Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

[Lsuoma]

I think there is a racial/ethnic commonality in this rape gang: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45918845

And every other fucking rape gang in the UK in the last 25 years or so. Fucking Paki fuckers.

[InfraRedBucket]

I had zero difficulty understanding him. Anyone had difficulty?

I suspect he was faking his lack of understanding.

Back in the early noughties I met a 'weegie' on the 'tinternet and we had a brief long distance relationship. On one of my visits to her this old fellow turned up at her house, he was an old work colleague of hers who used to call in for a cuppa whenever passing, Auld Rab (I kid you not) was his name, he stayed for about an hour and never stopped talking, I couldn't understand a word he said and just sat there smiling and nodding politely. After he left I turned to my girlfriend and said, "Sorry love, he seemed a nice bloke but I couldn't understand a word he fucking said" to which she replied "Oh don't apologise, no fucker else can either"

My dad was working class area Glaswegian (48 years working on the Railways as a Fitter, retired at 65, dead at 66 - stomach cancer) , though maybe he lost a bit of edge having moved to London in his 20s . Scottish accents were familiar with Aunties and Uncles (he was one of seven kids) but as Londoners born and bred, we never had any problem understanding them. Mum was Northern Irish (Fermanagh) first met Dad about same age in London. We only really slightly noticed their accents in home recordings.

At least neither of them was from Strabane.

[shoutinghorse]

And I suppose than when a muslim terrorist opens fire on a concert, or rams a truck on the crowd, they're also just insane, nutcases,

A'hem, do you watch the news feeds ? :roll:

https://i.imgur.com/tyTc1Nl.jpg

How is that a whoosh you fucking pranny? Your argument was 'why don't we just start blaming islamic terrorists as nutters too if that's your argument with Brevik' My point is that that is exactly what happens now with the media.

Whoosh my arse. Fuck Off! :roll: :roll:

[free thoughtpolice]

Brivek wrote:

The guy was insane, a nutcase. If the libtards hadn’t provided the requisite social dysfunction to trigger him then I’m sure a surfeit of red M&Ms would have done the trick.

When Bin Laden had his crew of unfortunate mentally ill friends fly airplanes into buildings it was because the US and their jew friends in those buildings made them do it. It had nothing to do with the hate propaganda being pumped out by the mosques. If it weren't for all those muslims leaving the true faith and embracing kafir culture, egged on by the kafir they would have done it anyhow.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norw ... 4J20110724

* “As we all know, the root of Europe’s problems is the lack of cultural self-confidence (nationalism). Most people are still terrified of nationalistic political doctrines thinking that if we ever embrace these principles again, new “Hitler’s” will suddenly pop up and initiate global Armageddon ... This irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually ... You cannot defeat Islamization or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism.”

Does that sound crazy? From the alt-lite viewpoint it makes perfect sense.

In fact, I have had several Muslim friends over the years, some of which I still respect.

As you see he isn't racist therefore not a nazi or even alt-right. Just another nationalist conservative, alt-lite.

But appreciating diversity does not mean that you support genocide of your own culture and people.”

This guy isn't extreme at all. He shows that he is well studied in history and understands the nuances of the definition of genocide.
And like the guy that went into the Comet Pingpong Pizza parlor with an AR15 he had the courage to act on the crisis at hand.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

If anybody really thinks that all the potential violence is on the far-left, and the right is all innocent and peace-loving, come visit me. I will take you to a nice little place not far from Tacoma. All you have to do is wear a "Vote Democrat" t-shirt while I film the results for posterity and lulz. Don't wait until the last minute to sign that organ donor card!

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

If anybody really thinks that all the potential violence is on the far-left, and the right is all innocent and peace-loving, come visit me. I will take you to a nice little place not far from Tacoma. All you have to do is wear a "Vote Democrat" t-shirt while I film the results for posterity and lulz. Don't wait until the last minute to sign that organ donor card!

There's a area there where people cone to discharge firearms, and it is not friendly in the least to those of the left. Indeed, people of color are warned to avoid it.

Perhaps remember those fun-loving guys that occupied the wilderness area in Mahler, Oregon. I seem to recall they weren't leftists.

[MarcusAu]

If anybody really thinks that all the potential violence is on the far-left, and the right is all innocent and peace-loving, come visit me. I will take you to a nice little place not far from Tacoma. All you have to do is wear a "Vote Democrat" t-shirt while I film the results for posterity and lulz. Don't wait until the last minute to sign that organ donor card!

I stopped believing anything you had to say after you got involved in the Bigfoots coverup.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

You had a good run there Phil, where you weren't being shat on by the universe. It had to come to an end eventually. Sorry man.

Yeah, I kind of suspected something was amiss. Good stuff happening, a loving and supporting wife, an adorable dog, the new album on its final stretch to release, and not a single accident. Compared to 2014 and 2015, it was good. Too good. Way too good to last.

On the other hand, it was just a prick from a needle that was probably discarded long enough ago that all pathogens were already dead. Time will tell.

Also, it had to go through your shoe, which should strip away a good percentage of nastiness. Good luck.

[Brive1987]

Brivek wrote:

The guy was insane, a nutcase. If the libtards hadn’t provided the requisite social dysfunction to trigger him then I’m sure a surfeit of red M&Ms would have done the trick.

When Bin Laden had his crew of unfortunate mentally ill friends fly airplanes into buildings it was because the US and their jew friends in those buildings made them do it. It had nothing to do with the hate propaganda being pumped out by the mosques. If it weren't for all those muslims leaving the true faith and embracing kafir culture, egged on by the kafir they would have done it anyhow.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norw ... 4J20110724

* “As we all know, the root of Europe’s problems is the lack of cultural self-confidence (nationalism). Most people are still terrified of nationalistic political doctrines thinking that if we ever embrace these principles again, new “Hitler’s” will suddenly pop up and initiate global Armageddon ... This irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually ... You cannot defeat Islamization or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism.”

Does that sound crazy? From the alt-lite viewpoint it makes perfect sense.

In fact, I have had several Muslim friends over the years, some of which I still respect.

As you see he isn't racist therefore not a nazi or even alt-right. Just another nationalist conservative, alt-lite.

But appreciating diversity does not mean that you support genocide of your own culture and people.”

This guy isn't extreme at all. He shows that he is well studied in history and understands the nuances of the definition of genocide.
And like the guy that went into the Comet Pingpong Pizza parlor with an AR15 he had the courage to act on the crisis at hand.

Don’t be a donkey.

I said Islam had the demonstrated capacity to take normies and load them into its murderous zombie train. It’s part of the gig in large swathes of its cultural milieu.

Alt-right has not produced the same systemic outcome. Suggesting that those rare individuals who do go alt-right berko carry their own baggage.

How responsible did you hold YouTube and it’s hateful ideology of demonetisation for that Iranian nutcase and the deaths she caused? There is definite weak causation, the key driver though was that she was a fruitcake.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

If anybody really thinks that all the potential violence is on the far-left, and the right is all innocent and peace-loving, come visit me. I will take you to a nice little place not far from Tacoma. All you have to do is wear a "Vote Democrat" t-shirt while I film the results for posterity and lulz. Don't wait until the last minute to sign that organ donor card!

I stopped believing anything you had to say after you got involved in the Bigfoots coverup.

Believing that violence is all on one side is less plausible than Bigfoot. Even in my youth skinheads and the like made that an improbable statement. Perhaps in Australia, it's exclusively a left problem. But making a blanket statement that the left is the one with the violence problem and excluding the right is taking such a partisan stance that it's a wonder it doesn't physically hurt.

[Brive1987]

If anybody really thinks that all the potential violence is on the far-left, and the right is all innocent and peace-loving, come visit me. I will take you to a nice little place not far from Tacoma. All you have to do is wear a "Vote Democrat" t-shirt while I film the results for posterity and lulz. Don't wait until the last minute to sign that organ donor card!

There's a area there where people cone to discharge firearms, and it is not friendly in the least to those of the left. Indeed, people of color are warned to avoid it.

Perhaps remember those fun-loving guys that occupied the wilderness area in Mahler, Oregon. I seem to recall they weren't leftists.

The goal posts were orientated around whether Brevik’s murderous actions were a natural and expected extension of the current alt-right / lite movement. Or the result of a venn diagram requiring mental illness.

And this compared to the dynamic within Islam.

My argument is that one is not like the other. Libtardism has produced a weak or missing centre and a broad counterpush which, at its extreme, encourages conspiracy thinking which then can be leveraged by broken minds into violence. On rare occasions.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

If anybody really thinks that all the potential violence is on the far-left, and the right is all innocent and peace-loving, come visit me. I will take you to a nice little place not far from Tacoma. All you have to do is wear a "Vote Democrat" t-shirt while I film the results for posterity and lulz. Don't wait until the last minute to sign that organ donor card!

There's a area there where people cone to discharge firearms, and it is not friendly in the least to those of the left. Indeed, people of color are warned to avoid it.

Perhaps remember those fun-loving guys that occupied the wilderness area in Mahler, Oregon. I seem to recall they weren't leftists.

The goal posts were orientated around whether Brevik’s murderous actions were a natural and expected extension of the current alt-right / lite movement. Or the result of a venn diagram requiring mental illness.

And this compared to the dynamic within Islam.

My argument is that one is not like the other. Libtardism has produced a weak or missing centre and a broad counterpush which, at its extreme, encourages conspiracy thinking which then can be leveraged by broken minds into violence. On rare occasions.

Bullshit. Right-wing violence has a long and "glorious" history. You're simply stating that Islam pushes people to violence, while right-wing rhetoric doesn't. They both do. You can't excuse your side because you don't like the results. I think you only see the carefully curated and careful YouTube crap, wherein people mince their words very fine because saying them uncensored would result in a ban and certain social censure. Or you're playing games again, so hard to tell.

[Brive1987]

Ie we are talking about movement inspired or directed terrorism. Not run of the mill political colour and movement, which exists (of course) on both sides of the fence.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Ie we are talking about movement inspired or directed terrorism. Not run of the mill political colour and movement, which exists (of course) on both sides of the fence.

Like there's a clear demarcation between the two?

[Brive1987]

Contemporary Alt-right jihad operations have been sadly lacking in both quantity and quality. Even “smash the fasc” has a better track record for hurting little old ladies.

In fact it’s so dire, the left have to invent stories of Southern trying to drown refugees. And Merkel had to invent “packs of nazis hunting down refugees” in the recent counter-tard demonstrations.

Or are we extending the conversation back to the 1930s ?

[Brive1987]

Ie we are talking about movement inspired or directed terrorism. Not run of the mill political colour and movement, which exists (of course) on both sides of the fence.

Like there's a clear demarcation between the two?

I suspect the 911 victims and those on Utoya would draw a distinction between their experience and that of Spencer getting bitch slapped.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Contemporary Alt-right jihad operations have been sadly lacking in both quantity and quality. Even “smash the fasc” has a better track record for hurting little old ladies.

In fact it’s so dire, the left have to invent stories of Southern trying to drown refugees. And Merkel had to invent “packs of nazis hunting down refugees” in the recent counter-tard demonstrations.

Or are we extending the conversation back to the 1930s ?

Not necessary. The violence is quite real, and you simply exclude Brevnik and McVeigh on some odd rule of your own making. Essentially you're saying that "they made me do it" for your brave warriors, which you should know as a parent is a really terrible excuse. What is more disturbing is the potential for violence within the right. An armed and dangerous group in the USA that may easily go ballistic if Trump is dethroned.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Ie we are talking about movement inspired or directed terrorism. Not run of the mill political colour and movement, which exists (of course) on both sides of the fence.

Like there's a clear demarcation between the two?

I suspect the 911 victims and those on Utoya would draw a distinction between their experience and that of Spencer getting bitch slapped.

Again, you're excluding many victims of right-wing violence because they were deranged, according to the Brive Standard, which essentially is that "it's okay when we do it."

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Now again, I'm mostly speaking of the USA, but ask any LEO which concerns them more, left or right wing violence, and you'll get a clear and concise answer. When they finish asking if you're serious and then laughing.

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive wrote:

Alt-right has not produced the same systemic outcome. Suggesting that those rare individuals who do go alt-right berko carry their own baggage.

Oh right. As a student of history the little dust up that happened in Europe in the early/mid part of the 20 century had nothing to do with nationalist identity movements. It was all the fault of the national socialists. Libtards to blame again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism

Pre-2001
According to George Michael, "right-wing terrorism and violence has a long history in America".[28] Right-wing violent incidents began to outnumber Marxist incidents in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s.[29]:29 Michael observes the waning of left-wing terrorism accompanying the rise of right-wing terrorism, with a noticeable "convergence" of the goals of militant Islam with those of the extreme right. Islamic studies scholar Youssef M. Choueiri classified Islamic fundamentalist movements involving revivalism, reformism, and radicalism as within the scope of "right-wing politics".[30]:9

During the 1980s, more than 75 right-wing extremists were prosecuted in the United States for acts of terrorism, carrying out six attacks.[31] In 1983, Gordon Kahl, a Posse Comitatus activist, killed two federal marshals and he was later killed by police. Also that year, the white nationalist revolutionary group The Order (also known as the Brüder Schweigen or the Silent Brotherhood) robbed banks and armored cars, as well as a sex shop,[32] bombed a theater and a synagogue and murdered radio talk show host Alan Berg.[33][34]

The April 19, 1995 attack on the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 people and it was the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States.[35] McVeigh stated that it was committed in retaliation for the government's actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco.[36]

Eric Rudolph executed a series of terrorist attacks between 1996 and 1998. He carried out the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing—which claimed two lives and injured 111—aiming to cancel the games, claiming they promoted global socialism and to embarrass the U.S. government.[37] Rudolph confessed to bombing an abortion clinic in Sandy Springs, an Atlanta suburb, on January 16, 1997, the Otherside Lounge, an Atlanta lesbian bar, on February 21, 1997, injuring five and an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama on January 29, 1998, killing Birmingham police officer and part-time clinic security guard Robert Sanderson and critically injuring nurse Emily Lyons.

Post-2001

Number of ideologically motivated murders by year and ideology. Murders motivated by right wing ideology in red.
As of August 2018, the New America Foundation placed the number killed in terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11 as follows: 104 killed in jihadist terrorist attacks, 73 killed in far-right attacks, and 8 killed in black separatist/nationalist/supremacist attacks.[38] The politically conservative Daily Caller News Foundation using data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), found 92% of all "ideologically motivated homicide incidents" committed in the United States from 2007 to 2016 were motivated by right-wing extremism or white supremacism.[39] According to the Government Accountability Office of the United States, 73% of violent extremist incidents that resulted in deaths since September 12, 2001 were caused by right-wing extremist groups.[40][41]

Just looking at the US, we find that American based rightwing ideologues have only killed 73/104 th as many people as their jihadi cousins recently. They have committed 92% of terrorist acts. So when you subtract the jihadis from the residual 8% that doesn't seem to make the left wing terrorism to be any where near as common as the right wingers. Maybe you can pull up some quotes from a shirtless satanist or draw a cool looking graph that will contradict those numbers, but your claim that the lefties are the violent ones doesn't hold water form what I've seen.
I'm looking forward to you posting videos of the same few dozen limp wristed antifa hipsters getting their asses kicked by gangs of equally goofy alt-righters and Trumpsters as proof of how violent those damned liberals are. :lol:

[Brive1987]

When did i say it was “ok” for terrorism or self initiated violence to come from “my side”.

There are two completely different conversations happening here, it’s getting a bit odd. There are three voices but one of them is in your head.

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive wrote:

The goal posts were orientated around whether Brevik’s murderous actions were a natural and expected extension of the current alt-right / lite movement. Or the result of a venn diagram requiring mental illness.

I prefer to misspell his name as Brivek. :hand:

[Brive1987]

Don’t worry, it’s ok. I saw. :lol:

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

When did i say it was “ok” for terrorism or self initiated violence to come from “my side”.

There are two completely different conversations happening here, it’s getting a bit odd. There are three voices but one of them is in your head.

No, you're saying that any right-wing violence is the fault of the left pushing them into it, am I wrong? Then you excuse them from your side, no-true-scotsman style with "of course they were mad, crazy." Yet the other side is solely driven by ideological compulsion, but violence on your side is simply madmen reacting to libtards.

Tell me what I've got wrong.

[free thoughtpolice]

When did i say it was “ok” for terrorism or self initiated violence to come from “my side”.

There are two completely different conversations happening here, it’s getting a bit odd. There are three voices but one of them is in your head.

Who said you said it was OK? You were mainly just implying that the libtards were provoking the violence and that the bigotry peddling of the alt-right had nothing to do with Brivek's murder spree. It was an unholy alliance between left wing provocation and mental illness that was to blame.
btw, it seems 2 of those 3 voices is caused by you talking out of both sides of your mouth. :P

[Brive1987]

I love studies that ignore Europe, base their US focus on post 911 and are run by George Michael. The United States is, in any case, a national wack-job. Their loonies are truly special and it’s cute you think they have global pattern relevance. As a Canadian, you should know better.

And, oh, we are going back to the 1930s are we? Not EU contextualised nationalism or MAGAism? Great, so I can tie Antifa and the general left to a slippery slope ending with Stalin. Cool.

[free thoughtpolice]

Don’t worry, it’s ok. I saw. :lol:

In b4 you spell it as bearvik. :drool:

[Brive1987]

When did i say it was “ok” for terrorism or self initiated violence to come from “my side”.

There are two completely different conversations happening here, it’s getting a bit odd. There are three voices but one of them is in your head.

No, you're saying that any right-wing violence is the fault of the left pushing them into it, am I wrong? Then you excuse them from your side, no-true-scotsman style with "of course they were mad, crazy." Yet the other side is solely driven by ideological compulsion, but violence on your side is simply madmen reacting to libtards.

Tell me what I've got wrong.

Impressively, almost everything. Sigh.

I’m saying nationalism and soft alt-right are largely reaction based movements to tardism and EU anti-nationalism
I’m saying the Alt right is not inherently terroristic a la Brevik or per the MSM BS narrative as applied to Southern
I’m saying Islamism is inherently terroristic.
I’m saying that Brevik is an outlier who murdered because he was a broken dolly who found a fantasy land in AR conspiracies
I’m saying that the loss of centre is increasing low level tensions - but discernible more on the Antica ‘punch a Nazi’ side

[Brive1987]

Don’t worry, it’s ok. I saw. :lol:

In b4 you spell it as bearvik. :drool:

I’d never be so petty. ;)

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

When did i say it was “ok” for terrorism or self initiated violence to come from “my side”.

There are two completely different conversations happening here, it’s getting a bit odd. There are three voices but one of them is in your head.

No, you're saying that any right-wing violence is the fault of the left pushing them into it, am I wrong? Then you excuse them from your side, no-true-scotsman style with "of course they were mad, crazy." Yet the other side is solely driven by ideological compulsion, but violence on your side is simply madmen reacting to libtards.

Tell me what I've got wrong.

Impressively, almost everything. Sigh.

I’m saying nationalism and soft alt-right are largely reaction based movements to tardism and EU anti-nationalism
I’m saying the Alt right is not inherently terroristic a la Brevik or per the MSM BS narrative as applied to Southern
I’m saying Islamism is inherently terroristic.
I’m saying that Brevik is an outlier who murdered because he was a broken dolly who found a fantasy land in AR conspiracies
I’m saying that the loss of centre is increasing low level tensions - but discernible more on the Antica ‘punch a Nazi’ side

In other words, "they made me do it." Not impressed. At all. You didn't actually refute anything I said, you just restated what you said earlier. Try again.

[Keating]

Nothing has been proved with regards to my father's connection to the underworld.

This Peterson character better learn to hold his tongue if he knows what's good for him. Speaking metaphorically, I mean.

Careful. This is how you invoke the dragon of chaos.

[free thoughtpolice]

I’d never be so petty. ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Brive1987]

you're saying that any right-wing violence is the fault of the left pushing them into it, am I wrong?

“yes”. I’m saying what you said I said is not what I said at all. Clear?

The only determinism is the reactive rise of the right in response to tardism and the emergence of in-civility on both sides stemming from a failing centre.

A passing note is the relative preponderance of low level violence and general intolerance coming from the left and the relative restraint of the right. Plus the lack of a hard AR-Nazi jihadi Nazi terrorism movement.

“No windows were broken in the course of this gathering”

[free thoughtpolice]

About the same time the Saudi's admit that Khashoggi is dead (he got in a quarrel inside of the embassy), it appears that the suspect or one of them has died in a car accident.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... -car-crash
Considering the way they drive over there not surprising.

[Stankeye]

When did i say it was “ok” for terrorism or self initiated violence to come from “my side”.

There are two completely different conversations happening here, it’s getting a bit odd. There are three voices but one of them is in your head.

No, you're saying that any right-wing violence is the fault of the left pushing them into it, am I wrong? Then you excuse them from your side, no-true-scotsman style with "of course they were mad, crazy." Yet the other side is solely driven by ideological compulsion, but violence on your side is simply madmen reacting to libtards.

Tell me what I've got wrong.

Impressively, almost everything. Sigh.

I’m saying nationalism and soft alt-right are largely reaction based movements to tardism and EU anti-nationalism
I’m saying the Alt right is not inherently terroristic a la Brevik or per the MSM BS narrative as applied to Southern
I’m saying Islamism is inherently terroristic.
I’m saying that Brevik is an outlier who murdered because he was a broken dolly who found a fantasy land in AR conspiracies
I’m saying that the loss of centre is increasing low level tensions - but discernible more on the Antica ‘punch a Nazi’ side

In other words, "they made me do it." Not impressed. At all. You didn't actually refute anything I said, you just restated what you said earlier. Try again.

I thought Brive was saying this.

http://www.people-press.org/interactive ... 1994-2017/

While US centric - The median politically engaged Republican is in exactly the same location in 2017 as it was in 1994. The Median Democrat has lost their mind.

[Lsuoma]

You had a good run there Phil, where you weren't being shat on by the universe. It had to come to an end eventually. Sorry man.

Yeah, I kind of suspected something was amiss. Good stuff happening, a loving and supporting wife, an adorable dog, the new album on its final stretch to release, and not a single accident. Compared to 2014 and 2015, it was good. Too good. Way too good to last.

On the other hand, it was just a prick from a needle that was probably discarded long enough ago that all pathogens were already dead. Time will tell.

Also, it had to go through your shoe, which should strip away a good percentage of nastiness. Good luck.

Unless he'd just stepped in dogshit.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

When did i say it was “ok” for terrorism or self initiated violence to come from “my side”.

There are two completely different conversations happening here, it’s getting a bit odd. There are three voices but one of them is in your head.

No, you're saying that any right-wing violence is the fault of the left pushing them into it, am I wrong? Then you excuse them from your side, no-true-scotsman style with "of course they were mad, crazy." Yet the other side is solely driven by ideological compulsion, but violence on your side is simply madmen reacting to libtards.

Tell me what I've got wrong.

Impressively, almost everything. Sigh.

I’m saying nationalism and soft alt-right are largely reaction based movements to tardism and EU anti-nationalism
I’m saying the Alt right is not inherently terroristic a la Brevik or per the MSM BS narrative as applied to Southern
I’m saying Islamism is inherently terroristic.
I’m saying that Brevik is an outlier who murdered because he was a broken dolly who found a fantasy land in AR conspiracies
I’m saying that the loss of centre is increasing low level tensions - but discernible more on the Antica ‘punch a Nazi’ side

In other words, "they made me do it." Not impressed. At all. You didn't actually refute anything I said, you just restated what you said earlier. Try again.

I thought Brive was saying this.

http://www.people-press.org/interactive ... 1994-2017/

While US centric - The median politically engaged Republican is in exactly the same location in 2017 as it was in 1994. The Median Democrat has lost their mind.

There have been shifts in both parties over time, and the sharp reaction in 2017 is attributable to Trump's election. Nor does this have much bearing on the relative amount of violence generated by extreme rhetoric of either side. I'm happy to admit that Trump's election has driven many on the left crazy. If you look back, you'll see I stated a long time ago that Trump's election would make the regressive left stronger, not weaker. But stating that violence is simply a problem on the left is a frankly untenable position. The only way you can possibly do that is to dump Muslim extremists into the left, which is ridiculous. You can state the regressive left enables Muslim extremism and excuses it, and I will agree wholeheartedly. But statiscally, it's hard to argue that "libtards" violence is a problem, while right-wing violence is not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive wrote:

Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.

He also answers CFB

CFB: "you're saying that any right-wing violence is the fault of the left pushing them into it, am I wrong?"
Brive" “yes”. I’m saying what you said I said is not what I said at all. Clear?"

What is also clear is that you said is that libtards are the violent ones (except for the US which is an outlier where 92% are rightwingers). Elsewhere, the violence from the right is solely caused by a very few right wingers that are crazy and not at all influenced by extremist nationalist rhetoric but has to do with a reaction to libtards. Except you didn't say that either, it was just a voice in our libtard heads.

[free thoughtpolice]

That last quote was me quoting one of the voices in my head. :drool:

[Brive1987]

You accidentally missed my immediate follow sentence which said that I wouldn’t be happy to categorise a movement based on a broken dolly, I have appreciated the follow up conversations which allowed me to clarify my position here.

I would be interested to hear from CFB re which of my bullet points he specifically disagrees with. As opposed to his incessant “so what you are saying is ...”

[Brive1987]

That last quote was me quoting one of the voices in my head. :drool:

I note also the conversation started with “brevik” level terrorism but has since wandered to ill defined “violence”, including presumably intentionally harsh language.

[Brive1987]

This is who I hope inhabits the American fly over states

[AndrewV69]

Brive wrote:

Alt-right has not produced the same systemic outcome. Suggesting that those rare individuals who do go alt-right berko carry their own baggage.

Oh right. As a student of history the little dust up that happened in Europe in the early/mid part of the 20 century had nothing to do with nationalist identity movements. It was all the fault of the national socialists. Libtards to blame again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism

Pre-2001
According to George Michael, "right-wing terrorism and violence has a long history in America".[28] Right-wing violent incidents began to outnumber Marxist incidents in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s.[29]:29 Michael observes the waning of left-wing terrorism accompanying the rise of right-wing terrorism, with a noticeable "convergence" of the goals of militant Islam with those of the extreme right. Islamic studies scholar Youssef M. Choueiri classified Islamic fundamentalist movements involving revivalism, reformism, and radicalism as within the scope of "right-wing politics".[30]:9

During the 1980s, more than 75 right-wing extremists were prosecuted in the United States for acts of terrorism, carrying out six attacks.[31] In 1983, Gordon Kahl, a Posse Comitatus activist, killed two federal marshals and he was later killed by police. Also that year, the white nationalist revolutionary group The Order (also known as the Brüder Schweigen or the Silent Brotherhood) robbed banks and armored cars, as well as a sex shop,[32] bombed a theater and a synagogue and murdered radio talk show host Alan Berg.[33][34]

The April 19, 1995 attack on the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 people and it was the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States.[35] McVeigh stated that it was committed in retaliation for the government's actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco.[36]

Eric Rudolph executed a series of terrorist attacks between 1996 and 1998. He carried out the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing—which claimed two lives and injured 111—aiming to cancel the games, claiming they promoted global socialism and to embarrass the U.S. government.[37] Rudolph confessed to bombing an abortion clinic in Sandy Springs, an Atlanta suburb, on January 16, 1997, the Otherside Lounge, an Atlanta lesbian bar, on February 21, 1997, injuring five and an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama on January 29, 1998, killing Birmingham police officer and part-time clinic security guard Robert Sanderson and critically injuring nurse Emily Lyons.

Post-2001

Number of ideologically motivated murders by year and ideology. Murders motivated by right wing ideology in red.
As of August 2018, the New America Foundation placed the number killed in terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11 as follows: 104 killed in jihadist terrorist attacks, 73 killed in far-right attacks, and 8 killed in black separatist/nationalist/supremacist attacks.[38] The politically conservative Daily Caller News Foundation using data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), found 92% of all "ideologically motivated homicide incidents" committed in the United States from 2007 to 2016 were motivated by right-wing extremism or white supremacism.[39] According to the Government Accountability Office of the United States, 73% of violent extremist incidents that resulted in deaths since September 12, 2001 were caused by right-wing extremist groups.[40][41]

Just looking at the US, we find that American based rightwing ideologues have only killed 73/104 th as many people as their jihadi cousins recently. They have committed 92% of terrorist acts. So when you subtract the jihadis from the residual 8% that doesn't seem to make the left wing terrorism to be any where near as common as the right wingers. Maybe you can pull up some quotes from a shirtless satanist or draw a cool looking graph that will contradict those numbers, but your claim that the lefties are the violent ones doesn't hold water form what I've seen.
I'm looking forward to you posting videos of the same few dozen limp wristed antifa hipsters getting their asses kicked by gangs of equally goofy alt-righters and Trumpsters as proof of how violent those damned liberals are. :lol:

This blog discusses this book Days of Rage

“People have completely forgotten that in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States.” — Max Noel, FBI (ret.)

Also, people don’t want to remember how much leftist violence was actively supported by mainstream leftist infrastructure. I’ll say this much for righty terrorist Eric Rudolph: the sonofabitch was caught dumpster-diving in a rare break from hiding in the woods. During his fugitive days, Weatherman’s Bill Ayers was on a nice houseboat paid for by radical lawyers.

A reminder: during this period Weatherman is being hunted by the FBI. So how are they staying fed, sheltered, alive? Part of it is fake I.D.s. The other part of Weatherman staying alive and free is: they are being funded and supported by the National Lawyers’ Guild.

So ya, the case is being made that the left terror groups in the recent past had institutional support. Seems to me there might be something to that.

So, looking at the BLA, SLA, the Family, wth a detour to NWLF — what do we learn about political violence? Looking, in particular, through the lens of our the concepts of Institutions and Shock Troops, and why these matter:

Institutions are crucial to the longevity of organized campaigns of political violence by Shock Troops.

Shock Troops that don’t have Institutions fare worse and have shorter careers than Shock Troops that do.

Shock Troops without support from Institutions tend to turn to crime, often violent crime, for money.

Doing violent crime to raise money eventually bites Shock Troops in the ass.

The bigger a Shock Troop army, the more financial support it needs, whether from an Institution or from criminal activity.

Does anyone else see signs that Antifa in general enjoy some sort institutional support?

(I am aware of one incident where apparently they were preemptively disarmed by the police)

[free thoughtpolice]

You accidentally missed my immediate follow sentence which said that I wouldn’t be happy to categorise a movement based on a broken dolly, I have appreciated the follow up conversations which allowed me to clarify my position here.

I would be interested to hear from CFB re which of my bullet points he specifically disagrees with. As opposed to his incessant “so what you are saying is ...”

Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.
How does that remark change the meaning of

Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.

Of course you wouldn't be happy to catergorise a movement based on a broken dolly. Especially when so much of his manifesto is just the standard fare that is coming out of the alt-right crapola you apparently espouse.
As for CFB and his

incessant so what you're saying is...

Instead of the... there should be a ? as CFB is asking you a question and not strawmanning you as I read it. I find myself asking you to clarify the stuff you write fairly often too. Especially as you seem to later deny it means what it appears to mean by a normal reading.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

You accidentally missed my immediate follow sentence which said that I wouldn’t be happy to categorise a movement based on a broken dolly, I have appreciated the follow up conversations which allowed me to clarify my position here.

I would be interested to hear from CFB re which of my bullet points he specifically disagrees with. As opposed to his incessant “so what you are saying is ...”

The bullet point most specifically is that the left has a problem with violence but the right does not. I am not impressed by your argument that amounts to no-true-scotsman. I disagree strongly that the rise of the right is only fuelled by the regressive left's antics. They often do just fine on their own. I disagree entirely with lumping Antifa and ISIS together. You are so very nuanced about the right, but in true tribalistic fashion, you lump everybody else, including extremely disparate groups as a whole.

[free thoughtpolice]

AndrewV69 wrote:

So ya, the case is being made that the left terror groups in the recent past had institutional support. Seems to me there might be something to that.

Without reading the book I couldn't say that the case is being made rather than just a claim is being made. As for the claim that Eric Rudolph didn't recieve any help, my recollection is that investigators believe that Rudolph had been getting help and was sheltered by friends for much of his time on the lam.
The feds complained about not receiving a friendly reception when they were doing searches. Also, when he was caught his appearance wasn't consistent with his living in caves and surviving on salamanders and acorns.
Rudolph was unarmed and did not resist arrest. When arrested, he was clean-shaven with a trimmed mustache, had dyed black hair and wore a camouflage jacket, work clothes, and new sneakers.[17][18] Federal authorities charged him on October 14, 2003.
Regardless, the right wasn't as violent in the 1970s compared to Black separatists, anarchists, extreme leftists like communists, and the overall antiwar bunch which were mostly leftists.
Did they have institutional support? I don't think they were that well organized or funded.

[Brive1987]

My

I’m saying that the loss of centre is increasing low level tensions - but discernible more on the Antica (sic) ‘punch a Nazi’ side

<>

Your rewrite:

The left has a problem with violence and the right does not

A reasonable reading of my statement is that there is overall polarisation leading to a general increase of tensions (on both sides) but this tension is expressed as direct-action more commonly on the antifa side.

This is a classic example of why (and how) our discussions almost immediately derail.

[AndrewV69]

I think there is a racial/ethnic commonality in this rape gang:

And every other fucking rape gang in the UK in the last 25 years or so. Fucking Paki fuckers.

Village mentality (among other things).

[Brive1987]

You accidentally missed my immediate follow sentence which said that I wouldn’t be happy to categorise a movement based on a broken dolly, I have appreciated the follow up conversations which allowed me to clarify my position here.

I would be interested to hear from CFB re which of my bullet points he specifically disagrees with. As opposed to his incessant “so what you are saying is ...”

Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.
How does that remark change the meaning of

Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.

Of course you wouldn't be happy to catergorise a movement based on a broken dolly. Especially when so much of his manifesto is just the standard fare that is coming out of the alt-right crapola you apparently espouse.
As for CFB and his

incessant so what you're saying is...

Instead of the... there should be a ? as CFB is asking you a question and not strawmanning you as I read it. I find myself asking you to clarify the stuff you write fairly often too. Especially as you seem to later deny it means what it appears to mean by a normal reading.

You appear confused. Here is my full post:

Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.

Though I would be cautious categorising any “x of centre” mindset by the actions of an insane individual - rather than group mantras such as “punch a Nazi”. In today’s climate, collective political violence is typical of the hard left and their enablers.

A reasonable reading says that slating responsibility for extraordinary violence to exposure to ideas requires those ideas and movements to promote and organise violence. If that is missing you are left with the YT-shooter/venn diagram model of kooky ideas intersecting with personal insanity.

Today, if you want to find the direct intersection of organised ideology and applied violence, then look no further than Antifa, Islamists and, increasingly, American Democratic politicians.

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive wrote:

Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.

Though I would be cautious categorising any “x of centre” mindset by the actions of an insane individual - rather than group mantras such as “punch a Nazi”. In today’s climate, collective political violence is typical of the hard left and their enablers.[/quote]
Firstly, I don't see where your last two sentences change the meaning of the first, much less abrogates it.
Even if it did, if you didn't mean to say that the drifting politics of the left caused Brevik to do what he did why did you write a sentence that declares just that?

[Brive1987]

Such a weapon exists: It is called political correctness. But it is not a weapon against white men or conservatives, as is frequently alleged; rather, it is a weapon against the American left.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... ium=social

[Brive1987]

Brive wrote:

Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.

Though I would be cautious categorising any “x of centre” mindset by the actions of an insane individual - rather than group mantras such as “punch a Nazi”. In today’s climate, collective political violence is typical of the hard left and their enablers.

Firstly, I don't see where your last two sentences change the meaning of the first, much less abrogates it.
Even if it did, if you didn't mean to say that the drifting politics of the left caused Brevik to do what he did why did you write a sentence that declares just that?

First I provide a blanket statement that sets a general context. Ie the crazy ideas of the lunatic right wouldn’t have much purpose if the libs hadn’t moved away from classic and towards social liberalism.

The “though” then tempers this general causal statement by saying that unless a movement advocates violence then specific drivers for specific extraordinary events are probably weighted to an individuals personal baggage.

I then conclude by identifying more direct movement-generated violence from the left than from Generation Identity, Tommy Robinson, Red Ice, Southern or whoever else is “my team”.

Point 1, is unremarkable so far as it goes. Libs are either tarding or drifting to a weird form of liberal authoritarianism.

Point 2, you would need to demonstrate that the right has a demonstrably radicalising narrative, demanding Brevik style explicit violence which can be observed in systemic direct actions. I don’t see that as a defining characteristic of the current nationalist / identitarian movements. Granted, I place American prepper culture aside as an oddity.

Point 3, is a reiteration of the lefts drift to authoritarianism and “smash fascism” group think, with linkage between antifa and Waters rhetoric all the way down to Kirb level cultural capitulation. (“enablers”)

Wow. Three interlinked ideas in 2 sentences. I should get a gold star.

[Brive1987]

Of course “collective political violence is typical of the hard left“ doesn’t preclude right wing Kek shield and swords. It’s just not as typical.

I’d argue that the anti trump demos in November normalised aggression in so called “liberal” culture. The tarded libs anticipated an apocalypse and everyone from PZ down donned ideological chain mail. And far from calming down, now the DNC has caught the fever, mobilising SJW rape culture (aK-man) and calling for antifa level interventions (Waters). TDS.

Violence in Europe is characterised more by increasing “liberal” govt authoritarianism and to a lesser extent Antifa style anarchy.

The only real right leaning “violence” I see are largely peaceful protests a la Brexit, Tommy and Chemnitz and that implicit in the maddening existence of the bad orange man. You need to hunt down rare retards like Brevik and James Fields or go right back to US anti-fed nutters to find any other traction.

[Brive1987]

This is who I hope inhabits the American fly over states

And this is who actually lives there.



:lol: :lol: :lol: Who says there isn’t a rich diversity between British vs Aust vs USA vs European culture. I will never fully understand the yanks.

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive wrote:

Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.

Though I would be cautious categorising any “x of centre” mindset by the actions of an insane individual - rather than group mantras such as “punch a Nazi”. In today’s climate, collective political violence is typical of the hard left and their enablers.

Firstly, I don't see where your last two sentences change the meaning of the first, much less abrogates it.
Even if it did, if you didn't mean to say that the drifting politics of the left caused Brevik to do what he did why did you write a sentence that declares just that?

First I provide a blanket statement that sets a general context. Ie the crazy ideas of the lunatic right wouldn’t have much purpose if the libs hadn’t moved away from classic and towards social liberalism.

The “though” then tempers this general causal statement by saying that unless a movement advocates violence then specific drivers for specific extraordinary events are probably weighted to an individuals personal baggage.

I then conclude by identifying more direct movement-generated violence from the left than from Generation Identity, Tommy Robinson, Red Ice, Southern or whoever else is “my team”.

Point 1, is unremarkable so far as it goes. Libs are either tarding or drifting to a weird form of liberal authoritarianism.

Point 2, you would need to demonstrate that the right has a demonstrably radicalising narrative, demanding Brevik style explicit violence which can be observed in systemic direct actions. I don’t see that as a defining characteristic of the current nationalist / identitarian movements. Granted, I place American prepper culture aside as an oddity.

Point 3, is a reiteration of the lefts drift to authoritarianism and “smash fascism” group think, with linkage between antifa and Waters rhetoric all the way down to Kirb level cultural capitulation. (“enablers”)

Wow. Three interlinked ideas in 2 sentences. I should get a gold star.

Point 1. Effect and cause, Breivik did it because the left was getting more extreme
Point 2. In the second sentence you say that we shouldn't judge the politics of Brivek because he was insane. That doesn't modify Point 1 at all. So far as we stand the libtards still made him do it. In your attempt at rationalizing what sentence 2 says you merely say that the right doesn't encite violence, nothing that modifies or changes sentence 1.
Point 3. Isn't even directly related to sentence 1 much less changes the stated meaning. You are just making a claim that it is the lefties that are violent.
If they are handing out stars for dazzling via bullshit I'm sorry to say you don't even get a copper one for that attempt. :cry:

[Brive1987]

The ideas had oxygen because of the left. Brevik did what he did mostly because he was insane AND that insanity was high on said conspiracy.

You can judge Breviks looney politics if you think that has value. However the mere existence of RW conspiracy isn’t directly causal for him specifically going Thelma on us. And there has been no wider pattern to add relevance.

If the conversation is about the problem of partisan politics and violence then it should shift from Brevik and probably realign to a review of the left.

Simple. I’m sorry this flow has challenged you.

This effort earns me a bar to my star.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

My

I’m saying that the loss of centre is increasing low level tensions - but discernible more on the Antica (sic) ‘punch a Nazi’ side

<>

Your rewrite:

The left has a problem with violence and the right does not

A reasonable reading of my statement is that there is overall polarisation leading to a general increase of tensions (on both sides) but this tension is expressed as direct-action more commonly on the antifa side.

This is a classic example of why (and how) our discussions almost immediately derail.

The statistics are not on your side.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2 ... -soil/amp/

https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-sur ... mists/amp/

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2018 ... sm/146319/

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

The ideas had oxygen because of the left. Brevik did what he did mostly because he was insane AND that insanity was high on said conspiracy.

You can judge Breviks looney politics if you think that has value. However the mere existence of RW conspiracy isn’t directly causal for him specifically going Thelma on us. And there has been no wider pattern to add relevance.

If the conversation is about the problem of partisan politics and violence then it should shift from Brevik and probably realign to a review of the left.

Simple. I’m sorry this flow has challenged you.

This effort earns me a bar to my star.

And Antifa has oxygen because of the right. You're still just saying "it's okay when we do it." And worse, you're not even wrong. Antifa is a bunch of annoying cunts. Right-wing terrorism is a threat on par with Islamic terrorism.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Homeland Security Today, not exactly a liberal rag-
https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-a ... s-is-here/

[Brive1987]

The ideas had oxygen because of the left. Brevik did what he did mostly because he was insane AND that insanity was high on said conspiracy.

You can judge Breviks looney politics if you think that has value. However the mere existence of RW conspiracy isn’t directly causal for him specifically going Thelma on us. And there has been no wider pattern to add relevance.

If the conversation is about the problem of partisan politics and violence then it should shift from Brevik and probably realign to a review of the left.

Simple. I’m sorry this flow has challenged you.

This effort earns me a bar to my star.

And Antifa has oxygen because of the right. You're still just saying "it's okay when we do it." And worse, you're not even wrong. Antifa is a bunch of annoying cunts. Right-wing terrorism is a threat on par with Islamic terrorism.

I am a patient man. But I think it’s time for you to show exactly where I endorsed right wing violence - either actual or potential. I am curious whether you are stupid, mendacious or a bit of both.