Re: Iron March Forum

[NationalPhalanx]

Uh-huh. I don't think that there is any reasoning with that kind of hate.

"Nowadays there's a lot of talk about hate crimes, there is an entire body of laws against hate crimes, everybody seems to be worried about hate. Hate appears to be the greatest problem of our times.
But hate is good.
Hate gives a structure to our lives.
Hate gives us a reason to exist, a focus, something to strive for, an identity.
Hate is energy, pure energy, provided by mother nature herself. Hate enables us to see through lies and pretense and helps us to concentrate on the essential. Hate is democratic, even the rich and the powerful cannot hate more than their slaves and subjects, and soon, hate may be all that we have left.
Hate emancipates.
Without hate for slavery you cannot break your shackles.
Without hate for injustice, there can be no justice.
The greatest achievements of the white man have come from hate and from our ability to direct hate. Hate separates humans from animals, animals cannot hate, but humans do; humans can hate for decades, sometimes their entire lives, we can even pass hate on for our children and keep it alive for centuries. Hate is a sign of abstract intellect. Only humans can hate people who they have never seen nor met. Only humans can hate concepts and processes.
How can we know what love is if we refuse to recognize and understand hate?
Love and hate, are the opposite sides of the same coin.
Without hate, we are half humans. In order to be complete, we need hate.
Only fools talk endlessly about love, but forget or conceal their other nature.
Hate separates us from the meek and docile masses.
Do not fear hate, no not deny or reject hate.
Accept hate, embrace hate, learn to know it, and learn to use it.
Hate is your most powerful weapon. The hidden source of all your strength. Do not deny this.
What the liberal elite fears most in this world is our ability to hate, because our hate will, one day, be the most revolutionary force on the planet.
Our hate will destroy and create empires."

- Kai Murros

[Red Aegis]

Have fun in your cult then.

[Altair]

"Nowadays there's a lot of talk about hate crimes, there is an entire body of laws against hate crimes, everybody seems to be worried about hate. Hate appears to be the greatest problem of our times.
But hate is good.
Hate gives a structure to our lives.
Hate gives us a reason to exist, a focus, something to strive for, an identity.
Hate is energy, pure energy, provided by mother nature herself. Hate enables us to see through lies and pretense and helps us to concentrate on the essential. Hate is democratic, even the rich and the powerful cannot hate more than their slaves and subjects, and soon, hate may be all that we have left.
Hate emancipates.
Without hate for slavery you cannot break your shackles.
Without hate for injustice, there can be no justice.
The greatest achievements of the white man have come from hate and from our ability to direct hate. Hate separates humans from animals, animals cannot hate, but humans do; humans can hate for decades, sometimes their entire lives, we can even pass hate on for our children and keep it alive for centuries. Hate is a sign of abstract intellect. Only humans can hate people who they have never seen nor met. Only humans can hate concepts and processes.
How can we know what love is if we refuse to recognize and understand hate?
Love and hate, are the opposite sides of the same coin.
Without hate, we are half humans. In order to be complete, we need hate.
Only fools talk endlessly about love, but forget or conceal their other nature.
Hate separates us from the meek and docile masses.
Do not fear hate, no not deny or reject hate.
Accept hate, embrace hate, learn to know it, and learn to use it.
Hate is your most powerful weapon. The hidden source of all your strength. Do not deny this.
What the liberal elite fears most in this world is our ability to hate, because our hate will, one day, be the most revolutionary force on the planet.
Our hate will destroy and create empires."

- Kai Murros

[NationalPhalanx]

Have fun in your cult then.

You are attacking me on an issue of morals. You are not making constructive criticism at all, just bawwing.

[Altair]

There is nothing wrong with 'hate', but when it is aimed in the wrong direction, it will get you nowhere...which is exactly where you all are going.

I hate capitalism, and this is a great source of motivation. You can move mountains with hate like that.

But you all are misguided, and it is a shame.

[Red Aegis]

I asked for an explanation of your ethical defense of Israel's actions and you gave me a stupid quote that was hardly related to the question. It is therefore inferable that you have no real explanation and are only making those statements from the groupthink of your subculture since there you have not given critical analysis of the positions you are ascribing to. I can offer you an ethical defense of my positions, but you are refusing to do the same.

[NationalPhalanx]

I asked for an explanation of your ethical defense of Israel's actions and you gave me a stupid quote that was hardly related to the question. It is therefore inferable that you have no real explanation and are only making those statements from the groupthink of your subculture since there you have not given critical analysis of the positions you are ascribing to. I can offer you an ethical defense of my positions, but you are refusing to do the same.

I don't really "support" it I just don't care. Like, in all honesty, I don't care if they murder Palestinians.

[Confusion]

This stuff is pure art......

Good versus evil, is that what everything boils down to?

[NationalPhalanx]

Good versus evil, is that what everything boils down to?

I made it somewhat clear I was mostly apathetic.

[Guest777]

It is difficult to comprehend since it is a completely arbitrary stance. You are not standing for morality, but for some kinship which you have not proven exists. If you stood for morality you would stand against Israel's oppression of the Palestinians and show support for non-fundamentalist arabs.

What in the world is wrong with you? What is arbitrary about loyalty to a group that you were born in and belong to? The basis on which the entire human race operates - there is nothing arbitrary about flesh and blood, that word describes everything about your morals. Who decides who is oppressed and whose rights are being violated? that is arbitrary, let me ask you; are you a Palestinian? Have you been to Palestine? No? Then shut your mouth because people are getting killed and you have no right to an opinion on this subject.

You are always demanding answers that make it so clear that yet again you have not been bothered to read a single other post in this thread, though I suspect it is because it is too much to you - why should anybody then expend effort giving you any response.

[Confusion]

Have you been to Palestine? No? Then shut your mouth because people are getting killed and you have no right to an opinion on this subject.

By that logical, neither of us have any right to have an opinion on past history - WWII and holocaust, to mention two. So how can you have any opinion on fascism? Just shut up, stay down and find some other excuse to be mean.

You are probably the most thick-headed idiot ever!!!!

[All American Protectorate]

HAHA. OH MAN. I HAVE NO LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT TO THIS QUOTE, SO I'LL JUST EMOTE "ROFL".

SO FUNNY GUYS, XD!

By any rate - a leftist claiming her hate is 'pushed in the right direction' is self-contradicting; you misunderstand Fascism, from a fundamental stance. For one - you probably think us capitalists & that automatically pushes you to be misinformed. I hate Capitalism too; is my hatred misguided just because I am fascist? Please tell me where our hate is directed, and how it is misdirected as compared to yours. Disregard morals. I don't want ethical bullshit. I want logic.

[Admin]

HAHA. OH MAN. I HAVE NO LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT TO THIS QUOTE, SO I'LL JUST EMOTE "ROFL".

SO FUNNY GUYS, XD!

Altair already addressed the issue of hate — acknowledging its utility in the pursuit of fundamentally different objectives than those sought by reactionaries.

Stay on topic, everyone. And stop trolling, All American Protectorate.

I see you quickly amended your post.

By any rate - a leftist claiming her hate is 'pushed in the right direction' is self-contradicting; you misunderstand Fascism, from a fundamental stance. For one - you probably think us capitalists & that automatically pushes you to be misinformed. I hate Capitalism too; is my hatred misguided just because I am fascist? Please tell me where our hate is directed, and how it is misdirected as compared to yours. Disregard morals. I don't want ethical bullshit. I want logic.

Fascism is capitalistic because it retains existing social relations by maintaining private property. Fascism's heterogeneous regulatory proposals render it no more 'anti-capitalist' than various contemporary expressions of social democracy.

Your hatred is misguided because fascism either creates or exacerbates various antagonisms that serve the purpose of undermining class solidarity.

[Red Aegis]

What in the world is wrong with you? What is arbitrary about loyalty to a group that you were born in and belong to? The basis on which the entire human race operates - there is nothing arbitrary about flesh and blood, that word describes everything about your morals. Who decides who is oppressed and whose rights are being violated? that is arbitrary, let me ask you; are you a Palestinian? Have you been to Palestine? No? Then shut your mouth because people are getting killed and you have no right to an opinion on this subject.

You are always demanding answers that make it so clear that yet again you have not been bothered to read a single other post in this thread, though I suspect it is because it is too much to you - why should anybody then expend effort giving you any response.

It is arbitrary. Even you want to change things in the culture of your "flesh and blood". You do this because you choose to follow certain values and put emphasis on certain norms. If you did not then you would be, if you are american, a democrat or a republican but nothing other than that since that is the predominant ideology and culture that is held up and praised. You want to change the system based upon some other norms than what is mainstream. This means that you chose to be that way.

I was being repetitive for a reason, being that you are also arbitrarily choosing ethics but do not seem to realize it.

[Guest777]

By that logical, neither of us have any right to have an opinion on past history - WWII and holocaust, to mention two. So how can you have any opinion on fascism? Just shut up, stay down and find some other excuse to be mean.

You are probably the most thick-headed idiot ever!!!!

Please don't call me thick, I wasted two days trying here in the belief there were people interested in an intelligent discussion (because if nothing else they must be sufficiantly bored with the quality of members here) and I now deeply regret this. I wasn't expecting to redpill anyone, just see eye to eye as opposition, agree on differences. What have you contibuted? absolutely nothing,

The reason you don't understand is because your mind never progressed past the age of six, you only know the ego, you are all supremely arrogant which is why you subscribe to such an infantile world view. Again this is veering into an opposing argument so it is going to be alot to expect you to understand any of this but I will run it by you anyway. Fascists are n-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-s-t-s, and a nation is a group of people which is historical, It exists before you are born and may live on after you die. When, say, a historical figure dies you don't reffer to them as having no nationality because it is now past tense. I am entitled to hold a moral position on the second war not only because I have reserached it and it affects me today in a million ways, but my family fought in it. Again you show supreme arrogance - on the internet, just say that to someone in real life and see what happens. Tell a jew the holocaust has nothing to do with him because he was born after 1945 - well for me this war was the greatest tragedy ever to befall our people and we now face extinction because of it.

"When we say "Romanian Nation" - we understand it as: all romanians, alive and dead, who lived on this land since the start of its history and those who will live on it in the future. A Nation includes: All living Romanians today; all souls of the dead and the ancestors graves; all those who will be born Romanian in the future" -Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

This is my belief, It is perfectly rational an scientific for reasons previously explained, it is not stupid. It is a code by which most of human life has abided, and many gave their lives for it. Who though - in thier right mind - outside this forum, gives a flying toss about your values, not even you would do anythign for your beliefs.

You are not posting anonymously. You have called me out and proved myself totally consistant. Debate that (I mean directly the actual argument), or you can shut your mouth as well.

Not getting any responses. You have all utterly failed, you are being laughed at, and I am being criticised for even thinking to take this place seriously. Though I am waiting on Celtiberian everyone else has shown that it is all too much for them.


Hm, missed this.

It is arbitrary. Even you want to change things in the culture of your "flesh and blood". You do this because you choose to follow certain values and put emphasis on certain norms. If you did not then you would be, if you are american, a democrat or a republican but nothing other than that since that is the predominant ideology and culture that is held up and praised. You want to change the system based upon some other norms than what is mainstream. This means that you chose to be that way.

I was being repetitive for a reason, being that you are also arbitrarily choosing ethics but do not seem to realize it.

No, no choice comes into it, you either abide by the principles of natures law or it will destroy you. If you choose to have unprotected anal sex with an AIDS infested bottom blaster, then you will die a slow painful death. If you shoose to become a traitor then you will be strung up one day - or you go down with the sinking ship and a stronger group takes your place. In my case I 'chose' to be rational and scientific - ut that is tradition and basic survival instinct. Pride in nation, Pride in history, pride in race, I don't have any arguments against it, I don't think I am above it. I don't think it is something to laugh at. Nothing arbitary about that.

[Red Aegis]

Not getting any responses. You have all utterly failed, you are being laughed at, and I am being criticised for even thinking to take this place seriously. Though I am waiting on Celtiberian everyone else has shown that it is all too much for them.


Hm, missed this.

How have I failed exactly? How was what I've said foolish?

No, no choice comes into it, you either abide by the principles of natures law or it will destroy you. If you choose to have unprotected anal sex with an AIDS infested bottom blaster, then you will die a slow painful death. If you shoose to become a traitor then you will be strung up one day - or you go down with the sinking ship and a stronger group takes your place. In my case I 'chose' to be rational and scientific - ut that is tradition and basic survival instinct. Pride in nation, Pride in history, pride in race, I don't have any arguments against it, I don't think I am above it. I don't think it is something to laugh at. Nothing arbitary about that.

Principles of culture and cultural norms have nothing to do with natural law. Physics cannot determine if cultural quirk x is better than cultural quirk y. Culture is beholden to criticism of what is "bad" and what is not. If it were not then things would not change or they would change randomly and without any order, but that is not what is shown. If you think that culture is bound by natural law then please explain why you think that it is and how that ideal culture is derived.

Arbitrary does not mean laughable and I was not laughing at your beliefs because this is a very serious thing to talk about.

I will ignore your implication that my being a "traitor" in your eyes would lead you to support my being stringed up in my further replies but I will note that it was completely uncalled for.

[Red Aegis]

No, no choice comes into it, you either abide by the principles of natures law or it will destroy you. If you choose to have unprotected anal sex with an AIDS infested bottom blaster, then you will die a slow painful death. If you shoose to become a traitor then you will be strung up one day - or you go down with the sinking ship and a stronger group takes your place. In my case I 'chose' to be rational and scientific - ut that is tradition and basic survival instinct. Pride in nation, Pride in history, pride in race, I don't have any arguments against it, I don't think I am above it. I don't think it is something to laugh at. Nothing arbitary about that.

I already responded but I'll approach it from another angle. You just equated the disease process and physically risky behaviors with political and philosophical decisions. You then claim that certain political and lifestyle choices are correct because they are natural according to you.

Even if something were natural you cannot claim it to be good. That requires referencing a moral framework with which to judge a certain action. This decision cannot be made by consulting Nature since science has no context with which to judge things on a moral scale. The purpose of science is to find and compare different models of physical relations in the physical world. This is clearest in the 'hard' sciences: physics, chemistry, mathematics, ect. How can you derive meaning from Ohm's Law? How can you determine right from wrong from the work of Bohr? You cannot.

You may say that this is because those works have nothing to do with the social sciences or anthropology, but those studies have no moral sense either. They merely say what happened, why it happened, and when. They make no judgments on whether or not it was right or wrong and if you find an anthropologist who tries to make moral arguments in his technical papers and I will show you a bad anthropologist.

One can make philosophical refutations of certain systems of government or of certain practices but that requires something to judge it by. Referencing history won't do because history only says what happened. Referencing physics won't help either, nor will mathematics. The only thing that can judge on moral grounds is through comparison to certain axioms, which are in fact arbitrary.

If you cite studies that indicate that humans tend to do one thing over another given a specific set of stimuli you would only have succeeded in proving that humans usually do that thing given those specific stimuli. It would say not one thing about whether or not it were right or wrong.

You seem to be using your appeals to Natural Law to justify authoritarian measures, am I wrong? If that is the case then don't you want to be perfectly sure that you stand on a firm moral basis before undertaking such a task in which, if you are wrong, many would suffer needlessly?

What are you basing your justifications for wanting what you want and wanting to do what you want to do? Can you make those justifications without making the Naturalistic Fallacy or an Appeal to Authority? If you cannot then how would you claim the moral high-ground?

[Guest777]

Now it is like being dawkins forum with their carefully constructed list of engineered fallacies to use against the dumb christians - they don't apply so well here. You do not know what these things mean otherwise I wouldn't have to explain them without repeating myself. Again you are wasting my time.

1:Naturalistic fallacy. When you are explaining that the scientific method of evolution, you don't say 'god wills it', evidence speaks for itself. Returning to a previous analogy we would say that child abuse is unnatural because of how people react - it isn't unnatural by a sacred right, you know it is unnatural because because the offender has his skull caved in and grass is growing over him. It is applying the same objective morality to humans that you do to the animal kingdom. Nationalism is a groups defence against extinction and destruction from other groups.

2.Appeal to authority: I have never used this, other than to take me at my own word what my beliefs are. That Nationalism (by extension fascism) is something millions of people believe in justifies its existance. I have also appealed to your own abilities of deconstruction to see that it is the opposing world concept.

Proving these things apply to egalitarianism is a different story.

"What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." - Richard Dawkins

In regards to good/bad. Something is good because it is good for your people and group - this is the foundation of human morality with concepts of sacred and profane, the first religious concepts that make profane things contruary to a groups survival; Treason, Child Abuse, mixing ect - and sacred things that ensure its survival: Marriage, children, etc. Other moral foundations like Christian ethics and its offshoots Liberalism, Communism, and Athiesm are pure metaphysics and have no relation to reason, with exception only when they abide by fascist social principles of group survival.

That covers your response.

[Red Aegis]

Now it is like being dawkins forum with their carefully constructed list of engineered fallacies to use against the dumb christians - they don't apply so well here. You do not know what these things mean otherwise I wouldn't have to explain them without repeating myself. Again you are wasting my time.

You, being arrogant, wouldn't feel adequate without attempting to berate people over nothing either. If you had bothered reading my response in that thread you would have known that I don't support focusing on religion or overly criticizing it. Now you're wasting my time.

1:Naturalistic fallacy. When you are explaining that the scientific method of evolution, you don't say 'god wills it', evidence speaks for itself.

Correct but when you say that evidence speaks for itself I think that you mean something different. I think that you mean that because it is; therefore, it is right. That is wrong and is analogous to 'god wills it' in terms of violating the fallacy. You're still wrong.

Returning to a previous analogy we would say that child abuse is unnatural because of how people react - it isn't unnatural by a sacred right, you know it is unnatural because because the offender has his skull caved in and grass is growing over him. It is applying the same objective morality to humans that you do to the animal kingdom. Nationalism is a groups defence against extinction and destruction from other groups.

No we cannot know that it is unnatural due to human reaction. Child abuse and the response to it differs by culture.

Despite near global agreement regarding the CRC, the practicalities of parenting behavior and discipline practices are culturally defined and can lead to serious disagreements about what is appropriate or necessary. Actions thought to be normal or appropriate in one culture may be interpreted as child abuse or neglect in another culture.

article

This article also shows that both the definition of and nature of the reaction to child abuse differs by culture.

2.Appeal to authority: I have never used this, other than to take me at my own word what my beliefs are. That Nationalism (by extension fascism) is something millions of people believe in justifies its existance. I have also appealed to your own abilities of deconstruction to see that it is the opposing world concept.

Proving these things apply to egalitarianism is a different story.

"What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." - Richard Dawkins

I did not say that you did. I cautioned against using it. As for your quoting Dawkins you left no source so I had to find the original article from which this whole excerpt is taken:

“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.

Dawkins proceeded to cite the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement as examples of Western moral advancements, but would not credit Christianity in the slightest.

“Now you have to remember where I am from,” I objected. “Birmingham, Alabama—the home of the civil rights movement. Many there would argue that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was motivated by his Christian convictions. And what of William Wilberforce?”

But Dawkins would have none of it. Christianity, in his view, had contributed nothing worthwhile to Western civilization, morally or otherwise. Moral advances—and, curiously, he did consider them advances—were matters for further scientific inquiry.

I think that Dawkins is a fool to believe that answering moral questions through science is possible and I can find you many formal critiques of him on that very issue. He would be making the same mistake as you were about child abuse.

In regards to good/bad. Something is good because it is good for your people and group - this is the foundation of human morality with concepts of sacred and profane, the first religious concepts that make profane things contruary to a groups survival; Treason, Child Abuse, mixing ect - and sacred things that ensure its survival: Marriage, children, etc.

You must first define what is good for the group. If you are aiming for a specific thing then you must acknowledge that there are different ways of viewing those norms so you cannot turn to the fact that certain behaviors are good simply because they are. What you just said is also a different kind of argument from the Naturalistic Fallacy that you were using before. This one places moral emphasis on certain goals or traits as being good for a yet undefined reason. While making that argument has a more solid ground than the previous one it is clearly an arbitrary belief. If you are able to prove that the base unit for judging moral decisions is the group then you would have more of a solid stance but that itself is not correct in the first place.

If you are to argue that the group is the fundamental unit then what about in a group of one? I would assume that you would argue that this would simply entail the survival of the person in the healthiest way. This is not so different from classical greek ethics which is foolish on it's face. What about in a group of two? Does the entire moral imperative of the individual change? Why does it change? Your answer would have to be that it would change based upon a certain set of principles that I hold to be moral. What you cannot say is that they change because it is natural because then you run into the naturalistic fallacy. You also cannot say that the concept of 'well being' or 'health' as a moral criteria is on the face clear, objective, or to be redundant, good.

How then can you argue that your stance is not arbitrary? You cannot. Since you cannot then why are you so sure that you are right?

Other moral foundations like Christian ethics and its offshoots Liberalism, Communism, and Athiesm are pure metaphysics . . .

Atheism is not a moral foundation and Communism is a socio-economic relation. Who said that they were moral frameworks? It was certainly no one of intellectual merit. Liberalism has several definition and you did not indicate which so that is either right or wrong depending on which you meant.

. . . and have no relation to reason, with exception only when they abide by fascist social principles of group survival.

Having relation to Reason has several different meanings. Socialism and Communism are logically consistent and therefore are consistent in regards to Reason. Atheism is in some cases based on Reason and not in others, but it certainly can be and does not defy Reason. I would challenge you to prove that it does, but that wold be tangential to this thread. As for saying that systems would only be correct when entailing "fascist values" you run into the same problems that I indicated above.

[Confusion]

You are not posting anonymously. You have called me out and proved myself totally consistant. Debate that (I mean directly the actual argument), or you can shut your mouth as well. Not getting any responses. You have all utterly failed, you are being laughed at, and I am being criticised for even thinking to take this place seriously. Though I am waiting on Celtiberian everyone else has shown that it is all too much for them.

But you guys hate and ridicule everyone, don`t you? You hate jews and black people, gays, skinheads, gipsies, moderates, etcetera etcetera. You hate this forum and a few others that have laughed at you (did they make fun of you at stormfront as well?) and you probably hate your selves and each other, even though you wont admit it.

So why should your antipathy against me matter? Unless you want to come visit me to receive a good beating that is. If that is what you want, I will seriously consider giving you my address. The British far right will probably thank me if I break a few bones.

[Guest777]

You, being arrogant, wouldn't feel adequate without attempting to berate people over nothing either. If you had bothered reading my response in that thread you would have known that I don't support focusing on religion or overly criticizing it. Now you're wasting my time.

I am right to feel superior because you have video game crap in your avatar and all over the website. It is nothing personal, but I have lost my patience having to explain several times because people here are unable to understand.

"Correct but when you say that evidence speaks for itself I think that you mean something different. I think that you mean that because it is; therefore, it is right. That is wrong and is analogous to 'god wills it' in terms of violating the fallacy. You're still wrong."

What is that crap. Seriously what is that? That was fail and aids, son. You don't have a clue mate, not a clue in the whole world. I have tried holding your hand, and you can only respond with a fudged .. string of words. Your entire response was just clutching at straws even your own forum members would agree with that. Any response I give now to discredit that response would be to repeat the same arguments again, so if I am wasting your time, then we are done.

But you guys hate and ridicule everyone, don`t you? You hate jews and black people, gays, skinheads, gipsies, moderates, etcetera etcetera. You hate this forum and a few others that have laughed at you (did they make fun of you at stormfront as well?) and you probably hate your selves and each other, even though you wont admit it.

So why should your antipathy against me matter? Unless you want to come visit me to receive a good beating that is. If that is what you want, I will seriously consider giving you my address. The British far right will probably thank me if I break a few bones.

You are blind as well as retarded. You called me out, so until you have a response you are in disgrace and have no right to speak any further in this topic. I am not wasting time on another bungled attempt to provoke me when your words don't have any meaning. I own you now as sure as I was raping you dry right now in front of your own weeping mother. You are an embarrassment, and your responses are getting worse, stop posting.

[Red Aegis]

It's a shame you feel that way. It is also pretty pathetic that you reduce it all to my being a fool for having an obscure video game reference that you recognized as my avatar. I did address your arguments but you cannot refute what I wrote so you play the "no-uh you're dumb" card. Have fun playing nazi.

[NationalPhalanx]

an obscure video game reference

Metal Gear Solid
"obscure"

[Confusion]

You are blind as well as retarded. You called me out, so until you have a response you are in disgrace and have no right to speak any further in this topic. I am not wasting time on another bungled attempt to provoke me when your words don't have any meaning. I own you now as sure as I was raping you dry right now in front of your own weeping mother. You are an embarrassment, and your responses are getting worse, stop posting.

Allright, so your a coward, perhaps a homosexual, probably a rapist, as well as a sociopath.

final words from me on the Iron March issue.

[Red Aegis]

Metal Gear Solid
"obscure"

The particular logo is, but that is besides the point anyway. Do you have anything important to say?

[Sponsored content]