all 82 comments

[–]ShalomEveryone 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

Those southern republicans would be making a mistake of seceding if it was even possible. Those red southern states are welfare states. Those states depend on tax revenue generated by California and New York to fill their state's coffers. Where will those states get the money to properly fund their coffers? Raise taxes?

Shalom

✡️

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

And who sucks up most of that welfare you think? Why doesn't California take all the Southern blacks? Diversity is their greatest strength, right?

Anyway, if blacks were removed from the South it would quickly generate a surplus, and if California took all those blacks it would go bankrupt.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Why doesn't California take all the Southern blacks?

They can move there can't they?

Or are you saying why don't we ethnically cleanse the southern states of black people by force?

The answer to the second question is that they have the right to live in the home they own or rent.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The answer to the second question is that they have the right to live in the home they own or rent.

Fine. So given that logic you must think anybody has a right to rent or sell to anyone they want for any reason they choose, right? That right of course no longer exists in America mainly because of Civil Rights legislation which has actually superseded the constitution you claim is the inviolable law in America.

The truth is that with total freedom of association in America these racial problems would largely solve themsevles because people rarely choose to live around Blacks if at all it's possible to avoid them. Also as others have pointed out power makes its own laws. It doesn't care about the technicalities you seem to think are important.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So given that logic you must think anybody has a right to rent or sell to anyone they want for any reason they choose, right?

Mostly. If your reason for not selling or renting to someone is you'd like people of that gender, race, religion or sexual orientation to not be able to find somewhere to live, you're probably being too much of a dick, and you should be more patriotic towards your fellow americans.

[–]Earendil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"patriotic to your fellow Americans"

This place is the New Rome. There's nothing to be patriotic about

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A strong people stick together, supporting each-others freedoms. Because they agree that they're important that how they choose to use them.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"fellow Americans" doesn't mean anything when anyone who hops the border and doesn't speak or care to learn English is told they're "just as American, more so in many cases, than White people who's families have been here 400 years".

[–]Earendil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"they own or rent"

Fucking Jew.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What do non-Jews do to properties that they live in?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They can move there can't they?

It was a rhetorical question.

The answer to the second question is that they have the right to live in the home they own or rent.

Stunning and brave.

[–]ShalomEveryone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why doesn't California take all the Southern blacks?

Why are you deflecting to Southern Blacks? My reply was in relation to southern states being welfare states that depend on states like California and New York to fill their coffers. Do you have any comments about southern states being welfare states?

Shalom

✡️

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

"Welfare states", i.e they have a shit ton of negros.

[–]ShalomEveryone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Southern welfare states also have "a shit ton of whites" on welfare too. Lazy Black Americans and Lazy White Americans love welfare, they are the two largest groups in this country on welfare.

Shalom

✡️

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

they are the two largest groups in this country on welfare

You're a joke. Whites are by far the largest single group in America, because 50 years ago American basically meant White, so of course they're going to be one of the largest groups on welfare.

[–]asterias 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are things more valuable than money. Like living a free life with decency.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yeah.

It's the democratic states in the north east that should want to secede.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You mean those very white states? Yes, why would they want to pay for all the blacks in the South?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

New York's not whiter than most states. Neither is Connecticut.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You known perfectly well what states I'm talking about.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those two pay more in taxes that they get in federal spending.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (58 children)

You can't secede. There's no legal mechanism.

You've just got to try to preserve voting rights, and tighten up on gerrymandering, so that you get fewer of these minority-backed presidencies.

I don't know what you do about the damage said presidents have done to the supreme court. With sufficient influence in the house of reps and the senate they can be removed for being placed there to be a hack.

[–]send_nasty_stuffBronze Age Mindset 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

The american people created a contract with the government. People submitted themselves VOLUNTARILY to be governed by a legal entity called the US government. That contract can be torn up at anytime if the people observe that the contract is not being held up. The constitution is really not being followed by the current elected officials.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

You're aware of Texas vs White (1869)?

The Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States.

[–]send_nasty_stuffBronze Age Mindset 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Technically it wasn't legal for them to secede in 1860 either by that logic. Secession isn't a legal right. It's a human right. If I can't voluntarily walk away then you are enslaving me and I have the right to resist that. May the strong win and the weak perish.

[–]MarkimusThird Positionist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If I can't voluntarily walk away then you are enslaving me and I have the right to resist that.

No, slavery is different from having to obey laws.

Slavery is being owned by another person and being forced to work for them under threat of violence.

[–]send_nasty_stuffBronze Age Mindset 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Slavery is being owned by another person and being forced to work for them under threat of violence.

That's chatel slavery. There are other types of slavery like debt slavery, wage slavery, sexual slavery, indentured slavery, serfdom, etc. That being said I do think we are leaving the debt slavery phase of the empire and moving towards something closer to chatel slavery.

The average person is in violation of 3 or more federal laws every day. That's by design. That means at any time if the authorities don't like how a pleb is acting they can use lawfare. The cost to defend yourself in court today is outside of the means of the average person. Oligarchs know these two facts very well. Therefore when one of their slaves gets out of line they do impose violence (in the form of lawfare) against them. Once you're in prison you're totally fucked so a prison sentence is a VERY real threat of violence. Another way to look at what has happened to modern white people is a term called 'anarcho tyranny' which means the legal system that was meant to protect and grow the European people is being warped and turned on them and not used against people that exploit and attack them.

Here's an example

https://i.postimg.cc/3JqVM02y/1626554172192.jpg

No, slavery is different from having to obey laws.

I would just ask you if you believe in the mainstream narrative of the holocaust. If you do you'd probably recognize the right of European Jews to kill or do whatever is necessary to escape genocide. Is that a legal right for Jews or a right given to them by a larger power? I assert that whites have the same rights as Jews. Whites are not a sub caste of Jews despite their doctrines and propaganda and if we recognize as a group that our rights have been subverted, our people enslaved and genocided the 'law' of our enemy is no longer justified in any way. Not legally, morally or divinely.

Furthermore, within my catholic faith there are two traditions on violence. The first, some war is justified. You might know that as the 'just war' doctrine. But there is another less talked about Catholic tradition. According to Robert the Monk in 1095 at the council of Clermont Pope Urban the 2nd declared

Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which as the Scripture says "floweth with milk and honey," was given by God into the possession of the children of Israel Jerusalem is the navel of the world; the land is fruitful above others, like another paradise of delights. This the Redeemer of the human race has made illustrious by His advent, has beautified by residence, has consecrated by suffering, has redeemed by death, has glorified by burial. This royal city, therefore, situated at the centre of the world, is now held captive by His enemies, and is in subjection to those who do not know God, to the worship of the heathens. She seeks therefore and desires to be liberated, and does not cease to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks succor, because, as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the kingdom of heaven.

This was the birth of a new doctrine of Christianity. Not only are some wars just but at times God impels you to wage them and guides your hand.

Bottom Line. There are higher laws than man's laws. Not only is it just to oppose laws of evil men but we will all die with the stain of sin if we do NOT engage the enemies of our people. Never forget that Europeans (both as Pagans and Christians) are warriors, conquerors, and have turned violence towards our enemies into a high art. We will not be extinguished easily. There's a reason whites are still here.

[–]Earendil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You need to start having some original thought. If you are forced to follow laws under threat of violence, and these laws threaten your well being or those of others, then it's slavery. If you are coerced into using products and working with companies due to how the government chooses to interact with the populace (insurance, land agencies, banks, etc) then you are a slave.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you are forced to follow laws under threat of violence, and these laws threaten your well being or those of others, then it's slavery.

1) You get a say in the laws by exercising your democratic rights. Slaves don't have democratic rights.

2) I agree that violence is a crap way to enforce laws. I think that the removal of freedoms is the only appropriate punishment.

[–]insta 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Who cares about the constitution?

The 13th amendment has been twisted to mean "illegals can do whatever they want". Literally who cares what some document says. It's all power politics.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Who cares about the constitution?

People who are predicting the break up of the USA in the 15 year time period.

Because they would have an idea of how, if the prediction is supposed to be taken seriously.

The 13th amendment has been twisted to mean "illegals can do whatever they want"

I'm not aware of that. Can you cite some of the cases that have done that?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

People who are predicting the break up of the USA in the 15 year time period.

No, I don't care about the constitution at all. It's just a piece of paper.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How do you think it will break up?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know. There are many scenarios that are possible.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What are a few of the most likely?

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Anyone who thinks there's gonna be a breakup in 15 years are gun-owning retards who think they're gonna survive the purge but everyone else won't. They're morons who think their closet full of guns is gonna save them. I am so tired of those people. No, it's just going to be a slow decay. The only thing that might spark some sort of clash is honest to god full blown reparations, and I'm talking something some serious white-only income tax reparations or something. Other than that no, it'll just be the slow decay.

I'm not aware of that. Can you cite some of the cases that have done that?

Start with Plyler v. Doe and go from there

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So they can "do whatever they want", so long as they are children and what they want is to attend school to K-12?

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yes, illegally brought over children has nothing to do with the emancipation of slaves.

You can agree that illegals children should go to school without bastardizing the 13th. Hence my first opinion, nobody gives a shit about the constitution; they just have their goals in mind and find post hoc rationalizations for it.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The ruling in Plyer vs Doe was based on the 14th amendment.

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Because of the equal protection bit, and because children aren't guilty of their parent's illegal status.

That part of the 14th was written to stop states discriminating against Black Americans, but it's not the 13th.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, sorry 14th amendment I misspoke.

Again, I don't know what illegal children has to do with the emancipation of slaves and birthright citizenship. They basically said "Although this amendment applies to citizens, we'll make it apply to non-citizens because this is a political objective we'd like to achieve".

If you want illegal immigrant children to go to school, then write some legislation about it, don't fucking twist some amendment trying to address slavery to do that. Again, you have to separate what you might think about illegal immigrant children going to school and what the document actually says. Again, going back to my original point, this is why the constitution means fuck all.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well without a compelling moral justification to stop them like slavery provided the North during the civil war who honestly would try to stop them? I'm not even advocating for secession and honestly don't really know a lot about the Texan issue but just saying it isn't legal isn't really that compelling and given the high levels of polarisation in America and the complete disconnect culturally between Texans and their rulers in Washington I think if the time comes issues of legality might be utterly meaningless.

[–]Republican58America First! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Please explain how slavery was a morally compelling justification for succession.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Listen you illiterate faggot I was saying that slavery was a moral justification for the North during the civil war. Also it's 'secession' you utter retard.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You completely misread his comment. He meant the exact opposite; that the fact that the South wanted to preserve slavery was a morally compelling justification for the North/US to prevent the South from seceding. Nowadays, the US doesn't have this justification for preventing parts of the US from seceding anymore. Are you myopic or something?

[–]Republican58America First! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh fuck, I screwed up there sorry.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No problem, we all make mistakes sometimes.

[–]Republican58America First! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The other commentator has a major attitude and hostile stance towards me though, read his reply to my mistake.

[–]Earendil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, We the People can permit it, you damned office jockey.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You really can't.

[–]casparvoneverecNier Automata stan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fuck the constitution. Its just ink on paper. What really matters is if the men with guns can secrue a territory.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fuck the constitution. Its just ink on paper. What really matters is if the men with guns can secrue a territory.

Are they allowed to get guns?

[–]Erasmus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think full secession is necessary or desirable. I'd rather see us take large leftist cities and re-define their metro areas as independent self-governing Federal Districts, like D.C. is today. They get to run their internal politics however they wish, but they don't get to vote in Federal elections anymore.

In a sense, it would be a sort of end-run around repealing the 14th Amendment.

Europe has a number of microstates, like Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, even Luxembourg, I suppose. Something like the microstate model would make a lot more sense for the U.S. than trying to create some set of regional republics where right-leaning rurals are still ruled over by a cosmopolitan leftist imperium.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

You can't secede. There's no legal mechanism.

With enough force, everything becomes legal.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

With enough force, everything becomes legal.

The difficulty would be getting enough force. They tried to storm the capital to stop the democratic transfer of power. There were maybe 10,000 people, a few armed with pipe bombs, but mostly they were armed with raw stupidity. One was armed with a bison skin hat, with not particularly sharp horns.

Not one bought a substantial airforce. Much less even one modern tank.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They tried to storm the capital to stop the democratic transfer of power.

Lmao!

[–]Earendil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know, actuallynot is actually funny sometimes.

[–]Earendil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Lol they went and protested. No one stormed anything. If that was an act of insurrection, then so were the race riots, and occupy wall street. Look, actuallynot, why are you so dead-brained?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No one stormed anything.

800 people breached the capitol building.

[–]Earendil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What did they do? Plant bombs? Get in a shootout with cops after Ashley got lit up?

No. They took silly pictures and videos. They acted much like the left but without the rioting.

You are a desk jockey.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Attacked police, killing one officer and inuring 140.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

a few armed with pipe bombs

yeah right. The deadly (for one girl, shot with no warning by a cop) insurrection.

[–]MarkimusThird Positionist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You have to stop watching television.

[–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You really are an idiot, ActuallyNot. If they wanted to actually storm the capitol, they would have brought their fucking guns.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They brought pipe bombs, and a gallows.

[–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You know what they didn't bring? Guns. Lots of guns.

They had them, but they didn't bring them. That alone disproves any notion that anyone was planning to storm the capitol.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That alone disproves any notion that anyone was planning to storm the capitol.

And yet they stormed the capital.

[–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The capitol protest was more peaceful than the 'mostly peaceful' riots of 2020.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You can't secede. There's no legal mechanism.

This is silly. You don't necessarily need a legal mechanism to secede. At some point in the future, the united states of america will no longer exist, just like every other empire. That could happen 15 years from now or 1500, regardless of what legal mechanisms are in place.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sure. You could be nuked back to feudalism by the Chinese.

But that's not seceding. Texas won't exist for the same reason the United States won't.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I agree, a Chinese takeover over would be great.

[–]Earendil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You don't understand humans.

[–]FoxySDT 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Who said it would be legal?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Illegally seceding isn't seceding. It's a bunch of people saying that they're independent and being wrong.

[–]FoxySDT 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Wrong according to whom? The country you seceded from? Well, if that country no longer exists then does it really matter? And why would anyone care about the laws of the country you are trying to get freed from? Was the break down of Soviet Union legal? No but nobody cares because Soviets don't exists and have no army to enforce the breaking of their laws.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wrong according to whom?

According to whether they will be able to have diplomatic contact with the world, ignore federal and state law, release currency, tax people, provide services, be an independent nation.

[–]FoxySDT 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Eastern European nations do have diplomatic contact with the world, they have taxation, they provide services and seem pretty independent. I'm not worried.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because West Coast Dems are probably on the whole not Americans, by any historical or cultural measure. They don't give a shit about America or historical Americans (whites and ex-slaves). They are largely reconquistadors or other invaders from Asia.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

reconquistadors

These people have no idea what that term actually meant.