ABigGuy4U
1d ago
"my chad tribesmen will beat the shit out of your effeminate wimps, if only the sheeple finally wake up and develop classtribal counsciousness"
Maybe I’m unusual, but I’m pretty doomer-pilled about the right’s prospects in a civil war.
ABigGuy4U
1d ago
A million dead Ukrainians is too high: we would see the evidence everywhere in both economies if that were true.
The articles about stunning and brave Ukrainian girlbosses taking over the coal mines and shipyards because all the men were... uh.... somewhere else started popping up like a year and a half ago.
Not Europe's problem.
It is Europe’s problem, or at least they feel it is. That’s why they got involved in the first place. There’s a big strategic difference between Russia controlling Donbas, and Russia controlling Ukraine all the way to the Polish border.
All the leverage europe has over russia (sanctions, confiscated assets) has been gifted to ukraine, to do with as they please.
But why?
Anyway, the I don’t think Europe was thinking about this as logically as you are, I suspect they just don’t know how bad things really are.
ABigGuy4U
2d ago
Say what you will about the people of Boston, at least most of the money they were funneling to terrorists came out of their own pockets and not the taxpayer’s.
ABigGuy4U
2d ago
Shoot and scoot should be much safer than setting up one of those monster cannons, right?
Sure, for each individual unit. But Russia has 4-5 thousand individual artillery pieces in the field, including around a thousand to fifteen hundred that are also self propelled (though not as accurate). Ukraine has 1500 tube artillery plus a handful of western MRLS systems. So individual Russian artillery pieces and systems get destroyed too, but it’s not going to change the overall disparity in volume of fire.
ABigGuy4U
2d ago
Probably not going to happen. The European proposal is delusional. The Russians probably don’t have an actual interest in ending the war at this point and their own proposal is only being made because they know that Ukraine will refuse.
What makes them more vulnerable? Aren’t they supposed to be “highly mobile”?
The fact that most of your artillery strike capacity is reliant on the survival of four vehicles. You lose one of those, now your strike capacity is down 25 percent (not a perfect figure since the Ukrainians do have some tube artillery of their own too, but you get the idea).They used to be pretty resistant to counter-battery fire due to their mobility, but the Russians developed better ways of tracking and eliminating them after a year or two. That’s why you don’t hear a lot about them anymore. There are only about 400-700 HIMARS systems in existence and the rumor is Ukraine has gone through about 75-100.
HIMARS ammunition capacity is a problem too. Plus the Russians got better at distributing logistics so there aren’t as many huge ammunition depos within strike range. HIMARS only carry about 4-6 rockets, and are best suited for strikes against a few large key targets, not doing 40 artillery strikes a day against small infantry positions for weeks at a time. French Caesar systems and other similar systems have the same issues. Intel isn’t much of a problem since they get live satellite coverage from US systems.
ABigGuy4U
2d ago
The main problem isn’t the drones, it’s the massive imbalance in tube artillery. HIMARS systems are neat but they are vulnerable to counter-battery fire and can’t substitute for Russia having ten times as many standard howitzers. NATO’s main advantage is air power, which is politically untenable to deploy and logistically untenable to give to Ukraine.
Like everything else with Zoomers, this is all online. I’m not sure you would see a visible Groyper presence anywhere, no matter how much support there is.
ABigGuy4U
3d ago
The first season of Breaking Bad is pretty slow, it gets more interesting the deeper Walt digs the hole he’s in.
ABigGuy4U
3d ago
I found it nihilistic and depressing, and the time limit annoying given the realistically portrayed gravitational physics.
ABigGuy4U
3d ago
Thank you, I had been meaning to make a Sunday question about this as well.
ABigGuy4U
3d ago
The Soviets mostly were not Jewish. I have not heard the claim that Jewish Soviet officials were especially heinous, statistically speaking.
During the early parts of Soviet history there were a lot more of them. From the 1917 Revolution to around the late 20s-early 1930s. Which means there were a lot of Jewish party members participating in particularly ugly war crimes during the Red Terror. Some of these had the character of an ethnically and religiously motivated pogrom more than class warfare, especially many of the actions against the Russian Orthodox Church.
Stalin kicked most of them out (along with most of the other ethnic minorities) because he was staring down the barrel of a huge war with other foreign powers and he needed a more Russian centric communist party to get the largely Russian population on board for it.
Now none of this particularly reflects on Jews specifically. Vicious ethnic and religious persecution of various kinds was very common for most of European history. Many other communist revolutions were used as a cover for ethnic and tribal warfare. And in Russia specifically, the government using one designated favorite ethnic minority as a stick to beat everyone else into line was a standard part of government structure.
ABigGuy4U
4d ago
Europe has an annoying quality where they want America to pay their meal ticket and then act snooty about it. They aren’t an Indian reservation, if they really wanted to make a go of being independent they could. Even when they’re right about the particular item of snootiness (like wrecking up Iraq) it’s hard to feel sympathetic for them.
ABigGuy4U
4d ago
There was a similar phenomenon in Burgerland even before the immigration started. The only reason the elite like the left so much now is that they had the FBI spend 70 years beating the shit out of the left until it was free of all the parts they didn’t like.
ABigGuy4U
5d ago
False flags all seem to be so poorly executed that they don't achieve anything for the "team" attempting them.
False-flags are like hairpieces, you don’t notice the good ones. This lady and Smolett aren’t political operatives or intelligence agents, they are crazy narcissicists looking for attention. It’s like Münchausen’s syndrome.
ABigGuy4U
5d ago
I’d say it applies fairly well to all three of those.
-
The lawfare and sporadic outbreaks violence started a lot earlier with Rome (about 40-80 years before formal military activity). The formal state apparatuses got dragged in a lot faster. But otherwise this mostly holds.
-
It applies less well to the English Civil War, since that originated as jostling between two branches of the government. But you do see lawfare (arrest warrants and royal prosecutions) before the outbreak of formal hostilities.
-
There was an increasingly intense pattern of SR terrorist activity and labor strike actions beginning in the 1880s, that then eventually dragged in the people and the military against the Tsar.
Also, I don’t think Jefferson was slumming it with weirdos like us.
Sh-sh-shut up! * sobs *
How does a civil war actually manifest in the current environment? Terrorism sure
The problem is if that gets bad enough, state governments and the feds eventually have to take sides. People including myself will often point out how the first American Civil War was militarily not much like a traditional civil war, and more like a war between two nations. But the political breakdown leading to that actually does look a lot like a civil war and you can see the progression:
-
Weirdos like us began to see the risks of future political breakdown over the slavery question as early as 1820, look at Jefferson’s “fire bell in the night” letter.
-
This political breakdown actually begins happening in 1832. The Nullification Crisis wasn’t over slavery, it was over taxes but everyone could see it could apply to other things too. Like slavery.
-
Actual incidents of bloodshed start to happen periodically. Nat Turner’s revolt happens in 1832. Elijah Lovejoy is murdered in 1837. It’s 20 years out from the beginning of major hostilities, but already everyone is on edge.
-
Mass scale lawfare begins in the 1840s. There are highly contentious compromises over admitting various slave and free states.
-
Large scale paramilitaries begin to form in the early 1850s. By 1854, there is actual low-intensity guerrilla warfare breaking out in Kansas.
-
The scale of the violence gets high enough that state actors and influential people are beginning to take sides. By the mid 1850s Pro-slavery and Pro-freesoil militias are getting lots of funding from somewhere to by sophisticated military hardware including artillery.
-
Things boil over in the late 1850s with the twin shocks of the Dredd Scott decision and John Brown’s raid. The Dredd Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act mean that major institutions of the federal government are now openly taking sides in the conflict. John Brown’s raid shows that large scale business entities in the north are now willing to directly fund paramilitary attacks against the South with the aim of overthrowing their social order by force.
-
Lincoln is elected in 1860. The South begins to panic. The federal government they had weaponized is now going to be turn against them.
-
Most southern states still have no interest in secession. One particularly radicalized state, South Carolina, secedes from the union in 1860.
-
The first shots between South Carolina and the federal government are fired in early 1861. The lines are now drawn, and state governments now have to take actually have to take sides. The political order rapidly crumbles as state after state begins to secede.
America today seems to be in the 4-5 range, with worrying indicators that it’s about to go to stage 6.
ABigGuy4U
5d ago
It’s a euphemism that meant they weren’t planning on taking a hatchet to the welfare state.
ABigGuy4U
7d ago
Ah yes, but they also praised the Stunning and Brave trans-men that immediately stopped taking testosterone, threw on a dress, and jumped the border into Poland. So it all works out.
ABigGuy4U
7d ago
The problem is that Andor is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike Star Wars. You could have set it in Northern Ireland in the 70s, the West Bank in the 1990s, or France in the 1940s, and nothing would have changed. Hell, most of the second season was set in France in the 1940s! Now that’s why I liked it so much, but it’s not really a good roadmap for further Star Wars media.
Supposedly he shouted “Allahu Akbar” while opening fire so apparently Islamic lone wolf terrorism.
More options
Context Copy link