latest

China’s salvation.

The fundamental flaw in the existing Chinese nation is the continued existence of the so-called “Chinese” Communist Party and its hold on power over the organs of the state. The reason why this should no longer be so are myriad but the most succinct reason is that the Communist Party represents a foreign transplant ideology and culture that is distinctly ahistorical and unChinese. The Communist Party is therefore illegitimate. However, consideration must be taken in that the solution to the problem does not end up being worse than the original predicament. The most vocal opponents of the Communist Party both within and without China are the self styled Democratists who champion Western Liberalism as it is practiced in Europe and the United States. However they are not a true opposition to the Communists as they are in fact their doppelgangers hewn from the same Western milieu. The motto of the Communist Party is that only Socialism can save China, under the aegis of a single Marxist-Leninist vanguard party. The motto of the Democrats is that only Socialism can save China, under the aegis of two Marxist-Leninist vanguard parties. The end goal of both the Communists and the Democrats are the same, to ape the reigning Weltanschauung of the West, their only difference is in who should be in the driver’s seat.

The problem lies in the goal itself in that the total Westernization of China ultimately means China’s suicide. As the originators, innovators, and most accomplished practitioners of Western Liberalism are in the West, the legitimacy of any Liberal Democratic Chinese polity will ultimately be forever beholden to the West. That is any deviation from the reigning Western consensus is punished by deligitmization in the form of being labeled insufficiently democratic. Furthermore the core ideology that governs the West is at present virtually indistinguishable from the Communist Party in essence if not in form and has degenerated into what can best be described as Tartarism. What is Tartarism you ask? Tartarism is a social-governmental arrangement in which alien elite, actively hostile to the majority population, seeks to govern by dissolving the ethnic consciousness and cultural distinctiveness of said majority into an indistinctive lump in their imperial soup.

Just as the Manchu Qing usurpers claimed the mantle of the Chinese nation and enslaved the Han with the aid of various compradors and collaborators, the current socio-governmental system as embodied by the West consists of a thoroughly Judaized elite waging a subversive war to destroy the vitality of their respective nations by changing the demographic profile of their societies.

Since Western Liberalism is not a solution to China’s existing predicament, the only remaining solution is for China to chart her own distinctive political course. For many, a return to tradition would seem to be in order. That is the restoration of an emperor as the foundation of government and legitimacy. Unfortunately such romanticism is ill advised because it is precisely the imperial system, or rather its failure that has led us to the China of today. It is simply not only the problem of a “bad” emperor that can bring disaster, but rather even a good emperor is no guarantee of anything. The crux of the issue that the emperor, by virtue of being the emperor, stands above and beyond the lives of regular citizens. By being so detached, even a good emperor stands at risk of developing a fatal case of nobless oblige where his magnanimity can turn out to be disastrous in the long run. Still the optimal form of government has always involved some form of autocracy because the very fundamental nature of democracy means that it must be dysfunctional. By granting political power to everyone in the form of a vote, you grant it to no one because the value of a vote is diluted by its universality. In addition, a democracy assumes the fundamental equality of all voting constituents which flies in the face of empirical evidence. Not all individuals are equal and the voice of neither a fool nor ten thousand fools is worth that of one wise man. Thus political rights should and must be restricted in some manner for the good of all.

The question then remains as to how political rights must be structured and restricted in a post-Communist China. The first strata that must be disenfranchised are naturally women. Giving women political power over men is a more mendacious and reckless act than providing a loaded firearm to an infant. It endangers not just one family but that of the whole nation. The obvious next choice would be the non-Han minorities. China is and shall always be the domain of the Han race. There must be no exceptions to this restriction because one exception begins us down the slippery slope of more exceptions. Non-Han minorities should never exercise political over the Han. The next but not the most obvious choice should be the elderly. Citizens over the age of 65 should have no political rights. This is primarily to avoid the inevitable problem of gerontacratic capture that presently ensnares the West. The elderly vote much more consistently and in greater numbers than any voting block and their primary concern seems to be to keep the flow of government redistribution heading in their direction. This has not proven to be a problem in other Chinese micro-polities, but it is better to be safe than sorry and nip this potential problem in the bud. Education restrictions are generally a poor choice since the educational system in China, as it is becoming in the West, mere credentialism and the over-educated tend to over-indulge in liberalism. The lumpen proletariat and lumpen bourgeoisie are the backbone of any nation and they must not be excluded. The next and most difficult step is to configure a polity that can escape being seized by the plutocracy. This is already a problem in that the capitalist class in China is as materialistic and traitorous as any other and twice as self serving. Hong Kong and Singapore are already controlled by monopolistic cartels and property tycoons who have no compunctions about squeezing every last ounce of sweet and blood from the citizens and show no compunction against importing hostile racial aliens as a means to save or make more money. This is particularly difficult because money will always be wedded to political power and thus to work against this is to work against human nature. Since oligarchy is the default system of human hierarchical organization attempting to interfere in this usually results in externalities. The most brute force method is to restrict political rights to only those who have served 5 or more years in the military. This may be overly restrictive and results in a sample too unrepresentative of the Chinese people but it may be the only panacea to this most vexing of dilemmas.

In sum, the post Communist Chinese state must be governed by male Hans between the ages of 23-65 with a conditional 5 years of military service.

YouTube shooting suspect dead; identified as female

(FeminamRadicalis)
The question is: what do they mean by female? Do they mean a biological woman born woman with XX chromosomes? Or do they mean a male who feeeeeeeeeeeeeels like a lady and therefore is somehow a "female"?

It will be a bit of time before we know. Since this is a tech company, the latter seems like a safer bet due to the glut of TIMs in tech. I will be very surprised if the assailant turns out to be an actual female, but stranger things have certainly happened. If the attacker is a TIM, I sense a push towards peak trans coming for the US.

(st_quiteria)
I'd rather not speculate. Amy Bishop is a woman, after all. Women occasionally have violent impulses and act on them for a whole host of reasons. Maybe you should consider deleting this comment before it gives the trolls ammunition.

(FeminamRadicalis)
I honestly could care less what the trolls / stalkers make of any comment I've made, this one included.

I did allow for the possibility that the shooter might be an actual woman by saying "stranger things have happened".

However, it is true that TIMs retain male patterns of crime rates and further that TIMs are per capita much better represented in tech than actual women are.

It's also interesting to simply consider that we are now at a point where we are forced to speculate if the use of the term "female" implies an actual biological woman or a male who says he feels like a woman. We can't know off the bat if this is a real woman or not, due to the rapid way in which that word has shifted in meaning over the past few years. That's quite chilling, really.

It's quite normal to speculate on current events such as this type of shooting, as they've very sadly become rather commonplace. You don't have to do so, and of course you're allowed to state that you don't want to and don't think others should either, but in turn I will state that I think it's perfectly fine to speculate and warranted in this case, since it's incredibly rare than an XX female would commit a crime like this (even though it does happen in a few extremely rare cases).

(NotSerenaJoy)
This. We are told the shooter is female, but that word is so meaningless in the mainstream now that we don't know what is meant by this information. We shouldn't be having to speculate about this. We should hear that a woman has shot people and be, "Woah! A female shooter, how crazy is that, what does this mean....." Instead we are here wondering, is it actually a woman? The shift in language because of the trans agenda is really messing with everything.

.
.
.

Because we are socialised to not be angry, but to be compliant and passive and most importantly, nice. It's internalised in us to not react violently and certainly not with deadly force. Even when we do reach boiling point, our socialisation still holds us back so that we never or at least very rarely react fully and release everything that is pent up inside of us. It's just not nice to be angry you know.

Men however are socialised in the opposite way. Be angry, be strong, stand up for yourself, don't take shit, never be compliant, get what you want at all costs. That sort of thing just screams "shoot everyone if they look at you funny".

(WrongToy)
I don't want to be blamed as a group for something a male may have done. I found so much of this account, from the 12-hour ride up from Riverside, the shooter knowing where the bf was, the suicide afterward, to have been so male-pattern.

This person is tall, wears scarves around the person's neck often, and in his performances is angry in a male way. Plus, in this person's country, SRS is the prescribed remedy for a gay male.

(Lil_Z)
The other thread appears to have been deleted, for reasons unknown. I hope it's not because the mods think it makes us 'look bad'. As you say, we are perfectly within our rights to speculate about this shooter's actual sex, given that the media is now regularly reporting male crimes as female ones.

Speaking of which, I think this person is almost certainly male. Take a look at the photos in this Daily Mail story, especially the one where he's holding a bunny. Looks like a male body, male neck, male face to me, and I'm a bit baffled that many don't seem to see it.

One of the comments on the DM site says 'Is that a man', but there are many more observing that something looks 'weird' or 'not right' about 'her' face. (One commenter says 'she' looks like an alien, while another says 'she' reminds him of an avatar from the Sims.) I guess femininity cues do throw people, such that their brain will categorise a male person as 'female' based on those cues, while also simultaneously observing that that isn't a female facial structure, hence the uncanny valley feeling that arises telling them that something is 'not right' about the face.

I don't think this will ever be admitted openly by the media. If he'd been a white, US-born TIM it probably would have been, as his trans status would likely have been part of both his social and online identities. But because he is (most likely) an Iranian gay man who transitioned very young, he's unlikely to have been open about being trans to many people, and I very much doubt his family will be inclined to mention it to the media either.

So now we can all be subjected to the joys of think pieces that ponder the meaning and motives of 'female' mass shooters. Just like when trans Twitter engineer Dana McCallum raped and beat his wife, one of the liberal rags (Slate I think) took the case as an opportunity to highlight the problem of 'lesbian' domestic violence.

In the next couple of years, we will probably see handwringing about the inexplicable rise in the number of 'female' rapists and pedophiles, which will allegedly show that our previous beliefs about these being male-pattern crimes were 'wrong'. It really is chilling, how completely the media is cooperating in this Orwellian reversal of reality.

(yishengqingwa666)
Sorry about your penis, inseminator.