/t/ - The Toilet

Low quality shitposting

All users of /b/: read >>>/meta/3253
[Make a Post]
[X]





Rwanda, The Alt Right and You Nanonymous No.1191 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C]
File: 270f264aee7aa81ee75c0f44dd9eaea63e41153ac10372424dd29924336aa616.jpg (dl) (47.56 KiB)

The events in Rwanda are falsely remembered as a cautionary tale of the human toll paid when the United States fails to commit to a military interdiction when human rights abuses occur somewhere in the world. from 1990 to 1994 the tribal rivalries between the Hutus and Tutsis grew to such a point that the Hutu majority government began a massacre of Tutsi civilians while foreign powers callously stood idly by. Bill Clinton even called the inaction his biggest mistake. The killing did not end until General Kagame's army invaded from Uganda and overthrew the despotic Hutu government in the capital Kigali. Just look it up on wikipedia. Just watch the movie.

Except it's a false narrative.

Kagame's commandos had infiltrated Hutu militias and baited the violence against the Tutsis. Some commandos set roadblocks and took part in the massacres themselves. The Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front also massacred Hutus in Tutsi controlled areas. These stories come from the testimony of RPF soldiers, which can be found in the book In Praise of Blood by Judi Rever.

Why did this happen? Kagame needed a narrative to justify his dictatorship to seize control of the government. The Hutus where murderers and Kagame was a liberator of the oppressed. Kagame's later cooperation with US AFRICOM and convenient invasion of Democratic Republic of Congo to allow freedom of movement of mining interests shed light on why the US saw no need to intervene while the genocide that legitimized Kagame was happening.

>“The institutionalization of the ‘Rwandan genocide’ has been the remarkable achievement of a propaganda system sustained by both public and private power, with the crucial assistance of a related cadre of intellectual enforcers. The favorite weapons of these enforcers are reciting the institutionalized untruths as gospel while portraying critics of the standard model as ‘genocide deniers,’ dark figures who lurk at the same moral level as child molesters, to be condemned and even outlawed.”
Enduring Lies Edward Herman, David Peterson


Rwanda, The Alt Right and You Part 2 Nanonymous No.1192 [D][U][F]
File: 0a52775bc2afb58a75f7578f41f23534c62140722563a88834ddfde6178d2fb3.jpg (dl) (40.28 KiB)

>Why are we talking about this?

History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme

Remeber 2016. In the year leading up to the US presidential election, obscure alternative media figures from the right suddenly received large followings and media attention. Let's talk about Richard Spencer, specifically. An edgy, racially-aware liberal with little following seemingly overnight became the self-proclaimed leader of the so-called Alternative Right. Mainstream publications like the Atlantic helped manufacture his rise with soft-ball critique articles heralding him as a mysterious and possibly dangerous icon of the rising tide of racism created by Donald Trump.

The media attention reached a fever pitch at Unite the Right where cholesterol finally got the better of Heather Heyer and CNN howled that right wing terrorism had come to America, and it had done so conveniently before the election.

Unite the Right was supposed to be the Rwandan Genocide and Hillary Clinton was supposed to be General Kagame. The Democratic Party were to be the heroic liberators and using the Justice Department to crush all these radical rightwing extremists would ensure that "never again" would such a tragedy be allowed to happen.

But she lost. Decades of peddling disinformation has made the public cynical to the mainstrem press, and the Republican victory was so clear that fixing the votes ex post facto (like we have seen in the 2018 election) would cause a level of social unrest the US oligarchy was not willing to risk. More importantly, you should remember that political actors and the press agree upon political narratives long in advance of reporting on the actual events. Just like an ambitious general in Africa mapped his rise to power with the full cooperation of the US government and the press years before he stormed Kigali. Unite the Right and its media response was likely concocted in a planning session a year or more before it ever happened.

It won't be the last time.

Nanonymous No.1196 [D][U][F]
File: 338dcbc2612b966a2594a01ead08dcd188598660c04c0b32d923d0146e9ef089.jpg (dl) (66.69 KiB)

Interesting...

Nanonymous No.1201 [D] >>1206

nice 3deep5me post. the rwandan analysis is good but i don't see the connection with the alt right, unless it's just to point out its nature as controlled op.

but if you are implying that the alt right is a setup for future bloodshed and genocide in the US perhaps in the form of yet another brother war, which i will go ahead and assume in order to finish my thoughts, then i would agree, but you didn't make that clear in the second post. overall not bad for a rough draft.

a few things to keep in mind:
in many of those accounts the niggers just allowed themselves to be hacked to death. they froze in the bush with fear like animals, because that's what they are. whites on the whole are known for reacting a bit differently to overt or implied threats of violence.

further, centrists always get the bullet first, not because their political dilettantism displays above their head like a status readout in a video game, but because they are the most obviously helpless and the least prepared when blood begins pouring into the gutters. most people in this country are really centrists upon closer examination. you could filter it down to non-gun owners and get a more consistent apolitical strain, but in the final analysis it will be shown that even owning firearms in Weimerica was for most people just an expensive hobby to show off wealth and a gravely outdated and impotent form of patriotism.

the next level after centrism is believing the real enemy to be coal-rolling nazis or the new dyke neighbors who just immigrated from CA. while the political power differential between these two camps may be lopsided in favor of the granola eaters, it is the good ol boys who will be prepared for conflict. and that's a problem. so, with this in mind, for the maximum potentiation of pointless violence, it's logical to assume that the next major false flag will paint the military as some form of white nationalist column or clandestine nazi sect. it's the only thing that will really mobilize the granola eaters and soybois. once all of those idiots are armed then the fun can really begin, and neither side will ever figure out what hit them or who the true enemy is.

all you have to do is look at the population % of whites vs non-whites in the world to know what (((they))) have in store for the USA.

Nanonymous No.1206 [D]

>>1201

The main point I wanted to get across is that both Kagame and Hillary (or whoever is behind them moving the pieces on the board) decided on a socially acceptable narrative to legitimize obtaining power far in advance of any actual events. Then after the fact, a complicit media amplifies the desired narrative. When I read about how the Rwandan Genocide story was all bullshit and that the "good guys" had agent provocateurs within Hutu militias, I was reminded of the whole Alt-Right farce leading up to the election.

>paint military as clandestine nazi sect
That's basically what was done with that 200-elite-nazi hoax in Germany. I also think the Thousand Oaks shooting fits into that. I would expect every time a vet goes berzerk and wastes some randoms (especially conservatives), the media will diligently scrub his social media of anything showing him to be a raving liberal or drug addict or convert to islam. Then we will be bombarded with the one image of the guy in his dress blues. I would expect to see more.

Nanonymous No.1594 [D] >>1602

You are overcomplicating things on murrican elections. It's probably just 2 factions of kikes fighting it out, and the most advanced one won (the one datamining social media and the internets for themes for Trump to tweet or say in his speeches), wich happens to be the "likudnicks", Kushner et al.
But it could also all be political theater and they were just riding the wave while no actual fight was really going on, but this is unlikely, dog eats dog.

Nanonymous No.1602 [D] >>1603 >>1628

>>1594
Isn't the whole point of the jewish narrative that dog doesn't eat dog, that they are all complicit with each other? I think it would be less bad if jews were just fighting each other for personal power, wealth, maybe fuck a kid or two. The problem is that they are fighting for population level power, and so they need to do population level damage to society.

Nanonymous No.1603 [D]

>>1602
The only thing that jews hate more than other jews are non-jews.

One day you will understand the nature of the jew.

Nanonymous No.1628 [D] >>1627 >>1629

>>1602
Always play both sides, so you can't lose since the average retard can't see the big picture.

Nanonymous No.1629 [D]

>>1628
the neo world order with neoliberalism and neoconservatism

Nanonymous No.1630 [D]

I don't think it's all that accurate to think of them as playing together as a coherent team with clearly defined objectives. I think it's more like a strong sense of nepotism and a large predispositions towards destructive behaviors.

I actually think that the international chosen-ones conspiracy is at least partly in their own imagination. Delusions of grandeur and conflating fantasy with reality makes a lot of sense when you consider what the schizophrenia rates are among them.