[Far-Right Sage]

The "mixed economy" did not originate with Tony Blair, but with various interwar theorists. Some of these were liberals, such as John Maynard Keynes, whereas others were fascists like Hjalmar Schacht.

I realize this Dave, that the concept of a mixed economy did not spring up in 1995, but my point...in actuality, is quite similar to your comment on the neoliberal departure. The "mixed economy", "third way philosophy" trumpeted by Clinton and Blair was and is not a third way between anything, but hypercapitalism in one of its more advanced-aggressive stages in contemporary history, masked with a facade of social action and humanitarian politicking.

The general idea was a managed market economy to achieve goals of full employment, moderate inflation, high wages, and rapidly expanding output. It was based on the idea of management-labor peace with state involvement, and without exception it was implemented in every Western country from 1948-1973.

It is interesting to note that with Schacht, the German economy reached unprecedented heights. This wouldn't be repeated until after the war with the pouring in of foreign resources, later capital and investment, but this, like any major Western economic picture post-'45 came with severe strings attached which ultimately limit the potential of a people to perform outside of a potential range. When I speak to family back in the country, they have always maintained that even with the GDP as it was and is (ignoring the Eurocrisis of the day), it is purposeless if the economy isn't a vehicle for something greater. This doesn't mean that private ownership, as we've discussed, or certain other forms of capitalistic production have to be eliminated in the economy. They weren't at the height of NS Germany. Yet many Germans and Italians introduced elements of a corporatist system, the Corporate state, and its effects upon total implementation are yet to be tested.

This was the period of the highest economic growth in Western history (the USA grew slightly faster in the Gilded Age, but only barely) and greatest relative standards of living for ordinary workers. There were certain problems with the system which led ultimately to its breakdown, but many of the basic premises were valid.

And if you discuss the issue to those sympathetic to Fascism, national-syndicalism, the Third Position, etc. you will find that there is not a complete rejection of capitalist practices as there is no complete rejection of socialist practices, but capitalist and (Marxian) socialist values we must reject before embarking on the construction of the social state. Corporatism at the height of its realization in Fascist Italy and beyond (as total implementation was stifled) would see private ownership and competition in the economy with respect to innovation and other fields, but the question we must ask ourselves is "What is the endgame of the capitalism embraced by global leaders today and why is that endgame much different from Marxism?" Both seek the annihilation of your race, national heritage, and values in their tireless intellectual drive toward attempted deconstruction over the societal mores you likely formerly took for granted but now realize are under siege. But of course they have been since the proliferation of the Enlightenment.

The policies of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton represented a departure from this to the "neoliberal" paradigm, a globalist model which prioritized capital over labor.

And this departure, which I would prefer to label an evolution or subsequent stage, will not be voluntarily reversed with those in key positions given the authority to police themselves. If 2012 appears bleak, I have dreary news about the Western mode of production and state of the state in the remaining part of the present century.

Naturally any capitalist would be delighted to gouge his customer base to increase profits, which is why robust competition and antitrust policies are needed to prevent this.

The problem with the political system which tends to accompany the economic philosophy you espouse is that such policies are regularly enacted throughout different historical periods (the trustbusting of Theodore Roosevelt's administration come to mind), yet the rule of law either proves powerless or is simply not honored when the language in such edicts is amended, ignored, covered up, and twisted. The rule of law means absolutely nothing in the current capitalist order.

[Varg]

It's depressing to see how degenerate fascists become. Fascism doesn't means conciliation, fascism means fight, it means power through will to reestablish an heroic society based on manliness and glory. You can ignore the real position of women in a politic campaign by means of strategy, but it's totally idiot to imagine yourself as a fascist and think that women have the same role as men. This is totally unscientific and completely absurd if you have in goal the ideal society. This spiritual aberration is a degeneration and not an adaptation. It's funny to see how people think they are free of modern degeneration as fascists and to observe they defending individualism unconsciously. The true point of departure is the distinction between person and individual. You can only assume that men and women are equal in rights if your consider both as individuals. The concept of human being is only a different version of the individual. The ascent of women is not a progress it's just a degenerescence just like Evola well said:

In a society that no longer understands the figure of the ascetic and of the warrior; in which the hands of the latest aristocrats seem better fit to hold tennis rackets or shakers for cocktail mixes than swords or scepters; in which the archetype of the virile man is represented by a boxer or by a movie star if not by the dull wimp represented by the intellectual, the college professor, the narcissistic puppet of the artist, or the busy and dirty money-making banker and the politician – in such a society it was only a matter of time before women rose up and claimed for themselves a “personality” and a “freedom” according to the anarchist and individualist meaning usually associated with these words.

Should a fascist accept queer's rights?? WTF? Gays should be killed and let God judge them. This is the Fascism view. There is no commitment.

I will know give scientific evidence to prove the unique position possible to women and after that i will give quotes and examples of our real and IMMUTABLE cosmovision:

It is now accepted that women exceed men on the verbal parts of IQ tests and men show more ability in the abstract parts of the tests.In higher mathematics the difference is striking. In the largest survey on the subject ever conducted, Dr. Julian Stanley and Dr. Camilla Benbow grouped mathematically brilliant students by sex.
Boys were thirteen times more likely than girls to be found in the highest category. On the other hand, girls had striking superiority in verbal skills. Girls speak earlier than do boys, and they perform better in reading, writing, grammar, spelling and punctuation. They are more fluent and better communicators. Boys suffer almost exclusively from speech defects such as stuttering, and they outnumber girls almost 4 to 1 in remedial reading classes.Women also are better at organizing and putting an orderly sequence to events and objects.

Because of the division of labor between men and women, men/ hunting - women/ gathering and child rearing, the brains between the sexes evolved to facilitate those
talents. Hunting requires more spatial skills, while mothering requires more verbal skills. Hunting requires aggression, individualism and risk taking, while mothering requires a whole set of special talents, such as altruism, risk avoidance and individual submission to the needs of the child.

Men are better at spatial skills, higher mathematics, and map reading Women are better at language and communication skills including reading, speech, and writing.
Women are better with people, while men are better with things. In fact, men are object oriented, while women are people oriented.

Women are more empathetic, and unselfish; men are more self centered and result-oriented. Men are oriented to the "big picture," better at overall concepts and patterns and are generally more adventuresome, curious, and risky; while women are more home oriented, people oriented and security-minded.

These quotes show conclusively that the traditional model is not only a pre-determined rule but also the best way to organize a society. But we will commit injustices to women who are empowered to play the role of men will say a "man" with many female hormones. And so what? We don't care about individuals, we only care about society as a organic whole, for the development of a new man and a strong and pure society based on traditional values. Fascism defend the woman as an important group in society in a restricted ambient.


"The world of women is a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children and her house."
Adolf Hitler

"War is to man what maternity is to a woman."
Benito Mussolini





Some nice rules for a fascist society:
Women should not work for a living
Women should not wear trousers
Women should not wear makeup
Women should not wear high-heeled shoes
Women should not dye or perm their hair
Women should not go on slimming diets

And i support many views of NS Germany on women. Women should no become a politician, a judge, a doctor. Women should be focused on more appropriate tasks. I can imagine women as primary school teacher, TV presenter, woman working in human resources and so forth. It's bizarre to imagine women as presidents, judges and CEOs.This is totally the opposite of what fascism stands for. Our degenerate world of gay's rights, aid to the weak and poor, moral relativism, materialism, miscegenation, dissolution of boundaries, etc. are just entirely possible because men lost his fascist manliness. You can(and it's a smart strategy) hide your political views for political purposes(indeed "machist" views are certain death in political world) but you cannot renounce these views. Only if you stop being a fascist.

Now some self-explanatory quotes about a traditional role of women:

In the case of women the actions of the warrior and of the ascetic who affirm themselves in a life that is beyond life, the former through pure action and the latter through pure detachment, correspond to the act of the woman totally giving of herself and being entirely for another being, whether he is the loved one (the type of the lover – the Aphrodistic woman) or the son (the type of the mother – the Demetrian woman), finding in this dedication the meaning of her own life, her own life, her own joy, and her own justification.

In the Laws of Manu it is written: “A girl, a young woman or even and old woman should not do anything independently, even in her own house. In childhood a woman should be under her father’s control, in youth under her husband’s, and when her husband is dead, under her sons” And also “A virtuous wife should constantly serve her husband like a god, even if he behaves badly, freely indulges his lust, and is devoid of any good qualities.

In Rome, in conformity with a similar spirituality, a woman, far from being “equal” to man, was juridically regarded as a daughter of her own husband(filiae loco) and as a sister of her own children (sororis loco); when she was a young girl, she was under the potestas f her father, who was the leader and the priest of his own gens; when she married, according to a rather blunt expression she was in manu viri. These traditional decrees regulating a woman’s dependency can also be found in other civilizations: far from being unjust and arrogant, as the modern “free spirits” are quick to decry, they helped to define the limits and the natural place of the only spiritual path proper to the pure feminine nature.

On IQ tests, although women have the same average, men have a larger standard deviation. This implies that the brightest minds are overwhelmingly men. Thus, nature made men as natural born leaders.

[Rei Murasame]

All of the things that you've claimed that women are specialists in are actually the things that make women more likely to hold leadership positions in 21st century societies.

Women are better with people, while men are better with things.

I'm not sure how you manage to think that men should be in charge of the universe, if you believe that.

[Varg]

Rei Murasame: Don't get me wrong. You're smarter than 99,9% of men but you are an outlier. Women are better with people means that women have more empathy. Empathy is a disaster in leading positions like judges and presidents. You must be rational and don't care much about feelings. Empathy explains why women are disproportionately represented in the left-wing parties. Women are more biologically predisposed to follow that which is more popular and "fashionable" at the moment than men. This is probably a genetic trait from the past which kept their children secure and safe knowing that that would be the safer place-- to stay within their own "popular" tribe. Now it is backfiring and has been for decades. Women can, giving a silly example, accept the idea that gay rights are righteous because "what really matters is character."

[Rei Murasame]

Also, I don't see how you can blame the last few decades of mistakes on women, seeing as men have been in charge and men are the ones who actually designed liberalism in the first place.

Given the track record, I think it would not only be risky, but beyond risky and in fact disastrous, to allow men to get untrammelled control over any government ever again. The incentives would be all wrong.

Also, you said earlier that fascism is about heroism and leaving things up to god, but firstly the Spanish falangists and Japanese right-socialists already pointed out that "Fascism is not violence, it is unity". Any violence we carry out ought only to be for the defence of the system of consensus that we are aiming to build. We can't bring back any of the old mores of the past because those mores are inefficient. What is the use of asking a woman to waste away her time at home?

There is nothing to do at home. Many say, "oh, to take care of children", except the first thing that fascists actually do is abolish the nuclear family by socialising child-raising through day care and the school system. With that done, you might as well mobilise that 50% of the workforce rather than wasting it.

Regarding the issue of 'god', I can't think of a more anti-Christ ideology than fascism. In fact, fascism bears the distinction of being the only ideology other than communism to have originally declared itself to be 'fundamentally anti-Christian'. So the 'degeneracy' is not that we have departed from the traditional ways, it's that we ever allowed them to take hold here in the first place. What we are suffering from presently is the final outcome of Judeo-Christendom and is twin brother liberalism, which must be collapsed onto each other and sublimated if we are to survive as a people.

Allowing socially-conservative ideas to get in the way of the policy choices that we need to make in order to move forward, would trap us once again in a 'half-revolution', a stalled moment, where we'd be once again unintentionally putting off that historical moment of transition into a new epoch, by hugging tightly to old ways that are actually incompatible with where we are trying to go in a post-1968 world and the new facts which have come to light since then.

So let me show you some new facts and it may change up the way you are thinking about this, and the advantages of wider female participation:

New research attempting to shed light on the age old question of how male and female brains differ has found that timing is everything.

In a study involving more than 8,000 U.S. males and females ranging in age from 2 to 9, Vanderbilt University researchers Stephen Camarata, Ph.D., and Richard Woodcock discovered that females have a significant advantage over males on timed tests and tasks, particularly among pre-teens and teens.

“We found very minor differences in overall intelligence. But if you look at the ability of someone to perform well in a timed situation, females have a big advantage,” Camarata said. “It is very important for teachers to understand this difference in males and females when it comes to assigning work and structuring tests. To truly understand a person's overall ability, it is important to also look at performance in un-timed situations. For males, this means presenting them with material that is challenging and interesting, but is presented in smaller chunks without strict time limits.”

The findings are particularly timely, with more attention being paid by parents, educators and the media to the troubling achievement gap between males and females in U.S. schools.

“Consider that many classroom activities, including testing, are directly or indirectly related to processing speed,” the authors wrote. “The higher performance in females may contribute to a classroom culture that favors females, not because of teacher bias but because of inherent differences in sex processing speed.” An additional question is whether this finding is linked to higher high school dropout rates for males and increased special education placement for males who do stay in school.

In their new article, Camarata and Woodcock focus on understanding differences in “processing speed” between males and females.

“Processing speed doesn't refer to reaction time or the ability to play video games,” Camarata said. “It's the ability to effectively, efficiently and accurately complete work of moderate difficulty. Though males and females showed similar processing speed in kindergarten and pre-school, females became much more efficient than males in elementary, middle and high school.”

The researchers found that males scored lower than females in all age groups in tests measuring processing speed, with the greatest discrepancy found among adolescents. However, the study also found that males consistently outperformed females in some verbal abilities, such as identifying objects, knowing antonyms and synonyms and completing verbal analogies, debunking the popular idea that girls develop all communication skills earlier than boys.

The researchers found no significant overall intelligence differences between males and females in any age groups.

The research will be published in the May-June issue of the journal Intelligence. Camarata and Woodcock compiled their results through an evaluation of three sets of data collected from 1977 to 2001 as part of the Woodcock-Johnson Series of Cognitive and Achievement Tests.

Camarata is a deputy director of the Vanderbilt Kennedy centre for Research on Human Development. Woodcock is a member of the Vanderbilt Kennedy centre and is also a research professor at the University of Southern California.

Preliminary observations suggest a sex difference in the shape and surface area of the human corpus callosum. The sexual dimorphism is striking in the splenium, the caudal or posterior portion of the corpus callosum. The female splenium is both more bulbous and larger than the male counterpart. Since peristriate, parietal, and superior temporal fibers course through the splenium, this finding could be related to possible gender differences in the degree of lateralization for visuospatial functions.

Professor Keith Laws at the University's School of Psychology looked at multitasking in 50 male and 50 female undergraduates and found that although the sexes performed equally when they multitasked on simple maths and map reading tasks, women far excelled men when it came to planning how to search for a lost key, with 70 per cent of women performing better than their average male counterparts.

"The search for the lost key task, which involved giving the men and women a blank sheet of paper representing a field and asking them to draw how they would search for the key, revealed that women planned more strategically than men," said Professor Laws. "I was surprised by this result given the arguments that men have better spatial skills than women.

Professor Laws was also surprised that despite the universal notion that women are better than men at multitasking, their review of the literature unearthed no previous scientific evidence to support this claim.

The participants in Professor Laws study, who were undergraduates at the University, had eight minutes to do several tasks at the same time, such as simple maths problems, map reading, answering a telephone caller asking general knowledge questions and showing the strategy they would use to search for an imaginary lost key in a field.

Stress causes men and women to respond differently to risky decision making, with men charging ahead for small rewards and women taking their time, according to a new study in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, published by Oxford University Press. Under stress, men and women also have different brain activation patterns during decision making.

There might be advantages to both stress responses, especially in areas with the need to weigh short-term gain and long-term benefits, such as the stock market, health decisions or retirement planning, according to lead author on the study Nichole Lighthall, a USC doctoral student.

The experiment might also have implications for daily life and relationships, Lighthall said.

Stress caused men and women to make decisions differently, but when stress was absent their behavior and brain activation was much more similar, Lighthall said. Men and women faced with tough decisions might improve their communication by waiting until a stressful situation has passed, Lighthall said. "Men and women appear to think more similarly when they are not stressed," Lighthall said. "You should be aware of the way you are biased in your decisions."

After being subjected to stress, men appeared to be more motivated to act quickly while women would slow down, Lighthall said.

For men under stress, playing a risk-taking game stimulated areas in the brain that are activated when one gets a reward or satisfies an addiction. The same experiment found diminished brain activity for women in the same areas when they were stressed.

"It appears women do not feel the drive to get a reward as much under stress," Lighthall said.

Participants were given a task of filling up a computer-simulated balloon with as much air as possible without popping the balloon.

Subjects earned from $4 to $45 based on their performance, with the men earning much more cash under stress.

Lighthall said that although men performed this task better, the more important conclusion may be that important decisions made under stress should include input from both genders.

"It might be better to have more gender diversity on important decision because men and women offer differing perspectives," Lighthall said. "Being more cautious and taking the time to make a decision will often be the right choice."

Mara Mather, director of the Emotion and Cognition Lab at USC and associate professor of psychology at USC Dornsige College and gerontology at the USC Davis School of Gerontology, Michiko Sakaki, Sarinnapha Vasunilashorn, Lin Nga, Sangeetha Somayajula, Eri Y. Chin and Nicole Samii, also of the USC Davis School, were co-authors of the study.

Last year Lighthall authored a study in the journal PLoS One that showed that men under stress may be more likely to take risks, correlating to such real-life behavior as gambling, smoking, unsafe sex and illegal drug use.



Neuroscience, through brain imaging, is increasingly demonstrating the differences in the computational models of the male and female brain. The female brain, with its 10 to 20 million more connections in the corpus callosum connecting the left and right hemispheres, operates in a more integrated, parallel processing mode, taking many more variables into account. This may make many women seem as if they are not efficiently focused on problems and solutions. But in effect, they are effectively resolving problems and outcomes by looking at the 360 degree radius around the issue.

Perhaps the most important difference between many men and women is their perception of world view. In general, men tend to see the world as a three-legged stool, the seat of which is the economy. The three legs are communications infrastructure, transportation infrastructure and capital formation. Women, on the other hand, tend to see the world as a three-legged stool as well, but the seat is not the economy, it is the society. And the three legs are health, education and ecological integrity. Neither view is correct by itself. Each needs the other to succeed. What good is all the health care in the world, if there is no adequate way to deliver it? Or all the capital formation if we do not adequately educate the next generation? Perhaps the greatest challenge for Boards going forward in a complex world is to learn to build the 6-legged chaise lounge, and that can only happen if both views are represented equally in the halls of power, and in the seats at the Board table. Which means it is not enough to just have a seat at the table. The times call for us to change the table.

Women's proclivity for web thinking probably evolved millions of years ago when ancestral females needed to do many things at once to rear their young, whereas men's step thinking probably emerged as ancestral hunters focused on the pursuit of game. Both web thinking and step thinking are still valuable, but in the contemporary business community, buzzwords include “depth of vision,” “breadth of vision,” and “systems thinking.” In this highly complex marketplace, a contextual view is a distinct asset. Women are built to employ this perspective. In fact, in one study of Fortune 500 companies, senior executives were asked to describe women's most out-standing business contribution.

Their consensus: women's more varied, less conventional point of view.

Women's web thinking provides them with other natural leadership qualities. According to social scientists and business analysts, women are better able to tolerate ambiguity—a trait that most likely stems from their ability to hold several things simultaneously in mind. And if I had to sum up the modern business environment in one word, I would call it . . . ambiguous. Women are well endowed for this indefinite business climate.

Women's web thinking also enables them to exercise more intuition—and intuition plays a productive, if often unrecognized, role in managerial decision making. This mental capacity has been ex plained by psychologist Herbert Simon. He maintains that as people learn how to analyze the stock market, run a business, or follow a political issue, they begin to recognize the patterns involved and mentally organize these data into blocks of knowledge, a process Simon calls chunking. With time, more and more related patterns are chunked, and clusters of knowledge are stored in long-term memory. Then when a single detail of a complex situation appears, the experienced person can instantly recognize the larger design and predict outcomes that another must deduce with plodding sequential thought. Sherlock Holmes remarked of this, “From long habit, the train of thought ran so swiftly through my mind that I arrived at the conclusion without being consciously aware of the intermediate steps.”

Women, on average, excel at this form of thought.

Also related to web thinking is long-term planning—the ability to assess multiple, complex scenarios and plot a long-term course. To my knowledge, no scholar has studied gender differences in long-term planning. However, some business analysts believe that women are apt to think long term more regularly, whereas men are more likely to focus on the here and now. Women definitely use long-term strategies more regularly in their financial affairs. In fact, in a study of six thousand investors, three-quarters of the women had no short-term investment goals; the trading records of thirty-five thousand clients of a large brokerage firm showed that men traded 45 percent more often than women.

There is, most likely, a biological component to women's long-term approach. From studying patients with brain injuries, neuroscientists now know where in the brain long-term planning takes place. Women and men display some differences in the structure of these brain regions. So it is possible that women's brain architecture contributes to their tendency to plan long term. Women may have evolved the propensity to think long term to plan for their children's distant future. Today, however, this faculty predisposes women to see business issues from a longer perspective—an essential element of leadership.

Over the years, there has been much discussion revolving around what differentiates leadership and management and how critical good leadership (versus management) is to any institution. There seems to be agreement that leaders have strategic vision, good communication skills, creativity, and the ability to trust and empower subordinates.

Current leadership philosophy stresses many characteristics commonly viewed as feminine attributes (or advantages) frequently employed by women occupying leadership positions in an organization.

Perry Smith, Major General (Ret) discussed long term planning as a critical element in leadership style, similar to the concept of vision. Stephen Covey (principle centered leadership guru) believes that a dominant trend of the future, long term thinking, favors the natural abilities and talents of women. He also identifies leadership as “more of a right-brained intuitive, visionary approach toward building relationships with people. This infers women have the edge in today's leadership challenges.

John Naisbett and Patricia Aburdene, co-authors of Megatrends for Women, state “The balance has finally tipped in favor of women…It is not about women taking over, but women and men together expressing their full potential—neither superior or inferior.” Nicholas Wade seems to agree: “If Martians arrived and gave job interviews, it seems likely they would direct men to competitive sports and manual labor and staff most professions, diplomacy, and government with women.”

Rianne Eisner, as quoted by Naisbett and Aburdene describes two basic types of societies—dominator or partnership. She believes women's leadership styles tend to employ a partnership model, a way to structure human relationships based upon linking.

This linking is similar to the phenomena discussed by Tannen as intrinsic to female communication in chapter three of this paper.

In a briefing to the Air War College, Dr Christine McNulty, described what is needed for successfully depuzzling the world of the future as analyzing and synthesizing data and the ability to use both sides of the brain, left and right. This appears natural for women, consistent with the ability to rapidly transition from left to right brain functioning.

And just as a bonus, women are actually very genetically defensive:

In a study designed to investigate the effects of menstrual-cycle position on various measures of race bias, we found that bias in implicit attitudes, attractiveness ratings, and fear of an out-group exemplar tracked conception risk. The relationship between conception risk and explicit race bias was marginal; however, when all five measures were combined into a composite measure of race bias, a robust link between this composite measure and conception risk emerged. The effect was particularly strong for women whose self-appraised VSC was high.

These results suggest that at least some facets of modern race bias are by-products of an evolved system predisposing women to avoid persons and situations perceived as dangerous, particularly when costs are high. On the one hand, the system underlying the effects we observed may rely on an in-group/out-group heuristic that latches onto any socially marked group boundary, in which case similar patterns should hold across different combinations of race of subject and race of target—perhaps even in minimally defined, basic social categories. On the other hand, the system may rely on socially transmitted information regarding the potential for danger from men of particular groups in the local environment, in which case the effect will apply only to out-groups that are stereotyped as being dangerous. The results described here are not sufficient to distinguish whether basic categorization, social transmission, or both processes are operative in producing greater race bias when fertility rises. Further work is necessary to more fully understand the mechanistic processes underlying this effect.

Pearson does not use the exact phrase 'group selection', but does use the terms 'intra-group selection' and 'extra-group selection'. Intra-group selection is selection within a group resulting from competition between its members. Extra-group selection (meaning literally outside-group selection) could mean selection between individual members of different groups, but it is clear from the context that Pearson intended it to mean primarily selection between groups as a whole. Pearson regarded himself as a socialist as well as a good Darwinian, and was keen to rebut claims that socialism was incompatible with natural selection. Pearson argued that as human society becomes more advanced, competition and selection within groups becomes less important, as it gives way to co-operation and collective action, whereas competition and selection between groups (tribes, nations or races) becomes even stronger.

These early writers on group selection seldom gave much attention to the problem raised, but not solved, by Charles Darwin in the Descent of Man: if the qualities promoting group success, such as co-operation and self-sacrifice, conflict with individual success within the group, how is the conflict resolved? Bernard Bosanquet's essay does however at least address the problem. His answer is essentially that there is no conflict. As society evolves, it creates a new selective environment for individuals, and this favours co-operation: 'the struggle for existence has, in short, become a struggle for a place in the community; and these places are reserved for those individuals which in the highest degree possess the co-operative qualities demanded by circumstances' (p.294).

So I would suggest that in any movement such as this in the modern era, women are exactly what is actually needed. It can't be done like the 1930s again, since we are now in a post-1968 world and once we've crossed that Rubicon, there's no way - or desire - to un-realise what has been realised.

Women and men should co-operate at every level that they can. And remember, Sophie Rogge-Boerner had suggested exactly this in the early 1930s, but Joseph Goebbels unfortunately didn't listen to her.

[Varg]

Also, I don't see how you can blame the last few decades of mistakes on women, seeing as men have been in charge and men are the ones who actually designed liberalism in the first place.

The man of nowadays is a degenerate weakling. You can find grave female traits in him. If you examine diet(plastic in food products, processed food, fried food, beer, fast-food, and so forth) and way of life without discipline, war, things that make man what he really is you will understand my point anyone can understand. You can read again Evola's quote about tennis rackets.


Are they real men? No.
This is real man:

Given the track record, I think it would not only be risky, but beyond risky and in fact disastrous, to allow men to get untrammelled control over any government ever again. The incentives would be all wrong.

Please give me an example of a great civilization where women had predominance. It doesn't exist. What about Ancient Greece, Roman Empire and such?

Also, you said earlier that fascism is about heroism and leaving things up to god, but firstly the Spanish falangists and Japanese right-socialists already pointed out that "Fascism is not violence, it is unity". Any violence we carry out ought only to be for the defence of the system of consensus that we are aiming to build. We can't bring back any of the old mores of the past because those mores are inefficient.

I didn't say that fascism is leaving things up to god. About heroism and violence, i did i am correct. I don't know much about Japanese fascism but you are wrong about falangism. Just a quick quote from google:

The Falange committed acts of violence prior to the war, including becoming involved in street brawls with their political opponents that helped to create a state of lawlessness that the right-wing press blamed on the republic to support a military uprising.[2] Falangist terror squads sought to create an atmosphere of disorder in order to justify the imposition of an authoritarian regime.[4] With the onset of middle-class disillusionment with the CEDA's legalism, support for the Falange expanded rapidly.[4] By September 1936, the total Falangist volunteers numbered at 35,000, accounting for 55 percent of all civilian forces of the Nationals.[5]

What is the use of asking a woman to waste away her time at home?
There is nothing to do at home. Many say, "oh, to take care of children", except the first thing that fascists actually do is abolish the nuclear family by socialising child-raising through day care and the school system. With that done, you might as well mobilise that 50% of the workforce rather that wasting it.

The waste of time is relative. I personally don't think that the education of the future people is a waste of time. It's an extremely valuable role. Let's not be hypocrites, the number of inhabitants of a country is an indispensable force today. While Western men weak and estrogenized waste time defending women's right, the Arabs have 5/6 children and will soon dominate the European countries. Your country - i suppose you're Japanese - is losing population and will decline soon for the same reason. The heyday of your civilization only happened in a virile and manly society.

"And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. "
1: Timothy 2:12
This is not a fanatic dogma. It's a survival manual for people who can see. That's why, for instance, jews survived in thousands of adverse situations.

Regarding the issue of 'god', I can't think of a more anti-Christ ideology than fascism. In fact, fascism bears the distinction of being the only ideology other than communism to have originally declared itself to be 'fundamentally anti-Christian'. So the 'degeneracy' is not that we have departed from the traditional ways, it's that we ever allowed them to take hold here in the first place. What we are suffering from presently is the final outcome of Judeo-Christendom and is twin brother liberalism, which must be collapsed onto each other and sublimated if we are to survive as a people.

I disagree. Christ was a major figure in fascist movements. The fascism in Iberic peninsula was catholic, Mussolin's fascism made an agreement with the church, Rexism also(the name was derived from the Roman Catholic social teachings concerning Christus Rex,) , The Iron Guard was deeply influenced by orthodox Christianity, Brazilian Integralist Action was clearly Christian and so forth.

On the one hand you find in Fascism, taken from Christianity, taken directly from the Christian conception, the immense vision of service, of self-abnegation, of self-sacrifice in the cause of others, in the cause of the world, in the cause of your country; not the elimination of the individual, so much as the fusion of the individual in something far greater than himself; and you have that basic doctrine of Fascism, service, self-surrender to what the Fascist must conceive to be the greatest cause and the greatest impulse in the world. On the other hand you find taken from Nietszchian thought the virility, the challenge to all existing things which impede the march of mankind, the absolute abnegation of the doctrine of surrender; the firm ability to grapple with and to overcome all obstructions. You have, in fact, the creation of a doctrine of men of vigour and of self-help which is the other outstanding characteristic of Fascism.

Mosley

Now let's see some quotes from the most important members and founders of the devilish NS:

The struggle we are now waging until victory or the bitter end is, in its deepest sense, a struggle between Christ and Marx.

Goebbels

In Christ, the embodiment of all manliness, we find all that we need.

Christ preached struggle as did no other.

Scherl

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...

Adolf Hitler

This war was a religious war, finally one sees that clearly. A war between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, Christ and Antichrist.

Dietrich Eckhart

Germans must fight Jews, that organized body of world criminals against whom Christ, the greatest anti-Semite of all time, had fought.

Streicher

Fascism as anti-Christian is a bizarre view from Hollywood movies. Just one more quote is necessary to you understand why fascism is christian. A quote from a catholic aristocrat:

And don’t tell me you don’t wish to fight; for the moment you tell me that, you are already fighting; nor that you don’t know which side to join, for while you are saying that, you have already joined a side; nor that you wish to remain neutral; for while you are thinking to be so, you are so no longer; nor that you want to be indifferent; for I will laugh at you, because on pronouncing that word you have chosen your party. Don’t tire yourself in seeking a place of security against the chances of war, for you tire yourself in vain; that war is extended as far as space, and prolonged through all time. In eternity alone, the country of the just, can you find rest, because there alone there is no combat. But do not imagine, however, that the gates of eternity shall be opened for you, unless you first show the wounds you bear; those gates are only opened for those who gloriously fought here the battles of the Lord, and were, like the Lord, crucified.

Allowing socially-conservative ideas to get in the way of the policy choices that we need to make in order to move forward, would trap us once again in a 'half-revolution', a stalled moment, where we'd be once again unintentionally putting off that historical moment of transition into a new epoch, by hugging tightly to old ways that are actually incompatible with where we are trying to go in a post-1968 world and the new facts which have come to light since then.

There aren't new facts. Human relations are immutable. A degenerate fascism is not fascism anymore because fascism if fight against degeneration. The main problem is that you think women using you as an example. In fact, you need to find a real man to understand physically and not rationally your position as a woman.

New research attempting to shed light on the age old question of how male and female brains differ has found that timing is everything.

In a study involving more than 8,000 U.S. males and females ranging in age from 2 to 9, Vanderbilt University researchers Stephen Camarata, Ph.D., and Richard Woodcock discovered that females have a significant advantage over males on timed tests and tasks, particularly among pre-teens and teens.

“We found very minor differences in overall intelligence. But if you look at the ability of someone to perform well in a timed situation, females have a big advantage,” Camarata said. “It is very important for teachers to understand this difference in males and females when it comes to assigning work and structuring tests. To truly understand a person's overall ability, it is important to also look at performance in un-timed situations. For males, this means presenting them with material that is challenging and interesting, but is presented in smaller chunks without strict time limits.”

The findings are particularly timely, with more attention being paid by parents, educators and the media to the troubling achievement gap between males and females in U.S. schools.

“Consider that many classroom activities, including testing, are directly or indirectly related to processing speed,” the authors wrote. “The higher performance in females may contribute to a classroom culture that favors females, not because of teacher bias but because of inherent differences in sex processing speed.” An additional question is whether this finding is linked to higher high school dropout rates for males and increased special education placement for males who do stay in school.

In their new article, Camarata and Woodcock focus on understanding differences in “processing speed” between males and females.

“Processing speed doesn't refer to reaction time or the ability to play video games,” Camarata said. “It's the ability to effectively, efficiently and accurately complete work of moderate difficulty. Though males and females showed similar processing speed in kindergarten and pre-school, females became much more efficient than males in elementary, middle and high school.”

The researchers found that males scored lower than females in all age groups in tests measuring processing speed, with the greatest discrepancy found among adolescents. However, the study also found that males consistently outperformed females in some verbal abilities, such as identifying objects, knowing antonyms and synonyms and completing verbal analogies, debunking the popular idea that girls develop all communication skills earlier than boys.

The researchers found no significant overall intelligence differences between males and females in any age groups.

The research will be published in the May-June issue of the journal Intelligence. Camarata and Woodcock compiled their results through an evaluation of three sets of data collected from 1977 to 2001 as part of the Woodcock-Johnson Series of Cognitive and Achievement Tests.

Camarata is a deputy director of the Vanderbilt Kennedy centre for Research on Human Development. Woodcock is a member of the Vanderbilt Kennedy centre and is also a research professor at the University of Southern California.

Wow, girls become women fastler than boys become men. So what?

Preliminary observations suggest a sex difference in the shape and surface area of the human corpus callosum. The sexual dimorphism is striking in the splenium, the caudal or posterior portion of the corpus callosum. The female splenium is both more bulbous and larger than the male counterpart. Since peristriate, parietal, and superior temporal fibers course through the splenium, this finding could be related to possible gender differences in the degree of lateralization for visuospatial functions.

"Could be" and what's your point?

Professor Keith Laws at the University's School of Psychology looked at multitasking in 50 male and 50 female undergraduates and found that although the sexes performed equally when they multitasked on simple maths and map reading tasks, women far excelled men when it came to planning how to search for a lost key, with 70 per cent of women performing better than their average male counterparts.

"The search for the lost key task, which involved giving the men and women a blank sheet of paper representing a field and asking them to draw how they would search for the key, revealed that women planned more strategically than men," said Professor Laws. "I was surprised by this result given the arguments that men have better spatial skills than women.

Professor Laws was also surprised that despite the universal notion that women are better than men at multitasking, their review of the literature unearthed no previous scientific evidence to support this claim.

The participants in Professor Laws study, who were undergraduates at the University, had eight minutes to do several tasks at the same time, such as simple maths problems, map reading, answering a telephone caller asking general knowledge questions and showing the strategy they would use to search for an imaginary lost key in a field.

Our society doesn't need people to do many tasks well, but specialists in different areas. Can you please give me equivalent females examples of women in these areas? Newton in the exact sciences, Dostoevsky in the literature, Beethoven in music, Leonardo da Vinci as a versatile genius, Henry Ford as an entrepreneur, Thomas Edison as an inventor, Darwing as a biologist, Goebbels as a propagandist, Talleyrand as a diplomat ad infinitum? I don't think so.

Stress causes men and women to respond differently to risky decision making, with men charging ahead for small rewards and women taking their time, according to a new study in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, published by Oxford University Press. Under stress, men and women also have different brain activation patterns during decision making.

There might be advantages to both stress responses, especially in areas with the need to weigh short-term gain and long-term benefits, such as the stock market, health decisions or retirement planning, according to lead author on the study Nichole Lighthall, a USC doctoral student.

The experiment might also have implications for daily life and relationships, Lighthall said.

Stress caused men and women to make decisions differently, but when stress was absent their behavior and brain activation was much more similar, Lighthall said. Men and women faced with tough decisions might improve their communication by waiting until a stressful situation has passed, Lighthall said. "Men and women appear to think more similarly when they are not stressed," Lighthall said. "You should be aware of the way you are biased in your decisions."

After being subjected to stress, men appeared to be more motivated to act quickly while women would slow down, Lighthall said.

For men under stress, playing a risk-taking game stimulated areas in the brain that are activated when one gets a reward or satisfies an addiction. The same experiment found diminished brain activity for women in the same areas when they were stressed.

"It appears women do not feel the drive to get a reward as much under stress," Lighthall said.

Participants were given a task of filling up a computer-simulated balloon with as much air as possible without popping the balloon.

Subjects earned from $4 to $45 based on their performance, with the men earning much more cash under stress.

Lighthall said that although men performed this task better, the more important conclusion may be that important decisions made under stress should include input from both genders.

"It might be better to have more gender diversity on important decision because men and women offer differing perspectives," Lighthall said. "Being more cautious and taking the time to make a decision will often be the right choice."

Mara Mather, director of the Emotion and Cognition Lab at USC and associate professor of psychology at USC Dornsige College and gerontology at the USC Davis School of Gerontology, Michiko Sakaki, Sarinnapha Vasunilashorn, Lin Nga, Sangeetha Somayajula, Eri Y. Chin and Nicole Samii, also of the USC Davis School, were co-authors of the study.

Last year Lighthall authored a study in the journal PLoS One that showed that men under stress may be more likely to take risks, correlating to such real-life behavior as gambling, smoking, unsafe sex and illegal drug use.

Women are more insecure than men in adverse situations. It's obvious. Can you explain for me why women have a bigger % of depression and why women have more nervous crisis? In my opinion, because the are doing inappropriate activities motivated by social issues.



Neuroscience, through brain imaging, is increasingly demonstrating the differences in the computational models of the male and female brain. The female brain, with its 10 to 20 million more connections in the corpus callosum connecting the left and right hemispheres, operates in a more integrated, parallel processing mode, taking many more variables into account. This may make many women seem as if they are not efficiently focused on problems and solutions. But in effect, they are effectively resolving problems and outcomes by looking at the 360 degree radius around the issue. It's a health problem also.

Perhaps the most important difference between many men and women is their perception of world view. In general, men tend to see the world as a three-legged stool, the seat of which is the economy. The three legs are communications infrastructure, transportation infrastructure and capital formation. Women, on the other hand, tend to see the world as a three-legged stool as well, but the seat is not the economy, it is the society. And the three legs are health, education and ecological integrity. Neither view is correct by itself. Each needs the other to succeed. What good is all the health care in the world, if there is no adequate way to deliver it? Or all the capital formation if we do not adequately educate the next generation? Perhaps the greatest challenge for Boards going forward in a complex world is to learn to build the 6-legged chaise lounge, and that can only happen if both views are represented equally in the halls of power, and in the seats at the Board table. Which means it is not enough to just have a seat at the table. The times call for us to change the table.

Like i said women have more empathy and better communication skills. They could be tv presenters and work in some kind of ONG helping innocent animals. I really support this kind of things.

Women's proclivity for web thinking probably evolved millions of years ago when ancestral females needed to do many things at once to rear their young, whereas men's step thinking probably emerged as ancestral hunters focused on the pursuit of game. Both web thinking and step thinking are still valuable, but in the contemporary business community, buzzwords include “depth of vision,” “breadth of vision,” and “systems thinking.” In this highly complex marketplace, a contextual view is a distinct asset. Women are built to employ this perspective. In fact, in one study of Fortune 500 companies, senior executives were asked to describe women's most out-standing business contribution.

Their consensus: women's more varied, less conventional point of view.

Women's web thinking provides them with other natural leadership qualities. According to social scientists and business analysts, women are better able to tolerate ambiguity—a trait that most likely stems from their ability to hold several things simultaneously in mind. And if I had to sum up the modern business environment in one word, I would call it . . . ambiguous. Women are well endowed for this indefinite business climate.

Women's web thinking also enables them to exercise more intuition—and intuition plays a productive, if often unrecognized, role in managerial decision making. This mental capacity has been ex plained by psychologist Herbert Simon. He maintains that as people learn how to analyze the stock market, run a business, or follow a political issue, they begin to recognize the patterns involved and mentally organize these data into blocks of knowledge, a process Simon calls chunking. With time, more and more related patterns are chunked, and clusters of knowledge are stored in long-term memory. Then when a single detail of a complex situation appears, the experienced person can instantly recognize the larger design and predict outcomes that another must deduce with plodding sequential thought. Sherlock Holmes remarked of this, “From long habit, the train of thought ran so swiftly through my mind that I arrived at the conclusion without being consciously aware of the intermediate steps.”

Women, on average, excel at this form of thought.

Also related to web thinking is long-term planning—the ability to assess multiple, complex scenarios and plot a long-term course. To my knowledge, no scholar has studied gender differences in long-term planning. However, some business analysts believe that women are apt to think long term more regularly, whereas men are more likely to focus on the here and now. Women definitely use long-term strategies more regularly in their financial affairs. In fact, in a study of six thousand investors, three-quarters of the women had no short-term investment goals; the trading records of thirty-five thousand clients of a large brokerage firm showed that men traded 45 percent more often than women.

There is, most likely, a biological component to women's long-term approach. From studying patients with brain injuries, neuroscientists now know where in the brain long-term planning takes place. Women and men display some differences in the structure of these brain regions. So it is possible that women's brain architecture contributes to their tendency to plan long term. Women may have evolved the propensity to think long term to plan for their children's distant future. Today, however, this faculty predisposes women to see business issues from a longer perspective—an essential element of leadership.

Women are more tolerant. Is this good out of the home space?

Over the years, there has been much discussion revolving around what differentiates leadership and management and how critical good leadership (versus management) is to any institution. There seems to be agreement that leaders have strategic vision, good communication skills, creativity, and the ability to trust and empower subordinates.

Current leadership philosophy stresses many characteristics commonly viewed as feminine attributes (or advantages) frequently employed by women occupying leadership positions in an organization.

Perry Smith, Major General (Ret) discussed long term planning as a critical element in leadership style, similar to the concept of vision. Stephen Covey (principle centered leadership guru) believes that a dominant trend of the future, long term thinking, favors the natural abilities and talents of women. He also identifies leadership as “more of a right-brained intuitive, visionary approach toward building relationships with people. This infers women have the edge in today's leadership challenges.

John Naisbett and Patricia Aburdene, co-authors of Megatrends for Women, state “The balance has finally tipped in favor of women…It is not about women taking over, but women and men together expressing their full potential—neither superior or inferior.” Nicholas Wade seems to agree: “If Martians arrived and gave job interviews, it seems likely they would direct men to competitive sports and manual labor and staff most professions, diplomacy, and government with women.”

Rianne Eisner, as quoted by Naisbett and Aburdene describes two basic types of societies—dominator or partnership. She believes women's leadership styles tend to employ a partnership model, a way to structure human relationships based upon linking.

This linking is similar to the phenomena discussed by Tannen as intrinsic to female communication in chapter three of this paper.

In a briefing to the Air War College, Dr Christine McNulty, described what is needed for successfully depuzzling the world of the future as analyzing and synthesizing data and the ability to use both sides of the brain, left and right. This appears natural for women, consistent with the ability to rapidly transition from left to right brain functioning.

Just take the main CEO'S and compare the proportion of women. Women are perfect for human resources.

And just as a bonus, women are actually very genetically defensive:

In a study designed to investigate the effects of menstrual-cycle position on various measures of race bias, we found that bias in implicit attitudes, attractiveness ratings, and fear of an out-group exemplar tracked conception risk. The relationship between conception risk and explicit race bias was marginal; however, when all five measures were combined into a composite measure of race bias, a robust link between this composite measure and conception risk emerged. The effect was particularly strong for women whose self-appraised VSC was high.

These results suggest that at least some facets of modern race bias are by-products of an evolved system predisposing women to avoid persons and situations perceived as dangerous, particularly when costs are high. On the one hand, the system underlying the effects we observed may rely on an in-group/out-group heuristic that latches onto any socially marked group boundary, in which case similar patterns should hold across different combinations of race of subject and race of target—perhaps even in minimally defined, basic social categories. On the other hand, the system may rely on socially transmitted information regarding the potential for danger from men of particular groups in the local environment, in which case the effect will apply only to out-groups that are stereotyped as being dangerous. The results described here are not sufficient to distinguish whether basic categorization, social transmission, or both processes are operative in producing greater race bias when fertility rises. Further work is necessary to more fully understand the mechanistic processes underlying this effect.

Pearson does not use the exact phrase 'group selection', but does use the terms 'intra-group selection' and 'extra-group selection'. Intra-group selection is selection within a group resulting from competition between its members. Extra-group selection (meaning literally outside-group selection) could mean selection between individual members of different groups, but it is clear from the context that Pearson intended it to mean primarily selection between groups as a whole. Pearson regarded himself as a socialist as well as a good Darwinian, and was keen to rebut claims that socialism was incompatible with natural selection. Pearson argued that as human society becomes more advanced, competition and selection within groups becomes less important, as it gives way to co-operation and collective action, whereas competition and selection between groups (tribes, nations or races) becomes even stronger.

These early writers on group selection seldom gave much attention to the problem raised, but not solved, by Charles Darwin in the Descent of Man: if the qualities promoting group success, such as co-operation and self-sacrifice, conflict with individual success within the group, how is the conflict resolved? Bernard Bosanquet's essay does however at least address the problem. His answer is essentially that there is no conflict. As society evolves, it creates a new selective environment for individuals, and this favours co-operation: 'the struggle for existence has, in short, become a struggle for a place in the community; and these places are reserved for those individuals which in the highest degree possess the co-operative qualities demanded by circumstances' (p.294).

So I would suggest that in any movement such as this in the modern era, women are exactly what is actually needed. It can't be done like the 1930s again, since we are now in a post-1968 world and once we've crossed that Rubicon, there's no way - or desire - to un-realise what has been realised.[/quote]
Risk taking is indispensable for achieving great things. Fascism means evolution and not continuation of the status quo.

[Rei Murasame]

There's a lot there that is irreconcilable with the post-1968 adjustments, so I will just choose one facet and highlight that, and we can tackle these one by one.

I'll post this post about Christianity.

Judeo-Christian values provide the psycho-social grounds in which capitalism could smoothly operate (simulated nomadism), which may have given the illusion that it was "good for Europe", in the ascending phase of capitalism, but now the mismatch is clearer than ever in this era when capitalism is now in its descending phase. It's actually bad and I'll show why.

In these cases it is necessary, to explain what I mean like this:

As Shmuel Trigano notes, "by projecting itself as the new Israel, the West has given to Judaism a de facto jurisdiction, albeit not the right to be itself." This means that the West can become "Israelite" to the extent that it denies Jews the right to be Israelites. Henceforth, the very notion of "Judeo-Christianity" can be defined as a double incarceration. It imprisons "the Christian West," which by its own deliberate act has subordinated itself to an alien "jurisdiction," and which by doing so denies this very same jurisdiction to its legitimate (Jewish) owners. Furthermore, it imprisons the Jews who, by virtue of a religion different from their own, are now undeservedly caught in the would-be place of their "accomplishment" by means of a religion which is not their own.

Trigano further adds: "If Judeo-Christianity laid the foundations of the West, then the very place of Israel is also the West." Subsequently, the requisites of "Westernization" must also become the requisites of assimilation and "normalization," and the denial of identity. "The crisis of Jewish normality is the crisis of the westernization of Judaism. Therefore, to exit from the West means for the Jews to turn their back to their 'normality,' that is, to open themselves up to their otherness." This seems to be why Jewish communities today criticize the "Western model," only after they first adopt their own specific history of a semi-amnesiac and semi-critical attitude.

In view of this, Christian anti-Semitism can be rightly described as neurosis. As Jean Blot writes, it is because of its "predisposition toward alienation" that the West is incapable of "fulfilling itself or rediscovering itself." And from this source arises anti-Semitic neurosis. "Anti-semitism allows the anti-Semite to project onto the Jew his own neuroses. He calls him a stranger, because he [the European Christian] himself is a stranger, a crook, a powerful man, a parvenu; he calls him a Jew, because he [the European Christian] himself is this Jew in the deepest depth of his soul, always on the move, permanently alienated, a stranger to his own religion and to God who incarnates him."

By replacing his original myth with the myth of biblical monotheism, the West has turned Hebraism into its own superego. As an inevitable consequence, the West had to turn itself against the Jewish people by accusing them of not pursuing the "conversion" in terms of the "logical" evolution proceeding from Sinai to Christianity. In addition, the West also accused the Jewish people of attempting, in an apparent "deicide," to obstruct this evolution.

So someone must de-Christianise Europe, then.

Ethical and religious Christianity today is nothing more than a name and a habit, absolutely external to conscience; but nobody, or nearly nobody, has bothered to abolish the name itself and to put its content on trial again, so as to start right back at the beginning, rejecting the "fact" of Christianity, its "tradition" and all the rest.

This is precisely my intent: to hold such a trial, demanding that every account to be scrutinized with inflexible severity, that all cards be placed openly on the table, and that every way out and every compromise be barred in advance. At stake are not more or less anticlerical polemics but rather a serious, objective examination, unbiased by feeling and belief. A cool-headed examination should suffice to blunt the ecstatic thrill and to unmask the true poverty and inferiority of the Christian vision of the world and of man.

In ancient Europe, the sacred was not conceived in opposition to the profane, but rather embraced the profane and gave it meaning. There was no need for a Church to mediate between man and God; the whole city itself effected this mediation, and religious institutions constituted only one aspect of it. The conceptual antonym of Latin religio would be the verb negligere. To be religious is to be responsible, not to neglect. To be responsible is to be free -- to possess the concrete means of exercising a practical liberty. To be free is also, at the same time, to be connected to others through a common spirituality.

When Lévy remarks that "monotheism is not a form of sacrality, a form of spirituality, but on the contrary, the hatred of the sacred as such," his comment is only apparently paradoxical. The sacred involves unconditional respect for something; yet monotheism, in a literal sense, outlaws such respect, placing it outside the Law. For Heidegger, the sacred, das Heilige, is quite distinct from traditional metaphysics and from the very idea of God. We say, to use an antimony favored by Emmanuel Lévinas, that the sacred vests itself as a mystery in this world, that it is based on an intimacy between man and the world, in contrast to holiness, which relies on the radical transcendence of the Other. Paganism sacralizes and thereby exalts this world, whereas Judeo-Christian monotheism sanctifies, and thereby deducts from and diminishes it.

Given the new evidence presented here, patrism, to include its child-abusive, female-subordinating, sex-repressive, and destructively aggressive components, is best and most simply explained as a contractive emotional and cultural response to the traumatic famine conditions that first developed when Saharasia dried up after c.4000 BCE, a response which subsequently spread out of the desert through the diffusion of traumatized and affected peoples, and their altered social institutions.

The “West”? Raymond Abellio observed that “Europe is fixed in space, that is to say, in geography, as opposed to the West which is “portable.” In fact, the “West” has continued travelling and changing directions. In the beginning that term meant the land where the sun sets (Abendland), as opposed to the land of the rising sun (Morgenland). Starting with the reign of Diocletian in the late third century AD, the opposition between East and West came down to the distinction between the Western Roman Empire (whose capital was Milan and then Ravenna) and the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople. The first one disappeared in 476 AD, with the abdication of Romulus Augustulus. After that the West and Europe merged for good. However, starting with the eighteenth century the adjective “Western” came to light on nautical charts referring to the New World, also called the “American system,” as opposed to the “European system,” or the “Eastern Hemisphere” (which then included Europe, Africa and Asia).

In the interwar period the West, having always been associated with Europe, as for example in Spengler’s works, was contrasted to the Orient, which turned into an object of fascination (René Guenon) and a scarecrow (Henri Massis). During the Cold War, the West included Western Europe and its Anglo-Saxon allies such as England and the United States, both being at that time opposed to the “Eastern bloc,” dominated by the Soviet Russia. This view, which allowed the U.S. to legitimize its hegemony, survived the collapse of the Soviet system (also for example with Huntington).

Today, the West has again acquired new meanings. At times it can have a purely economic one: “Western” are all developed, modernized, industrialized countries, such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, including the countries of the former “Eastern Europe,” North America or Latin America. “Ex Oriente lux, luxus ex Occidente,” (Light comes from the East; luxuriousness comes from the West) quipped jokingly the Polish writer Stanislaw Jerzy Lec. The West is losing its spatial content only to become merged with the notion of modernity. On the global level and as the last incarnation of furor orientalis in the eyes of Westerners, the West is opposed to Islamism. Accordingly, a fundamental divide separates the “Judeo-Christian” West from the “Arab-Muslim East,” and some people do not hesitate to predict that the final struggle of “Rome” and “Ismaël” — the war of Gog and Magog — will culminate in the messianic era.

In reality, there is no more such thing as the unitary “West,” just as there is no homogenous “East.” As for the notion of the “Christian West,” it has lost all meaning ever since Europe sank into indifference and “practical materialism” and in view of the fact that religion has become a private matter. Europe and the West have become completely disjointed from each other — to the point that defending Europe often means fighting against the West. No longer related to any geographical domain, let alone cultural, the word ‘West’ should be forgotten for good.

Let us rather talk about Europe. By thinking objectively, that is to say, by acquiring the gift for distancing itself from its self, and in order to be able to objectively rule on the true, the just and the good, Europe, all of a sudden, wished to access the universal — a desire that is not to be found in other cultures. Jean-François Mattei rightly speaks about the “theoretical view of the universal.” This idea of the universal has later on degenerated into universalism, which originally had a religious nature and then a secular nature (there is just as much distance between the universal and universalism as there is between liberty and liberalism). In its quest for Sameness, universalism boils down to the ideology of the Same, at the expense of Difference, i.e. in affirming the primacy of Oneness over Multiplicity. But it also reflects hidden ethnocentrism to the point that any idea of universal inevitably reflects a specific conception of the universal. Initially, there was a need to grasp the Other from the point of view of the Others and not from one’s own Self — which was both commendable and necessary. Afterwards, one gave up on being his Self — which turned out to be catastrophic.

Europe seems to be now in decline at all levels. The very construction of Europe is melting away before our eyes. Not only is Europe the “sick man on the economic planet” (Marcel Gauchet); it is also facing an unprecedented crisis of intelligence and political will. It wishes to bail out of history, driven by the idea that the present state of things — the boundless capital and techno-science — are expected to continue their course forever and that there is nothing else possible, and especially that there is nothing better. Ceding to an impetus that has become a part and an object of the history of others, Europe has exempted itself from its very self. Between the destitution of its past and the fear of its future, it believes in nothing else other than abstract moralism and disembodied principles that would save her from thriving in its being — even if the price is its metamorphosis. Forgetting that history is tragic, assuming that its can reject any consideration of power, searching for consensus at any cost, floating weightless, as if in a form of lethargy, not only does it consent to its own disappearance, but it interprets its disappearance as a proof of its moral superiority. One can obviously think of the “last man” that Nietzsche talked about.

So the only thing that is not declining is the subject of the decline itself — which is the subject of the permanent “declination.” This issue is not an offshoot of the old tradition of cultural pessimism. We need to know whether history obeys intrinsic laws that go beyond human action. If there is a decline of the West, then this decline comes from far away and must not be reduced to the present state of affairs such as globalization. The fate of a culture is contained in its origin. Its very history is determined by its origin because its origin determines its historical itinerary, its narrative skill, and the content of its narration. Historically, the Western idea first expressed itself in a metaphysical form, after that in an ideological form, and then in a “scientific” form. Evidently, it is running out of steam today. The West has said everything it had to say; it conjugated all its myths in every possible manner. It is coming to an end in a chaotic dissolution, as a depletion of energy and all-out nihilism.

The real issue is whether there is another culture which, having already embraced modernity, could offer the world a new form of mastering the universal, both in theory and practice, or for that matter, whether Western culture, having reached its terminal phase, could give birth to another one. Indeed, when a culture comes to a close, another one can replace it. Europe has already been the site of many cultures and therefore, there is no reason why it can’t be again the homeland of a new culture, of which we need to detect warning signs. This new culture will follow on the preceding one, but it will not be its extension. Rather than lapsing into unnecessary lamentation, what is needed is an eye sharp enough to look at the margins where something can grow that enables hope.

We are back at Spengler’s, but with one correction; what comes to an end heralds a new beginning.

Long story short, for a European agenda to exist, Europe must decouple itself from Christendom and start devising its own indigenous path that it can control. 'The west' as an ideology (Christendom-Liberalism) in its present form is actually the enemy of the people who live in Europe.

Now, I mentioned also the word 'agenda', but what is also the meaning of 'European agenda'? Well, this is the difficult part, since now I become prescriptive: There can only be a European-ness when Europe begins to take life into its own hands and demarcate a border for itself, and struggles to create an identity for itself. At the moment it is just submitting to Judeo-Christendom one day, and now submitting to the liberal globalist outgrowth of that with the universal nationless human the next day. That 'one day' and 'next day' are directly and disastrously connected to each other.

Europe should never be about the universal human, the human that is either 'saved' or 'unsaved' individually in the Judeo-Christian sense, the human that is alone in the universe, it's a totally abstract concept that can't sustain nationalism, much less regionalism. Europe can't recline and submit itself to exist in a trail of cathedrals that no one attends anyway. It would die.

A European agenda can only exist when Europe strives for political and spiritual independence in the continent with decisive action. It has to be active and build a real European religion and a real European way of life with its own hands, otherwise, Europe will not be able to come into being, and would become just a shadow.

I'll end this post here:

Let's not let any fears of 'sin' or so-called 'blasphemy' or any such thing get in the way of the work that needs to be done for Europe.

The idea that all existent things are 'alive' and part of the conceptual unity* of The All, is an idea** that has existed really since the dawn of humanity. As we approach the end of this epoch and conjuncturals open up with possibilities for shaping the next epoch, these tensions between religious actors are destined to intensify as various nations prepare to take on the task of developing (and conserving!) the earth and assuming responsibility for planetary evolution.

The old Abrahamic institutions are really illegitimate and they must be eroded out of necessity, or there will be no independent action possible.

We need to be confident that we are correct about this and that the spiritual hierarchy supports us and is on our side in this quiet struggle. It's also said that a firm and popular conviction has the same energy as a material force, which is extremely heartening.

If you wanted all that contained in one sentence I guess you could sum it up as, "Jesus was a Jew but we don't want to be Jews".

* "that fourth something which hovers behind all manifestation and behind all objects, all qualified expressions of divinity and which is hinted at in the Bhagavad Gita in the words: 'Having pervaded this whole universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain'" - Alice A. Bailey, A Treatise on the Seven Rays, Vol 3: Esoteric Astrology, p. 591

** Acknowledging a kind of interdependence of beings in all states of consciousness, namely: a. 'our nation', b. 'the dead', c. 'the ascended masters', d. 'the spiritual hierarchy'.

NB: Greece is in Europe, by the way! Israel isn't. Just saying.

[Varg]

The main discussion was about fascism and Christianity. I proved my point and you now are just quoting Evola and Alain de Benoist. So what? I don't care about their views on Christianity. They aren't fascists either. The main threats to European survival are the left-wing parties and the degenerate and materialist western world. The church, even in its current form, is a bulwark against these threats. Can a mentally healthy person look for Angela Merkel and Holland and say that the greatest threat to Europe is the Christian Merkel? Only a moron could do that. I don't care about these idiot opinions about christians. Christianism created Europe, that's all. And now please comment the rest of my post.

[Rei Murasame]

I guess we will not see eye to eye on this and will agree to disagree, but I maintain that both the leftism and the Christianity are the problem, and should be eliminated from the earth. That was always part of the original intent of fascism.

I'll try to quickly tackle the other things too:

The man of nowadays is a degenerate weakling. You can find grave female traits in him.

I'm not sure why you associate 'weakness' with 'female traits', seeing as it was in tests just recently where they discovered that women actually are less compassionate than men in punishment scenarios once they decide to punish, but men simply punish more often.

Please give me an example of a great civilization where women had predominance.

I don't need to, since fascism is attempting to make some unknown kind of society that has never existed on the earth before, so how can that argument be relevant? That's like asking, "Name a past great civilisation where they had elastomers". Everything that's happened since 1870 CE has been new things that have never been seen before, because industrialisation changed everything.

I don't know much about Japanese fascism but you are wrong about falangism.

Yes, they used violence to advance the cause, but not violence for its own sake.

Your country - i suppose you're Japanese - is losing population and will decline soon for the same reason.

No, the point is to use eugenics to make sure you have less population in the coming resource scarcity because it is the efficient that will survive, not the most plentiful. If it were just about having children, then why is Africa so poor? Exactly.

There aren't new facts. Human relations are immutable.

They are obviously not immutable, seeing as people have been significantly altered. Gene-culture co-evolution is going on all the time.

The main problem is that you think women using you as an example. In fact, you need to find a real man to understand physically and not rationally your position as a woman.

In this era it doesn't matter if a man is physically stronger than me, since that doesn't actually determine whether his status ought to be more than mine. When I was in school, the people at the top of the class were mostly girls - what did you expect was going to happen years later?

Afghanistan has a very 'manly' society, yet they can be hit by drones at any time, because physical strength doesn't decide everything anymore.

On the rest, it looks like you are just trying to find a lot of excuses to get around the science there!

[Varg]

I guess we will not see eye to eye on this and will agree to disagree, but I maintain that both the leftism and the Christianity are the problem, and should be eliminated from the earth. That was always part of the original intent of fascism.

It's a vague assertion. I already used quotes and facts that proved my point and you are just writing your opinion.

Leon Degrelle intented to destroy Christianism.

I'm not sure why you associate 'weakness' with 'female traits', seeing as it was in tests just recently where they discovered that women actually are less compassionate than men in punishment scenarios once they decide to punish, but men simply punish more often.

Women are less compassionate? LOL. Women have more empathy. How could they be less compassionate? If you are saying that women can kill with higher coldness a man who betrayed her, i tend to agree. We, however, are talking about impersonal and distant situations.

I don't need to, since fascism is attempting to make some unknown kind of society that has never existed on the earth before, so how can that argument be relevant? That's like asking, "Name a past great civilisation where they had elastomers". Everything that's happened since 1870 CE has been new things that have never been seen before, because industrialisation changed everything.

Are you saying that in a perfect fascist society women would have the same role as men? I think you are talking about Communism.

No, the point is to use eugenics to make sure you have less population in the coming resource scarcity because it is the efficient that will survive, not the most plentiful. If it were just about having children, then why is Africa so poor? Exactly.

The bigger and most powerful states could kill the weak ones. What do you think? Japan could fight China?
And Africa is so poor because they have lower IQs.

They are obviously not immutable, seeing as people have been significantly altered. Gene-culture co-evolution is going on all the time.

Man will always command. This is nature. Evolution is for both sexes.

In this era it doesn't matter if a man is physically stronger than me, since that doesn't actually determine whether his status ought to be more than mine. When I was in school, the people at the top of the class were mostly girls - what did you expect was going to happen years later?

You don't need to find a man who is physically stronger than you. That was not what i said. I said that you need to find a real man to understand your real position as a woman. When you find a real man you will think "weee i love being a submissive woman ^_^". Believe me.
You're just thinking intellectually and considering your own feelings. You quoted women as a leader in business area. Can you please explain for me why we have only two women in this rank? Woman are majority in business' schools. I can't understand.
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-ceo ... eatness-22
91% men
9% women
WTF?

Afghanistan has a very 'manly' society, yet they can be hit by drones at any time, because physical strength doesn't decide everything anymore.

Because Islamism prevents the development of science. Manliness is not just physical strength.

On the rest, it looks like you are just trying to find a lot of excuses to get around the science there!

I'm trying to find a lot of excuses to get around the since there. The same science that says that blacks and whites are the same think.

[Daktoria]

Rei Murasame: Don't get me wrong. You're smarter than 99,9% of men but you are an outlier. Women are better with people means that women have more empathy. Empathy is a disaster in leading positions like judges and presidents. You must be rational and don't care much about feelings. Empathy explains why women are disproportionately represented in the left-wing parties. Women are more biologically predisposed to follow that which is more popular and "fashionable" at the moment than men. This is probably a genetic trait from the past which kept their children secure and safe knowing that that would be the safer place-- to stay within their own "popular" tribe. Now it is backfiring and has been for decades. Women can, giving a silly example, accept the idea that gay rights are righteous because "what really matters is character."

This seems to be a onesided assessment of what it means to be a people person.

Diplomatic, empathetic, and charismatic personalities have a dark side to them as well; I have to agree with Rei's sources about women being more strategic. Throughout history, women have often been acknowledged as even "evil" for their conniving tendencies.

When women follow what's popular or fashionable, there's a reason for that behavior. Fitting in with the system is the best way to remain obscure, undetected, and smooth. Whether this is for the purpose of preserving an organization, infiltrating an organization, or honoring an organization doesn't matter.

That said, I will say that there's one huge disadvantage to having conniving leadership...

...it's implosive once victorious.

After women achieve victory, their strategizing doesn't end. It becomes inward looking out of paranoia like an auto-immune disease. Whenever women DON'T have an enemy to oppose, they oppose each other. It's as if they'll do anything possible just to create drama. They'll even antagonize men in order to preserve their unity to avoid having to fight each other while fighting a common enemy.

I also agree with Rei's sources about women thinking multi-facetedly, especially around the corpus callosum. That's what drives women paranoid - they look at appearances as many-to-one relationships which can't be depended upon. The implication is to constantly prepare for the worst. Heck, anyone who doesn't prepare for the worst seems to be dishonorable and deserving of being usurped.

Over the short-run, female leadership can be very successful. Over the long run, it's apocalyptic.

[Rei Murasame]

It's a vague assertion. I already used quotes and facts that proved my point and you are just writing your opinion.

My quotes are from after 1968, making them automatically carry more weight than anything that the old guard has to say on the matter. You can wish all you like but you are not going to get young people to accept the necro-Jew on a cross. It simply isn't going to happen, especially since Christianity is already in decline.

Women are less compassionate? LOL. Women have more empathy. How could they be less compassionate? If you are saying that women can kill with higher coldness a man who betrayed her, i tend to agree. We, however, are talking about impersonal and distant situations.

It applies in both cases, since the test was done on participants that the group was vaguely acquainted with, and then they were told that "such and such person has betrayed the group", and what followed was them having to agree to give that person a electric shock, and they did it.

Are you saying that in a perfect fascist society women would have the same role as men?

Does anyone know what a perfect fascist society would actually look like in full detail? Anyone who can describe to your the new social order in full detail is not a fascist, but rather, a mere conservative.

I think you are talking about Communism.

No, because there's a big difference between the two, the difference is not just around gender.

The bigger and most powerful states could kill the weak ones. What do you think? Japan could fight China?

Absolutely, if PLAN had a naval battle against the JMSDF right now, PLAN would lose.

Man will always command. This is nature. Evolution is for both sexes.

Apparently you seem to be afraid that he will someday not command, so how are we having this conversation?

I said that you need to find a real man to understand your real position as a woman. When you find a real man you will think "weee i love being a submissive woman ^_^". Believe me.

I'm submissive in bed with whoever, yes, but outside of the bedroom I like to have the latitude to do what needs to be done. All that submissive stuff is just part of elaborate game, it's just a construct.

Ultimately the fundamental thing is genes and protecting those who are most likely to share the ones that we have. Isn't it?

You're just thinking intellectually and considering your own feelings. You quoted women as a leader in business area.

I also quoted someone from the Army. Also, of course I am thinking intellectually, why would that be a bad thing? Someone has to do it.

Can you please explain for me why we have only two women in this rank? Woman are majority in business' schools. I can't understand.

Does it matter, though? You above all know that averages of the masses are more important than those at the extreme ends. So long as their IQ is over 106, then they are going to be fine.

The same science that says that blacks and whites are the same think.

I've never seen any science claiming that these are the same.

[Soulflytribe]

Rei Murasame: Don't get me wrong. You're smarter than 99,9% of men but you are an outlier

She is just a lesbian, hence she has a male brain, just like Merkel or Dilma Rousseff and 99,9% of women interested in politics.
Yes, Rei is a man trapped in a woman's body. She even likes Dimmu Borgir.
Make no mistake, Rei is one of us.

[Rei Murasame]

Last I checked, I am bisexual.

Plus, studies have shown that contrary the meme, the lesbian brain is not actually identical to the male one.

On the issue of music, I may like Dimmu Borgir (who doesn't?) but I also like Hello Project.

I'm more known in the Jukebox for posting pop rather than any other genre.

[Daktoria]

She is just a lesbian, hence she has a male brain, just like Merkel or Dilma Rousseff and 99,9% of women interested in politics.
Yes, Rei is a man trapped in a woman's body. She even likes Dimmu Borgir.
Make no mistake, Rei is one of us.

There is something off about Rei's argumentative attitude (women usually don't bother, it's too much of a hassle), but I don't know if she's really into women.

She might just be a tomboy afraid of getting knocked up who's femininely affectionate.

[Varg]

My quotes are from after 1968, making them automatically carry more weight than anything that the old guard has to say on the matter. You can wish all you like but you are not going to get young people to accept the necro-Jew on a cross. It simply isn't going to happen, especially since Christianity is already in decline.

If you consider the successes of the right-wing parties after 1968 you surely have a point. I'm talking about governments that existed. You are talking about fantasies. And the religion of the "necro-jew" is the biggest religion on earth. The strong ruskies will be the crusaders of the future. And they will destroy the pagan and muslim Europe.


Ruskies rule.

It applies in both cases, since the test was done on participants that the group was vaguely acquainted with, and then they were told that "such and such person has betrayed the group", and what followed was them having to agree to give that person a electric shock, and they did it.

Now i understand.

Does anyone know what a perfect fascist society would actually look like in full detail? Anyone who can describe to your the new social order in full detail is not a fascist, but rather, a mere conservative.

Women were forced and coerced to stay and remain in the domestic sphere, and the public generated an environment where this was deemed a convention: countless novels, moralizing works and articles of all sorts of publication aimed to exalt the woman as wife and mother and extinguish any spark of the terrible modernist conflagration. In this way, in the name of maintaining status quo, women were rendered into means of achieving and maintaining male supremacy: a representation of the 'new woman' in pathological terms was advanced in order to trace a line between orthodoxy and deviance, but the description of a monstrous figure devoid of feminity, rather than presenting a solution to the problem, often achieved the effect of amplifying the very sense of alarm that the problem itself provoked". Females were forced to remain as figures of antiquity, stationary, serving as an unchanging foundation onto which males stood on to maintain their supremacy. The theme of rejecting feminism has been prevailing throughout Italy's history, dating back to the days of peasant farmers and feudal lords.

Please read, Rei Murasame. The rest is fallacy and assumptions. Just like saying that gays would be accepted in a future NS society.

No, because there's a big difference between the two, the difference is not just around gender.

"Equality for women was a pillar of the ideology of communist regimes that ascended to power in Eastern Central Europe with Soviet support following World War II. Since religion was declared illegitimate by communist theory, marriage was not considered sacred; rather, it was deemed a capitalist mechanism for oppressing women. Thus, communist regimes began instituting policies intended to facilitate gender equality. However, the actual methods employed by communist regimes to encourage equality for women had varying effects (e.g., incorporation of women into the labor force)"

Absolutely, if PLAN had a naval battle against the JMSDF right now, PLAN would lose.

China would smash Japan easily. Japan doesn't even have an army. lol

Apparently you seem to be afraid that he will someday not command, so how are we having this conversation?

In communist societies of gender equalities just like URRS men also commanded. This is natural order of things and will not change. Believe me.

I'm submissive in bed with whoever, yes, but outside of the bedroom I like to have the latitude to do what needs to be done. All that submissive stuff is just part of elaborate game, it's just a construct.

Ok, but obey your boyfriend and be a good fascist.

Ultimately the fundamental thing is genes and protecting those who are most likely to share the ones that we have. Isn't it?

I don't know anymore. I'm white and i was NS but now I'm depressed with the future of European countries. I only have faith in Russia. Maybe the Europeans must be annihilated. The western world is sick and maybe they deserve to die. I don't know if i believe in racialism anymore. Maybe the strong and spiritually developed easterns deserve to rule. Your Japan will soon collapse too. lol

I also quoted someone from the Army. Also, of course I am thinking intellectually, why would that be a bad thing? Someone has to do it.

Because Fascism means anti-intellectualism. Just kidding.

Does it matter, though? You above all know that averages of the masses are more important than those at the extreme ends. So long as their IQ is over 106, then they are going to be fine.

Leaders are extraordinary peoples. So do you agree that women are less prone to lead? It is an advance.

I've never seen any science claiming that these are the same.

Saying that whites have higher IQ on average than blacks is forbidden nowadays. Scientists like James Watson are persecuted nowadays.

Edit: LOL A LESBIAN FASCIST?
Please God start the Apocalypse just now. I'm prepared.

lol just kidding. She is just following tendencies. Unconsciously she thinks it's cool to be bisexual and tolerant. A nice music for you Murasame. Share with your female friends:

[Rei Murasame]

I see that we are now discussing my tendencies more than the actual ideology at hand, nevertheless:

There is something off about Rei's argumentative attitude

Because we all know you've never argued with a woman before!

but I don't know if she's really into women.

I'm pretty sure that I am.

She might just be a tomboy afraid of getting knocked up who's femininely affectionate.

No.

__________________

I'm talking about governments that existed.

And that is what makes you a reactionary. You remember that fascism is supposed to be neither red nor reactionary, right?

And the religion of the "necro-jew" is the biggest religion on earth. The strong ruskies will be the crusaders of the future. And they will destroy the pagan and muslim Europe.

I think that pagans will be sending the Christians and Muslims back to their foreparents - the Jews - to ask about a new strategy for survival after we get around to giving them all a good spanking.

Please read, Rei Murasame. The rest is fallacy and assumptions.

You are quoting about governments of the past that no longer exist. If you are trying to bring back the NS of 1930s, or the Tsarist Russia, that's ridiculous and it will never happen.

"Equality for women was a pillar of the ideology of communist regimes that ascended to power in Eastern Central Europe with Soviet support following World War II. Since religion was declared illegitimate by communist theory, marriage was not considered sacred; rather, it was deemed a capitalist mechanism for oppressing women. Thus, communist regimes began instituting policies intended to facilitate gender equality. However, the actual methods employed by communist regimes to encourage equality for women had varying effects (e.g., incorporation of women into the labor force)"

So? Do we have to say that 2+2 = 7, just because the communists decided it was 4?

But this is really the highlight:

I don't know anymore. I'm white and i was NS but now I'm depressed with the future of European countries. I only have faith in Russia. Maybe the Europeans must be annihilated. The western world is sick and maybe they deserve to die. I don't know if i believe in racialism anymore. Maybe the strong and spiritually developed easterns deserve to rule.

Oh really?! So it is actually YOU that is not fascist! As I suspected! You are just a radical conservative.

Let me assure you, I certainly have no such doubts:

Riddle: Drink-vending machines are all fixed within a narrow range of prices, and it is sound business. Why do the manufacturers ally with each other and agree to narrow the price-spread inside the machine?

[...]It costs money to live in these industrialised societies, it costs money to actually remain integrated with the rest of society. Fostering a level of income distribution where people can actually at least participate a little, is a way to prevent social exclusion, and prevent the rise of anti-social behaviour and criminal cliques.[...]

The logic of my resource-sharing - which is really ethno-racial programming - starts from the premise that I generally favour helping a particular people ahead of any other arbitrary group in my policy preferences provided that rb - c > 0, where r is the average level of genetic closeness between my family and the people in question, b is the fitness benefit to those receiving the help, and c is the fitness cost to me or my family.

• Let's suppose that generally r = ~0.125 for me personally (yes, that number is factoring in that I am a halfie, please don't raise this as though I overlooked it when I obviously cannot overlook it) in the UK - a figure which would be much lower in other countries where I am not related to anyone and the genetic distance would be greater.
  
  
• Let's also suppose that c does not become a positive integer, because my status as a middle class person and my potential to absorb taxation-rises without my quality of life being damaged, as well as my social position being contingent on the maintenance of law and order, means that it is actually in my interest to support social programmes.
  
  
• Let's also suppose that b is a positive integer because correctly crafted programmes at least must have some positive effect on the recipient's well-being.

We see that the result is never less than zero for me in the UK, and it is always higher than it is for any other group in the Western hemisphere. So the debate really is about how much greater than zero the result is, which is to say, in this scenario it is 'always worth it to support social services here', just the question is only 'how much worth it', and maybe even a policy argument of 'how could we make it even more worth it through greater efficiency'?

This logic rests atop the fact that some of a person's most distinctive genes are more likely going to be found in people who have a shorter genetic distance between them than those who are further, which has obvious implications when you are a breeding group shaped by geography and the resources you have had access to historically. It is the genes that survive us and are passed on, and defending people who are generally more related to me - or capable of facilitating the security and prosperity of such people - is actually a tactic that has meaning.

[...] In a European or Asian nation, the premise of the existence of the nation is ethno-racial, and that expression that I placed in bold there (rb - c > 0), is the underlying logic of why the country exists.

So if you arrive at a value that is greater than zero and you then turn around despite that and actually oppose the existence of that governance for any reason, then frankly you are anti-social and wrong.

[Daktoria]

Because we all know you've never argued with a woman before!

I'm not sure if such a thing is really possible. If you listen closely enough, everything a woman says is a setup for a joke.

The only question is whether or not you're sophisticated enough to hit the punchline.

I'm pretty sure that I am.

I remember in Tigerlily's Gorkiy thread you said that you're rather unsatisfied with female intimacy.

It wouldn't surprise me if you've never orgasmed with a woman, but rather you've just faked it all the time in hopes of confirmation bias.

Don't worry, you don't have to admit it one way or another.

[Rei Murasame]

I don't think I've ever said any such thing, and that you are in fact taking whatever it is out of context. It's really remarkable, how some people who supposedly want to 'save the country', can never stop meddling about in and speculating on people's sex lives.

If you want to start speculating, at least do it in a thread about that subject, and then I will deal with you there.

[Daktoria]

I don't think I've ever said any such thing, and that you are in fact taking whatever it is out of context. It's really remarkable, how some people who supposedly want to 'save the country', can never stop meddling about in and speculating on people's sex lives.

viewtopic.php?p=13933419#p13933419

Are you happy with your current sex life:
No. Maybe?

I won't speculate beyond that.

As for saving the country, I completely agree. It is remarkable how much even civic nationalists speculate and meddle in the lives of their students:

http://testm.tiss.edu/tissdata/125/fem_ ... abough.pdf