>fighting for the future
by leading tons of white people to their certain death and sending them to kill other white people.
A future for whom exactly?
>the other white people would have attacked us, for sure according to anonymous sources.
>We JUST had to attack basically every European country with white people in it and kill tons of them.
Sounds schizophrenic and psychopathic.
I'm against wars in which tons of white people (or any people for that matter) are getting slaughtered.
If bankers and their mass media really wanted to attack Hitler, then why would Hitler release a banker, but keep regular German citizens in camps.
And why would he invade all sorts of European countries and strip the white people living in there of their weapons and also behead the ones fighting against them (invaders == the enemy of the people)?
Tell me.
And you DARE to put POTUS on the same level as Hitler, where POTUS hasn't started a single war, hasn't invaded countries left+ right and also didn't lock up own citizens in camps. If any, POTUS is the opposite of Hitler.
Bot broken?
When you take a look at the actions of Hitler, it all was against white people, especially including "we must attack these people, because these for sure will attack us, especially the communists."
Now compare that shit to Trump and Q.
Is Q or Trump going "yay, civil war with the commies"?
No, they don't, because they are not schizophrenic, psychopathic and evil, but that's possibly your dream.
>liberating
>by stripping people of their weapons
>and killing everyone who defended their countries from them
>liberating
You must be a fan of Obama + Bush too then.