/trap/ - Traps

Hey OP, I'm the one who made that /pol/ post. I've actually decided to stop using 8chan but figured I'd check back to see if anything actually became of that thread and saw the referral here. So this is a ramble thread, huh? Ramble I shall, then.

I think that 8chan's overall culture pretty much took the worst elements from the 4/pol/ and GamerGate-sympathisers exoduses, who have spread their shit onto /b/, /k/ (most of whom fucking hate /pol/, which is ironic because /pol/ thinks they're natural buddies kek), and other staple boards. So I see not only a lot of anti-trans sentiment, but also unironic misogyny. Ignorant, emotional, control-freak shit in general. A lot of frustrated young men who spend much time in communities like chans are exposed to an unrealistic concentration of sadistic radfem, anti-male news, which is quite rare IRL; and it seems that posters no longer consider their subconscious personality issues responsible for poor partner selection, and instead blame it on said news feedings. Their reality is defined by their peer-controlled content consumption. Also the GamerGate exodus, in which the most prominent characters IMO are two women (Quinn, Sarkeesian) and a trans freak (Wu), all of whom vilify or fuck over men. This is just a theory and a feeling I have for 8chan's core demographic.

That's basically why I'm leaving 8chan: too much pointless, unreasoned hatred and not enough actual discussion. Like the /pol/ post I made, IIRC only one poster actually addressed anything and the rest were variations of "didn't read, you're intractably wrong, kill yourself." There was no point in posting from the heart, I guess, but the issue had been bugging me for a while so fuck it. I tried. Dunno what else I expected.

When I first came to /pol/, I thought all the things about Nazis and jews was downright bizarre. I wondered if I was crazy or they were. However, I'm one who enjoys challenging my beliefs and learning new things; I'm not afraid to be wrong. It took me a few months, massive amounts of research, but my opinion was definitely changed on some obsequious polfag issues. /pol/ does not wish to do the same about things they currently disagree with (especially the vague "muh degeneracy"). In fact, they are like the ostracised echo chambre group effect I mentioned in the OP attachment: society at large hates NatSoc, so nazifags (who are "societal victims" lel) associate in insulated groups, any existing retarded shit enters a positive feedback loop, society at large never negs that loop (aka slaps some reason into them), so it festers unto ill product. Which it doesn't have to, because there's a lot of great things about NatSoc concerning economic, volkish, and political policies; but they basically identify with the wartime propaganda persona of the NSDAP (not any of its liberal social stances) and a strange post-apocalyptic species-repopulation mindset. Frankly, I don't think most of them give a single fuck about NatSoc beyond war, sexy uniforms, and policing people's bedrooms. That and, ironically, identity politics and class warfare. Isn't that the American political stereotype, actually?

There's a lot more to cover and this is already tl;dr. So, I wish I saved it, but Göbbels published an article in IIRC a Nazi party paper criticising hardassed prudes who tear down (esp younger) people over enjoying their life, their fashions, realistic levels of material pleasures, theatre entertainment, social parties, and such. They didn't actually think sucking dick, doing drugs, and fucking strangers were capital offences that tore down civilisation. Hopefully /pol/ never hears of this ;D

>tfw you will never have a trap waifu with a shotgun to fight off marauders with during the collapse of civilization

>>7357

>That's basically why I'm leaving 8chan: too much pointless, unreasoned hatred and not enough actual discussion

I hope you stick around this one board, but let me add that there is another factor with at least some of them: they get off on it. If you hadn't picked up on it already, there is an enormous amount of bisexuality on /pol/ and of course 8chan in general and that is even aside from an interest in traps. Talking about killing fags gives them a charge in between bouts of jerking off to twinks or whatever they're into. It makes them feel naughty, similar to sex talk like this video: >>7280

There are many different layers and types of denial. You might be familiar with Takimag's brilliant writer Jim Goad. Many years ago, he did a hilarious comic book called "Trucker Fags in Denial" about two repressed gay truckers who go off on a killing spree against homosexuals because of displaced shame of their fucking each other while having some convoluted logic about how they weren't really fags themselves.

/pol/ logic is along the lines of

>I'm not homosexual, I'm simply performing a homosexual act. The former is degenerate, the latter is more or less normal.

>I'm keeping it behind closed doors

>I'm responsible, I will someday have a family

Another example is from David Irving's book on Rudolf Hess.

>Röhm was an admitted homosexual whose butchery by Hitler in June 1934 would outrage what chief adjutant Alfred Leitgen would delicately call Hess’s ‘pronounced – I would say almost feminine– instinct.’ Two months after the killing of Röhm, Hess was the first top Nazi to establish close and very private contacts with Konrad Henlein, the youthful Sudeten-German leader whom Heinrich Himmler’s handwritten notes suggest to have been another closet homosexual. In 1941, Hess would talk about the deceased Röhm with a degree of hatred that suggested to the British Army’s chief psychiatric consultant John Rawlings Rees ‘the repression of homosexual trends.’

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hess/Hess_2010.pdf

Not all of /pol/ is like this, of course, but the ones who have to chime in that you should kill yourself because "you're a disgusting mentally ill faggot genetic freak hatred hatred hatred death death death" have some fucking issues. When they're not simply trolls.

It's not a way to develop political philosophy.

>So, I wish I saved it, but Göbbels published an article in IIRC a Nazi party paper criticising hardassed prudes who tear down (esp younger) people over enjoying their life, their fashions, realistic levels of material pleasures, theatre entertainment, social parties, and such

Yeah, that's a good article. http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb60.htm

>>7357

I loved your post except for your defense of women. Women really are pretty awful. Society made them that way.

>>7358

Maybe you will, anon *hugs*

I live in a darker part of town and having it around helps me feel a lot safer. Weapons are pretty fucking cool and very fun to train with and study. Can't say I'm looking forward to social collapse, though. I don't a bit like thinking about that, although I'm sure the pharmacies will still have full stocks of hormones :3

>>7359

I'm no stranger to the internet, believe me. I don't mind trolling and such, but it's the overwhelming volume of anti-trans crap and absolute vacuum of any substantial engagement that's come to just irk me too much. Like, let's say you're brunette, you hear nothing about brunettes but vilest things; and constantly, everyday, and it will eventually start embedding itself in your psyche and not be healthy. That's just our immutable nature. Not that I bring it up often, others just can't stfu about it. Plus I don't really get much out of chans or general forums, anymore. I like having intimate personal discussions and that is anymore frowned upon (unless it's tfwnogf autism bawws). And I think I've maxed out whatever benefit I can get from /pol/, anyhow. …I forget what my point was but whatevs.

Why do you recommend I hang out here? I'm not into the whole shemale trap /cuteboy/ thing (/trap/ seems to be a sexy pictures board). Although I still need help or support about trans BS every great while, I'm not typically welcome in trans groups due to not being a card-carrying Cult of the Tranny member. Like, I don't accept made up genders, and don't think everyone who is bona fide transgender should actually transition; whereas it seems most transfaggots would push anyone to transition even though it's obvious it's not for them, or they will end up with an immitigably worse life and probably kill their self. Makes me mad. So, I appreciate the suggestion but I'm not sure if I can actually contribute anything here.

Funny comic, though. The movie Natural Born Killers comes to mind. Moar liek Natural Born Faggots, amirite?

>>7369

I think our society in general is hurting and we're facing a poverty of many things, personal and economic. Men and women face their own pressures and react to them in their own ways. This is a massive, vague topic, though. And I think a person's opinion on the sexes will be absolutely biased dependent on their perspective and expected gender role. I see patterns of good and bad in both sexes.

>>7379

>Why do you recommend I hang out here?

The quality of discussion. There are a few smaller boards that are hidden gems like >>>/urbex/. /trap/ is one of them, and my personal favorite.

The best part of this board are threads like >>2875 The level of cordial discussion is very high here. /pol/ doesn't even compare, though as >>7354 notes, they were a lot better back in September before the 2nd exodus.

While it can be frustrating that this board is slow, it is also not a time sink like /pol/.

>I'm not typically welcome in trans groups due to not being a card-carrying Cult of the Tranny member.

I think everyone here hates that, and hates SJWs.

> Like, I don't accept made up genders

I do think the sex/gender distinction is the most valid way of understanding any type of transgender.

>and don't think everyone who is bona fide transgender should actually transition

I agree. Not everyone has the genetics to be passable, nor can everybody weather the storms of being unpassable.

>I see patterns of good and bad in both sexes.

While that's true, the situation for men interested in women is really dire at this point in history. This post from the thread I linked to sums up the issue perfectly >>3704

>>7384

What about the video? There's a difference between nice guys and "nice guys." The latter are manipulative little shits. To address another point in the vid, there's a thing in ethology about maintaining respect from other animals; whereby if one is lower (whether it's a bird on high perch or one who curries favour) then the higher animal will treat them like shit. Also happens when some animals are given equal status, and not subjugated. These behaviours also occur in otherwise decent people, and especially so in the lower class who may feel like society's bitch.

When someone tries to get a leg up on your kindness and cooperation, you shut their ass down on the spot; if not they become emboldened to trample all over you. It's an animal thing, I don't understand it. But it's something everyone needs to learn to handle to become a functional adult.

>>7383

Honestly I'm done discussing the theoretical and clinical aspects of transwhateverism. It gets old, and I hate being "that tranny" instead of another random person (in b4 essentialist bullshit). The more often I'm reminded I'm trans, rather than treated as another woman, the crazier I get. If that makes sense.

Anyway, it seems like you've got decent spirits here. Good to see more rational faggots than Susan's Place or Plebbit. The hospitality is most appreciated but I can't stick around, I have to find my answers to life somewhere else. Soz m8. Cheers.

>>7387

I don't know why the anon picked that video, but I love Karen Straughan, so I'll take a shot.

>To address another point in the vid, there's a thing in ethology about maintaining respect from other animals; whereby if one is lower (whether it's a bird on high perch or one who curries favour) then the higher animal will treat them like shit.

While all of that is correct, there is a lot more going on when it comes to men and women.

Men of the past couple of generations have been raised in a feminine-primary environment, where masculinity in its various manifestations are frowned upon, and the central message to men is to accommodate themselves to women. Some guys see through that early, but most of us fucked up and went along with the social conditioning through our teens and beyond. After lots of failure, a few of us wise up and learn PU, or we simply become a lot colder and more cautious instinctively, and then we finally see some success.

But the problem goes deeper than that, even. If you listen to the video, this article that Karen quotes tells the tale.

>If you were truly a nice guy, then you wouldn't care about taking time away from your selfish needs to make someone else happy. You wouldn't complain about wasting your time on a girl because she didn't return the same romantic feelings back. Friendship is a wonderful gift, and the fact that man expect to, basically, get pity-sex in return for their oh-so affectionate feeling is just gross.

The feminist who wrote that shows a complete lack of human empathy. If someone does favors for me and it's damn obvious that they are interested in something, like a salesperson, me and pretty much every other guy would cut that off before it got started. If a military recruiter invited me to dinner at a restaurant, I wouldn't act appalled that he used the meal to talk about what a great opportunity the Marines are. Not only would it be expected, but it would also be poor form on my part if I had absolutely zero interest in what he had to say, cut him off, and still let him pay for me. That's not a perfect analogy, but I hope it makes sense. You have to know when you're taking advantage of somebody. It's not a big mystery.

This woman wants to a blank check to be a parasite, with the men knowing their place in the feminist hierarchy and being too ashamed to object.

I know this post is getting long, but think about what this dynamic does for marriage, LTRs, and families. The attempt is to break down any type of reciprocity from women towards men. Why would I or any men want to provide for a woman with that type of relationship dynamic?

> I have to find my answers to life somewhere else. Soz m8. Cheers.

Hey, that's cool. Good luck to you on your journey. :-)

>>7566

A lot of those issues are complex though, plus /pol/ was not always as obnoxious as it is now. Even the NatSoc types used to have a libertarian outlook for the most part.

>gender roles

A good thing, so long as it is not a social straitjacket.

>hate the gay and trans community

Which has truly done a lot in the past decade or more to undermine their own acceptance, and are fomenting a major backlash. Gay activism went from legitimate concerns of sodomy laws in the 1960s-1970s and similar legit concerns of gays being bullied and driven to the fringes of society into the 1980s and 1990s, and then today we're at the point where we're prosecuting people who don't want to make wedding cakes for gay couples. It has reached the point where gay activists are using the law to try to make people accept them, and it's breeding a lot of resentment.

Luckily, there are cool gays who see through this shit like Justin Raimondo, Jack Donovan, and Milo Yiannopolous, and speak out against it.

>gay marriage

While I don't have a problem with this, marriage is legally very dangerous in our society if you are the primary breadwinner. Here is a pretty good article on it.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-libertarian-case-against-gay-marriage/

>>7566

I don't think you understand what national socialism or the Nazis were actually about. They weren't authoritarian monsters like we're taught in school, and it makes sense that a LGBT person (not turbofags, ofc) could be enamored of it. Most of the world admires them.

/pol/ is a walking stereotype, not representative of NS any more than skinheads or that Rockwell faggot (really handsome dude, though :3).

>>7632

Hey friend, check this out:

>In 1933, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, for the entire Soviet Union, that expressly prohibited only male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labor in prison.

>Some historians have noted that it was during this time that Soviet propaganda began to depict homosexuality as a sign of fascism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia

Whatever you say about the Third Reich, the Marxists were just as hostile if not more so.

>>7630

Are you familiar with Jame O'Meara, the transwoman who writes for Counter Currents?

http://www.counter-currents.com/tag/james-j-omeara/

>>7662

Fair point, the Soviet Union under Lenin had no laws against homosexuality. That lasted about 13 years until Stalin shifted gears and made it criminal. Now, what was the context? How were homosexuals treated in Russia prior to the Bolsheviks?

>Medieval Russia was apparently very tolerant of homosexuality. There is evidence of homosexual love in some of the lives of the saints from Kievan Rus dating to the 11th century. Homosexual acts were treated as a sin by the Orthodox Church, but there were no legal sanctions against them at the time, and even churchmen seemed perturbed by homosexuality only in the monasteries. Foriegn visitors to Muscovite Russia in the 16th and 17th centuries repeatedly express their amazement at the open displays of homosexual affection among men of every class. Sigismund von Heberstein, Adam Olearius, Juraj Krizhanich, and George Turberville all write about the prevalence of homosexuality in Russia in their travel and memoir literature. The 19th century historian Sergei Soloviev writes that "nowhere, either in the Orient or in the West, was this vile, unnatural sin taken as lightly as in Russia."

So Russia had a long history of being tolerant towards homosexuality.

>The first laws against homosexual acts appeared in the 18th century, during the reign of Peter the Great, but these were in military statutes that applied only to soldiers. It was not until 1832 that the criminal code included Article 995, which made muzhelozhstvo (men lying with men, which the courts interpreted as anal intercourse) a criminal act punishable by exile to Siberia for up to 5 years. Even so, the legislation was applied only rarely, especially among the upper classes. Many prominent intellectuals of the 19th century led a relatively open homosexual or bisexual life. Among these were the memoirist Philip Vigel, the explorer Nikolai Przhevalsky, the critic Konstantin Leontiev, and the composer Peter Tchaikovsky

The first laws appeared during the 19th century, a time of considerable social conservatism in much of the world. However, they were mostly ignored.

>The turn of the century saw a relaxation of the laws, and a corresponding increase in tolerance and visibility. In 1903 Vladimir Nabokov, father of the writer and a founder of the Constitutional Democrat party, published an article on the legal status of homosexuals in Russia in which he argued that the state should not interfere in private sexual relationships. The period between the revolutions of 1905 and 1917 was the Silver Age in Russian literature, but something of a golden age for Russian homosexuals. Many important figures led open gay lives, including several members of the Imperial Court. Sergei Diaghilev and many of the members of the World of Art movement and the Russian ballet were gay. In 1906 Mikhail Kuzmin published his semi-autobiographical coming out novel Wings, which became the talk of the literary world in Russia.

http://community.middlebury.edu/~moss/RGC2.html

That last paragraph tells the tale. It sounds like gays in Russia just prior to the October Revolution had it very easy, and in that respect the society was as permissive as Germany was during the Weimer Republic.

As for the rest of communist world, they were all pretty bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality#Status_in_former_communist_states

The biggest exception mentioned would have been East Germany, and while it was still illegal there, they generally treated gays better than in West Germany.

For laughs:

>The Revolutionary Communist Party USA's policy that "struggle will be waged to eliminate [homosexuality] and reform homosexuals" was abandoned in 2001.

>>7665

>Your link doesn't seem to have any sort of actual relations to historical sources

He's a professor who is apparently one of the biggest English-language expert on these topics. Here is his general bibliography:

http://community.middlebury.edu/~moss/RUBibl.html

I looked at some other articles, and didn't see anything to contradict his points. I checked the Soloviev quote, and it is correct.

>While it is a fact of it being an Orthodox Christian country where sodomy was highly disliked. As it is that it had a law against it since Peter the Great, so being tolerant towards homosexuality is not exactly true.

Laws don't really tell you a lot, you have to look at actual convictions. And even then, you have to look at the cases. There is a big difference between the law tossing a sodomy charge onto a prostitution charge for a gay prostitute, and people being prosecuted for sodomy alone. Berlin was the sin city of Europe in the 1920s, despite the fact that there were lots of laws on the books against things that tens of thousands of people were doing everyday. Nobody cared.

The books "The Hot Girls of Weimar Berlin" and "Voluptuous Panic" are both pretty amazing. See images.

>And the fact is that with communists the homosex became free for common folk and not just for spoiled elites, as the law was actually abolished.

The October Revolution did not usher in a new era of tolerance.

>In 1917, Tsarist Russia was swept aside by the Bolshevik revolution. Sodomy was effectively decriminalised when the new criminal code of the Bolsheviks, enacted in 1922, came into force.

>However, author and journalist Masha Gessen said this was not an indication of a more liberal attitude to homosexuality.

>‘They had the idea that the social institutions of Tsarist Russia needed to be destroyed, and the family went down and all the laws went out, including the laws criminalising homosexuality. In some Western literature that has been misinterpreted as a legalisation of homosexuality,’ she said.

>‘The society began getting more conservative and sort of solidifying its institutions and retrenching almost immediately. By the early 1930s that retrenchment was in full force. So in 1934 when the Soviet Union re-criminalised homosexuality, that was a perfectly logical step.’

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/the-history-of-homosexuality-in-russia/5134412

>>7673

Well, I don't actually see that first text having any info on who wrote it and what sources they used. Nor can I find a legitimacy of this quote. Even in Russian.

But nonteheless, I don't disagree with the fact that in time it was quite tolerant to gays.

Commies were just not treating this as a real problem, more of a bourgeouse problem. I don't see many Marxists who were or are against homosexuality and all that shit.

Stalin wasn't in any way a good representation of Marxist views, and many which had them were purged.

Thanks for the books by the way, I have sort of a fetish for dat 20s look.

>>7674

>Thanks for the books by the way, I have sort of a fetish for dat 20s look.

Yeah, the girls are amazing. :-) The 1920s was a very sexually open & experimental period worldwide. Two of the biggest female film stars of that era, Louise Brooks and Greta Garbo, had a lesbian affair.

Btw, do you have anything in regards to pro-gay statements by the Bolsheviks, or ones that were openly gay? That would probably be the best counter-argument to my position. I honestly haven't seen anything like that.

IMHO, what Lenin did seems similar to the actions of Napoleon. The Napoleonic code also wiped the slate clean of any references to homosexuality. I don't think that was because of a deep commitment to the belief that homosexuality was simply a personal choice, but more a result of a new system in a society that didn't pay much attention to these things.

>During the French Revolution, the French National Assembly rewrote the criminal code in 1791, omitting all reference to homosexuality. During the Napoleonic wars, homosexuality was decriminalised in territories coming under French control, such as the Netherlands and many of the pre-unification German states, however in Germany this ended with the unification of the country under the Prussian Kaiser, as Prussia had long punished homosexuality harshly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Europe

If it was simply the idealism of the French revolution, those laws would have been put back in place quickly.

>>7684

Well, as I said they were not really caring that much about homosexualism, you would find almost nothing about it in the works of Marx or Lenin, because it was not a big deal to their works or even a problem worth discussing at the time.

The fact that there were no any known signs of discrimination or opposition to it in the Marxist thought, which was something already by that time, and abolishing anti-gay laws already seems good enough for me.

There was just no point to criminalize it from the perspective of the whole people liberation, women rights, etc. And from the theoretical position of Marxism there was no justification for this law.

I'm not that much of a hardcore commie myself though, the point was if the Marxist themselves were opposed to gays, and they were not by their deeds or writings. And nor are modern Marxists, who are not some Stalinist tankies, you may just go to /leftypol/ and ask. Just letting people do what they want and not interfering in it seems good enough for me.

So you know Napoleon wasn't the one who made the revolution or had many revolutionary ideas, it's not a correct comparsion in any way.

>Who here posts on /pol/

I used to, and at the time of the other thread floating about I was.

My worldview hasn't changed but I slowly began to feel like I was surrounded by contrarian teenagers. Which is okay and I'm sure a lot of us went through that phase, but it lowered the quality of discussion. Remember when Bill Clinton was on an airplane with underage sex girls with a Rothschild? That started back up talks of pedophilia and Hollywood, traffic increased by twice or three times the amount, and suddenly the board got shilled to shit and the quality has been lower ever since. Ironmarch might be worth checking out, not sure.

It often feels weird, maybe hypocritical, to be transgender and hold these ideals. I have a Norwegian penpal on steam who has the same dilemma, you go to these nationalist rallies or associate with certain types that would want nothing to do with you if they knew you had a penis. And yet one of the core principles you hold in your heart is valuing something over your own life and desires, to turn away from it or fight against it due to liking being a girl isn't possible.

When attending a gay pride festival downtown once it all felt so alien and weird, despite being more likely to accept some tranny. But they were all such boring people, it's this big political event and everyone showed up to pretend to stand for something but it all boiled down to smoking weed and attention whoring. Modern folks would think you crazy for not wanting to attach yourself to that environment out of self interest.

It leaves you in a middle ground position. We can only try though and hope history turns out okay, even if that may come to be harmful to traps for some time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NqG2lAojNQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqqgC3t3xGk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGrkCjn4uTo

>>7358

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFb_opqFdk

What kind of shotgun? This one is sexy and has ridiculous ammo capacity. Thought about a vepr12 but it might be more of a diva to upkeep. Our beneli m4 was very picky and annoying, kind of turned us off.

What kind of guns are you thinking of having handy? I think some kind of kalashnikov that's easily converted to fully automatic by filing down a little mechanism when SHTF is almost essential. Mostly just because 7.62x39 is very common in this town and because its an easy gun to own that can quickly be made to something civilians aren't allowed to have. If you're interested in post apocalyptic tier survival this Bosnian has a bleak yet educational story on his experience when his town was under siege for an extended period of time in the 90s: http://www.shtfplan.com/emergency-preparedness/a-survival-q-a-living-through-shtf-in-the-middle-of-a-war-zone_10252011

There's probably some qt out there who feels the same way as you, and is longing for the day their crazy gun owning boyfriend will arrive to sweep them off their feet. Adopt a paleo diet, strive to be /fit/, and she'll probably appear out of thin air and adopt your worldview.

>>7688

>The fact that there were no any known signs of discrimination or opposition to it in the Marxist thought, which was something already by that time

Yeah, but that doesn't really mean much. As you say, none of them were talking about this period. On the eve of the 1917 February Revolution, there were 24,000 Bolsheviks, and that number only increased in the years that followed. Do you know of a single Bolshevik who was openly gay, despite the fact that there must have been hundreds or thousands of them in the closet? Mikahil Kuzmin wrote Wings in 1906. Were there any gay novels from the USSR during the time of Lenin?

>And nor are modern Marxists

Groups like Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party were decades behind the times.

>So you know Napoleon wasn't the one who made the revolution or had many revolutionary ideas

That's actually not relevant here, my point was that there were no laws against homosexuality in cultures that clearly did not accept it. Napoleon's government was very liberal compared to some other countries in that regard, and there was even a French statesman who was openly gay, but the law changes under Napoleon had most to do with getting rid of Christian-based laws.

>Before the French Revolution, sodomy had been a capital crime under royal legislation. The penalty was burning at the stake. Very few men, however, were ever actually prosecuted and executed for consensual sodomy (no more than five in the entire eighteenth century). Sodomites arrested by the police were more usually released with a warning or held in prison for (at most) a few weeks or months. The National Constituent Assembly abolished the law against sodomy when it revised French criminal law in 1791 and got rid of a variety of offenses inspired by religion, including blasphemy; since there was no public debate, we do not know its motives (a similar state of affairs occurred during the early years of the Russian Revolution).[2]

>Cambacérès was a homosexual, his sexual orientation was well-known, and he does not seem to have made any effort to conceal it. He remained unmarried, and kept to the company of other bachelors. Napoleon is recorded as making a number of jokes on the subject.[3] Robert Badinter once mentioned in a speech to the French National Assembly, during debates on reforming the homosexual age of consent, that Cambacérès was known in the gardens of the Palais-Royal as "tante Urlurette".[4]

>In fact, however, Cambacérès was not responsible for ending the legal prosecution of homosexuals. He did play a key role in drafting the Code Napoléon, but this was a civil law code. He had nothing to do with the Penal Code of 1810, which covered sexual crimes.

>The authors of the Penal Code of 1810 had the option of reintroducing a law against male homosexuality (as was eventually done in the Soviet Union), but there is no evidence that they even considered doing so. This had nothing to do with the influence of Cambacérès, as recent research has shown. However, Napoleonic officials could and did repress public expressions of homosexuality using other laws, such as "offenses against public decency." Nevertheless, despite police surveillance and harassment, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic era was a time of relative freedom for homosexuals and opened the modern era of legal toleration for homosexuality in Europe. Napoleonic conquests imposed the principles of Napoleon's Penal Code (including the decriminalization of homosexuality) on many other parts of Europe, including Belgium, the Netherlands,the Rhineland, and Italy. Other states freely followed the French example (for example, Bavaria in 1813 or Spain in 1822).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Jacques_R%C3%A9gis_de_Cambac%C3%A9r%C3%A8s

Posting gratuitous lesbian erotica with an 18th century look.

>>7740

Well, it's not like there were many gay novels at all aroung that time period, do you know many other gay novels from Russia before or after that time? Lenin was in power only about 5 years.

There is no much known about biography and personal of many bolsheviks around that time at all.

Again, there were no known homophoby around them, or any known information that they forbid gays from joining the party. No one of them ever did or said anything against gays, they only decriminalized it. Also German Communist Party was supporting legalization of homosexuality in Weimar Republic. And almost all modern non-tankies Marxists have nothing against gays. Not to count that the Marxist ideology implies liberation of opressed minorities, like females, people of opressed nations and races, etc. By Marxism itself you can't justify homophobia.

You can't just accuse someone of homophobia for simply not caring so much about gays, that's some SJW shit, m8. The same way you can say that Marxists hate pandas or gingers because they never talked about liking them and there is no info of someone of them being ginger.

You'd better ask some actual Leninists or hardcore Marxists on /leftipol/ though.

>>7742

I did a long post on this on /leftypol/. As best as I can tell, there is no real evidence that any European culture prior to Christianity was anti-gay. Just keep in mind that chroniclers who discussed sexual mores were usually repulsed by general promiscuity.

>Germanics in bogs

Most of this is based on a line from Tacitus's Germania

> ignavos et imbelles at corpore infames.

which could mean a bunch of things, including cowardice. I ran this through Google translation just now and this what comes up

>the coward, the unwarlike, but with his body of ill-repute .

If that is all they have to go on, their argument is pretty much dead in the water.

There was at least one Germanic tribe explicitly noted for homosexual relationships, the Heruli.

>They also practiced a warrior-based male homosexuality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heruli

Greek chronicler Diodorus Siculus talked about homosexuality among the Celts.

>"'Despite the fact that their wives are very beautifal, the Celts have very little to do with them, but instead abandon themselves to a strange passion for other men. They usually sleep on the ground on skins of wild animals and tumble about with a bedfellow on either side. And what is strangest of all is that, without any thought for a natural sense of modesty, they carelessly surrender their virginity to other man. Far from finding anything shameful in all this, they feel insulted if anyone refuses the favours they offer.'

If the chroniclers were correct and not totally exaggerating things, the most sexual people in European history were the Etruscans. There is no doubt a lot of hyperbole in this excerpt, and the idea of a people who didn't know who their fathers were would have disgusted the Greeks and Romans.

>Sharing wives is an established Etruscan custom. Etruscan women take particular care of their bodies and exercise often, sometimes along with the men, and sometimes by themselves. It is not a disgrace for them to be seen naked. They do not share their couches with their husbands but with the other men who happen to be present, and they propose toasts to anyone they choose. They are expert drinkers and very attractive.

>The Etruscans raise all the children that are born, without knowing who their fathers are. The children live the way their parents live, often attending drinking parties and having sexual relations with all the women. It is no disgrace for them to do anything in the open, or to be seen having it done to them, for they consider it a native custom. So far from thinking it disgraceful, they say when someone ask to see the master of the house, and he is making love, that he is doing so-and-so, calling the indecent action by its name.

>When they are having sexual relations either with courtesans or within their family, they do as follows: after they have stopped drinking and are about to go to bed, while the lamps are still lit, servants bring in courtesans, or boys, or sometimes even their wives. And when they have enjoyed these they bring in boys, and make love to them. They sometimes make love and have intercourse while people are watching them, but most of the time they put screens woven of sticks around the beds, and throw cloths on top of them.

>They are keen on making love to women, but they particularly enjoy boys and youths. The youths in Etruria are very good-looking, because they live in luxury and keep their bodies smooth. In fact all the barbarians in the West use pitch to pull out and shave off the hair on their bodies.

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/theopompus/index.html

>>7743

>Well, it's not like there were many gay novels at all aroung that time period, do you know many other gay novels from Russia before or after that time?

Not in Russia, but in other Western nations, absolutely. Andre Gide, Thomas Mann, and the list goes on.

I have kindly run through this as carefully as I could, but I want you to realize how absurd the Marxist position is, as I understand it.

The entire history of communism has been, for the most part, a massive step backwards for acceptance of homosexuality. The closest thing to a counter-argument is postwar East Germany vs postwar West Germany, and the difference there is not great; and the Soviet Union under Lenin, when there was still some of the early idealism that went with Marxism, and even then, neither you nor anybody else can point me even to anything positive from any Bolshevik regarding homosexuality.

You are following a common narrative of wanting to blame everything on Stalin, but this tendency was absolutely echoed in every single communist nation of the 20th century. You are also emphasizing the importance of legal status in totalitarian states where what the actual laws are don't necessarily matter, especially as it could simply be classified as a mental illness:

>During the cultural revolution (1966 - 76), homosexuals faced their worst period of persecution in Chinese history. The government considered homosexuality to be a social disgrace or a form of mental illness.

>The police regularly rounded up gays and lesbians. Since there was no law against homosexuality, gays and lesbians were charged with hooliganism or disturbing public order. Since that time homosexuality has remained in closet.

http://traditions.cultural-china.com/en/214Traditions11933.html

This oppression took place in spite of the fact that homosexuals in the Western world were far more likely to be left of center, and through much of the 20th century many were outright socialists or communists.

>Not to count that the Marxist ideology implies liberation of opressed minorities, like females, people of opressed nations and races, etc.

This is meaningless rhetoric on multiple levels, regarding who was oppressed as if women are or were as well as the crushing of the aspirations of ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union.

>>7755

Well, all the other so called communist nations were following Stalin model in one way or another. After all they all were fucked up not only for gays, but for many other groups of people too.

And after all as they not said anything positive, they also said nothing negative, so we can only guess what would have been if the actuall Bolsheviks would've stayed in power.

You may think Marxist position is absurd, I may also not fully agree with it, but you can't just acuse them without knowing what their original position actually was and how all these socialist states came to life and developed.

After all the whole gay liberation movement came to life around leftist ideas and close to the whole New Left movement which was evolving mostly around Marxism. No wonder many gays were either socialist or communist.

You fucking faggots… i swear sometimes the only place i hate more its my own house… (just like IRL)

Dont get me wrong, i like you and all but sometimes it seems you guys are prone to quick conclutions/presumtions.

the very first *chan i ever encountered was tranchan, then KOchan then 4, then 420, 7, 789, overchan and then the rest…

I can assure you that traps are loved almost everywhere, i would go as far as saying 80%.

do any of you remember the hidden boards in halfchan before /s4s/ existed? they where filled with /pol/acks going full meta on why and how they like traps but hate themselves for it, others fully embrace it but keep it secret and the other third is in denial, and a small part its just "Normal" as they proudly say.

But they did discuss us a lot, yet not many people new of those 2 secret boards.

when the shit when out in the exodus and /pol/ divide it itself in leftly and regular pol i also wanted to gather some info.

lefty pol is kinda apathetic on the subject but over all is fine with all, crossdressers, traps and actual transgenders/transexuals.

their claim is that this is an individual journey of self discovery and expression, taking the subject to a social level is "Spock" as they say, meaning its all just a distraction to people to fight each other while the big guys get rich or more powerful in the shadows.

as i said they seem non interested, but thats really okey for me, i really like them.

Now on /pol/, those guys sure are heavy opinionated, buts thats also because they saw themselves has havinf this 'image' to take care off, despite all their red pills they claim to take, polacks are the most prone to do what they hate, mob mentality and the view of "im right your wrong"…

but leave it like that would be like saying *chans boards are hackers on steroids, mexicans still use big hats while chill out near a cactus, just like halfchan and their secret boards, 8chan polacs (love to) brows cuteboys and trap a lot, only just a few bunch of them post, but remember that 1-10% Internet law, the lurkers are more, far more numerous.

This recent trend you have seen anon >>7357 (like i said on another thread) its mostly from the hype at Trumps election, Ashly Madison and the TPP… they are in Hype more now, and will last a few more months, since the exodus they have been feeling silenced and now are proudly shouting, hoping they are calm and reasonable polacks is lie expecting a 6-8 year old to behave and been patient in his birthday or Xmas when opening presents.

I hope you return, and dont let them shu you way from your new home… it may be weir but i like the whole 8chans boards not just the one i used to visit at half chan, hope you recover your straight and came again.

>>7351

Me…

I know all of this is degenerate… but I just can't help myself.

>>8211

Have you ever been in a /pol/ census thread? Probably not, because mods shut them down real quick out of embarrassment. Their core user is the same 16-24yr old, NEET and/or lives with parents, that makes up 80% of 8chan.

/pol/ is best at spamming Twitter. Occasionally an outsider will drop information or attention whore, but that's it. You have no balls when you're not on your computer. Might as well all be cripples.

>>8213

> /pol/ census thread

Their strawpolls are interesting too.

>>7351

I like Euro-anons /pol/ thought that Americanism needs to die. Since it's the breeder of this abortion of "liberalism" that isn't even really free because it's got a very heavily insane thought police aka the SJWs.

But in a way some /pol/acks (most of the time Americlaps) thought police as well in that they mind what happeins in other's bedrooms like another anon here said. I honestly don't care if one is straight, homo or bi those are thoughts and thoughts are not physical and they shouldn't be controlled, ever.

I also support the core ideas of #GamerGate and everything about #NotYourShield. Consumers need to learn to ignore & boycott everything related to SJWs so they finally fug off and become irrelevant… They take the internet too seriously and are angry all the time. I'm tired of their stupid lowcow attitude even more so when they own various media and got so much support from richfucks (not necessarily Jewish). I honestly belive the worst enemy of the "white race" is basically the "white race" as well, corrupted ones who lost their way that is.

Ah anyway I'm glad that in around 20 years the power shift will go to China or some other country so this is going to happen in our lives. Sorry USA but you finished off terribly and I must admit I hate you deeply for it, fuck your politics left & right you cucked/warmogering/good goy piece of shit country.

Its all the religious people that started hate for trans on /pol/ . them and all the shills. That board has more people shilling on it then all of 8 chan put together.

>>8477

>>8485

For the purposes of this discussion, you could define 3 separate groups on /pol/.

-NatSoc

-Libertarians

-Christians

All three share some common views, mostly on topics like race, political correctness, and Israeli/Zionist control of American foreign policy.

NatSoc are more authoritarian in their approach, and tend to have the strongest views on race. Libertarians tend to be more race realist types, and are very concerned about individual freedom. Christians care about race, but are more obsessed with "degeneracy," which mostly means stuff like gays, transgenders, and slutwalks, and there are enough SJW idiots to give them a lot to talk about. Everyone hates SJWs, but libertarians and the more thoughtful NatSoc guys generally don't care much about what people do sexually.

Unfortunately, a lot of the worst shitposters are usually NatSoc and Christians, and they have drowned out a lot of the libertarian discussion on /pol/. That dynamic is not going to last forever.

>>8522

NatSocs weren't christfag prudes, you fucking kike. You should do some research before stereotyping others. If you're not a kike and just a brainwashed shithead, you can start by reading this whole thread. Particularly the article by Göbbels. Then fuck off and educate yourself before making yourself look retarded again.

>>8547

>Most of the world was against the nazis

Is that why so many countries, cultures, and ethnic groups joined the SS? And most of the world outside the kike-controlled West admires the NatSocs and disbelieves the holohoax? It has been admitted that the atrocities by Germany were fabricated for propaganda to mobilise countries to war against her, which is standard operating procedure in every war. This "most of the world" shit was primarily Russia, UK, USA, and France. They only cared about money and land, subjugating the economic powerhouse of Germany, and helping the kikes topple Germany's state-owned bank. Kikes owned the Allies banks, wrote some of their laws, and advised and manipulated. Here's a fun question for you: how many countries run their own bank? Here's a hint: Syria is one, they are NatSoc in principle, and about to be taken out.

Fag hatred is a sandnigger thing, only existing popularly in Europeans because of that kike slave's religion christianity. Personally, LGBT culture can DIAF, i don't like most of them, but whites are not niggers who go around roughing up people who they don't know have nothing wrong. And I'll say kike if I want. If you want to be politically correct, then don't use Nazi–that is a slur, you dirty racist! :^)

>>8545

Why is it so natural for kikes and shitskins to lie? Why are you all so fucking pathetic and dishonourable?

>>8549

The thread is about /pol/ and NatSocs, ya dip. I like how you posted something completely non-applicable instead of attacking facts. Typical jew tactic. Care to refute anything I said? Or can you not find it in a TYT video or HuffPost?

>>8539

>NatSocs weren't christfag prudes

This is actually pretty true if you are talking about heterosexuality. Earlier I posted a nude >>8494 from a book published during the Third Reich. Naturism/nudism was popular in Germany, and the Germans were not shy about sex either.

It was a step down in almost all respects from what was seen in Weimar Germany, however.

When it comes to gays and transgenders, the Third Reich doesn't come off as well.

The notion of special persecution of gays by the National Socialists does not seem to hold much water if you take into account that homosexuality was illegal in just about every Western country, and it was typically thrown on top of arrests for gay prostitution. Jack Wikoff does a good article on it here http://www.cwporter.com/homo.htm Some people might dismiss Wikoff because he is a revisionist, but he is using sources like Lautmann, who are not.

I doubt the top brass cared much about homosexuals if they counted Roehm as one of their own, but the situation with him certainly didn't help gays in that country.

The National Socialists were indifferent to lesbianism. There were no laws against it.

There is no indication any of them were okay with transgenders. Magnus Hirschfield's library was burned, and from Wikoff's article it sounds like transgenders were singled out.

>Repeat offenders, transvestites and male prostitutes were most likely to be sent concentration camps after serving their prison sentences. In fact, Lautmann’s study estimated that 86% of men sent to concentration camps for homosexuality had previously been convicted for sexual crimes of a homosexual nature.

>>8555

I have read an article penned by Himmler about teh gay (btw I can't fucking stand him and think he's a narcissistic idiot who didn't belong in High Command, although I do appreciate his work into ancient history…am I wrong to dislike him? pls tell me if I am). Basically it talks about things that he and others have noticed among homosexual men, and I don't consider it slander or atavistic hatred. Because no white person carries a hatred for appearance, alone; there's always a reason. Unreasoned hatred cum violence is not in our genes. Like, those pictures of niggers hung in the USA South that we're constantly shown; they were hung because they were rapists, murderers, etc and that's how good ol' justice was dished out back then–to anyone of any stock. There was no intensely-, massively bureaucratic criminal justice system or even the law enforcement corporations (by law, they are essentially justified as such) that we have today.

Getting off-topic, soz. But Himmler's sentiment, which I assume is similar to most of the NSDAP men's sentiment, is something I can definitely agree with. They are very insulated and tribalistic, not unlike the jews. They sniff eachother out and give eachother preferential treatment. Insulated synergism, if you will. Such that, as Himmler noted, if a gay man received a position in an office, it would be filled with a disproportionate amount of gays a they all piggyback off of eachother.

Now, I do understand that homophobic sentiment has been very common because of, IMO, kike christianity. And that the afforementioned tribalistic preferential treatment could be because of their ostracism from society at large, thus pushing them to form their own culture unchecked by society at large. However, for some reason gay men, at least in modern society, are horrifically promiscuous; to the extent that it is a legitimate public health problem. But we have contributing issues to that, and USA once had extremely strict policies on disease and immigration and travel that led to an extremely low disease rate. But at the same time, perhaps the lack of stability in their relationships is due to the fact that they have no social conscriptions (in kike-ified society, anyhow; I dunno about ancient) and cannot start families. Maybe this is an intentional social engineered rift? Also, the pedophilia connection. I have heard that their culture is essentially one that glorifies underdeveloped males. But pedophilia on the whole is another can of worms; and like pederasty (old-school or shallow man-boy relations), straight "pedophilia" used to be normal and men in their late teens and early 20s would take younger girls for long-lasting relationships with an aim to family. I don't know. I think that troglodyte neanderkike shit present in christianity is meant to divide and distort our sensibilities as a Europoid species. We are not a hateful or vindictive species. Look at how the rest of the world treats women, gays, their fellow countryman, let alone other countries' men.

I have not read anything about transsexualism in NatSoc Germany, though. I know that it is a very new(ly recognised) concept principally because medical science has heretofore been unable to actually "treat" it. And it is extremely rare, affecting about 0.2% of the population if you don't accept or listen to transtrender faggots with made-up genders or definitions. Also I think a lot of them want to gain their own acceptance by pushing the acceptance of all types of trans-anything; so I suppose I should be called a "classic" transsexual because I fully follow our cultural norms and reject futanari, non-binary etc as legitimate medical issues worthy of sanctioned treament. IIRC the first sex change was in 1917 in, I want to say, Germany. I can't think of Germans as NOT being extremely curious about the condition, given how scientific, inquisitive, and precise they are. I'm sure there is something in the literature out there, but it does sound extremely strange to for a male to say they should be a female so I can understand that it generally goes unrecognised. But from purely a biologist's or neurologist's perspective, it doesn't sound far-fetched a bit. I should mention that transvestism is absolutely different from transsexuallism, so I wouldn't count the treatment of cross-dressers in the mix. I have A LOT to say about the trans community and its "academics" and bylines. And I cannot see NSDAP locking up or deporting someone for being a fag, they would have to do something that harms the public in a tangible way.

(contd, body too long error)

>>8565

Never been there, barely heard of it. Filtered. Bye, worthless faggot.

>>8570

>Goebbels said nothing about tolerating homosexuality or transsexualism

True; in that article. If you poke through the large body of NatSoc leaders' writings, you find very little about LGBT; and no universal damnation or abject hatred. Simply, "from what I've seen, they're self-centered and weird sluts; I don't care for it." No, "ima kill these qeers" or any of that. Keep in mind that USA hardly qualifies as a pure white society outside of the rural lands like Montana and Utah, due to signifcant admixture and statistical mucking by shitskin populations–if you're coming from an Americentric perspective. USA significantly is less white than any European country. I think the avg Euro country is like 98% white, not counting the recent years of mud invasion.

This doesn't mean I'd be hung, imprisoned, or beat up for pursuing a gender change within the third Reich.

And shitskin, kike, etc are not buzzwords. They've been around a while, and will continue to be. Redpill is newish, but I don't use that one because of its yet ambiguous implication (depends on the level of narrative, if I vote for Kike Sanders because he's an owtsidaz or hope for Hitler because the rea redpill–see?). I bet you consider white transniggerhelicopters redpilled to make them feel like they're doing the right thing by embracing their reptile brain roots and inducing psychosis in the frontal lobes. So please read your own etymological playbook, Chaim.

And provide a valid argument for fucking once, de0fd3. I understand if you don't have deep thoughts, though. A sloped forehead has no room for advanced abstraction neural structures, unlike us vertical forehead Europoids. Neanderkike.

>>8559

Man, this thread took off!

>Himmler

It depends. He was not corrupt, which was rare among the top brass in the Third Reich. He definitely played power games, and there is nothing to indicate that he was particularly adept as a military leader despite his position. Real military men like Guderian, Rommel and Manstein were all brilliant, and should have had much more of a say. He was one of the crueler men in the government, as was his underling Heydrich.

He definitely was not as bad as men like Goering, Ley, or Ribbentrop, who were all pretty detrimental in different ways.

I'm politically not that close to the National Socialists, but I hate the lies told about them. From my readings, the best among them would include Rudolf Hess (a decent and agreeable man who was against war and well liked by whoever met him, including foreign leaders), Alfred Rosenberg (another decent man who hated the anti-Slavic sentiment of other National Socialists) and Albert Speer (a non-politician who was very competent). If Hitler had known of his Parkinsons earlier and stepped down, giving the reins to Hess, and Hess got rid of a few men including the ones I mentioned earlier, there would have been no war.

>But Himmler's sentiment, which I assume is similar to most of the NSDAP men's sentiment, is something I can definitely agree with. They are very insulated and tribalistic

I found the speech here: https://katana17.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/heinrich-himmler-on-homosexuality/

I don't know what it was like in Germany at the time, but I don't believe this is a major issue here. There are all types of favoritism that go on in institutions, but they are really only a major problem in any organization that is not under pressure to perform. Govt bureaucrats are not under the pressure that most people in the private sector are. Himmler is implicitly saying that the SS/military/govt is not good in rooting out poor work in general.

>>8591

I see. I've always been suspicious of Himmler because of his unfamiliar calls to mass and directed breeding. I understand that the state of Germany was terrible and low-birthrate just like modern West. Many plausible reasons, including kikes getting off on all dignified peoples engaging in bestial sexual acts and their obsession with feces. And Himmler's other social mandates that seemed too direct-calls-to-action rather than being accompanied by attendant economic and legal concerns. Although German quickly went from beyond last place to beyond first place. I don't understand the context in which Himmler's directives were issued, because northern Euros are not r-strategist trash; but he seems to ask for that. There's much more concern to be given.

Excepting the mass-rape product of Germans raped by Russian shitfaces post-WW2, I don't consider Eastern Europeans to be "white," either. Their behavioural statistics just don't add up. They might be able to math, but that doesn't make them human. NE Asians are fucking sociopathic ant colonies. Even niggers are talking apes; doesn't mean they can math or have empathy. Gorillas have higher IQs than pure niggers, but they lack the vocal configuration to communicate beyond sign language or pointing out pictographic symbols. Talking does not confer humanity; nor the ability to retain rights that can only be met by responsibilties; something that niggers have obviously always lacked in any ordered society.

>>8594

I didn't speak too well, I meant that men are necessary in proper childrearing. By configuration, men have more advanced brains and more empathetic/fair treatment. Bad mothers are fucking evil, way more so than fathers could ever be. So even having SS men breed with German single mothers for a tax beak could end fucking horribly.

I bring up third-world cultures' take on transsexualism because these concepts about tranny-dom like hijra, third-sex, etc are fairly new or made-up. Just because hijra or khatoey are non-Western terms, doesn't mean they're ancient and legitimate concepts. They are from post-1950s Western academia. These shitskins are not more tolerant of sexual weirdos than whites. And Iran is a special case; they are very much "Aryan" or Europoid in tradition. As much as Spain is despite being raped the fuck out by the Moor sandnigger invasions and occupations. So it makes sense that they allow a more complex understanding and treatment of transsexualism. Plus Iran is Shia, not Sunni. They are not hardcore caveniggers who reject non-Koran ideas wholesale and demand stoning for the slightest non-nigger deviation.

And there are very good reasons to restrict official recognition of sex change until you've gone all the way. There are a lot of "lesbian" crossdressers who take their autogynephilic fetish too far. Whether or not they have a legitimate body recognition problem, they just can't be allowed into natal female spaces because they're on hormones. Cross-sex hormone treatment is given out like fucking candy these days. And even teenage males who don't have any medical treatment are insisted upon being given female privileges and access despite the fact they act exactly like fucking teenage boys. So what is the difference between a boy who acts like a horny penis-wielder who wants to stick it in all females and acts no different than a similar-aged male except he wears a fucking wig and a skirt? And psychologists don't enough restrict these faggots or validate that they're gender dysconformant. Or whatever you accept as the proper terminology.

There's a lot of trannies who don't make it all the way, or insist that they receive the benefits of both genders forever. Fuck them. I don't want to share a locker room with a 50yr dude who decided he should get all the same access rights a woman and swing his penis in front of us. Or an anime faggot who thinks futanari is real and legitimate. Gender is binary for a fucking reason. Less than a half percent don't qualify for it; and IMO they need to choose one. If you're kinda feminine in some things and you have a dick, the be a faggot man and admit it instead of taking a half HRT feminising dose and wrecking your bones and identity.

>>8687

No, because /pol/ absolutely refuses to recognise transsexualism (or any deviation from rigid behavioural roles) as legitimate and are legitimately bigoted against it. But some of us share the same economic and legal beliefs (namely trade, currency, and racial/cultural), despite being marked for their autistic RaHoWa. Essentially we can't talk with /pol/ about our place in their version of society, but we can talk about /pol/-like ideals here.

I don't blame them for hating the overwhelmingly Marxist, anti-white, anti-family, anti-tradition, anti-nationalist, selfish and ignorant LGBT pieces of shit. But it's not a cut-and-dry subject. They justify their anti-LGBT beliefs with cherry-picked history and passed-down christian (sandnigger) proscriptions, which drive LGBT to withdraw from participation in society and create their own subculture. Like, it doesn't matter if 3% of the population isn't popping out a dozen babies; it does matter that our economics are constraining or dissuading whites from having larger families while shitskins reproduce like insects in our own lands, but they'll blame faggots for all whites not outbreeding shitskins instead of recognising gays and trans people have always been around and population stats are never a gay problem but a foreign influence and political and economic one constraining birthrates.

tl;dr people need an easily-tackled scapegoat. But once that small simple thing is eliminated, nothing changes because the real issue(s) isn't fixed.

Pic not related, just a cool dinosaur

>>8724

Right, because if someone doesn't accept me, I should push for the acceptance and elevation of every demographic besides the most majority of my successful white country. Do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds to say, "don't hate me because I'm gay, because i think niggers are just as capable as whites"?

And I'm accepted just fine, ya dip. I don't cause problems or disruption, or commit crime. I also don't spread the fact I was born male, because it's unnecessary and no one cares. You think I should peach to others about something so insanely rare and inconsequential to 99% of people globally

>>8725

Except the jews are a well-documented problem with severe consequences. See international finance, news media, and academic meddling. Their influence is exorbitantly disproportionate to their population size, and encourages population reduction and dysgenics of their host population. Don't compare fags to jews, kike. Jews and fags do have a symbiotic problem; but without the jew, fags are much less a problem. Jews drive fags towards their creation of cultural and public health nuisance; not only directly but I also assume because of their exclusion from living safely within troglodyte (jewrabian) culture, which christianity proscribes.

Again it's not a simple discussion, but I don't expect a reasonless and non-contributing fool like you to aid this discussion. Call me a bigot all you want, Chaim; I'm immune to that shit anymore.

>>8661

>I'm not always sure where to draw the line but some populations are more industrious, intelligent, creative, etc.

If you were go back prior to the 15th century, then Germans and the purer Nordics in general would be completely overshadowed by the accomplishments of Mediterraneans. In fact, at that moment in time, the most accomplished group on the planet would not be any European group, but the Chinese.

>Pomeranz and others argue that the period of most rapid divergence was during the 19th century. Citing nutrition data and chronic Western trade deficits as evidence, these scholars claim that before that date the East, especially China, was wealthier and more advanced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence

I could type much more on this, but the general point is that there is an element of luck/circumstances to any group gaining hegemony when there are a number of them whose abilities are roughly equal. Western Europe completely outpaced Eastern Europe and Russia for centuries, then towards the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century the Slavic east began to catch up, then the Bolshevik Revolution and Iron Curtain happened.

>But no, I don't think pre-op transitioners should be allowed nude in female protected nude spaces.

This honestly is something I have no opinion on, I'm guessing different spaces can figure it out on their own. In 2015, I frankly have very little patience with women complaining about everything because they somehow feel under threat, so my sympathy for this is basically zero. Maybe that's not fair, but it is a common sentiment on image boards. :-)

>Concerning Hindu etc traditions like hijra, they have no basis in Western culture. Why should we accept them?

Our culture was largely destroyed over a thousand years ago, and replaced with a foreign belief system that introduced an obsessive hatred of homosexuality, whereas early Europeans were, in general, quite tolerant and sexually open. They generally looked down on rampant promiscuity, bestiality, indiscriminate orgies, and some other practices, but homosexuality and lesbianism was mostly accepted.

So what was and wasn't our culture historically is for the most part unknown to us. Even Greek and Roman culture is a little hidden. We don't know much of the content of the Elusinian Mysteries, though they were a huge part of Greek culture and identity. And when it comes to groups like the Druids or the early Germanic tribes? We know virtually nothing of real importance. Scraps of mostly second hand accounts here and there, some archaeological finds. The traditions themselves are dead and wiped out.

I don't know much about the history of the hijra, but mention of them goes back at least to the Kama Sutra. Third gender groups in India might go back to the time of the Aryan invasion of India. It may have been indigenous or brought in by them, or a merger of both traditions.

>>8729

Yeah but Germoney has ended up superior more than once in more than one thing. I'm aware of chance. Primates were tiny little things (less than your hand size) in the first age of dinosaurs, but then the PK event fucked dinosaurs. Shit happens.

If you wanna look at acceleration, Western culture achieved way more way faster than any civilisation. You could cite some bullshit like "cargo" c/o Jared Diamond, in which Europeans arrived in a glacial climate full of endless meat and naturally-tilled fields overflowing with free food and North Face jackets; but we all know that's bullshit and no academic respects Diamond's anti-white bullshit.

I don't understand what your implication for Eastern Europe is. Petr II instituted a great push to Western values and industry. So much as outlawing beards. And then the Bolshevik thing happened, in which international capital set up shop; and as is customary, they received a huge cash injection in hopes out taking out Western Europe. Specifically Germany, who was throwing out exploitative banking. Like Syria and Iran today. Coincidence?

Do you have a URL on the state of modern Western women? Or women as parents in general? It seems that males are at worst obstinate assholes, but females are capable of pure evil and ransacking of their child's psyche since birth.

I'm not sure how to comment on the last part of your post. Rampant promiscuity is a public health problem; especially with foreigners. Western countries used to have very strict health and immigration standards; such that, you couldn't get married unless you were clear of STIs.

I could reference Hermaphrodite sculptures to the third sex, but I don't think our modern understanding of transsexualism is reflective of that. My understanding is that it's very much a scientific/medical/biological/neurological issue rather than psychological. Nay social.

But I sincerely doubt that my ancestors hunted down homos and killed for buttsechs. That just sounds flat out retarded.

>>8730

>Yeah but Germoney has ended up superior more than once in more than one thing.

The Germans have really only had one major period where they reached parity in achievement with any other group in Europe, and that was from the Renaissance onward. Arguably, from only the late 18th century onward, due to the destruction of the 30 Years War. Germans particularly excelled in philosophy, music, and chemistry.

>If you wanna look at acceleration, Western culture achieved way more way faster than any civilisation.

That is because the curve of technological achievement picks up. Europe moved out in front at the right time. China far surpassed everyone else during the Tang dynasty, while Europe was in the Dark Ages, largely due to Christianity. The Islamic nations began to move to the forefront alongside China during the Middle Ages, and among other things began to develop scientific method.

And then in the late medieval period, Europe began to find its own voice again. To stick with just one area, Europeans developed the modern scientific method in steps which finally led up to Francis Bacon's Novum Organum in the 17th century. When Christianity began to recede in the background of life by the 18th century, Europe experienced a rush of innovation never seen before in history. Meanwhile, the Islamic world had retreated into their own backward religion, and the Chinese were under the rule of the unpopular & corrupt Manchu Qing dynasty, with the rate of Chinese innovation slowing down considerably.

>Do you have a URL on the state of modern Western women? Or women as parents in general? It seems that males are at worst obstinate assholes, but females are capable of pure evil and ransacking of their child's psyche since birth.

If you get a chance, look up "narcissistic mothers." If this interests you or anyone else personally, there are some good Youtube channels I could share. There is a whole new understanding that is arising of emotional abuse, and women overall are the worst culprits. Emotional abuse can be much more insidious and damaging than physical and even sexual abuse, as it is much harder to pin down that what was done to you was wrong.

>I'm not sure how to comment on the last part of your post.

Honestly, I think you may have misread it, so not sure what I should respond to. :-)

>I could reference Hermaphrodite sculptures to the third sex, but I don't think our modern understanding of transsexualism is reflective of that. My understanding is that it's very much a scientific/medical/biological/neurological issue rather than psychological. Nay social.

Transgenderism in the modern world has multiple currents that are growing as it becomes more accepted, so I don't want to lock it into a box. Hopefully, SJWs don't ruin it for everyone. There are a bunch of threads on this topic on this board.

>>8739

>>8759

>Emotional abuse […] is much harder to pin down that what was done to you was wrong.

If I were in a position to diagnose, I'd say my mother was NPD; and that is exactly what happened. I never pinned it down until I was maybe 28, but I was always horribly uncomfortable around her. It's just that what she did was easily dismissed as me being too sensitive, taking things the wrong way, being a brat, etc. Always blame your fucking kids as being a problem instead of talking to them like a human being. And also I have talked to her before about her behaviour, being very blunt, and she never once apologised or relented that *maybe* she could've gone about things differently; let alone did something wrong.

So in addition to all that, growing up effectively without a dad but who was an asshole, they both abused my friends; so I didn't get to properly socially develop, and pushed people away so they wouldn't get picked on by my parents. I'd rather they just let me fuck off and live without any parental control or supervision, instead of trying to control every little thing about me. I don't think they cared about me, except for what I can do for them. And the shitty thing is that most people would think that I just wouldn't listen to them under the assumption that they were only trying to help mould me into a better person, and therefore I am the problem for not being good enough to my parents.

Off-topic but eh it came up. So has this always been a widespread problem with females or just dependent on the era? Like only in hard economic times? I was in another board and an anon said that Japanese women are terrible. They look for man to latch onto to provide, he's expected to always work, there is no love involved (then again, East Asians have no empathy), he might get a day off but she'll plan on shopping or something, and eventually take his children to live with her mom. So it's very common, for whatever reason, for children to hardly know their father. It sounds fucked up, the women sound incredibly cold and cruel.

Pic semi-related (huehue)

>>8760

>If I were in a position to diagnose, I'd say my mother was NPD

It sounds like it. There is also the possibility of her being a psychopath/ASPD. Here is a good video breaking down the differences:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kfiVFQY-Hw

>So has this always been a widespread problem with females or just dependent on the era?

It's hard to say, but one thing that is really important to point out is that throughout almost all of human history, people grew up in extended families, by which I mean there were a large number of relatives living nearby or as part of the tribe. Children were much safer then from bad parents. Women also had less control of parenting relative to their husbands. Men can of course be terrible parents as well, but paternal abuse is usually more visible (outward physical abuse, blatant physical bullying, sexual abuse).

There are some signs that narcissism has skyrocketed in our society in the past few decades, but it's a little hard to say, as the label is imperfect and can be used to describe different things.

>I was in another board and an anon said that Japanese women are terrible.

Yes, modern "female empowerment" took a strangely different form in Japan. The women seem outwardly super sweet and feminine, but the utter disregard for the husband is shocking. Men are expected to work ridiculous hours, which is bad but worth it to most men if they have a loving family to come home to who appreciate what they do, but instead their wives treat them coldly, and her parents push themselves into the parenting sphere and push the father out. There are a lot of accounts of this if you dig around, but it is rarely mentioned in articles on herbivores, the men in Japan who have given up on women. It is really the main reason behind it. Who the fuck would want to work 60 hours a week to live out that kind of nightmare?

>East Asians have no empathy

We should probably agree to disagree. White American women have a lack of empathy today that is shocking. Only a few decades ago, Japanese women were model wives.

>Off-topic but eh it came up.

This topic is important and worth discussing. I suspect a disproportionate number of people on image boards and also a lot of guys into traps had bad parents, and especially bad mothers. That's not to put down anyone, but we are an outsider group.

>>8762

I've always thought of antisocial PD (what I assume you mean by ASPD) as the scummy kids. Like the movie The Good Son. Animal abuse, contempt for authority, burning and destroying shit, thieving, pathological lying, just a straight up shithead. It's my understanding that psychopaths are very adept at acting and are undetectable. Now, I understand that my parents showing a good face to people outside the family and having a good public image meets some criteria of psychopathy, but I don't belive they qualify for a proper dx. I'd only call my mom maliciously narcissistic cunt; my dad was an autistic hardass who couldn't properly express or explain himself, and his frustration by a lack of social finesse boiled in himself. I've only recently begun to think about the whole dynamic, of how he must've felt being with my cunt mom, and him being so dedicated a provider/worker who had everything ripped away from him. Because she did turn us against him, and for a long I confused his explosive style as bad but her calmer presentation as making her better. But besides that, I won't forget that my dad was ridiculously malevolent, and would make fun of me and tease me and gang up on me with my sister. Just that my mom was more insidious. I've thought about visiting my dad again as a sort of means for closure or getting his side, but then I remember he was a dickhead to me, too. I dunno, I always thought that how they treated eachother and my sister and I was just wrong, and I didn't want to be that person. My sister bought into it, though, and was a cunt to me, manipulative to my mom back, and her boyfriends and husband and her kids. Fuck that. Just fuck my family, I want nothing to do with those terrible people. So, I'm just socially dysfunctional and retarded, but not malicious. I completely understand and admit that I have shit social upkeep, though, and do regularly run off my friends due to going on radio silence, or throwing a fit over giving attention to them that I don't receive back. Not money or effort expected, just recognition. Like if I'm going through a rough time, they're like "lol that sucks, ttyl", and if things are bad for them then I will listen and explore their emotions and concerns. And they pretend I never fucking said anything. I dunno, I guess I could say I prefer fewer, more invested friends; but I don't understand shallow relationships. Like, are we only in contact to trade jokes? To fuck? Is that it?

>There are some signs that narcissism has skyrocketed in our society in the past few decades, but it's a little hard to say, as the label is imperfect and can be used to describe different things.

I've heard that as well. The ME ME ME culture. What can you do for me, to make me feel happy or look better or increase my resources. There is an erosion of responsibility to one's fellow man and even community. The erosion of the responsibility to teach and improve eachother, not just give them a job or a small loan or whatever. And some things that I have personally labeled "Facebook behaviour"–that is, if someone is not being super positive and making you really happy, then you can just move on to the next post/person and get your dose of dopamine. I get really upset when people pretend I didn't say something, or I have helped them often, sometimes in ways that place me in the crosshairs, and then they help throw me under the boss. It makes me want to not participate in society at all. I am by no means a bleeding heart liberal, and I accept that part of the problem of me getting screwed is my own. It sucks. I consider myself responsible and selective, but I know I'm fucking up something. Not just because my mom wanted me to feel incompetent in all matters to be her slave. I think there's certain things you have to learn in adolescence that you can't learn in adulthood, both because of circumstance and brain plasticity.

>>8763

>parents

Honestly, they sound closer to narcissism. I gave some videos before, but if you prefer to read rather than follow Youtube, this site is a massive resource: http://outofthefog.net/

>>8764

>Japanese herbivores

They are men in Japan who go without sex, other than retreating into 2d and maybe prostitutes. They are a pretty big percentage of the population now.

>So, I understand what you're saying about terrible mothers and becoming a tranny.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that you became trans because of this. It sounds like you have some other issues, and understanding some of the shit your parents did to you can go a long way in making better sense of the world and healing. That is completely separate from whatever direction you go in with your gender.

I'm into traps myself, so I have zero issue with transgenders.

>>8791

Jesus those pictures are depressing.

Thank you for the kind words. I think I'm done exploring the NPD thing. I participated in some forums for a while, don't recall which beyond Plebbit boards (/raisedbynarcissists/, /ACoN/?). It helped a fuckton in recognising both my mom's patterns and my persistent dysfunctions created by it. Also learning cognitive skills like mindfulness, boundaries, etc. Totally recommend Acceptance and Commitment Theory, it was an immense help. It's a therapeutic framework that is in the process of replacing CBT as the standard.

I've had plenty of "oh fuck what've I done!?" moments during transition. Pretty sure everyone has. It's too easy to rationalise (or pull a Freud on) your self. I could just as easily say that my negged behaviours were excited, childish behaviours; not necessarily masculine by virtue. Guess it ultimately doesn't matter. I could wax all day about qualia and nuance, but I'm happy with the conclusion and result I've made regarding transition.

>>7357

>>7351

I actually understand where OP is coming from, I don't consider myself NatSoc per say. I'm more focused on the general preservation of the West and whites as a race than any one nation.

That being said, I recognize the tremendous damage that has been done to white reproductive rates by the LGBT community and the Jews in general. However, I also acknowledge my own sexual desires, aka, I like girls with dicks.

What I want to see, is a West where trans and gays behave in a non degenerate way. Where they are upstanding members of society that blend in to the fabric and contribute to that nation. I'm attracted to lighter colored hair and eyes (which is what I have) so I don't want to see my race die out. The only way I can see the gays and trans being accepted in a restored West, is if the general population is actual experiencing population growth.

Aka, if the majority of families have three kids, and one ends up being gay or trans, it's SIGNIFICANTLY less damaging than if they have two kids (or even one) and one kid ends up being gay or trans.

One idea I actually like, though it has some definite moral gray areas is compulsory sperm and egg donation for any trans/gay. So that their genetic line can continue, even if they elect not to have children.

I really dislike the antagonistic attitude /pol/ has to pretty much every other community out there. Most have absolutely no sense of diplomacy, and see it as a "us vs. the world" scenario, which it doesn't have to be. There are many natural allies out there, if /pol/ would just stop nitpicking every little fucking thing.

For instance gay men, last I check feminism was NOT in their best interest.

TL;DR If we can rebuild the West, and get whites to start experiencing population growth, I see no reason why sexual freedom can't be an option.

>>9657

>Aka, if the majority of families have three kids, and one ends up being gay or trans, it's SIGNIFICANTLY less damaging than if they have two kids (or even one) and one kid ends up being gay or trans.

Pretty much this. Throughout almost all of human history, it was normal for a certain percentage of people not to have kids. Among women before birth control, it was pretty low, probably less than 3%.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/childless-choice

Among men, it was likely quite higher, and there is good reason for that. Men are born in a ratio of about 1.06 to 1 relative to women, so 106 men for every 100 women. If you were to do a very simple model of a man and woman marrying for life and having kids, then 6% of all men are out in the cold before you factor in anything else. The reality is even worse in terms of childbirth, as a lot of men are cuckolded in the original meaning of the term, where they unknowingly raise another man's child or children. That was easier to have happen in the past, when there were no paternity tests and everyone in a community looked pretty similar to one another.

Let's stick with that number of 6%. That is probably still greater than the total number of gay males, bisexual males, MtF transgenders, and guys who are really into MtF transgenders in the general population.

The numbers of people into all of this, including guys into traps, are really very low, probably 5% of the population or less. People on /pol/ think those numbers are higher because image boards self-select for people who feel like outcasts or outsiders as well as being highly sexual, which seems like a natural profile for guys who are bi or into traps in particular. We probably have 5x or even 10x the ratio of guys who are gay or bi or trans or trans-attracted.

So, it's really a non-issue.

>>9669

>How is it broken?

Whites are in population decline. Our businesses are outsourcing jobs like crazy. We have no control over our borders and our nations are being flooded with violent shitskins that are royally fucking up our gene pool. White guilt in general and a policy of appeasement and self flagellation. Politically correct insanity to the point where anything can be considered offensive and shut down, effectively killing free speech.

The list goes on and on, but I'll stop here to spare myself the inevitable rage.

>I thought it was asians that were having that problem

They are, especially Japan, China just woke the fuck up and finally got rid of their pants on head retarded one child policy. One trend you'll notice is that our natural non Western allies? Especially the upper tier Asian nations (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc, etc) are all undergoing population decline as well. I want to see the Japanese reclaim their culture and start reproducing almost as much as I want to see whites start doing it.

>Sexual freedom has always been an option you fucking faggot. It was Jesus who put a stop to that shit.

Nigga wat, do you even history?

>>9684

>I want to see the Japanese reclaim their culture and start reproducing almost as much as I want to see whites start doing it.

Alas, barring a dramatic change in societal structure, it wont happen. Nobody has the time for children anymore. It appears that the more educated a people are, the less children they have.

Maybe a solution would be to give some sort of reward to the mothers who have more than two children.

>>9694

I value Christianity in so far as that it has been a traditional shield of the West against Islam. I hold no strong attachment to any Christian denominations themselves in spite of having been raised Catholic.

My point is, if you guys want to do away with prudishness, or whatever you dislike about Christianity, you'd better have a replacement ready to go. If not, Islam will sweep in like the cancer it is to fill the void, and none of you want that, trust me.

TL;DR You can dislike Christianity, but if you want it gone, you'd better have a replacement in mind, and no atheism doesn't count.

>>9684

Precisely!

Not sure who >>9689 is talking to, but I agree if it's to >>9657 & >>9684

You are definitely complicit here. I think you're being pretty selfish with being so concerned with the white population/genes but probably won't even pass yours down. Especially since your kids (if you have any) might not even be as racist as you are, especially since you're raising them in America. I think you should just drop the edgy shit and just suck some blonde girldick friendo.

And the "compulsory sperm/egg donation" is a little weird. Especially since you can't stop non-white people taking that shit, unless you can hold on to it and give the sperm/egg to who you want to have it.

I've thought of that idea, but more personally. As in, you marry a trap who has a sister/cousin who loves her dearly enough and can be talked into/paid to be the surrogate mother. So it makes your trap wife more comfortable raising a kid that looks like her, and you pass on your genes as well. I would never do that though, psychotic disorder runs through my family so my genes aren't that great. The kid may be a natural athlete like me though, I'll think about it.

> What I want to see, is a West where trans and gays behave in a non degenerate way

Well, that'll take some time. They aren't even treated like they AREN'T degenerates for starters.

btw, why are whites having population decline? I know it's the Waifus that are killing the Asians lol :>