Running of the shitskin hordes
(twitter.com)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
It is.
> and liberalism is a legitimately attempted moral system
It is.
> Liberalism and communism are talmudic ideologies
What's Talmudic about them?
> entirely focused on knocking all goyim down to equal levels of poverty in order to enslave them.
No. Only because Jews used them for this purpose doesn't mean that this is their intrinsic nature. I can be a communist and argue that Jews must be exterminated because they are not manual workers. In fact Marx was against Jews.
> Yes? CEOs take all the shekels from a worker in the same way a communist takes all the crop from a farmer without paying for it.
This doesn't make sense. A communist leader in the USSR didn't have personal property. I know it's hard to accept, but commies back then did what they did because they believed in an ideology and not for personal gains. They risked their own lives for the revolution.
> Modern liberalism is just a continuation of communism.
This makes no sense.
> The only reason the USSR didn't import infinite retarded brown workers was because they weren't readily available at the time.
LOL WUT?
You think there were no shitskins in 1917?
>What's Talmudic about them?
They are about killing and enslaving goyim based on writings from the Talmud.
>Only because Jews used them for this purpose doesn't mean that this is their intrinsic nature. I can be a communist and argue that Jews must be exterminated because they are not manual workers
Your movement would fail shortly after because communism is not a viable economic system and the only long-lasting communist states were propped up by international jewry.
>In fact Marx was against Jews.
Again believing what jews say. Why? Even if he did hate other jews he still hated Whites and Christians far more.
>A communist leader in the USSR didn't have personal property.
You don't think Lenin, Stalin or Pol Pot had houses or cars or excess food for themselves?
>Communism and liberalism aren't the same
They both exist under the bad philosophy of egalitarianism and have the same perpetrators with the same goals.
>You think there were no shitskins in 1917?
How would they move tens of millions of Africans to Europe in 1917? Even today it's been a slow process.
Maybe we have a different definition of the word "genuine".
When I say that they are genuine movements I mean that they have a philosophical and intellectual basis and they make sense of paper. I do not mean to say that they actually work or that they are good.
> They are about killing and enslaving goyim based on writings from the Talmud.
Liberalism, communism, and the Talmud do not talk about killing and enslaving the goyim. They absolutely do not.
The only text that explicitly tells the Jews to kill and enslave the goyim is the Bible.
> Your movement would fail shortly after because communism is not a viable economic system and the only long-lasting communist states were propped up by jewish power.
North Korea is not propped up by Jews. In fact, it's one of the few places on earth where Jews have no control.
> Again believing what jews say. Why?
I don't believe anyone. It's just a fact that Marx wrote one of the most antisemitic and jewpilling essay in the history of antisemitism.
> You don't think Lenin, Stalin or Pol Pot had houses or cars or excess food for themselves?
They didn't have any personal property. They had their necessities met of course, like any head of state, but it's not that they were swimming in luxury like any random Jewish banker in America at their time.
Lenin, Trotsky, etc. risked their lives for their ideas - you must give them credit. They didn't care about personal gains. That's also what made them dangerous. People who only care about making money are weak.
>They both exist under the bad philosophy of egalitarianism
No, communism is not egalitarian. Equality is neither their goal nor their justification for their acts. It's about removing economic exploitation.
> How would they move tens of millions of Africans to Europe in 1917?
By putting a sign that says "niggers welcome".
> Even today it's been a slow process.
Niggers enter Europe and America by the millions, and that's in spite of our ZOG trying to slow them down to not make the goyim wake up too soon.
If the borders were truly open, like the USSR could have done but didn't, then we'd have 100 millions niggers come to Europe and America in the next few months.
Niggers are desperate to live with us.