Women and Feminism

[Jeff]

Women and Feminism

I cannot stand feminism, and it must be ended in the Western world, and soon.

Just the other day, a woman hung up (the phone) on me. Why? She was losing an argument with me. Rather than just admitting that she knew very little about the subject (the Middle East), she hung up on me instead. Feminism makes women "more bold." In 1955, a woman would not have hung up on me. Uppity!

Dr. Pierce said that feminism is so dangerous (as compared to other forms of leftism/Cultural Marxism) because you CANNOT escape it. Every man has: a wife, a girlfriend, a mother, a grandmother, a sister, even a female neighbor or even a boss. And most of them have dangerous and dumb ideas. Even if you move to a small town in Iowa, you cannot escape feminism.

Headline: "Mansplaining: Apparently, Men LISTEN When Explained To, Without Complaining...Because They're Interested In Stuff"

https://vdare.com/posts/mansplaining-ap ... d-in-stuff


(This post was written for WB only)


-------------------------------------

[Jeff]

Speaking of Women...

I just posted something about women here at WB today. But now I find this below. How ironic.

Anyway, here's a good lesson for all White men, young and old: the dangerous thing about women is: they seem smarter and more capable than they really are.

Meaning? When you talk to a woman, she often seems intelligent and very capable. But, that's the bad part. Women are "verbally intelligent" so they can convince you that they can handle just about any situation, when in reality, they CANNOT. "Appearances can be deceiving" as they say. Sally Soccermom can talk and charm her way into the top job at Big Fancy Company X, but in reality she cannot handle the job (women usually do not make good bosses. For one thing, they are not leaders so they try to please everybody via consensus-building and "teamwork," which usually ends badly. Yes, there are exceptions, but nonetheless it's usually true. (I had a female boss circa 1986. She wasn't a bad boss until the pressure was on: when that happened, she couldn't handle the pressure and she would begin yelling and screaming at innocent employees who had done nothing wrong. Women aren't good under pressure, which is why "women in the military" is a TRULY HORRIBLE idea).

Quote: "Putting women in charge because they are women is not recommended by experience."

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... women-etc/


(Written for WB only)


-----------------------------------

[Jim Mathias]

Women and Feminism

I cannot stand feminism, and it must be ended in the Western world, and soon.

Just the other day, a woman hung up (the phone) on me. Why? She was losing an argument with me. Rather than just admitting that she knew very little about the subject (the Middle East), she hung up on me instead. Feminism makes women "more bold." In 1955, a woman would not have hung up on me. Uppity!

Dr. Pierce said that feminism is so dangerous (as compared to other forms of leftism/Cultural Marxism) because you CANNOT escape it. Every man has: a wife, a girlfriend, a mother, a grandmother, a sister, even a female neighbor or even a boss. And most of them have dangerous and dumb ideas. Even if you move to a small town in Iowa, you cannot escape feminism.

Headline: "Mansplaining: Apparently, Men LISTEN When Explained To, Without Complaining...Because They're Interested In Stuff"

https://vdare.com/posts/mansplaining-ap ... d-in-stuff


(This post was written for WB only)


-------------------------------------

In my opinion, the argument you described appears to be some sort of zero-sum event, where you're in a conflicting situation with a woman over a topic and the object is to win or lose. In order to be persuasive with others, men and women both, it's important to not be adversarial. Rather, approach encounters with others as though you're their friend. With women who are 100% bought-in with feminism (an opposed ideology to the Cosmotheism of the National Alliance) you're operating at a steep disadvantage from the get-go. To change her mind would involve a mastery of female applied psychology or visibly superior status in the social hierarchy sense to help you persuade. Not impossible, but highly improbable that you have the tools necessary at hand. As I don't have these any of these things, it's the social environment I'd like to believe that we in the NA are trying to accomplish among ourselves. If we bring together in a physical community 10 men and women that are on the same page ideologically and bring a feminist in for friendly discussion, the weight of 10 social beings against her one, done carefully, could sway the feminist.

Bottom line: get into friendlier chats or conversations with people who aren't so diametrically opposed to our point of view until such time as we can "group up" in these sorts of discussions.

[Jim Mathias]

Speaking of Women...

Anyway, here's a good lesson for all White men, young and old: the dangerous thing about women is: they seem smarter and more capable than they really are.

Enough with the amateur psychology of women, Jeff.

Within the National Alliance and Cosmotheist community, men and women both are selected for higher responsibilities according to their demonstrable performance. We're not about to pigeon-hole an entire sex based on some sketchy opinions. As a non-member nor a non-supporter of the NA/CC, this sort of approach is counterproductive to our life-philosophy and program of the National Alliance.

As for dealing with those with opposed ideologies, such as feminism, we're as interested in dealing head-on with Whites who have subscribed to them as we are with Christians: if they agree with our program and do not attempt to proselytize our members with those ideologies, we may take the time and effort to bring them around all the way or cut all ties where each goes their separate ways without further conflict.

Further, do not approach any women here on WB or any other platform the National Alliance has to provoke any sort of adversarial encounter. We want to partner with one another, not start fights.

[Will Williams]

Women and Feminism

I cannot stand feminism, and it must be ended in the Western world, and soon.

Just the other day, a woman hung up (the phone) on me. Why? She was losing an argument with me. Rather than just admitting that she knew very little about the subject (the Middle East), she hung up on me instead...

Sounds like a personal problem, Jeff. Be careful which females you want to talk about war with.

Headline: "Mansplaining: Apparently, Men LISTEN When Explained To, Without Complaining...Because They're Interested In Stuff"

https://vdare.com/posts/mansplaining-ap ... d-in-stuff

(This post was written for WB only)

WB doesn't need another stupid word like "mansplaining." You're claiming to have written this for WB only. Why? Then you link to Vdare, that sourced the term to the allegedly "pro-White" millionaire Jew, Unz, who links to and promotes questionable "Movement" characters like Andrew Anglin, NJP, etc. You are not leading WB visitors to our Alliance, but to others who will never be Alliance supporters, much less members. Why confuse WB visitors with pages and pages of contradictory "Movement" crap? Focus on our mission!

Surely you can link to something more appropriate, like this by Dr. Pierce in 1976 explaining why NA cannot unite with the groups you link to: https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/08/wh ... ons-unite/

Learn to use the National Vanguard search box. For example, enter the word 'feminism' and up will come a dozen or more articles that explain the subject with thoughtful clarity than you have not provided with your personal anecdote, like this one by NA founder, Pierce: https://nationalvanguard.org/2023/09/wl ... f-america/

You do not have to reinvent the wheel to promote the National Alliance, Jeff. Just because you've registered here at WB you are not an authorized spokesman for NA, whether you think you are or not.

[Jeff]

Women and Feminism




(This post was written for WB only)

You're claiming to have written this for WB only. Why?

("This post was written for WB only") indicates that my post did NOT appear at VNNF beforehand, as you requested. It appeared at WB first

[Will Williams]

Women and Feminism

(This post was written for WB only)

You're claiming to have written this for WB only. Why?

("This post was written for WB only") indicates that my post did NOT appear at VNNF beforehand, as you requested. It appeared at WB first

No one else here at WB finds it necessary to say what they write was written only for WB, Jeff. And they know that the National Alliance wants little to do with most other "Movement" websites -- especially the anti-NA VNN site you were closely associated with, and its owner, Mr. Linder, who is persona non grata. You would know that if you received our monthly Members BULLETIN or simply paid attention to what has been written about him here at WB. It is easy enough to find.

It's irksome to me that you ignore my criticism of your "activism" here on WB only to explain why you feel it's necessary to say what you write is "for WB only." I don't have the time to spend following your posts here to keep telling you how to properly promote the National Alliance. Be self-disciplined and concentrate on doing that, as I've suggested to you, and you'll be more likely to be welcomed by and fit in here with NA members and supporters -- something you are not. Visitors at those other sites you hang out on may appreciate your thoughts on anything and everything that interests you, but we aren't.

[Jeff]

Women and Feminism

(This post was written for WB only)

You're claiming to have written this for WB only. Why?

("This post was written for WB only") indicates that my post did NOT appear at VNNF beforehand, as you requested. It appeared at WB first

No one else here at WB finds it necessary to say what they write was written only for WB, Jeff. And they know that the National Alliance wants little to do with most other "Movement" websites -- especially the anti-NA VNN site you were closely associated with, and its owner, Mr. Linder, who is persona non grata. You would know that if you received our monthly Members BULLETIN or simply paid attention to what has been written about him here at WB. It is easy enough to find.

It's irksome to me that you ignore my criticism of your "activism" here on WB only to explain why you feel it's necessary to say what you write is "for WB only." I don't have the time to spend following your posts here to keep telling you how to properly promote the National Alliance. Be self-disciplined and concentrate on doing that, as I've suggested to you, and you'll be more likely to be welcomed by and fit in here with NA members and supporters -- something you are not. Visitors at those other sites you hang out on may appreciate your thoughts on anything and everything that interests you, but we aren't.

Ok.

All my posts for the past 15 years are written as "universal posts" -- they are designed to be posted at various places online: here, X/Twitter, GAB, and so forth. That's why they may seem "un-needed" to some wiser WN people. There's a method to my madness, so to speak.


----------------------------

[Will Williams]

You're claiming to have written this for WB only. Why?
[/size]

("This post was written for WB only") indicates that my post did NOT appear at VNNF beforehand, as you requested. It appeared at WB first

No one else here at WB finds it necessary to say what they write was written only for WB, Jeff. And they know that the National Alliance wants little to do with most other "Movement" websites -- especially the anti-NA VNN site you were closely associated with, and its owner, Mr. Linder, who is persona non grata. You would know that if you received our monthly Members BULLETIN or simply paid attention to what has been written about him here at WB. It is easy enough to find.

It's irksome to me that you ignore my criticism of your "activism" here on WB only to explain why you feel it's necessary to say what you write is "for WB only." I don't have the time to spend following your posts here to keep telling you how to properly promote the National Alliance. Be self-disciplined and concentrate on doing that, as I've suggested to you, and you'll be more likely to be welcomed by and fit in here with NA members and supporters -- something you are not. Visitors at those other sites you hang out on may appreciate your thoughts on anything and everything that interests you, but we aren't.

Ok.

All my posts for the past 15 years are written as "universal posts" -- they are designed to be posted at various places online: here, X/Twitter, GAB, and so forth. That's why they may seem "un-needed" to some wiser WN people. There's a method to my madness, so to speak.


----------------------------

Jeff, your madness, your universal comments meant for social media, are no longer welcome here at WB for reasons cited by me and other WB mods. You are incorrigible and not Alliance material, even with your 15 years of experience.

Consider this your final comment. Like WB moderator Jim Mathias told you, "Go away."

[Will Williams]

1. Will, I did NOT know that Mathias told me to "go away." When did he say that? I must have missed it/read it wrong.

2. You said that I had a 30-day trial period at WB. If you want me to stop "making universal posts"/"vanity posts" I can easily do that. I can stick to "WN-only" topics, or even make "no-links" posts. Frankly, you run a much "tighter ship" than I realized. Truly. I did not know the boundaries here were so "fixed." There's NO wiggle room, I'll give you guys that. That's a tight ship.

That's right, and we intend to keep it that way, thanks. No room on our ship for disruptive personalities. You can't help yourself, Jeff. Forget the 30-day probationary period. You are banned!