/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>757452
Proof that vaginolatry/heterosexuality is a mental illness and men affected by it are not well in the head:

>>757489
>vaginolatry
lol

>>757502
What? Are you scared of truthnukey terminology?

>>757489
trvke

>>757489
Charles Schwab over here

>>708023
Coelhinha/Lilith
The head to girth ratio is wild. It's quite disproportionate as well

>>707935
The whole licking your hands to lube your dick up annoys me for some reason.

>>757670
Ceaușescu would be proud

>>754555
the fuck's going on in romania

>>757673
>>754555
>eatin our dogs and importing Chihuahuas to replace them brother!
This ironic, Chihuahuas were literally bred by Aztecs to be eaten themselves.

>>753980
its just a single unfunny faggot stuck on 2015 twitter chungusspeak forcing that shit

>>757681
fake and cringe

the empiricoid believes calling something a "2" or a "5" should end the ongoing social process of investigation and instead, from mere appearance alone, assert truth has been violated. In truth(haha), truth is a religious dogma that does not exist. Truth destroys thinking, robs human agency, and prevents diversification l. Truth asserts itself as unquestionable when truth itself is constructed and constantly altered and under critical review. They halt the process and ask you to plug your ears, as once this "truth" is discovered no investigation of its social context should be worthy of discussion or, shock, to be questioned and experimented with.

The empiricoid cannot answer which 2 in 2+2=5 is false. Is it the left? The right? Is the 5 even the "correct" observation. The plus sign(+) the equals sign? which one is it empiricoid? How are the twos in the 2+2=5 different from the the 2+2=4? Are the twos in the 2+2=4 identical? Can they change into the "false" 2 of the 2+2=5 observed? Yes, this is the very point, the empiricoid stops only at observation and cannot and will not continue further. The point being of social activity to create and construct new hypothesis to describe the phenomenon of the empiricist derived 2 somehow defying the impossible and being able to equal another value(presumed hypothesis). Are the twos of 2+2=4 of different nature than the 2+2=5? how can one tell them apart? And why are we extrapolating 4.5, a presumed average as the new "synthesis". Again the empiricist obscures the social process behind these conclusions, the seemingly random average of the two proposed "conclusions"(2+2=4 and the 2+2=5). Why empiricist why? This is the enemy of the empiricist, and that is truth as a concept being a valid existence. It is merely a social process, giving our best guess of existence, and to be done away with or maybe re-earthed in a future time. it is irrelevant in its importance. Something to be considered, not worshipped. It denies the labor process the human activity and spits on its various constructions, deeming them unworthy despite being a construction itself.

>>757544
>haven’t showered in a week
Personal hygiene like taking baths is extremely bourgeois behavior.

>>757542
Dialectics applies to quality not quantity, mathematics serves that purpose just fine.

thesis: I rape OP and kill him
antithesis: I don't rape OP and I don't kill him
synthesis: I rape OP and don't kill him

>>757630
But what if you don’t rape op but kill him?

>>757418
The URSS had air superiority since the beginning of the war btw
And also this is obviously silly, the american barrels of oil didn't send themselves flying towards the german line to beat them, there was still an actual army using those supplies and holding on/advancing before the help could even reach the frontline

>>757418
It amounted 4-7% of total Soviet production of all materials, which was a lesser extent of the lend lease compared to the share the British Empire received, and they still couldn't beat the Germans anyways until Soviets kept most of the Axis in Eastern Front and win the war of attrition & production. (but surely US lend lease, oil,food and other materials kept the British Empire afloat)

To claim that the Lend Lease were the 'primary' or a prominent reason the Soviets won WWII is silly, as its chances are extremely unlikely. Soviet military production was already extremely high compared to a nation which was partially agrarian and were outproducing the entire Axis powers in materials.

Though, in some cases, lend lease act was surely very impactful and may be given a credit:

35%~ of Red Army trucks + 90% of new locomotives were received from the US.
50%~ of high-octane avitation fuel
50%~ of the Aluminum (important for aircraft construction), 75% of the Copper, 40%~ of the explosives/chemicals were received via lend lease.
15-20% of the calories of nutrition the Red Army consumed were received via lend lease

>>757472
>The URSS had air superiority since the beginning of the war btw

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>757418
None. That stuff rly was one of the reasons why the soviets defeated the nazis. If there was no land-lease the soviets probably would have lost more people and couldn't have defeated germany.

>>757472
>The URSS had air superiority since the beginning of the war btw
It didn't. If it had the soviets wouldn't have let Leningrad fucking starve. There could have been ways to help the city by air supply.

Another reason why the ussr beat the nazis was that hitler was a retard who didn’t listen to his generals and made bad decisions

This shit fuckin sucks, when are the cybernetics coming out? I'll be there first to have my spine removed

>>757477
Become a politician, they will remove it for you.

>>757598
this is really funny

Sanssouci (Frederick the Great's palace)

James VI & I's Royston retreat (for hunting)

Château de Chambord

>>723725
it was this but with a poem. maybe the poem was in the post and the image had no text. i forget. i swear grace anon posted this once.

>>757559
True.

>>757297
Not really.

>>757564
I know exactly who you are.

>>757565
Tell me.

>>757559
The same could be said for men but this board is gonna say "no"

>thread still up after 11 months

>no one mentioned those barechested minoan dresses

this board is ded,leftypol is kil

The vast majority of these are wartime fantasies about either raping the enemy or having consensual sex with your comrades.
What is the material explanation for the lack of fantasies about having consensual hate sex with the enemy or gangraping the smallest member of the platoon.

>>753385
The Ottomans… The Rvm… the Blasian Shambala Yakvb

>>751877
source

>Aztec prostitutes in the Precolmbian period were known as ahuianime (pl.)or ahuiani (s.), which meant pleasure women. In some recorded dialogues between native women, this term is used as an insult, comparing it to having an itchy butt, and being a flabby old women.

>Despite this they were tolerated as they were said to accompany warriors who went off on campaigns to war. Often sleeping beside them as companions, cooking and taking care of them.

>In some cases they even participated in the battles themselves on the sidelines like cheerleaders to taunt the enemy. They did this by yelling insults, and flashing the enemy their butt and genitalia. Torquemada, the Spanish chronicler suggests they even participated in battle too, wearing their own armor. Interestingly, in the Codex Mendoza, where the Aztecs recorded the tributes they imposed on their conquered cities (altepetl's) we find some Huastec style full body armor without a loincloth. Loincloths were the essential male garment and it's what identified you as a man as a skirt was to a woman. It might seem like an artist error, but this is repeated in copies, so perhaps this is deliberate.

>The ahuianime were said to also be sorcerers and something men cautioned their boys about. They use sorcery to seduce boys, and had knowledge of potion drinks they gave to youths, or offered them hallucinogenic mushrooms. One of their potions was made of several seashells, a particular snake and some other ingredients, made into a soupy drink. This was supposedly to allow a man to cum three or four or more times. This was considered dangerous though as Aztecs believed semen was finite and if a boy wasted too much in his youth he'd be useless for his wife in the future in his adulthood, would not be able to produce a family and/or not be able to ejaculate again. Or even in some cases, they'd 'dry' up and die.

wtf aztecs