So we’re all well aware of what happened in Spain, but apparently Spain wasn’t the only European country to be “culturally enriched” lately. I would just like to offer my heartfelt condolences to *checks sheet of paper*.. ah yes, Helsinki and Berlin. Much like what happened the night before in *checks sheet again*… Barcelona, yes, these are terrible tragedies, but we must not allow them to change how we think. Diversity is our greatest strength afterall, and attacks like these must not divide us. Our diversity is what unifies us. Yes, division equals unity. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
HELSINKI/BERLIN: In two separate incidents of stabbings on Friday, two people were killed and six injured in the Finnish city of Turku, while another man was hacked to death in the western German city of Wuppertal.
The Finnish Police shot one suspect in the legs and arrested him. Security forces wrote on Twitter that police were “looking for other possible perpetrators”.
One killed in stabbing in western Germany, attacker on the run
Police confirmed that one man was stabbed to death and another injured in Wuppertal, adding that the attacker was still on the loose.
Police in Germany said they were hunting for one or more assailants, but could not immediately provide more information about the circumstances of the attack
The stabbing happened at around 1245 GMT in the city’s Elberfeld area.Both the incidents come a day after 14 people were killed in twin terror attacks in Spain.
You know, I haven’t been posting a whole lot recently, because as I mentioned, I’m somewhat burned out on everything that has been happening. I know that there were a couple of incidents in France recently for example, that I didn’t even bother writing about. The fact is, these sorts of incidents are nothing unusual anymore. They happen on a damn near weekly basis at this point, and if you add in all the other types of “enrichment”, such as acid attacks, rapes, Muslim grooming gangs etc, you’re pretty much seeing multiple events taking place all over Europe every single day. It’s impossible to discuss them all, let alone think of anything original to say about them each time.
However, these three separate attacks all followed closely on the heels of the incident in Charlottesville, when a quote, unquote, “white supremacist”, plowed his car into a crowd of “peaceful counter-protesters”, killing one in the process. I think it makes an interesting comparison to see the reaction in the mainstream media and on social media to the Charlottesville incident, and then to compare it to the reaction to the typical Islamic terror attacks, like the three most recent ones.
First of all, lets just give a little background context as to what was actually going on in Charlottesville. In the past few years in America, there has been this obsession on the far left, with tearing down monuments and symbols associated with the Confederacy, because they consider these monuments to be a glorification of slavery, and therefore consider them to be “racist” and “oppressive”.
However, there are a lot of other people who don’t consider these monuments offensive, but rather consider them a part of their heritage, and are against their removal. People like this are worried about a possible slippery slope occurring. If these monuments are offensive because of their association with slavery, then what’s to stop people from later finding other icons of American history offensive? Afterall, George Washington himself was a slave owner, so whose to say that these unhinged lunatics won’t eventually be calling for Mount Rushmore to be blown up, and for everything named after Washington, including their capital city no less, to be renamed to something “less offensive” and “more inclusive”? Indeed, as this video from Mark Dice shows, some already are making these demands.
So people who actually take pride in their history and their heritage, and who have realised from experience that these hate-filled lunatics will never be satisfied and will only keep pushing for more, had decided that enough was enough, and that they were going to protest against the planned removal of these monuments. So they organised a march to protest this and even went through the proper channels and obtained a permit. However, the city attempted to revoke this permit. This decision was appealed and a federal judge ruled that revoking the permit would be a violation of the protesters first amendment rights, thus over-ruling the decision of the city’s officials.
So many different groups of people, with many different agendas, united by their common interest in preserving the monuments, turned up to this protest. This did indeed include legitimate white supremacists, KKK, and Neo-Nazi types, but with the way American law works, there’s nothing illegal about having any particular political ideology, no matter how offensive it might be. As long as these groups protested peacefully, there was nothing that could be done to them. Many of them did turn up to the protest armed however, and detractors are citing this as “proof” that violence was their goal all along. However, I don’t believe this was the case at all.
Whenever any groups of white people turn up to protest in favour of their group interests, or attend speeches by people who campaign for them, these events are always attended by Antifa and other groups, who have the intended goal of shutting them down, usually employing extreme violence to do so. Indeed, I’ve discussed this sort of thing before, when the gay, half-Jew, black cock obsessed Milo (whose also apparently a Neo-Nazi, white supremacist), was giving a speech in Berkeley, and Antifa rioted against the event. So knowing that violent Antifa thugs were guaranteed to show up and engage in violence as they normally do, does it not make sense to arm yourselves in anticipation? The weapons weren’t brought in order to start trouble. They were brought as a defensive measure, in preparation for when Antifa did.
So sure enough, Antifa and other violent leftist groups showed up to the event as counter-protesters. Then the police, most likely under the orders of city officials themselves, made the whole situation worse. As I already mentioned, the city had attempted to revoke the protester’s permits, but was over-ruled by a federal judge. However, even though the federal judge ruled that they were allowed to protest, the police decided half way through that the march was “unlawful” and ordered the protesters to disperse. I’ve even heard it suggested that after ordering them to disperse, that the police deliberately herded the protesters right towards the counter-protesters, were they were free to take cheap shots at them with baseball bats as they walked by. Indeed, video footage seems to confirm this.
Go to roughly 51:44 to see the protesters being marched out single file by the police, past the counter-protesters, and watch as the counter-protesters start throwing things at them and hitting them with bats.
So eventually the violence gets to a point were one of the alt-right guys plows through a crowd in his car, injuring many and killing one of them. As soon as this happened, the media leapt on it and started declaring it a “terrorist attack” immediately. However, can we really be certain that this was the case? Terrorism has a very specific definition. It’s about using violence and intimidation in order to pursue an ideological objective. When a Muslim runs over a crowd of people, yelling “Allahu Akbar” while doing so, it’s obvious that his motivation is ideologically based, and therefore fits the definition of terrorism.
The problem is, we can’t be certain that this guy ran over the crowd for ideological reasons, at least not until it is properly investigated. With all the violence and chaos going on, he may simply have done so in a panic, trying to escape from it. Alternatively, maybe he did do it on purpose, but it could have been as a result of road rage, due to the anger he felt from having his car attacked by the counter-protesters. Or maybe it is a genuine terrorist attack and he did so in support of the ideology of white supremacy. The point is, we don’t know yet if it does fit the definition of terrorism, but the media doesn’t care, because they are determined to promote their narrative that “white supremacists” are the most dangerous group of terrorists of all, and in order to do that, they need to have a few examples of white supremacist terrorists.
So Trump comes out and condemns the violence and hatred on both sides, and the media goes into hysteria, because he doesn’t condemn “white supremacists” specifically. As far as the media is concerned, condemning both sides equally, when both sides were engaged in violence (and the other side were the ones who started it no less), is the same thing to them as if he had condoned the white supremacists.
So eventually he does come out and condemn white supremacists specifically, and the media still isn’t satisfied, because he didn’t do it quickly enough, or with enough enthusiasm for their liking. This of course is nothing new. Back during the election campaign, they made a big deal about white supremacists endorsing him, and his apparent “refusal to disavow them”, even though he disavowed them constantly.
So lets look at a few of the double standards we’re seeing on display here.
- Muslims constantly commit terrorist acts in white majority countries. The media tries to downplay them as being due to “mental illness” on the part of the attackers. White guy who may or may not be a white supremacist (for all we know, he’s just someone who wants to preserve the statues), runs over a crowd one time. Media instantly claims that it was an act of terrorism, before the facts are even established.
- Whenever a Muslim terrorist attack happens, the narrative is always that it’s just a tiny minority who do it, and that it doesn’t reflect Islam as a whole. The media calls for tolerance and understanding towards Muslims, and condemns anyone who speaks out as a “racist” or an “Islamophobe”. White people stand up for their own group interests, peacefully 99% of the time. The 1% of the time were violence does happen and the media condemns every single person with any belief in pursuing white interests, and tars them all with the slurs of “white supremacist” or “Neo-Nazi”, and demands action be taken against them.
- Antifa and Black Lives Matter, constantly riot and violently attack people, whose political opinions they disagree with. Media downplays them as being “peaceful protests”, and any violence is from a “small minority, which doesn’t represent the movement as a whole”. White nationalists attempt to have a genuinely peaceful protest, get attacked by Antifa, and then fight back to defend themselves from this violence. They’re all violent thugs, and every member of the movement is bad. There are no good people pursuing white interests. They’re all white supremacists, and they’re all automatically violent, just because of their beliefs, even if they don’t commit any actual acts of violence.
- Hillary/Obama/Bernie Sanders supporters, make up the ranks of Antifa and BLM, and are constantly involved in violence. The media doesn’t demand that anyone of them disavow the support of these groups. Meanwhile the media constantly demands that Trump disavows the support of “white supremacists” (ie, anyone who believes that white people have a right to pursue their own political interests), and as the video above shows, they don’t even listen to him when he does disavow their support anyway.
When you look at the reaction to what happened in Charlottesville, you would think the world itself was ending, and that this is one of the worst things to ever happen. Yet, we’ve seen months of violent riots from Antifa groups, months of violent riots from Black Lives Matter groups, and countless examples of Muslim terrorist attacks, including at least three in the past two days alone, and none of it ever generates even a fraction of the outrage that this Charlottesville incident has. This suggests that Charlottesville specifically holds special significance to the media, and the only logical explanation, is that the reason why it holds special significance, is because of the groups involved.
What people need to understand, is that none of this is an accident, nor is it a case that the media is simply too “politically correct” and cowardly, to address these issues honestly. No, this is completely deliberate and malicious in its intent. The mainstream media in the Western world, does not exist for the purpose of keeping the population informed about what is actually going on. In fact, it exists for the exact opposite purpose.
In reality, our civilisations have been infiltrated by an enemy that wants to exterminate and replace us all. In order to ensure this extermination occurs, it needs to keep us misinformed and asleep to what is actually happening. As long as we’re unaware, we can’t resist. When Muslim terrorists are constantly killing us, it runs the risk of waking us up, so they deliberately try to downplay what is happening, so that we don’t rise up and demand their removal. When white people protest in favour of our group interests, they deliberately send groups like Antifa and BLM to violently shut us down, and then use their control of the supply of information, to pretend that these Antifa and BLM types are peaceful protesters, rather than the vicious thugs that they really are. When white people come together simply to stand up for our own group interests, against the Muslims who are killing us, or the perpetually offended special snowflakes who want to strip us of our history, they create blatantly false narratives about us, claiming that we’re the violent ones, or that we’re the supremacists, simply for defending ourselves. When we elect a leader who campaigns on representing our interests, and actually tries to do what we want, they use their control of the media to constantly attack him, to destroy his reputation, and to pressure him into disavowing us, in the hopes of creating a divide between him and his base of support.
None of this is an accident. Just think about it honestly. Do you really honestly believe that they could be reporting so much wrong, just by mistake, or that it’s just a coincidence that they always just happen to condemn the right-wing white groups, and defend the non-white and the left-wing groups, no matter which side is the one who is actually in the wrong? No, it’s not a coincidence. It’s done on purpose, because the media is nothing more than a propaganda tool that is under the control of a small and hostile minority, that is at war with the ordinary citizens of their countries.
Now, if only we knew just who that enemy could be.