None dare call it warfare - All things HOSTILE to Western freedom


The Infowars Time-Capsule Challenge
Post a Global Threat, Issue, or Problem

The racist “It’s a black thing” attitude has been going on for years, and they aren’t being called on it because you know, that would be racist.

Let somebody start a “White Lives Matter” campaign, or maybe start a “White People Meet” dating site and watch what happens in less than 24 hours!


There are also a number of leftists that believe blacks can’t be racist; only whites can. And anyone who uses the term “reverse discrimination” is in the same awful boat that permits this sort of thing.

1 Like

YOu mean false flag?

They will not permit white people to organize unopposed.


No false flag at all. I get really tired of people using that term so loosely. Many that use that term don’t even understand what it actually is.


No kidding; most think that means it was faked.

The way I see it is that the event happens, but the reaction to the event is the actual goal, rather than the event itself.


That’s interesting.
Who are you talking about? I’m using False Flag in it’s correct usage. Getting upset at someone using it’s correct usage because other people irk you for it seems self defeating.


It has to be deeper than that. The left, with these attacks, are also practicing psychological warfare. They’re pushed the false narrative so much that we’ve gained an instinct to automatically disbelieve when the “trigger phrase” is fired, even if we all agree to the same definition. They want us fighting with ourselves. This is why society is the way it is.


I don’t get mad, I said “really tired”.

The blowback that would arise won’t be any “false flag”. They will straight up confront anyone who tries to counter their racist agenda.

If you are not “African-American” and use one certain word among them…well I suggest you don’t use that word at all.


I don’t care anymore.
I use whatever words I want when I want, and if I have to be a martyr for it, then I guess the world needs one.
Let their feelings control you once, and it never stops.
If they raise their feelings in hostility, I will match the aggression in defense.


Which is the EXACT attitude they want to instill in the opposition. It’s called “being played”. They want you to not care and go off so they can stand back and point their finger at you once they have ruffled your feathers.

You DO care though. That is why you are speaking out. But “eye for an eye” never works. It just promotes more conflict.


I didn’t say go off. You said that.
They may want me to ‘go off’ but what they don’t want is for truth to speak power religiously regardless of their intimidation.

Of course I care, but not about their feelings which is and was my point, and no I don’t care about their feelings. I don’t have that luxury I’m afraid. I wouldn’t miss a step if the leftists all played in traffic and learned situational awareness the hard way.

I never said ‘eye for an eye’ nor did I even suggest it. But I disagree, eye for an eye works very very very well. Bible even notes its value. Many civilizations have had no choice but to accept eye for an eye as a means of self defense for survival.
Hence how eye for an eye has value. As defense.


Your own words. If that is not “eye for an eye”, then I can’t read.

Dare I ask, are you Christian?

1 Like

The limitation of the vocabulary is their weapon. Given it is a psychological one, I would see it best that, instead of allowing it to hit us, or amplifying its destructive power as it’s being fired, to just step out of the way. Let’s continue to use the words, but let’s use them in proper context in which we’ve always used them, not just because they happen to be there. Sure, saying a word a hundred times to reduce its meaning is good in satire, but not in normal life. Perhaps it’s time to ignore their shots, as that’s how we make them miss.


Then you can’t read.?
Let me spell it out.
Eye for an eye typically denotes returning physical harm exactly as it is given.

“If they raise their feelings in hostility”
The subject here is feelings. it’s not fists.

“I will match their aggression in defense”
Defense isn’t aggression.

You selectively chose to interpret what your feelings I guess decided.


…Good advice.

1 Like

Hmm, I see. Ironic that you used the word “selectively”.

You forgot to answer my question.


I didn’t see your question on first run through, to busy unpacking misconceptions.
I find it interesting that you choose again to be contentious rather than admit the selectively interpreted words, and followed it with more pointing fingers.
Why am I defending against you more than leftists?

try pointing fingers at someone who warrants it or I may start returning the favor.
I’m not being contentious but I will be if that doesn’t smarten up.

Am I Christian?
That’s up for Him to decide that, all I can do is try my best to live up to such values, ultimately though I’m not the authority, He is.


Go back and read the posts. You replied to me questioning if I meant false flags, I then stated my own personal opinion. At that point in the conversation is when things went south.

I didn’t mean false flag as a response. I should have left it at that.

The sole reason I even asked is that many Christians have the “eye for an eye” mentality, and I wanted to make sure that is the religious doctrine you follow. If so, I wanted to remind you that Christians are to love their enemies, right? Christians are no longer under the law of the Jews, but under the grace of Jesus Christ. You know, turn the other cheek.

Nothing personal, just a friendly reminder.