My first image is of armed Oathkeepers, acting under the delusion that they are police officers, ejecting an alt-right man from a public park in Houston. The event occurred during a recent protest over supposed leftist threats to a statue of the man who gave the city its name.
The young man had brought signs to express his political opinions, and since the Oathkeepers did not share his political opinions, they felt entitled to prevent him from expressing them. One of the Oathkeepers, an illegal Mexican immigrant, also assaulted the alt-right man, so they added garden-variety thuggery to their other offenses. Coverage of this incident can be found on the Daily Stormer, along with a fine example of Azzmador’s intelligent belligerence.
The leader of this band of Oathkeepers expressed their underlying philosophy: “Racists are not welcome amongst us, because racism is just plain stupid. And if you don’t like that, I don’t give a damn.”
“Amongst us” in his first sentence meant “in this public park.” On the basis of their belief that “racism” is just plain stupid, Oathkeepers have concluded that they are entitled to remove “racists” forcibly from public places, regardless of anything the law might say to the contrary.
Oathkeepers, like all mainstream conservatives, believe that morality requires that racial aggression by non-whites against whites be ignored. A white person becomes a “racist” the moment that he notices and acts upon a pattern of racial aggression directed against him. Oathkeepers accordingly pledge that they will never stand up for their own people, and that they will act physically against any racialist white who does. An assault against a “racist” is therefore appropriate, especially if the Oathkeepers are carrying guns and the “racist” is unarmed.
The preceding is an observation only about Oathkeepers, not about white men in general. One of these armed Oathkeepers was a woman; the rest were men. A smart man was criminally ejected from a public place by a few dozen very dumb men, assisted by a very dumb woman. No one should claim that white men as a class were culpable simply because most Oathkeepers are white men.
My second image is from Weev’s recent article on the Daily Stormer arguing for “white sharia,” a meme which is intended to recall the “extreme patriarchy” once practiced by our Muslim forefathers:
The image carries the following caption: “Skanks having the time of their lives whilst their cities are conquered by foreigners? Never heard of this.”
There are two ideas here: first, the three young women are not wearing enough clothing (thus they are “skanks”), and second, the women are not worried about the non-white invasion of Western nations. They should be thinking serious thoughts about the future of their civilization, but these skanks are having too much fun to bother. They are happy, and we men should resent their happiness.
I don’t feel the tiniest bit of hostility to the three women in the picture. It’s a nice image, in my eyes. Advocates of white sharia evidently see it differently.
We cannot know for certain, but I would guess that Weev (or whoever added the caption) is correct that the women in the picture, like the majority of both white men and white women, don’t think much about the future of Western Civilization. It is also true that women in 2017 often wear fewer clothes than women did in 1917. Whether that is good or bad or irrelevant, these three women didn’t start the trend.
Should we feel hostile to these women? I could easily find an image of three white men who appear not to fret much about the future of their civilization, and I have already provided a screencap of a group of white men who are acting criminally in the cause of their own race-cultural destruction, but are so brain-dead that they don’t know it. Whatever bad apolitical qualities advocates of white sharia want to impute to these three women, they must pale in comparison to the active political stupidity of Oathkeepers.
Modern feminism divides the white race, which is why it is so destructive. It is not too great a simplification to say that second-wave feminism was consciously designed to divide the white race. So it is strange that in the minds of White Nationalists promoting white sharia, a picture of attractive white women is expected to provoke hostility in white men. White Nationalism exists to promote our racial solidarity; foolish talk of “white sharia” clearly does the opposite.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 508 The Kanye Question with Greg Johnson
Critical Race Theory Translated
The White Liberal Question: A Nietzschean Response to Jason Köhne
The Worst Week Yet: November 20-26, 2022
Sex, politika a eurohostel
The GOP Deserved to Lose, but Now What?
“Are You So Severe upon Your Own Sex?” Femininity According to Jane Austen
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 503 Sam Valleus Interviews Vincent James