It's just more double speak. He's losing his base of traditional Europeans. He realized he is boiling the frog too fast. Bring it back down to a simmer. Plans for global control and population dissolution must not be coming together in the timetable he imagined.
The flock is turning against this false Shepard. This 'Judas goat".
So every Republican president going back 100 years won in spite of women having the vote? Kinda weird given the GOP championed women's suffrage from the very inception of the party and passed the 19th Amendment which (Democrat) Woodrow Wilson signed into law.
Francis decided to have some random based takes recently in hopes that no one will notice he's already de-facto excommunicated himself by not being Catholic.
So "cancel culture is a form of ideological colonization" but people who don't want the jab need "reality therapy"? (which sounds a lot like struggle sessions)
Am I missing something or is he wildly inconsistent?
You cry about women ten times more than any of us cry about Jews. You've absolutely no right, you stinking hypocrite. Your reflexive need to defend them before anyone has said a word, is also telling.
I'm just waiting for him to notice what ethnicity all the women he's complaining about are and how little power they actual have, since theyre merely frontmen.
There's nothing organic about a race of people developing an out-group bias. It's completely dysgenic.
Whites were subject to decades of concentrated anti-white propaganda. White women were targeted. Which institutions were responsible? Academia, entertainment, news media. Which demographics are radically overrepresented in these institutions?
the Nazi state paid for women's houses if they had kids "for the Reich"?
I'm not a tradcon but that's a good policy. You have to encourage your people to multiply if you want a strong nation that can compete without bringing in immigrants.
My dude, I do like you, and I don't have and probably won't have children, but you really don't make a good point with this literal extinction rebellion bullshit of yours.
False equivalence, false dichotomy. Traditional men don't want to "give everything women want", they want women to be submissive and obedient to men, they want women to have no political power. Look at how White men acted 100 years ago, they knew women's place. You are confusing traditional men with neocons (who are not traditional at all).
Your "us vs them" mentality is retarded, there are many different types of people on the Right, with different beliefs, not everybody is a retarded simp cuckservative. In fact the very far right neo-Nazis are rarely simps, it's usually the moderate right who are the simping m'lady cucks.
Feminist women created a bioweapon specifically targeted at you, they want to kill you, and the best you can come up with is "muh tradcuckery is best".
Okay cool, so what's your solution? I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but whether you like it or not we need women in order to make babies in order to keep society from collapsing and going extinct.
So having a system where women are kept on a short leash, where they have no power and are submissive to men, is the best way to achieve that goal. That strategy has worked successfully for many thousands of years, it has led to the greatest civilizations in the world.
The far right are massive simping cucks, their whole ideology is based around simping and pretending women's nature was modified by the Jews, rather than organically revealing itself as the world become more developed.
I have no idea which "far right" people you talk to, but I know quite a few "far right" people, and they are very aware of female nature. They don't believe that women were brainwashed by Jews, they believe that the Jews simply unleashed women's innate desires by giving women freedom and removing the old traditions. Considering the very high percentage of Jews within the feminist movement, their viewpoint has some validity to it.
It was easier for them to advocate genocide than to criticise women. How much more cucked can you be?
Once again, I have no idea which "far right" people you are talking to, you seem to be confusing them with the neocon cuckservatives.
“SHE MAKES A SENSUAL IMPRESSION”:
THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN
Other scholars have examined the
abuse of children by German soldiers; however, they have not examined in detail the
ways in which male and female children were conceived of by the German military and
Nazi regime, nor have they analyzed the ways in which abusers were discussed.32
Although the law against the sexual abuse of children, §176 section 3,329 gives the
age of consent as 14, which means all sexual contact with a child under that age was to be
legally punished, what the documents indicate is if the judges or accused believed the
child looked over 14, charges of child abuse were not lodged, or could be dismissed.
Furthermore, the judges believed female children could entice soldiers into sexual
activity; they were held responsible for the sexual abuse, although that belief was counter
to the law. Moreover, determinations of punishment were not based on whether a
standard of evidence had been met, on whether the soldier had sexually abused a minor,
but rather on the perceived effect of that abuse. Mitigating circumstances could be
offered if the judge believed the girl to be un-traumatized by the abuse and if the judge
believed the girl had not been morally damaged; there is never an explanation of how a
female child should have behaved to demonstrate trauma, nor is there an explanation of
how moral damage was gauged.330
...
By contrast, those men believed to be good soldiers, to have
adhered to norms of military, German, and Nazi masculinity were often favored with
excuses that could result in a lesser punishment. In cases of child abuse, parallel
mitigating factors were available for men who abused female children and female
children were subject to gendered evaluations of behavior. If female children were found
to have acted in some way contrary to expectations, or if they were physically developed
beyond their age, according to the judge, they were frequently blamed for having
instigated the sexual contact; the judges also believed that they were, as sexually
experienced individuals, less traumatized by sexual violence
...
Rape was not a concern for the Nazi party, nor
was the prosecution of incest, and after an initial spike in rates of criminality for the
abuse of children, there was a decline in the late 1930s. The decline in prosecution of
cases in which women and children were the primary victims—rape, incest, and
violations of §176 section 3—suggest to Dickinson, that “[d]espite their rhetoric, the
Nazis were not in truth terribly committed to the family.”3
+++++Page 183, to 197 for MULTIPLE EXAMPLES+++++
....
In 1940, two men, Soldat Georg E. and Schütze Richard L. were charged with, but
tried separately for having sexual contact with two underage German girls.336
Georg E.
was accused of, over several days, kissing a girl, reaching under her skirt and touching
...
The accused could guess in good faith, that witness W. was already 14 years old.”
He continued: “According to the circumstances, [the girls] sought out the contact with the
accused. The court therefore is of the belief that both the girls did not object to the
immoral efforts of the accused.” Richard L. was acquitted because W. appeared older
than she was; she appeared to be fourteen years old, and thus Richard L. could not be
charged with violating the law against sexual contact with a minor under the age of
fourteen
...
In his sentencing
opinion, the judge said that “without question, [she] is developed far beyond her age, and
makes a considerably older impression than 13 years.” The victim stated in her
testimony that she told the accused how old she was, but the judge dismissed her
statement in the following way:
Even if [she] should have given the accused her exact age, it does not seem
impossible that the accused thought that this statement of age, as it often happens
with females, was not fact but flirting, because the condition of [her] body which
was developed far beyond her actual age and her experience and cavalier attitude
in sexual matters seem to speak too clearly against [her being thirteen]
...
He had placed a seven year-old German girl on his lap, “played with
her in peculiar ways,” and touched her on the buttocks. One month later, he touched her
on her stomach, just above her genitals. According to the court, the girl was the daughter
of a father who had been sterilized, and a mother whose morals were questionable. The
judge believed that what the defendant had done was “not of a very severe nature,” and
questioned the role of the victim by saying that she was “not entirely morally pure,” and
that she had “very much accommodated the efforts and propensities of the accused.”
....
Unteroffizier Peter G. was accused of abusing a ten year-old girl, but was charged
with drunkenness rather than child abuse.352
The judge harshly criticized the accused
because the crime could damage the reputation of the Wehrmacht in the occupied
territories, and because “as an Unteroffizier, [he] was supposed to behave flawlessly and
to always keep a grip on [himself], also after drinking alcohol.” The judge believed the
accused deserved a “considerable” punishment because he “violated the reputation and honor of the Unteroffizierkorps in severe ways,” and because the crime was “damnable.”
It's just more double speak. He's losing his base of traditional Europeans. He realized he is boiling the frog too fast. Bring it back down to a simmer. Plans for global control and population dissolution must not be coming together in the timetable he imagined.
The flock is turning against this false Shepard. This 'Judas goat".
I think we have ample proof of this by now. But really wasn't the 19th Amendment their reward for helping get the 18th Amendment passed?
You are very mistaken on this point and a cursory search would avail yourself of the multiple Democrat presidents elected before 1919.
So every Republican president going back 100 years won in spite of women having the vote? Kinda weird given the GOP championed women's suffrage from the very inception of the party and passed the 19th Amendment which (Democrat) Woodrow Wilson signed into law.
Party switch is a fuckin myth. A revisionist lie the Marxists tell themselves.
If the contemporary republican party could stand behind even 1/5th of what the Jacksonians did, maybe I wouldn't despise them.
Francis decided to have some random based takes recently in hopes that no one will notice he's already de-facto excommunicated himself by not being Catholic.
Guess what, we notice.
So "cancel culture is a form of ideological colonization" but people who don't want the jab need "reality therapy"? (which sounds a lot like struggle sessions)
Am I missing something or is he wildly inconsistent?
A broken clock is right twice a day.
I find myself agreeing with the woke-pope? What manner of madness is this?
Satan’s puppet can cite scripture for his cause.
Dude, give it a rest. He said something decent for a change.
You cry about women ten times more than any of us cry about Jews. You've absolutely no right, you stinking hypocrite. Your reflexive need to defend them before anyone has said a word, is also telling.
The .wins should require posting nose and physique before you can create threads.
You should At least have to show yourself holding a protractor up to it or something.
I'm just waiting for him to notice what ethnicity all the women he's complaining about are and how little power they actual have, since theyre merely frontmen.
There's nothing organic about a race of people developing an out-group bias. It's completely dysgenic.
Whites were subject to decades of concentrated anti-white propaganda. White women were targeted. Which institutions were responsible? Academia, entertainment, news media. Which demographics are radically overrepresented in these institutions?
Imp is pointing at the effect and claiming cause.
Progressive White Women don’t make up the vast majority of the banking, media, and financial industries.
I'm not a tradcon but that's a good policy. You have to encourage your people to multiply if you want a strong nation that can compete without bringing in immigrants.
My dude, I do like you, and I don't have and probably won't have children, but you really don't make a good point with this literal extinction rebellion bullshit of yours.
False equivalence, false dichotomy. Traditional men don't want to "give everything women want", they want women to be submissive and obedient to men, they want women to have no political power. Look at how White men acted 100 years ago, they knew women's place. You are confusing traditional men with neocons (who are not traditional at all).
Your "us vs them" mentality is retarded, there are many different types of people on the Right, with different beliefs, not everybody is a retarded simp cuckservative. In fact the very far right neo-Nazis are rarely simps, it's usually the moderate right who are the simping m'lady cucks.
Okay cool, so what's your solution? I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but whether you like it or not we need women in order to make babies in order to keep society from collapsing and going extinct.
So having a system where women are kept on a short leash, where they have no power and are submissive to men, is the best way to achieve that goal. That strategy has worked successfully for many thousands of years, it has led to the greatest civilizations in the world.
I have no idea which "far right" people you talk to, but I know quite a few "far right" people, and they are very aware of female nature. They don't believe that women were brainwashed by Jews, they believe that the Jews simply unleashed women's innate desires by giving women freedom and removing the old traditions. Considering the very high percentage of Jews within the feminist movement, their viewpoint has some validity to it.
Once again, I have no idea which "far right" people you are talking to, you seem to be confusing them with the neocon cuckservatives.
He said "better leaders". Still retarded, but somewhat less.
We had Woodrow Wilson(‘s wife).
CP
It is an apt acronym for the people in there.
I think you’ll find they’re pretty dead-set against all pornography but especially CP.
They defend national socialism.
“SHE MAKES A SENSUAL IMPRESSION”: THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN
Other scholars have examined the abuse of children by German soldiers; however, they have not examined in detail the ways in which male and female children were conceived of by the German military and Nazi regime, nor have they analyzed the ways in which abusers were discussed.32
Although the law against the sexual abuse of children, §176 section 3,329 gives the age of consent as 14, which means all sexual contact with a child under that age was to be legally punished, what the documents indicate is if the judges or accused believed the child looked over 14, charges of child abuse were not lodged, or could be dismissed. Furthermore, the judges believed female children could entice soldiers into sexual activity; they were held responsible for the sexual abuse, although that belief was counter to the law. Moreover, determinations of punishment were not based on whether a standard of evidence had been met, on whether the soldier had sexually abused a minor, but rather on the perceived effect of that abuse. Mitigating circumstances could be offered if the judge believed the girl to be un-traumatized by the abuse and if the judge believed the girl had not been morally damaged; there is never an explanation of how a female child should have behaved to demonstrate trauma, nor is there an explanation of how moral damage was gauged.330
...
By contrast, those men believed to be good soldiers, to have adhered to norms of military, German, and Nazi masculinity were often favored with excuses that could result in a lesser punishment. In cases of child abuse, parallel mitigating factors were available for men who abused female children and female children were subject to gendered evaluations of behavior. If female children were found to have acted in some way contrary to expectations, or if they were physically developed beyond their age, according to the judge, they were frequently blamed for having instigated the sexual contact; the judges also believed that they were, as sexually experienced individuals, less traumatized by sexual violence
...
Rape was not a concern for the Nazi party, nor was the prosecution of incest, and after an initial spike in rates of criminality for the abuse of children, there was a decline in the late 1930s. The decline in prosecution of cases in which women and children were the primary victims—rape, incest, and violations of §176 section 3—suggest to Dickinson, that “[d]espite their rhetoric, the Nazis were not in truth terribly committed to the family.”3
+++++Page 183, to 197 for MULTIPLE EXAMPLES+++++ ....
In 1940, two men, Soldat Georg E. and Schütze Richard L. were charged with, but tried separately for having sexual contact with two underage German girls.336 Georg E. was accused of, over several days, kissing a girl, reaching under her skirt and touching
...
The accused could guess in good faith, that witness W. was already 14 years old.” He continued: “According to the circumstances, [the girls] sought out the contact with the accused. The court therefore is of the belief that both the girls did not object to the immoral efforts of the accused.” Richard L. was acquitted because W. appeared older than she was; she appeared to be fourteen years old, and thus Richard L. could not be charged with violating the law against sexual contact with a minor under the age of fourteen
...
In his sentencing opinion, the judge said that “without question, [she] is developed far beyond her age, and makes a considerably older impression than 13 years.” The victim stated in her testimony that she told the accused how old she was, but the judge dismissed her statement in the following way: Even if [she] should have given the accused her exact age, it does not seem impossible that the accused thought that this statement of age, as it often happens with females, was not fact but flirting, because the condition of [her] body which was developed far beyond her actual age and her experience and cavalier attitude in sexual matters seem to speak too clearly against [her being thirteen]
...
He had placed a seven year-old German girl on his lap, “played with her in peculiar ways,” and touched her on the buttocks. One month later, he touched her on her stomach, just above her genitals. According to the court, the girl was the daughter of a father who had been sterilized, and a mother whose morals were questionable. The judge believed that what the defendant had done was “not of a very severe nature,” and questioned the role of the victim by saying that she was “not entirely morally pure,” and that she had “very much accommodated the efforts and propensities of the accused.”
....
Unteroffizier Peter G. was accused of abusing a ten year-old girl, but was charged with drunkenness rather than child abuse.352 The judge harshly criticized the accused because the crime could damage the reputation of the Wehrmacht in the occupied territories, and because “as an Unteroffizier, [he] was supposed to behave flawlessly and to always keep a grip on [himself], also after drinking alcohol.” The judge believed the accused deserved a “considerable” punishment because he “violated the reputation and honor of the Unteroffizierkorps in severe ways,” and because the crime was “damnable.”
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=kent1258726022&disposition=inline
Comment Reported for: Sexualization of Minors
Comment Approved: If TentElephant's post stays up, so does this.
Sexualization of minors?! WTF?
I guess we are noticing them too much, and they need to shut it all down.
Afraid of the provable facts that nazis were pedo lovers.