Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Gender Wars HuffPo Style

5. KFC sunscreen makes you smell like fried chicken
A product designed specifically for mudsharks, no doubt.

4. The alt-right attacks sci-fi
Dammit, if they're going to copy from White Nationalism, the Alt-Right should try burning books instead of reading them. Oh, who am I kidding? They don't read them either.

3. Second-grade Texas teacher introduces controversial new homework policy
I agree with this teacher. If you can get your work done at school, why take it home with you? The policy goes for adults, so why not with kids? When I was in public school and later at university, I would usually do my homework during lectures. In High School it meant I didn't have to lug 50 pounds of books back and forth each trip. There was rarely anything being reviewed that I could not read myself in a fraction of the time it took for a teacher/professor to muddle through it. And here's a novel idea for parents who might be upset that the school doesn't force their children to do homework - how about you assign your kids homework?(Advice not applicable to Asian parents, who are probably already doing this.)

2. Can Israel swing the election Donald Trump's way?
Now why would they want to do that, hmmm? Quoting: Trump in particular has had problems attracting the Jewish vote after claims of anti-Semitic themes in various tweets and the backing he's received from the former head of the KKK, David Duke, and the American Nazi Party. Trump's supporters in Israel don't buy it. [...] "It's crap, it's garbage!" said Sruly Cooper, a Florida voter and Trump supporter. "If you want to judge Trump, judge him by his family. Judge him by his children. Trust me, I do, Sruly. The problem is, almost every other White Whateverist on the planet does not. And if they wanted to ignore that, they could still condemn him for his MultiKulturalism, elitism, and crudity. But, no. They must have their oompa-loompa fuhrer. Your tribe has dumbed down the cattle so far, that you made it possible for White Whateverists to worship a Hollyweird reality television personality with Jewish grandchildren. Incredible, isn't it?

1. Gender Wars HuffPo Style: ‘I Save Children’s Lives Yet My Wife Won’t Have Frequent, Varied Sex With Me’
In this advice column, a female, clinical psychologist unleashes a torrent of raging hatred against a man who complains that his wife is not interested in sex, in spite of his romantic efforts to woo her. Reading his appeal, I was not sympathetic to his rather egotistical approach, and felt he should be more patient and communicative. There is always more to the story, and he was not looking at himself as a possible contributing factor to his own dissatisfaction. But after reading the psychologist's evisceration of him, I was more concerned for the well being of him and his family, should he/they really exist. I was shocked that a mental health professional would publicly treat a human being with such contempt. But then I remembered - this is posted at HuffPo. The point was not to promote mental well-being and understanding between men and women, but to polarize the genders against each other - The MultiKult strategy. And judging from the comments section, that is exactly what happened. Whether you turn Left or Right in the Mass Media, there is only hostility and human misery to be had.

15 comments:

  1. The most fascinating thing I've discovered from this whole farce is your average white's attitude towards God's Chosen.

    It's rather bizarre and, quite frankly, creepy. Especially when I consider that saying a negative word about God's Chosen was out of fashion centuries ago.

    Most of average whites are quite capable of discussing rationally about niggers and Muslims, and even Asians.

    But say one thing about Jews, and then suddenly they bristle defensively as if you touched a nerve. Then it is all Nazis and conspiracies and Holocausts.

    "They're merchants, they bring in money!"

    Yes, money that you won't see a dime of. Money they would get by stripping the skin off your back if they could. Money that they use to buy out your politicians and open up those borders. How splendid.

    "They've integrated into our societies so well!"

    Yes, that is why they still call themselves Jews and they even have their own fenced cemeteries! Oh, you mean they aren't petty criminals or terrorists? Okay then.

    If whites don't wake up the fact that Jews are alien and hostile to their collective interests, then even if they do deport all the Muslims and niggers and Asians, this little merry-go-round will just happen again.

    HAH! "Never The Problem". Oh, this man is completely made-up.

    The man--if he exists--didn't bother me. At least he was trying to woo his wife and restore their physical and emotional intimacy, even going so far as to ask help when his efforts alone proved to be insufficient, instead of just relieving his needs elsewhere.

    Of course he could have just talked to his wife, but after years of witnessing my parents' and my siblings' marriages, it could have been about as helpful as talking to a brick wall.

    People are stupid, and together they are even more so.

    What astounded me was the woman calling herself a psychologist. Here is a person asking for her help, one she really knows nothing about or his wife or their situation, and yet she feels secure in dissecting him from a brief letter which she conveniently edited, apparently.

    But no, that wasn't really what astounded me. It was the obnoxious tone she had which was straight out of a Hollywood movie; the fantastical female character who is so strong and empowered--also known as obnoxious asshole. It is only thanks to Hollywood script magic that such characters face no consequences.

    Sadly, the comments didn't show up for me. But I'm sure I didn't miss much. The people who read that woman's tripe cannot be much better.

    - Different Anon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The holy trinity of Whiteness, the three legs that must be in place for there to be a firm foundation upon which racial hygiene may rest are:

      1) Rejection of non-Whites.
      2) Rejection of Deviant Whites (Trash/Traitors/Perverts).
      3) Rejection of Jews.

      And by the way, the rejection is a two-way street. You reject them and they reject you. If blacks want to come on your radio show, or White fags want to speak at your conference, or Jews want to write a friendly article about you - you're doing it wrong. Whiteness is about elevating yourself from the human swamp, not being the whitest fly on the cadaver of Western Civilization as it sinks into the muck.

      That Trump has unified the "Look White to Me" crowd with the "Gotta gas 'em all!" pepes should be a massive, blinking, neon warning sign that the bridge ahead is washed out. There's only a plunge into the swamp for those who keep heading down that road. Der Movement is useless. Its leaders are traitors or fools or both. Its followers can't figure their way out of a wet paper bag. White Whateverism is the world's most racist MMORPG, overrun with trolls and fueled by pay to play schemes.

      ***

      I was hoping you would be willing to contribute something regarding the Huffpo gender wars article. Thank you. I completely get what you are saying about couples not being able to talk to one another. I wonder if the only thing that has ever made human relationships work is that one gets to be the boss and the other has to do what s/he is told. Humans are just so pathetic, I can believe that such a thing is true.

      This supposed psychologist just wants it to be the females calling the shots. And naturally, that rankled those men who want to be the ones calling the shots. And as the two groups fight it out, those in middle are called upon to take sides. Ah, MultiKulturalism.

      Delete
  2. "1) Rejection of non-Whites.
    2) Rejection of Deviant Whites (Trash/Traitors/Perverts).
    3) Rejection of Jews."

    Yes, please. How I wish everyone could start today.

    (And just to elaborate for the overly sensitive; being trash has little to do with class, wealth or looks. It is behavioural. Though admittedly the three generally go hand in hand with behaviour.)

    "And by the way, the rejection is a two-way street."

    This is something the whites I've talked to have a hard time understanding. Most of them seem to have this unconscious expectation that if they just sympathize and trust and give, then the whole freaking world will give back. The world doesn't care about you--as a race or as an individual. Get over it and stop giving.

    HAH! Well, I suppose it is lucky that I was never interested in MMORPGs. I just don't see a point in playing with mostly obnoxious people in a game I payed for.

    "I was hoping you would be willing to contribute something regarding the Huffpo gender wars article."

    Oh, in that case, I certainly hope I contributed something worthwhile!

    "I wonder if the only thing that has ever made human relationships work is that one gets to be the boss and the other has to do what s/he is told."

    I suppose it is an individual question. Generally the weak-willed will either be picked out by the strong-willed ones who want to show off--rather like narcissists pick out their victims. Or then the other person is so indecisive that their partner has to become the one who takes charge. But this only applies to dominant/submissive relationships.

    - Different Anon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Different Anon,

      "Yes, please. How I wish everyone could start today."

      I've been encouraging it via the interwebs off-and-on for ten years without any evidence Whities are going in that direction. If anything, the Movement is more confused on the fundamentals of Whiteness than ever before.

      The most ardent Jew haters defend muzzies, and often advocate cooperation with non-Whites (as long as the non-Whites peacefully permit us to have all-White living spaces - which is delusion). The most ardent nigger-haters often are woefully unaware of the Jewish question (nigger-mocking forums often have policies against "nazi"-types). And then there are the non-haters, who soft-pedal or deny the threat of Jews and other non-Whites, and claim they just love their race so much they have to advocate for White identity (which includes accepting every fag-loving, nigger-musician-worshiping, Trump-humping Chalky in the 'Kwa as worthy of racial preservation).

      You did contribute something worthwhile, as always. The benefit of your comments is that they give me a different perspective than what I can obtain from either the Mass Media or the Alt media. It moves the conversation into different directions than would have otherwise been possible.

      For example - continuing with the thought of who is the boss / contest of wills in relationships. Does such a struggle only apply to dominant/submissive relationships, or to all relationships? It is hard to believe that relationships are zero sum games in terms of what one contributes and what another takes. Is that another aspect of the contest of wills? It's not just doing as instructed, it's about giving more than one is receiving. In that sense, maybe one of the reasons for the fragility of modern relationships is a heightened power struggle and the sense of being on the losing side too often.

      Tie this consideration back in with your previous thought - Get over it and stop giving. Isn't that what feminism advocated? I won't iron your shirts until you ... and so forth. And then the PUA/MGTOW types came along and advocated men do the same thing?

      Recently, I went with one friend to visit one of her friends, who is less of a friend to me but more of an acquaintance. Anyhoo - During the visit, I was shocked as this acquaintance repeatedly issued orders to her husband to go do this - bring this - check on this. All of which he trudged off to do without complain. Being snarky, I said when he left the room "You have him well trained." She laughed. My friend was mortified in the moment, but laughed about it later. If he ever decided not to be her butler, what would their relationship look like, do you think?

      Sooner or later, the question of how a White relationship should function needs to be answered for the sake of Whiteness. As it is, I see 1) People who don't think there is a problem with chaos and broken homes (they are just alternative lifestyles, yay! MultiKulturalism), or 2) appeals to return to tradition, without acknowledgement that it was the weakness of tradition that led us to the current state. Any thoughts?

      Delete
    2. Come to think of it, how are defining giving/receiving? Are we talking about what one contributes to a shared household externally versus internally? Or are we talking about what individuals, in terms of a relationship, give and receive to/from each other?

      I hope you don't mind me using personal instances to try and elucidate whatever vague point I'm trying to make.

      My parents had quite the tumultuous marriage; my father worked some fourteen hours a day to provide for a family of eight while my mother stayed at home with six kids and took care of the household. I'd say they cut the work of a family fairly evenly, but if you ask my parents did they receive or give each other anything as individuals, the answer is most likely a resounding no.

      It is fairly similar with my siblings' marriages even though two of them do contribute externally as well to the household.

      Of course, there are individuals who are just happy to give without the need to receive anything in return. Which is fine. But if one expects to be rewarded, basically, for every little thing they give but receive nothing in turn, it quickly devolves into quite the strong resentment.

      Likewise, if one expects that they are entitled to receive everything without giving anything in return.

      (...I have a feeling I could summarise this comment as basically: stop being self-centered assholes, people.)

      The thing about feminists is that they (and I mean the feminist sheep, not the shepherd) are delusional with their victim complexes which they use to justify their grab at power.

      If women had truly been treated as badly as they believe in the West, then most certainly none of them would have received any sort of rights and feminists basically wouldn't exist.

      Or how well are they faring in Africa or Middle East? Yeah, I thought so.

      That said, I do consider it the height of stupidity to give and give to people who never give anything in return. Or perhaps a better way to put it is, it is the height of stupidity to give to people who in return put a gun to your face and pull the trigger?

      Which is rather like what the West is doing--the do-gooders, I mean--with the rest of the world.

      Now, to toss a bit of a joke at the end because I've run out of half-baked smart things to say, this is something I thought of while browsing both feminist and PUA sites.

      "A man needs to be strong enough to lift a woman, and a woman needs to be slender enough for a man can lift her."

      I have a vague feeling that would solve half of their problems.

      - Different Anon

      Delete
  3. Hello Different Anon. Thank you for the response.

    The giving and receiving I was describing was more of what goes into the relationship versus what one person gives or takes from another directly. In other words, it is treating the abstract union as if it were an object to which people contribute both tangibly and intangibly. A man and woman contribute to a marriage. Add children, and together they contribute to a family. This ties back into my point about who gets to be the boss of the unit. If all other sorts of human groupings rely on hierarchy with one person at the top, does it follow marriage and the family should do the same? And if so, is the debate just between male and female a question of who should lead, or is it also the feeling that one contributes more to the relationship than the other and/or one takes more than the other - yet who is supposed to get the lion's share in a hierarchy?

    I find your personal instances to be useful when considering this. Marriage is a time-limited arrangement, whether til death or divorce. Family is supposed to be a multi-generational institution, but it almost always breaks up into competing interests within a generation or two. Is the point of these social units to be only for personal gain, or truly for the genetic interest? Are humans, in their selfishness, planting dysgenic seeds, so to speak?

    I have a particular interest in this question because I believe it also extends to race. Think about it this way. What if the wife models her behavior saying - I don't do this for him, or for me, but because that is what is right/proper/expected to do in a marriage. The same would go for a man - not for her, not for me, but because that is what is right/proper/expected for the marriage. All those in a family, the same rules would apply. I do this not for me, or them, but because it is what is right/proper/expected for the family. And then, this principle could extend to the race as well. It is a kind of decoupling from the ego of the relationship: "It's not that you're so special honey - it's that I want to do what is right/proper/expected."

    Instead, we are immersed in a doublethink system of selfishness in intimate relationships, while looking expansively at all humanity as our common interest. The world / humanity treats us all like garbage. In a relationship, extorting money, threatening physical and mental safety, demanding one conform to arbitrary laws chosen by another, would all be reason enough for separation. Yet, we are expected to maintain an insanely optimistic and generous attitude toward society. And while it would be crazy to say "The world gave me nothing for my birthday!", such a complaint could be grounds for couples therapy and could even be cited as an example of mistreatment in a divorce. But which is truly more important? I wonder why more people can't see their relationship, their families, their race as "us against the world", which it truly seems to be. Instead, there is more effort expended in being a servile conformist for the interest of society.

    Again, I am just thinking in different directions, Different Anon. I hope you don't mind helping me with that.

    "A man needs to be strong enough to lift a woman, and a woman needs to be slender enough for a man can lift her."

    That's very clever, and would make a great e-cards meme!

    I have a related one, about a woman who was dropping f-bombs about how White men don't stick up for their vulnerable women:

    It’s kind of hard to be a gallant white knight carrying a delicate, chaste maiden over a mud puddle while she’s screaming: “Lift me up higher you fucking dumbass! Jeezus fucking Christ, haven’t you heard of fucking chivalry?”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Again, I am just thinking in different directions, Different Anon. I hope you don't mind helping me with that.”

      Oh dear, I don’t mind at all! Your replies are quite interesting to read and also help me to think in different directions.

      “Are humans, in their selfishness, planting dysgenic seeds, so to speak?”

      I do consider humans inherently selfish creatures. But I would imagine humans’ reproduction follow the same ebb and flow as most lifeforms’. During harsh times they naturally incline towards eugenic reproduction—because they must and because harsh times would swiftly kill off dysgenic seed—and during times of abundance they incline towards dysgenic reproduction because they can and such offspring stay alive more easily.

      With modernity came the added problem that others can keep these dysgenic seeds alive and more easily at that. Because “all (human) life is precious” as said the Christian fellow at my workplace. Because all humans are “sentient”. Yeah, sure.

      But truly, I suppose what I’m trying to say is that they most certainly aren’t doing it for the genetic interest. If they do it is unconscious like it is for most life.

      “What if the wife models her behavior saying - I don't do this for him, or for me, but because that is what is right/proper/expected to do in a marriage. The same would go for a man - not for her, not for me, but because that is what is right/proper/expected for the marriage.”

      I wanted to play around with this idea in a short story; it would have told about an arranged marriage where both the woman and the man did their best because it was right/proper/expected and throughout the years they would have grown fond of each other. I wanted to write it as an opposition to all the “free love” romance novels where a hot man coincidentally meets a hot woman, and they immediately want to have sex—I mean, “fall in love at first sight”. And it all supposed to be very romantic and passionate.

      But the problem with it , as we can see now, is that what is considered right/proper/expected change with the times and whoever is in charge.

      One of the things that recently quite boggled me was what my friend said. She travelled to some South American island some time ago and described the black men there as quite beautiful. With some distaste she said she would never sleep with blacks, however, because “just no”, but added with a humorous tone, “not that I’m racist or anything!”

      Just imagine if one said to a homosexual that he is a misogynist if he refuses to sleep with women. Which is basically what the “you’re so racist because you refuse to have sex outside your race” boils down to. And the silly whites just don’t think about it—or they don't think at all.

      Don’t you know, society just thinks for your best interests! Which actually is rather like what an abusive spouse would say, hah! Oh thank you for that analogy. It never occurred to me to think of it like that.

      “It’s kind of hard to be a gallant white knight carrying a delicate, chaste maiden over a mud puddle while she’s screaming: “Lift me up higher you fucking dumbass! Jeezus fucking Christ, haven’t you heard of fucking chivalry?””

      HAHA! Perhaps every general maxim should come with the caveat: common sense is applicable. But that is assuming that humans possess it or that they can apply it.

      Let’s add another advice: if a woman wants to be treated like a delicate, chaste maiden she better act like it. Otherwise the gallant white knight just might drop her into a mud muddle in search of someone more worthy.

      In small print: common sense is applicable.

      - Different Anon

      Delete
    2. Hello Different Anon,

      Thank you for indulging me in this topic further!

      Will life ever be hard again so that the dysgenia will be corrected by nature? Or will the consequences of dysgenia always lag one step behind human technological advance?

      All my life I have heard collapse is right around the corner. Whether the threat is environmental, monetary, constitutional, or racial - everyone has their own brand of doomsday. My own brand is the belief that defying common sense long enough will bring ruin to the White race, but the mud people will happily carry-on in the squalor they inherit.

      The fact that the system keeps functioning defies all reason. The fact that White people can be so willfully self-destructive to their own genetic legacy is mind-boggling. It is an argument in favor of the alien simulation, or the benevolent God who loves muds but who may also be a malevolent God who hates White people (or at least White racists like me).

      Delete
    3. Yes - the change in propriety is exactly the crux of the matter when developing standards of human behavior. But - there is a cyclical nature to these changes. What is proper waxes and wanes. People think of this as progress - but the forget all the collapses back in to strict standards that inevitably follow progressive changes.

      People argue that a culture that is strict and traditional naturally becomes stunted and won't technologically or materially advance. But I argue that technological and material progress require standards and structure in order to be maintained - and innovation is experimentally pursued under controlled circumstances in a culture accustomed to empiricism.

      It is only in matters of human behavior that we seem to think standards do not apply - that we expect innovation to be nothing more than generational shifts of increasing permissiveness followed by explosive regressive events (via invasion or rebellion). Why do we not treat humans like any other material that could be reproduced, standardized, and improved with technical expertise?

      Because Nazis!

      But, one may argue, what is defined as an improvement? I may want a race of malevolent Chalkies, and every MultiKultist may want a race a empathic mulattoes. That is not the issue though. The goal and the standard are not the same thing. The fact is, the MultiKult *is* operating by standards in order to bring about their vision. Political correctness, public school indoctrination, Mass Media consumerism all aim toward the Kalergi plan. But they are disguised as not being standards at all because their results seem so chaotic and permissive. But as we know all too well, we are threatened should we resist the plan, or speak out against it results. (You're a fag and you think women are disgusting and you don't want to sleep with them? Good for you! You're a White person and you think blacks are disgusting and you don't want to sleep with them? How dare anyone reject a sexual partner on the basis of race, you monster!)

      The problem is that White Whateverists barely agree on a goal, and they definitely do not want to accept a set of standards necessary to see a common goal executed.

      My idea has been that a White couple who is racially aware should focus all their attention on a common goal of raising a multitude of White children equipped to hide and thrive in the MultiKult chaos. Others want to fight the chaos, and save the world - which gets them off track tilting at windmills like Chemtrails, Jewish mistreatment of Palestine, the need to accept homosexuals, and fighting for free speech with nazi frog memes. But you know what? I think those things are just easier than putting aside one's ego and selfishness, and investing in the actual biological future of the race. Which would explain the popularity of windmill tilting as the race dies.

      My White Knight comment was made before the advent of "White Knighting" as a pejorative. My romanticized views are simply too archaic for the modern world. So I have tried to come up with a new framework to replace the heroic man and the chaste maiden with something other than the MultiKult alphas and sluts dynamic. My concept of White couples/families against the world may not be the right one ... but some new dynamic will be necessary if the race is to carry on. That's part of the impetus for this discussion.

      Delete
    4. To be honest, I’m not quite clear on what I mean by collapse or perhaps I just mean a multitude of possibilities. One such is a natural disaster that hopefully wipes out most of the human species. One is an environmental disaster caused by humans—but being quite innovative, at least few of them, they might just thwart it before it escalates into catastrophic. It could also be the complete collapse of birthrates, which would most likely just mean a severe decline in the standard of living when there aren’t enough whites to go around and the rest of society are just muds turning every white country into Zimbabwe. Or it could be another big war which is most likely coming; regardless of who is fighting it and for what.

      But I suppose what I ultimately mean by collapse is the day when the last white has been tossed into the graveyard. At the very least then this farce of Multicultism will collapse because majority of muds are too stupid, too tribalistic, and too violent to carry it on.

      “People argue that a culture that is strict and traditional naturally becomes stunted and won't technologically or materially advance.”

      I have a hard time believing this as well. Just recently I picked up an encyclopedia on Ancient Greece. I haven’t gotten far in the book as I also have other things to read, and to write myself, but one thing in particular caught by attention.

      It talked about the collapse of Mycenaean civilization and how during the collapse the population of Greece decreased and was redistributed into isolated communities, literacy disappeared, and works of art and architecture became all but non-existent. Which is all more or less what is happening currently in every white country.

      Also, toward the end of the collapse (as we can witness now) tolerance of deviant behaviour is at its highest and the indigenous population is quite dumbed down while they are being replaced by dumb savages.

      All these facts make it quite hard to believe that it is, well, a tolerant society that breeds progress. Our tolerant society is more interested in indulging itself in all manner of abundance and degeneracy, and chasing wicked racist ghosts. Superstitious and strict and traditional are two different things.

      The only problem with this is that there are no more blonde, blue-eyed barbarians to sweep off the rot of the collapsed empire with steel and fire.

      To be fair, the very dispersed movement seems to consists mostly of men. It could be because women generally aren’t as racially aware, are more conformist, or just because the so-called movement isn’t welcoming to women. But I’d imagine that a lot of the racially aware men/women have a hard time finding a racially aware partner. I certainly do, and admittedly it doesn’t help that I enjoy being a hermit.

      I also dread leaving children into this abysmal world.

      I do not consider white knighting as pejorative. There is nothing wrong with it. But like with all things I feel that common sense should be exercised and that all traits—when taken to the extreme—become pathological.

      HAH, but it is funny that is a “white” knight. Of course, it must derive from white armour but knowing how muds treat their women…

      That said, I’m unsure if I contributed anything further into this conversation.

      - Different Anon

      Delete
    5. I am enjoying this conversation, Different Anon, and I find your contributions to be a pleasant use of my time. I search the internet nightly for intriguing new ideas, but rarely come across them. I have had the good fortune for you to stop by and provide those new ideas without me having to search.

      The "progress" of decadence this time is unusually swift, successful, and pervasive because of one element never before factored into the equation - cheap power from fossil fuels. What happens during power outages in summer? Unfit people die without air conditioning. Food rots. Niggers riot. And this stuff happens in as little as a day. Extend it for a week, a month, and imagine the catastrophe. That is what made Peak Oil such an interesting doomsday scenario. "Now we will see just how sustainable this progress is!" But, occasional hiccups aside, the fossil fuels keep flowing, and the brown masses keep multiplying. And who knows, perhaps the next energy breakthough *is* really just right around the corner. When poor people today live better than the wealthy did a couple centuries ago, and the middle class live like kings, and the rich are demi-gods who use their fortunes to become global leaders with the power to destroy the planet at a push of a button, imagine if power became even cheaper?

      I always thought that the Star Trek replicator technology was viewed in hilariously humanist way. You can request any object be made in seconds from a magic box, or go play in a simulated playground of delights, but you think the majority of people won't abuse it? They will eat well, drink responsibly, get to work on time, keep fit, and put their lives at risk fighting wars when land and resources are meaningless? Look at how people react to their abundance now! The waste, mindless consumption, cowardice to risk comfort. More cheap power will only magnify the worst in human behavior. And that is why I see Whiteness as a denial of the human condition. We have elevated liberation, tolerance, and universalism as our highest virtues, when they are really just a cover for perversion, permissiveness, and moral relativity. Humanism is the pretty veneer covering decadence and decline. Whiteness says, in spite of this abundance, we reject decadence and choose separateness because we don't think humans are the pinnacle of evolution. If the collapse does not occur, and Whiteness is rejected, White people will merge with the brown human cattle in a Wall-E future of infantilized blobs of flesh . Alternatively, if the cycle of collapse continues to occur, and Whiteness is rejected, the next catastrophe could be the last one for the race. Whiteness is a way of hedging bets against both possibilities. But the short-sighted White Whateverists don't really grasp this. They think of it as preservation given current conditions, not what is necessary to adapt and evolve.

      Delete
    6. I think women, in so much as they remain oriented to a strategy of wanting the safety of a group, are right to shun der Movement in general, because the men in der Movement are outcasts. They fit neither the mainstream, nor the counterculture - but God how they try to make their ideas part of one or the other! They don't understand they are supposed to be the revolutionaries, the infiltrators, the lone wolves. They have to work to destroy the existing system, and replace it with their system. Any compromise to try and join the mainstream or counterculture means becoming a low-level, tainted defective in a hostile system. So what should be done if forming racially aware couples is impractical? Brainstorming here...

      Let us say that for every 10 racially aware men, there is 1 racially aware woman. What is the answer? Obviously, racially aware White men need to conceal their beliefs, and find White women who have other decent qualities (one being open-mindedness to homeschooling).

      And for the racially aware White woman? Well, she has her pick of the outcasts, but why tie herself to a publicly revealed outcast? It would be safer to conceal her beliefs, and find a White man who has other decent qualities (one being open-mindedness to homeschooling).

      Now in both cases, they have the ability to produce a generation and educate their children in ways that inculcate Whiteness without ever calling it Whiteness, and without every identifying with the the cavalcade of failures known as White Whateverism. Reject consumerism. Reject humanism. Reject Mass Media. Reject religion. Reject secular moralizing. Teach history with a focus on learning from the failures of the past. Teach science with a focus on exposing superstition and irrationality. Teach technical skills with a focus on self-sufficiency. Teach psychology with a focus on exposing human folly. And teach art with a focus on subconsciously idealizing pre-MultiKult Western Civilization. After 18 years of such indoctrination, they may be released to the world if they do not show much promise in carrying on the legacy of the White parent. And if they do show promise, perhaps they can be let in on the Whiteness conspiracy and carry on the project by finding and deceiving the next decent White person who will help unwittingly produce a brood for said conspiracy.

      I too have thought about how horrible it would be to have a child who could become a victim (willing or otherwise) of MultiKulturalism. But it is my own personal failings that have kept me from reproducing up to this point, not any fear for a theoretical child's safety. As an American, I think about the early colonists, settling with their children in this country. Thousands of miles from home, on a dark, savage continent, surrounded by murderous inbred Asiatics. How could they have known that their little outposts would pave the way for the most powerful country on Earth? I see the same potential here for White people today, even as the race declines. The world itself is now that dark, savage land. We can establish a new kind of outposts of our own. We just have to leave the old world behind.

      Delete
    7. Haha! Well, I’m happy to provide.

      I had this thought occur to me when I first read your reply but as I didn’t have the time to immediately reply myself, I unfortunately didn’t write it down.

      I hope you’ll bear with me while I try to write the specific points I wanted to ponder about. I’m afraid this will be more or less rambling.

      One such was progress, and when I say progress I mainly refer to the technological kind. Human history seems to be an endless cycle of prosperity and decline. When global temperature rose, people migrated towards north. When global temperature dropped, people migrated towards south. If the temperature rose too much, people settled near bodies of water or the sea. Land subsided or sea level rose.

      All contributed to migrations and on occasion different tribes met and either merged into each other or were wiped out (yay for diversity!). But what really sets off human progress is favourable environment by which I mean that it can sustain permanent settlement—or in other words, the land around it can be cultivated. This then leads to hierarchies as some people inevitably have more than others and thus more free time to pursue other things than just food or reproduction.

      But technological progress has never been—how to put it—“on the same time” globally. A civilization rises, progresses, reaches its peak, and then declines in that area. In a different area another civilization rises, progresses, reaches its peak, and then declines. Over and over again until we get to the Western global domination which they used to help the brown masses to “reach the same level as them”. (Good luck with that.)

      …I think I lost the thread of what I was trying to say. I suppose what I was trying to say was that even if West goes down, it’s not like technological progress will stop. It was always detached from the masses; only few exceptional people contribute to the progress of civilization and either the masses were on average smart enough to adapt to it and maintain it. If they aren’t, well, there’s always Africa to look to as an example.

      Perhaps the Star Trek replicator technology already wiped out all the people who abused it until all who were left were people who’d used it responsibly from the beginning?

      But it did make me think that would the world be a better place if all people were plugged into a super computer a la Matrix, but instead of them all being in the same Sims game, they could all have their own ideal worlds? That way everyone gets what they want!

      Humans certainly aren’t the pinnacle of evolution. I think nothing is the pinnacle of evolution. Humans like to complain about all the destruction they’ve (as in others! of course, the ones who complain never contribute to it) wreaked, but it is really Mother Nature who has destroyed far more than humans ever could.

      But that said, nothing lasts forever and as such it is impossible that there be a pinnacle for evolution. Or for anything.

      - Different Anon

      Delete
    8. Ah yes, I was also thinking that it most certainly doesn’t help that most of the people in the movement seem quite dysfunctional. But then I considered that they most likely aren’t that way in real life as most online personas differ from their offline personas. And most of these personas are anonymous so unless they disclose the information it isn’t like anyone will find out they were involved with white nationalism.

      But then I thought that most (I won’t say normal because normal changes) reasonable people generally don’t like to meet people they’ve met anonymously online. Or perhaps that is just me.

      Oh, I very much like your idea. But I can also see why no one wants to attempt it. After all, it is much easier to let your TV to raise your child! Or to enjoy the decline while pretending that they are saving the race with blogs and advocacy for sluttery.

      Also, I was watching the Youtube channel of a certain person. He isn’t a white nationalist but he does advocate similar ideas as you. In any case, he was talking about how we should homeschool our children and then a supposedly racially aware person came in and said, “No! As far as I know public schools aren’t primarily for brainwashing! And homeschooled kids will miss on all the social skills!”

      Then I rather wished she/he would have elaborated on what essential social skills they would miss. How to talk about the current boy band? The current fashionable app? What clothes one should wear or what that bimbo is wearing? How to start smoking? Or how about your friends telling you at the age of thirteen how they blew some boys in a party somewhere as if that was information they needed to disclose?

      Are those among some of the social skills they are so desperate for their children to learn?

      Or how about the public favourite; how white people are so wicked evil and those muds there messing up the canteen are so cool?

      Well, yes. I must admit that it is my own personal failings as well and not just the fear for potential children that has kept me from finding a husband.

      I hope there was some sense somewhere in this comment! It is rather chaotic as I forgot most of what I wanted to write.

      - Different Anon

      Delete
    9. The social skills argument against home schooling is singularly retarded, and worthy of the White sheeple. Again, I suggest that subterfuge is necessary to undermine a powerful system. Those who conspire against the system need to deceive constantly, and the only social skills they need to practice are how to be viewed with benign disinterest while they secretly work against those around them.

      I am uncertain about the endless upward thrust of human technological progress. If one accepts that humans have a biological cap to their intelligence, even among geniuses, there may be some natural ceiling at which invention stops, while innovation slowly declines to a state of cyclical fads. Welcome back beards and pipes!

      White civilization reached the moon before I was born. I grew up hearing about how we would be on Mars by the year 2000. I suppose if space exploration was a mobile phone app, that we would indeed have reached the stars by now.

      In regards to White Whateverists finding companionship, I was referring to those who are not anonymous (the publicly revealed outcasts) be it on the interwebs or in one's own town. And, in my opinion, they are in fact by definition dysfunctional. Why? Because they hold beliefs that are significantly aberrant from their tribe.

      In fact, their brand of dysfunction may be quite rare compared to being an alcoholic, or a gambler, or a conspiracy nut, or a pervert, but it leads to social and material impairment equivalent to those other forms of dysfunction.

      Now - there are three options for dysfunctional racist Chalkies:

      1) Recant - racism goes into remission. They will still be a scarred freak, but they return to the fold in the way a fag gets converted back to being straight. Infrequently and ineffectively.

      2) Keep making themselves social rejects by discussing their aberrant beliefs with others. This is the strategy of White Whateverist leaders - become the evil doers the MultiKult can sell as the latest enemy against the human race. Amass a following of anonymous internet fans and beg them for donations to help fund their useful idiocy.

      3) Neither a follower, nor a leader be. Hide. Subvert. Focus on burrowing into the system. Those who have exposed themselves or have been exposed have a duty not to awaken the masses, but to encourage those racially aware Whites still hidden to remain hidden and find a way to thrive in the carcass of Western Civilization.

      This civilization cannot be saved. It is dead. The race is dying because it is inherently weak and decadent. Those who are strong will have to adapt to the new cultural environment. There is nowhere left to migrate.

      Delete