More Stormfront Feminism [From Male Posters]

[Joe]

A man's life can never revolve around a woman, he has to be his own man. A woman is replaceable, she can walk out on you on a moment's notice and your life should still go on.

I think I have the same understanding, but articulated it differently. I do think that it is important to try and find a smart woman, so that much heart-ache can probably be mitigated. I have met a very smart girl who stood beside me and remained true even in the toughest of times, it seems she is very difficult to replace.

A man's life can never revolve around a woman, he has to be his own man. A woman is replaceable, she can walk out on you on a moment's notice and your life should still go on. The tragedy is that today a woman tries to throw the man out of his house and take his stuff. A woman, as a feature in a man's life, is easily replaceable, his house, his car, etc, those are not as easily replaced, because those things represent years of the man's productivity and toil and he can not easily get those back, he can easily land another woman.

Very true. And they often have no recognition of the blood, sweat and tears ...these days they are taught to believe that they would be equally capable.

That is my main gripe with PUA game lifestyle [aside from being opposed to empty fornication on moral grounds], it is a validation of female supremacy in the sense that it teaches men to seek validation by how much attention they can garner from women by putting on an act and jumping through hoops, going through motions, to get female attention. Basically the man has to become an actor, learn a script, and play a role, to get attention from the woman. In this sense "getting the woman" is the object of the "game" and the woman is the prize.

I agree 100%. An actor who learns a script ...exactly. Their identity is based around the chaotic whims of women. Often their principles are gone and forgotten.

If a man builds himself a life, women will come. "If you build it, she will come."

Good quote. I believe this in my own life.

Well thank-you for clarifying your reasoning to me. I certainly agree with everything you said here. I will think about your further explanations.

[Joe]

[7/23/2014 10:17:48 PM] SB/ME: blacks will hover around them, "can I get yo number? yo number girl, you got it going on, damn girl you fine, what yo number?"

Our, white people's, courtship can be complex. That has been destroyed by men being told about 'sexual harassment'.
If you approach a woman, and she rejects you; that is 'sexual harassment'. The media pressures young people to have sex too early, thus it is awkward the first time. Then, because it was awkward, that is rape.

Our courtship has been destroyed, you are a criminal now if you court a woman. I remember sex education at my -catholic- school. Women were taught to put condoms on bananas, boys were taught over and over again; if you touch a woman or say something she doesn't like, you are a rapist. I remember as a teenager thinking about how to approach a woman and wondering whether I was some kind of criminal rapist.

White men then come-up with all kinds of over-complicated strategies, such as PUA, while courtship use to be rather simple and follow certain phases.

Do you think blacks feel awkward ...no way, they are not capable of forming deep-emotional bonds. Do you think blacks worry about rape or sexual harassment. Nope. Do you think blacks try to become PUAs ...not that either. Niggers breed like pests.

But when a white girl, not getting any attention from men (as 'sexual harassment' was only suppose to keep creepy guys away from her) is suddenly approached by a black...
She may forsake her usual courting expectations. After all, she is rarely courted, as that is illegal. And she knows that niggers are 'exotic' and tough like on TV, why not accept his strange approaches even if they don't conform to traditional roles.

Like a bird that has very specific courtship dances before it accepts a mate. That being destroyed and the female being indoctrinated to accept new strange practices.
Now that our courtship has been destroyed most women are happy to just think that courtship is about sex only, that it is not about going on a couple relaxed outings and considering whether you are a good partnership.

Now our courtship resembles nigger courtship. That is all we know, from TV and the outlawing of our traditional way.

[SwordBrethren]

Some of the people on Stormfront are stupid beyond measure-

That loser, LetsGoBlues has posted a picture of three MALE Polish/Jewish members of the Polish Home Army, from the Warsaw Uprising [clearly wearing AK insignia with captured German helmets/uniforms] and has claimed that they are German/Aryan Volkstrum women and he has compared one of them to Emma Waston [whom he has expressed lust for in about 10-15 different threads, even threads that have nothing to do with her].

He also expresses lust for the paramilitary on the far right in the second/bottom picture, although it should be noted that the person pictured is a MAN, as described by the wiki caption of the picture.


https://www.stormfront.org/forum/showth ... stcount=59


It somewhat amazes me that an obvious troll like that is given free reign on Stormfront, it speaks to how low a site falls when it goes down the road of secularism.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Army# ... scouts.jpg



Warsaw Uprising boyscoutsPublic Domain
Jerzy Tomaszewski - Jerzy Tomaszewski (1979) Epizody Powstania Warszawskiego, Warsaw: Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza Anna Świrszczyńska "Swir" (1984) Budowałam Barykadę, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, …
Boy-scout Home Army soldiers during the Warsaw Uprising

Warsaw Uprising: Soldiers from the "Radosław Regiment" after several hours marching through sewers from Krasiński Square to Warecka Street in the Śródmieście district, early morning on September 2, 1944. The boy in helmet is Tadeusz "Maszynka" Rajszczak from the Miotła Battalion.

[Staropramen]

It somewhat amazes me that an obvious troll like that is given free reign on Stormfront, it speaks to how low a site falls when it goes down the road of secularism.

Do you believe that SF is legit? That it's not controlled opposition?

[SwordBrethren]

It somewhat amazes me that an obvious troll like that is given free reign on Stormfront, it speaks to how low a site falls when it goes down the road of secularism.

Do you believe that SF is legit? That it's not controlled opposition?

I believe that perhaps 20-40% of the users/posers on SF are legitimate, but that the site owners and major moderators are aware of the true purpose of the site.

SF was co-opted a long while ago, possibly from the start.

[SwordBrethren]

Joe, Staropramen, Lang, etc...


Do you believe it would be fair to say that men encourage feminism by indulging women who behave poorly? Whether they actively approve of the behavior while it occurs or if they continue to accept and validate the women after-the-fact, they are essentially stamping their approval on bad female behavior.

An example would be an unmitigated slut, the town bicycle, who is still able to get a husband despite having a horrible reputation. Some man, somewhere, will be desperate enough for sex that he accepts her, even given her proven track record of atrociously poor behavior.

The defeat of feminism depends largely on men rejecting women who are unworthy of commitment. This will of course require that a large number of men accept the possibility of long-term celibacy.

[Lang]

Do you believe it would be fair to say that men encourage feminism by indulging women who behave poorly?

Yes. Main cause of feminism is sissy men who don't wear the pants, don't impose themselves, accept unacceptable behavior and sometimes even become "feminist men".

The question is not, "How are we gonna put feminist women in their place?", but rather "When will man stand up and put back their pants to put feminist women in their place?"

"Looking back over the past years of Germany’s decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying, conclusion that the less German men were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness, and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman." - Joseph Goebbels.

[SwordBrethren]

Do you believe it would be fair to say that men encourage feminism by indulging women who behave poorly?

Yes. Main cause of feminism is sissy men who don't wear the pants, don't impose themselves, accept unacceptable behavior and sometimes even become "feminist men".

The question is not, "How are we gonna put feminist women in their place?", but rather "When will man stand up and put back their pants to put feminist women in their place?"

"Looking back over the past years of Germany’s decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying, conclusion that the less German men were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness, and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman." - Joseph Goebbels.

The only issue with what Goebbels is saying is what came first? Did the feminization of men cause the masculinzation of women or did the masculinization of women cause the feminization of men? Or did they both happen in an approximately simultaneous manner?

[Lang]

What he is saying is that the feminization of men caused the masculinization of women.

[SwordBrethren]

What he is saying is that the feminization of men caused the masculinization of women.

Yes, but my question- Is he right or is he making the mistake of chicken/egg... What came first?

Goebbels makes that statement but he does not qualify it and he does not expand or expound on it.