One of my favorite things about pol is that, every once in a while, one of us strings together a long series of words into thoughtful essays that tell us something about the world. In this thread, I'll dump the essays I've saved. Please, if you have some of your own, contribute to the thread.
Redpill chan essays
Other urls found in this thread:
Tumult of the Niggers and Thoughts of a Beaver are my favourites. Beaver tries a little too hard on certain topics/is misinformed, but solid for the most part.
Much appreciated, user. Keep going.
This brings back fond memories of the chans before shillgate. Thank you, user. Good to know some of us are still coming here.
I have the full beaveranon set I'll post. We need to keep these nuggets of wisdom alive. Posting this one as a holdover.
Reported for tax fraud.
Well, since you mention beaver… I had read some criticisms of him (he's not perfect), but I liked his stuff, so I saved it. Dumping the beaver posts I saved.
last of my folder that seems worth posting. i like what others are posting, thanks anons. The Nigger work was excellent, in particular. True *art*
Hey, lets post some of the most stupider-est shit that Q-Tards have done.
And the thread's ruined. Great.
Found another folder (obviously).
Checked. Yeah, he's controlled. It was still good to see Comey leave.
My own favorites.
Wow, that false flag is particularly good, I hadn't seen that one before.
agreed, first infographic is really good
Yeah, the internet, including this site, is a honeytrap run by ignoramuses and egotists.
Dude, the beaver poster is amazing. Does he still frequent here at all?
If you liked that, I'll post a couple more MGTOW/MRA ones you may enjoy.
Last one for me for tonight: context behind 9/11
There are some people who realize that the physical evidence indicates that the official story is wrong, but don't understand what purpose or interest the government may have had in carrying out the attacks and thus have a psychological relation to the entire event as remaining quite mysterious even though the government's claims are patently absurd. I'll resolve that for you.
On 9/11/91 Bush Sr. spoke before Congress calling for a new world order. Alright, so the president is announcing a major initiative to the world. What could he be up to?
As the USSR was collapsing, there were major operations underway to seize control of their industry. We need to lay down a little historical context for those unaware before proceeding.
Throughout the 1980s the CIA was heavily involved in cocaine and arms trafficking, money laundering, etc. The most famous name here might be Oliver North, but Bush Sr. is neck deep. Mena, Arkansas is a major hub for this operation under the jurisdiction of Bill Clinton. Long trail of deaths surrounding North, Clinton, Bush, Mena, etc. You can educate yourself on those details.
This scandal goes mainstream around 1986. In 1989 you get the first major form of collateralized debt obligations in the form of Brady Bonds, invented by Bush Sr.'s treasury secretary. Minimally informed people are aware of the centrality of CDOs to the 2008 financial panic and the endemic fraud to securities trades of this type.
One of the Bush/North associates is Neil Livingstone, who acts as a go between to Semion Mogilevich. Mogilevich is one of the biggest mafia leaders in the USSR at the time. Mogilevich has had money laundering through the Bank of New York exposed to the tune of $10 billion. He is a major arms dealer at the time, and also heavily connected to al-Qaeda. Part of a bargain Livingstone tried to broker with DoJ involved Mogilevich handing over a bunch of his al-Qaeda connections.
Around 9/11/91 a bunch of fraudulent Brady Bonds are issued through the Bank of New York, Mogilevich's personal money laundering machine. This manifests ten years later. If you go back and look at the settlement imbalances at banks after 9/11, even the banks operating out of WTC complexes don't have any real settlement issues. There is one major exception however: Mogilevich's money laundering hub, the Bank of New York, is reporting book imbalances in excess of $100 billion per day following the attacks. The rules governing security clearance were lifted immediately after 9/11 - allegedly due to widespread problems - but really just to allow BoNY to clear it's balances without a record. It's worth noting that BoNY did not sustain structural damage on 9/11 - not in the WTC.
So these 100s of billions of fraudulent securities that were not clearing in the days after 9/11 - where did they come from? What were they used for? This is how the west launched their invasion of Russia following the collapse. You'll find exposes about crates of freshly printed US bills being shipped to Russia like The Money Plane in NY Magazine, used to buy influence; the other side of this is the securities fraud used to buy assets. It's estimated that something like 40-50% of Russia had been bought up through the mafia by late 92 or 1993.
In 2000/2001 Putin comes onto the scene. He starts nationalizing Russian assets that were seized by the US via the above mentioned securities fraud / money laundering and putting pressure on the mob. Next thing you know 9/11 happens. There are a lot of bones to pick with the official story, but rather than taking up those issues I'd like to highlight the importance of some officially acknowledged but underreported facts.
On 9/9/01 Ahmad Massoud is assassinated by a fake TV crew that disguised a bomb as a TV camera. Two days later the secret service denies access to a couple of guys claiming to have an interview lined up with Bush in Florida on the morning of 9/11. This is our first direct threat against Bush of the day and indication of some larger plot than hijacked planes. Upon learning of the attacks, Bush insists on returning directly to Washington. In flight, a threat is received in the form of a call from an unknown source saying "Angel is next," angel being code for the president that only insiders would have. (* "Can you confirm the substance of that threat that was telephoned in…that Air Force One is next and using code words?" Fleischer: "Yes, I can. That's correct."(September 13)* )Bush is at this point aware that there is some sort of coup effort going on; for example, all the reporter's onboard AF1 are required to turn their cellphones off because they are worried about the attacking faction tracking cell signals - a capability we can all agree is well beyond that of al-Qaeda.
So Bush is under threat from people with high level insider knowledge. Press secretary acknowledged all this on national TV the day after (Angel is next being called in). Bush diverts to Barksdale which is basically the #2 nuclear command site. After a couple hours there he proceeds to Offutt, which is the #1 nuclear command site. You should also be aware of a variety of drills running on the day of 9/11, Vigilant Guardian. This is a full scale mock up of nuclear war; the whole infrastructure is activated for first strike (incidentally, part of the Vigilant Guardian drill in 2001 included a hijacking of planes as the instigator of the conflict). So what is Bush doing going to Barksdale and Offutt? Clearly trying to bring the nuclear forces to heel in light of learning of high level insider power plays.
This might be starting to sound a bit over the top - high level insiders seizing control of nuclear infrastructure and threatening the president with it. But only a few years later we have a similar incident in 2007 as 6 nuclear weapons are seized, generally regarded as intended for use starting the war in either Iran or Georgia. Later, in 2013, we again have nukes going off base unauthorized. Hours after it was reported in the media Sen. Graham is on TV warning of a nuke hit on South Carolina to be blamed on Syrian rebels; two of top nuclear commanders get dismissed in the following weeks. So high level insider fighting over the nuclear arsenal is pretty standard stuff, well known to the public.
With the question of a struggle over the nuclear arsenal now being common sense rather than shocking, we consider Bush caving to the terrorism line and starting the whole war on terror. You have Putin immediately backing off the seizure of assets in Russia. It won't be until the last couple of years that Putin resumes his assertion of authority over Russia; the US responds in kind with attacks on Syria and Ukraine but Russia has since quietly updated it's missile program and is prepared for nuclear war this time around; you now see a defiant Putin in the face of the 9/11 coup faction. Alongside this remarkable shift in geopolitics, there is an emerging anti-dollar block with the BRIC countries establishing an infrastructure bank last year. Just weeks ago, Glazyev announced this and is widely regarded as being the mouth of Putin; he organized the recent gas deal with Chin for example.
So you see 9/11 was a pivotal event used to extend the US dollar empire under threat of nuclear war for another 10-15 years in the face of an assertive Putin back in 2001 and growing domestic problems for the US Government. (You may recall the 90s was full of anti government militancy, concern over globalization, NAFTA, extraordinary distrust, in general what you would expect of citizens in an empire with no apparent external threat … the cold war had ended)
So now that broad outline of purpose and motivation for 9/11 is clear, it's easier to come to terms with what your eyes tell you looking at Building 7 implode into its foot print at free fall for example. You don't even necessarily have to view it as an evil thing; the US people are quite severely fucked without something being done to backstop the US dollar."
This one is not from an imageboard, but I've seen it reposted occasionally. My contribution is transcribing and fixing the text for even easier copy-pasting, which I shall provide in the next posts.
Debunking Feminist Right to Vote and Right to Work
Every single stage of Feminism has been bad. Every single idea that it pushes is bad. Every single goal it had was bad. Thanks mostly to Second Wave Feminism, which covered an enormously broad range of topics, it is beyond the scope of even an effortpost to address all of it. But I can address the two main points of it, and I will.
* Women Should Have The Right To Vote!
No, they should not. I can give you three very good reasons women should not have the right to vote.
One, it allows politicians to drive a wedge between men and women and pit husband and wife against one another. They can use gender identity politics to attempt to appeal to mean and women exclusively, pitting half of the nation against the other half while giving them an out on addressing the real issues. It gives politicians in Washington the power to get between a husband and a wife emotionally and intellectually, which is outrageous and should not be allowed.
Two, it is the most destructive thing to the family. Before Feminism, only men had the right to vote, and almost all men got married. In practice, this meant that there was, as a trend, one vote per family, not one vote per person. If we assume the lowest possible trust in politicians, then we assume that their political rhetoric will always reflect the bare minimum of what they can get away with. When 95+% of American voters were men casting votes for their families, politicians had no choice but to pitch policies and laws that were conducive to family values. But when _all adults_ have a vote, politicians no longer have to care about family values. The level of discourse can be lowered to simply being individual friendly, instead of being family friendly. We can see the transformation this has on political rhetoric in action by simply looking at how talking points were changed. "Homosexual marriage is bad for the family" stopped working as an issue. Why? Because of the individual friendly rebuttal, what somebody does with their own body, or what they do behind closed doors, is no business of yours. The family gave way as an issue to the individual. This counter to anti-homosexual sentiment did not exist until women were given the right to vote.
And finally, related to two, but still a separate reason on its own to count it as three, Conservatives and Liberals have a very fundamental split on how they view the world. The molecule is defined as the smallest possible unit of a thing that still retains all the elements of that thing. So a water molecule is the smallest amount of water that still behaves chemically and physically like water. If you break it down any further, it stops being water.
One of the most fundamental splits between Conservative viewpoints and Liberal viewpoints is what they view the molecule of society as being. The Liberal views the smallest possible unit of society as being the Individual. Thus, all of their policies and issues stem from this fountainhead. To the Liberal, it makes perfect sense that all of the rights and freedoms and powers should belong to every single individual. Even their more radical stance, which is the Communist reconfiguration of wealth and social structure, is nothing more than a relatively basic and logical extrapolation on this theory of the Primacy of the Individual. Communism takes "all Individuals should have the same powers, freedoms, and rights", and extrapolates into all Individuals being totally equal in all things is the only true form of fairness and justice, because any difference between Individuals must be injustice. Thus, we have the creation of things like Social Justice and Cultural Marxism, and we come to understand why Communism, in spite of being referred to as a "radical" politic, is in actuality only a single step away from what we consider basic modern talking points for Liberals.
This is, by the way, how you can tell, rhetorically, that all Neoconservatives are just Liberals with red ties on, and it is also how we can accurately identify Libertarianism as being inherently and fundamentally left wing. Both Neocons and Libertarians accept and agree with the core Liberal framing that the Individual is Prime.
The Conservative, however, disagrees. To the Conservative, the molecule of society, the smallest possible unit of civilization that still retains all of the qualities and traits of civilization, is the family, not the individual. A family is a group of people who share blood ties, live in the same space, speak the same language, have the same culture, and share the same experiences. To the Conservative, a family is a microcosm of the nation itself, because it shares all the same traits that a nation does, and even the same general definition, but if you were to break the family apart into individuals, they no longer exhibit the traits of a nation, because they are alone.
This is the fundamental disagreement between Conservatives and Liberals over the identity of a nation in a nutshell, and it is why the Liberals have lost the argument. An individual is a lump of experiences and traits without context or frame. To base a nation off of individuals is to base a nation off of nothing, because individuals have next to nothing in common with one another. This is the reason why Liberalism, having fully incubated into its final rhetorical form, is agitating for the dissolving of all borders and the inclusion into any nation anyone who wishes to be a part of it. To a non-Liberal, it seems like madness, but to the Liberal, it is simple logic totally in-line with their core assumption that individualism is Prime.
Conservatives, by contrast, have an infinitely more authentic depiction of a nation. A nation is blood, soil, and the shared culture and experiences of the people who live in it. A family is also shared blood, shared soil, and the joint culture and experiences of the people who are part of it. Conservatives define a nation not by the individuals who make it up, but rather by the bonds that hold those individuals together. A group of individuals is a family, the smallest unit of a civilization that still retains all of the traits and qualities of civilizations. A group of families is a neighborhood or locale, a group of neighborhoods or locales is a district, a group of districts form a state, and you can either stop there with the Nation State, or take it one step further with a group of states creating a greater Superstate.
This is a very long explanation for a very short statement, but it was needed to appropriately justify it. The third reason women should not vote is because, simply, it distributes the vote to individuals over families, which creates a system that will always sacrifice the family and always destroy family values in the name of pushing individual values. In pure cause-and-effect, a system in which only women could vote and all women were married would be better than a system in which men and women can both vote. The vote MUST go to the family, it is absolutely paramount, and prior to Feminism, it did. Women's voting rights destroy that.
* Women Should Have The Right To Work!
No, they should not. Fortunately, unlike the previous point, this one requires far less baggage to successfully unpack. I will make six points here, though strictly speaking, the first one alone would be enough to justify saying no.
One, giving women the right to work doubles the number of people looking for jobs while keeping the number of job positions available the same. This means, at a bare minimum, all wages are halved and it will be at least twice as hard for anyone looking for a job to actually secure one. What bringing women into the job market did was functionally the same as going to a foreign nation, picking out an equal number of foreigners to the total number of American citizens, and then bringing all of those foreigners in and dropping them off in America all at once. If somebody today proposed importing 300 million immigrants within one year, which is the modern day equivalent of what Feminism did to America in the early 20th century, they would be lynched, and rightfully so.
I could leave this point here, and it would be enough. The math is cold, harsh, and brutal, and so simple that even a political pundit could not deny it, which is precisely the reason no one has ever actually formally examined the damage women entering the workplace did to first world nations economically. Because it was catastrophic, and that doesn't fit the narrative that giving women rights = goodthink. No one in the mainstream media or the mainstream political discourse wants to think about how much damage Feminism caused economically. Because we're not _supposed_ to think about that.
But I won't leave it here, because there are five more good reasons women should not be in the workplace. They are all inter-related, but they are separate reasons on their own.
The second reason women in the workplace is a mistake is because it destroys the husband's ability to support his family. Once upon a time, the income of a single man working full time was enough to pay all the bills, put food on the table, own and gas up two cars, pay for the needs of 2-3 children, keep a woman who is a housewife full time comfortable and well-adorned, keep a house in working order, pay his taxes, and still have enough recreational spending money to splurge on holidays and vacations, as well as having a little bit extra to put away into savings for the kids and for his own retirement.
Today, this reality of yesteryear is like a vision of wealth untold from Alladin's Cave of Wonders. Why? Because women entering the workplace pushed salaries and wages down to the very rock bottom. Double the number of people seeking jobs means the Free Market dictates that labor is only worth half of what it used to be. Libertarians see no problem with this, but as we have already previously established, they are all delusional Leftists.
Reason number three: it enslaved women to the workplace. Cutting the wages of all working men in half meant that women had no choice but to enter the workplace in order to make enough money to fund their family. One of the primary reasons that Feminists agitated for the right to work any job they wanted to was because they felt they did not have the freedom to decide what they wanted to do with their lives. If that was truly their complaint, then they have failed spectacularly, because they have achieved the exact opposite of that. Instead of gaining the freedom to choose, they now have no choice but to work, whether they like it or not.
The housewife of yesteryear may not have had every business world door open to her that a man would have, but she, at least, had more freedom and choice than the woman of today, for she had the luxury of choosing to not work if she so pleased, and could sit pretty in the comfort that her husband's salary would take care of her and the family she was a part of. Those days are gone. That freedom is gone. In exchange for 2% of women getting to wear pantsuits and play at being power executives, 80% of women must work as waitresses and grocery baggers whether they want to or not. Funny how much this freedom smells like slavery, isn't it?
The fourth reason bringing women into the workplace was a mistake is because it emptied out the home. Forcing women to go to work alongside their husbands leave an empty house with no one to look after the children. It doesn't take a genius to know that services like daycare and nannies will never be the same as a child being looked after and taken care of by their own mother. Forcing women to work to sustain their family means that they will no longer be able to give their children the care that they need and deserve, which damages children mentally, emotionally, and socially at the time when they are most vulnerable. This is not fair to the children, and will (has) produce(d) a generation that is in some ways emotionally and socially stunted as a result.
The fifth reason women working was a mistake is because it undermines homeschooling as a means of educating your child, and increases the dependence on state and federal programs to take care of and instruct your child. Once upon a time, a child could be sent off to school, but a woman who wanted to be more hands-on could opt to not do this, and instead teach their child reading, writing, and arithmetic at home themselves. With the home emptied out and the labor of women tied up in securing a second income to support the family, the family has little choice but to forego homeschool and rely upon public and private institutions to teach their children.
Not only is this always a risk, because you do not control what is taught, but in the case of the public schooling in particular, it opens your child up to being influenced by whatever politics are at play on a state and local level, dictating what may and may not be taught. The outsourcing of education to strangers is inferior to the more holistic approach of home education, as all testing and aptitude rankings have shown. Head for head, children that are homeschooled systematically outperform publicly educated children in all areas, and match neck and neck with the highest achieving of the private school students. They are also happier and more content on average, and are more emotionally and mentally balanced.
But with women in the workplace, this superior method of education is limited only to the already wealthy, the uniquely fortunate, or the tiny few families that contain some with a high-flying enough job to take up the slack for their spouse not working and bringing home a paycheck.
And finally, the sixth and final reason bringing women into the workplace was a mistake is because it encourages them to not have families or children at all. Contingent to the previous points, without the strength of the male wage, the family becomes prohibitively expensive. What was once the social norm becomes instead an extravagant luxury only slightly less costly and less unattainable than a high-class yacht. The pressure to not have children becomes immense, and women enter a state of postponement. "I'll have a family, but later, when I've saved up enough money." "I'll have kids, but later, right now I need to secure a future for them." "I want to have a family, but I can always do it later when the situation looks better, right now I can just party and enjoy myself, after all, it's not like I could have one now anyway even if I wanted to."
But the cold reality of nature is that, while men continuously produce healthy sperm until the day they die, women have a finite number of eggs. And the longer she goes without having children, the greater the likelihood that there will be complications or congenital birth defects. The possibility of a child being born with issues such as autism, general learning disabilities, and Downs syndrome become markedly increased the older the mother is, and the age of the mother has also been linked to problems such as birth defects, miscarriages, and even Sudden Infant Death syndrome.
Studies have shown that the peak years of fertility for having healthy children begin around the ages of 19 and 20, and persist for the next six or seven years. Beyond the age of 28, a woman's fertility begins to drop, and the possibility of health issues with her children begins to increase with each passing year. Eventually, she will enter a twilight of fertility in her late thirties, and not long after, her supply of eggs will run out, bringing about the onset of menopause and rendering her infertile.
The harsh fact of life is that not only do women have a finite number of eggs, but those eggs can and will go bad. The longer a woman puts off having a family, the less likely it is that she will ever have children or a stable long-term relationship with a man. The odds are, in fact, even worse than they seem at first, because women do not live in a vacuum. They must contend with men, and those men who wish to be husbands are compelled by their own instincts to naturally seek out as young a woman as possible to settle down with, to ensure the health of his children. So a woman becomes older, even if she maintains her physical beauty, the odds of her landing a true, genuine husband go down.
All of this, taken together, creates a cascade effect, in which the implimentation of Feminist policies undermines the economic structure of a nation, helps destroy its moral fiber by replacing family values with individual values, robs women of their freedom and ability to self-determinate, greatly incentivises the responsible men and women whom society depends upon away from having families, and ultimately plunges the birth-over-death ratio below replacement level even as individualist advocation drags political policy into the mud.
And this is just from discussing the two key touchstones of Feminism, the right to vote and the right to work. I could sit here for weeks and unpack the problems caused by the advocacy for Social Justice, the peddling of alternative gender identity, and the insistence that all of society and culture be forcibly rearranged so that everyone is equal, all of which are major platforms of Third, Fourth, and Fifth Wave Feminism.
Instead, I choose to focus narrowly and deeply on these two core principles of the First and Second Wave, primarily because many women (and men) will waffle when confronted with anti-Feminist sentiment, and state something to the effect of "well, I agree that all this new stuff is strange and wrong, but the original Feminists, they were alright! What they wanted was completely reasonable, and I agree with them."
The beginning of Feminism is the most important part of Feminism, because everything that followed after it depended upon the basic assumptions they made. Prove those assumptions wrong, refute them, and you pull the bottom out from under the house of cards. Those assumptions are the most reasonable sounding of the lot, and the most likely for your average citizen to support, even if they are a Conservative, which makes it all the more important that they be thoroughly and utterly debunked.
The harsh truth is this: countless Conservative women bemoan the loss of the family and family values, and those with the agency to be politically active debate and scheme about how to get it back, about how to stick it to those darn liberals and their shameless hussy advocates.
Little do they know that it is the policies that they supported that caused the death of the family, not the ones they opposed.
It is the solemn duty of every Conservative woman to oppose Feminism on every level, and to do so vocally, publically, and intelligently. Anti-Feminist women can damage and undermine the philosophy in ways that no male attacker, however articulate and well-versed, ever could. In this, you have something we do not, a strength we cannot muster.
You have a duty to use it, just as you have a duty to create and rear children and to stand by your beloved. This is a war for everything you hold dear. Your future, your husband, your lives, your culture, the children you hold in your arms. You can hold nothing back. Because I promise you: your enemies won't.
Why? It's just one goon being traded for another. Don't be an idiot.
Posts grouped by user ID:
0745be: 17 (45.95%)
Thou shalt be checkin' these dubs!
> 11's (1 total; 20.00%)
> 44's (1 total; 20.00%)
> 55's (1 total; 20.00%)
> 66's (1 total; 20.00%)
> 99's (1 total; 20.00%)
The term "New World Order" is a diplomatic term.
The first president to use it was Nixon in his toast in his first trip to china.
George Bush Sr. used the term over 90 times in speeches.
The masonic version of the term is "Novus Ordo Seclorum", or "New Order of Ages" which is printed on the dollar.
What most people don't understand is that in judaism they have a very old term for the post messianic era, "The World To Come", "Ha-Olam Haba", or עולם הבא
The world to come is very ambiguous, but it certainly refers to the days when judaism has achieved its purpose.
For a rare look at what deep jews believe, see this video of an athiest jew speaking to an orthadox jew about the purpose of jews and gentiles. The video is filmed in israel.
Maimonides originally wrote the code as an index to allow jews to navigate the talmud without the complete dependence of rabbinicism. The code is known as mishna torah. When maimonides wrote the code in the 12th century, he also claimed that rabbis shouldnt collect money for their services, which put rabbis out of business in that respect. In the 1200s the dominicans were consulted by rabbis to confiscate and burn maimonides texts. the dominicans soon expanded to talmuds and began burning all texts publicly in paris. This led to exposure and curiosity of talmud which is quite anti-gentile. By the 1400s crypto jewry was a thing. The jews who converted to christianity were known as conversos and the point of the spanish inquisitions was to snuff out jews from the government structure of spain at the time. Conversos were forced to wear dunce hats, which is an amplified jew cap known as a yarmulka but elongated and pronounced to identify jews who were embedded into society in order to feign allegiance to the host nation.
I am of the opinion that presidential votes should be direct democracy but the president should function more like a canadian speaker of the house with extra voting power.
Then I think citizens can earn the right to vote for MPs, they do this with military service or by getting a "political pass" after completing training from the nation.
Finally I think the senate should be elected in a vote that only families participate in. This would make the senate a real sober second thought elected by the people of the nation with actual skin in the game.
In this system I wouldn't care if women vote. The military service ensures men will have an edge in House elections and the family senate vote ensures individualism doesn't fuck over the nation.
Direct democracy president is mostly PR but also a nod to the fact that if your prez is just a fancy MP that herds the other ones and not very powerful it may as well be the face the majority wants.
I bring this up cause I think the family vote for senate is an innovation that can circumvent this toxic individualism and the problem of women feels votes without the PR nightmare of directly btfoing feminism and putting women back in the home.
those who favor materialism over individuality
go eat shit
I think you missed the point
are you saying that Maimonides is our-guy?
btw, we in a great need for a major red pill on inner judaic memes. especially about their apostates and what were they about.
The only people the jews typically dont talk about much are the khazar converts and then Sabbatai Zevi
I remember the days when redpills where not just a screenshot of your own post talking unsubstantiated bullshit to push an agenda and drown threads with them
How bad are things really?
Like how often do rabbis actually open for the senate?
Also fucking bump.
This video unironically got me thinking.
This is what I feel, to the last word… also Croat.
Anyone have beaver anons posts?
Read through the thread you lazy fuck, I bet you're fat. On second thoughts, leave and never come back, you don't belong here.
The .webm is much more useful, spread this instead.
since I cant post a thread
Here's a MEGA folder with lots of good redpills for easy distribution:
Feel free to link this on halfchan and elsewhere.
10/10 thread, thanks for the dumps.
bump again thanks
I too have a large repository of such red pills… the issue is simply having the time to archive (& upload to various cloud accounts), so red pilling can be a lot easier than having to download hundreds of images individually… So many useful threads on here and all of it has to be archived.
Degeneracy stories were awesome. Great read, I hope the author will surface and tell something fresh, he definitely knows and remembers about us.
Read Adonis Georgiades' "Homosexuality in Ancient Greece - The myth is collapsing".
what does all this even mean?
Evil sentient dust is all over your bodies and when 5G comes on, they can use it to control you like a puppet. Except it will be more than just persuasion.
Does anyone have the redpill on the esoteric significance of the Black Sun? The image was composed of a modern pic of some students sitting on the Sonnenrad at Wewlsburg up the top, then the chan post (might have been cuckchan) and also a pic of the Mily Way.
If one thinks of oneself as a nation, state or other body - then one sees clearly that the newspapers and media are the 'nervous/immune system', to warn and organize against threats. If one finds oneself attacked by 'demoralization', especially if within a national (or group) context, one can be sure that either the person saying such things are very unwise or purposefully anti-will. There is never a situation where defeatism or fatalism is actually beneficial, as one will experience the whip of the enemy in either scenario. All it serves is to 'minimize losses' 'for another day'. In a losing situation, with merciless enemies, one has no 'other day' to spare themselves for. Even then, defeatism is not an 'only' approach - great wise men can do more than mope about a smart/tactical retreat. The only reason one could argue against this is if they are demoralized, have no confidence in the people they intend to protect - thinking they need to constrict their sight because of a bad character; like one does a horse. To those who do not seek to farm (them), but to fight, this is of no interest; it is totally against their tastes. Granting those who might argue it's a 'sad reality', does despair change it? If not, why entertain those who do it? If yes, how? You seek, perhaps, sympathy? Resources or otherwise a support that you've demonstrated you might spoil in despair?
bumping good content.
Jewish psyop to make white women think getting raped is OK, and that women shouldn't be protected as mothers and the reproductive choosers.
That second image right on the damn money.
Why does this thread get bumped but the normal redpill thread get ignored
bump due to shills that need to be educated
this thread should not be lost
Great thread. Bump.
Anyone have the one where user calculates the cost of spic invaders to pic strawberries, and how you could pay Muricans $15/hr, which would cause an increase in market price, but that the increase would be more than offset by the economic growth, increased wages, $100 free gibs on tax returns, and decreased spending on dem programs?
ey ese !
So – wait. The writeup skipped over the actual point. Why is it less accurate to call these fantasies "submission fantasies"?