"the woke right"
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (102)
sorted by:
Well call me woke then! Man I dislike these “people”.
No shit, I'm already a racist, a bigot, a fascist, a terrorist, an antisemite, an incel, a nazi, a basement-dweller, and ontologically, stochastically evil. They think I give a fuck about another preschool girl insult?
It's "conservatives are the real snowflakes" 2.0 and every bit as pathetically uninspired and oblivious to the actual meanings the second time around as it was the first.
Republicans call me a socialist when I am willing to help fellow Whites. A completely natural thing to do is viewed with suspicion.
No, don't you get it? Helping your fellow countryman over Ranjeet is heckin problematic and socialist bigot. Countries in the past were all just a bunch of minicommunisms evilly focusing on the good of native citizens instead of the poor, huddled immigrant masses who the country is meant for. The only correct, moral thing to do is to insititute a global race-blind economic zone system so that no one gets priority treatment anywhere in the world and all cultures become Netflix appropriate metropolitanism. Now excuse me, I have to fly back to my middle eastern ethnostate where they explicitly prioritize my people by blood.
I only smile to Whites by default now. Feel my power level Heb / Pajeet.
I walked past a blonde who was with a pajeet yesterday. He was telling her some bullshit with his stupid accent. I looked at her intently and made a face and you could see the emotional damage on her face.
I do that with mixed race couples now.
White Woman Look: Shame.
Non-White Man Look: Yep. Stole her.
Did you shout 'THIS IS MAGA COUNTRY' as well?
Collectism bad mkay?
There are two good things about this; they're getting more blatant and obnoxious, and the people calling it out are doing an excellent job. Keith Woods really brought it home there, pointing out that, if you're saying that it means fascist...why not call them fascists? Because, yup, you'd come off like an unhinged leftist if you did that. But it's what you're doing, just one step removed. Nailed it.
Also, Kisin messed up as bad as Lindsay, or more. Dropping the F word (Fascist) is bad, but linking the "woke right" to being anti-H1B is at least as bad.
I just want America first, Americans first, and to stop importing people that will directly hurt the American people, legally or illegally. I don't care about their skin color, I care about quantity, quality, and purpose. If quantity is large, quality is low, and purpose is to hurt American workers...three strikes you're well and truly out, and can fuck off back to where you came from.
These grifters are my enemy.
"Oh no, don't criticize Israel, oh no, don't criticize foreign corporate replacement programs, oh no, US is a sports team, oh by the way, I'm on the right, but we have to talk about the "woke right," because those guys are bad. Now let's make America strong!"
EDIT: Links (also, dang all these people tweet a lot):
Auron MacIntyre on Konstantin Kisin
Keith Woods @ James Lindsay
The uncomfortable reality is that you should care if you want to see America remain American. There's really no getting around it, just lots of bluster and rationalization for fear being labeled racist.
I very much care about skin color.
Nobody wants to be Brazil.
I pretty much despise anyone not White or East Asian at this point,
Thanks globalists!
I don't care primarily about skin color, would be more accurate.
I'm not saying it's meaningless (it's absolutely not), but it's not the primary concern. In some insane hypothetical where we were taking in exclusively millions of white foreigners...I'd still be against that; they're not Americans, we need to fix our own shit first.
America is for Americans first and foremost, not foreigners.
That's fair. I just think it's worth highlighting the fact that America has a better chance of remaining American if we stick to importing Whites when we do bother to import foreigners at all.
Well, you won't hear disagreement from me on that.
I think the primary argument and one i don't REALLY disagree with, is that currently quantity is so fucking high it doesn't really matter the WHO.
The flow has to STOP first before we can start qualifying. So making the "we'll a few thousand Germans made operation paperclip a success" is irrelevent from both directions.
I'm objectively racist. Like "some races are born inferior to others" racist. I'd STILL say that on balance a few thousand shitskins is PROBABLY easier to deal with than several million "good ones"
America should only allow people willing to undergo strict immigration processes that demand assimilation to american values. A commie leaf or brit is no better than any other anti-american.
No, fuck the Europoors. Only Poland and Hungary are fighting this shit, and they need all their white people.
Quiet, Pajeet
We do still have a decent problem of Visa overstayers from Europe being another part of our immigration failures.
But they are both genuinely working and mostly not causing trouble, so its a problem of legality instead of the much more prominent issues the other types bring so its of low priority.
How are they genuinely working without valid SSNs?
When I said genuinely, I meant genuine work was being done instead of whatever Jeets consider "work." They weren't just trying to free ride it with the lowest slop possible.
Literal "skin color" doesn't matter - it's just often a very good predictor of things that do matter, which of course is the nuance that consistently gets lost in this argument.
The few who would assimilate and bring value are tolerable. The mass that cling to third world culture and values should get trebucheted.
A foreigner who actually wants to adopt american values is more valuable than commie natives - which is why the commies want the immigration process to be made easier. The difficulty of LEGAL immigration serves a purpose. So do quotas, that should never allow a foreign group to come close the replacement rate of the native group. Small numbers of high quality will assimilate and not damage the host culture. That is not what we've had for many decades now.
Woke, to me, is shorthand for "infiltrated by the CIA at the request of globalists." That's what I assumed they meant by "woke right." The irony is those using the term "woke right" are probably the most likely to be "woke" by my definition.
It's all "tower of babel" shit. Where they destroy communications to prevent people from organizing successfully.
Yup, and if you use "woke" to mean using lefty tactics...it still holds true.
The people whining about the "woke right" are absolutely the closest to actually being it.
Hey, that's actually a pretty good definition. Though I would add 'or acting as if they were', because a lot of these wokies aren't worth infiltrating - they just follow the cues that they get from the media.
I can't wait for the day where the universal power of "calling someone a racist" is completely dead. It's coming sooner than faggots like Kisin and Lindsay think.
I think it was Jack Posobiec who started calling Lindsay, Kisin "the Woke Lite."
It's a good, fitting insult.
"If we have social standards and try applying them to others, or worse have any kind of group identity, then we're just as bad as the woke left" - cries the subversive leftists and retarded libertarians.
There's only 2 reasons why someone on the so called "right" wouldn't want White people to have a group identity . One is that they aren't part of the White group identity and the other is that they are working for a different group identity. Strangely enough almost all the right wingers who complain about White group identity are also philosemites.
The decades of social conditioning mean a lot of White people on the "right" are still effectively suicidal liberals who believe in blank slate and magic dirt. We also strive for acceptance from our social "betters", even if we deny it. It's a really hard mindset to break out of.
I don't value commie goblins from NYC or Cuckifornia that are white over actual american patriots that are minorities, and you're a shilling faggot if you're trying to claim that is better.
Collectivism is literally low IQ ape behavior, where you are unable to recognize individual behavior as separate from groups. It is pushed at us to make us all less effective so that racial conflict can be used to distract from the actual globalist elite.
Fuck yourself if you think Bill Gates, who is trying to destroy this country, is a better ally than Clarence Thomas, who has objectively done more himself to protect and promote American values than even powerful groups like the NRA.
"Nooo you must fight eachother peasants, pay no attention to the men behind the curtain!"
Goblin shilling, or are you no better than a low IQ retarded hoodrat?
You are the exact example of what i'm talking about. Someone who is a philosemite who is either not White or working for another group that is not White.
if you think looking out for White interests is bad because some White people are bad, then by rights you should also think looking out for American interests is bad because some Americans are bad.
Also Bill Gates isn't White, he's jewish. His mother was a banker and had a jewish surname.
Shut your mouth, shilling goblin. You are no different than the "we wuz kangz" goons, trying to ride the accomplishments of my ancestors because you have none of your own. I don't buy in to the "white" nationalist bullshit because that is literal nonsense, a mishmash of a hundred european nationalities - you do because you're pathetic and have no value of your own to claim, only others heritage to parasitize.
Looking out for Americans is a matter of national economy. Trying to tell me I should reject actually valuable Americans in favor of leftist goblins that share my skin color is anti-nationalist shilling. You belong in a zoo with the other feds or low iq apes. You are so pathetically obvious - you certainly aren't from my genetic lineage, you pathetic mongrel.
You aren't White and you are mad that Whites are starting to push for their own interests because you feel threatened by it.
You aren't white you're a fed mutt shitposting from a basement somewhere. Die mad about it, you will never be what real Americans are.
You can just say Jews.
I thought that Dom gets upset if you do.
I shun your labels. If you think I'm racist, I don't care. If you think I'm sexist, I don't care. If you think I'm fascist, I don't care. Your labels mean nothing to me.
Your political camp wants war, destruction of my race, and dissolution of civil liberties.
Guess what that makes you?
“Order of events” is the foundation of any sustainable moral framework. If you cannot respond to violence with violence, then you will reliably be destroyed by violent people. If defensive, “reactionary” violence is morally equivalent to unprompted aggressive violence, then all “good people” are destined for extinction. Killing in self-defense isn’t murder, and the only people who claim otherwise are anticipating your murder.
Really well said!
The next chain in logic here is that, if you want "good people" to exist, then you have to have people with the moral framework you laid out, and the people pushing against them are pushing for the extinction of "good people."
Not only is it right, it's necessary.
No, Order of Events which is just a different way of saying the NAP is half the foundation of all liberal frameworks. (The other half is the Tabula Rasa.) It is the basis of all victimhood grifts like the holocaust grift or slavery grift. Simply claim you are the injured party and then anything you do is now moral, like bombing churches and burning children alive.
Might Make Right is the basis of moral frameworks because that is how the universe works. It doesn't matter how distasteful you might find it, because ultimately the only laws are the ones that are impossible to violate, F=MA, F=G*(m1*m2)/r^2 etc. Any philosophy that does not align with the universe is incorrect and ultimately will fail.
Waiting to be the injured party means that eventually someone stronger than you will come along and remove your ability to retaliate in a singe action. And then the operating framework is back to Might Makes Right because what you believe doesn't matter, you've lost.
Compelling argument.
In addition, if this is true, then first-strike is equally as moral as defensive response, meaning that massacring anyone you don't like is never immoral since it's the same as hitting back. Defensive has to be "better" than offensive, or there's no reason to not be aggressive and jingoistic at all times. It would lead to quite a nightmare world.
It's part and parcel of ConInc crying "hypocrisy!" when the left refuses to attack their own. Attacking your enemy and refusing to attack your fellow is not hypocrisy. Conservatives completely lack a friend-enemy distinction. Leftists operate under nothing but.
I agree with you on what you wrote. I would also add the observation that the left attacks those on the left who are to the right of them, keeping them from straying rightward. The right also attacks those on the right who are to the right of them, keeping them from straying rightward. Whether that's due to subversive reasons, I'll leave that to the judgment of the reader.
In prisons especially. You ever think about that?
Why are we on a battlefield in the first place? I was trying to live my life and pursue liberty and happiness.
Seriously, Euripides? Ya'll have lost track of the plot.
Antonio is in good company. Just a bunch of disaffected leftist who lost control of their own party, and now they’re trying to control an emerging nationalist movement via the same tired accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, etc.
Lindsay's critiques of modern-day Marxism and its history are extremely valuable.
His critiques of the "woke right" are retarded.
Konstantin is a war whore. I quit following Triggernometry after one too many Putin Bad, send-Ukraine-all-our-money episodes. I'd assume, as a Jew, he's equally pro-send-Israel-all-our-money.
Oh, no, he put off his "send Jews all our money" (actually, all the free weapons we can give them) for months.
And then he finally released it.
I say this as someone who thinks all the Hamas fighters who participated in Oct 7th should be gassed.
Oh I'm fine with the attackers from Oct 7th being gassed.
I just think their gassing should include a lot of other people as well. Including most of the idiots at the "dance festival" right next to a prison colony.
I'd probably be ok with gassing the entire region, just to be safe. Or glassing, whichever costs less of my taxes.
Care to elaborate?
Slightly less so. He invited guests who are anti-Israel, while AFAIK, he never invited any guests who think Russian Man Bad.
This is really starting to remind me of "alt right."
Wherein we all know what it means and who would fall under the label, but then the media and Twitter get ahold of the word and completely change who it is and suddenly its now this hugely awful thing everyone rejects.
Like, all the times I've seen or used the word prior to about two weeks ago had to do with Puritanism level things, like censorship against hot characters. It was in mockery of how they horseshoe'd back to the same point as the Woke.
Now its a race thing because Elon needed a label to dismiss his detractors with.
A few key differences, though.
First, language: "Alt right" was relatively neutral (on language, not usage), and just meant "alternative right," and some adopted it and proudly identified as that. Meanwhile "woke right" is a smear, and no one will be adopting it.
Secondly, "Alt right" described a real group of people, and "woke right" is, again, just a smear/attack. It's not as cohesive a term, either, and a bunch of different unrelated things can get you labeled as "woke right." As we see, even being against H-1Bs is apparently "woke right" behavior. Basically, I just don't think "woke right" fits anywhere near as well as "alt right," and by it's very nature makes less sense as an identifier (positive or negative), and is just used as an attack vector. It's ambiguous and fluid enough to be useless.
Weren't basically the originators still the main pushers? No one got ahold of it; this was always how it was meant to be used. They're just incompetents, so it still makes no sense.
Of course, but my point was there is a huge disconnect between people who use it organically to describe something it obviously means ("alternative to the GOP type right" and "Righties acting like the Woke") and the oddly specific definition being pushed as some form of gayop from someone (Bannon's version of the "altright" and this new "Woke Right" that's only about racism somehow?)
Its the same problem at play. A label that gains traction as an informal use that we all just know what is being meant by it being said, and then the "Official Recognition" comes around from Talking Heads and Twitter where it means something not even close to what its been used for.
I can remember it being used offhandedly going back quite some time. The big recent one is that one e-thot (Melonie something) that someone kept spamming here and that entire discussion on how some people on the Right aren't any different than the Woke.
And then "suddenly" in the middle of the entire H1B fiasco, its being used everywhere in a completely different context and meaning as if its always existed like that. Its suspicious in both timing and how perfectly it fits when an Ultra Billionaire needs a name to exile his critics from the party using a word (Woke) that is now associated with "bad" to everyone.
Prior to all this, if I said "woke right" you would know exactly what I was referring to. We didn't need a definition, we didn't need to discuss it. We just knew the type of thing I was getting at and that was it. Same with "alt right" back in the day before it got picked up. Its repeating the same thing.
Also, just for fun, "Woke" used to also be a relatively neutral label that was self-identifying. It came from the phrase "Stay Woke" and was about people being awoken to issues and staying on top of all the ways it gets propagated in culture/society. It actually perfectly fits most of our Jewish Question posters here in the manner it was used and propagated at the time.
But it was mostly used by Tumblr people talking about Far Left nonsense, so it eventually became associated with that and then turned into a smear specifically against that type of Terminally Online Far Leftism. And now that is its only usage, as they've long abandoned it (especially with the obvious ties it has to The Red Pill as a metaphor, its too dangerous for them).
So, ironically, "Woke" went through the same trajectory as "alt right" did just on the opposite side of the aisle.
Kisin has been whining about the woke right for a year or two. He attacked Tucker with the label about a year ago, that was one of the big blowups, then attacked Tucker and Candace Owens months ago.
That's my point; I think the popular usage was always the smear at the more dissident right, by Kisin and Lindsay. Any "organic" usage was almost nonexistent by comparison, although I agree that that usage and the popular usage are at exact opposite ends, essentially.
Fair enough. And I both completely agree and disagree. It's my own mental block, but I just can't really see past that it didn't seem like anyone really was using it organically. It didn't gain traction, is my sticking point. A few uses here and there, but no traction, and "woke right" was never a group, just a concept that was rarely called by those words. There is a woke right (I'd argue woke "right," but that's another topic), but it wasn't really named (although often somewhat haphazardly covered by other phrases like "RINO" or "GOPe.")
Other than that, I completely agree. It got twisted for specific ends by, primarily, Kisin and Lindsay, and no longer means anything close to what it would instinctively mean.
Again, it was used against Tucker a year ago. I think it's just such a badly applied label it never gets traction, even when it does blow up, so it keeps feeling like it's happening for the first time. Tucker was woke. Candace was woke. And I think a few others, not as big. Anyone who speaks up on the issue on the Wrong Side is obviously woke right too. So you did get people like Dave Smith being labeled "woke right" when he called them out on it.
Yeah, good point. Again, I didn't really hear it much, but it's true that, back in time around a year, I'd instinctively know what was meant, if you said that.
Fair enough, I don't keep up with all these Talking Heads and their nonsense because I find it both draining and literally pathetic e-daddy worship how most people do. So the little details of it are always lost to me. So if it was happening back then that's completely out of my knowledge zone.
Well, gaining traction is how things turn out this way ain't it? When I said it myself, I didn't "hear it from somewhere else." I wasn't adopting the language being used by "my team."
I saw something happen and the words formulated on their own as the best descriptor for what I was seeing. Which is why you'd just know what I meant by it, because its a sincere and organic phoneme, if I can call it that in this context.
But it seems like for a lot of people, its all the same "consensus based" nonsense. They wait for the latest Grifter or Influencer to tell them how to feel, and how to label things, and the Newest Outrage Label to smear with and go from there. And that is how it "gains traction" and becomes something completely at odds with what the words literally mean.
I suppose its the difference between those of us on the "Right" through thinking things on our own, and those we seem to live and breathe the latest news from Tucker/Owens/Twitter/etc to pick what new thing to be outraged and mad about today.
This sounds accusatory towards you but I don't mean to point any of it to you personally as it doesn't seem applicable, but we also both know people who it does apply to. Also:
Owens was always woke. Her literal rise to fame was trying to do something so fucking woke the Woke themselves formed rank to destroy her because it would drag them down to. And she "switched sides" entirely out of grudge and ego from that event. She only seems "based" because she is carefully crafting her image to be this perfect icon for the more rebellious Right at any time and always says exactly what you want to hear. Except its from a black woman so its worth more, because identity politics are good if we do them!
That's not really relevant to your point, but I never miss a chance to shit on Owens.
Conspiracy? I live in Canada -- how many scholarships are there for white people? How many job openings advertise they're for white people? Zero and zero. Okay, now do minorities and tell me it's a fucking conspiracy again, faggot.
Forget politics for a moment. Think if any fantasy novel movie, story... Lord of the Rings, He Man, whatever. You think Gondor wasn't a fascist stat or at least closer to one than a democracy or whatever the hell we call the US? You think Rivendell had a Republican form of government? Or do you think King Aragorn ruled as king? And Elrond ruled as Lord. And do you think Aragorn was overly preoccupied with making sure Easterners and Orcs felt comfortable in the white city? Every fantasy media dating back a thousand years is a kingdom of homogeneous people sharing a history, bloodline, culture, ethics, religion, language, arts, etc. Top to bottom it was a cohesive society that protected itself and it's interests from outside forces and from internal subversion. Any boy who ever dreamed of becoming a knight didn't imagine becoming a king to replace his subjects with new ones. He had a set group of people in mind who he intended to "save". And only in the past half century have we pretended this is somehow bad or evil or unnatural when it's the most natural state of man ever.
Fantasy media is a proxy celebration of white peoples, cultures, and nations. The popularity of the genre was borne in the ruthless suppression of any organic celebration of white cultures. A similar thing happened with the recent 80s nostalgia kick, which was a proxy celebration of a pre-invasion America.
To be clear, you're arguing that medieval monarchies were 'fascist' - or at least closer to fascism than to our collectivistic oligarchy? That's the very opposite of the truth. The United States is far closer to fascist Italy and Nazi Germany than medieval France was: it has a standing army, there is centralized government, worship of the state, etc.
That's just called civilization.
Yes. I am fascist. And I'm tired of pretending that's a bad thing.
I am pretty tired of nationalism being conflated with fascism.
I'm tired of both being conflated with evil.
I'm tired of Italian fascism, which was sort of not that bad, being conflated with national socialism. But I'm getting the sense that you don't agree with that.
It's a good thing to lead your country to destruction?
You're doing the thing where the outcome of an instance is used to represent the validity (or lack thereof) of the plan. So let's do the song and dance... Which country was led to destruction because it was fascist?
Italy and Germany.
And why were they led to destruction? Because of their own actions.
That's presumptive and erroneous on a whole lot of levels.
Your implying that by virtue of being fascist Germany had to do things outside it's own borders that result in war.
It also a bit historically illiterate when you realize Hitler offered numerous peace treaties to England before the war full on kicked off and he had the ability to destroy England but opted not to because he didn't want to kill innocent or even their military. Churchill declined every peace offer.
The west didn't decide fascism = bad so we have to destroy Germany. Because we didn't destroy Italy. And Communist Russia was 15x worse and we for whatever reason (wink) didn't destroy them although we could have.
Any frankly an country could have done with Germany did (the real reasons we attacked them) without being fascist and the US would have done the same thing. Just like we killed Gaddafi.
Anyone who tries to untangle themselves from Fiat, globalism, and communism gets attacked. They did it to Hitler and Gaddafi and John McAfee and to this day assert themselves against anyone who tries to make crypto platforms, or silk road, or privacy communication systems.
Not necessarily, but I observe that it did, as did fascist Italy. Fascism seems to be militarily aggressive, quite unsurprising given its nature.
My God, you're trying to 'historically illiterate' card on people while taking seriously Hitler's rhetoric? As it happens, there are more countries than England, and it wasn't England that destroyed Germany, or Italy.
It's funny when people believe that politicians are decent people. It's even funnier when the politician they think is decent is Adolf Freaking Hitler.
Italy and Germany were both conquered, "Communist Russia" was not 15x worse, and you most certainly could not have destroyed it.
Which ones do you mean? And how exactly do you know they are wrong? Just because they were supposedly "written by the victors"? Of course, you don't have any problems trusting the most outrageous claims about the USSR "written by the victors", so you are not exactly consistent.
Paris was declared an open city. Same for Rome. Talking about historical illiteracy.
They most certainly didn't. Especially not in the USSR. Of course, you either want to ignore all that, or to pretend that it's good to kill Russian peasants because they had earlier suffered under communism.
Neither was Stalin. Doesn't mean that he was a good guy like you pretend. And in fact, the history books you've never read point this out.
Because it was the Soviet Union.
Of Stalin? How do you come to that conclusion? By ignoring all the wars? And I'm curious how you got at the "15x". Not taking any issue with that specific number, but you clearly mean 'way worse'.
There needs to be more resistance to their constant warping of language. It's easy to not care about labels like this personally, but the average person doesn't follow these rapid definition changes anywhere near as closely. Allowing "woke" and other words to be quickly rebranded is very dangerous, because the typical person only has a vague understanding that "woke" means "bad/thing I don't like." Once terms like "woke right" enter common use, that same person will simply conclude that some of the right is the same kind of bad as the left.
This has already happened to other derogatory terms, like snowflake. All original meaning has been lost, and now it's something you'll see spammed as a reply on Reddit or news comment sections when you suggest reducing immigration.
Problem is, that's just like saying "fight the memes!" Like Hillary Clinton paying people to attack Pepe the fucking frog.
These language changes happen through memetic means, just like all evolutions in language, and the only way to really combat them is to have equal power and reach to shit on and discredit them as they try it. Otherwise they will just keep saying it over and over until it slowly bleeds into random places elsewhere and gets exposed to people slowly that way.
Otherwise all we can really do is defensively talk to individual people about it preemptively and shield them from falling for it when they hear it by presenting our own version to them. Which isn't very ideal.
Yeah it is far easier to induce an idea into someone, even unwillingly, than it is to willingly forget about one. E.G. "Whatever you do, don't think of elephants"
Rather than focusing on a perfect defense and never letting language get misused, it'd be more effective to go on the offense and just continually introduce the idea that people who do twist words like that deserve the gift of a few surprise free tooth extractions. If that spreads far enough as a meme we'll have fewer repeat offenders
Sign me the fuck up.
Elon and his tech buddies are using the same strategy they used to dispel Occupy Wallstreet:
https://media.scored.co/post/yNZuVosJDXyc.jpeg
Oh looks who’s coming in defense of Pajeets?
Respond racially as a group to those attacking you as a racial group:
'WOKE! LEFTISTS! WE MUST DEAL WITH OUR RACISM PROBLEM!'
squall-whatever.jpg
This country should put the needs, wants, and interests of Heritage Americans first. If that is woke, then so be it.
Translation: 'How DARE you use the same social technology we've been using for the past several decades to your own advantage!'
I imagine the real fear lies behind the notion that said social technology has been so effective for what amounts to the bottom dregs of society, that if the people actually managing and creating everything start using it, the results would not be something that the Powers That Be would like.
On a positive note, the left is admitting they are communists and that BLM is bullshit.
Name calling to shutdown discussion is peak feminism. This is what happens when feminism is elevated to religious status. People use it's principles without even knowing it.
Let's discuss the substantive issues. Does unfettered legal immigration damage social cohesion, infrastructure capacity and cause crime problems? Why are all these pro-migration people so ignorant of why UK, Canada, Australia and NZ have the problems they do? It's like the MSM reports about crimes committed by people of a certain melanin levels. "Women in subway caught on fire"! 🙄
James Lindsay it’s not a shitlib.
I'm tired of every other day it seems we get a new type of right. It seems artificial, I think the left is doing it to attack but try to convince the fence sitters they don't mean them.
fascism is an inherently progressive and revolutionary ideology. it cannot be right wing.