Western civilisation enjoyer. Patriot. Adventurer. Dark Abundance/Lee Kuan Yew Liberal Thought. Survived CCP kidnap plot. FREE TIBET.
Malcolm X was a pro-Palestine Black Separatist Muslim that was anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and pro CRA of 1964.
Kirk was a Christian Nationalist Zionist, hyper-capitalist who was an apologist for imperialism & opposed the CRA of 1964.
These two would HATE each other lmao
https://x.com/DrewPavlou/status/1967709645398741330?t=E1fGyrBiZXLUDKjEuJzjOQ&s=19Quote“It’s an honour to meet you, Mr. X.”
“You’re alright for a white boy Charlie.”
Hitler himself didn’t see race as biological.
“According to Hitler’s view, there were not only racial differences between the nations, but also within the community of Germans. …the German nation was still not a uniform race, but was composed of different racial elements.
According to Hitler’s understanding, there were racial elements, for example, which were more musically, others which were more technically-scientifically, again others which were more politically gifted or capable, and so forth." - Rainer Zitelmann
While this is rather strange, basically no longer [a] biological definition of race, we must accept it as it is if we want to understand the inner logic of Hitler’s reasoning at all.”
Source :
Zitelmann, "Hitler's National Socialism," p454.
“Racial war need not break out if people are selected not according to their appearance but according to their achievements. Looks and ability are often quite far apart. You can make the selection according to the appearance, and you can make it - as the party has done - according to the test of life.” - Adolf Hitler
Source :
Adolf Hitler, 27 January 1942, quoted from Zitelmann, "Hitler's National Socialism," p456.
(Minute 11:47 until 12 : 56)
Eric Kaufmann, author of Whiteshift and professor of politics at the University of Buckingham, has written a new book on “wokeness.”
Prof. Kaufmann explains that unlike liberalism, which calls for equal treatment, “wokeness” demands equal outcomes.
Since people are far from equal, they end up with very different lives. Wokeness finds this unjust and tries to correct it, often through illiberal means.
The author thus distinguishes “cultural” socialism from economic socialism or communism.
Political beliefs are influenced by emotions, and Mr. Kaufmann explains that a bias towards minorities and against the majority has been the liberal norm since the 1960s.
...
The title, “the third awokening,” refers to three points in time when there have been dramatic increases in this type of thinking: one beginning in the mid-60s, another in the late 80s, and finally in 2013.
Mr. Kaufmann offers several reasons for his belief that unlike the McCarthy era, wokeness will not wane without government action.
First, the woke are not a student fringe, but have positions of power and the sympathy of the entire Left. Their demands are merely an extension of liberals’ long-established preference for minorities.
We cannot match the madness of the woke, but we need passion to oppose them. White identity is inspiring in a way that appeals to fairness are not. The races are different, and our survival is supremely moral. Without race realism and white identity, we can expect wokeness to continue advancing at whites’ expense.
1) A belief that any disparities in outcomes favoring whites over non-whites or men over women are caused by discrimination
2) The speech of those who would argue against 1 needs to be restricted
3) Bureaucracies are needed that reflect the beliefs in 1 and 2, working to overcome disparities and managing speech and social relations.
Wokeness is Government Policy
Before proceeding, it is important to clarify what wokeness actually is. I’d argue it has 3 components:
1) A belief that any disparities in outcomes favoring whites over non-whites or men over women are caused by discrimination (Sometimes wokeness cares about other disparities too, like fat/nonfat, but those are given less attention. I’m putting aside LGBT issues, which seem to be at an earlier stage of wokeness in which the left is still mostly fighting battles regarding explicit differences in treatment rather than disparate outcomes, although the latter does get attention sometimes.)
2) The speech of those who would argue against 1 needs to be restricted in the interest of overcoming such disparities, and the safety and emotional well-being of the victimized group in question.
3) Bureaucracies are needed that reflect the beliefs in 1 and 2, working to overcome disparities and managing speech and social relations.
Each of these things can be traced to law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on race and gender. While most at the time thought this would simply remove explicit discrimination, and many of the proponents of the bill made that promise, courts and regulators expanded the concept of “non-discrimination” to mean almost anything that advantages one group over another. An important watershed was the decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), in which the Supreme Court ruled that intelligence tests, because they were not shown to be directly related to job performance, could not be used in hiring since blacks scored lower on them, and it did not matter whether there was any intent to discriminate. People act as if “standardized tests are racist if they show disparities” is some kind of new idea, but it’s basically been the law in the United States for 50 years, albeit inconsistently enforced.
Standardized tests aren’t the only target of the doctrine of disparate impact. In 2019 (under Trump), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) settled a suit brought against Dollar General for $6 million for doing criminal background checks that disproportionately prevented blacks from being hired. The Obama administration went after schools for disciplining black and white students at different rates, with predictably disastrous results. Police departments, fire departments, and other institutions use “gender normed” tests to stop the EEOC and private applicants from suing them for gender discrimination. This is of course completely insane; criminals can’t be relied on to go easier on female cops on account of their sex, but somehow we’ve all come to accept affirmative action policing and firefighting (in 2014, a guy who jumped the White House fence overpowered a female Secret Service agent and made it all the way to the East Room).
As the government invented new standards for what counts as “discrimination,” it was forcing more aggressive action on the part of the private sector. Executive Order 11246, signed by President Johnson, required all government contractors and subcontractors who did over $10,000 in government business to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin." The category of “sex” was added in 1967. In 1969, Richard Nixon signed EO 11478, which forced affirmative action onto the federal government itself.
Across the federal government and among contractors, affirmative action assumed that “but for discrimination, statistical parity among racial and ethnic groups would be the norm.”
Government interpretation of the Civil Rights Act also invented the concept of the “hostile work environment.” UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has written about how this has been used to restrict free speech. Writing in 1997, he pointed out that
The scope of harassment law is thus molded by three facts:
1. On its face, harassment law draws no distinction among slurs, pornography, political, religious, or social commentary, jokes, art, and other forms of speech. All can be punished, so long as they are “severe or pervasive” enough to create a “hostile environment.”
2. The vagueness of the terms “severe” and “pervasive” — and the fact that the law is implemented by employers, who have an incentive to oversuppress — means that the law may practically restrict any speech that an employer concludes might be found by a fact-finder to be “severe or pervasive” enough.
3. Finally, because an employer is liable for the aggregate of all its employees’ speech, wise employers will bar any sort of statement that might, if repeated by enough people, be “severe or pervasive” enough to create a hostile environment.
Putting all this together, harassment law potentially burdens any workplace speech that's offensive to at least one person in the workplace based on [protected characteristics] … even when the speech is political and even when it’s not severe or pervasive enough to itself be actionable.
The Jewish philosopher Nathan Cofnas is highly intelligent. The Black politician Dawn Butler is deeply stupid. But Butler has effortlessly demolished Cofnas’ thesis that wokism – the ideology of woke – is “simply what follows from taking the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously, given a background of Christian morality.” In fact, wokism doesn’t take the equality thesis seriously at all. Yes, it preaches equality, but it practises hierarchy.
McDonagh doesn’t comment on the final shot of the video, which shows a white folding chair sitting alone against a pink background. This is a reference to “Black Resistance” and the “Montgomery Brawl,” when noble Blacks in Alabama attacked evil white racists with folding chairs in August 2023. The Black Rebecca Stevens, who “writeabout racism,” used the same image of the chair in 2023 in a discussion of the Montgomery Brawl.
In other words, Butler is celebrating Black violence against Whites.
Why hate the West?
Why do so many Westerners hate the West? The roots of their thinking go back to classical Marxism, which aimed to incite working class rebellion. The workers refused to rebel, however, and sided with their national governments during World War I. After the war, a number of Marxists decided to revise their dogma. Prominent among them was a group living in Frankfurt, Germany, known as the Frankfurt School, who believed that class struggle was not enough to bring about revolution. What was necessary was cultural Marxism that would attack the key pillars of Western Civilization: religion, patriotism, and family life. They called this attack on Western identity and culture “critical theory,” and members of the Frankfurt School brought this theory to the United States.7
Today, critical theory holds tremendous power. It endlessly harps on the West’s colonial past without mentioning the colonization of the West. It holds up Hitler and the Third Reich as symbols of Europe, without conceding that most of the West united against Hitler.
In Europe, cultural Marxists are using Muslim immigration to destroy the West claiming, ironically, that Europeans must atone for their sins by surrendering to those who sinned against them for so long. In America, Latin American immigration serves the same purpose. Cultural Marxists use Western guilt, manipulated by critical theory, to neutralize opposition — and yet these ideological heirs to the Cheka dungeons, the Ukrainian famine, the Gulag camps, and the Cambodian genocide have no moral authority to condemn the West
Today the fate of our civilization is in the balance, just as much as it was at Tours and Vienna. If they are to have a future, Europe and its overseas outposts must revisit their past. They must shed their guilt and rekindle their will to live. The spirits of Charles Martel, El Cid, Jan Sobieski, and all their valiant company will point the way.
Home
Search
Login
Register