I was poking deserved fun at those politicians who have recently said that white nationalism is our country's greatest threat. I think it was bullshit based on the SPLC's far left bullshit research. Total crap.
Sri Lanka: Muslims identified as attackers in Easter jihad massacres
- Thread starter Spike
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 5,370
- Reaction score
- 11,870
- Points
- 113
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,448
- Reaction score
- 5,519
- Points
- 113
So, in other words, he was mocking the idea that a white nationalist might be responsible for a terrorist attack? Is that not what I said?
“EVERY time, ANY act”. Sure, Tim. So the MSM reported the Sri Lanka attack was carried out by American white nationalists?
Last edited:
I don't want to miss out on anything Booted, can you post the direct link to that pic (pic enlarger thingy on here still doesn't work).
And "Crikey, it's a Tibsy!" still makes me laugh out loud. I might be easily amused but that was epic IMO.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
A white nationalist is a person who thinks that whites have a right to survive and have places that are white. I'm sure there are variants but I'm not very familiar with the range. Most WN believe that the white race is going extinct and that within a hundred or so years there will be none left. Right now whites make up around ~9% of the worlds population.
This can be settled so simply, everyone on this site has condemned what happened in Charlottesville, period, end of story. No one on this board condones the murder of innocent people, no matter who is committing the act.
Trog, do you condemn what happen in Sri Lanka on Easter Day, yes or no? You can't be this obtuse.
Trog, do you condemn what happen in Sri Lanka on Easter Day, yes or no? You can't be this obtuse.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,930
- Reaction score
- 15,738
- Points
- 113
White Nationalist is a meaningless term that was recently crafted by the left to conjure up nazi imagery and apply it to any white person who believes in borders and is against globalism. It's just an extension of Alt Right which didn't quite catch on enough
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,930
- Reaction score
- 15,738
- Points
- 113
Take Charlottesville as an example. If they report that a white supremecist killed some people, there's not much outrage because everybody
knows white supremecists are a very fringe minority. But when you call him a white nationalist, now you can rope in anybody who was white and not in favor of tearing down a civil war statue. Now you have a huge wave of racists and not just a fringe kook.
This sleight of hand was exactly what Trump was point out with his quote that there were "good people on both sides". He was merely pointing out that every person on the left is not an antifa thug just as not everybody on the right is a white supremecist.
The media purposely misreports the Trump quote and the way they are able to do it is because they created the term white nationalist , so when they say Trump is defending white nationalists, they are technically correct. Because their made up term includes a majority of people who have done nothing wrong.
knows white supremecists are a very fringe minority. But when you call him a white nationalist, now you can rope in anybody who was white and not in favor of tearing down a civil war statue. Now you have a huge wave of racists and not just a fringe kook.
This sleight of hand was exactly what Trump was point out with his quote that there were "good people on both sides". He was merely pointing out that every person on the left is not an antifa thug just as not everybody on the right is a white supremecist.
The media purposely misreports the Trump quote and the way they are able to do it is because they created the term white nationalist , so when they say Trump is defending white nationalists, they are technically correct. Because their made up term includes a majority of people who have done nothing wrong.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
The left thinks we don't know they are trying to gas light us. The Leftist MSM sensationalizes any story that fits their narrative of conservatives being evil while minimizing the crimes of minority. The New York Times does not report on the near weekly Anti-Semetic incidents in NYC because they are usually perpetrated by blacks. Their official policy is they only report anti-Semitism by whites.
Yes he can, apparently.
Last edited:
Kindly answer the question.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
You are...
asking for a friend ... if Sri Lanka has a larger Muslim population than Christian population (and, they do), does that then make ALL the Muslims "bad/evil" who were in any close proximity to the church killings?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sri_Lanka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sri_Lanka
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
asking for a friend ... if Sri Lanka has a larger Muslim population than Christian population (and, they do), does that then make ALL the Muslims "bad/evil" who were in any close proximity to the church killings?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sri_Lanka
I'd say that any of them within an area the size of, well, just thinking of a random place....maybe Charlottesville, VA? About that size, yeah
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,448
- Reaction score
- 5,519
- Points
- 113
How adorable.."Easter Worshippers".
Refuse to name neither the religion of the victims or attackers.
How dare they not specify that it was Christians worshipping Easter!
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,448
- Reaction score
- 5,519
- Points
- 113
Uh, yeah... you might want to tell the White Nationalist Party, which was founded in 2002, about this.
And why do you suppose that is?
Sometimes, a few sentences tell you more about a person -- and, more importantly, an ideology -- than a learned thesis. That is the case with tweets from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama two days ago in response to the mass murder of more than 300 Christians and others in Sri Lanka.
Their tweets are worth serious analysis because they reveal a great deal about the left. Of course, they reveal a great deal about Clinton and Obama, too, but that doesn't interest me.
And that, too, is important. Many Americans -- especially conservatives and "independents" -- are more interested in individual politicians than in political ideologies.
Many conservatives have long been fixated on Clinton -- so much so that probably any other Democrat would have defeated Donald Trump, as conservative anger specifically toward her propelled many people to the polls. Similarly, Republican Never-Trumpers are fixated on Trump rather than policy. They care more about Trump's personal flaws than about the mortal dangers the left poses to America and the West or about the uniquely successful conservative policies Trump promulgates.
And independents all claim to vote "for the person, not the party."
Only leftists understand that one must vote left no matter who the Democrat is, no matter who the Republican opponent is. Leftists are completely interchangeable: There is no ideological difference among the 20 or so Democrats running for president. Mayor Pete Buttigieg is not one degree to the right of Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.
That is why it is important to understand Clinton and Obama's tweets: to understand the left, not to understand her or him.
Here are the tweets:
Obama: "The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka."
Three hours later, Clinton tweeted: "On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I'm praying for everyone affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka."
As they both spelled "worshipers" the same idiosyncratic way and used the term "Easter worshippers," it is likely they either had the same writers or Clinton copied Obama.
Here's what's critical: Neither used the word "Christians." And in order to avoid doing so, they went so far as to make up a new term -- "Easter worshippers" -- heretofore unknown to any Christian.
When Jews were murdered at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Clinton mentioned the synagogue in a tweet. But in her post-Sri Lanka tweet, despite the bombing of three churches filled with Christians, Clinton made no mention of church or churches. In a tweet after the massacre of Muslims in New Zealand, she wrote that her heart broke for "the global Muslim community." But in her latest tweet, not a word about Christians or the global Christian community.
Obama similarly wrote in his tweet about New Zealand that he was grieving with "the Muslim community" over the "horrible massacre in the Mosques." But in his tweet about Sri Lanka, there is no mention of Christians or churches.
The reason neither of them mentioned Christians or churches is that the left has essentially forbidden mention of all the anti-Christian murders perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, the Middle East and Africa and of all the Muslim desecration of churches in Europe, Africa and anywhere else. This is part of the same phenomenon -- that I and others have documented -- of British police and politicians covering up six years of rape of 1,400 of English girls by Muslim "grooming gangs" in Rotherham and elsewhere in England.
https://townhall.com/columnists/den...ama-tweeted-about-easter-worshippers-n2545189
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,930
- Reaction score
- 15,738
- Points
- 113
but the media is now herding any white person who wants border security under this label.
because whitey is xenophobic
I'm pretty sure I, along with MANY here, condemned Charlottesville, but how are the two even compariable of killing of 207 people, in a clearly religious attack? Tree of Life, of course.
Or because the far left needs a coalition to offset the middle and right vote, so they cater to the most far right extremists that make white supremacists look half as stupid and absurd as they are.. it’s totally illogical. Again the Urban voters, the hispanic voters, the Lgbt voters, the globalists, and the islamic voters all have often very adversarial agendas, so the dems try to shout the unification agendas louder and downplay all the major issues that separate them so they don’t realize the socialist agenda isn’t their best option and bolt for independent or opposition parties...
Similar threads
