Earlier this year (2011), a mother, Theresa Riggi, who killed her three children when undergoing a divorce custody fight with her husband, was sentenced to only 16 years in prison on grounds of 'diminished responsibility' due to mental illness. She could easily serve less than that with good behaviour.
Similarly, Anders Breivik was recently diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and may avoid jail, despite being responsible for the deaths of 77 people, due to being supposedly mentally ill.
The internet troll Sean Duffy was jailed for repeatedly mocking the deaths of teenagers, but it is said he has Asperger syndrome. In his particular case I think immature tauntings are of course in no way morally equivalent to murder as in the previous two cases, and for people like him, jail is not required but a programme of getting him to be a productive member of society and seeing past his stupid, juvenile bullshit. However, our societies have a near-monopoly on creating social misfits, of whatever ethnic background. This was seen in the riots in England in August. The fact that the West generally is to a large extent economically fucked adds greatly to this problem.
But to go back to the point: it seems that 'mental health' and 'mental illness' are used as arbitrary criteria in order not only to let criminals off from sentences, but also in order to reinforce social conformity due to adding a stigma to non-mainstream views. Many people diagnosed with so-called 'mental illnesses' are not crazy like truly crazy people - and I have seen truly crazy people, such as a skinny ugly older man who cross-dressed, flapped his arms about, picked litter out of bins, made weird screaming noises and ran about the streets and ended up dead soon after. That is true insanity. Theresa Riggi, Anders Breivik and Sean Duffy are not truly insane, like that guy was. It seems that the mental health industry is keen to make diagnoses of mental illness as part of their profession. Furthermore, the justice system (at least of European countries) wishes to be very soft on crime, and this psychology helps them.
Cunctator responds:
To my mind there is not and never can be any "magic bullet" definition of mental illness. One can be in a state of shock because of some traumatic event like divorce, or having been in a car crash in which a loved one has died, and the resulting depression or trauma could last weeks or months or even years.
For the entirety of this period, it could be said that the person in question is "mentally ill", because his mind is impaired while the trauma is still working its way through his system. The same goes for the more general feelings of despair or depression that so frequently assail talented and sensitive people. There is a saying of Goethe's that I like:
“Talent develops in solitude, character develops in the stream of life.”
It seems to me that it is in the response to these states or conditions that we are to find "mental illness". Those who are capable of honest self-reflection, and eventually re-discover their mental equilibrium through interaction with others in "the full current of human life" are to be commended in a moral and not medical sense. They have used their God-given powers of mental renewal to recover from whatever trauma they suffered.
Those that reject honest self-reflection and put on a mask are storing problems for themselves that can, in the best case scenario, simply mean that others (spouses, family, friends) feel that there is a distance separating them which they can never surmount. That is unfortunate but it is not then end of the world. Sometimes it is worse, because these people can wittingly or unwittingly be incredibly cruel to those nearest to them.
In the worse case scenario, the person eventually becomes a psychopath or sociopath. He literally has no feelings or conscience - because he elected to have it that way. He can even become a serial killer, a David Berkowitz or a Harold Shipman.
The modern form is to blame the trauma event, but that is false. Others have overcome and will overcome trauma events of the same magnitude or bigger by honest self-reflection, prayer (if religious), and eventually by getting back on the horse so to speak by interacting with others in the broad stream of human life.
There is always an element of willfulness in the actions of a Manson, a Dahmer, a Shipman, or a Berkowitz. This makes a nonsense of judicial phrases like diminished responsibility. Responsibility is NEVER diminished. We are all absolutely responsible for our actions, no matter what degree of mental strain we are under.
Israel is a major focus of left-wing human rights activists. It does seem true that sex slavery of women (usually from Eastern European countries) and organ harvesting (for example taking kidneys) occurs in Israel.[/quote]
Rather than blanket smearing others with the all too familiar "Jew obsession" gambit (yes, we admit it rabbi, we're the crazy ones!), which merely shows that you're well versed in the Frankfurt School (Authoritarian Personality)-patented strategy of characterizing any words or actions by Gentiles that are critical of, or even draw attention to, Jews/Judaism as pathological, how about actually reading what others have written and following the links they've supplied? You might actually learn something.
Your non-sequitur about "Israel" is an all-too familiar deflection tactic; no one here mentioned "Israel"; we were talking about JEWS, and about their role in this psychiatry/psychology, etc scam. Rather than ignorantly accusing others of being obsessed with Jews, try reading for instance The hoax of Freudism: a study of brainwashing the American professionals and laymen by Ratibor-Ray Jurjevich, or The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements by Kevin MacDonald.
If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty you will having read either of those books come back and apologize to those you have just slandered. Chapter 5 of the latter book - which incidentally shows how Frankfurt School Jews Like Adorno and Horkheimer openly used Satanic Talmudism and Freudism as a basis for smearing both Christian belief and any criticism of Jews or Jewish strategies as irrational and pathological "anti-semitism" - should be of particular interest to you, and can be found here:
(Link sadly, no longer available)
Pretty much the entirety of the "academic" output, not just of the Frankfurt School but of Freud and the legion of other Jewish charlatans that have plagued these fields (psychology, psychoanalysis, social psychology, sociology, anthropology etc), can be summarized thusly: "We are Jews. We know more than you. If you disagree with us you are almost certainly another Hitler who wants to sleep with his mother and invade Poland on the same day. So there".
Whenever I see someone like yourself, whose posts show a pretty tenuous grasp of what I feel obliged to capitalize as REALITY, banging on about other people's "Jew obsession", I think of Freud. And Adorno. And Horkheimer. And Marcuse. And Levinson. (And on and on.) And wonder whether you're one of them. Or just a useful idiot.
Helmsdale concludes:
I know what you're saying, but not all of us live in America. I have seen them in New York for myself. I have seen them in the south of England as well. Some of us live in outposts that are really far from anything. They have a superior strategy for the survival of their own kind and there's nothing you can do about it. Fact.
Indeed, their ethnocentrism is admirable and it makes me wish I'd been born one of them. I knew a guy who was one of them and he didn't care at all for being one of them. They have to deal with that a lot, it seems. If I was one of them I would be the first to advocate strong ethnocentrism.
And I'm aware of all the authors you discuss. Kevin MacDonald for example, I have emailed him myself, and he has responded. He has noble ideas, but ultimately he doesn't get it.
The whole of contemporary psychology is suspect, as is anything influenced by Marxism, such as the whole of academia and all left-wing thought, which is similar to a religion in many ways. Marxist/leftist types always talk about 'oppressed groups' but to a Social Darwinist, oppressed groups will always exist, and any attempts to erase oppression will only create new oppressed groups. Someone always loses out - it is the law of nature. The left-wing Marxist utopia cannot be created; it is impossible. Belief in this 'progressive utopia' is certainly like a religion for some individuals. Many of those who believe in this are actually white males, but the male who has deceived himself is the one that will get on best in society in the short term.
Consider the Golden Eagle that takes a lamb as its prey. It swoops down, takes the lamb with its claws, drags it away high into the sky, drops it into some convenient place, and hacks away at it with its beak, consuming the lamb's flesh. Is the lamb equal in Marxist terms to the eagle?
Leftists will use any argument, however ridiculous, if it suits their purpose. The mainstream views being pumped out by the likes of the Guardian are a good example of this.
My opinion is that within Western societies, you have the uneducated white people (the chavs/neds in the UK, equivalent groups in America for which a range of epithets exist, and no doubt other terms exist as well in Europe) who are less intelligent than the university-educated white leftists, who in turn at least have a much more tenuous grasp upon reality than those who actually get it. Leftists have the moral high ground over uneducated white people, because leftists are in favour of altruism and uneducated white people are in favour of self-interest. Any support for self-interest leads to a Diminishment of Self because asserting self-interest makes a man appear weak. For example if you say you vote BNP, you are really just angry that white women are in mixed-race relationships with non-white men, and thus probably sexually frustrated, thus you are a beta male, and most women won't want to have anything to do with you.
It is also interesting to note that the two altruistic ideologies, Marxism and Christianity, would not exist without Judaism - but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
It is well known that the empowerment of women sows the seeds of racial extinction. Bearing this in mind, why do leftists, who are often very critical of Israel and its 'human rights abuses' as well as critical of the way that Muslim women are treated (although a minority of leftists like to not dispute this, leaving it as a matter of 'cultural relativism') as being reproduction machines, not campaign for the human rights of ultra-Orthodox Jewish women whose birth rates are very high and thus would constitute 'oppression'?
Marxism (and by extention, feminism, anti-racism, human rights, and the 'liberation of oppressed groups') is a Jewish-created ideology but it's come back to hit Jews in the face with the 'free Palestine' movement which is strongly critical of Israel. My major question is why do leftists not criticize the 'oppression' of Orthodox Jewish women through them having very high birth rates, and thus being subject to male 'oppression'?
For a good example of white males supporting left-wing thought with a religious level of ferocity, read this:
(Site closed, link 'shut down')
I get the exact same impression from reading this article that I do after listening to John Lennon's song "Imagine" - that is, belief in a left-wing/Marxist utopia that does not exist and will never exist. It is extremely ironic that John Lennon says that the world would be a better place without religion when his beliefs strongly resemble religious belief themselves. You may be using a computer which was made in China by those who work like slaves. You may be wearing clothes that were made in Bangladesh by those who work like slaves. Furthermore, you could be an Ethiopian or Somalian starving to death as a result of crop failures caused by droughts.
These are the kind of issues that leftists are concerned about, but to those who are concerned about sex, evolution, rather than the social domain, these are of null importance.
American leftists seem to like Darwin a lot more than European leftists. This is because American leftists can attack the Christian right with Darwin's thought and particularly the idea of creationism, which is still strong in some parts of America.
In Europe the left's attitudes towards Darwin are somewhat more cautious. Whilst the likes of Richard Dawkins acknowledge some forms of Darwinism, many on the European left are not a fan of Darwin - they see Darwinism as being the precursor of fascism and Nazism. That being said, in terms of reality, the truth spoken by Darwin will beat the lies of Marx every single time.
And I would say that I actually admire Zionism, from an evolutionary perspective.
Zionist Jews do the utmost to look after their own people above all else, and their survival.
There is absolutely no way in hell that ordinary white people are capable of 'white nationalism' in such a way. No chance whatsoever. The epistemological basis of ultra-Orthodox Judaism gives them a major headstart, for a start. Most 'white nationalists' seem to ignore the fact that white people do not have a common ideology with a religious basis. Furthermore, they also to a large extent ignore the fact that racial preservationism means taking control of sex and reproduction.
You cannot coordinate racial preservationism in the same way that you can coordinate ethnoreligious preservationism. Being part of a race is not an ideology. 'White nationalism' has had a de facto basis in the past due to geographical isolation rather than ideology.
Is political control over biological evolution possible? In a society in which women are given power, it certainly isn't, that's for sure.
Racial preservationism is all about sex and reproduction, and taking control of that. The male instinct is to lower the cost of sex whilst the female instinct is to raise it.
Women like Vron Ware, Jane Clare Jones and others, in expressing their views, actually give Simon Sheppard more credibility, not less.
It has fuck all to do with economics, and everything to do with evolutionary psychology. The Marxist obsession with reducing everything to the economic merely reflects its true nature.
"The feminine is a threat to this economy because it – both literally and figuratively – lets the other inside it, and thereby blurs the boundaries between the inside and the outside"
Yeah, just like pornography in which 'white sluts' take 'big black cock'?
In short, her views actually defeat themselves.
One other question: can evolutionary psychology and social Darwinism be linked? I certainly think they can.
I have bedded 8 women in my life. However, I have seen probably 100 times that number of women naked in pornography.
The male instinct is to lower the cost of sex, the female instinct is to raise it.
Desire for 'racial purity' is totally pornographic. There is no need to apologise for this though - never apologise for being male. Pornography appeals to men, and only a small amount of women watch it. Physical beauty is very important to pornography, and the Nordic race has definitely the highest amount of physical beauty amongst humans, which makes for the most beautiful women, who will one day, no doubt, be as extinct as the dodo, like a corpse. This has been noted by people like James von Brunn and Anders Behring Breivik. Marxism cares nothing for physical beauty. Marxism's domain is the social, human, feminine, individual, sterile and equal whereas Social Darwinism's domain is the genetic, masculine, pornographic, evolutionary, competitive and sexual. Marxism deals in death, whilst Darwinism's currency is life. No one is more moral than the other, they can only be seen as 'yin-yang' opposities in a binary dichotomy with varying amounts of overlap.
The theory of Procedural Analysis developed by Simon Sheppard is very much like Plato's theory of the Forms.
Spoiling
Removing a component from an object to devalue it. The object can be a thing or a person and the component may not be removed but merely annulled. If the object is desired Spoiling is undertaken to reduce its value to others (e.g. when a female emits an Erroneous or False Signal to remove a male's ability to respond to that particular signal); if it is not desired a likely motivation is obfuscation (e.g. adopting skinhead or hippy styles of dress without ascribing to the philosophy with which the mode is usually associated). In the first case Spoiling may be an advanced, possessive form of marking.
Primordial Spoiling is smearing excrement.
The procedure Spoiling (or any other procedure) is much like a Platonic Form. Here are some examples of individual examples of actions which meet the Form of Spoiling:
(She is Spoiling the Nazi swastika by wearing it whilst going out with two black males)
(If you read the article about her, she is Spoiling European philosophy by praising some parts of it and then being pro-feminist, pro-miscegenation and converting to Judaism)
You could find hundreds more examples of things like this if you tried. I dreamt last night that Frankie Boyle died and Vladimir Putin went on a spree killing in a park in Scotland.
Steven Rose, who may well be Jewish by the sound of his name (but it doesn't matter here whether he is Jewish or a white leftist), seems to think that differences in the average psychology of men and women, as well as people of different races, do not exist, and are pseudoscientific, out-dated thinking.
Now if you actually believe that, then you are a complete moron.
Due to DRoFC, some of Big Sister's most strong proponents are likely to be males (i.e. the most rabid Marxists). This is similar to say a drag queen expressing exaggerated female mannerisms.
Essentialism is necessary and masculine. Females make small differences larger and large differences smaller, whereas males make large differences larger and small differences smaller. Seeing the big picture, rather than focusing on outlying anomalies, is necessary to spot patterns, which seems a necessary component of the building of knowledge. Focusing on outlying anomalies is rather like rampant individualism, as suggested by Mitchell Heisman in his Suicide Note in the section entitled 'Meet the Individual', perhaps like documentaries about transsexual teenagers, or disabled people. That is to say it is like the Marxist rather than the Darwinist as both transsexuals and disabled people will probably never reproduce, which is sex's only ultimate biological function. Don't be afraid to talk about sex all the time, sex has made us what we are through evolution, and will also make us what we will become. Sex is everything. It is precisely for this reason that to a Darwinist, miscegenation is such a large change. It means nothing to the female/Marxist, however, as their domain is the human/social/relationship/individual rather than the genetic/sexual/evolutionary/general.
Thus, it doesn't matter how successful you are if you are a white male, death is what ultimately awaits. Jane Claire Jones states that Breivik's ideology is against death. Yes, I know that, but she doesn't state why it is wrong to want to discriminate against death. A lack of discrimination against death (see Mitchell Heisman - Suicide Note) is insane, for males. For females, there must be pleasure reinforcement.
http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/wfpim2.html
Sheppard: "The Super Feminine State becomes extinct".
It doesn't matter that women are cowards because they will still be useful as bearers of children (for the enemy race who will spare their lives).
Indeed, it is in the interests of the race that women do not act recklessly in case they provoke violence which may lead to death.
For men, though, it is necessary for the survival of their race that they are not cowards. What the invader tends to do is kill the men and enslave the women and children. So it is in their own interests that they do not behave like women. Cowardice would suggest weakness leading to exploitation by their women or by an unscrupulous, corrupt and weak leader leading ultimately to exploitation by an external enemy.
Interracial porn (black men on white women) is the eroticization of the Super Feminine State, and thus the eroticization of racial necrophilia, the sacrifice of physical beauty caused by the maximal degree of neoteny found as a result of evolutionary isolation, the ice people that were separate from the sun people.
Base and Spoiled Male is one who copulates, fights and kills whenever the whim takes him. Needless to say, any male acting in this way will very rapidly find himself incarcerated.
Breivik got the chance to be a Base and Spoiled Male for an hour and a half. Procedural Analysis is based on the 'Game of Opposites'.
Anyway, I know that one of the rules of this board is 'do not link to porn'. I will not do so, but instead you should Google 'farrah mills sucking cock'. It is a white MTF transsexual sucking a black man's penis.
Sheppard: Females' natural domain is relationships (their expression of sex), the natural domain of males is things. Since males excel at manipulating things, the female imitates the male. Seeing that the female is superior at manipulating relationships, the male imitates the female to a large extent.
That is to say, a male-to-female transsexual might choose to have a black male partner because the tranny sees white women taking black male partners and wants to appear like them.
Males with a more feminine appearance are more likely to be convincing transsexuals/cross dressers. Many males will not have a hope in hell of being convincing.
http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... er_19.html
As with animals of all classes, so with man, the distinctive
characters of the male sex are not fully developed until he is
nearly mature; and if emasculated they never appear. The beard, for
instance, is a secondary sexual character, and male children are
beardless, though at an early age they have abundant hair on the head.
It is probably due to the rather late appearance in life of the
successive variations whereby man has acquired his masculine
characters, that they are transmitted to the male sex alone. Male
and female children resemble each other closely, like the young of
so many other animals in which the adult sexes differ widely; they
likewise resemble the mature female much more closely than the
mature male. The female, however, ultimately assumes certain
distinctive characters, and in the formation of her skull, is said
to be intermediate between the child and the man.
Now Breivik chose feminine characters in World of Warcraft, and in a play about him which was performed in Australia, he was portrayed by a female actress.
Rather than focus on him though, let's look at some transsexuals. Not pornography, just pictures of clothed transsexuals.
Very convincing. Take Darwin's words again: "if emasculated they never appear". In addition, Kim Petras is a perfectly good example of the Nordic race as well. The West has "become a woman".
Autogynephilia ( /ˌɔːtoʊˌɡaɪnəˈfɪliə/; from Greek “αὐτό-” (self), “γυνή” (woman, though the stem is actually “γυναικ-”.[18]) and “φιλία” (love) — "love of oneself as a woman") is a term coined in 1989 by Ray Blanchard, to refer to "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman."
Now it is evident that transsexualism is a lot easier than racial transformation:
As I have already said, we have been forced into the Super Feminine State even before we were born.
One other question is this: if it is evident that the different races of man are the human equivalent of different animal breeds (such as in dogs, horses, cattle, etcetera, and as such possess different typical physical and mental characteristics) then why has no research been done into miscegenation in animals, and sex disparities in the way that animals choose to mate? It would be interesting to see if the females of one breed of animal strongly preferred another breed of males.
Transsexuals and those who experience autogynephilia will never, ever be women. They do not have a womb and ovaries, or XX chromosomes. They do not have female brains. There are some that come close, but none can quite do it. If they wear feminine clothing, this is a mere 'Pavlovian second skin' (see Glenn Wilson on Male Sex Targeting).
A Social Darwinist will not complain about 'misandry' because he realises that in nature, there are always groups and individuals that lose out. The Marxist doesn't get that. When I am on the street and see women pushing prams, I have to check every single one just to make sure it is not a mixed-race baby.
In the Procedural Analysis system, sex is any activity that is not business. What do I understand that to mean?
While males are adept at manipulating things, the primary activity of the female is relationships, i.e. sex. In this system sex is any activity which is not business, thus any non-monetary relationship is a sexual activity.
What I understand this to mean, in the way I have reformulated it, is that 'business' is the 6 of the 7 vital functions of life that are not reproduction, and 'sex' is reproduction (one of the 7 vital functions of life), physical sex and everything that is done socially for the sake of being social (going to a shop to buy food is not sex because that falls within the other 6 vital functions of life, but going to a shop to talk to the shopkeeper because they are your friend is sex). The female expression of sex is social, the male expression of sex is physical. In a feminized society, allowing miscegenation (and thus cruelty by the denial of sex to white males) is better than mass murder.
Simon Baron-Cohen has proposed that Asperger syndrome is the extreme form of the male brain. This, again, seems to be another suspicious thing coming from the psychiatry industry. 20 years ago few people had heard of Asperger syndrome, now everyone has heard of it. Now I myself have been diagnosed unofficially with Asperger syndrome, but I am still suspicious of whether it is being done in good faith.
Gianluca Casseri recently shot a couple of Africans in Italy - then himself. He was described as a fantasist. That is one thing he has in common with Breivik, both are fantasists who see themselves as heroes. This is what Jane Clare Jones calls "It is about the construction of a certain type of patriarchal masculinity which is fixated on the necessity of its own impenetrability, its own invulnerability, its own independence". Jane Clare Jones' writing is consistent with the Dynamical Laws and Corollary 1 of Proposition 8 of Procedural Analysis: "Females will use any argument, however ridiculous, if it suits their purpose."
And to further back this up, we get this from Sheppard:
In human society, the fact that females have language and intelligence only enables them to employ specious arguments to justify their actions, as in the case of the alien takeover of our territory.
Unlike Casseri and Breivik, Sheppard is not a fantasist and nor is he a figure of 'masculine invulnerability'. After all, he admits:
If their behaviour is unlimited, females are capable of firstly, making their own males into an underclass, for example by their wholesale preference for alien males, as can readily be observed in areas with high immigrant populations. Secondly, they are capable of taking their race to the brink of, if not beyond, extinction. These are critical flaws for which accommodation cannot be countenanced.
Mitchell Heisman notes that the far-right seeks 'political control over biological evolution'. He killed himself. Sheppard suggests you kill yourself now on his website. Any far-right individual who does not see the importance of sex/controlling women (e.g. Arthur Kemp, Richard McCulloch) is easily intellectually refuted.
It is not Sheppard himself that is invulnerable, as a person. It is the concept of Procedural Analysis that seems to be intellectually indestructable. Leftist intellectual gunshots bounce back off it (it is Marxists, not Social Darwinists, that are deluded about reality), whereas leftists can generally outsmart less intelligent far-right thought. It is impenetrable, and penetration is shameful, as Jane Clare Jones correctly points out as she meets the Platonic Form of Big Sister.
Talking of Plato's forms, read this (and the whole TheOligarch.com site generally, it's good):
People like William Hooper and Claire Khaw 'get' a view of the world which has things in common with Procedural Analysis.
I hate the words 'pseudointellectual' and 'pseudoscience'. They can be used by leftist, holier-than-thou academic social sciences types in order to challenge any masculine thought that may arise, in addition to exerting a conforming influence. That is to say, if some opinions are made 'wrong' then it stifles genuine debate, genuine research, and also sets an arbitrary standard of what constitutes intellect or science. I actually hate leftism more than anything else. I absolutely despise left-wing thought, not only because it has such a tenuous grasp upon reality but also because it is so totalitarian. Pure masculinity would be to eliminate compassion, eliminate the personal domain altogether and treat humans as sexual-pornographic evolutionary breeding units.
White males having sex with white females means what? Just the last copulations of a dying people.
It says that the far-right consume a lot of pornography in secret. This may well be true.
If racism is pornographic, then the male gaze is male instinct. The Pornography of Meat is a feminist/animal rights book that critiques the male gaze for treating both women and animals as pieces of flesh, i.e. male instinct, i.e. critiquing males for having been born male and acting upon their instincts. Like for example if you see a big butt or big pair of tits you are attracted to that for evolutionary reasons, i.e. the fat on women's bodies being a sign of what would make a good mother. I actually like chubby women, not really fat, but not too skinny. Sierra Skye is a good example of a pornstar who is nice and chubby but is not hugely fat. She has done some interracial scenes. Me personally, I would love to have multiple wives, I would love to have two women, and have them both pregnant at the same time with my semen. I would like to sleep in bed with them with me between my two females with my arms round each of them. This has obvious evolutionary origins. Simon Sheppard is the "porno Goebbels":
http://www.redaction.org/forum/showthre ... readid=985 (Site gone)
Big Sister's policy is to derogate, assault, stigmatize, reduce to poverty, drive to suicide, deprive of medical treatment, refuse compensation for criminal attacks and silence any white male who acts in a normal, masculine way. Marxist memes and DRoFC mean that many white males are part of Big Sister.
You could almost imagine Big Sister as being some type of sexual fetish, or maybe a dominatrix. The fact that white males have more sexual fetishes than say black men, or indeed white women, is related to the fact that white males have increased levels of neurosis relative to others, defined in Pavlovian terms as the condition where one stimulus provokes two or more responses. Females on the other hand project more than males (i.e. think that others will think the same as them). There is a brothel in Prague called Big Sister, and in one of the adverts on the site there is shown a black man with a white, blonde woman. Humans are only examples of people, and individual actions only exemplify higher procedures or Forms. Females reduce everything to the individual, the personal.
Epistemological knowledge seems impossible. If the white race is slowly but surely being phased out of the world, then our lives are simply windows onto history that have a finite course, a short time period. You cannot know what it is like to have lived in another historical era.
We hear a lot of discussion about sexual orientation. Why does the term 'racial orientation' never crop up by analogy? Perhaps it is less fixed?
Grindr is an application that allows male homosexuals to meet up and have sex. The only reason it works is because the male instinct is to lower the cost of sex.
All female procedures amount to raising the cost of sex.
Pornography is much cheaper to produce than big budget Hollywood films, yet parardoxically sex is very costly for females. That is to say, pornography makes sex appear cheaper to the male brain than it actually is. An ideal world from a male perspective would be one in which every female would have sex with you if you asked them to. That is my utopia, not the Marxist utopia leftists seek to create.
There are many times in which I hate being a white male. If I'd been born black things would be so much better. I could just walk into a bar in the UK, and white sluts would just come my way. I also wouldn't be as neurotic as I am, which is a source of great unhappiness, and would be concerned with the simpler things in life. Since black people are less neurotic, they worry about things less and have more of a 'live for today' mentality, which appeals to women who are less neurotic than men.
Why this curse of existence, being what I am?
On the cover of the porn DVD "Massive Anal Booty" it says: 100% interracial! 100% huge asses! 100% anal!
Whilst porn is an exaggeration of reality, the sex in those porn films did take place.
A black man isn't guaranteed to get a white slut like he is in porn, but he still stands a much better chance of getting one than the average white man does if he goes into bars and clubs looking for them. Why, why, why do I have to be what I am?
Let's think about porn around the world.
The USA is by far the world's largest producer of porn, no doubt about it.
Most of Africa and Asia produce no porn whatsoever with the exception of Japan and possibly Israel. China/East Asia excluding Japan, Southeast Asia, India/South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa produce virtually no porn at all despite their massive combined populations.
The UK produces some porn. Various other European and extra-European (Canada, Australia, parts of Latin America) countries seem to produce porn as well. UK porn is noted for its 'fish and chips realism', according to Jacqui Smith who was writing about porn after her husband's porn was bought with MPs' expenses funds.
So what is wrong with porn? It's a sign of general cultural decline. Although porn may be called 'adult content' it is actually juvenile. It is a sign of arrested development, a civilization that refuses to grow up. It actually goes hand in hand with feminism.
Like, when feminist authors say that facial cumshots in porn are 'eroticized hatred', they are really only in denial about the fact that they want that done to them, but since the female instinct is to raise the costs of sex, they are scared to admit it. Psychological projection is a common and subtle mechanism in human thinking. It is evident that females project more than males.
Control of human evolution means control of SEX.
In Social Darwinist terms, there is no reason for people like me not to stick a knife in their throat and enjoy their own painful, masochistic death.
If you cut your wrists and allow blood to bleed from them, the pain can in a sense be savoured.
There is no point in continuing to live.
KILL YOURSELF NOW!
Having the misfortune to have been born a white male is a good enough reason to kill yourself.
This applies regardless of individual social success, because the masculine is concerned with long-term evolutionary philosophy and the feminine is concerned with short-term individualistic humanitarianism.
For evolutionary reasons, females are mostly concerned with relationships, and only to a small extent concerned with physical sex. Males too are concerned with relationships, yet are concerned with physical sex to a fair degree. Thus, humanity in general leans towards the social (Marxist) rather than the sexual (Darwinist), because females are almost all social rather than sexual, whereas males are merely more social than sexual.
There is no good reason why, given our long-term evolutionary prospects, being a white male, you should not kill yourself right now.
One important point however, is that some day the species Homo sapiens (humans) will cease to exist.
This prospect offers me immense psychological comfort. At that point, the game is over. And it's virtually certain to happen in the long run.
Deep ecologists may see human extinction as a good thing. As far as I am concerned, I see it as a comforting thought given the fact that white people will disappear much sooner than the entire human race. That is to say, it's certain that white people will disappear over the coming centuries but it is also virtually certain that the species Homo sapiens will also disappear in the long run. Revenge is sweet.
As a child who was interested in geography and science, I used to worry about the fact that the sun would eventually swallow up the earth through expanding to become massive. I was always concerned about living to be 105 years old, I was always scared of death (thanks Jane Clare Jones!) and that was when I was a child.
The universe and the stars will take care of the human problem in the long run. Nothing gives me a happier thought than that. I was walking through the village of Auchenblae whilst this thought first occurred to me, back in autumn 2010.
The only thing that can defeat miscegenation is human extinction.
That is precisely why human extinction appears so attractive.
An alpha male in a country with an average fertility rate of 1.5 may be less genetically successful than a beta male in a country with an average fertility rate of 7.5.
Thus it is just not worth trying because there are no rewards in the long term, the only result is death no matter how hard you try. Competition is impossible.
http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/bigsis.html
Females conspire and males compete. The consistent theme of totalitarianism is that it seeks to eradicate competition. An environment in which competition is impossible is alien to males; think of sport, and running a race with only one competitor. Although government is a masculine construct, totalitarianism is a female strategy. It is not Big Brother we should fear but Big Sister.
It's like in Sonic the Hedgehog 2, in Death Egg Zone, there are no rings in the entire level, and you kill one boss which is like a metal replica of Sonic with 8 hits, and then you go on to a massive version of Robotnik. The point is that at least you can defeat that once you know how, and the nice music plays at the end after that especially if you have collected all the Chaos Emeralds.
You cannot defeat Big Sister, on the other hand. Perhaps you could imagine Big Sister as being like one of the Robotnik-style bosses in Sonic the Hedgehog.
See how the main boss has those mini-Robotniks surrounding it? Maybe Big Sister could have half-caste children to act as its minions.
And that sound, that pounding noise as Robotnik goes up in flames, it brings a tear to my eye... wish I could hear the Super Feminine State defeated in such a way...
If you critique masculinity, you critique everything. You critique both the heroes and the villains. Even Sonic the Hedgehog is a 'figure of masculine invulnerability' in his own way.
Whether it's Peter Tatchell or Jane Clare Jones, critiquing masculinity only does one thing: leaves males disorientated and confused. They are being told that their natural psychological drives (which have obvious adaptive evolutionary origins) are evil, when they are not.
Being a white male is a problem.
It is white, non-Jewish university-educated Marxists/lefties that are the most despicable and pathetic of all, because of their lack of self-interest. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, miscegenating white women - at least all of these are acting in their own self-interest.
These lefty types will refer to the far right as 'pathetic' but in a truly egalitarian society which they claim to believe in, there wouldn't be any need to call anyone or anything 'pathetic' because the fact that they need to call them that means that at least on a subconscious level they recognise a form of inequality ("should we tolerate intolerance?") which is typical leftist hypocrisy when they claim to so strongly oppose the existence of social and/or ideological inequality. If white males cannot get sex because of miscegenation due to intensification of male breeding competition (i.e. the byproduct of Social Darwinism) and then turn to the far right and are subsequently called 'pathetic' by a leftist, the leftist does not realise that this is Darwinism (i.e. reality) triumphing over Marxism (i.e. airy-fairy utopian fantasy guff).
If there is one thing that I hate, it is the dogmatic anti-Darwinist concept of equality. Hypocrisy abounds in left-wing thought.
There is no point in getting angry at lefties because I know what they're about, it's a secular religion for the postmodern white middle class (which is declining due to current economic conditions). Whilst Darwinism is simple in that it is about asserting sexual self-interest, Marxism is multifaceted, altruistic, generous, like putting the needs of others before one's own, which is rather like sucking cock. Seeing beautiful white women volunteering in the third world instead of producing her own white children is like human sacrifice to a Social Darwinist or one who believes in human evolutionary philosophy.
There are of course splinters and ideological schisms in both right-wing and left-wing thought. To a Marxist, do basic needs of humans in the world (i.e basic survival requirements such as food, water, shelter, clothing, the lowest level of requirements on something like Maslow's hierarchy of needs) mean that others who have not achieved higher things in life (say self-actualization, or sex) should postpone seeking self-actualization due to others' most basic needs being morally more immediately imperative? It'll all depend on which Marxist/leftist you ask. But I get the strong feeling that Marxism does not care for sex. Sex is only 'bourgeois white male oppression' isn't it? In Big Sister's Marxist hell, we are all cuckolds, all eunuchs.
One common claim is that the far-right is ignorant. It is certainly true that some who support far-right movements (white working class, who ironically are held with the most contempt by the Marxists, who call for the 'workers of the world to unite') are less intelligent than university-educated lefties, because they display naked self-interest, which to a hipster kid would be a major faux pas (because it would involve a Diminishment of Self). Lefties no doubt like lots of 'indie' music and so on...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_%28contemporary_subculture%29
I am not ignorant; I know plenty. It's just that I am unabashedly concerned with (sexual) self-interest, that's all. I briefly believed in some left-wing ideas when I was in university before I saw it all for the load of shit that it is. There's no equality, there are always winners and losers. People who believe in Marxism in particular or anything traceable to it are so blind to reality that there is no point trying to convince them. Humans seem to be inherently religious creatures and when organized religion is discarded, new ideals will return to them again like a boomerang coming back to hit you in the face after you throw it away.
There certainly seems to a be a link between porn, miscegenation and Social Darwinism don't you think? Marxism reduces everything to the economic (reflecting its Jewish origins - many Jews are rich philanthropists, bankers etc. and in medieval times were known as money-lenders), but to a Darwinist economics (i.e. non-sexual activity, the 6 of the 7 vital functions of life that are not sex) is merely a means to an end to reproduction, i.e. sex. The economics of being able to provide to a female and children as a result of having a good job, say, is a substitute for being a hunter-gatherer that brought back lots of food. That is to say, to a Social Darwinist, sex rather than materialism is important. To the male brain sex is more important than things that we don't need, cheap crap made in China and the like. Reducing everything to the economic does not create happiness, but reducing everything to the social/sexual could well create happiness. The cost of living is of course widely different in different parts of the world. The demographic-economic paradox illustrates this well, because those who have less economically are able to have more sexually (more reproduction). The fact that the infant mortality rate is high in Africa is awful to a leftist who sees poor, starving and diseased children and just wants to help them out of the kindness of his heart. This is, of course, evidence that the left is highly, highly feminized and so white male leftists strongly exemplify DRoFC. The most feminized leftist men of all would see nothing wrong with sponsoring a starving African boy, and then having him come grow up and become an adult, immigrate to his own country, and then stick his black cock inside the white cunt of the daughter of the leftist man who sponsored him. Anyway, the point is that to a feminized Marxist, individual human welfare is of the utmost importance. To a masculine Darwinist, the fact that Africa has a much higher infant mortality rate than Europe is irrelevant because masculine Darwinism focuses on the general, not the individual. In the long run black people will dominate in numbers in the world and white people will die out. The infants who die in Africa are at least racially/evolutionarily richer than any white person because they are like soldiers who die in a war to further a greater cause: from a masculine perspective the individual is not important (also consider the DSoD theory, females and the feminized males make small differences, i.e. individuals, larger, and large differences, i.e. racial extinction, smaller). The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; they are martyrs. Lothrop Stoddard noted that the white man during the period of European colonization of Africa was removing the naturally high death rate (Stage 1 of the demographic transitition model) by introducing to the 'negro witch-doctors' education, law and order, and medicine that existed in Africa at that time, but at the same time not reducing the birth rate (similar to the Dynamical Laws).
Leftist concerns are fleeting, transient, whimsical, hysterical and childish. Free Tibet! No Platform! Smash Capitalism!
The mainstream media promotes a 'soft left' type of view in general. Not so far left that it is like the hysterical types above which would be likely to put many people off, but there is definitely an agenda of changing cultural standards, no doubt about it.
Now I have Asperger syndrome (unofficially) and also have issues with consumption of too much alcohol. Since alcohol is a depressant and alcohol is a male sex substitute and Asperger syndrome is an extreme form of the male brain, this means my level of compassion towards humanity (i.e. feminization) is at rock-bottom levels.
'White nationalism' to white people is laughable and associated mainly with male sexual frustration. They do not have a high enough opinion of themselves, they will mock each other. For Jews it is necessary to instil in their children the belief that they are God's chosen people.
The lack of individualism in their religion and way of life is certainly masculine. Individualism is a double-edged sword, in that it works in a racially homogenous society (like Europe has been for the most part throughout most of history) in that it allows males, frustrated with the social domain, to sublimate their sexual desires into high culture and inventing technology, but on the other hand in a multicultural society it means that males have no ideological grounds on which to justify opposition to miscegenation (except evolutionary psychology, but most people don't know about that).
There are good reasons why male distaste for miscegenation (i.e. women of his race/tribe going with a male of another, real or perceived) could be an evolutionarily adaptive psychological trait, similar to the way in which, less controversially, it is recognized that the desire for sugary and fattening foods in people of both sexes could be an evolutionarily adaptive psychological trait because these foods were scarce in the human evolutionary past. Similarly the female taste for miscegenation could also be adaptive, because a territory that has been penetrated indicates weakness of the men of her own race/tribe and thus not miscegenating would be a poor genetic choice for the female.
http://www.heretical.com/wilson/mbc.html
The inter-male struggle for access to females has been documented in many species. An extreme case is the North American grouse, in which only about one in ten of the males ever gets to mate. Studies of free-ranging Rhesus monkeys show that the top 20 per cent of males in the dominance hierarchy account for about 80 per cent of the copulations and at least half hardly ever achieve copulation, apparently because of social inhibition.
A very similar degree of unevenness in male copulatory success is observed in polygamous tribes such as the Yanamamo in the Amazon (Freedman, 1979). Western society, although superficially monogamous, may well have a comparable infrastructure with a certain proportion of men 'dropping out' altogether from reproductive competition ('wimps', deviants, schizophrenics, alcoholics and tramps), while successful businessmen, politicians, actors, television preachers and so on enjoy the favours of several wives, mistresses, groupies, etc.
By contrast, the females of most species including humans (at least in the absence of contraception) achieve their optimal breeding capacity. As Symons (1979) points out, even the most unattractive woman in a village, whom no man would admit to touching, somehow manages to get pregnant every so often.
From the 'group selection' point of view, this could be seen as strengthening the species by increasing the extent to which the superior males – those that are physically healthy, skilful and intelligent – pass on their genes to the next generation in greater proportion. Indeed the pattern of polygyny (one high-ranking male mating with several females) may well be essential to the survival of a species. Groups that did not adopt such a policy would suffer some degree of genetic stagnation and might soon be disadvantaged in relation to those that did.
In any case, the genetic benefits to the individual male who sequesters and impregnates more than his share of females should be sufficient to ensure that male instincts promoting the pursuit of multiple mates would be selected for. Polygyny is therefore the most widespread mating system in the mammalian, primate and human world.
My sister has dated a guy from Portugal in the past, but he had blond hair and blue eyes, unlike the majority of Portuguese.
I bet I'm the only one on this forum who has kissed a black woman. It's different, because their lips protrude and pout more. I have also kissed Latin American (Amerindian descent) and Asian (Filipino) women. I've never had sex with a non-white woman though, was very close with the Mexican female though.
I have had sex with a female from Romania though, and thus non-Nordic. She was actually almost quite Jewish looking in physical appearance. Many ethnic Romanians look like they could be Jews, from the pure perspective of physical appearance. All the others have been racially Northern European, with one from the USA and all the others from the UK.
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724554.0.html
"in Finland, Igbo language is even taught in some areas in schools because of the large number of half-Igbo-half -Finnish kids my brothers have sired all over the damn place."
Big Sister invented human rights so she could take black cock inside her cunt.
Do a search for "white women" on nairaland.com, and then consider Glenn Wilson's article which I've quoted again.
Social Darwinism is reality, you fucking morons who believe in 'equality'.
It's interesting that in Naomi Klein's book No Logo she writes about how harmful commercial brands are, and Breivik having his Lacoste fetish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin
Endorphins ("endogenous morphine") are endogenous opioid peptides that function as neurotransmitters.[1] They are produced by the pituitary gland and the hypothalamus in vertebrates during exercise,[2] excitement, pain, consumption of spicy food, love and orgasm,[3][4] and they resemble the opiates in their abilities to produce analgesia and a feeling of well-being.
http://www.heretical.com/toa/toa-s14d.html
Final word by Lasher:
Mental illness is the belief that you are entitled to the property of someone else.
