Not lefty friends, says vikings don't like being replaced
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (29)
sorted by:
Why shouldn't one be terrified of demographic change and women? Especially when one isn't the result of natural means but a method of invasion. And fuck you for putting girls, girls are underage females, and you know you meant adult female
Tell them they're racists for being afraid of demographic change in Gaza.
I doubt you'd be getting this pissy if a guy in his 20s said "I'm hanging out with the boys" referencing his friend group.
What's your point?
Context matters.
If you said "This woman is going out to hang out with little boys" when the line meant "men of below-average height", well, sure, "boys" is perfectly acceptable as a male human term, and they are little, below average in size, but it's deceitful in the context used.
Indians were bigots who were terrified of the idea of non Indians ruling over them , they shouldn't have fought against the British.
Why aren't people happier with their people going extinct, a population changed beyond recognition with no country to call their own and a culture that is either lost or exiled to the fringe with any mention of it being labeled as evil?
Now ask Israel why they don't have open borders.
'Demographic replacement is a conspiracy theory, but you are also afraid of demographic change. Checkmate, chuds'
I don't agree with people who say that you shouldn't be friends with people with whom you disagree.
But seriously, these people just sound pathetic.
Also, who tells strangers on the internet that he is a 'Viking'? Viking is an occupation, namely a part-time robber and pirate. It's like Falstaff saying that highway robbery is his vocation.
You left out "about your own continued existence". Because the disagreement is about whether white skin deserves to be around in forty years.
Living alongside an existential threat is an act of unfathomable stupidity. Living alongside a threat to your progeny is unthinkable.
Wrong. It's a verb, like cycling or walking. To vyke was to raid. To put the dragon head on your boat to signal aggressive intent. The part time thing is vaguely correct, insomuch as raiding is one of the basic periodic duties of being a man. But that's like saying that everyone was a farmer. Doesn't tell the whole story at all.
The pirate part was particularly wrong. Ship to ship clashes back then were rare because they were effectively suicide. The art of naval warfare(and most land warfare) had been lost with the Romans and wouldn't emerge on a wide scale for centuries.
No, the disagreement is whether they should be blindly believing what the media says. Because I know leftists who don't like immigration, but are still leftists for other reasons. They are hardly people who think that white people should not be around.
I assume you mean 'at the time'. Still, I'm not sure how much stealing and taking other people as slaves was a good thing, even at the time. It always struck me as rather unreasonable how much Muslims think that jihad and raiding infidels is a good thing.
It's like calling yourself Agricultist in honor of agricultural forefathers and then saying that being a farmer is not all you did. Of course not.
I thought pirate means sea-based raiding on land as well, but I'm not sure I used the term correctly.
Did you bother reading the OP?
Then you know leftists who love immigration. It's a package deal. If you vote for it, you vote for all of it, you don't get to pick and chose.
No, not really. We still do it nowadays we just call it different things and tend to spend more blood than strictly necessary.
Doing so as part of the normal human cycle of warfare, as opposed to doing so because muslims want to make everyone else worship the devil too?
There's a significant moral difference between the two.
Not in English, no. Piracy is ship to ship, and typically involves selling captured cargo and prize vessels. The correct term is sea raiders, or strangely enough, Vikings.
Typically the best defense that could be mustered is to prevent easy landings, but that was not particularly easy at the time given that professional armies basically did not exist and the bulk of most forces were seasonal peasant fyrds, who might as well have just been fodder.
That is in fact why the Danes had such an easy time conquering England at first, because shit-kicking peasants make shittier troops and that was the style of warfare the Saxons used at the time whereas every single Danish man who wasn't a cripple was a seasoned warrior(precisely because they raided all the time to get combat experience).
All too well.
You do know that nearly all American right-wingers who voted, voted for George W. Bush? I guess they also love immigration.
Either. I'm not that fond of robbing people and taking them as slaves.
Not that strange. Makes sense that it would be named after its best practitioners. Maybe Corsairs?
I guess that would also be why all civilized lands fell so easily to the Mongols, whose hunting experience was great for fighting humans as well.
You think the majority of the R electorate is over sixty? Stats don't pan out that way. Particularly since Trump has had success digging up right wing first time voters in 2016 who had been waiting for nationalism. Bush's most fervent followers are now publicly Democrats anyway, the neocons were never anything but D in disguise.
Oh that's right I forgot you were an atheist, morals don't enter into your thinking. Hence all the relativism.
A term specific to Barbary Coast mohammadan pirates of the early 1800s. Only in modern times(as most retardations) has it become synonymous with the term "pirate". The Barbary Coast muslims largely practiced it not for capturing ships but for taking of slaves.
You guess wrong. The West fell to the Mongols so easily because they had a doctrinal outmatch, not a lack of trained soldiery. At the time the West had plenty of professional armies, but they weren't prepared for an exclusively ranged cavalry opponent. Hence why the conquests fell so quickly after the Mongols lost momentum, because their various enemies adapted within a generation.
Besides dude, what do you think they hunted in the 1100s that required a swarm of horse archers to kill? It's not like the Mongols subsisted entirely on elephants or something.
This is one of those situations about "giving an inch."
I also find almost all people in today's world who harp on and on about being a "Viking" to be cringe and pathetic. Its a fatbellied man with a beard, that often barely has any Scandanavian heritage, trying to larp as a warrior and a badass.
But the Lefties posting shit like this are attacking it both to destroy the cultural legacy of a white nation and/or to tear down men enjoying something that isn't Feminist approved beta male activity.
The Larpers are rarely hurting anyone but their own reputation (and it can work for some men regardless) so I'll still stand by their right to be loudly cringe in this manner.
i don't consent to demographic change.
In fairness, there are a number of internet retards that like to pretend they are vikings, or descendants of vikings, when in fact: they are "Amerimutts" by their own definition, and are probably the descendants of immigrants from central-eastern Europe. Or, in some cases, they are just straight up white-hispanic.
No, your bloodline is probably not from kings or vi-kings. You are probably descended from farmers.
Pointing out that some people lie in the internet has nothing to do with the actual point they're trying to make.
The point that they are trying to make is that there are obvious try-hards on the right pretending they're Vikings. And there are.
So fucking what?
Imagine them saying, "The sky is blue, and also you should be happy that whites are being replaced."
And then you come along and say, "In fairness the sky is blue."
That would be fair if they weren't also trying to push the shield maidens narrative
No it wouldn't, that's just 2 morons being wrong.
One thinks a woman with her husband's shield is a trans warrior, and the other thinks they are a Viking but immigrated from Czechoslovakia at the turn of the 20th century.
I think most people who call themselves vikings are just referring to a Scandinavian heritage
A lot of them are just doing it to make their beard sound like a badass symbol instead of a lazy bush. I worked with two guys once who called themselves "Vikings" despite being mostly German with no Scandinavian in there.
Its one of those things that the Left is trying to appropriate as a "political statement" when its really just a lot of dudes with no identity trying to find themselves. Its like being a pagan/wiccan is for women, though that usually does become political for them.
See, I respect some of the male pagans because it's a respect to the bit.
"No, I'm pagan. I don't worship these gods, I obey their orders and make occasionally make animal sacrifices."
Highly doubt it.
The Vikings were snow chimps. They raided defenseless villages and churches in England/Ireland, stole their women, and lived in matriarchial societies, and they got BTFO anytime they fought a real army
They took over entire regions of England and France. William the Conqueror was a Norman who started the longest reigning dynasty in England.