I am firm believer that women shit test entire nations just as they shit test overly nice boyfriends.
Women crave male dominance to the point that they would rather stand by and watch a rival tribe murder their fathers and brothers and husbands and sons than live with men who show less dominance.
We see this behavior in chimps, we see this behavior all throughout human history - whole towns of men get conquered and killed, and before their bodies are even cold, their women are being impregnated by the men who killed them.
The women have orgasms, and then they raise the children according to the customs of of the conquering men, completely and utterly forgetting their weak, dead fathers and brothers and husbands and sons, watching the children of their murderers play on top of their unmarked graves.
That has happened all throughout human history since time immemorial. Women have no loyalty to anything other than power.
Hitler famously had little time for, and perhaps little understanding of women. Maybe if he'd understood them better he wouldn't have wanted them dead - he would have been much better served by murdering their men, then putting their women in up in nice houses where they can be fucked. Perhaps houses with a view of the yards where their new SS boyfriends murder their old families as a show of dominance.
It sounds ridiculous and obscene, like it couldn't possibly work. These women would surely choose death, - either fighting or by suicide, over this humiliation and betrayal of their families, right? Any man would.
Wrong. History shows, time and time again, women choose to breed with their conquerors, and raise their children.
As repulsive as it seems, we shouldn't even be mad at them for it. Evolutionarily, it makes perfect sense for them to do so - better half of our genes pass on than none at all. They are unironically clawing back a small genetic victory where their men failed completely.
We have only ourselves to blame, for lacking the collective will to do the right thing.
We see this behavior in chimps, we see this behavior all throughout human history - whole towns of men get conquered and killed, and before their bodies are even cold, their women are being impregnated by the men who killed them. The women have orgasms, and then they raise the children according to the customs of of the conquering men, completely and utterly forgetting their weak, dead fathers and brothers and husbands and sons, watching the children of their murderers play on top of their unmarked graves.
Literally all of this is wrong. As in, actually every part of it.
What we typically see is:
Women and children desperately fleeing invading armies due to the likelihood of
rape.
Many times, women actually being killed in a lot of the fighting for attempting to defend their families
Women being directly involved the immediate fighting, and the resistance afterwards, along with their children
Conquering armies have repeatedly used rape as a weapon of terror and subjugation for occupied peoples, including not killing the men, but still perpetrating the rape of both women and children as to tyrannize their conquests.
The concept of a female orgasm was effectively unknown in a lot of societies, and was certainly not detailed by violent post-combat rapes.
Normally conquering armies DON'T settle the land they conquer, even tribal ones, as those will be centers of rebellion later. Women are typically forcibly removed, or sold into sexual slavery. If settlement happens, it's after the war by settlers, not during the war by the soldiers, who normally already have families to go back to.
Normally the rapes and pillaging are for the purposes of morale, and again, the soldiers typically already have families, and will get wives due to a successful status and loot. They typically won't take the conquered women with them (and most armies can't supply such an effort anyway).
When those armies abandon those women, there will be children that the mothers are left with. Sometimes those kids get post-birth aborted or abandoned, yes, we see that in the animal kingdom too.
If your example was even half correct, it wouldn't explain very well known shit like:
Boudicca's Rebellion - Family and husband raped & executed, went on a war path that killed hundreds of thousands of people in Roman Britain, burned Londinium (London) to the ground, and died in combat.
Margaret of Anjou - Whom lead the Lancasters at different points during the War of The Roses, even though her husband was weak, then driven crazy, then executed. She was a continual threat well after his death.
The Beslan Terrorist attack - At least 2 of the terrorists were women who had survived the 2nd Chechen War, which was a horrifically brutal war between Russia & Chechnya, which resulted in the occupation and subjugation of Chechnya.
Female Suicide Bomber attacks of Iraq in 2008 - I think it was somewhere around 15 that were recruited in order to attack emergency services in Iraq.
The French, Belgian, and Polish resistances in WW2 - All of whom had women explicitly involved in them, long after the Poles, Belgians, and French had been occupied by the Germans. All of them involved women in roles of spies, logisticians, and saboteurs. The very example of SS officers you used is an infamous picture from the Liberation of Paris, where a woman who was married to a German officer was publicly dragged out of the street, beaten, tortured, and had her head shaved by the general population of Paris. Again, if what you said was true, her actions would have been seen as entirely reasonable, and would have represented literally all of the women of Paris.
The rape of East Germany - Again, German women were enthusiastically raped by conquering Russian troops. Yet, somehow, even after 40 years of Communist occupation, the Germans didn't turn Russian overnight, and instead continued to try and resist Soviet Occupation, even immediately after the war through diplomatic means, since it was clear the Soviets would summarily executed anyone who was going to engage in violence against the occupation.
What you are hapring on is that women are pre-disposed to being agreeable, rely on social systems for support, and have innate social value that can keep them alive; and you then run to an extreme and attache insane emotional baggage onto it. Women don't want their children dead because their husbands are too weak. The issue is that if a woman's entire social system is destroyed and they are left with nothing, they will most likely not be killed because they have a vagina, and that's it. If women were purely devoted towards power, this is the worst possible outcome; not the preferred one. They have nothing left, and won't have influence over any men as a sex slave.
In reality, women will adopt the social structures of all societies they move into because they are more psychologically agreeable, and the use of those social systems is what benefits women more than technical merit and achievement. There's actually a great video from Callum of The LotusEaters that goes over "How Feminist Immigration Can Save The West" (relax it's not actually Feminist). Basically: if you ban male immigration, females, in all cases: typically don't commit crimes, integrate well into the local community, adopt their husband's values, language, and culture. This is because women need to be more agreeable.
However, this is not the same as being okay with your husband and children being murdered, or even preferring it because they were too weak.
Honestly, the way you look at women is about as fucking looney as Imp gets, and frankly, says something about your own sense of security in relationships.
Funny, I almost considered mentioning Boudicca in my post as an example of why resistance is a bad idea for women, and why only a stupid woman would entertain it.
You are looking at tiny instances, brief moments, infinitesimal windows in time.
The matrilineal mtDNA and Patrilineal Y-DNA of populations doesn't lie. When ancient cultures/populations die out (read: get conquered by another), the mtDNA keeps on trucking, and the YDNA fades away.
If you'd prefer your own style of looking at instances, though - Mohammed and Aisha.
Or Ghengis Khan and everyone.
Or Mary Jemison.
the way you look at women is about as fucking looney as Imp gets, and frankly, says something about your own sense of security in relationships.
I'm going to repeat: I don't think this behavior among women is bad or illogical. It is the best option available to them. The alternative is that their genes - and thus those of their tribe - do not pass on at all. In accepting her father's killer, the woman preserves her father's DNA for the ages. He may be spinning in his grave, but that actual tangible part of him that exists, exists. The same cannot be said for the father of a woman who resists the new champions. His DNA is obliterated for eternity.
Women have evolved to make the best of bad situations, and they do so to the betterment of all mankind, by removing weak men.
My post essentially says: Stop being a weak man. Or hope that your daughter puts out.
Some women did that. And some men were cooperating with Nazi occupiers. Just like some men and women were part of resistance groups and were contacts for the oss. Men and women can both be traitors and rebels. Fight or flight is part of both the male and female thought process.
How do you explain all the women who started fucking Nazi occupiers before their families' bodies were even cold? Not even grieving, just right on that Nazi dick.
I can't explain things that don't happen.
The closest example I can give you is an American Colonial woman who's family was killed, and was eventually married into the American tribe which raided her home.
As she tells it, she was held captive, but under a kind of matriarchy, where the warrior who killed her family was forbidden from having sex with her, and she was transferred as a slave to the custody of the matriarchs. After about 5 years living with the tribe as a servant, in which she was never sexually assaulted, and was treated as a kind of lower-class member of the society, she became a fully integrated tribeswoman. After going through a series of courtship rituals, like all the other women of the tribe, she was planning on selecting a tribesman for marriage (one who wasn't the warrior) when she was discovered by a pioneer. She decided to go back to the colonial settlements at the time; but became distraught later on because she had no family or communal ties to speak of, even though she was living in the 'civilized world' again. She was re-married, but she had far less social influence and status than she had under the natives. When she left the tribe, she didn't leave it as a servant or a captive, she left it as a full tribal member with all the rights and privileges that community afforded. When she came back to the colonies, she was "that dude's wife", and had basically no social network to speak of, and had very little in the way of social benefits.
Again, this was her story. It isn't completely outside of other statements of women who were captured by North American tribes, whether European or Native captives. The women were typically not raped, and were more likely integrated into the tribe voluntarily. I grant you that there will be some Stockholm Syndrome stuff going on, but that's not something you can blame on women generally, that just an issue with human psychology. Most of the stories I've read of tribal capture involve the women being sold as slaves to other tribes, who also don't rape them, but after working with them for a long time, allow the slaves to be full members of their tribe. "Slavery" as a kind of path to integration, and a form of "slavery" which isn't typically much of a problem for either the slaves or their 'owners' as it were. Assuming the tribes even understood the concept of a property owner, and weren't just recognizing that the person they just bought has a temporary obligation to their society.
Again: this tends to be the norm. If a woman has all social ties severed, she will likely integrate into the society she happens to be in. Which is to be expected because women need social systems for survival and benefit.
The only thing that is even like what you are claiming is French and Belgian women who slept with Americans for liberating the country, and normally they were unmarried young women who wanted to sleep with a soldier-boy/hero archetype in their minds.
I am firm believer that women shit test entire nations just as they shit test overly nice boyfriends.
Women crave male dominance to the point that they would rather stand by and watch a rival tribe murder their fathers and brothers and husbands and sons than live with men who show less dominance.
We see this behavior in chimps, we see this behavior all throughout human history - whole towns of men get conquered and killed, and before their bodies are even cold, their women are being impregnated by the men who killed them. The women have orgasms, and then they raise the children according to the customs of of the conquering men, completely and utterly forgetting their weak, dead fathers and brothers and husbands and sons, watching the children of their murderers play on top of their unmarked graves.
That has happened all throughout human history since time immemorial. Women have no loyalty to anything other than power.
Hitler famously had little time for, and perhaps little understanding of women. Maybe if he'd understood them better he wouldn't have wanted them dead - he would have been much better served by murdering their men, then putting their women in up in nice houses where they can be fucked. Perhaps houses with a view of the yards where their new SS boyfriends murder their old families as a show of dominance.
It sounds ridiculous and obscene, like it couldn't possibly work. These women would surely choose death, - either fighting or by suicide, over this humiliation and betrayal of their families, right? Any man would.
Wrong. History shows, time and time again, women choose to breed with their conquerors, and raise their children.
As repulsive as it seems, we shouldn't even be mad at them for it. Evolutionarily, it makes perfect sense for them to do so - better half of our genes pass on than none at all. They are unironically clawing back a small genetic victory where their men failed completely.
We have only ourselves to blame, for lacking the collective will to do the right thing.
Literally all of this is wrong. As in, actually every part of it.
What we typically see is:
If your example was even half correct, it wouldn't explain very well known shit like:
What you are hapring on is that women are pre-disposed to being agreeable, rely on social systems for support, and have innate social value that can keep them alive; and you then run to an extreme and attache insane emotional baggage onto it. Women don't want their children dead because their husbands are too weak. The issue is that if a woman's entire social system is destroyed and they are left with nothing, they will most likely not be killed because they have a vagina, and that's it. If women were purely devoted towards power, this is the worst possible outcome; not the preferred one. They have nothing left, and won't have influence over any men as a sex slave.
In reality, women will adopt the social structures of all societies they move into because they are more psychologically agreeable, and the use of those social systems is what benefits women more than technical merit and achievement. There's actually a great video from Callum of The LotusEaters that goes over "How Feminist Immigration Can Save The West" (relax it's not actually Feminist). Basically: if you ban male immigration, females, in all cases: typically don't commit crimes, integrate well into the local community, adopt their husband's values, language, and culture. This is because women need to be more agreeable.
However, this is not the same as being okay with your husband and children being murdered, or even preferring it because they were too weak.
Honestly, the way you look at women is about as fucking looney as Imp gets, and frankly, says something about your own sense of security in relationships.
Funny, I almost considered mentioning Boudicca in my post as an example of why resistance is a bad idea for women, and why only a stupid woman would entertain it.
You are looking at tiny instances, brief moments, infinitesimal windows in time.
The matrilineal mtDNA and Patrilineal Y-DNA of populations doesn't lie. When ancient cultures/populations die out (read: get conquered by another), the mtDNA keeps on trucking, and the YDNA fades away.
If you'd prefer your own style of looking at instances, though - Mohammed and Aisha.
Or Ghengis Khan and everyone.
Or Mary Jemison.
I'm going to repeat: I don't think this behavior among women is bad or illogical. It is the best option available to them. The alternative is that their genes - and thus those of their tribe - do not pass on at all. In accepting her father's killer, the woman preserves her father's DNA for the ages. He may be spinning in his grave, but that actual tangible part of him that exists, exists. The same cannot be said for the father of a woman who resists the new champions. His DNA is obliterated for eternity.
Women have evolved to make the best of bad situations, and they do so to the betterment of all mankind, by removing weak men.
My post essentially says: Stop being a weak man. Or hope that your daughter puts out.
How do you explain all the women who started fucking Nazi occupiers before their families' bodies were even cold?
Not even grieving, just right on that Nazi dick.
Maybe that's why our woman-defender ConPro cuckolds want violence, because they think they can get a war bride.
Some women did that. And some men were cooperating with Nazi occupiers. Just like some men and women were part of resistance groups and were contacts for the oss. Men and women can both be traitors and rebels. Fight or flight is part of both the male and female thought process.
I can't explain things that don't happen.
The closest example I can give you is an American Colonial woman who's family was killed, and was eventually married into the American tribe which raided her home.
As she tells it, she was held captive, but under a kind of matriarchy, where the warrior who killed her family was forbidden from having sex with her, and she was transferred as a slave to the custody of the matriarchs. After about 5 years living with the tribe as a servant, in which she was never sexually assaulted, and was treated as a kind of lower-class member of the society, she became a fully integrated tribeswoman. After going through a series of courtship rituals, like all the other women of the tribe, she was planning on selecting a tribesman for marriage (one who wasn't the warrior) when she was discovered by a pioneer. She decided to go back to the colonial settlements at the time; but became distraught later on because she had no family or communal ties to speak of, even though she was living in the 'civilized world' again. She was re-married, but she had far less social influence and status than she had under the natives. When she left the tribe, she didn't leave it as a servant or a captive, she left it as a full tribal member with all the rights and privileges that community afforded. When she came back to the colonies, she was "that dude's wife", and had basically no social network to speak of, and had very little in the way of social benefits.
Again, this was her story. It isn't completely outside of other statements of women who were captured by North American tribes, whether European or Native captives. The women were typically not raped, and were more likely integrated into the tribe voluntarily. I grant you that there will be some Stockholm Syndrome stuff going on, but that's not something you can blame on women generally, that just an issue with human psychology. Most of the stories I've read of tribal capture involve the women being sold as slaves to other tribes, who also don't rape them, but after working with them for a long time, allow the slaves to be full members of their tribe. "Slavery" as a kind of path to integration, and a form of "slavery" which isn't typically much of a problem for either the slaves or their 'owners' as it were. Assuming the tribes even understood the concept of a property owner, and weren't just recognizing that the person they just bought has a temporary obligation to their society.
Again: this tends to be the norm. If a woman has all social ties severed, she will likely integrate into the society she happens to be in. Which is to be expected because women need social systems for survival and benefit.
The only thing that is even like what you are claiming is French and Belgian women who slept with Americans for liberating the country, and normally they were unmarried young women who wanted to sleep with a soldier-boy/hero archetype in their minds.
Have sex.
*Have children
FTFY
Why should we just accept and understand it?
Either they start acting like human beings or they don't get to be part of society.
You have to actually enforce that, see. That's the societal shit test. Will you enforce it?.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/15IEcWeMDp/x/c/4OZp8uSje31
I absolutely would. I detailed my ideal society here, where I talked about the importance of cutting down feminism.
The theme of it for the "good women" is - One Last Chance.
Why did I give them a chance, even though I don't believe in second chances?
Because society unfortunately needs some level of integration of them.
We would have artificial wombs within 10 years if there were sufficient motivation.