I knew he had mentioned that Europe would be flooded if he was taken out, I didn't realize the Italians were paying him. So how come we're paying the Mexicans and still getting flooded with invaders?
Zero interest loans... That's a big no no to our zog overlords
It's a big no no in general. Interest exists to account for the value of the time you take to pay the principle back. If there's no interest then why rush? Just pay it back whenever.
There is no "before usury," if by usury you mean charging interest. People have always expected some return on loans/investments. The proper word for an interest free loan is "gift."
Right, because we need to recognise that the longer I deprive you of the money you lent me, the more opportunities you have to pass up.
And it's not good enough to have just a flat penalty, because otherwise I might just decide "oh well, I owe this guy an extra $200 now no matter what, so I might as well take a little longer paying back." The penalty would have to increase over time to encourage me to pay back as quickly as possible.
Also, the penalty should probably start at a low value right from the beginning of the loan to cover the risk of some of your borrowers losing all of your money and not being able to pay anything back, contract or no.
And in order to ensure you're lending to the most efficient ventures there should probably be a bidding process for the penalty, so the ones with the best business plan who can promise the best returns will gain access to more resources.
Maybe we should have a name for this penalty, something that reflects your motivation to make the loan in the first place. How about "interest."
[ - ] taoV 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 23:58:14 ago (+2/-1)
Usury is a parasitic practice in any system that doesn't have abstractions for currency. It's use was historically curtailed for a reason. There have been many alternatives to private usury through time.
It's use was historically curtailed for the same reason that currencies have been historically inflated: Policymakers are usually economically illiterate.
There have been many alternatives to private usury through time.
Name one.
And for that matter define usury. The only person I've spoken to who has provided a useful definition eventually conceded to "when lenders are able to use state power to protect their profits" which has nothing to do with interest rates.
I'll name several. Under various filial systems, like clans, you could leverage trust and relations to borrow. Under some religious systems you could do the same from the community. When the industrial era was winding up, fraternal organizations and labor unions (including the Masons so may people seem to hate) had various services that included loans. Credit Unions are a shadow of this today. If you stretch the idea enough then company stock was originally a sort of loan, althugh we're pretty far gone from that today.
The root of usury is "to use" or it's latin equivalent, as in using money to make money. I've noticed the defintion has changed over time. I just checked again and a common one seems to be "unfair interest rates" but I meant the former. Any amount of interest paid for borrowing currency, but especially privately and especially when it is disconnected from the results of that money's use.
Ok, using family/religious/fraternal networks helps deal with the trust issue, and I'd agree with you that things would be better if we started organising along those lines again.
There are other issues though, like risk. Fair enough if the social structure acts as a guarantor, but that also means they need to be compensated for the risk if it's a regular thing. Like if I routinely lose $100 a year because I'm expected to guarantee a certain amount of loans within my fraternity then it'd be reasonable for me to demand at least $100 a year in compensation when makeing future loans.
The other problem is that selecting ventures to loan to/invest in is work, and very important work at that. It's not just turning on a money faucet and being guaranteed your wealth will always grow, investors have to be careful about the investments they make and the risks they take. The broader social function this provides is ensuring that the most promising projects with the potential to create the most value gain access to resources, and shakier ones do not.
I recognise that putting jews in charge of those functions has caused chaos and misery, but that doesn't mean we can't have anyone performing those functions. A local savings and loans institution whose managers intimately know the local economy and whose business is exposed to competition and failure would be a very valuable thing for an ethnically homogenous community to have.
[ - ] taoV 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 13:05:08 ago (+1/-0)
I actually was going to edit for malinvestment. I admit that most of the systems I listed were closed ones, within a community. In those cases, one strategy to prevent loss is to have more people in the group, and make sure they're prosperous so they can contribute to the system later. That would either allow you to make more loans or allow some loans to fail.
Overall I would argue that malinvestment is lower without usury. Today almost anyone can get a credit card, and use it for almost anything they desire, whether they can pay it back and whether or not they do anything productive with it. That wouldn't happen in any system where you're concerned about the return of their initial. The rate of acceptable loss wuld be much lower, so you would only loan for things with a high rate of success.
It's not perfect. You could lose some technological progress this way, but IMO that's it's own debate. Mostly you would lose a lot of consumerist garbage. The exception might be a sovereign or patron that wants and can afford things higher on the risk/return axis.
More importantly, a closed system dependent on growth is eventually going to reach it's limits if it's succesful. But overall, when I compare such a system to the financial wreckage and it's cultural effects today, I have to say that little to no usury is better for the public body and better for the soul.
I'm open to some hybrid system, but as for who should run it- we already had what you're describing, conservative whites in charge of finance in their communities (ever watch It's a Wonderful Life?), and still ended up where we are now. Without some novel restraint on greed, it might be better to do away with it entirely.
I didn't reply to your idea that someone has to do the work of selecting for investment. I'll say that the systems I desribed all had councils or hierarchies that handled it, or some kind of concensus. It seemed to work, though there could be examples of it failing that I'm not aware of. I'm sure they had their issues.
I actually was going to edit for malinvestment. I admit that most of the systems I listed were closed ones, within a community. In those cases, one strategy to prevent loss is to have more people in the group, and make sure they're prosperous so they can contribute to the system later. That would either allow you to make more loans or allow some loans to fail.
Broadening the pool might average out losses, but it doesn't avoid the problem that you'd essentially be donating a certain amount into the program as charity. Which is fine for actual charitable cases but isn't really a good way to fund businesses.
Overall I would argue that malinvestment is lower without usury. Today almost anyone can get a credit card, and use it for almost anything they desire, whether they can pay it back and whether or not they do anything productive with it. That wouldn't happen in any system where you're concerned about the return of their initial. The rate of acceptable loss wuld be much lower, so you would only loan for things with a high rate of success.
Yes, I definitely agree the current lending system is highly dysfunctional, largely because the banks have learned to use government power to guarantee profits and bail out losses. Which is clearly an unnatural situation.
I'd argue this situation isn't caused by the existence of interest though. It's caused by financial institutions being able to leverage government power to grant themselves a privileged position in the market. They're not subject to competition and failure in the same way a normal business would be, so it's no surprise they become corrupt.
It's not perfect. You could lose some technological progress this way, but IMO that's it's own debate. Mostly you would lose a lot of consumerist garbage. The exception might be a sovereign or patron that wants and can afford things higher on the risk/return axis.
Hmmm, I don't think you can discount the importance of technological progress though. The general lesson of history is that if you fall too far behind you get fucked. China and Japan are good examples, they went from unstoppable superpowers to colonial backwaters.
More importantly, a closed system dependent on growth is eventually going to reach it's limits if it's succesful. But overall, when I compare such a system to the financial wreckage and it's cultural effects today, I have to say that little to no usury is better for the public body and better for the soul.
Again, I think that's confusing financial structures with societal values. The problems we have today exist largely because we're ruled by jews. It really doesn't matter how they rule us, any system with them at the top is going to be dysfunctional.
I'm open to some hybrid system, but as for who should run it- we already had what you're describing, conservative whites in charge of finance in their communities (ever watch It's a Wonderful Life?), and still ended up where we are now. Without some novel restraint on greed, it might be better to do away with it entirely.
Actually I'd take savings and loans institutions like in that movie as a perfect example of interest based lending done right. They used to work very well because the managers making lending decisions were intimately connected to their community and therefore not only made efficient decisions, but were discouraged from making evil ones too.
The rot set in with the new deal: FDR changed the rules so that any bank could use public money as collateral provided they followed federal planning rules rather than their own local knowledge. The result was that banks no longer had any reason to maintain strong local ties and were free to make evil and corrupt decisions without any real consequence.
If we went back to local fraternities and savings & loans banks we'd be fine. The existence of interest to cover loss and ensure efficiency wouldn't be a problem.
See. I had only ever seen the melting face of his. I didn’t know he was actually human and kinda good looking in his youth, so the op pic shocked me. How do you think he got the melty face? Surgeries? Botox? That face is horrifying and unnatural
and yet we were fed an entirely different picture altogether. Is any of this bullshit true? I thought the "people" were just like the "people" in the US. scumbag parasites who just want more and more for nothing, and BETTER. Ungrateful.
If any of the stuff I've seen about Libya was true there would be no such thing as Libyan immigrants. Why would anyone leave a country where you are effectively guaranteed a lotto win every year in national oil dividends.
It is, you'd have to be retarded to believe this. Every since the regime-change I've seen people unironically passing around Gadaffi's propaganda as if it's holy writ.
I wonder if hitler had pulled off Barbarossa would we be reading passages about how the soviet union was a paradise of food and freedom.
Libya, and the western world were much better off with the colonel in control. They had to take him out to open the floodgates for the crossing of sub Saharan niggers to the coast, and then to Europe. Ghadaffi would not have tolerated mass migration of niggers, funded by jews, across his land. Hillary and Obama had to remove him for the jewish global agenda.
Libya was a very unique country - and having a dictatorship made it work. There were harsh penalties for crime as well. And no libtarded PC bullshit.
Do not equate the "american" ideals of socialism with what happened in Libya. It also helped that the government controled the resources and wealth to some degree.
Also they sat on a shit ton of oil. That bought a lot of prosperity that they didn't really build. They won a geographic lottery like several other countries in the region.
You are laboring under several misapprehensions. First, having a baby is cheap, you just squat and squeeze it out. That's how people did it for thousands of years. You are talking about top of the line white glove service with whistles and bells.
Healthcare is artificially expensive. You are paying for ambulance chasing lawyers and regulating agencies and insurance companies. Insurance does not bring down health care costs, it elevates them, while disincentivizing risk reduction. Healthcare training is inefficient. Right now we have niggers on Medicaid getting world class healthcare while they shit out 5 babies before 25, subsidized by the couple that is waiting until 35 to shit out one or two. They get the same service. That is because behavior is divorced from consequences. Even if you get a country full of whites, whites who act like niggers will be subsidized by whites who don't.
Any decoupling of behavior from consequence will make the system less efficient and will destroy the integrity of economic information. The more you try to "spread around pain" the more you will discourage responsible behavior. When you remove subsidies, something magical happens-- prices go down. Healthcare costs are so high because health care companies can get away with charging these rates. Corrupt bureaucracies play favorites with who they will subsidize based on who they want to curry favor with, Not who is making risk averse decisions. You are fucking up pricing mechanisms.
People live in societies to mitigate risk and subsidize each other to promote the well-being of the collective. But you have to be very careful that you are not subsidizing reckless people or non-productive people because they spread their genes and future generations will become inefficient.
A harsh selection process was imposed on northern Eurasian populations which did not take place with shit skins. People who were not prepared for scarcity died. They were not subsidized. That is why whites are who we are. The more you subsidize low quality whites the more white society will begin to fail.
TLDR Two problems: subsidizing the genetic success of people who make bad choices and creating inefficient bureaucracies that inflate healthcare costs. This is true for lots of other sectors of the economy too. I could do education. Education is inefficient and completely sucks, because we subsidize it too much. Plus we are trying to educate niggers which is a joke.
Why not make a constructive comment on the topic instead of gossiping about how ugly Khaddafi's face was?
Nah you'd just rather punish everyone else for the fact that your wife and her lawyer raped your ass until it was was bloody and torn. It's really not my fault you don't make a sound anymore when you fart.
Tsk tsk, the vulgar childless hag is hurt. lol hit too close to home, didn’t I? You should learn knitting and cooking. Make yourself a little useful, ye old spinster
White men can ask their brothers and friends to help them build an extra room on the house. That's what whites always have done. Whites can make their own clothes and toys.
How will we get rid of the jew? by going fucking Amish.
Have 3 and you will have decent down payment for new house
So we're going to continue being enslaved to usurers? Do you think the mortgage system makes houses more expensive or less expensive?
This is like saying "If I only feed the raccoons once a week, it won't have an effect." I'm not saying the state should not ever subsidize anything, but I'm saying any benefit will come at the expense of efficiency.
Mother nature was our eugenics program for 50,000 years in the way of cold winters. If you even out the chances of reproductive success of all whites, you will absolutely reverse that process.
I just mean theoretically over time. You know I have a special place for the potato niggers in my heart. Fucking FKH was talking smack about English and I was put in the awkward position of having to defend them as a great country. That wasn't a popular narrative in our house, given our connections.
Charade you are! However, those “programs” kept those people there. Those programs, and ghadaffi, needed to be ended for the mass migration of niggers to the west.
[ + ] allahead
[ - ] allahead 11 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 19:46:35 ago (+11/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 11 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:16:29 ago (+11/-0)
[ + ] allahead
[ - ] allahead 7 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:46:22 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] Hobama
[ - ] Hobama 3 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 00:28:29 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Jiggggg
[ - ] Jiggggg 7 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 18:41:29 ago (+7/-0)
Zero interest loans... That's a big no no to our zog overlords
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 3 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:15:33 ago (+4/-1)
It's a big no no in general. Interest exists to account for the value of the time you take to pay the principle back. If there's no interest then why rush? Just pay it back whenever.
[ + ] Timothymcoyvey
[ - ] Timothymcoyvey 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 02:23:17 ago (+1/-0)
Historically I don't know how it worked with loans before usury.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath -1 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 04:43:49 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] SunofGod
[ - ] SunofGod 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 08:40:29 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 11:49:01 ago (+0/-0)
And it's not good enough to have just a flat penalty, because otherwise I might just decide "oh well, I owe this guy an extra $200 now no matter what, so I might as well take a little longer paying back." The penalty would have to increase over time to encourage me to pay back as quickly as possible.
Also, the penalty should probably start at a low value right from the beginning of the loan to cover the risk of some of your borrowers losing all of your money and not being able to pay anything back, contract or no.
And in order to ensure you're lending to the most efficient ventures there should probably be a bidding process for the penalty, so the ones with the best business plan who can promise the best returns will gain access to more resources.
Maybe we should have a name for this penalty, something that reflects your motivation to make the loan in the first place. How about "interest."
[ + ] taoV
[ - ] taoV 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 12:26:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] taoV
[ - ] taoV 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 23:58:14 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath -1 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 04:42:37 ago (+0/-1)
Name one.
And for that matter define usury. The only person I've spoken to who has provided a useful definition eventually conceded to "when lenders are able to use state power to protect their profits" which has nothing to do with interest rates.
[ + ] taoV
[ - ] taoV 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 12:21:05 ago (+0/-0)
The root of usury is "to use" or it's latin equivalent, as in using money to make money. I've noticed the defintion has changed over time. I just checked again and a common one seems to be "unfair interest rates" but I meant the former. Any amount of interest paid for borrowing currency, but especially privately and especially when it is disconnected from the results of that money's use.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 12:41:44 ago (+0/-0)
There are other issues though, like risk. Fair enough if the social structure acts as a guarantor, but that also means they need to be compensated for the risk if it's a regular thing. Like if I routinely lose $100 a year because I'm expected to guarantee a certain amount of loans within my fraternity then it'd be reasonable for me to demand at least $100 a year in compensation when makeing future loans.
The other problem is that selecting ventures to loan to/invest in is work, and very important work at that. It's not just turning on a money faucet and being guaranteed your wealth will always grow, investors have to be careful about the investments they make and the risks they take. The broader social function this provides is ensuring that the most promising projects with the potential to create the most value gain access to resources, and shakier ones do not.
I recognise that putting jews in charge of those functions has caused chaos and misery, but that doesn't mean we can't have anyone performing those functions. A local savings and loans institution whose managers intimately know the local economy and whose business is exposed to competition and failure would be a very valuable thing for an ethnically homogenous community to have.
[ + ] taoV
[ - ] taoV 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 13:05:08 ago (+1/-0)
Overall I would argue that malinvestment is lower without usury. Today almost anyone can get a credit card, and use it for almost anything they desire, whether they can pay it back and whether or not they do anything productive with it. That wouldn't happen in any system where you're concerned about the return of their initial. The rate of acceptable loss wuld be much lower, so you would only loan for things with a high rate of success.
It's not perfect. You could lose some technological progress this way, but IMO that's it's own debate. Mostly you would lose a lot of consumerist garbage. The exception might be a sovereign or patron that wants and can afford things higher on the risk/return axis.
More importantly, a closed system dependent on growth is eventually going to reach it's limits if it's succesful. But overall, when I compare such a system to the financial wreckage and it's cultural effects today, I have to say that little to no usury is better for the public body and better for the soul.
I'm open to some hybrid system, but as for who should run it- we already had what you're describing, conservative whites in charge of finance in their communities (ever watch It's a Wonderful Life?), and still ended up where we are now. Without some novel restraint on greed, it might be better to do away with it entirely.
[ + ] taoV
[ - ] taoV 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 13:16:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 15:06:16 ago (+0/-0)
Broadening the pool might average out losses, but it doesn't avoid the problem that you'd essentially be donating a certain amount into the program as charity. Which is fine for actual charitable cases but isn't really a good way to fund businesses.
Yes, I definitely agree the current lending system is highly dysfunctional, largely because the banks have learned to use government power to guarantee profits and bail out losses. Which is clearly an unnatural situation.
I'd argue this situation isn't caused by the existence of interest though. It's caused by financial institutions being able to leverage government power to grant themselves a privileged position in the market. They're not subject to competition and failure in the same way a normal business would be, so it's no surprise they become corrupt.
Hmmm, I don't think you can discount the importance of technological progress though. The general lesson of history is that if you fall too far behind you get fucked. China and Japan are good examples, they went from unstoppable superpowers to colonial backwaters.
Again, I think that's confusing financial structures with societal values. The problems we have today exist largely because we're ruled by jews. It really doesn't matter how they rule us, any system with them at the top is going to be dysfunctional.
Actually I'd take savings and loans institutions like in that movie as a perfect example of interest based lending done right. They used to work very well because the managers making lending decisions were intimately connected to their community and therefore not only made efficient decisions, but were discouraged from making evil ones too.
The rot set in with the new deal: FDR changed the rules so that any bank could use public money as collateral provided they followed federal planning rules rather than their own local knowledge. The result was that banks no longer had any reason to maintain strong local ties and were free to make evil and corrupt decisions without any real consequence.
If we went back to local fraternities and savings & loans banks we'd be fine. The existence of interest to cover loss and ensure efficiency wouldn't be a problem.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:19:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 23:00:31 ago (+0/-0)
How do you think he got the melty face? Surgeries? Botox?
That face is horrifying and unnatural
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 23:41:11 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] MarvintheRobot
[ - ] MarvintheRobot 4 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 21:15:21 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] thebearfromstartrack4
[ - ] thebearfromstartrack4 4 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 19:37:20 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:11:24 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 3 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 18:59:47 ago (+4/-1)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 3 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:18:11 ago (+5/-2)
I wonder if hitler had pulled off Barbarossa would we be reading passages about how the soviet union was a paradise of food and freedom.
[ + ] 1Icemonkey
[ - ] 1Icemonkey 2 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:23:54 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 19:05:49 ago (+3/-2)
financial aid to mothers after childbirth
public education and healthcare
a home as a human right
free electricity
this all incentivizes dinduism
Its a terrible idea because it subsidizes bad choices at the expense of people that are more responsible.
[ + ] carrotcar
[ - ] carrotcar 8 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 19:15:03 ago (+8/-0)
Do not equate the "american" ideals of socialism with what happened in Libya. It also helped that the government controled the resources and wealth to some degree.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 2 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:38:52 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 5 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 21:32:41 ago (+5/-0)
The nog only understands violence from a position of power.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 21:49:12 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user [op] 3 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 19:15:44 ago (+4/-1)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 3 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:13:41 ago (+3/-0)
Healthcare is artificially expensive. You are paying for ambulance chasing lawyers and regulating agencies and insurance companies. Insurance does not bring down health care costs, it elevates them, while disincentivizing risk reduction. Healthcare training is inefficient. Right now we have niggers on Medicaid getting world class healthcare while they shit out 5 babies before 25, subsidized by the couple that is waiting until 35 to shit out one or two. They get the same service. That is because behavior is divorced from consequences. Even if you get a country full of whites, whites who act like niggers will be subsidized by whites who don't.
Any decoupling of behavior from consequence will make the system less efficient and will destroy the integrity of economic information. The more you try to "spread around pain" the more you will discourage responsible behavior. When you remove subsidies, something magical happens-- prices go down. Healthcare costs are so high because health care companies can get away with charging these rates. Corrupt bureaucracies play favorites with who they will subsidize based on who they want to curry favor with, Not who is making risk averse decisions. You are fucking up pricing mechanisms.
People live in societies to mitigate risk and subsidize each other to promote the well-being of the collective. But you have to be very careful that you are not subsidizing reckless people or non-productive people because they spread their genes and future generations will become inefficient.
A harsh selection process was imposed on northern Eurasian populations which did not take place with shit skins. People who were not prepared for scarcity died. They were not subsidized. That is why whites are who we are. The more you subsidize low quality whites the more white society will begin to fail.
TLDR Two problems: subsidizing the genetic success of people who make bad choices and creating inefficient bureaucracies that inflate healthcare costs. This is true for lots of other sectors of the economy too. I could do education. Education is inefficient and completely sucks, because we subsidize it too much. Plus we are trying to educate niggers which is a joke.
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 22:54:32 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 14:32:44 ago (+0/-0)
Nah you'd just rather punish everyone else for the fact that your wife and her lawyer raped your ass until it was was bloody and torn. It's really not my fault you don't make a sound anymore when you fart.
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 5, 2021 11:19:00 ago (+0/-0)
You should learn knitting and cooking. Make yourself a little useful, ye old spinster
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user [op] 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:55:11 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:58:58 ago (+0/-0)
How will we get rid of the jew? by going fucking Amish.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user [op] 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 21:03:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 21:11:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user [op] 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 21:51:29 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 22:06:08 ago (+0/-0)
So we're going to continue being enslaved to usurers? Do you think the mortgage system makes houses more expensive or less expensive?
This is like saying "If I only feed the raccoons once a week, it won't have an effect." I'm not saying the state should not ever subsidize anything, but I'm saying any benefit will come at the expense of efficiency.
Mother nature was our eugenics program for 50,000 years in the way of cold winters. If you even out the chances of reproductive success of all whites, you will absolutely reverse that process.
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 22:56:43 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:12:30 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:15:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:19:43 ago (+0/-0)
It's true though.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 2 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:35:50 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 21:56:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 2 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:10:26 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] 1Icemonkey
[ - ] 1Icemonkey 1 point 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 20:26:21 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 22:01:34 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 22:08:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 03:01:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 14:01:52 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 01:43:03 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Beelzebub
[ - ] Beelzebub 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 4, 2021 00:31:46 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 0 points 3.5 yearsNov 3, 2021 22:00:36 ago (+0/-0)