Austria's Haider dies in accident

meglome

Personally I would never be glad someone stupidly killed themselves but I don't think he's any loss either. His tabloid lowest common denominator stuff is always bad news at the end of the day and is just playing on peoples fears/concerns about immigrants, and make no mistake it does incite hatred. Anyone who drives at that speed drunk deserves what they get.

dsmythy

EuskalHerria wrote: »

I don't see the gloating in here but would you shed a tear for hitler may i ask? personally i think it a shame that sarkozy wasn't "takin' a spin" with heider.

No i wouldn't shed one for him, the man responsible for millions of deaths.

I'm pretty sure Haider hasn't killed anyone or talked about doing it either. He was a Governer for the last 10 years of his home state and everything seems to be intact there.

As for people's fears, perhaps their vote was against the levels of immigration rather than immigration itself. That seems to skip people's minds sometimes when they rush to condemn those who don't follow the two traditional Austrian parties line of thought on that.

Acacia

dante18 wrote: »

That was an internal party affair that occurred after they had gained power. The Nazis may have been involved in violence but I don't think they used violence to gain power. They operated as a political party and gained power through democratic and legal means.

Democratic and legal? Hitler was able to push through the decrees which took away the civil liberties of the German public (and subsequently the Enabling Act of 1933) by blaming the Reichstag Fire on a suspected ''Communist Uprising'', even though the exact reasons for the fire are unknown to this day. I wouldn't like to live in a country where this is considered ''democratic and legal".

dante18 wrote: »

That's not what fascists believe. They don't want to subjugate other races or treat them like second-class citizens. They just want to preserve their own race and nation. Someone can love their own race without automatically hating other races.


That was after they gained power. I was talking about before they gained power. They did a lot of bad things after they gained power but before that they were mostly a legitimate political party who operated as legally and as democratically as their opponents.

As far as I know, the concept of 'race' as a scientific category has long been regarded as non-existent, or at best, in-accurate. That is, there is no such thing as 'race', at least in the biological sense of the word. Also, you mention both 'race and nation'- these are two separate things,surely? If we are to assume that such things as different races exist, then can't more than one race exist in one nation?

And you're right - the Nazis did do a lot of bad things after they gained power, which is why many folks on this thread are critical and wary of somebody who openly supports the Nazis' policies, such as Haider ( no matter what spin he tried to put on it.)

dsmythy

Acacia wrote: »

Democratic and legal? Hitler was able to push through the decrees which took away the civil liberties of the German public (and subsequently the Enabling Act of 1933) by blaming the Reichstag Fire on a suspected ''Communist Uprising'', even though the exact reasons for the fire are unknown to this day. I wouldn't like to live in a country where this is considered ''democratic and legal".



As far as I know, the concept of 'race' as a scientific category has long been regarded as non-existent, or at best, in-accurate. That is, there is no such thing as 'race', at least in the biological sense of the word. Also, you mention both 'race and nation'- these are two separate things,surely? If we are to assume that such things as different races exist, then can't more than one race exist in one nation?

And you're right - the Nazis did do a lot of bad things after they gained power, which is why many folks on this thread are critical and wary of somebody who openly supports the Nazis' policies, such as Haider ( no matter what spin he tried to put on it.)

I thought it was generally accepted these days that Marinus Van Der Lubbe started the fire, acting alone? Maybe i'm wrong. From what i've read he was arrested and confessed proclaiming his 'protest' and that he acted alone which the initial interrogators believed and Hitler just used one man's actions to proclaim an uprising.

As for race, obviously the old idea of white-black-asian and so forth is too simplistic and well out of date. The word race seems to have gotten a negative weighting to it. when your talking about different populations perhaps 'cline' would be the best word to describe different genetic traits among populations such as West African v East African and so on. I think Dante there is still stuck on the old idea of race.

As for Haider he made those remarks a long time ago. He seemed to have softened slightly as he got older. His new party will die and end up rejoining with the FPO.

JWAD

dsmythy wrote: »

I thought it was generally accepted these days that Marinus Van Der Lubbe started the fire, acting alone? Maybe i'm wrong. From what i've read he was arrested and confessed proclaiming his 'protest' and that he acted alone which the initial interrogators believed and Hitler just used one man's actions to proclaim an uprising.

Yes. You are wrong. Where would you have read such airbrush-history?

dante18

JWAD wrote:

however a party running on a single ticket will never get anywhere in this country (since you're speculating then so will I).

And that's why we need a party that runs on more than a single ticket. We need a party in this country that will stand up and defend good old fashioned Irish nationalist principles and that will put the restricting of immigration as its highest priority.

JWAD wrote:

I don't think the immigration levels are problematic.

You might not see it as problematic but a lot of people do see it as problematic, myself included. The most recent poll I've seen shows that over 60% of the population wants to see stricter limits on the number of people we let into the country. I think that poll was carried out before the recession and so that percentage is probably much higher now.

Our share of the population has fallen below 90% of the total after only a decade of immigration. I don't want to see our share of the population fall further and that's why I think it's time for our government to act to reduce the numbers.

JWAD wrote:

Everything you and some of the others have posted on the matter say nothing but 'F**k off back to where you're from' to my girlfriend and also my family on my mother's side.

If that's the way you feel then you haven't been reading what I've written carefully enough. I want us to make sure that the people who are here are treated well and I don't want us to force them to leave. I want the focus to be on reducing the number of people entering the country, not on pressuring the people here already to move on.

dante18

Acacia wrote:

Democratic and legal? Hitler was able to push through the decrees which took away the civil liberties of the German public (and subsequently the Enabling Act of 1933) by blaming the Reichstag Fire on a suspected ''Communist Uprising'', even though the exact reasons for the fire are unknown to this day. I wouldn't like to live in a country where this is considered ''democratic and legal".

I was talking about before the Nazis gained power, not afterwards.

Acacia wrote:

As far as I know, the concept of 'race' as a scientific category has long been regarded as non-existent, or at best, in-accurate.

Maybe it isn't a valid scientific category but it still exists as a category in many people's mind. And it's not just in the minds of uneducated white people either.

Acacia wrote:

That is, there is no such thing as 'race', at least in the biological sense of the word.

But it's different with the psychological and cultural senses of the word. Xenophobia and tribalism are so deeply ingrained in our psychology that I can't see the category of race disappearing any time soon.

Acacia wrote:

Also, you mention both 'race and nation'- these are two separate things,surely?

Absolutely. Race and nation are separate things. My race is not the same thing as my nation.

Acacia wrote:

If we are to assume that such things as different races exist, then can't more than one race exist in one nation?

They can, they don't always co-exist happily though.

djpbarry

dante18 wrote: »

If that's the way you feel then you haven't been reading what I've written carefully enough. I want us to make sure that the people who are here are treated well and I don't want us to force them to leave.

But you want to stop any more foreigners entering, right? Somehow I doubt your position was any different 5 or even 10 years ago.

dante18 wrote: »

I want the focus to be on reducing the number of people entering the country ...

So presumably, any Irish people who live abroad who wish to return home should be refused entry?

dante18 wrote: »

Maybe it isn't a valid scientific category but it still exists as a category in many people's mind. And it's not just in the minds of uneducated white people either.

True. There are also plenty of ignorant non-white people who place a great deal of stock in ‘race’.

dante18

djpbarry wrote:

But you want to stop any more foreigners entering, right?

Wrong, I didn't say I wanted us to stop any more foreigners entering. I want to see a reduction in the number of people coming in but that doesn't mean I want to see a complete stop to all further immigration.

djpbarry wrote:

So presumably, any Irish people who live abroad who wish to return home should be refused entry?

No, we should never refuse entry to Irish citizens. We should be allowed the option to temporarily end the automatic right of entry to people from the rest of the EU though.

djpbarry

dante18 wrote: »

Wrong, I didn't say I wanted us to stop any more foreigners entering. I want to see a reduction in the number of people coming in but that doesn't mean I want to see a complete stop to all further immigration.

Splitting hairs; you've already stated your nationalist beliefs and your opposition to your "share of the population" getting any lower.

dante18 wrote: »

No, we should never refuse entry to Irish citizens. We should be allowed the option to temporarily end the automatic right of entry to people from the rest of the EU though.

So you don't want to restrict access to anyone, just foreigners, right? Seeing as how you're quite prepared to flood the country with Irish people, your economic arguments are (surprisingly :rolleyes:) meaningless.

dante18

djpbarry wrote:

Splitting hairs;

It's not splitting hairs at all. I've never said that I wanted to see a complete stop to all immigration or that I want to stop all foreigners entering the country.

djpbarry wrote:

you've already stated your nationalist beliefs and your opposition to your "share of the population" getting any lower.

Correct, and what's your point?

djpbarry wrote:

So you don't want to restrict access to anyone, just foreigners, right?

That's right.

djpbarry wrote:

Seeing as how you're quite prepared to flood the country with Irish people

I didn't say I was prepared to see the country flooded with Irish people. I said that we shouldn't impose restrictions on Irish citizens returning home. That doesn't mean that I want all Irish people to return home at the same time and flood the country.

I don't know how many Irish citizens there are in the world but I'm willing to bet that their number is lower than the number of people in eastern Europe who have the means and the opportunity to move here if they want to. There's far more chance of our country being flooded with people from Eastern Europe than there is of it being flooded by returning Irish emigrants.

djpbarry wrote:

your economic arguments are (surprisingly ) meaningless.

I don't think they are meaningless. I think it makes economic sense for a country in a recession to try reduce immigration. People on the dole will have a better chance of finding a job because the competition for the available jobs will not be as great and that will mean that less money will need to be spent supporting those people.

djpbarry

dante18 wrote: »

I think it makes economic sense for a country in a recession to try reduce immigration.

If your true concern was easing pressure on those on the dole, then surely you would want to see a restriction on ALL people entering the country, regardless of nationality?

But of course, you don't. You have no problem with Irish people immigrating to Ireland from wherever and competing for jobs in Ireland, you just don't want the foreigners coming over and "stealing our jobs". This is why your economic argument is meaningless. Your argument is purely a nationalist one and nothing more.

dante18 wrote: »

People on the dole will have a better chance of finding a job because the competition for the available jobs will not be as great and that will mean that less money will need to be spent supporting those people.

Done to death in other threads.

JWAD

dante18 wrote: »

If that's the way you feel then you haven't been reading what I've written carefully enough. I want us to make sure that the people who are here are treated well and I don't want us to force them to leave. I want the focus to be on reducing the number of people entering the country, not on pressuring the people here already to move on.

I read what you post just fine. You've explained you dont want them to sod off, just not come over in the first place. Lovely stuff indeed.

dante18

djpbarry wrote:

If your true concern was easing pressure on those on the dole, then surely you would want to see a restriction on ALL people entering the country, regardless of nationality?

I want to see a reduction in the numbers of all people entering the country, whether those people are returning Irish people or foreigners. I just don't like the idea of restricting entry to Irish citizens. It's just not the done thing. Whatever about being allowed to work in other countries, people should always be allowed to live and work in their own country.

djpbarry wrote:

But of course, you don't. You have no problem with Irish people immigrating to Ireland from wherever and competing for jobs in Ireland, you just don't want the foreigners coming over

I didn't say that. I do have a problem with large numbers of Irish people coming back and competing for jobs with the people here already. We don't have enough jobs for them to fill and so if they already have a job where they are I'd prefer if they stayed there and didn't return home until after the economy recovers.

djpbarry wrote:

This is why your economic argument is meaningless.

Only because you've twisted the meaning of my economic argument.

djpbarry wrote:

Your argument is purely a nationalist one and nothing more.

My argument is mainly a nationalist one and I would still be opposed to this level of immigration even if our economy wasn't in a recession. At the same time though, I think it's obvious that the recession makes the economic argument for restricting immigration much stronger than the economic argument for continuing on with an above-EU-average level of immigration.

For a long time there, when the economy was doing well and there were plenty of jobs, the economic argument was on the liberal, open-border side of the debate, but now that things have changed it's the nationalist side who are the voice of economic self-interest.

And if my argument is purely a nationalist one then your argument is a purely liberal one. I don't for a second believe that your attitude to immigration is based solely on what's best for the economy. I think you have a strong emotional attachment to the idea of multiculturalism and high immigration that overrides any disinterested concern for the health of the economy.

djpbarry wrote:

Done to death in other threads.

And I have yet to see a proper counter-argument from either yourself or anyone else.

JWAD wrote:

I read what you post just fine. You've explained you dont want them to sod off, just not come over in the first place.

I think we can take in a few people (few thousand people each year) but nowhere near this current level or next year's level either. I want to see a massive reduction in the numbers we're taking in.

dsmythy

dante18 wrote: »

I think we can take in a few people (few thousand people each year) but nowhere near this current level or next year's level either. I want to see a massive reduction in the numbers we're taking in.

That seems to be doing it all by itself, particularly among non-Irish EU citizens, because it's no longer in their interests to remain. Poland, after the current economic climate dies down, will be an up and coming country. I think the days of large scale immigration from there are over.

djpbarry

dante18 wrote: »

I want to see a reduction in the numbers of all people entering the country…

Fair enough then; at least that would be a consistent position, even if it is a bit daft considering net emigration is on the horizon.

dante18 wrote: »

I just don't like the idea of restricting entry to Irish citizens.

I wasn’t actually suggesting that we should.

dante18 wrote: »

My argument is mainly a nationalist one and I would still be opposed to this level of immigration even if our economy wasn't in a recession.

You claim that you don’t have a problem with the foreigners that are already here, yet you openly admit that even if our economy was booming, you would have a problem with immigration? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that would suggest to me that 5 years ago, you had a problem with foreigners coming here and now, you still have a problem with those same people being here. It also flies in the face of your “economic argument”.

dante18 wrote: »

I think you have a strong emotional attachment to the idea of multiculturalism and high immigration that overrides any disinterested concern for the health of the economy.

You’d be wrong. If somebody from country ‘X’ wants to come to Ireland, that’s fine with me. If they don’t, fine. The bottom line is I don’t give a toss where anybody in this country comes from originally. End of.

dante18 wrote: »

And I have yet to see a proper counter-argument from either yourself or anyone else.

Clearly, your idea of ‘proper’ is very different to mine. Why don’t you try addressing these points.

dsmythy wrote: »

That seems to be doing it all by itself, particularly among non-Irish EU citizens, because it's no longer in their interests to remain.

This has been pointed out to dante18 countless times but it seems (s)he is not prepared to acknowledge it.

the_syco

Look @ Frances immergration. They invited everyone in, but no longer. They have a very strict policy now. Don't see people crying about it, though.

dante18

dsmythy wrote:

That seems to be doing it all by itself

No, it isn't doing it by itself. While the reduction this year and next year is to be welcomed it's not enough to bring us back to a level that is in line with the EU average.

For a country of our size we're still taking in far more people, per head of population, than most other EU countries are taking in. We're taking in more people during a recession than other European countries take in during years of normal economic growth.

dsmythy wrote:

I think the days of large scale immigration from there are over.

I doubt it. The average wage in this country is still much higher than the wage back in their own country and that more than anything else will continue to attract hundreds of thousands of them. Even if the majority of Poles have no intention of emigrating, their population is so big that even if a small minority decided to move here that would still result in tens of thousands of people each year moving to this country.

djpbarry wrote:

You claim that you don’t have a problem with the foreigners that are already here, yet you openly admit that even if our economy was booming, you would have a problem with immigration?

I do have a problem with the number of foreigners here already. I think there's far too many and I believe it's going to be difficult for us to integrate them into our population. I just think it would much easier for us to focus on reducing the number of people coming in rather than on moving the people that are here already.

djpbarry wrote:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that would suggest to me that 5 years ago, you had a problem with foreigners coming here and now, you still have a problem with those same people being here.

I didn't really have much of a problem with the number of foreigners coming here 5 years ago. My problem with the numbers started in 2005 once the numbers shot through the roof after EU enlargement. I'd be happy enough if we went back to taking in only as many people as we were taking in 5 years ago.

djpbarry wrote:

You’d be wrong. If somebody from country ‘X’ wants to come to Ireland, that’s fine with me. If they don’t, fine. The bottom line is I don’t give a toss where anybody in this country comes from originally. End of.

So then why are you opposed to the idea of reducing the number of people entering the country? If you are as indifferent to where people come from as you claim to be then it shouldn't make any difference to you whether we have restrictions or not.

I can understand why you wouldn't be actively in favour of the idea of restrictions but I can't understand why you would be actively opposed to it either. Why do you waste your energy opposing something that would only result in a change in the ethnic make-up of the population? An Ireland made up mostly of Irish people should be no more of a concern for you than a multicultural Ireland made up of huge numbers of foreigners.

djpbarry wrote:

Clearly, your idea of ‘proper’ is very different to mine. Why don’t you try addressing these points.

Which points in particular do you want me to address?

djpbarry wrote:

This has been pointed out to dante18 countless times but it seems (s)he is not prepared to acknowledge it.

I have acknowledged that their is a reduction. I just don't think it's enough. We're still taking in far more people than our economy needs and far more than the Irish people are comfortable with. If the numbers fell next year so that we only take in as many people, per head of population, as Britain or Belgium or Denmark or France then I would be happy enough with that and I would not be as strongly in favour of the idea of having the government take action.

dsmythy

dante18 wrote: »

No, it isn't doing it by itself. While the reduction this year and next year is to be welcomed it's not enough to bring us back to a level that is in line with the EU average.

For a country of our size we're still taking in far more people, per head of population, than most other EU countries are taking in. We're taking in more people during a recession than other European countries take in during years of normal economic growth.




I doubt it. The average wage in this country is still much higher than the wage back in their own country and that more than anything else will continue to attract hundreds of thousands of them. Even if the majority of Poles have no intention of emigrating, their population is so big that even if a small minority decided to move here that would still result in tens of thousands of people each year moving to this country.

Are you sure we are over the average for this at the moment? I don't think figures are out since the downturn. If you could show me something that proves we are taking in more than the average then i'd have to agree, it has to be cut. Since we've no choice with regards to EU citizens we'd have to look at low-skilled non-EU nationals first. As for the Poles what are the numbers today we are actually taking in compared to the 2004-2007 period do you know? It might not be as much a problem as it once was.

billy the squid

Whilst I would have sympathy with his family at the loss of a father or husband, it doesn't change the fact that he was a piece of nazi filth when he was alive.

Acacia

dante18 wrote: »

I was talking about before the Nazis gained power, not afterwards.

dante18 wrote: »

.... gained power through democratic and legal means.

I don't really get your point, clearly they didn't gain power through through legal and democratic means. They also silenced opposition through fear and intimidation- don't you think there were people who opposed Hitler and tried to stop his party's rise to power? What do you think happened to those people? I assure you it wasn't very legal or democratic.

dante18 wrote: »

Maybe it isn't a valid scientific category but it still exists as a category in many people's mind. And it's not just in the minds of uneducated white people either.

Well, if it's not a valid scientific category then I don't think it's a good idea to base political policies on the idea of 'race' and 'preserving one's race'. You have probably heard of Dr. Josef Mengele, who conducted experiments on Jewish children in Auschwitz. Why did he think it was perfectly acceptable to do this? Because he was convinced that Jews were an inferior race and viewed those children as sub-human. That's an extreme example, I know, but I believe it illustrates well how this type of thinking can bring very serious consequences.

And of course there are non-white people who subscribe to this thinking. I never said there wasn't.

dante18 wrote: »

But it's different with the psychological and cultural senses of the word. Xenophobia and tribalism are so deeply ingrained in our psychology that I can't see the category of race disappearing any time soon.

So the idea of race is essentially a social construct then? That doesn't validate it though. I'd have to disagree with you there- speaking for myself, I can say xenophobia and tribalism isn't ingrained into my psychology anyway. An interesting example; when Colombus discovered the Americas, the Native American Indians rushed to meet the Europeans and greeted them warmly, gave them gifts, etc- where was their ingrained sense of xenophobia?

dante18 wrote: »

Absolutely. Race and nation are separate things. My race is not the same thing as my nation.

They can, they don't always co-exist happily though.

So preserving your race and nation are two separate things you would agree? Because while I'm in favour of keeping Irish culture and heritage (our language, music, etc) alive, I wouldn't support any party that supported 'race preservationist' policies. The two concepts seem to get confused though- as if, to be Irish you have to be white, for example.

Maybe we could try and co-exist if everybody (from whatever 'race') made the effort to integrate, and didn't accept that xenophobia is ingrained into our psychology.

djpbarry

dante18 wrote: »

While the reduction this year and next year is to be welcomed it's not enough to bring us back to a level that is in line with the EU average.

I don’t understand the significance of the “EU average”? If we just consider migration of EU citizens, which seems to be the focus of your argument, then the average of net immigration of EU citizens into the 27 member states should be zero, seeing as how they're all leaving EU states to move to another.

dante18 wrote: »

We're taking in more people during a recession than other European countries take in during years of normal economic growth.

Recession is a relative word; we’re still better off than many other EU countries. In fact, you go on to point this out yourself:

dante18 wrote: »

The average wage in this country is still much higher than the wage back in their own country…

In many cases this is true. Of course, it doesn’t really matter if well-paid jobs are not available.

dante18 wrote: »

I think there's far too many and I believe it's going to be difficult for us to integrate them into our population.

Define “integrate”.

dante18 wrote: »

I didn't really have much of a problem with the number of foreigners coming here 5 years ago. My problem with the numbers started in 2005 once the numbers shot through the roof after EU enlargement. I'd be happy enough if we went back to taking in only as many people as we were taking in 5 years ago.

Well now, that is an interesting statement. Net inward migration forecast for this year (38,500) is actually lower than that which was recorded in 2002 (41,300)*.

dante18 wrote: »

So then why are you opposed to the idea of reducing the number of people entering the country? If you are as indifferent to where people come from as you claim to be then it shouldn't make any difference to you whether we have restrictions or not.

That’s a bit of a daft statement; I don’t discriminate between people based on their nationality, therefore I should have no problem if other people do?

* CSO Population and Migration Estimates; April 2008.

nacho libre

as some poster mentioned earlier he did seem to soften with age. he embraced the pink agenda with gusto in his later years- indeed on his last night on earth he was reportedly in a gay bar. i wonder how his neo-nazi comrades feel about this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nacho libre wrote: »

as some poster mentioned earlier he did seem to soften with age. he embraced the pink agenda with gusto in his later years- indeed on his last night on earth he was reportedly in a gay bar. i wonder how his neo-nazi comrades feel about this.

They were probably right behind him.

Imposter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7685905.stm

copacetic

Imposter wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7685905.stm

and here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1023/breaking43.htm

Haider and successor were 'life partners'

The successor to the late Austrian far-right politician Joerg Haider has said that the two men enjoyed "a special relationship" and that Mr Haider was his "life partner".

Speaking to Austrian radio, Stefan Petzner, who took over as leader of Alliance for Austria's Future after Mr Haider's recent death, said: "We had a special relationship that went far beyond friendship.

"Joerg and I were connected by something truly special. He was the man of my life."

Mr Haider (58), whose party advocated anti-immigration and anti-EU policies, was killed earlier this month in a car crash. He was found to have had a high blood alcohol limit.

His Alliance for Austria's Future had recently secured over 10 per cent of the votes in September's general election.

Mr Petzner's comments during a tearful interview have shocked conservative Austria and appear to confirm long-standing rumours that he and Mr Haider were lovers.

According to reports, the Alliance for Austria's Future tried to stop repeats of the broadcast, but state broadcaster ORF insisted it would not be gagged.

Mr Petzner met Mr Haider five years ago when he was working as a beauty correspondent, said he felt a “magnetic attraction” to the politician, who was 31 years older.

Mr Haider portrayed himself as a family man who drank little, and he once voted against a parliamentary motion to lower the age of consent for homosexuals.

After his car crash, however, it emerged that the politician had been driving at twice the speed limit, his blood alcohol level had been four times the legal limit, and that he had spent his final hours in a gay bar in Klagenfurt, the capital of the southern state where he was governor.

There has been further speculation that the crash happened after the two men argued at a party, according to the Guardian .

Mr Petzner said that Claudia, Mr Haider’s wife of 32 years and the mother of his two daughters, had not objected to their relationship.

However, in a magazine interview, Mr Petzner’s sister, Christiane, said: “Claudia was sometimes jealous of him because he spent more time with her husband than she did," the Guardian reported.

© 2008 irishtimes.com

dsmythy

He loved to party! Killed him in the end.

djpbarry

Über-homo-nazism ftw.

mike65

Anyone been on stormfront? I wont post a direct link, just type Haider in the search engine (specify Find posts since yesterday) and you'll get a some amusing reading since the gay angle broke.

To wit -

If true, this may explain why he died as a result of a car crash. Stupid people do stupid things

Mike

MoominPapa

djpbarry wrote: »

Über-homo-nazism ftw.

Is there any other sort?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3ed5fBHHVU