Zig Forumsrusty /fa/ggot Thread

Military Fatigues
Why the FUCK do they use awful, gross-looking camo instead of aesthetically pleasing wear? I mean, at least an olive-green or plain-tan outfit. There's no reason to be wearing camo since they're not in combat, and if they do have to be they dress quickly anyway, and they're not exactly inconspicuous (especially in first-world urban areas), so why? At the very least, during parades, except for the marines and some others of course.
Oh, and fashion thread.

Attached: aesthetic.jpg (220x293 196.46 KB, 10.35K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Obviously, the soldiers in the second image are not in fatigues, but the point was that it looks nice.

Should there be an outfit for every day of the week too?
Why should you make your military wear more than one uniform? We already have dress uniforms for looking nice, there doesn't need to be a difference between the uniforms of infantry and office workers if all of the infantry's equipment is worn over the uniform anyways. The only reason you would need different uniforms would be different camo patterns for different environments, and again just issue those in bulk to every soldier in that region.
The Navy and the Air Force have absolutely no fucking reason to ever wear camouflage though, they just want to look cool. I met a sailor in one of those blue camo uniforms once and asked him what the point was of camo on a ship, and he said that if he was in ocean water wearing that uniform I wouldn't be able to see him.
I asked wouldn't he actually want to be seen if he was in water in the middle of the ocean and he gave me a pained expression and said "yeah, you'd think that"
I honestly couldn't tell if he was upset at being made to wear a uniform that could get him killed or if he just wanted to die.


You can just wear khaki color man.

Wouldn't they be better off in lighter color uniforms anyways? Being out in the sun and all.


Attached: Better than the larping Austrian faggot.jpg (3660x4451 66.81 KB, 2.17M)

'Cause Americans can't cut and pair clothes to save their lives.

You could make a light-but-strong flak jacket (or more like a flak greatcoat) that doubles as a camo smock, and pair it with a belt that has Y-straps. Now your soldier wears camouflag and can hang all he equipments he needs on himself. He coud wear a business suit under it or be totally naked, and you couldn't tell it at a glance.

Attached: Energa_rifle_greande_BGS_trooper.jpg (809x647, 72.92K)

It will never happen, but I'd like to see it.

Attached: us-rep-charlie-wilson-poses-w-afghan-mujahideen.jpg (1286x933, 492.04K)

Indeed, that would be quite something.

Attached: mujahideen.JPG (1250x744, 184.59K)

Yeah, the world was quite fond of smocks in WWII. Then, practically everyone stopped using them. Now, the only people who widely use smocks are Muslim militants. It's their look now, not that of dead paratroopers from the mid-20th century.

Say that to my face and see what happens

Attached: SS Oak.jpg (600x600, 80.74K)

We still use smocks tbh

I thought you stopped using them in the 90's. Must be the leafs I'm thinking of.

Apparently we phased them all out in 2013 in favour of MTP shirts, sad.

Attached: 800px-Lieutenant_&_Sergeant_of_the_2nd_Battalion_Yorkshire_Regiment_(RLH).JPG (800x1067, 228.38K)

That looks like solid dark brown at about 30 m distance.

Nobody hides from an enemy by exposing the entire torso at a distance of 5 m. You should thus not look at camo patterns that way. Either look at them when they're partially concealed by branches and leaves at about 10 m or look at camouflage patterned areas at the relevant distances of 20…400 m.

Most camo patterns only look good and practical close-up, while lacking the macropatterns to be any pattern at all beyond 30 m or so.>>597772

Do you have some more of those sexy capes like on your picture? If do, please post them.

Part of neoliberalism's war on the military, militarism, weapons, anything related to arms and armies. Its no mistake what they are doing, there is a deliberate and methodical push to destroy aesthetics of these things to help destroy their image, to make them look weak, unattractive, pukish, repulsive, for people to lose interest and gain a sour taste in their mouths.

Modern guns MUST be ugly, part of what Eric Holder talked about in the attached video clip. They have to make guns less cool, eventually try to make them uncool so people won't buy them and give up the ones they have. Make uniforms look like dogshit, degrade the military, destroy the image of the military in the eyes of people literally every time someone sees a solider in those pukish awful fatigues. Its the neo liberal equivalent of an acid attack, burn the face off to make it less attractive.

There is NO coincidence that modern guns and tacticool stuff looks hideously, puke inducing ugly. Dont' think for a second its a coincidence that after even the US republicans were mulling handgun bans that the new hip cool gun in the 80's was a fucking disgustingly unnatractive pukish looking gun with a plastic lower that will dry rot from age giving the typical street gun a lifespan of decades instead of potentially several centuries. It isn't "We want your guns to be horribly ugly so you will treat them and abuse them like they are supposed to in combat" its "We want your guns to be ugly so you hate them and not get attached to them once you are out of the service".

Same thing with these uniforms. They don't make soldiers think they are potentially ready for battle and make them tougher like some shithead's reply earlier in the threat, they are purposely done to subtly lower morale, to destroy the aesthetic and attitude of people outside the service when they see such a pukish representation of what the military is, it makes the military look bad, that's what they want. They are SUPPOSED to be repulsive. That's the point.

Pro military people like the Nazi's had their uniforms designed by Hollywood to make them beautiful, attractive. Dont think for a second when the central planners make your weapons and fatigues repulsive they don't have some sort of end game in mind.

You are full of shit.

I would feel better if I were. But this is the likeliest explanation. Everything in the west is anti military, anti gun. Why woudn't those same people use their influence, like how they use their influence in every other aspect of life, to drive home an image and a narrative, like they do every day, all the time? Why else would you see such a change from aesthetic weapons to absolute dogshit all seemingly in the same period of time, right before there were these big bad shootings where guns had to be banned in the UK, Australia, and the Hughes Amendment and Assault Wapons ban in burgerland, all around the same few years? Coincidence?

No more beautiful steel and wood auto loaders, only fugly pistols now. Remember, if you buy a handgun, it MUST be plastic, with important plastic parts that the gun can't run without. Let's add shit to the AR's with endless ugly looking rails, all parts must be shaped to look ugly, and make that gun look ugly too. No more nice looking FAL's and G3's, only "so ugly only an autistic could love" bullpups you just can't wait to hand back into the armorer when you leave service and never pick one up again.

Why give soldiers nice looking semi formal fatigues that look good when you can make them so awful looking you have to avert your eyes? Make everything so unaesthetic that you can't help but look away every time you see such an ugly thing. Who would want to be drafted into the mitliary to be forced into such a miserable looking thing?

Between pacifists, anti miliatary left wingers, others within the higher ups, I think the move is easy to understand.

does this count?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (736x958, 543.56K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (490x954, 423.68K)

I personally prefer tan or coyote brown uniforms. These colors allow you to blend in a wider range of environments than most camo patters - when used together with the old school scrim and garnish camo technique.


Another advantage is that you can cache some of the uniform (such as the jacket) and your rucksack and fighting load in the field, pick up a civilian style jacket or a backpack or whatever from another cache, and go into a restrictive environment (such as a town or city) without drawing too much attention to yourself.

An innocent hiker draws less attention than someone who looks like they are part of a resistance group.

What happens if the Chinese or the Russians give up on the commie aesthetic and adopt something cool though?

Do these?

Attached: COoW2YuW8AAuqGv.jpg (236x354 121 KB, 25.6K)

China goes back to the Third reich influenced uniforms with imperial Chinese banners that show unit veterancy.

OP is a parade ground military faggot.


Attached: serveimage2.jpg (620x350 81.83 KB, 95.27K)

The world needs more sashes, cloaks, aiguillette and epaulettes.

Attached: Milano_Italy_Carabinieri-01.jpg (2279x2279, 2.6M)

Nice, though the blue one in the previous post looks a way cooler, these are mostly for the looks as well.


Attached: e9fbb406fa976d0952c69b9a7cb079bc.jpg (610x914, 62.3K)

Is 1st pic bs?

Attached: bf0s0c1d_1.jpg (1920x1200 12.64 KB, 552.45K)

that looks like something that Aragorn got from Galadriel when he left Lothlórien

It's an old-fashioned pattern which had the particularly wettened shoulders extra water-prote4cted by adding a 2nd layer.

No, still full of shit.
Not "Everything". And it's no government conspiracy to make guns look "shit "(in the eye of the beholder) since guns are not much regulated in their looks (nothing prevents nacre grips or nice walnut stocks).

You're just full of shit and a fearful pussy miniature mind who feels under siege.

Czech are actually elves, hence why no one can seem to locate their realm, and when people get close to locating it, they change their mind.

Only the bit about Hollywood designing the Third Reich's uniforms, unless the clothes designers they picked were from Hollywood and I'm just a faggot.

Being fearful is good. What are you, a Berliner?

Although, I'm not too familiar with other militaries doing it, namely from pro-military countries.

Hugo Boss designed the Reich's uniforms.

There's some heavy autism in this thread.

Because they're cheap, get the job done, and looking good wasn't a requirement when the committee approved them. Why else?

Really only special forces need camo. For everyone else, most of the value is symbolic. It's psychological trick to try and get peacetime base personnel to retain at least some discipline.

This is your brain on paranoid schizophrenia.


Attached: 0vvraksg7uy01.jpg (964x822, 119.24K)

Swastika was used as a symbol that was though to ward off (((evil spirits)))
Since now it's illegal they've changed to Edelweiss flower.

Attached: strzelcy podhalanscy 1936.jpg (735x450, 251.67K)



Too bad he's a cuckold faggot.

I still had a poncho like that in boot camp for the US one. After that I never seen it again. The 2nd pic, I seen pics of the boat cloak, but never seen one in real life.

Average Friday in the Marine Corps.

Attached: 6efa11bb[1].JPG (534x401, 40.08K)

I'm filled with sad laughter

Looks almost exactly like the Boy Scout uniform.

Do pelisses and coats worn as cloaks work?
This should be limited to non-commissioned officers and upwards, I think it just looks stupid when the rank-and-file has fancier aiguillettes than what generals wore back in the day.

Attached: Fejérváry_Géza_Ellinger.jpg (473x747 130.32 KB, 34.4K)

I think the scouts did that on purpose. The design is just too similar for it to have been an accident.

Attached: 1930s.jpg (400x675, 16.66K)

also that's clearly a curtain not a cloak, look at the fucking tassel

Impractical and goofy. But if everyone is wearing it then it's a uniform!

I cannot respect anyone who is awarded promotions and medals due to their birth. Rank is supposed to be a sign of capability, not heritage, and awards should be earned by actions, not luck of the genealogical draw.

Everything should be focused on capability, not "earning". Passing things in families worked extremely well for all of history because successful genetics begat more successful genetics which ensured capable people were always in charge.

Take out heritage from the mix, what do you get? Do people get promoted because they are capable, or because they play politics? You see, the whole egalitarian, anti hereditary system didn't promote people because of their abilities, rather it turned places of power into rewards for political payoffs, they went from things that were part of great men and now are just commodities bought and sold. Offices and positions are now bought and paid for, you "earn" it not through capability, you pay for it with money, you "earn' it through politics, you gain and lose it for all the right reasons.

The royal family is a great family. The nobles are good families and good people. The people who thrive in the misnamed system of so called "meritocracy" has ZERO to do with merit are the worst scum of the earth who get into places for every wrong reason. It hasn't allowed for capable men to climb up (remember in feudalism men went from the lower class all the way up to noble by proving themselves) it just creates a corrupt, almost criminal system that is purely 100% political and not function government and leadership.

Genes play a huge roll in capable people. If you are against heritage you are against the vast majority of the most capable people on earth.

You write a lot of nonsense.

Whatever advantage dynasties have in terms of political comeptence stems from their people getting raised for the job. A prince was supposed to be ready for the throne by age 15 in case the father died early.

The revolutions in Europe during the 19th and 20th century nevertheless showed that much more capable and much more concerned (about the poorer 90% of the nation) people could be found to serve as politicians than systemically disconnected royals.

The lasting challenge is to keep idiots away from extraordinary power, and with democracy you at least stand a chance to do this peacefully, while with monarchy you can only resort to violence to dethrone an idiot.

The current shit destroying Europe woudln't be going on if the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns were in power today. All of this, the invasion of Europe, the world wars, are all your beloved "much more capable and much more concerned people". All of this ruin to the moral, the decency, the good of the people comes from your beloved, failed, dying system.

Outside of technology and its blessings, life has gotten measurably worse for people in the west. There is no concern for the good of the people, only corrupt political players.

Why don't you share your beloved failed system, your hollow ideology, with your filthy invading muslim friends who are overunning your race and people, setting your people up for genocide and persecution. How concerned are your leaders, your beloved democratic leaders, concerned with the 90% of their own people when they are bringing forth foreign invaders to destroy their way of life, bring crime and poverty, bring ruin to them?

Democracy doesnt' care about people, it just bribes people to give other people power. The people will once again take their bread and circus and lay back while corrupt oligarchs destroy the empire, then one day we'll ask "How could it have gotten this bad, we call this ruinious system meritocracy and progressivsim, how could something that sounds so good be so bad and bring us such ruin?"

I think you're only highlighting another advantage of hereditary inheritance here.

I wouldn't call those revolutionaries capable of anything more than rabble-rousing, nor concerned with anything besides their own rise to power. "Democratic" leaders in fact care inherently less about the realm they rule, by measure of incentive. Kings rule for life and bequeath the kingdom to their children: in effect, the realm is their private property. Because of this, they have an incentive to be less despotic, and less overbearing rulers, because they understand such policies are more destructive in the long term—they will tax and expropriate less now, knowing that the increased productivity will allow them to reap a greater reward later. Democrats by contrast have no ownership over their land, they merely rent curatorship of it, and have control of the country's income for a few years. As a result, they have no incentive to take the country's long-term welfare into account—it's in their best interest to maximize short-term gain at the expense of the long-term, as the long-term will be someone else's problem. Further, fast-working legislation is better for re-election than something stable and slow-acting, because it gives the Democrat tangible results to which to point as an example of his success.

Democracy actually hinders both of those efforts, rather than helping them along. For the incentive reasons mentioned above, Democrats are more likely to seek "extraordinary power" than kings. We see this historically as well—the biggest, most destructive wars, the cruelest, most invasive regimes have all been spearheaded by democratically elected governments. As for keeping "bad apples" out, again, monarchy is better suited to this: Let's for the moment neglect his good genes, his good upbringing, his good environment, the incentive to be hands-off, and all the other factors in the monarch's favor, and assume it's a 50-50 shot whether he's a good or a bad ruler. It's a coin toss whether the people do good by him or not, because the only incentive is the accident of birth. But the Democrat does not have a 50% chance of being good, because the democratic system does not favor good, honest, intelligent men. Rather, because Democrats must rely on mass appeal to succeed, they are incentivized to be duplicitous and manipulative. They must appeal to the emotions of the unwashed masses who elect them, and work to discredit their opponent by any means necessary. As a result, glib, opportunistic pathological liars and sociopaths rule the majoritarian roost, and crush any honest men who stand in their way. Finally, the fact that only violence can be used to dethrone a king is a point in monarchy's favor. Because there is such a clear divide between ruler and ruled, the people are suspicious of the monarch and anything he does, and are ready to revolt if he falls out of line. In democracy, that divide is blurred, and the people begin to convince themselves that they are the government. They are numb to abuses of power on the part of the government, and will convince themselves that the tyranny they suffer is the will of the people. They delude themselves into thinking change will come from the ballot box, and become slow and reluctant to act.

An interesting view considering European nobles were highly cosmopolitan and generally held attitudes towards their subjects that fell somewhere between "taxable livestock" and "unruly children".

This is an almost cartoonish view of democracy.
Especially given that most most policy in Western democracies is controlled by by a small overclass and the whole "demos" part is only relevant to lend legitimacy to policies dressed up slightly differently.

And the same influences that incentivize the current elite toward shattering social cohesion and abolishing the Westphalian state would also work on a hypothetical noble elite.

An overclass to which the proles listen and blindly trust, yes. That doesn't invalidate my point, if anything it reinforces it. And this is only a minor facet of my argument, you've failed to address the rest.

Bollocks of internet idiots. Nothing is "destroying Europe", the closest thing to this is Brexit. The Brits need some time for themselves to decide whether they are Europeans or Americans.

Guess what? It's not all good ro all bad. Even the inferior systems have some strong points. I'm not a simpleton who is 150% ideologue true believer full of shit.

Germany had some extremely capable elected politicians in the 20's and in the 50's to 70's.
People like Ebert and Erhard, the latter is rightly considered the father of (West) German prosperity.
There was not a single useful German monarch after Frederick II the Great, who died in the late 18th century. The most useful of them was Wilhelm I who was useless himself, but smart enough to keep Bismarck his chancellor and follow Bismarck's policies.

Bollocks. Kings already have extraordinary power unless they're mere decoration. Sooner or later there's an idiot in the dynasty who becomes king and then it's a giant mess and no solution short of violence in sight.
Democracy not only gives people the option to keep idiots away from extraordinary power, but also the option to remove them from power.

There's a reason why the republics and constitutional monarchies prospered so much more in the Renaissance (Northern Italian and other independent cities) and enlightenment period (especially Low Countries, England) than the monarchies; the parliaments governed better than the monarchs.


The lasting challenge is to keep idiots away from extraordinary power, and with democracy you at least stand a chance to do this peacefully,
This post is so fucking retarded it doesn't deserve anything more complex than

Well, eveybody can see who's the less worthwhile contributor here…

Ain't nobody trusting the democracy myth here fake kraut.

This is no german, it is a turk.

Could have fooled me, looking at social democracy as an institution I would have stated that putting idiots in power was the aim.

Attached: hqdefault (1).jpg (480x360, 8.91K)

No matter what happens in life, I can take solace in the fact that I will never be this retarded. And I know you're not some shitskin refugee, either, you've got that unique combination of educated speech and total lack of thought that's only possible in soy-enriched whites.

Attached: German_History.webm (640x360, 7.95M)

All the revolutions in 19th and 20th century proved is that fucking your cousins was a bad idea. Monarchies are extremely stable forms of government with far less corruption than modern systems, and have a track record of serving their citizens well for thousands of years. I dare you to find a liberal democracy older than a hundred.

Is this a serious fucking post? Democracy was disproven as a method of government over 2000 years ago, it has NEVER been a good idea to do what the majority wants.

Only certain republics are superior to monarchies.

By what measure? Due to the incentive problems outlined in , any republic, no matter how limited, is going to grow in power, size, and overreach over time. The limited ones just do so slower, albeit not as slowly as monarchies. The US was in its inception a highly limited republic—an aristocracy, really—but it took just over two a century for it to fall towards majoritarianism.

Halfbreed and turks are all Germany nowadays.

Or he's under VPN to act edgy, germans aren't all that fond of democracy tbh.

You guys really revel in shittalking, don't you?
It's outright amusing to watch you guys fail at conversation.

Admitted, I wrote "Bollocks" a couple times, but frankly, I'm just pointing out the ovbvious.

I dare you to a duel: I get a laoded assault rifle, you egt a sword. Surely, your millennia-proven sword will prevail…

Democracy is classical era tier nigger.

And it's defeated by monarchist all the times, see the athenian republic getting buttfucked by Spartan, Thebes and later Macedon, to Caesar cucking the Republic to giving him Dictatorship.

Face it, humanity is all about Great men, fuck the coward bureaucrat.

And take off that VPN.

So it's true that all the good German stock died in WW2 leaving only the shitbreeds?

One advantage of the camo it nicely conceals dirt and grease.
But of course real reason is military "intelligence", command enforced larping as frontline solders.

Democracy is by no means a good system to elect competent rulers, but it's even more stupid to delegate this place to someone just because they were born, as well as repeat it multiple times in a row. In democracy you have to be at least capable of political games and populism to get there, while a literal braindead retard WILL become monarch just because his parents presumably have better genes.

That's a negative of democracy, not a positive. The people most capable of political games are sociopaths that are best left as far away from power as they possible, see .

True. However, the likelihood of a braindead retard being born to decent parents is much smaller than a braindead retard getting elected because he has a handsome smile, or a sociopath getting ejected because he knows what lies to tell. Further, even a braindead retard can be at least a competent ruler (if an unremarkable one) if he's trained from birth for the role.

You've got a point. Still, no system is protected from pragmatic people striving to positions of power, as they will just replicate the expected behavior. If there is any trait that is tied to personal merits and not circumstances, it can be simulated or replicated to exploit the power delegated afterwards, be it declared openly or disguised.

It really depends, an elected retard has less time to fuck things up, while relying on genes is really a bad choice as they are hard to predict and measure beyond "oh shit how does it still live?!", and a retard will rule his whole life without any limiting factors. Without personal merits filtering candidates beforehand this whole thing turns into lottery, with genes, mood, education, politics, personal relations and influences, political views and health issues centered around one single person, with little options to change that("legitimately").

Generally it proves the opposite - the person has his position guaranteed and all resources available tends to grow irresponsible and lazy, millionaires' kids for example - most of them lose most of their parents' wealth throughout their lives, with most of others having it lost by their children's children.

You might feel proud to serve your country if they didn't give you lowest bidder shit pajamas that fall apart in the rain.

I really don't hold the Habsburgs close to my heart, but even they found a solution when this exact problem arose:
And after him came Ferenc Józska, who I'd say was a decent ruler, if we ignore the whole ww1 thing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Joseph_I_of_Austria

The one who doesn't shill for democracy by peddling meme of meliorism and democracy giving power to people instead of media/organization that counts the votes.
In complete logical contrast to your fucktarded delusion, some humans aren't morally bad.
Therefore power should be entrusted in the hands of those few, and kept away from those that aren't morally good.

I think you're overestimating the number of millionaires that mismanage their children; people like Paris Hilton are the exception rather than the rule, but media tends to focus on failures and trainwrecks rather than things going normally, because normal is boring. You can compare it to the way news agencies zero in on school shootings and cover them for weeks on end despite them being a fraction of a fraction of all homicides. Dynasties last as long as they do for a reason—it's a pretty stable system.

Right, which is the advantage of monarchy—you can't replicate blood

Honestly, this can go either way. It could be argued that, because their reign is so short, democrats have a tendency to obsess about their "legacy" and initiate sweeping changes without regard to consequences just so they can be remembered. The New Deal, The League of Nations, Obsmacare, Big, beautiful walls , democrats are much more prone to this kind of project. Also, I'd like to direct you one more time to my post above, where I discuss the incentive pressures on democrats and monarchs, and how "owning" the realm incentives a more conservative, hands-off policy.

Fair, but I must stress that kings have years of preparation in how to be a king. And genes might be a lottery, but I'd prefer a game with even chances over one rigged against honest men.

Most monarchs weren't dictators as we know them today, though. Not only do they have advisers to stay their hand, they're checked by the nobility, and as mentioned above, their own self-interest. We can see this historically, as monarchs have near always been more hands-off rulers than democrats.

I'm aware monarchy is far from ideal, in fact it's only my second choice for a society. But of all the governmental systems it works the least badly in my opinion.

Term limitations encourage stealing as much as possible, and then leaving the mess to a dimwit who thinks he'll do good things once elected.
Alternatively (((march of tyranny)))

Stagnation or economic decay with a leader doing nothing but using all the luxuries of the things that are already his does not offer much more than politician that is trying to acquire a fracture of said wealth. If first example we'd end up with officials grabbing power and having many activities monopolized by either officials or their servants(guilds as a notable example), or the mess we have today. I doubt that nowadays' system is better and and does offer many advantages over another, but unfortunately it would end this way anyway, as it did happened historically, i suppose. It's a lot easier to oppose and antagonize a decaying and worthless royal family than a mess of "temporary" rulers and populism based presumably on public opinion.

I have a Russian one in reversible SS-Summer/Autumn. I think it has been issued in limited quantities to certain units, like a lot of Russian kit. Too autistic to wear out in most situations, but a cool piece and I got a good price for it. I wear my Strichtarn and DPM jackets quite a lot and generally seem to get good impressions.

Attached: ss-autumn.png (733x868, 1.69M)

Where are you even getting Strichtarn? I can't find that stuff for love nor money.

I got it last year from Hessen Antique, it wasn't too expensive (still too expensive for aged combloc gear). The jacket doesn't really fit and I can only wear it with rolled up sleeves. They still carry it, but good luck getting it in non-manlet sizes.

If that were the case then how do you explain all royals being inbred to the point of retardation and sterility? A drooling public masturbator that thinks he's made of glass is not leadership material yet that describes a significant number of kings throughout history.

In Appalachia it's said that those who live in the mountains don't have aunts or uncles, only "relatives." That is certainly true of regal dynasties.

You should shave.

Attached: roman_guards.jpg (638x425, 54.87K)

lol what the fuck did i miss?

Attached: cat shitter detected.jpg (930x944, 88.56K)

This was last summer. I shaved since then, but as of late I've stopped. I'll probably trim it down to 1/8 or 3/16.

That description doesn't apply to nearly as many royals as you might think. Sure there were examples here and there (Romanovs and hemophilia for instance), but they were very much the exception, not the rule, and most royal lines were diversified enough to stay healthy. History likes to overblow this because the idea that humanity has moved "beyond" monarchy makes it tempting to make fun of those stupid primitives. It's the same reason people go, "Hurr, dark ages, so theocratic and oppressive, amirite fellow atheists?" when there are so many obvious examples to the contrary.

what made 80s uniforms so aestheticly pleasing

Attached: f3cc02cc3431f9392fdbcab0f7771ff9.jpg (440x350 47.57 KB, 34.44K)



You need at least 50 people for short term survival, 500 for long term survival. Anything less than 50 for a starting population will result in widespread sterility and eventual death of the population.

I don't make the rules, I just play by them. The royal families of every region were inbred to prevent outsiders gaining access to power. The practice always resulted in the genetic crippling of the royal family to the point where they could no longer function assuming they managed to stay in power that long. It happened in Egypt, it happened in Central and South America, it happened in the Middle East, it happened in East Asia, and it happened in Europe. George III, king of England during the American Revolution, suffered from worsening mental illness throughout his life until he could no longer chew his food and had no idea where he was.

This was a widespread problem that could only be fixed by bringing in new blood. In genetics, purity is a curse, not a benefit.

There is more than a grain of truth to that stereotype when dealing with isolated populations. Like a family that lives alone in the woods or on a mountain.

But hey, maybe you want to look like Papa Smurf.

Attached: CNlo0LbWoAAql5h.jpg (768x242 37.61 KB, 27.09K)

Is that a furry webcomic? With actual, factual information in it!?


It's called Freefall. It's about an alien, a robot, and a genetically engineered furry mechanic flying around space. The comics are frequently used to explore real world science and tech concepts used in space, colonization, etc.


Did you have something to say?