El Paso mall shooting: At least 15 dead, 1 in custody

Post Reply New Topic

Yep. That makes sense.

Usually, environmentalism is associated with American-styled “liberalism” which many people of conservative bent think ill of.

But it would be folly to believe that eco-fascism is “liberal.”

So, both the El Paso and the Christchurch shooters went to locations where they knew the demographic would be darker skin people, but both locations also held light skinned people. Some whites were killed in El Paso, some white Muslims were present at the Christchurch mosque shooting, but none were hit.

The Ohio shooter was an Elizabeth Warren supporter who aimed at everyone, but specifically his sister and her boy friend.

The El Paso shooter had been resentful of what he perceived as an invasion of his State and felt he must act, those who read the manifesto feel that he was emboldened to act because Trump was in office.

Many would argue that the police attacks, set ups, riots, etc... felt emboldened while Obama was in office.

What I think is a common theme is that racism exists on both sides and some defect of character makes these people believe they are well within their rights to settle a score. As long as scores are being settled for past atrocities, there will be no peace. As long as one race is favored over another there will be no peace. Until everyone is held to the same standards across the board there will be no peace.

Time for a clean slate folks. One where laws, sentences, assistance, opportunity is exactly the same, regardless of the past. As long as people want to be superior to make up for all the inferior, these nuts are going to keep coming out of the woodwork. They will always exist, but maybe less in number.

I don't disagree with you there.....that's what I want, too.

I believe things like "affirmative action" should be remnants of a past where there was overt, shameless racism.

But there are still many entities which DO discriminate against "people of color"----especially in terms of housing and employment.

The "housing" component is much more blatant and evident than the "employment" component.

Though de facto racism like the above is on the decline, it still exists.

I can see that, kraftiekortie.

So, the next question would be why? Why does discrimination is housing exist? I don't have much experience in a congested city, my experience is of suburbs (relatively rural ones, at that). Our little city is coastal, with lots of surrounding countryside to the West, Intercoastal and Atlantic to the East. Where I live there's a healthy balance of all races represented, yet there is a bit (more than a bit actually) of discernment used when renting to all, including whites because they are redneck whites. Redneck whites bring screaming, fighting, trash everywhere, they don't mow the lawn, the cops come, kids roaming in filthy diapers, etc... And I think that every property owner would like to preserve the value of their investment.

I know that for myself, I don't care what color my neighbor is as long as they are clean and quite.

So, I don't know what it takes to determine who will be a good renter. My guess is that past experience influences who gets chosen to live where. How could we make that better? Keeping in mind that it can be a long and expensive process to get rid of a nightmare tenant. If it weren't such an ordeal to get a renter out, that might help with housing discrimination. But because the laws protect the renter and not the property owner, the property owner discriminates on the front end to mitigate the expenses on the back end, should the renter be a nightmare.

Laws need to change and I think things would be more fair, less discriminatory.

If you read Jimmy M's post it clearly it states the eco-fascist view is to cleanse white countries (like the ones we live in) of non-whites to preserve both the pristine environment and white homogeneity.

If this involves wacked out dudes targeting mass civilian deaths in places where non-white frequent I think that's got nothing to do with anybodies superiority, it means there's home grown terrorism that's being ignored.

Okay, I agree. But how do we categorize home grown terrorism where there's no particular race targeted, like the Ohio shooter? These shooters all have two things in common, the desire to kill and a lack of the moral dilemma of killing. How does that happen? Are they born that way, is it created under just the right circumstances? I only have what goes on inside my head/heart as a reference, the thought of killing an innocent man, woman, child fills my soul with dread. The only emotion that could overcome that would be fear for my life, or the life of someone I loved. These people were not an imminent threat to existence. So, how did these individuals overcome (if they ever possessed it) the moral dilemma of killing that most people possess?

It will never happen in the near future. But just as the FBI has a behavioral unit, someone needs to introduce some sort of systematic testing into the homes and DNA of these families. Then, start keeping track of similarities. As it stands now, the families just say, "we don't know what happened, he was such a good kid." And I say BS. There were signs, they chose to ignore them. Start holding families of origin responsible too, especially until we have more science to understand.

From what I understand he had complaints about 'race mixing' which is a pretty obvious racial supremacist view, in this case white supremacist.

I think you are on the right track. Although parents have limited control over kids who are drawn to right wing websites. Banning hate from social media would be a start.

I do know of cases where someone went off the deep end, out of nowhere. They were fine one day and then went manic, with no prior history of mental illness, the next day. They had a brain tumor that finally grew large enough to begin to change their behavior. Those cases are rare, but they do exist. I don't think families of origin should be held responsible in those cases, I just wanted to clarify that.

But just like in cases of school bullying, where families are more and more being held accountable for the actions of their children, it's helping. Schools are sending these kids home and saying, "you deal with them." Or charging parents with the assault and holding them responsible financially.

If the family has been trying to get the kid help, that's one thing. But so often lately I have heard that they were worried, or had notified the cops and the cops ignored it. They need a task force just for home grown terrorism now. Start watching these little bastards!

People, in general, are getting sick of having to think twice about where it's safe to go. So many people are concealed carry certified. We need to get these nuts off the streets, either coming ( Task Forces ) or going ( concerned citizens ).

I should point out the police currently employ the view that muslim parents of terrorists are responsible for letting their kids "go wild" and out of control.

Unless there is a social or political motive we don’t call it terrorism. With the Dayton shooter there is little to no evidence that his left wing politics were the motivation for the attack.

For far too long unless the attack was carried out by a muslim we incorrectly did not call it terrorism. Finally that is now changing. I hope we don’t overcorrect and start calling every attack caused by a personal situation or a breakdown an act of terrorism.