Boudica: not a mere female, a woman - her view on systemic bounds

As Opposed to Universal Maturity

Part two of the Dark Side of Self Actualization and Incommensurate Gender Agendas

In a recent podcast with Dr. Colin Ross, the Red Ice Network is spinning the typically right-wing, hair-brained and shallow conspiracy angle that there was a big cover up of CIA conducted LSD experiments to brainwash youth of the sixties into counter-culture and to introduce cultural Marxism. It is indeed true that there were experiments in manipulation and efforts of that kind by Jews, Marxists and right-wingers as well, to harness, co-opt and re-direct youthful energy and rebellion of the time. But when you try to say that there was nothing to rebel against and that there was no authentic organic motive, that it was all manipulation, then look in the mirror at who may be an unwitting tool and dupe of the powers that be.

The true big cover-up was of the radical opposition to militarism as a fixed tradition which rendered men expendable whether their genetic boundaries were threatened or not, for the mere custom, habit and tradition of war. That mere tradition is opposed by the proposal that White men ought to be looked upon as having intrinsic value. The absurdity of the Vietnam draft brought home the mereness of military tradition in its custom and habit of treating men, White men as well, as expendable to fight in wars even where their systemic genetic bounds were not threatened; and that was something that authentic motive would rebel against indeed. That is the important matter being covered-up because Jews, Right-wingers, feminists And traditional females (i.e., the puerile among), share a common interest in being averse to the idea of White male midtdasein for its challenge to the undue power of their positions. In a word, the attempted invocation of midtdasein - being amidst social classification – was an incipient White racism - by “racism” I mean benign classificatory bounds and discrimination thereupon that challenged the liberalism that served these groups (needless to say what blacks and other non-Whites might think of White male being).

You may ask, what’s wrong with traditional women? There is nothing wrong with traditional or modern women, as females socialized into our racial classification. Even so, there is a whole lot of talk among White traditionalists that modernized females, feminists in particular, are the problem. However, as opposed to a traditional woman socialized into the White class, traditional females are bereft the delimitation of racial classification and are going only by the criteria of “masculine and feminine.” They will therefore be a problem as well. Operating as we are in the context of Enlightenment tradition, with tendency to universalize maturity, if some non-White male is powerful, big, strong, has money, well then, he is, by tradition of gender relations, a good mating partner - seizing opportunity before a White man has actualized his maturity and resource to appeal to and provide for his appropriate co-evolutionary partner.  Thus, tradition alone is not enough. We need to invoke our racial bounds through a post-modern management of the modern and traditional concerns of both genders - recognizing the critical value of midtdasein for White males - the intrinsic value of their being, their life amidst their human, racial ecology. In that regard, traditional females can be just as unsympathetic as feminists, right-wingers, Jews and other non-Whites.

These groups will quickly adopt distractions from that, try to spin this as communism, or those who fail to understand how perfect Hitler was in every way, anti-nature, misogyny, a war against traditionalists, anything but what might grant White male being. Theirs is a war to deny the intrinsic value of White men and make him expendable once again; while keeping pigs in power, turning what White men that do survive into techno-slaves to make life convenient for Jews, Mulattoes and their White concubines.

You may ask, what about traditional (read, right wing) males? Here again, our tradition of “objectivity” regarding gender relations is liable to outstrip systemic management and the relative interests of those of ours who are less than ideal at this moment in process. As alphas, they will tend, rather, to push them outside of the unionized class.

Let them not divide and conquer they say, as if we do not want to be divided from blacks. Oh, “they are not so bad”, she said.

Here she may engage what is to her a “sacred ministry of betrayal.” Enacted so that “you will never do anything to me more hateful than I have already done to you.”
                                                                                        - Simone de Beauvoir

For them our midtdasein is as if cow-herding, or goyim herding, as it were, to breed White females for them to supply and placate Negroes.
….............
But let us have instead the sacred oath of loyalty to the White Class, where we may manage the best of modernity and tradition in our systemic maintenance.

When a male/man has midtdasein, he knows his boundaries have agreed-upon respect from his people, he has understanding and incentive from whence to fight of his own accord, particularly when mature enough. We might ostracize and punish disloyalty – disenfranchisement from the nation.

We finished up last time by observing that a concept of male being, or midtdasein, is contingent upon maintenance of the class bounds. The bounds are calibrations invoked by feedback from immature and marginals, accounted with those of mature socialization into the full historical system (of Europeans, as per our concern). It isn’t just puerile female incitement to genetic competition that is compounded and run amuck by the rupture of social classifications’ prohibition. With ensuing disorder and exponentially increased pandering to her position, a deeper genetic survival mechanism rears its ugly atavistic head still more high: her propensity to get-off on acquiescing to the winner, even if the winner is an antagonist to her co- evolutionary system. This mechanism is afforded more opportunity for its spiteful expression without systemic correction. With the array of choices good and bad, her incentive to maintain the powerful one-up gate-keeping role of her liberal bias against social discriminatory classifications, markedly “anti-racism”, would only be reinforced in its natural inclination.

Some may initially object to my use of the word “female” and that I am being rather negative. To that I respond that I use the word “female” and direct the negativity of critique there, while reserving Woman as an honorary term for mature European women, for a very central reason to this treatment…

Indeed, we would be too harsh if we did not take under consideration straight-away that in occupying this ultra-solicited position within the disorder of modernity, it can be harder to be a female, as there will tend to be more and happier opportunities to make mistakes in violation of the morality of traditional relations.

Correct though Roger Devlin is to mark the significance and importance of marriage to counteract hypergamy, it is like a better berth on a sinking ship absent correction of the deeper issue - the reconstruction of our socialization and its requisite social classificatory bounds; marked, recognized and enforced as a calibration by a relation of the White mature in feedback with White puerile and marginals - to maintain social systemic classificatory bounds in counter-pose to universal maturity..

Correct as it is and in agreement with what I have been saying for years, viz. that males need a safe platform of their own from which to defend themselves and critique negative predilections of females (Anglin hypocritically says “it is not fair to blame women”, then he says “they should shut-up and stay in the home.” Good god, we should rather not add to the torrents of abuse, blame and incitement that White males already sustain and rather give them a brake, especially where they have sense enough to organize in their defense in light of how totally fucked-up that liberal, let alone miscegenating, females are); fair enough too though it is for there to be community options to advocate a strict re-ordering of traditional gender roles with men as leaders and women as supporters; the deeper issue is still the working hypothesis of our systemic class boundaries to ensconce evolutionary and life span processes which extend beyond episode and into our social capital.

An ontology project would observe and take into account shared understanding of how the evolution of our European human ecological systems ensconce a distinct life- span process – as Rushton so critically notes, our particular rate of maturity – which needs to be protected, if our systems are to be maintained. This requires a feedback loop from the mature of the system to the puerile and marginal just within the system, those who are most immediately threatened by influences from without, as everyone is from time to time while meandering through life-span process in our evolutionary system.

There also needs to be an understanding among our people, females to become women especially, that there are both practical natural tendencies and traditional compensatory reasons why men have tended to be on the top of the hierarchy. Among those reasons, having been less buffered from the consequences on the way up, they are not as prone to be liberal with regard to boundaries. There needs to be an understanding among the puerile that a woman knows that out-group mixing and breeding will be met with ostracism – that mixed offspring should not partake of White benefits and outbreeders should have to live with outgroups and the consequences of their choice; not be visited upon Whites in hideous servitude to this profound betrayal.

Referring back to narrative history at the second wave of feminism…
                                               
On the most popular front was the kosher Helen Gurley Brown, pandering to puerile females with her book, “Sex and The Single Girl,” 1962 -
                                     
..a corruption of Søren Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or,” Sex and The Single Girl proposed that a girl was going to suffer either way, whether she kept herself as “virginal as a ‘Sunkist Orange” for marriage or went ahead and at least enjoyed the pleasures of premarital sex. Do not be too quick to dismiss Gurly-Brown’s pejorative influence on young girls:

“Today New York City lost a pioneer who reshaped not only the entire media industry, but the nation’s culture. She was a role model for the millions of women whose private thoughts, wonders and dreams she addressed so brilliantly in print.” - NYC Mayor Bloomberg upon her death.

Perhaps she was more cunning than brilliant; but powerfully influential no doubt with the help of her husband‘s connections to powerful publishing money to promote that book and her similarly pandering, and highly popular magazine, “Cosmopolitan.”                                                                         
As previously argued, and by contrast, sex as sacrament, voluntary enclaves where absolute monogamy and marriage is recognized as sacrosanct, is one control variable for systemic maintenance which can and should be re-instituted as an option. While mitigating cynicism and anxiety by agentive choice as opposed to reactive competition, it will provide integrity and incentive to participate through accountability to social capital, understanding to gird courage to fight for ours, holding up to Muslims, Jews, Africans and whatever power non-White groups may have.
                 
With these institutions in place and understood, there is no good reason for a man to be overly controlling. Management of sacral tradition and modernist actualization of potential for both genders is a great advantage that we have against our adversaries while also being gifts we offer to our men and women.

I have a brother-in-law who is a funeral director. He tells me that it is a very common response of people to react to news of death with an involuntary smile. I imagine that this bespeaks a lack of socialized repression by the fore-brain - understanding the social systemic inappropriateness of this response through mature experience. Interestingly, a child would probably not react that way either; only those between childhood and socialization into the group’s interest. The more pertinent example here would be that of a young girl, who might smile at seeing a White boy beat by a black or become giddy at the site of a White woman with an ape.

A mature and socialized White woman, with an eye toward her own White children’s vulnerability, the beauty and necessity of the pattern that went into their making - which is now being threatened - is not going to react in that automatic way; she is going to have a broader systemic view and experience of the system and thus respect the intrinsic, inherent value of the temporary marginal as it will be expressed through time. Conversely, the marginal will know where the shoe pinches.

Boudica invoked the bounds and was a leader of her people undisputed because, as a woman with children, their violation by the Romans made her acutely aware of her peoples’ systemic bounds and left no more room to compromise the bounds.

On the other hand, regarding marginals, we must note the way that Jews have twisted the definition of this critical concept.

And we must note that in the disorder of modernity, puerile White girls are not very marginal, they are the central pandering focus of Jews.

While Gadamer may not have been a Jew, I had believed he was because he was looked upon by the Jewish academics that I knew as friendly and useful, his hermeneutic notion of the value of marginal perspective on the system taken and reversed by Jews to where marginals are those outside the system who seek to transform the system. Whereas it is crucial to our systemic maintenance that we buffer and incentivize participation and loyalty to our system with a concerned feedback from those mature in socialization to the marginals - viz., those who are just within our systemic bounds.

Marginals are important because they form a feedback loop with the bounded system in relation to the mature, who, having long-term, experiential perspective, will not react with giddy sadism at exploitation of the marginals as they comprehend them with empathy for their systemic relation - in social historical and life-span process, characteristically having at least some intrinsic part in historically based social capital and as a part of the biological system.

This relation would be opposed to the powerfully looped system wrecker, which is the case now: i.e., the centrality of puerile White females empowered and incentivized to maintain liberalism for the short-term episodic purview of disorder and pandered-to (primarily by YKW) as heroic allies of those who are not really marginals, not to the White class anyway, but outside the system, i.e.. non-Whites.

This is where we have problem with the right, the blindness of their scientism to the working hypothesis of classification, their natural revulsion to “the inferiority” and lesser independence of marginals, and their habit of looking with revulsion upon those who might try to assert those borders, as if looking to impose “unnatural” borders and collective enforcement; while the right tend in fact to lose sight of the context (the hypothesized classification) of the biology of race and gender relations upon which they might focus. It is also true that they tend to focus on mechanisms, which, though true enough, are often sublimated in socialization. I will correct the over applied “natural”, scientistic, anti-social bent, the insult and friction with women this may create, by distinguishing “female” from “woman”, reserving harder criticisms for females and honorary status of Woman for those maturely socialized into respect for the systemic maintenance of Europeans.

To sum:
Where I may come against criticism for using the term “female” it would be oblivious to my doing so in order to maintain “woman” as an honorary term for mature, socialized females; and to separate them from critique of pejorative predilections of puerile females - it is a crucial point that I’ve used the term deliberately to mark a distinction between biological inclinations among females, particularly when puerile - which should bear critique and criticism if yielded-to improperly, while reserving the term “woman” for females who are socialized into mature fostering, respect, defense of European cultural patterns and human ecology.

As a matter of factual inclination, a female might impulsively smile or laugh at the funeral of a White man; at seeing a White boy beat by a Negro boy; shrug her shoulders at throngs of non-White immigration; a White woman will tend to have experience and consideration beyond that so as not to respond impulsively as such.

As a European woman, she is socialized and has a view toward the broader evolutionary context and value – her view is beyond momentary and episodic conquest and into the historical pattern; her most base instinct to get-off on being dominated by the victor of battle is sublimated in the wider battle of the way of life as it ensconces the life-span in systemic cultural pattern. She has perspective on children, elderly, indeed the full pattern of Europeans; recognizing their value, contributions and need for protection. Therefore, she respects European Men who protect the system.

Hence, our notion of Actualization, if it is to be true to our neo-Aristotlean rendering, must take into account first and foremost maturity of White females and males as it intersects with our systemic socialization. 

We must be careful as to what and who guides our concept of femininity and masculinity and be aware of context – matters which scientism of the right can lose sight. “The mature” constitute one pole from which we adjudge the border of our healthy system, and “marginals” are another in a feedback loop of accountability.

The distinction of a mature European woman as opposed to biological female as centralized, pandered to (esp. by YKW) and a one-up systemic rupturer, inciter, emerges crucial – and the borders of classification emerge more important than ever to instantiate in order to keep her mechanism from runaway - even more important than marriage or enforcement of traditional gender roles. The hermeneutic concept of marginal perspective and feedback which would correct a reaction of “pathological objectivism” by White males has also been made didactic, repulsive to Whites, deliberately repugnant to right-wingers as a false representation of “the left”, in so exaggerated a form that is actually reversed, not protection of marginal union members at all, to where it is really imposed liberalism by Jews, who have reversed the concept to where “marginals” are those outside or antagonistic to Whites (men in particular), who would seek to utterly transform the system, liberalize and open its borders - as opposed to those Whites just within the bounds who might and should be given incentive to be loyal to and defend the system. 

As Opposed to Universal Maturity

The Right’s notion of maturity in gender relations is inclined to universal maturity as it derives as much if not more from the tradition of Enlightenment objectivity as it does from the relative maturity of a particular tradition. The White class must distinguish its own maturity in contrast to universal maturity.

The right will charge that this working hypothesis called the class or the race is anti-nature, but that isn’t true, it is a working hypothesis of the system which may be tested at any time. It is a hypothesis that does need to be asserted, however, to create accountability to our human ecology. It is a shared concept of the class which may be invoked in accounts requested, not just left to faith that it will work out.

Realization of the class would not bring unreasonable sacrifices, harsh by prevailing standards though expulsion may seem. Our negotiation of tradition, modernity, post modernity would be fair to tradition and bring some good news for the more liberal minded toward our gender relations - for women, let me start by saying..

That with accountability to male being, women do not have to be bound strictly to a traditional role. Of course there are things that males do better, things females do better; on balance, traditional roles are more comfortable and practical, we are mostly evolved that way – fine; and it is vulgar for males to act effeminately and vice versa, for females to act in a very masculine way. Anything but an emergency role for a male as a house-husband is disgusting (in my opinion, anyway).

However, there are much more important traditional customs - the double standard has been a balancing effect – promiscuous women are bullies every bit as much as men who beat, let alone rape, women are unacceptable bullies requiring sanction. While a miscegenating man deserves sanction, a miscegenating woman is even worse – she is to men what a rapist is to women (totally unacceptable). If she insists upon doing that, at minimum punishment she should be expelled from the nation and have to take with her whatever mixed babies that she may have. She cannot make White men servile to her vilest betrayal of our co-evolution.

Same goes for male race-mixers, of course.

But for many activities it does not matter very much whether it is a man or a woman doing it. With accountability and agreement to maintenance of the class bounds, if a woman steps-up and has concern, ideas and ways to assert and maintain the border of the class, that is fine – she should be more then welcome to do that.

Personally, I’ve always thought Pierre and Marie Curie a rather ideal couple
 
We can have our Marie Curies

                                           
                                                  ..our Joan of Arcs..

..our Boudicas, our women of the Teutoburg Forest (fighting alongside the German men) and we can allow our men the being to develop true fulfillment of basic needs upon which to support authentic, sublime Actualization; as opposed to desperate and rigidly incited quests upon privation and deprivation of basic needs: which leads to hate and misunderstanding between males and females, for traditional female’s insensitivity to the changing circumstances for beta-males in modernity - absent particularly stable criteria for assessment of traditional satisfactory and routine competence. If gender remains the defacto classificatory difference, as opposed to racially based classificatory difference, traditional females would be getting-off right along side feminists, on the domination of the winning male of any race, with their traditional insulation from concern for the relatively less masculine, more sublimated pattern of White men as compared to, but not differentiated as a pattern that makes a difference from others; rather the deprivation and privation of basic levels for most White men as a part of our patterned sublimation is more liable to be uncompensated for by an a-racial system, even by traditional females – and it certainly will not be corrected by feminists - for feminism’s lack of recognition of the deprivation of intrinsic White male being and routine value; punishment for their “privilege” if they do make it through, whether on ability or through rigid, harsh, overcompensation from ignominious rites of passage - such as draft into a war not representing their people’s bounded, relative interests.

The criteria of White socialization entails thus: if a woman recognizes, endorses, enforces the borders, there is not a real problem with her voice having salience. If she can agree that miscegenators and especially mixed offspring ought to lose citizenship, ought not be able to participate in social resource of Whites, if she can also honor the option of a choice for sacrament regarding sex, that there are reasons why men have tended to be on top of the hierarchy, both merited by accomplishment and compensatory, that inclinations for liberalism ought to be challenged rigorously, then there can be some flexibility of both traditional and modern ways for both genders, and it is to our advantage for ourselves internally and against other races, who might not manage this more distinctly human, optimizing of gender differentiation and relations.

However, it is also true that there needs to be places for males to protect their interests and cultivate a platform critical of puerile female predilections – especially under the fore-mentioned conditions, until anti-racism is overcome enough for the class to be readily available to account.

Re-institution of racial class bounds despite all would be possible through the establishment of parallel nations, such as The Euro DNA Nation, alongside extant nations: these parallel nations, in place hopefully to take the place of the extant, anti-White nations, would be constituted by rule structures: most specifically, the invocation of rule structures which go farther than excluding genetic out-groups from participation and benefits, but would begin endogenously, to initiate the nation anew, without inclusion of non-genetic members from the onset. These would be parallel nations until such time as they might sustain our populations without the heretofore official nations; whereupon we might establish our territories anew and replace these governments not of our people..