The alt-right

[LordRahl2]

Many of you seem pretty excited or happy that the Alt-Right appears to be on the rise in multiple places (France, Greece, UK, Germany, USA, Poland, etc.)

So, as a follow up question(s):

Are you worried or not worried that as more countries return toward a nationalist ideology that inter-State conflict will accelerate once again?  Why or why not?

 

Feel free to continue to debate how Socialism/Communism vs Capitalism fits into the Alt-Right too (its an interesting debate):

Edited August 19, 2016 by LordRahl2

[LordRahl2]

So, honestly just trying to make sure I am reading right, you favor an increasing probability of State on State war over an increasing possibility of a purge of Islam in several, 10-15, years?

 

edit: added commas for clarity.

Edited August 20, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Peter Quill]

. That sounds a lot like what christians like to do when they want to invalidate the arguments and beliefs of atheists, "oh hes just an edgy neckbeard fedora wearer".

You edgy neckbeard fedora wearer.

 

 

 

 

(lol jk ilu)

[Ekejen Luish]

Why is there even a thread about this?

 

The Alt-Right is obvioius:

 +

[LordRahl2]

I think most western countries (save for Russia) are past conflict with eachother and are instead focused on more humanitarian issues. Currently, governments have the attitude of "idgaf what's goin on over there, they can do what they want" except for maybe the USA who feel it's their responsibility to keep tabs on everyone - hey that's not a bad thing.

 

Only problem is, the more governments focus on injustice and human rights, they put their own citizens at risk via cultural differences. Im referencing the refugee crisis of course. I'm most certainly not an advocate of diversity, as I believe great cultures are created through tradition and belief. Right now, Australia has a very diverse culture, but we have an identity crisis right now and most people want to give up the country to China because it would be profitable. When I say 'give up' I mean people are saying "well this'll be a Chinese country in ten years so who cares". Off topic though.

 

My point is I don't think there would be any sort of civil war if the people are united for one cause - national heritage and identity. Europeans certainly have some of the most diverse culture amongst themselves, so I don't know why they'd choose to give up their traditions in favour of Muslim ones. I'm talking about Sweden here especially - swedes at the moment are bending over backwards for the refugees. Right now, Muslim refugees are not assimilating, instead they are segregating and that isn't what the point of taking in refugees is. If anything, that is what will create a war.

 

If anything, a new holy war is on the doorstep unless governments cancel open borders and admit what they did was wrong. Their process, their lack of care toward their own citizens, their grand idea of a diverse utopia. It failed. There is a rise in the alt-right and extreme right because people are seeing what their leftist governments have done to their countries, and they're sick of it.

 

To be honest I advocate a purge of Islam regardless, but that's besides the point. The whole open borders idea was thought of with the heart, and not the head.

 

I am a bit confused by this answer.  There are parts I could disagree with but you really lost me on your main point if you were trying to elucidate Lord Flof's point.

[Peter Quill]

Alright well I apologise I'm not feeling the greatest atm. Very simply Islam and Christianity are non compatible. Course, there is the 'moderate muslims' but at the end of they day, they're still Muslims.

 

https://www.facebook.com/lauren.southern.589/videos/1706301109621438/

So you're just like one of those anti-theists who dismiss 'moderate Christians' because 'at the end of the day, they're still christians'?

[WISD0MTREE]

My point is I don't think there would be any sort of civil war if the people are united for one cause - national heritage and identity. Europeans certainly have some of the most diverse culture amongst themselves, so I don't know why they'd choose to give up their traditions in favour of Muslim ones. I'm talking about Sweden here especially - swedes at the moment are bending over backwards for the refugees. Right now, Muslim refugees are not assimilating, instead they are segregating and that isn't what the point of taking in refugees is. If anything, that is what will create a war.

Kind of adding onto this, look at NYC. Little Italy is like one street now because all of the Italians assimilated into the city. 

 

Sincerely, the grandson of an Italian immigrant. 

[LordRahl2]

Kind of adding onto this, look at NYC. Little Italy is like one street now because all of the Italians assimilated into the city. 

 

Sincerely, the grandson of an Italian immigrant. 

 

So you anticipate their assimilation in the US but not in Europe?

[Sketchy]

So you're just like one of those anti-theists who dismiss 'moderate Christians' because 'at the end of the day, they're still christians'?

 

I don't think that is a fair point.

 

There is a big difference between a "moderate christian" and a "moderate muslim".

 

It's apples and oranges.

[Big Brother]

Yeah ok buddy, you just proved yourself as a commie sympathiser, congratulations dude. Remember that time the USSR killed 60 million of their own people? Classic eh? The whole point of local industry is meant to not outsource workers. And the workers, mind you, can fund themselves a degre and find themselves higher work. They don't need to revolt, that's how they destroy the economy, the USSR went back to full free market capitalism because they realised that 50 years of communism bent them over - and it's never been better for the ruskies.

 

Mate, people want to work they will. Only problem is degenerates didn't finish high school and have no qualification whatsoever. Idgaf how many leftist articles there are, that's the truth. Fact is, there are states that have higher welfare payments than the minimum wage so why would you ever work? No point right? Taxes aren't redistribution unless you have a welfare system - taxes are meant to build roads and infrastructure, as well as government buildings. Everything else is apart of government programs.

 

Every society will have a social hierarchy - even when Marxism says otherwise.

 

Free market captilism does not cause poverty - the lack of business causes poverty. Without trade, people are starved - of both food and material wealth. Sure, fascists gain power from their social policies (unity, control of parliament etc) but the economico policy is golden - you cant deny that. Fascists hated the Jews - the wealthy businessmen. They didn't give a hoot whether businessmen supported them or not. Businessmen hated fascists because fascists would beat them at every capitalist point there is (price of goods, competitiveness etc).

 

I proved myself as a commie sympathizer? Is that a bad thing? Am I supposed to feel bad for that? Sure, the Soviet Union got a lot of people killed, but you can say the same about the UK, the US, France, Germany, Japan, China and many others. What nation has remained entirely free from bloodshed during the course of its history? Besides, the USSR wasn't a Communist nation. It was run by a Communist party, but Communism and the sovereignty of separate countries are mutually exclusive. People didn't get killed because they were living under Communism, they got killed because they were living under autocracy/totalitarianism. If the workers could actually fund themselves a degree, I could perhaps agree with you. But for millions upon millions of people all over the world, this isn't the case. You're entirely wrong about the fall of the Soviet Union doing the average Russian a favor. Things in Russia are actually quite dire, they are not short on problems and the Russian Communist party is still the second largest in the country. People like Stalin and Lenin have been voted the most popular leaders of Russia and many people feel that the old times were better.

 

The problem isn't degenerates that didn't finish high school. That's not the truth. That's just one of many symptoms of the kind of culture capitalism has brought about and people not finishing high school is a minuscule issue when you're talking about the scale of the entire planet and all its lifeforms. As for welfare, do you honestly believe everyone who wants welfare automatically gets it? That governments around the world just hand out money to everyone that ask? If so, you don't know how a welfare state works in practice. They have certain rules, certain criteria that need to be met and a lot of them require you to actually do something towards getting a job in order for you to receive any money, and they won't just fund your life indefinitely if you intentionally choose to not work. Taxes are always redistribution, it's literally taking money from one place and redistributing it somewhere else. Whether it's to fund public railways, schools education, roads and other kinds of infrastructure, it is redistribution of wealth from monetary currency in the hands of citizens to services and infrastructure for the use of said citizens. If there weren't any taxes or if taxes only benefited the rich (like feudalism) then the rich would build infrastructure and services for themselves, while leaving everyone else in the gutter.

 

I'm not opposed to social hierarchy, but I am opposed to private enterprise being at the top of it. They don't serve the nation, they don't serve the people. They serve themselves and they will use their position to engineer the society they dominate to suit their needs and wants.

 

You've misunderstood the fascist movement. Both in Italy and Germany the fascist movements actively cooperated with business owners and accommodated business interests. Maybe businessmen outside of fascist countries were displeased, but not on the inside. They hated the Jews because they were racists, not every Jew is a rich businessman. That's actually pretty racist generalization, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised by it. Perhaps they framed the Jews as the people who were secretly taking over all the business in the country, hiding all their secret Jew gold and whatnot but that's just racist, fascist rhetoric and fear mongering which you seem to have fallen for. In Europe, in the West, the white man has always been dominant. Everyone else is a scapegoat. Fascists didn't practice free market capitalism either, it was more like state capitalism, where the government had a heavy hand in controlling private industry. Uncontrolled, unregulated free market capitalism will inevitably serve the very rich to a far larger degree than it will serve the average working person. It's constructed that way, which is why governments take measures into place to limit exploitation, to increase income equality, to place the control of national resources under the control of the government, represented by the people, and not some rich business man who's primary interest is filling his and his own family's pocket.

 

I love how Big Brother talks about how great Communism is yet accepts the thing (globalism) that renders Communism impossible. Yes immigrants are great additions to countries, when their numbers are controlled and Nationalism rules the day. Globalism has no interest in controlled numbers as mass numbers are more useful to their system and as for integrating them bah who needs that, they can all form their own little nations separate from the collective, not join the collective, and then grow bigger and bigger through more reckless immigration and breeding. Guess what, when people both in the immigrant communities and outside it are more focused on hating each other they tend to not have time for Communism (keeping people divided is something the globalists need so they aren't overthrown). It's hilarious that the globalists have actually managed to get Communists & Anarchists, groups who should utterly despise them to defend them and their reckless policies so kudos to them for pulling that trick. 

 

The rich as a whole are not to blame for such things, the system is merely corrupt to the bone so if you're rich you either play ball or you likely won't stay rich for very long. The exist in a system that makes outsourcing and paying people "slave wages" good business, the acceptable and supposedly correct thing to do (we're in a global world they are told). To fix that you don't need to purge all the rich people, you merely need to make it so them doing the correct things is good business. For that you need a strong government that doesn't bend the knee to the special interests, the donors, the multinationals, so forth.

 

Edit: Oh and BLM is a disgrace who has been getting more violent yes though they were hardly angels to begin with. They riot constantly seemingly every time some thug gets shot (unless it's you know, by another thug because thats dandy), and no I'm not saying all black people are thugs as I know some guy will get triggered otherwise and play the white knight. When I first heard of the organisation I was honestly intrigued on how positive it could be... then I saw the riots...then I saw the "innocent good boys" they and the media kept pushing were all victims of the evil white men and if they're Latino then meh close enough, and if they're Asian... well he's a police officer so he was trying to impress all the racist white cops clearly (same if he's black, Uncle Tom and all that). No surprise I quickly lost time for their ridiculous nonsense. 

 

Globalism renders Communism impossible? No, global capitalism is what allows the right conditions for world revolution to happen. Globalism is necessary for Communists and so is capitalism. Marx recognized that Communism much reach an adequate level of development before the conditions are ideal for a global Communist movement to happen. This isn't something these globalists you speak of has tricked them into, it was originally intended that borders be erased and that the world's population should be brought together in a common community. Workers of the world for the world, not workers of each country for themselves. Globalism isn't something that is exclusively negative, it can be used to achieve beneficial ends. It's a tool, it should be utilized as any other. As for immigration, sure, limitless unregulated immigration can be very harmful but no one is suggesting that, at least I'm not. There's no need for absolutes, you don't have to let everyone in or no one in. The world is not that black and white. I've been puzzled by why you think globalists seek to divide people. Globalists want a global society and to get a global society, they need people to come together, not apart. It seems to me you've been fooled into thinking that globalists are doing what your precious anti-globalist right-wing nationalist movements are actually to blame for. They're the people who serve the interests of capitalists above all else. They're the people who want less or no immigration, they're the people who want to leave the EU. That doesn't bring people together, it divides them into classes and nationalities, which is what you're saying the globalists are doing. How can you say that internationalists divide and nationalists don't? It doesn't make any sense. Sure, some globalists are also part of the reason why today's capitalist world remains unequal and exploitative, but a lot of globalists and/or internationalists are on the other side of things as well. I'm not suggesting we purge all the rich people, at least not yet. The ideal would be a world be a world free of capitalism but to get there we need to use capitalism.

 

The kind of institutional racism that has gone on in the US for so long deserves a far greater response than anything it has gotten so far. If violence becomes necessary, so be it. If violence can be a part of the end of oppression and exploitation, then violence it is. After all, the authorities don't hesitate to use violence against them. Some people in every movement will be bad eggs, it's more or less unavoidable. But it doesn't mean the cause isn't righteous. The ends are more important.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Big Brother

[SoS]

Wealth. The A+B theory. Equals poverty. Any "perfect" system will need to eliminate wealth from the equation.

[Donald Trump]

To be honest I advocate a purge of Islam regardless, but that's besides the point. The whole open borders idea was thought of with the heart, and not the head.

I mean if you say that to cucks, the left will go apeshit as they're very much bad people. 

 

Islam has spread itself through violence throughout history, it obviously is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with. How can people not see that it's an issue? You have people willing to blow themselves up, don't forget 9/11, rape girls looking at Rotherham as well as Muhammed's 6 year old wife and indoctrinate children into terrorists cults, have you seen what ISIS do? The left literally want their future granddaughters to be raped and turned into sex slaves by Islamic invaders, these people are mentally ill. 

[Big Brother]

the only time I've read more bs was straight out of the communist manifesto. Lemme hit you with the long dick of capitalism right about now, red scum

 

Hahaha, red scum? Long dick of capitalism? Cute. Compensating for something?

 

China is a communist nation, in case you were unaware, and the poverty levels are so ridiculously high it's a disgrace, and even still the harmul bourgeois element still exists because there will always be a social heirarchy. People will always look up to other, stronger people and so they follow and support the said strong person. The USSR is what will become of all would be communist nations, because all functioning societies need a governing body to make sure people don't kill eachother in the streets. Anarcho communism is a joke so don't even go there. The governing body is what replaces the capitalist evil bourgeois, and guess what - Stalin was the richest man to ever live because he was the center of Russia's whole economy. Him and his cronies were all stylin because he taxed all the proletariats money and did whatever he wanted with it.

 

So that kinda backfired on Marx and Lenin didn't it? Stalin aside, communists have no regard for human life or the human condition - that is ambition. That, to me, makes them inhuman.

 

The totalitarian aspect was always going to happen unless Russia suddenly turned into small groups of around 50 people who can govern and trade individually, but that would be an economic nightmare - no one would know how rich Russia actually is. In knowing that, the communist regime led by communist leaders is what got so many of the workers and poor poor proletariat killed.

 

Literally the first four words you've shown me you're just some kid who has no idea what he's talking about. You don't even understand Communism, do you? If you did, you'd know that existence of Communism requires the non-existence of nations. There is no state, no nations in Communism because Communism strives to rid the world of divisions and hierarchy. You can't have a country without leaders when the rest of the world has countries with leaders, because they'll infringe and wreck what they're dying to do. Communism as an ideology simply does not allow for the existance of nations. There's no argument to be had about this, it's a fact, a crucial ideological tenet. You have fallen for the same, stupid misconceptions all the rest of you brainwashed kids have. You think that because a country is run by a communist party, that because it enacts leftist policies, it's a communist country (which cannot actually exist). If you really knew what you were talking about when you tried to criticize the ideology, you'd know and you'd do better.

 

In the western world, where people are paid their dues, people can fund themselves a degree. Man, do you know how many baristas there are working hard and studying to be engineers and doctors? Capitalism is not evil, at least with a decent minimum wage (which I know America struggles with - tips are a joke, but so is $15/hr. 15 bucks for flipping burgers? Outta here). In China, they can't find themselves degrees because they don't get paid, like at all. As is the case with many Asian nations. South America is rife with crime, so even if you were working you'd just get mugged or killed for your money. Europe, north America and Australia are the only ones who really have their economic system down pat.

 

In the entire world, the working populace are paid scraps. We think we're fortunate while the very richest people in the world possesses so much wealth and influence, you cannot even imagine the sums involved. They are so large, the human mind has no point of reference to actually understand how much wealth they really possess. Sure, wages in the west are pretty good but they're nothing really. Without every rich business owner, without every capital investor taking the largest chunk of the world's wealth, the average wealth of each and every human being would be far higher than it is today.

 

The old times in Russia were not better, unless you call being shot for not being dedicated enough to the Marxist ideal (red terror), or starving to death in bread lines because Russia can't grow enough food to support its entire population. Since it couldn't import anything because of both the iron curtain and the fact their money isn't worth jack. Money isn't worth anything, you say? Yeah god damn right. That money you tried to apprehend from the evil bourgeois is tucked away in an untouchable Swiss bank account, so now you just done and fisted your economy - nice work Russia. Stalin and Lenin are the most popular because leftist dummies like you still think communism can work even though it's been tried many times under different circumstances and it fails every time. Cambodia, Russia, North Korea, they're all jokes. Not only that, the Russian tsars are demonised because the red devil is still out there in the form of hipsters and scumbags who think they're really cool for fighting for the working man - even though they're the harmful bourgeois element with their educations and their material possessions.

 

Heh, there are large parts of Soviet history that were free of violent purges. Sure, they happened at some points of their history, but this doesn't change the fact that the average Soviet citizen had access to more or less everything they needed, they always had work and they always had homes. The same is not true today. Also, you're shitting me right? The Soviet Union could not import... because of the iron curtain? Right, because it's not liked they buddied up with regimes all over the world, trading arms and supplies left and right. It's not like there's a whole world outside of the west that was willing to trade with them. Seriously, where'd you even get the idea that the iron curtain prevented the Soviets from participating in international trade? Ridiculous. Let's brush over your incomplete understanding of Soviet economics and focus on the fact that you actually believe that Communism has been tried. This is not true, Communism has never been put into practice. You can't just suddenly change everything to a Communist society, it will take literally decades upon decades, it's a long arduous process and no one has done this to this date. Russia has never been Communist, Cambodia was never Communist and as for North Korea, just saying the name Marx could get you into trouble. They are no Communists. You've fallen for the same misconception so many people have done before. Do you have any idea how many people like yourself to whom I've had to explain that Communism has actually never been tried on this planet? Sure, Communist parties want to make a Communist society but all of them recognizes that after a revolution (if one happens), it will take a long time to actually get rid of all of today's power structures and create an actual Communist societies. You don't just.. take power in a country and make it Communist. It simply doesn't work like that and like I mentioned before Communist countries are not a real thing that actually exist, because the ideology of Communism seeks to abolish countries and states. This is also fact, there's no argument to be had here. Look it up and you'll see.

 

Not finishing high school is not a big issue? What are you on? Without high school you've got no education. No one wants you working for them because you have no clue how to do many things, including but not limited to: tax returns, how to structure an essay, understanding the science behind the world and the past mistakes that almost ruined a multitude of nations - something commies didn't listen to in history class.

 

Don't get me started on welfare. Unless someone is sick or injured - in which case workers compo is a thing - no one should get welfare. No one should be paid to do nothing. That is literally sloth, and getting other people's hard earned money is greed. Something that ruined Venezuela very recently. Why would anyone work when the government pays you to exist? A few months in and guess what, no one is producing toilet paper anymore, and government can import it because it has to hand out welfare checks instead.

 

Ok, I rambled a bit. However, welfare in my country was literally handed to anyone who met these requirements: you're indigenous, you're old, you're adopted, you're an apprentice, you care for someone who is disabled and older than 16, you are disabled and over 16, you got a workplace injury, you just had a baby, you are looking for work, you are raising a baby, youre in "financial hardship", or you're young. Any combination of these and you get even more money. If you're a young indigenous disabled person who just had a baby, holy moly the government is dishing out moola. That's the 'strict criteria' you're talking about.

 

That's actually pretty dumb, I can tell you're young. You don't seem to think things through. Some kids not finishing high school in some parts of one country is barely even important to the world in the big picture. You really think that one of most devastating and world changing issues of the world is some kids in some countries not finishing high school? And I'm the one who's on something? Get outta here, that's nonsense. People can get jobs without an education you know, not always the best ones but it's far from impossible. I know many many people who work good jobs without an actual education and a lot of students work decent jobs on the side before they get their education. And frankly, not having a high school diploma doesn't mean you don't know how to do stuff. It means you don't have a high school diploma, it doesn't mean you can't learn from the world around you or even that you didn't learn anything in high school.

 

As for your opinion about welfare.. I'm not even going to address it other than to recommend that you actually go look up how welfare states work, then get back to me with an opinion that actually has a connection to reality. You really don't seem to understand how the world works. You think that welfare states lead to suddenly everyone not working and the country running out of toilet paper? Read that out loud to yourself and tell me honestly that it doesn't sound ridiculous to you. And then you see people receiving welfare, receiving help, and you think "oh those damn leeches sucking our economy dry, taking everyone else's money! How dare they get the help they need!"

 

I'm ok with being taxed and the government decides to build new cities or roads or subways or anything that helps the country. If the government taxes 30% of my paycheck and gives 5% on welfare and 10% to a bloke on government healthcare, I'll be pissed because those people don't deserve my money, it's my bloody money. That's the redistribution I'm talking about, that grinds my gears. If taxes only benefited the rich, the rich would reinvest their money which gives work to the lower class. That's the whole point of trickle down. You can tell me it doesn't work but if Reagan had another four years, America would be so filthy rich - and not just the 'rich' would be rich. Reinvestment is meant to make more money for the rich, and so the cycle repeats. Except the poor don't get poorer, they get richer. Only, not at the rate of the fat cats, and maybe that's why so many people voted sanders - because they wanted some of what the fat cats had. Another point of greed.

 

That's not how government healthcare works. Do you actually know anything?

 

And I honestly laughed out loud at this. "If taxes only benefited the rich, the rich would reinvest their money which gives work to the lower class". You're joking right? You actually think this is a good idea? I know you're young but are you so naive that you think the richest people in the world have interest in helping anyone but themselves? Do you think they make investments so that people can get jobs? Well, in one way they do. They invest so they can keep people in wage slavery, so they can keep the workers doing the work and making their wealth for them. Don't let yourself fall for the lie that big, rich capitalist investors are the saviors of the working man. It makes about as much sense as claiming that "the black man needs the white man to rule him and bring him civilization!" Absolute !@#$ bullshit. And then you go on to say Reagan was a good President and not one of the world's largest gaping !@#$ to ever hold power. Are you trying to make my opinion of you go lower or are you genuinely so brainwashed by Western free market capitalist domination that you've lost all power to think for yourself and see through the ill made lies they feed you? Capitalism doesn't exist to help you, it exists to suck you dry and spit you out.

 

On the contrary, the whole point of private business is to serve the people. From hospitality to mining, it's all there to benefit the consumer - you and me. Businesses want to give you the best service and value for money they can so you become a 'return customer', it's bpvery simple really. When business isn't at the top, the government is. I don't need to go over what happens when the government seizes the means of production again, do I?

 

The government should be at the top because the government represents the people and thus the nation. Business should never be at the top because they don't represent the people and they don't serve the nation unless you force them to. They serve themselves as they always have and always will, until someone forces them to do otherwise. Do you know what happens when the government, which represents the people, seizes the means of production? It should mean a substantial increase in the wealth of the people it represents. When the government owns natural resources on behalf of the people and the means to process these resources, the wealth created by those resources go to the government and then to the people, through various means. When private enterprise owns the resources, the private businessmen who own it all are who increases their wealth, while only giving scraps in form of minuscule taxes to the country where the resources are actually located. So tell me, now that I've actually explained to you what the government controlling the means of production means, does it seem wrong to you that the people of a country should be allowed to have control over and benefit from their own natural resources? Or do you think private enterprise should own the means of production, so people who might not even live in the country can use its resources to make themselves wealthier? What seems more fair to you?

 

Your fascist statement doesn't disprove anything I said, either. The fascists always had national interest at heart, and that was what was important to them. Yes, the government had a large hand in what private business did, including who worked where (everyone had a place, whether in government or in the private sector). Who cares about what businessmen outside la nazione fascista think, the priority was with the country, not the world - something globalists don't seem to understand.

 

It most definitely disproves what you said, it literally disagrees with you. You can't claim that what I wrote and what you wrote about fascism is both true. You have a tiny mind I can see, tiny interests. You think nations are actually important. Hah! Every nation on this planet will crumble and fall, every one of them will eventually be forgotten like so many of the nations that used to exist that people have barely even heard of today. In the scale of the universe, nations don't matter, even humanity doesn't really matter. The only way we have any chance of making any impact on the world is as a species, as an entire world. Humanity and Earth is far more important than Australians and Australia or any other country. Hundreds of years will pass, countries will rise and fall, but Earth and humanity will still (hopefully/probably) be here. That is, until the sun expands and swallows up the entire planet and everything all your petty little nations fought over just so they could rule for a less than a fraction of a second of humanity's combined history. I don't like thinking small like you do, I like thinking big. What humanity can do as a species, the potential there, is far greater than the potential of any individual country that has ever existed or exists today. That is the power I want to harness, power no nation today could even dream of actually gaining.

 

Lemme give you some insight into why Nazis hated Jews. Jews were typically merchants or bankers who would monopolise on the European market and leave Europeans extremely poor and unhealthy. Jewish monopoly techniques are a step by step plan. First, is to set up extremely competitive rates which Europeans could not contest with. When European salespeople would go out of business, Jews would increase interest rates and the prices of goods and services amongst other things to the point of which people simply couldn't pay for. The consistency at which Jews would do this was extreme, which led to extremely negative views towards Jews, to the point where Jews were not allowed in certain countries, or had to pay the governments to live there.

 

That's why. Jewish bankers post war increased inflation to record levels, so starting new businesses or straight up trying to help the economy at all was impossible. Thus began the Great Depression. Germans saw this and went "hey! What the hoot do you think you're doing you Shylock nose mf! Quit robbing me!" And then Nazis took over, 2% inflation took place, economic boom yada yada you know the story.

 

You're going to have to go back to the 1940s with this. Don't worry, a fragile white racist male like yourself is going to love it back then.

 

im not gonna back up Roz because I've written too much already, but I know he'll own you, you bloody Sputnik.

 

Oh I'm so worried and offended by you, the racist kid who doesn't understand either communism or capitalism and your harsh, brutal anti-communist insults. If only I was actually a communist! I'm shitting myself, honestly. Please don't sic Roz on me! Whatever will I do with when he owns me with his terrible nonsensical opinions! Surely I'm doomed!

Edited August 20, 2016 by Big Brother

[Peter Quill]

the only time I've read more bs was straight out of the communist manifesto. Lemme hit you with the long dick of capitalism right about now, red scum

 

China is a communist nation, in case you were unaware, and the poverty levels are so ridiculously high it's a disgrace, and even still the harmul bourgeois element still exists because there will always be a social heirarchy. People will always look up to other, stronger people and so they follow and support the said strong person. The USSR is what will become of all would be communist nations, because all functioning societies need a governing body to make sure people don't kill eachother in the streets. Anarcho communism is a joke so don't even go there. The governing body is what replaces the capitalist evil bourgeois, and guess what - Stalin was the richest man to ever live because he was the center of Russia's whole economy. Him and his cronies were all stylin because he taxed all the proletariats money and did whatever he wanted with it.

 

So that kinda backfired on Marx and Lenin didn't it? Stalin aside, communists have no regard for human life or the human condition - that is ambition. That, to me, makes them inhuman.

 

The totalitarian aspect was always going to happen unless Russia suddenly turned into small groups of around 50 people who can govern and trade individually, but that would be an economic nightmare - no one would know how rich Russia actually is. In knowing that, the communist regime led by communist leaders is what got so many of the workers and poor poor proletariat killed.

 

In the western world, where people are paid their dues, people can fund themselves a degree. Man, do you know how many baristas there are working hard and studying to be engineers and doctors? Capitalism is not evil, at least with a decent minimum wage (which I know America struggles with - tips are a joke, but so is $15/hr. 15 bucks for flipping burgers? Outta here). In China, they can't find themselves degrees because they don't get paid, like at all. As is the case with many Asian nations. South America is rife with crime, so even if you were working you'd just get mugged or killed for your money. Europe, north America and Australia are the only ones who really have their economic system down pat.

 

The old times in Russia were not better, unless you call being shot for not being dedicated enough to the Marxist ideal (red terror), or starving to death in bread lines because Russia can't grow enough food to support its entire population. Since it couldn't import anything because of both the iron curtain and the fact their money isn't worth jack. Money isn't worth anything, you say? Yeah god damn right. That money you tried to apprehend from the evil bourgeois is tucked away in an untouchable Swiss bank account, so now you just done and fisted your economy - nice work Russia. Stalin and Lenin are the most popular because leftist dummies like you still think communism can work even though it's been tried many times under different circumstances and it fails every time. Cambodia, Russia, North Korea, they're all jokes. Not only that, the Russian tsars are demonised because the red devil is still out there in the form of hipsters and scumbags who think they're really cool for fighting for the working man - even though they're the harmful bourgeois element with their educations and their material possessions.

 

Not finishing high school is not a big issue? What are you on? Without high school you've got no education. No one wants you working for them because you have no clue how to do many things, including but not limited to: tax returns, how to structure an essay, understanding the science behind the world and the past mistakes that almost ruined a multitude of nations - something commies didn't listen to in history class.

 

Don't get me started on welfare. Unless someone is sick or injured - in which case workers compo is a thing - no one should get welfare. No one should be paid to do nothing. That is literally sloth, and getting other people's hard earned money is greed. Something that ruined Venezuela very recently. Why would anyone work when the government pays you to exist? A few months in and guess what, no one is producing toilet paper anymore, and government can import it because it has to hand out welfare checks instead.

 

Ok, I rambled a bit. However, welfare in my country was literally handed to anyone who met these requirements: you're indigenous, you're old, you're adopted, you're an apprentice, you care for someone who is disabled and older than 16, you are disabled and over 16, you got a workplace injury, you just had a baby, you are looking for work, you are raising a baby, youre in "financial hardship", or you're young. Any combination of these and you get even more money. If you're a young indigenous disabled person who just had a baby, holy moly the government is dishing out moola. That's the 'strict criteria' you're talking about.

 

 

I'm ok with being taxed and the government decides to build new cities or roads or subways or anything that helps the country. If the government taxes 30% of my paycheck and gives 5% on welfare and 10% to a bloke on government healthcare, I'll be pissed because those people don't deserve my money, it's my bloody money. That's the redistribution I'm talking about, that grinds my gears. If taxes only benefited the rich, the rich would reinvest their money which gives work to the lower class. That's the whole point of trickle down. You can tell me it doesn't work but if Reagan had another four years, America would be so filthy rich - and not just the 'rich' would be rich. Reinvestment is meant to make more money for the rich, and so the cycle repeats. Except the poor don't get poorer, they get richer. Only, not at the rate of the fat cats, and maybe that's why so many people voted sanders - because they wanted some of what the fat cats had. Another point of greed.

 

On the contrary, the whole point of private business is to serve the people. From hospitality to mining, it's all there to benefit the consumer - you and me. Businesses want to give you the best service and value for money they can so you become a 'return customer', it's bpvery simple really. When business isn't at the top, the government is. I don't need to go over what happens when the government seizes the means of production again, do I?

 

Your fascist statement doesn't disprove anything I said, either. The fascists always had national interest at heart, and that was what was important to them. Yes, the government had a large hand in what private business did, including who worked where (everyone had a place, whether in government or in the private sector). Who cares about what businessmen outside la nazione fascista think, the priority was with the country, not the world - something globalists don't seem to understand.

 

Lemme give you some insight into why Nazis hated Jews. Jews were typically merchants or bankers who would monopolise on the European market and leave Europeans extremely poor and unhealthy. Jewish monopoly techniques are a step by step plan. First, is to set up extremely competitive rates which Europeans could not contest with. When European salespeople would go out of business, Jews would increase interest rates and the prices of goods and services amongst other things to the point of which people simply couldn't pay for. The consistency at which Jews would do this was extreme, which led to extremely negative views towards Jews, to the point where Jews were not allowed in certain countries, or had to pay the governments to live there.

 

That's why. Jewish bankers post war increased inflation to record levels, so starting new businesses or straight up trying to help the economy at all was impossible. Thus began the Great Depression. Germans saw this and went "hey! What the hoot do you think you're doing you Shylock nose mf! Quit robbing me!" And then Nazis took over, 2% inflation took place, economic boom yada yada you know the story.

 

im not gonna back up Roz because I've written too much already, but I know he'll own you, you bloody Sputnik.

im on my phone rn (ill try to answer you in full when i get to my laptop) but i just want to react to some of your statements right now.

 

 

 

 

Lol@ china being a communist county. You have no !@#$ing idea what youre talking about. Its a !@#$ing capitalist state run by a socalled 'communist' party.

 

And its cute that youre trying to justify why hitler killed thousands of jews.

[Rozalia]

Are you worried or not worried that as more countries return toward a nationalist ideology that inter-State conflict will accelerate once again?  Why or why not?

 

I see no danger of that as things are right now. Down the line if things are allowed to get really bad then perhaps. Ultimately though we will all still trade with each other and be friends. Globalism/multiculturalism/immigration isn't required for that.

[LordRahl2]

So you do see state on state warfare as a major risk down the line?

[Donald Trump]

Welfare with uncontrolled borders just leads to immigrants coming over the border and stealing our jobs and eating off the welfare state. 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Donald Trump

[Rozalia]

Globalism renders Communism impossible? No, global capitalism is what allows the right conditions for world revolution to happen. Globalism is necessary for Communists and so is capitalism. Marx recognized that Communism much reach an adequate level of development before the conditions are ideal for a global Communist movement to happen. This isn't something these globalists you speak of has tricked them into, it was originally intended that borders be erased and that the world's population should be brought together in a common community. Workers of the world for the world, not workers of each country for themselves. Globalism isn't something that is exclusively negative, it can be used to achieve beneficial ends. It's a tool, it should be utilized as any other. As for immigration, sure, limitless unregulated immigration can be very harmful but no one is suggesting that, at least I'm not. There's no need for absolutes, you don't have to let everyone in or no one in. The world is not that black and white. I've been puzzled by why you think globalists seek to divide people. Globalists want a global society and to get a global society, they need people to come together, not apart. It seems to me you've been fooled into thinking that globalists are doing what your precious anti-globalist right-wing nationalist movements are actually to blame for. They're the people who serve the interests of capitalists above all else. They're the people who want less or no immigration, they're the people who want to leave the EU. That doesn't bring people together, it divides them into classes and nationalities, which is what you're saying the globalists are doing. How can you say that internationalists divide and nationalists don't? It doesn't make any sense. Sure, some globalists are also part of the reason why today's capitalist world remains unequal and exploitative, but a lot of globalists and/or internationalists are on the other side of things as well. I'm not suggesting we purge all the rich people, at least not yet. The ideal would be a world be a world free of capitalism but to get there we need to use capitalism.

 

The kind of institutional racism that has gone on in the US for so long deserves a far greater response than anything it has gotten so far. If violence becomes necessary, so be it. If violence can be a part of the end of oppression and exploitation, then violence it is. After all, the authorities don't hesitate to use violence against them. Some people in every movement will be bad eggs, it's more or less unavoidable. But it doesn't mean the cause isn't righteous. The ends are more important.

 

Internationalist Communists are deluded or overly optimistic if I was to be kind. They cannot even bring it about nationally and they still have this fantasy that magically all the hate and division on such a massive scale will disappear and everyone will be under some global communist community, total lunacy.

 

We see things differently. Nationalism is the ultimate symbol of unity, and this global unity you believe in doesn't exist. A country full of people can be made to see each other as part of a National fraternity; they live together with many such people in their community, they have a shared history, a shared love, a shared culture, a shared language. People however cannot be made to feel the same things for some guy across the world in the Congo or whatever, just does not happen and never will. Globalists despise Nationalism and bring in people who they have told don't have to integrate and can form all their own little nations within nations. Those people have no unity with the main group let alone all the others present so yes, that is division. Bring in Nationalism and those groups will not be nations within nations, they will assimilate into the collective.

 

Globalists have no interest in unity what are you on about. They bring in those minorities not because they care about them or want unity with them but to bring in a very useful "slave class" for them. Cheap workers, overwhelming in support of them (due to them being their "champions"), and of course a nice distraction for their opposition who they've made sure are virtually only third parties across the west (so they have a hard time to start with). You think Communism can result for that? You think those angry at it will all magically decide to join in Communion? Do you think the globalists who have the whip over their slaves will decide that being in actual communion is better? You think the minorities will not only rise up but in a manner that can bring about communion and not their putting down? No. A nation in a such a state is a mess, just as they intend. 

 

Actually I support Universal Basic Income, a great amount of social rights, and other such things. With the "Anti-globalist Right Wing" as you put it at least we will still have a nation and things can then change towards supporting people more and other good stuff (to me). With the globalists and the "suicidal leftists/centrists" we will no longer have a nation beyond in name, everything will be a mess and there will be no hope for positive change. 

 

So you support such violence... really now? Yet if someone said here that the people should rise up against the globalists and start wrecking cities you'd decry it no doubt. Violence is not the answer nor is it required. BLM wrecks up cities (hurting the poorest most also lets not forget) because it's a racist & violent terror organisation that is trying to put the fear in people so they don't dare ever touch a black person and of course, so the entitlements keep coming in. These are not "Innocent good boys" they wreck cities over either. These are nasty guys, violent criminals, some of them even killed while attacking police but it makes no difference even if it was fully justified.

 

So you do see state on state warfare as a major risk down the line?

 

I've always said that things need fixing sooner rather than later. It is my belief that those who are seen as extreme today will be seen as soft touches in the future if things are allowed to get bad enough. People today want integration, they reject cultural relativism, they want massive reductions on immigration, they want perhaps some deportations of foreign criminals. In the future as things get much worse those things begin to be looked at as simply weak, perhaps the concentration camps and the like will become more the idea on what to do. If in that future those who take power to clean things up are capable of such extreme stuff than perhaps war will not be something they rule out, I cannot say they wouldn't. 

 

Currently however I do not believe there is any danger of that. Leaders of today (and for the near future) are guys like Geert Wilders and the like who have no desire for inter-state war. 

[Peter Quill]

the only time I've read more bs was straight out of the communist manifesto. Lemme hit you with the long dick of capitalism right about now, red scum

 

China is a communist nation, in case you were unaware, and the poverty levels are so ridiculously high it's a disgrace, and even still the harmul bourgeois element still exists because there will always be a social heirarchy. People will always look up to other, stronger people and so they follow and support the said strong person. The USSR is what will become of all would be communist nations, because all functioning societies need a governing body to make sure people don't kill eachother in the streets. Anarcho communism is a joke so don't even go there. The governing body is what replaces the capitalist evil bourgeois, and guess what - Stalin was the richest man to ever live because he was the center of Russia's whole economy. Him and his cronies were all stylin because he taxed all the proletariats money and did whatever he wanted with it.

 

So that kinda backfired on Marx and Lenin didn't it? Stalin aside, communists have no regard for human life or the human condition - that is ambition. That, to me, makes them inhuman.

 

The totalitarian aspect was always going to happen unless Russia suddenly turned into small groups of around 50 people who can govern and trade individually, but that would be an economic nightmare - no one would know how rich Russia actually is. In knowing that, the communist regime led by communist leaders is what got so many of the workers and poor poor proletariat killed.

 

In the western world, where people are paid their dues, people can fund themselves a degree. Man, do you know how many baristas there are working hard and studying to be engineers and doctors? Capitalism is not evil, at least with a decent minimum wage (which I know America struggles with - tips are a joke, but so is $15/hr. 15 bucks for flipping burgers? Outta here). In China, they can't find themselves degrees because they don't get paid, like at all. As is the case with many Asian nations. South America is rife with crime, so even if you were working you'd just get mugged or killed for your money. Europe, north America and Australia are the only ones who really have their economic system down pat.

 

The old times in Russia were not better, unless you call being shot for not being dedicated enough to the Marxist ideal (red terror), or starving to death in bread lines because Russia can't grow enough food to support its entire population. Since it couldn't import anything because of both the iron curtain and the fact their money isn't worth jack. Money isn't worth anything, you say? Yeah god damn right. That money you tried to apprehend from the evil bourgeois is tucked away in an untouchable Swiss bank account, so now you just done and fisted your economy - nice work Russia. Stalin and Lenin are the most popular because leftist dummies like you still think communism can work even though it's been tried many times under different circumstances and it fails every time. Cambodia, Russia, North Korea, they're all jokes. Not only that, the Russian tsars are demonised because the red devil is still out there in the form of hipsters and scumbags who think they're really cool for fighting for the working man - even though they're the harmful bourgeois element with their educations and their material possessions.

 

Not finishing high school is not a big issue? What are you on? Without high school you've got no education. No one wants you working for them because you have no clue how to do many things, including but not limited to: tax returns, how to structure an essay, understanding the science behind the world and the past mistakes that almost ruined a multitude of nations - something commies didn't listen to in history class.

 

Don't get me started on welfare. Unless someone is sick or injured - in which case workers compo is a thing - no one should get welfare. No one should be paid to do nothing. That is literally sloth, and getting other people's hard earned money is greed. Something that ruined Venezuela very recently. Why would anyone work when the government pays you to exist? A few months in and guess what, no one is producing toilet paper anymore, and government can import it because it has to hand out welfare checks instead.

 

Ok, I rambled a bit. However, welfare in my country was literally handed to anyone who met these requirements: you're indigenous, you're old, you're adopted, you're an apprentice, you care for someone who is disabled and older than 16, you are disabled and over 16, you got a workplace injury, you just had a baby, you are looking for work, you are raising a baby, youre in "financial hardship", or you're young. Any combination of these and you get even more money. If you're a young indigenous disabled person who just had a baby, holy moly the government is dishing out moola. That's the 'strict criteria' you're talking about.

 

I'm ok with being taxed and the government decides to build new cities or roads or subways or anything that helps the country. If the government taxes 30% of my paycheck and gives 5% on welfare and 10% to a bloke on government healthcare, I'll be pissed because those people don't deserve my money, it's my bloody money. That's the redistribution I'm talking about, that grinds my gears. If taxes only benefited the rich, the rich would reinvest their money which gives work to the lower class. That's the whole point of trickle down. You can tell me it doesn't work but if Reagan had another four years, America would be so filthy rich - and not just the 'rich' would be rich. Reinvestment is meant to make more money for the rich, and so the cycle repeats. Except the poor don't get poorer, they get richer. Only, not at the rate of the fat cats, and maybe that's why so many people voted sanders - because they wanted some of what the fat cats had. Another point of greed.

 

On the contrary, the whole point of private business is to serve the people. From hospitality to mining, it's all there to benefit the consumer - you and me. Businesses want to give you the best service and value for money they can so you become a 'return customer', it's bpvery simple really. When business isn't at the top, the government is. I don't need to go over what happens when the government seizes the means of production again, do I?

 

Your fascist statement doesn't disprove anything I said, either. The fascists always had national interest at heart, and that was what was important to them. Yes, the government had a large hand in what private business did, including who worked where (everyone had a place, whether in government or in the private sector). Who cares about what businessmen outside la nazione fascista think, the priority was with the country, not the world - something globalists don't seem to understand.

 

Lemme give you some insight into why Nazis hated Jews. Jews were typically merchants or bankers who would monopolise on the European market and leave Europeans extremely poor and unhealthy. Jewish monopoly techniques are a step by step plan. First, is to set up extremely competitive rates which Europeans could not contest with. When European salespeople would go out of business, Jews would increase interest rates and the prices of goods and services amongst other things to the point of which people simply couldn't pay for. The consistency at which Jews would do this was extreme, which led to extremely negative views towards Jews, to the point where Jews were not allowed in certain countries, or had to pay the governments to live there.

 

That's why. Jewish bankers post war increased inflation to record levels, so starting new businesses or straight up trying to help the economy at all was impossible. Thus began the Great Depression. Germans saw this and went "hey! What the hoot do you think you're doing you Shylock nose mf! Quit robbing me!" And then Nazis took over, 2% inflation took place, economic boom yada yada you know the story.

 

im not gonna back up Roz because I've written too much already, but I know he'll own you, you bloody Sputnik.

OK, I'm on my laptop now so I can answer you in full.

 

China is not a communist country. Why would they have 111 billionaires and booming cities if they were communist? The reason why a lot people in China is not because of communism, it's because of hard-core capitalism and corruption.

 

Welfare doesn't work like that lol

 

Er, what? Serving people is not the 'whole point' of a private business. At best that's number 10. Most business' main concern is profit and profit only. A lot (if not most) of businesses don't care about you, it's the contrary. They don't give a !@#$ing shit about the 'welfare of the people'. As long as people buy your shit because it's cheap, they're fine. When a business has a duopoly, or better yet, a monopoly, on a certain market, it's even worse.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and the like had national interest at heart first, but when they got high with power, they didn't give a single shit about everyone else. Fascism does not and will not work, because who doesn't get a little cookoo when you have all the power in the world?

 

As I said earlier, cutthroat business practises do not justify killing millions of Jews. That's capitalism. If you don't ship in, you ship out. If we operated under that logic, we'd be murdering the Chinese en masse right now.

[WISD0MTREE]

So you anticipate their assimilation in the US but not in Europe?

No. What I'm saying is some cultures tend to remain isolated, while others don't. I'm not saying that absolutely no refugees will mix well. Just whenever you bring your own court system and laws to a new country, I doubt you really want to assimilate. 

[Clarke]

Big Brother is !@#$ laying it with the anti-capitalist rhetoric!! Daaaamn. I agree with everything you say. The modern dissatisfaction are rooted in capitalism and the oppression of the working class. The only reason why capitalism is implemented in the biggest economies in the world is because capitalist states are known to invade socialist revolutions that have seized power or close them off to the rest of the world until they collapse. They do not give them a chance to be free, independent and work. So when you cut them off or invade them they need to resort to seizing absolute power so they can retain their independence and keep the revolution going until there is no longer a threat. Let them breathe. 

 

But that will never happen because the existence of a successful socialist state means the power of the wealthy ruling elite is taken away and put into the hands of the working class and that threatens the existence of other capitalist states. Bring democracy to the economy!

Ultimately people are never satisfied, if I had to guess its because of people like Big Brother because he does work for his nations best interests and works to burden the nation more and which makes everyone dissatisfied which is arguably what has being happening to the USA and Europe for the last decades. Putting non citizens before their own.

You can't really complain about capitalism when you're making efforts to make your country suffer and then blame capitalism for it. 

 

Let capitalism and a bit of socialism exist, don't try to mess it up and blame the system. 

The major problem with communist/socialist nations is that the elite (well some elites) usually keep their wealth and have a lot of power, even more so. Those who enforce their corruption benefit the most while not being apart of the elite. 

 

 

I think that the rise of nationalism right now is infinitely better than 10 or 15 years down the road.

At this point only the right can save European culture from the downwards spiral it's in.

The amount of Islamic migrants refusing to assimilate into the culture is astounding, and with their birthrates they'll easily be able to start having a major presence in politics.

A few borders closed and anti-Islamic laws now is much, much better than a religious war in the future. Which is what it will come to if the far right gain power then.

 

Mass deportation is preferable. 

[Clarke]

As one who is technically in the Alt-Right but not a subscriber to many of the ideologies I'll give you the rundown.

Basically the rejection of the modern Social Justice movements almost in their entirety. Citing traditionalism as the backbone to a good hardworking society. Seeing globalism as a failed ploy that has only led to degeneracy. Disdain for degeneracy (they like that word a lot, as well as cuck. They loooovvveee cuck) 

The others gave what the Alt-Right is against. I'll tell you what it's for.

Many want a much, much smaller government. Which I think most of us can agree on. Most want to take a more isolationist route in world politics. Saying that we ought to sort out our problems at home before !@#$ up other countries for their shit.

Many reject the current brand of conservative politics, thinking they are too weak and corrupt (which again I think we can all agree is correct).

A lot hate the left. Just, completely despise it. 

The group has been almost completely infiltrated by neo-nazis and white-supremacists. Not your "traditional" racists that point out that there are differences between the races or that each group ought to have their own areas. But legitimate racists who think we should kill all non-whites or treat them as second-class citizens. Many !@#$ hate the (((Jews))) and it's gone beyond a meme now.

 

It had a great run, a revolt against modern conservatism and a return to a strong backbone. But now it's been completely tainted and is growing increasingly authoritarian.

 

I had no idea pointing out biology and behaviors were racism. This doesn't sound right. I think you should have put quotation marks around racists as well as its an interpretation of someone who denies reality or is brainwashed to be ignorant of the differences. 

That said much like how I don't associate with Atheism despite not believing in any religions I don't associate with the Alt Right mostly because I have no idea when it was founded and on what premise. 

 

I can't say I associate with the alt right, I'm mostly in the same camp as the youtubers I follow Black Pigeon Speaks, Stefan Molyneux, Sargon of Akkad, Undoomed, The Rubin Report, Sh0eonhead, Paul Joseph Watson, Chris Ray Gun, Atheism is Unstoppable. Its really just people who are liberals who see how bad the left has become and how it needs to die a horrible death. 

 

 

The kind of institutional racism that has gone on in the US for so long deserves a far greater response than anything it has gotten so far. If violence becomes necessary, so be it. If violence can be a part of the end of oppression and exploitation, then violence it is. After all, the authorities don't hesitate to use violence against them. Some people in every movement will be bad eggs, it's more or less unavoidable. But it doesn't mean the cause isn't righteous. The ends are more important.

 Posted by Lightning on 21 April 2016 - 08:34 PM in General Discussion

 

 

 

Big Brother is a disgusting person and he is big on guilt, to put it bluntly the west should be selling emasculated men like him as slaves to those it supposedly exploited. I say sell as well because slaves aren't cheap and the Americas had to pay for their slaves that Africans (Muslims) sold to them. He's a real mess. Sad.

 

That's my only thoughts on Big Brother.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Lightning

[LordRahl2]

So your main news source comes from the utubers or somewhere else?

[Ayayay]

tbh, despite everything posted here, I still refuse to accept anyone seriously believes what they post. I'm still over 50 on rozalia simply posting satire.

[Thalmor]

tbh, despite everything posted here, I still refuse to accept anyone seriously believes what they post. I'm still over 50 on rozalia simply posting satire.

 

Plot twist: Everybody in this thread has been posting IC the entire time.