mfw the eternal anglo strikes again
>>72533797
Kek okay then Germ.
>>72533797
We have to stop teaching our children English and make them learn Russian, Spanish or Chinese instead. Learning English will inevitably result in learning Arab eventually.
>>72534121
>Learning English will inevitably result in learning Arab eventually.
Did you know Spanish contains a lot of words from Arab?
Literally nothing, the news fags probably asked "would you kiss a man when totally drunk" or some shit, then reported everything that isn't a no go be "not completely heterosexual."
>>72533797
>rt
>>72533797
>RT
>ФCБ шиллc, идитe нa хyй.
>>72534361
>rt
>not a more credible source than all the western media these days
buggery is an english tradition, like cricket and beating the germans in combat
Yeah this makes sense. Each time I yell at a British male in his face he starts making fuck me eyes. You got to remember that their country lost all of it's men either by migration to the new world or stupid brother wars. The british MEN of old would never let London get so fucked up.
>>72534480
>RT is a credible source on Western issues
>Implying it isn't Russian state propaganda mouthpiece
Stasi, pls.
>>72534405
You have to go back Ivan.
>>72534405
אתה חתיכת גוי
>>72534361
>>72534405
>>72534480
What is with all this
>>rt
???
It is like people who reject Wikipedia.
Wikipedia isn't a source, it is an accumulation of sources. Same thing with most news, just look at what the citations are for yourself and then decide how credible it is.
>>72533797
Pretty much every girl I know in university here ends up having some sort of sexual encounter with another girl, this is not so surprising.
>>72534731
>muh Russian propagaynda
RT is literally CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. but Russian based instead of U.S. based that's it
>>72533797
It's just projection anon. Most of them probably would never even cop a man a field.
>>72533797
>meanwhile in Germany
>>72534895
>thinking kikepedia is a credible source
try metapedia.org if your want to learn something not kikewashed
>>72535137
Metapedia is even less objective than wikipedia.
>>72535137
I just said Wikipedia isn't a source. It is about the citations. You can't just reject Wikipedia outright. What if I want to learn about fucking bugs for Christ's sake...say I want to learn about some rare insect or something; it is likely Wikipedia will have a page about it, and you can't be telling me that every page is some shill propaganda. Absolutist's like you are some of the worst people; your lives must be pyschotic. Metapedia probably has 1/1000th of the pages that Wikipedia has, and the vast majority of Wiki pages have nothing to do with subverting the west or anything similar.
>>72535365
wikipedia isn't objective, it is "History for goyim"™ in a nutshell. metapedia isn't objective enough due to too few contributors, but a good starting point to get to the truth
>>72534358
It's probably women mostly, but it's still alarming
>>72533797
Ew wtf, Either your straight or Gay, Bisexuals who arent women need to kill themselves
https://soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/thank-you-doc
>>72535402
it's not that the sheer amount of sources makes a true article. it is still handcrafted to please the (mostly incorrect) post ww2 mainstream history. everything opposing that goes into the conspiracy/controversial section.
it's literally cancer when it comes to history/politics
>>72533797
I hate these polls. They along the line of "Do you know of someone who is gay/lesbian/etc.?" Now that these people are now open to the public about of course they know about them. Of course, this somehow make you gay? It makes no sense.
>>72536019
I never said sheer amount of sources. I simply made the point that there were more pages. For example, thousands of pages on animals, chemicals, physics, math etc. The fast majority of which use sources with almost no political stance. A lot of sources isn't good in itself, I urge any intelligent person to investigate the sources for themselves. But it is my contention that one will find that the vast majority are fairly objective.
>>72536346
kikepedia is good for undebatable stuff only and is cancer for everything else, e.g. history / politics / anything contoversial
>>72537165
I agree with that mostly.
