Edwin Walker had the right idea with the Pro-Blue program. The politicization of the US military under Clinton & Obama with all the consequences on display today prove that, in fact, if it is to serve its intended function of defending the American republic (as opposed to another glorified welfare program for minorities, another tool for leftists to wield in the murder and imprisonment of their enemies, and a pathway to cushy top positions in the defense industry for the cannier politicos) then truly nobody but ultrapatriotic Christian conservatives has any business serving, much less leading in its ranks.
As far as fanmade mods/games go, I've always had a soft spot for The Nameless Mod for Deus Ex. It came out in 2009 (and had been in development since 2002!) but one of the old devs came back to give it a graphical overhaul, add a new level & redo all 60 of the existing ones in more recent years. IIRC this 'TNM 2.0' project is now more or less done as far as the main game goes and they might still add one final patch to cover the bonus game mode (a two level sidescroller) & add one more new level.
TNM itself takes place in a simulation of the old, long-dead DX forum the creators used to be members of in the early 2000s, when most of them weren't even out of high school yet. So there's plenty of impenetrable injokes & memes that the player almost certainly won't understand. But I've always found the passion they put into a mod of this size (and the fact that they finished it at all) admirable, banger soundtrack (made for free) too.
Above all it's also an incredible nostalgia trip to the Internet of the early 2000s. I miss it all, bros: the freedom, the creativity, lack of censorship, the old school pre-Reddit forums, the lasting online friendships, the people (even the jannies) actually being quite sane compared to today's overpoliticized and degenerate Redditors/Twitterati, even the fucking leetspeak. I compare TNM to something like Fallout Frontier and it always makes me sad - I never fail to find myself wondering, where did the Internet in general & modding communities in particular go so horribly wrong? Is it even possible to return to a fraction of those lost better days of yesteryear?
Almost every royal or near-royal line in consideration are terrible choices though. Anyone after the 'Glorious' Revolution (where Parliament broke their oaths to support a foreign invader, William III, in usurping the throne & turning Britain into the second great modern bankocracy after the Netherlands) is guaranteed to be a cuck puppet of globalist powerbrokers. So that rules out the Oranges, Hanovers & Windsors (Saxe-Coburg-Gothas).
While I understand Jacobite sympathies, their current claimant (Franz, Duke of Bavaria) is a German fag (literally). Not a viable choice either.
I think that leaves the Earl of Loudoun, that one Australian dude descended from George the Duke of Clarence. Also a backstabbing fag who deserved to be drowned in wine, but that was in the 15th century, so fine - let the sins of the distant ancestor not burden his descendant.
Alternatively maybe it's time for a new, actually English royal dynasty. The Wake baronets are purported descendants of Hereward the Wake, a famous Anglo-Saxon rebel against Bill the Bastard's tyranny, and have generally been OK guys not up to any globohomo skullduggery AFAIK. That could be interesting, while we're wishcasting for a new non-pozzed royal house.
*Feudal monarchies, rather, where the king's power was constrained by custom and rival interest groups (not just against him but also each other) in the Church, the nobility & the towns/burghers. Absolute monarchies emerged in the 1600s and quickly gave way to revolutionary regimes which took their centralist & bureaucratizing tendencies further in just 100 years.
Well, I guess there was also Imperial China, but that had its own problems.
Also from the interwar period there's Maurice Samuel and his Khazar supremacist creed You Gentiles (1924), where he boasts that the Jew cannot ever integrate into Gentile society and will forever work to undermine & warp the latter to serve Jewish ends, and that's a good thing! But I prefer to think of it as a 200+ page treatise as to why Hadrian and the Catholic Monarchs were right about his kind.
Yep, Sagramore. In the Matter of Britain Arthur does have Moorish/Saracen knights at the Round Table, but Sagramore himself isn't one of them (Moriaen is the Moor and Palamedes the Saracen IIRC), being Hungarian instead - I think Cornwell just condensed these 'foreign' knights into one guy for convenience's sake, and went with the most plausible ethnic background for a darker skinned dude in Dark Age Britain (the Hungarians wouldn't come to Europe for centuries later). And to be fair, the Mauri (original, Christian Moors) were both very real and a significant element to the late Roman imperial cavalry.
But man, this series clearly fucked everything up in usual DEI fashion. And not just that, but they seem to have not even tried their hand at the slightest pretense of an authentic late Roman/Dark Age setting. What the hell even are those black outfits on the guys in the article's photos? They look absolutely nothing like Late Roman/Romano-British civilians or soldiers, much less barbarians of either the native Celtic or invading Anglo-Saxon varieties. End stage GoT's fashion direction of overly dark and modern-looking outfits for everyone has been a disaster for the depiction of historical fashion on screen as much as woke racial politics have been for anything resembling accuracy in the ethnic makeup of every historical setting adapted to screen.
There was a movie on the Cristiada directed by a veteran of the production staff for the latter two LOTR movies, which of course was immediately bashed by those 'professional' critics who even bothered to watch it in the first place. Worth a watch, IMO. Of the Mexican internal conflicts where the bad guys won, that was definitely the most recent and will remain so, at least until the cartels finish toppling whatever facade of a government still exists entirely.
Shall we not also acknowledge that America has actually held the Black Hills region, for example, longer than the native Lakota/Sioux? (This would be the land that Sitting Bull was fighting George Custer & Nelson Miles over.) The Lakota conquered it with their usual brutality from the Cheyenne in 1776, and lost it to the Americans almost exactly a century later in 1877; the US, obviously, has held it in the 147 years since.
Oh who am I kidding, violent conquest & the displacement or assimilation of the people who were there before (accompanied with one's own settlement of the region) is only bad when whitey does it, amirite.
Just more sour grapes from the losers of history, turned into a wine everyone has been told is the finest of all time since the wrong side consistently won Mexican civil wars - the Reform War, Mexican Revolution, Cristero War, etc. - often with assistance from American liberals. Did you know that the Americans were backing Satanic Mexican Freemason leftists and indigenous malcontents against the Catholic criollo factions as early as before the civil war? Because they did just that.
Also the natives who teamed up with the Spanish to bring down the Aztecs (such as the Tlaxcalans) weren't screwed over, they actually made out very well for themselves and gained tons of privileges under the new order, even the right to self-government within their own autonomous vassal principalities under the Spanish crown. The Tlaxcalans never regretted their alliance and contributed auxiliary troops to support the Spanish in conquests elsewhere, ex. Guatemala.
He should start by demanding that he be given a favela gang-produced snuff film with De Moraes in the starring role. That tyrant in a robe has done worse than banning Xitter, he's also responsible for rigging the last Brazilian election in Commie Lula's favor.
They can and not just with one another, Morgoth was able to breed especially degenerate Men with his orcs to produce half-orcs/'goblin-men' in the First Age and Saruman did it again (using Dunlendings for the human half) in the Third Age. They served as elite troops & spies, IIRC one reported on the Hobbits' movements at Bree.
Even before we get to the Silmarillion, the appendices of Return of the King are actually already meaty af. (They're also the only place where Helm's canonically-nameless daughter was mentioned in the first place.) And those appendices already blow every lore book Martin's written for ASOIAF put together out of the water, much less these current-year hacks' mangling '''''additions''''' to Middle-earth.
Seriously, history is replete with examples of universally-acknowledged men of honor who were also absolute badasses across multiple cultures from Hector of Troy to William Marshal, the Seigneur de Bayard, Baron Jacob Astley of Reading and Hal Moore for a modern example - and these are all from the Western tradition alone. At no point has 'being a genuinely good guy' and 'kicking inordinate amounts of ass' been mutually exclusive categories, in fact I think it can reasonably be argued that honorable men are obliged to resist & fight evil where they find it (and has been in the past). This is, for instance, a summary of what Bayard was like according to his French biographer and recorded on his Wikipedo page:
For the investiture as a knight that he received in battle, Bayard always felt deeply linked to the chivalric code of honor. Absolute loyalty even towards enemies, charity and help were his rules of life, in fact he did his utmost for the recovery of prostitutes and personally assisted the sick of the plague. While his fellow countrymen indulged in violence and raids, Bayard always remained respectful towards the weak and the vanquished, doing his utmost for their defense, and burned with furious anger in the face of all cruelty and injustice. He even used to pay out of his own pocket for the goods he requisitioned for the need for provisions, while his fellow countrymen used to simply snatch them from the peasants with violence.[2]
Since he usually led the vanguard in the advances and passed to the rearguard in the retreats, he ordered his men to extinguish the fires that his colleagues had set in the villages, and placed sentinels in defense of the churches and monasteries to prevent the looting and rape of women who had taken refuge there.[2]
Such was the fame of the magnanimity of Bayard that the people of Italy, who fled into the woods and mountains when armed men arrived, instead came running to meet his troops, loudly acclaiming his name and offering him gifts.[2]
This did not prevent him from becoming a fierce and feared fighter in battle. He knew no mercy either towards his enemies or towards himself, and in this way he did not enter into contradiction with the vivid religious faith that he had nourished since childhood. God had wanted him to be a knight and he limited himself to fulfilling God's will; he always placed himself in God's hands immediately before every battle.[2]
Mr. 'Nearly-undefeated Saint of Battle, always with time & money to help the innocent, and always down to smite his enemies with burning anger' here wouldn't think twice about pulverizing an avowed enemy of his under the latter's own standards, especially if they were honorless maggots like the average modern soyjak (in fact in one of his most famous duels, he killed a dude who he had honorably treated as a prisoner but then lied & claimed Bayard was a cruel torturer after he was released - extremely dishonorable and ungrateful conduct). It's gotten to the point where I'm beginning to think works like ASOIAF which portray honor as something only braindead idiots have to hold them back & get them killed are another poisonous psyop to encourage atomization, nihilism and a disdain for actual virtues in Western society.
Funny they should mention this. Ohio was the #3 contributor of troops to the Union Army (behind only NY, which was drafting Irishmen fresh off the boats, and Pennsylvania, which was directly invaded by Lee and was where the Battle of Gettysburg was fought). In the decades after the war, Ohio dominated the Republican Party and many of the Republican presidents between Lincoln & Hoover were from Ohio (Hayes, Garfield, McKinley, Taft, Harding). If they want to make the case that Vance looks like an American nationalist willing and able to kill for the Stars & Stripes, a future agenda-setter for the GOP and also a future President, fine by me.
Vance was anti-Trump back in 2016. That said, he seems to have dropped opposition to Trump entirely - I don't know what's in his heart of hearts & all that, of course, but I'm not aware of him disparaging or even distancing himself from Trump in more recent years - and policy-wise he's been fairly solid AFAIK.
Especially on foreign & economic policy, he's been a consistent opponent of funding the Ukraine war (so much so that Ukraine put him on their kill list and he in turn personally got their tranny spokesman fired for advocating violence against people like himself) and a proponent of protectionist trade warfare. He's pro-tariff, pro-border wall & pro-trade war with China, which is a huge improvement over the older-school GOP 'free trade, free movement of workers & offshoring at all costs' business-as-usual. He's also on record opposing escalating shit in the Mideast to a war with Iran, which I'm guessing is the best any modern non-interventionist politician in office can do currently with AIPAC on a hair trigger & sure to bury any candidate who tries to take the next step & oppose funding Israel directly (as evidenced by what they did to Brandon Herrera and are still doing to the non-AOC Squad members). Socially he seems pretty standard for a Midwestern Republican - pro-life, voted against the law codifying fag marriage, is against trooning out children, etc.
At my most optimistic I'm hoping this is a sign that Trump is trying to groom a young successor (another advantage for Vance, he's only 39) who already has some name recognition to steer the GOP's future course: genuine conservative populists and American nationalists who actually want to conserve something other than Lockheed Martin's profit margins, are anti-immigration, anti-world policing, and prioritize domestic manufacturing & improving the livelihoods of Americans first over making the tycoons & Red Chinese richer than ever. At my most pessimistic, I still fear that somewhere very deep down, he may still be a Never-Trump sleeper agent and is waiting for a second attempt on Trump's life in hopes of playing LBJ in red. I guess we'll see soon enough.
One bad thing to come from this is that Vance just won his Senate seat in 2022, and him leaving it now means a replacement will have to be selected by the Governor of Ohio. Said governor is Mike DeWine, who's a RINO, so yeah.
Other way around, I believe. France is a presidential system, with most of the power concentrated in the office of the President (Macron) - especially anything to do with foreign policy & national (in)security. Macron himself was always going to remain in power until 2027 no matter who won the election just now, so even Le Pen winning wouldn't have changed a jot about France continuing to be flooded with shitskins or committing to one foreign policy blunder after another in Europe & Africa.
I think what we're about to see is the Muslim-friendly, child-raping commies of the French far-left propping up Macron's policies. Not dissimilar to what the NDP is doing for Trudeau in Canada, but on a larger scale since technically the NFP will now have a plurality of seats in the French Parliament larger than Macron's own party, whereas the NDP's seat count is smaller than the Canadian Liberals. If I were a younger fellow I might have hope that the young'uns who voted for the NFP would be disgusted at the party they just voted for promptly revealing themselves to be puppets of the establishment and continuing to sell them out, but I've seen enough leftardation these past few years to know that's exceedingly unlikely to happen in enough numbers to matter.
'Respectability' politics and its consequences have been a disaster for the political spectrum.
IIRC they're just opening an American subsidiary (whose job will apparently be to just focus on pushing sales & the planning of events in the States, not screwing around with the talents' content), not pulling a Sony and moving their HQ from Japan to California altogether, thank Christ. But yes, ideally Hololive will keep the West and its pozloading tendencies at several arms' lengths for much longer.
Those Freemasons claiming some Templar legacy were just LARPers making shit up to look cooler than they were, the real successors to the Templars (as in, they were literally just OG Templars with a rebrand and a smaller white cross slapped on top of their original red one) were the Portuguese Order of Christ. These guys were actually pretty cool and I have never read about them being up to any subversive shenanigans in the vein of the Jesuits or Freemasons, instead they were mostly involved in the early Portuguese colonial ventures under Prince Henry the Navigator & Vasco da Gama (both explorers were members of the order, Prince Henry was even their Grandmaster) or in fighting Muslims in Morocco.
I'd add that Germany cannot be construed to have started WW1 in any way, shape or form by any logical human being thinking about the situation in good faith. Its immediate trigger was the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian crown prince by a Serbian terrorist, we could talk for hours about the underlying causes but that's what set the actual start of the war in motion. Even if one were to try to argue that Germany shouldn't have stood by Austria-Hungary and issued its 'blank check' for retaliation against Serbia, by the same logic Russia should be held more responsible for starting the shitstorm on account of it mobilizing to defend its pet Serbia - an unambiguous state sponsor of terrorism which just murdered the future head-of-state of a Great Power.
The war guilt clause was obvious bullshit even back in the day, something even the French (the most vindictive of the Entente Powers) understood but just didn't care about, and I daresay the Nazis and in fact every other stripe of German nationalist out there (because even some democrats weren't willing to accept it and at least bleated about getting a slightly less shit deal, ie. Wilhelm Solf and Philip Scheidemann) were entirely justified in their grievances against it.
German-Soviet cooperation predated Hitler by quite some time, the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo between the early Weimar gov't and Lenin had already established extensive economic & military ties between the two for a decade before the Nazis' rise (with the Germans getting to build various secret training academies & factories/testing sites on Soviet soil to circumvent the Versailles demilitarization terms). As for Molotov-Ribbentrop, that was just a case of Hitler exploiting the Entente/Allies' fecklessness & duplicity: the Soviets were the most militantly pro-Czechoslovak great power in the lead-up to Munich, but obviously their hopes for any anti-Nazi coalition (one they wanted because they weren't blind and deaf either, Mein Kampf was a published work and not some top-secret document that no Soviet spy could have possibly read) were frustrated by the Western Allies dropping Czechoslovakia like a hot potato and Poland jumping in to annex the Zaolzie region. Of course Stalin would've decided that if the Western Allies were willing to throw a fellow democracy with good relationships under the bus, he'd have better luck trying to find a better deal with Hitler, and Hitler meanwhile understood that short-term cooperation against a common enemy in Poland beats risking pushing the Soviets back onto a pro-Allied course early on.
Recall that it wasn't until after Munich that Stalin replaced his pro-Allied and anti-German Soviet foreign minister, Maxim Litvinov, with Molotov. Poland could hardly present itself (despite the best efforts of Allied propagandists) like some innocent lamb after grabbing Zaolzie under much the same rationale as Hitler used for the Sudetenland and its own efforts to restrict & suppress Ukrainians (suffice to say that while it was disproportionate, it wasn't like there was no reason whatsoever for the Ukrainians' own extremely brutal massacres of Poles in Galicia-Volhynia during WW2). Hitler merely exploited an opening created by the retardation, weakness and greed of his enemies, and neither he nor Stalin (who would've attacked Germany if Hitler hadn't attacked him first) were under any delusion that theirs was a lasting agreement which should have long outlived the elimination of their most obvious mutual enemy; the funny mustache man's big crime here was failing to crush the Soviets with his backstab.
I didn't downvote you but I do have to disagree. I think at most he (and, frankly, any other genuine German nationalist from that time period put into his position) might have done some things differently, but the Treaty of Versailles and the absolute pile of shit Germany had to eat in the interwar years made some dramatic and - to put it mildly - controversial moves necessary to break out of the rut it was in: Weimar Germany was very much stuck between multiple rocks and hard places. Not doing anything or continuing to try to play the rigged game the globalists had put together through the League of Nations and their various Entente sockpuppets would only have guaranteed that they'd remain in their hopelessly demilitarized & demoralized state, complete with wheelbarrows of useless cash and child hookers on every street, and thereby a slower and more drawn-out death for Germany (rather like what's going on now actually).
Alas, the last time Germans grew so bold as to rattle their cage, the fathers & grandfathers of the architects of today's immigration policy summoned most of the world to bomb and rape them into submission, tear Germany itself in half, and put their kids in the custody of pedophiles with the full expectation that they would have any 'fascistic tendencies' raped out of them as early as possible for decades on end, so as to make absolutely sure the lesson they wished to teach sank in that time.
When I think of 'Anglo Confederaboo President From A Rich Southern Family', the first if not only name that comes to mind is Woodrow Wilson. And yeah, his presidency and its consequences have been a disaster for the American people. Federal Reserve aside, this most certainly includes his hyper-Anglophilia which influenced his increasingly obviously pro-Entente '''''neutrality''''' in WW1 and ultimately successful effort to drag the USA into that war, even though logically America should've had nothing to do with it whatsoever and in fact had already dragged the conflict out past the point where the Central Powers should've won (with rather fewer lives lost) by financially & diplomatically propping up Britain and the other Entente nations. Wilson's foreign policy was the prototype for modern 'America Last' liberal internationalism that regards the US as nothing more than a piggybank & bullying stick for globalist interests.
They're just following in the footsteps of their predecessors, the Weather Underground (which is to say Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn & various other genocidally hateful Marxist kikes who unfortunately were not Hadrian'd as they deserved but instead lived to infect the American political & educational system).