War on white people?

[The Land of Truth]

1) No, it's genocide because they were forced off the land, forced to walk thousands of miles away from said land, placed in reservations to suffer and die, and then (as if that wasn't enough) systematically slaughtered as white settlements encroached further and further west. Name one time that's happened to white people.

2) No one's asking you to feel guilty for it, but the fact remains that no, the British Empire was not "more civilized" (unless you think slaughtering millions of innocent people is civilized...)

3) What does that have to do with anything? Okay, it's racist. And? Call me when black people take control of the government and begin systematically preventing you from attaining your goals.



I'd rather not, but thanks. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The immigration to Britain isn't retribution for colonization (they're not doing it for "payback"), they're moving there because it offers socioeconomic and political opportunities that their places of origin don't. (Knock off the fucking victim complex.)



I just figured that, since your so against people taking other people's land, you'd feel bad for them. (But, I guess I made the mistake of assuming you had empathy.)



Oh, gee, really? Sorry, I was under the impression that the Anglo-Saxons invaded in 2010. /sarcasm



If they want to live there, you have no right to tell them otherwise, no.



I don't recall ever saying that.



Sure, if you consider Mediterraneans white...



I agree. Your straw-man is very racist.



No, it doesn't. The EU's goal is a more integrated Europe (only right-wing fucknuts think it wants to make Europe a country--case in point). And, even if it did, so what?



They do.



Right, because every single immigrant there is there illegally.



It's bad because Native Americans ("Redskins", as you persist on saying) were systematically murdered for their land. Genetic diversity isn't the same thing as murder.



Far-left? I'm a fucking social-democrat...



Subjective. Also, bullshit.



Right, so it's okay for brown people to exist, just not where you live. (Yep, that's racism.)



Me too. So, when ya gonna stop (being hypocritical, that is)?



No, apartheid is a system by which the minority rules by stripping the rights of the majority. (It's basically the opposite of ochlocracy.) Last I checked, the vast majority of Britain's government was still white.



No one's "enforcing their culture" on anyone. They have as much a right to their culture as you have to yours. The only thing anybody asks is that you accept the fact that their culture exists (which, obviously, you're unable to do, since it acknowledges the fact that they're actually humans).



I'd point out the irony in this, but I feel like it'd be lost on you.

They can practice their own culture in their own country, it is our country they should respect it and not degrade it with primitive cultures. A federal EU would be bad as the MAJORITY don't want it therefore it is undemocratic

No, they can live where ever the fuck they want. If you don't like it, then tough shit. Considering they thought enough of it to move there in the first place, I'd say that's a decent amount of respect. Also, "primitive" cultures? Uh, excuse me, but if you're supposed to be the example of British civilization, then I'll take the barbarians, thank you.

Firstly, moving the goalposts. Secondly, it's irrelevant, because that's not what they're fucking doing. (EU's actual goal: Remove barriers between European states. EU's goal to right-wingers: Take awayz mah freedomz!)

[Pandeeria]

Awww, that's sweet. You want to persevere a convoluted, arbitrary mess of a concept that is your culture?

Culture fucking sucks.

Did you just say that British culture sucks? British culture gave you the electricity you use to insult it.

Nope all culture sucks.

Also, technology gave me electricity. Not culture.

[Pandeeria]

They died so people had the right to bad mouth our country.

Okay, now he's definitely sounding like a radical American.

Indeed.

[The Land of Truth]

WaW, that's sweet. You want to persevere a convoluted, arbitrary mess of a concept that of your culture?

Culture fucking sucks.

Did you just say that British culture sucks? British culture gave you the electricity you use to insult it.

No, he said culture sucks. Also, British culture didn't give anybody electricity. Da fuq's wrong with you?

[The United Kingdoms of Austinarya]

Being made a minority will take away our national identity and we are also expected to be a majority Muslim nation in 10 years, they will have enough people to make a political party which could succeed in a general election, which could mean sharia law, I would rather not live under a backward thinking doctrine such as sharia law

If I wanted to be a minority then I would move to a foreign country, It's my country not theirs, they are our guests and should stop trying to change our culture, if you change the people, you change the culture. This again could mean Sharia Law which has already been implanted into our law: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rules.html

How will being a minority "take away your national identity"? You do understand what a "nation" is, right? Right, because everyone knows that the first thing Muslims do when they win an election is institute Sharia law. I mean, it's not like a country can be both Muslim and secular, right? Also, "backward thinking"? Given some of the things you've said, I'd say it's a step up.

No, it's not "your" country. Countries are not tangible things that can be owned. (They're literally just lines on a map that people agree to adhere to--nominally.) They aren't trying to change your culture, they trying to keep theirs. (These two things are entirely different.) Of course, because the Daily Mail is the most trustworthy news source in Britain. *nods* (I mean, it's not like they have an agenda of any kind...)

It's the daily express not the mail you tosser. I am a native Briton, they are not so they should respect my country. They can keep their culture in their own countries, I don't take kindly to feeling like a foreigner in my country.

I'm not as backward thinking as they are, I don't think animals should be slaughtered cruelly, I don't think women should have to wear burkhas or be killed for getting raped, I don't think people should have their hands cut off, I don't believe in killing the "infidels", I don't believe in killing gays, I don't believe in public stonings, I don't accept pedophilia, I don't believe that Christians and Jews are inferior, I don't believe that anyone is inferior

[Seshephe]

I don't really classify myself based on skin pigmentation.

Seems sorta silly.

[The Land of Truth]

If it weren't for the Dutch, they would be living in huts and relying solely on witch doctors.

Do you have something to say?

I would defer on the huts and witch doctors point.

Given the inherent racism in that assumption...

[Blakk Metal]

Did you just say that British culture sucks? British culture gave you the electricity you use to insult it.

Nope all culture sucks.

Also, technology gave me electricity. Not culture.

Technology is made using memes, so it is derived from culture.

Did you just say that British culture sucks? British culture gave you the electricity you use to insult it.

No, he said culture sucks. Also, British culture didn't give anybody electricity. Da fuq's wrong with you?

Electricity generation relies on equations invented by a Scot.

I would defer on the huts and witch doctors point.

Given the inherent racism in that assumption...

Africa south of the equator has never created a notable civilization.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Also, racialism is bullshit. Kant and others during the Enlightenment came up with it, it has been disproven since then by many academic circles. They were not biologists either mind you, Kant and the others who came up with racialism were philosophy professors, not biologists. Now that we have advanced both in medical and life sciences we know this to be bullshit; but nice try at reviving a 300+ year old sack of shit from the grave.

No, that is just not true.

Kant and to other philosopher of the Elightement race was never a subject. Ironically one of the few racist philosophers was Karl Marx, and even he was racist toward Slavs.

Bullshit
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/lawrence_blu ... Racism.pdf


Also, from Wikipedia:

In 1775, Kant published On the Different Races of Man (Über die verschiedenen Rassen der Menschen), which proposed natural or purposive causes of variation, as opposed to mechanical law or a product of chance. He distinguished four fundamental races: Whites, Blacks, Kalmuck, and Hindustanic, and attributed the variation to differences in environment and climate, such as the air and sun, but clarified by saying that the variation served a purpose and was not purely superficial. Kant argued that human beings were equipped with the same seeds (Keime) and the natural predispositions or characteristics (Anlagen) that were expressed were dependent upon climate and served a purpose due to the circumstance. After this process had occurred, it was also irreversible. Therefore, race could not be undone by changes in climate. "Whichever germ was actualized by the conditions, the other germs would retire into inactivity." Kant stated:

The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people.

Oh, and Linnaeus who created the taxonomic tree we have been using lately:

Meanwhile, Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), the physician, botanist, and zoologist, modified the established taxonomic bases of binomial nomenclature for fauna and flora, and was a pioneer researcher in biologically defining human race. In Systema Naturae (1767), he labeled five[18]" varieties"[19][20] of human species. Each one was described as possessing the following physiognomic characteristics "varying by culture and place:"[21]

The Americanus: red, choleraic, righteous; black, straight, thick hair; stubborn, zealous, free; painting himself with red lines, and regulated by customs.[22]

The Europeanus: white, sanguine, browny; with abundant, long hair; blue eyes; gentle, acute, inventive; covered with close vestments; and regulated by customs.[23]

The Asiaticus: yellow, melancholic, stiff; black hair, dark eyes; severe, haughty, greedy; covered with loose clothing; and regulated by opinions.[24]

The Afer or Africanus: black, phlegmatic, relaxed; black, frizzled hair; silky skin, flat nose, tumid lips; females without shame; mammary glands give milk abundantly; crafty, sly, careless; anoints himself with grease; & regulated by will.[25]

The Monstrosus were mythologic humans which didn't appear in the first editions of Systema Naturae. The sub-species included the "four-footed, mute, hairy" Homo feralis (Feral man); the animal-reared Juvenis lupinus hessensis (Hessian wolf boy), the Juvenis hannoveranus (Hannoverian boy), the Puella campanica (Wild-girl of Champagne), and the agile, but faint-hearted Homo monstrosus (Monstrous man): the Patagonian giant, the Dwarf of the Alps, and the monorchid Khoikhoi (Hottentot). In Amoenitates academicae (1763), Linnaeus presented the mythologic Homo anthropomorpha (Anthropomorphic man), humanoid creatures, such as the troglodyte, the satyr, the hydra, and the phoenix, incorrectly identified as simian creatures.[citation needed]

There are disagreements about what was the basis for Linnaeus' human taxa. One the one hand, the harshest critics say that the classification not only was ethnocentric but seemed to be based upon skin-color. On the other hand, Quintyn (2010) points out that some authors believe the classification was based upon geographical distribution, being cartographically-based, and not hierarchical.[26] Paleontologist Stephen Gould (1994) argues that the taxa was "not in the ranked order favored by most Europeans in the racist tradition," and that Linnaeus' division was influenced by the medical theory of humors which said that a person's temperament may be related to biological fluids.[27][28] In the opinion of Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (1976), Linneus, for sure, considered his own culture better, but his motives for classification of human varieties were not race-centered.[29] The Linnean Society of London has stated that in Linnaeus' view, "Europeans' superiority resides in "culture," and that the decisive factor in Linnaeus' taxa was "culture," not race. Thus, regarding this topic, they consider Linnaeus view as merely "eurocentric," arguing that Linnaeus never called for racist action, and did not use the word "race", which was only introduced later "by his French opponent Buffon."[30] Scholar Stanley A. Rice agrees that Linnaeus' classification was not meant to "imply a hierarchy of humanness or superiority;"[31] although modern critics see that his classification was obviously stereotyped, and erroneous for having included anthropological, non-biological features such as customs or traditions.

And this is from Johann Blumenbach in Germany around the same period (late 1700s - early 1800s)

Johann Blumenbach from Germany and Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon from France were believers in monogenism, the concept that all races have a single origin. They also believed in the "degeneration theory" of racial origins. They both said that Adam and Eve were Caucasian and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors, such as the sun and poor dieting. They believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken, and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.[35]

They thought Negroid pigmentation arose because of the heat of the tropical sun. They suggested cold wind caused the tawny colour of the Eskimos. They thought the Chinese relatively fair skinned compared to the other Asian stocks because they kept mostly in towns and were protected from environmental factors. Buffon said that food and the mode of living could make races degenerate and differentiate them from the original Caucasian race.[35]

According to Blumenbach, there are five races, all belonging to a single species: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Blumenbach said:

I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian because this stock displays the most beautiful race of men.

In other words, I think I know what I'm talking about, you don't.

[Blakk Metal]

The United Kingdoms of Austinarya, insulting people is not allowed on this fookin' forum.

[Pandeeria]

Nope all culture sucks.

Also, technology gave me electricity. Not culture.

Technology is made using memes, so it is derived from culture.

No, they're not.

Ever heard of interest instead of culture? Ever heard of accident instead of culture?

[The United Kingdoms of Austinarya]

They can practice their own culture in their own country, it is our country they should respect it and not degrade it with primitive cultures. A federal EU would be bad as the MAJORITY don't want it therefore it is undemocratic

No, they can live where ever the fuck they want. If you don't like it, then tough shit. Considering they thought enough of it to move there in the first place, I'd say that's a decent amount of respect. Also, "primitive" cultures? Uh, excuse me, but if you're supposed to be the example of British civilization, then I'll take the barbarians, thank you.

Firstly, moving the goalposts. Secondly, it's irrelevant, because that's not what they're fucking doing. (EU's actual goal: Remove barriers between European states. EU's goal to right-wingers: Take awayz mah freedomz!)

If they move here and complain about us not having to adopt their traditions then THEY CAN LEAVE, why do they want to turn our country into what they left behind them? The EU is ruining our country, we pay them £15 billion a year so that they an force us to accept millions of immigrants that we don't need and so that they can make 85% of our laws, they want one flag, one currency and one anthem.

I am not saying they shouldn't live here, their are plenty of immigrants who integrate such as the Europeans, Sikhs, Jews ect. the Sikhs especially are very respectful of our country. Maybe if you listened to my points instead of screaming "racist" like a bunch of pillocks I would be less rude. I treat people in the same way they treat me you wanker.

[The Land of Truth]

How will being a minority "take away your national identity"? You do understand what a "nation" is, right? Right, because everyone knows that the first thing Muslims do when they win an election is institute Sharia law. I mean, it's not like a country can be both Muslim and secular, right? Also, "backward thinking"? Given some of the things you've said, I'd say it's a step up.

No, it's not "your" country. Countries are not tangible things that can be owned. (They're literally just lines on a map that people agree to adhere to--nominally.) They aren't trying to change your culture, they trying to keep theirs. (These two things are entirely different.) Of course, because the Daily Mail is the most trustworthy news source in Britain. *nods* (I mean, it's not like they have an agenda of any kind...)

It's the daily express not the mail you tosser. I am a native Briton, they are not so they should respect my country. They can keep their culture in their own countries, I don't take kindly to feeling like a foreigner in my country.

I'm not as backward thinking as they are, I don't think animals should be slaughtered cruelly, I don't think women should have to wear burkhas or be killed for getting raped, I don't think people should have their hands cut off, I don't believe in killing the "infidels", I don't believe in killing gays, I don't believe in public stonings, I don't accept pedophilia, I don't believe that Christians and Jews are inferior, I don't believe that anyone is inferior

No, that URL is very clearly the Daily Mail. And when I click it, it takes me to the Daily Mail's website. So, I see your resorting bold-face lies, then? Okay, why? Why does the fact that you happened to be born on the piece of land called "Britain" have any relevance to them whatsoever? If you don't wanna feel like a foreigner, stop feeling like a foreigner (I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but it's literally all in your head--get over it, and it'll go away).

Really? Because, considering the fact that you apparently think countries should be divided based on race and culture, and the fact that the Koran argues against such thing, I'd say they got you beat there. Oh, so you're a vegetarian? Also, big fucking whoop, I can cherry-pick bullshit too. Not all Muslims believe in those things, so your generalization/stereotype is bullshit.

"I'm not as backward thinking as they are," Don't believe anyone is inferior, my ass.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If it weren't for the Dutch, they would be living in huts and relying solely on witch doctors.

So they should be thankful the Dutch treated them like shit instead of getting tired of their shit?

Yea, that doesn't sound racist at all now does it?

[The United Kingdoms of Austinarya]

No, that is just not true.

Kant and to other philosopher of the Elightement race was never a subject. Ironically one of the few racist philosophers was Karl Marx, and even he was racist toward Slavs.

Bullshit
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/lawrence_blu ... Racism.pdf


Also, from Wikipedia:

In 1775, Kant published On the Different Races of Man (Über die verschiedenen Rassen der Menschen), which proposed natural or purposive causes of variation, as opposed to mechanical law or a product of chance. He distinguished four fundamental races: Whites, Blacks, Kalmuck, and Hindustanic, and attributed the variation to differences in environment and climate, such as the air and sun, but clarified by saying that the variation served a purpose and was not purely superficial. Kant argued that human beings were equipped with the same seeds (Keime) and the natural predispositions or characteristics (Anlagen) that were expressed were dependent upon climate and served a purpose due to the circumstance. After this process had occurred, it was also irreversible. Therefore, race could not be undone by changes in climate. "Whichever germ was actualized by the conditions, the other germs would retire into inactivity." Kant stated:

The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people.

Oh, and Linnaeus who created the taxonomic tree we have been using lately:

Meanwhile, Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), the physician, botanist, and zoologist, modified the established taxonomic bases of binomial nomenclature for fauna and flora, and was a pioneer researcher in biologically defining human race. In Systema Naturae (1767), he labeled five[18]" varieties"[19][20] of human species. Each one was described as possessing the following physiognomic characteristics "varying by culture and place:"[21]

The Americanus: red, choleraic, righteous; black, straight, thick hair; stubborn, zealous, free; painting himself with red lines, and regulated by customs.[22]
The Europeanus: white, sanguine, browny; with abundant, long hair; blue eyes; gentle, acute, inventive; covered with close vestments; and regulated by customs.[23]
The Asiaticus: yellow, melancholic, stiff; black hair, dark eyes; severe, haughty, greedy; covered with loose clothing; and regulated by opinions.[24]
The Afer or Africanus: black, phlegmatic, relaxed; black, frizzled hair; silky skin, flat nose, tumid lips; females without shame; mammary glands give milk abundantly; crafty, sly, careless; anoints himself with grease; & regulated by will.[25]
The Monstrosus were mythologic humans which didn't appear in the first editions of Systema Naturae. The sub-species included the "four-footed, mute, hairy" Homo feralis (Feral man); the animal-reared Juvenis lupinus hessensis (Hessian wolf boy), the Juvenis hannoveranus (Hannoverian boy), the Puella campanica (Wild-girl of Champagne), and the agile, but faint-hearted Homo monstrosus (Monstrous man): the Patagonian giant, the Dwarf of the Alps, and the monorchid Khoikhoi (Hottentot). In Amoenitates academicae (1763), Linnaeus presented the mythologic Homo anthropomorpha (Anthropomorphic man), humanoid creatures, such as the troglodyte, the satyr, the hydra, and the phoenix, incorrectly identified as simian creatures.[citation needed]

There are disagreements about what was the basis for Linnaeus' human taxa. One the one hand, the harshest critics say that the classification not only was ethnocentric but seemed to be based upon skin-color. On the other hand, Quintyn (2010) points out that some authors believe the classification was based upon geographical distribution, being cartographically-based, and not hierarchical.[26] Paleontologist Stephen Gould (1994) argues that the taxa was "not in the ranked order favored by most Europeans in the racist tradition," and that Linnaeus' division was influenced by the medical theory of humors which said that a person's temperament may be related to biological fluids.[27][28] In the opinion of Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (1976), Linneus, for sure, considered his own culture better, but his motives for classification of human varieties were not race-centered.[29] The Linnean Society of London has stated that in Linnaeus' view, "Europeans' superiority resides in "culture," and that the decisive factor in Linnaeus' taxa was "culture," not race. Thus, regarding this topic, they consider Linnaeus view as merely "eurocentric," arguing that Linnaeus never called for racist action, and did not use the word "race", which was only introduced later "by his French opponent Buffon."[30] Scholar Stanley A. Rice agrees that Linnaeus' classification was not meant to "imply a hierarchy of humanness or superiority;"[31] although modern critics see that his classification was obviously stereotyped, and erroneous for having included anthropological, non-biological features such as customs or traditions.

And this is from Johann Blumenbach in Germany around the same period (late 1700s - early 1800s)

Johann Blumenbach from Germany and Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon from France were believers in monogenism, the concept that all races have a single origin. They also believed in the "degeneration theory" of racial origins. They both said that Adam and Eve were Caucasian and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors, such as the sun and poor dieting. They believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken, and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.[35]

They thought Negroid pigmentation arose because of the heat of the tropical sun. They suggested cold wind caused the tawny colour of the Eskimos. They thought the Chinese relatively fair skinned compared to the other Asian stocks because they kept mostly in towns and were protected from environmental factors. Buffon said that food and the mode of living could make races degenerate and differentiate them from the original Caucasian race.[35]

According to Blumenbach, there are five races, all belonging to a single species: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Blumenbach said:

I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian because this stock displays the most beautiful race of men.

In other words, I think I know what I'm talking about, you don't.

Just accept it, your beloved communists are disgusting and just as bad as Hitler. Look at how many Christians Stalin killed, look at al the Whites Mugabe killed, look at all the hate Marx had for Slavs.

[Blakk Metal]

Technology is made using memes, so it is derived from culture.

No, they're not.

Ever heard of interest instead of culture? Ever heard of accident instead of culture?

The Scot made the equations using data from an Englishman.

If it weren't for the Dutch, they would be living in huts and relying solely on witch doctors.

So they should be thankful the Dutch treated them like shit instead of getting tired of their shit?

Yea, that doesn't sound racist at all now does it?

The indigenous leadership is worse.

[Pandeeria]

No, they're not.

Ever heard of interest instead of culture? Ever heard of accident instead of culture?

The Scot made the equations using data from an Englishman.

And?

It's not uncommon for people to share answers if it means bettering humanity.

[The United Kingdoms of Austinarya]

If it weren't for the Dutch, they would be living in huts and relying solely on witch doctors.

So they should be thankful the Dutch treated them like shit instead of getting tired of their shit?

Yea, that doesn't sound racist at all now does it?

So you think it is civilized to live in unhygienic huts and to not have proper medicine?

The British empire improved those countries, just look at India, it has gone downhill ever since it got independence

[Blakk Metal]

The Scot made the equations using data from an Englishman.

And?

It's not uncommon for people to share answers if it means bettering humanity.

That's culture.

[Primordial Luxa]

I'm not sure wether whites becoming a minority is even possible, I haven't done the amount of research some of you have. But I understand why some people would fear it. It's the same reasons any race would fear becoming a minority, their needs and culture would be less prevelent. A valid fear in my opinion, but again just because it's valid dosent make it rational.

[Pandeeria]

And?

It's not uncommon for people to share answers if it means bettering humanity.

That's culture.

No, it's some one borrowing someone else's information.

Cheating on a test ain't culture.

[The Land of Truth]

No, they can live where ever the fuck they want. If you don't like it, then tough shit. Considering they thought enough of it to move there in the first place, I'd say that's a decent amount of respect. Also, "primitive" cultures? Uh, excuse me, but if you're supposed to be the example of British civilization, then I'll take the barbarians, thank you.

Firstly, moving the goalposts. Secondly, it's irrelevant, because that's not what they're fucking doing. (EU's actual goal: Remove barriers between European states. EU's goal to right-wingers: Take awayz mah freedomz!)

(1)If they move here and complain about us not having to adopt their traditions then THEY CAN LEAVE, (2)why do they want to turn our country into what they left behind them? (3)The EU is ruining our country, we pay them £15 billion a year so that they an force us to accept millions of immigrants that we don't need and so that they can make 85% of our laws, they want one flag, one currency and one anthem.

(4)I am not saying they shouldn't live here, their are plenty of immigrants who integrate such as the Europeans, Sikhs, Jews ect. (5)the Sikhs especially are very respectful of our country. (6)Maybe if you listened to my points instead of screaming "racist" like a bunch of pillocks I would be less rude. (7)I treat people in the same way they treat me you wanker.

1) So you're just gonna reiterate the same bullshit "they're oppressin' mah culture" argument, again? Really? What is this, the, like, fourth time?

2) I don't know. It's your straw-man, why are you asking me?

3) *sigh* Again. Bullshit. (This is starting to get repetitive.)

4)

5) Not to be a stereotyping douchebag, but the Sikhs are respectful of (almost) everyone--it's literally a part of their religion.

6) Oh, no, I'm listening. It's just all bullshit.

7) Well, calling someone a "wanker" is certainly a good place to start. (Not to mention, I don't once recall ever calling you a racist, though, since that's what you hear, I might as well start, no?)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Just accept it, your beloved communists are disgusting and just as bad as Hitler. Look at how many Christians Stalin killed, look at al the Whites Mugabe killed, look at all the hate Marx had for Slavs.

Thanks for proving your opinions are full of shit, as I am not a communist and never implied I was.

Just because I can source shit and sound more capable at debate and sourcing things than you and Blakk Metal put together doesn't make me a communist.

On the other hand, it speaks volumes about what you really think about Marxists and why exactly you're scared of them.

[Blakk Metal]

That's culture.

No, it's some one borrowing someone else's information.

Cheating on a test ain't culture.

A shared information is culture.

[Pandeeria]

No, it's some one borrowing someone else's information.

Cheating on a test ain't culture.

A shared information is culture.

Not necessarily.

We aren't creating our own micro-culture because we're sharing information.