16 October, 2009

He-Women: Not Happy

Posted by Socrates in "sex equality", AmeriKwa, equality, equalocracy, feminism, Feminists, General Decline, Socrates at 10:59 pm | Permanent Link

Don’t know about the CIA part, but feminism is of course a Jewish movement, and it isn’t surprising that modern women are unhappy. Doing unnatural things – like not having kids and working 10-hour days outside the home – is a downer:

[Article].


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 07/07/18 Women and Equality: a Joke That’s Not Really Funny 46% similar
  3. 03/01/09 March is Women’s History Month. Why? 46% similar
  4. 06/30/17 Women Make Better Managers? Says Who? Feminists? 45% similar
  5. 12/09/19 Women In Universities Show Why Women In Universities Are Not A Good Thing 44% similar
  6. 04/02/15 Modern Women: Never Satisfied 42% similar
  7. 48 Responses to “He-Women: Not Happy”

    1. Ein Says:

      ” it isn’t surprising that modern women are unhappy. Doing unnatural things – like not having kids and working 10-hour days outside the home – is a downer”

      Nor are things like being soldiers and going to war. Or working on a submarine. What kind of normal woman would want something like that? Only someone who’s been totally brainwashed to think it’s glamorous, progressive, and “the thing to do”. These are things that even men only do when forced into them by circumstance. Even backward tribesmen, such as Somalis and Afghans, retain a more sensible and racially wholesome view on this (the natural role of women) than we do. They don’t send their women into war. They know better than we do. But they haven’t been Jewed.

      Even when it comes to having jobs and careers — this is nothing thrilling and exciting, as women have been made to believe by Jewish feminists ( and those apostles influenced by them). Earning a living out in the ruthless, cut-throat world is not glamorous — except perhaps in a tiny percentage of jobs in, say, modeling or fashion. Mostly, it’s just hell — as men have always known.

      Feminists portrayed patriarchal society (i.e. men) as withholding glamorous and exciting careers from women by keeping them out of the workplace. Rubbish! Society was PROTECTING women from it. The workplace is no place glamorous, as anyone who’s been there knows.

      Most sensible and feminine women, given any choice, would prefer to stay home and raise their families in their own homes where they are queen of their castle, rather than struggle to survive in the snakepit of an office or factory. Contrary to Jewish-written novels and Hollywood movies, in normal circumstances this is only what women do when they are economically FORCED to. They don’t WANT to.

      Men never had any choice. Until fairly recently, most women did. Those who went to work were the ones who HAD to. Most women who could afford it, preferred to stay home. Nowadays, most women CAN’T afford it! That’s “progress”?

    2. Tim McGreen Says:

      Everything about modern American society is alien to the Aryan mentality and way of life……..Women serving in the military and competing with men for jobs, small children being raised by minimum-wage strangers in day-care centers instead of by their mothers, people living isolated, unhappy lives in anonymous urban habitats, the obsession with money and materialism, looking at Nature as something to be expolited for profit instead of revered, the suicides, the alchohol and drug abuse, the mental illness, the overcrowded courts and prisons, the ghettoes and barrios, the crime, bankruptcies, debt………..None of this is how White people were meant to live. It’s all an alien-imposed nightmare.

    3. Sage Says:

      If you read the article link, the author promulgates a lot of lies about Islam. For example, he claims that women in Islam are essentially equal to men. But, the reality is that women in Islam are subordinate to men. At its core, Islam is all about property rights, where everything is accorded some value, even people. Women are worth less than men, and girls are worth less than boys. It took WW1 to dismantle slavery from the Ottoman empire. Islam accords value to slaves, and essentially is a slavery culture. Islam took millions of black africans out of east africa, but can you see the genetic remants of africans today in the peoples of the middle east? It is hard to see. Most east africans were worked to death and were not allowed to breed. Black Eunichs were especially desireable, and areas in North Africa were designated to perform the “operation.” There is a huge disconnect between what the supporters of Islam claim, and the actuality of Islam and its history.

    4. Sage Says:

      It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good by Rick Santorum describes how Females contributed 25% to the tax roles, while the government grew 27%. In other words, women helped fund government expansion. Now, that the government is large, it is addicted to the increased tax take.

      Ironically, the very government that needs women to work accepts the social disfunction that working women bring to society. For example, by not having women at home, then we don’t have eyes on the streets. Many neighborhoods are ghost towns during the middle of the day. A lone child is unsafe in such an environment. Children tend to stay indoors now, and neighbors don’t interact. Women were the social glue to a functioning society as they raised children, and monitored the schools, and kept neighborhoods intact. Absent intact families, then crime explodes, boys drop out of school, girls become promiscuous, family wisdom is not passed on from generation to generation, people become risk averse, wealth is decreased, and societal trust is undermined.

      Having women in the workforce is a virus that undermines the key pillar of civilization; namely the strength of the family unit. Absent the family unit, all sorts of pathologies start to take place. Women need to be able to afford to stay at home, or choose to work, but not be forced to work for economic reasons.

      Ironically, Jews are caught up in their own liberal mindlessness. As Hollywood promotes pathologies that are known to break apart civilizations, Jewish families are caught too. For example, the Liberal Mantra was accepted in South Africa, and now Jews are fleeing South Africa along with Whites. Jewish middle class families suffer in the economic downturn as their bankster elites siphons off money.

      The Jewish cause is largely a liberal one, where the Jews want to have all groups “equal” so as to not attract attention to themselves. Jews vote liberal to a greater degree than any other group, including blacks. In Norman Podhoretz book, “Why Jews are Liberal” he say this: Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for the Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75%—far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group.

      Women in the workforce should be a choice, and society shold encourage women to stay home to raise the family. Government needs to be small and not a monky on the back of working Americans.

    5. Irma Grese Says:

      Women in the workforce should be a choice, and society shold encourage women to stay home to raise the family. Government needs to be small and not a monky on the back of working Americans.

      Amen, Sage! But women CAN’T leave the workplace, even after they have had kids, until decent-paying living wage jobs come back and the paycheck of ONE WHITE MAN is all that is required to support a middle class lifestyle. That won’t happen until the jew tick is no longer sucking the blood of our economy. Obvious, itz.

    6. Tim McGreen Says:

      “If you read the article link, the author promulgates a lot of lies about Islam. For example, he claims that women in Islam are essentially equal to men. But, the reality is that women in Islam are subordinate to men. At its core, Islam is all about property rights……………………..”

      Yup, the author is full of shit about Islam being an equal opportunity religion. Those Mohammedans quarantine their women, for chrissakes. You go to Saudi Arabia, you’d think there were no women in the whole country. In fact, they quarantine their women so much that the men in those Mohammedan countries have sex with donkeys, camels and boys instead. Goddamn Semites and their screwy religions.

    7. Mary O Says:

      “majority of the 2.1% population of Americans in jails is women”

      That can’t possibly be right.

      But the article is interesting. Islam focuses on the family, and supports healthy family relationships. Islamic women always seem happier than American women to me. European & American culture objectifies White women. Half-naked blonds can be seen on advertisements on everywhere; only rarely are Arab or women of Muslim appearance so degraded. Osama bin Laden once explained that to use women in advertisements is forbidden in Islam, because implicitly the woman is being sold, and prostitution is immoral.

      On the train, last week I saw an advertisement for a television show “Nip & Tuck.” A White woman is shown from the rear, apparently naked except for her panties, facing two men who look like twins. One of the men regards her critically, as if her perfect body isn’t quite good enough for his taste, while the other holds some some sort of leash which is attached to her back which has odd stitches lacing up her spine. This advertisement was displayed inside the car of a public government-supported and managed suburban commuter rail train. Certainly, we can agree that such advertisements are a form of prostitution.

      But rather than convert to Islam, we need to get back to our White roots. Certainly our grandparents would never have tolerated such obscenity. We used to have very decent and civil family-oriented societies. In Tolstoi, life revolves around the family & extended family. People lived as members of larger communities. We need to get back to that way of life.

      On VNN, a certain anti-Christian sentiment is sometimes expressed; but one might at least consider that in the not-so-distant past, Christianity promoted family and community values just as effectively as Islam. The reasons for the current state in which we find Christianity could fill many books. One aspect of the problem is that (JMO) Americans cannot accept being told that anything they do is morally incorrect; consequently, a certain over-politeness has evolved in which stymies any realistic discussion of behavior. As a Quaker acquaintance once said, “Promiscuity is morally wrong, unless the person is just like really, really into sex.” Similarly, our Protestant churches not only tolerate homosexuals, but ordain them as ministers. All Christian denominations are “dumbing down” morality; one is not allowed to denounce any form of behavior if any possibility exists that someone’s feelings might be hurt; however, this tolerance weakens White families, and hence the White nations. “The Truth shall set you free.”

    8. Mary O Says:

      A couple of days ago, I saw two young Mexican girls recklessly running through a large & busy intersection while pushing baby carriages. Inside the baby carriages were these two sweet little blue-eyed blond children. Their mother must be NUTS.

    9. Tim McGreen Says:

      Dammit, Mary O, didn’t you read my post just above yours???? I’ll wait while you put on your reading glasses……..

      Have you ever heard of the Afghan practice of “bacha bazi”? It means “boy for play”, Mary O, as in Afghan Mohammedan men having SEX with little boys instead of women! Their fucked-up Mohammedan religon forbids women from associating with unrelated men, Mary O, so little boys are purchased as sex-slaves and dressed up as girls. Not just in Afghanistan, mind you, Mary O, but in other parts of the Mohammedan world as well. They also have sex with their animals, Mary O. Yes, their animals! So please stop romanticizing that weird-o Mohammedan religion, Mary O. There’s nothing there for us White people to admire, Mary O.

      Mary O, Mary O, Mary O.

    10. Mary O Says:

      In response to Tim McGreen’s post:

      Actually, Islam forbids homosexual behavior. These men whom you describe as behaving like homosexuals are probably homosexuals. We have homosexuals here, too. We have homosexual marriage and homosexual adoptions. We have a homosexual political agenda, and homosexual curricula in our public schools. Is a Muslim man more likely to be a homosexual than an American man? No evidence supports such a suggestion.

    11. Kradmelder Says:

      I was at a Halloween theme park type event the other week. There were lots of pretty young women there, most of them seemed terribly unhappy. Most of them were frowning and acting bitchy. Despite their youth and beauty they were not pleasant to be around. Maybe none of them wanted to be there. The older ladies were were smiling and having a great time. There were long lines to get into the attractions but few of the young women socialized with other people stuck in the same lines for the same reasons. Instead they had negative sounding conversations on their cell phones. The event was about 90% white people with just enough mexishits to be a problem and only a smattering of niggers.
      Why were these girls, who otherwise talk constantly, so anti social to the other people who were at the same park, doing the same things in common? The event was quite fun except for the waiting in lines, it cost plenty to get in to so not many people were there who didn’t want to be there.
      Is there some connection here? If this place didn’t inspire some happiness then what does? I also think it has something to do with our main problem.

    12. PW Says:

      Amongst humans and other advanced animals, gender is the only thing on Earth which is deeper and more atavistic than race/ethnicity (or sub-species). Thus, beware of the “feminists” who seek to manipulate our most primal and natural gender-related instincts in the name of utter falsities like ‘gender equality’ and other such laughable nonsense.

      Modern “feminism” is mostly a radical Jewish movement which seeks to obliterate White/Western/European gender norms in order to hasten the decline of the Occident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_feminists — just as Judeocommunism rots Western economies, Judeoanthropology denies the stark realities of race, and Judeojournalism deceives the White public, Judeofeminism seeks to utterly undermine Western gender relations.

    13. PW Says:

      BTW – y’all here at VNN ought to use the Wikipedia link I posted in my previous comment about Jew feminists in order to update the list of Jewish feminists you have @ http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/lettersOct-Nov03/102903wsijews-feminism.htm

    14. Mary O Says:

      In a festive shopping situation crowded with tourists, I overheard a 20-ish Asian woman (who sometimes have the same problems as White women) say very sadly & solemnly into her cell: “I know that you don’t want to be in a relationship with me.” I wondered why she didn’t just hang up on him. She was being both too aggressive, and also afraid to be assertive at the same time.

    15. Adam Says:

      Sage Says:

      Having women in the workforce is a virus that undermines the key pillar of civilization; namely the strength of the family unit. Absent the family unit, all sorts of pathologies start to take place. Women need to be able to afford to stay at home, or choose to work, but not be forced to work for economic reasons.

      Having women in the workforce is a technological necessity, because if you don’t do it, and other nations with which you are competing do, you will lose. For example, once weapons technology has advanced to the point that women as well as men can be soldiers, in any conflict between two nations with numerically equal populations a nation that puts them in the military will be able to field an army twice as large as one that does not, and will therefore have an overwhelming advantage. The outcome of WWII was a demonstration of this. It’s what Germany did, and though it was not the only reason, it was definitely yet another reason why they lost. There was no German counterpart to the American “Rosie the Riveter”, or the Soviet women who labored in the armament factories of the USSR, or even on their front lines. Keeping women out of the work force and out of the military reflects what is essentially a nineteenth century point of view. It seems clear that Hitler’s chivalry in keeping women in their role as homemakers contributed to the loss of the war. See, for example:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military

      All of this is yet another instance of the inherent tendency of the global technological system to cause changes in the underlying culture. It would not be too much to describe the global technological system as essentially radical and Bolshevik in its consequences for white patriarchal culture, even if it is not self-consciously so in its outlook. Here it promotes sex equality, but, disastrously for ourselves, it is equally adept at promoting race equality.

    16. Tim McGreen Says:

      It’s true that the Red Army used at least some women in combat roles, but Germany would still have lost WWII even if they did the same thing. Hitler’s ill-concieved, disastarous attack on the USSR was largely responsible for Germany’s ultimate destruction, not the lack of females in German Wehrmacht units.

    17. Adam Says:

      Tim McGreen Says:

      It’s true that the Red Army used at least some women in combat roles, but Germany would still have lost WWII even if they did the same thing. Hitler’s ill-concieved, disastarous attack on the USSR was largely responsible for Germany’s ultimate destruction, not the lack of females in German Wehrmacht units.

      I don’t think we will ever be sure about that.

      A shortage of soldiers is probably the most common cause of losing battles. As Napoleon is reported to have said, “God is on the side of the he who can field the biggest divisions.” But even if they kept them out of combat, they would no doubt have made better, more dedicated workers than the slave laborers they used in factories, and that would have helped the war effort too. Things like that could have made the difference at Stalingrad, or between taking Moscow and Leningrad or not.

    18. Adam Says:

      Corrected: “God is on the side of he who can field the biggest divisions.” And actually it’s only paraphrase.

    19. Blackshirt Says:

      Tim and Adam, let me remind you gentlemen that Hitler indeed let women serve in the Wehrmacht as nurses, clerks, and other “helferin” roles. They weren’t allowed near any combat, though, and that is the way it should be. Look it up… it wasn’t all “stay home barefoot and pregnant” in the Third Reich.

    20. Adam Says:

      I should add that the principle applies both in peace and in war. Having women as well as men in the workforce expands the size of the economy and increases GNP. Just as wealthy individuals dominate the societies in which they reside, larger economies dominate smaller ones in world commerce, thus giving an advantage to nations who put women in the workforce.

      We see again that the global technological system isn’t neutral, and that it’s folly to think of it as “just a tool”. It takes an aggressive role in eliminating man’s freedom and dictates courses of action, which in turn forces disruptive changes in the underlying culture.

    21. Adam Says:

      Blackshirt Says:

      Tim and Adam, let me remind you gentlemen that Hitler indeed let women serve in the Wehrmacht as nurses, clerks, and other “helferin” roles. They weren’t allowed near any combat, though, and that is the way it should be. Look it up… it wasn’t all “stay home barefoot and pregnant” in the Third Reich.

      All sides had women in such roles. The innovation of putting them in what would have ordinarily been men’s jobs in factories and in combat was a point that distinguished the victorious parties from the defeated. In war, you can’t just mirror what your enemy is doing. You have to go him one better.

    22. Tim McGreen Says:

      You’re absolutely right, Blackshirt. Hitler respected women and always treated them properly, which is more than can be said for many of our “democratic” leaders. This topic reminds me once again of Doctor Hanna Reitsch, the famous German test pilot and physician who, with Soviet artillery and machine gun fire exploding all around her, expertly landed her plane on the Unter Der Linden in downtown Berlin in an attempt to rescue Hitler. She also wanted to form a squadron of female Luftwaffe fighter pilots, but Hitler didn’t like the idea of German women in combat, so he said no.

      Dr. Reitsch was only 5′ tall, but she was truly a giant. I put her up there in the Aryan female pantheon next to Leni Reifenstahl, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth the First, Maria Theresa, Buddika, Jean D’Arc, Mother Jones, Kathy Ainsworth, Marie Curie, Clara Schumann and Jeanette Rankin. See? I’m not such a sexist pig after all.

    23. Ein Says:

      Adam Says: “I should add that the principle applies both in peace and in war. Having women as well as men in the workforce expands the size of the economy and increases GNP.”

      That is a very interesting point, Adam. Thanks for that insight.
      By extension, I see that we did the same thing with the Negroes in this country, in both world wars. By bringing them north to the industrial cities, like Detroit and Cleveland, we were incorporating them into the industrial fabric, expanding our work force, temporarily — but ultimately dooming those cities as well.

      It had further effects, though. Another thing is that in every war, in order to secure their loyalty and cooperation and ensure domestic tranquility, we offered concessions. One after another. But after the wars, those concessions were not retracted but remained in place. Until we finally ended up with the situation that we have now — blacks getting preferences everywhere and a black president sitting in the White House.

      Those wars, every one of them since probably 1813, have in the long run proven to be curses to us. They were all more costly than they were worth.

    24. Tim McGreen Says:

      The only war that the US ever fought that might have been worth fighting is the Mexican War of 1846-48. The Greasers are still mad about that one. We could have bought Baja California from Mexico after that war, but I guess Congress didn’t want to spend the extra $5 million. Big mistake.

    25. Ein Says:

      As I recall (from having researched it once) we were actualy in possession of Baja. But we gave it back, as nobody could imagine that it would ever be worth anything.

      Nonetheless, regarding the Mex. War, New England was strongly against it, fearing that it would lead to a dilution of the American culture and population. And sure enough, in another century and a half they were proven right! That is exactly what has happened, and the whole country at this point is becoming Mexicanized — even Oregon, Virginia, and Minnesota.

    26. Mary O Says:

      Adolf Hiitler was right not to assign any women in combat roles. Had Germany suffered the deaths of huge numbers of women, the very survival of ethnic Germans would have been threatened.

      Also, keeping the society running at home is vital to morale. How could a man fight not knowing if his children were getting proper care and that his whole family is safe? Someone has to keep the factories, stores, trains, schools & hospitals running.

      Furthermore, to accomplish a military objective, a man needs focus. Having the girls around only serves as a distraction. Face the facts of human nature: if there are girls traveliing with them, the men will make protecting the girls their main priority. The intense relationships inevitable in such a situation will also cause intense jealousies; thereby destroying group cohesion. The use of women in combat makes as much sense as using women as firefighters; they can’t really do the job, and its only purpose is to serve some leftwing agenda (= waste money).

      As for the troop strength argument: Say you had a challenging military objective to accomplish. You have your choice: you can use either 10 men, or 20 men and women together. Which would you pick?

      Note that the Muslims do not use women in combat; who is winning over there?

      Plus, our society actually hates young women. That’s the real reason the government wants to use them as troops. Living in danger, they won’t have time to be feminine.

    27. Mary O Says:

      “… the whole country at this point is becoming Mexicanized — even Oregon, Virginia, and Minnesota”

      We don’t produce enough White children. Nature abhors a vacuum …

      Our society hates women, and refuses to support institutions which favor families, like marriage.

      The problem is our way of work. The long rigid schedules leave people too exhausted to form meaningful community outside of work. Having children is treated as a sort of hobby; that is, something not necessary, but which fills up what little one has in terms of weekend or vacation time.

      Women need support (both financial and moral) to raise a family, which is too difficult to manage alone. There is some truth in the leftist slogan: “It takes a village to raise a child.” As our society is becoming rapidly Communized, any semblance of a village is being destroyed.

    28. Tim McGreen Says:

      Remember when the invasion of Iraq first began and a cute little White soldierette fell off the back of her Army truck, bumped her head and was taken prisoner by the Iraqis? And remember seeing her Army photo in the TV reports, a small blonde girl with a big smile whose camo Army cap was too big for her head, so it slid down just above her eyes? Why should the Arabs or any Moslems have any respect for a country like ours, a country that would send a girl like her into combat?

      Fortunately, the Iraqis were very kind to her and she was unharmed. But I shudder to think what would’ve happened to any female Iraqi soldier who was captured by US forces. Thanks, you war-mongering Jews and Goy mercenaries. You’ve turned the USA into the world’s biggest pariah.

    29. Tim McGreen Says:

      And Mary O is right about America’s Judaized attitude towards motherhood these days. Children are now regarded as little more than a lifestyle accessory, like getting a new dog, a new IPhone or a new car. And would having a baby interfere with or complement your lifestyle as a “liberated” woman? After all, nothing should ever come between a shiksa and her glorious career, especially not any little healthy White goy babies. That’s what “a woman’s right to choose” is for, isn’t it, you scheming, vile Jewesses?

    30. Adam Says:

      Mary O Says:

      Adolf Hiitler was right not to assign any women in combat roles. Had Germany suffered the deaths of huge numbers of women, the very survival of ethnic Germans would have been threatened.

      Losing the war was the worst possible consequence, which itself caused the death of huge numbers of women.

      http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Jews/+Doc-Jews-Crime&Fraud&QuestionablePractices/RussianJewsPerpetrateHorrorsOnGermanWW2Civilians.htm

      Also, keeping the society running at home is vital to morale. How could a man fight not knowing if his children were getting proper care and that his whole family is safe? Someone has to keep the factories, stores, trains, schools & hospitals running.

      Again, the Germans didn’t use women as laborers in the factories. There was no German counterpart to the American “Rosie the Riveter”. That was part of the reason the Germans lost the war.

      Furthermore, to accomplish a military objective, a man needs focus. Having the girls around only serves as a distraction. Face the facts of human nature: if there are girls traveliing with them, the men will make protecting the girls their main priority. The intense relationships inevitable in such a situation will also cause intense jealousies; thereby destroying group cohesion. The use of women in combat makes as much sense as using women as firefighters; they can’t really do the job, and its only purpose is to serve some leftwing agenda (= waste money).

      There are always human problems whenever developments within the technological system demand that people change their culture. There are techniques for dealing with all of them. Whether the human problems are more than offset by gains in efficiency is decided only by results.

      As for the troop strength argument: Say you had a challenging military objective to accomplish. You have your choice: you can use either 10 men, or 20 men and women together. Which would you pick?

      Depends on the situation. If the task is digging tank traps with bulldozers, then 20 men and women driving bulldozers will obviously be more efficient and get the job done faster than 10 men. If I need snipers, the mixed team would be better by far, and rack up twice as many kills. From the wiki article I linked to:

      The Soviet Union also used women for sniping duties extensively, and to great effect, including Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Ukrainian Lyudmila Pavlichenko (who killed over 300 enemy soldiers). The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, can avoid hand-to-hand combat, and need higher levels of aerobic conditioning than other troops.

      If the task is operating fighter planes, again, the mixed team is better by far:

      The Soviet Union was the first nation to allow women pilots to fly combat missions. These regiments flew a combined total of more than 30,000 combat sorties, produced at least thirty Heroes of the Soviet Union, and included at least two fighter aces.

      Note that the Muslims do not use women in combat; who is winning over there?

      First, “we” are, if by “we” is meant the Judaeo-fascist state, which is, at this point in history, the command and control center of the global technological system. Unless they can bring the entire system down, long term, they are doomed, as are we whites.

      Second, your point is actually incorrect. The Muslims DO use women as suicide bombers, a role they fill very effectively — many times being able to get past security which would have stopped a man. If white women took the survival of their race as seriously as those Muslim women take killing the enemies of their people, our victory would soon be assured.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_suicide_bomber

      Plus, our society actually hates young women. That’s the real reason the government wants to use them as troops. Living in danger, they won’t have time to be feminine.

      Women in the American military get pregnant in record numbers, and according to the military’s own statistics, about 25% of them get raped. For white women, it’s clear that the US military is little more than a rape camp, a place to accustom them to taking orders from non-whites, and their presence — not really a military necessity, as it would have been in the Third Reich, where the situation was desperate — is itself a technical solution to the problem of how to destroy the white race.

      To repeat: The essential point, which you’ve managed to miss completely, is that the global technological system isn’t neutral, and that it’s folly to think of it as “just a tool”, as many here continue to do. The system itself takes an aggressive role in eliminating man’s freedom and dictates whole courses of action, which in turn forces disruptive changes in the underlying culture. This constitutes a wildcard third force, and the internal developments within it are completely independent of the racial struggle between Jews and whites — though in some cases they may determine the outcome.

    31. Adam Says:

      So it turns out you can nest blockquotes! LOL.

      I think the meaning is clear though.

    32. Adam Says:

      Mary O Says:

      Our society hates women, and refuses to support institutions which favor families, like marriage. … Women need support (both financial and moral) to raise a family, which is too difficult to manage alone.

      The decline of marriage is bound up with a lot of cultural and technological changes, some of which we have discussed before. This decline differentially affects whites, since unlike white women, niggers typically don’t get married, don’t feel a lot of money is a requirement for having kids, and anyway, niggas don’t need no fambly to hab dey li’l pickaninnies. Sistas be doin’ it fo deyselbs!

      The problem is our way of work. The long rigid schedules leave people too exhausted to form meaningful community outside of work. Having children is treated as a sort of hobby; that is, something not necessary, but which fills up what little one has in terms of weekend or vacation time.

      As I said, changes in the technological system from time to time force changes in the underlying culture. The races vary in their ability to adapt to these changes. No plot or conspiracy need be posited to explain most of what we see.

    33. Tim McGreen Says:

      Adam, you act as if you have it all figured out. That being the case, please feel free to save all us wretched, benighted souls from our own misguided foolishness (Preferably in 300,000,000 words or less).

    34. Adam Says:

      Gosh and begorrah, Timmy me lad! Is that the best ye can do? Pitiful!

    35. Mary O Says:

      “Second, your point is actually incorrect. The Muslims DO use women as suicide bombers, a role they fill very effectively …”

      Very rare. The media plays up these cases for propaganda purposes.

    36. Mary O Says:

      “Depends on the situation. If the task is digging tank traps with bulldozers, then 20 men and women driving bulldozers …”

      Ten men could do the job better. Speaking generally, women are not skillful at working with heavy equipment, esp. under such dangerous conditions as the anticipation of a tank invasion. Also, such jobs require raw physical strength, as well as strong mechanical ability should one or more of the bulldozers fail. Men should be doing these jobs, and you know it. You just want to stick women with all the work of the society, esp. the unpleasant chores.

    37. Mary O Says:

      “To repeat: The essential point, which you’ve managed to miss completely, is that the global technological system isn’t neutral, and that it’s folly to think of it as “just a tool”, as many here continue to do. The system itself takes an aggressive role in eliminating man’s freedom and dictates whole courses of action, which in turn forces disruptive changes in the underlying culture.”

      Cars and computers are ordering us to spend 10 hours per day away from our homes? I’m not so sure. Look at the Latter Day Saints. They had a very profitable and comfortable communal situation all set up, produced dairy and other food on their own, and they were thriving. Then the government came in and deliberately destroyed their community. The government was to blame, not any form of tech.

    38. Mary O Says:

      “The Soviet Union also used women for sniping duties extensively, and to great effect, including Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Ukrainian Lyudmila Pavlichenko (who killed over 300 enemy soldiers). The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, can avoid hand-to-hand combat, and need higher levels of aerobic conditioning than other troops.”

      The Soviets were always full of baloney. When I consider all the women whom I have known in my entire life, including Russian & Ukrainian women, there are none at all whom would perform well as a sniper. Most of them would look with empathy on the potential target, and make up some excuse to not shoot him. They would RESENT being asked to perform in such a role. Be honest: how many women do you know with excellent sniper potential?

    39. Adam Says:

      Mary O Says:

      “Second, your point is actually incorrect. The Muslims DO use women as suicide bombers, a role they fill very effectively …”

      Very rare. The media plays up these cases for propaganda purposes.

      I wouldn’t say it’s rare, except to the extent that suicide bombing is itself unusual. 30 – 40% isn’t rare. From the wiki article I cited:

      Women of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), or Tamil Tigers, have perpetrated 30–40% of the organization’s suicide bombings, which number more than 200.

      And propaganda purposes? Not really. Very little coverage of the Tamil Tigers in Western media, as it wasn’t seen as vital to Judaeo-fascist interests.

      “Depends on the situation. If the task is digging tank traps with bulldozers, then 20 men and women driving bulldozers …”

      Ten men could do the job better. Speaking generally, women are not skillful at working with heavy equipment, esp. under such dangerous conditions as the anticipation of a tank invasion.

      Driving a bulldozer is not much different from driving a car, and anyone can do it with only a little training. It’s silly to argue that 20 bulldozers would not get the job done faster than 10. For proof of the ability of women to perform such a difficult task under fire, I refer you again to the example of the Soviet women pilots I cited above. It’s clear that technology allows women to perform equally well with men. The 300 German soldiers that were killed by the Soviet woman sniper were just as dead as they would have been if a man had shot them. To the extent that any inequality in outcome exists, refinements of the technique will over time tend to eliminate it. That’s what is called “progress”.

    40. Mary O Says:

      “And propaganda purposes? Not really. Very little coverage of the Tamil Tigers …”

      The Tamil Tigers are Hindus, not Muslims. And, according to this article, they lost the struggle:
      http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0518/p06s04-wosc.html

    41. Mary O Says:

      “… I refer you again to the example of the Soviet women pilots I cited above …”

      The Soviets were full of baloney. Where do you think the Holohoax came from?

    42. Adam Says:

      Mary O Says:

      “To repeat: The essential point, which you’ve managed to miss completely, is that the global technological system isn’t neutral, and that it’s folly to think of it as “just a tool”, as many here continue to do. The system itself takes an aggressive role in eliminating man’s freedom and dictates whole courses of action, which in turn forces disruptive changes in the underlying culture.”

      Cars and computers are ordering us to spend 10 hours per day away from our homes? I’m not so sure. Look at the Latter Day Saints. They had a very profitable and comfortable communal situation all set up, produced dairy and other food on their own, and they were thriving. Then the government came in and deliberately destroyed their community. The government was to blame, not any form of tech.

      First, the gov’t is part of the technological system. By “the technological system” I mean the entire range of techniques whereby man obtains what he wants from the world, not just machinery. There are psychological techniques, techniques of government, military techniques, propaganda techniques, even techniques for things as quotidian as mastication. Oppression of the polygamous LDS sects (I assume that’s what you are referring to) is a governmental technique for destroying the white race. It’s a form of technology, as I’m using the term here.

      Second, you do actually have a point that the technological system doesn’t really “order” us to do anything. The compulsion comes from the fact that if you don’t take the most technologically efficient course, you will lose to someone who does. So when I say that developments within the technological system force changes in the underlying culture, I am making the (usually reliable) assumption that people will not wish to lose. For example, no one is “forced” to use a car or a computer. You could walk, ride a bicycle, or do everything by hand that you use a computer to do — calculating, writing, record-keeping, etc. But because you want to avoid losing, you are indeed forced. Just like the Nazis, above, weren’t “forced” to augment their factory output by using women, or their military capability. They had the option of losing, which they took.

      Be honest: how many women do you know with excellent sniper potential?

      I think it’s obvious a lot of white women could be conditioned to kill white men. In fact, it’s already been done. All you have to do is tell them that a particular white man is a racist, or beats his wife, or is a child molestor. Then they’d pull the trigger without hesitation. Such women can be found anywhere.

    43. Adam Says:

      “And propaganda purposes? Not really. Very little coverage of the Tamil Tigers …”

      The Tamil Tigers are Hindus, not Muslims. And, according to this article, they lost the struggle:
      http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0518/p06s04-wosc.html

      One variety of fanatic is as good as another. Anyway, I was under the impression we were discussing the ability of women to be suicide bombers. The employment of proper technique in suicide bombings doesn’t guarantee that you’ll win the war, it just increases the odds overall.

      “… I refer you again to the example of the Soviet women pilots I cited above …”

      The Soviets were full of baloney.

      You don’t have to believe the sources cited, obviously. Irrationality is a woman’s option at any time.

      Where do you think the Holohoax came from?

      From Jews. Where do you think it came from?

    44. Tim McGreen Says:

      Adam, enough with the goddam italic and bold texts! You’re using them way too much. If you have a point to make, all you need do is be succinct and to the point. After all, this forum is not meant to be an online literary or scholarly publication.

    45. Adam Says:

      Tim McGreen Says:

      Adam, enough with the goddam italic and bold texts! You’re using them way too much. If you have a point to make, all you need do is be succinct and to the point. After all, this forum is not meant to be an online literary or scholarly publication.

      Don’t let me interfere with your fun, Shlomo. If you don’t like my stuff, don’t read it.

    46. Tim McGreen Says:

      Oh-oh! Adam’s diaphanous veneer of civility and erudition has completely dissolved! And now he’s started in with the “I accuse you of being a Jew troll” stuff, too. How quickly and completely the mighty have fallen.

    47. Adam Says:

      Tim McGreen Says:

      Oh-oh! Adam’s diaphanous veneer of civility and erudition has completely dissolved!

      Oh, I am civil … to those who deserve it.

      And now he’s started in with the “I accuse you of being a Jew troll” stuff, too. How quickly and completely the mighty have fallen.

      It’s not exactly like you’re trying to hide, is it?

    48. Ein Says:

      Not every troll is a Jew. You don’t have to be a Jew to be in their service. Probably, non-Jewish trolls are more effective.