20 June, 2015

Stormfront a Hate Group? Since When is a Forum a Hate Group?

Posted by Socrates in 'hate', 'hate' crimes, 'hate' haters, black behavior, black behavior vs. white behavior, black crime, black culture, double standards, hush crimes, Socrates, Stormfront at 11:11 am | Permanent Link

First of all, there’s no indication that Dylann Roof even read Stormfront. Second of all, Blacks commit hate crimes against Whites every day, but the crimes are rarely called “hate crimes.” If they were called hate crimes, then people wouldn’t be so shocked about the Charleston church shooting.


  • 5 Responses to “Stormfront a Hate Group? Since When is a Forum a Hate Group?”

    1. fd Says:

      Never cared for Stormfront. One foot in the establishment, the other foot some place else.

    2. Mary O Says:

      The SF forum is vast, and many of its individual posters have strong insights. However, I dropped reading that board, because of the extremely hateful attitude of one of the “moderators.”

      The thread was responding to a video made by an Iranian university student discussing US threats of war against his nation.

      We had a good discussion going one night, and so I was surprised when I signed on the next day to find most of the posts deleted.

      I sent a message to the moderator asking why.

      Her response was, Who cares what he thinks? He’s not White.

      We need to develop a foreign policy that’s better than just a series of mad bombing campaigns.

    3. Tim McGreen Says:

      Mary O, what do you think of Brother Anglin’s views on allowing women into the pro-White movement? He is the guy who runs dailystormer.com


    4. Mary O Says:

      Anglin’s website lacks intellectual sophistication. He has a policy that posters cannot attack each other, but when a poster attacked me, he did not remove the offensive post.

      My post was regarding White couples who adopt Blacks. The pictures in the related media articles showed an attractive young-looking White woman, her aging and overweight husband, her two young White children, and her numerous newly-acquired Black teenage “sons.” I stated that since they are adults living together in the same house for a long-term, and not related by blood, this woman will have sexual relations with the young Black men.

      Perhaps the other poster was simply repulsed that I would state that the churchy do-gooder would consent to relations outside of her race, but doesn’t sharing one’s family home represent a comparable level of intimacy anyways? He was buying into the narrative that the foster mother was a virtuous Christian woman and surely would become their “mom.”

      Probably Anglin just wants to clear his site of women who post comments, but nearly every issue that is discussed on his board has social and family implications that would concern women.

      Face it, our society hates women, and cannot deal with any shade of gray.

      Reviewing some social welfare texts, again and again, the authors would cite a young woman being pregnant as an example of a crisis which the clinician would be called to help manage.

      Why is nearly every pregnancy regarded as a major life crisis?

      Because our society thinks that women’s feelings are not important, and nothing is set up to support a woman and allow her to have any children.

      Other cultures have marriage, and women are not required to wait until they are 35yo, and have an established career. Even working class men these days fervently believe that married women should “establish themselves” before having a first child; so that way they won’t be a burden to some poor (boo-hoo) guy. In the current economy, it takes until like 40 yo to be established in a career. And, if you are forced to do all the work yourself, what’s the point of having a family anyways?

      Our society cannot provide marriage because:
      1. being single is more fun for the supposedly-logical unemotional guys;
      2. a majority of women would rather start a family than go to college, but many women (about 33%) want to study or pursue some other interest, and perhaps marry later.

      Being totally rigid, our society cannot handle a 67% – 33% situation. 100% of the women must be marched off into college, even if they are bored by the prospect.

      Similarly, feminine nature is totally rejected as having any good aspect.

      A co-worker said his high-school student daughter felt guilty and ashamed that she had accidently hurt another girl, the goalie, during a soccer game. He advised her not to worry about the incident, but she insisted that she just felt so bad that she had actually caused the other girl pain, (luckily no injury).

      The co-worker recounted how he explained to his daughter: No, you should not feel that way. That other girl is the ENEMY. If you are going to play well, you must ignore those things. After all, she would just as easily hurt you to score a point.

      Yeah, right.

      Can we just throw girls’ soccer and the rest of it in the trash? Normal activities like hiking, biking, or even playing team sports but in a spirit of fun, are okay; but we are going regret this mass conversion of all girls into basically short guys. What purpose does this nonsense serve?

      The problem is that guys enjoy participating in rougher more competitive sports. The guy attitude is then defined as the ONLY right attitude to have. The girls are then forced to march with the guys into competitive sports, even though they would rather be friends and socialize with the “enemy” girls. Rough competition = 100% good; Caring about other students = 100% bad. No grey areas are tolerated; none are allowed to exist. All the students must be the same.

      Anglin can’t deal with any shades of gray either.

      If [a woman] is told she is allowed to make her own decisions about what she believes, she will most often make the wrong decision. This is due to the fact that women make decisions based on emotion, and politics are the realm of logic and reason. [Her] emotions can be manipulated very easily, which is why the Jews love this idea of “female empowerment” and are attempting to force it on the entire world.”

      In my opinion, men are not less emotional than women. Men have very serious emotional problems. Some examples: lack of connection with their children; substance abuse and addiction, including esp. dangerous substances like crack, heroin, and meth; anger management issues; inability to make commitments of any type; extravagant spending on useless items like boats, vacation condos and sports cars; gambling to excess; the inability to form emotional attachments; post-traumatic stress disorder; excessive jealousy of the accomplishments of other men.

      “.. Politics are realm of logic and reason.” This statement is not true, because politics is human, and human nature means that unfortunately quite of bit of emotion gets in the way. He should realize that in the US discussions of politics are virtually banned in most workplaces in the US, so bitter and so divisive are the issues. Discussions of local issues not uncommonly end in screaming matches.

      Woman’s decisions are not necessarily wrong as Anglin implies. If that statement were true, then how did we ever evolve as a species? Every infant depends on his mother to make reasonable judgments regarding his health and safety for his survival. That’s a lot of important decisions.

      Anglin is discounting the resentment that women feel at being forced to raise the children alone, and to do all the difficult work of the society; while men focus on just having fun. They are voting against men to get revenge.

      For example, the book “Wild” by Cheryl Strayed, recounts the life of a White left-wing activist; much of her politics is imbued with her hatred for her father, who abandoned his family to a life of near-poverty. She describes how he would write threatening letters, demean her mother, and how they were afraid of him. Revenge means being a leftist.

    5. Mary O Says:

      Anglin’s core grievance against women seems to described here:

      The reason that women attempt to become involved in our political movement does not in any way relate to a genuine desire to embrace a logically sound political cause. It relates to a desire to invade a male space and play mommy, to lecture us on what we should and shouldn’t be doing and how we should or shouldn’t be doing it.

      If the purpose of the group is to be a “man’s space,” then how did the women become members?