1 year ago5 points(+0/-0/+5Score on mirror)2 children
Well it's the framing of the question. "Refugees" from what? 99% of the shitskins are simply seeking 1st world gibs, and if the gibs aren't there (e.g. unmitigated sex) then they bring the takes. But the word "refugee" is loaded - it sounds like a beaten woman seeking refuge at a woman's shelter or something. Of course you wouldn't refuse someone seeking asylum from abuses.
But that's not what the "refugees" are. They're government-sanctioned shitskin invaders. If the question were framed accurately, a lot more people would be open to resistance. Language and verbiage matter.
You are missing the point. Even with the way the questions are framed, more than a third of the population is comfortable with using violence against them. That is more than one third of the whole population, but you can be sure it's overwhelmingly White men. So, a majority of White men would be comfortable using violence against invaders, even if those invaders are portrayed as poor refugees.
These numbers should result in a bloody revolution, but there are no leaders, no guidance, no vision and very little if any organization. All this energy is wasted on complaining and riots.
1 year ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)2 children
Yeah,I dont think a single white has an issue with actual peaceful refugees fleeing violence who *want to go back* when their country is safe enough for them. The issue is that the "refugees" and "immigrants" currently flooding white nations are mostly military age men with no intent of leaving or attempting to respect the native culture, and most of them arent from countries currently at war. They are *invaders*, plain and simple and should always be referred to as such. Taking control of language is important, whites will not do anything until they realize they are being invaded and their jew run governments are complicit.
He should stay where he is an rally the Australians. There are more than enough White men in Europe, America, and Canada that can rise to be good leaders. We just need to do so, and soon.
1 year ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
There's too much confusion being spread for there to be a leader. Every time a figure gains popularity, it's quickly uncovered that the guy is defunct controlled opposition with warm ties to Israeli interests, a past involvement with globalist groups, or a history of homosexuality.
If the popularity is gained by accident, we see what happens with that rich man north of Richmond dude or Tommy. They bend the knee, probably because of threats to the family.
People will naturally latch onto the most visible figure. The Bolsheviks control visibility and therefore an extraordinary man with absolutely no family ties will have to gain popularity. Then they'll try to imprison and kill him.
Literally the only way out of this is complete collapse of the law enforcement system.
Half of my ancestors are English, it bothers me to see how cucked the English have become, almost like all of the Englishmen who had balls were the same people who left that nation long ago to seek real adventure and opportunity in America, so for the most part, all they’ve got left are subservient faggots.
But that's not what the "refugees" are. They're government-sanctioned shitskin invaders. If the question were framed accurately, a lot more people would be open to resistance. Language and verbiage matter.
These numbers should result in a bloody revolution, but there are no leaders, no guidance, no vision and very little if any organization. All this energy is wasted on complaining and riots.