Having the integrity to criticize and question a smear site you posted is still not the definition of a white nationalist or white nationalist apologist.

You should try to be more honest. Attempt to address the validity of claims instead of pretending people are evil for disagreeing with the idiocy you post.

LOOOL
So much BS.
Bor what are your monthly membership dues?
or you get free cuz PURE white?

additional evidence of something that is already blatantly obvious is not a 'smear', just because you personally don't like the conclusion. that is neither 'fair' nor 'honest', that's just pure hackery in order to protect white nationalists from the criticism they deserve. recognising that you have a pattern of doing that, and calling that white nationalist apologism, is therefore justified and adequate.

again: if you don't like being called a white nationalist apologist, why don't you just stop making excuses for scum like stephen miller and the alt-right all the time?

until you can manage that, you very much deserve the label - no matter how much you bitch about it, denying your own post history...

Do you have the ability to explain why you think what I said is BS?



'blatantly obvious' in your deranged and defective mind is not the same as being true.

Having legitimate problems with your joke of a source is not defending white nationalism.

One occasion of you posting a poorly written SPLC hit piece is not 'all the time'.
Nor have I ever claimed miller is a great guy.

If your claims can't stand up to scrutiny that is on you.
People who point out your 'arguments' and assertions are bad are not evil.
Claims should not go unopposed or unscrutinized just because you claim a person or group is bad.

Not everyone is the same as you.
I've been trying to explain this to you, but you are ideology opposed to reason.
I have the integrity to question accusations and criticize bad sources. You prefer smearing people who disagree with you and blindly accepting leftist narratives and pretending anyone who disagrees is evil.
We are different people. Good and intelligent vs anti-intellectual trash.

damn the racist op got kamehameha’d to the sun in the first 3 replies

meanwhile Cam keeps up the American tradition of beating up national-socialists from the rhineland (or in this case dresden)

again, i've never seen anyone who is ACTUALLY intelligent keep insisting how smart they are. your insecurity in that regard is really telling, and it's particularly ironic to keep doing that while at the same posting the posting the same dumb shit and lazy excuses over and over again.

i mean, just to further prove that very obvious point: you don't have to explicitly state that "stephen miller is a great guy", in order to defend him from allegations of spreading white supremacist propaganda. reframing his well documented attempts to perpetuate white nationalist talking points, by pushing the white genocide novel, 'Camp of the Saints', suggesting to breitbart they write a story drawing parallels between the disgusting and dehumanising descriptions of immigrants in the book, and the current border / immigration situation, as merely 'recommending award-winning books', as you repeatedly did, does the trick.

your 'b-b-but that's technically correct, how could anyone possibly interpret that beyond the mere words i posted?' approach obviously can't conceal that ugly truth, and it's laughable that you seem to assume it would - especially since you have doubled and tripled down on making excuses for white nationalists since that (unsurprisingly through the same idiotic tactics that every halfway intelligent person can see right trough, lol).

This post was edited by fender on May 1 2020 03:38am

Ive said it before and ill say it again- you could kill more people with a pair of bolt cutters, a chain, a padlock and a drum of gasoline then these mass shooters ever kill. You don't see a rush to ban matches.

i said it before, and i'll say it again: that's amongst the most idiotic 'arguments' someone could ever come up with. i guess that makes it hardly surprising that you keep making it. just because YOU are a complete psychopath who considers themselves proficient in murdering human beings by other means, does not refute the fact that the tools mass shooters use are exclusively designed to kill, and very good at that.

matches, chains, gasoline, bolt cutters, padlocks, cars, swimming pools, ladders, hospitals... and all the other items that gun nuts regularly list in order to deflect blame away from their dick replacements, they all have other purposes - and unsurprisingly are NOT the tools of constant mass killings in countries where guns are not that readily available.

mind blown, right? not? oh right, you actually know that, but still keep pretending your 'argument' makes sense because you're a hack.

The biggest mass murder in US history was committed with a few box cutters to kill 2996. We just passed the 15th anniversary of an attack that killed 169 people with a homemade bomb. The worst mass shooting in US history, done by a guy with an uninterrupted barrage on a crowd with rapid fire for ten minutes and 1000+ rounds, killed 58. The Las Vegas shooting was unprecedented for just how long he had to rain fire on a crowd that couldn't flee and had nothing to hide behind, and with an attacker so well prepared and heavily armed that he had actually done ballistic math and checked the wind to calculate optimal fire. And he killed less people than a jihadi in france who rented a truck and drove it in a straight line. The vast majority of attempted mass shootings, even by well prepared attackers, tend to kill in the 5-10 range, only a small number of 20+ in all us history. The Iroquois Theatre fire for contrast killed 602, the Cocoanut Grove fire killed 492, and a few wildfires killed 1000+ as they took out cities.

Actual mass shootings with large numbers of fatalities are so infrequent and insignificant compared to every other form of disaster and mass death, and not even a blip compared to the vastly higher number of deaths to mundane handgun crime. Only morons like someone descended from Geobbels gets hung up thinking scary looking long rifles are 'tools of constant mass killings' when statistically they amount to less deaths than handguns, less deaths than knives, less deaths than blunt objects and less deaths than unarmed murders with hands and fists. If we cared about what statistically is the highest death toll, we'd get handguns out of black neighborhoods. If we cared about what potential weaknesses we have against determined and intelligent attackers plotting mass murders, than a long gun isn't even close to the deadliest thing a terrorist could do. Hell, you could kill more people right now with nothing but your sneezes.

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 1 2020 04:25am

again at it with the flawed psychopath logic. we need trucks. and planes. they're NOT designed exclusively to kill, we don't have constant incidents of them being used for mass killings. no one is contesting that there are different means to kill people, no one is suggesting that you could prevent ALL unncecessary deaths (i just love how you had to add tragedies from more than 100 years ago (!), that btw lead to significant changes in regulations and safety, just to further illustrate how idiotic and non-sensical your 'arguments' here are) - but it would save the lives of tens of thousand each year. clearly not enough for a hack like you, but fortunately most civilised societies disagree with that.