33 8

Is a multi-cultural society a good thing?

At one point, it was expected that immigrants to the US would eventually intermarry and share a unified culture. With changes in immigration policy in the 1960s, immigration demographics shifted dramatically. Recent immigrants also tend to identify more with their home-country's culture rather than merging ala "the melting pot". Is this a good or bad thing?

Do you anticipate the US to adopt a unifying culture by 2040?

  • 3 votes
  • 99 votes
  • 3 votes
Charter 6 Jan 23
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


My parents came here in the mid/late 50s. The rules they lived under no longer apply. Trump tried to bring some of those rules back (they are still on the books). But the #1 problem with immigration, especially illegal immigration, is the lack of assimilation into the American culture. Something the Left strongly opposes.

If you don't have a national culture that everyone buys into, including newcomers, then you have a fragmented society that is dysfunctional. It is called cultural literacy....

How come other countries have a national heritage?? If ppl want to come here just to impose the regime and culture on the rest of us then REVOLT. America is a very special culture based in MEANGE. That’s what makes this country unique No other country can match its combination. We have always been a melting pot Now they want to make it a Salad bowl Together but everyone has to stand out then fight for what type of salad you prefer. There is no end to the madness maybe they want to remove everything and just leave lettuce.!!

LOVE YOU RUSH YOU WERE OUR VOICE The true voice of America, TRUMP HAS GOT TO TAKE OVER OR WE ARE AMERICANS NO MORE. They’ll take our passports and our guns from us. There I said it!!


You identified the key problem: recent immigrants...tend to identify more with their home country...

Many people are pouring into the west not because they share the values and love the culture. They’re coming for economic reasons. In fact, many new immigrants hate the way of life here.

In Canada, the matriarch of first family of terrorism, the Khadrs, publicly expresses her hatred for the country. Her late husband was a top lieutenant of bin Laden and her son Omar Khadr was detained at 15 for killing US Sgt Chris Speer with a grenade. US medics gave the young assassin medical treatment, and due to his age, Canada gave him an apology and $10.5-million in compensation. Do these sound like good candidates for citizenship? Why do we want them?

Remember 2009 in England when British Muslims protested at a coming home parade for soldiers in Luton, north of London? The Muslims — full British citizens — called the soldiers "terrorists" and held placards saying "Anglian soldiers go to hell" and "butchers of Basra" as soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment, paraded through the town.

Many new Canadians live here only part time and continue us to run business in their home countries. Wealthy Chinese women drive a major obstetrics industry in Richmond, whose sole purpose is to provide high end services delivering “anchor” babies who fly back to Beijing with dual Canadian citizenship.

There are people who embrace our culture and way of life. But many, many more who get opportunity, medical care, and education feel nothing but contempt for the west. They play all of us for suckers.

GeeMac Level 8 Feb 18, 2021

Well, we are suckers. The only question is, who are bigger suckers, the Canadians, or those in the US? It's difficult to choose.


When you argue with Multicultists about Multiculti the main benefit they come up with is Food... Multiculturalism creates more diversity in the national menu.
My retort is... well just buy a recipe book.


Is Multi-culti a good thing? NO... never has been never will be.
It simply results in cultural apartheid.
Diversity/Division is hardly a strength.
The saying is United we stand Divided we fall . That is very true .

Solidarity is strength, diversity divides.


Diversity CAN be a strength, but only when each culture respects their differences and is willing to work cooperatively. Forced diversity just creates the situation the U.S. is gripped with today.

If you look around in 2021 at the countries that have the things we wish we had, they are almost exclusively homogenous in culture and thought, and are starting to experience significant problems due to forced diversity.


I agree with Theodore Roosevelt, who famously said that, “There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100% Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else.” The article below helps to bring out some of what he meant, and it helps to explain what is meant in the Preamble to the Constitution of the American Legion (of which I am a member), which states that one purpose for which we associate ourselves together is “To foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism.”

Teddy Roosevelt: “No Room in This Country for Hyphenated Americans”

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.”
“This is just as true of the man who puts ‘native’ before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.”
“But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.”
“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.”
“The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.”

Theodore Roosevelt
Address to the Knights of Columbus
New York City- October 12th, 1915


For a full text of the speech see: []

See also: [] [“The early American Legion feels compelled to stand as ambassadors of U.S. national identity, unity, legal citizenship and naturalization. And they are steadfast opponents of ideologies that threaten U.S. democracy, having known what it was like to serve in Europe alongside troops who did not necessarily understand exactly what they were fighting for.”]

It’s absolutely amazing that aspirational ideals expressed by Roosevelt would be considered offensive and even racist in many quarters today. I think it demonstrates how little we are willing to constructively advocate for our own interests, and how we continue to cede ground to the hard left.

Thanks for the post and the links 👍

Go Teddy, pity there aren't more of them in the world today.


As long as political parties pander to certain immigrant groups, there won't be unity. We stopped being a melting pot the minute politicians learned they could use divisiveness to gain votes.


As diversity increases, American society will grow more rancorous.

sqeptiq Level 9 Feb 18, 2021

Diversity simply increases division.


I'm skeptical that there will ever be a unifying culture in the US. The culture wars are just heating up...

Multiculti simply allows others to invade the country with their own culture and national values, not adopt integrate or assimilate.


Multi-cultural societies only work when one very simple rule is followed!!!
"Nothing is free, you don't work you don't eat"
When and where that is applied, anyone can come in and you have true equality!!!
Oh ya, added ONE language!!!
This country was built by emigrants and it worked, until we broke those basic rules!!!!

Serg97 Level 8 Feb 19, 2021

If we keep along the same track as we are right now, which I don't see changing that drastically to have a unified culture in 20 years time, then no, I don't see that happening.

Plus, traditionally western cultures have gotten a pretty bad reputation by many. Many European cultures are looked at as something to abolish rather than assimilate into. Add that to the concept that other cultures shouldn't be "appropriated", and it's not even a matter of not being exposed to immigrants, it's a matter of self imposed segregation by many immigrants as well as current citizens. The "salad" has been promoted more than the "melting pot".

As far as this being good or bad, I'm really not sure. Personally, I'd like the idea of both preserving cultures, (all cultures), as well as mixing things up. I see inclusivity differently than some definitions that I've seen online. I think opening up to the idea that people can wear their hair however they wish, create art or food outside their own cultural background, and other such forms of what's deemed "cultural appropriation", could be positive, and that could potentially help bridge cultural divides.

However, not everyone sees it that way, and I feel moving in that direction can't be forced. It's an interesting thought that maybe 100 or so years from now, if something along those lines is a possibility.

Well, 340 million people is a lot to share a common culture. Maybe the best solution is partition into multiple successor states: some of those states would be monocultural, and some would not be. Depending on how they evolved, people could gradually migrate to which state was more amenable to their personal liking. A side benefit: those who don't want to participate in wars against foreign countries could move to one of the more peaceful, non-interventionist states; those who want to fight everywhere all the time could move into one of the more warlike states. 🙂🙂

@dan6 Part of deciding to come here, one would think, is adopting the countries qualities that drew them here not trying to make it like the country they found it wise to leave.

@Genghis Well, the hope is we can discuss what we need on platforms like slug, make some plans, and then create it together. If Texas can find a way to break away, then it opens a lot of doors; just being in a society of 29 M instead of 340 M is a quantitative difference big enough to be a qualitative difference. It is much harder to imagine ramming through an immigration policy that nobody supports in an actual nation-state the size of Texas than in an empire-state that stretches across a continent. Hope so, anyway! 🙂🙂

@Genghis You raise a lot of points, all of which should be addressed. But they're all big, so i think that means they all need separate discussions. However, there was a helpful article on who gets the nukes posted recently at the Shepherd of the Hills Gazette:


If you get a chance, please check it out. (So: i'm not addressing China, the Swiss, etc, but one step at a time 🙂🙂🙂.)


Immigrants to the US from previous generations integrated for two reasons:

    1. Desire to integrate (by virtue of racial and cultural similarity)
    1. They were forced to (by virtue of immigration quotas designed to maintain the racial composition of the nation, at that time - see Immigration Act of 1924 and National Origins Formula
  1. Immigrants to the US prior to 1860 were largely from the same areas of Europe and broadly shared the same cultural and religious beliefs. In this sense, integration was easy. All one had to do was learn the language. After that was accomplished, it was hard to tell who was an Englishman, a Scot, a German, or Norwegian. Any differences they brought with them from the Old World were largely minor annoyances more than anything else. Irish immigration stiffened those gears a bit by introducing a predominately Catholic population, but they were still Christians with a shared history, so there was friction, but it was manageable.

  2. Asian immigration during the Gold Rush threw a huge monkey wrench into this paradigm. They not only spoke a different language, but they had vastly different cultural and religious beliefs. Worse yet, they out-competed the native Whites! Say what you will about the Chinese Exclusion Act, but it forced Asians to assimilate by restricting immigration from the old country. Likewise, when Southern and Eastern Europeans began immigrating en mass, immigration restrictions forced them to assimilate. The alternative would have been massive numbers of foreign-born people, living within US borders, who had no desire or necessity to assimilate. As we've seen, these populations have assimilated quite well under the conditions imposed.

Fast forward to post-Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 America. Massive numbers of immigrants from vastly different cultures and religions are not only encouraged to settle in the US, but to maintain their native belief systems (within reason). There's no longer any need to assimilate, nor even encouragement to do so. "Diversity is our strength" is the new maxim. In fact, it is even discouraged to encourage assimilation. It's considered racist. You're a "Nazi" if you think immigration should be restricted or that immigrants should assimilate.

Well, if that's the case, then perhaps the Nazis had it right, because a nation (by definition, "a stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or a common culture" ) that does not promote unity and coherent ideology cannot exist. It is impossible. It violates the very denotative meaning of the word.


According to history, multi-culturalism happens in the death throes of empire. It is synonymous with the degradation of the host nation's moral value system. This happened in Han China at the end of that dynasty around 200 A.D. as culturally non-Han people migrated into the heart of the empire and set up spaces in the large cities for themselves and remained as isolated from the Han as they could get away with.

It happened in ancient Greece, when the Greeks expanded beyond their peninsula, it happened in Egypt as the royal family became more and more inbred and ineffectual, more cultural minorities moved in, of course it happened in Rome, both east and west, though it was much more profound in the Western Roman Empire (the Byzantines were destroyed more by invasion from Catholics and Muslims from the west and east, respectively, not to mention the simple fact that a thousand year old system was so far out of date it eroded Constantinople down to one city full of bureaucrats who no longer had a function [when the territory was taken away] other than to collect a fat paycheck).

The Mongolian Empire is probably the best example of an empire built entirely on multi-culturalism, and it lasted until Ghengis died before splintering into half a dozen other empires. Kublai Khan's China empire, the Yuan Dynasty, was especially hated by the Chinese, who took every opportunity to bring it down, despite Khan's brutality. In many ways, the Golden Horde and the Tamerlane dynasties adopted the culture of where they ruled, rather than exist as multi-cultural.

Anyway, multi-culturalism in history has often meant: decadence, rot and ruin. We are seeing that now.

Very good historical background which I did not know. We certainly see the same thing happening, and...we can't do anything. Thank you.


Globalism and Nationalism are fundamentally at odds regarding the preservation of unique cultures. Whenever multiple cultures are lumped together, they inevitably lose their specific identities in order to assimilate with the collective culture. Apartheid isn't necessarily racist; it can be viewed as a means of respecting the individual values and social behaviors of each nation.

Satch Level 6 Mar 2, 2021

I think we need to delineate between cultural differences, racial differences and ethnic differences.

Western culture as practiced in the US, when boiled down, is:

  • All men are created equal and have unalienable rights (Natural Law, Human Rights and Liberalism)
  • Truth exists and is discoverable (Scientific process)
  • In morality, there exists right and wrong

My race is Caucasian (white) and I get easily sun burned.

As for ethnicity, my heritage is Scottish. I own a kilt, enjoy watching Scottish games and have eaten haggis (and liked it).

Of the 3, my culture is the most important and is the only one I get to choose.

Is a multi-cultural society a good thing? No. The tenets of western culture are requirements for membership into American society. Without them, we have no society.

The tenets of western culture are requirements for membership into American society

In fact, as you've defined them, they are not.

The first tenet I agree as it is enshrined in the constitution and we promise to abide by the constitution when we become residents

Your second tenet re: truth and the scientific process is absolutely not required in the USA. I can believe any lie I want or any unscientific "truth" I want and be a member of American Society.

Your third tenet is also not required. I do not have to accept your, a, or any "right or wrong" morality. What I do have to do is accept the rule of law which is related to, but not always, morality.

Further in support of multi-culturalism, even if we accept that all americans have to embrace your three tenets of Western Culture, that doesn't mean they can't embrace other cultures.
How we speak, what jargon we use, our customs around each other, our shared history... all of these form a part of our culture and all of these are more multi-variate than merely one monolithic "western culture". Black people in urban areas have a different culture than black people in rural areas... people that like country music have a different culture than people that like death metal... steelers fans vs. bengals fans... people that went to a high school in texas vs. people that went to a high school in vermont, etc... all will have different cultures even if they all also embrace Western Culture as you've defined it.

@TheMiddleWay "I can believe any lie I want or any unscientific "truth" I want and be a member of American Society." -yes, lies abound and we all believe them to some extent or another, but does society exist between people when "facts" are wholly dependent on perspective and evidence is no longer persuasive or even desirable?

"I do not have to accept your, a, or any "right or wrong" morality." Pre Civil war, the American society was starkly divided between the slaveholders and their apologists, the indifferent and the abolitionists. The right or wrong morality about slavery cut this country in two. Today, there is a growing movement to promote racism against white people. The question whether racism is right or wrong is currently cutting this country in two.

Urban/rural, country/rock music - these are traits of subcultures that exist under western culture (or other). Multi-cultural, would be two cultures that are at odds with each other. Examples - US vs Indian caste system or US vs Muslim unreformed shariah law.


but does society exist between people when "facts" are wholly dependent on perspective and evidence is no longer persuasive or even desirable?

The scientific method is only roughly 400 years old. Society existed before so I'd say "yes" society exists and as a scientists "yes" that it is desirable.
However, given the 1A freedom of speech and religion, our desires are wholly irrelevant since 1A allows us to speak truths and lies, scientific or otherwise, in this society with no government interference.

The question whether racism is right or wrong is currently cutting this country in two.

I don't disagree. But consider the CRT view that racism against whites is right because they have might but racism against blacks is wrong because they do not. People that believe in CRT, despite you and I disagreeing with it, are still part of our society and rightfully so... for it is by speaking and promoting ideas that we disagree with that gives us opportunity to study and understand why it is that we disagree with those ideas.

Urban/rural, country/rock music - these are traits of subcultures that exist under western culture (or other).

They exist under Eastern Culture as well; hence they are not subcultures of Western Culture but cultures in their own right.

Multi-cultural, would be two cultures that are at odds with each other.

The view that multi-culturalism must reflect cultures "at odds" doesn't track with common usage.:

the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society.
Oxford Dictionary

cultural pluralism or diversity (as within a society, an organization, or an educational institution)

The idea of multiculturalism in contemporary political discourse and in political philosophy reflects a debate about how to understand and respond to the challenges associated with cultural diversity based on ethnic, national, and religious differences.

"Multiculturalism" is the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviours, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles.

@TheMiddleWay - alright, so American culture revolves around "all men are created equal", freedom of speech, and the right to talk to God without government interference (freedom of religion). We seem to have some agreement on that. Your argument and the "Flat Earth society" is putting a damper on my view regarding the role of science and US society. I was going to pretend that they were excluded from society but that violates the first tenet.

"for it is by speaking and promoting ideas that we disagree with that gives us opportunity to study and understand why it is that we disagree with those ideas." Yes and no. This makes me think of Lavoisier. At some point I no longer care to belong with a group who wants me dead, a la Hutus and Tutsis. They are no longer part of society at large. If its limited to conversations, great. I will learn. But I will not remain sanguine while they sharpen the Guillotine.

Common usage of the term multi-culturalism is two-faced. The image presented and what is written is typified by United Colors of Benetton ads (people of every race smiling together - a good thing). However, the multi-cultural policies pursued by governments leave open, and, in some cases, defend, child rape ( [] ), women trafficking, illegal immigration, etc... Bad things (oh those moral judgements).

If we want to agree on the use of the term multi-culturalism as something to be promoted, then we must identify what type of cultures must be excluded. The rules for deciding what cultures are to be excluded must come from, lets call it a super culture then (aka common American culture).

I'm not, nor ever would, argue that EVERY culture must be accepted.
Clearly a culture that wants to violently eliminate another culture is not acceptable. This is why while we accept KKK and anti-semitic speech and culture as protected, violent actions as a result of that speech and culture are not.

And while I agree that there is a super culture as you state... a national identity... the very nature of America is that that identity is not fixed. Even the constitution has provisions for amendments and change. This lead to a change in American culture such that where only white men could wield any form of political power in the past, now black women now have substantial political power.

As such, I feel that multiple cultures coexisting peacefully in agreement or disagreement... multi-culturalism... is of benefit to the USA for it is only by "stirring" the melting pot, adding new ingredients in and taking some out, that we get the best stew.

@TheMiddleWay - I think we've got a pretty awesome stew, but I'm all for better.


Do I anticipate a unfying culture by 2040?
Look around you!
Even multi-generational citizens of this country aren't unified by a single culture... urban vs. rural vs. nomad... black vs. white vs. latino... republican vs. democrat vs. green... progressive vs. conservative vs. centrist... country vs. rock vs. rap

Our culture is divided IN-SPITE of any immigrants, not BECAUSE of us.


Recent immigrants also tend to identify more with their home-country's culture

As an immigrant I identified strongly with my home-country's culture when I first got here and then the longer I stayed here, the more I identified with my adopted countries culture.
So it's logical that recent immigrants would identify more with their home-country's culture... it's the only culture we know.
But it's by our continued presence that we embrace our adopted countries culture AND contribute our home-countries culture to the melting pot, adding to it and enriching it.

That's a good point.

One of the problems we have is that people leave some country they can't stand, and arrive here, and then want us to go to war against their old country. That happens with a lot of Russian immigrants, the family of Max Boot being a particular example.

If you don't love your old country, how can you possibly love your new one?

Paradoxically, that's an argument against admitting refugees, or letting refugees stay here long term. I know that there's a humanitarian reason for taking in refugees, but if the refugees have an ax to grind, you're importing a future war. Again, i'm thinking of Max Boot, and the scads of anti-Russians we have.

Somehow, when you take in refugees you have to be sure that (a) they are not just seeking economic advantage and 🍺 they do not have old scores to settle. And i do not know how to approach that problem.


Study history more. Multiculturalism is the basis only for empires and all empires end badly... Achaemenid Empire, Seleucid Empire, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire.

You can recall Alexander the Great, who defeated Darius, but the collapse of the Inca Empire is the most striking example in the history:
Francisco Pissaro, with a detachment of 168 desperados, defeated the many times superior army of the Inkas, whose population ranged from 5 to 10 million people. The reasons for this were not at all technological superiority; Ethiopia successfully fought with Italians in the 20th century.
The reasons are the internal weakness of the empire, whose population was not at all going to die for the good of the empire.

El_Uro Level 5 Feb 20, 2021

Good start would be following the constitution.

wolfhnd Level 8 Feb 20, 2021

Our elites are working at cross purposes which will make a unifying culture impossible. On the one hand they want us all to become nihilists. On the other hand they have developed and imposed upon us at gunpoint their arbitrary morality which says that "racism" is the most horrible thing in the world. They can't have it both ways.


Multi-Cultural society is great... As long as it's not forced!

LukeGP Level 7 Mar 13, 2021

Multi culturalism was a false flag operation, it seemed like a nice theory about compassion and tolerance but in reality it was the first step in the destruction of western society. Immigration has always been a critical part of the development of North America, we took people from vastly different societies and invited them to participate, but acceptance came with expectations of assimilation, yes the greater culture was strengthened and we end up with a greater choice of menus and interesting cultural dances etc. Culture is not an immovable monolith, it grows and changes and accepts things from elsewhere that make it better and stronger. In essences great societies have been able to assimilate religions and ethnicities and our culture did so very successfully until recently, and was actually a multi racial single culture. That does not mean each ethnic group can retain its culture, it is just recognized that the overarching culture is dominant and everyone must participate and assimilate.


Nope because being part of our society means you have to be divided. Just look at all the divides now. This is what they are assimilating to

Kheare Level 7 Feb 21, 2021

I hope not. If the U.S. becomes one unified culture, it will likely be under totalitarianism, either Islam or Communism.

Good point.

We live in a world in which words change their meaning to the opposite. For example, SJW "diversity" is a classical example of the forced unification. Antifa is Sturmabteilung today.

In this world, I am proud to stand for my "unified culture".


To: whatever ethnic groups/diasporas in/of/from whatever summer/winter countries

Consider yourselves luckier [your own rarer native ethnic heritage language] is/are not yet a global lingua franca.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 130

Photos 19 More

Posted by Charter Does a country's wealth come from its energy use?

Posted by Charter Why does the worldwide IQ distribution appear to match racial IQ differences seen in multi-racial countries?

Posted by Charter Why do children raised in same-sex households appear to have worse life outcomes?

Posted by Charter Is it fair that actresses are younger and have shorter careers than actors?

Posted by Charter Why are asylum seekers in EU overwhelmingly (military-aged) men? If asylum seekers were fleeing for persecution reasons, does it make sense that most are young men? Source: []

Posted by Charter Why do young women consider unwanted comments about their appearance as sexual harassment compared to older women?

Posted by Charter Are women aware of the risks of postponing having children?

Posted by Charter Is this proof that income inequality doesn't appear to be cause of white-black SAT/IQ gap?

Posted by Charter Is a multi-cultural society a good thing?

Posted by Charter Why hasn't anti-Muslim sentiment gone down after the spike due to 9/11? Source: FBI Crime Statistics []

Posted by Charter Why does the average IQ of a country appears to decrease as religiosity increases?

Posted by Charter Northern states tend to have more "social capital". How's yours?

Posted by Charter Most federal revenue comes from income and payroll tax. Is that optimal? Soure: []

Posted by Charter On a percentage basis, it is much more likely to be killed by a Muslim "terrorist" in the US than a Right-Wing "extremist". Does it feel that way?

Posted by Charter Why do Blacks have a much higher risk of being murdered by other Blacks than they do from Whites? Post suggested by @AdrianRainbow

Posted by Charter What can be implied from the fact that African-American homicide rate mirrors African nations while European-American homicide rate is comparable to European nations? Post suggested by @ZuzecaSape

  • Top tags#children #USA #world #vote #desperate #culture #immigrants #muslims #god #video #wealth #racism #Canada #gender #truth #Harassment #TheTruth #college #marriage #IncomeInequality #inequality #Asian #policy #population #immigration #crimes #crime #philosophy #religiosity #intelligence #bowling #Mexico #Socialcapital #government #taxes #terrorists #RightWing #friends #mother #wife #justice #Christian #faith #kids #fear #whites #JordanPeterson #federal #WhiteSupremacy #humanity ...

    Members 48,233Top