I´ve typically not formed communal bonds or personal relationships with teachers.
awe spoke in our previous post about Brown Fascists and Red Fascists. lest not forget Black Fascists. what´s the difference? Brown Fascists are Nazi or nazi-like. which means that they are like Mussolini´s but that they have more focus on their idea of ‘race’ & their Germanicism, the brown, the soil, of “Germania”, and the wooden “viking” craft. the overlapping coincidence is, that the Brown Fascists were the first to employ modern camouflage, which happened to be in the famous green and brown colours. later militarists of all sorts, around the globe, adopted that combo of colors.
Black Fascists is a well-known phenomena. they are seen in Italy and in Britain, before WW2 especially, and can be described as Nazism minus Germanicism, or even minus race.
Red Fascists are Leninists and other Socialists, so far as they want to deploy violence, which includes, obviously, Maoists, et al.
Strangely enough (to some), people that advocate for immigrant attack-against-inhabitants violence are thus Fascists; which does not come as a surprise if one looks at the phenomenon of Third-Worldism
A car is based on explosions. Fire is what makes it go. Thaumaturgically, it should be loud and hot. But we can put a radiator and a muffler on it, and it’s not that bad, unless it’s been sitting in direct sunlight.
Demotism is based on envy. Thing about envy is you can’t have it flopping around untethered. Have to have a target. Hence, market dominant minorities. Kulaks, Jews. Or, in the proggie’s case, market dominant majorities. Not merely handy, but vital. Envy is what makes it go, but there’s no such thing as a sociological muffler.
Marx tried to do it with classes. If you have racially pure nations, you work with what you got. Classes aren’t really that unmistakeable, though, so it’s not great. Further, immigrants always have a strong vote bias, so the party they vote for always wants to import them. Skin colour: now you’re cooking with gas.
Even if proggies manage to prison-camp every white, inevitably they will want to import someone of a different shade of brown. They will try to exploit the envy of the original shade of brown, and the cycle will repeat. As always, as politics approaches communism, citizens must approach equal. The envotaic force must be allowed to do work. However, we are all equal if and only if we are all dead.
from Nick Land´s Xenosystems.net
A topical Churchill quote (and probably his greatest remark):
… every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose.
Such a Britain would not only be worth something, it would be worth everything. (But it’s gone.)
A relevant Sailer comment:
In the American mind, land powers are seen as militarist, brooding, and no fun: Sparta, Prussia, the Soviet Union, and now Putin’s Russia. In contrast, sea powers are the good guys, the cool kids: Athens, Holland, England, and America. […] With natural defenses and a high-tech military, sea powers generally didn’t need enormous conscript armies, martial discipline, and centralized economic control. Instead, sea power was conducive to liberty at home and adventure capitalism abroad. [There’s an additional ‘adventure capitalism’ link, which freaked out my antivirus program.]
… and a Dugin recollection.
Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 3:10 pm
‘ævintýr[i]’ a translation of the Latin derived word. ‘ævintýri’ is a wholly Germanic word. it´ll have been a neologism tho, an Icelandic neologism.
as for ‘orðstýr’, i´ll note that ‘or’ is the equivalence of ‘er’ in Greek. ‘or’ is in ‘orka’ which means “energy”.
‘orð’ means “word” or ‘verb’.
‘ver’ and ‘vir’ refer to activity and ability (potency) in numerous Indoeuropean languages, but i know Icelandic and Latin or Latinesque best, they are referring to reality, work, virility, worth, truth. such as Latin ‘verse’, Icelandic ‘veröld’ (world, or “world-age”), Icelandic ‘verk’ (deed, job, work), ‘verð’ (worth, price), ‘ver’ (station), ‘virki’ (fortress), ‘virkni’ (working, activity), ‘virkilegt’ (real), ‘virkilega’ (really), ‘virði’ (worth, price). again to Latin ‘virtus’ (power), ‘vira’ (hero).
just a few examples.
corresponding to the doctrine (as seen in tantra) of the world as “power”.
the difference is that typically men pursue and women (if they are in a position to) place barriers, which men cross to enter her heart or vagina, or both. crossing these barriers is called “hitting on”, dating & courting.
men who either are not good at making these advances or simply do not want to make advances to according to post-patriarchic standards are typically by some women called ‘creeps’ (although they may not at all have performed the action of creeping up, not even figuratively, but may have, done the opposite, i.e. been, as it were, too up front! — but that´s another matter, requiring its own descriptions).
now it´s not a complex science to learn these maneuvers. it´s not my complaint that women have standards. that would be an ultimate androcentric complaint — that would be expecting women to, so far as sex is concerned, to be naught but receptacles. it´s evolutionarily perfectly understandable that they do have standards and maintain a dynamis of barriers. that they prefer someone who´s self-conscious & witty, opposed to ‘dorky’ (not conscious about his self-image, etc).
there certainly exists a phenomena that correlates with what women typically describe nowadays with the term ‘toxic masculinity’. it typically refers to: when a male sends forth, exhibits, anger, towards a female or females, for having rejected his advances.
the “complaint” of this thread is that the common discourse “allows” (pressures, excludes, for or against, etc) this phenomena to be termed and documented, and widely recognized — as something exclusive to males (which it, generally, is, as males typically make advances, and get rejected or not, and react to that or not) — while it does not allow corresponding phraseology towards the corresponding sex (the female and her, toxic or not, typology of behavior).
however the complaint of the one who made the image which is the OP of the thread is different. this person is a LBGTQ person who´s making the case that you could not properly speak of ‘toxic masculinity’ any more than ‘toxic femininty’ as there are, according to her (errenous) theory: “no inherent traits to either sex or gender.”
her erroneous theory is from a misunderstanding of language and knowledge tradition (simply, crudely, that “all meaning is merely subjective or constructed”), but that´s another matter.
regarding the part referring to meaning and subjectivity —
very briefly said, most people misunderstand the concept of meaning. it´s theologized, or pseudotheologized in their ideologies (mind´s system of ideas) — after ca. 2.000 years of Christian imprint. the common mind of nowadays western individual is a postchristian mind, however ‘atheistic’ it may declare itself. its postchristianity is easily recognized in even a surface historical genealogy of ideas.
‘meaning’ is essentially naught but what allows a communication. even between a subject and its environment. the subject´s cogito is its means to the “end” of communication.
e.g. a text has a meaning so far as it is understandable.
more basally, it has meaning as a communication, however translatable or not.
a life has a meaning so far as it is a means to something defined (“heaven”, “good parenting”, making music, whatever). how far (well) it conforms to the form of the activity is its translation or production of meaning.
e.g. playing a guitar typically has the meaning of making sounds.
this could let it seem like meaning is naught but conformity to concepts.
an impossibility. biological processes predate concepts. Christianity denied this, but now in a post-Christian age it´s virtually universally recognized, although often schizophrenically denied at, virtually, the same time.
so what is meaning then, more than a construction?
simply, ‘meaning’ is the activity of a means to a form of a provisional end.
crudely, meaning is the activity of a means to an end.
meaning is production. preferably with enjoyment.
thus life for all organisms has meaning, so far as they produce. and they all do. produce. and some even reproduce.
the trend to extinguish White people is so retarded. that just means that Asians vs. Semites vs. Africans will continue their struggles, once the White peoples are gone. and Racism won´t be gone because xenophobia, physiognomy and genealogy are not exclusively White inventions. they´re simply not — and that is so easy to verify from multiple sources (e.g. ca. any encyclopedia); even nonwestern sources.
the Arabs will probably kill off all the Jews if there would be any left, but Jews would probably get massacred along with the last White people once there are too few Whites to prevent a massacre. Israel might nuke the whole place before tho.
this trend is mostly White people extinguishing themselves through not having a replacement-rate of children, which is caused by Male self-emasculation (playing video games, weekend-partying their whole life, and simply being less and less like adult male fathers).
and China got a whole 1.000.000.000 and India got a whole 1.000.000.000 too, ahead of everybody else! and they´re not gonna think twice about doing whatever they wish with Africa once Whites are gone.
the future looks Asian, unless some trends start to change.
don´t you think shit like this hasn´t happened before in history. except it used to happen more South always. it´s never happened in the root source of the white race before, the North-East (North Norway to South-East Russia). so it´s the worst type of this happening ever in global history, cause the source of the White peoples (the North) is being killed off… well, it´s killing itself off.