Not even an argument just invective
RT: https://poa.st/objects/0bc23471-4d28-4b2b-8e76-1c30beae21b5
Learned a new word today. Nice. π
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
"No enemies on the right" until it is a white man (with a white family, more than some of them have done for the white race) that did not name the Jew, even if evidence suggests he was just discovering the JQ the hard way. It's like being mad at Keith David's character from They Live because he didn't just see the aliens, and had to be forcibly shown. If only it were that easy!
Too many pride themselves on being societal rejects; if normiecons are strivers for the left's approval, wignats refuse to accept anyone who has not deliberately made themselves a pariah as a test of purity that accomplishes nothing but satisfy their own martyr complex.
NJP fags when being told that there are many historical periods other than Hitler's NSDAP to talk about in a conversation challenge.
My nigger in Yakub, I couldn't pay for games on Steam when there's a sale, I never owned any Spotify accounts why do you think I would waste any money to a grifting organization?
Also, their podcast sucks.
Edit: It just seems like humanity is suicidal.
warren along with his father were founding members of the NJP, that's just the fact
The only difference between Charlie Kirk and the people we claim we want to "save" is that Kirk had money and a platform, with which he did no different than anyone else we're supposed to want to help.
That platform you refer to was in-place to bargain the futures of his own people. It's not possible to be in professional politics at the level he was and not know about funding flows, prescribed/allocated talking points, and where political guide-rails are. Perhaps he was on a path of change; it was never realized and he made a lot of wealth over many years of gatekeeping for the GOP establishment.
People do not get to hold up a guy who knowingly sold their futures away for profit as an example to rally behind without revealing that they don't believe in what they claim to believe.
"No enemies on the right"
Go ahead and save the posturing. You want an example of 'no enemies on the right'... how about this opinion? Would you judge this series of comments as helpful? Are you ready to join dreddit and start handing out some judgement?
Insert retard-level movie reference for added effect
People that need movies to explain simple thought concepts regarding politics have some mental deficiencies.
I would, however:
>People that need movies to explain simple thought concepts regarding politics have some mental deficiencies.
You shouldn't extend a hand for dialogue and then insult someone at the same time. Would you prefer we use 'woke'?
But the issue I have with your first point is that neither Kirk nor the people we would like to convince are wholly unaware of Jewish influence, but they don't see it as a problem. That is the biggest challenge and what a lot of dissident rightists don't grasp; lots of people KNOW about Jewish influence in politics, like the penalties for boycotting Israel, but they actively support them because they DON'T see it as BAD. They don't understand that other things like porn and immigrant NGOs are Jewish-run, and the latter of which is what Kirk recently stumbled on.
The point I make is that planting seeds of doubt is better than trying to force an issue that people will immediately shut out; for example, you try to tell people Jews are bad and Hitler was good when everything they've been taught is the opposite, they won't listen. You tell them there were child brothels in Berlin under Weimar Germany and say it was a cause of the Nazi Party rising, but leave it at that, you plant doubt because you didn't challenge what they know, but showed them something they didn't know, which indirectly challenges their preconceptions.
think of it like ideological maneuver warfare, don't attack strong points (Hitler, Holocaust, Israel today), but bypass them and target weak points (pre-Nazi Germany, Jewish influence in liberal causes).