Youtube comments of (@artstation707).
-
89
-
43
-
36
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@josipag2185 That's why they (Slavs) should remain in their countries. Britain is not Europe. It's always been separated from Europe by the channel. It only has strong ties to France and much stronger ties to its colonies: North America, The Caribbean, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Hong Kong and more, which is why, before 2003-2004 free movement wasn't an issue.
As soon as the Slavs joined, they made straight for Britain, arriving at an unsustainable rate of a million people per year. They have nothing at all in common with Britain. Very soon they outnumber all other communities; schools were overwhelmed, health care, housing, everything, suddenly. Overnight, street signs and shop notices became Polish. Every job, plumbing, sales, management, got filled by cheap skilled workers from Eastern Europe. They are everywhere; in total, one third of the original population arrived from Eastern Europe after 2004.
This is why the UK left the European Union.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@andysmith1996 The whole story is suspect. First of all, planes are made of aluminium. The steel columns you see would not give way. A plane (even steel tipped) would bounce off, or get caught in the net-like structure and dangle hooked by one or two steel beams. Jet fuel would burn out quickly. There'd be no cartoon cut out hole for anyone to stand in, looking out of, and the buildings would remain in tact. If a plane made that hole, the corresponding steel columns could have been replaced beforehand with a lighter alloy, otherwise explosives, positioned to look like the cross section of a plane, detonated on cue, creating that hole. Whole sections caved in. Of course I wasn't there to see, but it wouldn't surprise me if no planes hit those towers.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yeah, but you are wrong, spending your energies in the wrong place. IF you desire self-worth, stop denying and listening to enemy conjectures offered by deceivers hoping to direct your ire. Actual truth offered is for said purpose alone. Instead of reacting, rejecting, opposing, accept that truth, because it's all you're going to get unless you're willing to do unbiased research and promote these things, properly, yourselves. Blacks were indeed kings on all continents. You may not like it; there's diversion to convince you otherwise, but being intelligent, reasonable and honest, you cannot deny this. The so called "woke" nonsense you decry is your own invention, associating all you reject in one basket. This is debilitating, and disingenuous. Choices are not the same as circumstances of birth. Anyone using one with which to stigmatize the other is a liar, fuelled by misplaced pride, bias or malice. Black people are less prone to the unnatural lifestyles so-called elites bundle with their "representation" in modern popular culture, including those exposed to television in their youth. Think of it as a two pronged attack, where from one direction blacks (associated with unnatural living) are to be corrupted, and on the other (rejecting the fulcrum of victimhood) to be denied their true identity. It's not your remit to deny the truth. Your fathers did that, and look where it's left you! Those attributes you're so proud of displaying should be put to their ultimate use. Be the ones to give the world the actual truth.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
If he didn't do it himself, he paid someone. I could be completely wrong. He could be completely innocent, but I happen to know that to trigger jealousy, people can do the most hurtful, unimaginable, and despicable things, especially women. A proud, conceited man, who believes he can get away with anything, would not be as forgiving as someone more rational. Still, I could be wrong. I wasn't there so only those who were, can know.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@g.f.w.6402 Britain did not colonize Eastern Europe. EU migration from ex-eastern bloc nations: Poland, Hungary, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia is the root cause of overcrowding, beginning in 2003. Because most of these economic migrants are considered "white," a blind eye is turned to them, when they arrived in numbers inconceivable to the original population. They entered at a peak rate of 1 million people per year, for 20 years. The government has masked the figures, offering just 3 million Eastern European EU passport holders entering then. The truth is five times as many walked in unhindered. That's 1/3rd of the original population of Britain, just there, born in Eastern Europe, but now in Britain. The government pretends the issue is third world illegal immigrants, using that scapegoat to try to legislate against traditional commonwealth British citizens. This is criminality of unseen proportions.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alsoascot02 What are you talking about? Because of Blair and Brown, almost as much as one third of the existing population, in the span of just over a decade, arrived in Britain from Eastern Europe. Worse still, your ridiculous excuse is shortsighted and weak. Who thought similarity in appearance means it's okay to send MANY millions of freeloaders "legally" into a sovereign nation??? No nation is happy to be replaced on the sly. It's doubly insulting to know TPTB thought Brits would accept it, or, perhaps salivating over unlimited savings on labour costs, these gangsters didn't care. They'd been siphoning off Britain's wealth for two sweet decades at this point. You're right about Thatcher, but I'm not sure she was prepared to destroy Britain completely. After, all, having served her purpose, they removed her over the European question.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
First of all, government figures are routinely deceptive as are population and migration estimates, opinion polls, and general media statistics.
Britain is overcrowded because of cheap post-expansion EU migration from Eastern Europe. The level of greed involved ensured the maximum number of migrants would be allowed entry. As many as 15 million had arrived by 2011. That's two centuries worth of boat people.
British workers undercut by this influx are in their 40s, 50s and 60s. Even if you repatriated all post expansion EU migrants, those British workers would have a hard time competing for employment with younger candidates.
The problem isn't the workforce or the attitudes of the unemployed. It's corporate greed and interference, the by products of a free market economy. Businesses who exploit post expansion EU nationals in Britain should be removed. That solves two issues. Those post expansion EU migrants should be returned to their countries of origin, removing burdens on social housing, benefits, healthcare and schools.
Businesses who employ local British staff offering fair pay will fill the void. If this means some sectors disappear, consider it a form of house cleaning. The government can step in to nationalize essential services and resources, so that British people can work in Britain, for the benefit of British people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DOMiNOUKAE Again, another person who doesn't know their history, through no fault of their own directly. There's really no such thing as "native English" in the sense you mean. English as a word and phenomenon derives from the Angel Cynn, an influx who migrated from the border region between modern Denmark and Germany, having arrived there from the east. If migration from one place to the next, where one's ancestors settled and gave them birth, makes them native, then London is, at present, full of natives. If you refer to different complexions, meaning one particular shade, then again you're wrong. Many different cultures across the European continent share the same skin tone. This doesn't make them natives of Britain. You're British if you're born and raised in Britain, adopting the traditions of the previous British population.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@carbon-based-lifeform9172 According to the writer of The Ciphermen, he approached Warner Brothers in 2001 complaining about the theft of his work. They informally suggested compensation of $80K. When he reached out to get pro bono style legal representation to make things official, his rep. delayed filing for two years, then dropped the case, claiming that some woman named Sophia Stewart had filed, and they'd have to wait until her case ended.
Her case ended the day and date of the cut-off for filing!
Now, of course, he could have filed with another rep. The problem was he didn't have $300K lying around with which to fund a proper lawsuit. That was the amount put up for the other suit. He was a little bit naive, thinking attorneys are reputable souls.
Clearly his rep. contacted WB and was offered something under the table, because Sophia Stewart is a con artist and her case is ridiculous. Not only did she reverse all her claims and fail to offer proper evidence, but she did not bother showing up to hearings and delayed things to the delight of the defendants. Anyone who reads her work "The Third Eye" will dismiss it instantly.
Basically, they fixed things so that the Wachowskis could remain in court until the statute of limitations expired, having paid off the real writer's attorney to delay indefinitely.
It's a fascinating story, which reads like a detective novel.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Only two kinds of people have a right to live in the UK. Both kinds have no problem with people of different faiths. Outsiders, especially the envious type, not only desire to be British themselves, but want to destroy the harmony Britain enjoyed up until recent times. Be yourself. Stop trying to be something you're not. British lifestyle includes Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Orientals, Turks, Nigerians and others from the African continent. The people of the Caribbean are an especially integral part. That's Britain. If you didn't know it, now you know. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other places you could go.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He was clearly ego driven, and it's possible that he killed his 2nd wife, although I could be wrong. You never know. Innocent people do appear guilty, especially when accused. Perhaps I need to take a closer look. But, a woman must respect boundaries. If she behaved herself she'd be alive today, outliving him to tell her tale of victimhood. Instead, she listened to so-called friends who encouraged her to get her "freedom," (to take half and escape) and she definitely got that freedom. It could be the tragedy of a man wanting more (he already had a wife and kids), and a woman raised with a liberal mentality, naïve to the severity of jealousy. Granted that he cheated on her, no doubt, if she could have maintained her integrity, no trigger could exist to push him across the line. Parents play a role too. Some of the white community can be very irresponsible, especially where financial opportunity beckons, or when it comes to sexual morality, and pass that on to their children who then go out into the world believing their behaviour is safe and normal. If the father really cared about his daughter he would have forbidden the union. Moral of this story is basically, stick to your own kind. I'm not saying this sort of match cannot work. Exceptions always exist, especially in more civilized nations like Britain, but really, it's better to be with someone who has the same outlook.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@darrengaroutte7744 Star Wars is likely a third of the internet, meaning endless quantities of imagery exist for AI skimmers to copy. Try getting an AI art program to produce imagery based on little known properties or complex novel ideas, and you'll wind up spending 10 hours just to get a single decent image that doesn't have three arms and three legs, ten twisted fingers per badly drawn hand, and guns floating in the air, let alone animation which doesn't flicker as it produces a new character or background for each frame. It's abject stupidity. No shortcuts exist. By the time they have a working system that can create bespoke, accurate, proportional, stable, sequential art, it will be easier to draw the thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Simfight. Anne Boleyn was in fact black.
How do we know?
Five eyewitnesses described her as a person colour, two of them using the words "rather dark complexion" and swarthy.
Now, many people argue that swarthy means "olive skinned" or Mediterranean, light brown, or tanned, like the people who live in Southern Europe.
This modern definition is flawed.
How do we know?
The individual, who described Anne as swarthy, was FROM the Mediterranean.
To compound the issue, Anne's daughter, Elizabeth I is described also as swarthy, with quote "a complexion like her mother's."
Since when is a tan heritable by blood?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimjarvis2309 Perhaps you should stick to things you know about. Firstly, Africa is a continent containing many different nations. Black or dark skinned people do not all come from Africa. They're native to other continents as well.
On the issue of blacks in Britain, they were always here, even before those calling themselves Anglo-Saxons.
The majority of British blacks derive from the Caribbean. It's a little known fact, but from the 15th century until relatively recent times, the ancestors of the modern British majority deported native British blacks to the West Indies, and to North America.
In this way, the so-called Windrush generation was really the return of ancient Britons to their original homelands.
Concerning Somalis and Nigerians straight off the boat, well... really, not enough of them made it here to become an issue. At their rate of entry, It would take centuries for their numbers to reach even 1 million.
Overcrowding in Britain exists ONLY because of EU Slavs, who number 15 million right now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@seamuspadraigsanders431 You exaggerate your dates. According to modern historians, the groups recently described as Anglo-Saxon arrived in Britain in the 5th century A.D., a mere 1,500 years ago, as mercenaries, minority economic migrants and opportunists. It took the better part of those years, and many wars, genocides and encroachments, for them to replace the majority population. So (according to modern history, which may be conservative with the actual facts) there are no indigenous Anglo-Saxons. Can we at least agree that white English people are British? Yes of course. They're from Britain, raised in Britain, continuing British traditions, just like the remnant of the people they replaced, who still reside in Britain and are still British.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think it's done very well. It's really just a shame that these kinds of visuals get wasted on things that either go under most peoples' radars, or make no sense, or are too ambitious, or somewhat delusional. Of course, it's not easy to construct fiction, especially when you're tasked with embedding different layers of subtext, or if you're trying to offer something novel in an atmosphere of surveillance and industrial espionage, where your ideas can be plucked out of the air key press for key press, or purloined and distributed by the system you're using, let alone if you're foolish enough to allow "AI" to write for you. The old ways surely make more sense: confidential completed creation, hand typed, and hand drawn. Ease of use offered by modern technology breeds idleness and a lack of attention to detail. It also gives those looking to skim ideas a false sense of security, ignorant of how to use the notions and concepts they collect. EDIT: Plus, the subtext is transparent; you might as well just have the protagonist and villain wearing labels as to who they represent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thwb4661 It's not the fault of anyone alive today that your ancestors thought it prudent to mask true identities, and hide genuine history behind a false facade, leaving out important little details, so that the descendants of those they supplanted would not think to do the same to you, nor be in a position to claim ownership of lands or titles taken from their ancestors.
This answers your question as to why the colour of persons of interest would be hidden. And yes, all the names you mention would be considered today as black, or non-white.
It's the great conspiracy -- to hide the fact that at some point in relatively recent times, the old regime was usurped, and a so-called new world order put in its place.
Black people don't care about black representation, or pro-Africanism, because the latter is nonsense. Africa is merely the world's largest refuge, or reservation, a place to which original man could retreat to escape the newcomers, who would not be comfortable in a parched desert or swampland Savannah.
Attempting to give a wasteland gravitas, is disingenuous. It's like handing someone something second hand and unwanted ---proclaiming it to be of great value, while hoarding what your parents stole from that person.
Instead of empty platitudes, what's necessary is the truth, the absolute truth. If Marie Antoinette looked like someone from the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, make it known far and wide. Don't continue promoting images of a false persona with rose coloured cheeks.
We are all subject to the highest authority who watches to see who is viable for the world as it was meant to be. That excludes those who make and / or love a lie.
1
-
1
-
@thwb4661 BTW, acutely aware that no "successful" people in this world can be considered perfect, having partaken of regrettable acts in the past, I respect the achievements of some cultures, and the way in which they have conducted themselves, at least in terms of demonstrating the merits of discipline.
For this reason, I hope my next comment doesn't offend you.
The word Asia, and thus the term Asian, did not originally encompass all the territories it does today.
Initially, it was attributed to lands on the eastern side of the Aegean Sea, to what we call today Turkey. It does however describe the phenomenon of the rising sun, and is therefore appropriate at least as a direction pointing east.
Strictly speaking, there is no Asia, as the sun rises in the east everywhere.
I'll not wade in more about your acceptance of labels, though it is ironic given the extended response you offered to my first comment.
BTW. I'm not directly from the Americas.
1
-
@thwb4661
In responding to comments about a casting choice for a Netflix documentary, knowledge of a specific point in history is required, that being the 1st Century BC. Since I can read, use discernment, and know how to undertake necessary research, I'm in a perfect position to respond. There are no other requirements. A person living in or from any of the places you list could arrive at the exact same conclusions.
There are people living right now, today in North America, and in Europe (in the UK), directly related to the ancient Egyptians, and others who lived in that region 2,000 years ago, even more so in some cases than the population of that country. Having migrated first out of Ancient Egypt -- to the Levant, then finally, after periods of exile, returning to that land, before being dispersed throughout the whole world (including the east), many of whom fled to Africa, some of whom established each of the noble nations of Europe, only to be usurped, enslaved and transported across the ocean to the Americas in bondage -- even now, these people serve as a *snapshot of ancient blood,* mixed far less than that residing in the region today. A famous Arab Egyptian leader once quipped about the remarkable case of people leaving as blacks, yet returning as whites. His wisdom is undermined by the irony, that the same thing happened, although to a lesser extent, in his own country. If those people were black, if they left as black, they should still be black today.
This cuts through all of your concerns about who should or shouldn't comment on history.
With all due respect, it is important to pay attention. I did say "...Turkey today." You assume my ignorance about Asia, while I could sit here and write a book about it. It's not necessary to go into such details.
At no point was my comment designed to undermine in the way you suggest. It's meant to point out your hypocrisy in denigrating the adoption of meaningless labels, when you're proud of the one you've been given. The Greek place name: Asia, itself undermines your claim to have influenced that choice. It describes things from a Greek point of view.
Where on a map, is your own name, the name you gave to yourselves, to your own continent?
That you accept and champion a foreign name for yourself, undermines all you've said about others being given to ridiculous labels. As I said, the word Asia could apply to any place on Earth.
Still, why do you feel so threatened? No one is attacking you. There's no need to be so proud and contrary.
I feel obliged to tell you there aren't that many people like me, and since you refuse to care who I might represent, that makes your comments a little bit naive.
1
-
@thwb4661 Oh... and regarding correction, that's correction of false history. Queen Cleopatra would be what we call today black.
We have authentic busts of Ptolemy X, Alexander I, a direct male ancestor. Both of them exhibit negroid traits and both of them, like the ancient Sphinx, have their facial features vandalized. This speaks volumes.
Having black blood on her father's side, and a Nilotic (very dark skinned) mother, without some freak genetic accident such as albinism, she could not come out looking white. Therefore, she would be classified as black. It doesn't matter which country she came from. All that matters is the blood, which carries no arbitrary labels given to it by usurpers.
This is why we cling to the labels, black, brown, red, white and yellow.
They're the only "facts" we can know, for certain.
1
-
@thwb4661 We are not talking about modern Egypt. What part of this do you not understand? We are talking about Ancient Egypt, and those best suited to do so are its survivors.
If Netflix put out a documentary on Anwar Sadat, casting Ralph Finnes or Wesley Snipes in the title role, yes, modern Egypt would have a right to complain. But we are talking about people who lived 2,000 years ago when the population was still black.
There I was thinking you're on the first page of all of this. Don't you know the Out of Africa Theory is bogus??? You're not aware of the necessity to support nonsense fallacies about the age of the Earth, for the purposes of undermining scriptural history? Of course not. From an oriental perspective, people migrating out of the Fertile Crescent would be no different to those coming from Africa.
I'm here to tell you, then. Africa is NOT the cradle of life. There is no out of Africa. That's a fallacy designed to mask true history, to promote nonsense like spontaneous evolution and uniformitarianism, and to invalidate the Biblical timeline. It also has an added benefit of deluding blacks into having some kind of pride in the wasteland to which their ancestors fled.
No one is denying your observations regarding modern cultural identities, but again, we are talking about the way things were twenty-one centuries ago.
We are talking about a period distant 500 times as much as the average age of the population of modern Egypt.
You have to think fourth dimensionally; you have to realize that a modern Egyptian would be completely out of place in Cleopatra's time.
Macedonia was a nation back then, not a province of Greece. It had changed hands several times. The Persians, who back then had Elamite descent, were, for want of a better word, blacks too. They left a mark on Macedonia. We don't even need to talk about this. The whole of the Balkan region was initially black, under the aegis of Mycenae etc., who left images of their dark skinned likeness all over the place, not to mention the Pelasgians and others who came from the Levant, and from Ancient Egypt itself. The whole region, including the Colchians, was black initially, and in some measure, surviving infusions of other blood: Minoans, Dorians: Hyllas' sons, right up until the time frame in question.
Her ancestors were blacks. There could have been admixture. That's not off the table, but we have likenesses of direct male ancestors. They're black, not white.
You do some gymnastics to try to get around my question. I'm glad that you mentioned Mesopotamia, and that you're aware; it is the original place, the deixis from which all discourse in our epoch derives. It's just a shame that you swap it out for Africa when that suits you. Still, strictly speaking, no one today uses extinct linguistics to describe themselves or their continents. So my question still stands? What's your own name?
FYI, I have a little program that brings up the meanings of obscure words. There's no need for pedantry in our time, and if it helps generate some due respect from you, I understand every word you type.
You sound very defensive; promoting your race and history in an unnecessary glorification, when no one is attacking you. I happen to admire the Chinese in some regards.
Again, there aren't that many people like me, and since you deign to consider my particular heritage, which comes across as arrogance on your part, you're at a disadvantage, and your pertinent comments hit wide of the mark.
What I perpetuate is called the truth. It is the ultimate denominator which -- when all is said and done -- will be the last thing standing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theniceguy7824 Ok. Let's start with a word. According to one Joseph Twaddle Shipley, in his 1945 Dictionary of Word Origins, page 144, he states a suggestion that Europe is a contraction of ancient Greek words: Euros + Ops, or Black mold + Face (Euros being the root of Eurot). That's really quite interesting, no? Of course, this proves nothing but the chance of Krek types (Krek being one possible etymology for Greek), encountering dark faces to their west, much in the same way the Melanoi were encapsulated in the mythology of Demeter, being black skinned people living to the west of Greece. Of course, we could take things to another level, but we have to tread lightly so as not to offend sensibilities and hurt prides. You're not even on page one. It would take time to convince you. I suggest that if you care enough to want to know the truth, search for it on your own volition. You'll find it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vaseofflowers4619 That you need to find words to describe populations makes sense, but if those labels mislead or are bywords, you shouldn't use them. Africa Territory is the name Romans gave to land they purloined from the Carthaginians. It's based on the di indigetes pantheon deity Africus, a Magna Graecian comprehension of semi-cardinal winds, which they perceived through personification, in this case the name of a character in a play: Phrike, representing cold, thus Aphrike personifying heat. We know it's an indigenous Italian word, because they also had a house of adopted gods (di novensides), which they picked up from defeated tribes. So really, should we be calling people the name of a south-westerly trade wind??? No sub-Saharan Africans exist. Instead, we have various groups of people derived from ancient families, whose identities are masked by toponyms, and why? Well, to hide the fact that these people migrated south under duress, from Europe and Asia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theniceguy7824 said: "You avoid any actual discussion you can't pull from someone else's theory page. "
I'll admit, I gloss over your comments. Your approach is naive, likely picked up from some "how to debate" tutorial.
FYI, everything said is regurgitation of others' words, even language spoken.
You have to gather enough information (study), look at who says what, and why, and then you can decide what to keep or to reject.
The first and most obvious action is inversion. If what we're told is false, then the opposite is true.
You can go online, or watch TV or watch a movie, or read peer-reviewed science papers and everything you're going to hear will promote Out of Africa, millions and billions of years, and uniformitarianism (in this case - "people derive from the land in which they're found"). These persistent, widely distributed "theories" are everywhere. No one suppresses them. If you're a kid in school, or college, you'll be bedazzled with intricate and copious sophistry, for the sake of credibility. This is the stupidity you're made to believe.
So, what are they hiding?
People migrated INTO Africa, relatively recently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A girl of the 90s explaining the C64! I remember going online with it in 1985, a full ten years before my first encounter with the World Wide Web. Back then, there was an adventure game called Multi User Dungeon. It was the 80s text version of GTA online, but set in a fantasy environment. The first time I logged on, was more or less an identical experience to one's first foray in GTA online. It's a true reflection of the way of the world. Never really used the modem after that much, perhaps once in a while as a treat. It caused spikes in the telephone bill, so we had to use it sparingly. A year or two later, I'd moved on to less boyish pursuits, like creating Graphic Novels. Most people don't appreciate that culture follows generations as opposed to just spanning them. Anyway, years later we got the same feelings of excitement logging on to AOL, and the same nagging sensation of guilt for running up the phone bill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Korschtal You'll have to forgive me, but I just don't believe you. Perhaps, it's possible, that you were born and raised in Britain, but your political leanings and your name suggest that if so, you're the child of post-EU expansion immigrants, in which case your anti-Brexit stance is unremarkable. You may be British, but because of your obvious bias, you shouldn't be allowed a say in any of this. Without cast iron commitments, from all political parties, to honor 2016's referendum result indefinitely, post-expansion EU anchor babies should not be allowed to vote.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GaganSagar-h8u Pakistan did not exist until the British (who colonized the region) partitioned India, leading to the deaths of millions of people in the process. As two instead of just one colony, India and Pakistan (including Bangladesh) are part of the British Commonwealth. I know they don't teach you people these things, but you should at least do some research. Indian and Pakistani cuisine, for example, are long-standing British staples. If you ever noticed, British people love their tea. Guess where they got it from! Try to remember. Britain was an Empire. All subjects of the Empire have a rightful stake in the commonwealth and the motherland. Slavs, and others, have no such right, not least because their countries are viable, and they have all they need already. Only the greedy and wannabes flood Britain with silly dreams of becoming Westernized, not knowing the surnames they long to adopt, and those they wish to reject belonged originally to people of colour, but that's another story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericbivins8014 Where does this paranoia come from? Which region of Africa, besides the far south, is liveable? We know none of it is. How do we know? The region would have a population of whites if it were habitable. Whites settle only the places of value, only places without disease or oppressive heat. So if you’re going to claim these people are incapable of managing a country, give them an actual country to manage and prove your point. One cannot manage copious amounts of sand, or intractable swamp land, or infertile savannah. Therefore, wild beasts make these places home. You are living on their ancestral land in Europe with access to crops, fruits, vegetables, and clean water sources for sustenance. Of course, you’ll manage it better than others, especially when you don’t allow others to partake of it. You discourage learning and poison them, so they don't know who they are. Later, you blame them for not knowing what to do after you're gone. Your mindless selfishness doesn’t even allow you to consider these things. You view black people as a threat to your exclusivity. Scripture talks about increased selfishness in the latter days. The description isn't sufficient to convey the obscenity.
1
-
1
-
@DavidGirling Let me elaborate, for comprehension's sake. Think of a criminal organization needing some way to launder money, but instead of money it's numbers of migrants! You invent completely bogus numbers attributed to one group, while downplaying the numbers of others. Are you getting the picture now? Do you really believe that 53,000 individuals made it into Britain in 2023, using rubber boats? Consider the MANY MILLIONS of legal migrants who walked into Britain from Eastern Europe for TWENTY YEARS, unhindered! Now suppose they don't want to go home. The government under-reported their numbers; they don't even know how many entered. I, on the other hand, happened to work with the ONS in 2011's census. We estimated that 15 Million EU Slavs had entered Britain by that time. The government offered a measly 3 million officially, and so now, they're forced to launder the true numbers, blaming them on illegals and darkies, because they know you're short sighted. Got it now? Why else would they put sons of the Commonwealth in charge in both England and Scotland at the same time? You've got to consider sleight of hand. It's what controls your emotions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidGirling Let me elaborate, for comprehension's sake. Think of a criminal organization needing some way to launder money, but instead of money it's numbers of migrants! You invent completely bogus numbers attributed to one group, while downplaying the numbers of others. Are you getting the picture now? Do you really believe that 53,000 individuals made it into Britain in 2023, using rubber boats? Consider the MANY MILLIONS of legal migrants who walked into Britain from Eastern Europe for TWENTY YEARS, unhindered! Now suppose they don't want to go home. The government under-reported their numbers; they don't even know how many entered. I, on the other hand, happened to work with the ONS in 2011's census. We estimated that 15 Million EU Slavs had entered Britain by that time. The government offered a measly 3 million officially, and so now, they're forced to launder the true numbers, blaming them on “illegals” because they know you're short sighted. Got it now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@idealicfool It is supremacy. I know that doesn't sound nice, but there was only ever going to be one country who could do it. A combination of geography, heritage, and prophetic covenant conspired to have the islands siting strategically between the Eastern and Western hemispheres, go out and dominate the entire world, as much as it was allowed to. America has never and will never repeat such dominance, because her remit has always been rebellion rather than divine sanction. America is, ignoble, a recreant mongrel society raised to kill and steal without honor. Britain initially sought to civilize the world under the authority of God through Kingship. America, in her utter repudiation of order, rejected all things so thoroughly, that she left letters out of words, made carriages drive on the opposite side of the highway, and developed inane sports that no one else plays. Britain is still, to this day, superior to America, regardless of the latter's size and resources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChristineRead-ck1uq Look. I know some of us are natural enemies, well, inveterate enemies, or rather situational enemies, or some other symbiotic arrangement, but this is about protecting all we inherited left to us for posterity. We have to stick together, all of us, all British people, not just some. Outsiders don't know or care about what this all means.
We don't need division. Farage is wrong to attack British Muslims. Britain has always had a Muslim population. Look at this pre-EU British phenomenon as a counter balance. Without it the scales would have tipped, even more than they have, in the wrong direction.
1
-
@ChristineRead-ck1uq Look. I know some of us are natural enemies, well, inveterate enemies, or rather situational enemies, or some other symbiotic arrangement, but this is about protecting all we inherited left to us for posterity. We have to stick together, all of us, all British people, not just some. Outsiders don't know or care about what this all means.
We don't need division. Farage is wrong to attack British Muslims. Britain has always had a Muslim population. Look at this pre-EU, British phenomenon as a counterbalance. Without it, the scales would have tipped even more than they have in the wrong direction.
1
-
Look. I know some of us are natural enemies, well, inveterate enemies, or rather situational enemies, or some other symbiotic arrangement, but this is about protecting all we inherited left to us for posterity. We have to stick together, all of us, all British people, not just some. Outsiders don't know or care about what this all means.
We don't need division. Farage is wrong to attack British Muslims. Britain has always had a Muslim population. Look at this pre-EU, British phenomenon as a counterbalance. Without it, the scales would have tipped even more than they have in the wrong direction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Geffo555 Would Eastern Europe accept one third as much of their populations to walk in from France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Belgium, Norway and Britain, to take their jobs, local businesses, and housing, triple waiting times everywhere, double classroom sizes, change local signage into foreign languages, siphon taxpayer's funds back to their own nations, then expect to stay?
1
-
@Geffo555 You understand none of this, because you have no nation of your own.Let's get you to comprehend. Imagine 99 million economic opportunists from developed nations, walking into the US legally in less than a decade. Try 49 million walking into Russia in the same period, or 300 million people from stable, developed countries, entering China, legally, against the peoples' will, on the basis of Chinese signatures on some obscure ASEAN agreement. Even if you tried to hide the figures and blame them, many years later, on illegals and alyssum seekers, do you think the natives in those countries would not revolt?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seto_kaiba_ You don't call Carthaginians black because you’re brainwashed to believe that non-blacks invented civilization, when instead, they usurped it.
The Egyptians, or whatever they called themselves back then, left us clues as to how they looked. They created bas-relief pictograms, statues, and artifacts which depict blacks in various shades. Non-blacks coming along later even broke off or defaced the noses to lessen the defining negroid identity.
Your labels Sub-Sarahan Africans, Europeans, Middle Easterners are either toponyms or descriptors of land, except for Europe which may describe the way faces looked. We can ignore "Africans" and "Middle Easterners" because they don't describe races. Instead, they're MODERN bywords associated with homogenous groups.
Africa for example derives from Africus, an indigenous Greco-Roman deity personifying the south-west wind, from their point of view. Sahara is an Arabic word meaning desert. Therefore, Sub-Saharan Africans literally means nothing at all. Africa did not become a widespread term to describe a continent until the age of discovery. The Sahara desert got its name obviously when the Muslim Arabs acquired North Africa. These are relatively recent events.
So, tell me--now that your modern associations between place names and racial attributes exist no more--how you can insist--that races come from where they're found today!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fuwto @fuwto It's subtle, but, then again, so is the compendium of pervasive lies. Here's the reasoning.
As I said, the name Africus is that of a Greco-Roman wind deity. These they call Anemoi. Back then heathens attempted to describe the world around them in terms they understood. To them the existence of winds coming from different directions meant some deity was responsible in each case. Thus they believed a creature called Notus/Auster blew wind from the south. Boreas or Aquilo stood puffing cold winds from the North. Eurus blew from the East, and Zephyrus/Favonius brought early light summer breezes in from the west. Who blew from the South-West? Who was responsible for a hot and unbearable sirocco coming up over the Mediterranean?
Africus.
The Greeks, who lived on the Italian peninsular, we call Magna Graecians. They became part of Rome, but for a time, being independent, they came up with their own "gods." The Romans simply renamed those gods, hence the main anemoi have two names.
Since the Magna Graecians became absorbed into Rome, the Romans considered them native, as in an old population. During their conquest of other lands, they'd developed a way to distinguish the old native gods, from those adopted along the way.
The newcomer gods they placed in a pantheon (or house gods) named Di Novensides. These were comprehensions, understandings, and deified personae they couldn't neglect, and so they added them to their belief system.
Meanwhile, all the old and native gods of the Italian peninsular, deriving from Etruria in the North, to Magna Graecia in the south, and all the tribes in-between, they placed in the Di Indigetes, or indigenous pantheon.
Guess in which house of gods we find our friend Africus?
The Greeks, the pre-Greeks enjoyed a good show, just the way modern audiences do, only theirs were done by live performers. Although actors back then were in some circles despised, the characters they played became legend. In one case a character called Phrike came to personify frost, and thus cold, and the concept of heat derived from its opposite: Aphrike.
Thence began the naming of the Southwesterly wind: Africus, deified by the Romans as an indigenous Greco-Roman anemoi.
This is how we know no tribe called ifir, or afra, or afri existed; if they had, the Romans would never honor, nor deify the name of a defeated people, especially not those they considered inferior.
Furthermore, we know the Romans, who were a patriarchal society, used the masculine suffix -us before the feminine -a. Africus precedes Africa.
Africa Territory simply meant the land of heat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markdaniels2200 I got put on an Action for Employment placement in 2007 at what once was British Home Stores, but is now Primark. When I got there, all the supervisors and managers were white-ish Polish born EU migrants, all of them in their 20s, one or two maybe younger. There were one or two British Asians vying for position, but the majority were Slavs. This was in my home town, where I'd grown up. The qualifications I managed in school, college and university meant nothing. Being British meant nothing. The work was probationary, without pay. The management had access to databases they used to victimize each candidate. It was one of the worst jobs I ever did, not least because of the villification and being ordered around, in my own place, by craven opportunists who could barely speak English and had been allowed by my own government to come into my town and steal the futures of the locals. You have no idea how enraged I became over this. A few years later, I worked with the ONS as a Census Collector. Believe me when I tell you that most British people have no idea how bad New Labour's open EU borders policy was. Think of a completely irresponsible sociopath, put in charge who instead of serving its people, does the bidding of mindless thieves who see only profit. I witnessed things you wouldn't believe. Entire families of Slavs saw this as a free-for all. Grandmothers, toddlers, and all in-between, invaded Britain, without fanfare or opposition. One in two houses on the streets of my districts were occupied by EU Slavs, in some cases, in most cases whole families, simply transported directly into Britain. Guess who actually had the best housing and who didn't! We estimated, based on our count, that between 2003 and 2011-- 15 million EU passport holding Slavs entered Britain. That's right: 15 MILLION. That's not a typo. The government admitted to 3 million back in 2016. FIFTEEN MILLION EU SLAVS from Eastern Europe, and that was five years before the Brexit vote. Why, when or how is 7,000 people (actually more like 100 people) in a rubber boat, ever going to offend???? This whole thing is nothing more than shameful on all fronts, exposing the craven avarice of the so-called establishment, the bigotry of the majority population who opened their arms to this horde, saying they would fit in, thinking it would somehow counter the number of British darkies, and the absolute stupidity of all those who thought voting for a turncoat insider, a sheep in wolves clothing, would offer "Brexit" and a return to the good old days.
Britain is DESTROYED because of people like you.
1
-
1
-
@markdaniels2200 Use your head! Why do you think they keep pushing this bogus migrant crisis with images of POC in rubber boats???
You do realize all news, including online, is bogus... right???
If you want your country back, you must accept all British people, and by that I mean those born and raised in Britain before 2003, including all the Muslims and darkies, all of them. They're your brethren, your countrymen. Only together can you become a force to resist what's taking place.
The rest? Well... as much as I hate to say it, because it seems contrary to all I stand for-- they have to go home. They're not poor. Their countries in Eastern Europe are fertile and doing well. Whatever wars there are complete pantomime. Let Poland absorb the Ukrainians. They're doing well after siphoning Britain's sustenance.
EU passport holders who arrived after 2003 must go back. Otherwise, it's all over.
With fake pandemics and all manner of insidious plans to kill off the ageing population, Britain will disappear. So you need to bring someone to power who tells the truth and who cares about all his people, not just those with money or white skin.
This is the only way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ALSPEHEIR What use do you have in mind for them? Should they exploit resources, steal, kill, lie, cheat, defraud, abuse and mock as well as you do? What's your definition of useful? And BTW, "useful" to whom? Perhaps they'd be of more use if they figured out how to enter and steal your land and identities! How about utilizing every scientific discovery to maim and kill? You've got it all wrong, upside down and back to front. If your intellect really was superior, you'd show the universe how things should be done, and we'd all be living in peace and harmony right now. The people living on that wasteland continent, despite its inhospitable nature, treated it far better than you would. It's not their fault that in this world, natural compassion is a weakness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnsimpson8893 It's about numbers. Civilized Western European nations did not overwhelm Britain in 1992 when open borders to the 12 Western European nations were established. French people, Spaniards, Germans, Italians, and Swedes entered Britain in numbers so modest that no discernable change occurred. Had things remained this way, the EU might have progressed into something acceptable to Britain.
The problems started in 2003-4 and then 2007 when Eastern European, ex-eastern bloc nations were allowed to join the EU. It was like a free-for all. Immediately the place was overwhelmed. You could see these people in the street walking around all of a sudden. They were in every Pub, and every street corner shop. This level of immigration has never occurred in British history. Not even the so called Anglo-Saxons arrived in such numbers and so quickly.
Opportunists, and racist whites tried to brush it under the carpet, claiming these Slavs would fit in, that they were hard working etc., when in truth it was about cheaper labour. Furthermore, these "legal" economic migrants did not need to fit in. They arrived in such numbers that they could create a nation of their own in Britain. With the government masking figures, a person who never goes out, wouldn't know the extent of things. The population was stunned, not only by the sheer amount, but by the government, who allowed it. It took years and years of outrage and complaining before a referendum on EU membership became possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Numbers are not an issue. 7,000 people is an insignificant amount of refugees, easily housed in any rich nation. The issue is only about skin colour. The crisis is only a crisis for those refugees and for those who cannot tolerate taking them in. The solution? Give each refugee a substantial allowance, enough for them to live in any rich country in the world. If they choose to return to their own countries, they bring with them sustenance and will no longer desire to leave, since they can rebuild their communities. If they enter any rich country of their choice, that allowance will go back into the local economy. "Crisis" solved. Now of course it's one thing offering this solution and another thing entirely getting those with the money to hand it over, and so, until better stewardship of the world's resources is undertaken, this will continue to happen in increasing numbers and NOT to plan, but for real.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People are kept back by this nonsense usage. Do you know what the word Africa means? Land of heat. It's based upon the Magna Grecian southwesterly wind deity Africus, a corruption of Aphrike, or hot.
When you say West African roots, you describe nothing. The people of West Africa are migrant populations; they all came from some place else.
The same way North America and Australia, with other notable regions, became white, so did Africa become black. You see, Africa would never be the first destination for those seeking fertile lands.
All you need do is look at an image of the world at night, with all the city lights showing. You'll see where the first people in our epoch migrated to.
When you call black people African, or say phrases like African genes, you mask true history and heritage. It's akin to calling all white people American.
The truth is, the original black homeland was Europe / Asia. European populations were never admixtures of people moving north, and out of Africa theory is nonsense. The opposite is true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukassmok4310 I don't drink gin. I worked as a census collector in 2011. Polish people keep talking about how great their country is. You have no idea how shameful your people's exploit of Britain was. I often had to speak to anchor babies, 5, 6, 7 years old because their Polish mothers were afraid of getting deported, and these were so-called legal EU immigrants. It was absolutely shocking to see how many of them arrived after 2004, and where they lived (usually the best housing). Most of the British population have no idea how criminal open borders turned out to be. Within a few years they went from close to 0% to the largest ethnic minority in the country, part of the greatest influx of foreigners in all of British history, all because some pathologically greedy cowards manipulated the government to allow in as many low paid skilled workers as possible from brainwashed ex-eastern bloc opportunist nations, deferring the bill for their housing, health provisions etc., on the very people (British ethnic minorities and the working class) whose jobs and space they took. Oh, and don't tell me they went home. They're still there now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Djahto543 Britain is not, and never will be, a part of Europe. She has always been separate, and always will be.
Poles and Slovakian folk carrying EU passports are NOT welcome in such numbers as those who entered this past two decades. They already outnumber ALL immigrants from Western Europe (in totality), going back to before the EU, and should all be deported.
Caribbeans and French people, in particular, and to a lesser extent Western European nations, have a right to enter, as English and French populations share history, and things of which Slavs have no comprehension.
British Commonwealth citizens have a right to enter, as Britain built her wealth off the back of their ancestors.
Poles and EU Slavs have NO RIGHT to enter Britain. Britain is not a member of the EU.
This isn't a theme park. It's a country. If you don't have a country of your own, perhaps you don't understand what the word means.
You have your own countries, with your own histories, your own languages, your own cuisine etc. Go home!
I have a right to tell you this, because you're not poor or desperate. You're rich and you have viable, fertile land. Go home, and don't try to argue. We don't need many MILLIONS of opportunists undermining and stealing from our own people.
1
-
Yeah, that and the oddity of five black cops, which is unusual. Also, the guy calls out to his mother. What are the odds of that happening again? Also, the videos aren't that clear, and we don't see any real connections close up. The kicks, delivered in the long distance shots, didn't look like they were landing. Now, I'm not saying for sure that it's fake, but it could be. Those guys could have been just a bunch of thugs given uniforms. I mean seriously. Wearing a chest cam, would a police officer engage in such a free for all? None of the video footage is clear enough to see what's happening, and they've had weeks to concoct this stuff. I could be just another psy-op.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alsoascot02 My friend. All your opinions are moot. For one thing, it's easy to spot EU Slav foreigners. Many of them have a different phenotype, dark hair, and sallow skin. The ones who don't look too dissimilar, dress and move differently. Especially in an urban setting, for people raised in an area, they stand out like a sore thumb. They have no understanding of local norms: how people stand, walk, sit, eat. Some of them are ignorant of polite protocols, like giving way, or getting into a queue. These things cannot be feigned, and it takes less than a second to spot them. Of course you wouldn't know this because you're not from where I'm from.
1
-
@alsoascot02 Regarding the figures, I made 4 attempts here to explain them. Each was deleted. That should tell you all you need to know.
I went house to house, door to door, collecting and replacing census forms, speaking to thousands of people. The locals had no idea that every third house contained EU migrants from Eastern Europe. Many locations contained multiple occupants, migrant workers crammed together. Others had complete families who simply walked into Britain, consisting of toddlers, grandmothers, and everything in-between. You would see several generations either arriving, moving house, or going to work together in the morning. Most of them were cooperative and friendly, but some thought they would get deported, unaware of their "legal" right to exploit the situation--if these were even from EU Eastern Europe! Not speaking English, they'd send their 6-year-old kids to answer the door! I saw it all: where the ethnic folk live, the inhumane places the illegals and asylum seekers got, and accommodations the "legal" Slavs enjoyed. As a Brit, it was both shocking and innervating. People have no idea how much New Labour allowed these people to come in and exploit the land, housing, health care, and public services, having absolutely NOTHING to do with this country. The locals (white, brown, and black) were livid. Underestimating the actual numbers, all Brits complained about Eastern European opportunists. This was over ten years ago. So please, don't try to sugar coat things. It's a problem unlike anything Britain has faced before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@diamonds7504 There's nothing wrong with going abroad if you contribute to the local economy, or if your stay is temporary, or if only a reasonable number arrive. When the numbers are millions "legally," it's a horrendous problem.
I cannot understand how the people of Britain allowed MANY millions of EU Slavs entry. It is suicide.
Okay, so some people are racist, and don't like dark skin, ignorant that more than 10% of the British population has always been "ethnic". But to think it's a problem, and that you can solve it by allowing in MILLIONS of EU Slavs, is astounding.
The truth is, you don't even know how many entered! Furthermore, they're not tourists. They're there to stay, and they don't need to assimilate. You see, if the numbers are reasonable, assimilation is necessary. But when whole families walk in unhindered, and entire streets become saturated with people from the same non-traditional non-commonwealth nations, you have a problem.
Local British citizens are undercut in the jobs market. Their futures are stolen by people born in Eastern Europe.
If they manage to have children, those kids will attend overcrowded schools.
Healthcare suffers under the burden of millions of new patients, millions of anchor babies.
These people take. They don't give. They occupy.
It's obscene, and I really don't understand how anyone can support this lunacy.
Worse still, people blame actual British citizens born and bred in Britain, in their third, fourth and fifth generations, simply because their skin is darker. It's shocking. It's shameful. Furthermore, it's hypocritical, evil, and a blot on the reputation of those considering themselves "English" suggesting no such thing ever existed.
1
-
@violetweston3401 At the time of his election, he lived in Islington. It was full of traditional British minorities: Caribbeans, Orientals, Turks, Greeks, People from African countries, Indians, and Muslims, as well as the majority white British population, alongside a reasonable amount of Western Europeans. From Eastern Europe, only genuine Yugoslavs (refugees) and others had entered, in small numbers. This was fine, until Blair opened the floodgates, allowing in EU passport holding ex-eastern bloc economic migrant Eastern Europeans, who thought Britain was a free-for-all. Brexit followed a decade later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Puffball-ll1ly That's what these channels don't realize. They forget. Up until this point, blacks never controlled content, and still don't. Anti-Black historians, feeling bitter now, is the result of exposure to the actual truth. You see, up until now, it's all been a bunch of lies. Every motion picture, every documentary, everything taught at school -- all omitted a particular detail. The truth leaked out because of the Internet; content creators want to profit from it, or control it, gate keep, preempt revelation, whatever you like. Hannibal was black, and so were the vast majority of historical figures existing before moving pictures.
1
-
1
-
The brainwashing of Slavic people is tremendous. Even now, after the bottom has fallen out of so-called Western nations, Eastern Europe STILL has this romantic delusion of a better life in the west. The UK left the EU because of this, because millions of Eastern Europeans rushed into Britain in uncontrollable, unbelievable numbers over the past two decades. Now, of course, some elements pulling strings there wanted an endless supply of cheap skilled labour, and others thought large numbers of Slavs would somehow replace people of colour, but in truth, it's a terrible mess. The British population (in general) does NOT want uncontrolled numbers of Slavs in their country. When they can no longer blame undesirables, when they realize they're being duped into allowing millions of people born in Eastern Europe to remain, they'll turn against the MANY, MANY newcomers. You have to understand. The West isn't a hotel or a theme park. People live there and when you enter, looking for a better life, you take that away from one of the natives. It's just the same as if someone arrived in your own country, looking to impoverish you personally. This is why we have borders. This is why we have nations. You're supposed to make the best of what you have. If you're going to travel, go to places where YOU can help locals, rather than undermining them.
1
-
1
-
@florianmeier3186 Brexit was in name only. No post-expansion EU migrants left. In fact, the government never admitted how many arrived. They couldn't. It would be the end of the establishment. So instead they're pushing a false narrative, hoping people blame traditional British minorities for overcrowding, instead of the newcomers. Now, I have nothing against immigrants. It was always about numbers. Before New Labour (and EU expansion), things were fine. I mean, they were bad under the Conservatives, but no one anticipated at least 15 million EU Slav arrivals by 2011, which is basically 1 out of every three houses in urban Britain, and more immigrants than all historical British minorities combined. You'll never hear these numbers in any official capacity. They're low estimates Census workers arrived at after going door to door. Your utopia is yours not ours. If the British people had a say, all post-expansion EU migrants would return to their place of origin, since Britain never colonized Eastern Europe. You're here because of greed. They (opportunists controlling the government) just don't know when to stop exploiting, and since everything was hidden, they kept going until they'd endangered themselves. They released some pressure in 2011, instigating national riots, but it wasn't enough. The population threatened to vote the two main parties out. This is why false Brexit was allowed. So, don't get too comfortable. Perhaps you're welcomed in your small town, but news media NEVER expresses the true feelings of a population.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think Russia has a right to administer ex-Soviet states. After all, when I came into this world, the USSR existed and did so for over 20 years after that. Russia of course, has its problems, like any other nation and has questionable things in its past, but today, of all the so-called European states, Russia seems to me at least, to most resemble the way a nation should be organized. They at least want to maintain traditional ways of life. So, for me, it's right that Russia takes control of the Ukraine, and removes a deceitful puppet regime placed there recently by opportunists looking to prize open the vast resources of Eurasia. Of course, I could be mistaken, and this whole thing could be some nefarious charade designed to do harm to innocents, who are completely unaware of what hidden enemies plan for them. Whatever the case, anyone who promotes decency, logic, and order, in this world, shall be commended, because for certain, those who most famously claim to have authority preside over the insidious degeneration of society. Do I take sides? No, but I will be frank about this. Russia has a right to absorb Ukraine. Both nations share history and are related. Ukraine is just the western extent of Russian territory. Kiev is for all intents and purposes a Russian city. Remove the comedian actor puppet and replace him with someone who will treat all the people within Ukraine, as one people, making sure that encroachments from the west cannot take place. That will foster peace in the region. Otherwise, Russia has the right to take what belongs to her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AEG3587 You're having real problems with Tourette's syndrome style outbursts. Control yourself!
Eurys, Ereb, Erebu, Erebo, Eurus, etc., are not the origin of the word Europe, "'accepted" or not.
According to the citation given, this word is a contraction of Euros (one word) + Ops.
Now, I'm going to help you out a bit. Euros in fact does mean mould. There are several words using this suffix, including Eurotia, and Eurot. It's a distinct ancient Greek word, separate from the ones listed.
Now. Since I've pointed you in the right direction a couple of times, I charge you now with the responsibility to reconcile Mr. Shipley's use of the term BLACK. You see, breadcrumbs leading to this do exist, but they're fraught with invention and diversions, like for example rendering Euros as "hoary." Of course, this makes no sense. If Euros means white (hoary) then what is Shipley talking about?
I think we have found the true HIDDEN meaning of the word Europe.
Black face.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stuartbailey9287 Poland will never be a part of Western Europe. I don't care how much of Britain's wealth it siphoned off since the advent of New Labour. People don't understand. If you speak a different language, and have different customs and beliefs, you are foreign. It's not complicated. France will always be France. Spain will always be Spain, and Italy will always be Italy. To change this, you must remove every different culture, and language, every accent, and every variation. Polish people are just as stubborn and proud as anyone else. They may think they're "western" because they want to be part of some fanciful special, exclusive club, but really... they're not. They even have a different phenotype to people in the West. This ridiculous idea of unifying "Europeans" cannot be sufficiently mocked. I've sat in rooms filled with French people, in France. Even my best attempts to communicate coupled with theirs, could not overcome the tremendous difference in tone, attitude, style, and mien. I could see that, even people who look identical, are completely different based upon where they're born and raised. Jumbling communities up together in one place changes nothing. Their children will adopt the local language, accents and customs, perpetuating national identities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CrossBreedTacoHD Avoid the first results of a search on Google.
Here's a better definition.
swarthy (adj.)
"dark-colored, tawny," especially in reference to skin, 1580s, an unexplained alteration of swarty (1570s), from swart + -y (2). Related: Swarthiness. A swarthness is attested from 1520s.
swart (adj.)
Old English sweart "black, being of a dark hue," in reference to night, clouds, also figurative, "wicked, infamous," from Proto-Germanic *swarta- (source also of Old Frisian, Old Saxon, and Middle Dutch swart, Dutch zwart, Old Norse svartr, German schwarz, Gothic swarts "dark-colored, black"), from PIE root *swordo- "dirty, dark, black" (source of sordid).
The native Germanic word, surviving in the Continental languages but displaced in English by black. Also in Old English in reference to skin color of persons. Related: Swartness; swartest.
also from 1580s
1
-
@CrossBreedTacoHD Again, to someone with a "Mediterranean" complexion (which is what you mean when you say "olive", not knowing the term was olivaster back then (meaning the colour of the olive (black or tawny)), or to someone with very light brown skin, back in 16th Century Venice, what would swarthy mean?
You don't read. You don't comprehend and you dismiss mindlessly.
If this Venetian Ambassador (AN ITALIAN FROM VENICE) had "swarthy" skin (as in the modern definition: very light brown, as opposed to the definition in his own time: dark skinned, tawny), then why did he describe Anne Boleyn as having a "swarthy complexion?"
If she was his own complexion, why did he make this observation?
And what did this word swarthy mean in the 16th century?
Furthermore, her daughter Elizabeth is also described as having "swarthy, olivaster" skin, "just like her mother." See Alison Weir's writings on this matter.
Is a sun tan heritable?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Logic is logic. Look at Margaret Thatcher! To some British folk, she was a strong, powerful leader, fighting to enrich her people. To others, she was a criminal, an evil selfish miserly wicked witch who stole milk from children. It's all a matter of perspective. The truth doesn't care about agendas. If you're a decent person, who can criticize you? If you're not, if all you do is lie, cheat, scheme and plan evil, what do you expect? Here's an idea! Tell the truth at all times. Then you'll have the ones you want, on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@coling3957 And? It doesn't matter whether occupiers are welcomed or not. They're still occupiers. We know what the ancient Egyptians were like. They left images of themselves all over the place. Plus, scripture states that the Hebrews, who could easily pass for Egyptians, were similar to Ethiopians. This seals the debate right here. Arabs, the ancient kind, were kin folk of the Israelites, being sired by Ishmael, the Great half uncle of Jacob/Israel. The word Arab according to Strong's concordance 6148 actually means mixed. If we take this to mean the progenitor Ishmael was mixed on account of his being half Hebrew and half Egyptian, then there you have it. Arabs originally would have passed for Egyptian, and by extension they would resemble Ethiopians in some way. Where's the mystery in all of this? I don't see why there should be any confusion or controversy. Populations change over time as foreigners or other cultures intermingle with them. If we go back to the Middle East in biblical times, the populations would not resemble their modern counterparts. So, if someone produces a feature depicting a population as darker than their modern counterparts, there should be no complaints. Besides, there are still many dark Arabs. If the issue is about the complexion of the Greeks who usurped the throne of Egypt, I think common sense dictates that even the Greeks looked different 2,100 years ago. In some cases, individuals would represent the extremities of the range of phenotypes, and in others they'd just appear mixed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No such thing as native European people exist. Look at the female presenter! Does she look British to you????? The idea of a European race is ridiculous. Of white Europeans, only the British and French share close kinship, a fact true also of Black Britons and Black French. Germans are a little different, but close enough. EU Slavs, well, they're Slavs, a different race. I have nothing against Slavs, but, they should be in Eastern Europe. Millions of them live in Britain, 5 million Poles, and then all the rest. It's just wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brianeleighton Perhaps you don't understand. I'm not interested in your "law." Made up arbitrary edicts mean nothing at all. Now, it's true that authority today gets dictated by money and force, but that's not the same as law. Law comes from above, from the authority of the one who designed life. That you despise persons for their believing this, invalidates you and your concerns. Remember. A minister is supposed to be a minister of God, not the self-seeking arm twisted sycophant who votes to pass unjust statutes. Everything you said is completely false. You create false enemies to affect false outcomes. What exactly do you hope to gain by victimizing an innocent person in this way? No one is fooled, except, perhaps... you. No one fears this girl, or people like her... except for you. Your paranoia is toxic, stemming from introspection, thus the world suffers this intrusive, ignorant, and intricate "defence" mechanism. It's truly pathetic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@janemichallat Let's be honest. Margaret Thatcher caused this. How so? When I first went to college, I thought everyone there would agree with my politics.
Naively, I opened my mouth against Thatcher and was shocked by the reaction of some Northerners who should have backed me. Instead, they related to me her heroism -- how she'd done well, privatizing industries which benefitted them directly, bringing in council house ownership etc.
When I offered my own experience: cuts in the social safety net, abolishing of the ILEA, privatisation of everything including the milkman, the poll tax, introduction of student loans, I found no sympathy.
Margaret Thatcher was the best Prime Minister ever... for some people. Her shortsighted and concealed motives paved the way for the destruction of Britain. You see, she meant to apply pressure, to get the darkies to go home, but instead ended up gifting Britain's resources to predators, who, tasting blood, put into motion their plan to have it all.
It was a simple gambit, a problem/solution thing.
By ratcheting up jingoist, populist xenophobia, they could lay the groundwork to invade an almost impervious nation protected by the Channel.
Brainwashed into believing closer ties to other Western European nations would benefit Britons, all anticipated the Channel Tunnel, which ended thousands of years of isolation.
When her masters saw she'd served her purpose, they rudely discarded her, and set things up to bring in eventually "The Son of Thatcher."
How would they do what no invading force could?
The Soviet Union would fall, and all those culture-starved Slavs, cozened into believing the west is nirvana, chomped at the bit to accept Thatcher's telegraphed invitation. Come to Britain! Take what belongs to the sons of the Commonwealth!
Blair opened the gate. Brown did nothing to stop the Slavic horde. Bigoted Britain, fooled altogether, saw white Slavs as the solution to brown proliferation in the inner cities.
It was a Trojan Horse.
By neglecting to report the numbers entering, the establishment would benefit from a perpetual source of cheap skilled labour, free from red tape and overheads associated with employing local Brits.
If anyone complained, it was Slavs. They'll fit in. They're friendly, and hardworking! They'll assimilate!
The only assimilation they're going to do, vicariously, through their millions of "Slavish" crypto-Slav British children, is vote to rejoin the EU.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gaygoslar2185 If you know who is behind it, and you know what they want you to do, why do that? Wouldn't going after those behind it make more sense? Think of all the Caribbeans, who had a right to be in Britain, and had children. Think of how those kids felt under Thatcher's rule, celebrating when New Labour got in, only to find themselves a few years later, being replaced in their own ****** country by EU Slavs!!!! Think about that!!!! What are you going to do about the 15 million Slavic EU migrants who have taken over Britain???? They're ok right? They're already British... right? They'll fit in? You're illogical. You let those enemies fool you into allowing in MILLIONS of "Eastern Europeans" -- their own kind, because you don't like darkies, and now Britain is destroyed, and your remedy is to try to remove those who in your eyes don't fit? And guess what! The best thing about this country, the thing that made all those Poles and Hungarians, and Lithuanians and all the many others want so desperately to enter, was those darkies.
Only Western nations have darkies. That's the secret ingredient attracting the Slavs. You may think it's just the prospect of a better life, but no. It's really that uniqueness of culture, the resulting blend of Britain's commonwealth input.
That's what made Britain great!
And now it's destroyed because all there are, everywhere, are "Eastern Europeans" who have NOTHING to do with Britain, and cannot perpetuate British culture or tradition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@InfraSaturn Again. You know. I agree with your sentiments, believe me. But what can be done? It was nice when I was growing up. Despite not knowing what I know now, it was still okay.
Even around the early 90s when French, Italians, Spanish, Germans and Swedes started coming in, it was serene. I ended up with a French girl. They didn’t overwhelm. Sure. I’d been to Brick Lane. Procreation worked well for Asians.
But, in 2004, that was the end. Three years later, in my hometown, I got placed on an unpaid work scheme, in what was once British Home Stores, managed and supervised by people born in Poland, who had access to databases allowing them to personalize the insult added to injury.
Many people don't realize how greed has ruined Britain and how close it is to implementing modern slavery against its citizens. In 2011, working with the ONS during the Census, I discovered things you wouldn’t believe, including the number of EU migrants in Britain.
White Brits need to join with their Commonwealth British brethren, (including those of a darker shade, who are British, born and bred), and end the abomination destroying what was once great.
It’s more or less over, but at least try not to allow your prejudice to continue working against you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How to replace Brits and siphon off the spoils of the British Empire 101
1) Return a token number of Jacobites and Royalists from the colonies to help rebuild after the war. Call them black Commonwealth Immigrants.
2) Promote xenophobia among white people through populist movements and street gangs.
3) Weed out and destroy the National Front and allow extremists entry into both main political parties.
4) Watch while the Centre Right disenfranchises the sons of the commonwealth, destroying the entire working and middle classes, privatising everything to be handed over to you.
5) Sit back and absorb the backlash, knowing that a record-breaking swing vote will allow you to execute your master-stroke.
6) Give Britain New Labour, the saviour of the British working class, promising to reverse the devastation caused by Thatcher.
7) Unleash the abomination: EU open borders upon Britain, destroying her sovereignty, allowing at least 15 million ex-eastern bloc economic Slav opportunists lawful entry into Britain. In a single decade, they outnumber ALL traditional minorities by a factor of two, creating a tremendous source of cheap skilled labour to generate unimaginable savings and inordinate profits.
8) Rub your hands together in glee as the population turns on the establishment, threatening to remove it, knowing the swing in momentum can bring to power more stooges to carry out the plan. Give the people Brexit as a safety measure only, intending to reverse it as soon as possible.
9) Use xenophobia against the British people by blaming overcrowding on a few asylum seekers instead of addressing the 15 million Eastern European EU immigrants and their children who are now eligible to vote.
10) In between sucking the last marrow out of the bones of British enterprise, laugh as myopic white Brits complain about darkies, already outnumbered in their own place by Slavs.
11) Use some bogus health scares to eliminate ageing traditional Brits and perceived enemies, so that compliant assorted Non-British mongrel whites become the majority in Britain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnallen7807 You're not being accurate. You're regurgitating massaged figures. I worked with the ONS in 2011 and was privy to actual counting of households in highly populated London boroughs. If what we found was extrapolated across the whole of the UK (we can use averages), 15 million Eastern Europeans settled in the UK between 2003 and 2011. Now, that may sound incredible, but I went door to door collecting census forms and saw the situation myself with my own eyes. Most British people have absolutely no idea how reckless New Labour was. You simply would not believe the situation on the ground. Now, I happen to agree with your stance on immigration. However, asylum seekers and genuinely destitute refugees are not and never were an issue for anyone apart from actual bigots and racists. The problem is and was EU migration in the many millions of Eastern European economic opportunists who left viable, well resourced nations to exploit loopholes and enrich themselves, and the corporations exploiting them as cheap skilled labour, at the expense of British natives. They got an incredible, an insane pass on account of their looking like the existing majority population, but their presence, in those numbers, at that rate, undermined absolutely everything. It's no secret that if they could, many Brits would physically replace ethnic minorities with those Slavic immigrants, but that doesn't solve the problem of overcrowding. It doesn't help that those particular immigrants are just as demanding as the natives. You may have no idea what it was like to see your hometown swamped overnight by people who could not even speak English, and had absolutely nothing to do with Britain's imperial past. It wouldn't have been an issue if there had been moderation, but, there were absolutely no controls in place. It was a free for all, designed in some unthinking way to attempt to counter the proliferation of particular minority classes. The consequences of this treachery have yet to play out, and I am convinced that if Labour are returned to power, they will attempt to finish the job.
1
-
1
-
@johnallen7807 I want you to imagine how the UK might react if opportunists, looking for gold, openly interfered with an election in N. Ireland, installing an anti-British puppet regime which systematically attacked loyalists with an influx of modern weaponry, having already infiltrated and armed the Republic of Ireland.
If the UK sent in troops, would you call the action "unprovoked?"'
Ukraine and Russia, 30 years ago, were part of the same nation. To have an anti-Russian puppet government installed in Ukraine, openly funded by the West, spending the last decade outlawing the Russian language in Ukraine, as well as attacking enclaves of ethnic Russians, with western supplied weaponry, sounds a lot like provocation to me.
The UK has no business meddling in ex-Soviet affairs, and should stay out of it. If Russia wishes to reestablish proper influence over its own cousins, that's their prerogative.
Winning a bunch of seats with a party determined to leave the assembly, in which it achieved so spectacular a feat, is of utmost irony. PR represents feelings at a particular moment, and is thus a dangerous thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
France is a lawless nation. They rejected the divine right of kings, installing a secular constitution based on nonsense "democracy". They have no mandate, so technically speaking, people following French law are duped. In other words, an illegitimate authority dictates in France. Does this condone plundering? Well, we are supposed to obey authority, as long as it doesn't contradict God's commandments. You could argue, God instructed his people to plunder on many occasions. Why? They'd been displaced, enslaved, redeemed, and tasked to take back what was rightfully theirs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shinrapresident7010 So you mean to say that if you turn in a piece of work flagged as lacking racial diversity, you should not take heed?
This is a publisher's opinion. They publish books for a living and have experience doing so.
Let's put this another way. Eurocentric isn't an authentic notion. According to at least one etymological dictionary, the word Europe has a suggested meaning: Euros + Ops for ancient Greek words denoting Black + Face. Combined with the Demeter mythos, concerning the Melanoi to the west of Greece in the land of golden apples, there's a distinct reality that European aborigines were, well, darkies.
Now, of course, those inveterate, involved in word-smithery, would have acute awareness of this, hence the back slang. I chose a particular IP to try to get this message across.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MaximusThrax So, Cleopatra was a white Greek? Let's go with that for now. We know the Romans and the Greeks had a kind of US / UK style relationship. Rome even adopted the Greek pantheon of pagan deities. The Romans had no problem intermingling with their Grecian cousins. Right? The lower part of the Italian Peninsular was ethnically Greek? They were very close. Noblemen, retired soldiers and the like all went on holiday or retired to their Greek villas. They even looked alike, I'm guessing.
So if, Cleopatra looked like a Roman, why did they find her so offensive?
She was white and Greek, you say.
Why then did they kill their greatest conqueror whose white offspring would have united Rome and Egypt (giving Romans perpetual access to Egyptian grain without spilling a drop of blood), even going as far as to kill said offspring?
All of this over someone who looked exactly like the Romans???
I don't know. It just makes very little sense, like it's missing a very basic, simple, honest detail.
1
-
@Raymoiful I didn't ask you to regurgitate all the excuses given to us to try to explain things away.
From this vantage point, I don't think there's a modern European would not be proud of a Queen Cleopatra the way she's depicted in every instance apart from this one. You don't believe that? Go back and read 99% of the comments above!
So because she wanted to be treated as the Queen she was, they elected to kill her and her child? Also, are we supposed to believe that noble born Romans did not engage in acts of adultery without giving it a second thought? Didn't some of the so-called high-born, desirous of new wives, order married women to get divorces and dispense with their husbands at the drop of a hat? Where was the public outcry then?
And what's wrong with one person rule? They accepted it eventually. Can you count how many Roman Emperors there were?
The Senate's indignation was provoked by Caesar's plan to offer representation to the darkies of Gaul and other negroid conquered lands.
Caesar expected Caesarion to rule only Egypt? If this was so, why then did Augustus feel threatened? He was an official heir, right? Why would he need to remove a non-citizen half brother by way of adoption? You're saying that Roman citizenship counted for naught???
Yes, Caesarion was the natural-born son of Caesar, but again, if the Egyptian child was meant to rule Egypt, (when he came of age decades after Augustus Caesar's rise to Princeps) where exactly was this threat? Augustus himself adopted or promoted candidates who were not his natural heirs, and posed a threat to the continuation of his own bloodline, as did many subsequent Emperors.
Perhaps Augustus did use the situation to his advantage, but would his plan work if Cleopatra was a stunning white rose, loved by the people for her Grecian Hellenic looks? These people deified each other. They loved their Greek cousins too. Some of them were of Greek ethnicity themselves. The whole lower end of the Italian Peninsular was a Greek enclave. Octavian would have had a far less difficult task to sway the population if this Queen looked different.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the narrative that this was merely a political struggle. Octavian raised Anthony's children by his sister Octavia. He even considered making their offspring heirs to the throne at some point. Wouldn't that seem a tad hypocritical, if Anthony was officially disposed of for mistreating Octavia?
No.
The simple people were easily swayed because both Caesar and Anthony engaged in undeniable exogamy: undeniable because Cleopatra was black.
1
-
@Raymoiful Mark Anthony condemning his only Roman son by naming him heir, he did to conform to Roman law. It's a good point to raise, but these people (Antyllus and his mother) had been exiled to Greece, of all places.
The point being: Greece was considered an extension of Rome. Of all conquered lands (Italy notwithstanding), unless I am mistaken, only Greek deities were considered "indigenous" to the Romans. They had two pantheons: di indigetes, and di novensides. The first was for indigenous gods, and incorporated Greek deities. The second was for gods adopted from defeated nations.
Thus, Cleopatra wouldn't have been considered in a negative light, unless she was somewhat different. Neither would Greco-Roman Caesarion, son of a "god" whose murder would be sacrilege under any circumstance, apart from it being a matter of racial intolerance.
One suspects that the new Princeps didn't want to appear monstrous in killing all of Anthony's brood, and so he allowed his sister to raise them. Most everything he did it seems was based upon strategic expediency. Thus, (unless I'm mistaken also) none of Cleopatra's mulatto offspring sired Roman Emperors, but instead were utilized and ruled over Northern African Kingdoms.
Eventually, the throne was occupied by darkies, but that's a whole other issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AJS86 The Scottish, the Irish, the Welsh, and all of the people those people replaced, and whose lands and resources built her, have a right to be in England. No one else does, apart from these and the "English." This means many millions of EU passport holders, who arrived after EU expansion, should go home. A token number, as a result of natural hospitality, should be allowed to stay; let's say no more than 100,000 people from each EU state. Is this not more than fair?
1
-
1
-
@123danvc No crisis in Europe exists beyond intra-EU "white" migration. The black face media promotes exists to stir up division, to promote some ridiculous internecine race war to eliminate enemies of the so-called elites. That's not going to happen. People are not stupid, well, at least not all of them. Take Britain, for example. Only white Slavs speak Slavic languages, so when signage all of a sudden added Slavic translations, around 2006-2007, people knew the increase in population was "legal" EU migration from the east. Every other insurance sales person, supervisor, manager or plumber became Polish overnight. The government pretends 3 million EU Slavs entered. They always lie. We can multiply that by five. Why? Well, back in the mid 2000s, British supermarkets disclosed an increase in customer levels congruent with 20 million additional mouths. Was it an incredible anomaly, some kind of mistaken calculation? A website dedicated to keeping track of the numbers of ex-eastern bloc migrants coming in from 2003 onward, initially recorded over a million arriving per year. People who worked with the ONS in 2011 can tell you, based on personal estimates, 15 million EU Slavs had entered by then. That's almost one third of the existing population. Of course, ONS employees sign NDAs for a reason. No one will believe these numbers. So, if we assume the government kept a lid on things, we can multiply the numbers they gave, by five, as that's a nice pertinent number. Fast-forward to 2023 and the UK is overcrowded. Instead of putting the blame where it should be, the media promotes "illegal" migration as the cause, when only a trickle of people enter the country by boat, or smuggled in. It would take a century for illegal migrants to number one million people. What's the endgame, the point? Well, consider frauds like "Douglas Murray." This person likely has dual citizenship, and is not British. His ridiculous accent and mien are laughable. His goal, clearly, happens to be pandering to far right sentiments, provoking calls to repatriate British non-whites to non-European destinations, using the false burden of illegal immigration in lieu of entry of MANY millions of people like him, this past two decades. It's one of the dumbest inveterate ploys ever conceived.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SammEater How? When we were growing up, the Internet was something you connected your dial-up phone to with a physical modem; you could play crude text adventures with people on the other side of the Atlantic. No imagery existed. If you wanted to see something illicit, you had to ask the video shop guy for under the counter VHS tapes. Long story short, even without modern kit, kids could still get their hands on forbidden material. Now, that stuff damages directly. In some respects, mainstream movies are worse, pretending to be benign. When they're lauded in the playground, kids find ways to watch, regardless of their parents' opinions. Today, kids don't need to worry about their parents. They can download whatever they want, at any time.
1
-
@michaeldavid6832 True, but kids watch these movies. They don't have enough experience in life to escape the spectacle. For some, these will be the first movies they see. It might take whole lifetimes to get over the programming.
I'd written a great response, but seconds before hitting send, Gremlins conspired to garble things. Anyway, here goes a second try.
You make some good arguments, which I agree with. But... in 1986 James Cameron put out a sequel to Alien. Aliens, like its predecessor, had a female lead. Not only that, but it was a decent science fiction movie. Not only that, but it was for adults. Guess who watched and appreciated it the most! That's right, underage, impressionable boys. If you want to go back, looking for well received female leads, snuck in under the radar, there's Sarah Connor from 1984's The Terminator, another movie embraced by male punters. Dudes accepted these stories, went wild about them, and still do today.
Granted, those movies were well-made, they're about and promote females as leads without being "boring."
Right now, there is no "Star Wars" for young boys to be excited about. Cameron for example is giving us blue cat people. Disney puts out the same twisted item in every aisle. They put poison in every shiny product. Young impressionable boys have no say in what they watch. It's all spiked and has been that way for a long time.
So, while I agree with what you're saying, it's flawed. Hollywood has always hidden its agendas in its movies, getting children in general brainwashed on things to be avoided.
It goes even further now. The deception is raw. People (including adults) don't know why they object to movies; they're being fooled on more than one level.
1
-
1
-
@greghill7759 What amazes me most is the level to which some will go to get their hands on the loot. All this sophistry is about taking what does not belong to you, including identities. AFAIAC only two entities in this world have valid claims over it. In the pecking order, one has been allowed to replace the other. A third phenomenon assumed someone's titles and manifest destiny, fearful of a sub-faction, given license to carry forward promise. All other players vie for crumbs. Britain, once imbued with sanction to rule, became the target of every creeping thing desirous of that title. Now, for accommodating too many self-deluded parasites, for allowing them to remove her crown, she's come unstuck. She must do the right thing, or it's curtains, not only for her, but also for those counterfeits who (in their ridiculous quest for validation and godhood) destroy everything they touch. This is the way things are. You can't complain when people tell the absolute truth.
1
-
1
-
@greghill7759 If you're looking for official figures, you won't find them.
Every government issued estimate on this will be false.
I worked with the ONS in 2011 during the census that year, having to sign a NDA (Nondisclosure agreement). Extrapolating my own findings, taking population density of urban to rural areas into account, we arrived at 15 million EU migrants entering between 2003 and 2011.
Every third door knocked contained EU migrants, mainly Polish, but a great deal of Hungarians, Romanians, and others. Whole families including grandparents simply walked in. It was either that or a house full of workers. Some of them couldn't speak English, but had young children who could. Many were afraid we'd deport them! They also occupied the best housing, as well as the worst. They were everywhere. It was shocking. Actual Brits, white and non-white, were livid.
The government admits to just 3 million for the same period, five times less. Five -- times less.
Here's a quote from 2007, putting things into their true perspective:
"Consumption – that's the thing. Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat one lunch and one dinner.
I have a second, respectable, source. A major, non-commercial agricultural institution reckons there are 77 million of us in the UK. Again, its reckoning is based on what we eat.
City Eye: Facts on a plate: our population is at least 77 million
Martin Baker
Sunday 28 October 2007 "
The current UK population is 67.33 million (2021)
...10 to 13 million people short of those estimates made 14 years prior.
I would say my own estimate (15 million) isn't far off from where it would be three years ago.
We know these are all EU Slavs, as they walked in at a rate of 1 million people per year by around 2007.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phYT01 Those were not your ancestors. Furthermore, Europe is a Greek word describing phenomena to the west of what became Greece. Its true meaning is inconvenient. Toponyms, or place names, do not describe lineage or culture. Britain on the other hand is a patronym, or ancestral name; it derives from a Trojan called Brutus. Promotion of toponyms, such as Europe, Asia and Africa, mask true history, and invalidate national cultures, hoping to replace them with blanket racial terms. No such thing as a "European" exists because soil does not give birth to people; also, this word had a different meaning back in the day. Anyone calling themselves European has no identity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@greghill7759 So. You accept official government published figures only?
I'm telling you why Britain rejected your European project. The UK is not a theme park. It's not a bank for you to rob!!! It's a place where people are born, brought up, schooled, and where they develop expectations about their futures. No one should have woken up one day to find signage written in Polish, or have every person knocking their door, selling insurance or whatever, barely capable of speaking English, or to find employment as an unpaid temporary worker, in their own hometown, in what was once called British Home Stores, supervised and managed by disparaging people all born in Poland!!!
We had a reasonable, decent social safety net, which is gone now, because many millions of opportunists born to our east just walked in.
If it's any consolation, immigration is important. We do need immigrants, but 15 MILLION PEOPLE in 20 years, all "legal" via a legal loophole???? That's a third of the original population!
Given the opportunity, no one in their right mind would have condoned this. You can't justify the despicable sleight of hand used to fool the British people into committing suicide!
And all this for what? So that a few pathologically greedy opportunists could extract as many resources as possible from this country, using cheap skilled workers???
You should be ashamed to defend this.
1
-
@greghill7759 If you're looking for official figures, you won't find them.
Every government issued estimate on this will be false.
I worked with the ONS in 2011 during the census that year, having to sign a NDA (Nondisclosure agreement). Extrapolating my own findings, taking population density of urban to rural areas into account, we arrived at 15 million EU migrants entering between 2003 and 2011.
Every third door knocked contained EU migrants, mainly Polish, but a great deal of Hungarians, Romanians, and others. Whole families including grandparents simply walked in. It was either that or a house full of workers. Some of them couldn't speak English, but had young children who could. Many were afraid we'd deport them! They also occupied the best housing, as well as the worst. They were everywhere. It was shocking. Actual Brits, white and non-white, were livid.
The government admits to just 3 million for the same period, five times less. Five -- times less.
Here's a quote from 2007, putting things into their true perspective:
"Consumption – that's the thing. Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat one lunch and one dinner.
I have a second, respectable, source. A major, non-commercial agricultural institution reckons there are 77 million of us in the UK. Again, its reckoning is based on what we eat.
City Eye: Facts on a plate: our population is at least 77 million
Martin Baker
Sunday 28 October 2007 "
The current UK population is 67.33 million (2021)
...10 to 13 million people short of those estimates made 14 years prior.
I would say my own estimate (15 million) isn't far off from where it would be three years ago.
We know these are all EU Slavs, as they walked in at a rate of 1 million people per year by around 2007. (REPOST)
1
-
@greghill7759 So. You accept official government published figures only?
I'm telling you why Britain rejected your European project. The UK is not a theme park. It's not a bank for you to rob!!! It's a place where people are born, brought up, schooled, and where they develop expectations about their futures. No one should have woken up one day to find signage written in Polish, or have every person knocking their door, selling insurance or whatever, barely capable of speaking English, or to find employment as an unpaid temporary worker, in their own hometown, in what was once called British Home Stores, supervised and managed by disparaging people all born in Poland!!!
We had a reasonable, decent social safety net, which is gone now, because many millions of opportunists born to our east just walked in.
If it's any consolation, immigration is important. We do need immigrants, but 15 MILLION PEOPLE in 20 years, all "legal" via a legal loophole???? That's a third of the original population!
Given the opportunity, no one in their right mind would have condoned this. You can't justify the despicable sleight of hand used to fool the British people into committing suicide!
And all this for what? So that a few pathologically greedy opportunists could extract as many resources as possible from this country, using cheap skilled workers???
You should be ashamed to defend this.
(REPOST)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's interesting, but you need to look more closely. The majority of West Indians derive not from Africa, but from Britain and Ireland, and even from France. Those supposed slave names turn out to be actual family names derived from clans, and tribes from Ireland and Scotland, transported "political prisoners" and indentured servants. During the English Civil War period and after that, native black Irish and Scots, as well as black Englishmen, were systematically rounded up and deported to North America and the Caribbean. The same thing happened during the French Revolution. We even have evidence of their surnames and complexions written in shipping logs. People from Africa are more prevalent in South America, and while some might have arrived in the Caribbean and the North, they make up only a tiny percentage there. Consider for example that of the 50+ million blacks in North America, only 894,499, less than one million (according to the 2015 census) speak an African language. The rest speak mainly English, some Spanish and French. Where is the memory of so called African languages which should have developed over the past several hundred years in North America?
1
-
1
-
@lillybart-s9i We have records of native British, Scottish and Irish blacks shipped directly to the Americas and the Caribbean as slaves in slave ships, records of black Portuguese, and Spanish blacks, shipped from those nations TO Africa, and records of French blacks exiled to French territories, again in the Americas, and Africa. We have proof that native black Germans, and others, ended up in America. Furthermore, those records you're speaking about are not as trustworthy as you think. Out of 50 million black Americans, only 1% speak the languages of African nations. Their native tongue is English.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jhonnyjhonson2664
English people, who consider themselves a separate race, exist! Ok. We all agree on that.
English people who consider themselves ethnically a, b, or c also exist.
The word English can mean a race or a nationality, both, or one or the other. It can refer to an accent, a language, a style, an outlook, even an attitude.
It is not exclusively the name of a tribe or racial type.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Numbers are not an issue. 7,000 people is an insignificant amount of refugees, easily housed in any rich nation. The issue is only about skin colour. The crisis is only a crisis for those refugees and for those who cannot tolerate taking them in. The solution? Give each refugee a substantial allowance, enough for them to live in any rich country in the world. If they choose to return to their own countries, they bring with them sustenance and will no longer desire to leave, since they can rebuild their communities. If they enter any rich country of their choice, that allowance will go back into the local economy. "Crisis" solved. Now of course it's one thing offering this solution and another thing entirely getting those with the money to hand it over, and so, until better stewardship of the world's resources is undertaken, this will continue to happen in increasing numbers and NOT to plan, but for real.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LennyCash777 You're a simple creature. You know, I was outraged back in the early 2000s when New Labour betrayed Britain. I remember watching Newsnight one time when this lady approached Gordon Brown, complaining about EU Slav migration, and he had no words. It's was astonishing. I couldn't believe how stupid people could be, to allow what happened to happen, in full view of the entire nation. Now, you're complaining. If you accepted your compatriots way back when, you would have been protected. But you all delighted in promoting short-sighted policies, which opened up the door. Look at things now! The government will not even tell you how many millions of EU Slavs walked in. Even now, if I tell you 15 million arrived, you'll ignore me, thinking it's okay. They'll assimilate. You'll look at 10 ethnic kids and think it's the end of the world. Well, really it just might be, because all those EU Slav anchor babies will get the vote soon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@g.f.w.6402 I'm not responding to your hostility. Your appraisal of the situation needs some revision.
Most people in the EU scratch their heads wondering why Britain left, and tend to ask why she should be so upset, having derived her wealth from many colonies.
In the early 1990s, when only 12 nations comprised the European Union, things were fine and balanced. We interacted with peers from France and Germany. It was fun. The possibility of political integration did not offend. The "we" here are a lost generation of young Brits, including the British sons of those British Colonies, who'd been invited after the war to partake of the spoils of Empire that once was.
Of course, no one would have believed, in the early years of the 21st century, that our country was being watched... by predators looking for ways to steal the inheritance of the British Commonwealth.
A problem / solution paradigm delivered in 1997 the most popular government in British history, one with a mandate to do whatever it wanted.
They'd tried to warn us, the Conservatives tried, putting out posters showing the new Prime Minister with sinister eyes, watching and waiting for the opportunity to act, and he did, signing treaties which led eventually to more treaties, which created an overlap in free movement zones exploited by brainwashed and opportunist EU Slavs fooled into believing the West is heaven. They entered in numbers only psychopaths could ignore. One third of the existing population of Britain arrived! One third as much!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@selvalingam1263 Listen carefully. Britain is not what you think it is. It's not a haven for people with white skin or even a Christian nation. It's a country that has had for most of its history different ethnicities. It's not compatible with uneducated wannabes. The truth is, actual white Brits hate people who want to be them. Some are sympathetic towards other whites from the continent, but white Britain is territorial by nature. If you're Catholic, or speak a different language, or have an accent, trust me, your illusions about fitting in will take a hit instantly, the moment you open your mouth. Non-white Brits are less hostile, but, they share a similar mentality, when it comes to people wanting to be British. Understand that British people want to remain British. We don't want millions of Eastern Europeans in Britain. That's the only problem there is. Muslims have NEVER been a problem. That's all there is to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@k.k.8394 No, it has not. Deception has increased. You see, you and so the called powers that be, believe people are stupid. Some of them are, but most people in Britain know what caused the overcrowding: white Slavic EU passport holding Economic Migration from 2003 onward, at an initial rate of 1 million people per year. No amount of alarmist propaganda, or showing 100 people of colour in a boat, is going to change perceptions in Britain. We watched as, over-night, signage went from English to Polish. This will never be forgotten. So don't waste your time trying to push this nonsense racist agenda, blaming overcrowding on genuine refugees. You should be absolutely ashamed of your wretched enterprise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When are you people going to get it???? It's pantomime! They're all on the same team. Reform, Labour, the Tories, the media... ALL OF THEM! Why do you think they gave you a brown Mayor, a brown Scottish First Minister, a brown Prime Minister? That was just coincidence??? They're playing you. They're acting on your emotions, to get you to turn on your fellow countrymen, while they bring in a horde of "Eastern Europeans" to tell you what do in your own place. If you believe what you hear on the news, you'd go out and start attacking Mosques. The game is called divide and conquer! Tell me! Who would want that??? If you people don't get it soon, if you don't embrace and join with your own compatriots regardless of colour or religion, you might find yourselves taking orders from Brussels, permanently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1