![California OFFICIALLY declares War on the White Race [600x562 - 89KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/pR6SMI.png){kind=link}
Race and ideology are more closely related than you may think.
They've done enough studies to show a significant correlation between political ideology and genetics, just one example.
There are definite genetic subdivisions in europeans determining our political divides, and I'm not just talking about shapeshifters.
I wonder if theres any specific studies on how facial features in whites correlate with politics.
The worse things get, interestingly enough, the easier it gets for us in terms of gathering our strength. Look at the Q folks and how dedicated they are. Years ago, many of those followers would never have thought of anything like it or expressed any interest. We are the vanguard, the first. The leaders and officers. When people begin asking questions, we must be there to show them the answer. Not tell them, show them.
God bless ya Phantom, hope is a dangerous thing.
They've done enough studies to show a significant correlation between political ideology and genetics, just one example.
Mmhmm, I've heard of those.
There are definite genetic subdivisions in europeans determining our political divides, and I'm not just talking about shapeshifters.
Of course. Take the Germanics, Anglos, and Mediterranean peoples. All European, but different ways of life. Architecture, art, etc... It's just how we are. You can really see it in wartime with vehicle designs, particularly in WWII. German panzers look so typically German. Highly engineered, continually modified, and very utilitarian while also advanced enough to be seen as cutting edge. English vehicles are, funny enough, quite "royal" in their designs. Take the Spitfire compared to the 109. The Spit was designed with functionality and elegance, whereas the 109 from Germany was raw performance.
American designs are like a happy medium between the two, which makes perfect sense for the time because we had heavy Germanic and Anglo influence in our blood and general culture. It was quality engineering, but also created with a kind of "flare" to it that just looks American. The Sherman and P-51 being the shining examples of this. The P-51 was like a mashup of the 109 and Spit, while the Sherman was an "American panzer that is good but able to be mass produced" rather than continually upgraded (though, of course, the Shermans acquired various upgrades due to the nature of the conflict).
I wonder if theres any specific studies on how facial features in whites correlate with politics.
Chad Aryan Jawline: Super Straight SS
Anglo face: Eh feck off moi nayvee is bettah. Rool Britannia.
American face: Stares in blind patriotism
Russian face: Ve work, ve die. Have drink and shoot guns to fill gaps.
God bless ya Phantom, hope is a dangerous thing.
No, God with all of you. I haven't earned any blessings in my opinion. I never will.
And hope is a dangerous thing. That's why it we ought to weaponize it.
I dont see why they don't use tanks as a platform for mobile artillery, or even tanks that can launch drones.
It seems like there would be some value in something that moves on the ground, heavily armored and not picked up by radar (flying low as it were), and can roll right up to enemy lines before launching planes/bombers, or artillery shells behind enemy lines disrupting logistics and retreat. Sort of like how the japanese launched planes using subs as platforms.
Also while gas weapons are banned by geneva convention, I see no reason artillery doesn't do zone denial and cut off retreats, using flammable shells. Tanks and soldiers can avoid ordinary ordinance, because its an event with a short and fixed interval in space and time, while fire keeps on burning as long as it has fuel. They'll cross a crater to move forward or retreat.
Thats harder to do when its three hundred feet of napalm you have to cross. Probably roast vehicles and tank crews too, or at least choke em out.
I dont see why they don't use tanks as a platform for mobile artillery,
M109 Paladin. We do, it's just far more niche and they are lightly armored.
or even tanks that can launch drones.
Depends on the type. Attack drones? Silly. Drones and planes are very large. A "carrier" tank wouldn't work.
It seems like there would be some value in something that moves on the ground, heavily armored and not picked up by radar (flying low as it were), and can roll right up to enemy lines before launching planes/bombers, or artillery shells behind enemy lines disrupting logistics and retreat. Sort of like how the japanese launched planes using subs as platforms.
There is value in mobile artillery in that setup and quick advances are easier. But disrupting logistics, launching entire planes... No. No way. Logistics will be attacked either by air or by pincer maneuvers with mechanized/armored troops. Artillery is there to blow the shit out of static targets. Blowing roads and bridges would be helpful of course, but if you're trying to quickly advance into enemy territory in an armored blitz you really have to choose carefully. Better to just let CAS do their thing or encircle enemy positions.
Also while gas weapons are banned by geneva convention, I see no reason artillery doesn't do zone denial and cut off retreats
Too slow and inconsistent. Artillery can deploy minefields, but that can lead to UXO issues post-conflict. Besides, mines are only so good at area denial. They're as much a mental weapon as they are a real one.
using flammable shells.
Incendiary munitions aren't practical for that type of use and are questionable at best as far as world politics are concerned. It's why we stopped using flamethrowers. Just... Not a good thing on either end. Flame troops had an even worse time dealing with combat both physically and mentally. Shooting a guy is one thing. Burning him alive? I wouldn't do it even to my worst enemy. There's no such thing as a clean war, but there is such thing as living with yourself. Bullets are quick and clean enough, given proper marksmanship. If you need to flush people out, tear gas. Non-lethal but it gets your point across pretty easily.
because its an event with a short and fixed interval in space and time
Dürchbruchmüller and Kaiserschlacht would love to have over a million words with you discussing 10,000 points and then some.
(post is archived)