How did the Gay Rights movement gain mainstream acceptance so fast?

Home Forums General & off-topic How did the Gay Rights movement gain mainstream acceptance so fast?

Viewing 30 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #156665
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Genuine question… how did the Gay Rights movement gain mainstream acceptance so fast?

      It took 100 years between the end of slavery and the Civil Rights movement for nondiscrimination against African Americans to become the norm, and considering that homosexuality was once viewed to be on the same level as pedophilia, how did LGBT activists change peoples’ minds in half the time?

    • #156666
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It never gained mainstream acceptance, it was grandfathered in from the civil rights movement

    • #156667
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Zeirgeist.
      Meaning it’s now profiteable for the ruling class.

    • #156668
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Ironically, HIV/AIDS. I think there were other factors too following the 1960s but the gay lifestyle was long considered to be a "bohemian" pursuit. This created the conditions for deadly consequences in the 1980s/1990s.

      Thing is, the disease didn’t stay isolated to the gay population, and some shocking things happened too like Freddie Mercury’s sudden death and he was a big rock star. While the plague created a backlash toward gays, it also created a lot of sympathy since it might’ve killed something like 1/3 of the gay population at the time — roughly equivalent to the Black Death in Europe. People lost friends and relatives and so on. And this shifted the gay movement toward a politics of normalization: military service, marriage (i.e. monogamy), tolerance, acceptance and so on.

      So, in a sense, the gay movement shifted from radical bohemians to conservative, assimilationist reformers. (Thing is, it wasn’t totally conservative though because groups like ACT/UP to spread awareness of the disease were very radical.)

      Anyhow, once it’s brought out "into the open," behavior slowly shifts, and you can then direct resources at targeted populations to control the disease. One of the most important campaigns too has been encouraging gay people to come out of the closet through campaigns with names like "it gets better." Basically, even if you’ll lose friends or even have a negative reaction from your family members, that’s ultimately their problem and over the long term it will be better for you than staying in the closet and trying to live a double life while being miserable all the time.

      • #156669
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Also, coming out of the closet on large scales adds up. Even if you feel like you’re alone, that’s not actually true, and if every gay person in the country comes out, then that basically means everyone in the country now knows a gay person. Not everyone is going to accept you, but that does shift attitudes across the society over time, because suddenly a gay person isn’t some abstract media stereotype but someone you actually know; they might be a friend, a colleague, a sis or a sister, a son or daughter, or an uncle or aunt.

        Some people will then ask themselves: "I hate gay people, but do I hate my friend/sis/daughter/uncle?" Some do. But others reflect.

      • #156674
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Would it be fair to say that homosexuality became more accepted simply because many of the more "radical" homosexuals were killed by AIDS? I.e. The gays that survived the AIDS pandemic tended to be the more prude and conservative ones.
        Furthermore, how common was it to see homosexuals as victims as opposed to perpetuators of the AIDS crisis as it happened? I, and most people on this board are too young to have first hand accounts, and I don’t think there are any good academic papers on the topic.

        • #156681
          Anonymous
          Guest

          it depends on the time frame. during the fairness doctrine, it was mostly perpetrators. after reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine, it started to shift as victims. along with the media promoting the most crazy anti homo as the face of the anti homo movements.

          t. old ass gen x’er

          • #156684
            Anonymous
            Guest

            oh and can’t forget the media using children that got infected with aids as the face of the aids epidemic too. that was used to get people to feel sorry.

            but when you look at opinion polling, most americans still didn’t give a shit about homo’s. they hated them. i’ll just finish saying this, in 2008, the same year cali voted in obama, cali also voted to ban gay marriage.

            • #156696
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >in 2008, the same year cali voted in obama, cali also voted to ban gay marriage.
              Holy shit, this is just 13 years ago. How the fuck did shit change so massively in such a short space of time? How can it be that something that happened as recently as 2008 feels so alien and unthinkable in 2021?

              • #156711
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Population shift and mass media
                2008 was the year Android and Chrome were released too

      • #156680
        Anonymous
        Guest

        if this is them coming out, they can still in the closet.

        • #156687
          Anonymous
          Guest

          That isn’t a gay that’s a scrote.

      • #156692
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Anyhow, once it’s brought out "into the open," behavior slowly shifts,
        Yeah for the worse.

        • #156698
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The two men in the house down the street aren’t causing the end of the world.

    • #156670
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Will and Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, not even memeing.

    • #156671
      Anonymous
      Guest

      it’s not, it’s just that governments are determined to push scrote shit down peoples throats no matter what

    • #156672
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Mainly legislation and public exposure. Even in 2010 homosexuality wasn’t widely accepted. It wasn’t until decriminalization in 2003 and legalization of gay marriage in 2013 and other forms of international law were pushed to protect the lives and rights of LGBT people that society started actually giving a shit.

      • #156688
        Anonymous
        Guest

        is there a similar map like this but for trans people

      • #156767
        Anonymous
        Guest

        why are europeans and their spawn so freaking gay

    • #156673
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Monopolization and increasing spread of the media I would say.

    • #156675
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Gays rule the world the garden gnomes are simply a puppet of them

    • #156676
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Urbanization.

    • #156677
      Anonymous
      Guest

      scrotes are presented in a very nice and clean way when they are presented in media, probably because artists back then just as now often had a tendency of being scrotes or at least bi.
      That is why gay pride degeneracy, as in actually getting IRL confrontation with scrotes, is probably the factor that creates the most hatred/discomfort towards scrotes.
      And it’s funny how the gay movement proved the "slippery slope fallacy" to not be a fallacy at all.

      • #156689
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >scrotes are presented in a very nice and clean way when they are presented in media
        This is what I’ve noticed as well. All this notorious fetishizing that young girls often do of scrotes(Even fantasizing of straight men, "shipping" two friends) is absolutely dishonest and backward. You see all that cutesy stuff, clean polished surroundings, and then you remember they use a literally a bloody shit hole to have sex; a Divine Comedy.

      • #156693
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It is a fallacy though.

    • #156678
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Once you’ve set the precedent of giving one group of minorities social acceptance, it becomes easier for all of them (think how trannies went from obscurity to a national issue almost immediately after obergefell v hodges).

    • #156679
      Anonymous
      Guest

      it never did. even after the supreme court legalized it, for a few years after most americans still didn’t support it. the only reason now is because since the supreme court legalized it, the debate over it stopped and people are just not caring. so when they get a call to do a poll, they just say sure whatever.

      but in reality, most of those yes for support still don’t want to watch to grown ass men kiss.

    • #156682
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I don’t really know what it is that gay guys do. Bump dickheads I guess but why do people get so excited about that?

      • #156686
        Anonymous
        Guest

        do you feel the fulfilled with this statement? attempting to play the part of a bumbling sitcom father.
        do you get payed to do this or is it funny to you in some way?

        take heed, others of this thread. this is the type of thing exists solely to cajole people into acceptance of wretched behavior.
        i don’t know if this type of person is deployed, or if they do it of their own volition, or if the thought is impressed upon them for the same to spreading wrongdoing, but you see it quite often.

    • #156683
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Corporations realized they were a potentially very profitable demographic since they rarely ever have children, so they greased the right palms to have the media shill them.

    • #156685
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because Dick Cheney’s daughter could never come out to him as black.

      • #156776
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This. There’s lots of rich and privileged homos with influence and power, but there weren’t many rich and privileged black Americans with influence and power in the US in 1865.

    • #156690
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Overpopulation

    • #156691
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Genuine question… how did the Gay Rights movement gain mainstream acceptance so fast?
      Government coercion.

    • #156694
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Depends on the country. In America, even though gay sex was illegal in much of the country until the 70s-90s (last states decriminalized it in 2003), it was kind of an open secret, and consensual sex between men wasn’t really prosecuted as long as everything stayed private. A lot of people knew (directly or indirectly) someone who was more or less openly gay or bisexual.

      • #156695
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >(last states decriminalized it in 2003)
        That was due to an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling, it doesn’t even count.

        • #156697
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Why was it unconstitutional?

          • #156699
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Gross misreading of the 14th Amendment.

            • #156700
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Do you deny that there’s a legal doctrine of "right to privacy"?

              • #156701
                Anonymous
                Guest

                That’s all fine and dandy, but I should be able to call scrotes freaks without being censored on the internet

                • #156702
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Enjoy getting fired then? Have fun.

                  • #156704
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >economic warfare good
                    Meanwhile scrotes like yourself are complaining about privacy, LOL

                    • #156707
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      please seek mental help

                      • #156710
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Stop choosing to be gay

                • #156705
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  That’s not even relevant to the case

                  • #156708
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >That’s not even relevant
                    It is, if being a scrote can be decriminalized then society should still be able to call them gross. Censoring society is despotism

                    • #156713
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Censorship wasn’t mentioned in the court case.

                      when you’re marching in a parade in bondage gear fingering other dudes’ buttholes it’s not exactly private now, is it?

                      That would fall under "public indecency" or some related charge in most places.

                      • #156717
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >we’re not allowed to police morality like criminalizing homosexuality
                        >but you’re not allowed to call gay people disgusting anymore because that’s not morally acceptable
                        Lol

                      • #156719
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Again, I dunno what you’re getting at. Calling people scrotes is just rude, not illegal.

                      • #156721
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Calling people scrotes is just rude, not illegal.
                        >advocating people losing their economic viability over it
                        hmm

                      • #156723
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        That’s another anon. BTW, your boss doesn’t know everything you say all the time. If you say something offline and not at work, he probably won’t know.

                      • #156724
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Right, still. The scrote said he thinks it’s a good thing that people lose their jobs over not liking homosexuals while crying about homosexuality being criminalized

              • #156709
                Anonymous
                Guest

                when you’re marching in a parade in bondage gear fingering other dudes’ buttholes it’s not exactly private now, is it?

                • #156712
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >those few mentally ill freaks at parades represent the whole gay population
                  And i choose to see you as white incelish woke afboy who never even did his own laundry because of the few examples i encountered

                  • #156714
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Unironically yes. Gays are extremely dysfunctional

                    • #156718
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Then you have something in common, same as not continuing your gene line

            • #156715
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Same excuse used in Loving vs Virginia which was also totally erroneous.

            • #156726
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Can somebody tell me how "right to privacy" works in US law? I’ve seen it used as justification for many cases, but how come then infanticide and drug use are illegal, since they both can be justified via the right to privacy?

              • #156728
                Anonymous
                Guest

                As I understand, it was supposed to be a reiteration of the ban on unlawful and unreasonable search and seizures.

              • #156729
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Probably because any court would rule that the public interest of punishing infanticide and regulating the sale or use of drugs outweigh any possible arguments that such activities are "private".

                • #156733
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Maybe I just don’t understand US law, but it is my understanding that utilitarian justification cannot be used to bypass the constitution.

                  • #156735
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Correct. But the federal government has been ignoring the constitution for hundreds of years, unless it benefits them.

                  • #156736
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    You’d think so but rulings like Loving vs Virginia were very very much the definition of utilitarian justification. Marriage was never a constitutional right but it was the civil rights era and the Supreme Court gave into mounting public pressure to declare state miscegenation laws unconstitutional.

                    • #156737
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      The civil rights era is a perfect example of the federal government breaking its boundaries set in the constitution

                      • #156738
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Because of public pressure. The CRA of 1964 also had zero constitutional justification but the pressure for it was too big to overcome, so much that a guy like Barry Goldwater who pointed out the actual truth that it wasn’t was barbecued over a spit and ended up being supported by the KKK simply because he opposed the bill, even though his opposition to it wasn’t woke af on racial prejudice.

                      • #156739
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        There wasn’t any real social pressure, not domestically. Aside from blacks threatening to burn stuff but that’s just their natural state. No most of the push for civil rights came from international sources.

                      • #156744
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I’d argue the biggest cause for the civil rights era was that the US had to improve its public image. This was because attracting 3rd world countries would have been difficult, had segregation remained.
                        In fact, didn’t the Soviet Union constantly shit on the US for mistreating blacks?

                      • #156747
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >the biggest cause for the civil rights era was that the US had to improve its public image. This was because attracting 3rd world countries would have been difficult, had segregation remained.
                        This is exactly why civil rights happened, good job anon.
                        >didn’t the Soviet Union constantly shit on the US for mistreating blacks?
                        Yes, they used it as a threat when negotiating with the third world "if you don’t assimilate with us then the US will lynch you!"

                      • #156752
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >good job anon
                        Thank you, this really made my day.
                        I’ve noticed though in the media that the civil rights are presented as something organic which came about as a result of the hippie movement, instead of a cold calculated geopolitical tactic. I don’t think I’ve seen my point be raised as the primary factor ever.

                      • #156754
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        If you want to dig deeper read this, it’s the Rockefeller Foundation admitting they created Social Studies from nothing in the 1930’s/1940’s and steer Progressive thought in the US all the way up to attempting to address black ghettos until they were kicked out by black people

                        https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Democracy-Philanthropy.pdf

                      • #156757
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Do you mean social studies as in the stuff kids are taught in "social studies" classes in school, and the social sciences? That’s way older than the 1930s-40s. In America, it entered schools in 1920. In 1916 the Bureau of Education (predecessor of Department of Education made a "Committee of Social Studies" that published a paper on prospective social studies curricula in 1920.

                      • #156759
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Social Studies was immature up until the 30’s, it was a fringe study with very little minds behind it and it definitely wasn’t a science. The Rockefeller Foundation made it "a science" even though in the article I linked they admit they just made shit up.

                      • #156762
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        On which page?

                      • #156764
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Fuck man, just read the freaking thing, it’s history. If you’re not interested don’t read it

                      • #156749
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes they did. The communist bloc were making a huge deal out of Jim Crow and regularly running newsreel clips of police beating up civil rights protesters. They didn’t have a whole lot else they could use against the US; certainly not economics or QoL.

                      • #156745
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >No most of the push for civil rights came from international sources.
                        lol
                        no
                        There were millions of Americans marching for civil rights. Hundreds of thousands of people marched in DC alone.

                      • #156748
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Usually the large marches were under the pretext of something other than civil rights, odd I know. Why would they organize large groups of people around abstract ideas and then use those numbers to convince people to join them for the real nitty gritty political activism? Hmm

                      • #156750
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        What do you mean the pretext of civil rights? That was their main cause.

                      • #156751
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        If you look at the "sales pitch" of most of the large scale marches it was a very abstract "freedom is good y’all" message, it wasn’t backing any sort of legislation

                      • #156753
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        What are you talking about? Most of the campaigns were for things like voter registration, labor rights, or the end of hiring discrimination and segregation in facilities.

                      • #156756
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Quit trying to change the subject. The pretext of the marches had very little to do with those things. How did they get people out of their homes to join the Million Man March in 1995? They ran populist "Black men are demonized by society in pop culture!" messages, very little to do with Civil Rights although they pretended it was about civil rights

                      • #156760
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        How did I change the subject? I’m talking about the goals and motivations of civil rights campaigns, since you claimed there weren’t any concrete ones.

                      • #156761
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You’re saying that Civil Rights was popular because there were some large marches, and I’m saying that’s bullshit

                      • #156766
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yeah it was "popular" in the sense that it had a lot of supporters.

                      • #156768
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Supporters of what, you’re dancing around the subject. The people going out and marching were not the same people leading the civil rights movement. What was MLK’s message to get people to march for him in 1963? "JOBS AND FREEDOM" huh, sounds nothing like a Civil Rights march. Sounds like a general populist pep talk or a Democrat campaign slogan

                      • #156771
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Supporters of the civil rights movement. The movement’s leaders were 100% going out and marching. MLK got jailed many, many times. John Lewis got his head cracked open by a policeman. King’s speech wasn’t a draft of a law, but most speeches aren’t.

                      • #156772
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        False equivalence, just because MLK was one of 250,000 people at an event does not mean everybody there believed what he believed. Especially when the slogan he used to get people out to listen to him sounded like the most watered down campaign slogan ever, bordering on "Hope". No, I don’t think people showing up to a rally for employment were supporters of civil rights.

                      • #156773
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I don’t know why they’d show up to a rally where the main speaker talked about peace and cooperation between races if they didn’t support civil rights.

                      • #156775
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Most people didn’t know who MLK was in 1963. He spent two years campaigning for his March on Washington and only got 250,000 people to show up. The population of blacks in DC at the time was around 400,000. It’s all relative

                      • #156778
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Most people didn’t know who MLK was in 1963.
                        Source?

                    • #156740
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      How popular were anti-miscenegation laws in the south and in the north? I.e. Did the pressure mostly come from the federal government (and presumably the northern states), or did the public in Virginia dislike it?

                      • #156742
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >or did the public in Virginia dislike it
                        What do you think anon? What’s the most obvious answer?

                      • #156743
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        It started because a couple in Virginia (a white guy with a mixed black/Native American wife) were ordered to leave the state for 30 years for violating its anti-miscegenation laws. They wrote to Robert Kennedy asking for help and that eventually led to Loving vs Virginia.

                  • #156741
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    It can’t, you’re right. But there’s also the fact of precedent – there is no legal precedent for "privacy" that covers murder, for example. There is precedent for recognizing the privacy that exists in, for example, the choice to use contraceptives. That’s from Griswold v Connecticut in 1965.

                • #156734
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Right to privacy is generally not considered to cover the right to kill or injure someone.

              • #156731
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Right to privacy is about needing a warrant to submit evidence in a criminal case. When you’re openly gay you don’t really need evidence that somebody is a scrote

    • #156703
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Gay who?
      Never heard of him

    • #156706
      Anonymous
      Guest

      my take is it comes down to how unprofitable it was for people

      black people before antiracism were slaves working on plantation so there was a strong incentive to keep them like that
      women before feminism were household keepers giving men feeling of stability and letting them focus on work so there was a strong incentive to keep them that way
      gays before gay rights had no profitable position in society that it would try to uphold and so there is nobody stopping them from gaining rights

    • #156716
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The book After the Ball spells it all out. in the 90s they changed the attack plan from aggressive gay pride rights to "hey we’re just the same as you but gay" this subtle change got pretty much the majority of America to accept it because no one wanted to be mean. That’s it really.

      • #156720
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Things had already gone past the event horizon by the 90s.

        • #156722
          Anonymous
          Guest

          eh I don’t think so. The normalization was just starting. Media was full of gay and chud jokes, even from left leaning people in the 90s. People like Ellen played the long game to convince the masses that they were normal people

          • #156727
            Anonymous
            Guest

            It wasn’t like nowadays where they’re a protected class under hate crime and anti-discrimination laws, but in much of the country an adult man who came out as gay to his family or a gay or lesbian couple living together would be quietly tolerated, and there were public figures whose homosexuality or bisexuality was no secret.

      • #156779
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Really it was more just a generational shift because 80s-90s mass culture favored being a provocative edgelord so in time the image of gay couples that got put up was this more neutered cutesy pastel colors Millenial thing.

      • #156780
        Anonymous
        Guest

        if you actually knew what they do with each other you’d lose your lunch

        • #156781
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Most of the time they just jerk each other off, give each other blowjobs, or rub their dicks together. Taking the backdoor requires a lot of preparation.

      • #156782
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Question is will they succeed with this with trans rights as well? Suburban moms seem to be easy to win over to the pro-chud crowd, particularly if they end up having a son or daughter who goes "non-binary", for those same reasons of them not wanting to be mean. But when so many trannies look like pic related, absurd caricatures that no one could possibly think are "authentic women", is that strategy going to be as effective this time? Many normies tacitly support trannies but without ever coming into contact with them regularly. If more and more fat, balding, men-with-wigs MTFs start cropping up and shoving themselves obnoxiously in everyone’s faces, it might implode the whole thing.

    • #156725
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Basically they tried to create this misleading image of gay men being cutesy monogamous couples that work as a hairdresser and live in a tastelessly decorated apartment with a Yorkshire Terrier since this was something they could easily market to women.

    • #156730
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I wonder how much did access to pornography contribute to that. It is common on this site to see individuals who identify as straight talk about how much they like anime twinks.

      • #156732
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Internet even just 15 years ago was noticeably slower and less accessible. Smartphones didn’t even exist until 2007.

    • #156746
      Anonymous
      Guest

      In a similar odd sleight of hand, a series of court rulings in the late 60s struck down state bans on pornography, but then in 1973 the Supreme Court invented out of whole cloth the obscenity doctrine which was a loophole that would allow states to put certain restrictions on where and when adult media could be broadcast or sold (eg. not within 500 feet of a public school).

    • #156755
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I would speculate that Roe vs Wade also had a certain degree of popular pressure behind it because in the early 70s there were a lot of young horny boomers who wanted to have consequence free sex.

    • #156758
      Anonymous
      Guest

      You all have clearly never heard of Anita Bryant if you think this shit was an invention of the 2010s and cancel culture isn’t older than you thought.

    • #156763
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Gay acceptance has never really worked in the end anyway, especially once Hollywood cynically realized that they could peddle lipstick lesbians as a means of getting straight men to watch their shit, and in doing so can claim to be promoting LGBT whatever,

      • #156765
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Brokeback Mountain should have proved that.

    • #156769
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The thread’s being derailed by a schizo
      Here in this thread he details how he thinks the Rockefeller foundation caused the 2008 recession by controlling black and brown people, the real estate market, and the educational system.
      https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/11695330
      Here he claims that the great migration was caused by a Northern conspiracy to destroy the South’s industry. He also throws a tantrum about how everyone who thinks civil rights wasn’t a Soviet astroturfing campaign is repeating communist propaganda and defending the USSR, then proves neither that such claims are communist nor that they are false.
      https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12006889/#12009438

      • #156770
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Oh hey are you that guy that thinks the Soviets were more socially advanced than the US and that they did a lot of things right?

      • #156774
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Rockefeller foundation caused the 2008 recession
        They openly admit it. Government legislation that created credit loopholes for banks to lend money to minorities with bad credit was directly sponsored by Rockefeller studies to boost minorities out of poverty. And we all know that the people most affected by the 2008 recession was all those minorities losing their homes.
        >the great migration was caused by a Northern conspiracy
        pic related

    • #156777
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Institutional backing and narrative control by the media.

    • #156783
      Anonymous
      Guest

      bunp

Viewing 30 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id