Liberalism’s Kid Glove: If You Need A Condom, Maybe You Should Get to Know That Person Better.
One of the best litmus tests as to whether or not you are being too liberal, too promiscuous with regard to sex, is whether or not you need to use a condom. If you don’t know someone well enough to be sure that you are not going to get a disease or have an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe you ought to get to know them better before having sex with them. If you really like someone and if they are really worth it, you are not likely to have to use condoms at all. And would you really like to use them?
Subtitle: don’t forget to forget your condom. A.I.D.S. is a most beautiful disease, generally targeting people who deserve to die for their bullying, irresponsible, reckless treatment of sex.
Particularly when the bounds of EGI are unguarded, the need to treat sex carefully, as an act which can endorse or undermine our EGI, becomes all the more important. Sex will be used by our enemies in psy-ops, such as the profusion of interracial porn. It will be used by our enemies to promote liberal politics, empower those horribly destructive to our interests and to dis-empower those thoughtful of our interests – those concerned with our people in our broad pattern. It will be used by our antagonists to outbreed our race, including outbreeding some of our most qualitatively differentiated genetic capital. As de facto safeguards of liberalism, they have their go-to “moral arguments” to distract us from the moral re-ordering of our people.
Of the hundreds, or thousands, of women who made themselves available to Magic Johnson, he said: “I tried to accommodate as many as possible. Some of them were unbelievable.”
This liberalism, this irresponsibility to our EGI, is not what we’re here to defend. With unspeakable irresponsibility and selfish uncaring (to say the least), these R selectors bring into the world behavior and genetics destructive to any reflective people – especially our European people.
“No glove no love”, so the motto of condom proponents goes – a condom being referred to as a “glove”, in their liberal slang.
Of the hundreds, or thousands, of women who made themselves available to Magic Johnson, he said: “I tried to accommodate as many as possible. Some of them were unbelievable.”
This liberalism, this irresponsibility to our EGI, is not what we’re here to defend. With unspeakable irresponsibility and selfish uncaring (to say the least), they bring into the world behavior and genetics destructive to any reflective people – especially our European people.
No thoughtful person makes AIDS prevention a cause.
Africa is one of the only places where AIDS is on the rise. That is good. Their population needs to be drastically reduced and its increase, let alone interbeeding with others, needs to be thwarted.
After marriage, the condom is taken by liberalism as one of its lines of defense. Don’t be fooled, there’s no substitute for the White class and its bounds. This holds the freedom in sacrament and in celebration that gives our people life and health as opposed to destruction.
There can be a time to be Dionysian, promiscuous for some who choose to be – i.e., among our own people – but that time is when the borders of our EGI are secured and members accounted for. Until then, good riddance to those who treat our genetic treasures irresponsibly; it couldn’t happen to worse, more deserving people of a miserable fate.
With Charlie Sheen “preferring lambskin condoms”, in particular, an older slogan comes to mind as particularly apt to capture the refrain of those who would contest the facilitation of liberalism – they are treating those who engage in reckless and socially destructive behavior “with kid gloves” – that is to say, they are protecting them too much and therefore enabling bad behavior in the long term.
Along with “No glove no love”, as the motto of condom proponents goes – a condom being referred to as a “glove”, in their liberal slang….
Meaning
Handle a situation, or a person or an object, delicately and gingerly.
Origin
Kid gloves are, of course, gloves made from the skin of a young goat. I say ‘of course’ but, in fact, when they were first fashioned in the 18th century they were more often made from lambskin, as that was easier to come by. They were clearly not intended for use when you were pruning the hedge and wearing kid gloves was the sartorial equivalent of pale white skin, that is, it indicated that the wearer was rich enough to indulge in a life of genteel indoor idleness. The earliest mentions of kid gloves are from England in the 1730s and the following is a typical report of a wealthy gentleman, laid out in his ‘Sunday best’, from Bagnall’s News, in The Ipswich Journal, December 1734:
The Corpse of Mr. Thorp, A Distiller in Soho, who died a few Days since, said to be worth £10000 was put into his Coffin, quilted within with white Sattin; and after several yards of fine Holland [best-quality linen] were wrapt about his Body… on his Head was a Cap of the same Holland tied with a white Ribbond; he has about his Neck two Yards of Cambrick; a Cambrick Handkerchief between his Hands, on which he had a pair of white Kid Gloves: and in this manner he lay in state some Days and was afterwards buried in Buckinghamshire.
At that time, kid gloves were viewed as rather ostentatious and only suitable for the nouveau riche – much as heavy gold chains might be viewed today.
Daily Beast, ‘Porn World in Panic Over Charlie Sheen’s HIV Diagnosis’, Nov 20, 2015:
‘There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…’
Well-known for his porn star companions, Charlie Sheen’s recent admission to being HIV-positive has sent a ripple of fear through the adult industry. There’s no protocol in place for this. There are no records of who Sheen’s hired, thus no quarantine list for the porn stars he’s been sexually active with.
In the semi-regulated world of adult film, when an HIV scare is made known everyone asks, “Did I perform with the person who tested positive?” Fear turns to panic if it was a close call, relief if it wasn’t. That’s only after a name is released—or patient zero comes forward. Production shuts down, quarantine lists are drawn up for first generation, second, third, and so on. An ideal “who’s performed with whom” list chronicling before and after known exposure is made available. Some call this “the honor system.”
Unfortunately, those outside the business don’t always play by the industry’s self-regulated rules. Needless to say, former Two and a Half Men actor Charlie Sheen plays by his own rules.
“There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…like who have I had sex with that has had sex with them, or have I had sex with a girl who has had sex with Charlie?” says Alana Evans, 2015 AVN Hall of Fame recipient. “Maybe we can get Charlie to put together a list of all the porno girls he’s had sex with so the rest of us can make sure we’re okay? That’d be great.”
In case you missed it, Sheen admitted on the Today Show that he was HIV-positive, and has known of his diagnosis for four years. He also alleged “all sexual partners have known” about his condition with “no exception.”
While some are applauding Sheen for his bravery in coming forward, there’s speculation amongst industry insiders as to why now? Some credit the 27-year-old blonde who spoke anonymously to the Daily Mail with forcing Sheen’s hand. She estimates the A-lister had sex with at least 50 porn stars since his diagnosis and “fears the porn industry could face an ‘HIV epidemic’ as a result.”
‘There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…’
Sheen’s latest role as victim is a bit hard to swallow. He paints a vivid portrait of his suffering at the mercy of his addictions, depression, and multi-million dollar extortions from ex-lovers. Even so, that his two ex-goddesses are contradicting his story raises questions concerning his credibility.
Ex-goddess Bree Olson, who dated and lived with Sheen for seven months in 2011, appeared on The Howard Stern Show to claim she had no idea about her ex’s condition, and claimed she learned about his HIV-positive status “right along with everyone else.”
“He never said anything to me,” Olson added. “I was his girlfriend. I lived with him. We were together. We had sex almost every day for a year—with lambskin condoms.”
Now lambskin condoms—incredibly thin condoms are billed as providing the closest thing to not using condoms at all—only guard against pregnancy and do not prevent the transmission of HIV. Olson told Stern that while she wanted to use standard Trojan condoms, lambskin was Sheen’s condom of choice.
While Olson tested negative for HIV, in Sheen’s home state of California it’s a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison for a person with HIV to have unprotected sex with the intent to infect someone who’s unaware of their status. Though that is incredibly hard to prove in criminal court, California also has a misdemeanor charge carrying up to six months in prison for willfully exposing others to HIV.
….
Same Dr Fauci whose HIVprogressivism diverted untold$ from the responsible to sexually irresponsible
Who is Dr. Fauci?
Since January 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci has been one of the lead members of the Trump Administration’s White House Coronavirus Task Force addressing the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the United States.
Dr. Fauci is a physician and immunologist, who gained notoriety as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) beginning 1984 when he was looked upon as the leading expert on HIV AIDS. He was persuaded to merge the treatment of AIDS with “progressive” political activism, to treat HIV as everybody’s problem.
And how much money has been spent??? keeping alive people whose AIDS education could be summed up in a few short words?
Don’t conduct yourself like a pig and you won’t get the disease.
Maybe you should know who you are having sex with?
There has been much discussion, and with good reason, about the balancing the cost of keeping low risk groups at home, shutting down businesses, etc. for the COVID-19 crisis.
What has been the cost of keeping alive people who irresponsibly abuse what is to conscientious people such an important act as sex?
It is an untold tragedy, the good that the money spent on AIDS could have done to people who conduct their lives responsibly with regard to sex.
An utter slap in the face to humanity.
It only became everybody’s problem when they penalized responsible humanity by making them pay for destructive behavior.
Clinton (with sex slave, Chauntae Davies), and Ghislaine Maxwell
…as he takes off on Epstein’s Lolita express to bring relief to Africa.
Queers Assuming The Position
I am one who tends to think that concern regarding homosexuality is exaggerated beyond its true importance in WN circles.
Perhaps because I was at one time confronted directly and from a complexity of different angles with the implication to myself, but having no doubt that I wasn’t, and wanting to be unburdened of any accusation’s tedium, I was forced to make efficient intellectual work of putting aside any such accusation, to master the ways in which the issue could be deftly set aside as it is – largely irrelevant.
4,308 words
I have an ambiguous continental European look that in some lights has me looking tough and menacing. But by strange contrast, in other lights, I appear impish – I have “that look.” It hasn’t happened all that much, but from time to time people have thought I was a queer or said that I look like one.
Though I have not been the most popular man among women, some women seem to like me, including some very pretty ones, and that is good enough for me to be ok with how I look. Women were always beautiful to me, unbelievably beautiful.
Thus the accusation was more annoying than deeply troubling in thinking back on it, as my core identity is so based in appreciation, and well, lust for women, that I simply cannot relate to a man wanting to engage in a homosexual act what-so-ever. It is bizarre.
I liked and felt this male identity, its privilege to stand up and fight for what is right. Early on I felt it corresponding with a rule, that in some important respects, a man is not fundamentally acquiescent. The first I was aware of any phenomenon of homosexuality I had an unequivocal aversion to it as a violation of that male integrity – to that a man does not acquiesce, a female, maybe.
The he-man-woman hater phase of childhood was a matter of protecting myself from humiliating defeats by girls, including my feminist older sister. Once puberty hit, I liked women a bit too much – physically, anyway, to where their character in context of America’s liberalism and anti-racism was not always, but too often disappointing.
The torrents of anti-White male hatred exploded after the Viet Nam war was over, when there was no longer a need to be deferential to men for that ultimate sacrifice based on the denial of their intrinsic human value as it were.
Right at the critical age of 13, MS Magazine experienced its only year of black ink, women were hostile to EVERYTHING it seemed. What could be more horrible than having the people (women) you are born to love being trained to hate you and actually acting on it. It was near impossible to do anything about it. There was the wimp/pig oxymoronic performance requirement as previously noted, demanded by feminists, whereby you could always be cast as one of those two categories and put in the “wrong”, no matter how you tried to express your appreciation of women. It was overwhelming, pervasive through media, a media at the time to which there was no talking back – it was an ominous buildup 24/7 of being told how terrible you were as a White man, and legitimizing the most hideous betrayal in alliance with black power. Though the dam had not burst, the signs were clear and pointing toward the worst nightmare. Worst of all, women often seemed to be indifferent, if not all for it.
For me, unfortunately, my family offered no recourse from this social maelstrom but was if anything, more harrowing. My mother, always high-strung, became more and more hostile until she was unremittingly hostile, accusing me of a bewildering cacophony of bad motives and characteristics. I was 13 for god’s sake but she prohibited me from defending myself and “meta-communicating” to clarify and revise her pejorative attributions of me. Her hostility culminated in her having a second nervous breakdown (her first was when I was 11). It was neurologically related, as evidenced by her pupils becoming tiny. In one instance she spread Christmas cards throughout the house “to make it like Disney Land for the starving children of the world” and peed on the floor so that they could have a drink. Apprised the acute difficulty, my sister came back from college and was the only one there with me for that episode – angry with me for having been there. I understood that my mother was sick and was only relieved for undeniable evidence of her illness, as her hostility to me was unbearable. My sister’s person was no less a challenge as she went between icy cold displays that she was stronger than any man; to an emotional extreme of blood curdling protests if I observed that a woman was pretty, had a nice ass, whatever. Nevertheless, her feminism, though it was real and versed in the literature, was kept cunningly in the background and protected from critical revision. I later figured that she adopted the following rules toward men, to do to them what she felt they had done to women throughout history. I was the easiest mark to test her stance: to trivialize, to humiliate, to limit and to control men. Her usual greeting when entering a room was a very loud belch. Occasionally, presenting her masticated food would add display to her confidence and lack of self consciousness.
When she accused me of thinking it is legitimate to rape a woman for dressing provocatively – something I had never even thought, let alone maintained – I stopped talking to her for ten years, realizing vividly that she was simply geared to find in me examples of the stereotypical male chauvinist that she wanted to persecute.
She did build a successful career for herself as a divorce lawyer – bought herself a beautiful home in Short Hills and goes scuba diving around the world several times a year. For my strong dissatisfaction with his vulgar pragmatism, my father, for a last bit of spite from the grave, put her in charge of his estate. And she ruined many an opportunity for me with her antagonism and indifference, as she would. Steering clear of the worst level of bad, but not many levels above. It is, after all, about trivializing, limiting, humiliating and controlling, not about dignifying a man with an outright attempt to finish him.
I am digressing, but to make a point. Women’s reactions to the confused roles of modernity, their “wails” and this ominous feminist build up of anti-White man rule structure that White women participated in all too often during the 70’s and 80’s, made it ironically difficult to not be a misogynist for me, caring about what our co-evolutionary women should-be in essence, as I did.
In fact, I did become a misogynist for a number of years until I got out of America and was able to experience White women in a homogeneous White country, calm, loving and loyal to their men. Not perfect, but their version of egomania limited in the complexity and extent of its impact compared to what it is for women and their capacity for treachery in the American context. It is very nice to be able to like women again (as people, always liked them physically), while retaining the lesson that one should not respect them so much as to put their proclivities beyond criticism.
My father and brother were no help and boxed-out the “macho” route such that discussion to solve problems was “all bullshit.” My father was rather proud of his ungrammatical way of speaking, “No, it don’t work that way. He come from the North Ward of Newark”, etc. My mother seemed to think it was cute, encouraged it. In fact my father viciously attacked innocent questions while humiliating anything like intellectual inquiry with his native strength. Both parents typically humiliated as nonsense what really would be my only recourse – the intellectual route. But this steepest of routes had another formidable obstacle which was my older brother’s jealousy. Like a bear waiting upstream to swipe to death any fish that he did not take to eat, he was determined that I not be able to think clearly, calmly and with confidence. A constant array of insults and perturbations. I saw women choosing this kind of male and I was repulsed. They seemed to be blaming the men they chose and choosing men they could blame.
However, before making my way out of misogyny, the maze held some further twists for me. There was nobody to talk to and so I was an inarticulate mess going into my late teens and twenties. I could barely talk then (that’s why I take it with a grain of salt when people criticize my writing; I look at where I started). Compounding the confusing antagonism of my family, the rule structure of America made operations of logic for the most part superficial as was the development of ordinary labor skills only a means to participate in and advance a system that augured nothing but destruction of everything that I deeply cared about. I did not want to know how to make this thing work. I wanted to know who cared about going a different way and how to share in influence with them. I could cope with no major, academically, but art, though it was a way to get into a good school.
Still, it didn’t look good for a man to be taking-up so impractical a path in America as being an artist. Add to that the aforementioned impish look that I had in some lights, the appearance of “sensitivity” coming out of my situation as it were, an ambivalence toward women leaning heavily toward misogyny, even though experientially based..
…with rooms difficult to find for students in college towns, fate began looking only more eerie. My first room was in an Oakland, California house owned by a queer guy. Whatever. He left me alone and I was busy with school. The next year I transferred to Boston. I got a room in a big house, turns out owned by a queer guy. There were lots of people living there, not all of them queer in this big, lively atmosphere. So again, whatever. But that was only a sublet, and I had to find another place mid-semester when I did not have a lot of time for a search. I took a room in a house owned by a homely middle aged queer associate of theirs, assured that he would not bother me, knowing that I was straight. And he did not bother me but this was not the lively atmosphere of many but rather a few months of just me and this guy living in his sad, dingy house. Eventually another queer guy rented another room. Young guy, personable, normal in a lot of ways besides being a queer. The first time that I ever saw men kiss one another was when he invited his boyfriend over and french kissed him (yech!). A bit nerdish, but kind of a normal looking guy – really disgusting to see them do this. The world was starting to get a bit too weird for me, but school was hard and that is where my attentions needed to be. Jim, his name was, thought that I was an ok guy (I guess because I am) and he proposed that we get out of this gloomy situation by taking an apartment with a straight friend of his for the next year. He’d found a nice apartment on Mission Hill. I did not want to live with queers anymore so I looked around for an affordable apartment but found it near impossible, especially from a distance in New Jersey over the summer. So, with the idea that the other guy there would be straight as well and its being a nice and affordable apartment, I decided to go for it so that I could move through another year of studies with my living circumstances pre-arranged.
Well.
A couple months on the “straight guy” comes out of the closet and I am now living with two queers. To make matters worse, they start having these queer parties, all sorts of flamers but also some guys you’d never suspect. Some overtures were made to me but not as much as you might think, with its never really being a question to me, they understood that they were going to get a no thanks with the firmness or stirnness of whatever necessity called for.
Nevertheless, these circumstances were mounting up on my psyche and I still had too much ambivalence toward women to be confident and successful with them. I’m getting creeped-out, the queers were giving me the willies as ever, but throwing implications my way. Even so, if god was trying to tell me something I was answering back no! a thousand times no! You want to know what I think? I see a woman’s ass and that is what I want! It may not be nice, but that is where it begins. Still, there were these eerie circumstances and not having other resources, I fell back on religion. I was so scared. I started reading the bible every day! I kept that up the whole time that I was there. That’s when I went through that religious phase that I spoke of.
Butt, I digress. All this forced me to think about and make efficient work of the queer issue, because it really was not an issue for me personally, but having to think about it for the matter of social perception and impact, here are the conclusions that I reached.
That while there is a proclivity to homosexuality among some small percentage of the population and probably always will be, perhaps as a kind of cybernetic balancing for more practical, gender neutral people against the exaggerated and impractical extremes of very masculine males and very feminine females, it is precisely because heterosexual union is not a hundred percent determined that people should be able to be critical of homosexuality in order to discourage it and minimize its negative impact.
Nevertheless, there is another extreme of over-differentiation of the genders. Exaggerated gender roles, whether the sheer, decorative female or the brute macho man are a drag – impractical on an individual level (Bowery might suggest overly practical on a group level, auguring eusociality, even). The opposite of the confidence which decorative, puerile females so admire is empathy; too much confidence as displayed in hyper-masculinity is also counter to sufficient intellectual breadth in authentic European expression.
It probably is true that homosexuals often have mothers who cater to their every wish (and fairly weak fathers), and so do not see women as a challenge. As you can see, I did not have that problem, but it seemed typical of the queers that I knew.
One of the reasons why queers never bothered me too much is because I looked upon them as less competition – hey, more potential choices among women for me. Regarding female homosexuals, if I am honest (and I could be wrong in this sentiment) as well, if they are bisexual, I would rather have a woman who has had other women than other men in her past. And it is certainly better than having miscegenation in her past.
While this strikes me as what should be the normal first instinct with regard to homosexuality, the least maturity should not be satisfied with that. When hearing enough women, you come to find that a lot of them are very hurt by it. And it becomes clear that the very example of “more women for us” is a fair analogy of the liberal women who shrugs her shoulders and does not have a problem with pretty White women going to Negroes, probably with a similar motivation in many instances, that it is less competition. Not good.
There are other problems with queers, of course. I am sorry to report it, but the number of sex partners that some of these guys apparently went through was horrific, like nothing I’ve seen among White hetero populations.
It is not nice of me perhaps, but I might come out of my closet as a secret fan of the A.I.D.S. Virus. If there was ever a disease that targeted the right people: those dealing indiscriminately with such an important matter as sex deserve its death penalty as far as I am concerned. I really resented all the money devoted to its cure and the facilitation of the lifestyle that went into its genesis.
Then there is the problem with homosexuality being encouraged that I alluded to above. There are certain people who should be a little more gender neutral as many if not most activities in life are not so dependent on masculinity and femininity; thus, these kinds would provide a necessary balance to brute and anti-social pragmatism of ultra macho men being taken to an impractical extreme where they cannot see circumspection of the pattern in its myriad expression and requirements; or to the extreme of the decorative female who, being uselessly feminine, can see nothing of life’s problems that should not be taken care of by a sock on the jaw from the said man. In not taking-up the challenge of heterosexuality, queers may not be sufficiently empathetic to just how painful and difficult (and truly unfair) the realm of heterosexuality can be and therefore only lend weight to the oppressors of the fair. Whereas in being heterosexual, these more gender neutral types might be of great assistance in bringing critical attention to exaggerations in gender differentiation which can lead to less distinctly human conduct – e.g., terrible bullying and piggish, if not horrifically unjust conduct in sexuality and other respects of our genetic pattern and legacy. Perhaps the encouragement of homosexuality depletes more balanced types and sends gender differentiation into exaggerated and unhealthy gender specializations, as opposed to people being whole un-to-themsleves, with some dignified favoring of their born gender role’s normal requirements.
I hate to say it, but there sort of is such a phenomenon as “homophobia.” You know what I mean, a kind of over tendency to see homosexuality in things. The problem that I have with that is how it effects younger men, who may be over-stressed as a result of this incitement – combining with the complexity of ambivalence toward women in a situation where our profound genetic legacy is put so much at risk, a risk to exploitation from antagonistic and distant racial groups which is often bewilderingly taken for granted as “OK” by women in this liberal context – such that the young man, feeling overly compelled to prove that he is a real man by a low common denominator of masculinity, can do stupid things. Me playing high school football for example – it was a complete waste of time that should have been devoted to developing academic and social skills. There are worse examples of course, guys getting into violent altercations and having various destructive consequences in their lives as a result.
Hence, the general bias toward the small percentage of queers that there are probably should be a questioning attitude of, really? You think fudge-packers are ok? What sort of account do you offer for that? This account requested begins to take away the argument that it is strictly biologically determined in the cases where it is not so very determined.
Accounts may reveal that they were molested by a male as a child (as in the case of my “straight room mate” who came out of the closet). I am not aware of the science, but if there is a corollary between homosexuality and pedophilia, that is a serious matter.
That brings us to another problem with homosexuality and why people should be able to be critical of it, particularly why White Nationalists should be able to be critical of it.
Because homos can have a strong need to not be blamed for their homosexuality, they may gravitate toward biological determinist arguments. These correspond with overly liberal politics all around – “people can’t help their sexuality and their practices, therefore we must adjust.” By extension you cannot blame mudsharks as they cannot help but do what they are doing, etc. There are many other examples where liberal politics, and the “that’s just the way it isness” of biological determinism, and mere adjustment to it, would suit the needs of guilt relief. Their liberal politics deterministically justified would tend to be at odds with the interests of WN.
Having said and been through all of that, I still think that WN tends too often to get carried away in addressing this problem. It doesn’t make a great deal of sense to me for it to occupy such a frequent and emphatic topic. Perhaps my equanimity regarding the issue has to do not only with the fact of having been forced to be thorough enough in my criticism of it to be done with it as something theoretically challenging. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I have been fortunate enough such that, barring the college roommate situation, I have not been confronted by it in any in-your-face way. I wasn’t molested as a child. There are no “gay pride” parades in the streets where I live. I have seen a few girls walking hand in hand and kissing to my surprise, but not often. As I’ve said before, there are some queer bars known in town. I do Not go there. Nobody could make me go there. They don’t solicit me or bother me in anyway. I could be just lucky, not living in a town where there are these revolting parades; not having a child who is thinking about going that way, having been influenced by the obvious Jewish campaign to promote homosexuality as one of its PC contingents against White men and family.
These circumstances different than mine acknowledged, I have also known homosexuals who are otherwise not liberal. I have known homosexuals who are racial. It makes sense for White homosexuals to be averse to other races, blacks in particular, with their hyper-masculine evolution; and Muslims with their religion, can be very brutal with queers. Thus, there is a motivated anti-anti-racist force among them that I believe we may as well allow to help us provided they are accountable to not be in other ways very bad. There will probably be circumstances when they are effective agents to our cause, undercover and otherwise.
However, we should be able to remain critical. One of the problems that I have observed with Counter-Currents, for example, is this concept that they have of an elite cadre of males, perhaps invoking the classical Greeks, which conveniently includes a special, if not necessary place for homosexuality. It has a predilection for some racially unhealthy frameworks such as its Nietzsche cult. I have always found Nietzsche suspect in his singular perspective and valuation of big, strong men. Its like a homosexual perspective and his over valuation of masculinity is part of his toxicity. I rarely read him admiring the cooperative, sensitive qualities that a normal man admires and values in his gaze toward women. But rather predominantly the hyper-competitive will to power, the master slave relation of a self overcoming man impervious to social and environmental constraint. Something a puerile female could admire along with bull-dykes and floating fairies.
For its predilections, Counter-Currents can have a susceptibility to these anti-White racial influences. Such as that of Mark Dyal, who I believe was deliberately trying to promote an anti-White agenda through his “transcendent” Nietzscheanism. He was literally saying that most White men are disgusting. He was promoting an a-racial cult of masculinity, as racial advocacy of Whites was so bourgeoisie; it is so transparent a group proxy in lieu the individual power we are bereft of; racial advocacy is coming from the disgusting White weaklings we are compared to the big-strong-hunky-over-men he so admires. We need to be culled, to be made hard – sure we do, to become like the Negro who Nietzsche so admires, the one who, unlike White men, has a good digestive tract and is so quickly done with problems, not bemoaning them in “resentment.” We are to become mulatto supremacists (and by the way, get over this anti-Americanism, for it is the test of the strong).
Yes, puerile females love Nietzsche, as do fags, because he shares their admiration for the same thing – primitive men with a capacity to wield arbitrary power like a ni**er. But what their fawning and fixated gaze toward masculinity blinds them to is that this hyper-masculine man, like a ni**er, is without the level of creative sublimation that characterizes the greatness of White men, the worlds they build and the women we co-evolve.
While the frequent charge from White Nationalists that White men are somehow not acting men enough may be well intentioned and certainly contains some truth – we need to be able to act in accordance with our manly instincts, but in accordance with White manly instincts, not like a n***ger, Jew or some sort of hive insect. Moreover, again, with White females being as one-up as they are within the disorder of modernity, pandered to from more directions and more (wrongly) confident in their predilections than ever, it is more the case that articulate critique of their position needs to be rendered and circulated.* It is easier, more practical and appropriate for them to be called upon to act more fairly and with feminine decency than it is to incite White men to act like hyper-assertive Negroes or gaming Jews.
* Adding that it must be taken into account that there tends to be more, or happier, opportunities for females to make mistakes.
…
Instructions on how to give a blow job, including on how it can be ok for one night stands.
To be as uninhibited as this woman is, giving completely graphic instructions and attitudinal coaching on how it can be perfectly ok, even in one night stands, to give blow jobs (the term ‘fellatio’ falls by the wayside as a fig-leaf of inhibition) provokes a questioning of her position and its power: Coming from a pretty White woman, this lack of inhibition, not especially qualified beyond whether the individuals involved are comfortable and have a sense of reciprocal fairness, provokes the question of whether this is irresponsible bullying of the social realm.
Commenting on Jen Scharf, ‘Church of Entropy’s most recent stream, I heard the interlocutors discussing morality in terms of objectivity, physics, products of ‘the mind’, a nihilism to be grappled with in sheer terms of power…
This is all very great nonsense. I noted that social interaction is the ground of morality – negotiated there as matter of practicality, as much to achieve cooperation for leveraged ease beyond brute struggle and conflict as anything.
Yes, we have to respect the somewhat arbitrary biological imperative behind sexual drives, individual boundaries and prerogatives.
However, taking the example of this woman, we must also observe that her beauty and resource did not come of a vacuum, but were born through the struggles of her parents, forebears, social systems and rule structures which facilitated their survival; evincing the resource and beauty which suggests her health.
That is to say, far more consideration and account should be requested, as she speaks and recommends her lack of inhibitions to the public, as to how she effects our social capital.
Sex is not merely a normal biological function, not merely a means to give pleasure and have fun with people that you think are cute.
While this kind of disinhibition can reveal a liberation of vital forces of certain parts of the system which may have been unduly constrained, it also conceals other ramifications of the sexual act – as it may play into narrow and short sighted confirmation of persons and politics that really don’t deserve it; while disconfirming others, whose virtues, perspective and the products of ther sublimation may deserve more respect.
Elsewhere, I have noted that a large part of what makes sex sexy is the tension between human dignity and the yielding to animal drive; and with that, a tension between human dignity and yielding to the brute interpay of dominance and submission ….a yielding or not, which evokes an integation and empathy of submission and dominance on the part of both genders.
And this tension which makes one ‘sexy’ will depend, at least for better Europeans, on maintaining the dignity of human concerns far sublimated from the sexual act.
Of course the sexual act is closely tied, especially for we Europeans, more evolved for ‘K’ strategy, with a concern that it is the long evolved means by which people, hopefully responsible people, come into the world by responsible consideration.
That is one reason why the more sensitive among us can be disturbed by what is to us the alien lack of inhibition that bespeaks the irresponsible momentary and episodic emphasis of ‘R’ strategy (as opposed to concern for levels of relationship and biological pattern), a conditioning, perhaps, of the pop psychology of Freud and Marcuse, that was born in indifference, if not downright antagonism to our social-biological systems. This lack of social inhibition is putting our systems and social capital at risk.
Make no mistake, so long as our people exist, we are, in an important sense, a part of a social and biological system. And if we are not a part of a system, then we do not exist as a people. Which isn’t true. We do exist. It is Noel Ignatiev who is dead – literally and figuratively.
This woman says that she considers it ok to give blow jobs in one night stands. She does seem to indicate that you should take precautions, but says that she does not use condoms, claims to just kind of know who she is giving blow jobs to. Inasmuch as that is true, her guess would have to be taking a lot of clues from the (social) context.
But does it ever occur to pomiscuous people that they might be taking something that rightfully belongs to a spouse?
J.F. Gariepy goes so far as to say that he has ‘made love’ (disgusting euphemism, if there ever was one) to thousands of women, and that he is doing a favor to their future husbands by getting these women excited about sex. Who is this fucking pig, this joker, kidding?
In the case of misegenators, does it occur to them that they might be taking or giving away something that rightfully belongs to a people – at least in predominant account to our/their pattern? Those who would choose to go with other people are ultimately free to leave (hopefully not having acted before sufficient accounts requested); they are not free to impose this prerogative and its consequences on the broad pattern of a people who are responsible to our/their kind.
I stand by an article that I wrote a few years ago, that one way to know if it is a good and appropriate person that you’re having sex with is whether or not you have to use a condom. You should know them well enough not to need one.
It is eminently reasonable to oppose the social resource of vast funds that have gone to pay for A.I..D.S. – a disease which can inhibit and ‘cure’ socially irresponsible behavior.
Here is your A.I.D.S. education: don’t conduct yourself like a pig and your chances of contracting A.I.D.S. are next to zero.
The basketball player, ‘Magic’ Johnson, contracted A.I.D.S. through unprotected sex in which he ‘tried to accommodate as many women as possible…some of them were unbelievable.’..
Then our social resource (of money) kept this scumbag alive. He should have died and it would be quite fine with me if the woman that he accommodated had died as well.
Going back to the young lady giving blow job advice, including for one night stands, if her episodic practices would have her giving this treasure and reward to the likes of Magic Johnson, it would be quite fine with me if she were to die as well.
Hateful? You bet its valid hate people bestowed with our social treasure, only to use it for our destruction. And if the sexual drive is a strong natural impulse aimed at the survival of our species, so is hatred of those who abuse it.