Ultra-Violent Leftists Attacking and Threatening US Government Officials

[Prodromos]

United States is not a Christian nation. It is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state with a large White Christian majority that itself argues over which version of the Bible to use, the authority of the pope, and religious holidays. The day the American Government announces itself to be a Christian nation is the day I'm moving to Denmark to restart my Counter Strike career.

Nope, America is, and was founded as, a Christian, Anglo nation. But way to miss the point. Try actually watching the video instead of simply responding to the title.

[The spartan]

Liberals hate blacks unless they play into the liberal "white massa savior" paradigm/game and accept that they are too weak and pathetic to advocate for themselves or take charge of their own lives and that they need the white liberal savior to take care of them. White liberals actually despise blacks; this can be seen from the policies they promote that impoverish blacks, wrecked the black middle class, destroyed the black family, and provide for the mass incarceration of blacks.

Hillary Clinton wants the world to see blacks as "super predators who need to be brought to heel."


Blacks have been conned into voting for people who despise them and who want them impoverished and miserable [but out of sight] in urban ghettos.

It is the Curley Effect.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gl...y_effect_1.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhen...ct-nationwide/

What sort of propaganda are you muttering? First the KKK was made up of leftists and now liberals hate blacks? It is like you are a Infowars homepage.

[Love Mountain]

Nope, America is, and was founded as, a Christian, Anglo nation. But way to miss the point.

What point did I miss? That it founded to specifically be secular? You do realize that the original Americans, the original rebels, were by and large Christians who wanted to practice their faith freely? It is written so in the Constitution,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

-First Amendment.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

-John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli

The Founding Fathers have repeatedly stressed freedom from religious persecution, which, considering their background, is not surprising at all.

Try actually watching the video instead of simply responding to the title.

The video confuses influence with founding. Which is reasonable, since the founding fathers were Christian. But nowhere, was it said that the United States was a Christian nation. Nor was it ever implied. If the best reach conservatives have is the similarity of the phrasing between the Bible and 18th century texts, then they should try actually opening a history book instead of "making a video with a title".

[Prodromos]

Sukiyama, you are wrong and keep missing the point of the video:

The video kind of cherry picks one statement (i.e. "endowed by our creator") from the US Declaration of Independence, without really demonstrating that the United States was implicitly founded as a Christian nation. If anything this is contradicted by our wise and revolutionary separation of Church and State, the thing that sets us apart from most European countries even to this day (and that includes the UK, with their queen being head of the Anglican Church). The US is a free and open republic, divorced from religion, a secular democracy that does not pander or prioritize one religion over another. We can be thankful for that, lest the nominally pacifist Quakers rise up and live out their revenge fantasies of denying Presbyterians and Baptists their rights and places of worship.

I think an argument could be made that elements of our US Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution), based largely on the 17th-century English Bill of Rights, was in turn inspired by the culmination of Judeo-Christian philosophy by the 18th century. However, much of our democratic values are rooted in the evolution of English Common Law and of course the republicanism and various democracies of the ancient Greco-Roman world. It goes without saying that these were a pagan people before their gradual conversion to Christianity, including the first Christian emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD.

Thanks for the one serious response.

But I think you missed the point too. I posted it in response to the comments about how polarized the country is today. Some say that the decrease in religiosity has caused people to have different goals and values, and thus view each other as enemies. Back in the old days, however, people had the same moral principles and worldviews, and so they mainly argued over how to best achieve their common goals.

Not sure I buy it though. There was definitely plenty of conflict back then, even when everyone was at least a nominal Christian. But maybe it wasn't as bad as today. Today, politics is as strong an identity as religion. An interesting article:

The Lifestylization of Politics | Jonah Goldberg

It’s a familiar conservative lament to say this is all part of the politicization of everything. And I think that’s true. But you can flip it on its head, too. Everything is becoming lifestylized (I hereby decree that’s a word). It’s like that ancient debate between Plato and Socrates: Did Socrates get his chocolate in Plato’s peanut butter or did Plato get peanut butter in Socrates’ chocolate? (“That sounds dirty” — The Couch.)

Scads have been written, mostly by conservatives and libertarians, about the problem of politics bleeding into the nooks and crannies of traditionally apolitical life. And I agree with much of it. But far less has been written about how lifestyle is creeping into politics. With the decline of traditional religion and other mediating institutions, the primary source of identity for ever larger numbers of people is partisan affiliation. Indeed, partisan affiliation — for the first time ever — is often more predictive of behavior and attitudes than race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. That’s bananas.

But it’s also utterly predictable. When politics becomes a secular religion, a source of meaning, or simply a “lifestyle,” politics will be less about arguments and tradeoffs and more about wearing “ideas” on your sleeve. I agree with Jonathan Last when he writes that the current hysteria over the Paris pullout is virtue signaling about virtue signaling. But what else can you expect when people start wearing their partisan affiliation the way people once wore a crucifix or Star of David?

Disagreements become insults when politics becomes a statement about who you are. And, as I keep saying, that explains why so many now define free speech as assault and assault as free speech.

Personally I view those low info but nonetheless radical and unforgiving political ideologues, as children.

I've always liked this quote. A rare sentiment in these immoral times.

[Elfdude]

Liberals hate blacks unless they play into the liberal "white massa savior" paradigm/game and accept that they are too weak and pathetic to advocate for themselves or take charge of their own lives and that they need the white liberal savior to take care of them.

Liberals hate blacks and thus liberals are the KKK? No. The KKK is a definitively and always has been a conservative organization. Say what you will about liberals they are not the KKK.

White liberals actually despise blacks; this can be seen from the policies they promote that impoverish blacks, wrecked the black middle class, destroyed the black family, and provide for the mass incarceration of blacks.

You know the average wealth of a black household means never in the history of ever have they ever risen to parity with white middle class right? Who was it that is cutting poor safety nets in order to pursue an estates tax repeal that benefits .2% of the wealthiest americans at the cost of dozens of welfare programs? Oh but please do go on about how liberals have destroyed the black middle class. It's really good for your credibility.

Hillary Clinton wants the world to see blacks as "super predators who need to be brought to heel."

HRC is a centrist. Centrist's positions reflect the political realities of the world and environment they exist in. While I don't agree with her you understand Donald Trump's initial claim to fame and notoriety was in denying blacks a place to live right? Without that lawsuit he never would've been a conservative figurehead.

Blacks have been conned into voting for people who despise them and who want them impoverished and miserable [but out of sight] in urban ghettos.

Trump literally pushed blacks into urban ghettos. Like don't get me wrong, POC have been treated terribly by all sides of the equation hence slavery, the necessity of the civil rights movement, hell they only appreciate tacit equality today due to grudging admission that they are human too. There is a worse side however and you are smack dab in the middle of it. You cannot avoid this reality.

It is the Curley Effect.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gl...y_effect_1.pdf

The curley effect is a phenomena in which a politician uses tactics to support an oppressed group leading to their domination. It was people like curley that moved the poor irish from subhuman to human within societal perception. Admittedly the work was easier than challenging a form of discrimination based on colorism but like dude you're posting something which decries your point.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhen...ct-nationwide/

Wealth destruction is not the same as black destruction. Something you should probably keep in mind. Wealth is not the measure of success and a forbes blog does little to implicate true wealth destruction as wealth still distributed further to the super rich under his term, it simply did slightly slower than his republican counterparts.

But I think you missed the point too. I posted it in response to the comments about how polarized the country is today. Some say that the decrease in religiosity has caused people to have different goals and values, and thus view each other as enemies. Back in the old days, however, people had the same moral principles and worldviews, and so they mainly argued over how to best achieve their common goals.

This rose tinted glasses argument is completely at odds with historical reality. Firstly christians actively discriminated against each other and massacred each other regularly. New dominations were constantly harassed and murdered whole sale. Hundreds of millions of natives were massacred and millions of blacks were enslaved. Even latinx and asian ethnicities were treated as subhumans. The southern baptists and the methodists split over the issue of whether the bible supported slavery or not. There was no christian unity, and christianization of other cultures was not a pathway towards assimilation. Abolitionists were massacred by both the law and rich slave owners as thieves and rabble rousers. An entire town could get wiped out over night and the only way people found out about it was if some poor soul happened to hide in a cupboard.

Or again, you're grasping at straws trying to make it fit with your preconceived notions which are as ill-conceived as the video is.

Not sure I buy it though. There was definitely plenty of conflict back then, even when everyone was at least a nominal Christian. But maybe it wasn't as bad as today. Today, politics is as strong an identity as religion.

Politics has always been as strong if not stronger an identity than religion. Literally the last two millenias tell the tale of the struggle for supremacy between the two with religion gradually fading into obscurity as it's utility for governance became more of a liability than a boon. More importantly thomas jefferson may not have let a difference in politics damage his friendship but he certainly allowed it to prevent him from making many, alexander hamilton comes immediately to mind there.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

https://tommydavis.wordpress.com/201...orm-is-needed/

The legacy of Johnson's Great Society is the achievement of a society where now almost 80% of all black children are illegitimate without a father or father figure present, the black middle class is a memory, about 50% of all black men have felony records, and on any given day 30% of black males are either in prison or in some form of supervised release [or awaiting trial].

The Democrats have been outraged ever since slavery ended and they have been trying to figure out how new and innovative ways to keep blacks down and keep them out of mainstream society.

In the 1910s-1930s the leading Democrat progressives were all behind eugenics and the idea of sterilizing blacks and promoting abortions for blacks.

In the 1960s the Democrats changed the immigration laws and began importing tens of millions [65-75 million to date] of largely third world peasants, peasants who began competing with blacks for entry level jobs. Mass immigration hurts the least educated and the least skilled in society because it hinders their ability to get access to entry level jobs and improve themselves.

How is Detroit doing? How is Cleveland doing? How is St. Louis doing? These are cities which have been run by Democrats for decades, they have large black populations, and despite decades of Democratic rule, things are not only not improving but are getting worse.

Democrats use blacks without delivering them any meaningful or tangible benefits such as providing an atmosphere where they can thrive and become entrepreneurs.

[Cyclops]

Sorry to see another shooting incident in the US, hopefully all our fellow US posters are safe and well.

Liberals hate blacks unless they play into the liberal "white massa savior" paradigm/game and accept that they are too weak and pathetic to advocate for themselves or take charge of their own lives and that they need the white liberal savior to take care of them. White liberals actually despise blacks; this can be seen from the policies they promote that impoverish blacks, wrecked the black middle class, destroyed the black family, and provide for the mass incarceration of blacks.

Your post is ludicrously stupid in its generalisations, and seems rambling an inaccurate for the rest. This sort of rabid stereotyping has no place in a sane and mature discussion and I believe it shows disrespect to the injured in this kind of shooting.

[Elfdude]

https://tommydavis.wordpress.com/201...orm-is-needed/

The legacy of Johnson's Great Society is the achievement of a society where now almost 80% of all black children are illegitimate without a father or father figure present, the black middle class is a memory, about 50% of all black men have felony records, and on any given day 30% of black males are either in prison or in some form of supervised release [or awaiting trial].

This assigning of blame to Johnson is hilarious and your rampant quotes of bloggers to think for you is cute but doing nothing but a disservice to you. The black middle class never existed. The criminalization of POC today is systemic racism and societal enforced poverty. Your author trips and falls on their face in the first few paragraphs when they begin to discuss societal dependence and etc. Newsflash blacks take welfare at the same rate as whites, despite being about 5x less wealthy. Blacks are spectacularly anti-welfare for how poor they are which is an irony foisted upon them by white judgements.

The Democrats have been outraged ever since slavery ended and they have been trying to figure out how new and innovative ways to keep blacks down and keep them out of mainstream society.

Which is why democrats pass wealth redistribution which primarily benefits the poor aka, the poor are mostly POC.

In the 1910s-1930s the leading Democrat progressives were all behind eugenics and the idea of sterilizing blacks and promoting abortions for blacks.

Irrelevant, democratic demographics at this time were conservatives. Urban centers were republican. That flip flopped to its current standard today beginning with FDR and ending with the civil rights movement.

In the 1960s the Democrats changed the immigration laws and began importing tens of millions [65-75 million to date] of largely third world peasants, peasants who began competing with blacks for entry level jobs. Mass immigration hurts the least educated and the least skilled in society because it hinders their ability to get access to entry level jobs and improve themselves.

you mean the act which eliminated racial discrimination as a basis for setting immigration quotas and instead replaced them with preferential treatment for educated and skilled labor? You mean the quota which was set at 170,000?



Funny history doesn't seem to agree with you.

How is Detroit doing? How is Cleveland doing? How is St. Louis doing? These are cities which have been run by Democrats for decades, they have large black populations, and despite decades of Democratic rule, things are not only not improving but are getting worse.

These are cities which depend upon manufacturing and old industry which was killed by a combination of union busting (republicans) and calling trade protectionism communism (republicans).

Democrats use blacks without delivering them any meaningful or tangible benefits such as providing an atmosphere where they can thrive and become entrepreneurs.

They're literally the only group which delivers poor americans any tangible benefits. If you make less than $200,000 and you vote republican you're an idiot.

[Roma_Victrix]

Sukiyama, you are wrong and keep missing the point of the video:



Thanks for the one serious response.

But I think you missed the point too. I posted it in response to the comments about how polarized the country is today. Some say that the decrease in religiosity has caused people to have different goals and values, and thus view each other as enemies. Back in the old days, however, people had the same moral principles and worldviews, and so they mainly argued over how to best achieve their common goals.

Not sure I buy it though. There was definitely plenty of conflict back then, even when everyone was at least a nominal Christian. But maybe it wasn't as bad as today. Today, politics is as strong an identity as religion. An interesting article:

The Lifestylization of Politics | Jonah Goldberg



Personally I view those low info but nonetheless radical and unforgiving political ideologues, as children.

I've always liked this quote. A rare sentiment in these immoral times.

That's an interesting question, actually, and it's the age-old question about the tranquility of homogeneous societies versus the friction caused by multicultural and for that matter multi-faith societies. Europe has obviously had its share of religious strife and religious-based conflicts, before and after the Protestant Reformation. The early United States was not excluded from this either, considering the friction caused by the immigration of various European Catholics into a Protestant-majority nation. In my opinion the strife has always been there, yet I think the rise of agnosticism/atheism has only added an additional layer to the mix. One should also consider the idea that the political discourse of the 18th and early 19th centuries was dominated by the gentry and a landowning class that lived in an intellectual bubble and island of reason divorced from the common man in many ways. Anyone with an Internet connection can now contribute to that conversation, including this charming individual who shot Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana.

One should certainly factor in the ways society has rapidly changed in the past few decades thanks to information and communications technology, particularly social media. I'm not saying that Facebook is the devil, but it along with Twitter and other platforms now provide a platform and a megaphone for these types of folks.

I wouldn't call him a terrorist at all. Judging from my Facebook feed he appears to be an ordinary democrat, indistinguishable from my democrat brother and his wife and my high school history and civics teacher.

Actually, that's what makes it more disturbing. It is easy to dehumanize a terrorist, but in reality they are often as driven by regular human emotion as the rest of us, aside from the obvious sociopaths who are theoretically incapable of registering empathy in the first place. Take your average ISIS terrorist, for instance, who genuinely believes that they are on the right side of history and truly in league with Allah while all others outside the caliphate are in league with the devil. Or for that matter the Nazis of the 1930s-1940s who believed that the Untermensch were deliberately and insidiously denying the superior Aryan race their rightful place in the world order. Or the communists of the 20th century who believed the bourgeois were stifling, suppressing, and crushing the working class and that there was no other alternative than to fight and destroy the bourgeois. These various totalitarian ideologies were at their root defensive reactions to the perceived slight or lethal threat of one group over another.

As for the guy who shot the congressman, he seems to have believed that the GOP was responsible for killing people. In a normal society, we should be able to argue all day, till the cows come home, about the faults or merits of fiscal conservatism and limited government versus "progressive" public programs, welfare, healthcare, etc. without resorting to violence. For whatever reason, this individual was radicalized and seemed more or less ready and willing to engage in violence and stupid tribalism based on these debates in our regular political discourse.

[Heathen Hammer]

If you paid attention the civil rights movement switched the primary demographics of the two parties with republicans becoming conservative and dems becoming liberal.

Nah, Democrats of today are same democrats that opposed civil rights 40 years ago.
FFS HRC has a "friend and mentor" who was grand dragon in KKK, she received donations from same organization for her 2016 campaign and a few decades ago she worked for a politician who wanted to reverse civil rights. In the 1990s she expressed openly racist views, calling African-American males "superpredators" and expressing the fact that she would be very upset if her daughter would date a non-white person. And she was representing the damn party in presidential elections. So much for being liberal.
So no, democrats didn't just start believing in equality and multiculturalism. They are just wealthy career politicians who realized that they can buy minority vote via welfare, nothing more.

[fkizz]

So no, democrats didn't just start believing in equality and multiculturalism. They are just wealthy career politicians who realized that they can buy minority vote via welfare, nothing more.

This may be truer than it should. Having done some quotes directly by Rosseau's Social Contract and called a reactionary for the content (without revealing author or book), this by people who claim to be very pro-Rosseau, became obvious many leftwingers don't even know what their Idols/Tolerance figures actually thought, but paint and change them according to the zeitgeist and current times.

By this point Rosseau could've written literally anything else different and the claims on his ideas would stay exactly the same as today for propaganda effects.

[dogukan]

Nah, Democrats of today are same democrats that opposed civil rights 40 years ago.
FFS HRC has a "friend and mentor" who was grand dragon in KKK, she received donations from same organization for her 2016 campaign and a few decades ago she worked for a politician who wanted to reverse civil rights. In the 1990s she expressed openly racist views, calling African-American males "superpredators" and expressing the fact that she would be very upset if her daughter would date a non-white person. And she was representing the damn party in presidential elections. So much for being liberal.
So no, democrats didn't just start believing in equality and multiculturalism. They are just wealthy career politicians who realized that they can buy minority vote via welfare, nothing more.

So you are saying that democrat politicians are like cult like evil group that serves a single unified purpose and they all hold the same beliefs BECAUSE they are democrats?

[Ziltoid]

It's good that Bernie shooter was so incompetent, and police was already present, could have gotten really ugly otherwise.

[Elfdude]

Nah, Democrats of today are same democrats that opposed civil rights 40 years ago.

Source?

FFS HRC has a "friend and mentor" who was grand dragon in KKK, she received donations from same organization for her 2016 campaign and a few decades ago she worked for a politician who wanted to reverse civil rights. In the 1990s she expressed openly racist views, calling African-American males "superpredators" and expressing the fact that she would be very upset if her daughter would date a non-white person. And she was representing the damn party in presidential elections. So much for being liberal.

Robert Byrd called the KKK the greatest mistake of his life and distanced himself from it long before he became a US senator, then again he's from west virginia so I have little doubt his association was helpful to his election.

I detest HRC but I don't see her as a racist as much as someone who tries to continuously evoke centrist politics without realizing it's a constantly moving target that just makes you appear disingenous.

Furthermore Trump's Father was an active member of the KKK his entire life.

So no, democrats didn't just start believing in equality and multiculturalism. They are just wealthy career politicians who realized that they can buy minority vote via welfare, nothing more.

They decided they could buy poor votes by helping poor people.

Ok,

While the Republicans give the richest .2% billions in tax cuts.

Hmm I wonder who I might choose.



Got to love hypocrisy of conservatives.

[the_mango55]

Nah, Democrats of today are same democrats that opposed civil rights 40 years ago.
FFS HRC has a "friend and mentor" who was grand dragon in KKK, she received donations from same organization for her 2016 campaign and a few decades ago she worked for a politician who wanted to reverse civil rights. In the 1990s she expressed openly racist views, calling African-American males "superpredators" and expressing the fact that she would be very upset if her daughter would date a non-white person. And she was representing the damn party in presidential elections. So much for being liberal.
So no, democrats didn't just start believing in equality and multiculturalism. They are just wealthy career politicians who realized that they can buy minority vote via welfare, nothing more.

There was an incredibly small subset of democrats who opposed civil rights in 1977, by that time most racists had already switched parties.

The KKK endorsed Trump in their official newsletter, former Grand Wizard David Duke says Trump's victory is a great victory for white nationalism. The only reason that members of the KKK reported their donations to Hillary is to allow intellectually dishonest arguments like the one you are making now, even though there is little evidence that this supposed donation ever even happened. Anyone who argues that the KKK supports Democrats is either intentionally lying or is profoundly ignorant of American politics.

[Infidel144]

Furthermore Trump's Father was an active member of the KKK his entire life.

Perhaps Elfdude should try to get Snopes to update their piece on this, since Snopes says:
"WHAT’S FALSE/UNDETERMINED: Fred Trump was a KKK member or supporter; Fred Trump was charged with a crime in connection with the KKK event."
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

[IronBrig4]

The problem here is you all are equating far-left violence with mainstream liberals. http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255...ntent=20170616

You have some screwballs, sure. And any violence should be condemned. This latest shooting is concerning because the shooter didn't seem particularly extreme. But it doesn't change the fact that most domestic terrorists in the US fall on the far-right side of the fence.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Source?





Robert Byrd called the KKK the greatest mistake of his life and distanced himself from it long before he became a US senator, then again he's from west virginia so I have little doubt his association was helpful to his election.

I detest HRC but I don't see her as a racist as much as someone who tries to continuously evoke centrist politics without realizing it's a constantly moving target that just makes you appear disingenous.

Furthermore Trump's Father was an active member of the KKK his entire life.



They decided they could buy poor votes by helping poor people.

Ok,

While the Republicans give the richest .2% billions in tax cuts.

Hmm I wonder who I might choose.



Got to love hypocrisy of conservatives.

Robert Byrd may have left his robe and hood behind, but throughout the 1960s and 1970s he voted against every civil rights bill that came before him in the Senate.

He was also the ONLY US Senator to vote against the confirmation of both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, to the US Supreme Court. He said his concern was that Marshall was a communist or an extreme leftist... Okay, so what was his issue with well-established conservative Clarence Thomas????


Byrd was active in the KKK from about 1940 to 1946, and recruited at least 150 of his friends/associates/neighbors into it.

He was writing letters to national KKK officials as late as 1946 discussing ideas for the future of the Klan.

[ioannis76]

The problem here is you all are equating far-left violence with mainstream liberals. http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255...ntent=20170616

You have some screwballs, sure. And any violence should be condemned. This latest shooting is concerning because the shooter didn't seem particularly extreme. But it doesn't change the fact that most domestic terrorists in the US fall on the far-right side of the fence.

Well, leftists aren't too good at fighting (or any other masculine activities at that) and would thus delegate actual fighting to others, who aren't good at fighting either, but are convinced that if they die fighting (or at least killing innocents) would go to heaven etc. Thus leftists would rather create the environment in which fighting will occur.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Well, leftists aren't too good at fighting (or any other masculine activities at that) and would thus delegate actual fighting to others, who aren't good at fighting either, but are convinced that if they die fighting (or at least killing innocents) would go to heaven etc. Thus leftists would rather create the environment in which fighting will occur.

From about 1890 with the start of the era of anarchist bombings, to the 1980s, with the end of the era of the militant black power, weathermen, revolutionary marxist bombings, the Left has historically been responsible for almost all political terrorism/violence in the USA.

The 1990s was a unique decade in that it had a large amount of right-wing terrorism such that right-wing violence comprised the majority.

Now that the Left is decisively out of power across the nation [they have only a meager minority of governorships, they are in a minority in a majority of state legislatures, they have lost the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, etc] they are once again resorting to terrorism of the sort they have historically used.