Make Africa Great Again: Carthaginians Were White

[Sangoma]

Whatever life they had it was their home. We can argue for a long time about benefits of colonialism, but invading a country is immoral and illegal. Germany could invade Greece - lazy fuckers who don't know how to work and have a siesta in the middle of the day. Sweden could invade North Africa and improve the order there, to end the need for immigration. And of course, NATO must occupy Russia, to bring genuine democracy, freedom and eradicate corruption and alcoholism. And then again, we have a few recent examples that I already mentioned, where Western values were brought to the backwards states run by ruthless kings, like Iraq and Libya.

[Fat Cat]

Whatever life they had it was their home. We can argue for a long time about benefits of colonialism, but invading a country is immoral and illegal.

Don't be so uptight people do it all the time. Right now Europe is being invaded and we are told that it is both moral and legal.

Germany could invade Greece - lazy fuckers who don't know how to work and have a siesta in the middle of the day.

FYI, Germany did invade Greece. It turns out, the Greeks are lazy but they make kick ass guerrillas.

Sweden could invade North Africa and improve the order there, to end the need for immigration. And of course, NATO must occupy Russia, to bring genuine democracy, freedom and eradicate corruption and alcoholism. And then again, we have a few recent examples that I already mentioned, where Western values were brought to the backwards states run by ruthless kings, like Iraq and Libya.

See, that's more like it.

[Fat Cat]

wrong thread

[Sangoma]

Calling current immigration wave in Europe an invasion - you are being overly dramatic. Just check the numbers, you may sleep better, brother. But hell, Europe and USA turned away Jews trying to run away during Holocaust, so I guess why should Arabs and African Blacks be treated any differently.

[Fat Cat]

Calling current immigration wave in Europe an invasion - you are being overly dramatic. Just check the numbers, you may sleep better, brother.

"The numbers" are precisely the cause of concern. It is a question not only of how many immigrants enter the country, but also their total fertility, which outstrips native French. This is why Mohamed is the most popular name for newborn boys in England. See:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... mS7DtJUeKB

But, if your position is that this massive and illegal wave of immigration is not an invasion, then surely you cannot characterize an equally massive wave of whites entering Africa in search of "economic opportunities" as an invasion either. You see, friend Sangoma, this is where the trap swings shut behind you: you are arguing for two mutually contradictory positions--massive illegal immigration to Europe good, massive illegal immigration to Africa bad. *cue lamentation of women*

But hell, Europe and USA turned away Jews trying to run away during Holocaust, so I guess why should Arabs and African Blacks be treated any differently.

You are no doubt aware that pogrom is a Russian word, so please, let's not get hyperbolic. Your appeal to morality is false and you know it. You are simply fumbling around for the answers you have been conditioned to provide.

[Turdacious]

Nobody wants to read that Sangoma. Now lets get back to Tulsi's fingers...

[Fat Cat]

Ew. I used to play capoeira in the park with Tulsi and she's not well put together.

[Turdacious]

Ew. I used to play capoeira in the park with Tulsi and she's not well put together.

Relative to all the other major POTUS candidates?

[Sangoma]

Calling current immigration wave in Europe an invasion - you are being overly dramatic. Just check the numbers, you may sleep better, brother.

"The numbers" are precisely the cause of concern. It is a question not only of how many immigrants enter the country, but also their total fertility, which outstrips native French. This is why Mohamed is the most popular name for newborn boys in England. See:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... mS7DtJUeKB

But, if your position is that this massive and illegal wave of immigration is not an invasion, then surely you cannot characterize an equally massive wave of whites entering Africa in search of "economic opportunities" as an invasion either. You see, friend Sangoma, this is where the trap swings shut behind you: you are arguing for two mutually contradictory positions--massive illegal immigration to Europe good, massive illegal immigration to Africa bad. *cue lamentation of women*

But hell, Europe and USA turned away Jews trying to run away during Holocaust, so I guess why should Arabs and African Blacks be treated any differently.

You are no doubt aware that pogrom is a Russian word, so please, let's not get hyperbolic. Your appeal to morality is false and you know it. You are simply fumbling around for the answers you have been conditioned to provide.

You are making me dizzy. What does French fertility have to do with ethnicity in England? And the urban myth of the name Mohammed being most common there. It's tenth, by the way, after Oliver, Harry, George, Noah etc.

Re numbers, I don't know what makes you so worried. Population of Europe is about 300 million. How many illegals entered in the period that we consider "refugee crisis"? About a million entered in 2015, the peak of the influx. The numbers since dramatically fell. Ok, make it 2 million total, which is... Ok, make it 3 million, to make the math easier. That will make it an influx of one percent. If that diluted native culture so much the said culture should question its own right to exist.

And again, immigration, including illegal, is not the same as entering a country with armed forces, taking over its government and persecuting those who oppose. Whites can legally immigrate to most African countries. That's what I did, remember? That's the example of "moving in search of economic opportunities". Nobody died in the process (a few were saved, but that's just the specifics of my profession) and Russian rule of life was not enforced.

Jews wise - linguistics aside, most Jews in the 18-19th centuries settled around Eastern Europe which was controlled by the Russian Empire. And yes, anti-semitism did exist, as Russians are not immune from blaming a scape goat for problems. But there are some good examples too. During WW2 nearly 300,000 Polish Jews crossed into USSR. In spite of well known Soviet policies at the time this was the largest group of European Jews to survive Nazi enterprise. Not to forget that it was primarily Russians who defeated Germans and stopped the Holocaust. Again, it's not about defending Russians or blaming the West, I am just pointing out to the hypocrisy: not letting people in when the alternative is almost certain death. Believe it or not, people don't get uprooted unless there is a good reason for it.

[johno]

not letting people in when the alternative is almost certain death. Believe it or not, people don't get uprooted unless there is a good reason for it.

"Almost certain death" is often used as cover for "vastly worse living conditions." But let's not use the term "Shithole."

[Sangoma]

I was referring to Holocaust. But I don't think there is anything wrong with someone trying to get out of a shithole.

[johno]

So we agree: avoiding certain death is not at all the same as seeking a better standard of living.

I don't "blame" those trying to flee shitholes. But First World countries have no obligation to abandon their borders to accommodate them.
Instead, nations should promote the interests of their citizens.

[Fat Cat]

You are making me dizzy. What does French fertility have to do with ethnicity in England? And the urban myth of the name Mohammed being most common there. It's tenth, by the way, after Oliver, Harry, George, Noah etc.

I stand corrected, Muhammad was only the most popular in London, Yorkshire, the Northeast, and the Midlands. Source:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... e-fashion/

Pretty sure that still supports my point. And the correlation between England and France is clear, they pursue the same policies and will reap the same result. You know that despite your clumsy obfuscation. Take a walk through Piccadilly some time.

it's not about defending Russians or blaming the West, I am just pointing out to the hypocrisy: not letting people in when the alternative is almost certain death. Believe it or not, people don't get uprooted unless there is a good reason for it.

This is the crux of your argument, and it's baseless. These people don't face "almost certain death" and the reason they face poor conditions in their country of origin should be our focus, not simply letting them all move to Europe or America, which is insane cultural suicide. Those people are the victims of the same globalizing economic forces that supported destabilizing interventions in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq.

You don't solve a homeless problem by moving them all into your house, you have to get at the root causes where they develop. In the same way, you don't solve humanitarian crises by simply shifting massive populations around, destabilizing multiple countries in the process. And that's the crux of my argument. You fantasize that you have the moral high ground but it's an illusion. Insane migration policy magnifies misery, destroys culture, and plays into the hands of stateless corporations and predatory politicians. The proof is in the misery of the native populations of Germany, England, and France who don't want to be replaced.

But if you insist, then I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander and we should move in to Africa in force and extract the wealth necessary to care for them, since in your view, they can't take care of themselves.

[Sangoma]

As I said, take us there. I miss Africa and will gladly join you. Let me know when you are ready to go.

[Fat Cat]

As I said, take us there. I miss Africa and will gladly join you. Let me know when you are ready to go.

Practice your large-caliber marksmanship.

[Fat Cat]

These people are in desperate need of pure, white Jesus.