Spreading your legs for a conquering force just makes sense

[A Good Friend]

If I'm a woman in Berlin, and I know the allies are pushing in and the commies will be here in hours, I'm gonna spit in the German face and give it up to the Reds. They're just going to take it anyway.

This way, I'm less likely to end up raped, shot in the head, and thrown in a hole with some lye scattered on me.

It's just a good survival strategy; Nationalism isn't.

Women would have to be out of their minds to have hard group loyalty. Their instincts tell them survival is good, and they use the tools given to achieve it.

 

[Melinda]

Would you give your boypussy to gay reds?

 

[A Good Friend]

Would you give your boypussy to gay reds?

As a man, I'd never surrender. Especially not to the reds. I'd just end up dying on some frozen death march.

So I'd probly hit them with everything I had left and force them to kill me.

 

[Crustaciouse]

So basically woman are unloyal leeches to society.

 

[A Good Friend]

So basically woman are unloyal leeches to society.

I would just never expect loyalty. If you're not surprised by their traitorous nature, it's not as hard to face when it eventually happens.

EDIT: and it does have the caveat of making such behavior almost forgivable, "dogs gonna bite" and such

 

[Kointo1]

Yeah, probably.

Males are replaceable and expendable while females are of more value. An example is the "women and children first" mentality.

 

[St.Tropez]

Yeah, probably.

Males are replaceable and expendable while females are of more value. An example is the "women and children first" mentality.

Women are eo cute and valuable they really shouldn't be harmed.

 

[A Good Friend]

Yeah, probably.
Males are replaceable and expendable while females are of more value. An example is the "women and children first" mentality.

Usually discussions of black pilled shit have a tinge of "why the fuck do women do _____?"

The problem is, when you see a shitty trait attached to a group that pops up over and over again, usually the reason for that trait is much older than our society and modern "degeneracy."

Religion kept people from these instincts on the surface, but out of watching eyes we revert back to basics. I would never count women as the exception, and putting back in traditional rules won't quiet that ancient voice. It'll just put a coat of paint on a shitty humanistic set of default behaviors that we're stuck with.

 

[Kointo1]

Usually discussions of black pilled shit have a tinge of "why the fuck do women do _____?"

The problem is, when you see a shitty trait attached to a group that pops up over and over again, usually the reason for that trait is much older than our society and modern "degeneracy."

Religion kept people from these instincts on the surface, but out of watching eyes we revert back to basics. I would never count women as the exception, and putting back in traditional rules won't quiet that ancient voice. It'll just put a coat of paint on a shitty humanistic set of default behaviors that we're stuck with.

True. Society is a cloak covering up real human nature.

 

[nausea]

hmmm

some of them got what they deserved

 

[A Good Friend]

hmmm
some of them got what they deserved

And this is also a truth, that man's tendency towards brutal control over women also comes naturally and is not going away

It's there for good evolutionary reasons

 

[Kointo1]

And this is also a truth, that man's tendency towards brutal control over women also comes naturally and is not going away

It's there for good evolutionary reasons

A scientific approach. I like it.

 

[fagotonabike]

I would run from the country to South East Asia or South America the second a war would star.

Only cucks fight in wars just to make their politicians rich.

 

[A Good Friend]

I would run from the country to South East Asia or South America the second a war would star.
Only cucks fight in wars just to make their politicians rich.

Agreed. First and foremost, I'd never join. I'd only defend myself if I had to.

A scientific approach. I like it.

A Good Friend is not merely satisfied with the blackpill. He must know what's in it as well.

 

[KyloRen]

Males are replaceable and expendable while females are of more value. An example is the "women and children first" mentality.

That's the real trick. A male can inseminate several women in one night and produce many offspring. A female cannot do so, as she can only carry one baby for about 9-months. This, biologically, is called the Fundamental Asymmetry of Sex. And yes, I'm still working on that thread. I'm just a lazy piece of shit.

 

[Kointo1]

I'm just a lazy piece of shit.

I can relate to that.

 

[KyloRen]

I can relate to that.

I'm thinking of semi-LDARing this semester.

 

[Kointo1]

I'm thinking of semi-LDARing this semester.

When you don't have classes, you mean?

 

[Melinda]

As a man, I'd never surrender. Especially not to the reds. I'd just end up dying on some frozen death march.

So I'd probly hit them with everything I had left and force them to kill me.

They would just kill you and take your boypussy anyways. You'll make them into necrophiliacs.

 

[Tuttle]

All covered in this epic video - the FIRST (that I saw) that was put in their special restricted category they started last summer.

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw[/video]

 

[KyloRen]

When you don't have classes, you mean?

Of course. Since it is my last semester, I don't have a full schedule, I can quit my job, I've been accepted to several med schools already. As long as my grades don't dip, I'll be fine.

 

[Kointo1]

Of course. Since it is my last semester, I don't have a full schedule, I can quit my job, I've been accepted to several med schools already. As long as my grades don't dip, I'll be fine.

Med schools? What will be your career?

 

[KyloRen]

Med schools? What will be your career?

Medical school.

 

[Deleted member 1546]

Women would have to be out of their minds to have hard group loyalty. Their instincts tell them survival is good, and they use the tools given to achieve it.

It makes sense. If the men of your tribe are defeated, that signals their genes are no good. So you submit to your conquerers who must have better seed to give you.

 

[Kointo1]

Medical school.

No I mean after that. Or will you be a professor?

 

[KyloRen]

No I mean after that. Or will you be a professor?

Don't have my life planned out that far.

 

[Kointo1]

Don't have my life planned out that far.

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-TNM5pNKV8[/video]

 

[A Good Friend]

As a man, I'd never surrender. Especially not to the reds. I'd just end up dying on some frozen death march.
So I'd probly hit them with everything I had left and force them to kill me.

They would just kill you and take your boypussy anyways. You'll make them into necrophiliacs.

As long as I'm helping. I like feeling useful.

Med schools? What will be your career?

Medical school.

Dr. Ben Swolo here is posting on an incel forum while Stacy is likely fucking an ex-convict.

What a country!

 

[UndergroundMan]

:nervous:
>yfw you realize the allies were the bad guys

 

[A Good Friend]

:nervous:
>yfw you realize the allies were the bad guys

Both sides are for shit. Hitler didn't exactly promise a pussy in every pot.

There's a lot of revisionist glorifying of The Third Reich, but with all of their promise, they were crippled by strategic retardation more so than sheer force. I don't know all the details, @blickpall I believe is more a student of history.

 

[Kointo1]

Dr. Ben Swolo here is posting on an incel forum while Stacy is likely fucking an ex-convict.

What a country! 

THE FUKK U SAY BOUT ME FOOL

 

[A Good Friend]

Dr. Ben Swolo here is posting on an incel forum while Stacy is likely fucking an ex-convict.
What a country!

THE FUKK U SAY BOUT ME FOOL

do you have a towel you could put on or something

---

 

[Kointo1]

do you have a towel you could put on or something

---

---

WE CUN ROOL DA GALEKSY TOOGETHHUR

 

[saddupbro]

That's why the curries have sati.

I bet all the Red Army rapists were incel-types though, only chance they had. Praise Uncle Joe!!

Most of those troops were Mongolian barbarians insecure about their small dicks. Don't blame them. Because most of the Russians had been obliterated.


As for the Aryan broads, eh, a broad is a broad.

 

[KyloRen]

do you have a towel you could put on or something

This is too funny.

 

[TheIncelPill]

Hypergamy is as ruthless as it is efficient.

 

[blickpall]

Both sides are for shit. Hitler didn't exactly promise a pussy in every pot.

There's a lot of revisionist glorifying of The Third Reich, but with all of their promise, they were crippled by strategic retardation more so than sheer force. I don't know all the details, @blickpall I believe is more a student of history.

The Third Reich (among other rapidly rising and dissipating empires) has always been a point of interest for me. One of the first greatly documented wars where the effects are still felt to this day, so the study of it is pertinent to the understanding of the world around oneself and the forces that have made it so cucked.

Overall, you're right on the money. There were a lot of enormous egos with enormous power in the early-mid 20th century. Nepotism crippled the Nazi party from day one of the war. All of their political and social genius which allowed them to construct one of the most fearsome militaries of the era and mobilize in Europe while still under the pressure of reparations and international scrutiny, all of that proved to be useless when it came to actual battlefield tactics and decisions. The battle of egos that was Stalingrad is a perfect example of this - a Pyrrhic victory for Russia, a costly defeat for Germany, all because one man wanted to take the city that bore the name of the other and the other would not let it go even if the city was reduced to corpses and rubble.

Am an express history nerd and would love to learn more or answer any questions, AMA or TMA (tell me anything).

 

[A Good Friend]

@blickpall, is the American contribution in the European theater being downplayed an injustice? I always felt that Normandy was very important for morale and for dividing Axis forces.

 

[BlackPillDealer]

Yeah, probably.

Males are replaceable and expendable while females are of more value. An example is the "women and children first" mentality.

Only if they give birth to at least 2.1 children. Childless women are worthless.

 

[blickpall]

@blickpall, is the American contribution in the European theater being downplayed an injustice? I always felt that Normandy was very important for morale and for dividing Axis forces.

In my personal opinion, it's overhyped in the United States by a far larger margin than it is underplayed in European education, but both are true. Normandy was certainly pivotal as a tactical position and as a strategic play to force greater concern on Germany at the time. However, the German warmachine at that point had already been ground to a relative halt on the Eastern front, where the majority of forces were concentrated. If we consider Normandy as just a tactical victory, then it is one that falls into a long list of tactical victories and defeats, many of which outscope Normandy in sheer numbers lost and troops mobilized. However, it is important to note the "psychological" factor of the invasion and the opening of the entryway for further expeditions on that front, further complicating the already complex situation that Germany was facing at the time.

What is often understated and downplayed is the US's contribution as a naval power and the massproduction and transportation of arms, goods, and services even before Normandy. One thing that a lot of people forget to mention is the US's relatively enormous (relative to other Allies') contribution to the USSR; if I recall correctly, it largely took the form of food, grain, and other such supplies. If I'm not mistaken, it was in the thousands of tons over the course of the war. The US obviously had a much larger impact as a backer on the Western front to Britain and other Western-lying territories before Normandy.

 

[A Good Friend]

@blickpall, is the American contribution in the European theater being downplayed an injustice? I always felt that Normandy was very important for morale and for dividing Axis forces.

In my personal opinion, it's overhyped in the United States by a far larger margin than it is underplayed in European education, but both are true. Normandy was certainly pivotal as a tactical position and as a strategic play to force greater concern on Germany at the time. However, the German warmachine at that point had already been ground to a relative halt on the Eastern front, where the majority of forces were concentrated. If we consider Normandy as just a tactical victory, then it is one that falls into a long list of tactical victories and defeats, many of which outscope Normandy in sheer numbers lost and troops mobilized. However, it is important to note the "psychological" factor of the invasion and the opening of the entryway for further expeditions on that front, further complicating the already complex situation that Germany was facing at the time.
What is often understated and downplayed is the US's contribution as a naval power and the massproduction and transportation of arms, goods, and services even before Normandy. One thing that a lot of people forget to mention is the US's relatively enormous (relative to other Allies') contribution to the USSR; if I recall correctly, it largely took the form of food, grain, and other such supplies. If I'm not mistaken, it was in the thousands of tons over the course of the war. The US obviously had a much larger impact as a backer on the Western front to Britain and other Western-lying territories before Normandy.

We have a bad habit of building up our future enemies. First with USSR in WWII, who we would later stare down for the remainder of the century, then the middle-east powers to btfo the russians. I guess we just kind of did it again with Syria.

Christ, is the US doing this on purpose? We're like a drunk guy in a bar handing the other guy a knife to make it "fair."

 

[blickpall]

We have a bad habit of building up our future enemies. First with USSR in WWII, who we would later stare down for the remainder of the century, then the middle-east powers to btfo the russians. I guess we just kind of did it again with Syria.

Christ, is the US doing this on purpose? We're like a drunk guy in a bar handing the other guy a knife to make it "fair."

Well, to be 100% fair, it's not as much the US governing policy as it is the underlying agencies and bureaucrats (nowadays) and business moguls and lobbyists (back then and nowadays) that are responsible for this practice. "War sells" has been true since before WWII in the USA and is a common practice here, on the personal and government level. When I say that "the USA sent thousands of tons of aid" to the USSR, I am putting all business owners, moguls, and politicians under one penumbra - one that describes a group of people intent on personal profit more so than jingoistic ideals, from my point of view. I would have to look back into the literature that I don't have on me at the moment (am on vacation) to tell you the details about whether these were government-funded programs (they probably had to be) and what involvement came from lobbyists and profiteers of the post-industrial military age, but I can relatively safely say that this is a practice that continues to the modern day not due to some bumbling and poor idea of global conflict management but in a costs vs. benefits analysis which yields dollar signs. Think of it this way - if you don't have conscription but as a result have to pay for the education and pension of every American soldier, is it in your best interest to be at peace or be at war and invoking "casualties?" Is it better to shut down massive industries that create jobs, have investors and lobbyists, in a time of peace - or is it more beneficial to continue the investment because of an artificially created need?

If any real threat to mainland USA arose, we would react to it like we did to WWII, from top down. But in the modern era of guerrilla warfare, war is a status quo that is easy to maintain without unnecessary escalation but with constant profit margins for the top brass.

 

[Akarin]

I'd rather die than mix my genes with subhuman slav

 

[A Good Friend]

Think of it this way - if you don't have conscription but as a result have to pay for the education and pension of every American soldier, is it in your best interest to be at peace or be at war and invoking "casualties?"

I think they've applied that to the American middle class. Free-ish health care seems nice until you realize how much you improve the bottom line by dying.

Also, where does the line between the "moguls" and the US government get drawn? Is there really a difference in saying "the government operates at the behest of these interests" and "the government is comprised of these interests?"

 

[blickpall]

I think they've applied that to the American middle class. Free-ish health care seems nice until you realize how much you improve the bottom line by dying.

Also, where does the line between the "moguls" and the US government get drawn? Is there really a difference in saying "the government operates at the behest of these interests" and "the government is comprised of these interests?"

I guess there is truly a thin line in that regard or a permeable membrane more like. I would say that the difference is clout and office. Lobbyists lobby because they are busy operating their business outside the realm of politics, but are willing to line the coffers of the politicians in order to establish personally favorable legislation. The difference in terms of then vs. now I would say is that back in the day, the "self-made millionaire" was an attractive and powerful social position, whereas now it is somewhat looked down upon and heavily controlled by anti-monopoly laws, the advent of the internet and thus the ability of any dedicated investigator to determine malpractice of business, and thus the de-centralization or de-unification so to say of individual from company, civil vs. corporate interests, at least on the surface level. In other words, it's the difference between Bill Gates sending GatesTrucks(tm) to Russia and Microsoft making a corporate investment in a publicly available resource in the Eastern hemisphere. I'm pretty confident in this interpretation, but I haven't done enough concerted digging to say that this is fact.