#MeToo
Also for Ramzan to actually came along, don, I'm seriously sick of his fat face, don.
B-but RamZan has promised me to jihad around and I so, so, so want him to try and find out, m'am!
(The literal goblin Motorola once threatened us with coming and ~FEW MOMENTS LATER~ he was literally btfo. Coincidence?)
Last time the comrades promised only jihading in Poland, I guess at this rate by August they will talk about the re-reconquista of Spain or perhaps sacking Rome with Vatican.
Oh, actually got a history of why only now, and it's in part because EU and Amnesty International - and it's been over quarter of century of attempting to delegalize the Communists:
In January 2019, the news that the Communist Party was holding its 54th Party Congress, and advancing Petro Symonenko as its presidential candidate, shocked many. Surely the KPU had been banned back in 2015? As it turned out, Ukraine’s Communists are still operating legally.
The KPU was first banned at the peak of perestroika, on 30 August 1991, as a consequence of the failed coup by a section of the Soviet ruling elite. It seemed that the end of Soviet power would bring an end to Ukraine’s Communists, too. Their ideology didn’t really fit in with building a new democratic state with a liberalised economy.
But only two years later, in 1993, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Ukraine reneged on its 1991 decision, ruling that Ukrainian citizens who support communist ideas can create their own parties. And a few months later, a new “renewed” Communist Party was established via a congress held in Donetsk. Old cadres attempted to get the KPU completely rehabilitated – the party had previously been a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (KPSS), but was, at least formally, considered an independent party. And in December 2001, ten years after the first ban, Ukraine’s Constitutional Court ruled that the renewed Communist party of Ukraine bore no relation to the KPSS, opening the gate for full rehabilitation.
In 2002, a congress was held to unify the “old” and “new” KPU, and Petro Symonenko was elected leader. Later, several other new communist parties were set up, but these groups never attracted a mass membership, although the KPU continued to lose supporters from one election to the next.
This stagnation could have run on eternally if it wasn’t for the events of 2014, when the post-Maidan authorities decided to ban the Communist Party once and for all.
(...)
A>When the Ministry of Justice realised that they couldn’t ban KPU on the basis of criminal accusations, they initiated a new court case based on articles of the “decommunisation law”, as its known in Ukraine.
(...)
In December 2015, the Kyiv city administrative court satisfied the Ministry of Justice’s administrative suit and banned the KPU from operating. This news spread quickly through the media. But these reports did not clarify which case was being discussed, and it was unclear whether this ban related to charges of separatism and treason.
While supporters of the ban cheered, the Communists filed an appeal at the court of first instance. And perhaps, as in the Election Commission’s refusal to register the KPU in the 2015 local elections, the Communists would have lost this case too. But everything changed in May 2017, when 46 Ukrainian MPs called on the Constitutional Court to recognise the “decommunisation law” as unconstitutional.
The Constitutional Court could have already examined this appeal if it wasn’t for a series of circumstances that complicated the “political” side of the decision. A few days after the KPU was banned in December 2015, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, which advises and makes recommendations on constitutional matters, made a series of recommendations to the “decommunisation law”. And although the Commission recognised the right of parliamentarians to introduce bans on totalitarian symbols and ideology, the Commission stated that several paragraphs of the decommunisation law were not formulated clearly enough and could be subject to a broader interpretation. This ambiguity concerned a possible ban on certain parties’ operating and participating in elections on the basis of their name, rather than the basis of anti-constitutional activity, as established by a court.
Amnesty International also joined the criticism of the KPU ban, calling on the authorities to withdraw the ban. “The banning of the Communist Party in Ukraine sets a very dangerous precedent. This move is propelling Ukraine backwards not forwards on its path to reform and greater respect for human rights,” said John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Director of Europe and Central Asia. The organisation’s main claim was that the party could be banned or its members prosecuted on the basis of public demonstration of the party’s symbols, rather than any possible genuine offence.
(...)
A paradoxical situation has emerged: the Ukrainian authorities continue to declare pro-EU policy, but in practice the recommendations and warnings of the Venice Commission are ignored. And the Communist Party, which is permitted to operate legally, is once again prevented from participating in elections.
I thought they already did, in like 2015.
A leftoid named Lefteris in the European Parliament didn't like it, years ago: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-002564_EN.html
These decisions mark a further escalation of anti-communism. They forbid political action by Communists, violating their right freely to disseminate their ideas. They demonstrate the hypocritical nature of the declarations on ‘human rights and freedoms’ and ‘freedom of the press’ that the EU systematically champions whenever it is confronted with governments that are not to its liking and its interests are at stake.
In the case of Ukraine, as well as Poland and the Baltic states, governments with EU support are promoting such provocative anti-communist decisions on the basis of a historically illiterate reading of the past which consists in equating communism with the monstrosity that is fascism. At the same time, the government of the Ukraine and Ukrainian business groups are enjoying the benefits of a series of agreements with the EU, such as the so-called EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, at the expense of the Ukrainian people.
Afghanistan has like 2 trillion of rare materials deposits discovered by the Americans in 2010, who then didn't touch it in any way. It's just not the American way (cue a bald eagle doing a hawk screech), whatever the tards who actually believed Iraq was about "blood for oil" like to say.
America also literally built South Korea into the global high tech powerhouse. Before the ridicalously massive investment in the 1960s the SK economy was worse than NK's.
In the last six decades, South Korea has grown from a war-torn nation mired in abject poverty and dependent upon US aid into one of the world’s leading industrial nations. In the span of one lifetime, a nation where hunger was often commonplace has largely eliminated poverty and now boasts some of the world’s most successful companies: Samsung, LG, Hyundai, and Kia.
In the aftermath of the Korean War, South Korea was in ruins. Much of the industrial capacity on the Korean peninsula built up during the Japanese occupation in North Korea, along with much of the mineral wealth. The state of sanitation was so dire that children often had to be sprayed with DDT by American soldiers to kill lice. The prospect that South Korea would develop and not require continued US assistance was seen as so grim that General Charles Helmick, the deputy military governor of the US occupation forces, said that “Korea can never attain a high standard of living. There are virtually no Koreans with the technical training and experience required to take advantage of Korea’s resources and effect an improvement over its rice economy.”
General Helmick’s skepticism could be seen in South Korea’s own imports. During the 1950s, South Korea was heavily reliant on foreign aid, which financed 70 percent of its imports. The majority of this was financed through US foreign aid, with a small portion of support also from the United Nations, with “three main objectives: to prevent starvation and disease, to increase agricultural outputs, and to provide essential consumer goods.” As a result, very little of South Korea’s imports during this period were focused on acquiring the capital goods and technology needed to move the economy beyond being an agricultural exporter. In the long run, that was unlikely to be a promising path to development. With a rugged and mountainous terrain, South Korea lacks the arable land. As a result, modern-day South Korea imports upward of half of its food.
While some measures were put in place during the 1950s, a major shift in South Korea’s economic policies occurred in the 1960s after Park Chung-hee’s coup in 1961. While the new government put in place an export-oriented economic policy designed to begin developing South Korea’s industrial base, it faced many of the challenges of the prior government. There was a lack of capital to finance the basic infrastructure that would be needed for development. At the time, South Korea produced less electricity as a whole than Ford Motor Company did in Detroit.
The first-to-develop Japan also helped a lot. As did the war in Vietnam, including SK trade with South Vietnam.
And for a more contemporary comparison, only America spent over $2.26 trillion on Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world with a much smaller population.
Along with Iraq it was more than $6.5 trillion (only America).
Unless it's something like getting borted in China and India.
"Psycho hate campaign" is like something /ourgirl/ Imp would say.
Communist, I mean (and so "him" does).
I hate knowing they indeed "made" the Millenials, and the Zoomers now.
The merchant will be rubbing hands where Biden is, uh... I don't know, what's Biden doing there? This pic needs even more of Ben's trademark captions.
Before he died from Omicron (despite being 8 times vaccinated with Russia's Sputnik V, or maybe because of it), Zhirinovsky offered disgruntled Americans to immigrate to Russia. It wasn't a serious proposition, like most of Zhirinovsky ever said in public, but anyway you know where he offered them to settle? Well why, in the fucking Siberia. But all this was just his typical clowning anyway.
Proto-Azov guys once talked about retaking Europe for "white races" (that's multiple, an old style classification). They don't do it publicly anymore, but I think their plan was supposedly like what ISIS tried - have like-minded people from other countries immigrate to a future "Social-National" Ukraine before making their own revolutions (a global jihad in the case of IS, "the final crusade" with the Social-Nationalists).
From where?
Taking all of Ukraine (and all of Ukrainians) would increase Russian population by almost 1/3, and the Slavic share massively, but only in a short term because they suffer the very same problems (from just not breeding to rampant alcoholism, drug abuse, and AIDS - over 1% of all Russians have AIDS).
Yes, I know only Australia in the entire world actually welcomes the emigrating South Africans. But there is not many of the Afrikaners anyway (less than 3 million in SA).
PAmericans under Obama also tried to keep their good relations with Russia, continuing the retarded Russophilic "Reset" policy initiated personally by Hillary Clinton in 2009.
That's also why America gave Ukraine no lethal weapons (the things to actually kill Russians with) until Trump replaced Obama and finally sent them, later mocking Obama for having sent only "pillows and blankets".
For that matter, Trump had also Russians directly killed in Syria by Americans. This couldn't happen under Obama too, of course, and today Biden too is ignoring the renewed Russian provocations in Syria instead of killing the provocateurs, Trump style.
Similarly, Trump also finally killed Soleimani, and wanted to have Assange just kidnapped or assassinated, embassy or no embassy, and so on (China, North Korea, Islamic State, etc.). Extremely bold on the foreign policy issues compared to the Democrats who are afraid to do anything, and even actually want to be friends with hostile regimes (in regard with Russia, Clinton personally was also involved in the Uranium One scandal, and her husband had both propped up Yeltsin and nuclearily disarmed Ukraine in the 1990s). Libya was the only time when the Democrats were hawkish like Trump (or Reagan and the Bushes before him), and even there they only followed the Brits and French into the battle.
Unfortunately, Trump was at the same time a softy coward on domestic issues like BLM/Antifa terrorist insurrection or mass indoctrination of children into sex cults. America needs a new Lincoln to get the Democrats back to their place (not necessarily battlefield mass graves this time round, hopefully).
They're against the immigration because they're, well, white nationalists. Unlike Russia that has taken millions of Central Asians (mostly Uzbeks) and Chinese.
Meanwhile Azov are against even the patriotic Tatars to come from occupied Crimea to the mainland Ukraine.
You can say Russia is more pragmatic by allowing being replaced.
All while Russia sent an liaison officer who convinced Yanuk the proper course of action is to gun down some of them uppity peasants.
The recorded conversation was actually about convincing the opposition to take Yanuk's compromise offer (he offered Yats becomes PM), against EU hard line ("fuck the EU!"). The opposition refused to listen to the Americans and rejected that "poisoned deal", to quote Yats at the time.
The Americans had a soft spot for Yanuk and the conflict was over EU-Ukraine relationship. The opposition was naturally especially supported by Poland, just like Belarusian today (including Belarusian political exiles and refugees being trained here for a rebel army, for now fighting just in Ukraine - and some of these guys are N-words but these ones get their training rather from Azov or RS).
Dudes join the Aryan Brotherhood mostly for the inmate mutual support networks not ideology as such.
She could have been sterilized perhaps, and socially ostracized surely, but that's about it.
Ukraine has lost many millions of people just to the demographics crisis and is projected to lose HALF OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION in just the next 2 decades (Russia only 1/3, due to high Muslim birth rates).
Do you know what is the actual purpose of young women in a society, before feminism brainwashed people to think otherwise?
Or for example the story of Paraguay, where once almost every (not a hyperbole, something like 90%) male died in a war fought literally to the last man (later also fought by male children), and yet now 150 years later the nation still exists?
IS is a state with a nation (and their country, still existing despite all the Trump's boasting, just today mostly in Africa).
Even if you believe the stupid bullshit about "blowback" in case of proto-AQ in Afghanistan 1980s, then IS was created as ISI just to fight the Americans (and all of American allies) in Iraq when it was supported by Syrian intelligence agencies (and run by former operatives of Iraqi ones, when the Baathists and ex-Baathists put away their old rivalries).
No, they did NOT consider them so (just like the Russians). Do you understand the meaning of the word "not"?
Also just the registration (for civil defense duties) was supposed to take the entire 2022 but was disrupted already in February.
And once again, the concept of mass female fighting forces is radical feminist. And so are you.
Maybe you should read more than screenshots of headlines sometimes.
The order, which came into effect on Dec. 17, lists 100 professions. All Ukrainian women who are from 18 to 60-years-old and employed in these professions must get registered with their local conscription office before the end of 2022.
Although some took the order to mean that women will be required to fight, it’s not the case.
There is no mandatory conscription for women in Ukraine. Even in case of a full-blown Russian invasion, the registered women can only be offered to join the military, not forced.
However, in case of a war they can be required to participate in civil defense efforts, possibly using their professional skills. It doesn’t mean they will be fighting.
Also yes, the famous high heels parade is the illustration there too.
Only because they stopped Patton's 3rd Army by cutting off his fuel supply, so Stalin would go to Berlin first as promised in Yalta.
They have also stopped Patton from knocking out Germany already in 1944 by sabotaging him in France twice, and previously sidelined or removed him from command repeatedly too.
Later they also killed him for a good measure.