Nation Once Again Comes Under Sway Of Pink-Faced Half-Wit

Post Reply New Topic

In so many years of human history its not surprising that you can find examples when a few white men have faced off against the Fuzzy Wuzzy and won through. Welcome to History. No doubt I could also find many more examples of the opposite, or of occasions when those terrifying black hordes have won conclusively and finally against "whites". Given the incredibly broad and elastic definition of "white" some of the examples are probably reversible. Given that whites clearly don't rule the world and clearly do lose battles and wars against everyone at one point or another, individual examples don't change the fact that you're spouting stereotyped s**t that wasn't even accurate when whites WERE fighting the Fuzzy Wuzzies. After all, Khartoum was never relieved, and a small white force got itself all kinds of dead, and the Italians had to gas the blighters from the air before they could get half a handle on Ethiopia.

That's without looking at all the centuries of wars that went on nowhere near a white man.

^ Yeah, I'm talking about a tactical level, something you may or may not understand. You are discussing the abstract strategic considerations.

Obviously there were flukes like Adowa, but then again, the Italians never quite got their s**t together.

So after a series of "Flukes" Occidentals managed to lose the whole of the Levant, China, the Sudan, OstAfrika, North Korea, Vietnam (twice), Constantinople/Byzantium.... despite being clearly superior in military ability at a tactical level. Of course. Because winning battles makes no difference to the outcome of the war. Dien Bien Phu was a fluke. Sure. Hattin and the fall of Jerusalem were just Saladin being blindingly lucky. What are the odds eh? Million to one chances eh?

Oddly, reminded of two more examples by a puppet show of all things: South Afrika is SO WHITE RULED these days, just like Rhodesia. Seems odd given how the whites must have won all those battles, or them darn blacks were just the luckiest motherf***ers in history...

Well, obviously the difference between strategy and tactics is beyond you ^.......................................

White nations were weakened greatly by European infighting during the WWIIs, and the USSR propped up many of the post-colonial movements, as well as the USA often held back countries like England and France from reasserting themselves after WWII, an example like Suez(1956)

You know well that Napoleon won dozens of tactical victories, but he ultimately lost due to his strategic failings. Hitler won in France in 1940, but his lack of strategic planning for what he was going to do about England after the battle, as well as failing to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk, was the first step towards creating what would have been a stalemate had the war not extended to the USSR and USA. I don't mean to digress, but these are just examples of how one can theoretically win many tactical victories but fail in a larger strategic sense.

Besides, when you think about it, I think what happened was that America 'had nowhere to go but down.' When you've been #1 for so long, I think its possible to just get complacent and lose your will.

But anyway, sometimes Quantity DOES beat Quality. Sometimes a pure massed onrush, if it has such weight of numbers, will take the position and incur a tremendous amount of casualites. You look back through all of the white/non-white wars, even from the very advent of missile weapons, and you can find constant examples of the non-white party incurring tremendous punishment, but still carrying the day against a smaller white contingent. And this was not always due to 'superior weaponry' either, at least not until the 1800's really.

Blacks are winning now because white leaders trip over themselves to show how tolerant they are, and are very very accommodating. As I said too, the minorities have had loads of recent help from the USSR, Communist China, tolerant white and Jewish liberals, etc.

Last edited by Hanotaux on 18 Sep 2010, 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

(dup post.)

Yes, tactical and strategic are two different things. Fink I got dat. Pretty sure that the USA throwing its weight around after the war would be "strategic" not tactical. Its even possible to lose wars whilst winning lots of battles. Also fully aware of that fact. Fairly sure that Hattin and the Fall of Jerusalem were individual battles. Also, I'm fully aware that whites lose in both ways multiple times. Thing about the length of human history is that at one point or another almost everyone has won, either a war or a battle or both. Still doesn't change the fact that you spouted a load of stereotyped racist bollocks. Nor that if the whites won all the tactical fights but still lost the "war", it suggests that the inscrutable orientals are actually BETTER at strategic planning than white men, which doesn't really support your whole "Whites are bestest" argument.

How broad is your definition of recent? The (white-helmed) USSR hasn't been the USSR for quite some time now.

Indeed. Rather flagrant violation of forum rules too. I think this time Hanotaux has finally crossed the line.

Glad to do my part and fight the system.

I'd like to hear the exact definitions of what actually constitutes 'racism' and 'ignorance?' I can't be ignorant, in the sense that I am not ignorant as to the existance of blacks and other minorities.

Also, what again is the absolute proof that 'all races are equal,' and the only differences are skin color, nose construction, etc. I'd love to see it again, just for everyone's edification.



I never said the whites won 'All' of the tactial fights, merely a large percentage of them. I agree anyway that the Japanese for example are great at 'planning things,' and have many strengths that translate well on the battlefield. A society with a large population of youth like the Arabs CAN win a struggle by flooding some white country with immigrants................

I think all things considered though, whites are tops when it comes to the military sphere, as well as translating technological advances towards military use.

In any war, sporting match, etc, my money is ALWAYS on the side that is more heavily caucasian. Look at the Chicago Cubs....... A dysfunctional baseball team that loads up on dysfunctional black and Mexican 'superstar' drama queens, and they never get anywhere and sink in their own clubhouse disasters. Same with the New York Yankees over the last decade................. a bloated payroll spent on a bunch of Latino players, only to keep getting bounced in the early rounds of the playoffs. The theme keeps repeating itself as you look at current sports franchises when you have black players dominating the culture of that team.

Look at the current New York Mets......... An overpaid, mostly Dominican team that keeps constantly underperforming....... I wonder why? Lots of these minority 'superstars' have great athletic talent, but they can't function as a team. You put white players together where whites dominate the clubhouse.......... the team fucntions.

And of course sporting events share so much in common with all the wars in history that the example just slips over as easily as if you greased it. I have next to no knowledge (translates as couldn't give a s**t on an epic level) about American sports, but what I do know is that in say, premier football, or international rugby, players come in all creeds and colours, and a lot of them are black or asian or latin-american and bloody good players who win games as TEAMS and not just as individuals.

^ Very well then.............

I can't think of one black-run city, black business(despite being heavily subsidized,) that isn't a model of dysfunction in the USA. And now that Marion Berryesque dysfunction is going to be normative for the whole of the USA in a couple decades. I weep for the future.

White people are better at sports than black people? Bloody hell, you must still be in the 1930s. Have you ever seen a basketball game?

^ Have you ever seen World's Strongest Man?

It seems to me the premise of basketball has much to do with height, not necessarily overall athletic ability. When it comes to real tests of strength, whites dominate at powerlifitng, and other skill sports that are more involved besides monkeying around with a basketball. And what I meant was that whites usually function better in a team setting and are better at mutual cooperation, while the black 'superstars' play only for their own immediate gratification or their drama queen egos.

Look at a 7'7'' guy like Manute Bol............ he's tall and can reach the basket.

Last edited by Hanotaux on 18 Sep 2010, 11:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Maybe its just Americans failing then, because there are businesses etc here run by people of all creeds etc to varying levels of success. Likewise there are whole nations that aren't white that generally do quite well all said. Just like there are some godawful s**t holes run by any race or creed. Seems to me that humanity is too varied to fit neatly into these "Superiority" pigeonholes.

Then debate her on it rather than taking the chicken way out and being like the sheep in "Animal Farm" by screaming racism. I dare you to defeat her views on her own terms. Or can you?

^ Clearly. There is no actual clear definition for what 'racism' is, other than that its been inculcated that 'we are all equal,' and this is absolute dogma. Despite a massive flow of evidence that different people's have different strenghts and unique characteristics.