The Worst Post

#bad post #completely and utterly wrong post #promo #pokepromo

mmm bad post

the-real-ted-cruz

I saw a post like this but it was so long so I just decided to make my own:

My political positions through the years: 2010: what’s a politic 2011: same 2012: I guess democrat? Obama seems pretty cool 2013: yay Obama 2014: FEMINISM IS THE BEST !!!!!!! (liberal and a feminist) 2015: wait idk about that actually…. 2016: FEMINISM IS CANCER KEKEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKEKEKEKEKKEKEK (right wing edgelord basically) 2017: libertarian and tired

tamhonksss

2004: gay marriage is wrong 2005-2009: idgaf about politics 2010-2011: idgaf about politics except for abortion and marriage 2012: im center left and i voted for Obama 2013: same as 2012 2014: maybe the left isn’t all that 2015: democrats are crafty as hell and they’re good at hiding it >2016: fiscally conservative with libertarian leanings

kandascending

2004- 2006: gays are bad 2007- 2011: gay marriage for all. I hate religious people and the right. 2012: Now I understand what some of the right think. 2013- present: Still liberal but is ashamed of the modern day left.

edgeworth-for-the-truth

Pretty much my entire early life: what is a politics 2009: what is a gay 2011-2013: liberals don’t seem so bad, but repubs definitely do 2014: I go with Obama because I was told he’s better 2015: Fuck Trump 2016: Oh shit, remember what I said about liberals? Nevermind

this-is-cthulhu-privilege

2012-2014: cuckservative with libertarian leanings.

2014 - current: recreational nukes

?-2012: What’s going on and why should I care?

2013: Why are we bombing these guys?

2014: Oh shit I finally got a job. What are income taxes? 2015: Leave my money alone, please. Rand plz help 2016: Hmm, kill more babies or lower taxes? 2017: No one is my president til they lower my taxes

#|Reblog|

guerrillawar

Sure... "Libertarian" content. The government makes a religious institution law and tells religious people they have to respect the government changing the meaning of their religious concept to fit a group of people they might find morally unacceptable.

Marriage as a legal institution is soooo libertarian.

rifleweeb

actual genocides: the Holodomor, the holocaust, Armenian genocide, Cambodian genocide, Rwandan genocide, Srebrenica massacre

not a genocide: the slow decline of the white American population as people choose to have fewer kids due to a greatly reduced child mortality rate and general lack of necessity for additional labor on the ol’ family farm

definitely not a genocide: the slow decline of the white American population and rise of the mixed-race American population because white women aren’t tripping over themselves to have kids with the American equivalent of Japanese “herbivore men” that spend their days geolocating Shia Lebouf’s “He Will Not Divide Us” installations and posting frog cartoons on the internet between futa hentai beat-off sessions and intense philosophical debates about whether or not liking traps makes you gay

mostlyjudson

Reasons why “white genocide” will always make me laugh. When not actually referring to genocide.

such a bad post. kids are expensive and when you tax the shit out of responsible people overtly or through monetary manipulation they tend to have less. Mortality rates and lack of necessity have shit to do with it. I walked away from a friendship after the guy called out a mutual friend who said he and his wife would have to reconsider their plans for another kid because of what the ACA was going to do to their healthcare premiums back in 2010-2011. Hello socialist europe. It aint white genocide but it’s punishing people who manage themselves and putting chains on all.

If the policies of a government directly result in the decline of a group’s numbers and share of the population, and then that decline is celebrated by both members of the government and most of the popular culture, what would you characterize that as?

At its core the progressive dialectic is a class based attack cloaked as a racial one. Examine it under this pretense. Take all of the anger and resentment you may feel out of the equation.

This is about creating a permanent underclass and destroying economic mobility.

If the majority of the middle class were green, you’d be seeing a green genocide.

The attacks are packaged in the social justice and collectivist dialectic to enhance racial antagonism and agitation and keep people distracted from the primary purpose which is a dominated population under authoritarian government.

Except it’s not only the progressives engaged in this rhetoric, is it? Conservatives, libertarians, moderate, every mainstream facet of both governance and culture are engaged in pushing the narrative: White people are declining, this is good.

You are partially correct in saying the goal is to create an underclass, but for that underclass to meet the specifications of those in charge it must not only be poor, but also divided and unable to form itself into a political force.

If this change in society was purely economic we would not see the degradation of whites globally in the way that we do. Monuments would not be taken down, schools would not be renamed, and attempts at white group action would not be attacked from every sector. To put it simply, your assertion that the managerial class of the world wants to create a permanent underclass isn’t wrong, but you’ve neglected to consider the possibility that the people creating the underclass might just have a deep seated racial bias.

I’d like to see evidence that there is a widespread narrative that “White people are declining and this is a good thing.” Even more so if this is coming from the right, especially considering the right is by majority (though not exclusively), white.

It’s true, race has been used to divide to the underclass. So why do you think classifying an attempt to create a class of permanently poor individuals, as “white genocide” is accurate, or productive? Surely this will only assist in dividing the underclass?

Why wouldn’t you? Larger percentages of whites make up the middle class if the middle class was disincentivized from having children? I’m curious as to why renaming schools or taking down monuments equates to genocide? I can’t understand the equivalency here? To argue for white genocide seems to require a redefinition of the word genocide, that somehow removes the fundamental requirement of killing people. I mean, even if you make the argument for white oppression, which I might be willing to concede to, this just is not comparable to any reasonable definition of genocide. Where do you draw the conclusion that, there is a racial bias, rather than, a disproportionate based on disproportionate statistics?

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/308357-decline-of-americas-white-population-accelerating-study-finds

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445733/steve-king-other-peoples-babies-tweet-undermines-conservative-american-values

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAGhyFHnuv8

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/so-youre-about-to-become-a-minority_us_553011f0e4b04ebb92325daf

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/dnc-chair-candidate-wants-to-shut-other-white-people-down.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/09/jorge_ramos_vs_tucker_carlson_the_white_population_is_a_minority_united_states_our_country.html

http://thoughtcatalog.com/emily-goldstein/2015/05/get-rid-of-white-people/

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/02/13/bill-kristol-suggests-replacement-lazy-spoiled-white-working-class-immigrants-work-hard-447751

Short of some inferences one could make from some recent Steve King statements I do not think you could find one mainstream person on the right saying that the decline of White people in the US or the West in general is a bad thing.

I believe in calling things as they are. Whites are THE target for the powers that be in the West, as all the links I provided show, and as the failure of the right to offer a response only reiterates. If, as you say, it is the middle class/non-uber wealthy that are truly the target in this situation, why is there such a diversity of opinion allowed on the topic of economics? Why are libertarian and socialist perspectives allowed to participate, with relatively little hindrance, in politics if the powers that be have a set course to screw everyone else over? More importantly, why did the nominees for the two major US political parties have radically different political positions on economics and trade if the whole government is supposedly set up to destroy the middle class and subjugate the lots of us?

Economic suppression does not require a cultural genocide, which is the term for what I was describing. If one was in charge of a government and wanted to make everyone poor that would not require destroying the history of the population, a series of taxes and poorly executed economic policies would suffice.

As for why the term genocide is used, let’s look at the Dictionary.com definition: “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial,political, or cultural group.”

So in order for what we’re talking about to qualify as a genocide it has to be 1. deliberate, 2. systematic, 3. an extermination and 4. affecting a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

1. As to this process being deliberate there can be no question. The immigration acts which started this process in the US in the 60′s created clear immigration quotas, and any fool with an abacus could have done the math for what was going to happen. But, even if the people who passed those bills didn’t know what was going to happen, the current politicians do, and are going along full steam ahead, as the links I posted at the beginning show.

2. The policies of the government have started this process, it is by definition systematic.

3. Extermination is perhaps the most difficult thing to prove. But i would argue that the words of Bill Kristol in one of the articles I linked above are good evidence that total extinction of Whites is in the cards, “Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in…?” There is a polite word for what Mr. Kristol proposes: replacement. However, given that the supplanted population will have nowhere to run to, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that this “replacement” is designed, or will at least result in, the near total expunging of White people from the United States.

4. White people are, I think you would agree, a racial group. One could go further and say that various sub groups of White people, specifically within the US just for the sake of time, qualify as a cultural group. Southerners, for example, are perhaps the most clear example of this, and we’ve seen what’s been done to their culture for a very long time.

In conclusion, the case for racial bias against Whites is clear, but the question remains what ought to be done about it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/308357-decline-of-americas-white-population-accelerating-study-finds

This article isn’t saying that it’s a good thing, even stating there will be long-term ratification, and political groups might have to appeal more to minority groups due to the demographic shift.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445733/steve-king-other-peoples-babies-tweet-undermines-conservative-american-values

This article doesn’t make the argument that white’s declining birth rate is a good thing, just that culture, and belief in law are more important than race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAGhyFHnuv8

Though I imagine there was more context to this, Biden is indeed an insane old man, and it’s good to be rid of their administration.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/so-youre-about-to-become-a-minority_us_553011f0e4b04ebb92325daf

I’m not a strong enough man to watch a full huffpo shill piece, but it seemed to be more about “life is hard for muh minorities” rather than “we need less white people.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/dnc-chair-candidate-wants-to-shut-other-white-people-down.html

Again, this is pretending white people don’t have a place in discussion, which while untrue, is not the same as advocating to reduce the white population

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/09/jorge_ramos_vs_tucker_carlson_the_white_population_is_a_minority_united_states_our_country.html

Not an argument on reducing white population, just a statement that the US is not a “white country” which, wrong or right, is not advocating to stop whites from breeding.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/emily-goldstein/2015/05/get-rid-of-white-people/

Dead link, but thought catalog isn’t exactly indicative of mainstream political thought.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/02/13/bill-kristol-suggests-replacement-lazy-spoiled-white-working-class-immigrants-work-hard-447751

While there are flaws in Bill’s argument, the article’s narrative is entirely disingenuous (throwback to libs taking Trump’s “they aren’t sending their best” comment). The simple fact is he was stating he could make the argument given that the person he was talking with essentially said “the American spirit/dream was dead,” that immigration and importing those who want to come to America and build a life for their family could be a benefit. He never made any argument against whites, just mentioned the idea that, who would have guessed, being free your entire life makes you respect it less. This is why context matters.

You can disagree with the claim, but the simple fact is that wasn’t anti-white sentiment.

Not saying something is a bad thing, and saying it’s a good thing are not equivalent. No one on the right is talking about it because it’s simply a non-factor. Only an identitarian collectivist world view leads you to the conclusion that this is a matter of utmost importance. The simple fact is you can have as many kids as you want, with whoever of whatever race you want.

There are cost associated with child rearing, and policy that increase those cost are a problem, but that issue is entirely separate from race based politics, because by and large those cost affect everyone.

“Calling things as they are” is a meaningless statement, there was no point made here, you cannot just declare things to be something, and you haven’t proven the claim of policy specifically, or even intentionally affecting/targeting whites.

The idea that the powers that be which are mostly white/jewish, and few black, very little asian, is somehow targeting whites is a claim of a magnitude that requires actual evidence, of which you’ve provided none. The right not responding to something, which you haven’t proven even exist, or defined in a way that supports your claim (I’ll get to this.) The entire basis for your claim that because no one talks about “this problem” they someone believe it should happen relies solely on the presupposition that it happens at all, and that it’s a problem to any individual in the country.

Also if you’re going to keep with the “powers that be” idea why not name them?

The problem with this “both those big government candidates are different” narrative is, it could be used against your argument as well. The entire “””Powers that be””” and the government are set up to destroy and replace whites and subjugate the lot of US? Despite their “radically” different views on race and immigration? You see the problem here is, debating the existence of economic suppression is an entirely different discussion, one I’m willing to have but it’s tangential to this conversation at best. Providing a reason for why the birthrates for whites has declined is not my point here because I honestly don’t the point of discussion collective statistics rather than the effects on individuals, I’m merely explaining why providing racial discrimination as an explanation is wrong and unproductive at best.

You’re going to have to define cultural genocide here, or give the even the slightest explanation for why you believe it’s happening, I don’t see any examples of anyone legally stopping you from practicing your culture whatever that may be. But you’re proving my point here, what we do have is a series of taxes and bad economic policy. What we do not have is the targeted destruction of history.”

1. Done the math for what? What happened? What do we now know is going to happen. This is why you can’t just “call things as they are” you have to actually make a claim and prove it. What does immigration law have to do cultural/white genocide, does the existence of immigrants, a good amount of which are white somehow slow the birth rate of whites?

2. You again, can’t just say there is a systematic ??? “process” ??? of whites without proving the claim.

3. Having more non-whites does not equate to less whites, you don’t need to throw out a spoon to get a fork, you just have a spoon and a fork. Also, this is a baseless exaggeration. Where do you get the idea someone has to flee. To jump from the idea of letting people into country to kicking the people that were there before out is asinine.

4. What have we seen done to southern culture? I mean a few schools banned flags, but a school deciding their own rules is far from a cultural eradication.

Again, you’re presupposing, you haven’t proven any systematic elimination of whites. You’ve even after choosing a definition for the word genocide, completely failed to prove the phenomenon you’ve described fits that definition.

rifleweeb

actual genocides: the Holodomor, the holocaust, Armenian genocide, Cambodian genocide, Rwandan genocide, Srebrenica massacre

not a genocide: the slow decline of the white American population as people choose to have fewer kids due to a greatly reduced child mortality rate and general lack of necessity for additional labor on the ol’ family farm

definitely not a genocide: the slow decline of the white American population and rise of the mixed-race American population because white women aren’t tripping over themselves to have kids with the American equivalent of Japanese “herbivore men” that spend their days geolocating Shia Lebouf’s “He Will Not Divide Us” installations and posting frog cartoons on the internet between futa hentai beat-off sessions and intense philosophical debates about whether or not liking traps makes you gay

mostlyjudson

Reasons why “white genocide” will always make me laugh. When not actually referring to genocide.

such a bad post. kids are expensive and when you tax the shit out of responsible people overtly or through monetary manipulation they tend to have less. Mortality rates and lack of necessity have shit to do with it. I walked away from a friendship after the guy called out a mutual friend who said he and his wife would have to reconsider their plans for another kid because of what the ACA was going to do to their healthcare premiums back in 2010-2011. Hello socialist europe. It aint white genocide but it’s punishing people who manage themselves and putting chains on all.

If the policies of a government directly result in the decline of a group’s numbers and share of the population, and then that decline is celebrated by both members of the government and most of the popular culture, what would you characterize that as?

At its core the progressive dialectic is a class based attack cloaked as a racial one. Examine it under this pretense. Take all of the anger and resentment you may feel out of the equation.

This is about creating a permanent underclass and destroying economic mobility.

If the majority of the middle class were green, you’d be seeing a green genocide.

The attacks are packaged in the social justice and collectivist dialectic to enhance racial antagonism and agitation and keep people distracted from the primary purpose which is a dominated population under authoritarian government.

Except it’s not only the progressives engaged in this rhetoric, is it? Conservatives, libertarians, moderate, every mainstream facet of both governance and culture are engaged in pushing the narrative: White people are declining, this is good.

You are partially correct in saying the goal is to create an underclass, but for that underclass to meet the specifications of those in charge it must not only be poor, but also divided and unable to form itself into a political force.

If this change in society was purely economic we would not see the degradation of whites globally in the way that we do. Monuments would not be taken down, schools would not be renamed, and attempts at white group action would not be attacked from every sector. To put it simply, your assertion that the managerial class of the world wants to create a permanent underclass isn’t wrong, but you’ve neglected to consider the possibility that the people creating the underclass might just have a deep seated racial bias.

I’d like to see evidence that there is a widespread narrative that “White people are declining and this is a good thing.” Even more so if this is coming from the right, especially considering the right is by majority (though not exclusively), white.

It’s true, race has been used to divide to the underclass. So why do you think classifying an attempt to create a class of permanently poor individuals, as “white genocide” is accurate, or productive? Surely this will only assist in dividing the underclass?

Why wouldn’t you? Larger percentages of whites make up the middle class if the middle class was disincentivized from having children? I’m curious as to why renaming schools or taking down monuments equates to genocide? I can’t understand the equivalency here? To argue for white genocide seems to require a redefinition of the word genocide, that somehow removes the fundamental requirement of killing people. I mean, even if you make the argument for white oppression, which I might be willing to concede to, this just is not comparable to any reasonable definition of genocide. Where do you draw the conclusion that, there is a racial bias, rather than, a disproportionate based on disproportionate statistics?

just-shower-thoughts

Taxes are monthly subscription to live in a country.

Actually they're theft.

just-shower-thoughts

Pro-lifers should celebrate the day of their conception as the beginning of their lives, not the day they were born.

millennial-review-deactivated20

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's a birthday, it celebrates birth, not the beginning of life. Most people don't know when they were conceived, because it turns out some if not most people don't mark down every single time they have sex and calculate which act resulted in conception. And even though we all resulted from conception, talking about your parents fucking isn't exactly healthy for a child. Though some countries do count the 9 months in the womb as a year of life (so infants are 1 year old at birth). Which is probably more accurate.

neoncryptid

Social justice thieves are the shoplifting community

priceofliberty

I’m pretty sure the last social justice mage got arrested for stealing bones

libertarirynn-deactivated202006

“Abortion is just about choice! It’s not that we want to kill babies!”

“OMG IF PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS DEFUNDED BABIES MIGHT ACTUALLY GET BORN ISN’T THAT HORRIBLE????!!!!!”

matt-ruins-your-shit

afloweroutofstone

Throughout its history the CIA’s activities have ranged from “evil” to “almost comically evil”

apostalism

The amount of disrespect for the IC on my dash lately is starting to get under my skin.

freikorps-deactivated20170908

you’re joking right?

Interracial porn is also not popular nor is it profitable. In the most searched terms for porn its not even in the top 20. To put it into perspective Overwatch porn is more popular.

andy-af-deactivated20180111

Okay but according to pornhub (which is one of if not the most popular sites in the world) Ebony and Black are separately two of the most popular search terms. If you combined the two they’d be the most popular term in the US, and within the top 5 in the world. This isn’t even counting terms such as Asian and apparently “big booty latina.”

The term “interracial porn” would obviously not be a popular term, because it’s not specific, and it’s long, and I doubt they could type it with one hand.

But I don’t know what point this post was making because it doesn’t matter.

Porn is degenerate.

I guess ill start with the topic pro life

Not that many pro life conservatives on tumblr but ill find some

free-range-khajiit-deactivated2

*is pro-life*

thetruesun

*is Pro-life*

rainy-days-will-never-end-deact

@totallynottoby

freikorps-deactivated20170908

*is Pro-life

freikorps-deactivated20170908

Just realized you said conservative

#tumblr should have pinned post

*is pro-life*

official-north-korea-blog

big-black-hawks-deactivated2017

westfriend6546546546565-deactiv

Okay, but JonTron is worse because he deleted his Christmas video.

Maybe if they had more money they could hire literate teachers or teachers who aren’t 20something internet perverts 😕😕😕😕

Funds aren’t the limiting factor in school quality.

shitpost-senpai

Oh hey, SU is still going is Jasper back yet?

Oh.

Well…

Guess i’ll just go fuck myself then.

Wait why does it say thanks adventure time and scott pilgrim? I don' think they did anything like this?

hellsite-yano

Dang Porky, this is really the year of Fiction is Reality. Just saw some people comparing Trump's wall to a wall that was put up in Avatar.

Make Ba Sing Se great again

#|Reblog|

showerthoughts-lol

Just a thought. I see a lot of older people post that we survived lead paint, no seatbelts, no helmets etc. You do understand there are people who didn't right? That's probably why they can't post it on FB.