Millennial Woes attempts to answer the question "What do you define as the alt-right?"
Nonsensically, he says the alt-right are:
people on the right, broadly ... maybe not in the sense of being economically right-wing, but definitely in the sense of believing in hierarchy. We are not egalitarians, we do not believe in equality. We believe in Khaw Things like Khaw Nature and race and race is part of that. We don't believe that you can be ignore the conditions that you were born into and born with and we don't believe that you should because it is a Khaw Part of you and if you deny it, you are denying it. You're deluding yourself and everyone else. In other words, identity is not wholly constructed. It would be difficult to come up with a percentage to which you can construct your identity. You do throughout your time and your life but you've always got the stuff that you were born into as well.
Attempting to sum up, he says, the alt-right are:
people on the right in terms of things that used to characterise Conservatism a long time ago, like before the 20th century. Conservatives were people who believed in land, nation, kith and kin, community and hierarchy. So the alt-right is just a revival of an ancient form of Conservatism, an old form of Conservatism, but also it is not wholly right-wing [looking increasingly confused and nervous taking a sip from his empty mug which he uses as a prop when trying to hide his confusion and nervousness] definitely in terms of economics, but also in terms of lifestyle, technology. We're not just a bunch of nutters who want to erase this stuff in order to return to the land 100%, but again that is very difficult to characterise the movement as a whole. The movement is very difficult to characterise as a whole.
He admits he is not having much luck with the question and says he will move on. Then, recognising that he of all people should be able to define the alt-right, he apologises for his poor performance, and tries again:
Obviously, it's a controversial movement because it takes as a given that race is real and that races are different intrinsically or they may as well be different intrinsically because the differences are reinforced culturally because people care about their identity so much that they might as well be genetically bound to those characteristics that are associated with that identity.
In other words, you'd struggle to beat the collectivism out of a Chinese person whether it's genetic or not because that is part of their identity, it is part of how they see themselves, how they have been raised, how they will honour their ancestors and so on.
His use of the analogy of struggling to beat the "collectivism" out of the Chinese is curious. He may have a problem with Chinese people because of me, but he may be using the Chinese as a substitute for Jews or Muslims since he is also obviously antisemitic and Islamophobic as well as racist.
If Millennial Woes wants to penalise collectivist Chinese, Jewish or Muslim behaviour by beating the hell out of them - and it would not be too far-fetched to imagine him wishing to do so - then that would have the effect of discouraging the Chinese from worshipping their ancestors, the Jews from practising male circumcision and the Muslims from their prostrations.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10445-martyrdom-restriction-of
"All negative commandments of the Bible, except those with regard to idolatry, adultery, and murder, may be transgressed if there is danger of life" (Sanh. 74a; Yer. Sanh. iii. 6; Yer. Sheb. iv. 1; comp. Pesiḳ. R., ed. Friedmann, p. 55a).
https://quran.com/16/106
Muslims are allowed to renounce their faith under duress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya allows being economical with the truth, which British politicians have been known to joke about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economical_with_the_truth
In Islam, Taqiya or taqiyya, literally "prudence, fear") is a precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution. Another term for this concept, kitmān (lit. "action of covering, dissimulation"), has a more specific meaning of dissimulation by silence or omission.If Millennial Woes beats the hell out of the Chinese for worshipping their ancestors, it wouldn't affect the Chinese that much in the long term as long as married Chinese couples still tried to produce an heir and a spare. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/how-to-become-hungry-ghost.html
Millennial Woes is basically saying that if you ain't white, gentile and Islamophobic, you can't join the alt-right. I am saying it doesn't really matter what he says because he is not the Pope of the alt-right.
Alt-right just means nationalists without a party forced to go on YouTube to get their message across because it is easier than joining a political party and doing boring stuff that is nothing to do with getting likes and subscribes on your YouTube channel.
My definition of the alt-right:
What is the alt-right? I would say it is those who believe that mainstream Conservatism is not enough to solve the social problems created by half a century of feminism and immigration. https://t.co/bq4fsIEoza— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 15, 2018
Because of the lack of male solidarity in Western men the alt-right is leaderless and the government does not worry about them too much except to to get the media to portray them as under-educated racists, Islamophobes and antisemites no one would want to employ or marry.— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 15, 2018
Millennial Woes used to say you cannot be alt-right if you don't hate Jews and want an ethnostate, but I would say UKIP and Trump was alt-right in the sense that they did not represent mainstream Conservatism.— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 15, 2018
Enoch Powell if he were alive now would be alt-right. His speech that got him sacked from Heath's cabinet is at https://t.co/GS6ra5y3o2— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 15, 2018
Millennial Woes says he cares about the morality and psychology of the alt-right but won't discuss religion or anything else with me. This is probably because he is an atheist and still in denial that Western Man needs a religion that promotes patriarchy and shames sluts ie Islam— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 15, 2018
Rather unnecessarily and smugly, Millennial Woes says the alt-right can't be a Chinese, Indian, African or Islamic movement because it is "implicitly white". The alt-right is a Western movement reacting to liberal Western social and economic policies IN THE WEST and rejecting it.— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 15, 2018
Millennial Woes complains that media portrayal of the alt-right has been a campaign of demonisation but admits that the alt-right are reticent in being interviewed fearing demonisation and ridicule. I could easily represent the alt-right if asked to do so since I do not fear this— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 15, 2018
"Do you see a relation between the alt-right and religion? Since the alt-right is so societally focused, do you see religion as having a role in organising that?"
"I don't really understand the second part of that question," says Millennial Woes.
Obviously, the question is about whether the alt-right could be more effective if it used religion. My answer is yes, of course, if it uses Secular Koranism - a legal system like EU law and not a political system - to unite social conservatives of all races and religions to overthrow the matriarchy and shoo the feminazis out of public life in the West and then impose a one party theocracy.
In answer to the first part, he says:
Not really. There are Catholics, there are Protestants, and there are pagans and there are atheists. There are multiple relationships so no one single relationship. I don't think by its nature it is an atheistic movement, but I don't think it is by its nature a religious movement necessarily. I think it is a movement that believes in elevating men, Man, people, humans and in that sense you could perhaps call it religious, but that's reaching a bit. I think the alt-right as a movement is fairly indifferent to religion. There are people who obsess over the Middle Eastern origins of Christianity and see that as something that has to be purged and flushed out but then there are people who are hardcore Catholics and Orthodox.
If Millennial Woes were taking question from me instead of blocking me on https://ask.fm/oneparty4all, I would have asked him the following:
- Is the rise of the alt-right linked to the failure of Christianity?
- Did you know that Conservatism has no declared principles that any Conservative politician can agree on or is prepared to implement?
- Did you know that Conservatism was an ideology created in reaction to the ideas of the French Revolution after the Enlightenment made it impractical for Britain to return to the kind of Christianity Britain practised after the Americans quarantined the church from the state? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
- Is Conservatism really "Theocracy Lite"?
- Is Conservatism about preserving patriarchy through marriage as an institution?
- Is marriage the only way to preserve patriarchy?
- Is patriarchy the only kind of society capable of producing enough good strong men to defend the national interest?
- Is nationalism - the ideology of protecting the national interest - only possible under a patriarchy?
- Would you agree that a patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers?
- Would you agree that a matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who badly parent their variously fathered illegitimate offspring producing the next generation of unemployable criminals causing a demand for foreign labour from businesses which all governments of all mainstream political parties feels they must satisfy?
- Would you agree that feminism causes immigration?
- Would you agree that feminism bribes men with fornication to keep men quiescent under the matriarchy?
- If religion used to be the opium of the people, is extramarital sex now its replacement in our Age of Atheism?
- Is shaming sluts the only way of restoring the patriarchy?
- Are the alt-right afraid of challenging feminism because they fear the consequences of having sexual access to feminists withdrawn?
- Are virtually all women in the West now feminists?
- Can you be a feminist without condoning fornication?
- Does everything about feminism undermine marriage and by extension patriarchy?
- Is patriarchy impossible without marriage?
- Is the sexual liberation promoted by feminism a mortal threat to patriarchy?
- If the West had men who are mostly Christian husbands and fathers, would they be putting up with Transnational Progressivism and uncontrolled immigration?
- If Christianity has failed, must it be replaced?
- If Christianity must be replaced, should it be with Islam?
- If Christianity must be replaced, but not with Islam, what religion should be used?
- Can white people really do without a religion when their enemies as you see them - Jews and Muslims - have their own?
- Could nationalism ever succeed without something more than the idea of expelling Jews, non-whites and Muslims from the West?
- Is the failure of Christianity evidenced by the triumph of feminism?
- Which is more likely: that the West is re-Christianised or that it is Islamified?
- Is your unwillingness to discuss the obvious solution to the failure of Christianity and the need to replace it with a functioning and effective religion capable of restoring the patriarchy by maintaining decent standards of sexual morality due to the fact that most alt-right YouTubers and their followers are unmarriageable men who do not want to think about marriage because they already know no decent woman will marry them?
- If the white men can no longer contemplate making the sacrifices of marriage in order to properly parent the next generation, how are they going to arrest the degeneracy of the white race?
No comments:
Post a Comment