Speaking of exceptional White women, here's one who is fully racially aware -- a marvellously awakening quality when combined with talent:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=22466

Exceptional women are rare. The only disagreement I have with some is that I do not believe these exceptional women should be kept from being everything they can be.

You sound a bit like a post-jew-takeover U.S. Army commercial for women on this one, HG. As I've said, most of our exceptional women should have as their major focus becoming exceptional wives and mothers. Then, afterwards, if they're still so inclined, they can be whatever else they can be -- as long as doing so doesn't interfere with their wifely role -- their man in the man's world is almost always more important than the exceptional woman's being in the man's world. But, of course, there must be exceptions for the creme de la creme. In other words, only exceptional exceptional women should put career first.

We can recognize this rare exceptional women without believing she represents the capabilities of ALL women.

Because a woman is capable of becoming a capable President, doesn't mean she should become President. Her better role -- better for the race -- will still be, 99% of the time, that of a wife and mother. We need our capable women having kids and raising them and showing them how to be a great wife and mother -- and how important that role is. The White race will survive just fine without ANY exceptional women pretending to be men (although absolute 100% exclusion is not necessary or desirable -- just keep in mind the principle that men can handle things better without any women at all in male roles -- we really don't need you in our men's world, we need you at home with the family).

Exceptional men are also rare.

Yes, but you still seem to be missing the point, HG. Women should NOT be all they can be. They should be wives and mothers.

White women striving to be all they can be and, thereby, competing with their men and deflecting themselves away from home and family and motherhood has and will always result only in exterminating the White race.

Keep in mind that this career thing tends to be a zero sum game. A woman as a vice president of Ford means that a man is not a vice president of Ford. And that's not good -- for our race (regardless of whether or not it's good for Ford).

Beneath the surface of your words, HG, I detect an incurable feminist. You're going to have to give that up if you want to be primarily a benefit for the White Cause -- and not a net detriment. You'll have to give that up because Jane White is right and you are wrong -- because White women replacing White men in male roles equals genocide -- and they're rarely very good at it anyway.

Forget this be-all-you-can-be crap, HG. It's only always been just a jew propagandistic ploy to divide and, thereby, conquer us.

I am not talking about women replacing men is traditional male roles, I am simply talking about women not being kept from certain roles, in the rare case, that they are more than qualified to be in those roles. This would be quite different than how things are today, where standards are lowered to allow for the presence of women who should not be in those roles. It is also true that on a rare occassion not every single woman is cut out for that wife/mother role. Should a woman whose talents may lie elsewhere be forced into that role as her only option, when she might be more of a benefit doing something else? What if a certain woman would make a terrible mother, but be very good at something else(again rare, possibly, but it does exist) A society can not be operated on exceptions to the rule, but it also does not have to completely ignore those exceptions.

Some ideas that float around, here and some of the anti-female hostility is also useful to the Jews.(I am not referring to you) There is also division in those attitudes.

And I don't think I have to be a feminist to find fault in words like "women pale in comparison to men" or "women have done nothing but destroy our society." And I would also have to wonder if those statements were made to win brownie points with some of the guys.

Back to voting again:p Who was it that allowed niggers the "right' to vote. It certainly was NOT women.

New states quickly started joining the union, each developing and adopting its own constitution. Most of these states specified that only white, adult men could vote in elections. Other states restricted the right to vote to white men who owned property or who paid taxes. Generally, only a few free northern or southern blacks could vote. Women could not vote anywhere, even if they owned property.

http://www.edgate.com/elections/inactive/history_of_the_vote/

so while ALL white women, no matter what their position, were to inept to handle the responsibility of voting, some niggers were acceptable.

Quite annoying that niggers were even held in a higher regard by some, then white women.:box:

Back to voting again:p Who was it that allowed niggers the "right' to vote. It certainly was NOT women.

Bahahaha! You go gurlfriens! LOL :cheers:

so while ALL white women, no matter what their position, were to inept to handle the responsibility of voting, some niggers were acceptable.

Quite annoying that niggers were even held in a higher regard by some, then white women.

I'm sure niggers were NEVER held in higher regard than White women. Of course, a handful of men will believe anything, I suppose. MUCH more likely -- White men wanted women to remain women and not interfere with the government. (They sure were right.)

How the niggers got in there initially, I can only make an educated guess: JEWS.

I'm sure niggers were NEVER held in higher regard than White women. Of course, a handful of men will believe anything, I suppose. MUCH more likely -- White men wanted women to remain women and not interfere with the government. (They sure were right.)

How the niggers got in there initially, I can only make an educated guess: JEWS.

jews and greedy Whites in search of quick riches via cheap labor. What's that the Frogs say? The more things change, the more they stay the same? or some sort.

I am not talking about women replacing men is traditional male roles, I am simply talking about women not being kept from certain roles, in the rare case, that they are more than qualified to be in those roles. This would be quite different than how things are today, where standards are lowered to allow for the presence of women who should not be in those roles. It is also true that on a rare occassion not every single woman is cut out for that wife/mother role. Should a woman whose talents may lie elsewhere be forced into that role as her only option, when she might be more of a benefit doing something else? What if a certain woman would make a terrible mother, but be very good at something else(again rare, possibly, but it does exist) A society can not be operated on exceptions to the rule, but it also does not have to completely ignore those exceptions.

Some ideas that float around, here and some of the anti-female hostility is also useful to the Jews.(I am not referring to you) There is also division in those attitudes.

And I don't think I have to be a feminist to find fault in words like "women pale in comparison to men" or "women have done nothing but destroy our society." And I would also have to wonder if those statements were made to win brownie points with some of the guys.

Okay. No significant problems in this statement, from my point of view.

jews and greedy Whites in search of quick riches via cheap labor. What's that the Frogs say? The more things change, the more they stay the same? or some sort.

Yep. The White race -- and all humans and certainly sub-humans -- are vulnerable to greed. A human characteristic -- that jews have learned well how to exploit.

I'm sure niggers were NEVER held in higher regard than White women. Of course, a handful of men will believe anything, I suppose. MUCH more likely -- White men wanted women to remain women and not interfere with the government. (They sure were right.)

[highlight]How the niggers got in there initially, I can only make an educated guess: JEWS.[/highlight]

Actually [and this is not a joke] it was the Quakers who got them in.

Actually [and this is not a joke] it was the Quakers who got them in.

We're going to hear from lots of hair-splitters about this. Quakers didn't own the slave ships. Marrano Jews owned the boats. Yes, Quakers ponied up the money. But no slave ships, no slaves.

(For the height of Hollywood hypocrisy, there's an ancient movie called Slave Ship in which the whole blame was put on... Evil Whites. Amazing!)

Some of the issues with women would take care of themselves without force being used. For example voting.. no one should be voting for our leaders man or woman.

Women in the workplace.. without affirmative action very few women would be selected for these roles like vice president of a company. And the 'exceptional woman' would make it anyway without help. If she didn't oh well.. you have to run a civilization on norms not exceptions.

Where force would be used is taking back the media channels. If women saw popular women on tv shows having lots of babies... And possibly going for stud whites chosen for their natural intelligence and health.. Then many real life women would copy it.

so while ALL white women, no matter what their position, were to inept to handle the responsibility of voting, some niggers were acceptable.

Quite annoying that niggers were even held in a higher regard by some, then white women.:box:

Imo that is the christian brainwashing.. like another semitic religion of islam's brainwashing..

Pagan religions on the other hand held women in high regard at least as equals and celebrated their fertility.. our future depends on women.. if they have children.. and who they choose to mate with. Arranged marriages for example are dysgenic.

You sound a bit like a post-jew-takeover U.S. Army commercial for women on this one, HG. As I've said, most of our exceptional women should have as their major focus becoming exceptional wives and mothers. Then, afterwards, if they're still so inclined, they can be whatever else they can be -- as long as doing so doesn't interfere with their wifely role -- their man in the man's world is almost always more important than the exceptional woman's being in the man's world. But, of course, there must be exceptions for the creme de la creme. In other words, only exceptional exceptional women should put career first.

Because a woman is capable of becoming a capable President, doesn't mean she should become President. Her better role -- better for the race -- will still be, 99% of the time, that of a wife and mother. We need our capable women having kids and raising them and showing them how to be a great wife and mother -- and how important that role is. The White race will survive just fine without ANY exceptional women pretending to be men (although absolute 100% exclusion is not necessary or desirable -- just keep in mind the principle that men can handle things better without any women at all in male roles -- we really don't need you in our men's world, we need you at home with the family).

Yes, but you still seem to be missing the point, HG. Women should NOT be all they can be. They should be wives and mothers.

White women striving to be all they can be and, thereby, competing with their men and deflecting themselves away from home and family and motherhood has and will always result only in exterminating the White race.

Keep in mind that this career thing tends to be a zero sum game. A woman as a vice president of Ford means that a man is not a vice president of Ford. And that's not good -- for our race (regardless of whether or not it's good for Ford).

Beneath the surface of your words, HG, I detect an incurable feminist. You're going to have to give that up if you want to be primarily a benefit for the White Cause -- and not a net detriment. You'll have to give that up because Jane White is right and you are wrong -- because White women replacing White men in male roles equals genocide -- and they're rarely very good at it anyway.

Forget this be-all-you-can-be crap, HG. It's only always been just a jew propagandistic ploy to divide and, thereby, conquer us.

You're talking to a "brick wall", Devere. The only contributions that bitch has ever made to WN is demoralization, division, misguidance, and confusion. And deliberately. A clever kike or kike-alike, and I couldn't care less which. Damages to the furtherance of our Cause and our Race are the same.

It is true that women almost always vote for whatever politician will promise them security (whatever that is!). Which is why giving women the vote was a bad idea. However, it does prompt the question, why do so many women feel so insecure as to want the government to make everything nice and predictable and secure for them? Is it an inherent quality? Could their men be uncaring scoundrels and wastrels, cheating on them and spending money on alcohol, etc? So they end up looking to big daddy Liberal Government to be the Man in the Family?

You're talking to a "brick wall", Devere. The only contributions that bitch has ever made to WN is demoralization, division, misguidance, and confusion. And deliberately. A clever kike or kike-alike, and I couldn't care less which. Damages to the furtherance of our Cause and our Race are the same.

Attacking me instead of what I said. Always a great tactic. Who isn't a kike or kike-a-like in your eyes? Oh yeah, anyone who praises Lord Miller.