Far-right leader Geert Wilders wins Dutch election: Exit poll

The anti-Islam, euroskeptic radical Geert Wilders is projected to be the shock winner of the Dutch election.

In a dramatic result that will stun European politics, his Freedom Party (PVV) is set to win around 35 of the 150 seats in parliament — more than double the number it secured in the 2021 election, according to exit polls.

Frans Timmermans’ Labour-Green alliance is forecast to take second place, winning 25 seats — a big jump from its current 17. Dilan Yeşilgöz, outgoing premier Mark Rutte’s successor as head of the center-right VVD, suffered heavy losses and is on course to take 24 seats, 10 fewer than before, according to the updated exit poll by Ipsos for national broadcaster NOS.

A win for Wilders will put the Netherlands on track — potentially — for a dramatic shift in direction, after Rutte’s four consecutive centrist governments. The question now, though, is whether any other parties are willing to join Wilders to form a coalition. Despite emerging as the largest party, he will lack an overall majority in parliament.

blazera,
blazera avatar

I guess netherlands was like, "you know, things have been going too well here"

johan,
@johan@feddit.nl avatar

Things have been going shit here actually, and blaming minorities for a country’s problems is still a surefire way to win votes. As a dutch person I’m sad, embarrassed, and scared.

Darkblue,

“Going to shit”, really?

NL is one of the best countries in the world. Yes we have some challenges, e.g. stikstof or crappy goverment (e.g.toeslagenaffaire), but common, don’t be soo fatalistic.

And yes, live is getting very expensive. Which is the result of the late-game capitalistic piramid scheme we live in. That sucks, sure. But that is not solvable any time soon. Especially not by NL :D

honey_im_meat_grinding,

NL is one of the best countries in the world.

That can change. Norway is also one of the best countries in the world, but they’ve been doing the same thing I see happening in the UK: not funding health care adequately, police corruption scandals, refusing to decriminalise and legalise drugs, not really using the oil fund money enough (unlike Alaska (US) which pays dividends to its citizens from its oil fund, not exactly a left-wing US state compared to Norway), welfare benefits being reduced, the Norwegian state used to fund housing coop development which led to 20% of our population living in democratic housing but isn’t doing that anymore and now we’re in a housing crisis, inequality has grown over the last 50 years, union density has reduced over the last 50 years, …

When we’re talking about things going to shit we mean relative to where we were before. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot I wish we had in the UK that Norway has, but the trajectory looks oddly similar to what happened and is happening in the UK. We’re currently boiling frogs and because things are going to shit so slowly it’s harder to notice. Like, so much counter evidence to what we’re doing exists around the world if we simply look at how other areas are solving problems. For example, Finland is the only country in the EU where homelessness isn’t increasing and housing prices have actually decreased* - wanna guess how they did that? (hint: the state gave people free housing)

  • at least until recently, housing markets are weird now because of the inflation, but theirs were falling before that
johan,
@johan@feddit.nl avatar
  • the government doesn’t take climate change seriously
  • it is basically impossible for a large group of people (including me) to ever buy a home
  • any sort of nature here is dead and over half the country doesn’t seem to care
  • inequality has been growing for decades
  • the country is incredibly polarized
  • after over a decade of neo liberal VVD policy, the majority of people apparently yearn for even more right wing policy
  • Ajax are 12th in the eredivisie

Or course I’m being a bit dramatic but considering how things were I do think the Netherlands is going to shit a little bit. Of course it’s a better place to live than many other places, but in my opinion it’s definitely getting worse.

floofloof,

Are there any capitalist countries not like this at the moment? The problems seem the same everywhere, and the response always seems to be a rise in fascism.

Kusimulkku,

This is happening because things haven’t been going well. Same can be seen all over Europe. Shit times and whether for a good reason or not, immigration issues have become a big issue in the minds of the people. Established moderate parties have avoided addressing that issue and that’s why far-right parties, who keep banging on about being strict on immigration and immigrants, keep winning a bigger share.

Moderates are handing far-right votes by ignoring what people are concerned about. I know it’s a dilemma to parties who don’t consider it an issue (do you really want to go in on an issue you don’t believe is an issue), but people think it’s an issue and feel like they aren’t being heard.

Lols,

the Netherlands has been on a steady decline, and housing especially has been a massive issue

the netherlands is a good country because we are still benefitting off of our past, but we are not improving

reagansrottencorpse,

The worlds sick of liberalism, so their solution is…fascism.

🫣

Fades,

the world is falling to fascism. Fuck this goddamn planet just smite us already jesus fucking christ

BaardFigur,

The left just has to stop taking in muslims first

WolfhoundRO,

If the conservatives want for Jesus to come down himself to smite us, THIS is how they will get them to come down himself to smite us. I hate how this happens

TwoGems,
@TwoGems@lemmy.world avatar

Not elect fascists worldwide (challenge impossible )

BeMoreCareful,

What we really need now is a nice World War one.

A nice large draft to cull the world’s population and make sure the working class appreciates how good they have it to not be in a muddy trench.

ILikeBoobies,

Odd war to pick given it led to a rise in fascism

derpgon,

WW1 lead to fascism, fascism lead to WW2. What did WW2 lead to? And what leads to WW3?

ILikeBoobies,

Cold War > Capitalism > WW3

Buddahriffic,

The cold war was a result of capitalism, not the other way around. Part of the reason the rest of Europe allowed fascism to rise was because it was more aligned with capitalism than some of the competing ideologies on the left, like socialism, communism, and anarchy.

I’d also say that capitalism lead to WW1. Capitalism is imperialism for the masses, and the war was directly an imperialist war. Plus, the emerging arms industry was playing off rivalries to make maximum money, which lead to that being the time where both sides thought that they had a temporary weaponry advantage over their rivals. Some thought “either fight and win a war we can win now or they’ll invade and win after their next upgrade cycle in 5 years”.

ILikeBoobies,

If Russia had won the Cold War then I would have wrote communism in that spot

The flaws of capitalism aren’t new or unique to capitalism, even the bible lists them as sins

derpgon,

There is no perfect system - humanity just needs to self-regulate when it goes to shit. When are we finall gonna eat the rich?

qyron,

For effing sake, that is a stupid idea that is so widespread.

Beware of the broken window fallacy.

MuuuaadDib,

Aww…the rest of the world is going through their own Trump phase now.

assassin_aragorn,

It’s really weird to see Republicans doing poorly in the US while the far right makes gains in Europe

Agent641,

Shit’s contagious, like covid

thatsthespirit,

You mean the Berlusconi phase, maybe.

Woht24,

I don’t think it’s a phase in the short term unfortunately. The world shifted too far into PC culture, ‘acceptance’ to the point of segregating anyone with a differing opinion, cancelling anyone with an accusation against them prior to any sort of conviction etc and I really think it just pushed all the people who were quietly racist/sexist/whateverist to a point they are loud and standing up for what they think is right. It’s created a shift of what you can and can’t say backwards and suddenly a lot of people who still hold these opinions albeit very frowned upon felt empowered by seeing their opinions on TV, internet etc and began to speak up.

Just seems like the world is doomed to run in a cycle. I think it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Resol,
@Resol@lemmy.world avatar

If you’re gonna ban Islam, at least ban every other religion at the same time so you don’t look like a racist.

ILikeBoobies,

That would make him a leftist though

Resol,
@Resol@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, it would.

ILikeBoobies,

I didn’t think you’d make the argument of “if you’re going to be a far right politician then at least be left”

Not_Alec_Baldwin,

It’s a circle, not a line. Far left and far right end up meeting in the middle.

ILikeBoobies,

I guess if you consider “we got rid of our differences” and “we got rid of the different people” to be the same it is

But if you’re talking about right wing governments pretending to be left for PR then I would discount them as just being right wing

RickyRigatoni,
@RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml avatar

Even atheism. And agnosticism. If you have a single opinion at all on theism you’re out.

Fades,

Why do you think they give a shit about looking like a racist?

BaardFigur,

I’m ok with that

aesthelete,

Why do they all have weird fucking hair?

ook_the_librarian,
@ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world avatar

At this point, it’s not even weird. I’m just glad they aren’t tarnishing any look I would miss. I mean, in an alternate universe, I could see myself rocking a Chaplin moustache. But they can have the thinning, wiry, bizarrely-styled blond look all to themselves.

ThatFembyWho,

Wilders wants to ban mosques

That’s cool, as long as we ban churches, cathedrals, synagogues, and temples at the same time.

I really didnt know this guy was still around, he hasn’t been making the world headlines so much in recent years.

JustZ,

Don’t forget gurdwaras, stupas, and wats.

SCB,

Oppressing people’s religious beliefs is not “cool.”

People will still practice those beliefs while they are being oppressed. It won’t create an atheist utopia. It’ll just create more terrorism, crime, and discrimination.

qyron,

Ban religion it will be religious groups throwing down the governement.

Rolive,

deleted_by_author

    •
    qyron,

    Took the convertion of one emperor

    ThatFembyWho,

    Limiting what structures can be built/open and where isn’t oppression, it’s standard government policy everywhere on earth. People can still believe whatever they want.

    Only discriminatory if it favors one group over another, so ban them all.

    SCB,

    I am not discussing structures.

    Also the government restricting building at the whims of a local populace is what caused our current housing crisis so not exactly the argument I’d make about how efficient that system can be.

    frazw,

    “Politics of me” beats “politics of we” once again.

    Diplomjodler,

    More like “politics of being to dumb to see further than the tip of if my own nose”.

    theinspectorst,
    theinspectorst avatar

    Geert Wilder wins Dutch election

    35 of the 150 seats in parliament

    Let's please stop using FPTP language to describe very non-FPTP systems and outcomes.

    SkepticalButOpenMinded,

    Agreed “win” is too simplistic. Still good shot at forming government though. I’m not familiar with the Dutch system, but, even in systems with proportional representation, the plurality winner usually gets first shot at forming government, and by convention usually does form government. They need 76 seats to govern and are more than halfway there with 37.

    Th0rgue,

    This is how we do it. But it might be difficult for him to form an alliance, since all other relevant parties have serious issues with parts of his party program.

    Mostly because his program is extremely rightwing but also extremely leftwing at the same time. And financially its all a big foggy mess.

    Aux,

    I don’t know how the Dutch system works, but some time ago a pro-Russian party won like 30-40% of seats in Latvia, but every other party joined together against them. And they couldn’t do shit even though they had the biggest number of seats. If it’s not 50%+1 - it doesn’t matter.

    Mananasi,

    I believe no party has ever held an absolute majority in the Netherlands. And there has only ever been one time in the Netherlands when the biggest party did not govern.

    Personally, I see two options: the most likely is Geert Wilders will become our prime minister, or (less likely) there will be new elections.

    SirQuackTheDuck,

    What does FPTP mean?

    LucasWaffyWaf,

    First past the post

    Pipoca,

    First Past The Post, which is more typically called ‘plurality’ in the US. Each person votes for only one candidate; the candidate with the most votes wins.

    theinspectorst,
    theinspectorst avatar

    First past the post - the party with the most votes 'wins'. It's in contrast to a range of other systems that rely on proportionality or preferential voting to ensure that the party or parties with majority support wins.

    For example, imagine a scenario where there are 10 constituencies electing a representative by FPTP. In each of those 10 constituencies, the result is identical as follows:

    • Nazi - 40%
    • Liberal - 30%
    • Socialist - 20%
    • Conservative - 10%

    Under FPTP, the Nazi would be the top candidate in every constituency, and so win 10 out of 10 seats and have total control of the legislature, even though 60% of people voted anti-Nazi. This is the system in the UK and US.

    Under a proportional system, you would allocate the seats in proportion to the votes cast - so 4 for the Nazis, 3 for the Liberals, 2 for the Socialists and 1 for the Conservatives. The non-Nazis would then have a legislative majority (6 out of 10 seats) that reflects how people actually voted, and could form an anti-Nazi coalition government. This is the system in the Netherlands or Germany for example.

    Under a preferential system, you still elect seats on a constituency basis, but you make sure that the winning candidate is preferred by a majority of voters in the constituency - either by having multi-round elections or by having voters rank candidates instead of just voting for one. In a simplified system, you could rule out all but the top two candidates (in this case, Nazi and Liberal), and then have a second round of votes two weeks later for voters to decide between those two candidates to represent their seat. This tends to favour more moderate candidates so it's likely under such a system that the Liberal would generally defeat the Nazi in the second round in most seats. This is the system in France.

    There are also hybrid systems like Single Transferrable Vote, which simultaneously achieve proportionality and preferential voting - this is used in Ireland.

    michaelmrose,

    THIS IS NOT AT ALL HOW THE US WORKS

    Under FPTP, the Nazi would be the top candidate in every constituency, and so win 10 out of 10 seats and have total control of the legislature, even though 60% of people voted anti-Nazi. This is the system in the UK and US.

    This description is outrageously wrong regarding the US. Each contest is FPTP but we have many contests centered on geographic regions. Because of this the the breakdown you listed above for the 4 parties ends up with drastically different results based on how these people are distributed geographically. You could see anything from them winning virtual no seats to the majority of seats. You could NEVER win all seat

    Our senate is 2 seats per state with some states having as little as around a half a million people and some having tens of millions. Our house is nominally more democratic but its not truly exactly proportional and its subject to gerrymandering.

    It’s certainly broken enough to potentially practically provide 51% of the power to a party supported by 45% of the people but its not so bad as to provide 100% of control to someone with 40%

    Buddahriffic,

    That hypothetical involved an evenly distributed political population, which would work that way under the US system.

    michaelmrose,

    There has never been an evenly distributed political population in the history of the US nor is there ever more than 2 major parties in any given contest. This isn’t just happenstance. By definition any third party that grows strong enough to count pulls votes from the party they are most alike ensuring the victory of the major party that is least like the small party.

    For instance a normal race looks like 50 Republican 47 Democrat 3% split between 4 different parties. Say one party the libertarians which is aligned with Republicans in many respects gains in that singular race 6% to themselves next go round. This isn’t even enough for anyone to believe you could actually win just respectable enough for people to know you even EXIST. What happens is that you draw your votes mostly from would be Republican voters due the verisimilitude of your positions. You end up with something like

    45% Republicans 46% Democrats 6% Libertarians 3% other

    Congrats you both caused Republicans to lose ensuring the Democrat would torpedo the very positions you championed and ably demonstrated why no third party can ever get more than minor traction. This is a fundamental feature of the American political system.

    theinspectorst,
    theinspectorst avatar

    That is exactly how the US system works, with a handful of exceptions.

    For the election of a Senator or Representative - it's almost always FPTP. The candidate that gets the most votes wins the seat, regardless of whether or not they got a majority of the vote. The state of Georgia is an example of an exception, as they hold a runoff election for Senator if the leading candidate falls short of 50% - as happened with the elections of Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, both of which went to runoff.

    For the presidential election, this also how it works in the vast majority of cases. 100% of a state's electoral college vote goes to the candidate that gets the most votes, regardless of whether or not they got a majority of the votes in the state. You have a situations like Texas in 2020 giving 38 electoral college votes to Trump and zero to Biden (versus a proportional allocation of more like 20 Trump, 17 Biden and 1 Jorgensen). That electoral college system results in situations like 1992, when Bill Clinton got a 370 vote electoral college landslide on 43% of the vote because of Ross Perot's third-party candidacy, as well as situations like 2000 and 2016 where a Republican candidate who came 2nd in the national vote still came 1st in the electoral college by virtue of coming first past the post in enough individual states. (I believe the exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, which split their electoral college votes.)

    SuddenDownpour,

    We have had to stand months of the Spanish opposition leader saying he “has won the election” because he leads the most voted party, even though it was impossible for him to form a coalition that would give him the government (the other right wing parties are either centralist, decentralist or independentist, and will veto each other). Even some international media bought this narrative and eagerly presented the idea that there was going to be a change of government.

    fne8w2ah,

    Also the Dutch political system relies very heavily on coalitions and the “polder model” since no party can ever win a majority of seats in their House of Representatives.

    1847953620,

    Read the whole wiki, and all I can tell is it’s a label some politician came up with for simply compromising on a common goal to push it through when multiple parties overlap at least partially in agreement of that goal. Nothing beyond that, doesn’t say how, give guidelines or a framework. I guess it’s just a label for being ok with no majority party.

    TheOgreChef,

    Asking out of ignorance, but why would no party ever be able to win a majority? Are there just too many parties to allow for one to have that much control?

    Mananasi,

    In theory it is possible, in practise it is not. Indeed there are a lot of parties covering the spectrum from left to right.

    seejur,

    Its a bit like italy: you have many right and left parties, but each one has some flavors (stance in different issues), so you vote for the right/left party that is more in line with you social and economical policies (or a part leader you like for personality).

    Since there are many choices, and each party tries to get a slice if the electorate, its very hard for a single party to cather to the majority if the peoples.

    So they form a coalition, and each party in the coalition pass what are the common points, and depending on how well they have done) compromise within the coalition to pass some if their agendas

    tim1996, (edited )

    There is no reason for more unity if folks know they will have to work together. I look at American party’s more as a sort of permanent coalition goverment then political partys really. The real benefit in my view is that this goverment form always stears back to the center, Geert can say what he wants Omzigt and Yeşilgöz wil force him to compromise a lot to form a goverment.

    Kusimulkku,

    It’s normal language where I live and we’ve always had a multi-party democracy without FPTP

    atthecoast,

    Government has been ignoring voters for years, executing a globalist agenda and forcing the worlds strictest environmental policies. This created a populist undercurrent that’s now surfacing.

    strider,

    Bullshit, over half the people voted on the government at all times. “Globalist agenda” is conspiracy nut territory and the environmental policies that were introduced over the years don’t do shit.

    Y’all are just fascists.

    naturalgasbad,

    The slide towards far-right fascism continues…

    Darkblue,

    Don’t worry, the headline is too sensational. (Which is a pet peeve of mine anyway: headlines should be objective. I can make up my own mind please)

    He didn’t win a majority. He won’t form a goverment. If he does, he will be powerless in the coalition. If he does get to make laws, they won’t pass the senate (called “1ste kamer” in NL). And if he does, the government will fall anyway (which is a Dutch tradition anyway).

    So a lot of ‘outs’ :)

    No worries!

    qevlarr,
    @qevlarr@lemmy.world avatar

    Only your last one seems valid. Dutch coalitions aren’t very stable. The only stable factor of the last 12 years has recently left politics.

    The question is indeed who is willing to form a coalition government. The most likely option is PVV (far right), VVD (neoliberal), and NSC (Christian democrats), of the latter can convince their voters they can accept the far right.

    Darkblue,

    Not very stable indeed. Since ‘Kok’ (2002!), NL has had 1 cabinet come to full term (Rutte II I believe). In 21 years 8 goverments. 1 full term of 4 years, so 7 in 17 years. Elections every 2,5 years on average :/

    But hey, at least NL is not Belgium :D

    Vrijgezelopkamers,
    @Vrijgezelopkamers@lemmy.world avatar

    *Sad Belgian noises

    HerbalGamer,
    @HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

    So just any belgian noises then?

    Iron_Lynx,

    I’d wish upon Omtzigt to stick to his morals and tell the PVV to pound sand. Meanwhile, Timmermans has already declared that he’s ready to lead the opposition, and he has a history of zero patience for fascists, so there’s a chance this’ll become a minority coalition.

    dangblingus,

    Yeah…but…FPTP.

    Ghyste,

    I’m assuming that the clothing and appearance copying Trump are on purpose.

    Ab_intra,
    @Ab_intra@lemmy.world avatar

    Nope. He has been wearing that for years.

    Ghyste,

    Wow. That’s actually surprising

    ABCDE,

    That Trump copied someone?

    Ghyste,

    No, that they’ve both had this costume independently.

    Although I wouldn’t put it past Trump to copy someone else.

    Patariki,

    He has looked like that far before trump meant something outside of the US.

    Ghyste,

    Gotcha. Thanks for the info!

    TheIvoryTower,

    People need to understand that in a democracy, winning the plurality of the votes is not the same as winning the election. If no-one will work with him, he will not be in government.

    steven,

    In a republic*, ftfy. Republics and majority rule in general are not at all so democratic. The vast majority of the population has entirely no input in government.

    photonic_sorcerer,
    @photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Yeah but they’re still democratic systems.

    steven,

    It’s terminology. I guess they’d be called so today, yes. They wouldn’t be called like that a few hundred years ago when the term democracy first became public. The word democracy actually has a very interesting history. At the time of the founding of the United States of America, the founding fathers were actually motivated in crafting the constitution of the republic by fears of democracy breaking out. The resulting constitution also never mentioned the word democracy in it.

    Iron_Lynx,

    Republic, you say? King Willem-Alexander has entered the chat

    steven,

    Does he have any effective political power?

    Lols,

    not until he forms a coalition

    steven,

    Wait what? In the Netherlands the king forms a coalition? Or is it like in Belgium where the king appoints someone to try make a coalition and if he can’t then appoints someone else. Usually party heads of the parties in decreasing order of number of votes 😅 I guess the only real power the Belgian king has is censoring a party from initiating coalition talks.

    Lols,

    oh i misread the comment you were replying to

    no, the king has no real political power and constitutionally cannot have any

    in fact, in practice he barely has a job in general and only exists to (?)

    Kusimulkku,

    The Netherlands isn’t a republic and republic basically just means “not a monarchy”. Whether it’s democratic or not is an entirely different matter.

    Hell, North Korea is a republic. So is Finland. You can be a democracy without being a republic and a republic without being a democracy.

    steven,

    The Netherlands isn’t a republic and republic basically just means “not a monarchy”.

    A republic means a state with representative democracy. (Not strictly necessarily representative, but it’s hard to even imagine a State system with full democracy.)

    You can be a democracy without being a republic and a republic without being a democracy.

    Exactly, because a republic isn’t very democratic. What I’m saying is that representative democracy is barely democratic at all. Especially when using systems like majority rule. In most representative democracies today, the general public is barely if at all participating in the government of public affairs. I’m purposefully using the original meaning of the word democracy: government by the people or the people governing themselves. If the only way we can govern is by checking a box on a ballot twice a decade and that resulting in anywhere between 1 and 250 people having full authority over an entire country, I would not call that governing at all. And it shows that in most republics, policy enacted by their governments rarely represent what people actually want and care about.

    Kusimulkku,

    There’s a few definitions but this is the first one in quite a few dictionaries and on Wiki

    A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.

    While Wikipedia mentions that power rests with the public (hence the name) instead of a monarch:

    Representation in a republic may or may not be freely elected by the general citizenry. In many historical republics, representation has been based on personal status and the role of elections has been limited. This remains true today; among the 159 states that use the word “republic” in their official names as of 2017, and other states formally constituted as republics, are states that narrowly constrain both the right of representation and the process of election.

    Exactly, because a republic isn’t very democratic. What I’m saying is that representative democracy is barely democratic at all.

    Those are two different things.

    steven,

    Would you argue that the head of the state of the Netherlands is the king? It being written to be so doesn’t mean it is so in practice.

    Kusimulkku,

    Would I argue that the king is the head of the state of the Kingdom of the Netherlands? Obviously?

    The Kingdom of the Netherlands (Dutch: Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, pronounced [ˈkoːnɪŋkrɛik dɛr ˈneːdərlɑndə(n)] ⓘ),[g] commonly known simply as the Netherlands,[h] is a sovereign state consisting of a collection of autonomous territories united under the monarch of the Netherlands who functions as head of state.

    steven, (edited )

    Sure that’s in paper. But does he head the state? North Korea is also a democratic republic if you go by the official definition…

    I’m from Belgium, which is also a kingdom, but our king has absolutely no power. The state is headed by the federal government, not by the king, in practice. I would imagine that to be the case in the Netherlands too.

    Kusimulkku,

    A head of state (or chief of state) is the public persona who officially embodies a state in its unity and legitimacy. Depending on the country’s form of government and separation of powers, the head of state may be a ceremonial figurehead or concurrently the head of government and more.

    AngrilyEatingMuffins,
    AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

    Jesus Christ.

    I guess on the plus side Europeans will shut the fuck up about their superiority? (Haha, good one, right?)

    Norgur,

    The thing you fail to understand is that what you see as Europeans going on about their superiority is how we in Europe talk to each other. We're bickering all the time between each other in exactly the same tone we do about the US. Yet... do you remember that one kid at school that didn't understand a bit of legpulling, took the joke personally and went ballistic? Well... I hate to break it to you, but...

    Besides: Geert Wilders at the helm of the Netherlands is fucked up, but it's miles from dying women because abortions bad or Jan. 6th... just to name two things.

    AngrilyEatingMuffins,
    AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

    Neat how you managed to work in a bit of European supremacism into that dip shit rant. Actually on second glance literally the entire rant is European supremacist bullshit.

    Norgur,

    You must be fun at parties.

    AngrilyEatingMuffins,
    AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

    Immensely, because I’m not trying to convince the other guests they’re actually less than me

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • world@lemmy.world
  • ethstaker
  • DreamBathrooms
  • everett
  • magazineikmin
  • Durango
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • thenastyranch
  • kavyap
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tacticalgear
  • JUstTest
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • osvaldo12
  • khanakhh
  • ngwrru68w68
  • modclub
  • tester
  • anitta
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •