Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Sure. In the former case you have people who deny that race exists because they think that denial will further a political end they have. Or people who try to re-write or re-present history to make certain racial groups seem more impactful or more villainous than they really were. In the latter case you have a detective team trying to solve a crime by indentifying the race of human remains and tissue samples. Or people developing nutritional programs or menus with the knowledge that non-whites are almost all lactose intolerant in adulthood.

Will modern conservatives ever figure out that a post-racial society they’ve been cucked into believing in will eventually erode the cultural values they hold dear? Doubtful …

Will communist leftists ever admit that they have nothing but contempt for genuine diversity? Probably not…

cosmic law of dualism gobbling up the world alive… keep fighting ???

right and left are both LETHAL perceptions

‘Regime of tolerance’: Radical left on the rise around world, RT story
youtube.com/watch?v=KIT1ulLCa2w

What I am trying to discern though is the manner in which you or AutSider construe the meaning of “race” as this relates to an issue that resonates more among us as a political conflict.

Busing, for example.

Given the historical reality of very separate and very unequal educational opportunities among blacks and whites [here in America] how would the factor of race be applicable in making a distinction between a political narrative and a frame of mind that encompasses the objective truth.

Uccisore

You mean it shouldn’t be a surprise? The problem you describe seems to be not that progressives are manipualting morality so much, but that they try to do so using language, which ultimately backfires on them.

Kind of reminds me of what feminists are doing. They take terms which signifies something generally regarded as extremely bad from a certain viewpoint (racism/rape and accusations of being racist/rapist) and which evokes strong emotional disapproval in many people. Racism here means, as you said, to literally believe that some/all other races should be completely killed, and rape being a person having sexual intercourse with another person without consent. Then under these terms (racism/rape, racist/rapist accusations) they try to include many other things which can be regarded either as a little bit bad or not bad at all, such as simply recognizing the existence of races or catcalling, and they try to get people to have the same response of automatic emotional disapproval to these things too by using the same accusatory term (racist/rapist) for these minor things as they would for extreme things (actual rape and racism). What they end up achieving is the opposite and instead of being able to push little offenses as being big offenses by using the term used to denote big offenses to also include little offenses, now they’ve completely corrupted the term for big offenses by including little offenses in it too, effectively reducing the strength of emotional disapproval previously connected to the term for big offenses, which yes, paves the way for the resurgence of real big offenses.

It’s what happens when people forget that language is a tool for communicating about reality, and that you cannot use language to manipulate reality because language is based on and dependent on reality.

Besides, one can then be almost thankful to progressives - they’ve successfully removed the stigma around the word “racist” with their desensitization and now people are more likely to explore the term fully.

My problem with your usage of the word is that you used the word “liberty” and I know you had in your mind a very particular, American kind of liberty, as if it was the liberty, the only type of liberty to exist, which it is not.

Except that analogy fails because survival here doesn’t mean the same as a foundation in a house, it means the same as EXISTENCE. So you aren’t comparing a mansion on an adequate foundation to X, you’re comparing a NON EXISTENT mansion, or a mansion which falls apart (ceases to exist) and kills everybody in it in the process. That is my point - some things get filtered out of existence by natural selection, and unless we want to fall prey to it, we better pay attention to the processes of natural selection to learn how to deal with them, to learn which things to avoid so that we can survive. Hippies, f.e. just cannot exist in the long-term - they can only exist until they run out of other people’s money/until other people stop providing for them. Their way of life is non-sustainable in and of itself.

A society is based on genes of a peoples and memes produced by these peoples interacting with a particular environment - blood and soil. Blood (genes) and soil (environment, territory) resulting in particular memes.

Since memes (culture) are produced by particular types of genes (peoples), it is impossible for the same memes to survive if genes are replaced - likewise, it is impossible that genes produce and accept any type of memes.

Your text is based on the (false) assumption that there is no connection between genes and memes so that

  1. any memes can survive with any genes
    [tab](If in 100 years, there is a place called the United States of America that largely has the same values, flag, geography, holidays, and religion as we have now, but 90% of the population is hispanic, did our society survive, or didn’t it?)[/tab]
    and
  2. that any genes can produce any memes [tab](Alternatively, if in 100 years this geographic region is called something different, has different values, holidays, morals, but everybody here is still white, did our society survive, or didn’t it?)[/tab],

Black people might become Christian and adopt memes produced by whites, but they do not preserve them as they are, instead they modify them to be more suited to their own genes (biology of their peoples) - look at black church service: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EaI0U1_IW4[/youtube]

Remind you of anything?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHd_0B_kQDo[/youtube]

You can take the negro out of Africa…

One of the fundamental principles of communism is the lack of social hierarchy, aka, non-existence of social classes. This is impossible because reality and nature are all about hierarchy. The destruction of hierarchies would necessitate the destruction of all life, which is far from wonderful I think.

As for free market, I’m not even gonna start there because that could be an entire separate conversation. The word “free” itself has so much bullshit attached to it, especially when used in such a context.

If you push it to the extreme, yes, but I am not advocating for that. It seems to me that to you it is a matter of absolute either/or - either I must advocate for principles which result in destruction of my own kind (liberalism/cuckservatism) or I must advocate for the other end of the extreme, where nobody but me and a select few can live. To me it is a matter of degree and seeking balance after setting certain boundaries. Just recently watched a video giving one (among many) reasons it wouldn’t benefit us to “make disappear” everybody but a few people: [tab]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rk2hPrEnk8[/tab]

All principles are based on self-interest, and all principles ultimately end up benefitting one side more than the other. Even the self-destructive principles of white liberals are based on self-interest, in that they hate themselves so much that they don’t mind to see themselves and everybody who is like them, extinct.

But hey, don’t listen to me. Whites used to be 90%+ majority in America. Now they are 60-70% and going down, slowly. Couple of decades more and true equality will be achieved. And then you’ll begin melting in the melting pot.

[tab][/tab]

NO. Basic survival is never covered. Life is perpetual war and struggle. One must ALWAYS remain vigilant. In your country our race is reducing in number as we speak, and you tell me basic survival is covered?

Because race is not only about skin color and because it is impossible for any country to thrive if it consists mainly of negroes, aborigines, and races of similar average IQ. Because race is a RELEVANT category which cannot be dismissed and ignored.

If one wants to survive one must adapt to the tactics of their enemy to an extent, pretending the enemy doesn’t exist and is no threat is useless.

Lol. So only after whites are, what, less than 10% of population (AKA, WHEN IT IS TOO LATE) they can begin to think about self-defense, and even then it is not a “justified ideology”, whatever the fuck that means?

And one of the things both black and white people do is wage war based on tribal identifications - this war was waged even between groups with very minute differences such as Serbs and Croatians, and the hostilities exist to this day (as a Croatian I can testify to this myself). Of course there will be conflict between groups such as whites and blacks where group differences are MUCH more pronounced, especially when one group (whites) doesn’t in any relevant way benefit from existing in the same society as the other group (blacks), and the blacks would benefit existing as parasites in a white society, so there is great risk they will be subversive and adopt a gibs-me-dat mindset, which is precisely what they do.

But you’re also a Christian, so don’t you think we all end up in paradise anyway so it doesn’t really matter if we are fucked in this life here of 50-100 years when we’ll enjoy paradise for an eternity? Well not we, obviously I as a filthy atheist will be sent to hell to burn for an eternity, I mean you and other proper Christians.

Masculinity cannot go extinct. If a society becomes too emasculated, it is usually just conquered by another, more masculine society, all other factors equal. So masculinity in general cannot go extinct, although particular types of masculinity of certain groups of course die with those groups.

In a situation like what? What caused that situation? What came first, biological organisms or human cultures? Did biological organisms precede human cultures, or was it the other way around? Are human cultures based on the biology of organisms constructing that culture, or does the culture exist first, somehow?

Note, I am not saying that culture doesn’t influence organisms at all, I think they both affect each other, but I also think that organisms construct cultures and so they determine culture more than culture determines them.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all that areas generally populated by blacks are shitty places to live, and I can’t lie to myself and pretend it is all about “culture”, which seems almost like a superstitious excuse.

Values such as what?

EDIT: added a video in tab and the paragraph about foundations.

First they came for the best.
They agitated those below the best and turned them against their betters.
I was too slavish, so I cheered, too complacent to care as well.

Then they came for the good.
And I was again too slavish and secretly also a coward.

Then they came for the mediocre and their video games and monkey sportsball.
And here we are now.

“Why doesn’t the left believe in the fake, disarming morality that I bought from them! It’s not fair! They’re so unequal & intolerant!”

Hmm…
This sentiment is a transition phase and this time there is only forward because the sheltered space is dwindling in size.

It’s confusing when you can’t let go of the false god of equality.

These notions of equality are a kind of self-imposed oppression.
It’s like with friendship, friendship only works well for both parties if they are on somewhat equal footing to begin with.
Otherwise their relationship is better being something else, better for both, something other than friendship.

Please tell me you aren’t a gamergater Ucci. I have way too much respect for you and you are much too good for that.

Thanks for this. Some nights I have guilt trips about the fella’s in my 'park who want to be my friend, I feel guilty for not giving them enough attention, but maybe this is just for the best. We wouldn’t have much to talk about anyway.

I doubt whites IQ lowers for not knowing who their father is. Luke Skywalker seemed pretty bright to me.

Having taken the time to re-read your OP, I have to ask: What is a real hate crime?

Hanging a black man in effigy?

Well, that’s just Halloween.

A fraternity song using a racial slur?

Well, they probably got that from rap music.

It becomes a game of “Schroedinger’s racist” which anti-life racists love to advocate.

On the other hand, if you call out every single aspect of racism, every microaggression, well, that is just too much.

And it is. Or at least can be and often ends up being when it’s an angry 18 year old saying it.

But it’s all about the better angels of our nature and what kind of person you want to be.

You don’t find that in the alt-right. You find stunted man-children.

When I was a dumb as fuck punkrock kid we’d all go and punch each other. Some of us were punks and some of us were Nazis. But we were all very angry.

This is, I’m told, not normal. And I grew out of it. But not everybody does and the people who don’t are damaged goods. But the rightwingers tended to make it more of a lifestyle thing, still do from what I can see. That isn’t a good look.

How can we help you clean your house? I’d kill for a Republican Party as wrong and as disagreeable but also a smart as you.

This is something which Ms. Piggy is probably thinking about when she mentions taking responsibility.

But this is only half the picture.
Let’s suppose you are not high on equality, in other words, not a coward who is afraid of becoming the fifth wheel in a society or group.
Because that is why you cry for it.
Then you will eventually see that not everybody can nor should be made part of a society.

I really got to start reading Evola. The magic and mysticism in his thought turns me off, but that text was spot on.

Ciao Ucci,

I think it is too late to get back to the other tread, so I figured I would join you in this one.

You don’t think that this has more to do with the impact of globalism and automation on the opportunities these gamers and others used to have? I don’t believe that in general age brings about a political view. I think that people can be given and led through certain narratives, given a language that create new ways of viewing the world they inhabit. This goes both ways, from the creation of terms like “microaggression” by an academia dominated by psychology-babble to the “alternative facts” being created as we speak.

So let me see if I understand your meaning here-- “homophobia” is held as a serious offense because it was received and internalized in a way the other terms could not? If so, very interesting. I think that, as you argued previously, this may also have to do with the arbitrarity of these terms. “Homophobia” had a moment when it was the accepted and academic way of describing something that was recognized over time. “Transphobe” is just not a thing for me when you have the perfectly understandable “homophobia”. It used to be the “LGBT” community, now it is the “LGBTQ” without so much as a discussion about the “Q”–but you can lose your job over it, that’s for damn sure.

I think you give to much credit to human reason here. I think that these terms often come as accusations and so they point a finger either at you or from you and so one is prone to defend the terms on much more than just the facts, especially since the facts are often hypotheses about other minds. If it was a mere consideration, discussion, then the result should not always be a rejection of the SJW idea. But the discussion is ties to a self-identity and so, sure, rejection (and rationalization of that rejection) is the normal course.

That does sound quite liberal. I believed it was Freudians that believed in having a psychologist for themselves. There is a similar ingredient in your quest for self-examination which is the assumption that the mind can be laid bare, its contents identified and categorized as X, Y, and Z, and rightfully, in my opinion, you place this as a question, as a problem.

But wait a second Ucci-- Is there really that much distance between you and a SJW? You should be able to defend a site wrongly described as “hatespace” to most people, even if not to the SJW. But just as the SJW stands at one end of the equation, surely you recognize that there really might be some sites rightfully described as “hatespace”, fringe movements of people without any self-awareness, or desire for self-examination (as problematic as that itself might be). Bill Maher is a liberal-- doesn’t mean that he could not agree with you about P.C. bullshit.

Reinterpreted maybe. But what is man made of? Literature? Maybe you and I are different on this sort. I wasn’t an avid reader in school. I read to get a grade, not because I enjoyed it. I believe that YouTube would be a better tool to find the origins of our current national controversies. The Mighty Roman Catholic Church was mighty because it controlled information. The creation of television and the internet, and cable tv, increased exponentially the levels of information one would be exposed to. In pushing the envelope, niches where created where once there had been a meta-narrative. Once, romances described as “fairy tale romance”, meaning that printed narratives informed, or suggested ways to interpret one’s life events (the romance). Today others interpret their particular life as gay adopting again available narratives (Ellen, Modern Family, etc).
I served in the military during the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and it was controversial because it changed nothing, leaving the alternative life-style in the shadows. Today LGBTQ defenders equal their struggle with civil rights-- this in the short span of 25 years. There was no discussion, deliberation, controversy-- one day it simply became a norm in some circles creating automatic enemies in others. I believe that the Supreme Court has avoided being a final authority on many issues and thus the Nation cannot move on to a new universal status quo. We are left “divided”.

I agree and that is what is worrisome. Civil rights, as envisioned by MLKJr were about meritocratic values, consistent with the Constitution’s value that “all men are created equal”. White Nationalism, to be clear, is not always about racism but also about racialism. But that narrative that tells young white males that they are better by virtue of accident rather than merit is dangerous because it could lead to a decline in in self-improvement, instead promoting a sense of entitlement that without merit, would only be satisfied by other means.

I don’t fully agree. One can say Nazism is horrible-- doesn’t mean that you are a defender of human rights (Arendt), or that you don’t support, in turn, something as horrible and vile like Communism (Sartre), even while serving as part of the progressives genealogy. I believe that too many times people are consuming information rather than learning proper critical thinking. What is historical fact is replaced by an idea of it that bears little resemblance in order to maintain the name without any reference to what it used to mean. Achilles’ ship, except that the refurbished ship is now a little boat. Ben Carson has compared slavery with Obama care and recently to immigration. What will be next? I take it from all of this that for him slavery is the worst thing he can think of, and I get that, but he has made many mistakes because slavery DOES have a meaning that is contrary to some of his political points imbedded in the comparisons. Very often there is no tradition. We are more worried about kids being taught about evolution than about slavery. But again this goes back to the SJW situation and how certain things cannot be viewed objectively because they cause psychological discomfort because an invisible finger is pointed at you just as it is pointed at others. When (if) the time comes that the sons of former slaves sit together with the sons of former slavers at the table of brotherhood it will be because they have found a greater narrative that defines and unites them (like “american”) rather than because they forgot their history

I disagree in that you are placing a phenomenon that you have traced all the way back to the 1970’s squarely under the responsibility (and authority?) of one side of the political spectrum. Really? I don’t think that a phenomenon as old can be reduced to the activity of progressives or the media, especially since the GOP today is more different today than the Democrats in the 1970’s. Just because some are being called “nazis” does not mean that they are victims. What else is going on? I wish, seriously, that people would study Hitler, and WW2, more so that they could better discuss what constitutes or why something is not, nazi. Just to use that example.

Someone, some man, might have grown up believing that women are usually the ones who are mistreated by men. And he also thinks that he is special, a good guy, compared to other men. The thing is, he is not special, he is just one dope among many who bought into this idea that women are generally mistreated by men, that that’s the issue, the worthwhile concern for society at large. Most other men think the same way he does because they all have been taught to think that way. That man is also taught that many men don’t think the way he does, that he is indeed special for being one of the good guys.

Same thing with racism, I am one of the good white boys who is not a racist, I’m sensitive to their issues and all that.
You gotta give people something to redeem themselves.
First you tell them they or their kind have this original sin and then you give them a way how to redeem themselves. That’s the behaviour which is then deemed virtuous.

So why does the muh racism s(h)tick not work anymore, except among those liars who are gaining from it in some way or form?
1)Because there are no ways to redeem yourself anymore for most white boys. So no carrot anymore.
2)The hypocrisy has become increasingly obvious - You can’t sell yourself as the poor victim very well if you commit too many hate crimes yourself, even if the media tries to hide it and play it down. (see rise of social media and fake news hysteria)
3)Spreading of diversity to formerly homogeneous white communities who actually believed the lies about racial equality because they had not enough real personal experience with it themselves.

People don’t buy into the muh racism shtick anymore because it doesn’t work for them anymore.
Same with something like feminism. Even women are increasingly turning their back on it because it doesn’t work for them anymore.
It’s like with a pyramid scheme, there comes a time where there are more losers than winners in it and then it loses its appeal for newcomers.

I can mostly agree with that. This all works via media. There is still a huge interest in feminism (comparable with all kinds of socialism). If feminism get’s lost, a certain power get’s lost too, albeit this power is not and has never been a female power. :sunglasses:

Truth is, purporters of equality don’t bring about a world of equality.
Not that that would be a worthwhile ideal anyway but the world is not even moving towards it.

It’s just that they try to hamper and destroy those who they have been taught to hate, which is their betters. And frankly a lot of those betters are found among the Europeans. That, and it’s the better Europeans who they are exposed to. They are those who remind them daily of their feelings of inferiority.

We could say that all this equality screaming is going to bring about a world with more acid attacks (I’ll spare you the pictures), more child molestations and so on…
But, we should also not forget that it’s Europeans who brought about the abomination of the shitlib. And if you put that on the scales… Well, I guess we still have to go with promoting Europeans and their proliferation. Hey, it’s not perfect and we need a different eugenics program, counter to what brought forth the shitlib but it’s still better than the other options. The word is, superior.

One of those Memes, circulating in traditional circles…
Makes you go cookie.

:-k

Listen up gents!
Even cocksucker-gents seek to dominate and create the world a in their image of poop-dick, using their cocksucker-gents ways.

#UnderstandingShitlibs
#Cuckservatives

Where Im from which is gayparade central you have faggots and transgenders that come out but guys who are gay but still want to seem male they dont come out ever. Everyone knows this friend of a friend is hyper gay…but he keeps getting girlfriends. But one day I decided to talk to him about gayness and he began trashing the bar and ran out and his friend said he has never seen him like this. He is gay.