Economic Left/Right Is Judaism

user's pic related is pretty accurate tbh. Fascism, an enforcement system, is how you implement socialism, especially the statist version called Marxism.

Marxism: Top-down Socialism
Volkism: Bottom-up Socialism

You have it backwards. The left gives power to the people and the right gives power to the government

Do you have post-it notes around your house reminding you to breathe?

Oh wow, a blumpftard failing to understand methodologies of governance. What a surprise. Tell me, do you even know the difference between Maoism, Leninism, and Marxism? I bet not. You can't even tell the difference between Aryan national socialism and jewish bolshevism.

Attached: 58ba76d2bbe713cff53e40e8a764c2972b7fc37d15f7f7533e437c3665dde55f.jpg (335x345, 43.08K)

natsoc isn't fascism
the soc in natsoc isn't marxist socialism

Attached: 7971783be6223ce36d2167f3d4b350a4a732e9f7cab12e7e11a340ff456ec1c6.png (8532x5040 175.45 KB, 10.41M)

You must lurk for 2 years before posting.

Attached: pol_in_a_nutshell.png (1174x822, 284.38K)

wew look at all these (((arguments)))

< 1st pic related

Size of government is a key requirement for leftist ideology because increased state control requires significantly higher enforcement power. It's not that hard to understand, increased systemic complexity increases minimal systemic overhead.

< 2nd pic related

Attached: ashley kill yourself.png (500x368 1.02 MB, 2.98M)

100% correct. Although your picture is wrong and doesn't really agree with you. One extreme should be pure communism (slavery to the state) and the other extreme, capitalism (slavery to the rich). This is the choice offered today; the entire modern politcal spectrum is designed to exclude ethnic nationalism and by ignoring it, de facto deny it as a possibilty.

Socialism and capitalism are both fine as long as they are employed BY a nation, not subjugating the nation to themselves. But that only happens when the nations are weak and selfish people are allowed to exploit them.

Read Giovanni Gentile and you will quickly recognize that "fascism" is not just the political system of Italy. It's an organic system. National Socialism is just about as totalitarian as it gets – ever hear of the Fuehrerprinzip? Libertarian apologists get the fuck out of here.

Attached: Untitled-1.jpg (634x594 203.56 KB, 73.92K)

Here's your argument, retard.
Bonus argument: von Mises was a literal Rothschild agent who worked alongside Kalergi in establishing the EU.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (960x544, 472.07K)

Attached: spectrum.jpg (434x155, 26.73K)

That's a nice fucking strawman.

I'm as nationalist as they come. However, I don't support socialism because it is leftist. And this debate comes up all the time, there's quite a few people here who also don't support socialism, but we all agree on nationalism. They love socialism over here though >>>Zig Forums

Of what? Your idiotic lolberg-originated "left is big gov, right is small gov :^)" bullshit?

any system will work in a white homogeneous society nothing will work in a multicultural hellhole, debating economics in our current situation is a absolute waste of time

This is the real truth that lolbergs need to accept.
We can have petty arguments over how to handle money only once we have completely and totally won. Until then we do only what is immediately useful without regard to ideological and ethical systems.

Attached: 25b0ecef8323ff1b32a48845209a300bb8c9bdd60e98f7ed088e747842b8afe5.jpg (1200x1192, 104.73K)

National socialism generally refers to race-based fascism.
None of the other fascist movements really cared about the importance of race in civilization.
With the situation we are in, most other forms of fascism are obsolete.
unless you want to create fascist unity with a bunch of mongrels, integralism style

That would certainly be worthy of experimentation, but all these systems have one fatal flaw - humans. I would argue the more dependent a the system is on "people" the faster it will become corrupt.

and what happens in your fantasy when say half the victors don't agree with the other half? If you don't have a common vision of what you're actually FOR as opposed to just fighting AGAINST something, you aren't going to win shit.

Either pull a night of the long knives or a civil war to sort that out. There is no solution for these problems other than fighting it out among ourselves, but that is something we will solve among ourselves AFTER the outside enemy is defeated.
I have some pretty fundamental disagreements with Christians and would find it hard to fight together for a future where they are free to poison my people by propagating their jewish memes, but I can still recognize that it is just plain self-destructive to refuse to work with these people and ensure both of our destructions before we ever clash.
Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. fag

sure but until we solve our demographics problems, i find it divisive and counter-productive to divide and debate over economics

we are fighting FOR a homeland for white families to live, work and prosper free from the molestation of jews and non-whites
fighting for anything is going to put you against something and the way you frame your question leads me to think you already have a ethnostate somewhere in the near east

That's what's going to happen most likely. I know I'll be out there pumping lead into socialists.

How the fuck do baby boomers find their way here?

Attached: boomer memes 1.png (579x583, 492.03K)

I meant fight for a come vision of what comes after, so the people who oppose socialism are going to go to war with the people who want it. It'll be white vs white at that point.

fucking typos, deal with it

Oh look another straw man. I swear some of you faggots ought to go read up on common logical fallacies so you alleviate your tardism.

then so be it, but i think we are the most reasonable people on the planet and if it comes to Civil War III at least that will mean that we won Civil War II and that there will be a future for white children, one way or another

Any attempt to form a ethnostate (in north America at least) will be a civil war between whites.
Too many neoliberals and protomarxists here to let that happen relatively peacefully.

Hence the point of hashing it out first to prevent such an event. I seriously don't understand the logic of fighting to save whites only to allow whites to just kill each other off afterwards. I mean really if that's the goal then the only point of any of it is just kill everything nonwhite.

boomerwaffen division

I'm sure some dorks will dedicate themselves to maintaining the status-quo and try to oust the ebul purity spirallers, but as pointed out we need to ultimately aim for something a little higher than an all-white Weimar.
Perhaps we could draw up some new borders to give different groups a space to live seperately or maybe we just fight to the last man standing, but all of this can only take place once we are no longer under threat of extinction.

i agree and that will be unfortunate, my goal is to get as many people as possible to our side before the shit goes down

ideally civil war 2/world war 3 will secure white/european nations for white/european people, if we cannot accomplish this then literally nothing else matters, we need as many men as possible, regardless of religion regardless of which economic system one feels is the most logical or moral, if we dont have the numbers to win, there will be no economy to speak of

i agree with this completely, no way i would want to live in a desmond is amazing all-white weimar but i think once we take care of certain (((influencers))) in the coming conflict that will not be a question, if we lose that conflict nothing else matters

HEHE U SET EM STRAIT TED. THEM SNOWFLAKES DONT KNO HOW TO RESPOND WHEN A REAL MEN LETS EM KNO WHOSE BOSS.

TERRY
USN 1967-1971 USS CALDWELL
VIETNAM VET

Attached: boomer memes 15.jpeg (1382x1382, 374.34K)

debating a political system based on dejure rights and economics is interesting but the far more important question is analyzing power structure, since power determines the REAL de facto rights and economics in a political system. You could put together any system you'd like, right / left, up fucking down it doesn't matter. What matters is how POWER is distributed in the system, power determines what laws are enforced, the extent they are enforced, who they are enforced on, who writes them, who benefits from them, who suffers from them, who is even allowed to enter politics, who is allowed to stay, who makes the real decisions, it's always and forever about power.

An example

Imagine Donald Trump had the complete loyalty of every member of the administrative state, every bureaucrat, every cabinet member, every soldier, every officer, every general, every member of the IC. Imagine if he had the loyalty of every member of the republican party, and the media. Regardless of your opinion of him, he could exercise his De Jure power as President far far more then he has been, he could easily build the wall, deport every spic, internment camp every Muslim, end or declare any war on anyone he wanted, spy on any political opponents or dissent, rig any election if he had the loyalty of the people counting the votes and a compliant media to cover it up, push the executive branch to it's absolute limit. And if he had the loyalty of the supreme court? He could do basically anything he wanted with EO.

Now imagine the opposite scenario: Every member of the administrate state hates him and wants him out of power, every member of the military wants him dead, every spook in the IC is trying to fuck him over, every congressmen wants to impeach him, all justices on the SC can't stand him and will do whatever they can to stymie him. His DE JURE power is the exact same as the situation above, but his DE FACTO power is pretty much 0.

This is just a little example to show how important loyalty, spoils to ensure that loyalty, and power to secure the spoils are. See it's not laws, or economic systems, both will be exploited by the strong, regardless of what they are, it's always about POWER

You're a dumb nigger. Capitalism is an economic system, and a very good one at that. What we're experiencing now is corporatism, and it was only made possible through the encroachment of socialistic expansion of government, which gave government a foothold in the free market and allowed it to start dictating the functions of business, through regulations and increased taxation (taxation to fund the socialistic programs). Corporatism wouldn't be possible without socialism. Every overstep and overreach in power was made possible by twentieth century commies pushing for socialistic expansion of government power, which was then taken advantage of by already existing super rich companies, which then began investing in politicians to the benefit of "socialism" (hence silicone valley being the moral arbiter of society), which then, under the guise of moral supremacy and with the assistance of leftists, began the flood of over-regulation to kill small businesses, among other things. Corporatism is the antithesis of capitalism and is a product of socialism.

Also the '65 immigration subversion, civil rights, sexual liberation etc. has zero to do with capitalism. Capitalism is simply allowing the market to compete freely. There are few good regulations that benefit society while maintaining true capitalism, and those would be things such as protectionism. Things that negate competition with third world populations, or populations from worse economies where labor is cheaper. The exportation of industry began in the '50s after we defeated Japan in WWII. They were the China of the '50s. They produced loads of cheap junk. The goal was never to keep industry here and flood the country with low-wage workers. The goal was always to offshore industry to countries with low-wage workers, and import the goods freely. Again, the left is against protectionism. Socialistic influence on government killed protectionism. Free trade was made possible by socialists. If the flooding of the country were a capitalistic venture, then it would stand to reason that it'd be profitable, but it's not. It kills wealth creation, stifles productivity, and leeches billions out of the economy through welfare and medical. Again though, note how the left takes up this issue and defends it. The left–socialists–are intertwined with corporatism, because it exists due to them, and uses them to further its agenda. Without socialism there is no corporatism, and without corporatism, capitalism is absurdly beneficial to wealth creation and the advancement of our civilization.

Wrong. As proven by Scandinavia, socialism does not work. Communism and socialism don't work, no matter how homogeneous the society. As a matter of fact, anything that oppresses a large number of people in the society does not work; hence why fascism, socialism, communism, and other such systems are always doomed to fail. The best system is the one most in tune with natural competition, e.g. the United States before socialistic influence. Just look at the history of Europe. It's one of revolutions and civil wars and so on and so forth. A good system is not one that ends in a civil war or a revolution. A good system is one that finds a way for people to excel without limitations, while also preventing their ability to suppress others through political means. Government should only mediate and prevent overreach, not be the hand that incites it, as is the case in socialistic systems. Then again, I'm not a Euronigger, so I'm partial to the concepts of freedom and against the things which caused the flood of my country (socialism) with third world shit-skins. I'm not partial to authoritarianism and government having the power to elect to replace the population it's meant to serve. Socialism made that possible. We used to be a nation with strong border control, free competition, protectionism, little to no regulations etc. Then the big hand of socialism worked its way in and began the process of endless government growth. Federal government. And with that growth went the decline of our freedoms, and our power over government to work for us. Eventually we became tools of the government, and taxation grew, and government grew, and then one day the government, without our consent, treasonously opened the borders to the third world. This was only made possible due to socialistic expansion. I'm not partial to these kinds of political systems. I never will be. They don't work. Eurofags can lust after authoritarianism all they want, but those systems always end in an explosion of war and death. There's never a middle group. There's the slippery slope from beginning to end, where the end is you smashing into a wall at high speed.

There is no difference. They're all systems in which a dictatorial government controls all aspect of life and identity is destroyed for the sake of garnering total subservience to government over people or religion.

Yes, but the dialectic is different. The methodology may be the same or similar, but the approach from a doctrinal and holistic point of view isn't. I literally just threw a bunch of random "smart-sounding words together, and that's what I got

National Socialism isn't leftist. The NSDAP trolled their way to power. Seems it's time for you to wake the fuck up. Read this.
genius.com/Adolf-hitler-chapter-7-the-conflict-with-the-red-forces-annotated

Attached: 06974b4fc3daf2de92c36606f30d875d-imagejpeg.jpg (1313x677 997.76 KB, 301.45K)

i'm not going to argue with anything you've said, if you are a white man fighting for the future of white children then you are my brother

Why does someone need to accept your stupid title? Why can't you have ideals and justify your ideals, rather than simply being a national socialist? Are you really such an unthinking rat that you identify more with a title rather than having independent ideological perspectives on each individual issue?

Fuck off, jew. I lean towards National Socialism because it was the best economic recovery from absolute monetary failure in the history of mankind. As I'm going to sleep, I expect any self-respecting National Socialist to rebut the impending "but Hitler lost the war" or "but they were going to fail conveniently right after WW2!" And other such typical jewish treachery. Wail you're not a kike all you want, but National Socialism wouldn't bother you so much if you're not. I know your kind. The day of the rope is nigh.

Attached: Kt.jpg (347x295, 30.61K)

I want to expand why I blame socialism for the flood of this country with the third world. Socialism declines in times of wealth expansion and economic success, and during the '60s we were going through a post-war economic boom the likes of which had never been seen. Socialism needs a rigid class system to garner support. With the growth in wealth across the board, pro-socialistic sentiment was declining. Obvious solutions would be to hinder wealth creation and to introduce a class system tied to race (similarly for the oppressed women prior, which were the underclass to the privileged male). Also, and in tune with corporatism being tied to socialism, the attack on wealth creation from the bottom began with the increase in taxation and regulations, slowing the growth of and eventually destroying small businesses across the country, destroying wealth creation from the bottom. Also in the '60s we had a welfare expansion, to stifle productivity. It all works toward creating a class system that would draw support for socialistic policies. Most socialistic policies were birthed during the great depression. They've been growing uncontrolled since, and even worse since the '60s. Open borders directly benefits the growth of government through demand of increased social assistance to achieve "equality." Open borders hurts capitalism. It benefits socialism. There's a reason why class is and race are synonymous in modern discourse. It benefits the growth of socialism to have a rigid class system. No surprise, socialistic sentiment today is now supported almost exclusively by women, non-whites, and the founders of the ideals, jews.

Nice one! Filtered, by the way. If all you can do is sling buzzwords, then your opinion is worthless.

do you think there is a place for jews in white countries?

Not necessarily. Obviously you can't have 100% homogeneity. It's near impossible to achieve, and has never been the case. You can, however, have 100% homogeneity in the politics and positions of power within your country, as per a constitution. I think diversity is bad, and jews are a part of diversity. I think a tiny percentage of non-whites can work if they are made to bend to the will of the native population. That is, no "china town," no "korea town," no black neighborhoods etc. Racial mixing obviously should have you socially outcast, and thus the tiny bubble of non-whites would exist only as a means to benefit our greater society, and they would only exist if they benefited us. I'm going to filter you though because I have absolutely zero desire to talk to someone who's one-dimensional, and I know you are with your line of questioning. No depth of thought, just "jew bad, not jew good!" It'd be no different from talking to some dumb marxist with their "racist bad, not racist good!" bullshit. You're both trash to me.

Obviously the system isn't all that great if it was able to be corrupted so easily.
The lolberg ideal of the founding fathers was dead by 1865.

Obviously it does.
Even when we were accepting only immigrants from Europe, the capitalists were agitating for mass immigration from the ethnically different (to the western European descended white American population) eastern and southern European regions.
They fought the 1924 immigration act tooth and fucking nail, using the same arguments that capitalists use now to defend the mestizo invasion.

Utterly impossible.
Well, have fun with your based lolberg paradise full of "hard working" and "based" nonwhites.

Also, I like how you sidestepped the question posed in
Breddy slimy, my liberty loving friend.

Over a century isn't "easily" nor fast. It's a hell of a lot longer than any fascist, national socialist, communist etc. system lasted (with no genocide of its native population), and it still exists partially intact in spite of a century and a half of foreign forces attempting to subvert it.
Buzzwords, home of the non-intellectual trash who feel the need to screech their opinions at others without actually making any points.
No, it doesn't. Saying it does isn't a refutation. I already said how it doesn't.
Such as? Who are these capitalists? I see plenty of socialists advocating for it, but not capitalists. The only thing that has benefited from endless migration from the third world is the scope of the government. I already explained how corporatism is tied to socialism. Corporatism is not capitalism, and could not exist without socialism. Corporatism is not the result of capitalism and exists as a direct infringement on capitalism.
I didn't say that, and I'll now be filtering you for being a low IQ nigger who can't argue a point. All you've done thus far is sling buzzwords and attempt to put words in my mouth. You're genetic trash. Eugenics should be used to rid society of sub-human filth like you.

don't forget the chinks who we used as dynamite suicide bombers to help make the railroads, capitalism loves immigration, always has, always will. Gotta keep those wages low and poor people have little to no political capital to threaten the rulers importing them with

The only real ism is left for us Survivalism. If that's synonymous with National Socialism so be it. All others are a distraction since the means hardly matters when compared to the end, our continued existence and furthered prosperity, which cannot be realized without the complete annihilation of all jews. Otherwise we will surely perish from this earth. Picture a boot with start of david tread stomping on a deracinated huezilian face for all eternity.

[angry jew noises]

Attached: dont you love those free markets goy.jpg (1002x762, 378.47K)

Politics were a mistake.

You are fucking delusional.
I could have made the argument that it was subverted from the very beginning, what with (((Alexander Hamilton-Levine))) being involved with it.
Where do the amerinds factor into this equation?
The Agricultural industry, the meat industry, the manufacturing industry at large (what is left of it) etc.
You sound like a cuckservative
The government grew exponentially during the civil war, when the northern states were literally 99 percent white.
TLDR- you are a race blind capitalist, and you make my country and the European descended people in it look bad.
Fucking kill yourself.

There is no politics. There is white people, and then there is everyone else. Non whites infect white scociety and corrupt it resulting in issues that would not typically arise without outside influence.

The only thing that matters is preserving the white race and the cultures that they built. Literally nothing else matters.

No, slavery is slavery. Slavery has existed for thousands of years longer than when capitalism was conceived as an economic system. Now if slavery is allowed within a capitalist country, then it's not "immigration," it's importation of a product, as the slave is a product, not a person. The chinese were slaves. Niggers were slaves. The US was not a haven of non-white third world immigration, you deceiving, lying rat.

See

Is this from Zig Forums? I'd like to see how they'd react when you post it there. Are they jew-wise now?

the chinks were never slaves in America, you retarded nigger

Top lel lolberg. Money doesn't keep a country together or beak it apart.

Just fuck off to your hugbox already

Exactly.

Attached: a7d3ba9a6e97205f88ca995c3fd109239f3f2b9da9cc9c81183c55baed9d0706.png (1500x1137, 2.75M)

No. What also matters is providing a life worth living. The founding fathers not only provided a homogeneous nation, they also provided freedoms to their fellow man. Their one mistake was not codifying race in the constitution, but then again, back then, the concept of "race" was entirely different, and focus was more so on ethnic groups.

nah it's some user's edit of something I made to troll leftypol.
I go banned in no time. go post it if you want, but you'll never enlighten those system slaves

At our current rate we won't even have a life at all. Priorities. Gas the jews then argue economics.

See I'll take 200 years in a country that allows me the freedom to settle land, build on it, and start my own businesses, as opposed to being a serf working for the betterment of a ruling class. Absent a quality life, there's no reason to live. You may think we're worthy only of being slaves to a kingdom, but I don't. I think we deserve better than that. Then again, this is the Euronigger vs. American mentality.
Yes, they were. They were brought here and forced to work, and if they didn't work, they were killed. They were slaves. They had to work in the mines and whatnot. There was no option. They were imported specifically as a product to work in the mines.
Dumb nigger, go read my previous comments. You're the only one stupid enough to think capitalism is a political system.
I'm filtering you because I have no patience for stupidity anymore. I never once asserted that capitalism was a political system, but merely an economic tool. You put words in my mouth. Therefore you don't deserve to speak to me anymore.

You're a fucking moron, you cyptokike. We created civilization as we know it, created multitude of nations using varrying political systems, created dynasties spanning the entire world. We dont need to be worrying about "the right politics" you dumb sperg. We figure that out perfectly fine devoid of the lesser races.

It's possible to advocate for quality of life while at the same time advocating for homogeneity. We don't have to live in what amounts to a labor camp so we can be "free" of "duh jews." 95% of people would consider that a downgrade, and would not support you. Either start factoring in quality of life, or don't' expect support.

it was already being figured out 1930-40. we already have the correct pathway to resume.

Filtered.

Yep.
White americans were in the process of ethnogenesis as a Western European descended, protestant people.
The influx of slavs and Mediterraneans slowed that down considerably, and also opened the door to noneuro immigration.
Because after all, if the Italians and poles came here and assimilated, who is to say that a Vietnamese or Nigerian cant?
seriously, leftists use this argument all the time, without realizing the former STILL haven't assimilated completely

you didn't filter anyone you lying kike, you want to read what we say to fed your pathetic ego.

Correct, and National Socialism has been the best working political framework for Nationalism so far, especially the part of "expell and/or kill Kikes".

GOD DAMN IT WILL YOU JUST FUCKING GO BACK TO 4CHAN

==
I often hear members of these 'white nationalism' movements/organizations of the current year +X discussing the concept of 'identity', which I find disagreeable.==

Identity IS a factor of what is of import, in actual terms, which is a matter of biology, not of mere internalized self-description, ie 'identity'; this distinction is important, as merely maintaining an identity into the future is not a means via which to maintain, to secure, our people into perpetuity - we are not a mere identity, we are a biological clade of beings, and this material reality is intrinsic to everything about us and our culture, the summation of which being that from whence our collective identity derives.

Attached: NatSoc vs Fasc.jpg (8532x5040 189.73 KB, 10.41M)

Checked for correct, however, brings us to the next point:
DEFINE 'NATION'

In doing so, you will find the reason that civnat is such cancer - and why fascism is nothing but civnat in a fancy uniform.

Attached: Civic Nationalism - Aberrant Behavior.JPG (1600x1024 425.4 KB, 647.97K)

Why? The United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa are not countries founded on the basis of ethnicity. We are biologically of many different European ethnic groups, and are thus not a traditional "nation." Identity needs to transcend that to encompass all of us, otherwise we cease having a country, and cease existing as a people. Euroniggers might like that, but I don't. I'm American, I'd like to continue to exist as a people. Also I'd ask said Euroniggers to look into the histories of their own nations. They're not as ethnically "pure" as they want to believe. Especially the British, Germans, Spanish, Italians, Greek etc.

Although kikes try real hard to make the word "nation" a synonym for country, nation has always meant "a people/a kind" of the same descent/bound by blood.
Civnat has been named by kikes in the same way they name everything, the opposite of what it actually is. "Civnat" is no nationalism at all, as its focus doesn't lie on a nation, but on the country. Therefore, the correct term should be more something like citizenship-ism.

How can you consider yourself "American" when you have 100+ million spics running around over there and 40+ million niggers? What if they identify as "American", would you just deny their identification and claim that yours is truer? Nonsense. If you identify as American in current year you're a fucking retard.

How can a Brit consider themselves British when they're only 80% of the population and a minority in their capital city? Simple. I consider non-whites illegitimate citizens. Also, you brain-dead nigger, I never said my identity was American, nor did I even imply it. Work on your reading comprehension skills or don't fucking reply to me.

Those are BASED spics and niggers.
They have the FREEDOM FUK YEAH to live here in BBBBBASED merica.
If they want to marry my daughter, then they must have excelled in the free market of dating.
I wish I hadn't filtered the lolberg, his real response is probably close to that

at least we can all agree that jews need to gtfo

No, he evaded that question.

Probably one of those libertarian jews from /lolberg/.

see

You directly identified as American sweetie, try again. Also I find it hilarious how you consider Italians white when your ancestors would've considered them to be on the same level as niggers if you're of the pure Anglo racial stock that came to America. Italians weren't considered white before the 1950s even. This was way after the acceptance of Irish and Germans as whites. I'm sure your children will consider spics white given this trend. Disgusting. Where do you draw the line? Are muh based castizos considered white just because they only have a bit of carribean shitskin admixture? See where I'm going with this?

If the representatives of your country or your fucking president is an actual nigger then the projection to the world is that your country is full of niggers and run by an actual nigger. If you willingly accept the "American" identification then you are accepting these shitskins. Adjust your identification to be "European American" or something else because when you identify as "American" it's just disgusting tbh especially if you're actually white.

You're arguing with a golem. "American" isn't an identity, it's a jewish construct.

So you know where I'm from, you retard. My identity is "white," or "European," first, American second, as it's where I live.
Yeah, and we're 6 decades post immigration subversion and the country being flooded with shit-skins. European is white.
Pretty simple, stupid. Everyone knows it already. It's European.
I'm not adjusting anything to suit your desires. Also, given the EU is headed by jews, should I thus conclude that the nations within the EU are jewish nations? You logic seems to conclude that. Also if you type sweetie one more time you're getting filtered. You're very clearly not from around here, and I don't have patience for passive aggression or snark.

Filtered.

American means founding stock, English\Irish\Scottish\German\French

Attached: Henry V (1989 Film) Shakespeare - Kevin Branagh, Emma Thompson_001 (1).mp4 (852x480, 9.38M)

The dutch and swedes should probably be included as well.
But tbh, virtually all western European ethnicities are (and were) easily assimilated into American society.

Don't be silly. If a shit-skin lives amongst us, they're legitimate citizens. Just like all the arabs and niggers in France, Germany, England, Sweden etc. They're all legitimate citizens… According to these people. If the government opts to import a foreign population, that means they're one of us. Pic. related is an English person! According to They couldn't possibly be illegitimate citizens, because government is god and make so mistakes.

Attached: idris-elba.jpg (300x300, 26.45K)

I hate the jews, I hate spics, I hate niggers, I hate thots, I hate weak men and I hate the idea that consenting adults can do no wrong as a means of rationalizing poor behavior.

What part of the autism political spectrum do I fall under daddy?

How high are you right now?