And, as we all know, Europe had an advanced peaceful culture. Hadn't had a war in centuries....
Liberalism is Dead and Evangelicals Don't Deserve It Anyway
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
- Status
And, as we all know, Europe had an advanced peaceful culture. Hadn't had a war in centuries....
gcthomas
New member
Don't be silly. All I was saying is that your idea that the first group to spend thousands of years on a territory should give up their land to invaders who knew they were stealing territory.
Right Divider
Body part
That was NOT my "idea". Where did you get that idea?
kmoney said:If you don't also see criticism of our economic system then you're missing it. The economic system is criticized. Guess which party fights against those changes. Guess which party is driven mostly by white people like Trump.lain:
Have you been watching Bill Maher (JEW!), Kmo?
Or do you honestly think that Chuck Schumer (JEW!) - who, as a side note, is, yes, apparently related to Amy Schumer (JEW!), agrees in any substantial way with Bernie Sanders' (JEW!) economic policy proposals? You think that Dianne Feinstein (JEW!) is on the side of the economic progressives? Do you honestly think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (JEW!) is in favor of a progressive economic agenda?
Do you honestly think that the DNC, who are beholden the economic donor class (especially the Jew infested Wall Street!) rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton (who gave paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, a JEWISH bank!) because they are on our side?
Do you honestly think that people like George Soros (JEW!) donate tons of cash to political causes because they want the kinds of changes that Bernie Sanders has been proposing?
Do you honestly think that the mainstream media ( ...
) all but ignored Bernie Sanders during the primaries and actively worked to promote Hillary Clinton because they are in favor......But I think you get my point.
I think we know whose interests the democratic party serves, and it's not ours.
Of course, the Republican party also doesn't serve our interests.
At the very least, however, it is noteworthy that Trump, about half the time, ran on an economically populist agenda. Trade tariffs, withdrawing from the various outsourcing deals (e.g., NAFTA), rebuilding our infrastructure, reinstating Glass-Steagall, universal healthcare coverage, allowing medicare to negotiate drug costs, etc. are all populist measures.
He's apparently not following up on those campaign promises.
But then, at least Donald Trump had the good sense to pay these things lip service.
Hillary Clinton and the DNC? Not so much.
You essentially told me that white people are on a pedestal and they deserve to be knocked off of that pedestal.
Do you wish to retract that sentiment?
I fail to see how this is relevant. It doesn't matter who started it or why. The simple fact remains that it exists and it's a problem.
This strikes me as such a stereotypically childish and stupid thing to say: "BUT HE STARTED IT!"
Either discrimination is permissible in principle or not.
If discrimination is permissible in principle, then you will be hard pressed to provide an actual argument against me when I tell you that the US constitution should be amended to say that only white (non-Jewish) people can be citizens and that every non citizen should be deported.
If discrimination is NOT permissible in principle, then "but it's designed to fight the effects of discrimination" is not an argument in favor of affirmative action.
Which horn of the dilemma do you want, Kmo?
A few thoughts on this:
1. Nothing that I've proposed is actually drastic. If anything, the economic status quo in the United States is drastic and extreme. The economic system of the United States is a draconian system which is set up to benefit and protect the J...elites and is rigged against everyone else. The United States is the only first world modern nation which does not have some version or other of single payer healthcare coverage. Many first world modern nations already have tuition free college. In fact, in Denmark, not only do students not pay for college: they get a stipend!
And while it is true that no nation has a universal minimum income, it is most certainly not a drastic or radical leftist proposal. Hayek was no progressive, and yet, he was in favor of both a universal minimum income and universal healthcare coverage.
2. I don't care about black people per se. It is certainly true that the kinds of economic reforms I am proposing would disproportionately benefit certain minority communities (e.g., black and latino communities), but that's only because those communities disproportionately tend to be poor.
Actually, if you actually cared about black people, then you should be all in favor of a UBI. If the UBI were high enough, that would serve to help break up the ghettos.
Again, ending the war on drugs and getting rid of private prisons would disproportionately help black people, but that's not why I am in favor of it.
In fact, and I'll go a step further: thinking that policies should be enacted specifically to help or harm people based on race alone (as though poor white people are somehow less deserving of aid than poor black people) is itself racist!
3. It's not an either/or thing.
Even if we didn't have a racialized multi-racial society, we would still have significant class problems which would require economic reforms to fix.
The only thing that having a racialized multi-racial society changes is that it just so happens that race often stands as a proxy for socio-economic status. It just so happens that black people and latinos are disproportionately poor.
But even if the US were inhabited solely by white people, we would still be experiencing the same kinds of problems. The only thing that would change is that white people would be living in over-policed ghettos and getting thrown in jail (likely to fill a quota) because they had a little marijuana on them.
And even if we had economic justice, a racialized multiracial society would still be a problem.
4. You understand that even if every single "alt right" person left the United States, that wouldn't solve anything, right?
The alt-right are a reaction to the rampant anti-white racism and are essentially the "right wing" "pro-white" counterpart to the various left-wing racial identitarian movements.
And really, you have no reasonable grounds to reject the alt-right, given your lack of outrage against the rampant anti-white racism of our time. Either racial identitarian movements are fine, or they are not fine. If they are fine, then the alt right is fine. If they are not fine, then BLM is not fine.
To be unconditionally in favor of one, but not the other, is only to reveal yourself as a racist.
Last edited:
ClimateSanity
New member
Did they call it stealing territory? I don't believe they saw the people living on American soil as a nation like Prussia and Spain and England were nations.
ClimateSanity
New member
The various tribes living on American soil were not recognized as legitimate nations. The nation state was a relatively new idea. Sumer was the first civilization. Before that , various tribes roamed from land to land. The tribes living in the western hemisphere were still living according to that pattern .
I think "more than a 1/500th influence" is a gross understatement.
That doesn't strike you as a racist sentiment?
"The problem isn't the Jews. The problem is literally the entire rest of humanity. The Jews are somehow uniquely better than everyone else?"
I have a couple points to make:
1. Yes, to some extent, most people, if not everyone, has some kind of in-group preference, even if the group in question is one's family, friends, etc.
That, however, is not, I think, the kind of in-group preference that Jews broadly have. Jews don't just have an in-group preference for their Jewish family members. They have an in-group preference for Jews, broadly speaking.
2. You think it would be better people if more people were like the Rothschilds, or the CEOs of Goldman Sachs? If more people were like George Soros or Jared Kushner or Steve Mnuchin?
No.
I think that the world would be a far better place if people were far LESS "Jew-ish," and not only that, but I think that the reduction of Jewry should be legally enshrined:
1. In order to drive out the money changing Jews, I propose the nationalization of all big banks.
2. In order to eradicate the influence of the Jews over our democratic process, I propose campaign finance reform, harsher anti-bribery laws, and publicly financed election campaigns.
3. In order to break the Jewish stranglehold over the world economy, I propose trade tariffs and much harsher restrictions on international trade and finance. Likewise, all outsourcing deals (like NAFTA) must be abolished.
4. In order to break the Jewish control of the media, I propose that the news media, internet service providers, and the various popular social media websites be regulated as public utilities.
5. In order to force the Jews to play fair in our economy, I propose the vigorous enforcement and REINFORCEMENT of anti-nepotism and anti-trust legislation.
6. In order to prevent the Jews from hoarding their gold, I propose the slashing of tax loopholes for corporations and the top earners, as well as a significant increase of the top marginal tax rates, as well as a significant increase to the capital gains tax. Furthermore, the exemption for the estate tax should be lowered, and, again, any loopholes should largely be removed. Furthermore, laws should be passed preventing people from "hiding" their money in off-shore tax havens.
7. In order to free the US from Jewish influence internationally, I propose that the US treat Israel no differently from any other nation, end all subsidies to Israel and, with the UN, hold them accountable to international law.
8. In order to expel the Jews, once and for all, from influencing our healthcare system, and this goes without saying, I not only propose medicare for all, but also that medicare be allowed to negotiate drug prices. Likewise, I propose an end to the war on drugs.
9. In order to prevent the Jewish exploitation of the average worker, and, once again, this goes without saying, I propose either a UBI, or else, that the minimum wage be raised to a living wage and tied to inflation.
HAIL VICTORY!
Last edited:
marhig
Well-known member
Can I ask why do you have a swastika as your profile picture? ThanksHave you been watching Bill Maher (JEW!), Kmo? [emoji14]
Or do you honestly think that Chuck Schumer (JEW!) - who, as a side note, is, yes, apparently related to Amy Schumer (JEW!), agrees in any substantial way with Bernie Sanders' (JEW!) economic policy proposals? You think that Dianne Feinstein (JEW!) is on the side of the economic progressives? Do you honestly think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (JEW!) is in favor of a progressive economic agenda?
Do you honestly think that the DNC, who are beholden the economic donor class (especially the Jew infested Wall Street!) rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton (who gave paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, a JEWISH bank!) because they are on our side?
Do you honestly think that people like George Soros (JEW!) donate tons of cash to political causes because they want the kinds of changes that Bernie Sanders has been proposing?
Do you honestly think that the mainstream media ( ...
...But I think you get my point.
I think we know whose interests the democratic party serves, and it's not ours.
Of course, the Republican party also doesn't serve our interests.
At the very least, however, it is noteworthy that Trump, about half the time, ran on an economically populist agenda. Trade tariffs, withdrawing from the various outsourcing deals (e.g., NAFTA), rebuilding our infrastructure, reinstating Glass-Steagall, universal healthcare coverage, allowing medicare to negotiate drug costs, etc. are all populist measures.
He's apparently not following up on those campaign promises.
But then, at least Donald Trump had the good sense to pay these things lip service.
Hillary Clinton and the DNC? Not so much.
You essentially told me that white people are on a pedestal and they deserve to be knocked off of that pedestal.
Do you wish to retract that sentiment?
I fail to see how this is relevant. It doesn't matter who started it or why. The simple fact remains that it exists and it's a problem.
This strikes me as such a stereotypically childish and stupid thing to say: "BUT HE STARTED IT!"
Either discrimination is permissible in principle or not.
If discrimination is permissible in principle, then you will be hard pressed to provide an actual argument against me when I tell you that the US constitution should be amended to say that only white (non-Jewish) people can be citizens and that every non citizen should be deported.
If discrimination is NOT permissible in principle, then "but it's designed to fight the effects of discrimination" is not an argument in favor of affirmative action.
Which horn of the dilemma do you want, Kmo? [emoji14]
A few thoughts on this:
1. Nothing that I've proposed is actually drastic. If anything, the economic status quo in the United States is drastic and extreme. The economic system of the United States is a draconian system which is set up to benefit and protect the J...elites and is rigged against everyone else. The United States is the only first world modern nation which does not have some version or other of single payer healthcare coverage. Many first world modern nations already have tuition free college. In fact, in Denmark, not only do students not pay for college: they get a stipend!
And while it is true that no nation has a universal minimum income, it is most certainly not a drastic or radical leftist proposal. Hayek was no progressive, and yet, he was in favor of both a universal minimum income and universal healthcare coverage.
2. I don't care about black people per se. It is certainly true that the kinds of economic reforms I am proposing would disproportionately benefit certain minority communities (e.g., black and latino communities), but that's only because those communities disproportionately tend to be poor.
Actually, if you actually cared about black people, then you should be all in favor of a UBI. If the UBI were high enough, that would serve to help break up the ghettos.
Again, ending the war on drugs and getting rid of private prisons would disproportionately help black people, but that's not why I am in favor of it.
In fact, and I'll go a step further: thinking that policies should be enacted specifically to help or harm people based on race alone (as though poor white people are somehow less deserving of aid than poor black people) is itself racist!
3. It's not an either/or thing.
Even if we didn't have a racialized multi-racial society, we would still have significant class problems which would require economic reforms to fix.
The only thing that having a racialized multi-racial society changes is that it just so happens that race often stands as a proxy for socio-economic status. It just so happens that black people and latinos are disproportionately poor.
But even if the US were inhabited solely by white people, we would still be experiencing the same kinds of problems. The only thing that would change is that white people would be living in over-policed ghettos and getting thrown in jail (likely to fill a quota) because they had a little marijuana on them.
And even if we had economic justice, a racialized multiracial society would still be a problem.
4. You understand that even if every single "alt right" person left the United States, that wouldn't solve anything, right?
The alt-right are a reaction to the rampant anti-white racism and are essentially the "right wing" "pro-white" counterpart to the various left-wing racial identitarian movements.
And really, you have no reasonable grounds to reject the alt-right, given your lack of outrage against the rampant anti-white racism of our time. Either racial identitarian movements are fine, or they are not fine. If they are fine, then the alt right is fine. If they are not fine, then BLM is not fine.
To be unconditionally in favor of one, but not the other, is only to reveal yourself as a racist.
Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Once someone goes the way Trad has just owning a bed sheet isn't enough. They have to wear it. It's a symptom, like fever.
Thanks for taking time away from your "JEW!" naming to strip away the previously insincere attempt to paint yourself as someone without your idol's problem.
You're a regular connect the dot.
lain:Discrimination without just cause has always been the standard.
Most of the rich in this country aren't Jews, doofus.
Do the rational a favor and don't come out for anything helpful. It muddies both of our messages.
Thanks for clearing that up [/sarcasm].
Like Rip Torn asking if something is a little over the top.
So you think the problem with Jews is a mirror of your white people problem.
I'll leave off the rest of your autobiographically charged Mein Dummheit and wait for the movie...to come out on NBO.
Town Heretic said:
Great.
Then you have no argument against my saying that only white people should be US citizens, and that all non-whites should be deported.
Last I checked, roughly 18% of the top 1% are Jews. Almost 1 in 5. Not 1 in 500, which, according to Nihilo, would be proportional to their population. Not 1 in 50, which would be a vast over-representation already. No. Almost 1 in 5.
And as for the rest: they might as well be Jews. They largely act like Jews.
I find it amusing that people are so willing to identify "rational" with "opinions that I consider acceptable."
If you care about black people qua black people, that by definition is racism and runs contrary to liberal principles.
Do you deny that Jews tend to live in places where there are higher concentrations of Jews?
Not for your cause, no. Racism isn't a rational state interest for depriving anyone of equality before the law. We feel so strongly about being clear on the point of racism that as a compact we literally amended the Constitution to make sure everyone of the people like you understood that.
:think: Maybe if we drew pictures.
The right to dream a racist dream aloud has nothing to do with arguments that commence the moment you attempt to move beyond espousing the idea.
I appreciate your admitting my notice, that the overwhelming majority of those empowered by wealth are like my father and not like the boogieman of your rich if twisted fantasy life.
You mean it's impressively disproportionate. Over representation implies an unfairness that you can't demonstrate.
Bigoted jackassery noted. But really, you had that at the swastika.
There's nothing rational in your advance beyond sentence structure, Trad.
You complaints rest entirely on subjective valuations and insults you read into them. That's nothing to respect. It's even less impressive and more disappointing to find in someone who can't lay the blame for it at the feet of an educational want. Whatever your education, you might as well be an idiot when you speak to race. You argue and advance like one. It's part of your personal tragedy, which would engender a level of sympathy on my part were it not for what you're attempting to do with it.
What I care about is a life lived within the rational application of right and the defense of that among men. That means occasionally dealing with people like you, who wrap their personal demons in the appearance of reason to advance madness.
See, that's you avoiding the petard you're hoisting yourself on.
For those playing at home, Trad advanced this complaint about the Jews: "Jews don't just have an in-group preference for their Jewish family members. They have an in-group preference for Jews, broadly speaking."
I noted the tragically funny truth that his complaint mirrors his own desire for a singularly white state. But then, maybe the root of bigotry is, to an extent, self-loathing and the need to salve it by pointing elsewhere.
And do you know that most Mennonites live around other Mennonites? How about how the Amish live in Amish communities? How about the great slums of New York where there were Puerto Rican, black, Italian, Irish, etc... neighborhoods? Where I have lived there were Mexican neighborhoods too. Like congregates with like. That's simply human nature, not evidence of some type of evil. Your reasoning falls far short of knowledge and rational thinking.
If you honestly believe that in-group preference is human nature (I'm actually not sure that it is), then how is that not an argument AGAINST having multiracial/multiethnic/multicultural societies?
If you think that in-group preference is human nature, then you should agree with me when I say that we should have a white ethnostate.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Selfishness is human nature. Does that mean we should just succumb to any whim our "nature" gives us? Or should we strive to live beyond our nature?
Humans have changed skin color over time. There's no reason to say a "white ethnostate" would stay as such over the long term, unless it was located in Scandanavia. :chuckle:
... Or do you honestly think that Chuck Schumer (JEW!) - who, as a side note, is, yes, apparently related to Amy Schumer (JEW!), agrees in any substantial way with Bernie Sanders' (JEW!) economic policy proposals? You think that Dianne Feinstein (JEW!) is on the side of the economic progressives? Do you honestly think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (JEW!) is in favor of a progressive economic agenda?
Do you honestly think that the DNC, who are beholden the economic donor class (especially the Jew infested Wall Street!) rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton (who gave paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, a JEWISH bank!) because they are on our side?
Do you honestly think that people like George Soros (JEW!) donate tons of cash to political causes because they want the kinds of changes that Bernie Sanders has been proposing?
Do you honestly think that the mainstream media ( ...
I'm neither a Catholic nor a Jew, but given the alternatives I'm with the Pope and Sanders!
Last edited:
ClimateSanity
New member
These communities seem to exist to provide support for new citizens. When you are new to a country and poor, it's hard to live surrounded by folks who do not share your culture.
If they never move out of those communities then it leads to dangerous Balkanization. I believe sincere efforts by people who are part of the established culture to make these people part of their lives is essential to the preservation of this nation.
There needs to be intermarriage as well. That's how how America grew to be great in the first place. Various European communities in the early part of the nineteenth century intermarried and regularly had up to 13 children per household. That's how we expanded west and grew into a sizable population.
In reply to what I bolded above, do you associate mostly with those people with whom you have nothing in common, or with those with whom you have a lot in common?
Your last sentence is a very bizarre leap in logic. Other people have different backgrounds so they should be driven out of the country? I don't want to control them, ban them, or anything along those lines, for why would I want them to do that to me if circumstances were reversed. The overt selfishness and arrogance of your position is amazing.
I like the additions the Amish, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Asians, Italians, etc... make to our society. I love the variety of foods that they add to our culture. Their styles of dance, music, culture, etc... I find very interesting. The Jews have added a lot too. Just because someone prefers what they are most familiar with doesn't make me dislike them at all. I'm the same way. I like what I'm most familiar with too. I'm more comfortable in that space.
Every culture adds something of value to the society in which they live when they assimilate, for assimilation means they too adopt a part of the culture around them. It brings us all closer together for we are all part of the human race. Unless, that is, you don't consider yourself to be a part of the human race.
Yeah, you're a Nazi. I get it.
If you think the GOP is more likely to pass the stuff you want then you're kidding yourself, whatever Trump talked about during his campaign.
I didn't mean each and every white person.
I agree that it isn't really an argument. It was mostly an observation. You say it was childish on my part but that's exactly what I was trying to say about you. We've had an identity driven society for a while and now when there is some push back against white people you get outraged and want to create a white state.
I think some of it could depend on how the AA is working in practice. It doesn't have to be an HR person choosing a black person over a white person because they are black. It wouldn't even have to be an internship program that explicity denies white people admittance. Maybe you simply have outreach to underserved communities that are largely minority. You may look at that as the same thing but I wouldn't.
I didn't mean 'drastic' in a bad way. I simply meant that it would be significantly different from what we do now.
I worded that poorly. I didn't mean that you would enact those policies in order to help black people. In fact, I'd expect you to view that as an unfortunate side effect.
lain: First, I don't think you've shown 'rampant anti-white racism.
Second, earlier I did say that I agree with some of your criticisms. An example would be some of the cultural appropriation claims that occur.
Third, since you singled out BLM, I support BLM in general but I don't think it's exactly comparable to the alt-right movement. The foundation of BLM is simply to fix some racial injustices that occur. It isn't anti-white, or putting blacks above everyone else. BLM is not a tightly organized movement and so you have some more extreme members under the umbrella but the main movement is not about violence against white people, etc. I don't think you can say the same thing about alt-right. It seems to be much more intertwined with white nationalists and neo-nazis. Putting whites above everyone else, sometimes violently.
Yeah, you're a Nazi. I get it.
Is that all you got from that, Kmo?
Even if you ignore my antisemitic rhetoric, the simple fact remains that the DNC is deeply corrupt. They aren't quite as bought and sold to corporate interests as the Republicans, but that doesn't really say much, does it?
Here's the thing: I don't think that it's necessarily a matter of party labels. It's a matter of campaign contributions. There was at least a fighting chance with Donald Trump because the man is filthy rich and had at least some kind of capacity to self-fund his campaign. It wasn't necessarily the case that he would sell himself out.
He did, of course...
...But he might not have.
That was never a question for Hillary Clinton. She's a corporate sell-out through and through.
Though, I don't even think it's a matter of selling out for Trump. I think that the man is mentally deficient and incompetent overall. He just listens to the last person left in the room. He's George W. Bush on steroids in that respect.
No?
Then please, explain to me what you meant, Kmo. I'm waiting.
We've had an identity driven society...until the legal abolition of Jim Crow and the passing of the Civil Rights act. This is not to deny, of course, that racial disparities have persisted, and there could well be individual acts and cultures of racism since then, but, legally speaking, we haven't had an identity driven society, at least, at the institutional level for decades.
Do you think that there should be "push back" against white people? With respect to what do white people need to be pushed back?
I'm listening, Kmo. Explain this to me without sounding like an anti-white racist.
Explain this to me...explain what you mean by this...without actually proving my case.
Explain this to me without at the same time justifying to everyone who may be reading that perhaps I removed the swastika as my avatar picture just a tad too early. :nono:
Why do white people need to be pushed back, Kmo.?
Because all white people are oppressors?
Because historically, certain white people have oppressed some black people, and now its the turn of all white people to be oppressed?
Because that's what's happening in South Africa. Not even just South Africa.
Is that what you think should happen in the US?
Decades ago, white people "shut out" persons of ethnic minority status, and now it's our turn to be shut out?
No.
Either justice for all, or else, you have no argument against me when I say that I only care about white interests, and when I say that we need a white ethnostate.
HAIL VICTORY!
I am in favor of solutions which are universal in scope and don't directly disadvantage anyone. I'm in favor of a legal requirement to remove names from applications during the hiring process. I'm not in favor of any solution which disadvantages anyone on racial grounds.
I worded that poorly. I didn't mean that you would enact those policies in order to help black people. In fact, I'd expect you to view that as an unfortunate side effect.
And you would be mistaken. I actually don't care either way. I simply don't view race or ethnicity as relevant.
Let me be clear on two points:
1. I find black people aesthetically repulsive. I have every objection to make against a multiethnic society on aesthetic grounds. Black people are, in my view, aesthetically repugnant.
However, I also understand that aesthetics does not and cannot ground policy.
The fact that at least some people are ugly is no grounds to take issue with policies that might benefit them.
2. The more important point, however, is this: I don't think that it makes sense to divide people up by race* and ethnicity when we are talking about politics. Why should it matter what ethnicity or race a poor, middle class, or rich person just so happens to be?
*The exception, of course, is the Jews.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17...ogizes-to-staff-for-statements-made-at-summit
What do you think about this?
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...p-pining-white-trump-voters-cater-minorities/
How about that?
Joy Reid thinks that the democratic party shouldn't even bother going after the so-called "Patts Blue Ribbon" working class white people vote...because the Republicans already have their vote. The democratic party, in the view of Joy Reid, should stick to identity politics. To heck with whitey!
That is a clear illustration of what I'm saying.
Who commits cultural appropriation, Kmo? Do Japanese commit cultural appropriation? Do black people commit cultural appropriation? Do middle eastern people commit cultural appropriation.
No?
Just white people?
But you question whether or not anti-white racism is rampant.
And that's why we need a white ethnostate.
HAIL VICTORY!
The problem with BLM is that, by definition, it is a racial identitarian movement. BLM have legitimate complaints, but it's all undermined by the fact that it's skewed by racial bias.
"Black lives matter," by its very framing, means that police brutality against white people doesn't matter.
Of course, they can deny this after the fact, but it's built into the racial framing.
Also, did you read the article I gave you which basically argued that non-whites can't be racist against white people? It cites a case where a BLM activist refused to sell a white person a t-shirt.
Of course, of course, because BLM has never been violent. People who have claimed allegiance to BLM have never, e.g., murdered police officers, right?
- Status