Majorityrights Central > Category: Neoliberalism

The polity is shaped towards our race-replacement by its own deep history of ideas but also, of course, by the history of events which are inextricably linked to those ideas.  The sum of them all constitutes an enormous bulwark against change, pressing us, as people interested in change, to the inevitable conclusion that any serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power must mean a revolution on no mean scale.  A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces.  Many, and quite possibly all of them, would have to be swept away, too.

I’ve made some rather slipshod efforts in the past to draw up a chart supplying some relational context to these forces.  This time, as part of the working up of a new article for PA’s site, I’ve tried to get everything in, including the elements aiming at control of the future of all humanity.  Doubtless, it’s always possible to keep expanding the range of entities, and I might have missed something important.  Anyway, if there is improvement to be made, do please say where.

Superchat question (52:40): “I wonder at what point we have to choose to either digest these people in our society, as the hippies were in the ‘70’s, or to understand that their culture and mores are indigestible and must be cast out of our society.”

Styx (53:01) “You mean the far leftists? Well, they’re already being…

Ramzpaul (53:38): “And your point about the hippies is good, because, I did a video about this (”Revolution Fatigue”), why you have to catch the momentum…I think the left, these radicals, they think they’re going to have a revolution like its 1917 Russia or its The French Revolution..or they think they’re in Weimar Germany and they’re fighting the Nazis. But see, that type of thing, there’s a lot of differences and you need to really make it happen pretty quick. Whereas I remember, I don’t remember, but I read about the late 60’s, early 70’s, there was like The Weather Underground, they thought they were going to topple the United States and have a revolution. But by the time that I got to university in 1981, they were already considered very dated…people who had that mindset were considered old.

DanielS:

Your understanding of “hippies” is idiotic. The Weather Underground were not hippies. The hippies were not Marxists in their essential motive; in fact, they were notoriously frustrating to Marxist revolutionaries. It matters, because the adversaries of Whites love to blame hippies; it is a way to blame White men as opposed to the culpability of liberal/Marxist programs spearheaded by Jewry; and because they wish to turn White right wing dolts against their own people, while burying an understanding of the profundity of the hippie motive for White men: a fundamental and profoundly important motive on behalf of White male Being / (Dasein/MidtDasein for White men especially) as opposed to their being considered so intrinsically valueless as to have to go to war in Vietnam, exploited for the custom, habit and tradition of their gender role as obligated to war - even in this case, where there was no clear and immanent danger to them and their people; where there could have been other means of dealing with Vietnam rather than conventional war).

A White ethnonational left would not be in “revolutionary” mode where the interests of our union - a union of our people - are being served by those in power. If they are not, i.e., if our interests are not served, then we would seek revolutionary transformation so that the union of our European peoples are secured. This is a big difference between a White ethnonational left and the Marxist, internationalist left. When our ethnonationalist union is secured, we are no longer in revolutionary, transformative mode, but are, rather, elaborative and self corrective.

Note that the hippie epoch lost all impetus once the Vietnam draft was over….

The grievance that caused “the hippie union” “to strike” against the powers and ways that be had been “settled.”

The Beatles, “Revolution” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw

Ramzpaul and Sytx are weird and annoying in their very insistence upon normalizing Jewish discourse.

_____________

For the sake of invoking a provocative perspective, I would like to momentarily change the pronoun in the anti-war song, “Walking in Space”, from “how dare THEY try to end this beauty, to how dare SHE try to end this beauty…

How dare she try, to end this beauty…

Right wing women who go along with the Jewish cover-up -

- ignoring the underlying motive of the hippies and wanting to blame them instead for having created “our problems”, suggesting that men should man-up in universal maturity, rather than manning-up to create group boundaries (e.g., by unionization process), or manning-up where our people’s boundaries are violated (as opposed to the other side of the world, in Vietnam, nowhere near our people’s boundaries, or where Jewish/Israeli boundaries are threatened)

- are particularly annoying…

I also interpose the pronoun change to suggest that this valuation of impervious confidence to the sacrifice of intellectual, critical apprehension of the power’s directives is a tendency in female predilection, and that the hippie movement was a (un-articulated intellectual/political) White male motive by balancing contrast to female valuation, e.g. of sheer confidence.

This also suggests a “foundational” reason as to why intrinsic value should be attributed to White males, for their perspective, as its predilections can, if anything, be better than female predilections; but in any event, provide a necessary systemic corrective in balancing the human ecology of European peoples.

Again, this momentary pronoun change is provocative. Of course women aren’t to blame for men getting sent to Vietnam to kill and die. However, traditional gender roles could have destructive consequences for men as well (second wave feminism kicking off in the 60’s as well), when hidebound, “foundationally” inflexible to the natural emergence and interactive development of White masculinity and its requirements (in praxis).

Related at Majorityrights:

A Conspiracy Theory of A Conspiracy Theory to Divert From White Male Dasein.

I watched this for the first time yesterday, and certain things in this conversation jumped out at me; though presented (((typically))) of course, in a taken for granted manner by the Weinsteins and Rubin as benign and wholly salutary, this discussion raised red flags for me regarding their positions and at certain points; and should also raise red flags for anybody who cares about European peoples.

As these are fairly clever men, presented as cutting edge academic authorities, this conversation is a good place to expose the deception, egregious bias and the kind of language games that put forth their agenda as taken for granted.

I’ll be adding remarks as time permits. Critical commentary is forthcoming and should add up pretty quickly.

The late W. Barnett Pearce, a communications scholar, was commemorated by colleagues and students in his passing with their reflections on his work as it influenced and inspired.

One student spoke of a eureka moment provided by a football team analogy that Barnett recommended as a way to look upon how people function together in a coordinated way as opposed to narcissistic, false comparisons that might prop-up dangerous hubris and instigate conflict for non-recognition, if not disrespect for the value, purpose and abilities, in fact, of necessary niche evolutionary differences.

By contrast to better and worse, equal or not-equal, or rendering false comparisons by trying to apply a singular comparative criteria among the people of a group or between groups on the whole, Barnett used the football team analogy to recommend to his student a qualitative way of looking upon group, systemic functioning.

Note, we’re talking about American football in this analogy:

You don’t say one of the offensive linemen positions, say a Left Guard or Right Tackle or a Center, is “not equal” to a Wide Receiver or Fullback. You don’t say that they are not as good, that the Wide Receiver or Half Back is better, the Quarterback is greater than his linemen (Tackles, Guards, Center, Tight End). Well, I guess you can say that, in that the Quarterback position might be harder to fill, but it is fundamentally a stupid comparison, particularly if it fails to recognize his dependence on the Offensive Line for his pass protection and to open up holes for an alternative running game.

Each position has a different set of procedures that is necessary to carry out if the Team is to function effectively, coordinated as a group systemic effort. And toward that end, each position has to be respected as necessary and performing an essential function to the system which is not to be dismissed if the group system is to function effectively.

The positions tend to require qualitatively different abilities, physiology and mentality, true, but they are all necessary if the team is to be a successful system.

Anyway, the analogy provides another resource, along the lines of the concept of commensurability and incommensurability of qualitative niche abilities in and between paradigms (groups), to help people coordinate our White Ethnonationalist efforts. ..as opposed to equality/non equality, false comparisons, hubris of across-the-board supremacism which may leave us vulnerable for lack of an effective “Offensive Line” or lack of respect for their function as such.

READ MORE...

To be as uninhibited as this woman is, giving completely graphic instructions and attitudinal coaching on how it can be perfectly ok, even in one night stands, to give blow jobs (the term ‘fellatio’ falls by the wayside as a fig-leaf of inhibition) provokes a questioning of her position and its power: Coming from a pretty White woman, this lack of inhibition, not especially qualified beyond whether the individuals involved are comfortable and have a sense of reciprocal fairness, provokes the question of whether this is irresponsible bullying of the social realm.

Commenting on Jen Scharf, ‘Church of Entropy’s most recent stream, I heard the interlocutors discussing morality in terms of objectivity, physics, products of ‘the mind’, a nihilism to be grappled with in sheer terms of power…

This is all very great nonsense. I noted that social interaction is the ground of morality - negotiated there as matter of practicality, as much to achieve cooperation for leveraged ease beyond brute struggle and conflict as anything.

Yes, we have to respect the somewhat arbitrary biological imperative behind sexual drives, individual boundaries and prerogatives.

However, taking the example of this woman, we must also observe that her beauty and resource did not come of a vacuum, but were born through the struggles of her parents, forebears, social systems and rule structures which facilitated their survival; evincing the resource and beauty which suggests her health.

That is to say, far more consideration and account should be requested, as she speaks and recommends her lack of inhibitions to the public, as to how she effects our social capital.

Sex is not merely a normal biological function, not merely a means to give pleasure and have fun with people that you think are cute.

While this kind of disinhibition can reveal a liberation of vital forces of certain parts of the system which may have been unduly constrained, it also conceals other ramifications of the sexual act - as it may play into narrow and short sighted confirmation of persons and politics that really don’t deserve it; while disconfirming others, whose virtues, perspective and the products of ther sublimation may deserve more respect.

Elsewhere, I have noted that a large part of what makes sex sexy is the tension between human dignity and the yielding to animal drive; and with that, a tension between human dignity and yielding to the brute interpay of dominance and submission ....a yielding or not, which evokes an integation and empathy of submission and dominance on the part of both genders.

And this tension which makes one ‘sexy’ will depend, at least for better Europeans, on maintaining the dignity of human concerns far sublimated from the sexual act.

Of course the sexual act is closely tied, especially for we Europeans, more evolved for ‘K’ strategy, with a concern that it is the long evolved means by which people, hopefully responsible people, come into the world by responsible consideration.

That is one reason why the more sensitive among us can be disturbed by what is to us the alien lack of inhibition that bespeaks the irresponsible momentary and episodic emphasis of ‘R’ strategy (as opposed to concern for levels of relationship and biological pattern), a conditioning, perhaps, of the pop psychology of Freud and Marcuse, that was born in indifference, if not downright antagonism to our social-biological systems. This lack of social inhibition is putting our systems and social capital at risk.

Make no mistake, so long as our people exist, we are, in an important sense, a part of a social and biological system. And if we are not a part of a system, then we do not exist as a people. Which isn’t true. We do exist. It is Noel Ignatiev who is dead - literally and figuratively.

This woman says that she considers it ok to give blow jobs in one night stands. She does seem to indicate that you should take precautions, but says that she does not use condoms, claims to just kind of know who she is giving blow jobs to. Inasmuch as that is true, her guess would have to be taking a lot of clues from the (social) context.

But does it ever occur to pomiscuous people that they might be taking something that rightfully belongs to a spouse?

J.F. Gariepy goes so far as to say that he has ‘made love’ (disgusting euphemism, if there ever was one) to thousands of women, and that he is doing a favor to their future husbands by getting these women excited about sex. Who is this fucking pig, this joker, kidding?

In the case of misegenators, does it occur to them that they might be taking or giving away something that rightfully belongs to a people - at least in predominant account to our/their pattern? Those who would choose to go with other people are ultimately free to leave (hopefully not having acted before sufficient accounts requested); they are not free to impose this prerogative and its consequences on the broad pattern of a people who are responsible to our/their kind.

I stand by an article that I wrote a few years ago, that one way to know if it is a good and appropriate person that you’re having sex with is whether or not you have to use a condom. You should know them well enough not to need one.

It is eminently reasonable to oppose the social resource of vast funds that have gone to pay for A.I..D.S. - a disease which can inhibit and ‘cure’ socially irresponsible behavior.

Here is your A.I.D.S. education: don’t conduct yourself like a pig and your chances of contracting A.I.D.S. are next to zero.

The basketball player, ‘Magic’ Johnson, contracted A.I.D.S. through unprotected sex in which he ‘tried to accommodate as many women as possible…some of them were unbelievable.’..

Then our social resource (of money) kept this scumbag alive. He should have died and it would be quite fine with me if the woman that he accommodated had died as well.

Going back to the young lady giving blow job advice, including for one night stands, if her episodic practices would have her giving this treasure and reward to the likes of Magic Johnson, it would be quite fine with me if she were to die as well.

Hateful? You bet its valid hate people bestowed with our social treasure, only to use it for our destruction. And if the sexual drive is a strong natural impulse aimed at the survival of our species, so is hatred of those who abuse it.