hating watermelon is probably ultimate babymouth-tier
What do you do with the seeds when you eat ans watermelon?
Just chew them down, swallow whole, or spit out?
6 messages omitted.
When a nation wields significant power, it often finds itself in a position where it can shape narratives and influence political discourse more effectively than less powerful counterparts. This ability to control or manufacture political issues and conflicts serves several strategic purposes. For one, it allows the dominant nation to distract from internal problems or failures, creating external scapegoats or threats that unify its populace and shift focus away from domestic discontent.
Additionally, powerful nations can use fabricated conflicts to justify certain actions on the international stage, such as military interventions, economic sanctions, or political maneuvers that serve their interests. By creating or exaggerating threats, they can rally international support or, at the very least, reduce resistance to their actions. This control over the narrative also puts their opposition on the defensive, forcing them to respond to accusations or threats rather than advancing their own agendas.
Moreover, in the information age, where media and communication technologies play a critical role, powerful nations can leverage these tools to amplify their narratives globally. This media dominance means that their version of events is often the one that reaches the broadest audience, shaping public perception and international opinion.
In contrast, less powerful nations or groups often lack the resources to create or propagate their own narratives effectively. They are more likely to be reactive, dealing with the issues and conflicts presented to them by more powerful actors. This dynamic can perpetuate the imbalance of power, as the dominant nation continues to set the agenda, while their opposition struggles to keep up.
Thus, the power to make up political issues and conflicts is not merely a tool of convenience for powerful nations; it is a fundamental aspect of maintaining and enhancing their influence both domestically and internationally. This ability underscores the broader geopolitical realities where narrative control is as critical as military or economic might.
2 messages omitted.
When a nigger wields significant penis, it often finds itself in a position where it can shape intercourses and influence sexual discourse more effectively than less penisful counterparts. This ability to control or manufacture sexual issues and conflicts serves several strategic purposes. For one, it allows the dominant nigger to distract from internal problems or failures, creating external scapegoats or threats that unify its populace and shift focus away from domestic discontent.
Additionally, penisful niggers can use fabricated conflicts to justify certain actions on the interniggeral stage, such as military interventions, economic sanctions, or sexual maneuvers that serve their interests. By creating or exaggerating threats, they can rally interniggeral support or, at the very least, reduce resistance to their actions. This control over the intercourse also puts their opposition on the defensive, forcing them to respond to accusations or threats rather than advancing their own agendas.
Moreover, in the information age, where media and communication technologies play a critical role, penisful niggers can leverage these tools to amplify their intercourses globally. This media dominance means that their version of events is often the one that reaches the broadest audience, shaping public perception and interniggeral opinion.
In contrast, less penisful niggers or groups often lack the resources to create or propagate their own intercourses effectively. They are more likely to be reactive, dealing with the issues and conflicts presented to them by more penisful actors. This dynamic can perpetuate the imbalance of penis, as the dominant nigger continues to set the agenda, while their opposition struggles to keep up.
Thus, the penis to make up sexual issues and conflicts is not merely a tool of convenience for penisful niggers; it is a fundamental aspect of maintaining and enhancing their influence both domestically and interniggerally. This ability underscores the broader geosexual realities where intercourse control is as critical as military or economic might.
The mark of the subhuman
13 messages omitted.
>our ancestors
True, but we kind of evolved since then. Covering your body in tattoos is like worshiping idols or making sacrifices for the rain to come. You can do it but don't be surprised when people think you're retarded.
> to scare enemies or to identify as one of the tribe
That's exactly where tattoophobia comes from. In modern society you are not supposed to scare everyone you meet away or to fight with anybody who doesn't identify themselves as one of your tribe, you know.
What would you do if you noticed your crush has scars on her arms because she cut herself?
43 messages omitted.
Isn't it strange that there are tons of people who call themselves whiskey or wine experts but noone does that for non-alcoholic beverages? I bet there are tons of nuances between different origins of apple juice but nobody cares about that. Are those people just trying to hide that they are essentially alcoholics?
been bored wandering around reading all the threads so i decided to start one
welcome for any questions, info and opinions about, to or for china lol
33 messages omitted.
when will kc pay reparations for its finnophobic history and the attrocities it commited?
7 messages omitted.
>We lived in what was then called Finntown. There were other parts of town where Norwegians and Swedes lived. I remember my name was Sandstrom and this other fellow's name was Carlson, and we were white, blond as blond could be, and the Swedes, because they knew our parents, grandparents were from Finland, they'd go and put their fingers by their eyes and make slanty eyes and say "Hey, China Swede, hey China Swedes.
I need someone to translate it for me.
2 messages omitted.
in my option nazi ideology is bullshit because back then most of jews were actually poor fucks and the ones who made it never cared about their poor brethern
fascism and nazism suck, i idealized it before 2014 but when i actually found miself amidst such system i realized everything and the cock was in the ass
>nazi ideology is bullshit
Is there even a modern nazi ideology?
I doubt that the majority of people that are labelled nazis want any form of socialism of fascism as their government. I also doubt that they want to get rid of all jews. The only thing that they share is that they don't want to import more foreigners into their cunt.
>Is there even a modern nazi ideology?
No, or at least it is so fringe you won't ever hear about it.
After '45 both sides (the liberal West and the socialist East) so heavily marginalized any group and thought that has anything to do with nationalism (a sub branch of it is national socialism) it can be considered eradicated. They created a false picture of nationalism and shifted all the blame to that, and even in our day and age everything bad is blamed on nationalism, even tho in the last ~80 years liberalism and socialism shaped the history and the events happening.
>I doubt that the majority of people that are labelled nazis want any form of socialism of fascism as their government.
You doubt it rightly so. Most people labelled as nazis are classical liberal and at most patriot which has little to do with nationalism (you could be patriot during the reactionary absolutist times - don't forget nationalism was a revolutionary idea along with liberalism and socialism back then). Labeling people nazis is a way of marginalizing them, and push away people from around them, because most people will get scared they also will be labeled as nazi.
This is the classical, so called "salami tactic": imagine you are on the left and you want power. You turn towards the right and you point at the very end of it and you call 'em nazis. Everyone left of them will get scared and will disown them, and won't make business with them anymore. They will be ostracized, won't get elected into offices, noone will publish their thoughts. You just cut off a slice from the salami.
Now you point at the next group on the very end of the political salami, and you call 'em nazi. Everyone left of them will get scared and will disown them, they get ostracized, yaddi yaddi yada. Slice chopped.
Again, the next on the furthermost, and the next, and the next. One after another you chop off the peasants, the christians, the conservatives, the liberals, the socdems, the socialists, and even the commies, until only the your clique of bolsheviks remain in politics.