they would not be ignored. but here ’ s the real kicker, the unarmed invader is far more dangerous to our people than the armed invader. more deserving of life? we must inevitably correct the disaster of hedonistic, nihilistic individualism. think again, fucker. is it not preferable to die in war rather than suffer any longer so horrible a spectacle? why attack muslims if all high fertility immigrants are the issue? thank god. to take revenge for ebba akerlund. to continue on without our culture, but still own our lands, is a defeat. enemies bound by faith, culture or tradition with higher levels of fertility, trust and in group preference resulting in much stronger communities.

the notion of a racial future or destiny is as foreign to them as social responsibilities. the christchurch and linwood mosques had far more invaders, in a more prominent and optically foreign building, with less students, more adults and a prior history of extremism. a muslim man or woman choosing to invade our lands live on our soil and replace our people? nah, not really.an australian living in new zealand is much the same as an austrian living in bavaria. kidding, but australian is a european colony, particularly of british stock and thereby an extension of europe. they are no innocents in an invasion, all those who colonize other peoples lands share guilt.

>are you a part of any political groups or movements?