I’m pretty sure he’s a Jew. I haven’t really been following his actions but I’ve seen a few clips. Honestly what I’ve seen him do looks pretty funny and intentionally provocative. Is he doing a poor job of trying to subvert the right? I don’t get it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
LGBTQIAIDS on scored.co
1 hour ago0 points(+0/-0)
Before I read your comment, I was thinking that, from the admittedly little that I know of him, he is just American 'Counter-Jihad'. In effect, you made the same point.
'Counter-Jihad' (i.e. 'Islamophobia') has been a particular nuisance to the British Right for decades. You'll get the Robinson types saying things like 'I love Hindus, I love Sikhs' or 'I don't have a problem with Hindus and Sikhs'. People then go off down this rabbit hole, one that says something to the effect that 'multiracialism is fine so long as Muslims aren't involved'. And what does that mean? Yiddish power continues; Hispanics, Indians, and sub-Saharan Africans end up being viewed as allies so long as they aren't Muslims. Perhaps worst of all is that these people can be very hostile towards actual Far-Right and/or anti-immigration people: 'The Muslims are the new Nahrtzees! You Nahrtzees are just as bad as Muslims! Our grandfathers fought your kind in World War II! We'll defeat you fascisses just like our grandfathers defeated Hitla!' An obvious example is Tommy Robinson claiming that he'll attack Mark Collett if he ever sees him in person.
Their worldview, of course, makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Consider Robinson's philo-Sikhism:
Firstly, Sikhism is a synthesis of Hinduism with the very same Islam that Robinson opposes. How can Robinson rest assured that the supposedly problematic parts of Islam have not survived the synthesis such that they are also within Sikhism? Robinson seems to think that Islam is intrinsically violent, and yet his beloved Sikhs, not Muslims, are the ones who carry daggers everywhere, leading, for instance, to the heinous murder of Henry Nowak by Vikram Digwa.
Indeed, it seems that not only has Sikhism inherited from this synthesis Islam's supposed violence, but exacerbated it by creating what Leftists would—if Sikhs were White—deride as an extreme analogue of American-style gun culture centred around daggers. There are videos of Vikram Digwa and his fellow Sikhs swinging daggers at each other as a part of rituals: these weapons are a big part of their identity. Now imagine their response if Americans started doing this with a traditionally American blade, like, say, a Bowie knife? They would ban that without second thought, but won't dare touch the kirpan of the Sikhs.
Secondly, is Robinson not aware that the most severe terrorist attack in Canadian history, the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, was committed not by Muslims but by his beloved Sikhs?
We can conclude, then, that Sikhs are every bit as problematic as the non-Sikhs that live around them, because the problem is race and not religion. There are no 'Pakistani Muslim rapists': there are brown rapists who happen to be from lands such as Pakistan and who will rape regardless of whether they believe themselves to be Hindus, Muslims, or Sikhs.
'Counter-Jihad' (i.e. 'Islamophobia') has been a particular nuisance to the British Right for decades. You'll get the Robinson types saying things like 'I love Hindus, I love Sikhs' or 'I don't have a problem with Hindus and Sikhs'. People then go off down this rabbit hole, one that says something to the effect that 'multiracialism is fine so long as Muslims aren't involved'. And what does that mean? Yiddish power continues; Hispanics, Indians, and sub-Saharan Africans end up being viewed as allies so long as they aren't Muslims. Perhaps worst of all is that these people can be very hostile towards actual Far-Right and/or anti-immigration people: 'The Muslims are the new Nahrtzees! You Nahrtzees are just as bad as Muslims! Our grandfathers fought your kind in World War II! We'll defeat you fascisses just like our grandfathers defeated Hitla!' An obvious example is Tommy Robinson claiming that he'll attack Mark Collett if he ever sees him in person.
Their worldview, of course, makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Consider Robinson's philo-Sikhism:
Firstly, Sikhism is a synthesis of Hinduism with the very same Islam that Robinson opposes. How can Robinson rest assured that the supposedly problematic parts of Islam have not survived the synthesis such that they are also within Sikhism? Robinson seems to think that Islam is intrinsically violent, and yet his beloved Sikhs, not Muslims, are the ones who carry daggers everywhere, leading, for instance, to the heinous murder of Henry Nowak by Vikram Digwa.
Indeed, it seems that not only has Sikhism inherited from this synthesis Islam's supposed violence, but exacerbated it by creating what Leftists would—if Sikhs were White—deride as an extreme analogue of American-style gun culture centred around daggers. There are videos of Vikram Digwa and his fellow Sikhs swinging daggers at each other as a part of rituals: these weapons are a big part of their identity. Now imagine their response if Americans started doing this with a traditionally American blade, like, say, a Bowie knife? They would ban that without second thought, but won't dare touch the kirpan of the Sikhs.
Secondly, is Robinson not aware that the most severe terrorist attack in Canadian history, the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, was committed not by Muslims but by his beloved Sikhs?
We can conclude, then, that Sikhs are every bit as problematic as the non-Sikhs that live around them, because the problem is race and not religion. There are no 'Pakistani Muslim rapists': there are brown rapists who happen to be from lands such as Pakistan and who will rape regardless of whether they believe themselves to be Hindus, Muslims, or Sikhs.