So who said the Rape on Nanking happened exactly?
Was it the same China that says nothing happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989?
Ergo there were no gas chambers.
Checkmate Mossad

Like all I'm saying is a lot of the gas chambers only seem to have occurred in the Soviet occupied territory and the door do open on the inside.
Like all I'm saying is us stupid goyim are being told to trust the communist on what the facts are.

It's pretty ridiculous to even say. Fellow EDL members when you're no longer a fellow EDL member yourself.
There's a mixture of feeling I have towards Tommy's overall political marketing.
I guess the Muslim rape gang angle works but it does allow twats like this bitch to bring up shitty but persuasive counter arguments like this.
Personally I just prefer the overall angle of there's to many foreigners they need to go back. But I guess to a degree that doesn't carry the same optics as Tommy as he can ally all anti-Islam supporters regardless of race.
The only people I care that Tommy's associated with are the ones with echos around their names.

Door open on the inside

I saw the words undermine holocaust.

No

I'll watch it in a minute but my first contention without even watching it is that holocaust "deniers" don't call themselves 'deniers' they call themselves revisionist.
The genuine historians never claim to deny the Holocaust but simply refute it's details, such as gas chambers, furher orders, etc.

Exactly. If you're in Europe they'll lock you up.
If you're in America (like with David Cole) they'll have Jewish Terrorist put money out for your head.

I also find contention that oh look all the gas chambers are in the area occupied by the soviets after the war. Oh look the so called gas chambers where actually rebuilt by said soviets after the war.

WW2 was practical a Jewish victory not for the actual reason for its war declaration.
The allies declared war to secure Polish independence. WW2 ends and Polish independence is no where to be seen.
Instead the Zionist go off to the desert and form an illegitimate state and can have goyims imprisoned all across Europe for simply disagreeing with the magic number.

For one I never much said it was part of some "nefarious" plan. It's simply that Jews won the war and reaped the rewards. Jewish influence can never be questioned ever again else you're an antisemite by default.

Good argument

Bruh

There's nothing more to say really.

Man I wonder what all this fear about talking about da Jews is about. Replace the word Jew for any other demographic and it's all kosher isn't it?
But oy vey if you even want to have a straightforward conversation about this (((protected class))) you'll just be bashed with a plethora of ad hominem.

Only if we're talking progs. If we're talking about "conservatives" Jews and the interests of that certain foreign power are pretty high up.
Everyone has a protected class.
No exception.

@Joycap isn't everyone's? Lel
Nothing to do just let it be.
I've got family who moan about drumpf and I just leave the room if honest.
Like I'm just meh for the reasons they dislike him.
Ironic that they'll still equally moan about foreigner regardless however.

But just let it be and get on with your life fam, find a nice trad wife and raise your own children on the values of the white ethnostate.
Nothing wrong with that.

I think I'll probably join For Britain over UKIP if I'm honest.
For Britain is overall less cucked while UKIP can't even decide what it wants to do.
It's more democratic in my opinion, while never being part of one myself I don't see how not letting specific people join because they used to be in some party at some point is meant to represent the voice of the people.
The name is pretty obsolete come Brexit as well and I think they'll just look to get rid of Sargon once they elect some cucked leader.

I'll wait and see to join any until after October, granted we leave then.
That and August with seeing who they decide to elect as Leader.

Hunt was very humble. He is right to say that we need a Brexit PM not him who voted remain.
Now we can perhaps get on with it.

"The wogs begin at Calais" should be UKIP's slogan just to really appeal to the BOOMER demographic.

Or perhaps "No more darkie malarkey"

That's a little one from me

https://youtu.be/mvleh69_GgU

I've gotta say though when did we get our first Liberal state exactly?

Was that before or after slavery and the genocide of natives ended?

Ah

It would be a massive failure if PM BJ Johnson let's this porn thing still go through.

Of course it was meant to on the 15th but never did

I don't see where they address the claim that the gas chambers were "rebuilt" by the Soviets after the war in their holocaust revisionist rebuttals

And that the doors on the wrong way round

But then at that point if we're just talking about people died during a war the issue of the Holocaust is that it distracts from the killings of lots of people.
The Holocaust is unironically not inclusive enough.
The Holocaust is put on a pedestal while the deaths caused by allied bombings go unnoticed, from Dresden to Tokyo. That thousands of ethnic Germans were killed and forcibly removed from areas that had call home for centuries all for the purpose of peace after the war.

From my research I've not heard the claim about Zyklon B being highly flammable. But it's an issue either way that one can not even simply disagree with points perhaps disputable in Europe now because it's criminal to do so.

I'd have to wonder what the state of the Holocaust would have been if the Allies agreed to peace with Germany after being pushed from the continent.
But I guess it's needless to speculate.

At the end of the day for me personally I'm not going to believe either way because I can't do so I good honest conscious.
I'm not entirely bias in defending fascism because I'm not really a fascist. I just disagree with the point that politically from communist to conservative the Holocaust is banded around to say look at what people who want to preserve an ethnicity will do, ignoring the death toll of their own side.

(And yes I take time to write long. I'd be quicker if on the computer but alas I'm on my phone)

I'm just curious to know why Sargon thinks we needed to go back onto the continent after our withdrawal? During WW2.
It's not like the Germans were suing for peace or anything. Oh wait.

Well to be honest with how Sargon's been going lately I honestly don't know what he'd even say.
Like his constant appeals to tradition lately and his defence of Eton elite being the rightful rulers of England bollocks to liberalism and proper representation.

I agree. He plays far to much into the Britain has been for freedom for a really really long time guys while we castrate homosexuals for winning the war

I've probably said it before in here but Sargon also said something rather silly in regards to the "battle" of cable street. That he would of been on the side opposing the British Union of Fascist.
Of course a charitable interpretation would be that he means he'd be on the side opposing the fascist.
However if we're to take this statement for what it is, Sargon is saying that he'd of allied himself with the violent rioting communist and I believe mostly foreign Jews in this case against the police. You know pouring human waste on them, throwing marbles under their horses (I.e trying to cripple them). In opposition to the fascist who instead turned around and had a peaceful March in the other direction.
Not looking good is it.
Especially when you've got the WW1 veteran campaigning for peace not war (in the form of Oswald Mosley) vs the WW1 general who sent tens of thousands of men to their death in a failed military campaign. And then wanting into war that cost hundreds of thousands of British deaths.
(Winston Churchill if you hadn't caught on)

Then of course if I'm to just compare the moral fortitude of Churchill vs Mosley just a little more.
Take the issue of India.
Mosley who held great sympathies to the suffering of the Indian colonies, decrying the crimes of sweatshop labour endorsed by globalist capitalism.
Churchill on the other hand compared Indians to rabbits when they were starving to death in the millions from a famine because he'd diverted food away for the war effort.

Well what colonies weren't?
It's simply a fact of life. Shit was shit.
That's why although it's highly convenient to do so I'm not terribly interested in the beating over the heads of commies with the various deaths caused by their socialist comrades.
Just address what's fundamentally true.
Putting lots of people who are different from one another always leads to conflict and conquest.
Hierarchy exists and is inevitably a part of human nature.
Violence is part of human nature.
So called Social constructs are naturally determined.
Despite being 13% of the population
Etc
That's enough justification for me to reject socialism and globalism without all the yeah but those chinky and Russian bastards killed a lotta people.

Wait wait "well we promise we will do it right this time"
So no famines caused under capitalist systems?
And then I just come back to wondering when does the Liberal state begin?
Before or after the slave trade?
Before or after the outlawing of homosexuality?
Before or after segregation and miscegenation laws?
And if the Liberal state isn't actually about individual liberty and freedom then I'm not sure why I should want it exactly.
Or is the argument that wasn't real Liberalism, real Liberalism hasn't been tried.

When do we explore my arguments?

So I'm currently reading Starship Troopers and a lot of the government I take a liking towards.
However and more so did Sargon address this in his video on the politics of Starship Troopers the I would describe as the excessive use of Capital and Corporal punishment?

For example it is said that for the crime of drink driving on will be publicly flogged. Or perhaps if one violates military law in striking a superior officer he might face the penalty of being hung.
I've just skimmed through Sargon's video and I'm not sure where he addresses this?
Heinlein puts a very strong focus on discipline through violent action, be it civilian or those in service.
I'm curious on how Sargon addressed this issue

@AVRO Architect I'm just curious where Liberalism falls on such practices.
Which of course was the major premise of his video.
Explaining that it was a ultra liberal utopia rather than any fascistic.
Now of course I entirely agree that it isn't a fascist utopia but I'm still unsure of it being really a liberal utopia.

Besides the excessive use of corporal punishment and capital punishment to which I'm torn on its overall ethical nature I have my own opinions personally on the issue of government and rights.
Personally I'm of the opinion that the taxpayer should still be levied the right of his own sovereignty to where if capital is paid towards in taxation and to which laws rule over him.
Now I'll entirely give to the point that only those willing to risk life and limp should be given sovereignty over the right to demand others give willingness to do the same.
What business is it of the civilian to say how and why a man should die for them and their benefit.

Also I think my main moral objection to corporal/capital punishment is that it's state approved sadism.

Or I should say state sanctioned sadism which would be illiteration.

Although correcting myself has only given me a better chance of exampling that.

@Hexidecimark what don't you seem to understand bud?

Not really wrong although Carl is a bit of a fag

Can't get over his faggy voice if honest

Although it was a bit of a shit to go and attack Mark Collett using stuff he said nearly over 20 years ago

Then (((they))) misrepresent the Alt right criticism of Judaism and it's subsequent ideologies. They rightly point out that "Judaism is not a proselytising faith that encourages people to convert" but that very statement doesn't disprove the Alt Right claim that we are at "war with Judaism".
Rather it is that very reason the Alt Right claim we are at "war with Judaism" because being such a exclusionary group while also having your fellow Jews in positions of power can lead them to act in each others interests at the expense of the majority goy population.
It's basically an ideological elitism.
To which I assume Freemasonry was also created to let in rich goys in on the fun.

And it isn't to "tar" a whole group with the same brush but rather yes like Tommy and his supporters do is that it is to address the cultural issues in said religious group and that it is the very point that someone is a Jew or a Muslim that they are acting in a particular way because of a particular cause.

And then of course Tommy's bum boys decided to turn off the comments.

No need to come to whatever so called realisations you seem to propose.
Simply pointing out the miss framing and hypocrisy of his supporters understandings.
But of course if we're really going to be this erroneous I don't really see the point. Going along with the old misnomer of lol they call themselves muh antifascist but are actually fascist themselves nonsense.
No they're communist and you tend to fail in actually defining what left and right mean if you seek to correct me.
Yes conservatism isn't compatible with ethnats but only because current conservatism is only concerned with conserving the status quo.

Sometimes I'd love to be Irish just so I'd have the best reason of all to be an ethnat.

Bruh

Gain you've failed to define what 'Right' actual is and for lord knows what reason you think "commies" those who are literally internationalist are somehow compatible with ethnats.
Ethnats are nearly never internationalist.
The civic nationalist is simply in denial of the importance that ethnic homogeneity is the most stabilising factor of the state.
All ethnically diverse nations are in civil conflict.

When did Lucy Brown get/self nuked?

So apparently she went and dabbed on the Tommy lot for buying tons of coke with donation money.
She then nuked her accounts. I hope she's not gone forever because she was at least more open to having conversations with ethnats, etc

What kind of economics would it be to stop foreign owned business setting up in your country?
Like a free market but only for nationals?

Didn't Sargon do a brilliant video on Epstein and the elite pedos a few years ago.

https://youtu.be/7dQVRLrCbZs

Fucking heavy to watch

If America is majority brown by the end of the century it won't be the USA anymore.
Their union will be destroyed.
I'll be surprised how long America will actually last for.
It'll be interesting to see how it goes once Trump leaves office. Like that inevitability will be the catalyst.

Sargon's comparison to Brexit and WW2 is not only inaccurate.
In Sargon's comparison he compares that we shouldn't surrender to the EU like we didn't surrender in WW2.
When in regards to WW2 we didn't surrender because we wanted to influence the politics of Europe.
We were at no real threat of invasion.
On the contrary Nazi Germany was at threat from us.
Surely to advocate the UK being independent of the EU it means the EU is independent of the UK.
If Sargon believes the Europe should have no business in the matters of the UK isn't it hypocrisy to advocate the UK's influence over Europe.
I.e the exact thing WW2 was fought over.
If you get what I mean

What

Trading doesn't mean influencing their politics.
If a war happens in Europe then I don't see why that's any of my business.

But when they actual don't and would rather have peace

The Nazis

They didn't want to invade Britain they were to busy getting fucked up by the Russians

They had no means to invade Britain. The allies declared war on Germany not the other way round.

So what? How is the guaranteeing of Poland the business of England

Yes and sent another generation into another pointless wat

The point is what business is it of ours

Britain's European policy was only ever simply to guarantee war

And it's own war economy

That's not what I'm saying tho is it

But he had no interests in Britain

Where's the proof?

When they're land is at threat not another's.

Yes and there was no threat besides the theory of muh European policy

Napoleon couldn't invade Britain

Unified Europe never happens. It always collapses in on itself regardless of British influence.
It's trying to now and it's collapsing and it didn't need Britain to do that.

Based on WHAT

[INSERT AD HOM HERE]

Well considering you gave no argument beside "we might get invaded oh no" without proof that such a thing was possible or desirable

You don't need to subjugate something that's not a threat

Muh this is so obvious

Ah yes because that's what collapsed the empire in the end oh wait

Man I wonder where my empire is gone. We stopped a unified Europe but for some reason our empire has collapsed

What do you mean?

What do you mean by Poland was going to be on Hitlers side

https://youtu.be/9nfSpF_IGBQ

Hahaha enough do

That's the point of mainstream opinion

That's the exact reason why we have the certain laws we do. Because enough people agree with them or rather more exactly most people are complicit in their application

Most people be like well shouldn't of broken the law then

Because most people are idiots

Most people willingly tether their mouths to the arseholes of whoever can feed them the nicest tasting shit.

Most people feel entitled to their dog shit opinions just because it's more acceptable to have one than have none or one that's unpalatable.