Sex as Sacrament / Sex as Celebration…Sex as Natural Fact and other stories Part 1
“The whore of Babylon is drunk with the blood of the saints.”
Actually, the analogy is not far off from our present situation. In the disordered world, the anti-world, a “Babylon,” where YKW and liberal unconcern for our White class is the rule, sex disconfirms the worthy, destroys the precious and brings into being the vicious, the irresponsible at our expense.
It isn’t funny.
Anti-racism is anti-group classification. It is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudice. It is hurting and it is killing people.
Anti-racism is anti-group classification, in weaponized form, an Alinsky-like weaponization – using quote, our rules against us – specifically of Cartesianism on the empiricist end, the Lockeatine empiricist end in its prejudice against social classification, alleging them to be non-empirical fiction; thus, a prejudice against prejudice in favor of supposedly pure individual perception and rights thereof, as opposed to discriminatory accountability through posited social classification – a race being a social classification writ large.
Male and female remain the primary de facto classification in necessary pychological function of categorization to make coherent sense where racism, that is to say, where racial classification and discrimination thereupon is prohibited.
The pandering that results from all angles to our co-evolutionary young females and the increased one up position that they find themselves in as gate keepers in this situation disordered of White bounds exacerbates their inclination to incite genetic competition; as they are pandered to ad nauseum from all angles from males previously blocked. Further, the puerile female will be inclined to welcome this liberalism as it increases her power, if only in short term.
How to counter these hate infested Mulatto-supremacists?
To begin we need to correct this violation of our people’s boundaries, the human ecological disaster and even genocide it implicates, practical matters of border and boundary control need to be addressed. We need to counter the stigmatization of ethnonationalism, to counter political rules given to liberalization of our boundaries and moreover, anti-racism which has gone so far as to criminalize our self defense as peoples.
Furthermore, to build our morale and facilitate loyalty to our people against this onslaught against us, provisions would be of great help that facilitate both free and careful assessment of partner selection, but also to know that our systems are responsible enough to ensure the institutionalization of these requirements – to facilitate optimal freedom in partner selection, border control is necessary – in that way, your people are free for a sufficiently natural liberalism with regard to sex with decreased risk, as your partners are fairly similar and accountable from an evolutionary standpoint; you are also free to mix with other races but you are risking your White group membership through such transgression, as you are not free to just impose that degree of liberalization upon the group boundaries; optimal freedom of choice will also be assured by the institutionalized provision, so to speak, for single sex partner for life hopefuls; with the added assistance therein, to help assess appropriateness in partner selection.
After setting about to establish our group(s) homeostasis, that is to say, systemic maintenance as European peoples, ranking perhaps only second in priority, but what will inevitably prove to be integral to border and boundary maintenance, will be a realistic negotiation of the issue of sex – part of which will account not just for its brute factual nature and sufficient freedom of more experimental expression, but that we as individuals and as a group require provision, a respected option for our human capacity of more careful recourse and accountability – viz., to justice to our genetic and human ecological capital not only in the broad scope of our national citizenship; but moreover, in option to treat sex and monogamy as sacred, recognized, institutionalized and normalized by society as a significant option, to provide for an even more careful selective process for those who wish; corresponding with the important transcendence of the episodic and momentary evaluation – that can fall down to superficial evaluative criteria resulting from a boundless, liberal free for all; corresponding typically with a scientistic take on sex, naturalistic fallacy; e.g., that it is nothing more than a normal bodily function; the kind of take on sex that can be liberating from insanely restrictive traditions and taboos; but all too prone to be overdone in the wake of Freud’s, the Frankfurt school, notably Marcuse’s project of unleashing “eros’ in polymorphous perversion”; and finally, within the disorder of modernity, of which the Frankfurt school was instrumental – to transcend a liberalism that would flout and even prohibit our human ecological border and bounds control.
Text, Part 2
That we can also have a more liberal option along with a sacred option – both – has the added benefit of undercutting any appeal of our Abrahamic antagonists – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – undercutting their appeal for their conservative aspects and capitalizing on liberal rejection, rebellion and liberation from any of their draconian restrictiveness; and having both options on our side incentivizes loyalty. While border control will, in turn, incentivize loyalty, as the system demonstrates verifiable responsibility to our genetic capital.
On the other hand, the threat of ostracism for people who mix and bear offspring outside the race will disincentivize their behavior as it will be observed that people who do that will not be able to share in the leverage of our social support for themselves and their children; they will, in fact, be subject to live with consequences of the non-White way of life they’ve chosen. They certainly will not be entitled to impose the support of their Mulatto children upon us, making us defacto slaves in their treachery and forcing remaining White children to be born into a nightmare world – a planet of the apes scenario.
But how to further counter these hate infested Mulatto-supremacists?
How to incentivize group loyalty and the option of monogamy for puerile females in particular; given these powerful forces, both natural and Manichean, that result from the machinations of our antagonists?
Acknowledging that eggs are precious, gestation and child bearing a large burden, we might provide them with some additional advantages to going the monogamous route.
There are already some advantages, of course, to the White female position taking the monogamous option. It accords with our nature as K selectors for her to have a man for high investment parenting, there to help her in all aspects of life; which will be even more appealing to her if the man is both sufficiently fair in his appeal to her if not a hypergamous upgrade – I’m using hypergamous a bit wrongly here, I mean simply a man perhaps of a slightly higher standard – but also sufficiently realistic and appropriate a choice for him to want to remain monogamous and loyal to her.
Thus, part of sacrament, and its episodic testament to the aeons and this relationship beyond the episode and moment, would be a careful process of partner selection, in which they are further incentivized with the option of considering men their equal, say, one increment below or two above, for example, in terms of emotional, intellectual, physical and material standard.
While males, because sperm is cheap, will have the option of sacrament as well, but they will be penalized by having the capacity to consider women only one increment above, their equal or two numbers below.
The options will provide incentive to White males as their naturally more sublimated, K selection maturation process is protected both by the border control and by the institutionalization of monogamous sacrament – the pattern overall will provide them with a more sublime, less atavistic sort of White female partner and way of life.
There should also be increased social support for monogamous, child bearing couples.
Nevertheless, I anticipate that this specificatory model, that is to say, sketch of a measurement scale model – from 1 – 10, or 1 – 100, and using whatever qualities our scientists focus on – intellect, emotion, physical, whatever, will be seized upon by detractors as ‘bean counting’ as if I am quite literal minded about it, but this again is to misunderstand the place of a specificatory structure.
I can speak from experience of the (psychological) utility of this scale as a place holder at very least. That when I endured the humility of tautology, knowing that I was willing to be fair and take my equal on such scales, say 1 – 10, it helped to stop a horrible intentional oscillation caused by shrill and hateful females in my life who chronically and falsely alleged that I was a pig, wanting more or better in a partner or partners than I actually wanted and deserved for the fact that I admired beauty in women. So, the basic structure, for example a 1 – 10 scale, can help resolve feelings of guilt for being so, quote, superficial as to notice women’s beauty (or not), while evaluating her on other quote impure grounds as well.
If people want more options, want to try for better or more, then they can partake of the more free for all in the broader sphere of the ethnostate, what might be referred to as a celebrative disposition toward sex with the rest of our society – within its borders and bounds.
Text, Part 3
In fact, it should be observed that without these options, agency and authentic choice is vastly diminished.
However, the option of moving toward reverence of the pattern beyond moment and episode will increase alternative range of functional autonomy and relieve males of the pressure to assimilate brute alpha behavior…constrained as it were to rape and sexual harassment allegation territory, furthermore, beyond judgment merely on the basis of momentary and episodic competition, or frequency thereof, …and put them instead into a relational mode and stable cultural pattern level – where our best attributes are often revealed.
For our own people, the White class is required to ensconce the freedom of our full systemic, developmental processes and evolution – again, as Rushton has shown, we are distinguished by our age of maturation, sublimation and k selection as opposed to r selection – this needs protection from the quicker maturation and predation of r selectors
Thesis: Seminal and essential to instantiation of the White class, its systemic homeostasis, flexibility of ecological balance and accountability, is freedom of choice as maintained through a voluntary option, institutionalized of single sex partner for life hopefuls. It is ensconced in the notion of sex as sacrament: the sacrosanct reconstruction of an episode uniquely important to the survival of the cultural pattern.
Two key aspects that make sex as sacrament into a viable option are the fact that sex is sexy – that is to say, its mechanism. Another is the dimension of social control.
Let me first address its mechanism – sex is sexy. Its erotic mechanism is of two contrasts.
One contrast is that of human dignity (in patterns of relationship) contrasting with animal drive.
The other is a tension between human dignity as opposed to dominance and submission. (That is, providing that the roles are treated somewhat empathically; and that one role or the other is not taken too seriously).
This mechanism of tension that makes sex sexy in essence bodes for the possibility of sex as sacrament as opposed to a merely naturalistic argument that may dismiss sacrament as nonsense.
Sex as sacrament is naturally practical as it is not so contingent upon one’s being the most skilled or beautiful at all times. It is especially practical if class boundaries are enforced and/or a sacral attitude is socially normalized.
How practical the option of monogamy is in reality is far less important than it being recognized as important, sanctioned as a viable option – available, respected, institutionalized, normalized as vitally important – sex and monogamy as a sacrament. As opposed to ‘that’s the way it is, we’re all just animals out to screw anything’, the fact of reverence and existence of sacral practice will provide a morale booster, an antidote to cynicism, a pattern to be loyal to and to fight for as it is loyal to us in turn.
It is nonsense to dismiss as puritanical White Americans who are not free-loving and celebratory with their sex amidst Negroes and sundry non-Whites.
If you are not disposed to celebration at this point in time, especially not in the enforced roulette of such a demographically mixed situation, especially not with regard to something as important as sex, it is more than understandable.
Thus, for the purposes of re-establishing the sovereignty of our brute genus as Whites and the species of our nationalism, sex as celebration versus sex as a sacrament serves as a problematizing distinction; it serves particularly to emphasize a willing suspension of belief in the innocence of sex as celebration. As a conceptual foil, it will hopefully serve to illustrate how obnoxious and destructive the celebrations can be. As they are flaunted in the face of those who exercise care, mocking the sacredness of the group’s deep resource, it is our purpose thus to lend credence to sex as sacrament.
Sex is surely not merely a trivial matter of an episode. It concerns confirmation or disconfirmation of persons and their worth as socio-political decision makers. Even more fundamentally, it is the natural means by which people come into and populate the world in a responsible way or not; legacies set forth or not; at an appropriate age, or not; in reasonable numbers as resources, experience and wisdom afford, or not – and much more.
Text, Part 4
If we can care about the preservation of rain forests, the hills of West Virginia, endangered species and the gulf of Mexico, and we certainly do care, very much, then we are assuredly warranted by any credible moral standard, to care for our co-evolutionary people, our co-evolutionary women, children and the world they have no choice over coming into.
A pervasive ecological view, combining as it does the taxonomic system of class (as in the White race), acts as a corrective to Lockeatine empiricism – its Cartesian notion of individual rights being prone to rupture systemic, evolutionary process.
It also acts as a corrective to the toxicity of John Dewey’s instrumental pragmatism. That is of significance as Dewey was particularly resourceful with his instrumentalism, and with that, a large influence in promoting liberal democracy, despite his philosophy having serious flaws.
Despite its resource and influence his pragmatism de-emphasizes the significance of deep genetic and processual relationships. With instrumental, practical force being overstated, the prefigurative facts of historical, co-evolutionary processes in the development of maturation and skill recede from consideration. Being overly practical thus, it promotes a disposition of progressing ever forward, in search of “ever more full and rich experience.” As such, it devalues consideration of biological optimality – biological creatures do not need “more and more”, too much is toxic as is too little. Moreover, being quite so instrumental, it is not sufficiently respectful of natural processes and necessarily corresponding metaphors of reflection, gestation and digestion. It is not sufficiently respectful of ecological systems requirement for the flexibility of empty space and unused potentiality for change.
While the slow meandering of Heidegger’s philosophy makes it better in those regards, the ecological view acts as a corrective to his oversights as well – notably in regard to “own-most being toward death.” This too would be toxic, a good last alternative, but not a proper day-to-day premise for White survival, as nature rarely works within lethal variables. It should be bad enough that miscegenation is possible. Black-on-White murder or the extinction of Whites would not even approach appreciable consideration before compelling action on an ecological basis. Further, owmost being toward death also lends itself too much to promotion an overly individualistic bias, insufficiently socially conscientious, insufficiently accountable to our historical, social systemic capital.
That is why the idea of the voluntary option for sex as sacrament is necessary, along with our boundaries, as a control variable to govern the homeostasis of our social, biological, human ecological systems. ….to move beyond instrumentalism and the episodic concern of consciousness and the moment in owmost being toward death and into the ownmost innocence of our children in the hereafter, in service of delivering them from being born into a nightmare circumstance. We cannot do that to White kids, let them come into a nightmare world of hyper assertive, violent Africans, and Islamic tyranny and Jewish supremacism which disrespects our interests as goyim – the undifferentiated gentile mass, as GW observes, that they would conceive us to be.
Text, Part 5
Sex as Sacrament also corresponds to our Augustinian nature – evolved as we are to deal with Augustinian problems, that is to say natural challenges, to solve more straight forward problems of nature rather than to deal with the Manichean trickery of other, competing tribes and people….
Many of us to not want to play games, use tricks and deception to lure a partner perhaps inappropriate for us; in fact, we want an honest way to assess an appropriate match; and then to investigate the world with our partner in collaborative effort.
While Sacrament and Celebration are useful narratives in regard to sex, the truth is that there are many stories to tell about sex including scientistic ones; but the mechanism at the center does afford sacrament. Narrative reframing of sex will also help Whites to find their ownmost innocence – an antidote opposed to the YKW guilt trip of Jesus sermon on the mount wherein even if you think of something, you’ve done it. By contrast, moment of thought is like one frame in a movie reel, a cybernetic surveying mechanism of orientation on brute genetic competition, and whatever counter taboo you may require in momentary counter balance against, say, the factually hard to ignore high contrast tropism of interracial sex – whatever counter taboo you may need mentally, you didn’t do it and you are not necessarily recommending it. …you are merely thrown into a cybernetic balancing process of sexual mechanism, thrown between human dignity and submission to brute animal requirement, episodic dominance and submission, competition verses sublimation in broader pattern. Even males must have some empathy for submission to the brute requirement and the eroticism for example that a woman can find in submitting.
But apart from dealing with mechanism thus, another aspect of sex that enables the possibility of sacrament is that its practice can be relatively altered by social influence.
A social framework toward sex facilitates even greater rigor for the truth of the matter – again, the broader pattern – over scientistic treatment sheerly on the basis of moment and episode. It gives advantages as well. For example, if a sublime White woman gives herself to a black, we are more attentive with the social framework and the precipitating aspects whereof her decision was not made alone. The circumstance has been arranged for, encouraged, manipulated and allowed for; those who would voice objection that might resonate with her have been silenced by social injunction. This result is not a mere no account matter of science, nature, let alone religion.
By contrast, the scientistic view would hold that sex is a merely natural fact, biologically determined and therefore, socially incorrigible. The episode and moment of sexual union would be very tightly linked with mere biological imperatives. Who, after all, could question that? It is just a scientific fact. That’s just the way it is, natural law; has little to do with the mediation of the quality of life beyond that.
But if it is not merely determined that the women do this, if our behavior is not so determined, but rather to some extent negotiable of interactive patterns, a matter of conjoint social construction of the class, then it is corrigible, agentive and accountable – there is something that can be done about it, which is not to her detriment, especially as the way of life is deemed at least as valuable and important as the episode and the moment.
To paraphrase Basque philosopher Unomuno, we require a vision of perfection to strive for and then the vicissitudes of moment and episode will be like waves crashing harmlessly against the rocks girding our individual path and relational patterns.
Would society exist without rituals?
Aug 5, 2021
Matthew Rossano joins Lipton Matthews to discuss the significance of rituals in transmitting social norms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfPlpTLSE6k
Rossano did very well. However, I should offer two criticisms of either him or the premises of the interview. One being reliance on the mechanical word, “transmissions,” as in the transmissions model of communication. That’s a bit technical, but nevertheless, a hangover from modernity.
The second criticism that I would offer is toward the end of the interview when you both agreed that “ideas” were more important than the person/or group. Again, that is a hangover from modernity and its bastard offshoot, civic nationalism.
Yes, in episode ideas can be more important and it can (obviously) be critically important to adhere to what is objectively true. But in overall pattern, it may well be the case that another of the group (if the group is allowed to discriminate for its own) will have that idea right to correct for the errant one, and that the outsider who has the idea right, will not be carrying it as a regular pattern of their genetics and thus, reconstruct the lack of adherence to that idea in their genetic legacy. My point being, that while ethnonationalism will sacrifice some by not taking in the better outliers of other groups, it is a worthwhile price to pay in order to manage accountability for the human ecology of one’s extended genetic family and the implications on the broader, pervasive ecology. There was another criticism that I could offer early on, namely, that “females didn’t require protection with offspring until later in evolution”.
That’s speculative and I doubt it, but I think he was mispoken rather than mistaken in that case. In all, though, good show! It goes along with what I have been arguing in terms of radical requirements for a new religion that serves EGI (ethnic genetic interests); and I have posted the interview link as a comment on my site, dnanations.