Alternate_ed

I have mentioned it before, but this connects to one of the more interesting theories I've seen on here about the Cold War and the devastating social changes that came in the '60s and '70s: what if it all happened because the government believed nuclear war was imminent? Take the destruction of our cities What used to be functional metropolitan zones full of factories, workers, capitalists, the middle class, and so on are now largely urban slums full of felonious, welfare-reliant denizens. There are others there, of course, primarily highly compensated professionals and a (very few) old money types...but largely those who actually live in cities are the worst among us rather than the best. If the bombs were to fall...the welfare class would be eradicated, while the productive classes in their highly dispersed suburbs would mostly escape nuclear hellfire... Similarly, the factories and other centers of production in which the productive classes work have been dispersed outside of the few big cities in which they used to primarily exist and are now all over the country. Like the people who know how to work in and run them, they're everywhere rather than being just a few targets in big cities. Maybe they'd still be hit...but tens of thousands of individual targets all over the place is much harder to deal with than the industrial zones of a few dozen major cities. Were those cities hit, those who suck up the bounty would be hit rather than those who produce it Same thing with our diet. The shift from real food to processed food composed mainly of corn and soy derivatives seems odd, as do the massive stockpiles of said unhealthy calories...unless you think nuclear winter is coming and factory farming, paired with huge reserves of stored and processed grain calories, will be the only way to pull through; corn is much more useful than dairy cows in a nuclear winter. Yet further, the shift to fence-to-fence factory farming came during the Cold War, around the same time as the destruction of our cities Of course, the hollowing out of the productive elements from cities, the warehousing of vast numbers of criminal elements in subsidized urban slums, the dispersal of industry, the massive expense on asphalt roads instead of rail infrastructure, horribly unhealthy dietary changes, and so on now seem bad. But what if they came about because the Cold War technocrats were once planning how to best increase the chances of recovering from a nuclear strike, dispersing the productive people and condensing the problematic elements while storing food the productive could use to survive would probably be the best bet At the very least, it's an interesting theory of what the planners were up to

>located between LONDON and PARIS with connections to both >??? >is broke af

This is the part about Paris that many people ignore. It may have very few tall buildings, but it's one of the densest cities in Europe.

A walkable city is where you have cafes like this. A livable city is where the waiter also lives within walking distance of the cafe.

Armies do not fight for abstractions. They fight for a people, a nation, and a way of life. That is what we are defending.

Keep in mind that this Canadian mocking Red-state America is a "Conservative" Canadian. Former Premier of Alberta, and head of the United Conservative Party. Two things. First, we don't want Albertans voting in US elections, ever. Their "conservatives" are still far Left 1/

Unpopular opinion, Kids aren't "out of control." Too many parents just refuse to parent.

Today's White House Press Briefing had a 98% chance of running over 65 minutes - until Karoline Leavitt abruptly ended it with seconds to spare. Traders on the NO side made 50x in seconds.

Which is why we must reindustrialise and rearm Strength is the only thing that matters