Nigga, i just want to vomit from how much lies they told to fucking teens
they said this by foot i was there
Stole my image too. I literally made that shit..
i was gonna say that in that threadStole my image too. I literally made that shit..
Uploader - Nagolbud - 2 months ago
dumbasf, faggots, fags, livesmatter, normies, plm, psyop, psyoplives, psyoplivesmatter, retards, society, stupid, stupidasf
Embrace Your Inner Chudliness With Chud Chemes and Chud Art..chudstar.com
Isn't it obvious? Odessa is in Ukraine.
r/todayilearned
I couldn’t have worded this better. Women and minorities in the 1900s were actually happier before these human rights were forced onto white people. Yet no one today can see this simple truth because they were told that the natural order of society is irredeemably evil.
i thought the amis didn't know geography was a plebbit psyop
all of this TSMT, the kikes were the ethnic's gateway to powerI admittedly find a lot of these types of speeches funny now. Many advancements to "hooman rights" required violation of other rights, such as the right to freedom of association (Civil Rights Act 1964). Others were just restating existing rights such as with the Miranda Rights, which is essentially an IQ test which determines whether you're a nigger that can't shut his mouth, or not. And then you have the "rights" which were just brought about due to violent criminals, usually black or jewish, not wanting to get punished for committing acts such as murder, such as death penalties not being the norm for crimes like murder, rape, etc anymore (at least in the western countries).
Even with more favourable interpretations of the normie story, it is still clear that there is something wrong here with the entire thing. I've noticed a huge majority of these so-called "rights" are things which either did not exist, or were extremely abnormal, until after World War II. You could probably go through the list yourself to determine exactly how accurate that is, but regardless, it is strange. None of these rights (at least, post-WWII) were improvements either, they were arguably detrimental or infringement on other rights, my favorite example of this being freedom of association within the United States due to negro worship, or negrolatry.
I could sit around for days and ask how any of these "rights" improved the life of the citizens, and never get an answer. If I do get an answer, it won't explain how it improved things. Ok, private businesses no longer can discriminate by race, sex, etc. Now, given the fact people were just crying about these institutions being "evil and racist", why would they want to support them anyways? In the case of the government, if we cannot just deport them, it makes sense to keep it equal since it has to serve its people, whether or not you consider nons to be part of the "people". However, given the act also forbids private businesses from doing what they want, you've now destroyed freedom of association, and for what? Whitey obviously didn't benefit, but unless the negro wants to merely leech off whitey, it wouldn't have improved things much either for him. This leads to a rather interesting scenario.
They were already seperate, yet equal, since 1865. So, if whitey was le racist or whatever, why not just create your own non-white only business? It was perfectly legal to do this until the 1960s, yet it feels as though the non wanted to leech off the white, or even, they wanted to even be the white, yet didn't want to act like the white man. Then, whenever the white rejected them, they acted shocked. Now, to go further with this, the non-white demanded whitey do his bidding, because he merely wanted to exploit the system, rather than "integrate". However, how could he do that whenever whitey could reject for any reason?
Here comes the purpose of all of these supposed "rights" advancements, to merely expand what the non-white can do in order to leech of the whitey. The jew is heavily involved in this, due to his desire to subvert whitey (see: communism, feminism, etc etc etc). Also, most non-whites aren't even intelligent enough to subvert whitey, and only the jew appears similar enough to whitey to subvert. Now, thinking through most of the rights having been added post-1865, they were *all* purely to help non-whites. I start at 1865 due to the fact slavery actually had notable issues even if we disregard owning another person regardless of whether they were a criminal or not, such as holding technological improvements back for a while, and it being far more resource-heavy than more simply hiring a person, who would almost certainly be white given this time. Also, most post-1865 rights within the US at least, if not all, were mere reinstatements of existing rights at best, and actively harmful at worst.
Forbidding the execution of criminals, along with making the few executions carried out take forever, does not help whitey at all, but it does help the blacks and hispanics because they currently make up the majority of crime despite being a minority of the population. Desegregation of schools only helps nons, and is majorly detrimental to whites. Looser and looser immigration law only affected the whites, not the nons (especially the jews, who's precious Israel will never allow le diversity, for obvious reasons). I could go on, but you get the point. Whenever they say "human rights", they mean "non's benefits". Whenever they say "oppression", they mean "whitey daring to say no to a coloured man niggering around". If the post-1865 added rights benefitted the whites more than nons, they'd strip them quickly if they could, and that I can guarantee.
This post may also just be about le Russia vs Ukraine or Israel vs Palestine, blah blah blah. If it is about that and not some "martin looter kang wuz da best n niggaz did nuthin n shiet" like what usually happens at schools, then I will just refer to another post in this thread:
>hello childrens, today we will be doing presentation on human rights
>we brapkrainians are being heccin' opressed by the bigoted Russian orcs o algo asi
>those Russian VATNIK SUBHUMANS are heccin' abusing us and eating our babies in hospitals or so I say
>that's le bad, muh fuckin' human rights saar...
>Now, on the other hand, Donetsk is dogs and we must bomb their kids to preserve the Euromaiden, I think
>*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPP*
So how and why did White men allow these rights to pass? Why was there no pushback despite the obvious fallout granting these “rights” would have?I admittedly find a lot of these types of speeches funny now. Many advancements to "hooman rights" required violation of other rights, such as the right to freedom of association (Civil Rights Act 1964). Others were just restating existing rights such as with the Miranda Rights, which is essentially an IQ test which determines whether you're a nigger that can't shut his mouth, or not. And then you have the "rights" which were just brought about due to violent criminals, usually black or jewish, not wanting to get punished for committing acts such as murder, such as death penalties not being the norm for crimes like murder, rape, etc anymore (at least in the western countries).
Even with more favourable interpretations of the normie story, it is still clear that there is something wrong here with the entire thing. I've noticed a huge majority of these so-called "rights" are things which either did not exist, or were extremely abnormal, until after World War II. You could probably go through the list yourself to determine exactly how accurate that is, but regardless, it is strange. None of these rights (at least, post-WWII) were improvements either, they were arguably detrimental or infringement on other rights, my favorite example of this being freedom of association within the United States due to negro worship, or negrolatry.
I could sit around for days and ask how any of these "rights" improved the life of the citizens, and never get an answer. If I do get an answer, it won't explain how it improved things. Ok, private businesses no longer can discriminate by race, sex, etc. Now, given the fact people were just crying about these institutions being "evil and racist", why would they want to support them anyways? In the case of the government, if we cannot just deport them, it makes sense to keep it equal since it has to serve its people, whether or not you consider nons to be part of the "people". However, given the act also forbids private businesses from doing what they want, you've now destroyed freedom of association, and for what? Whitey obviously didn't benefit, but unless the negro wants to merely leech off whitey, it wouldn't have improved things much either for him. This leads to a rather interesting scenario.
They were already seperate, yet equal, since 1865. So, if whitey was le racist or whatever, why not just create your own non-white only business? It was perfectly legal to do this until the 1960s, yet it feels as though the non wanted to leech off the white, or even, they wanted to even be the white, yet didn't want to act like the white man. Then, whenever the white rejected them, they acted shocked. Now, to go further with this, the non-white demanded whitey do his bidding, because he merely wanted to exploit the system, rather than "integrate". However, how could he do that whenever whitey could reject for any reason?
Here comes the purpose of all of these supposed "rights" advancements, to merely expand what the non-white can do in order to leech of the whitey. The jew is heavily involved in this, due to his desire to subvert whitey (see: communism, feminism, etc etc etc). Also, most non-whites aren't even intelligent enough to subvert whitey, and only the jew appears similar enough to whitey to subvert. Now, thinking through most of the rights having been added post-1865, they were *all* purely to help non-whites. I start at 1865 due to the fact slavery actually had notable issues even if we disregard owning another person regardless of whether they were a criminal or not, such as holding technological improvements back for a while, and it being far more resource-heavy than more simply hiring a person, who would almost certainly be white given this time. Also, most post-1865 rights within the US at least, if not all, were mere reinstatements of existing rights at best, and actively harmful at worst.
Forbidding the execution of criminals, along with making the few executions carried out take forever, does not help whitey at all, but it does help the blacks and hispanics because they currently make up the majority of crime despite being a minority of the population. Desegregation of schools only helps nons, and is majorly detrimental to whites. Looser and looser immigration law only affected the whites, not the nons (especially the jews, who's precious Israel will never allow le diversity, for obvious reasons). I could go on, but you get the point. Whenever they say "human rights", they mean "non's benefits". Whenever they say "oppression", they mean "whitey daring to say no to a coloured man niggering around". If the post-1865 added rights benefitted the whites more than nons, they'd strip them quickly if they could, and that I can guarantee.
This post may also just be about le Russia vs Ukraine or Israel vs Palestine, blah blah blah. If it is about that and not some "martin looter kang wuz da best n niggaz did nuthin n shiet" like what usually happens at schools, then I will just refer to another post in this thread:
>hello childrens, today we will be doing presentation on human rights
>we brapkrainians are being heccin' opressed by the bigoted Russian orcs o algo asi
>those Russian VATNIK SUBHUMANS are heccin' abusing us and eating our babies in hospitals or so I say
>that's le bad, muh fuckin' human rights saar...
>Now, on the other hand, Donetsk is dogs and we must bomb their kids to preserve the Euromaiden, I think
>*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPP*
They won against the white man partially by convincing them that what they're doing is good, even though it is clear by now that it is not. When they have victories, they make sure to modify all the details to benefit them, often slowly enough to not become very noticable until all people involved are dead or extremely old, while also distracting normies with a modern day bread and circuses so they don't begin noticing anything is off. The normie is trained to be irrational and incapable of thought via the public school system, through hours and hours of mundane, repetitive tasks, which are mostly useless, or able to be done in far less time than actually used. They threaten any dissenters with being fired, being debanked, etc in order to make it harder to counteract their ideas. They know they cannot win by telling the truth, hence the lies despite the evidence otherwise.
So basically a classic case of subversion and forced guilt-tripping. Typical.
Essentially, yes.
you're being too hopeful tbh
Take the whitepill, anon.
i can't with so many badppenings
