Am I an Oppressor?

 While looking through "The Race Card Project" I stumbled upon this gem:

http://theracecardproject.com/im-white-am-i-an-oppressor/#comment-1952

She asks, "I'm White. Am I an Oppressor?"

 My Response:

No. You are a product of the most successful culture on the planet. Is the Lion an oppressor of the Gazelle? Of course not, each animal simply fulfills its nature. You are not the daughter of oppressors, you are the daughter of Conquerors, of Inventors, of Explorers and Statesmen. Your ancestors explored the vast oceans of the world before any other culture, they were responsible for all modern ideas of science, economics, history and mathematics, they escaped the grasp of the earth by riding upon wings of steel and they broke free from the embrace of the sky upon thrones of fire.
You are no oppressor.

You are a Daughter of the West. Stand Proud.

Sincerely,

An Asian who does not understand White Guilt.

Just figured I'd try and put some steel back into the sagging Western Spine as it labors under the weight of Cultural Marxist dialectics and demoralization. If a person of any other race were asking an analogous question, they would have their conscience immediately assuaged and their doubts dispelled and be told to be proud of their heritage. Not White people.

I'm not even White. But by God, I was raised in the West, I believe in Western values and a Western way of life. I'd rather not see it fall beneath the horizon as it slowly sinks itself into a death spiral of depression and introspection. Have some damn pride you European Pussies. Stop being such bitches about your heritage. It's a proud one, as proud as any other peoples, and you have just as much a right to display that pride.


BONUS: If you're interested in having a good solid laugh (as in fist straight to the gut, i'mma puke everywhere laugh)

Read this comment section....

http://theracecardproject.com/black-president-white-america-great-divide/

You Didn't Procreate That.

No Sir. I did not.



And thank God.

To balance it out I'll provide something you can curse God for; More of my Bullshit.

Summation of Progressive thinking as I understand it thus far (With my current understanding of the playbook):

1. Create a Moral High Ground. - By creating, that is to say inventing/lying/writing fan-fiction, about an objective moral high ground, which is a proselytizing morality, Progressives take step one. It is moral, to make others moral. And I'm sorry my Secular Humanists, but I'm taking down your favorite Pinata for the moment and informing you that: irrespective of the specific tenants, I believe it would be safe to say that Christian proselytization has been relegated to the back of the bus in favor of the Cathedral's moral message. As a matter of fact, you're likely part of the problem, so sit up straight kiddies.
2. Assume the moral high ground. -While in a perfect world people may create horrifically powerful weapons of mass destruction for purely academic purposes of self-acclimation and personal achievement, our world is far from perfect. As such, the creation of this dangerous weapon The Cathedral, was naturally proceeded by it's immediate implementation.  Now that the high ground has been invented and assumed, it is time to limit accessibility. 
3. Control the Language of Morality. Morality is action interpreted and I'm sorry my friend, but you only read Vernacular, and the power's that be? Well...they're all writing in Latin.
4. Constantly Move the Goal Posts for What is Moral. Any good system is designed to self-perpetuate. It is both administrator and custodian and middleman all at once, and the system which creates and perpetuates and calls itself Progressivism is very good. But not in a moral sense, I'll leave dictating morals to the experts. Digression concluded. By constantly changing, constantly moving, how can anyone possibly hope to analyze something's efficacy? Screw Vegas, if you want to see some impressive magicians, some true masters of misdirection, watch the Universities, watch the banks, watch the politicians. I promise you won't be disappointed. But look close, remember, it's what they do for a living.
5. Vilify the Opposition. Political Rhetoric 101: A successful assault upon the three cornerstones of Ethos, Logos and Pathos ensures a structure cannot stand. I'm sorry I meant argument. And by "successful assault" I meant social sanctioned ad hominem: Or= U R a Nazi/Racist/Sexist/Fascist/any one of a million horrifically ill-defined modern permutations of HERETIC.
6.  Become the Oppressed Emperor, the Powerless Superman: I hate sports movies. They're one dimensional male chick-flicks with all the intellectual and spiritual dividends of watching pornography  as opposed to engaging in real life sexual intercourse. Just go to a game if you really care that much. As far as I'm concerned, if you ever catch me watching one, it's to hear the speech. You know, the speech that rallies the team against insurmountable odds to a stunning (and totally unforeseen, I swear) victory over the morally reprehensible underhanded team of "winners". Mind you, the other team is almost always made up cloned adult versions of that kid who used to shoot spitballs at the back of your head all class only to ace every test and date the hottest girl in school (who you had a crush on). You know, that guy that doesn't exist. The speech against those guys? I like it because I happen to be human, and humans love an upset. For the love of God we keep track of records for the express purpose of shattering them. The Progressives? They're aware of this. That's right, they're in cahoots with the guys that write sports movies, we're all fucked. Progressives have won. Their victory is unequivocally complete and nearly invisible. And yet, they parade as the underdog. Why? Because everyone loves an upset. At this point you're trying to figure out how you could have missed it. After all wasn't it so obvious? You ordered a steak, they brought you tofu. When you pointed out they'd dropped the ball, they told you, "Sir, this is a steak." And you ate it. And it was the best Goddamned steak of your life. Except it wasn't steak. Friends, you're eating Tofu. Don't eat the Tofu.

Or if you prefer something more dramatic...

Goodbye Buttercup

Classroom Imperialism: Hierarchy and Education

“Now begin in the middle, and later learn the beginning; the end will take care of itself"

- Harlan Ellison

                I noticed a strange behavioral occurrence in my 11th. grade US history class today. It is the one class that I have never had a behavioral or attention problem with, and while it would be an exaggeration to say that I had what would qualify as a "behavioral problem", it was certainly different. The attention wasn't there. The usual thoughtfulness seemed to have been overshadowed by an absentminded apathy. The typical deference to authority had become a meandering glance towards the man at the front of the room saying words.

                Something was different.

                I studied the problem for some time, trying to puzzle out if it was a simple one time quirk in their academic consideration that every class tends to have, or if there was a tangible explanation to the change. The answer soon became obvious. Their King was gone.

                Earlier in the day there had been a fist fight in the halls which had set the school abuzz with the usual tittering that accompanies any reminder of our more instinctual tendencies. Yet this was not some incident completely isolated from my anomaly: one of the participants (and in this case the victor) was a member of my 11th grade classroom, and he was the unequivocal leader of that class.

                Of course, as is tradition in our new age of feminized culture, the belligerents were removed from the premises. That is to say that Mr. Smith we'll call him, would not be attending my class 3rd. period.

                And of course, you know the results.

                The explanation for my classes behavior became obvious. Mr. Smith had, through some primal and organic means, won the Darwinian race for hierarchy. He was/is the natural leader of that classroom. He has a number of qualities that garnered him this position, he is very masculine, he carries himself with an air of confidence (not arrogance), he is physically attractive to the females of the class (I hear them talking in the halls), he is a good person and very honest and open and he implicitly understands and respects hierarchy. This last trait is perhaps the rarest and most valuable, but I digress.

                The other members of my class obviously deferred to him (consciously or otherwise) and he, in turn, deferred to me. By gaining the respect and deference (unintentionally) of the leader of the class, I had through proxy seized complete control of the rest of the class. But now? The sudden disconnect from their naturally selected leader put the class out of sync with me. With Mr. Smith out of the picture there was a palpable degree of confusion. They did not directly oppose me, but now the stringent controls imposed on them by their true leader were gone. As such, they lost focus. They followed me because they followed their King. Their King followed me because I had gained his respect. With his removal, they were left unsure of our relationship.

                I began to apply this phenomena to the rest of my classes and came to a startling conclusion. In each and every one of my classes where I had a successful and functioning relationship with the collective student body, there was one identifiable male leader. What's more, in each of these classes I had asserted my dominance over him in some way and/or managed to gain his respect. Rule through proxy, the true Imperial model.

Specifically:

                Insofar as my other classes were concerned I found myself running into structural issues. In my 2nd. period class, there are only 5 males in a class of 23 and none of them have strong leadership qualities. There existed no centralized authority for me to grab a hold of when I entered the picture as a Student Teacher, as the Imperial Interloper. As such this was doomed to be a struggle from the start.

                My 4th. period class is even stranger. The class is fragmented into incredibly hostile factions (cliques who deeply loathe one another) whose respect for my authority tends to ebb and flow depending on which group is feeling cooperative on a given day. There is no hierarchy imposed by nature and as such they are a class of (excuse the phrase) Savages. Were I not a Student Teacher I imagine it would be possible, with more time, to successfully tame the individual factions, but as it stands the lack of a central male authority figure has robbed this Imperial power of a potential colony.

                In summation:

•  A quick heuristic for those entering into teaching who are having management issues. Find the dominant male in the class, defeat him or gain his respect, and you have successfully taken the short cut to control. But be warned, this sort of control should only be sought in temporary teaching positions: Subbing or Student Teaching, as it is unreliable in the absence of the authoritative locus.

• The better safer way to ensure control in a class is to dominate every aspect of the class from the beginning. Create the organic leadership experience if possible. In female dominated or fractured classes this is the only sure route to the degree of control you need.

• Hierarchy begets better thinking. The students minds no longer have to worry about the primitive scramble for a pecking order that must appear in any social situation. They can focus on the task at hand. Order begets proper education.

• Fuck what the Liberals think. It's wrong and doesn't work.

Enchiridion: Speculum of Self

Who am I? An admittedly self-indulgent question which has no applicable use outside of the retrospective esteem in which I hold my past actions. "Who am I" is nothing. Yet "Who am I" is the foundational query of history. History, the eternally infernally finite road map without end, to the human soul. Perhaps I can find direction for the future, in my past.

1. I am naturally inclined to be moved by stories. Whether or not I recognize the fictitious nature of a narrative is irrelevant, I find myself being affected on a visceral level by the myriad forms of tale-craft.

2. I seek a leader. I do not have within myself the primal fire, ambition or stamina of invention to truly embolden the souls of other men, and I seek one who does. It is written in my actions, it is expressed in the stories I hear reflected in my deeds, and it is now laid bare for the world to see.

3. I seek a leader, but I do not seek to be a follower. A strange distinction, even to my own mind, yet all the same there it is. I have ever been unable to follow an order for my own good, if it goes against my own good. I was born to be a Lieutenant in some great and noble man's army, only to find Greatness laid to ruin and Nobility a victim of social exsanguination.

4. I cannot lead, but in battle. So long as the business at hand is the business of open hands, I am poorly set to task. So long as the business at hand is the business of fists however, of conflict or conquest, I am your man.

5. I love deeply those whom I hate. My enemies and torturers of my soul, those who truly challenge and hurt me, are my dearest of confidants. Without the bite of their hands on my life; without the endless struggle they supply me, life would be cheapened.

6. I hate interminably those whom I love. Those who would look to succor me and hold me close, you who care without reason. Your pity for me in my most pitiable of moments...shames me beyond recourse. It shames me because it is a balm which I find myself wanting.

7. I am incorrigibly persistent in my self-indulgences, and unremittingly indifferent to anything I do not freely elect to partake in. Even to my detriment.

8. I will never understand women. I also understand that I will never stop in my tireless endeavor to understand that which I cannot.

9. I am a perfectionist. But only insofar as my own concerns are involved.

10. I am consistently erratic, and solidly fluid in both temperament and opinion. Come to me in a year and read how I hardly recognize the Man who wrote this list.

Perhaps an insight will be gained upon further analysis. Probably not. Self-indulgence has its place.

White Privilege? Or Western Supremacy?

I find it amusing that the Supremacy of Western Anglo-Germanic culture can only be challenged by an internal reaction and explanation to it's own dominance.

"White Privilege" (which I type with the utmost disdain) is nothing more than an excuse provided for other cultures for not being on top. An excuse invented and delivered by Western Anglo-Germanic academics on the behalf of those others. Pitiful.

Our culture is committing suicide. It's being bled dry by the very cultural mechanisms which allowed for its ascendency in the first place. The Faustian Soul of the West, the ability to inspire the unthinking masses to the task of conquest, or expansion and exploration...has been turned against itself. The vistas are closing, they are now too distant to be seen except to the most discerning and noble of eyes. Thus the masses attack the only target they can see, the only "other" left to attack who is capable of feeding the need to fight that which cannot be defeated which lies at the heart of every Western soul.

They attack themselves. They harangue their own legacy, their own people.

Feminism, multiculturalism, every modicum of the minutia that is the self-analytical feedback of Western culture as it sits in the pressure cooker of victory, are simply the mad ramblings of a man with cabin fever. But this stir crazy man has a specific affliction of isolation: Cultural Marxism. Of course, Cultural Marxism and those who adhere to it are not evil. Quite the contrary, their archetypes were the historical foot soldiers of Western power, those blindly faithful to the narrative.

Further exposition seems necessary, but now, pizza.

Ah...glorious obstruction of government...

http://www.policymic.com/articles/28821/rand-paul-filibuster-live-stream-how-long-has-rand-paul-been-filibustering

The Conservative Sociologist: Yeah, Pretty Much...

The Conservative Sociologist: Yeah, Pretty Much...

I'm cool with it...

The Fallacy of Equality: How to make Egalitarians Squirm

               To anyone for whom equality is a driving political motive, whether they be egalitarians, socialists, communists, or really any sort of political or philosophical '-ist' deriving from the folly of the Enlightenment, there exists one singularly disparaging conundrum which has yet to be adequately answered. Quite simply, "When will we know that equality has been achieved? How will we know when the Great Task is completed?"

                For any undertaking or objective, in order for it to be of rational order, it must be achievable. As such a purpose necessitates a metric, a system by which completion of the task may be gauged. Before we can reasonably claim a particular intention, we must then first determine by what means we will assess the task. In the case of equality how then can we determine that the aim has met its mark? Simply, there are two broad categories of egalitarian which I will be addressing, though rest assured there are more, I will be addressing these two and their conceptions of equality to begin with.

                Of the first order of egalitarians there are those on the most radical limb who honestly and openly drive towards equality of outcomes. That there will be similarity in how people are, the facets of their lives and in the way they think and how they moralize. To paraphrase a right-wing political philosopher, "They hate diversity. To them diversity means for everyone to act like a stupid, gullible, middle class white person and simply have a wonderful myriad of varying skin colors and hair textures." An accurate description of the position if ever there was one. This position is readily assailable for a number of reasons, and though it ventures into areas which I will not cover here, it is necessary to frame this position before addressing the second form of egalitarianism. The argument as follows is one of logical inconsistency. I will grant that this egalitarianism of the first order is at the very least, consistent, though I find it personally repugnant.

                Egalitarianism of the second order is that which stakes the claim of 'equality of opportunity' as its goal. Within this category are groups as wildly disparate as Social-democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, Republicans, and in essence every major popular political party or group with any real weight in American Society. However, they do not address the Metric Question, or how will we determine when equality of opportunity has been reached? As of yet, I have not received, nor can I conceive of a reasonable response. With that in mind, consider then how these groups claim to know that we don't already have equality of opportunity?

                Consider the normal modus operandi our society places for this question when it is delivered inversely as a statement. That is to say: "X" group is unsuccessful because they were not granted equality of opportunity. Whether that group be the impoverished, the 'oppressed' women living under the tyranny of the patriarchy (lol), or any one of the many ethnic minorities which live within this country, this is always the formula for determining an inequitable opportunity on the part of the unsuccessful.

                Notice that this argument uses group success (outcomes) as the means to determine whether equality of opportunity has been reached, or whether equality of opportunity is necessary at all as a desirable outcome,  without ever considering that this argument is simply one logical step removed from the one delivered by Egalitarians of the First Order. That group the Second claims so strongly to be "different" from.

               

                A purpose is no purpose at all if it cannot be achieved, unless the achievement is the act in and of itself. However, such an aim is one of personal growth, the sort of act undertaken by an individual whose values are clear, given to a personal hierarchy, and which in any given moment can be conclusively  ordered. Within a society, this is an impossibility for there are intentions, desires and values which are legion. Thus, equality for the sake of equality is no counter.

                When framed in this way, that is framed not in theory but in practice, social equality becomes an untenable position. Barring a conclusive answer to the Metric Question which can be agreed upon to some degree (another problem similar in nature, democracy) Egalitarians of all stripes will quickly find themselves either recognizing and rejecting the inevitable drive of such thinking, or embracing it and once and for all openly admitting they hate diversity and dissent and anything which remotely challenges their world view. They will be forced to become steely eyed realists, or petulant children who insist on their world view being accepted, or by God they will take their ball and go home.

Educational Leadership: Leading and Teaching in the Classroom

When you are the teacher in a classroom, you can NOT be a friend to those students. They have a whole school full of friends they don't need more friends, they need a leader. I've been a substitute teacher for 2 years now and I'm a litter over a third of my way through my Student Teaching and while there are teachers with infinitely more experience than myself, there are patterns in leading a class that I have observed. It is not in my nature to be able to innately and naturally conduct myself in the following manner. There are those to whom such a commanding presence is ingrained, and of them I am admittedly envious. I myself am much too friendly, too overconfident of everyone elses' abilities on a regular basis and as such I must be AWARE of the following. I must teach myself how to be a teacher.

 These rules of thumb, these observations of mine:

1. Successfully command and lead the men in the room, and the women will follow suit. They are the focus. Males create hierarchies, women do not. In order to lead you need to be a leader, in order to be a leader you need to create and be aware of a hierarchy and you need to be on top of that hierarchy.

2. Focus. Be decisive and have goals in every action, with every word. Even if you are unsure of what comes next, you must never appear not to know. Indecision and cowardice cannot a people lead.

3. Do not engage a challenger on their terms. When you teach you will find yourself tested at every turn by your students. They are unaware of it, but they are looking for signs of weakness. DO NOT ENGAGE A CHALLENGER, write them off. Engage them later on your terms, and cut them down so as to leave no question who 'won'.

             3a. Don't make it personal. After you hit them, it's over. Make sure they know that you know.

4. The only thing that matters when those students enter the room is History. Nothing else matters. Not their problems, not yours. They WILL get it. They WILL learn today, tomorrow, and every day you have them because you will make them.

              4a. Don't waste their time, and in turn leave no doubt in their minds that you will NOT have your time wasted.

5. Listen. At all times be listening. These are human beings, all the rest of the rules are moot if you forget this one simple rule. You are leading living breathing creatures, not machines. If you are not constantly watching, ever vigilant of every mood in your classroom, you cannot possibly conduct yourself successfully as a leader.

Simply some characteristics I've noted that seem lacking in the modern American classroom, which work. Many teacher have one of these, or even a few in varying measure, but they are all techniques I have observed that work. 

Today in the cowardly and feminized excuse for American culture that we find ourselves mired in, leadership, true leadership and direction for students is invaluable. You will not always be successful. The cards are stacked insurmountably against you: indifferent parents, a zeitgeist of irresponsibility for your own actions, a system more concerned with political correctness and indoctrination than actual education, and those pieces of refuse who are ushered into your classroom when they should be left to their own self-destructive devices (Yeah I said it. Some people don't belong in the classroom. They're a significant minority, but rest assured they're there.).

It's an uphill battle, but that just makes it all the more worth the fighting. Nothing worth doing was ever easy.