White countries need White Shariah

[WendyDarling]

Wendy claims to be all about cooperation but you can be sure that if somebody tried to implement something like WHITE SHARIA she would not want to cooperate, and might even go to war against them.

Do you have problems interpreting what is written? I am not against defensive violence. I'd rather have social order benefiting all based on cooperation, if men choose to be aggressors, R.I.P. aggressors.

I knew you couldn't help but peek..haha.

[AutSider]

This is not so in my experience. Many men will automatically assume that a woman is successful in her career because he has either slept her way up or had ingratiated herself to her superiors. This is the kind of thinking men do, as if this is what they would do if they were women. And this is total bullshit. Women who want equality will not seek shortcuts and use their sex to their advantage- their success is purely merit based and they work hard for it ( even harder than other men). For some reason men refuse to acknowledge that an attractive girl/woman would succeed based on merit/skill and not based on her looks. This to me is just a projection of men's own thinking of how they would act if they were a woman - basically, they would take shortcuts, because it just makes logical sense to them. There is a hidden sense of jealousy and insecurity projected in this too.

I don't know about men really wanting to be women, I haven't really sensed that, only perhaps some kind of envy based on misunderstanding that women have it easier in life, because they think if they were women everything would be so much easier for them; all they'd have to do is bat their eyes and spread their legs. These men do not understand women, but think they do.

That's a completely valid assumption. For most women, their beauty is their strongest asset. Men evolved to have a sort of a weakness for women and to love them (which can be maladaptive behavior if women aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing). This is all largely unconscious, so men may not even be aware that they're treating women preferentially because they are women, and women may not be aware that they are being treated preferentially because they are women.

Jealously is a feminine feeling. I don't recall the last time I felt it. I can feel sad, happy, I can feel sympathy and antipathy. Jealousy, no, sorry. I don't even know what insecurity has to do with it.

Women definitely have it easier in life, but that you think men want to have it easy like how women want to have it easy only proves what I said about how women just blindly project.

Well, I don't think executing your own people is a smart tactical move, either. I can see your population eventually dwindling down to just maybe a handful of hardcore idealists.

Are you trolling me? The choice is between execution and exile. If somebody is to be executed or exiled, they are not "your own" anymore.

As for the population dwindling, it depends. If Europe started culling all the degenerates now, there would be a lot of death and the population would dwindle, in the short-run.

Once all the degenerates have been purged and the new generations are raised differently with healthy ideals and accurate understandings of the world there would be few executions and the high birthrates would easily compensate.

[AutSider]

Before: Britain while it had something similar to WHITE SHARIA (patriarchal, militaristic, colonialist...)
After: Liberalized Britain

[Mr Reasonable]

But look at this biscuit. Why would you worry about global politics and rationalizing things that divide humanity when you could just get one of these and eat it instead?

[Mr Reasonable]

That's goat cheese and honey on there. You seem like a goat cheese type.

[AutSider]

Filthy hedonist.

[Mr Reasonable]

Your mom.

[AutSider]

More ways in which women inaccurately project:

They think that because when they view men as inferior they automatically hate and resent such men (beta-orbiters, cuckolds), that if men view them as inferior, that they will be automatically hated and resented in the same way. Based on this inaccurate understanding of gender relations women will demand equality and call every man who thinks women are inferior in some aspects, a "misogynist", "sexist", basically, a woman-hater. Of course, this is inaccurate because the sexes evolved differently. Women evolved to hate and despise weak (non-masculine) men because they are unfit. But for a woman being non-masculine isn't a weakness in the same way it is for men, and men do not expect women to be just as strong, just as rational, just as aware of reality, etc. Men will think of women as inferior in those regards (and justifiably so), but won't hate them for it in the same way we don't hate our cats and dogs even though they are inferior. We actually like them and take care of them, as long as they are being obedient and not destructive.
In fact, for a woman to be overtly physically strong could signal an estrogen deficiency and a fertility problem, as well as high-maintenance because she consumes more calories. Also, she would be more likely to oppose the man, and men do not like to be opposed. She'd also be physically unattractive and it may be impossible for a male to get an erection and impregnate her at all. Being too rational would mean she cannot complement the man's rationality with her emotional side but that she would instead seek to replace the man of the house and challenge him. Being too aware of reality (I mean reality outside of social norms - nature, war, competition, cooperation, resource extraction...) might cause her stress and inhibit her ability to properly raise a child, etc.
In short, women hate sexual partners who are inferior and so they mistakenly think men do too.

But really at the core of this is just that women project themselves into the position of men without accounting for gender differences (mostly because they think there are none and that we're all equal), so of course they end up with a skewed perception of reality.

Yet another thing women do is they find it hot and exciting when their man can attract other women and flirts with them. It makes the woman in the relationship want to compete with that other woman for her man's affections, as it signals to her that he is a high-status male who is desired by other women too. This is how females compete.

So females falsely project that if they try to attract other men and flirt with them in front of their partners, that their partner will want to compete with the other man and be all like "nooooo baby come back to me, you're mine, I love you". Of course, since the sexes are not the same, this isn't the case. If a woman does something like that it signals she is unfaithful and promiscuous, and that she's trying to cause trouble and violence by getting men to compete for her. These are extremely unattractive traits in women. So what really happens, unless the male is a desperate cuck, is that the man says "fuck you bitch, thanks for exposing your nature to me, I'm better off without you anyway". Then she's all like "why did this not work, hurr durr".

[Otto_West]

I understand your anger Autsider but you'll never change the political individual liberalism of the west, it's here and isn't going anywhere. You would have to achieve violent enforcement for your ideal to work and it would have to be maintained 24/7 , there simply isn't enough numbers of people with your mental disposition to enforce any of that. The activities or goals of minorities are always limited in scope.

[WendyDarling]

there simply isn't enough numbers of people with your mental disposition to enforce any of that.

Thank goodness the number of violent psychotics is limited.

[Otto_West]

there simply isn't enough numbers of people with your mental disposition to enforce any of that.

Thank goodness the number of violent psychotics is limited.

Well, you need to have the ability to see how others think in order to understand his position. Simply calling him psychotic isn't particularly helpful in understanding his point of view no matter how much you disagree with it. There is a kernel of truth behind all varieties of opinions or perspectives even those that society at large deems horrendous. Subject validity by a majority also isn't very legitimate in terms of understanding either with controlled normalcy bias present.

[WendyDarling]

A kernel, a truism, is not enough to inspire any confidence in people who could produce change. Autsider doesn't have a worthy, complete, platform from which to verbalize any thought provoking way in which to make change occur. He's angry and ugly, neither garner help from others. If you can't encompass the whole truth then you have nothing but one point upon which to preach from your pulpit of insanity and it sounds like hatefilled yada, yada, yadas.

[A Shieldmaiden]

Outsider wrote:

Anyways my point about 50 Shades of Grey is that it without a doubt indicates what women in general they desire sexually

HA!

[AutSider]

I understand your anger Autsider but you'll never change the political individual liberalism of the west, it's here and isn't going anywhere. You would have to achieve violent enforcement for your ideal to work and it would have to be maintained 24/7 , there simply isn't enough numbers of people with your mental disposition to enforce any of that. The activities or goals of minorities are always limited in scope.

The bolded part is where you're wrong. Liberalism is not sustainable, as it is self-castration. I may not be able to change it, but it will change.

Remember that everybody needs violence and threat of violence to preserve their political power, regardless if you're a communist, feminist, libertarian, Nazi, or whatever.

To say that aggressive violence is always bad but defensive violence is always good you'd have to literally be completely non-political.

Because if the default system is Nazi Germany, then defensive violence is that perpetrated by the Nazi system, and offensive/aggressive violence is that perpetrated by whomever is trying to overthrow the system.
So if you support defensive violence you're basically just supporting whatever is the status quo, be it Nazism/Communism/Liberalism, doesn't matter.
And if you support offensive/aggressive violence you're supporting whatever goes against the status quo, the revolutionaries, regardless of who they are.

Unless you'll claim that violence perpetrated by your own political party is always innocently defensive while the opponents are always the mean, bad, aggressors regardless of circumstance, in which case - how very convenient for you.

Personally I find the distinction itself useless except in very specific usages because violence=aggression and we're all inevitably violent.

[Otto_West]

I understand your anger Autsider but you'll never change the political individual liberalism of the west, it's here and isn't going anywhere. You would have to achieve violent enforcement for your ideal to work and it would have to be maintained 24/7 , there simply isn't enough numbers of people with your mental disposition to enforce any of that. The activities or goals of minorities are always limited in scope.

The bolded part is where you're wrong. Liberalism is not sustainable, as it is self-castration. I may not be able to change it, but it will change.

Remember that everybody needs violence and threat of violence to preserve their political power, regardless if you're a communist, feminist, libertarian, Nazi, or whatever.

To say that aggressive violence is always bad but defensive violence is always good you'd have to literally be completely non-political.

Because if the default system is Nazi Germany, then defensive violence is that perpetrated by the Nazi system, and offensive/aggressive violence is that perpetrated by whomever is trying to overthrow the system.
So if you support defensive violence you're basically just supporting whatever is the status quo, be it Nazism/Communism/Liberalism, doesn't matter.
And if you support offensive/aggressive violence you're supporting whatever goes against the status quo, the revolutionaries, regardless of who they are.

Unless you'll claim that violence perpetrated by your own political party is always innocently defensive while the opponents are always the mean, bad, aggressors regardless of circumstance, in which case - how very convenient for you.

Personally I find the distinction itself useless except in very specific usages because violence=aggression and we're all inevitably violent.

Liberalism will collapse from within eventually but I just don't see anyone or anything challenging it largely because a majority of morons support it and unfortunately those majority of morons comprise most of the government.

I of course would like it more of it imploded on itself sooner rather than later as waiting is the hardest part.

Yes, I understand your positions on violence and historically violence has been most effective at changing the dynamics of things whether people want to admit it or not.

[AutSider]

The majority of morons aren't the biggest threat. Where I live it's illegal to own weapons (though some people still have them).

First of all, about 50% of the population are women. They're not a relevant threat.

The other 50% of the population are men. Around 20% of that 50% are men who are too young (under 15 or so) and too old (older than 60) to be a serious threat, and those too weak/unhealthy to be a threat.

This leaves us with 30% of the population comprised of average to slightly above average men of fighting age who are a moderate threat. But most of them don't have weapons and don't know how to use them, so a small group of armed men who know what they're doing can enforce their will on them.

The biggest actual threat is the police and military - the physical enforcers of the system itself, comprised of above average, trained, and armed men. They are the reason change is impossible.

Women, children, weak men, slightly below average men - the majority, can be easily dominated.

The only way to change anything is to get healthy, trained, armed men on your side. This means either converting normie men to the cause or some of the police/military people themselves.

[Alf]

Before: Britain while it had something similar to WHITE SHARIA (patriarchal, militaristic, colonialist...)
After: Liberalized Britain

Germany and its colonial empire:

German_Colonial_Empire.jpg (100.38 KiB) Viewed 2144 times

Germany today:

Germany_today.jpg (8.05 KiB) Viewed 2144 times

But wait .... Germany's new colonial empire:

[A Shieldmaiden]

I ask you, what does it mean to be a woman? Is a man really qualified to answer this. Despite centuries of male domination and a determined mind set of women to claw back some recognition of who they are, I would guess, there is little possibility of women reverting back, at least of their own volition. Women have for years been forced into subordination, resulting in unequal 'everything' and to make change a few women in the beginning had to defy the limits of convention, some at their own peril. Laughable isn't it to suggest women turn back. In Turkey women are struggling for some sort of equality without any clear progress, Pakistan still practices Honour Killing. Despite this or because of it women of this the age are struggling to rise from the depths.

Christine de Pisan, French poet and author wrote several works championing women. "She is best remembered for her revolutionary work in La cité des dames (1405), which is considered to be one of the first feminist texts. She profiled leading female figures from history and advanced the idea of gender equality. She continued to espouse the rights of women in Le livre du trésor de la cité des dames(1405). Jakucho Setouchi, an 84-year-old Japanese Buddhist nun and novelist, who won a number of literature awards, "an author who "thinks with her womb", said women have become stronger than in the past and men have begun falling down. In Japan there are even young men who are called "grass eaters".

There is a place for a woman's voice to be heard after many years of silence, but today feminists have ignored many of the the fundamental issues. Women seem to be turning their backs and looking for another more amenable solution where men and women are not ostracised from each other.

[Is_Yde_opN]

'Nuns' and 'priests' will be nuns and priests and the miserable among them will spew their equality talk to try and make the happily married women miserable.
They will attack the character of their husband and so on. All under the guise of freedom, the freedom to make Power Point presentations in your glorious office job. They will spew and spew, no matter how dominant or how much of a doormat the heterosexual men are.

Regardless of all of this, no European male domination, no European people.

Equality talk is just a tool to selectively dismantle and attack those who you despise, in an underhanded way.

[AutSider]

I ask you, what does it mean to be a woman? Is a man really qualified to answer this. Despite centuries of male domination and a determined mind set of women to claw back some recognition of who they are, I would guess, there is little possibility of women reverting back, at least of their own volition. Women have for years been forced into subordination, resulting in unequal 'everything' and to make change a few women in the beginning had to defy the limits of convention, some at their own peril. Laughable isn't it to suggest women turn back. In Turkey women are struggling for some sort of equality without any clear progress, Pakistan still practices Honour Killing. Despite this or because of it women of this the age are struggling to rise from the depths.

Christine de Pisan, French poet and author wrote several works championing women. "She is best remembered for her revolutionary work in La cité des dames (1405), which is considered to be one of the first feminist texts. She profiled leading female figures from history and advanced the idea of gender equality. She continued to espouse the rights of women in Le livre du trésor de la cité des dames(1405). Jakucho Setouchi, an 84-year-old Japanese Buddhist nun and novelist, who won a number of literature awards, "an author who "thinks with her womb", said women have become stronger than in the past and men have begun falling down. In Japan there are even young men who are called "grass eaters".

There is a place for a woman's voice to be heard after many years of silence, but today feminists have ignored many of the the fundamental issues. Women seem to be turning their backs and looking for another more amenable solution where men and women are not ostracised from each other.

Take your subversive feminist poison elsewhere. This shit is so wrong and lame it doesn't even deserve a response. It doesn't even deserve to be on a philosophy forum. It doesn't even deserve to be expressed.

People expressing ideas that are this damaging and wrong should be beaten. The beating shouldn't cause any permanent damage, but it should hurt, and it should be humiliating. There is no other cure for this filth.

Fuck off.

[A Shieldmaiden]

No doubt feminism is at a loss at what to do next. After Hillary's defeat there must have been great despair for these women. The first female President and all that. There will be change and it will affect us all, men and women. "A man whose behaviour toward women is a throwback to pre feminist days is now setting the tone for the country. A majority of white women voted for him, shattering myths of female solidarity and the belief that demeaning women would make a politician unelectable."

When a country is in crisis one of the first things to go are women's rights and they are tenuous at best. Call me a feminist, but if fighting for the cessation of honour killings, subordination of women and women who live in fear, then a feminist I will be and continue to champion the cause. I will always defend the underdog. Your highly emotional response, cancels out any effort on your part to project a person of valour or masculinity.

Go back to KTS for your pat on the head. Chuckle.

[Otto_West]

'Nuns' and 'priests' will be nuns and priests and the miserable among them will spew their equality talk to try and make the happily married women miserable.
They will attack the character of their husband and so on. All under the guise of freedom, the freedom to make Power Point presentations in your glorious office job. They will spew and spew, no matter how dominant or how much of a doormat the heterosexual men are.

Regardless of all of this, no European male domination, no European people.

Equality talk is just a tool to selectively dismantle and attack those who you despise, in an underhanded way.

In order to set up reverse colonization of the west acquiring all its power, wealth, military, and technology you have to weaken it not just ethnically or culturally but also in terms of fertility.

Working as planned of course unfortunately.

[AutSider]

Honor killings are great, subordination of women is awesome, and damn right women should live in fear. Yes, you're a filthy feminist and when the day of the rope comes, that's how you shall be treated.

But at least you honestly admitted you are a feminist. This means you'll get a quick, merciful death.

"highly emotional response" that's inaccurate woman projection all over again.

"project a person of valour or masculinity" You think I seek some sort of appraisal from you people here?

[WendyDarling]

Your direct and indirect threats towards the women here would not save you from being dropped like the animal you are. Target practice is quite relaxing.

[iambiguous]

Honor killings are great, subordination of women is awesome, and damn right women should live in fear. Yes, you're a filthy feminist and when the day of the rope comes, that's how you shall be treated.

But at least you honestly admitted you are a feminist. This means you'll get a quick, merciful death.

"highly emotional response" that's inaccurate woman projection all over again.

"project a person of valour or masculinity" You think I seek some sort of appraisal from you people here?

My own reaction to this sort of subjunctive fulmination revolves less around whether his arguments are correct and more around how we might explain the reason that he opted for choosing them. Why these particular opinions and not others?

Clearly, there was a point in time when he first began to think about race and gender in what "intellectuals" construe to be a "political" or "philosophical" frame of mind. In other words, that point in time when all of the experiences he had had -- experiences that had predisposed him to one set of political prejudices rather than another -- were more or less set aside and he commenced to do some serious research on the subjects. That way after "studying the matter" he could convince himself that there was indeed an optimal frame of mind to be had here and that if you delved deep enough into these matters you could discover it.

Or maybe even invent it. Your very own explanation for why most folks do what they do historically, culturally. Instead of what they ought to do naturally.

What he discovered is that, as with folks like Satyr, only when you acknowledged that 1] human interactions revolved first and foremost around biological imperatives and that 2] it was possible to grasp the necessary assumptions to understand them were you then able to both prescribe or proscribe human behaviors -- all of them apparently -- as either in sync with or not in sync with nature itself.

The nature.

Which is why I would be curious to know how he did come to make that distinction between memes and genes here. What actual experiences did he have in his life that predisposed him to embrace his current rather dogmatic political agenda. And how does he know that all of the knowledge and information that he has acquired in order to transcend "I" as an "existential contraption" reflects an optimal mix of ideas and arguments?

Finally, can he really say with any degree of certainty that new experiences, new relationships, new sources of information and knowledge etc., won't upend his current assessment and take him in a whole other direction?

Or, instead, is my own frame of mind -- that folks embrace one of another religious or secular dogma in order to embody the "psychology of objectivism" -- a more reasonable manner in which to grasp his rutting fulminations here.