The pervasive ecological view, combining as it does, the taxonomic system of class (as in the White race) acts as a corrective to Lockeatine empiricism, its Cartesian notion of individual rights.
As we've noted in the last article, it also acts as a corrective to Dewey's pragmatism, overly stated, as it was – progressing ever forward, in search of "ever more full and rich experience" – insufficiently respective of biological optimality, digestion, reflection, the need of empty space and unused potentiality for change; de-emphasizing the facts of historical, co-evolutionary processes in the development of skill and maturation. That is important to note as Dewey was particularly resourceful; and with that, a large influence despite having serious flaws.
More, the ecological view acts as a corrective to Heidegger's notion of "ownmost being toward death" – this too would be toxic, a good last alternative, but not a proper day to day premise for White survival, as nature rarely works within lethal variables – e.g., it should be bad enough that miscegenation is possible; Black on White murder and the extinction of Whites would not even approach appreciable consideration before compelling action on an ecological basis.
Finally, the pervasive ecological view corrects the toxicity in Nietzsche's perspective, his valuation of the "over-man". This is a conception that panders, as it were, to a female point of view toward men, wishing them to be impervious to social and natural environment; showing little appreciation for a man's normal point of view toward beauty, caring, and social responsibility in White women. Nietzsche goes so far as to admire Negroes, by analogy, for their 'digestive tracts', as they are quickly done with guilt and fret about problems; as compared to White men who are overwrought with "resentment". That should be a clue that his was not a perfect model for White men and the White race – nobody who has had meaningful experience of Niggers, outside of stupid White woman, would want to model White behavior after Blacks.
The crucial matter is not marriage, traditional values, White men not being men enough, nor that their sexuality has been inhibited by feminists – clearly, women can be as sexually liberal as men, if not more. No, the crucial matter is White men being sensible enough not to be incited by stupid women and men into individual competition with Blacks on their low model of conduct – Niggers have nothing approaching equal exchange. White men must be smart enough and men enough to fight, bring down the system, re-build and instantiate boundaries for the White Class. The White Class needs to be valued more than individual recognition. With it, an option for absolute monogamy needs to be offered – to what extent it can be realistically practiced is less important than the fact that it is respected and sanctioned as a viable option.
If we can care about the preservation of rain forests, the gulf of Mexico, the hills of West Virginia and endangered species, and we certainly do care, very much, then we are assuredly warranted by any standard, left, right, radical and in between, to care for our co-evolutionary women."The organism that destroys its environment destroys itself." ~ G.B.
Anti-racism forces, whether Jewish elites and ethnocentrism, corporate interests, scientism, the generally naive, are the destroyers of biodiversity – a necessity for natural selection and ecological balance.
I would like to problematize and deproblematize a dichotomy of sex as a sacrament vs. sex as a celebration. This division highlights a highly conflicting interface of interests – some are celebrating while others are trying to be most careful – toward that end, I am primarily interested in elevating the legitimacy of sex as a sacrament, increasing its validity as an option for Whites.
I've been frustrated by Dr. Sunic's European perspective on America once again, where I've heard him make the commonplace characterization of Americans as "puritanical", as in, perhaps, "too puritanical."
This criticism of Americans, coming from Europeans, particularly as they have been mostly White nations, has always irritated me; it reflects a terrible misunderstanding of the more daunting rigors that have been the American situation.
What nonsense it is to dismiss as puritanical White Americans who are not free loving and celebratory with their sex amidst niggers and sundry non-Whites.
By now, with the inundation of non-Whites to Western Europe, perhaps the wise are becoming a bit more "puritanical". But even at that, Europeans have always had an advantage over Americans, in that they have recourse to their ancient national heritages – they can fall back on the notion that this is their country, their people, their history more easily than American Whites; whereas White Americans have been largely forced to identify themselves as "American", i.e., not having a deep European heritage; "the same as non-Whites."
Sex as a celebration makes valid sense in a homogeneous White nation wherein the genetic stakes are not so great – but even there, as anything more than a limited option, it would be reckless; whereas it is absolutely reckless in a heterogeneous society.
While there are many ways to look upon sex, many "stories to tell", this dichotomy – the sacral vs. the celebratory – may serve to move us beyond clichés: such as those of liberalism, which would disingenuously depict White advocates amidst non-Whites, as sexual puritans; conservatives who believe sex is naughty; and, on the other hand, move us beyond the destructive dismissiveness of scientism – sex being merely a natural and normal bodily function that allows for no cultural mediation: Sex is merely natural – we should have no objection to our sublime women being taken by monkeys through the auspices of sex.
This framework not only provides an example of the greater rigor for truth in social constructionism, but also allows for its advantage: for example, when a human woman, i.e., White women, goes to a shit colored monkey, we are more attentive, as social constructionists, to the precipitating aspects wherein her decisions are not made alone – they are being arranged for, encouraged, manipulated, allowed for – this result is not a mere no account matter of science, let alone religion.
If it is not merely determined that women do this; if our behavior is not determined, but rather a matter of conjoint, to some extent negotiable, interactive patterns, then it is corrigible, agentive and accountable – there is something that can be done about it.
Note this distinction: negotiable patterns of conjoint interaction as opposed to caused, determined.
The notion of conjoint negotiation of interactive patterns allows us to recognize the warrant in defending stable and profound patterns of Whites, especially genetics. It also enables us to use the fact of White patterns, being in some ways contingent and changeable over history, and negotiable in terms of how they count and are to be constructed - during a life span and in interaction of episodic and historical contexts with others – to facilitate accountability, warrant, choice and agency to our advantage and use, as and for Whites.
"Rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is emptying." ~ Kenneth Burke
Let's look at some of the other alternatives for a moment; at the way the following stories, by suggesting that there sex is a matter of causality and therefore that there is nothing that can be done, neatly ignore accountability to 40,000 years of White evolution:
Taking the position that "it's just natural", "it's just a natural fact of life" is surely prone to become a rogue's way of avoiding accountability.
"He was stronger" – We might ask, phenotypically, genotypically, in what unit of analysis?
"Sex is a ubiquitous tension to be resolved between defiling lust and purifying love" as John Money conceived it. This is almost assuredly Not the ubiquitous tension that he conceived it to be. There are, in fact, many ways of talking about sex.
As "a normal bodily function", Frank Zappa, provides a graphic example of sterile cynicism; pseudo science; not taking sex as seriously as it should be, its many levels, relations and histories.
"We fell in love"
Ok, that's enough. We can all vomit now.
Sex is surely not a trivial matter; it is an issue of confirmation and disconfirmation of persons and political views – and in many, often contradictory ways; it is the means by which people come into the world and legacies set forth or not; at an appropriate age, or not; in reasonable numbers as resources, experience and wisdom afford, or not – and much more.
I hypothesize that monogamy and even more radically, the assurance of some possibility for an equal, exclusive partner – virgins upon marriage (there might be another, more honorable word for the male counterpart) – must be esteemed and maintained as a realistic option, for those who might wish it, if there is to be a free society. It is an important option for White survival and for our better way of life.
Perhaps some may volunteer for a life-time monogamy commitment – of course, careful and extensive criteria for mate selection need to be afforded. More, there will still be a significant divorce rate – nevertheless, the option should be taken seriously.
I believe that the central mechanism that makes sex sexy is a tension between human dignity in patterns of relationship vs. animal lust; also a tension between human dignity on the one hand and dominance and submission on another – providing dominance/submission is not taken too seriously.
Thus, it is not so contingent upon one's being say, the most skilled or beautiful, and especially not so contingent if class boundaries are enforced and/or a sacral attitude afforded – in either case, alleviating a narrow, Darwinian unit of analysis.
This is a great advantage to a sacral view. It is always available whereas a celebratory view can become quickly exhausted and quickly exploited. A sacral attitude advises caution, responsibility, and does not necessarily require perfect readiness, ability or physicality. It allows time for childhood. It allows for broader reflection on other matters. It allows the flexibility for transcending abilities that are contingent upon a moment's skill. Nevertheless, it is an attitude that may be re-assumed in any moment; it transcends episodic performance. One may be granted latitude and freedom under leniency and approval of kindred relations. A sacral attitude can transcend one's autobiographical anxiety to keep pace with others, as the sacral may be conceived as less finite – that is, it may be safely ensconced within our White Cultural Pattern.
With a sacral and hermeneutic notion thus, we can move beyond sex as a momentary experience, as a mere episodic experience, as an autobiographical conquest and begin to take more care of our White relationships and White class pattern – we are connecting sex with a deeper account of our White resources and DNA.
Transcending of the moment and episode thus, with the sacral, we are facilitating greater chance for our White survival.
Deeming sex this important would afford deep accountability – for the ecological reason of maintaining the flexibility of unused potentiality for change, our White biodiversity.
We ought to be free to recognize beauty, and not just function, as non-trivial – beauty is a sign of health and semiotic of historic, genetic endowment. We cannot continue to allow our most subtle, differentiated women to be sucked into the black hole of miscegenation as a decided inclination, while White men take their plane Jane sisters, if anything. Nevertheless, subsumed under a sacral department of the class, ultimate beauty and prowess become less important, secured in an interrelated, fairly cooperative nexus of the White class; whether through the class or through the sacral contract – as we are a more sublimated people, it is crucial for Whites that we begin the ultimate task of taking down the oppressive system and reconstructing these boundaries of our White Class.
Jews and niggers not only care little to none for White interests – they are normally antagonistic – The Jew imposes the nigger upon us irrespective as it may humiliate, violate, populate, exploit and destroy us. The Jew is almost like a dealer, providing the nigger, a quantified form of masculinity, like narcotics to ignorant women. The nigger, in its 150,000 years of pre-evolution to White differentiation, its bio-power, somewhat hegemonic, its prehistoric (primitive) less-culturally mediated selection, having quantified and maxed-out masculinity, created an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive kind of people: corresponding with more sex partners, younger, single parent families, poverty, violence, disease, exponential population growth, arrogation and destruction of resources; this also making it well suited to the displacement of Whites, to take advantage of the disorder of modernity, absent class boundaries and finer accountability; with that, the increased one up position of crass young females, acting as gate keepers to maintain their edge thus; the frequent litmus test from them in initial interaction episodes: 'What do you think of Blacks; can you believe anyone would be a racist?". It is imperative against such formidable antagonists as the Jew and the long pre-evolved nigger that we get a handle on radical, beneficial ways of talking about such an important issue as sex.
Unlike niggers, for example, we think more about what we are doing, particularly about profoundly important matters such as sex, before doing it. Christianity has performed a vast disservice in admonishing thoughts as a sin, equal to action: "Even if you think of it, you've done it." Failing class boundaries and sacral contract, particularly when confronted by niggers who have nothing to lose and everything to gain (while for White men, the reverse would be the case); and with the high contrast tropism of interracial sex – highly contrasting sights and sounds are harder to ignore – other-taboos may be almost necessary to invoke mentally in order to counteract its imposed and tropic assailing of our sensibilities – so long as you don't actually do the other taboo, it really isn't as bad, and it probably will lose its fascination once you gain your bearings. Nevertheless, taboos are taboos after all because they are unhealthy.* However, with the calibration of some mental feedback, the alternative taboos, granted some shrug of indifference, lose their gravity as well.
"Unconscious Wish"
The pernicious Freudian notion of "unconscious wish" is corrected with the sequential notion of autobiography – rather than a momentary perception being ascribed a fixed meaning, as in "latency" or an "unconscious wish for interracial sex", it becomes one fleeting moment, a frame, passing in an ongoing sequence of thoughts.
If there is any tropism in the high interracial contrast, more than its being an attraction, it is a call to genetic competition – to be vigilant, to fight and protect the better, more circumspect White way of life.
Miscegenation is acutely, from the get go, unhealthy to White men – we know that our women are the best and we are warranted to believe that White women should be somewhere between available and impossible to us as our co-evolutionaries. As Negroes are so clearly destructive to society, it is not too much to expect White women to be empathetic to the perspective and interests of White men; for women to take a step back and see beyond a moment, episode, and the actualization of their autobiography, to see the destruction and havoc that nigger behavioral patterns inevitably wreak.
Nevertheless, a celebratory attitude toward sex, where White boundaries are secure, or at least where strong commitment as such has been secured in the process of revolution, may be legitimized in order to deploy its elemental and Malthusian power as an allied phenomenon on our behalf. As I've mentioned, classification has the advantage of transcending jealousy – I am happy for my sisters and brothers, provided that they are otherwise good people. I don't care so much if my woman had a guy with a big weenie before me, so long as he was White (by the way, I don't care if a nigger had a small weenie – I don't want a woman who has screwed him).
Not to say that it is anything like the only issue regarding the matter, but obviously there are plenty of White men with big weenies if a White woman insists that's what she has to have. More, for those White men not hugely endowed, the possibility exists within his genetic history, though he may require a bit more rubricization of the White Class to be fully appreciated. I don't care if a White woman had a nigger boyfriend who had a small weenie, because it's nigger cultural patterns and behavior that are repugnant – and she should have sense enough to have recognized that before hand. In the meantime, it's probably not too speculative to guess that some White men are evolved not to have big weenies in order to function as circuit breakers, more careful of monogamy, less disposed to get involved in destructive relationships, being forced to take on a broader perspective in the conservation and management of the White pattern – if they are able to prevail over the challenge, in accordance of their genetics, and yield results despite that, they should be duly accorded respect and honor for their part. The sublimation compelled by not being able to whip out the big one and go right at it probably instigates some of the White race's better thoughts and discoveries – not necessarily funny.
Sex is not a mere reptilian matter of a moment or an episode. Sex is confirmation/ disconfirmation of a person, their relations, their politics, their way of life.
Let's recall Aristotle's observation of what makes people distinctly human – that they are mammals, deeply caring about relationships (as we care about our White relationships) and that humans, being biological creatures, are evolved for optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction – quantities and deficiencies becoming toxic. On the weenie criteria, I guess he would say that having the biggest weenie is not distinctly human – that say, horses or elephants have bigger ones. Quantification of one type would lead to imperviousness to environment/habitat – the over grazing of resources; and, the organism that destroys its environment destroys itself.
Beyond weenies, to repeat, but it is again relevant here, with the prohibition of classification, with the charge of racism, and the Constitution's denial of class boundaries and setting individual rights above all considerations, the qualitative patterns of the White race are bound to suffer, are bound to be exploited: again, the one-up position of women ("can I have a date, you are so wonderful"), exacerbated within class disorder, together with their natural inclination to incite genetic competition - note the litmus test that White women predictably give in initial interaction episodes, "What do you think of Blacks?" Say you don't like them and you are often ostracized if not vilified – this situation is ripe for exploitation by niggers, in particular, as they are 150,000 years older, giving them something of a biological hegemony; nevertheless having less to lose being a more fundamentally primitive form; less sublimated and conscientious; having a kind of selection which has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive kind of people – this will correspond with more sex partners, younger, single parent families, poverty, violence, disease, exponential population growth, arrogation and destruction of resources.
I would once again call attention to the relative merits of the gender's preferences, how men may tend to look for that which is cooperative, particularly caring and of subtle beauty; whereas women may tend to look for that which is strong, impervious, undaunted no matter what – now, there are drawbacks to male selection as well, of course – overly sensitive, impractical, decorative, barely functional sorts – but given the circumstances of modernity and anti-racist hegemony, runaway is certainly a danger in the other direction as well, to be blended in mulatoism in a failed attempt to be more manly than Blacks, while doing nothing to decrease the population of Blacks proper – given that the female one-up position has re-emerged with increased significance in absence racial, classificatory boundaries (more, she can always call upon some thug to enforce her opinion) – and as it interfaces with nigger selection, already having evolved through such primitive disorder and low common denominator, I am sorry to say that I think it is at least as valid to criticize women where they are misceginating pigs as it is to criticize men for being wimps. The destroyers of our 40,000 years evolution: White women who do this, are to White men, what rapists, if not murderers, are to women.
The day that White men learned to tolerate miscegenation, and to not be alerted to the sources of its instigation, Jews, etc., was the day the White race took a terrible wrong turn in evolution.
"The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine." ~ Kenneth Burke
For those who have not been immersed in situations with large numbers of niggers, the video clip of the nigger slapping the French girl who would not give her phone number to him (along with the ensuing celebration of the niggers and non-reaction from Whites), is the best illustration that I have seen of what day to day living with niggers is like, in my experience, and how vastly different they are from Whites in their cultural patters.
In summation, with sex being sexy, a celebratory attitude may be esteemed as an option as it is within and accountable to the White Class. However, particularly until such time as a border of the White class is secured, the promulgation for Whites of a sacral attitude toward sex can aid in decreasing anxiety as it allows for recourse in one's co-evolutionaries of the opposite sex through that story of sacrament, to those who can be trusted as not having been opportunistic betrayers; "control variables" as it were, those honest and accountable to the White race; its flexibility of unused potentiality for change amongst the White class being crucial for attendance to units of concern beyond momentary and episodic competition for mating partners. With that, the securing of White class boundaries can be better for White men and women both.
It is here, on the criteria of White Cultural Pattern or The White Class, that sex as a celebration may be afforded. Most of us can see this as an option, a certain amount of promiscuity, which does not repulse us, if it occurs within the White Class and so long as accountability to monogamy, ultimate, exclusive monogamy as a sacred and a viable option, is recognized, respected and protected.
Sex as sacrament is not evaluated within the moment, as it might be with those assessing the best sexual functionary; sex is sexy; in tension between dominance and submission (sexy, provided it is not taken too seriously), also a tension between human dignity and animal drive – this is why the nerdy White lady, a bit older, with a few wrinkles, can be more sexy than the tattooed dancer. Sex is not limited to an episode, as it would be for those who would like to celebrate a variety of partners. By definition, it would move beyond autobiography, as the sacral entails a time-line not so delimited and unrepeatable as are the concerns of the life-span. Sacrament does, however, take note of family relations, the eroticism of the nobility of one's partner's family. Moreover, and ultimately, however, it takes into account the White Cultural pattern, its history and future.
Wolf Europe * Pedophilia is certainly not acceptable. One should not make the choice of such an important matter, by foisting it upon a person not old enough to make an informed judgment.** Using this fundamental tension of human dignity, the bespectacled librarian's sex appeal trumps the tattooed dancer. That dignity and subtlety is part of what makes White women the most sexy on earth. So, don't put a tattoo over your ass! Talk about gilding the lily – how disgusting!
A naked White woman – now that is naked. Compare that to a naked nigger woman – didn't know that a monkey was supposed to have clothes on to begin with. Incidentally, to criticize the ugliness of Black women is an effective angle against Blacks – it is a weak point for them; it can be an effective criticism (can be done with subtlety if one is a ghost wolf) especially when confronting a Nigger male/White woman couple; as it tends to confuse them since the directly offended party is not available for comment. If nigger women are so great, then what are these two doing together?
*** Don't you want to smack people who care about AIDS? It's a stupid person's disease. Basically, don't conduct yourself like a pig and you won't get it. While there may have been a few people who may have had the misfortune of contracting the disease through non-sexual means or through a rogue partner, I rather like the disease, myself. In fact, that's a test of a good woman – if you don't have to use a condom, that's a sign of a good woman.
**** Though I agree that Homos should not occupy a big priority, it seems clear that some people almost cannot help it, and there are some racially helpful queers, I have maintained that Whites should be critical of queers for the following reasons: not only because, as I feel, that acquiescence as such is not acceptable for a man. Not only because it's disgusting; not only because I look at a woman's ass and that's what I want – end of story, for me.
But some criticism of queers should be afforded:
Finally, I would say regarding homos, that while I do not associate with male homos, not being comfortable, basically, to whatever extent there are some, well, more women for us – in theory anyway – I understand that doesn't necessarily make women happy and they are sometimes very hurt by male homos but ... as for lesbians, well, I think as most people do, that it is not quite as bad as male homosexuality. Men should not be so acquiescent. And though I'm not one of these guys who finds lesbians exciting, I might rather have a woman who has been promiscuous with women than one who has been promiscuous with men.1. While some queers obviously can barely help it, and not all queers are characterized by liberal attitudes (e.g. regarding race; some may actually help the struggle), there is another extreme, wherein, in order to excuse themselves of responsibility for their homosexuality, they may tend to gravitate toward biologically deterministic explanations. To that may correspond an overly permissive attitude toward sex and ways of life altogether – thus, for example, queer politics may be too forgiving of interracial relationships.
2. Not taking up the challenge of heterosexual relations, queers may not sufficiently empathize with how difficult heterosexual relations can be. Lacking empathy in the arena of heterosexual relations, they may not lend their critical voice enough against those who can be real bullies in the realm of heterosexuality, as niggers and pretty women can be, for example.
3. To some extent, they may deprive the White population of a more gender neutral, middle range of folks. Lets face it, ultra feminine women (the decorative air-head) and ultra masculine men can be a drag – the unreasonable lunk-head who wants to fight and trash everyone around him (Giles), even people much better and more experienced than him (as Metzger is).
4. Not afforded a platform critical of homosexuals, and rendered inarticulate of homos thus, the young man may feel obligated to over-compensate in order to prove that he is not a queer, wasting his time with sports, or worse, committing acts of useless violence in order be sure that others know that he isn't a queer.
... ...
I'm willing to be fair. One tautology that may help you, that helped alleviate some of my own guilt and anxiety – which had taken on a horrible ambivalence – intentional oscillation – instigated in part by my feminist sister's blood-curdling protestations if I noticed a woman's ass as being pretty or commented on a woman's beauty in any way, for that matter – came from one of those pamphlets that you find in a hospital waiting room – you know the ones, thoroughly illuminated with circle headed people; anyway, this one used the terms emotional, physical, intellectual. I applied to that criteria the commonplace scale of 1-10 and adopted the conviction that I was willing to take my (hypothetical) equal in a woman on a scale of 1-10 in physical, emotional and intellectual categories. I knew for myself that I was fair. After that, I say, let the Augustinian devils (natural accident) weed out the less great individuals.
Augustinian devils, which will kill those of us who cannot hold up to natural causes, rather than selection based on human tests, trickery and agency (Manicheanism), can weed out the unfit - and let that be tragedy enough for our losses as opposed to losing to niggers and Jews. The only life and death Manichean criteria should be those who will not fight and/or separate from non-Whites.
The Spartans did order some couples to breed for the state, and some eugenic up-breeding like that, can be valid. There may also be an option of providing up-breeding for the mediocre; however, I maintain some reservations about conscious tampering with the profundities of nature – particularly as the forebrain is fairly late and prone to superficiality; I'd be hesitant to leave the weeding of the "unfit" to the judgment of the standard knucklehead; those relatively slow and deformed are perhaps even in a good position to do battle; as are the old. These sorts can be expected to fight for Whites, having less to lose. This is one place where I'm in especial disagreement with the right. Of course there are some people who are useless, strapped and drooling in wheel chairs – hard to argue there. But 40,000 years of D.N.A. are deeper than conscious intention can and should try to master. And I am concerned about the slippery slope – you've got to be 6-3 in order to pass muster. Cobb, and I like Cobb, don't get me wrong, but he likes big women – since when did that become so great? Not that I begrudge them but big women tend to become ungainly... actually, I have seen some nice big women..but, anyway..
A positive way of looking at relationships is this – they are a win/win proposition – you either have someone who is appropriate for you or you have your freedom; the moment she does somebody else's weenie is the moment you have your freedom to engage the possibilities of all the great White women out there.