«12. . .10,66310,66410,66510,66610,66710,66810,669. . .27,59427,595»
Why do you support incompetence? While I agree that overlords are necessary, why do you want them to be completely incompetent and run this world to the ground? They have suppressed so many things, ruined so many people, destroyed so many cultures, and in the end, they did not even handle a small pandemic properly. Not even able to kill as many which were required to slow down global warming neither could they make money out of it and they are a million years away from introducing extra terrestrials in this planet.
Thule, which was destroyed by ruling elite forcing many to go underground, would have handled all this in a much efficient way. To lower population, they bring in gender issues, but that has only resulted in population explosion of the unworthies whose genetic makeup is subpar and they are a liability towards the planet.
Don’t do anything against the ruling elites but observe how they destroy the planet more or how they make people even more stupid.
Namapia and Cains conspirators
Its not incompetence, it is very intentional.
You do not need the world to be full of high-quality individuals if they merely serve you, the elites do, and always have, empower themselves first and foremost. All else is secondary; it serves to them as extension of will.
Heres a nationstates friendly version of my views on the matter:
"Old elites" are different than "New elites," but both are "Elitist-Racialists"
The former had qualities of physical and spiritual strength, but emotional weakness
The latter have qualities of genetic sickliness, but cognitive strength. Shall we say, cunning, sly.
Neither is inferior or superior per se, other than in their respective areas; as those respective areas only arose out of necessity in response to other areas. None the less, the implications are blindngly obvious, with the populous in this narrative serving as mere extension of will:
Eugenics and social programming are implemented in both case, but the end goals differs
One of them "lifts up," the other one, seeking to lift up itself, sees its goal to lower the rest of the world
By that logic terrorist groups have the right to do whatever they please, as long as it is in their interests
Governments are literally terrorist groups. Yes, they do, it is fully their right, but it is also other entities right to fight them. Granted I think most terrorist groups are psyops. ISIL for example, pretty common argument but, the camera footage is shot WAAY too well
They were also against Israel, but not once attacked them. If you look into the matter [i would not suggest you get involved in this type of sh1t though], you may notice numerous behind-the-scenes economic connections between the U. S. of A., Israel, and our 'Islamic-State'
Terrorism = Government psyop
I think I’m missing something here
Well by definition terrorism is a psyop. It is the use of an emotion to influence public opinion, in this case, fear.
However im basically implying they are made up by governments to give justification to fight war for profit, though not all of them, and generally the groups which are labeled terrorist organizations which sprung up naturally have a more legitimate reason for their doing so. Certainly more legitimate than the motives of the US.
Consider the actions of the CIA, for example, or how the Allies treated the Germans after the war... no political entity is free of blood, and it is true that "the victor wrote history." Dont misconstrue my 'allies' statement as support for the axis though, rather, im equating their actions
You are implying that all terrorism is government sponsored, including domestic terrorism
Also that rant went nowhere, except for you attempting(?) to justify terrorism
Ask Russia
What?
What?
Not all, but most. ISIL in particular is an example I stand by.
Consider on the other hand, the IRA or Al-Qaeda. Both of these groups employed inhumane tactics, but unlike ISIL, they understood that a certain measure of brutality becomes counterproductive. Terror certainly works, though, it cannot last. Consider the situation in Stalinist Russia of some past.
Also note that im saying, that 'terrorism is justified,' is equivalent to say that NO terrorism is justified if we consider governments to be terrorist groups, which, they are. Our stripes-and-stars have seen more bodies stacked under it than were under the hakenkreuz.
Thus, if you stand by any such entity, you cannot deny the right of other such entities to do the same.
I should add also, that, in our enemy, often do we see parts of ourselves which we would like to label our "opposite," and that is why we hate them, the easiest, most apparent example I can provide is as follows:
"All men are arrogant and disgusting"
"All women are shallow and manipulative"
Thus you only consider my statements actual justification for terrorism, if you consider your own to be justification for the current social order... both things are not good, and in fact, they are much closer with one another than you perhaps believe.
The solution isnt terror tactics in support of one of many competing interests, it is wide-scale societal collapse. It'll come eventually. The whole system will come crashing down under its own weight in one narrative. Perhaps a nuclear war. Most likely is a natural disaster. If we just wait, the same faced entity which wears the masks of "politics" and "terror," itll die. Its up to us to survive in its absence, and erect something in its place which could be greater
*Ahem* Azov Battallion?
North Finslisia and New webster
Azov is not fascist, as i mentioned; they dropped use of the funny symbols, and they receive funding from israel. They merely attract a lotta right-wing figures. US military does as well, but they have policies implemented against it now since figures like McVeigh were among them
Oh or are you saying this in support of them? Your nation seems very fascistic:
"Like banning Emigration, which is leaving the country/nation, allowing guns, banning adultery, banning divorce, no nukes, banning gambling, banning the court, etc. We strive to be hostile, and we tend to be powerful, militarily, and politically, and economically. Don't mess with us, we will dropkick you in self-defense."
"Discipline of the people"
Arguably pan-slavist
You are what fascists are too afraid to be overt about the fact they support
Anti-NATO narrative is also telling lol
why are you anti-fascist? Thats almost as gay as a bundle of sticks
Use to be apart of the black hawks so I got into anti-fascist
Fascist are just people trying to annoy another people they now that it will get people anger but some take it so high that’s when it’s bad
Which is classified as flaming, also against our rules.
it describes a very bad ideology because it was poor in practice. Fascist italy had a bad economy among other various stupid things. Nazi germany was cooler but also a failure, however its aesthetics were better than allied ones >///<
Post by New webster suppressed by a moderator.
But...it works the other way around
Post self-deleted by Tumorya.
It just always wins everything and the rest of Ireland hates them. Also who doesn’t like the underdogs and doesn’t hate the big one?
«12. . .10,66310,66410,66510,66610,66710,66810,669. . .27,59427,595»
Advertisement
