Military

"Combat" this, "fight" that, "tackle" this, "battle" that, “bloodbath” this. That is the rhetoric that politicians use, covering for and indicative of their lack of substance.

They're disconnected from reality, and it’s shameful that they characterise politics in that way. This Party will not do that, because it is good.

‘Remember’ when the king used to fight (alongside his men)?

That ensured that your leader actually knew what he was saying to them and wasn’t just lost in his little world.

If your government has to spend money to advertise certain jobs that it offers, as services for its own citizens, then it's not a good government.

Just as a good company doesn’t need to advertise their essential product, a good government does not need to encourage people to work for themselves.

Therefore, a good government will never need to advertise its military, and military campaigns, more than Morrisons advertises carrots. If it "needs" to advertise its military, or conscript, that is because it is abusing its own people.

My first military mission as Prime Minister, Universe willing, will be to take control of Haiti,

simply by facilitating British men to deploy there - no "tour of duty" or "service" or whatever needed.

Crowdfunded. https://news.sky.com/story/battle-to-reclaim-a-capital-the-kenyan-police-mission-taking-the-fight-directly-to-haitis-mutating-gangs-13371526

⬆News from 1 June, 2025

How can gangs be more powerful than a government? Surely democracy is inherently stronger than whatever systems gangs use?
NOPE

In democracy, you just elect some random power-seeking person so they can slowly destroy your country.
Democracy is not inherently powerful at all.

"The vote" - the great "VOTE" is not some magic ticket to freedom and greatness that some dreamers like to pretend.

Since the morally corrupt Ukrainian leadership wants supplies from the UK for its war effort:

The more that Ukrainian leadership meets these criteria, the more help the UK may deliver when the Awesome Party is in power:

- End conscription

- Reform your education system in line with ours

- Do not strike inside Russia

- Disallow women from fighting

- Make councils of awesome dudes and mothers, as we have

The deployed's sperm can be stored before they fight, so it can be used by whoever might want it in the case of their death. The more success that a Brit has in good combat before his death in it, as seen on his body/head cam, the more that it should be encouraged his sperm be used for procreation.

"Deployed" will mean active with a mission in a risk zone, providing security against hostiles.

"Stationed" will mean just somewhere overseas with no hostiles to counter within a contested area.

You do need a professional military in order to have a standby force in case of random invasion, but you don't so much need a professional military in order to project power overseas, where then more so what you need is the will to fight, and for that you can train someone just fine in a few months or less, particularly if he's already learned everything he needs to know growing up, which he could by use of what the school system offers.

Individuals will be able to donate to certain campaigns where Brits are, and that money would be spent on funding the transport, air support, robot support, drones and what not. The focus is on close combat and high-tech precision. We won't support non-precise warfare.

We will end this:

https://youtube.com/shorts/yPvbAmnH5xI

No more funny brown hats and ties and singing in the military. Cringe.

Only personnel that have been deployed will be allowed to wear fancy military dress during pomp and pageantry.

PS: maybe we should go all the way and just annihilate all the pomp and pageantry and parades. I do moderate, because I understand that some fashion and tradition is meaningful to people, but I wouldn't mind (in terms of taxpayer-paid stuff) obliterating "our" military traditions and putting them in a museum. THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH, MOTHERFUCKERS. Knights Templars and shit. Uncompromising Christ-like grindset. Glorify the world before yourself, and save the innocent.

(Hey, politicians) Why do you do military parades, but you don't die for peace and security around the world? Clearly, there are demonic forces in our government. Remember: good is more powerful. The demonic are only powerful because the good let them have that power. The bad are always trying to fit in with good social structures, bending them towards the death of those under them, intentionally or unintentionally. There is a sort of arms race between good and evil, given that evil - who if they exist wish to empower themselves to take from good - will learn tricks and wisdom from good, and use that to advantage itself against good. This is why the good must be widely distributed so that the good intention does not backfire.

We will end "Sir" and salutes. No more cringe or obedience drama.

Just guys having fun, keeping fit and skilled, and practising combat.

We will end the use of the word “service” regarding military personnel. For example, “servicemen”, and there will be no women paid to do jobs involving the use of firearms, other armaments or camouflage or military uniforms or involving being aboard armed vehicles, nor will there be females supported by the state to do military training.

Women who have been in such jobs since before May 2025 will be fired and given full pay for 2 years, or 4 years if they held the position for 20+ years.

The more that the military has will and precise targeting, the more that it can truly change a culture, and therefore the more that one culture can truly succeed over another.

Therefore, nuclear deterrence is not a sign of military power.

Nuclear deterrence is only good for deterring other nukes, or finishing off an (awful and major) aggressor which doesn't have nukes and which you can then occupy.

Nuclear and rocket capability is good for planetary defence from outer space objects.

A standing army is not so important if many more of your men have had practice with firearms and things (which they'll be able to do in the school system) and have quick access to weapons in the case of an invasion.

So, the standing army could remain small, but it would naturally improve and be fitter over time due to the nature of the new school system.

“I wore a 40 lb weighted training vest for a week at all times besides when i showered and slept. You HAVE to do spinal decompression stretches multiple times a day to not damage your body. After 7 days i took it off and sprinted way faster, jumped and hit my head on my ceiling, i felt weightless. 40 lbs faster, stronger, being 40 lbs lighter, yet still the same weight as i was before.”

⬆ Get ready to wear heavy ARMOUR if you want to deploy.

Being able to carry a heavy backpack for miles is not as important as being able to sprint from cover to cover and remain agile in heavy armour.

We will not be retards like in the Vietnam war when they thought armour was for pussies.

We're about maximising the output of manpower, which means your life is important, and we can definitely do a lot to prevent you from dying to small arms fire - the only kind of firepower available to ragtag gangs and insurgents.

You (or someone else) can, of course, fund your own armour, if you want a high-tech suit, but there will be a high minimum standard.

You can pay for your own or someone else's expenses so they can be allowed to deploy (provided a vacancy, which is likely, given the several campaigns we will open and the discussions we'll have with African leaders), and/or you can simply put money in the public pot to allow anyone else to deploy, provided they are suitable.

People will be able to fund:

Simply all campaigns
Campaigns of their choice
Individuals of their choice (who participate in a campaign of their choice)

When a military campaign is 'started' by the government, it is simply that the public pot is opened for it. If nobody funded it, then it wouldn't happen.

We're going to have an army of fearless chad doomguys saving the innocent.

Unlike what recent degenerate unholy militaries led by useless bureaucrats have done, they will not be on drugs. They will simply be awesome dudes.

Those who deploy will essentially be the people's mercenaries, given that they will be crowdfunded to assist other countries to establish law and order in exchange for ideological conversion. In extreme cases, we may invade messed-up countries if we're sure we can easily topple them due to a relative lack of morale in their would-be fighters.

The deployed may or may not be paid for their work.

Crowdfunding will be split into two further types:

Equipment and logistics
Payment

Therefore, someone can choose if they want to fund, for example, more vacancies and more drones for a campaign, or if they want to fund payments for those participating in a campaign, which could be individuals of their choice.

Someone who has not received significant payment for a campaign but has done well in it, and expresses interest in deploying in future, will be given access to a veteran's centre, which is a place where he can eat, sleep and work out among other veterans – kind of like an army barracks.

Veterans will be given higher priority than inexperienced personnel, and therefore, inexperienced personnel taking up space in barracks can simply be replaced by the veterans, turning them into veterans' centres. This is all dependent on how much money and crowdfunding there is for veterans' centres.

Veterans centres will also be crowdfunded, though the government should make sure they meet a minimum standard.

Someone can, of course, decline payment for their deployment.
While a rich person, or someone with connections to rich people, is less likely to benefit from a veteran's centre, they can still access it by not taking payment.

If a veteran has received a lot of payment for a deployment (enough to support himself for a year, for example), but then wishes to be able to access a veteran's centre, he can pay a fee to be allowed in.

If they are badly wounded or agree to help train new recruits, they don't have to express interest in a future deployment in order to be admitted to a veteran's centre.

Someone can either eat and sleep in a veteran's centre, being fed and housed completely by the centre, or he can simply be allowed in as he likes.

A veteran living in (or allowed in) a veteran's centre is allowed to live there for a period of time depending on his performance in his previous deployment(s).

Let's say someone wants to join a campaign. He can meet people who have been in that campaign and other campaigns, so he can learn about first-hand experiences and what to expect.

Of course, he'll be able to watch POV footage from campaigns, as part of training, and the footage will be available online.

Those who fund all this stuff should be shown photos and receipts of what exactly their contribution enabled, in terms of doing everything from hiring pilots for deployment transport, to photos showing medical supplies purchased, to food for veterans' centres.

There will be a military campaigns website, which will list all active, historical and proposed campaigns.

In 'active campaigns', you will be able to see info on the total number of men that are and have been deployed in a campaign, and you can see that broken down by role type, and the number of actively deployed. You'll be able to see footage and livestreams and other information on the campaign, and on that website comment on campaigns, like/dislike/donate etc. like a social network. The deployed can choose to make his deployment public, meaning that you can see his name on the website and donate to him specifically, either with equipment or payment. He can, on the website, list equipment or assistance that he would like (which you can donate for), and choose whether or not he is accepting donations to his back account.

For example, he might choose a £30,000 goal to fund a medical and reinforcement team to remain near his unit for a period of time, or might want, for example, certain gear which he can wishlist on the website as desired.

This means that some could deploy as backstop troops who avoid direct conflict but who watch out for and are ready to intervene if the leading troops get into deep trouble, and among the backstop may be experienced surgeons with field surgery kits.

Most of the deployed should have great knowledge and practice of field surgery, given that the school system will offer this.

Heavy armour + great strength and agility + FPV drones + backstop + medical proficiency + plenty of practice of tactics and coordination and gunplay in school + equipment airdrops + even a loitering spy drone = win with minimal casualties, with moderate funding. None of that would require the UK to set up significant bases, if the host nation does that. If the host nation does not do that, then you need an airport and need to transport building supplies, increasing the cost.

My belief is that a lot can be done without the use of expensive vehicles (e.g. helicopters during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) which could get destroyed and use expensive munitions.

Enabling the individual to deploy is the most important thing, which is why the minimum standard is heavy body armour, because that's an individual thing.

It is after there have been significant cheap deployments in a grassroots campaign that it might get some attention and more funding.

A campaign could technically be started (given approval by the government) by 20 guys travelling to a place in a plane or boat, with minimal equipment and surviving off of periodic airdrops and their medical skill, with reactive medical evacuation back to the UK already too expensive an endeavour, so there must be hospital access in the host country, and ideally the host country has manufacuring capacity to supply ammunition.

Of course, existing UK military vehicles and equipment can be used, but the cost of them being damaged and the cost of existing munitions has to be considered as taking away from the purpose the taxpayer paid for them for, which is for the defence of the taxpayer.

So, unless the vehicles and munitions were going to be decommissioned anyway, crowdfunded campaigns shouldn't use equipment allocated to national defence - which shall be all equipment paid for the by the taxpayer.

National defence equipment can be used in a campaign, so long as it is "bought" using crowdfunding and then replaced for national defence as needed.

Those who wish to deploy, but need funding, can advertise themselves on the website as well.

On the website, companies will be able to suggest their equipment that they would like to sell to the government for campaigns. Whether the government buys "unnecessary" equipment such a night vision is dependent on demand, but the website will list all types of equipment that the government is interested in.

People can also suggest certain campaigns they would like the government to open, and if a campaign gets a certain amount of money to realistically start it, then it can start.

A campaign may start, in practice, with a large group of men to quickly take over, or, it might start in practice with just 50 guys flown in to help/operate alongside existing forces somewhere in the world.

Groups can make group profiles on the website, and receive donations and equipment communally, meaning that they can, for example, crowdfund a new vehicle, or crowdfund a base.

Say that a fighting group wanted to crowdfund the construction of a base (FOB) so that they need not rely on local infrastructure or foreign logistics, and reached a funding goal for this, that would then open vacancies for base guards, listed on the website.

So, essentially, a military operation could be led from and crowdfunded from the front (growing organically and growing logistics roots to feed the fighter who opens the cause), and could start off as a few guys helping somewhere, mostly being fed and organised by a foreign group, and turn into the constant use of aircraft, tanks, vehicles and the construction of UK-led army camps.

Led from the front.

It is, then, the humble, righteous footsoldier that ultimately decides if he wants to keep accepting donations for all the expensive equipment used to multiply and solidify his presence in his campaign.

So, while a campaign does have a public pot, it is ultimately the choice of the dude with the assault rifle what kind of support he is open to for his mission.

There will be two options regarding crowdfunding for groups and individuals:

"Wants" and "Is open to".

For example, "Wants" a shipment of food and ammunition, and "Is open to" recon drone intel.

Of course, public pot crowdfunding will do such things automatically, but that alone doesn't give the full picture, and the crowdfunding may be very limited per person. Any deployed who expects hot meals from the government is an idiot. Hot meals are for women. I'm exaggerating, but there is nothing wrong with eating beans out of a tin and these military ready meals from an airdropped shipment, if that is what the campaign can afford, to supplement what locals provide. The shipments can include humanitarian aid for the struggling countries which the campaigns happen in.

We won't livestream when the enemy has internet access.

We will use Starlink for internet access.

Lots of small FPV drones should be used for scouting and dropping munitions or kamikaze (in appropriate environments), given how inexpensive they are to mass-manufacture.

A (Party Leader):

[1] "I will try to get some kind of cooling gel-like first layer invented, to wear under all that armour in the heat.

Maybe we can invent a contraption using compressed air or something that can chill a base-layer filled with gel that soaks up heat, and you put the skin-suit in the contraption, it gets cooled by the process, and then you take it out and put it on and it takes heat away from your body.

Whatever the case, an innovative body-cooling solution will be required to counter the heat of the doomguy armour when you're running and gunning in like 30+ degrees Celsius, and just generally.

Of course, there will be different levels of this solution, from conventional armour and a not-too-sophisticated cooling solution, to a very futuristic and expensive suit."

"Are you thinking like a passive system that takes heat out of the body and helps radiate it into the atmosphere or like a chemical reaction that absorbs heat, or do you perhaps mean like a thermal battery that you cool down at the start of the day that keeps you cool for several hours

Each of those have wildly different weights and compositions"

C responding to [1]:

"The way you're describing it is a thermally conductive gel layer that takes the heat to a central radiator, to my understanding

Similar to how liquid cooling works in PCs

Just keep in mind that if the ambient temperature is higher than the internal temperature, like if it's 35c out, then you have to insulate the gel externally to have it actually function. Otherwise you're just absorbing heat into gel onto your person and heating yourself up more

It's definitely not the worst idea in the world to put on a bunch of insulation so long as you have a way to absorb that heat inside the insulation"

C: [2] "You could have small refrigerator loop"

B: "Insulation works both ways, you can very well wear a parka with a shitton of icepacks on the interior in the summer if you want to keep cool

And that would keep you cooler than if you were just wearing the icepacks

That kind of setup would be necessary for extreme desert scenarios like 60c treks"

B responding to [2]:

"Also true but then you'd need power and batteries get very heavy very quickly

A passive cooling system that conducts heat from the body to a central radiator would likely be lighter"

C: "Probably like 20 lbs

https://www.makitatools.com/products/details/DCW180Z"

B: "How much power would it need?

I guess it's definitely calculable"

C: "It takes 2 Makita 18v batteries

Anyways, this is why you just mechanize and never leave the vehicle and plug directly into it

B: "Ran the numbers thru chatgpt and it seems to think it would take 2.7 watts to maintain 37c body temperature while wearing a parka at 60c ambient, and then a battery that would last 48 hours at that wattage would be a bit under 10 pounds"

C: "I wonder if anyone's ever made a propane cooler suit"

B: "How would that work

I really hate using chatgpt but now that it's not totally retarded with math it can do calculations way faster than me

Feel like a retard every time I use it

It's so much easier to do my retarded hypotheticals when I can get numbers within a couple seconds instead of spending 20 minutes calculating it

Anyways the entire system, insulation battery and refrigerant would likely be under 20kg which definitely isn't negligible but it's not as bad as I was expecting"

C: [3] "You can power a refrigerator loop with a flame, which means you can just directly tap into propane

B: [4] "Definitely don't want that as the default gear for soldiers because they have so much other stuff they need to carry"

C responding to [3]:

"Usually used for fridges when camping

Particularly before batteries were good enough for that"

B: "Huh interesting

Seems kinda inefficient for a suit usecase

It doesn't necessarily need a propane flame, right? Can just be any heat source ?

Like a heating element or a wood fire"

C: "yeah"

B: "I see"

C: "But obviously a cooler powered by heat isn't peak efficiency. The concept mostly works on the energy density and simplicity of burning liquid fuel"

A responding to [4]:

"idk man, they didnt carry a lot in the world wars

and I haven't seen soldiers lugging around a lot in Ukraine footage

you can get a six-wheeled robot to follow you around, carrying your group's medkit and food and ammo, etc.

and if the AI breaks or whatever or there's no battery, you can just pull it with a rope attached with a handle. how about, two ropes, each with a pulling handle.

You can also remote control it, of course, but this is more subject to interference, particularly if the enemy is advanced

It should have solar panels on the top and could even be powered by a hydrogen fuel cell or something crazy I don't know about"

B: "War has changed significantly since the world war. Soldiers carry days of rations, body armor, heavier weapons, thermal imaging, explosives, etc

Ukrainian soldiers are literally peasants because their military is so underfunded. They're being given the scraps of the US military's Vietnam war stock."

A: "war hasnt been really happening tho, so we dont know what future war will be like, particularly crowdfunded war

and current/future war, to me, is Ukraine, and I've seen western volunteer footage in Ukraine, and most of them have no backpack

Idk how you can fight effectively with a massive backpack unless you have billions of dollars of air support and every technological thing

idk I'll take a closer look at more footage

I do feel like having dedicated supply is the way to go"

B: "Again there's a massive difference between the civilian militias of Ukraine and a well oiled military machine

Literal orders of magnitude in funding difference between Ukraine and the US military"

A: "my crowdfunded campaigns are not gonna be well oiled military machines, in large part"

B: "In that case good luck getting your bodysuits and ai car that follows you lmao your team is going to effectively have the same military composition as the Taliban"

"nah you just stick with cheap stuff.

cheap stuff does exist. like FPV drones. technology like that can be made en masse cheaply, yet can be very effective

they'll be maybe twice as equipped as the Taliban that decked itself out with US equipment. in many cases

again, this all depends on crowdfunding and people willing to fund themselves

[5] Like in the Roman Empire you had guys expected to pay for their own stuff, right?

Think of what rich people will be willing to spend on their son so he can have some fun in Nigeria

The government just needs to "open the door" "

C: [6] "And are the Ukrainians winning or losing?"

D responding to [5]: "Not really they were provided with the gear, but the expenses were taken from their wages"

A responding to [6]:

"The point is not that the cheaply deployed Brits will be their own military force. they will help existing government forces.

the Ukrainians aren't winning because it is a state on state war with an enemy just as advanced (if not more, if you take away Western aid)

What I'm proposing is different in nature, but can expand to include expensive assets

So it's like Wagner was, except it's crowdfunded and the crowdfunding determines the degree of logistics support and vehicles and so on.

Wagner except good"

E responding to [5]:

"No lol

by the time of the empire I think equipment was usually standardized and provided

In the early republic they bought their owns stuff

but it was a bad system and Marius changed it I believe"

"The supply bot should be 107 cm tall and 170cm long, can be used as a machinegun platform (there could be a built-in MG), can be crouched behind for cover, should be a hollow cuboid (with sloped scales for less bullet penetration) of titanium that can withstand an RPG hit (we can put reactive armour on it), with space inside to fit 2 casualties lying down (in small confined slots) (or more), and which you can sit on for agile manouvering. Each unit should be 7 men per bot.

The shell is to be titanium or a suitable bulletproof alloy, but it will be made of compartments with doors that swing open so you can access supplies, populating the inside of the bot.

The supply bot's machine gun could be controlled remotely, as well as drones launched from it (scouting, munition-dropping, kamizake and "flying gun" quadcopters)

If the bot was too big, it becomes easy to hit and expensive to move around. The small size means it can fit in small spaces for hiding and can speed along very fast in and out of situations.

There's not so much need for heavy "sitting weapons" (like artillery), which are expensive and imprecise, when you can just take the fight to the enemy, and they'll struggle to locate you with their mortars or whatever because you're always on the move.

The bot itself can obviously be controlled remotely. Let's say you capture a village with two bot squads and sustain several casualties. The casualties will be loaded in the bots and taken to a medical place by the remotely controlled bots. The bots could also be controlled from the inside with a small interface."

F: "That assumes where ever you're going let's you bring something wheeled"

"You do a vertical sliding "suspension" thing, where the wheels are attached to legs that can lift the hull up, thereby the wheels have jiggle room under rough terrain. When the bot is rolling on flat ground or "sitting", the wheels will be tucked under their armour slot. It's only when the bot is moving on uncertain terrain that the wheels will be meaningfully visible and the hull will be lifted off the ground

kinda like this if you dunno what i mean

We can just put the titanium on the ends of the slopes (the struck corners as in the image). So, if the bot was shot at (level with the bot), the bullet would almost certainly hit a sloped surface, and the bullet would travel to the end of the scale and strike, and that part would be the part with a stronger metal:

The compartment doors will be held shut by magnets, and have vertical handles for opening.

There will be horizontal handles to complement perches on the bot, so that you can easily hop on the side and drive away - no need to sit on it.

From the attacking perspective, you can suddenly drive up to a place and dismount, having already been standing and therefore more ready for action.

The bot should be electrically powered or similar, making it quieter and therefore sneakier - if feasible and not too expensive.

There shall be a remote control so that you can drive the bot, also. Probably each man should have a remote control, but others should be able to vote (as a function of the remotes) to disable a remote control for in case it falls into enemy hands or there is a dispute. We need multiple remotes as backups, and so that anyone can move the bot as is tactical.

This will probably be the primary method of control. There should be wired controllers in compartments accessible on all sides of the vehicle, where you can take the controller out and there's a cable connecting it to the bot.

Where applicable, the bot's compartments should be remotely lockable, so that contents can't easily be accessed if they fall into enemy hands.

It shall be 77cm wide.

Regarding the built-in machinegun:

It should be a swivel turret on top, on one end, feeding from within the bot.

The MG can be fired while standing next to or sitting on the bot, or standing on one of the bot's perch platforms sticking out from the bottom of the hull.

The MG can be fired and turned manually, or it can be operated remotely, using a remote control and a tablet which has a screen showing camera footage from a camera on the MG.

The bot can be given commands, which it uses AI to fulfil, removing the need for remote control, useful for when radio-jamming is in effect. For example, a casualty can be loaded in the bot, and then it can be given the command to return to a certain location, given it has a map of the battlefield in its mind, provided by drone images. The bot therefore needs cameras. It can use the camera on the MG, and it should have backup cameras.

As another example, you can set it to sentry mode, and it's an auto turret that shoots when infantry is detected in a certain direction.

It can be put in a stationary, or erratically slightly moving (to avoid direct heavy hits) mode within sentry mode, or can be set to randomly drive around and cover an area, though this is an unlikely use case - most likely used if its squad is very injured and it needs to start shooting whatever infantry is near it. Each man assigned to a bot can wear an IR tag that the bot can detect, so the AI knows who not to shoot.

It shouldn't be given the order to assault by itself, given that it is a relatively expensive multi-purpose piece of equipment that should remain with or near its squad, and is more likely to be behind (in terms of a frontline contest) than in front of its squad.

G: "electric is gonna cost more money, just go with normal gas powered like everyone else" {1 other expresses agreement}

B: [6] "yeah, in a war scenario gasoline is infinitely better

hell of a lot easier to maintain on the field"

C: [7] "Diesel"

B: "true actually"

H responding to [7]: "is diesel favored in military applications because it won't ignite when damaged or are there other considerations"

H responding to [6]:

"i think that depends actually

well right now probably not

but as the energy density of batteries improves i wonder if it'll end up being favorable since electric powertrains generally have less moving parts, better torque, have lower heat signature and noise

so on and so forth

besides range and cold weather performance and maybe maintenance are there any major downsides inherent to the system

well range isn't necessarily inherent ig because batteries could become more energy dense than combustible fuel

or maybe they couldn't but thats math for someone else to do"

I: "Batteries have more issues than energy density

Stability is a problem"

C: "I think the engines and refining are both simpler than for gasoline. A modern diesel car might actually be more complicated, but that's because of emission reduction systems."

I: "Gasoline is able to store energy chemically which is relatively stable

[8] Batteries lose energy at a pretty high rate constantly

And over their lifetime get worse"

H responding to 8: [9] "is that a problem thst can be fixed or mitigated"

C: "Oh right, diesel goes bad a bit slower than gasoline too"

H responding to [9]: "theoretically anyway

if it cld be fixed rn we would"

I: "It can't be fixed, but there may be ways to reduce its severity

Theoretically there may be ways to make it as good as gasoline

But the principle will remain"

H: "i think we should replace all military hardware with pneumatic systems

that would solve all the problems"

C: "CAES Mentioned <let's fucking go>"

H: "name one thing wrong with compressed air

you cant"

C: "Wooo!

I: "Electric vehicles are a good idea, but they should be viewed as a parallel technology with specific uses

Electric vehicles would be great for urban public transportation"

H: "eventually we have to replace ICEs

it just wont make sense after a certain point as oil becomes more scarce

i mean we can make oil but atp energy efficiency tanks"

I: "I'm a turbine believer"

C: "Invade Titan for methane" {3 others express agreement}

H: "tap the sun for hydrogen and make every car water powered"

I: "We should put rocket engines in cars that can run on any combustible liquid

There are already multiple cars that operate as such"

H: "yeah that one guy even made that 4x4 from scratch"

I: "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car"

H: "i dont remember the details but yk what im talking abt right"

I: "This is the future

The A-831 could operate on diesel fuel, unleaded gasoline, kerosene, and JP-4 jet fuel;[36] leaded gasoline damaged it.[37][38] According to Chrysler, it could burn a variety of unusual fuels ranging from furnace oil and perfume to peanut and soybean oils.[8][31][35] Mexican President Adolfo López Mateos ran one of the cars on tequila after Chrysler engineers confirmed that it would do so.[8][39]"

H: "aren't gas turbine engines notoriously unreliable

i feel like they'd become really expensive really fast"

I: "It is the opposite

They are extremely robust"

H: "then why do they make my tanks suck in hoi4

[10] explain that wise guy"

I: "Turbine cars suffer from the fact nobody knows how to work on them"

C responding to [10]: "Balancing reasons"

H: "shush"

G: "Turbines are basically only limited by temperature and bearings"

C: "Most turbine failures you hear about are jet liners where it either ate a whole bird or the ground crew filled up the tanks with something that isn't fuel"

J: "It's a spinning rod bro that's very easily controlled variables"

C: "There's apparently an issue with some planes where the engines have a design feature that lets the turbine partially break loose if it becomes too unbalanced to mitigate vibration forces but this causes it to leak oil which will fill the plane with smoke if that engine is providing air. Once again, this is an issue that has occurred on two 737 max aircraft, though this engine is used on other planes, some of which may also be vulnerable to this.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/19/business/smoke-cabin-boeing-737-max-bird-strike

There might be some Airbus planes affected. The engine is used on lots of planes, I think it's unclear if this would cause issues on all of them. For example the Boeing 787 has the same engine, but supplies air from a separate compressor, so it's not affected.

And even the 737 Max can avoid this issue by switching air from the APU during ascent and descent, but Boeing seems reluctant to admit any action is needed"

A responding to "Anyways, this is why you just mechanize and never leave the vehicle and plug directly into it":

"I feel like never leaving a vehicle is not a war-winning move but thanks"

C: "

We will set it up so that the body-worn cameras worn by all of the deployed regularly upload their footage automatically, so that it can be reviewed.

All time spent deployed should have video to go along with it, so that we know what a deployed has been doing at all times.

Unlike Wagner, campaigns won't be expected to be paid for or compensated for by local allies. Ideological conversion will be the main or only cost for local allies. They can, of course, provide payment and incentives for us to campaign for them, but we won't campaign for a group that isn't ideologically aligned or may have obtained its offerings unethically. "Ideological conversion" mainly means implementing the two councils system and our education system, and, of course, not doing blatantly bad things, which includes conscription.

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=jfe2pQQOwr4 bagpipes. propa Scotlan innit

Fukking scottish fighting here we go

Boys from the age of 12 will have the opportunity to practice with firearms using real bullets. Before that age (as part of the school system's offerings), they'll be able to, learn, play and practice combat with real-looking toy guns dispensing soft projectiles. In other words, play airsoft or similar, and get practice with flying drones.

Locations will be built for combat practice, and public places like woods may be regularly closed to the public for practice events. For example, a local woods might be closed every Tuesday afternoon for seven hours, and every Friday afternoon for seven hours.

Of course, these don't have to be limited to the school system.

Crowdfunded training and combat practice events will be available for men generally.

Regarding the recent military ads, and you'll know if you've seen them, I gotta say

This is the most degenerate piece of sh*t ad campaign I've ever seen. NEVER AGAIN.

GET OUT.

MILITARY ADS AREN'T NEEDED WHEN YOU STOP BEING A VACUOUS LEECH.

I gotta say, regarding this line in one of these ads:

".. becoming fully qualified in cyber defence - that's what was in it for me"

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE BEST CODERS GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR FUCKING QUALIFICATIONS. HUH, WOMAN? THAT'S NOT HOW BEING A HACKER WORKS. THAT'S NOT HOW BEING SMART AND PRODUCTIVE WORKS. FUCK OFF. YOU'VE NEVER FOUGHT IN A WAR AND YOU NEVER WILL. GET LOST.

Imagine if military ads were like this:

smile_maker.mp4

NOT HAPPENING

MILITARY ADS ONLY EXIST IN BADLY RUN COUNTRIES RUN BY ANNOYING FA------

⬅ news from 16 May 2025

⤵

FUCK. YOU

Leave the poor taxpayer alone. They've fucking suffered enough

whatever-go-my-scarab-scarab.mp4

fulani-1.mp4

USEC_in_Ukraine.mp4

It’s 18 May 2025, and I just saw another military ad. They’re still at it with the “you belong here”.

I call on the government to end all military ads as soon as possible. No waiting.

I don’t wanna see it. I hate you. There’s no logical reason why you have to keep the bullshit running, throwing money at a problem instead of truly caring.

What we have as a government is a black hole. We don’t have a shining light of leadership. We have a black hole where money gets forced in, and nothing good comes out.

Listen, government. There’s only one reason I’d join the military, and you wouldn’t like it.

I want to get it through their thick skulls, that it is incredible that instead of addressing underlying issues that cause the breakdown of the country and seeming lack of recruitment, they just spend more of people’s money trying to psy op people into joining the military just so they can be happy with their army size numbers, because it’s easier to spend money than it is to use your brain.

They see people as numbers.

Military ads really are a sign of government overreach.

Every military ad is an insult to our humanity.

It's an undemocratic act. If it's not the will of the people to join the military, you should respect that. We know the military exists. We don't need reminding. We don't need your social engineering using our own money. It's evident that you don't put yourselves in the shoes of those you're supposed to serve.

#fuckyougovernment

This era has to end. It will end one way or another. This can't go on another five years, ten years, fifteen years. Imagine. Imagine ten more years of the same shit, but worse.

You know what, government. If I actually do belong in the military, then, maybe you're right. Maybe I do belong in the military. In which case, you belong here:

Look at this shit. What are you doing? Why are you wearing a tie? Why are you wearing impractical dress for no good reason? Why are you swinging your arms? Why are you in this formation? Why are you female? Why wear a medal? So many questions. The government is a strange creature.

Those shoes sure look a lot less practical than barefoot shoes.

Like, this is a waste of money, guys. We have to stop this. Remember, the taxpayer has to pay for this shit.

If you have an itch for weird stuff like this, then maybe the market will supply your demand, but I don't see how this weirdo behaviour benefits the TAXPAYER.

Ties on schoolchildren. Ties on soldiers. Ties on our "representatives".

Ties everywhere. It is a spectre of faux professionalism dominating our world.

Make it disappear. I want it gone. I'm the fucking boss, now.

Whoever came up with this culture is surely dead and gone, and it's time for their ways to be gone, too.

This country is akin to a dying cell continuing functions that are killing it, because it is unable to adapt. The enemy is within. In this website, I have the provided the solution for this dying cell.

Once we've sorted out the enemy within, then the country can start sorting out enemies around the world again. We've had zero KIA in recent years. The only war we participated in recently was not a genuine or good war. We have a sub-replacement birth rate. We do, however, have the above. Brilliant.

Yes, the country should actually have enemies, because there are immoral cultures and social situations around the world, and people suffering because of them.

The country should be good. Instead, our social structures are basically completely unconsidered. All that we have is politics of reaction and power-hunger.

I say we've had zero KIA in recent years, but that's official military KIA. We've had some Brits dying in Ukraine.

Clearly, all government systems are incredibly unconsidered, if you have more government-unrelated combat deaths than official ones.

And, obviously, if you have more suicides than combat deaths.

If suicide isn't incredibly rare, then the government is doing something wrong. That's just a fact. Every suicide should be investigated, because there's a very good chance the government could have done something better.

Of course, being retarded, the best the normie politicians will do is "put a mental health professional in every school" and things of the like, because that's an easy policy of reaction.

Of course, when you talk about suicide rates, a bunch of retards will come out with gender "inequality" regarding suicide, as though success is when you socially engineer the sexes to commit suicide in equal amounts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12986241/fortnite-army-youtube-partnership-gen-z-recruitment.html

Just straight up fucking pieces of shit. They'll do anything but serve the people in any meaningful way.

Why would I serve your interests when you don't give a fuck about me? IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT.

Oh, look, a joke of a "defence secretary". Another educated elite who has been a mini dictator more than anything meaningful.

This whole system of government, that allows for bullshit like this, is why we live in clown world.

It's extremely shallow leadership, hollowing out the country - taking the country down to their level.

ENTROPY

If you spend long enough under the wrong order, it will eventually lead to disorder.

You might be a libtard who's never thrown a punch. In which case, here are seven reasons for why the cons of having women in your military outweigh the pros:

• Distracting men

• Men (e.g. potential recruits) finding it immoral

• The biological inefficiency of it is a sign of defensive weakness. If you have women fighting or even simply in your military at all, it's a sign that you're not going to be a hegemon. For example, there are women in Ukraine's military. To me, this a sign that they will not win back their territory, because it's a sign of low morale and weakness, compared to what could be.

When the US won in WW2 against Japan on the other side of the world, going island-hopping, a small percentage of their supply personnel were women. Think of the Roman Empire. The Knights Templar weren't allowed contact with women besides their mum or sister. These were success stories. I don't know what you'd not want to learn from the strongest.

• Not trusting women with firearms. I've seen videos of female cops making stupid mistakes with guns, accidentally shooting people.

• The deployed will be expected to be very strong to be heavily armoured. The female skeletal structure is weaker and less capable than the male, and it takes more effort for women to get the same muscle mass as men. (same goes with backpacks)

• Making different facilities and different uniforms, for the small minority of women who are actually interested in combat, is not an efficient use of taxpayer money.

• Heard of "barracks bunnies"? Sex does not belong in the military. Sex lowers fighting spirit and aggressive drive.

Get your head out of the clouds. We're not having women in my serious military just because it tingles the four braincells in your managerial class brain because you think it's some kind of progress. It's not.

In a military context, it is known that there are two types of power:

Manpower (human resources)
Assets (non-human resources)

Manpower can be divided into:

Fitness
Morale

Assets can be divided into:

Technology
Tactics

It is women who generally produce true fitness and morale in men, and it is generally men who then produce technology and tactics to help women repeat the cycle.

Conscription is therefore unnecessary and should be abolished universally, as should all such invasive orders by the state upon the public.

Freedom. Security. Trade. Gifts.

The state should minimise general public coercion that has no relation to the principle of Security - though, of course, we will look after the social and physical environment, with a light touch that listens to the right people.

Therefore, the education system is to be reformed, and this is the ‘First Issue’ of the Party.

⬅ News from 29 May, 2025

😆 Mate. Your country is circling the drain. This is not the time for stupid band-aids. This is the time to re-think the education system and the military which you haven't changed because you're an idiot.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse