Archive for January, 2013

As part of my habit of quoting other people’s blog comments that others might have missed, here’s one dissecting liberal thinking from a certain ‘UberboreanFaustoAryanSupaPowa’ over on AltRight.

Dredding Homosexuality: Sub-homophobia and the gayness of Judge Dredd
Colin Liddell

The thing about political correctness which makes it so effective is that it’s able to ignore its own partiality on a conscious, if not sub-conscious, level; the material interests and calculating nature of its followers are minimized through the emphasis of some artificial piety based on “equality.” Followers insist that the goal is “equality” when their modus operandi is blatant favoritism and expedient material acquisition; they act as though they are devoid of any narrow material motive or degree of human cynicism; this is why they come across as so sanctimonious and so full of themselves to those of us who understand human psychology and motive better; thus, for ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, the liberal is guilty of the very same type of “discrimination” that he decries but is excused because of a PROFESSED religious belief in an illogical, unnatural, and unattainable end like “equality.” The black groups on a college campus aren’t interested in furthering their own interests as blacks, you see; they’re SUPPOSEDLY ULTIMATELY interested in “equality” however so defined by them at any given moment (convenient). It’s rather like how all of the people interested in “bikers’ rights” and more bike paths just happen to be cyclists, themselves. They can’t just say “I’m looking out for my interests.” They can’t be honest and excuse the stench of self-righteousness from their cause. They frame their cause in terms of “rights” and nauseate the hell out of anyone who rejects such righteous (disingenuous) posturing.

Political correctness ignores that its very manner of critique can cut both ways; and it’s able to ignore this hypocrisy with the whole “equality” punchline set to a background of Marxist narrative about past oppressions. One of the effects of this is that politically-correct liberals often think they’re identifying something important when, in actuality, they may just be rabble-rousing.

For example, someone may write a piece of fiction in which homosexual perverts are portrayed. But according to liberal logic, those people MUST NOT exist. I mean, they can’t exist because only a “homophobic” person would dare wish to create such characters inside a gritty “slice of life” reality drama, right? If you don’t “hate” homosexuals, what’s the point of ever portraying ANY homosexual’s sexuality in a bad light? Just make all the perverts heterosexuals and “discriminate” against THAT group. So it can’t be that the writer in question actually bears no ill will towards homosexuals (generally speaking) but simply wanted to make flawed characters who happened to be homosexual in the interest of exploring a specific psychology type. No, no…It’s ALL based in “homophobia,” you see.

Is it not abundantly clear how liberalism is descended from puritanical Christianity? There are probably seven deadly secular “progressive” sins, too. “Homophobia,” “Racism,” “Sexism,” “Islamophobia,” “Xenophobia,”…. What am I missing, here?


Read Full Post »

The hypocrisy of the multiculturalists is amusing. On the one hand, our own traditions and values are denigrated and mocked and dismissed as unreason – and of course ‘progressives’ tried to stamp them out, most obviously as relates to religion from the constant attacks on ‘paedophile’ priests to the war on Christmas. Yet not only do the same white people pretend to praise and celebrate the customs of minorities and foreign nations as a means to undermine our own culture, but invent pseudo-traditions to those ends.

Of course the disinterest in accuracy and general disrespect to native peoples shown in the mawkish rituals that are described in the linked piece, only demonstrates that Australian Aboriginals are merely a convenient means for elite whites to enstill feelings of white guilt into other whites.

Sacred Traditions Invented Yesterday
Keith Windschuttle

“Wherever Labor governments have gained power in recent decades they have made it compulsory for every government instrumentality, and many independent organisations they fund, to begin every public meeting with a cere­monial acknowledgement of Aboriginal traditional landowners. This ritual is now so ubiquitous it is virtually inescapable, from the opening of writers’ festivals, to art exhibitions, academic conferences, school assemblies, indeed anywhere those in the public sector gather. Since 2006, the standing orders of the New South Wales Parliament require each sitting day to open with the incantation: “We acknowledge the traditional owners, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation. We also acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands we represent and thank them for their custodianship of country.”

This ritual is now performed far more frequently than the singing of the national anthem or the raising of the Australian flag. Yet two decades ago it was unknown. It was introduced without any public debate, let alone public support, and its authors have never been named or their purposes justified. Nonetheless, since the passing of the Native Title Act in 1993, it has been foisted on a mystified public as though it had the sanction of deep indigenous tradition.

I first experienced the ritual at a 1996 conference of the Centre for Cross-Cultural Studies of the Australian National University. The conference was held at James Cook University, Cairns, and its organisers roped in two women elders from the local community to receive the acknowledgement at the opening session. They looked bemused and embarrassed at being the centre of so much attention, and it was no wonder. This ceremony is not part of any Aboriginal culture. It is an invented tradition, most probably devised by white academics at the ANU Centre itself.

As the recently elected Northern Territory MP, the traditional Walpiri woman Bess Price, told a reporter from the Australian last month, these cere­monies were not meaningful to traditional people. “We don’t do that in communities,” she said. “It’s just a recent thing. It’s just people who are trying to grapple at something they believe should be traditional.”

Moreover, rather than being a symbol of reconciliation, many of its utterances are, on any objective assessment, disrespectful. Those who make them rarely take the trouble to discover the actual name of the local clan but simply acknowledge nameless “elders” or “the traditional owners”. I have heard this so many times by so many people that it is probably unfair to single out Maurice Newman, chairman of the ABC during the five years I was on its board. Over this time, at only one of the many public functions where he performed this ritual (at Broome) did he ever mention the name of the local clan. Indeed, at one staff function in Brisbane he acknowledged the traditional owners “whoever they are”. To any Aboriginal elder, the real message of such an omission is that the speaker’s sentiments are insincere.

“If Australian leftists want to continue inventing Aboriginal traditions, they obviously need to lift the quality of their research. In fact, they would be better off giving away the whole tawdry game. Most of the white dignitaries who speak these rites are merely going through the motions, and traditional Aborigines don’t recognise or treat them seriously. In such circumstances, no one can seriously claim they contribute to inter-racial respect or reconciliation. And, as even an old Marxist hack like Eric Hobsbawm has demonstrated, there is always a good market for authors who seek to expose mythologies and shine the light of reason into dark places.”

Read Full Post »

Sometimes I find a piece online that isn’t so much interesting in itself but for what it tells you about the ‘sense of life’ of its authors and of the people leaving comments.

I’m not going to bother going into all the reasons why the American ‘right to life’ movement, with its ties to liberation theology, is as rooted in American liberalism as it is in conservatism because the information about the history of their movement is found throughout the web – especially in the manosphere. But in parallel there exists a similar but anti-populist trend, in which urban liberal concepts such as abortion rights get fused to an absurd and traditionally Christian kind of moral prudery.

So as usual, here’s my own comment to astound you all with my insight.

Did the Pro-Life Movement Lead to More Single Moms?
Naomi Cahn and June Carbone


“Unmarried parenthood in itself is not a social problem, just as teen motherhood is not a problem. Though they are both associated with problems in some contexts, there is no such association in others, ergo they aren’t problems in themselves.

Through most of human history, children were left without fathers by higher rates of male mortality – obviously, if humans evolved in such circumstances and existed in such a state for centuries, human evolution naturally enabled children to grow up without a ‘man about the house’.

‘Right to lifers’, who deviate from more traditional anti-abortion positions to abase themselves before all women – despite what feminists claim, the ‘religious right’ never mention the psychological harm abortion often causes to men, whilst stressing how regretful women are themselves ‘victims’ and downplaying their role in their own, purposeful, reproductive decisions as females. In effect the right to lifers actually represent the marriage of Red State and Blue State values, and so does this article by blending Planned Parenthood propaganda with the kind of kneejerk and ill-reasoned prudery against single mothers that could have come from a creationist.

Ultimately what we’re seeing, and despite the issue of whether minorities have a disproportionate number of abortions, is a division between whites – less fortunate whites are hated on for our morals whether its sneering down at our ‘culturally Christian’ views on abortion, or condemning us for our rates of illegitimacy. Tied in with this is a wider cultural trend in which culture seen as implicitly conservative or white or Christian by urban elites, such as cousin marriage and early sex, are condemned whilst urban-originated concepts such as homosexual marriage and hookup sex are actively championed by the very same people.

Up is down and down is up. And though there is a trend towards the blending of red State and Blue State values in America, the class division still clearly stands whilst the memes themselves hybridise and mutate in a shifting climate.”

Read Full Post »

Though he’s more famous for inventing the Church of Satan, Anton LaVey once said that when debates become politicised into ‘us versus them’ mentality, the debate itself becomes more important to people than finding a solution and free thinking, Third Side opinions become suppressed as a result.

Not surprisingly my habit of calling the bluff of phonies got be banned from Life Site News, when I questioned the morality of Jesus Christ, who allegedly saves foetus killers whenever they choose to say sorry, but never helps blameless women in this world who are childless through no fault of their own – though of course if they pray hard enough they might go to heaven with a bunch of baby killers, because they did nothing worse in Christ’s eyes, since he forgives anyone who prays to him you see. It probably wasn’t quite as offensive for them when I pointed out the bioethical and moral hypocrisy of western ‘right to lifers’ criticising China’s enforced abortion policy alongside reproductive choice campaigners like Hilary Clinton – the people who are most outspokenly supportive of the western attitude that children’s lives are something to be thrown away like trash to suit their mummy’s lifestyle choice.

On a similar note I went to the Raw Story site just two days ago, and I left four comments before I left – a wisecrack about a fatal defecation accident, a piece of commentary about the Sandy Hook shooting and two criticisms of pro-choice hypocrites. Can you guess which two got censored?

The great thing about teh internets is, as long as you’re not banned, you can always leave another comment as a replacement eh?

Rush Limbaugh Incites Violence Against Women Seeking Abortion
Amanda Marcotte


“One of my comments is missing, was it cause you can’t respond to a conservative who isn’t an idiot? Because I’m sure it was here two days ago.

What really pissed someone off is my pointing out that ‘right to lifers’ aren’t anti-woman, they actually act as though the sun shines from every vagina. They show sympathy whenever they’re talking about the harm abortion does to women *through their own choices*, but still say nothing about the harm *women’s choices* can do to men like Robbie Williams. Never once do they advocate that men should have a right to sue for any psychological harm following a woman’s *choice* – or even his right to know about a pregnancy, though a man still might have to pay backpayments for a child he knew nothing about.

The absurdity of the ‘right to lifers’ isn’t right wing extremism but the mating of Red State and Blue State values to create their absurd social movement as an offspring. The same goes for the disgusting pro-choice movement, which hides behind the language of ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ to appeal to people’s white knight complexes, but really pushes an agenda that selfish people deserve to actually be allowed to kill and throw away their own children like waste. But notice they didn’t avoid the unsafe sex that leads to pregnancy, mind – yet we still have to respect their decisions you see, just because they’re all females. Its the selfishness of adults in a consumerist, hedonistic and narcissistic society and most females don’t really benefit from it because we don’t even get into such positions.

Early birth control activists like Sanger opposed abortion but such positions were dropped once the lunatic feminist fringe hijacked and took over the birth control movement to push the issue as a hate movement against men, setting up reproductive rights to be so one sided. It doesn’t even help most women – in the long run its only helped men who treat women like shit, who want bareback sex without consequences and not to take the responsibility of supporting the woman – such a man is actually seen as ‘respecting her decision’ if he gets off the hook then gets to do it again to someone else, instead of being castrated.

And if most people who support liberalised abortion do so for altruistic feelings for those having abortions, why was the message of Freakonomics so popular? Even after that particular chapter in that book was debunked, people still want to believe its nasty message that entire communities of people most troubled by crime should be wiped out by an abortion holocaust, instead of society fixing the underlying social problems. Everything about pro-choice is sick from any kind of socialistic perspective.”

Read Full Post »

Am I a web troll? Maybe I am but it isn’t a bad thing.

Someone named ‘Laguna Beach Fogey’ posted this comment over at AltRight and I’m not sure who it was directed at, but it was accompanied by an 4channy image that inspired this post.

“What Il_Barone and Missouri Rhineland said.

[I wish these fine gents would stop heeding the troll, but they’re much nicer chaps than I am].”

I hadn’t posted in the comment thread so it might not be directed at me, on the other hand, Skadhi is the only Ice Giant there. Of course we Ice Giants have thick skin, so it didn’t really matter to me but it’s true – because I actually do troll because I’m actually good at it and if you think what a troll is, its a damn useful skill that I don’t see enough of.

A troll is someone able to bait people by pushing the right buttons, and this is why a bad troll is obvious and inflammatory whilst a good troll is entertaining and effective at causing their opponent to collapse from within because they can’t defend or uphold their own hypocrisies and self-deceptions – things which everyone possesses at some points, but most people aren’t even aware of their own. Good trolling demands an understanding of what the useful laxative Ayn Rand referred to as the ‘sense of life’ of a person or group she was dealing with.

To those of us with a grasp of other people’s sense of life, the phenomenon of trolling isn’t just something that exists on teh interwebz, and real life trolling isn’t just about Chris Morris or Fred Phelps pulling high-profile pranks for kicks or fame. The Nazis obtained a lot of political influence through their successful IRL trolling – they turned up to bait their opponents, called their bluff, and ceaselessly zeroed in upon their opponent’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies relative to those of the National Socialist movement.

The very ineffective troll ‘Mark’ had these kind words to say to me in the same comment thread.

“Let’s get something straight here you mental midget. Dissenters are not automatically trolls. Someone who speaks an unpopular truth is not automatically a troll.”

But if only this were true, because right now truth-speakers are but a fringe lurking at the margins, despite the unguarded hypocrisy of the mainstream left and right making themselves a vulnerable target. Its been so long now since they had a threat such as the NSDAP to worry about that they’ve lost all ability to defend their own vulnerable spots, just as the descendants of mainland fauna that drifted to a predator-free island millions of years ago no longer possess effective defence mechanisms – merely useless threat displays which won’t work on marauders smart enough to realise when there’s no need to back down.

The world of dissent needs more good trolls, instead of less. Without being too abusive or alienating when you’re dealing with someone, at least not at first, its important to take the passive-aggressive initiative by going onto their own turf and calling their bluff. Don’t let them change the subject by throwing red herrings, and keep pushing till they help to undermine their own propaganda. Those who are unable to defend themselves can only perish, and just as with property, life itself is theft, but I don’t see anything like enough people waiting where we know ‘they’ are most likely to congregate and (passive-)aggressively attacking whenever we see a weakness.

Think before you troll, and be careful not to alienate potential allies or to scare away you’re targets by in-your-face aggression or rudeness, but smart trolling is an invaluable weapon and the most effective and enjoyable kind of online activism that there is.

Read Full Post »

A great comment was posted by ‘tadzio308’ over on AltRight.

“The only way Fr. Coughlin can be called antisemitic is to invoke the MSM [mainstream media, liberals] theory of Jewish Privilege which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with any outsized Jewish presence in the news media or the entertainment industry. If you suggest such a thing you are an antisemite unless, of course, you are a Jew boasting about it. That is OK. Same facts, different result.

Read Full Post »

It’s a well-known cliche that knowledge itself can be neither good or bad in itself only the way people decide to use it, but outright technophobia about new reproductive technologies (aka. NRTs) must be matched with the knowledge that technologies such as whole genome sequencing will indeed be unfairly abused in lassez faire societies because of creeps such as insurance companies – and we all know the sort of people who use words like ‘Luddite’ are either paid shills or useful idiots living in a dream world where science will solve our problems.

At the mention of any kind of genetic screenings, technophobes divide into their left and right wing versions, to bash the socially acceptable target set for them by those who control both sides of the debate – the straw man figure of the evil eugenicist, who never really existed in the first place. On the left people are reminded by any notion of applied genetics of the Nazis, so they inevitably panic in case the Nordics might use mad science against Negros with an IQ of 75 – despite the fact that negative eugenics (actively removing strains from the stock) was historically an obsession of leftist figures like Shaw and Sanger during the early to mid 20th century, and the ‘eugenics equals Hitler’ equation is pretty much left-leaning hypocrites passing the buck.

At the same time the right will be concerned about one or two babies with serious defects being aborted as a result of new screening methods (although it happens anyway), whilst simultaneously ignoring that most eugenicists actually support more restrictions upon reproductive choices as the vast majority of  babies that are aborted are of decent genetic quality – that and support for both increased genetic quality and the right to life are both psychologically rooted in the sanctity/purity impulse described by Haidt (the ‘my body is a temple’ moral sentiment, related to disgust), which is why societies such as ancient Sparta and Nazi Germany followed eugenic practices whilst following anti-abortion legislation. at the opposite extreme, the modern Anglosphere has the reverse and perverse attitude that, although its a mere individual right when millions of healthy unborn children are killed merely to fit the  selfish lifestyle choices of their mothers, the unfit have the ‘reproductive right’ to beget as many children as they, well, choose to.

And whilst both irrelevant sides talk derail the discussion into their favourite non-issues, and join forces knocking down the straw men instead of going after society itself, the real danger – that existing social problems, such as the unfairness of insurance companies, will be made worse because certain people will stand to turn whole genome sequencing to their own benefit at the expense of others – is ignored and, maybe conveniently for the pig system, swept under the carpet. Do you want to live in a world like Gattaca? Fictional dystopias that reflect social trends that are just round the corner or already exist are not merely scaremongering; they reflect rational fear for the future.

More people should also remember that most people who abort children with Downs Syndrome aren’t doing it out of a conviction that eugenic practices are moral, but because they don’t want to invest the extra time and effort required in raising such a child. Its also well known that difficult child prodigies also require extra time and effort to raise, so why aren’t we asking what will happen to economically costly child prodigies in a future of routine whole genome screening? I kind of suspect that too many wealthy parents would rather have celebrity-looking designer brats with good looks, who lack the genes for unpleasantries such as racism and who won’t answer back to authority figures like mummy, daddy and their left-of-centre university professors.

Even if the means issue of abortion was avoided, some form of genetic screening would still be used somehow to eradicate all children that are congenitally costlier to raise, even though their genes might make them extremely talented sportsmen, artists or scientists. Just as genetic screenings will worsen the social problems already created by people like insurance companies, they’ll be sure to worsen certain dysgenic trends already set in by reproductive choice – the problem here is not a specific means such as abortion, but treating reproduction itself as a personal freedom and not a duty.

This raises the underlying elephant-in-the-room dilemma that giving power to the state will allow it to increase its potential for injustices, but that human individuals are simply unequipped to make the best decisions in their own genetic interests – or in those of society as a commons – when they’re in a modern environment so alien to the human species. Human brain evolution hasn’t stopped back in the Paleolithic, but it hasn’t caught up with our post-industrial societies yet, and our rates of suicide, depression, obesity and yes, elective abortion are all living proof that we must either adopt certain principles of Deep Ecological social philosophers, or accept unprecedented tyranny as a necessity.

At some point, sheer necessity will force society to turn into something like The Handsmaid’s Tale, unless moderate measures curtailing reproductive rights are set in place. Following the restrictive Iranian abortion policy for abortions will be a good start as it 100% prevents dysgenic abortions from taking place due to loopholes – which is the case in societies such as the UK. Ultimately similar measures will need to be taken with regards to all means of negative eugenics – whatever are the potentials for abuses of power and policy decision, the state as the ultimate arbiter of the collective good, is solely in the position to regulate the population as a commons, whereas individual choices involve short-sighted selfish decisions.

Of course it will be helpful to push from the foetal and men’s rights angles against liberalised abortion, rather than stressing outright the ‘anti-choice’ aspect of the legislation – but nonetheless, the ultimate aim must be a reproductive paradigm shift towards acceptance that one person’s reproductive decisions affect the whole of society, and are certainly not a mere ‘privacy issue’ for a woman and her doctor, or even for a couple.

Sterilisation of the severely defective must be implemented as it is in several countries around the world where ‘my body my choice’ is not a shibboleth, and though there will be objections from outright fanatics on both sides of the abortion debate, with which eugenics is linked in the public mind, the public will by and large agree as long as the practice is limited to the genuinely severely defective, and not over relatively trivial problems such as personality disorders or cleft palettes.

Likewise there is already strong though unspoken public support for the work of Project Prevention, and a similar scheme of long-term contraception and sterilisation should be implemented as an (initially) purely voluntary basis. People on welfare who are known to have serious congenital defects, must consent to similar terms before receiving money from the state, and sterilisation must be made compulsory for men who father children by three or more different women without providing the required financial and social support. However, most people are obviously not drug addicts, and too many people with the best genes are not reproducing enough with the result that those at the bottom are outbreeding those at the top who use (and abuse) birth control methods most consistently.

If birth control is not to be abolished altogether, which would be extremely difficult as well as unfair to thousands of responsible contraceptive users as well as encouraging the spread of STIs (but remember that only barrier protection carries this benefit), then public attitudes to contraception must change  from a means of sexual liberation (implicitly from biology itself, as though pregnancy is a medical problem to be prevented or cured by doctors), to one of responsible child spacing for a stable pair-bonded couple. Crypto-political groups with ulterior motives, such as the infamous feminist front Planned Parenthood and religious groups preaching that sex itself is a sin, must have their influences purged from places of education.

If all of the above seems irrelevant to the subject of NRTs, remember that its only because society allows people to research and implement technologies on the principle of ‘progress’ and freedom of research as an unconditional moral good, without setting moral terms in advance so as to mitigate potential harm, that innovations such as NRTs really are dangerous. This is because without a prior attitude to reproductive ethics such as outlined above, society is unprepared for changes, and society is expected to follow the demands of those possessing a monopoly over technologies rather than forcing technology to be implemented purely for socially conscious ends. If outright paranoia about new technologies is unhelpful, and often exists mostly to allow debates as an ends in themselves, then we need a lot more rational caution about technology in general – as with reproductive choices and insurance companies, a lassez faire attitude towards scientific research and ‘progress’ is bad for society.

It’s Time To Stop Obsessing About the Dangers of Genetic Information

Virginia Hughes


Read Full Post »

How many times have you heard others defend the morality of their actions by claiming they were within the law? Perhaps we should remember we didn’t write the law ourselves and that, for those smart enough or wealthy enough to employ the services of those ‘in the know’ – those in certain professions – there is no end to the possible ‘interpretations’ of the law once people take its word literally instead of thinking ‘why’. (Doesn’t this remind you of religion?) Concern about what is technically legal, instead of about what is for the common good, creates an imbalance within society by creating a bias in favour of those best able to exploit legal loopholes, and you’re probably not one of them. (Just think of how politicians whine about benefit cheats, although they were themselves involved in a comparable expenses scandal of their own.)

Meanwhile the rest of us are restricted with ropes of ever-increasing red tape, no matter how pointless they might be.

Though this article touches upon American examples, its easy to think of too many British and EU parallels.

Do you really care what’s legal? I find the idea of being law abiding to be rather silly.

Not the absurdity he thought he was exposing

Mark Stein


Read Full Post »

Regulus Seradly

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

Destroy Zionism!

Exposing the World Parasite