Mordhau

Politics

Conscript 3982 4623
  • 16 Jan
 vanguard

Those musics were made by free people though, and not by a army of slaves that doesn't even know what they fight for tbh

Besides, can you even tachanka u fascist scum

tumblr_mtenkmQAdM1szz9f9o1_500.png

Very gud yes HMG with HORSES, where is your god now fucko lmao git killed

Knight 2674 5702
  • 1
  • 16 Jan
 Punzybobo

>Turning Orthodox Christian rallying flag into communist propaganda

1516090547325.png

Conscript 3982 4623
  • 16 Jan
 vanguard

GCE_SN_Ilegible_libros.jpg

1399801805.jpg

CNT propaganda best propaganda tbh

Knight 2255 4763
  • 16 Jan
 Survii

That train one is pretty cool I have to admit

Count 4096 9420
  • 2
  • 16 Jan
 DerFurst

Vanguard, this whole support of Communism stems from your ideas about "freedom." I have an original thought for you I'd like for you to read, and I'd like to hear your take on it:


I pondered the idea of "freedom" for a long time when I was younger, and came up with a few conclusions.

Many people want "freedom" and act like it's a noble goal in and of itself. Their definition of freedom is usually the notion of laissez-faire, if they bother to define it at all. "Being able to do what you want" sounds like a good goal initially, doesn't it? "Who wants to be restricted?" I doubt anyone does. So initially I supported this, despite realizing there were flaws in the execution.

The next question that came was "do we have free will?" To which I initially thought "yes, absolutely," until further pondering. If humans can be tricked by others, forced against their will by people and nature, and destroyed by forces beyond their control, then how can they really have "free will?" There seem also to be laws and boundaries inherent to life - after all, people cannot simply decide to ignore gravity, to live forever, or force fixed outcomes to yield impossible results. Within this "free will" there are simply so many limitations. What is "free will" then?

It seems that "free will" is in your ability to experience situations and react to them uniquely, not necessarily your ability to change them. If this is the case, then expanding our "freedom" paradoxically requires us to obey the universe's laws and act wisely in accordance with them. Even further, I realized this to be a good thing, for how could we experience a coherent existence were there not laws creating specificity in this universe? A universe without laws would be a dimension of chaos, constantly being reformed and re-written, without discernible shape or form - amorphous. Without laws, nothing lasting could come to be, and we would not exist. Therein my concept of "freedom" was forever changed.

Instead of wanting to achieve existential "freedom," my new goal was to master these laws and work in accordance with them. After all, one cannot escape these laws, but by mastery of them, you can ride the crests and troughs without being swept away by them, skillfully maneuvering with them to avoid their worst effects while benefiting from their greatest effects. Rebellion against natural laws is foolish, since the outcome will always be failure - due to our being subject to these laws in the first place.

This cosmic conception of universal laws naturally translated to the political sphere. No longer did I endorse the "laissez-faire" conception of freedom, because it is akin to a universe of chaos, whose order is determined by the strong, not the good. Order would be created through the chaos anyway, and that state of "existential freedom" the libertarians and anarchists dream of would not be possible. To create a good place for people to live, specificity must define their mode of existence, and this specificity must be created through laws. As well, now that I know there exist universal laws, governments must base their laws on universal law in order to be functional. A government must be a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmal universe to be functional and sustainable. The creation of laws which contradict the universe's design will not function and will collapse.


This is why governments exist and why some form of law enforcement is necessary. True "freedom" is an impossibility, and "free will" itself is still tempered by laws. Once you embrace the law, you lose your sense of "freedom," but you gain mastery, which in turn grants you greater freedom to control and use laws to your own benefit! This is the type of freedom we should be seeking - through self mastery. Desiring absolute freedom from laws is akin to the Biblical Lucifer's rebellion against God - an impossible task with a fixed outcome of failure each time. Laws are necessary. Good laws are based on universal law. Bad laws attempt to ignore or contradict universal law.

Note, this isn't a comment about type of government. That's too big of a subject for now. The subject is simply about having an active government with laws.

Knight 1333 1746

A good read Mr.Furst

Conscript 3982 4623
  • 4
  • 16 Jan
 vanguard

@DerFurst said:
Vanguard, this whole support of Communism stems from your ideas about "freedom." I have an original thought for you I'd like for you to read, and I'd like to hear your take on it:


I pondered the idea of "freedom" for a long time when I was younger, and came up with a few conclusions.

Many people want "freedom" and act like it's a noble goal in and of itself. Their definition of freedom is usually the notion of laissez-faire, if they bother to define it at all. "Being able to do what you want" sounds like a good goal initially, doesn't it? "Who wants to be restricted?" I doubt anyone does. So initially I supported this, despite realizing there were flaws in the execution.

The next question that came was "do we have free will?" To which I initially thought "yes, absolutely," until further pondering. If humans can be tricked by others, forced against their will by people and nature, and destroyed by forces beyond their control, then how can they really have "free will?" There seem also to be laws and boundaries inherent to life - after all, people cannot simply decide to ignore gravity, to live forever, or force fixed outcomes to yield impossible results. Within this "free will" there are simply so many limitations. What is "free will" then?

It seems that "free will" is in your ability to experience situations and react to them uniquely, not necessarily your ability to change them. If this is the case, then expanding our "freedom" paradoxically requires us to obey the universe's laws and act wisely in accordance with them. Even further, I realized this to be a good thing, for how could we experience a coherent existence were there not laws creating specificity in this universe? A universe without laws would be a dimension of chaos, constantly being reformed and re-written, without discernible shape or form - amorphous. Without laws, nothing lasting could come to be, and we would not exist. Therein my concept of "freedom" was forever changed.

Instead of wanting to achieve existential "freedom," my new goal was to master these laws and work in accordance with them. After all, one cannot escape these laws, but by mastery of them, you can ride the crests and troughs without being swept away by them, skillfully maneuvering with them to avoid their worst affects while benefiting from their greatest effects. Rebellion against natural laws is foolish, since the outcome will always be failure - due to our being subject to these laws in the first place.

This cosmic conception of universal laws naturally translated to the political sphere. No longer did I endorse the "laissez-faire" conception of freedom, because it is akin to a universe of chaos, whose order is determined by the strong, not the good. Order would be created through the chaos anyway, and that state of "existential freedom" the libertarians and anarchists dream of would not be possible. To create a good place for people to live, specificity must define their mode of existence, and this specificity must be created through laws. As well, now that I know there exist universal laws, governments must base their laws on universal law in order to be functional. A government must be a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmal universe to be functional and sustainable. The creation of laws which contradict the universe's design will not function and will collapse.


This is why governments exist and why some form of law enforcement is necessary. True "freedom" is an impossibility, and "free will" itself is still tempered by laws. Once you embrace the law, you lose your sense of "freedom," but you gain mastery, which in turn grants you greater freedom to control and use laws to your own benefit! This is the type of freedom we should be seeking - through self mastery. Desiring absolute freedom from laws is akin to the Biblical Lucifer's rebellion against God - an impossible task with a fixed outcome of failure each time. Laws are necessary. Good laws are based on universal law. Bad laws attempt to ignore or contradict universal law.

Note, this isn't a comment about type of government. That's too big of a subject for now. The subject is simply about having an active government with laws.

I agree with you to some extent tbh on this text of yours, anarcho-communism was never about abolishing laws though, but a very specific set of laws that generate material misery on a huge scale and concentrate wealth and development. And government, well, you could see syindicalism as a form of government, but one that doesn't favor a specific class but mankind as a whole. The CNT-FAI example is good imho because there you have a organization, organizing economy and life itself, but in a democratic way. It is a authority of some sorts tbh, it is the whole idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat" Furst. It is the negation of the "dictatorship of the Capital", where all the productive forces are mobilized for capital. In the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the productive forces are mobilized for the production of use-value instead of capital.

The freedom I advocate for is not really "do whatever you want and fuck everything", but more like economic freedom. Not in the capitalists terms as well, as in the freedom of business from the government's regulations, and freedom to make profit, but freedom from forced labor that again, benefits only a class instead of the whole mankind.

Let me try to be clearer, I was about to post this here anyways, but it conveniently fits this discussion of ours very well, it is a few theses about the Paris Commune, that is one fine experience of the whole dictatorship of the proletariat in some aspects, take a look:


Theses on the Paris Commune - Guy Debord, Attila Kotányi & Raoul Vaneigem - 18 March 1962

1
“THE CLASSICAL workers movement must be reexamined without any illusions, particularly without any illusions regarding its various political and pseudotheoretical heirs, for all they have inherited is its failure. The apparent successes of this movement are actually its fundamental failures (reformism or the establishment of a state bureaucracy), while its failures (the Paris Commune or the 1934 Asturian revolt) are its most promising successes so far, for us and for the future.” (Internationale Situationniste #7 [The Bad Days Will End])

2
THE COMMUNE was the biggest festival of the nineteenth century. Underlying the events of that spring of 1871 one can see the insurgents’ feeling that they had become the masters of their own history, not so much on the level of “governmental” politics as on the level of their everyday life. (Consider, for example, the games everyone played with their weapons: they were in fact playing with power.) It is also in this sense that Marx should be understood when he says that “the most important social measure of the Commune was its own existence in acts.”

3
ENGELS' REMARK, “Look at the Paris Commune — that was the dictatorship of the proletariat,” should be taken seriously in order to reveal what the dictatorship of the proletariat is not (the various forms of state dictatorship over the proletariat in the name of the proletariat).

4
IT HAS BEEN easy to make justified criticisms of the Commune’s obvious lack of a coherent organizational structure. But as the problem of political structures seems far more complex to us today than the would-be heirs of the Bolshevik-type structure claim it to be, it is time we examine the Commune not just as an outmoded example of revolutionary primitivism, all of whose mistakes can easily be overcome, but as a positive experiment whose whole truth has yet to be rediscovered and fulfilled.

5
THE COMMUNE had no leaders. And this at a time when the idea of the necessity of leaders was universally accepted in the workers movement. This is the first reason for its paradoxical successes and failures. The official organizers of the Commune were incompetent (compared with Marx or Lenin, or even Blanqui). But on the other hand, the various “irresponsible” acts of that moment are precisely what is needed for the continuation of the revolutionary movement of our own time (even if the circumstances restricted almost all those acts to the purely destructive level — the most famous example being the rebel who, when a suspect bourgeois insisted that he had never had anything to do with politics, replied, “That’s precisely why I’m going to kill you”).

6
THE VITAL importance of the general arming of the people was manifested practically and symbolically from the beginning to the end of the movement. By and large the right to impose popular will by force was not surrendered and left to any specialized detachments. This exemplary autonomy of the armed groups had its unfortunate flip side in their lack of coordination: at no point in the offensive or defensive struggle against Versailles did the people’s forces attain military effectiveness. It should be borne in mind, however, that the Spanish revolution was lost — as, in the final analysis, was the civil war itself — in the name of such a transformation into a “republican army.” The contradiction between autonomy and coordination would seem to have been largely related to the technological level of the period.

7
THE COMMUNE represents the only implementation of a revolutionary urbanism to date — attacking on the spot the petrified signs of the dominant organization of life, understanding social space in political terms, refusing to accept the innocence of any monument. Anyone who disparages this attack as some “lumpenproletarian nihilism,” some “irresponsibility of the pétroleuses,” should specify what he believes to be of positive value in the present society and worth preserving (it will turn out to be almost everything). “All space is already occupied by the enemy. . . . Authentic urbanism will appear when the absence of this occupation is created in certain zones. What we call construction starts there. It can be clarified by the positive void concept developed by modern physics.” (Basic Program of Unitary Urbanism, Internationale Situationniste #6.)

8
THE PARIS COMMUNE succumbed less to the force of arms than to the force of habit. The most scandalous practical example was the refusal to use the cannons to seize the French National Bank when money was so desperately needed. During the entire existence of the Commune the bank remained a Versaillese enclave in Paris, defended by nothing more than a few rifles and the mystique of property and theft. The other ideological habits proved in every respect equally disastrous (the resurrection of Jacobinism, the defeatist strategy of the barricades in memory of 1848, etc.).

9
THE COMMUNE shows how those who defend the old world always benefit in one way or another from the complicity of revolutionaries — particularly of those revolutionaries who merely think about revolution, and who turn out to still think like the defenders. In this way the old world retains bases (ideology, language, customs, tastes) among its enemies, and uses them to reconquer the terrain it has lost. (Only the thought-in-acts natural to the revolutionary proletariat escapes it irrevocably: the Tax Bureau went up in flames.) The real “fifth column” is in the very minds of revolutionaries.

10
THE STORY OF the arsonists who during the final days of the Commune went to destroy Notre-Dame, only to find themselves confronted by an armed battalion of Commune artists, is richly provocative example of direct democracy. It gives an idea of the kind of problems that will need to be resolved in the perspective of the power of the councils. Were those artists right to defend a cathedral in the name of eternal aesthetic values — and in the final analysis, in the name of museum culture — while other people wanted to express themselves then and there by making this destruction symbolize their absolute defiance of a society that, in its moment of triumph, was about to consign their entire lives to silence and oblivion? The artist partisans of the Commune, acting as specialists, already found themselves in conflict with an extremist form of struggle against alienation. The Communards must be criticized for not having dared to answer the totalitarian terror of power with the use of the totality of their weapons. Everything indicates that the poets who at that moment actually expressed the Commune’s inherent poetry were simply wiped out. The Commune’s mass of unaccomplished acts enabled its tentative actions to be turned into “atrocities” and their memory to be censored. Saint-Just’s remark, “Those who make revolution half way only dig their own graves,” also explains his own silence.

11
THEORETICIANS who examine the history of this movement from a divinely omniscient viewpoint (like that found in classical novels) can easily prove that the Commune was objectively doomed to failure and could not have been successfully consummated. They forget that for those who really lived it, the consummation was already there.

12
THE AUDACITY and inventiveness of the Commune must obviously be measured not in relation to our time, but in terms of the political, intellectual and moral attitudes of its own time, in terms of the solidarity of all the common assumptions that it blasted to pieces. The profound solidarity of presently prevailing assumptions (right and left) gives us an idea of the inventiveness we can expect of a comparable explosion today.

13
THE SOCIAL war of which the Commune was one episode is still being fought today (though its superficial conditions have changed considerably). In the task of “making conscious the unconscious tendencies of the Commune” (Engels), the last word has yet to be said.

14
FOR ALMOST twenty years in France the Stalinists and the leftist Christians have agreed, in memory of their anti-German national front, to stress the element of national disarray and offended patriotism in the Commune. (According to the current Stalinist line, “the French people petitioned to be better governed” and were finally driven to desperate measures by the treachery of the unpatriotic right wing of the bourgeoisie.) In order to refute this pious nonsense it would suffice to consider the role played by all the foreigners who came to fight for the Commune. As Marx said, the Commune was the inevitable battle, the climax of 23 years of struggle in Europe by “our party.”

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/commune.html

What you think about it?

Conscript 3982 4623
  • 3
  • 16 Jan
 vanguard

I was also wanting to post this text here because I legit wanna hear what you buckos think about it. It makes a relation between race and commodity economy:

"AUGUST 13 - 16, 1965, the blacks of Los Angeles revolted. An incident between traffic police and pedestrians developed into two days of spontaneous riots. Despite increasing reinforcements, the forces of order were unable to regain control of the streets. By the third day the blacks had armed themselves by looting accessible gun stores, enabling them to fire even on police helicopters. It took thousands of police and soldiers, including an entire infantry division supported by tanks, to confine the riot to the Watts area, and several more days of street fighting to finally bring it under control. Stores were massively plundered and many were burned. Official sources listed 32 dead (including 27 blacks), more than 800 wounded and 3000 arrests."

"...The Los Angeles rebellion was a rebellion against the commodity, against the world of the commodity in which worker-consumers are hierarchically subordinated to commodity standards. Like the young delinquents of all the advanced countries, but more radically because they are part of a class without a future, a sector of the proletariat unable to believe in any significant chance of integration or promotion, the Los Angeles blacks take modern capitalist propaganda, its publicity of abundance, literally. They want to possess now all the objects shown and abstractly accessible, because they want to use them. In this way they are challenging their exchange-value, the commodity reality which molds them and marshals them to its own ends, and which has preselected everything. Through theft and gift they rediscover a use that immediately refutes the oppressive rationality of the commodity, revealing its relations and even its production to be arbitrary and unnecessary. The looting of the Watts district was the most direct realization of the distorted principle: “To each according to their false needs” — needs determined and produced by the economic system which the very act of looting rejects. But once the vaunted abundance is taken at face value and directly seized, instead of being eternally pursued in the rat-race of alienated labor and increasing unmet social needs, real desires begin to be expressed in festive celebration, in playful self-assertion, in the potlatch of destruction. People who destroy commodities show their human superiority over commodities. They stop submitting to the arbitrary forms that distortedly reflect their real needs. The flames of Watts consummated the system of consumption. The theft of large refrigerators by people with no electricity, or with their electricity cut off, is the best image of the lie of affluence transformed into a truth in play. Once it is no longer bought, the commodity lies open to criticism and alteration, whatever particular form it may take. Only when it is paid for with money is it respected as an admirable fetish, as a symbol of status within the world of survival."

..."The attempts to build a separatist or pro-African black nationalism are dreams giving no answer to the real oppression. The American blacks have no fatherland. They are in their own country and they are alienated. So are the rest of the population, but the blacks are aware of it. In this sense they are not the most backward sector of American society, but the most advanced. They are the negation at work, “the bad aspect that makes history by setting the struggle in motion” (The Poverty of Philosophy). Africa has no special monopoly on that."

These are just some parts of it, more of a preview of the full thing, here you have the full thing:

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/decline.html

I mean, I really wanted to see what u guys think about this tbh, it is not that long of a text come on.

Knight 2982 3866
  • 16 Jan
 Monkeytoes

@DerFurst said:
Vanguard, this whole support of Communism stems from your ideas about "freedom." I have an original thought for you I'd like for you to read, and I'd like to hear your take on it:


I pondered the idea of "freedom" for a long time when I was younger, and came up with a few conclusions.

Many people want "freedom" and act like it's a noble goal in and of itself. Their definition of freedom is usually the notion of laissez-faire, if they bother to define it at all. "Being able to do what you want" sounds like a good goal initially, doesn't it? "Who wants to be restricted?" I doubt anyone does. So initially I supported this, despite realizing there were flaws in the execution.

The next question that came was "do we have free will?" To which I initially thought "yes, absolutely," until further pondering. If humans can be tricked by others, forced against their will by people and nature, and destroyed by forces beyond their control, then how can they really have "free will?" There seem also to be laws and boundaries inherent to life - after all, people cannot simply decide to ignore gravity, to live forever, or force fixed outcomes to yield impossible results. Within this "free will" there are simply so many limitations. What is "free will" then?

It seems that "free will" is in your ability to experience situations and react to them uniquely, not necessarily your ability to change them. If this is the case, then expanding our "freedom" paradoxically requires us to obey the universe's laws and act wisely in accordance with them. Even further, I realized this to be a good thing, for how could we experience a coherent existence were there not laws creating specificity in this universe? A universe without laws would be a dimension of chaos, constantly being reformed and re-written, without discernible shape or form - amorphous. Without laws, nothing lasting could come to be, and we would not exist. Therein my concept of "freedom" was forever changed.

Instead of wanting to achieve existential "freedom," my new goal was to master these laws and work in accordance with them. After all, one cannot escape these laws, but by mastery of them, you can ride the crests and troughs without being swept away by them, skillfully maneuvering with them to avoid their worst effects while benefiting from their greatest effects. Rebellion against natural laws is foolish, since the outcome will always be failure - due to our being subject to these laws in the first place.

This cosmic conception of universal laws naturally translated to the political sphere. No longer did I endorse the "laissez-faire" conception of freedom, because it is akin to a universe of chaos, whose order is determined by the strong, not the good. Order would be created through the chaos anyway, and that state of "existential freedom" the libertarians and anarchists dream of would not be possible. To create a good place for people to live, specificity must define their mode of existence, and this specificity must be created through laws. As well, now that I know there exist universal laws, governments must base their laws on universal law in order to be functional. A government must be a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmal universe to be functional and sustainable. The creation of laws which contradict the universe's design will not function and will collapse.


This is why governments exist and why some form of law enforcement is necessary. True "freedom" is an impossibility, and "free will" itself is still tempered by laws. Once you embrace the law, you lose your sense of "freedom," but you gain mastery, which in turn grants you greater freedom to control and use laws to your own benefit! This is the type of freedom we should be seeking - through self mastery. Desiring absolute freedom from laws is akin to the Biblical Lucifer's rebellion against God - an impossible task with a fixed outcome of failure each time. Laws are necessary. Good laws are based on universal law. Bad laws attempt to ignore or contradict universal law.

Note, this isn't a comment about type of government. That's too big of a subject for now. The subject is simply about having an active government with laws.

I agree with most of what you said, Furst, but I disagree with one thing:

the amount of words you used.

Conscript 3982 4623
  • 1
  • 16 Jan
 vanguard

YOU MOTHERFUCKERS NEED TO START READING SHIT FFS HOW IS THAT POST LONG MONKEYMAN

Seriously though, how the fuck are people supposed to convey their ideas properly if you guys are literally alergic to texts? What do you expect, fucking youtube super production shinny videos about everything? That the answer to every question can be resumed in 2 or 3 lines? Le funny memes? Holy shit this triggers me

This is what makes propaganda so effective. Everything must be dumbed down as shit nowadays because people can't be bothered to read stuff wtf. MONKEY GO READ THE SHIT I POSTED NOW AND TELL ME YOUR OPINION THIS IS A DIRECT ORDER

Knight 2982 3866

@vanguard said:
YOU MOTHERFUCKERS NEED TO START READING SHIT FFS HOW IS THAT POST LONG MONKEYMAN

Seriously though, how the fuck are people supposed to convey their ideas properly if you guys are literally alergic to texts? What do you expect, fucking youtube super production shinny videos about everything? That the answer to every question can be resumed in 2 or 3 lines? Le funny memes? Holy shit this triggers me

This is what makes propaganda so effective. Everything must be dumbed down as shit nowadays because people can't be bothered to read stuff wtf. MONKEY GO READ THE SHIT I POSTED NOW AND TELL ME YOUR OPINION THIS IS A DIRECT ORDER

oh i read it all lol

furst, in particular, just has a wordiness problem

he couldve easily cut down at least a third of the words and convey the same exact thing

paraphrasing from einstein:
if you cant convey an idea in a simple way, you dont know enough about what youre talking about

MONKEY GO READ THE SHIT I POSTED NOW AND TELL ME YOUR OPINION THIS IS A DIRECT ORDER

i didnt get to that yet jeez

Conscript 3982 4623
  • 16 Jan
 vanguard

Oh I see what you mean now, I feel dumb lmao sorry monkeydude I didn't mean to be a cancer but you know where I'm coming from don't u, I mean, I know plenty of motherfuckers who simply don't read shit and this triggers me like there is no tomorrow

Knight 2982 3866
  • 16 Jan
 Monkeytoes

its ok vanguard-chan

Knight 2255 4763
  • 17 Jan
 Survii

why does a monkey and vanguard ship make my peepee feel funny

Knight 2982 3866
Knight 2255 4763
  • 17 Jan
 Survii

A spectre👻👻 is haunting👻 🌍Europe🌍 — the spectre 👻of communism☭☭☭☭. All the 💪💪powers of old Europe💪 have entered into a 🙏 holy alliance 🙏to exorcise this spectre👻👻👻: Pope 💩💩and Tsar💩👎👎, Metternich💩 and Guizot💩💩💩, French Radicals🇫🇷🇫🇷👎👎👎 and German police-spies🚮🚮🚮🚮. Where is the🎉 party🎉🎉 in opposition that has not been 😿decried😿😿 as communistic☭☭☭☭ by its 😦😦opponents in power😦? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding🔥🔥 reproach🔥🔥🔥🔥 of ☭☭☭☭communism☭☭, against the more advanced🎊 opposition parties🎊🎊🎊, as well as against its 🙅🙅🙅🙅reactionary adversaries🙅🙅? 🕑Two things🕑 result from this fact📕📕: I. ☭☭☭☭Communism☭☭ is already acknowledged by all 💪European powers💪💪 to be itself a 💪💪☭power☭💪. II. It is 🕛‼️🕛high time🕛🕛🕛❗ that ☭☭Communists☭☭☭ should openly, in the 😛😛😛face😛😛 of the 🌍whole🌍 world🌍🌍🌍, publish📕📕 their📕 views📕📕📕, their 🎯aims🎯🎯, their tendencies☭☭, and meet this 🍼nursery🍼🍼 tale🍼📕🍼 of the 👻Spectre👻 of Communism👻👻 ☭ 👻☭ with a manifesto📕📕 of the party📕🎊☭ itself.

Knight 2982 3866
Knight 2255 4763
  • 17 Jan
 Survii

Remember brothers, political differences aside, we are all friends. We are men. We eat the same way, we walk the same way, and we nut the same way.

untitlesse.png

Count 215 323
  • 17 Jan
 ImATomato

Why is it that I find Pan Europeanism wherever I look to the Far left or to the Far Right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZOLRAKEP8o

Knight 2255 4763
  • 17 Jan
 Survii

Far left?