About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

4 Replies to “Pat Condell: Violence is not the answer”

  1. Violence is the answer. Talking to muzzies is a waste of time. They only understand violence. I am not advocating violence of the Brevic kind but of the Bush kind. State Violence against muzzie countries is an expensive business but it does do one thing. It kills muzzies and they are the enemy. People like Pat think making videos is enough. These videos are great but it is great men like Bush who have taken the war to the Muzzie in his own land.

  2. Only if they are not black. The Whitehouse never gets involved in Africa. Steve Sailer explains why. Here looks to McCain but lots of others think exactly the same. McCain is just slightly more candid.

    In an interview entitled “The McCain Doctrines” with Matt Bai in today’s New York Times Magazine [May 18, 2008], John McCain volunteers that he’s often thought about starting a war with Sudan, if only a way could be found to make it practical:

    “I asked McCain if it was true … that he had been brought to a more idealist way of thinking partly by the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica. ‘I think so, I think so,’ he said, nodding. ‘And Darfur today. I feel strongly about Darfur, and yet, and this is where the realist side comes in, how do we effectively stop the genocide in Darfur?’ He seemed to be genuinely wrestling with the question. ‘You know the complications with a place that’s bigger, I guess, than the size of Texas, and it’s hard to know who the Janjaweed is, who are the killers, who are the victims. It’s all jumbled up. … And yet I look at Darfur, and I still look at Rwanda, to some degree, and think, How could we have gone in there and stopped that slaughter?'”

    Note that, although McCain likes military adventures, the simpler task of intervening in Zimbabwe to avert famine does not appeal to him at all. While McCain volunteered Darfur, the NYT’s Bai has to bring Zimbabwe up:

    “Why then, I asked McCain, shouldn’t we go into Zimbabwe, where, according to that morning’s paper, allies of the despotic president, Robert Mugabe, were rounding up his political opponents and preparing to subvert the results of the country’s recent national election?”

    McCain tries to spell it out euphemistically for the journalist why a white President of the United States is not going to depose a black tyrant who wrecked his country by persecuting productive whites:

    “‘I think in the case of Zimbabwe, it’s because of our history in Africa,’ McCain said thoughtfully.”

    Well, not that thoughtfully—the U.S. doesn’t actually have much of a history in Africa.

    McCain notices his mistake and tries to make himself clear without actually mentioning the W-word:

    “Not so much the United States but the Europeans, the colonialist history in Africa.'”

  3. to Obama’s credit, I can’t see Obama as any more likely than McCain to get us involved militarily in Zimbabwe. Obama didn’t spend 20 years in Rev. Wright’s church to put a bunch of white farmers back on their farms, even though that’s what it would take to save hundreds of thousands of blacks from starving.

    It’s better that Africans starve than that the black race be embarrassed—As Rev. Wright will be happy to tell you. So says Steve Sailer. Now I agree with this. So when it comes to military intervention it is never in Africa.

Leave a Reply to sheik yer'mami Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *