May 6, 20196 yr 15 hours ago, ILUVAdrianaLima said: Dafuq is wrong with society? I’m going to do the same to get in the girls locker rooms then Progress and tolerance right? How about a transgender MMA fighter who crushed the skull of a female fighter? https://bjj-world.com/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-breaks-skull-of-her-female-opponent/ All of these sophisms start with valid premises. Here, the premise is "we should treat transgenders with respect", which is a perfectly valid premise (of course, they do deserve respect, as all human beings). But then, all sort of crazy things are derived from this (like a guy can crush a woman's skull in a legit fight or a 3 year old can decide to become transgender). If we were in a rational world, civil/rational discussions would take place in the media about this, but no... because the media have more and more cultists, and less and less journalists (and arguing with cultists is blasphemy ) Spoiler
May 9, 20196 yr Oh, this is golden This world is golden! Quote 'I've gone back to being a child': Husband and father-of-seven, 52, leaves his wife and kids to live as a transgender SIX-YEAR-OLD girl named Stefonknee (...) She now resides with an adoptive 'mommy and daddy' and spends her time playing with dolls and the couple's young grandchildren https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3356084/I-ve-gone-child-Husband-father-seven-52-leaves-wife-kids-live-transgender-SIX-YEAR-OLD-girl-named-Stefonknee.html
May 9, 20196 yr ^ DaFuq? Regression therapy gone horribly wrong? I’m all for expressing yourself, and even changing genders. I’ve got a few friends who are transgenders, and I completely understand. I’m having the hardest time accepting that they decided they were a child. What about the responsibly to their 7 children?
May 10, 20196 yr 4 hours ago, Enrico_sw said: Oh, this is golden This world is golden! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3356084/I-ve-gone-child-Husband-father-seven-52-leaves-wife-kids-live-transgender-SIX-YEAR-OLD-girl-named-Stefonknee.html What's the limit for when you can tell these people they're fucking nuts?
May 10, 20196 yr 3 hours ago, CandleVixen said: ^ DaFuq? Regression therapy gone horribly wrong? I’m all for expressing yourself, and even changing genders. I’ve got a few friends who are transgenders, and I completely understand. I’m having the hardest time accepting that they decided they were a child. What about the responsibly to their 7 children? Those kids are better off not being around that lunacy. That has to fuck with their minds though and they'll need therapy.
May 12, 20196 yr HFC is like Starpukes, McMickey, Burger Jester, Piscia cut, Tube, Mama Jane's or Taco cloche.... Spoiler ... just a huge pile of... Spoiler .... And they are friends with diabetes et al.
May 16, 20196 yr This.... thing was sold $91 million https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/arts/jeff-koons-rabbit-auction.html https://www.ft.com/content/b93bc388-7770-11e9-be7d-6d846537acab A world that thinks it's worth $91 million is a mad world (or a world full of morons who like to burn money ) Spoiler
May 19, 20196 yr I was in Vermont yesterday and I used three different public restrooms: Gender Identified Male Gender Neutral Restroom Gender Fluid Restroom
June 4, 20195 yr @Enrico_sw As far as politically incorrect topics go, I recently read this book, which is about the 300-odd French defenders of Berlin. The story about how these men found themselves there are frankly film worthy but will never be so as they fought on the wrong side: https://www.amazon.com/SS-Charlemagne-33rd-Waffen-Grenadier-Division/dp/1848842317 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Charlemagne_(1st_French) In a deeply ironic situation, these Frenchmen were the most accomplished fighters on the German side in the battle of Berlin. They were the ones shielding Hitler's bunker/Reichs Chancellery and accounted for 62 tanks knocked out in various street fighting, approximately half of those in the government sector (the citadel) held by the 11th SS Nordland. 4 frenchmen were knighted with the knight's cross in the final hours of the third reich. Their motives for volunteering to die in Berlin (10% survived) were probably a mixture of idealism- seeking a beautiful death against communist domination and as an example (in their eyes) to all frenchmen and also desperation- they were now traitors of france, forlorn men without a future. What do you think about that? Is their story known in france? Fenet, the assault battalion commander was interviewed on History channel shows and so forth. Crucial to his survival and continued leadership of the assault battalion was the fact that he was crippled in the leg early on in the battle, and was carried around by aids while the battalion fought to the death over the next 6 days or so. This understrength battalion most probably extended world war 2 in europe by several days- if attacking Soviet armored corps, armored regiment, and rifle division managed to achieve a breakthrough in the French sector as anticipated they would have been able to storm the Reichs Chancellory and Hitler's bunker.
June 4, 20195 yr 4 hours ago, Cult Icon said: @Enrico_sw As far as politically incorrect topics go, I recently read this book, which is about the 300-odd French defenders of Berlin. The story about how these men found themselves there are frankly film worthy but will never be so as they fought on the wrong side: https://www.amazon.com/SS-Charlemagne-33rd-Waffen-Grenadier-Division/dp/1848842317 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Charlemagne_(1st_French) What do you think about that? Is their story known in france? I didn't know this particular story. It's kind of a dirty part of our history (and the beginning of a severe fall). It's funny because when I was a kid, the school taught us that most people were in the resistance, which was obviously a myth. Nowadays, in the times of self loathing in the West, they tend to say that there were a lot of collaborators, which is obviously wrong as well. The truth (and it's the case in nearly every invasion) is that most people didn't care. They lived their lives with a passive hatred for the occupying power. Now, regarding collaboration, what is really politically incorrect is to say that one of its biggest driving force was Pacifism. IMHO (and based on my readings of historians), the principal motives were, in order of importance: - Pacifism: the cultural consensus all over Europe, during the 20s, was that WW1 was a butchery and the motto was "Never again". Then the paths between countires started to diverge: in the 30s, Germany saw the rise of a bitter feeling (and the idea of the Revenge), but, in the UK and France, Pacifism kept being a prime value (that's why Munich was very popular). France kept its dream of peace in the 40s, whereas the UK woke up and grew strong to counter the threat (thanks to Churchill, because there were collaborating forces in the UK, e.g. Edward VIII, but also some very mighty lords - fortunately Churchill knew how to shut them off). - Pragmatism: people accepting the order of things and willing to make the most out of it (like the organised crime.... the french gestapo in Paris was held by the Parisian underworld, i.e. drug dealers, thieves, murderers who seized the opportunity) - The dream of a unified Europe... It's very politically incorrect to say that, but it's true. A unified Europe was a popular idea among collaborators. - Anticommunism: this feeling was popular in Northern Europe, but I don't think it was that strong in France (the sadness of the WW1 butchery made utopias quite popular in France, and communism was a big utopia back then) - Fascism/anti-republicanism: this feeling existed among some, but I think it was very marginal (raw data show this).
June 4, 20195 yr @Cult Icon One of the best books on the battle of France is "Strange defeat", by March Bloch (a French officer and historian, who was tortured and excuted by the nazis). This period is basically the shittiest episode in our history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Defeat https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Étrange_Défaite
June 4, 20195 yr @Enrico_sw These French Waffen SS were volunteers selected from French prisoners of war, French fascists, and bodyguard troops of Vichy france. The bodyguard troops were actively used against the French themselves prior to them joining the SS The European volunteers of the Waffen SS were some of the most courageous and deluded soldiers of WW2- believing that joining the enemy to fight another enemy would be a wise course of action. The great irony of the Gov't quarter in Berlin is that much of it was defended by a distinguished unit of European volunteers (Northern and Western European anti-communists of the 11.SS Nordland and the French SS). At a certain level - from my perspective, one of a student of war and understanding the pov of the warrior- I can respect anybody- at a certain level- who stands for what they believe in and self-sacrifices themselves with the highest heroism and comradeship. At a certain level they are better than the vast majority of people, who are cowards. Who are we to judge someone's opinion? It is foolish to think so. In their place we could have made the same bad decisions, too. So to me, it doesn't matter what side they are on or whether or whether or not I agree with their views. When the terrorists crashed into the twin towers my first thought was not of the victims but the heroism of the terrorists. Then I thought of the victims. Somehow I doubt that anyone who is not schooled in war understands this perspective. I've thought that if I made videos on youtube teaching people about German and Soviet history of WW2- that only mature and educated people in war would understand. The masses would not and act immaturely and ignorantly. I would probably have to disable a lot of comment sections, which turn into idiot-fights-.. which would adversely effect viewership.
June 5, 20195 yr 3 hours ago, Enrico_sw said: @Cult Icon One of the best books on the battle of France is "Strange defeat", by March Bloch (a French officer and historian, who was tortured and excuted by the nazis). This period is basically the shittiest episode in our history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Defeat https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Étrange_Défaite I have a copy of "Strange Defeat" but never read it. I have read the equally essential "Blitzkrieg Legend" by Frieser, which analyzes why the operations were so dramatically successful.
June 5, 20195 yr 4 hours ago, Enrico_sw said: I didn't know this particular story. It's kind of a dirty part of our history (and the beginning of a severe fall). It's funny because when I was a kid, the school taught us that most people were in the resistance, which was obviously a myth. Nowadays, in the times of self loathing in the West, they tend to say that there were a lot of collaborators, which is obviously wrong as well. The truth (and it's the case in nearly every invasion) is that most people didn't care. They lived their lives with a passive hatred for the occupying power. Now, regarding collaboration, what is really politically incorrect is to say that one of its biggest driving force was Pacifism. IMHO (and based on my readings of historians), the principal motives were, in order of importance: - Pacifism: the cultural consensus all over Europe, during the 20s, was that WW1 was a butchery and the motto was "Never again". Then the paths between countires started to diverge: in the 30s, Germany saw the rise of a bitter feeling (and the idea of the Revenge), but, in the UK and France, Pacifism kept being a prime value (that's why Munich was very popular). France kept its dream of peace in the 40s, whereas the UK woke up and grew strong to counter the threat (thanks to Churchill, because there were collaborating forces in the UK, e.g. Edward VIII, but also some very mighty lords - fortunately Churchill knew how to shut them off). - Pragmatism: people accepting the order of things and willing to make the most out of it (like the organised crime.... the french gestapo in Paris was held by the Parisian underworld, i.e. drug dealers, thieves, murderers who seized the opportunity) - The dream of a unified Europe... It's very politically incorrect to say that, but it's true. A unified Europe was a popular idea among collaborators. - Anticommunism: this feeling was popular in Northern Europe, but I don't think it was that strong in France (the sadness of the WW1 butchery made utopias quite popular in France, and communism was a big utopia back then) - Fascism/anti-republicanism: this feeling existed among some, but I think it was very marginal (raw data show this). That is interesting and I kind of sensed that myself. In 1940, however, I don't believe that cultural reasons are the main factor in France collapsing so rapidly. It looks like Christy also believes this. America is a pacifist country too and had little military to speak of in 1939. The US Army was less than the level of the Polish Army in 1939. It is true, however, that a society's military is a reflection of that society. That is why the German and Soviet militaries were that much more brutal and vicious than those of the Western allies. The main reason for the rapid collapse of the French military in 1940 was German military innovation and French military mistakes/stagnation. The British and commonwealth were to experience the same problems in France and then in North Africa- making Rommel and his men look like supersoldiers for a time until they learned from their shortcomings and innovated themselves. It does seem that the Resistance in france could be considered light in 1940-1943 and moderate in 1944 (uptick in activity prior to the Normandy landings). It never reached the ultraviolent and large scale actions in Eastern Europe (Soviet partisan forces numbered over a million and Yugoslavia (Tito) had a huge force for such a small country). This resulted in genocide in the millions. So maybe it worked out in the end for the French. The dream of a unified Europe sounds really deluded- I don't know about this.
June 5, 20195 yr 18 hours ago, Cult Icon said: That is interesting and I kind of sensed that myself. In 1940, however, I don't believe that cultural reasons are the main factor in France collapsing so rapidly. You're talking about the military defeat. I was talking about collaboration (which was after the defeat), though most of the factors I mentionned also apply to the defeat, though I would just add the mediocrity of our high ranking officers in 1939-40 (apart from De Gaulle and a couple of others). 18 hours ago, Cult Icon said: French military mistakes/stagnation Stagnation: yes. Mistakes: yes, including a huge one called "la ligne Maginot". All these problems come from the shitty high ranking officers (a lot of them were pacifists). More generally, I think that the problem is, since 1918, the "level of competence" of our elites (political, economical, military) has decreased dramatically in France. "A fish rots from the head down". The mediocrity of our elites (apart from a few exceptions) has screwed up our country; they have less and less convictions, they defend only themselves, with a stronger sense of nihilism. It's still the case today. 18 hours ago, Cult Icon said: It looks like Christy also believes this. What does "Christy" believe? 18 hours ago, Cult Icon said: The US Army was less than the level of the Polish Army in 1939 Poland has a great army but it was crushed on two sides, squeezed by crab pincers, Russia on the East and Germany on the West. They hoped that the UK and France would defend them, but they both sat tight. It's ironical because Russia was key in the final victory, but it was also key in the initial defeat. Not that their army was strong in 1939 (Stalin beheaded all the good officers in the 30s - like Tukhachevsky - and the Russian army was weak in 1939), but they cleared off the Eastern threat for the nazis. I don't think that the US army was bad in 1939. It was unexperienced and unequipped. But, in a couple of years, it grew very strong very rapidly, in many areas: strategy, chain of command, training and military gear. Quite an impressive growth. The Russians had an impressive growth as well betwee, 1939 and 1942: they spawned a new generation of great officers (like Zhukov, that I like a lot), better strategists. They kept having crappy gear, but their strong patriotism made up for it. 18 hours ago, Cult Icon said: The dream of a unified Europe sounds really deluded- I don't know about this. Of course, this was a delusional ideal, but a lot of the elites talked about it (once again, I talk about collaboration, not the military defeat). Look at a guy called Drieu la Rochelle (one of the worst collaborationists), he wrote a lot about it. And there's also Pierre Laval (an a**hole from Vichy), who uses this "ideal" as ajustifications of his actions.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.