|
Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)
|
"This guy is an idiot, not a Nazi."
Since when are these two mutually exclusive? "His goal is to have less immigrants in New Zealand." Well, kinda. He is not himself from New Zealand, and he only came to New Zealand to "plan and train" for his attack, but then realized that its a good place to kill some people. Physically reducing numbers by murder was one of the goals, but the wider ranging goals are: To take revenge on the invaders for the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by foreign invaders in European lands throughout history. To take revenge for the enslavement of millions of Europeans taken from their lands by the Islamic slavers. To take revenge for the thousands of European lives lost to terror attacks throughout European lands. To take revenge for Ebba Akerlund. To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to overextend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result. To incite violence, retaliation and further divide between the European people and the invaders currently occupying European soil. To avenge those European men and women lost in the constant and never ending wars of European history who died for their lands, died for their people only to have their lands given away to any foreign scum that bother to show up. To create an atmosphere of fear and change in which drastic,powerful and revolutionary action can occur. To add momentum to the pendulum swings of history, further destabilizing and polarizing Western society in order to eventually destroy the current nihilistic, hedonistic, individualistic insanity that has taken control of Western thought. Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states.This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. This balkanization of the US will not only result in the racial separation of the people within the United States ensuring the future of the White race on the North American continent, but also ensuring the death of the “melting pot” pipe dream. Furthermore this balkanization will also reduce the USA’s ability to project power globally, and thereby ensure that never again can such a situation as the US involvement in Kosovo ever occur again(where US/NATO forces fought beside muslims and slaughtered Christian Europeans attempting to remove these Islamic occupiers from Europe). So, amongst other things, not only did he foresee the backlash, he actively seeks it, on specifically Nazi grounds. Now, presumably there are 'Menshevik' Nazis who wouldn't appreciate such a 'Bolshevik' approach, but do you really want to claim that the only true Nazis are the ones who conform to your idea of what is politically sensible?
I copypasted, he kindly structured it as a FAQ, with a section on 'why did you do it'.
The goals are idiotic, but also fairly chracteristically neonazi. These guys have never really been known for having sensible goals. (March 15th, 2019, 22:26)ipecac Wrote:(March 15th, 2019, 01:45)Krill Wrote: No she didn't. The courts did. You do understand that the point of compromise is that it is an agreement between two parties? If the EU wanted, they can say FU and you are leaving with no deal whether you like it or not? It's not what she has negotiated but what the EU will agree with. Whether Parliament likes it or not, is not up to May: She has one vote out of 645ish. If they refuse to leave with no deal and refuse to ratify what they are given then Parliament is basically being retarded and has to either revoke or have an "Accidental" No deal. You are ascribing control of the situation to May when she has never had it. I'm surprised she's made it this far, really. (March 16th, 2019, 16:41)Krill Wrote: You do understand that the point of compromise is that it is an agreement between two parties? If the EU wanted, they can say FU and you are leaving with no deal whether you like it or not? It's not what she has negotiated but what the EU will agree with. It's both. The EU in reality prefers a good deal to no deal because no deal hurts them too.
March 17th, 2019, 05:02
(This post was last modified: March 17th, 2019, 14:51 by BRickAstley.)
 (March 16th, 2019, 17:02)Nicolae Carpathia Wrote: -snip- Nicolae, I would ask you to refrain from using personal insults in this thread. RB has users from all over the world with very different polictical and cultural backgrounds. We can only benefit from a discussion, if all conversations are conducted in a civil manner. I am afraid your arguments do not become stronger by verbally abusing other users - quite the opposite, your rhetorics unfortunately start to sound like those of typical supremacists you claim to detest. While you may understandably strongly disagree with the political views of certain forum members, may I remind you that you are unlikely to change somebody's opinion by continuously hurling insults at them. You would be better served by stating your points in a calm and convincing manner.
I'm (at least) temporarily closing this thread.
I highly value the conversation we have historically had on this site, but I do not believe that this conversation will be beneficial to anyone, not so speak of the personal attacks now taking place. Let's take some time to cool off and look at re-opening a spot for political discussions later. Any further personal attacks (on any side) may result in post removal or bans. Quote:About us |
|
As a French person I feel like it's my duty to explain strikes to you. - AdrienIer |
Are you making it up or you have actually bothered to read the guy's "manifesto"?
