America is Racist

So, I've decided to change my mind. It turns out that the United States was founded by racists, the Framers of my country were slaveholders and, by extension, as much as I hate to admit it, the government of my country is an inherently racist institution. I've compiled a lot of evidence to support this claim, please read below; it's very persuasive: (I'm being facetious by the way!)

The Declaration of Independence states clearly and unequivocally, "all men are created equal"; it does not say that some men are created equal, or that all white men, or all Englishmen, or all Americans, or all Christians are created equal. A quick review of the primary source literature from the period demonstrates conclusively that by "men" the revolutionary generation meant "mankind," that is, humankind. See Thomas G. West, Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997), chap. 3.

Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia criticized various Native American tribes for their treatment of women and for their failure to recognize the fact that women are equal to men in the rights they retain by nature. Jefferson wrote: "The [Native American] women are submitted to unjust drudgery. This I believe is the case with every barbarous people. With such, force is law. The stronger sex therefore imposes on the weaker. It is civilization alone which replaces women in the enjoyment of their natural equality. That first teaches us to subdue the selfish passions, and to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves." See Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1783), Query 6, in Portable Thomas Jefferson, 96-97. (docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/jefferson/jefferson.html)

Benjamin Franklin, speaking as president of the Pennsylvania Society of promoting and Abolition of Slavery, described slavery as "an atrocious debasement of human nature." See Benjamin Franklin, "An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage" (1789), in The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. John Bigelow (New York: Putnam, 1904), 12:157-58. (oll.libertyfund.org/titles/franklin-the-works-of-benjamin-franklin-in-12-vols)

Speaking at the Virginia Convention to ratify the proposed federal constitution, Patrick Henry told a room filled with many fellow slaveholders: "Slavery is detested—we feel its fatal effects—we deplore it with all the pity of humanity....As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition....I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul, that every one of my fellow beings was emancipated." See Henry, speaking to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 24, 1788, in Ratification of the Constitution by the States: Virginia (3), ed. John P. Kaminski et al., vol. 10 of The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, ed. Merrill Jensen (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1993). (1476-88, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp)

George Washington, a slaveholder, told a friend, "There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]." See George Washington to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in The Writings of George Washington, ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York: Putnam's, 1891), 11:25. (oll.libertyfund.org/titles/washington-the-writings-of-george-washington-vol-i-1748-1757)

At the Constitution Convention in 1787, James Madison told his colleagues, "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." See James Madison, speech at Constitutional Convention, June 6, 1787, in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1786, Reported by James Madison, ed. Adrienne Koch (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1966, 77. (oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1787-madison-s-notes-of-debates-in-the-federal-convention)

John Adams told a correspondent in 1819 that he had held "the practice of slavery in abhorrence" through his entire life. See Adams to Robert Evans, June 18, 1819, Works of Adams, 380. (oll.libertyfund.org/titles/adams-the-works-of-john-adams-vol-1-life-of-the-author)

Richard Wells, a Philadelphia Quaker, published a devastating critique of American slavery. In his 1774 pamphlet A Few Political Reflections, Wells excoriated his countrymen for their complicity in slavery and called on them to examine their "own conduct" relative to the particular institution. He asked: "whether we can reconcile the exercise of slavery with our professions of freedom, 'founded on the law of God and nature, and the common rights of mankind.'" Wells declared that "ALL the inhabitants of America [including slaves] are entitled to the privileges of the inhabitants of Great-Britain." See Wells, A Few Political Reflections, in Colonies to Nation, 393-96. (quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N10868.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext)

Jefferson's first public statement on slavery was published in 1774, in A Summary View of the Rights of British-America, in which he denounced George III for vetoing American legislation attempting to end the African slave trade: "The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa....preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice." See Jefferson, Summary View of the Rights of British-America, in Colonies to Nation, 234. (oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jefferson-the-works-vol-2-1771-1779)

In his 1773 pamphlet An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America, on the Slavery of the Negroes in America, Benjamin Rush denounced "Slave-keeping" as an unmitigated "evil." See Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America, on the Slavery of the Negroes in America (Philadelphia, 1773), 1-2, 19-20, 25-26. (quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N10229.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext)

Thomas Jefferson was committed to the antislavery cause in more than just speech. In 1779, he authored a bill for the Virginia House of Burgesses that provided for gradual emancipation in Virginia. Five years later, he proposed (unsuccessfully) a law that would have banned slavery from the entire western territory of the United States. As president, he implored Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country, have long been eager to proscribe." See Jefferson, Sixth Annual Message (1806), in Writings of Jefferson, 3:421. (avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffmes6.asp)

David Cooper said that the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution was clear: "The disquisitions and reasonings of the present day on the rights of men, have opened the eyes of multitudes who clearly see, that, in advocating the rights of humanity, their slavers are equally included with themselves." The time had therefore come for America's Patriot leaders to practice what they preached: "We expect, mankind expects, you to demonstrate your faith by your works, the sincerity if your words by your actions, in giving the power, with which you are invested, its utmost energy in promoting equal and impartial liberty to all whose lots are cast within the reach of its influence." See [David Cooper], A Serious Address to the Rulers of America on the Inconsistency of Their Conduct Respecting Slavery: Forming a Contrast Between the Encroachments of England on American Liberty, and American Injustice in Tolerating Slavery (Trenton, NJ: Isaac Collins, 1783), 4, 6, 12-13, 16-18. (quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N14096.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext)

I think I broke him...

Are you trying to convince us, or desperately trying to convince yourself at this point?

Is your claim that these men were inherently racist or no? Your hypothesis states the former but your evidence backs the latter.

Scris de BannedFor1Year, 29.10.2019 at 10:06

Ship of Theseus is home of racists, we are racists. Ship of Theseus - Racist coalition!

If liking ones people is racist, then everyone is racist, except for selt hating idiots.

Well the New World experiment failed. Time to go back home.

Scris de Garde, 29.10.2019 at 09:37

Is your claim that these men were inherently racist or no? Your hypothesis states the former but your evidence backs the latter.

Yes, that's the joke. If you read my previous posts you'd know that I believe America was founded in enlightened ideals, not racism.

I've compiled insurmountable evidence to prove this point. Tik-Tok, Andartes, and all his minions are anti-American hacks. This post was supposed to attract those who hate America, then show them that America is institutionally free based on all the above evidence.

I was wrong though, I guess most people read the first paragraph and didn't bother to read all the quotes. Idiots

Scris de Tik-Tok, 29.10.2019 at 03:02

I think I broke him...

I'm not broken, you're broken. And I'm trying to fix you, because you're a broken anti-American nazi hack.

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 29.10.2019 at 14:04

Scris de Garde, 29.10.2019 at 09:37

Is your claim that these men were inherently racist or no? Your hypothesis states the former but your evidence backs the latter.

Yes, that's the joke. If you read my previous posts you'd know that I believe America was founded in enlightened ideals, not racism.

I've compiled insurmountable evidence to prove this point. Tik-Tok, Andartes, and all his minions are anti-American hacks. This post was supposed to attract those who hate America, then show them that America is institutionally free based on all the above evidence.

I was wrong though, I guess most people read the first paragraph and didn't bother to read all the quotes. Idiots

What ideals are racist and what ideas aren't?

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 14:10

These truths outlined in the Declaration, for instance:

• "[A]ll Men are created equal."
  
• "[T]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
  
• "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
  
• "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

The above truths are derived from natural law, which secure equality, rights, consent, and revolution. America's founding was steeped in the immutable facts of nature, which is why these "enlightened ideals" are inherently non-racist. Slavery was a social institution and did in no way influence the construction of the founding documents of the United States or its founding ideals.

Slavery was evil and independent to the philosophy that created my country.

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 12:33

If liking ones people is racist, then everyone is racist, except for selt hating idiots.

Indeed, everyone is racist, and the anti-racists tend to be the most dishonest of all. They will virtue-signal about how wonderful diversity is and smear, attack and slander working class people that disobey the programming. These anti-racists themselves tend to live in the whitest of the suburbs, send their children to the whitest of schools. If the demographics of their community change, they will quickly leave for the next whitest community. I've never known a single anti-racist activist or diversity-pusher who actually lived within the multi-ethnic community they tend to create or promote. They actively avoid them.

Much of the upper middle-class is actually made up of a particular type of ultra-agreeable and ultra-cohesive genetic/social groups whose evolutionary goal is to climb social ladders through social signalling to the status quo. Regardless of who tends to be in charge, they will virulently signal to the powers that be for social status, be they communists, fascists, liberals and of course, you know who's.

The people that tend to signal against the status quo tend to be those who perceive to be the most oppressed, persecuted or suffering from it. The perception of scarcity elevates these anxieties, which the upper middle class fail to understand or empathise with because they don't see it or feel it.

I may be a 'racist' etc, but as someone with lifelong experience of living and working in multi-ethnic communities, I can adapt and mingle. The anti-racist cannot. These experiences are also what led to the molding of my worldview.

Citat:

"White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans"

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liberals-present-themselves-as-less-competent-in-interactions-with-african-americans

Ironically, the liberal tends to hold deeply racial views, while the conservative tends try to perceive everyone as individuals. The conservative is fundamentally wrong, but the Liberal's attitude is one of self preservation and signalling social status, not one of altruism. Both will avoid interactions with other racial groups and if they have enough finances, they will spend a great deal of wealth for the comfort of a like-minded racially similar community. This occurs all over the world, especially in multi-ethnic nation states.

It's a weird dichotomy. They're both wrong. The honest person simply acknowledges these differences and admits to themselves that reality, people and human nature is 'racist', and there's nothing wrong with that.

Scris de Player 999, 29.10.2019 at 14:14

Liking ones own people is ok. The real issue, though, is when you start to hate or dehumanize other people just for being a different race. And that's the case with the majority of racists; they hide behind the excuse of "liking ones own people" when in fact they hate other races and would love to get rid of other races.

This is a projection and also a a deeply unfair unwinnable scenario with unfalsifiable conditions. You claim that liking and preferring ones own people is 'ok', but you then claim that such people are generally hiding behind a desire to hurt or harm. There's no 'winnable' condition and asserts that white people are inherently 'evil' and require constant surveillance to prevent them mass murdering others in scenarios where they may seek a collective interest. It's blood libel. It's no different from many of the anti-white commentaries projected onto normal primal human desires that white people generally have. If someone claims to hold such a view, you accuse them of wanting to mass-murder. So in what condition can such a person make such desires known without such accusations? You can't. You will not allow it. You are virtue-signalling to a community which clearly holds agreeable views towards racial reality so you give them the 'OK' so you can settle in with the crowd - and likely corrupt it - but you then give clearly unwinnable conditions so that any such promotion is still treated with scorn. Who the fuck made you judge, jury and executioner of what it is 'ok'? Why the fuck do you think you have the power and moral authority to arbitrate what is 'ok'? Fuck your scenario.

The fact that you have to lie about it being 'ok' shows that you are losing the argument within this socialsphere. You have to compromise a little so you can add a condition. You still have to pretend and lie because you know the majority disagrees with you.

Citat:

"Sure, it's 'ok' if you want to say this and feel this way..... but if you do, I will accuse of you wanting to commit a holocaust."

Such an accusation holds enormous power and is unfalsifiable. You know it puts people on the defensive forcing them to mold their message to your conditions which they can never fulfil. These accusations cannot be proven to be false and they are signal to others to no longer interact with that person. You're a shitty person. You are objectively evil.

It's an unwinnable scenario. Total blood libel. I'd prefer if you were honest. You clearly hate white people and want to corrupt our destiny towards your own interests. We wont play by your rules or conditions. You don't get to create such conditions. You don't even get to be involved in our conservation about our interests because you don't hold them and are clearly an 'outsider'. So you can kindly fuck off. Our interests clearly differ and you hold malicious instincts towards our nativist sentiment. Why should you get to dictate the terms of such a conversation you clearly don't want people to even have? You don't. Get lost.

Scris de Tik-Tok, 29.10.2019 at 17:51

Indeed, everyone is racist, and the anti-racists tend to be the most dishonest of all. They will virtue-signal about how wonderful diversity is and smear, attack and slander working class people that disobey the programming. These anti-racists themselves tend to live in the whitest of the suburbs, send their children to the whitest of schools. If the demographics of their community change, they will quickly leave for the next whitest community. I've never known a single anti-racist activist or diversity-pusher who actually lived within the multi-ethnic community they tend to create or promote. They actively avoid them.
Much of the upper middle-class is actually made up of a particular type of ultra-agreeable and ultra-cohesive genetic/social groups whose evolutionary goal is to climb social ladders through social signalling to the status quo. Regardless of who tends to be in charge, they will virulently signal to the powers that be for social status, be they communists, fascists, liberals and of course, you know who's.

Interestingly, the successful people in politics (and presumably politics-like branches) seem to rather be highly intelligent R types. The high agreeableness you quote is actually more associated with K types. Especially lefty politicians probably are quite disagreeable, although you're right, that the average anti-white is quite agreeable and just goes along with the narrative. In Germany, most lefties seem to just be extremely naive. They meet a few Turks and Japanese at their good school and their college, and they end up thinking all turks are like those most intelligent and least antisocial 20%. But when you overlay a map of AfD votes and migration background in a city, it becomes clear, that Germans who have to deal with direct contact with the average Turk somehow dislike diversity. I personally can attest, that going to a horrible school made it very easy for me to acknowledge, that the IQ gaps between the races are true, because I've lived it.

They may be engaging in a sort of signaling of how virtous they are (as the middle class always has), and they do it much more than upper class people. I know some quite rich and successful people, and they all are more libertarian and conservative than the middle class anti-whites.

Scris de Tik-Tok, 29.10.2019 at 17:51

The people that tend to signal against the status quo tend to be those who perceive to be the most oppressed, persecuted or suffering from it. The perception of scarcity elevates these anxieties, which the upper middle class fail to understand or empathise with because they don't see it or feel it.

I may be a 'racist' etc, but as someone with lifelong experience of living and working in multi-ethnic communities, I can adapt and mingle. The anti-racist cannot. These experiences are also what led to the molding of my worldview.

Citat:

"White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans"

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liberals-present-themselves-as-less-competent-in-interactions-with-african-americans

Ironically, the liberal tends to hold deeply racial views, while the conservative tends try to perceive everyone as individuals. The conservative is fundamentally wrong, but the Liberal's attitude is one of self preservation and signalling social status, not one of altruism. Both will avoid interactions with other racial groups and if they have enough finances, they will spend a great deal of wealth for the comfort of a like-minded racially similar community. This occurs all over the world, especially in multi-ethnic nation states.

It's a weird dichotomy. They're both wrong. The honest person simply acknowledges these differences and admits to themselves that reality, people and human nature is 'racist', and there's nothing wrong with that.

In the US, liberals may be "the real racists", but in Germany, I'm pretty sure, that we're dealing with true believers. Outside of direct contact, you have zero information about racial differences here. The closest you might get is some statistics going around that show, that "blue eyed people" are going extinct. I mean, I was a lefty until I was 15, you might remember. I truely believed, that assimilation could work, that race was just skin deep. I knew that the percentage of whites in Germany was going down, and deep down I disliked it. When Merkel opened the flood gates, I remember thinking to myself, she should just be the evil CDU woman she was to me back then, and close the border. I would have complained and said she's racist, but deep down, I would have been happy, because I liked people like myself, even back then. I don't remember a single moment in my life, when I didn't care about my people.
But these anti-whites, man. I think some of them are like I was, they are true believers in integration and immigration, and if they knew what's happenening, they'd become nationalists Identitarians Ethnopluralists, basically overnight, like me. Some others just really don't care about their people. I have met too many people who honestly don't care about their people. Idk how many lie to themselves, but those who are honest... they are traitors. You complain about Jews a lot, but these traitors, I hate them way more. How could you want your people to go extinct? How could you be such an insane monster to your own kith and kin?

Scris de Player 999, 29.10.2019 at 14:14

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 12:33

If liking ones people is racist, then everyone is racist, except for selt hating idiots.

Liking ones own people is ok. The real issue, though, is when you start to hate or dehumanize other people just for being a different race. And that's the case with the majority of racists; they hide behind the excuse of "liking ones own people" when in fact they hate other races and would love to get rid of other races.

Okay, I don't have any issues with any other race. I legitimately just like my own people, and want them to continue existing. So I want policies that achieve this. Heavily restricted migration, incentives to increase the birthrate and financial incentives for other peoples to leave my country. I'm not a racist, great!

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:27

Interestingly, the successful people in politics (and presumably politics-like branches) seem to rather be highly intelligent R types. The high agreeableness you quote is actually more associated with K types. Especially lefty politicians probably are quite disagreeable, although you're right, that the average anti-white is quite agreeable and just goes along with the narrative. In Germany, most lefties seem to just be extremely naive. They meet a few Turks and Japanese at their good school and their college, and they end up thinking all turks are like those most intelligent and least antisocial 20%. But when you overlay a map of AfD votes and migration background in a city, it becomes clear, that Germans who have to deal with direct contact with the average Turk somehow dislike diversity. I personally can attest, that going to a horrible school made it very easy for me to acknowledge, that the IQ gaps between the races are true, because I've lived it.

I'm fine with the use of IQ is a definition of difference, it clearly is, but IQ isn't the only thing. Intelligence differences become obvious when two people or two groups interact and this creates alienation, but there are completely different standards between racial groups which biologically molded their worldviews and philosophies. China and Japan are High IQ nations with High IQ racial groups but remain utterly alien to the European mindset. We gaze upon their creations with awe, respect their power and brilliance and will trade goods, trinkets and gadgets but the thought of living in such a radically alien place is frightening to most European people. Not because East Asians are 'bad' but because there is a completely different mentality.

Socialism, democracy, animal rights etc are all European concepts that most of the world still refuses to adopt in an identical manner. Even when European politics are adopted, the same scenarios natural to those areas and people still play out. As I said in the previous thread, Liberia holds the same constitution as the USA and the two countries are radically different. The Chinese could adopt American law and concepts and be flag-waving gun-toting 'individualists' but overtime it would just mold into the standard that China has always been: a hivemindesquse society with clearly defined and brutal hierarchies. That's not an insult to China and it's people, that is who they are and there is nothing with that, but it is alien to us, as we are alien to them. The scenario I described is simply impossible for China to adopt. They would reject it, as they should. Liberal democracy is shit, but I can understand why we created it as a reaction industrialisation. The working class desired some form of socialism but compromised with the elites for Liberal Democracy. Liberal Democracy is essentially a compromise between the classes which the upper class has successfully molded to maintain their power. 'Others' have co-opted for their interests too.

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:27

They may be engaging in a sort of signaling of how virtous they are (as the middle class always has), and they do it much more than upper class people. I know some quite rich and successful people, and they all are more libertarian and conservative than the middle class anti-whites.

Most are, because they desire to preserve their wealth and status. They'll signal for protection. Most CEO's promote socially progressive but market capitalist politics. These politics are the most dangerous of all. You'll notice how they promote socially progressive horror, but rarely promote actual economic socialist policy. True economic socialism is almost never discussed and such people tend to receive sustained attacks by institutions.

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:27

In the US, liberals may be "the real racists", but in Germany, I'm pretty sure, that we're dealing with true believers. Outside of direct contact, you have zero information about racial differences here.

It's no different in Germany, m8. Remember, a huge portion of the American populace comes from a German background. Even lefty Germans know, they are subconsciously aware and their actions and financial decisions play into this. They avoid interaction and seek communities with preferable racial demographics. Most of this is subconscious.

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:27

The closest you might get is some statistics going around that show, that "blue eyed people" are going extinct.

That's a dog whistle to how they really feel. White people, especially liberal types, have adopted coded language for conversing about these issues. They'll talk about the 'bad areas' but wont acknowledge they are bad. They'll talk about 'good schools' vs 'bad schools'. In Ireland they worry about 'Gaelic' losing influence and in Britain they decry the loss of 'green areas'. It's all coded language.

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:27

I mean, I was a lefty until I was 15, you might remember. I truely believed, that assimilation could work, that race was just skin deep. I knew that the percentage of whites in Germany was going down, and deep down I disliked it. When Merkel opened the flood gates, I remember thinking to myself, she should just be the evil CDU woman she was to me back then, and close the border. I would have complained and said she's racist, but deep down, I would have been happy, because I liked people like myself, even back then. I don't remember a single moment in my life, when I didn't care about my people.

Everyone is like this. 'True believers' are extremely rare but also think this way. Antifa types tend to be nihilists. They don't care about anything. They're usually the sons and daughters of the upper middle class with little purpose or meaning in their lives. They adopt a nihilistic worldview. They don't antagonise for genuine change and just burn cars and beat up working class people who desire their concerns being heard. Most people don't converse about their true desires because propaganda has made people believe they are alone due to the punishment for having such conversations. There was an explosion of nativist sentiment due to the internet where people began to realise just how many of us there are.

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:27

But these anti-whites, man. I think some of them are like I was, they are true believers in integration and immigration, and if they knew what's happenening, they'd become nationalists Identitarians Ethnopluralists, basically overnight, like me.

Maybe, maybe not. They still don't want to take the risk of getting a social or economic status hit and will simply hide how they truly feel. They likely wont change unless maintaining such a system becomes more of a risk than finally being public about their true desires. Essentially, only high-scarcity brings these people out of the closet. Most people who join these groups are working class and have much less to lose, and are more impacted by progressive capitalist policies.

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:27

Some others just really don't care about their people. I have met too many people who honestly don't care about their people. Idk how many lie to themselves, but those who are honest... they are traitors. You complain about Jews a lot, but these traitors, I hate them way more. How could you want your people to go extinct? How could you be such an insane monster to your own kith and kin?

Drakon has lied about me many times now, constantly asserting some sick twisted fucked up desire to harm people. It's a lie. But he did tell the truth once. He said I hated the middle class. That's also somewhat of a lie but there is a truth there. I feel the same way as you. I hate the traitors more than anyone. That doesn't imply i mean them harm but my resentment for them is stronger than other. It's a natural feeling to feel resentment towards collaborators aiding a foreign occupation of your blood and soil. Without these collaborators, the occupation wouldn't be able to function at all. There is no greater enemy than the conservative and centrist types who seek to maintain the occupation. They are the gatekeepers.

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:35

Okay, I don't have any issues with any other race. I legitimately just like my own people, and want them to continue existing. So I want policies that achieve this. Heavily restricted migration, incentives to increase the birthrate and financial incentives for other peoples to leave my country. I'm not a racist, great

Don't let him get into your head. He has malicious intentions. He sets conditions that are unwinnable and seeks to separate the like-minded. With his conditions that he arbitrarily sets - which you accept because his accusations wield power - he seeks to set the tone of conversation. He will give one group of nativist types leniency and crush the radicals. Then you become the radical, then he gives leniency to those more centrist than you, and crushes you. Why do you allow this obvious enemy to dictate what you think and feel?

Just say 'No'. Say 'Fuck your conditions'. Don't be the cuckservative and cave to an enemy who doesn't want you to have such a conversation in the first place. He has no right to it. He doesn't desire to compromise or negotiate. His goal is to stop the conversation from happening and force you into ever-more increasingly unwinnable scenarios with conditions he sets.

Fuck that game. Fuck his conditions. I piss on his chess board and shit in his drink.

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

Don't lie and act like you don't hate jewish people and non-white people lmao.

Don't lie and act like you don't hate white people

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

Everyone has seen your posts.

I have never expressed any hatred, just facts and thought provocation, which have yet to dared to tackle. You have no case. Your only line of attack is blood libelous claims.

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

You're acting like a victim

I am a victim. I am being victimised. I am being persecuted and your line of attack is racially motivated. You clearly desire to see me banned, and you also desire to have any conversation like this banned from ever occurring. You seek harm and malice towards me and my people. What you say about me is blood libel and your act is one of malice. You cannot sit there and claim someone has murderous intentions and deny you are victimising them. You cannot make unfalsifiable accusations without evidence. You do not engage, negotiate, discuss or compromise. You attack all nativist sentiment, except zionist sentiment, as genocide. You do not get to lie about me and then expect me not to call you out. I am a victim of your malice and I will not tolerate it. You do not get to dictate conditions or terms of nativist sentiment.

You are not part of this conversation, nor are you capable of of proving anyone in this conversation wrong.

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

when your mentality is completely clear to other people.

My mentality is one of observation and truth telling. So far, you have not show me to be lying or disproven any point I have made. Everyone is fully aware of where I stand and only you and others in your circle make untrue accusations.

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

"Simply like my own people" my ass

Exactly. You add conditions which are unwinnable. You make blood libelous claims which are unfalsifiable.

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

you hate other groups

Slander.

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

and are trying to desperately whitewash your views

I don't need to white wash my views. They are perfectly normal views that the majority of people hold. You agree with every single policy of the status quo and your politics of mass immigration and progressive extremism are opposed by the majority of the public. The public are also socially conservative and heavily sympathise with populist socialist and protectionist economics. It is your worldview that is the least popular, the least trusted and generally hated by most people.

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

though everyone already knows what your mentality is.

And you have yet to prove me wrong.

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

"Blood libel" is there really such a need to be a drama queen?

You are accusing me of desiring to commit a holocaust. This is a lie and you have yet to prove it. You have claimed that any nativist sentiment is a secret sick weirdo fantasy to genocide. This is blood libel. It is also projection because you support policies which undermine native posterity. You are evil. You, of a different race, attacks my racial nativist sentiment and claims any collective white interest inherently evil. How is that not a blood libel?

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

Simply quit hating other racial groups and wanting to harm them.

At no point has such a claim been made, but you keep repeating it as your only weapon. Blood libel. This is a claim with no evidence and is an unfalsifiable claim. It's up to you to prove it, not me.

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

That's all that is required, nothing more.

An unfalsifiable claim with no evidence.

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:36

You can "love the white race" or whatever you do all day, just stop hating other races.

"Listen, I'll concede this one point but you to have prove this unfalsifiable claim first, and until you do, you can't have this conversation."

Get fucked.

Your entire premise: "I will keep making blood libelous claims about you and your people and continue to corrupt any conversation about your desired interests and concerns because I clearly don't want this conversation to be had and am extremely frustrated it's allowed to continue."

Are you a dual citizen of Israel and America? Do you visit your ethno-state during the holidays?

Scris de Tik-Tok, 30.10.2019 at 07:58

Tik-Tok, all you do is respond to others like a contrarian, you have no qualifications, and you're an idiot only capable of appealing to others through flimsy rhetoric.

Disparities exist among peoples which manifest in varying IQ scores, varying ideals, and varying ways of life. Race is independent of these variables, seeing how all cultures are racially diverse, except for isolated cultures untouched by globalization. It's not racist to like or dislike certain people, but if you like or dislike one race exclusively, that is racist. It's not racist to like or dislike a certain culture, and if you like or dislike one culture exclusively, that too is not racist. It is not racist to embrace Americanism while rejecting the Chinese way of life, for instance. But it is racist, immoral, and stupid to suggest that a Chinese man who grew up in America is somehow linked to the Chinese way of life even if he had never visited China. It's not racist to reject other cultures. I believe that Western culture is superior to all other cultures, but it is racist to suggest that all white men are part of Western culture and we must thereby support each other. Or that all Asian men are part of Chinese culture and we must reject Asians as a collective.

You are no different from the Leftists that you are supposedly against. You both think in terms of race, you both have an evil collectivist mentality. You and C_Sharp belong together.

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 30.10.2019 at 10:23

muh constitution, muh low taxes, muh individualism, muh flag, muh civnat cuckery

I love how the West confused Left-Right Politics, pretty enjoyable watching people squabble over it.

Let old Andy teach you the proper Left-Right Politics: Left - groupings, organizations, 'we' <> individualism, 'i' - Right

Every idea based on group (such as ethnic, or tribal, organization, like political), like Communist, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Syndicalism, is Left-wing politics. Every idea based on individual, such as Monarchism, Anarchism, Liberalism is Right-wing politics. The real conflict is between group and the individual.

Therefore, Tik-Tok is Leftist, Sean Spicer is Right-winger and Columna Durruti is lost in time and space(Anarcho-Syndicalism, really?)

Scris de Player 999, 30.10.2019 at 06:39

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:35

Okay, I don't have any issues with any other race. I legitimately just like my own people, and want them to continue existing. So I want policies that achieve this. Heavily restricted migration, incentives to increase the birthrate and financial incentives for other peoples to leave my country. I'm not a racist, great!

Hopefully you legitimately do like your own race without hating others. Your race to have all the babies it wants, no one is saying it can't. Nothing wrong with wanting to make your group survive, every ethnic group in the world wants to survive and grow. White people aren't going to "go extinct". There of course is the issue of low birthrates, which naturally occurs in highly developed countries. The way to fix this is incentives to increase the birthrate, as you said. European and East Asian countries, which both suffer from low birthdates, are starting to give those incentives. Their populations hopefully will not sink.

But, if you "don't have any issues with any other race", why do you want them to leave the country and not be allowed to migrate in? Sounds a bit suspicious, as those are policies that would be detrimental to other races, while also not even helping your race . How exactly would the presence of other races harm your own race? And what makes it so that only your race has a right to live in your country, and not also immigrants who are hard-working, law-abiding and educated (so overall beneficial to Germany) who simply happen to be of a different race? Would you rather take a homeless white person than an Asian with a degree from Harvard?

Well, I like my people, and I don't want my people to lose it's land. Germany is our safe space, it's our home. It's nobody else's home, and I want us to keep it. Why would I want people to take over our land? Look, if we accept millions of Asians, our home would become like Asia, and I don't want that. You may argue, that a country more like Hong Kong would give us a higher standard of living, but I don't want to live in Hong Kong, I want to live in Germany, among other Germans. Yes, of course, if all you care about is money, then you would take the Asian, but my home is more than just monetary value. Btw, I wouldn't mind some really low migration rates, like 4000, 5000, of absolute geniusses, but as soon as these people don't interbreed with the local population at higher rates than new migrants can come in, the shape of our country is changing to whatever the migrants bring.

But yea, you'll just claim I'm hateful I presume. You know what, if that's what you want to think, go ahead, I don't care.

Scris de Tik-Tok, 29.10.2019 at 19:31

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:35

Okay, I don't have any issues with any other race. I legitimately just like my own people, and want them to continue existing. So I want policies that achieve this. Heavily restricted migration, incentives to increase the birthrate and financial incentives for other peoples to leave my country. I'm not a racist, great

Don't let him get into your head. He has malicious intentions. He sets conditions that are unwinnable and seeks to separate the like-minded. With his conditions that he arbitrarily sets - which you accept because his accusations wield power - he seeks to set the tone of conversation. He will give one group of nativist types leniency and crush the radicals. Then you become the radical, then he gives leniency to those more centrist than you, and crushes you. Why do you allow this obvious enemy to dictate what you think and feel?

Just say 'No'. Say 'Fuck your conditions'. Don't be the cuckservative and cave to an enemy who doesn't want you to have such a conversation in the first place. He has no right to it. He doesn't desire to compromise or negotiate. His goal is to stop the conversation from happening and force you into ever-more increasingly unwinnable scenarios with conditions he sets.

Fuck that game. Fuck his conditions. I piss on his chess board and shit in his drink.

Don't worry, man. I've arrived at the position I'm at today through arguments, and I have dealt with people like him hundreds of times. I personally don't care about what people consider racist, but it can be helpful to show how lose and foggy the definition of racism is, to show that it is a useless concept. C_Sharp has to imagine all sorts of people being hateful, almost every black person, almost all Chinese and most muslims, or his definition doesn't include Identitarians, some nationalists, and definetly not Ethnopluralists like me. I've never bowed to peer pressure in my opinions either. I just don't really care.

Scris de Tik-Tok, 29.10.2019 at 19:23

I'm fine with the use of IQ is a definition of difference, it clearly is, but IQ isn't the only thing. Intelligence differences become obvious when two people or two groups interact and this creates alienation, but there are completely different standards between racial groups which biologically molded their worldviews and philosophies. China and Japan are High IQ nations with High IQ racial groups but remain utterly alien to the European mindset. We gaze upon their creations with awe, respect their power and brilliance and will trade goods, trinkets and gadgets but the thought of living in such a radically alien place is frightening to most European people. Not because East Asians are 'bad' but because there is a completely different mentality.

Yes, sure, I just said IQ, because IQ is the most obvious and hardest to deny one. It's the one that popped right out at me, and made me realize, that multiculturalism will never work, because of genetic differences in all sorts of things.

Scris de Tik-Tok, 29.10.2019 at 19:23

Maybe, maybe not. They still don't want to take the risk of getting a social or economic status hit and will simply hide how they truly feel. They likely wont change unless maintaining such a system becomes more of a risk than finally being public about their true desires. Essentially, only high-scarcity brings these people out of the closet. Most people who join these groups are working class and have much less to lose, and are more impacted by progressive capitalist policies.

Scris de Tirpitz406, 29.10.2019 at 18:27

Some others just really don't care about their people. I have met too many people who honestly don't care about their people. Idk how many lie to themselves, but those who are honest... they are traitors. You complain about Jews a lot, but these traitors, I hate them way more. How could you want your people to go extinct? How could you be such an insane monster to your own kith and kin?

Drakon has lied about me many times now, constantly asserting some sick twisted fucked up desire to harm people. It's a lie. But he did tell the truth once. He said I hated the middle class. That's also somewhat of a lie but there is a truth there. I feel the same way as you. I hate the traitors more than anyone. That doesn't imply i mean them harm but my resentment for them is stronger than other. It's a natural feeling to feel resentment towards collaborators aiding a foreign occupation of your blood and soil. Without these collaborators, the occupation wouldn't be able to function at all. There is no greater enemy than the conservative and centrist types who seek to maintain the occupation. They are the gatekeepers.

I'm pretty sure, that it's the traitorwhites, that actually have ruined us. Sure, Jews could have a bad influence on us, but they would have had that since the 10th century, and it never caused whites to become anti-white. Yes, Jews are overrepresented amongst anti-white institutions and in the media, but I don't think this is the main cause. What I think is the main cause, is a dysgenic trend, that has been going on in the west since the 1800s. I think it's reasonable to assume, that in the 1800s, selective pressures were much stronger on us. We were pretty strongly selected, because most children died before reproducing. So, the way people were back then, is pretty much ideal for selection. They were far more religious than us, and they were far more ethnocentric than us. There is a lot of evidence, that there was a dysgenic trend since then, that caused G (general intelligence factor) to fall about one standard deviation, because of more mutations, and those mutations not being selected against hard enough.

Scris de Tik-Tok, 30.10.2019 at 12:01

Either
1. you didn't respond because I'm correct, or
2. you dismissed my point because you think that I wouldn't change my stance anyway if you responded.

Tik-Tok, please explain why culture is contingent on one's race as opposed to one's ideals or ways of life, or why race should be a determining factor at all.

Inequalities that occur for reasons out of one's control, such as genetic endowment, social upbringing, and inheritance, confront everyone with differences in opportunities. It's not the government's job to rectify these inequalities through a form of cosmic justice; ideally, in a free society everyone is free to pursue the opportunities afforded to them in life; that is, freedom of opportunity as opposed to the Left's equality of opportunity. Tik-Tok, correct me if I'm wrong, but your ideal society is grounded in equality of opportunity. Hence, you are no different from C_Sharp or any other Leftist on this site.

The only difference between you and C_Sharp is where you place emphasis. You emphasize that in a nation, the dominate ethnicity must run that nation for it to function naturally and most efficiently; hence, inequalities that would otherwise arise because of genetic endowment are rectified through equality of opportunity, forwarded through said government's deliberate exclusion of other races domestically or through a closed-borders policy. On the other hand, C_Sharp emphasizes the need for equality of opportunity because of inequity, because it's unfair that one man succeeds while another fails for reasons out of his control, and therefore the government must rectify these inequalities regardless of race.

C_Sharp says: EVERYONE
Tik-Tok says: SOME
I say: ONE

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 30.10.2019 at 14:05

Tik-Tok, please explain why culture is contingent on one's race as opposed to one's ideals or ways of life, or why race should be a determining factor at all.

For the third time, I have said that Liberia and the United States hold the same constitution and legal form of government. One is a superpower, the other is, unfortunately, a shithole with ebola. Liberia has improved since its ... *checks notes* ... second civil war, but it remains one of the poorest nations on Earth. You believe ideas are what dictate success and posterity, but it is the racial stock of a nation that dictates its competitiveness and standards. China has been a global power for 3000 years. Three of the worlds largest wars, with the largest loss of global human life %, occurred in China alone. China has a long history of monarchies, barbarian takeovers and political influences. Post-opium wars, China was ruled by warlords and lost prestige but after a few decades, reclaimed its status under Mao of all people. Today it is a global power and the second largest economy in the world. It was the racial stock of China that brings about its success, not a piece of paper and not Mao's little red book. Political philosophies play a role, but even they are molded by the racial stock that creates them.

You claim Africa is an equal partner in the world and equally capable. Some will argue colonialism brought about its current state, which is complete horseshit. Subsaharan African remained unharmed through multiple world wars while the rest of the world consistently maintains a similar set of global powers. Poland has suffered occupation and colonisation for hundreds of years. During the second world war, Poland was annihilated and it's capital demolished to brickwork foundations, yet Poland recovered and is a strong growing economy far superior to every African country. How do you explain Japan losing two of its cities to nuclear hellfire and within a decade or two reaching one of the highest levels of economic and social development, while Africa continues to drag its heels at the bottom of global development and quality of life?

Will the colonisation of Africa today by China be any different from past colonialism? No. It will probably be more brutal long term. Africa is a football, sadly, easily kicked around a geo-political pitch by the rest of the world. It probably always will be. And no matter how much money the world spends, or how many American constitutions you throw at it, the continent wont change much at all. I suspect the fate of the continent will get far worse as its extremely high and unsustainable population reaches a limit, and brutally plunges when the global subsidies run out during an inevitable global economic meltdown.

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 30.10.2019 at 14:05

Inequalities that occur for reasons out of one's control, such as genetic endowment, social upbringing, and inheritance, confront everyone with differences in opportunities. It's not the government's job to rectify these inequalities through a form of cosmic justice;

Your political theory lives in the written word and does not reflect well in lived reality. Lived reality does not give a shit about your theory. A state with a monopoly of force acts however its controllers tell it. This 'government' you speak of is fiction. You say "The government shouldn't do x" and it does x. How do you rectify this? Reality is pissing on you and you pretend its rain.

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 30.10.2019 at 14:05

ideally, in a free society everyone is free to pursue the opportunities afforded to them in life; that is, freedom of opportunity as opposed to the Left's equality of opportunity.

And the state is molded by people in power. Wealthy people collectivise and use the state for their own benefit. The Founders themselves were guilty of this. Political interest is sought through collective means, not by individuals. I'm not going to live by rules and standards which are tantamount to slavery. Your politic is a slave mindset sold to fools in the 1960s. It tells me that I'm an individual born on magic ethereal dirt where any foot that lands on it, almost instantly becomes just like me. That's not true. Your politic believes I don't stand on the shoulders of giants and that I'm just this unique snowflake with the world at their fingertips and all my problems can be solved individually. This is a bullshit lie sold by oligarchs. My 'rights' as a citizen and a man of my land, king of his castle, came from collective action. It came from collective force pressuring a collectivist elite. In many cases, these collective actions were brutally violent. The 19th century is rife with revolutions and massacres of nobles and serfs alike. This individualist lie is sold by collectivised wealthy elites to ensure they remain unchallenged.

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 30.10.2019 at 14:05

Tik-Tok, correct me if I'm wrong, but your ideal society is grounded in equality of opportunity. Hence, you are no different from C_Sharp or any other Leftist on this site.

C Sharp does not hold a philosophical view. He is a Jewish Identitarian. His worldview is molded by what is useful to his tribe. His neo-liberalism is a tried and tested political variant which is the best vehicle for those interests, nothing more. You've naive if you think he holds some autistic loyalty to a political theory.

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 30.10.2019 at 14:05

You emphasize that in a nation, the dominate ethnicity must run that nation for it to function naturally and most efficiently; hence, inequalities that would otherwise arise because of genetic endowment are rectified through equality of opportunity

Not a bad description.

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 30.10.2019 at 14:05

forwarded through said government's deliberate exclusion of other races domestically or through a closed-borders policy.

Preferably closed border policy and consensual economic repatriation. I do not seek to use violent force to deport people. I've made that very clear for years. People can remain, but if they choose to be repatriated, they will receive a large lump sum of money and possible economic or educational aid for wherever they decide to move to. Such policies already exist, but the incentive would be much much larger in a nativist state.

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 30.10.2019 at 14:05

On the other hand, C_Sharp emphasizes the need for equality of opportunity because of inequity, because it's unfair that one man succeeds while another fails for reasons out of his control, and therefore the government must rectify these inequalities regardless of race.

C Sharp doesn't give a fuck about these things. The man is a zionist who supports a Jewish ethno-state but also demands that all European nations open their borders and accept a disastrous fate as a dwindling minority. He is gleeful about this.

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 30.10.2019 at 14:05

C_Sharp says: EVERYONE
Tik-Tok says: SOME
I say: ONE

Wrong.

C_Sharp says: My tribe, fuck white people, and anyone who I perceive as daring to oppose our identitarian interests
Tik-Tok says: My tribe
Spicer say: Muh individualism

Scris de Tik-Tok, 30.10.2019 at 14:58

Ok, look, at this point I'm gonna agree to disagree, but let me just tell you that the correlation you draw between racial homogeneity and prosperity isn't a powerful argument, in my opinion. You can't draw a conclusion about race based on that correlation alone. Ideals better explain a nation's success, ideals premised on ideas, meaning a Constitution coupled with a culture that values the rule of law, free enterprise, among other things. The United States is losing its position in the world not because of an influx of colored immigrants, but because the people of my country are forgetting why past generations died on behalf of liberty and the ideals that we now take for granted. The Constitution provided a framework that, coupled with a people whose culture sustained it, brought the United States to superpower status. Not a white people or a black people but a people. Clearly the African people have a inferior culture, but they are not inferior because of their race. The African nations suffer corruption and destitution because their ideals, their culture is inferior to Western culture. There is a hierarchy of ideals, and this is what distinguishes the United States from Liberia.

The implication of your argument is that racial homogeneity alone isn't enough to determine a nation's success. Central Africa is probably the most homogeneous place on Earth, yet it is the poorest. You're implying that there's a hierarchy of races, and that the more colored people there are (i.e., a greater influx of Mexican immigrants into U.S.) the worse off a nation is. I believe the U.S. is in decline not because of increasing racial diversity, but because of an increased diversity of ideals, especially those that run contrary to the ideals of America's founding.

You're gonna have to provide more compelling evidence if you want me to believe in a racial homogeneous hierarchy as opposed to my take on the issue. Also, yes I agree about C_Sharp.

I'm not a collectivist, by the way. I just realized that my response might be construed that way. I wouldn't deport those I disagree with, I wouldn't censor them, I wouldn't do anything to them, even if they're communists that burn the American flag and Constitution on a daily basis. However, only native-born. Foreigners shouldn't be admitted to this country who hold anti-American views, that should be an Amendment to the Constitution. Look...

The Constitution of the United States enables a diversity of ideals for a reason. In the Declaration, it says that "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I have my own opinions, but it's a fact that a People should determine their own form of government, and if 99% of Americans want to destroy the Constitution, and I am in the 1%, then so be it. The people rule at the end of the day, and they determine how they want to be governed. Who am I to dictate how one should or should not live his or her life?

I will fight for liberty, for virtue, and for my Constitution, but I recognize that my ideals should not have monopoly. I will try to convince my fellow Americans to follow suit. I am not God, but I will always maintain that of all the ways to live one's life, living in accordance with our founding ideals is the surest way to prosperity and happiness.

I recommend reading the Declaration of Independence and reciting the pledge of allegiance (to the flag) everyday. In fact, I think this should be obligated for all American citizens, this should be the 28th Amendment.

Scris de Player 999, 31.10.2019 at 05:12

I agree that ethnicities (German included) have a right to preserve their culture/values; ethnicities all over the world want to preserve their culture. I guess when you phrase your argument the way you phrased it right now, it makes sense to me and also the majority of people. People shouldn't be discriminated against just because of their race and your arguments in previous posts did seem rather racist.

But I agree that if someone wants to move to Germany, they should assimilate, if that's what you're saying. Asian values aren't bad of course (they are actually rather good in terms of family values and focus on education/law-abiding behavior), but are not the exact same as German values. And Germans have a right to want German values/culture/language to continue to exist in Germany, just as the Chinese want Chinese values/culture/language to exist in China.

Are you saying that "German-ness" is based off of race, or language, or culture, or values? Of course there is nothing wrong with Germans wanting to be among others of the German ethnicity. As long as race isn't a factor, the majority of people in society, even left-wing people, would agree with you that cultures have a right to continue to exist.

I don't think you're hateful for wanting German-ness to continue to exist. Your ancestors were German for thousands of years, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to continue that tradition. As long as other cultures/races aren't looked down upon, loving German-ness (whatever the definition of it is) is fully good and natural.

Are you trying to tell me who is and is not German? Somebody of German ancestry, with German culture is German. Nobody else. You can't tell us who we have to accept. I don't get what your issue is, with letting people define themselves as they wish. It's not just some language and tribal costumes, it's blood, and you trying to tell me who is and isn't German is proposterous. It's not just a tradition I wish to preserve, it's an ethnicity. Here is how Wikipedia defines that:

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry or on similarities such as common language or dialect, history, society, culture or nation.

While an English and American discuss ideology, politics, liberty, nations and individuality, and how to run their states, Russia gets the job done:

Scris de Skanderbeg, 31.10.2019 at 14:23

While an English and American discuss ideology, politics, liberty, nations and individuality, and how to run their states, Russia gets the job done:

Yeah, Hitler got the job done too.

Heil

Scris de Tribune Aquila, 31.10.2019 at 14:27

Yeah, Hitler got the job done too.

Heil

Whoever mentions Hitler in a debate unrelated to Hitler - lose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law