WoT Ultra-right-wing militia leader predicts end of America by 2021 and warns of a looming civil war

Millwright

Knuckle Dragger
_______________
As the US election looms, the gun-toting III% Security Force stands ready for an anti-Democrat uprising. The group has been accused of neo-Nazism, but one of its leaders tells RT they merely protect the will of the people.

“There is a coup taking place right now, there’s a collective effort to overthrow our way of life as we know it – people are starting to realize it’s not a conspiracy theory.
“If we don’t come together as one, we’ll be living in a post-American world by 2021.”


That’s the view of Chris Hill, commanding officer of the III% Security Force’s Georgia branch. The Three Percenters are a constitutional militia with chapters across the US, their name originating from claims that only three percent of colonists took up arms against Britain in the American revolution.
According to them, over the last few months membership has rocketed by 150 percent, with 50 to 100 applicants per day – spurred on by developments like Minneapolis City’s pledge to dismantle their police department and Joe Biden’s promise to stand up for Muslim communities if he enters the White House.
Hill, also known as General BloodAgent, said: “It’s like our Founding Fathers stated, we believe we should come together, to lend our arms and council whenever a crisis arises.
“We advocate and defend our goals and beliefs with regards to our way of life, our constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.”

The group, whose members are rarely seen in the public eye without military fatigues and firearms, sees its role as protecting the people, allowing them to rise up and take control. They spend a fifth of their time on political activism and the rest doing primitive survivalism, military infantry training, hunting, rescue and first aid.


RT



They believe they have been made deliberately obsolete in modern America, a feeling only exacerbated by the national Defund the Police movement and the Democratic Party’s pledge to reform the police force.
Speaking to RT, Hill, a former marine, explained: “How do you get rid of a militia in the United States? You render them useless and over time they fade away.
“Now we’re seeing the Founding Fathers had it right, this is something we should have never let the fire burn out on. We have a short amount of time to reignite it.
“We will be whenever we need to be, wherever God sees fit. Every day we can reach out to another American citizen and say, ‘Are you in favor of communism and anarchism? We have a right to repel that.’”


Claims of neo-Nazism
The group, while evidently on the far end of the political right wing, bristle at their depiction in the mainstream media of being racist neo-Nazis, such as a New York Times article which said“their America is one where Christianity is taught in schools, abortion is illegal, and immigrants hail from Europe.”
In one example, the GSF were accused of “terrorizing” county officials in Georgia out of a meeting to build a new mosque, and linking the place to ISIS – a charge Hill denies.
But his group takes reports of things like Muslim community patrols forming in New York after the Christchurch shooting, as signals that attempts to introduce Sharia law are underway.

Still, in Hill’s view, the group is pro-immigration, supports religious freedom, and would not lead with violence. The big caveats are that the immigration must be legal and the newcomers must assimilate. Like many on the American political right, he refers to undocumented migrants as an invasion.
“I am 100 percent against illegal immigration,” he explains. “The government is cast with a job and part of that is to prevent an invasion, it doesn’t specify armed or unarmed, but if 20 million people are in this country illegally, how can you look at me with a straight face and say we haven’t been invaded?
“Legal immigration is fine, as long as whatever caused you to flee, leave that shit where you came from. Learn the language, our practices, our traditions – do not try to advocate for other religious, ideological or political beliefs enforced in whatever country you came from.
“I’m not saying you have to be Christian, in America you are free to practice any religion you like. But if anyone doesn’t want to assimilate or come here legally, I’d put them in a catapult and fling them into the Gulf of Mexico.”



Death threats
Views like this, and his prominence in the movement, have made Hill a big target for some. He says he and his family regularly receive death threats, forcing him to change his phone number on occasion. He believes they come from the anti-fascist group Antifa, which US President Donald Trump wants to officially label a domestic terrorist organization for its alleged role in the recent riots and the harassment of various conservative figures and their supporters.
“I have been targeted for four or five years,” Hill says. “When I went to Virginia in January they put up a hit list and my face was there, basically I’m a target. If they know I am going to be somewhere, they put up my picture and say they’ll kill me.”
I’ve got a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber on my hip and it’s got 15 bullets in it – if anybody threatens my life, they are going to hit a few of them.

RT

One major reason Hill feels he’s considered worthy of killing is because of his media portrayal. The influential liberal “anti-hate” group Southern Poverty Law Center has branded him and his group “anti-government,” saying he praises“neo-Nazi movements.”
But he claims that the reporting on him is selective.
He is adamant that he cut ties with a group of men formerly in the Kansas Security Force who plotted to bomb the apartment complex of 100 Somali immigrants, and feels their actions are unfairly attached to all Three Percenters to this day.
Reports have linked him to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and previous GSF member Michael Ramos, who carried out a racial beating in public in 2017.
Hill has no love for the mainstream media: “They use freedom of press to slander and lie about me – and put my life in danger because of the lies they are spewing.”
The images of Hill’s group almost exclusively have white people in them, but he claims it’s not on purpose.
“I would love to have a wide range of skin tones in our militia, multiple races, any race is welcome. People can look at us and say, they don’t see a lot of black, Asian or Latino people. It’s not for lack of trying, the invitation is there, we need more.
“It’s laughable to say I am racist or KKK, as I turn around and look at my son, my daughter who are half-white, half-Asian – I’m married to a Vietnamese woman and our kids are mixed. That information doesn’t reach the light of day as it doesn’t fit with everybody who wants to say we’re all racist and KKK.
“My situation doesn’t ever make publication, especially from any left-wing liberal sources.”


‘Gun-grabbing’ Democrats
The III% Security Force hope to see President Trump secure a second term in November and believe the Democrats are out to take away their guns.
If Joe Biden wins, as depressing as that sounds, and Joe Biden goes after guns on a national level – if he’s coming for the guns, he can get it. And any other politician coming for the guns, they can get it too.
“They are 24 different states that are going with red-flag laws and gun bans. That’s different from a potential President Biden pushing through some national firearms ban. That is the true definition of tyranny.”

Issues like red-flag laws which allow individuals to petition a court to remove someone else’s firearm are paramount for the III% Security Force.
“If Biden does that, Chris Hill will get up off his ass and fight against that until my last breath.”
Hill was preparing for that back in 2016, against the threat of “gun-grabbing” Hillary Clinton winning the election. Back then, Trump won and his resolve to fight back was not put to the test. Now, Joe Biden is the “gun-grabbing pedophile” (an apparent reference to Biden’s barely-appropriate shows of physical affection to women and children) that there’s “no way in hell” Hill will vote for.
If Biden does win, Hill, like many Trump supporters, is convinced that the Democrat will have “stolen” the election with the FBI’s help, through methods like hacking and mail-in ballot fraud.

Civil war is coming?
Ironically, given how extremely polarizing his views are, Hill wants his militia to be a uniting force. During our conversation, he frequently refers to “coming together.”
But at the same time, he warns that a US civil war is looming. The racial divide is there, but it’s the current-day protesters who are the racists, in Hill’s view. He sees himself and his group as defenders of freedom of speech.
He explained: “I believe Black Lives Matter is a racist slogan, I believe the organizers of that movement are Marxists, communists and they have no end-game other than taking to streets to loot or riot.
“I’ve been in Georgia my whole life other than in the military, I have not seen any Klan or Nazi rallies, there are no white supremacists in large groups. I would tell them to rent a stadium, spill your guts, say what you need to say and let’s get on with it.
“Nobody in the USA was born into slavery, I understand what happened prior to me being born, a lot of bad things happened, but I was born free just like the next white man, Asian woman or black man, all people.
“We are on an equal footing going forward, if you don’t like the situation you are in, get a bus ticket and relocate. This is not a movie, it’s real life.”

Never without a gun himself, Hill maintains his group isn’t advocating a violent uprising.
“We’ll protect the voice of the people. It can’t come from the end of a gun, if we do that then we’ve lost the moral high ground and the war before it even starts.
“Power needs to be given to the people to make changes. But there is no doubt in my mind we are stumbling towards an armed conflict inside the United States of America.”

Ultimately, in a country that’s rapidly dismantling the unseemly elements of its past, the Three Percenters want to see a return to the principles of 1776 when America formed as an independent nation.
Hill said: “We are a constitutional militia recognized by the Second Amendment. In the last 244 years, would you have said we have moved towards perfection or towards damage done and anarchy?
“We are definitely heading in the wrong direction.”


5eff544285f54003255a6ec5.jpg


 

Millwright

Knuckle Dragger
_______________
From the RT spin zone. Some interesting stuff, once you filter the crap out.

America’s streets are being patrolled by armed civilians, but could these gun-toting vigilantes really kill?

Whether it’s protests over lockdowns or warding off looters, the US has rarely seen such overt displays of ballistic power from private citizens. But, for all their garage military get-ups, could these people really shoot to kill?
There have been so many powerful images in the news lately, it’s hard for anything to stand out. We’ve been emotionally waterboarded by a constant stream of protest, violence and brutality, hope, hate and humour. Among the most memorable pictures have been those of heavily-armed private citizens guarding shops and neighbourhoods during Black Lives Matter protests, or expressing their disapproval of anti-epidemic measures.

Most of these vigilantes – a term I’ll use here without prejudice – describe themselves as “concerned citizens.” Many are equipped better than some national armies, with assault-style rifles and body armour very much the fashion. It’s a sight that is impressive, intimidating, comforting, worrying, antagonising or repulsive, depending on your point of view.
But what happens when someone isn’t deterred?
A protester in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was shot on March 15 as he tried to bring down a statue of a Spanish conquistador. Police are investigating whether the shooter, Steven Ray Baca, is connected to the New Mexico Civil Guard, a well-known local militia.
However, considering the number of protests, the number of guns on display, the unrest and the heightened tensions, is one non-fatal shooting an anomaly? Are these personal arsenals, in reality, nothing more than posturing or intimidation – an empty threat? In short, are the people carrying the guns capable of using them to kill another human being?


Training to kill
We’ve all seen films where the previously passive character empties a Glock 9mm into the bad guy at a crucial moment. It’s almost always heroic, redemptive even, and gives the impression that, in the right situation, each and every one of us can pull the trigger. Yet studies have shown that even in the most hostile of environments, people have been reluctant to shoot to kill.
”There was a study done after a major American Civil war battle,” says Colin Berry, former Special Forces sergeant, government intelligence operative and author of The Deniable Agent: Undercover in Afghanistan. “They found that most of the muskets of the dead had been loaded several times over, meaning the individual had followed the drill, aimed but never fired.
“Armies around the world picked up on this and military training became all about desensitising the act of killing. The enemy is routinely referred to as ‘the target.’ This stems from training on a range with targets that are human-shaped. This conditions front line troops into seeing a target, not a human. It’s effective but far from foolproof.”

Indeed, US Army historian SLA Marshall’s famous (albeit challenged) study of World War II soldiers found that only 15-20 percent of combatants were able to fire their weapons at the enemy – and many of these aimed high or low. The conclusion Marshall came to was that most humans, subconsciously at least, find the act of killing abhorrent, to the point where some consider it worse than dying.

RT

The Allied forces soldiers on the D-Day. 1944 © AFP

“In World War I they experienced a similar problem,” says Berry. “Trillions of rounds were fired by soldiers who can hit a target on the range and yet the death rate was still a small percentage of what was actually fired. So how did we lose so many men? Artillery, indirect fire, death by proxy, gas and machine-gun fire.
“In World War II you had aircraft joining the ranks with mass bombings, but still there was the problem of highly trained and motivated service personnel not killing when aiming down the sights. Vietnam was the same and bizarrely painted a better picture, with jungle being lopped down by automatic fire many feet above the enemies’ heads.”

It should be noted that most soldiers in these wars were conscripts or volunteers. They weren’t professional soldiers who had chosen a career that might involve having to shoot someone whose eyes they can see. That said, many who do choose that career path will not understand the reality of conflict and require training.
“In modern armies, we recognise these issues,” says Berry. “Killing isn’t for everyone. Even those who act like Rambo often fail in the heat of battle.”
According to Lt Col Pete Kilner, a retired US Army officer who studied the experiences of soldiers in war, much of the training involved in preparing soldiers for combat is centred around repetition and priming them to react to situations in an effective manner.
“An old saying is, ‘Skill plus will equals kill,’” he says. “First, the military trains soldiers to be able to use their weapons expertly. This creates ‘muscle memory’ and gives soldiers great pride in their ability to operate their weapon. Then, groups of soldiers are trained on ‘battle drills,‘ which are immediate group responses to a stimulus.
“In the US Army, the most-trained battle drill is Battle Drill 1A: Squad React to Contact. The squad, a group of eight to 10 soldiers who spend countless hours together, practices responding as a group to making contact with an enemy. Battle drills create ‘social muscle memory’ that includes skills – how and where to move, and when to shoot – and also t responsibility to do their duty for their squad.”


RT

US soldiers take part in a military exercise at the Training Support Centre © AFP / Robert Atanasovski

That’s the skill element and the will is equally as important. Excuse the crude analogy, but we all know how to jump off a cliff, but how many of us would be willing to do it?
“The military trains soldiers to love their country and all the good value it stands for,” says Kilner. “It develops strong bonds of loyalty among soldiers and within their units. Most soldiers develop such a strong sense of patriotism, duty, and loyalty that they are very willing to kill and to risk being killed.”

Even a sheep can kill
So, what about those armed civilians? Unless they’re ex-military, few will have gone through such specialised and intensive conditioning. This, you would think, would greatly reduce their ability to fire on someone. And yet, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks shootings, at least 15,292 people were fatally wounded by gunfire in the US last year, excluding suicides.
This isn’t to link those citizens on patrol with these statistics. While there have been notable ‘vigilante’ killings, such as the murder of unarmed jogger Ahmaud Arbery in February, they are clearly not contributing to the majority of those 15,000 deaths. But a lot of civilians are managing to pull the trigger and that’s because the ability to kill at close quarters is about more than training, it’s also about who’s holding the gun.
“In UK special forces selection we have what is called the ‘aptitude test,’” says Berry. “It covers a multitude of capabilities but one is the ability to aim at a human and kill them. Just because you join the services doesn’t mean you want to kill and we know it. That’s the military: full of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves. Society is the same.
“Sheep are normal healthy individuals who wouldn’t contemplate killing anyone but are essential to society or a collective. Wolves are psychopathic individuals who would kill anything and anyone and need to be isolated or removed. Unfortunately, they’re good at hiding themselves. Sheepdogs understand that to protect the sheep, they must control the numbers of wolves. Thankfully the sheep in society outnumber the wolves and sheepdogs.”


Considering its popularity as an online slur, it will come as a great shock to many people that they are, in all probability, sheep. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to be psychopathic or professionally programmed to kill. Indeed, that movie scenario of the previously placid character firing a fatal shot at the villain rings true with basic human psychology – if we have the right stimuli.
Nick Davies is a leading psychotherapist and hypnotherapist who deals with trauma, including PTSD in both civilians and soldiers who have killed. He says that certain situations will allow almost anyone to take a life.
“We have a survival instinct that's hardwired into our brain,” he says. “But also we protect others, especially close members of our family because the bigger the family unit, the safer we are, the more resources we can get, etc. So in order to kill another human being, we need to feel our own safety is threatened or the safety of, say, our kids.
“I say this to the most peaceful mothers. If somebody was going to kill your children, I guarantee you would find that killer instinct.”

Kilner agrees.
“It's easy, even natural, to use force to protect yourself or someone you love,” he says. “When an Iraqi insurgent was shooting at me, I was shocked by my visceral desire to kill him. Once we captured him, I no longer felt the desire to kill him. When it's him or you who's going to die, you desperately want it to be him.”
In the case of Steven Ray Baca, video footage shows him being attacked with a skateboard by the protester he shot. No matter who instigated the tussle - which is still unclear - Baca could easily have believed his life to be in danger.

RT

A man sits in the Conversation Cafe while carrying a firearm in the police-free zone known as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) on June 15, 2020 in Seattle, Washington © Getty Images / David Ryder

Fight or freeze?
Many of these vigilantes, who range from Average Joe to militia, have been seen in areas where looting and rioting have taken place. Others have appeared because of online rumours that their patch of the USA will be targeted by ‘Antifa’ (these rumours have nearly always been unfounded but aren't surprising, given the fertile environment for misinformation).
Here, they aren’t necessarily defending themselves or their friends and family; they’re defending property. Some of these properties are domestic or municipal, such as homes, parks, squares or, in Baca's case, a statue; many are businesses, both small and large.
It seems reasonable that someone protecting their home or their own business – and therefore their livelihood – is going to fight hard to save that property, possibly to the point where they might use potentially lethal force. But some vigilantes are lining roofs and car parks of entire shopping malls, forming a quasi-military defence of Target and Walmart stores. Surely taking a life to help shareholders is very different.

RT

Two protesters with semi-automatic rifles attend a Black Lives Matter demonstration on May 29, 2020 in Las Vegas, Nevada © Getty Images / Denise Truscello

“It depends on what's happened in their past,” says Davies. “For instance, if somebody had things taken from them as a child - if they were very poor and people stole their possessions - that can follow them through life. There's a learned behaviour that I need to protect my possessions, my property, otherwise I feel vulnerable. Also, it can be if you feel overtly threatened by somebody and they're a lot bigger, stronger than you. You've got a weapon and you think this is my only way out.”
Or they can be one of those wolves.
“When you get characters like [Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes] who use violence excessively, it's because of a massive sense of fear, more than likely from previous trauma. They were bullied at school, went through humiliation, beatings, maybe from their parents. Things like that. They get such trauma that they develop this external character which helps in terms of doing bad things. So a childhood of trauma can provoke this wilder, irrational side that can be quite nasty and malicious.”

So, we have different types of people, conditioning and situations – the various blends of which leaves us with three possible outcomes from these vigilante patrols, putting aside the option of them going home. The first, and undoubtedly the most desirable, is that the sight of people with rifles slung over their shoulders dissuades anyone from attacking either them or whatever they’re trying to protect.
This could also discourage peaceful protesters or people who just want to buy a new toaster and don’t want to become ‘collateral damage,’ but even this seems preferable to the alternatives.
The second potential result is that these mini arsenals don’t deter assailants and that those holding the guns aren’t able to pull the trigger – at least not while pointing at a human being. In addition to our innate reluctance to kill, Davies points to another reason why this is likely.
“The freeze response,” he says. “Responses to a threat include fight, flight, freeze and appease. But the predominant one is freeze. This might keep you alive but the consequences can be PTSD or trauma – nightmares about, ‘Why didn't I protect myself? Why didn't I do something?’”
If you’ve ever seen a frightened (real) sheep, freezing is one of their natural responses. In this case, we have a heavily-armed sheep in danger of losing a deadly weapon, possibly to a wolf who is capable of using it. Or perhaps a frightened sheep firing wildly in a built-up, heavily-populated urban area. Which leads us onto consequence number three: someone shoots someone, possibly fatally.

It leaves you scarred

What happens then isn’t just about legal processes and arguments or the tragedy of a life lost. It’s also about the effect on the person who pulled the trigger. How does taking a life affect someone? If we go back to the original comparison of a soldier in war, Kilner believes that there are three situational variables that influence the psychological after-effects.
“The first is the killer's psychological distance from the attacker they kill,” he says. “That distance is partly geographic – it's more traumatic to kill someone at close range, probably because they’re more obviously a fellow human being. It's also social-psychological. How similar is that person to me? It's easier to dehumanise an enemy who is ‘different’ in, for example, appearance, religion, language.
“The second factor is the killer's perception of the immediate threat that the attacker poses. The greater the immediate threat, the lesser the after-effects. Is he aiming at us? Is he even armed? Or is he simply walking around at the moment? The third variable is the justness of the killer's cause or mission. How confident is he that the war is just? In the case of police officers, at least they know that their mission is just, even if their behaviour isn't always right.”



If a soldier who kills can help deal with their actions by framing them within the context of war, or a police officer by believing in a larger cause, it’s more complicated with civilians (Steven Ray Baca, by the way, is the son of a former sheriff). Davies says that convicts he treats, even those who have turned their lives around, still have nightmares about what they've done in the past because with age, usually, comes the ability to reflect and rationalise what we’ve done.
“If you’re not trained for it, there's going to be anxiety or trauma, even if it's in self-defence, because it's really difficult for most human beings to harm another human being,” he says. “In a situation where you've murdered somebody it's very likely that you're going to suffer trauma and PTSD. We find that they’ll have recurring nightmares, they lie awake at night thinking about the situation happening again. We can treat it using therapies to remove memories, but talking therapies like counseling and CBT won't touch it - it’s on a limbic level.”

Coping with the consequences
We can ask someone who has killed how it affects them. Someone who has had to kill. Berry, in his time serving in the military and as an intelligence operative, has done just that. He believes that training or no training, no normal person could remain unaffected, and has a method for dealing with the consequences of his actions.

“In my personal experience the act was always by instinct, reacting to a direct threat or stopping a threat from being present,” he says. “The reaction after the event will come in many ways: laughter, exhaustion or tears. All are a by-product of increases in adrenaline levels. That all deals with the immediate. Thereafter it’s the legacy. If you're a ‘normal’ person, regardless of training or background, you will rerun the event a thousand times. This often manifests itself as PTSD. I don’t believe anyone has immunity to this but it comes at differing levels. Some can be treated, others result in suicide.
“I always play events back to myself. The first question I ask myself is, ‘Did I need to kill?’ Normally a resounding yes, as it was a necessity to save lives, mine or others. First tick. ‘Was there any way of avoiding the situation?’ Normally no, as it was part of a pre-planned mission or I was attacked. Second tick. My last sanity check is, ‘Did they deserve to die?’ I try to answer this question rather than leaving it to stew, looking at a couple of things: did I kill an enemy whose sole intent at that time was to kill me, or was in the act of planning to kill me, my comrades or civilians. If it’s a yes, then they had met my criteria. But it’s not always that easy.”


RT

Colin Berry in South Armagh, Northern Ireland, in 1986.

The answer to our question then: maybe. Not that definitive, I realise, but the combination of personality type, human behaviour and situation means that when we see those images of armed civilians lining the streets, we don’t know which of them would be able to aim and shoot. Under the right circumstances, it could be all of them; and the more tense or hostile the environment, the more likely those circumstances become.
The one thing we can say with absolute certainty is, assuming they’re not a psychopathic ‘wolf,’ if they do pull that trigger, their lives will never be the same again.

 

The Mountain

Here since the beginning
_______________
The key element is "how many of the civilian 'militia' are actually former military vs civilians who armed up?". I will grant that an ordinary civilian who has had no combat training will do exactly as the article describes, and freeze up or falter. However, I think the part that isn't examined is that a big chunk of these armed folks *are* former military, and not a few of them are actual combat troops, who are applying their skills to the current political climate.
 

mistaken1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Every civilian, on the left and on the right, being green to combat will falter, freeze and make mistakes. Those that survive will not make those same mistakes however they will go on to make new mistakes. Those that survive will not make those same mistakes however they will go on to make new mistakes. This continues ad infinitum until one does not survive the latest mistake or combat ceases.
 

Zagdid

Veteran Member
Every civilian, on the left and on the right, being green to combat will falter, freeze and make mistakes. Those that survive will not make those same mistakes however they will go on to make new mistakes. Those that survive will not make those same mistakes however they will go on to make new mistakes. This continues ad infinitum until one does not survive the latest mistake or combat ceases.
If the goal is to survive, then best not to take up arms at all. A warrior survives only to fight again.
 

CaryC

Has No Life - Lives on TB
The guy sitting at the CHOP coffee shop.

According to his girth, his color, and type of weapon.....I've seen him before. Walking the streets of CHOP keeping the peace. Probably eats a lot of donuts.

I also find it interesting that US militia's are usually seen carrying AR15's, and those who oppose our government as noted in CHOP carry AK47's. Not that anything is wrong with that, or those weapons. Just making an observation. No harm, no foul.
 
  • Like
Reactions: et2

CaryC

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Because that's what Che carried.

The standard arms for communist revolutionaries...from the day it was designed.
Aaaa got to be trendy in all things. I get it, thanks.

Quiz: What was the pistol Che shot all them girls in the back of the head with?
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
There are several “weapons” available to civilians that are “less than lethal” but potentially capable of immobilizing, or even debilitating one’s adversaries, hence eliminating the fear of “killing”, but do not forget, when “you” (or your loved ones) have been threatened Or harmed, ”righteous anger” becomes a powerful motivator, and all the “battlefield analysis” regarding actual trigger pullers gets tossed out the window in a hurry...
 

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
I'll see your super ultra right wing with ...

Super duper hurt my feelz because they won't believe my unicorn can fart rainbows and skittles while being a nonbinary soldier for the people right wing.
The AK-47 is a weapon first built in 1947. The Russian barbarians have moved several cycles beyond the AK, as have the Chinese barbarians.
 

Meadowlark

Has No Life - Lives on TB
FYI a couple of comments. Up to 70% of WWI casualties were inflicted in indiscriminate artillery.
A good book on this subject is called "n Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society".
It is written by a Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society: Dave Grossman: 9780316040938: Amazon.com: Books

It is not an easy read I will admit. I have yet to read the whole book.

A further comment is that EMDR is highly recommended for PTSD.

What is EMDR? | EMDR Institute – EYE MOVEMENT DESENSITIZATION AND REPROCESSING THERAPY


Know about it from a friend. :rolleyes:
 

Squid

Veteran Member
Hell when you use the term ultra right wing in todays world that may be used in the media for Mitch McConnell, or you and I.
 

Meadowlark

Has No Life - Lives on TB
According to the southern poverty law center, anyone who does not support Antifa and has a firearm is a potential right wing militia candidate. :shr:
 

Tristan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
"Polar Left"

A term coined by, iirc, a Liberal Professor to describe the political environment where, analogous to a "North Pole" or "South Pole", the far Left considers any thought or speech not acceptable to them to be evidence of being on the Right.

Just like standing on the North Pole; when there, everything is South to you...

If you are on the Polar Left, everything else is to the Right.

In that mindset, classic Centrists are Hard Right Wing; classic Conservatives are Ultra Right Wing...

I honestly think in today's environment that JFK would be considered a bit to the Right of the Republican Party.
 
Top