Chronicles of a stable genius - all the biggliest stuff

[johnsmith]

what business is Ukraine of yours?

So said Neville Chamberlain.

"This agreement allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia in exchange for Hitler's assurances that he had no further territorial ambitions in Europe, which Chamberlain famously described as "peace for our time" upon his return to Britain"​

The same character types repeat through history.

People, today, are either Churchills or Chamberlains. And for those who don't know who these leaders were, that ignorance guarantees that history will repeat.

 

[Lupi]

So said Neville Chamberlain.

"This agreement allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia in exchange for Hitler's assurances that he had no further territorial ambitions in Europe, which Chamberlain famously described as "peace for our time" upon his return to Britain"​

The same character types repeat through history.

People, today, are either Churchills or Chamberlains. And for those who don't know who these leaders were, that ignorance guarantees that history will repeat.

The Russians defeated the Nazis not Churchill.

 

[tsf]

Russia complaining this morning about Ukraine bombing them. The fucking chutzpah to complain about a country you invaded shooting back at you.

And as for WW3. Russia will get their arses absolutely handed to them.

America and the rest of Europe have been watching all of this go down on satellite from their cozy little chairs watching what a pathetic rabble the Russian war effort has been to date. Watching, learning, feeding GPS coordinates to Ukraine about what target to hit next, laughing at their outdated equipment and their logistics nightmare. (Wait until Ukraine starts hitting a few transport hubs, airfields and rail lines.).

They can't even invade one country let alone if they took on Europe and the US.

The only thing the cunts have got is fucktons more people than the Ukraine that they give no fucks about. That's the only thing that's keeping this thing going otherwise it'd have been over 2 years ago..

Anyone that's tried to talk sense into him has lept out a window too.

Russia have been sabre-rattling for two years now. The truth is they're weak. Maybe after all their neo nazi skinhead hooligans had a little success at the euros it went to their heads

The second they even attempt a nuclear strike, it's the end of them as we know it

The good news is in a nuclear war, studies have show us and Argentina to be the most likely to survive - to quote Caddyshack 'So I've got that going for me, which is nice"

 

[johnsmith]

The Russians defeated the Nazis not Churchill.

Amazing. Talk about not being shy to reveal one's true colours.

 

[Lupi]

Amazing. Talk about not being shy to reveal one's true colours.

okay decentric

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

just in case I was too subtle for the AI SJW.....

 

[Stompy]

The Russians defeated the Nazis not Churchill.

It's wrong to say that the 'Russians' would have lost WW2 without allied support, but it's equally wrong to say that the 'Russians' won WW2'.

As it was, Germany came close to cutting off the Soviets from its oil supplies with its offensive operations in the Caucasus. This would most likely have been fatal. Without allied support, such as the Artic convoys, lead lease, and intelligence(remember the British were supplying the Soviets with intelligence derived from Enigma decrypts), The intelligence provided by Britain likely contributed to the Soviet preparations for significant battles, including Kursk in July 1943. At Kursk, the Soviets could anticipate and counter German attacks effectively, partly due to British intelligence of German plans.

Allied naval superiority played a crucial role in securing raw materials. It facilitates the protection of supply routes, sustaining allied war efforts(including Russia) while denying Nazi Germany the same raw materials. For example, coal-based synthetic fuels accounted for approximately 60% of Germany's total oil supply by the war's end. Amazing that. Strategic metals, rubber and chemical precursors, all crucial for aircraft and munitions production, were always in critical supply - all thanks to allied naval superiority.

We have yet to factor in the US industrial and economic might. Would the US even enter WW2 if Churchill was pushed aside and Britain cuts a deal?

With the US and Britain out of the conflict/neutralised, Germany would have redirected its military resources and strategic focus entirely on Russia. Is the result the same? Hmm. Yeah, Nah.

Churchill is a giant, and no praise can be considered too much in proclaiming his role in saving Western civilisation. Don't get me started.

 

[Lupi]

It's wrong to say that the 'Russians' would have lost WW2 without allied support, but it's equally wrong to say that the 'Russians' won WW2'.

As it was, Germany came close to cutting off the Soviets from its oil supplies with its offensive operations in the Caucasus. This would most likely have been fatal. Without allied support, such as the Artic convoys, lead lease, and intelligence(remember the British were supplying the Soviets with intelligence derived from Enigma decrypts), The intelligence provided by Britain likely contributed to the Soviet preparations for significant battles, including Kursk in July 1943. At Kursk, the Soviets could anticipate and counter German attacks effectively, partly due to British intelligence of German plans.

Allied naval superiority played a crucial role in securing raw materials. It facilitates the protection of supply routes, sustaining allied war efforts(including Russia) while denying Nazi Germany the same raw materials. For example, coal-based synthetic fuels accounted for approximately 60% of Germany's total oil supply by the war's end. Amazing that. Strategic metals, rubber and chemical precursors, all crucial for aircraft and munitions production, were always in critical supply - all thanks to allied naval superiority.

We have yet to factor in the US industrial and economic might. Would the US even enter WW2 if Churchill was pushed aside and Britain cuts a deal?

With the US and Britain out of the conflict/neutralised, Germany would have redirected its military resources and strategic focus entirely on Russia. Is the result the same? Hmm. Yeah, Nah.

Churchill is a giant, and no praise can be considered too much in proclaiming his role in saving Western civilisation. Don't get me started.

you might want to familiarise yourself with the point before you go off on another pointless tangent of anglo propaganda

 

[johnsmith]

just in case I was too subtle for the AI SJW.....
View attachment 310View attachment 311

General George Patton had the right idea. Some say Patton was killed by a conspiracy group afraid of Patton's agenda.

To this day, German people are grateful that their country was defeated in WW2. Many German young people have spoken with me, and mentioned that they see it, not as Germany having been defeated in WW2, but as Nazism being defeated to set Germany free.

If Patton had had his way, then today Russian young people could have had the same gratefulness of being set free. But, as it is, it was a lost opportunity.

Although I like many of Trump's policies, I do not like the idea of letting Ukraine slip into Russian oppression.

 

[johnsmith]

I asked AI about Donald Trump's statement about Mexican rapists ...

Question: If you were a judge in court, and had to make an interpretation - and you cannot sit on the fence - which would you favour?​

​

AI"s answer:​

​

If I were to adopt the role of a judge tasked with interpreting Donald Trump's statements about Mexican immigrants, I would focus on the specific language used and the context in which it was delivered.​

​

Based on the wording of Trump's statement, I would lean toward the interpretation that he was referring to a subset of individuals—specifically, those illegally crossing the border—rather than making a blanket statement about all Mexicans.​

​

Context of Illegal Immigration: Trump's comments were made in the context of discussing illegal immigration and crime. He was addressing concerns about individuals who enter the country unlawfully, which suggests that his intent was to highlight issues related to that specific group.​

​

Common Usage: In political rhetoric, it is not uncommon for speakers to use generalizations to emphasize particular points. While this can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations, it is often intended to draw attention to specific issues rather than to condemn entire populations.​

​

Nuance in Political Discourse: Given the complexities of immigration policy and crime, it is reasonable to conclude that Trump was attempting to address concerns about illegal immigration rather than making a sweeping generalization about all Mexican people.​

​

Conclusion​

​

In this judgment, I would favor the interpretation that Trump was referring to some individuals among those illegally crossing the border rather than asserting that all Mexicans are rapists. However, I would also acknowledge that his phrasing lacked the necessary nuance, leading to significant misinterpretation and backlash. This highlights the importance of clear communication in political discourse, particularly on sensitive topics like immigration.​

So you Leftists have to ask: how come 95% of the Mainstream Media interpreted it to say Trump was racist, calling all Mexicans to be racist?

 

[johnsmith]

To all you people who oppose RFK Jr - because the Media overlords tell you he is an "anti-vaxer" - listen to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough agree with RFK Jr. What caused Scarborough to shift his opinion?

RFK Jr and Joe Scarborough — “We’re going to find out Thimerosal (mercury) causes Autism”

rumble.com

 

[Lupi]

Biden the moron missed the group photo at the G20. Brazil the hosts decided not to wait for him. They hate him.

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

It's wrong to say that the 'Russians' would have lost WW2 without allied support, but it's equally wrong to say that the 'Russians' won WW2'.

As it was, Germany came close to cutting off the Soviets from its oil supplies with its offensive operations in the Caucasus. This would most likely have been fatal. Without allied support, such as the Artic convoys, lead lease, and intelligence(remember the British were supplying the Soviets with intelligence derived from Enigma decrypts), The intelligence provided by Britain likely contributed to the Soviet preparations for significant battles, including Kursk in July 1943. At Kursk, the Soviets could anticipate and counter German attacks effectively, partly due to British intelligence of German plans.

Allied naval superiority played a crucial role in securing raw materials. It facilitates the protection of supply routes, sustaining allied war efforts(including Russia) while denying Nazi Germany the same raw materials. For example, coal-based synthetic fuels accounted for approximately 60% of Germany's total oil supply by the war's end. Amazing that. Strategic metals, rubber and chemical precursors, all crucial for aircraft and munitions production, were always in critical supply - all thanks to allied naval superiority.

We have yet to factor in the US industrial and economic might. Would the US even enter WW2 if Churchill was pushed aside and Britain cuts a deal?

With the US and Britain out of the conflict/neutralised, Germany would have redirected its military resources and strategic focus entirely on Russia. Is the result the same? Hmm. Yeah, Nah.

Churchill is a giant, and no praise can be considered too much in proclaiming his role in saving Western civilisation. Don't get me started.

Churchill was an alcohol addled, vile, mass murderer responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocents over countless wars (not limited but definitely including the slaughter of Gallipoli) . In any other society he would have and should have been tried as a war criminal and hung drawn and quartered... but the self appointed "saviours of western civilisation" do have a bit of a habit of watching the world burn while they sip their tea...... I like to believe that there actually IS an afterlife so I can be comforted that this little pig will spend eternity getting his arse spit-roasted over coals.

 

[johnsmith]

Churchill was an alcohol addled, vile, mass murderer responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocents over countless wars (not limited but definitely including the slaughter of Gallipoli) . In any other society he would have and should have been tried as a war criminal and hung drawn and quartered... but the self appointed "saviours of western civilisation" do have a bit of a habit of watching the world burn while they sip their tea...... I like to believe that there actually IS an afterlife so I can be comforted that this little pig will spend eternity getting his arse spit-roasted over coals.

Ad hominem attack. This shows the inability of a person to formulate arguments and reasoning against his opponent's policies. It's a pattern in MSC's posts.

Prime example: whenever I describe the Christian gospel, MSC just says it is heresy and schism. No reasoning given. No facts and evidence presented. No source material referenced. Just ad hominem attacks from MSC.

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

Ad hominem attack. This shows the inability of a person to formulate arguments and reasoning against his opponent's policies. It's a pattern in MSC's posts.

Prime example: whenever I describe the Christian gospel, MSC just says it is heresy and schism. No reasoning given. No facts and evidence presented. No source material referenced. Just ad hominem attacks from MSC.

Me - "Chat GPT please formulate a response to this feeble-minded, brainwashed nonsense"
Chat GPT - " Sorry I cannot understand him/her either"

 

[tsf]

As a man of god JS (sorry for the capitals) - if these allegations about Trump's pick are true, would you still support him if he paid all these women (some potentially minors) for sex?
Or is NYTimes just fake news/no credibility unless one of your conservative types screams it from the hilltops in their twitter/web bio that they are "#1 on NYtimes bookseller list" (which they always seem to do)

 

[tsf]

For the record, I don't see a problem with him paying for a good time, with minors - yes - but women no problem. But then I don't go around pretending to be a man of morals.

 

[Muz]

As a man of god JS (sorry for the capitals) - if these allegations about Trump's pick are true, would you still support him if he paid all these women (some potentially minors) for sex?
Or is NYTimes just fake news/no credibility unless one of your conservative types screams it from the hilltops in their twitter/web bio that they are "#1 on NYtimes bookseller list" (which they always seem to do)

In B4 'fake news' claim or 'libtard media' or 'weaponised media something or other'.

 

[tsf]

In B4 'fake news' claim or 'libtard media' or 'weaponised media something or other'.

But they always seem to wear their place on the NYTimes best-selling list like a badge of honour - so I can't figure out of it's credible or not