psychologicalshock
August 15th, 2007, 12:10 AM
This is mostly for those on the picket fence.
Modern Society identifies choice identity as the ideal, the being of yourself while non-choice, born-in or assigned identity is dynamic. Should you be born a negroid then it is your right to feel pride for being dark, should you have been born White you would either have no identity or in the past you would simply be a citizen of the Soviet Union without any country. The question lies easy at this point: should people have the choice to be of a race what would the difference be? Well , the people who would choose would not have any true identity, by this I mean that the people would be radically different with the only connecting factor being skin color.
You can see this for any group of choice, should you be a homosexual the only guarantee of who you are is that you are a homosexual. Thus when you choose you truly lose your identity rather than gain one, a chosen identity alienates you from people. As a White people we have multiple instances of commonality- we carry similar virtues in that we all believe it is a most evil egregious deed to steal and lie . Many non-Whites do not value this proposition. As Whites we have a superior ability to create and invent, this is self explanatory in how many of such deeds belong to White Men. As Whites we place a lot of ardor and pride into what we do, and we consider money to not be the most important of things. Not true for most other races. Whites all have Geographic and Political interest should they see these interests as truly there's. What does a White Man have other than his race? He shares the virtues, the customs, the ideas of those people, what does he share with another people? Nearly nothing except for instances of small commonality such as liking a game or a movie, but what difference does it make if you have a small commonality when you have nothing else in common?
Thus choice-identity is not an identity at all, it is the observation that all races have some interests in common but should we call ourselves animals just because we eat food like them? Should we find identity with a shark for its meaty hunger or an eagle for its virtue for flight?
You shall never find a Nigger who believes in the White Good, you shall never find a Jew who respects any pride for your creed. You shall never find anything but disparaging hatred for anyone who ever dared to speak out and paint Jews as what they see them as. As a White you have no right for any interest in yourself, does it benefit you for being alienated? No, never, you are always at loss because you're put on your knees, put in your house and you are all alone. None will listen to you if you are concerned about Black Crime, none will listen if you don't see the evidence for the Holocaust, none will listen to you if you speak the truth. If none wish you to speak then what does that tell you? It tells you that they fear you, they fear your lethal mind, they fear that you might discover that you want to find people who are like you. Can you make an army of Liberals? No you cannot make an army of Liberals, it is an army of cowards and liars. You can make an army out of White Men, you can make an army out of Germans and Russians and you can make an army out of White Men of many creeds, but you wont ever make an army from ideologies that can stand and fight an army of race and culture. None know why they fight wars but they will fight side by side with their countrymen regardless if they know.
Is choice-identity always wrong? Of course not, but it should not be placed as anything more than something minor. If people are identified by who they associate with then how are they individuals? If people are identified as such it is easy to be a good person is it not? Join the right group and you're the good person. That is how society today works but is the pot-smoking class-president a virtuous guy? Absolutely not. Is the President your favorite man in the world? I thought so.
Choice-identity is thus lesser, what is greater is the things you never chose to do which put you with a people that you can associate with, people who are not strangers to you. If this is a bad thing then you might as well be an outcast forever. The essential choices of identity are made mostly for us the moment we are born, our personality, our environment and our genes. All things that we can barely control and yet give us what we do have. One might bemoan this lesser choice environment but should you be able to choose what cause you fight for and you have nothing to lose either way are you not fighting for an abstract cause? If you fight for money will you fight harder than should you be fighting for your land? The answer is obvious, a cause relaxes you and that is why they are forced against you- to make sure the fight leaves you.
Choice identity is not to be mistaken for personal initiative and virtue, choice-initiative only applies to a following where people identify each other as an "iberal" , "sexual" or "ive". As in a label of self belonging.
Modern Society identifies choice identity as the ideal, the being of yourself while non-choice, born-in or assigned identity is dynamic. Should you be born a negroid then it is your right to feel pride for being dark, should you have been born White you would either have no identity or in the past you would simply be a citizen of the Soviet Union without any country. The question lies easy at this point: should people have the choice to be of a race what would the difference be? Well , the people who would choose would not have any true identity, by this I mean that the people would be radically different with the only connecting factor being skin color.
You can see this for any group of choice, should you be a homosexual the only guarantee of who you are is that you are a homosexual. Thus when you choose you truly lose your identity rather than gain one, a chosen identity alienates you from people. As a White people we have multiple instances of commonality- we carry similar virtues in that we all believe it is a most evil egregious deed to steal and lie . Many non-Whites do not value this proposition. As Whites we have a superior ability to create and invent, this is self explanatory in how many of such deeds belong to White Men. As Whites we place a lot of ardor and pride into what we do, and we consider money to not be the most important of things. Not true for most other races. Whites all have Geographic and Political interest should they see these interests as truly there's. What does a White Man have other than his race? He shares the virtues, the customs, the ideas of those people, what does he share with another people? Nearly nothing except for instances of small commonality such as liking a game or a movie, but what difference does it make if you have a small commonality when you have nothing else in common?
Thus choice-identity is not an identity at all, it is the observation that all races have some interests in common but should we call ourselves animals just because we eat food like them? Should we find identity with a shark for its meaty hunger or an eagle for its virtue for flight?
You shall never find a Nigger who believes in the White Good, you shall never find a Jew who respects any pride for your creed. You shall never find anything but disparaging hatred for anyone who ever dared to speak out and paint Jews as what they see them as. As a White you have no right for any interest in yourself, does it benefit you for being alienated? No, never, you are always at loss because you're put on your knees, put in your house and you are all alone. None will listen to you if you are concerned about Black Crime, none will listen if you don't see the evidence for the Holocaust, none will listen to you if you speak the truth. If none wish you to speak then what does that tell you? It tells you that they fear you, they fear your lethal mind, they fear that you might discover that you want to find people who are like you. Can you make an army of Liberals? No you cannot make an army of Liberals, it is an army of cowards and liars. You can make an army out of White Men, you can make an army out of Germans and Russians and you can make an army out of White Men of many creeds, but you wont ever make an army from ideologies that can stand and fight an army of race and culture. None know why they fight wars but they will fight side by side with their countrymen regardless if they know.
Is choice-identity always wrong? Of course not, but it should not be placed as anything more than something minor. If people are identified by who they associate with then how are they individuals? If people are identified as such it is easy to be a good person is it not? Join the right group and you're the good person. That is how society today works but is the pot-smoking class-president a virtuous guy? Absolutely not. Is the President your favorite man in the world? I thought so.
Choice-identity is thus lesser, what is greater is the things you never chose to do which put you with a people that you can associate with, people who are not strangers to you. If this is a bad thing then you might as well be an outcast forever. The essential choices of identity are made mostly for us the moment we are born, our personality, our environment and our genes. All things that we can barely control and yet give us what we do have. One might bemoan this lesser choice environment but should you be able to choose what cause you fight for and you have nothing to lose either way are you not fighting for an abstract cause? If you fight for money will you fight harder than should you be fighting for your land? The answer is obvious, a cause relaxes you and that is why they are forced against you- to make sure the fight leaves you.
Choice identity is not to be mistaken for personal initiative and virtue, choice-initiative only applies to a following where people identify each other as an "iberal" , "sexual" or "ive". As in a label of self belonging.