Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

868

The more the left threatens to riot.

The more they commit perjury in court.

The more they persecute the right.

The more they use antifa and blm to threaten jurors and judges, uncontested by the law.

The more we will point out the riots were Jewish riots.

If the occupation doesn't like its useful idiot middlemen's ethnicity or religion being named, because they're over-represented like that corrupt-as-fuck jonah-hill-lookalike scumbag--then naturally we should name his religion and ethnicity.

Yes this makes us look bad, and justifies the lefts excuse of "we did it because of 'muh nazis!'". But if I'm right, what they will resort to sooner or later, is violence.

And if the narrative is already "leftwing good vs antisemite right", we already have the middle. Because they've already called everyone nazis, including blacks (lol) and people who simply don't want socialism and totalitarianism in america.

I think what will happen is the left will double down and escalate in response to this, and officially accidentally blow open the can of worms about just who ziminski, gaige, rosenbaum, and the others leading antifa were.

For extra effect call them "White Jewish Violent Fascists".

If they want to act as a collective, 80-90% of em are liberals, while demonizing half of all america, and threatening jurors and judges--if they want to do that, then they don't get the benefit of anonymity or going unnoticed anymore.

If you want to stop perpetrators of mass crime and violence, first you have to name them.

There is no other way around it.

This post is in direct response to the crimes being committed by the Jewish DA in Kyle Rittenhouse's case. If you don't like us noticing his ethnicity or religion, then we would advise you to reign in the lawlessness of your own people and to cease immediately persecution of ours.

The more the left threatens to riot. The more they commit perjury in court. The more they persecute the right. The more they use antifa and blm to threaten jurors and judges, uncontested by the law. The more we will point out the riots were Jewish riots. If the occupation doesn't like its useful idiot middlemen's ethnicity or religion being named, because they're over-represented like that corrupt-as-fuck jonah-hill-lookalike scumbag--then naturally we should name his religion and ethnicity. Yes this makes us look bad, and justifies the lefts excuse of "we did it because of 'muh nazis!'". But if I'm right, what they will resort to sooner or later, is violence. And if the narrative is already "leftwing good vs antisemite right", we already have the middle. Because they've already called everyone nazis, including blacks (lol) and people who simply don't want socialism and totalitarianism in america. I think what will happen is the left will double down and escalate in response to this, and officially accidentally blow open the can of worms about just who ziminski, gaige, rosenbaum, and the others leading antifa were. For extra effect call them "*White* Jewish Violent Fascists". If they want to act as a collective, 80-90% of em are liberals, while demonizing half of all america, and threatening jurors and judges--if they want to do that, then they don't get the benefit of anonymity or going unnoticed anymore. If you want to stop perpetrators of mass crime and violence, first you have to *name* them. There is no other way around it. This post is in direct response to the crimes being committed by the Jewish DA in Kyle Rittenhouse's case. If you don't like us noticing his ethnicity or religion, then we would advise you to reign in the lawlessness of your own people and to cease immediately persecution of ours.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (14).
[–] • 4 pts (edited )

kike

No, don't use a slur. Yes theres value in shocking people. And yes the use of a slur may avoid the preprogrammed reaction of "anyone who uses the word 'jew' is an ebil nazi".

However, being honest, without being outright hateful, is important because the aim is to inform, not alienate. The purpose is to clarify, not vent or virtue signal.

We can only rely on people to attach their anger to the truth when the truth is in its turn expressed in an emotionally neutral tone.

Slurs are telling someone how to feel, which is part of the reason they reject them.

Non-discriminatory labeling gives people an opportunity to decide what the truth means to them in relation to everything they've seen, e.x. Jewish riots and mass media jewish journalists/activists repeated calls to violence against Americans. Namely point out jewish calls to violence and excuses they use to justify their violent crimes, suppression, censorship, hatred and demonization against, which are mainly targetted at caucasians, conservatives, christians, fathers, mothers, the pregnant, the ill, even against the families and children of conservatives and moderates in America.

Wherever possible express these sentiments entirely neutrally and then let them decide how to respond.

If they respond positively, or neutrally, continue.

If they respond with justifying all of it, or calling you a nazi or fascist or "white supremacist" just move on. They're unrecoverable and you should loudly and verbally call them a racist and antisemite. Be absolutely shameless about it and put them on their back foot. This is not even being dishonest: some of the most racist people you will ever meet are Jewish people. And the complete inability to talk about them in public without violence committed by them or the left, or invective being spewed in response to completely harmless truth (like that Epstein was Jewish, and so is the DA of Kyle Rittenhouse's case), is in fact fueling criticism and counter-formation against Judaism in American and the west. The very act of calling them out urges reform. Obviously that is not our goal, but calling them out is in its own way good for them, even if they don't realize it and can't tolerate it. Any group such as Judaism that is allowed to demonize an entire part of a nation, will inevitability destroy itself if given enough time and leeway. Therefore, even supposing we have no positive intentions toward them, it is nevertheless necessary, at minimum even from their own position that so called "antisemitism" become widely accepted or at least tolerated in the u.s without suppression.

In otherwords, the very act of suppressing criticism, or challenges, and organizations against Judaism, in the short term, makes it inevitable that suppressing it will be impossible in the long term. History bares witness to this very idea, even if you're the type to argue details about if 109 is the exact number of nations they were kicked out of (its not, its a little more complicated than that, and the number includes regions smaller than nations, e.x. cities, but I'm getting off topic).

[–] • 1 pt

This is correct. All weapons systems need a targeting mechanism and a clear understanding of how you expect to affect the target. Your explanation is excellent.

[–] • 0 pt

Holy shit did I butcher that post.