Challenge to an Anti-German // Daughter of Albion //

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Challenge to an Anti-German // Daughter of Albion //

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 year 1 month ago (Mon May 11, 2020 4:18 am)

This is a thread where I wish to debate a fraud. A fellow "Nationalist" who really is more of a British Ethnic Chauvinist, one who Allies herself with the enemies of the European race to advance goals suited to nobody but anti-whites.

Here are her inane comments:

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg


I have challenged her to debate in which we can argue these points until the cows come home.

But before that I have one thing to say about people like this and the Allies whom they sided with.

People like this are why Europe itself and European countries all around the world are being destroyed. Churchill and his ilk were egotistical buffoons of an old world that was deluding itself into thinking that Europe would dominate the world forever. Adolf Hitler knew the state of the white world was threatened, he spoke during the war of the white races disappearing in the far east, the "propaganda" predicted a France ruled by Africans - and Hitler saw the decline of the United States and the ascent of Bolshevism. He was right. Cultural Marxism, or as the German National Socialists called it "Cultural Bolshevism" is now the norm in the European world.

This is something Churchill had to say about Hitler in 1939:
unknown (2).png


Churchills ignorance to the state of European civilisation and his pious reverence to the religion of Christ advocated the destruction of Hitler, an alliance with the atheistical Russians who couldn't have been MORE hostile to Christianity.

Churchill in the 60s wanted to advocate the "race ascendancy" of Britain far too fucking late for it to have mattered. The Windrush had landed, and Churchill was sidelined. No going back.

Churchill if he were alive today to see London turned black and brown would have surely thought twice about his derision of "a new religion founded on race"; if that tipsificator were around today to see Britain's empire destroyed and mocked not least in it's own great universities he surely wouldn't have turned down Hitler who generously offered the Empire his protection.

But here we have it. The vindication of Hitler, the fact that you cannot water down the primacy of race. The race is, as Adolf Hitler knew, the centre of all things and will not be replaced by phoney bourgeois intellectualism focussed on "culture, history, ideas and values" for that kind of thinking makes men believe they're the arbiters of civilisation - they are not; nature surely is, for good or ill the one who dispassionately forces upon civilisations her eternal laws that men are subjected to. When men violate these laws, as they do by believing that they can mould humanity, dregs and all, to their conceptions rather than needing men and women who already embody in biology the physical character necessary to give rise to those conceptions in the first place by virtue of that genetic racial disposition. These men are the ones who force the hand of nature to cut him down to size when the consequences of delusion become known as they surely have. Churchill, as our example by his neglect of race paved the way for racial indifference and then racial replacement by those who do not neglect that which is sacred and primal.

Churchill, Evola, Spengler and no doubt others were fools in this regard. They belittled race or made it something purely ethereal. Now we have the perspicuous first hand result of this delusion playing itself out before our very eyes in the 21st century. Europe will NOT LIVE without Europeans. We are, as Europeans, a biological reality, we are a RACE and without us nothing of our achievements can exist in a form that is worthy of our ancestors. Only a fool would deny this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean seriously, how could a British Nationalist decry the Germans and their goals in good faith? You cannot. Daughter of Albion is one of these typical two-faced Nationalists, ones who admire and romanticize Victorian/Colonial Britain yet cry out in anger about German ambitions in the 20th century. It's pathetic.

I would do well to remind you that in 1938-1939 one need only have looked at a map to see who ruled the world.

1550419172433-min.png


Links:

My post on an example of Hitler's alleged "deceitfullness" in regards to promises
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13155&p=96134#p96134

My post refuting another ethnic Chauvinist, Niall Ferguson
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13127&p=95808#p95808

My post refuting Operation Sealion Myth
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12885&p=94768#p94768

My post showing how the Poles declared war first
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12870&p=94674#p94674

My post shredding British racist "The Britisher" on the Battle of Britain
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13220&p=96380#p96380

My Article on how the British deceived Hitler during the May Crisis provoked by Czechoslovakia
http://redpillaction.subvert.pw/?p=792

Norway Graphic:

photo_2019-09-06_03-18-56.jpg
(this is already common knowledge, the fact that she doesn't know this is either out of sheer ignorance or deceit)


It is a mainstream fact that Hitler preemptively circumvented a British invasion of Norway through Denmark which was used as a launchpad.
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/3/6845

But he had no idea that he would knock France out of the war when he invaded Belgium and Holland on 10 May 1940. This was a defensive move: to secure the Ruhr from Allied invasion.

Source: AJP Taylor, Origins of the Second World War, Second Thoughts


---------------------------------------------------------

A quick note on bombing.

The British have this asinine habit of glorifying their spitfires and in the same breath denouncing the German Luftwaffe for bombing Britain.

When the British are rightfully criticized for their barbarous campaign of terror bombing, murdering as POLICY the German people to induce surrender - they defend it wholeheartedly under the guise that they "had no choice". After all, how could Britain have fought without bombs if they couldn't invade continental Europe? Well, they didn't have to declare war for one thing. But nevertheless they have a point, the only thing the British could do is bomb Germany in hopes that it would have an effect on morale. This wasn't the case, but it's understandable how they could think that. However it isn't understandable why they suddenly perk up their ears whenever a nerve is struck, such as the bombing of Coventry or the Blitz over London (which Churchill provoked):

Charles De Gaulle was at Chequers. It was August 1949. Churchill was waiting for the German air attack, and, De Gaulle later recalled, he was finding the wait hard to bear. He raised both fists to the sky. "So they don't come!" he said. "Are you in such a hurry," De Gaulle replied, "to see your towns smashed to bits?" "You see," Churchill said, "the bombing of Oxford, Coventry, Canterbury, will cause such a wave of indignation in the United States that they'll come into the war!"

Source: Nicholson Baker, Human Smoke (this was on the epub, I do not have a page number)


This being the case, there's a saying in mathematics in regards to fractions - what you do to the bottom you do to the top. Hence, what applied to Britain applied to Germany as well, Germany could only fly over to Britain and bomb her as that was the only thing Britain could do to Germany, yet the double standard is so pervasive that it was somehow wrong for the Germans to do it while the British were merely "noble" responders. This is false, and despicable.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Challenge to an Anti-German // Daughter of Albion //

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 year 1 month ago (Wed May 13, 2020 9:41 am)

Daughter of Albion heavily implied in her remarks that Britain's threats, which she called "warnings", were based on a prerequisite that required the action of Britain to make such "warnings" in the first place. Why should Britain have interfered in Europe where she wasn't needed in the first place? I have not been able to understand this way of thinking, it makes no sense to me. I cannot think of why, as a nationalist she and her ilk would feel a justification for such "warnings" let alone what the prerequisite could possibly be. Nationalists don't wish to bother in the affairs of others, so perhaps one can see why I consider this situation to be so peculier. We have to ask ourselves why it was in the first place that Britain acted as she did.

The conclusion one as a nationalist must come to is that it was for purely selfish motives the British thought it necessary to interfere in continental European affairs, no doubt bourne out of hatred for Germany, or perhaps pettry rivalry. She wished to preserve the European balance of power in favour of Britain. This isn't necessarily wrong. To advance the interests of one's country is noble for a nationalist, although we know that this type of nationalism is outdated and not preferable to the nationalism which values cooperation between members of our race. Ultimately the problem is that Britain had absolutely no reason, good or otherwise to involve herself with these European squabbles, the problem is that she lied and pretended otherwise, she would not admit this. Instead she pretended that it was out of egalitarianism, or some such sense of "noble" duty which forced her to intervene. Not only was Britain not honest about her motives, but she had no moral right to intervention as she held absolutely none of the cards, either militarily or related to what Hitler's aims were. Even if they were imperialistic, Britain would still have been left out of the picture as Hitler's aims lay eastwards towards the Soviet Union which I highly doubt any British nationalist care much about.

The fact that these people still exist shows me that Britain in particular hasn't been able to produce the caliber of nationalist that is necessary for the 21st century. They're perpetually stuck reverberating their own self aggrandizing screeches for joy at whatever deed they've had a hand in. Regardless of the outcome. They harbour this infantile pride for their part in wars which they then claim to repudiate, yet nevertheless adopt as their sacred national identity instead of being more mature. This rather hypocritical display of "gloat and condemn" as shown by these "nationalists" is sickening to witness considering these same people then blame Hitler or the Germans for these aspects of national identity they take pride in yet nevertheless condemn when it suits them; they forget that without them no wars need have occured, that the side in which the British fought is the one ultimately responsible for the destruction of the European race in the world today, had they not gone to war and sided against Hitler our people would surely have never had to contend with foreign races its place on the globe, let alone our own homelands. These people loathe to admit this, while it's repulsive to them it's inescapable.

It's rather funny actually. She asks the question "why should we let anyone invade our island?", a question with an answer that is immediately obvious to her, one that is essentially moral. The answer is "we shouldn't". And of course this is something she takes for granted when asking this question in relation to her own country and it's circumstances. She's inherently hostile to the idea of anyone invading her lands, European brothers or not. But yet she is ridiculously oblivious to the fact that this exact same moral imperative applies to Germany as well, even as she seeks to create a double standard which will only legitimize her argument in favour of Britain, or England rather. Germany, unbeknownst to you Daughter of Albion and others of your sickly nationalist breed, can ask the same question: "why should we let anyone invade, steal, or force us to barter our land or the means by which we want it back? It is ours and we shall take it in whatever manner we see fit". That is outstandingly the correct attitude to have, one that Hitler embodied perfectly. The stipulation that Albion puts on Germany is the false premise that somehow it was the duty of Germany to abide by the threats of Britain and how she would have liked to see Germany undertake the reconstitution of her own lands. Albion even has the gall to say that Britain "allowed Germany" to take back what is hers; as if it was Britain's position to "allow" anything in the first place! This is a disgustingly false dichotomy which is obvious to me. Germany was under no obligation to treat Britain as her consultant, as if Britain was a parent and not just some bully who wanted to control Germany from far afield. If I were Hitler i'd have been much more cruel, i'd have made it my duty to kick Britain's teeth in at the first opportunity, teaching her some manners about respect. As far as the use of force goes, I don't recall Daughter of Albion getting her knickers in a knot about the violent use of force during the defense of Britain while under German aerial bombardment. I mean, you shouldn't use force right? Germany did warn you after all :lol: , so you got what you deserve no?

Perhaps declaring war wasn't such a bright idea if you want to bitch and moan about the consequences. Although you would probably say the same about Germany and call ME a hypocrite. In fact I'm sure you would. But the problem there is that Germany had no obligation to avoid war with you if you were intent on interfering in business that wasn't your own, as has already been established. We National Socialists also do not go around singing the praises of war.

All this is to say that Daughter of Albion and those like her are the worst kind of hypocrites. They pretend to be virtuous, they pretend to give a damn about our people yet support the enemies of our race. They side with the only people whom after their "victory" could only ever ensure the destruction of our race.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests