I get discriminated on imageboards, because I am a former YouTube Premium subscriber

Why former? Argentinian YT sub even after the 227% increase is rather cheap.

Although I don't understand why you wouldn't just use Newpipe or ReVanced? Why did you even get it?

Good, you should be fucking zoomerfaggot. Go play with your fidget spinner or make a tiktok video or something

I am discriminating activly germans on imageboards and in real life and it feels great.

okay grandpa, time to get you to bed

iPhone

I back that.

What about Firefox for iOS and using uBlock there? My last information was that iOS FF can't use addons at all, but that info might be outdated?

No, it can’t use any add-ons. It’s also not very pleasant to watch videos in a browser (on phone). And I actually like the concept of YouTube Premium: being able to play videos in the background and having no ads while supporting creators you watch. I know, this makes neckbeards on imageboards (especially Kohl) extremely mad.

Kys zoomer

Gay ass

I see. But then why 'former' now? No need for it anymore? Did you get a reduced foreign sub or the expensive 'German' one?

Neither gay nor suicidal

I’m stingy, so right now I want to save all my money for the PC I will build in December.

I always used the normal German one

Deine Armut ist wirklich übel.

I get discriminated on KC for puting benin in vagaga.

Good

Serves you right.

I get discriminated on KC for being rareball

that's too bad cause you're my favorite Bernd

:(

oh no, don't make that face or I'll come down there and hug the life out of you

I thought I was your favourite

He is a peoples pleaser. Thats due to him searching for mushrooms from a young age trained to be a servant.

why are you out of bed at this hour, son?

 

don't be jealous

I don’t understand this sentiment

 

Never ever have I seen any discrimination against your ball on IBs

not his ball but him

on kohl he gets accused for avatarfaggotry, his ball being the avatar

He said he gets discriminated for being a rareball. That’s just not true. Sometimes he is an insufferable asshole, that’s why people don’t like him.

you see

I don't even go to noncechan, if people are still harassing sloveniaballs there because I made some nonces mad 2 years ago that's plain discrimination

I meant on KC, not Kohl

what don't you understand? I've seen him post a lot of based things and because he's a rareball it's easy to assume it's the same person most of the time; there are also some nice Bernds from other countries (Germany included), but it's always multiple people and I can't tell which is which (but I guess that is kind of the point of imageboards)

 

it's almost like having a pet

 

although I've seen a really nasty post about Palestinians by a Sloveniaball and if that's him then yikes I'm wrong

Palestinians are animals, their identity is invented around hating Jews so much they do not want to live in same country as them and therefore the rats started killing Jews, got btfo, and now cry about being discriminated. Fucking losers, should not have behaved literally below bantu nigger tier. Your ethnic peers who did not join the murderous spree became "Arab Israelis", while you cry about being exiled, because apparently the desire to kill Jews was too strong.

oh well, at least now I know I was wrong about you

Believing that Palestinians are an ethnic group (and even more, that they're persecuted) is comparable to considering a hate group whose identity is based around killing specific ethnic group one. It's disgusting and absurd.

Zionists hate Palestinians

world is full of hate and that's why aliens don't visit

Now imagine if Germans in Poland started randomly killing Poles before they were evicted after WW2 (and in this scenario, they wouldn't be evicted otherwise, and those who didn't participate in Pole killing still receive minority language rights and full citizenship), then they would claim they actually belong to a separate ethnicity of Prussians who encompass only and exactly the Germans who lived within borders of modern Poland, as a consequence they were allowed to keep Silesia (West Bank) and Danzig (Gaza strip) and modern day Germans who identify as Prussians still randomly attack Poles, rockets launched at Polish villages from schools in Danzig, and claim being persecuted by them and that Poles are the real Nazis, that their exclusion from Polish state is an act of apartheid (ignoring that the Germans in Pomerania and such who didn't participate in Pole killings of 1948 have full rights within Poland) and that Danzig is a concentration camp.

This is how Palestinians operate.

listen, I respect your right to have your own opinion, but the moment you call an ethnic group "animals" is also the moment I stop treating anything you say seriously

You're right

I don't think any animal can act as vile as those absolute hate filled shitbags do

You gotta admit that any palestinian monkey behaviour is not coming out of the blue. It only works to portray it as such if you talk to newfags who don't know about Irgun, Haganah and Lehi. And the shit those groups pulled out in the long history of Israel-Palestine relations.

Conversely, those have been formed and grew in strength in response to a series of Palestinian (literal meaning in Hebrew: "invaders") Arab revolts, 1920 in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday (practically right after British Mandate started, and British sit back and watched at the time), 1921 in Jaffa on May 1, 1929 in several cities, and 1936-39 across entire territory.

 

The first one started with several 10k Arabs gathering in Jerusalem and starting to attack Jews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots

The second started because Arabs wanted to help British officers lynch commie kikes who were holding a May Day parade and calling for Soviet Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots

The 3rd and 4th were already in the atmosphere of large numbers of Arabs in the region having rabid desire to kill all Jews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

 

So, you think Jews did not have the right to defend themselves from the murderous mob by forming those militias?

Palestinian comes from Philistea which was the ancient kingdom that was at Gaza.

Whose name means "Invader" in Hebrew, since they were one of the Sea Peoples who invaded the region in 12th century BC.

Questions?

They were there before the Israelites, the Israelites genocided them along with other peoples of Canaan like Edom, Moab, Ammon, etc when they were expelled from Egypt to take over the land, just like they are doing right now.

Lolnope.

Egyptian historical evidence proves they were invaders, they were listed among the Sea Peoples.

 

Hebrew meanwhile is a Canaanite language.

i don't support any religious group of zealots in a conflict where british are involved, lol.

and i think the idea of creating a jewish state in the middle of arab hell is stupid, like asking for trouble, but its hard to expect rationality from people who are obsessed with temples and sacred texts

Philisteans were white and their DNA came from Spain and Greece so it's based.

Also Jews are not originary from the Levant either.

See, it's not hard to admit I was right on that history lesson.

I think it's based and will to power pilled.

That said, it only became a Jewish state because muslimcucks impotent raged so hard they eventually got btfo and evicted.

if they were to create a jewish state in some place safe and nice, like Madagaskar or South America without the constant war with arabs, then much more could have been acomplished. there would be no looming threat of Iran on horizon. the only thing that this location provides are some relics

I disagree; if nothing else the necessity of constant struggle has done marvels to rejuvenation and regeneration of historically deeply degenerate Jewish peoples. Israel truly is embodiment of the spirit of Muscular Judaism, one where Jews literally liberate themselves from all the true negative stereotypes against them. Those stereotypes being honestly acknowledged by Max Nordau is quite funny, a lot of libshit critique of Zionism comes from this fact, as they instead believe the stereotypes were false, and a Zionist Jew at the core of the movement identifying them as a major problem Jewry faces, a major setback that is caused by nothing other than their own degeneracy, goes hard against the narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscular_Judaism

 

Also, I love how Madagascar is always thrown around as some nobody's nowhere, when factually it is one of the few legitimate nation states in Africa. Very disparaging (can't even say it's racist (in American sense of the term), though perhaps it's both ignorant and racist, given that Malgash aren't even negroes) to think of them as somehow a fitter place to dump Jews than the cesspit of human genetics and memetics that is the Middle East.

Now imagine if I said something similar about Russian invasion of Ukraine embracing Z and calling it some magical turn towards more reguvination of Russia. That would sound like cope, same as all those things. You can only say it because the cost of it all is distant to you already, but a lot of Jews died pointlessly. Like those on Patria ship and in all other conflicts with Arabs.

If Russia took such stance, I'd support it. Yes, I would unironically support Russia if their rhetoric position were one of power projection and if their complaints about Ukrainian government were technical and realpolitical and not the moralist drivel about muh gnatsies.

And, well, if they weren't such sore losers.

Instead their stance is of a whinepussy, complaining about imaginary persecution and NATO mulatto bogeymen like a BLM antifoid.

Hell, I was bullish on Russia until the moment the moron decided invasion is a good idea.

true, no one likes losers

 

anyway, i would like to talk more about it, but i think i'm gonna ditch that bitch ass board. Motherfucker admin banned me again. And deleted that Anne thread. For what? i have no idea, maybe its something personal. I aint a nonce, and i wouldn't post nonce shit on the board. Because it would be rude to the board owner and if i invested so much time posting on that board, i wouldn't compromise that board by posting CP. And i posted a lot of original posts here, carefully worded, edited even to remove grammar mistakes.

 

And considering this - that motherfucker just deletes everything i posted without explanation? And calls me a pedo out of the blue and bans me? Thats fucking rude, giga rude. Fuck this, this is not just rude, this is gay.

I'll take my immeasurable autism somewhere else, this bitch ass pussy admin doesn't deserve my presence on his piss cow board. This isn't Krautchan and it will never be with that pathetic administration.

Come on why you think NATO threat is imaginary.

Do you remember what burgers did when we brought some soviet cigars on Cuba?

Was it also imaginary?

What NATO threat? The threat of having your neighbours being defended by an alliance when you decide to invade them?

Let me remind you also that NATO expansion eastwards happened at the time of Bush-Putin summit when Russia joining NATO was on the table, and Russian soldiers were on a NATO mission to Kosovo.

Dunno why but i think shipping ICBMs to a hostile regime is a legit threat.

1) what ICBMs?

2) you understand ICBMs are intercontinental, right? Having them nearby defeats their purpose and provides no advantage, only liability for shorter range attacks against them.

1) Once they're in NATO nothing will prevent shipping ICBMs there.

2) Intercontinental just means they're long range. Point is they have huge payloads. Unlike short range ballistic missiles, or am i wrong here?

1) that's not how it works in NATO, what's more, countries have the right to suspend their NATO membership (like France did)

2) And? They're no more a danger to Russia if launched from Europe or America.

1) We know how it works, if need be those rules will be adjusted or ignored.

2) Well ok maybe you're right about ICBMs, but there are SRBMs, and BMDS. Ukraine is also a huge ground for a potential land and naval military offensive. It's a clear threat, innit?

1) You seem to be projecting again.

2) NATO is not an offensive alliance and nothing binds countries to it. If there's enough political will to launch such an offensive with NATO, then such an offensive would also work without NATO.

1) Just drawing conclusions based on history of military conflicts.

2)

Yes we know they're participated in invasion of IRAQ and destruction of Yugoslavia as a part of their defensive shenanigans.

No it will be a different offensive without NATO resources.

Invasion launched from a non-NATO country. As I said, enough political will, yadda yadda.

We already destroyed that by 1995 without NATO. The 1999 was just a reality check for those still delusional.

Further questions?

USA is non-NATO country?

And I wasn't really asking about who launched that invasion. I made a point about NATO participation in it.

Very intellectual statement but I dont see any connection to my argument about "defensive" nature of NATO.

I wasn't really asking questions in my previous post.

USA borders Iraq?

How many NATO countries participated in each of those events? You will see that in both cases only a minority of NATO countries were involved.

Excuse me?

If i rape your ass with my dick does it mean that i'm innocent because only 5% of my body was involved?

Let's connect the dots, shall we?

 

Your original hysterical post was that somehow countries freely joining NATO infringes on Russia's security somehow.

 

However, if we look at the example of Iraq war:

1) Iraq only borders one NATO country (Turkey), and Turkey was not involved in the war – the invasion was launched from a non-NATO country (Kuwait).

1a) USA is half the world away from Iraq, just as it's half the world away from Russia. This changes nothing.

1b) Likewise, Ukraine being or not being a NATO member doesn't change anything about possibility of USA using its territory to launch an invasion on Russia.

 

2) You claim that NATO cannot be considered "merely a defensive alliance" because NATO countries... are also allowed to freely join aggressive operations by USA? Even though majority of NATO countries would not cooperate (and in fact Germany raised a stink in the UN over the Iraq war)?

2a) Conversely, in the case USA would decide to invade Russia from Ukraine, nothing about NATO forces European countries to cooperate. (Germany surely wouldn't, for that matter.)

2b) What's more, the American nuclear weapons stationed in Europe are, as per the nuclear sharing agreement, under a dual key system, meaning that both USA and the country they're stationed in need to agree for them to be used. So the "b-but USA is allowed to move in da big nword rokits!!!!" argument is also meaningless.

 

So, to do a synthesis:

3a) USA can invade from NATO or non-NATO countries, this is not a problem, and allegedly NATO missions (such as Iraq war) were based from non-NATO countries while majority of NATO countries didn't participate.

3b) Likewise, since NATO members are completely free in whether they want to back American offensives or not (which would of course be within framework of NATO due to logistics), if European countries would join such an invasion, they just as likely would join if not a formal NATO member (like non-NATO member allies did in Iraq).

 

Which leads to the conclusion:

4) Whether Ukraine is or isn't a NATO member is meaningless for Russia's geopolitical security. What you should worry about instead is make sure that non-NATO members next to you don't want to seek protection from USA, and that NATO members next to you would not support an invasion should USA decide to do it.

Nobody claimed otherwise.

Connect more dots please I'm failing to understand how is related.

 

It does, because NATO will already have an estabilished infastructure to back that invasion.

 

NATO infastructure is involved in agressive operations in any way it can not be considered "a defensive alliance".

 

Kek, so a soldier who actually lauches a nuke has to agree on that as well. So?

 

NATO-member can freely invade and run offensives at anyone but nobody else can do that to a NATO-member, right?

Can we then agree that being in NATO gives you a carte blanche on planning, preparing and executing offensives against non-NATO member because you don't have to worry about being fucked for it?

If so then a NATO is directly involved in decision making, planning and execution of offensive operations.

 

Point is "a defensive military alliance" makes as much sense as "a defensive assault rifle" or "a defensive nuclear bomb".

Yes, that's how defensive alliances work.

 

So, why doesn't Russia join NATO then? That way, they would not have to worry about getting invaded by Americans.

Ditch defensive part. This is how military alliaces work.

 

Same reason USSR couln't join Axis.

based

cringe

Now I don't feel special anymore.

you're the light of my life and will always be special