Majorityrights Central > Category: Psychology

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.

Specificatory Structures (are topoi to be shaped and crafted as collaborative, working hypotheses in praxis, finally leading to operational verifiabilty) as opposed to a universal model of “the mind” proposed to function like a car engine (talk about a “clunky idea” or not).

I was about to put up a video by The Golden One in which he expresses gratitude to the Dalai Lama for voicing his authoritative support of European ethnonationalims - “Europe belongs to the European peoples and immigrants should return and rebuild their countries.”

But then I hear him saying that “the Dalai Lama is a spiritual man and is not beholden to ‘social rules” which our elite try to brow beat us with….I realize they’re at it again, that I cannot just suck it up in sympathy for the bad Swedish election; as I did in posting his last video, in which The Golden One calls the enemies “leftists.” There are still retarded people playing opposite day with me behind the scenes -  encouraging misconceptions like “social rules” are Not somehow also a neutral analytic device (which of course they are) but singularly a tool of coercion for our enemies; whereas a rigorous adherence to “nature” without all that “sociology, communicolgical, White post modern stuff” will inevitably ensure our “rights” and “ethnonationalism.”

This is completely retarded and backwards. Nature doesn’t give us our rights, nature doesn’t give a shit about our rights and our ehtnonationalisms. We have rights because we are part of a community of people with relative group interests - in best unit, a union of discrete European ethnonations, in which we create and negotiate rights by consensus, not foolishly believing that we discover them in objective detachment.

As I have said before, The White Post Modern Project is a necessity in response to the ravages of Modernity and the inflexibility of Reactionary Traditionalism. ...and it (White Post Modernity) is particularly a necessity to hold up to the destruction of ethnonationalism that post modern conception is supposed to defend against, but rather destroys in YKW misrepresentation of the notions they’ve promoted as “post modernity.”

The project, including Heidegger’s, is not to make humans and society function like automatons, like a car engine, on an engineering and physics model - not in that model of “theoria” as Aristotle calls it, but to take our concerns even for the hard sciences, but especially for the social sciences into the realm of praxis - again, as Aristotle calls it - the social realm of people, where they have some agency, and are therefore not totally predictable; where we are biological creatures and mammals, evolved to care about important relationships to our survival and in optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction; where we are biological creatures and our actions have reflexive effects that cause changes in course in ourselves and others; where, as second order cybernetic creatures we can learn to learn. The project, including Heidegger’s (where on target and not too individualistic in his focus), The White Post Modern Project, is to take our thinking into praxis to correct the Cartesian detached and lineal, non-interactive notion of necessity - imperviously abetting, as it does, the phony and crooked disease of quantification to the point of false comparison, toxicity and runaway; typically by means of the Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement.

To correct the Cartesian error of modernity, we need Not a “model of the mind” as tightly connected as a Porsche car engine to the exclusion of all else (to defend ourselves against all that Jewish social stuff) ...no, what we need is a better understanding of the utility and integrity of Specificatory Structures to negotiate the participatory reality of Praxis. Specificatory Structures are basically partly or nearly finished working hypotheses as it were, that allow interlocutors to engage, shape, craft, correct and refine these hypotheses.

Remember, the ultimate aim of pragmatic philosophy is the rigor of operational verifiability. So, those with a penchant for engineering and scientific rigor should be satisfied; while being helped to Not promote the scientism and epistemic blunder of applying physics models (theoria) to creatura and social group concerns (praxis).

Nor does social constructionism (proper) and hermeneutics deny science, biological realty or race; it enhances and complements scientific inquiry, it does not discourage science: it may criticize bad science (“we are all Africans under the skin”) and bad applications of science - physics and brute animal models to humans and our world of praxis (“its all about competition, survival of the fittest, might makes right and nothing more”) - but it is not anti-science.

If GW or somebody comes up with specs, which generally track “the transit” of English and European (natural) social systems, well and good. What hermeneutics proper would do is not deny it, but refer back to it as need be in the course of operational verification.

What I am saying is true, of radical and deep priority for our European interests; but “opposite day” is still being played with me.

I will speculate as to why:

First is obvious - YKW know what I am saying is true, want to discourage it and direct Whites to join them as right wing reactionaries.

The second is right wingers - people who are lucky enough to be in position to take care of themselves, don’t feel need to care about the group as a whole - they sell our groups out.

There is a third and fourth category at work, also right wing reactionary. The Jesus freak contingent I’ve said enough about - if people can’t see the plain fact that Christianity is a Jewish trick, then how much time are you supposed to waste on them? Rather you have to defend against the worm they’d insist upon introducing. But among right wing reactionaries that are a problem for me are STEM people who are not penetrating enough philosophically to get beyond their STEM predilections - which, again, would have them perpetrate the epistemic blunder of applying theoria to praxis - which, rather, requires phronesis (practical judgement of the kind that the topoi of specificatory structures would guide). By contrast, the whole “Dark Enlightenment” crap is a psy-op set up by our (((enemies))) and advanced by operatives like Brett Stevens in order to misdirect and (((boondoggle))) STEM types.

These types are not only prone to this type of epistemic blunder, but have some enhanced confirmation bias as the harder matters that they’ve tended to look into are more stable and veifiable than the social world where Jewish rhetoric has wreaked havoc. Thus, their Cartesian anxiety is calmed somewhat by their concrete successes in engineering and business in boom times; say, during the Reagan/Thatcher objectivist sell-out years, in their reactionary quest for “foundations” in nature beyond human tampering.

Moreover, these sorts have had a big leg up in advancing the epistemic blunder in their predilection when coming into the Internet age - for obvious reasons - computer technology is a STEM field mostly about the tight, non-human, electric/mechanical connections of theoria. While those more sympathetic to a White take on social, communicological, post modern, hermeneutic resource have been late bringing it to the table.

All the while the YKW have been doing their number, taking the best ideas for social advocacy for themselves then distorting them, abusing them and weaponizing them against Whites - to where Whites react and play opposite day with me, as if I am the bad guy simply for using our words, terms and concepts properly in our interests; Whites have such heavy reactions to the negative, red cape associations they feel from these words that they react against the abused words and concepts; and in so doing rebel against their own interests, in what one cannot help but believe is a (((deliberate strategy.)))

“We can’t defend ‘racism’, people wouldn’t understand (that the term is fundamentally about social classification and ethnocentrism), so we have to argue against it (and weaken the call of social classification and ethnocentrism).” “We must be against Multiculturalism (and for global monoculturalism)”  ....“we must be against the Diversity industry (and for racial integration through Abrahamic/Noahide law, or ‘universal natural law’).”

“I only trust my own mind” ...“we need a science of the mind” ...well go ahead… maybe that is a good perspective for holding fast to inquiries into emergentism. I’m not stopping you, but we also need, need even more inquiries from the communications perspective - taking interaction as the unit of analysis, claiming the same turf as other disciplines when taking-on investigations: whether the group (sociology - most relevant, because races are groups); philosophy (inquiries into how to live and think about life); or biology and interacting ecosystems ...and alas, even psychology.

And so we’ve had a problem, as manifest acutely on Majorityrights, where the STEM people clamored here early. The site’s discourse model has been strictly Modernist - a free speech free-for-all with the errant notion that if you just keep allowing issues to be buffeted from all angles, eventually the foundational truth would be born again hard from this torturous alchemy.

Of course, that’s not what happens. Modernity is an insatiable charmed loop that has run rough shod over even our most precious resources, putting them at needless risk in the sheer objectivism of scentistic experimentalism; if something is not “new” it no longer merits reverence for the modernist thinker.

...and in come the trolls, the Jews, and Jew tools, like Haller and Thorn, whose backers know this and took advantage to sew misdirection in MR’s threads under the guise of “free speech” and inquiry into discovery of “the truth.”

The obnoxous “Uh”, who also displayed affinity, argued for the inclusion of the YKW and clearly does not take these matters of White advocacy most seriously, but wants a place to vent his spleen against those who had the nerve to go to college, so he can show how ‘smart’ he is… the fetish of MR in the modernist times has been ‘the one line zinger”, as Uh was so fond of…  Soren et. al are other STEM people into that as well…

Sublime engineering is the model…there is just that one little precise thing, said in perfect rigor which will either bring the whole edifice down or make it hum like the best car engine ever ...the streak of incisive brilliance like a sheen, gleaming like a “classic sparkle.”

... claims I ruined all this fun for him ....

But it stems rather from a misunderstanding of the Specificatory Structure and its aim - its aim is to provide social topoi for people to participate, shape, craft and refine ...indeed, in rigor, as required in the post modern circumstance, to reach Operational Verifiability - that is the end point of the process of pragmatic inquiry - so the STEM-heads should not object and are only displaying just how reactionary (or dishonest) they are when they object to the terms and concepts that I set out.

Brilliant though he is, indispensable ideas though he’s contributed, even Bowery was bewilderingly reactionary in this regard, acting like I was attacking science when I criticized the bad science and misapplication of science that is scientism. ...or that I was besmirching science when I set out the place and general errors of the empirical philosophers, Locke, Berkeley and Hume (I presumed that everyone knows that you are talking about them when criticizing “empirical philosophy”) in historical context of epochal bias. I knew we were in trouble when Bowery simply ignored what I said, angrily tried to prohibit me from criticizing Modernity, Cartesianism (the quest to separate mind from interaction, viz. interactive stasis, outer systemic homeostasis) and proposed to “reboot the enlightenment.”

But the fact is that we have to move beyond modernity to White Post Modernity if we are to save ourselves and not be a part of human ecological destruction.

It is for this reason that I will introduce an update - not removing the present “About” information for Majorityrights - but add the Post Modern fact that “Hello’, we have the Internet now,” you can interact and help to shape and craft our necessary knowledge. We are no longer beholden to the transmissions model of communication, in which we sat in front of televisions, or teachers, or preachers and were to receive the information as pure, sacrosanct, passive, no need for our input and correction….

What you are presented with at Majorityrights are specificatory structures - hypotheses well enough considered, with a likely trajectory to protect our interests as discreet European peoples; but we can always use help from honest people of good will, to shape, craft and verify our inquiries where not proposing inquiries anew.

Articles are not put up as if by Moses presenting the ten commandments; nor presented as if the author thinks, in hubris, that these are immutable, always perfect ideas and objects; as if we think this is something like a sublime car engine, when it really isn’t, and what is necessary is for you to humble us, mock, in ad hominum attack. No. These are specificatory structures presented with a good deal more humility and social respect - your interaction, your help in participating in the generation of knowledge production is most appreciated.

There is also a fifth unfortunate fact that we are up against a huge Irish/German demographic in America which, for reasons I’ve described, are prone to take the disposition that Hitler was simply right and needs to be redeemed - and there are White advocates of bad character, like David Duke, who will pander to that.

Because we are White Post Modern now, certain inquires are recognized as a distraction at best and all too often pernicious misdirection: Jewish participation; Christianity; Nazi redemption; obviously nutty conspiracy theories; and when we have time to explain with subtlety, scientism and other errors held over from the modernist apex.

And if someone, doesn’t like it - “wha! wha! I want ‘my’ Majoritrights back! - I want Jesus! I want Hitler! I want to kiss the ass of rigid Nordicism as opposed to ethnonationalism (which, among other European kinds, defends Nordics as such)! I want to trade ‘clever’ one line zingers with Uh!” - he can go grease up and get another tattoo on his neck.

The Dark Side of The Human Potential Movement: Transforming Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Map White Social Systemic Reconstruction as opposed to Aberration and Runaway.

The Dark Side of Human Potential Movement: Transforming Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Map White Social Systemic Reconstruction as opposed to Aberration and Social Systemic Runaway.

Part one The Dark Side of Self Actualization, Principium Individuationus and incommensurate Gender Agendas

Podcast 1: Hippies and Feminists, expressing a diachronic of incommensurate gender agendas of self actualization.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Motives as a model of the American dream, exacerbating its propensity to disregard and rupture social classificatory bounds, including rupture of national borders through a YKW weaponized notion of civil individual rights. 
 
This instigates modernity’s disordering effect against erstwhile social systemic homeostasis and therefore implicates its runaway, as gender lines become the predominant default classificatory organization; with White males disempowered by PC and females pandered-to from all directions, former bounds are continually ruptured: The one-up position of the female re-emerging with increased significance in the disorder, and pandered-to from all directions, she is more confirmed, thus secure, confident and articulate, but poignantly in weaponization by the YKW - the short term benefits of her one up gate-keeping position and its maintenance reinforced in its puerile inclination to incite arbitrary genetic competition - her mature social classificatory identification and its benefits ruptured in favor of her “nature”, i.e., her most base and racial anarchic form - which disrupts the more protracted and sublimating means of White individuation and socialization.

Thesis: Maslow’s Hierarchy has not only exacerbated flaws in the sheer teleological model of Aristotle’s notion of self actualization upon which it is based; but occupies a pivotal model of American and therefore White “Western” self maximizing individualism to the expense of White social group homeostasis.

The question then becomes a matter of re-tooling the parameters and constituents of need and incentivization to where more accurate topoi are provided - i.e., of sustainable social system parameters, the maintenance of which is recognized as integral to the motivational scheme, and in fact necessary to facilitate and retain the best and most important incentives of “self actualization” - the constituents of which are entirely natural and appealing to White people of both genders; and potentially manageable in fairness with proper arrangement of topoi. 

Based on Aristotle, Self Actualization isn’t merely the “garden style pop cultural notion”, it is very much in our western tradition and ways; it needs a more authentic re-tooling from Maslow’ - certainly -  but even from the teleological, indvidualistically formal tradition that spawned the Cartesian separation which has left us susceptible to so many social problems.

Coming into consciousness in the 60’s as I did, I felt the discrepancies between the Feminist agenda and the Hippie agenda, which unfolded from my rudimentary charting as I followed Heidegger’s hermeneutic advice to find one’s existential perspective in historical / autobiographical contexting - the crisis of feminism of the 70’s having buried the more fundamental agenda of the hippies for male Being,, buried after concessions for the Vietnam war draft were no longer necessary, but a crisis which remained nevertheless, masked… a crisis that remains, which only goes to show how difficult its going to be to anchor White social systemic homeostasis in an intrinsic valuation of White male being - flying in the face of the charmed loop of didactic incitement to traditional male stereotype, being vulnerable as a concept as it would stand-up to manipulation and machination of our enemies; and crass feminism; being hard to articulate as an organic motive in its subtlety - and yet, if you think not wanting to be drafted to go and die in Vietnam isn’t an organic motivation, but some kind of top down directive strictly from the Jewish SDS or that hippies were the expression of some kind of conspiracy theory of the military industrial complex to turn people off to the anti war movement, you’re nuts.

But once the Vietnam war was over, antagonism to White male being was moving into high gear, not only from feminists - but poignantly so: what could be more painful than to be antagonized and hated by people you are born to love.

READ MORE...

Counter-Currents, “Who’s Doing the Raping? - Aedon Cassiel

A meme circulating around social media after the revelations of Harvey Weinstein’s behavior said, “If you’re a man, don’t say anything to a woman that you wouldn’t want a man saying to you in prison.”

       
        Virulent bracket (((David Mamet))) scripts White male abuse of power; and
        narrates their ‘come-uppance’ from Oleana (1994, above) to Edmund (2005, below)

Ibid:

The fact remains that blacks continually and almost exclusively rape whites in prison. The evidence is based on studies conducted over the last 40 years (Davis 1968; Nacci 1978; Lookwood 1980; Starchild 1990). Why does this white victim preference prevail? Whites continue to be raped more severely and frequently and at a disproportionate rate than any other racial or ethnic group (in Gones 1967; Bowker 1980; Lookwood 1980). This racial inequality may be the largest in any violent crime committed in the United States. . . . Even if the minority of prisoners are black, the minority of victims are white (Sacco 1982, p. 91). When Lookwood (1980, p. 28) asked ‘targets’ to identify their aggressors at the time of their rape, most were black (80%), some were Hispanic (14%), and a few were white (6%). . . . Although many causation factors have been suggested for prison rape, they are all overshadowed by the racial categories of the victims and the rapists. Prison rape has been shown throughout this study to be racially motivated by predominantly black inmates specifically against white inmates who in turn are the victims. . . . racial hatred of whites by blacks appears to be the main force driving prison rape.

To put specific numbers on this, the report notes that studies consistently find that more than 90% of prison rapes are inter-racial and racially motivated. Blacks are found to be some 80% of the perpetrators, and whites are the vast majority of victims. Again, this is easily accessible in a peer-reviewed report published at a mainstream outlet. (So how are desegregated prisons working out for us now, huh?)

Can you connect the dots now? THIS is what political correctness means. “Political correctness” doesn’t mean making everyone use polite wording and asking people not to be mean. “Political correctness” means that because we won’t openly acknowledge the reality of the problem, white men raped by black men are literally one of the largest—and very possibly even the largest—category of sexual assault in the entirety of the whole United States, and you’ve been so ill-informed about this fact that I would sound like an alien if I were to say so in public, even though it is absolutely true.

Let me repeat that one more time so it sinks in: One of, and possibly the single largest demographic category of rape in the United States is the rape of white men by black men.

        Related: David Mamet’s Fraud Conservatism

READ MORE...

Quoting Gary Anderson, who wrote to MR: “There are many Jews that hate Zionism. The fact that you fail to report that makes you a racist. You probably are a Zionist because you undermine the antiZionist movement with your racist filth.”

I’m fully aware that there are many Jews who hate Zionism. Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon are well known examples among WN circles. I never duck that fact and do not need to. Nor am I a Zionist, as you conjecture. Nevertheless, whether Jews are anti-Zionist or Zionist, I do not consider them a part of our advocacy group, but as a different people from Europeans and more or less antagonistic to us - much more antagonistic for the most part, while the rest are a part of the pattern nevertheless and cannot be trusted. I do not hesitate to categorize them as such for three very fundamental reasons to begin A) They are the most ethnocentric people in the world overall, including non-Zionist members - whose ouliers tend to be liberal at best (not something Europeans need more of). Jews look after themselves while prescribing liberalism to others - Europeans by contrast, are not very ethnocentric, not good at looking after their group interests; and thus need to discriminate against Jews especially; because Jewish identity, negative though Jewish identity is for Whites, is not very clearly distinguishable to Whites, as being different from Whites, but tends rather to be hidden in crypsis - the natural “camouflage”, viz., appearance of being White - Jewish identity thus needs in particular to be distinguished and separated from. This crypsis is a part of their systemic process, wherein their liberal elements serve a function of mixing with (in this case Whites) to weaken any coherence and potential antagonism that might be directed at Jews from White groups. B) Jewish antagonism and destruction of Whites is easily documented; along with its stemming from disproportionate Jewish influence from seven power niches: 1) Religion 2) Money and Finance 3) Academia 4) Media 5) Politics 6) Law and Courts 7) Business, Investment and Industry - and with all of this, US Military (and other military) as well. C) I am a separatist, not a supremacist looking to exploit or kill them. Therefore, even if I achieve my goal of separatism, I have not pronounced a death sentence in naming Jews as an outside group. If I am mistaken about something that I attribute to them, it is not irrevocable and can be corrected.

I am not “racist filth” but there is something very wrong with you that you would try to deny the most elemental function of biological nature, to discriminate for the purpose of survival of one’s self and one’s kind - and to identify and classify kinds not only for defensive purposes, but for the purpose of human ecology, accountability to that and legacy of human capital. By contrast, your prohibition of discrimination and said accountability is a prescription for the exploitation of that human capital and of genocide. That is evil. You are the one prescribing the filthy thing that would destroy people. Shame on you Gary Anderson (Ramirez).

Any truly serious philosophical project, especially an “ontology” project, is going to take into account the phenomenon of homeostasis - the striving of biological systems to maintain an optimal balance of function and equilibrium of themselves and in relation to their environment, social and otherwise.

I have hypothesized that there is something of a mechanistic tension which facilitates “sexiness” of sex for people: that being the tension between brute expression of power, viz., dominance/ submission and the large requirement to submit to that animal drive - compelling sexual enactment in both genders on the one hand - a compulsion which is in further tension of maintaining human dignity, orientation and agency by contrast. There are different stories to tell about sex, but this one, I further hypothesize, helps facilitate additionally the option of a sacral attitude toward sex - because sex is fairly sexy of itself, if the match is appropriate, it can be with a relative minimum of competition and experimentation; i.e., an attitude treating monogamy as serious and a possible option for those more attuned and satisfied with “appropriateness”, if not exacting appropriateness and a strong commitment to cooperation on its basis - including turning attention to other matters in life - this in balancing contrast to preoccupation with “betterment” through “better” partners. This option will serve as an aid to systemic homeostasis (incl. “EGI”); as this conscious option would serve to liberate practitioners and the pattern from scientististic facticity; and with it, the liberal cynicism that can otherwise recklessly expend social capital bequeathed of ethnocentrism, the morale and integrity of the system; its diminished incentive to remain loyal and fight for it against opportunistic outsiders seizing upon the vulnerabilities of our sheer, unaccountable liberalism. 

Naturally, the Abrahamic religions have been adept at exploiting this void, presenting a pretense of sacrament and conservatism, when really Abrahamism has aided and abetted feudalistic compradores in the East and our hyperbolic liberal predicament in the West to begin with - cucking by Jewish interests, as they now like to say - a most cynical of Trojan horse, an affectation where adopted by Europeans and Asians, disingenuously imposing the Abrahamic agenda of universal dissolution of ethnonational patterns; expropriation of our genetics and resource; destruction upon non-compliance.

To hold up to Abrahamic imposition, the biopower of foreigners imposed under rubric of objectivism, other antagonisms, including our own people’s betrayal through cynicism and dissolution through moral weakness, it is necessary that the sacred be identified of our pattern; but that sufficient liberalism within our paradigms also be maintained as important to maintain, to complement that option; and thus provide a full, healthy contrast to the Abrahamics, the liberals, the scientistic and the brutes.

Helen Mirren as Caesonia in “Caligula”, 1979

Why all the fuss, you say, won’t nature take care of these things without social props? Well, sparing intricate examples and going right to the example of the feral child unable to acquire language after a point neglected, the answer is obviously not necessarily. And if we come back to acknowledge some criteria, and it is not a hermeneutically anchored quest for human ecology and reserving some reverence in assured commitment for time in memorial patterns, but falls into a scientistic cast of sheer Darwinistic competition, it becomes a headlong quest for what is “better” or “best”, and then criteria for evaluation becomes a whole lot less clear, less accountable, more subjective than the matter of what might be appropriate. Isn’t it natural to want better and more partners, you ask? Yes, and it is also natural for some to want monogamy. People are welcome to be non-monogamous in our societies and to try for better than what they actually bring to the equation - provided they are accountable to acceptable quantity and quality of the pattern - including boundaries and borders thereof; if they choose to go beyond that they must go to their new chosen people, to their lands and their borders; and not burden us with their choice, not impose upon us un-agreed-upon foreign children and adults - as to do so is equivalent to attempted supremaicism and slavery over us; as others have said before, a motion to take away our freedom; and we have the right to reject that. 

As opposed to the scientistic inclination to try to propose the unaccountable “this is the way it is” regarding sex and other matters, this is a hermeneutic approach, making use of the expanse of narrative purview to increase the autonomy and authenticity of our individual and human ecological system’s coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

All that is reiteration of things I that have said before - though worth repeating, as often as need be, as these matters are that important - and, as I have also said before, these are topoi of means to maintain the integrity of our system against Abrahamic imposition.

However, I would like to highlight here in particular the importance of this way of treating sex as a means to hold up against the sexual psy-ops of our enemies, whether imposed by Abrahamic interests against ours or by liberals who take the modernist, liberal argument in the name of “nature”, that would deny respect or even the possibility for monogamy and fidelity to one’s ethnic group; would try to psych us out and condition us to accept our pattern’s demise, with us supposedly having no recourse - the idea that “nature is impervious to human agency” and by contrast, “reconsruction of a people can only be backwards, superstitious tradition.”

Helen Mirren, the gatekeeper

Coming back to another hypothesis of mine then, that all other factors being equal, the more modern and individualistic a society, the more females are “one-up” in partner selection (ovaries are expensive, sperm is cheap); as group patterns become disrupted by atomizing individualism, so increases her capacity to be “a bully” in the realm of sex. Don’t like it? She’ll call in other men who will pander to her in what is very much “her market.” And her most base tendency to incite genetic competition will be exacerbated as well as she will be solicited and pandered-to not only by men from her in-group trying to prove their strength and liberalness to hold up to universal maturity; she will thus have increased opportunity to act on her inclination to incite genetic competition with outgroups and other races as well.

This is a very powerful position for females - even if primarily as gatekeepers to the most powerful, they can exercise vast prerogative with great confidence and verbosity; even when they are too young to really know what they are talking about and to make a just decision. Motives and incentives to maintain this liberal situation abound and as a result, some percentage of them will flaunt their sexual prerogative to the point of sadistic bullying. It is the unmentioned other side of the old double standard - yes, women are expected to be more chaste, because they can, in an unsporting, bullying way, be very promiscuous. Whereas a man will generally be ostracized as a horrible bully if he uses his physical strength to abuse a woman: a double standard, but having reason.

Along comes liberal and Jewish feminism and none of the downsides to the traditional male situation are recognized, only those who are on top. It is assumed that all of them are there as a result of differentiation of fulfillment on basic Maslowian need levels or that they are there for sheer reserved, albeit often unmerited privilege. None of the traditional advantages to women, i.e., the general occupation of the secure, in between levels on Maslow’s hierarchy are recognized; and there is no recognition of an increasing majority of men who are squeezed to the bottom - who are not operating out of differentiation of fulfillment but sublimation of deprivation; nevertheless, their male desperation does impact other levels - notably female security, as the resentment of these males and their sociopathic influence on the top governance of society is overcompensating, without full capacity to exercise power on top levels - they become sociopaths, sellouts or join the ranks of the incompetent men in power, who are there warming a position reserved for them. So, there are three kinds of men on top traditionally: The overcompensating desperado, the the guy who’s there because traditional society figured a quota of men were owed this spot; and another kind, the truly deserving, who made it through the school of hard knocks.

READ MORE...

What is this?

Donald Trump’s increasingly roulette-like to-do list has now delivered up the latest ‘event’. Donald Trump will be addressing the US Congress today on Wednesday 0200 UTC (Tuesday 2100 EST). This is not a ‘State of Union Address’, because as a new president it is not expected that Donald Trump would yet know what the status of the United States is. For this reason it is customary that although a US President can call for a ‘State of the Union’ address at any time he wants, no president other than Dwight D. Eisenhower has ever called such an address in his first year.

As such, Trump’s address to the US Congress today should be understood as being an address, but not a ‘State of the Union’ address.

What should you look for?

When he addresses lawmakers from the Senate and the House, Trump will likely talk about tax cuts, and tax reform, regulatory adjustments, his plans for job creation, the construction of the border wall with Mexico, the abolition of the Affordable Care Act, and other issues, if White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer is to be believed. Spicer also added that the supposed theme of the address is going to be “the renewal of the American spirit.”

I can’t wait to see the kind of vacuous nonsensical stream-of-conscious word-salad which will be deployed across the lectern in search of a meaning, once Trump actually starts ad-libbing in the middle of his own speech as he so often tends to do.

In terms of the substance of his speech, I’m expecting that it will be in the combined tradition of Madison Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower – which is to say, a crybully session in which people will be entreated to ‘discover’ that all of the problems of White and Jewish Americans and Israeli Jews, all the problems that they have, are somehow to be blamed on Asians and Mexicans.

Aside from that, I think there should be a short list of things to watch for in this speech.

1. Which pledges does he remember to mention, and which does he quietly drop?

The White House has said that the first half of the president’s speech should focus on his campaign promises, and which ones he has been able to honour so far. I’d suggest that you should keep on hand – which is to say, keep in right in your hand on your tablet – the Washington Post’s tracker of the 60 key promises which Trump made to his constituents. By looking at what makes it into the speech and what does not, you might be able to discern what his emphasis is, or perhaps promises he’s demoted to a lesser priority or even abandoned.

2. Does he appear under pressure and agitated, or is he calm and confident?

Donald Trump is strongly influenced by Norman Vincent Peale, and a key to understanding his psychology is to understand Peale. If you don’t already know of that horrendous individual, I’m sad to say that you won’t have the time to get all briefed up on it before the speech airs, because it’s a whole tangled mess of nonsense which takes at least six hours to get familiar with.

What to watch for is his facial expression in tandem with his ‘off script’ moments, since the key to understanding his ‘off script’ moments is that they are spoken to himself and not to the audience. The audience can either choose to opt in or not, but his little utterances like “so true”, and “we are going to win bigly”, are as much for his own autohypnotic benefit as they are for providing a repetitive touchstone for his audience to engage in the same autohypnotic self-reassurance.

Another pattern that is clearly observable is Trump’s willingness to transform personal disputes into grand narratives which are then inserted ad-lib into his speeches. Anyone or anything that he chooses to go off script to mention for criticism, is going to be something that he is actually worried about in some way.

US Presidents also often tend to use opportunities when addressing the US Congress to define and signal against state or non-state actors that they view as adversaries. The time is generally not used to define or confront domestic political targets. Yet it it likely that he will do so.

The thing therefore to watch for, is whether he gets pre-occupied on targeting domestic political targets and ends up constraining or limiting the time he spends describing or explaining his foreign policy stances. The ratio of time spent will tell us perhaps not a lot about the direction of the whole administration, but it will tell us more about where Trump’s mind as ‘Commander in Chief’ is most focussed.

3. Law and Order?

His attitude toward his own constituents will be most perceived through the stances he takes on law and order issues, which form a large part of why his supporters backed him during the electoral campaign. The question is whether he will dignify them with adult explanations of the challenges that lie ahead, or whether he will stick with the sloganeering he has used so far.

A big signal to watch for is if he devotes this time to attacking ‘the press’ in sweeping generalised terms. If he does this, it should be interpreted as a sign that he is still in campaign mode, and that in fact, he may be planning to keep doing that because he is already looking toward the election campaign of 2020.

Expect the topics – if he chooses to treat the audience as adults – to be ranging among counter-terrorism, his Muslim countries immigration ban which curiously omits Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates and which he is planning to reintroduce with new wording, his attempts to deport undocumented Mexican migrants, the border wall, increased military spending or an end to the sequester, supporting the ‘blue lives matter’ phenomenon, and so on.

4. Addressing divisions?

Will he try to placate the demographic groups who are opposed to his presidency? Or will he ignore them?

Crucially, watch for him to try to reach out to African-Americans. There is a real chance that he will do that, because that is a ‘safe’ move. African-Americans are the most disorganised and least politically coherent group in the United States and it would be seen as a ‘great PR’ move which he would be able to execute at no actual political cost to himself.

He’d simply be getting criticism from the Alt-Right for it, a demographic group which he knows will support him no matter how much he spits on their faces, because they made memes for him and campaigned for him for free. They did it for free.

More crucially, it will be instructive to watch for how Donald Trump will address the accusations that he has not deterred supposed ‘anti-Semitic’ behaviour among his supporters. Trump may take this opportunity to respond by once again putting the Alt-Right under the bus, a move which again will come at no cost to himself, because the Alt-Right will still continue to support him after he does that.

Watch Twitter if you begin to see this happening during the speech, and you might even be able to see the Alt-Right live-Tweeting its own shameful cuckholdry. You could also look at the live thread on Daily Stormer to see the same cuck phenomenon take place.

I’m not saying it’s guaranteed to happen. I’m just saying it’s very likely to happen. There are a lot of variables in play.

5. Nonsensical Anglo-Saxon outreach?

Trump may try to make some kind of absurd outreach to Britain by trying to once again make a verbal connection between the social phenomenon which got him elected in the United States, and the phenomena which led to ‘Vote Leave’ being the outcome in the EU referendum in Britain in 2016.

If he makes this outreach, it should be interpreted as a sign of his weakness, as it would be a signal that he feels that he need to lean on the existence of a non-existent ‘club’.

Brexit, which gave rise to #GlobalBritain, is economically the complete and total opposite of #MAGA, and that is the most important sphere of reality which decides almost everything. Any attempt to link the two is really just an attempt of the latter to grasp the coattails of the former.

They share nothing.

6. Paul Ryan’s face and hands?

It should be possible to watch Paul Ryan’s reactions in order to gauge to some extent how far – if at all – Trump strays ‘off script’, as the Speaker of the House has vacillated between sometimes voicing support for the President, sometimes openly disagreeing with him, and occasionally taking the position of refusing to comment when asked about the content of Trump’s tweets.

Any adverse expressions on his face – a face which he will of course be trying to keep as stony and placid as possible throughout the speech if he can possibly do so – and any moments at which he pointedly refuses to clap when the cue comes for him to clap, could be indicative of a serious split between the Republicans in Congress and the White House, or indicative that Trump has simply dived off script in a dramatic way.

Keep in mind that ‘Trump off script’, can also mean ‘Trump actually mouthing neoreactionary things that Steve Bannon gleaned from Curtis Yarvin and then mouthed into Trump’s ear at the last minute before the speech’.

7. Length of the speech?

White House sources indicate that they expect the speech to last between 65 and 80 minutes. If it ends up being significantly shorter or significantly longer than that, then it would signal that something unexpected has happened, and it’ll be up to observers to assess what precisely that was.