss them out of hand as mere conspiracy theories, or worse, anti-Semitic tropes, implying that everything I’m saying is nonsense and not worth taking seriously. So I have to ask — why? Why do you reflexively dismiss things that are demonstrably true and have been pointed out, time and time again, by people in positions to know?
But it is an issue people when confuse the two and insist "that these conspiracy theories are true." to suit themselves. The matters is further complicated by the frequent confirmation bias of CT proponents and claims of supposed shenanigans by official bodies who always work to 'suppress the truth'. In my view most times the only theory of conspiracies is the one which allows for cock-ups and the human love of mysterious over mundane explanations for the out of the ordinary. Either this or to attribute threatening motives to the most understandable activities.
Senator Kennedy spoke on the Senate floor about how Soros used his influence to purchase a radio station in Louisiana to spread his Open Society progressive propaganda..
Kennedy can be somewhat eccentric in his claims. He called things 'weird' and asked for an investigation. Fair enough, but it is hardly case closed. And aren't conspiracies supposed to be, er, secret? Plenty of media owners use their platforms to push a particular slant. A conspiracy for most people is the one to Assassinate JFK or Cato Street. It is not the legitimate acquisition of media by some with legal political views. Otherwise Rupert Murdoch would have been imprisoned year ago.
In regards to George Soros quietly financing a revolution in criminal justice reform, doling out tens of millions of dollars to progressive candidates etc, this is surely no different to the Republicans quietly building up a power base to see through things like abortion reform. To call it a 'conspiracy' seems a bit over the top. One might see Project 2025 a 'conspiracy' using this sort of logic.
And of course, there’s his well-documented support for mass migration otherwise known as GRT..
This has been covered before between us and I don't feel inclined to cover it anymore. Suffice to say many identify it as rooted in the belief that the white race is under threat of extinction at the hands of Jews and other minorities. It is based on white demographic anxiety. George Soros is not an evil mastermind. Whites, objectively still pull all the levers and are in no danger of going extinct.
implying that everything I’m saying is nonsense and not worth taking seriously. Why do you reflexively dismiss things that are demonstrably true and have been pointed out, time and time again, by people in positions to know?
The problem is, when they are taken seriously they melt away, become ludicrous or turn out to be based on racism or white supremacism. Most conspiracies, as I said at the top, are sustained among other things by confirmation basis and the real need to see them as a comforting truth among certain groups.
reply share
Not all conspiracies are secret — at least not anymore. Take Project 2025, for example. It’s a coordinated effort to radically reshape the government and American society, orchestrated by a group with a clear agenda. I’m not passing judgment on whether it’s good or bad — I agree with some of it, but not all — but it is, by definition, a conspiracy. And it’s happening right out in the open.
The same goes for George Soros and his Open Society. He isn’t exactly hiding what he’s doing; he openly advocates for policies and societal changes that align with his vision. The only secrecy lies in how he frames his actions — as benevolent rather than manipulative. It’s a conspiracy, but not in the shadowy, cloak-and-dagger sense. It’s all right there for anyone willing to look beyond the rhetoric.
A conspiracy, by definition, involves a secret plan or agreement, making secrecy a core element. Strictly speaking this alone would disqualify some of the more popular ones where not only are the supposed participants known but so is often their modus operandi and motives.
take Project 2025, for example... And it’s happening right out in the open.
That's why I said "One might see Project 2025 a 'conspiracy' using this sort of logic."
reply share
You're right — 'conspiracy' may not be the best word. Perhaps agenda or scheme fits better. It has the elements of a conspiracy — collusion, a coordinated effort, a plotted course — but it isn’t entirely secret. There’s some secrecy involved, of course — the true motives, behind-the-scenes machinations, and deals made under the table — but much of it is out in the open. There’s a clear worldview, a plan, and a political goal being pursued. That’s why I don’t think the examples I gave even qualify as conspiracy theories qua conspiracy theories in the traditional sense. That’s also why I semi-jokingly called them conspiracy fact, though that’s not quite right either. In hindsight, I should have just called it an agenda — or better yet, a scheme.
There’s some secrecy involved, of course — the true motives, behind-the-scenes machinations,
Not even that; in a lot of cases on this board all of these are fully alleged, discovered identified and condemned, along with the chief culprits with ease, it would seem lol But I hear what you are saying. My chief issue with conspiracy theories, or whatever the 'lesser version' of them is called is that they are very often so all-consuming, sensationalist and melodramatic in their essence while invariably reflecting the confirmation bias of whoever thinks about them. In their defence is often employed special pleading or Arguments from Ignorance. A little conspiracy goes a long way.
reply share
Some of those protesters were planted federal assets while others were defending themselves from Capitol police that were instructed to incite the protesters with rubber ammunition, gas grenades and batons.
I don't know what the numbers are like in Germany, probably similar, but in the US something like over 90 percent of terrorism is committed by right wing radicals.
I don't know what the numbers are like in Germany, probably similar, but in the US something like over 97 percent of terrorism is committed by left wing BBB radicals.
Actually the most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists, though anarchists and religious extremists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda present a potential threat as well.
He relies solely on hypothetical scenarios created by the fbi that have never come to pass and are laughable at face value.
99.9% of the country has never met a white supremacist. But according to skavs they are behind every corner and committing crimes at a record rate but its just never reported.
I don't know what the numbers are like in Germany, probably similar, but in the US something like 100 percent of terrorism in 2020 was committed by left wing Antifa and BLM radicals.
100 percent of terrorism in 2020 was committed by left wing Antifa and BLM radicals.
Really? In FY 2020, the FBI assessed the greatest terrorism threat to the United States was from lone actors or small cells who typically radicalize online and look to attack soft targets with easily accessible weapons. The underlying drivers, including sociopolitical conditions, racism, and anti- Semitism remain constant. In October 2020, the Department of Homeland Security released the Homeland Threat Assessment, a report detailing various domestic threats to US national security. It states that, out of all domestic terror attacks resulting in lethal threats to life between 2018 and 2019, "WSEs [white supremacist extremists] conducted half of all lethal attacks (8 of 16), resulting in the majority of deaths (39 of 48)"
reply share
A very narrowly tailored study in terms of time span and events. And considering the source, the FBI, an organization which was at that time completely rogue and politically captured by the radical left, it's about as credible as the ADL pronouncing that anti-Semitism is the greatest threat to mankind.
Thank you for explaining the facts away. Perhaps you have an approved source which offers a similar level of authority to tell us that '100 percent of terrorism in 2020 was committed by left wing Antifa and BLM radicals'?
For starters, your "evidence" to the contrary was a study that drew conclusions for the years 2018-19, not 2020. So why are you asking me to step in when you've already failed?
And the FBI is an extremely partisan and tainted source of authority. What is it with lefties like you? You used to rail against "The Establishment" at every turn, but now you want to embrace the entrenched state as your own. The only explanation for that is that you know these institutions have been wholly captured by fellow travelers and can be counted on to faithfully promote The Message.
your "evidence" to the contrary was a study that drew conclusions for the years 2018-19,
So things suddenly flipped in a year?
And the FBI is an extremely partisan and tainted source of authority
Thank you for your opinion.
Fortunately other voices are available eg:
Right-wing extremist terror incidents in the U.S. have been increasing since the mid-2000s, but the past six years have seen their sharpest rise yet. There were just seven right-wing terror incidents in the period 2005-2007, but by 2017-2019 there were 27, which increased to 40 in 2020-2022.
But any update on any alternate sources of facts about US terrorism, especially that "'100 percent of terrorism in 2020 was committed by left wing Antifa and BLM radicals' say? Or is this a time you eschew fact checking?
You used to rail against "The Establishment" at every turn, but now you want to embrace the entrenched state as your own
Gaslighting is not a good strategy. It looks desperate.
reply share
But you chimed in a few times, and here you are still. But I appreciate why you might need to disassociate from the wild claim made.
.. nor fail at refuting it
There has been no proof given here that '100 percent of terrorism in 2020 was committed by left wing Antifa and BLM radicals' seen and the onus is on those arguing that. Meanwhile unless it is evidenced that there was no right wing terrorism whatsoever for that year, surely a preposterous suggestion, the claim falls as just right wing hyperbole eg
The United States Department of Homeland Security reported in October 2020 that white supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021, noting that the bureau had elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS
One imagines that, with all their resources, they would be best placed to know, although no government is perfect - as Trump is demonstrating. The question is more that would they be likely wrong, as opposed to amateur commentators? Or those on one side of the political divide, who one would reasonably expect to play down the dubious antics of fellow travellers?
So one could comfortably assume thAt with their greater resources that the Stalinists or the Maoists were better places to be trustworthy when it comes to determining who is an enemy of the State Morality.
Your assumption that my givernment (and yours) is staffed by reasonable, disnterested actors is quaint but in no small measure dangerous.
So one could comfortably assume thAt with their greater resources that the Stalinists or the Maoists were better places to be trustworthy when it comes to determining who is an enemy of the State Morality.
The same could be said is currently evidenced of an increasingly theocratic and right wing US establishment.
Your assumption that my givernment (sic) (and yours) is staffed by reasonable, disnterested (sic) actors is quaint but in no small measure dangerous.
What is far more dangerous is attacking, or undermining, the democratic institutions and law officers of the US - and an unelected billionaire, with conflicts of interest, wielding power in a unpredictable White House,
.
reply share
What's democratic about our federal Leviathan? When did anyone vote for it? In 2024 we finally had it put to us and decided, democratically, that the tine had come to pull it out by the roots?
You claim to be against undemocratic practices, and yet the unelected Musk is now installed in the White House with access to sensitive information while Trump is busy undermining the constitution in actions such as the birthright citizenship order. The same man in fact who refused to accept an election result before and indirectly incited a insurrection. How does that jibe with your principles then?
This "but Musk is unelected!!" hysteria is of concern to two types: those dwelling in the leftist fever swamps and those personally profiting from the government trough. The people who elected Trump, quite democratically, are encouraged thus far by the job the DOGE boys are doing. Much more work is to come but so far there isn't much to complain about. And where were all these baying jackasses when Hillary Clinton was storing FBI documents in the White House to use as blackmail, or when she was tasked with remaking the country's health care system?
"Birthright citizenship" was an extremely narrow response to a particular issue facing the United States in 1865. It outlived its usefulness before the end of the 19th century and has absolutely no relevance in 2025. Hopefully SCOTUS will prune it back considerably. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
My principles ultimately depend on winning the war. The normie-cons spent decades mewling about their principles, muttering "that's not who we are," while losing battle after battle. That's a lesson many on the right are finally coming to grips with. They now realize that in war you must first win, force your opponents to surrender, and only then abide by your principles. It's easy for the globalists of the West to prattle on about their alleged principles when they have controlled all the levers of power for decades. Thankfully, those days are coming to an end and in its wake we see them attempting to ban political parties, stifle free speech, and use violence to further their goals. Some principles!
It is not 'hysteria' when we see him at the heart of the administration, apparently dictating some major policies, winding a President round his thumb and given access to Federal papers and information and sound a natural note of concern.
"Birthright citizenship" was an extremely narrow response to a particular issue facing the United States in 1865. It outlived its usefulness before the end of the 19th century and has absolutely no relevance in 2025. Hopefully SCOTUS will prune it back considerably.
If it is changed via the constitutional route then fine; no objection. If Trump tries in on by executive order or some other illegal premise then that is something different. And it ought to mean different to you too.
reply share
[–] filmflaneur (2884) 14 minutes ago
It is not 'hysteria' when we see him at the heart of the administration, apparently dictating some major policies, winding a President round his thumb and given access to Federal papers and information and sound a natural note of concern.
You could as well be referencing a Justice on the Supreme Court, or really anyone appointed or potentially even confirmed by anything other than a popular vote of the citizenry.
What's happening with Musk specifically is par for the course conceptually and historically. See the history of the US in the early 20th century when "robber barons" owned newspapers as well as industry.
Focusing on the ever shifting individuals only instead of the basis of the corruption itself undermines any sort of progress. Sure their roles shouldn't be dismissed, but negativity towards Musk will at best result in another asshole taking his place. And that one might not even be white.
reply share
You could as well be referencing a Justice on the Supreme Court, or really anyone appointed or potentially even confirmed by anything other than a popular vote of the citizenry.
And who has confirmed Musk? Did I miss the extended hearings and all those tough questions about some of his questionable history?
What's happening with Musk specifically is par for the course conceptually and historically.
That does not make it ethical.
but negativity towards Musk will at best result in another asshole taking his place. And that one might not even be white.
And who has confirmed Musk? Did I miss the extended hearings and all those tough questions about some of his questionable history?
If confirmation is your standard, much of the weight of your words is lost. Musk was confirmed by Trump.
That does not make it ethical.
No, but it directs the focus of your angst towards a person rather than a structure, at best a distraction and at worst actively contributing towards the process.
Oh dear.
Oh dear is right. Imagine if this imaginary person had aloo gobi and dal biryani for dinner last night. reply share
If confirmation is your standard, much of the weight of your words is lost. Musk was confirmed by Trump.
That was not really what I had in mind. Trump could also 'confirm' an order for his favourite KFC, New York style cheese pizza, Wendy's fast food and ice cream to round things off.
FF "That does not make it ethical."
No,
Then why would one agree with the unethical when knowing it to be so. I thought the emphasis is on 'draining the swamp' not adding more floaters to it.
Imagine if this imaginary person had aloo gobi and dal biryani for dinner last night.
That was not really what I had in mind. Trump could also 'confirm' an order for his favourite KFC, New York style cheese pizza, Wendy's fast food and ice cream to round things off.
Then please clarify what you meant by confirmation as a process that presumably adds legitimacy to a role.
Then why would one agree with the unethical when knowing it to be so. I thought the emphasis is on 'draining the swamp' not adding more floaters to it.
What you're implying here is that you're fixated on cleaning the toilet when you still have a fat fuck roommate that eats fast food every meal and shits all over the inside of the upper part of the bowl to where the water doesn't wash it away when you pull the handle.
Yes, just imagine
We're familiar enough now to where I can just tell you that I'm not clicking on that shit because I don't have to imagine it. I cooked a recipe along with this petite pajeet just a few days ago:
What you're implying here is that you're fixated on cleaning the toilet when you still have a fat fuck roommate that eats fast food every meal and shits all over the inside of the upper part of the bowl to where the water doesn't wash it away when you pull the handle.
Sounds as if Trump's 'draining the swamp' does not cut it with you then lol
We're familiar enough now to where I can just tell you that I'm not clicking on that shit because I don't have to imagine it.
I can see why; it was relevant because similar remarks to yours by a Trumpian Laura Loomer were, rightly, condemned as racist.
So before we go any further, I have a request; when you quote me, can you please use my complete sentence? Unless I'm intentionally trying to make you look like an asshole, I will do the same.
I have taken your advice, and edited back in above most as you wrote it, from the request for a process which "presumably adds legitimacy to a role." onto the extended description of the lavatory habits of an oversized - sorry 'fat' - person onto your not bothering to click links, sorry "shit", before then offering one yourself. I left out your recipe reverie, I hope that is ok. I am astonished how much difference it makes.
I suppose the question is why is one confirmation acceptable while another isn't?
Because, as you put it, the confirmation hearings are a process that firmly add legitimacy to a role through a legal, or at least formal process. The other sort of confirmation is just Trump saying Musk is the guy.
reply share
As I said; there are different standards of confirmation. A simple Google search of' When did Trump Confirm Musk', then one for Hesketh in the same terms, shows up that difference. For Musk we have Sky news who tell us "Elon Musk's starring role in the new Donald Trump administration was confirmed as he appeared front and centre of his inauguration proceedings." For Hesketh it is "The one-time Fox News television host and combat veteran was narrowly confirmed in the Senate late on Friday." See what I mean.
I am not saying the Musk is working for Trump under false pretences or illegitmately (his access to Federal records aside). Just that he is unelected and the whole thing has lacked scrutiny.
To repeat I was referring to year 2020 when our cities were burning and innocent people were being murdered. A “ Threat Assessment” is just that…a threat. I don’t know enough about those threats turning to action without doing research on the subject so I won’t comment on your supposed stats. I zeroed in on 2020 due to the fact we viewed domestic terrorism on TV day after day being perpetrated by Antifa and BLM. Do you have links referring to Homeland Security’s comments about those incidents? About Portland being overtaken by domestic terrorists? About innocents in Portland being assaulted by left-wingers in Portland?
I doubt you have links due to the fact the FBI in 2020 was under the thumbs of left-wingers. BTW, don’t bring that leftist group, the ADL into the conversation. That bunch is so far down the leftist rabbit hole to the point they will never be able to crawl out. The ADL is a sham organization just as Antifa and the BLM are. They are “wolves in sheep’s clothing”.
Whatever : the claim that 100 percent of terrorism in 2020 was committed by left wing Antifa and BLM radicals is illogical and unsupported. To discount FBI accounts because they 'under the thumbs of left-wingers' is just right wing opinion, and does an injustice to hard working and honest law enforcement officers those who the Right ought to be expected to support. And even then, I quoted CSIS. (In the UK, the security services have lately identified that most security threats come from the disaffected Right)
” Far-Right Attacks in the West Surge 320% Over Last 5 Years”
All I can say is I pray that info is wrong. I will inquire though where are the stats of the far left groups? Referring back to my statement ”100 percent of terrorism in 2020 was committed by left wing Antifa and BLM radicals”, except for the Jan.6, 2021 protesters/rioters all we witnessed on TV in 2020 were the far left extremists burning our cities, assaulting and murdering innocent people, attacking law enforcement, taking control of roadways, infringing on people’s rights, etc. Do you recall ”The summer of love”response from city leaders?
I lived during the ‘60’s when the far left were bombing buildings, such as the ”Weather Underground which declared war against the U.S. government and carried out a campaign of political violence.”
referring back to my statement ”100 percent of terrorism in 2020 was committed by left wing Antifa and BLM radicals”, except for the Jan.6 protesters/rioters all we witnessed on TV in 2020 were the far left extremists..
By recognising Jan 6 insurrectionist violence it appears you are climbing down on your original claim. The rest just appears to be confirmation bias. I don't deny that left wing terrorism etc exists. But I also go by the statement of various law enforcement agencies that most of the threat comes from hot heads on the right. as I have shown. Thank you for playing that is all from me.
reply share
I’ve noticed and will point out the problem with your replies. You relish the “Gotcha” moments. It’s all about the points you make and your attempt to outlast us. You never acquiesce to the facts we present. During this current back & forth subject not once have you admitted we also have problems with the far left extremists. It’s only been about the eeevil far right and the links you provide to justify your statements.
You jumped on my statement regarding the year 2020 was the year of the far left extremist’s atrocities. Not a word from you in reference to the far left’s actions through the years. When I modified my statement by the addition of Jan.6, 2021 you had that “Gotcha” moment.
This is the difference between you and me. I will chastise the wrong actions of the far right. Your statement ”For the record, to save any insinuation, I condemn all violence and terrorism, from wherever it comes.” doesn’t work without some mention and chastisement of the far left’s actions.
During this current back & forth subject not once have you admitted we also have problems with the far left extremists. It’s only been about the eeevil far right and the links you provide to justify your statements... Not a word from you in reference to the far left’s actions through the years.
When I said "I don't deny that left wing terrorism etc exists?" and that "I condemn all violence and terrorism, from wherever it comes." I recognise left wing crimes and meant it when I condemn it.
Also since law enforcement in the US and the UK see far right extremism as the most pressing issue there is no wonder I focus on that, especially when your original claim was demonstrably wrong.
I will chastise the wrong actions of the far right.
Something we have yet to really see here... so your criticism of me could be seen as unfortunately hypocritical.
reply share
You claim that "law enforcement" in our respective countries see alleged right wing extremism as the greatest threat. In fact, it's "regime law enforcement" that makes those unfounded allegations.
It's no different than the Red Chinese pointing the finger at "capitalist roaders" or the Stalinist purges of the Kulaks. You seem stuck on this idea that so long as the government pronounces something, it's by definition right and good.
” I don't deny that left wing terrorism etc exists.”
Sorry, I missed that statement as I did a cursory read in order to locate your quoted stats on the abominations of the far left. I was unable to find any yet you didn’t lack links for the far right abominations. Most of your links, btw, came from left wing organizations such as the ADL which as I wrote prior is a sham. Another is the ACLU.
Not once did you comment about the links I provided in reference to the far left doing their bit to make life miserable for conservative thinkers and speakers at universities. Throwing things at the speakers and running them off the stage followed by book burnings and buildings. Shades of the new Youth Brown Shirts and others dressed in black. This is Antifa.
Where is your outrage over a left winger knocking an elderly man off his bike, throwing his bike and warning the man “To stay down old man if you know what’s good for you!”?
Where is your outrage over an sob pulling an innocent out of his truck and using the innocent man’s head as a soccer ball?
As far as my comment “I will chastise the wrong actions of the far right.” I will when I know of any. It shouldn’t take long to be become aware due to your belief most Americans are right wingers out to do terrorist actions…excuse me are threats.
Sorry, I missed that statement as I did a cursory read
It is best to read thoroughly and avoid the chance of projection.
Most of your links, btw, came from left wing organizations such as the ADL which as I wrote prior is a sham. Another is the ACLU.
Thank you for your opinions. The Anti-Defamation League, a New York-based international non-governmental organization that combats antisemitism and other forms of bigotry and discrimination was founded in 1913. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization founded in 1920. ACLU affiliates are active in all 50 states, and provides legal assistance in cases where it considers civil liberties at risk. Where is the sham? I see the historical records for both whose actions are, yes sometimes controversial, while no organisation is without fault, but with ultimately real achievements and social value. The sham is the right wing terrorists of say the KKK who no doubt still march their banners through streets somewhere while claiming to be Christian and patriotic.
Not once did you comment about the links I provided in reference to the far left doing their bit to make life miserable for conservative thinkers and speakers at universities. Throwing things at the speakers and running them off the stage followed by book burnings and buildings. Shades of the new Youth Brown Shirts and others dressed in black. This is Antifa.
Antifa consists of a highly decentralized array of autonomous groups, that aim to use nonviolent direct action, incivility, or violence to achieve their aims. So it is wrong to characterise a whole movement through the reprehensible actions of a few (who might be conveniently identified as 'Antifa' by just their opponents. However. I am not in favour of de-platforming (if that is what you mean), either from the left or right. Trump's current attack on DEI workers and transgender activists seems to approach that very thing. It seems to me that you are just finding any reason to condemn genuine left wing movements and organisations due to mere political preference..
Where is your outrage over a left winger knocking an elderly man off his bike, throwing his bike and warning the man “To stay down old man if you know what’s good for you!”?
You keep trying to make me out a hypocrite when I have already made it clear I utterly condemn terrorism and violence, from what side it springs.
As far as my comment “I will chastise the wrong actions of the far right.” I will when I know of any.
Where is your outrage at the thousands who violently stormed the capitol to over throw the results of properly certified election or the majority of terrorism overall, always attributed by professionals in law organisations to the actions of the extreme right? With such blithe and obtuse comments such as above you do your moral credentials no favours. A good summary of the subject of right-wing terrorism can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#Americas
Is is now to be claimed Wiki just another scam or propaganda site with all these crime and figures made up?
reply share
The ADL and the ACLU are anti-white front groups, hiding behind slightly more palatable mission statements. The sham comes from the gulf between their public raison d'être and their actual work done undermining heritage America. The SPLC is another node in this scam. They create content for the narrative scripters of the government and media, who cite it and say, "look at what this reputable outfit is saying! Why, it perfectly confirms the propaganda we're pushing on you."
Thank you for your partisan opinions. The connecting thread appears to be that all these organisations just do and stand for things you do not approve of. There is no evidence that either the ACLU or ADL are on balance less than balanced towards the races. Ironically what you say is itself just right wing propaganda.
”Where is your outrage at the thousands who violently stormed the capitol to over throw the results of properly certified election…”
See below:
kspkap (13618) 10 days ago
”It’s very disappointing Trump gave pardons or commutations to those Jan. 6 protesters/rioters who assaulted police officers. I voted again for Trump, but doing what he did leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I cannot side with Trump over this action. He should have done what both he and Vance said they were going to do. The pardons/commutations would be done on a “case by case” inspection.”
BTW, was it necessary to shoot and kill the woman who broke glass to gain entrance to the inner chambers of the Capitol?
Due to Jan. 6, 2021 all was forgotten regarding the domestic terrorism perpetrated on this country and on those who were murdered in 2020. As wrong as Jan. 6 was, it doesn’t compare to what we witnessed in 2020 which also should be classified as insurrections.
Fair enough. Even though being 'disappointed' at the release of offenders is not same as condemning there crimes, especially when your 'case by case' suggestion implies that the actions of some were justified or mitigated.
BTW, was it necessary to shoot and kill the woman who broke glass to gain entrance to the inner chambers of the Capitol?
I don't know. I have seen the video of her screaming and shouting at the police, out of control right at the front of the insurrectionist mob in one corridor, but it is quite possible they could have handled it differently. However this is easy to say when not in such a situation of violence and intimidation.
Due to Jan. 6, 2021 all was forgotten regarding the domestic terrorism perpetrated on this country and on those who were murdered in 2020.
And yet, here you are..''
As wrong as Jan. 6 was, it doesn’t compare to what we witnessed in 2020 which also should be classified as insurrections.
Thank you for your opinion. Mine is that insurrection, aimed as it is at upsetting the democratic process, is far more significant.
I can't remember how long you were gone in that context. I think I mentioned how it started to you before your absence.
Were you around for the Charlie Manson post?
Actually, it's not that important. It has currently devolved into the MCMC trying to get posts deleted and people banned. They're pretty upset about losing their pinned threads, apparently.
For some reason the MCMC clique took great offense to that post, leading to them spamming GD with threads titled "I AM A GAY MAN," and losing respect and apparently their pinned threads in the process.
Yeah, I remember that thread. But you're saying since then they have been trying to take posts down? That's disappointing. This is precisely why I do my thing here on the Politics board. If I was as unfiltered on the GD board as I am here, I would have been banned a long time ago.
Also, while you’re getting all cosy with Semi Anus and his bullshit, remember there are two sides to every story. Multiple sides in this case. Shogun is simply the latest to be sick to death of Anus being an anus.
But I do see why you’re so taken with him. After all, he didn’t welcome you back from your break by suggesting you have HIV that has developed into AIDS, as he did with me. Because that’s the type of rancid cunt your BFF really is.
Whoa, calm down. I’ve been friends with Semi for a while now — he’s a good guy. I don’t know anything about the drama on the GD board, save for a few posts; I was just curious. I’m open to hearing all sides. I like a lot of people on the GD board, including you, Kiwi. I’m not taking sides — I’m just trying to support my friend.
Also, you got to admit, Mini Coopers are for fags. I mean it's no Mazda Miata but still pretty gay.
Well that’s cool, far be it from me to interrupt friendly support. I guess you have the advantage of not being openly friendly to forum members he views as part of a “clique”, as far as I can tell that’s the only reason he targeted me in the first place. Friendly interactions that he isn’t a part of seem to annoy him for some reason.
Now I should go back to GD to discuss my favourite colour Skittle or something equally as asinine (his words, not mine).
I’m sorry to hear about the tension between you all. I genuinely like each of you and truly hope you can find a way to get along — or at the very least, bust each other's balls in the spirit of friendship.
The current crop of Germans are too far gone, wholly imbued with Stockholm Syndrome. My ancestors go back centuries in rural Bavaria and it's depressing to see how modern Germans have squandered their cultural inheritance.