Nitrocellulose illegalized

The government has defined nitrocellulose, a deflagrating explosive, as a high explosive.

This makes anyone who creates ammunition subject to rules that are impossible to comply with. Fortunately the government has also issued an unprincipled exception, telling people not to worry about it. Just go on handling nitrocellulose as the deflagrating explosive that it actually is, and, wink, nod, we will not prosecute you.

But slowly, over time, unprincipled exceptions always go away. This is a back door criminalization of private ownership of guns. A few years down the line, they will start enforcing this, and say, “Oh, we are just enforcing laws that have been on the books for a long time, but widely ignored.” And private gun owners will find it strangely hard to legally buy ammunition. “Hey, the state has not banned your guns, nor your ammo, just banned anyone who makes ammo for your guns. And this law has been on the books since forever. They are still allowed to make it, but they have to make it safely – except that no one can figure out how to make it safely.”

Of course people who make ammunition for law enforcement and the military will get a continuing unprincipled exception, but people who make ammunition for private customers will not.

Then again, the way they are cutting the balls off our police and military, I would not have a lot of confidence that the military will continue to get ammo either. They banned mines and cluster bombs by a similar back door law: Our government passed laws against our military that could never be complied with, issued an unprincipled exception that allowed mines and cluster bombs, then the unprincipled exception somehow slowly faded away. Meanwhile the Soviets continue to use cluster bombs with devastating effect.

I cannot see any sane reason for banning cluster bombs other than that in the many proxy wars where the Red Empire of the Bases backs one side, and the Blue Empire of the Consulates backs the other side, cluster bombs were blowing the hell out of the State Department’s proxies.

55 Responses to “Nitrocellulose illegalized”

  1. So, I am a European stuck living with with far stricter gun laws, but I have heard about an interesting backdoor. Blackpowder and guns that use it is essentially unregulated in most countries. And that does not only mean muskets – that means some pretty serious late 19th century stuff, Colt Peacemakers, Winchesters etc.

    I am not looking into it yet, I am not Clint Eastwood. Just saying if you are collecting guns anyway, and worried about the nitro, look into this.

  2. Alrenous says:

    They keep claiming to be very sad about victims of mines, but mineclearing should be easy for any vaguely technological group. I’ve seen a rugbeater-style chain setup mounted on the front of a tank, for example. If it’s inefficient – after the war, no one is shooting, so drive slowly. Heck, a sufficiently heavy roll of rug should do the trick. Pour gravel on it from behind a shield. It’s helpful to know what kind of mines you’re dealing with, but basically you set off the antipersonnel mines and then you can go look.

  3. Erebus says:

    In all seriousness, this is a golden opportunity for munitions companies. Here’s how I see this playing out: The idiots will throw up their hands and exit the business; the smart ones will first ignore, then sidestep the new regulations, capture more business, and make a killing.

    The ATF’s most recent (2015) list of regulated explosive materials is here:

    There’s a lot that’s not on the list. There are quite a few potential replacements for nitrocellulose which are, if anything, more powerfully energetic propellants — and which are not on the list. (Although the list does contain catchalls like “explosive liquids” and “explosive powders.”) Chemical space is vast.

    The name of the game is: Stay at least one step ahead of the regulators. In this case, they are, essentially, only forcing new product development.

  4. viking says:

    the only viable exit i see is still pretty iffy and far fetched. if you think russia can withstand the cathedral indefinitely then talk putin into giving reaction Kaliningrad as a sort of hong kong deal great location they never really wanted it but that would be a great thumb in the wests eye if a high iq capitalist killing machine of dissident whites were to ally in Russian territory. you would have to have a hell of a pitch though

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Russia is sitting in an unfortunate middle ground that will probably destroy it.

      Russia has divorce on demand and a 1.6 TFR. Russia is therefore becoming weaker each year, and will eventually lose the ability to sustain the nuclear arsenal that keeps it independent.

      If Russia actually had legally-enforced patriarchy, as internet right wingers believe it does, and a 3-4 TFR, it would rapidly outpopulate Europe and the white USA, and maintain its military self-sufficiency. It can grow at that pace for centuries, and would eventually become the dominant white power.

      Russia opposes enough Cathedral policy to become a target, but not enough to out-compete the Cathedral. Russia as it exists today is a dead end.

      • viking says:

        all of which is why i think putin could be redpilled and save his nation and help us start a new one.

      • jim says:

        Yes – Russia rebels a bit, but not all the way. Still a bit commie after all these years.

        • Worse, they think capitalism equals liberalism equals the Cathedral and communism is a warped but real derivative of Orthodox rural village community ideals. And they tend to think nationalism or patriotism and socialism are essentially the same kind of collectivisim, national solidarity. In other words, Orthodox Christians are not immune to signalling.

          • peppermint says:

            » oldfags believe what they were told to believe 20 and 40 years ago

            we have this same problem in the US, people are loudly and enthusiastically advocating for Hillary over Trump using the same words as when they voted for Clinton over Dole and Carter over Ford

  5. Brit says:

    Jim I’ve been discussing with a bunch of far-right Christians about the possibility of establishing a reactionary state somewhere and growing larger via brain-drain and birth rates, and we’re considering seasteading or finding a parcel of land somewhere. Do you think that could work?

    • jim says:

      I have looked into sea steading. Your best bet is to buy a couple of surplus ships (in case something goes wrong with one of them) and wander the world away from the hurricane and typhoon belt. Developing a custom sea steading technology is likely to be an expensive long term project, and most of the plans of the sea steaders are typical of clever sillies, rather than engineers. Maybe all of the plans of sea steaders. You will still need a custom technology to temporarily lock the ships together when weather permits, but this is going to be enormously cheaper and safer than attempting to build stuff from scratch.

      This, however, is simply expensive. Land is cheaper. Also a great deal safer. Russia is offering settlers land with rather bleak climate. You might be able to negotiate a deal in which the Russian government gives you a charter to practice patriarchy and your own version of Christianity, particularly if your religion is some how affiliated with Russian Orthodoxy, without being required to be actually Russian Orthodox. Orthodoxy inherently has a federal structure, allowing it to cut people a certain amount of slack, unlike Roman Catholicism, where if the Pope is heretical, everyone has to start rationalizing heresy.

      When coercion is done right, women do not resist it the way men do, which is natural, since if a man is coerced, he will probably fail to reproduce, if a woman is not coerced, she will probably fail to reproduce. But, of course, the coercion has to trigger their tingles. You need forcefully guided romantic marriage, rather than flat out marriage by assignment.

      (Though plenty of peoples quite successfully use marriage by abduction and fully arranged marriages, and fully arranged marriages seem to work fine. “This is your wife. This is your husband. Now get working on grandchildren.”. Progressives claim marriage by abduction does not work fine, but I wonder if this is just propaganda.)

      If going with the Russian option you are going to need a deal that explicitly denies female equality and also explicitly allows trade with the world, explicitly allows private or locally controlled education. An unprincipled exception to female equality is going to be rolled back.

      Hard to negotiate that. Russian government may be too progressive, or reluctant to piss of progressives by allowing what would be depicted as Islamic State style slavery.

      • ilkarnal says:

        The US Coast Guard & Navy lay claim to the high seas – that is, they claim the right to board and take control of any vessel they like for as long as they feel it is necessary. Challenging them requires an incredible amount of capital. And you’ll probably have need to challenge them if you’re a community of ‘extreme right wingers who enslave women’ &c. The ocean is a terrible place for this sort of thing. Nowhere to hide.

        The places where hated minorities can survive are difficult to access – trackless or track-deficient mountains, marshes, deserts, and jungles. Every inch of the high seas is trivial to access.

        The Russian government probably won’t look too kindly on a community of radicals trying to outflank it to the right, unless they have something to offer. If you have something to offer (lots of $$$) I think there are better options than Russia in the global south, where you’ll be able to bribe your way to virtually complete independence much more cheaply, have alternatives next door, and face a far less formidable foe should relations with your hosts take a turn for the worse.

        If you’re going to take the Russian route, make no mistake that you will have to be an obedient and useful vassal of the Kremlin for as long as you are there. What gives me the most pause in terms of this arrangement is that the Russian government strains towards deeper integration with the West. The only reason they haven’t become far more integrated is the blistering contempt they are met with. If that situation stays the same or worsens, Russia seems a good bet – but that is far from certain.

        I do think leaving is the only real option. The political situation will continue to worsen. I don’t think establishing a ‘far-right Christian state’ will work too well, though. You need a critical mass of participants and funds. The best approach seems to me to be one that has a libertarian attitude, creating a community where people are free to organize as they see fit as long as they contribute and don’t disrupt. Funding is crucial, and should come from some activity where not being subject to the current global regime is an advantage. Medical research and ‘super-offshore’ banking come to mind.

        • pdimov says:

          “I think there are better options than Russia in the global south, where you’ll be able to bribe your way to virtually complete independence much more cheaply…”

          You need protection from the “international community”, and Russia or China are the only ones who could realistically give you that.

        • Eli says:

          > If you have something to offer (lots of $$$) I think there are better options than Russia in the global south, where you’ll be able to bribe your way to virtually complete independence much more cheaply, have alternatives next door, and face a far less formidable foe should relations with your hosts take a turn for the worse.

          That’s what Lev Tahor did:

          • jim says:

            But, relationships with your hosts taking a turn for the worse is a huge problem when the reason for that hostility is the Cathedral is on their back.

          • jim says:

            The sect may well be cultish and crackers, but it is pretty clear that it is subject to persecution:

            “Shai would not divulge where he had been for the past two years — only that he had left home voluntarily and had not been living with Helbrans’s sect. Shai testified in court that his mother had beaten him, and he spoke in support of Helbrans. “I never had a chance to know what a normal family was [until] I came to Rabbi Helbrans,” Shai said, according to the New York Times. “Once you see a normal life it’s hard to go to an unnormal life.”

            Nonetheless, Helbrans was found guilty of kidnapping and was sentenced to prison.”

            If you practice patriarchy as a group, with patriarchy socially enforced, you will be charged with doing all sorts of things that you can get away with doing as an individual, and even charged with all sorts of things that you absolutely did not do, which appears to be what is happening with Rabbi Helbrans.

            They would like to charge him with raping little girls (for socially enforcing monogamous durable marriage as the only form of permissible sex, thus forcing girls to get married as soon as they start feeling sexual urges, usually to men of good character and adequate means, thus usually substantially older men). Since he is faithful to his middle aged wife, charge him with raping young boys instead, on evidence that is blatantly fraudulent.

            “That December, a 17-year-old pregnant girl from the sect allegedly told staff at a local hospital that she’d been beaten by her brother, sexually abused by her father, and married at 15 to a 30-year-old man. Authorities petitioned for the girl’s removal from her home, but the case had to be closed when she turned 18 just a few months later.”

            In other words, the case collapsed when they no longer had legal grounds for holding her against her will and coercing her. If she had actually had these things done to her, she would still be complaining at age of 18.

            Maybe the cult is evil and crackers, maybe not, but when the authorities see monogamy and patriarchy, the authorities go evil and crackers.

            If you have patriarchy and durable monogamy, authorities will come after you.

        • Eli says:

          The only possible issue being is that by going to poor places, you might have locals joining your cult/group. See:

          Notice, some women look very much Guatemalan/Amerindian, not Jewish (neither Ashkenazi/Sephardi nor Mizrahi).

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          “The Russian government probably won’t look too kindly on a community of radicals trying to outflank it to the right”

          Russia is not rightwing in thought or deed. It is 1950s or even 1920s leftism – leftism centred on low IQ white men hitting bits of metal with big hammers – rather than 1990s American leftism but it is still leftism.

          Russia is opposed to patriarchy and has divorce-on-demand. Its policies intended to promote population growth – which have not been successful, its population continuing to rapidly shrink – are motivated purely by national security considerations and are not allowed to encroach on feminism.

        • jim says:

          If you’re going to take the Russian route, make no mistake that you will have to be an obedient and useful vassal of the Kremlin for as long as you are there.

          I would not mind that if in return, they allowed a group to make women legally unequal to men before the law, but, as another commenter writes, the Russian regime is still leftist, just an older version of leftism.

          • Minion says:

            Wouldn’t Ramzan Kadyrov and his regime in Chechnya be an example of patriarchy working in Russia? From the looks of it, Chechnya gets to have Sharia, but in return, Ramzan makes sure they still serve Russia, and hunts down rival Islamists who want to secede.

            Dont see why Christians can’t get a similar sort of deal from Russia as well.

            • jim says:

              Could get that deal, if had something substantial to offer, as Ramzan Kadyrov had.

              One possible thing to offer would be a test case as to whether patriarchal law could increase fertility among semi urban high tech people, and whether women would really resist it. If Russia gets white tfr up to three, Russia rules the world in a few generations.

    • viking says:

      no its the stupidest thing i ever heard of grow a pair of balls and help defend the nation your forebears built move to the northwest thats where usg will never be able to occupy

      • Minion says:

        Ammon Bundy tried to resist FedGov in the Northwest, but failed due to a shortage of Funions

        • viking says:

          YEAH well i was saying its a better idea than seasteading christians.And i wasnt promoting trying to take on usg head on only pointing out the area is already solidly redpilled and so is the safest place i can think of to be

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            The Amish are succeeding. They have patriarchy and just about the maximum possible TFR. They are doing it by appearing non-threatening. The libertarian and social conservative-derived subculture isn’t good at that.

            The question is whether the Amish are actually capable of violence if they can no longer rely on external law enforcement. They might end up as white slaves.

            • jim says:

              Amish get away with it. Some orthodox jews get away with it. The Jews that get away with it don’t evangelize and are mighty active in politics. The Amish don’t evangelize and do everything to be non threatening.

              Amish TFR is exceeded only by Afghanistan and Timore Leste, and only slightly.

  6. Dave says:

    The former Soviet Union is awash in illegal guns and ammo. As any nation advances toward full socialism, police and soldiers discover that their ammunition rations are worth more than their paychecks, no matter how many digits the latter shows.

    A few years ago I got a bullshit parking ticket in a city notorious for such. Against my white, middle-class upbringing, I didn’t pay, and nothing came of it. When white people decide that laws are for suckers, laws that nonwhites have ignored for decades, the Jewnited States is finished.

    • viking says:

      if that was nyc they just keep adding interest once you owe more than 350 they tow you break into your car rob you and hold your car hostage for the tickets and interest owed and another 350 for towing plus any daily storage fees and of course tax and process fees. as far as im aware the states don’t have parking ticket reciprocity like they do moving violation reciprocity. if a state youre traveling through doest get paid for moving violation they can suspend your out of state licence because your state wants same trick they have is not reciprocating weapons permits if tickets are not also honored.
      NYS once suspended a nys licence two years after I had surrended it and gotten an idaho livence because a ticket i had gotten just before hand had taken that long to work its way through the nigger run dmv. idaho then suspended my idaho licence neither informed me until i had an accident and was charge with driving with a suspened licence. idaho dropped it back then probably wouldnt today. the ticket was because when i caught up to a cop car that rolled through two red lights for know reason i said ‘guess the law doesnt apply to you’ they dcided to make sure i understood that indeed it did not and got out and i said i didnt do anything and they said they would find something -seatbelt which no one wears in nyc
      but those deals all respect suspended licences so if states ever suspend licences for unpaid tickets they can reach acrosss state lines for

  7. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Australians need their own formalised class system.

  8. Correction says:

    The “Soviets” are no more.

  9. Cavalier says:

    What do you think is the timeline for the phase-out of the unprincipled exception? 2026?

    • jim says:

      I don’t think they have a timeline yet. Unprincipled exceptions can go down real fast, or they can take a century.

  10. Minion says:

    Area denial weaponry also makes a region very unsafe long after a conflict is over. There are practical reasons to ban mines and cluster bombs, not just liberal reasons.

    Area denial weapons are only advantageous if the military force using them is heavily constrained in terms of manpower, as mines are automated weaponry. This is not the case for the United States

    • jim says:

      That is a rationalization, an excuse, not a reason. No one has ever actually been hurt by unexploded American cluster munitions long after a conflict.

      Pretty much as nitrocellulose has never actually detonated like a high explosive, only ever deflagrated.

      Claiming cluster bombs make an area unsafe long after the conflict is the precise equivalent of claiming nitrocellulose is a high explosive. Where is the poster boy, and if there is a poster boy, was he ever actually anywhere near an unexploded American cluster bomb that went off long after a conflict?

      Pretty sure all the cluster bomb poster boys I saw were not blown up by US cluster bombs, or even US set mines, but were blown up by mines set by the Khmer Rouge, who understandably lost their records of where they had set mines when they murdered each other.

      If you are planting mines and you manage to avoid wiping each other out, long term area denial is not a bug, it is the entire purpose, normally accompanied by barbed wire entanglements, heavy machine gun emplacements, and so on and so forth.

      • Krendil says:

        Take a look at central Laos, particularly the Xiangkhuoang area. Unexploded cluster bombs from the Vietnam war are a huge ongoing problem over there. Not only are people maimed and killed on a regular basis, but it also prevents perfectly fertile land from being used for farming until it has been cleared by professionals, stunting the economic growth of the region.

        • jim says:


          Minefields set by sundry forces that were fighting over Laos are a huge problem there.

          None of these are cluster bombs, nor are any of them American mines, let alone American cluster bombs.

          Minefields are supposed to provide long term area denial. It is not a bug, it is a feature.

          Cluster bombs, on the other hand, are supposed to blow stuff up right away, and if they were blowing people up long after the event, then that would indeed be a bug. But they are not.

          During the initial invasion of Afghanistan the US cluster bombed the place to hell and back. If there had been one Afghan killed by a delayed explosion of a cluster bomb, everyone in the world would know his name, the way everyone in the world knows Ada, Marie Curie, Emmett Till, etc.

          • peppermint says:

            currently, the Syrian government is facing allegations that their airplanes are dropping “barrel bombs”, which are bombs packed in unsophisticated cases

          • Minion says:

            Well Wikipedia disagrees with you here


            Also, note that foreign PoC are not on the same level of sacredness as American PoC. A few months ago 150 Somalians got murdered by an Obama ordered drone strike, and barely anyone made a peep. Not all Black Lives matter, which is why we don’t hear about those casualties.

            • jim says:

              Wikipedia is not a reliable source on this sort of matter, being a propaganda organ of the blue empire used to attack the red empire.

              If one person in the entire world had been killed by a cluster munition long after the event not only would Wikipedia have a poster boy, but everyone in the entire world would have heard of that poster boy till they were entire sick of hearing of him.

              What wikipedia quite truthfully says is that cluster bombing kills a lot of civilians in the target area right away. But that is a feature, not a bug. That is what they are in fact for, killing everyone in a given, quite large, area. It is called war. In the course of war, enemies take cover in buildings, often in a large area of buildings. So you want to flatten those buildings. This does not mean that cluster munitions are bad. It means that war is hell.

              The problem is not that cluster bombs kill a lot of civilians. The problem is that when we need to destroy an area of buildings infested with snipers, we are apt to kill a lot of civilians.

              Cluster bombs are not for long term area denial. They are for destroying large areas. Which they do quite efficiently. Mines are for long term area denial. Which they also do quite efficiently.

              No one has figured out how to make war without hurting people and breaking things.

              Killing people and breaking things are features of weapons, not bugs.

              • Krendil says:

                Not every real issue has a poster boy. About 30% of cluster bomb munitions fail to detonate on impact. About 20,000 people have been killed or injured since the *end* of the Vietnam war. There wasn’t much press at the time because the US wasn’t even supposed to be bombing Laos, so they tried to cover it up.

                Some numbers from an organisation that clears explosives:

                • jim says:

                  Every issue that progs care about has a poster boy if they can find one, or plausibly manufacture one. If no poster boy, cannot find or plausibly manufacture one.

                  Laos has casualties from land mines, not unexploded cluster bombs. And all land mines in Laos were set by communists, were not a product of US bombing. When they talk about casualties in Laos and then talk about unexploded ordinance from US bombing they are changing the subject to an entirely unrelated topic.

                  All landmines in Laos are communist. Most unexploded ordinance in Laos is US. If they will not mention communist landmines, they are telling you a lie.

                  People die every day in Laos from communist landmines, and we therefore never hear of them. If one person in Laos died from an unexploded US cluster bomb, we would never hear the last of them.

                • peppermint says:

                  …the US is so incompetent, a third of its bombs don’t explode?

                • Minion says:

                  Cluster bombs are not perfect, especially with so many components that are prone to failure. Even with a relatively high failure rate, they can still do immense damage, so on purely military grounds, its not a huge concern

              • Minion says:

                The military, outside of the USMC and Special Forces, is essentially Blue State. The military is basically run like colleges, with typical SJW indoctrination about rape culture and sexual harrassment, in combination with entitled sluts in the rank and file.

                The Airforce, which uses cluster bombs the most, is the most blue state, as it has the most women, and the sluttiest ones at that too.

                • jim says:

                  The blue state tries to brainwash the military, but soldiers will never be blue state.

                  When Cromwell died, the question was resolved decisively.

                  Stuffing the airforce with sluts just makes the real pilots angry, since they can see that female pilots cannot pilot.

                • Minion says:

                  Google, gay, and female soldiers are strongly Blue State. In fact, their inclusion into the armed forces insures that large segments of the military will maintain loyalty to the Blue State. Furthermore, generals of all military branches are politically appointed by the Federal Government, and they are screened for loyalty to the Cathedral, meaning that the top brass of the military is also blue state.

                  It seems that only the USMC is resistant (but hardly immune) to faggots and women joining their ranks, mostly because the USMC is the only branch that is committed to actual physical combat, rather than push button warfare and paper pushing. Every marine receives training as a rifleman, and all commissioned officers also receive training as infantry commanders. This ensures that any part of the Marine Corps can act as a competent ground force if the need is there. This naturally selects for masculine men who are willing and able to engage in physical combat roles, regardless of what their position is in the USMC.

                  “Stuffing the airforce with sluts just makes the real pilots angry, since they can see that female pilots cannot pilot.”
                  Agreed. Between incompetent female “soldiers” and cheating military wives, the military is inadvertently the biggest creator of gender realists and downright cynical misogynists in the Western world

                  Also see this, in regards to cheating whore military wives:

                  My main concern however is that since military is becoming more and more automated thanks to advancing technology, masculine male soldiers will increasingly be phased out as obsolete military equipment. A google or a woman can easily pilot a drone in the comfort of an office in Virginia

                • jim says:

                  Google, gay, and female soldiers are strongly Blue State.

                  Google, gay, and females soldiers are profoundly unwilling to fight and generally incapable of fighting, which pisses off their red state colleagues no end.

                  A google or a woman can easily pilot a drone in the comfort of an office in Virginia

                  Googles, yes, women, not so much.

                • jsy says:

                  ”Google, gay, and females soldiers are profoundly unwilling to fight and generally incapable of fighting, which pisses off their red state colleagues no end.”

                  You are counting out the YPJ branch of the Syrian Kurds that have women willing to fight.

                • jim says:

                  They don’t have any women willing to fight, not a one. They have photo ops that gratify the Cathedral.

                  The kind of environmental stimuli that cause men to bond together to fight the enemy, cause women to wander off to fuck the enemy. If they actually put those women on the front lines, they would wander off to fuck Islamic State soldiers.

              • Minion says:

                “No one has figured out how to make war without hurting people and breaking things.”
                The problem is not so much killing people during war, but killing people after war, which is disadvantageous to the eventual victor who wins over that now uxo riddled territory.

                A lot of “unethical” weapons have been phased out of the US military not because of liberalism, but because they are far too impractical and are prone to backfiring (this includes flamethrowers, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the like). Highly destructive weapons that are practical (such as jdams or cruise missiles) are still in use by the military

                Drones victims dont really have a posterboy, and are still in use by the USGov. This is in despite claiming thousands of civilian casualties. Drones are also very practical weapons allowing precise airstrikes on demand. Their destructiveness can be controlled, unlike that of mines or cluster bombs

                • jim says:

                  Unexploded ordinance really is not a problem. Unexploded mines are a problem. If unexploded cluster bombs were a problem, there would be a poster boy, and we would never hear the last of him.

                  Whenever activists point to a case of american unexploded ordinance supposedly causing problems, it is, like white male rape, simply never true. The problem that they point to is always caused by unexploded communist mines. If they actually had a case of American unexploded ordinance causing problems, they would not be pointing at communist minefields. Same principle as the Rolling Stone Rape article. If they actually had a case, they would not be giving us the case that they are giving us. If your poster boys are Laos and Cambodia, you do not have a poster boy.

    • Goy Rogers says:

      Mines are not area denial weapons, they are simply combat multipliers. Minefields allow fewer men to defend an assigned position. A minefield that is uncovered by direct and indirect fire is quickly breached by any adversary worthy of the name.

      To suggest that minefields are only advantageous to lesser armies than that of the US and its first world cohort is to fundamentally misunderstand the military art.

      Economy of force is a first principle.

      You are an ignorant fool.

      What is more, advocacy for undermining the capabilities our armed forces to quickly achieve victory risks the lives of our men at arms and is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to our enemies. You talk treason. You are a villain.

Leave a Reply