National Revolution

One of the most revealing things about the modern left that we really should try to expose is the great effort in: 1. They put a great effort in signaling the super-wealthy, that is true, but always pinpointing that the most dangerous part is that they are males and white. 2. Meanwhile, when they are about to signal white males's supposed dominance in certain institutions, the wealth/class factor is always ignored — this is not an accident, they don't want their followers to be distracted from their actual enemies because of wealth and class issues.

The Cube's shape is also revealing, it represents the opposite of a perfect Sphere, rigid and claustrophobic. The Cube also is usually used to represent Saturn and Kronos, which is known for its domain over time, which is the main adversary of the survivors. At some point of the movie, the number 666 is also mentioned.

Worth's nihilistic explaination is accurate: We might want to blame someone and believe all evils are directed by a group of people, but the truth is there is no one in charge. However, despite having designed the outer shell, he fails to envision an exit.

Leaven, the intelligent technocrat, and Worth, the outer shell's designer and nihilist, both get really close to the exit but fail so. They represent higher stages of intelligence and understanding of the real world that allows them to move effectively through the Cube but not escaping it.

The Cube (1997) talks about the problems of lacking of a proper caste system during the Kali Yuga. Quentin, the cop, represents tyrannical (tyrannos) rule, appareantly effective but short-sighted. His rule is purely egotistic and violent, and while recognizing the different abilities of the group, it does so in a completely shallow way. The most complex rules of the game are only understood by the most socially inept character, Kazan.

« It is very good that there are yellow French, black French, brown French. They show that France is open to all races and has a universal vocation. But [it is good] on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are still primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion. » —Charles de Gaulle, 1959.

National Revolution pinned «The term Woke has been mocked (and not necessarily without reason) as a simple conservative buzzword just like the left uses the word fascism. I think despite being able to point it out sometimes few dare to actually give some kind of definition that summarized…»

The most obvious part I have not spoke of here is that the idea of gender is strictly tied to sex if you actually want to have a term that is not circular. This is is merely an exercise of debunking them in their own terms.

Basically, they found out Native Americans: 1. Called gender-normative males A 2. Called gender-normative females B 3. Called gender-non-normative males and females C and D. So, because they can barely conceive cognition beyond language, they just assumed terms A, B, C and D were different genders. The thing is, ironically, that this is a form of linguistic colonialism, they were assuming they had the same linguistic rules about gender/sex that European languages have. The only way they could actually check if these were actually different genders is to check out which word they use for gender... but they use none, because the definition of gender that we have in the West is exclusive to us and is barely 100 years old. Native Americans (at least those who are not woke) have expressed that these friendly terms for people that deviates from their assigned gender roles are not the equivalent of what in the West we call gender.

One of the best examples of this is how the have made "common sense" the idea that native americans had "non-binary genders", but when you actually dive into this, the own native americans deny it, and the preciese epistemology of how they found about these supposed non-binary genders through their linguistic analysis is in direct contradiction to post-structuralism and anti-colonialism.

In the more material part we find mass importation of third-world immigrants (cheap labour, cheaper commodities; more workforce for the PMC, more demand for PMC members), welfare and aid programs (money has first to pass through them), cheaper services (e.g. UberEats), avoiding strikes, more tax revenues combined with more demand for public services (i.e. more demand for state officials), etc.

In the case of actual Neo-Orientalism (which is in my opinion often used wrongly about mere sentiments against Islam after 9/11, neo-liberal imperialism, or even plain old-school Orientalism) it is preciesely the instrumentalization of non-western cultures to imply that the natural human ethos coincides with the results of the deconstruction they are pushing: Gender fluidity, pseudo-matriarchy, hypersentimentalism, irrationalism, polyamory, equality, anarchism, democratism, etc.

On Neo-Orientalism, I am using a very different definition from the mainstream use of the term... If we take a look at the actual Orientalism of 19th and 20th centuries —of course, beyond the convenient representations of precisely Modern Academia— it was not simply a way to commodify non-european cultures or to justify occupation through paternalistic arguments ("natives are too naive and well intended to be left alone by themselves", "our superior civilization has an obligation to help them", etc.), it was also a framework to support the idea that Classical Liberal values are Universal, that in its most basic state, humans yearn for an unnamed ethos of liberty.

« ...But I still remain undecided about the nihilism of the original ideators since they still seemed to promote an ethical system based on empathy and egalitarianism. » Exactly, they claimed to be skeptics but in practice they never actually questioned the very foundational values of liberalism (free agency and equality). I think they might actually thought about this, but they might have excused themselves in the validity of the subjectivity of following certain arbitrary values. I would have to start a further investigation to understand if they came up with an answer to this contradiction. That being said, more speficially about empathy, I see no contradiction. Max Stirner also spoke of this: « I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them. » —Max Stirner

This movement cannot be understood without a proper analysis of class interests and the rise of women in Middle-Class positions. Woke positions are aligned with the economic interests and cultural byproducts of the alliance of the Middle-Class Intelligentsia and PMC, Lumpenproletarian and Globalist Bourgeoisie. The Longhouse Theory already speaks of the increasing power of women in Institutional positions, but to go further with this one must mention how Mass Migration, Academic Dogmatism, Institutionalized "Deconstruction" (even in the corporate context), the Post-WWII predominance of the Welfare State, Global Trade, Neo-Orientalism, etc. — all of these phenomena are meant to maintain and justify the economic status of the three aforementioned classes.

The term Woke has been mocked (and not necessarily without reason) as a simple conservative buzzword just like the left uses the word fascism. I think despite being able to point it out sometimes few dare to actually give some kind of definition that summarized it, specially with relation to the very first origins of the term — but it is precisely because of the very own ideological nature of the movement, and its social structure, that it is so hard to so, which is extremely beneficial from a memetic perspective to their movement. So to actually know how to combat this destructive order I hereby present you a small definition and explanation: « Wokery is the resulting movement from the reification of post-structuralist theory in the 21th century. » To dissect this definition, we must first go to the origins of the own term, back in the 60s, when African-Americans told each other to "stay woke" before the silent nature of certain types of racism. Although not exactly under a deluded veil given the social context, this word does signify the paranoid nature of the movement that it has taken today. Now, beyond etymology, we must at least understand the very basics of post-structuralist theory to actually examine "Wokery". In very few words, post-structuralism was a left-wing philosophical movement that came to the conclusion that you cannot properly analyze the inner workings of power and all of its institutions because precisely the means to analyze power (to the point of the very own epistemology) are created by power itself. Before this problem of nihilistic nature, they proposed that people (specially those opressed) rather than trying to assert absolute truths they should live in a constant state of questioning power structures and its possible ramifications (deconstruction). So given this complex framework, what do you think that happens when the very own people of this movement infiltrate the power structures (specially the cultural ones) they talked about and spread their ideas to the common people? Do you think your average midwit has the cognitive capacity or curiosity to understand the core of this philosophy AND practice deconstruction not only to what is pre-established to be deconstructed but also the very own constructions that they created and apparently benefit them? Obviously no. This is where the word reification comes from. An already questionable framework of analysis, now became a set of very rigid values that should not be questioned.

Still alive.

Las Grecas