Translate

Saturday, 24 June 2017

Is Claire Khaw alt-right, alt-lite or neither? Who decides? The Pope of Nationalism?



Who is Pope of Nationalism?

Alt-right = ethno-nationalists?  Alt-lite = civic nationalists?

Am I alt-lite? Or  would the Pope of Nationalism say I can't be part of the alt-right movement because I am, er, differently raced to white people?

On the JQ, Muslims have been known to express what might be called antisemitic views eg Naz "Nazi" Shah MP. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mp-naz-shah-apologises-for-backing-relocate-israel-to-north-america-plan-a7001406.html

My definitions:

Liibtard = the oligarchic Western establishment whose views are divided by party eg LibLabCon 

Alt-right = anyone expressing socially conservative views about other races, women and sexuality with solutions going over and beyond what is available to mainstream Conservatism. In Britain, this would include both ethno-nationalists in the NF and BNP as well as civic nationalists in UKIP.

That's it, really. The alt-right should work together, obviously, because unity is required to obtain power. Once power is acquired, by all means fight each other to get the lion's share.

All the differences that exist between the races are but cultural differences caused by the degree to which each group practices the traditional marriage and family values.  In all nations and races, there are really only two kinds of morality because, if we want the long term survival of our nation and civilisation, there is only one patriarchy whose indispensable ingredient is traditional marriage. The antithesis of patriarchy is matriarchy ie intentions, policies and ideas that would undermine marriage eg condoning widespread fornication and therefore widespread bastardy.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/there-are-only-two-kinds-of-morality.html

I wonder if I will ever be given the opportunity of demonstrating on the channel of a prominent YouTuber my proposition that ethno-nationalists  can get what they want through civic nationalism.  https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/civic-nationalism-is-enough-to-get.html and https://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answers/142773784961?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=answer_own  They seem to think they have all the time in the world. I rather disagree.

What should be addressed must be addressed.

What must be addressed should be addressed as soon as possible.

Otherwise, the problem continues to get worse. King of MGTOW, @MGTOWisFREEDOM explains from the 38th minute:



How can you expect the liar to start making promises they will keep? You can't. It can't just be an economic change that will drive women back into the home and being satisfied with the man's efforts. That's not good enough. It's gonna take a whole lot more than that. It's gonna take a change in the system. If it took 70/80 years to get to where it is now, how many years do you think it will take to go back to where a man could be sure he was protected enough he would be willing to marry a woman and stay with her and know she will stay with him? Not in my lifetime, fuck no. In my sons' lifetimes? Maybe at the end of it. If they manage to have kids, what is that arrangement going to be like? It saddens me greatly. We're going through generations of people on this planet where all the men are raised as bastards, not knowing who their father is or hating their fathers because of the mother, and only the wealthy and only those who manage to stay in the middle class and stay married are going to have any idea of a semblance of what a traditional idea is all about. So what is MGTOW? MGTOW is the direct result of the system that created it. It was the direct result of a man's effort to improve his standard of living and is the direct result of social engineering through the court, legal and statutory system to empower women over a man's life, and look at where it's got us. It didn't fall out of the fucking sky and land on us and shit on us all.

Only I can express these ideas with sufficient clarity and rigour for a number of reasons eg my legal training, my knowledge of classical history, my longstanding interest in theology, philosophy and politics. For example, I happen to know that in Latin, "I should" and "I must" are the same word ie debeohttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/debeo  Of course, in time the Romans forgot to put theory into practice breaking their own rules and the decline and fall of Rome began. 

Only I can express these ideas with sufficient clarity and rigour because I am the mind of a man inhabiting the body of woman, but I don't care if women don't want to have sex with me, while you guys do.

We all know men are afraid of denouncing feminism, because they know that if they did, women would withhold sex from them. This prospect is as awful to the morally compromised nationalist as the idea of going cold turkey to a junkie. Indeed, this idea is so awful that even nationalists who are not morally compromised shudder at the idea of persuading nationalists who are morally compromised to come round to the idea of uncompromisingly supporting the institution of marriage. Most would rather die and even have their nation descend into chaos and their civilisation end, rather than address the problem of how marriage can be made an attractive bargain to men again. 

Apparently, Confucius said that the average man is better than the average woman in morals and reason. However, the rare superior woman is superior to the superior man in morals and reason. This is because the superior woman is not being always tempted by the idea of having sex with immoral women who want to bribe her with sex in order to subvert her principles and moral convictions nor is she as as susceptible to these temptations as the superior man.

Now, which male ethno-nationalist YouTuber will be the first to feature me on his YouTube channel?

If you care about your race and your nation, what have you got to lose? Likes? Subscribers? Hardly. Your ratings would shoot right up.

Do you think the fightback against the matriarchy should be treading water or swimming towards an agreed goal with a set of policy demands?

I suggest to you that saying what is necessary to be said means you are logically and necessarily closer to doing what is necessary to be done. 

Do you think the debate should and would be advanced by discussing new ideas? If not, why not? Because you don't want to risk being persuaded by facts and logic?

You know you lot are just going over ideas and re-stating the problem of feminism and wondering how far you dare go to challenge it.

The next step is to talk to me, even if you don't like my ideas, the sound of them fearing where they may lead: patriarchy. Yes, living in a patriarchy means the price of sex will be high. Not only are women expected to make sacrifices, men will be expected to make sacrifices too. It is win-win for women, and lose-lose for men. That is why a general belief in God is the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy: because belief that God will put things right in the next life if things are not fair in this life is the key to making most people behave decently. Once you lose this, everyone will be fighting each other like rats in a sack, immigrants or no immigrants. 

No comments: