Friday, March 28, 2014

The Liberal

The question remains: 
Am I insane?
I don't think like you.
We aren't the same.

Your message is tolerance, 
yet how intolerant you are.
Is it something personal?
Or just the dreams of a czar?

Your mind has been scrubbed, 
breaths of bubbles when you speak.
You attempt to engage in a debate, 
but your arguments are so, so weak.

Same old regurgitated nonsense.
Stop assuming you're unique.
I've met you a thousand times, 
only a different name and physique.

You're a simple member of the herd.
A sheep running in a rat's race.
Your shepherd is always turned on, 
spewing his message all over your face.

You seek to abolish freedoms, 
like expression, assembly and speech.
What about that tolerance?
Practice what you preach!

Why are you a feminist?
Women have achieved equal rights.
Do you even vote?
Or just let your mouth start fights?

Certain words make you cringe, 
yet you would make a sailor proud.
Your derogatory words are OK, 
but mine are not allowed.

Intolerantly tolerant; 
oxymoronic, yes I know.
Let’s not forget hypocrite, 
since you're eating crow.

Is equality really what you’re after?
Or is it just a game?
I think the question has been answered: 
It's you that is insane.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Is White Nationalism Real?

Theoretically, White Nationalism is the political ideology supporting the formation of a homogenous state or “homeland” for the White race.  Although the definition might vary somewhat, the concept is universally consistent.  Obviously the philosophy is real, but is the movement endorsing the dogma a reality?  Is White Nationalism figurative terminology in efforts to make the ideology more socially acceptable (i.e. “I’m a White Nationalist, not a racist”), or is it an actual movement?

First off, simply put, movements move.  Understandably, Rome wasn’t built in a day, but the concept of White Nationalism is nearing the age of needing heart meds (literally and metaphorically).  Excluding a handful of leafleteers and diversity dodgers, the only movement is that of fingers on a keyboard.  The keyboards allow for just enough recycled thought to prevent total ideological stagnation.  Through the years, numerous would-be White Nationalists have searched the realms of Cyberia in hopes of finding White camaraderie in their geographical region; only to eventually permanently “log out” after discovering the movement is primarily an internet based phenomenon.  It doesn’t take the intellectual to comprehend keyboard removal will simultaneously induce movement default.    

Sure, there will be those in the movement who disagree with my pessimistic observation, but isn’t White Nationalism comprised in racial realism, which is fundamentally supported by social and biological truths? One can’t pick and choose the truths they accept, for the truth doesn’t lie.  As Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

If White Nationalists focused just a fraction of the time they spend defending their character (I’m not a hater, racist, etc) in a proverbial attempt at reinventing the wheel; the wheel might just start to move.  First impression is everything, and that initial meeting took place years ago.  The concern shouldn’t be the opinions of the antis, but the cohesion of the pride.  The two-faced paranoia (paranoia of meeting face-to-face) should be of greater concern than ideological identifying terminology.  White Nationalist is the desired euphemism of the modern day pro-White individual, but any mainstream media coverage, or reference by non-sympathizers will always be the traditional verbiage (racist, white supremacist, neo- nazi, etc).      

Therefore, if only but a few are responsible for movement motion, should those stagnate racialists be labeled accordingly?  Are they White Nationalists, or cyberacialists?  Does race even exist in Cyberia?  The irony of racial unity in the Land of Letters pretty much sums of the functionality of the movement.  Any weirdo, psycho, nut case or even non-White can assume the alter ego of a White Nationalist.  And considering the rampant epidemic that is two-faced paranoia, nobody will ever know (or care).  The internet isn’t to blame, for it is merely a tool.  Unfortunately for White Nationalism it is the tool.  The tool created the cyberacialist, which is responsible for the transformation of an ideology into a hobby.  Ideas evolve, and perhaps “hobby” is the progressive transition to an eventual grassroots movement.    

In conclusion, the term “real” is defined as having actual physical existence.  With a very few minor exceptions, the White Nationalist movement would be better defined as a hobby of like-minded idealists.  The reality of an all-White homeland in the foreseeable future (in America) is comparable to finding the end of a rainbow….    

“Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced” ~ John Keats



In Tolerance for All

The human psyche is a perpetual evolution of perplexity.  What separates mankind from other living creatures is the merit of reason.  With this innate analytical sense, one should presumptuously assume that moral obviousness is a collectively unique virtue.  However, the status quo suggests it’s relatively easy to manipulate the mindset of the masses, and evidently just as easy for the individual to con their conscience.  So how does one’s congenital sense of the obvious erode into a conscious oblivion?

The media and their directwhores have assumed the role of shepherd and conditioned the flock with their memetic schemes, inducing the bizarre acceptance and promotion of self-hatred amongst the ethnic majority.  This self-hatred (fueled by guilt) is the fundamental premise of a hypocritical worldview contingent upon the elimination of hatred with hate (“We hate those who hate!”) – All in the name of tolerance.  The tolerant ones not only love to hate, but are vehemently intolerant to those not of like-mind; thus the phrasing “intolerantly tolerant” is not an attempt at oxymoronic satire, but it’s definitively accurate and ideologically concise.   

It’s worthy of mention that channel-surfing-couch-potatoes are not alone in their susceptibility to contagious mind viruses; although pushing the power button is an effective measure of limiting exposure (a turned-off TV is a turned-on mind).  The perversion of morality, the subversion of identity and the diversion of truth is venomously spewed in our classrooms and churches.  The intolerant ones have sunk their fangs into the hearts of the educational system, and effectively pumped poisonous propaganda into the minds of our children.  The congregations have witnessed the progressive influence of the pulpit’s message; and if not persuaded by the root of all evil, undoubtedly swayed by the winds of social change.

Behind those winds of social change lie the criteria for political correctness.  Under the guise of political correctness, white pride has been reduced to white guilt, while non-white pride has contrarily become an accepted social entitlement.  Is this not an overtly obvious example of a present-day social inequality; or just an added benefit of white privilege? If discrimination is politically correct, then is political correctness socially wrong?

In actuality, the term political correctness is a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak, sanctioned by those whose agenda is reliant upon cultural change.  Bucking the establishment’s political correctness is often met with slanderous insults designed at character defamation (if your character is flawed, then so is your argument).  Those who oppose the intolerant one’s social wrongness are chastised as societal misfits.  If the branded misfits were so ideologically inferior, why the barrage of immature ad hominem attacks?  Would intellectual discourse lacking insulting lingo be a more respected way of promoting tolerance?

The intolerant ones place such emphasis on name-calling due in part to their belief that words effectuate change and justify actions.  For example, recently on a social networking site, I read through several posts on a thread regarding a black basketball player who went into the crowd and pushed a fan for allegedly yelling remarks with racial overtones.  Oddly, the majority of the commenters supported the ball player’s actions.  Not only were the majority supportive of his actions, but many were advocates of more harsh repercussions.  Comments like, “If he used the N-word, the player should have knocked his teeth down his throat and not been suspended.”, “Look at the instigating hag sitting next to him.  I would have knocked her ass out!”, and “I’m not even a basketball fan, but I wish the player would have just punched the old fart instead of pushing him.”

Apparently, several compassionate white commenters assumed the role of speaking for their black brethren:  “The n-word is the worst word in our language.  Nobody should ever utter such vile to a human being. Whites have no idea how it feels to be called that word. Nothing compares to it!”, “Whites continue to oppress blacks on a daily basis as is evident with acts such as this”, and “Here is proof that redneck racists still exist.”  And where would tolerance be without a little hypocrisy; “How dare that white trash idiot call someone the n-word!” 

After the smoking keyboards cooled, it was determined that the fan didn’t use the “n-word” after all.  He allegedly yelled, “Go back to Africa!”  One would speculate that at the player’s current competitive level, he has heard every insult in the book from unruly fans.  For a phrase to instigate such fury, apparently Africa is a godforsaken place that should not be wished upon friend nor foe. 

The WORDS of the fan earned him a ban from attending future games.  The ACTIONS of the player resulted in a three game suspension.  To quote a commenter whose post received over thirty likes, “He should’ve knocked the old man out for three more games!!!”  Really?  Is this the kind of rhetoric sheltered by the umbrella of tolerance - a socio-evolutionary stairway for “knockout game” amnesty?

I thought it only appropriate to reply with a hypothetical question of my own. “What if the ball player had been white and a black fan in the crowd yelled, ‘Go back to Europe!’  Would you have the same opinion? Are racial double standards a social norm in America?”  My question was able to muster one comment on the popular thread; that from a white man who only needed one word for his reply: “Racist!”  I suppose I should have expected the obvious. 

Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.” ~ George Orwell


Genocide by Guilt

If the dwindling white herd were to be summoned to their spewing shepherd for a newsflash, in which experts predicted white racial extinction within the next century, what reactions might occur?  How many would grind their teeth and mumble self-hating epithets, cursing the shepherd for interrupting their afternoon soap opera?  How many would change the channel in favor of the solicitations of the fly-infested-foreign-children whose survival is dependent upon guilt-ridden donations; eagerly awaiting the “800” number to scroll across the bottom of the screen so they can fulfill their God complex by virtuously donating the last $30 of their SSI check to stave off the child’s hunger for the next month (meanwhile, the American veteran is left to sleep under a bridge and eat from a dumpster)?  How many would rather take pleasure viewing another “Breaking News” report documenting a notable Caucasian chastised into unrecognizable obscurity for making a subtle mention of a semi-stereotypical taboo remark (i.e. blacks and watermelon, Jews and greed,  gays and AIDS, etc.), yet sympathize with black celebrities when they are candidly quoted justifying acts of violence as retribution for white supremacy (e.g. Jamie Foxx brags about killing white people and gets a “Best Actor” award; Mel Gibson goes on a drunken anti-Semitic tirade and hasn’t been heard from since)!  How many armchair quarterbacks would angrily call the cable provider for interrupting the ball game and their day of “idolizing the black athlete while sitting on the couch drinking beer” (“That doesn’t affect me, nobody on my team is white!  Blah, blah, blah, yeah who cares – just turn back on my damn game!”)?  How many would just turn the TV off with a genuine lack of opinion?

Does the shepherd pasture the herd in fields poisoned with self-hatred, as the circling vultures that only eat white meat discriminatively await their meal?  Is the shepherd himself a hungry wolf in sheep’s clothing, deceptively gouging the eyes with the sword of shame and bludgeoning the soul with guilt?  Okay, enough dramatic analogies:  Simply put, are white people really that stupid!?

The only thing sacred about white culture is its demonization.  Contrarily, everything about non-white culture is sacred except demonization.  In this social-era of human equality, how does such an anomaly become an accepted norm?  The herd of humanity embraces racial hypocrisy as the ethical code of ethnicity, rendering a fading white dynasty held to an unfair set of double standards, resulting in an inevitable future epic fail.

Perhaps, white naivety lies within the compassion of the people.  Whites have a sense of moral obligation that has not only been detected, but preyed upon by those lacking that same moral righteousness.  White people, for the most part, are a God-fearing folk, whom are guided by the light of faith on the quest of eternal bliss.  Whites cling to their religion, their family and their freedoms, and have throughout history been the sacrificial lambs responsible for the procurement of liberty and the quality of life that ensues.  White people burden themselves with the responsibility of a brighter future at the expense of a turbulent tomorrow – a pretentious people whose prosperity is noble.  Whites are like that old dog that is loyal to a fault; not questioning of commands, just obedient.  The motive of the command lies within the handler, not the dog – for the dog just wants to wag its tail and be the ever faithful companion.

Is there a solution to this insanity?  A madness that has evolved into a recipe for white genocide!  The present day white genocide is the concoction of years of premeditated social engineering in the form of psychological warfare.  Anti-white “think tanks” have diagnosed the virtue of compassion as the vulnerability, and via schematic coercion manifested it into white guilt.  This guilt acts similarly to an auto-immune disease and through psychological warfare (i.e. memes) it spreads feverishly, bastardizing the psyche into a loathsome paradox. 

Those who contest white genocide are labeled slanderously (racist, white supremacist, Nazi) and therefore their voice becomes mute.  Those mute voices have been forced to migrate to the virtual world (Cyberia) in order to be heard.  Cyberia has become the battleground for white survival.  The plot reads like that of an apocalyptic sci-fi thriller:  The heartbeat of the white race lies within the fingertips of the Cyber warriors – Stop white geNOcide! (Based on a true story)

Unfortunately, some diseases are incurable.  At the time of this writing, there is yet a magical pill that cures and/or prevents white guilt.  As individuals, we can only control our actions, and perhaps influence those near us, but the flock’s fate is pending.  A date with destiny awaits history; the only question is who will write it?

“The worst guilt is to accept and unearned guilt.”  ~ Ayn Rand