Is this a woman?

[ursidae]

is this a woman's arm?

 

[shucknchuck]

Can you stop calling neoliberal nazis the far left? It’s really not etymologically accurate

What? the tans movement in 1930s Berlin literally propelled the reactionary independents and neocons of Germany right into the arms of the nazi party. The nazi book burnings began as a grassroots effort by student activists, precisely because of a transexual clinic and the works of the first sex-change doctor (he wrote a book on his efforts that was subsequently banned and burned — he later went to a concentration camp). This is well known.

Because the nazis committed so many attrocities, nobody wants to claim them as political cousins. The truth is that they are not ideological orphans — they came from the reactionary-right and disillusioned leftists as a result of extreme totalitarian leftism, and adopted neo-Spartan efforts that were liberal in their enlightenment origin, yet had saturated all elements of mainstream western culture at the time of the nazi rise to power. Their failed and most extreme use of it, kind of spelled the end of the neo-sparticus spirit in the west, ironically last used with effectiveness by the Ally’s upon vanquished nazi Germany.

But, to claim that today’s lgbtq trends aren’t a logical descent from yesterdays left, is just being obtusely insincere. It’s fundamentally liberal, and colloquially “left” to question social mores and traditions of one’s own society.

The actual nazis would’ve been absolutely opposed to today’s “neoliberal-nazi,” who spouts his “pp is a vajayjay” silliness. The nazi popular support was fundamentally “middle class labor” in structure. The truck driver protestors and antivaxxers today would be the “commie under every rock” / “they’re trying to exterminate Europeans” / “they’re trying to sex-change our children,” in nazi Germany (indeed in the rest of right-wing Europe as well, they had a whole lot of support of their rhetoric).

When the definition of “nazi” is relegated to “people I hate,” we lose the actual use of researched historical outcomes or conclusions, usually the only derived value from a study history.

I say all this to say, I believe you have a grossly misrepresented version of events so you can hate on a man who had decent insight into how communist Russia worked, and hate on present day right wingers by extension.

 

[lvysaur]

and left the vast continent alone to a group of stone age people who in thousands of years of being left alone to develop did not even invent the wheel or a written form of writing or even basic mathematics? They had no nation or country and did not even have those concepts. They were a stone age people, literally stagnant for thousands of years who were only protected by nature by the oceans.

Quite accurate for Indigenous Europeans as well, just substitute "oceans" with "ice sheets"

The stronger side won. That's the history of humanity.

and it will continue to be!

The indians had guns through trade and supply by the British and French armies..

True, the only reason the Natives lost is because the Euros had 10x the population.

 

[shucknchuck]

Quite accurate for Indigenous Europeans as well, just substitute "oceans" with "ice sheets"

You may be relieved to find that millions of indigenous Europeans were massacred at the hands of the Romans.

True, the only reason the Natives lost is because the Euros had 10x the population.

incorrect. Read memoirs of people who survived Indian raids in the west, and read of modern conflicts where tribal people are given technology for equal footing against a western foe. When the IQ difference is over 10 points, it becomes a greater factor for battlefield success than whether you have M4’s and grenade launchers.

These kinds of arguments on here are just silliness, when a critical statement is made over something one likes. You can like and likewise defend, while still objectively acknowledging, the state of the “Native American” at the time of his conquering, and how any society regardless of their economic practices, would've likely done the same (even Indians— they were constantly performing winner takes all treacherous wars on each other — the exception being they wanted their tribe to rule, never expecting a bigger fish to fry them).

 

[ThinPicking]

is this a woman's arm?

View attachment 52011

It's a mold. And an acne.

It's a mold and an acne.

 

[-Luke-]

A man has won "Miss Netherlands 2023". Congratulations!

 

[arcadia11]

View: https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1558373150622097408?cxt=HHwWgICx5faHuqArAAAA

look again. they're both men.

 

[Peatress]

Excellent article

Inside the Transgender Empire

This is the great project of the transgender movement: to abolish the distinctions of man and woman, to transcend the limitations established by God and nature, and to connect the personal struggle of trans individuals to the political struggle to transform society in a radical way.

imprimis.hillsdale.edu

One thing that occurred to me recently is that if the category of man and woman are abolished then the inalienable rights under common law must also be abolished. Put another way under common law men and women (boy and girl) are born with inalienable rights. Persons are do not have the same rights. I could be wrong but it seems like a good reason to do away with those categories, if you are a tyrannical maniac.