One of the most pernicious lies of our age is that the classical liberal tradition, which is to say the philosophy of economic and political liberty, is one of "radical individualism" and is an obstacle to racial identity. Sure, the modern libertarian movement has adopted a ridiculous open borders stance but even modern luminaries of the libertarian tradition, like Mises and Rothbard, believed in borders.
The classical liberal tradition that founded America was about borders, immigration policy and race. Unfortunately, they did not put racial identity in the constitution, as the racial homogeneity of the USA was assumed. However, it's no surprise that the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted immigration to "free, white persons of good character."
Under the freedoms provided by a minimal government (and sound money with no federal reserve) the early American experiment was a resounding success. Rather than becoming a place of "radical individualism" and amorality, America became a place with far higher community participation than the European/British communities that the peoples of America came from.
Just look at Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Another recommendation is Charles Murray's recent book Coming Apart. When relieved of the impositions of government people form private associations that last for generations, associations and institutions that serve the needs of education and health care and religion and social clubs and on and on, serving the community in ways well beyond what is provided naturally by a free market. The paradox is that less government intervention creates more community participation.
The socialist presumptions of many race realists have been an obstacle to making the movement mainstream, particularly in America. As with all socialists their arguments are usually based in misconceptions about capitalism and political liberty.
I would love it if gen Z rose up to merge racial identity with liberty, that's the winning combination going forward.
Soph is onto something with the anarcho-capitalist thing. Yeah, I think going full ancap is a bit too far, but it's not bad. I stop short of that and adopt the position of a minarchist, which is the classical liberal/libertarian position. In other words, the philosophy of Jefferson and Madison.
This channel needs a lot more subscribers, very good stuff.
Just a reminder: 13% commit 50%
In the 19th century anxious women were often classified as suffering from hysteria. Such women were nervous, irritable, and had a tendency to "cause problems." Nuns and virgins were particularly susceptible to hysteria. The prescription was to "release fluids" through sexual stimulation, and this propelled a huge market in vibrators. Nervous women relaxed after they had an orgasm or two.
Women are still more anxious than men. What to do with this anxiety remains a problem. As our society is all about female empowerment, this is what an anxious young women gets in her upbringing:
> Female empowerment in media that directly contradicts reality.
While women in the media are brilliant scientists who can vest the men at everything from fist fighting to archery, in the real world women are underrepresented in STEM and perform with mediocrity, nor can they compete with the men in fighting, tennis, archery, video games or even chess.
> Taught that men are their historical enemies. Men created institutions via the "patriarchy" that favor men at the expense of women.
> Taught that they should speak up boldly in order to fight the "patriarchy."
> Taught that the "norms" of the patriarchy are anti-women, so they should resist conforming to such norms, which would include getting married and having a family.
> Taught that they live in a "rape culture" where men are everywhere predating on women, even believing the delusion that at prestigious University campuses the rates of rape are higher than the Congo.
> Taught that the accusations of women against men should be believed, and that showing solidarity in this way will help to counter the biases of the patriarchy that already systemically deny women justice.
With all of this insanity in the culture is it any wonder we have a war between the genders? A lot of frustrated, lonely women out there, and a lot of men checking out.
Neo-Marxism is a cancer in Western Civilization. It needs to be torn out by the root.
Wait, remind me again of why the borders of almost all Western nations were opened to the world? Oh, that's right, because the globalists want it and decades of propaganda have weakened will of white people to resist. Globalists want to break down the hegemony of the nation state and the racial homogeneity of white people. Once these are accomplished there will only be a dysfunctional mass of humanity, at perpetual civil war with itself, begging for the authority of a global force to bring order to it all.
The mainstream media obsess over the fabricated "white supremacist" boogieman, meanwhile the reality of race and crime in America goes unreported. If the media ever became honest about race and crime it would be all over for the globalists. Enough white people would regain their sense of racial consciousness and our entire political climate would change. That is why they must invert reality and pretend white males are the threat.
The woman's name is Cadesha, a fine example of how diversity is our strength.
Hey folks, want to keep up with Cadesha and other such animals who terrorize our streets? Check out Colin Flaherty. He has been banned everywhere multiple times, but for the moment you can find him here:
(P.S. - I mean no offense to the fine peoples I know of all races. No individual should be blamed for the actions of a few miscreants. However, we should take biology into consideration if we want to get a grip on reality.)
The authoritarian lunacy of China, again. As is usually the case, restricting freedom has unintended consequences, even here, with something so trivial as blood being shown in media.
Consider that in the West we already have this standard to a degree. Blood/gore is allowed but too much of it and the rating goes from PG13 to R. This means losing the family audience. Has this made our movies less violent? No. The biggest movies tend to be these super hero films, star wars films, and other films that have nonstop violence but little to no blood.
So what do we get for censoring the blood? I would argue we get a trivialization of violence. We become numb to humans dodging bullets, eating punches like so many leaves blowing in the wind, and leaping away from explosions that would demolish an entire city block. Young people are raised on a diet of egoistic heroism, wherein they identify with a super-human who can knock people out in seconds, run through a hailstorm of bullets, be thrown fifty feet in the air and keep walking... etc. Does all this create a person with more or less mature attitudes toward violence?
Leaving aside the fact authoritarian governments should be rejected outright, if the objective is a less violent society does it help to sanitize violence? Probably not, the violence doesn't go away, it just becomes unreal. (Perhaps if they want to try a new approach China could develop technology to fill a room with the smell of shit and decaying flesh... that might turn a few people off to violence.)
Ah, but let's not forget that studies have been done to death (excuse the pun) trying to find a link between violence in media and violence in real life. Overwhelmingly the conclusion is that media violence does not influence real-life violence. (The rate of violence in the USA has been going down decade upon decade, even as people live ever more of their lives through media, including violent video games, which didn't even exist before!)
The same issues of biology and broken families, etc, are preeminent when talking about the causes of violence, so once again China is being authoritarian just to be authoritarian.