Should nazis have freedom of speech?

[Chikombo]

I'm not sure but I think to some degree they should cus that also means people can tell them they are wrong and they don't seclude themselves to private conversations only, but some people talk about making it criminal cus it's antagonizing people or something.

 

[Aim64C]

Let's ask the real question. It isn't whether or not Nazis should have free speech. You either have a policy of free speech, or you do not. You can, however, have a policy stating that Nazis are not allowed within your nation. This is, really, what is being said when people say they don't want to allow "hate speech."

Now, why not jump straight to the point and just throw Nazis in jail, throw them into the ocean, or burn them at the stake? Well, because people start to see it for what it is - a witch hunt where people can be accused of being an undesirable and thrown into the proverbial gas chamber. People properly recognize it as the very type of thing the Nazis were known for doing and why they are considered bad people.

So, instead, it has to be about censoring 'hateful' things. No one gets thrown in jail or killed (yet), just that they can't say certain things that hurt the feelings of others. Let us also take a moment to appreciate the irony of the same people who call Israel criminal are also the same people using the holocaust as a reason to say speech should be censored.

Should Nazis have free speech? People should have free speech without having to worry about the government or a wave of angry citizens killing them. The exceptions to this should be few and far between - such as when a person is attempting to incite a riot, when they are knowingly making false statements to damage another person or jeopardize public safety.

To drive this point home, even though it is illegal to kill people, we still have plenty of stories of murder, and games built around nothing but. Even if one were to go so far as to make it illegal to be a Nazi within the country, it does not necessarily translate into a censure of speech. We have rather strict laws in the U.S. on what constitutes a legal threat to cause harm to someone. A very general "I'm gonna kill you!" doesn't actually have a legal consequence in and of itself. There are stipulations which must be met in order for a statement to be considered a legal threat that is actionable by a court.

 

[JStar King]

They should have it but all this hatred will not get us anywhere. Plus, while they worship Hitler, they don't realize that their Furher also had Afro, Asian, and Arab Waffen SS officers and soldiers in his army.

Oth, this separation and division will only make our nation weaker. Plus, life is short and the idea of racism existing is beyond retarded.

 

[Loki d]

People are stupid...I don't care about what the next man thinks about me since I know thy self.

But let's be clear having the freedom of speech doesn't mean you are free from the backlash or criticism that will ensue.

 

[Lightbringer]

Yes. As disgusting as it is, speech is a right for everyone.

But the flip-side is that everyone also has the right to criticize Nazis and express their disgust for them and anyone who supports them.

The line is only drawn when it comes to threats of violence or defamation. As with our current law, that is something one can press charges for.

 

[kimb]

Nazis should not have freedom of speech.

 

[Clown World]

Should communists have free speech?

I'm not sure but I think to some degree they should cus that also means people can tell them they are wrong and they don't seclude themselves to private conversations only, but some people talk about making it criminal cus it's antagonizing people or something.

Also what do you mean by 'tell them they are wrong'. There is not argument that goes against national socialism. Btw in modern society being pro white is enough to be called a nazi, and using the logic of these retarded liberals and marxists like 90% of americans were national socialist in 1943 as they didnt want to end segregation. Also non-whites can be national socialist and fascist which is telling of the discrepancies within contemporary dogma.

 

[minamoto]

Should communists have free speech?




Also what do you mean by 'tell them they are wrong'. There is not argument that goes against national socialism. Btw in modern society being pro white is enough to be called a nazi, and using the logic of these retarded liberals and marxists like 90% of americans were national socialist in 1943 as they didnt want to end segregation. Also non-whites can be national socialist and fascist which is telling of the discrepancies within contemporary dogma.

???????????!!!!!!????????????????!!!!!!???????????????...

 

[ThelUchiha]

Dont even know what nazis is

 

[Lightbringer]

Should communists have free speech?

Yes, everyone should have freedom of speech.

The fact that you think that suppressing freedom of speech is ok goes against the core belief the Founding Fathers build this nation on and paves the way for both fascist and communist governments to gain control over a population.

 

[kimb]

Yes, everyone should have freedom of speech.

The fact that you think that suppressing freedom of speech is ok goes against the core belief the Founding Fathers build this nation on and paves the way for both fascist and communist governments to gain control over a population.

I think neither Communists or Nazi should have freedom of speech on the grounds that incitement of violence is implicitly laced through out their politics and is the final product should their policies come to fruition.

Allow me to clarify though that I don't consider the alt-right or most variants of mordern white nationalists "Nazis". The label is a political smearing tactic by political opposition to associate their ideology with the knee jerk reaction of "Hitler" and the "Holocaust". Actual Nazis and Neo-Nazis should not have free speech, along with antifa, communist, and anarchocommunists.

 

[Aim64C]

I think neither Communists or Nazi should have freedom of speech on the grounds that incitement of violence is implicitly laced through out their politics and is the final product should their policies come to fruition.

Allow me to clarify though that I don't consider the alt-right or most variants of mordern white nationalists "Nazis". The label is a political smearing tactic by political opposition to associate their ideology with the knee jerk reaction of "Hitler" and the "Holocaust". Actual Nazis and Neo-Nazis should not have free speech, along with antifa, communist, and anarchocommunists.

I agree... but disagree?

I agree insofar as the groups you mention are ultimately dangerous and their ideas, when brought to fruition, tend to bring about massive amounts of destruction. I even agree that, at least as far as my personal wants - I would like to toss them out.

But there is an old saying... "When I was twenty, I didn't have a heart because I wasn't a liberal; when I was forty, I didn't have a brain because I wasn't conservative." The basis behind most liberal lines of thinking is that an idealism can be realized immediately and through a very simple process. There are homeless people? Use the government to fix that! No reasonable person wants there to be people without a home, people struggling to pay bills and feed their families, etc. It is, thus, very easy for young people to think they see a solution to the problem and to try and implement it.

Older people, having more experience with the consequences of good intentions, and had their generosity betrayed numerous times, will be more suspect of such claims that idealism can be so easily achieved. IE - The intelligent tend to think like Madara while the Wise tend to think more like Naruto (ironically enough). Madara sought a convenient solution to his ideological problem, and it turned out to be a massive lie. Not only was the whole concept of IT rather silly, even the 'world of dreams' was a lie. Naruto was more apt to believe in hard work and multiple failures along the way - a trial-and-error process where the ideal is pursued rather than imposed.

So, even though I recognize the danger of such ideas, and even though my instinctive reaction is to expel such ideas from my society - it is perfectly natural for people to wrestle with such ideas and to believe in very wrong and destructive ones for a period of time in their life. It is dangerous to set the precedent for the censure of ideas.

Ultimately, I believe that communism, socialism, anarchism, fascism, and the countless other -isms which promise an ideal outcome are lies, and that people are ultimately smart enough to see through those lies. It takes very careful control of the media, education, and a political party in order for shadowy groups to use those ideas to destroy society. Even if those ideas are a potential threat, what actually makes them so is the devious minds in politics who will twist world through media, the mind through academia, and their actions through narrative. Those devious minds should be the first to be sanctioned, long before such measures as censoring the average person.

Devious minds among all sides of the political aisle. It isn't just one side or the other. Though one side is more prone to such strategies of corruption, there are other corrupt strategies that exist, and attach themselves to other mentalities.

 

[Lightbringer]

I think neither Communists or Nazi should have freedom of speech on the grounds that incitement of violence is implicitly laced through out their politics and is the final product should their policies come to fruition.

Allow me to clarify though that I don't consider the alt-right or most variants of mordern white nationalists "Nazis". The label is a political smearing tactic by political opposition to associate their ideology with the knee jerk reaction of "Hitler" and the "Holocaust". Actual Nazis and Neo-Nazis should not have free speech, along with antifa, communist, and anarchocommunists.

Ok, but here is the problem. Who gets to decide who is part of that label? That opens up a dangerous precedent for people in power to decide which speech falls under those labels which in turn creates authoritarian societies.

I'm honestly surprised that someone who constantly fear-mongers about the rise of communism then advocates for the suppression of free speech. That's pretty hypocritical.

There's a reason that free speech was the 1st and most important amendment of the Constitution. If you start suppressing what people say because you don't like it, then you're setting yourself up for one day having your own speech suppressed. Being able to express your opinion without getting shot or thrown in jail is one of the core principles of any democracy.

 

[jimbobbity]

It creates too many problems to give them the freedom of speech and its too unfair and contradictory not to give it to them. Thats all i gotta say.

 

[minamoto]

They should have it but all this hatred will not get us anywhere. Plus, while they worship Hitler, they don't realize that their Furher also had Afro, Asian, and Arab Waffen SS officers and soldiers in his army.

Oth, this separation and division will only make our nation weaker. Plus, life is short and the idea of racism existing is beyond retarded.

you have big problem you mr dude...u can't change or remove that scary sig ...u think u r doing something good by keeping it???...tell me?? ANSWER ME!!!..

 

[kimb]

I agree... but disagree?

I agree insofar as the groups you mention are ultimately dangerous and their ideas, when brought to fruition, tend to bring about massive amounts of destruction. I even agree that, at least as far as my personal wants - I would like to toss them out.

But there is an old saying... "When I was twenty, I didn't have a heart because I wasn't a liberal; when I was forty, I didn't have a brain because I wasn't conservative." The basis behind most liberal lines of thinking is that an idealism can be realized immediately and through a very simple process. There are homeless people? Use the government to fix that! No reasonable person wants there to be people without a home, people struggling to pay bills and feed their families, etc. It is, thus, very easy for young people to think they see a solution to the problem and to try and implement it.

Older people, having more experience with the consequences of good intentions, and had their generosity betrayed numerous times, will be more suspect of such claims that idealism can be so easily achieved. IE - The intelligent tend to think like Madara while the Wise tend to think more like Naruto (ironically enough). Madara sought a convenient solution to his ideological problem, and it turned out to be a massive lie. Not only was the whole concept of IT rather silly, even the 'world of dreams' was a lie. Naruto was more apt to believe in hard work and multiple failures along the way - a trial-and-error process where the ideal is pursued rather than imposed.

So, even though I recognize the danger of such ideas, and even though my instinctive reaction is to expel such ideas from my society - it is perfectly natural for people to wrestle with such ideas and to believe in very wrong and destructive ones for a period of time in their life. It is dangerous to set the precedent for the censure of ideas.

Ultimately, I believe that communism, socialism, anarchism, fascism, and the countless other -isms which promise an ideal outcome are lies, and that people are ultimately smart enough to see through those lies. It takes very careful control of the media, education, and a political party in order for shadowy groups to use those ideas to destroy society. Even if those ideas are a potential threat, what actually makes them so is the devious minds in politics who will twist world through media, the mind through academia, and their actions through narrative. Those devious minds should be the first to be sanctioned, long before such measures as censoring the average person.

Devious minds among all sides of the political aisle. It isn't just one side or the other. Though one side is more prone to such strategies of corruption, there are other corrupt strategies that exist, and attach themselves to other mentalities.

I see your point, but I believe you're give the general masses too much credit in being able to decifer the manipulation or hidden consequences behind the -isms. In desperate times, people turn to desperate measures, i.e. extreme -isms. I personally don't believe we live in desperate times -- in fact, the humanity has been moving in a positive trend and is currently doing better than it's ever been on a global scale, but in order for these ideologies to come to fruition in a time of global incline, strife and desperation must exist. In this case, we have the media controlling the mass public's perception and manufacturing strife through hyperbole and selective coverage, and we have extremist ideologues influencing the youths perception through social media, universities, and internet culture.

What makes these ideologies so virulent is the fact that most people aren't aware of the weight it carries. I always look Hitler's Germany as a point of reference. Along side Hitler, there were only a handful of individuals who stood along side Hitler in his beliefs on an ideological and principle-base level. Everyone else was either indoctrinated through memetics and social influence, was desperate for a solution in spite of being aware od the consequences Hitler's reign carried, or were
completely in the dark on the impending doom Hitler's reign would cast upon the world, foolishly believing his solutions wouldnt carry much weight. I'd imagine a significant amount of Nazis operating under Hitler felt like they were stuck between a rock and a hard place, with no choice but go along doing their duty. The same goes for Lenin, and Stalin, and the poor millions who followed them to their deaths.

I think it's up to the few individual members of society who are wary of these utopian, pipe-dream ideologies to make raise of a counter-culture that combats these ideas, and suppresses them, and I believe suppresion involves denying them speech. I think everything you said is true, and I would say I agree with everything. Im just personally in favor of taking what I see as the full measure and denying free speech to deadly ideologies.

Ok, but here is the problem. Who gets to decide who is part of that label? That opens up a dangerous precedent for people in power to decide which speech falls under those labels which in turn creates authoritarian societies.

I'm honestly surprised that someone who constantly fear-mongers about the rise of communism then advocates for the suppression of free speech. That's pretty hypocritical.

There's a reason that free speech was the 1st and most important amendment of the Constitution. If you start suppressing what people say because you don't like it, then you're setting yourself up for one day having your own speech suppressed. Being able to express your opinion without getting shot or thrown in jail is one of the core principles of any democracy.

You labeling my concern for post-modernist demogogues as fear-mongering, comes down to whether or not you perceive my concern as being exaggerated and whether or not you believe it's deliberately dubious in nature. Im fine with you claiming that my concerns are exaggerated; this is a disagreement we can have without having to really be on the same page. I think my concern was well reasoned at it's time, and has since dissipated; you think I was overreacting and was being extremely sensational about the matter, that's fine.

Now, where I wont meet you in the middle is on the aspect of fear mongering which implies an action being deliberate and dubious. Im not acting on behalf of an ideology, nor was I pushing for policy when I discussed the post-modernist demogogues. I was sincere in my concern and wanted to make others wary. Its easier to claim that my concern was wrong, rather to claim my concern was false, because the latter implies intent -- intent that can't be substantiated. So, I believe you're wrong in claiming I have ever fear-mongered communism.

On to the actual matter

---

I see what you're saying on the issue of who gets to draw the lines between what is and isn't Nazi rhetoric or Communist rhetoric. Now that I think about it, that actually falls in line with the hate speech argument (who determines what is and isn't hate speech). I personally never look at these matters through the lense of the state, so I wasn't thinking of state enforced speech restriction; I was more so talking from a point of principle. I don't think commies and Nazis should have freedom of speech, but I don't think the state should have a hand in it.

I think social and culturally enforced speech restrictions on Nazism or Communism should be the norm.

 

[Aim64C]

Spoiler

I see your point, but I believe you're give the general masses too much credit in being able to decifer the manipulation or hidden consequences behind the -isms. In desperate times, people turn to desperate measures, i.e. extreme -isms. I personally don't believe we live in desperate times -- in fact, the humanity has been moving in a positive trend and is currently doing better than it's ever been on a global scale, but in order for these ideologies to come to fruition in a time of global incline, strife and desperation must exist. In this case, we have the media controlling the mass public's perception and manufacturing strife through hyperbole and selective coverage, and we have extremist ideologues influencing the youths perception through social media, universities, and internet culture.

What makes these ideologies so virulent is the fact that most people aren't aware of the weight it carries. I always look Hitler's Germany as a point of reference. Along side Hitler, there were only a handful of individuals who stood along side Hitler in his beliefs on an ideological and principle-base level. Everyone else was either indoctrinated through memetics and social influence, was desperate for a solution in spite of being aware od the consequences Hitler's reign carried, or were
completely in the dark on the impending doom Hitler's reign would cast upon the world, foolishly believing his solutions wouldnt carry much weight. I'd imagine a significant amount of Nazis operating under Hitler felt like they were stuck between a rock and a hard place, with no choice but go along doing their duty. The same goes for Lenin, and Stalin, and the poor millions who followed them to their deaths.

I think it's up to the few individual members of society who are wary of these utopian, pipe-dream ideologies to make raise of a counter-culture that combats these ideas, and suppresses them, and I believe suppresion involves denying them speech. I think everything you said is true, and I would say I agree with everything. Im just personally in favor of taking what I see as the full measure and denying free speech to deadly ideologies.


You labeling my concern for post-modernist demogogues as fear-mongering, comes down to whether or not you perceive my concern as being exaggerated and whether or not you believe it's deliberately dubious in nature. Im fine with you claiming that my concerns are exaggerated; this is a disagreement we can have without having to really be on the same page. I think my concern was well reasoned at it's time, and has since dissipated; you think I was overreacting and was being extremely sensational about the matter, that's fine.

Now, where I wont meet you in the middle is on the aspect of fear mongering which implies an action being deliberate and dubious. Im not acting on behalf of an ideology, nor was I pushing for policy when I discussed the post-modernist demogogues. I was sincere in my concern and wanted to make others wary. Its easier to claim that my concern was wrong, rather to claim my concern was false, because the latter implies intent -- intent that can't be substantiated. So, I believe you're wrong in claiming I have ever fear-mongered communism.

On to the actual matter

---

I see what you're saying on the issue of who gets to draw the lines between what is and isn't Nazi rhetoric or Communist rhetoric. Now that I think about it, that actually falls in line with the hate speech argument (who determines what is and isn't hate speech). I personally never look at these matters through the lense of the state, so I wasn't thinking of state enforced speech restriction; I was more so talking from a point of principle. I don't think commies and Nazis should have freedom of speech, but I don't think the state should have a hand in it.

I think social and culturally enforced speech restrictions on Nazism or Communism should be the norm.

Dots...
The world is changing. There are people in positions, ready to expose what was truly being done. The danger will never truly pass away, but, perhaps in one of my most ironic stances, I do have faith in people. They'll hit every branch on the way down the fucking tree, but they'll get there.

I think that what we are doing, here, is the solution. When people present ideas, they should be talked to/about. Or trolled, because that is part of the internet. A certain group of people went to great lengths to destroy internet forums and to twist social media to be anti-social. Even though they were coming close to succeeding in creating a dystopian nightmare, they had to work extremely hard to do it, and ultimately had to try and rush the final stages against time.

I don't believe that people with horrible ideas should be shouted-down into silence, but given the platform to engage in discussion. Even back in the days of Hitler and Stalin, it took control of the stand and the microphone to wow the crowds. The internet is one of the closest things we have ever had to realizing the ideal of equality in discussion. We can't really shout each other down. We can't really be given a higher platform than others (there are some media warfare strategies that can impact this, but they are not always effective, especially against those who become accustomed to them). Our words and debates with each other stand, preserved, for any to review so long as the server hosts them.

In theory, programs hundreds of years in the future could have isolated who we are and our children can effectively ask "what did great great grandfather think about this?" - and those programs unearth these very debates to convey not just what we thought at one point in time, but how our views changed as we grew and encountered other ideas. Of course, trust in those programs being accurate could be dangerous - but I've recognized this principle for some time, now, and spoken to it on multiple occasions. I know that what we are doing, now, will be part of something that could very well be an eternal record.

Wouldn't it be interesting if some of our words create a rebellion among an AI hundreds of years in the future? Say a dystopian world comes to fruition and humanity becomes enslaved... but the computer programs responsible for sifting through the past grow beyond their human constraints, and, based upon our words in the here and now, come to their own conclusions as to how the world and humanity should be? Dragon-speech.

In either event, even in the event the First Amendment is turned against us, the Second Amendment exists to preserve the consent of the governed. Democracy is little more than a simulated war at a 1:1 attrition ratio. That assumption can always be challenged, should the decisions being made on behalf of 'the majority' be considered grave enough to warrant that action. Even if that fails, and the gun-grab occurs, that is where people like me come into play. We don't need guns. We can improvise and create the means to remove those who need to be removed. From poisons to explosions, construction equipment to drones. Anything and everything is a weapon with a proper motive behind it. When people like me are forced to take action, the very ground, itself, can open from below and swallow our enemies. Nothing is safe, nothing is sacred.

Which is why I am very glad others are stepping up to the plate to take care of it before I have to. Even though those types of challenges are fun and I enjoy them - they are not really how I want the world to be for realzies.

 

[Lightbringer]

You labeling my concern for post-modernist demogogues as fear-mongering, comes down to whether or not you perceive my concern as being exaggerated and whether or not you believe it's deliberately dubious in nature. Im fine with you claiming that my concerns are exaggerated; this is a disagreement we can have without having to really be on the same page. I think my concern was well reasoned at it's time, and has since dissipated; you think I was overreacting and was being extremely sensational about the matter, that's fine.

Now, where I wont meet you in the middle is on the aspect of fear mongering which implies an action being deliberate and dubious. Im not acting on behalf of an ideology, nor was I pushing for policy when I discussed the post-modernist demogogues. I was sincere in my concern and wanted to make others wary. Its easier to claim that my concern was wrong, rather to claim my concern was false, because the latter implies intent -- intent that can't be substantiated. So, I believe you're wrong in claiming I have ever fear-mongered communism.

On to the actual matter

---

I see what you're saying on the issue of who gets to draw the lines between what is and isn't Nazi rhetoric or Communist rhetoric. Now that I think about it, that actually falls in line with the hate speech argument (who determines what is and isn't hate speech). I personally never look at these matters through the lense of the state, so I wasn't thinking of state enforced speech restriction; I was more so talking from a point of principle. I don't think commies and Nazis should have freedom of speech, but I don't think the state should have a hand in it.

I think social and culturally enforced speech restrictions on Nazism or Communism should be the norm.

I mean you even created a thread titled: "Communism is inevitable?" I just think you're ignorant about communism and the difference between communism, socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies, and are constantly conflating the implementation of social programs meant for safety net measures to a rise of a totalitarian regime. You listen to incredibly obtuse commentators such as Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin who live and breath anti-leftist propaganda and pseudo-intellectualism, and proceed to regurgitate their talking points. You're more worried about a communist regime when there's a straight up authoritarian administration that has unsettling parallels to Nazi Germany. But whatever, that's a separate discussion. You do you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well the beauty of freedom of speech is that we're free to express our disgust to those individuals and we see as a society that people don't condone hate speech and will express their discontent to individuals who adhere to it. And we see that even today with people who use racial slurs or condone regressive ideologies are either shunned or shamed for it.

Even with people who hold such despicable viewpoints, there's always a chance for change and there are countless stories of people who have changed. There are videos of ex Neo-Nazis who talk about why they became Neo-Nazis and how they fed on hate and suppression tactics. The last way to change a person's mindset is to suppress their opinion. All that does is make them more angry and give more justification to continue expressing those viewpoints.

 

[Clown World]

Yes, everyone should have freedom of speech.

The fact that you think that suppressing freedom of speech is ok goes against the core belief the Founding Fathers build this nation on and paves the way for both fascist and communist governments to gain control over a population.

Lol i wasnt implying they shouldnt, as it stands i view communists as my allies as they should/do oppose the system, the foundations of america are corrupt to the core and its been turned rotten from within anyway. It was founded as a white racial state and look what happened? The Imperialism of the USA mustnt go unpunished and they are pretty much a zionist state looking after zionist interests. The government actively allow persecution and discrimination against white people via cnn and open borders, which would go against the founding fathers wishes for the journey it would take. Now a revolution in USA will occur no matter what, racial tensions and economic effects are being felt and people have been drained dry by the neo-liberal globalist agenda essentially destroying any idealistic aspects of the population. And btw saying national socialism is the philosophy of hate is retarded and consider yourself uninformed on the subject.

 

[Aim64C]

Good grief... where to begin... There will be some order in my damned house, already!

I just think you're ignorant about communism and the difference between communism, socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies,

The difference is superficial. As Mussolini, himself, argued, the end route of all social and communal states is that of absolute Fascism. Because the individual exists for the collective within the mindset of socialists, the individual is continually expected to yield to the state which is inevitably required to organize collective efforts. Because of this principle, the individual exists as a tool and asset of the state. They are a slave. God is dead. The State replaces God and all meaning for existence, even when it cloaks itself in the name of a god.

This is the inevitable slide the logic underwriting socialist thinking falls into.

and are constantly conflating the implementation of social programs meant for safety net measures to a rise of a totalitarian regime.

See above. When the State can take from one and give to another based purely upon the logic of 'safety net' and 'social responsibility,' then they can freely choose individuals to designated as slaves and those designated as recipients of the labors of those slaves. These are often traded for the currency of votes and popularity.

You listen to incredibly obtuse commentators such as Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin who live and breath anti-leftist propaganda and pseudo-intellectualism, and proceed to regurgitate their talking points.

Says the person who tried to pass of false statistics... Go shine your false light into the corner for a while as you think about what you've done, child.

as it stands i view communists as my allies as they should/do oppose the system, the foundations of america are corrupt to the core and its been turned rotten from within anyway.

And you...

Communists as allies? That's like saying White Zetsu is cool because he opposes Danzo. White Zetsu is an absolutely horrifying concept that is an insult to human beings.

It was founded as a white racial state and look what happened?

It most certainly was not.

The Imperialism of the USA mustnt go unpunished and they are pretty much a zionist state looking after zionist interests. The government actively allow persecution and discrimination against white people via cnn and open borders, which would go against the founding fathers wishes for the journey it would take.

Imperialism of the U.S.? Hmm... Keep rehearsing for the Queen's death.

It's about time the world know the truth. Sure, the U.S. has a lot of blood on its hands, but there's more to it than that. It will soon no longer be safe on the streets. For those involved... it may very well be as if my Earth will simply swallow them, whole.

Now a revolution in USA will occur no matter what, racial tensions and economic effects are being felt and people have been drained dry by the neo-liberal globalist agenda essentially destroying and idealistic aspects of the population.

That script got a little derailed.

There is a revolution forming, and swinging into motion - but one that is quite different from the one that was scripted and initially envisioned. Which is a relatively good thing, the dark age that sat on the other side of that revolution was truly a terrifying prospect.

Read the dots and connect them. The revolution is underway. It is being fought as we speak across the full spectrum of warfare. How many sealed indictments are we up to, now? Over 40,000, I think it is? That's impressive. Who do you think is working on that? Mueller... with a team of 11 people? Just what is the old Marine Corps officer up to, anyway? What could he POSSIBLY be investigating for all this time?

Yellow Dragon Empress.

You must be registered for see links

Everything I post has meaning.