HapaPerspective 🇺🇸

To reiterate my point here, since I guess I wasn’t quite clear enough, I wasn’t trying to argue that infantrymen with rifles are now totally obsolete in 2026. We’re not there yet, what I am trying to say is that the trend is clearly moving in that direction, just give it a hundred years. People will look back at what the Ukrainians have accomplished and invented—an entirely new technological paradigm—as a turning point in how wars will be fought going forward into the future. The Ukrainians are certainly not the first to literally use drones in a war, but they are the first to use them at scale, in a way that is affordable enough to be a numerous, common, up-close threat prevalent throughout every battle. In other words, drones are no longer just some big, expensive specialized alternative to bombers. And now Ukraine successfully used a bunch of ground drones; or what I was calling ground robots, but basically just drones with wheels. We’re only going to see stuff like this increase in scale as the technology gets even more advanced and more affordable, more mass produced. The scale is going to increase exponentially from here on out.

After the war in Ukraine, wars in the future will involve many more drones, both flying and ground drones, fulfilling most of the roles that infantry, tanks and aircraft traditionally occupied. This doesn’t mean that infantrymen with rifles will disappear overnight, but in the next big wars to come, riflemen will become increasingly less prominent, fulfilling more support or specialized roles rather than being the meat and bones of frontline combat.

Technology moved us away from large masses of thousands of soldiers firing volleys in line formations to small unit tactics with squads of 4 to 14 men, and that trend will continue as warfighting technology advances, now with drones.

A lot of people don’t like the idea of drones and remote controlled robots being used in war. Maybe they feel it’s removing the human element, and removing things like valor and heroism or something. Maybe it just seems too overpowered to be “fair.” As if war is supposed to be fair. War is just not the same they think, if you can sit behind a screen and push buttons.

But this whole mentality is literally backwards. War has ALWAYS been about technology, and whoever embraces technology almost always wins. There’s no doubt in my mind that people in the copper age had a similar critique of bronze weapons emerging onto the battlefield, or when medieval peasants got their hands on crossbows —and later firearms—and discovered they could put down knights that had been training for war since birth.

I think the age of infantrymen with rifles on the battlefield is nearing its end stage; it’s not completely over, just as spears and swords were in the 16th century during the era of pike and shot, but it’s gradually being overshadowed by new warfighting technology.

Ukraine is literally fighting against the meat grinder. Russia has always been a meat grinder, in more ways than one.

While Ukraine employs innovative technology to save the lives of their own men (White Ukrainian men) do you know what Russia’s response is going to be? The Russians will just throw more Russian bodies at whatever new problem they face on the battlefield, that’s what they do instead of innovating. That’s why this war is a meat grinder, it’s a zigger-meat grinder.

It’s pretty obvious which country cares more about the lives of their people.

Seeing gamers winning a huge war makes me very proud to be a gamer.

Ukraine has once again brought disruptive technological innovation to the battlefield. The success of Operation Vivaldi (still ongoing) officially marks a historic moment: robots fighting in wars is officially a thing now. We’re also witnessing gamers becoming the leading warfighters in the defense of Ukraine. War will never be the same again.

https://youtu.be/V-i_TFEQ32o?si

I was watching this video about Ukrainian special assault forces taking over an entrenched Russian position in 2024. The narrator mentions that the Ukrainians assaulted the trenches early in the morning while ALL the Russians in the trenches were sleeping, thus catching them by surprise! LOL! (3:19 mark of the video)

The Russian military never ceases to amaze me with how pathetic, incompetent and unprofessional they can be. If I were in any position of leadership over soldiers defending a position anywhere near the frontline, I would have them sleeping in shifts, with whole squads ready for any potential assault. I’m just a regular guy with zero military experience, but it really looks like I’d be a far better commander than anyone these Russian soldiers had. What idiots!

https://youtu.be/ANId4ceC6-U?

So this incident came up in my feed. The short version of this story is that two “teens” were bullying a White kid inside of a school bus. The father came to pick up his son at the bus stop as the two “teens” stepped off the bus ready to fuck up his son. The father brandishes a gun and the two “teens” back off. Later the two “teen” bullies appear on the local news to say “we dindu nuthin’, we just wanted to fight a White boy 2 on 1, but his dad pulled a gun on us!”

There’s a bit to unpack here.

The two “teens” clearly can’t comprehend that a White father would protect his son, probably because they don’t have a father. That’s a given with groids.

Secondly, I hate it when people look at situation like this and think “why can’t you just let school boys fight it out? It’ll just be a schoolyard scrap.” Back in the very early 2000s, when I went to public high school for just a few months (my parents pulled me out before winter break lol) the fights were so common and so brutal, and “teens” always threw punches with bad intentions. One kid in my high school was beaten up so badly that he had to be airlifted to a hospital; but it was technically a “schoolyard scrap.” My parents pulled me out of public high school when I tried it for a few months during 9th grade, because I came home one day with a shirt covered in my own blood.

The whole “just a school yard scrap” mentality has just been the go to excuse to ignore how dangerous public schools actually are, and how ruthlessly violent black teens are. The fear of grievous bodily harm shouldn’t enter anyone’s mind within a place of learning, but that’s the reality for White students in public schools where dindu nuffin “teens” will kick their head into the pavement over “disrespec” and local administration that will condone the resulting serious bodily harm as “just a schoolyard scrap”

Just homeschool your kids.

In the future, if someone ever says anything like “please don’t stereotype people, that’s racist dude.” we’re going to force them to live in Sub Saharan Africa and India for 6 months each. And if that doesn’t convince them that race is real, they’re staying there indefinitely.

Negros, Jews and Indians should all be forced to live together. That’s the kind of diversity I can support.

When they live in the West they claim to want more diversity, so they should all have it outside of our countries.

The very existence of Indians and the state of India alone should be sufficient to prove that racial equality is the greatest lie of all time.

Fuck Ghandi that disgusting jeet. This is the fruit of his labor.

The Ganges river, the jeets holy river is the most contaminated in the world.

Raw sewage from cities and villages along the river is dumped straight into the water with no treatment, and it soaks up the oxygen fish and other aquatic life need to survive. Factories tanneries, textile mills, chemical plants add toxic sludge on top of that. Plastic bags, bottles, food wrappers, and packaging clog the water and smother the riverbed. In the worst stretches, the water is so stripped of oxygen and choked with waste that nothing living remains in it.

Jeets are a fucking plauge and this is the result wherever they go.

The river has 100x more pollution than the safe bathing limit.

It contains a significant percentage of pure excrement

When I talk about rural living, I don’t strictly mean living in a cabin deep in the woods in the middle of nowhere. I’m including semi-rural life in small towns and almost anything outside of a large city.

Ultimately this all exists within a spectrum. The reality is that the man living in the woods is going to think differently from a man living downtown within a major city.

The urbanite is more naturally a slave, because he will always sacrifice freedom for “security” and comfort.

Whites didn’t evolve to live the majority of their life in cramped, controlled urban environments, where almost everything is more regulated, compartmentalized, transactional and coordinated by society. This way of living naturally reduces your psychological capacity for autonomy.

I believe White men are naturally more well suited (biologically evolved) for rural environments, where they can enjoy more living space, freedom and thus greater autonomy. Where they can hunt, fish, farm, roam around, conquering the environment or just having a real relationship with nature. And all on their own terms.

Psychology is downstream from biology (race) but it is also downstream from lifestyle. For example, If you live like an urban liberal (especially if that’s the only way you’ve ever lived) you will be more inclined to think like a liberal. Rural living has the opposite effect (you appreciate freedom more) but the general dynamic is the same: lifestyle changes psychology.

This isn’t really a jab at Brits, it’s not really about America vs Britain, it’s more about free rural lifestyles being superior to urban living.

By the time of the American Revolution, the average American colonial man was at least 3 inches taller than the typical British soldier. During the British Siege of Boston, a British officer wrote home concerning the rural colonials, "remarkably tall and robust, and they are much better fed than our men."
British travelers before the war were astounded by the American diet, journaling excitedly that a man could eat three meals of meat a day. The typical Englishman was used to purely urban-oriented living, and diets composed mostly of breads, grains, and starches. The described the jealousy of no laws outlawing hunting the king's deer in the king's forest. They also paid particular attention to their backcountry behaviors and comfort in abject wilderness. This was nearly incomprehensible to the British recruits who had lived their entire lives in the urban slums of London and Liverpool. They described the Americans as "trained from their infancy to the use of the rifle."