Post: #201

(12-03-2015 01:13 PM)Menace Wrote:  What is the true motive/thinking behind this pathological need to exculpate Muslims/Islam from any blame?...

...It just defies all logic.

By ten years of age, I was suspecting this was the truth. By twenty years of age, I was convinced, and settled on this theory:

Progressives loathe the good and the beautiful, so will always use whatever power they possess to side with the bad actor in any situation: the weak, the lazy the dishonest, the manipulative, the violent. Anyone who reflects their own sense of inadequacy back at them will be sympathised with, and their negative behaviour will be rationalised away to avoid the progressive considering self-reflection, feeling shame, and feeling any need to work to be any better than they are, for they are already perfect, and it is the rest of the world who is flawed for not recognising their genius and sex appeal.

Taking this further: given the choice between accepting they're mediocre, bad people who are damaged and broken, they'll project their cynicism onto the world and decide that no-one can actually be good and decent, and that everyone must be secretly-flawed. * (A good example of this was one of the Jezebel writer's defence of Lena Dunham, saying "Like you've never sexually-experimented with your sister!")

As such, Progressives, given power, will always guarantee a dysfunctional outcome: they will champion justice, tolerance, fairness and equality of outcome in a way that guarantee injustices, intolerance, unfairness and inequality. If they claim to be building a better society or institution, all they will be doing is destroying an existing one. If they strive to elevate a population, they will only degrade it. If they're seeking to protect the marginalised, they will champion those already powerful. If they speak about privilege, they will possess it. If they speak about experiencing hardship, they'll come from comfortable backgrounds.

So, Muslims? They represent the Progressive Power Fantasy taken to extremes: ruling over a strict society where dissent isn't allowed or tolerated, who terrorise and murder other people who hold different views to them. Pay attention to progressive Twitter feeds some time, and note the constant fantasies of murdering, killing, or mass exterminating others over (often minor) differences in political viewpoints. To Progressives, wishing death on someone over a simple disagreement is a normal, rational way of thinking. This is why they must never be handed state power.

Extremist Muslims are living their fantasy life: they're Progressive Rock Stars. Does it make sense now?

------

* Just a footnote about the 'secretly-flawed' way of thinking:

This results in a progressive media obsession of 'puncturing the bubble' of normality, (which can't possibly-exist in their worldview): which means a lot of 50's period pieces where Mother is popping tranquilisers and Daddy is abusing the kids; injecting homosexuality into traditionally-male domains (priesthood, cowboys); and, every few years, supposed-'comedic' movies about broken people who are convinced they're morally-superior to others, murdering people for failing to live up to the standards of decency their killers believe in, presented in a way where you're supposed to cheer them on as heroes: (Heathers, The Doom Generation (with progressive sook Rose McGowan ), Natural Born Killers).

I came across one of these the other day, and thought, "They're still making these?" Weak sauce, the usual easy targets, moral superiority, standard nihilistic ending. Progressive edgelord power fantasy that thinks it's edgier than it is, and says more about the loser writer / director than the society it's criticising.

Post: #202

(12-03-2015 02:21 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Can we consider white people who do mass shootings to be terrorists, or do you have to be a Muslim to qualify? What about the old white guy who shot up Planned Parenthood in Colorado, was he a Christian terrorist?

Generally terrorism is thought to be driven by ideology + aims to influence policy. I wouldn't classify the white guy as a terrorist.

Post: #203

(12-03-2015 02:26 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:21 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Can we consider white people who do mass shootings to be terrorists, or do you have to be a Muslim to qualify? What about the old white guy who shot up Planned Parenthood in Colorado, was he a Christian terrorist?

Generally terrorism is thought to be driven by ideology + aims to influence policy. I wouldn't classify the white guy as a terrorist.

But if his name was Mohhamed and he had a beard, then he would be right?

Post: #204

(12-03-2015 02:28 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:26 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:21 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Can we consider white people who do mass shootings to be terrorists, or do you have to be a Muslim to qualify? What about the old white guy who shot up Planned Parenthood in Colorado, was he a Christian terrorist?

Generally terrorism is thought to be driven by ideology + aims to influence policy. I wouldn't classify the white guy as a terrorist.

But if his name was Mohhamed and he had a beard, then he would be right?

Good point. Colorado shooter can definitely be called a terrorist; however, it seems he acted alone, unlike the SB shooters, Paris shooters, Charlie Hebdo, etc.

Post: #205

(12-03-2015 02:31 PM)R_Niko Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:28 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:26 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:21 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Can we consider white people who do mass shootings to be terrorists, or do you have to be a Muslim to qualify? What about the old white guy who shot up Planned Parenthood in Colorado, was he a Christian terrorist?

Generally terrorism is thought to be driven by ideology + aims to influence policy. I wouldn't classify the white guy as a terrorist.

But if his name was Mohhamed and he had a beard, then he would be right?

Good point. Colorado shooter can definitely be called a terrorist; however, it seems he acted alone, unlike the SB shooters, Paris shooters, Charlie Hebdo, etc.

Any person who kills a person or a group of people over a disagreement of an opinion, ideology, religion, or political view.....is absolutely a terrorist in my opinon.

Post: #206

(12-03-2015 02:00 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 01:49 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 01:28 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 01:13 PM)Menace Wrote:  What is the true motive/thinking behind this pathological need to exculpate Muslims/Islam from any blame? I just can't seem to get my head around it. It's clear that the media and the Obama administration are very sympathetic to this cause. Is this part of Roosh's thesis that the elite hate America? In-group/out-group status signalling? I dare say no one in the media has any meaningful exposure (or will have any meaningful exposure) to Muslims by virtue of the fact that they likely live near and associate with white upper middle-class people only (or upper class). It just defies all logic.

Ingroup plus virtue signaling. Pretty much all human social groups either require you to do something painful to your dick or openly profess an illogical belief in order to prove your commitment. Being the "right sort of person" in upper middle class+ circles in America requires you to state that you think all races and religions are equally wonderful, except for whites and christianity.

Completely disagree. This self hatred is a very recent phenomenon and is completely against human nature, as it threatens the very survival of your group. We know it's recent because if it wasn't whites would have been extinct for a long time by now. I also cannot think of a single other culture that has ever purposely channeled hostility against itself rather than against outgroups. Such a behavior is simply too detrimental to survival to spontaneously occur de novo.

Rather, this is clearly a case of engineered subversion inflicted on whites by a hostile outgroup.

It's not self-hatred by any means. White liberals see their self-flagellation as a christ-like behavior placing themselves on a level of holiness above all others. It's the secular version of those passive agressive church ladies who make a huge display of how virtuous they were while clucking at you for every little sin.

This is just taking a giant loop back again. How did this notion that hating your own race makes you holy start among whites? Yes, today it exists and is perpetuated by the institutions and is somewhat self sustaining. But someone had to start that trend, man. Prior to 50 years ago, hating your own race was not seen as virtuous among white people. If seen at all, which it was not, it would have been deemed clinically insane.

So again, we come back to the main point: someone engineered the current zeitgeist, where self hatred among the white population is virtuous. And it wasn't whites who engineered it. Critical theory, google that shit. People didn't just suddenly go, "hey, you know what would be cool? It would be cool if we randomly began to go against all of history and all of human nature and start to consider hating our own group and worshiping hostile groups to be a measure of our status in society." That's not how it went down.

Post: #207

Thanks AB, I was hoping you would respond. It's a mass psychosis then.

Post: #208

(12-03-2015 02:28 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  But if his name was Mohhamed and he had a beard, then he would be right?

A little race baiting?

Check out the FBI's definition.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi...-2002-2005

Quote:A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This doesn't make you think it goes beyond a disagreement at a Christmas party?

Quote:When police searched the suspects' home, they found "several hundred” .22 long rifle rounds, "12 pipe bomb-type devices" in the garage, "hundreds of tools, many of which could be used to construct IEDs or pipe bombs," 2,000 9mm rounds, and 2,500 .223 rounds of ammunition.

Post: #209

(12-03-2015 02:28 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  But if his name was Mohhamed and he had a beard, then he would be right?

Absolutely not, that's not what we're saying at all.

Mohammed is too stereotypical. More like Abd-al-Malik or Abubakar.

Post: #210

(12-03-2015 01:13 PM)Menace Wrote:  What is the true motive/thinking behind this pathological need to exculpate Muslims/Islam from any blame? I just can't seem to get my head around it. It's clear that the media and the Obama administration are very sympathetic to this cause. Is this part of Roosh's thesis that the elite hate America? In-group/out-group status signalling? I dare say no one in the media has any meaningful exposure (or will have any meaningful exposure) to Muslims by virtue of the fact that they likely live near and associate with white upper middle-class people only (or upper class). It just defies all logic.

Here's what I think is behind it.

The media has a lot invested in Obama. Obama is "their" president. The media is headed predominantly by leftists, may of whom came of age in the 60s. The 60s were the defining generation of the birth and outright celebration of leftism and Marxism coming into the USA.

The mainstream media did everything to get their darling, Obama, elected. Now that he is elected, to go against anything he represents, or to realize they were wrong ( though they never would as they agree with him ideologically on almost all points) would be to admit to themselves that they made a mistake. That, somehow, Obama wasn't the right person to get elected. This is like political and ideological death to them. When one faces or fears death, they will do anything, justify anything to make sure they and their kind continue living and propagating.

So, the press therefore, tows the line of whatever "their guy" says. Their guy, being Obama.

Now, why does Obama exculpate and excuse Muslims? I think this is really quite simple:

His middle name is "Hussein"
His father was an African Muslim
He attended Muslim schools.
He attended, basically, an anti American black power theology church for much of his life.

With Obama, it's like it is with dating girls: Do not watch what they say. Watch what they do.

This man is not Christian. He is either an outright Muslim or greatly sympathizes with Muslims and their "plight" above and beyond any concern he has for the integrity of the country's culture, language or borders.

Obama defends the terrorists. The press does their part and defends him.

Post: #211

The Rules Obama Lives by..

Post: #212

(12-03-2015 02:36 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:28 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  But if his name was Mohhamed and he had a beard, then he would be right?

A little race baiting?

Check out the FBI's definition.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi...-2002-2005

Quote:A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This doesn't make you think it goes beyond a disagreement at a Christmas party?

Quote:When police searched the suspects' home, they found "several hundred” .22 long rifle rounds, "12 pipe bomb-type devices" in the garage, "hundreds of tools, many of which could be used to construct IEDs or pipe bombs," 2,000 9mm rounds, and 2,500 .223 rounds of ammunition.

Race baiting? No. Just a little thought experiment. I just don't see how all the other mass shootings aren't considered terrorist acts. It's also easy to point the finger at this guy and blame Islam or Muslims or whatever, but what about all the other nut jobs like that Elliot Rodgers guy, the Sandy Hook shooter, the black dude from Oakland that killed his co-workers in VA.

By no means am I trying to defend this guy in any way, he's a terrorist just as much as Elliot Rodgers was or any of those other mass shooters. We'll see what the deal is as more info comes out, he may be an ISIS terrorist. Either way I think there is something really wrong with American society and culture, where basically every two months like clock work there seems to be a mass shooting of some kind.

Post: #213

(12-03-2015 02:35 PM)Menace Wrote:  Thanks AB, I was hoping you would respond. It's a mass psychosis then.

I'm not sure it can be considered psychosis as such, more that it's just a natural part of human behaviour. People either seem to want to work hard at self-improvement to better their own position in life; or to work to morally-stigmatise the self-improvers as selfish and uncaring to remove them from the equation to better their own position in life.

I've seen so much repetition just with my 44 year life span, but the more you read of history - both fact and fiction - these behavioural patterns constantly exist. The actors, societal sins and favourite marginalised populations change over the years but the scripted processes doesn't, (given time, the social champions of the present demonise the social justice victories of the past).

Maybe this is simply what humanity is. I see the division between people partly as between an understanding vs a denial of reality, most likely-based on one's ability to tolerate cognitive dissonance. Those who can't handle the intellectual friction between self image and actuality strive to improve; those who can process the dissonance are weak in character so instead strive to turn their failings into social currency. Since their false self-perception guarantees they'll never achieve self-actualisation, insanity and dysfunction result.

Some can readily accept 2+2=5, the rest of us will fight such dissonance with every fibre of our being.

So is it psychosis, or is there simply a sliding scale of spiritual and mental drive involved? There's a fundamental, widespread laziness in the population that often surprises me. Take something as important as eating to survive: a large selection of the people I know are unable to cook meals for themselves. Particularly the inner city dwellers I know: they eat out for every meal. Simple food prep is beyond their knowledge and drive, yet they'd tell me to 'educate' myself.

I know there's some theory floating around about r/k selection floating around that I haven't engaged with yet.

Post: #214

(12-03-2015 02:28 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:26 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:21 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Can we consider white people who do mass shootings to be terrorists, or do you have to be a Muslim to qualify? What about the old white guy who shot up Planned Parenthood in Colorado, was he a Christian terrorist?

Generally terrorism is thought to be driven by ideology + aims to influence policy. I wouldn't classify the white guy as a terrorist.

But if his name was Mohhamed and he had a beard, then he would be right?

No, why would he be?

Post: #215

(12-03-2015 03:07 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Race baiting? No. Just a little thought experiment. I just don't see how all the other mass shootings aren't considered terrorist acts. It's also easy to point the finger at this guy and blame Islam or Muslims or whatever, but what about all the other nut jobs like that Elliot Rodgers guy, the Sandy Hook shooter, the black dude from Oakland that killed his co-workers in VA.

By no means am I trying to defend this guy in any way, he's a terrorist just as much as Elliot Rodgers was or any of those other mass shooters. We'll see what the deal is as more info comes out, he may be an ISIS terrorist. Either way I think there is something really wrong with American society and culture, where basically every two months like clock work there seems to be a mass shooting of some kind.

I think we will see a lot more.

We have kids in college asking for "safe spaces" because of disagreements "triggering" them.

Our younger generations are not capable of handling the real world and I can see many more snapping. I'm not talking terrorism here, but good ole fashion crazy people trying to inflict as much damage as possible simply because they were "triggered".

Our society is broken and things will either get worst or these types of incidents become the new norm.

Post: #216

(12-03-2015 02:34 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:31 PM)R_Niko Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:28 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:26 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:21 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Can we consider white people who do mass shootings to be terrorists, or do you have to be a Muslim to qualify? What about the old white guy who shot up Planned Parenthood in Colorado, was he a Christian terrorist?

Generally terrorism is thought to be driven by ideology + aims to influence policy. I wouldn't classify the white guy as a terrorist.

But if his name was Mohhamed and he had a beard, then he would be right?

Good point. Colorado shooter can definitely be called a terrorist; however, it seems he acted alone, unlike the SB shooters, Paris shooters, Charlie Hebdo, etc.

Any person who kills a person or a group of people over a disagreement of an opinion, ideology, religion, or political view.....is absolutely a terrorist in my opinon.

For the person to be a terrorist, I'd say he has to attack people who are not responsible for the thing he's pissed about. He's attacking to create mayhem and chaos rather than anything specific.

Shooting down a military plane dropping bombs isn't terrorism, shooting down a civilian plane full of tourists is.

Post: #217

Terrorism targets governments and institutions for political reasons. Islam targets Christians because they hate Christianity... which is an institution. Thus it's terrorism. Something Islam has done for 1400 years and counting.

The crazy lone shooters have no goal other than to inflict pain and assuage their own egos.

Post: #218

(12-03-2015 02:26 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:21 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  Can we consider white people who do mass shootings to be terrorists, or do you have to be a Muslim to qualify? What about the old white guy who shot up Planned Parenthood in Colorado, was he a Christian terrorist?

Generally terrorism is thought to be driven by ideology + aims to influence policy. I wouldn't classify the white guy as a terrorist.

The old white guy was psychotic what he did violates all tenets of Christianity - a true Christian never takes a life unless in self defense or war - he was psychotic.

Interesting before the liberal SJWs took over society in the earlier parts of the 19th Century any one with psychosis would be admitted to various state hospitals for their own protection and the protection of the general public. The SJWs like the ACLU pioneered medicating these folks with psycho active drugs so that they would seem sane while medicated and ask them if they wanted to be confined and couped up in a mental institution - questions crafted to elicit a no response and then get them released on their own recognizance - without supervision they would go off their meds became non functioning and the homeless populations and crime swelled with people who had been institutionalized for their own protection and that of society.

Post: #219

(12-03-2015 02:24 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  As such, Progressives, given power, will always guarantee a dysfunctional outcome: they will champion justice, tolerance, fairness and equality of outcome in a way that guarantee injustices, intolerance, unfairness and inequality. If they claim to be building a better society or institution, all they will be doing is destroying an existing one. If they strive to elevate a population, they will only degrade it. If they're seeking to protect the marginalised, they will champion those already powerful. If they speak about privilege, they will possess it. If they speak about experiencing hardship, they'll come from comfortable backgrounds.

So, Muslims? They represent the Progressive Power Fantasy taken to extremes: ruling over a strict society where dissent isn't allowed or tolerated, who terrorise and murder other people who hold different views to them. Pay attention to progressive Twitter feeds some time, and note the constant fantasies of murdering, killing, or mass exterminating others over (often minor) differences in political viewpoints. To Progressives, wishing death on someone over a simple disagreement is a normal, rational way of thinking. This is why they must never be handed state power.

Extremist Muslims are living their fantasy life: they're Progressive Rock Stars. Does it make sense now?

The bolded is the absolute key. It's the crux of the Year Zero phenomenon, which I'll be covering in my book.

The "controversial" Russian political philosopher Alexander Dugin gave a broad overview of the three political ideologies that emerged in the modern period. The first was liberalism, the second was communism, and the third was fascism.

If you think about it long and hard, communism is just the Year Zero expression of wealth redistribution and lighter forms of socialism. Fascism is the Year Zero expression of nationalism. Both of these ideologies and movements required the deconstruction of older existing orders and replacement with something else. Yet, fascism was destroyed in 1945 and communism was destroyed in 1991. That left liberalism as the only one remaining, and the longest-lived.

Yet, Dugin pointed out that liberalism is now in deep trouble too and is devolving. In truth, liberalism entered its Year Zero phase in 1968. What we've been seeing are the conflagrations associated with that. Once you consider the convulsions of nonsense currently begetting a philosophy that is at root what our society was founded on in light of Year Zero developments, it all begins to make sense - the narrative, social justice warriors, retarded foreign policy, all of it.

For this next phase of liberalism to be successful the old order needs to be destroyed. Liberalism is at root a moderating influence, but it had Year Zero antecedents from the start based on much older doctrines (also covered in the book). It's not surprising that the Year Zero logic is now manifesting fully outward as society continues to go crazy.

What happens now is anyone's guess, but I return to three options as I laid out in the migrant thread. We can either salvage liberalism from the batshit Year Zero revolutionaries that have been steering it since 1968 by injecting some proper nationalism into it and preserve the post World War II political order, we can go full Camp of the Saints and become a third world country which has parallels to communism, or the counteraction will lead to the return of right wing fascistic-style movements.

I don't know. Perhaps there will be a combination of two and three. Perhaps the US will go option 1 or the reverse will happen in Europe while the other descends into option 2 or 3.

I don't know.

The only thing I do know is that right now resembles the geopolitical and social situation that mirrored the outbreak of World War I. James Howard Kunstler wrote that sometimes societies just go crazy and bad shit happens. We look to be repeating that.

Best way to go about it is recognize that you're one man in the world and make yourself as strong as possible and form the right social bonds. Reversing it starts with you, but I invite others again to take my proposals in the "resistance to the Islamic invasion" section seriously, because I think we can do some good.

Post: #220

That's a thought-provoking analysis.

Makes sense as the 1960's was when the "New Left" rose to prominence and those boomers, and their younger followers are the ones in power now.

Post: #221

(12-03-2015 03:07 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:36 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:28 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  But if his name was Mohhamed and he had a beard, then he would be right?

A little race baiting?

Check out the FBI's definition.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi...-2002-2005

Quote:A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This doesn't make you think it goes beyond a disagreement at a Christmas party?

Quote:When police searched the suspects' home, they found "several hundred” .22 long rifle rounds, "12 pipe bomb-type devices" in the garage, "hundreds of tools, many of which could be used to construct IEDs or pipe bombs," 2,000 9mm rounds, and 2,500 .223 rounds of ammunition.

Race baiting? No. Just a little thought experiment. I just don't see how all the other mass shootings aren't considered terrorist acts. It's also easy to point the finger at this guy and blame Islam or Muslims or whatever, but what about all the other nut jobs like that Elliot Rodgers guy, the Sandy Hook shooter, the black dude from Oakland that killed his co-workers in VA.

By no means am I trying to defend this guy in any way, he's a terrorist just as much as Elliot Rodgers was or any of those other mass shooters. We'll see what the deal is as more info comes out, he may be an ISIS terrorist. Either way I think there is something really wrong with American society and culture, where basically every two months like clock work there seems to be a mass shooting of some kind.

I agree the definition is arbitrary but it is also defined by 'normalcy' of the perpetrator.

The black TV dude and Elliot Rodgers were clearly mentally ill people, their lives were dysfunctional to a high degree, their thoughts barely rational.

Breivik was also dysfunctional, but still lucid and within the norms of his own populations normalcy. That is why he was a terrorist and not a lunatic. Tim McVeigh was also clearly rational and 'normal' and therefore a terrorist.

The difference is, most of the so called spree shooters are not within borders of normalcy, almost all are on psych meds.

Most the muslim killers on the other hand do not exhibit behavior that is considered outside muslim norm.

Another example, perhaps going butt naked into battle and eating the hearts of children like General Butt Naked of Liberia did, is seen as complete lunacy, but it is not that far off the borders of normalcy in some parts of Africa where child killings due to allegations of witchcraft are common (Nigeria) or where human meat is still eaten with some frequency or where ritual human offering is still taking place.

As such, it's fairly clear that violence grounded in mainstream accepted belief systems are different from violence grounded in norm deviant beliefs.

Post: #222

(12-03-2015 03:27 PM)Libertas Wrote:  For this next phase of liberalism to be successful the old order needs to be destroyed. Liberalism is at root a moderating influence, but it had Year Zero antecedents from the start based on much older doctrines (also covered in the book). It's not surprising that the Year Zero logic is now manifesting fully outward as society continues to go crazy.

If you want to put this in terms that right wingers relate to, it's the kind of fantasy that preppers and hardcore an-caps have of a sudden rise in social status in a Mad Max scenario, survival of the fittest.

Since most liberals are unfit, they dream of a scenario where fitness level doesn't matter.

Post: #223

Well, this shooting has officially pissed of America:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...-shooting/

39K comments and counting. As I type the numbers keep going up and up. For this many comments to be on just one article means that hundreds of millions of Americans have taken notice to this shooting, and almost certainly in a extremely negative way towards Islam.

Top comment:

Quote:Farook was a US citizen, married and had one child.
He was a business tax representative for the California State Board of Equalization. He is a 2003 graduate La Sierra High School, and most recently studied finance at California State University Fullerton until 2013…seemingly assimiliated to the US.

Well there you have it: A young healthy man with a good job, a family and every reason in the world to live a good life. Yet he was willing to throw it all away for…..jihad.
So much for "moderate"muslims.

People are realizing the truth. Moderate Islam is like Moderate Communism, or Moderate Nazism, or Moderate Maoism, etc. All bullshit. Islam is Islam and will always remain the enemy of anyone who disagrees with it.

Post: #224

Thinking about this further: what is Socialism but passive-aggressively trying to guarantee no-one else has a better life outcome or higher social status than you? I suspect this explains why Passionate Socialism is so eternally-popular with young women of mediocre ability and intelligence who attend university.

To a Feminist, the passive-aggressive appeal of Islam is self-evident: if all women's faces and bodies are covered in the public sphere, the playing field is levelled. Would Feminists deliberately 'wound' and 'oppress' themselves to guarantee beautiful, thin women don't have an advantage over ugly, fat ones? Given I see Feminists as the True Misogynists, who deeply-loathe femininity, it seems the logical possibility, given that a common reaction to rejection / indifference by a high value male partner is for a woman to either start spinning stories of shocking abuse and degradation to attempt to engender sympathy from him (see UVA Rape Hoax), or to simply hack of all her hair in an attempt to deliberate uglify herself so he can see how much he hurt her. It suggests self-wounding is a logical choice for many women.

It seems at odds with Feminism to support Islam, but remember: dysfunctional behaviour usually results in the feared outcome, not the avoidance of it.

Post: #225

Arguing with my Muslim cousin is fucking hilarious. Always the victim - they're already posting about how to vigilant and watch out for retaliation.

I told the Muslim girl cousins - just be chill, polite, carry mace, or better yet a handgun.

But no, of course not.

One was outraged the New York Post said in bold letter "MUSLIM SHOOTERS KILL"

I commented saying....well they were right weren't they ? Then a debate with hamstering ensued. Islam doesn't each this blah blah blah.

Well where the fuck are they getting these ideas to murder them from then ? What's guiding them ? Why would they think like this ?

I made an analogy:

Ban Guns/religion- no, you fix the person behind the trigger/ideology that's guiding them.

A gun and a book are just sitting there, it's the human that's the problem.