When this race war hits its crescendo. I’ll gather you all into a beautifully decorated room under the pretense of unity. I’ll give a speech to civility and all the good times we share; I’ll smile as we raise glasses to your good, white health, while the detonator blinks under the table, knowing the exits are locked and the air vents filled with gas.
lol, we whites have a rule regarding this very situation.
Who knew that a few million gang bangers would be enough to tear apart this country. Although really it's the media and the government using that group as a shield.
They really don't understand that the current racial stability is only kept up out of momentum and complacency.
If that is undone, a lot of decades of pent up aggression is going to come out even from the non-racists and peace won't be on the table until someone is fully cowed.
Of course they did. An interesting amount of survivors from these 'death camps', almost enough to make one think..
Though I would like to think white people wouldn't be so stupid as to just stand around in a room and not try to escape through the windows or a conspicuous wooden door.
The use of gas chambers in several camps has been disputed by historical revisionists. Whether or not you subscribe to the revisionist point of view (I do, to some extent) -, it does not follow that Jews were not victims of mass-murder. For example, in ditches.
The numbers of reported casualties are probably massively inflated. It does not follow that there was no genocide, just that some are inflating the numbers for various reasons, by all kinds of people. Some are heavily misguided, some are profiteers, some lack intellectual curiosity and parrot what they've heard.
There are now generations of Jews who were raised around the idea of their parents/grandparents being holocaust survivors. Some got this from the family members themselves, many others got it from the education system and the media. This is somewhat similar to American blacks and slavery. I don't see people going around saying American blacks were never slaves, but there are certainly revisionists calling for re-evaluation of the supposed facts (as there should be) and regretfully they've always been targeted by regressives. So you've got black people now saying they are a descendant of slaves. Many make this claim without substantiating it. Some for social clout, some are misguided, still others for some combination of these motivations. Furthermore, even if they were slaves, there are wildly different levels of hardship a slave could go through and still be considered a slave. Same story with the Jewish host here. Doesn't mean there was no genocide.
There are organizations and individuals who make use of the holocaust for profit or to gain power. This grievance industry is shameful and regrettable. Doesn't mean there was no genocide.
There wouldn't be nearly as many Holocaust deniers as there are if half the points you made could be said out loud without a full "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!"
The unquestionable nature of it has created a very exploitable thing both for victim credits and ideology. Which isn't as impossible to notice as it should be, so when someone notices they are getting lied to/exploited they attempt to say something.
Which then creates the cycle of "they shut me down, what are they trying to hide" and it just spirals out of control.
The unquestionable nature of it has created a very exploitable thing both for victim credits and ideology
This is the important part of it, to me. I blame a lot of our modern problems on worship of victims (which promotes unhealthy behaviors like aspiring to weakness). I wonder if we'd be where we are now if idle revisionist chatter surrounding WW2 was treated like all other variants of revisionism.
David Cole's Republican Party Animal is a fascinating insider's take on this. As a (Jewish, Zionist) holocaust revisionist he explains in detail the lengths people went to shut him down, slander him and disassociate from him. Including physical violence and even a bounty on his head (Irv Rubin from the JDL). Pretty quick read, too, if you can stomach the writing style.
In my university, we covered the Holocaust and Holocaust denial. The conclusions of myself and my friends (I even think our teacher was of a similar opinion. He was a bit based as, because he was a historian of fascism, he was adamant that Trump wasn't a fascist) is that even though Holocaust denial is a tad bit absurd, trying to shut it down just makes it worse, and it's already a bit iffy silencing people for disagreeing with you.
It is vital to make the distinction between Holocaust revisionism and Holocaust denial. They are absolutely not one and the same, and it's just another case of using language to delegitimize.
And even worse, the deniers have some point. It has been over exaggerated and drummed up to levels far beyond reality, often by those who weren't there just as much as any of us.
Which means even if you want to shut them down, you can't because they have small chunks of lies on your side that holds them up just as much as the reality proves them wrong.
That pretty much sums up my views on the holocaust and gas chambers.
It wasn't any neonazi propaganda that made me skeptical of the gas chamber claim, but the simple observation that every 'concentration camp' was liberated by Americans and British, and every gas chamber equipped 'death camp' was liberated by the Soviets.
I don't trust a communist government to tell the truth about what their average citizen eats breakfast, let alone something as serious as this.
the simple observation that every 'concentration camp' was liberated by Americans and British, and every gas chamber equipped 'death camp' was liberated by the Soviets.
While it doesn't address the trustworthiness of the Soviets, there is a simple explanation for why that would be the case: because the Soviets attacked from the east, which is where the undesirables were. There are cultural differences between France and Germany, but they are both sons of the Frankish Carolingian empire. Specific French minorities were considered untermenchen, but not entire populations like the Slavs.
Also, the East was "lebensraum" annexed territory, far from the eyes of a German citizenry that might be a bit uncomfortable with the mass murder of millions.
Seriously, where do you retards get this idea that if someone survives, then a genocide didn't happen?
Not to mention, you're too stupid to notice the point that the idiot Leftist Jewish woman is basically deciding to be a voluntary Sonderkommando in the interview. You're too distracted by your own National Socialist apologetics to recognize that a Jewish woman is walking into, literally, another shoah.
Who said a genocide didn't happen? Sorry my brain works and I can think critically. Or you also blindly believe what government and 24yr old history teachers tell you?
Also if you're obsessed with genocide, why wouldn't you just do what the Turks did and kill them where they stand? Instead of putting them into camps where you feed them and provide them medical care?
A genocide certainly happened, but I don't believe they were poured en mass into chambers full of gas, or ushed onto electrical floors and dipped in water. Or put in cages with bears and crows. We'll never know what actually happened because history is written by the winners. Had it gone the other way, Hitler would be telling us about how America put the Japanese into concentration camps. Oh no sorry, 'internment camps', because those are different.
Also if you're obsessed with genocide, why wouldn't you just do what the Turks did and kill them where they stand?
They did.
They committed plenty of massacres on the initial invasion. However, the systemic and complete execution of Jews (and other possible enemies) required significant effort. This meant that you had entire military units that were shooting people in mass executions. However, this is a significant use of both manpower and resources. Worse, even among hardened ideological zealot Nazis, there was significant mental exhaustion in personally having shot hundreds or thousands of people in short amounts of time. The work was too strenuous and it caused significant disruption and even a rare refusal to continue.
The needed dead was too low, and the resource and labor needs were too high, so they moved to gas trucks. This only slightly improved the situation. They National Socialists were now saving on bullets, but not on labor, and only slightly on stress. They also needed vast amounts of fuel and movement, and there was significant risk that knowledge of an extermination campaign would hurt their ability to subdue the region over all.
Ghettoizing populations, moving them by rail, depositing them into work camps to support the work effort, or extermination camps if it was not necessary to exploit the work, is the critical point of the holocaust: it is an industrialized system. The National Socialists made what economists call "capital investments" in committing mass murder.
Instead of putting them into camps where you feed them and provide them medical care?
For food: because you have to kill people in an orderly fashion, otherwise you get revolts. For medical care: check the sources. Medical care was segregated based on race. Jews rarely got any.
Had it gone the other way, Hitler would be telling us about how America put the Japanese into concentration camps. Oh no sorry, 'internment camps', because those are different.
Pretty different. I don't know of even rudimentary starvation of Japanese Americans in the Internment Camps, and there was no campaign of total extermination of Japanese Americans on the entire continent.
Pretty different. I don't know of even rudimentary starvation of Japanese Americans in the Internment Camps, and there was no campaign of total extermination of Japanese Americans on the entire continent.
WEELLLL, in the interest of absolute fairness (which is MUCH more than your typical Stormfag deserves), there are indeed confirmed cases of abuse in the internment camps and some cases of minor starvation. But your point still remains, it was very much the exception and not the rule.
And more importantly, we still trusted Japanese-Americans enough to give them guns and go fight our enemies. And their unit proved that apparently the desire to wipe out a katana, scream "BANZAI!!" and charge a machine gun is apparently inherent in the Japanese, because the 442nd is both the most decorated and most damaged US unit in the war.
But I imagine you would have a hard time finding Jews wielding weapons for the Nazi's. Because the second you gave them the guns, they would turn around and start trying to shoot said Nazi's with no real thought to whether or not they would be walking out alive. Because dragging a few Nazi's to hell with them would be preferable.
there are indeed confirmed cases of abuse in the internment camps and some cases of minor starvation.
If you put a group of people in an incarceration camp even under good conditions, you should always expect abuse, but yeah, it's not to the level of "if we feed the rescued prisoners 1,000 calories a day, we will kill them".
But I imagine you would have a hard time finding Jews wielding weapons for the Nazi's.
There were, occasionally, instances of Jewish Generals serving in the Army, but I think for the most part it was because their identity was kept relatively hidden anyway. They didn't have Jewish regiments.
Maybe this is why there is a culling every so often. Would not surprise me if their own elders were behind the cullings. From a biblical, old testement point of view, it makes sense.
If there was no genocide, where'd they all go? You're talking about a few million people here, you can't exactly hide them under the sofa
Are you seriously going to argue that the Nazi regime cannot have murdered millions of undesirables because they missed a few? You do know the story of WWII Germany is not one of unparalleled efficiency, do you not?
Just to add a little context, this old chestnut comes from the World Almanac. Whilst it is certainly true those numbers were printed, NatSocs often fail to mention that due to the war and bad record keeping, they made no new estimations of the Jewish population during that time. That's why the numbers are identical for a few years.
When we account for 1949 onward, however, those numbers drop substantially because of the war's end and proper access to records after the chaos of its immediate aftermath.
in 1948, according to the Almanac, there were some fifteen and a half million Jews worldwide.
In 1949, that number drops to around eleven million.
Ahhh, I was expecting something like that, but I'd not yet had time to drill down on it.
It's a little curious that when you search you can see organisations talking about the demographic change WWII inflicted upon the Jewish population particularly - and yet no reference in that specific - perhaps specifically chosen - set of figures.
Personally, I think the reality is that there was absolutely genocidal shit going down. But post war is was exaggerated for political reasons. And in the years that followed, the denial of any conversation about the obvious exaggeration has led people to assume it must not have happened at all. Which is the wrong conclusion to make and why it's a terrible idea to not allow people to discuss these topics.
The exaggeration part is pretty obvious in retrospect.
I mean, WW2 era governments had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about lying to their citizens. And a whole lot of those lies have become "history".
For example ... how many people know the myth of The Blitz taught in schools?
And how many people know the reality that roughly half of the brits killed in The Blitz were killed by their own military's artillery fire?
All because the government decided it was better to put on reassuring anti air show (firing naval guns into the sky above a densely populated urban center) that killed its own citizens at random, than to admit that they couldn't really hit German bombers with ground based anti-air fire and watch all their factory workers scatter to the countryside.
I mean, WW2 era governments had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about lying to their citizens. And a whole lot of those lies have become "history".
You can't lie about massive depopulation, particularly of Poland. They're literally fucking gone. 14% of the population was wiped out.
From all that I've seen, I have no idea where there's supposed to be exaggeration. The Soviets initially exaggerated some losses, and so did the East & West Germans, and yet the initial exaggerations have been eliminated in the face of actual evidence. I've had to explain to the HD'ers who claim that "the numbers have never gone down", that the initial deaths at Auschwitz were estimated, improperly, by the Soviets to be 3 million. The camp commandant estimated it was closer to 2.5, then down to 1.8, and our own modern historical investigations suggest it's 1.1.
Look at the Khatyn Massacre, even. It was aggressively pushed as anti-Soviet propaganda, pushed out by Nazis who were always eager to push even completely invented propaganda (they literally started the war in Poland with a false flag attack). However, Khatyn was absolutely real, which made the propaganda even more successful. The Nazis didn't even have to exaggerate very much it because it was so useful as propaganda. They just pushed on it as hard as they could.
I've had to explain to the HD'ers who claim that "the numbers have never gone down"
Case in point, one of the guys in this thread who's apparently using a carefully-curated set of figures posted after the war, yes, but before tallies were updated, to say "Look, no genocide here, guv!"
Not to mention that the Nazis were quite clearly pursuing a policy of genocide in its attitude towards the slavic peoples, at least in the designated lebensraum, (they outright enslaved the Polish for god's sake). You don't just accidentally murder tens of millions of Russians, many of them in arse end of nowhere villages.
Audio of Ben Phillipe here. Guy fits the lispy queer stereotype, talks about life like it's D&D and wars like they are similar to Game of Thrones. This person is not a threat to anyone except crates of Soylent.
Still, he gets to (1) spout this ideology which promotes attacks and laws against white people, (2) not be targeted by law enforcement agents for making these remarks and (3) is able to make money off of it.
Original review used to be here, but looks like CBC has stealth-deleted it.
So a black dude is talking about gassing whites and that is ok? Can you imagine the black lash of something similar with a white guy talking about any other race?
How the fuck did whites become such useless, pathetic dormmates.
It's amazing that people take fringe weirdos saying this shit seriously, but feminist women have said it for years and I'm the only person who seems to be concerned.
Pro tip: Friends don't fantasize about committing genocide against their friends.
lol, we whites have a rule regarding this very situation.
IF the war starts, we're not going to make peace with the enemy. We're going to make peace without them. That way, it will be a lasting peace.
Five generations or so later, our descendants will have forgotten what we were forced to learn and will begin making the same mistakes all over again.
Weeellll, if you make peace without them hard enough, your descendants won't be able to make the same mistakes.
Who knew that a few million gang bangers would be enough to tear apart this country. Although really it's the media and the government using that group as a shield.
They really don't understand that the current racial stability is only kept up out of momentum and complacency.
If that is undone, a lot of decades of pent up aggression is going to come out even from the non-racists and peace won't be on the table until someone is fully cowed.
Every time.
Don't relax, frens.
Of course they did. An interesting amount of survivors from these 'death camps', almost enough to make one think..
Though I would like to think white people wouldn't be so stupid as to just stand around in a room and not try to escape through the windows or a conspicuous wooden door.
Several points to make here.
The use of gas chambers in several camps has been disputed by historical revisionists. Whether or not you subscribe to the revisionist point of view (I do, to some extent) -, it does not follow that Jews were not victims of mass-murder. For example, in ditches.
The numbers of reported casualties are probably massively inflated. It does not follow that there was no genocide, just that some are inflating the numbers for various reasons, by all kinds of people. Some are heavily misguided, some are profiteers, some lack intellectual curiosity and parrot what they've heard.
There are now generations of Jews who were raised around the idea of their parents/grandparents being holocaust survivors. Some got this from the family members themselves, many others got it from the education system and the media. This is somewhat similar to American blacks and slavery. I don't see people going around saying American blacks were never slaves, but there are certainly revisionists calling for re-evaluation of the supposed facts (as there should be) and regretfully they've always been targeted by regressives. So you've got black people now saying they are a descendant of slaves. Many make this claim without substantiating it. Some for social clout, some are misguided, still others for some combination of these motivations. Furthermore, even if they were slaves, there are wildly different levels of hardship a slave could go through and still be considered a slave. Same story with the Jewish host here. Doesn't mean there was no genocide.
There are organizations and individuals who make use of the holocaust for profit or to gain power. This grievance industry is shameful and regrettable. Doesn't mean there was no genocide.
There wouldn't be nearly as many Holocaust deniers as there are if half the points you made could be said out loud without a full "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!"
The unquestionable nature of it has created a very exploitable thing both for victim credits and ideology. Which isn't as impossible to notice as it should be, so when someone notices they are getting lied to/exploited they attempt to say something.
Which then creates the cycle of "they shut me down, what are they trying to hide" and it just spirals out of control.
This is the important part of it, to me. I blame a lot of our modern problems on worship of victims (which promotes unhealthy behaviors like aspiring to weakness). I wonder if we'd be where we are now if idle revisionist chatter surrounding WW2 was treated like all other variants of revisionism.
David Cole's Republican Party Animal is a fascinating insider's take on this. As a (Jewish, Zionist) holocaust revisionist he explains in detail the lengths people went to shut him down, slander him and disassociate from him. Including physical violence and even a bounty on his head (Irv Rubin from the JDL). Pretty quick read, too, if you can stomach the writing style.
In my university, we covered the Holocaust and Holocaust denial. The conclusions of myself and my friends (I even think our teacher was of a similar opinion. He was a bit based as, because he was a historian of fascism, he was adamant that Trump wasn't a fascist) is that even though Holocaust denial is a tad bit absurd, trying to shut it down just makes it worse, and it's already a bit iffy silencing people for disagreeing with you.
It is vital to make the distinction between Holocaust revisionism and Holocaust denial. They are absolutely not one and the same, and it's just another case of using language to delegitimize.
And even worse, the deniers have some point. It has been over exaggerated and drummed up to levels far beyond reality, often by those who weren't there just as much as any of us.
Which means even if you want to shut them down, you can't because they have small chunks of lies on your side that holds them up just as much as the reality proves them wrong.
That pretty much sums up my views on the holocaust and gas chambers.
It wasn't any neonazi propaganda that made me skeptical of the gas chamber claim, but the simple observation that every 'concentration camp' was liberated by Americans and British, and every gas chamber equipped 'death camp' was liberated by the Soviets.
I don't trust a communist government to tell the truth about what their average citizen eats breakfast, let alone something as serious as this.
While it doesn't address the trustworthiness of the Soviets, there is a simple explanation for why that would be the case: because the Soviets attacked from the east, which is where the undesirables were. There are cultural differences between France and Germany, but they are both sons of the Frankish Carolingian empire. Specific French minorities were considered untermenchen, but not entire populations like the Slavs.
Also, the East was "lebensraum" annexed territory, far from the eyes of a German citizenry that might be a bit uncomfortable with the mass murder of millions.
Seriously, where do you retards get this idea that if someone survives, then a genocide didn't happen?
Not to mention, you're too stupid to notice the point that the idiot Leftist Jewish woman is basically deciding to be a voluntary Sonderkommando in the interview. You're too distracted by your own National Socialist apologetics to recognize that a Jewish woman is walking into, literally, another shoah.
Who said a genocide didn't happen? Sorry my brain works and I can think critically. Or you also blindly believe what government and 24yr old history teachers tell you? Also if you're obsessed with genocide, why wouldn't you just do what the Turks did and kill them where they stand? Instead of putting them into camps where you feed them and provide them medical care?
A genocide certainly happened, but I don't believe they were poured en mass into chambers full of gas, or ushed onto electrical floors and dipped in water. Or put in cages with bears and crows. We'll never know what actually happened because history is written by the winners. Had it gone the other way, Hitler would be telling us about how America put the Japanese into concentration camps. Oh no sorry, 'internment camps', because those are different.
They did.
They committed plenty of massacres on the initial invasion. However, the systemic and complete execution of Jews (and other possible enemies) required significant effort. This meant that you had entire military units that were shooting people in mass executions. However, this is a significant use of both manpower and resources. Worse, even among hardened ideological zealot Nazis, there was significant mental exhaustion in personally having shot hundreds or thousands of people in short amounts of time. The work was too strenuous and it caused significant disruption and even a rare refusal to continue.
The needed dead was too low, and the resource and labor needs were too high, so they moved to gas trucks. This only slightly improved the situation. They National Socialists were now saving on bullets, but not on labor, and only slightly on stress. They also needed vast amounts of fuel and movement, and there was significant risk that knowledge of an extermination campaign would hurt their ability to subdue the region over all.
Ghettoizing populations, moving them by rail, depositing them into work camps to support the work effort, or extermination camps if it was not necessary to exploit the work, is the critical point of the holocaust: it is an industrialized system. The National Socialists made what economists call "capital investments" in committing mass murder.
For food: because you have to kill people in an orderly fashion, otherwise you get revolts. For medical care: check the sources. Medical care was segregated based on race. Jews rarely got any.
Pretty different. I don't know of even rudimentary starvation of Japanese Americans in the Internment Camps, and there was no campaign of total extermination of Japanese Americans on the entire continent.
WEELLLL, in the interest of absolute fairness (which is MUCH more than your typical Stormfag deserves), there are indeed confirmed cases of abuse in the internment camps and some cases of minor starvation. But your point still remains, it was very much the exception and not the rule.
And more importantly, we still trusted Japanese-Americans enough to give them guns and go fight our enemies. And their unit proved that apparently the desire to wipe out a katana, scream "BANZAI!!" and charge a machine gun is apparently inherent in the Japanese, because the 442nd is both the most decorated and most damaged US unit in the war.
But I imagine you would have a hard time finding Jews wielding weapons for the Nazi's. Because the second you gave them the guns, they would turn around and start trying to shoot said Nazi's with no real thought to whether or not they would be walking out alive. Because dragging a few Nazi's to hell with them would be preferable.
If you put a group of people in an incarceration camp even under good conditions, you should always expect abuse, but yeah, it's not to the level of "if we feed the rescued prisoners 1,000 calories a day, we will kill them".
There were, occasionally, instances of Jewish Generals serving in the Army, but I think for the most part it was because their identity was kept relatively hidden anyway. They didn't have Jewish regiments.
Maybe this is why there is a culling every so often. Would not surprise me if their own elders were behind the cullings. From a biblical, old testement point of view, it makes sense.
You know for a genocide there sure are a lot of survivors ???
Holy shit you faggots are retarded.
Just because there are survivors, it doesn't mean the genocide didn't happen.
So basically you're saying it should happen again? Interesting perspective.
OK, a couple of points:
Can you provide a source for that second figure? I have checked, but I'm not able to find anything indicating that figure.
Just to add a little context, this old chestnut comes from the World Almanac. Whilst it is certainly true those numbers were printed, NatSocs often fail to mention that due to the war and bad record keeping, they made no new estimations of the Jewish population during that time. That's why the numbers are identical for a few years.
When we account for 1949 onward, however, those numbers drop substantially because of the war's end and proper access to records after the chaos of its immediate aftermath.
in 1948, according to the Almanac, there were some fifteen and a half million Jews worldwide.
In 1949, that number drops to around eleven million.
Ahhh, I was expecting something like that, but I'd not yet had time to drill down on it.
It's a little curious that when you search you can see organisations talking about the demographic change WWII inflicted upon the Jewish population particularly - and yet no reference in that specific - perhaps specifically chosen - set of figures.
Personally, I think the reality is that there was absolutely genocidal shit going down. But post war is was exaggerated for political reasons. And in the years that followed, the denial of any conversation about the obvious exaggeration has led people to assume it must not have happened at all. Which is the wrong conclusion to make and why it's a terrible idea to not allow people to discuss these topics.
The exaggeration part is pretty obvious in retrospect.
I mean, WW2 era governments had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about lying to their citizens. And a whole lot of those lies have become "history".
For example ... how many people know the myth of The Blitz taught in schools?
And how many people know the reality that roughly half of the brits killed in The Blitz were killed by their own military's artillery fire?
All because the government decided it was better to put on reassuring anti air show (firing naval guns into the sky above a densely populated urban center) that killed its own citizens at random, than to admit that they couldn't really hit German bombers with ground based anti-air fire and watch all their factory workers scatter to the countryside.
You can't lie about massive depopulation, particularly of Poland. They're literally fucking gone. 14% of the population was wiped out.
From all that I've seen, I have no idea where there's supposed to be exaggeration. The Soviets initially exaggerated some losses, and so did the East & West Germans, and yet the initial exaggerations have been eliminated in the face of actual evidence. I've had to explain to the HD'ers who claim that "the numbers have never gone down", that the initial deaths at Auschwitz were estimated, improperly, by the Soviets to be 3 million. The camp commandant estimated it was closer to 2.5, then down to 1.8, and our own modern historical investigations suggest it's 1.1.
Look at the Khatyn Massacre, even. It was aggressively pushed as anti-Soviet propaganda, pushed out by Nazis who were always eager to push even completely invented propaganda (they literally started the war in Poland with a false flag attack). However, Khatyn was absolutely real, which made the propaganda even more successful. The Nazis didn't even have to exaggerate very much it because it was so useful as propaganda. They just pushed on it as hard as they could.
Case in point, one of the guys in this thread who's apparently using a carefully-curated set of figures posted after the war, yes, but before tallies were updated, to say "Look, no genocide here, guv!"
Not to mention that the Nazis were quite clearly pursuing a policy of genocide in its attitude towards the slavic peoples, at least in the designated lebensraum, (they outright enslaved the Polish for god's sake). You don't just accidentally murder tens of millions of Russians, many of them in arse end of nowhere villages.
Audio of Ben Phillipe here. Guy fits the lispy queer stereotype, talks about life like it's D&D and wars like they are similar to Game of Thrones. This person is not a threat to anyone except crates of Soylent.
Still, he gets to (1) spout this ideology which promotes attacks and laws against white people, (2) not be targeted by law enforcement agents for making these remarks and (3) is able to make money off of it.
Original review used to be here, but looks like CBC has stealth-deleted it.
So a black dude is talking about gassing whites and that is ok? Can you imagine the black lash of something similar with a white guy talking about any other race?
How the fuck did whites become such useless, pathetic dormmates.
Decades of indoctrination exploiting our good nature
I’m laughing so hard after reading this that faggot might actually kill me.
It's amazing that people take fringe weirdos saying this shit seriously, but feminist women have said it for years and I'm the only person who seems to be concerned.
Even straight women want to bang other women. Not a lot of people want to bang Jews. That's the difference you receive.
And just because we disagree on the perspective to take, I'll have you know I've been attacking feminist since before you could walk whipper snapper!!
We have an instinctual love of boobs in us, that supercedes gender. I think we can give them leeway on that front because of such.