White countries need White Shariah

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.

Germany and its colonial empire:


Germany today:

Germany_today.jpg
But wait … Germany’s new colonial empire:

:slight_smile:

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.

‘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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

If you study anything of sociological significance concerning society race has everything to do with social cohesion construct or not.


Outsider
wrote:

You are a raving nut bag.

You love it, you suck on it.
Save it, sweetie, for someone who cares. It will not be me. I now know what your standards are, and now you know what mine are, and that’s all the difference—I hope—in the world.

If you use Negroes and 3rd World populations to achieve your ends then you will call it something like “reverse colonisation” to guilt unaware or mentally broken or mentally ill Europeans. A smart enemy.

They already have a lot of power, they already have access to all that technology, it’s about maintaining that power by destroying the competition. The enemy is not strong physically, he isn’t even that much more intelligent in the upper elements of IQ distribution, what he is is cunning and ugly beyond belief. You don’t expect this amount of ugliness and that’s why it’s difficult to understand the enemy for those who are so different from him.

I don’t even know why anybody would think I’m against these things. I’ve been speaking a lot lately about the need to punish dysfunctional behavior (which would be honor killings), the necessity of male dominance (female subordination), and of course women should live in fear, because fear is an emotion that evolved for a purpose, which is to protect us from danger. A healthy amount of fear is necessary. All societies are based on fear - fear from the threat of violence by daddy state’s physical enforcers - police and military, and fear from other groups which might seek to harm and conquer us. I see no reason why women should be exempt from this. The weak should fear the strong, and since women are weaker than men, they should fear men. It is the natural order of things. Not to mention that without fear there is no respect.

Yes, I’m all about receiving praise from brain-dead imbeciles on ILP. This is why I advocate White Sharia and other stuff which pretty much everybody here disagrees with. Because I want praise.

Because if somebody wants praise, the best way to obtain it is to advocate controversial stuff that only a small number of people agree with. Genius-level ILP reasoning on full display. Do tell us more.

Again, it’s not what you are “about” pertaining to anything deemed “controversial”. It’s the extent to which what you think you are about “in your head” reflects more a sound philosophical analysis or an existential contraption rooted in a uniquely individual trajectory of experiences that predisposed you to a particular set of political prejudices.

You’ll either explore that here with us [relating to gender or race] or you won’t.

Or is this all basically an exercise in irony: game playing and name calling.

Are you just the Devil’s advocate here? :wink:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t68hI1BKnUs[/youtube]

Haha. If you talk shit you have to be willing to back it up. This means risking injury, possibly even death.

It is what masculinity is about.

Yeah, like these sickly looking, puny commie faggots will stop us from implementing WHITE SHARIA.

Again, you insist that this is what masculinity is all about without exploring the extent to which you acquired this frame of mind as embodied in an “existential contraption”; or as a conclusion you reached only after examining gender roles rigorously from the perspective of a serious philosopher.

What were some of the experiences that you had with masculinity as a child? How were you indoctrinated by your family, your community etc., to construe a particular understanding of masculinity?

How were these interactions understood by you as embedded in a particular historical context [our own] and a particular culture context [your own].

Also, convince me that when you demand of others that they “back up” what they say, you are not insisting instead that eventually they must come over to your side and “back up” what Satyr says.

If only [here and now] sub-consciously.

Let’s start there.

:laughing:

Yeah, that’s part of my reaction to him. Especially when he comes in here huffing and puffing, strutting about in his black boots.

But there is also the part that, in all seriousness, I’d like to explore with him. Lots and lots of folks walk around arrogantly embracing one or another political agenda having never given much thought to the extent to which their values are rooted as much in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein as in a well thought out philosophical analysis.

I suspect that his reaction to me revolves in turn around an increasing concern [germinating “in his head” somewhere] that my points may well be reasonable. Or, perhaps, even applicable to him.

What then of his precious “self”? What if, like mine, it really is largely just an existential contraption?