Living in a fantasy

by Brett Stevens@ Amerika.

Most people do not understand that they live at the receiving end of an image of reality constructed by others for their own gain.
Marketers and journalists want to sell you an interesting story and advertising to match. That is how they feed their families. They have no responsibility to truth, only to create media that many want to consume.
Social groups, friends and random people want you to like them. They need you to approve of what they’re doing, or at least not stop them, so they are experts at being sociable.
Going to a socialist economy doesn’t stop this consumerism/socialization nexus — in fact, it makes it worse, because dividing up the wealth of a nation equally makes it very hard for that wealth to be in any kind of motion. That means that starting a business, rock band, or even building an attachment onto your house is a big deal, so you need to have friends in high places. This is why the black market is the most powerful aspect of socialist societies.
You wouldn’t trust a flu virus if it said, “I’m here to help,” so why do you trust people paid to create entertainment, salesmen and “friends” who are there to use you for their own game? Well, it’s easier that way. And “everyone else” seems to be doing it.
Yet we trust these people to tell us the “truth,” and if other people agree with them and either buy their product or repeat their meme, we assume their success is ordained by God:

Successive investments in Twitter have reportedly increased its value 33 percent, to $4 billion, while Zynga, creator of the popular Facebook game FarmVille, is worth more than $5 billion.
Google was willing to pay $6 billon for Groupon, an online coupon company that was valued at $1.35 billion only eight months ago. And Groupon was willing to reject the bid on Friday evening, presumably because it could sell for even more money later.
Less than a decade after the dot-com bust taught Wall Street and Silicon Valley investors that what goes up does not keep going up forever, a growing number of entrepreneurs and a few venture capitalists are beginning to wonder if investments in tech start-ups are headed toward another big bust. – NYT

The last time we had a dot-com bubble, in the 1990s, people paid absurd amounts of money to dead-end businesses with only a “shred of an idea,” as the article above says, and they all made imaginary money until they stopped. Fifteen years later, our economy is in a recession because we falsely over-valued our currency, thinking that all those billions for dot-coms were real money like the money that comes from manufacturing and agriculture.
We confuse the appearance of wealth with wealth itself, like we confuse appearance with actual cause, or the underlying reality. Here’s another great example:

But in a Thursday interview with Fox Business, Paul said the idea of prosecuting Assange crosses the line.
“In a free society we’re supposed to know the truth,” Paul said. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we’re in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.” – Politico

We like Ron Paul around here because he’s a man of his word. But he’s pandering to the crowd here. On a practical level, we know that while government is corrupt, it is corrupt because the vast majority of people are easy to fool — just create that fantasy world of image through media, products and social factors like memes.
They buy into it, and think it’s reality, and then they demand you make it so. That never works, so we must always have a Hitler/Saddam evil Satan figure that we blame for our unrealistic expectations going awry.
Does the American public read Machiavelli? Or de Toqueville? If they did, could they understand it? No: they have no idea what diplomacy is, or why behind the scenes there’s scheming and manipulation. They have glossed over how even Wikileaks releases show that this scheming and manipulation saved us numerous times from disaster.
No, the American public does not understand the subtleties of political manipulation, or of hiding information from a public that cannot and will not understand it. It only understands life like a TV show, or a video game, or even a morality play from a dumbed-down version of religion for a crowd gathered under a circus tent.
So we keep sorting our world into good and bad, making false images stand for reality, hoping we can smash down the bad-images fast enough that we get to heaven, ideological purity or at least easy retirement with 500 channels of cable:

Every zombie war is a war of attrition. It’s always a numbers game. And it’s more repetitive than complex. In other words, zombie killing is philosophically similar to reading and deleting 400 work e-mails on a Monday morning or filling out paperwork that only generates more paperwork, or following Twitter gossip out of obligation, or performing tedious tasks in which the only true risk is being consumed by the avalanche. The principle downside to any zombie attack is that the zombies will never stop coming; the principle downside to life is that you will be never be finished with whatever it is you do. – NYT

A zombie is a former creature — like a cancer cell on an organismal level, or a virus given its own life-support system — that has ceased responding to reality and instead proceeds dumbly, maniacally, singularly toward completing its task. Programmers will talk about “zombie threads” that stopped participating in useful computing long ago, but keep churning, eating up resources, trying to do whatever their long-irrelevant instructions tell them to do. Zombie-ism is what happens when an autonomous agent disconnects from reality.
What makes us modern zombies is our insistence that every part of our society exist on a granular level, that of the individual. With equality comes an end to hierarchy, and now, we’re all taking everything personally. Nothing is about role, or position in a functional sense; it’s about who we are, our lifestyles, and how much wealth we have.
Older societies used wealth and power as a means to an end. We use them as a means to our individual selves, and making ourselves look good to others. We have made a tool, a reality of appearance, and now it has changed how we view the world.
What would a larger pattern do to us? We’d have to surrender our “whatever I want right now is what’s most important” outlook. But in exchange, we’d gain a sense of how little our individual positions reflect who we are, and from that, we’d learn again to approach our world with reverence, hope and love.
Our individual positions after all may not reflect us at all, but may be cosmically determined:

Johnson, who specializes in the study of complexity, is one of a new breed of physicists turning their analytical acumen away from subatomic particles and toward a bewildering array of more immediate human problems, from traffic management to urban planning. It turns out that subatomic particles and people are not that different, he explains. “The properties of individual electrons have been known for many years, but when they get together as a group they do bizarre things”—much like stock traders, who have more in common with quarks and gluons than you might think.
…
Johnson and Spagat expected that the success of the attacks, measured in the number of people killed, would cluster around a certain figure: There would be a few small attacks and a few large ones as outliers on either end, but most attacks would pile up in the middle. Visually, that distribution forms a bell curve, a shape that represents everything from height (some very short people, some very tall, most American men about 5’10″) to rolls of the dice (the occasional 2 or 12, but a lot of 6s, 7s, and 8s). Bell curves are called normal distribution curves because this is how we expect the world to work much of the time. But the Colombia graph looked completely different. When the researchers plotted the number of attacks along the y (vertical) axis and people killed along the x (horizontal) axis, the result was a line that plunged down and then levelled off. At the top were lots of tiny attacks; at the bottom were a handful of huge ones.
That pattern, known as a power law curve, is an extremely common one in math. It describes a progression in which the value of a variable (in this case, the number of casualties) is always ramped up or down by the same exponent, or power, as in: two to the power of two (2 x 2) equals four, three to the power of two (3 x 3) equals nine, four to the power of two (4 x 4) equals 16, and so on….[power laws] show up often in everyday situations, from income distribution (billions of people living on a few dollars a day, a handful of multibillionaires) to the weather (lots of small storms, just a few hurricane Katrinas).
…
With the U.S. invasion of Iraq in full swing, he and his collaborators had an obvious second test. In 2005, using data gleaned from sources like the Iraq Body Count project and iCasualties, a Web site that tracks U.S. military deaths, they crunched the numbers on the size and frequency of attacks by Iraqi insurgents. Not only did the data fit a power curve, but the shape of that curve was nearly identical to the one describing the Colombian conflict. – Discover

We are logical particles, reacting to the same world and the same conditions, so we have responses that fit within similar patterns; even more, there is a Bell Curve that determines our attributes from height to intelligence. There is a larger order here at work than us.
But that fact scares the hell out of us, because it means that we are not in control, and being in control is the only way we make life tangible enough to offset our fear of insignificance, error and death. So we make a false world, populate it with symbols, and use it to declare ourselves important, even if we end up kings on a crumbling throne surrounded by wasteland.

Why defeat an evil empire – and then embrace a stupid one? By Peter Hitchens

The EU, far from being a bright future, offers nothing

 but bankruptcy and decline

The European Union is like a hospital where all the doctors are mad. It doesn’t matter what is wrong, the treatment is always the same – more integration – and it is always wrong. The best thing to do is never to enter it.
Once you are in, the best thing to do is to leave. If you can’t get out, you will probably die.
Those of us who pay attention to history, politics and truth have known this for many years.

But as the EU’s ‘experts’ and ‘technocrats’ insanely destroy the economies of Greece, Spain and Italy, it must now surely be obvious to everyone.
The EU, far from being a bright future, offers nothing but bankruptcy and decline.

 

If the old USSR was an Evil Empire – and it was – the EU is the Stupid Empire. Obsessed with the idea that the nation state is obsolete, the EU has sought to bind its colonies tightly, while pretending they are still independent.
This is why what is essentially a modern German empire is not held together by armies, but by a sticky web of regulations and a currency that destroys prosperity wherever it is introduced (with one important exception, Germany itself, for whom the euro means cheap exports to Asia).
It is also why it has been built backwards, starting with the roof and ending with the foundations. Old-fashioned empires were at least honest.

 

   

They marched in, plundered everything they could cart away, killed or imprisoned resisters, suborned collaborators, and imposed their language on the conquered.
Other humiliating measures followed – forcing the newly-subject people to live according to the invader’s time, to pay special taxes to their new masters, to surrender control of their borders, to use the invader’s weights and measures, salute the invader’s flag and obey the invader’s laws.
Eventually, after a few years of imposed occupation money, set at a viciously rigged exchange rate, the subjugated nation’s economy would have been reduced to such a devastated and dependent state that it could be forced to accept the imperial currency.
The EU, which cannot admit to being what it really is, has to achieve the same means sideways or backwards. The colonial laws are disguised as local Acts of Parliament. The flag is slowly introduced, the borders stealthily erased, the weights and measures and the clocks gradually brought into conformity.
Resources (such as Britain’s fisheries) are bureaucratically plundered, giant taxes are  quietly levied, but collected by our own Revenue & Customs as our ‘contribution’, our banking industry is menaced.
Opponents are politically marginalised, collaborators discreetly rewarded, armed forces quietly dismantled or placed under supranational command. It is happening before our eyes and yet, while the exit is still just open, we make no move to depart.
Our grandchildren will wonder, bitterly, why we were so feeble.

More from Peter Hitchens...

•   Agony aunts for criminals - and scorn for the rest of us 12/05/12
•   All the pillars of the Cameron delusion have now collapsed 05/05/12
•   Tattoos and a torn shirt don't make you an expert on drugs 28/04/12
•   Bundling bearded windbags on to jets won't solve anything 21/04/12
•   'Cushty, easily done!' A criminal's mocking words that sum up our injustice system 14/04/12
•   I said I'd never stand as an MP... Well, I've changed my mind 07/04/12
•   It took a wide boy with a tax-haven tan and a big mouth to tell us what’s really going on 31/03/12
•   PETER HITCHENS: Psychiatrists snatching our children? That's Stalin's trick 24/03/12
•   VIEW FULL ARCHIVE

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2146903/Why-defeat-evil-empire--embrace-stupid-one.html#ixzz1vRM1Nf6F

The Rochdale Grooming Case - Who is to Blame?

The Rochdale Grooming Case - Who is to Blame?

Written by Richard Newman

The Nationalist/Patriotic organisations are quite rightly looking at the issue of the Muslim Rape Wave.

The liberals in Europe will never believe this is happening, in fact when I spoke about the subject at work, one white liberal called me a liar.

 

The media have over the past week conspired to blame the right.  Amazingly they accuse the right of taking advantage of the situation.  They would never of course mention Victoria Agoglia, Charlene Downes, or even Paige Chivers.

So who is to blame?

The Police
The Chief Constable

The Chief Constable, Peter Fahy should be sacked for the simple reason that he was and continues to be responsible for the culture within his force that ignored the rape of white girls.  It can be surmised that if the victim had been of another ethnicity then the full force of his department would have been brought into action.

 

The Constable

 

It transpires that the police were so disinterested with the complaints that one of the officers involved in the initial interview of the victims yawned.

 

This police officer should be sacked.

 

It may be argued that the police worked in collusion with the rapists by their inaction?  The main article on the Manchester Police website yesterday was a celebration of Gay rights!  If the police in Manchester devoted only 50% of the resources to the Muslim Rape Wave instead of it being devoted to Gay rights we may solve the problem.  But dont hold your breath.

 

The IPCC are still investigating so it would be wise at this point to not say too much. 

 

The Government Agencies

 

The CPS and Social Services

 

Nazir Afzal OBE took over as head of CPS in the North West in 2011, the current head of the CPS in the North West and the man responsible for finally deciding to prosecute the sex gang - he still insists that it was not a matter of race. This attitude has continued despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

The Deputy CPS heads in the area are Chris Long and Ian Rushton, both of whom were in CPS positions throughout the time of the scandal.

 

It has been rumoured that John Holt of the CPS may have been involved, yet these allegations have yet to be corroborated.

 

However, details of the people involved and the particular timeline of decision making is still shrouded in mystery.  Both the CPS and the other government and social service agencies who were involved in the mishandling of the Muslim rape wave in Rochdale have yet to comment fully on the issue of disciplinary proceedings.

 

I am not surprised when organisations or individuals get the facts wrong when the circumstances and events are so clouded in secrecy.

 

The Media

 

The liberal media have been instrumental in covering up the issue of Muslim rape gangs for years.  Many organisations have repeatedly approached various media outlets with information and evidence of abuse.  This information has been ignored at best, and at worse the media have branded such information as racist or Islamaphobic.  Even now in the press, articles continue to portray the Muslim community as victims! 

 

The Culture

 

The Pakistani Community Elders are ultimately responsible for the conduct of their community. They're being accused by Mohammed Shafiq (The Ramadhan Foundation) of burying their heads in the sand.

 

Ultimately the Imams and the Mosque are responsible, and should be held to account for the actions of their community.

 

At the time of writing no member of note from any Muslim community has voiced revulsion, commiseration or even compassion at the abuse of young white girls.

 

Alias Yousaf one of the rapists solicitors even went as far as to blame the far right in an attempt to lodge an appeal.

 

The British public demands nothing more than the dismissal of all those involved in this sorry affair before this issue gets out of hand.

 

You can see more on the subject on Russia Today.

Jubilee forget it She is on the List of the Traitors to Britain - the greatest crime in a thousand years

List of the Traitors to Britain - the greatest crime in a thousand years

The abolition of Britain is illegal under the British Constitution, and the criminal acts of the Queen and her Ministers have included the worst acts of treason in history. They secretly repealed the treason laws in 1998 (hidden in s36.3 of the Crime and Disorder Act) to save their own necks. The criminality of our ministers and parliament won’t save us - the EU’s Constitution will automatically abolish the British one, and they will have got away with the greatest crime in a thousand years.
List of Traitors to Scotland the United Kingdom
Since 1972 five European Union treaties have been signed abolishing our nation. As this is illegal under the British Constitution, our nation needed to be undermined with the methods listed below. The EU is succeeding exclusively through subversion by British traitors from inside the UK.
The EU has the laws of a police state, and a constitution that hands absolute power to unelected dictators; it specifically hands all military power (and that includes the nuclear weapons of Britain and France,) to these dictators. It is the Soviet system,
and creates a sham EU parliament with no power; it will abolish the nations of Great Britain and England.
The list of traitors according to the severity of their crime:
Traitor number 1. HM the Queen. Has committed five acts of treason signing EU treaties that abolish our nation. She is the only monarch to have broken her Coronation oath. Failed as the ultimate check and balance, failed to insist on a national ballot for the abolition of our nation.
Traitor number 2. Edward Heath. Committed an act of treason by passing the 1972 EU Communities Act, which is the enabling act to abolish our nation. He then lied in his White Paper and in his speeches this Act would not abolish our sovereignty. He started the entire illegal EU process. The fact he was a lifelong member of the Deutsche VersicherungsDienst intelligence department was not discovered until his death.
(http://www.worldreports.org/news/6_brussels_accounts_ar)
Its very important to understand the legal basis for treason. Firstly it has always been the most serious crime on the statute book, worse than murder. Treason
has long been the only crime punished by "hanging by the neck until dead." Murderers only get life. The definition of treason is "a crime that undermines one's government" or "the offence of acting to overthrow one's government." Philby, Maclean, Blunt,
Burgess committed treason, by selling secrets to the Russians, and would have got perhaps 15 years if they had returned. What Heath did was the ultimate act of
treason, not just undermining our nation, but abolishing it. If a court case had been brought, he would have got the ultimate penalty.
3. Tony Blair Committed three acts of treason, with three EU treaties. He is also an enthusiastic implementer of EU laws disguised as British laws, the latest being ID cards; he's an enforcer of crippling EU regulations. Blair is the chief manufacturer of the EU police state in Britain (Scottish rite 33rd degree mason of Studholme lodge 1591 ).
4. John Major committed Treason with the Maastricht treaty; he also sold our main military and nuclear port, Devonport Dockyard, to Dick Cheney's Haliburton Corporation for peanuts, his bribe was to be European MD of the Bush family's Carlyle Weapons group, and $1 million pa for life, so he is definitely on the other side.
5. Margaret Thatcher committed Treason with the Single European Act. She is the only Prime minister who now regrets signing it. She's still guilty - a murderer who apologises only has a mitigating circumstance. She'll remain a traitor until her death. Like many top people on our side, she's developed heart problems and is too ill to help.
The above four people have all committed treason, and prosecutions were pending. Tony Blair's risk was the full force of the law for signing the Amsterdam Treaty amongst others. But in a stunning abuse of power, Tony Blair secretly repealed the treason laws, hidden in the Crime and Disorder Act, and the Queen signed it in
1998, saving both their necks.
There can be no worse criminal abuse of the law than this. .......To get off your own execution as a Prime Minister by repealing the law you are charged under........The newspapers and media missed it entirely.
6. John Prescott, John Reid, Peter Mandleson, Alan Johnson, about a dozen, now cabinet ministers. Communists who's allegiance in the 1960's was to the Soviet Union, switched their loyalty to the European Union in the 1970's; they've implemented the EU's Frankfurt school subversion, and the 111,000 EU regulations that are criminalising us all. Took control of the Labour party away from patriotic traditionalists.
7. Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd, Michael Hesletine, Geoffrey Howe, Chris Patten, Francis Maude, David Cameron etc. Pro-Europeans who have seized control of the Conservative leadership, imposing their own agenda, ignoring the wishes of Conservative voters; they sabotaged representative democracy. A vote for the Conservatives has been a vote for the EUdictatorship for 34 years, these are the traitors responsible.
The leaders of our three political parties get their orders from the European Union, not the British electorate, whom they neither serve nor care for. They've created a one party state: the three parties have almost identical policies, and all agree on the
abolition of Britain by the EU.
8. Julia Middleton, Managing Director of the Common Purpose government agency. Trained 19,500 local government, quango and NHS "leaders" for what they chillingly call the "Post democratic era." Close to destroying the NHS, and local democracy, by
transferring power from councillors to the council executives, in preparation for the abolition of councillors with the EU regionalisation plan.
Common Purpose is the number one subversive body outside Parliament. Its graduates include Janet Paraskeva, head of the law society and Cressida Dick, the senior police officer who, with the backing of EU corpus juris, single handedly threw away our right to life and common law with her shoot to kill policy, which is still in force today. She was responsible for the killing of Jean de Menezes in Stockwell tube amongst others, and, although she's a nobody and might be considered a murderer outside the police force, is getting breathtaking promotion, presumably to be appointed Chief of Police in this EU police state.
9. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). In charge of the handover of power to the EU, controls Common Purpose. Has put a "Monitoring Officer" into
every council in the land; they suspend councillors who speak out for the truth.
10. The Law Society, which I would prefer to call the Fraudulent Lawyers Protection Society on a local level, and the Constitutional Law Breaking Society on
the national level. Top lawyers have refused to uphold the British Constitution or enforce our laws where the EU is concerned; the Law Society is a home for
traitors. The very fact they had Janet Paraskewa, a Common Purpose leader at their head, shows how rotten they are.
11. Baroness Warnock, and a couple of hundred other dedicated senior subversives. Ruthless implementors of the German Frankfurt School's subversion on behalf of
the EU. Over the last 40 years our churches and families have been undermined, with single parent and same sex parents encouraged, teachers have had their authority removed, sex and homosexual education is forced on many under 13s, and decades of political correctness have dumbed down our ability to speak out. The results fill our newspapers every day.
12. Our slovenly press and media. It is stunning that the press has missed all this, the biggest story in a thousand years. Truly the quality of our journalists is abysmal. No wonder the art of investigative journalism is dead. In the BBC's case it's simple
sabotage, with hundreds of Common Purpose people in positions of power.
Only 25,000 traitors versus 60 million. In total there are about 25,000 dedicated subversives at all levels of society in Britain, helped by 100,000 useful idiots. To oppose them are 60 million British people. So why are they winning?
Because the subversion these traitors have so carefully implemented over the last 50 years has worked: The young have no interest in politics; churches are empty; people have stopped speaking out; the public now just accepts every control, regulation, indignity, injustice and rule without complaint.
To defeat the EU you must expose these traitors in their constituencies, at their places of work, in the press, and tell as many people as you can what is happening.  Refuse to comply at every opportunity.

Brave men Marked for death

Brave men Marked for death

 

It is ten years today since the Dutch Politician Pim Fortuyn, who opposed multiculturalism, mass immigration, and in particular the surging Islamification of Europe, which he described as "an extraordinary threat", was assassinated for his beliefs by a killer who accused him of “targeting Muslims. 

Two years later in 2004 the film maker Theo van Gogh  was murdered by a Muslim in revenge for making a film, “Submission” focusing on the mistreatment of women in Islam.

One further Dutch opponent of Islam, Geert Wilders, remains alive, but only because he is forced to live behind a ring of steel, protected 24 hours a day by armed policemen. Writing in the Washington Times regarding his book “Marked for Death” Geert Wilders describes his existence as thus

"As I write these lines, there are police bodyguards at the door. No visitor can enter my office without passing through several security checks and metal detectors. I have been marked for death. I am forced to live in a heavily protected safe house. Every morning, I am driven to my office in the Dutch Parliament building in an armored car with sirens and flashing blue lights. When I go out, I am surrounded, as I have been for the past seven years, by plain clothes police officers. When I speak in public, I wear a bulletproof jacket.

Who am I? I am neither a king nor a president, nor even a government minister; I am just a simple politician in the Netherlands. But because I speak out against expanding Islamic influence in Europe, I have been marked for death. If you criticize Islam, this is the risk you run. That is why so few politicians dare to tell the truth about the greatest threat to our liberties today. The Islamic threat to the West is worse than the communist threat ever was. Think of it this way: Politicians who warned against the Soviet threat weren’t forced into hiding, as we who speak out against Islam are.

Howver, despite this Wilders ends the article by saying: 

"Though Islam threatens Europe and America, the West is not yet lost. It will survive as long as the spirit of freedom remains unbroken. While Islam has marked me for death, a growing number of Dutch voters have given me their support. In the Netherlands, we have begun to turn the tide against Islamization. So can other countries.

I will never keep silent because we must not let violent fanatics dictate what we say and what we read. We must rebel against their suffocating rules and demands at every turn. We must, in the words of Revolutionary War veteran Gen. John Stark, “Live free or die.”

Would that we in Britain had such brave men as Wilders, or indeed the late Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh, fighting for us.

A review of Marked for death can be read here 

Note: Wilders is frequently attacked by Nationalists on account of his support for Israel, such attacks are wrong headed, this brave man is nobody's puppet.  He correctly identifies Islam as the greatest threat currently facing the west and valiantly stands, almost alone, against it.   

Not yours An Examination of the Liberal Mindset

Not yours

May  2012

by Brett Stevens.

What is most interesting about liberalism is that it defines itself through negatives disguised as positives.
For all of its discussion of progress and fairness, the underlying goal of liberals is to show how they are not like the rest of them.
If you want to differentiate yourself, you have to come up with some reason why the rest of them are wrong and you are right. The essence of collectivist movements, or those focused on a social group instead of an individual or an idea, is that there’s a password. There is some state of mind or activity in which you have to participate in order to be in the club.
Once in, of course, you’re entitled to your share of the spoils. In an organized group, there’s a hierarchy for spoils; they go to the most capable, so they’ll do capable things with that wealth and thus make more of it. In a disorganized group, everyone gets the same amount or it’s grab whatever you can. Liberalism is a disorganized group that distrusts hierarchy.
Thus the cardinal rule of liberalism is that every person in the raiding band gets the same amount of spoils. This doesn’t change if you already have wealth; you just can’t take more than anyone else. This is a negative ideal in that it knows what it doesn’t like more than what it does.
Negative ideals are there to make people feel better about a situation that they don’t think will change. If life is so inherently bad, you need to find some way to make yourself feel better, and the easiest way is to set up someone else as an object of derision and ridicule.
Liberals have a pathological need to feel better than those who are not-liberal. That isn’t just conservatives; it’s anyone who hasn’t joined the great People’s Crusade for progress, compassion, tolerance, etc. Pick any word that makes you feel accepted and add it to that list.
As a result, liberals always have an enemy at hand. Fanatical brain-dead Nazis, ugly racist cops, rich people or faceless government spies. They will unite their little group with hatred of outsiders and a sense of moral superiority.
Can we deny the sneer lurking behind the word “progress”? It implies — with enough deniability for a beltway lawyer — that everyone else is in a primitive state except that lightbringer who carries progress to the ignorant. That person is (by definition) smarter, better, cooler than the rest.
The reason this fantasy is appealing is that it confers acceptance without qualifications. All you must do is take communion of the Ideology, repeat it to others, and sneer at those who don’t adopt it. Then you’re in and entitled to an equal share.
Liberalism programs the brains of its victims to expect this kind of order. They get a social high on feeling superior to others, and since they expect liberalism is the only “true” order, when they’re not shown acceptance without qualifications, they get enraged. This enables them to feel they are the victims, and to attack without feeling guilt.
The manic desire for equality of the modern time as a result does not arise from a concern for our neighbors not getting their fair share, but from envy itself: why does someone else have something I do not? After all, we’re sharing the spoils; if they got more, it’s unfair.
In contrast to that, hierarchies exist because different people have different levels of performance and are rewarded unequally to send most of the wealth, power and acclaim to those who are doing good things; this is the polar opposite of acceptance without qualifications.
These hierarchies insult liberals because they damage the liberal sense of self-worth, which is based in being a member of the group. You know you’re a member of the group when you get equal spoils.
To a liberal, when they see a hierarchy that rewards some people for greater intelligence, wisdom, labor or ability, they do not see that this is the only way to run a functional society. They take it personally. It refutes their sense of superiority.
All they hear is “not yours.”
To them, these are fighting words.
It may be an opportune time to start using this as a weapon against them. Saying “not yours” is not confrontational; it’s part of the basics of cooperation, sharing and taking care of each other. We share what we can, but each person has some things that are not shared.
For example, we reserve the right to deny others entrance into our homes. We also reserve the right to deny them entrance into our bodily orifices, or to give them control over our minds. Not theirs.
When a liberal is confronted with an unemotional and rational “not yours,” their extreme behavior in response seems so out of place that it makes them look insane. The radical professor is suddenly a masked anarchist smashed the windows of stores he’d love to shop at.
In an instant, liberalism is debunked. All the fancy language about helping others, progress, tolerance, compassion, etc. goes out the window. It is replaced by a more concrete vision: a child having a tantrum because it is denied something that someone else achieved.
The fact of life is that nothing is equal. If it were, there would be no change; the universe would be in a static state and no motion would occur. In the same model, if we take something valuable and give it to everyone, it loses its value.
This in turn makes people lose the will to do more than the minimum, and also makes them lose sight of reality. They replace reality with a social collectivism in which each person gets equal spoils.
The first step to unraveling this crazy mindset is to put out a vertical flat hand and say Not yours. Instead of taking liberals at their word, this reveals the underlying superiority complex and shows how unstable it really is.

Nationalism is not racism

Aug 29th, 2011

by Brett Stevens.

Regrettably, this has to be one of those silly articles that opens with a dictionary citation:

racism, n.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others. – Random House Dictionary

I find this aesthetically unappealing. Dictionaries should be for finding the definitions of precise language, not trying to build an argument about what a political concept is. It’s just silly and underperforming to use one, but most will agree we need a standard definition
Yet if we don’t standardize on the simplest and clearest-worded standard possible, we’re going to be liable to “definition creep.” The left loves this: first, it’s racist to join the Klan; then, it’s racist to not embrace the diversity parade and have at least 11 black friends.
So let’s look at another definition:

The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of a nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.
It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states — whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. While many states are nations in some sense, there are many nations which are not fully sovereign states. As an example, the Native American Iroquois constitute a nation but not a state, since they do not possess the requisite political authority over their internal or external affairs. If the members of the Iroquois nation were to strive to form a sovereign state in the effort to preserve their identity as a people, they would be exhibiting a state-focused nationalism.
Nationalism has long been ignored as a topic in political philosophy, written off as a relic from bygone times. It came into the focus of philosophical debate two decades ago, in the nineties, partly in consequence of rather spectacular and troubling nationalist clashes, such as those in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet republics. The surge of nationalism usually presents a morally ambivalent, and for this reason often fascinating, picture. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This definition comes from an excellent source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. While Wikipedia and other social networks have been beating their chests and bleating about how they’re the “new way,” the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has, with almost no funding and only a few academics, quietly provided a top-notch resource that far exceeds what Wikipedia and social networks can provide.
The point is that nationalism and racism are not the same:

• Racism is the idea that there are differences between races, and that one race is superior or inferior to the others. For racism to really be abolished, we must all become one race with one global government to enforce anti-racism.
• Nationalism is the idea that for the best of humanity, we should divide ourselves by heritage (a biological record of culture) so that each nation has its own values system and self-rule. It does not address the question of superior/inferior, but is opposed to one world government for any reason.

These two are radically different, and only one part of the picture.
Racism hopes to blame problems on a racial scapegoat. If the Hutus have a bad crop, it must have been Tutsi eating up the seed corn, or something.
Nationalism says that our most basic form of political order is advanced tribalism: people are united by culture, heritage, language, customs and values — instead of being united by political dogma, like “capitalist democracy” versus “socialist authoritarianism,” as they are in the nation-state, which is a political State pretending to be a nation.
Nationalism is a sane order for everyone on earth, as every ethnic group can adopt it to their advantage.
As a basis for future political orders, it lets people achieve a standard in common. They desire certain values; they want to reward certain behaviors. Those two methods are more powerful than even authoritarian governments, as the 20th century showed us. Empires come and empires fall, but culture keeps providing good things.
Culture is, in other words, the ultimate decentralized order.

In the five months since a devastating earthquake struck, Japanese police say they’ve received $78 million in missing cash and valuables that citizens have found in the rubble and promptly turned in.
Thousands of missing wallets contained $48 million in cash, and nearly 6,000 more safes turned in by volunteers contained an extra $30 million, the Japanese Police Agency told ABC News’ Akiko Fujita. Most of the found money has been returned to its owners, after police used identifying documents in the safes to track them down.
“The fact that these safes were washed away meant the homes were washed away too,” Koetsu Saiki of the Miyagi Prefectural police force told ABC News. “We had to first determine if the owners were alive, then find where they had evacuated to.”
Some wallets and safes were most likely pocketed, but the scale of honesty in the wake of disaster is still striking. – Yahoo!

In this life, you’re either a realist or a sentimentalist (I stole this idea from Laeeth Isharc, who communicates with a vocabulary change what most people do in 8-10 single-spaced pages).
The sentimentalist cares about what they are feeling, how things appear, what others think, what effects thinking certain things will have on themselves, etc.
The realist cares about consequences. To the realist, the salient fact about life is that it is consistent. If you do a certain act a certain way, you get a certain result — every time. Amazing as that is, it allows us to plan for the future: when we know what we want, all we have to do is look at how people achieved similar results, and avoid the actions they took that achieved contrary results.
Not rocket science, is it?
A realist would look at this situation and say: “Ethnic homogeneity, strong cultural values, a strong bio-cultural identity, and a population with a high average IQ — these things make for a happy nation.”
A racist would look at this event and say, “That didn’t happen with Katrina, so the problem must be black people.”
The realist would respond:

“That may be how it seems to you right now, but reality is more complex than that.
It seems to me that the lack of a social standard, brought on by multiculturalism and nation-state politics, obliterated your method of having a cultural standard like the Japanese did, so you don’t get ethnic homogeneity, strong cultural values, and a strong bio-cultural identity.
You don’t even get a population with a high average IQ, since unless you have a standard you cannot have exemplary members that you promote above others, encouraging the smarter to breed.
In short, you could have had a center to your society based on ideas everyone agrees is important, but you thought that was too limiting, so you depended on government to enforce ‘rules’ instead. That breaks down not only in big storms, but over time. Good luck with that.”

Nationalism is forming a society around a central idea or ideas that constitute a value standard. This standard is encoded in culture, stored in the genes through heritage, and passed on through the centuries.
We see this most clearly in ethnically homogenous places like Israel, Japan and Finland. Israel in particular was created to preserve the Jewish people, a group formed of the intersection of religion, culture and an ethnic group with two major branches.
Most people are going to complain about Israel outlawing miscegenation, driving out Palestinians and refusing to allow just anyone to show up, sing Hava Nagila and get admitted.
But what Israel is doing is created a better world order. Each ethnic group rules itself, and takes care of itself. No one is to blame for anyone else’s misfortunes. We each do what we must in our own terrain, and if people need world culture, they can get it through TV and take-out food (which is as close as most people come to “diversity”).
Contrast this to societies with mixed-race populations, where one group is always on top for whatever reason, and thus is hated by the other, and so a constant minority-majority class war begins.

For almost a year, police departments in several cities around the country, most noticeably in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Chicago, are investigating “flash mob”-generated violence, in which packs of dozens or even hundreds of youths, organized through social media sites, appear seemingly out of nowhere to commit assaults, robberies, and other crimes against innocent bystanders.
But here is the dirty little secret that PC media has been tiptoeing around all summer—the perpetrators are African-American and the victims are mostly white.
Another layer to this saga that the PC media wishes to ignore is the mounting evidence that the flash mobs could be racially motivated. In other words, black teens may be targeting non-blacks.
Authorities in Wisconsin say they are investigating 11 new allegations of race-based assaults near the state fairgrounds in which the alleged perpetrators were all African-American and the victims were either white or Hispanic. – Erik Uliasz

We don’t like to admit it, either, but the recent riots in the UK were also racially motivated: non-whites against whites and far-east Asians.
Do we blame non-whiteness, as a racist would?
Do we blame whiteness, and the success of white people in business and culture that hasn’t magically spread around the world, as a racist would?
Or do we just point out that in this world, success as a nation comes from having a strong culture, and in order to do that, you must be ethnically homogenous?

Culturally Enriched Into The Grave

Enriched Into The Grave

Written by Southwest Nationalist

This is the face of 67 year old Victor Parsons.
He was savagely beaten with a lump of wood, punched, kicked, and left to die in London's Alexandra Park on the 5th of January last year.  He died of his injuries seven weeks later.
Also killed by the same attacker was Keith Needell, 84, beaten to death.  This attack took place at Queen's Wood, and Mr Needell was discovered with a fractured skull and severe facial fractures.  He died from his injuries six months later.
Another five men - although police believe there may be more victims who have yet to come forward - survived savage attacks by the same individual.
There was no motive of robbery, it was "violence for violence sake, committed by the same man, in the same geographical area" to use the words of the prosecution.
Now facing life imprisonment after being convicted of both murders, and five other attacks in which the victims survived, is one Ali Koc.
"There can be no doubt that Koc is a highly dangerous and predatory individual who derived some warped sense of gratification from carrying out these abhorrent attacks" said Detective Chief Inspector Tim Duffield.
Koc, aged 30, is of Turkish origin, and came to the UK with his family when he was in his early teens.
Before these attacks he was well known to police.  He'd been jailed for possessing a knife in 2008, and for burglary in 2007.  His long criminal record also includes theft, possession of cannabis, ABH, assault.
Yet...he was still in the country after this huge catalogue of offences to go on and commit murder in 2011.
It gets worse.  Koc survived off of benefits, and was known for being aggressive to Job Centre staff.
Not only did we import a violent Turkish psychopath who rewarded Britain by committing an array of crimes which finally culminated in the brutal murder of two defenceless pensioners, we were paying for him to be here.
From funding this wretched creatures existence via the benefits system, we'll now go on to fund another large amount of years in a five star prison - or, perhaps most likely, an even more costly and luxurious secure psychiatric unit.
Either way, Koc will get his 3 hot meals a day, a warm bed, TV, and ne'er a worry about doing a days work or having to make ends meet.  He'll probably get a council flat and a giro on his doorstep every week if/when he's released.
Meanwhile, two pensioners have been enriched into the grave.  Just another episode among many in the new, multicultural hellhole called Britain - it's enough to make anyone break down and cry.

Share this post

A Modern Heresy

Heresy

May 2012

by Brett Stevens.

How do you rebel against a society with no standards?
We live in a time of unprecedented permissiveness. The individual is our highest goal, and thus whatever that individual chooses to do is near sacred in our modern lexicon. We may not agree with what they say and do, but we’ll fight to the death to protect it.
Behaviors that fifty years ago would have resulted in criminal charges are now normal. This seems to be a disease of first world societies; in parts of the world where they still perceive that they have a lot to lose, standards are more circumspect.
You can do anything as a rebel. Although drugs are still illegal, they’re de facto legal enough that you can purchase them and stand a good chance of never going to jail. You can tattoo yourself, burn scars into your flesh, have sex with 500 people at once or have 14 kids and live on welfare.
There are no consequences. You may stand in line a bit more for insurance and benefits, but you’ll get there. And be as freaky as you want to be.
This permissiveness makes us easy to control. Distracted with small pleasures, we become oblivious to the world beyond ourselves. This is why traditional religions and conservative ethics hold that permissiveness is a bad idea. It keeps your mind off the task of life itself.
Back in the 1950s, we had conservatives to rebel against. They even got outraged by smoking cigarettes in the bathrooms of our high schools! Now people get raped and smoke meth in those rooms. How do you top that, for rebellion?
Even if you shoot up your high school and leave a trail of bodies, you are most likely to find yourself in an insane asylum, writing checks to your lawyers from a government loan.
The only rebellion, heresy and “acting out” that’s left is to rebel against permissiveness.
Instead, you have standards. Get a career in which you can do not just well but do good, get married to someone chaste and loving, spend your Saturday nights reading, listen to classical music and have a reverent and religious attitude toward the world. Viewing it as a gift for sober enjoyment deep in the soul, not through consumption.
We have no rebels. They’re all antiheroes repeating the tired game that was played out in the 1960s and now is another cliche like you’d find in a television commercial. Their rebellion is hollow, and only affirms the need for equally fake “heroes” to rebel against.
Even more, it seems like the idea of rebellion was played out, all along. To be a rebel, you must find an authority figure to rebel against. You each need the other as much as yourself. You aren’t leading, you’re following, just in a negative way.
But people thirst for easy answers, and so the mythos of the rebel lives on. James Dean will spend more time on expensive posters in angry teenage bedrooms than he ever spent onscreen. Jim Morrison will re-live his drama of flagging ambition over and over again in the eyes of angry would-be rebels.
Our politicians endorse revolutions and rebellions as positive things. They encourage permissiveness and profit from it. They will send tanks and planes to destroy anyone who does not agree.
Rebellion is played. The only heresy left is to drop out of the yes/no gave of the rebel and authority figure, and instead to look hard at reality, and pick the best life possible given that constraint. If nothing else, it’s the only truly independent course of action that remains.

 

Equality is a Muslim God

Mar , 2012

by Avery Morrow.

Equality is not a god that accepts and ministers to failure, like Christ, nor a god that prefers moderation, like Siddartha’s dharma. Nor is it a god satisfied by material offerings, like the ancient spirits of the world.
Equality is a god that demands perfection, punishes weakness, and calls for the destruction of unbelievers. It is heretical to claim there are “different paths to Equality”, for there is only one, unquestionable path, that has many pillars which must all be followed. Its holy warriors must always be pure, must work twice as hard to cleanse themselves if any flaw is detected, and are always open to any practice that could improve their purity. It rewards those who fight for its cause, although its adherents argue over whether violence is an acceptable form of battle. Yes, Equality is a Muslim God.
Many things are evil in the eyes of equality. Equality implies the elimination of any discrimination between levels of ability, worth, or desire– that is to say, any judgment of a thing whatsoever, except for determining its equalness. For example: Force is evil, for its sole use is to dominate other people, which is unequal. Strength is evil for the same reason. Leadership is evil, for it implies following. Mutual exchange (“capitalism”) is evil, because extensive research has proven that this involves inequality. Beauty is evil, for it implies ugliness, and judging people or things in this way makes them unequal. Chastity is evil, for it implies that loose morals are bad, etc. Pride in one’s own heritage is evil, because it implies that there are Others and that they are not as good as you. These evils are given different names by adherents, that is classism, racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, speciesism etc. To an unbeliever, being accused of one of these things should be treated like an accusation of shirk or dhanb, but the forces of Equality are strong.
It should go without saying that obedience to anything besides equality is evil, for there is no God but Equality. However, the recognition of this evil is not widespread but takes stages. Obedience to the state, the state being the dominant power system of the 21st century, is the first to go for equalists; and for the most part, this is their most noticeable trait. For the more fervent, obedience to one’s superiors at work is also abandoned, and the true extremists find that obedience to a religion, to one’s parents, or to anything else besides equality itself is unacceptable.
Now you may ask, what is good in the eyes of the equalists? This is simple, as simple as it is for the Muslims. What makes people more equal is good. This is not a faith that allows moderation, or a variety of different virtues. There is only the one scale of righteousness, which has at its top Equality and at its bottom something called “hatred”, bizarrely so for such an all-hating faith. There is no halfway, since complete Equality is desired, and if we agree that there is nothing bad about things that we once judged, we can bring human beings closer to this divine perfection. Therefore, celebrating disorder, disobedience, weakness, ugliness, sluttiness, and so on are all good things. For the covert unbeliever, this has the discomfiting effect that celebrating respect, tradition, beauty, etc. will get you eyed with suspicion. But this is nothing compared to condemning disrespect or disorder; these things will quickly mark you as a heretic, and you will have a fatwa placed upon you. As with Islam, defection from Equality is the most heinous possible crime.
It’s the radicals you need to worry about, and many of them have gathered on the Internet, waiting to stone to death anyone who dares to mock Equality. It is these radical extremists who remain in the Occupy movement itself long after it has lost its critical mass. They will excuse any rape or theft as a necessary sacrifice on the way to Equality. Like extremists of every stripe, they are dangerous and can be pushed to violence and murder. Like Islamic terrorists, they will even burn down public buildings at the expense of their own lives.
But most of those who vote for the left-leaning parties are what we ought to call moderate equalists. They may do some of the rituals, they will certainly speak highly of equality when they hear it mentioned, but they have not yet been educated about the full extent of the faith. Their awareness, so to speak, has not been raised. Some of them, Equality help them, may even condone unequal relationships between themselves and others, through thoughtlessness of course. They are all inspired by the selfless jihadis, the Occupiers who are fighting fiercely against the vague menace of inequality. If you ask them whether they condone violence in the name of their god, they might outright deny it, or they might hem and haw. “Violence was good sometimes, you know. Like when the Nazis were threatening us with inequality, we beat them and showed them that equality was good… although, I sometimes wish we had beaten the Nazis as a gender-neutral, non-hierarchical autonomous collective…”
Because Equality is a jealous god (and is indeed the favored god of the jealous), it proclaims that all institutions either seek it or lack it, and does not admit the complexity of the world. The world is full of diverse cultures and endless social situations. People are not always fighting “for equality” or “against equality”, and in fact that is more the exception than the rule, although Marx’s command to rewrite history has obscured this fact. Adherents of the mature religions, those authorities written on tattered parchment and ancient stone, understand that human beings have endless motivations which cannot all be answered with “more equality”. In the 20th century Equality was a good leader to us; in the 21st it will not prove so helpful, and people shall abandon it for a stronger god.
Most of the Right is engaged in simple religious struggle against Equality. Although they might not realize the nature of their enemy, they see the single-minded, intolerant, Muslim nature of Equality and they know that it is a false god. Their gods are indeed more merciful than Equality, and although the equalists celebrate every teenage defection with raucous applause, the private defections by adults to the side of Tradition are just as common. We in the New Right are in a more precarious state. We have the insecurity of atheists, and like Evola, we may be constantly searching for a truly powerful Tradition that can provide us secure refuge from the tyranny of equality. But in the meantime, we have the logical upper hand of atheists as well.
For the New Right, at least, the process to refute a believer is simple: tell them to make a list of all the gods they don’t believe in. Then add just one more: Equality. Now they may see the consistency of your position.

Posted in: Globalism.