2 Ways The Left Undermines Traditionalism

Traditionalism, the absurd notion that society isn’t a meta-individualistic nucleus for the propagation of anomie, is quite upsetting and inversive to the globalist order.

Is it possible that we, as people, have a historicity that transcends material dialectics? Is it possible that our cultural heritage, despite all its ignominious shortcomings, is not a badge of shame but rather an unlimited source of pride and power? Is our lurid folklore, as a communication of our past, not a celebration of who we truly are?

In the last few decades, traditionalism is perceived as a form of atavistic collectivism, an idealism that’s embarrassingly superannuated to anyone capable of criticism and cultural sensibility. Tradition is equated with bloodshed; it is seen as the foundation stones to militarism, or as an antiquated concept that endangers civil peace whenever it serves as a device for patriotic rhetoric.

Whilst traditionalism, when radicalized to the extreme, is undeniably a destructive force, destruction is far from being the totalized, utmost definition of traditionalism.

Traditionalism, at the rare times of rational societal functioning, is a moral essence that unifies people around the communion of ritualized identity; it promotes the preservation of a legitimate self-knowledge that goes beyond egotism and subjectified precepts. Therefore, purveying clarity and spiritual strength, traditionalism is antagonizing to the postmodern left. The left, debased in ambiguity and the ironies of empty-minded sophistry, cannot tolerate brotherly love unless it’s homophilic or incestuous.

Traditionalist values, in that they yield stability and foster a sense of commitment and obligation, go against the left’s transfixedly chaotic irresolution, as manifested through the left’s cowardly position of non-involvement and its lack of wholesome alternatives. In this brief essay, we’ll examine two of the ways the left undermines traditionalism.

Asymbolia

asymbolia

Language, as we well know, is the power to transform ideation, remold normative behaviors, and erect and uproot civilizations. Academic and learned language, being the paragon most thinkers (that is, most ideologic dominators and worldbuilders) aspire to, is responsible for more damage than we can account for.

Certainly, speaking in realistic terms, the average factory machinist, who grinds rust all day long, too exhausted and too exploited to have time for intellectual leisure, cares little for Naomi Klein or Judith Butler (and rightly so; if anything, he should dwell on Heraclitus and Parmenides). But he is, nonetheless, affected by feminist discourse.

If, for instance, he looks wrong at a female co-worker, he can be accused of sexual harassment and lose his job. If he says something out-of-place to that same female co-worker, he can be accused of sexual harassment and lose his job.

If that same machinist has an affair with a woman and he decides to discontinue their romantic affiliation, to dump the bitch, that woman can extort him with shaming (or a false rape accusation) and everyone will side with her because the victim is always right.

Feminism, that despicable cargo cult of necrophagic vampires, however, isn’t the academy’s worst criminal offense against society. Far worse is the nullification, encryption and subversion of language itself.

The left, with its monopoly over the media and our educational institutions, when not overtaken with the surplus obfuscation of dialogue, is trying to create a language of equality and mediocrity. The problem is, we don’t need such a language.

1984

If we are to progress anywhere, we need explicitness, and we need conflict, debate, digressions. Writing should aim towards greatness, and great writing brings about enlightenment and aggrandizement, not reductionism and confused abjection. Great writing should help men make sense of the world; it should inspire them to seek answers and better themselves.

Understanding this simple reality, the left made it its purpose to restandardize literature and philosophy and divest the disciplines of their high aesthetic principles. The result? People genuinely think The Stranger is a profound and well-written novel.

News flash: it isn’t.

To compare Camus and Sartre with Montaigne and Molière, is to compare a pile of dung with one of Rodin’s sculptures. What sets these authors apart, other than diachrony, political orientation, mere talent and intellect, is the presence of traditionalism.

Although they were dissenting insurrectionists, as writers ought to be, both Montaigne and Molière had a more traditional, rigorous instruction—no single-sex education, sociology or communications!—and both were tied to traditionalist authority for their whole entire life. Montaigne was a statesman, Molière was Louis XIV’s protégé.

Camus is best-described by Nabokov (who knew a thing or two about books): Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me. Awful.” In degrading literature to colloquialism and banalities, making it an all-populist profession open to every underqualified, borderline hypochondriac, the left had hurt the world’s language and thus culture’s capacity for critical thought.

The less words we express ourselves in, the less free-thinking we are. The more equality there is in language, the more it signifies nothing.

Asymbolia, according to dictionary.com, is,

1. A loss of the ability to comprehend by touch the form and nature of an object.
2. A form of aphasia in which the significance of signs cannot be comprehended.

Asymbolia, make no mistake, is the state we are in thanks to the left. Objectivity’s obsolete and long gone is the scholarly code of conducting thorough, comprehensive investigations into the nature of things. Epistemologically, more than ever before, our hermeneutics are excised and cut separate from fact and nature. Instead, we have Marxist newspeak and cryptography for history.

Likewise, asymbolia is a correlative of anti-symbolism. The left, with its adversity towards status symbols and with its fear of nationalism and religion, is making us signifier-illiterate; it denies the basic human need for allegory and myth (just like Camus and Sartre’s existentialism undoes heroization).

No longer are we permitted to relish the beauty of our emblems. Instead, we wear t-shirts with corporate logos to convey wry self-awareness. De Sade’s invaluable manuscripts burnt so we can have 50 Shades of Gray. Tragic.

De-Identification

identityloss

When we aren’t equipped with the analytical tools to define the surrounding world, it shouldn’t come as a surprise we are estranged from ourselves. Identity is the backbone of character and integrity. Consequently, identity loss or de-identification—the dispossession of identity—is a symptom of social disintegration.

The left, in pardoning everything save for whatever hallucinated ills its marginalized ingroups endure, is anti-identity. Its devalued currency of selfhood and respect, alongside the naive ideas of liquidity, disenfranchisement and universalized pluralism, reeks of de-individualization.

The death of identity, assailing man’s security and amplified by the anonymizing influence of urbanization (not to go all Entfremdung), is one of the main struggles we face as modern humans.

Take me, your humble abstractor, for example. I’m a White, European, Eastern Orthodox male, but in a free-choice era of trans-ethnicity and transsexualism, I can declare myself an Egyptognostic hermaphrodite of Hawaiian/Austroasiatic ancestry and expect you to take me most seriously. What more, you should change the way you speak and adopt gender-neutral pronouns to accommodate my oversensitiveness. And dare you not appropriate my new culture.

(The fact I can do this and not get ridiculed to exile or quarantined in a psych ward is alarming.)

Conclusion

The battle against anti-traditionalism is a difficult one because it’s turning more and more into a battle against ourselves. To win it, we must know ourselves and our history. We must defend what is ours with dignity and an indefatigable resolve.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: How To Kill The Left’s Killswitch Lexicon

232 thoughts on “2 Ways The Left Undermines Traditionalism”

      1. I have a circular dehydrator and make my own jerky and fruit leathers when I decide to haul it out of the closet. I might create a recipie for jerky and call it “Old Doc Knee’s Circle Jerky”

        1. Doc huh? Lets see your license…
          Next thing you’ll be telling me that Crunch was a Captain or something.

        2. I cannot confirm nor deny his casino holdings, but I will say that I once saw him wearing feathers in a temple selling fireworks and cigarettes and he said he was going to name his ancestor Donald.

      1. lol you guys always revert back to the same insults like be original man is that too much to ask you caveman ddamnnnnn

  1. The ancients always carried down the myths of their gods for exactly these reasons.
    Consider the Greeks: the myths of Perseus, Theseus, Heracles, et al. produced symbols representing all the virtues the Greeks held dear and established patterns for all young men to emulate. Their Gods were symbols in much the same way – essentially superheroes with motives and inspirations that the people could understand and relate to. And, key to all this, their Gods and their Heroes were all Greek, just like they.
    What traditions do we in the West hold that can compare? Not long ago, we could have held up Christianity, but no longer. Before that, perhaps we could hold up some of the fables of our peoples, but who now knows those tales? And what festivals and rites do we now possess that have not lost all meaning through mindless deformation?
    It’s a sickness of the soul that permeates our culture-less nations.

    1. Modern art and literature has evolved in a way to mock and remove holliness from everything. Art is formless and chaotic, it lacks harmony and form, which is what Plato said that art should have to influence the mind well. Though art may lack one of both of these characterisations and remain art and have an impact (in case of harmonius formlessness that is of general tranquility i.e. a painting of five cubes, and in the case of chaotic form that is of a specific disturbance i.e. paintins of hell) by having none it stops to be.
      That which has developed is a debaser of standards a debaser of the nature of man and of all that is dear and holy. In fact it is nothing but leftists trolling people. The ancient Greeks for the greater part of their history did try to repeat the stories of their heroes and of their kings to keep their city-states intact. But at a specific time poets started to reverse and deconstruct these stories. Societal degradation soon followed.
      That is because art gives flesh to ideals and makes them concrete. By deconstructing Theseuphs or Christ or any figure of any importance that stood by a value. You destroy that value. By giving value to value-less people you give value to their void. Thus, degradation gets promoted and pushed through peoples minds.

      1. Remember about Plato: Plato found all art to be lacking as the physical world is mimetic of the world of forms and art is mimetic of the real world. He was so bad at understanding art that I honestly believe that, with regard to art, he should only be looked at as a jumping off point of what not to think.
        I think the best explanation of beauty and the sublime in art and nature comes in Kant’s Critique of Judgment. I do not think that anyone has a valid and meaningful opinion on aesthetics until they have not just read but fully digested that particular book.

        1. Plato saw mostly what he considered degenerate art during his time, the plays of euripedes and of other similar writers, in them he saw: calls to abandon slavery (unheard of at the time, the real reason behind ancient abolitionists though was to use them later as voters), women who killed their children and fed them to their father, and being not shown as monsters and poets where singing in good ways for degeneracy creating uncontrollable emotional reactions to their hearers.
          Plato simply saw bad art and threw later the baby with the washwater and simpy he thought of how art should be. Now the problem with mimesis is that art tends to appear real, but it is not real. Think of most hollywood movies that promote feminism for that, they show that a lie is real.
          Kant for me is probably the worst ethical philosopher exactly because he was too spineless to support his beliefs to think that concrete truths exist, consider his ethical model the basis of my critic on him. A good note for him he did retract that theory but that only proved that he was not insane or delusional.
          Subjectivism is what lead to the destruction of our cultures, as we stoped perceiving the world by concrete truth, which is unchanging and static, our perception may be problematic of it but it is stable and one, not many and mutating. Think that this is true because no matter what Stalin wanted 2+2 never equals 5.

        2. Kant’s theory of subjective universality to me is the single most brilliant move in philosophy in the last 1000 years. The idea that we can keep truth, ethics and beauty as necessarily universal while still admitting to its subjective nature is about as good and accurate as it could ever be.
          Plato never say what Kant sees which is that in acting moral or experiencing the beautiful we occasion, for ourselves, a moment of pure transcendence which lifts us out of our abject particularity and puts us face to face with the spontaneous force of the very possibility of our existence qua human.
          I suggest you revisit kant. Without meaning it to sound insulting (though sometimes it comes out that way because I am a huge dickhead) I feel that you are working off of a cartoon image of his moral and ethical philosophy which probably came from some hack philosophy professor or a secondary source or, at best, by reading snippets of an anthology on Kant or on ethical philosophy which left out the brilliant framework and context you would get if you went through the entire critical system yourself.
          You clearly have the background and smarts for it. I would ask you not to count Kant as spineless. It really is quite the opposite. He is the one who recognized why subjectivists can come off as correct. He diagnosed that they were right but only understood part of the problem because they never fleshed out a metaphysics or an ontology and absolutely none of them linked the Cognitive, Ethical and Aesthetic (the three definitional characteristics of humanity itself) together and found an objectivity in their commonality allowing for a subjectivity which MUST hold for all thinking subjects.
          Give him a shot. I know it is a big project, but if you really are interesting read the three critical works.

        3. Lets agree to disagree, i have studied Kant and did not agree with him. When I said he was spineless I meant it figuratively. Still though he remains a good philosopher to him I disagree with many things but he could think. Still in the year I hope to revisit him.
          I cannot say that for many of today.

      2. Traditionalism when done properly (God knows it’s been done improperly in the past) is just an extension of empiricism. Meaning if a process has worked many times in the past there is a good chance it will work in the future.
        These days we have fallen under the thrall of what
        Milan Kundera called “Tyranny of the New”. “One must be modern” so said the Italian Futurists. This new framework has created situations where untried theories trump the tried and true all for the sake of appearing modern. Unfortunately, this train of thought has permeated all aspects of society from arts, sciences through to politics.
        It obvious the pendulum is slowly swinging back to traditionalism. However, it seems the agenda is championed by those with an emotional, reactionary bent. This is detrimental to the movement because in the most it defines it self by what it is not. Only by creating logical, sound first principles can this movement move forward.

        1. This happens because most Traditionalists are or act as reactionaries. This isn’t bad per se as the modern world has undone the knowledge of the old. It is detrimental to revive what is possible to continue forward in our desolate state.

  2. That is correct the way they do it is by opting for true symbols and corrupting and re-identificating them. The (((mass media))) are only the way by which their corruptive message spreads around the globe and the people. But the how is by removing meaning from words. For example think how much language has been deholified. This means that the meaning of the word holy has been removed and instead it means that this is considered holy by this group of people. Deconstructing everything higher and replacing it with lower things is their modus operandi.

  3. I like the author’s use of “signifier-illiterate” a very nice diagnosis.
    I do not agree, through and through, with the sense of condemnation of all modernity that I get here, but all in all I very much enjoyed this article.

    1. The thing involving the signifier is a psychology close to that of a cult. I know and understand these people say, the rest are nonknowing. These people basically say: “Look we are leftists!”. Anyone who does not give the same reaction is a non-leftist.
      For example: In Greece some months ago there was an art gallery that had something to do with Africa, some comical reporters went there and started asking people if they agreed with some African thinkers. They all praised their work but never specifically. The reporters used names of obscure soccer players to make fun of the people in the gallery. Everybody fell for the trap
      That demostrated perfectly what is being said here that they signify importance and leftism, while having no knowledge or care for the subject.

      1. It is an interesting theme to play on…even for more than trolling purposes. Sooner or later there will be our generations “great novel” (in quotes because whether it is truly great or not is inconsequential, just that it is the work that defines a moment in time) and that novel will use, I believe, signifiers and characters literacy or illiteracy towards them as rhetoric devices. I think it is a very nice way to sum up our zeitgeist in the same way that for Dostoyevsky it was double-voice Discourse.

        1. That novel will not be great it will just show what occured at that place in time but will not be able to acknoeledge anything. Dostoevskys novels where just able to acknowledge what was happening, but being a fan of him, his works were barely novels to begin with, but very advanced philosophical dialogues, Plato-style.
          If there will be a great novel it will be about the resurrection of our values or the creation of our new ones to control the degenaracy and the chaos. That it will be able to acknowledge the modern situation and quess successfully the new world. Again though if the decline is not stopped we will never ever see a reversal and mankind won’t have time for novels as it will steadily revert back to barbarism (ie. semi-civilization) and eventually to savagery (ie. a near animal state).

        2. correct: which is why I put “great novel” in quotes. I mean, it is possible. You never know. Confederacy of Dunces is as close as we have come.
          I am a huge fan of Dostoyevsky and can see the plato-style dialogue root of the form but he was a far better writer and had a far better understanding of the world than Plato.
          I am not so sure that decline necessarily will lead to reversal. I think that is too simple. However, my thinking on this is still inchoate and I am at a loss for a better answer.

        3. I do not say I am sure or I believe for a reversal, but that if there is no reversal we will not have anything new of or importance. I do want a reversal though.
          For the time the greatest trend in modern fiction is rewriting classic books but add to them zombies or vampires or writing star wars in shakesperian language. This shows that new talent is really needed as it is on decline.
          Plato (I read all of him) is maybe the best writer that ancient Greece produced, if you read in Greek other plays and poems (still to finnish the Odyssey but the rest two I did finnish, for plays I have not read the comedies and most works of Eurepides) you will want to gouge your eyes I am not kidding, aristotle on the other hand was an orator, and a good one but it is a pain to move through his physical works.
          In general the philophical book for me had to wait till the middle ages to really become true a good example is the byzantine thinker Nemessius of Emmesi (dont ask where that is) and his diatribe about the human nature really shows how the medievals saw the ancient methodologies: Plato and Aristotle being complementary of each other. Also you see the first true referencial techniques being employed there!

  4. The new library is downtown Seattle used innovative signage for people to orient themselves around the building. These signs were very simple and large, yet people were confused because they looked nothing like traditional signage. They eventually had to switch out the signs.
    This is a good lesson about modern language. Our modern culture uses language that may sound great in theory, but causes confusion in practice. The primary force for language and identity is art. Pat Hutcheon listed 6 capacities that create culture:
    1. Art
    2. Pondering creative force
    3. Explaining phenomena
    4. Idealizing love
    5. Judgement based on values
    6. Values spanning generations
    Neomasculinity achieves each of these culture generators fairly well. Religion and science are obviously important. But the first point is most important, art. What truly great art do we have? We have Ben Garrison I suppose. I really like his work. But what about music? What about video games? Dancing? We should seriously consider how we can improve our art.
    Marxists have turned art in the West depraved and disgusting, as you know. Beauty is an ideal that we strive for through virtuous acts. Art makes physical the language that we use in this endeavor. Socialists erase this definition of art, to begin “on a blank sheet of paper” as Chairman Mao put it, and replace it with pro-Socialist propaganda. Karl Marx said art should be propaganda that is only relevant to the moment, “an imagination independant of mythology.”
    A big step forward will be implimenting traditional mythology in art once more.

    1. I am a big fan of the artist William Kentridge and even have a framed print of his work Steroscope on my wall.
      Just mentioning it because you ask about great art.
      As for music, there is some very good stuff happening in the musical underground right now but it is very obscure and will take a generation or two before it is something that can be consumed by non experts which is always the way of experimental modern music.

        1. Going to the tennis tonight. Going to leave a very nice bottle of Sauternes to chill while I am out. Will open and drink it with a Russian when I get home. We will toast the Empire for you and the Tzars for her. I just like the wine

        2. A toast to Henry IV, this devil of four, who has the triple talents to drink, to fight and to be a ladies man.

        3. I love the Marche Henri IV you know that. We translate it that “He is a three fold devil with his three talents: fighting, drinking and womanizing.”

        4. Nice. I always seize the oppornuty of listening to Tchaikovsky’s version of it, the Russian genius celebrating French history in an ocean of epicness :

        5. French history is great, especially the part where the french women took some nazi cumshots while their men took some nazi gunshots.
          I don’t want to offend anyone.

        6. That’s sexist and misogynist!
          And making fun of the french race is racist!
          That’s three years of detention.

        7. I love that part. It was the only time german men were happy because they didn’t need to bother with those poisonous females and their shittests.

    2. Perhaps ROK should have an art section. Poetry , music, paintings ect ect . It would be great if filmakers and writers within the community could get together and start making redpill indie films that could be featured on ROK and youtube.

      1. Yeah, that would be great. I would like to do some redpill paintings for this section.
        By the way I am currently working on the first essay for my german redpill blog straightalpha.com.
        It’s about time that people who don’t speak english or who aren’t lucky enough to find the manosphere are able to open their eyes.

        1. Yo, I thought you were exaggerating about German women being nuts but I hear you now. Had a chick threaten to report my profile as a rapist when I got tired of her teasing and ignored her. What a fucking tramp.

        2. I hope you mean MGTOW and not VirginTOW, because that’s what I’m about these days. Career and casual flings and maybe a woman if she’s marriage material may get my attention.
          What a shitty experience that was, ruined my Friday!

        3. I’m thinking about learning chinese, spanish or russian.
          Spanish would mean I could flee to south america.
          Russian would mean I could flee to east europe.
          Chinese would mean I could order some spicy food and talk to the Lenovo hotline to complain about the shitty reliability of thinkpads these days.
          What would you choose?
          Spanish is way easier compared to russian but what is the better option if I want to migrate?

        4. Spanish gives you more breathing room, because you get all of South America. It’s not actually so difficult, either.
          Never learned Russian, but I hear once you figure out the basic sounds and how to read it gets much easier.
          Chinese is fun. I enjoy it. But it’s hard for most people to get the tones and consonants right (x and sh sound very similar to Westerners, but are very distinct to the Chinese). I learned Mandarin, which the Communists standardized, but the Cantonese dialect is more popular (and more difficult) in the inland areas.
          Start with Spanish.

        5. Spanish is language on Easy Mode. Phonetic to a fault, and got rid of all of the silly declensions of Latin. It’s like a language you learn to practice for learning an actual language.

        6. Yeah, you’ll find it very, very easy then. Take everything complex about Latin and disregard it. Ta da, Spanish (and to some extent, Italian).

        7. Spanish is easy. I am highly fluent and it has gotten me boatloads of hispanic pussy over the years. It is also practical to use with my employees.
          German, which I used to speak well, is difficult because of the noun declension endings which we barely use in English. German however sounds similar to English which is a big help. It also snagged me a summer in Germany with a tall blond German professor/cougar who taught during the day and balled my eyes out during the evening in the little, but quaint, city of Trier. But those were my younger days. Unfortunately, there are less opportunities for using German, especially for Americans.
          Russian was difficult. The alphabet thing can be handled but where German has four noun declension endings, Latin five, Russian has seven. And few Russian words resemble English. So it can be difficult to learn and unless you are in EE, not very practical.
          Chinese? Forget it! The tonal inflections are nearly impossible for westerners, except for a few adepts, to whom I tip my hat.

      2. I remember meeting a friend of Matt Forney’s when I was part of Youth for Western Civilization in undergrad. I’m pretty sure he’s making movies and writing novels now.
        I’m fairly certain he goes by William Rome these days.

    3. The real reason civilizations do exist happens because its people solve one if not nearly all foundamental problems ascosciated with living (violence, danger, sellecting a mate, etc.). Think the reason why the manosphere came to be: men cannot find marriageable women! What we may write around slutdom?
      Only books to help us counteract it, as of fiction it will be in the end a sad and disturbing read. Through the reasons, the situations and the way of how a civilization solved those problems is preserved and showed in an easy and comprehensive way so that evereyone may understand it.
      Consider the story of Theseuphs: he was Athens first king, who rid the land of crime, savagery and barbarism with his intellect and his physical prowess. He personified order and justice, that because the story had form. The story was read or better heard easily at its time because it had harmony.
      The people rejoiced in hearing about what gave them a good life and where seeing it in flesh every time they saw a statue of Theseuphs, they said: to him we owe everything because of what he did.

  5. You use way too many big words. Be more simple and clear. It sounds like a high school kid’s essay trying to fit in all his vocabulary words.

    1. “don’t use big words” is your criticism? That is sad and weak. Maybe try working on your vocabulary so you can become a better man?

      1. It is constructive criticism to help him write better. I agree with his points but much of it is unnecessary.
        Take this sentence for example:
        “Whilst traditionalism, when radicalized to the extreme, is undeniably a destructive force, destruction is far from being the totalized, utmost definition of traditionalism.”
        Do you consider this article good writing?

        1. I did consider the article to be well written. There are some editorial errors, but in general the article as a whole is a well written piece.

        2. To play devil’s advocate, when making a point or teaching a lesson to others, it is often best to speak plainly so they may better absorb the message rather than get lost in the eloquence of what is being said. I’m also more utilitarian so my tastes probably differ from yours.
          That being said, I have no issue with the way this article is written. I just skim through it to get the overall message instead of reading line per line.

        3. I used to write with a lot of big words and obscure references, and found that the readers were bored and fatigued after the first page. I consulted with several professors, and a couple of published authors, for advice on how to be a better writer. Every one of them said something similar to your comment. Reading shouldn’t be hard work, unless you’re reading Nietzsche or something which requires esoteric language to express the complex ideas.

        4. I look to Dr. Sproul in this. He’s a philosopher and theologian, but also a teacher. When he teaches about deep philosophical concepts, he works hard to convey meaning and teach terminology with simple words.
          His Aristotle lectures are fascinating. When he talks about accidens and essences, he uses the example of the oak tree. An acorn has the accidens, or appearance, of an acorn, but its essence is of “oak-tree-ness”. So, when the acorn becomes a tree, its accidens change into that of an oak tree, but its essence is still “oak-tree-ness.”
          So accessible I understood it as a kid. That’s linguistic skill.

    2. I agree with your criticism. It’s a decent article, but a difficult read. Too much sophistry. You shouldn’t write to impress your audience with your vocabulary, you should write to express ideas clearly. I understood every word in the essay but that doesn’t mean it was a pleasant read.
      I learned long ago from an English professor that it’s best to cut out all the flowery language when writing for a large audience. Just take a direct line from point A to point B, and use the simplest words that will convey the message. It’s good advice for any author.

    3. Anybody who isn’t under the age of fifteen should feel ashamed to use “too many big words” as a criticism.
      It is not the author’s problem that you are ill educated.
      Nor that you are so ironically oblivious as to liken him to a high school student, while whining about “big words”.

      1. So instead of making an argument that the language was necessary to the topic or that the author’s sentence structure, logic, and organization are sound, you’re just going to say I’m ill educated?
        Sounds ironically oblivious to me.

  6. FWIW Naomi Klein writes critiques of corporate capitalism, and is opposed to Hillary Clinton. So she doesn’t really belong on this list.
    Reading her book The Shock Doctrine would open the eyes of Joe Machinst. Reading the collected works of Parmenides would probably close them.

  7. This article highlights what we are missing: our own art / media.
    We need neomasculine art.
    We need neomasculine film.
    We need neomasculine music.
    We talk about the culture wars all the time, yet we have not armed ourselves adequately to have an influence beyond our own sphere.

    1. This is true, we take the culture and the politics will follow. It used to be we had the excuse that the Gatekeepers could keep our voices silent and unheard (movie producers, magazine owners, etc) but with the Internet we have the ability to reach out and affect a huge audience today.

      1. That’s the difference between the Alt Right and the cucks. The cucks just let the culture slip away and then wonder why it isn’t cool to be conservative after 20 years of brainwashing. We know better so we should act on it.

    2. Not to argue with your point, because I actually agree with it, but what exactly is the definition of “neomasculinity?” Is it any different than traditional masculinity? If not, why don’t we just take back “masculinity” from the cucks?

      1. The confusion is that it means different things to both sides of the discussion, so a new word is needed to differentiate the two meanings. Ideally *we* should have held onto masculinity (the phrase) and put a label on them, whatever that would have been.

        1. Well, I did say we should have kept the old term and forced them to select another term for themselves, or invented one on their behalf. Not some new phrase like “triggering”, I mean basically calling them pussies. Kind of like the meme “cuck” is being used now, which I think is actually the direction it should have went initially but it took to long too surface and…

        1. It is. And far more robust and Germanic, it has a good mouth feel to the English speaker.

        2. Alas, that the French came in and munged it up. Well, the Vikings that conquered the French I mean and then, inexplicably, took up their tongue.
          We had such an eloquent and beautiful tongue when it was devoid of Latin Lite.

        3. Actually, you may like this. This is what English sounds like to non-English speakers, or so it’s implied.

        4. Latin is civilisation. Without it, you’d still be wandering naked in the woods, with the body painted in blue, as Caesar described your kind.

        5. Anglo-Saxon culture was actually an improvement over the slavish one-dictator model of the Latins. I mean look, the French didn’t stand a chance once Rollo hit the shores, that nasty Germanic barbarian, so, well, so much for “civilization” in regards to self preservation (heh). Given just a bit more time for England to develop without the meddling of his great grandson William, and it would have turned into something quite fantastic I suspect. The English had just put together a sense of national identity that evaded other people (after Rome fell of course) due to Viking invasions combined with the Danelaw “Great Army” being seen as a common enemy. Their “elect the king” model, along with their inbeded sense of rights for freemen (ceorls and above) combined with social hierarchy, were quite amazing for the time.

        6. Electing a king ? Ha ! It’s as absurd as the crew of a ship or a plane electing his captain !
          By the way, I’ve read that Medieval French is actually easier to understand to an modern English than to a French.

        7. Well, kind of elect. The Eorls/Jarls would gather and nominate one of their own. So it wasn’t as if the dirty rabble could get a shot, barring becoming a Jarl/Eorl which, well, good luck with that. It was something of a mixture of royalty and meritocracy. Not that it matters too much, the English had come to move more towards the one-king model by the time William invaded, with other extant kings becoming eorlmen, more or less (high nobility) serving under the main cynig. That being said, the king served at the discretion of the people, unlike the Dictator model that Rome was so fond of.
          I don’t know about medieval French being that understandable to a modern English speaker. I find öil French rather odd. Old English (anglo-Saxon, especially Wessex with Mercian spelling conventions) seems pretty easy by my eyes, but I am (or was) something of an astute pupil of the tongue before it became feminized with Latin Lite, so perhaps I’m biased that way.

        8. I told you, home fries, I like to inject interesting, archaic and sometimes no longer used English terms into my writing. heh

        9. They really did a good job on the intonation, inflection, cadence and overall rhythm. I’m actually really impressed by it. It sounds vaguely like a North Germanic language (Scandi) in a way, or a “gentle” form of German.

        10. If there are any lessons in life worth learning, it’s the healing powers of sparkly pineapples.

        11. I once took a class on Picard French. That shit was like Chinese to me and at the time my French was at least fair

      2. I see what you mean, and I think the Neomasculinity term was meant to be a rebranding of the “red pill” outlook. And it was much needed. You can replace what I said with “redpill” or alt right and it would mean pretty much the same thing. But in either case, as we’ve seen, long articles on Hypergamy and HBD only serve to influence those who seek out such information…it’s the Meme’s (like pepe) that have been effective in bleeding into the mainstream and actually changing minds, as idiotic as that may be. DT wouldn’t have the nomination were it not for “kek”.
        Going forward we need to press this advantage and create our own propaganda wing complete with music, film, ect. Someone on our side with deep enough pockets needs to take the reigns on that one.

        1. Couldn’t agree more. The obstacle as I see it is twofold: most people with enough money to fund projects became sellouts to the system long ago, which is how they got so much money, and secondly, the good guys with the money to help out are afraid of having their reputation and careers destroyed by being lumped in with thought criminals.
          The solutions are to produce low-budget videos for YouTube (marginally effective) or to focus on making a shit-ton of money independently so that you can fund these projects.
          I just can’t see making all the compromises that would be required if some big money came into the scene, like Peter Thiel.

        2. He’s not the right guy for the fictional/narrative media that is sorely needed. He’s doing good work, but seriously limited by his desire for media respectability, and also falling victim to a lot of self-importance lately.

        3. He is making a documentary of some sort right now. Problem is, the budget for any such project would pale in comparison to the MSM and the sheer inertia they have built up over decades. We need some serious $ and muscle to press our advantage here.

        4. Exactly. Hollywood and New York spend billions per year on their propaganda. You can’t combat that with $30,000 YouTube productions.

        5. For science fiction reasonably in line with neomasculine ideals, check out the excellent authors Larry Correia and John C Wright.
          They’re not explicitly neomasculine, but they’re a damn sight better than all the stuff Tor is pushing.

        6. I believe our strongest asset is the internet right now. We see tons of Red Pill / Masculinity / Alt-Right sites popping up daily with high quality content and lots of followers. I think if many of these sites began networking more and really spreading around things like memes, videos, etc, it could help to cement our position. Right now, we’re too scattered with so many groups that loosely fall in our community but don’t really have much to do with each other (MRA, PUA, Traditionalists, Anti-Feminists, MGTOW, and so on).

        7. He is in the right place to help advertise neomasculine works, though.
          Vox Day is probably a better lead for this sort of thing. He’s a game designer and author, so movies aren’t his schtick, but his network is always growing, as is his publishing house.

        8. Add to that Google, FB. and a host of other media outlets including the US gov are all trying their level best to silence / expose us. I’m not optimistic.

        9. But Hollywood is slowly crumbling. The same stories are being told over and over again, there’s absolutely no originality/creativity, and people are getting tired of the SJW messages getting shoved down their throats. If a small group were to begin making good, high quality RP movies (good as in acting and storyline, not necessarily special effects and such), they might be able to get a strong foothold to climb up as Hollywood continues to crumble.

        10. It’d be nice if such productions could be funded by a massive streaming service, like Netflix or Hulu. Unfortunately, I sincerely doubt they’d be interested.
          Perhaps there’s room for another service dedicated to alternative videos. It’d take a lot of investment and work to spread, but who knows?
          (If theaters weren’t already doing really badly, I’d suggest that. Oh, well).

        11. I totally agree. But I also believe that there needs to be media that reaches out to the non-readers and even the non-thinkers. Many people are not willing to read a small blog with ideas that conflict with their own. But people of all kinds WILL watch an entertaining fictional movie that sneaks in a bunch of red pill wisdom. This principle is what Hollywood has used so successfully against us.

        12. Our real edge is that liberalism is finally falling out of “vogue”. Conservatism (REAL conservatism) is the new punk rock. We need to make the boomers / cucks / libtards feel like the out of touch dinosaurs they are. Up till now the left has always owned “cool” but now we are in a position to possibly change that, we can’t miss this opportunity. Just like punk rock was the beginning of the end for traditional conservationism, so it could be with SJWism.

        13. I don’t have it, but from what I hear you basically pay up front to replace ads. They distribute your $$$ based on who you watch, how long you watch them, etc.

        14. Humor, in particular, is one of the most powerful vehicles for expressing unorthodox ideas. Just one good red-pill comedy film that goes viral could free more minds than 10 years worth of blogging.

        15. I have wondered about that myself. What precisely is involved in not just making movies, but distributing them? Surely there isn’t only one clearing house that sends out “all movies” to “all studios”, I mean how do indy productions work currently? Whatever they’re doing, distribution wise, might be a place to start investigating the logistics of such an undertaking. Indies routinely go against the prevailing currents of normal Hollywood, so there has to be a way around the Gatekeepers.

        16. That’s where the foot soldiers come in. If a site were to create high, quality comics, memes, or videos that people enjoyed, they’d organically begin to spread as people shared them in discussions. Think Yahoo comments and so on.

        17. The problem is that, historically, leftists refuse to yield until their society burns around them. They would literally rather die than be ‘wrong.’

        18. Some older PC game. I want to say “Rebel Moon,” but that may not be right.
          Apparently they were working on a realistic AI engine that went overbudget for some developer, and that’s why he’s not developing as much anymore. What they got done was apparently pretty detailed, though, so that’s cool.

        19. We do have the elderly geezer witch, whom everybody loathes (even the Left), condemning us by name. That makes us nearly automatically “cool”.

        20. They would literally rather die than be ‘wrong.’
          They would literally (Hitler) rather die than be ‘wrong.
          Get with the meme, or get off the stream, cupcake.
          Heh.

        21. The short version is that an independent film needs to be picked up by one of the major film festivals in order to see the light of day. These festivals, such as Sundance and Toronto, are of course run by Progressive Gatekeepers. If you can get your film into one, and it gets positive audience response, you have a good shot of being bought by a distributor. And this opens up a whole new layer of gatekeepers.

        22. It’s true that they will not simply give up the levers of power easily. Hopefully they won’t have a choice in the matter. If the culture turns against them (it’s a slow burn but it seems to be headed that way) they will flip. Then we will have an influx of “new members” and suddenly no one was ever a liberal….

        23. Hear that Roosh? Get to work buddy! This very site is best positioned to do just that! lol
          It’s a pretty good idea – start accepting short videos and other media forms instead of solely essays.

        24. The traditional “name and shame” tactics of the left aren’t working against the alt right, in fact that only helps us. It’s sweet irony as up till now, the cucks were always effectively silenced by such tactics. But no more, not us….they have no other rhetorical weapons in their arsenal. The jig is up and they know it. So we need to be on the look out for more direct tactics they will use such as voter fraud or intimidation / coercion.

        25. This is true. It’s also why the narrative about why “internet hate speech” needs to be censored is already being pushed before Hillary takes office. All the information about her health & criminal activity is disrupting her pre-destined stroll to the White House. There’s no doubt she will make censoring anything against gynocentrism a priority. ROK touched on this recently.

          Milo Yiannopoulos Devastates Time Magazine’s Joel Stein And His Pro-Censorship Position

        26. Do you mean in order to “make it big” or to simply get a reel to a theater to be shown to an audience? I’m more curious about just how to get a movie to a theater and get it playing right now. There’s a lot to learn about these industries, and I think movies are the place for us to start right now, since the audience seems to be making noises towards the SJW cunts to the effect of “this is all you have for us now? Preachy Leftism and special effects?” I may be wrong, but it’s kind of the sense I get. Television is for all intents and purposes dead to us, nobody reads books any more (shame, that), and music is totally dominated by African rutting music that, for reasons I don’t understand, people have not yet rejected as the garbage that it is. In movies, there is a sense that society is getting fed up though.

        27. Well the problem is that everything has become so consolidated. There used to be a couple of indie movie houses in every major city, but they have dwindled. With those, you might be able to get your film shown if you’re a local and it’s a good film. But that’s still just one screen showing to maybe a couple hundred people at best.
          To get into your big chain theaters, the film needs to be distributed by the big majors. Not a chance in hell they will ever promote anything blatantly red pill.
          Film festivals are like market bazaars where the bigwigs buy films from indie producers. But the industry is so saturated with far-left progs, that conservative films would be dead in the water. I’ve been down this long, painful road before, and it’s very expensive and very heartbreaking to make a feature film that nobody ever sees.

        28. That’s the information I was looking for, I know nothing of movie distribution and what’s involved. I can write a bang up script however, but making the movie proper and getting it out, I’m at a loss. Thanks for the leads.

        29. I sort of want them to unveil it first. The only hint I’ll slip is that VD has written a few articles about SJW convergence – how it kills its host and opens the door for replacements.
          So imagine one of the big, converged Internet sites. They’re working on a replacement.

        30. One of the flies in the ointment is that promoting the film often costs more than the production itself. Getting large numbers of people to hear about your film and come out to see it costs incredible sums of money. Besides, theaters are dying out anyway. We have to figure out a sort of Red Pill Netflix system.
          And again, the problem with that will be the cost of advertising. But it certainly can be done.

        31. I would argue that a “Red Pill Netflix system” would probably be a bad idea. Rather, we need more sites like gab.ai who is a direct replacement for Twitter, but values free speech and doesn’t go around censoring people with political affiliations they don’t like. Instead of RP Netflix, think Open-To-All Netflix.

        32. It could work. A simple set of guidelines that limit videos by length (say, 20 minutes +), video quality, etc. but only very minor stipulations on content (i.e. no porn – there are already sites for that) would be enough.
          Maybe two or three “zones” of video would make sense. One for the new stuff (let the people screen the quality first, so you don’t have to waste time), one for “good” stuff (recent, but popular – can be temporarily shelved six months in if need arises), and one for “excellent” stuff (so popular you can’t ever take it down).
          Then the only real question is how to monetize (and pay the providers).

        33. Open to All, but RP films conspicuously pushed, much like Netflix pushes its increasingly feminized line of product. Nothing blatant, just subtle ads and “what’s new!” things like NF currently does.

        34. Sure. What’s interesting is how crappy Netflix selection is becoming. If it’s not some feminized bullshit, they’re dropping it. I can’t find hardly any masculine shows on it any longer, they even got rid of MST3K, for goodness sake. I don’t know if they’re still carrying Breaking Bad or not (haven’t looked recently) but it won’t surprise me when they eventually drop it.
          So a real service we set up could in fact be a repository for “mainstream” masculine movies and shows, some “normal” bullshit shows and then specifically crafted RP series and shows. I think that would attract a large audience of men.

        35. I wonder if the theaters are doing badly because of so many more available forms of entertainment or because new movies suck? I’m under the impression it’s the latter.

        36. You wouldn’t necessarily have to sneak anything in, just make movies where men are men and women are women, that would be different than most anything offered today.

        37. A little from column A, a lot from column B.
          At ten dollars a ticket, the price of a monthly subscription to Netflix, most people just can’t be bothered to leave the couch for much of anything. Sure, the big franchises make their cash, but theaters aren’t seeing the attendance they once did.

        38. Hm. I just looked it up. I guess he’s been inactive in that field for years now though.
          But still, I like what he has to say in general. Quite the alternative to whomever made all of those “what its like to be a suicidal feminist” type games…

        39. I rarely go to movies anymore because the ones I may be interested in seeing are few and far between. I used to go more, sometimes just for something to do and somewhere to go.

      3. Agreed.
        However, I think what Roosh means by “neomasculinity” is just traditional masculinity applied to the modern world. The skills one needs to be a man in the modern world differ a bit from the skills a man needed in the past, in a world with no technology and no feminism/
        progressivism, but the overall attitude/presence one must have is not that different. The essential prinples of masculinity (or femininity, for that matter) never change.

      4. The definition and requirements of masculinity have changed drastically in just a few generations. The “neo” prefix suggests that the masculinity our fathers aspired to embody is no longer relevant, especially when it comes to women. Chivalry, provider game and being a husband were admirable masculine qualities not too long ago. Today, they will get a man destroyed and exploited.
        Roosh wrote an article on about it here. Every male should read this.
        http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-neomasculinity

    3. Andrew Breitbart said “Politics is downstream from culture.”.
      He was exactly right. First you get the media, then you get the power, then you get the women.
      The biggest problem right now is funding. There seems to be limitless funding available for anti-American, anti-Conservative, anti-Christian, and anti-White media productions. But there is not a dollar to be found for conservative or alt right projects. I’m guessing even Kickstarter would block such a project.

      1. There wasn’t much masculine about the music that was ever on MTV. Whiny emu Kurt Kobaine wasn’t doing us any favors.

        1. I’m talking about before that whiny bitch boy music of the nineties.
          VanHalen ZZTopp etc, even Motley Crue, they wore makeup and other silly shit but most of their songs were about raising hell or chasing women instead of the teen angst crap of the ninteties and up

        2. Yeah 80’s music was the last hurrah of masculine music. Interesting how rock hasn’t been as popular since then. It’s been on the sharp decline in the last 15 or so years. It’s a genre with a shrinking audience. I say this as a rock musician which these days has increasingly less fringe benefits than does the job of an EDM DJ or “folk” hipster, or rapper.
          Demographx, yo!
          There was an article on CH called “Where did the arena rock bands go” which i recommend. Some of the commenters said that once white men became asexual with their music that was when they started to be replaced and no longer held the limelight, which adds up to me. All the “sexiest” stars are rappers these days.
          Crue rocks by the way. People who call them “faggots” for wearing makeup and shit are idiots.

        3. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !ro381f:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !ro381f:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash621GroupOceanGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ro381f:….,…..

        4. The newer rock music is mostly horrible to me, from time to time there’s a song or two I like but I find it distasteful in general. I haven’t been able to listen to pop radio for a long time, mostly just classic rock, I used to listen to some country also sometimes but they have ruined that now with tractor rap and bro country(if I never hear Luke Bryan again my life would be complete). There will be those here that say country music is about supplicating to women etc but I just found it to be talking about life in general and women are part of it.

        5. To me it seems that you’re not looking in the right way. There’s many good masculine music in the Rock circles, but they’re limited to more extreme genres and audiences. I’ll not blame you if you think Metal is just noise, but genres like Death Metal and Djent are formed around some very masculine principles. I’m not talking about the stupid satanists or atheist shit that most people think these genres are made of. Although this is a proeminent part of the scene, most bands have a more reflexive nature, despite the agressiveness of the melodies (which for me make them sound very masculine)
          Of course this is the kind of music that will never be popular to the general audience, but as someone who was born in the 90s hearing modern music, these genres are something that fill this role.

      2. I’m not a fan of MTV, but I don’t think you can call any popular music from the ’60s onwards (or possibly further back) “traditionally masculine,” if for nothing else than the fact that it encourages rebellion for rebellion’s sake and also encourages female promiscuity.
        If anything, rap would be the closest thing to masculine music (although not perfect by ANY stretch). Although rap encourages female promiscuity, at least it is straightforward about it, which is more than can be said for most rock-n-roll or pop. Most rock music (and virtually all pop music) emphasizes “love” and “romance” which implies sexual promiscuity but doesn’t explicitly say so.
        And rap (at least old-school rap) encourages self-respect, physical toughness, making money, and seeing hoes for what they are, which again is more than can be said for other forms of popular music.

        1. The only thing rap encourages is being a moron.
          As for music in general I was simply saying I always preferred the older rock and roll/hard rock over the newer stuff that usually just says they suck at life and it’s everybody else’s fault.
          That being said none of it should be taken too seriously or used for life lessons.

        2. “The only thing rap encourages is being a moron.”
          Good argument. I like how you elegantly refuted each one of my points.
          I agree with you about rock, and about not taking music seriously. I’ll give you that.

    4. *cough cough*
      Five
      Finger
      Death
      Punch

      I know there are many who will see this band name and think it’ll all be guttural wailing, but it isn’t.
      They have a lot of pro-military themes, they’re hard, they’re masculine and the vocalist even sings like a man (opposite of the big-hair days lol)

  8. Ayn Rand pegged this about the Left back in the mid 20th century. They are anti-identification, since identification will allow them to be seen in the light of day. Ergo, she posited A is A as the logical response. Orwell also came to this conclusion as well, not just with his novel 1984, but also in his papers where he discusses how socialists devolve language into gibberish.

    1. I probably never would have gotten around to reading Atlas Shrugged or 1984 if it weren’t for ROK.
      Both were eye opening books for me.

      1. It’s amazing how much truth has been lost in the last two decades due to a lack of reading for intellectual stimulation by the general public. “Back in my day!(tm)”, the Bible was the most read book, and Atlas Shrugged was the second. You could pop out “Who is John Galt” and more often than not, most people would understand what you were referencing. Internet appears, literature reading dwindles for the new generation and everything that was once known is forgotten. If it doesn’t come out in a movie, or appear in a comic book, Millenials will have no clue what you’re talking about.

        1. Many people my own age won’t know either, if it isn’t found on television or a quick Google search they have no clue.

        2. Long term memory is being clearly affected, yes. I’m GenX and have retained my memory since I enjoy knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Most in my Gen, who were the ones who didn’t have Google and had to memorize things, are as bad as the Millenials. It’s like they did a mind flush in 2005.

        3. There is a satisfaction walking over to your bookshelf, pulling a book, reference and read the text out loud to the person who called you out about you source.
          People really hate that.

  9. Now I’m more confused than ever. This article leaves me with so many unanswered questions. Like just what is the correct pronoun for an Austroasiatic hermaphrodite?

  10. Is the OP aware that in america now the nazi uniform fetish thing is 100% owned by the gay male subculture? Its not a little gay, its waaaaaaaaaaay out of the closet. SS symbol?

    1. that’s ok, Germany during the 30’s had lots of effeminate and, most likely, gay men wearing that uniform.

      1. Yeah (literally) Hitler was wearing one,I saw a film of him dancing a jig one time, he walked kinda funny too. Not funny haha,funny queer.

  11. Cue the pseudo-intellectuals piping in about how much they know about the authors mentioned in this article.

  12. The $3 words in this article wreaked havoc on my 50-cent head…time for a fluoridated beer – or three, maybe.

    1. Scotch. Single malt. Aged at least 18 years.
      Do it…..for the children.

      1. Awww…don’t be so down on younger scotch. I think that the Laphroig 10 year is actually better than the 18 year because the smoothness obtained in the extra aging doesn’t mesh well with the peaty taste of islay scotch.

  13. I’m reminded of this vid about traditional values becoming the counter culture. As the left marches on to new perversions, attention from the perversions of yesterday become accepted as mainstream and the focus shifts.

  14. “speaking in realistic terms, the average factory machinist, who grinds rust all day long, too exhausted and too exploited to have time for intellectual leisure”
    How many factory machinists are there in western countries these days? This isn’t Dickensian London, and working in a tanning salon doesn’t count

    1. This isn’t Dickensian London,
      Ah hell, now you tell me. I’ve been wondering why everybody stares at me like I’m weird when I call them “guv’nor” and place “wot?” at the end of my sentences. Dang, now I feel all foolish. And shit.

      1. you know, it’s not unknown to place a ‘wot’ at the end of a sentence in London Town even these days. We don’t have work houses no more, but we do have sweatshops full of illegal immigrants

      2. this must be why I can’t find any good chimney sweep situations which pay fair wages and there is simply no public house which is offering a goose club where I can put a few pence a week with the innkeep and at Christmas take home a nice plump goose.

    2. Why not? In Dickensian London a leather tanner was a perfectly respectable job. The technology has just been updated.

  15. The left has screwed everyone over including themselves,they are just too stupid to realize it yet, however the end of the world as we know it is coming before this month is out,so we will see what happens.

  16. Timeline of the decline of western civilization –
    1945 – World war 2 ends.
    1948 – Universal declaration of human rights are adapted. They declare that everyone is equal and no one can be discriminated against. Fertility rates above replacement level.
    1950s – Mass immigration to the western world from all over, including the muslim world, begins. In the muslim world, islamic revival movement, islamism, begins.
    1960s – Women start demanding and obtaining greater autonomy, freedom, and rights. As a consequence, fertility rates start declining. Muslims start out-breeding non-muslims.
    1970s – The idea that everyone is equal, starts getting instilled in the collective psyche of the society. Since everyone is equal, no group can now be worse than other groups.
    1980s – Political correctness starts gaining stronghold. The stage was set with the universal declaration of human rights.
    2000s – After 9/11, instead of countering islam, the west turns more politically correct and lets islam infiltrate unrestrained. Since no group can be worse than others, islam cannot be worse than other religions. Since no one can be discriminated against, muslims cannot be opposed. They are defended and aided by politicians and public, especially on the left.
    2010s – Muslims continue colonizing and out-breeding non-muslims expeditiously, fuelling exodus of natives from their own lands.
    2030s – West enters the point of no return. Muslims are now so numerous that they cannot be expelled. Population of whites continues declining.
    2060s – Muslims are around 30% in many european nations. There is no going back and europeans realize this. Demands are made for the acceptance of islamic norms.
    2100s – Europe is significantly islamicized. Even without mass conversion, islamic norms dominate europe. America is no longer white, and is hispanicized.
    Amendments to the constitutions for the benefit of islam are made. The free, liberal, western civilization is no more.

  17. Deconstructionism is pure, unadultered, bullshit. We must destroy the edifice of higher education. Wipe it off the planet and use 21st century tools to educate the masses.

    1. Not liking something doesn’t actually make it wrong. Blaming the philosophy and wanting to destroy it is the same as trying to ban guns when some arab kills a nightclub full of faggots.
      The fact that SOME deconstructive thought turns out to be right on the money isn’t the problem. The problem is with the people who use it for bullshit purposes.
      For instance, the fact that male and female roles CAN be reversed doesn’t mean they OUGHT to be reversed. The effeminate men and masculine women we see more and more are, in fact, a possibility…but that doesn’t mean they are the desired outcome. It is not necessary to chose to eradicate the things that allowed western civilization to grow and flourish just because we learn that we can. This is why, for so long, philosophical knowledge was a guarded and esoteric secret. When the average man was given the power of fire he burned things down. This nonsense only happens in an egalitarian society where knowledge that should be kept from the average person (read: idiots) is disseminated and improperly used.
      That said, to blame the body of work that is being misused to destroy civilization is totally wrong. If Deconstructionism was “pure, unadulterated bullshit” then it wouldn’t have such an impact. Deconstructionism is a brilliant understanding of the world that should have never left the academy, never been taught to women and guarded like nuclear secrets. In our modern world it is easy to forget that some books have power and are dangerous.

      1. Bullshit should be exposed, and discarded. Marxism is pure crap, it doesn’t work. Deconstruction is pure bullshit, and should be stomped into the ground. The “philosophy” of pure idiocy shouldn’t be followed, and if an individual wants to follow it, the REST of us shouldn’t be forced to pay for his suicidal idiocy.
        There is NO correlation between your argument using guns as being illustrative of the concept of banning corrupt ideology. Since we’re FORCED to pay for this crap, we have a RIGHT to destroy it.

        1. but deconstruction theory is not pure bullshit. Some is and some isn’t. Derrida and Foucault did brilliant and amazing work, much of it is quite accurate. The problem is how social justice morons have taken these tools and applied them in ways that have been destructive. In this way, yes it is EXACTLY the same as the gun argument. Guns are not to blame when some lunatic shoots up a room full of people and post-modern theory is not to blame when it is used by SJWs to undermine western civilization.
          I don’t know much about Marxism other than it is a economics built on Hegelean philosophy. I do know quite a bit of modern and post-modern philosophy. Deconstructionism isn’t an ideology. It is an ontology. At times a teleology. Often an epistemology. But not an ideology. It was MADE into one (mistakenly) by morons who never should have had access to such knowledge.
          People joke about ivory tower academics, but the ivory tower is where this stuff belongs. The uninitiated, with access to knowledge, are, as we see in our modern culture, very dangerous.
          To write off deconstructive theory as bullshit just because you do not like how some people use it is the very heart of folly. What do you know about it? Philosophy is a dialogue starting with Thales. Have you been following? You are jumping in the middle of a discussion and saying that something is bullshit when it is clear you do not really understand it. Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean to insult you. In fact, you should take it as a compliment because I think you can do better than this, are smarter than this.
          What are you paying for? What do you have a right to destroy? My taxes pay for the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Can I go in there and destroy priceless Dutch masterpieces?
          I wish you would reconsider your position and think about this a bit. The philosophy and theory is sound. The problem is that it is in the hands of irresponsible children. There is a reason that the church banned certain books. They weren’t being jerks. The Catholic church has always understood the power in ideas and knew that mass consumption of ideas which were meant only for the wise and initiated would be very dangerous. That is what is going on here. The fact that morons have access to stuff like Husserl and Merleu-Ponty and Jean-Luc Nancy or Slajpov Zizek is absurd. It is like letting mentally unstable psychopaths play with atomic weapons/.
          It takes a lifetime of hard study and research to have any fucking clue what a guy like Zizek is talking about. But like anything else, it can be bullet pointed by unscrupulous people, given to pretentious twats and used to bring down society. This is what is happening. I don’t like Zizek personally and think his politics are dangerous and stupid, but the man is a fucking genius and it takes decades to even get yourself into a position to see why.

        2. Ok well you and heather have fun with a bunch of shit that you neither are familiar with or understand. Opinions are like assholes bucko…..we all have one and most of them stink.
          I am glad you live in a safe little cocoon of your own idiotic beliefs and hope, for your sake, that you are never forced to actually do any kind of thinking. Fortunately, there are enough morons on the internet that you will always be able to confirm your own small minded and obviously low IQ beliefs and live a comfortable life of an idiot while at the time not having to sacrifice your odious, self aggrandizing sense that you are correct. I am sure you will do just fine. The whole world is set up to help morons feel good about themselves.

        3. Typical bullshit. Look, you can’t make heads nor tails of deconstructionism, asshole. It’s a confused bunch of bullshit, and for an idiot on THIS site to defend this Marxist pseudo-intellectual CRAP just proves you’re another Leftist asshole. Swallow another Blue Pill, dickhead.

        4. you mean YOU can’t make heads or tails of it. I am sure you are accurate there. I am pretty sure you have no idea what that worm between your legs is for either. But just because you are too stupid to understand something doesn’t make it wrong.
          Sorry dude. You are a fucking idiot. You will go through life not understanding lots of things. Now just say “duuuuhhhhhhh” and go away shit for brains.

  18. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !ri118f:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !ri118f:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash358MediaFamilyGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ri118f:….,……..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *