VNN vs. Stormfront: what are the differences?

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

How so, though? I realize that you may not have an example to clip and paste over, but could you paraphrase an example?

It's a general "don't disrespect our women folk" type attitude that prevails there, which if not adhered to will be met with threats of banning and eventually actual banning in short order.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

It's a general "don't disrespect our women folk" type attitude that prevails there, which if not adhered to will be met with threats of banning and eventually actual banning in short order.

OK, that I can agree with. There has been a significant and deliberate push to increase the number of female members on SF. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. WN men DO need WN women to procreate with (best case scenario) and raise a WN family.

Most of the women there are traditionalists - as far as wanting to be stay at home mothers, etc. There are several that do wish to work outside of the home during non-child rearing years (in a secondary/support role). I don't have much of a problem with that, personally, and given the correct circumstances - can really be a boost for the head of the household.

I have seen a few of the more "militant" females there, but in my experiance, they are few and far between.

Conversely, there are some male members who will only accept a woman barefoot and pregnant - in the kitchen......silent and subserviant. While these members are also few and far between - they raise one helluva ruckuss - just as much as the militant feminists do.

Of course, I'm considered a moderate by many because of my views, a realistic traditionalist by others. Of course, I have been called an Anti-woman=Anti-white because I have a problem with a particular female moderator.

Sometimes, I don't know what to think of the place.

[Angel Ramsey]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

OK, that I can agree with. There has been a significant and deliberate push to increase the number of female members on SF. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. WN men DO need WN women to procreate with (best case scenario) and raise a WN family.

Most of the women there are traditionalists - as far as wanting to be stay at home mothers, etc. There are several that do wish to work outside of the home during non-child rearing years (in a secondary/support role). I don't have much of a problem with that, personally, and given the correct circumstances - can really be a boost for the head of the household.

I have seen a few of the more "militant" females there, but in my experiance, they are few and far between.

Conversely, there are some male members who will only accept a woman barefoot and pregnant - in the kitchen......silent and subserviant. While these members are also few and far between - they raise one helluva ruckuss - just as much as the militant feminists do.

Of course, I'm considered a moderate by many because of my views, a realistic traditionalist by others. Of course, I have been called an Anti-woman=Anti-white because I have a problem with a particular female moderator.

Sometimes, I don't know what to think of the place.

You forgot to tell them that you were called a nigger jew, also.

[Crowe]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Curious....... What do you consider "Feminist" about Stormfront? Any examples, or could you explain in greater detail beyond a label?

I have seen some female posters say things like "they don't need a man" and can take care of themselves, etc. Logic like that goes right into the feminist ideology, and I've even seen people call them out on it, and instead of the female getting reprimanded, the ones calling them out do.

[Angel Ramsey]

Originally Posted by Crowe

I have seen some female posters say things like "they don't need a man" and can take care of themselves, etc. Logic like that goes right into the feminist ideology, and I've even seen people call them out on it, and instead of the female getting reprimanded, the ones calling them out do.

Remember Anti -woman=Anti -White.

[Waldman]

Originally Posted by Angel Ramsey

Remember Anti -woman=Anti -White.

I agree, but "WN" feminists=jew tools

[Waldman]

Originally Posted by Crowe

I have seen some female posters say things like "they don't need a man" and can take care of themselves, etc. Logic like that goes right into the feminist ideology, and I've even seen people call them out on it, and instead of the female getting reprimanded, the ones calling them out do.

You are so right. Therefore, they can keep their feminism on Stormfront and not poison our movement.

[Waldman]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

It's a general "don't disrespect our women folk" type attitude that prevails there, which if not adhered to will be met with threats of banning and eventually actual banning in short order.

Stormfront acts like liberals protect non-whites: whatever they say and do, nothing is wrong with them. On the other, SF is a democratic site, so it is not a surprise.

[Waldman]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Curious....... What do you consider "Feminist" about Stormfront? Any examples, or could you explain in greater detail beyond a label?

Go to their female section and read what the feminist watchdogs there write. Some posts could be written by Hillary Clinton.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Waldman

I agree, but "WN" feminists=jew tools

Guys who rail against "WN feminist" = Guys who can't get laid.

I'm just saying.

[Crowe]

Originally Posted by Waldman

Stormfront acts like liberals protect non-whites: whatever they say and do, nothing is wrong with them. On the other, SF is a democratic site, so it is not a surprise.

I disagree that SF is a democratic site. That implies free speech, and there is no such thing over there. I saw a poster over there banned the other day for offering some constructive criticism about them having problems collecting $7500/month at SF. A poster by the name of IronWolfEuro, not only was he banned but all his posts were deleted.

Originally Posted by IronWolfEuro View Post
If Stormfront is "struggling" at $90,000/year in donations, then maybe it's time to cut some fat from the bills.

The monthly server cost is only 36% ($2542/$7500) of the bills the donation money pays, yet is the most widely used service. The AM radio show is only 35% ($600*52 weeks / $90000) of the monthly donation money cost. I have no idea what the other $56258/year (63% of the donation requested) is used for.
If we can trim that extreme excess fat, we wouldn't be 'struggling' every single month. It's kind of like having your kids go hungry every night yet because you need to pay your Ferrari (that you don't drive) payments.


I say cut the fat, use the saved money to upgrade the servers and even lower the overall bill amounts.

We are not struggling, we are mismanaging our money.

His math is a little off, 36% + 35% + 63% = 134% but, the general point he is making is still valid.

Most reasonably minded people would see that as constructive criticism. At SF, its obviously a bannable offense. Questioning the money or implying anything other than being a loyal cash cow is received in a similar way as a Jew would react to a holocaust denier. They could move their radio to podcast, and save at least 600/week and could also reach a broader audience with it than just a local area.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio

Guys who rail against "WN feminist" = Guys who can't get laid.

I'm just saying.

Not really, Donnie. It's the guys who are desperate to get laid that are the ones brown-nosing in the hope of gaining female appreciation. At least some of us who don't go for the women's-rights BS are married guys who aren't on the prowl.

[Mr A.Anderson]

The money question? That is a sure fire way to have yourself banned in a nano-second. Just saying.

See, for me.....I personally want a woman with a strong sense of self. I need a spouse to be able to take the reigns, and drive the cart when needed. I think it's wise to have a strong willed woman, who doesn't back down to a fight.

Feminists would cheer at hearing me say this - and they would be wrong.

Chauvinists would jeer at hearing me say this - and they would be wrong.

I think it's wise for a woman to be able to run the house - take care of the bills, maintenance, etc because my work may require me to be away from home for extended periods of time. I think it's wise for a woman to be able to defend herself, our children, and home with deadly force if I am not here.

And heaven forbid, I'm in an accident and die. I would want a capable woman to be able to guide the family in my absense, and not be helpless - not have to go find the first man she could find to take care of the family.

There is a fine line between being an extremely capable woman with traditional values, and feminist.

That line is "if need be".

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

The money question? That is a sure fire way to have yourself banned in a nano-second. Just saying.

See, for me.....I personally want a woman with a strong sense of self. I need a spouse to be able to take the reigns, and drive the cart when needed. I think it's wise to have a strong willed woman, who doesn't back down to a fight.

Feminists would cheer at hearing me say this - and they would be wrong.

Chauvinists would jeer at hearing me say this - and they would be wrong.

I think it's wise for a woman to be able to run the house - take care of the bills, maintenance, etc because my work may require me to be away from home for extended periods of time. I think it's wise for a woman to be able to defend herself, our children, and home with deadly force if I am not here.

And heaven forbid, I'm in an accident and die. I would want a capable woman to be able to guide the family in my absense, and not be helpless - not have to go find the first man she could find to take care of the family.

There is a fine line between being an extremely capable woman with traditional values, and feminist.

That line is "if need be".

You're Angel Ramsey's husband, right? I just want to make sure that we know where you're coming from.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

You're Angel Ramsey's husband, right? I just want to make sure that we know where you're coming from.

I believe that womenfolk were able to handle the day to day family affairs when the men were off at war, or on the hunt.......historically speaking. I see this as a desirable trait.

That is a far cry from the "I can do it all on my own, and don't need a man for anything" crap that you see in today's feminist movement.

I also think of my daughters' future. I want them prepared to take care of themselves and not HAVE to rely on a man to provide for them. Given the small population of racially aware whites, it may take some time for them to find an appropriate mate. Until that time, I would want them prepared to fend for themselves, provide for themselves, and not be so incompetant and worthless that they would HAVE to live at home with mommy and daddy.

A woman can still be competant, and have traditional values. Hell, I know of a young 20 something racially aware single white woman. She will not settle for less than a racially aware white man to marry and raise a family with. She must work and provide for herself - as her parents are both dead. Should this WN shack up with the first man that comes along - regardless of race or beliefs to "take care of her"? Or should she do the white thing, and persevere?

Some men call her a feminist, when all she wants is to be a stay at home wife and mother in a racially aware family. Like I said - to me the "feminist" line is "IF Need Be".

[Steven L. Akins]

My view on the issue of women is that they should be the complementary opposites of men. In other words, women should engender those qualities that are not masculine traits and vice versa.

Where a man is strong a woman should be delicate.

Where a man is dominant a woman should be submissive.

Where a man is rugged a woman should be refined.

Where a man is aggressive a woman should be reserved.

Where a man is experienced a woman should be chaste.

I think it is fair to say the above are traditional gender roles and ones that feminists would take exception to.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

My view on the issue of women is that they should be the complementary opposites of men. In other words, women should engender those qualities that are not masculine traits and vice versa.

Where a man is strong a woman should be delicate.

Where a man is dominant a woman should be submissive.

Where a man is rugged a woman should be refined.

Where a man is aggressive a woman should be reserved.

Where a man is experienced a woman should be chaste.

I think it is fair to say the above are traditional gender roles and ones that feminists would take exception to.

I'm sure feminists would take exception to, and I do believe the qualities that you gave examples to are complimentary. Two people that have the exact same qualities, IMO, are not as strong or diverse (god, I can't believe I just said that word - but I'm at a loss for another one to use in it's place) as a couple who both represent the full spectrum. I guess the point that I'm trying to make, while those may be the *ideal* traditional traits, I still think it is wise to have a woman that *can* step up and take care of things in her husband's absence. What's the point of me having a wife if I have to be there ever second of every day because she's too incompetent to be left alone for any period of time?

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

I'm sure feminists would take exception to, and I do believe the qualities that you gave examples to are complimentary. Two people that have the exact same qualities, IMO, are not as strong or diverse (god, I can't believe I just said that word - but I'm at a loss for another one to use in it's place) as a couple who both represent the full spectrum. I guess the point that I'm trying to make, while those may be the *ideal* traditional traits, I still think it is wise to have a woman that *can* step up and take care of things in her husband's absence. What's the point of me having a wife if I have to be there ever second of every day because she's too incompetent to be left alone for any period of time?

My point is you can always tell when a woman is a rabid feminist if you pull out a list of traditional gender roles like the above example and they start foaming at the mouth barking about how a woman doesn't have to do this or be that and that a woman should have all the same qualities that a man does.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

My point is you can always tell when a woman is a rabid feminist if you pull out a list of traditional gender roles like the above example and they start foaming at the mouth barking about how a woman doesn't have to do this or be that and that a woman should have all the same qualities that a man does.

That's a pretty good indicator. Luckily most of the (too few) WN women are traditionalists in that sense. They may not conform 100% to the above roles 100% of the time, however. I think being able to deviate, or step outside of those roles, when the need arises, is a valuable trait that is often overlooked. I don't want a simpleton as a spouse.

I honestly think the "reserved, submissive, speak only when spoken to" desire some men have is one of the reasons for "yellow fever". There is a percepion that asian women are this way. LOL, I laugh at those suckers every time I see them - they look miserable. In reality, asian women are some of the most viscious beasts on the planet.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

That's a pretty good indicator. Luckily most of the (too few) WN women are traditionalists in that sense. They may not conform 100% to the above roles 100% of the time, however. I think being able to deviate, or step outside of those roles, when the need arises, is a valuable trait that is often overlooked. I don't want a simpleton as a spouse.

I honestly think the "reserved, submissive, speak only when spoken to" desire some men have is one of the reasons for "yellow fever". There is a percepion that asian women are this way. LOL, I laugh at those suckers every time I see them - they look miserable. In reality, asian women are some of the most viscious beasts on the planet.

Yeah, the "quiet, submissive" Asian girl might have existed prior to WWII, but the Judeo-Westernization of culture has long since permeated even the farthest reaches of the Orient and the reality is that any Asian woman willing to dishonor herself by marrying outside of her own race is invariable a vicious, grasping, materialist who is looking to exploit whatever man she can dupe into making her husband.