The Five Taboos of Liberalism
Race, Sex, Work, Violence, and Space
Liberalism believes it is an indestructible ideology with no flaws. This isn’t the case when you realize the system breaks down when confronted with the five controversial topics it can’t explain. If liberalism were so graceful, it would have proper sincerity about these topics instead of assuming they don’t exist. Liberalism outright denies these subjects and continues to do so. It is up to the anti-liberal to embrace these five taboos and carve out a new intellectualism and art movement against the old world.
The five taboos will be synthesized into all future politics, philosophy, and artistic expressions.
The taboos are as follows:
Race is real, and this cannot be denied. Race is a biological reality, where genetics determine our nature, and often comes before everything else. People would rather be associated with someone like themselves than be with someone alien to who they are. Race is not a subculture and cannot be reduced down to perferences or desires.
The existential crisis among liberalism is to let transhumanism create an equity state by implating brain chips into races that are different from the egalitarian culture. Another crisis is the popular trend of “RCTA,” or “Race Change To Another,” and “ECTA,” or “Ethnic Change To Another,” where advanced technology could shift a person into the dominant and comfortable group that has a higher quality of life and offers beauty against the derangement of ugly egalitarianism. Transhumanism would naturally give access to anyone who can leave their body, and race will become that meaningful identity above subculture. RCTA or ECTA will accelerate Eurasian Futurism, anime-realism, and other cartoon identities because of the market cycle of supply and demand, where identity transformation is determined by market fads and peer pressure.
It is questioned whether race belongs to metaphysics or materialism. Both schools of thought seem to deny the existence of race or ignore its importance to their core beliefs. Akin to what Julius Evola argued, race is a spirit that is out to achieve greatness.
Race also brings up the evil notion of eugenics and dysgenics, and the argument to define what is “race mixing” versus what is normal. It's very bizarre when liberals resort to saying that WMAF is evil because of dysgenics, ironically pushing race supremacy as the solution. If euthanasia or being trans is right, then race mixing is supposedly the greater evil because it produces against the non-productive. If miscegenation is such a crisis, this assumes eugenics is the Hegelian path, and white liberals secretly hate all mixed people, forcing them to get equity as reparations for their existence. Perhaps the miscegenated should take pride in their “queer” races like black Americans do all the time.
I rebuke the notion of the doomed existence of the miscegenated person, which seems to be quite popular on both sides of politics. Everyone hates the Eurasian man because of his existence. Supposedly, if mental and physical retardation is a reality and an entire race can be created out of it, there would have to be a secret conclusion by the elite to know that you can breed people as vegetables. However, this wouldn't explain the years of colonialism and geographical reproduction on Galapagos Island and the diverse environmental evolution that humans survive in all the time.
BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) produces all the time, while all of its opponents don't produce anything. The future of humanity is indeed production, and production counters any non-productive hedonistic forces. Trans and gays don’t produce, while “race mixers” produce. Liberalism hates production because it counters their power. The bourgeoisie merely has children because they feel like it, as this is rather a subjective notion of consumption than producing value for society. Africa will keep having Africans at the expense of the r-k theory, or the belief that they are dysgenic people. This puts the white managerial class in a weird situation where the so-called dysgenic people will flock to Europe for a higher quality of life. This begs the question if eugenic people will go to the moon and the dysgenic people will just stay at home and do nothing.
A proper understanding of race does not limit anyone or anything. Race is an understanding of nature, and humans as animals. Race can co-exist in any political system in the future as a foundation. Understanding race is like the work of Galileo, where society revolves around race, like the planets revolve around the sun. True diversity, multiculturalism, and multipolarity come from acknowledging that race is real and that people will always be invested in race.
Our sexuality is an innate drive to desire, discriminate, and reproduce. We are aroused by our attractive image and wish only to send our sperm or receive it to the muse that mirrors us. In return, a new human is created in the likeness of our values and genetic and cultural traits.
There is a biological difference between a man and a woman, and this cannot be denied.
What is astounding is that liberalism is prudish about sex, even though it promotes it as a form of liberation because anyone can choose anything to have sex with. Yet liberalism does not want to know about someone’s sexuality or the victims it has ejaculated in or on. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge that sexuality requires a force of seduction, or an entire new language outside liberalism, and comes from primal, animalistic anti-liberal behavior. The liberal can’t imagine a sexuality that isn’t animalistic, because the animal can not be a liberal. Ironically, we are animals, and sex is initiated all the time without the acknowledgement of went and how it happened.
Certain acts of sex are like violent rape, and liberals believe it is “consensual” and not be questioned. Sigmund Freud’s entire career was exposing how sexuality determines politics, culture, philosophy, and the arts, and how all of it goes under a veneer because of the shame, or indescribable nature, of the sexual act itself. Liberals fear penetration and would like a future where sex can exist without it. Also ironic, considering gay sex needs penetration to function.
We think of sex every day, and to deny it means we are denying our nature to create. We are never told how our sexuality originated, because everyone has a unique sexuality to their liking. And liberalism discourages production, and can only celebrate nonproduction hedonism. Liberalism dispises identity politics based upon sexuality because it creates another rival group to overthrow the system. Racial nationalists constantly cry to have more “white babies,” but most of us consider the beauty standards of “white” to be subjective and not universal. We should have children with the muse we desire. We are aroused by the image and erected to make it happen. A society we want should reflect the arousing desires to do more. We want our children, and every ejaculation counts.
Liberalism assumes everyone is equal, and that gender is a social construction. How come is it that physiognomy dictates the ethics of a person? If you see an ugly man or ugly woman, both of them will advocate envy and revenge. Yet ironically, a beautiful man or beautiful woman never questions life and acts upon the will of what is good. An ugly woman will thirst after a beautiful man, and not for her ugly counterpart. A beautiful man can get any woman he wants. “Pick up artistry,” or seduction is a real skill, and it is used to get any woman a man desires. Seduction destroys the liberal narrative that we are playing a game, and a woman will irrationally follow the beautiful man’s seduction over the ugly man’s ideology. There is no debate, argument, or dialogue with women if they allow themselves to be wooed and to be raped by the man who plays “game” the best.
The constant crying and bitching about a man pursuing a woman or seducing her like he’s a rapist is also an entire fabrication. No one has ever assumed the woman has done the same thing. A man will do many things to get the woman, even if he means dick pics or playing a sloppy game. That means pick-up artistry and the art of seduction are also real, and there are good players and bad ones. The sex we do not hear about is considered “good,” while everything that is “leaked” or rumored about is bad. The latter is interesting because it shows an incredible distaste for sex and not understanding the act or purpose. Women always cry about men being “creepy,” but we all know women don’t have the same sexuality as a man.
Eventually, everyone will be so open about their kinks and desires, that telling sex stories will be as deep as philosophical insights.
Work is an innate behavior like any other feelings we may have. We work not out of institutions or because capitalism told us to, but we work as an urge, unconscious of the action. Ants mindlessly build things, like bees and honey. We don’t work as a required evil. Work is healthy, good, and intellectual. Some say “work” is evil, but this is a misnomer. A perfect society would allow us to work on whatever we want, and get “paid” for such accomplishments.
Work naturally happens when we are confident with its process. If everyone works on their projects, we cannot sustain a society. A paternal system based upon socialist demand would create work for everyone, and accomplish projects for society. The post-scarcity condition might happen, and the AI singularity might take hold, but it’s up to humanity to regulate such laziness and control. The managerial class currently believes they have reached the post-scarcity state, and that is why they believe in deluded transhumanism, something that happened at the end of Athenian society. Once nobody works, everyone dies.
Liberalism does not want to talk about work because it relies on the capitalist system and does not offer a future for any liberal arts profession. Liberalism would rather pretend work is not there, or let nonwhites take over as the surrogate for the coming automation. If we ever owned the means of production, we wouldn’t rely on managerialism anymore.
We work because we want to accomplish our dreams. We cannot assume “everything is work” either, as this negates other natural realities and urges. There is greater meaning beyond production, as science and the arts guide us towards virtue ethics.
Work cannot be denied in favor of laziness. We have an urge to create.
Violence is a natural result of animal expression. Georges Sorel wrote “Reflections on Violence” to understand why violence is so important to our nature. We go to jail if we are open about violence. Murder is discouraged. Yet what about the cavemen who knocked out women to have children? What about the armies that pillaged and raped the villagers? The last two centuries finally saw the containment of violence and a proper understanding of ethics. To pretend violence is not there is denying our existence.
Twitter bans violence from its platform. How are we truly free if primal thoughts of action scare the establishment? Violence breaks down liberalism because it is required to survive in the wild. An attack on the rival tribe, a force to grab a woman, and an effort to hunt animals, all result in violence.
Violence is expressed in games. It’s required in a fight. The smug liberal says somebody “loses” a debate if violence is used, but power is about censorship and control. Violence is expressed in the arrogance of power and manipulation. Those who can talk about the primal energies know what humanity is about. Violence breaks down conversation and intellectualism and releases revolution. The military is organized violence, and the police state uses violence to put rule above chaos. Violence determines who gets what women and who gets none. Violence is the last resort to expressing the spirit of the barbarian. By downplaying violence, we fail to understand us.
Violence starts the conversation. Violence defends an intellectual point and persuades others of it. It may sound irrational, but violence is what makes people anti-liberal.
Violence cannot be denied. We have a right to strike when it’s right.
Our existence is limited to the space we inhabit. We may exist in Pennsylvania, but only then for our reality to open up in California. And California itself is debunked by the reality of China. The qualities of life are measured by space, and our reality is skewed by what we can see and experience.
Liberalism assumes everyone is entitled to the same space, that there are no borders, and that every society strives to be cosmopolitan. This whitewashing is enforced because liberals are nomadic, and often move from one power space to another. They don’t have live in the white ghettos of Ohio and see how their people are retarded.
When we realize our space determines a materialistic cause and effect, do we understand that resources play a huge role in the creation of ideology and existence?
Where I live, eat, shit, piss, sleep, walk, exercise, work, smell, and conversate is determined by my space. Today, everyone is left with nothing, rotting away in middle America on an old trust fund against an alien family that hates intellectualism.
We cannot deny space, which means we would deny our existence. Kevin Lynch was right in his 1960 work, “The Image of the City.” The “mental images” we think of in a city relates to the space we inhabit. A critical and anyalical understanding of space is required to also build that city.
With an understanding of race, sexuality, work, violence, and space, the system can be destroyed, criticized, and resurrected into a new sincere intellectualism against liberalism, putting the nail in its coffin once in for all.