It's as good an explanation as any I guess. We'll never know since the OP ran away.One thing I never ever do when I start a thread is run away, maybe that's just me.
Racism is a hoax
- Thread starter IM2
- Start date
It's as good an explanation as any I guess. We'll never know since the OP ran away.One thing I never ever do when I start a thread is run away, maybe that's just me.
impuretrash
Gold Member
- Aug 31, 2017
- 11,029
- 2,950
- 290
It's not so obscure. A big hollywood movie about Varg and Mayhem was recently released.
Lords of Chaos (2019)
I don't dispute that it exists. But the history of burning black-specific churches, in the South (both of which apply here) is far deeper and far more well known.
impuretrash
Gold Member
- Aug 31, 2017
- 11,029
- 2,950
- 290
Varg has nearly 300,000 subcribers on his youtube channel. That's 3 times as many as Ron Paul's channel.
keepitreal
Platinum Member
Sheriff deputy’s son took an interest inNo coincidence that whites here won't mention this.
Holden Matthews Arrested in String of Louisiana Church Fires
Holden Matthews has been arrested in connection with fires that destroyed three Louisiana churches in the span of two weeks, local news outlet KATC reports.
Matthews, 21, is the son of a St. Landry Parish sheriff’s deputy, and he was booked in to St. Landry Parish jail at about 5:30 Wednesday evening. (His family declined to comment to The Daily Beast.) Louisiana authorities will hold a press conference at 10 a.m. local time.
Holden Matthews Arrested in String of Louisiana Church Fires
"It's all made up by democrats to keep blacks voting democrat."
black metal and pagan social media pages,
which had connections to neo-Nazism and white supremacy.
Louisiana State Fire Marshal “Butch” Browning,
at a Thursday morning press conference,
called the fires “an attack on our God and our religion.”
A Facebook page that appeared to belong to Matthews
showed he was active in pagan and black metal pages
The pagan circles Matthews and Vikernes frequented
can be popular with neo-Nazis.
One of the pagan pages Matthews was active on
specifically forbade racism and “nazi stuff.”
READ YOUR OWN LINKS!
Seems to me, he hates God,
but, here you are making it about race
and NEITHER of your links, mentions as much!
By the Word of God, through Christ,
THE LORD REBUKE YOU UNCLEAN SPIRITS
CONTENTIOUS SPIRITS
ARGUMENTATIVE SPIRITS
HOSTILE SPIRITS
QUARRELSOME SPIRITS
ANTAGONISTIC SPIRITS
CONFRONTATIONAL SPIRITS
DEFIANT SPIRITS
PROVOKING SPIRITS
As it IS WRITTEN...
Christ has already won the battle
You have already been defeated
This battle is the Lords
The Lord rebuke you
Thank you Heavenly Father,
in the Mighty and Sovereign Name of Jesus
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
Apparently the 3 churches were all fairly close to each other. I've no idea if the suspect skipped other churches to target these specific 3. Deputy sheriff's son charged in connection with string of fires at historically black churches in Louisiana
This absolutely could have had a racial motivation, but the very little evidence given so far doesn't make that certain. In fact, the only evidence I've seen in the various articles on this subject indicate that to this point, it is Holden's black metal and pagan ties which are thought to be motivations, not any racially based motivation.
I'd want to know how many churches are in the area, and how many are historically black, before I'd be ready to make any judgements about this being a racially motivated crime.
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
I call B.S.No coincidence that whites here won't mention this.
Holden Matthews Arrested in String of Louisiana Church Fires
Holden Matthews has been arrested in connection with fires that destroyed three Louisiana churches in the span of two weeks, local news outlet KATC reports.
Matthews, 21, is the son of a St. Landry Parish sheriff’s deputy, and he was booked in to St. Landry Parish jail at about 5:30 Wednesday evening. (His family declined to comment to The Daily Beast.) Louisiana authorities will hold a press conference at 10 a.m. local time.
Holden Matthews Arrested in String of Louisiana Church Fires
"It's all made up by democrats to keep blacks voting democrat."
Check out the Thor's Hammer on his neck.
This is not the action of a Norse Pagan. They pegged the wrong guy.
.
Nobody said it was "certain". Nothing at this point is "certain", including the Norway thing.
That's not "evidence". That's correlation. What other correlations to the accused exist, that we don't know of? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and nobody suggested this Norway thing is all there is to know about the perp.
Seems to me there was recently a gaggle of wags whining about a rush to judgment about a smirking teenager not long ago based on, again, limited information.
Sure. But tell that to the OP who put this thread in "Racism" with a bizarre quip suggesting "white people wouldn't talk about it" whatever that means, and then ran away when asked to explain it.
Nobody knows the arsonist's motivation thus far but they also need not be an either/or. There's no reason BOTH couldn't be contributory. Or a third motivation not yet apparent. But for the poster to hang it on some klown who burned churches in Norway 25 years ago while ignoring a vast 200-year history of burning black churches in the South, including the infamous 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, smells like somebody trying to pre-emptively divert.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 102,077
- 113,754
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #49
Apparently with some major daddy issues.
Yup. Another douche that can rot in prison. Trash taken out.
You can put away your broadbrush IM2.
No broad brush. 242 years of continuing white racist behavior.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 102,077
- 113,754
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #50
Of course it does. The claims made by many here that racism is a hoax or a thing of the past apparently went ignored by you.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 102,077
- 113,754
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #51
What have I run from? I looked at threads here and there was no mention of this. But when the Jussie Smollette situation was found to be false several threads were started and whites here are still talking about it. The same for the SAT scam. Whites are paying for others to take entrance exams but whites here still want to cry that lie about affirmative action. But we don't see whites here talking about that.
Racism is behind this. There are white churches in this area and if anti religion was purely the motive why only did black churches get burned down? Whites like most here will go to any end to deny racism unless they perceive it's against whites.
The poster did none of what you claim. I titled this racism is a hoax to show the fallacy in such thinking when we continue to see such actions. Being black, I know full well the complete history of the ongoing racism by whites against us in America. It is why I can say that smirking white teenager is a racist and it is why I can say that racism is behind those church burnings.
It is also why I can title this thread "Racism is a hoax", then post evidence of how that comment made by whites here at USMB is fake news.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
Oh, IM2 always seems to make race-based arguments. It's what he's known for on this site.
I totally agree that to this point, the suspect's motivations are unclear. My point was that the churches burned being historically black is on the correlation rather than causation side of the scale like the black metal and pagan leanings, so your statement that "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." was a bit of a jump to a conclusion.
impuretrash
Gold Member
- Aug 31, 2017
- 11,029
- 2,950
- 290
The perpetrator is what, 23 years old? He probably knows a lot more about black metal history than he does American history. Social media snoopers reported that they couldnt find a single instance of him expressing any political views. If he wasn't talking about music, he was talking about pagan religions. He expressed interest in Polynesian paganism even, which is probably not something a white supremacist would ask about.
It's not a "conclusion" at all; it's historical context. Just as the Norway thing is context in this individual's case. And out of the two, one is a lot more glaringly Occam's Razor than the other. The NAACP condemned these burnings as hate crimes, and it's not hard to fathom why. Conclusions, we don't have yet.
Sure it's possible that this knuckledragger went out with the mission of simply burning churches and was totally ignorant of the long history of black church burnings in the South --- where he lives --- yet is all up to speed on some obscure crime spree in Norway 25 years ago ..... and just happened to pick black churches in his own home turf. But it stretches credulity to think he wouldn't see the significance.
And it's worth pointing out again that a church, especially one in the black community, is much more a social center than a religious function -- and that's exactly why there IS that long history of racist church burnings ---- it's certainly not because they were out there practicing Christianity. The Klan, who were notorious for church attacks, were hyperpartisan Christians themselves. What they attacked was the idea that black people could socialize and potentially organize.
Now if this Norway freak had an entirely different motive, i.e. attacking Christianity, then his motive is still terrorism but rather than the social intimidation of racism, his terrorism would derive from a different motive of religion. But terrorists are out to make an intimidation point, and the point must be understood by his target, otherwise the message fails. To convey the point of religious intimidation he would have burned both black and white churches to eliminate the obvious racial implication. But he didn't. Arguably he would have burned ONLY or predominantly white churches to make that point and avoid the obvious racial connection. But he didn't.
I'm not sure how he could understand the tactics of intimidation and yet be oblivious to the racial implications of burning black churches in the South. It's a bit like burning a cross on a neighbor's lawn and then going "I saw you had some dead trees and I got rid of them for you --- what? It means something? I had no idea".
I'm not familiar with IM2's history so I can't comment on that. I guess whatever he posted in the past failed to make an impression.
Last edited:
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 59,846
- 20,353
- 2,250
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
It's not a "conclusion" at all; it's historical context. Just as the Norway thing is context in this individual's case. And out of the two, one is a lot more glaringly Occam's Razor than the other. The NAACP condemned these burnings as hate crimes, and it's not hard to fathom why. Conclusions, we don't have yet.
Sure it's possible that this knuckledragger went out with the mission of simply burning churches and was totally ignorant of the long history of black church burnings in the South --- where he lives --- yet is all up to speed on some obscure crime spree in Norway 25 years ago ..... and just happened to pick black churches in his own home turf. But it stretches credulity to think he wouldn't see the significance.
And it's worth pointing out again that a church, especially one in the black community, is much more a social center than a religious function -- and that's exactly why there IS that long history of racist church burnings ---- it's certainly not because they were out there practicing Christianity. The Klan, who were notorious for church attacks, were hyperpartisan Christians themselves. What they attacked was the idea that black people could socialize and potentially organize.
Now if this Norway freak had an entirely different motive, i.e. attacking Christianity, then his motive is still terrorism but rather than the social intimidation of racism, his terrorism would derive from a different motive of religion. But terrorists are out to make an intimidation point, and the point must be understood by his target, otherwise the message fails. To convey the point of religious intimidation he would have burned both black and white churches to eliminate the obvious racial implication. But he didn't. Arguably he would have burned ONLY or predominantly white churches to make that point and avoid the obvious racial connection. But he didn't.
I'm not sure how he could understand the tactics of intimidation and yet be oblivious to the racial implications of burning black churches in the South. It's a bit like burning a cross on a neighbor's lawn and then going "I saw you had some dead trees and I got rid of them for you --- what? It means something? I had no idea".
I'm not familiar with IM2's history so I can't comment on that. I guess whatever he posted in the past failed to make an impression.
Your statement certainly was a conclusion. You concluded that because the churches burned were historically black churches, that indicates that KKK or racist beliefs seem to be the motivation.
Again, I don't know if these churches were specifically picked or just picked at random. If most of the churches in the area are historically black, it could certainly be a random thing. If he would have driven by other churches which are not historically black, just as easily accessed, then I would agree it's evidence that race was a motivating factor.
I realize it's different today, but when I was in my early 20s, I could see myself having decided to burn a church without the slightest idea of what kind of congregants might have attended it.
The idea that this guy would have taken the race of the congregants into account if he burned the churches because of anti-Christian feelings is pretty silly IMO. It ascribes a great deal more planning and intelligence to the acts than probably existed. A young 20s black metal kid deciding to burn churches probably isn't the most likely person to do extensive research into his targets, nor the most likely person to consider the possible racial or social links people might read into the act. I don't think we're talking about a master criminal, but an angry young man thinking little further than "Fuck Christianity!" "Fuck blacks!" or some combination thereof.
Maybe the guy was a racist, maybe anti-Christian, maybe both. You just seemed to dismiss the pagan and black metal evidence and assume the racial angle was the motivation in your first posts.
There was no mention because you had just brought it up for the first time, when the news hit. Minutes after you put this up, another thread was posted on the same story from the same breaking news, except it didn't have a bizarre title that gave no hint of what it was about.. What you ran from was the question of what this thread was supposed to mean with "white people won't talk about this" and "racism is a hoax". No it ain't a hoax at all.
Quite the broad brush you're packing there. You didn't see any posts from me for one, simply because I'm not interested in those issues. But whatever you did see on these or any other story are the product of what you see, not what there is.
BY DEFINITION any new story anyone posts is something nobody's been talking about. That doesn't mean they're actively avoiding it.
I've been noting the same thing and questioning the motivations of harping on an obscure crime spree six thousand miles and 25 years ago while the proverbial elephant in the room wants to be dismissed. I don't think it's possible to grow up in the rural South ---- least of all as the child of a deputy sheriff ---- and not be aware of the significance of burning black churches. I don't know for a fact that racism is behind it but I'm damn sure he couldn't have known it would convey that message.
Wait, hold on --- I just checked my skin and it's "white" --- am I not supposed to talk about this?
Was I being "nonwhite" to publish threads about the history of lynchings and of the Klan and Tulsa and the Red Summer and the Silent March? Or the East St.Louis riots? Or that time Ulysses Grant expelled the Jews? Or the Massacre at Acteal? Or the Protestant Know Nothing riots against Catholics? Or the Hebron Massacre?
It's not a "conclusion" at all; it's historical context. Just as the Norway thing is context in this individual's case. And out of the two, one is a lot more glaringly Occam's Razor than the other. The NAACP condemned these burnings as hate crimes, and it's not hard to fathom why. Conclusions, we don't have yet.
Sure it's possible that this knuckledragger went out with the mission of simply burning churches and was totally ignorant of the long history of black church burnings in the South --- where he lives --- yet is all up to speed on some obscure crime spree in Norway 25 years ago ..... and just happened to pick black churches in his own home turf. But it stretches credulity to think he wouldn't see the significance.
And it's worth pointing out again that a church, especially one in the black community, is much more a social center than a religious function -- and that's exactly why there IS that long history of racist church burnings ---- it's certainly not because they were out there practicing Christianity. The Klan, who were notorious for church attacks, were hyperpartisan Christians themselves. What they attacked was the idea that black people could socialize and potentially organize.
Now if this Norway freak had an entirely different motive, i.e. attacking Christianity, then his motive is still terrorism but rather than the social intimidation of racism, his terrorism would derive from a different motive of religion. But terrorists are out to make an intimidation point, and the point must be understood by his target, otherwise the message fails. To convey the point of religious intimidation he would have burned both black and white churches to eliminate the obvious racial implication. But he didn't. Arguably he would have burned ONLY or predominantly white churches to make that point and avoid the obvious racial connection. But he didn't.
I'm not sure how he could understand the tactics of intimidation and yet be oblivious to the racial implications of burning black churches in the South. It's a bit like burning a cross on a neighbor's lawn and then going "I saw you had some dead trees and I got rid of them for you --- what? It means something? I had no idea".
I'm not familiar with IM2's history so I can't comment on that. I guess whatever he posted in the past failed to make an impression.
Your statement certainly was a conclusion. You concluded that because the churches burned were historically black churches, that indicates that KKK or racist beliefs seem to be the motivation.
Again, I don't know if these churches were specifically picked or just picked at random. If most of the churches in the area are historically black, it could certainly be a random thing. If he would have driven by other churches which are not historically black, just as easily accessed, then I would agree it's evidence that race was a motivating factor.
I realize it's different today, but when I was in my early 20s, I could see myself having decided to burn a church without the slightest idea of what kind of congregants might have attended it.
The idea that this guy would have taken the race of the congregants into account if he burned the churches because of anti-Christian feelings is pretty silly IMO. It ascribes a great deal more planning and intelligence to the acts than probably existed. A young 20s black metal kid deciding to burn churches probably isn't the most likely person to do extensive research into his targets, nor the most likely person to consider the possible racial or social links people might read into the act. I don't think we're talking about a master criminal, but an angry young man thinking little further than "Fuck Christianity!" "Fuck blacks!" or some combination thereof.
Maybe the guy was a racist, maybe anti-Christian, maybe both. You just seemed to dismiss the pagan and black metal evidence and assume the racial angle was the motivation in your first posts.
On the contrary what I'm doing is resisting the idea of dismissing it. Not sure if you've ever lived in the South but I REALLY don't think it's even possible to grow up in rural Louisiana as the son of a deputy sheriff, and NOT be at the very least aware of what it means to burn a black church, let alone three of them.
Even at age 21? Of course. Same age Dylann Roof was when he went to a black church in Charleston. "Extensive" research wasn't needed. And Roof didn't even live in Charleston. This guy burned churches in his own parish where his father patrolled. Even less "extensive" research needed. It's his own turf.
And NO, for at least the fifth time there IS NO conclusion to be made, absent a confession or other new info. But you can't just go "oh look he's got a comment on a Nosebook meme about this Norwegian guy" and on that basis dismiss everything else.
And yes it could certainly be both. I pointed that out yesterday. Maybe you read right past it.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
It's not a "conclusion" at all; it's historical context. Just as the Norway thing is context in this individual's case. And out of the two, one is a lot more glaringly Occam's Razor than the other. The NAACP condemned these burnings as hate crimes, and it's not hard to fathom why. Conclusions, we don't have yet.
Sure it's possible that this knuckledragger went out with the mission of simply burning churches and was totally ignorant of the long history of black church burnings in the South --- where he lives --- yet is all up to speed on some obscure crime spree in Norway 25 years ago ..... and just happened to pick black churches in his own home turf. But it stretches credulity to think he wouldn't see the significance.
And it's worth pointing out again that a church, especially one in the black community, is much more a social center than a religious function -- and that's exactly why there IS that long history of racist church burnings ---- it's certainly not because they were out there practicing Christianity. The Klan, who were notorious for church attacks, were hyperpartisan Christians themselves. What they attacked was the idea that black people could socialize and potentially organize.
Now if this Norway freak had an entirely different motive, i.e. attacking Christianity, then his motive is still terrorism but rather than the social intimidation of racism, his terrorism would derive from a different motive of religion. But terrorists are out to make an intimidation point, and the point must be understood by his target, otherwise the message fails. To convey the point of religious intimidation he would have burned both black and white churches to eliminate the obvious racial implication. But he didn't. Arguably he would have burned ONLY or predominantly white churches to make that point and avoid the obvious racial connection. But he didn't.
I'm not sure how he could understand the tactics of intimidation and yet be oblivious to the racial implications of burning black churches in the South. It's a bit like burning a cross on a neighbor's lawn and then going "I saw you had some dead trees and I got rid of them for you --- what? It means something? I had no idea".
I'm not familiar with IM2's history so I can't comment on that. I guess whatever he posted in the past failed to make an impression.
Your statement certainly was a conclusion. You concluded that because the churches burned were historically black churches, that indicates that KKK or racist beliefs seem to be the motivation.
Again, I don't know if these churches were specifically picked or just picked at random. If most of the churches in the area are historically black, it could certainly be a random thing. If he would have driven by other churches which are not historically black, just as easily accessed, then I would agree it's evidence that race was a motivating factor.
I realize it's different today, but when I was in my early 20s, I could see myself having decided to burn a church without the slightest idea of what kind of congregants might have attended it.
The idea that this guy would have taken the race of the congregants into account if he burned the churches because of anti-Christian feelings is pretty silly IMO. It ascribes a great deal more planning and intelligence to the acts than probably existed. A young 20s black metal kid deciding to burn churches probably isn't the most likely person to do extensive research into his targets, nor the most likely person to consider the possible racial or social links people might read into the act. I don't think we're talking about a master criminal, but an angry young man thinking little further than "Fuck Christianity!" "Fuck blacks!" or some combination thereof.
Maybe the guy was a racist, maybe anti-Christian, maybe both. You just seemed to dismiss the pagan and black metal evidence and assume the racial angle was the motivation in your first posts.
On the contrary what I'm doing is resisting the idea of dismissing it. Not sure if you've ever lived in the South but I REALLY don't think it's even possible to grow up in rural Louisiana as the son of a deputy sheriff, and NOT be at the very least aware of what it means to burn a black church, let alone three of them.
Even at age 21? Of course. Same age Dylann Roof was when he went to a black church in Charleston. "Extensive" research wasn't needed. And Roof didn't even live in Charleston. This guy burned churches in his own parish where his father patrolled. Even less "extensive" research needed. It's his own turf.
And NO, for at least the fifth time there IS NO conclusion to be made, absent a confession or other new info. But you can't just go "oh look he's got a comment on a Nosebook meme about this Norwegian guy" and on that basis dismiss everything else.
And yes it could certainly be both. I pointed that out yesterday. Maybe you read right past it.
Maybe you had a different time as a youth than I did, or maybe I'm not taking into proper account how much young people today look things up on the internet, but I can absolutely believe a 21 year old, even the son of a sheriff's deputy, might burn down churches without even considering a racial aspect to the act. Maybe you have never been that sort of angry youth, or actively anti-religious. I have. If I had burned down churches at that age, the racial makeup of the congregations would never have entered my mind. It would have been an act of nearly blind lashing out. I'm not saying that's true in this case, but I don't think it's only some incredibly unlikely possibility, either.
Once again, I'll quote you from your second post in this thread: "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." When you say the story appears to confirm that the Klan and racists are still burning churches, you aren't just resisting dismissing the idea, you are actively promoting it. That's a bit different from something like "Maybe race was a factor" or "Could this guy have Klan links?" or a similar sentiment. Yes, you have since agreed that race is just one of the possible motivations, but what drew me into this in the first place was the way you seemed to have already decided that race was the main motivator.
I also think you seem to be underestimating the cluelessness of youth, particularly the sort of angry, rebellious youth that tends to gravitate towards something like black metal. His father is a sheriff's deputy, but he may have actively avoided his father's work, not paid much real attention to it, etc. We may have had very different life experiences, but as I remember my early 20s, most of us at that age were pretty self-centered and often oblivious to things going on around us. I rarely consider ignorance to be an unlikely reason for someone doing something stupid, particularly for people in their teens and early 20s.
Last edited:
