Frederick

You seem a bit triggered. Don't tell me that you are a Muslim apologist? Oh wait; we already established that part. Thanks for affirming my suspicions. Go back to molesting little boys Paki.

I fail to see the correlation. Just because someone isn't a cuck who wants more radical home-grown terrorists, doesn't make someone a basement dweller. Some people actually have some self respect and dignity, mind you.

I always find it hilarious when Christians try to cuck for Islam. It always translates to "I'm Christian, but I'm pretty liberal. Look at all the Muslim friends I have; please don't call me a racist. (seriously, Islam is a religion; not a race)" Then these cucks proceed to say "Those violent refugees are not representative of all Muslims. It is a religion of PEACE, I swear! If you be more tolerant and welcoming, maybe they will stop raping your women and shitting on your streets." Personally, I am not a Christian(more of a Pagan), but I do hold a degree of respect for the "Deus Vult!" Crusader type Christians(shout-out to Solaire and Thalmor). At least they aren't cucking beyond measure, trying to show how tolerant they are. This however... This is absolutely pathetic. You should be ashamed.

It looks more National Socialist to me. The economic policies are pretty left wing, but the idea of culture and folk is very Nationalistic. This is in contrast to the globalist tendencies of both revolutionary Marxism and unrestrained Capitalism.

Denounce your false god and bow down to Kek.

Italy supports the Hequian Monarchy in its attempts to curtail the movement of illegal drugs brought on by "refugees".

Italy welcomes the emergence of the Prussian Empire and hopes to open relations in the near future.

(Looking fashy... *tips hat*) Italy congratulates Portugal on its national rebirth and foresees a bright future ahead for our two nations.

You seem to not know what the 2nd amendment is. Wording is, in fact, very important when twats like yourself think you can simply interpret the constitution however you wish regardless of how it was intended by the founding fathers. The word, "because" is not present in any part of the 2nd amendment so you are changing it for your own designs. If we are to interpret the constitution of the United States as the founding fathers intended, then we must absolutely analyze it as it is presented. I will reiterate, since it seems hard to get through your head, that the word "people" does in fact have special value. If they had used "military" or "government" or "state", the meaning would be vastly different. America was founded on the idea of a citizen republic where every man had the right to defend his home and property. That is why the wording was so important in formulating the constitution.

The 2nd Amendment also states(as you neglected to mention) that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The people as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment does not mean the government nor the state. By using the term people, the founding fathers were separating the American people from any abstraction(such as a state) and putting forth clearly that it is the American people-the citizens of this country-that have a inalienable right to bear arms. Also note that the "militia" as stated, is comprised of the people(different from the standing army) and thus all American citizens with a firearm can be part of this unorganized militia. I think it is you who is cherry picking here buddy. It's easy to talk about the greatness of communism when you're sitting in your college dorm room masturbating to Das Kapital. Those who have actually lived under the Soviet Union would beat you to a pulp if you even suggested bringing it back in their countries. You can also be sure the same thing will happen if you start trying to take away the constitutional rights of Americans who believe in American values and not those of failed civilizations. Now silly boy go back to fantasizing about your Marxist Utopia and the plights of the Proletariat.

This topic was kind of dead, but I'll reply anyways. Regardless of what the hell you think we Americans are so "obsessed with guns" for is irrelevant. Even the crime statistics are irrelevant (though they show that more gun control typically correlates with more crime). The fact is that the 2nd Amendment's very fundamental purpose is to act as a check against the federal government; not self-defense against criminals. It is meant so that the people-the citizens-will have the means to resist if the government becomes tyrannical. Without the 2nd amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights is fair game for the government to play with and so all this debate about crime rates amounts to nothing in the end. If you bastards think you can take away someone's rights guaranteed by the constitution, then you should be the first in through the door. If you aren't willing to be the one risking your neck when the government decides to go after the guns, then you have no place telling anyone what their rights are and what they aren't. You may be a sheep, but the gun-owning American people are not. As put by Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

Has zero infantry.

Isn't a real Saracen-slaughtering crusader.

Doesn't understand the meaning of worship.

Doesn't believe in Nationalism or Self-Sovereignty

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/alternate-future/images/d/d0/Flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy.png/revision/latest?cb=20140927060721

I suppose all of the BLM violence was just being orchestrated by Trump as well? What about all the people getting violently beat up up by intolerant and rabid leftists just for supporting Trump? If liberals don't support these terrorist attacks, then they should be condemning them; instead of taking the apologist route. When you can provide enough instances of American conservatives committing acts of violence to the level of liberals, then I'll start listening, but as it stands you sound like a terrorist sympathizer. When it comes to feminism, liberals are all up against "victim blaming", but the moment a conservative is attacked you all start talking nonsense about it being a right wing orchestration. Stop being such a hypocrite.

Has a scary cover image.

Having 10 abortions after taking the dick from everyone in sight to prove that one is in control of their body isn't exactly a "right" that anyone should be guaranteed. Lets start on abortion. After a certain point when the fetus is developed, you cannot take the moral high ground and yet simultaneously propose to take away the life of the unborn just because you were too irresponsible to use protection or just not be a !@#$. If you are alright with killing fetuses for the so called abortion rights of a woman(I suppose a baby doesn't have rights), then go ahead and say it. Also, Marriage is a mutual contract and obligation. When someone sleeps with someone other than their spouse, they are disrespecting their said spouse and dishonoring the mutual contract. There is absolutely no excuse for this and it doesn't prove that someone is "independent and in control their body" by walking around naked and acting like a !@#$ with no self respect whatsoever. Just because you don't believe in standards doesn't mean that society is just going to throw it away. Standards are what create healthy communities and if these are removed, you get a degenerate hellhole where everyone lacks any notion of virtue. Simply look at the ghetto thug culture in rap music and you will see degeneracy. Drugs, sex, "hoes", degradation of women, etc.. The first thing you need to do when you feel like accusing someone else of sexism is look at yourself and ask if you are supporting what is truly best for women. On another note, it would seem that liberals are actually the most sexist and condescending towards women. Many conservatives and traditionalists believe in standards because they see women as respectable partners who should be held up as paragons of virtue. Liberals, on the other hand, take every opportunity to rid society of standards and personal consequences; telling women that they don't need to have self-respect. For liberals, women are not capable of higher standards and so are treated as if they can act in the most despicable fashion and still be accorded respect. When someone is held to higher standards, they should take it as a compliment; not an insult. I would personally find it degrading if someone told me that I wouldn't be judged no matter how foolish or despicable I acted. I am sure many others are like this and there are many women who don't appreciate being looked down upon by the white knight liberals coming to their "rescue". These women I speak of(like Lauren Southern) are those who are truly independent; not the ones who say they are independent and then(ironically) proceed to demand that others pay for their college education and healthcare, while repeating everything they heard in the mainstream media.

I guess someone who thinks differently must be pretty hard to deal with. It would definitely destroy preconceived notions of objective universal values.

It was the Christian White Supremacists who were behind this. There is no doubt about it. Only white males are capable of such atrocity and violence.

Your profile pic is strangely irritating.

Hold up, hold up. Did you just acknowledge that men and women are different? I'm sorry but that is sexist and I'm afraid I can't take a bigot like you seriously.