Sign into an existing account

deleted

Sew its legit Remingtons fault even?

The Muslims are a great example.

Before the mass migrations of 2015, it was common to see people talk about Islam like they did about Christianity, the critique of the religion was widespread, and Islamophobia was not a word anyone knew of, everyone was openly and smugly Islamophobic, itnwas widely accepted that the religion of Islam was backward and violent.

That all changed when Muslims started regularly killing people in Europe, and using the fear from their attacks to intimidate their critics into silence.

Even when their opposition shut up, they didn't stop, their demands shifted from merely not criticizing Islam to hating those who criticized Islam as much as they did.

The culture shifted after that, it was through fear that the concept of Islamophobia was born, and saying that Islam was a violent and backward religion became not just taboo within our culture, but evil.

Islam became a religion of peace precisely because they committed so much violence, and more specifically, because they could be expected to react violently when others refused to give them what they demanded be given to them, which included a ban on talking about how violent they truly are.

This applies not just to Islam, the left had secured a lot of ground on the back of riots and terrorism as well, much of the change in culture was produced by the violent activities of various groups of people who them leftist leaders were never officially unaffiliated with and may have publicly denounced, but who they had in truth supported or even established in private.

That's their two tier attack, they fund or organize rioters and terrorists who fight in the name of their goals, but do so in secret, while in the light they represent these causes in a lawful and peaceful capacity, acting as if they are opposed to the means used by their more violent co-miserators.

It's an act, of course, if these leaders learned of a terror plot or plan to riot that was to be done in the name of a cause they publicly supported, they'd not report it, and in fact, help bury it, most likely, they'd even provide these violent types with the means and opportunity to carry out their plans, while using their public positions to downplay their brutality while acting as apologists for them as being wrong, but understandable, even going so far as to say their activities were inevitable for as long as they weren't getting their way.

The right contrasts this two faced tactic, at present, the right only has the one tier, it's all Jekyll, no Hyde, they have no terrorists, no rioters, only people who are peaceful and law abiding, the reason is that whenever someone does commit to such acts for a right wing cause, the mainstream and its leaders will actually come not against them, unequivocally opposed to them o all fronts, public and private. They will proudly turn in anyone who plans of executing a violent form of advocacy for their causes over to the police, even when they would have a good chance at never being found out to have known about it.

they feel proud of this, they think that their integrity is a strength, ignoring that it's precisely this lack of integrity among their enemies that has given them so much ground.

The right talks about infighting, but it's more like the left keeping the more troublesome upstarts in line, like a commander preventing a rout of disorder or dissention among their troops.

The right is the side that is straight up turning over its own to the hands of prisons.

Do they have a chance? Whites get jewish brainwashing from birth to death?

You're not already?

deleted

Critical thinking is strong in this one