/fascist/ - Surf The Kali Yuga

National Socialist and Third Position Discussion


New Reply
Name
×
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
Flag
[New Reply]


ONION IS BACK, PLEASE TRY IT AND REPORT ANY FURTHER ISSUES!

Sieg Heil!


Tara_McCarthy.png
[Hide] (121.4KB, 445x781) Reverse
When the Alt-Right existed something that happened was women in the movement complaining of poor treatment before leaving. If "justice" as defined from the right could be characterized as "to each according to his or her place in the hierarchy" then misogynistic behavior towards women is unjust. Pic rel is one example but here in the US there is a significant presence of misogyny on the right (if we're being honest with ourselves).

A different position is Alain de Benoist's identitarian/differentialist feminism. In the interview "Benoist on Feminism, IQ, & the Wealth of Nations 
Interview on the Human Sciences, Part 4" he says:

>From the beginning, in Europe women were never considered mere objects. Male domination, on the other hand, has long been legitimated by Christian theology which, especially in the first centuries, presented women as defective beings and a “place of sin.” From the 19th century on, bourgeois society has constantly repressed feminine values. This is what justifies the demands of women.

>But there are two forms of feminism: egalitarian feminism and identitarian feminism. The first thinks that the best means of ensuring the promotion of women is to work to gradually blur the distinction between masculine and feminine social roles. Women must be able to do “everything that men do,” but in this case it the male social role is implicitly taken as the model. The second, by contrast, holds that one can assert the equality of women only on the basis of their distinctness. The New Right supports the second tendency, represented in particular by Luce Irigaray, rather than the first, represented in particular by Simone de Beauvoir or Elisabeth Badinter.

>For its part, evolutionary psychology shows that the differences between men and women go well beyond their sexual organs. In mankind, the brain itself is sexually dimorphic. Thus sex is not reduced to “gender,” to a social construction (as claimed in “gender studies,” which are characterized above all by their sterility and their extraordinary monotony). Sex is a biological reality on which multiple social constructions are grafted. Feminism is thus completely legitimate when it demands the recognition of the equal value of what is distinctly female and what is distinctly male. But equal value does not mean indistinctness.

In his pamphlet Manifesto for a European Renaissance he discusses this under the section "4. Against Sexism; For the Recognition of Gender":

>The modern concept of abstract individuals, detached from their sexual identity, stemming from an 'indifferentialist' ideology which neutralizes sexual differences, is just as prejudicial against women as traditional sexism which, for centuries, considered women as incomplete men. This is a twisted form of male domination, which in the past had excluded women from the arena of public life, and admits them today - on the condition that they divest themselves of their femininity.

>The New Right supports a differentialist feminism which, to the contrary, wants sexual difference to play a role in the public domain and upholds specifically feminine rights (the right to virginity, to maternity, to abortion). Against sexism and unisex utopianism, differentialist feminism recognises men as well as women by acknowledging the equal value of their distinct and unique natures.

Alain de Benoist is also not the first to have this kind of position. Some groups in the Conservative Revolution during the years 1918 to 1932 also recognized the equal value of women. Armin Mohler's book The Conservative Revolution in Germany documents this position within the volkische:

>An essential difference from the teachings of the Deutschglaubige Gemeninschaft and the Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft lay, however, in the emphasis placed on the equal rights of women (their oppression being considered the result of Jewish-Christian alienation) and in their belief in polytheism:

>Up to this time, the volkisch-religious had displayed much ingenuity trying to demonstrate the original monotheism of the Germanics. They remained so strongly bound to the world of the 19th century, with its ideas of "progress" and "development," that it seemed unthinkable to expose their adherence to Christianity by "reverting" to polytheistic "barbarism." The prospect now changed entirely. Belief in a plurality of gods was now emphasized as an expression of pagan tolerance. A text from this time reads:

>Germanic paganism was not founded on a father religion in the sense of the Semitic, Christian, and Mohammedan teachings, and the Father of All is a later, futile attempt at alignment with Christian teaching. In the North, we constantly encounter generative god-couples. Confusion and decline first came to our people with the penetration and autocracy (under the threat of death) of the Semitic Sky God.

Thoughts? Has anyone read anything by Luce Irigaray?
Replies: >>3497 >>3517
Screenshot_2024-03-10_12.04.39_PM.png
[Hide] (426.2KB, 1084x580) Reverse
>From the beginning, in Europe women were never considered mere objects. Male domination, on the other hand, has long been legitimated by Christian theology which, especially in the first centuries, presented women as defective beings and a “place of sin.”
Replies: >>3461
Before I continue OP I'd like to specify that most of this is simply me providing evidence to refute this common notion about old Europe and Especially the Aryans being egalitarian feminists. The examples in this post are taken from a pretty helpful Plebbit thread, I'll provide the link in case you're interested. 
Agency:
"Sponsored by Christianity, consent became a fundamental right for women throughout the Western world." -Women in Old Norse society by Jenny Jochens

>With rare exception women seem to have not been legal persons in Indo-European cultures. Her guardian was her father, or, if the father had passed, a brother. In marriage this guardianship was ideally transferred to the husband (with some exceptions like the later Roman Republic).

>The reconstructed PIE term for such a guardian is *déms pótis. The Greeks referred to this as kyrios, and the Romans as pater familias. In continental Germanic contexts he is often referred to as the mundwald, from Lombardic law. A related word in Norse context is the mundr, this is the bride-price and the guardianship you get with it itself. The guardian in Norse context is the fastnandi.

>In his Commentarii de Bello Gallico Caesar writes the following about the Gauls:

>Men have the power of life and death over their wives, as over their children; and when the father of a house, who is of distinguished birth, has died, his relatives assemble, and if there be anything suspicious about his death they make inquisition of his wives as they would of slaves, and if discovery is made they put them to death with fire and all manner of excruciating tortures.

Infanticide
>Amongst the Spartans this right seems to have been usurped by the state, the rest of the Greeks retained . As expressed by Posidippus, there was a bias towards infanticide of girls:

>Everyone, even a poor man, raises a son; everyone, even a rich man, exposes a daughter.

>Amongst the Romans, the fourth of the ancient Twelve Tables obliged the Pater Familias to kill a deformed child.

>Amongst the Norse this right apparently lasted up until the child was 9 days old (according to Simek), and/or when certain rituals had been carried out, such as breastfeeding, or lap/knee-setting (p. 103). There are indications that, as amongst the Greeks, there was a bias towards female infanticide amongst the Norse (p. 196), and that the resulting scarcity of women may have contributed to the Viking Age.

>Modesty: Clothing & Behaviour
In his case against Timarchus, Aeschinus employs these anecdotes about the Athenians before them:

>For so stern were they toward all shameful conduct, and so precious did they hold the purity of their children, that when one of the citizens found that his daughter had been seduced, and that she had failed to guard well her chastity till the time of marriage, he walled her up in an empty house with a horse, which he knew would surely kill her, if she were shut in there with him. And to this day the foundations of that house stand in your city, and that spot is called "the place of the horse and the maid."

>[183] and Solon, the most famous of lawgivers, has written in ancient and solemn manner concerning orderly conduct on the part of the women. For the woman who is taken in the act of adultery he does not allow to adorn herself, nor even to attend the public sacrifices, lest by mingling with innocent women she corrupt them. But if she does attend, or does adorn herself, he commands that any man who meets her shall tear off her garments, strip her of her ornaments, and beat her (only he may not kill or maim her); for the lawgiver seeks to disgrace such a woman and make her life not worth the living.

>[184] and he commands that procurers, men and women, be indicted, and if they are convicted, be punished with death, because to people who lust after sin but hesitate and are ashamed to meet one another, the procurers offer their own shamelessness for pay, and make it possible to discuss the act and to accomplish it.

>Plutarch wrote the following about the Spartans in is Sayings of Spartans:

>When someone inquired why they took their girls into public places unveiled, but their married women veiled, he said, 'Because the girls have to find husbands, and the married women have to keep to those who have them!'

>Aphrodite's Tortoise: The Veiled Woman of Ancient Greece demonstrates that Hellenic women wore a face-covering veil with eye-holes, similar to the burqa or niqab:


>In his Memorable Deeds and Sayings Valerius Maximus informs us of the following cases:

>Egnatius Metellus ... took a cudgel and beat his wife to death because she had drunk some wine. Not only did no one charge him with a crime, but no one even blamed him. Everyone considered this an excellent example of one who had justly paid the penalty for violating the laws of sobriety. Indeed, any woman who immoderately seeks the use of wine closes the door on all virtues and opens it to vices.

>There was also the harsh marital severity of Gaius Sulpicius Gallus.He divorced his wife because he had caught her outdoors with her head uncovered: a stiff penalty, but not without a certain logic. 'The law,' he said, 'prescribes for you my eyes alone to which you may prove your beauty. For these eyes you should provide the ornaments of beauty, for these be lovely: entrust yourself to their more certain knowledge. If you, with needless provocation, invite the look of anyone else, you must be suspected of wrongdoing.'

>Quintus Antistius Vetus felt no differently when he divorced his wife because he had seen her in public having a private conversation with a common freedwoman. For, moved not by an actual crime but, so to speak, by the birth and nourishment of one, he punished her before the crime could be committed, so that he might prevent the deed's being done at all, rather than punish it afterwards.

>To these we should add the case of Publius Sempronius Sophus who disgraced his wife with divorce merely because she dared attend the games without his knowledge. And so, long ago, when the misdeeds of women were thus forestalled, their minds stayed far from wrongdoing.

>Pliny the Elder, in book 14 of his Natural History, handily collects for us more early Roman opinion on women drinking:

>At Rome it was not lawful for women to drink wine. Among the various anecdotes connected with this subject, we find that the wife of Egnatius Mecenius was slain by her husband with a stick, because she had drunk some wine from the vat, and that he was absolved from the murder by Romulus. Fabius Pictor, in his Book of Annals, has stated that a certain lady, for having opened a purse in which the keys of the wine-cellar were kept, was starved to death by her family: and Cato tells us, that it was the usage for the male relatives to give the females a kiss, in order to ascertain whether they smelt of "temetum;" for it was by that name that wine was then known, whence our word "temulentia," signifying drunkenness. Cn. Domitius, the judge, once gave it as his opinion, that a certain woman appeared to him to have drunk more wine than was requisite for her health, and without the knowledge of her husband, for which reason he condemned her to lose her dower.

>Tacitus on the Germanic peoples in his (in)famous De Origine et Situ Germanorum:

>Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt, and in the husband's power. Having cut off the hair of the adulteress and stripped her naked, he expels her from the house in the presence of her kinsfolk, and then flogs her through the whole village. The loss of chastity meets with no indulgence; neither beauty, youth, nor wealth will procure the culprit a husband.

>Interestingly, the Haraldskær Woman, a bog body from 490 BC Denmark, was found naked with her clothes on top of her. The Huldremose Woman, another Danish bog body but from between 160 BC to 340 BC, was found naked with clothes and hair near. She had lacerations on one of her feet and hair stubble on her scalp.

I'll cut the rest short, but I think this gives you the general idea about how the ancient Aryan felt about Feminism. It is entirely likely that they practiced a form of patriarchy much more intense than that of their descendant peoples. In short: Aryan cultures were Very Patriarchal, Militant and Patrilineal- this is one of the many things that made their culture so unique for it's time.
Replies: >>3439 >>3484
ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (399KB, 801x646) Reverse
>>3438
https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEuropean/comments/ff6ik1/women_in_indoeuropean_cultures/?rdt=39333
Replies: >>3484
Louise_Weiss.jpg
[Hide] (36KB, 550x400) Reverse
As far as I see it, a truly Alt-Right woman is a proud traditional Mother and Wife.  Not a petty 'activist'. I don't encourage Misogyny though, the idea is that Men and Women serve entirely separate but both inherently important roles in society. One cannot exist without the other. When one is out of order everyone suffers as a consequence. Feminism is a Jewish invention that exists for the sole purpose of dividing the sexes from each other, So the unit becomes easier to conquer. It pairs quite nicely with the degeneracy of MGTOW, Blackpill philosophy as well as the debauchery and debasement brought with modern Hook-up culture and pornography.
Replies: >>3462 >>3473 >>3484
>>3437
Who are you quoting? Because the more research one does, the more clear it becomes that the greeks and romans and even the Norse/Germanics placed women in clear well-defined roles none of which included war or anything remotely in the mans sphere and their lives were suffered only so long as they did not step outside the rules set down in tradition and by the Patriarchs of the family.

The "movement" would not be served by allowing women to speak, as women who claim to be part of said "movement" consistently advocate for soft pointless and self-defeating action and tend towards emasculating the men around them most of the time whether they are wives and mothers or not.

The point of National Socialism is not to reform the State, it is to destroy a State that is not protecting it's Nation, and put in it's place a state that does. If that can be done through reform, good, but we are well beyond that point and arguably have been since 1945 or earlier.
>>3440
>As far as I see it, a truly Alt-Right woman is a proud traditional Mother and Wife.
Such a woman should also never, unless invited to do so, open her mouth on what men should do to anyone but her husband, and she should never be allowed to tell a young boy how to be a man, that tendency is what has led us to a society full of such weak men as we have today.
>Not a petty 'activist'. I don't encourage Misogyny though, the idea is that Men and Women serve entirely separate but both inherently important roles in society. One cannot exist without the other. When one is out of order everyone suffers as a consequence.
 while most of this is true it should be noted that it is not hatred of women to put them in their place, and to keep them out of where they do not belong. If one needs to invoke hatred to do so, they should. Women, outside of the most extraordinary individuals, those blessed by either the Gods or fate, with foresight or other preternatural abilities, such as Volvas, do not belong speaking on any men's matters, for any reason at all. Their domain is and has always been inside of the home, and that is where they should stay and is where, if their husbands permit it, they can speak.
>Feminism is a Jewish invention that exists for the sole purpose of dividing the sexes from each other, So the unit becomes easier to conquer. It pairs quite nicely with the degeneracy of MGTOW, Blackpill philosophy as well as the debauchery and debasement brought with modern Hook-up culture and pornography.
True but I would differ slightly in that feminism is a symptom of decline and decay of a society and not purely a result of jewish infiltration, the Spartans declined and got more feminist and so far as I have been able to determine did not have any jewish influence on their culture until it was already basically destroyed, anbd the Blackpill/MGTOW shit is of course simply another shade of that but also in part a natural reaction in men to the extreme direction of Womens' Advocacy and feminism today.
Replies: >>3484
Sandro_Botticelli_-_La_nascita_di_Venere_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg
[Hide] (161.3KB, 800x502) Reverse
>>3440
>I don't encourage Misogyny though, the idea is that Men and Women serve entirely separate but both inherently important roles in society. One cannot exist without the other. When one is out of order everyone suffers as a consequence. 
>It pairs quite nicely with the degeneracy of MGTOW, Blackpill philosophy as well as the debauchery and debasement brought with modern Hook-up culture and pornography.
This is close to how I've been feeling. Recognition of difference (i.e. inequality) and diversity is not the same thing as misogyny or disrespect. But inequality is also never absolute and needs to have specified criteria for it to be a meaningful categorization; I have no issue admitting that I have known women who have been more intelligent than myself, and that I have become a more intellectually enriched individual as a result of this inequality. Considering the stupidity of most men ("man" both as in the "universal man" and in a gendered sense), it seems completely arbitrary and indeed arrogant to make excuses for abuse experienced by women in particular.

It's worth remembering that the Indo-European tripartition is typical of the organicism characteristic of the right. Its socio-political division was one wherein society functioned as a whole, and not as a dualism between the masculine and feminine, which is more typical of Christian ways of thinking, nor as a massified collection of "individuals" as in modernity's individualistic mass society.
Replies: >>3484 >>3485
James_Barry_001.jpg
[Hide] (607.9KB, 3149x2496) Reverse
fountain.jpg
[Hide] (51.6KB, 843x403) Reverse
Hello, this is the anon who posted >>3438
>>3439 and >>3440

I'd like to respond to the following posts by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with both responses and for anyone reading, I would highly recommend seeing these two positions as helpful and supplemental to the idea I hope I succeeded in getting across in my original posts. it is rare, yet deeply satisfying to find people that I really believe my ideas resonate with. Thanks everyone for you responses.
>>3462
>>3473

I agree pretty much exactly with most of the points presented by these Anons, Hopefully I communicated that well in the original post. I didn't go too heavily on the misnomer of 'misogyny' in that I wanted to focus on why just hating women and blaming everything on them is a bad idea, which unfortunate is an unhealthy habit on some parts of the right. Though I do agree that women (anyone in fact) who doesn't know their place must learn quickly, even through force if necessary just where they belong. Unfortunately just like any other topic in which liberals try to smear us with labels, it can be much easier to simply go toward extremes and possibly outright accept those labels for the sake of convenience. The issue is that Words have meanings, and we shouldn't just give them to the enemy (and by we I don't mean this board but just the general right). We have the moral high ground and shouldn't relinquish it so easily like the conservatives do. Like 'Racism' , 'Sexism' , or 'Misogyny'. These terms do not apply to us aptly as we have a realistic understanding of the nature of societal organization and the necessary cohesion in maintaining a Social Order. It is in recognizing a truth of reality that we come to our conclusion, not in just 'hating' because we are 'hateful'. Misogyny is Defined as " A dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women."
Prejudice itself meaning "a preconceived judgement ; Irrational attitude of hostility." 
There is nothing irrational about recognizing the biological difference and ingrained distinction between the sexes. As other Anons have said, there is nothing Hateful about wanting to see a woman serve her natural purpose: Life as a woman and not as a man. In fact, if you love women, you will see to it that they find Eudaimonia ; Their best life. Eudaimonia  which can only be experienced through tradition and natural feminine existence for a woman. Apologies if I'm dwelling too much on one facet of this discussing, just wanted to get the language war out of the way as it is a weapon that can and has been used against us maliciously. High quality posts so far, I'm glad this discussion has been fruitful.
>When the Alt-Right existed something that happened was women in the movement complaining of poor treatment before leaving.
Why are you half-assing the story? Much of these ((( Alt-Right ))) women were caught being whores and hypocrites. They were treated poorly because they were subversives. Plus, if you're in favor of RW or fascist politics and you're a woman and do not practice the fundamentals of our beliefs, then fuck off.

>Misogyny
a literal Jewish term.

>But there are two forms of feminism: egalitarian feminism and identitarian feminism
<There's le difference between Jewish feminism and racist Jewish feminists.
Literally, there is no difference. Look at any "Nazi" or "racist" feminist, and you will see that they also hate all men, no matter who they are. They are like all the other feminists; they're dumb bitches who think they can ever possibly overthrow masculinity as a result of their dissatisfaction with the roles they were literally born for or that said roles need to be "reformed" into something less than women were specifically made for. Feminism is retarded and has no legitimacy. It popped up because some idiots were unhappy that they had to stay home and watch their husband's children 24/7, and they didn't get to participate in politics and do male-dominated jobs that most women didn't care for in the first place. Slightly changing your beliefs won't stop the fact that your core ideas are retarded.

>Alain de Benoist
Stop shilling this faggot. He's a retarded shit-lib who thinks National Socialism and Communism are both the same and equally "evil" by his definition. He opposes fascism and whines about totalitarianism like a lolberg, and worst of all he's an ethnopluralism. He even fails passing off as a pagan regarding some of his beliefs. And funny enough, he does passes off as a Jew in appearance.

>>3473
> Considering the stupidity of most men
The stupidity of women is far more numerous than that of even the most ignorant men. Women are the ones who vote in favor of rapefugees and support ((( queer theory ))) being placed into our institutions as if it has some form of objectivity. Arguably, a stupid man is better than an academic woman. Please understand why the Athenians and pretty much every Indo-European cultures always placed men in power and why and its is because of their indecisive, lack of accountability and gullibility.
Replies: >>3486 >>3491 >>3492
>>3485
>and its is because of their indecisive, lack of accountability and gullibility.
*Because of the woman is naturally indecisive, lacks accountability and is very gulliable.*
FYI, I don't hate women and agree with some of your points about hatred towards being homoerotic and outright unrealistic, but don't be fooled in thinking that ideas like feminism is necessary in order to rid of dysgenic faggots like MGTOW and incels.
Replies: >>3491
>>3485
>>3486
Agreed. OP probably doesn't understand the nature of women, and the institution of marriage if he thinks feminism is a good idea.
Women will always be inferior to men in every way. The only things in which women shine is their physical appearance and their ability to understand someone's feelings, which makes them good in the household in general. But they are incapable of rational thought: things like Race, Nation and Duty are mere words for them. Women are only loyal to the strongest perceived thing, in the present. It's a very effective evolutionary tactic.
If we somehow fail to hold them in check, they will obviously fuck everything up. They simply cannot think for themselves.

I am obviously talking about MOST women, there are exceptions (Savitri Devi for example) ; but these can be dealt with in time, and should be ignored for now.

The Pater Familias example MUST be followed. Never forget that the word "virtue" itself comes from the latin word for "man". Not woman.
Replies: >>3495
Untitled.png
[Hide] (3.6KB, 230x219) Reverse
>>3485
>>Alain de Benoist
>Stop shilling this faggot. He's a retarded shit-lib who thinks National Socialism and Communism are both the same and equally "evil" by his definition. He opposes fascism and whines about totalitarianism like a lolberg, and worst of all he's an ethnopluralism. He even fails passing off as a pagan regarding some of his beliefs. And funny enough, he does passes off as a Jew in appearance.
Replies: >>3494 >>3495
Alain_de_Benoist_dans_le_documentaire_Alain_de_Benoist._Réponses_de_Simone_Olla.png
[Hide] (1.1MB, 1334x1027) Reverse
>>3492
Please explain how De Benoist doesn't scream jew, as he looks now, and explain how a retard who encourages study into Luce Irigaray, a woman so conceited she thought herself one who could better the father of logic himself along with his teacher Plato by an analyzing them through the lens of "Phallocentrism". If
Replies: >>3536
>>3491
>Women will always be inferior to men in every way.
Women are not inferior to men in every way. They're inferior or outright cannot do things men can do, such as intense physical activities, but intelligence is debatable. Women are simply meant for roles such as motherhood, which men cannot supersede (trannies); thus, the idea that we are better in "every single way" is just more retarded bullshit incels and MGTOW-spergs think. This idea that implies we are better in every single way implies that women are not necessary which they clearly are. Not a single pagan nor NSDAP member held hatred for women in the same way christcucks (spiritual incels) do.

>Women are incapable of ration thought
Women are not incapable of rational thought; the issue is that they're less likely to be able to comprehend logic as a result of feminism (female individualism) and the lack of eugenics (breeding honorable women). The belief that all men are smarter than women can be easily disproven if you look at IQ comparisons of White males and females vs everyone else. Nigger males and other sorts of shitskins are so incapable of rational thought that even White women have humiliated them in subjects regarding math and science. 

>The Pater Familias
We're not Romans.

>>3492
Nice non-argument.
Replies: >>3496
>>3495
>Women are not inferior to men in every way. 
Idk where you got the idea that this was false but it's true, there are like two areas where women could realistically beat out the average male, and one of those happens to be artillery targeting, and gathering berries both due due to their naturally better acuity of color and in general better eyesight for the reason of gathering, and the other is getting fucked, in absolutely no other way does the average female beat out the average male, and for every extraordinary Female there are more extraordinary men who can do what she does better, this is fact it is not propaganda nor is it "Incel" to suggest so, unless you think Aristotle was an "Incel" which would just make you retarded.
>intelligence is debatable
No, it really isn't for every female of say 140 IQ there are ten men of the same intelligence and the same for the opposite because women cluster around the center of the bell curve for men and have few geniuses or retards, this is due to their genetic stability, a function needed for the continuation of our species, as males are the source of the majority of genetic mutation both positive and negative.
>Women are simply meant for roles such as motherhood, which men cannot supersede (trannies); 
That is about all that women are strictly needed for, nothing else, for anything that women culturally used to do, can and has been easily outdone by men who devoted their life to any of those crafts, but so long as it is done competently enough,  it is a bonus, no more.
>This idea that implies we are better in every single way implies that women are not necessary which they clearly are.
Women are necessary only for childbirth, and perhaps useful but far from necessary, in the management of other women, if you have an iron control over the dominant woman in an area, which few do.
>Not a single pagan nor NSDAP member held hatred for women in the same way christcucks (spiritual incels) do.
Setting aside this obvious falsehood, Hitler was the last chance western culture had as a whole to stop and reverse the rise of women and the thus inevitable destruction of our society at their hands, peacefully, because the women of that time still held to mostly traditional social mores and values, thus said values could be encouraged and inculcated in the minds of young women, they cannot now, and so the only recourse is violence to put them back in their place and hatred because they seek to destroy their own race by way of sullying future generations with the blood of lesser beings, and as I, at least, love my race, to save it, I will hate the women of it or at least those women who are corrupted, as much as it is necessary to do so as would Aristotle, Plato, Alexander, Julius Caesar and many others from our past, or have you missed how Women of any sort were forbidden from the assemblies in Germanic lands, from Britain and Ireland to Finland and the land of the Kievan Rus
>Women are not incapable of rational thought; the issue is that they're less likely to be able to comprehend logic as a result of feminism (female individualism) 
While it is true that women are not incapable of rational thought, they are incapable of consistent prolonged rational behavior, and the reason is inherent to their biology and not due to modern indoctrination, if that were true we would not be living in a world that every day creeps closer and closer to the world an Ancient Hellenic Playwright depicted in the Assemblywomen, the attitudes of the women depicted do in fact match quite closely the attitudes of women today, suggesting either previous experience of that, or that our ancestors has passed such knowledge down from a previous time when women were out of control, and it certainly further proves the fact that the issue is biological, and not just some kind of temporary reversible infection.
Oh and feminism is not female Individualism it is collectivism from a pro-female position that seeks both to undermine men and place women as superior two things the order of nature has dictated are not to be and are anathema to a stable society.
>and the lack of eugenics (breeding honorable women).
Women are not and never have been honorable, you cannot breed honor into women, and those few in our races history who did have it, killed themselves and their children, before their capture by the likes of the Romans, and others.
>The belief that all men are smarter than women can be easily disproven if you look at IQ comparisons of White males and females vs everyone else. Nigger males and other sorts of shitskins are so incapable of rational thought that even White women have humiliated them in subjects regarding math and science. 
The fact that shitskins are outclassed by pretty much every white person in existence doesn't prove anything, and just because our women are better at Mathematics or some other area, which is entirely a result of education, and our races biological propensity for abstract reasoning, doesn't disprove anything, as inherent to men is survival instinct, which few men lack, and most women lack entirely beyond knowing that the place they best belong in a crisis is at the side of a strong man who knows what to do even if he's "less intelligent".
>We're not Romans.
No, we're not, we can be better than them, and that requires we put women in their fucking place even more harshly than they, oh and EVERY Aryan region of the world had a family structure under something that was either the same thing as a Pater Familias, or very fucking similar. the only reason you exist is because of such practices
Replies: >>3501
>>3436 (OP) 
>then misogynistic behavior towards women is unjust
Unjust is when women don't acknowledge what they've done to men and society as a whole.
What you have now is a bunch of attention whores that flocked to a manufactured group.
This can be seen through:
>low status anonymous trolls
and:
>the ultimate goal seems to be to bully us off the internet
Furthermore:
>men in the alt right are going to have to decide whether they will continue to passively/actively endorse this behavior or speak out against it

Those quotes translated to woman machine code:
>Those creeps are harassing me, do something
>I'm just like the boys
>Men benefit from feminism

A woman's place isn't to use social media.
A woman's place isn't to judge men who aren't their own.
A woman's place isn't to amass white knights to campaign for her perceived social inequities.
This goes without saying, but women are indeed inferior to men given the specific activity and vice versa. For example, Women have superior facial recognition abilities because of their mirror neurons. Meanwhile Men have superior spatial reasoning / Environmental Scanning abilities. We are quite literally different at even a mental and psychological level. Hence women are biologically better in feminine activities then men could ever be. This is why any smart organization will choose the people most efficient for a specific role to fulfill that specific role. That's just intelligent resource management and leadership. Hence, Men must fulfill our duty in masculine roles and women ought to fulfill their duties in feminine roles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhwO8u4sZ-8&ab_channel=BraveTheWorld
9b94b4e590d75043c2269ac60e8233757dc47c9490127e76fb544cd9b518eb1f.png
[Hide] (318.4KB, 558x527) Reverse
c57b9b56fc586d95095754e8a3a84ff57b27d28ac1f7a1a1d85ca26e040909f2.png
[Hide] (243.5KB, 567x386) Reverse
>>3496
>there are like two areas where women could realistically beat out the average male, and one of those happens to be artillery targeting, and gathering berries both due due to their naturally better acuity of color and in general better eyesight for the reason of gathering, and the other is getting fucked, 
You're basing the idea of being overall superior on the fact alone that males are more likely to possess superior intellect and generally have higher physical strength unless they are sick and mentally ill. Men being best positioned for leadership and warrior roles does not mean they're the best in everything in comparison or that all are the best, unless you want me to call you a faggot. You are attempting to eliminate distinctions between men and women by drawing a single conclusion based on two major reasons why patriarchies were the norm.

>unless you think Aristotle was an "Incel"
My favorite part about types like yourself is that when they quote Aristotle, it is that they prove to everyone that they've never actually read his book, as he never said anything about men being superior to women, at least in every single way possible. What he states is that men are better by nature regarding their position in politics and the ideal household. They're more ideal for what is necessary for a society, but not generally. What's even funnier is that you skip the part where he states that it is possible for women to practice virtue and maintain households as co-leaders. 

>No, it really isn't for every female of say 140 IQ there are ten men of the same intelligence
>because women cluster around the center of the bell curve for men and have few geniuses or retards
When statistics talk of the comparative difference regarding IQ between men and women, such as how high the IQ of men is, they're talking about White men and Asians, not generally. What you also do not realize is that there are still far more high-IQ White females than there are niggers and spics. And the average for White women is still higher than that of brown males.

>That is about all that women are strictly needed for
While I agree that women should be in positions suited for motherhood or anything regarding the feminine character, there should be instances where they can still become scientists and doctors, with rare exceptions if they're qualified.

We shouldn't waste high-IQ females and their potential to help us develop newer sciences. By your argument, women like Grace Hopper have just been stay-at-home moms and done nothing, even though they possess a mind that can contribute to great discoveries. The exception shouldn't always be the norm. 

>Setting aside this obvious falsehood
With this you're admitting that you're ignorant on this topic. Himmler literally talked about how the hatred of women was quite "homoerotic". He even had a talk with an SS member who displayed the Christian behavior that all women are inherently evil or hold some great sin among themselves upon birth.

>Hitler was the last chance western culture had as a whole to stop and reverse the rise of women
What is the National Socialist Women's League?
What did the NSDAP's fitness program for women mean?
What were the German women auxiliaries who all volunteered to assist the Wehrmacht? 
What were the German women in the SS who also volunteered?
What sex supported Hitler more proportionately?
>t.brown hands
Hitler was the last stand against Jewish culture, not women. I'm tired of retards like you bringing up low-IQ interpretations of what the NSDAP was like, or using Hitler to excuse things that he never believed in, kind of like how weebs have tried to excuse intermixing with Asian females, because Hitler thought of the Japanese honorary Aryans even though he made it clear that they are inferior. Women weren't destroying society the Jews were. Women didn't even make up more than 5% of the high-income jobs in the Weimar Republic. According to you, they somehow magically controlled the Jews and men who held onto these positions of power. Last time I re-call it wasn't women who started WW1/WW2 or brought Jews into our nation.

>I will hate the women of it or at least those women who are corrupted, as much as it is necessary to do so as would Aristotle, Plato, Alexander, Julius Caesar
I like how none of these individuals have anything to do with what you're talking about. And something to note about Plato. He believed that women should receive an equal education. You're just referencing reputable Greeks and Romans in, attempt to solidify your argument, which makes no sense.

>or have you missed how Women of any sort were forbidden from the assemblies in Germanic lands, from Britain and Ireland to Finland and the land of the Kievan Rus
>Britain
>Ireland
No one said anything about allowing women into politics, which I agree with. My argument isn't that they're equal to men, but that they're upmost necessary and the abnormal hatred towards them is juvenile and of Christian character via Spic Funetes. 

>While it is true that women are not incapable of rational thought, they are incapable of consistent prolonged rational behavior
Rational thought and behavior go hand in hand. They are two of the same.

>Oh and feminism is not female Individualism it is collectivism 
No, you don't understand feminism. The principles of feminism regard the individual female as the most important in society and equal to men, where radical feminists believe each individual female is superior to men. Feminists advocate for individual rights and demand that they are recognized as individual subjects within society. Their framework is collective as a movement, but what they advocate is for their own personal well-being. The same way, Marxists are considered "collective" even though what they advocate are liberal and secular rights in favor of the individual laborer. They both advocate being independent of the hierarchy that keeps society unified.

>Women are not and never have been honorable
Who is Saint Joan of Arc?
Who is Boudicca?
I guess your mother wasn't honorable when she birthed you?

>you cannot breed honor into women
Also you
>and those few in our races history who did have it, killed themselves and their children, before their capture by the likes of the Romans, and others.
May I remind you that Tacitus specifically talks of how much credit Germanic culture's purity was due to their culture being based on honor itself.

>The fact that shitskins are outclassed by pretty much every white person in existence doesn't prove anything,
Yes it does. You even admit that they outclass them which literally implies that they are superior.

>and just because our women are better at Mathematics or some other area, which is entirely a result of education,
You don't have a good point, because this is also true for men as well. While we are naturally better at arithmetic, most men still require education to understand even the basics of math.

>No, we're not, we can be better than them, and that requires we put women in their fucking place even more harshly than they,
Go back to whatever incel forum you dropped out of.
Replies: >>3504
Some of Hitler's comments on the subject, from the Table Talks (Hugh Trevor-Roper traduction)

<On marriage
>I don't believe that W. H. will ever get married. He has
>created an ideal image of a woman, taking her silhouette from
>one, her hair from the next, her intelligence from a third, from
>still another her eyes—and it's with this image in his mind that
>he approaches every woman; but there's nothing like it in
>nature. One must declare oneself satisfied when one finds one
>perfect detail in a woman. A girl of eighteen to twenty is as
>malleable as wax. It should be possible for a man, whoever the
>chosen woman may be, to stamp his own imprint upon her.
>That's all the woman asks for, by the way.

But, most importantly
<Women in politics
>I detest women who dabble in politics. And if their dabbling
>extends to military matters, it becomes utterly unendurable.
>In no local section of the Party has a woman ever had the
>right to hold even the smallest post. It has therefore often been
>said that we were a party of misogynists, who regarded a
>woman only as a machine for making children, or else as a
>plaything. That's far from being the case. I attached a lot of
>importance to women in the field of the training of youth, and
>that of good works. In 1924 we had a sudden upsurge of
>women who were attracted by politics: Frau von Treuenfels
>and Matilde von Kemnitz. They wanted to join the Reichstag,
>in order to raise the moral level ofthat body, so they said. I told
>them that 90 per cent of the matters dealtwithby parliamentwere
>masculine affairs, on which they could not have opinions of any
>value. They rebelled against this point of view, but I shut their
>mouths by saying: "You will not claim that you know men as I
>know women." A man who shouts is not a handsome sight.
>But if it's a woman, it's terribly shocking. The more she uses her
>lungs, the more strident her voice becomes. There she is, ready
>to pull hair out, with all her claws showing. In short, gallantry
>forbids one to give women an opportunity of putting themselves
>in situations that do not suit them. Everything that entails
>combat is exclusively men's business. There are so many other
>fields in which one must rely upon women. Organising a
>house, for example. Few men have Frau Troost's talent
>in matters concerning interior decoration. There were four
>women whom I give star rôles: Frau Troost, Frau Wagner,
>Frau Scholtz-Klink and Leni Riefenstahl.
wp-content.pdf
(4.1MB)
>>3501
>You're basing the idea of being overall superior on the fact alone that males are more likely to possess superior intellect and generally have higher physical strength unless they are sick and mentally ill.
Even sick men usually are physically superior to most women, and mentally ill men who were intellectually superior prior to their illness arising, or becoming symptomatic, remain so, they just tend to not be able to express it well, if at all.
>Men being best positioned for leadership and warrior roles does not mean they're the best in everything in comparison or that all are the best, unless you want me to call you a faggot.
Men are best positioned for whatever role or trade they desire, for instance there are no female seamstresses who outshine the likes of Hugo Boss, or Giovanni Versace, or Female chefs who match Gordon Ramsey or Emeril Lagasse especially since most of the women now in either trade only ascended at the wishes and whim of a now nearly exclusively jewish media arena, or through inheriting wealth that belonged to and was built by their parents, and one could argue the media is almost wholly jewish if you include Christniggers under the label of Jewish.
Men provide a home, a woman lives in it, gets fucked, provides what is essentially a crucible for a new life that could not begin without the male, whatever else she may bring to the table is an incidental, it is not a necessity for them, it is for a man. It is up to the man to mold the woman to his desires, she need do nothing but simply conform, to his rules firstly within the home and that of the society at large, especially if said society allows her to leave her home without escort and almost none of our societies did prior to the Enlightenment era into modern day.
Go ahead and call me a faggot for acknowledging the objective truth, our insult would ring hollow to all because you think giving bitches credit and the ability to do anything her husband might otherwise wish her not to do is a good idea.
>You are attempting to eliminate distinctions between men and women by drawing a single conclusion based on two major reasons why patriarchies were the norm.
Nowhere am I eliminating a distinction, I'm entirely unsure where the fuck you came up with this, I clearly point out the distinction that on the whole women have no physical or mental advantage in any area over men, the distinction is that men are superior and women are inferior and when given "freedom" actively seek the destruction and corruption of the society that birthed them, this was true in Rome, it was true in Sparta, it has always been true and our ancestors have spoken that truth to us through the ages, through written record, from beyond this existence, and even through the blood that flows through my veins.
>as he never said anything about men being superior to women, at least in every single way possible.
He didn't have to say it his words above in the image provided by another Blackshirt, alone convey his attitude and belief that men are unquestionably superior and I didn't mention that he said women could be good co leaders in a household because that's the only use they found for women, being a subordinate under a man. The only other things I can think that they allowed women to do were Gynecology, and maybe being nurses, both of which women are still poor at today in comparison to men, especially considering that the majority of nurses are rampant whores. We don't have the same need for women to treat "woman problems" today as unlike in Ancient Hellas, men eventually decided it was wise to make an effort to study and determine what the issues were, and how one might treat them accurately.
Lastly, didn't mention that women are capable of virtue, as he laid it out, because it's irrelevant as it was in his time even if a woman is as virtuous as Sol herself, she is still subject to the same restrictions as all the others because of what they keep doing every time they're given an inch and they take a thousand miles, and break the social order such that each time the society has fallen because their weakness permeates until the society at large can no longer defend themselves, and die out or, they corrupt it so much that it degenerates into the disgusting state of India today.
>When statistics talk of the comparative difference regarding IQ between men and women, such as how high the IQ of men is, they're talking about White men and Asians, not generally.
I want to know where you came up with this bullshit because I've seen thousands of studies and they usually simply list the data, alongside their virtue-signaling screeds about the data not meaning what it directly shows and has for over a century now. Still the data is there leaving you to make your own conclusions based on that data if you understand what it says, and wish to do so.
>What you also do not realize is that there are still far more high-IQ White females than there are niggers and spics. And the average for White women is still higher than that of brown males.
No, based on sheer numbers alone (niggers worldwide outnumber us more than 4 to 1) There are many more intelligent niggers than white women. Unfortunately for niggers,  cognitive genetic deficiencies in their race hamper them, which is why they need to all be exterminated and the same on both matters is true for Chinese, Indians, and Arabs. Even if what you say were true, it would make no difference in how women must be handled or our race will die as a result of their natural tendencies.
>While I agree that women should be in positions suited for motherhood or anything regarding the feminine character, there should be instances where they can still become scientists and doctors, with rare exceptions if they're qualified.
No they shouldn't be, they would do much better for themselves and the world in raising four sons to be doctors than to ever be a doctor themselves and the only exception that I personally would even think to allow is female gynecologists, and I'm not even sure about that.
>We shouldn't waste high-IQ females and their potential to help us develop newer sciences. By your argument, women like Grace Hopper have just been stay-at-home moms and done nothing, even though they possess a mind that can contribute to great discoveries. The exception shouldn't always be the norm. 
Grace Hopper, if you wish to give her all the credit for COBOL and it's various successors, go ahead. Doing that would just be retarded though, as many more men were involved in those early days and I would hazard a guess that she didn't contribute nearly as much as people are dead-set on saying she did. She would have done better for her race, nation, and country to be at home making babies, rather than involved in computer science, she could have raised five or ten mathematician sons who could have changed the world, instead she died childless, a waste of genetic material, a useless dead end. BTW, women like her were only allowed around because typing that shit up or writing it up ( AKA Programming) was considered work akin to secretarial work and as such beneath men until around the 1970's when men came to dominate the programming world as well, because we're better at it and the underlying Mathematics and Logic.
>Himmler literally talked about how the hatred of women was quite "homoerotic".
No, he talked about encouraging men to gather with women at communal evenings to stop the spread of homosexuality, and to stop the mockery he saw among his men of boys and young men who were gentlemanly etc. as in that behavior he saw the seedbeds of homosexuality, His conclusion seems to have been erroneous and as I said previously, you are telling lies, NONE of the NSDAP said anything about the hatred shown towards women who did not conform to their roles, those women SHOULD be hated and mocked and beaten until they do their duty to their people and killed as our Ancestors would have done, when they stepped too far out of line. Here, I have the entire speech translated he made to the SS, easily accessible link(https://www.der-stuermer.org/english/Heinrich%20Himmler%20speech%20-%2018.02.1937.pdf%29 CTRL+F keyword hatred, (No results found). Lie again, motherfucker
>He even had a talk with an SS member who displayed the Christian behavior that all women are inherently evil or hold some great sin among themselves upon birth.
So? that's a good thing. Original Sin is retarded, sin is retarded as a concept, gods above, I wish people like you coming in and opening your fucking mouths were half as well read as you pretend to be, As the Bhagavad Gita says "From the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of races; from the confusion of races, the loss of memory; from the loss of memory, all understanding; and from this — all evil." This tells us that even thousands of years previous to the Romans, the Hellenes, and so forth that our ancestors knew one truth, that if women are not kept under control, kept in their place, they begin to fall and in doing so, destroy our roots, and as always, it is men's duty and right to put them back where they belong when it is necessary to do so, whatever the means needed, and the only means left now is violence.

>What is? 
An organization made to put women in their fucking place, through gentle, coercive means which were still possible at that time.

>What did?
That they wanted fit genetically compatible and healthy wives, nothing more.

>What were?
Women who did their duty to their people, the German people were still quite sound at the time, as proven by Hitler's bid to take power through electoral means being successful, though it still required and had a healthy application of violence, you bringing this up proves nothing, but what is already known, they were making use of hands and bodies for this effort or that.

>What were? 2
Most of those were either the wives of SS men or racially fit ladies seeking husbands. again this proves nothing at all except that women like men are driven to find suitable mates.

>What sex?
From what I've seen and what is very easy to find neither sex was more proportional, or perhaps women by a slight margin simply sue to there being 116 women for every 1000 men they would still have won very soundly in Germany had women not been able to vote, women should never have been given the right to vote and their being given it had no effect on the result as they voted in roughly the same percentage for the NSDAP across the sexes, it just so happened that there were more women in Germany due to the aftermath of the First World War. 

>Hitler was the last stand against Jewish culture, not women.
Hitler was the last chance for the West, as a Civilization TO UNDO WHAT HAD ALREADY BEGUN and to arrest or even reverse the decline and destruction of our peoples and cultures, whether it be jews or stupid, conservative forgetful German politicians, I lean towards the latter, women were just as instrumental in aiding the jews then, as they are now. Through whatever method jews were allowed to infect Berlin and Vienna before and in the aftermath of WWI and then they tried to enact the failed jewish communist revolution in the late 1910s. Hitler believed exactly as I do, which is quite clear from even a cursory reading of Mein Kampf.  He just didn't think, and he was correct in his time, that such extreme measures as we must do now were then not necessary, we are well beyond that point everywhere in the West today, we are now faced with the choice, extreme gratuitous violence and reawakening of the rage and bloodlust of the Aryan man, or see our extinction within a century.

>Women weren't destroying society the Jews were.
How did the jews get in? Christianity. Through what vector did the jews spread their religion to our people?
The vector for infection of Christianity was Aryan women, else why would all of Rome sneer at it as a woman's religion, before it became a threat that destroyed the Empire from within? it is from that failure of Aryan women to resist the fanciful whispers of jewish slaves and conmen that this entire state of affairs came to be, oh there were many times our people could have broken it's grasp and returned to the old ways, but the only one who took action knowingly and aware of most of what we know now, was Hitler, he saw that his time was the last chance for the civilization begun in Ancient Hellas and he took action, got quite far, but just couldn't quite make the decisions that would have led him to victory, because he clung to honor against a foe who had none and failed to use the massive stockpile of Arin Gas he had just laying around, kept to agreements and alliances that brought the foe that would defeat Germany to his doorstep, and potential allies and racial brethren were lost due to the infection that began in Rome, they sought to protect and defend the jew, as their jewish god dictated, and as the greed we have always had to grapple with pushed them to do, and as the age-old ethnic grievances got in the way of reason and the open hand of friendship.

>Women didn't even make up more than 5% of the high-income jobs in the Weimar Republic. According to you, they somehow magically controlled the Jews and men who held onto these positions of power. 
Have you not read any history, women have always gained power from their husbands, and many men do not or cannot resist, whether because of weakness or complacency, is a different matter, it is in allowing women to raise children alone or with little involvement by the father and allowing the continued existence of parasitic infection on Aryan minds of Christianity carried by parents and forced unto generations upon generations of children, that has allowed this to happen.

>He believed that women should receive an equal education
Plato taught Aristotle, surely his opinions cannot differ that much from his students, or are you taking The Republic as absolute fact or as if it were his positions?  From what I recall it was depiction of a conversation that Socrates had with another man whose name escapes me, Plato's involvement was as a recorder, especially when we know much of Plato's works have long since been lost, hell we can somewhat say the same for Aristotle as well, though his writings were of much more use to Christniggers so more of them survived, and the same for most of the other Hellenic-Roman Philosophers. Anyway I have never been against education for women, just against them being allowed into the workforce, no matter their education, as how else can a man learn his potential wife's intellectual capability, and thus suitably as a mother?

>Attempt to solidify your argument, which makes no sense.
Do you think Julius wouldn't have killed his wife if she stepped out of line? it is clear he loved her dearly, do you think she would dare break her vows to her faithful husband or the traditions of Rome?, or Alexander, Perhaps the greatest conqueror the world has ever seen, do you really think he wouldn't kill a woman who stepped out of line? what they did in life and what they would do if they were to come back to life now, does serve to reinforce my point, but you can of course continue to dance around that fact however you like.

>No one said anything about allowing women into politics, which I agree with. My argument isn't that they're equal to men, but that they're upmost necessary and the abnormal hatred towards them is juvenile and of Christian character via Spic Fuentes. 
If you think women have anything of merit to contribute to scientific knowledge, you would also be stupid enough to let them into politics If they showed enough merit, they belong in neither place, so even if you claim you don't think they're equal you are for special treatment just because a woman made you feel stupid once.
Hatred being used as a tool to put women in their place has nothing to with christianity, such things and attitudes do not have their origin with the jews, and certainly not Nick "El Spicerino" Fuentes, you make it ever more clear you have not delved into ancient beliefs or thought with every further post you make, for fucks sake, women, excepting whores, weren't allowed outside of their homes throughout most of Ancient Hellas without both what is essentially a burka and a male escort, and the homes were literally divided into male and female sections.

>Rational thought and behavior go hand in hand. They are two of the same.
Sure, but not even the most intelligent of women can sustain control of her emotions and thus act in a manner more similar to men, for any great length of time, even if you find one that can, she is fit to be a great wife and produce many fine children for a man,  but she still doesn't get to have the Privileges that we call rights that women have today as emotions rule women and they always have.

>No, you don't understand feminism. 
No, you don't and everything that followed those five words proves it, and it also proves you don't know fuck-all about communists either.

>Who is Saint Joan of Arc?
A woman without honor who was rightfully executed and is now only propped up to give credence to modern feminist ideology, she would have been executed in both Rome and Hellas as well  a hell of a lot quicker and promptly forgotten or else marked as a footnote like Locusta and it's also worth noting she was only canonized 500 years after her death as a political token of humiliation directed at men, and Aryans as a whole.

>Who is Boudicca?
An unfortunate queen whose husband was killed by Romans after they broke a treaty with him, who later fought against Rome and lost quite spectacularly, but she certainly proves women when forced to do so, can fight and lose, and she had a concept and sense of honor and seems to have kept to it but being that she died, and most if not all of of her children died with her or soon after, she merely reinforces my point. You miss that I never said individual women cannot have honor, I said they as a whole do not.

>I guess your mother wasn't honorable when she birthed you?
Far from it, but neither my life, nor my mothers, is at issue here, you only bring it up because you wish to use it as a jewish psychology tactic to blame my arguments solely on a hatred of my mother, that won't work as she is not the reason for my hatred.

>May I remind you that Tacitus specifically talks of how much credit Germanic culture's purity was due to their culture being based on honor itself.
May I remind you that Tacitus never met a German, and specifically wrote from a Roman critical position, and simply used the Germans as a literary device to make up shit about to underscore how far Rome had fallen from the standards of his time.

>Yes it does. You even admit that they outclass them which literally implies that they are superior
It proves nothing in relation to this argument or discussion, it simply reinforces the Aryan races superiority which was never at question.

>You don't have a good point, because this is also true for men as well. While we are naturally better at arithmetic, most men still require education to understand even the basics of math.
WE invented Mathematics and Logic nigger, not women, so somewhere, at some point, we decided to observe and describe with NUMBERS, and so mathematics was discovered.

>Go back to whatever incel forum you dropped out of.
Get off my board, you feminist retard.
Here's a free copy of Mein Kampf for you, since you obviously haven't read a fucking word of it.
Replies: >>3510
Indian_men_are_weak.png
[Hide] (55.8KB, 536x323) Reverse
IQ_vs_Median_weekly_earnings.png
[Hide] (79.2KB, 538x432) Reverse
>>3504
>Even sick men usually are physically superior to most women,
>He doesn't know that White women can mog a Indian male.
Diseases such as Myasthenia Gravis and Muscular dystrophy prove you wrong. You're stretching your arguments to a point where you're just outright retarded.

>and mentally ill men who were intellectually superior prior to their illness arising, or becoming symptomatic
<Sources:My own ass
Men who are mentally disabled require mental assistance in order to learn just about anything. Your argument would be better off using autistics as an example, although even mild autists suffer from learning deficiencies. I know for a fact that some latinx or some form of brown mystery meat is behind this post.

>Men are best positioned for whatever role or trade they desire
Men are best positioned for what they're designed for, such as leadership roles, fighting, hunting, and educators. BTW, you talk about Rome and Greece a-lot like a true LARPer, the Romans and Greeks did not believe that men should choose their trade within society as they believed that even common men were usually best suited to being lead, but not in the same fashion as to women. At the end of the day, men cannot be mothers, they cannot provide children maternal love. Your concept of male supremacy is gay. 

>there are no female seamstresses who outshine the likes of Hugo Boss, or Giovanni Versace, or Female chefs who match Gordon Ramsey or Emeril Lagasse 
This statement is entirely subjective and what you're describing are jobs that are not fundamentally important to society nor are they important female roles or roles that are exclusive to females. I also noticed that you could only name two chefs who are mostly known on American television.

>Bottom half
You are blabbing about nothing. Nothing I care for nor has to do with the subject of this debate.

>Go ahead and call me a faggot 
You are a faggot.

>Nowhere am I eliminating a distinction, I'm entirely unsure where the fuck you came up with this
<Women will always be inferior to men in every way.
You can't read or comprehend any statement, for that matter, without being overly emotional, which you criticize women for. My point here is that you're arguing that ANYTHING a woman does is something a man can do, which you do not realize extends to both the biological and natural aspects of women that do not exist within men, such as sufficient and healthy natural pregnancy, greater flexibility, etc. What's even dumber is that you cannot even keep your views consistent. Do you believe men can do most things women can and can't do, which I literally agree with, or they can do anything women can do, which is bullshit and wrong? I wonder if you can bring up one male who has surpassed all females in one of the most feminine dance styles in the world, ballet.

<inb4, b-but men can practice it too!
But not in the same way women do, which is why they have separate forms of training. 

>He didn't have to say it his words above in the image provided by another Blackshirt
The green-text you're referring to is about Aristotle, retard.

>alone convey his attitude and belief that men are unquestionably superior 
Nowhere does he express this attitude. He talks of women not belonging to the roles of men, how they should be kept out of politics, and how they are best suited for motherhood and caretakers. 

>Lastly, didn't mention that women are capable of virtue, as he laid it out
Either you're still ignorantly thinking I'm referring to Hitler or you're admitting that you never read Aristotle. He of course never said anything about women practicing virtues in the same way men could, but nonetheless he did believe it was possible. 

<So is it naturally with the male and the female; the one is superior, the other inferior; the one governs, the other is governed; and the same rule must necessarily hold good with respect to all mankind. -Politics (1254b13-16)

<He who is to govern ought to be perfect in moral virtue, for his business is entirely that of an architect, and reason is the architect; while others want only that portion of it which may be sufficient for their station; from whence it is evident, that although moral virtue is common to all those we have spoken of, yet the temperance of a man and a woman are not the same, nor their courage, nor their justice, though Socrates thought otherwise; for the courage of the man consists in commanding, the woman’s in obeying; and the same is true in other particulars. - Politics (1260a17-23)

<First and foremost, the characters should be good. will have character if, as we said, the speech or the action makes obvious a decision of whatever sort; it will have a good character, if it makes obvious a good decision. can exist in every class ; for a woman can be good, and a slave can, although the first of these may be inferior and the second wholly worthless. -Poetics (1454a16-22)

>if a woman is as virtuous as Sol herself, she is still subject to the same restrictions as all the others 
He never said this either, as the Greeks did not worship Sol. He said that a virtuous woman is one who acknowledges her role and does not share the same values of virtue as every other woman, but what you do not realize here as well is that Aristotle does not place the woman as the same as a slave, but as one who is inferior in comparison to men.

>I want to know where you came up with this bullshit because I've seen thousands of studies and they usually simply list the data
>I've seen thousands of studies, but I won't cite one!
No, they don't. They don't talk about the demographics of those they've tested at all. They won't even admit that most of their participants were White and Asian, and it is obvious that they were; otherwise, we would be seeing far lower IQ scores for both males and females. 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Gaussian-distribution-of-IQ-of-men-s-162-and-women-s-132_fig1_344751288
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SexDifferences.aspx

>No, based on sheer numbers alone (niggers worldwide outnumber us more than 4 to 1)
>There are many more intelligent niggers than white women
>t.brownoid
Cope, cope, cope, and more cope. The ratio of White women in the United States of America is at least 3 to 1, and yet White women have far higher IQ levels. Even if you include African niggers, their IQ levels are not going to change anything other than lower scores, considering the average is 85 and some niggers are even lower than that. There are not even more than a million high-IQ blacks. You claim to understand IQ and the bell curve, yet you're making the dumbest excuses that liberals will use to defend their precious nignogs when you explain and provide them proof of why they are so dumb, and they will attempt to jot around the circles by claiming that there are millions of smart blacks, despite them lacking a wider distribution of geniuses.
Replies: >>3511 >>3516 >>3515
>>3510
>No they shouldn't be, they would do much better for themselves and the world in raising four sons to be doctors
They can do both at the same time.

> Doing that would just be retarded though
Except I never said I did; I was actually retarded. I've seen more women who can read far better than you ever could. Or maybe you're just coping so hard because I've disproved your assertion that all men are generally smarter than women. Such ideas go against the principles of National Socialism, which does not believe that all men are equal or equal enough to the case where race is secondary in distinction between humanoids.

>No, he talked about encouraging men to gather with women at communal evenings to stop the spread of homosexuality,
He said more than that. He also believed your type were also homosexual which isn't far from truth considering how many incels are becoming trannies.

<“I view it as disastrous for a people when boys tell their mothers: "When we are marching in the Hitler Youth, see to it that you do not pass by. I would greet you, yes, but the others would laugh, I would then be considered a mama’s boy and a weakling.” I view it as disastrous for a people when a boy is ashamed of his sister and his mother or is directed to be ashamed of women” -Heinrich Himmler, The Homosexual Threat to Civilization: A Speech by Heinrich Himmler 

<In any case we must educate our young always to be chivalrous men, men (Menschen) who stand up for women. -Heinrich Himmler, The Homosexual Threat to Civilization: A Speech by Heinrich Himmler 

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63838692/heinrich-himmler-speech-18021937
http://www.renegadetribune.com/heinrich-himmler-homosexuality/


>So? that's a good thing
<Original sin is retarded
To declare that all women are evil by nature is still original sin. If they are all guilty without trial or evidence to prove their evils then it is general association which is no different than original sin. As matter of fact it goes against paganism to declare something of nature as naturally evil.

>opening your fucking mouths were half as well read as you pretend to be
What lack of self-awareness you have. Far less than that of a woman.


>Bhagavad Gita
I don't give a shit what this poojeet book says. India is still a shithole full of sub-humans who worship jews, eat cow shit, shit on their own streets, and got easily conquered by camel piss drinkers. And I am fully aware that Himmler admired the Gita, but it is still something that was written by inferiors. And funny enough, if we look at India today, it clearly hasn't helped them out.

>An organization made to put women in their fucking place
It was an organization that respected women and sought to peacefully and earnestly put them in positions they were meant for.

>That they wanted fit genetically compatible and healthy wives,
If a society and government encourages fitness and health all towards their women, then it means it most trusts and respects its women. 

>Women who did their duty to their people
That duty included fighting alongside the men by all measures with exception of the front-line, which is what you're neglecting.

>Most of those were either the wives of SS men or racially fit ladies seeking husbands
Women in the SS were those seeking husbands or wives of SS troops; most of them were non-married females who volunteered in guard work and other tasks and were looking to either prove their loyalty or just simply wanted a job. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

>From what I've seen and what is very easy to find neither sex was more proportional, or perhaps women by a slight margin simply sue 
26.5% of the votes for the NSDAP were women. Hitler could not have won the elections in 1932 and 1933 if it weren't for women preferring National Socialism over the SPD. Without women, Hitler would have possibly been tied to the SPD. Even if he won without women, to disregard a noble cause to put a great man in power as meaningless is pure faggotry.

>Hitler was the last chance for the West, as a Civilization TO UNDO WHAT HAD ALREADY BEGUN 
Saying the same statement again and putting it in red caps does not make it sound intelligent. 

> women were just as instrumental in aiding the jews then, as they are now.
No, they were not. That would be evangelical christians who are some of the biggest conservatives and patriarchs supporters in the West, besides the Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Women aren't the instruments to jews, christcucks are.

>How did the jews get in? Christianity. 
Who lead Christianity? Men.

>Have you not read any history, women have always gained power from their husbands
This has nothing to do with I said about Weimar.

>Plato taught Aristotle
Doesn't matter. Plato and his students did not always share the same thoughts.

> The Republic as absolute fact or as if it were his positions?  
Plato's Republic are still thoughts he had that believed could worked out if people had followed his philosophy. Plato was still sure that his ideas was so brilliant that even women could be well-educated as a result from them. 

>Do you think Julius wouldn't have killed his wife if she stepped out of line?
I don't care...

>If you think women have anything of merit to contribute to scientific knowledge, you would also be stupid enough to let them into politics 
The thing here is mate. No one advocate for all women to be put into science which is why I said the exception. You also acknowledge that women like Grace Hopper were indeed great contributors to science. So it wouldn't be out of line or foolish to put someone in a position if they're worthy of it. It's called meritocracy.

>Hatred being used as a tool to put women in their place has nothing to with christianity
Yes it does. Not even the Greco-Romans hated women as much as the christians did. While the Greeks and the Romans saw women as weak and foolish christian almost completely despied them. Greco-Romans could not have possibly hated women to the same extent as you do and the christcucks, considering they had worship the feminine via the goddesses.

>Sure, but not even the most intelligent of women can sustain control of her emotions 
The irony of this statement.

>No, you don't and everything that followed those five words proves
Excellent rebuttal.

>A woman without honor who was rightfully executed 
She had honor which is why she was even admired by the Papal States, a patriarchal order. Joan being beloved by feminist has nothing to do with her actual character for she was the opposite they expect her to be which is some sort of independent "girl boss". Feminists are dumb as per usual. 

> who later fought against Rome and lost quite spectacularly
She fought with honor and bravery. She riled up several of the strongest men of her tribe to fight alongside her. She lived in virtue and died for a cause for the freedom of her people. These are all things Hitler as done. Your point means nothing. At-least she lived and died with purpose where you live with none other than butt-hurt. That's a difference you're also missing within your post.

>May I remind you that Tacitus never met a German
May I remind you that Tacitus still knew and talked with men who did?

>It proves nothing in relation to this argument or discussion
>it simply reinforces the Aryan races superiority
>despite the discussion and my argument being about the superiority of White people as a whole
You don't believed in Aryan superiority if you think niggers are superior to White women.

>WE invented Mathematics and Logic nigger
You sound emotional. You must be woman :^). Also who's we? You have no relation to those who invented mathematics or logic nor most likely haven't contributed to it either. This whole debate of ours is mostly you rambling about nothing of value.

>Get off my board, you feminist retard.
Can't be a feminist when I denounced several times them and explained why they are wrong.

>Here's a free copy of Mein Kampf for you, since you obviously haven't read a fucking word of it.
Here's a better suggestion. How about you actually read his book and then read Aristotle and Plato, and then maybe we can have this discussion again when you aren't a pretentious manchild.

You will never be White.
You will never a National Socialist.
You will never be a Greek.
You will never be a Woman.
Replies: >>3512 >>3516
>>3511
>They can do both at the same time.
This idea is how we got to now, and women love to believe this lie.
>To declare that all women are evil by nature is still original sin
To declare that all venomous frogs are venomous by nature is still original sin.
>That duty included fighting alongside the men by all measures with exception of the front-line
A woman's innate skills are subterfuge and honey-trapping.
These aren't things you want to encourage.
>No, they were not jewish helpers
Women went head first into jewish prostitution and homo shit. Go watch "Legendary Sin Cities – Berlin: Metropolis of Vice"
>>3510
>Diseases such as Myasthenia Gravis and Muscular dystrophy prove you wrong. 
Rare Genetic Diseases don't prove anything at all, and as it happens I know sufferers of Myasthenia Gravis who could almost certainly whoop your ass because it's not debilitating, they can handle stress in short bursts, prolonged stress can kill them, but if they manage it well it's not a concern, they can even maintain physical conditioning, and have greater sensitivity to extreme temperature changes, not much else is different and of course it depends on individual severity as well.
Muscular dystrophy is vanishingly rare and not relevant at all, as without modern medicine most sufferers would be dead before ten. It's also a little known fact that in the case of one of the rarer forms Myotonia congenita it actually confers an advantage of more dense muscle fibers to people in inactive but genetically proven cases.
>You're stretching your arguments to a point where you're just outright retarded.
You're ignoring facts, Grip strength is not the only or even the best metric of strength, and South Asian men are still superior to white women in your little chart, even if the gulf is smaller.
>Men who are mentally disabled require mental assistance in order to learn just about anything.
You said Mentally Ill, not mentally disabled, those are two completely different things. Most of modern Psychology seems to me to be bunk, Mental illness doesn't seem to have any kind of verifiable genetic component and runs in families because some families are more prone to certain forms of abuse, not to mention the generational abuse of Christniggery.
This is a classic movement of goalposts, strike one.
>At the end of the day, men cannot be mothers, they cannot provide children maternal love.
The simple fact that single Father households have outcomes on par with two parent households, and single mothers of any race have the lowest aside from lesbian couples blows your entire assertion here out of the water, it appears children do not need Maternal love and that fathers can provide something akin to it without mothers whereas mothers cannot raise children to parity with single fathers let alone a two parent household.
And the existence of lemmings as the majority of all races of the Homo genus doesn't prove shit either, most common men are best suited to being led, as I never implied otherwise, but a common man needs much less leading than even the most superb of women but Rome did have plenty of opportunity for men to choose their own trade, Skills were not always passed down from father to son, and plenty of non-filial apprenticeships were to be found, in many various trades, but that has always been the case, in every society that has ever existed.
>This statement is entirely subjective and what you're describing are jobs that are not fundamentally important to society nor are they important female roles or roles that are exclusive to females. I also noticed that you could only name two chefs who are mostly known on American television.
Was I claiming that seamstresses or tailors or cooks or chefs were vital to society, no, I provided examples of men excelling at what until quite recently thought of colloquially as woman's work.
That the chefs are well-known in America is immaterial. and Gordon is much more well known in the U.K., you know, his home country. but should I have said some other chef from Italy or Spain or France, that would only be known to people who speak those languages and who don't have world wide fame?
>You are blabbing about nothing. Nothing I care for nor has to do with the subject of this debate.
Everything there was simply underscoring my point, ignore it if you will it's to your detriment.
>You are a faggot.
Nah, but then we knew this was going to be a lie.
>You can't read or comprehend any statement, for that matter, without being overly emotional, which you criticize women for. 
Using words for emphasis doesn't imply any emotion, I was expressing absolute confusion at your sheer idiocy, women are across the board overly emotional unless you think it's somehow a jewish psyop that women somehow freely express and prove every single day without prompt, and has literally been described of women in every society that has ever existed for which evidence exists.
 >My point here is that you're arguing that ANYTHING a woman does is something a man can do, which you do not realize extends to both the biological and natural aspects of women that do not exist within men, such as sufficient and healthy natural pregnancy, greater flexibility, etc.
Your point doesn't fucking exist when I state the direct opposite in my first post and directly in response to you, I can't be eliminating the natural biological differences when they are acknowledged, my point is now and has only ever been is that anything you try to point out that a woman can do in society, not only would she be better served, but she would also better serve her race by staying home and being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen than by leaving the home for any reason, no matter her intellect.
>What's even dumber is that you cannot even keep your views consistent.
The only one who isn't being consistent here is you, I have stated clearly my points and instead of attacking them you attempt to dance around it and play off like I'm espousing that trannies are women too, which is not only ridiculous on it's face but childish in the extreme, if you cannot comprehend what is said, don't bother speaking.
>Do you believe men can do most things women can and can't do, which I literally agree with, or they can do anything women can do, which is bullshit and wrong? I wonder if you can bring up one male who has surpassed all females in one of the most feminine dance styles in the world, ballet.
Men do practice it, and as far as I can determine the training is no different for either sex, so wherever you got that from, It's almost assuredly bullshit bullshit. You asked for men though, so, Mikhail Baryshnikov, a Lithuanian born American Dancer, Rudolf Nureyev, a soviet Russian, Erik Bruhn, a Danish man, all dancers and choreographers and teachers in their own right and that's certainly not all of them just the most notable, Ballet was never "feminine", though, it's about grace and agility, and weirdly frilly outfits, in some cases but that seems to be more an artifact from it's origins in Italy and France during the renaissance than anything else. It's actually kind of ironic that you consider it feminine, which is mostly an American attitude in my experience, especially when nearly all of it is choreographed by men and driven by men, so none of those ever so special and super skilled female ballerinas would exist without the genius minds that created the dances themselves along with all the other pageantry associated with it.
>The green-text you're referring to is about Aristotle, retard.
I wasn't talking about a green-text quote, you fucking nigger. there is an image with a quote from Aristotle in an image in an early post in the thread, who I was referring to quite clearly.
>how they are best suited for motherhood and caretakers. 
yep, that's what he said, aka woman's place is in the home, not outside of it.
>Either you're still ignorantly thinking I'm referring to Hitler
I never thought you were referring to Hitler, retard, you made that up because you lack the skill to comprehend the written word, But I will reiterate, I did not mention what Aristotle claimed about women being able to be virtuous but in a different way than men because it is not fucking relevant, if women stay where they belong, and in the role in which they belong, their virtue is only a concern of their husband and until they're married their father or whatever male is their custodian.
>He never said this either, as the Greeks did not worship Sol.
No, I said that you fucking moron, you are arguing with me, not Aristotle, and not Hitler, and slaves have always been more restricted than women, so that's not fucking relevant either.
>No, They don't
The first paper you give was done in Germany, at a German university, so presumably the data involved was almost exclusively native Germans,  it was done by a Physics professor, and is more about the math where the demographics of the data aren't relevant, so why would they use data from outside their country, most people never take an IQ test, so that doesn't prove your point at all, and the second is an independent research site run by a spic and he chooses not to reveal and possibly doesn't even take demographic data probably because he's an idiot and doesn't realize it's relevance.
>Cope, cope, cope, and more cope. The ratio of White women in the United States of America is at least 3 to 1
To what? niggers? Non-whites in general? I'll be a little generous and presume the latter so, no it isn't, if you pull out those who are "hispanic whites",  arabs(listed under Caucasian in America), and jews that ratio drops to a little more or less, than 1 white for 1 non-white, only about 153 million people in the US are Germanic descended, and of the quite pure stock we do have in America of all the various Germanic/Nordic ethnicities that left and helped found and build America.
>They will attempt to jot around the circles by claiming that there are millions of smart blacks, despite them lacking a wider distribution of geniuses.
I was discussing the entire planet, not just America, they outnumber the White population (750 million give or take) of the PLANET by more than 4 to 1 NOW, not yesterday, not 20 years from now, right fucking now, obviously in America alone there's not nearly enough niggers to outnumber white smart women and yeah no shit they're functionally retarded, but even given their poor genetics for intelligence, across the entire planet there are more niggers that are smart than there are genius white women, won't stop me from killing every nigger I see when the time comes, and even if the reverse were true that doesn't mean or indicate anything at all about whether we should put white women in their fucking place and keep them there.
>They can do both at the same time.
No they cannot, the state of the modern world proves that and the very fact you're sitting here trying to say otherwise proves you're a goddamn moron.
>I've seen more women who can read far better than you ever could. 
I highly doubt you've met even one woman who could read and understand at a college level at 11 years old, or tested at 170 IQ on a test not even designed to do more than identify people that intelligent, I've met one who might have and she tested 165 in college.
>Or maybe you're just coping so hard because I've disproved your assertion that all men are generally smarter than women. 
Since you have proven no such thing, I couldn't be coping at all, the only doing anything like that here is you, because you've begun devolving progressively more into ad-hominems even more than you started out doing.
>Such ideas go against the principles of National Socialism, which does not believe that all men are equal or equal enough to the case where race is secondary in distinction between humanoids.
I never stated that, nor do I believe that the races are equal, and putting women in their place is a foundational idea of National Socialism, but then again you don't understand that at the very center of what we call National Socialism is following Natural Law, as our ancestors did, what is not NS is deciding to betray Natural Law just because you want bitches to have jobs.
>He said more than that. He also believed your type were also homosexual which isn't far from truth considering how many incels are becoming trannies.
Again why is this at all relevant, Himmler was an idiot, a traitor and a coward who died a cowards death, He focused too much on the Far East as an origin place for our people leading to such ridiculous shit as buddhist nazis, especially since our most likely Urheimat is what is now Ukraine, where the worlds oldest existing Swastika was found.
Regardless, your first quote is just basic decency, and an affirmation that one should not be ashamed of who you are, and the second was only said because Germany could then be recovered without complete destruction of it's government and kikestianity-poisoned culture to be rebirthed anew as must be done now.
>To declare that all women are evil by nature is still original sin.
Mhm, no it isn't, women's nature is simple, easily corrupted and best suited to being a mother, if she cannot do that for some natural or otherwise reason, she can be a priestess, a midwife, a babysitter, a whore, or kill herself, nothing else would be of use to a society that wishes to remain stable for more than century or two, at most.
I never stated they were guilty of anything, I said that if they are not kept in control they will, are now, and always have caused the downfall of a society, any other position is retarded.
>paganism
That label is a kike trick, and that you would even attempt to use it to make any declarative statement especially while spouting some buddhist bullshit about "nothing in nature is evil", no anything in nature that acts against or contrary to Natural Law is evil by definition, this is why Rabies has always been something that when idetifed, you kill the infected being on sight, not because the animal is evil itself, but because there is an infection causing it to act contrary to it's nature, it is evil and killing it is therefore just and right, so you see women have a natural tendency to fall to corrupting influence and so if you wish for stability, you must punish them and severely so that any corruption she may have fallen to does not spread to others, this our Ancestors understood, and you do not.
>Far less than that of a woman.
I am very self-aware, I am just sick of idiots like you coming here, whether it's to an old iteration, or this one and bandying about your personal objection to this or that because of your experience here or there with this thing or that, If you claim to be a National Socialist, and as such a follower of the Natural Law, you cannot be a feminist, and you must hate women who do not act according to their natural role and place in our societies, and that do not follow their husbands rules, any woman who seeks to have a job like men do, unless somehow ordained by the gods themselves is by rights corrupt, contrary to natural law and should be killed or exiled so that she does not corrupt the other women in her community with such evil ideas.
>Far less than that of a woman.
Setting aside your idocy. don't say that and then quote Himmler, he had a copy with him wherever he went, he like anyone intelligent knows that story has it's origins with both the original Aryan settlers and the the later Aryan Conquerors of what we now call India. The fact that those who wrote it became what we see today shows the value of not forgetting or setting aside for convenience, our Ancestors advice.
>peacefully and earnestly
Yeah that's what I said, Hitler did not want women outside of the home, outside of the most desperate need, either of their defense or their peoples survival which is why he had state funded brothels full of beautiful German girls seeking to get pregnant and provide sons for the German nation.
>then it means it most trusts and respects its women
No it means they want healthy wives
>which is what you're neglecting
In the most desperate situations every hand at a task is useful even weak ones, and all this did was put women in the path of the soviet rape squads, not a fate Hitler should have encouraged but desperate times call for desperate measures.
>most of them were non-married females who volunteered
>or just wanted a job
TO FIND A HUSBAND* nothing more, nothing less.
>26.5% of the votes for the NSDAP were women.
So? if women had never been given the vote nobody else would have had their support either, and that means the answer was men more proportionally since 74.5% of the NSDAP's votes must have come from men, no?
>to disregard a noble cause to put a great man in power as meaningless is pure faggotry.
I was talking about cunts having a say, not Hitler coming to power, you are an idiot, once again.
>does not make it sound intelligent. 
Did I say it did?
>No, they were not.
Yes, they were, the people in a home who hold most fiercely to christniggerism have long been women, even noted as such in germany, such that you can point to the wives of the men you try to blame next, and I never said all women were tools of the jew, I said most women today are and a lot in Hitler's time were as well.
>Who lead Christianity? Men.
No, jews, and those women corrupted in turn corrupted their husbands and children with that poisonous creed, they are not blameless, nor have they ever been.
>This has nothing to do with I said about Weimar.
Yes it does.
> Plato and his students did not always share the same thoughts.
Obviously, but in this case, they probably did.
>Plato was still sure that his ideas was so brilliant that even women could be well-educated as a result from them
And he was beyond wrong.
>I don't care...
So, yes you know he would have.
Last edited by Hidden User
>>3510
>>3511
>The thing here is mate. No one advocate for all women to be put into science which is why I said the exception.
The thing here is mate that the exception proves the rule, it is precisely because they are different that they must be kept with the others.
>You also acknowledge that women like Grace Hopper were indeed great contributors to science. 
No I don't, she helped jews more than she helped the white man, and she bore no children, she shall suffer in her journey through helheim and beyond.
>So it wouldn't be out of line or foolish to put someone in a position if they're worthy of it. It's called meritocracy.
Yes it would be, if they have a cunt, cunts get used for one thing, children, nothing else.
>Yes it does. Not even the Greco-Romans hated women as much as the christians did.
No, it doesn't, HATRED IS A TOOL THAT DID NOT ORIGINATE WITH CHRISTNIGGERS, NOR DID HATRED OF WOMEN, AND CHRISTIANS WERE ACTUALLY MUCH SOFTER ON THEM THAN THE ROMANS OR HELLENES EVER WERE romans killed their wives for drinking fucking wine, exiled them for talking to women of a lower class, for even daring to take off their veil in a situation where it wasn't warranted, Christians were soft weak faggots in comparison who had retarded rhetoric entirely based off of false divine scriptures, shut the literal fuck up with that racist feminist talking point, next thing you'll recommend that we read 10 jewess deminist authors that you claim are totally not jewesses.
>The irony of this statement
There is no irony there, there is merely you being a faggot and claiming shit without evidence because you have no arguments.
>Excellent rebuttal.
It was, wasn't it?
>She had honor which is why she was even admired by the Papal States, a patriarchal order
No, she didn't, or she would never have left her home over her christnigger delusions.
>She riled up several of the strongest men of her tribe to fight alongside her.
Those men owed her husband allegiance, she may have had to work hard to get it in turn but it was hers by right, as she had no sons and her daughter gave her that authority after the romans had them raped on their fathers death, she then managed to burn three relatively new settlements including Londinium, and was then soundly defeated and either poisoned got sick or killed herself, sure she exacted a price but she didn't drive the romans out that took another 300 years and happened mostly because Rome itself was collapsing.
>May I remind you that Tacitus still knew and talked with men who did?
May i remind that we don't know who he is and therefore cannot verify he did any such thing?
 >if you think niggers are superior to White women.
I said no such thing.
I merely stated that in sheer numbers there are more smart niggers than smart white women on the planet, and the fact is niggers frequently rape and murder white women every where they can, so either women let that happen or physically they are superior to white women, which is simply how it is.
You sound emotional. You must be woman :^). Also who's we?
Nope, you're reading shit that isn't there, and Aryan men.
>You have no relation to those who invented mathematics or logic nor most likely haven't contributed to it either. This whole debate of ours is mostly you rambling about nothing of value.
I am descended from an unbroken chain of White Aryan men, and since nobody knows how the Ancient Hellenic language got to the British Isles, so I stand a fair chance of sharing blood with Aristotle and since nobody knows who first discovered mathematics, the same there. As for your other assertion, the only one rambling about nothing of value is you, you can barely even comprehend what I say unless I make it abundantly clear
>Can't be a feminist when I denounced several times them and explained why they are wrong.
You're lying, it's quite simple really.
>Here's a better suggestion. How about you actually read his book
Already have a few times, no need, and already read both of their works too, but you can keep pretending that you have all you like.

I am 100% Germanic in origin, I am the only National Socialist in this argument, I would never choose to be a Greek, but I would a Hellene(hint: they didn't look like the people who live there now and migrated south from somewhere north of their historical territory.)
and I would never want to be a woman.
Fascism_versus_Alt-Right.png
[Hide] (2.9MB, 2000x3084) Reverse
What_any_kind_of_equality_will_lead_to.png
[Hide] (1MB, 3000x4455) Reverse
>>3436 (OP) 
"Alt-Right" and "Identitarianism" are literal meme terms nowadays and even back then eight years ago, and they were for bad actors who would be kept out by an well-structured and concrete worldview or cowards avoiding the "stigma" associated with the Swastika and Fascism in general while failing. Avoid using them as terms, their broadness and vagueness were exploited to let bad actors in while National Socialism is specific enough to keep them out in good accordance with important principles found in NS literature.
If you don't own up and rejoice onto the Swastika, you will lose and be doomed to the fate of irrelevancy.

Feminism at it's core is bad, biological-sex egalitarianism will eventually lead to anything more degenerate. The idea that men and women are equal will also lead to the idea that all women are inherently equal which finally leads to nihilism funnily enough, when the best of White women are equated to the absolute worst of Negresses and Jewesses, which women as the whole idea and concept is then deconstructed into nothing more than a flesh-bag of organs only to live, shit, fuck and sleep, where the only "inequality" at most is seemingly superficial and all the racial differences of women is only due to being born with the wrong 'recombination' of DNA.
You don't have to treat women like shit to acknowledge that as a fact based on reality, although it depends on which kind of women that are categorized to deserve beating or not.
cat.jpg
[Hide] (73.7KB, 600x642) Reverse
>>3494
>Please explain how De Benoist doesn't scream jew, as he looks now, and explain how a retard who encourages study into Luce Irigaray, a woman so conceited she thought herself one who could better the father of logic himself along with his teacher Plato by an analyzing them through the lens of "Phallocentrism". If
But that's wrong you fucking retard. De Benoist is the single most accessible thinker in the European New Right and the most important intellectual on the right today in the sense of the Evolian true right. "explain how De Benoist doesn't scream jew" god damn you are so fucking stupid I hope you're trolling you dumb faggot kill yourself
Replies: >>3541
>>3536
>But that's wrong you fucking retard. 
Either argue why it's wrong or you will not have a right to speak here anymore.
>De Benoist is the single most accessible thinker in the European New Right and the most important intellectual on the right today in the sense of the Evolian true right. 
Who cares what Evola thought? he is neither the authority on what "right wing" is, nor do I care what he thought about "True Right Wingers", NS transcends Right or Left, breaking the paradigm of the  jew and christnigger that the retarded masses follow so religiously.
Lastly I don't give a fuck how "accessible" de Benoist is, I have never needed to read his books and now that I have I feel lesser for having wasted my time on his putrid communist-lite thoughts 
>"explain how De Benoist doesn't scream jew" god damn you are so fucking stupid I hope you're trolling you dumb faggot kill yourself
I am not, his phenotype screams Jew, whether he has any recent heritage or not, and the Nouvelle Droite is a bunch of jew slaves, so I can safely discard his entire set of works because he fundamentally misunderstand even the basics of the history he claims to know and uses to advise the Nouvelle Droite.
Oh, if you're french please say so, it would explain your excessive rudeness and arrogance.
An argument for feminism that is often used is that in the past, women were raped very often by their families and that now they can talk about it freely, so as to prevent it from happening.
Is this true? Was incest and rape so common as their would like us to think?
My own grandmother, who lived in a peasant family, tells me that she knew a woman who was raped in a field, in a very white countryside, so these things did in fact happen. But incest and pedophilia? I somehow doubt it.
[New Reply]
29 replies | 17 files | 19 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.4.1