Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil
697 posts

Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi

Here's what would happen to these "N****r Heil Hitler" yappers under Nazi rule in 1930s/40s Germany or occupied Europe:
Amrou Fudl (Sudanese descent): Classified as “Negroid” and therefore inferior under Nazi racial ideology, and viewed as prone to “racial degeneration”. He would have been subjected to forced sterilisation to prevent racial mixing, followed by internment in a concentration camp for forced labour or extermination in gas chambers.
Andrew and Tristan Tate (mixed heritage, African American): Viewed as Mischling (of mixed ancestry) with significant non “Aryan” heritage. They would have faced forced sterilisation, social exclusion, bans on marriage to “Aryans”, and eventual concentration camp internment, forced labour, or execution.
Sneako (Haitian Filipino heritage): A multi ethnic, non “Aryan” mix (“Negroid”, “Mongoloid”), considered subhuman by the Nazis. He would have been subjected to sterilisation, exclusion, deportation to a concentration camp, forced labour, or extermination in gas chambers.
Nick Fuentes (Mexican heritage and homosexual): His ancestry would have made him a target, and the Nazis persecuted male homosexuals harshly. He would have faced imprisonment, forced labour in concentration camps (often marked with pink triangles), castration, and after repeated convictions, concentration camp internment or execution.
Nazi racial pseudoscience overrode any chants, rhetoric, or temporary alliances. Non “Aryans” like these would have been dehumanised, stripped of rights, and typically enslaved or killed. So by all means, the Tates and co can fantasise about being best buds with Uncle Adolf, but their pathetically hilarious misunderstanding of history does not reflect reality.
Open Source Intel@Osint613
This may be the trigger that sends their entire movement into complete collapse.
English
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi

Why Rushing US Intervention in Iran Could Backfire Badly
The Iranian people are bravely fighting a brutal regime amid massive protests that have spread across all 31 provinces, with death tolls reported in the thousands from the violent crackdown.
President Trump has promised help and threatened strong action if the regime continues its deadly suppression, but any form of military intervention, strikes, assassinations, or other direct involvement carries enormous risks that could make the situation far worse.
It could easily ignite a wider regional war. Iran might mine the Strait of Hormuz, attack U.S. assets in the region, target Israel, or activate its proxies, leading to prolonged conflict. This would spike global oil prices, tank the world economy, and likely spark anti-Trump protests in the United States itself, as well as intense international backlash against perceived American adventurism.
Even if the regime collapses quickly without a full-scale war, chaos would almost certainly follow in a nation of 90 million people long dependent on a repressive dictatorship. There is no unified alternative leadership or visionary figure with the power to quickly unify and govern the country.
The powerful Revolutionary Guards could splinter into armed militias, loyalists might seek revenge, and the result could be civil war, widespread revenge killings, assassinations, and total economic collapse, leaving millions in poverty, without basic supplies, and trapped in endless violence.
President Trump could be praised if the outcome somehow proves positive and brings swift freedom to the Iranian people. However, he would also bear full responsibility and be blamed if intervention leads to the collapse of Iranian society and years of devastating chaos, fragmentation, and humanitarian disaster.
History repeatedly shows that foreign interventions in the Middle East, whether in Iraq, Libya, or elsewhere, often produce prolonged instability, power vacuums, and suffering rather than swift freedom or stability.
America must calculate its steps very carefully:
genuine support for the Iranian people should avoid lighting a fuse that could burn everyone involved, potentially turning a heroic uprising into even greater tragedy.
English
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi

This is Hasan “growing up poor.”

yeet@Awk20000
Hasan talks about his journey going from broke to rich “Exactly..I’ve seen both for the record bc I was de*d broke & critiquing capitalism and then ppl would be like ya bc ur a loser..now that I have money and still do it..ppl are like well hypocrite much”
English
Patrick Nankil retweetledi

I think a lot of people are very confused about the whole discussion about platforming, censorship etc.
I believe it is your right to eat anything you want. Even things that are terrible for you, like dog shit.
I also believe that it is your right to tell other people that you enjoy eating dog shit.
I also believe it is your right to have people on your show who believe eating dog shit is good for you. Even if you don't challenge them at all, while challenging anyone who comes on your show to say dog shit eating might be bad for you.
I also believe it is my right to say that what you are doing is wrong, bad and harmful. It is my right to point out that you are clearly partisan on the dog-shit-eating issue and in the wrong direction. It is also my right to say that in promoting terrible ideas you are being irresponsible. It is also my right to not want to associate with you and to think that other right-thinking people shouldn't either.
This simple distinction appears to be beyond a lot of people. Just because you hold or promote terrible ideas doesn't mean you should be censored or prevented from speaking. But I think it is essential that you are challenged very robustly on those ideas.
The Right has been so (rightly) focussed on defending free speech that many people now routinely (and in some cases deliberately) confuse criticism for censorship.
Any movement has to engage in a battle of ideas to work out which ideas it wants to adopt and which it doesn't want to include. Saying "this idea should not be acceptable in our movement" is not censorship, it's hygiene.
Charlie Kirk understood this very well. It's amazing how so many people who call themselves his friends do not.
English
Patrick Nankil retweetledi
Patrick Nankil retweetledi

Why have you turned off replies?
Oh, that’s why:

Sky News@SkyNews
BREAKING: Three men charged with child sexual offences in Rochdale. 🔗 Read more trib.al/Ty7Rq0G
English





















