Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: The Essential Role of Women in Germanic Preservation

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

    Thorburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 12:45 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midgård
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Reason, Freedom, Justice
    Religion
    Truth, Greatness, Beauty
    Posts
    1,380
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    84
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    218
    Thanked in
    64 Posts

    The Essential Role of Women in Germanic Preservation

    I've observed -- by personal experience -- that there seems to be -- in proportion to populace -- a significantly higher degree of racially conscious females in the New World -- speaking now about the Germanic/Celtic world, that is the United States, Canada, and Australia, above all -- than in the old Germanic/Celtic world.

    Am I wrong in this personal -- and thus unrepresentative observation? If not, what do you think are the causes?

    There is more to it in detail. If one participates, for example, at demonstrations in Scandinavia (I did so in Denmark and Sweden), the male female ratio is close to 70 : 30. In Germany it is 90 : 10, at most -- rather less. Does this have anything to do with the risk that goes along with being an outspoken nationalist in Germany compared to Scandinavia and the New World?

    I think females are absolutely crucial to our success -- seeing the emotional attraction they have for males -- in fact, not that I'm NS, but historically, the NSDAP might have had more female than male sympathizers and voters than males. I never saw this allegation refuted. My grandmother, for example, confused Hitler with a sort of messiah. While my grandfather thought he'd just bring war and would deprive him of all his property and life effort (and he was right in it, after all).

    Regardless -- female support is absolutely crucial, in my opinion. The only just war that exists is, in my view, for the honor of an exceptional female (that might be fallacious, I admit, nonetheless, it's virtuous). What are your thoughts?
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Country
    Flanders Flanders
    Gender
    Posts
    5,485
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    23
    Thanked in
    20 Posts

    Post Re: Racially Conscious Females

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn
    I've observed -- by personal experience -- that there seems to be -- in proportion to populace -- a significantly higher degree of racially conscious females in the New World -- speaking now about the Germanic/Celtic world, that is the United States, Canada, and Australia, above all -- than in the old Germanic/Celtic world.

    Am I wrong in this personal -- and thus unrepresentative observation? If not, what do you think are the causes?

    There is more to it in detail. If one participates, for example, at demonstrations in Scandinavia (I did so in Denmark and Sweden), the male female ratio is close to 70 : 30. In Germany it is 90 : 10, at most -- rather less. Does this have anything to do with the risk that goes along with being an outspoken nationalist in Germany compared to Scandinavia and the New World?

    I think females are absolutely crucial to our success -- seeing the emotional attraction they have for males -- in fact, not that I'm NS, but historically, the NSDAP might have had more female than male sympathizers and voters than males. I never saw this allegation refuted. My grandmother, for example, confused Hitler with a sort of messiah. While my grandfather thought he'd just bring war and would deprive him of all his property and life effort (and he was right in it, after all).

    Regardless -- female support is absolutely crucial, in my opinion. The only just war that exists is, in my view, for the honor of an exceptional female (that might be fallacious, I admit, nonetheless, it's virtuous). What are your thoughts?
    Listening to the people here in Antwerp, I have often overheard elderly women voicing concern and a sense of incommodiousness to the collapse of our social and cultural structures, a great fear that the world that was, will be changing ever more and end up incognizeable, bizar and unliveable...they dont wince nor wilt, but they simply state in a congenial way of laconic phrases made even more capturing by the intonation and melody of their speech in all liberty and believe me, we are very frank and witty about certain issues and our answer/opinion to them might raise some eyebrows among our American and German friends, but nicely fat and round as good Catholics should be, we dare to send up to whole PC-cult which has also invaded our country and the reaction with the last European and regional elections was a deafening victory for the bad guys, a Black Sunday, een zwarte zondag for the self-rightious nauseous liberals and the establishment.

    Anyway, in their opinion, "den Dolf" made some gruesome mistakes and they are not favouring a dictatorship, but at least there was order and neatness around, morals ruled, everyone got a job, you could walk at night without being burgled by some brownies and the people felt that they were master in their own homes and nation, while nowadays young and old are under impression that rules and laws are made to accomodate and protect foreigners at the expense of our own future, safety and wellfare...
    To be honest, I havent met outside this medium, the Internet, many young women talk that way and if they do, it's usually bacause they're someone's boyfriend as long as it takes, if they split up, they change all the sudden of flag.
    On the other hand, some who dont share the same views might still show respect for the person who bears them, if he proves to be a decent, courtious and humane soul.
    But, I only rely here on personal experience and that of my best buddy over here, so there is a certain amount of bias.
    I am a social guy, but not really someone who seeks out groupings and associations, so I dont have a good perspective in this matter.

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

    Nordhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2006 @ 07:08 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    Nordicist
    Posts
    3,154
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Racially Conscious Females

    Depends on what you mean by racially conscious. I don't have any real statistics for that, so I can only estimate. I don't know Europe as well as you do, so I really can't judge the difference there.

    There's definitely a difference in older generations and newer generations, both male and female, but especially female.

    Part of the greater racialism in America may be our history of dealing with blacks and enforcing segregation. We're used to it, racial consciousness has been part of our culture since the beginning. Where in Europe they've never experienced this, they're assimilating them from the start.

  4. #4
    Member Triglav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 12:24 PM
    Subrace
    Arya/Paleoeuropeidal (norda) :D
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Fairness
    Posts
    2,405
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post AW: Re: Racially Conscious Females

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordhammer
    Part of the greater racialism in America may be our history of dealing with blacks and enforcing segregation. We're used to it, racial consciousness has been part of our culture since the beginning. Where in Europe they've never experienced this, they're assimilating them from the start.
    I agree with that. In America, non-Whites date whites less frequently than in Europe. There have been two segregated societies in America since its inception, while in Europe the non-whites are being gradually assimilated. Gypses, who entered Europe at a time when racial issues were dealt with in a different way, have a similar status in Europe.
    Last edited by Triglav; Saturday, July 3rd, 2004 at 03:01 AM.
    "slavic" languages are absolutely arteficial (Read "slawenlegende"). The "glagolica", invented by a bunch of monks, is nothing but an ancient esperanto, creating new words, definitions and alphabet out of regional slangs.

    The craddle of European Civilization comes from the North. All blond people originate from the north. So if you see a blond-blue eyed Slovene, Russian, Czech, Polak ect., you can be 100% sure that his ancient ancestors originated from "Germanics" (Germanic = Nordic).
    "slovenja" was the settelment of the Langobards = Germanics/Teutons. "Poland" of the Goths and East-Vandals ect. ect. What do "slavs" tell us about their origin?
    Some silly story that they originate from some swamps in the east and popped out of no where into history.

    So you see my dear "Gorostan" [=Triglav], you are in reality a "Germanic" indoctrinated with panslav propaganda and historic fantasy stories. ~Dr. Brandt, former TNP and Skadi member

  5. #5
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nordhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2006 @ 07:08 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    Nordicist
    Posts
    3,154
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    The Essential Role of Women in Germanic Preservation

    On Women and Their Proper Relation to White Nationalism

    by Alex Linder

    Loaded: 7/10/2003


    by Mystress Menstrua

    Good image to ponder, for those who like to label any woman who disagrees with them, as a "feminist".

    Alistair

    It makes its point. The following are some thoughts in response to the women question: what they are; how they fit into politics in general; how they fit into White Nationalism in specific; whether we ought to appeal to them directly; and whether this appeal ought to take precedence over other appeals.

    The fact is that if you let them, women will control discussions by defining disagreement as bad manners. They do this instinctively, biologically - only a few of the brighter ones, strategically. Women feel everyone should agree. Isn't that what getting along means? The idea that there are things more important than getting along does not occur to them, because to them there isn't anything more important than getting along. Women's socio-biological function and concern is birthing and binding families, and in that regard harmoniousness is the very definition of success. But politics is about big groups of people dividing and fighting, whether openly and literally, or veiledly and sub-substantially through democratic elections. Family life is about smoothing over differences, soothing hurt feelings, and rendering the thousands of interactions of our daily intercourse mellifluent. The difficulty comes when the fighting and the soothing escape their proper spheres. What could be worse than a family that fights all the time? Itz hell on earth, as those of you who've gone through the stages culminating in legal divorce will know. Well, politics IZ divorce. Divorce in perpetuity. And if squabbling family is hell on earth, then hell, too, is the nation governed by women biologically unfit for it, which is to say women in general. The worst of both worlds, itz. Nothing wrong with men, nothing wrong with women. Nothing right with men and women outside their spheres. Fighting these eternal truths of sexual nature will drown our societies as surely as fighting the waves as the undertow drags us out to sea. Instead, we must go with the flow. We must appreciate and understand our differences, use their force to support us rather than swamp us. We must accept reality, and pay it continual attention. Men must make themselves men, and lead. Women must help the men, allow them to lead, and chip in sensible remarks, in modulated tones, from time to time. And make everything happy and smooth running by providing offspring and sex and cookies and iced tea. Has the rarest woman the Paglian, the Kingian mind? Then add her mite she shall. I couldn't and wouldn't stop her. No competent woman ever has been suppressed by males; every competent woman has been helped, usually decisively, by males. But let's not murder our commodious life by making the exception the exemplar. "Reality exists" - the beatitude that never misleads. The discussion of women is part of a broader discussion of biological tendencies at war for control of human arenas. Differences between sexes, as differences between species, must be understood, that outcomes may be attempted. Our concern is with finding the best possible arrangement for the perpetuation of the conditions most amenable to normal White people.

    Not only do women feel everyone must get along agreeably, they also feel they should be catered to. Perhaps this expectation carries over from suitor selection, but certainly this feeling that whatever-she-says-goes, is amplified into universal commandment by today's jew-spectered Propasphere. Put these tendencies and trends together, turn to politics, we discover that women think it basic courtesy that you agree with their opinions. This, after all, is how women communicate. They take turns regaling stories insipid and pointless -- at least as their words hit male ears -- to the cooing and clucking of girlfriends. As does babbling to babies, this mild and really rather witless gabbling makes them very happy, and constitutes perhaps 80% of their mentation. Women do not biologically comprehend that men are bent on the nut of the matter, and deal, as a sex, in measurable specifics. Men are trying to figure out and solve something. Men pull their logic off the belt and measure up the problem in short order, cut a solution. Women don't grasp this. Men's size, speed, strength, rationality are utterly alien to them. They appreciate the results, but they have no idea where the results come from, nor how to effect them beyond manipulating or encouraging the man to produce them. Men smell nice and they feel safe around them, and they like the things men build, but their eyesight and mindset is too myopic for them to grasp process. Not understanding it, they can quash it without realizing it, malice aside. By the same token, men don't grasp women; don't see that they are essentially social connective material, between and within generations, families, and communities. They don't conceive, their logic organ jew-tube-tied, that women with opinions are neither funny nor cute, nor to be placated, but extremely dangerous, in the way of a fire thatz leaped the hearth. Men think themselves unmanly if they let themselves be pushed around by another man, but they are just as unmanly if they allow the same from a woman, no matter what televitz says.

    Men and women discussing politics is a waste of time -- unless the man understands the nature of the female and is skilled enough to guide her in the proper direction. Otherwise he should either outargue her and refuse to back down when she starts womanning, or better yet, not argue at all. Treating women's political opinions as if they had weight is more dangerous than handing a five-year-old matches. The odd masculine-minded woman is the rarest exception, and the exception does not prove the rule, as the old mistranslated saw had it; the exception tests the rule. Seldom enough that we can ignore it is this rule found wanting.

    The media jews supply women, as the masses, with crayons their limited reasoning and unlimited emotions latch onto like babies. A big batch of non-toxic, kid-safe brights and darks. Only the rarest woman -- the Paglia or King, who inevitably comes off as a man and in fact assumes the male sexual position with her lesbian lover -- would conceive to think to perceive, to analyze, to control, consider, and rebut jew-propagated terms and conditions. The sex just isn't built like that. I've known a lot of them, high, low, and in between - same thing. Women are much more typable than men. Their mental orbit is much smaller. Women are the same thing. It is fair to speak of Woman rather than women in a way that would be bordering on unfair for men. Almost all genuine human individuation is male. If women could think, history would bear evidence. The evidence it does bear is that women birth children, men birth ideas.

    Her instincts tell woman that Authority is justified because itz Authority. As Authority's terms are a necessary part of setting and perpetuating the system, they are fully indemnified against charges of indecency, unmannerliness, or disrespectability. They are always appropriate, in any company. There is nowhere it is inappropriate to repeat the lie that "diversity is our greatest strength." Terms, epithets, jokes -- whatever the aspect of the regnant Orthodoxy in question, the impregnable woman soaks it up and makes babies with it. Authority is Right. The woman always feels that way, because thatz how she's built. Thatz what she is. Would you lead her away, you must overwhelm and replace in her mind Authority General with Authority Specific - yours. You do this by understanding her nature, and putting out behavioral drivers, to turn the metaphor to software, that her basic coding can hook to. If nine-tenths of your behavior meets what she biologically seeks, then deviation in certain thought patterns and behavioral patterns will be that much more endurable, and then plausible, then normal, the to-die-for defensible. Only deviate from the norm where necessary. Thatz an important rule. The norm is no joke. The message of "American Beauty" that there's nothing worse than being ordinary is the worst possible advice you could give a person. It is quite as difficult as you can handle to be ordinary, regular, and orthodox in the right way, trust me. Even Catholics have figured this out.

    If you were right, you'd be in charge, the woman knows - in the way that women know all things, instinctively. In the deepest sense, she is not wrong. Women drive off tone and non-verbal cues, much more than whatever meaning she can sqeeze from the air over your vocal cords. That these responses of women are instinctual rather than analytical means at some level there's deep truth to them. Women orient toward respectability -- money, power, status, Received Wisdom, electronically propagated Fashion -- just the way plants orient toward sunlight, and with scarcely a wit more consciousness. Males must acknowledge the fact, and use it. So make money, and act "respectably" where you can. Only deviate where you must: the truth about jews and race. You will go down much easier with the women this way; it will smooth your supplanting the jew's mass-produced imitation authority with your own real, home-made and earned Authority. The farther you go in life, the more you will realize that fewer things are alterable than intially seemed. This makes controlling what you can control even more important. You can control women -- right after you control yourself. Do both. In functional terms, "might is right" is not just a bad idea, itz the law. Moralizing is the human version of chicken clucking. Inescapable as weather, but to be taken as the frilly dress around the hot, wet meat. People who talk about man as half-angel, half-ape are wrong. People who claim men are different in kind from animals are wrong. Man is an animal, vain and complex, and it can neither be argued away nor gussied down. You can cure & glaze the ham any way you want, but in the end the presentation -- the meet -- departs and the meat remains. Reality is not contingent on attitude. Reality exists. "Reality exists" is true definition of conservatism, of which racial factualism, as sexual factualism, is an important subset of truths. The smart guys will prove I can't prove reality's real, but you'll never find anything that refutes it, and thatz functional proof to my personal logician.

    How many times have we seen it? If the wife says something dumb or simply wrong, and the man corrects her rationally, she grows offended and calls him rude, and by tone and manner implies he's committed a moral breach. The man, innocent, even surprised at her reaction, withdraws, chuckling, knowing from televitz that the woman, especially the angry woman, is always right. This nervous-chuckling withdrawal is where the problem begins. The man must hold his ground. He must not back down to placate the irrational female. The female will respect that and submit, and very soon it will become conditioned behavior. Women know instinctively that they cannot think. But if the prevailing Get-Along line is that they can, well, their stronger instinct is to submit to fashion in the interest of sociability. And so they do. They are told they can think, nay, must think, must Have Thoughts. Hmm, I have no thoughts, thinks the woman. "I must find some!" She opens her Cosmo, and... You see how it works. The jews tell women they contain fat and empty spaces not for forming babies, but for Important Thoughts. The women, looking left and right, wonder where the heck those thoughts are. They sure don't feel like they have thoughts. They don't feel Thought-ful! Well, Important Thoughts are no sillier than the bell bottoms and platform shoes that have been all the rage the last few years, no matter she personally doesn't think much of them, so...our heroine scurries off to outfit herself with some socially approved thoughts from Authority Gap. I scarcely need tell VNN readers who stocks and sells that jewwear.

    No matter what the man says, the woman uses a term that overtly or implicitly categorizes him as ill-mannered or immoral -- evil, even. College women are reinforced in this natural tendency, outfitted with the verbal tools of oppression, and brainwashed into thinking they are analyzying when in fact they are simply stamping loaded terms. Few, very few, women realize the game they're a token in. It cannot be overemphasized that women are acting biologically and instinctively in labeling, no matter which power that manufactures the rubber stamps they wield. Thought is "mean," women feel. It feels cold and vaguely or sharply threatening, depending on the male's tone. They feel this instinctively. Thought excites their danger sense, thatz all they know. Thought separates. Thought divides. Women fear separation, division, and ostracism more than anything in the world. Better, always, to lip-gloss over bumpy, dull, cold-sored reality. The man, by comparison, has a much greater capacity for standing alone. Women don't care if the argument is against the end of the world, they instinctively leap to its social cost, their real and everlasting concern. Their only concern. Women are never for or against anything, women simply are. As perhaps the best example of the futility in trying to win over women, consider Anne Morrow Lindbergh, a beautiful and highly intelligent woman who knew that her heroic husband was right about the jews destroying America, but wished him to ignore the problem because she feared the cold shoulder in the ritzy New York department stores. Think about that for a while, let itz meaning soak in. Do you imagine, reader who thinks women can be won over, that you could make a better argument to your wife, or any woman, than Charles Augustus made to his and her relatives? Do you imagine your money and power and social status could more impress a wife than his his? Do you imagine your hypothetical woman runs in social circles where she's better able than Anne Morrow to see and judge the jew up close against her loving and trusted husband's words? Do you begin to see my point: that you win women by winning, so that you become the Amplified Authority -- and no other way? For all practical purposes, the mammiferous set doesn't come any sharper than Anne Morrow, who wrote a very well-received book, yet she was no more able to overcome her instincts than a dime-a-dozen working-class scold. Women have a nature, and it is unreasonable, perverse, and dangerous to expect them to overcome it. Their nature is to follow -- whoever is leading. Once that is understood, the rest falls into place. Women cannot and should not be expected to overcome their nature. Nor should they be lied to about their nature. Rather they should be taught what they are, and taught that it is a good thing. Both sexes, in fact, must be taught their natures, and their complementarity. That is the White and effective thing to do.

    Those who tell us we must "reach out to women" politically are wrong. Women, most women, almost all women, will only cross the herd against themselves, and trying to argue them our way with them will fail. Success alone will draw them, not sycophancy, proffered emoluments, and endless tedious explanations. Rowdy, raucous, masculine discipline and Terminator-style implacability will draw the best and most of both sexes. Rowdy and disciplined at the same time? Yes. We need both the Apollonian and the Dionysian, the flesh and the bone, the spine and the blood. Women are more attracted to football players and rock stars than librarians, a fact the reach-outs seem constitutionally incapable of grasping. Society says we're bad boys, hey, letz run with that. Letz surf the wave of a tide we can't fight directly. Let's jew-jitsu it, and use their image to our advantage. The fact that the truth and the glory and the sexy fun are all on our side -- let's keep that our little secret, eh?

    White racism is past the argument stage, and on to the assemble-the-winning-team. For too long White racialists have assumed the need to prove they're right. Better they assume it and act on it. That is the road to succeed. Winter patriots apply within. There's still time to sign up for Alte Kämpfer.

    Before the revolution, few women will independently make their way to us save those following their man. As for the Earharts, these one-in-a-million gals will be persuaded by the same arguments that work on men, and so require no special campaign to win over what isn't there in the first place. Winning over the best men can and should be our goal, and with those good men will come the women and families. To get the men through the women, or go after the single women, makes no sense in a world of limited resources. We should fish where the fish are, and that means in the water, not the sand.

    It is wrong to try to "sell" women directly on our cause, because this is a misconception of the female audience. Women simply repeat what is amplified. Their beliefs mostly mirror of the context in which they live. Your girlfriend will take on your coloring over time, that's the way of the world. Hit them directly, their response will always be, as long as jews control tv, that you are 'rude' or 'hate women' or you're a 'sexist' or a 'misogynist' who only wants to turbocharge her womb with ten sqwallers en route to 'deadbeat dad'-dom. The jews use the gooey, gluey nature of goy femmes against the 'guys' they've made of our men by exalting it into some sort of higher morality that must always be obeyed. It wouldn't seem that even 24/7/365 lying about small neurotic creatures leading around big, calm ones by the nose would work, but people are herd animals, even me and you.

    Manipulation is natural to women; rational argument is not. As their biology gears them to connect people, they instinctively dislike anything that produces disagreement, and that includes anything sharp, cold, or logical - no matter how necessary. And that last bit is why it is extremely dangerous to make women and what they feel center stage. They aren't watching the perimeter, it wouldn't even occur to them. They are myopic in a way that, outside the sphere of the family, is pernicious to the orderly running of society. To say that the WN movement needs to attract women is at best a misconception. The best men must make the strongest appeals to undecided men, and win them over partly by argument, mostly by deeds and character. The women will go where the men lead. They always do. To speak in other terms -- respect, rights -- is to get lost in that thickest thicket of jew bullshit, feminism. Don't try to outjew the jew in appealing to women -- not while he has tv. It will not work. If we present our case as a nice white-salad option for self-absorbed modern career gal to lunch on, guaranteed failure will be the result. The safe and self-interested choice is the other way. The jews will always be able to offer better laws and tv treatment and consumer goodies and social status than we can, so if we accept the frame some in racialism would impose on us -- approaching the woman in terms of her self-interest -- we will fail. Every short-term advantage points Systemward, and the fatal longer-term disadvantage of gulping jewy jewman's yummy Kool-aid is precisely what she is genetically not built to perceive, like a cat lapping up spilled antifreeze. The men, with their capacity for objectivity and long-range thinking, are where virtually all of our effort should be directed. As we draw the best men, we will get with them the best women, and so create a functioning alternative context that alone of arguments, if you want to call a context an argument, will persuade uncommitted women. And by persuade them, I mean offer less resistance to their husbands who see in our new world the long-term stability needed for raising families.

    The example of Anne Morrow ought to persuade any rational male of the futility of drawing women by reasoned expostulation, but let me bring up a second example because it is timely: Sandra Day O'Connor and her recent decision on the University of Michigan 'affirmative action' case. As I've said, women's instinct is to smooth differences, to mediate, to conciliate. Even the best women are scarecely capable of logic beyond the barest instrumental connections necessary to bake cookies. Again I emphasize we are dealing here with a female at the very highest rung of the social, intellectual, and political ladder. And, just like Anne Morrow, O'Connor's words prove her a woman consumed with not the objective facts of the case, the letter of the law, but the way her decision will make her look in the eyes of others.

    O'Connor knows that the letter of the law says discrimination by race in college admissions is illegal. But she decides to ignore this in preference for what's fashionable and will sit well in the papers. She makes a liberal, illegal decision, then covers it with a lot of conservative verbiage intended to camouflage the essential problem at stake, cover her bases. How characteristically female: pretend there's no inherent conflict, make the in-decision that gleams you in the eyes of the Status-definers, gloss it all over with nice words for anybody who might be troubled by your illogical, literally illegal "decision." That is how women act most of the time. It is sex-linked and sex-predictable, and it is the reason that a female judge is an inherent absurdity.

    O'Connor's basic "decision" in Grutter v. Bollinger is that universities can discriminate against whites, but they must never call it that, they must mask their anti-White racism as something else. Same result, but everybody -- women and liberals and Fashion-setting jews -- will feel better that we are pretending not to allow quotas. Heck, we might even trick some! Play around with the words, leave the status quo in tact, smile big and act like everybody's happy. An average man, asked to render decision, would have studied the facts of the case, stripped it to the essentials, based his decision on the letter of the law: Black students with vastly inferior scores receive prized, limited slots they are not qualified for in preference to genuinely, objectively qualified white students. The law says discriminating by race is illegal. Open and shut. The average man would have come up with the correct decision in this case. The woman O'Connor did what most women would do, given the Semitically Correct context. Fretted about everybody's feelings, and tried to ensure nobody would walk away hurt, written law be damned. All women are like that. Very few can make logical connections, and of the ones who can, even fewer can stick by them.

    Women are adjectives and adverbs; men are verbs and nouns. Men are thing itself; women the trappings and wrappings. O'Connor's decision makes that clear. Women make terrible judges because their sexual instinct is to gloss over and gush myopically rather than clarify and check for precedents. Women have no judgment, as has been said. That is why they are insanely loving and ferally vicious. These qualities are part of female nature and they don't disappear because the woman dons a black robe. What disappears is the chance of living in a sane and orderly society.

    Some typical comments from female O'Connor's decision, with interpretations from a logical white male... "The Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in attaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI...

    Equal protection means discrimination - the ultimate reduction of female illogic: a thing can be A and -A at the same time. Women swallow this illogic unblinkingly because they are old hands at smoothing over irreconcilable differences. People incapable of logic should not be appointed judges.

    "Student body diversity is a compelling state interest" that can justify using race in admissions.

    There is not only no evidence that diversity aids education, and much that it destroys it, but the use of sociological claims, however trendy, objectively has nothing to do with the application of the letter of the law.

    "Attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School's proper institutional mission..."

    What female O'Connor considers the mission of the law school is irrelevant. Women never consider their feelings irrelevant because their feelings are their stock in change. This doesn't change because the woman is called "Your Honor." "Major American businesses have made clear that "But Mom, all the cool girls are getting their ears pierced..." ..."the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints." What has this got to do with the law? Nothing. The woman is vaporing trendily, and in the most vacuously stupid cliches. But women have extremely low standards in almost everything, ever noticed that? The conventional nearly always satisfies them. The fact that a phrase is used by others is proof of itz merit, the woman instinctively thinks. It would never begin to occur to her to try to formulate her own idea. Phrases pre-made by others are plenty good for her. She just picks among them whichever suits her fancy at the time, like a woman in a furniture store, with a big checkbook full of hubby's money, deciding which male-conceived, male-manufactured, male-shipped dining room set she prefers.

    "High ranking retired officers and civilian military leaders assert that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential..."

    "But Mom, all the cool girls are getting their ears pierced..." Always, always, always, what the producers of the status quo deem worthy is the only Law the woman follows. Male judges look to precedent; female judges look to the press.

    "...to national security. Moreover, because universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a number of the Nation's leaders...the path to leadership must be visibly opened to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. Thus the Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body." This is a straw man, because the schools are open to talent -- that is the very issue at stake, why they're discriminating against more "talented and qualified individuals" who happen to be white. Conventional words with conventional meanings repeated by a conventional woman. But to say 'conventional woman' is to make a redundancy. They're all conventional, it is their nature. Men lead, and women follow. Anything else is unhappiness leading to insanity.

    Women have their place, but it is not in politics. A few can overcome their biology in that regard, but not many. The ones that can are naturally attracted to VNN. The ones that can't naturally fear and carp about us -- until we become Authority at which point they fashionably convert to our way of thinking. We laugh lightly and move foward because we are men, determined men, and we understand the forces at work. We do not expect women to save us, we expect us to save them. What men do, itz.

    ALEX LINDER

  6. #6
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Godiva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, July 4th, 2016 @ 04:41 PM
    Ethnicity
    German and Swedish
    Ancestry
    Germany, Sweden, France, Scotland, and England.
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Family
    Married, blissfully
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    86
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post The Essential Role of Women in Germanic Preservation

    By reading the title of this thread you may have already surmised what I am about to write, but for manners' sake please read on. I have a problem with some of the recent threads in "The Eternal Female Principle." I know that there are women in the world not worth spending time with, but I don't need to be reminded of them here. I became a member of this forum to learn more about how to better preserve Germanic culture and spirituality.

    I'm afraid that most of us in this forum have become so concerned with discussing our opposition with how women of the world are acting these days, that we miss a great opportunity to help Germanic preservation. We discuss shocking things about women and then those threads start turning into battles of the sexes, women taking offense at what men have written and men taking offense at the idea of women in general. Why must we shoot ourselves in the collective foot this way?

    We, as Germanic people cannot, I repeat, CANNOT have cultural, racial, and spiritual preservation without women. Not only do Germanic women carry the children of their men for roughly nine months, they are also the main source for teaching and example in the childrens' lives. If we all truly believe in upholding what our ancestors stood for then we believe that men should be the main sources of food and shelter, while women should be the main providers of child-rearing.

    I joined this forum to learn how to become a better Germanic person and how to take better steps toward Germanic preservation. I also want a place in this forum to come to learn how to be a better wife and mother. And how to incorporate Germanic cultural, racial, and spiritual preservation in my family. I know that I will be a huge determiner in how Germanic my children turn out to be, and I would like to learn more now so that when the time comes I will be ready and won't mess things up.

    I know that there are members of this forum that have many things they could teach me; before now "The Eternal Female Principle" was not the place to do that. I hope that as of this post it will become so. And I hope that all those who wish to bash women will do so in the "Opposed and Undecided" forum, which is where that kind of anti-Germanic sentiment belongs.

    I believe that if we really want Germanic preservation to happen we should inspire one another to live better and to start that preservation where it will have the most effect, in the home. We should encourage the women here to live their lives in a way to do this. We should not focus on demeaning women — if we were to do that our race would die out quick and hard. I can understand if someone has a legitimate concern with how the women here or Germanic women in general might be causing problems for our goal, but if one is to post about that here then let us know how to fix the problems and improve ourselves, rather than just whining about it.

    That's all I had to say. I hope that people will read this and understand that I only wrote this to strenghthen our efforts toward our common goal. I hope it makes a difference, even if it's a small one.
    Sittin' and wishin' won't change your fate - the Lord provides the fishin' but you have to dig the bait.
    - A Labor of Love

  7. #7
    ...................
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Allenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 19th, 2017 @ 10:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    New English
    State
    Vermont Vermont
    Location
    Bliss Farm
    Gender
    Occupation
    Smuggler
    Politics
    Ruralist
    Religion
    Old Mother West Wind
    Posts
    3,908
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    19 Posts

    Post Re: The Essential Role of Women in Germanic Preservation

    Fine words, Godiva and I commend you for your thoughts! There is little that I can add other than to agree with what you have written and second your assertions.

    Misogyanism is a foreign notion to me and while I can not say that all germanic/Europid women are free from absolution in this day and age of our decline, I am slow to place the blame of this decline squarely on the misegenative trends of only some....

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

    QuietWind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Family
    Jaded
    Posts
    2,192
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Post Re: The Essential Role of Women in Germanic Preservation

    How's this? http://forum.forums.skadi.netdisplay.php?f=554

    We have some good wholesome threads, but they are all buried underneath the "hot or not" and feminist stuff. Now we have a whole section for issues surrounding children and motherhood. I'll tell you, in going through the eternal female principle area in order to find the threads to move into the new area, I saw that there are several good topics on the areas that you speak about above (how to become a better woman), but you have to get past all the "take the slut quiz" threads first. There really are some diamonds in all the dust. If you dig them up and post on them, it will move them to the top of the listings again (hint hint), and then when people come to the eternal female prinicple, they will see a whole page of positive messages.
    "I do not know what horrified me most at that time: the economic misery of my companions, their moral and ethical coarseness, or the low level of their intellectual development." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, April 19th, 2006 @ 02:22 AM
    Subrace
    Old Germanic Reihengräber type
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Location
    great WHITE north
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    Hustler
    Politics
    advanced tribalism
    Religion
    scientific pagan
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: The Essential Role of Women in Germanic Preservation

    I always joke with my girlfriend about me being the man and her respecting me but it's all jokes. Men and women are equals although better at different things, we fill each others gaps. A man will always be seen as the next 'leader' it's just human nature, but women are just as important. When I see a respectful, intelligent white women, no matter what is on the news that day, the world if just for those few seconds feels whole again.

    Women of course have to be have babies, i don't have an uterus ladies, but the role goes very much beyond that. Example look at jewish women, they by themselves have protected their jewish roots throughtout history, you must be like that, the keeper of the family. The backbone of the white movement is the woman, the men just get all the glory

  10. #10
    Lost in Melancholia
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Thusnelda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Bavarian tribe
    Ancestry
    Bavarian
    Subrace
    Nordid-Borreby
    State
    Bavaria Bavaria
    Location
    Over the hills and far away
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Occupation
    Breathing the forest
    Politics
    Regionalist-conservative
    Religion
    Ásatrú/Forn Siðr
    Posts
    4,381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    36
    Thanked in
    25 Posts

    Post Re: The Essential Role of Women in Germanic Preservation

    Thanks for your posting Godiva, I wanted to start such a thread some time ago, but I couldnt find the right words...
    Quote Originally Posted by Godiva
    I'm afraid that most of us in this forum have become so concerned with discussing our opposition with how women of the world are acting these days, that we miss a great opportunity to help Germanic preservation. We discuss shocking things about women and then those threads start turning into battles of the sexes, women taking offense at what men have written and men taking offense at the idea of women in general. Why must we shoot ourselves in the collective foot this way?
    I totally agree with you here, I also hate these battles of the genders. Males and Females are equal and shouldnt compete with each other. Males have natural strengths, but Females too. A society cant live without males and females.
    We, as Germanic people cannot, I repeat, CANNOT have cultural, racial, and spiritual preservation without women. Not only do Germanic women carry the children of their men for roughly nine months, they are also the main source for teaching and example in the childrens' lives. If we all truly believe in upholding what our ancestors stood for then we believe that men should be the main sources of food and shelter, while women should be the main providers of child-rearing.
    I think you´re correct with the first sentences, but I cant agree that you say that woman should primarly provide the child-rearing. I think women should also have the decision between family and career, because both can live side by side if one truly wants. I dont see a sense in making the household all the day while I could gain money for my family and children and to do something for my country at the same time, for example.
    It is true that many career women dont have "time" for a family, but this is their problem, not mine. My mother is a good example for "How to make it better", since she worked halftime as a banker and raised me and my brother, her children, at the afternoon.
    I joined this forum to learn how to become a better Germanic person and how to take better steps toward Germanic preservation.
    I really dont want to offend you, but it looks like you´re Christian, arent you?
    So you know that Christianity was (and is) the main reason for the fall of the old Germanic and Female Principles? Back in the old times, when the faith to the germanic gods and goddesses was the religion of our forefathers and foremothers, gender conflicts didnt exist. Christianity is it who says that men are superior to women, that women should stay at home...and so on. Its a religion of Patriachity.
    Do you know that in ancient wars between Germanics and Romes f.e., Female germanic warriors stood feet by feet with their husbands at the frontlines, with the sword in their hands, fighting for their heritage against the Roman Empire?
    Old Germanic tradition is the tradition of equality! But what has become of the old Germanic tradition? Most of today´s Germanics pray to a lord from the desert, from the middle east. -> A different culture, a different region, whose has nothing to do with the old European-Germanic heritage. The Christianity took place in Europe mostly by sword, the Saxons and Prussians felt at last.
    So if one want to live along the old Germanic principles, he must give up the faith to Jesus and should read Tacitus´s "Germanica" and the Edda, for example, to gain more experience in old Germanic tradition.
    To the rest of your posting - I agree.
    Last edited by Thusnelda; Saturday, October 15th, 2005 at 02:06 PM.

    "Judge of your natural character by what you do in your dreams" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is Free Speech Essential to Germanic Preservation?
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: Thursday, July 4th, 2019, 11:03 PM
  2. Replies: 104
    Last Post: Tuesday, January 1st, 2019, 10:32 AM
  3. How Did You Become Interested in Germanic Preservation?
    By Northern Paladin in forum Questions About Germanics
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Saturday, March 25th, 2017, 08:51 PM
  4. How Old Were You When You Became Interested in Germanic Preservation?
    By Unregistered in forum Questions About Germanics
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 10:28 AM
  5. Replies: 109
    Last Post: Wednesday, September 16th, 2009, 06:56 PM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •