What are these "bundles" of questions you admit to asking?
I suppose I am quite good at asking simple questions to which the answer is obvious. Because answering the question honestly would undermine their position, the respondent predictably refuses to answer them. It is possible that the sheer number of questions themed in this way about race, Muslims, Jews etc whose answers are obvious can become annoying after a while. For example, I used https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BHJ_JCUX6s&feature=youtu.be
of Rabbi Sacks urging the government to support marriage and the family to demonstrate that not all Jews are intent on offering cups of poison for the gentile to drink, but this must be annoying if you are determined to hate Jews. Keith Joseph was a Tory politician and a Jew who had his career destroyed by the matriarchy because he criticised Slut Single Mothers. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron Maurice Glasman sacrificed his when he dared to criticise the matriarchy as a Labour peer for Blue Labour. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/20/blue-labour-conservative-female-subservience If you want to hold on to hating Jews as an essential ingredient of your group identity, you would obviously prefer that these truths are not pointed out again and again.
It is very sad that so many nationalists feel that their common hatred of Jews, Muslims etc must be *clung* to as a badge of their identity, because they no longer have a common religion or tradition to bind them other than football and porn, it seems. National identity should be so much more than hating the symptoms caused by their national malaise. All national identity *must* be based on a success story for it to be viable. They must be about triumphing over the enemy. While a pogrom could be seen as a triumph of the in-group against the out-group, these are invariably short-lived. China conducted a pogrom of its own when it turfed out the Europeans they found so pesky, but it rebounded on them. The national identity of China for example is about emphasising triumphing over adversity ie the Communists winning their civil war against the nationalists and the Long March, not about kicking out the Europeans during the Qing Dynasty because the blowback from that was just so bad. Do Ugandans celebrate their national identity by gloating about kicking out the Asians? Do Russians about their pogroms? Even the English are now a little embarrassed about their Edict of Expulsion and don't want to talk about it much, even though it was centuries ago and before Cromwell even.
of Rabbi Sacks urging the government to support marriage and the family to demonstrate that not all Jews are intent on offering cups of poison for the gentile to drink, but this must be annoying if you are determined to hate Jews. Keith Joseph was a Tory politician and a Jew who had his career destroyed by the matriarchy because he criticised Slut Single Mothers. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron Maurice Glasman sacrificed his when he dared to criticise the matriarchy as a Labour peer for Blue Labour. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/20/blue-labour-conservative-female-subservience If you want to hold on to hating Jews as an essential ingredient of your group identity, you would obviously prefer that these truths are not pointed out again and again. It is very sad that so many nationalists feel that their common hatred of Jews, Muslims etc must be *clung* to as a badge of their identity, because they no longer have a common religion or tradition to bind them other than football and porn, it seems. National identity should be so much more than hating the symptoms caused by their national malaise. All national identity *must* be based on a success story for it to be viable. They must be about triumphing over the enemy. While a pogrom could be seen as a triumph of the in-group against the out-group, these are invariably short-lived. China conducted a pogrom of its own when it turfed out the Europeans they found so pesky, but it rebounded on them. The national identity of China for example is about emphasising triumphing over adversity ie the Communists winning their civil war against the nationalists and the Long March, not about kicking out the Europeans during the Qing Dynasty because the blowback from that was just so bad. Do Ugandans celebrate their national identity by gloating about kicking out the Asians? Do Russians about their pogroms? Even the English are now a little embarrassed about their Edict of Expulsion and don't want to talk about it much, even though it was centuries ago and before Cromwell even.