← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 6364 | Posts: 57 | Started: 2003-04-27
2003-04-27 22:04 | User Profile
Woman Says Women Shouldn't Vote
[Really? Fer Sure?]
[url=http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/printer/printer.asp?f=/stories/20001124/381312.html]http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/printe...124/381312.html[/url]
November 24, 2000
Why women should be denied the vote
Elizabeth Nickson
National Post
Miss Florence King, the inestimable U.S. political commentator, has been calling for the revocation of women's right to vote, and I'm wondering where you sign up for that referendum? I've been trying to listen to Election Town Hall meetings, but it's near impossible to keep me in my chair. It's a very, very depressing thing to hear grown men, querulously begging for more free stuff, as if they were 16-year-olds longing to shop at Versace. Everyone speaks in that tone of dragging, whiny complaint that I am beginning to see as particularly Canadian. Even more depressing is to see other grown-ups promising that in a week or so, of course everyone making under $60,000 a year will be getting that Platinum card, and bombs away. And if I have to listen to Alexa McDonough one more time, I will personally have to strangle her for crimes against humanity.
I blame women. All women. Every single last one of us. In the 85 years that we have had the vote, women have slowly and inexorably made government the ghost in every house and the partner in every business. And in doing this, we have de-linked morality and ethics from daily life. Little wonder kids are killing each other in schoolyards. It has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the values we promote. By example, we have taught our children that, if you're "good," you're liberal, non-racist, non-sexist, tolerant and generous, and in order to promote your utopia, anything you do, stealing elections, giving public money to your friends, lying under oath, corruption, plunder and waste, is A-OK.
Tell me. Who is going to pay for the "restoration of health funding"? Where's the money going to come from? No one addresses this. What's going to happen when the Boomers start to sicken and retire? How are we going to pay for that? How are we going to pay off the debt? The Liberals say it will take 188 years, and that's assuming the current boom continues, which is a fantasy. One-hundred and eighty-eight years. All politicians responsible should be in debtors' prison for running the bill up that high. Besides, already there are signs of a slowdown, and much of Canada, because of our ludicrous, punishing, soak-the-rich, wrong-headed, sullen tax policies, did not manage to catch the wave this time either. Why? Because, class, not enough money was released to the private sector to invest in new businesses that produce new growth, new jobs, more income to spend at the shops and betting parlours and therefore, more tax revenue.
If you're looking for someone to blame, girls, look in the mirror. You spent it.
Of course, the gender gap is not a new point of discussion. But the notion that women have simply transferred dependence from husband/daddy to the government is perennially interesting. Women, in general terms, are becoming more independent, and that by leaps and bounds, but still act like spoiled 16-year-olds at the voting booth, which most of them don't bother to visit, declaring so in a tone of prideful superiority. Why? Is it that when in the public arena, we become hysterical, and because we're feminists, even that most female of sins is good? Adding and subtracting? When it comes to public money, too male. Or do we think that somewhere in the halls of evil corporations there is a white man with a big belly, a smarmy grin, the stink of garlic and scotch on his breath, and very bad taste in haberdashery, who could actually be made to pay for everything? Perhaps there are hundreds? Perhaps if we just enslaved them then we could have the product of their labour without the bothersome task of taxing them? Doesn't that sound nice?
If we travelled back to the founding of this country, we would discover that 200 years ago, all across North America, government meant, to Europeans sickened by patronage and parasites, exactly what we have created: freeloaders feeding on the labour of ordinary men and women. Thomas Jefferson said he hoped our "general government" could "be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants."
Conservatism as a political philosophy is not anti-woman, but it is offended by what Edmund Burke called "arbitrary power," which is exactly what we have given those dreadful people in Ottawa. Conservatives are less romantic about the future than liberals. Conservatism, Oakeshott said, preferred "present laughter to Utopian bliss." Conservatives prefer a society free from as much government as possible but constrained, not by taxes and regulation, but by such antiquated notions as community, duty, honour, self-restraint, spiritual and intellectual humility and respect for others.
John Adams said once "Our generation had to be politicians and statesmen for our children to be physicians and scientists and for their children to be musicians and artists." Our culture is flowering, but we can't afford the price of admission. Hand mirror, anyone?
END
2003-04-27 22:48 | User Profile
Thank you for posting this. I've always considered the entire sweep and effect of "liberal democracy" to be a plague upon our nation, including the granting of women the right to vote. Nothing from the 20th century, the Century of the White Man's Retreat, should be spared. I believe Carol Ward once mentioned in a column she wrote that she'd gladly give up the franchise if it meant it would also disenfranchise the Soccer Moms, those debased creatures who "feel sorry for" the "poor Somalis" that currently blight Maine under the aegis of ZOG support.
John Adams said once "Our generation had to be politicians and statesmen for our children to be physicians and scientists and for their children to be musicians and artists."
I first came across that Adams quote in my "extracurricular" readings in high school, and have always treasured that sentiment ever since. No, the Establishment would never allow the words of "Dead White European Males" to be a serious or substantial part of the curriculum, so I had to find that quote on my own. It inspires me as a goal for the unfolding and advancement of Western Civilization, but that quote also saddens me in a way too, because I know how the future that Adams wished for us has been stolen by the Jews and their "New World Order" criminal lackeys. America's path was short-circuited years ago by her enemies. I really hope we one day find our way back to the fullness of Adams' vision.
Judging from the way the neocon press has been bitching and moaning about the Unreconstructed Right, I am more hopeful that we'll win. Those occupying the power positions must see something coming on the horizon that scares them, or they'd simply ignore us. Alex Linder was quite correct in his latest article analyzing this trend.
2003-04-27 23:49 | User Profile
I was watching jew Simon Schama's History of Britain before, the episode dealing with the first outbreaks of wimminism in Victorian Blighty. John Stuart Mill proved that a man can have a through-the-roof I.Q. and still be a stoopid, puling a-hole: a quiche-muncher of the first water - the Proto-Alda.
:dung:
2003-04-28 04:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Apr 27 2003, 16:04 ** Our culture is flowering **
Huh?
2003-04-28 06:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 27 2003, 16:48 > John Adams said once "Our generation had to be politicians and statesmen for our children to be physicians and scientists and for their children to be musicians and artists."**
I first came across that Adams quote in my "extracurricular" readings in high school, and have always treasured that sentiment ever since. No, the Establishment would never allow the words of "Dead White European Males" to be a serious or substantial part of the curriculum, so I had to find that quote on my own. It inspires me as a goal for the unfolding and advancement of Western Civilization, but that quote also saddens me in a way too, because I know how the future that Adams wished for us has been stolen by the Jews and their "New World Order" criminal lackeys. America's path was short-circuited years ago by her enemies.**
I feel much the same way as you do. All the struggle that went into creating one of the free-est places on Earth has come to naught, as our perennial racial enemies chained up this new nation before it was even out of its crib. This quote from Adams is hopeful, though: we're not doing anything new, after all. History is repeating itself with different details, as it always has. And as the men of John Adams' generation had to be politicians so their children could be free to make real contributions to society, so do we--for the same reason. I just hope this time around we do a better job maintaining a sense of history. :rolleyes: :lol:
2003-04-28 06:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 27 2003, 22:48 **
Those occupying the power positions must see something coming on the horizon that scares them, or they'd simply ignore us. Alex Linder was quite correct in his latest article analyzing this trend. **
What they see coming is economic calamity and no chance of slaughtering Iraqi peasants to keep Sally Soccermom's mind off the mess-that-is-almost-here.
The load of squat this article wants to hang on the ladies is: See what a mess we're in? Blame yourself.
White Americans are too good at blaming themselves for all the wrong reasons already. American women might have been soft-hearted here and there. But it was hard-headed corporate and political elites who let the millions of Third Worlders in. American women played almost no part in shipping the industrial infrastructure of the United States to Mexico and China. American women did not say yes to Ariel Sharon and the billions of dollars his pretend-country sucked out of our once-real one.
Don't fall for it, ladies. You are not the problem or even part of the problem.
2003-04-28 13:10 | User Profile
**White Americans are too good at blaming themselves for all the wrong reasons already. American women might have been soft-hearted here and there. But it was hard-headed corporate and political elites who let the millions of Third Worlders in. American women played almost no part in shipping the industrial infrastructure of the United States to Mexico and China. American women did not say yes to Ariel Sharon and the billions of dollars his pretend-country sucked out of our once-real one.
Don't fall for it, ladies. You are not the problem or even part of the problem. **
I have not. This lady's article is just drivel. She presents no facts for her thesis. There are white men who voted liberal also, and in fact most of the liberals in power are white men. Now should we get rid of the white men's vote also?
**I blame women. All women. Every single last one of us. In the 85 years that we have had the vote, women have slowly and inexorably made government the ghost in every house and the partner in every business. And in doing this, we have de-linked morality and ethics from daily life. Little wonder kids are killing each other in schoolyards. It has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the values we promote. By example, we have taught our children that, if you're "good," you're liberal, non-racist, non-sexist, tolerant and generous, and in order to promote your utopia, anything you do, stealing elections, giving public money to your friends, lying under oath, corruption, plunder and waste, is A-OK. **
Not this lady. I do not fit that sterotype. Remember for every soccer mom there is a soccer dad who also voted for this liberal utopia.
Guys. The woman's vote is a done deal. Women own property. Women have responsiblities for families. They are citizens and ave contributed greatly to the culture of this country. Being a mother and a wife does not make one a second-class citizen. I do not like liberal women any more than you like liberal men. I want to support my conservative brothers. Like it or not, the white population is going down get and if they eliminate the conservative woman's vote things will get worse. A more realistic option would be to recruit more women to our side and do get more conservative men out there voting. IN the 2000 election 53 percent of the female electorate voted and only 48 percent of the male. In 1964 72 percent of all males voted and only 67 percent of all females. Why have men not been going to vote? It looks like men have dropped the ball. This is the real problem.
2003-04-28 14:13 | User Profile
That's why I'm all for women in combat.
For the last 40 years we've been listening to the women firsters singing their favorite song, a bastardization of Professor Henry Higgin's that goes "Why can't a man be more like a woman?".
The condescension with which men are treated everywhere and all the time by not only chicks but the culture in general pisses me off. Do these broads really think as they are wont to say that they are REALLY smarter than men and that if they had been running history we would be living in a utopia with everybody singing It's a Small World After All?
I am painfully aware that we are constantly assailed by IASWAA or at least the emotions attendant to that corrosive sentiment. But it ain't no utopia we're living in and it would only be worse it women ran it.
The scientific method, the constitution, 1000 years of jurisprudence and even the laws of nature would be overturned by women just like that if doing so made them feel happier, slimmer, sexier, or at least noticed by the new produce clerk at the Safeway, the one with the beautiful eyes who doesn't wear a wedding ring.
I'm certain that every woman in America excluding those in the Frederick's catalog and maybe a Motley Crue video would do away with trial by jury and replace it with trial by immersion in water if the tradeoff would be that they would be able to fit into last years swimsuit. To them it would be worth it. What's so special about juries anyway?
Oh, so they wanna run thing? Fine. Let them be the bullet stoppers too.
2003-04-29 01:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by eric von zipper@Apr 28 2003, 08:13 ** That's why I'm all for women in combat.
For the last 40 years we've been listening to the women firsters singing their favorite song, a bastardization of Professor Henry Higgin's that goes "Why can't a man be more like a woman?".
The condescension with which men are treated everywhere and all the time by not only chicks but the culture in general pisses me off. Do these broads really think as they are wont to say that they are REALLY smarter than men and that if they had been running history we would be living in a utopia with everybody singing It's a Small World After All?
I am painfully aware that we are constantly assailed by IASWAA or at least the emotions attendant to that corrosive sentiment. But it ain't no utopia we're living in and it would only be worse it women ran it.
The scientific method, the constitution, 1000 years of jurisprudence and even the laws of nature would be overturned by women just like that if doing so made them feel happier, slimmer, sexier, or at least noticed by the new produce clerk at the Safeway, the one with the beautiful eyes who doesn't wear a wedding ring.
I'm certain that every woman in America excluding those in the Frederick's catalog and maybe a Motley Crue video would do away with trial by jury and replace it with trial by immersion in water if the tradeoff would be that they would be able to fit into last years swimsuit. To them it would be worth it. What's so special about juries anyway?
Oh, so they wanna run thing? Fine. Let them be the bullet stoppers too. **
So, you say that the only women worth saving from combat are women who pose for Frederick's and in Motley Crue videos? I think you need to keep your pants zipped more often and maybe you can think. I wouldn't want such an illogical, emotional person like you on a jury.
2003-04-29 01:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Apr 28 2003, 19:34 ** The keenest sorrows and joys are not for her, nor is she called upon to display a great deal of strength. The current of her life should be more gentle, peaceful and trivial than man's, without being essentially happier or unhappier. **
Boadicea, Joan dôArc and Elizabeth Tudor would disagree. :)
Mind you, not that I am saying you are totally wrong, but you (and Schopenhauer) are painting this complex issue with too broad a brush.
2003-04-29 02:45 | User Profile
The only good that has ever come from letting women vote is to get rid of their whining about not being able to vote. But, this little good thing is insignificant compared to their support for abortion, big brother, the nanny state, socialism, revolving doors on prisons, ad nauseam.
I dare say that women voting has never improved the outcome of any election in the United States. Everytime the woman's vote makes a different, it is always for the worse. Ditto for blacks and other big-government parasitic minorities who are beyond reason, even when they want to be reasonable.
What I say is statistical. There are many great individuals among women, blacks, etc. who are far better than many white men. If I were a woman, I'd say women voting has done no good.
But, in principle, I believe women should be allowed to vote. While merely being a woman seems to be a disadvantage in the matter of voting (no insult, the sexes are different), the real issue isn't if women should be allowed to vote, but what should qualify a person to vote. For example, it's a crime against America to allow anyone to vote who can't use an English ballot. It's immoral for someone to vote on how to spend tax dollars if they don't pay any of those tax dollars. Etc.
Before the Special Rights movement, women mostly voted the same way their husbands voted. Now, women are voting for big government to be Big Daddy.
2003-04-29 03:27 | User Profile
It's questionable whether "democracy" on a large scale is a desirable social system at all - whether women vote or not. Lying demagogues pandering to the lowest common denominator seems to be the inevitable result of it. Female voters = symptom and effect, not a cause.
However, I would have no problems with giving up the right to vote if society were run by decent White males. In a multicultural mess of a society rapidly becoming majority mestizo, black, arab, and asian, forget it. The idea of the fate of White women being decided by some powerful mestizo male voting bloc gives me an urge to grab a rifle.
Realistically, the only chance of the female vote being taken away is if there is a radical overthrow of the current system, or if Islam takes over by demographics. Choose your battles.
2003-04-29 03:36 | User Profile
Paleoleftist:
Boadicea, Joan dôArc and Elizabeth Tudor would disagree.
So would Catherine de Medici, Catherine the Great of Russia, Queen Christina of Sweden, Cleopatra, Livia....
And especially Jeanette Rankin first woman elected to the U.S. Congress in 1916 and the only member to vote against declaring war on Japan in 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. "You take people as far as they will go, not as far as you would like them to go," she said.
As a Representative from Montana, she voted against entry into both World Wars I and II. "Small use it will be to save democracy for the race," she said, "if we cannot save the race for democracy."
2003-04-29 04:36 | User Profile
Although I'm not a fan of democracy, if we have to keep it, the vote should be restricted to landowners. No vote unless you own a piece of the country, and pay property taxes on it. This would (by design) exclude the great mass of women, minorities, immigrants, the homeless. Only if you can manage your own life well enough to own land do you have any say in how the country at large should be managed. Turnout might even improve as voting becomes a privilege instead of a 'right'. :D
2003-04-29 04:52 | User Profile
They are women trying to be men, and in the context of society as an organic, integrated entity, that's like liver cells deciding that they want to be heart or brain cells instead.
Quite right. The results of history and psychometrics are also undeniable, and exceptions do not trump the natural order.
However, excessive proliferation of confused cells is not tragic when the ailment afflicts a society whose actions have long been meritorious of death. Our salvation, if any, is more likely to come from rebirth than further token attempts at conservative revival, which, incidentally, more ââ¬Ëconservativesââ¬â¢ than not think is actually happening in this instance under George II. When societies, not unlike individuals, scorn advice and wilfully engage in self-destructive behaviour, nothing further can be done. If there exists the need to engage in a kindly act, and where actions fail to bring about the obviously desired outcome, i.e., seppuku, one presents his tanto as gift and leaves the individual in peace to perform the honourable thing. Who knows, the offspring may be salvageable material.
Immigration is by far our greatest danger and [u]nothing[/u] comes close, certainly not some perceived innate deficiency of women. The biology of women is such for a reason and complaining is pointless, regardless of the extent of misdirection and amplification of nominal instincts. Deposit few ââ¬Åmodernââ¬Â men and women into an unforgiving environment with no modern conveniences and marvel at the speed with which the sexes adopt traditional behaviour. Perform the same with generous helping of various races and observe no difference -- except the one that bodes for their long-term ability to master the environment and, ultimately, their potential as humans.
We all know the differences that apart from aesthetics go into the make up of the sexes. Suffice to say that loyalty in a female lends itself easily onto the matinee idol (commoner in disguise) or the leader (the one needing no disguise). The History Channel, as I recall from when my telescreen was still connected, used to provide excellent examples of this distinction via documentaries, sometimes on the same day. Masses of lasses as far as the eye can see cheering, no, screeching at an inhuman decibel the arrival of four scruffy-looking grubs from a once notable island. Later, depicting another time and place, another set of uncountable lasses (better attired, though either is preferred to presently-fashionable garbs) lining a broad street screaming at the same unbearable pitch and saluting a particular man in a motorcade, celebrating the triumphant return from a successful undertaking lovingly termed ââ¬ÅSickle Stroke.ââ¬Â Sugar and spice indeed, though the correct ordering regarding my examples with respect to the this locution baffles me. :heart:
2003-04-29 13:25 | User Profile
**But, in principle, I believe women should be allowed to vote. While merely being a woman seems to be a disadvantage in the matter of voting (no insult, the sexes are different), the real issue isn't if women should be allowed to vote, but what should qualify a person to vote. For example, it's a crime against America to allow anyone to vote who can't use an English ballot. It's immoral for someone to vote on how to spend tax dollars if they don't pay any of those tax dollars. Etc.
**
Even though I believe that women should have the right to vote, I do not believe that everyone should. I think that the 19th amendment is unconsitutional because it should be a state issue who is allowed to vote. I think no one should be allowed to vote unless they are able to pass a test on the US and their state consitutions and to take an oath to uphold those documents. This would eliminate most minorities and less intelligent whites of both sexes. This would make voting a privilage.
**Before the Special Rights movement, women mostly voted the same way their husbands voted. Now, women are voting for big government to be Big Daddy. **
Yes, women generally voted like their husbands and fathers because they shared the same values and political views before the Jewish Feminists in the 60's. And also motherhood makes one more conservative. Also another factor for some women voting more liberally is that there are more single women. They don't have husbands and thus some may unconsciously look to government to provide for some of their needs.
2003-04-29 14:10 | User Profile
**Sure, women can function "adequately" in traditionally male-dominated institutions or professions, just as affirmative action negroes and mestizos sometimes function as "adequate" CEO's or electrical engineers. The point is, they are substandard at these tasks. Just as the best female athlete is orders of magnitude behind the best male athlete, the best female mind is behind her male counterparts, at least in the intellectual persuits important for the running of society and the economy. This is most evident at the high end of the IQ scale: even the most intelligent women will never be a Newton, a Beethoven, or an Edison.The discrepancy between male and female innate abilities can be seen at the lower end of the Bell Curve as well as at the higher end. **
You need to get out in the world more often. Putting white woman's intelligence on par with blacks and mestizos is insulting to say the least. I agree with you on on females being inferior in terms of physical strength, but women live longer and are able to fight off many illinesses and ailments better because the way God made our bodies. At the high end of the IQ scale , there are more male geniuses but many are mentally unstable. I am not saying this to take a jab at men but female geniuses do no generally have mental instability such as Einstein did for instance. He developed the theory of relativity but could not find his way out of his office building. Most men are not going to a Newton, or Beethoven, or an Edison, either, but that does not exclude them from the right to vote and neither it should women.
The discrepancy between male and female innate abilities can be seen at the lower end of the Bell Curve as well as at the higher end. Even the most stupid male lout you may meet generally has some useful skill. He may be dumb as a brick, but that guy will still know something useful, be it about lawnmowers, guns, cabinet building, diesel engines, etc. In contrast, a vacuous woman's mind is filled with nothing besides the latest gossip in Cosmopolitan or People magazine.
Repairing such things as guns, lawnmowers, diesel engines, and building cabinets definitely takes an IQ more that a brick and is not for dummies. That was an insulting statement to men who practice those professions. While a vacuous woman's mind may be filled with Cosmo or People magazine ( and I agree with you that anyone who read such trash is vacuous), pornography outsells women's and gossip mags by astromonical orders of magnitude. Who is buying all this great amounts of pornography? Men. What does that tell you about the state of their minds? Now tell me, sir, how dies pornography improve the mind of men and society? All I can see that it increases crime and objectifies women and brings manhood to the lowest common demoninator. Now which sex is showing more vacuousity now?
**For a brilliant discussion of this subject by a master, see Of Women, by Arthur Schopenhauer., who wrote
You need only look at the way in which she is formed, to see that woman is not meant to undergo great labor, whether of the mind or of the body. She pays the debt of life not by what she does, but by what she suffers; by the pains of childbearing and care for the child, and by submission to her husband, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. The keenest sorrows and joys are not for her, nor is she called upon to display a great deal of strength. The current of her life should be more gentle, peaceful and trivial than man's, without being essentially happier or unhappier. **
I think that a family is best headed by a husband but if this the majority of this statement was true, then no woman could or should be a mother then. I have worked as a chemist on the job and as a mother now, and I can tell you that motherhood is a more demanding job physically, emotionally, and mentally. A woman has to grow up quickly to meet the demands of motherhood if she is going to succeed. If a women has the intelligence to raise a child and to know the laws of the state, then should should have the right to vote.
2003-04-29 14:47 | User Profile
I'd be surprised if this so-called "master", Arthur Schopenhauer, is actually in a steady marriage with a woman.
2003-04-29 14:50 | User Profile
**So, you say that the only women worth saving from combat are women who pose for Frederick's and in Motley Crue videos? I think you need to keep your pants zipped more often and maybe you can think. I wouldn't want such an illogical, emotional person like you on a jury. **
What's illogoical about it? If snail darters are worth preserving then it is anti humanism of the basest sort to send swim suit/lingerie models into harms way. Isn't that what fat broads are for?
What concerns me about chicks is that their priorities are wrong.
Most women would gladly trade habeas corpus for 10 pounds off their left buttock and throw in writs of mandamus for the same poundage off their right then sleep secure in the knowledge they had done something noble and buoyed by anticipation of the envious looks of the girls at the office.
2003-04-29 14:58 | User Profile
Cosmo is pornography according to the legal and cultural standards of many nations. Believe it or not, but a lot of hardcore pornography is also viewed by women. I mean by this not only "trashy romance novels" but also XXX-rated images. By the way, probably more women than men watch MTV and the like, which have plenty of pornographic material.
Does this negate the fact that there is a booming pornography industry geared towards men? Does this negate the fact that a rather large fraction of men nowadays are getting their definition of masculinity from The Man Show and Penthouse?
Most women are unfit to vote. Unfortunately, most men have also been made unfit to vote, thanks to a dumbed-down public education system (which was not put into place by women voters) and a culture which revolves around a soul-sucking mass entertainment media (not put into place by women voters).
I agree that only property owners who can pass certain tests should be allowed to vote in a democratic society, if a democractic society must be had at all.
2003-04-29 15:01 | User Profile
**What's illogoical about it? If snail darters are worth preserving then it is anti humanism of the basest sort to send swim suit/lingerie models into harms way. Isn't that what fat broads are for?
What concerns me about chicks is that their priorities are wrong.**
If you value pornographic sluts who sell their body to the highest bidder and refuse to have a child (would ruin the figure) or commit to any one man unless he has a fat wallet and will conveniently die in 5 years over a chubby woman who would make an excellent wife and mother, I question your priorities.
2003-04-29 15:46 | User Profile
The idea of the fate of White women being decided by some powerful mestizo male voting bloc gives me an urge to grab a rifle.
:th:
What we're seeing in Western Civilization (at least what's left of it) is a sexual economy waaaay out of whack.
Anyway, the thing is, the basic interaction between men and women, when you strip away romance and all the Hallmark cards coated with that weird fuzz, is a trade: sex for security. That is the sexual economy and, except in the cases of assault, women control it; it is their historical source of power, a counterbalance to a more imposing male physique.
Men generally only do stuff so they can get laid. If that means providing security, whether physical or financial, to a woman, they'll do it. If they didn't have to do anything to get laid, then they won't. Some feminist heretic once said something along the lines of, "If women ran things, we'd all still be living in grass huts." That may be true, but if men were able to obtain sexual favors without having to do anything for them, we'd be in the same boat, i.e. Africa.
In our current society, women not only control the access to sex, they have the nanny state as another source of power. So, what we're seeing in the West is more of a "flea market" sexual economy, where anything goes, rather than a respectable, aboveboard transaction (they don't call it a marriage "contract" for nothing!). Some women figure they don't need men since the State has replaced the male in the security role and are hostile to the idea of surrendering any power, while others "give it up" for free, and often (sexually liberated). Others have weirdly adopted charcteristics of both. All against a highly sexually-charged atmosphere pervasive in our culture. This leaves men somewhat confused. They really have no power in personal affairs any more, but they're happy that they can find easy sex on a regular basis, so why should they risk running into marriage, where that lack of power leaves them in a very vulnerable position? The pornography thing is a side issue. A symptom and not a cause. The West is truly feminized at all levels.
This is not to say the opposite is any good, either. Look at societies organized as "testostocracies" such as Mexico, Africa or Islamic countries. Women are treated like dirt and sperm receptacles, but little else overall. The condidtions in these countries, which are charitably described as "appalling", are a direct result of men being fully in charge of the sexual economy. No "headaches" allowed in Tijuana, Kinshasa or Riyadh, because you're gonna put out anyway!
There really needs to be balance, and where that balance is to be found is one of the classic historical struggles. It's not a zero-sum game. White men and white women used to be traditional allies when the balance was implied and understood. Judaized feminism (a whole 'nother thread) pitted these two groups against each other and they haven't recovered to this day. This thread alone has us sniping at each other in a "whose fault is it and whose sex is more reprehensible?" fashion. Chill out! Men are pigs, yes. We know it and can keep it in check long enough to leave the seat down, but the women have to get past seeing any criticism of the fairer sex as a wish by men to herd y'all back in the kitchen, pregnant and without footwear (though men aren't helping by pushing the "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" thing). However, I think we could examine the pros and cons of female suffrage without resorting to a pissing contest.
2003-04-29 15:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by skemper@Apr 29 2003, 09:10 **I think that a family is best headed by a husband but if this the majority of this statement was true,ÃÂ then no woman could or should be a mother then. **
I don't follow this.
I have worked as a chemist on the job and as a mother now, and I can tell you that motherhood is a more demanding job physically, emotionally, and mentally.
Without a doubt. Raising children is the most demanding and important job in the world.
If a women has the intelligence to raise a child and to know the laws of the state, then should should have the right to vote.
With regards to raising a child, I think being a successful mother probably has more to do with emotional and nurturing capabilities than simple intelligence. I've observed highly intelligent women who wouldn't sacrifice a couple of minutes of their time to change their own baby's diaper. A mother can nurture a child in a manner that no father can and I don't think that is a function of intelligence.
As to voting, in an ideal society a female would have their vote through either their father or their husband as the father/husband should represent his entire family/household. I think we can see the results of us tampering with God's ordained order.
2003-04-29 16:01 | User Profile
Does this negate the fact that there is a booming pornography industry geared towards men? Does this negate the fact that a rather large fraction of men nowadays are getting their definition of masculinity from The Man Show and Penthouse?
Men are visually stimulated. That's one o' them differences between us. The fact that the industry is booming is, again, a symptom of our times and not indicative of anything inherently repulsive about us fellas.
By the way, I loathe "The Man Show." It would be better called, "The Puerile Perpetual Adolescent Jews Who Like to Say "Pee Pee", "Doo Doo" and "Titties" While Flatulating Into a Microphone Show." Anything which purports to define masculinity as a lowest common denominator is grotesque. Similarly, Cosmo, Sex in the City, etc. do the same for women, I would think, but without the gas.
2003-04-29 16:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Edana@Apr 29 2003, 10:47 ** I'd be surprised if this so-called "master", Arthur Schopenhauer, is actually in a steady marriage with a woman. **
So would medical science.
2003-04-29 16:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Apr 29 2003, 11:15 ** That is the key difference between vacuous men and vacuous women: the vacuous men still fulfill their male role in society while vacuous women do not. **
AY, I'm sure you're not suggesting that the only male role in society is that of a worker or economic unit, if you will. What about the male's responsibility towards his wife, children and God? Surely these are the foundational building blocks for any successful society and not just a vocation.
2003-04-29 16:43 | User Profile
By the way, I loathe "The Man Show." It would be better called, "The Puerile Perpetual Adolescent Jews Who Like to Say "Pee Pee", "Doo Doo" and "Titties" While Flatulating Into a Microphone Show." Anything which purports to define masculinity as a lowest common denominator is grotesque. Similarly, Cosmo, Sex in the City, etc. do the same for women, I would think, but without the gas.
I agree. The lowest common denominator for females and males is what is heavily marketed and glorified in our society, to the detriment of both men and women.
The only thing I really object to in this thread is some men (perhaps single) buying into the idea that all women are on the same level as a child or Negro by nature just because many women themselves have bought into the glorification of that lowest common denominator and judaized Gender Wars which turned them into a very large, parasitic "victim" class.
When we get complaints about how the highest priority for many women is to lose weight in the same post which values models over those useless "fat broads", there is obviously a clear case of some men refusing to look at themselves at all. When most men value thin sex toys over good wives and mothers and relegate all women who are not up to high aesthetic standards to the trash heap, many women will spend a great deal of their energy trying to become thin sex toys.
Our entire society has lost all sense of priority, wisdom, and decency - not just women and not at the fault of only women.
2003-04-29 17:11 | User Profile
**You missed my point. The vacuous men whose minds are filled with sports and pornography still have some useful skills as a general rule. The man in question may not keep up with world events (preferring Penthouse magazine to AmCon), but he still probably knows how to fix an outboard motor. And, as Octopod noted, most "idiot savant" types who are indeed dumb as bricks but brilliant at one thing tend to be men.
In contrast, your typical "Cosmo girl" is utterly devoid of redeeming human qualities. She has failed in her duties as housewife and mother, and fills the void with entirely useless drivel. That is the key difference between vacuous men and vacuous women: the vacuous men still fulfill their male role in society while vacuous women do not. **
I have news for you. Many women read who read Cosmo and other magazines like it are wives and mothers and do fulfill their role in society. Now they are not definitely Christians and I do question their morals myself in reading it but many keep the house and take care of their kids and their husbands are happy with them. Cosmo is just a diversion for them as sports and pornography is for men. Many women who read Cosmo do hold all types of jobs and have skills as many of these men who read and prefer sports and pornography. Also just because a woman is single and holds a job does not make her a "Cosmo girl" and hold to the immoral values that that magazine holds. From your comments, you seem to think motherhood takes no particular skills and have a low view of it. I can tell you motherhood takes more skills than repairing an outboard motor. My husband, an engineer, agrees with me after staying home and taking care of our children for a week while I had to go away.
Also just because a man can repair an outboard motor, build cabinets, or is an idiot savant who can recite pi to the 10,000th place does not make him qualified to make judgments on whom to vote or to sit on a jury and apply logic and reason to decide a case.
I also would like to hear your comments to TD's remark above.
2003-04-29 17:22 | User Profile
many women will spend a great deal of their energy trying to become thin sex toys.
This is what I've been saying all along, Edana. I hope we can agree that this is a worthy occupation of a woman's time. Certainly preferable to working as a volunteer at a hospital or taking night school classes for mere economic considerations. I'm sure that we on this forum can all agree that expending the energy to become a thin sex toy is a better career move then getting a college degree, if you are going to bring mammon into every discussion.
I'm pleased to see that you and I are now on the same wave length after our initial misunderstanding of our mutual positions.
I sincerely hope you will now consider me a close friend.
2003-04-29 17:30 | User Profile
sighs
2003-04-29 18:06 | User Profile
**What I have claimed is that pornography is far from a male-only pastime, that women are often far from innocent victims of male lusts, and that women instinctively need male authority. Far from blaming women for everything, I place much of the blame on cowardly men for surrending the reins of power in the first place. You may not like the best solution, however: white men need to take control again, by any means available, and all the way. **
Why would I not like White men being in control again? My concern is White men distracting themselves by venting on and alienating the other gender by not remembering that we are human beings capable of reason and wisdom - not mere sperm receptacles. I really hope no one here considers their mother or wife a sperm receptacle incapable of intelligent thought.
"A democratic society" is a euphemism for a mob-ruled cesspool that sided with communists in WWII. The sooner "democracy" is dead and buried, the better.
We are in agreement. After all, male voters are who gave females the right to vote.
2003-04-29 18:52 | User Profile
This debate is fascinating because it is an excellent microcosm of the fundamental problems of Western civilization. Or at least how western civ. is manifested here in the States. All of the various factors come in to play, from industrialization and the rise of the isolated nuclear family to the undermining of traditional Christian morality by feminism, secularism, etc. What price has capitalism or economic efficiency exacted on basic cultural concerns like the family and community. This is the heart of the Culture War.
At the same time it is daunting when I consider what kind of changes need to take place in order to realize the type of nation or society that I as a traditionalist would like to see. It's not quite like advocating a tax-cut, is it? The neo-cons say the Hegelian dialectic has played itself out and we have arrived at the end of history. It doesn't get any better than this, they believe.
But we true conservatives, traditionalists and nationalists see a different picture. We look to the culture and the house of cards the neos have erected to sustain it. I don't think it can last, because it is too out of whack with reality of our natures. Buchanan had it right back in '92. It really is all about the culture war. But the big question is how do we get from here to there.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. I just really wanted to say that I am enjoying reading everyone's comments here.
2003-04-29 19:18 | User Profile
That would be rather unlikely, since that great philosopher has been dead for well over a century. Although female necrophile Karen Greenlee of Jew Adam Parfrey's "Apocalypse Culture" fame might well be interested:
Change is to was.
2003-04-29 19:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Apr 29 2003, 14:52 ** This debate is fascinating because it is an excellent microcosm of the fundamental problems of Western civilization. Or at least how western civ. is manifested here in the States. All of the various factors come in to play, from industrialization and the rise of the isolated nuclear family to the undermining of traditional Christian morality by feminism, secularism, etc. What price has capitalism or economic efficiency exacted on basic cultural concerns like the family and community. This is the heart of the Culture War.
At the same time it is daunting when I consider what kind of changes need to take place in order to realize the type of nation or society that I as a traditionalist would like to see. It's not quite like advocating a tax-cut, is it? The neo-cons say the Hegelian dialectic has played itself out and we have arrived at the end of history. It doesn't get any better than this, they believe.
But we true conservatives, traditionalists and nationalists see a different picture. We look to the culture and the house of cards the neos have erected to sustain it. I don't think it can last, because it is too out of whack with reality of our natures. Buchanan had it right back in '92. It really is all about the culture war. But the big question is how do we get from here to there.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. I just really wanted to say that I am enjoying reading everyone's comments here. **
I agree with Edana--women are not the problem, or rather, they are the symptom rather than the disease--men are the problem since it is the White men in particular that seem to have dropped the ball. White men are who enfranchised Negroes and women. Somewhere along the line, we forgot about what it takes to remain on top. The 20th century was the literal Century of the White Man's Retreat.
The Left calls this softness that we've fallen into today "civilization and progress." I call it an abandonment of the duty to lead, live and prosper.
I think part of our problems derive from the fact that White men are willing to put themselves at a disadvantage just to live up to some "moral code" they've created, "consistently, fairly and objectively." They haven't figured out that you should only speak the language of morality, fairness and so on when it exclusively benefits them. When one forgets this, it puts one at the mercy of the first person who comes along and does not act altruistically. And we've seen that Blacks, Jews, and even some women, have no qualms about "taking advantage of their opportunities" at the expense of White men. This is an extension of the fact that "those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing for those who don't." White men are simply suckers, the true Polyannas.
I'm often surprised that I have to tell people that this is how the world actually works. I'm amazed that my position is seen as the "extreme" or "minority" position in many quarters. People have such a hard time conceiving of their own exclusive interests and acting in defense of them, ruthlessly if need be.
2003-04-29 20:16 | User Profile
By example, we have taught our children that, if you're "good," you're liberal, non-racist, non-sexist, tolerant and generous, and in order to promote your utopia, anything you do, stealing elections, giving public money to your friends, lying under oath, corruption, plunder and waste, is A-OK.
Women having the right to vote should not be the issue. Not as long as there are Women who can and do make statements like these. Of course she could have added "selling out your countries infrastructure, manufacturing base, and future out for political contributions from multi-national corporations but hope springs eternal.
2003-04-29 23:16 | User Profile
At the risk of sounding like a libertarian ideologue, which I'm not, when it comes to the culture war, family breakdown, and declining birth rates, GOVERNMENT IS THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM.
Remove all government regulation and interference in family affairs and we would very quickly see a recovery in birth rates and a renewal of traditional family life.
The main problems:
Remove this so-called right and women who want to have a baby, (the majority) would immediately move to form stable, committed relationships with men in order to secure support for their children, just like they always did up until about forty years ago.
If the obligations and responsibilities of marriage, as marriage stands today, were put in a contract, most men would never sign it. ("You agree that your wife will have the right to kick you out of the family at any time for no reason whatsoever, restrict access to your children, and, in addition, she will keep right of access to a major part of all your future income including pensions, etc.").
If the government can be prevented from interfering in family life, power in the male-female relationship will naturally shift back toward the father/husband whose role as provider for the family would once again be highly sought out. And for accepting these responsibilities men could expect to receive something in return, namely fidelity from their wife and the right to live in the same house with their children (father custody was the norm in the first half of the 20th century). This arrangement would bind men and women more tightly in traditional families as most women would be forced to commit to marital relationships if they wanted to have children. The birth rate in these families should also increase as men reacquire the power to influence how many children a family will have.
In spite of the feminist line about marriage being a form of bondage for women, the truth is that marriage has always been a way for civilized societies to bind men to the family and its responsibilities. The father's link to the family is the weak one and successful cultures will support and nurture it. In the West, recent government family policies have, almost without exception, attacked and weakened the father's attachment to the family with predictable consequences.
In matrilineal Africa "it takes a village to raise a child" because nobody really knows who their father is. When men are only loosely attached to their offspring they exhibit little interest in building schools, hospitals, or anything else that might advance the interests of the community at large. In the West, fathers with strong family ties are almost always the leaders in community-building activities.
Most Western women will strongly oppose any changes in line with the points above. They consider their newly won "rights" (really, obligations they've been able to force on men while sliding out from under the traditional obligations that were imposed on women) to be fully justified and well-deserved. And by saying this I'm not making a moral judgement about women in general - they've simply capitalized on the opportunities to advance their own class interests as they've been offered. Unfortunately, universal suffrage in Western democracies makes it unlikely that we'll see changes anytime soon.
2003-04-30 04:17 | User Profile
**Eric V. Z.: Do these broads really think ... they are REALLY smarter than men and that if they had been running history we would be living in a utopia with everybody singing It's a Small World After All? **
Sadly, yes they DO! And so do the weenie liberal males! They REALLY believe that it is the bad corporations and evil conservatives who have led us to wars and starving children in Africa....
Do y'all ever read Utne Reader? (Yeah, I DO have to keep a... recepticle... next to me while reading it, in case I fail in retaining my... previous ingestions...) These people are COMPLETELY convinced, fanatic believers in the religion of liberalism... They have NO question that they SHOULD run the world, and then all will be fine!
But as usual B) , Eric has let his own misogyny get in the way of his thought process. It's NOT about being slim or attracting the clerk -- it's because women are NATURALLY and appropriately concerned about others -- do you NOT want to mother of your children to be first and foremost concerned for their welfare? All-y'all men have dropped the ball, and instead of protecting your women and preventing them from expanding their 'objects of concern' to include other races and places, you've let them care for many many wrong objects!
It takes a HELL of a strong stomach (for a WOMAN) to say, "let the african babies starve!" or "let the poor somalis bleed and die amidst their civil wars, drug wars, slavery and all" or "DON'T try to stop the stupid hutus and tutsis from hacking each other to bits with machetes" -- it's a hard hard thing for a woman to turn her back. Hell! I'm ALL for sending all blacks "back home" <_< and letting them do what they will THERE! But I am also disturbed and unhappy at the thought of all those children dying, and I feel sorry for the poor folks who are displaced, disrupted and damaged by all the bad things happening there (or anywhere).
It's the rare woman who can read or see these stories and NOT feel an immediate need to respond, to help, to protect, to shield, to care for. It is incumbent ON MEN to guide women and prevent them from mistaking self-inflicted, or society-inflicted, or fate-inflicted tragedy with something they need to try to fix!
So, back in YOUR lap, Eric-my-man -- it is the right thing for women to care for and nurture others - it is the right thing for MEN to have prevented them from directing that care toward the wrong objects!
2003-04-30 04:31 | User Profile
MadScience: By the way, I loathe "The Man Show." It would be better called, "The Puerile Perpetual Adolescent Jews Who Like to Say "Pee Pee", "Doo Doo" and "Titties" While Flatulating Into a Microphone Show." Anything which purports to define masculinity as a lowest common denominator is grotesque. Similarly, Cosmo, Sex in the City, etc. do the same for women, I would think, but without the gas.
The precision of your new title means you must watch the show, eh?! :o :D :lol:
2003-04-30 04:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Apr 30 2003, 00:17 ** > **Eric V. Z.:ÃÂ Do these broads really think ... they are REALLY smarter than men and that if they had been running history we would be living in a utopia with everybody singing It's a Small World After All? **
Sadly, yes they DO! And so do the weenie liberal males! They REALLY believe that it is the bad corporations and evil conservatives who have led us to wars and starving children in Africa....
Do y'all ever read Utne Reader? (Yeah, I DO have to keep a... recepticle... next to me while reading it, in case I fail in retaining my... previous ingestions...) These people are COMPLETELY convinced, fanatic believers in the religion of liberalism... They have NO question that they SHOULD run the world, and then all will be fine!
But as usual B) , Eric has let his own misogyny get in the way of his thought process. It's NOT about being slim or attracting the clerk -- it's because women are NATURALLY and appropriately concerned about others -- do you NOT want to mother of your children to be first and foremost concerned for their welfare? All-y'all men have dropped the ball, and instead of protecting your women and preventing them from expanding their 'objects of concern' to include other races and places, you've let them care for many many wrong objects!
It takes a HELL of a strong stomach (for a WOMAN) to say, "let the african babies starve!" or "let the poor somalis bleed and die amidst their civil wars, drug wars, slavery and all" or "DON'T try to stop the stupid hutus and tutsis from hacking each other to bits with machetes" -- it's a hard hard thing for a woman to turn her back. Hell! I'm ALL for sending all blacks "back home" <_< and letting them do what they will THERE! But I am also disturbed and unhappy at the thought of all those children dying, and I feel sorry for the poor folks who are displaced, disrupted and damaghed by all the bad things happening there (or anywhere).
It's the rare woman who can read or see these stories and NOT feel an immediate need to respond, to help, to protect, to shield, to care for. It is incumbent ON MEN to guide women and prevent them from mistaking self-inflicted, or society-inflicted, or fate-inflicted tragedy with something they need to try to fix!
So, back in YOUR lap, Eric-my-man -- it is the right thing for women to care for and nurture others - it is the right thing for MEN to have prevented them from directing that care toward the wrong objects! **
Avalanche has stated the situation very, very well. That's exactly the problem--something good about women (their nurturing instincts) have been misdirected toward those "outside the tribe," and worse, they're lobbying to have tribal resources sent off down that out-group rat-hole.
I wish, so very much, that men would find it within themselves to somehow convince women to change this particular policy course (or at least grab the damn wheel of the ship and alter course themselves). The problem is within us--and when I say us I'm talking to my fellow White men.
White men have been domesticated, and they need to find it within themselves to reverse that condition. The Revolution starts inside the mind and heart of the White man himself--he holds the key to his own mental prison, if only he could convince himself he's in the right to insert the key into the lock and turn it.
A critical mass of White men need to recover a certain style of self-understanding and acting in the world, and of knowing one's rightful place in the world.
2003-04-30 04:37 | User Profile
Edana: When we get complaints about how the highest priority for many women is to lose weight in the same post which values models over those useless "fat broads", there is obviously a clear case of some men refusing to look at themselves at all. When most men value thin sex toys over good wives and mothers and relegate all women who are not up to high aesthetic standards to the trash heap, many women will spend a great deal of their energy trying to become thin sex toys.
"high aesthetic standards" -- dja ever notice how the fashionistas all want "women" who have bodies built like 12-yr-old BOYS?! What MAN wants a woman who looks like a BOY-CHILD? Oh, wait, yeah, we DO know a class of "artistic" men who PREFER a boy-child-body to a woman's body, don't we?! :angry: <_<
2003-04-30 05:10 | User Profile
Octopod: Women are also visually stimulated, although perhaps not to the same extent. Women do consume pornography, and are even more preoccupied with their bodies than men are. The Victorian, proto-feminist nonsense about women as innocent "victims" evaporates quickly in any atmosphere of realism. The medievalist view of women as lustful succubi is often far closer to the truth.
Women are preoccupied with their bodies because MEN choose women on the basis of attractiveness. (Recommended reference: What Women Want -- What Men Want: Why the Sexes Still See Love and COmmitment So Differently by John Townsend)
For example, there is the often-stated claim that women care only about money and security when selecting sexual partners. This is only partially true; female lust needs to also be taken into account. What attracts so many white women to ghetto blacks? Certainly not money or security, but instead a mixture of female lust and "white guilt."
No, it's not "lust." It's the innate (as in genetic, and usually unconscious) desire to have a PROTECTIVE male, a strong man, a warrior. White weenies and milquetoasts are NOT attractive because they are unable to protect their women and offspring. Black males "seem" (in the media, where most women get their 'training') to be strong enough and masculine enough to fit the unconscious object... That black males usually don't invest in their offspring is NOT generally portrayed in the media (and guess why?!)
White males are portrayed as fools and weenies -- and so women are 'forced' to look somewhere else for a strong protective male who they HOPE will invest in them and their offspring. It's independent of the woman's stated allegience to feminist or open-sex principles -- they all still look for a strong man, higher status than they are/have, and who appears willing to invest in the woman and her offspring... (Recommended reference: What Women Want -- What Men Want: Why the Sexes Still See Love and COmmitment So Differently by John Townsend)
**A British feminist by the name of Carol Queen caused quite a stir by pointing out that being overpowered is women's number one sexual fantasy. Deep down, even the most feminist woman sexually desires a dominant male. **
Deep down, as in: genetically, women want a STRONG man - it's not the 'overpowering' that women want, it's the man who is STRONG enough to do so -- but also strong enough NOT to have to do so to THEM. Pretty much all women want a man who is strong and willing to use force against ANYONE else but the woman -- the man uses force to PROTECT his woman. So the man must be both strong enough to protect her, and controlled enough to not hurt her.
Let's face it: in this day and age, the majority of white men are sissies. One notices that most black men revel in being "homophobic," "sexist," and unabashedly macho. It is easy to see why some alienated white women will find such men to be sexually attractive. Such women are placing their own lusts before the interests of their race, family and even their own health and safety. That's some seriously powerful lust, and rivals that of even the most sex-obsessed men.
No, it's not a matter of lust. Women 'pick' men on the basis of prospective security and apparent willingness to invest his resources (emotional and tangible) in her and her offspring. If the media is 'teaching' women that white men can't figure out how to open a jar of cough syrup, or as in The Practice (where the white male lead is entirely unable to protect his wife, is hopeless and helpless when she is threatened by a serial killer (so SHE goes out to buy a gun (which her 'loving husband' finds a terrible thing to do) and SHE kills the killer), that white males can NOT be relied upon to protect their women. Blame the media, and its overlords, but this is what women are being taught, and thus they are being led to betray their race and nation by trying to fulfill their unconscious picture of "the right man."
Women pick their men (unconsciously) by whether or not they are strong enough to protect them and their children. They are NOT placing "their own lusts before the interests of their race, family and even their own health and safety" -- they are attempting, in this pathological society, to protect their interests by chosing the man who seems strong enough to protect the "interests of their race, family and even their own health and safety."
Their actions are prima facie designed to protect them by finding the strongest male. That they have been misled into looking outside their race is a tragedy (well, it's actually a betrayal of the worst sort!!) Where are the white men and women who are strong enough to RESIST the siren song of jew-media?
So many women want strong protective white men, and instead we get Eric V.Z. who wants a supermodel with a little boy's body; and we get carloads of men who want to visit stripper bars, thereby proving their unwillingness to invest in their own wife/mother of their children; and we get boys-in-men's-bodies who want a newer better mommy to take care of them instead of looking for a woman that THEY can take care OF; or we get weenie weak liberal men who want world peace and to feed the poor -- to the detriment of their OWN!
How rare is the strong, honorable white man!! And thank... Thor? Zeus? Odin? (Hey Wintermute? Who am I supposed to thank this week?) well thank who-ever that I actually was found by one! NeoNietzsche, you are my hero!)
2003-04-30 10:38 | User Profile
**But as usualÃÂ , Eric has let his own misogyny get in the way of his thought process. It's NOT about being slim or attracting the clerk **
You gotta be kidding me. That's ALL it's about. Nurturing children takes a distant second here. And you know why? OK, I'll tell you. Because unless they attract a man there ain't gonna be any children to nurture. That is why boojun is hard wired to always say no matter what the circumstance "what am I gonna wear" or "I need to get my hair done" or that old standby "do you like the color of my nails?". Most boojun could go through 12 years of primary school, 4 years of college and Harvard Law with honors and NEVER say anything other than the above.
Do you really think Legally Blond with Reese Witherspoon was a comedy? If so, you missed the point. It was a reality show.
And I draw upon a vast trove of experience when I talk about produce clerks, having been one at the A&P many years ago. Produce clerks, especially good looking ones like me, get more boojun than Kiss and Mick Jagger combined. And it's all from "nurturing" married woman who are always asking to be taken back into the food locker to see fresh grapes then the minute they get back there on that ridiculous pretense they are droppin trow. Always droppin trow. Right there in the freakin A&P! Nothing is sacred anymore.
2003-04-30 10:46 | User Profile
No, it's not "lust." It's the innate (as in genetic, and usually unconscious) desire to have a PROTECTIVE male, a strong man, a warrior. White weenies and milquetoasts are NOT attractive because they are unable to protect their women and offspring. Black males "seem" (in the media, where most women get their 'training') to be strong enough and masculine enough to fit the unconscious object... That black males usually don't invest in their offspring is NOT generally portrayed in the media (and guess why?!)
I agree that it's a combination of the desire for masculine strength and lust. There are schools of mudsharks out there who are on the prowl not just for a "powerful" dusky savage who can "protect" them, but also for the fabled "magic johnson" that the media zhids have guaranteed will send them into raptures of ecstasy no pathetic White wuss can ever hope to induce (which is why we must eventually crush the pickle-nosed bastards without mercy if we are to redeem ourselves).
Still, such women must bear a large responsibility for their race treason, in spite of jew conditioning. Only contemptible little fools would actually fall for the absurd notion that knuckledragging nigras are stronger, steadier, just plain superior to White men. Hell, a cursory glance at the ugly-ass apes screams volumes about their inferiority.
When you get right down to it, they have no excuse.
2003-04-30 13:18 | User Profile
**Octopod: I'm sure that's a major factor, but women are also very competitive with members of their own sex. ** And they are competing for....?
Eric V. Z.: Produce clerks, especially good looking ones like me, get more boojun than Kiss and Mick Jagger combined. And it's all from "nurturing" married woman who are always asking to be taken back into the food locker to see fresh grapes then the minute they get back there on that ridiculous pretense they are droppin trow.
I should have expanded a bit on Townsend's book -- there are different criteria for sexual selection and for mating/marrying. Esp. today, when the society (and its denizens) has been completely trashed by jew-media, lots of women are party-girls -- who (are naturally or) have been brainwashed out of comfort/knowledge of their own best interests -- and they ARE looking for a magic johnson {snicker} -- because they have been led to conclude that they too can enjoy stringless sex -- but it turns out (witness so many unhappy and angry women) that they just CAN'T!
As for women dropping trou in the food lockers.... EEEWWWW! No more shopping there!
I'm NOT claiming women are some beleagured group who've been pushed into having inaapropriate sexual desires... I AM claiming that jew-media has twisted and misused their normal natural desires to further the destruction of this society!
And absolutely -- they are full targets when the race war finally starts... My sister included, who has married a black man (abeit, oddly, a weenie black man!) {sigh}
Avalanche... :( :gun:
2003-04-30 13:33 | User Profile
My sister included, who has married a black man (abeit, oddly, a weenie black man!) {sigh}
Yes, I remember you mentioned this before. I can see that it troubles you deeply.
I have been observing you postwise for sometime now and I am ready to conclude that the reason you married NN was to counterbalance genetically your sister's marriage to a black. Thus in your subconscious you selected a super white neo nazi, I say that with all due respect, to offset the tar brush that had just metaphorically speaking slapped the Avalanche family in the face. And, further, it is certainly irrefutable that by marrying NN you pulled off a hat trick because he is also the archtypical anti weenie. He comes off like something out of a Woody Allen nightmare. And I mean that as fullsome praise.
This is not unusual if one peruses the literature. Many women whose sisters marry fat guys will be driven by a hidden and unfelt - to the ego, id or even superego - drive to marry a skinny man. Thus so.
2003-04-30 14:08 | User Profile
The precision of your new title means you must watch the show, eh?!
Hell no! I got that just from seeing the trailer. I can only imagine what the frigging show is actually like.
2003-04-30 14:41 | User Profile
Now back to voting....
With regards to raising a child, I think being a successful mother probably has more to do with emotional and nurturing capabilities than simple intelligence. I've observed highly intelligent women who wouldn't sacrifice a couple of minutes of their time to change their own baby's diaper. A mother can nurture a child in a manner that no father can and I don't think that is a function of intelligence.
All true. Raising a child takes more than intelligence. And just because a person has intelligence doesn't mean that they can care for their children or fellow human beings.
**As to voting, in an ideal society a female would have their vote through either their father or their husband as the father/husband should represent his entire family/household. I think we can see the results of us tampering with God's ordained order. **
Ideal is the operative word here. If all men were godly and managed their headship as Chirst headed the church then I would see no reason for women's suffrage. As for the last statement, the rot was set by larger forces before even women got the vote in Wyoming territory in 1869 .
Not all Women who campaigned for suffrage were feminists. The Women's Christian Temperance Union started campaigning for women's suffrage because they thought that men ( in general) were not concerned with issues such as drunkedness , prostitution, orphans, widows, proprety rights for women, and white slavery. The chief goals behind the WCTU platforms was promoting Christian morality ( for both sexes) and traditional motherhood.
2003-05-01 07:16 | User Profile
When it comes to public money, too male. Or do we think that somewhere in the halls of evil corporations there is a white man with a big belly, a smarmy grin, the stink of garlic and scotch on his breath, and very bad taste in haberdashery**, who could actually be made to pay for everything? **
I resemble that remark.
Walter
2003-05-07 01:35 | User Profile
These male vs female threads are depressing to me. The lesson from evolutionary psychology is that relations between the sexes were hammered out over millions of years of development. As soon as we solve our Jewish problem, the natural instincts of both sexes will be free to reassert themselves since there will be no active agent of distortion and dissolution. The same kind of thing is true about most issues. :sm:
2003-05-07 01:36 | User Profile
Precisely, Javelin.
2003-05-07 14:29 | User Profile
**Javelin: These male vs female threads are depressing to me. **
Jav, Let me try to make you feel a little better --- there are a LOT of women who are beginning to wake up and discover that "feminism" doesn't deliver on its promises... They WANT to get married and have babies, but our 'brave new world' men aren't willing or able to take on a family, they demonstrably DON'T want feminist women, and the women are beginning to get the picture... Will it be enough and soon enough? I don't know.
Neo and I are doing research for a book we're writing (on masculine men, actually), and HUGE numbers of women in their 20s and 30s are becoming VERY disillusioned by the current 'battle' of the sexes -- they don't WANT to fight, they want to love and make families... And that desire leads automatically and inexorably to glimpses of the destruction of the country.
Take hope, there IS a chance!
:th:
2003-05-07 18:44 | User Profile
I saw an interesting item on local tv yesterday, in reference to the nonstop draconian tax hikes being enacted here in Tel Aviv West. A married couple earning $200,000 a year on two incomes.
Their major expenses are educating their kids. Since they rightfully fear exposing their kids to the post-apocalyptic theme-park that is public school, they spring for private schooling (now commensurate with college tuition here in Gotham - 10 grand to put your kid through the fourth grade doesn't even raise eyebrows in these parts). They do their own repairs. They never eat out. They don't go to movies or shows. They never buy what they can make themselves.
They still can't get ahead. The story was run as a kind of human-interest plea to city government to please stop taxing them to death.
I am perpetually amazed that - in all these discussions of 'sex roles' and 'feminism' and 'family planning' - MONEY is never ever examined as a contributing factor. We're so quick to ascribe the phenomena of women entering the workplace as ideology-based hubris that I doubt many people have taken a moment to notice the tissue paper that assumption is based on.
Women are in the workplace because they can't afford not to be. No, this isn't true in every woman's case, but remember that our media perpetually flatters its serfs with puffery and sophistry. I've no doubt that there are a lot of women (and men) who feel that The Working Woman is a self-actualizing force that can no longer be "suppressed", but people believe a lot of stupid things. Does it strike no one as suspect that the media image of the average working Jane is a sexually forthright single-mom corporate lawyer who shows leg at board meetings as a sign of 'empowerment'?
Now think about the working women you actually know, first-hand. The ones you see every day. Not too many senior partners and press liasons, eh? More like office workers, clerks, cashiers, schoolteachers, small-business entrepreneurs (if they're fortunate and have a head for business). The vast majority of women in the workplace are stuck in drone jobs. That there are lady lawyers and press liasons is window-dressing, like the now-obligatory cliche of the Black Lady Judge on prime-time courtroom dramas.
Women went to work en masse in the 1970s not because of Germaine Greer but because of runaway inflation, and sky-high interest rates, and gas shortages, and all the other economic upheaval that followed our disastrous abandonment of the Gold Standard. They hardly had a choice.
That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of silly-ass, affluent soccer-mom types out there, fretting over Somali lost boys on their way to Jazzercise classes. There are. But not nearly as many as ZOG would like you to think there are. And perception - in ZOG America - is far stronger than actual reality. If men think the average American female is either a Motley Crue pole-dancer or a can-do corporate single mom, it becomes a little bit easier to hate them. And if women begin believing it, they too will begin burning with resentment- because we can't all be steel-bellied 21-year-old airheads or hard-charging department heads, after all.... and those are pretty much the only kinds of women America publicly recognizes anymore.
Now think who benefits by sowing distrust and even emnity between white men and white women. Think real hard.
2003-05-08 01:45 | User Profile
Well said Il ragno!
There is a marvelous book called Your Money or Your Life -- and one really telling example I remember of a married couple. The author had them tote up what it cost for her to work (they "knew" she had to work in order for them to stay afloat). Not just the childcare and taxes from her salary... but her dry cleaning, the hours a day (at an hourly rate calculated by what she made as against the available working hours in the day, or some such formula), the car and maintenance and insurance, taxes, tax breaks, the drive time, the hairdo appts, the work clothes, and on and on...
It turned out to be CHEAPER for her to quit her job and stay home with the kids (as she so desperately wanted to) because when all was counted up, it cost LESS for her to stay home! But I doubt that's true for many couples nowadays...
2003-05-08 01:52 | User Profile
Their major expenses are educating their kids. Since they rightfully fear exposing their kids to the post-apocalyptic theme-park that is public school, they spring for private schooling...
Umm... wouldn't it be cheaper for her to quit the job and homeschool the kids?
2003-05-08 02:09 | User Profile
**Umm... wouldn't it be cheaper for her to quit the job and homeschool the kids? **
I dunno. Maybe. I really used the news item to illustrate that - in the real world, no matter how distasteful it is to acknowledge - ideology flies out the window when money gets vise-tight. Just the way it is. (And wait until Americans start to realize this 'long recession' is a depression...!)
I had an e-mail argument about this with Karen deCoster once. Her response was that women should quit their jobs, homeschool, and simply get by with less. The idea that maybe not everyone can do this...or would want to...never crossed her mind.
I then asked her why in the world she was writing a column - one which prominently mentioned, in the about-the-author blurb, her work as a CPA; and I asked her how many kids she had.
Shockingly, that stopped the exchange of e-mails cold.
Now let me add here that my sister homeschools my niece, so I'm not bashing homeschooling. But it would be nice if it was a choice and not a financial inevitability.
Of course, you may choose to point out that anybody raising kids in this filthy hellhole deserves what they get. Can't argue this point. But again....if everyone living in our fast-crumbling cities had the choice to stay or leave, they'd be abandoned tomorrow.
2003-05-08 04:17 | User Profile
I have no problem with women who need to work to make ends meet. There is a huge difference between them and women who choose to work for ideological reasons or because they are addicted to a more expensive lifestyle (or, even worse, the "independent" moms who choose to have children without a husband). I'm pretty sure it varies depending on location. Living in Tel Aviv West doesn't help.
A lot of people nowadays try to live beyond their means, racking up the debt to pay for a lifestyle they can't afford. I see it all the time.
2003-05-08 05:48 | User Profile
**A lot of people nowadays try to live beyond their means, racking up the debt to pay for a lifestyle they can't afford. I see it all the time. **
Agree entirely.