1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | bottom
Quote# 135955

As far as I can make out, the Genie is out of the bottle right? The six million lie debunking is ALL OVER the internet. Its still all over Youtube FFS which is meant to be censored these days. Videos showing the numerous '6 million' references in Jewish owned newspapers pre WW2 and showing its origins in the Talmudic prophecy of 6 million jews to "vanish" before the Messiah can return.

So my question is, as this becomes mainstream outside of Germany first, it then must become mainstream inside Germany despite the Left inspired "Fascist" anti free speech policies currently oppressing those poor German folks. When that happens, how angry will they get? When you think about the MASS guilt, the reparations etc etc etc .... they are going livid right? And rightly so! There is literally going to be HELL to pay for?

If you read Nick Kollerstrom "Breaking The Spell" it's all laid out. ALso these guys seems to be the main scholarly alternative to lie that still dominates the PC conciousness of the current fascist orthodoxy:-

Many of these books I think you can get for free from the site.

So what are people views? Do you agree that this will eventually become mainstream in Germany, and when it does what will happen? How will native Germans react? Apparently the current leftist PC fascist regime in Germany under Jewess Angela Merkel has implemented new rules recently whereby there are colossal fines for anything posted online that isn't inline with the PC thought prison that Germans are now subject to. German men in the vital demographic of 20 - 34 WILL BE A MINORITY under current migration rates. FOLKS, our German Brothers and Sisters need our help NOW, not next month or year, NOW!

KT1, Stormfront 1 Comments [1/15/2018 2:39:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135989

Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property

Whether we’re talking about illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, or birthright citizenship, or the migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa, the subject of immigration has been in the news and widely discussed for months now. It is an issue fraught with potentially perilous consequences, so it is especially important for libertarians to understand it correctly.

This Mises Circle, which is devoted to a consideration of where we ought to go from here, seems like an opportune moment to take up this momentous question.

I should note at the outset that in searching for the correct answer to this vexing problem I do not seek to claim originality. To the contrary, I draw much of what follows from two of the people whose work is indispensable to a proper understanding of the free society: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Some libertarians have assumed that the correct libertarian position on immigration must be “open borders,” or the completely unrestricted movement of people. Superficially, this appears correct: surely we believe in letting people go wherever they like!

But hold on a minute. Think about “freedom of speech,” another principle people associate with libertarians. Do we really believe in freedom of speech as an abstract principle? That would mean I have the right to yell all during a movie, or the right to disrupt a Church service, or the right to enter your home and shout obscenities at you.

What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.

The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z’s private island. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.

Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.

When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky, and it takes extra effort to uncover the proper libertarian position. I’d like to try to do that today.

Shortly before his death, Murray Rothbard published an article called “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State.” He had begun rethinking the assumption that libertarianism committed us to open borders.

He noted, for instance, the large number of ethnic Russians whom Stalin settled in Estonia. This was not done so that Baltic people could enjoy the fruits of diversity. It never is. It was done in an attempt to destroy an existing culture, and in the process to make a people more docile and less likely to cause problems for the Soviet empire.

Murray wondered: does libertarianism require me to support this, much less to celebrate it? Or might there be more to the immigration question after all?

And here Murray posed the problem just as I have: in a fully private-property society, people would have to be invited onto whatever property they traveled through or settled on.

If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no person could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. and Western Europe really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.


In the current situation, on the other hand, immigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on. Combine this with the state’s other curtailments of private property rights, and the result is artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market. Property owners are forced to associate and do business with individuals they might otherwise avoid.

“Commercial property owners such as stores, hotels, and restaurants are no longer free to exclude or restrict access as they see fit,” writes Hans. “Employers can no longer hire or fire who they wish. In the housing market, landlords are no longer free to exclude unwanted tenants. Furthermore, restrictive covenants are compelled to accept members and actions in violation of their very own rules and regulations.”

Hans continues:

By admitting someone onto its territory, the state also permits this person to proceed on public roads and lands to every domestic resident’s doorsteps, to make use of all public facilities and services (such as hospitals and schools), and to access every commercial establishment, employment, and residential housing, protected by a multitude of nondiscrimination laws.


It is rather unfashionable to express concern for the rights of property owners, but whether the principle is popular or not, a transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to. This is the very core of libertarian principle.

In order to make sense of all this and reach the appropriate libertarian conclusion, we have to look more closely at what public property really is and who, if anyone, can be said to be its true owner. Hans has devoted some of his own work to precisely this question. There are two positions we must reject: that public property is owned by the government, or that public property is unowned, and is therefore comparable to land in the state of nature, before individual property titles to particular parcels of land have been established.

Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything. Government acquires its property by force, usually via the intermediary of taxation. A libertarian cannot accept that kind of property acquisition as morally legitimate, since it involves the initiation of force (the extraction of tax dollars) on innocent people. Hence government’s pretended property titles are illegitimate.

But neither can we say that public property is unowned. Property in the possession of a thief is not unowned, even if at the moment it does not happen to be held by the rightful owner. The same goes for so-called public property. It was purchased and developed by means of money seized from the taxpayers. They are the true owners.

(This, incidentally, was the correct way to approach de-socialization in the former communist regimes of eastern Europe. All those industries were the property of the people who had been looted to build them, and those people should have received shares in proportion to their contribution, to the extent it could have been determined.)

In an anarcho-capitalist world, with all property privately owned, “immigration” would be up to each individual property owner to decide. Right now, on the other hand, immigration decisions are made by a central authority, with the wishes of property owners completely disregarded. The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so that we approach ever more closely the proper libertarian position, in which individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples.

Ralph Raico, our great libertarian historian, once wrote:

Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”


Switzerland is in fact an interesting example. Before the European Union got involved, the immigration policy of Switzerland approached the kind of system we are describing here. In Switzerland, localities decided on immigration, and immigrants or their employers had to pay to admit a prospective migrant. In this way, residents could better ensure that their communities would be populated by people who would add value and who would not stick them with the bill for a laundry list of “benefits.”

Obviously, in a pure open borders system, the Western welfare states would simply be overrun by foreigners seeking tax dollars. As libertarians, we should of course celebrate the demise of the welfare state. But to expect a sudden devotion to laissez faire to be the likely outcome of a collapse in the welfare state is to indulge in naïveté of an especially preposterous kind.

Can we conclude that an immigrant should be considered “invited” by the mere fact that he has been hired by an employer? No, says Hans, because the employer does not assume the full cost associated with his new employee. The employer partially externalizes the costs of that employee on the taxpaying public:

Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private associate is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever.


These migrations, in short, are not market outcomes. They would not occur on a free market. What we are witnessing are examples of subsidized movement. Libertarians defending these mass migrations as if they were market phenomena are only helping to discredit and undermine the true free market.

Moreover, as Hans points out, the “free immigration” position is not analogous to free trade, as some libertarians have erroneously claimed. In the case of goods being traded from one place to another, there is always and necessarily a willing recipient. The same is not true for “free immigration.”

To be sure, it is fashionable in the US to laugh at words of caution about mass immigration. Why, people made predictions about previous waves of immigration, we’re told, and we all know those didn’t come true. Now for one thing, those waves were all followed by swift and substantial immigration reductions, during which time society adapted to these pre-welfare state population movements. There is virtually no prospect of any such reductions today. For another, it is a fallacy to claim that because some people incorrectly predicted a particular outcome at a particular time, therefore that outcome is impossible, and anyone issuing words of caution about it is a contemptible fool.

The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The twentieth century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.

No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 — coincided with periods of mass immigration.

Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.

In other words, it’s bad enough we have to be looted, spied on, and kicked around by the state. Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?

The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.

It is impossible to believe that the US or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration. Given the immigration patterns that the US and EU governments encourage, the long-term result will be to make the constituencies for continued government growth so large as to be practically unstoppable. Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.; various Randroids, Mises Institute 2 Comments [1/15/2018 5:51:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 135912

I suppose that I’m what you’d call a lurker- I’ve been following this forum with interest for some time, and have often felt tempted to add my comments but have never felt irresolutely moved to do so until now. What has prompted me to put digital pen to virtual paper is this thread, which I think is THE definitive introduction to and precis of niggerology. If the subject were taught in schools, which it should be, in my opinion (some hope, I know!) I would make some of the posts on here part of the foundation course.

I have never considered myself a racist in the sense of being prejudiced against any race. Indeed, I know people from all parts of the world: Oriental, Asian, Hispanic- many of whom are good friends. I’m also married to one of them! Acknowledgement of the difference between races, is OK, whether you’re referring to physical appearance or behavioural tendencies, and I know that my lovely Malaysian neighbour and my Hispanic wife would agree.

Whether the nigger is a race or a species is a matter of genetics, a subject of which I have very little knowledge, so I can’t express an informed opinion. It’s convenient though, as far as I’m concerned, to use the word “human” to refer to any non-nigger humanoid. In that sense, I am a racist, in that I class niggers as a separate group from the rest of humanity, inherently of low intelligence, violent and anti-social. So, what made me aware of the difference?

There are two main themes that crop up again and again on this forum:

1. A well-balanced, unbiased, liberal-minded individual, with no particular opinions about niggers, because he or she has grown up in an unfuxated area, moves to a fuxated town or city and becomes a niggermaniac within weeks, if not days.

2. A like-minded individual is put into a situation where he/she has to work with niggers, leading to the same result.

Both of these apply to me. I live in London, UK, in an outlying 100% nigger-free suburb, which is one of the reasons my wife and I moved here. Previously, we lived in a more central area, which was gradually becoming overcome with the feral beasts. It was the happiest day of our lives when we moved out. Before that, I grew up in a moderately large town which was also virtually uncoontaminated. We have a very small nigger population in Britain- in the region of 3-4%, and, following the principle of like attracting like, it tends to be concentrated in certain areas, mainly inner-city ghettos. (Niggers will turn any area into a ghetto, as we all know.) Therefore, it’s possible to lead one’s entire life in most parts of Britain without encountering more than an occasional nigger, as I did up until I hit my mid-forties.

I’ve worked for most of my life in the broadcast production industry, where strict, immovable deadlines and occasional long days and missed weekends are the norm. At the time we first moved to London, I was working for a small independent company, owned and run by humans, but with a nigger manager supervising me. This creature did everything in its power to make all our lives as difficult as possible. A favourite trick was to reschedule work so that an important project would be in danger of over-running because we were concentrating on trivial, low-priority tasks, then complaining that the main work was not being done. It would criticise us for the slightest mistake (often caused by having to rush the job to get it finished) invent non-existent problems… I could write a long, long list.

It became normal for me to have to start work at 7 am and work through to midnight, just to get a project up and running on schedule. Naturally, my health suffered, and, looking back, I was probably on the verge of a breakdown. Along with others, I frequently complained to the senior management, who were understanding. The problem was that our employment laws here are so strict that, unless it could be shown that the nigger had committed some gross criminal act, it was virtually impossible for it to be fired. Then there are our race relation laws. If it had shouted “Racist!” the company would have faced a long and very expensive legal battle, which could have cost tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds.

An old, and oft-repeated story I know… One day I decided that I’d had enough, went to see the senior manager and quietly informed him that I was leaving then and there. I walked out of the job that I loved and to which I was dedicated, even though I had nothing else to go to, though fortunately I was not unemployed for long. If living in a fuxated area had not already made me a niggermaniac, my experience in this job would have. This is quite a long first post, so I’d like to close here by offering sincere thanks to all who administer and contribute to this forum, particularly those who have offered their invaluable insights on this particular thread.

Mr. Fox, Niggermania 8 Comments [1/12/2018 11:26:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135929

If Hitler Won World War II We'd Have A Better, More Just World Today

[...]

Alternatively, if Hitler had won World War II and then exercised a Nationalist 'Sphere of Influence' over the greater Western World, we'd have a more just, fair, and moral Western World today. The rest of the world would have similarly benefited had the Germans been victorious since German influence would have surely spread elsewhere (ideas such as non-usurious banking and strong family oriented culture would likely have spread globally).

Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post war world? Here are a few examples:

1 - No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign - to study this topic read the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region for lebensraum, "living space")

2 - No cold war (because there would be no USSR)

3 - No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism - this was part of Stalin's spoils of war)

4 - No Red China and Mao's subsequent killing of 40 - 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao's Communists which ultimately led to Mao's victory over Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory)

5 - No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh)

6 - No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot's slaughter of 2 million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot)

7 - No dividing Korea into North Korea & South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist... another of Stalin's spoils of war)

8 - No Communist Cuba (given the previous, what support would Castro have had in the 1950's?)

9 - No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world's most fervent anti-Communist)

10 - Liberalism & multiculturalism wouldn't dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism... at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today)

11 - No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering "tools" which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School)

12 - No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn't be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation's liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B'nai B'rith)

13 - No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn't run Hollywood)

14 - No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of "Freedom of Speech")

15 - There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called "separation of church and state," something that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)

16 - No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem, among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism)

17 - No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on the Palestinians

18 - Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland)

James L. Miller, Ph.D, Immigration, Globalization, Political Correctness: The Jewish Elites Attack On The Western World 8 Comments [1/12/2018 3:10:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: The Reptilian Jew

Quote# 135970

In 1990, Keith Tharpe ambushed and assaulted his ex-wife and shot and killed her sister, Jacquelin Freeman. A few months later, a jury convicted him of those crimes and unanimously voted in favor of a death sentence.

He was set to be executed on Sept. 26 when his lawyers presented to the Supreme Court a statement from Barney Gattie, one of the jurors in Tharpe’s case.

Gattie had spoken to defense lawyers in 1998 and said he saw “two types of black people,” some of whom were “nice black folks” like Freeman and her family. He used the n-word to characterize the others.

“I felt Tharpe, who wasn’t in the ‘good’ black folks category in my book, should get the electric chair for what he did… After studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls,” according to Gattie’s statement.

Barney Gatti, LA Times 4 Comments [1/14/2018 3:14:32 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Damned at Random

Quote# 135961

END MISCEGENATION: 92% of biracial children with black dads are out of wedlock.

"Once you go black, you're a single mom."

One of those perpetual "racist stereotypes" is of the deadbeat, lazy, idiot black father who throws his responsibility away for gang violence and malt liquor. And it turns out to be completely true. 9 times out of 10, a black man will see no need to foster his biracial child to become a proper member of society.

And yet they still see more action than us.

END RACE MIXING NOW. Every white woman who fucks a black guy means a denial of service to a civilization positive, white Incel. Worshiping the BBC, or even entertaining the idea, should be punished as severely as child abuse - because its literally the exact same thing.

The races are not equal, gentlemen. And the upstanding, intelligent, loyal black man is the exception, not the rule.

TheIncelPill, incels.me 5 Comments [1/14/2018 12:46:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135957

Firstly, there weren't any "death camps" those were prison work camps and the prisoners there were criminals. Most of the prisoners were Germans do you believe that Hitler was attempting to round up all the Germans and exterminate them? There were more jews in the German army fighting against the jewish communist Russian army than there were jewish criminals locked away in the prison work camps.

The prisoners were being used as labor, such as in the assembly of assault rifles and other war materials, Hitler wanted those laborers alive to work for him. The death of many prisoners was due to the allied bombing campaign, which caused the starvation of German elderly, women, children, soldiers, and also prisoners, then disease took those weak from starvation.

After the war was over the allies intentionally starved to death about another 2 million Germans, in peace time, after the German military had surrendered-- that is the real genocide (plus the targeting of women and children by allied bombers) in Germany. It is the German people who were the victims of a planned genocide, then the survivors are told that they are guilty for a different genocide which never happened.

14_words_of_truth, Stormfront 1 Comments [1/14/2018 12:44:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135829

(This fundie seriously thinks that Josef Mengele was working to help Jewish people)

He was the reason why there were so many survivors.
Unfortunately the jews needed an evil doctor character for the Auschwitz portion of their epic Holocaust story and he was picked for the roll.
They couldn't pick one of the many many jewish doctors that worked in the camp hospital, it had to be the Gentile doctor or the prophecy of six million jews dying at the hands of the Gentiles falls flat.
Think about it, just about all the German doctors and nurses must have been tied up serving on two fronts patching up their own people.
The concentration camp medical staffs had to be mostly jews.
Doctor Mengele couldn't have worked alone, so if the jews say he was conducting inhuman experiments on people then his jewish doctors had to be involved as well.

eyzwydopen, Stormfront 6 Comments [1/8/2018 4:30:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135886

[Lyrics of "(Over) 99 N**ers lyrics]

[INTRO]
If you're having nigga problems I feel bad for you son
I killed over 99 niggers, and this bitch is one

[VERSE 1]
I got niggers here on the KKK patrol
Get out ho, cause I'm 'bout to blow
Nigga and spics say I'm
(A fucking asshole)
Well I'm from the Klan where they break niggers' bones
If you grew up with black skin I say, "Woah!"
If you worked at a job you probably got no dough
I'm like, fuck niggers, you can kiss my whole asshole
Alright nigga, you're about to go [gunshot]
Got beef with feminists, I scream "Fuck hoes"
They don't suck my dick
(Women aren't whores, so)
The KKK says that life's a drag
When niggers can buy lots of White ass, fuckers
I don't know what niggers take me as
Or understand the intelligence that Moon Man has
I'm from McDonalds to KKK nigga, I ain't done
I killed over 99 niggers, and this bitch is one

[Chorus]
Over 99 niggers, and this bitch is one
If you're having nigga problems I feel bad for you son
I killed over 99 niggers, and this bitch is one

[VERSE 2]
The year is '73, and I'm with Christopher Nash
I'm in Colfax, hunting some black ass
I find this nigga girl; either I could kill her, or
Do it after I fuck her on the floor
Now I don't wanna be disrespectful to the KKK
But I had a dick, so I could fuck her face
So I pull off her clothes and I ask real slow
"Bitch, do you know what I'm raping you for?"

(Audrina)
Cause I'm young and I'm black and my ass is real low
Do I look like a mind-reader, sir? I don't know

(Moon Man)
Well you're right bitch, so let's not guess no more

(Audrina)
Who do you think I am?

[Moon Man]
You fucking slut, I think you're my whore
Now pull off that bra and those panties too
Are you carrying a knife so I can cut off those boobs?

(Audrina)
I ain't doing any of this shit

(Moon Man)
Bitch lick my dick
And while we're at it, let me fuck you wasted as shit

(Sun Man)
Well I ain't gonna let you screw my wife
Or cut her boobs off with a knife

(Moon Man)
Well fuck you nigga don't give me that crap

(Sun Man)
Get the hell out of here before I hit you with a baseball bat

(Moon Man)
Nah I won't back down to this bitch-ass nigga
And aimed my Glock at him
I said, "Say hello to Satan" [gunshot]
I've killed over 99 niggers, and this bitch is one

MoonMan, AZ Lyrics 3 Comments [1/12/2018 11:17:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 135911

I'm so glad to be a part of this. Great question asked and I've read many wonderful answers.

Me: I'm definetly not racist, I'm Just a regular person who sees niggers for what they really are.

I had learned very quickly at 10yrs old when my parents switched me from catholic school (no niggers allowed)to public school(full of niggers)that niggers were filthy,intellectually inferior, violent animals. I firmly believe niggers are direct descendants of gorillas and chimpanzees. Look closely at their physical features and mannerisms.

I have to admit that I was fortunate enough to learn first hand what niggers were all about at a young age.

fatlip, Niggermania 2 Comments [1/12/2018 11:26:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135909

Acting ICE director Thomas Homan, who will become the permanent head of the agency if President Trump has his way, thinks it’s time to start arresting politicians in sanctuary cities and charging them with crimes.

In an interview Tuesday with Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto, Homan said political leaders in sanctuary cities, which don’t cooperate with ICE officials looking to make immigration arrests, are breaking the law when they “knowingly shield and harbor an illegal alien.”

“That is a violation of 8 USC 1324. That’s an alien-smuggling statute. I’ve asked the Department of Justice to look at this,” he said. “Can we hold them accountable? Are they violating federal law?”

When Cavuto pressed Homan on what he’d do if the Justice Department decides that federal law is being violated, he suggested that politicians be held “personally accountable.”

“We’ve got to take these sanctuary cities on. We’ve got to take them to court and we’ve got to start charging some of these politicians with crimes.”

Thomas Homan, New York Magazine 1 Comments [1/12/2018 11:25:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 135907

I don’t think exclusively dating oriental women is an alt-right rite of passage at all.

It’s perhaps a nerd right of passage, and there’s considerable overlap here.

I had one Asian girlfriend, and it was prior to becoming a committed racist. I was also interested in white women at the time and never had any kind of exclusive yellow fever.

I do still slam zipper pussy when it’s available (proud member of the bleach right), but I only date white women now.

Thorfinnsson, Unz 2 Comments [1/12/2018 11:24:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 135854

Most European cinema is made with government subsidies. This makes it particularly pernicious since it is resistant to commercial imperatives. Fortunately, most European films are so bad no one wants to watch them. Hollywood is a different story. There the Jews are in control and have diabolically weaponised the art of story-telling against us. We can at least hope for a consumer revolt against them there since they’re operating in the private sector. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but in the last few years there may have been signs of goy rebellion as Alt Right consciousness spreads and Jews have jumped the shark by laying the propaganda on too thick.

It would help fan the flames of this goy revolt if we had an Alt Right equivalent of the IMDB where you could get a quick deconstruction of the propaganda content of the film before watching it. One reason Netflix shut down their review option, I suspect, was that white people had started pushing back there in the comments.

The reviews/analysis on the site wouldn’t need to be too in-depth. A quick take would often be enough.

For example, for “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”.

Jew producer Rem Bergman (Israeli). Reckless young white man rebel gets lots of people killed by evil, white-skinned imperial baddies. Purple-haired, feminist-type white woman takes charge and reprimands him. But she is clueless and doesn’t know what to do. A negro and fat Asian chick come up with a plan to save everyone. The negro is a coward but the Slope encourages him to man up. A young white chick goes to an old white guy to learn wisdom. He is weak, feckless; given up; thinks he is useless and doesn’t care anymore. She persuades him to try again. He teaches her stuff. In the end, the white chick, the negro and fat Asian bitch and a “diverse” crew of helpers confront the evil white imperials and defeat their plans.


Obviously, this would have to set up on a platform that was resistant to censorship, open to input from unknown outsiders, with some kind of approval process for entries to exclude infiltration by the Left. Sort of like the “far-right” Wikipedia equivalents.

Ultimately, a people defines its self-image through the stories it tells. By hijacking the apparatus of our collective dream manufacture, the Jews have been able to sap our spirit and warp our sense of right and wrong. An Alt Right IMDB would let us set up our very own Culture of Critique through which we could begin the process of deprogramming the Matrix.

czakal, Wordpress 9 Comments [1/10/2018 10:14:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Quote# 133196

(This is Stormfront's self-description.)

We are a community of racial realists and idealists. We are White Nationalists who support true diversity and a homeland for all peoples. Thousands of organizations promote the interests, values and heritage of non-White minorities. We promote ours. We are the voice of the new, embattled White minority!

Stormfront, Stormfront 2 Comments [10/19/2017 12:53:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135875

A Kansas state legislator has stepped down from the chairmanship of a Kansas House committee after he said African-Americans were more susceptible to marijuana because of "their character makeup" and "their genetics."

Republican state Rep. Steve Alford made the remarks Saturday to a small gathering in Garden City, Kansas. He was making the case against Kansas legalizing marijuana -- just as its neighbor, Colorado, has done.

As he walked through the history of why marijuana was prohibited, he said: "One of the reasons why, I hate to say it, was that the African-Americans, they were basically users and they basically responded the worst off to those drugs just because of their character makeup, their genetics and that."

KS Rep. Steve Alford, CNN.com 2 Comments [1/10/2018 11:26:31 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas

Quote# 100677

Almost 100 Hate Crime Killings Linked To One Website: Report

A white supremacist site has blood on its hands, according to a new report.

Stormfront.org is linked to close to 100 killings in the last five years, the Southern Poverty Law Center found.

From the Guardian:

The White Nationalist web forum Stormfront.org says it promotes values of “the embattled white minority,” and its users include Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in a 2011 massacre in Norway, and Wade Michael Page, who shot and killed six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in 2012.

The SPLC said ten murderers had links to Stormfront.

"It’s pretty clear that websites like Stormfront are breeding grounds for people who are just enraged at their situation, it’s there that people find the reasons their lives aren’t as they had hoped and Stormfront helps them find the enemy that is standing in their way – whether it be Jews, African Americans, immigrants and so on,” Heidi Beirich, report author and a director at the SPLC’s Intelligence Project told the Guardian. “Unfortunately it’s not very surprising that people who live in this kind of stew of violent racism eventually pick up a gun and do something about it at some point.”

NBC News reports that Frazier Glenn Cross, the man accused of killing three people at two Jewish community sites in suburban Kansas City on April 13, was barred from Stormfront because of disagreements with the site's founder.

The report calls Stormfront the "murder capital of the Internet." SPLC's research shows the site typically only gets about 1,800 visits a day, half of which are people outside the U.S.

But the site has a core group of very active users, and Stormfront's "bias-related murder rate" accelerated significantly after Barack Obama became president, the report found.

Earlier this week, CNN reported that, in America, people who follow far-right wing ideologies have been responsible for more killings than Islamic extremists since September 11.

CNN notes that, according to a count by the New America Foundation, "right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11" whereas "terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11."

Stormfront.org, Huffington Post 14 Comments [4/25/2014 3:26:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: HeWhoDoubts

Quote# 134952

For which I will NEVER forgive the Jews, and I will see to it that justice is served in the end. I will make it my life's ultimate mission and purpose to destroy Jewish influence wherever and however I can.

The Jew should have no opportunity for respite outside of Israel. None whatsoever. We can act within the law and still make a difference.

But when we WRITE the laws -- THEN the Jews better run! Because I would like to see them tried for all their crimes, for which the only just punishment is hanging in most cases. But don't get me wrong! I'm all for fair trials, and I oppose violence. We must be civilized, even if the Jews are not.

w41n4m01n3n, Stormfront 9 Comments [12/8/2017 6:36:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135842



/pol/ News Network Unleashed, Twitter 10 Comments [1/9/2018 4:54:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 135865

The writer of the NY Times article summed up her own purpose best: “…I have acted out in all manner of ways to dispel the “model minority” image.” Obviously, she wrote the article simply to hit as many buttons as possible.

Since this discussion has included talk of Asian women generally… I can offer a little of my own experience. I’ve dated Chinese-Americans (3), Vietnamese-American (1), and Japanese (1). The Japanese woman was an exchange student in the US temporarily. The others were raised in the US.

My experience is that Asian women can be attractive from a distance but less so up close and personal. They meet a lot of today’s beauty expectations naturally – slim petite figure, long hair, low volume voice. Those qualities can be kryptonite for a lot of men. It’s usually not till they hit their 40s that their bodies balloon out and they start cutting their hair short. When younger, their slim body shape is not something they work at – it just happens. For example, the Vietnamese girl weighed only 102 pounds (unusually thin) but really thought she’d look a lot better at 105 pounds for some reason. This was extremely important to her. But no matter how much she stuffed herself her body would revert to 102.

Unfortunately for the writer of the article, a lot of the attractive qualities are built into the biology of Asian women, and that isn’t going to change.

On the other hand, the behavior of the Asian women could be difficult, to put it mildly. While all were low-key and quiet under normal circumstances, they could be tough as nails when it came to demanding their own way. The Chinese-Americans, in particular, had a hard edge, and often had little empathy for others. That included little empathy towards white men, by the way. When angered or upset, they all got loud quickly, with their voices having a screechy quality.

There were differences among them depending on the country of origin. That factor seemed to affect even the US-born ones. Not all Asian women/cultures are alike.

One other point: There’s a stark difference in self-regard between Asian women raised in the US and Asian women in Asia itself. With the former, they soon learn as girls in school that they are special to white boys and later to white men (which in fact they are). Asian women raised in Asia, by contrast, are surrounded their entire lives with other women of the same body type (slim when young), and hair (dark and long). Thus the latter don’t necessarily grow up thinking of themselves as special. Like the average white woman in the US, she has no reason to think of herself as particularly attractive compared to other white women.

What is the point of all that? If you’re going to date Asian women, maybe Asia is a better place to meet and date Asian women than the US. Also, pick your origin-country carefully, even for US-born Asian women.

Rexxous, Lion of the Blogosphere  3 Comments [1/10/2018 2:51:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 135862

I disagree. It’s not good to mix genes that didn’t evolve to work together. It breaks down coadapted gene complexes. In fact, the negative effects actually get worse with successive generations. That’s one of those things that experts don’t like to talk about because it’s “racist”. But studies show mixed people have much higher rates of genetic disease; physical diseases but especially mental illness. Which is what one would expect since genetic studies show the human brain has undergone the most evolution over the last 10,000 years.

Destructure, Lion of the Blogosphere 5 Comments [1/10/2018 2:19:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 135488

A mulattress divorcée (from a Jew!) isn't really prime real-estate in the monarchical meat market -- but apparently anything goes these days...

I suppose there'll soon be a Muslim member of the royal family (inspired by 'Victoria and Abdul') -- and soon Britain will have a goat prince or princess!

Once the floodgates (read: mudgates) have been opened, there's no easy going back.

I'm appalled by Harry's lack of taste and decorum.

w41n4m01n3n, Stormfront 5 Comments [12/25/2017 6:51:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 134589

It is indeed sad that the campfire and fireplace have been replaced by the Satanic "fire" of the Talmudvision, with each pixel of the LED TV spewing out filth and eroding the Aryan character of our children, youth, and adults alike. Staring into the fire is an atavistic thing, something that we used to do for countless millennia, until television was invented, and then hijacked by (((The Tribe))).

w41n4m01n3n, Stormfront 2 Comments [11/27/2017 3:01:09 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135857

So the people who have mass immigrated to the lower mainland and destroyed the housing market and made walking across the street in Vancouver almost impossible without getting hit by an Asian in a Lexus with an N magnet on the back wanna now complain how we were a lol racist in the 90s. Oh I feel so bad for u . Try being white in Vancouver right now.


Michael Newby, Huffpost 2 Comments [1/10/2018 2:18:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 133071

I'm pretty sure the Jews have infiltrated this site and are pushing all manner of ridiculous conspiracy theories from Flat Earth to Faked Moon Landings. They do this in order to hurt our credibility when it comes to other conspiracy theories that are spot on.

I think it would behoove us to focus on the three main conspiracies, which are very real: The Holohoax, 9/11 and White Genocide

Even if there are others that might be on to something, we have enough convincing to do when it comes to these three. And I would argue that these are also the most important ones to popularize, as the more people believe our interpretation of these events, the more it will hurt the Jews.

w41n4m01n3n, Stormfront 2 Comments [10/16/2017 3:18:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135273

Burning books is rarely acceptable. Only Jewish filth and poison and pornography deserves to be burnt.

I think there are basically two paths for any civilization (terrestrial or not). They can become like angels/demigods, or they can choose to become demons. But that is only a description of their nature. For instance, some people are outright demonic, i.e. they behave like demons. It doesn't mean that they actually are demons.

And NS Germany was like a nation of demigods compared to the Negroes in Africa. I own some Hebrew texts that are a few centuries old, but am I going to burn them because they are written by Jews? Of course not!

w41n4m01n3n, Stormfront 3 Comments [12/18/2017 9:16:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Katie
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | top