Occ88

[Occ88 @oc83345]

yeah and thats precisely my point. you haven't actually liberated yourself from anything because the structure of your identity remains constant: self-loathing, envy, resentment--all defined against an "enemy" external group (men).

feminism, healthily understood, is the celebration of women on their own terms without the need for external referent--both genders are capable of excellence, often within complementary frameworks that emerge from biologically-engrained traits and dispositions. in other words: it celebrates women for their achievements and affirmation of their womanhood.

your distorted feminism instead posits that women are and always will be subordinate to men. you unknowingly essentialise womens identity to that of the slave--a wholly defeatist and self-flagellatory mindset. in this context, the only glimpses of "freedom" you can glimpse are through acts of self-imposed hostile and malicious "rebellion". you never become your own person, comfortable with and celebrating your own identity, because you are the perpetual slave and the eternal victim, defined constantly by your inescapable oppression.

you tell me which is more of a feminist vision.

[Occ88 @oc83345]

it's hardly positive though. the very foundation of your identity is created by identifying a mysterious omnipresent enemy--in this case "men" or "the patriarchy"--and setting it in opposition to that.

far from emancipating yourself you end up affirming/entrenching your position as a victim/the oppressed, which becomes the only prism through which you interpret your identity.

from this relationship arise specific sets of emotions: hate, envy, resentment. even positive emotions are dialectically related to the negative ones: joy comes from assertions of power within the dynamic (disparaging/degrading men).

everything that you feel, think and do starts to revolve around the discourse. you think you have been emancipated, yet you have fallen into a trap.

[Occ88 @oc83345]

@Cozzyly_stingy @xoxo_valentine_ @gravepoppies clearly you're spending a lot of time thinking about men then. no one "liberated" from social norms is going to care this much about what others think, even if its in a negative sense. they just live, without reference to other individuals or, in this case, groups.

[Occ88 @oc83345]

@nativistconcern @JedoBak @frankwrighter crazy thing is nietzsche already established this essentially from first principles. the apolline-dionysian maps almost perfectly onto mcgichrilst's left-right brain

[Occ88 @oc83345]

@RusGarbageHuman awfully tragic that the only thing the liberal establishment sees it safe to celebrate about our country is paddington

truly a microcosm of the yookay. tyranny masked behind a cute cuddly talking bear

[The Secret People 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @SecretPeopleTSP]

Then you have no argument. You had the opportunity to learn something about the beliefs of the man that you chose to challenge and perhaps broaden your view, but clearly got scared when you realised that you are punching way above your intellectual weight.

Going by what little you've offered to this discussion I would assume that you know very little about the proper facts regarding this subject; which is what we are in the process of changing for our English People. Constitutional illiteracy is rife and the result is the position we are suffering today. There is no shame in admitting to such illiteracy as it is the result of many years of British State propaganda and redefining of long established (ancient) fundamental principles.

Our English Constitution and Law established over our 1000+ year history is our protection against slavery to State oppressions and tyranny. It was described by our ancestors who forced the principles defining our Constitution into our Law, as our Birthright as freeborn Englishmen. This is nothing to do with anything 'British' which came much later as a replacement identity imposed upon our native civilisations, and much later than the legislatively created 'Great Britain'.

The bottom line is, we all as individuals have a choice to make; are you an Englishman of the English civilisation with Rights and Liberties guaranteed by our ancestors prior to any formation of Parliament, and willing to re-claim that inheritence, or; a British citizen with no legal history before the enactment of legislation defineing your identity as such, and with as much legal Right as all 'British' foreign nationals?

The choice is yours to make, and the consequences good or bad are what you consent to.

[Occ88 @oc83345]

To add onto this I'm not disparaging nationalism, I'm just making the point that when examining the history of it, it doesn't neatly transplant onto England. This should encourage us to seek alternative routes, or rather rediscover our old ones, which would deliver the same effects yet within a more authentic framework sensitive to our cultural and historical memory.

[Occ88 @oc83345]

You can challenge my ideas without the hysterics, you know. It's very feminine.

I haven't swallowed anything, I arrived at this conclusion independent of Carl. The reason why we are resemblant is almost certainly because we've engaged empirically with the same history.

It's quite simple: an articulate English national identity emerged organically, bottom-up, over a millenia ago. Our national consciousness has been constituted by a dialectical process between the English and the maintenance and extension of their rights, as Englishmen, under the Common Law. If the central reifying feature of our national identity - the constitution - were to be taken away or written out of our national consciousness, this thread weaving us between generations would be cut. This distinguishes us from continental forms which were more ethnic-romantic rather than our constitutional-patriotic, wherein ethnic belonging was implicit and assumed rather than explicitly promulgated.

"Nationalism", as an intellectual construct for consciousness-raising, thus had no presence in Britain; English identity had already been realised binding each class of society into a sense of national belonging, duty and patriotism. We were already dispositionally nationalist, although a more historically sensitive term that avoids anachronistic impositions would be that we were fiercely patriotic.

Here my point becomes clearer: continental European countries did not have such a precedent. "German" Kultur was something that people were aware existed, but the idea of folding regional identity into a unitary nation-state was alien. To be a "German" was to reject the unitary nation-state; it was to belong to a diffuse yet existant cultural group. To move against this latent pressure, then, was to move against their entrenched and organically-emergent culture. The realisation of the nation-state could only be led from the top, by the elites (intellectual, political, economic etc.; I don't mean this disparagingly) who could give national form to the latent material in the German cultural group.

The same goes for France, albeit obviously in a vastly different context. With the monarchy dissolved, a new means of national self-expression and legitimation had to be developed: the idea of the French as a tangible and identifiable "people", and not merely a loose term for subjects of the French King across multiple distinct regional cultures.

Notice the inversion of the epistemic flow: whereas English national identity was spontaneously occurring and organically emergent, continental nationalism was designed, with epistemic authority flowing from the top, in order to press a coherent national identity into existence.

If you are actually care about our history, you would be certain to be sensitive to our distinction from continental politics. This is a perennial theme, and it recurs massively. We are with Europe, but not of it.

In my view, you are running the danger of implicitly reimagining Britain as a modern political creation rather than as an ancient organism with its own unique evolutionary path and means of self expression, without which we wouldn't be Britain anymore. If you do indeed care about restoring Britain, your principal concern should be for historical authenticity.

So, I ask you, educate me on how "nationalism", as a self-conscious political ideology and deliberate tool for nation-building in the 19th century across the continent, was also the central organising principle by which Anglo-British identity was fashioned.

[Occ88 @oc83345]

i'd rather we actually first get to a point where we have the power to implement nationalist policies. to do so we're going to have to be pragmatic in some areas.
framing is perhaps the safest area for this, esp if the implicit messaging/policies are identical.

also i also wouldn't say it's "lying". cultures have different ways of expressing similar truths. if the project is to be cultural restoration we need to protect our way of expressing such truth. thus why i would again default to england and implicit nationalism over explicit nationalism

[Occ88 @oc83345]

@nativistconcern @TheGeatsAD @KeithWoodsYT I keep thinking after every interview the next one will be better as his team will constantly be working on him. Why is there such an ideological gulf between him and his team and why isn't it narrowing?

[Occ88 @oc83345]

@TheNativist_ of (revocable) patronage -- a status tied to the existence of the British Empire, and/or, the upholding of British virtues.

This forms the 3rd concentric circle; dashed line to signal revocability.

[Occ88 @oc83345]

@TheNativist_ (3) Imperial Subjects

To integrate our imperial history with its doctrine of "Civis Britannicus Sum" a distinction is then drawn: people from later empire territories who were made British subjets under imperial administration -- this could be conceived as a form...