I have noticed threads that postulate CRAP

My word, what an astute observation. One marvels at such wit.

RE: Pontiac

Alex Linder and some others here at VNN have written brilliant essays regarding the difference between men and women. Much to the chagrin of many of our White Sisters. Search the archives for these essays, they‘re well worth the read.

One way how I’ve noticed how to discern the difference between men and women is to look at who the jew patronizes. The jew only gives something when he is guaranteed a return on his investment. In other words, it seems that the jew will only go after the most compliant tool that he can use.

This may be why the jew media never fails to mention “The first women to - fill in the blank -”. Women’s achievements are always lauded by the jew. Most White women can’t see past the patronizing flattery. Most women will not speculate as to why the jew is being so nice to them. When this point is brought-up for public discussion in these various forums, most (but not all) women will get defensive and then attack by saying that our complaints are just sour grapes. The jew has then successfully ignited another gender war when men complain about the unfairness and hypocrisy.

For example, the Tampa Bay Area’s largest newspaper, The St. Petersburg Times, has featured female athletes in our local sports section in both print and photo 91% of the time. We have monitored the paper for just over a year to gather this stat. The newspaper goes so far out of the way to avoid giving mention to male athletes, that they will instead print when a female athlete loses at an event or doesn’t make the cut. The newspaper will do this instead of informing the public of the undefeated boy’s high school baseball team or the boys who’ve won sports scholarships. There have been only 2 tiny postage-stamp sized photos of white male athletes in the past 4 months. It’s almost as if there are no White males playing organized sports in our entire region, judging by the newspapers reporting. We can’t imagine what the parents of the White boys are thinking when they read the paper and see no mention of their son’s sports achievements. Certainly other parents aren’t going to complain when their daughter’s name is mentioned prominently with a half page flattering color action-photo of Ashley as an also-ran. Both my wife and myself have written numerous letters to the editor asking about this gross disparity, providing the correlated data for the publisher’s review. We do not even get the courtesy of a response in defense of their pro-female policy or otherwise. (Incidently, the editor of the sports section is a male jew)

We must ask ourselves; Why is the jew doing this? What purpose does it serve the jew to gush over the most minute achievements of women, and yet neglect mentioning the more stellar achievements of the men?

Knowing the answer to this question, answers so many other questions.

.

the psychology of men is the same as the psychology of women, they are seeking sexual power. You kiss Linder's ass because you want his sexual power, you're fawning over him because you're being his faggot bitch.

the attraction between guys is sexual, that's why none of you network well, because your dick is dead.

My god, your'e a genius!

I think you are a bit extrapolating. Because women are hardwired to superimpose instincts of sexual selection upon debating males, they will ALWAYS ally with the most oportunistic, ruthless, idiotic and vile element.

I think there are key "arguments" that make women automatically rally to your cause. My favorite is "Fuck off looser, GET A LIFE!". Women absolutely LOVE seing men geting personal with each other (as opposed to purely logical discussions which they find totally boring) and this particular type of ridicule (while completely inconsequential) goes straight to hers heart, because it is directly linked with sexual selection. If someone doesn't shed his "looser" label with the right display, women will refuse to listen and always aggree with the "virile" boy, even when the latter says the moon is yellow and has wholes because it's made of schweitzer cheese.

Apart of tracing the alpha male, women will rally with popularity. Siding with unpopular views is extremely damaging to someone's credibility and women will, again, refuse to associate with someone deemed by the alpha as "racist" or to whatever "looser" type defined by Jews through the vehicle of their media. They will weight the off-topic ridicules/accusations and rally to the view that has most "credibility" and popularity.

It is natural for females and males to live mostly segregated lives. Certainly it has been natural for them to discuss, socialize etc. separately throughout human history. Having men and women together most/all of the time, as in today's society, makes people go slightly insane I think.

Please understand that although outwardly females appear 90% the same as males, inwardly, in mind and spirit they are 90% different, and most of the time directly opposed to males. All apparent language, reasoning, ideas, etc. manifested by women are simply mimicry. Quite creepy isn't it. You know what image I use to understand women? It was in a science fiction story, I forget which one, in which a spaceship was taken over by small aliens. They killed an astronaut, gnawed off his head, stuffed several of themselves into a spacesuit, held up the astronaut's head in the visor and floated across to the ship, that's how they got in. Mimicry, copying to appear the same, but inside totally different and opposed to you. No originality or understanding or even caring about what they mimic.

Treat women like nice children but don't waste your time engaging in conversation with them. You are being deceived. Just a little superficial, emotional repartee and then back to the gentlemens' conversation and let the ladies have their own conversation.

I submit to you that the White male is the part of the human species that is the least prone to network.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Personally I think Blacks are least prone to organization and networking.

We've had 100 years or more of Jewish "experts" turning men into pussies.

The white man, like other men, has a normal drive for hierarchy. They line up behind the "king", "pope", "chief", whatever. Men are looking for action, for power, for access to power. Nobody here has any power, and most prefer to be anonymous, therefore no pyramids of power (network) ever develop.

Women have a natural mate instinct - they are trying to find intimacy and to be admired. They make networks but usually extremely unstable ones based on petty emotions. These can reverse into jealous or hate relationships very easily. Women also suck up to men because they have a natural whore instinct, that's how they get their power. Women don't form pyramids of power, like men do. They all jockey for position as number two to the natural group leader. And they backstab/bail out on the natural leader, all the time, if the leader is a woman.

Personally I think Blacks are least prone to organization and networking.

Street Gangs — Chicago Based or Influenced
People Nation and Folk Nation
Background - The Seeds of the Alliances

Chicago street gangs emerged in the 1960's when a "youth group" called the Black P-Stone Rangers developed into a criminal organization.
Jeff Fort

The group's leader, Jeff Fort, united the leaders of some 50 area street gangs into a single organization, calling it the Black P-Stone Nation.

The group was controlled by a 21-man commission, self-titled the "Main 21." The leaders projected the group as a socially conscious, self-help organization that would help uplift themselves and their community.

As a result of this premise, the group sought and obtained $1.4 million in federal anti-poverty funds. These funds were then used to support the group's illegal activities. A federal grand jury uncovered the funds mismanagement and Jeff Fort was sent to federal prison.

The perceived success of Fort's Black P-Stone Nation resulted in the formation of many other street gangs, that claimed to be politically and socially motivated. Of the groups that surfaced, many dropped to a level of

David Barksdale
disorganization, while others developed into sophisticated, highly organized groups involved in prostitution, robbery, burglary, extortion, and drug sales.

Two very influential gangs, the Black Disciples, led by David Barksdale, and the Gangster Disciples, led by Larry Hoover, followed Fort's example and unified their gangs to form the Black Gangster Disciple Nation.

Throughout the 1970's, the Black P-Stone Nation and Black Gangster Disciple Nation controlled the Chicago drug trade and became bitter rivals expressing their anger by creating the bloodiest gang war in Chicago's history.

The Emergence of Alliances

Many of the leaders and members of the Chicago gangs ended up in federal and state correctional facilities. The increased number of individual gangs created a need for immediate visual gang identification that would enable members to distinguish allies from enemies among the prison population.

During the 1980's, within the prison walls, gangs began separating into alliances. The two alliance names that emerged were the People Nation and Folk Nation.

All gangs that were originally aligned with the Black P-Stone Nation aligned with People Nation.

Those that were originally aligned with the Black Gangster Disciple Nation aligned with the Folk Nation.

Many gangs or "sets," as they are called, are aligned with one of the two Chicago alliances. The more prevalent groups are shown below by alliance.

People Nation Sets
Black P-Stone
Latin Kings
Vicelords
Spanish Lords
El Rukns
Bishops
Gaylords
Latin Counts
Kents

Folk Nation Sets
Black Gangster Disciples
Black Disciples
Gangster Disciples
La Raza
Cobras
Eagles
Latin Disciples
Maniac Latin Disciples
Simon City Royals
Spanish Gangsters
Two Sixers

Here are some basic traits these alliances have in common.

Mentality and Philosophy

The "All for One, One for All" philosophy poses a significant threat]

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/gangs/chicago.html

Also notice that when a darkie is, or is perceived to be, the victim of some assault by a white person that you generally see a very large extended family and a large group of community darkies on TV marching the streets to express their racist hatred of whites.

When a white is the victim of black crime, you only see his immediate family grieving and saying crap like, "We don't hate the people who did this, we just want to get rid of the evil white racist system that causes black boys to go bad".

Darkies are well organized on the family and community level. When it comes to larger, more difficult organizations like businesses, schools or political parties, then they fail...except for street gangs.

The man who believes that he has free will is more easily controlled since he will never think to look for the chains--Burrhus

[color="Red"]The jews are a problem--not our ONLY or SOLE problem, not responsible for EVERY problem faced by gentiles, not some ALL-POWERFUL race that we shouldn't bother trying to resist, not an EXCUSE for avoiding responsibilty for problems of our own making --but nonetheless, A REAL, SERIOUS PROBLEM.--Burrhus

 

One way how I’ve noticed how to discern the difference between men and women is to look at who the jew patronizes. The jew only gives something when he is guaranteed a return on his investment. In other words, it seems that the jew will only go after the most compliant tool that he can use.

This is all good, brutus, but keep in mind our fellow whites in the financial and marketing world for a deeper and darker take on the problem.

When corporations took over the entire entertainment industry after WWII the went straight to the Efficiency Experts for the answers to all of life's little problems. Most of these men were white. What worked for making bombs and jeeps was going to work for entertainment, dammit, and that's what they did.

They studied graphs and tables and quarterly returns on everything. Did 12 year old girls buy most recorded music? Yes, so the entire music industry was skewed toward one hypothetical 12-year-old girl somewhere between Elvis and the Beatles. Was most of the movie audience under-twenty-five looking for make-out flicks? Yes, so the whole industry was skewed in that direction from 1975 on. Are prime-time broadcast TV audiences mostly "minority" (read black-mestizo)? Yes, so whites are usually the badguys, patsies, whatever. The list goes on but gets no better.

White women are more social than their men. What does that mean in a fragmented society where most all members of our race, male and female, are isolated? White women are going to get a lot of their social cues and attitudes from TV, movies and music that's been canned, wrapped and shipped by corporate efficiency experts. If they have no other outlet, their minds will be owned by the boys from Yahweh, you bet, because they now own the industries that the efficiency experts made efficient.

As a former donor to white activist causes including VNN's radio project, I've come to doubt any kind of activism is worth a shit till we, as a race, become a community again. We have to bring our young men into settings where they can use their skills and energies for our race and not against it, or worse, turn into lone wolves that are worthless anywhere. And we have to let our women know their own inate value again, because they've only been a marketing target for over a generation now.

Sure white women socialize on the net, it might be the only outlet for some. And white men are getting increasingly isolated, on the net just like everywhere else. Because whites are not a people anymore, their a loose collection of individuals. Change that, and a lot else changes.

It is natural for females and males to live mostly segregated lives. Certainly it has been natural for them to discuss, socialize etc. separately throughout human history. Having men and women together most/all of the time, as in today's society, makes people go slightly insane I think.

Please understand that although outwardly females appear 90% the same as males, inwardly, in mind and spirit they are 90% different, and most of the time directly opposed to males. All apparent language, reasoning, ideas, etc. manifested by women are simply mimicry. Quite creepy isn't it. You know what image I use to understand women? It was in a science fiction story, I forget which one, in which a spaceship was taken over by small aliens. They killed an astronaut, gnawed off his head, stuffed several of themselves into a spacesuit, held up the astronaut's head in the visor and floated across to the ship, that's how they got in. Mimicry, copying to appear the same, but inside totally different and opposed to you. No originality or understanding or even caring about what they mimic.

Treat women like nice children but don't waste your time engaging in conversation with them. You are being deceived. Just a little superficial, emotional repartee and then back to the gentlemens' conversation and let the ladies have their own conversation.

Well said. Are you familiar with G.K.Chesterton? If not, read here, especially Part III:FEMINISM, OR THE MISTAKE ABOUT WOMAN. (About 1/3 of the way down) The entire essay is also very good.

http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html

much more here http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/

It is natural for females and males to live mostly segregated lives. Certainly it has been natural for them to discuss, socialize etc. separately throughout human history. Having men and women together most/all of the time, as in today's society, makes people go slightly insane I think.

Please understand that although outwardly females appear 90% the same as males, inwardly, in mind and spirit they are 90% different, and most of the time directly opposed to males. All apparent language, reasoning, ideas, etc. manifested by women are simply mimicry. Quite creepy isn't it. You know what image I use to understand women? It was in a science fiction story, I forget which one, in which a spaceship was taken over by small aliens. They killed an astronaut, gnawed off his head, stuffed several of themselves into a spacesuit, held up the astronaut's head in the visor and floated across to the ship, that's how they got in. Mimicry, copying to appear the same, but inside totally different and opposed to you. No originality or understanding or even caring about what they mimic.

Treat women like nice children but don't waste your time engaging in conversation with them. You are being deceived. Just a little superficial, emotional repartee and then back to the gentlemens' conversation and let the ladies have their own conversation.

The Mote in God's Eye
by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671741926/102-9338183-1585708?v=glance&n=283155

Enkidu

I say the laws of nature are identical for both men and women. It is only in the way they cope with the challenges the place where differences appear. Females are obviously FAR more opportunistic than males. That is an important key to descifer their otherwise absurd behavior.

For instance, I once had problems understanding why my friends' wifes risked so much having sex with all sorts of subhuman scums while their husbands provided all they possibly needed in their lifetime. It is simply because they are bound by instincts into repetitive and utterly predictable behavior and, in addition, because of utterly corrupt mindsets, where every opportunity must be taken and nothing should deter her from climbing the social ladder.

Women, like Jews, have an agenda. Their agenda has a single entry: everyting is good when it is favorable to me, while everything is evil when is unfavorable to me. Only that Jews have followed the next step, replacing "me" with "us".