Archive for December, 2012

Having communicated online with serious supporters of men’s rights, I know for a fact I’m not the only one who can tell a difference between the intelligent observations made on the Spearhead, and the stupidity of just some of the comments there (see also: sites like AltRight and Occidental Observer, which have a similar and rather obvious cognitive dissonance between the writers and certain, to put it politely, slightly kooky readers). Normally the Bizarro World is limited to the comments left at the above sites which is the way the internet works and, should you be aware of a certain commentor’s history, you know to ignore them and scroll down to find saner comments. Recently though, the Spearhead decided to print a rather curious and ill-conceived piece by Joe Zamboni trying to link population issues to men’s rights.

His article begins with these strange claims – “Women overemphasize the importance of all things reproduction-related because it’s the basis of their claim to being treated like royalty, to tyrannical power over men, and to gender supremacy. Females focus on sexual attraction (clothing fashions, hairstyles, make-up, plastic surgery, etc.), sexual relationships, romance, marriage, having babies, motherhood, child care, raising children, teaching children, and many other reproduction-related activities because this fundamental strategy confers prestige, power, and influence on females.”

What Zamboni does not realise is that this in for a good reason. Anyone who thinks that sexual attractiveness and reproductive success is related to ‘tyrannical power’ is extremely sexually hung up and should go see a doctor. These things, you see, are somewhat integral to human existence, and this is why reproduction-related activities do indeed confer prestige, power, and influence on females. In a healthy society (ie. without feminism) this also applies to males. Just think of how, in polygamous societies,  males displayed their prestige by the number of children they fathered and supported. The same was true of pre-industrial Europe – feminism was itself ultimately a consequence of the disruption to gender relationships caused by the Industrial Revolution. We should also remember that in both pre-Christian (ie. Roman, Celtic etc.) and Christian Europe the status of ‘bastard’ implied only the absence of automatic inheritance rights and no serious social stigma; however men were expected to provide financial and social support to their children – at the very least, bastards had the right to board and lodgings with their father.

In such social circumstances the fathering and support of bastard offspring actually conferred prestige to males, and it was in female self-interest not only to procreate but also to grant sexual access only once support for the possible child was guaranteed (and before access to modern contraception and ‘safe’ legal abortion, the potential costs of sex were very real). And because the support of bastard children was a source of prestige, there was no incentive for men to abandon a pregnant female – of course, in traditional societies lower status men who fornicated and refused to (or couldn’t) support their offspring were either ostracised, outright driven away from the community or outright killed; this is the point feminists deliberately ignore whenever they present ‘patriarchal’ cultures as misogynistic and we will return to it later.

But for now we should remember that anyone who has studied the history and philosophy of feminism within its political context of Cultural Marxism will realise it isn’t simply a ‘hate movement against men’ any more than the pro-choice agenda is about killing babies for kicks. The emphasis of aggressive feminism has always been to present a moral critique that undermines centuries-old family and gender roles (things that are not merely social constructs and that cannot be separated from the human nature itself; feminism, dismissing the facts of human existence, are really against the nature of human life itself – people who deny their own animal natures ultimately hate their own worthless lives).

Therefore according to the perspective of feminism, not only men are to be considered as wicked oppressors in terms equivalent to daft theories of class warfare, because women are certainly not spared criticism from feminists; although women’s choice is celebrated by feminists, women who prefer a traditional gender role are shamed are of course denounced for their lifestyle choices by the very same people who cheer for childless career women sleeping their way to the top. And we all know there is nothing a feminist likes better than a servile beta male too spineless to stand up for his own genetic interests if he wants his wife to bear his children – yes, to feminists there actually is such a thing as a good male.

Only in this context may we understand the push to get women into the male workplace and to enact legislation and quotas that compensate for what we know to be biological gender differences; it’s also why feminists pushed so hard to legalise and normalise both contraception and abortion to remove the barrier of reproduction from blocking equality in the workplace (where they were unable to deny that a gender difference was purely non-cultural, life deniers still refused to concede defeat in the face of reality). To people at war with their own animal natures, whether they are male or female, healthy bodily functions are a disease to be prevented or treated by seeing a doctor, you see.

Joe Zamboni’s curious piece is actually very like feminism and its noteworthy that his target is the actual nature of females, rather than feminism as the divisive and poisonous ideology that it is. The supposed threat of global overpopulation, a genuine problem only in some parts of planet Earth, serves here as a moral critique of traditional social mores including truly masculine roles as fathers and providers that require parenthood and stable relationships (but not necessarily marriage in the sense of a legal and financial arrangement). Though a proper criticism of Erlich’s lot and their silly arguments deserves another post and I don’t have the space to do it here, we should all remember that most resource consumption and wastage – the real environmental threat – actually takes place in countries that aren’t overpopulated, and that the native population of developed countries such as Germany, Spain and Japan is actually below replacement level and in many cases topped up by high-fertility immigrants. In other words, the overpopulation issue is a total non-issue when we are thinking about the sexual, relationship and reproductive mores of our own societies because we now face the opposite population crisis, and no one should be swayed by guilt into denying their own desire for sex or reproduction – nor should it ever be used as an argument against our own procreation at a time when every life is especially precious.

According to Joe, our ‘infatuation’ with reproduction is only an ‘alleged’ evolutionary strategy though everything nonhuman in nature seems to present the very same ‘infatuation’ without receiving moral blame for it – just as white people and European tribes are uniquely singled out for criticism by the anti-racists, humans are not a part of nature to the life deniers, you see. Of course there is no ‘alleged’ at all about procreative instincts being evolutionary strategies, it is a scientific fact – the ‘alleged’ bit is a ‘pretty lie’ indeed. Its quite obvious here that words such as ‘infatuation’ have been deliberately chosen to reframe useful and necessary gut instincts as something irrational, so we don’t think of them as something that exists for a good reason. Within the same actual paragraph as he dismisses procreative instincts as only an ‘alleged’ evolutionary strategy, he himself astonishingly implies that they really aren’t just something alleged, when he says such emotion has ‘outlived its usefulness’, and slips in a few paragraphs attempting to associate men’s rights with the kooky antinatal movement simply by juxtaposition.

Despite the fact that world overpopulation is constantly anvilled into our heads via Big Media to facilitate our replacement by cheap labour Poles, Pakis and Mexicans, Joe says that “Few people dare to talk about how humans are dominating, crowding-out, and in many cases exterminating nearly every other species on the planet, with the exception of insects and rodents, and those that we harvest for food (such as cattle).” Joe neglects to say this only happens in places such as Africa, and that whites are aborting, contracepting and abstaining ourselves into near extinction as most of the planet breeds like friggin’ rabbits. I’m reminded by such people of the genius Sir Francis Galton’s belief that the warnings of Reverend Thomas Malthus would only reach or appeal to those with the highest IQ, with an obvious dysgenic effect as they would only decrease the numbers of those with intelligence and self-control, not omega male serial impregnators and their odious like.

Joe offers the bizarre advice to men that “There is no rational justification to act as though any particular woman is a queen bee”. This is clearly nonsense from a genetic point of view – very special people are clearly worth the extra investment of this sort. Of course this doesn’t matter to those who bizarrely believe that “Life should not be all about babies and bringing still more people into the world” because surely the genes bestowing things like intelligence, physical health and physical attractiveness only matter if its actually OK to pass on those genes. I doubt he ignores the attractiveness of his mates when he’s after sex, though. Why doesn’t he override that ‘alleged’ instinct? Joe, you instinctual animal with your overemphasising of sexual attractiveness.

Ignoring evolutionary biology when it doesn’t suit him, Joe claims that “Supposedly humans are intelligent and self-aware, not simply instinctual animals” in spite of the huge corpus of biological knowledge proving Nietzsche right about the conscious mind being a function of the body. One of the ironies of the secular ‘despisers of the body’ is that they say things which only make sense within the context of a bogus mind-body dualism handed down to us by Christianity. Biologically, anything is costly to an organism should it impede the organism’s own fitness, that is, the survival of its own genes, with the corollary that the fitness of an individual or a group provides a completely neutral measure of what is the best for themselves. Whenever human self-awareness can lead to one’s own genetic death, then it becomes objectively toxic to us – why not override careful reflection with wholesome animal instincts? Just like our general intelligence exists to find ways round our immediate problems, those gut feelings wouldn’t be there if they didn’t have a purpose, so why shouldn’t indulge them if it feels good?

By the time Joe gets to saying that “We need more personal freedom, more self-actualization, and more pursuit of happiness (in whatever form that may take for an individual)”, he has lost grip of reality altogether. I wonder how Joseph Z would solve the problem of affluent whites, who have remained childless by choice else have personally chosen a below replacement family size of one over-indulged trophy brat, precisely to persue their own happiness as they wish and at any cost in resources.

In fairness the kind of Greens who are concerned about there being too many white people do genuinely possess consciences, and this is why Erlichtard messages appeal so much to them. The problem begins because consciences allow people to deceive themselves the way people always do, and still do what they deep down feel to be wrong – ultimately there’s nothing desirable about allowing ‘freedom of conscience’ because it merely allows hypocrites the right to make something up as they go along just to hide behind. Like sinful medieval Christians grovelling to the LORD for confession, these people turn up at recycling facilities every week in their awful SUVs they only bought for social status reasons despite knowing how they guzzle gas – the people who ‘care’ most about global warming actually create a far greater carbon footprint than the rest of us, but they don’t care about the Earth (TM) in their day-to-day existences. To such a selfish but self-righteous mentality as typifies our urban elites, the idea that its virtuous not to procreate is naturally seen as a moral liberation from nasty traditional pressures to think of one’s obligations as a part of a natural group which is defined by kinship and genetic relationships. Married to the rhetoric of freedom of choice, bringing freedom free from all guilt to consume as selfishly as possible – its all OK so long as you don’t have any kids, just turn up at your neighbourhood recycling centre every week or you’ll burn in Green Hell!

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Joe at all that all societies curtail individual freedoms because choices carry costly consequences for others in the group. It is indeed akin to slavery if only women have reproductive rights, but in centuries past when contraceptives and abortifacients were far less effective, there was very little reproductive choice for either gender and no means for women to control men; the answer is to abolish contemporary reproductive freedom to allow a return to sanity through restoring the kind of natural, harmonious relationships between the genders which used to be taken for granted.

Right towards the end of the paper Joe enters a morally disgusting sentence into his text – “If a woman who had sex with you does get pregnant, insist upon and then pay for an abortion.” Now in fairness, Joe does tell people also to get a vasectomy or use condoms instead of relying to abortion, but the fact he does so reveals yet more self-deception – if abortion is an acceptable solution to a pregnancy problem, then why should anyone bother with contraceptives? Of course such people must realise abortion is wrong themselves, or they would neither bother to avoid ‘needing’ one nor think to rationalise the ‘personal choice’, because to them it would be no worse than simply taking a tooth out.

All over the internet its easy to find arguments against abortion that make sense from the ‘rights of the child’ angle, but that isn’t really my concern here. No, its the kind of thinking that led him to come up with such selfish nonsense which is worthy of an in-depth analysis (sowwy it isn’t really selfish, not if you self-decieve it’s to save the world).

The idea that someone should pay for an abortion implies he accepts responsibility for the pregnancy, and therefore should not face responsibility like a man. I suspect Mr. Zamboni has been vasectomised or uses condoms to prevent an abortion, but still there are men who are genuine shits and really do behave like this, they blame the girl if she does get pregnant even though they never asked about birth control first, and they should by law cough up to support the child (and though I’d rather such men didn’t breed, they really shouldn’t be allowed to even ask for an abortion – besides the ‘right to life’ argument, the ready and safe availability of the cop out merely encourages certain people to be irresponsible). For that matter I’m sure a lot of people wouldn’t want some jerk impregnating their daughter and paying for their grandchild’s death behind their back. Men’s rights? I’m fine with that, but for which men? Like women’s rights, the rights of men must be matched with responsibilities. In traditional societies it would actually be up to other men to regulate and punish the sexual misbehaviours of other men, not side with them to get one over on feminists who would themselves probably have been interpreted as witches threatening fertility, probably.

Notice the lack of sensitivity Zamboni shows regarding abortion even though many men lost children in this way; he selectively shows concern for the male victims of female reproductive rights if those males didn’t want children, but none at all for the male victims of abortions who wanted to be fathers. (Liberalised abortion was pushed by feminists for a reason, and if female reproductive rights is like ‘slavery’ for men, men benefiting from such services are like the few black slave owners in the American South – both men and women who use such services should be named and shamed on the internet. Nothing to hide nothing to fear – and don’t you have a right to know what your sleeping with? To know the risk of a woman ‘getting rid’ of your child, or of a man saying ‘get rid of it’? If the state won’t do it…)

Ignoring foetal rights (and they do have a right to be born!), if either population control or MGTOW ever begins to be abused to justify such awful and irresponsible behaviour towards others who have already been born, then they will have then turned into something evil. And that’s whats wrong with both feminism and this crazy article – its ridiculous for someone to condemn pronatalist social mores which created balance for the sexes, whilst also complaining about what has happened since they were abolished.

Sex is linked to reproduction – those opposed to reproduction ought to be consistent and live like monks, at the very least it would demonstrate their own moral sincerity and show they aren’t abusing moral stances to rationalise selfish lifestyle choices. Sexual urges and reproduction are also linked to gender, and the only reason for two genders to exist is because it is in their natures to coexist and compliment one another in their roles which relates to genetic survival through investment in ones offspring.

Men have overall lost out through the absurd gender war with a few undeserving exceptions; most women, though you would not think it listening to certain people, are either worse off through it too or unaffected. Feminism was a movement that benefited affluent, educated women – in the short term that is. In lower down social classes, like my background, some community values still exist and females lack the indoctrination and social reasons to behave like feminists so simply ‘dating down’ would be a financially safer bet for men, not least because women from lower financial classes don’t expect marriage in the same way wealthier women often do. Whilst every shift towards the anti-masculist pig system, was aided and abetted by certain men who sought the abolition of ‘patriarchal’ mores guarding society’s daughters. Wouldn’t it be better for most decent people if things were simply put back?

Whilst the last thing anyone needs is more personal choice. When you’re living in A Brave New World, decent people might actually benefit from a little more control over people’s lives where its appropriate. If we don’t want to live in The Handmaid’s Tale, we need a few more moderate reforms to curtail people’s behaviours in the bedroom and afterwards, before those kinds of draconian measures become necessary. A dystopia like Gilead is at least a functioning society – something that ours isn’t.

Women’s Excessive Emphasis On Reproduction

Joe Zamboni


Curious why you shouldn’t be concerned about overpopulation in your area?

“Careful reflection” about having children: Christine Overall and Paul Ehrlich

Kevin MacDonald


If you’re interested in pre-industrial gender relations, take a look at these.

Medieval Monogamy

Laura Betzig

Link (.pdf)

Monogamy and Polygyny

Walter Scheidel

Link (.pdf)

Read Full Post »

Although no one knows for certain why Adam Lanza committed the massacre he just has, or whether he was actually diagnosed with any psychiatric condition, speculation in both the media and on the internet is blaming Lanza’s alleged diagnosis for his actions (even though its effectively gossip yet as to what his alleged diagnosis actually is). And despite the fact that the left has a big problem with neurodiversity on the grounds that they wish the ‘mind of man’ was a genuine universal and not another appealing fairy story, certain people are blaming liberal attitudes to mental ‘illnesses’ for Lanza’s crime. In a way they are right, but the relationship between the left and neurodiversity (like the rest of human biodiversity) is in reality more complicated than some people seem to think.

The left have always liked the ‘existence’ of mental illness as a convenient way to scapegoat their enemies – to rationalise their own intolerance and censorship. When they are confronted with someone’s contrary ideas that they find intolerable, they attack the sanity of others with descriptions and labels implying disordered psychology (ie. ‘paranoia’) or attempt to present opposing positions as the products of thinking ‘wrongly’ (ie. junk science tracing ‘homophobia’ to sexual repression, although ‘homophobia’ of course has no construct validity in scientific terms, to insinuate that critics of gay marriage have underlying psychological problems and to poison the well that their opinions are therefore invalid.)

One of the left’s favourite tricks right now is to insist everyone they dislike is a ‘sociopath’ – a word that’s strangely absent from contemporary peer reviewed literature, but in the sensationalist popular literature it is synonymous with the psychopath, which is itself a heterogeneous construct according to the real scientific consensus based on brain scans and behavioural studies. (High anxiety secondary psychopaths are the result of abuse or neglect that can be spotted in childhood, and constitutional psychopaths are actually capable of moral standards, emotional empathy and altruism as are autistic people. Both are attested in the literature to be treatable in humanistic terms, but obviously will never be ‘normal’ and are therefore mistakenly regarded as though they were untreatable by the psychiatric profession. ‘Monsters’ exist only in the human imagination, and dehumanising language serves only to externalise people’s fears about their own, often predatory, animal natures. The ‘snakes in suits’ so widely feared are in fact the snake people wish wasn’t coiled within everyone’s ‘reptile brains’.)

Homosexuals once used to be regarded as ‘mentally ill’ despite the fact that it has been acceptable in various societies including the Classical Mediterranean and Edo Japan, and regardless of whether human biodiversity is involved as a causal agent or not, the decisions both to label homosexuals as the ‘sufferers’ of a mental illness and later to remove them from the list of recognised ‘disorders’ clearly involves cultural and moral rather than scientific and unbiased judgements – as opposed to the correct and genuinely humanistic use of psychological knownedge which ought to be preventing the suffering of individuals according to their personal needs, and avoiding institutionalisation, the unnecessary prescription of medications and especially stigmatisation.

Though right now we don’t know whether Lanza was schizophrenic, had Aspergers Syndrome, or was diagnosed with any other psychiatric condition we do know that he came from a broken home, and yet no one cared once they noticed the danger signs. And for every Lanza, Cho, Harris or Klebold there must be thousands of other kids from similar backgrounds killing themselves every year and no one cares because they didn’t take a few others out as well.

Understanding individuals like Lanza and their crimes requires a humanistic approach that interprets psychological ‘disorders’ and suffering as a product of a sick environment upon the human brain, regardless of any differences from ‘neurotypical’ that someone might possess. This and not scapegoating people who have been labelled – something that is not the same as placing labelling their conditions – is the most sensible approach to treating the underlying causes creating an Adam Lanza before he actually snaps – or to put it another way – why do modern urban societies have such high rates of depression relative to hunter-gatherers or people in farming villages?. Supposing that Adam Lanza really was autistic or schizophrenic, his mental condition cannot be to blame because the vast majority of the world’s other autistic or schizophrenic people have never done the same thing. This kind of crime is obviously the result of one individuals particular life history of personal suffering within a toxic family environment.

Society will readily intervene to take away people’s guns or to lock away those born a little differently, but it won’t intervene where its really needed to prevent school shootings (or teen suicides) because anti-traditional society is itself to blame.

If it is true that Lanza had a condition on the Autistic Spectrum, then it will do no good, and it makes no sense, to attribute his actions to the unusual way that his brain functioned. This ‘nerd’ and ‘loner’ was an ‘orchid child’, a gifted individual who could have contributed much more positively to his society had he been raised with the correct stimuli that were needed to nurture him correctly – had anyone cared enough in the first place. The word ‘orchid child’ originated in the context of the needs of autistic children and how they suffer when placed in a conventional education system, but the word applies surely in this context even if Lanza was not autistic. One-size-fits-all fails as an education system especially once a child enters their teens, and in that sense all of the teenagers killing themselves (or others) were orchid children failed by the irrational underlying belief in equal treatment for all.

Read Full Post »

After the recent massacre of children at a school in the USA by a troubled young man from a broken home named Adam Lanza, the crocodile tears have gone into overdrive across the Atlantic as both the Democrats and Republicans have cynically and predictably begun to abuse the slaughter of the innocent as a means to persue their own agendas.

Living in the UK its hard for me to ‘get’ the obsession Americans have about guns, and countries like Japan seem to benefit from a low rate of gun ownership, though on the other hand, lots of countries with more widespread gun ownership also seem to benefit from low rates of crime.

Though gun ownership has a great historical and cultural significance in the USA, Jack Donovan makes a Third Side argument out why guns are important – gun owners are the real OWS.

Who Will Control The Guns?

Jack Donovan


Read Full Post »

Since this is a new blog, I’m going to describe myself and my beliefs without giving too much about myself away (my boyfriend is going to be famous). I’m a cynical 21 year old female freelance writer from the UK, with an interest in anthropology, the British outdoors and what is wrong with the world. Basically everything you’ll see here on this blog will reflect my belief that decent people are discriminated against, that far worse sinners profit at our expense in a political ‘pig system’ thanks to social tolerance, and that these inferior people need to punished for us to have what we deserve which involves us rising up and setting the moral standards for ourselves.

My name is Skadhi because I’m an icy bitch but don’t worry cause I don’t usually bite.


Because I’ll be posting about social issues, I’ll provide a brief overview of the kind of things I believe oin.

– I’m for immigration control

Why should descent people lose their jobs to immigrants, just because big business wants cheap labour? Big business supports open borders and amnesties because immigrants are willing to work for less than native born workers.

– I’m strongly anti-abortion except for extremely rare humane reasons

If we can get rid of babies, why not get rid of the stupid selfish adults who got pregnant in their first place? Reproductive rights surely implies not only freedoms but responsibilities, right? So why allow a cop out for these people?

This is not just about abortion being murder, although it is, but about parental responsibilities, the duty men have to stand by people they impregnate, and the duty of women not to kill men’s children (often without them knowing).  In a sane world abortion ought to carry the death penalty unless its for a good enough reason, but until then whores and men who pay them to kill the children they father, should be exposed, named and shamed.

Where there is no serious birth defect and no threat to the life of the mother, then there is always adoption.

Abortion is just another example of the way filthy adults treat their children as throwaway and behave selfishly instead of acting with responsibility, punishing the kids as though it’s the little kids fault – how many of us were looking at the end of a coathanger because adults couldn’t keep their stupid legs shut, before they changed their minds on a whim? Then we still grew up having to listen their obnoxious moralising as we grew up?

– I support labor rights and the rehabilitation of disadvantaged British communities

British working class communities have declined into Britain’s present chavvy drink culture, and widespread crime and drug addiction. But instead of support, we get demonisation as entire communities by people who don’t have to live with the druggies and the pissheads. With no one above who cares, we need a movement from the ‘bottom up’ similar to what the Black Nationalists have tried in the USA.

– I generally support traditional men’s rights, especially father’s rights

Not only have decent men lost out through feminism, but the so-called ‘patriarchal’ values hated by feminists actually protected females from the worst of male behaviour, and children from the worst of both genders who now treat them as pieces they use to score points off one another. Most men, like most women, are not villains and, more importantly, traditional social mores prevented men from misbehaving even if they wanted to, by imposing potential costs upon the consequences of actions.

Although its true that unstable homes rather than single motherhood itself are a cause of social breakdown, single mothers often raise their children with a succession of bad male role models as they try to fill a gap in their lives. Its not only in the interests of men to support father’s rights, but in the interests of all of society. Women shouldn’t be allowed to break up families on a whim, and men should have near-unconditional rights of access to their children. If fathers were forced to have automatic custody of the children they father, men would be discouraged from irresponsible sex and women would lose their present incentive to trap men for child support. Wouldn’t this be better for both genders?

– I think adoption within the UK should be made easier

Infertile people wanting to be parents? Check. Too many abortions? Check. Too many kids in children’s homes? Check. What is the most logical solution? To make adoption easier and to encourage couples to adopt.

– I’m in favour of sterilising addicts and people with the most serious congenital defects

The selfishness of reproductive choice isn’t limited to comfort abortions, but to the entire message of reproductive choice – if people say we all have an unconditional right to reproduce, then they’re saying it’s alright for people to fill the world with future suffering as long as no one forces them to give birth!

What about the rights of people in future generations, who will inherit the consequences of our personal choices, to be free of serious hereditary disease?

And what about the suffering of unfortunate children born to drug addicts? Did they deserve to suffer because their mothers were given a choice?

The role of individual choice in reproductive decisions must be curtailed by genetic screenings followed by sterilisations. People who are at risk of killing, neglecting or abusing their children should also be sterilised or, if they might be expected to improve their lives in the future, they should be placed on long-acting contraception.

– I support trade protectionism, controls over banks and corporations, and curtailed economic growth

Banks and money lenders, acting without sufficient regulations, have created an economic downturn and yet they still get out of the neccessary regulations society needs to impose. Small businesses and farmers need protection from supermarkets and other people benefitting from monopolies, and economic protectionism is necessary to protect British jobs and British businesses from outcompetition. If society is an organism then that organism must advance its own self-interest always, and money lending and corporations are a source of social ill-health. A few people, and they must be curtailed just like the excesses of the unions once had to be curtailed.

A mixed economy is necessary and healthy, but the problem with our mixed economy is that the wrong people benefit from handouts. Public money is given to questionable asylum seekers, and to alcoholics who ought to be forced to sort out their own lives, whilst equivalent parasites at the top of the pile receive their own benefits and bailouts as rewards for failure. Instead taxes should be reinvested into communities and seen, for the most part, as a loan with terms set to it and not a gift (except for those genuinely in need who cannot be expected to repay).

Present standards of economic growth are based upon money, but money is not the definition of wealth and nor can growth be oversimplified to Gross Domestic Product. Monetary changes do not necessarily reflect real changes, and a monetarily ‘stagnant’ economy can grow in ‘real’ terms. And besides the ecological wastefulness of modern western life, this same affluence causes us social problems not least an aging population – young people are already wiping their arses as the Baby Boomers get older and this is a real and unfair burden a society has to prevent as much as possible.

– I oppose our membership in organisations like the EU and the UN

Do you want your countries policies set by Europe? If they are – and too many of them already are – then all those patriotic wars our ancestors fought were for nothing. And why should British soldiers, including ‘peacekeepers’ with guns, die in other people’s interventionist wars where our people have no interests at stake? All interactions with foreigners, such as trade agreements and war, must be decided on our own terms. We need a Britain that can say no.

– I’m against animal cruelty

People have always used animals for their survival but too much animal cruelty is nowadays pointless, such as cosmetic testing, battery farming and the lifelong confinement of animals inside wire cages to farm them for their furs. Our people get sentimental about the Chinese eating cats or the Japanese eating dolphins, but they don’t want to be reminded of the cruelty behind their own meat. How many animals die so the lazy and obese can continue to stuff their faces with fatty animal flesh, only to die themselves of a heart attack because their lifestyle was toxic? Besides, its only bad people who would hurt animals without a reason, and its in our interests to injure bad people before they hurt the human members of society.

– I support lowering the ages of marriage and sexual consent

Nature intended the human animal to begin sex and procreation as soon as nature intends it, and the best time for parenthood is as soon as the body is able to stand it, in people’s early teens. Yet despite nature and the fact that girls have children when nature calls, and despite the fact that delayed parenthood is disastrous for society, young people are demonised instead of being allowed to create a stable family home for the children.

In centuries past much older men married young girls, and no one cared, and this was not ‘abuse’ because no one got hurt. But nowadays 18 year old kids go to prison for consensual sex with 15 year olds, and its unfair and its absurd.

– I’m concerned about our natural environment and our cultural heritage

Even though I’ve not had good enough health to go on long hikes or climb mountains or anything, I’ve always loved the outdoors and being surrounded by the mountains, the trees and wildlife, the coast, lakes, rivers and streams. I also love the aesthetics of ruins and old buildings in states of disrepair, whether they look magnificent and inspiring in themselves, or beautiful because they’re being reclaimed by nature. Both our natural and historical spaces and landmarks are necessary for people to feel ‘rootedness’ to the familiar, which is doubtless why deracinated modern architecture built by globalist regimes all looks like international airports, and the state funds public sculptures and modern art galleries which lack references to traditional British and European culture.

– I’m against binge drinking culture

One of the worst problems facing the British people is the way we drink alcohol and tolerate and even celebrate its abuse. And because British people are too selfish and individualistic to accept the need to accept costs upon themselves for the common good, sensible drinkers are opposed to hiking the costs of alcoholic beverages so that fewer people can afford to abuse it. At some point alcohol needs to be made far less available than it is, and I don’t mean scapegoating underage drinkers who might be drinking sensibly, whilst harsher punishments need handing out to violent drunk idiots, to those who defecate or urinate in public whilst drunk, and for public drunkenness in general. It should be reasonably safe for people to go outside in our provincial towns at all hours of the night.

– I support medicinal cannabis

Even though drugs aren’t one of the social issues I’m worried about, except when hard drugs lead to social problems, I strongly believe people who suffer from pain should be allowed to benefit from smoking pot if they want to. And growing the hemp plant for medicinal purposes would provide us with all kinds of other benefits, such as healthy and delicious cooking oil, fabric and a source of biofuel that doesn’t create hay fever allergies like rape fields, or require the felling of tropical forests like the tropical biofuels which are grown as cash crops.

– I want to end hate speech laws and affirmative action

I might not be a libertarian in the sense that some people want to positively affirm free speech for its own sake, but I don’t think people should be censored just because of someone else’s sensibilities, especially when those deciding upon acceptable speech are so biased against us – sovereign are they who get to decide on the exceptions. Its precisely because free speech is impossible, and that those demanding censorship are among the biggest advocates of free speech when it suits them, that I don’t need to hide behind moralistic crap like ‘freedom of speech’ to say what I’ll feel like. And though others really do have a right not to be offended by something, then they already have a right not to listen, because no one can stop them covering their ears.

Especially as regards hate speech laws about race, and also the related concept of affirmative action, those who feel disadvantaged are free to respect my own freedom to put my people’s interests first, and to return home without complaining – and if they do complain to me, I’ll just cover my ears.

– I’m indifferent to other people’s sex lives, porn and their recreational use of soft drugs as well as their religious beliefs

There are lots of things other people care about, that I don’t. For example the gay culture has killed many people by AIDS, and the gay rights movement has set out to undermine the relationship between the genders, but I’m not really bothered by the sex itself. I’m sure homosexuality is heterogeneous and that a variety of biological and environmental agents influence human sexual behaviours,  and as long as homosexuals may be genetically predisposed as such, I won’t hate on them, only ask that they avoid gay lifestyles and identity politics. I don’t believe in positive freedoms or that the right to privacy should be a shibboleth, but unless there’s a reason for the state to get involved, then it doesn’t justify the costs of state intervention.

I’m pretty much against moral legislation and the abuse of the law to push specious agendas onto society, and people who try to do so, routinely lie and decieve others in order to push their own agendas (the part of the human brain that deals with morality works like a lawyer, not a scientist). It feels to me like for these people, taking part  the argument is more important than finding a solution, and they purposefully derail debates and stifle serious discussions. Enough of these people become rich and famous from their activism to make me sceptical of the lot.

And for that matter I don’t see why religion (or atheism) should be allowed to become divisive, nor do I see why they should be excluded from politics unless its something really silly such as creationism in schools. Birthrates and social capital are far better where the Christian religion is strong, so the church was obviously doing something right for centuries, and despite what anti-traditionalists say, the science explains why this is. A return to decent values must be justified in terms of its pragmatic benefits for society if it is to have appeal, instead of making appeals to a religion no one believes in anymore.

Like most people going through the ‘power process’ for its own sake, people acting in the name of religion are usually far more interested in being heard, than it refuting an absurd society which is both self-destructive and morally repugnant. Whether God exists is not only unknowable but irrelevant, whilst the ‘secular agenda’ must be opposed not as disbelief in a possibly fictional figure, but as the pseudo-philosophical justification of nihilism.

I hope this explains this blog a little better.

Read Full Post »

Regulus Seradly

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

Destroy Zionism!

Exposing the World Parasite