Alt Right Torah: Eikev (Deuteronomy 7:12–11:25)

6:15  Immigration analogous to a henpecked husband not knowing how to say no

14:00  While diversity can cause conflict, fair enough rules and a social order should be able to resolve conflicts. Egalitarianism in itself creates conflict because everyone thinks they are as good as each other. In the animal kingdom in a fight for resources, the smaller weaker animal easily gives way to the stronger bigger animal. It is only when both parties are equal in size that conflict is certain. The polite fiction that egalitarianism - a kind of moral communism - is the fairest and best social system must be exposed for what it is: a lie.


14:45  Dennis's response was difficult to read. Was he referring to when he was talking about "the fundamental differences" of black and white people? Their alleged criminality? Their aggressive manner? The kind of music - non-white - that they like? I remember Greg Johnson talking about his horrible bus journey in DC when he sat next to a black woman with a baby who changed its nappy in front of him.  The other thing he said about black people was the way they just said anything that popped into their head, without filters. This actually made me think of low class poorly educated white people accused of being white nationalists. These so-called fundamental differences are therefore just class differences and would exist even within an all-white society. Oh, and the other thing Johnson complained about was the way white people no longer enforced whatever rules of behaviour they once had.  I hope Dennis will address these points that I omitted to raise in my hurry to talk about being conflicted with regard to lowering the speed limit and putting speed bumps in the road at  15:44


19:00 " ... a genetically homogeneous society, people who vibrate on the deep unconscious frequencies of racial kinship that binds us all together. It's basically a longing for brotherhood and belonging. Diversity takes that stuff away - that is the problem with diversity."  "It robs you of your God-given natural birthright to be part of an ethnic community." 

When white people were ensconced in their Christian homelands, they had the European Wars of Religion, the American War of Independence, the American Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Wars of German Unification, and then the First and Second World Wars.

When the Pilgrim Fathers left the Old World for the New World after enduring Christian on Christian religious persecution, they found that this practice of Christian on Christian persecution continuing between the Quakers and Puritans.

https://thehistoricpresent.com/2008/10/27/the-puritans-and-freedom-of-religion/

Even now, they still haven't gotten over it and are now talking about having a civil war to resolve the differences between Feminists and Nationalists. This Culture War is really a culture war to restore the patriarchy, which is as old as the hills if you think of it in terms of the eternal battle of the sexes.  The weapon men have against immoral women is the rules of marriage that forbid and punish extramarital sex. The weapon immoral women have against men and the civilisation their ancestors built is to seduce them into sexual immorality. This story is as old as the hills and is even mentioned in the Torah. The Chinese call the eternal battle of the sexes Yin and Yang.

http://messianic-revolution.com/l18-1-torah-place-will-find-sexual-immorality-defined/

"And by the way, of all the sins listed, what’s interesting is you’ll find that sex before marriage is not on the list."

But fear not, for it is certainly mentioned at quran.com/24/2


21:00 I talk about gang culture. My apologies for omitting to mention "postcode gangs" where different gangs of mixed race gangs kill each other when they stray onto the territory of another gang in another postcode.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/how-postcode-wars-have-made-london-a-murder-capital-1.3460692

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5577217/MP-blames-decriminalisation-cocaine-postcode-wars.html

https://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/news/croydon-news/capitals-gang-postcode-wars-include-1423118

How would we treat our identical twin who expects us to share exactly half our goodies with him or her, including our sex partners and any love and respect we may get? I think most of us would murder that identical twin if we knew we would get away with it.

24:00  How I propose to help Orthodox Jews so concerned about immigration they join the alt-right but suffer socially and professionally  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2018/07/how-i-propose-to-help-orthodox-jews-so.html

26:30  The alt-right is like the hippy movement if it does not have an official leader. Am I alt-right? I don't even know!

33:00 Immigration, Jews do have an agenda to diversify their host countries so they don't stand out too much as a minority.

I think the man to watch is Israeli political philosopher Yoram Hazony whose book THE VIRTUE OF NATIONALISM will be out in September. 

The Dark Side of the Enlightenment
Today’s advocates oversell the benefits of unfettered reason. They dismiss the contributions of tradition, religion and nationalism to human progress.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dark-side-of-the-enlightenment-1523050206

Why Does Facebook Think I’m ‘Political’?
The robots won’t let me advertise my book on nationalism.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-facebook-think-im-political-1532559704

http://www.yoramhazony.org/tvn/

38:00  Have the white working classes priced themselves out of the labour market?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/school-leavers-lack-basic-work-skills-cbi-warns-9582458.html

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/may/09/cbi-criticises-schools-literacy-numeracy

The immaturity and cowardice of anti-immigration political parties who refuse to address underlying and longstanding social problems for fear of upsetting their underclass supporters who have no interest in matters such as state education and marriage and only want the welfare state for whites only.

The marriage licence had the purpose of licensing only married people to have sex and children with each other and to privilege the married over the unmarried. Marriage is eugenic.


47:00  Ukip to team up in 'unholy alliance' with Steve Bannon's new far right European movement
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/steve-bannon-movement-ukip-brexit-a8464846.html

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-parliament-bannon/former-trump-aide-bannon-sets-up-group-to-undermine-eu-idUKKBN1KD20Q?utm_source=applenews


50:00 Bodies in suitcases 

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/body-in-suitcase-murder-guilty-12960630

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1366031/Mutilated-body-is-found-in-suitcase.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-32236909

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/02/ukcrime.rosiecowan1

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/03/24-years-murder-suitcase-heathrow

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6273591/dennis-nilsen-victims-dead-prison-age-jimmy/

https://pleated-jeans.com/2009/07/30/how-to-dispose-of-a-dead-body/


55:00  Internet censorship    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/01/social-media-firms-should-be-fined-for-extremist-content-say-mps-google-youtube-facebook

1:17:00  On there not being a lot of love and inclusion in Deuteronomy 7:12-11:25, I point out at 1:21:00  that even after you have exterminated the other, you could still backslide and disobey God's laws and still be cursed by Him.  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+28&version=NIV


1:34:001:34:00  Immigration, discrimination and the internal passport

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_system_in_the_Soviet_Union

On December 27, 1932 the USSR Central Executive Committee and Sovnarkom issued a decree About establishment of the Unified Passport System within the USSR and the Obligatory Propiska of Passports. The declared purposes were the improvement of population bookkeeping in various urban settlements and "the removal of persons not engaged in industrial or other socially-useful work from towns and cleansing of towns from hiding kulaks, criminals and other antisocial elements. "Hiding kulaks" was an indication at fugitive peasants who tried to run away from the collectivization. "Removal" usually resulted in some form of forced labour.

Passports were introduced for urban residents, sovkhozniks and workers of novostroykas (новостройка, a major construction site of a new town, plant, railway station, etc.). According to the 1926 Soviet Census 82% of population in the Soviet Union was rural. Kolkhozniks and individual peasants did not have passports and could not move into towns without permission. Permissions were given by chairpersons of collective farms or rural councils. Repeated violation of the passport regime was a criminal offence. Passports were issued by the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (Soviet law enforcement) and until the 1970s had a green cover.

The racial tensions in Russia sound pretty horrific at
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879366513000146

https://www.internations.org/china-expats/guide/29460-safety-security/discrimination-and-racism-in-china-17752

According to the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, all citizens are equal and enjoy the same rights, regardless of gender, beliefs, or ethnic background. However, this legal equality does not always extend to the workplace or everyday life, and discrimination and racism in China do exist.

In China, on top of everything else, they also have astrology-based discrimination!


1:39:00  My White Pill
Things must get worse before they get better, so we should look upon deterioration as improvement!

I should have said all empires are by definition multiracial and multiracial and America is indeed a global empire. Their survival depends on good rational government and fair enough rules ie patriarchy and civic nationalism capable of keeping the lid on all the inevitable social tensions that exist in any society.

1:49:00 "Fundamental British values"   https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/faith-schools-battle-over-british-values-1.59543  Jews, traditional Christians and Muslims are having trouble accepting the gay marriage and transgenderism of "fundamental British values" which becomes a discussion on submission and domination. Appearing to be submit could mean that one is asserting control over our emotions by not losing one's temper and having a tantrum only to feel bad later for having behaved badly.



2:14:00  Religion and white solidarity    https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/96RQWJV
2:17:00  The principles of liberalism currently ignored by illiberals
2:17:15  The pub is the community centre for atheist white men, but they just get drunk and steal each other's women and then fight each other
2:17:30  No safe spaces for white men, anywhere at all in the UK, unless it is the Masonic Lodge ....  https://www.michigandaily.com/section/viewpoints/op-ed-straight-white-men-need-safe-spaces-too
2:19:00  The dysfunctional political system of the West
2:20:00  The solution in theory should be considered even if you think it is unlikely to be implemented in the current political order.
2:21:00  Trump, populism, civic nationalism, protectionism
2:22:00  China

Problems with the Alt Right: Claire Khaw Civic Nationalism Can Work, says Thomas Baden-Riess

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/03/how-claire-khaw-would-have-answered.html

Do you think there is a fundamental tension between nationalism and multiculturalism?

Not really, if there is a morally defensible dominant culture. Nationalists accept the necessity of a dominant culture, which understandably makes minorities nervous. They must however remember that they are a minority and if they don't like it under the dominant culture, they will have to find alternative arrangements. The question that falls to be asked is what our dominant culture is and whether it is morally defensible. Then the next question to be asked is what is morally defensible. Obviously, any dominant culture that does not protect the marriage and the family is not morally defensible.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage and the patriarchy.

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, and all declining and primitive societies are matriarchies.

It is the Abrahamic faiths which promote patriarchal moral values and therefore the only values that are morally defensible are in fact patriarchal moral values.

Civic nationalism is enough to get ethno-nationalists what they want: a dominant culture

How civic nationalism would give ethno-nationalists substantially what they want

Judaism is ethno-nationalist, Islam is civic nationalist. Jews are the most powerful tribe in the world, but Judaism is for Jews only, and Chrisitanity is kaput. Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism. Gentiles need a religion to protect themselves from Jews.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

Jewish power comes from usury and Islam forbids usury. The West used to be strong under patriarchy when most people practised Christian principles. Westerners are now where they are because Christianity has failed and matriarchy has replaced patriarchy.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

Religion is just another form of political ideology whose purpose is to obtain group solidarity. This is so because religion comes from the Latin "religare" which means "to bind" [society]. In other words, religion is for the purpose of social cohesion and group solidarity.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

The most successful religion can be easily discerned. It must be Judaism because Jews have outlasted all the ancient civilisatioins that used to persecute them eg the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Greeks.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

If you think of religion/political ideology as a string to bind a bundle of sticks together - the image of the fasces - you would have to agree that the string of civic nationalism is just a longer string to tie together a bigger bundle of sticks, BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE THE SAME.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

It has been said that Islam is "Judaism Lite" and it can easily be seen that the Bible and the Koran both promote patriarchal moral values with particular views on sexual morality and the sanctity of marriage with the obligation to have legitimate children to keep the race going.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

Judaism helpfully gave us the concept of the Noahide Laws.  https://t.co/1w0Zri1kAi They are basically minimal moral standards of any decent society. The West now obviously falls beneath these mimimum standards of morality.  https://t.co/dpruWpd0jO

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

If Christianity were still a functioning religion, there would be Christian alpha male politicians adhering to Christian principles protecting the interests of the Christian beta male - what used to be called male solidarity. The West is now only nominally Christian.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

The West is as Christian as a human skeleton used to be human. The slow death of Christianity begain in the 1800s when the Americans quarantined the Church from the State and when the British passed the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 making it legal to deny the Trinity.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

In the entire Western church, you won't find a single senior clergyman prepared to defend a single Christian principle. Both the Anglican and Catholic Church are now Creatures of the Liberal and Feminist State. Catholic Ireland fell to gay marriage cos half its priests are gay.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

Sexual corruption leads to moral corruption, moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption and the inability to acknowledge the truth or the operation of logic. This is where we are now.  Virtually everyone "reasons" with their emotions. Truth and logic win no arguments.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

Even if your final destination is ethno-nationalism, you would still have to go past civic nationalism and collect £200.  Of course, I understand the PREFERENCE of ethno-nationalists, in the same way that I understand why someone might prefer luxury to economy.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

Civic nationalism is asking a girl you fancy if you can buy her a drink, ethno-nationalism is asking her if she fancies a shag.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

Civic nationalism has the virtue of causing less disruption than ethno-nationalism. Because it is more inclusive, people are less likely to be as frightened and defensive as when contemplating being the victim of a pogrom. Most citizens can agree to deport illegal immigrants.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

Once you have civic nationalism, you can think about ethno-nationalism, but if the new settlement seems fair and the country well-governed enough, most people will lose the urge to conduct a pogrom and be more prepared to share.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

Most of the resentment felt by the indigenous is felt by men and this resentment stems from their lowered status in relation to their women and the newly arrived immigrant. This can be sorted once feminism is kicked out. Stefan Molyneux explains this  at https://t.co/ACm3UYCkbY

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

https://t.co/Acse6jD2aW was something I prepared earlier on how civic nationalism can get ethno-nationalists most of what they want.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 8 December 2017

It is a mistake to think civic nationalism has failed, when it has not even been tried

"I used to believe as long as we judge others as individuals, the world would become a better place regardless of our differences.

I used to believe collectivism was characteristic of the feeble-minded, unenlightened and possibly racist.

I used to believe immigrants to our country would assimilate to our culture if we just gave them the opportunity.

I used to be naïve about human nature; I used to be a civic nationalist and so I began to question this belief of mine. I began to question why only white countries have the moral obligation to live in this experimental diversity.

I began to question why Americans living in the land of the free were forbidden the freedom of association. [Why did no one white American protest against this infringement of their constitutional right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_States_Constitution]

I began to question why the same groups of people that benefit from our country's altruism are allowed to collectivise in our borders in peace, yet any semblance of white collectivism is considered a form of supremacy.

I began to question why I have to morally justify the continuation of my people. I am no longer a civic nationalist. I am no longer a civic nationalist because demographic matters.

I am no longer a civic nationalist because in our majority white country, it's considered controversial just to say "It's OK to be white."

I am no longer a civic nationalist because if the United States were to close its borders tomorrow, whites will still become a minority in the next fifty years.

I am no longer a civic nationalist because in a world of collectivism, individualism is suicidal.

I am no longer a civic nationalist because I won't stand by as whites become minorities in their own homelands just so I can selfishly claim at the end of it all that at least I was an individualist.

And I have a dream that one day, whites will be equally permitted to live in their own countries as others do.

I am no longer a civic nationalist and I'm not sorry about it."

@LaurenRoseUltra What do you mean by collectivism?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) November 24, 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra What do you mean by individualism?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) November 24, 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra What is your evidence that "whites are not allowed to collectivise in the United States and Europe"?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) November 24, 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra How has "individualism since immigration for the past 60 - 70 years, been forced on white people in their countries"?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) November 24, 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra How has the media been telling white people that "it is a bad thing for them to collectivise"?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) November 24, 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra When you say "collectivise" do you mean act as a group following your religious principles?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) November 24, 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra When you say white people are individualists, do you mean they are atheists?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) November 24, 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra Do you ever wonder why religion was invented and what its true nature and purpose is, which is nothing to do with saving souls?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra Are you in fact proposing that white people return to Catholicism as @NickGriffinBU appears to be doing at https://t.co/Xv3Uf7Gkqg? Interestingly, Nick Griffin is not himself Catholic.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra Have you considered why Jews are the world's most powerful tribe and do you think their supremacy is anything to do with following the religious principles of Judaism?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra Do you think Christians became powerful without following Christian principles?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra If Christians became powerful because they followed Christian principles, could their loss of influence be due to the fact that they stopped following their religious principles?  You may find CURSES FOR DISOBEDIENCE informative at https://t.co/mJCRs9rinW

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra Do you think the reason why Christians always got nasty with Jews and Muslims eg the Spanish Inquisition is because Christians are supposed to believe that Christ is the co-equal of God as well as being His son, which non-Christians understandably find absurd?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra Have you noticed that in any debate on the respective merits of Christianity against Judaism or Islam, Christians *always* lose the debate?  https://t.co/D4Ua2cUaW2

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra Would you say that the laws in the West conform to the Noahide laws?  https://t.co/1w0Zri1kAi

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra If the laws in the West no longer conform to the Noahide laws, is this the reason for the declining status of white people, to the extent they are now so badly governed they are afraid of Jews, Muslims and non-whites who are only minorities in white countries?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra Do you really think that white gentiles are so inherently superior that they do not need a religion at all?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra If white people are feeling exploited by Jews and invaded by Muslims and other races, could this be anything to do with the fact that Christianity has failed?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

@LaurenRoseUltra If Christianity has failed, does it need to be replaced *as a matter of urgency*, or can the West continue to have its laws reflecting the imperatives of feminism, neoliberalism and transnational progressivism indefinitely? https://t.co/G8WssDGtCP

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

US civic nationalism does not exist because no one is promoting the long term US national interest. Nationalism cannot exist without patriarchy and patriarchy cannot exist without most people in your society practising traditional marriage. https://t.co/UT2Y5JLX3o https://t.co/I1LYjO7JBL

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) November 24, 2017

This is about the alt-right encouraging white women to become Mormons to have more white babies. I think more white people are more likely to become Muslim than to become Mormon. https://t.co/Zs77iV27Zr

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

The alt-right are now considering favourably the idea of becoming Mormon and Amish. Becoming Muslim would be easier for them, I think. https://t.co/BbBoEMaiYR

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

What do you think of Mormonism? — I am afraid I think they are stupid, and even more stupid than the Religion of t… https://t.co/NnyslfmdQc

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

Do you feel sorry for the alt-right? — Yes, I do. They cannot bear Christianity because they think it is stupid an… https://t.co/rnVYEOhcV5

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

What is the saddest thing about white people? — That their elders have abandoned them, they really have. I am actu… https://t.co/nW4HswbQOJ

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017

Why Michel Houellebecq's "Submission" Is The Most Important Novel Of 2015 https://t.co/YslzScVgwx via @returnofkings

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 November 2017 

My modest proposal for the alt-right and a suggestion for Steve Bannon

The alt-right should now divide itself into:

1) ethno-nationalists some of whom enjoy dressing up as Nazis who want to conduct a pogrom against Jews, Muslims and non-white citizens in the West

Greg Johnson:

The Jewish question is not distinct from ethnonationalism. It is ethnonationalism applied to Jews. Thus no ethnonationalist is entitled to abstain from it. Once one recognizes that Jews are a distinct people, the ethnonationalist solution to the Jewish question is Jewish nationalism, i.e., Zionism.

Of course many White Nationalists have a whole lot more to say about Jews than merely observing that they are a different people. I have argued that the fate of White Nationalism does not depend one way or another on the outcome of historical debates about the holocaust. But I do believe that Jews are not just different from whites, but powerful and malevolent enemies who bear significant responsibility for causing white decline and opposing white renewal.

Some White Nationalists don’t want to hear it. But even so, as I have argued here, they still have to face up to the Jewish question. Because if Jews are nothing more than a distinct people, then ethnonationalists must conclude that Jews belong in their own homeland, not in ours. It is as simple as that.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/reframing-the-jewish-question/

2) libertarian anti-feminist civic nationalists who reject neoconservatism and neo-liberalism who only want to expel illegal immigrants eg Ann Coulter.

My elegant solution means respectable and reasonable people can join the civic nationalist faction of the alt-right, including Jews, Christians, Muslims and socially conservative non-whites who are already citizens in the West.

Option 2 is probably the only way of saving the Trump presidency peacefully.

The best way of achieving this is to get the alt-right to divide along these lines and then choose a leader to represent the respective factions. I wonder which faction Steve Bannon would like to lead.

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

The reasons for my genius https://t.co/fOFvbo5Cza

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

Profound truths are often paradoxical: the person most able to argue against immigration in the West is me, an immigrant and a non-white.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

I am the best person in the alt-right to argue against immigration because I can do so without being racist, antisemitic or Islamophobic. https://t.co/JVpzdOXkLJ

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

I don't think I am asking that much when I ask for my genius to be acknowledged, by the alt-right if not the Western political establishment

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

Can a non-white female who wants a one party theocracy to bring back the patriarchy to save Western civilisation be alt-right?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

One of the reasons why I should be leading the world alt-right movement is below: my genius for upping the ante and ramping it up. https://t.co/VDonLYYkVh

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

If everyone unites me, Western civilisation may yet be saved! https://t.co/pmg4qxm1e2

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

Once leader, I shall put it to the *men only* that only decent and rational men ie those not already degenerate are capable of patriarchy. https://t.co/hIJ1YaZ427

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

The moment the country reverts to the rationalism and good government of patriarchy, men will get their country back. What's not to like? https://t.co/QZfzORyGVb

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

I intend to divide men (COMPLETELY IGNORING THE WOMEN) into two camps: 1) those who want patriarchy  2) those who want the status quo https://t.co/uYfORTkZwr

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

Men who identify with supporting patriarchy will fight the degenerates who want to preserve the status quo that is the degenerate matriarchy https://t.co/idXkmIYDBl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

Assuming https://t.co/OpWHDdaXXm is true, which side do you think will win the Great War of Patriarchy? WOMEN ARE *NOT* ALLOWED TO ANSWER. https://t.co/9RGUfiiQUO

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

Once the battle's fought and won and the hurly burly's done, the winning side can marry the women (whose views don't matter). Sorted! https://t.co/qfc58kK9QF

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 25, 2017

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 debeo.  https://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. 

"If the #AltRight are nationalists, they must be social conservatives. If they want social conservatism they must have theocracy." Discuss.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 20, 2017

Civic nationalism is enough to get ethno-nationalists what they want: a dominant culture

Judaism is ethno-nationalist because Jews regards themselves as a tribe. If your mother is a Jewess, then you are a racially Jew whether or not you practice Judaism. If you want to convert to Orthodox Judaism, you need to be sponsored by one of their number to be shown how to cook, live and worship as a member of that community which goes beyond just going to the synagogue on Saturdays.

Islam is civic nationalist because it has a much lower entry threshold, requiring only a declaration of belief ie "There is no God but God and Muhammad is His prophet" to become Muslim.

Millennial Woes is confusing white people with the nation. Supposing white people died of some mysterious and fatal disease that only affected white people. Britain as a nation would still exist, but it would be a nation of non-white people. You may well think that only white people represent the nation, but I have demonstrated by positing this hypothetical situation that this is not necessarily so since Britain would continue to be populated in the event that all white people disappeared for some reason. The non-white peoples would just move into the vacuum in the same way that the original Britons who got swamped by the other white peoples who invaded Britain moved to Cornwall and Wales - yes, those white people who have always been here for practical purposes but who really really hate the English.

It is absolutely imperative that there is a dominant culture, however, to give the nation its distinctive identity. This dominant culture must not be perceived to be degenerate by the newcomers, because that would make them reject and despise it.

You will find that all empires are civic nationalist proclaiming that all citizens have equal rights and are not to be discriminated on grounds of caste, race etc because it is a polite fiction that causes least resentment and obtains the most national unity. It is up to the dominant race and the dominant culture to perpetuate itself and maintain its dominance. I say this is a civic nationalist who is not white but does not wish to see the white race dominated by any other race. The dominant culture is not what it ought to be, and this is a matter for the dominant race to sort out, if it wishes to preserve its dominance.

As Andrew Breiitbart said, "Politics is downstream from culture."

If this is so, culture is downstream from law.

If this is so, law is downstream from morality.

If this is so, morality is downstream from religion.

Christianity has failed.

Swedish woman is now Western woman, therefore Swedish man is now Western man

Sweden is dying because it is a matriarchy.

To discover that your society is a matriarchy is to discover it has a terminal illness.

Regarding a conversation with a taxi driver in Stockholm: https://t.co/bjRQcZbjPm

— Millennial Woes (@MillennialWoes) March 9, 2017

Race and nationality are 2 different things. Your race is like your skin, your nationality is like your passport which you can acquire/lose. https://t.co/RskSu68NUN

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

When the Turko-Swedish taxi-driver in Stockholm said  "We have nice girls in Sweden", he meant "We in Sweden have nice girls." https://t.co/RskSu68NUN

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

Even if the taxi driver had been white, does saying "In Sweden we have nice girls" mean he has sexual access to them? Surely not! https://t.co/RskSu5Rcwd

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

The unasked question that should have been asked: did the brown Turko-Swedish driver have a wife or a girlfriend? https://t.co/RskSu68NUN

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

The situation described by @MillennialWoes in Stockholm reminded me a little of @jennyhillBBC welcoming refugees into Germany https://t.co/RskSu68NUN

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

It is actually unlikely that an ethnic Swede would have invited a foreigner like @MillennialWoes to help himself to the nice girls in Sweden https://t.co/HKyXAT2IVQ

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

Would the Turk in his own land have said to @MillennialWoes "You should move to Turkey. In Turkey we have nice girls"? I don't think so. https://t.co/HKyXAT2IVQ

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

What the Turko-Swedish taxi driver was really saying "We are both foreigners here talking about the local girls." https://t.co/RskSu68NUN

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

The question I really wish @MillennialWoes had asked the Swedish-Turko taxi driver "How are Swedish girls nicer than Turkish girls?" https://t.co/RskSu68NUN

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

The question I really wish @MillennialWoes had asked the Swedish-Turko taxi  driver "Wd you say Turkish girls are nice like Swedish girls?" https://t.co/RskSu68NUN

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

If only @MillennialWoes had asked: "When you say Swedish girls are nice, do you really mean they are nasty?" https://t.co/v2kVn0Iim4 https://t.co/RskSu68NUN

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

It occurs to me that a Swedish-Turko taxi driver might have been quite offended if @MillennialWoes had asked this question. https://t.co/GUrj0TaAS3

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

The corruption of language is the corruption of thought.

The corruption of thought is the corruption of the law.

The corruption of the law is the corruption of morality.

The moral corruption of a society is the destruction of social cohesion.

Social cohesion is necessary for shared values, national identity and the continued existence of a nation.

Only through respecting the rules of marriage is it possible for a society to keep and maintain what it has so far acquired in the way of possessions and knowledge.

All societies need the protection of social conservatism to protect themselves from their internal and external enemies.

The eternal enemies of society are sluts and socialists. 

Everything about female promiscuity undermines marriage.

Everything about feminism destroys civilisation.

Not a single feminist is prepared to discuss any of this.

What all feminists will conspire to do is ignore, marginalise and smear anyone who asks any of the questions I have asked, proving that they are indeed the totalitarian enemies of free speech and civilisation. 

History first enacts itself as tragedy, then repeats itself as farce.

The ancient Chinese idea of Yin and Yang acknowledges this eternal battle of the sexes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_marriage#Marriages_in_early_societies

In traditional Chinese thinking, people in "primitive" societies did not marry, but had sexual relationships with one another indiscriminately. Such people were thought to live like animals, and they did not have the precise concept of motherhood, fatherhood, sibling, husband and wife, and gender, not to mention match-making and marriage ceremony. Part of the Confucian "civilizing mission" was to define what it meant to be a Father or a Husband, and to teach people to respect the proper relationship between family members and regulate sexual behavior.

God was created by Man to make the laws that protect his civilisation from the Slut, because Man  knows he cannot trust himself to say no to the Slut. This is why a theocracy is both logical and necessary, even to me, an agnostic.

In a matriarchy where there is no alpha male, there is only the weaker sex and the even weaker sex, to be invaded, raped, pillaged, and conquered.

Why don't women care about men's civilisation?

Because they didn't create it and know they will be OK whatever happens, in just the way a lion's harem never come to his assistance when they know if he loses the fight against his potential usurper he has to leave the pride and his cubs will be killed by the usurper. If their cubs are killed, that's just fine with the lionesses, because they will be impregnated again by the victor, who won't have a loser's genes.

Helen was a slut, Paris was an MCSF and Troy fell because it protected them. The West is Troy.
Nothing much happened to Helen. Menelaus just took her back to Sparta as his wife.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahab
Rahab was honoured for letting the invaders into Jericho.

In short, feminism is a shit test to test the fitness of men and their civilisation to survive.

Strangely and surprisingly, Western man prefers merely to complain weakly and weekly about being exploited by Jews and invaded by Muslims and assorted foreigners. He prefers merely to complain than actually having to marry a woman of his own race and bringing up her children, apparently. If he does not think women of his own race are worth marrying because they are all feminists, he does not seem able to get up the courage to denounce feminism and propose the repeal of its laws viz:

• the law that says it is OK to have premarital sex
• the Equal Pay Act 1970
• the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
• the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
• the Equality Act 2010

This means that the next generation will be even more slut and bastard and more full of morally compromised slut-fuckers than previous generations, entrenching the idiocracy.

Catch 22:

The only way Western civilisation can be saved is if it became Islamic. But if it became Islamic, then Western civilisation as we know it - sexually promiscuous, hedonist, feminist, consumerist, still fucking around with elections under a multi-party system of indiscriminate universal suffrage falling over themselves to pander to feminine preferences - would have to end.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/case-for-disenfranchsing-women-or-why.html

Women's Day: While Russia celebrates, American feminists moan over... https://t.co/TindOqNa52

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 9, 2017

Norsemen :  Then and now 🙄@PeterSweden7 pic.twitter.com/A4D5jd2oPZ

— Marneus Calgar (@MarneusACalgar) March 8, 2017

Swedish minister poses with refugee "children" taller than himself. https://t.co/zZzaXoUljW

— Voice of Europe (@V_of_Europe) March 10, 2017

https://www.thelocal.se/jobs/article/why-these-swedish-trade-union-bosses-wore-pink-pussyhats-for-gender-equality

http://www.returnofkings.com/70400/all-swedes-will-be-forced-to-fund-female-promiscuity

The Muslim Brotherhood is creating a 'parallel social structure' in Sweden, aided by 'political elites' making it impossible to criticise Islam, government report admits

“Mr. Trump did not exaggerate Sweden’s current problems. If anything, he understated them.” - Per Jimmie Akesson and Mattias Karlsson, in Wall Street Journal op-ed

Stereotype of Swedish women as promiscuous

“We have strange drinking habits and we copulate assiduously, before we commit suicide on a large scale, after we have paid a terrible amount of taxes,” is how the actor Erland Josephson ironically summarized the foreigner’s image of Sweden in 1987 (30).

Englishwoman Mary Wollstonecraft, who actually went to Sweden, complained about promiscuity at length. In her famous travel book of 1796, Letters written during a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark (already translated into German in 1800) she wrote of “the total want of chastity in the lower class of women” (Wollstonecraft 1989:258) in Sweden, for whom love is “merely an appetite, to fulfil the main design of nature, never enlivened by either affection or sentiments” (314).

The about-turn in the (West) German perception of Swedish sexuality first becomes apparent in the fifties, as the Swedish film industry achieved great success abroad with, for that period, very permissive films such as Arne Mattsson’s Hon dansade en sommar (1951; English One Summer of Happiness) and Ingmar Bergman’s Sommaren med Monika (1952; English Summer with Monika) and became “the initiator of cinematic aphrodisiacs” (Der Spiegel 1964:96) – to some extent involuntarily. For example a second version of Sommaren med Monika was also shown in the USA; cut from 97 to 65 minutes, dubbed and with new film music as Monika, the Story of a Bad Girl (Stevenson 1995:19–22). “Stockholm produces cultivated films with good photographic technique, with preaching pastors and naked women” is how the cinema researcher Georges Sadoul summarized the “Swedish film” in 1957 (394). Or even shorter: “naked swimming plus social criticism” (Der Spiegel 1964:96). But if one examines the reception of, for example, Hon dansade en sommar in German-speaking countries (see Beindorf 1995 and 1996), it is noticeable that the “immoral” is still not attributed to the country and its inhabitants. The stereotype only arose in the course of the following twenty years. Der Spiegel (1969:132) summarized as follows under the headline “Free from taboos”:

Drugs and pornography, prisons without doors and girls without morals, boredom and short skirts, hot love and cool people – that is the average German’s image of Sweden.

 there is no shortage of arguments to confirm that the heterostereotype really is referential. Historians and ethnologists argue that a specific Scandinavian or Swedish development with regard to sexual practice has existed for centuries. Two historical phenomena are held primarily responsible for the tradition of premarital relationships in Scandinavian countries; “night courtship”, ritualized visiting by young men in unmarried women’s bedrooms, and the specific function of engagement in old Nordic law, which counted as permission to commence a sexual relationship (Hertoft 1970:61–69; Löfgren 1972; Frykman 1977). Wollstonecraft wrote as an eyewitness about the sexual activities of young couples subject to the conflicting forces of secular engagement custom and religious marriage law:

Young people, who are attached to each other, with the consent of their friends, exchange rings, and are permitted to enjoy a degree of liberty together, which I have never noticed in any other country. The days of courtship are therefore prolonged, till it be perfectly convenient to marry: the intimacy often becomes very tender: and if the lover obtains the privilege of a husband, it can only be termed half by stealth, because the family is wilfully blind. (326)

In Stockholm around 1850 almost half of all children were born to single mothers; in general the proportion of extramarital children in Sweden in the nineteenth century was about 10% (Frykman 1977; Frykman 1993:189f.; cf. also Hertoft 1970:68). This is not to mention the marriages entered into after conception but before birth. The assertion was that the nexus between sexuality and religious sexual norms had actually always been undermined – a development which continued with the great morality debate in the Modern Breakthrough and in the cultural debate of the 1930s, which was in many respects a struggle for self-determination in sexuality (Bergström-Walan 1970:11–58; Linnér 1967; above all Lennerhed 1994 and 1991). In the thirties a new functionalist physical consciousness, modernism, and the construction of discursive-collective identities such as national identity were combined to great effect (Frykman 1993:161ff.). In 1938 information on contraception was legalized and the first abortion law was passed (although without permitting social grounds). Sex education was made obligatory in all schools in 1955, an event which attracted worldwide attention; “the Swedish sin” became a catch-phrase (Lennerhed 1991; Frykman 1993:189ff.). The sexual liberalism debate conducted with great enthusiasm between 1962 and 1965, and also the Swedish sense of being the international standard-bearers of modernism influenced foreign opinion. Western conservatives were convinced that the Swedes had sacrificed the secret of sexuality to profane functionalism, functionalizing sexuality as a hedonistic principle. On the other hand, liberals praised Sweden as the model for progressive sexual policy and asked “whether it would be worth creating ‘many Swedens’ of sexual policy” (Giese 1970:9).

a comparative analysis of illegitimate birth rates in Sweden and elsewhere3 shows that premarital sexual intercourse was common in Europe and North America, a consequence of the “European Marriage Pattern” (early sexual maturity, high marriage age) (Mitterauer 1983:23– 30). Scandinavia is one of the regions with traditionally high illegitimacy rates, but the figures for the Eastern Alps region are significantly higher. For example, in Vienna in the second half of the nineteenth century, the proportion of births out of wedlock was over 50% (Mitterauer 1983:25). In Bavaria in the nineteenth century the figure was around 20% (Nipperdey 1991:127). The particular function of engagement existed into modern times, not just in Scandinavia but also in England, North America, France, Portugal, etc. (Mitterauer 1983:14). And night courtship was widespread in Central Europe, the Baltic region, Wales, Western France, etc., under a variety of names (Kiltgang in Switzerland, Fensterln in Austria, Nachtfreien etc.) (Mitterauer 1983:57).

As a central discourse of modernization, sexuality was progressively socialized by it4 and thus inseparably interlinked with the entire social system:

Because important cultural systems (religion/ theology/church; state/law; family/marriage; science; art; economics), lay claim to and realize love, its control, shaping and functionalization, its domestication, classification, or simply representation, alterations in one or more of these systems lead to alterations in the attitude to sexuality. And vice versa; alterations in the attitude to sexuality lead to alterations in one or more cultural systems (Beutin 1993:92).

At the latest since Foucault’s research it has become a platitude that discourses on sexuality always develop where the power in society is located, and are an instrument of power (Foucault 1978). There is an inseparable relationship between supposedly “merely” interpersonal sexual behaviour and the overall organization of society (Giddens 1992:3).

Sexuality is capable of representing the modernization project not only in synecdochic, but also in metaphoric terms. Modernization research, long committed to linear models, has in recent years emphasized that modernization is a paradoxical process which unites apparently contradictory developments (e.g. individualization and pluralization) (van der Loo & van Reijen 1992). At least in Western cultures sexuality has a similar paradoxical character. It is viewed ambivalently, on the one hand with fascination, on the other with fear and caution. My main point is that the promiscuity stereotypically attributed to the Swedes is primarily an expression of the ambivalent stance taken on the best-known project of Swedish modernity, namely, the welfare state.

As late as 1963, in the context of a long Spiegel interview with the Swedish prime minister Tage Erlander, Sweden was presented as the “perfect” welfare state under the headline “Everyone is entitled to a pension”. The journalist’s critical questions were directed solely at the affordability of the welfare state, and its relationship to the private economy, and no reference was made to sexuality either in the journalist’s questions or in the illustrations for the interview (Der Spiegel 1963:60–67). It was not until the end of the sixties, when critical voices were increasingly heard, that the stereotype received prominence in West Germany. Examples are the Spiegel quote already mentioned or Huntford’s book on the Swedish welfare state, published in 1971 and translated into German in 1973. Huntford “crowned” his polemical criticism of the Swedish new totalitarians with a chapter on the promiscuous behaviour of the Swedes, stating that the freedom of copulation has led to an obsession which permeates all of Swedish life (Huntford 1971). Lennerhed, who has investigated “the Swedish sin” above all in Anglo-American regions, summarizes:

In the context, however, it appears important that the negative post-war image of Sweden is so extremely focused on Swedish sexual policy. The rational, pragmatic and reform-oriented sexual policy was seen as typical of the Swedish state and possibly of the welfare state in general (Lennerhed 1994:97).

The German heterostereotype of Swedish promiscuity implies the same connection between sexuality and welfare state, but it interprets it differently. It is more differentiated, because it does not only express criticism of the Swedish welfare state “model”, but articulates ambivalence towards it. This is because Swedish sexual behaviour came into use as a stereotype in the Federal Republic of Germany at precisely the moment when the image of Sweden became ambiguous,5 as criticism and fascination became paradoxically fused in public consciousness. The following question was asked in a representative West German opinion poll in August 1970: “Which country is the best example to us in terms of social matters, or is no country a model to us in terms of social matters?” For 44% of those questioned there was no country which was superior in social matters, but Sweden was in second place with 36%, with Switzerland at 7% and Denmark at 3% far behind. Even amongst CDU/CSU supporters, whose party leaderships presented Sweden as a socialist horror state, one in three thought that Sweden was a good example (Der Spiegel 1970:79f.). The attraction of the “model” was by no means gone (see also Der Spiegel 1972:122–145).

Finally, it is noticeable that the stereotype normally refers to female sexual behaviour. But this is only surprising if the stereotype is understood as referential in relation to the Swedish sex debate, where other subjects such as sex education, the abortion question, equal rights for homosexuals, and censorship played an important role (Lennerhed 1994) – a series of things which are ignored by the stereotype. Because, unlike tempting-threatening female sexuality, they do not offer the (male) groups which dominate public debate the opportunity to articulate ambivalence towards the welfare state project.6 An additional factor is certainly rhetorical identification of the Swedish welfare state as woman, emphasizing “female” characteristics (care, unagressiveness, warmth) (cf. Ehn 1993:279).

In the film The Producers mentioned at the start, the Swedish secretary Ulla, characterized as a “Swedish sexpot” in the secondary literature (Yacowar 1981:76), has long lost all specific “Swedish” qualities. She has become an icon for (heterosexual)7 sexuality itself.

The blonde woman became the sensual dream woman, her hair no longer an indication of shyness and chastity, but an erotic allure.

The Swedish Woman is now the Western Woman.  

The Bhagavad Gita:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."  

 

Who can and can't be alt-right?

Milo: The alt-right lies about me
Milo: @RichardBSpencer is a Nazi!

Milo condones violence against "Nazi's"
He's a Leftist#MiloIsOverParty pic.twitter.com/nb7nmpVx1C

— becky (@WheatfieldBecky) February 21, 2017

I always thought it was crazy to let a sodomite represent the alt-right. It is like allowing a sex offender to represent chastity. Crazy. https://t.co/GhKjBxSV4g

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

@JustinATL1 @Prohaskanation @benshapiro @hughhewitt @PrisonPlanet Alex Jones, InfoWars and PJW are NOT alt-right.

— Millennial Woes (@MillennialWoes) August 31, 2016

@MillennialWoes @JustinATL1 @Prohaskanation @benshapiro @PrisonPlanet psh I don't know about that, if they aren't, they are damn close

— Austin Hein (@akchein) August 31, 2016

@akchein @JustinATL1 @Prohaskanation @benshapiro @PrisonPlanet If they don't admit the importance of race, they are not alt-right.

— Millennial Woes (@MillennialWoes) August 31, 2016

@MillennialWoes @JustinATL1 @Prohaskanation @benshapiro @PrisonPlanet Alex Jones preaches race all the time

— Austin Hein (@akchein) August 31, 2016

@akchein @MillennialWoes @JustinATL1 @benshapiro @PrisonPlanet And PJW is constantly talking about the horrors of open borders in Europe

— J.P.  🌐 (@Prohaskanation) August 31, 2016

@MillennialWoes @JustinATL1 @benshapiro @hughhewitt @PrisonPlanet What? Alex Jones was called out by name in Hillary's alt-right speech.

— J.P.  🌐 (@Prohaskanation) August 31, 2016

@MacktheShiv @MillennialWoes @JustinATL1 @PrisonPlanet I don't think Alex Jones subscribes to the #AltRight description Hillary described.

— J.P.  🌐 (@Prohaskanation) September 1, 2016

@Prohaskanation @MacktheShiv @JustinATL1 @PrisonPlanet Given that she described it as "a hate movement", not many of us do...

— Millennial Woes (@MillennialWoes) September 1, 2016

@MillennialWoes @MacktheShiv @JustinATL1 @PrisonPlanet I think there is a right movement growing which rejects the Republican establishment.

— J.P.  🌐 (@Prohaskanation) September 1, 2016

@quantumnerve @MillennialWoes @JustinATL1 @benshapiro @hughhewitt Why is PJW not considered an Alt-right journalist then?

— J.P.  🌐 (@Prohaskanation) August 31, 2016

Counter-Semitism is an integral part of the #AltRight. PJW is cucky. @Prohaskanation @quantumnerve @MillennialWoes pic.twitter.com/wsbZ8EsjUk

— Third Position (@Third_Position) September 4, 2016

It would be nice to have a discussion on who is or isn't alt-right and who can or can't be a member of the alt-right. https://t.co/EWvzzhNXIp

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

It appears that some of the alt-right are questioning the legitimacy of others to be identified with it. Pope of the alt-right needed. https://t.co/EWvzzhNXIp

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

It appears some of the alt-right are questioning the legitimacy of  others to be identified with it. Who should be Pope of the alt-right? https://t.co/nbr4pJxXHk

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

Who should define the alt-right? The alt-right itself, or enemies of the alt-right such as the liberal media? https://t.co/YTmPUCQB8C

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

If you are accused of being alt-right but don't want to be identified with the alt-right, do you have a right of appeal? https://t.co/PoukknE0zp

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

To be accused of being alt-right is like being accused of being a Nazi. An accusation is as good as a conviction. There's no trial or appeal https://t.co/UnKs14560p

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

If I were Pope of the alt-right, I would have to acknowledge anti-Semites, racists as well as socially conservative civic nationalists. https://t.co/gv0FaYXOVF

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

The alt-right consists of 4 groups: 1) racists  2) anti-Semites  3) social conservatives  4) civic nationalists concerned about immigration. https://t.co/jRIQvmFb2S

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

Can non-whites be part of the alt-right? I believe so, simply because no one can stop them and they fall into category 4 of the alt-right. https://t.co/FwDiTmzpBP

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

I suspect the majority of the alt-right do not want to define themselves as being overtly racist and therefore have to admit non-whites. https://t.co/D1S23r7GRF

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

If non-whites are admitted as capable of being alt-right, then the alt-right movement cannot logically exclude non-whites. https://t.co/IIp0JJAkqv

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

If you are alt-right, you could actually be all four categories simultaneously. I am (3) and (4). https://t.co/FwDiTmzpBP

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

Can Jews be alt-right? Can Muslims? Certainly, if they feel the established parties are not doing enough about immigration. They are 3 and 4 https://t.co/FwDiTmzpBP

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

What unifies the different factions of the alt-right? Our delight and pleasure that Trump became POTUS. We should accentuate the positive.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 5, 2017

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ agrees with what I have said above but assumes the right of flaunting practising homosexuals to represent the alt-right. Milo has proven to be spectacularly embarrassing and treacherous.