If you have been on social media in the past 24 hours no doubt you have seen at least one meme posted conflating Nelson Mandela and Morgan Freeman. These images are hilarious because they are such an effective troll of exactly the kind of empty, self-righteous, white liberal do-gooder that publicly praises the “courage” and “strength” of Mandela without actually knowing the first thing about the man or the history surrounding the fall of the White South African State. They call attention to the fact that for the average Western white liberal, Mandela is nothing more than an empty vessel for them to project their political and social fantasies onto. Most liberal whites probably have more of an emotional connection to the charismatic and grandfatherly figure of Freeman than they ever could to Mandela, which is what makes him so perfect for these images.
This is a response to the butthurt that occurred after Northman’s recent article Women Should Hate Freedom.
In theory libertarianism is all about capitalism and the free market, both of which are dominated by white males. Men make more money than women. Women are terrible at economics and math. Despite much of society’s resources dedicated to the task of gender egalitarianism, women still fail at economics and math. This is an empirical fact. It has been shown that most women are unfamiliar with even the most basic economic concepts needed to make saving and investment decisions.
You don’t want to get caught in the middle of The Happening with a pair of twink-legs, do you? What will you do when the hoards of transqueermosexuals descend on your poor, unsuspecting rural neighborhood demanding all the equality and body-glitter your people have to offer, if you don’t have the upper-body strength to fend them off? Being an edgy cool-bro isn’t going to keep your cheeks tight when the youths come to culturally-enrich your ass. So, to prepare your body for what’s to come, here’s TRS’s top 3 tips on how to LIFT WEIGHTS LIKE A FUCKING FASCIST.
It’s almost poetic, the irony that surfaces when leftist narratives collide. Take race out the picture and suddenly the liberal feels free to criticize the welfare recipient as harshly and virulently as he/she/xi can, with impunity. Take race out of the equation, and suddenly the Southern states aren’t just poor, they’re lazy. They aren’t just a burden, they’re parasitic. The dirty South becomes a diseased limb of the nation that needs to be amputated. When race is taken out of the picture, suddenly welfare states are the tapeworms of the country, sucking the life out of the prim and proper (and mostly white) tax-paying “blue states” of America.
Much ado has been made recently in the left wing of the “liberty movement” over the fact that men are its predominant constituents. Much speculation has been devoted to how women might be sold on the virtues of freedom and liberty, thus cleansing libertarianism of the stain of inequality that has long befouled its name.
Unlike “libertarian feminists” or even regular libertarians, I think women are absolutely right to hate freedom. There are reasons they do, and those reasons have served them well. Women’s sensibilities are wholly appropriate; to women. They just shouldn’t, under any circumstances, be given the power to impose them on men. As the old cliche goes, what’s good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander, and vice versa.
“Often in my lectures when I use the phrase ‘imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy’ to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh. No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny. The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism. It functions as a disclaimer, discounting the significance of what is being named. It suggests that the words themselves are problematic and not the system they describe. I interpret this laughter as the audience’s way of showing discomfort with being asked to ally themselves with an antipatriarchal disobedient critique. This laughter reminds me that if I dare to challenge patriarchy openly, I risk not being taken seriously.” — bell hooks, Understanding Patriarchy
No one has ever explained why if this system is so oppressive it is so easy for people like bell hooks to say things like this without suffering any negative consequences. Not only is it easy, but she is rewarded for it with prestige, influence and power, and she is not the only one.
Just when you think modern expressions of a coddled and stunted generation couldn’t get any more trivial and stupid, you find things like this.
For those of you who cannot or choose not to view it, Casey Jenkins, fish-faced “former craftivist,” is spending 28 days knitting a scarf from wool inserted into her vagina. That she has a menstrual cycle is part of the performance: in the video there are closeups of the stains on the wool and lurid descriptions of her experience in the pleasant feminine monotone one would expect from such a person. Jenkins talks of “demystifying the female body,” and it’s plain to see her latest project is a continuation of her activist work, intended to nudge humanity towards a more “open” society.
I recently watched Ken Burn’s documentary on Prohibition, and somewhere between the story of Carrie Nation and George Remus I realized something about the modern gun control debate: The pro-gun control side is acting on cultural sensibilities expressed as moralistic outrage. How you feel about guns is self-evidently related to the culture that you grew up in, with the typical Southerner or rural American seeing a gun as another everyday household object, while the city dwelling northerner seems to view them more as a dangerous weapon usually owned only by thugs and drug dealers. To a rural Southerner a shotgun leaned up against a corner is no more noteworthy than a blender sitting on a counter-top.
Today I am sharing with the class a perfect representation of the 19th Amendment and its modern result: banal statements plastered on the asses of motorized vehicles. I found this while parking at my local gym.
This article is my attempt to start an open dialogue with libertarians in the same vein as Darth Stirner’s “Fascist Libertarianism” article.
I also see a potential alliance and compatibility between occidental traditionalists and libertarians; at least, those of a more minarchist persuasion. Google analytics and social networking tends to support this idea.
It is my intent to argue that the liberty so many seek will be better achieved within a more TRS narrative. That even if you do not fully agree or wish to reflect on such a matter, extenuating circumstances and a growing Fifth Column moves towards forcing your hand one way or another.