The Majority in the UN are Fucking Tools of Jews . . . and other news

Iran war: “those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad”

Cunts of the world on their fucking Jew Phones looking at the JewSades as the Jews bomb babies everywhere. Look at these fucking human shits. FUcking finger licking cum jobs with fat thumbs on the space bar and up their girlfriends’ asses.

Heroes below.

If I was POTUS, I'd attack Iran. This is the sickness of this dirty country.

Heroes:

The people of the USSR were informed on the radio about the attack by the Nazis and, thus, the beginning of the war. At noon on June 22, 1941, the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, on behalf of the Soviet leadership addressed the nation:

"Today, at 4 a.m. in the morning, the German troops have invaded our country, without making any demands on the Soviet Union and without a declaration of war. They have attacked our borders in many places and have subjected our towns to aerial bombardments.

This unheard-of attack on our nation, despite the non-aggression Treaty between the USSR and Germany, is unprecedented in the history of civilized nations."

Our cause is right. The enemy shall be defeated. Victory will be ours!"

It was the Soviet Union that bore the main burden of the Nazi aggression in Europe. It was the Soviet Victorious People who showed unparalleled heroism, courage and fortitude, fighting to the last drop of blood for the freedom of our Motherland, crushed Nazism and saved Europe from the Nazi 'plague'. It was on the Eastern Front of the European theater of #WWII that the Nazis and their henchmen lost more than 75% of their forces fighting the Red Army.

The Great Victory was achieved at a high price. The Soviet Union's losses amounted to 40% of all human casualties during WWII — almost 27 million people. Of these, more than 8.7 million perished on the battlefield, 7.42 million people were deliberately and cold-bloodedly killed by the Nazis. Over 5 million Soviet citizens were taken into slavery and moved to Germany and Reich-occupied European countries.

+—+

Worthless un-Humans.

Turkey has stopped short of condemning the US strikes on Iran, despite many of the Islamic Republic's major allies, as well as several regional states, criticising the escalation and viewing it as a risky gambit.

This is what the Jew World of Trump and Every Fucking Israeli there and everywhere else with their two, three, four passports are — human scum.

Smokes rises from Israeli airstrikes in Tehran amid its wave of recent strikes against Iran on Sunday, June 15, 2025

Jewish Values: Israel Uses Its Population as Human Shields, Bans Flights for Israelis

Listen to this shit fucking Brit Jew:

Here’s a comment on this pedophile’s vid: “There will be NO destruction of the Nation of Israel, so many Christians in the United States support Israel the Holy Land - it comes naturally !”

Rats everywhere:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, where he is the minority leader, presents himself as a major opponent of Trump. As recently as June 15, for example, he boasted about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump.

Yet when it comes to the prospect of a direct war with Iran, Schumer is not only supporting Trump, but less than three weeks ago was goading the administration to be “tough” on Iran and not make any “side deals” without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s approval.

Our former cunts in chief:

Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama haven’t publicly opposed Trump’s reckless threats and build-up to war with Iran. Obama, for example, has re-emerged into the spotlight — but made no mention of Iran or Trump’s push for war during a public appearance this week.

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — despite frequently criticizing Trump for his military parade, detainment of a U.S. senator, and anti-abortion policies — hasn’t spoken in opposition to a US war with Iran. And, likewise, 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, who has been speaking out against Trump, has yet to publicly criticize Trump’s build up to bombing Iran.

Oh, that Jew Yorker Rag.

Cunts of every stripe.

Christ, is this it — bomb Iran, bomb people, bomb countries for peace: Look at this psychotic black of the White Sickness of UK. Nana Akua on GB News. WHAT THE FUCK is UnUnited QueerDumb producing.

MY FUCKING GOD. A Jew in black face?

This is what the fucking QueenDumb produces:

Beheading babies and burning pregnant women, AKA, peasants?

It’s typically erudite, but here ya go: Violence, Colonization and Henry VIII’s Conquest of France, 1544–1546

++In 1579 the English writer Thomas Churchyard explained to his readers the military strategy that Sir Humphrey Gilbert had used in Ireland during the suppression of the First Desmond Rebellion ten years earlier. He wrote that

‘when soeuer he [Gilbert] made any ostyng, or inrode, into the enemies Countrey, he killed manne, woman, and child, and spoiled, wasted, and burned, by the grounde all that he might: leauyng nothyng of the enemies in saffetie, whiche he could possiblie waste, or consume’.¹

Gilbert’s actions have been seen as emblematic of the apparently special character of English warfare in sixteenth-century Ireland. The editors of an influential collection of essays examining conflict in early modern Ireland have written of ‘a level of violence in Ireland that was more intense and vicious than elsewhere in the Tudor and Stuart kingdoms’.² Other historians of early modern Ireland have made even bolder claims. For Vincent Carey, the English ‘campaigns of indiscriminate killing and systematic starvation in Munster and Ulster constituted an early modern European version of total war, which in its impact on the civilian population was probably unprecedented and unmatched until the events of the Thirty Years’ War some decades later’.³ Recently, David Edwards has reasserted the unique and brutal character of English violence in Ireland. Rather than being a product of the Elizabethan conquest, ‘this type of violence’, Edwards finds, was first used in Ireland during the repression of the Geraldine Rebellion in the 1530s and became especially pronounced in the ‘colonial wars’ that accompanied the establishment of English plantations in Laois and Offaly from the late 1540s.⁴

Edwards’s explanation of the nature of the violence used in Ireland draws on the traditional narrative of the emergence of the early modern British Empire, which is widely believed to have started with the establishment of colonies in Ireland in the second half of the sixteenth century.⁵ To take a recent example, the editors of Age of Atrocity state that Ireland was ‘the first colony of the fledgling British Empire’, with the Laois–Offaly plantation forming the ‘very first state colony’.⁶ Historians have deemed these early colonies in Ireland to be significant because they are believed to have provided the bedrock ‘for the long-term development of English colonization’.⁷ According to this view, English experiences in Ireland provided the foundation for the expansion of the British Empire in the seventeenth century.⁸ For Shankar Raman, Ireland was the ‘testing ground for English colonial policy in the New World’, while Patrick Griffin has written that

‘the Elizabethan conquest of Ireland served as a laboratory for the first settlement of America. So axiomatic has this last point become … that it lies beyond debate’.⁹

Historians have found that the English developed savage methods of warfare during their conflicts in Ireland, which they also used against the native populations of the Americas, because the English held ethnic views of the Irish that were akin to those they had of the population of the New World.¹⁰ For them, the Irish, like native Americans, were savages, and thus the restraints on violence typically used when fighting other Europeans did not apply when campaigning in Ireland.¹¹ Harold E. Selesky finds that the English conduct of war in sixteenth-century France was markedly different from that in Ireland and the Americas.¹² Historians have asserted that a Protestant English hatred of the Catholic Irish explains the supposedly unique character of violence in Ireland. Nicholas Canny (the leading proponent of this view) has stated that ethnic hatred was the ‘pretext for extermination’ because it ‘absolved [the English] of all normal ethical constraints’.¹³

The interplay between violence and colonialism in sixteenth-century Ireland has led some historians to view the English conquest as genocide. From the nineteenth century, historians emphasized the annihilationist nature of English violence in Ireland, which is portrayed as genocide avant la lettre.¹⁴ Furthermore, Raphael Lemkin (who devised the concept of genocide in response to Turkey’s massacre of its Armenian population) considered English actions in sixteenth-century Ireland to constitute genocide.¹⁵ From Lemkin to Jean-Paul Sartre to Hannah Arendt, colonialism has been closely tied to genocide.¹⁶ Indeed, the combination of colonization and extreme violence has given sixteenth-century Ireland a prominent place in the emerging field of genocide studies, which has reinforced the apparently unique character of the violence there.¹⁷ In his highly influential examination of genocide in human history, Ben Kiernan writes that English policy in sixteenth-century Ireland was based on ‘ethnic and annihilationist thinking’.¹⁸ Postcolonial scholars such as Edward Said and Shankar Raman have also emphasized the exceptional character of the violence used during the sixteenth-century conquest of Ireland, portraying English ideas of Irish racial inferiority as the pretext for extermination.¹⁹

In comparison to the sheer volume of work on the impact of violence on civilian populations in sixteenth-century Ireland, work on other theatres of Tudor conflict, particularly France, lags far behind. In his book on England’s colonial wars, Bruce Lenman focuses on Ireland without mentioning France at all.²⁰ There are no detailed discussions of the nature of the violence used against civilians in the principal studies of English armies in the sixteenth century.²¹ Recently, Brendan Kane has questioned the extent to which the character of violence in Tudor Ireland was unique, though he focuses on comparisons with violence in England rather than on the interplay between violence and colonialism.²² Cliff Davies, Steven Gunn and David Potter have discussed important aspects of the attacks on civilians in their studies of Henry VIII’s wars in France, though none of these works specifically focuses on this topic.²³ The result of the disproportionate coverage of the impact of English warfare on civilians has encouraged the view that the Irish were the victims par excellence of the expansionist Tudor state. Likewise, broader studies of early modern European warfare have tended to confirm the impression that scorched-earth tactics were particular to conflicts in Ireland. For example, in his influential War and Society in Renaissance Europe, J. R. Hale writes that there are ‘few early modern examples’ of a ‘deliberate scorched-earth policy’.²⁴ Yet Hale is far off the mark, as English, French and Habsburg armies, among others, used scorched-earth tactics widely during the sixteenth century.²⁵ Certainly, when we examine Henry VIII’s wars in France and Scotland, we find the extensive use of scorched-earth tactics and a high level of violence against civilians. Whereas the implementation of scorched earth in Scotland was modified by a concern to take plunder and prisoners, it was at its most severe in France when conflict was coupled with colonial development in the Boulonnais in the 1540s.^{26 __++}

Goddamn, with House Negroes like Nana, we now see how feces stained Britain is a viral fucking shit hole.

Back to some sanity: Was the American Revolution really about freedom—or preserving slavery? In this explosive episode, historian Gerald Horne joins us to discuss his groundbreaking book The Counter-Revolution of 1776. Challenging the myth of a heroic war for liberty, Horne reveals how the founding fathers feared Britain's move toward abolishing slavery—and went to war to protect their right to enslave Africans.