New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
If self-proclaimed white nationalists were actually serious about our beliefs, we would have long ago been picking up and running with the collective hatred and backlash toward trannies to push the Overton Window back where it belongs. Specifically,

# Trannyism didn’t begin with the “legal” and social “acceptance” of faggotry. It began with female crossdressing.

In the face of the refusal to accept trannies (predominantly presented as men dressing as women–and mutilating themselves, but that’s not even relevant here), **it needs to be made socially unacceptable again for women to dress** ***and behave*** **as men.**

“It’s a shame you hate yourself that much; you’re so beautiful otherwise.” “Why are you pretending to be something you’re not? Are you afraid to be who you are?” “Do you really think you’re a man? No? Then why act like one?”

But no, see, we don’t do things like that. It’s illegal. And whites wouldn’t ever break the law.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
TallestSkil on scored.co
1 year ago 6 points (+0 / -0 / +6Score on mirror ) 1 child
>jews did an amazing job of portraying people who had tantrums about a woman wearing jeans, recreational pot smokers or closeted homos as being totally unreasonable and obnoxious. And 90% of normies agreed.

I do remember (though I remember it ‘ending’ a bit before that, even). I simply don’t give a shit. They did an “amazing job” of portraying niggers and spics and slants and dune coons as “able to behave exactly like whites and fit in with white society,” too. Look how *that* collapsed. Why not seize the moment.

>losing battles

Clothing is literally the foundation of human civilization.

>Take that away

You will never do that, though. Ever. At any time. Under any circumstance. At least have the fucking balls to fight back about *something.*

>values, discipline… modesty

Oh, things like “not cross-dressing,” then, huh? Wish I’d thought of that.

>they respond negatively to someone being preachy about issues

They respond negatively to *social shaming only*. They don’t give a fuck about abstractions of sapient thought. *They’re* not sapient.
MI7BZ3EW on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror )
> They did an “amazing job” of portraying niggers and spics and slants and dune coons as “able to behave exactly like whites and fit in with white society,”

The Watts riots -- in the 80s? I remember that. The conversation at the dinner table went something like this.

Kids: "Dad, why can't we just kill all the looters?"

Mom: "That's no good. The blacks would all rise up and we'd have a race war."

Kids: "So what? We'd just shoot them all. If they'd riot over looters getting shot, they deserve to get shot."

Dad: "The punishment for looting is death. When I was in the Air Force, we were taught how to handle riots and looting. You can't just charge in."

Mom: "Don't go on about that now."

Dad: "It's probably a communist or two behind it all, just like MLK Jr. The commies killed JFK."

Kids: "Is it true the FBI killed MLK? That's pretty cool. If I join the FBI, can I kill commies too?"

Mom: "We're supposed to treat everyone equally."

Kids: "So if a white community starting looting and rioting, we'd be justified in killing all of them, but a black community gets a free pass? It's racist NOT to kill them all."
Toast message