Translate

Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 February 2018

On the necessity of hierarchy and the men who have a problem with authority

Does anyone else get it that logically and necessarily we must have hierarchy if we are to have patriarchy, and that marriage is the best way of ordering the rank of individuals in society?

The antithesis of patriarchy is matriarchy, and in a matriarchy it is impossible to establish your rank or indeed to pull rank on anyone at all.

This is because matriarchies are egalitarian. Women tend to be feminists and feminists are socialists, and socialists are egalitarian. Socialism means a nanny state without which feminism cannot exist. Feminism cannot exist outside an overbearing nanny state because a society of men with male solidarity simply wouldn't put up with feminism.

How is male solidarity achieved? It can only be achieved when men agree amongst themselves that sluts have to be shamed. Since most men are atheists and only think in the short term, they are incapable of thinking beyond their own lifetimes or immediate prospect of pleasure. Since this life is the only life they expect to have, any threat or bribe would work with them. This means they are incapable of making any sacrifice or showing any courage because they fear loss of status, income and employment and most certainly sexual access to women which they think is a badge of their virility.

In an egalitarian society, individuals will not receive constructive criticism gracefully. Everyone is asking anyone else who tries to correct their behaviour "Who the hell are you to tell me what to do?"

If the person attempting to do the correcting says "Well, it is true that you do X and X is wrong" you would be told mulishly "Even if what you say is true, I still won't do what you say and you can't do anything about it, so fuck off."

This could be said to the person supposedly higher in rank to the mule, or lower in rank.

Why would any aspiring male with leadership qualities who is also atheist, cowardly and not prepared to make any sacrifice for any principle wish to lead a herd of mules? Far better to trick, bribe or threaten them than appeal to their reason and good nature which is mostly eclipsed by their massive egos.

The British used to be known for their rules of fair play. The 21st century British male if he is working class is usually someone who has problems with authority, said to be something commonly suffered by delinquent black youth who underachieve in life.

If you have a problem with authority, you will only want to be the leader. If you only want to be the leader, you will not be prepared to obey orders, follow rules or observe the boundaries of correct behaviour.

If you are defiant, rebellious and rude, then people who do actually have something to teach you will reject and avoid you, and this will stop you from making the most of your opportunities.

People who have problem with authority are of course atheists. Their ultimate authority is themselves guided only by their ego, appetites and emotions. Such people would hate the idea of having their behaviour restricted by anything as banal as rules, which they think is for losers, little realising that they are themselves the losers.

What rules should we obey?

From the standpoint of survival, we should always acknowledge truth, logic and morality. However, we all know people who are so egotistical and stubborn that they will never admit that they lost the argument. We might have at some in our own lives be guilty of this trait ourselves and already know that a majority of the households in the land does not have a responsible adult capable of making their offspring acknowledge the error of their ways. Most children are badly parented by their irresponsible single mothers and even married fathers are often weak or allow themselves to be undermined by their wives. This is a great shame because people who never admit they are wrong are condemned to repeat their mistakes again and again and again.

In a matriarchy, all males are beta males. This is unhealthy and dangerous because no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male.

This means beta males will have no one to represent their interests. In a matriarchy, there are at best only beta males with alpha male qualities, but they tend to be flawed characters who have a problem with authority, unable to either obey or lead properly or be guided by religious or moral principles, since they are overwhelmingly atheist, and atheists only worship the False Idol of Expediency.

If they claim to be religious, this really means nothing more than a vague belief in some higher power. If you suggest to them that this higher power might be the Abrahamic God who has taken the trouble of making laws for humanity, they will immediately say that they don't subscribe to that kind of religious fanaticism.

Such people tend to prefer the religions with the vaguest possible rules so they can interpret these principles in any way they like, to suit themselves. Such people are always on the lookout to enjoy spiritual experiences while being disinclined to obey anything as pedestrian as rules, which they think are for losers and uncool people.

To be an alpha male, you must be a leader of beta males and be chosen as leader by beta males without females interfering with their choice of leader. Otherwise, such a leader will end up being chosen by the worst kind of promiscuous and irresponsible female who is a bad mother to her variously fathered illegitimate offspring.

A patriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of married fathers while a matriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of unmarried mothers.

We know what we are, don't we?

The average voter in the UK is a 40 year white single mother who hates white men. Sadly, the plebeians of the West overwhelmingly have a problem with authority while the patricians are terrified of being divorced by their feminist wives under the rules of no fault divorce with the consequence of being deprived of their matrimonial home and children for no good reason at all. They are also terrified of being accused of a historic sexual offence by a female and feminist Director of Public Prosecutions.

I am just here to record the fall of the West and explain it to future generations since there is really not much more I can do other than explain and chronicle this process. After all, no one ever listens to me.

I am not really complaining, because men don't listen to each other either. In a matriarchy, all men are beta males and no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male. Leaderless beta males think and behave exactly like women and the most telling way that this manifests itself is that these men, like women, cannot ever grasp the principles of truth, logic and morality, however often, clearly and loudly you explain it to them.

If you cannot give them immediate gratification eg sex, success etc, they are not interested. Such men will never be able to make sacrifices for the principle of the thing. In fact, they would openly sneer at anyone prepared to do such a thing as a fool or a fanatic. Not only will they lie to you, they will lie to themselves, even worse and even more. The most bemusing thing about them is that they will always be doing the equivalent of saying "No, thank you" when you offer them something while reaching out a paw to take it. They genuinely don't even know they are doing it, and when you point it out to them, they will be puzzled and offended. Principles are of course the key to moral reasoning so that one knows what one's principles are, and will notice when they are being broken. British men are entirely bereft of the ability to use moral reasoning to check themselves, and instead rely on their emotions and caprice, just as women do.

http://www.puckermob.com/lifestyle/20-struggles-of-having-issues-with-authority

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

Wednesday, 12 July 2017

Why Nationalism should replace Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism

Liberalism is no longer about liberty and Conservatism no longer about social conservatism. Both ideologies are now hopelessly corrupted and distorted and in effect meaningless. If Liberalism means anything at all, it means sexual liberation. If Conservatism means anything, it means conserving the status quo, no matter how or what it is, in favour of the wealthy, unless the left make things too difficult.

In Britain, the Labour Party is the 21st century version of Populares, and the Conservative Party the 21st century version of Optimates.

It should be noted that the imperial period of Rome lasted approximately 1,500 years compared to the 500 years of the Republican era.

Time now for a new ideology that promotes the national interest: a nationalism which seeks to balance the conflicting interests of men and women, the old and young, the rich and poor while in government instead of waiting for the incumbent party to fail. Time to rationally govern the nation in the long term national interest for our descendants as yet unborn, who will not revile our memory for squandering what we could have passed on to them, if we had been less selfish, less sexually liberated, too busy waging a class war and heedless of posterity.

If you want want a one party state you will be accused of fascism, but the only countries who defy libtard US Deep State with an independent foreign policy are China, Iran, North Korea and Russia. Time now to rethink our political system and about replacing our degenerate matriarchy with a rational patriarchy, if we are still allowed to do such things as form our own opinions and create our own platforms for a full and frank exchange of ideas.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/08/government-debt-gilt-sales

for the political parties to come together - in a national government 

A "national government" is a euphemism for a one party state.

http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

The logical and necessary consequence of abolishing whipping in the Commons by disqualifying anyone who is a Whip from membership of the House of Commons - as Peter Bone proposed - would be the establishing of a one party state. 


Thursday, 27 September 2012

All healthy societies have a healthy loathing of the promiscuous female. Western society is sick and dying.


Any healthy society has this VISCERAL loathing of sluts. Stored in the memory of every race and society is the memory of how things turned to SHIT when they let sluts take power like they have now.

All societies made the same mistake at some time in their history.

Socialism, feminism, communism and atheism are just ideologies that says it is OK to be an SSM  and are just Man's periodic attempts to rid himself of this memory that Free Love kills your civilisation.

Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to re-learn them again - the hard way.

The only good matriarchy is a dead matriarchy.

Monday, 13 February 2012

I am a Nationalist, not a racist or an antisemite

What is a nationalist?

Someone who believes in a policy of acting in the National Interest.

What is a racist?

Someone who believes that race is a sufficient reason for the inclusion or exclusion of someone from a nation.

Is Claire Khaw a racist?

No, because I have been saying for some time now that a nationalist by definition cannot be a racist.

Why is racism incompatible with nationhood?

Because the idea of a nationhood logically transcends the idea of race and tribe.  A nation is by definition a collection of tribes who have decided to form themselves into a nation for reasons of self-preservation and self-advancement.

What is an antisemite?

Someone who hates Jews and Zionists because they are Jews and Zionists.

Is Claire Khaw an antisemite?

No, because I think Jews are the teacher's pet in a class of bullies and dunces who envy the teacher's pet but refuse to work hard while not being particularly clever.   Jews are perhaps just a global metaphor for "the rich and powerful who exploit the poor" even in countries where there are no significant numbers of Jews.  During the Cultural Revolution in Communist China, the "Jews" of China were the landlords, businessmen, middle classes, academics and people formerly in authority.

Is Claire Khaw attempting to redefine nationalism, which most nationalists seem to think is racial segregation?

Yes, because I think that definition is logically incorrect.  The idea of a greater nationhood transcribes the narrow and amoral considerations of race and tribe.   "Ummah" - the Muslim version of Christendom - is the perfect expression - a nation of shared values.   We can change our minds, but not the colour of our skin.   Also, if we sent everyone home to wherever we were supposed to come from, most Americans would end up back in Europe, which would clearly make it too crowded.

Is Claire Khaw a National Socialist?

Yes, she is a CIVIC National Socialist because a nationalist would want social cohesion, and social cohesion can only come with the Social Justice that comes with a Meritocracy.  A one-party state (which is the real essence of National Socialism) that protects the rights of its members by abolishing the office of the party whip as proposed by Peter Bone MP in the House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill would be just the thing to balance Statist policies with Libertarian policies, allowing party members to vote according to their conscience rather than what is deemed by their amoral leaders to be in the short-term party interest, rather than the long-term National Interest.  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

What has Claire Khaw to say to White Nationalists?

Get real and ask yourselves if you really think you are in a position to say "It is all or nothing" and expect to get your all.   You can keep saying in your manifestos that you want to forcibly repatriate non-white British citizens, but you already know saying that has got you nowhere at all.   An enlightened member of the BNP once told me that, realistically, the only people even a BNP government can forcibly repatriate are illegal immigrants.

Is it time nationalists stopped being the Stupid, Angry, Bitter, Plebeian and Unable to Compete with Foreigners Party?

That question I will leave other nationalists to answer.   

Thursday, 13 October 2011

How English Conservatives can sort out the Welsh and Scottish Socialists


It is terribly sad that the Scots and Welsh are almost invariably socialist.

The last Labour government bought them off with devolution and this actually changed the whole political landscape.

Surely there must be a significant number of suppressed Conservatives amongst the Welsh and the Scots?

Surely they not all a bunch of vicious whingeing leftist pinko Europhiliac PC Commies?

It would be terribly sad if they were all like that.

If that is what they are then the English should invade them again to save them from themselves.

There must be a huge untapped market amongst the Welsh and the Scots for good old-fashioned Conservative family values supported by marriage, I like to think.

They are probably not that happy with uncontrolled immigration either, but they hate the BNP because the BNP are undeniably an English party and the Scots and Welsh hate the English.

It would be the easiest thing to corner the market in Civic National Socialism (whose defining feature is "ein Volk (all British citizens of all races and religions and certainly Jews and Muslims as equal citizens), ein Reich, eine Partei") and Euroscepticism by forming a party called, say, the Civic National Socialist Party with English, Scots and Welsh branches.

In Wales the Party will be known as "Y party dinesyg cenedlaethol a sosialaidd".

In Scotland the Party will be known as "Am pàrtaidh cathaireach nàiseanta sòisealach".

Or,


  1. The Civic National Socialist Party of Britain (English Branch)
  2. The Civic National Socialist Party of Britain (Scottish Branch)
  3. The Civic National Socialist Party of Britain (Welsh Branch)

The Prime Minister will rotate amongst the leaders of the respective branches of Britain and by this means will the unity of the United Kingdom of Britain continue to be upheld.

Representative democracy under indiscriminate universal suffrage would be abolished and the franchise narrowed to taxpayers only under the principle of NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION, neatly disenfranchising parasitical Slut Single Mothers and their NEETs.

Brothels in England, Scotland and Wales will be legal so these people will have the chance of earning an honest living, keeping the price of sex in the UK reasonably affordable until the current generation of prostitutes die out. Sensible women will not wish to become prostitutes, I imagine, and wish to marry sensible men and have sensible legitimate offspring who will be a credit to them.

I also propose that the low-waged be relieved of the burden of paying taxes and also of the burden of voting.

The economy is to be run on the basis of medium income working married man paying no more than a flat rate tax of 20% being capable of supporting his wife and legitimate offspring on one income alone.

As for government funds and how they are to be shared, everything is to be worked out on the basis of England, Wales and Scotland paying for themselves and the extent to which they are individually bailed out by England, Scottish oil, sales of Welsh rarebit or whatever. The lawyers and accountants will have fun working this out, I bet.

Monday, 3 January 2011

The purpose of this dismal science called Economics

The purpose of economics is not to distribute wealth - an egregious socialist fallacy.

The purpose of economics is to analyse how wealth is created and lost.

Sunday, 5 December 2010

Sunday Sermon: On Liberty

Previous generations enjoyed more freedom of speech, contract and association than we do.

This means our freedoms have in fact been eroded but most of us are too dumb to notice or too apathetic to care.

The strongest statement I can make as a libertarian is to join the BNP, in order to stand up for their right to say what they believe to be the truth - ie that they do not like immigration and utterly fail to see how it has benefited people like them - without being smeared as evil Nazi Fascist Racist extremists.

 
Only those who assert their rights deserve liberty. The views of the ones who wait to be allowed to speak come from an inferior source.

Most of our MPs and those in the political establishment do not deserve to be in government and should not be trusted to represent anyone, because they can be so easily cowed into apologising and resigning for speaking what they think is the truth when asked by someone who is a traitor to their cause to do so.  That traitor to their cause is, tragically and ironically, their own leader.

David Cameron does not mean Conservatism well.  He is like a cushion who bears the imprint of the person who last sat on him - in this case New Labour, who started two unprofitable and unwinnable wars in the name of the British people, who legalised "marriage" for same-sex couples, who are the enemy of selective traditional education and who are too frightened to criticise single mothers who are going forth and multiplying,  increasing the burden of the taxpayer while lowering standards of education and morality with every little bastard that is born in this country every minute of every day.  

These days around 50% of babies are born out of wedlock and 70% of the UK prison population were singly-parented. 

The constitution of the Conservative Party allows David Cameron to say that Conservatism is whatever he says Conservatism is.  If he says Conservatism is Socialism, then it is.  If he says the Big Society is smaller government, then it is, even if it is a lie. If he says he supports marriage while refusing to condemn single mummery because Theresa May has forbidden Tories to be nasty to them, then that policy cannot be questioned, derided or challenged. 

Tories have shit for brains and piss for guts, just like New Labour.  Destination Third World hellhole remains on course.

Where else can you expect our political establishment to lead us to if the supposed alpha male of the British nation - our Prime Minister David Cameron no less -  is too cowardly and hypocritical to even condemn the sluts, slags and slapper single mums who are a burden on the state and who are even now in the process of multiplying themselves?

As I said, the Tories are shit for brains piss for guts limp-dicks, all of them - even the ones who call themselves Libertarians.

We will never return to rationally small government while British  men are afraid of losing the votes of slut and slapper British women.

Tuesday, 21 September 2010

Socialism

Hitler:

"Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have some thing to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."

We are all socialists now!

Tuesday, 14 September 2010

A new definition of nationalism

Reduced to its essentials, nationalism is simply the theory and practice of pursuing the national interest.  It should be benign, pragmatic, rational and most certainly non-racist, if understood properly and practised correctly. 

One can only judge the success of this ideology by the success and longevity of the nations who practice it.  

The People's Republic of China just celebrated its 60th anniversary last year. 

Sunday, 27 September 2009

Conservatism v Radicalism and Religion's Role as a Defender of Conservatism

Social history seems to be a struggle for power between the elite and the common man, between men and women.

Socialism is seen as rule by the common man, capitalism rule by the elite.

Radicalism v Conservatism, Revolution v Counter-Revolution.

Conservatism is always on the defensive, it would appear, and can only be defended by religion.

For the past 50 years, we have been saying to each other "Why not? Why don't we? Go on, go on, go on!" before embarking on yet another disastrous policy misadventure, as we have been doing, for perhaps too long.

Saturday, 29 August 2009

Time to bring David Davis in from the cold?

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/columnists/Tom-Richmond-Time-to-bring.5599863.jp

And put deadliest his rival in a position of prominence again?

But perhaps Cameron has no choice. The party is getting restive after all with being given nothing to promote or defend - only hot air and the alleged compassion and progressivism of Cameron's brand of Conservative Socialism.

Another leadership election would be nice. It would be just what the party needs to create interest and arouse passions in the Conservative "brand".

Friday, 24 July 2009

Why PC Liberalism is as bad as Hitlerism, Communism, Feminism

Because it harms the very people it is supposed to benefit.

I thought I would write an essay about why this is is, but it would be better if readers can tell me what I mean, if indeed anyone is reading this ....

Saturday, 18 October 2008

World Communism?

If nationalisation is socialism, is financial socialism World Communism?

Is Marx smiling upon us now?

The meaning of suffering and the purpose of pain

30:34 @OOOTLAM ​​I wonder when YouTube will start selling Secular Koranism videos! 31:38 @OOOTLAM ​​The aspiration of humanity for theosis f...