How do we explain the muted response to Waukesha and the hysterical response to Buffalo? Why does one inspire domestic terrorism legislation and the other inspire silence?
“The weekend mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, is jump-starting Congress’ focus on legislation addressing domestic terrorism and guns.
Driving the news: The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, put on ice late last month amid objections from progressive lawmakers, will be taken up Tuesday by the House Rules Committee. The panel’s chair, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), told Axios: “I think it takes on an urgency given current events.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asked about the status of the legislation on Monday, told reporters: “It’s in play.” …”
In a nutshell, White progressives have a negative racial identity. They have negative feelings toward other White people. They also think the Great Replacement is a good thing. It is good for them morally and politically to change the demographics of the United States. It is bad to complain about it.
How can you say that the Great Replacement inspires domestic terrorism, but the belief in systematic racism doesn’t? Isn’t the mainstreaming of one related to the mainstreaming of the other?
Note: The Great Replacement is a class issue.
In every Western country that comes to mind, it is PMCs who support it. These people have no loyalty to their own race. They look down on people who do. White Nationalists miss this.
The Buffalo, white supremacist shooter narrative is getting shellacked on social media. Meanwhile, Laguna Woods church shooting is going down the memory hole, can’t imagine why.
forget it goy, it’s chinatown
@stoecker
Re: forget it goy, it’s Chinatown.
That was classic. Thank you.
Some shootings are more equal than others.