11 days ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)4 children
How would you call the left then? Those whose shared belief "equality" is? It contains communists, "liberals", woke pushers (school, government, corporate, social media, games), the nigger cocksuckers, the "but who picks the cottons then, bigot?!", the feminists.
And it's not just jews, but also idiots, traitors and shabbos goys (usually all 3 at once).
While "left" is quite descriptive, I agree that "right" is insufficient, as we are talking about "X" and "everybody else" essentially. We are lumped together with magatards, civic nationalists and in the most idiotic sense equated to be leftists because we name the jew. Or hated by the types of MGTOW because we don't hate all women at baseline.
I think TallestSkil is right. The entire Left/Right thing is a false dichotomy in cohesion with a fraudulent two political party system. False binaries. Both political parties are controlled and owned by jews. And the jew is the root of the problem.
11 days ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)1 child
>How would you call the left then?
Communists. Or ‘liberals’ colloquially, because…
>Those whose shared belief "equality" is? It contains communists, "liberals", woke pushers (school, government, corporate, social media, games), the nigger cocksuckers, the "but who picks the cottons then, bigot?!", the feminists. And it's not just jews, but also idiots, traitors and shabbos goys (usually all 3 at once).
…the scope speaks to your point below on “the right” and why a singular word doesn’t work.
>While "left" is quite descriptive
*“Left of what?”* And then you have to *artificially construct a metaphor* because you used spatial terminology for something that exists only in the abstract. Or they’ll ask *“How can a global majority be classified as ‘What was* ***left*** *over once all other categorization was done?’”* and then you run into the same problem. That’s why it doesn’t work.
>We are lumped together with magatards, civic nationalists and in the most idiotic sense equated to be leftists because we name the jew. Or hated by the types of MGTOW because we don't hate all women at baseline.
And that’s why “the left” is *equally* imprecise. There are dozens of leftist flavors. Some of them *aren’t* communists (but also aren’t in power), and so falling into a false dichotomy serves no one. The NSDAP wasn’t “on the right” any more than it was “on the left.”
“Left” and “right” are a **lack** of definition. They don’t tell you what a group is. They tell you what it isn’t. If you say “communists” instead, then you’re actually defining a hard and fast set of parameters into which people or movements can be slotted. “The left” *only* means a *subjective* perspective, not an objective one.
It's a fair issue. The commonality among them is that they are clearly outside of the realm of common sense and reality, and operating against our people.
I'd like to have a good term that describes all types of these lowlifes. I guess "communist" is better than nothing, and generally good, but it is kind of colloquial. But as you said, they are one type of many, so it's not too accurate.
There is reason to not be satisfied with both, "communists" and "the left." Another word would be "egalitarian", but that's possibly too little known.
11 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
>Another word would be "egalitarian", but that's possibly too little known.
I hesitate to use that myself because they don’t *actually* support it. Their goal is anything that puts whites at the bottom of the caste system, and they demonstrably exalt nonwhites above whites (Civil Rights Act), so they don’t support (civil) equality. Hell, they’ve even abandoned that messaging themselves–they only talk about ‘equity’ now.
11 days ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
> so they don’t support (civil) equality
Well, maybe the jewiest of jews think this way, but actually their problem is that we are so far and beyond all other races (and species), that they feel like they need to take us down, or elevate others to meet levels.
The latter is impossible - you can put on a suit on a nigger, and teach it to behave like a functional person, but it doesn't work. And because closing the gap is impossible, they will never stop causing harm and destruction to us. Their goal of "equality" will only end with our extinction.
The problem goes way deeper than that as well - intelligence, appearance, facial structure, work ethics, culture, aesthetics, art, creativity - it's impossible. They can't close the gap in even ONE of these aspects. IF it were possible to achieve equality, they'd probably be content with it, but even in their most favorable situation reality will still stand in their way. And of course they blame the failures of their endeavor (which is also impossible) on us because muh' systematic racism or whatever, just to keep on going viciously.
> they only talk about ‘equity’ now.
But wasn't that the goal anyway? They were naive to think they just had to "equalize" things to naturally achieve equity, but that never worked. So equality wasn't enough, they had to fiddle with the "outcomes", which is even more blatant.
And it's not just jews, but also idiots, traitors and shabbos goys (usually all 3 at once).
While "left" is quite descriptive, I agree that "right" is insufficient, as we are talking about "X" and "everybody else" essentially. We are lumped together with magatards, civic nationalists and in the most idiotic sense equated to be leftists because we name the jew. Or hated by the types of MGTOW because we don't hate all women at baseline.
Communists. Or ‘liberals’ colloquially, because…
>Those whose shared belief "equality" is? It contains communists, "liberals", woke pushers (school, government, corporate, social media, games), the nigger cocksuckers, the "but who picks the cottons then, bigot?!", the feminists. And it's not just jews, but also idiots, traitors and shabbos goys (usually all 3 at once).
…the scope speaks to your point below on “the right” and why a singular word doesn’t work.
>While "left" is quite descriptive
*“Left of what?”* And then you have to *artificially construct a metaphor* because you used spatial terminology for something that exists only in the abstract. Or they’ll ask *“How can a global majority be classified as ‘What was* ***left*** *over once all other categorization was done?’”* and then you run into the same problem. That’s why it doesn’t work.
>We are lumped together with magatards, civic nationalists and in the most idiotic sense equated to be leftists because we name the jew. Or hated by the types of MGTOW because we don't hate all women at baseline.
And that’s why “the left” is *equally* imprecise. There are dozens of leftist flavors. Some of them *aren’t* communists (but also aren’t in power), and so falling into a false dichotomy serves no one. The NSDAP wasn’t “on the right” any more than it was “on the left.”
“Left” and “right” are a **lack** of definition. They don’t tell you what a group is. They tell you what it isn’t. If you say “communists” instead, then you’re actually defining a hard and fast set of parameters into which people or movements can be slotted. “The left” *only* means a *subjective* perspective, not an objective one.
It's a fair issue. The commonality among them is that they are clearly outside of the realm of common sense and reality, and operating against our people.
I'd like to have a good term that describes all types of these lowlifes. I guess "communist" is better than nothing, and generally good, but it is kind of colloquial. But as you said, they are one type of many, so it's not too accurate.
There is reason to not be satisfied with both, "communists" and "the left." Another word would be "egalitarian", but that's possibly too little known.
I hesitate to use that myself because they don’t *actually* support it. Their goal is anything that puts whites at the bottom of the caste system, and they demonstrably exalt nonwhites above whites (Civil Rights Act), so they don’t support (civil) equality. Hell, they’ve even abandoned that messaging themselves–they only talk about ‘equity’ now.
Well, maybe the jewiest of jews think this way, but actually their problem is that we are so far and beyond all other races (and species), that they feel like they need to take us down, or elevate others to meet levels.
The latter is impossible - you can put on a suit on a nigger, and teach it to behave like a functional person, but it doesn't work. And because closing the gap is impossible, they will never stop causing harm and destruction to us. Their goal of "equality" will only end with our extinction.
The problem goes way deeper than that as well - intelligence, appearance, facial structure, work ethics, culture, aesthetics, art, creativity - it's impossible. They can't close the gap in even ONE of these aspects. IF it were possible to achieve equality, they'd probably be content with it, but even in their most favorable situation reality will still stand in their way. And of course they blame the failures of their endeavor (which is also impossible) on us because muh' systematic racism or whatever, just to keep on going viciously.
> they only talk about ‘equity’ now.
But wasn't that the goal anyway? They were naive to think they just had to "equalize" things to naturally achieve equity, but that never worked. So equality wasn't enough, they had to fiddle with the "outcomes", which is even more blatant.
Call people SemitePhiles like it is a dirty word. LOL Emotionally show the disgust on your face as you call them a SemitePhile. Then impale them.
https://youtu.be/hGK2_wWCZX0