And so this 35-year-old Oxford graduate who had almost fallen out of the Black Hawk helicopter that took her to the city for the first time ("I couldn't get my harness on and I couldn't understand why they'd left the door open") became the governate co-ordinator of this restive area. She reported directly to ambassador Bremer.
In the days before she took up her new post, he invited her to join him on a short tour of the north, which included dinner with the Kurdish leader, Masoud Barzani, in the town of Sari Rash. During the meal, Bremer spoke about America's 4 July Independence Day, which was the next day, and then he turned to Sky for a comment. "I managed to say something about wishing all our former colonies the same success as America. I wondered, how on Earth have I got here? How on Earth had someone like me, a British liberal, become part of a US-led invasion that I had opposed?"
I guess the answer to that last question is similar to how Tony Blair, another white liberal, could order the invasion of Iraq on blatantly concocted data. His physical biology was yearning for it, he only needed the most spurious justification to settle his conscience.
Quote :
She and Mayville formed "team government" – a military and civilian partnership, developing ideas that were later reflected in America's new counter-insurgency strategy. They established the Kirkuk Development Commission to kickstart the local economy. And they also encouraged Iraqis to register any complaints they had about the coalition, including damage done to property during raids.
Isn't this an aspect of feminization? We have bombed your homes and destroyed your infrastructure, but you may complain about this through bureacratic agencies we have established. Imagine how demeaned the average Iraqi male must have felt.
Quote :
Their dirty laundry was flown to Kuwait for cleaning, and engineers spent days trying to decapitate the four giant heads of Saddam Hussein, which leered from the palace ceilings. Sky says she adapted more easily than most, thanks to her "years at an all boys' English boarding school that had honed a wide range of survival instincts which proved most useful in the jungle".
Love the way this liberal bitch indirectly paints a picture of femininity as innocent - hence her involvement in Iraq - whilst insinuating masculinity as some kind of corrupting reason.
Quote :
she had never worked with the military before – and some of those she spoke to at first did their best to confirm her fears. One American officer told her working in Iraq was "like being on Planet of the Apes". And she heard soldiers referring to Iraqis as "haji", which is an honorific in Arabic, but was being used in a derogatory way, as a racial slur. Some mocked the Iraqi people for living in mud huts, wearing "man dresses" and giving "man kisses".
"They had come into contact with an ancient civilisation with people who knew their lineage back through centuries, who had survived under the harshest of dictatorships.
Sky was included in all classified "battle update briefs" about security operations, and discussions about what the military should be doing next. When she arrived in Kirkuk, the military was running everything in the city. But that was part of the problem. Sky said success should be defined as Kirkukis running their own affairs: the job of the coalition was not to do it for them, but to help them do it themselves.
To use this hypocritical bitches own observations, why do these people who can trace their lineage back through centuries and had survived the harshest dictatorship need help running their own affairs?
How a liberal do-gooder used Iraqis as a human shield to further her own career:
Quote :
Kirkuk did not escape the bloodshed, and its victims included community leaders Sky had encouraged to help her shape the city's new landscape. "I had worked in places overseas for a long time, but I had not worked with people who had been killed, or had been killed because of their relationship with me. I spent a lot of time with the provincial council and about a quarter of the people on council were killed. There was always that sense that we had come into their lives and said, 'who is going to stand up and serve their province?', and they had come forward, and some of them had been killed. If we had never come into their lives that would never have happened. Some were killed because they stood forward to join the council, some were killed because they were seen as close to the coalition. I can still see their faces, I remember going to their funerals, speaking to their kids."
This only reinforces my belief that liberalism is the reaction of a constitutionally weaker organism to survival threats. Never taking sides, trying to remain uninvolved and aloof, avoiding conflict, promoting equality and sameness, peace and love... mediating. Yet unable to rid itself of those nasty and predatory desires for power over others and the cunning and devious nature that develops as a result.
_________________ “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” - - George Orwell
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The "War on Terror" is really a war against a remaining cultural antagonist, or a still standing masculine entity, which Judeo-Christian, liberal, memes will not stand for. This is a war on the males of that culture, as it has been a war on the European males who are now almost totally emasculated.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
"I should clarify: liberalism is successful at taking over societies. It is not successful at making them thrive. In fact, it tends to destroy them and leave behind burnt shells with third-world levels of social order, hygiene, corruption and morality.
In other words, liberalism is a successful illusion and motivator, but doesn't work so well in reality. In contrast to what your television says, reality does not have a liberal bias, because if it did, all those liberal republics would be doing well.
Instead we have disaster.
The postwar period showed great liberalism in both Europe and the USA. This resulted in sexual liberation, gender liberation, multiculturalism and other equality-based programs. The results are not encouraging. Society is more rule-based, more insufferably boring and prone to absolute insipidity lest someone take offense, less effective and people are slowly becoming obese, hyper-sensitive, neurotic and vengeful. Liberalism fails by any common sense or aesthetic standard.
But it's still popular in the polls. This suggests to me not informed political decision-making, but instead a pathology. That is, a behavior that has its roots in personality and its needs, needs which demand some kind of palliative care above and beyond all else.
Science has some tantalizing suggestions for why liberalism is popular:
"A study published last week by scientists at the University of California, San Diego suggests that people look more attractive when seen in the presence of others than when viewed as individuals, a phenomenon known as the “cheerleader effect”...
The California study argues that the cheerleader effect is caused by our tendency to perceive faces in a group as an amalgamated average, rather than separate individual objects, and the fact this “average group face” is more attractive to us than the faces that make it up. (Group influence also affects our perception of how attractive someone is. Studies have shown that if others think someone is attractive, we are more likely to find them attractive too, regardless of how they look.)
The effect has been noticed in pop culture: in the US sitcom How I Met Your Mother, Neil Patrick Harris’s character points out a group of girls in a bar who collectively appear attractive, but on closer inspection display serious physical flaws."
I suggest that it’s much simpler than this somewhat arbitrary method. People look more attractive in groups because groups suggest validation. That is, the group has accepted them, thus they are assumed to have the characteristics of the group. Thus if that group is more often than not above average in appearance, members will be perceived to be of that standard — until examined closely.
Liberalism, which is a subset of Crowdism, the use of collective morality to enforce individualism, works through the cheerleader effect. Liberals choose a group and define it as not-the-majority. Because those who make up the selected group are those who have not succeeded in the status quo Liberals then demand "equality" on their behalf, which evens out the difference between success and failure. This makes them look rich and powerful because they’re gift-givers.
Society doesn't tolerate you? We do, because we’re so rich and powerful that we can afford to like everyone and accept everyone. Those who need to limit their social groups to functional people only aren't making it rain like we are!
What makes the cheerleader effect significant is that it is what liberals have to offer. They are making you a trade: we let you into the group, but you have to go along with our jihad/crusade. The cost for entry is that all members must, when non-egalitarian behavior is seen, attack and do their best to destroy those who are not egalitarian. It is a gang, or a lynch mob, or even a squad of Chimps terrorizing another over territory. It reduces politics from thought to a my-team your-team opposition.
You might think people would not do that much to be in a gang. But this gang, by offering universal acceptance, is saying that you don’t need to fear socialization anymore. You will be accepted, so long as you join the jihad. Most criminal and terrorist groups also operate on this principle, which is why they often ignore outright deviant behavior by their members. What matters is the group, not the individuals, in either a positive or negative context.
Acceptance, like a friendly touch, can alleviate the pain of low self-esteem, something which is generally caused by dysfunctional circumstances. A child raised in a broken home sees no reason for his own existence, and no purpose to it either. As a result, he desperately needs a gang to join. Why not the gang of no standards? The gang of everyone’s OK? At least the child finally has a place.
However, by doing so, the child misses out on two opportunities. First, he misses the opportunity to clear his own thinking and overcome the barriers toward his own sanity. In other words, he loses out on the ability to impose order on himself and discover who he really is. Second, he is now enlisted in a blind jihad that knows no reason or limits, and like a Typhoid Mary of bad psychology, he now spreads it wherever he goes.
The worst part is that liberalism forces people to be compulsive. When you rely on something external to alleviate self-esteem issues, you become dependent on that thing, because without it, you’re a nobody. This forms a pathological union and explains why reality denial is so rampant among the left. After all, they don’t stand on their own; they’re beautiful because the group is beautiful. Or so the theory goes."
The Sad state of critique on the Hypocrisy of Western Liberalism will not move beyond tax, money, economics, and "sometimes" racism is poked at ever so slightly...
"Here, in a grand narrative spanning 1,800 years of European history, a distinguished political philosopher firmly rejects Western liberalism’s usual account of itself: its emergence in opposition to religion in the early modern era. Larry Siedentop argues instead that liberal thought is, in its underlying assumptions, the offspring of the Church. Beginning with a moral revolution in the first centuries CE, when notions about equality and human agency were first formulated by St. Paul, Siedentop follows these concepts in Christianity from Augustine to the philosophers and canon lawyers of the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, and ends with their reemergence in secularism―another of Christianity’s gifts to the West.
Inventing the Individual tells how a new, equal social role, the individual, arose and gradually displaced the claims of family, tribe, and caste as the basis of social organization. Asking us to rethink the evolution of ideas on which Western societies and government are built, Siedentop contends that the core of what is now the West’s system of beliefs emerged earlier than we commonly think. The roots of liberalism―belief in individual freedom, in the fundamental moral equality of individuals, in a legal system based on equality, and in a representative form of government befitting a society of free people―all these were pioneered by Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages who drew on the moral revolution carried out by the early Church. These philosophers and canon lawyers, not the Renaissance humanists, laid the foundation for liberal democracy in the West."
"Religious belief shaped the character of ancient ‘patriotism’. Serving the ‘fathers-land’ emerges in the word itself. The defenders of an ancient city under siege were not moved by interest as we understand the term. They were not defending a public institution that had created and guaranteed individual rights. Neither were they inspired by the kind of historical narratives that have been created to celebrate and reinforce the identities of modern nation-states. There was nothing self-serving, abstract or sentimental about ancient patriotism.
The ancient citizen saw himself as defending the land of his ancestors, who were also his gods. His ancestors were inseparable from the ground of the city. To lose that ground was to lose the gods of the family. Indeed, the loss of the city meant that the gods had already abandoned it. That is why, whenever a new city was about to be founded, the first public rite involved its members digging a trench to receive soil carried from their previous city, representing the soil in which their ancestors had been buried. Citizens could then still say this was the land of their ancestors, terra patria. In Plutarch’s account, Romulus, the founder of Rome, did exactly that, in order to establish a new residence for his ancestral gods. The foundation of a city was not the construction of a few houses, but the assertion of a hereditary religious identity, ‘patriotism’.
When defending his city, the ancient citizen was therefore defending the very core of his identity. Religion, family and territory were inseparable, a combination of which turned ancient patriotism into an overwhelming passion. The enslavement that often followed the unsuccessful defence of a city merely confirmed a truly dreadful anterior fact: the loss of identity that necessarily accompanied the loss of domestic gods.
We can now understand why patriotism was not only the most intense feeling but also the highest possible virtue for the ancient citizen. Everything that was important to him – his ancestors, his worship, his moral life, his pride and property – depended on the survival and well-being of the city. That is why devotion to the ‘sacred fatherland’ was deemed the supreme virtue. In devoting himself to the city before everything else, the citizen was serving his gods. No abstract principle of justice could give him pause. Piety and patriotism were one and the same thing. For the Greeks, to be without patriotism, to be anything less than an active citizen, was to be an ‘idiot’. That, indeed, is what the word originally meant, referring to anyone who retreated from the life of the city.
So it is no accident that exile was the most severe punishment the citizen of a polis could suffer. It was worse than death, or rather it was a living death. To be exiled meant to be separated from the religious rites and relationships that were the source of personal identity. The city-state or polis was not simply a physical setting or place for the citizen. It was his whole life.
Let him leave its sacred walls, let him pass the sacred limits of its territory, and he no longer finds kind. Everywhere else, except in his own country, he is outside the regular life and the law; everywhere else he is without a god, and shut out from all moral life. There alone he enjoys his dignity as a man, and his duties. Only there can he be a man.
This, of course, is why Aristotle later famously argued that the life of the citizen was the only life worth living."
Its so glorious man, its all finally happening. The Shelters are falling all around the world. All my life ive longed for some realism in the mass outsiders mentalities.
It's amazing that liberals will still side with hyper-aggressive refugees (who ironically don't seem to be looking for "refuge" but a place to continue on their war path) even when it upsets the life and livelihood of native populations (people by living in a place for generations have actually given back to the land, who mirror the land). When the native population returns aggression they are necessarily racist, uninviting, Nazis...whereas the invading refugees are "naturally" upset (whereas the anger of the Greeks for example isn't "natural" and thus gets no mainstream media support (the MSM being the most unnatural thing you can imagine). In the mind of the liberal there will ALWAYS be "periods of tough transition" until the native culture is transitioned out (but this is a win in their mindless mind). Art befriending sympathy (despite its mocking nature) is the major tool used to carry out the destruction. It's a battle of images, the side with more depth in their images will win.
_________________ And here we always meet, at the station of our heart / Looking at each other as if we were in a dream /Seeing for the first time different eyes so supreme / That bright flames burst into vision, keeping us apart.
Liberalists of whatever stripe will argue for freedom against exploitation and oppression, and throw big classical words about like dignity, love, pride, and esteem of humanity and individualism - even if it means encouraging transexuals, incest, pedophilia, homosexuality, etc.
And yet they are the biggest hypocrites delighting in the emasculation of a fellow man in submissive roles and positions. Voluntarism is such a neat word...
Nietzsche wrote:
"...whether one is still capable of a bite of conscience? (-this species is becoming rare: formerly the conscience had too much to chew: now it seems to have lost its teeth…" [WTP, 1009]
Where do these hedonists keep their face, when they are experiencing a high, while a man blows their cock, and at the crow, they preach about the loss of beauty, and truth, and goodness and so on. Sex organs fornicating with sex organs.
The "rights of man" means give us the license to affirm any consensual depravity without guilt, without conscience.
Nature means many things. The nature when we speak of renaturalization of man is not the indifference of reality, walking on which path would mean the loss of distinction between man and animal, life and death. We mean sharpening the instincts and accumulating sap and all the tension of the bow to distant goals.
It is admissible, as Lyssa approached the resolution, that the nature and conditions of renaturalization are experienced and experimented if it is to be a presentation and representation of a living process at the forefrontal presupposition of a coinciding and perfusing denaturalization. The conviction and intention of a liberalist and hedonistic competition is an observable and conservable phenomenon over which spans and expands the expressional multiplicity of a universalist pleasure-displeasure principle saturated and satiated in a technocratic and autocratic globalization of distance/separation, along with its privacy attributes, en-closure. In all converging systematic spheres, namely cultural, political, economic and the rest, of society the direction of decision on most gained, compared to how, why and what gained, solicits itself in exhibitions of productivitized production, induction, deduction and reduction. From this section the humanistic element, for instance, is displayed as an unidentification of identity of which is rejected and dejected and subordinated to and for the emergence of any foreign prospect by which could impel its desired ideal of sameness. The host going to the object of appropriation was not effective enough for the ultimate admixture of humanity in an image it believes it will appear, subsequently whereby the now subject was invited with or without reserve to come to the host.
_________________ Life has a twisted sense of humour, doesn't it. . . .
* * *
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
It is admissible, as Lyssa approached the resolution, that the nature and conditions of renaturalization are experienced and experimented if it is to be a presentation and representation of a living process at the forefrontal presupposition of a coinciding and perfusing denaturalization. The conviction and intention of a liberalist and hedonistic competition is an observable and conservable phenomenon over which spans and expands the expressional multiplicity of a universalist pleasure-displeasure principle saturated and satiated in a technocratic and autocratic globalization of distance/separation, along with its privacy attributes, en-closure. In all converging systematic spheres, namely cultural, political, economic and the rest, of society the direction of decision on most gained, compared to how, why and what gained, solicits itself in exhibitions of productivitized production, induction, deduction and reduction. From this section the humanistic element, for instance, is displayed as an unidentification of identity of which is rejected and dejected and subordinated to and for the emergence of any foreign prospect by which could impel its desired ideal of sameness. The host going to the object of appropriation was not effective enough for the ultimate admixture of humanity in an image it believes it will appear, subsequently whereby the now subject was invited with or without reserve to come to the host.
LCDs:
Good is whatever doesn't hurt you or me. Under which bracket, pls. perform, carry on any depravity, bestiality, anything at all that you like.
Bad is whatever doesn't benefit me. Under which bracket, anything is oppressive, victimizing, criminal.
Blacks up in arms over whites 'culturally appropriating' their style of dress in the form of wiggers, dreadlocks and other hair-styles. Then, find it offensive that they are not allowed to appropriate European culture and run it themselves.
The new Iron Man, now a black woman:
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
Cannot come up with a natural and accurate argument against him; just a "philosophy of despair", since it threatens him - likely a mixed race Anglo-Jew.
No accusation of "racist" or "Hitler" or "ignorance". An emotional argument, when it comes down to it. The presenter would be quick on the trigger words if it were a white man and not black - especially if it weren't someone so prestigious.
Relying on making emotion itself a worldly truth, a Godlike universal truth, in which everyone would despair. It is not that it makes him despair, but suggesting instead that the world would despair or only a person who has a "despairing view" of the world (someone who is despairing, themselves) would hold such a view. It is an insult disguised as a philosophical musing - suggesting to the audience that Ali should be pitied, a victim of society.
Ali came to terms with the world as it is and grew an appreciation for it, only for him to be called "damaged goods" by this host because he adapted to the environment, as if every suffering were a consequence of a failure on the part of the person to live up to a Godly perfection. Anyone who falls short after taking a risk is treated as if they could not anticipate the unpleasant turn of events and is subsequently blamed for their "stupidity" or "ignorance" - after the one who is blaming had no commitment but to use hindsight and history as a twisted way to force the other into forgetting their history through social shaming.
That is, to keep every wound fresh and peel off the scabs to prevent healing, hardening and strengthening. That scabbing representing a cutting off opportunity to the self (temporarily or not) in the form of discipline to not repeat the same mistakes. To force them to lose confidence in their own senses or else risk their sociosexual life. The end result being the cutting off of all opportunity, by not allowing oneself to deny the opportunity to impulsive decisions. Social interaction becomes a constsnt ultimatum to please the LCD when any individual can make up a story about you online and your relationships. Usually, this pushing takes the form of the one berating switching between definitions of words for the purposes of social manipulation (verbal IQ) with, hidden behind it, always a resentful snobbery that cannot accept a worldly hierarchy contrary to their idea of superiority (hiding as equality, where they're allowed to excuse all their own faults because the world "has a balance" to it.)
Suffering becomes the absolute evil, whenever that suffering is imposed upon another but it becomes the absolute good of a living man when it is imposed upon him.
They speak out both sides of their mouth - knowing that no respectable man wishes to be pitied, but they make suffering pitiable situations the epitome of virtue.
With the inversion, "man" keeps his wounds fresh in an attempt to find a resolution - a bleeding heart. "He" accepts no suffering as virtuous or good - there is no world in which he thinks discipline should exist. A return to childhood - an attempt to justify their previous ignorance or some shameful/unpleasant limitation because they're incapable of adapting and overcoming something about their past which is shameful to them. (Seeing what Satyr means by this now...) Restrictions on behavior which they cannot handle. So they bitch in an attempt to get collective justice for their own suffering.
Liberalism is a collectivist, group oriented mind-set, of "mob rule". Liberalism ends with the group, not the individual, because liberals cannot justify most of their secondary values as individuals. If Liberalism truly believed in "Equality", for example, then hedonism and decadence (of liberals) could never be justified. The liberal, Modern, cries out about injustices such as "Black Lives matter" and feeding starving negroes in africa, yet, do nothing about it. Instead the rule of liberalism occurs through reinforced hypocrisy. Liberals spout and sing about "Social Justice", but then conveniently, immediately act in the opposite manner.
From the position of luxury, insulated neighborhoods, protected by police brutality, the average liberal condemns all the lowers and inferiors on the social hierarchy with a nose held high, looking down upon everybody else. Perhaps the main driving force, the inspiration, of the average Western-Liberal-Modern is the "holier than thou" feeling and zealotry that liberals correctly inherited from their kin and ancestors (Judæo-Christianity). They know all the rhetoric and arguments to defend their concepts of 'Guilt', 'Shame', 'Humility', etc. without practicing anything what they preach.
When a liberal is exposed for what s/he is, then her herd-instinct will kick in. She attacks whomever exposes her for what she is, a piece of shit, human fæces, garbage. She will do all in her power to silence the one who made her "feel bad", or, truly feel guilty for her own actions and causes. Liberalism cannot operate without Hypocrisy, and then the entitled, spoiled, insulated, pampered, infantile reassertion of permanent Innocence. The Liberal refuses to age and mature beyond an infant or child, spiritually. S/he cannot grow as an adult, not even through adolescence let alone adulthood.
Liberals are stuck into the spirituality and mentality of a child. Liberals do not truly value 'Independence' and 'Individuality' as this would contradict most or all of their claims about victimhood, blaming others, causes and consequences for what liberals perceive as "bad or evil". Liberalism abhors the "responsibility of the individual". In this way, Liberalism is a complete break from Christianity, which at least posits the Hero of one (individual) who takes responsibility for others (Christ).
In this way, liberals cannot, do not want to, and never would conceive of where their ideology originally comes from (Christ, Christianity). In this way, liberalism breaks completely with the parent (Christianity) that produced it.
Liberalism is allergic to the idea of personal responsibility, accountability, and individuality. You can see this today by how liberals are scared shitless by the Enigma of Donald Trump. Trump, who demonstrates a strong sense of personal responsibility (adulthood), for example building a successful business and beautiful family, an american sentiment of "pull yourself up by the bootstraps", runs against what liberals themselves originally believed. Because liberalism has grown in number and popularity, manpower, mob-rule, liberals have no more interest in "fair" tactics, but instead silencing opposition democratically.
The Modern Liberal is caught between the Police who protect their liberal delusions and infantile state, and the "Police Victims" who are beaten, killed, and suppressed by police power. This is why "Black Lives Matter" has arisen and liberals cannot pick a side. If the liberal sides with police (which they ultimately will in the end) then they are "evil bigotted cis white males who oppress all minorities". And if the liberal sides with victims then they are "racists", because even the stupider negroes realize and understand that a white liberal on their side is a liability, not a true ally. The liberal is an ally to negroes and BLM, out of guilt, shame, and pity. Thus negroes do not respect white liberals, who merely pretend "Equality", while simultaneously perpetuating the deeper grievances of "racial division".
Smart blacks know this, and tend to be conservatives, because they know white liberals continually fail to empathize across the racial divide/barrier. Again, white liberals are motivated and inspired by religious zealotry (Social Justice Warriors), not any real or evident empathy across racial lines.
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
Today, the shame of slavery is inextricably linked with negro progeny. In order to justify claiming Europeans have no culture, to say all that feats of the West were economic in nature and not creative, they've inserted the negro into that legacy by claiming it was their servitude that helped create the monolithic America and Europe. Never will the negro be allowed to forget that shameful past until the white man is genocided, or taken out of power - because politics will always involve the narrative that the negro shares in the European man's achievements because of their enslavement; and that will be what they're defined by within a modern society.
Despite what advancements there have been in 'civil rights' today, the new communist Left has (in its hatred of Christian Europeans) damned the negro to associate himself with cattle. The alternative way to rescue was the inevitable Afrocentric movement, to assert all European creative heritage comes from the negro. While the IQ debate is shrouded in political hogwash, the assertion that Indo-European culture comes from a negro Egypt is this attempt to make sure even the spirit of European men and boys be appropriated into another economic explanation.
What is being done except to create a "rite of passage" qua the Jewish rite of the Holocaust, for every race and creed? To create 'one united world', all must be subject to some shameful history they won't forget. When it is the White Man's turn to be consumed in the suffering and shame - the scapegoat for responsibility will be base human nature itself from which the new emergent religion will save everyone from.
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
The surge of arrivals in the last seven months has exposed the gap between everyday multi-cultural living in European cities and the rhetoric of its politicians who deny that diversity is a reality.
Diversity defined as tolerance is to say that the world is conscious and tolerates all - because diversity exists. Because difference exists. The hidden order behind the world declares it 'true'.. And to deny the tolerance is supposedly to deny reality. The underlying assumption always being that tolerance is the only rational and acceptable response to becoming diversified.
Related:
(Redacted) wrote:
the question ["If Africans have low IQ and are comparatively retarded, how did they survive?"] is twisted, since, one could argue retropolatively this way, even bacteria have survived to this day… shall we count them as the most intelligent species?
One could just as well say that order and uniformity exists and balance themselves between these nihilistic poles whenever it's convenient to express one's self interest. This argument for diversity as health runs contrary to the goal of every nation state throughout history. The legitimacy with which these arguments are accepted sets a dangerous precedent where wielders of power could swing between these explanations like a metronome - cutting and chopping away at any criticism or exposition as way of moving the goal post and to avoid looking at the common denominator: themselves and their interests.
It takes a sort of ()internationalist() or ()global-conscious() mind to frame the narrative this way. Without a nation to identify with, they're left with the lowest common denominator of the world for argument.
That is, make alliance with all you can make alliances with, for the sake of countering a larger threat which recently entered the consciousness of the European man: entropy and space - "The Final Frontier". Romantic dreams of blasting off to another planet, where anarchy is guaranteed, captures their imaginations. They do not wish to pay the price themselves, though. If not for some ultimate goal such as the fight against entropy itself, it comes from a resentment of those who threaten their power - because a masculine populace simply threatens it - and they will take any opportunity to keep that threat at bay. Meanwhile, those fighting against the power provide the same promise given immemorial (like "Anonymous") that the powers that be only need to be gotten rid of and we may have a utopia. Rebels promising something historically none could ever deliver.
While the world is pressured to 'diversify', it's worth looking at those states which aren't internationally pressured to do so and are guaranteed their ethnic uniformity. Asia may no longer be an exception, as revealed by the media backlash against a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. (Interesting to note is that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].)
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
Can't stand that Undoomed person. - SJWs are real racists. - - Let me demonstrate to you how I am much better at living up to your morality than you are. -
Dr.Rorschach
Gender : Posts : 46 Join date : 2013-11-25 Age : 27 Location : The Void
Tell the females that your movement is feminine: "Think globally, act locally." "A community is required to raise a child, not just a parent." "No one should go at it alone."
Then, tell the males against your movement: "You are not respecting liberal/individualist principles. You are acting like dumb, collective, tribalists/racists." "Every individual has value, your collectivism is wrong." "You are sexist, not wanting to create a helpful community for children." "We need to protect minority rights by allowing them individual expression."
Individualism/Otherkin: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Good is whatever doesn't hurt you or me. Under which bracket, pls. perform, carry on any depravity, bestiality, anything at all that you like.
Bad is whatever doesn't benefit me. Under which bracket, anything is oppressive, victimizing, criminal.
Dangerous 'negligence' and Mal-practice can get away as "having hurt nobody", or not having compromised "anything serious" - as was the argument of the liberal System in this election than debarring Hillary outright.
"It cannot be proved that anybody was hurt by my actions/email leaks" - technicalities as the minimal for dignity.
Do we need a God, an agent, a ruling court, somebody to make the judgement, than taking responsibility oneself and stepping down?
Here will come Greed in the guise of the argument of the greater good and how much was at stake, "irrespective of personal shame", how one "needed" to carry on...
There is probably too much of this being revealed manifestly and obviously as I post this. Here is an article I wanted to share, by Scott Adams, about the intense cognitive dissonance revealing itself: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Scott Adams wrote:
This brings me to the anti-Trump protests. The protesters look as though they are protesting Trump, but they are not. They are locked in an imaginary world and battling their own hallucinations of the future. Here’s the setup that triggered them.
1. They believe they are smart and well-informed.
2. Their good judgement told them Trump is OBVIOUSLY the next Hitler, or something similarly bad.
3. Half of the voters of the United States – including a lot of smart people – voted Trump into office anyway.
Those “facts” can’t be reconciled in the minds of the anti-Trumpers. Mentally, something has to give. That’s where cognitive dissonance comes in.
There are two ways for an anti-Trumper to interpret that reality. One option is to accept that if half the public doesn’t see Trump as a dangerous monster, perhaps he isn’t. But that would conflict with a person’s self-image as being smart and well-informed in the first place. When you violate a person’s self-image, it triggers cognitive dissonance to explain-away the discrepancy.
So how do you explain-away Trump’s election if you think you are smart and you think you are well-informed and you think Trump is OBVIOUSLY a monster?
You solve for that incongruity by hallucinating – literally – that Trump supporters KNOW Trump is a monster and they PREFER the monster. In this hallucination, the KKK is not a nutty fringe group but rather a symbol of how all Trump supporters must feel. (They don’t. Not even close.)
Admittedly, a shallow read, but a fun one.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
"The old left has been collapsing in the West for some time. Being of the left today is a consumerist lifestyle choice, a means of adopting a caring pose in order to mask or atone for one’s egocentric behaviour. The ‘metropolitan elite’ may better be described as ‘the capitalist left’. Champagne socialism was once considered an amusing aberration in Britain, but it is now the norm in a country in which to be of the left is a means of projecting one’s public good standing. Virtue signalling and protesting is a substitute for social action, not an expression of it.One puts up a ‘Vote Labour’ placard once every five years to atone for the fact that you aren’t remotely a socialist.
No wonder the left is so enraptured by identity politics, the ultimate form of ‘choice’ and means of self-branding. There are more than 50 varieties of gender identity you can buy into today. No wonder the liberal left has taken to the streets after Trump’s victory, behaving like disgruntled consumers who didn’t get what they’d chosen at a department store."
I don't usually watch this YTer any more, but I thought it would be entertaining to watch liberals consume their own: classical liberal vs. modern liberal. Halfway through, I got a lovely 'stroke of inspiration'. The irony of the 'anti-racist' movement is that the European man, and the remnants of honor/integrity which undercut his secular egalitarianism (the WASP question), is what's responsible for the very rise and enabling of the secular egalitarian ideology. When the non-European person realizes that the struggle for secular egalitarianism actually doesn't empower them to represent themselves - but only against a distinctly WASP originated ideology - that they are still nothing but like that of nagging women, orbiting the gravity of the secular Puritanism, they start to say that secular Puritanism is racist itself because of its origins within the WASP history. The very cultural soil which allowed the outcropping of identity politics becomes the enemy of the now dumb and arrogant 'Black Lies Matter'. The arising of the cultural phenomenon of charging others with 'xeonphobia', 'racism', 'Islamophobia' or 'sexism'/'misogyny' comes from the interactions of three distinct groups: the Jew, the WASP and the European. From the Jew, they created the precedent for distinctive groups remaining distinct, while accusing the larger group of being 'anti-(their group)' as a practice of either stupidity or evil. The WASP navigated the Jewish question by embracing the radical WASP ideology of Puritanism, but into a secular form. The average European doesn't understand the ideological commitment to the disconnection of words from what they actually represent in the world, unless there is some demon/devil invented, some story, which makes them scared to be knowledgeable. The ghost of Hitler haunts every Jewish, WASP and European mind. Progress is then deemed the running-away-from the ghost, and 'fighting' is deemed inventing unpleasant lies about him - which, then, they strike down as a 'blow' against his image. Perpetual war/battle (a la 1984), but this time redirected against oneself instead of some foreign enemy. The same propaganda and neutering methods used on post-WW2 Germany by the Allies is now being used on Europe as a whole - as became necessary because of the increasing interconnectedness of propaganda and narrative, especially with the internet, which necessitates the increasing totalitarian crack-down on controverting opinions or facts, even. This is the logical end of the WASP, which in its own pompous arrogance thought itself above the Aryan to such a degree that it need not do the uncomfortable task of genociding the Germans, but instead tried to 'fix' them. Reminiscent of the American practice of going to war with a country, shooting an enemy and then turning around and trying to heal it. This is the demonstration of the seductive method of America, the fact that it is based in text, words and memes and not in blood/flesh. It is the same with Judaism, to some degree - but the Judaism preserves some connection through matrilinearity. Now the WASP performs the method he's used on every other country imperially, on itself - under the guise of 'consistency' and to make sure the ideological propaganda does not wear thin. Contrary to the inverted narrative, it is the use of morality, memes and ideology which shows weakness and insecurity. The WASP and Jew, the tightest of allies, is scared of an Aryan Germany which arises again when they find out that the rest of Europe has told them ideological lies. Nay, even scared of an Aryan uprising within all of Europe when they find out what lies have been vindictively told to the German people for the insecure sake of the WASP - now converted to a secular and puritanical egalitarian. Of course, because of the history of the WASP which relied on a religious motivation during the English Civil War, to justify the fervor with which they, as cucks, fought against their king. It then became rooted in the WASP identity to serve a meme, to serve an ideology, as servants, as the Jews believe themselves to be doing - instead of ideology coming from a people who have metaphysical effects on the advancements of the divine providence.
Whatever trace of it perished with Hitler. Now it comes down to liberal democracy trying to find a compromise between the oppressed and the modern. The Traditional liberals are the oppressed. They are immersed in social issues and politics. They opine endlessly about current affairs of social injustice, like SJW's do, but in a more productive way.
Nazism and Hitler are 'evil' to moderns and especially Americans, for a reason. It's simply about the weak naturally recognizing a superior imposition on their own inferiority with little to no understanding. It's impacting and fascinating. That's all they know. The rest comes from brainwashing and indoctrination.
America was founded on the misguided Anglo-Saxon might that culminated into a vague 'divine right' to power. A rootless colonist people finding a listless idealism in individualism that was allowed to fester from lack of strong government or no government. A self-serving manifest destiny. Having no real leadership but only chaotic, grandiose entitlements. Thus, modern American victimology was born. A country founded on persecution and oppression. Of course in those tender days, some traditional values of racial awareness were still upheld beneath this farce, but it didn't last.
These dissidents are only aware of their race as far as it is applicable within modern contexts. They cannot think about it outside the trends and mindsets and cliches. They feel the superiority of their European stock, but are too genetically constrained and relegated to embrace it. It has all become a petty game of one-up-manship and arrogant antics. Just as long as one feels superior to the other, that's all that matters. Nothing is accomplished. Nothing is realized.
"Cuckservatism" is this anomaly of Modern European nihilism.
