Terrorist Attack Against Muslims in New Zealand attributed to White Supremacists - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14994997
SolarCross wrote:If any of those muslims were armed I suspect just one dude could not have killed 100 people without taking even a scratch in return.


How this isn't obvious to libtards still amazes me.

Zionist Nationalist wrote:Well thats not really true
Nazis have massacred millions in Soviet union and eastern Europe
overall the amount of people they massacred in Soviet union is 10-15 million thats excluding military casualties which were mostly in combat


Thanks for entirely missing my point.

which was simply this: Islamists, Far-Right statists, and Far-Left statists are responsible for mass genocides, ancap/libertarians are not, and the magnitude of their mass violence seems to grow with the degree to which they believe in government totalitarianism (which also seems to be parallel their degree of atheism and materialism).

Indeed, those societies that most closely approximate ancap and libertarians ideals, tend to be the least bloody (based on the magnitude of life lost) and arguably even the least capable of the sort of mass violence that centralized states can accomplish (which should be obvious based on the system being advocated).

Ultimately, those groups which advocate violence against innocent people as part of their very political system (The Far Left, The Far Right, and Islam) all seem to resort to terrorism and terrorist organization when not having power. Think of ANTIFA, Neo-Nazis, and Al-Queda, their violence out of power reflects their tendency towards violence when in power.

How do libertarians and ancaps behave? Do they form terror groups and violent protest groups?

Nope.

......and no one should be surprised by this. They don't advocate for violence in their political theory and therefore don't attempt it themselves in their activism.

Igor Antunov wrote:Wait wasn't Genghis Khan basically libertarian? +60 million killed


Image

Call me crazy, but I am having a hard time processing the idea that the unprovoked conquest of all Asia was in line with the NAP. :lol:

The arguably closest social conditions to libertarianism or ancap society; were in the decentralized european middle ages, Japanese feudalism, frontier societies, etc.

Even if we concluded that the Inquisition as the greatest degree of mass violence in a society approximating libertarian and even Christian ideals; even there most historians view the total loss of life as under one million. Far below the islamic, leftist, and far-right statists.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 20 Mar 2019 16:22, edited 2 times in total.
#14994998
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Call me crazy, but I am having a hard time processing the idea that the unprovoked conquest of all Asia was in line with the NAP. :lol:


I don't know how Genghis Khan can be construed as a libertarian but actually some of his conquests were provoked.

After uniting the mongolian peoples relatively peacefully his first major conquest was that of the Khwarezmia Empire but initially he just wanted a peace and trade agreement with that empire. It was only after the Sultan of that empire treated him with hostility and contempt by torturing and humiliating mongolian envoys did he unleash the dogs of war and destroy them utterly. Maybe it wasn't a proportionate response but he didn't strike first.
#14994999
The New Zealand shooting might as well been an American shooting, judging by the reactions of the media and various politicians.

The House Judiciary Committee led by a Jewish Democrat is apparently going to have a hearing where they are going to whine and kvetch about their political opposition saying things on the internet that they hate.

The shooter seems to have done the US government a solid, because they always want an opportunity to whine and complain about people making unapproved comments online. They seem to be trying to hold white American men collectively responsible what happened in New Zealand.

House Judiciary Committee plans hearing on white nationalism

The House Judiciary Committee is planning to hold a hearing on the rise of white nationalism in the U.S. in the wake of last week’s mosque shootings in New Zealand, a source confirmed to The Hill.

The source added that a date for the hearing had not yet been set, and that a similar hearing on the subject had been floated to the Department of Justice in November. The Daily Beast was first to report the committee's plans.

The committee, which is chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler

(D-N.Y.), plans to summon FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials for questioning on agency efforts to address white nationalism, with a goal date of early April, according to the Daily Beast.

The FBI is also reportedly increasing collaboration with faith leaders on addressing domestic terror threats to houses of worship, such as the New Zealand attacks and the 2018 mass shooting at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue.

The agency is also partnering with local law enforcement to develop methods of profiling people potentially motivated to carry out such attacks, according to the Daily Beast.

A gunman who espoused white nationalist views in his published "manifesto" killed 50 worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Friday, sparking a renewed debate about radicalization on the far-right.

The shooting led to calls for President Trump, who was referenced in the manifesto and who has been criticized for anti-Muslim rhetoric, to directly condemn white nationalism.

Trump on Friday expressed skepticism about the rise of far-right extremists, saying such incidents as the New Zealand shootings involved “a small group of people.”

The alleged gunman in his manifesto praised Trump as a “symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.” Ambassador to New Zealand Scott Brown dismissed Sunday “the ramblings of somebody who’s rotten to the core and clearly is an extremist of the worst kind,” telling CNN’s Jake Tapper that he didn’t give the manifesto “any credibility.”

In 2009, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was pressured to apologize after the department issued a warning about the increased threat of "right-wing extremism," leading to what critics have called an overcorrection to how federal agencies tackle the issue.

“When 9/11 happened, the government made an effort to connect the dots beforehand, but failed because of a lack of communication among agencies,” former DHS analyst Daryl Johnson, the report’s author, wrote in The Washington Post in 2017.
#14995000
SolarCross wrote:but actually some of his conquests were provoked.


Sure, that may be true, and some of his acts may have been legitimate under the NAP.

But I think you got my point. Calling Genghis Khan a Libertarian is border-line clinical in its lunacy.

To be fair to @Igor Antunov, I think he was just trolling.
#14995001
It is not any more trolling than your own claim that libertarians are not responsible for any deaths when in fact the US ideology is in fact libertarian and the word "freedom" itself has been used to justify all the US invasions of the past 40-60 years. At best you can say that what the US has is not proper libertarian as per your own standards but you will only be engaging on semantic acrobatics equal to the communists doing the same with the soviet union.
#14995002
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Sure, that may be true, and some of his acts may have been legitimate under the NAP.

But I think you got my point. Calling Genghis Khan a Libertarian is border-line clinical in its lunacy.

To be fair to @Igor Antunov, I think he was just trolling.

Don't tread on me or Come and sip from the cup of destruction. - Genghis the Libertarian.
#14995008
noemon wrote:It is not any more trolling than you own claim that libertarians are not responsible for any deaths when in fact the US ideology is in fact libertarian and the word "freedom" itself has been used to justify all the US invasions of the past 40-60 years.


1. Libertarian and Ancap societies have not been responsible for mass genocides. This is a fact, and even if we included the Inquisition as something approximating such, it was still far less bloody than those accomplished by statist idealogies such as communists, nazis, and the caliphates.

2. The United States is in no way consistent with Anarcho-Capitalism (and never was), and if ever approximating Libertarian ideals, was only so during its first one or two decades of existence.


However, even if I were to grant your point, I still don't see the degree of "trolling" to be equal to that of claiming that Genghis Khan was an NAP following libertarian. :lol:

Indeed, I would be the first to condemn the U.S. by my own libertarian standards. I think the U.S.A is statist, imperialist, tyrannical, and often satanic.

@layman is also correct to point out the direction the U.S. took very early on towards statism.

The American model is in no way in line with the NAP and Libertarian ideals in any manner whatsoever. The only war that was arguably justifiable on the part of the U.S. (in my opinion) was the American Revolution (and even there I still have some problems).

But that is my point, centralized governments have been responsible for genocides more so than decentralized confederacies, primitive monarchies, frontier societies, or feudal societies and on a massive scale.

This isn't coincidence, its predictable given the following points:

1. Centralized regimes have the mechanisms in place to create genocides (purely on a logistical level);

and

2. Since they are centralized ideologically, they often have a vested interest in enforcing mass conformity.

How aren't we surprised that such regimes end up slaughtering millions?

They are the most capable of doing so and have the greatest interest in doing so; neither of which are consistent with libertarian ideals and not surprisingly, those groups supporting communism, fascism, and islam also tend to form violent terrorist groups when not in power and libertarians and ancaps tend not to.

Likewise, we can draw a very good parallel to the dehumanization of people in the ideology to their proclivity towards violence. Communists as explicitly atheistic and materialist and are the most violent (the genocide numbers reflect this) because they don't see any non-material value in human life, The Nazis are the next most violent (the genocide numbers reflect this), and the Islamists are the next most violent after that (also reflected in the genocide numbers, though they might be tied with the nazis if we take into account the mass genocides by Muslims of peoples in India when they first invaded there).
#14995010
Pants-of-dog wrote:“Anti-white rhetoric” is a myth. I doubt you guys could provide an example of any significant anti-white rhetoric. At most, it would be a random Twitter post from a noody.


As you know, verified accounts on Twitter aren't "nobody's."

Verified Hate - https://basicgestalt.wordpress.com/tag/verified-hate/ was a Twitter project that collected the anti-white rhetoric that you say does not exist, from people that have Twitter's stamp of approval.

The project account was banned from Twitter because you are not allowed to hold up a mirror to expose hypocrisy on social media.

Candace Owens proved this by switching the subject in one of Sarah Jeong's tweets from "white" to "Jewish" and was suspended.

Basically, the rules of Twitter and all big tech social media platforms is that are allowed to express hatred of white people on Twitter.

I've been arguing that white men are the new Palestinians because the treatment of white men seem to have a lot of parallels to Palestinians in terms of social discourse.
Last edited by maz on 20 Mar 2019 16:52, edited 1 time in total.
#14995012
@noemon

Let me qualify my above post by being clear that I AM NOT saying that Libertarian types NEVER have done acts of terror. I am sure they have, but my point is that libertarians and ancaps do not commit terror or violence, either when in power or out of power, to nearly the degree of the far-left, far-right, or islamists.

Any cursory examination of the genocide numbers or listed terrorist organizations known in the world (that have actually committed violence) would verify this fact.
#14995013
maz wrote:The New Zealand shooting might as well been an American shooting, judging by the reactions of the media and various politicians.


Victoribus Spolia wrote: I think the U.S.A is statist, imperialist, tyrannical, and often satanic.

The USA has become an Arab-massacre machine in the last few decades since 911.

Its media is all over mosque-shootings and school shootings, but the everyday massacres that its wars have caused and continue to cause in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc... are hidden from eyeballs so we won't learn the right lessons about power and violence.

The racism of Western nation's foreign policies kills thousands of times more innocent people than this one single person did. ANd our media will make sure we don't realize this by... concentrating on the character defects of one single person, rather than the systemic defects of late capitalism.
#14995014
QatzelOk wrote:The USA has become an Arab-massacre machine in the last few decades since 911.

Its media is all over mosque-shootings and school shootings, but the everyday massacres that its wars have caused and continue to cause in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc... are hidden from eyeballs so we won't learn the right lessons about power and violence.

The racism of Western nation's foreign policies kills thousands of times more innocent people than this one single person did. ANd our media will make sure we don't realize this by... concentrating on the character defects of one single person, rather than the systemic defects of late capitalism.


I would agree wholeheartedly with you that the United States's statism is by far the greatest threat to global humanity in current existence; especially given its destructive potential.
#14995018
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I would agree wholeheartedly with you that the United States's statism is by far the greatest threat to global humanity in current existence; especially given its destructive potential.

I disagree with that because the US is a vital bulwark keeping China, Russia and the Islamic world in check. A weaker US just means the others will be bigger and bolder.
#14995020
annatar1914 wrote:Quite possibly much worse, and more people in the world are indifferent to the esoteric demonism of the Nazis that they had to hide to an extent earlier in the movement's beginnings. So it's quite possible that they could still draw millions to their cause once more if the circumstances are right.


I can't really understand the appeal of these types of movements, personally. It's hardly a surprise that a lot of these activists don't seem to be very successful finding themselves a woman or making families.
#14995021
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@noemon

Let me qualify my above post by being clear that I AM NOT saying that Libertarian types NEVER have done acts of terror. I am sure they have, but my point is that libertarians and ancaps do not commit terror or violence, either when in power or out of power


If you play semantic acrobatics with your opinion of what Libertarian means because of a what you consider the NAP to represent then Noemon is correct. As the SU is not communist within your own stardards (or anyone else for that matter), it is not possible for a Communist regime to have committed terror or violence either. :roll:
#14995023
B0ycey wrote:If you play semantic acrobatics with your opinion of what Libertarian means because of a what you consider the NAP to represent then Noemon is correct. As the SU is not communist within your own stardards (or anyone else for that matter), it is not possible for a Communist regime to have committed terror or violence either. :roll:


If one subscribes to the notion of the NAP then one is at least a partial libertarian but only someone who accepts some variant of the NAP can really criticise unhypocritically the hypothetical aggressions of the US because if you reject the NAP then you have no basis for criticising the US for not always living up to that ideal.

Communists fully subscribe to the ideology that produced the USSR so it is very suspicious when they tactically disavow some aspect of it when they would reproduce it completely if they could.
#14995027
SolarCross wrote:If one subscribes to the notion of the NAP then one is at least a partial libertarian but only someone who accepts some variant of the NAP can really criticise unhypocritically the hypothetical aggressions of the US because if you reject the NAP then you have no basis for criticising the US for not always living up to that ideal.

Communists fully subscribe to the ideology that produced the USSR so it is very suspicious when they tactically disavow some aspect of it when they would reproduce it completely if they could.


Well even the SU didn't call themselves Communist as it was a Social Republic FYI. Whether there is a few delusionists on PoFo who consider the SU a Communist state doesn't mean much. It just proves they obviously don't understand what Communism is. So no, I don't buy your BS.

Although the Non Aggressive Principle is clearly nothing to do with deciding not to pay tax for the benefits of society - especially if you agree to the social contract as you live within it and haven't decided to become an outlaw instead. VS accepts payment in Dollars so obviously accepts the rules of his state in accordance to their economic system BTW. Although I do find the irony somewhat amusing when someone who is against paying tax for welfare is currently on welfare because he paid tax (the whole point of tax for welfare I suppose). Talk about standing up for your values.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 18

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]