@DW2@IAMAL_PHARIUS To add to that, they're pushing hard for a war with Iran and their military is tied up in Gaza. They won in Syria but only temporarily, if they let it go it might backfire on them if the Syrians reunite against them. They're at their limit but they'd lose face if they pulled out without winning, and to them nothing is worse than looking weak.
@sickburnbro@shortstories Nah. There's a level of sociopathy and vindictiveness that puts them above and beyond most of the rest of the world. Lots of groups would hurt you if it helped them, but jews alone would hurt you even if it hurt them too.
@beardalaxy@Shadowman311 I think the female warrior thing is stupid, but if that's what they're going with the left is a lot closer to what they'd look like. The right looks like a camp follower.
@DailyStormerDigest@WoodshopHandman >You finding the age women starting marrying and having children throughout all of history until the 20th century weird is not my problem.
But it's not. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern >"On average first marriages took place around the middle twenties for both genders, with men marrying at slightly older ages than women, and only setting up a nuclear household when they were financially stable enough to care for a household, all of this preceded by time working as servants, farmhands or apprentices. Also, a significant proportion of women married after their twenties and 20–30% of women never married.[9][10][11]"
>"According to “English Population History from Family Reconstitution, 1530-1837”, the average ages at marriage in the early 19th century were around 25 years for men and 23.5 years for women.
If you read biographies of any European royalty, which is easy to find, they commonly get married in their 20s or even 30s. Women getting an arranged marriage while they're young is more a custom of India and the Middle East, and most of the Europeans / American settlers who liked doing it were Puritans who were basically larping as jews.
@AidanTTIerian@haberdasher@TrevorGoodchild@monsterislandcolonizer They've already been saying "kill whitey" for decades though. The kikes in the early 60's published and widely disseminated a book called "Soul on Ice" about a nigger rapist justifying raping white women as political vengeance. There's entire compilations of college professors saying that's what they want to do, and anyone going through their class has to parrot the same to get credit. Just 4 years ago we had crowds of people attacking random whites in the streets because a nigger felon died of an overdose.
This is good. Finally someone can't hide behind their money to price out the consequences of their treason.
@ChristiJunior@LukeAlmighty I don't reject #MeToo because the Hollywood kikes were absolutely guilty of everything they were accused of and more. When they tried to apply it outside of Hollywood it fizzled out.
@BowsacNoodle@jeffcliff In Basedworld that would work. In clownworld the people deciding on sex licenses are radical jews or fat shaniquas that hate white men and want them dead. None of us would ever get approved.
@jeffcliff@BowsacNoodle Too subjective. At the end of the day she's taking the action, it puts a positive onus on the man to show her his financial situation before getting with her, which just makes him a target for gold diggers.
@BowsacNoodle@jeffcliff >The woman bearing no responsibility does not fit within the modern systems of the world, or rather it fits too well. It's our current system. A woman can choose to get pregnant with someone, for example by lying about being on the pill or poking holes in condoms, and the man is on the hook for child support. She can choose to abort even if the man wants to keep it. She can ignore the man's wishes to abort or have no part in it and still demand child support. Our (((courts))) are beyond fucked up.
@jeffcliff@BowsacNoodle This scenario would only make sense if the father was pimping out the daughter and wanted her to get an abortion as a result. It's a very unlikely scenario (not impossible, look at Hollywood) and in that setting the father definitely deserves death.
But if he was unaware of her sexual activity, or aware but unable to prevent it, holding him responsible is insane.
@jeffcliff@BowsacNoodle Ah, that makes more sense. In that case... If it can be proven that the "baby-daddy" pressured her into it, yeah, he should get charged for that.
@jeffcliff@BowsacNoodle Yeah, that's what I was saying. But you're talking about locking up the father, as if he knew and approved of everything someone else did to his child while he was away.
@BowsacNoodle@jeffcliff Even then, it's a stupid standard. Children legally lack agency & autonomy, but the parents don't get imprisoned if the child gets molested by a schoolteacher or something. It acts like parents are omnipotent and puts the onus on them instead of the ACTUAL CRIMINAL.