View Poll Results: Should females have the right to vote in political elections?

Voters
458. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    294 64.19%
  • I am not sure

    30 6.55%
  • No

    134 29.26%
Page 59 of 67 FirstFirst ... 9495455565758596061626364 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 662

Thread: Should Women Have the Right to Vote?

  1. #581
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Elizabeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    European American
    Ancestry
    United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Germany, France
    mtDNA
    H1c12
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Florida Florida
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Politics
    Pro-Trump, Nationalist
    Religion
    Folkish Heathen
    Posts
    881
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    788
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    858
    Thanked in
    424 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Astragoth View Post
    They also voted for Obama and Clinton. They also vote left in Europe.
    If women didn't have the vote we wouldn't be in the mess were in in the
    first place.

    I did not vote for Obama or Clinton.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Men need to man up to their own role and start defending our people and fight for our nations. Else all the blah is mood.
    I agree. And I think you mean "moot" not "mood".

    In the mid-1800s, however, people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as the word's essential meaning, and they started using the word to mean pointless or of no significant value. Therefore, a moot point, no matter how debatable it is, is of no practical significance.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Elizabeth For This Useful Post:


  3. #582
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    6 Hours Ago @ 12:53 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,405
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,319
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,387
    Thanked in
    688 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    As a Nationalsocialist, you should overcome this view and reconcile both. While there are male and females roles based in Nature/biology, which no one denies, excluding women from the political life based on the christian view, merely for being female, only continues the Jew-imposed Gender War.
    Women's suffrage is rather a modern phenomenon, which practically was non-existent up until the early 20th century. In ancient Athens, only male citizens who had completed their military service were allowed to vote. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Women seek a balance of things, they seek to be just and fair, they're the glue that binds society together. Dehumanising women is the most effective way to destroy a society and a race.
    Who are dehumanizing women?

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Those same men that constantly complain about "evil women" voting the wrong parties in, as if cockservatives would defend the nation and the Volk, they dont.
    All parties who seek to put the most restrictions on immigration in the Western World are dominated by male voters. The Sweden-Democrats, BNP, AfD, Lega Nord, and so on. There's no coming around that.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    It would indeed be a male role to defend the Nation and the Volk. Where are the men who defend our countries and drive out the invaders? Why is it that men blame women for the cockservative policies that import cheap labour instead of picking up their forks and fight the invasion and the cockservatives?
    Because there are laws in place which would put us in jail? Good luck trying to start a family after a couple of years prison time and a "hate crime" stamped on your resume... The irony of it all, is that it is women who would judge men the most harshly for it.

    (EDIT)
    Women, on the other hand, just have to NOT keep voting for parties that seek to replace their own ethnic group. It's an entirely effortless action to do, with ZERO personal risk. NONE AT ALL. Yet you seem to think that's putting too much responsibility on women... And rather expect men to throw their whole lives on the line, and risk their future, their job prospects, their means of creating a family, and their freedom. Sure, it may very well have to come to that, for obvious reasons.
    (/EDIT)

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    [...] or pseudo-nationlists perpetuating the gender war with blah-ing about "christian traditionalism" which is the reason why our nations die in the first place through destroying our culture and imposing semitic "morals"?
    You seem very infatuated with Christianity's role in all this. Need I remind you that the last bastion for wide-spread political Nationalism in Europe doesn't lie in the largely atheist North-Western Europe, but in Eastern, Central and South-Eastern Europe, where Christianity still holds a vital cultural role. Personally, I think religion (or what kind of religion) is irrelevant in this regard, but rather the reverence for tradition and identity.
    Last edited by Žoreišar; Friday, November 22nd, 2019 at 10:14 AM. Reason: EDIT
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Žoreišar For This Useful Post:


  5. #583
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 10:30 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,941
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,354
    Thanked in
    589 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    Women's suffrage is rather a modern phenomenon, which practically was non-existent up until the early 20th century. In ancient Athens, only male citizens who had completed their military service were allowed to vote. It has nothing to do with Christianity.
    Never mind ~2500 years between "ancient Greece" and today. Or that we are not ancient Greece. That we are not Greek to begin with.
    And Hellas Greece, where "democracy" was invented, was heavily Jew-infested, too. Never mind that "Greece" is a fairly modern invention (19th century) anyway, one invented to promote the idea of democracy post French Revolution. There never was a unified Greek state/empire/whatever in antiquity, it was a collection of city-states that most of the time were in war with each other. But that aside.

    There was no suffrage for anyone prior to the results of the French Revolution. The pseudo-parliaments before were made up of Lords trying to maintain their local powers against the imperial power. What you call "traditional" is a product of the French revolution, and what ppl call "traditional society" is mainly an invention of the 1950s America TV/Hollywood junk. That women were confined to the house and solely the mother role (seperated from society) is a product of the industrialisation and ppl living more and more in cities rather than actual communities. The socalled "core family" is already a degration of societal structures, of ppl in the cities.

    Prior to that men and women lived in concert in their family and communities. They were not "seperate". Women ran the farms, women made the cheese and butter (uhoh they worked, imagine), women baked the bread, women sold the stuff on their local markets while their men (hopefully) kept the house intact or fought wars for Israel and left the women alone with everything. Women raised the children, teached them the folklore and values. That's why men also have time to play "democrazy" and politicians.

    It is there, in the rural life, that culture lives and is nurtured. Cities (And civilisation) eats culture, it has no use for it. So if you want "professional politicians", that is lobby business (further atomizing society and the individual), you would need a counter balance. But you dont want that, you want lobby business eating culture and society, by claiming that those same men who threw our countries away are suited best to decide how our Volks and Nations should die. Okay great.

    All parties who seek to put the most restrictions on immigration in the Western World are dominated by male voters. The Sweden-Democrats, BNP, AfD, Lega Nord, and so on. There's no coming around that.
    Counter-question: do you think (or have any proof) that women vote for "mass migration"? Or do they vote for other issues?
    Or that all men vote for "nationalist" parties? If that was so, nationalists would be in power.

    BNP is destroyed, it doesnt exist anymore. Voting AfD is the same as voting CDU 10 years ago. That same CDU that flung open the flood gates, that same CDU that lobbied for the "guest worker" programme in the 1960s (against the resistance of SPD, ironically), the same CDU that was in power in the 80s/90s when the number of "migrants"/asylum seekers spiralled out of control and no one put a halt to it. The "Volkish" wing of AfD is, unfortunately, a tiny minority within the party, it's like 10 individuals, the rest of AfD does not object to "legal" migration, they have a "Jewish wing" and the Hessian branch ran their election campaign with only immigrant individuals, not a single German among the candidates. Lega and Salvini, while posing tough on immigration, curiously always calls for "European solidarity" to relieve them of a part of migrants that are stranded in Italy. If Italy could simply wink them through to other European countries, they would not object to migration.

    Hungary is actually the only real resistance against migration, a volkish basis.

    Because there are laws in place which would put us in jail? Good luck trying to start a family after a couple of years prison time and a "hate crime" stamped on your resume... The irony of it all, is that it is women who would judge men the most harshly for it.
    If you'd be successful, women would praise you as a hero.
    But well, our countries and Volks will go extinct as "law abiding citizens"....

    Women, on the other hand, just have to NOT keep voting for parties that seek to replace their own ethnic group. It's an entirely effortless action to do, with ZERO personal risk. NONE AT ALL. Yet you seem to think that's putting too much responsibility on women... And rather expect men to throw their whole lives on the line, and risk their future, their job prospects, their means of creating a family, and their freedom. Sure, it may very well have to come to that, for obvious reasons.
    I've told this funny story before. In older times, women stood (literally) behind the armies of men. I'm wondering for a while already whether they were there for moral support and supply business, or whether they had to watch that the men dont run away. See, the problem is that there is no political solution. Voting will not change a thing. Voting brought us into this predicament to begin with.

    I have to repeat myself.
    "Democracy is the method with which the (((will of the financial elites))) are pushed through while making the Volk believe that the majority wanted it so". ~Matthias Lubos

    Democracy is a trick, a scheme that was invented precisely in order to destroy nations. Did you ever experience a change of course through elections? Or did the overall policies just continue as they were?

    As cabaretist Volker Pispers put it so nicely: Democracy is a train that is driving with 180km/h towards the abyss, and elections exchange the train "driver" and the decoration in the train to another colour every four years.

    Again, the question is whether the women (and men) who vote for the parties that want to replace us actually vote for their replacement, whether they are even aware that these parties want to replace us, and since they dont know, why are we not out in the streets teaching people - men and women - what politics is up to?

    You seem very infatuated with Christianity's role in all this. Need I remind you that the last bastion for wide-spread political Nationalism in Europe doesn't lie in the largely atheist North-Western Europe, but in Eastern, Central and South-Eastern Europe, where Christianity still holds a vital cultural role. Personally, I think religion (or what kind of religion) is irrelevant in this regard, but rather the reverence for tradition and identity.
    As said before, Hungary/Orban is the only "real deal" because he is fundamentally Volkish. Hungary fights for its identity for centuries already, against Austria's domination of K&K, against the Turkish invasions, against the communist USSR, and now against EU. It is not "christianity" that drives them, but their awareness about how fragile identity actually is.

    I'm not going to support christianity in any shape or form, it is what brought us here and the churches are the main advocates of and actual., practical helpers (all the charities) of migration. It is high time that we get rid off this cult.

    We here in the "secular" nations are in the best position for that. I know you'll point out that in "christian times" things were different, but they also didnt have the means of mass transportation. They imported Musels and Jews who the local populations occasionally stuffed into wells to get rid off them again. No christian ever prevented musel immigration, quite the contrary, they invited them to prove how tolerant they are and that different faiths can live together. They fought Musels in Israel to secure Jewish and judeo-christian access to the "holy land" of the Jews. We must get rid off this cult, not renew its empowerment. And lets be honest here, it would be as difficult to reinstate christianity (Norway/Sweden ~4% practicing christians, Denmark 2%, Germany less than 10% boosted by catholic Bavaria, without Bavaria it's roughly around 5% as well) as it would be to replace christianity with, oh how off, our own faith. And undo the damage of the French Revolution too.

    We're almost there already, it just needs a bit pushing. But I'm not going to support christianity. There is no such thing as "christian nationalism". If they are nationalist, they are so despite christianity, not because of it. It's also not a religious, but a folkish question. The majority of christians are non-white. South America, Mexico, half of Africa, still parts of the middle east, and sickly, christianity is the fastest growing faith in US occupied South Korea, Hong Kong and around the US bases in Japan. I'm not going to retardedly root for an inter/anti-national cult because of our unfortunate history with this cult.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  6. #584
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Last Online
    Saturday, November 30th, 2019 @ 12:31 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Posts
    89
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    12
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    24
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    In the US, more women than men cast their vote. Same thing in Norway. And in the case of Norway, female turnout is greatest in relation to male turnout among the younger generations. Don't know the stats for that in the US.
    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post

    As it turns out, women are more likely to vote than men.
    This sort of surprised me, and sort of doesn't. The explanation for this is that women carry i higher sense of social responsibility, the image coming to mind is mostly church women, White and Black. I would have guessed that women might be 1% more likely to vote.
    Turns out the national difference 1-3%. Learn something new everyday.

    What is not being noted here is that men are not turning out. It isn't that women are the ones so radically tipping the election outcomes - it's that men aren't voting.

    White women who are married are more likely to vote conservative.
    While is is true that unmarried women are more likely to vote liberal, they are also less likely to vote overall.

    Since most unmarried White women are in millennial demographic - this means they are not the ones tipping the scale.

    The increase of what is normal for that age group has only be observed in recent elections.

    What I want to know is how many people between the age of 18-29 vote in First-Term Presidential Elections. I guessed about 15%, the official statistics for modern Millennial (which include those over 30) is a 19-20% average turnout. I bet that has always been the case in every election except for Donald Trump and Obama's First Term runs. The invention of Social Media and the bots and agents being paid to operate that arena seems to be the cause of the change. (and demographics)
    I bet it will drop back to less than 20% in the near future. And I bet the rate of turnouts for under 30 will be under 20%, as likely always has been.

    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    True, but that was kind of my point with my last post. Women's right to vote has incrementally and steadily shifted the socio-political environment towards egalitarian liberalism, which in turn has had the effect of leading White women away from becoming mothers in the first place.
    Women still become mothers.
    What has decreased the birthrate is birth control and industrialization and urbanization and a too great of a population increase from 1900.
    The world population was never over a billion before then.
    2 children has replaced 8 children.
    Men want less children too.

    3rd worlders have more kids because they are 3rd worlders.
    Invaders have more kids because they are invaders, as it appears the Polish birthrate his higher in Britain than in Poland.

    Do we really have to compete with the Third Worlders?

    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    conservative parties would win every single election, and likely leading to a development of even more conservative policies within the conservative parties themselves, as the need to cater to potential female voters would be void.
    This is a theory.
    I don't really believe it. I don't think that is would affect the climate we are in now.
    The immigration laws were mandated in 1965. Nobody voted for it. This tells me that voting doesn't matter. Voting didn't put us in this situation, and it's not what's going to get us out of this
    The Politicians would be pandering to someone (immigrants), and they would continue to undermine the public who voted for him once in office.

    Yet another thing that should be noted, is Asian women being given the vote in East Asia has not disrupted their society, or threatened their status as a race.

    In the United States, it is observable that all races of women show a strong tendency to vote for their group-interests, not against.


    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    Yup, because they are forced to cater to women.
    No, they don't.

    The Republicans in no way make that a part of their sale's pitch.
    They say the same thing in every campaign: We're going to close borders and bring back jobs. Then they all vote for unlimited immigration and HB1 Visas. Nobody knows their politicians' voting record. These things do not get printed by any conservative or media outlets, or MSM. (Have you come to realize now that this is all a stupid game ??!)


    In the United States, the biggest factor causing the elections to turning towards 'The Democratic Party' is the demographic shift going on in every State, which nobody voted for. All the previous Red States are turning Blue - and not it has been reveled that the Republicans of these States voted for this to happen. Their pitch is far-right. Their politics are not.


    A Conservative candidate doesnt need to pander to women - he can already expect an average of 53% return on White womens' vote. There is nothing he can say to cater to minority women- they don't buy into gender-politic talking points. And while the Anti-White have tried for decades to use White women to demoralize White men, they have had marginal success: White women vote for their group-interest/republican.


    quote:
    Majorities of white women cast ballots for Donald Trump,
    https://www.thenation.com/article/th...o-do-about-it/


    These elections were not aberrations; white women have voted Republican for the better part of the last three decades. Women of color, black women especially, are responsible for the so-called gender gap in electoral politics and form the core of the progressive base.

    Data consistently support this statement; the race gap between black and white voters in modern elections runs 40–50+ points, whereas the gender gap runs about 10.

    Unfortunately it is hard for most people to discern this fact, given that reputable, nonpartisan research and polling organizations routinely report voting data as though all women are of the same race. Take this 2012 headline from Pew: The Gender Gap: Three Decades Old, as Wide as Ever. This is technically true. Women, as a group, are much more likely to vote for Democrats, but this is only because black women and Latinas are overwhelmingly more likely to do so. White women continue to be Republican voters. A majority of white women voted for McCain, for Romney, and, yes, for Trump.

    "The truth is this: There is race gap of enormous proportions and a gender gap of very slim margins in this country. Presidential elections are primarily determined by the proportional turnout of the relevant racial groups, which increasingly map onto partisan and geographic identities in ways that make electoral vote counts a fairly simple task. Gender politics is a secondary game, not the main show. "

    “While the white female vote is often closely split between the two major parties, white women have only voted more Democratic than Republican twice in the 17 U.S. Presidential elections since 1952,”

    http://politicsofcolor.com/white-women-vote-republican/


    2016, 2012, and 2008 are indeed different from those they preceded for precisely these reasons, but what has remained consistent is the support of white female voters for Republican Party candidates. In how many presidential elections between 1952 and 2012 have white women supported Democrats more than Republicans? The answer is two. We can now extend the time series to 2016, and the number of times white women voted more for Democratic candidates over Republicans remains two.



    The elephant in the room is white and female, and she has been standing there since 1952. This result has been hiding in plain sight, obscured by a normative bias that women are more Democratic than men. They are, and it is also true that white women are more supportive today of Democratic Party candidates than white men. But this does not mean that white women are more Democratic overall. They are not.

    While the white female vote is often closely split between the two major parties, white women have only voted more Democratic than Republican twice in the 17 U.S. Presidential elections since 1952 (in 1964 and 1996). Instead, it is the introduction and steady growth of minority voters in the U.S. electorate over the last six decades that drives higher overall proportions of female support for Democratic Party candidates.



  7. The Following User Says Thank You to jonaby For This Useful Post:


  8. #585
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Finnish Swede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Finnish Swede
    Ancestry
    Father: Swedish, Mother Finnish Swede
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid - Nordid - Baltid mix
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    State
    Scania Scania
    Gender
    Age
    21
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    No specific ideology
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    2,001
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    415
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,574
    Thanked in
    1,418 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Counter-question: do you think (or have any proof) that women vote for "mass migration"? Or do they vote for other issues?
    Or that all men vote for "nationalist" parties? If that was so, nationalists would be in power.
    Right. I have always thought that one agenda's political party/parties can not ever win election (at least not in Nordic Lutheran (non-religious) countries). Today's people are too ''educated'' for that. Nope ... political parties have to be able to offer/share reliable opinions/answers/programs to all issues of societies. Not only to one (like immigration, no matter how big we see it here). Otherwise they are seen (via too big mass of voters) as pure populist parties. Rightfully?

    Secondly: if giving a wrong kind of statements like ''promising stopping immigration'' (like snapping fingers) ... that won't work either (here; same reasons). All EU and western European countries have signed huge numbers of international agreements which ''forced'' them/us to take refugees (and help other people) ... no matter what. To re-negotiate those or even cancel those ... one by one ... it would be many many years project. Plans to make any significant changes to those .... would fight against the human rights principles of EU ... and would lead to re-sign from EU? I mean, those are not something one can do over one night. Okey, no doubt there are some rooms to move inside of those agreements (how to read them ... plus playing time .... which would/could already influence someway in reality), but just saying. I think the parties which are against of immigration should admit that and share real life concrete (realistic) examples what they would try to achieve (short term and longer term).

    Quote Originally Posted by jonaby View Post
    What is not being noted here is that men are not turning out. It isn't that women are the ones so radically tipping the election outcomes - it's that men aren't voting.
    I have never heard that being lazy is a character which should be connected to those who are ''leaders'' .
    Quote Originally Posted by jonaby View Post

    White women who are married are more likely to vote conservative.
    While is is true that unmarried women are more likely to vote liberal, they are also less likely to vote overall.
    Just wondering: In any bigger scale: would that statistic look quite a same if we would compare women with kid(s) to those women without kid(s)? Married vs. unmarried? Which is the egg and which is the chicken here? We all know; getting a child will change woman's life many ways (as it should). Plus I think it will (alone) influence her mind whole lot more than hers husband can do (even as men here/there likes to try to point out the ''importance'' of the latter one).

    Free election and rights to vote are major pillars of democracy system. Now then, what would the be correct way to use that right? Hardly being simply lazy and not use it at all?! I'm more like asking now: Should voter(s) think what will be the best to him/her (as he/she is living right now) or should he/she also think possible future generations (even as he/she would not have kid)? I think the basic idea of democracy is that there is not any one and right answer. Pure theoretically speaking?

    And one another matter; if nationalists will/would get in power ... they most likely will/would try to limit democracy systems ... little by little (just a common sense => to strengthen their own position). The fear of that (justified or not) can be one kind of ''bogeyman'' to some voters

    Personally? I don't think we can ever reach something which many nationalist dreams about ... via pure democratic systems. Most of Germanic countries/societies are (today) much too heterogeneous for that.

  9. #586
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    6 Hours Ago @ 12:53 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,405
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,319
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,387
    Thanked in
    688 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    There was no suffrage for anyone prior to the results of the French Revolution. The pseudo-parliaments before were made up of Lords trying to maintain their local powers against the imperial power. What you call "traditional" is a product of the French revolution, and what ppl call "traditional society" is mainly an invention of the 1950s America TV/Hollywood junk. That women were confined to the house and solely the mother role (seperated from society) is a product of the industrialisation and ppl living more and more in cities rather than actual communities. The socalled "core family" is already a degration of societal structures, of ppl in the cities.
    Regardless, in all European societies in recorded history, up until the 20th century, the political sphere has been dominated by males. And likewise, the sphere of the home and childrearing has been dominated by females. And no, I don't only look at 1950s America as the template for traditionalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Prior to that men and women lived in concert in their family and communities. They were not "seperate". Women ran the farms, women made the cheese and butter (uhoh they worked, imagine), women baked the bread, women sold the stuff on their local markets while their men (hopefully) kept the house intact or fought wars for Israel and left the women alone with everything. Women raised the children, teached them the folklore and values. That's why men also have time to play "democrazy" and politicians.
    Yeah, because men were not busy and working their asses off either...

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    It is there, in the rural life, that culture lives and is nurtured. Cities (And civilisation) eats culture, it has no use for it. So if you want "professional politicians", that is lobby business (further atomizing society and the individual), you would need a counter balance. But you dont want that, you want lobby business eating culture and society, by claiming that those same men who threw our countries away are suited best to decide how our Volks and Nations should die. Okay great.
    What do you know about what I want? You're only attacking strawmen. Cut down on the delusion and prejudice.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Counter-question: do you think (or have any proof) that women vote for "mass migration"? Or do they vote for other issues?
    Doesn't matter. Ignorance or negligence is not an excuse for irresponsibility. If anything, it only strengthens my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Or that all men vote for "nationalist" parties? If that was so, nationalists would be in power.
    Not, that's ridiculous, and no one ever claimed that. The theory I've laid out previously is built upon the incremental effect that women's voting patterns have had on the political landscape, and consequently the state institutions, over time. Subsequently transforming educational institutions to favor typical female issues (liberal egalitarianism), which again impacts the political preferences of young generations growing up, leading to a steady political shift towards liberal egalitarianism among both sexes.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    If you'd be successful, women would praise you as a hero.
    But well, our countries and Volks will go extinct as "law abiding citizens"....
    Kind of illustrates the mentality of women. Only when you are successful and victorious, will they come dragging along and offer their appreciation. It doesn't matter what effort and sacrifice you put in it. As long as you're up against the system, and not currently on the winning team, you're just a scumbag who deserves contempt.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Democracy is a trick, a scheme that was invented precisely in order to destroy nations. Did you ever experience a change of course through elections? Or did the overall policies just continue as they were?
    I'm not a big fan of democracy, and it's no hill I'm willing to die on. All I'm saying is that the inclusion of women made it worse for our Peoples.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Again, the question is whether the women (and men) who vote for the parties that want to replace us actually vote for their replacement, whether they are even aware that these parties want to replace us, and since they dont know, why are we not out in the streets teaching people - men and women - what politics is up to?
    Do you still keep your husband completely in the dark about your Nationalist views? All the while expecting men to throw their entire lives on the line for these same views.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    I'm not going to support christianity in any shape or form, it is what brought us here and the churches are the main advocates of and actual., practical helpers (all the charities) of migration. It is high time that we get rid off this cult.
    [...]
    We're almost there already, it just needs a bit pushing. But I'm not going to support christianity. There is no such thing as "christian nationalism". If they are nationalist, they are so despite christianity, not because of it. It's also not a religious, but a folkish question.
    I'm sure the majority of European Nationalist Christians care more about the future of the German people than the vast majority of European Atheists and Pagans out there. You can either choose to appreciate and welcome that, or you can continue to disown them and use your religious differences as a wedge between you. I feel confident that the former is a more constructive and reasonable position.

    By the way, you continue to ignore my question about who and how people "dehumanize" women here. You've been claiming that nonsense for some time now, without giving an explanation for it, despite several requests to do so.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Žoreišar For This Useful Post:


  11. #587
    Senior Member Astragoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 10:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Posts
    862
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    893
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    833
    Thanked in
    456 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    By the way, you continue to ignore my question about who and how people "dehumanize" women here. You've been claiming that nonsense for some time now, without giving an explanation for it, despite several requests to do so.
    It's a test. If you don't give women what they want your "dehumanizing" them or "demeaning them. If you give into the test women double down and the test gets worse. This is how we ended up in the situation we're in. Women starting asking for women's suffrage. Now they want abortion on demand and unlimited brown immigration. Oh and white man are supposed to pay for it. It's like a husband that gives in to his wife's temper tantrums.
    It's this little aspect of female psychology that of "testing" men not to mention group think that explains why women were never given the vote in the past.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Astragoth For This Useful Post:


  13. #588
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 08:14 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,110
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    219
    Thanked in
    128 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Astragoth View Post
    This is how we ended up in the situation we're in. Women starting asking for women's suffrage.
    "The mess we're in" isn't the consequence of female suffrage, women voting overwhelmingly for left-wing parties these days is not the cause, but a symptom. Women also tend to vote more frequently for Erdogan, Putin, Orbįn, Salvini or indeed, back in the day, Hitler.

    Women in the US also were more likely than men to vote for Republicans in any election up to and including the 1960 Congressional & Presidential Elections. At that stage social norms were already beginning to change towards "the other direction" - however, yet only on the metapolitical level.

    What does this tell us? Women don't magically vote for left-wing parties, they vote for the hegemony. Meaning that they will more likely than men vote either for the clear election winner, the incumbent or whoever commands the zeitgeist. For sensible biological and social reasons there's much more at stake when women go against the mainstream. When they do, they're often such committed activists that their smaller numbers don't show as much, oft putting their male colleagues to shame.

    As mothers and guardians of the house as tradition would have it, the idea that women vote to preserve a status quo would indeed serve as a stabilising factor for any perservationist and/or at least conservative cause. In a time when the zeitgeist advocates the destruction of anything that sees nation and folk as a positive, this stabilising force of course turns into a destructive force.

    How did the hegemony shift to the left? Don't blame women. Blame weak men incapable of keeping their hands on the earlier hegemony. And work at breaking it and replacing the current zeitgeist with a more sensible hegemony again instead of whining & shifting blame on everyone else. Whining isn't the characteristic of strong men, either.
    -In kalte Schatten versunken... /Germaniens Volk erstarrt / Gefroren von Lügen / In denen die Welt verharrt-
    -Die alte Seele trauernd und verlassen / Verblassend in einer erklärbaren Welt / Schwebend in einem Dunst der Wehmut / Ein Schrei der nur unmerklich gellt-
    -Auch ich verspüre Demut / Vor dem alten Geiste der Ahnen / Wird es mir vergönnt sein / Gen Walhalla aufzufahren?-

    (Heimdalls Wacht, In kalte Schatten versunken, stanzas 4-6)

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sigurd For This Useful Post:


  15. #589
    Member NeuSchwabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Last Online
    17 Hours Ago @ 01:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Rhineland-Palatinate Rhineland-Palatinate
    Location
    Antarctica
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Occupation
    Self-employed
    Politics
    Nationalsocialism
    Religion
    Neo-Paganism
    Posts
    36
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    143
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    (right, Oswald not Alfred , anyway)

    The creation of a Volk is female, the creation and maintaining of a Volk and Culture is female. Both exist with or without political organisation.
    People go on about "traditional" organisation of society/the polity, but what they really mean is christian dominated Vatikan empire, which declared women "soulless" and essentially "unhuman". Civilisation on the other hand is male, and Civilisation has turned out to be an enemy of Volk and Culture.

    As a Nationalsocialist, you should overcome this view and reconcile both. While there are male and females roles based in Nature/biology, which no one denies, excluding women from the political life based on the christian view, merely for being female, only continues the Jew-imposed Gender War.

    Women seek a balance of things, they seek to be just and fair, they're the glue that binds society together. Dehumanising women is the most effective way to destroy a society and a race. And when we talk about gender roles, where are the men picking up the fight and drive out the invaders? Those same men that constantly complain about "evil women" voting the wrong parties in, as if cockservatives would defend the nation and the Volk, they dont. In fact the cockservatives are even more dangerous, because they dominate and/or serve economy which is hellbent on importing ever more "cheap labour" to keep wages down and export jobs to cheap labour countries for more profit, fundamentally destroying the lifelyhood of the Nation. The "leftists" social justice warriors would have no impact on importing invaders if they'd stand alone in this endevour. Look at Denmark. The Danish People's party puts a halt to immigration and goes tough on invaders, and the Left party supports them, doing their "social justice" thing on the local level. Now tell me that social justice, in general, is wrong, that welfare is wrong, that supporting the low-incomes (produced by cockserveratives!) is wrong, that taking care of the availability of Kindergardens, education, healthcare etc is wrong, that environment protection is wrong. Of course it isnt. It is the fuckn duty of a state to provide infrastructure and for the general wellbeing of the people it claims to protect. The failure in the system is that it was opened to invaders and no longer serves the people/Volk. Which was cockservatives and business who pulled open the floodgates.

    It would indeed be a male role to defend the Nation and the Volk. Where are the men who defend our countries and drive out the invaders? Why is it that men blame women for the cockservative policies that import cheap labour instead of picking up their forks and fight the invasion and the cockservatives? If men want women to "submit" to a male dominated (which I wouldnt object to) society and politics, men need to man-up and fulfill their role first, because if they dont, their point is entirely mood and soon irrevelant anyway because our nations and people no longer exist. To what should I currently "submit"? The beta-males, cockservatives in suits selling out our economy, "politicians", metrosexual "males" caring more about the design of their beards than their women or nation or race, or pseudo-nationlists perpetuating the gender war with blah-ing about "christian traditionalism" which is the reason why our nations die in the first place through destroying our culture and imposing semitic "morals"? The answer is none of them, none of them deserves submission. Man up and women will follow voluntary into natural gender roles again, if and when societal structures allow for it again (currently they dont mostly due to cockservative policies). Fail to man up and our peoples will go extinct. It's quite simple. All the blah about democracy, voting, rights (and that women should have no rights at all), will not save our race. Men need to man up to their own role and start defending our people and fight for our nations. Else all the blah is mood.
    Talking about Alfred, you might subconsciously refer to Rosenberg and his very conclusive "Myth of the 20. century" which shows the best example of a Nationalsocialist perspective of gender, race and religion. You might want to read it if you have not already.

    The fact that women seek "balance of all things" is the very reason they should never have been given a say in politics to the degree that they do. But as far as democracy in general is concerned I already shared a viceo earlier on of Adolf Hitler explaining why it does not work and I agree with his stance there, so we have no argument when it comes to that. I am not christian either, and the traditional ideals of patroiarchy existed long before those abrahamic faiths as well.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NeuSchwabe For This Useful Post:


  17. #590
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    6 Hours Ago @ 12:53 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,405
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,319
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,387
    Thanked in
    688 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    Women also tend to vote more frequently for Erdogan, Putin, Orbįn, Salvini or indeed, back in the day, Hitler.
    Do you have any numbers for that? I tried finding anything about voting divided by gender in Hungary, but to no avail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    Women in the US also were more likely than men to vote for Republicans in any election up to and including the 1960 Congressional & Presidential Elections. At that stage social norms were already beginning to change towards "the other direction" - however, yet only on the metapolitical level.
    Back when the US in reality was a White Nationalist country, voting Democrat or Republican was of marginal significance. Voting Democrat pre-1960s and post-1980 are two entirely different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    What does this tell us? Women don't magically vote for left-wing parties, they vote for the hegemony. Meaning that they will more likely than men vote either for the clear election winner, the incumbent or whoever commands the zeitgeist. For sensible biological and social reasons there's much more at stake when women go against the mainstream.
    There's not really a whole lot at stake when voting in an anonymous election.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    When they do, they're often such committed activists that their smaller numbers don't show as much, oft putting their male colleagues to shame.
    I have yet to see that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    How did the hegemony shift to the left? Don't blame women. Blame weak men incapable of keeping their hands on the earlier hegemony. And work at breaking it and replacing the current zeitgeist with a more sensible hegemony again instead of whining & shifting blame on everyone else. Whining isn't the characteristic of strong men, either.
    So blaming men is alright, but never ever is criticism of women okay. Reluctance to criticize women is not a characteristic of a strong man, but that of a cuck.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 118
    Last Post: Friday, June 14th, 2019, 07:53 AM
  2. Minority Women with Degree Outearn White Women
    By Veršandi in forum The United States
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, July 20th, 2009, 08:14 PM
  3. How do you vote?
    By anti-climacus in forum The United States
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 11:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •