Supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles is one of the few things that could help end the war soon, but Trump clearly doesn’t understand that.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/EternalMuscovite/77404

I think he understands that. But he doesn't want to disadvantage Russia significantly. Because he is pro-Russian. And that is the problem.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/hapaperspective/17856

LOL

As JLP would say, “She black!”

Some people are upset about a private chat between some young White men, wait until you see what browns post publicly

Many Indians on suicide watch?

This sub saharan arrived in the UK illegally to kidnap and rape White women. Many more like him are there, and many more will come.

A guy like me thinks: wouldn’t it be great if it were legal for more White girls to carry a loaded handgun? But then I hear some Telegram nationalists interjecting, “ackchyually, that would give her a false sense of security!” What could only be implied from such nonsense is that White women getting raped by negroes is great propaganda for the cause, because “gun rights pacify us!” And “ackchyually, being physically defenseless is the real sense of security!”

There’s just no substitute for a lethal device that has a button that puts holes in the person attacking you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3sN24dnocs

Looks like they’re focusing especially on his early adult years as a young officer in the British army during the French and Indian War. Hopefully they don’t revise history and have a bunch of diversity injected into it. https://news.1rj.ru/str/SGTnewsNetwork/110034

American victory: militarily defeating and kicking out the most powerful globalist empire of its day, and doing it twice.

Loyalist victory: over 200 years after taking an epic ass-beating, someone’s opinion post went viral for a day on a US based social media platform.

I wonder where Fortissax stands on the English civil war, since he likes to force this modern left vs right dichotomy on everything. I wonder what he thinks of the Parliamentarians who won against the Royalists and ended up beheading their monarch — Charles I. Ironically it was that same institution — Parliament — that imposed all the oppressive acts against the American colonists — King George III just went along with Parliament. The American colonists initially saw themselves as loyal subjects of the crown that were being oppressed by Parliament, and sought representation through their king, until they realized their king didn’t give a shit.

The Founding Fathers weren’t anymore “left wing” than the Parliamentarians of the English Civil War, also called The Great Rebellion. Cromwell created the New Model Army, what later became the Redcoats, so I could use Fortissax’s logic to argue that the Redcoats were actually a left wing military force, because they served the Parliamentarians against the Royalists.

These Dissident Right types who fancy themselves British Loyalist-monarchists — and thus the true “right-wingers” — often claim that America was disloyal and radically “left-wing.” But they would do well to revisit the English Civil War, the Magna Carta, and even the consequences of the Battle of Hastings. These events are far more impactful and detrimental to Anglo/English monarchy than the American Revolution.

If you still want to call yourself a loyalist in some 18th century British context, just know that you’re expressing loyalty more to a Constitutional-Parliamentary system rather than monarchy by itself.

Again, this is why it’s totally stupid to accuse the US Founding Fathers and the whole American resistance of being leftwing.

I think in many ways, it might be more accurate to see the American Revolution as a second English Civil War. In many ways it was a continuation of this Anglo-Saxon push toward greater liberty and sovereignty.

Since getting banned from YidTube, my friend Wyvern the Terrible has found the bulk of his video content and reuploaded it to his new channel on Rumble, which is where he will be posting his new content. His specialty has been exposing the Kremlin’s massive influence over the Dissident Right, which is important to understand since there is still a major war going on right now in Europe.

https://rumble.com/v70gndy-what-is-information-laundering-and-how-to-spot-an-influencer-engaged-in-it.html?

Although I appreciate Fortisaxx’s sentiment on many things, I’d have to side with Hapaperspective here, as he is more in line with history. The American Founder’s view would undoubtedly be considered politically to the right of most right wingers today and they definitely harkened back to the English Civil War (Cromwell and the Parliamentary Roundheads were a regular reference point for them, as they saw themselves as the heirs to those Englishmen and, frankly, ethnically a large percentage of them literally were their descendants). To say either Cromwell or the Parliamentarians in general were liberals would be laughable.
Now, having said that, the American Colonists of the late 18th Century had imbibed in Enlightenment beliefs, but they were mostly of the Anglo-Scottish kind, which was more ‘conservative’ than the far more radical French Enlightenment (and, yes, I know Montesquieu was French, but the exception tends to prove the rule and he was more in line with his beliefs with the Scottish Enlightenment philosophers than most of the radical Philosophes such as Rousseau were promulgating). The main leaders of the American break from England merged these very conservative Enlightenment views with the earlier Anglo-Celtic Protestant worldview of their English and Scots-Irish ancestors; including those who fought Charles I and the Royalist Cavaliers in the 1640s. As many have pointed out in the past, they were not the same as the extremists who took control in France a few years later, especially the Jacobins during the Terror, so to equate them with either radicalism or even the more moderate liberalism we tend to think of today is erroneous. The American Founders would be as liberal as Adam Smith or Frances Hutcheson, not like some latter stage John Stuart Mill.
This brings up another point. As with Mill, the Founders of Canada were of a different era. They were men of the mid-Victorian, rather than Georgian, era. The conservatism of the 1860s was really more akin to that earlier form of liberalism. If you trace the British Conservative Party and its progeny in Canada, they came out of what were deemed as the “liberals” of English during the late 17th and 18th Century: the Whigs. The English Tories of that earlier era were more ardently monarchist and true believers in the Church of England as the only truly acceptable form of religion. The Whigs were open to Dissenting Protestants and though still supportive of the monarchy, they had more sympathies to republican ideals. As such, one would say Canada’s Founders were really closer to these Whigs and, in many respects, to the American Founders, though with more of the Victorian mindset that was taking hold throughout the Anglosphere (with greater emphasis on “science” in all things, the White Man’s Burden, etc).
So, yes, in some respects Canada had a more ‘reticent and reserved’ idea of governance and undoubtedly a more monarchist heritage, but they were still far closer to the American Founders on most things than they differed. In a sense, both were Classical liberals in the older sense of what that means, but also very strongly right wing nationalists; to an extent neither country exhibits today.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/hapaperspective/17865

Not only can the American Revolution be seen as a second English Civil War, but also as America’s first civil war. And just as interesting, the Seven Years War in Europe that occurred a decade before the American Revolution was actually the First World War, which was triggered in the New World in the Ohio Valley when George Washington was serving the British Empire as a colonial militia officer. It was triggered by George Washington’s miscalculations in dealing with the French.

The Seven Years War in Europe was triggered by George Washington. lol

Ameribros, share this around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJvFfTOxvvM

These No Kings! protests will result in the opposite of the intended effect: it makes Trump look great. These protestors are your typical Berniebro, mentally ill, weak and dysgenic shitlib types. What do we do with these people once we have power?

https://youtu.be/FC3eO3Le1sE

Never give up your gun rights, because your government and your racial enemies are always scheming up ways to take them away, that’s why we have the Second Amendment here in the US exists as a strong legal protection — something a lot of dissident righters still refuse to understand. There’s no moderate or in between position here: If you don’t support your right to keep and bear arms, then you support the government disarming you — It’s one or the other. You have to pick one!

Also, here’s an excellent video by Lilly Gaddis. She gets it.

https://youtu.be/wlUXgjx5p4k

Where does “gun culture” come from? How does it start? How do you get one? And when and how does it end?

I’ve heard people tell me, “well unlike you Americans we can’t/shouldn’t have gun rights because we don’t have a gun culture.”

If you were an animal in a cage, someone could try to argue that living in a cage is your culture. So would freedom from confinement in a cage be against your culture?

I’ve heard people say “we don’t have a culture of free speech.” They unwittingly imply that no freedom of speech is their natural and correct state of affairs. It’s some form of psychological domestication, like a government official is living inside their head.

My opinion: Just as freedom of speech, gun rights are not even a matter of culture. You can have a gun culture or a culture of freedom of speech, but the prerequisite is the legal protection of those rights. The culture aspect is just a symptom of having rights that aren’t restricted by the government.