Politics

6 Leftist Concepts That Pretend To Be Positive But Are Not

151 Comments

The left is intrinsically conflict-mongering. It always existed against a particular state of thing, whether real or fantasized. Early on, though, it dissimulated its conflictive essence by posing as positive or “progressive.” To this end, generations of leftists twisted language to give themselves a good appearance whereas the enemy-of-the-day looked to everyone like something really bad.

Eighteenth century libertines claimed to defend “freedom” while faith became “fanaticism” and “superstition.” Later ones came across as “intellectuals” or siding with “the people.” Some manipulated the proclivity to empathy to pretend they were “oppressed” and thus entitled to sympathy when they were actually hateful, anti-middle-class Marxist or deviant family-hating lesbians.

The whole theory of “progress” as one can find it in Marx—society ought to go from capitalism to an ideal communist society—is little more than wishful thinking, yet it worked tremendously for leftists eager to cast themselves into a self-favoring view of history. Marxist “progress” has been used to kill millions of innocent people, just like globalist or cultural Marxist “progress” serves to destroy white homelands. As long as people are entrapped into positive words masquerading and fostering grim realities, Leftism retains its grip over their minds.

Here are some pseudo-positive concepts or buzzwords that are actual ploys for sinister projects.

1. Equality

Perhaps the most massive totem pole of it all. Written, shouted, used as a talisman an indefinite number of times, “equality” has been put forth to justify various mass killings from eighteenth century terror to twentieth century Bolshevism, and closer to us served to unleash female hypergamy and alien millions of young straight-white-males from the societies they should belong in.

Equality exists in mathematics. A number can be equal to another because an abstract unit can be replaced with another abstract unit without change. Mathematical equality exists because abstract units are identical with each other. Outside from the realm of pure quantity, qualitative differences emerge, and thus equality ought to be defined negatively as the absence of difference both in quantity and quality.

It is easy to see that equality between individual beings—not numbers—is a fiction, an attempt to perceive individuals as abstractions or numbers, void of any quality, personality or specificity. Equalitarianism stems from a rather incomplete view of the beings it pretends to apply to, and gets quickly used as a mask for envy or the will to grab something or exert power over someone.

Although equality can enter into the definition of true justice as equanimity—see Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, quote—, more than often, the word is used to foster particular interests at the expense of the wider social equilibrium, to fan the flames of division and sedition, and later, to deny vocations, human biodiversity, complementarity as it implies differences in nature and functions, not to mention ugly tradeoffs where some manipulative group plays the victim or claims rights to what doesn’t belong to them.

2. “Social” “justice”

Are you a victim? Are you victim of a particular inequality? Then you are living an injustice, and this wrong ought to be compensated. This simple framing has been widely used by anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western leftists to create a feeling of victimhood among various social categories. They used this powerful feeling to mount new social identities, inspired from Marxist classes—feminism isn’t about femininity but about women identifying as a separate, adversarial group, whose interests would be antagonistic to men’s—, and perpetual charges hung over the majority’s heads—reyciss! Sexiss! And so on.

“Social justice” covers a blending of several features: an accusatory, anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western narrative, that taints and darkens past history; a feeling of victimhood and class identity for so-called “minorities” integrated into the wider narrative; the systematic, and very real, disenfranchisement and displacement of the majority that finds itself condemned to play the role of the bad guy—and hence charged—in said narrative. In this sense, “social justice” is deeply divisive, defamatory, aggressive, and amounts to a Moloch that eats families, nationhood, and most men.

Actual justice, call it social or not, is of course far from such a terrible conception. Methinks true justice should acknowledge the fact that we are the sons of the Western civilizations, its human substance and legitimate heirs, and that we have a prime right over it. We should have jobs, freedom of speech, protection over violent crowds, a right to fair judgment instead of getting screwed over by HR, “minority” impunity and pussy pass, a right to chances to thick relationships with at least some women instead of clowning our ways through hypergamy… Don’t forget we need to formalize at least some of our intuitions about what’s fair or not to replace the wicked theory of “justice” the Left shatters us with.

3. “Progress” (and the “reactionaries”)

This overrated buzzword has been straightforward long ago. Its Latin root, progressus, stems from the root verb gradior (walk, advance) and was mostly used in a military context, as in the sentence “the army is progressing into enemy territory.” Since then, it has been used analogically to qualify any advancement, even purely relative or fantasised ones.

The Left, following pompous Philosophes and Marx, enshrined its own notion of progress into a general theory of history, thus making it absolute rather than relative. When various strands of modernity clash—for example, individual freedom and collective well-being—, which one is “progressive”? Each can be used to fulfill a particular notion of progress. Aside perhaps from blatant technological breakthroughs, “progress” is deeply relative. Even the most shining realizations of genius imply the sacrifice of thousands of potential choices that have been discarded during the process. The Left chose to forget this truth in order to judge everything and everyone from its own authoritarian, pedestalized perspective.

If you do some research about such characters as, say, Ayn Rand and Lothrop Stoddard, you’ll notice they have been widely labelled “reactionary.” Yet each of them was a progressive in his own right. Rand considered industrial development and individual freedom as obvious landmarks of progress: she opposed vehemently to the environmentalist and collectivist—that is, anti-industrial, anti-economic growth, anti-conservative rights—as a “return of the primitive.”

As for Lothrop Stoddard, he rebuffed Bolshevism and environmentalism as pre-scientific ratiocinations that willingly ignored human differences and the proper value of civilization. These “mistakes”, he said, are older than biological discoveries and stem from “degenerate” elements who would rather destroy civilization than letting it progress without them.

The only new thing about Bolshevism is its ” rationalizing ” of rebellious emotions into an exceedingly insidious and persuasive philosophy of revolt which has not merely welded all the real social rebels, but has also deluded many misguided dupes, blind to what Bolshevism implies. (Stoddard, Revolt Against Civilization, chap.8)

I also remember an old-fashioned Marxist who claimed feminism was “reactionary” because, he said, it comes from the wealthy and urbanized bourgeoisie, and hijacks the attention and care given to working classes for the benefit of actual exploiters. This guy’s progressivism has fallen out of grace, likely because it showed unable to destroy Western countries, but he is no less right according to his own logic.

Now, of course, we could say that MRAs are the real progressives as men’s rights are a progress, or that asserting our identities and associated rights are a progress, perhaps more so than SJW savagery and unrestrained hypergamy.

4. Openness or open-mindedness

We all heard about how being “open to new ideas” and possibilities, or being “open-minded” was good. In practice, what the liberals mean when they talk about openness or open-minded is “be a Leftist and believe in our notion of progress.” You have to be uncritical, hyper-sympathetic towards the last tranny or BLM activist that whines about how mistreated and misunderstood he is—and if you are “open” to wasting your money on the latest trendy fashion, it is even better.

But try being open-minded towards what the Left tags as “far right” or “extreme”, for example men’s right, race realism, skepticism on their dogmas such as anthropogenic global warming, or tradition… and it won’t be long before they shriek at you, in a typical display of rather irrational dirtiness psychology. “These ideas are impure! They are contagious!”

Open-mindedness along their lines means being gullible to media and college propaganda. You have to let the managers and social engineers fabric your consent, as Chomsky would put it. They want your mind to be open so they can fulfill it with self-hate and garbage. When it comes to better things libtards suspend open-mindedness, to the point of refusing any objective inquiry and hiding behind their biased, accusatory rhetoric.

In itself, openness or open-mindedness is a double-edged sword. It can, and should be used by those who are intelligent or morally structured enough to toy with potentially dangerous ideas. As to the others, those who are too easily tempted or misdirect by demagogues, especially women—who by their vote always favoured an anti-family, economy-devouring Big State—, the low-IQ and the unhinged, I think they should follow the lead of more qualified individuals.

5. Modern nationhood and citizenship

Since time immemorial peoples have been ethnocultural groups. Romans used the term natio to refer to a particular people, say, the Gaul, the Goths or the Basque. They also used the term civis to refer to a man as a member of his city, thus belonging to it.

Both words have been emptied of their substantial meaning. “Nation” is now mostly used to denote an abstract, bureaucratized State whom anyone can be a national if the bureaucrats hand him a stamped piece of paper. “Citizenship” refers to the pretense to identify with a particular public responsibility or to a world under globalist power: Leftists often claim to be “just citizens” or speak “in the name of the citizens of X place” when they are actually carrying cultural warfare. Remember when a bunch of hateful swindlers tried to rob Sherry Spencer, Richard Spencer’s mom, of her real estate by forcing her to sell it at a cheap price? Complacent media said they were just citizens, or that “the town” was doing it. Yeah, sure.

Citizenship today is a mean to virtue-signal when you are an urban elf. It has become empty, fictitious—it refers to a world of nowhere and more subtly to belonging to a globalist class that abandoned its actual fellow citizens or ethnic brothers long ago.

6. “Social struggles” and “achievements”

When they referred to actually good causes, such as trade unions maintaining a high standard of living for most workers and fostering a meritocratic middle-class, these words ringed well. Today, they seem to refer more to the unwarranted privileges of State officers—when theft through taxes and economic rent are presented as something “social.”

The heroic epic of “social achievements”, which conveniently forgets that there is no free lunch and that if a particular segment of population benefits much from them it must be at the expense of the others, covers a host of barely examined ill effects. When it is used to glorify the welfare State, it forgets how such a State tends to disintegrate organic social life by taking away charity or generosity, how it fosters a big parasitic and paternalist State, how it allows females to destroy their families, or how it attracts immigrants eager to get a check and imposes unfair burdens on the productive citizens—I’m thinking about, say, the middle classes who paid for Obamacare, not about cutting taxes for Monsanto.

Conclusion

From fake smiles and cute façades to seemingly innocuous buzzwords such as “you go girl”, “sex positivity” or “self-acceptance”—which sounds better than complacency—, the culture conflict-mongerers managed to push their disruptions and degeneration into normality. One step at a time, from actual normalcy to an alien nation, all this believing they were cool or on the good side of history.

Shatter the illusion by explaining what stands behind and unveil the inner vacuity or potentially polymorphous use of the word. May progress not be “progress” and may the mainstream view of justice not be the anti-white, misandric “social justice.” They aren’t smarter than we are, just more manipulative.

Read Next: 4 Leftist Propaganda Videos That Had Their False Narrative Called Out

151 thoughts on “6 Leftist Concepts That Pretend To Be Positive But Are Not”

  1. Anyone here feels he is spied upon? I think i am with my nosy neighbours dive bombing into my matters all the time. What should i do?

      1. what if they are professional private investigators and they say “well, this is our business”

      2. Well even a ringtone of mine was “Mind Your Own Fucking Business” ringtone

    2. They’re definitely spying on you. You should cover all windows with tin foil and make yourself a hat from it as well. Be sure to write in secret code at all times because they are also spying on your network.

      1. ya know HoTo….you are off to a pretty good start. Gonna take a little while, but I have my eye on you.

        3. one of the greatest movies.
          “son, you don’t lie to me I’m your dad. You lie to women.”

    4. Funny thing, my neighbors — a married couple who I have said all of 3 words to in as many years — had some guests. The girl (I didn’t know her name) had her parents and sister. As I was walking in the door the sister said “You must be lolknee! I heard so much about you” lol.
      I am pretty sure the only thing she could have heard about me is that there are various women’s voices, sometimes two at a time, screaming in pure ecstasy .

      1. Heard about your sexploits here before as i was a reader of ROK since 2016 but i only manage to create an account and comment here today. Anyways what are your opinions on south east asian chicks?

        1. I think everyone should do what and who they like, but Asian chicks in general aren’t my cup of tea. I just am not turned on by them. I have poked through most of the different brands of Asian and some have been fun, but I just don’t like the Asian look.

        2. Ive only boned 1 asian girl, and her pussy was so tight I could barely get in. Is it true they have an extra pussy muscle that makes them super tight? Ive heard that before, more research is needed into this topic!
          But I agree in general they are impossible deal with, too shy and insecure and well, they just don’t talk.

        3. I Honestly don’t think the muscle thing is true. Human musculature doesn’t display that kind of variance. On top of the things you mention….shyness, insecurity….I just don’t find them attractive.

        4. Maybe it’s to compensate for the average oriental dude’s lack of dongitude. There are other racial physical variances, so who knows. *If anyone else has lots of experience with asian pussy, please chime in about the tightness factor lol

        6. haha. You saw it here first!
          PS, funny but there was an asian urologist in this area named Dr. Dong.

        7. I’ve experienced tight Asian pussy but I’ve also had tight black pussy and I’ve had sloppy as fuck Asian pussy too. I buy that there are physical variances just not by race on this issue though who knows.

        8. I had this redhead who was on the implanon birth control rod, and one day it was like her pussy was superglued shut, I could not even get my fingers in her. Ill never forget what a pretty color scheme that was though, auburn beaver with hot-pink snatch lips

        10. Nice. I had a hot little southern blonde who was named after a gun….not kidding…and she was a serious fucking bombshell. She had such control over her pussy muscles that if she clenched down you couldn’t put your finger in and I am a strong guy and I don’t go gentle on women. She was able to do things that I will never forget and this was a decade or more ago…

        11. o that red furr….
          My very first was a redhead. When I got her drawers off it was like Ronald MacDonald was trying to peek out.

      1. Well, I wus sittin’ home alone an’ started to sweat
        Figured they wus in my T.V. set
        Peeked behind the picture frame
        Got a shock from my feet, hittin’ right up in the brain
        Them Reds caused it!
        I know they did . . . them hard-core ones
        Well, I quit my job so I could work all alone
        Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes
        Followed some clues from my detective bag
        And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
        That ol’ Betsy Ross . . .
        From Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues (((Bob Dylan)))

        1. You know, I started singing that to the tune of the Fresh Prince of Bel Aire theme song…

        6. I always wondered about the fresh prince. In what universe is taking a cab from west Philadelphia to bel air California a sensible idea?

        7. Perfectly reasonable to both myself and one B.A. Baracus.
          I pity the fool that says otherwise….

        8. BA would gladly drive himself, take a bus or take a train. There is no sensible reason to take a metered taxi. That’s clown shoes crazy. You could buy a used car specifically for the purposes of this trip, drive there and then set the car of fire and it would be cheaper.

        9. Yer right, yer, yer goddamn right. Fare, surcharge, tip….blows the whole cost structure.
          I guess I just wasn’t giving this perfectly sane proposition adequate analysis.

        10. BA, by the way, is now in Branson Missouri with charro and balki. Don’t get this mixed up with Bronson Missouri paley

  3. I probably speak for a lot of people who have that feeling, after hearing about cultural marxism’s List of Demands, that there is only negativity.
    Very little to no deep analysis of what is to replace the so-called ‘leftovers from a colonialist mindset’ or some such bs.
    This explains why gov’t have become so intrusive and bloated: it reflects decades of #FakeInquiry.

  4. Some thoughts or quotes for each of these:
    “Equality” – To quote Syndrome from The Incredibles, “When everyone’s super, no one will be!”

    “Social Justice” – For this one, bait them out by playing dumb and curious. Let them explain their positions and guide them with questions into proving they’re racist, sexist, and what have you. Then, ever so innocently, ask if they’re a racist/sexist/etc.
    e.g. “So, if I get you right, we can’t use the n-word because African Americans are too emotionally fragile to handle it, or something? That doesn’t sound right to me…”
    “Progress” – Progress implies a destination, or at very least a path. You can make progress on massive gains by lifting weights religiously, but that is not progress toward becoming an obese couch potato or becoming a master musician. To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat, “If you don’t know where you’re going, then it really doesn’t matter which way you go. You’re sure to get somewhere if you just keep going long enough.”
    “Openness” – I recall the words of Martin Luther: “You cannot keep birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair.” While he was speaking of sin (and the similar Chinese proverb speaks about sadness), the same is true of ideas. To be “open” is to be a blank slate, upon which anyone can write anything; to be “closed” is to assume you know all things. Wisdom is in the happy middle, where we allow ourselves to entertain ideas but only keep those that have merit.
    “Citizenship” – You cannot be a “world citizen.” Citizen is a word that, like all words, contains in it all the things it is and all that it is not. To be a citizen is to be a member of one society but not of another, just as race is to share ancestors with some peoples but not others (to a point, of course – trace back far enough, and we’re all cousins).
    “Social Achievements” – As with progress, achievement implies a path. It is no achievement to randomly find a dog, because there was no innate desire or quest for the dog. In the same way, if you want to lose weight gaining 50 lbs is no achievement. The question must always be, “What was achieved, and is it on a path we desire?”
    Went far wordier than I planned, but at least there’s a video in there.

    2. Your cartoon-gleaned axiom, without dawning on you, belies your interior mental dependence on hierarchies to order your relationships. I don’t know if that can be done away with, replaced, etc., but I can’t imagine how it would be anything other than continually vexing and exhausting to need to maintain a scoreboard across the multitudes of mankind (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, you’ll get this.) I’m almost positive that it’s counter-productive in the extreme.
      “[requests to say “nigger”] because African Americans are too emotionally fragile to handle it.” Words that are invented to evoke offense, inflicting offense, can not be said to be inoffensive. Reacting emotionally to offense is normal behavior. Disturbed affect exists for a reason and that reaction is the intended effect of slurs and insults.
      You can pretend, for expediency, that you take offense at nothing, which is assuredly untrue, as a part of some Vulcan identity role . At the very least you’re offended at the expectation that civility take precedence over your decision to express certain thoughts and that you’re expected to consider other’s dignity as important as your supposed need for total social autonomy. Don’t be.
      It didn’t work did it.
      Get it now?
      “To be “open” is to be a blank slate, upon which anyone can write anything; to be “closed” is to assume you know all things. Wisdom is in the happy middle, where we allow ourselves to entertain ideas but only keep those that have merit.”
      Wisdom is the midpoint between receptivity and non-receptivity? In a way, yes. Wise men learn what ought and what not ought, but being open to error should be the guiding principle of your interactions as a fallible being. You can’t be truly wise without open mindedness, and that state in no way exposes you to be manipulated or indoctrinated helplessly unless you’re predisposed to that impressionability by innocence or emotional vulnerability. Your philosophy derives from internalization mediated by conscience which functions according to points of reference, trust, experience and erudition.
      “You cannot be a “world citizen.” Citizen is a word that, like all words, contains in it all the things it is and all that it is not.” You’re thinking of nationality, which half overlaps, half protrudes. You can in a unified world with legal citizenship status. Words are abstracts. The definition can change by definer. The connotation (“subjective definition”) changes by observer.

    1. I would wager the person behind that account is not someone you want to see without a shirt.

  7. Fantastic piece. Leftist subvert society by convincing the populace they are not doing what they actually are doing.
    They pretend to be about the people, but it’s control they seek.
    Much like the greatest feat Satan ever pulled off, the left has tricked the masses into believing the goals they have don’t exist. People go and vote thinking they’re being watched out for. In reality they trade some freedom for what they think is security with each vote they make.
    This isn’t a Republican Vs Democrat fight, this is between those that love freedom vs those that desire control.
    The only way this country is taken back is if MEN do so.

    1. The war for our nation is between those who would control us and those who wish not to be controlled. There is no middle-ground in this.
      Those who would control are easily identified – they insert themselves into everything and attempt to assume dominance. Most of these are idiot pawns who operate under the assumption that they can have power, but the remainder are the quiet few who actually stand to gain.
      Why do so many who hate politicians and propagandists like Trump? Even though he wields tremendous power and has a knack for persuasion rarely seen, he appears to be using it to loose controls on us. Heavens, his recent budget proposal alone adds nothing to the deficit, which in turn frees us from ever-increasing tax and liability burdens. How that pans out over his presidency remains to be seen, but this is why he is so strongly supported.
      Ignore the labels. Republican, Democrat, Pastor, Priest, Professor, Author – none of these will tell you whether they seek to control you (though, admittedly, some of them correlate more strongly with controlling tendencies than others).
      By their fruits shall ye know them.

        1. Honestly, were it me, I’d be counting the days until it’s over. It’s got to seem like he’s shaking his fist at Vesuvius as it rains ash and fire on his homestead.
          But, if he can weather this storm, it will only demonstrate to the people exactly who our enemies are, and that they can be opposed.

      2. All you think about is control, as if you can exist freely in a vacuum. Even then, you control or are controlled. Life in liberal, democratic (ignore the labels, you’re good at that) society is negotiation between obstacles controlled by others. It’s also about utilizing those apparatuses controlled by people and institutions placed their to service the needs of groups and individuals under their direction, obligation or advocacy. Chill

    3. Excessive preoccupation with freedom (autonomy) is the domain of people who need to feel secure from any if not every form of potential obligation conceivable.
      It’s free-riding that you want.

      1. Ok comrade, you’re describing anarchy, not the love for freedom. You cannot have freedom under leftist ideology. History has shown this over and over again.

  8. It did seem a bit curious why people who claim to be in favor of progress worship a political philosophy developed in the 19th century.

    1. “Neomasculinity” has the word “neo” in it. Therefore, it is a new and emergent philosophy. Therefore, it is (by some definitions) inherently progress.
      Now I really want to try that approach on a lefty…

      1. See, you’re falling for the trap here. ‘Neo’ doesn’t mean the same thing to them that it does to you. To them, it’s an intensifier with an element of something-to-be-hated. For example, neocon, neoreactionary, your own neomasculinity, neonate, etc.

        4. One of these days, a young idiot feminist will try to coin a term for their neutered “men”, and they’ll come up with “ubermensch”. They’ll be so proud they’ll post it to social media.
          I will laugh heartily on that day.

    2. how the hell we gonna run reform when we the damn incumbent

    3. The actual roots of socialism are little more than a veiled attempt to bring us back into a highly structured society under a ruling elite, where no rights are understood as given and where only leaders get to have choices. It’s basically the same framework that people living under feudal kings had, but without any of the good things that came from living under actual kings. Their “ideas” thus to me are inherently regressive and are working to re-establish the rule of tyranny and slavery that mankind spent nearly it’s entire lifetime trying to escape from.
      How they managed to convince people this is progress is anybody’s guess.

  9. Who was the guy who claimed that you can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the Time??? Certainly describes the liberal mantras and those who believe them. I read the news on the web and read the idiotic comments of liberal posters whose comments border on the unbelievable when they are not hateful and nasty. Communists enslaved the Russian People as they did the Chinese and convinced them for a long time that they were actually Free even as people were herded off to the Gulags. You would be shocked at how many liberals are out there comparing today with 1930’s Germany, other than the German Political elite were corrupt and liberals had made such a social mess of the country (the Decadence of Weimar Berlin would shock ordinary Americans even today) that the German people were desperate there really isn’t much yet you can’t convince these clowns, there are so many fools out there. The modern western world treats women as dirt degrades them sexually yet feminists claim their lives have been improved. The list of this stuff is endless. PT Barnum said There’s a Sucker born every minute which proves that there are lots of liberals out there.

  10. Only 6? I would say all of them heh You forgot a big one though, and it should be number one IMO… Taxation/Wealth Redistribution. E.g.Taking a working mans earned money at gunpoint and giving it to someone who’s capable but refuses to work, or using it to fund some idiotic sjw program. The taxation system basically punishes anyone exponentially who is attempting to be successful.

    1. All contracts involve enforcement at gunpoint on some level. Don’t pay your rent, mortgage or child support, and men from the state with guns will show up at your doorstep to redress the matter. Libertarians don’t seem to have a problem with the use of guns in those situations, especially when they want to collect money owed to them.

      1. Those are assumed obligations. Taxation is never a request that you agree to beforehand. You seem to have overlooked that distinction.

        3. So if I understand you… Living in a particular jurisdiction means giving consent to whatever the elites choose to do to you is the new: “she was asking for it.”
          Do I have that right?

  11. Free food! Free housing! Free healthcare! Free education! Free childcare! Free drugs! Gimme and gimme now, CisHet white boy!
    If you’re black, brown, gay, lesbian, transgendered, old, illegal-alien, stupid, feminist or fat – YOU’RE IN! CisHet white boy gonna pay, bishes! It’s all the white man’s fault! Get yo free shite right here on the minority victim-train! Woo-Woo!

  12. Makes me think about actual rape victims. How the urgency to solve their crimes has been diluted by chicks like Mattress Chick.

      1. There is no such thing as “refugee rapes.” Those are just unfortunate misunderstandings. Any woman who has an “unfortunate misunderstanding” with a refugee is just supposed to put some ice on it and shut her damn mouth.

  13. Was just eating in the living room where my parents are watching a movie on the biggest german channel. The story is about a german man who wants to have children but his wife doesn’t want children because children = oppression by evil white cis gendered fucking male.
    They can’t make the anti-german propaganda any more obvious.
    Why aren’t they producing such a movie with a muslima in the leading actress?
    Oh of course that wouldn’t fit the antigerman ‘Dont reproduce, Nazis!’-agenda.
    Smdh.

      1. True that.
        I’m watching the Odyssey (370 minutes) from 1968 on DVD instead.
        But I think I have to destroy the DVD afterwards to be a good goy.
        The movie is all about fucking white males. There is absolutely zero diversity and multiculturalism. No reperations for slavery. No trannies. No muzzies.
        ITS A FUCKIN’ WHITE SUPREMACIST MOVIE!
        BAN THE ODYSSEY!!!

        1. Nah, there’s one tranny way in the back of the boat, hiding behind a barrel of fish. You’re good.

        2. it’ll be rewritten eventually to fit the leftist agenda. Since all books will be in digital format soon, should be easy.

    2. I think the problem with Germany is that after losing the 2nd World War, Germans let their enemies write the narrative of history.
      I would have expected that at least the grandparents and parents, in the privacy of their homes and families, would whisper to their offspring about what really happened and what really Hitler was on about…
      But they just let the (((Media))) poison the minds of the German youths instead…

      1. THIS is so true. I know many old people who witnessed the second world war and they are all so proud to be ANTINAZI now. They are telling stories like “Once I met an old friend…you know, from the times Hitler was in power. And from what he said I knew he still was a nazi. So I stood up and left the room.”
        And I’m thinking something like ‘Okay, you want me to be proud now or what?? You’re a fucking spineless cuck. Smdh.’

        1. It is so strange that me, a foreigner, has to say to Germans, that you should own your ancestors and your history, as the “bad boys” of WW2!
          That you should identify with your ancestors, that you should be proud of your heritage! That we liked you much better when you were all goose-stepping Nazis! 🙂 That old Adolf was a good man, an oldschool nationalist and patriot!
          But today is a bit like the Weimar Republic was after the WW1 defeat and backstabbing revolution, when German nationalism was at an all-time low, and the Liberals ruled the Government and the Communists ruled the streets, is it not? Back then, the reaction to Liberal-Bolshevism was the National Socialist movement. I wonder what the reaction will be this time?
          It can not go on for much longer. That (((Angela Merkel))) should be sent packing to play with her grandchildren at home, instead of destroying Europe. Isn’t there a male politician in today’s Germany who has balls and who loves his Volk and Vaterland?

      2. basically the older generation selling out the younger generations. not just in germany but across the western world. baby boomers can go to hell.

        1. I do not think that selling out is intentional. They were as mindfucked as us were, but they did not have the Red Pill to open their eyes.

    3. Best quote of the movie by the best female friend of the woman who doesn’t want to have kids: “Having kids is egoistical – just think about overpopulation.”
      Yeah, that’s right goyim bitch, be a good goy, don’t reproduce!
      Germans are not allowed to have kids, didn’t you know, heheh?
      It’s egoistical to have kids and its caring and thoughtful to whore around. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd1fd9fed05ce770521712b35b4f19eea3ba08f9f76dae0fc68dfc1ef16e2fcb.png

      1. ah the old overpopulation meme, gotta love it. Yeah well, europe is now overpopulated with southern trash thanks to Soros and his pals.

        1. I wonder if we could start sending some of our “refugees” from like Detroit and Chicago over to Sweden and Germany.

        2. Do an exchange program: German rightwingers to Chicago, Nignogs to Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich and Cologne.

        3. I’d like some hot blonde Swedish chicks for us, too. Preferably the few that haven’t been ruint by “cultural enrichment” and “diversity” up their asses yet.

        6. the consternation on refugee’s faces “we not hiding the salami with you”

        8. He’d be washing Tyrone’s underwear and doing the toilet dance on Riker’s Island.

        10. Brutus, it is a rare occasion when the kneeman is speechless, but sweet fucker of mothers what in the holy hell of christland is going on in this picture

  14. “A moral monopoly is the antithesis of a marketplace of ideas.”
    -Thomas Sowell
    “Free” markets is by far the least important part of a free society.
    When you have State education and healthcare, there is only one paradigm, and that invariably will be the paradigm that favours the elites. That`s why a limited Government and moderate taxation is so important. It allows for real progress to occur.
    This has really been the hallmark of all great civilizations and nations in their glory days. From Ancient Greece to Rome, the British empire, the Dutch, and the United States. They all had a great degree of freedom at the time they where very successful.

  18. Most people see that equality refers to ***equal protection under the law***. Individuals themselves are never equal.

    1. Agreed.
      Equality indeed means equality in the eyes of the law.
      It can not mean anything else, can it?
      It is a very, very important concept.

    2. just ask a SJW if they would expect a knock out 10 to have sex with some unemployed fat slob, after all, we are all equal, so this kind of thing should be forced at the point of a gun by their logic. then they will (hopefully) recognise the absurdity of it all. The sexual market place is the pre-eminent marketplace.

  19. Jeez, people, you have to stop pedestalizing Ayn Rand. She supported nearly the whole agenda of feminism and sex-positivity, short of gay relationships and transgenderism.
    And somehow she managed to transmit her disgust and phobias about pregnancy, childbearing and family life to her weak-minded fangirls, so that they, too, would turn into sterile Objectivist cat ladies. As a result, the leaders of today’s organized Rand cults have to keep trying to recruit teenagers and college students from normal people’s families to replenish their ranks as the older cult members die off, as creepy as that sounds. They wouldn’t have this problem if Rand had formulated her philosophy to guide a social movement with a long-term strategy that emphasizes family formation and fighting the war of the cradle over several generations.

    1. “have to stop pedestalizing Ayn Rand”
      —————-
      Must admit I’m getting pretty sick of this too.
      Some dominatrix cunt comes up with a fucking 5th grade idea and everyone on the right acts like she’s a genius.
      REAL tired of it.

      1. her being a jew is the least of the problems Nev. She is fucking lame, unoriginal, driveling pseudo intellectual nonsense — without any reference to her religion, an accident of birth, you can make very large and sustained arguments that she is a dippy cunt who in no way deserves the respect she is given.

        1. When I want to understand where any given person’s believes comes from, I always research their ethnicity. We look at the world through many lenses that shape our opinions. My strongest lenses are being male, Russian and straight.
          Rand’s being jewish and having grown up in Russia tell me a lot about her obsession with individualism, rejection of any form of collective identity and religion. Context is important.

        2. But none of those ideas were her’s, they were repackaged from greater thinkers–moments of which either Jewish or Russian. While I will agree that we are shaped by various lenses, I would suggest that you could abstract the world from the author and citisize it fairly harshly on its own merits.
          I am neither Jewish nor Russian and I have an obsession with individualism and, to a large — though not total — extent reject identity and also see religion as a wonderful, though personal way for the individual to glimpse the universal AND I think Rand is a twit

        3. “If you dont stand for something, you will fall for anything” – you might reject any form of collective identity, but there are those who embrace it wholeheartedly and they will persist. I was a libertarian myself once, but since discovered many flaws in this ideology, main flaw it being “race-blind”. Rand’s philosophy is poisonous for the West. I believe in identitarianism or traditionalism if you will.

    3. I am with you. Ayn Rand is a second rate philosophette who basically made idea soup of Nietzsche, Heidegger and a few other people, rebranded it and sold it to a hungry cult. There isn’t a single original bit of thinking in any of her work and not a single person who is learned in the philosophy biz takes her even remotely seriously. Pedestalizing Ayn Rand is basically like saying how brilliant those guys over at cliff’s notes are for all the wonderful ideas they butt in their little books.

  20. Equality has to be the biggest lie that even most adults believe in. It’s like the fairy tale.
    Sounds nice on the paper but doesn’t work in real life. People who actually promote this shit (equality) often are not so equal in real life. Talk about hypocrisy.

  21. SJWs are incapable of nuanced thought. Putin-a very clever man- once said that (I am paraphrasing) as individuals, gay people were not treated any differently in law than heterosexuals but that their relationships -being by definition sterile-had no need to be recognised at all. A fair assessment I think. Of course, because some heterosexual relationships are sterile, this is seen as an injustice.
    The point is that most marriages do produce children and the law suits the majority of marriages well. The small minority that do not is no reason to extend the same rights to a whole group of people who have no need of it.
    SJWs hate reality: a birth certificate SHOULD reflect biological parentage as a matter of truth (else what is the point of them?) but they hate truth so it seems acceptable to them to have two men listed as the parents of a child. Ludicrous. I mean how the heck do two men or two women have a child together naturally? Impossible!
    All common wise sense says that no matter how ‘nice’ a gay couple are a child should have a mother and father-that is surely the ideal in a sane society? In any case, how nice are you if you think its OK to deny a child the input of two opposite sex parents? But, of course, gender differences don’t exist in their world. I am not slaggging off gay people: a lot of gay people feel the same as I do on this.
    But no to say this is to announce one’s bigotry and, all of a sudden, you are an evil bigot who wants to burn gay people at the stake.

  22. Rand’s philosophy is fundamentally nothing more than rationalized hypergamy. It was a rhetorical attempt by a physically ugly woman to justify why she deserved the devotion of alpha males. Rand herself all but admitted this on a couple of occasions.
    And it worked for her to a limited degree, at least where her affair with Nathaniel Branden was concerned.

  23. Open-mindedness? They are the most racist least open minded freaks. The moment I said they should let a professor of abnormal psychology question transgenders, because free speech …. I saw the most anti-Muslim racism in my whole life!!! They complain Trump is a racist because he has a temporary ban on people from countries with security issues, but the racist things they say to Muslims who tell them to allow a white professor of psychology to speak would make your skin crawl.
    You question feminism, social justice feminists are the most vicious insane creatures. Honestly Wahabis are much more open minded compared to feminists and leftists and I know a few Wahabis. Personally I think Salafis and Wahabis could relax a little bit, but they are nothing like these SJW pyschos. In fact Russians living under the USSR do not recall anyone being as pyscho & intolerant as a western SJW. They are the definition of intolerance and close-mindedness. You question the party line … and then you discover why people used to have mental institutions back in the day. Maybe they should bring them back instead of having mental patients teach our kids.

    1. I hate Islam, but your posts are the most interesting I have seen in a long time. You should create a website, I would be an avid reader.
      I personally think their is a profound evil emanating from Mecca that will enslave the minds of humanity. And the Christianity (when not perverted) is where the proper balance between freedom and necessity resides.
      Christianty was able to defeat Islam when the patriarchy gave enough freedom to women in the middle ages. And now, is losing because women are taking over. The excessive restraints on women in Islam were a weakness when Christian women were able to contribute relatively freely to society, but were still actually required to contribute.
      In the west, “Woman wants” reigns supreme. And without a Christian renaassance, the west will fall.
      Islam is the judgement of the West. The story of Icarus tells it all. Fly to close to the sun, you are Lucifer. Fly too low, you are Satan or Ahriman. Either way, you fall into the sea when the proper balance is lost.
      In the early middle ages, prior to the conquest by Islam of much of Christianty, the Christian gnostics of Gondishapur were flying too high. Lucifer. Excessive mysticism. Degenration into dilletante fantasy. Islam crushed them, brought them back too earth at a tremendous cost. 1/3 of Christinty was crushed, or as the book of revelations stated, 1/3 of sun was blocked out.
      Today it is not the high flying mystic that is bringing down Christiandom, but the Satanic or Ahrimanic materialism. Once again, Islam will be our judge. Islam is darkness. Like Shiva the Destroyer of the false light.
      I cannot help but wonder of the next birth or migration of Christianity will not occur among the 100 million Christians of China.
      I do recognize that a Muslim mystic is far superior to a western atheistic post- Christian. It is sad to me that to takes a Muslim to accurately diagnose the shortcoming of Christianity.

      1. That was incredibly insightful. And great use of the Zoroastrian reference

      2. “I do recognize that a Muslim mystic is far superior to a western atheistic post- Christian.”
        Yeah right, someone who believes in jinns and that the sun sets in a pond of murky waters (Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit [Quran 18:86]) is far superior to an atheist who is aware of modern science and astronomical facts? Sure bro.

      3. Sadly its secular atheist jews who tell you to hate Islam on the right. But also others on the left to tell you to cuck out and give up your culture to Muslims.
        Islam is merely the Martin Luther of the day. Nestorian Orthodox Christianity of the day was super complicated, Orthodox Christianity is still very complicated but doable – Judaism of the day was super legalistic and complicated so basically Mecca looked like a college campus today – SJWs and Neo Nazis duking it out, a totally mess. Islam is just a hyper-simplified 1400s Judeo-Christianity. Go to a Coptic church and see for yourself. I am married to an Orthodox Christian Ukrainian – its similar to Islam, plus he’s a cossack tribesman, I am a Yemeni tribeswoman …. so we have more in common that I do with most Arabs as they aren’t tribal.
        I have two problems with how the West sees Islam. 1) The right obviously is misinformed and Islamophobia is used by secular atheist jews to shepard people back into progressivism. Milo “SJWs shouldn’t attack Christian bakers…. OMG Muslims are so bad, Orlando! Hey Franklin Graham got to pray with the gay or you’re a Muslim, f–k your Bible.”
        2) The left are total self hating cucks, push feminism to mess up the mating dance and they don’t reproduce and they replace the west with other people’s babies like me. If my family has kids, they’ll be Yemeni-Ukrainian – two strong cultures and sadly its not an effective way to pass down beautiful French and English Canadian traditions. Perogis aren’t French.
        3) The local Christian zionists and protestant churches cucked out to the left, modified, modified and until they lost all their Christianity and were a shadow of their former self. Catholics, I like, but I have a problem with them too – the church was part of the Quebec government for a few centuries, so when it got corrupt, as governments do, people left the church. So I’m big on church shouldn’t be part of government. We can have church inspired laws, but the church shouldn’t interfere into the affairs or state. It’s like Iran’s Mullahs. Saudi’s King is not the Mullahs, so Saudi will out last Iran with the separation of King and Mullahs.
        — I think Christians working with Muslims can bring back the faith. I recommend Ukrainian Orthodox Christianity, Ukrainian Catholic Church. Ukraine is facing war and their church is pretty strong. Russian Othrodox Church has the problem of the old Quebec Catholic church that everyone left because it is fused with the state – got to seperate the King from Mullahs, military & political leader shouldn’t be the same as the spiritual one – too much power in one person’s hands.
        ——————–
        Degeneration will result you in being crushed not only by Muslims, Russia, China, whoever can take advantage of you. Catholicism and Orthodoxy passed the test of time, go with branches that are not also in politics. (Hence Ukraine recommendation).
        Islam isn’t darkness, Shiva also is part Vishnu. You have Yin and Yang. Islam is part of the balance. Muslim families are happy with kids. If your families are degenerate, they will be taken over by Islam. I know many who converted and are happy, live functional lives. The problem is the conversion comes at the price of your culture and your traditions. If you have a connection to your history, you are better off, but Islam is better than nothing.
        Similarly, I am relieved when I see an ex-Muslim become Christian, its sad they left but if they are Christian I am not worried for them. I would be worried it lots of Muslims leave the faith like what happened to Christians in the west, but one or two people, whatever as long as they end up in a church. When they go atheist, man do they always get in trouble, especially the women. I know few ex-Muslim atheists with happy fulfilling lives, but know Muslim converts to Christianity that are happy. If a friend who is Muslim tries to leave the religion I will do what I can to put them in an Arab Orthodox church. (Yes, for Arabs I recommend Arab Orthodox, for whites Ukrainian) .
        Atheists who found Islam are a lot happier, especially the women. You should watch this TED Talk about Conservative vs Liberal thinking and origins, importance of religion. This is a very interesting ted talk – and it talks about Yin and Yang, how you need both.

        You can work with Old Believer traditional Christians and Muslims to return Christianity to its former glory and remove all the SJW changes. Remember if you work with Muslims – they are weirded out by cucks – don’t convert or kiss up like a leftist – just compare them to Orthodox Christians and Catholics, then revive the church even if it only had four members accordingly. It will grow. For Muslims an atheist west means bombing the world because they can’t get why everyone isn’t a crazed Feminazi SJW like them, so Muslims benefit from the normalization of Christianity. But secular atheist marxist jews don’t.
        Whites are getting extinct like the bees from a messed up mating dance from progressivism and feminism. Communists tried to crush religion in Ukraine and Poland …. now they are the most conservative Christian countries in Europe.

  26. Workers were and are oppressed for most of history. You’re challenging people for sticking up for their rights in a time when 16 hour workdays were common and children contracted respiratory illnesses for the means to live another day. That is when they weren’t killed by often exclusively capitalist managed capital equipment.
    But they hate the middle-class, right?

Comments are closed.