Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 512734017926332416
rakija is what keeps old men alive
National socialist sXe <:swas:449290177333035028>
Los Ovnis de Hitler https://www.amazon.com/dp/958813613X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_rs4XBbREDBSWC
La Resurreccion Del Heroe https://www.amazon.com/dp/9588136350/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_ds4XBbNESR907
MANU POR EL HOMBRE QUE VENDRA https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003E119WA/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Tr4XBb066T2Y3
El Cordon Dorado - Hitlerismo Esoterico https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009JGXFDK/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_jr4XBbKS1ETPF
ADOLF HITLER EL ULTIMO AVATARA https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003B0MGE4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Xq4XBbF3VFKRJ
Nacionalsocialismo, única solución para los pueblos de América del sur https://www.amazon.com/dp/9588220327/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Cq4XBbSBSCR40
If you can read Spanish you should pick up one of miguel Serrano’s books for cheap
what's up gamers
**"If the government is driving a nationality to its destruction, the rebellion of every member of that people is not merely a right, but a duty. Whether or not this condition exists is not shown by theoretical stories, but it is shown when force is used against the people and in the success of effort to suppress the nationality."** *- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf*
This is relevant to everyone from every country at the moment with the love of political correctness bullshit being taken seriously by governments.
Anyone have some good literature that explains the difference between nationalism and patriotism?
patriotisim is loyality to the state
I dont think that definition is right
Patriotism is loving your country.
Nationalism is a political ideology in which you try to improve ur country and further its interests often at the expense of other countries.
Search books on nationalism on google
Loads of books by famous political scientists and historians come up.
Patriotism is loyalty to the cultural foundations of the society in which that particular state exists
“If anyone should try to improve us with nonsense about putting on airs of moral superiority for appearance’s sake or showy-idealism because it is what they think other people believe we should do, there can only be one answer: Any question of destiny that is as important as a people’s struggle to survive immediately disposes of any duty to demonstrate “proper” appearances or to be concerned in any way with how we appear to outsiders. The least beautiful thing that can exist in human life is the yoke of slavery. Or do these touchy-feely people find the present lot of the German nation only an appearance to be viewed by others? We have no need to discuss the matter with the Jews. They are the inventors of this perfume of civilization which makes people more concerned with appearances than with survival. Their whole existence is a denial of the beauty of God’s creation.” - Adolf Hitler
I felt like the part about climate change on last night's show had some mistakes, so I figured I'd type this out it contains some very basic info, not to sound condescending but because I want people who have no understanding of physical geography to be able to understand it as well. First of all, it's entirely true that the sun has an influence on the temperature on earth to deny that would be madness. The earth is a system, and a part of that system regulates temperature. Roughly how that goes is that the sun shines on it, some of that light turns into heat, some is reflected and some of that reflected light gets reflected back due to the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. Many of these gasses are carbon based (although water is the most important, but I'll get to that later.) These carbon based greenhouse gasses(like methane and carbon dioxide) are part of a cycle. This means that the amount of carbon is always the same, it's just present in different forms. If we simplify this cycle, we can discern a long and a short cycle. Essentially how these work is: carbon in the air is put into organic matter by plants, these plants partially get eaten by animals, so the carbon stored ends up in all biomass we have. A lot of this biomass will be converted back into a gas form of carbon, then get stored in biomass again, and so on. This is the short cycle. The use of wood to heat homes draws from this cycle for example. This isn't necessarily all that stimulating for the greenhouse effect because a tree will grow back in a relatively short timespan, storing the same amount of carbon that was used to heat the home earlier. The long cycle is a different story however. A very small part of the biomass is converted into fossil fuels, like oil or coal. These fossil fuels then get stored in the earth's crust. I haven't had geography for ages so I'm not entirely sure how this works for land plates, but the tectonic plates eventually melt. With sea plates this is because they
slide under land plates. Here all this stored carbon is released, which then makes it's way up and is released through volcanic eruptions. These plates move around 10 centimeters a year, and they have to descent deep into the earth to melt. This means it takes a long time for this carbon to be released into the air again. When we take carbon from this long cycle, we release it into the air, which will be compensated for by a lack of carbon in vulcanic eruptions, but it will take trillions of years for this to happen. All this time there will be more carbon in the air because it's not compensated for. Of course this could be compensated for by increased plant life and other biomass. I don't know if this could actually happen light might be the limiting factor, but I know it WON'T happen for another reason. Namely humans destroying forests and other carbon storing natural environments in order to support their overpopulation. I'll get back to that later, but for now, back to the sun. Obviously, if there is more light coming in, the temperature on earth will increase, after all the sun is the main driving factor in this system. However, based on the intensity of the sun experienced here on earth, the globe should be cooling right now [see figure 1 https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm]. Now, as for what this means for us and our long nosed friends, it's not at all in their favour even if they try to use it as they always do. First of all, the example of cutting down forests to build a wind farm is absolutely 100% retarded. The forests store carbon, and we cannot build enough windmills to support our energy demand. We don't have the space, we don't have the materials and we don't have the money, yet we're still destroying nature to build the things, probably because certain people want to profit from it. There is a clean, sustainable, relatively safe and far less space consuming energy source, namely nuclear fission. I know it's
a wikipedia page and isn't really a good source, but you should read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents While Uranium reactors can cause pretty big disasters, they're safer than any other source of energy, and should we get Thorium reactors working we'd have perfectly clean energy for as long as necessary to find a renewable energy source that doesn't require us to destroy all of nature in the process of 'saving' it. Why don't Jews capitalize on this? I don't actually know, I guess it's cause it's not as expensive so less money can be made from it. As for fuel taxes, yes they'd still be a good thing. People don't like them, partly because of the situation in France. Ask yourself this though: If Macron cared about the environment, and knew how bad the situation was, how come he didn't use those taxes to subsidize electric cars and trucks/biofuel/increased bicycle use? Why did the money go to immigration and his wealthy friends? Did he really care about the effect the tax would have on the environment, or did he just need an excuse to tax people? As for overpopulation, it's a problem. You often hear people say you shouldn't get kids because it's bad for the environment. That's bullshit. If you don't get kids, they'll import kids from elsewhere to replace them. People from third world countries are having ridiculous amounts of kids. This is often defended with the arguments that they don't know how many will make it. This is bullshit, I don't feel like looking up the source right now but it has been shown that if they get 2-3 kids, they almost always make it, while if they get more a lot more of them will die. Of course they try to fix this problem of children dying by sending food, which is completely retarded from an ecological perspective. Less children will die in this generation, the population will increase, more nature gets destroyed, more carbon gets emitted, but they'll just go on getting over 10 fucking kids untill that food aid isn't
enough anymore and there's even more starving kids. The same thing goes for the not eating meat bullshit. It's true, meat production requires more agricultural land. But what do you think they'll do with that extra land that they freed up? Let the forests grow back? No they won't. They'll use it to produce more food for the third world so overpopulation gets even worse. If our governments cared about the environment, they'd immediately cut all foreign aid to countries that do not take measures to decrease emissions from fossil fuels and control their population, and put use sanctions against countries like the US and China, but they fucking don't because all they care about is that comfy position they're going to get at a bank when their term is over and they've pleased the right people.
that's actually a lot longer than I thought it would be
it's like 5 lines in notepad
I feel like the discord format encourages absolutely tiny posts, everything looks like a book.
Keep up the high quality OC.
I just watched Blackklansman