Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Neo-cons

Re: Neo-cons
April 05, 2012, 03:03:56 PM
God be damned, I don't give a shit about the nignogs.  I'm practically WASP: my focus is on my people.

Re: Neo-cons
April 05, 2012, 03:19:20 PM
God be damned, I don't give a shit about the nignogs.  I'm practically WASP: my focus is on my people.

You live in England no? Then they don't matter as much to you.

Your nation doesn't have a history of enslavement and oppression of these people on the scale we have either. These people are Americans, born here in third world conditions by the hand of the white-man and his master. For us it is different. What may sound at first like liberalism is instead the best, most civilized way to proceed. We end anti-culturalism, and pseudo-slave culture. Work for the betterment of all Americans and cultural health within all groups here.

I do not see any reason why whites and blacks in the USA, who are linked by hundreds of years of painful, intimate cultural interaction can't cooperate for the betterment of both our peoples. Right now we're both being destroyed by the real enemy. If we embrace Afro-traditionalism, then we take away the charge of RACIST that will shout us down until only breadlines and riots open up the floor to us once again. Further, if we can piggyback our survival off the natural and human feelings of guilt that are being used against us, then we can take away the moral highground the liberals hold with people who have lost conscious context of their white heritage and culture. Take back white guilt. Turn it against the real enemy.

We must transcend the typical notions of political organization and thought. Not right-wing. Not left-wing. We must stake a claim at the head of the raptor.


Re: Neo-cons
April 05, 2012, 03:34:18 PM
I wish someone would invent an Awakening-In-A-Can.

Re: Neo-cons
April 05, 2012, 03:56:37 PM
I just pooped.

Re: Neo-cons
April 05, 2012, 04:05:20 PM
If we embrace Afro-traditionalism, then we take away the charge of RACIST that will shout us down until only breadlines and riots open up the floor to us once again.

African nationalism is good because it means self-rule for Africans which means less of them exploited, at least by outsiders who would benefit better by doing for themselves instead. African nationalism is not good because by embracing it, racists can avoid being called racists.

This is the same sort of opaque, political level manipulative exploitation of black people the left engages in.

That proposal is still located within the "left-right paradigm", the escape from which is in itself of dubious value. The left engages blacks in a patronizing manner, but for no less political gain than the avoiding racism mode offered above. Furthermore, by implication the left regards them as an inferior race of people in need of constant attention, uplifting and assistance.

Re: Neo-cons
April 05, 2012, 04:11:55 PM
If we embrace Afro-traditionalism, then we take away the charge of RACIST that will shout us down until only breadlines and riots open up the floor to us once again.

African nationalism is good because it means self-rule for Africans which means less of them exploited, at least by outsiders who would benefit better by doing for themselves instead. African nationalism is not good because by embracing it, racists can avoid being called racists.

This is the same sort of opaque, political level manipulative exploitation of black people the left engages in.

That proposal is still located within the "left-right paradigm", the escape from which is in itself of dubious value. The left engages blacks in a patronizing manner, but for no less political gain than the avoiding racism mode offered above. Furthermore, by implication the left regards them as an inferior race of people in need of constant attention, uplifting and assistance.

You're dead on about what the left does, but how is anything I have said in any way related?

Re: Neo-cons
April 06, 2012, 06:19:45 AM
Nothing you say is in any way related. To itself or anything else. That's why I don't read it. Just kidding mostly. But seriously work on coherence. Less sperg more editing.

Quote
neoconservatism, variant of the political ideology of conservatism that combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets. Neoconservatism arose in the United States in the 1970s among intellectuals who shared a dislike of communism and a disdain for the counterculture of the 1960s, especially its political radicalism and its animus against authority, custom, and tradition.

Among their intellectual ancestors neoconservatives count the ancient Greek historian Thucydides for his unblinking realism in military matters and his skepticism toward democracy, as well as Alexis de Tocqueville, the French author of Democracy in America (1835–40), who described and analyzed both the bright and the bad sides of democracy in the United States. More recent influences include the German-born American political philosopher Leo Strauss and several of his students, such as Allan Bloom; Bloom’s student Francis Fukuyama; and a small band of intellectuals who in their youth were anti-Stalinist communists (specifically Trotskyites) before becoming liberals disillusioned with liberalism. The latter include Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, and Norman Podhoretz, among others.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1075556/neoconservatism

Everything sounded good up until Strauss and his posse. That's where this definition stops making sense. Anti-Stalinist communists? No thank you motherfuckers. From what I've read Irving Kristol was a total nut job, like a libertarian and a democrat hiding behind a republican skin. That sounds to me like...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only

These are different from the se wonderful fellas, you can find them on the plains of Africa




Re: Neo-cons
April 06, 2012, 07:55:25 AM
That definition is great, but something is missing.

"combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets"

When explored, the two bolded are fundamentally incompatible. It may sound good, but it isn't. It's subterfuge, hypocrisy, whatever you want to call it. Angry right-liberalism wearing a different skin.