Collect dem Dank ass webms
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
171 comments displayed.
#258 to #255
-
deathchain ONLINE (09/05/2015) [-] Some guy on FJ compiled them all from various sources like a month ago.
#182 to #101
-
bronywiseman ONLINE (09/04/2015) [-] Thank you fellow Brony faggot red-thumb incarnate!
#156 to #10
-
scandalouszander (09/04/2015) [-] ******** im crying tell me there are more of these please
#20
-
anonymoose (09/03/2015) [-] If you slow it down, you can pinpoint the exact moment her exaggerated tumblr post starts being formed in her head.
P.S. Why did a perfectly good video have to be spoiled with the ******** "white genocide" stuff?
P.S. Why did a perfectly good video have to be spoiled with the ******** "white genocide" stuff?
#131 to #20
-
alphagex (09/04/2015) [-] I got this feeling they are talking about the armenian genocide..because he mentioned turkey..turkey do desreve to be hanged for this..But not sure if is retarded sjw or armenians talking about the armenian genocide. sephirothpwnz
the source for the first video is about what genocide?
the source for the first video is about what genocide?
#192 to #20
-
deaminzaints (09/04/2015) [-] honestly, it looks like she is getting off on it too, which actually explains alot.
#193 to #192
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] I feel like when these kinds of people get offended, they get an adrenaline rush, hence the desire to be offended.
#129 to #20
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
the reason what you guys call the "white guilt" is showing up is because quite a few people believe whites ******* over other countries is not over. for example the Iraq war. many Iraqis Pepsied there. its hard to say " its history" whens happened not too long and while quite a few senators want to a go back in there. buts thats my own speculation of the whole "white guilt"thing
#164 to #142
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
i not blaming whites for anything. im simply saying that since a part of the white race has been doing some stupid **** lately, whites will be under criticism for a while. thats just how it works. more than 1.5 billion Muslims in this world, and when one guy rapes a girl in some random ass country some where, all Muslims start getting criticized. its not fair or good. but thats how its all ways been. another example, black people and FJ.
#169 to #164
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
You know why they get criticized? Because it's what their religion and country endorse. A woman is raped in Saudi Arabia there's an honor killing. It's not one Muslim, it's the fact that these are ideals that their culture endorses. Of course not all, but it isn't exactly a handful of people like the KKK. On top of that they want to bring those to OUR countries. There was a convention in Norway and the majority of Muslims agreed with bringing Sharia Law into Norway.
No. **** that. Not being white doesn't protect you from criticism. It's not that people hate them because they're brown, they hate their beliefs. That's all.
No. **** that. Not being white doesn't protect you from criticism. It's not that people hate them because they're brown, they hate their beliefs. That's all.
#173 to #169
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
that makes no difference. you saw few people doing something bad, and you criticized the rest because of it. "Endorsing" is just speculation on your part. there is no one that have the right to speak on behalf of all Muslims, no one. you cant simply say they endorse it unless you go and knock on their door and ask them personally.
you wonder " why then they all support sharia law" thats simple. because each believe that sharia law will implement their world view in place. each one of them have their own version of what they think is "the real sharia law". they all want good, and think that sharia law will bring it to them. its like asking people" do you want peace" everyone will say yes. but each with their own way of thinking what it will be like and how to archive it. all of them want sharia law. but each think differently of what sharia law is.
"A woman is raped in Saudi Arabia there's an honor killing"
im sure i said this many times, that is NOT true. you don't get killed for being raped.
"but it isn't exactly a handful of people like the KKK"
did you count them all and see their opinion in all the issues you are complaining about? go ahead and do it. ill see you in 50 years.
and fellow anon please, this is not about Muslims specifically. its about the fact that people will always criticizes in groups. it might be religion, nationality, race. it might be anything. its just how things always been. you will always get get **** on for things you had nothing to do with. thats not special to whites.
that makes no difference. you saw few people doing something bad, and you criticized the rest because of it. "Endorsing" is just speculation on your part. there is no one that have the right to speak on behalf of all Muslims, no one. you cant simply say they endorse it unless you go and knock on their door and ask them personally.
you wonder " why then they all support sharia law" thats simple. because each believe that sharia law will implement their world view in place. each one of them have their own version of what they think is "the real sharia law". they all want good, and think that sharia law will bring it to them. its like asking people" do you want peace" everyone will say yes. but each with their own way of thinking what it will be like and how to archive it. all of them want sharia law. but each think differently of what sharia law is.
"A woman is raped in Saudi Arabia there's an honor killing"
im sure i said this many times, that is NOT true. you don't get killed for being raped.
"but it isn't exactly a handful of people like the KKK"
did you count them all and see their opinion in all the issues you are complaining about? go ahead and do it. ill see you in 50 years.
and fellow anon please, this is not about Muslims specifically. its about the fact that people will always criticizes in groups. it might be religion, nationality, race. it might be anything. its just how things always been. you will always get get **** on for things you had nothing to do with. thats not special to whites.
#202 to #173
-
elaxx (09/04/2015) [-] Islam has always been a religion that has strong "law" points and law-enforcement directions. Compared to Islam, Christianity is much closer to philosophy. So no, when you say "Sharia law" most Muslims don't interpret is as something as vague as "peace". It is true that there is no common codex of Sharia law and it largely depends on the region and local culture but there are certain points that are common in all interpretations. The problem with Sharia law that most of the western cultures have is the strong legislative characteristics that I've mentioned. The majority of Muslims want Sharia law to be implemented in the country of their residence but only limited to Muslims themselves. That would make them an exception in the general law of the state, which is viewed as simply unacceptable. Parliament, or other legislative institutions, are supposed to have the absolute authority in legislation, same as executive institutions are to have absolute authority in execution of these laws. Sharia law by its nature is trying to overcome and possibly compete with that. It largely ignores western values and sometimes even directly opposes them. That is why Sharia law has minimal chances of establishing itself in the West until Muslims constitute the majority of its people.
That being said, I have nothing against Muslims. I have a few very good friends who are Muslims.They aren't much different from me and take their religion lightly, as a part of their culture rather than a strict way of life. Islam, although differently interpreted, is still very rigid at its core (official doctrines and interpretations) and that's why the required fundamental changes are coming by very slowly (to Muslims Quran is a "recitation". Recited by Mohammed himself who recited Jibril - archangel Gabriel - who recited Allah himself. Perfect recitations at that. In other words Quran, according to official scriptures, is the literal word of God and is hardly and rarely a subject of reinterpretation. Comparatively, Christian Bible consists of interpretations of the word of God the saints received which might be imperfect. More than that, many of the doctrines in the Bible are taken with historical context, therefore many of the points are considered to be outdated even by Christianity itself). Compared to Christianity, Islam is centuries behind. And according to what is happening in Saudi Arabia, that just might happen in the future, hopefully.
That being said, I have nothing against Muslims. I have a few very good friends who are Muslims.They aren't much different from me and take their religion lightly, as a part of their culture rather than a strict way of life. Islam, although differently interpreted, is still very rigid at its core (official doctrines and interpretations) and that's why the required fundamental changes are coming by very slowly (to Muslims Quran is a "recitation". Recited by Mohammed himself who recited Jibril - archangel Gabriel - who recited Allah himself. Perfect recitations at that. In other words Quran, according to official scriptures, is the literal word of God and is hardly and rarely a subject of reinterpretation. Comparatively, Christian Bible consists of interpretations of the word of God the saints received which might be imperfect. More than that, many of the doctrines in the Bible are taken with historical context, therefore many of the points are considered to be outdated even by Christianity itself). Compared to Christianity, Islam is centuries behind. And according to what is happening in Saudi Arabia, that just might happen in the future, hopefully.
#213 to #202
-
skfdkfkehdgurdk (09/04/2015) [-] You had me until "Christianity is much closer to philosophy. "
#238 to #213
-
elaxx (09/04/2015) [-]
Because it is. Both religions are focused on the relationship of an individual with God and social relationships among believers. But Christianity is much more focused on God-individual relationship than Islam. Islam is about life in "Umma" and the relationship of Umma with Allah. Islam is much more practical about its doctrine in a way that it contains directives for almost every aspect of human life in an everyday-life sense. It's much more law-based.
I'm not saying that Christianity is a philosophy, I'm saying that compared to Islam it is much closer to it.
I'm not saying that Christianity is a philosophy, I'm saying that compared to Islam it is much closer to it.
#196 to #173
-
deaminzaints (09/04/2015) [-] its not speculation when the coutries law specifically states that if a woman wants to convict a man, she need 4 men to testify and 2 men to testify that the other 4 are being fair. thats not subjective or "in some weird place", thats law for these people. its as legally binding as laws in your country. how is that not "endorsing"? how is that speculation?
sure, everyone thinks differently, but when we sit down and agree on stuff, its only then that it gets implemented. saying "everyone has their own version" is redundant becourse in the end, the only thing that gets used is the agreed upon opinion and when that opinion is completely different from ours, why should we allow or listen to them?
and yes. you do. if you sully the honor of the family, you may be killed for it if the family feels the need. its happend in Denmark with immigrants, why the **** do you think it wont happen in saudi arabia where the immigrants came from? thats just denying evidence.
this is just a dumb argument. there are a good hundred thousand kkk members to be sure. there are literal millions of muslims. even assumming that half of them are the "good" kind that dont want sharia law, thats still more than a million that do. the scale is just epically different.
now, the special thing about "white guilt" is that its not so much about current situations. mostly, when someone mentions white guilt, we are talking about slavery or something.
white people are the only ones who will get "guilted" by other races for what their ancestors did. no one is going on a guilt trip against the black people for the way they sold out their own people to slave traders. no one is doing it for muslims when it comes to the sia and sunni wars. no one is getting up on egypts business for their treatment of their slaves.
nope, only white people get guilt tripped for colonizing and slavery.
sure, everyone thinks differently, but when we sit down and agree on stuff, its only then that it gets implemented. saying "everyone has their own version" is redundant becourse in the end, the only thing that gets used is the agreed upon opinion and when that opinion is completely different from ours, why should we allow or listen to them?
and yes. you do. if you sully the honor of the family, you may be killed for it if the family feels the need. its happend in Denmark with immigrants, why the **** do you think it wont happen in saudi arabia where the immigrants came from? thats just denying evidence.
this is just a dumb argument. there are a good hundred thousand kkk members to be sure. there are literal millions of muslims. even assumming that half of them are the "good" kind that dont want sharia law, thats still more than a million that do. the scale is just epically different.
now, the special thing about "white guilt" is that its not so much about current situations. mostly, when someone mentions white guilt, we are talking about slavery or something.
white people are the only ones who will get "guilted" by other races for what their ancestors did. no one is going on a guilt trip against the black people for the way they sold out their own people to slave traders. no one is doing it for muslims when it comes to the sia and sunni wars. no one is getting up on egypts business for their treatment of their slaves.
nope, only white people get guilt tripped for colonizing and slavery.
#243 to #196
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
*its not speculation when the coutries law specifically states that if a woman wants to convict a man, she need 4 men to testify and 2 men to testify that the other 4 are being fair. thats not subjective or "in some weird place", thats law for these people. its as legally binding as laws in your country. how is that not "endorsing"? how is that speculation? *
you think the public have a say on this? the royal family choses what they want and do it. they made the law that is in place today in Saudi Arabia . today. how is that endorsement when in the public eye when the royal family has been making these laws and decisions? sure you might say that its part of the quran and you are right. but note that only extremely wahabism believe that quran have set laws that we have to follow to the end of time with no room of interpretation. many are trying to change that mentally. but sadly the king is part of that strictly stupid group. in other words. the main problem that is restricting change is the royal family.
"sure, everyone thinks differently, but when we sit down and agree on stuff, its only then that it gets implemented. saying "everyone has their own version" is redundant becourse in the end, the only thing that gets used is the agreed upon opinion and when that opinion is completely different from ours, why should we allow or listen to them? "
by the rulers, not the general public. again, in and probably most places, there are no value for the public opinion. the ruler does what ever the **** he wants. the rest lives by the rulers personal morals and values. how are saudis to blame for that **** ?
"why listen" well you are right , you shouldn't. because i my self believe sharia law will never work. im simply trying to help you understand how things work. many of those who support it do not know the negative effects. they are not trying to ruin the country, they think a certain set of laws will be better and they are wrong. if you want to convince them than try to understand what they want to achieve and try to understand why sharia law is not the way to achieve it.
"now, the special thing about "white guilt" is that its not so much about current situations. mostly, when someone mentions white guilt, we are talking about slavery or something.
white people are the only ones who will get "guilted" by other races for what their ancestors did. no one is going on a guilt trip against the black people for the way they sold out their own people to slave traders. no one is doing it for muslims when it comes to the sia and sunni wars. no one is getting up on egypts business for their treatment of their slaves.
nope, only white people get guilt tripped for colonizing and slavery."
that might be true, but you really think only whites go to guilt trips? you are wrong. many races get **** on for many things. but you ,i assume, are white. so white guilts stands out to you. because it directly referrers to you.
Christians ->inquisition
Muslims -> hundreds of wars.
German->Nazi
and so on. you are sick and tired of hearing about white guilt i assume, but really, many other groups are getting **** on for similar reasons. so again. its really not a white only thing. if you think Muslims does not get called for their history, than you should look around the Internet for once in your life.
you think the public have a say on this? the royal family choses what they want and do it. they made the law that is in place today in Saudi Arabia . today. how is that endorsement when in the public eye when the royal family has been making these laws and decisions? sure you might say that its part of the quran and you are right. but note that only extremely wahabism believe that quran have set laws that we have to follow to the end of time with no room of interpretation. many are trying to change that mentally. but sadly the king is part of that strictly stupid group. in other words. the main problem that is restricting change is the royal family.
"sure, everyone thinks differently, but when we sit down and agree on stuff, its only then that it gets implemented. saying "everyone has their own version" is redundant becourse in the end, the only thing that gets used is the agreed upon opinion and when that opinion is completely different from ours, why should we allow or listen to them? "
by the rulers, not the general public. again, in and probably most places, there are no value for the public opinion. the ruler does what ever the **** he wants. the rest lives by the rulers personal morals and values. how are saudis to blame for that **** ?
"why listen" well you are right , you shouldn't. because i my self believe sharia law will never work. im simply trying to help you understand how things work. many of those who support it do not know the negative effects. they are not trying to ruin the country, they think a certain set of laws will be better and they are wrong. if you want to convince them than try to understand what they want to achieve and try to understand why sharia law is not the way to achieve it.
"now, the special thing about "white guilt" is that its not so much about current situations. mostly, when someone mentions white guilt, we are talking about slavery or something.
white people are the only ones who will get "guilted" by other races for what their ancestors did. no one is going on a guilt trip against the black people for the way they sold out their own people to slave traders. no one is doing it for muslims when it comes to the sia and sunni wars. no one is getting up on egypts business for their treatment of their slaves.
nope, only white people get guilt tripped for colonizing and slavery."
that might be true, but you really think only whites go to guilt trips? you are wrong. many races get **** on for many things. but you ,i assume, are white. so white guilts stands out to you. because it directly referrers to you.
Christians ->inquisition
Muslims -> hundreds of wars.
German->Nazi
and so on. you are sick and tired of hearing about white guilt i assume, but really, many other groups are getting **** on for similar reasons. so again. its really not a white only thing. if you think Muslims does not get called for their history, than you should look around the Internet for once in your life.
#245 to #243
-
deaminzaints (09/04/2015) [-] - so why isnt there any revolt? revolution? nothing? the reason nothing changes isnt that the royal family is restricting it, its that the people who are raised on those ideals are actually ok with them. the men especially have alot of power in their household and the quran supports that idea, so they feel justified in continuing their life like this. the women are oppressed but since they havent known anything other than oppression, they dont think they suffer. they think thats life.
some new age muslims try to reinterpret things. an example is the divorce, the quran says that the man gets the kids and the house and such, but new age muslims argue that what was really meant was the provider which at the time was dominantly men.
new age muslims do strive to change the muslims view of the quran but an overwhelming amount of muslims are fundamentalists. they may not believe the qurans word to the letter, but they dont strive far off it either.
- as i said above.
- NO races are getting **** for anything. seriously, where in the world are you getting this? NO other race are getting **** for what their ancestors did, in fact if they did, the sjw's and liberals are gonna be all over your **** for saying that.
other races face racism to this day, yes. blacks have a stereotype of stealing, cheating, being gangsters and lazy addicts. thats a stereotype based on observation, but it has NOTHING to do with what blacks did before? asians have this stereotype that they cant drive and are smart but no one ever talks about their ancestors and the ****** up **** they did?
if you are asian, some may give you **** for stereotypes. that goes for blacks, hispanic, native american and white folks too.
but in ADDITION to that, white folks get guilt tripped over colonialism and slavery. we are the ONLY ones who do and hell, we werent even the best at it, turkey were the biggest colonialists and china had more slaves, but they dont get **** for it, we do.
some new age muslims try to reinterpret things. an example is the divorce, the quran says that the man gets the kids and the house and such, but new age muslims argue that what was really meant was the provider which at the time was dominantly men.
new age muslims do strive to change the muslims view of the quran but an overwhelming amount of muslims are fundamentalists. they may not believe the qurans word to the letter, but they dont strive far off it either.
- as i said above.
- NO races are getting **** for anything. seriously, where in the world are you getting this? NO other race are getting **** for what their ancestors did, in fact if they did, the sjw's and liberals are gonna be all over your **** for saying that.
other races face racism to this day, yes. blacks have a stereotype of stealing, cheating, being gangsters and lazy addicts. thats a stereotype based on observation, but it has NOTHING to do with what blacks did before? asians have this stereotype that they cant drive and are smart but no one ever talks about their ancestors and the ****** up **** they did?
if you are asian, some may give you **** for stereotypes. that goes for blacks, hispanic, native american and white folks too.
but in ADDITION to that, white folks get guilt tripped over colonialism and slavery. we are the ONLY ones who do and hell, we werent even the best at it, turkey were the biggest colonialists and china had more slaves, but they dont get **** for it, we do.
#247 to #245
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
"we are the ONLY ones who do and hell, we werent even the best at it, turkey were the biggest colonialists and china had more slaves, but they dont get **** for it, we do."
they do. just because you didn't bother to go around and see it or that FJ didnt post it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
only whites get a guilt trip is a very self orientated way of thinking about it. the only reasons you even think that your the only one is because you didn't bother looking if others are getting **** . again, you are white, white **** talking naturaly stands out to you. nothing else to it.
they do. just because you didn't bother to go around and see it or that FJ didnt post it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
only whites get a guilt trip is a very self orientated way of thinking about it. the only reasons you even think that your the only one is because you didn't bother looking if others are getting **** . again, you are white, white **** talking naturaly stands out to you. nothing else to it.
#249 to #247
-
deaminzaints (09/04/2015) [-] prove it?
lets get something straight here, i aint sayin no one has ever said something bad about other races for their ancestors, in all likelyhood there have been one or two mentions.
difference? we got millions of blacks who guilt us for the slavery, we got thousands of ethnic students and students who have studied history with a liberal background and they keep up the guilt on the colonial thing.
show me some protests or open discussions where someone guilt trips another race for their ancestors choices. ive never seen a single video of it. dosent matter if im white or purple, to the internet im just a dude and i am not restricted from finding videos about such things. but i still havent.
so if its so overwhelmingly easy to find, show it to me.
lets get something straight here, i aint sayin no one has ever said something bad about other races for their ancestors, in all likelyhood there have been one or two mentions.
difference? we got millions of blacks who guilt us for the slavery, we got thousands of ethnic students and students who have studied history with a liberal background and they keep up the guilt on the colonial thing.
show me some protests or open discussions where someone guilt trips another race for their ancestors choices. ive never seen a single video of it. dosent matter if im white or purple, to the internet im just a dude and i am not restricted from finding videos about such things. but i still havent.
so if its so overwhelmingly easy to find, show it to me.
#119 to #20
-
alphahelix (09/04/2015) [-] I see his point about Persia but Persia was the largest empire in like 600 BC. The affects of which have long been diminished, even though you could argue that they indirectly influence today, but 20th century colonialism have a much more concrete relationship to countries of today, and Europe was easily the super power of colonialism at the time.
There are countries who's independence is little over 50 years old and who's infrastructure, and even stable government, have been so totally remodeled, especially so economically, that their resurgence in being able to be completely independent may not be possible within our lifetimes. dealing with the IMF, and other supranational organizations put these struggling countries in positions where growth is limited due to bureaucratic hell of confusing documentation.
Overall, Countries need time to realign themselves, and developing countries are actually growing. The change cannot, and will not happen overnight.
There are countries who's independence is little over 50 years old and who's infrastructure, and even stable government, have been so totally remodeled, especially so economically, that their resurgence in being able to be completely independent may not be possible within our lifetimes. dealing with the IMF, and other supranational organizations put these struggling countries in positions where growth is limited due to bureaucratic hell of confusing documentation.
Overall, Countries need time to realign themselves, and developing countries are actually growing. The change cannot, and will not happen overnight.
#28 to #20
-
borderlineparanoid ONLINE (09/03/2015) [-] white genocide is one of those things that /pol/ like to push forward, sometimes it's meant as a joke like the whole calling people goy for something trivial but a lot of people actually believe in the idea that a white genocide is coming or is happening.
it's wildly vague and misinformed that nobody really knows what the hell is going on.
it's wildly vague and misinformed that nobody really knows what the hell is going on.
#105 to #28
-
jaaabrocon (09/04/2015) [-] I'm not even /pol/ and I think genocide is the direction we're heading in.
Hear me out.
First, a little historical background on the Jewish people. No, I'm not claiming anyone is an inferior race or anything like this this is literally just a historical background.
hundreds and hundreds of years ago it used to be that many religions considered the handling of money to be a sin, or at least something to be avoided. Most religions taught that to have an abundance of money and spend it all to help the poor/less fortune was a sin. This was not true however, of the Jewish faith, who not only were religiously permitted to handle money but also had an actual need to amass lots of it considering they were persecuted practically everywhere and kicked out of every country they set up shop in.
This pretty much led to Jewish people being the predominant race of bankers in the world, which then of course gave rise to the idea that Jews were misers and pennypinchers and whatnot. Because to work at a bank, you have to have through knowledge of math and economics as well as record keeping, and people inevitably get pissed when the bankers comes and knocks on your door to collect your debt, even if it was totally justifiable for them to do so. "Oh that miserly Jew! Forcing me to pay up for that loan I took out! Every notice how all the bankers are Jews? They must sure love money!"
So, fast forward to post-World War One Germany, where the economy is in the toilet and mark is worth more burning as a source of heat than it is to actually buy anything with it. The German people are suffering due to the intense reparations imposed upon them by the treaty of Versailles, except wait. There's one class in Germany that ISN'T suffering. One particular class that had been saving up money for generations and squirreling away emergency funds. You guessed it, the Jews.
So of course with the Jews doing well and everyone else having a **** time, it's pretty easy to throw all the blame onto that group of people and claim that they caused the whole mess. The public of course ate it up, and Jews were discriminated against heavily before Hitler finally pushed them into that far extreme of actually exterminating them.
But you know what those German people screamed, as they felt justified in persecuting the Jew? In taking away their homes and businesses and hard earned money? In killing them by the thousands in concentration camps?
Jewish Privilege. Because they had it better right?
We're getting pretty damn near that discrimination stage here. It's already socially acceptable to be racist against whites, and I wouldn't call it a stretch to say that it won't be long before it's socially acceptable to discriminate versus whites in practice whether that be via new laws passed or demonstrations held.
What we're missing right now, our final ingredient, is our SJW Hitler. Make no mistake, if someone strong willed with a large amount of Charisma comes out and blames all Whites for the worlds problems, and hold up a new flag/banner to rally behind in pursuit of this belief, the world will again see the rise of the Nazi Party. It'll just be under a different name, new leadership, and with a new target in mind.
Hear me out.
First, a little historical background on the Jewish people. No, I'm not claiming anyone is an inferior race or anything like this this is literally just a historical background.
hundreds and hundreds of years ago it used to be that many religions considered the handling of money to be a sin, or at least something to be avoided. Most religions taught that to have an abundance of money and spend it all to help the poor/less fortune was a sin. This was not true however, of the Jewish faith, who not only were religiously permitted to handle money but also had an actual need to amass lots of it considering they were persecuted practically everywhere and kicked out of every country they set up shop in.
This pretty much led to Jewish people being the predominant race of bankers in the world, which then of course gave rise to the idea that Jews were misers and pennypinchers and whatnot. Because to work at a bank, you have to have through knowledge of math and economics as well as record keeping, and people inevitably get pissed when the bankers comes and knocks on your door to collect your debt, even if it was totally justifiable for them to do so. "Oh that miserly Jew! Forcing me to pay up for that loan I took out! Every notice how all the bankers are Jews? They must sure love money!"
So, fast forward to post-World War One Germany, where the economy is in the toilet and mark is worth more burning as a source of heat than it is to actually buy anything with it. The German people are suffering due to the intense reparations imposed upon them by the treaty of Versailles, except wait. There's one class in Germany that ISN'T suffering. One particular class that had been saving up money for generations and squirreling away emergency funds. You guessed it, the Jews.
So of course with the Jews doing well and everyone else having a **** time, it's pretty easy to throw all the blame onto that group of people and claim that they caused the whole mess. The public of course ate it up, and Jews were discriminated against heavily before Hitler finally pushed them into that far extreme of actually exterminating them.
But you know what those German people screamed, as they felt justified in persecuting the Jew? In taking away their homes and businesses and hard earned money? In killing them by the thousands in concentration camps?
Jewish Privilege. Because they had it better right?
We're getting pretty damn near that discrimination stage here. It's already socially acceptable to be racist against whites, and I wouldn't call it a stretch to say that it won't be long before it's socially acceptable to discriminate versus whites in practice whether that be via new laws passed or demonstrations held.
What we're missing right now, our final ingredient, is our SJW Hitler. Make no mistake, if someone strong willed with a large amount of Charisma comes out and blames all Whites for the worlds problems, and hold up a new flag/banner to rally behind in pursuit of this belief, the world will again see the rise of the Nazi Party. It'll just be under a different name, new leadership, and with a new target in mind.
#146 to #105
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
There already are people like that, SJW Hitlers. The difference is is that Jews were a minority, outnumbered. Whites are still the majority in the Western World. The majority of SJWs are also white. They're not willing to put themselves on the trains yet, or they'll argue that they shouldn't be.
#244 to #205
-
jaaabrocon (09/04/2015) [-] "it's scary when people have solid evidence and historical pretext to back up their educated opinions"
k
k
#63 to #28
-
anon (09/03/2015) [-]
Every white country is having integration forced on them, every white country is moving towards losing a white majority, and every white country has seen an increase in murders because of non-white immigrants. Now please explain why you think this is a good thing and NOT something that should be stopped?
#75 to #63
-
Ruspanic (09/03/2015) [-] First of all, not every white country. Don't be ridiculous.
Secondly, immigration is not genocide.
Countries can control their own immigration policies and decide who they want to let in. If their policies result in a loss of culture, either because they let too many foreigners in or because they fail to properly integrate their immigrants, they have no one to blame but themselves. It's not a good thing but it's not genocide.
Secondly, immigration is not genocide.
Countries can control their own immigration policies and decide who they want to let in. If their policies result in a loss of culture, either because they let too many foreigners in or because they fail to properly integrate their immigrants, they have no one to blame but themselves. It's not a good thing but it's not genocide.
#206 to #75
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
1) "...not every white country..." Yet you didn't name a single one. I'd love to believe there's a single white country out there that doesn't have forced integration. So please teach me if you know of a single one. It would actually make my day.
2) I didn't use the word "genocide" because it's a mute point. Yet instead of refuting that whites are being killed by non-white immigrants, instead of arguing that white people aren't at risk of becoming minorities in their own countries, instead of arguing that this is a good thing, you argued about the definition of genocide.
3) Countries CAN control their own immigration policies. The point is that we SHOULD stop letting 3rd world immigrants into our countries just because of pressures from the world community because they DO NOT integrate by choice. Some countries have elaborate programs to integrate foreigners, and 3rd world immigrants just wind up raping their women and committing murders at a high rate. NOBODY should have to sacrifice their families or friends for the sake of "diversity". So the point is that we should put a stop to it, which you seem to fully acknowledge is the right and privilege of white countries. So in the end, we seem to agree on the most important point - white countries have every right to turn down 3rd world immigration. If I could get you to agree that they not only have the RIGHT, but SHOULD (vs rape and murder), then I'd be even happier.
2) I didn't use the word "genocide" because it's a mute point. Yet instead of refuting that whites are being killed by non-white immigrants, instead of arguing that white people aren't at risk of becoming minorities in their own countries, instead of arguing that this is a good thing, you argued about the definition of genocide.
3) Countries CAN control their own immigration policies. The point is that we SHOULD stop letting 3rd world immigrants into our countries just because of pressures from the world community because they DO NOT integrate by choice. Some countries have elaborate programs to integrate foreigners, and 3rd world immigrants just wind up raping their women and committing murders at a high rate. NOBODY should have to sacrifice their families or friends for the sake of "diversity". So the point is that we should put a stop to it, which you seem to fully acknowledge is the right and privilege of white countries. So in the end, we seem to agree on the most important point - white countries have every right to turn down 3rd world immigration. If I could get you to agree that they not only have the RIGHT, but SHOULD (vs rape and murder), then I'd be even happier.
#246 to #206
-
Ruspanic (09/04/2015) [-] 1) I don't know what you mean by "forced integration", so it's rather difficult to argue on that point. Countries already do control their own immigration policies so who is doing the "forcing" here? But the a good chunk or majority of White countries are not in danger of becoming white-minority countries - most of Eastern Europe, for example, as well as Australia and New Zealand.
2) Yes, some white people are killed by 3rd world immigrants, and some 3rd world immigrants are killed by white people, but most commonly white people are killed by other white people.
3) You're making some pretty broad generalizations here. Yeah, any country has a right to control its own immigration policy, and yeah, importing too many immigrants (especially from vastly different cultural backgrounds) may threaten the traditions or "identity" of the country and especially lead to racial tensions, and those are bad things. But that doesn't mean immigration itself is bad, or that we should end all immigration, or even all immigration from the Third World. We could simply lower quotas and have stricter selection processes for who is allowed in, and put pressure on other countries cough cough Saudi Arabia to take in more refugees during crises like the one in Syria.
A significant part of the problem in countries like Sweden and the UK is that they make far too little effort to get their immigrants to integrate and live at peace with the broader population. Instead they're given special cultural and education rights and excused for their bad behavior, which is unacceptable.
2) Yes, some white people are killed by 3rd world immigrants, and some 3rd world immigrants are killed by white people, but most commonly white people are killed by other white people.
3) You're making some pretty broad generalizations here. Yeah, any country has a right to control its own immigration policy, and yeah, importing too many immigrants (especially from vastly different cultural backgrounds) may threaten the traditions or "identity" of the country and especially lead to racial tensions, and those are bad things. But that doesn't mean immigration itself is bad, or that we should end all immigration, or even all immigration from the Third World. We could simply lower quotas and have stricter selection processes for who is allowed in, and put pressure on other countries cough cough Saudi Arabia to take in more refugees during crises like the one in Syria.
A significant part of the problem in countries like Sweden and the UK is that they make far too little effort to get their immigrants to integrate and live at peace with the broader population. Instead they're given special cultural and education rights and excused for their bad behavior, which is unacceptable.
#106 to #28
-
greyhoundfd (09/04/2015) [-] "White Genocide" is definitely an overstatement (except in South Africa. Bad **** there), but the fact remains that most white countries are being encouraged or even forced to rapidly import massive amounts of immigrants and refugees, while being forbidden to in any way expect them to culturally integrate.
#207 to #106
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
Overstatement? I think the point here is there's a matter of degrees. Is this like some of the great genocides of history - not really. However keep in mind the same thing is happening in EVERY white country. Every white country has to deal with legal and illegal immigration of 3rd world people. Every white country is at risk of the native white population eventually becoming a minority. So it's still a big deal, and it's a horrible trend, both for white people and for people worldwide. Anyone scared of global warming should be 1000 times more afraid of an end of civilization as we know it due to whites losing a majority in white countries. If white people disappeared on Monday, by Friday 95%+ of the world would be one great ********* .
#29 to #28
-
anonymoose (09/03/2015) [-] It's borderline retards who don't understand the -cide part of genocide.
#30 to #29
-
borderlineparanoid ONLINE (09/03/2015) [-] exactly but if you call them out on it you get blocked and they call you a fag or whatever.
#32 to #20
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (09/03/2015) [-] China purposefully imports it's own people to Tibet.
Years pass, the Chinese eventually outnumber Tibetans in Tibet.
Tibetans become a minority in their own country.
Tibet suddenly becomes a lot more China-friendly.
The UN classifies this as genocide, because it is the purposeful attempt at removing an entire race.
Therefore, forced diversity in Europe is also genocide. Also fun fact: European birth rates are declining, immigrant birth-rates are rising; if the current trend continues Europeans will be a minority on their own continent.
Years pass, the Chinese eventually outnumber Tibetans in Tibet.
Tibetans become a minority in their own country.
Tibet suddenly becomes a lot more China-friendly.
The UN classifies this as genocide, because it is the purposeful attempt at removing an entire race.
Therefore, forced diversity in Europe is also genocide. Also fun fact: European birth rates are declining, immigrant birth-rates are rising; if the current trend continues Europeans will be a minority on their own continent.
#41 to #34
-
anonymoose (09/03/2015) [-] The UN have literally no power in the definition of a word.
Genocide has two parts: A prefix Geno from the Latin word 'genos' meaning 'race' and a suffix -cide from the Latin word 'caedere' meaning 'kill' . If there's no killing, there's no genocide. If the UN call something that involves no killing a genocide then they're wrong.
Genocide has two parts: A prefix Geno from the Latin word 'genos' meaning 'race' and a suffix -cide from the Latin word 'caedere' meaning 'kill' . If there's no killing, there's no genocide. If the UN call something that involves no killing a genocide then they're wrong.
#53 to #41
-
turtletroll (09/03/2015) [-] It's the murder of a race.
Not literally murdering the people but murdering the culture
Not literally murdering the people but murdering the culture
#149 to #53
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] Exactly! The murder of a race involves at least one murder! It's murder, not ******* integration.
Name me one white country that doesn't have heavy heavy integration.
Name me one white country that doesn't have heavy heavy integration.
#203 to #149
-
turtletroll (09/04/2015) [-] No you're not getting my point.
It's the murder of the culture. Not the people of said culture but killing the culture.
And what's the point of asking that?
It's the murder of the culture. Not the people of said culture but killing the culture.
And what's the point of asking that?
#204 to #203
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] Genocide means mass murder of people based on race.
You guys are literally doing the exact same thing as the people on tumblr who think staring at people on the subway is rape! You're redefining a word with a very serious meaning because, in doing so, it will help further your personal agenda. Just **** up and admit there's no white genocide, you pathetic pieces of **** .
You guys are literally doing the exact same thing as the people on tumblr who think staring at people on the subway is rape! You're redefining a word with a very serious meaning because, in doing so, it will help further your personal agenda. Just **** up and admit there's no white genocide, you pathetic pieces of **** .
#44 to #41
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (09/03/2015) [-] I'm guessing English isn't your first language?
Completely removing a race, or attempting to, is the same as killing it regardless of the particular method.
Completely removing a race, or attempting to, is the same as killing it regardless of the particular method.
#45 to #44
-
anonymoose (09/03/2015) [-] Are you saying that force integration is the same as mass murder?
#217 to #151
-
oxidoferroso (09/04/2015) [-] I actually do
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
I guess in your case you eversimplificated his argument to attack it better
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
I guess in your case you eversimplificated his argument to attack it better
#228 to #217
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] But I never used a strawman, it was a question of clarification. Different things.
#48 to #46
-
anonymoose (09/03/2015) [-] That's not true. One completely removes the race, the other just suppresses the prominence of the races genes in the community in question. Humanity had a "genocide" (by your definition) of the Neandethals, yet we still have a lot of Neanderthal DNA.
Also, even if the result was the same, how is that relevant? Genocide is wrong because it involves mass murder.
Also, even if the result was the same, how is that relevant? Genocide is wrong because it involves mass murder.
#52 to #48
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (09/03/2015) [-] Hitler didn't manage to completely annihilate the jews either, but he still killed enough of them to classify an attempt at genocide.
Genocide is always wrong, you're right. That's why forced diversity is also unacceptable.
Genocide is always wrong, you're right. That's why forced diversity is also unacceptable.
#158 to #157
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (09/04/2015) [-] Right, and those who want to FORCE diversity on Europe are also killing a race.
Just how thick is your skull? Or is something getting lost in translation here? If I recall you didn't deny English not being your first language.
Just how thick is your skull? Or is something getting lost in translation here? If I recall you didn't deny English not being your first language.
#161 to #158
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] Why do you worship your race so much? Diversity is literally the glue of evolution.
#235 to #231
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] You're calling me dumb for pointing out a basic principal of evolution? Did you drop out of school when you were 10 or something?
#163 to #161
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (09/04/2015) [-] ************ I'm a goddamn spic, Dominican to be exact. But I know injustice when I see it.
Look, I never said immigration was necessarily a bad thing. People want to find a better life for themselves and their families, that's fine. I come from an immigrant family.
The problem comes when diversity is FORCED. When social engineers look at the demographics of town or city and say "gee, this area is just WAY too white", and export minorities to countries where they will not integrate.
Therein lies the key to immigration: integration.
These new immigrants do not integrate. They do not see Germany or France or Sweden as their country, they do not attempt to learn the native language. They live off of welfare and become parasites.
Look, I never said immigration was necessarily a bad thing. People want to find a better life for themselves and their families, that's fine. I come from an immigrant family.
The problem comes when diversity is FORCED. When social engineers look at the demographics of town or city and say "gee, this area is just WAY too white", and export minorities to countries where they will not integrate.
Therein lies the key to immigration: integration.
These new immigrants do not integrate. They do not see Germany or France or Sweden as their country, they do not attempt to learn the native language. They live off of welfare and become parasites.
#166 to #163
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] Well this is awkward, a self proclaimed *spic* trying to talk about race and not knowing hispanic people are white.
I'm also not saying forced immigration is a bad thing, but to call it genocide is a ******* insult to actual genocide!
Genocide is mass murder, it's THE worst thing humanity has ever done.
Mass immigration is not even in the same ball park as genocide.
I'm also not saying forced immigration is a bad thing, but to call it genocide is a ******* insult to actual genocide!
Genocide is mass murder, it's THE worst thing humanity has ever done.
Mass immigration is not even in the same ball park as genocide.
#170 to #166
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-] Dominican > white
Holy **** dude. Holy **** . Have you ever met a ******* Dominican or seen one?
Genocide is the elimination of a group of people. Eventually, the whites would blend in with the immigrants, thus the homogeneous group would disappear. This happened to the native Tasmanians. Not all were killed, many of the "survivors" are part British.
Holy **** dude. Holy **** . Have you ever met a ******* Dominican or seen one?
Genocide is the elimination of a group of people. Eventually, the whites would blend in with the immigrants, thus the homogeneous group would disappear. This happened to the native Tasmanians. Not all were killed, many of the "survivors" are part British.
#208 to #170
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
Lol, what a stupid argument anon. Do you even know what is going on in the world? Right now the Dominican Republic is in the process of mass deporting Hatians in order to preserve their own unique culture. Why the **** would you bring up Dominicans? They're literally the best argument in the world right now for preserving the native culture.
#194 to #170
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] Genocide is the systematic killing of a group of people based on race. The word literally stems from the latin for race and killing.
I am very sorry and do admit that I glanced over the word "Dominican" in lulzdealer's comment and therefore am wrong entirely in that respect, no ones fault but my own. When I saw someone imply they weren't white because they were a 'spic' my brain went into "this bitch is wrong" mode and I ended up the fool because of it.
Still, no murder = no genocide. There's no arguing this. Literally now way around it, genocide *needs* by definition of the root words, the murder of people because of their race.
I am very sorry and do admit that I glanced over the word "Dominican" in lulzdealer's comment and therefore am wrong entirely in that respect, no ones fault but my own. When I saw someone imply they weren't white because they were a 'spic' my brain went into "this bitch is wrong" mode and I ended up the fool because of it.
Still, no murder = no genocide. There's no arguing this. Literally now way around it, genocide *needs* by definition of the root words, the murder of people because of their race.
#209 to #194
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
Are non-white people being imported into white countries? YES
Are white countries specifically being "targeted" for importing non-whites? YES
Are these non-white people murdering white people? YES
Are they in fact murdering white people at a rate that can't be explained by chance? YES (I've done the calculations)
Yes murder must then = yes genocide. "There's no arguing this". "Literally no way around it."
Are white countries specifically being "targeted" for importing non-whites? YES
Are these non-white people murdering white people? YES
Are they in fact murdering white people at a rate that can't be explained by chance? YES (I've done the calculations)
Yes murder must then = yes genocide. "There's no arguing this". "Literally no way around it."
#210 to #209
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] "I've done the calculation" - Nah bro, you haven't. I'm calling you out on that.
#234 to #232
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] Nice, instead of showing me these imaginary calculations you pull me up on missing a single letter. That REALLY makes me thing they exist.
#167 to #166
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (09/04/2015) [-] >hispanics
>white
Only partly, but I see where you're coming from.
And yes, FORCED mass immigration is genocide. Because it is purposeful, intentional, and engineered to the point where a race can become a minority in its own country.
You are spouting the same points and I keep restating mine. I can do this all night.
>white
Only partly, but I see where you're coming from.
And yes, FORCED mass immigration is genocide. Because it is purposeful, intentional, and engineered to the point where a race can become a minority in its own country.
You are spouting the same points and I keep restating mine. I can do this all night.
#80 to #48
-
alucardhell (09/03/2015) [-] Both are attempts to suppress/destroy a culture. That is the underlining meaning behind a genocide. This is just a more creative and subtle method than declaring martial law and creating internment camps. It is rarely the race itself that is upsetting but the culture that they bring with them.
#159 to #80
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] There is no underlying message of a genocide.
A genocide has one point: Are you killing people based on race?
If you ticked yes to this question, it's a genocide
If you ticked no to this question, it's not a genocide.
A genocide has one point: Are you killing people based on race?
If you ticked yes to this question, it's a genocide
If you ticked no to this question, it's not a genocide.
#212 to #211
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] Any sources? I live in a country with quite a decent number of immigrants and the crime rate has gone down significantly in the past few decades.
#236 to #212
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
It's fairly shocking that this is the first time you've heard of immigrants committing violent crimes. Yes, there are tons of sources online of immigrants committing violent crimes. Here's a small sample.
www.fairus.org/issue/examples-of-serious-crimes-of-illegal-aliens
www.fairus.org/issue/examples-of-serious-crimes-of-illegal-aliens
#237 to #236
-
anonymoose (09/04/2015) [-] I don't even know how to respond to this it's so dumb.
That's like 2 or 3 dozen crimes by illegal aliens in this year in a country with 300 million people and you're using that as evidence that government backed immigration is bad. Seriously, what are you on?
That's like 2 or 3 dozen crimes by illegal aliens in this year in a country with 300 million people and you're using that as evidence that government backed immigration is bad. Seriously, what are you on?
#79 to #33
-
alucardhell (09/03/2015) [-] It isn't the wrong definition. They aren't saying it is a physical genocide (the mass killing of people of a certain ethnic group) but a Cultural genocide (the purposeful mass killing of a culture). China is killing off Tibet.
Admittedly what is happening in Europe isn't Cultural Genocide unless a power is saying that they MUST help immigrants. The problem with '3rd world' immigrants is that they reproduce like rabbits and provide very little in return. They reproduce so quickly because of several cultural reasons including their child death rates back home are very high and religion says contraception is the devil's work.
A very similar thing is happening in the US. The european descendants are on the verge of becoming a minority to the African and Hispanic descendants. In cities and counties where this has already happened, their economies are tanked and their crime is through the roof. Example A is Fergison, MO. where it has been war zone like on several occasions.
Admittedly what is happening in Europe isn't Cultural Genocide unless a power is saying that they MUST help immigrants. The problem with '3rd world' immigrants is that they reproduce like rabbits and provide very little in return. They reproduce so quickly because of several cultural reasons including their child death rates back home are very high and religion says contraception is the devil's work.
A very similar thing is happening in the US. The european descendants are on the verge of becoming a minority to the African and Hispanic descendants. In cities and counties where this has already happened, their economies are tanked and their crime is through the roof. Example A is Fergison, MO. where it has been war zone like on several occasions.
#136 to #134
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (09/04/2015) [-] Well, that's one solution. That's assuming you can regulate sex though, which you cannot.
Not without getting a whole lot of newborn blood on your hands, which coincidentally, China also knows something about.
Not without getting a whole lot of newborn blood on your hands, which coincidentally, China also knows something about.
#123 to #32
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
Except it was a french lawyer who called it a "cultural genocide". However by 1992 the Tibetans were still the majority making up 98k while Han Chinese made up a population of 40k. In fact in 2008 there were riots that were started by Tibetan monks who directed their violence towards the Han and Hui Chinese by killing, looting, and rioting. However china has gotten some flak for not letting the Tibetans to peacefully assemble.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tibetan_unrest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet
www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43399#.VekYA_lVhBc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tibetan_unrest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet
www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43399#.VekYA_lVhBc
#22 to #4
-
copperbeltjack (09/03/2015) [-]
Yes, but which march is it? I... I need it for science purposes.
#197 to #22
-
spetsnaztm (09/04/2015) [-]
It's not any real march - it's just based off of the generic soviet marches.
But the lyrics are indeed humorous. "And everywhere they'll sing, State, Vodka, Our Soviet Bear."
But the lyrics are indeed humorous. "And everywhere they'll sing, State, Vodka, Our Soviet Bear."
#254 to #248
-
spetsnaztm (09/04/2015) [-]
Stalitsa translates to either Capital or State - I used state seeing as how that was the focus of the entire Soviet ideology.
#257 to #256
-
spetsnaztm (09/05/2015) [-]
As a native Russian Speaker, I am surprised you have no idea what I'm talking about.
#93 to #23
-
anon (09/04/2015) [-]
Let's also gloss over the Mongol and Tartar Empires which were responsible for killing a third of the global population. Let's not forget China is the result of one Empire conquering the others, not to mention they've also taken several other countries recently like Manchuria and Tibet. I guess we should ignore the Zulu Empire in South Africa too which slaughtered all non Zulus. There are so many non white Empires and colonizations throughout history, but these self-hating pieces of **** only focus on whites.
#35
-
koolkidkonnor (09/03/2015) [-] saw the third one and i cant go any farther. has FJ been taken over by weebs?
#68
-
kramersixtyfour (09/03/2015) [-] I don't have a problem with most anime, but your anime is trash.
#9
-
DesolateChris (09/03/2015) [-] good comp aside from the weaboo ******** . Lift your game OP you faggot
#19
-
monorail (09/03/2015) [-] I'm going to need sauce on the 4th gif from the bottom for... lesbian reasons
#125 to #100
-
dingdongpancakes ONLINE (09/04/2015) [-] Do my eyes betray me or is that christ-chan outside of /pol/?
#138 to #132
-
greekrascal (09/04/2015) [-] I actually have no idea what you're talking about. I honestly just took this from another user, not going to lie
#252 to #138
-
dingdongpancakes ONLINE (09/04/2015) [-] Christ-chan was a drawing that personified the perfect unsoiled christian life Christians SHOULD follow that originated from /pol/. Also ties in with the removal of kebab because in many drawings of christ-chan shows her in crusaders amour. There is also rule 34....if you're into that type of stuff
#47
-
sanbonzakura (09/03/2015) [-] someone tell me the sauce of those anime girls making out pls
i need it cause im a disgusting piece of weeaboo ****
i need it cause im a disgusting piece of weeaboo ****
#160
-
scandalouszander (09/04/2015) [-] and in the morning i had leprosy, ******* hell man what is that guys name i wanna see more of him
#179 to #160
-
Silver Quantum (09/04/2015) [-] that's actually his best bit in that routine, rest is pretty meh
#66
-
anon (09/03/2015) [-]
Anyone that doesn't believe white cultures should be preserved shouldn't live in a white country.
#7
-
gentledragon (09/03/2015) [-]
I always wondered what kept nazi's going , now I know it was sweet , sweet rhytms.
