Journey into WWE's Mediocrity Part 1: Death of Territories = Brahmin Dominance

I'd like to start off by saying that the past few months have been excellent for Monday Night Raw. I never saw such a streak of interesting programming since the summer of 2011 which was mostly thanks to Punk and Rhodes for me. The revitalization of The Mcmahon family as a heel staple, Randy Orton as a heel champion, D-Bryan is the top babyface, the incorporation of The Rhodes family into things have all worked together seamlessly. Even Cena was interesting prior to his injuries, and Punk was damn well exhilarating.

Let's move on the the real topic: Wrestling has been in a decline for at least half a decade. Sports entertainment no matter how drenched in kayfabe, and soap opera nonsense is an important aspect of our television culture. Since the 1950's professional wrestling has thrived on the television and vice-versa. Look at the statistics for wrestling programming at it's highest and it's impact on our hyper-capitalistic culture and you'll find that it's a little more than Homoerotic Twister.

Jim Cornette besides being the most liberalistic southerner I've ever heard of can vouch for me on this one. The end of the wrestling territories meant the end for the initial soul of the industry and its talent. Wrestling Started out in little territories all sanctioned out and divided by the NWA; Not the rap group, but rather the National Wrestling Alliance; They insured that not one promotion wouldn't try and dominate the other.

In the Vaisya territory of the south you had legends like Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, Magnum TA, and Jerry The King Lawler; In the Brahmin territory of the Northeast coast you had guys like Bruno Sammartino, Buddy Rogers, Billy Graham, Pedro Morales, Bob Backlund and Andre The Giant. For the most part even though The East coast had Madison Square Garden, the star quality of the south always kept them in equilibrium.

Vince Sr. made sure that his business wouldn't bankrupt the other territories, where this son whom bought the company from his dying pops had "better" plans: In the middle of the 1980's Vince was going to take over the nation, which lead the other territories to unify under reaction. Thus WCW was made in order to compete with the WWF. The WWF acquired the one and only Hulk Hogan whom was fired by Vince's dad for playing a major role in Rocky III: He was over in the AWA yet mistreated by the higher ups for his "lack" of technical ability.

The key was to form the Wrestling equivalent of The Superbowl, complete with heavy patriotism to appease to the youth suffering from the nihilism of the Cold War, amongst other wars or future wars of that period. As with anything in the 1980's loving your country was as deep as waving a flag around and chanting "muh freedomz" with colorful protagonists. WCW in it's early NWA/Jim Crocket-esque days got the jump with Starrcade, yet WCW still killed that event with the inclusion of Mr. T and Cindi Lauper.

Future stars taken from the NWA would be repackaged to destroy the territories. Enter The Ultimate Warrior, and The Undertaker. Once the 1980's were over and steroid allegations became rampant WCW had the oppurtunity to rise as a promotion. Eventually they got Hogan and their billionaire in Southerner Ted Turner. It wasn't long until they formed a counter-culture storyline in the NWO from elements of Japanese Wrestling storylines.

WCW was now a southern empire of professional wrestling with it's own program of "Monday Nitro" to compete with WWF's "Monday Night Raw". Before they can be wiped out, The WWF made their own counter culture face in Stone Cold Steve Austin. This time it's a Southerner dishing out payback to his Yankee boss and his spoiled family. This lead the Rock in his peripheral souther glory to shine. Eventually WCW had to fall, their Writing team and booking declined, and Turner (like a liberals) made a bad investment causing Time Warner to crash.

WCW died in a shocking fashion, with the WWF buying them out, then humiliating them in buy broadcasting their show live simultaneously with Raw to reveal the truth to the public. Ultimately this leads to the ridiculously bad Invasion storyline, along with a brand split to keep up with the new talent from WCW and ECW.

As a result we now have TNA that's mostly set in arenas from the south to compete with the WWE. Granted, even with Hogan as head commissioner they still can't compete with the now global corporation that is The WWE. To prove that they cater to a perverted Vaisya audience they broadcast their show on Spike Tv: Home to MMA which is too scary for the Brahmins (aside from the frat boys). Various TNA wrestling gimmicks and characters are too southern for the WWE (Freakin' Cena is from a suburb in Massachusetts).

To compensate for the ultra brahmins in the east coast too radical for Vince we now have ROH to compensate for ECW. Instead of hardcore "wrestling" matches we now have wrestling with a technical pedigree to keep the autistic fans interested. Even though some events are set in the hipsterific parts of the midwest, it's a clear show for the more degenerate flocks of Brahmins.

It's clear that modern wrestling is treading dangerously close waters to Starbucks territory, especially with entertaining yet militantly brahmin superstars like Cm Punk and Daniel Bryan finally getting a rise from the indies to the top spots in the WWE. Other wrestlers that are encircling the midcard and main event seem more like college fratboys in their 30's still in developmental territories learning the basics of working a match.

Patriotic Masochism

Nationalism is regarded to everyone else in the academic system as an ideal that has died along with WWII, however there are ideals within each cast that seek to replace it. Patriotism, although oftentimes used interchangeably with Nationalism holds on to national identity without holding on to any of the substance. Patriots are supportive of the United States without understanding the true essence of any western nation; They support it for it's willingness to accept racial diversity, it's democratic form of government, and it's reverence for Free-Market economics. This means that unlike The Nationalist, The Patriot doesn't truly make the connection that his religion, race, and patriarchy are essential aspects for the nation.

A major consequence of this is that Brahmins can take their egalitarian, bastardized version of Imperialism (Globalism), whilst Vaisyas are given their consumeristic, suicidal version of Nationalism (Patriotism). When the American flag becomes a commercial symbol for individualism, without an honest account to it's history, a problem does start to form. The flag becomes swagger, not to the point that it degenerates into a purely tribalistic thede, but still relatively close.

Just like people that hold on to Irish pride, or british pride even when they're third world blacks or hispanic; Just like when socially reclusive westerners hold on to the more fashionable aspects of Japanese culture, the progression to identity is becoming more simplified. What keeps us together? A narrative based on the divine? our genetic history and soul? At best it's our love for our variety in clothing brands, at worst it's our individual preferences and expressions with these clothing brands.

Anyone that's ever been in a high school-esque environment knows that clothing brands are a very big deal. Such Tribalism is the result of the failures of Patriotic identity. Skaters love Vans; Preps/bros love Ambercrombie or American Eagle, Urban kids love Nike and Adidas, but race and religion are ideas that lead to suspension once they're made explicit. This in turn affects almost every caste. Brahmins, Dalits, and Vaisyas are all being affected by democratic-capitalism and how it institutes Tribalism.

Volatility becomes our very identity. The idea that one day we could become something completely different is held as a modern ideal; In a sense we are becoming "blank slates" with little hiccups of our ancestors greatness, however we've become allergic to the postmodernist emptiness. Our Tribalism is either receding into total meaninglessness, or it's turning into political reaction. A resurgence of Nationalism may eventually form, with our without this nation fully being intact, after all we may need to remove the malignant from our culture.

Political Overreaction

Political reactionaries tend to have a set time preference for a culture they'd prefer. The common joke is that someone is stuck in the 1950's, which is a statement that Barack Obama made to Mitt Romney during one of their debates. Tons of reactionaries would rather move back socially even further than that period of time. A problem does form when political and cultural reaction goes too far, ultimately acting against the traditionalism that most good reactionaries prefer; I'll call this political overreaction.

A common result of political overreaction is the rejection of Christianity. At one point Christianity didn't exist, which may please those who haven't reacted well to the "Slave Morality" present within it. The religion itself acted as a glue which united all of Europe, and helped the White Race dominate half of the globe. These are the kind of people that like to hold on to the soul of the west, without holding on to any of its traditions.

Some Reactionaries also don't take well to the Roman sympathies within our culture to this day. The "dead" language of Latin still prevails to this day within our legal system, scientific analysis, mathematics, and theological discussions. The gradual removal of Latin within our educational is a telling sign of our dying aristocracy.

Political reaction without grounds in Traditionalism gives way to further deconstructionism and image vanity: We all know of that one person that saw "Mad Men" and wished to go back to the 1960's. In fact Hollywood is starting to romanticize any time period before the 21st century simply because the characters held on to more "outdated" principles. I highly doubt the movie Dark Shadows would have been as interesting if not for Barnabas Collin's sexism.

Even the manosphere can channel some reactionary principles, until it becomes too traditionalistic and starts taking out the chains again. Enjoying the decline isn't a traditionalistic sentiment, nor is it a call for any true political reaction. Whilst men of the past had the drive to engage in hedonistic pursuits, they still stuck on to their explicit hierarchies.

Ragnar Redbeard was the pseudonym to a satirical writer who's still being taken seriously to this day. His principle that "Might Makes Right" still holds true in regards to any political principle and the game of life, yet is constantly applied to the most individualistic, deconstructed, and atomized systems. Even the most slavish systems of the day, the morrow, and the over-morrow can still overpower any aristocratic or individualistic system in history. In a world without an explicit hierarchy If I want something from you, and you can't do anything to stop me from taking it, then it's mine; That world isn't this one, by our traditions and our structure there's always going to be a force strong enough to stop you from doing as you please. Such a worldview is an overreaction to civilization itself.

The postmodern system we have today is merely a headless version of the traditional system we've had as a civilization for thousands of years. Political reaction is a very good thing, however it's only good as a means of reconstructing civilizational traditionalism, not as a means of deconstructing these traditions and to return to an even lesser state. Everyone wants principle, regardless of their mental state; A return to these principles is the most appealing thing on everyone's mind consciously or unconsciously, all we have to do is react with the intent to bring about the most essential traditions, rather than the most shallow principles.

The Nature of Social Justice

This is becoming a fallback topic for me: Social Justice movements change with each passing generation, and develop into different waves. This stuff is canonical to anything you might read about in the manosphere, but it gets a little deeper. For now, I want you to notice a pattern.

It starts out first-wave feminism's goal of giving Women property rights and suffrage, then it proceeds to Second wave feminism's goal of throwing a massive number of females into the workforce and enforcing sexual harassment lawsuits while bringing reproductive rights into modern discussion, lastly it's third-wave feminism's goal of gender fluidity and broadening the definition of rape, and the introduction of women into the military. 

For Gay rights activism it's a little more simple. There's the decriminalization of Sodomy, followed by the urge to serve in various institutions while being openly revealing their sexuality, and now Gay marriage which is America's favorite public concern and media distraction. 

What we can see is that it becomes more and more democratized as more generations pass. What liberalism passes as freeing the chains, is nothing more than totality. Postmodernism and liberalism doesn't move past the slave-Master relationship, the game is still being played, rather it's being played on a dysgenic scale. 

Females having an institutional edge over males means an end to monogamy, along with the future of the institution of marriage if same sex marriage spreads throughout Western Civilization. The same could have been said about Romantic Love's affects on marriage, yet that's another story. The point being that we're going to be seeing a collapse of everything on an institutional level, and on a voluntary level. Henceforth why there's a rise in Single Parenting, extended adolescents, a decline in the birthrate, and foster children. Social atomism is on a rise, and everyone is suffering from it.

For those of you that are curious, there's a reason that I left out the race issue. It's a bunch of movements from different minorities working together like cartilage. Ain't nobody got time for dat. We already know the dysgenic effects of Race mixing recklessly; I'm not even speaking in terms of reproduction, I'm also talking about the mixing of cultures and mere association without the proper slave-Master relationship being taken into account. Morever the rise in Dalits, Helots and other foreign casts becomes more than just a cultural issue.

Granted, there's always political reaction against any social justice movement. The issue is whether or not the reaction is traditional, or eugenic. The former being essential to fully repair the faults of the modern social justice movement, while the other is more immediate, yet can ultimately lead to the same results taken out of moderation.

Ultimately the rise in democracy, secularism, and polyamory can only manifest itself negatively. I don't think "IT'S HAPPENING", but it could be that bad.

Smashing

Don't get me wrong, I detest nanny-statism with every fiber of my being. The modern statist is the consequence of post enlightenment ideals, after all government (not the same thing as The State) that serves the people can only corrode the people. With that being said Anti-Statists are in the wrong about a very useful institution. 

If governments are institutions that possess the chains for the masses, The State possesses the whips for the masses. Violence isn't a necessary evil, nor is it a malleable accident, but rather it's a neutral force that only has moral substance in what it's being used for; The same function goes for The State. Statism is an exemplary device not only for defensive purposes, but also for ambitious ones. It's about time we start seeing The West return to its imperial passions instead of this globalistic, egalitarian knock-off.

That passion still remains, as we use the iron hands of The State to destroy our own wealth. Unfortunately, this only compels those that remain faithful to the spirit of The West to fantasize of The Happening. NWO Martial Law, Armageddon, A race war, A failed economic state, even a zombie apocalypse: That's the new Western fantasy. When the iron hands of violence (The State) aren't appropriated for good, the good will want it gone.

In my blog "Nerdism and Property" I revealed my thoughts on NAP,Primary-Directive, Formalistic jargon; At the same time, I neglected to tackle the White Nationalist motto of "Whites for white nations, Blacks for Black Nations, and Asians for Asian Nations", Whilst I still have my nationalistic sympathies all these principles unrealistically neglect that might makes right. No, the U.S making Somalia its colony isn't advantageous or intellingent, but there are places that I can think of that are.

Jizztastic

Let's make it clear that might doesn't make right. After all, blunt force is no match for puritanical morality, or if the 50-shades-of-grey realm of Robert Greene is more to your liking then shallow displays of status trump all. Instead of investing all that energy into fulfillment and becoming the strongest, most complete version of yourself you should mutate into something that deviates far from your original role and spend that excess amount of energy in meaningless leisure.

Who needs to conquer the unconquerable when you can try every drug in the world? Who needs to try every drug in the world when you can try becoming every gender in the world (there's much more than just two, you know)? Who needs to do any of that when you can try all the flavors of Ben and Jerry's ice cream?

What better way is there to bring about this renaissance of orgies and high fructose corn syrup, than for us to bring in a working class of foreigners whom are not yet ready to let go of their past cultures and accept their new culture? We'll give them an early taste of our 21st century enlightenment. Of course, it's a little more complicated than that.

Don't Look Within

There's a visible pattern in bad philosophy: It requires us to undergo an internal struggle as a means of dealing with our internal misery, with the expectation of causing external good. The problem with this mentality is that the mind of the subject is not a good foundation for meeting existential needs. The essence of the individual is what gives him the strength to carry on. Without the essence there is no peace, one's own body carrying out its basic functions for survival can cause the subject harm if he lacks the essence to protect himself, therefore it is imperative that any philosophical viewpoint that lacks a healthy foundation for one's essence be replaced with one that does.

An early example of this is Gnostic Christianity that requires understanding the knowledge of Jesus Christ's teachings as a means of going to heaven instead of the typical process. Interestingly enough the Gnostic gospel's Jesus has a Nietzschian vibe that's antithetical to the Jesus we typically know of. The knowledge of this Jesus's teachings is more important in this case than our faith in him, however even in the possession of this knowledge new holes form. Those who are spiritual, yet lack religion are merely using their religions as a means to create their own world narrative, enter protestantism.

Now Protestantism has a different history, and it's certainly become something different from what it originally was. However the variety of different denominations with different principles shows that it certainly goes through the motions a lot more than usual: Pentecostals that value undergoing religious experiences, 7th day adventists with their strange diet plan, and Calvinists with their predestination beliefs. Once you step into these churches, you typically learn that God has a plan for each and every one of you, how do you know of this plan? Just look into your heart, maybe he wants you to sing right now, or maybe he wants you to open a charity, but he has a plan for you. Of course Satan is also speaking inside your head, so you have to make the distinction from the voices of the flesh and god's plan.

Going back to AP English/your freshman year in philosophy class there's also nihilism, which embodies the words of Nietzsche. Nihilism is interesting because almost every political ideology is based on this viewpoint. Everyone uses Nietzsche for their thesis, even though everyone's debating each other. It's not hard to tell why: God has "died", yet everyone's an ideologue nowadays. The problem with nihilism is that on one hand it believes that man can transcend without god, and on the other it believes that some men can fall into the abyss and take off with anything of value. Sadly many people have tried to fall into the abyss because of this, and instead of leaving as transcendent beings, or monsters, they leave as Rainbow Anthropomorphic Ponies.

V for Voluntary!