Is Satan running this country? (I'm not religious, but..)

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

Looked up "Bitchute" as I hadn't heard of it.

I was pretty certain what kind of rubbish would be there but thought maybe not.....


First vid has British Soldier Grand Torino and John Waters,

2nd Vid Alex Jones

3rd Vid something about Pomegranates fighting cancer.


So yeah thats the whole lunatic holy trinity.

Someone one on here once described it as Breitbart for people who can't read. But yeah see it quoted a lot by what my American colleagues would call basement dwellers. Basically those that have to point to bs artist as evidence for their arguments.

aidoh

aidoh wrote: »

Don't know how accurate his/her graphic is but it's true to say Christians are the most persecuted religious group globally:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48146305

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/christians-the-worlds-most-persecuted-people-9630774.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/persecution-driving-christians-out-of-middle-east-report

You might want to reread my post.

looksee

Paul Lee wrote: »

You make a statement about my lack of evidence without backing it up your point. Nice irony. Could you not even make one solid point?

And you're a moderator. You can ban me if you don't like my opinion or any facts I state. Nice position to have. I might be afraid to challenge you. But nah. I don't care. Really.

I've already moved from YouTube to Bitchute and Twitter could cut me off tomorrow and I woudn't lose any sleep. My social media accounts are only valuable to me if the platforms themselves are valuable. When censorship becomes the norm, then the platforms themselves lose their value in direct proportion. Generally, being banned means that the platform has decided to devalue itself long term. Censorship will eventually kill any social media platform that it touches.

Do pay attention. I may be a mod in a couple of fora but here I am just another poster. So your brave words are wasted I'm afraid.

cannotlogin

I read the title too quick and thought you were asking if Santa runs the country. Not sure it makes much of a difference, both fond of red and I believe in both equally!

There might given me some bits in your post I might agree with but you lost me in the delivery. You sound stressed.

normanoffside

osarusan wrote: »

Home page of bitchute as of 2 minutes ago.

F**k me.

Keith woods has lost a lot of weight.

normanoffside

osarusan wrote: »

Home page of bitchute as of 2 minutes ago.

F**k me.

First comment under that video :eek:

wrote:

Great video, Ireland has been infiltrated by Communist Jews. Our leader is a homosexual degenerate communist puppet. Who does the bidding of the Zionist EU and Jews. Ireland is being invaded by Muslim and Africans, they are trying to exterminate the White native Irish population. This is all of course the plan of the Jews and Freemasons. But there is hope patriots, let us raise our voices. Let us stand united and firm in our resolve. Erin Go Braugh my brothers. ERIN GO BRAUGH

pjohnson

normanoffside wrote: »

First comment under that video :eek:

Theres pattriot chief GemGem

Paul Lee

looksee wrote: »

Do pay attention. I may be a mod in a couple of fora but here I am just another poster. So your brave words are wasted I'm afraid.

OK that's good.

Paul Lee

Then of course there's Jeffrey Epstein.

Who here thinks he killed himself while all cameras broke down and 2 prison guards fell asleep?

realitykeeper

seamus wrote: »

Fun fact:

The concept of Hell as a place where demons shove pitchforks up your hole, does not exist in the bible (or any of the chritsian texts).

In the broadest sense, "Hell" is the state of not being at one with God. This may be interpreted as being "alive" in the other realm, but not being with God, but it can also have many other possible meanings - such as simply remaining dead while believers are resurrected to everlasting life.

Nothing mentions, eternal, active torture at the hands of Satan. This imagery of fire, brimstone and physical torture, all became very popular and widespread with priests around the same time as Christianity started allowing people to buy absolution with money or labour. Funny coincidence that.

Ah but you forget the parable of the rich man and lazarus.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=NIV

Professor Moriarty

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ah but you forget the parable of the rich man and lazarus.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=NIV

This chap Abraham seems like an unmitigated sh1t of the highest order.

mariaalice

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ah but you forget the parable of the rich man and lazarus.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=NIV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl3xFnoDZ_I

marieholmfan

John the baptist said that God will gather in his wheat and burn the chaff in a fire that will never go out.


That's a metaphor.

seamus wrote: »

Fun fact:

The concept of Hell as a place where demons shove pitchforks up your hole, does not exist in the bible (or any of the chritsian texts).

In the broadest sense, "Hell" is the state of not being at one with God. This may be interpreted as being "alive" in the other realm, but not being with God, but it can also have many other possible meanings - such as simply remaining dead while believers are resurrected to everlasting life.

Nothing mentions, eternal, active torture at the hands of Satan. This imagery of fire, brimstone and physical torture, all became very popular and widespread with priests around the same time as Christianity started allowing people to buy absolution with money or labour. Funny coincidence that.

Snow Garden

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Satan is the God of this world however he and the majority of the people on this Earth will suffer in a blowtorch of heat and flame for eternity for their wickedness during their lifetime.

I am pretty sure you don't believe a word of this nonsense. You just want to be a keyboard martyr. Stop wasting your life.

nthclare

Hopefully this thread won't descend into an existence of God debate.
That's been trashed out on boards id say since boards began.

There's a difference between a metaphor and facts...

dvdman1

The OP is a good person and i agree 100% on the points in his statement, a lot of people feel exactly the same.

There is no outlet for us to air our views but lots of people are on your side.

The religious nutz have made people of good ethics and morals look like there flying there flag but were not.

Its a sick state of affairs Ireland

storker

Our leader is a homosexual degenerate communist puppet.

You'd wonder how he finds the time...

ohnonotgmail

dvdman1 wrote: »

The OP is a good person and i agree 100% on the points in his statement, a lot of people feel exactly the same.

There is no outlet for us to air our views but lots of people are on your side.

The religious nutz have made people of good ethics and morals look like there flying there flag but were not.

Its a sick state of affairs Ireland

Ireland is a much better place to live for many people than it was when i was a child.

Snow Garden

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Ireland is a much better place to live for many people than it was when i was a child.

Correct and I have huge faith in our young generation to make it even better. They get a lot of criticism but I think they are superb. Brave and honest with far less 'baggage'.

marieholmfan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Ireland is a much better place to live for many people than it was when i was a child.

100% ! Anyway Ireland is being freed from Satan's clutches. remember that the devil's signature is in St Peter's in Rome.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

marieholmfan wrote: »

100% ! Anyway Ireland is being freed from Satan's clutches. remember that the devil's signature is in St Peter's in Rome.

I'd argue Dail Eireann, the Whitehouse, Westminster and so on.

"Only when the last politican is hanged using the entrails of the last priest will mankind truly be free"

nozzferrahhtoo

Paul Lee wrote: »

Abortion on demand is OK

And so it should be. We had thread after thread after thread on the topic and the anti-choice crowd failed utterly to indict it morally or ethically. The "best" we got was one user screeching over and over that the fetus can move it's tongue and another user saying that... wait for it.... allowing abortion is a method to oppress poor women into staying poor.

See I do not break the world up into american style discourse of "left/right" "liberal/conservative". I break it up into subjects to be discussed and explored on THEIR OWN merits or demerits. And if someone can not morally or ethically indict something like abortion then I fall back on one of my few axioms in life. "Innocent until proven guilty".

In the US this left/write divide has been a mess and I do not know why we need to import it here into either our speech or our policies. The american left, the vocal part anyway as I do not see them as representative of the whole, is self-immolating in an awful way and I have never seen any group go after it's own so readily, and so viciously, as they have tended to.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Teaching children about masturbation is OK

There is nothing in and of itself wrong with teaching children about sex, sexuality, or masturbation. Whether it is wrong or right ENTIRELY depends on what we are teaching them, how we are teaching it to them, and what the goal of teaching it actually is. Without full detailed analysis of those three headings, I would not even begin to comment on whether it is right or wrong or "OK".

Paul Lee wrote: »

People are being imprisoned for non payment of VAT while pedophiles get off free.

I assume by paedophiles that you mean something like child rapists, pederasts, or child abusers? Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with merely BEING a paedophile. And certainly no basis for them being imprisoned. But yes I would, like you it seems, prioritise justice against, and rehabilitation for, such criminals over tax defaulters.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Lying is acceptable (if you're of the "liberal" persuasion.)

That does not map onto my experience really. But again there is that "liberal" american speak that has infected our discourse here in Ireland. I do not see it as a useful label or distinction most of the time. Actually one of the bloggers who is probably the most "Liberal" identifying of all the bloggers I read or listen to.... Sam Harris..... wrote a (free to download I think) short book against Lying in almost all it's forms. He thinks it is never, or almost never, the right thing to do morally. Even in several thought experiments where most people say they would lie and it would be the right thing to do. Maybe read it, it's quite short.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Thinking there are only two genders is some kind of crazy idea.

Again whether the idea is sound or not entirely depends on what you mean by it. The word "gender" means too many different things to too many different people. And to confuse things more people often flip between "sex" and "gender" as if they are 1:1 synonyms.

It can mean something as granular as the XY chromosome.... or it can mean the entire genome with all the other sex related genes across other base pairs too.... or it can mean the entire expression of the genotype or phenotype.... or it can mean the social constructs of gender we operate under as a society. And so on. Whatever about all of these things.... certainly in some of them still thinking there is only two genders would be pretty "crazy". Though I am not sure "crazy" is a useful word here. I would replace it with "not really operating on a sound basis of fact". Here is a quick enough summary of a few related concepts for example.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Ireland is going to hell in a handbasket and very few seem to care.

I fear "do not care" in many cases actually means "Do not agree with Paul Lee". Because when we look at the recent referendums on Gay Marriage and Abortion.... voter turn out..... how so many people campaigned on it..... it is clear to me that a lot of people do care. Deeply.

The problem seems to be that they did not campaign or fight for what YOU believe or agree with. But them not aligning with you in no way suggests they do not care. They care deeply. They just think YOUR positions on such matters are unsubstantiated tosh.

Paul Lee wrote: »

You disagree. Thats fine. So why do we need hate speech laws?

Here I would be slow to disagree with you. I find myself very rarely agreeing with laws and controls on speech. Not never of course. Just rarely. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry did a pretty good talk, nearly all of which I agreed with, on the limits of free speech.

Certainly if we are living in a world where, to cite a recent enough example, a person can not even use the word n*gg*r in the context of speaking about why we should not ever be using the word n*gg*r..... because he will be head hunted by the very people who's argument on the topic he was making and supporting.... then something has gone very very wrong.

I am for a world where, with limits like incitement to violence and other crimes, there should be pretty much no limit on what people say. If someone wants to deny the holocaust or claim they believe black people are inferior to whites or that all Jewish people are evil..... I want to hear them say it. I want them to be able to say it. And I want them to pay the proper price of credibility for having said it. I am a "better the devil you know" kind of person. I want to know who these people are and what they think, rather than having them operate in the dark pretending to be other than they are.

Paul Lee wrote: »

I'm not a believer but I'd call myself a secular Christian. I do have a desire to believe in God even if I can't quite buy in. If we cant look to the transcendent then we're genuinely screwed.

As people better than I have said it is important to separate the numinous from the divine too however. I can believe in the transcendent without believing in unsubstantiated nonsense like the existence of gods. We can "look to the transcendent" without entertaining thoughts of, let alone share your yearnings for, a divine dictatorship or imaginary friends in the sky. I do not think we "need god" at all, real or allegory. And despite your assertion to the contrary, you are not offering reasons why we might either.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Why does just about every culture on the planet believe in a God? It turns out to be Darwinian selection. Down through history- don't follow God, then you don't get to pass on your genes.

You are kind of right and kind of wrong here I would suspect, if you want to appear to evolution by selection. I do not think you are at all right that non belief in god prevented you from passing on your genes.

Rather you could ask an analogous question. Why does just about every culture on the planet have the common cold? It is not because failing to catch the common cold prevented you from passing on your genes. It IS because the things that DO let you pass on your genes also happen to be things that the common cold has itself evolved to commandeer and bend to it's own means.

Similarly I suspect religious thinking not to itself be something that conferred a selection advantage but is itself a form of memetic virus that itself has evolved to take advantage of other beneficial human traits in order to perpetuate itself.

Paul Lee wrote: »

I'd say your inability to comprehend what I just said is much more of an impediment to your future potential parenthood. I'd focus on that.

In your OP you suggested you learned a lot from being banned from another thread. I would suspect that responding at THIS level of adhominem and personal invective, along with a few other examples from this thread to other users on the thread, would be suggestive of the exact contrary. That you have not learned from your ban at all and actual want to get pseudo-martyred by getting banned again so you can enact a real world version of the Monty Python "Help Im being oppressed" scene. I'd focus on that.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Ah yes, the classic "spend hours defining stuff for me." lark. Lefties do that all the time. No thanks. I'll leave it to you to interpret/ misinterpret any way you wish.

Again you are taking something that is common in MANY people and just pretending "the left" suffer from it. You were wrong to do this above with "Lying" and you are just as wrong to do it here.

You should pop over to the current active thread on the Atheism forum. There is one person and one person only there playing the "lets define words for hours because I have no actual argument to make otherwise" card and I doubt you will be identifying HIM as "leftist". He is as religious and conservative as they come.

Defining terms is a cross species rhetorical tool, not a "left" one. Sometimes it is a useful tool. Sometimes it is a deflationary tactic. But the same can be said of just about any rhetorical tool too.

Paul Lee

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And so it should be. We had thread after thread after thread on the topic and the anti-choice crowd failed utterly to indict it morally or ethically. The "best" we got was one user screeching over and over that the fetus can move it's tongue and another user saying that... wait for it.... allowing abortion is a method to oppress poor women into staying poor.

See I do not break the world up into american style discourse of "left/right" "liberal/conservative". I break it up into subjects to be discussed and explored on THEIR OWN merits or demerits. And if someone can not morally or ethically indict something like abortion then I fall back on one of my few axioms in life. "Innocent until proven guilty".

In the US this left/write divide has been a mess and I do not know why we need to import it here into either our speech or our policies. The american left, the vocal part anyway as I do not see them as representative of the whole, is self-immolating in an awful way and I have never seen any group go after it's own so readily, and so viciously, as they have tended to.



There is nothing in and of itself wrong with teaching children about sex, sexuality, or masturbation. Whether it is wrong or right ENTIRELY depends on what we are teaching them, how we are teaching it to them, and what the goal of teaching it actually is. Without full detailed analysis of those three headings, I would not even begin to comment on whether it is right or wrong or "OK".



I assume by paedophiles that you mean something like child rapists, pederasts, or child abusers? Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with merely BEING a paedophile. And certainly no basis for them being imprisoned. But yes I would, like you it seems, prioritise justice against, and rehabilitation for, such criminals over tax defaulters.



That does not map onto my experience really. But again there is that "liberal" american speak that has infected our discourse here in Ireland. I do not see it as a useful label or distinction most of the time. Actually one of the bloggers who is probably the most "Liberal" identifying of all the bloggers I read or listen to.... Sam Harris..... wrote a (free to download I think) short book against Lying in almost all it's forms. He thinks it is never, or almost never, the right thing to do morally. Even in several thought experiments where most people say they would lie and it would be the right thing to do. Maybe read it, it's quite short.



Again whether the idea is sound or not entirely depends on what you mean by it. The word "gender" means too many different things to too many different people. And to confuse things more people often flip between "sex" and "gender" as if they are 1:1 synonyms.

It can mean something as granular as the XY chromosome.... or it can mean the entire genome with all the other sex related genes across other base pairs too.... or it can mean the entire expression of the genotype or phenotype.... or it can mean the social constructs of gender we operate under as a society. And so on. Whatever about all of these things.... certainly in some of them still thinking there is only two genders would be pretty "crazy". Though I am not sure "crazy" is a useful word here. I would replace it with "not really operating on a sound basis of fact". Here is a quick enough summary of a few related concepts for example.



I fear "do not care" in many cases actually means "Do not agree with Paul Lee". Because when we look at the recent referendums on Gay Marriage and Abortion.... voter turn out..... how so many people campaigned on it..... it is clear to me that a lot of people do care. Deeply.

The problem seems to be that they did not campaign or fight for what YOU believe or agree with. But them not aligning with you in no way suggests they do not care. They care deeply. They just think YOUR positions on such matters are unsubstantiated tosh.



Here I would be slow to disagree with you. I find myself very rarely agreeing with laws and controls on speech. Not never of course. Just rarely. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry did a pretty good talk, nearly all of which I agreed with, on the limits of free speech.

Certainly if we are living in a world where, to cite a recent enough example, a person can not even use the word n*gg*r in the context of speaking about why we should not ever be using the word n*gg*r..... because he will be head hunted by the very people who's argument on the topic he was making and supporting.... then something has gone very very wrong.

I am for a world where, with limits like incitement to violence and other crimes, there should be pretty much no limit on what people say. If someone wants to deny the holocaust or claim they believe black people are inferior to whites or that all Jewish people are evil..... I want to hear them say it. I want them to be able to say it. And I want them to pay the proper price of credibility for having said it. I am a "better the devil you know" kind of person. I want to know who these people are and what they think, rather than having them operate in the dark pretending to be other than they are.



As people better than I have said it is important to separate the numinous from the divine too however. I can believe in the transcendent without believing in unsubstantiated nonsense like the existence of gods. We can "look to the transcendent" without entertaining thoughts of, let alone share your yearnings for, a divine dictatorship or imaginary friends in the sky. I do not think we "need god" at all, real or allegory. And despite your assertion to the contrary, you are not offering reasons why we might either.



You are kind of right and kind of wrong here I would suspect, if you want to appear to evolution by selection. I do not think you are at all right that non belief in god prevented you from passing on your genes.

Rather you could ask an analogous question. Why does just about every culture on the planet have the common cold? It is not because failing to catch the common cold prevented you from passing on your genes. It IS because the things that DO let you pass on your genes also happen to be things that the common cold has itself evolved to commandeer and bend to it's own means.

Similarly I suspect religious thinking not to itself be something that conferred a selection advantage but is itself a form of memetic virus that itself has evolved to take advantage of other beneficial human traits in order to perpetuate itself.



In your OP you suggested you learned a lot from being banned from another thread. I would suspect that responding at THIS level of adhominem and personal invective, along with a few other examples from this thread to other users on the thread, would be suggestive of the exact contrary. That you have not learned from your ban at all and actual want to get pseudo-martyred by getting banned again so you can enact a real world version of the Monty Python "Help Im being oppressed" scene. I'd focus on that.



Again you are taking something that is common in MANY people and just pretending "the left" suffer from it. You were wrong to do this above with "Lying" and you are just as wrong to do it here.

You should pop over to the current active thread on the Atheism forum. There is one person and one person only there playing the "lets define words for hours because I have no actual argument to make otherwise" card and I doubt you will be identifying HIM as "leftist". He is as religious and conservative as they come.

Defining terms is a cross species rhetorical tool, not a "left" one. Sometimes it is a useful tool. Sometimes it is a deflationary tactic. But the same can be said of just about any rhetorical tool too.

Fair play to you for an intelligent and detailed response. Each response would almost need it's own thread and unfortunately no-one has the time for that.

I'll take task with just a couple of things: One is this idea that everyone needs to agree with "Paul Lee".

Plain wrong.

All I insist on is that people don't lie or be inconsistent in their arguments. If someone can point me to a better opinion or better information than mine then I really want to hear and understand it.

This old concept of "truth" is what I'm interested in. I know that's a deep rabbit hole and we don't have the time or place for that. But to talk about truth we need logic as a framework.

I once had a brief conversation about "logic" with someone in a real discussion who quipped "Oh you mean your logic" to which I responded "No, just logic." Then we started to debate but got interrupted...

Anyway...

If we can't agree that there's only one logic that exists independently of either protagonist then there's no fruitful discussion to be had. We might as well make incoherent noises instead of words.


Next..

"I'd say your inability to comprehend what I just said is much more of an impediment to your future potential parenthood. I'd focus on that."

Saying that the above is "out of bounds" gives me the impression that you have a lot lower expectations for dialogue in this forum than I have. If that's an unacceptable attack then I really have no problem with being banned because that means this forum would be a waste of my time. The lessons I have learned are about the culture on this forum- how sensitive people are, and how seriously they take comments. The tendency to go running to Daddy for assistance when feeling hurt. An inability to take it on the chin. Also some raw technical facts about how the moderators and DMs work on this forum. Other than that, no I haven't learned a whole lot.

The above line was well written, true, and actually I'm rather proud of it. You may have noted it also contained humor (you know.. humor/ sarcasm? Anyone.. Bueller?... Anyone?)

Your points about being a pedophile- If someone told me they were a pedophile I would then discuss with them how we were going to make sure that they never ever got near a child. The discussion would include amongst other things, being incarcerated for life- Tough for the pedophile but not doing it is tougher on the victim- An innocent child. There's no argument in that toss-up. If you have children yourself then the issue raises to a whole new level where liberty for the pedophile stops being of much concern at all. That's just reality.

Gender-

We can talk to infinity about gender. Until recently there were two, but like deep space explorers we found life on Mars. I know things are more complicated for a tiny tiny miniscule genuine minority of people.

I knew someone who was intersex. I only discovered that she (she was a girl, or that's how she identified.) was intersex when I read about her death in the newspaper. I didn't even know what the word meant at the time. She was a lovely intelligent creative person and it was very sad to hear about her passing.

For the sake of humanity we have to deal with some "norms" Nature does not care about feelings- She is very cruel that way. As far as nature is concerned, with some very minor exceptions there are two genders. That's it.

Most of the gender fluid phenomena are purely psychological- Known by professional psychologists as "body dismorphia" and as I've heard from someone dealing with psych cases, it has replaced the previously popular psychological phenomenon- anorexia- which has now fallen out of fashion.

Again, I acknowledge your desire to discuss. I'm not interested in getting anyone to agree with me. That's their decision.

Paul Lee

Snow Garden wrote: »

Correct and I have huge faith in our young generation to make it even better. They get a lot of criticism but I think they are superb. Brave and honest with far less 'baggage'.

That's a lot of fine praise. What incredible odds have the young generation overcome to make them such fine accomplished people? Without sacrifice there is no human development. That's just physics.

Please keep in mind I'm not just trying to be mean here. I'm just asking some hard questions in the hope of learning something valuable.

Paul Lee

storker wrote: »

You'd wonder how he finds the time...

He doesn't need to. He's an absolute g******e which takes no effort at all. He doesn't give a sh1t about you or me, but neither do 99% of the Dáil.

Paul Lee

dvdman1 wrote: »

The OP is a good person and i agree 100% on the points in his statement, a lot of people feel exactly the same.

There is no outlet for us to air our views but lots of people are on your side.

The religious nutz have made people of good ethics and morals look like there flying there flag but were not.

Its a sick state of affairs Ireland

Thanks for the support. It's truth I'm interested in. OK,I have to admit I love pissing off liberals because of their general arrogance which is often really funny. But I must earn my ability to do so by (hopefully) being entertaining.

rossie1977

normanoffside wrote: »

First comment under that video :eek:

First time hearing about that site but it does seem quite a few here are frequent watchers.

This kind of rhetoric is why we are seeing a huge increase in far right terrorism in Western society. This is basically call to arms..

Great video, Ireland has been infiltrated by Communist Jews. Our leader is a homosexual degenerate communist puppet. Who does the bidding of the Zionist EU and Jews. Ireland is being invaded by Muslim and Africans, they are trying to exterminate the White native Irish population. This is all of course the plan of the Jews and Freemasons. But there is hope patriots, let us raise our voices. Let us stand united and firm in our resolve. Erin Go Braugh my brothers. ERIN GO BRAUGH

If I just change a few words ie muslims to Christians and Erin go braugh to Allahu Akbar it becomes an Islamic terrorism call

Paul Lee

rossie1977 wrote: »

First time hearing about that site but it does seem quite a few here are frequent watchers.

This kind of rhetoric is why we are seeing a huge increase in far right terrorism in Western society. This is basically call to arms..


If I just change a few words ie muslims to Christians and Erin go braugh to Allahu Akbar it becomes an Islamic terrorism call

Yes the EU/ NATO bombing of Libya, Iraq Afghanistan and Syria would certainly be classed as acts of far-right terrorism and they are being conducted by governments (that the majority of the Western populace support by way of voting for the mainstream political parties- which makes the majority of the Western electorate effectively pro-terrorist.))

People are shouting "terrorist!" while supporting terrorism against innocent foreigners whilst simultaneously waging war against our own poor in our own countries.

People are shouting "far right!" while being far right.
People are shouting "racist!" while being racist.
etc.

Pretty sick stuff.

Treppen

I always thought Charlie Haughey had a whiff of sulphur from him. And that smile too, like he just caught you doing something perfect for his blackmail plot.

Paul Lee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd argue Dail Eireann, the Whitehouse, Westminster and so on.

"Only when the last politican is hanged using the entrails of the last priest will mankind truly be free"

I agree. F*ck Satan whether he's in a priests garb, in the Bundestag, the Dáil, or running some fuzzy themed charity like "hope not hate" the fascist George Soros funded organisation which does the exact opposite of what it says.