Eupraxia
most true was that which went unsaid
No bio...
User ID: 3132
Eupraxia
most true was that which went unsaid
10d ago
It makes complete sense if you are either non-white or otherwise care about the continued existence of non-whites in the centuries to come.
Communist murders of Kulaks were an attempt to purify their society from within, while Nazi murders of Untermench were an attempt to eradicate a people to make way for another. Although their means were unacceptable to contemporary observers, their ends were not; before the post-war consensus began to form, it was taken for granted that the world was the white man's heritage (see footnote 2, also see this excerpt). It is the principal objective of Woke to prevent a reversion to that state; do we not post on (stolen/conquered) land?
Eupraxia
most true was that which went unsaid
19d ago
I had been raised to basically be a male chauvinist by way of feminism. [...] "Feminine" was not something a man was allowed to like about women, in a way that actually implied anything about them.
The feminists were right. Of course a woman crying at the drop of a pin is immature; the ubiquity of such behavior is a mark against women as a class. The descriptor of "feminine" implies lameness: feminine professions are low-status, feminine interests are shallow, feminine virtues are ancillary. There is value in sweetness and sensitivity, yes, but the whole is undoubtedly lesser than. The feminists were wrong to think that femininity is societally induced, but there is no shame in lamenting one's lot.
Personally, I am unconvinced that the agreeable parts of femininity must be so tightly intertwined with the lame parts. Do you think otherwise?
Eupraxia
most true was that which went unsaid
21d ago
No more peacekeeping missions, anti terrorist actions and special military operations, but retvrn to great wars ending in glorious victories, accomplishments so shining that every young man with motivation and drive would want to wear uniform and be part of winning team.
Against whom are these great wars to be fought? China is the obvious and most potentially glorious target, but nukes. You could maybe sell a war of conquest against Cuba, but the racial dimension of any other expeditions in the Americas/Africa would be too uncomfortable to garner support among the relevant demographics of young men. South/Southeast Asia is China’s backyard, and good luck trying to sell yet another war in the Middle East. That leaves you with…IDK, New Zealand?
If you're a person who agrees that it's okay to be white (not "being white is better than being non-white"; merely that being white is "okay"), you'll respond to these posters with "well, duh". The ingenuity of the psyop was that it forced the people who disagree with the sentiment to lay their cards on the table. The only people who could find something objectionable in the statement "it's okay to be white" are those who actually think white people ought to feel ashamed of themselves for the colour of the skin - something the most extreme woke people obviously believe, even if many of them pretend otherwise.
Your misrepresentation obscures the Left's true motivation for opposing "it's okay to be white", which they are wholly justified in doing.
Everyone agrees that "being white is better than being non-white*: the question is in how whites obtained their Privileged position. The Left does not believe that whites should be ashamed "for the color of their skin", but for the innumerable crimes they have committed against non-whites* in the 500 years since they set out from Europe to gain their globally advantageous position. If, on the contrary, whites achieved their prosperity through entirely legitimate means, or by means no worse than the global baseline, then all non-whites* ought to be deeply ashamed of just how poorly their societies compare to whites', especially after 120+ years of the end of extractive colonialism and 80+ years of independence from Western powers. Either it is okay to be white, or it is okay to be otherwise*.
*East Asians (mostly) excluded.
Tragedy? I have it on good authority that the disappearance of certain "particular expressions of traits" would be quite desirable indeed.
C'mon, acceptance of HBD is basically consensus here. What isn't, and what I aim to inculcate, is acceptance of its full implications.
If you object to the contents of any of my above links, can you explain why? If you do not, do you then object to @Chi_Wara's sentiment here? If so, what is he to do instead?
More options
Context Copy link