Translate

Showing posts with label neoliberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neoliberalism. Show all posts

Wednesday, 22 August 2018

The Culture War and the status quo

The Culture War is between the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are the ones who are guided by truth, reason and morality. The bad guys are the ones who defend the status quo of feminism, and feminism is a disease of the mind that will destroy your civilisation.

If you want to continue your race, society, nation and civilisation you need to produce the next generation and parent your offspring properly. Marriage is the rearing of the next generation in optimum conditions. If you don't care about that, you must be one of the following:

1) You have no intention of becoming a married father.

2) You have no prospect of becoming a married father.

What if you would like to become a married father but have no prospect of becoming one?

Then you should want to effect the economic, political and social changes that would make it easier for men in theory capable of becoming married fathers to become married fathers. Currently, the law in the West punishes white heterosexual men while protecting the groups privileged by intersectional feminism.

There are really only two choices: patriarchy or matriarchy.

Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers, matriarchy that of unmarried mothers.

Which society is more likely to continue in existence for the preservation of your tribe, society, nation and civilisation?

If there were a war between a society that is a patriarchy and a society that is a matriarchy, which would win?

Whether or not you have any prospect of becoming a married father, you are morally obliged to support patriarchy, if you care about truth, logic, morality and the continuation of your tribe, society, nation and civilisation.

If you don't, then you would support the status quo. The status quo is to remain in the EU and to continue with neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Supporters of globalist neoliberalism and neoconservatism would be the ones trying to impeach Trump and to stop the Republicans from winning the midterm elections in November. In Britain they would be the ones working to sabotage Brexit who hate and fear Trump and his supporters.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-feminists-are-nihilists.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, 23 October 2017

Claire Khaw on Nancy Fraser on The Problem of Feminism

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/feminism-capitalist-handmaiden-neoliberal?CMP=share_btn_tw



TRANSLATION AND SUMMARY OF NANCY FRASER ON FEMINSM

Feminism is the worship of Mammon.
In a cruel twist of fate, I fear that the movement for women's liberation has become entangled in a dangerous liaison with neoliberal efforts to build a free-market society. That would explain how it came to pass that feminist ideas that once formed part of a radical worldview are increasingly expressed in individualist terms. Where feminists once criticised a society that promoted careerism, they now advise women to "lean in". A movement that once prioritised social solidarity now celebrates female entrepreneurs. A perspective that once valorised "care" and interdependence now encourages individual advancement and meritocracy.

As I was saying, feminism is the worship of Mammon. 

What lies behind this shift is a sea-change in the character of capitalism. The state-managed capitalism of the postwar era has given way to a new form of capitalism – "disorganised", globalising, neoliberal. Second-wave feminism emerged as a critique of the first but has become the handmaiden of the second.

Gender equality and sexual liberation has caused gender confusion.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that the movement for women's liberation pointed simultaneously to two different possible futures. In a first scenario, it prefigured a world in which gender emancipation went hand in hand with participatory democracy and social solidarity; in a second, it promised a new form of liberalism, able to grant women as well as men the goods of individual autonomy, increased choice, and meritocratic advancement. Second-wave feminism was in this sense ambivalent. Compatible with either of two different visions of society, it was susceptible to two different historical elaborations.

Feminist principles - if you can call them that - are so ambiguous and confusing even feminist intellectuals - if you can call them that - get confused and get it very very wrong.

As I see it, feminism's ambivalence has been resolved in recent years in favour of the second, liberal-individualist scenario – but not because we were passive victims of neoliberal seductions. On the contrary, we ourselves contributed three important ideas to this development. 

Most mothers hate their jobs and would rather not have two jobs. Even the most dedicated of career women lose interest in their career after they have sprogged. Most men and women hate their jobs. Previously, most men hated their jobs. Now most women also hate their jobs. This is how feminism makes men and women miserable and causes your society to suffer from degeneracy, disorder and dementia caused by marital and family breakdown. Feminism is a disease of the mind that rots your morals and ability to reason.

One contribution was our critique of the "family wage": the ideal of a male breadwinner-female homemaker family that was central to state-organised capitalism. Feminist criticism of that ideal now serves to legitimate "flexible capitalism". After all, this form of capitalism relies heavily on women's waged labour, especially low-waged work in service and manufacturing, performed not only by young single women but also by married women and women with children; not by only racialised women, but by women of virtually all nationalities and ethnicities. As women have poured into labour markets around the globe, state-organised capitalism's ideal of the family wage is being replaced by the newer, more modern norm – apparently sanctioned by feminism – of the two-earner family.

Feminism has caused a marked decrease in the productivity and competitiveness of the West as well as the wholesale demoralisation of the male workforce.

Never mind that the reality that underlies the new ideal is depressed wage levels, decreased job security, declining living standards, a steep rise in the number of hours worked for wages per household, exacerbation of the double shift – now often a triple or quadruple shift – and a rise in poverty, increasingly concentrated in female-headed households. Neoliberalism turns a sow's ear into a silk purse by elaborating a narrative of female empowerment. Invoking the feminist critique of the family wage to justify exploitation, it harnesses the dream of women's emancipation to the engine of capital accumulation.

I have no idea what the fucking fuck Nancy Fraser is trying to say in this paragraph, I'm afraid. 

Feminism has also made a second contribution to the neoliberal ethos. In the era of state-organised capitalism, we rightly criticised a constricted political vision that was so intently focused on class inequality that it could not see such "non-economic" injustices as domestic violence, sexual assault and reproductive oppression. Rejecting "economism" and politicising "the personal", feminists broadened the political agenda to challenge status hierarchies premised on cultural constructions of gender difference. The result should have been to expand the struggle for justice to encompass both culture and economics. But the actual result was a one-sided focus on "gender identity" at the expense of bread and butter issues. Worse still, the feminist turn to identity politics dovetailed all too neatly with a rising neoliberalism that wanted nothing more than to repress all memory of social equality. In effect, we absolutised the critique of cultural sexism at precisely the moment when circumstances required redoubled attention to the critique of political economy. 

The welfare state is now the daddy and hubby of the parasitic fornicating slut with illegitimate offspring.

Finally, feminism contributed a third idea to neoliberalism: the critique of welfare-state paternalism. Undeniably progressive in the era of state-organised capitalism, that critique has since converged with neoliberalism's war on "the nanny state" and its more recent cynical embrace of NGOs. A telling example is "microcredit", the programme of small bank loans to poor women in the global south. Cast as an empowering, bottom-up alternative to the top-down, bureaucratic red tape of state projects, microcredit is touted as the feminist antidote for women's poverty and subjection. What has been missed, however, is a disturbing coincidence: microcredit has burgeoned just as states have abandoned macro-structural efforts to fight poverty, efforts that small-scale lending cannot possibly replace. In this case too, then, a feminist idea has been recuperated by neoliberalism. A perspective aimed originally at democratising state power in order to empower citizens is now used to legitimise marketisation and state retrenchment. 

Feminism caused neoliberalism but feminists and their running dogs want to keep it going because they can't see that it is against the National Interest and wouldn't care even if they did. Degenerates cannot grasp and do not care about abstract ideas such as Truth, Reason, Morality, Posterity, Honour etc. (Indeed, feminists even want to abolish the term "honour crime".)

In all these cases, feminism's ambivalence has been resolved in favour of (neo)liberal individualism. But the other, solidaristic scenario may still be alive. The current crisis affords the chance to pick up its thread once more, reconnecting the dream of women's liberation with the vision of a solidary society. To that end, feminists need to break off our dangerous liaison with neoliberalism and reclaim our three "contributions" for our own ends. 

And this is why we need more feminism, yay!

First, we might break the spurious link between our critique of the family wage and flexible capitalism by militating for a form of life that de-centres waged work and valorises unwaged activities, including – but not only – carework. Second, we might disrupt the passage from our critique of economism to identity politics by integrating the struggle to transform a status order premised on masculinist cultural values with the struggle for economic justice. Finally, we might sever the bogus bond between our critique of bureaucracy and free-market fundamentalism by reclaiming the mantle of participatory democracy as a means of strengthening the public powers needed to constrain capital for the sake of justice. 
at 1 comment:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, 7 May 2017

Ron Paul: The Collapse Is Closer Than Ever








at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, 11 April 2017

The neoconservative and neoliberal model of perpetuating the New World Order

1) Invite immigration, especially Muslim immigration.

2) Create hatred and resentment against Muslims by giving Muslims privileges unavailable to non-Muslims and non-Jews as well as unemployment at home so the indigenous and uneducated plebs become so stupid and desperate they join the armed forces to fight and kill Muslims in neocon wars abroad.

3) Keep them stupid by tolerating sluts and bastards and denying them free and decent selective education.

4) Rinse and repeat ad nauseam until your civilisation collapses.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 6 April 2017

After turning neocon, Trump will now walk back on his promises




















at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, 31 March 2017

Are White People the problem?



What is the problem exactly?

I think it should be re-titled "WHY ARE WHITE PEOPLE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH OTHER RACES IN THEIR COUNTRY?"

The problem is of course immigration, but they white people did it to themselves. If white people did not allow other races into their countries, then they would not be having problems with them now, would they?

If immigration is such a problem for white people, then why don't they just stop it with their democracy if most people have a problem with it? But they can't.

Why not?

Because white people cannot agree amongst themselves what they should do about immigration.

Some white people - the liberal elite - don't have a problem with immigration, but most do. It is the liberal elite who control the media and the media can make most people believe whatever the media want them to believe.

Obviously, if white people want to keep their culture and things the way they are, they have to control immigration.

If they have a problem controlling immigration, they should ask themselves why. Opinion appears to be evenly divided about immigration, but we should bear in mind that is men who are more racist than women because their interests are more directly threatened.

Have you noticed that the lionesses in the lion's harem never help the lion fight when there is a male intruder hoping to usurp him to have access to his harem?

They don't care because they want to have the cubs of the winner even as they know that the usurper if he wins will kill the cubs of the previous incumbent. It is all the same to them.

Are white men like that lion, but forced to be friendly and welcoming to potential usurpers because the lionesses prefer it and he believes in democracy in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage?

Then more fool him.

The video only complains about Muslims and Islam, but never mentions the role of democracy, feminism and liberalism in breaking down white men's willingness to protect their interests and culture.

Feminism has utterly emasculated the white man rendering him unable even to defend a principle, let alone his nation. It is doubtful if he any longer understands what a principle is. He probably thinks having principles cramps his style, preventing him from acting on impulse, caprice and expediency. Muslims however have principles because they have religious principles which they are obliged to follow.

What principles ought we to have if we want to have principles just for the sake of having them, like a moral status symbol, to show that we are better than non-human animals who cannot be expected to know what principles are for, let alone have them?

Mine are simply to submit to truth, logic and morality. It seems there are plenty of white men who think they are too good to do that, because they are so white and clever and superior and have no need to obey any rules and can do what they like, whenever and wherever.

You may have noticed that white culture - drug culture, pub culture, the culture of entitlement and the culture of excuses - is not about supporting the institutions of marriage and the family. It is therefore inevitable that it will be replaced by Islam which has a culture of supporting marriage and family values instead of sex and drugs and rock and roll.

So what is the real problem with white people and why can't they fix their problems?

Because they are in denial about the nature of their problems and keep complaining about the symptoms of terrorism and immigration rather than curing the disease of feminism, neoliberalism and neoconservatism, which they cannot do unless they accept the truth, the operation of reason and the nature and purpose of morality.

Because they won't accept the truth, or the conclusions logic leads them towards, or the dictates of morality, they are in denial. Because if they were not in denial, I would have a job in the media or be famous by now, but it is the purpose of the corrupt liberal media to deny my existence however newsworthy I and my ideas are.

When the media of White People finally becomes fit for purpose and reports news rather than suppressing it, there might just be hope for them.


God and the demographic winter to come for the post-industrial societies of the East and West 




at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 23 March 2017

Western Man's cultural practice of mass murdering Muslims abroad and complaining about Muslim immigration and terrorism at home


This video only complains about Muslims and their propensity to terrorism, without once considering the role of UK foreign policy in provoking Muslim terrorism. So much easier to point to Muslims who are visibly different than to trouble one's pretty head about bad UK foreign policy, is it not? Demanding the mass expulsion of Muslims and the banning of Islam in the West is a much more attractive option than wondering where UK foreign policy might have gone wrong over the past century.







What year was the Brighton bomb?

What year was the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Do you think Muslim terrorists are better at putting two and two together than shit for brains MPs sitting in Parliament as representatives of the idiocracy?

It would appear Islamophobic Western Man considers the neocon policy of bombing and invading Muslim countries as an expression of Western masculinity.

The Military Industrial Complex of the Western Man has the perfect modus operandi: keep invading Muslim countries and keep allowing Muslim immigration.

Allowing Muslim immigration while preventing people from complaining about immigration and giving Muslims special status causes Muslims to be hated, creating the desire in beta male cannon fodder to bomb and invade Muslim countries, which is brilliantly self-perpetuating.

Creating a fear of Muslims in the West also allows the state to pass ever more repressive laws to justify spying on everyone, another beneficial side effect for the intelligence community who are part of the deep state.

It cannot be healthy or decent to express your masculinity in enabling, facilitating and committing mass homicide, can it? This is after all what serial killers do.

Part of the white man's cultural identity is the belief he has the right to mass murder Muslims globally with impunity from retaliation.

When he suffers retaliation in the form terrorism in his own country, the degenerate Western matriarchy calls for the observation of pointless rituals of a minute's silence and candlelit vigils, clearly designed to generate emotion and to suppress thought so its victims never think to question Western foreign policy or their government's immigration policy, both designed to prop up the stinking degenerate matriarchy of parasitical female voters and their spawn, who are voracious clients of the welfare state.

https://www.facebook.com/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times-417696111659379/?fref=ts

Why does the white man feel he has to mass murder Muslims abroad as a cultural practice? Because at home he is a pussywhipped mangina whose social status is below that of a fornicating slut or Slut Single Mother with variously fathered feral bastards who live off his labour and his taxes whom he doesn't even get to fuck. 

Simon Sheppard on How Feminism Caused Two World Wars
"We should ask, and seek a satisfactory answer to the question: Was it a coincidence that the British government capitulated to women at precisely the same moment in history that it directed a blood feud of a savagery unknown for centuries? Extraordinary lengths were taken to prevail in the First World War, and extraordinary measures were taken rather than accede to the German and American peace overtures which were made, especially during December 1916."

"It is generally acknowledged that the First World War directly led to the Second."

"A man who has lost control at home can seek to dominate elsewhere."

"The desire to dominate and subdue women, a natural male instinct with sound evolutionary origins, was expressed another way. Germany was subjugated instead. Moreover the British government had itself become feminized, choosing as its adversary one more masculine than itself, the sort of enemy the female would choose. By attacking a more masculine opponent, males were serving the female interest."

"A nation, like a man, that is secure in itself and in its masculine capacity to control does not wish to cruelly persecute a vanquished foe. This took place after both world wars."

'... feminization played a part in the instigation and unprecedented magnitude of violence of the subsequent two world wars. One cannot help but wonder at the carnage and suffering which might have been avoided had British bobbies, on facing organized suffragette rebellion in the years around 1910, simply been told to “roll up their sleeves.” '

Why doesn't Western Man stop waging war on Muslims abroad?

Why does he continue to allow Muslim immigration into his country while he wages war against Muslims abroad? It makes no sense, but then it makes no sense for men to let irresponsible and promiscuous women have the vote and most women in the West are irresponsible and promiscuous, do not have legitimate children, are not good wives and badly parent what children they manage to have leading to a shortage of employably literate and numerate citizens, leading to a labour shortage, leading to an insatiable demand for cheaper and more willing immigrant labour.

Why does this deep-seated and long-standing problem remain addressed? Because politicians are not capable of planning beyond the next election.

How should it be addressed? My proposals to abolish multi-party democracy, abolish the welfare state, repeal pro-feminist legislation and impose a one-party Secular Koranist theocracy capable of promoting social conservatism and the long term national interest will be unlikely to get any publicity from the corrupt liberal media more in the business of suppressing news than reporting it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2728487/My-children-turned-monsters-And-says-SHONA-SIBARY-s-fault-trying-nice-liberal-parent.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1299400/Fathers-sleazy-mothers-lazy-What-au-pair-REALLY-thinks-you.html

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/why-white-people-are-now-inferior-race.html 

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html

It is impossible to get an answer from a patient who is in a catatonic state.

Is this patient's response analogous to that of the media - being able to hold an unnatural position for a surprisingly long time? 1:36 Watch out in particular for waxy flexibility, sustained abnormal position, opposition, resistance to movement, negativism including aversion

This is what the male politician secretly thinks about himself, his career and the entire political process that he wastes his life engaging in, because he won't say what needs to be said about feminism and Western foreign policy.


New President, same old neocon US foreign policy being pursued by NATO members/US vassal states

Western Man is simply in a state of neurotic suspension, on the one hand compelled to do the same thing again and again because that is what he has been doing ever he can remember, and on the other fearing the consequences when he wakes up to admit that he has been in error for God knows how long and for how many generations for allowing indiscriminate universal suffrage, tolerating widespread bastardy and allowing his addiction to extramarital sex and cheap foreign labour to go unaddressed.
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, 12 January 2017

Feminism and Western Foreign Policy pointedly *not* discussed at the Progress meeting on countering Muslim terrorism




















































































































































































































































White middle class feminazis in the media who control spineless unprincipled men don't care about the morality of Western foreign policy or social policy. Those who control our media are mostly feminists, gays, atheists and the opposite of people who support marriage and family values.

Having destroyed the masculinity of men of their own race, they now wish to invite men of other races to enter their country in order to destroy their masculinity too.

Under cover of terrorism legislation, the government can easily now censor the free exchange of ideas to demonise anyone who points out an obvious truth or uses logical arguments to press his case.

When people like Anjem Choudary easily win the argument, the government simply ceases to engage with them at all and then incarcerates them.

It is not just Muslim radicals who suffer this treatment, is it? Even now as you read this, plans are afoot to impeach Donald Trump, before he has even been inaugurated.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/12/donald-trump-may-get-impeached-within-a-year-if-you-believe-the-betting-odds-6377488/

Corporate media still has a purpose even if the rest of us already know they are the biggest manufacturers of fake news.

This is how it works: the media spin a narrative - any narrative at all, no matter how illogical, transparently false and immoral. Our politicians pretend to believe it and vote for it. 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...