Was tarrant based?

Chairman said:
View attachment 36038
Click to expand...
IMG_20240830_134819.jpg

...
 
baqqrih said:
Where in the scripture does it tell us as Christians that "self-defense on a racial level" in the same manner as how Tarrant operated this defense is justifiable? He killed children.
Click to expand...
In your post you said that self-defence is justified. What Tarrant did is the defence of the selves of all White people. Therefore what he did is justified.
>He killed children.
He acknowledges this issue in his manifesto: he said that children eventually grow to be adults who reproduce like rabbits and make more children. He compares killing the children of invaders to killing young snakes in your yard, saying:
>When you discover a nest of vipers in your yard, do you spare the adolescents? Do you allow them to grow freely, openly, to one day bite you child as they play in their own yard? No. You burn the nest and kill the vipers, no matter their age.
>The enemies of our children are being born in our lands right now, even as you read this. These same children will one day become teens, then adults, voting against the wishes of our people, practicing the cultural and religious practices of the invaders, taking our peoples lands, work, houses and even attacking and killing our children.
>A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Preventing these enemies from reaching adulthood and their full potential of effect is of the importance. Why make your children fight, when you could fight in their stead?
>Few parents, regardless of circumstance, will willing risk the lives of their children, no matter the economic incentives. Therefore, once we show them the risk of bringing their offspring to our soil, they will avoid our lands.
It will be distasteful, it will be damaging to the soul, but know that it is necessary and any invader you spare, no matter the age, will one day be an enemy your people must face. Better for you to face them now then your kin to face them in the future.
I agree with him on this: killing the children of invaders is justified and necessary, despite being distasteful.
 
Chairman said:
In your post you said that self-defence is justified. What Tarrant did is the defence of the selves of all White people. Therefore what he did is justified.
>He killed children.
He acknowledges this issue in his manifesto: he said that children eventually grow to be adults who reproduce like rabbits and make more children. He compares killing the children of invaders to killing young snakes in your yard, saying:
>When you discover a nest of vipers in your yard, do you spare the adolescents? Do you allow them to grow freely, openly, to one day bite you child as they play in their own yard? No. You burn the nest and kill the vipers, no matter their age.
>The enemies of our children are being born in our lands right now, even as you read this. These same children will one day become teens, then adults, voting against the wishes of our people, practicing the cultural and religious practices of the invaders, taking our peoples lands, work, houses and even attacking and killing our children.
>A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Preventing these enemies from reaching adulthood and their full potential of effect is of the importance. Why make your children fight, when you could fight in their stead?
>Few parents, regardless of circumstance, will willing risk the lives of their children, no matter the economic incentives. Therefore, once we show them the risk of bringing their offspring to our soil, they will avoid our lands.
It will be distasteful, it will be damaging to the soul, but know that it is necessary and any invader you spare, no matter the age, will one day be an enemy your people must face. Better for you to face them now then your kin to face them in the future.
I agree with him on this: killing the children of invaders is justified and necessary, despite being distasteful.
Click to expand...
he still threw his life away for memes
 
Chairman said:
In your post you said that self-defence is justified. What Tarrant did is the defence of the selves of all White people. Therefore what he did is justified.
>He killed children.
He acknowledges this issue in his manifesto: he said that children eventually grow to be adults who reproduce like rabbits and make more children. He compares killing the children of invaders to killing young snakes in your yard, saying:
>When you discover a nest of vipers in your yard, do you spare the adolescents? Do you allow them to grow freely, openly, to one day bite you child as they play in their own yard? No. You burn the nest and kill the vipers, no matter their age.
>The enemies of our children are being born in our lands right now, even as you read this. These same children will one day become teens, then adults, voting against the wishes of our people, practicing the cultural and religious practices of the invaders, taking our peoples lands, work, houses and even attacking and killing our children.
>A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Preventing these enemies from reaching adulthood and their full potential of effect is of the importance. Why make your children fight, when you could fight in their stead?
>Few parents, regardless of circumstance, will willing risk the lives of their children, no matter the economic incentives. Therefore, once we show them the risk of bringing their offspring to our soil, they will avoid our lands.
It will be distasteful, it will be damaging to the soul, but know that it is necessary and any invader you spare, no matter the age, will one day be an enemy your people must face. Better for you to face them now then your kin to face them in the future.
I agree with him on this: killing the children of invaders is justified and necessary, despite being distasteful.
Click to expand...
But what about scripture, of God's will, not the scriptures of Tarrant? It just breaks my heart, I don't understand how you can justify this and say it adheres to anything of God.
 
Chairman said:
All the foreigners are 'attackers'. By living and reproducing in White areas, they are contributing to the replacement of White people. This is literally genocide; invaders are being summoned to our countries to replace us. If we became a minority, we WILL be harmed: minority groups never ever fare well in the long term; they have no power. Therefore, what Tarrant did is just self-defence on a racial or national level instead of a personal one. So I'd argue that it's based, and legal with the Scripture.
Click to expand...
Genocide has deliberate intent. Immigrants forcing to relocate to Europe because their home got bombed by the west isn't genocide.
Chairman said:
I agree with him on this: killing the children of invaders is justified and necessary, despite being distasteful.
Click to expand...
Violence against immigrants has not changed the statistics regarding immigration. Do you think that once enough children are killed in random acts of terrorism, immigration to Europe will cease?
 
soiboi said:
Genocide has deliberate intent. Immigrants forcing to relocate to Europe because their home got bombed by the west isn't genocide.

Violence against immigrants has not changed the statistics regarding immigration. Do you think that once enough children are killed in random acts of terrorism, immigration to Europe will cease?
Click to expand...
>saaar stop discriminating us you was invader we come here because of you saar
 
baqqrih said:
I don't understand how you can justify [killing people] and say it adheres to anything of God.
Click to expand...
I explained that in the beginning of the post. Here's my logic:
>1: Self defence is justified. (Bible)
>2: Besides commiting more crimes than Whites, Invaders are intentionally immigrating to White countries and reproducing faster than White people. (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ive-births-to-non-uk-born-and-uk-born-mothers)
>3: Becoming a minority group is a bad thing, and is harmful, and is worse than staying a majority. (Common sense, if you ask me.)
>D: B, therefore Invaders will outnumber Whites in the future.
>E: D, therefore Whites will be a minority.
>F: E, therefore Whites will be subject to a bad thing carried out by Invaders.
>G: F, therefore Whites are being harmed by Invaders.
>H: A & F, therefore Whites can righteously defend against Invaders.
>I: H, therefore Whites can get rid of the invaders.
 
Chairman said:
I explained that in the beginning of the post. Here's my logic:
>1: Self defence is justified. (Bible)
>2: Besides commiting more crimes than Whites, Invaders are intentionally immigrating to White countries and reproducing faster than White people. (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ive-births-to-non-uk-born-and-uk-born-mothers)
>3: Becoming a minority group is a bad thing, and is harmful, and is worse than staying a majority. (Common sense, if you ask me.)
>D: B, therefore Invaders will outnumber Whites in the future.
>E: D, therefore Whites will be a minority.
>F: E, therefore Whites will be subject to a bad thing carried out by Invaders.
>G: F, therefore Whites are being harmed by Invaders.
>H: A & F, therefore Whites can righteously defend against Invaders.
>I: H, therefore Whites can get rid of the invaders.
Click to expand...
is this font color supposed to burn my eyes
 
soiboi said:
>t. nigger who cant read a map
Click to expand...
Read what exactly, what does the blue stand for? Does it stand for how many people like the colour blue, does it symbolises the number of apples in a county? Just what exactly am I supposed to conclude from such a vague and informationless map? Have you never gone to pre school?
 

Similar threads

Goldy
Serious Was he right?
Replies
16
Views
242
Goldy
Goldy
NT
  • Poll
Shit No One Cares About was the fall of the soviet union a good thing?
2
Replies
37
Views
336
DonutHole
DonutHole
B
Discussion Was he right?
Replies
4
Views
172
Brainstorm
B
lifesucksthenyoudie
Keyed If Sematary was holding that rally, he would have died.
Replies
15
Views
310
lifesucksthenyoudie
lifesucksthenyoudie
nagolbud's Number 1 Fan
Nagolbud who is the shooter? Was is NekoRightsActivist?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
999
nagolbud
nagolbud
Back
Top