Loony alert…

On the internet its only a matter of time before you attract a loony. For me its ‘Somnambulist’ over at AltRight, who’s made two posts mentioning only me!

Skadhi the Raverner is almost certainly a troll. I wasn’t so sure before, but now that she’s jumping to the defense of Middle-Eastern rapists, it’s pretty obvious that she’s just trolling for shits and giggles. Although there’s a more personal reason for that.

Anyone who is familiar with her from the Anthroscape forums will know that she’s dating a Middle-Easterner. I honestly don’t know why a wog-fetishist who is more concerned with Japanese children’s cartoons than with European culture is even associating with the ethno-nationalist sphere in the first place.

Actually I don’t post on forums, as they’re mostly circlejerks; I’m dating an English boy, who I won’t name; and I don’t even like anime all that much,(though yea, I do like things to do with Asian culture in general, from food to cinema and animation). Actually, I only use the avatar on Disqus of a character who stood out as having a personality similar to mine but still, isn’t it odd that someone sees anything suspicious, just because someone is using a Japan-related avatar?

One wonders about the mentality of ‘Somnambulist’ though… what on earth is wrong with liking Japanese cartoons? People should only watch British made cartoons?

The comment above shows whats wrong with British patriotism – paranoia, irrational conclusions (ie. mistaken identities) and fucked up beliefs (such as watching ‘Japanese children’s cartoons’ is to reject your own culture; presumably, it is also to reject your own culture if you eat curry. Or even fish and chips, don’t forget those potatos come from South America!).

Remember to stay away from anything outright anti-Moslem to the exclusion of all other issues, as its where the loonies are.

What’s the betting Somnambulist is associated with, or at least supportive of, the EDL or another controlled opposition movement?

Advertisements

Shallow morality

I’ve found another great quote on the internet from white woman Alice Teller over at TOO.

Link

“I do agree, very much, that we like to think of ourselves as moral, but we want it on the cheap. We want to be able to have free sex, abortion on demand, put our career ahead of our children, even abandon them to total strangers in daycare. We put our elders in nursing homes, knowing that there are many cases of abuse. Women, in particular, once had a clear responsibility beyond earning money. We have abandoned that responsibility, trying to delegate it to men, government, strangers, the tax payer and the school room. We refuse to examine the clear consequences of these choices BUT we want to think well of ourselves. So, we say the right things, demand others support the right causes, and wear the appropriate ribbon of the day to display our virtue. Yeah, we are way too moral. We no longer know the meaning of the word.

Christianity, atheism and feminism

In this piece by W.F. Price of The Spearhead explains why Cultural Marxists – the kind most likely to be radical atheists preaching the famous ‘secular agenda’ – aren’t genuine sceptics because they persist in clinging to a quasi-religious belief in socially approved, personally satisfying articles of faith, or ‘pretty lies’.

Like Germany’s most famous philosopher, F.W. Nietzsche, W.F. Price sets out to demonstrate the origins of today’s anti-Christian fundamentalism in theological make-believe: “Atheism is the rejection of religious fictions, but the entire premise of feminism is based on a religious fiction: equality.”

Several people have noticed that the radical left infiltrated and took over atheism, claiming to represent all atheists as they imposed a ridiculous, dualistic ‘church vs state’ paradigm and slammed the door on dissenting viewpoints about subjects like homosexuality, reproductive rights and, indeed, feminism. (Just compare the contents of the first and second versions of the Humanist Manifesto to see the difference for yourself.) For example, many people are surprised to hear that around a third of atheists are now anti-abortion, because this isn’t what the secular-left lobby wants people to hear.

Is the time now overdue for a wall to separate equality and the state?

The Inherent Conflict Between Atheism and Feminism
W.F. Price
Link

“Today, that idea, which is a religious belief just like Transubstantiation and the Trinity, has become THE article of faith of the “secular” progressive West. Without it, the liberal democratic worldview collapses immediately.

Atheism and skepticism may be considered a common feature of the enlightened secular progressive, but if we are to be honest, there’s an inherent conflict between skepticism and this concept of equality, because it is in fact a religious belief.

So when feminists demand that skeptics and Atheists pay homage to equality, they are demanding that they make an act of faith, and believe in something that can’t be proven. It would be akin to Catholics saying “you know, you can keep calling yourselves skeptics, but you’re going to have to make a statement confirming the resurrection of Jesus Christ or we’re going to start doing really unpleasant things to you.” Actually, the feminists take a it a step farther, in that they demand not only that skeptics “believe” in what they want them to, but also that they stack their ranks with at least as many believers as skeptics.”

Two perspectives on demographics

I’ve been reading Peter Frost’s old posts on Evo and Proud after trying to find the right one so I could send a link to someone, and another post caught my eye because Frost demonstrates the difference in perspective between two people of different backgrounds towards the same problem.

Likewise with his piece I linked to about China and the Ottoman Empire being ‘stalled’ – it was intuitive to me that most societies as organisms would have been better off had the west also been stalled long ago in some way. Its interesting that his choice of word seemed to imply a perception of the Turkish and Chinese as backwards due to some failiure to launch, when I intuitively recognised in the same data proof that the west began to collapse through the absence of equivalent, appropriate controls.

Reading this I was reminded of Napoleon’s observation that men will fight more for their interests than for their rights – why else would anyone treat the growth of ‘bare branches’ as a problem, if we’re now living under what Crowley referred to as a pig system? What exactly is in our present civilisation for someone like me? I can only assume that Peter Frost himself must be more of a beneficiary of the existing system than those agitated males with far less stake in society, young males from a background far closer to mine?

Why on earth would anyone bother to preserve or sustain something so odious as the modern west, like some life-support machine? Why would anyone attempt to fix the irreparable, when the hope of collapse, thorough cleansing, and rebirth exists just around the corner?

Where are the women?
Peter Frost
Link

“So what is to be done? One problem is getting our intellectual and political elites to react. I suspect one reason they don’t is that many are beneficiaries of the existing system, i.e., older men who have remarried with younger women. Our elites are also generally committed to social libertarianism, this being now true as much for the political right as it is for the political left.

I used to be something of a libertarian. No longer. The sexual marketplace does not function like the marketplace of goods and services. Increasing the demand for young single women will not increase the supply. Nor will this market failure go away if “losers” attend special seminars or get special coaching. Nor will it go away on its own. This is a real problem and one that will likely get worse. Yes, if nothing is done we will have a society where marriage is unattainable for over one third of all men.

What would I recommend? First, if we’re going to extend the sex ratio at birth to the age of 50 and beyond, we should try to keep it as close to parity as possible. The least coercive way would be to pay surrogate mothers to have daughters who would then be put up for adoption. Given the number of people who wish to adopt, this would pose no problem. Is this playing God? Perhaps. But we began playing God by cutting male mortality to levels that had never before existed.

Second, we should tighten divorce laws. No-fault divorce would be allowed only when both spouses request it or when there are no children. Otherwise, one would have to show just cause and child custody would normally be split 50:50.

Third, polygynous men should be publicly identified. While polygyny itself would not be criminalized, the public would be free to discriminate against such men in employment and housing. Repeat offenders would be barred from most forms of social assistance. In this, the goal would be to return such men to the margins of society where they belong.

And if we do nothing? “Let them eat porn?” The social costs may be greater than we think. A surplus of single males tends to make societies less stable and more prone to violence (Pedersen, 1991). Such individuals are likelier to agitate for war or revolution, since they have little stake in the existing order. This is a subject that has attracted notice with the so-called ‘bare branches’ of China and India, yet similar regions of ‘bare branches’ are also becoming noticeable throughout the Western World, particularly outside major cities.

Don’t we know a song about what happens next, boys and girls?

“Until all is said and done
When the stream of blood has all yet run
When silent darkness covers this land
Of swallen rubble that once did stand
Now forever gone to the forgotten
No epitaph for all that was simply rotten.
” – Blood Axis, Storms of Steel

And nothing of value will be lost.

Savitri Devi’s religion of the strong

This beautiful, classic Savitri Devi text is from Chapter 1 of Savitri Devi’s, Souvenirs et réflexions d’une Aryenne translated by R.G. Fowler.

“If I had to choose a motto for myself, I would take this one—“pure, dure, sûre,” [pure, hard, certain]—in other words: unalterable. I would express by this the ideal of the Strong, that which nothing brings down, nothing corrupts, nothing changes; those on whom one can count, because their life is order and fidelity, in accord with the eternal.

Oh, you who exalt the fight without end, even without hope, attach yourself to what is eternal! That alone is; the remainder is only shadow and smoke. No individual, man or beast, no group of individuals, no people as such deserves your concern for them; each, on the other hand, deserves, as a reflection of the eternal, that you devote yourself to it to the limit of your capacities. And individual beings and natural groups reflect the eternal more or less. They reflect it insofar as they approach, on all levels, the archetype of their species, insofar as they represent it as living things. He who represents only himself—even one who makes and unmakes history and whose name resounds from afar—is only shadow and smoke.

You who exalt the image of the solitary rock delivered to all the assaults of the Ocean, lashed by the winds, battered by the waves, struck by lightning at the height of the tempest, unceasingly covered by the furious foam, but always standing, millennium after millennium—you who would like to identify with your brothers in faith, with this tangible symbol of the Strong, in order to feel, “That is us! That is me!,” free yourself from two deadly superstitions: the search for “happiness” and concern for “humanity”—or take care never to fall into them, if the gods grant you the privilege of being exempt in your youth.

Happiness—which, for them, consists in unopposed natural development, to be neither hungry, nor thirsty, nor cold, nor too hot; to be able to freely live the life for which they are made, and sometimes, for some of them, also to be loved—would have to be granted to living things which do not have the Word, the father of thought. It is compensation that they are due. Use all your power to ensure it to them. Help the animal and the tree—and defend them against the selfish and mean-spirited man. Give an armful of grass to the horse or the weary donkey, a bucket of water to the buffalo dying of thirst, harnessed since daybreak to its heavy cart under the burning sky of the tropics; a friendly caress to the beast of burden, whatever it is, whose master treats it like a thing; nourish the dog or the abandoned cat that wanders in the uncaring city never having had a master; set a saucer of milk at the edge of the path and caress it with your hand if it allows you. Carry the green branch, torn off and thrown in the dust, into your house so that it is not trampled, and put it in a vase of water; it too is alive and is entitled to your solicitude. It has nothing more than silent life. That, at least, you can help it to enjoy. To live, that is its way—the way of all the beings of flesh, to which the Word was not given—of being in harmony with the eternal. And to live, for all these creatures, is happiness.

But those who have the Word, father of thought, and among them the Strong especially, have something better to do than pursue “happiness.” Their supreme task consists in finding this harmony, this accord with the eternal, of which the Word seems initially to have deprived them; to hold their place in the universal dance of life with all the enrichment, all the knowledge, that the Word can bring to them or help them to acquire; to live, like those who do not speak, according to the holy laws that govern the existence of the races, but, this time, knowing it and wanting it. The pleasure or the displeasure, the happiness or the discontent of the individual does not count. Well-being—beyond the minimum that is necessary for each to fulfill his task—does not count. Only the task counts: the quest for the essential, the eternal, through life and through thought.

Attach yourself to the essential—to the eternal. And never worry about happiness—neither your own nor that of other men; but accomplish your task, and help others achieve theirs, provided that it does not thwart your own.

He who has the Word, father of thought, and who, far from putting it in service of the essential, wastes it in the search for personal satisfactions; he who has technology, fruit of thought, and who makes use of it especially to increase his well-being and that of other men, taking that for the main task, is unworthy of his privileges. He is not worthy of the beings of beauty and silence, the animal, the tree—he who himself follows their path. He who uses the powers that the Word and thought give him to inflict death and especially suffering on the beautiful beings that do not speak, in view of his own well-being or that of other men, he who uses the privileges of man against living nature sins against the universal Mother—against Life—and the Order that desires “noblesse oblige.” He is not Strong; he is not an aristocrat in the deep sense of the word, but petty, an egoist and a coward, an object of disgust in the eyes of the natural élite.

All society, all “civilization” that proceeds from the same aspiration to human well-being above all, to well-being or human “happiness” at any price, is marked by the seal of the Powers of Decadence, enemies of the cosmic order of the play of forces without end. It is a civilization of the Dark Age. If you are obliged to suffer it, suffer it by unceasingly opposing it, denouncing it, combating it every minute of your life. Make it your glory to hasten its end—at least to cooperate with all your might with the natural action of the forces leading to its end. For it is accursed. It is organized ugliness and meanness.

Rid yourself not only of the superstition of “happiness,” if it ever allured you, but also that of man. Protect yourself from the attitude, as vain as it is stupid, that consists in trying “to love all men” simply because they are men. And if this attitude was never yours, if, from childhood, you were impermeable to the propaganda of the devotees of “humanity,” give thanks to the immortal Gods to whom you owe this innate wisdom. Nothing prohibits to you, certainly, from giving a hand to a man who needs help, even the most worthless. The Strong are generous. But in that case, they would be good to him as living flesh, not as a man. And if it is a question of choosing between him and a creature deprived of the Word but closer to the archetype of its species than he is to that of the ideal man, i.e., the superior man, give your preference and your solicitude to this creature: it is more an artwork of the eternal artist.

For “man,” who is esteemed so highly, is not a reality but a construction of the mind starting from living elements of a disconcerting variety. No doubt all “species” are a construction of the mind: their names correspond to general ideas. But there is an enormous difference: the living realities that are the individuals of each species resemble each other. The species exists in each one of them. All the specimens that are attached to it reflect the eternal to the same degree, or thereabouts. The individuals of the same race, races that do not have the Word, are almost interchangeable. Their possibilities are fixed. One knows what the world of living things gains every time a kitten is born; one knows what it loses every time a cat, young or old, dies. But one does not know what it gains—or loses—every time a human baby is born. Because what is a man?

The most perfect Nordic specimen, whose heart is noble and whose judgment is firm and just, and whose features and carriage are those of the Greek statues of the finest age, is “a man.” A Hottentot, a Pygmy, a Papuan, a Jew, a Levantine mixed with Jews, are “men.” “Man” does not exist. There exist only quite diverse varieties of primates that by convention are called “human” because they share an upright stance and the Word, the latter to quite unequal degrees. And within the same race—moreover, within the same people—there are insurmountable divergences, psychic as well as physical, divergences that one would like to be able, even though morbidity explains them partly, to blame on interbreeding in the remote past, so much do such differences between individuals of the same blood appear to be against nature. It is already shocking to witness such frequent and violent ideological (or religious) oppositions between racial brothers. It is even more shocking to learn that, even though Saint Vincent de Paul was French, there are child-abusers who are French also, or to learn that the beautiful and virtuous Laure de Noves, countess of Sade, had, four centuries after her death, among her descendants the marquis of ill-repute who bears the same name.

Thus I repeat: one does not know, one cannot predict, what the world of living things gains or loses every time a young being called human is born or dies. And the less the race is pure, i.e., the fewer possibilities each baby has from the start, and roughly uniform—and also, the less the society tends to pour all individuals of the same group into the same mould, i.e., the less it tends always to encourage the development of the same possibilities, and that, roughly, in the same direction—the less it is possible to guess it. Because then, the more the exception—unclassifiable individuality—will be frequent within a group of the same name, this “name” corresponding no more to reality. It will be relatively possible, and also easy, to envisage in precise circumstances the reactions of a member of an American Indian, African, or Indian tribe—say, a Jivaro or a Masai or a Santal remaining in his natural environment and subjected to his tradition—and those of an Aryan (German or not) who is at the same time an orthodox Hitlerian. It will be more difficult to envisage those of an unspecified non-aligned Western European.

It is, however, true that—beyond a certain degree of mixing of races and cultures and conditioning on a vast scale, thanks to all the modern means of communication—people end up resembling each other strangely, psychically if not physically; they resemble each another in nullity. They think that everything testifies to their independence and originality, yet, in fact, their reactions in similar circumstances are as identical as those of two individuals of the same tribe of Blacks or Redskins, or . . . those of people of the same race, bound by the same faith. The extremes meet. The ethnic chaos of the masses of a metropolis at the forefront of technological progress tends to acquire a uniformity of grayness, a kind of manufactured homogeneity—desired by those who control the masses—a sinister caricature of the relative unity natural to people of the same blood that binds a scale of values and common practices; a uniformity which, far from revealing a “collective mind,” at whatever level of awareness, reveals only the deterioration of a society that has definitively turned its back on the eternal—in other words: a damned society.

But one can still sometimes discover an exceptional individual within such a society, an individual who disdains the ethnic chaos that he sees around him and of which he is perhaps himself a product, and who, in order to escape, adheres to some doctrine of the extinction of the species, or even puts himself completely at the service of a true race, with all the renunciation that entails for him. The mechanism of heredity is so complex and the play of external influences so random that it is not possible to envisage who among the children of a declining society will become such individuals—no more than it is possible to envisage which new-born member of a tribe will aspire one day to something other than received values and ideas, or which child raised in a particular faith will hasten to leave it as soon as he can.

The exception is sometimes probable and always possible in a human group, even if it is homogeneous—which is not to say that, in practice, one can or even must always take this into account: that would complicate the relationships between groups ad infinitum. Moreover the exception, if he represents something more than himself, changes groups whenever he can. If there were an Aztec who was shocked by the sacrifices offered to the gods of his people, this man would be among the first to adopt the religion of the Spanish conquerors; and an Aryan of Europe who, in our time, feels only contempt for the “Christian and democratic” values of the West and dreams of a society in the image of ancient Sparta, adheres, if he has a taste for combat, to the Hitlerian faith.”

Invading the world, inviting the world – with ideas

Thanks to a more connected world, riots can now start in one country because people are downloading media that has been produced in another, as we have seen in the Arab world just recently.

As a result of anti-Moslem propaganda entering their countries, Moslems have begun calling for global censorship and there’s been the predictable response from the kind of kneejerk anti-Moslems you can’t expect to analyse the news in three dimensions, as though it was another case of Moslem immigrants protesting Mohammed cartoons. But of course they’re ignoring that foreign ideas are in this case ‘invading’ Islamic countries, and missing the point by talking about how Moslems alone want to force their values onto the rest of the world.

Where is the outcry about the absurd attempts by globalists to criminalise fictional depictions of the abuse of nonexistent children in Japan, under the guise of children’s rights? The principle here only is the same – the world has many different value systems that conflict, and globalism inevitably results in the exchange of ideas between societies.

What is the response of the people pushing for globalism when connectivity threatens their rules? Consider the above example – to prevent certain pornographic material reaching the west, the west targeted the source. Pushing to maintain a global monopoly over the production of media and information actually becomes defensive when global connectedness opens the door and lets all kinds of unwelcome media in as long as they’re produced at an outside source.

What is the difference between American and Islamic calls for global censorship? When people naturally object to certain foreign ideas or images entering their countries, they will feel they must force their own set of values on a connected, global world or they must disconnect from it.

I left a comment about this at American Renaissance.

Muslim Leaders Make Case for Global Blasphemy Ban at U.N.
Patrick Goodenough
Link

“This is in fact an issue of globalism not of Islam.

The USA promoted one global internet in order to maintain a global monopoly over culture, infecting other societies with gangsta rap and barnyard porn – not to mention political messages – and bashed other countries for their internet firewalls. Yet at the same time the USA pushed for pointless moral legislation at the *global* level, the most obvious being laws against child pornography featuring nonexistent children (ie *drawings* such as Japanese manga).

Yea well, others can play at that game too – Moslems are just catching up with the interconnected, globalist age America wished for and forced upon everyone else.

“Invite the world, invade the world” applies to information as it does to wars and immigration.”

As left-leaning political scientist Paul Treanor has already perfectly examined the internet as a globalist ideology, I won’t bother rewording him. ‘One world’ surely requires one set of values, as long as global communications are imposed upon the world, is it really fair to blame the Moslems if they only want to globalise the censorship of hostile ideas in defence?

Internet as Hyper-Liberalism
Paul Treanor
Link

“Liberalism, as an interaction-maximising ethic, has produced a number of structures, including the free market. Internet, as a ‘marketplace’ for ideas, shows the characteristics of liberal structures clearly, and intensifies them. However, it is still subject to linguistic and cultural barriers, rather than creating a global community. More fundamentally, liberal structures are contra-innovative, and in fact the structure of the Net shows a technological conservatism. The Internet is a political or ethical concept, rather than technological concept. It threatens to impose itself on the world. It is the Net itself which is wrong: freedom from censorship, or equality of access, cannot make it good. The conclusion is simple: the Net must be cut, and Europe is the place to start.”

“Net-ism is wrong because it is coercively expansionist. There is no inherent or inevitable technical or historical trend to a single communication network. On the contrary: never before in history, have so many separate networks been technically possible. Linking all networks together is a conscious choice by some people, a choice then imposed on others. The logic is identical to that of colonial governments, which forced peasants into the agricultural market, by imposing cash taxes. (To pay the tax, the peasants had to sell cash crops such as sugar). This logic says in effect: ‘no one is free to stay outside the free market’. Today, not just governments, but business, social movements, intellectuals and artists, all want to impose the Net. This broad movement is obviously more than profit-seeking (and a non-profit Net would also be wrong). It is an ideological movement seeking ideological imposition. That imposition itself, the universalism, the expansionism, their involuntary nature, the basic unfreedom to exit – that is what makes liberal structures wrong. That applies to the free market, and it applies inherently to the Internet.”

“It is useful at this point to summarise the characteristics and goals of liberalism: it seeks to (a) maximise interaction; (b) to maximise the number of those interacting; (c) to maximise the number affected by each transaction; and (d) to maximise the zone where interaction takes place. By creating chains of interactions, it transmits cause and effect – it collectivises action.”

“For cyber-ideology, however, the greatest advantage of Internet, is an advantage that is derived from liberal models. Liberals see ideas and opinions as objects of exchange: if a liberal has an opinion, he or she wants to ‘express it’ and exchange it with others. The priority of dialogue and communication, in neo-liberal theories (such as communicative ethics), parallels the priority of market exchange, in classic liberalism. (In this sense communicative ethics, and dialogue ethics, have already set the political-ethical framework for cyberspace).”

“The Net is a monopoly, unavoidable, a choice for the past – it is a historical veto. A group, elite, movement, or ideology, does not have the right to impose this veto on the world. It is therefore legitimate, in a political and ethical sense, to cut the Net. The greatest long-distance data flow is the place to make the first cut: a cut in Atlanticism.”

“Very probably, Net-ists in Europe would refuse this option, this scenario. It is not a very probable future anyway. The point is, that Net-ism is a universalist expansionist ideology, and the scenario puts it to the test. Net-ism does not want a choice: it wants the Net, one Net, one global Net, one Net everywhere, one universal cyberspace, and nothing less.”

Girls – avoid university, become a mummy instead

Here’s another comment for your interest, this time its about the futures of daughters and it was posted by ‘MKP’ over at The Spearhead.

I know which future I’d rather have, it’s better to be a first time mum at 14 than at 40, just be careful to sleep only with the right kind of men.

People who have kids in their early 20s or earlier, instead of partying and riding the cock carousel, end up happier in later life. You want to end up like the old bags in Sex and the City?

Link

“I agree with everything you said, but especially the last paragraph. In fact, we’ve reached the strange point where an intelligent, forward thinking man might not even be that angry when his 17-year-old daughter comes home pregnant. Think about that – the catastrophic fear of every father for most of the past few generations, slowly turning into a better option than most others.

Sure, it might have been smarter to wait. Sure, she might have picked a dumb, irresponsible guy. But you never know – sometimes young men can show drive and discipline that might surprise you. And at any rate, she’s as least taken some step, however, crooked, toward forming a family and fulfilling the role of mother in a way that will make it the first priority of her life. And what exactly is she “giving up” by missing out on the college-party-slut scene?

What’s better – a daughter who comes home pregnant at 17, or a daughter who spends 10 years amassing worthless university degrees, another 10 years popping birth control pills, sleeping with random guys and working some meaningless job, and then wakes up at age 38 to realize that she will probably never have children?

Those might be our options. The nice happy medium – graduate high school, take 1-4 years to meet a nice guy, then get married and dedicate yourself to raising a family – is pretty much not something that’s even on most women’s radars.”