When will you take the FUTURIST FASCIST PILL, and forget about

>>134291680
When will you make a good thread?

>>134291851
It's litteraly OC just made tho. It's not like i did that thread every day.

>>134292138
Original work can be worse than the work of yesterday. Your post tried to have memetic value but ultimately fails.

>>134292310

Well, that's life. Why do you want to report it tho ?

>>134292422
To encourage higher quality posts and we'll formatted reasons why you think your system is the best (something more than calling the opposition gay). You can do it, OP.

>>134292607
The reasons are clearly explained in the image tho.

>>134292730
You may think so, but your thread is also at 0 bump count. Try harder and I guarantee you success. I recommend making your image more readable (so nobody has to zoom) and for the comparisons be be objective to really show your upsides. Start the thread out with some more educated phrases and not like the 50 other bait threads next to yours.

>>134292310
OC has intrinsic value, even if its bad.
And even though I think fashism and some strong state corporatism is retarded, I am glad to see a fashist kiddie at least abandoning christianity and looking to the present and future, not the past.

>>134293151
No. I actually did the same thread two days ago and it was filled with answers with a similar shitty bait. I just added more infos on the pic ( the ones on the right, on neo-paganism ). Anyway, I don't care. I will just let it slide and repost the exact same thing later. For the most time it just depends time, people that are interested, in other words, luck, nothing to do with bad or good content.

And it's not meant to be objective, it's obviously partial, it's meant to trigger a debate, means, to defend a thesis and wait for the objections. The objectivity is suppose to came later, once the debate is over.

You guys ever wonder what American fascism would look like?

>inb4 NatSoc

>>134293643
E Z R A P O U N D
Z
R
A
P
O
U
N
D

>>134292730

Tried to read it by zooming.... Literally unreadable

>>134294078
I don't understand, when I open the image in another link I manage to read it. Well anw, I will reformate it and post it later.

File: Fascism_against_Nazism_1.jpg (3MB, 3372x4800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3372x4800px

>>134294078
Is it better like that ?

>>134295191
For files a couple of megs big, the browser first downloads a shitty version, then in a second downloads the full and replaces it.
Maybe his internet or browser settings are shit and he is stuck with the initial, bad version. Or he is a dirty phone poster.

The image is fine, quality wise.