If they are so stupid and archaic, then why are they cucking the "superior" countries?

If they are so stupid and archaic, then why are they cucking the "superior" countries?

Other urls found in this thread:

fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/11/12/europes-refugee-crisis-and-the-kalergi-plan-for-white-genocide/
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
youtube.com/watch?v=dL6Du50HMcU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because the globalist politicians are letting them.

No, it's because you're "superior" people are letting them.

our moral and laws are used against us while they don't care about them.
it's our fault. we are mentally weak while the biggest part of their war against us happens in the head

Because they have nothing to lose. You can't beat someone who has nothing to lose.

From the "survival of the fittest" viewpoint, the West lost its superior traits a long time ago

Why are they doing that?

Because the """"superior"""" western countries lost their self-preservation instinct and allow them to do so.

sure you can..pretty much all of the civilians in a war had nothing to lose and they got killed..
it always gets worse for everyone..islam fights so hard now becsuse they know they will lose..
what islam does now is the same as what hillary does now..
or the brexit remain voters tried..the muslims just do it with terror and taquiya

Hillary has everything to lose. Brexit remain voters had plenty to lose.

Muslims have nothing to lose and everything to gain by conquering the West.

the problem was letting the anglos win, angloid strategy only works because they have their gay little island protecting them, when applied to peoples who actually have to worry about things it fails because its soft and weak

>Muslims have nothing to lose and everything to gain by conquering the West.

I really hate those sand niggers.

Because they are smart enough to know how to use our freedom against us and leftists are assisting them every step of the way, under the guise of muh diversity and muh political correctness.
That's why liberal western countries are slowly starting to see the far right rise in power, then we get to gas everyone.

thats stupid..their religion can't hold what it promised trough one way or the other they lose every big war and since the ottoman stuff we just kick them around how we want..no country just converted to islam they were taken over by force,not because people liked it more than the other religions..so that means they have everything to lose..if we really handle them like we should they will lose more and more followers and die out thats it

To destroy Christianity and Western Civilization and establish a centralized world dictatorship that will rule forever on a helpless mixed race population.

I wish i was kidding.

They're the fastest growing religion on the planet and the West will never declare war on Islam. They live mostly in poverty and breed like vermin. They don't fear death and they don't fear being punished by the pathetic and soft criminal justice system of Europe. When you're at the bottom of the hill the only way is up. When you're at the top of the hill the only way is down.

>then we get to gas everyone.
BRING IT CUUUUUUUUUUNNNNTSS

Why are they doing that

Because women are allowed to vote

Because you were once based.

I don't understand

Ok not you personally, you seem like a retard, but your country.

> then why are they cucking the "superior" countries?

Where did you heard this bullshit ?

They aren't superiors, they're shitholes.

>fastest growing
Just because they get minimum 4 - 5 children everytime and these are muslim at birth and the other part is that they take over whole villages and cities in africa and the middle east and asia big time and "convert" them..sure idiots in the west also convert but come on..thats nothing you couldn't stop with a few bombs..and IF we really start a war against islam there would be many many maaaaany converts who will not fight for islam

Because they have conviction.

Conviction is potent fuel.

West lacks conviction, you are endangered and emasculated.

Maybe you're bad at explaining.

What is there to be explained?

Why would anybody - particularly Western elites - want to
> destroy Christianity and Western Civilization and establish a centralized world dictatorship that will rule forever on a helpless mixed race population

they're sadistic, some of them believe in the occult, and powertripping is fun?

fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/11/12/europes-refugee-crisis-and-the-kalergi-plan-for-white-genocide/

Educate yourself.

Do you really believe that?

You mean this part
>you must cross the peoples of Europe with Asian races and color, to create a multiethnic flock without quality and easily controllable by the ruling
?

tl;dr

In order for Europe to be mastered by the elite, homogeneous peoples are transformed into a mixed race of whites, blacks and Asians. Kalergi characterized these mestizos as cruel and unfaithful, and maintained that the elite must deliberately create the mestizos to achieve their own superiority.

The elite will first eliminate democracy — the rule of the people. Next, the elite will eliminate the people via miscegenation, thereby replacing the white race with an easily controllable mestizo race. By abolishing the principle of equality of all before the law, avoiding and punishing any criticism of minorities, and protecting the minorities with special laws, the masses are suppressed.

How blue pilled are you?

>Do you really believe that?
Epstein had some sort of weird temple on his lolisland.
Plenty of the elite believe in weird shit.
As for the sadism and powertripping bit, there is research that indicates higher rates of sociopathy amoungst the powerful, for obvious reasons.

You can ask the same thing about why Martin gets bullied by Nelson

Sadly this is probably most true. Women don't have the same sense of ingroup loyalty. They function more off emotional appeals and we have them as a group 50 percent of the vote

Ok, sorry for sounding a bit dim here, but are you seriously saying you believe that elites wish to
>destroy Christianity and Western Civilization and establish a centralized world dictatorship that will rule forever on a helpless mixed race population
because
>they're sadistic, some of them believe in the occult, and powertripping is fun
?

Is that what you consider the most likely explanation of world events?

Without going into jewish world conspiracy theories, yes.
If you give someone sociopathic the power to control the world, they're going to play games with the populous.
It's not that complex.
Most of the elites are insane, and got to where they are because they are insane, and take advantage of base human behavior.

Have you read 1984? The globalists want power for its own sake.

The same few inbred families have been pursuing world domination for centuries, if not millennia.

Yes they are sadistic as much as they are power hungry control freaks and they will not stop until they achieve their goals.

What do you think the most likely explanation for the chaos we're currently witnessing is?

Are you playing dumb on purpose?

How come none has mentioned the Jews yet? It's pretty obvious that they are facilitating the fall of the west. Who is the architect of the wars that destabilized the middle East? Israel. Who bank rolls the degenerate race baiting protestors. Soros, a Jew. Who introduced the idea of hormone blocking for children? Jewish doctors. Who get to be the fascists that advocate for themselves with a wall, African sterilization policy, currently colonizing, homogenous hegemony, and pretty much an ethno state that gets funded by the rest of the world?

>Have you read 1984? The globalists want power for its own sake.
But do the elites not by definition have the power already?

Isn't the power to literally destroy the most powerful civilization the world has ever seen - a power you believe they already have - greater than any power any other man in the world has, baring possibly those authorized to use nuclear weapons?

Another very good dystopian novel on similar themes is The Penultimate Truth by based sci-fi god Philip K. Dick.

Because Jews.

No muslim was getting in from 700 to 1946. It's the jew... Once again. What a surprise.

Are any of the following also accurately described by what you just said:
>George W. Bush
>John McCain
>Sarah Palin
>Mitt Romney
>Donald Trump

Nailed it in one.

England's labour party ADMITTED that they campaigned for and sought out people to bring here just to score petty political rivalry points against the other team.

The only reason mass migration like this can occur is because it's backed by people in charge of our territories letting it happen. It has nothing to do with Muslims being 2smart5us and displacing our populations through mass migration, OUR governments went to THEM and brought them here, otherwise they would still be cutting women's cunts off and throwing acid at each other in the ME. Now they just do it here.

They will always thirst for more.
Psychologically they are not human.

They have monarchies

What are they instead? Lizards?

They are pursuing an ethnocentric (racist) strategy which parasitically exploits the humanitarian (anti-racist) strategy which has been imposed top down by those in power in Western societies.

jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

"Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies."

They will only remain successfull for as long as Westerners remain humanitarian. Considering than humanitarianism as a group strategy has only been in force since the end of WWII, it is likely not genetic and is instead cultural, meaning it is apt to change of the conditions are right.

If it does change, third worlders will get BTFO big time. We are talking Nazi level shit here.

K now i'm positive you're trolling.

Because our fifth-columnists are letting them

Viruses.

If they are, not as bad as Hillary Clinton. Or people connected to her. Like george soros, house rothschild, etc.
The clinton foundation is a massive scale money laundering organization, connected to
>sex trafficking
>heroin trade
>human trafficking
>etc
As far as I know, donald trump is connected to the mafia and violated building codes a few times. Not too sure on the criminal history of the others.
House rothschild has been playing games with the world since pre-napoleonic times, at one point they shorted the entire bank of england by using to lie about the outcome of the battle of waterloo and crash the english stock market.

Robots would probably be a better descriptor, but it's not accurate.
They get pleasure from the suffering and manipulation of others.

*by using agents to lie about

This actually makes sense. Thank you.

Is your country a melon?

>Robots would probably be a better descriptor, but it's not accurate.

It's kind of accurate. Their way of thinking is more like a machine/computer than a human.

>They get pleasure from the suffering and manipulation of others.

Yes, because they're psychopaths.

Jews play whatever side benefits them, whether it is liberal or neocon.
If Jews actually destroy the west, then they will not have any funding to continue their ethnostate.
If Jews don't destroy the west, Israel will continue to exist. Why would Jews want to destroy the west when it has only benefited them throughout history?
It is clear they have invited entire Islam into the west, and now they are facilitating a race war to kick out all the Muslims, and respective states which have done so will adopt an ethnostate policy similar to Israel, and in such ways find sympathy with Jews.

Not a productive contribution to the discussion.

But genetically Clinton et al. are certainly human?

Is Trump truly richer than the Clintons?
Why doesn't he play the same game they do, wouldn't that make him even richer?

And how is playing dumb productive?

People explain things. How is that not productive?

It's about power. Simple. The thing these elite people with with all their wealth still a desire is more control. It's human nature, I think. The idea of the USSR was to create the largest arsenal of slave workers. All they have done is upped the ante wrt this. They want a mixed race "new people" that are thoroughly controlled by the elite.

>But genetically Clinton et al. are certainly human?
Yes
Sociopathy/psychopathy does at least have some kind of genetic component however, as there are many dynastic families that have had the same patterns of behavior throughout the ages.

>Is Trump truly richer than the Clintons?
Of course not, there are billions in the clinton foundation in shell companies, people who don't exist, etc.

>Why doesn't he play the same game they do, wouldn't that make him even richer?
Not as insane as them?
I really don't have any explanation why some people have moral limits that differ from each other other than the fact that they do.
Also, the people who really have the power - people like House Rothschild - have dirt on all their minions.
Bill - 26 trips on the lolita express - Clinton couldn't escape from them if he wanted to.

>moral limits
That's an explanation, isn't it?

I think you have answered all my questions. I only have one more. Do you think there is ever a way out of this?

Okay, now I'm a bit confused again about one thing: you're suggesting elites assume this is the best way for them to amass power.

Is this true? Is not the West the most powerful empire to have ever existed? And are they not the secret rulers of the West? Wouldn't weakening the West in fact diminish their power?

they got their lives, which could be easily taken away

Because they are Jews. And you are a Jewish shill.

If autism could type it would look something like your post.

They want to weaken aspects of the west they do not control; namely, the free will of the populous.
Making the average person dumb, unquestioning, easy to manipulate, they gain complete control over everything.
One of the leaked emails from the Clintons suggested that they were distributing fake qurans in the middle east to cause the arab spring incident.
This is the kind of control they want.

As for ways out, total unbridled warfare works.
Along with designing a government structure which hinges on change, randomness, and chaos, while still being ordered, so that no one with that level of control can rise again.

>But genetically Clinton et al. are certainly human?

No, they're not. Their genes are extraterrestrial in origin.

"There were giants in the Earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." - Genesis 6:4

People like the Rothschilds and the royal families of Europe are related by blood. Major world-leaders and banking dynasties are related by blood. They breed only among themselves to maintain their genetics. If they breed outside their circle, then their genetics will be diluted. Pic related (it's from a MAINSTREAM magazine, if I remember correctly).

Because they have Oil as well as a religion that is directly tied to Arab nationalism. The Koran is as much written to praise the Arabs (why do you think it never gets translated and is always recited in Arabic) as it is to praise their 'God'. That plus the fact that they are stupid rich means that Islam is winning cause the West keeps buying their oil and not condemning Islam out of fear of losing money.

They are the secret rulers of the world, not just the west.

Weakening the west is just a stepping stone in their agenda.

youtube.com/watch?v=dL6Du50HMcU

Yes. You're right -- it would seemingly weaken the west and it's culture. But that's a compromise they feel is in order to assure world wars, racial conflicts and nationality will cease to be a problem. The elites want a world that's ultimately peaceful and they believe by eradicating what's known as "the authoritarian matrix", they will succeed in achieving this.

What's a "fake quran"? Does it read "hail lizard people"?

I'm actually not convinced that's a reasonable story. Wouldn't having 50% control over the West as it is (the most powerful community in the history of the world) be more power than having 99% power over a destroyed West, competing with a regrown Islamic world and China?

This guy is making fun of me, right?

I have mostly Prussian blood. No Jews AFAIK. No non-Germans for sure.

So Clinton also rules China? I'm not sure what you're saying.

Okay, confused again. Do they want power, or peace?

In 1984, which I was just recommended to read here, the elites use war to control the world, not peace.

They want both. They see themselves as the authority of peace. By taking full control over the world and diluting race and nationalities (their execution and acquisition of power) they will create and maintain peace on Earth because it's run and controlled by them.

>fake quran
One which has information in it that would spark intersectionalist conflicts within islam.

>Wouldn't having 50% control over the West as it is (the most powerful community in the history of the world) be more power than having 99% power over a destroyed West, competing with a regrown Islamic world and China?
>have control over a very powerful people with free will
>have control over a weaker people with no free will
One is putty to remake in their image, the other is not.

So do they (erroneously) think they are doing what's best for the people, or do they have no morals?

>One which has information in it that would spark intersectionalist conflicts within islam.
Don't you think the real Quran is completely sufficient for that? Shiites and Sunnites have been hating each other for over a millennium.

The other user suggested the elites aren't, as I suggested, Western, but global: the same team rules the West and Islam and China. Do you agree?

Milo said it best:

Muslims are like the common cold and leftists are like AIDS. It's easy to fight off a cold.. unless you have AIDS.

However, if the black death and a muslim invasion right after couldn't kill europe, this won't either. They'll be sorry that they messed with the most genocidal race on earth, because we're well overdue for a cleansing.

They indeed think they are doing what's best for mankind. And mankind isn't ready to compromise their racial identity and nationalities which they believe are to root cause of chaos.

>Don't you think the real Quran is completely sufficient for that?
Yes, but the violence between the shiites and the sunnites was mostly balanced.
Make a third faction, you destabilize the entire region.
>the west and islam/global
Yes, sort of. It's pretty easy to control Africa and the middle east. I don't really know enough about asia to comment on them. I think they've got their own problems.
South America is controlled by the cartels for the most part, who are connected to the elites, for some reason they really like cocaine.

>you're
me no speak engles oke senior?

A highly motivated, experienced guy with a gun is only slightly less effective than a lightly trained soldier. Especially in a clusterfuck like Syria.

Max kek

>Make a third faction, you destabilize the entire region.
What 3rd faction?

>South America is controlled by the cartels for the most part
The south and middle eastern parts of SA are cartel controlled?

>I don't really know enough about asia to comment on them
But isn't that a huge part? Most people are Asians.

But you believe they're wrong?

I believe what they're doing is extremely dangerous. "Right" or "Wrong".... I know they do lots of morally wrong things. It's immoral to kill or to lie. It's immoral to commit mass murder and genocide. A lot of what the elites do is immoral -- ritual child abuse for instance. But keep in mind that often good things need to first wear ugly masks.

>What 3rd faction?
ISIS/ISIL.
>The south and middle eastern parts of SA are cartel controlled?
Not yet.
>But isn't that a huge part? Most people are Asians.
Countries like South Korea, I can definitely comment on, they've already gone full retard, it's mostly China, information about them is hard to come by.

ISIS are dedicated Sunni, what do you mean?

>Countries like South Korea, I can definitely comment on, they've already gone full retard, it's mostly China, information about them is hard to come by.
Well they're an important factor aren't they?

Aren't you, by leaving the BRIC countries unaccounted for, missing a crucial piece regarding the question I asked?

>ISIS are dedicated Sunni, what do you mean?
They've come into conflict with other groups within the middle east and fractured the fragile balance that was there before.
>Well they're an important factor aren't they?
One which I know nothing about.
>Aren't you, by leaving the BRIC countries unaccounted for, missing a crucial piece regarding the question I asked?
That's brazil, russia, india, and china, right?
Brazil is corrupt as all hell, that's pretty well known.
Russia is a bit of a wildcard, Putin has been known to keep corrupt individuals who serve his purposes, they may or may not have been subverted yet.
India is already going full retard with it's cultural subversion, and has also been under islamic siege for a while due to pakistan, or at least that's what I've heart.
China, is, once again, a mystery.
Any information on them is really difficult to come by.
I did know a chinese exchange student a while back, should have asked him more about the political and economic environment within china, but didn't want to be rude.

>They've come into conflict with other groups within the middle east and fractured the fragile balance that was there before.
That is a very ... unconventional interpretation of the events.

The middle east has been very unstable in the 70s (Iranian revolution), 80s (Iran/Iraq war with 1 million dead, Afghanistan), 90s (Gulf war), 2000s (Enduring Freedom, Gulf War II). ISIS came to some power as a consequence of this instability (particularly Gulf War II and the Syrian civil war, which was of course a conflict long in the making).
I'm ignoring the vast majority of conflicts, from Qadafi's Libya and it's overt state-sponsored anti-West terrorism to the Israel/Palestine conflict to the Kurdish question.

Shiite Iran has been fighting the Sunnite Arab oil empires for much longer than ISIS has had any claim to fame.

ISIS basically fit into this picture in a rather conventional way: they're extremist Sunni, trying to unite Sunnis against everyone else and causing a bunch of high-profile collateral.
They're in the end a very small factor - they have 25.000 or so warriors. Saudi Arabia, a more mainstream Sunni country, has the 3rd highest military budget in the world. (Shia) Iran has almost 80 million people. Turkey is a NATO country.

>Brazil is corrupt as all hell, that's pretty well known.
And? That doesn't mean they're ruled by the lizard illuminati.

>India is already going full retard with it's cultural subversion, and has also been under islamic siege for a while due to pakistan, or at least that's what I've heart.
Not sure what this means, but India isn't gonna become a muslim country any time soon.

>The middle east has been very unstable in the 70s (Iranian revolution), 80s (Iran/Iraq war with 1 million dead, Afghanistan), 90s (Gulf war), 2000s (Enduring Freedom, Gulf War II). ISIS came to some power as a consequence of this instability (particularly Gulf War II and the Syrian civil war, which was of course a conflict long in the making).
Stop looking at it as multiple conflicts, ISIS is just simply the next step. They're backed by the saudis, who are a front for the elite.
The saudi royalty is connected to the clinton foundation through tony blair's wife, who introduced them to each other. The /cfg/ dug this up a while ago, I think it was flight records.
Qadafi was actually the elites removing a "problem", he planned a gold backed currency, and he was taken out.

>And? That doesn't mean they're ruled by the lizard illuminati.
What is with the lizard obsession?
It's just crazy rich people.

>Not sure what this means, but India isn't gonna become a muslim country any time soon.
>Islam is the second-largest religion in India
>about 180 million
>making up 14.9% of the country's population
It doesn't take many muslims to upset a country, or parts of it.

BECAUSE THE C I A made them that way, you idiot asshat.

Jesus, you are some autistic fucking fool.

Because Sweden, Germany, France, and England are full of cucks. Once Emperor Trump and Nigel take over though we will see the end of the cuckening.

>Stop looking at it as multiple conflicts
I didn't do that. You said ISIS came upon, and fractured, a "fragile balance", and I pointed out that precisely the opposite is true: ISIS could only come to some power because of the chaos and wars already rampaging through the Middle East.

>Qadafi was actually the elites removing a "problem", he planned a gold backed currency, and he was taken out.
I'm talking about the times where Libya under Qadafi conducted overt anti-Western terrorism. Lockerbie etc.

>It doesn't take many muslims to upset a country, or parts of it.
India is already upset, but they're rapidly improving right now, quickly raising out from extreme poverty.
And they'll probably stay mostly Hindu for quite a while.

Your assessment of the history and state of the world with regards to obvious and quickly verifiable aspects is lacking (see also: BRICS), or at the very least you haven't clearly made your point yet.

I've made multiple points, mostly about financial connections in governments, rates of insanity amoungst those in power, etc. Evidence is mostly circumstantial, aside from people like soros who admit what they're doing, though they don't say why, or what they do say is an obvious lie.
At this point you keep going more obscure and obscure and you're just pushing the limits of my international knowledge about areas that aren't specifically relevant to the whole picture, they're just pieces of the puzzle.
I'm just a tired burger, you're lucky you got this much.
Now I need sleep.

>I've made multiple points, mostly about financial connections in governments, rates of insanity amoungst those in power, etc. Evidence is mostly circumstantial
Yes, and I'm pointing out that with regards to stuff that is neither of these, but rather historic events that everyone knows and can easily verify, you're adhering to some very, to be as charitable as possible, unconventional interpretations.

>At this point you keep going more obscure and obscure
There is nothing obscure about saying:
1. ISIS is a not especially novel form of Sunni extremism
2. ISIS is the result of the destruction of the fragile balance in the east, not the cause of it

>you're just pushing the limits of my international knowledge about areas that aren't specifically relevant to the whole picture
How far should I trust your theory about the elite conspiracy underlying literally all of recent history when you can't even get very basic facts (BRICS, ISIS, Lockerbie, cartel control of SOUTH america, ...) correct?

It's like you're completely oblivious regarding the most obvious world historic events of the 70s to 2000s.
So why should I believe your crazy explanation for how Hillary Clinton, an old center-leftist career politican lady who wants to become president so she can enact center-leftist policies by using Culture War topics in rather transparent and obvious ways, is in fact not trying to do US politics, but in fact destroy the Western world?

Fuckin' lizard people.

Because (((somebody))) has blindfolded, silenced and handcuffed us.