I will say, not Gypsy's best. He let the niggers control the conversation and lead him off his original topic. He started off by talking about how niggers are detrimental to society, and how they won't acknowledge that. Now, I can understand his anger at them by trying to equate a jew to a White, when jews are arabs - thus not White. When they started asking about Dahmer, however, he fucked up. Essentially saying "Because Jeffery Dahmer killed and ate useless niggers, it's okay." No, it wasn't okay for Dahmer to do that. That's just terrible, saying "It's okay when our criminals do it to you." Now, I don't rightly care what happens to niggers, as long as they're far and away from Whites. I would, however, raise a toast if all niggers died out right this very second, and took the coal burners and oil drillers with them. That, however, isn't the point. The point is, Gypsy gave nigger-tier reasoning there. The difference between Whites (in a sane, non-jew controlled society) and blacks is that the Whites would not tolerate the Jeffery Dahmers, nor celebrate them. Meanwhile, Niggers celebrate and glorify their criminal element and seek to emulate them en mass. Which actually leads back into Gypsy's main point. Niggers are the ruiners of civilization because they just can't be civil by and large. They are, by their very nature, criminal and unfit to maintain not only the physical reality of civilization, but the sociological framework that makes civilization work. The niggers, if suddenly they were left alone on the planet without anyone else to give them direction or prop them up, would within ten years devolve back to the stone age. The only way a nigger can enjoy civilization, is if they are help under the yoke of someone who can keep them in line. To not let them destroy the civilization that they cannot even conceive of while looking at it. Edit: Another thing he should have pushed back on was their masterfully crafted bout of stupidity by saying "But what have black people done to you, personally. But not, like, in the past." The fuck does that even mean? Either way, the rebuttal against that line of reasoning is that Niggers have, as a collective, ruined society (orchestrated by the jew, I know, but niggers would be terrible either way). They have attacked the public cohesion, destroyed security, raped integrity and set fire to opportunity. They ruin every place they gather in groups of two or more, and even one is far too many. The fact is, they are too small minded to even understand that there's a bigger picture. They're an entirely selfish, wasteful and altogether near-feral species fit only for the wild. They don't have to attack someone 'personally' to give people a reason to dislike niggers. One does not have to be stabbed to know that stabbers are bad news. You do not have your house on fire to understand that arsonists are dangerous and should be locked up. You do not have to touch the poison dart frog to realize it's poisonous. Likewise, you do not have to be directly robbed or stolen from to feel the effects of crime. Things have a knock-on effect. In other words, a crime-propelled downfall of society will continue to fall down until the rising armaments of justice counteract it and overpower it. And would you look at that, niggers a walking crimes against decency and civilization.