Vanguard News Network

This is scary material Socrates.
My first thought after recovering from the shock of reading these articles, was: is this tendency of (increased) sexual confusion prevalent in other cultures as well? My guess is we are talking about an exclusively western, post-WW2, post-counterculture revolution epidemic pathology here.
Notice how frequent the lemming commenters on the article invoke the social-liberal panacea of “support”. These homosexual, or nondescript “parents” would be supportive of just about anything short of the survival and health of their own race.
25-50% of the white race are in my estimation lost causes. Sterilize the sorry lot. Our child mortality is too low. Eugenics is the only answer.

In 1970, a creature who called itself Charle Pierce spoke at Fresno State. Dressed like a woman, after a long introduction, it confessed it was a man and a former track star. Lots of jaw dropping by normal kids raised in farm country but many fancied themselves urbane and sophisticated and stood and applauded.

A Hippopotamus named “Diane.”

Curt Maynard | November 07, 2006

Imagine this – seriously, close your eyes and imagine the following. Your at work and the boss introduces you to a new employee named Jeff. The odd thing is, the boss introduces Jeff to you as a Hippopotamus, and acts as if there isn’t anything even slightly unusual about this introduction. Jeff smiles and tells you that he’s happy to meet you and invites you over to dinner to meet his bull [Male Hippopotamus] and his calves [baby Hippopotamuses].

How would you respond? Seriously, how would you respond, would you think Jeff and the boss absolutely insane? Would you really? Here you have a man that introduces another man to you as a Hippopotamus – he does so as if there isn’t anything slightly unusual about this arrangement, in fact, he insists that you refer to Jeff as a Hippopotamus and if you don’t, he’ll view you as intolerant and will probably fire you. Jeff himself indicates that if you don’t refer to him as a Hippopotamus it’ll hurt his feelings – after all he fervently believes he’s an aquatic mammal. But it doesn’t end there, imagine too that Jeff and the boss expect you to refer to Jeff as a Hippopotamus even in Jeff’s absence, when he isn’t present – they expect you to refer to him as a Hippo when speaking about him with your co-workers. Sound strange? Not really.

Many fools embrace this insanity on a daily basis and don’t think for a moment that employers aren’t involved also – in fact they are the primary cause of the problem. If a “transsexual” works with you, you can bet your last dollar that above mentioned insanity is practiced at your workplace. A human born a male cannot ever become a female – it is just as impossible as a man “becoming” a Hippopotamus period! A human being born without a womb, without fallopian tubes and ovaries is a male. A human being born with a penis and testicles is a male. You can do whatever you like, you can mutilate the human body in any manner you choose, you cannot “give” a man a womb, and ovaries anymore than you can “give” a woman a working penis and testicles.

What I am saying here is simple – if you work with a transsexual and refer to him as a her or he as a she, or refer to her as a him or she as a he, you aren’t hip, you aren’t cool, you aren’t “tolerant,“ you are mentally ill. There is no difference whatsoever in referring to a man as a woman or referring to a human being as a Hippopotamus – none whatsoever!

I had the opportunity to work with such a person a couple of years ago, when I was first introduced to “Diane,” I thought my employer had made a mistake concerning his name, because the man was so obviously male that it would have been impossible, or so I thought, to believe otherwise. The only thing “feminine” about “Diane,” was the relatively generous amount of breast tissue he sported, something not altogether unusual in some males, especially in this day and age – other than that he looked about as female as Clint Eastwood.

As time went by, I mentioned “Diane” [I only refer to him as Diane, because I never learned his real name] to some of my co-workers and to my chagrin, complete disgust would be a more apt term, I discovered that more than 90% of them believed him to be a woman. At first I couldn’t believe it, I thought they were just “playing” the “tolerance.” game, but sure enough, the fools actually believed that “Diane,” was a woman. I asked them to explain his adams apple, I asked them to explain his five o’clock shadow, I asked them to explain how the hell they could ever believe that a woman could be so damned ugly in a masculine kind of way. I questioned their sanity. They were incensed, they couldn’t believe that I could be so insensitive as to refer to “Diane,” as a male, even is he, err I mean she is a male, what difference does it make, doesn’t he have the right to be who he wants to believe, blah, blah, blah. NO! “Diane” does not have the right to be who he wants to be if I am expected to play along – “Diane,” can go home and play a Hippopotamus for all I care, but I will not play a role in this insane charade, he, nor my employer has a right to expect me to engage in their delusional beliefs either – if they choose to embrace absolute insanity that’s their business, but I will not go along – I AM NOT CRAZY!

Wake up America, you are being lied to.

“In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined.”

A related point to this comment, made above, is that the word “peasant” is clearly a Jewish word for us dating back to the urban Jews and the rural Slavs in Ukraine, the rural French in France, and the rural English in England. Using “peasant” is almost always evidence of unexamined Jewish training in social science, history, or political science, or actual Jewish hidden insult motives.

It is always a derogatory term, established to set a social distance between the speaker (usually a Jew) and the indigenous peoples of an area, otherwise known as the host society.

For further proof that “peasant” is an imposed label, consider that you know no one at all who says, “Yes, that’s what I am. I’m a peasant.” And you’ve never seen a sign saying “Proud To Be Peasant” or “Peasant Pride.”

It’s just a kind of disgusting insult imposed by Jewish propagandists.

‘Gender’ is used not so much incorrectly as ideologically. Feminists and others use it in place of the correct term, sex, in order to carry off their charade that biological differences do not exist, and that all is a matter of social constructs, which can be changed.

As for homoism, it was normalized by psych ‘professionals’ back in the early 70s in America. Before then, it was treated as a disorder in their manual.

Just another of the great, negative changes that occurred in the White west in the second half of the century, mostly between 1960-1975. Country after country made exactly the same changes at exactly the same time, which reflects the interests of a certain party, and I think we know who that is. Only a globally organized, coordinated party could have pulled off these various capers (civil rights, feminism, muddy immigration, anti-gunism, normalizing homoism). It would have to be a party with near complete political and media control. Which group qualifies? Amish? No, nice guess. They’re not into tv so much.

Thoughtcrime shows something interesting. His thoughts are very modern. For most of our history the majority of people worked from home, male and female. We remember the mom and pop stores, or on the farm, etc. It was with the advent of the industrial revolution that people in the main left home for work and yet were neither travelling merchants or itinerant workers.

This has caused troubles for Aryan society which will have to be dealt with in a way that fires both the spirit of the Aryan man and woman.