Yes, because I lead every conversation with Heil Hitler and wear swastikas. You probably think I've shaved my head bald, have a Nazi symbolism tattoo and wear Nazi uniforms to formal events, right?
No. I don't. I think you cowardly lie to people and hope they never get to see the real you.
So when she's telling you about how passionate she is about restoring and rebinding 19th century books, and asking you about your own passions, the only honest thing you could say is "Well, I hate niggers. And I especially hate kikes. And I hate jeets, and I hate beaners, and I hate spics. You'd think that I already covered my hatred for spics by saying beaners, but it's actually more of a Venn Diagram situation. Also I hate muzzies, and I hate streetshitters. I know I already said jeets, but I think it's important to add streetshitters for emphasis. Anyway, Hitler did nothing wrong."
But you don't say the honest thing. Instead you just sorta shrug and say "uh, you know, this and that." And then she knows you have secrets, and assumes you're probably a pedo.
You know who doesn't have secrets? Me. Because any situation where I have to fucking lie-by-omission to get what I want, is not a situation I want to be in. And I probably don't want that thing anyway.
I tell people what I consider them capable of accepting. I used to straight up tell people the truth from the beginning but then people would undermine me behind my back so I learned to take precautions for my own safety and take more time to judge people. Woman in the red dress situation and all (matrix reference). Just because nothing you say offends people enough that they would undermine you behind your back such that you can tell everyone the truth doesn't mean any of your truth is superior, it just means it's more commonly acceptable which in itself is not necessarily a correlation to the validity or quality of your truth. Many people live very mundane lives specifically to avoid confrontation but many people in history discuss how they were resented for accepting truths that in their time were not acceptable but are truths we now accept today.
I have a big bookshelf in my living room with a number of books from the 1800s. I'm sure we'd find common ground here. Also, the number of women who've told me how much they hate Indians lately or at least how they smell has been noticeably going up. I've been using the opportunity to talk about the Khalistan issue in Canada. There's tons of Khalistan flags raised all over my city and White Canadians have no idea what this signifies. As I said, there's subtlety in promoting an enthnostate. If telling them to be pro-White is seen as evil then I just show them valid reasons to be anti-nons. Same difference.
I'd be more worried about you. You seem very quick to judge and in the worst manner possible. Do you just sit at home all day judging people on the internet and insulting them? I hope not. I'd never assume the worst for you though. There's no way you do this. I assume in person you're far more delightful even if someone expressed a belief you disagree with.
No. I don't. I think you cowardly lie to people and hope they never get to see the real you.
So when she's telling you about how passionate she is about restoring and rebinding 19th century books, and asking you about your own passions, the only honest thing you could say is "Well, I hate niggers. And I especially hate kikes. And I hate jeets, and I hate beaners, and I hate spics. You'd think that I already covered my hatred for spics by saying beaners, but it's actually more of a Venn Diagram situation. Also I hate muzzies, and I hate streetshitters. I know I already said jeets, but I think it's important to add streetshitters for emphasis. Anyway, Hitler did nothing wrong."
But you don't say the honest thing. Instead you just sorta shrug and say "uh, you know, this and that." And then she knows you have secrets, and assumes you're probably a pedo.
You know who doesn't have secrets? Me. Because any situation where I have to fucking lie-by-omission to get what I want, is not a situation I want to be in. And I probably don't want that thing anyway.
I tell people what I consider them capable of accepting. I used to straight up tell people the truth from the beginning but then people would undermine me behind my back so I learned to take precautions for my own safety and take more time to judge people. Woman in the red dress situation and all (matrix reference). Just because nothing you say offends people enough that they would undermine you behind your back such that you can tell everyone the truth doesn't mean any of your truth is superior, it just means it's more commonly acceptable which in itself is not necessarily a correlation to the validity or quality of your truth. Many people live very mundane lives specifically to avoid confrontation but many people in history discuss how they were resented for accepting truths that in their time were not acceptable but are truths we now accept today.
I have a big bookshelf in my living room with a number of books from the 1800s. I'm sure we'd find common ground here. Also, the number of women who've told me how much they hate Indians lately or at least how they smell has been noticeably going up. I've been using the opportunity to talk about the Khalistan issue in Canada. There's tons of Khalistan flags raised all over my city and White Canadians have no idea what this signifies. As I said, there's subtlety in promoting an enthnostate. If telling them to be pro-White is seen as evil then I just show them valid reasons to be anti-nons. Same difference.
I'd be more worried about you. You seem very quick to judge and in the worst manner possible. Do you just sit at home all day judging people on the internet and insulting them? I hope not. I'd never assume the worst for you though. There's no way you do this. I assume in person you're far more delightful even if someone expressed a belief you disagree with.