Women’s libbers are so worried that women MIGHT be inferior to men, they do everything within their power to try and prove equality. The left fears that ‘minority’ groups may be inferior. That is their fear, not ours.
— Prometheus
This is good Mantra thinking: stepping back from the immediate squabble and taking a look at the whole picture. In other words, seeing what is BASICALLY wrong with sick thinking, what they are REALLY saying, what their world view is.
C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape, Senior Tempter in Hell, put it perfectly:
“The first advantage of “equality” is that it is based on a good, sound, resounding LIE. The pretty woman woman never claims that she is “equal” in looks to a plain woman. The intelligent man does not claim “equality” of intellect with a stupid one.”
When you STEP BACK AND LOOK AT IT, womens’ libbers do not claim that women, all things considered, are equal to men and minorities do not claim that, on balance, they are equal to whites.
Minority leaders claim that their people ARE whites. Women’s libbers claim that women ARE men. Their mutual cry is:
“We are all the SAME.”
The subtext, which no one seems to step back and look at, is that ANY difference from men makes a woman inferior, any difference from white is inferiority. That is as white racist and male chauvinistic as you can GET.
#1 by Pain on 12/10/2007 - 3:13 pm
Equality means that since everything is the same, there are no observations to make, there are no comparisons to make, and nothing is interrelated. The consequence to all this is that the universe loses its order and becomes random. Since it is random, people must depend on a PC priesthood to make sense of it.
And since we depend on them for our livelihoods and our thoughts, we become each of us separate individuals, are unable to work freely in tandem, and cease being a race.
#2 by shari on 12/10/2007 - 4:12 pm
Thank you Pain, I have often thought that things won’t really turn into a roaring blaze without some kind of grace and mercy. My own faith isn’t so much, but I can’t just say that I don’t believe it. I just hang on.
#3 by Sys Op on 12/10/2007 - 10:50 pm
Great stuff!
The final sub-subtext being white and male are, in general, superior.
Interesting. One of the most shocking affirmations that Jesus made about how God is and thinks and behaves is that He constantly referred to believing women as SONS. Only sons were inheriters unless a family name/line was in danger and then to keep an inheritance, a daughter must marry back into her own kin group and he must use her name for property rights to take affect.
With God and Jesus, once salvation has occurred, all are seen as male co-inheriters with the Son. All are SONS. Since in heaven there is no male or female these facts were extremely pointed and VERY politically incorrect.
When the vessels (and all creation) are returned to perfection (zero entropy and devolution we can see scientifically today), there is not superior or inferior. There is only infinite uniqueness and purpose. Rewards will be completely UNequal and determined by thoughts, words and deeds alone. Simple.
#4 by Simmons on 12/11/2007 - 11:07 am
When I write “step back and look at it” all I get are the usual, “get back on line private and charge” rhetoric. Yes it is high time we analyzed the other side, without over analyzing. White America in general is a very feminine society and its communicates to itself in the feminine cooing voice that emotes “nicely” instead using facts and logic. The Mantra fuses the two methods, yet leans towards hard edged logic. The modern Left all about sanctimony and no responsibility, when the Right used to hold the Left responsible the Left wilted, and today if the Left was held responsible they would throw down their lattes and head for the eco-communes in the hills (which will for some reason be 98+% white)
#5 by danerebor on 12/11/2007 - 5:09 pm
This is why groups like the ARA exist. When they scream and yell at me, I can’t help but think that they’re only trying to deny their real feelings on race. They have no idea what my beliefs really are, they’re just looking for ‘nazis’.
Deep down inside even they know that race really matters. They’re terrified of themselves and of us. Otherwise, they wouldn’t try to scare us out of bookstores.
#6 by Lord Nelson on 12/12/2007 - 6:23 am
I posted the mantra on this blog:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/12/my-riposte-to-b.html
Peter Hitchens is a big time respectable conservative here in the UK. And the Daily Mail is one of our biggest national papers.
Well the site is moderated and after a few hours it did not show up, so then I posted this:
“The rumour everyone is talking about, is that in established politics and media. Both left and right are free to argue forever about which wars to fight, and which drugs to legalize. But there is one thing they must all agree upon if they are to be respectable. And in the end everything they say always amounts to that same thing: Whites are to be made a minority in Europe”
One full day later neither this or the mantra has appeared. I have no doubt that if I had mentioned Black crime stats and the Aryan master race alongside support of the BNP, my comments would have been approved. But its nice to see comments there that support our side and who knows how many others did not get through.
Interesting when you read what was approved that my comments were suppressed.
(I have no doubt that a good Whitakerite like Prometheus, and others, would wipe the floor with Peter Hitchens in a debate. And I am more then confident about taking him on myself)
The point is that if not Mr Hitchens himself, then someone else in real authority read the mantra.
And I believe the truth about the genocide they are supporting terrifies them. I hope more ppl post the mantra there because even though it may not get past moderation, it will be read by some important ppl.
And please post the links to mainstream US media blogs, and I will post it there too.
BTW. I love the word “rumour” the very act of mentioning that word makes it real. So lets spread the rumour!
#7 by Prometheus on 12/12/2007 - 7:46 pm
It was reading Ted Kaczinski’s famous manifesto which turned me away from endorsing the liberalism of the left. It was a real eye opener.
He claims that the left, is not so much a political movement, but a psychological type who are ridden with feelings of inferiority and a drive for power.
The minorities, and their plight, are incidental, and only a means by which they satisfy their cause. They ally with what they percieve to be the underclass, the inferior, the weak because they identify with them. Becuase of their percieved sense of lack of self worth, and ability, they gravitate towards collectivism and oversocialisation. It is also for this reason, the pursue equality, because differences between sexes and race, any difference, in their mind validate those feelings of inferiority.
Understanding this, one then understands why the style of debate, or conflict that our side engages with the left can be quite ineffective. It is not, and has never been rationality and science which attracts the more vocal elements, but the appeal of the movement to their psychology.
A hardcore atheist, and a fundamentalist Christian could have easily swapped roles, had they been born under different circumstances. The atheistic, religion hating communists would have made great accomplices to Torquemada. For many people, their psychology dictates their politics.
This is why discussions like those here are so important. While everyone is working out how to kick the ball, we are learning the game.
#8 by Sys Op on 12/12/2007 - 8:20 pm
Many? How can it not be ALL? Other than liars and provacateurs… worldview/psychology drives it.
#9 by shari on 12/12/2007 - 10:23 pm
And yet, it is so nessessary for people to STOP acting from their psychology and change their minds.
#10 by Prometheus on 12/13/2007 - 9:10 pm
Sys Op says Many? How can it not be ALL? Other than liars and provacateurs… worldview/psychology drives it.
There is a distinction between people who take up a cause, because they believe it to represent thier values, and people who adopt a cause, because fighting for the cause satisfies a drive for power and fulfills a psychological need.
There is always a personal aspect to someones political conviction, but the question that must be asked, is whether this persons political conviction is a means to promote their values, or as a means to satisfy a particular desire.
For many hardcore leftist activists, they have a need to feel solidarity with others, and a low self esteem. The causes they take up, have nothing to do with their values, but they take up these causes because it enables them to feel a bond with other ‘oppressed’ people. It enables them to create a ruling power and feel the underdog.
There are some women who choose a man that is right for them, and there are some, who no matter who they choose, end up with an abusive man who treats them like dirt. The latter example is one who is looking, not for a man, but for a situation. The man is incedental. It is the abusive relationship which this person is inadvertantly looking for.
For many, the political ideals aren’t what draw them, but the relationship that this political CULTURE creates between them and others and between them and the world.