There was that video made by a young Ukranian refugee. He came to Minneapolis I think. Said he wanted to sell his PC. Two blacks came to his room to "check it out". One grabbed the PC and ran. The Ukrainian catches up with him after initial shock, and the other black pulls a gun. This guy was so shook up he made a video online crying, trying to understand what kind of shit country is this? He just came from war torn most corrupt nation in Europe to "land of the free", and two niggers rob him right away.

And than you have these lunatics from Antifa , grooming in schools by crazy ass freak shows. Country going down the drain.

Solution: Send more money and weapons to Ukraine NAZI's and start WWIII with China. lol

[t.me]

@Krunoslav I'm amazed at how many whites STILL think that whites & coons can live together in a civilized and peaceful manner. It will NEVER happen. Although some blacks have learned to control their animal instincts ... enough have not, which makes them all dangerous, since you never know which ones aren't tamed. Whites MUST separate themselves from black-laden areas, and they should buy guns and know how to use them. I am in a predominately white area, but there are a sprinkling of nigs in my town, and I watch them like a hawk when they're walking around public places.

@xX2AFanXx Yeah, I think that mixing races and idiotic and impossible idea of multi culturalism is a serious problem, promoted by liberals. For any progress to be made, one must get rid of liberals and liberalism as ideology which protects the worse ideas in history and its deeply committed to this inanity. I don't think there was ever any other ideology in human history that was so suicidal as liberalism. The out group preference to that pathological degree has never been tried with such commitment before to my knowlage.

Ethno states are natural order of things. They always have been. Any attempt to the contrary has only worked under one strong regime that ensured stability, such as Roman empire for example, but never as insane multi cultural idea. Liberalism is not. Its deeply anti human because it is utopian.

“Captured by the ideological animus, both socialist and liberal-democratic art abandoned the criterion of beauty - considered anachronistic and of dubious political value - and replaced it with the criterion of correctness. …egalitarianism and despotism do not exclude each other, but usually go hand in hand.

To a certain degree, equality invites despotism, because in order to make all members of a society equal, and then to maintain this equality for a long period of time, it is necessary to equip the controlling institutions with exceptional power so they can stamp out any potential threat to equality in every sector of the society and any aspect of human life: to paraphrase a well-known sentence by one of Dostoyevsky’s characters, ‘We start with absolute equality and we end up with absolute despotism.’ Some call it a paradox of equality: the more equality one wants to introduce, the more power one must have; the more power one has, the more one violates the principle of equality; the more one violates the principle of equality, the more one is in a position to make the world egalitarian.

Liberal democracy is a powerful unifying mechanism, blurring differences between people and imposing uniformity of views, behavior, and language. But it does not require much effort to see that the dialogue in liberal democracy is of a peculiar kind because its aim is to maintain the domination of the mainstream and not to undermine it. A deliberation is believed to make sense only if the mainstream orthodoxy is sure to win politically. Today's 'dialogue' politics are a pure form of the right-is-might politics, cleverly concealed by the ostentatiously vacuous rhetoric of all-inclusiveness.

The illusion they cherish of being a brave minority heroically facing the whole world, false as it is, gives them nevertheless a strange sense of comfort: they feel absolutely safe, being equipped with the most powerful political tools in today's world but at the same time priding themselves on their courage and decency, which are more formidable the more awesome the image of the enemy becomes.

The ideological man is thus both absolutely suspicious and absolutely enthusiastic. There seems to be no idea under the sun that he would not put into question and make an object of derision, skepticism, or contempt, no idea that he would not reduce to an offshoot of hidden instincts, mundane interests, biological drives, and psychological complexes. Hence he is likely to despise reason as an autonomous faculty, to downgrade lofty ideals, and to debunk the past, seeing everywhere the same ideological mystification.

But at the same time, he lives in a constant state of mobilization for a better world. His mouth is full of noble slogans about brotherhood, freedom, and justice, and with every word he makes it clear that he knows which side is right and that he is ready to sacrifice his entire existence for the sake of its victory. The peculiar combination of both attitudes--merciless distrust and unwavering affirmation--gives him an incomparable sense of moral self-confidence and intellectual self-righteousness.”

― Ryszard Legutko, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies

..................

"Western civilization is a story of full bellies and starving hearts. Of a feast of information and a famine of truth. Of conveyor belts churning out processed food, conformity-enforcing media and power-serving culture. Enough food to stay alive but not enough sustenance to live."

"As a million debates on libertarian principles have taught us — if you do not clearly define who and what you are in the name of individualism, then a more coherent and collective block will do it for you."
“I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.

And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the narrowest and most intolerant moralism.”

*Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher.
[morgoth.substack.com]

“Liberalism has failed, not because it fell short, but because it was true to itself. It has failed because it has succeeded. As liberalism has become more fully itself, as its inner logic has become more evident and its self contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims, yet realizations of liberal ideology.

A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and of course expand liberty in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.”

― Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (2018)

Reminds me of what someone said. Liberalism delivered what it promised, but it was the opposite of what most expected.