Legion0fMaimi

@Araoluwanimi01 You’re fake.

I don’t smoke. I don’t drink. I don’t womanize. I don’t gamble. What am I?

@Bennimak1 I would assume it’s just a matter of interpretation. Yes it was technically the German Confederation that beat France but they were almost wholly influenced and controlled by Prussia.

I think it's funny how both the Germans and the French call the war of 1870 the German-French war (Guerre franco-allemande and Deutsch-Französischer Krieg) but in English it's commonly referred to as the Franco-Prussian war. Do the English not recognise German Unification?

@osanisinake Drugs. Heroin will put you out quick and you will actually enjoy it. It’s quite to overdose on a lot of pills.

how do I kill myself painlessly without access to firearms

@Partisangirl It’s really not ok tho. Watch Romper Stomper. The only ones with Australian citizenship should be Europeans.

I’m not ethnically Australian. I’m neither Anglo, Celtic or aboriginal. I have Australian citizenship but I’m not ethnically Australian and that’s ok.

@n3inri Y’all are keyboard warriors while they are real rebels. Skinhead movement was way realer and legit than this retarded groyper non-white NS memers we have nowadays.

Differences between a “Nazi” and a “National Socialist” 🇩🇪

@longawaited333 Forward definitely, backwards prolly not.

Do you believe any form of time travel (Sending biological matter, inanimate objects, ideas, messages, etc forward or backward in time) is currently possible?

@DanBilzerian Bruh this beef is petty. Nick was willing to work with you but you called him a fed. You’re the one causing division because you can’t take constructive criticism.

Hey guys stop talking about Israel, accept the govt narrative about Charlie Kirk, Antisemitism is low IQ, Epstein is the coolest guy ever and not a pedophile. Also don’t have sex or have kids because that’s gay -Fag Fed Fuentes

But Hitler does.

Nick Fuentes sits in the cuck chair to wish a superchatter's boyfriend a happy birthday 😭 “Happy birthday from the cuck chair!”

@blktemplarpill @DjDeadpig6 Well duh

@Legion0fM @DjDeadpig6 Maybe americans should not have supplied the ussr with tons after tons of military equipment...

Fascist Italy almost went to war with Nazi Germany over the Anschluss

@thehorizon2b2t It’s just your own biased Earth brain, Earth seems normal because we have nothing else to compare to.

is there a scientific reason as to why earths continents look so much prettier than every other "what if x planet had water" simulation

@MinecraftBee @CroatianMapping Shiet that works too ig

@Legion0fM @CroatianMapping No it obviously goes independent

Serbia’s borders without Vojvodina but with Macedonia had so much aura. There’s just something about it that makes me say “damn thats a nice shape”

@fermatslibrary Blue venus looks like paradise

Good morning One of the moments when the young Hitlerian girls are going to visit Japan.

@sabatonfan69 Gotta make luck a dump stat for the realism

Another lonely night drowning my sorrows at the Atomic Wrangler. Fuck my chud life.

@thinkingwest used to be MUCH more impressive too

WHAT A GREAT DAY FOR DALTON EATHERLY! TLDR: The State's case against Eatherly appears to be utterly lacking in ANY LEGAL MERIT WHATEVER, based upon what appears to be the official Affidavit of Complaint just made public (attached). This in a case in which the State's BURDEN is proof of guilt, and disproof of self-defense, beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. All of it: So, it appears the affidavit of complaint against Dalton "Chud the Builder" Eatherly has been made public, and the contents will ABSOLUTELY SHOCK many of you. FIRST SHOCKER: THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT DALTON HAVING UTTERED ANY RACIAL SLUR TOWARDS JOSHUA FOX WHATEVER, SO AS TO HAVE PROVOKED THE FIGHT AND THUS TO HAVE LOST THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OF SELF-DEFENSE. NOT. ONE. WORD. That was Dalton's biggest potential vulnerability on self-defense, and we can now be confident that we can put that concern to rest. But it gets even BETTER for Dalton. SECOND SHOCKER: Even if self-defense IS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED, the Affidavit of Complaint fails to present ANY evidence-based narrative that Dalton has committed ANY CRIME WHATEVER. (But, of course, self-defense WILL be raised, only further buttressing Dalton's legal position.) Specifically, there's literally not a SINGLE WORD in this Affidavit of Complaint that describes ANY criminal conduct whatever. I've embedded the Affidavit in my possession, but for purposes of succinctness, the relevant portions reads: "... Dalton Eatherly and Joshua Fox engaged in a verbal altercation in front of the Montgomery County Courthouse." This is not a crime, unless it's merely the misdemeanor of disorderly conduct, which would apply equally to both Eatherly AND Foxx. And in any case Eatherly has not been charged with disorderly conduct (nor Fox, of course). "During this verbal altercation, Mr. Eatherly turned his body in a bladed stance towards Mr. Fox ..." There's nothing unlawful about taking a defensive stance when dealing with an angry antagonist. Certainly Eatherly is not charged with the "crime" of "taking a bladed stance." "... and reached for his firearm located in his right jacket pocket." Again, there's nothing unlawful about reaching for a firearm in one's pocket in preparation for possible necessary self-defense. Note that Eatherly is not charged with the "crime" of "reaching for a firearm in located in his right jacket pocket." "Thereafter, a physical altercation ensued." Note the passive voice. The "altercation ensued." There's no claim that EATHERLY initiated the "altercation." Indeed, if anything, to the extent the affidavit has detailed Eatherly's conduct, the absence of any representation of his conduct to indicate that it was EATHERLY who initiated the altercation, we can only infer that it was instead FOX who initiated the altercation. This would, of course, make Eatherly the VICTIM of Fox's unlawful attack upon him. The next paragraph: "Mr. Eatherly discharged his firearm, striking Mr. Fox multiple times." There's nothing inherently unlawful about discharging a firearm and shooting someone multiple times. Thousands of shootings that fit this description occur every year, and qualify as perfectly lawful self-defense. Of course, now self-defense need actually be put on the table. Then there's a discussion of Fox being flown to a hospital, followed by: "In addition, at the time shots were fired, there were several innocent bystanders in the area. Surveillance video fo the incident shows a ricocheting projectile hitting nearby walls." Again, there is nothing inherently unlawful about firing shots that miss the intended target. Police involved in lawful shootings of suspects routinely miss about 70% of the shots fired. Those shots ALSO go flying about the neighborhood until they hit something. None of that is a crime, absent evidence of recklessness--and the affidavit provides no statement of recklessness. Indeed, not a word of recklessness. Note that if the shots were fired in lawful self-defense, as a matter of law they were not fired recklessly. I would also note that there's not a word in this affidavit that even contests, much less contradicts, even a single legal element of Dalton's anticipated claim of self-defense. Not Innocence, not Imminence, not Proportionality, not Avoidance, and Not Reasonableness. Not a single element. Not a word of it. If this were a civil case, I would argue that this complaint fails to state a cause of action. Indeed, it's hard to recall the last time I saw an Affidavit of Complaint so utterly lacking in legal substance whatever. At this point I have to say that I've never felt more positive about Dalton Eatherly's claim of self-defense, at least based upon the representations of this apparently official "Affidavit of Complaint." If these facts provided in this Affidavit of Complaint are all the State of Tennessee has on which to prosecute Dalton on the attempted murder, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and malicious firearms possession charges brought against him, I simply don't see any prospect to any reasonable degree of legal certainty of prosecutors securing a conviction on any of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt on the legal merits. HEY! IF YOU LIKE THIS KIND OF USE-OF-FORCE LEGAL ANALYSIS, and would like to know more about how to be HARD TO CONVICT if YOU are ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, consider picking up a FREE copy of my best-selling plain-English book, "The Law of Self-Defense: Principles" (we only ask that you cover the S&H). lawofselfdefense.com/FREEBOOK @AmiriKing @ArchetypeTheory @JackPosobiec @DLoesch @Timcast @TheOfficerTatum @MyronGainesX @TateTheTalisman