ChaoticMusings

Fluffy wrote:

---

Barksdale wrote:

---

Fluffy wrote:

I would say that itcertainly isn't.. The left in your country will be feeling nothing but fear right now since their President meant to act in the interests of everyone  in the country has blamed ALL individuals who happen to be left  wing for the killing ONE left wing man carried out.

He's a warmonger who tries to condemn others when casualties and hostilities occur, all of his own making.

---

 It's not the "left" or the "right." It's the radicalised elements of both ends of the spectrum which is causing damage. Unfortunately one end of that radicalised political spectrum (MAGA) hold political power and we can see the devastation they are causing with our own eyes.

Clearly parts of the left are truly idiotic. People really do not like being mischaracterised so calling them Nazis and fascists is a road to nowhere. Celebrating someone's death or trying to political violence also will turn people away from you. Property damage and looting for your cause is a non-starter. 

However, the MAGA right is one of the most morally bankrupt movements who lack good character that I can remember. They reject the notion that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences and cancel culture, yet are now busily trying to get people sacked from their jobs for posting (admittedly distasteful) Tiktoks. They constantly tell people from minority communities to take accountability and reject victimhood but never want to be held accoutable for goading and provoking others or contributing to a culture where political fragmentation worsens, say that racism doesn't exist except for when it comes to white people when it does magically exist and they are the victims. They routinely gaslight people who don't agree with them (on both left and right) and say their emotional reaction is not valid or overblown, it's not that bad, can't you take a joke? 

After Charlottesville Trump seemed to know that we should consider whether it is sensible to only look at one side of the political spectrum but now wishes to target the left. He conveniently seems to have changed his mind now he is in power.

A country based on the perception of unfairness cannot stand and unfairness can radicalises people. The desire for fairness is fundamental to us as human beings. The damage that is being done in this regard by the MAGA right makes this perception much worse for America. I don't think it is irreparable but recovery will take a very long time. 

---

 I also hope those of anyone disagree's with this post in general by Avon (especially the assertion in the BIB that MAGA is morally bankrupt ) respond to it aswell posts by myself which aren't phrased as well and easier to pick holes in.

---

 MAGA may be morally bankrupt, but they remain in power because the far left looks more morally bankrupt, more hateful and quite frankly just fucking weird..

 

 

And the reaction to Kirk's assassination is just making them look worse. 

 

I will admit there are plenty of level headed people on the left begging the more vociferous of their people to tone down the glee when discussing Kirk's death.

 

It's not working..

The question that needs to be asked, like after all these events, is what radicalized this kid who had every advantage in life, and opted to throw it all away in one horrific act..

Nihilism seems to be rampant in the youth.

There's also constant dehumanizing speech. I mean if you throw the word Nazi and Fascist around indiscriminately you shouldn't be too surprised when someone kills a "Nazi". We were brought up glorifying the men that rid the world of Nazis.

"The plots and attacks categorized as terrorism this year fell across ideologies: 32 had some nexus to antisemitism; 20 targeted entities carrying out immigration enforcement; 13 targeted peaceful protests of the administration; 22 targeted the LGBTQ+ community; seven targeted Muslims; and six targeted people believed to be immigrants. Of those targeting lawmakers, 21 plots and attacks targeted Republicans, and 10 targeted Democrats."

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/14/charlie-kirk-death-us-violence


Good information from The Guardian (guess a blind hog does sometimes find an acorn).

As you can see, any attempt to characterize our problem as one sided, would be wrong..

Digger wrote:

---

Fluffy wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

Will Starmer take the knee when Charlie Kirk gets buried, showing his support for a white Christian being murdered? I doubt it.

---

 Well no ,because taking the knee was to show solidarity and support for BLK (Black Lives Matter)and Kirk was white.

White people, usually men, historically killed and enslaved people of colour whipped them, made them work for no pay, black ladies were often kept alive only to be sexually assaulted by white male land owners who employed them as slaves, nannies, cooks, cleaners, and they were often given a good slap (to put it )mildly. Why? Because people of colour were considered not just inferior to white people but to be barely people at all. They weren't permitted to drink from the same water fountain as if they were somehow contaminated. Later on, their property was burnt down and crosses set alight in their lawn by the KKK who believed in white supremacy and were furious that poc were struggling to have some semblance of a life. I know you were aware of all that Anon but  your implication of the hypocrisy of the BLM movement suggests that you don't. By taking the knee white people are attempting to apologise and atone for the tide of historical slaying , enslaving  and barbaric treatment  of  black people for  no reason at all except they had a different skin colour.

There was segregation even during the Windrush era in England even though Jamaican men and men from other countries thought fiercely aside British troops in the War. Many gave their lives for their previous "Masters" , dying in combat for the Mother country. That still wasn't enough to merit them a place next to a white person at the cinema or on a bus.

Sorry if people reading think I was too graphic but there is a reason Kirk 's  extreme right rhetoric was considered going too far. Those pleased by his demise were totally in the wrong but Kirk was not a martyr, although Trump and his administration will try to frame him as one. Some may claim his views and therefore his personality was not a particularly pleasant one. 

There is a reason people decide to take the knee, the historical mass murder and enslavement of people of colour and I think it would serve those who have every right to disagree with the movement to at least respect it.

 

---

 What about the atonement by the African and Arab slave traders who hunted them down and rounded them all up before they got shipped off to the Americas?   How about reparations from them?  How about the enslavement by muslims of half of Europe, and the Romans before that?  Where does it all end?

Don't you think that, instead of breast beating over what happened in the past, we need to look to wiping out and protesting against modern day slavery? 

---

 Not to mention the BLM protests were about police brutality. 

 

And until Europeans started stamping out the practice, slavery was a defacto practice globally..

Maddog wrote:

---

Digger wrote:

---

Fluffy wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

Will Starmer take the knee when Charlie Kirk gets buried, showing his support for a white Christian being murdered? I doubt it.

---

 Well no ,because taking the knee was to show solidarity and support for BLK (Black Lives Matter)and Kirk was white.

White people, usually men, historically killed and enslaved people of colour whipped them, made them work for no pay, black ladies were often kept alive only to be sexually assaulted by white male land owners who employed them as slaves, nannies, cooks, cleaners, and they were often given a good slap (to put it )mildly. Why? Because people of colour were considered not just inferior to white people but to be barely people at all. They weren't permitted to drink from the same water fountain as if they were somehow contaminated. Later on, their property was burnt down and crosses set alight in their lawn by the KKK who believed in white supremacy and were furious that poc were struggling to have some semblance of a life. I know you were aware of all that Anon but  your implication of the hypocrisy of the BLM movement suggests that you don't. By taking the knee white people are attempting to apologise and atone for the tide of historical slaying , enslaving  and barbaric treatment  of  black people for  no reason at all except they had a different skin colour.

There was segregation even during the Windrush era in England even though Jamaican men and men from other countries thought fiercely aside British troops in the War. Many gave their lives for their previous "Masters" , dying in combat for the Mother country. That still wasn't enough to merit them a place next to a white person at the cinema or on a bus.

Sorry if people reading think I was too graphic but there is a reason Kirk 's  extreme right rhetoric was considered going too far. Those pleased by his demise were totally in the wrong but Kirk was not a martyr, although Trump and his administration will try to frame him as one. Some may claim his views and therefore his personality was not a particularly pleasant one. 

There is a reason people decide to take the knee, the historical mass murder and enslavement of people of colour and I think it would serve those who have every right to disagree with the movement to at least respect it.

 

---

 What about the atonement by the African and Arab slave traders who hunted them down and rounded them all up before they got shipped off to the Americas?   How about reparations from them?  How about the enslavement by muslims of half of Europe, and the Romans before that?  Where does it all end?

Don't you think that, instead of breast beating over what happened in the past, we need to look to wiping out and protesting against modern day slavery? 

---

 Not to mention the BLM protests were about police brutality. 

 

And until Europeans started stamping out the practice, slavery was a defacto practice globally..

---

 Britain was key to eradicating slavery 

At the Treaty of Vienna of 9th June 1815 , the Foreign Secretary Viscount Castlereagh put pressure on allies France, Spain and Portugal, the main slave buying countries, to abolish their slave trade.

At Britain’s insistence, the treaty also included a clause condemning the slave trade, the first time a declaration of what we now know as human rights had appeared in an international treaty. Britain also petitioned the Pope for support.

After sustained campaigning in Britain, the Slavery Abolition Act came into force in 1834 and finally banned slavery throughout the Empire. In order to free some 800,000 slaves, Parliament paid a huge £20m – a third of the Treasury’s annual income at the time – in compensation to the slave owners in the Caribbean, South Africa and Canada. And in 1843 Britons were forbidden to own slaves anywhere in the world.

Spain and Portugal, though they agreed to end trafficking in slaves – had compensation paid  for by Britain.

That debt has only just been paid off this century. 

So, no. I'm not taking the bloody knee to anyone.

Fluffy wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

Will Starmer take the knee when Charlie Kirk gets buried, showing his support for a white Christian being murdered? I doubt it.

---

 Well no ,because taking the knee was to show solidarity and support for BLK (Black Lives Matter)and Kirk was white.

White people, usually men, historically killed and enslaved people of colour whipped them, made them work for no pay, black ladies were often kept alive only to be sexually assaulted by white male land owners who employed them as slaves, nannies, cooks, cleaners, and they were often given a good slap (to put it )mildly. Why? Because people of colour were considered not just inferior to white people but to be barely people at all. They weren't permitted to drink from the same water fountain as if they were somehow contaminated. Later on, their property was burnt down and crosses set alight in their lawn by the KKK who believed in white supremacy and were furious that poc were struggling to have some semblance of a life. I know you were aware of all that Anon but  your implication of the hypocrisy of the BLM movement suggests that you don't. By taking the knee white people are attempting to apologise and atone for the tide of historical slaying , enslaving  and barbaric treatment  of  black people for  no reason at all except they had a different skin colour.

There was segregation even during the Windrush era in England even though Jamaican men and men from other countries thought fiercely aside British troops in the War. Many gave their lives for their previous "Masters" , dying in combat for the Mother country. That still wasn't enough to merit them a place next to a white person at the cinema or on a bus.

Sorry if people reading think I was too graphic but there is a reason Kirk 's  extreme right rhetoric was considered going too far. Those pleased by his demise were totally in the wrong but Kirk was not a martyr, although Trump and his administration will try to frame him as one. Some may claim his views and therefore his personality was not a particularly pleasant one. 

There is a reason people decide to take the knee, the historical mass murder and enslavement of people of colour and I think it would serve those who have every right to disagree with the movement to at least respect it.

 

---

 

Educate yourself on the state of BLM. Educate yourself of the numerous complaints from the very people those hefty donations were meant to help. Educate yourself on the court cases of the thieving of funds. Educate yourself about the manicures, houses, cars and holidays those donations went on to buy.

Bend your BLM knee however often you like but don’t ever tell me to respect an organisation like that.

Ideas behind slave reparations took form and became a political tool within the Universities with a large group of Activist Professors.  Lots of activists professors that got their positions by playing the victimhood card were always thinking of justifying their positions and hence came up with this and many other things.  They taught their students and these graduates then took these ideas into wherever they may have landed career wise.

However the whole concept of the ordinary Brit (what remains) carrying the legacy burden of this is equivalent to the Nazi race ideas that individuals based on identity can never shake off the legacies of their ancestors.  In addition to that the research and ideas are essentially junk.   It is todays Progressives that are the natural heirs to the Nazis and the Fascists.

In history things are made to switch.  For example in the past it was the Democrats that supported slavery and racial segregations and the Republicans opposed it.  Nowadays it is the Democrats that claim to be the anti-racist and claim that the Republicans are the racists.  We are told that we live in a post-Truth world and certainly that seems to be the case.

DNA studies indicate that most Black Americans that can trace their ancestors to black slaves also have a proportion of European origin indicative of "interbreeding".  So these black Americans have both slave and slave owner ancestry.  

https://x.com/astutelygarish/status/1967638371515449588

If you are interested in what motivates Groypers.