RageFuel death to all western "leftist" troon scum

[RealSchizo]

Communism is a masculine ideology but I can't help myself but notice how many trannies are following it. It doesn't make sense to me.

Stalin hated faggots and executed them, hated freedom and oppressed citizens under the CCCP yet trannies are somehow convinced that this is the right ideology for them to follow.

I am not a commie myself , but knowing how many poor brave men died protecting their homeland (The CCCP) just so that trannies can LARP as communists and wave the flag those brave men once waved during bloody battles is sickening to me.

Total Tranny death. What also pisses me off are the anarchist larping faggots but this is another discussion.

Imagine an oldcel nationalist who raised under the CCCP finding out about the vermin that inherited his ideology.

 

[ArcticAngel]

Most liberal leftists are social democrats and libertarian socialists so they aren't marxist Leninists

 

[Freixel]

I think many of us have read those stories about how the Soviet Union experimented with feminism and LGBT rights to realize that they were causing a social disaster and decided to go back.

 

[MoggedByALoli]

I agree with the anti-western sentiment, but I'm going to have to disagree with the whole "poor brave men" who died protecting their homeland. They would have been better off if they had joined the Germans or stepped aside so the entire communist Jew system could come crashing down in a heap of fire and blood.

 

[Chudpreet]

Communism is a masculine ideology

Nothing egalitarian can be masculine. Masculine ideologies are hierarchical, partiarchy is by definition hierarchical

 

[RealSchizo]

Most liberal leftists are social democrats and libertarian socialists so they aren't marxist Leninists

Tons of them are.

 

[slavcel11]

why is communism a masculine ideology? I'd argue anything overly reliant on state can't be masculine. Maybe there's no single rule to tell masculine and not masculine ideologies apart.

 

[RealSchizo]

why is communism a masculine ideology? I'd argue anything overly reliant on state can't be masculine. Maybe there's no single rule to tell masculine and not masculine ideologies apart.

Stalin executed fags even a lot of jews, oldcels who lived under the cccp their entire lives are all masculine.

 

[RealSchizo]

Nothing egalitarian can be masculine. Masculine ideologies are hierarchical, partiarchy is by definition hierarchical

eVery person i know who lived under the cccp is giga masculine and disciplined also hates the new faggotry from the west

 

[PURE ANUS]

Communism is a masculine ideology but I can't help myself but notice how many trannies are following it. It doesn't make sense to me.

Stalin hated faggots and executed them, hated freedom and oppressed citizens under the CCCP yet trannies are somehow convinced that this is the right ideology for them to follow.

I am not a commie myself , but knowing how many poor brave men died protecting their homeland (The CCCP) just so that trannies can LARP as communists and wave the flag those brave men once waved during bloody battles is sickening to me.

Total Tranny death. What also pisses me off are the anarchist larping faggots but this is another discussion.

Imagine an oldcel nationalist who raised under the CCCP finding out about the vermin that inherited his ideology.

Trannies are based, they're fighting for robo girls gender rights

 

[Just say NIGGER!]

Communism is a masculine ideology but I can't help myself but notice how many trannies are following it. It doesn't make sense to me.

They follow it in the same vein as some sub5 balding manlet would nazism - without understanding what it entails.

Total Tranny death.

 

[Chudpreet]

eVery person i know who lived under the cccp is giga masculine and disciplined also hates the new faggotry from the west

That doesn't mean the ideology itself is masculine. Yes, the soviet union was conservative compared to the modern West, because it had to cater somewhat to the sensibilities of 20th century Slavs. It was still far more socially progressive than contemporary states such as Nazi Germany or Jim Crow America. Marxism is fundamentally egalitarian and denies hierarchy among human beings

 

[anandkonda]

Marxism is fundamentally egalitarian and denies hierarchy among human beings

That's only in theory not practice.

Communism is bad because it is jew mind control

 

[DarkStar]

Communism is a masculine ideology but I can't help myself but notice how many trannies are following it. It doesn't make sense to me.

Stalin hated faggots and executed them, hated freedom and oppressed citizens under the CCCP yet trannies are somehow convinced that this is the right ideology for them to follow.

I am not a commie myself , but knowing how many poor brave men died protecting their homeland (The CCCP) just so that trannies can LARP as communists and wave the flag those brave men once waved during bloody battles is sickening to me.

Total Tranny death. What also pisses me off are the anarchist larping faggots but this is another discussion.

Imagine an oldcel nationalist who raised under the CCCP finding out about the vermin that inherited his ideology.

I'm not a Communist(though I am technically left economically) & I don't like Communism/Marxism, due to it's connection with International Jewish Zionism: However, I feel pity for all those Russians, Tatars, etc. who were sent off to the meat-grinder & died for international Judaism.

One thing is for certain, I think we can all agree that the troons, faggots, LARPing & drawing an allegory between themselves & the USSR soldiers are scum.

I agree with the anti-western sentiment, but I'm going to have to disagree with the whole "poor brave men" who died protecting their homeland. They would have been better off if they had joined the Germans or stepped aside so the entire communist Jew system could come crashing down in a heap of fire and blood.

I agree.

Nothing egalitarian can be masculine. Masculine ideologies are hierarchical, partiarchy is by definition hierarchical

This is true.

That doesn't mean the ideology itself is masculine. Yes, the soviet union was conservative compared to the modern West, because it had to cater somewhat to the sensibilities of 20th century Slavs. It was still far more socially progressive than contemporary states such as Nazi Germany or Jim Crow America. Marxism is fundamentally egalitarian and denies hierarchy among human beings

 

[NorthernWind]

I agree with the anti-western sentiment, but I'm going to have to disagree with the whole "poor brave men" who died protecting their homeland. They would have been better off if they had joined the Germans or stepped aside so the entire communist Jew system could come crashing down in a heap of fire and blood.

They couldn't 'join the Germans' because Hitler was anti-Slav/anti-Russian, not only anti-commie.
If he just supported Russian and other Soviet nations liberation from soviet regime which many people hated, he could have won the war.
But he started to wage war against Russians as a nation so I don't care that this arrogant scum lost the war.

 

[MoggedByALoli]

They couldn't 'join the Germans' because Hitler was anti-Slav/anti-Russian, not only anti-commie.
If he just supported Russian and other Soviet nations liberation from soviet regime which many people hated, he could have won the war.
But he started to wage war against Russians as a nation so I don't care that this arrogant scum lost the war.

Wrong, there was the Russian Liberation Army. Plenty of Russians joined the Germans to fight Stalin's Jewish regime.


View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/zlkFCTFsyAnO/

 

[NorthernWind]

Wrong, there was the Russian Liberation Army. Plenty of Russians joined the Germans to fight Stalin's Jewish regime.


View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/zlkFCTFsyAnO/

No. Russian Liberation Army was only allowed to operate in 1945 when the war was already lost.
And only in 1943 Germans started to 'care' about discrimination of Russians in the territories where Russians were a minority. When the war became clearly in the Soviet favour.

 

[MoggedByALoli]

No. Russian Liberation Army was only allowed to operate in 1945 when the war was already lost.

What about the volunteers from the occupied German territories? They have been serving since 1942, at the very least.

And only in 1943 Germans started to 'care' about discrimination of Russians in the territories where Russians were a minority. When the war became clearly in the Soviet favour.

I'll admit I'm not an expert on the subject of Germany's treatment of their subjects within their occupied territories, and no doubt there were cruel Germans who did things they shouldn't have. But this doesn't mean that their mission wasn't justified in the destruction of the USSR and the prevention of a Jewish takeover of Europe.

@DarkStarDown Thoughts?

 

[NorthernWind]

What about the volunteers from the occupied German territories? They have been serving since 1942, at the very least.

They were insignificant.

 

[NorthernWind]

I'll admit I'm not an expert on the subject of Germany's treatment of their subjects within their occupied territories, and no doubt there were cruel Germans who did things they shouldn't have. But this doesn't mean that their mission wasn't justified in the destruction of the USSR and the prevention of a Jewish takeover of Europe.

@DarkStarDown Thoughts?

Some of the most ardent Nazis became servants of the Jews. Like Otto Skorzeni.

 

[MoggedByALoli]

They were insignificant.

Perhaps, but doesn't it prove that Germans worked with the locals to defeat the Soviet Union?

 

[MoggedByALoli]

Some of the most ardent Nazis became servants of the Jews. Like Otto Skorzeni.

Traitors and those wishing to save themselves and their families. The latter, I don't really blame.

 

[NorthernWind]

Perhaps, but doesn't it prove that Germans worked with the locals to defeat the Soviet Union?

One could be a really good specialist about this war to know everything in details. I'm not.
However, I'm sure that Soviets would definitely have lost if majority of population viewed Germans as liberators.
The fact that USSR population didn't viewed them as liberators is Nazi fault.

 

[_meh]

A lot of them are just gay nationalists.

They think communism will bring them their own version of a gay ethnostate with trans rights being on steroids or something.

But yeah a lot of them are delusional. Stalin thought those type of people were mentally ill.

 

[MoggedByALoli]

One could be a really good specialist about this war to know everything in details. I'm not.
However, I'm sure that Soviets would definitely have lost if majority of population viewed Germans as liberators.
The fact that USSR population didn't viewed them as liberators is Nazi fault.

A part of that has to do with the propaganda from the Soviets, as well as the threats made to the population, as the Soviets were very violent and cruel when it came to enforcing the State.

I'm not saying the National Socialists were perfect or couldn't have done better; they did lose the war after all, but I am saying things were a little more complicated than simply that the Germans were cruel in their treatment. Hitler underestimated the hatred that the Jews had for him and the methods they would employ when it came to destroying his regime; that's what spelled his end, not the methods he utilized, but the ones he didn't.
Specifically, at Dunkirk, he should have killed and or captured the 300,000 British soldiers awaiting rescue to return to the British Isles.

 

[NorthernWind]

A part of that has to do with the propaganda from the Soviets, as well as the threats made to the population, as the Soviets were very violent and cruel when it came to enforcing the State.

I'm not saying the National Socialists were perfect or couldn't have done better; they did lose the war after all, but I am saying things were a little more complicated than simply that the Germans were cruel in their treatment. Hitler underestimated the hatred that the Jews had for him and the methods they would employ when it came to destroying his regime; that's what spelled his end, not the methods he utilized, but the ones he didn't.
Specifically, at Dunkirk, he should have killed and or captured the 300,000 British soldiers awaiting rescue to return to the British Isles.

The war was more brutal in the USSR than in the West because Nazis wanted so.
You mention propaganda but any propaganda wouldn't work if it isn't grounded in reality.
Nazis waged war very brutally in the East and not only against Jews and commissars.
Have you heard about siege of Leningrad where many people died from hunger?
They absolutely don't cared about civilian population losses.

 

[MoggedByALoli]

The war was more brutal in the USSR than in the West because Nazis wanted so.

One could easily just as argue that the USSR is what caused the war to be so brutal. They raped, they murdered, they pillaged just as much as the "Nazis" supposedly did. They did so many ghastly things that it's no longer denied but a basic fact. War crimes were undoubtedly committed on both sides, but the Soviets were far worse.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixfR7MSeFJE


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ywe5pFT928


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy7FgqxA-E8


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab-xojH2PKQ

The Germans were fighting not just for their Fuhrer, just for their own country, not just for their family or themselves. But all of Western Christian Civilization. The Soviets were going to attack first; that was without question. Thus, it only made sense to attack them first; it was a smart move and would have worked had it not been for the harsh winters and illegal Land Lease deal by the United States and their Jewish-controlled government by FDR.

You mention propaganda but any propaganda wouldn't work if it isn't grounded in reality.

Could you elaborate on what you mean? This is literally what the National Socialists, such as Goebbels, stated. That propaganda isn't effective because it is composed of lies but because it is made of truth! (Paraphrasing, of course)

Nazis waged war very brutally in the East and not only against Jews and commissars.

I've discussed this above.

Have you heard about siege of Leningrad where many people died from hunger?

Had the city surrendered, people wouldn't have suffered as much. It's a war, so naturally, people are going to suffer on both sides. I'm not saying this to wash away or ignore the people's suffering but to recognize the reality that war isn't pretty. And despite the fact that this war was completely justified on the German's part, it didn't mean it was going to be any easier. The Soviets weren't going to just surrender, so naturally, people suffered as Germans destroyed their supplies, which would have undoubtedly reached the hands of the enemy soldiers. Not to forget that civilians took up arms against the Germans, on their own accord sometimes, and others due to the force of the Stalin government enforcers.

They absolutely don't cared about civilian population losses.

In war, you can't save or protect everyone. It's simply not a possibility, especially not with their technology. Hell, even with our modern technology, people are killed from indirect missile or artillery strikes, both civilian and military allies from friendly fire. Perhaps some Germans didn't care, but that doesn't mean the invasion force as a whole or Hitler didn't want to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.

The war was awful. Obviously yes. Everyone wished it could have been avoided, and if it hadn't been for the Jews, then it truly could have been. But they didn't want that. They wanted the total destruction of National Socialist Germany before it could become either too powerful to be stopped or for the world to realize that their way of life was far superior to any other and want to become National Socialists themselves. They got what they wanted at the cost of dozens of millions of innocent lives on all sides. Hitler didn't want it; he truly didn't. But if he didn't fight, he would have been destroyed via Poland as they had been building up their military to strike Germany first. And with the violence of Danzig, Hitler had enough. It was time to strike back and hard at the evil Jews who had gone one step too far.

 

[NorthernWind]

One could easily just as argue that the USSR is what caused the war to be so brutal. They raped, they murdered, they pillaged just as much as the "Nazis" supposedly did. They did so many ghastly things that it's no longer denied but a basic fact. War crimes were undoubtedly committed on both sides, but the Soviets were far worse.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixfR7MSeFJE


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ywe5pFT928


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy7FgqxA-E8


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab-xojH2PKQ

The Germans were fighting not just for their Fuhrer, just for their own country, not just for their family or themselves. But all of Western Christian Civilization. The Soviets were going to attack first; that was without question. Thus, it only made sense to attack them first; it was a smart move and would have worked had it not been for the harsh winters and illegal Land Lease deal by the United States and their Jewish-controlled government by FDR.

Could you elaborate on what you mean? This is literally what the National Socialists, such as Goebbels, stated. That propaganda isn't effective because it is composed of lies but because it is made of truth! (Paraphrasing, of course)

I've discussed this above.

Had the city surrendered, people wouldn't have suffered as much. It's a war, so naturally, people are going to suffer on both sides. I'm not saying this to wash away or ignore the people's suffering but to recognize the reality that war isn't pretty. And despite the fact that this war was completely justified on the German's part, it didn't mean it was going to be any easier. The Soviets weren't going to just surrender, so naturally, people suffered as Germans destroyed their supplies, which would have undoubtedly reached the hands of the enemy soldiers. Not to forget that civilians took up arms against the Germans, on their own accord sometimes, and others due to the force of the Stalin government enforcers.

In war, you can't save or protect everyone. It's simply not a possibility, especially not with their technology. Hell, even with our modern technology, people are killed from indirect missile or artillery strikes, both civilian and military allies from friendly fire. Perhaps some Germans didn't care, but that doesn't mean the invasion force as a whole or Hitler didn't want to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.

The war was awful. Obviously yes. Everyone wished it could have been avoided, and if it hadn't been for the Jews, then it truly could have been. But they didn't want that. They wanted the total destruction of National Socialist Germany before it could become either too powerful to be stopped or for the world to realize that their way of life was far superior to any other and want to become National Socialists themselves. They got what they wanted at the cost of dozens of millions of innocent lives on all sides. Hitler didn't want it; he truly didn't. But if he didn't fight, he would have been destroyed via Poland as they had been building up their military to strike Germany first. And with the violence of Danzig, Hitler had enough. It was time to strike back and hard at the evil Jews who had gone one step too far.

How hatred against the Slavs and wants to eliminate 'subhumans' correlate with fight against the Jews?
As I said, Hitler wanted to eliminate significant part of Russians and this war had economic, not ideological context.
You probably never heard about Lebensraum

Also, in history there is no 'what if...'. Nazis attacked first so they clearly are the aggressors.
Nazis also didn't represented 'Western Christian civilization' because Christianity didn't support concepts such as 'blood and soil', 'racial purity' etc.
Nazis faced opposition from some German Catholic and Protestant leaders if I'm not mistaken.