[Krieg]

(01-23-2016 03:01 PM)Pride male Wrote:  

How are things in Russia? Is it Europe's last hope?

Pretty grim.

All hope is that Navalny will change Putin and stop his destructive pro-migrant policies.

The last hope for Europe are Poland,Slovakia,Ukraine,Hungary,Byelorus,Baltics. These countries are in between two fires.

Last time I was in Kiev I saw many asian migrants selling kebabs near the tube stations, who are slowly moving to Ukraine from Russia. The eastern rot is penetrating.

[Matsufubu]

Heartiste had something that would explain this cucking of the nation:

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/01/...-my-feels/

Basically, the liberals don't see the threat, but the conservatives do. The negative reaction of the right to this influx combined with the 'feel good' factor for the left in bending over and taking it from the migrants (because saying "no" is so very hard as it requires backbone) causes the emotional reasoning that forces the cucking.

Quote:

Will the royal family of England reclaim their country? They are the only ones with enough popularity and wealth to successfully lead a military revolution and take back the country, close the borders, and rebuild. Not only could they rally the White brits in the countryside, but I strongly suspect a shit-ton of immigrants would join as well.

Unfortunately that's not the way it works any more. The Queen is too old, Charles is too liberal, and William and Harry are just enjoying the ride. Besides, their role is ceremonial more than anything. They don't decide shit.

As someone who goes to London a lot, I would never live there. I married a Kiwi so I could get my family a ticket out of here before the inevitable happens.

[Slim Shady]

England was worse than Germany. What is happening there is terrible, but I won't say that they don't deserve everything that they are getting. I have no love for England, or anyone that supports colonialism. You can cuck meme all that you want.

[Anabasis to Desta]

(01-23-2016 03:32 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

England was worse than Germany. What is happening there is terrible, but I won't say that they don't deserve everything that they are getting. I have no love for England, or anyone that supports colonialism. You can cuck meme all that you want.

The reason colonies became colonized is because they were weak and Britain was strong. Period. Nothing to do with morality or ideology. If Kenya or India were strong enough they would have done the same.

When you think about it, it's nothing short of a miracle that a tiny island off the European coast was able to single-handedly conquer most of the planet, rule over a quarter of the earth's population & create the largest Empire in history.

[thedarkknight]

(01-23-2016 04:03 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 03:32 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

England was worse than Germany. What is happening there is terrible, but I won't say that they don't deserve everything that they are getting. I have no love for England, or anyone that supports colonialism. You can cuck meme all that you want.

The reason colonies became colonized is because they were weak and Britain was strong. Period. Nothing to do with morality or ideology. If Kenya or India were strong enough they would have done the same.

When you think about it, it's nothing short of a miracle that a tiny island off the European coast was able to single-handedly conquer most of the planet, rule over a quarter of the earth's population & create the largest Empire in history.

Yet, instead of other ambitious countries with Imperialist ambitions (Germany, Russia, Japan) the British picked on weak, under-industrialised countries instead of other powerful European colonists like France, Spain, Holland, Portugal or Belgium. I have no beef with the British or their monumental Empire but what I wrote is true. I still maintain they were the most humane of the colonists. Sure as hell wasn't the Spanish.

I agree with you: the weak pick on the strong. That's just the way it goes.

[Anabasis to Desta]

^ So Britain was supposed to pick a fight with France or Spain and destroy itself in the process just to be "fair" to weaker countries?

[Slim Shady]

Actually India WAS stronger at one point and did not do the same.

[Matsufubu]

(01-23-2016 04:18 PM)thedarkknight Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:03 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 03:32 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

England was worse than Germany. What is happening there is terrible, but I won't say that they don't deserve everything that they are getting. I have no love for England, or anyone that supports colonialism. You can cuck meme all that you want.

The reason colonies became colonized is because they were weak and Britain was strong. Period. Nothing to do with morality or ideology. If Kenya or India were strong enough they would have done the same.

When you think about it, it's nothing short of a miracle that a tiny island off the European coast was able to single-handedly conquer most of the planet, rule over a quarter of the earth's population & create the largest Empire in history.

Yet, instead of other ambitious countries with Imperialist ambitions (Germany, Russia, Japan) the British picked on weak, under-industrialised countries instead of other powerful European colonists like France, Spain, Holland, Portugal or Belgium. I have no beef with the British or their monumental Empire but what I wrote is true. I still maintain they were the most humane of the colonists. Sure as hell wasn't the Spanish.

I agree with you: the weak pick on the strong. That's just the way it goes.

Well...yes. Best way to build an empire rather than risk a total war when you haven't got the resources. Besides, these territories were hardly uncontested! Britain has been at war with virtually every Great Power at some point or the other in pursuit of empire building.

[thedarkknight]

(01-23-2016 04:21 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

^ So Britain was supposed to pick a fight with France or Spain and destroy itself in the process just to be "fair" to weaker countries?

No, but I'm saying most of these countries were easy pickings. The largest empire yes, but most of the countries were not competition.

[Matsufubu]

(01-23-2016 04:22 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

Actually India WAS stronger at one point and did not do the same.

India was richer, not stronger. Massively divided and lacked technology.

[thedarkknight]

Post deleted.

[H1N1]

It was a time of empire. Many nations were colonised. Any nation weak enough to be colonised would have been worse off under any other ruler. You don't have to love the British for what we did. Many have legitimate grievances. It is telling though that with the exception of Zimbabwe, most of the nation's we colonised are now thriving regionally or globally. The same cannot necessarily be said for former territories of the French, portugese, Spanish, etc.

[Krieg]

(01-23-2016 04:22 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

Actually India WAS stronger at one point and did not do the same.

It has never had technology for colonization whatsoever.

[Krieg]

(01-23-2016 04:29 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

It was a time of empire. Many nations were colonised. Any nation weak enough to be colonised would have been worse off under any other ruler. You don't have to love the British for what we did. Many have legitimate grievances. It is telling though that with the exception of Zimbabwe, most of the nation's we colonised are now thriving regionally or globally. The same cannot necessarily be said for former territories of the French, portugese, Spanish, etc.

Majority of European nations had a colony or two. Hell,even Lithuania owned Tobago.
Others, like Ukraine or Scotland acted as agents of empires,so they also technically owned colonies in one way or another.

[Pride male]

I saw a video where some guy was saying that world power oscillates between east and west. Dont know if it is true or not. At one point the Mediterranean i.e Egypt, India and Sumeria were world powers along with China. The power then went to the west. And now power will return to the east.

So will Japan and China rule the world if and when Europe turns brown?

[Foolsgo1d]

London is foreign? Nothing new except the fact the whole picture is hidden from people. The City of London however is as white can be, with a sprinkling of international tastes. These people live just outside London or in fortified castles near where they work or around similar people. The well off do not mingle with the river of filth that flows through their beloved city.

If the City of London were to suffer a catastrophe and was unable to weather a huge economic storm, the area of Greater London would devour itself from the socialist policies that has been allowed to flourish under it. Wealth would flow outwards, crime would sky rocket and white flight would take hold.

The rest of GB Plc would follow London into the blackhole. Criminality in London is nothing new but the style of gangland violence would be different. Third world savagery coupled with criminality is what creates real fear in people, not just simple strete muggings.

[thedarkknight]

(01-23-2016 04:29 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

It was a time of empire. Many nations were colonised. Any nation weak enough to be colonised would have been worse off under any other ruler. You don't have to love the British for what we did. Many have legitimate grievances. It is telling though that with the exception of Zimbabwe, most of the nation's we colonised are now thriving regionally or globally. The same cannot necessarily be said for former territories of the French, portugese, Spanish, etc.

I got roasted nicely and would like to pretend my initial comment never happened.

[Anabasis to Desta]

(01-23-2016 04:22 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

Actually India WAS stronger at one point and did not do the same.

Yes they did. The Chola Dynasty of southern India was known for its brutality and naval strength. They colonized the Andaman islands, present day Malaysia and Singapore, parts of Vietnam and even Sumatra.

My point is, given the means to do so, it's human nature to pick on the weak unless you're a Buddhist monk. Nothing to do with being British.

Weakness is not a virtue.

[N°6]

(01-23-2016 02:20 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

This reminds me of that essay linked in the migration thread from the Gates of Vienna blog. London is probably the best example of what the globalists/internationalists wish to achieve. It's no accident it's also a center of international finance.

Nail on the head.

[Krieg]

(01-23-2016 04:32 PM)thedarkknight Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:29 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

It was a time of empire. Many nations were colonised. Any nation weak enough to be colonised would have been worse off under any other ruler. You don't have to love the British for what we did. Many have legitimate grievances. It is telling though that with the exception of Zimbabwe, most of the nation's we colonised are now thriving regionally or globally. The same cannot necessarily be said for former territories of the French, portugese, Spanish, etc.

No arguments here. The fact the Commonwealth exists says something. Where is the Spanish or Belgian equivalent? Doesn't exist because of bad blood/ burnt bridges etc.

Rubbish.Spain has zillions of agreements,treaties and trade unions with Lat.Am. countries.
South Americans need only 1 year to live in Spain in order to get Spanish passport (=EU passport). A french national-10.Spain puts uneducated lazy and poor panchitos above Europeans, in the same way as Brits have been putting Indians above Europeans.

France runs a hardcore Domtom policy.Dutch maintain Antilles as their province and were giving all sort of privileges to Surinamers in the past.Russia does not require visas from Central asians and caucasians at all,everybody is welcome+they have some bizarre Commonwealth of independent nationas thingy going.Etc etc.Tons of examples.

[Krieg]

(01-23-2016 04:32 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

London is foreign? Nothing new except the fact the whole picture is hidden from people. The City of London however is as white can be, with a sprinkling of international tastes. These people live just outside London or in fortified castles near where they work or around similar people. The well off do not mingle with the river of filth that flows through their beloved city.

If the City of London were to suffer a catastrophe and was unable to weather a huge economic storm, the area of Greater London would devour itself from the socialist policies that has been allowed to flourish under it. Wealth would flow outwards, crime would sky rocket and white flight would take hold.

The rest of GB Plc would follow London into the blackhole. Criminality in London is nothing new but the style of gangland violence would be different. Third world savagery coupled with criminality is what creates real fear in people, not just simple strete muggings.

Yes all the whites are pretty much concentrated in South West,West and Surrey.
London is slowly turning into Johannesburg.

[LeeEnfield303]

(01-23-2016 03:32 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

England was worse than Germany. What is happening there is terrible, but I won't say that they don't deserve everything that they are getting. I have no love for England, or anyone that supports colonialism. You can cuck meme all that you want.

As a colonizer?

Ever read about Germany's "stewardship" of German East Africa?

[H1N1]

(01-23-2016 04:31 PM)Krieg Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:29 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

It was a time of empire. Many nations were colonised. Any nation weak enough to be colonised would have been worse off under any other ruler. You don't have to love the British for what we did. Many have legitimate grievances. It is telling though that with the exception of Zimbabwe, most of the nation's we colonised are now thriving regionally or globally. The same cannot necessarily be said for former territories of the French, portugese, Spanish, etc.

Majority of European nations had a colony or two. Hell,even Lithuania owned Tobago.
Others, like Ukraine or Scotland acted as agents of empires,so they also technically owned colonies in one way or another.

I'm afraid I've missed your point here.

[Menace]

The idea that people today owe some kind of debt for shit done by their countrymen 100 years ago is crazy. The guilt can never be absolved under this logic. And it is a horrible mindset that sets people back from success and happiness.

The west appears to be governed by small people, dumb people, traitorous people, or some combination of these.

[Krieg]

(01-23-2016 05:05 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:31 PM)Krieg Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:29 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

It was a time of empire. Many nations were colonised. Any nation weak enough to be colonised would have been worse off under any other ruler. You don't have to love the British for what we did. Many have legitimate grievances. It is telling though that with the exception of Zimbabwe, most of the nation's we colonised are now thriving regionally or globally. The same cannot necessarily be said for former territories of the French, portugese, Spanish, etc.

Majority of European nations had a colony or two. Hell,even Lithuania owned Tobago.
Others, like Ukraine or Scotland acted as agents of empires,so they also technically owned colonies in one way or another.

I'm afraid I've missed your point here.

Supporting the argument that most of European nations owned colonies in one way or another,not just a pair of "evil ones".