It was more common that some like you would like to believe. I presented an article going over the research on this issue. You’re so wound up about this issue, that you fight off any information about it as an anti-white attack.
And, it wasn’t my grandparents. It was my grandparents grandparents.
And I posted historical facts which showed that the attrition rates due to ‘acts of war’ weren’t much if at all different before and after the arrival of Europeans.
I also made the point that Whites didn’t even have a military advantage until the advent of the repeating rifle around 100 years after settlement and could have been easily overwhelmed during that time by an outraged coalition of Aboriginals within a 150 mile radius of Sydney.
And as a simple example, that a squad of musket wielding Rum Corp soldiers had been sent from Sydney to Botany Bay to arrest one Aboriginal man but were sent packing by a dozen or so Aboriginal warriors armed with war spears and shields, because muskets were slow loading, inaccurate, unreliable and with a very limited effective range.
And that the penalty for murder was the same for Black and White, exemplified by the hanging of seven White stockmen for an atrocity in the 1880’s, the murder of Aboriginals.
The vaccine thread has 1,500 ish posts and it’s fair enough pointing out how 0.4% of a population of a country have a wildly disproportionate influence. Imagine a world where Sikhs, for example, happened to be popping up in large numbers in high office. Meritocracy, simple nepotism or a bit of an intentional takeover?
Would it be on topic pointing out that Sikhs were holding multiple top positions in the pivotal industries involved in a certain global event? Should mentioning it be taboo?
And bearing in mind that the posts in question I made were often in response to @Peter 5992 claims or provocations about ‘White supremacy®’
It’s a double standard, you can mention suspicious deaths of Aboriginals around the large cattle stations run by Cattle barons back in the day but don’t zoom in too close or you’ll find e.g that one of the most notorious had an ethnic background as similar to @drumphil’s as to mine.
To be absolutely fair you did spam that Biden admin memissimo a bit, but then again there’s been a bunch of other slightly less repetitive or off topic memes getting splodged around so it’s kind of par for the course. I don’t think you would have if it had sparked a conversation either, but it’s one of those swervable subjects.
But yeah, all the white supremacy claims mostly made by molly-coddled white people is a bit of a tired trope.
Tell me Snooks how we get from a discussion about Dieder Raoult, to this statement
to the following list of the CDC membership, again!
Also, news to me that I’m a jew! Also, I’m about as white as it gets. I’m about as jewish as I am african!
Anyway, Raoult is a crackpot, but I fail to see what him being white has to do with it.
Stella Immanuel is black, and she’s nutty enough to believe in demon sperm.
Morgon just wants to rant on about the same thing, and will come up with any argument, no matter how tenuous, to make an excuse to post the whole list again, in another thread, about another subject.
You and bevo are willing to move my posts, or rename topics if I do anything to subvert the topic of discussion, but somehow morgon gets a free pass to post about the jews any time he likes.
But that’s ok, because the jews are totally relevant to the discussion about Didier Raoult. Totally. If your standard is any subject to do with anything medical means that the jews at the CDC are relevant to that discussion.
Eh? No problem, obviously the CDC list is now totally relevant.
I’ve moved a bunch of posts, not all of them yours. There are bun fight threads and there are other threads where specific bun fights already have a home.
Your posts are not moved “if <you> do anything to subvert discussion” since that would be all the time, it’s just when there’s a newer cleanish thread that’s getting sidetracked.
I haven’t read back the articles he talks about there, but if there’s anti any race rhetoric that’s getting glossed over as if it’s perfectly okay then that’s an issue worth holding a mirror to. Is it not?
Well meaning fools can be found anywhere, talking about anything. I just don’t get how I’m anti-white. Cause I dare to believe that Australia has not been honest about our treatment of aboriginals? Heck, they we’re even citizens of Australia until 1967.
I don’t believe that critical race theory is a complete and completely correct way to look at the world, but I can understand where it comes from, in a world where people living today grew up in a society where segregation was the law, and where laws that were plainly designed to allow the targeting of specific racial and social groups are still often in place, and the enforcement of the law was, and often still is directed with more vigor at some racial groups than it is at others.
Does that absolve people of all responsibility for problems in their part of society. No. That’s nuts, but pretending that some groups aren’t targeted more vigorously than others is nuts too.
Critical race theory came from the same school of thought that led to the ideas of critical legal theory. That the laws and systems in place were biased to keep the less powerful downtrodden, and to maintain the status of those who already have power and wealth.
So Aboriginals got voting rights before a lot of ordinary people in Northern Ireland. None of my grandparents could vote. It’s funny that the same molly-coddled mostly white people who sing from the rooftops about CRT suddenly change their tune when faced with other forms of discrimination these US-centric ideologies are blind to, but which shed light on the true nature of it.
It’s true that the Irish have their fair share of experience of racial prejudice and oppression. Throughout history wherever there has been a power imbalance between racial groups, these things happen.
CRT is far from a complete and perfect description of how the world works, but it sure would be nice if the right wing media actually had a clue what it’s about when they attack it, and it sure would be nice if they didn’t just call anything they didn’t like CRT.
As if Raoult wasn’t attacked from all corners of the msm
which is mostly owned by “White supremacists” That ok now Phil?
And you’ve continued that oppression against the Irish by overblowing a mostly fake narrative about Irish [Anglo] mistreatment of Aborigines in Australia.
Common sense would inform anyone that the Irish in Australia have had way more in common with the Aborigines then either had with leather elbowed handwringing “historians” and peddlers of fake news.
I’ve got a book stored away here somewhere which claims that in 1827 a handful of stockmen in a hut shot and killed nearly two hundred Aborigines who were attacking their hut in Borambil NSW.
Total bullshit in a hard cover book no less.
There was no repeating rifle in 1827.
It’s an insult to Aboriginal skill and intelligence that nearly two hundred could not overcome a few poorly armed Whites in a hut ffs
I personally know many people from that district, Aboriginal included. The report in the book is 100% fake.
Just like the dumbass premise it’s based on i.e that Whites established through sheer brute force of a handful of stockmen an outpost in that part of NSW.
If Aboriginals had intended to get rid of those stockmen they would have achieved it sure enough, and probably without one warrior getting a scratch.
Raoult was called out by other scientists. Rightfully so. His egotistical behavior and fraudulent studies that he put his name on certainly doesn’t help. The media reported on this, mostly reasonably.
Let’s ignore the 470 deaths in close proximity to taking the vax in Australia alone, and instead cherry pick some near irrelevant details of Raoult’s successful HCQ study which was reproduced by at least one other accredited team a month or two later.
It’s not by accident that you’re using such vague terminology. If you could be more specific you would, but you can’t.
There are statistical methods to tease out the chances of a causal relationship, but you don’t present them, because you either don’t understand how they work, or don’t like the answers found in them.
Fake news.
Real news -
Published July 31, 2020 at 12:29pm
272 Comments
Share
Tweet
Gab Share
Telegram
Telegram
Clouthub
Share
Way back in late March Laura Ingraham reported on the latest study by the French research team led by the renowned epidemiologist Dr. Didier Raoult that was able to repeat his findings from a previous study.
This time Dr. Raoult administered hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to 80 patients and observed improvement in EVERY CASE except for a very sick 86-year-old with an advanced form of coronavirus infection.
Advertisement - story continues below
This was very promising news once again from Dr. Didier Raoult.
00:02
01:07
TRENDING: What’s Going On? Arizona Recently Processed 673,000 Voter Identities with the Social Security Administration - 58% Had NO MATCH FOUND
Unfortunately, this doctor’s work with the cheap readily available drug helped President Trump so the the liberal media either ignored, attacked or mocked his research.
Dr. Raoult tweeted his results.
Translated: Our two articles published tonight help to demonstrate:
Advertisement - story continues below
It is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR TODAY that Dr. Raoult was correct in his findings.
Today there are over 5 global studies that support the doctor’s findings that HCQ is a cheap and very effective treatment for coronavirus.
Unfortunately, this was not the preferred treatment by professionals who hoped to reap vast rewards for their own treatment for the coronavirus. Gilead pharmaceuticals was hoping to promote its own drug remdesivir as a potential option to treat the disease. Gilead had the support of Dr. Anthony Fauci who downplayed HCQ at every opportunity.
Well, it’s got all caps, so it must be true. Can’t argue with that.
How about the other 5 teams who reproduced the successful study?
And the CDC says dropping dead within two days of taking the vax, can’t be bc of the vax.
Can’t argue with that either, right?
What do you know about the methodological soundness of those studies, and the integrity of the data used to produce them? Raoult took shortcuts. Exactly how focused are you on the methodological soundness of the studies you claim as evidence in support of your beliefs?