Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 05:34:48 JST Bread up, Bro
   it can substitute everything but a father for their children
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 22:30:39 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • InvictusManeo
     • Hyperhidrosis
     @InvictusManeo @Hyperhidrosis women will always vote for security; but they can also be easily forced into a consensus that "this is totally safe" until they just totally lose their mind.
   • Embed this notice
     Hyperhidrosis (hyperhidrosis@shitposter.world)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 22:30:40 JST Hyperhidrosis

     in reply to
     @sickburnbro Here's my hypothesis.
     ugly women give birth to ugly men, those ugly men basically have no path of redemption and so fall into a pit of despair scaring bitches into voting for security which rrstrains these ugly incels but also average shlomos. Gigachads and regular bihs reproduce and the cycle continues, with each iteration more and more gap is created.
   • Embed this notice
     InvictusManeo (invictusmaneo@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 22:30:40 JST InvictusManeo

     in reply to

     • Hyperhidrosis
     @Hyperhidrosis @sickburnbro I disagree on the premise.
     My parents were an odd couple, me and my brother were both okay, he married younger, I choose another path, the problem is NOT in finding a woman to bang, but finding one you'd be willing to spend your life with after the time for banging her comes to an end.
     The latter might prove trickier.
     Also not all of us are here to live a long and peaceful life.
     
     The futurist movement knew very well it would get to this, feminization of society would ultimately be a destructive loop for society itself.
     Voting is moot because its a popularity contest, expecially whenever women are brought into it, hard to understand that we walked miles in the wrong direction and now its dark and we've to walk it all back.
     The only sane points coming from groypers and the likes originates from taking and readapting around the futurist manifest (albeit, awfully...there's probably a few who can read it and likely even less who did so), but that road is closing because well, yeah, men need war, but don't "need" to fight for ZOG... so the alternative is, fighting against it.
     Fight against your homeland and your native society.
     Ponder about it for a moment, as it makes more and more sense when you see it.
     Where it leads to? when young men will see and realize what happened to their future they'd rampage and burn everything, no matter under which flag, likely the first one that tells them "rampaging and pillaging across is okay, for us, if we are okay for you".
     Don't even need to sell a principle or a set of principles, to dissatisfied people, as long as they don't get demoralized, as long as the flame is there, there is war and there will be wars to be fought over land, over principles, over causes and everything goes on.
     
     p.s. women vote for endless brownoids and assorted shitskins, not for security, deep down they want to be in danger because they believe that this gives them the attention they crave for.
     Its... complicated.