Russian warship Moskva has sunk - defence ministry

Lugger · 2022-04-15T21:56:58+00:00

How is Ukraine doing this?

Oh, never underestimate the Russian incompetence.

By now it is pretty clear that the Russian military is a piss-poor 3rd world-tier fighting force which is incapable of winning wars against even somewhat decently capable armies.

Even if the flagship was sunk due to internal fire and not the missile attack, it speaks even greater volume of how ridiculously incompetent the Russians are.

Imagine losing one of the largest and most powerful vessels available to your navy just because some retard sailor decided to have a smoke.

What a fuggin' joke would that military be.

The Russians turned out to be even more incompetent than I predicted. Everything about their military is shit. Everything. From top to bottom.

Their doctrine is shit.

Their training is shit.

Their leadership is shit.

Their weaponry is shit.

Their logistics is shit.

et cetera, et cetera...

Oh, and, by the way, that flagship wasn't some useless piece of old metal as some people here are saying.

Just a year ago it underwent a major and very, very costly upgrade to be fitted with the most advanced Russian tech and shiet.

...only to be flushed down the toilet yesterday.

Seriously. Come on, man, why are you even being surprised about stuff like this at this point?

The Russians have had ample of time to prove that no act of incompetence, no poor decision is beyond the reach of their laughable paper tiger military, and something tells me that the most ridiculous ones are yet to come :)

I'm one of those people who have been saying all along that the Russian military sucks based on their shitty combat perfomance in Syria and 2014-2015 Ukraine, but now I can say more accurately of how they compate to NATO militaries:

Decent ones like Poland, UK, France and Turkey would make minced meat of the Russians, thought it would take some time, but speaking of the U.S...

Well, it's safe to claim that the Americans would absolutely annihilate the Russians just as easily as they crushed the Iraqis (who were trained and equipped along the Soviet lines btw).

Lugger · 2021-12-12T08:46:46+00:00

He posts about evil bloodthirsty nazis

Exactly, mate.

Because they fuggin' were.

And that's putting it lightly.

How else would you call people who start bloody unwinnable wars for the sake of Germany's domination over Europe that get dozens of millions of Europeans — many (most?) of them young men — slaughtered and Europe burned to the ground?

Lugger · 2021-12-12T08:03:23+00:00

Tell me, pal, do you really think a country has a right to annex a land just because their ancestors took a dump there?

Do u believe it would be right for Germany to annex Elsass-Lothringen?

Or for Mexico to annex Texas?

Even if at some point in history the Crimea belonged to Russia, it no longer did after the communist regime had fallen.

The Russians recognized Ukraine's borders and had never prior to 2014 made any claims to the Crimea.

They just rolled in and annexed the land when they saw an opportunity.

sponsored by Jews

Please.

democratically elected President of the Ukraine.

lmao I can't believe it, an alt-righter emphathizes how 'democratically elected' the Ukrainian President was.

Don't you believe that the current equally 'democratically elected' governments across the West are acting against whites' interests and, since the electoral solution is impossible, it would be a good thing if Europeans overthrew them and established pro-white/nationalist regimes?

So what problem do you have with the Ukrainian putsch?

I don't remember for sure what beef did they have with their President (apart from him being Putin's puppet) and, frankly, I don't give a damn, but anyway, they deserve a praise for being such Chads as to rise up against what they considered an unworthy ruler.

Lugger · 2021-12-12T07:19:46+00:00

Agree with the message of the article, but not for the reasons mentioned.

The Russian-Ukrainian war is a local squabble and none of the West's business.

I sympathize with the Ukrainians holding out against the imperialist Russian aggressors, but not in a million years should the Western (or more specifically American) soldiers be sent to fight to help save some Slavs from other Slavs in a country they wouldn't be able to find on a map.

Not a single dead U.S. soldier or even an expensive missile fired is worth whatever these Slavs are trying to settle between themselves.

Moscow’s interests in Ukraine are effectively existential. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia’s leaders came to believe that the eastward expansion of NATO posed a serious security threat to the Russian state.

And so, when it seemed as if that warning would not be heeded and Ukraine might enter into an Association Agreement with the EU, Russia struck out, first invading Crimea in 2014 then intervening in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.

Moscow’s goal both times was nothing more or less than preventing Ukraine from falling further into the Western orbit or, failing that, to carve out a buffer zone along Russia’s western frontier.

Ukraine is a sovereign state and has (or at least should have) freedom to do as it sees fit.

Ukrainian people, just like Russian people, are both Eastern Slavs as well.

And what did Russia do to their fellow Slavs when they took a political turn the Russians didn't like?

They simply invaded their country and grabbed a portion of their land.

How very noble of the Russians.

As the author notes anyway, a full-blown war between the West and them is impossible just because these guys have nuclear missiles.

So incorporating Ukraine into NATO would pose little security threat to Russia because any attempt to invade it would result in nuclear holocaust.

And this is a risk no Western country would ever take.

That leaves the military costs.

The Russian military is a well-equipped, experienced combat force with a proven ability to fight conventional and hybrid wars. No one doubts that, at a minimum, it could inflict substantial casualties on the U.S military should it enter the conflict. It might even emerge victorious.

The only thing that 'no one doubts' is that the idiot who wrote this piece of horseshit has no clue of the combat capabilities of Russian and American militaries.

The U.S. military is the most effective fighting force in the world.

Its level of personnel training, technology, leadership and experience in fighting both conventional and counter-insurgency wars is unmatched by any other power out there.

The Americans are simply on an entirely different level compared to the rest of the world as far as military is concerned.

Russians, on the other hand, field shitty poorly-trained conscripts, drunk incompetent officers and much of their miltiary hardware is comprised of Soviet-era rusty shit like T-72 tanks and Mi-24 helicopters.

Think I'm exaggerating and underestimating the Russians?

Take a look at their military perfomance in the 2014 Russian-Ukrainian war, the very one this article is discussing.

The Russians suffered extremely heavy casualties, lost hundreds of troops and dozens of tanks in a span of a few days, and were forced to retreat with a tail between their legs, failing to achieve their goal of driving off the Ukrainian troops from the Eastern regions of the country.

Keep in mind that the Ukrainian army they were fighting was easily one of the weakest and poorly-funded militaries in Europe, and the Russians still took such heavy blows from them.

As I have noted above, a conventional war with Russia is impossible, but if it somehow, hypothetically, happened, the U.S. military would trounce them like worms.

Lugger · 2021-12-09T08:25:43+00:00

An example of the Thuycidies trap would be WW1 where Germany wanted to fight Russia as it feared that Russia would surpass her due to its greater land, resources, and manpower.

This is simply not true.

Yes, the Germans indeed desired WW1 more than any other nation, but it was never about Russia.

It was about France and the UK.

Germany felt it had been left out of the colonial race as the unified country came to existence after the world had already been divied up by these two powers.

Germans wanted a large colonial empire similar to the ones these guys had and the only way to achieve this goal was to go to war with them.

There was simply no other free land available to colonize.

And then there's Imperial Russia.

In the 20th century it was an agricultural backwater shithole with ~~practically nonexistent~~ a weak industry and illiterate peasant population.

Russia was no match for strong European countries and could hardly be called a 'great power'; its military perfomance in WW1 was a total embarassment; hell, just 10 years prior to WW1 they were defeated by the Japs for God's sake — the Japs, who had just crawled out of the stone age. facepalm

Russia posed no immediate threat to Germany and even if it had great potential, it would take dozens of years before they could harness it — and even that was not a given considering how bad their Imperial regime was.

Even though the Bolsheviks a few years later would go on to greatly improve Russian economy, including the industry, in a rather short timespan, and make it second only to the U.S., the most important thing to keep in mind is that the Czarist regime was very weak, corrupt and extremely ineffective compared to the Communist one, so it's not a good idea to use the impressive Soviet-era Russian economic growth as an example of how fast this country could ascend pre-WW1.

While simultaneously, Britain wanted to fight Germany due to its expanding naval and industrial power.

Right.

WW2 saw this principle once more. Germany was rising in Europe while Britain had stagnated. Britain thus went to war with Germany to prevent her from eclipsing it.

That is a complete nonsense lol.

It was Germany who went to war with Britain, not the other way around.

Germany invaded Poland, which openly had a pact with the Brits that obliged them to intervene in the case of German aggression.

Essentially this non-secret pact meant that invading Poland was tantamount to declaring a war on Britain, and the Moustache Wearing Retard proceeded with his imperialist ambitions nonetheless.

And before you say something like:

'B-but Poland was none of Britain's business!! If the Brits didn't want to fight, they could screwed the pact and stayed out of the conflict! See, the fact they so eagerly went to war with Germany over this piece of paper proves they were the ones who wanted it!'

Consider that ever since Hitler came to power, all the Brits (along with the French) did was appeasing the Germans and trying to avoid another bloody war.

They allowed Hitler to rebuild the military (in direct violation of the treaty of Versailles) and secure areas like Ruhr. They were okay with the rising Germany as long as it didn't mean a new war.

Just a year before the invasion of Poland, the Brits served Hitler the Czech republic on a goddamn silver platter — for the single reason they thought it would satisfy his appetite and prevent an armed conflict.

But the bloodlusty Nazi scum would shortly afterwards go on another rampage nonetheless like the murderous lunatics they were.

Really shows who actually 'went to war' with whom.

Lugger · 2021-12-08T15:46:25+00:00

Discussing paranoid Jewish conspiracy theories on this sub is akin to trying to challenge trans rights on sites like HuffPo — an utter waste of time.

So I'll refrain from commenting on the 'Jewish power' part of your reply.

But speaking of conservatives, yeah, agree that they're as bad as the liberals.

Conservatives, both in Europe and in the U.S., are the most impotent, ineffective and worthless political force in the history of mankind.

They have conserved nothing and got defeated by the liberal juggernaut on every single issue the left brought up. No exceptions.

The conservative playbook in a nutshell is to oppose some radical liberal agenda yesterday, agree with it today, and claim that it 'was always a conservative value' tomorrow.

If the West is to survive, it needs an entirely new, vigorous reactionary movement which will refuse to play by the left's rules and actively try to reverse what they have already implemented.

Lugger · 2021-12-08T09:01:02+00:00

The Death of White America at the hands of Blacks

The way sites like VDare or AmRen focus on absolutely useless, irrelevant issues such as black criminality and 'muh IQ' is ridiculous.

All they ever do is stir up hatred against the PoC without addressing the core concern — that is, why these brown and black people are allowed to ruin America and Europe with impunity.

Very rarely, if ever, these 'white advocates' as they prefer to call themselves mention or write articles on the real cause of the decline of the West, which the PoC presence is but a symptom of:

white liberals.

To give you a better perspective, imagine a hypothetical situation:

In a sane, 'normal' country, fanatical animal rights activists rise to power.

They believe that even the most violent of animals can peacefully live and co-exist with humans in close proximity, so they import millions of hyenas and release them on the streets all across the country.

Loose hyenas attack the people, maiming and killing them; towns and villages which once used to be safe & prosperous are now in decay due to the presence of feral hyenas who terrorize the citizens, while the government assures the people that these problems are 'grossly exaggerated', the hyenas are the country's 'greatest strength' and they belong there as much as any human citizen.

People who speak out against this madness are smeared as 'speciests' and prosecuted for hate speech.

Is it wise to blame hyeans for merely acting in accordance with their nature?

Of course not.

The problem is, and ever was, animal rights fanatics who control the government and the media.

Once you replace them with sensible people as it used to be during the country's entire history, the hyena problem will be solved within months by rounding up and deporting them back to their natural habitat.

Lugger · 2021-12-06T05:26:26+00:00

I don't think the OP really meant that he's fine with WMAF race mixing, but yeah, generally speaking, you are correct.

It's astounding how many 'white nationalist' hypocrites are out there who lose their shit at the sight of white w*men going out with black men, and at the same time think it's no big deal if white men date/marry/plough Asian and Latinx wimmin.

Once I was scrolling through the comment section at AmRen and noticed a guy saying how disgusted he is by 'race traitor' white foids who have black boyfriends.

...fast forward a few weeks, and the very same user commented — and was heavily upvoted — that he would pick an Asian whaman over a white one if given the choice because 'Asian wimmin are more ladylike and feminine' or some crap like that.

No wonder people tend not to take the WN movement seriously as many of its members display such levels of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.

Lugger · 2021-12-06T03:15:19+00:00

You couldn't miss the point of my comment more even if you tried lol.

What I wanted to convey is that the OP's theory that white RWers don't engage in political activism against the current regimes across the West due to 'low T' is BS as their (white) lefty counterparts show extremely high levels of determination in destroying their opponests, rioting & beating the shit out of them included.

The rest of your post is incoherent schizoid gibberish about 'da Jooz' and is unworthy of response.

Lugger · 2021-12-05T19:28:59+00:00

Muh testosterone, muh violent instincts.

Please.

What u said about Westerners not having the balls to stand and fight applies only to rightwingers though. The lefty Europeans and white Americans are as vigorous as they ever were and willing to go to great lengths to crush their 'racist' opponents by any means necessary — I mean, if the white leftists manage to get shit done using media/courts/Antifa soldiers/etc thus proving that they have balls as hard as their ancestors', the rightoids got only themselves to blame for being dumb enough to cede control of vital institutions and being too comfortable with their lives and careers to fight for their cause.

Just to address a few of your points:

You can see this in historical societies. Even in high trust European societies, there used to be a lot of duels, blood feuds, political violence, assassinations, riots, and street fighting. Men with T levels would simply go out and do something if they felt oppressed or wronged.

Absolutely, pal. When lefty Chads — and the vast majority of Westerners are left-leaning on the 'woke' topics — feel that they or their PoC friends are oppressed, they joyfully engage in political violence and riots along with their allies. You haven't forgotten about the hot summer of St. George of Minneapolis, have you? Lefty white bulls comprised a very significant share of the rioters; in fact, in many cities the rioters were majority white.

And mind you, the battles back then would lead to 100,000 casualties in the space of a month. In contrast, countries today are scared shitless of losing a thousand men in one month.

Yeah, how dare the modern Westerners care about their soldiers dying in thousands in the peaceful times, especially now that the militaries are much smaller and more professional than they used to be.

As we saw in Belarus, China, Myanmar, Venezuela, and many other countries, it's increasingly becoming impossible to topple a government.

Maybe it's beacuse the vast majority of population of those countries are more or less okay with their governments?

You're forgetting that in Europe, as recently as 2014, the Ukrainians managed to overthrow the Russia-backed government — this is what happens when people are genuinely dissatisfied with their elites.

A secondary reason for the cowardly male phenomenon IMO is feminized liberal culture. In the modern materialistic liberal culture, violence is seen as the ultimate evil. It is evil incarnate and is never justified. Peace is seen as an unconditional good that is to be attained at any price.

Funny, I thought that those 'nasty liberals' believe violence is justified if it advances their causes, e.g. widespread media support for 2020 racial justice riots.

Lugger · 2021-11-22T22:20:27+00:00

So in theory there is nothing else stopping them from lasting forever except for all the things that do stop them?

Way to miss the point.

A 'monoethnic society' in a vacuum doesn't have any inherent factors that will undoubtedly lead to its collapse.

The same thing cannot be said about SA-type ones.

...else we would not have examples of such societies lasting centuries.

I gave you an example of the opposite, which lasted centuries and clearly contradicts your claim.

You gave me an example of an empire, which, as I have stated above, cannot be compared to 'regular' countries like SA.

But yeah, if the land now known as the SA had remained a part of the British Empire, and the Empire still existed, it would indeed have had a chance at lasting as long the Empire itself would, as it would have had its vast military and resources to back up the regime.

Now you are talking about issues of resentment, but I fail to see how this advances your argument, because again, South Africa fell because of outside interference, not domestic factors.

Well, as you have written yourself:

You asserted that it would have collapsed anyway because a racial minority cannot sustain its ruling class status.

Honestly, this discussion reminds me of whether or not the Confederacy, had it won the war, would have been able to keep the slavery forever.

Supporters of the CSA apparently believe that the country would have no problem keeping the blax enslaved, as to argue otherwise would mean that, since the deportation was out of the question due to how large the share of the black population was, the Confederacy would 'eventually' have to free the slaves and let them loose in their cities like the hated Yankees did — and this is something the Confederatards would never concede in a lifetime.

Doesn't the theoretical scenario with the victorious CSA remind you of anything?

What I'm arguing is that the SA's situation, as far as demographics are concerned, was waaaaaaaaaay worse that that of the Confederacy, and the country was doomed from the start due to this single factor.

And yeah, looking at the state of the world in the 1990s, the SA would not have lasted 30-40 years more anyway even without outside pressure, because all, literally all the Empires had already fallen and colonies had been freed of the occupiers, so it was only a question of time before the anti-colonial sentiment reached the very colonial-like society of SA.

Agree that the country could have lasted much longer had the colonialism continued to exist though.

Lugger · 2021-11-22T13:59:46+00:00

That's a truism, it is not a meaningful observation. That's my point.

And my point is that 'normal' societies rise and fall, but, in theory, there's nothing stopping them from lasting forever whereas SA-tier type ones are guaranteed to break down just because of that single factor we're discussing.

So, for example, the Ottoman Empire lasted roughly 600 years, probably a bit more. It "eventually" collapsed, but I do not think that it experienced any particular longevity issues when compared with monoethnic states.

I don't think Empires can be compared to countries like SA. They are fundamentally different entities.

Empires, naturally, are all about expanding, conquering other people, exploting them and sucking their resources dry for the good of the capital while enforing this order at gunpoint.

Oh, and don't forget that empires, barring a few very rare cases, tended not to settle the conquered territories with large amounts of the founding ethnic group, leaving 'just' a military garrison and occupational government instead.

Case in point: British-ruled India.

Even if Ramajar was a second-class citizen in the greater British Empire, in his homeland there were little British people to interact with, so he didn't have as many reasons for resentment as blax in South Africa who shared the country/land with their white 'masters'.

Lugger · 2021-11-22T09:16:26+00:00

However it's important to note that "eventually" is not a very useful category to work with. According to this same logic, all monoethnic societies "eventually" collapse. It's technically true, but it's not a very useful observation.

I'll put it another way.

A 'monoethnic society', depending on various factorts, may or may not 'eventually' collapse.

An order based on having a small racial minority rule over a majority of people of other race(s) is 100% bound to crumble due to the very rotten nature of such a foundation, which is, as I have said, unsustainable.

Lugger · 2021-11-22T02:35:10+00:00

I do not see how your claims can be reconciled with history. To give you just one example among many, the Islamic caliphates in Spain lasted centuries even though Muslims formed a small minority.

Sure thing man. History has a shitton of examples of a small ethnic/racial minority ruling over a massive number of foreign people.

What they all have in common is that eventually the people boot the foreign overlords out, either by military means, or by taking advantage of the political turmoil in the capital.

Secondly, the living conditions of Haitian slaves were, to my knowledge, utterly atrocious and entirely different from those of South Africa.

Yeah, and white SAs didn't face the same fate as white Haitians either.

Lugger · 2021-11-22T02:00:41+00:00

As if it makes any difference.

They allowed themselves to be overrun by blacks and kept them as second class citizens for generations.

Pretty much the definition of retarted European colonialists if I've ever seen one.

Textbook example I'd say.

South Africans beat even Americans in the Moronic Colonialist Contest — as stupid as they were for importing black slaves and allowing the conquered Amerindians to live in their country, at least 'Mericans had the sense to keep other races' population relatively small (it's kinda amusing that black population in the U.S. peaked at 20% — just like whites' in the SA).

Now the SAs reap what they sowed.

Lugger · 2021-11-22T01:47:04+00:00

Yeah, they could have still held out back in 1990s perhaps.

My point is, the regime itself was unsustainable and would have crumbled sooner or later just because it's very foundation was rotten and antithetical to what makes a successfull country.

Lugger · 2021-11-22T01:39:35+00:00

Because sooner or later they'd have to deal with the black problem, either by ending discrimination like they did or by deporting them.

And the latter would be ~~near~~ impossible to achieve due to the vast majority of the country being black.

The South Africa was doomed from the start; how many more years do you think the old regime would have lasted without the pressure from Western Countries? 30, 40 years?

Yeah, a minority may rule over a majority if that group that wields vast power, but this scenario is impossible to sustain when the privileged minority belongs to a different racial group.

Remember Haiti? Black folk just risen up and massacred their white masters. This would have been the fate of South Africa had the Apartheid not ended; frankly, there's still a possibility of it happening today, but white SAs got only themselves to blame.

Lugger · 2021-11-22T00:55:57+00:00

Of course.

And yet, it's hard to call a country 'white' when white people were always such a small fragment of the population.

'White-controlled' or 'white-dominated' — sure, but not 'white'.

And white South Africans were unbelievably dumb for thinking they could keep it that way.

Lugger · 2021-11-21T23:51:11+00:00

South Africa is without a doubt a lost cause

South Africa was never a 'white country' though.

I believe, at its peak, the SA's white population was only 20% or something?

Did they really think the society and order they'd created was sustainable when blax made up such a large share of the country's population throughout the entire history?

The way I see it, white SAs pay the price for being such complete & utter morons: imagine believing you get to keep your country when the foreign, hostile racial group outnumbers you four to one at best.

South Africa is a reminder of everything that went wrong with European colonialism put in a single country, and I have little sympathy for white SAs, especially considering the fact that, despite everything they experience(d), most of them are still anti-racist liberals (just like whites in any Western country).

So that begs the question of what can really be done except, move somewhere else that is more friendly to nationalist ideas? Even though again, it does present a hypocritical scenario. If a bunch of Canadians and White South Africans move to Europe, what happens when the Native Europeans are now a minority? How do we settle these types of culture clashes?

How? Don't let white people from America and Australia (EDIT: and South Africa as well of course, forgot to mention this one) migrate back to Europe.

I haven't really put much though into whether it's acceptable for whites from ex-colonies to move to other ex-colonies, but, since mass white immigration was always a part of their history, and white people currently inhabiting them are European mutts anyway, I don't see a massive problem with it as I do with them moving to Europe.

Lugger · 2021-11-21T23:02:10+00:00

I'm not 'alt-right', but, if you're interested, I can give you a perspective of European ethnonationalists on the subject; I speak a couple of Euro languages apart from my own so I lurk at the other countries' EN circles as well.

And I assure you that no self-respecting ethnonationalist would abandon his homeland to ride on what other nations have built or achieved — and that's especially true of your question (I despise the Natzees though and don't consider them a good choice, but for the sake of the argument let's pretent they are).

To surrender the land your ancestors had faced great hardships on and prevailed? Only to flee like a pansy to a country of some other nation? What?!

Those ideas are unthinkable to genuine ethnonationalist folk.

Even if the situation in an EN' country looked completely hopeless as the foreigners had become a majority of the population, the globohomo government was unstoppable and the country itself had fully turned into a Third World-tier shithole, an EN would stay in it no matter the circumstances and rather die than flee to someone else's land.

And yeah, as you have noted, it would be extremely hypocritical to immigrate to other countries because they have what your own country doesn't, as it'd make ENs no different from Turd World orcs who move to the West because their people failed to create prosperous societies.

With all that said, I can, however, see pan-European cucks who believe (for instance) that Meds and Slavs have a right to live in Germanic countries follow through with your scenario.

Lugger · 2021-11-20T23:28:57+00:00

Blacks don’t really give a damn that 3 degenerate “whites” were shot. The “allyship” does not work both ways.

That guy got it right.

Why would blax care about a bunch of crackers anyway?

The country still has a shot at the chimpouts though — the ongoing Arbery trial; if the white guys who hunted down and lynched a brotha walk free, there's no way the black folk will let it go as easily as this one.

Lugger · 2021-11-18T21:24:50+00:00

How would a nationalist movement encourage an increase in White birth rates?

Well, what many folks in nationalist circles don't understand is that times have changed, and people — both men and w*men — no longer want to have a lot of children for the sake of having children like they did in the past.

The modern world is too damn good of a place to live and enjoy, so it's really expected that Western Europeans aren't thrilled about sacrificing their 20s and 30s on raising children instead of, say, partying and pursuing Gender Studies degrees to secure a cushy job in some HuffPo-tier column so they can write about patriarchy and intersectionality while getting a paycheck and feeling good about themselves for the rest of their lives.

To get Europeans, especially whamen, to have children, the benefits of it should outweight the negatives by a far margin.

The most obvious way to achieve this is have the state provide good priveleges to couples with children — and they should be so good that the temptation will be hard to resist for most people.

Cutting the taxes in proportion to the number of children, low interest rate loans, handing out nice houses and apartments to the ones with a lot children, et cetera et cetera — you get the idea.

Yeah, many countries today offer some sort of privileges to the couples who have kids, but they're far too small to override the YOLO lifestyle.

Which is no surprise because the modern European elites think they can increase the population by importing hordes of Turd-World orcs from the Middle East, Africa and India. So why would they bother with raising the Europeans' birth rates?

The collapsing birthrates are in a lot of ways more than immigration the main driver of our people's ethnic replacement.

No, pal, you are wrong. You can't outbreed the Third World.

As a matter of fact, Japan's birth rates are extremely low as well, but they've no threat of being overrun by foreigners because their gubmint isn't nearly as retarded as the ones we have in the West.

A lot of factors are the cause from abortion, birth control...

...

To be honest, I've never understood why WN folks oppose these things. Boomers and Christcucks — yeah, but here?

I want people to have children they plan and desire, and if some whaman got knocked up by a Chad she banged on a ONS, it is in the interests of everyone — herself and the greater society — that she gets an abortion because she won't be able to provide for the child, and, since she didn't even want it in the first place, it will most likely experience abuse and grow up to be a lowlife thug or a junkie.

Who wants to have these people roaming around glorious Western European countries because the foids were unable to get an abortion due to 'muh child murder!!!' laws?

Lugger · 2021-08-29T16:58:38+00:00

As a result of these restrictions, the Reichswehr was little more than a glorified police force when compared to the militarys of the rest of Europe.

No shit. The point is, the Nazis were expanding the military way beyond just bringing it on the level of other European powers — it was a fighting force built for the war Hitler was planning. Many historians even claim that German economy was unsustainable and would have collapsed had the WWII not been started.

This is a myth. Historians (most of them Jewish) have often lied through their teeth about how the Nazis achieved their economic recovery from the great depression. They did not pursue re-armament at the expense of social welfare. The Nazis pursued a policy of both guns and butter.

Of course it is a 'myth', a Jewish one no less, same as every single thing that portrays Natzee Germany in a negative light. And I never claimed they had insane military spending at the expense of civilian projects — only that it was the driving force behind NG's marvelous economic recovery.

Lugger · 2021-08-29T12:26:35+00:00

If Hitler felt he had a responsibility for the Germans who lived on his country's former territories he should've made attempts to move the willing ones within its contemporary borders, not start a war of aggression to try and secure Slavic and other Europeans' land.

You know what's funny, though? Ultimately and thanks to Hitler's actions Germany lost even more provinces and the local German folk were moved out of there and into the remaining German territories by force — something that I believe the Entente powers should have done following the treaty of Versailles as well.

Lugger · 2021-08-29T11:58:29+00:00

Sure, Germany went full military mode only after they lost Battle of Stalingrad. Doesn't change the fact that the Nazis managed to pull the country out of 1930s economic turmoil and vastly reduce unemployment rates by getting people to produce everything that the ever-growing army needed. Yeah, there were some civilian projects like the Autobahn network, but Germany owed its economic recovery mostly to military spending.

Lugger · 2021-08-29T09:52:33+00:00

I mean in terms of general philosophy...

The most important thing? Excessive expansionist tendencies.

The Nazis, ever since they took power in the 1930s, were building up the military and preparing the German people for a bloody war were going to wage to secure Germany as Europe's dominant power and conquer large areas of land (especially Slavic land) for colonization. We all know how their stupid war turned out — the Nazi asses kicked, Europe devastaded and tens of millions of Europeans dead.

I once mentioned that if the Natzees had dropped their retard-tier warlike plans and focused entirely on making Germany as prosperous as possible, they would have gone down in history as wise and capable rulers, but, since pretty much entire Nazi Germany's economy revolved around building stuff for the upcoming war (factories, vehicles, railroads etc.), I'm not sure they would have even managed to improve German economy by not war-centered ways.

Lugger · 2021-05-12T23:15:30+00:00

Some people may think the issue doesn't concern them or Europe, but recall that U.S support for Israel is what has lead to Muslim resentment of the West.

There's nothing bad about increasing levels of Muslim hatred towards the yt, especially if it's coming from the ones who live in Western countries. In fact, that's a positive thing because it may be taken advantage of by the nationalists and used to open wypipo's eyes on the Muslim population and — unless the narrative gets subverted by Cuckservatives who turn it into a purely religious matter — on the non-white diasporas in general as it clearly shows that brownies identify with their brothas who live thousands of kilometers away first.

As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself, I don't give a damn who ultimately emerges victorious; they can kill each other for as mush as they want — their war ~~does not~~ should not concern the European and American folk. But I gotta admit, though, it's pretty satisfying watching the Arabs get what they deserve and once again play the victim card like the pathetic weaklings they are.

Lugger · 2021-05-07T14:53:50+00:00

The U.S. has valid strategic reasons for protecting Taiwans sovereignty

...

You missed my point, pal. Whether the U.S. has any reasons to protect Taiwan or not is irrelevant because America will never launch a war against those 'nasty Chinese commies' just to salvage some tiny little island the common folk don't care about.

Moreover, Taiwan is the only place where the U.S. can fight China in a conventional war without it immediately escalating into a nuclear conflict.

Bollocks. Nothing can possibly prevent either side from putting nuclear missiles to use if the war, after all, begins.

There is currently an ongoing debate about what the extent of the U.S. military commitment to Taiwan should be, and whether they are willing to actually get into a serious fight with China. There are many voices within the establishment who are calling for Biden to make a firm pledge to safeguard Taiwans security.

The establishment can virtue signal about their hardcore support for Taiwan as much as they like for all I care, declaring a war on a behemoth that is China over it would be a suicide — political or otherwise. They would have a hard time explaining to the people how can this island be so important they have to face a threat of a nuclear holocaust because of it.

Beijing Accelerating Timeline for Possible Taiwan Invasion, Expert Warns

I can't wait until this happens. The Chicoms should have brought Taiwan back into the greater China long ago to finally end this island's misery of being a thorn up the West's ass that is being kept alive by the investments and (empty) promises of support against the commies.

If the Chinese make a move to annex Taiwan, the worst thing that awaits them are a few economic sanctions and angry finger wags. The West — and particularly the U.S. — won't risk implementing more serious punishments.

Lugger · 2021-05-07T12:16:18+00:00

Having the military capacity to defeat China and prevent China from taking Taiwan...

Why would the U.S. care about this shitty little island so much, by the way? Can you imagine how much effort the government will have to put to justify the troops fighting and dying to stop those evaaal Chicoms from conquering a tiny piece of land that 99% of the Americans wouldn't be even able to find on a map?

That's nonsense. And the all-out military conflict between the U.S. and China is impossible for yet another reason — both countries possess a very large number of nuclear missiles; if the war broke out, it would be the end of the world as we know it.

Lugger · 2021-05-05T22:04:57+00:00

This is why colonialism was a giant mistake for Europe. You don't conquer these people and plant your flag in their soil. Many now see it as an opportunity to return back, especially as their own countries deteriorate from imperialism's consequences.

Come on, man... a country colonizing a land isn't obliged to allow its [the land's] population into the metropole. It's purely a question of a will to keep foreign elements out. By the time those people began moving into their ex-masters' states, Europe had already taken the cuck pill and was welcoming them with open arms.

It didn't help that the war started by a certain moustache-wearing madman left Europe in ruins, either: the governments saw those brown folks as a good source of cheap labor to rebuild their countries.

If stupid Eurocucks had had the balls, it wouldn't matter if those [ex-]colonized people wanted to immigrate to their respective [ex-]occupiers' countries — they simply wouldn't have been allowed in.

You can see the same effect in France. They where dead certain on holding onto their colonies in Africa & Asia instead of letting go of them early.

Well, the French are a special case of European stupidy in regards to brown people, but not for the reason you mentioned. They accepted a shitload of immigrants from their former colonies just to show their hearts of gold; I especially liked how they once let god-knows-how-many North Africans in on the basis that they fought on the French side in a civil war in their (this North African nation's) country. I believe those were the Moroccans?... Don't remember the details.

No wonder the French are considered one of the most cucked nations in Europe, and — judging by the demographics — France will likely be the first one to fall.

Lugger · 2021-04-21T07:41:22+00:00

A power-crazed douchebag; retard who is largely responsible for why the Western world is the way it is today.

The war he started to get some Slavic land and secure Germany's hegemony in Europe resulted in tens of millions of Europeans losing their lives, the continent being divided up by the Americans and Russians and his beloved Germany itself burned to the ground

He did more damage to the West than any other European ruler that ever existed; not only materialistic, but also ideological as the atrocities commited by the Natzees were used by the liberals as a banner to suppress any notions of nationalism in yt countries and steamroll their agenda with little to no resistance.

Wait a second... did I notice in the comments above remarks that he was actually all about "fighting the k*kes"? Really?

Murdering tens of millions of Europeans to own the Jews! Peak Nazi supporters' logic!

Lugger · 2021-04-16T11:07:12+00:00

Thanks for your input, Iwan, that was very helpful!

Lugger · 2021-04-16T07:46:48+00:00

I demand the banner in this sub be changed to the Novorossiya flag to make clear that we stand with Nazbols

Hahahaha!!!

Yeah, come on, guys!! Let's show some solidarity for a bunch of hillbillies that occupied a part of a decent European country and started a war with the nation on Putin's bidding to advance his imperialist goals!

I don't get it... the alt-right folks claim to oppose neocon wars, but when those are waged by the Russians, they suddenly have noble goals and are deserving of support? Really? Neocons are only bad if they're 'Mericans, right?

Can't find a single reason as to why Americans and Eurocucks should support Russia and their leashed scummy Novorossiya (or whatever the hell they're called) retards. The Russians rolled in, took advantage of the unrest following the events in Kiev and armed thousands of mercenaries and bandits to fight the Ukrainians for them. That's it. That's the conflict in a nutshell.

I wanted to say that in the war, the Ukrainians are the lesser evil, but they're no evil at all! They're just honest folk who want to defend their country and retake what was occupied by the Russians and Russia-backed insurgents.

Think about that when u want to shill for Russia another time, OP.

Lugger · 2021-04-14T09:32:59+00:00

Controlled opposition or not, the guy was always a fraud and an incompetent fool.

He didn't keep a single promise that got him elected back in 2016, hell, even the "wall" he was supposedly building was just a pathetic line of dilapidated fence that even the Mexicans made fun of!

Throughout the entire presidency, Drumpf was throwing his supporters under the bus and licking minorities' boots; just to name a few, he let black multi felons out of jail ("First step act"), proposed a 500 Billion $ "Cadillac plan" for them, screamed in joy about "record low black and latino unemployment levels" and didn't even once mention wypipo in a positive light!

Even on his way out of office, he pardoned goddamn Kwame Kilpatrick as well as a bunch of black rappers and Israeli spies... WTF kind of a leader was that?

I'm glad that he was electorally annihilated and humiliated by good ol' Uncle Joe; Trump left the White House in disgrace, and shat and pissed as he did.

Why ~~quite a significant segment~~ some of the "Dissident right" continue to ride the Trump train and believe that he was anything more than a con is beyond me...

Here's what I haven't been able to work out: Why? What happened to cause such a massive change? Did they threaten his family? Did they finally get good blackmail? Did he simply give up? Or was he actually controlled opposition and losing was the plan all along?

...or maybe he was just a retarded celebrity who wanted to don the robes of a ruler of the greatest country in the world while having nor will nor clue how to do the job.

Lugger · 2021-04-12T05:58:44+00:00

Mikhail Khodorkovsky was a Jewish billionaire and one of the wealthiest men in Russia.

...

Good to see you, bro! Unfortunately, your arguments are based on faulty assumptions.

Yeah, of course the Russian elites and oligarchs succumbed to Putin, but you are forgetting one key fact: they never stopped plundering the country. I don't know why Putin destroyed this Mikhail Khodorkovsky guy you mentioned, but, considering the fact that oligarchs and corrupt politicians loyal to him are rich as ever, I'm pretty sure that he was a threat to Putin's rule and therefore had to be taken out of the picture.

However, if by saying that the elites "fell in line" u meant that they had become Putin's vassals who get state protection in exchange for a share of profit and unconditional support, then yeah, that was exactly what I mean't, wasn't it?

Putin cleansed the country of all the people who posed a threat to his power (including a couple of oligarchs) and established his corrupt-as-fuck-system, thanks to which Russia is still the mess it is.

You don't know what your talking about. After the collapse of the Soviet Union...

...

You're missing key details... again. Putin never stopped Russian oligarchs from looting the country; he merely took them under his wing.

Under the guidance of Vladimir Putin, the country has made an amazing recovery.

This argument is easily refuted by reminding you that the "recovery" you're talking about is owed to the fact that oil prices were extremely high when Putin came to power. It doesn't tell us anything about Putin as a ruler because any semi-competent President would have managed to do the same, given how much oil Russia has.

It is clear that Putin has done a phenomenal job in halting the decline of his country, especially when considering that he only came into power in 2000.

Yeah, man... Putin only has been in power for 21 years. LOL! Even some kings didn't rule for as long as he does.

I wouldn't even be so hard on him if he was at least an honest politician who loved his people. But no, he is a run-of-the-mill corrupt power hungry asshole who is directly responsible for the shitty state of his country.

Good luck refutting the facts that Russia is one of the most corrupt places in Europe and the Russian elites have made themselves rich by plundering the country. Unsurprising, really, because that's how the system build by Putin works.

Lugger, you continue to display an amazing ability to be utterly wrong on almost every subject you care to talk about.

Right back at ya!

Lugger · 2021-04-12T00:01:57+00:00

Don't forget to take your pills, pal.

Lugger · 2021-04-11T23:31:07+00:00

Actually he put a lot of oligarchs in jail, stopped what was doing on long Yeltsin.

I don't think so. I'm not an expert on Russia, but I know for sure that Putin's regime has been kind to the vast majority of oligarchs, and they continue to prosper under his rule to this day. Many of them are his close friends.

Come on, man. Russia is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, and it's all Putin's fault. How long has he been in power? Since the 1990s? Putin is just an ordinary corrupt dictator who only rules to enrich himself and his inner circle, while the country's population remains poor as fuck and the country itself is a shithole filled to the brim with mud, litter and cheap labor from the former Soviet stans: I've seen a few videos that show the life of average Russians, and... Holy Jesus, I wouldn't want to live in that place. That's what happens to authoritarian regimes where the elites care about nothing but their bank accounts.

As cucked as Europe is, at least it enjoys high standarts of living and low levels of corruption — neither of which would be possible under an authoritarian regime, especially of someone like Putin.

Russia under his rule reminds me of African countries: the dictator and the elites reside in luxury palaces and enjoy first world standarts of living while the common folk, dressed up in rags, dwell in shit-stained huts located in equally shitty neighborhoods.

Such a good president, isn't he?

Lost the war against Ukraine? So Ukraine annexed the Crimean Peninsula, and not the other way around?

I was talking about the war against Ukraine, bro. Not the annexation of the Crimean Penisula! The war happened a little bit later when Russian-backed separatists and a few Russian army units occupied parts of the Eastern Ukraine.

Don't remember how well the separatists perfomed against the Ukrainians, but the Russian army suffered heavy casualties and was forced to withdraw, even though the Ukrainian military of that time was a total joke. The Russians even lost some of their newest tanks and APCs.

Lugger · 2021-04-11T19:31:19+00:00

We need someone like him in the US and Europe

U want a corrupt authoritarian ruler who has been plundering his country for decades? The leader who only succeeded in making himself and his oligarch friends rich by selling Russian natural resources and keeping the country a poor backward shithole? The one who destabilized a friendly neighboring country (Ukraine) by starting a bloody war only to get beaten and withdraw his army in disgrace?

No, thanks. I'd choose a Eurocuck elected official over a corrupt dictator like Putin any day.

Lugger · 2021-04-02T17:36:09+00:00

The American definition of White was also used to discriminate against Italians and Greeks so the inconsistency was there from the beginning.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Italians, Greeks (as well as Irish) were only discriminated on a personal level; American common folk was extremely prejudiced against these people and even went as far as to refer to, for example, the Irish as "white niggers" or something like that, but legally they were always considered "white" under the U.S. law. The U.S. government never discriminated against them and never denied them citizenship on the basis of race.

The 1924 Immigration Act put restrictions on immigrants from pretty much any country except Western and Northern European ones, but it has nothing to do with discriminating/not discriminating against Southern and Eastern Europeans who were already citizens of the U.S.

Ideally, the U.S would have been better off if it only made immigration a privileged position like Japan did...

Want my opinion on the subject? The immigration to the U.S. should have been restricted to "free British people of good characters" instead of "free white people" as it was originally worded by the Founding Fathers.

Such a narrow definition would have helpled to prevent the retard judges from shoving brown people under the guise of "fellow whites" down Americans' throats and it would have vastly improved the U.S. social cohesion — don't forget that all those non-British immigrants like Germans, Italians and Irish took a lot of time to assimiliate (that's especially true of Italians, though) and were a quite a pain in the ass for the government.

The all or nothing "who is White?" purity was always bound for disaster, especially as this was the same country that already brought in millions of African slaves, was constantly absorbing Native Americans populations, and bringing over the remaining worldly ethnicities as cheap labor. Like, what were they expecting to happen over the next 300 years?

Agreed. Especially with the part I put in bold.

The Founding Fathers wanted America to be an European outpost, but the idea was executed extremely poorly, both by themselves and their successors:

Not deporting back to Africa the already existing black slaves (because the fat rich slave owners didn't want to get rid of their free shit!).
Providing the Amerindians with "rights" and "reservations" instead of rounding 'em all up and sending them down south to Mexico — which, thanks to the long-enacted decree of the Cucktholic church, viewed them as equals to Europeans and would have willingly accepted them as citizens.
Importing hordes of Chinese to work the railroads for a bowl of rice.
Conquering the Mexican land and allowing the Mexican population to stay.

et cetera

Greed, inability to deal with long-term consequences and plain stupidity triumphed over ingridients of a stable cohesive nation. Sad!

Lugger · 2021-04-02T13:44:32+00:00

...and so was every Naturalization and immigration law passed before WW2

That's a common belief held by both the left and the right, but actually, it's far from the truth. The Americans started letting in nonwhite immigrants in pretty large numbers much earlier; I'd say that the end of the Civil War was the event that, for some reason, triggered lawmakers and especially judges to implement nonwhite-inclusive policies.

Go to Wikipedia and have a look at various late 19th century lawsuits where nonwhites, such as Arabs and Indians, argued that they fall under the definition of "white" and therefore should be allowed to naturalize.

And guess what? Cucked judges, instead of rightfully dismissing their obviously retarded claims, laughing them out of the courts and telling them to stick their stupid lawsuits up their asses, ruled in favor of these people and allowed them to become U.S. citizens, "confirming" that they indeed were white!

I once read a lawsuit filed by some Indian, and the brainlet judge not only allowed him to receive citizenship, but also commented that "[that Indian] was one of the purest white people" or other crap like this. facepalm

Another lawsuit I read was filed by a Syrian immigrant. This is one of my favourites!

The judge, as you may have guessed, ruled in favor of granting him citizenship, arguing that Syrians are white (lmao). Someone objected by citing the Founding Fathers' words where they made it clear that only Europeans are considered white and therefore eligible for citizenship...

The judge's response? He agreed that it was indeed what the Founding Fathers meant, but proceeded with his decision nonetheless!

Keep in mind that these court hearings — along with the countless others — occured in the 19th century when the U.S. was still considered to be "based".

And don't even get me started on East Asian immigrants who not only were allowed into the country to be used as cheap labor, but also the government took no measures to send back where they belong; needless to say, that retardation culminated in a lawsuit that enacted the birthright citizenship.

(yes, the U.S. gubmint took a few pathetic steps in the form of the Chinese exclusion act, but it wasn't enough and it didn't address the problem of the Asians who were already in the country)

So what were the people saying again? The Hart-Cellar act marked the beginning of the U.S. demographic decline?! Pffff, no. It was merely a final nail in the coffin; the decline began much earlier.

Lugger · 2021-03-17T18:46:00+00:00

Try exercising your "First Amendment Rights"

your

Sorry pal, I'm not American so I can't even check if what you're implying is true.

But what I do know is that u can't get jailed in America for posting offensive jokes on Facebook or even discussing historical events — unlike Cuckrope :)

Lugger · 2021-03-17T15:54:04+00:00

Sounds like you actually didn't read the article.

Does it?

Straight from the beginning of the article:

... When I read the headline, I laughed. I stopped laughing as I read the article. Yes, Latin should be the official language of the European Union

However, the Turkish article mentions a French official named Sundar Ramanadane, who goes one better and says the EU’s common language should be Latin. Why? ... Mr. Ramanadane says there are other reasons why it should be Latin but he can’t think of any more. I can.

Yeah, a few paragraphs later Hood goes on to criticize the EU itself. So what?

It doesn't change the fact that he takes the proposition seriously and even lists a few arguments why it's important for EU to replace English with Latin. Oh, and did I forget to mention that he regularly equates European Union with Europe in his article?

If he knows the EU is crooked, why even bother discussing its petty and completely irrelevant policies like that one? Does he really think EU can be somehow magically subverted and turned into a pro-European force? Is he that deluded?

It doesn't matter how many bones (like language) EU masters want to throw to their dogs. It's still a corrupt bureaucracy that needs to be torn down so that Eurocucks could be freed from it's poisonous influence and start building good ol' independent countries. Hood makes it look like EU crooks are worth listening to and their ideas may be even beneficial to wypipo.

What can possibly go wrong?

Just run through the article again.

It would force Europe to build institutions like a pan-European army.

Nevermind. Mr. Hood turns out to be an advocate for a cucked cause of pan-Europeanism, which is basically a watered-down version of globalism.

Now it all makes sense.

Lugger · 2021-03-17T12:55:37+00:00

The article's name is quite misleading. It discusses the proposition to make Latin an official language of European Union, not Europe, and it makes all the difference in the world.

Personally, I don't give a single damn if English, Latin, German or Kinyarwanda is a common language of this globalist corrupt entity, and I don't see any reason to think otherwise:

Just like they did before, EU bureaucrats will carry on with pushing "anti-racist" education, importing hordes of Jamals and Mohammeds, silencing people who advocate for interests of the real (ethnic) Europeans by putting them behind the bars (a quick reminder that, unlike the Americans, Eurocucks don't even have basic liberties such as freedom of speech) and doing shitloads of other nasty globalist stuff.

In short, such trivial things as EU official language are completely unimportant because the institution itself is anti-European to the bone.

"At least we're speaking Latin as our countries are being flooded by Arabs, Africans and Asians amirite guys???? "

Lugger · 2021-03-09T05:12:28+00:00

Again you jump in to shit on the U.S. military?

Well-well, what do we have here now?...

Let's see.

Your confident diagnosis of Russian military incompetence is undermined by the results of a recent wargame by Poland. ...

Bro, you've just put a gorillion of words in my mouth and completely misinterpreted my stance on the Russian army. I never denied they would be able to defeat goddamn Poland. Frankly, every single European military (except for France... perhaps) is a complete shitshow, and even something as incompetent as Russian army would have a chance of crushing them by the force of sheer numbers alone — Russia has a lot of cannon fodder in the form of conscripts to throw at Polish/German/British/whatever guns.

But on the other hand, poor perfomance of Russian units in the Eastern Ukraine and a high number of casualties infincted on them by the Ukrainians of all the people makes me wonder if sheer numbers are enough for these incompetent buffoons to pose a threat to any country with a military that's not a shit-stained, fully stuck in the Soviet era in terms of training and technology bunch of cowboys like the Ukrainian army was.

Thats nonsense. Wishful thinking at its worst...

Is it, though? You're forgetting that the willingness to fight right now is not the same as the state of the morale when your army is getting completely obliterated and suffers one humiliating defeat after another — and this is what awaits the Russians should they clash with Americans.

Again, you are engaging in wishful thinking. If you think the U.S. military is going to score a quick and easy victory against either Iran or Russia, then you are going to be very dissapointed.

Easy victory? Yes and yes.

Quick victory?

Against Iran? Yes.

Against Russia? No. Bro, I never said that, you're putting words in my mouth again. What I said was that the U.S. would have no problems crushing the Russians effectively and relatively effortlessly, but it's still gonna take time purely because of their high number of active troops.

You said alot of things about the Iranian military during its war with Iraq that were blatantly untrue.

What was it I said about the Iranians that was untrue? That they used child soldiers on the frontlies? That they used human wave tactics? That they haven't improved much since and serve as a typical example of a crappy third world army?

And while we're at it, I'm going to address right here your another comment you dedicated exclusively to me (lol)

He is an uninformed individual with a warped view of the U.S. militarys strength

My knowledge on the U.S. military is based first and foremost on the fact that it has perfomed extremely well in every single conflict it took part in — unlike the Russians and Iranians.

Lugger is a jingoist

Wat? Are u even serious?

I have previously debunked

If you say so :D

Please do not upvote his content, as this merely encourages him to continue.

LMAO, imagine thinking I write my comments for imaginary internet points on a half-empty website. Just imagine thinking that.

Lugger · 2021-03-08T09:30:27+00:00

Hmm... I don't believe you understood what I was implying:

"They" never destroyed the Navy. It was "destroyed" in a simulation conducted by the Americans themselves, which doesn't necessarily reflect the real state of U.S./Iranian militaries for the reasons I mentioned above.

If such a scenario occured in a real war, chances are Iranians wouldn't even be smart enough to figure out they could use those tactics against the Americans — remember, Iranian military is comprised of poorly trained conscripts and incompetent officers, while the U.S. is a direct opposite which has proven its worth on many battlefields.

They took advantage of that US reliance on high-tech electronic surveillance.

Honestly, if anything it just further proves that the conclusion of the simulation was a BS. You can't just take advantage of high tech like that even if your troops are well-trained (unlike the Iranians).

Lugger · 2021-03-08T09:04:19+00:00

DoD would say whatever it takes to persuade the gubmint to increase the military spending.

Ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, do you remember how many times U.S. military officials have been spewing nonsense about Russians planning to invade [INSERT EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY] or Russians posing a threat to NATO countries in general?

Of course, all of their "concerns" were utter bullshit, and they knew it was bullshit, but they had to play "Russia bad" card nonetheless to get more money for their dear military.

Now, why do I get the feeling that in the simulation you listed the Navy was "wiped out" for the very same reasons — to portray it as not strong enough and get more funding?

That, or the Iranian might was overestimated for training reasons.

There is no other explanation because Iran simply doesn't have the technology (and training) to counter American units. It just doesn't. The U.S. and Iran literally belong to different eras, technology-wise. If the war ever breaks out, it would be amusing to watch Iranians with rusty AKs and howitzers from the 70s attempt to counter American jets carrying laser-guided missiles, tomahawk-wielding destroyers and armed to the teeth Infantry and Armored divisions with excellent training.

Oh, and, by the way, what is the combat record of the glorious Iranian military? Sending child soldiers to the frontline? Using WW1-tier human wave tactics?

And the U.S.? Well, it has ROFLstomped every conventional force it came across — brilliantly, I might add.

Lugger · 2021-03-08T07:07:39+00:00

Those "U.S. military is a piss poor fighting force" copes are such amusing rants to read.

Imagine a conflict with Iran or Russia

Yet despite these facts, the US military is suffering a potent recruit shortage.

It's not hard to imagine what the situation is going to be if a major war breaks out ... Recruitment would probably collapse to zero ...

Really? I don't think so. Keep in mind that Russian and Iranian militaries are total jokes with poorly trained troops, equally poor leadership both on lower (squad/platoon/company) and higher (regiment/division/et cetera) levels and garbage-tier combat gear (though this one is a little bit less prominent in Russian case).

If anything, should America clash with any of those countries, the U.S. military would be annihilating them so quickly and effectively the morale would skyrocket to unbelievably high levels and attract even more young men to join the ranks.

I can see blacks and women simply running away from the line of action and blacks selling their equipment to the black market for some ganja.

Partly agree on the women, because it's been proven that cowardly f*moids who join the military bail out via pregnancy or other means as soon as it gets hot, but blacks? Unlikely.

I can, however, imagine masses of Iraninan and Russian conscripts deserting in droves as they face a much more technologically superior and competent foe.

A similar scenario happened during the fall of Mosul in 2014.

LMAO, you've just described what awaits those pathetic Iranian and Russian armies, although on a much greater scale because a bunch of sandal-wearing ISIS weaklings is hardly the same as expeditionary forces of superbly trained warriors with state-of-the-art weaponry.

The Russian and Iranian militaries aren't far from such a scenario. I can see this happening in Iraq during an Iranian invasion or a battle with Russia in Ukraine or the Baltics.

Fixed that for you. No need to thank me.

Lugger · 2021-03-04T17:46:40+00:00

A Franco-German alliance

German? Really? German?!!

A quick reminder that the so-called "most radical party in Europe", German AfD, recently cucked out and announced that it embraces all the [immigrants] with a German citizenship as a part of the German nation.

Yeah, this is just a single example, but it perfectly illustrates the state of "right-wing" movements in Western Europe: pathetic spineless cucks who bow down to their opponents the moment it gets hot, betraying every core issue they appeared to stand for.

No wonder the Americans coined the word Eurocuck: it's such a fitting description for European pseudo-populist cuckservatives and, frankly, Europeans in general.

and favors an alliance with Russia

A Franco-German alliance with Russia

Why is Russia so important, by the way? It's an extremely corrupt authoritarian regime ruled by an equally corrupt leader (Putin) and his oligarch friends.

Russia has very little geopolitical power and is incapable of projecting it beyond the former Soviet states. How this paper tiger, even "in alliance with Germany and France", can have any significant influence on Europe is beyond me.

As for Le Pen... even shoud she win, something tells me that she will be anti-muslim at best. Why? Well, I've mentioned above that Western Europeans (especially the French) are cucked to the bone and they simply will not allow any explicitly anti-immigrant policies to be implemented anyway.

[if she wins] She'll take office, babble for a couple of years about how evil the muslims are, throw a few bones to "French radicals" (but nothing serious, of course), then finally succumb to globohomo pressure and become a slightly watered down version of Macron. screencap this

Lugger · 2021-02-16T16:11:27+00:00

My thoughts on your remarks, not on the reddit comment.

I do agree that France should have pay in some way for what it has done to Western Africa.

That "PAY" comes in the form of monetary and societal assistance

I think in general other Western European and the US nations should pay the same way through financial assistance and societal aid

Disagree. No European nation should pay for what they did to the folks they colonized. I'm not even going to give a full explanation for my reasoning; I just want you to think about something:

As you (probably) know, every somewhat advanced civilization or nation has participated in oppressing the less fortunate/weaker ones in one way or another.

So, with that in mind, would you tell the Arabs to repent and "pay in the form of monetary and societal assistance" (in your wording) for hundreds of years of occupation of Spain?

Would you tell the Mongols to pay for all those lands they took and held during their Imperial times?

I could list many more examples, but I think you get the idea.

Those people would laugh in your face if you suggested they're somehow guilty of muh conquest/colonialism and muh oppression and therefore should pay for their crimes.

And they would be right. Likewise, the Europeans owe the people they "oppressed" nothing. The defeated demanding contribution from their victors is utter nonsense.

If the French people speak up, the enemies of the White race can pull the whole muh exploitation

You got it all wrong, pal.

The only reason why people have the audacity to play the colonialism card on Europeans is because the (Western) Europe is completely cucked (just like the Western outposts like the U.S., Australia and others) and has been like that for dozens of years. The Western European governments and academia hate their respective ethnic populations and have been shoving a sense of guilt on Europeans for a long time, while promoting nonwhite immigration and instilling a sense of pride in them.

If Europeans didn't hate themselves...

I assure you, nonwhites and white liberals wouldn't even dare to say stupid stuff like what you describe — they'd be ostracized in a moment and laughed at by every sane person.

A richer,more stable and prosperous Africa and Middle East is a positive for us as those aspects correlate with decreased fertility and less likelihood to immigrate.

I agree, but the core problem is the fact that Europeans are utter cucks and don't have the will to Make And Keep Their Countries European Again.

If they did, it wouldn't matter if nonwhites had high fertility rates and wanted to immigrate — they'd be stopped by border security or military of those European nations.

The majority of modern European nations had minimal if any role in colonialism and does not need to pay.

In a sane world, they do not need to pay regardless of their role in colonialism.

Honestly, in a perfect scenario I think that European countries should cut all sorts of financial "aid" to the third world and cooperate with them only through mutually beneficial trade deals, alliances and stuff like that.

Not a single penny should be given to the third world for free.

Lugger · 2021-02-05T09:36:02+00:00

Having said this, it must be kept in mind that Iran is NOT an Arab state. They are Persians, with a different language, culture, and history.

Yes, this is why I collectively referred to the people in my post as 'Middle Easterners', not just 'Arabs'.

Iranians are hardly better (if better at all), and one of the proofs has already been brought up by you — the Iran-Iraq war.

Iranians, just like any Arab country would, showed a total lack of competence and used retarded cannon fodder tactics and even child soldiers (!).

Needless to say, they suffered extremely heavy casualties and the only thing that prevented them from being totally annihilated was the fact their enemies were equally incompetent Iraqis, even though the latter had Western support.

Iran has 3700 tanks

Perhaps. But most of these tanks are Soviet-era rubbish, and as the U.S. invasions of Iraq have demonstrated, they are about as useful as horse carriages when facing modern vehicles.

Remember all those 'glorious' tank battles in Iraq invlolving T-72s and Abramses/Bradleys? Yes, the former were simply unable to get within their firing range and were obliterated from a large distance by either TOWs or M1s' advanced firing systems — this is the fate that awaits the Iranian 3700 pieces of junk.

And something tells me that only a small amount of those 3700 tanks are operational.

including over 400 of the new Karrars

Well, can't say anything about it because only the time will tell if those new tanks will be a good match for at least M1A1s.

They have over 2800 pieces of artillery, and nearly 2500 rocket projectors. They also have a huge arsenal of ballistic missiles, including the Fateh-110 and Zolfaghar

You are forgetting that Iraq also had a shitload of outdated guns of all kinds. However, all of them proved to be useless because, as far as modern warfare is concerned, quantity doesn't matter. Quality does. The same can be said about all the Iranian military gear pieces you listed, except...

S-300 missile systems

Now, that's kinda interesting, but, if I'm not mistaken, the number of Iranian S-300s can be counted on the fingers of one hand, not to mention the fact that S-300 is getting obsolete and is not likely to pose a serious threat to U.S. Air Force. Yes, it used to strike fear into the hearts of NATO generals, but now it's just a piece of junk from the 70s.

Iran will be a much more formidable adversary than Iraq war. They are a well rounded military force which can fight the U.S. in the air, sea, and land.

Hmm. Iran has neither the good track of combat experience nor good amounts of somewhat-decent equipment — all of which will be reduced to ashes due to American total air superiority. Yes, Iran indeed has a large number of cannon fodder it can throw at the American guns and guided missiles, but they may only stall the U.S. advance if the latter run out of munition to shoot the hordes of Iranian conscripts.

I'll say it again: in modern era, number of troops and gear doesn't matter as much as troops training, gear quality and good leadership do.

Iran has neither.

Its too late for that. Biden has already reversed Trumps ban on transvestites serving in the military. This will produce deleterious effects... ...

Unless the U.S. government is comprised entirely of retarded morons, they won't double down on woke shit in the military. But it's too early to speculate about that for now.

It was never Russias intention to actually defeat Ukraine in the sense you imply.

I never implied they wanted to fully destroy Ukraine.

As far as I know, they wanted to create a bunch of banana republic states run by Russian-backed rebels that would encompass the entirety of Southern and Eastern — or at least just Eastern — Ukraine and serve as a barrier between the rest of the country and Russia.

However, they failed and now the rebels only control a tiny amount of territories about to be overrun by the U.S.-backed Ukrainian army. We'll see how it turns out.

Russia a sent handful of battalions across the border, smashed some of Ukraines best units, and then withdrew.

Yeah, Russian units truly scored some victories over the Ukrainian Army, but they also suffered heavy losses in return; in fact, humiliatingly heavy because Putin had been building his army for dozens of years while the Ukrainians were pretty much stuck in the Soviet era in terms of both equipment and training.

Ukrainians had a laughably pathetic military in 2014-2015 (not sure how they are now though) and the fact that Russia took such heavy blows from them tells a lot.

Lugger · 2021-02-05T07:53:36+00:00

Could have sworn they bloodlessly secured the vital Crimean peninsula which was the main goal in the first place.

It means nothing because there was literally no challenge to the Russian Army: back in the day the Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea were completely demoralized due to the Kyiv revolution/coup/whatever the fuck it was and received no orders at all; they simply didn't know what to do or how to react.

I've seen a few videos of Russians "securing" Crimean Ukrainian bases — they were just marching in with no resistance as the Ukrainians weren't even armed.

It was such an easy task that the Russians could as well have "secured" civilian-occupied buildings — the level of resistance and challenge would've been the same.

Eastern Ukraine has Russian involvement but it's not like the Russian involvement has been that heavy.

It wasn't heavy, but it was significant enought for Russians to lose a few of their state-of-the-art vehicles (as well as dozens of older ones) and hundreds of soldiers while fighting the same poorly-trained Ukrainian Army (who had their equipment comprised entirely of Soviet-era shit at that time) — that is how Russian troops perfomed while engaging a foe that actually fought back.

Lebanaon seemed to do OK against Israel in 2006.

Yeah, that was a rare instance of Arabs actually doing somewhat good against a strong army.

Lugger · 2021-02-05T07:25:17+00:00

I know what you meant, and it's true that a lot of U.S. troops join the military not because they're being patriotic or want to "protect the Constitution and serve the country", but solely to collect paychecks and gubmint benefits.

But still, these guys have proven themselves to be great warriors and, needless to say, it's much better to have someone like them in the military than conscripts.

Sure, the best soldiers are the ones who are both well-paid volunteers and patriots, but America's got to work with what it has.

Lugger · 2021-02-05T07:04:19+00:00

One problem we already have is that nearly everyone is a mercinary

And how is that a problem? The idea that mercenaries are somehow unwilling to fight and die for a country has been proven false in all the recent and relatively recent conflicts involving the U.S. military.

Or would you prefer conscripts to mercenaries?

If that so, do you really think a poorly-trained shit-stained 18 y/o guy who was drafted in the military against his will is a more effective soldier than a well-paid well-motivated volunteer who knows what he's getting into and gets a nice paycheck and decent benefits in return for his service?

Lugger · 2021-02-05T06:59:13+00:00

Biden and his Neocon friends are going to be in for a major shock when they start a war in the Middle East.

The only ones who are going to be in a shock are Iranians or whatever ME country the U.S. decides to attack as their pathetic 'military' is completely obliterated by the U.S. expeditional forces.

You're giving too much credit to combat capabilities of the Middle Easterners as they have proven themselves to be complete and total failures when it comes conventional warfare; take a look at any armed conflict involving these guys in the past 60 years.

It doesn't matter if they fought the U.S., Israel or themselves — it's almost amusing how incompetent and poorly-equipped the Middle Easterners were and how quickly they were being crushed when fighting a serious foe, and it's not like they've changed in any way since.

Iranian military, for example, has much of its combat equipment straight out of the 60s and 70s. That's all you need to know about them.

The U.S. military has already declined on many levels

As for the transgenders and other crap infiltrating the U.S. military... Somehow I seriously doubt the U.S. gubmint will go full retard mode on this one and allow its biggest stick to be crippled. And even if they prove to be absolute morons and do, it's going to take a looooong time until this stuff has any serious effect on the quality of troops.

especially with Russia

Russia couldn't even defeat Ukraine for God's sake in its pathetic proxy war back in 2014-2015, lost a shitton of troops and embarassed itself in front of the entire world by refusing to admit it even waged a war at all.

I know that you were talking about Russia merely backing up a potential U.S. enemy, but come on, the Ukrainian conflict showed how "competent" the Russians are and what their Army is made of.

Bombing the hell out of AK-wielding ISIS peasants is about all it can do.

If they [the Americans] are unlucky, it will turn into something MUCH worse.

The U.S. is bound to fail in any way only if they repeat the same mistake they did with Iraq and Afghanistan and remain in the country to wage an unwinnable counter-insurgency warfare.

A conventional phase of the war between the U.S. and [insert any Middle Eastern country] or Russia or any other 3rd world country will hardly be a fight — it will be a massacre.

Lugger · 2020-12-23T17:14:39+00:00

Forgive me, but how is that relevant to my post? We weren't discussing American blacks and the problems they cause; we were talking about how race-mixing is compatible with the views held by the majority of this sub: 'white nationalism'.

(I don't consider myself a WN or Alt-Right, by the way).

Furthermore, I am a Dutch 'Eurocuck', so your solution to the "Black Problem" doesn't concern me as much as it does your fellow Americans; I don't think I have a say in that.

Here in the NL the only correct way to deal with minorities is by peacefully deporting them back to their natural habitat.

We're a small nation and race-mixing our people into oblivion to make minorities commit less crime is a cuckold-tier unacceptable proposal.

Lugger · 2020-12-23T16:12:43+00:00

Men fucking women from other tribes is natural and should be lauded. Its spreading the tribe's genes far and wide.

Hahaha! No, there's nothing glorious about that as it means creating disgusting half-breeds, though your example (Britain) is not really correct because Celts and Germanics are/were both white people, while you seem to like the idea of breeding with non-whites (Iranians).

Its glorious to take and breed women of other races

No, it's not. Men must stay loyal to their own women (and vice versa).

Also, ~~don't know about you, but~~ I don't find non-white women attractive and I would literally vomit before I consider 'taking' them.

because you're depriving them of wombs

You're talking about conquest, right? In that case, isn't it better (and more practical) to just... get rid of them? Why do you think it's good to make them carry and pop out mongrels?

No, it's neither honorable (but neither is murder, though, speaking of 'getting rid of them') nor useful.

genetically assimilating them

Are you kidding? Why would a 'white nationalist' worth his salt like the idea of 'genetically assimilating' people of other races and dilluting their own gene pool?

Its shameful for that to happen to your own women for the same reason. It means you're being conquered.

By the way, I have to remind you that in your first reply you weren't even talking 'conquering' women of other races.

You said something about hooking up with them "because some of them are hot", so most of your response is pretty off topic, really.

Lugger · 2020-12-23T14:40:45+00:00

Lmao, your reply is the epitome of modern 'white nationalism':

Believing that muslims embracing globohomo and abandoning their tradition is good because it means a better chance to fuck a brown booty (I wonder if you're also one of the guys who criticize white w*men for dating/fucking non-white men) and lower birth rates in their own (!) country.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T22:48:04+00:00

I've grown tired of this discussion and this will be my last reply.

Moreover, you still have not addressed why the Allies refused to declare war on the Soviet Union

Because I've already covered exactly the same question in this thread replying to some guy.

What about their other promise to send in troops into Germany as soon as war broke out, rather than leave Poland to be crushed by Germany as they did historically during the phoney war?

Phoney War is another topic and I don't want to touch here, if I'm not mistaken they refused to invade it from the West because they were disorientiered/relied on defensive doctrine or something like that, can't answer for sure.

Germany "owes" lasting as long as it did in the war to its rearmament programme and the natural strength of its state and people.

...made possible by occupying practically the entire Europe — I'm talking, of course, about post-1940 Germany when the Brits had already tucked tail and retreated from mainland Europe.

You don't think natural resources and factories emerge out of thin air, right?

Good god, that's insane. You mean to tell me that Britain and France were at war with Germany for a whole year after the invasion of Czechoslovakia and no one did anything at all? History sure is strange.

Once again you misinterpreted my words after pulling them out of context.

Obviously, by that I meant only the Polish pact, which stated that Britain would be forced to declare the war on Germany if it started an invasion.

You've not only ignored my point, but you've also written up a list of accusations that apply equally well to the Allies.

They don't "apply equally well to the Allies" because they were the ones cucking to Germany and fuilfilling its wishes.

They betrayed several of the countries they had promised to protect

Unfortunately, it's true, and I've already explained why.

and they aggressively tried to encircle Germany in every conceivable way just for the sake of frustrating German foreign policy.

By letting Germans shit on all the treaties (including Versailles) and gain new lands?

Are you really this naive? ...

What you've written is that paragraph is just a list of wild guesses which cannot be proven, so you'll forgive me for not replying to this.

because their citizens would not have bothered to die for the sake of liberal warmongering without the necessary propaganda

Here we go again...

the wisest course of action would have been to let the Germans pursue their expansion policy towards the Soviet Union

How is letting Germany grab a huge pile of Soviet land and its enormous natural resources wise?

You realise that had they really allowed Germans to invade Russia and succeed, Germany would've been unstoppable?

Instead, the Allies chose to pursue the so-called policy of appeasement which gave them time to justify war against Germany to the public and to rearm. ...

More wild guesses.

You believe that they were only buying time to brainwash the population and prepare it for the war, I believe that they were genuinely trying to avoid the conflict.

Unless a rock solid proof is brough in, I don't think we can come to an agreement on this one.

Alright, this is it for today.

Since this is my last comment, I dont expect you to reply.

Anyway, I thank you for this discussion — I really do — and wish you good luck, bro.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T21:29:25+00:00

You mean to tell me that Britain and France preserved the territorial and political integrity of Poland?

By being 'enforcable' I meant the fact the the Brits, in the end, stayed true to their promises and declared war on Germany.

Not sure where you got that 'political integrity' take.

Ribbentrop was his foreign policy expert with connections in Britain, bro.

Should've chosen better foreign experts, than.

That's, of course, if we consider for a moment that his advise regarding Poland had any influence over Hitler.

I'm 100% sure he would've started the war anyway, given his previous actions and what we know about him and his ultimate goals.

I refer you to the dissolution of the British Empire, the foreign debt it incurred as a result of the war and the rationing system it was forced to maintain all the way into the fifties.

I doubt they considered long-term effects.

And even if they did, they most likely figured out that stopping Germany was more important.

No, not even close. They were powerful, but America had them considerably outmatched.

Not even close?

Yeah, it's true that British power — economic, military, whatever had already been waning by the time the war began.

But they still were an incredibly strong state, and there's this:

At any case, they did not have the resources to contain Germany.

Wrong, as always.

Germany was always short on resources, and it owes lasting for so long in the war to occupying pretty much all the Europe and exploiting its natural and industrial resources.

Their only hope was quickly defeating the Brits and their allies and pushing the former to the sea — which they did in 1940.

Germany did not declare war on Britain or France.

Germany invaded a state which was allied with those countries, and this is pretty much the same as declaring a war on them.

because they chose to do so

And they chose to do so this time because they were tired of Hitler's lies and broken promises; they figured out that he needed to be stopped because the bastard would just keep breaking treaties and acting aggressively.

This is easily demonstrable because they disregarded a whole assortment of treaties and guarantees that they had given to other states prior to the war.

You know what's funny?

You're this close to the truth, but you either ignore it or don't want to accept it.

Yes, Hitler broke every single previous treaty and the allies did nothing.

They believed that he would eventually stop, but he just kept screwing them and demanding new shit.

And the only reason they let him walk free with the previous ones was the fact that Allies didn't want another war in Europe to start, so they kept hoping that, maybe, this time Hitler will finally be satisfied.

...until 1939, when they figured out that he needed to be put down like the savage beast he was.

And still, you've only got Hitler's arrogance to blame for the fact that he believed in Britain cucking on its promises.

it's rather that after acting wisely for most of the interwar period, the Allies finally decided to self-destruct and drag Germany down with them.

You're not making any sense.

Allies fulfilling Hitler's demands was not 'acting wise', it was acting extremely stupid because it allowed Germany to gain more industrial power and time to fuel its military.

If the Allies decided to invade Germany, say, in 1936 (let's for the sake of argument assume that), they would have crushed it like a worm.

And considering the fact that Hitler was hellbent on starting a war, it would've been a wise decision — better kill the vicious beast when it's weak and starving than when it's at full strength.

Wait, your argument sounds so stupid that I need to clarify: do you really think it was 'wise' to surrender territories to Germany and let it gain strength only to fight the empowered Germany later?

If you think that declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland was stupid, than what do you think was wise?

Let them swallow it whole and become stronger again?

I'm really hoping I'm mistaken about you, I mean, I like you, but here you outdid yourself.

"By the end of the war" it's difficult to describe any German division as a fitting match for enemy troops, which as I said early makes your "point" quite inane.

Yeah, my 'by the end of the war' remark was pretty vague and I should've been more clear.

Fine. I meant by this mid 1944 period and onwards.

(yeah, it's not exactly 'by the end of the war', but then again, I apologize for not being clear enough)

Lugger · 2020-12-06T20:01:04+00:00

It's true that the Jews like to bring up the Holocaust whenever someone dares to criticize them, but, like I said in this post, when it comes real WN rhetorics, the opposition — liberals and Jews included — use different arguments.

When you have elderly grandma's locked up in prison for questioning any of the details of their Holocaust narrative, its probably time to take a closer look at some of their claims.

That's right.

I don't give a damn about the Holocaust, but when I have discussions with liberals I always like to point out that, if Holocaust really happened, there's no need for those silly Holocaust Denial Laws: just allow a honest discussion for all I care and those disgusting evil Natzees will be crushed under the weight of Holocaust arguments.

But you have to keep in mind that the imprisonment of this old lady is just a part of a bigger problem that is lack of free speech in EU countires.

Unfortunately, Eurocucks like me or this woman don't enjoy the First Amendment like the Americans do.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T19:52:56+00:00

Sorry, I've read very little about them and therefore can't give a decent answer.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T19:51:05+00:00

Because the pact was entirely unenforceable during the 1933-1939 period.

But the history proved that it was, indeed, enforcable.

Hitler, who was being advised by him.

Well, in that case it means Hitler was even a bigger fool for blindly believing him.

The pact was also suicidal, so most talented diplomats and statesmen assumed Britain was bluffing, as per usual.

Care to elaborate how defending a country from aggression is "suicidal"?

The Brits were still the world's superpower by the time WW2 begun, in case you forgot.

If they didn't want to, they wouldn't have.

Exactly!

Finally, you seem to get.

They didn't want to and they didn't — Germany, predictably, turned out to be the aggressor.

They also had a treaty with Germany - you might know it, it's called the Versailles treaty. ...

I get your point, but you fail to consider the very fact you listed — that Germany had already broken multiple promises, and the Brits/French weren't always gonna tolerate the Moustache Man's bullshit.

And they didn't — Poland was the final straw.

The guy was basically playing with fire.

Very kind of you, to show you my gratitude I decided to provide some context.

And I once again returned the favor :)

all you've got is inane whining about the quality of SS troops

Whining?

More like acknowledging that by the end of the war the majority of SS divisions were of shit quality.

though in all likelihood you yourself are probably obese and uneducated

Please don't try to insult me again — you're too dense and naive for that :)

Lugger · 2020-12-06T18:59:41+00:00

What are you talking about? Hitler had no intention to fight the old Entente, especially not in 1939.

In case you didn't know, Hitler wanted Germany to become the new European dominating power.

Well, 'revenge', like I said in the post, is probably an oversimplication, I agree.

They didn't at the time he wrote Mein Kampf and at any rate such a pact would have been unenforceable

Then why did you even bring this up when we were discussing 1933-1939 timeline?

Not according to Ribbentrop.

Who cares about Ribbentrop.

Poland had a pact with Britain, and his 'opinion', whatever it may be, can't change that fact.

The democratic powers couldn't have even declared war on Germany without some sort of defensive justification.

And they didn't want to — see my other replies in the thread.

Britain and France escalated that war into a world war.

Escalated?

They merely stayed true to their agreements with Poland.

Hitler knew about the pact and proceeded nonetheless — I'm hoping you know what this means.

This is not an unimportant detail

And neither is the one I just listed :)

How do those comments "place Arabs above Europeans"?

The guy said that the Arabs and (thanks to the other guy who posted the full quote) Chinese and Japanese would always be closer to Germans then French.

The way I see, it pretty much means that if he had to choose between saving a Louis the Frenchman and an Mohammed the Arab, he'd choose the latter.

Zoomer on the internet calls international political army "cringe" - time to pack it up boys, nothing more to discuss.

Come on maaaaaan, you can do better than that :P

The last defenders of Berlin were Frenchmen of the Charlemagne division.

Which doesn't refute my point at all.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T18:32:51+00:00

I never said he wasn't. He was talking about choosing between Christianity or Islam.

Exactly.

He believed that the religion of i**d gt f****s was more suitable to Germans than Christianity.

but if I had to choose I would choose Islam over liberalism

Whatever. I'm not American, I'm a 'Eurocuck' (Dutch) and my experience — both in my country and in greater Europe — tells me that liberalism is 1000 times better than Islam.

I guess it's a matter of perspective, hehe.

If the US was Muslim instead of Christian they would have castrated every male black slave.

Yep, I know that Arabs castrated their black slaves, which is why they don't suffer from Black plague the way the U.S. does.

But are you sure that it was because of religion, not Arab's mentality?

Christian slave morality prevented

Christianity was pretty based until it got subverted by globohomo.

Don't forget about muh crusades, inquisition n sheeit whenever you want to tell about Christian inherent slave morality.

Don't forget that Islam also aims to convert as many people as possible, which means that, if it was really Whites' mentality, not religion (like I suggested), that prevented them from castrating the slaves, the Islamized America would probably end up with tens of millions of Muslim free blacks. Islam combined with Black aggressiveness would probably be a complete shitstorm.

But that's just a 'What if' guess and we'll never learn the truth.

The US would have no black problem today

I'd also argue that greed definitely played a part in a decision not to castrate the slaves.

"Why waste time and money transporting them across the atlantic when you can let them breed and create more and more slaves on their own."

Lugger · 2020-12-06T18:16:21+00:00

Why do attacks on commercial airplanes and raids on civilians do not count as provoked?

Look, as I said, I don't know where you got the information about those attacks on German property, but I have a very serious reason to doubt it because, as I've also said, entire Europe was trembling in fear at the idea of war with Germany, and I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to directly raid their territory — especially a country like Poland which knew it would be crushed like a worm.

Yes, he offered a cease fie and to retreat from all conquered territories except for Danzig. Germany would even pay reparations to Poland and in addition to this offer financial support for new investments.

Look. It's no surprise that the Allies rejected this peace offer, and you know why?

Because Hitler had already proven himself to be a liar; he had proven that he spat on all the pacts he made.

Come on... Rhineland, Versailles, Ruhr... The allies had figured out that the guy couldn't be trusted. They just wouldn't fall for his 'peace' BS that time.

So do you claim the 16-points plan was just a bluff or what? What about the above mentioned proposal on September 2nd? What about all the other peace offers?

I think the answer I printed above covers that question.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T18:05:01+00:00

You're right I just checked.

Kinda suspicious that the most important words were a mere mistake, but I'm not spiteful and will pretent that it's true.

Again neither of those things change the fact that the full quote means something completely different to what you're implying it does.

No, it doesn't.

Now, what did you want me — and the rest of the anons — to believe?

That would be honest. It's clear that he's saying that the Chinese, the Japanese and the Islamic people, unlike the French, are not doing the Jews bidding like Germany and therefore are closer to the Nazi perspective on Jews

This could have been the turning point.

But it turned out to be complete bullshit.

Hitler really believed that the non-whites listed above were 'closer to Germans' — not some perspective — just like the original quote implies.

Anyway edit your post to include the full quote and let others decide.

I must admit, I didn't see the full quote when I made the OP post.

But I will not make any changes, because, as we figured out, the meaning remains the same.

And if you're still not convinced, I advise you to read closely:

...and the people of Islam will always be closer to us

'Always' means exactly that — no matter their position regarding the Jews, they will always be closer to Germans, just like the OP post implies.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T17:48:15+00:00

Yes, but that doesn't mean he wanted Germany to become an Islamic state. He wasn't actually doing that. He was trying to bring back paganism. That was his ideal.

Hmm. Here's his another quote:

Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.

Still not convinced that the guy was a Muslim lover?

I mean, he doesn't even hide how much he adores Islam. It's all over the place.

In a spiritual sense, yes. I do to. I have more respect for a Jihadist than a Western bugman.

Why even choose between those two evils?

Both Jihadists and liberals are pathetic, just in different ways.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T17:44:39+00:00

Check my reply, bro, you'll be surprised :)

Lugger · 2020-12-06T17:43:03+00:00

Wow. I literally just wowed.

Not only you are a toxic POS, but also you are willing to twist/change quotes so that they fit your own narrative.

Listen up, people, here's where this guy bullshitted:

I am sure that the Chinese, the Japanese and the people of Islam will always be closer to us on that than

I just double-checked the book. There is no "on that", it was completely made up by the guy.

Those two words make all the difference.

Here's how the quote really sounds.

Hitler doesn't say that those non-whites are closer to Germans because they're "closer to the Nazi perspective of Jews".

He's saying that they don't bow to the Jews and they're closer to Germans — I mean, Germans, not their perspective.

See the difference?

Now, care to explain why did you add this "on that" bullshit??

Lugger · 2020-12-06T17:21:41+00:00

I just love how you finally put away that mask of a pseudo-intellectual and revealed your true self — an ignorant lowlife dude with a poor impulse control and a shit-tier reading comprehension, who couldn't even notice that I said

but I'm yet to see/hear it.

Hopefully, now that I mentioned it right in your face you'll understand what those words mean, hehe.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T17:13:01+00:00

Why did he stop the order to attack a couple of times, telling the army he needs more time for negotiations?

Never heard of this, but even if true, it doesn't matter because he still attacked Poland unprovoked (unless you count the false-flag attack, of course).

Why did offer peace on September 2nd (this offer was presented to the British government this day) - before France and Britain had joined the war?

Offered peace?

Sorry, but he had already invaded Poland, and the UK had to honor the agreement.

The only 'peace offering' he could have made was asking the Brits to stand down and betray their allies — and obviously they weren't going to do it this time.

Yeah, because Poland wanted German territory

I don't even want to know where you read this, but even if true — which I'm sure isn't — it's still a piss-poor excuse for aggression. Up until 1939 Germany had been scaring the shit out of Europe, and you want me to believe that Poland and its pathetic army wanted to challenge German might?

Britain wanted to keep "the balance of power"

Britain tried to appease Hitler and fulfilled his every demand up until 1939. What they wanted was avoiding another war.

He literally cites them in his declaration of war.

You didn't get my point.

I was asking why did Germany have to conduct a false-flag attack and murder its own citizens if the Poles had previously done something similar.

Because Poland wanted to gain more territory and cleanse "their" country from foreigners (Ukrainians, Germans, etc.).

Poland had a right to do whatever it wanted within its territory and nobody would have cared.

Those were different times; there was no global police force like NATO that intervened to stop poor minorities from persecution (something-something-Serbia).

So why did London refuse to host a conference with regards to the Danzig question?

Look, as I've already mentioned, I don't know if what you're saying is true.

But even if I once again take your word for it, the UK simply might have had enough with Hitler's bullshit and expansionist policies and didn't want to surrender anything else to him.

Remember, they had already kept a blind eye on Rhineland, end of the Treaty of Versaille, Ruhr and so on.

tell Warsaw to not negotiate with Germany

What negotiations are you talking about?

Germans didn't even attempt to 'negotiate' with the Poles, they conducted Operation Himmler and launched an invasion.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T16:38:10+00:00

Never said he was.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T16:35:13+00:00

I don't disagree. Our desire not to be replaced in our own countries doesn't depend on what did or did not happen to the Jews in German occupied Poland almost eighty years ago.

I posted this because I was frustrated at what was happening to an elderly lady — I have no idea if her ideas are true or not but she shouldn't have to be jailed for expressing an opinion about an historical event.

I absolutely agree with you.

My comment wasn't directed at you, I just wanted to ask the question in a (somewhat) related thread.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T16:33:04+00:00

You couldn't be more wrong even if you tried.

I've seen countless remarks by both liberals online and western politicians, and never seen them bring up the Holocaust.

Well, maybe some low-level politician did mention regarding bringing back pro-white policies, but I'm yet to see/hear it.

Liberals use various excuses to justify 'Pro-White = Bad' argument:

muh progressiveness
"we live in the 21st century, honey"
low white birth rates
muh colonialism
"it's just a skin color, bro"
and et cetera.

Welcome to the real world.

There's no way Western man can be free unless he steps over the Holocaust and/or learns the truth about it.

Hehe, those words give me a strong cultist vibes.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T16:27:11+00:00

Did he take some actions, that escalated the situation? No doubt, but you can say the same about all major powers. Hence, the claim "wage an aggressive war[...]" seems false. He literally tried to prevent this and offered a bunch of times to keep the peace or restore peace even after the war broke out.

You're wrong about a very important thing: he didn't try to 'prevent' the war, he started it.

How?

He invaded Poland, and Poland had a pact with Britain.

In fact, he believed that it would not stay true to its promises and leave Poland to him, but was wrong — but still stupid.

There's only so much the Brits can stand down.

It's worth mentioning, that he did not cite these events in his declaration of war.

Doesn't change the fact.

that there had been real attacks by Polish soldiers in August 1939.

Don't know if it's true, but I'll take your word for it. Then what stopped him from using those attacks as a casus belli?

Why did those Germans had to die?

Arguably Britain (and maybe America) would have tried to start a war anyways. Even though they would have needed another reason for this.

I doubt it. They were scared shitless of Germany and tried everything to appease it before Hitler crossed the line.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T16:17:43+00:00

What's the source out of interest? The site you link to doesn't give one.

You can type that quote in Google and choose any source you like.

For example, this book

who calls Hitler a 'mustachioed retard'

I explained why I feel that way about him.

and thinks Germany was actually the aggressor in WW2

Hmm... maybe because it's true?

Or it wasn't Hitler who attacked Poland — which, in turn, had a pact with the UK that stated it would be obliged to intervene in case of German aggression?

Lugger · 2020-12-06T16:06:42+00:00

Poland had rightfully German land

Germany lost WW1 and ceded that land to Poland. It has been a way of things for the entire human history.

But even if he was somehow justified (but he wasn't), tell me, why did he have to conduct a false-flag operation and have his fellow Germans killed?

EDIT: To clarify, I called Rhineland a 'rightfully German land' in my OP post because it was a special case: a legally German, yet foreign-occupied demilitarized land.

Hitler did not start any war, the British and French had a vendetta and attacked Germany.

Wrong.

Poland had a pact with Britain and any act of German aggression against Poland meant British retribution.

Hitler knew this and invaded it nonetheless.

Hopefully you'll be able to put 2 and 2 together and come to a conclusion.

What about the Soviets?

Nor Britain nor France were obliged to declare a war on Russia if it attacked.

Yeah, it may sound strange, but that was how the pact I mentioned above worked.

Furthermore, the Soviets only invaded Poland after Polish Army had been effectively defeated and the fate of Poland had been sealed, so the lands the Soviets took would've falled into German hands otherwise.

I guess this, and the fact that they also decided not to anger a possible ally against Germany, played a role in not declaring a war.

The Jews wouldn't allow that to happen in a million years. The war was inevitable because Britain, the USSR, America, France, etc. were all under their control and were used as puppets against Germany.

What a bunch of bullshit.

By the time the war started the Jews in Germany were working their asses off in labor camps and had no influence over Hitler.

And once again: there would be no war had the Hitler the Retard not invaded Poland.

He believed that the UK and France would step down and allow him to carry on with the aggression just like they did with Czechoslovakia, but miscalculated.

He got more use out of them than killing them all would have, arguably. But killing them all wasn't really possible, nor would it do anything. If the Holocaust HAD happened, the pushback against Germany would be even greater than it is now.

I didn't say 'kill them', I say deport them to Madagscar as he (likely) considered.

'Got more use of them' — yeah, just like the American slaveowners got more use of blacks instead of sending them back to Africa. See my point?

Also, I notice EVERY TIME you post this (you have spammed this multiple times)

Wrong again. The guy only replied to me 2 times (does this qualify as 'every time' for you), and (probably) only because I linked that comment in my OP post.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T15:51:34+00:00

he planned to wage war on the Soviet Union ...

True. But he also wanted to take revenge on Entente powers like France and the UK and turn Germany into a new dominating European power — which he actually achieved before invading Russia in 1941.

His intention was to clear the way to Russia and then conquer it for Germany without interfering with Britain or France.

How could he have hoped to 'clear the way to Russia' — as in take control of Poland — without British interference if the Polacks had a pact with the Brits?

An act of aggression against Poland certainly meant the UK declaring war on Germany.

This strategy was based on the accurate understanding that Britain and France could not afford to stop Germany from fighting the Soviet Union without imploding which is what happened historically.

Not true.

Germany only managed to defeat the Brits and the French in 1940 campaign because they had signed a pact with Russia. It meant that they didn't have to fight on two fronts and could concentrate their efforts on the West.

I don't understand why you believe that France and Britain wouldn't have been able to crush Germany had Hitler decided to attack Russia first (assuming, for the sake of argument, that Germans somehow bypassed Poland) because a war on two fronts was one of Hitler's greatest (and justified) fears.

This did not happen and only became clear at the outbreak of the world war.

...started by Germany and Germany alone.

the most powerful faction in Nazi Germany was the Pan-Germanic one

I know. And it was the correct position to take, because Pan-Europeanism is cringe (but that's a topic for another thread).

I never criticized Hitler for not being Pan-European; I criticized him for placing the Arabs (non-whites) above Europeans.

especially given that they had the most comprehensive international system (SS volunteers and guest workers).

... which was also extremely cringeworthy.

SS went from being an (somewhat) elite fighting force to a dumpster made of poorly trained volunteer peasants from all around Europe who were only allowed to join the ranks because Germany was losing the war and needed as many troops as possible.

Just a handful of units like Leibstandarte managed to keep their elite status throughout the war.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T15:22:02+00:00

He definitely admired Islam for its virility

He didn't merely 'admire' Islam. He believed that Germans would've been better off had they been converted to it instead of Christianity, as well as placed the Arabs above fellow Europeans.

unsourced quotes

The quote I listed is an undisputed one.

And it falls perfectly in line with the Moustache Wearing Retard's other quotes/views regarding Islam.

As for the rest of your 'reply'... Well, I expected as much.

"Haha, I'm not gonna even try to refute a single point because everyone knows The Truth™. And if you don't... well, fug off and go worship dem Jooz."

I bet you're also the kind of guy who laughs at leftists whenever they refuse to discuss controversial topics like effects of diversity/crime statistics/Jewish nepotism because 'racism is bad and not worth debating'.

Lugger · 2020-12-06T13:17:13+00:00

The sub is called debate alt right, isn't it?

Lugger · 2020-12-06T09:40:14+00:00

Can anyone explain to me why so many Alt-Right/WN/whatever people care so much about the Holocaust?

What does it even have to do with a movement dedicated to Making White Countries White Again?

I honestly never understood how 'debunking' the Holocaust can be helpful in any way.

Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that one day some scholar absoutely destroys the 'Holocaust myth' and convinces the entire world that it was a complete and utter lie.

So what?

Will the elites cease their treacherous policies? No.

Will the nationalists across the Western world even gain an ounce of power? No.

Will the average White American or Eurocuck come closer to learning the truth about the ongoing replacement of their people? Or even stop being a spineless coward and stand up to the people who hate him? No and no.

Even the Jews themselves will not stop whining about being persecuted in Natzee Germany because, even excluding the Holocaust, nobody denies that they were humiliated, rounded up and sent to labor camps.

Perhaps the Holocaust remembrance museums all around the world will be closed and... that will be it.

There are no benefits for wasting so much time on doing something as pointless as debunking the Holocaust, unless you want to own da Joos for its own sake.

Perhaps I'm missing something?

Frankly, the only thing that annoys me about the Holocaust is the fact that the Jews made the entire world believe that they were the only victims of the World War II.

German troops massacred millions of whites (the Slavs) on the Eastern front and the Japanese massacred tens of millions of the Chinese, yet we only hear about poor Jooz and their 6 gorillions.

Lugger · 2020-11-25T19:16:00+00:00

because he didn't "muh gas the kikes" or shut down immigration completely

Not American, but I know that Drumpf didn't do shit to reduce immigration. Literally not a single thing.

It's not like he even tried.

Take a look at this, for example:

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/table1

Number of green card recepients under Trump was just as high (and in some years even higher) as under Obama.

...and those are green cards alone!

Don't forget his famous 'We want more immigrants than ever' bullshit and the fact that he utterly failed to even repeal DACA due to sheer incompetency of himself and his administration.

Come on, the guy was a complete moron and a total failure.

He used populist rhetorics in 2016 campaign and cast them aside the first day he took office.

He ploughed his base on every single key promise and instead proceeded to willingly serve Republican billionaire donors and Israel like an obedient leashed dog he is.

He absolutely deserves to be kicked out of office and humiliated for giving a false sense of hope and security to tens of millions of white Americans.

Lugger · 2020-11-24T15:09:20+00:00

Africans are completely irrelevant to this question.

I've never seen anyone claim them to be somehow 'native' to America or that it is 'their land'.

I can, however, say a few words about your argument:

Blacks were brought to the New World as tools and should've been sent back, also as tools.

Ideally, they should not even have been brought there in the first place because:

1)Slavery wasn't profitable, as far as I remember, the slaves made 91 cents for one dollar (correct me if I'm wrong)

1.2) Whatever contributions they made were nullified by the Civil War, which was fought over their freedom and cost whites hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention the economic damage.

2)It only truly benefitted the rich plantators themselves.

3)It prevented the South from being as industrialized as the North was.

4)Slavery is immoral (yeah, given what I've already said, it might be strange to hear that)

And so on, and so on...

Anyway, in my book, tools can't lay any claim to the land they were brought to work on.

You may argue that right now blacks play a pretty large role in the American society, but the fact that they were brought there as slaves means nothing in terms of the land ownership.

Lugger · 2020-11-24T14:44:07+00:00

If Europe is largely cleansed of Europeans, and is filled with Africans and Central Asians, is the land no longer ours? Is it African and Central Asian land?

If these Africans and Central Asians eradicated the European population and completely crushed the European civilization, repopulating this land with their own people instead, then yes, in this scenario it would be right to call them the masters of Europe.

but the land that its on is not ours in a more spiritual sense

Do you think Turks believe that their land doesn't belong to them? If not, what's the problem with the U.S., except for dozens of years of propaganda about 'muh stolen land' and 'muh poor native americans'?

I empathize strongly with the plight of the native populations as have been displaced and persecuted much like we will be in the coming years.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Gaining land via right of conquest was a standart practise of all human civilizations, and it only started to be viewed as 'uncivilized' after WW2. Amerindians were crushed by a superior civilization and were powerless to prevent it, while what we currently observe in all Western countries — not only the U.S. — is Europeans, guided by the treacherous elites, voluntarily surrendering to the hordes of non-whites and inviting even more of them to leech off their societies.

Lugger · 2020-11-24T13:59:22+00:00

I'm only going to comment on this one, something I've heard a million times yet always found extremely annoying:

a land that is not really our own

If America isn't 'really' a land of the Europeans, then who does it belong to?

Whites who would later become Americans conquered this land and largely cleansed it of the indigenous population.

It belongs to White Americans as much as Anatolia belongs to the Turks or Siberia belong to the Russians.

They shed blood for this land and built it into what it is.

Sadly, however, Americans proved to be too kind to round up all the remaining Amerindians and deport them elsewhere — Mexico, for example, which would have most likely welcomed them with open arms because the Catholic church had viewed the Amerindians as equals and permitted interracial marriage with them ever since the 16th century.

I am used to hearing leftists — and even regular conservatives — say that America doesn't belong to the Europeans, but it surprises me that someone with supposedly Alt-Right views uses the very same argument.