LifeisTiresome
Well-known member
If its fine, can we continue our conversation? As it has very little to do with what American conservatism is.
EU Apparently, Statue of French slavery abolitionist Victor Schœlcher torn down in Martinique.
- Thread starter LifeisTiresome
- Start date
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
I think you're referring to Neo-Conservatism, which is a very different beast to Traditional American Conservatism. NeoCons are essentially just warhawk Neo-Liberals (with strong big government, if not leftie, leanings) who latched onto and infested the Republican Party, much as Neo-Liberalism infested the entire British political establishment. There's a reason a lot of pre-Trump Republicans were called "Rinos" or "Republican In Name Only."
They probably did, and those in Iberia probably thought they'd be ruled by Muslims for all time as well.
At the moment no, but we can fix that with a dedicated passport buyback program, and family encouragement incentives for the native populations. The UK already runs a very poorly funded buyback program for people leaving the UK, and it's regularly used by thousands, to buyback the passports of all our migrant population including up to 3rd generation at 15 grand a pop would be the same as paying our foreign aid bill for a decade; which is fuck all in the long run. There are simple, no violent ways to reverse these trends. But our current political elite do not want them.
There are definitely members of our society who have been completely subverted; and I won't deny that this is a real problem. However, I would argue that they are a small percentage of our population; in the 'We were never asked Survey' only 5% of the population asked were okay with the current migration levels and the fact that we are on track to become a minority in our own nations; much like the death penalty (which the UK population is overwhelmingly in favour of and has been since it was abolished without asking if we wanted it gone) our political elite do not represent the will of the actual people who live in Europe and act in their own (and the people financing them) interest. It is not - to me - that the majority of people, or even a large minority of people within Europe are okay with this, but that a large majority of people would not be okay with this it they understood the scale of what is being done and the threat it presents. But by and large our people are complacent through ignorance.Especially when you have people who are Europeans saying the below which comes from an old post of mine:
I found this interesting quote by someone claiming to be Swedish on Neogaf.
Turkey will no longer stop 3.5 Million Syrians from moving into Europe. I.e how is this even legal?
Someone saying “Europe is fucked” when refugees are fleeing a war sounds like racism to me, because that person is making an assumption that refugees are bad for Europe, because... I don’t know. The invaders are bad for Europe, because they are here to colonize your lands. It's your land...www.neogaf.com
It’s not my land at all. I was just fortunate enough to be born here, that’s it.
If true, leftist Swedish don't even consider Sweden their home, their land. Its basically nothing. Puts that whole Scandinavian airline ad into perspective.
And yet these same people cry about other people losing their land even though by their logic, there is no such thing as stolen land.
True, European wounds are largely self inflicted due to infighting. I am of the opinion that the UK should not have been involved in any of the World Wars; and them happening was a gunshot wound to the head of Europe that may spell our destruction.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
"So what if they all vote democrat, always have done and show zero sign of stopping, My country might be overran by them and my race becomes a minority that gets locked out of politics, but at least I wasn't racist."
I do own a gun actually. I'd quite like to be able to buy better guns, but the UK government is retarded like that.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
"Theres no such thing as raising your children correctly, how someone lives has no effect on their voting habits"
you can just trot out these room temperature IQ /pol/ talking points one at a time and I can just keep knocking them down, thats fine.
hm.
The fact that you see these as unrelated is why the people of Europe deserve everything they get.
'Knocking them down' is not what you're doing. Non whites vote for the same shitty policies of 'give me that' wherever they go, not just America. In America they have voted for the policy of 'give me that' ever since they were freed, back when they still had coherent families before the welfare bomb that's what they voted for, and that's what they vote for now. Sure nurture has an impact, but these people will vote continuously for the same policies and you will be fucked.
"Stage a violent revolution." Says the man not staging a violent revolution. Do you agree with every single law in your government? If you don't then why haven't you rose up? The reason is because like every LARP'ing trumpian with a rifle you're not going to do shit, you didn't do shit when that wall wasn't built, you didn't do shit when Hilary got away with it, you didn't do shit.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
I've spent about an hour trying to find any format that sums up what Rush believes concisely, but... Rush is a capitalist. While you can find many snippets and tidbits that will agglomerate into the whole, you'll have to either buy the Limbaugh Letter, one of his books, or become a paid member of his website if you want his more specified material.
If you want to listen to his show, it's on from noon-3 Eastern, which means an hour ago until two hours from now, every weekday. Here's one of the online radio streams I use to listen to him sometimes: 1340 AM KGFW - Rush Limbaugh
If you want Rush summed up concisely, here's the first of his books:
If you want American Conservatism summed up, in a way that I'm 95% confident Rush (and Crowder, and people like Sowell, Shapiro, and others would agree with):
1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
2. The founding principles of American are explicitly founded on a Biblical Christian worldview. Including that the government should not hold religious authority.
3.. Small government is in all ways preferable. The larger the government, the less capable it will be of performing its intended purpose, and the more purposes it will try to serve, entirely to the detriment of the nation.
4. American Conservatism is defined as 'Conserving the founding values of our nation.'
5. For a listing of those values, consult the Bible, the above Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, and some bits from the Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I could keep going through the Constitution, and that's kind of the point. Conservatism is at core very simple; that people are self-governing, and the government should only step in when a citizen violates the rights of another. Rights are God-given and inherent to the people, not a gift of the government that it can revoke at whim.
When Charlton Heston, shortly after the Columbine shooting, stood up on stage with a rifle in his hands, and said "From my cold dead fingers," for Conservatives, that is not a joke.
There is a lot of crap we put up with, that we try to redress at the ballot box, to limited success. But if someone tries to actually revoke the Second or First Amendments, you will have a civil war.
Because unlike, to the best of my knowledge every other European-descended nation, including all the British Commonwealth nations, we have not abdicated our right to self-defense and self-determination in gun ownership. The majority of firearms are still legal, and private gun ownership in the USA eclipses gun ownership through the entire rest of the world combined, including all militaries. And 'all militaries' there includes the military of the US itself.
(I'm aware that very limited gun ownershp is still legal in some Commonwealth nations, but it's absurdly difficult to get and has rules about what you can even do with guns in your own home.)
The USA is the only place in the world where if, and in the long run of generations and centuries, almost certainly when, the need to truly become serfs of the state or fight to remain free men arises, our people still have the capacity, and amongst a large enough minority to win also the will, actually fight.
Last edited:
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Non americans consistently vote for policy and actions I consider laughably suicidal and psychotic, the Euro who warbles and whines while his human "Privileges" are stripped away is in no way superior to the dark skinned welfare slave. No tint of whiteness stopped German autism from dooming the continent to a hundred years of psychotic self destruction, nor did the pale skinned slav resist the poison of communism better than his distant asiatic relations. The Italian, the nordic, the anglo, the semite, none have shown themselves more resilient than the negro, the mongoloid, or the latin, to the demoralization process. Americans have in a certain extent, we can boast well into a half of our nation is resisting, we have held on to our natural rights to an extent no one else has by a colossal margin, where almost every other country is an abstract failure. Half of america is insane, which is half more than every other country on the planet.
Europe, is a failure. It's failure has been apparent since world war one, and every step they've staggered forward since that point has been a product of american effort.
Blacks slanted highly conservative until we let the surviving confederfags put them back on the reservation. Many immigrant groups to the united states were suffering from generationally lowered IQs and exaggerated levels of crime, unlike the blacks and the latins, they were allowed to struggle towards prosperity for more than a single generation before being turned against themselves by social engineering.
"Theres no such thing as scale mario!"
The issue is that "these people" recognize foreign communities and their interests, and rightfully so, generally being indoctrinated into variations of the noble savage myth, but at the same time are cosmopolitan, internationalist idealists believing in such silly things as "common humanity" and "world citizenship", which inherently makes it impossible to differentiate themselves from this sea of global population as Swedish nation with a common Swedish interest, to be actively, selfishly pursued by Sweden and defended from all the other nations, communities and peoples of the world.
At some point the saturation of this internationalist ideology reaches such a saturation in a society previously recognized as a nation that it becomes prudent to ask - if they no longer consider themselves a nation, and they no longer insist that land that they have sovereignty over under international status quo belongs to them any more than it belongs to anyone else, who is to argue against them? It used to be Swede's role to argue against it, with force of arms if need be. But if it's everyone's, which means it's no one's, which means its up for grabs for anyone willing to grab it, and so the chancers, looters and scavengers of the world flock to it with obvious intent, just like insects and carrion birds gather around a dying animal in expectation of its imminent demise, some cautiously starting to nibble at its body even though its still (barely) alive.
If you think this is gonna happen, you are as delusional as the pro-immigration Americans who think that any number and kind of immigrants will adapt the best of their customs just out of niceness upon spending enough time on American soil.
For it to work, at minimum it would require UK's legal, social, law enforcement and welfare regulations to change in drastic ways, at minimum as much as they have changed since the 1950's, probably more, and that change would have to happen much quicker.
Without that happening, they will laugh at your 15 grand, most of them would have far more to lose from taking this deal than 15 grand.
And on the contrary, if a nationalist faction would have the power to force such changes, then most of those who would have taken this deal would leave on their own, due to their current lifestyle no longer being feasible, or to avoid worse fates.
First off, America as a country is differently set up than what you might think of a typical nation-state. For various reasons including the circumstances of its establishment and politics behind it, it's a federation (and before that, confederation) of states, united and regulated under the constitution. Over time it also has developed some degree of shared culture, something that has helped greatly in its stability and success, but that, just like in more formerly uniform nation-states, is being changed by mass immigration.
But it never was that united, contrary to what the name might suggest. This system has its pros and cons. Preserving that system is also creating some oddities you might notice when discussing policies with Americans, like being way more allergic to all sorts of centralizing policies than Europeans, like state run healthcare systems. Their setup is designed to accommodate much larger degree of cultural and social differences between member states than one would want in a nation-state, and include a number of populations that don't necessarily consider themselves one nation, society, community, and culture like Poles, Japanese, Hungarians or Zionists would consider themselves.
Due to the inherent implication that differences will be there and they need to agree to disagree about them, such centralized systems based on the idea of everyone being close enough to the same countrywide seem dangerous, destabilizing and potentially destructive to their way of doing things. After all, for various circumstances, the different communities may have different needs and different willingness to spend on healthcare, creating the obvious problem that in a centralized systems some peoples will be forced to subsidize others, and some will end up telling others how to live, regardless of their particular culture and customs - indeed a troublesome suggestion to a country whose internal stability is conditioned upon being able to just agree to disagree on some issues.
Secondly, your sole focus on non-whites is a mistake, as it is a sign of acceptance to the progressive left's framing of political battlegrounds, its chosen way of drawing the frontlines. Cultural particularities, national (or other group) allegiances and loyalties are the most decisive factors in where does a particular person stand and belong. Of course through the basic fact of most non-whites in a country like UK being immigrants from distant and very culturally different lands, or raised among families and local communities of such immigrants, vast majority of them will represent foreign cultures regardless, and due to that, side with their own factions, or if such are too minor, leftist big camp pro-foreigner political faction. It's not a classic "not all" argument, and the numbers that don't qualify might by symbolic, but to ignore this issue and qualification is an unnecessary blind spot.
For this reason many feel tempted to discard this detailed distinction and not keep track of it, but that would not be such a good idea when the mirror side of this distinction is much more significant in scale, and much more controversial and delicate in right wing circles - what about the cosmopolitans? The people who nominally, by heritage and culture, should be considered natives of the British Isles, but by personal allegiance and belief don't want to act like it, or even be seen as such? They are white and speak your language, but by own chosen allegiance are as hostile to the nationalist's cause as the most hostile of exotic foreigners are. Pretty much the same kind of people as the previously described case of leftist Swedes.
However, if you take some different cases of similar problems, unrelated to the recent mass immigration siphon countries, it becomes easier to see the borders of social groups and tensions on these borders properly.
Take Ukraine and its current civil war for a good example. The two sides there are based about cultural and national allegiance above all. One side considering themselves Ukrainians, and other Russians, who expectedly are quite insistent on living in very close relationship with the Russian homeland, where most of their compatriots live. Something that the Ukrainians, whose nation has a rather bumpy history with the Russian one, nevermind Russian state, are not nearly so keen on...
Sounds like a pretty damn serious disagreement, the two sides fighting with tanks, attack helicopters and artillery barrages. The above stuff is enough by itself to make their quarrel this intense.
Yet in more general terms, they aren't that different at all. They are both Slavs, visually they are indistinguishable, culturally the differences are rather small, their languages similar (and most Ukrainians can speak Russian too anyway).
But that, and the separate allegiance is enough.
Then don't let those non Americans in? Close your fucking borders! Build a wall! What happened to that shit? You voted for it and it never came; all you got instead was 'So long as it's legal' bullshit as always. Though I am wondering what policies exactly my nation 'voted for' that you think were bad? I can name a lot but I'd be interested in an American perspective.
As to the 'demoralization' fuck off, Blacks and Latinos have 'fallen' to the demoralization more than whites, they overwhelmingly vote for democrats; they rock up in droves to welfare, and they hate you.
Fucking lol, Europe would have been fine if America hadn't butted in waving it's cock around the place, WW1 didn't need you, WW2 didn't need you; the Cold War I'll grant it was good to have you around, but that shit only happened because you gave guns, and expertise and equipment to the fucking Soviets; at every turn America has been butting in where it doesn't belong because it is America that sees itself as the worlds police force, as the worlds 'guiding light'. If America hadn't gotten involved in Europe then all of this hell would have never happened to start with; you bastards were still ripping into our nations for your own self interests even in the dammed 90's when you bombed civvies because - and I'll let one of your own speak on this - of their ethnic makeup:
That's General Wesley Clarke after America occupied a nation that didn't want to get involved with their oh so fucking principled thermonuclear tipped dick waving competition with some slavs. So you pressed them with terms that amounted to 'Roll over bitch' and when they refused you allowed Muslims to murder and rape and pillage while at the same time bombing civilians into the dirt. America's role in Europe has been a steel toe capped boot to the ball one after the other. You bomb some shithole and they come flooding across our borders. That's the American story.
No, blacks voted republican because for them at the time it was the party of giving away free shit; the democrats then did that, but better and the blacks voted for them instead. Why would they change now? Are the republicans going to start opting for welfare payouts?
What can a modern conservative movement give to a black voter that the democrats aren't willing to? Whatever you've been selling they don't seem that interesting in buying.
We tried that shit here. It doesn't work. We've got black mayors, politicians, policemen, teachers; we brought in generations and integrated them and gave them the chance to work and so far they have done nothing but dissapoint, they have the lowest literacy rates in our nation despite intensive programs to raise them, the lowest employment rates despite intensive programs to raise them, the highest crime rates despite the removal of systems that were considered 'biased'. This is true in France, in Britain, in Denmark, in every other country you want to name. The idea of integration of non Europeans into European nations and with European peoples has failed, it has always failed and it will always fail. Any attempt to do so will lead to nothing less than the destruction of Europe and the European peoples.
You wanna talk about communism in the east? The slavs did resist, that's why they got fucking liquidated; we have seen a rise all across Europe in nationalist parties, in people that understand that unless something changes (and it is changing, slowly yes, but surely) then we are fucked. From the Italians, to the slavs, to the French, to the English and every other group in Europe. What we need is time.
That's a copout and you fucking know it. You cannot on the one hand go 'Just rebel lol' and on the other go 'Nan it's about scale' when the issues presented are largely the same. Fixing our issues through the democratic system is something I agree with and violence should be a last resort only when such a system has failed, and as shit as things are I don't think it's failed. As 'boomerservative' as it is to say; Brexit is a sign that it can work.
I believe that with time, we can convince more people within the UK to wake up, see the danger and organise against this; it's not going to be a straight shot to:
Ideally these people would be gone before anything of that sort would ever be needed. I myself am part of several activist groups that are trying to organise to spread these sorts of messages, to talk to people, to try and push this issue into the public consciousness as much as we can. Ideally increased repatriation of criminals would be the first step, and the removal of passports of non British criminal citizens if it is possible. A hostile environment policy (a real one, not the bullshit the Guardian sperged about) would help, closed borders would also help.
I agree that should a decent nationalist party rise these people may leave or be made to leave before these sorts of methods are needed, but I also think that I and other British patriots have a duty to push for these methods regardless, to try and open the public to the idea of it.
Yeah I know, despite my 'REEEEEEEEEEEEEE'ing at Shipmaster I don't actually dislike America, I love the American ideal, I think it's fucking amazing. I went to work there and ended up living for a good while; considered settling down but I wanted to get my degree first, so I came back home. I liked the idea of individualism; I was going to set up there; I'm CADCAM trained, a decent carpenter, bricklayer, welder and plasterer, I was all set to stay there; but I came home and I can't bring myself to leave her like this, wallowing in the mess our politicians and our people have made of it, and realistically I don't think I would have ever really integrated into America, I hold many of your principles as true, but I do not believe that you can integrate away your demographics problem; nor do I think that America would be willing to give up its principles. Though ironically I can't really ever imagine America going away, or becoming less than it is. Probably a 'too big to fall' mindset.
I don't think that Europe is anyway the same as America; nor do I think that methods I would want here would work over there. But from my own reading into it, and from history, and from what I can see I don't see America going down a good path with its demographics and I don't see how you guys can fix that.
I focus on non whites because they are the biggest and most prevalent problem we have right now. I'm also not a fan of Romanian fruit pickers or Vladislav building the conservatory. But realistically they are probably going to be easier to integrate for the simple fact that they look like us, I don't really want them to integrate, I want them to fuck off back home.
There is also the reality of the matter that these groups do organise and do act along racial lines and these groups don't see the difference between the racial and the cultural lines. Black britons are Black first, Pakistani Britons are Pakistani first; how much of this is due to an inherent characteristic or simple as a result of modern policy is not relevant when the fact is that they do move that way. They know this, we know this; our own government knows this from the report that they are delaying publishing. The only thing we have to do is to get the British people to know and act on this.
Honestly, I think we need a concrete constitution laying down exactly what is and is not acceptable and unalienable. One of the main reasons I see modern UK conservatism as pathetic is because it's founded on nothing more than a desire to make money, to squeeze the last drops of profit out of our nation as possible. A solid foundation of what rights a British person has when compared to a non British person; a solid foundation as to what a country should be for and why. That would hopefully curtail the cosmopolitan tendencies of certain people in our country. I am not unaware of cultural differences even within the UK, I just don't see them as relevant right now. To me it's like being worried about your clothes smelling of fire when the building is ablaze; a secondary concern that can be worked with once the main problem has been dealt with.
As for the ones it doesn't curtail? I'd consider them traitors yes, and I feel that lamppost maintenance technicians are always needed.
Yeah, that's the powderkeg for you. Hell my great grandfather was an ardent and proud member of the IRA whereas I see them as filthy traitors. Internal tensions will always exist, but that's no good reason to ignore or downplay the - right now - far greater threat of external invasion by foreign cultures spearheaded by our globalist elites.
Thanks, I'll have a listen. I'm always on the prowl for more interesting material. If you're interested in my particular brand of conservatism then I'd recommend Mark Collet, to an extent Farage, Patriotic Alternative is a good example for me. Though they do have a thing about Jews that I don't really agree with, I can see why they feel the way they do after looking at the materials they present but I just can't agree with their conclusion that it's 'The smallhats' rather than it being a bunch of parasitic globalists who happen to be Jewish. Though in defence of Collet he's totally fine with debating over that rather than just sperging out and reeing about the Jews like a lot anti semites do. He had a pretty good debate on PWR about that. Keith Woods is alrightif you get past his voice belonging to a man five times his age and eight times his body mass, Edward Dutton was someone I've listened to in person and he convinced me to go into university, until then I'd written it off as a lost cause; Simon Harris (RIP) is good and Bowden from the BNP is always fun to listen to for his insights into our treacherous politicians. There are a few others, but by and large I'm a catholic, ethnonationalist conservative who likes capitalism but also thinks there should be checks on it.
As to the stuff that was just below, I actually agree with all of that. I was ignorant of some aspects of American conservatism and it seems I was listening and reading more about the financial material and the Libertarian side of things than I was the foundations of American conservatism and I was clearly projecting my own frustration with my own politicians onto American ones.
However I don't think that all of it could be applied to Europe, I do think that we should have a constitution laying out exactly what rights we have as citizens, and I do think parity of defense with the government should be one of those rights. I disagree with the idea of small government; I am unabashedly in support of a safety net system to help people when they are down, I am in support of healthcare, and I firmly believe that both the state and the people should strengthen each other rather than a hands off approach. Though when I was working in America I did quite enjoy the 'fuck it' mindset that many of my coworkers had to things.
I think that's admirable. I think it's also delusional. America is not the 'only nation' where the right to remain free is something that would trigger a civil war, but I do think it'd probably be the bloodiest one. We have the capacity to rise against our government now; we simply lack the will or the perceived need. Which I suppose could be argued is the same as capacity. I do think that we as a people have become lazy, decadent and complacent with our slowly simmering pot; but also that we can be salvaged and fixed if we work together, and if we cannot then we'll be gone with no one to blame but ourselves if we're too weak to even defend ourselves.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
I think Mark Collett is actually on record saying if he was stuck on a desert island, one of the three books he'd take with him would be Mein Kampf. Then there's also the bit about his old chums in the BNP deeming him too extreme.
I am no fan of Patriotic Alternative, especially given their seeming desire to fill the shoes of National Front and the BNP. And, in accordance with British Far Right tradition, they have a very unfortunate sympathy for the Third Reich (fucking Mosleyite traitors the lot of them). And god forbid you be a patriot or a patriotic party that disagrees with them, else you are a "Zionist Cuck" or a "Race Traitor." If anything, I see them as a very real threat to the emergence of a viable nationalist movement because their screeching about "Joos" and deporting twenty percent of the population could well poopsock it into an early grave. The British, being a reticent and moderate people, will reject it and may lump all the other patriotic movements in with them.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
This is Martinique, a French island in the Carribeans, the blacks there are not a recent immigrants, but descendants of slaves whom Schoelcher sought to free.
I mean, I'm like 50/50 on that probably being a joke; but I'll not deny that for all his talk Collett has fucking atrocious optics, and that a lot of his people seem to really have a thing for the jews. Which I'll confess to not really getting beyond my kneejerk 'Britain is Christian, so fuck off' reaction. Someone did point out in a debate with Collett that he tends to criticize jewish organisations for doing what non jewish organisations do just as much in regards to immigration. I've always saw it as a collection of left wing assholes in power many of whom are jewish.
I worked for a Jewish guy doing building work and plastering and electrical work, he was from NYC (long Island); and the place I was doing the work was a summer camp for jewish kids, and everyone there was very left wing but they tended to not be very Jewish beyond the same way most people I've met tend to be catholic but culturally. The anti jewish thing has always struck me as weird every time it's come up. Wanting to bring Mein Kampf to a desert island is also just fucking silly. I (foolishly) took history as an A level, and we read Mein Kampf and the way a friend of mine described it has always stuck with me: "Mein Kampf is like someones Naruto fanfic of Nietzsche; where the only thing about Naruto they've read is other fanfics." It's just not a particularly interesting read.
I'm not sure their plan is to deport 20% of the population, but rather to just make living here so shitty for them that they want to leave. The whole 'race traitor thing' as well seems to be dying down if you watch some of his talks with other nationalists he does seem to be trying to distance himself from that sort of rhetoric when he says that so long as the people are working towards reducing the decline of the native brits then he doesn't care what else they do. Though that could well be him just lying to try and appear distanced.
Though he hasn't distanced himself from the anti Jewish stuff in the slightest; it was one of his things against Tommy Robinson (which is weird when the far more pressing issue of Tommy blatantly fucking stealing donations exists but whatever.) was that he was staunchly pro Zionist (which I do disagree with on the grounds that I don't think that a nationalist movement should really be dealing with that sort of thing.) and he did endorse 'The greatest story never told' which is one of those sorts of things I keep hearing from the British far right that makes me go 'Yeah I should probably watch that before I dismiss it' but then I just dismiss it because it's fucking retarded.
On the topic of Mosley, he wasn't a supporter of the Reich during the war? he and his wife found Hitler to be an interesting man as she said before his death, but he was first and foremost a Britain first sort of guy. I think if he had been in Churchils position he at the very worst would have stayed out of the war, but he'd have probably seen the expanding Greater Reich as a direct threat to Britains Empire and sphere and would have gotten stuck in anyway. I think when Hitler wrote that British could be brought over to his side he was writing from a place of incredibly ignorance about Britain. I think the far worse traitor is our bastard wandering King Edward VIII who I am sure would have probably tossed us headfirst into the Axis as an ally.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
@LordsFire
Rush Limbaugh, I think I heard his name a couple of times before from American Media, but whenever the name was mentioned it sorta sounded like they were depicting him as a sort of crazy
It's only now I'm sorta beginning to realize most depictions of "Conservatives" and their values are being done by their enemies or guys with a combination of Chuunibyou Syndrome and some sort of desire to be seen as cultural rebels like Alan Moore or Verhoeven(the asshole who didn't even read the Starship Troopers book and decided the Federation was Fascist) who if he were really living in a fascist society, would have been executed by said "Conservatives" who are "always" in power long ago
Rush Limbaugh, I think I heard his name a couple of times before from American Media, but whenever the name was mentioned it sorta sounded like they were depicting him as a sort of crazy
It's only now I'm sorta beginning to realize most depictions of "Conservatives" and their values are being done by their enemies or guys with a combination of Chuunibyou Syndrome and some sort of desire to be seen as cultural rebels like Alan Moore or Verhoeven(the asshole who didn't even read the Starship Troopers book and decided the Federation was Fascist) who if he were really living in a fascist society, would have been executed by said "Conservatives" who are "always" in power long ago
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Rush Limbaugh was the first major crack in the dam of leftist control of media, and literally created Talk Radio as a successful large-scale media career. He's still on the air, though he has guest hosts in more often since he developed cancer, and has audiences exceeding 20 million as standard.
The media hate his guts for his unrepentant conservatism.
A lot of things that internet media has been picking up on, like how the radical left cannot handle jokes, that you never apologize unless you think you did something wrong, etc, he's been saying for more than thirty years.
They've been trying to destroy his career since shortly after it began, but as Rush himself puts it, they can't destroy him, because unlike Hollywood celebrities, the media did not make him. And the media hates that, just like they hate their inability to destroy Trump.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
That's why the Strawman is such a useful tool, it's best NOT to actually have to listen to their arguments or what they've actually said or their entire argument
Lest you humanize them too much and the audience begins to doubt whether the great satan exists or not or is as bad as you said
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
As if these migrants actually have the intellectual capital or even the long term vision to imagine their own history. Its just contempt and spite.
Once all the natives are dead, they'll continue their tribal conflicts ad infinitum until the end of the world. I mean damn, even the Arabs of Muhammad's day actually like had an intellectual class(well not really-they just used the ones in place).
These migrants will simply revert to a tribal existence-not even some glorious Islamic or African civilization will come from them-just never ending savagery, barbarism, until the end of the world.
Also this is in Martinique-so...I doubt the people involved actually even know what they are destroying-just "french" "colonialist" therefore bad. Such is the state of the Caribbean.
Here's a tweet.
"Indeed it is incomprehensible, they do not even know to whom they owe their # freedom, bands of idiots !!! Know nothing about the history of their country !!! It's serious."
And the French have claimed the mantle of understatement.
Last edited by a moderator:
I love how the second the word French is involved people start thinking it is Mainland France when this is a Caribbean Island. One the french had during their conquest phase. The main language in Martinique is still french for Christs sake!
Yes this is still stupid!
Yes this is still stupid!
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
TBH, I can't imagine the locals of any remaining French territories have any loyalty to France, or reason to like not destroy its heritage. At best-Metropolitan France just tells their local governments what to do and takes their(limited) money.
But even so, its ignorant.
But even so, its ignorant.