← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 19258 | Posts: 134 | Started: 2005-07-23
2005-07-23 18:52 | User Profile
[B]The Feminization of Everything II: Career Girlin' [/B]
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/PorterCareerGirl2072305.htm[/url]
2005-07-23 19:51 | User Profile
Great Article, Franco! Now if they would write an article praising the virtues of marriage, motherhood, and fatherhood and dropped their pro-pornography stance, then I would start to be convinced that the boys there were growing up. If they want families, then why are they pushing porn on their site? Until, then it is just another tool in their insecure, immature, and mysogynist battles against the female sex.
2005-07-23 20:25 | User Profile
Absolutely, men should strive to earn enough money so that their wives can afford to stay home. The interesting thing is this: all 'underachieving' ethnics treat their children as their main and often only joy and assets in life. Whites, while overachievers, should acquire the same attitude. Because there's nothing whites can't do, given their numbers are high enough.
2005-07-23 20:31 | User Profile
I don't disagree with the basic idea of the article. But the point that is always missing from the idea that married women do not have to work is two things.
a lot of households today do require two jobs, that should be obvious. What if the man's income is not enough? What if the man looses his job,etc?
Even in the case of a man who does make enough money, so the woman does not have to work, what if a divorce occurs and she has no experience in anything outside of being a homemaker? What if the man walks out and leaves her with 3 kids, for example and she does not have any way to support herself and her children?
In a different society a woman as a homemaker is the perfect and natural role for her, but the sad reality is we are not living in that type of society.
I do agree, though, that many women do decide to work outside the home for the reasons listed in the article rather then what I see as the more practical reasons that I mentioned.
2005-07-23 21:28 | User Profile
Well I guess somebody does have to be home for the kids, but I'll be honest, who stays home should be based on who has the higher paying job, not based on sex. If the wife is bringing in 50,000 and the husband is bringing in 20,000 its the husband that should stay home. So I partially agree in that there needs to be someone home, but it isn't always the Women. I think his heart is in the right place but his mind isn't, the author that wrote this.
Conservatism is based on individualism. That means you should look at each family on an individual basis and not make uniform standard judgements. To do anything else is not conservatism. Now the author has a right to make these statements, he just doesn't have the right to make these statements and then call himself an economic conservative, because our economy is based on employing those that can work, not those that should work.
Based on economic conservatism, if you are a male, and you suck at work, and your wife is good at work, then the roles should switch.
2005-07-23 22:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]Well I guess somebody does have to be home for the kids, but I'll be honest, who stays home should be based on who has the higher paying job, not based on sex. If the wife is bringing in 50,000 and the husband is bringing in 20,000 its the husband that should stay home. So I partially agree in that there needs to be someone home, but it isn't always the Women. I think his heart is in the right place but his mind isn't, the author that wrote this.
Conservatism is based on individualism. That means you should look at each family on an individual basis and not make uniform standard judgements. To do anything else is not conservatism. Now the author has a right to make these statements, he just doesn't have the right to make these statements and then call himself an economic conservative, because our economy is based on employing those that can work, not those that should work.
Based on economic conservatism, if you are a male, and you suck at work, and your wife is good at work, then the roles should switch.[/QUOTE] In theory your idea makes sense but in reality when a wife begins making more money than her husband she starts considering herself superior to him and she ends up looking for a more wealthy man at work to hook up with. I've seen too many marriages fall apart precisely because of this course of events.
2005-07-24 01:25 | User Profile
Well that definately should not happen, and unfortanately that is right. I think we (these wives included) need to stop demonizing those that stay home to raise children, whether they be male of female. Kids have to be raised, it's not like Turtles were you can just lay 1000 eggs and hope a few make it.
2005-07-25 18:49 | User Profile
Having read both articles, it is now eminently clear that author Kevin Porter has no wife and no kids himself. He may even need an inhaler to get through asking for a date.
He should hook up with that other spawnless toad, Elizabeth ("How To Be Worthy Of Me In Twelve Easy Lessons") Bennett. Assuming he's uncircumcised, and she undrstands her place in life is next to him, handing out [I]Aryan Alternative[/I]s at traffic circles.
2005-07-25 19:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123] ** Conservatism is based on individualism.** That means you should look at each family on an individual basis and not make uniform standard judgements. To do anything else is not conservatism. Now the author has a right to make these statements, he just doesn't have the right to make these statements and then call himself an economic conservative, because our economy is based on employing those that can work, not those that should work.
Based on economic conservatism, if you are a male, and you suck at work, and your wife is good at work, then the roles should switch.[/QUOTE] Kane, Conservatism is most certainly not based on individualism; indeed, that is almost its antithesis. Libertarianism, and even liberalism, are based on individualism, but conservatism is not. In the Western sense, conservatism is based upon orthodox Christianity, but in a broader sense, it is based upon natural law and what have been called the 'permanent things.' Natural law, as demonstrated in the physiological differences between the sexes, clearly dictates that the woman should be the keeper of the home and the nurturer of children. I recognize that modern economic realities often force a family to have two incomes, but to say that the question of whether the woman should work should be decided solely by her relative market value is not conservative in the slightest.
2005-07-25 19:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]In theory your idea makes sense but in reality when a wife begins making more money than her husband she starts considering herself superior to him and she ends up looking for a more wealthy man at work to hook up with. I've seen too many marriages fall apart precisely because of this course of events.[/QUOTE]
Good point, and I've seen it happen too. Even to me! I'd even say that working women typically consider themselves superior to their men no matter what the income disparity might be. It's become their [I]right[/I] to feel that way.
On the other hand, financial stress causes huge problems in marriages, and I've seen couples where the wife quit working to raise the new babies only to lead that couple to the brink of bankruptcy. No vacations, piece of shit car, small apartment, can't go out to dinner b/c can't afford a sitter, etc, etc. That sucks.
You gotta earn [I]at least[/I] 100,000/year to support a family of three or four these days and still have a little money left over to have fun with.
It's the design of our tyrants to keep us in bondage one way or another.
2005-07-25 19:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]Based on economic conservatism, if you are a male, and you suck at work, and your wife is good at work, then the roles should switch.[/QUOTE]
I disagree.
A man simply cannot be a mother to his children. Further, a wife working with a husband at home with kids upsets the natural family dynamic and will manifest itself in some kind of pathology in the marriage or family sooner or later. In short, it just wasn't meant to work like that.
2005-07-25 20:05 | User Profile
I don't disagree, but as always I want to complicate things with annoying questions.
If your wife dies then whadda you do? You act as mother and father both. If a single mother can do that - for all the disparagement they receive, many do move heaven and earth raising, and providing for, their kids - then a father can do it, too.
Let's not forget that - back when the mother never worked, and unions fighting for a living wage for working men were anathema, and America suffered through things like the Depression - lots and lots of (white) kids ended up in orphanages and as wards of the state even though both (white) parents were living. The father would simply not be able to provide for a family and in many cases just left, and there was no fail-safe in society for a woman alone like that to enter the workforce and earn a comptitive wage. Those days of the orphanages are mostly a memory now, thus for a lot of people these days they never even happened, or if they did it was only a very small handful of kids, mostly 'probvlem kids' and yada yada total denial. Butr anybody Ed Toner's age could probably tell you different. I knew quite a few old guys as a kid who'd all grown up in orphan homes, mostly run by religious charities...and even though they grew up into good men and solid citizens, I bet they'd have preferred any setup - even single parent, or mom-works, dad-raises-kids - that would've given them a real family to grow up in.
2005-07-25 21:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]In theory your idea makes sense but in reality when a wife begins making more money than her husband she starts considering herself superior to him and she ends up looking for a more wealthy man at work to hook up with. I've seen too many marriages fall apart precisely because of this course of events.[/QUOTE] It couldn't have anything to do with the husband feeling insecure now could it? I mean come off it. If I have to be the bread winner for my family obviously my man aint much of a man by your logic.
2005-07-25 22:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
Even to me! I'd even say that working women typically consider themselves superior to their men no matter what the income disparity might be
[/QUOTE]I agree with the rest of your post, xmetalhead. But why would you think a majority of women who work feel "superior" to their husbands? Some of you really seem to take the whole feminist thing to an extreme and assume that every woman who is not a nice little housewife, barefoot and pregnant is a bull-dyke feminist who either feels she is better then men or hates men in general. sometimes I wonder if you guys really know of so many women like this, personally, like you try to claim or if you look at the media portrayel(movies television,etc) of backstabbing, "strong" man-hating vulgar women(especially white women) and think that is how we all are, as it is made to somewhat appear. A news flash for some of you, the jewsmedia does not like, or portray white women in a much more positive or, for the most part, realistic way than it portrays the white male. And the reasons are ultimately the same.
2005-07-25 23:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]It couldn't have anything to do with the husband feeling insecure now could it? I mean come off it. If I have to be the bread winner for my family obviously my man aint much of a man by your logic.[/QUOTE]This is probably true in some cases. I am sure there are some women who work who do feel superior to their husbands especially if they are making more money, but I am sure there are also men, who, themselves, begin to feel inferior because of this, see things that are not there, and start to believe their wife feels superior to them. But to some, bluebonnet, as I am sure you have noticed, all problems between males and females are because of the female. Males are always blameless and innocent of everything. And they are always victims. Just like Jews and niggers.:crybaby:
2005-07-25 23:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] If your wife dies then whadda you do? You act as mother and father both. If a single mother can do that - for all the disparagement they receive, many do move heaven and earth raising, and providing for, their kids - then a father can do it, too.
Let's not forget that - back when the mother never worked, and unions fighting for a living wage for working men were anathema, and America suffered through things like the Depression - lots and lots of (white) kids ended up in orphanages and as wards of the state even though both (white) parents were living. [/QUOTE] Ragno, There are certainly special circumstances when children must be raised by a single parent, or by extended family, or, as you pointed out, in an orphanage. There are also special circumstances in which certain two parent families are terrible or abusive. However, these are just that -- special circumstances. The two parent family, in which the mother is ultimately responsible for the home and the father is ultimately responsible for support of the family, however much those roles may overlap in practice, should be normative.
2005-07-25 23:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Having read both articles, it is now eminently clear that author Kevin Porter has no wife and no kids himself. He may even need an inhaler to get through asking for a date.
He should hook up with that other spawnless toad, Elizabeth ("How To Be Worthy Of Me In Twelve Easy Lessons") Bennett. Assuming he's uncircumcised, and she undrstands her place in life is next to him, handing out Aryan Alternatives at traffic circles.[/QUOTE]Now this is an attitude that I'm tired of. Any man who writes about the problematic behavior of modern women is automatically some wimp? It is the same ridiculous mentality that I've seen when a man says that men should protect their own collective interests in the workplace against unjust claims of sexual harrassment or other such gender issues, that man must be a little homo!! I really wish we could get beyond this teenage jock attitude that all other men are your natural enemy.
2005-07-26 00:19 | User Profile
TD was the first one to bring it up, it is a matter of biology.
If any of you are interested there two very good books about this issue that can be obtained at your local library. The first, feminine fantasies, by Phyllis Schlafly
The second by F. Carolyn Graglia, Domestic TRANQUILITY
Both are very well written. Schlafly's book is a very fast read. The second quite involved.
feminine fantasies lays the ground work for the quest of working women, and the tactics used to get them there. Note, all or most of the women in the women's movement were jews. The jew men have a different attitude toward their women than ango-saxon men. They weren't happy about this so they have denigrated the role of wife and mother, they've done pretty good. But I see change a'comin'.
2005-07-26 01:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Now this is an attitude that I'm tired of. Any man who writes about the problematic behavior of modern women is automatically some wimp? It is the same ridiculous mentality that I've seen when a man says that men should protect their own collective interests in the workplace against unjust claims of sexual harrassment or other such gender issues, that man must be a little homo!! I really wish we could get beyond this teenage jock attitude that all other men are your natural enemy.[/QUOTE]
Hi Brandon!
Which is to say "Raina".
Boy that must've burned you - finally being outed as Brandon Orr, megasicko from Wisconsin, AND gangbanned off both the Phora & Moot Stormfront over the past 48 hours. I had a feeling you'd be too crazed to just wandr off into the sunset, despite your claims/lies that you and your virtual honey Carrigan (you know her as "Marie"; others, as "Chloe"), whom I assume is here as "Siren". She' doing a pretty good job at establishing a fake persona, but I'm afraid you were just a little too shrill in your response back there - still turning on a psychological spit at my accurately describing you as a homosexual.
By ther way, here is a pic of Brandon/Raina. At last we get a good look at you, Scat Queen! Photoshopped [I]effects[/I], but the grad-photo is legit:
[IMG]http://jackanapes.ws/graph/bestwriter.jpg[/IMG]
Here's a description of Ms Orr before s/he adopted the Raina persona, but while s/he was trolling boards as an outraged Christian lunatic (although note - even then, s/he was well-known for shapeshifting on a dime.)
[QUOTE]Brandon Orr aka "Daedra" (Dude-ra, pOOp-ra, OrrwhOrr) Karmic revenge for every shitbomb you ever left on a doorstep on Hallowe'en night. Goes through pseudonyms like RuPaul goes through outfits. Changes his political causes twice as often as his underwear, though he unwaveringly endorses pedophilia and coprophilia. Best shunned like the irredeemably annoying pestilence he is. [/QUOTE]
Sound familiar?
Far from his now-famous evil-Jewish-dyke persona, Brandung was then carpetbombing fora as a deranged DeSadean Holocaust revisionist, although the only constants in his deeply-deranged 'career' have been [I]a love of doody, and a hatred of booty.[/I]
The various Raina-related threads deakling with her outing as Brandon Orr have been more--or-less consolidated here:
[url]http://niccoloandphora.mywowbb.com/forum1/793-1.html[/url]
So anyway...[I]good [/I] to see you bounce back, Boy Raina - OttoR's a worthy addition to your roll-call of fake ids now tipping into three figures. I figure the idea was to quietly establish 'pro-white, anti-Jew' identities here until the whole outing-tempest passed, upon which the usual [I]violence comes natural to women/scat-eating is fun[/I] nonsense woulda returned in force. Maybe the reason Carrigan's better at it than you are - that Otto tantrum up there is like a signed affadavit - is that [I]she really isn't gay[/I].
As another old friend of yours wrote back in 2002:
[QUOTE]Orr -- beneath his self-identification as a "transgendered woman" -- is perhaps the net's most outspoken psychopathological woman-hating male.
Go to Orr's web page [[I]pornonationalist.ws[/I]; [I]toilet-sluts.com[/I]....both inactive now, thank God] and you will discover a male fascinated with images of women literally eating feces, a male obsessed with the idea of women being tortured to death, of bathing in women's blood, of the serial killing of women. You will be introduced to Orr's notions of how to literally butcher the female body for the dinner table and provided with special recipes on how different portions of the female flesh are best cooked.
This is not the web page of the poor victimized "transgendered woman." It is the public yell of the almost criminally-psychotic male.
Brandon Orr, also known as: Amelia Johnson, Daedra Morrighan, Johann Sebastian Bot V.2, left_turn_9, Magistra, and Ministry of Propaganda. Orr posts via the accounts: antiz...@nyc.com, antiz...@nycnet.com, antiz...@turnleft.com, ares...@lovemail.com, g...@email.com, left_tur...@yahoo.com, national_anarch...@email.com, jewgr...@itookmyprozac.com, nos...@newsreader.com, saintjack...@corporatedirtbag.com, vangu...@antisocial.com. [/QUOTE]
Bt let's see Brandon in action, in selected text retrieved from his early online appearances. See if any of this rings a bell, Raina-watchers:
[QUOTE]The Orr Manifesto
The Pornonationalist Vanguard - "Watusi, Tutsi, Ubangi, Hmong, Pakistanis, Jews, and other incompatibles and unassimilables inhabiting American territory shall be restricted from citizenship and encouraged to emigrate. Non-compatibles that remain within American territory shall enjoy no rights of citizenship or political participation." "In the interests of world prosperity and the tranquility of humankind, Israel shall be neutralized. Zionist terrorists pushing for the completion of Jewish-supremacy will be eradicated. Surviving Jews shall be relegated to enclaves and laboratories, to be kept under observation and utilized for research." "America shall be a sovereign White nation empowered by the pure initiative of Higher Humanity. The nation must be free and independent of all Judaic, degenerate, and foreign influences, and will be liberated from all elements that disrupt the vitality, initiative, mission or solidarity of the American People."
Pornonationalists, recognizing that the time has come for our nation to rid itself of all barriers to true progress, demand that America redefine her citizenship requirements to exclude the Subversive Element, which can be clarified by a division into three major categories:
Judaeo-Christians: Egregiously hostile cultists that infest our schools and bomb our clinics, raid our libraries and threaten our freedom, professing allegiance to the "Kingdom of Heaven" of Jewish myth rather than to the United States of America.
Crypto-Christians: Anti-American and Un-American individuals that may not call themselves "Christian" or "Zionist," but still follow the same essential doctrine, therefore posing a threat to progress and a hindrance to liberty for the New, Pornonationalist America.
Un-American Subversives: Anti-porn "feminists," members of Asiatic cult religions, adherents to backward, foreign and degenerate ways, anti-choice terrorists, racial-incompatibles, unassimilables, Zionists, loafers, mental-cripples, wetbacks, traitors and others that pose a clear and present danger to freedom or are inimical to the national interest.
A letter to an atheist from 'angry Christian' Brandon Orr:
From: Brandon Orr st_jack_sucks_cock@hotmail.com Date: 2002-01-31 10:11:12 PST SUBJECT: **** SAINT JACKANAPES
HEY COCK SUCKER! I haven't even begun to * with you yet, you punk ass bitch. Like those creative stories I wrote about you? This is just the beginning. I am going to do everything in my power to make your online life a living hell. You will pay for the crimes you have committed towards me, my younger brother, and how you've harrassed Christians. After I get done ing with you every way possible on the usenet, I am going to find your goddamn little physical location. I already know you live somewhere in Ohio. When I find your exact address, I am going to get on a plane and fly to Ohio. I am going to bring my brothers with me. I am going to kill you. I am going to start off by putting you in the back of a van and driving off to an abandoned area. Then I am going to smash your ing face in with a brick. I'm going to stick a goddamn cross up your ass until you ing bleed. I am going to cut off your penis and make you eat it raw. Then I'm going to cut out every mothering vain in your ing eyeballs one by one. Then I am going to knock out your teeth and make you give me head with your bloody, sore, painful mouth. While you're sobbing like the little coward you are, I'll be laughing. The best part of all this is, I am going to take pictures of it all and send them to every ing one of your atheist pals. I am going to post it on the internet for the whole world to see yout suffering, you son of a bitch. Then I am going to ing laugh for the rest of my life about how I murdered you in cold blood. And there ain't a damn thing you or any of your atheist pals can do about it. What are they going to do? They can't do shit and neither can you. So you like what I'm saying to you? Guess what? After I'm going to move onto your family. I am going to take any children family members that you have and incinerate their young, tiny, fleshy, bodies alive. I will enjoy watching them burn. Then I will take your mother, aunt, sister, whoever the you have in your family that is female, and ing rape them like the miserable cunts they are. I will take a cheese grater to their cunts. I will set the insides of their ovaries on fire. I will force them to suck horse cock while I watch. I will stick ice picks in every part of their bodies and nail them to crosses in your hometown. I will also take pictures of this and put them on the internet. How do you like that? You ***ing stupid bastard. A fitting end for an inhuman bastard like you.
Brandon Orr's Toilet Slut Training Academy @ Toilet-Slut.com
"Behold a beautiful woman: is such a creature not the ideal toilet? Those luscious lips are most at home when wrapped around a fresh turd. Her eager mouth is ever ready to open wide for a stream of hot, salty piss. That nose is in its proper place when buried between the firmest of ass cheeks. The wet tongue, long and shiny, burrows its way into a shithole at every opportunity. The lovely pussy, glistening with moisture, is hungry to be filled by shit-covered cocks. Just below is the toilet’s asshole, winking suggestively at us all. The brown eye beseeches us: within every beauty is the beast. Deep in the heart of every woman is the need to be a walking, talking human toilet and ****-pig."
"Her skin is supple and her soft blonde hair is perfect for wiping my ass." [/QUOTE]
2005-07-26 02:31 | User Profile
FYI - siren is neither. That is very insulting. And yes- I was asked to move here from SF because people thought that it would be better for me.
However - since you want to insinuate things about me, whom you don't know BTW, I will now have to reconsider. It is my only goal to help further WNism. But I don't have to sit here and take insults. I've got other places where they heap them on me for more inflammatory ruminating.
2005-07-26 02:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=siren]FYI - siren is neither. That is very insulting. And yes- I was asked to move here from SF because people thought that it would be better for me.
However - since you want to insunuate things about me, whom you don't know BTW, I will now have to reconsider. It is my only goal to help further WNism. But I don't have to sit here and take insults. I've got other places where they heap them on me for more inflammatory ruminating.[/QUOTE]
ill ragno, I invited siren here from SF and she is neither of those identities you mentioned. If there is any trolling going on here... well, your post speaks for itself.
K
2005-07-26 02:58 | User Profile
I alluded that she MIGHT be....and she was not the focus of my post, merely a what-if sidebar.
But OttoR is Raina/Orr. Alas for Siren, she and Otto registered here within hours of each other on the same day, and then appeared back-to-back on the same thread. Nobody sincere should feel "insulted" about a post devoted to exposing Orr; he has been, hands down, the most vicious and destructive troill in Internet history, bar none.
2005-07-26 03:13 | User Profile
Your point is taken about the bulk of your post. However, you have slandered my name by inclusion.
And you had no evidence that I was the person you INSINUATED I MIGHT BE.
2005-07-26 03:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]I alluded that she MIGHT be....and she was not the focus of my post, merely a what-if sidebar.
But OttoR is Raina/Orr. Alas for Siren, she and Otto registered here within hours of each other on the same day, and then appeared back-to-back on the same thread. Nobody sincere should feel "insulted" about a post devoted to exposing Orr; he has been, hands down, the most vicious and destructive troill in Internet history, bar none.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I don't post on many forums, 3 or 4 including this one, and I don't have time or the inclination to seek out trolls. Suffice it to say siren is not one and its my intention one day to possibly induce (seduce?) her into wearing camo and hide in the bushes along the Mexican border with me (how many illegals we may actually spot is another matter, lol).
K
2005-07-26 03:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr] Some of you really seem to take the whole feminist thing to an extreme and assume that every woman who is not a nice little housewife, barefoot and pregnant is a bull-dyke feminist who either feels she is better then men or hates men in general. [/QUOTE] Tell me about it. I honestly have never known of a real life female who feels superior to her husband because she works. No one I've ever worked with in my entire life (and I've worked many places) was like that. Could it be that she actually wants to work, needs to work, or have a skill that she can make a living off of? Oh my!
[QUOTE=siren] Note, all or most of the women in the women's movement were jews. [/QUOTE] Not the early womens' movements. I can tell you've been to Stormfront. :smile: Either way, welcome. A friend of 311inAZ is a friend of mine.
2005-07-26 03:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Hi Brandon!
Which is to say "Raina".
Boy that must've burned you - finally being outed as Brandon Orr, megasicko from Wisconsin, AND gangbanned off both the Phora & Moot Stormfront over the past 48 hours. I had a feeling you'd be too crazed to just wandr off into the sunset, despite your claims/lies that you and your virtual honey Carrigan (you know her as "Marie"; others, as "Chloe"), whom I assume is here as "Siren". She' doing a pretty good job at establishing a fake persona, but I'm afraid you were just a little too shrill in your response back there - still turning on a psychological spit at my accurately describing you as a homosexual.
By ther way, here is a pic of Brandon/Raina. At last we get a good look at you, Scat Queen! Photoshopped effects, but the grad-photo is legit:
[img]http://jackanapes.ws/graph/bestwriter.jpg[/img]
Here's a description of Ms Orr before s/he adopted the Raina persona, but while s/he was trolling boards as an outraged Christian lunatic (although note - even then, s/he was well-known for shapeshifting on a dime.)
Sound familiar?
Far from his now-famous evil-Jewish-dyke persona, Brandung was then carpetbombing fora as a deranged DeSadean Holocaust revisionist, although the only constants in his deeply-deranged 'career' have been a love of doody, and a hatred of booty.
The various Raina-related threads deakling with her outing as Brandon Orr have been more--or-less consolidated here:
[url="http://niccoloandphora.mywowbb.com/forum1/793-1.html"]http://niccoloandphora.mywowbb.com/forum1/793-1.html[/url]
So anyway...good to see you bounce back, Boy Raina - OttoR's a worthy addition to your roll-call of fake ids now tipping into three figures. I figure the idea was to quietly establish 'pro-white, anti-Jew' identities here until the whole outing-tempest passed, upon which the usual violence comes natural to women/scat-eating is fun nonsense woulda returned in force. Maybe the reason Carrigan's better at it than you are - that Otto tantrum up there is like a signed affadavit - is that she really isn't gay.
As another old friend of yours wrote back in 2002:
Bt let's see Brandon in action, in selected text retrieved from his early online appearances. See if any of this rings a bell, Raina-watchers:[/QUOTE] Wow, you posted all of that false garbage for nothing. I am 'Otto Remer' formerly of Vanguard News Network where I had 2,000 posts from Dec 2003-Present. I don't know who Raina or Brandon or any of those other people are. This is the time when I would really like to see a moderator step in and stop this abusive flaming. Do not accuse me of being an alias, I have no TROLL agenda here whatsoever.
It is amazing to me that if someone posts on here and rejects the ridiculous teenage jock "man-hating" homo fixation they are automatically called a TROLL? Huh? Surely this absurdity will not be tolerated?
2005-07-26 03:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MistWraith]Tell me about it. I honestly have never known of a real life female who feels superior to her husband because she works. No one I've ever worked with in my entire life (and I've worked many places) was like that. Could it be that she actually wants to work, needs to work, or have a skill that she can make a living off of? Oh my!
Not the early womens' movements. I can tell you've been to Stormfront. :smile: Either way, welcome. A friend of 311inAZ is a friend of mine.[/QUOTE] Only the most recent 1960's Feminist movement was Communist/Jewish, the women who wanted to vote back in the 1800's didn't hate men.
2005-07-26 03:57 | User Profile
My mistake, I should have clarified the time frame. Thanks
2005-07-26 03:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=311inAZ]Personally, I don't post on many forums, 3 or 4 including this one, and I don't have time or the inclination to seek out trolls. Suffice it to say siren is not one and its my intention one day to possibly induce (seduce?) her into wearing camo and hide in the bushes along the Mexican border with me (how many illegals we may actually spot is another matter, lol).
K[/QUOTE]People who suffer from paranoia about imaginary "trolls" should be banned. I'm sure that Siren isn't a troll and neither am I. Perhaps il ragno's doctor should increase his prozac dosage? :disgust:
2005-07-26 04:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=siren]FYI - siren is neither. That is very insulting. And yes- I was asked to move here from SF because people thought that it would be better for me.
However - since you want to insunuate things about me, whom you don't know BTW, I will now have to reconsider. It is my only goal to help further WNism. But I don't have to sit here and take insults. I've got other places where they heap them on me for more inflammatory ruminating.[/QUOTE] A moderator should step in and censor this il ragno nutcase. None of us came here to play this silly "troll" game.
2005-07-26 04:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
Tell me about it. I honestly have never known of a real life female who feels superior to her husband because she works.
[/QUOTE]I have only known one, who may have, my grandmother. Interestingly enough she did not work outside the home. She is the one who took control of the money my grandfather brought home, not spending on herself, but she did take it upon herself to deal with the all of the financial affairs,etc. And in every other way, also, she wore the pants in the family. She did not in, most ways, fit the definition of a feminist, I would not say, just a very strong willed woman.
2005-07-26 04:12 | User Profile
My definition of a feminist is not a person who believes a Women has the right to stand on her own two feet but a person who critizes traditional Women and tries to convert them into independent Women when they aren't naturally that way. Also they support abortion usually.
Notice I am implying that if a Women out of her own nature wants to stand on her own two feet, and she doesn't try to force others to go with her, there is nothing wrong with that.
2005-07-26 04:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Only the most recent 1960's Feminist movement was Communist/Jewish, the women who wanted to vote back in the 1800's didn't hate men.[/QUOTE]Yes.
[QUOTE=siren]My mistake, I should have clarified the time frame. Thanks[/QUOTE]It's fine. I'm not going to pretend I'm not satisfied with my rights and freedoms just to tow the party line to please a few anti-feminists, to avoid being called names and such, like I do "elsewhere." The early movement was a good thing, but it should have stopped at that. After that, it became a bit pointless and immoral. What the modern feminists tried to accomplish backfired on them a bit, with them taking it too far. With affirmative action and such, being given special consideration because of your gender is only reversing the progress women have made.
2005-07-26 04:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]A moderator should step in and censor this il ragno nutcase. None of us came here to play this silly "troll" game.[/QUOTE]
Some people have nothing better to do I reckon. I suppose there are trolls on the internet and I did spot one living under a 140 year old RR bridge in Southern AZ once, but its the forum moderators job to deal with such, not ours. He has just brought alienation upon himself by these unnecessary attacks/accusations.
K
2005-07-26 04:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I have only known one, who may have, my grandmother. Interestingly enough she did not work outside the home. She is the one who took control of the money my grandfather brought home, not spending on herself, but she did take it upon herself to deal with the all of the financial affairs,etc. And in every other way, also, she wore the pants in the family. She did not in, most ways, fit the definition of a feminist, I would not say, just a very strong willed woman.[/QUOTE] Feminism isn't about a woman having a job. When most men use the word "Feminist" they are speaking of a woman who displays an overall hostile attitude toward males and uses her personal achievements to shove in the face of men as a way of mocking them.
2005-07-26 04:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]My definition of a feminist is not a person who believes a Women has the right to stand on her own two feet but a person who critizes traditional Women and tries to convert them into independent Women when they aren't naturally that way. Also they support abortion usually.[/QUOTE] I'm all for what works for the people in particular. If a person will be happier in a traditional type of household, go for it. However, I see a lack of consideration coming from both sides for the most part. Everyone should do what works for them. What works for one couple may not work for another. Go with your own flow.
On the abortion issue, I'm 100% anti-abortion. That's another topic, though. I could go on and on about that.
2005-07-26 04:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Feminism isn't about a woman having a job. When most men use the word "Feminist" they are speaking of a woman who displays an overall hostile attitude toward males and uses her personal achievements to shove in the face of men as a way of mocking them.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, if you look at some of the yahoos who use that word against women, they could mean anything from a woman being able to wipe her own ass independently, to the butchiest baby-killing advocate bulldyke.
2005-07-26 04:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I disagree.
A man simply cannot be a mother to his children. Further, a wife working with a husband at home with kids upsets the natural family dynamic and will manifest itself in some kind of pathology in the marriage or family sooner or later. In short, it just wasn't meant to work like that.[/QUOTE]
Once again, TD with the beat-down.
Bravo.
2005-07-26 04:31 | User Profile
The insidiousness of feminisim is that it's negative ideology has infected men as well as women. The damaging psychological effects are so ingrained that it is hard to separate them (feminist adgenda ideology) from our true natural inclinations. Once separated it then becomes very clear of how far societal manipulation has become. This is my observation.
2005-07-26 04:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=siren]The insidiousness of feminisim is that it's negative ideology has infected men as well as women. The damaging psychological effects are so ingrained that it is hard to separate them (feminist adgenda ideology) from our true natural inclinations. Once separated it then becomes very clear of how far societal manipulation has become. This is my observation.[/QUOTE]Not an incorrect observation, either.
I say remove the push from both sides and let the pieces fall where they may. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mom, she should be able to do it no problem; if a girl is destined to become a rocket scientist, so be it.
2005-07-26 04:38 | User Profile
I'm all for what works for the people in particular. The only thing that I don't take that stance on is abortion (because its muder), homosexuality (because its never what works), and intergration (because ideally segregation is better).
On a Women's right to be strong, I support it, but I just don't support this movement so to speak of trying to take other people with you.
2005-07-26 04:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MistWraith]
I say remove the push from both sides and let the pieces fall where they may. QUOTE]
Exactly
2005-07-26 04:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]The only thing that I don't take that stance on is abortion (because its muder, homosexuality (because its never what works), and intergration (because ideally segregation is better).[/QUOTE]Doing what works also means acting responsibly. Doing what works is about making things work positively, achieving the positive desired effect, not what "feels good." There are no positives to abortion, and pushing the homosexual and interracial agendas down school kids' throats.
2005-07-26 04:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=siren]The insidiousness of feminisim is that it's negative ideology has infected men as well as women. The damaging psychological effects are so ingrained that it is hard to separate them (feminist adgenda ideology) from our true natural inclinations. Once separated it then becomes very clear of how far societal manipulation has become. This is my observation.[/QUOTE] Exactly, I was talking one night with what I thought was an intelligent and emotionally adjusted woman but then she suddenly mentioned that she has a bumper sticker on her car which says, "MEN ARE PIGS!"
And you begin to wonder:
A) What does her boyfriend think of that? B) Where did she get this attitude? C) What would it take to change her mind?
And the usual stereotype of "Oh she must be ugly and is therefore bitter" didn't apply. She was young, nice face, beautiful hair, great body, etc....:unsure:
2005-07-26 04:53 | User Profile
achieving the positive desired effect, not what "feels good." Exactly feelings are just feedback signals, that's all they are. The real question is are you doing good things are bad things, not how they feel.
2005-07-26 04:54 | User Profile
You see the problem with girls who say "men are pigs" is they probably have had one or two negative experiences with men and assumes they are all the same. But we are not all the same.
2005-07-26 04:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Exactly, I was talking one night with what I thought was an intelligent and emotionally adjusted woman but then she suddenly mentioned that she has a bumper sticker on her car which says, "MEN ARE PIGS!"
And you begin to wonder:
A) What does her boyfriend think of that? B) Where did she get this attitude? C) What would it take to change her mind? [/QUOTE]What strikes me as funny is that men will, a lot of times, take all that "MEN ARE PIGS" bs and take being the brunt of male-bashing jokes. The male-bashers will also often have boyfriends in tow. As someone who's had a lot of positive male influence in life, I wonder, "What the hell?" Not to say that there aren't some real pigs out there, but I can differentiate between them and regular men. Perhaps these bumper sticker chicks need to stop falling for the assholes. I get annoyed when they complain about men, yet they always "hook up."
2005-07-26 04:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MistWraith]Doing what works also means acting responsibly. Doing what works is about making things work positively, achieving the positive desired effect, not what "feels good." There are no positives to abortion, and pushing the homosexual and interracial agendas down school kids' throats.[/QUOTE] You are absolutely right. None of that "feels good" nonsense is beneficial for a woman's long term emotional health. You've got women who have already been used by Blacks, "experimented with lesbianism", done drugs, etc..and all before they are even 21 years old. And the young men are worshipping this ghetto violence and sit around and call each other "thugs" and "pimps", it is insane how Whites have deteriorated so badly.
2005-07-26 04:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Feminism isn't about a woman having a job. When most men use the word "Feminist" they are speaking of a woman who displays an overall hostile attitude toward males and uses her personal achievements to shove in the face of men as a way of mocking them. [/QUOTE] * * * This would be closer to my definition of a feminist, also.*
[QUOTE=MistWraith]Unfortunately, if you look at some of the yahoos who use that word against women, they could mean anything from a woman being able to wipe her own ass independently, to the butchiest baby-killing advocate bulldyke.[/QUOTE] But this is correct, some guys will look at a woman who can and wants to do things for herself, and may have a career, as ALL being brainwashed feminists. It also irritates the hell out of me when certain guys will look at ALL woman, as being mentally incapable of certain types of careers.(like the rocket scientist, example.LOL) And don't even get me started on the guys will will say women need to submit to their husband's domination. That alone, for some makes you a feminist. If rejecting that idea partially defines, for some, the definition of a feminist. Then I guess that is what I am.:yes:
2005-07-26 05:03 | User Profile
Well rejecting that idea doesn't make you femeinist. In fact it just means you aren't insecure and jealous.
2005-07-26 05:04 | User Profile
There-in lies the problem.
Not looking past the naming. If we are to understand this problem we must understand how it specifically effects our own actions and re-actions. Once we differentiate outside influence vs our innate motivations/inclinations there will be no need to even contemplate the feminist ideology. Then as Mistwraith says, "remove the push from both sides and let the pieces fall where they may"
This is easier said than done!
2005-07-26 05:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]But this is correct, some guys will look at a woman who can and wants to do things for herself, and may have a career, as ALL being brainwashed feminists. It also irritates the hell out of me when certain guys will look at ALL woman, as being mentally incapable of certain types of careers.(like the rocket scientist, example.LOL) And don't even get me started on the guys will will say women need to submit to their husband's domination. That alone, for some makes you a feminist. If rejecting that idea partially defines, for some, the definition of a feminist. Then I guess that is what I am.:yes:[/QUOTE]Hell, those types of attitudes can make one become a feminist. :glare:
Well, I'm starting to nod off here, but I really don't want to leave. I like the way this thread's going. Unlike other forums when this type of subject comes up, there's a lot of intelligent and rational thought and conversation going on here. Look forward to continuing this tomorrow evening.
Take good care of yourselves.
2005-07-26 05:08 | User Profile
Yeah I don't like feminism but I also don't like this kind of manly crusading tough guy crap either. When some guy is trying to be big and manly, he's usually insecure and weak. I say just be strong and humble. Because big manly attitudes and feminism kind of cause each other.
2005-07-26 05:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]You see the problem with girls who say "men are pigs" is they probably have had one or two negative experiences with men and assumes they are all the same. But we are not all the same.[/QUOTE]very correct, the same idea applies to men who label all women in a negative way.
[QUOTE] Because big manly attitudes and feminism kind of cause each other. [/QUOTE] Very correct, also. man-hating feminists and women-hating cave men are different sides to the same coin. Get a guy who will say all women are inferior, stupid and weak to speak at a "woman's rights" conference and feminist recruitment will go through the roof. The Jews could never even do such a great job.
2005-07-26 05:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]
But this is correct, some guys will look at a woman who can and wants to do things for herself, and may have a career, as ALL being brainwashed feminists. It also [u]irritates the hell out of me when certain guys will look at ALL woman[/u], as being mentally incapable of certain types of careers.:yes:[/QUOTE]But here-in lies the semantics. [u]when some guys[/u]
Not all men are of this mindset. I speak only for myself here, if we are to carry this WNist cause forward we women are going to have to give our men the empowerment that they need. And if that means keeping our mouths shut so that they can have a chance to speak their minds then that is what needs to be done. That in no way diminishes our role, in fact I feel that in doing so it creates a stronger bond between the men and women. It in no way means that what we say is any less important.
2005-07-26 05:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=siren]But here-in lies the semantics. [u]when some guys[/u]
Not all men are of this mindset. I speak only for myself here, if we are to carry this WNist cause forward we women are going to have to give our men the empowerment that they need. And if that means keeping our mouths shut so that they can have a chance to speak their minds then that is what needs to be done. That in no way diminishes our role, in fact I feel that in doing so it creates a stronger bond between the men and women.[/QUOTE]Everyone needs to know when to keep their mouth shut. What I cannot accept is some guy telling me to keep my mouth shut, do only what he tells me to do, and that I should not have any opinions outside of the ones that he wants me to have. I am not a lemming now, and I do not choose to become one. But yes, I know that not all men are of this mindset, it is actually very few.
2005-07-26 06:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE] [QUOTE=siren]There-in lies the problem.
Not looking past the naming. If we are to understand this problem we must understand how it specifically effects our own actions and re-actions. Once we differentiate outside influence vs our innate motivations/inclinations there will be no need to even contemplate the feminist ideology. Then as Mistwraith says, "remove the push from both sides and let the pieces fall where they may" [/QUOTE] This is a very good post, and I agree. :rockon: [QUOTE] This is easier said than done![/QUOTE] Unfortunately I agree with this, as well.LOL.
2005-07-26 11:58 | User Profile
A few clarifications.
Those of you who are legitimately new to this board may be confused and/or upset. No need. The primary purpose of my post was to alert the oldtimers here to the identity and now-documented prior history of the perverse and destructive troll known - among dozens of other handles - as "Raina", aka Brandon Orr.
However the nature of this or any disruptive troll - particularly on boards like this one - is to respond to any accusaton with 'no I'm not'. Raina/Orr has spent a good portion of his time amusing himself by trying to turn the focus back upon his accusers. "You're insane/paranoid/seeing things", etc. The famous last words of any online ubertroll is "I absolutely am not". Unquestionably, sometimes innocent peole get accused.
[u]If such has been the case, apologies all around and no harm done[/u]. Again - look to the 'offending' post again - the accusation(s) comprise less than 5% of the text and are immaterial. The overwhelming body of the text details the prior disruptions of a known prankster/provocateur, and the details of the net that is now closing around him. That 95% is not a matter of dispute and is of interest to everyone who frequents far-right forums and has been plagued by not just trollery but - server crashes, posted spam-porn of the most nauseating kind, persistent 'members' who insist on the vicious sadism inherent in women, or the natural order represented by pedophilia, or the pleasure to be derived from 'punishing' female beauty with everything from white slavery to forced scat-eating to outright butchery. To say nothing of this roll's subsequent ban being followed by dozens if nort hundreds of nuisance 'new regsters' designed to clog/poison the board.
Like I said, if you're on the up-and-up, you can disregard the 5% of that post that offends or mischaracterizes you because - as has been the case with ALL new members since Orr's first appearances here for years now - your comportment will tell the tale anyway. Whether or not I'd taped up that warning post, the oldtimers here were going to keep their eyes peeled for Raina/Mary Poppins/Orrwhorr/Timur/Erszabet Bathory/ad nauseum ANYWAY. The primary benefit of my post is to put a name, a face, a location (and, within a few hours, an address and phone number), and a recognized pattern of pet themes and obsessional modus operandi to this diseased entity - in effect hopefully reducing the aggregate paranoia caused by Orr's (heretofore) anonymity, traditionally the source of his sick and deviant "power". Knowing what to look for means knowing what not to look for a well. As ever, the content of one's contributions will be the truest indicator.
And this will all eventually be a moot point. As more real-world info is now being gleaned & assembled on Orr, this will soon be a matter for Orr to discuss with his neighbors, his employers (if any), and most likely the authorities.
2005-07-26 12:24 | User Profile
"Raina" should read the following:[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19277[/url]
2005-07-26 12:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]Everyone needs to know when to keep their mouth shut. What I cannot accept is some guy telling me to keep my mouth shut, do only what he tells me to do, and that I should not have any opinions outside of the ones that he wants me to have. I am not a lemming now, and I do not choose to become one. But yes, I know that not all men are of this mindset, it is actually very few.[/QUOTE] The man should be the head of the household, meaning that he should provide the direction and leadership for the family. This does not mean that he should dominate or abuse any family members, of course, and it is, in fact, the feminist modus operandi to conflate loving male leadership with violent tyranny. Women want men who are competent, strong, decisive, and willing make a stand. When confronted with a man who is weak, passive, and ineffectual, many women will keep pushing and pushing and pushing, trying to make the man finally stand up for himself. No woman truly wants an emasculated nebbish as a mate, no matter how thoroughly she has been indoctrinated.
2005-07-26 12:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]A few clarifications.
Those of you who are legitimately new to this board may be confused and/or upset. No need. The primary purpose of my post was to alert the oldtimers here to the identity and now-documented prior history of the perverse and destructive troll known - among dozens of other handles - as "Raina", aka Brandon Orr.
However the nature of this or any disruptive troll - particularly on boards like this one - is to respond to any accusaton with 'no I'm not'. Raina/Orr has spent a good portion of his time amusing himself by trying to turn the focus back upon his accusers. "You're insane/paranoid/seeing things", etc. The famous last words of any online ubertroll is "I absolutely am not". Unquestionably, sometimes innocent peole get accused.
[u]If such has been the case, apologies all around and no harm done[/u]. Again - look to the 'offending' post again - the accusation(s) comprise less than 5% of the text and are immaterial. The overwhelming body of the text details the prior disruptions of a known prankster/provocateur, and the details of the net that is now closing around him. That 95% is not a matter of dispute and is of interest to everyone who frequents far-right forums and has been plagued by not just trollery but - server crashes, posted spam-porn of the most nauseating kind, persistent 'members' who insist on the vicious sadism inherent in women, or the natural order represented by pedophilia, or the pleasure to be derived from 'punishing' female beauty with everything from white slavery to forced scat-eating to outright butchery. To say nothing of this roll's subsequent ban being followed by dozens if nort hundreds of nuisance 'new regsters' designed to clog/poison the board.
Like I said, if you're on the up-and-up, you can disregard the 5% of that post that offends or mischaracterizes you because - as has been the case with ALL new members since Orr's first appearances here for years now - your comportment will tell the tale anyway. Whether or not I'd taped up that warning post, the oldtimers here were going to keep their eyes peeled for Raina/Mary Poppins/Orrwhorr/Timur/Erszabet Bathory/ad nauseum ANYWAY. The primary benefit of my post is to put a name, a face, a location (and, within a few hours, an address and phone number), and a recognized pattern of pet themes and obsessional modus operandi to this diseased entity - in effect hopefully reducing the aggregate paranoia caused by Orr's (heretofore) anonymity, traditionally the source of his sick and deviant "power". Knowing what to look for means knowing what not to look for a well. As ever, the content of one's contributions will be the truest indicator.
And this will all eventually be a moot point. As more real-world info is now being gleaned & assembled on Orr, this will soon be a matter for Orr to discuss with his neighbors, his employers (if any), and most likely the authorities.[/QUOTE] You can assemble as much information as you want, you psychotic moron. You will find that I do not even share the same IP address as those people whom you are apparently so obsessed with. Who on Earth is Orr??? My name "OttoR" is short for Otto Remer who was the German soldier who stopped the July 20th, 1944 plot against Hitler. I much respected Otto Remer's post-war Revisionist activism and his continued loyalty to his heritage and his nation in the face of so much persecution from the Socialist criminal German government.
Seriously, are the moderators going to tolerate this il ragno person continuing to spout these insane accusations?
Can someone really be this nuts? If this scumbag calls my home I will report him to the proper authorities.
To the "OD Board" moderators, do you usually allow new members to be harrassed with such unwarranted abuse?
If this il ragno person is going to continue on and on about these complete lies he should be [u]BANNED[/u] immediately.
I joined this board because VNN has too many members who are off the deep end and that Rounder/Glenn Miller guy doesn't stop pressuring you to buy that hysterically obscene tabloid! I hoped to meet some fresh thinkers and the old-fashioned bright PaleoCons. I met Pat Buchanan in 1996 and shook his hand at a Republican Primary rally and have always gotten along well with grass-roots Conservatives who still remember the Joseph McCarthy-type no holds barred American spirit!
Now enough of this il ragno psychopath.....
2005-07-26 12:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]"Raina" should read the following:[url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19277"]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19277[/url][/QUOTE] There is no "Raina" here, are you another paranoid schizophrenic?
2005-07-26 12:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]You can assemble as much information as you want, you psychotic moron. OttoR, This is not helping. The fact of the matter is that OD, along with many other boards, has been plagued by a few extremely destructive trolls, and that we have been dealing with many trolls lately.
[quote=OttoR]Seriously, are the moderators going to tolerate this il ragno person continuing to spout these insane accusations? Il Ragno already said that if he has accused you falsely, then he apologizes.
[quote=OttoR] If this il ragno person is going to continue on and on about these complete lies he should be [u]BANNED[/u] immediately.[/QUOTE] I suggest you let it go. If you are not 'Raina' then your posts over the long haul will demonstrate that. Also, for a new member with 45 posts to demand the banning of a member with over 3300 posts is a little unseemly.
2005-07-26 12:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]OttoR, This is not helping. The fact of the matter is that OD, along with many other boards, has been plagued by a few extremely destructive trolls, and that we have been dealing with many trolls lately.
Il Ragno already said that if he has accused you falsely, then he apologizes.
I suggest you let it go. If you are not 'Raina' then your posts over the long haul will demonstrate that. Also, for a new member with 45 posts to demand the banning of a member with over 3300 posts is a little unseemly.[/QUOTE] It was ridiculous for him to think that someone with an "OttoR" name was "orr" or "Brandon" or whoever else he thought I was. If he jumps to false conclusions THAT FAST based on such a scant amount of information he is likely to have another one of these outbursts whenever some other name is imagined by him as being similar to a past troll. :wacko:
2005-07-26 13:15 | User Profile
No, it wasn't your name...it was [U]this quote[/U], appearing here 12 hours after Orr was banned from a couple of forums where he was wont to make very similar sorts of "arguments".
[QUOTE]Like I said before, the one part of the Feminist argument about rapists seeking "power" that is always left out of the discussion is that the female who is rejecting men as being unworthy of her is itself a form of female POWER. Women have the power to reject any man and apparently some guys just can't handle that and lose control. But this notion that females have no power and it is only us 'evil men' who want power? COME ON..... [/QUOTE]
And how could I or anybody else contact [I]anyone [/I] persuant to your life in any way, if your real name [I]isn't [/I] "Brendan Orr"? I already told you I'm not particularly interested in Orr's aliases any longer; I now know who "Raina" et al [B]is,[/B] and the focus is solely on [I]him[/I] now.
I would think that anyone who porn-spams/hacks private property (such as message boards) and unrelentingly endorses pedophilia, as Orr does, would be of interest to law enforcement. Don't you?
2005-07-26 13:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]And you think I'm only the second person in internet history to state that women have the power to reject certain men from being able to sleep with them? That specific argument has been made on numerous newsgroups involving male issues for almost a decade. :wallbash:[/QUOTE] well you certainly are provacative and the closeness with ORR and OttoR is uncanny. what's that saying? walks like a duck, talks like a duck.... It's just a little profiling buddy.
2005-07-26 13:51 | User Profile
True. It was unfortunate timing, nothing more. If all this seems 'paranoid', the blame belongs to the man who's caused this 'paranoia'. Go back and read that original post of mine that's caused all this consternation.
There's your bad guy: the board-killer who crashes whichever message boards he can't disrupt into chaos, and who has never shown [u]any[/u] reluctance to publicly post the real-world information of any members he could assemble such information on. I'm tired of his antics, and simply returning kind-for-kind and measure-for-measure.
Otto and Siren, you have nothing to worry about. My apologies again.
2005-07-26 14:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]well you certainly are provacative and the closeness with ORR and OttoR is uncanny. what's that saying? walks like a duck, talks like a duck.... It's just a little profiling buddy.[/QUOTE]I've got 2,000 posts on VNN forum that say otherwise. You don't rack up that kind of post count around the Linder crew without being a little aggressive.
Funny, but I don't find Orr and Otto Remer similar at all. If they have this kind of wonderful "profiling" at our major airports then those Arabs are home free to blow us all away! :shocking:
2005-07-26 14:57 | User Profile
I rarely visit VNNF. Just stopped by there and viewed a number of your threads, Otto; you're legit.
Part of the problem is, of course, this isn't an airport, where you can plainly see who's who and what's what. And every troublemaker hiding behind multiple ids always maintains he/she isn't. I jumped the gun and I shouldn't have, although I'd no way of knowing your VNNF history, of course. This is why I'd said before: the 5% of that post that said 'peekaboo' was unimportant; the 95% dwelling on Boy Raina was what mattered.
2005-07-26 16:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Having read both articles, it is now eminently clear that author Kevin Porter has no wife and no kids himself. He may even need an inhaler to get through asking for a date.
He should hook up with that other spawnless toad, Elizabeth ("How To Be Worthy Of Me In Twelve Easy Lessons") Bennett. Assuming he's uncircumcised, and she undrstands her place in life is next to him, handing out [I]Aryan Alternative[/I]s at traffic circles.[/QUOTE]
Do you like the current situation in the West, in which women make lots of important decisions in their many powerful career positions? Many of those decisions are based largely on emotion and not largely on logic, since the female brain is naturally set up in such a way in which emotions factor into most, or all, of their thoughts to some degree [i.e. women use both hemispheres of their brains to think, while men usually use only one small, precise area of their brains at a time when they think, which usually doesn't involve the "emotional" area of their brains].
Is that really a good thing?
I am surprised that you are not more supportive of that essay.
2005-07-26 16:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I disagree.
A man simply cannot be a mother to his children. Further, a wife working with a husband at home with kids upsets the natural family dynamic and will manifest itself in some kind of pathology in the marriage or family sooner or later. In short, it just wasn't meant to work like that.[/QUOTE]
This family dynamic which you describe hasn't existed for at least 50 yrs, and maybe never existed other than in the minds of a few idealists. Even the very wealthy shipped their kids off to boarding schools.
2005-07-26 16:43 | User Profile
The man should be the head of the household, meaning that he should provide the direction and leadership for the family. This does not mean that he should dominate or abuse any family members, of course, and it is, in fact, the feminist modus operandi to conflate loving male leadership with violent tyranny. Women want men who are competent, strong, decisive, and willing make a stand. When confronted with a man who is weak, passive, and ineffectual, many women will keep pushing and pushing and pushing, trying to make the man finally stand up for himself. No woman truly wants an emasculated nebbish as a mate, no matter how thoroughly she has been indoctrinated. Everyone should be strong, the problem is when some people try to act like Mr. tough-guy. That's not being strong, that's being weak. When you are strong you don't need to wear it on your sleeve, and Women and Men should both be strong ideally.
A household doesn't really need too much direction when you think about it. Each member kind of directs themselves. I think people should basically primarily direct themselves and not be bleeding heart people who want to direct everyone else, sort of resembling communist interventionism. People should take care of themselves, that's the basics of capitialism.
2005-07-26 16:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]This family dynamic which you describe hasn't existed for at least 50 yrs, and maybe never existed other than in the minds of a few idealists. Even the very wealthy shipped their kids off to boarding schools.[/QUOTE]
I work and my wife has stayed at home for the last eleven years with our three children. We are not unique, in this part of the country at least.
2005-07-26 17:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]Everyone should be strong, the problem is when some people try to act like Mr. tough-guy. That's not being strong, that's being weak. When you are strong you don't need to wear it on your sleeve, and Women and Men should both be strong ideally. Yes, but men and women are strong in different ways.
[QUOTE=kane123123] A household doesn't really need too much direction when you think about it. Each member kind of directs themselves.[/QUOTE] I disagree. A household needs a great deal of direction and leadership -- to instill values, to provide education, to set rules.
[QUOTE=kane123123]I think people should basically primarily direct themselves and not be bleeding heart people who want to direct everyone else, sort of resembling communist interventionism. When a man provides leadership to his family, he is fulfilling his God-ordained role, not engaging in 'communist interventionism'.
[QUOTE=kane123123] People should take care of themselves, that's the basics of capitialism. But it is not the basis of conservatism, or natural law, or Christianity.
2005-07-26 17:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE] A household doesn't really need too much direction when you think about it. Each member kind of directs themselves. [/QUOTE] Are kids supposed to 'direct themselves?'
2005-07-26 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I work and my wife has stayed at home for the last eleven years with our three children. We are not unique, in this part of the country at least.[/QUOTE] [sarcasm] Well, Tex, maybe you have never been to New York City, or California... [end of sarcasm].
2005-07-26 17:08 | User Profile
As they get older, yes, more and more they are. Children should be raised by both parents ideally. At least one but ideally both.
But the idea is that little by little you start to back it off and let them take care of themselves so that when they are out on there own they are ready to go.
2005-07-26 17:13 | User Profile
You say it's not the basics of natural law and conservatism to teach people to take care of themselves but then what happens when they are out on their own and they don't know how to? Captialism IS conservatism. You can be Christian and be liberal.
I gurantee you sending kids the message "don't worry, the world will take care of you" is not a good message to send in a conservative capitialist society.
Granted when they are young they need guidance but it needs to back off slowly and steadily as they grow.
2005-07-26 17:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123] Captialism IS conservatism. This is utterly false. Rapacious, consumer capitalism, based on ever-increasing consumption, expansion, and greed is not conservative.
[quote=kane123123]I gurantee you sending kids the message "don't worry, the world will take care of you" is not a good message to send in a conservative capitialist society. But sending the kids the message, 'your family will take care of you, and you should take care of your family' is a good message to send. By the way, do you really believe we live in a 'conservative, capitalist society?'
[quote=kane123123] Granted when they are young they need guidance but it needs to back off slowly and steadily as they grow.[/QUOTE] I never said otherwise. However, the problem in the modern era is certainly not too much parental guidance, but rather far too little.
2005-07-26 17:44 | User Profile
You don't know this but one of my problems as I grew up was that I thought life would be easy. I later discovered that's it's not easy and that you really have to dig your heals and be strong. I think if my parents were a little less sheltering it would have helped me. I think a little bit of teamwork is good, in terms of a family unit. The key is not to teach reliance.
2005-07-26 17:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Do you like the current situation in the West, in which women make lots of important decisions in their many powerful career positions? Many of those decisions are based largely on emotion and not largely on logic, since the female brain is naturally set up in such a way in which emotions factor into most, or all, of their thoughts to some degree.
I am surprised that you are not more supportive of that essay.[/QUOTE]
Franco, be honest...did [I]you [/I] write these essays? Because I don't understand your defending them like this.
Neither one deals in [I]any[/I] specifics; just lame gender-jokes ("men with tits", etc). Their tone is unrelievedly bitter. They do not allow for the idea that there are some instances where a woman may be the most qualified 'man' for the job. It's like the old saw that used to insist that women drivers were an unqualified menace when years of studies show that they are among the safest drivers.
They don't even touch on the mechanics of [I]the phenomena of social promotion[/I], which is what I find most annoying about these articles. If one attempts to address an important topic with jokey vitriol....and I do it all the time....you can't then demand to be taken as seriously as a doctoral thesis.
It isn't that women suck at anything besides vacuuming and breastfeeding; it's that...as with blacks....there are now quota positions that must be filled by women [I]strictly for appearances' sake,[/I] and to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity. [U]There's[/U] your problem....one-way agitprop, media-delivered, that demands we bow down to this particular quota to the point where we must not even openly acknowledge that it IS a quota. You're still allowed to huff and puff about "affirmative action" in America today - but [I]this[/I] bit of AA is landmined like the Korean DMZ.
To counter such agitprop this late in the game, you'll need something worthy of Edward Bernays to defuse those landmines. And these VNN broadsides [I]ain't it[/I]. As cranky rants, they're fine - as touchstones for serious discussion, they're ludicrous. Sooner or later we're gonna have to face it...WNs suck at propaganda, which is nothing more than framing an argument in a manner that triggers a positive reaction in as large a number of people as possible. Articles like this wallow in doomsaying, and their solutions all tend to be Day of the Rope variants: once we've taken over and driven whichever women survive White Gotterdammerung back to the kitchen at gunpoint, you'll be much happier and everything will be fine - [I]you'll [/I] see.
More importantly, they attempt to drive a [I]further [/I] wedge between men and women in an era where the buzz-words keeping everyone up at night, hoarding bullets and canned food, is "replacement births". Unless the solution for that involves bringing a few dirty books and a specimen-jar into a cloning laboratory, the only way out of our demographic Catch-22 is gonna have to involve the equal participation of women in some way. Part of winning back the 50% of society we [B]cannot [/B] do without is going to have to involve compromise and meeting them halfway. Waving a plastic sword around and demanding they relinquish their civil rights and drivers licenses at once not only won't work...you won't even get many [I]men [/I] on your side that way.
2005-07-26 17:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]You don't know this but one of my problems as I grew up was that I thought life would be easy. I later discovered that's it's not easy and that you really have to dig your heals and be strong. I think if my parents were a little less sheltering it would have helped me. I think a little bit of teamwork is good, in terms of a family unit. The key is not to teach reliance.[/QUOTE] Kane, I think perhaps we have a misunderstanding here, and we probably agree more than you realize. I am not preaching dependency for anyone. Parents should teach their children to be as self-reliant as possible, while simultaneously instilling in them that families, communities, and Christians should take care of each other. Providing this teaching is part of the leadership that a man is God-ordained to provide for his family. It is good to be able to provide for oneself, but that doesn't mean that we should base our entire culture and society around the idea that every single person must simply root hog or die.
2005-07-26 18:06 | User Profile
Yes it is amazing we do agree on a lot, it's just we focus on different things. We both think there should be teamwork and self-reliance, but I was emphasizing the self-reliance whereas you were emphasizing the teamwork. We both know that both are necessary so I think we should as you suggested focus on what we have in common.
2005-07-26 18:43 | User Profile
Well, THAT was quick.
Hello and goodbye, Brandon.
[QUOTE]First of all, you keep quoting Paul Kneisel about me as if he is some sort of expert authority. The gallery should take note that Kneisel published the Internet Anti-Fascist. He is an anti-racist activist of Jewish background. [/QUOTE] As [I]you've [/I] spend the last three years pretending to be. Except Kneisel didn't adopt the persona of a woman, 'transgendered' or otherwise.
[QUOTE]I'm going to stick a goddamn cross up your ass until you *ing bleed. I am going to cut off your penis and make you eat it raw. Then I'm going to cut out every mothering vain in your ing eyeballs one by one. Then I am going to knock out your teeth and make you give me head with your bloody, sore, painful mouth. While you're sobbing like the little coward you are, I'll be laughing. The best part of all this is, I am going to take pictures of it all and send them to every ing one of your atheist pals. I am going to post it on the internet for the whole world to see yout suffering, you son of a bitch. Then I am going to ***ing laugh for the rest of my life about how I murdered you in cold blood.
Behold a beautiful woman: is such a creature not the ideal toilet? Those luscious lips are most at home when wrapped around a fresh turd. Her eager mouth is ever ready to open wide for a stream of hot, salty piss. Her skin is supple and her soft blonde hair is perfect for wiping my ass. Deep in the heart of every woman is the need to be a walking, talking human toilet and ****-pig.[/QUOTE]
Refresh my memory here...did [I]Paul Kneisel [/I] write any of this? No, I believe this is [I]your [/I] deathless prose, Scat Queen.
And y'know what? Despite your Lady MacBeth protests to the contrary, it sure reads pretty....uhhh......[I]you [/I] know...[U]gay[/U] to me.
Time to start spamming fake-registrations, and calling your hacker buddies, I suppose. But your time is coming, Toilet Trannie. You need to be where Lindstedt is, and eventually you will be.
2005-07-26 19:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Franco, be honest...did [I]you [/I] write these essays? Because I don't understand your defending them like this.
Neither one deals in [I]any[/I] specifics; just lame gender-jokes ("men with tits", etc). Their tone is unrelievedly bitter. They do not allow for the idea that there are some instances where a woman may be the most qualified 'man' for the job. It's like the old saw that used to insist that women drivers were an unqualified menace when years of studies show that they are among the safest drivers.
They don't even touch on the mechanics of [I]the phenomena of social promotion[/I], which is what I find most annoying about these articles. If one attempts to address an important topic with jokey vitriol....and I do it all the time....you can't then demand to be taken as seriously as a doctoral thesis.
It isn't that women suck at anything besides vacuuming and breastfeeding; it's that...as with blacks....there are now quota positions that must be filled by women [I]strictly for appearances' sake,[/I] and to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity. [U]There's[/U] your problem....one-way agitprop, media-delivered, that demands we bow down to this particular quota to the point where we must not even openly acknowledge that it IS a quota. You're still allowed to huff and puff about "affirmative action" in America today - but [I]this[/I] bit of AA is landmined like the Korean DMZ.
To counter such agitprop this late in the game, you'll need something worthy of Edward Bernays to defuse those landmines. And these VNN broadsides [I]ain't it[/I]. As cranky rants, they're fine - as touchstones for serious discussion, they're ludicrous. Sooner or later we're gonna have to face it...WNs suck at propaganda, which is nothing more than framing an argument in a manner that triggers a positive reaction in as large a number of people as possible. Articles like this wallow in doomsaying, and their solutions all tend to be Day of the Rope variants: once we've taken over and driven whichever women survive White Gotterdammerung back to the kitchen at gunpoint, you'll be much happier and everything will be fine - [I]you'll [/I] see.
More importantly, they attempt to drive a [I]further [/I] wedge between men and women in an era where the buzz-words keeping everyone up at night, hoarding bullets and canned food, is "replacement births". Unless the solution for that involves bringing a few dirty books and a specimen-jar into a cloning laboratory, the only way out of our demographic Catch-22 is gonna have to involve the equal participation of women in some way. Part of winning back the 50% of society we [B]cannot [/B] do without is going to have to involve compromise and meeting them halfway. Waving a plastic sword around and demanding they relinquish their civil rights and drivers licenses at once not only won't work...you won't even get many [I]men [/I] on your side that way.[/QUOTE] Well, given the fact that this issue [feminism in all facets of modern life] is not discussed[I] nearly [/I]enough, I think that[I] any[/I] discussion of it is good, whether the tone of that discussion meets with everyone's approval or not.
A ongoing dialogue about the issue needs to be started.
2005-07-26 21:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Quantrill]Women want men who are competent, strong, decisive, and willing make a stand.[/QUOTE] Yes, of course, competent, strong, decisive,etc are all positive characteristics, but there are a few men who take that role to an extreme and almost seem to believe that it is their rightful duty to act as almost an appointed ruler. A white woman, feminist or not, is not a subject, who wants or needs, to bow down to a king.
[QUOTE]When confronted with a man who is weak, passive, and ineffectual, many women will keep pushing and pushing and pushing, trying to make the man finally stand up for himself.[/QUOTE] Or they just won't want anything to do with them, whatsoever. But, again there is a difference between a strong male who has enough respect and confidence in himself that he does not need to attempt to feel like a bigger person by seeking to control and bully another person, in this case his wife. Sometimes, comments will be made in this type of discussion from people who I do not think are aware of the difference. So yes, women, in reality, do not want, or have any respect, for some weak little pussy male who they can walk all over, and push around, but they also don't want, or respect, Mohammed from Saudi Arabia, a backwards African male, or an orthodox Jew, who believe women are stupid, weak and always passive beings who are their property and need to be kept firmly in line. We don't need any feminist propaganda to tell us that. Neither the male or female in the relationship or marriage is a child, who needs to be told what to do, and how to think, and neither should be treated like one.
It is good to see that some on here, have more respectful views of white women, then on some websites that shall remain unmentioned.lol.
2005-07-26 21:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr] Yes, of course, competent, strong, decisive,etc are all positive characteristics, but there are a few men who take that role to an extreme and almost seem to believe that it is their rightful duty to act as almost an appointed ruler. A white woman, feminist or not, is not a subject, who wants or needs, to bow down to a king.
Or they just won't want anything to do with them, whatsoever. But, again there is a difference between a strong male who has enough respect and confidence in himself that he does not need to attempt to feel like a bigger person by seeking to control and bully another person, in this case his wife. Sometimes, comments will be made in this type of discussion from people who I do not think are aware of the difference. So yes, women, in reality, do not want, or have any respect, for some weak little pussy male who they can walk all over, and push around, but they also don't want, or respect, Mohammed from Saudi Arabia, a backwards African male, or an orthodox Jew, who believe women are stupid, weak and always passive beings who are their property and need to be kept firmly in line. We don't need any feminist propaganda to tell us that. Neither the male or female in the relationship or marriage is a child, who needs to be told what to do, and how to think, and neither should be treated like one.
It is good to see that some on here, have more respectful views of white women, then on some websites that shall remain unmentioned.lol.[/QUOTE] Well put!
2005-07-26 21:28 | User Profile
Well, this thread certainly has taken a turn for...um..all over the place?.
[QUOTE=il ragno] once we've taken over and driven whichever women survive White Gotterdammerung back to the kitchen at gunpoint, you'll be much happier and everything will be fine - you'll see.
[/QUOTE]I'm not too cooperative when it comes to my freedom and rights. They are non-negotiable. All "they" will get out of me by forcing me at gunpoint is one less white woman to contribute to the "replacement births."
[QUOTE=Franco]Well, given the fact that this issue [feminism in all facets of modern life] is not discussed nearly enough, I think that any discussion of it is good, whether the tone of that discussion meets with everyone's approval or not.
A ongoing dialogue about the issue needs to be started.[/QUOTE]Really? I think this issue's been discussed plenty. It's repeated over and over again at every forum I go to, and nothing changes. What will we all get out of by recycling this subject over and over? "Feminist this," "Feminism that," "Career women, boohoohoo," what will all this accomplish? There will always be women who want to be stay-at-home moms, and women who can cut it in certain jobs, etc., it's not going to change by ranting about feminism or womens' rights.
[QUOTE=starr][QUOTE] It is good to see that some on here, have more respectful views of white women, then on some websites that shall remain unmentioned.lol.[/QUOTE]coughs I'll say. Looks like this place is more rational than others concerning this issue. :)
2005-07-26 22:02 | User Profile
One of the reasons I'd just as soon avoid that 'ongoing dialogue' is that this dialogue would be built on false foundations. For all the infighting between WN and paleo factions there is one alarming tendency that makes Alex Linder and Okiereddust, and all points between, kin: the hatred and scapegoating of [I]individualism[/I]...not for them, mind you, but for everyone else: the 'sheeple'.
So we get "here is what man should be like, here is what woman should be like". What man? Which woman? All men and all women without exception. One quotes the Bible to 'prove' this, another cites 'Mein Kampf', a third will find another source, etc. [I]Individualism is the seed that must lie fallow ere it destroy us as a race![/I]
Never mind that you are all here because you broke with the massmind, ie, [U]you acted as individuals[/U]. Never mind that your ideal of 'solidarity' is most closely embodied in those 'sheeple' you despise who speak, think, act and march in lockstep. Or that to doubt the official version of events, to question the conventional morality, to differ with the consensus reality....all require acts of [I]individualism! [/I]
To say nothing of Galileo or Martin Luther or Thomas Edison or Marie Curie - or for that matter, Jesus Christ - all of whom had to stand not only above but [I]apart [/I] from the pack before they could leave their mark upon the world. All of whom had to defy or contravene the accepted order as individuals.
There's not [U]one[/U] of you who would follow Leader X solely because everybody [I]else [/I] was.....or hold your tongue decrying a wrong the rest of the world saw as fair and just. Yet again and again this sad delusional mantra that [I]we must abolish this sick cult of individualism before it consumes us all[/I]....but only if [U]you[/U] get to be the one to dictate how the rest of us must behave and believe.
It's the sort of structural flaw that makes discussions of what men and women should be architecturally moot. There's only enough room in the thesis for one of each.
2005-07-27 04:06 | User Profile
I thought about it some more. Here is my official stance:
I believe that Women and Men naturally put themselves into different roles. Men like to be doctors and Women like to be teachers. This is usually the case. I think this is fine, however I don't think anybody should be forced into these roles. If by there own choice they choose a different role, that's there choice.
A key point to look at is the Bible obviouly was written before the industrial revolution. It's a new ballgame now, and the Scriputures must be read in that context. To play by the old rules in this new game would not be conservative, it would just be old-fashioned.
Things like the renaissance, the agricultural revolution, and the industrial revolution gave us a boom of new work, and overabundance, and that just changes things.
2005-07-27 04:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
I believe that Women and Men naturally put themselves into different roles. Men like to be doctors and Women like to be teachers. This is usually the case. I think this is fine, however I don't think anybody should be forced into these roles. If by there own choice they choose a different role, that's there choice.
[/QUOTE] I would agree. I would also have to add that women who choose these certain roles should accomplish these things only on their ability and not because of quotas,etc. If anyone would still have a problem with women being in certain professions, even if she did get their solely on her ability I would like to hear a logically explanation as to what your objections would be.
2005-07-27 06:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]In theory your idea makes sense but in reality when a wife begins making more money than her husband she starts considering herself superior to him and she ends up looking for a more wealthy man at work to hook up with. I've seen too many marriages fall apart precisely because of this course of events.[/QUOTE]
True, but a woman actually adhering to that abysmal level of shallow, materialistic thought patterning (which would be embarrassing in a 12-year old girl, let alone a grown woman) is no more part of the natural order than is the notion of women placing optional careers (financially unnecessary, that is) ahead of the well-being of their offspring, or serving in combat units, for that matter. Such an attitude is merely an isolated bit of the whole schebang people like us are charged with the duty overturning. In the future, a decent woman (not that all of them will be, anymore than we'll be able to abolish the Penal Code once the Blacks are safely ensconced in Africa and Brazil) will be appalled at the idea of such a thought pattern being welcome within the confiners of her skull. The future, healthy America is NOT going to be inhabited by the same people it is today, even if the meat that comprises their bodies will in many cases be the same; we will have made the necessary and proper adjustments as to literally transform millions of Yuppies into worthwhile men & women who are proud to uphold and defend the virtues of Western civilization. After all, if the Judeo-Luciferian ruling class can tell 'em how to think, then we can too, and we must do so for their sakes, as well as our own. The difference is, we'll be telling them the truth, not venomous lies intended to destroy or enslave them.
2005-07-27 11:03 | User Profile
Maybe I am missing something here, but I see our borders being overran by invaders bent on doing us harm, jews in our government with their own agenda, negroes and mexicans having sex with and selling drugs to our next generation while some are worried if women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Nonetheless, I have rather enjoyed following this thread, but have basically been too busy posting about immigration and border security here and elsewhere to take part until now. (I do not think I've ever made as many posts in so short a period, but had to get the word out - break time!)
K
2005-07-27 12:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] So we get "here is what man should be like, here is what woman should be like". What man? Which woman? All men and all women without exception. One quotes the Bible to 'prove' this, another cites 'Mein Kampf', a third will find another source, etc. Individualism is the seed that must lie fallow ere it destroy us as a race! Ragno, I think the 'all men and all women without exception' line is a bit of a strawman. As I have mentioned before, there will always be exceptions, but there is still value (indeed immeasureable value) in having normative roles and mores. Should there be a law that says that all women must stay home? No. Should the general social meme be that it is better for women to stay home and rear children than to go to the office to fill out TPS reports at Giganticorp? Yes.
[QUOTE=il ragno] Never mind that you are all here because you broke with the massmind, ie, [u]you acted as individuals[/u]. Never mind that your ideal of 'solidarity' is most closely embodied in those 'sheeple' you despise who speak, think, act and march in lockstep. Or that to doubt the official version of events, to question the conventional morality, to differ with the consensus reality....all require acts of individualism! The problem with the debate over individualism is that it has many meanings -- religious, civic, political. I don't doubt that when some of the internet nazis attack individualism, they envision its antidote as an undifferentiated mass of goose-steppers, but when I attack individualism, I am not advocating fascism or an oriental hive mind. Indeed, the concept of individual rights is a traditionally Christian one, that is rooted in the Christian belief in the individual soul. Rather, I am attacking the Enlightenment idea that each individual is a totally self-contained, atomistic unit, whose bonds to his family, kin, and nation only exist insofar as they can be rationalized by some theoretical concept of 'humanity.' For my part, my 'individualistic rebellion' against the modern age is not based on individualism at all, but rather on loyalty to Christendom, whose wisdom I recognize and which the moderns are trying to destroy. Do you truly think that one of the pressing dangers of our modern age is that everyone is not thinking of his own interests enough?
2005-07-27 12:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr] Yes, of course, competent, strong, decisive,etc are all positive characteristics, but there are a few men who take that role to an extreme and almost seem to believe that it is their rightful duty to act as almost an appointed ruler. Taking the qualities of competence, strength, and decisiveness to the extreme would simply make someone extremely competent, strong, and decisive; it would not make that person act as an appointed ruler. That would come from another characteristic altogether, pride, which I do not advocate.
[QUOTE=starr]A white woman, feminist or not, is not a subject, who wants or needs, to bow down to a king. As a Christian, I would say that, on the contrary, she very much wants and needs to bow down to a King, just as a man does. Accepting what nature's God has decreed goes along with this.
[QUOTE=starr]It is good to see that some on here, have more respectful views of white women, then on some websites that shall remain unmentioned.lol.[/QUOTE] I have an extremely respectful view of women, precisely because I respect their differences from men.
2005-07-27 12:23 | User Profile
Do you truly think that one of the pressing dangers of our modern age is that everyone is not thinking of his own interests enough?
Believe it or not - yes. Because whites aren't blacks, yet they think only of blacks' "rights" and blacks' "suffering".
Westerners are not Islamics, yet (see above).
Heterosexuals are not gay, yet (ditto).
Yet why does it seem as though we are drowning in militant blacks, illegal-immigrant parasites and queers everywhere you turn when these groups do not, as yet, numerically dominate us? Because the reverse is [I]not [/I] true - they think only in terms of [I]their own individual interests[/I].....and never of whites, except as obstacles.
If you want to break the cycle of white Americans helping our enemies to dig our graves for us, you must first break this Alphonse-and-Gaston mentality of 'oh no, you [I]first[/I], Jamaal/Ali/Miss Thing'. And the mindset of [I]thinking racially [/I] can only spring from "selfish" inividualism...as a natural byproduct.
"Thinking of one's own interests" is intrinsic, essential, to "freedom of association"...to the entire Bill of Rights. Yet we have been propagandized into allowing others to gut it in the name of some nonexistant corporate good. Remember when the Jewish left's main weapons against white society were to accuse whites of being "selfish" and "mean-spirited"?
The [I]only [/I] people charged with the responsibility of protecting the rights and the general welfare of what we once called "America" are our elites in government, business and academia. [I]And those are the people who have sold us out.[/I] In the name of some [I]purely-theoretical larger whole[/I] that places the very people from whom their power was originally derived at the bottom of the pile. Even the traditional battles once fought by traditional conservatives - [I]states' rights versus an all-powerful centralized govt [/I] - is a battle of the individual against the corporate superstate.
2005-07-27 13:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill] Should the general social meme be that it is better for women to stay home and rear children than to go to the office to fill out TPS reports at Giganticorp? Yes.[/QUOTE]When* they have children, yes.
[QUOTE=311inAZ]Maybe I am missing something here, but I see our borders being overran by invaders bent on doing us harm, jews in our government with their own agenda, negroes and mexicans having sex with and selling drugs to our next generation while some are worried if women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. [/QUOTE]With it being hot as it is down here, I'm pretty much barefoot whenever I'm home. I don't need to be pregnant to be in the kitchen, but I sure love to cook. Forcing me in the kitchen is another story, though. Pregnant? Can't wait. But hey, didn't you know putting us wimmin back in the kitchen is going to make everything better, going to make the invaders and jews in our government go away? So yeah, I'll "do my duty" and get back in the kitchen to save us all, while watching the illegal immigration invasion from the kitchen window.
2005-07-27 13:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]And the mindset of thinking racially * can only spring from "selfish" inividualism...as a natural byproduct.[/QUOTE] I disagree. To my mind, thinking racially cannot spring from pure individualism at all. Thinking racially is, by definition, thinking about the good of your community or kin, and not* only thinking about what is good for oneself. It is in fact individualism that leads to radical egalitarianism, since we are not allowed to infringe on any individual's 'right' to be equal.
2005-07-27 13:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MistWraith]When they have children, yes.[/QUOTE] Well, it would be difficult for them to rear the children if they didn't have the children first. Also, it is often the case that putting the career first, and the family as something that will come later, leaves the family as something that never comes at all.
2005-07-27 13:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Well, it would be difficult for them to rear the children if they didn't have the children first. Also, it is often the case that putting the career first, and the family as something that will come later, leaves the family as something that never comes at all.[/QUOTE] Why are these women having children at all if they just shove them into daycare? It almost seems as though women are having children simply to copy their female friends and not because of really wanting children.
2005-07-27 13:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Well, it would be difficult for them to rear the children if they didn't have the children first. Also, it is often the case that putting the career first, and the family as something that will come later, leaves the family as something that never comes at all.[/QUOTE] Yes. My point is I don't care what a woman does or aspires to be, as long as when her children are in their most impressionable years, they don't go on the back burner. We live a long time, career goals can be put aside for a little while, unless they don't conflict with family life.
2005-07-27 14:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]I believe that Women and Men naturally put themselves into different roles.
Yes, because they are different.
I don't think anybody should be forced into these roles. If by there own choice they choose a different role, that's there choice.
Depends on one's definition of force. I think there should be strong social taboos against women working and living independent of their husbands and/or families/father. Likewise, a man cannot grow breasts and nurse his child. (edit: Then again, maybe I should ask Angler if we men could evolve them if we stayed at home with kids long enough. :lol: )
A key point to look at is the Bible obviouly was written before the industrial revolution. It's a new ballgame now, and the Scriputures must be read in that context. To play by the old rules in this new game would not be conservative, it would just be old-fashioned.
I couldn't disagree any more. There are certain admonitions and instructions in the New Testament that are certainly culturally specific i.e. women covering their heads, etc. But the proper relational dynamics between God, man, woman and children given within Scripture transcend any culture, society and yes, even capitalism.
Things like the renaissance, the agricultural revolution, and the industrial revolution gave us a boom of new work, and overabundance, and that just changes things.[/QUOTE]
Much to the worse, as is very evident. Look at the social problems alone here in this country in the last 50 years. No amount of material wealth is worth the cost of a wrecked home and family.
2005-07-27 14:58 | User Profile
Let me just state for the record that I am of the belief that any problems we may have with women are entirely the result of men.
Women are a reflection of men -- A result and not a cause.
The root cause is men not taking care of their priorities and responsibilities before God and their own individual families. Men need to get their own act together and the women will come around. Of course I'm talking in the general sense, but that is what I believe.
Again as I stated in this thread or the other one, leading is serving. St. Paul instructed husbands to treat their wives like Christ did the Church. What did Christ do for the Church, you may ask? He gave His very life for it. We men should think long and hard about that when considering our duties and role as husbands and fathers.
2005-07-27 16:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Let me just state for the record that I am of the belief that any problems we may have with women are entirely the result of men.
Women are a reflection of men -- A result and not a cause.
The root cause is men not taking care of their priorities and responsibilities before God and their own individual families. Men need to get their own act together and the women will come around. Of course I'm talking in the general sense, but that is what I believe.
Again as I stated in this thread or the other one, leading is serving. St. Paul instructed husbands to treat their wives like Christ did the Church. What did Christ do for the Church, you may ask? He gave His very life for it. We men should think long and hard about that when considering our duties and role as husbands and fathers.[/QUOTE] Indeed! I need a real man not someone who pretends.
2005-07-28 04:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]One of the reasons I'd just as soon avoid that 'ongoing dialogue' is that this dialogue would be built on false foundations. For all the infighting between WN and paleo factions there is one alarming tendency that makes Alex Linder and Okiereddust, and all points between, kin: the hatred and scapegoating of [I]individualism[/I]...not for them, mind you, but for everyone else: the 'sheeple'.
So we get "here is what man should be like, here is what woman should be like". What man? Which woman? All men and all women without exception. One quotes the Bible to 'prove' this, another cites 'Mein Kampf', a third will find another source, etc. [I]Individualism is the seed that must lie fallow ere it destroy us as a race![/I]
Never mind that you are all here because you broke with the massmind, ie, [U]you acted as individuals[/U]. Never mind that your ideal of 'solidarity' is most closely embodied in those 'sheeple' you despise who speak, think, act and march in lockstep. Or that to doubt the official version of events, to question the conventional morality, to differ with the consensus reality....all require acts of [I]individualism! [/I] As you describe, I and Linder see things quite alike in some respect, and I think you are right. After all it is the Frankfurt School doctrine of radical individualism which is undermining our country, as MacDonald describes so well.
It is true that individualism is something NS doctrine as a whole opposes foursquare. Linder seems to want to distance himself from this particular aspect of NS, hence his "libertarianism". So here we start coming up with nuances. Is it the "radical individualism" of the FS, or the traditional "muted individualism" of the west. Is it the "noble individualism" of > Galileo or Martin Luther or Thomas Edison or Marie Curie - or for that matter, Jesus Christ - all of whom had to stand not only above but [I]apart [/I] from the pack before they could leave their mark upon the world. or the "selfish individualism" that bewails society today.
It comes down to questions really of what is your vision of man, truth, and virtue.
2005-07-28 06:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Let me just state for the record that I am of the belief that any problems we may have with women are entirely the result of men.
Women are a reflection of men -- A result and not a cause.
The root cause is men not taking care of their priorities and responsibilities before God and their own individual families. Men need to get their own act together and the women will come around. Of course I'm talking in the general sense, but that is what I believe.
Again as I stated in this thread or the other one, leading is serving. St. Paul instructed husbands to treat their wives like Christ did the Church. What did Christ do for the Church, you may ask? He gave His very life for it. We men should think long and hard about that when considering our duties and role as husbands and fathers.[/QUOTE] In many ways, that's correct.
As a general rule, men are the leaders and women are the followers in every country on earth. Men set the standards and the rules and the tone of "proper" behavior in all societies.
However, the media, movies, TV shows, books and magazines have changed women's attitudes about what they can and cannot do in modernized countries. In a sense, those things have feminized the women of the world.
2005-07-28 07:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Why are these women having children at all if they just shove them into daycare? It almost seems as though women are having children simply to copy their female friends and not because of really wanting children.[/QUOTE]
This sounds just like my wife's best friend. She's a genuinely decent person in many respects, but she is also more-or-less completely, stark raving insane, and not due to any sort of congenital tendency towards mental disorder, but seemingly as a sort of unintended psychic response to her otherwise successful indoctrination into Yuppiedom. She has a four year old son (Zachary, who adores me; I do this thing where I place my thumbs & index fingers around my eyes in a sort of ring, drape my other six fingers along my cheeks, and laugh maniacally while exuberantly remarking things like "And then I shall rule the world!," or "Everything is going according to my evil plan!" No matter how many times I do this, he ALWAYS[/I] responds by first imitating me and then shrieking "*MORE! MORE! MORE![/B]," until I either do it again, or authoritatively declare I'm too tired to keep doing it, but I digress), and when she learned her sister-in-law was pregnant with fraternal twin boys, she was literally balling, and frankly almost hysterical, due to her openly and unashamedly expressed fear that the existence of her parents' second and third grandchildren would reduce the level of extended-familial attention paid to her and her son. It was quite clear she had no concept that this was somehow a less than appropriate complaint for her to be lodging.
She's now talking about having a second child (which I hope she does, irrespective of her wacky reasoning; one could do a lot worse than a new American who is 25% each English, Irish, Serb and Croat) for literally no other reason but to avenge the effrontery of her sister-in-law in choosing to give birth to her two nephews, for crying out loud. I think a lot of American, middle class White women are not that much different from my friend, albeit generally not *QUITE[/I] as severely wacky as she is, but more to the point, they have a certain degree of pseudo-sophistication (she's probably got about a 90-95 IQ, and never took so much as a single community college course, or read any book since high school, other than maybe two or three on child birthing/rearing, none of which I really believe she finished, and is probably one of the very last people in their 30s to be quite computer illiterate in the year 2005, so many of the more typically university-educated Yuppie types are a bit more in tune with the tenor of society based on their having dipped into its various information channels more deeply and broadly than she has) which prevents them from engaging in such child-like displays of unappealing honesty. Her more unusual problem is less one of having insane and somewhat repulsive values, which are actually quite common (and one suspects they may have originated with Shecky, as one can hardly imagine them being the product of independent thought, just as her mother's absolute insistence that she must wear a watch that costs over $20,000 is an apparent aspect of her condtioning by Madison Avenue consumerist agents of the secret ruling class conspiracy to warp our minds into slavish instruments of their domination over our society), then it is one of being unaware just how repulsive her values appear to those who (thankfully) do not share them i.e., a lack of self-awareness.
2005-07-29 03:34 | User Profile
Here is what I don't get. I think the major problem is that men are leaving children behind, as most single parent homes are raised by Women. Why attack Women for not taking care of children when it seems that statistically they are doing a better job of it than Men? I'm just saying not to throw stones in a glass house.
Not much is more anoying than a rub-it-in-your-face feminist, but a man with these same agressive and controlling qualities is just as bad.
2005-07-29 11:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]Here is what I don't get. I think the major problem is that men are leaving children behind, as most single parent homes are raised by Women. Why attack Women for not taking care of children when it seems that statistically they are doing a better job of it than Men? I'm just saying not to throw stones in a glass house.[/QUOTE] In the United States, most divorces are initiated by the wife, not the husband. Furthermore, our legal system makes it almost impossible for the husband to win custody of the children.
2005-07-29 13:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]In the United States, most divorces are initiated by the wife, not the husband. Furthermore, our legal system makes it almost impossible for the husband to win custody of the children.[/QUOTE]
You need to look at why women are leaving. If a man commits adultery or is an abuser, he is not likely to leave but have his cake and eat it too, but a woman, who used to have no options but to stay and take it, can leave because she has other options available to her. I would like to see some more breakdown of this statistic. And yes, I agree that the odds are stacked against a man who wants custody of his children.
2005-07-29 14:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]You need to look at why women are leaving. If a man commits adultery or is an abuser, he is not likely to leave but have his cake and eat it too, but a woman, who used to have no options but to stay and take it, can leave because she has other options available to her. I would like to see some more breakdown of this statistic. And yes, I agree that the odds are stacked against a man who wants custody of his children.[/QUOTE] I would like to see the statistics broken down by specific cause, as well, but these data seem hard to come by since the advent of no-fault divorce. According to statistics on the website of Divorce Magazine (yes, there really is such a thing) 80% of all divorces are filed for 'irreconcilable differences' and almost 5% for strictly economic reasons. Considering that the spouse filing for divorce could get a more favorable settlement by citing abuse or infidelity if there were a basis for doing so, this seems to suggest that most divorces are not caused by unfaithfulness or abuse.
2005-07-29 14:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]You need to look at why women are leaving. If a man commits adultery or is an abuser, he is not likely to leave but have his cake and eat it too, but a woman, who used to have no options but to stay and take it, can leave because she has other options available to her. I would like to see some more breakdown of this statistic. And yes, I agree that the odds are stacked against a man who wants custody of his children.[/QUOTE]Wow, you are making some huge assumptions there. My mom knows several women who initiated divorces with their husbands and the main reason was MONEY..i.e. the husband wasn't making enough money to satisfy her needs and she could go out there and find a new guy who made more!!! These divorces are caused by the modern woman's lust for material things: big houses and expensive cars. Do you honestly think that all of the suburban White males are beating their wives? COME ON :wacko:
2005-07-29 15:19 | User Profile
[url]http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20050729/index.php[/url]
Feminist Bunk
Some years ago a British officer, Sir John Glubb, wrote a pamphlet on the rise and fall of empires. A sure sign of an empire's decline and impending fall was, he said, the rise of feminism.
I believe he is right. Of all the corrosive, nonsensical and damaging movements that have come and gone in American society, none has caused more damage than feminism. Thank God it now seems to be falling out of favor.
It goes without saying that no country can be strong without strong families, and feminism directly attacked the very concept of families. It urged young women to slut around. If men are promiscuous, why shouldn't you be? That alone shows the degree of stupidity that is characteristic of the feminist movement. That's why the feminists bear responsibility for the plight of so many single mothers.
Rules that conform to nature produce positive results. Rules that conflict with nature produce bad results. Through the centuries, Western Civilization developed some rules that took into account the natural differences between men and women. The male is by nature promiscuous. Sex to the male is like eating a good meal ââ¬â an enjoyable experience but one you can get up and walk away from without any thought. The woman, designed by nature to be a mother and susceptible to becoming pregnant, invests much more emotion in it.
So society, to protect women, develops rules to discourage promiscuity by both sexes. Even in my day, the rule was iron-tight. If you got a girl pregnant, you married her. No debate. No excuses. If you abandoned her and the baby, you were a worthless, lowdown dog. There were also social penalties against the girl who slept around. These rules weren't 100 percent effective, but they definitely put a restraint on the libido. There were far fewer teen pregnancies and single moms than there are now.
But the feminists dismantled these rules. Women are just like men, they said. You pick your own guys to sleep with and walk away when you're finished. Sex is for recreation. Well, anybody but a stupid feminist would have realized that the group that welcomed that message the most was the males. When females started saying, "Let's have sex with no obligations," the male said, "You betcha."
Of course a necessary ingredient of feminist-promoted promiscuity is abortion on demand, since no method of birth control is 100 percent effective. This has literally led to the deaths of more innocents than the Holocaust. And for what reason? Simply as an adjunct to recreational sex without responsibility.
Another stupid thing feminists did was attack motherhood and make it seem that working was the better choice. Anybody with life experience knows that it is 100 times more difficult and requires more intelligence and more energy to be a good wife and mother than to perform any corporate job. Corporations run themselves. Families don't. Most of the jobs men do no sensible woman would want to do.
As for the kids ââ¬â those who escape the garbage dump behind the abortion clinic ââ¬â they're forced to play against a stacked deck. Any child who spends his babyhood and toddler years in day care and then comes home to an empty house in his older years is going to suffer. Sometimes there's no help for it, but the feminist movement has absolutely encouraged it.
You will notice that I've said nothing about equal pay for equal work or the right to vote. Those are civil rights and have nothing to do with feminist ideology. Feminism has given bad advice to women and encouraged the worst behavior in men. Arnold Schwarzenegger is right: It encourages the development of girly men. That's probably why empires fall.
The rule is simple: Anything that encourages strong families is good; anything that weakens or destroys families is bad. And let's cut the bunk about families being any grouping you want to call a family. A family is a man and woman and their children. The hysterical harpies of feminism who tolerate chauvinist rogues like Bill Clinton while getting hysterical over any perceived threat to their beloved abortion industry should be relegated to the far-out fringes of the fruit-loop dump.
2005-07-29 18:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Wow, you are making some huge assumptions there. My mom knows several women who initiated divorces with their husbands and the main reason was MONEY..i.e. the husband wasn't making enough money to satisfy her needs and she could go out there and find a new guy who made more!!! These divorces are caused by the modern woman's lust for material things: big houses and expensive cars. Do you honestly think that all of the suburban White males are beating their wives? COME ON :wacko:[/QUOTE]while I do believe a very small amount of divorce is caused by men beating their wives, and I think the cheating thing often goes both ways, though I do think(and I admit, this is only a guess)that men tend to cheat a little more often than women. I also believe that a woman looking for a man who makes more money, lusting for material things,etc is also the cause of very few divorces. Divorce has become an easy way out, and many people, in so many ways, look for that easy way out in so many different situations, since people, have become like children, and are also encouraged to put their own selfish needs and wants ahead of anything else. If you start to have problems, that many times are going to happen in any marriage and may be completely resolvable, people are encouraged to just end the marriage, since "they are not happy"(how many people have you heard give this as an excuse, I have heard many) and "everything is not perfect"and exactly how they want it to be.
I do think it is more then obvious that a huge strain is put on marriages from financial difficulties, but I do not think that has anything to do with women always being greedy. Again we have gotten back to the idea that women are to blame for everything here, and that is complete and utter bull.
2005-07-29 19:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Wow, you are making some huge assumptions there. My mom knows several women who initiated divorces with their husbands and the main reason was MONEY..i.e. the husband wasn't making enough money to satisfy her needs and she could go out there and find a new guy who made more!!! These divorces are caused by the modern woman's lust for material things: big houses and expensive cars. Do you honestly think that all of the suburban White males are beating their wives? COME ON :wacko:[/QUOTE]
No. Abuse can be sexual or mental also. Your mother must live in a fast crowd. I have never heard personally of a woman divorcing a man because he wasn't making enough money. She must have been stupid not to do her homework in the first place to find out if he had money before she married him. Your mother's observations of a few greedy women is not enough to draw an assumption for the cause of all divorces today. As I said, I would like to see the statistic broken down a little better.
2005-07-29 19:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I would like to see the statistics broken down by specific cause, as well, but these data seem hard to come by since the advent of no-fault divorce. According to statistics on the website of Divorce Magazine (yes, there really is such a thing) 80% of all divorces are filed for 'irreconcilable differences' and almost 5% for strictly economic reasons. Considering that the spouse filing for divorce could get a more favorable settlement by citing abuse or infidelity if there were a basis for doing so, this seems to suggest that most divorces are not caused by unfaithfulness or abuse.[/QUOTE]
I would say that you are right. But just because the woman files for divorce doesn't mean that she is the cause of the breakup. I would say that the cause of most breakups is selfishness and unrealistic expectations on the part of both parties. I did a quick internet search on this and cannot find any statistics on this because causes in no-fault divorces are not always listed acccording to the data that I have read.
2005-07-29 19:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
I have never heard personally of a woman divorcing a man because he wasn't making enough money. She must have been stupid not to do her homework in the first place to find out if he had money before she married him.
[/QUOTE]Neither have I. And it doesn't make sense. If a woman is that greedy she is not even going to want to be with, or marry a guy who does not have or make much money, now is she? Isn't she going to seek out a rich guy?
[QUOTE] I would say that the cause of most breakups is selfishness and unrealistic expectations on the part of both parties [/QUOTE] I agree 100%
2005-07-29 20:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]Divorce has become an easy way out, and many people, in so many ways, look for that easy way out in so many different situations, since people, have become like children, and are also encouraged to put their own selfish needs and wants ahead of anything else. If you start to have problems, that many times are going to happen in any marriage and may be completely resolvable, people are encouraged to just end the marriage, since "they are not happy"(how many people have you heard give this as an excuse, I have heard many) and "everything is not perfect"and exactly how they want it to be.[/QUOTE] I think this is a good observation. Our society fetishizes romance and the 'spark' of a new relationship to the point that people have begun to think that those things are what actually constitute a relationship. Romance is certainly a good thing in its place, but it is only part of the overall picture. Many marriages today fail because they don't meet this ideal of perpetual romance and continuous 'fulfillment.'
2005-07-29 20:32 | User Profile
Otto has a very good point. MONEY. Women want it, men need it.
A man's financial worth determines the beauty factor of his potential mate.
More money= a piece of ass that will bring tears to every man's eyes.
Less money= a piece of ass that will bring tears to your eyes only when you're tipsy.
No money= a piece of ass that has it's own zip code.
2005-07-29 20:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Otto has a very good point. MONEY. Women want it, men need it.
A man's financial worth determines the beauty factor of his potential mate.
More money= a piece of ass that will bring tears to every man's eyes.
Less money= a piece of ass that will bring tears to your eyes only when you're tipsy.
No money= a piece of ass that has it's own zip code.[/QUOTE] And you wonder why women don't want to stick around?:rolleyes: For me its all about size! But seriously, I find it appalling that some guys think that women are so shallow. Perhaps the women you have come into contact with know that you only want her for her looks, unless of course you are talking about hookers? Reread Blond Knights earlier post regarding feminization destroying both female and male attitudes.
2005-08-05 04:15 | User Profile
Another key point is that that changed the family is some new techonology. Before it took all day to do the laundry. Now you just use a machine.
Before dishes were a pain. Now the machine takes care of it.
Face it, we live in a new world. Conservatism is about realism, not orthodoxy, but principle.
2005-08-05 13:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]My mom knows several women who initiated divorces with their husbands and the main reason was MONEY..i.e. the husband wasn't making enough money to satisfy her needs and she could go out there and find a new guy who made more!!! These divorces are caused by the modern woman's lust for material things: big houses and expensive cars. Do you honestly think that all of the suburban White males are beating their wives? COME ON :wacko:[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Half of them seem to lack the requisite testosterone to beat their own meat, let alone their wives....all those soft-spoken, 140 lb. bearded guys are really vicious monsters once they get done watching Martha Stewart's t.v. program on the Home & Gardening Network? Uh-huh. Sure thing boss!
2005-08-05 13:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I think the cheating thing often goes both ways, though I do think(and I admit, this is only a guess)that men tend to cheat a little more often than women.[/QUOTE]
I believe women are better at catching cheating men than vice-versa. I know my wife could cheat on me and get away with it, but I doubt I could succeed in cheating on her for more than a coupe weeks at the very most, and even that would be risking exposure. I don't think that dynamic is unique to my marriage by any means.
2005-08-05 14:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I don't think that dynamic is unique to my marriage by any means.[/QUOTE]
No, it's definitely not, Kevin. I think the same within my own marriage. I never trusted any woman 100% because I know they all have a little bit of the devil in them. I've seen it all.
Never trust anything that bleeds for 3 days and doesn't die.
2005-08-05 14:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]No money= a piece of ass that has it's own zip code.[/QUOTE]
Not a problem; I really dig fat girls. How any man can't is simply beyond me.
2005-08-05 14:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Not a problem; I really dig fat girls. How any man can't is simply beyond me.[/QUOTE]
I like big girls too (150 lbs limit or size 10-12)....and they're [U]much more[/U] trustworthy as mates too.
2005-08-05 14:41 | User Profile
Without wishing to offend the Christian sensibilities of the board by explicit anatomical references, there is a certain technique (one must employ both one's tongue, and either the middle or index finger from one's favored hand) that will leave a woman in blisssful awe of you, and she will be yours for life, provided you employ the technique at least once or twice a week. I'm not being flip here, people; **SHE WILL BE YOURS FOR LIFE.[/B]
2005-08-05 14:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I like big girls too (150 lbs limit or size 10-12)....and they're [U]much more[/U] trustworthy as mates too.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I think you're correct about that last. Not so much because they have fewer options, but more, I think, because they are loyal to those who desire them as they are. As it so hapens, I'm very comfortable going past the 200 lb. mark....what can I say? I'm something of a degenerate my own darn self. :jester:
2005-08-05 16:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]As it so hapens, I'm very comfortable going past the 200 lb. mark....what can I say? [/QUOTE]
T.M.I.
Too Much Information, Kevin.
:unsure:
2005-08-05 23:40 | User Profile
I think I would like a girl I can pick up and drop on the bed on our wedding night. I am only somewhat over 120 lbs. so that limits the weight level somewhat. I wear the same size cloths I did when I started the 8th grade.
2005-08-06 03:30 | User Profile
Fat chicks are ugly. Using tongue on fat chicks? Just feed them well, and they will be yours for life :D
2005-08-06 04:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I like big girls too (150 lbs limit or size 10-12)....and they're [u]much more[/u] trustworthy as mates too.[/QUOTE] I don't know. This idea could backfire. Sure you could say you feel safe because not a lot of men are going to want an overweight woman, but some will. And a woman who is fat probably is not going to feel too good about herself, she may feel she is unattractive to her husband,etc. And how do many women deal with ideas like that? By trying to prove to themselves and their husband that other men do still find them attractive. And what better way to do this then by seeking the attention and affections of another man.
2005-08-06 05:21 | User Profile
skemper,
I think you are right for the most part. Perhaps both men and women both point the finger at each other in part because they both know people of their own gender who have been hurt by bad marriages. One of my distant relative got married and they had a baby, his wife freaked out and ran off a few months later. My poor cousins was lost, he moved back in with his mother and she cared for his child. He did recover and move out a few years later with his child. I also know of a number of women who had to get rid of their husband or who had them just disappear. Still they is something that seems to me shocking about women who abandoning their children. But worse are the women who take their children as a means of getting money out of their ex-husbands.
[QUOTE]You need to look at why women are leaving. If a man commits adultery or is an abuser, ... No. Abuse can be sexual or mental also. Your mother must live in a fast crowd. I have never heard personally of a woman divorcing a man because he wasn't making enough money... But just because the woman files for divorce doesn't mean that she is the cause of the breakup. I would say that the cause of most breakups is selfishness and unrealistic expectations on the part of both parties.[/QUOTE]
2005-08-06 05:27 | User Profile
starr
I agree. From my observations in high school and college, the notorious sluts were very often fat and ugly. The pretty girls do not need to put out to get the attention from men.
[QUOTE]I don't know. This idea could backfire. Sure you could say you feel safe because not a lot of men are going to want an overweight woman, but some will. And a woman who is fat probably is not going to feel too good about herself, she may feel she is unattractive to her husband,etc. And how do many women deal with ideas like that? By trying to prove to themselves and their husband that other men do still find them attractive. And what better way to do this then by seeking the attention and affections of another man.[/QUOTE]