16 01 11 - 15:36
Sometime 400 years ago, as our civilization prospered, the decision was made to modernize. This came about through a belief in the equality of all human beings and a drive toward external mechanisms, namely technology and political control systems. Guillaume Faye, the seasoned rising star of the New Right movement in Europe, explores our correction of this mistake in his landmark book Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age
Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age, by Guillaume Faye (review and purchase link)
15 01 11 - 20:01
The idea that language controls thinking is nothing new. Starting in the 1990s, armed with the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, various busybodies began claiming it was "scientific" to change our thinking by changing our words. The idea was that if we stop using pejorative terms, we'll see the people we were criticizing as humans, and thus live in peace. Obviously, this is a prick move:
- It assumes we have no reasons for our criticism. We just accidentally dislike these people, or got bad information. We didn't think over the situation and make a choice.
- It wants to control language so it can control our minds. While on the surface it's a speech code, underneath it's an ideological brainwashing.
- It assumes it knows better than us.
- It is intolerant of the desire of anyone anywhere to live differently than what our "progressive" overlords deem just; in fact, if those people try to live as they have for centuries with the moral beliefs they have, they'll be told they are ignorant and in will come the state to "re-educate" everyone.
- It belittles its subjects by turning them into political tokens and, by forcing others to "tolerate" them, makes them unsure whether they are actually liked or just grudgingly tolerated (that's the original use of that word).
But don't let that stop the liberal crusade: too many former potato-pickers and do-nothings are now making good money as professional busybodies, rising inside the system instead of on their own merits. They are forces of passive decay.
Luckily, any trend gets most "strong" -- really, most cartoonlike -- shortly before it drops dead from lack of momentum, and that's what is happening with political correctness. When political correctness was in competent hands, no one would have made these missteps. Instead, they've handed it to the incompetents because the smarter people have moved on to the next trend.
Canadian radio station have been warned to censor the 1985 Dire Straits hit "Money for Nothing," after a complaint that the lyrics of the Grammy Award-winning song were derogatory to gay men.
A St. John's, Newfoundland, station should have edited the song to remove the word "faggot" because it violates Canada's human rights standards, according to ruling this week by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
"The decision doesn't really relate to the Dire Straits song at the end of the day, the decision relates to the word in question," Ron Cohen, the council's chairman, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
The ruling comes in the wake of an uproar sparked by a U.S. scholar who decided to publish an edition of Mark Twain's novel "Huckleberry Finn" that would remove the word "n*****" to make it less offensive to some readers. - From Dot-Com Miracle to Penny Stock
Context is dead, as is the need to re-interpret what we consider "truths"; there is now an official truth, and it has been formulated by We The People meaning the most numerous and least engaged in more constructive things, and they're going to force it upon you -- because they fear your ability to see through them, and to see that they are not as smart as they think they are, or have secret degraded habits, or are simply dishonest and hollow plastic people. They want to stop that and so they're on a jihad against people who can know better, and their method is "knowing better" in that nanny-cum-Stalinist sense that makes us queasy but we can't quite identify why.
07 01 11 - 18:34
An unusual approach to conservatism, yet one that would have seemed sensible 200 years ago:
When you think of conservative you think of fundamentalist religion, rock-solid proven formulas, social restraint and a seemingly religious need to punish the bad and have some heroes we praise above all else.
But existentialism, or the idea that we grow as we interact with life and therefore that life should involve great beauty and promise, is actually a conservative concept. (Iâm setting aside theological existentialism, or âexistence before essence,â because science has basically replaced predetermination with genetic determinism.)
In my mind, existentialism is a way of saying that we cannot live for either (a) a central authority or (b) an obsessive morality of helping others. Instead we must live through reverence for life, and through celebrating its beauty, transcend its ugliness. In other words, we donât exist to fight evil; we fight evil so that we have more beauty, more pleasure, more adventure!
The Existentialist Case for Conservatism
05 01 11 - 06:52
Prozak's theorem of distributedness: nature expands in all directions simultaneously.
If a predator wants prey, but doesn't want to be a predator, what do they become? A parasite. A passive-aggressive form of predator. It doesn't attack you; it lies in wait. It looks for your weakness, inches up toward it, and then attaches. But it never attacked.
The Armillaria ostoyae, popularly known as the honey mushroom, started from a single spore too small to see without a microscope. It has been spreading its black shoestring filaments, called rhizomorphs, through the forest for an estimated 2,400 years, killing trees as it grows. It now covers 2,200 acres (880 hectares) of the Malheur National Forest, in eastern Oregon.
The outline of the giant fungus stretches 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometres) across, and it extends an average of three feet (one metre) into the ground. It covers an area as big as 1,665 football fields. - The Independent
What if you became a parasite, but didn't want to be one?
Such is the plight of immigrants who are not from similar enough societies to immediately integrate into a population. The majority becomes the granter of favors, because nothing functions seamlessly as it did at home: finding housing, a job, even shopping, can be a mystery. So the new population arrives first as supplicants.
In any sane society they are immediately converted to labor, so that they have a place and can begin integrating. However, if the two societies are dissimilar enough, the integration doesn't happen, making this experience a lie. Values, abilities and tendencies clash. As a result, the minority gets tired of being the supplicant who gets paid a decent salary but one lower than the average among the majority, and they get tired of the "summer home" effect. Their house never feels like home. It's like a very, very extended vacation in a new strange world.
Greece has announced plans to build a 12km (eight-mile) fence along part of its border with Turkey to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing.
The area has become the main route into Greece for migrants from Africa and Asia with an average of 245 people crossing illegally every day in October 2010, according to Frontex, the EU's border agency.
In a statement, Mr Papoutsis said Greece could "no longer tolerate this".
"Greek society has exceeded its limit in its capacity to accommodate illegal immigrants," he said.
"This is the hard reality and we have an obligation to the Greek citizen to deal with it." - BBC
In the immigration drama, in which rich Western countries (remember those Western civilization
textbooks?) admit third-world people who come seeking better salaries. Normally, the politically correct thing to say is that they come "seeking a better life." However, that's happy horseshit. They come seeking the cash and figure the rest will fall into line.
Unknown to both majority and minority, the situation is entirely unworkable. The minority will never fully be accepted, in part because they're in a menial labor role but in part because they're not of the majority, in language, customs, values, abilities, culture or heritage. The majority will always be resented by the minority, because the majority is the giver of things and the exploiter of labor. This means that anything given to the minority represents a control relationship, and the minority resents it.
Modern Western civilization (MWC) is in denial of this slaves-n-masters relationship because we find it socially and aesthetically appalling. "Us? Use people as wage slaves? Never!!!" they demand. But reality is what it is, and if you're enjoying having someone mow your lawn for $20, there's certainly a reason the labor is so cheap. Many economists seem to think this is OK, but the problem it creates is similar to socialism: the cheaper and easier you make labor, the less competitive your society becomes. If you subsidize everyone, soon no one excels. If you make everything cheap, it all gets reduced to the lowest common denominator and soon you're not making anything of note -- you're doing fancy stuff on a desk, and passing the raw labor to people who resent you.
When the majority strikes back, the minority does what all humans do when they are attacked: counterattack, and since they're in a recipient position, they attack the gift-givers on the premise that the gift was unfairly portioned.
The law bans classes that promote the overthrow of the United States government and resentment toward a race or class of people. Also outlawed are courses designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group and those that advocate ethnic solidarity rather than treat students as individuals.
Professor Rodriguez says itâs not the first time such programs have been singled out, but now âitâs being acted upon.â He views the stateâs ethnic studies and immigration laws as attacks on all Hispanics and as reasons why some people might refer to Arizona as âthe new south.â - CSM
Welcome to playing by the same rules that the majority white people have been playing by for decades, Professor Rodriguez. Do you think it's unfair? I agree, it is. But it's not the problem, it's the symptom. The real problem is that the majority-minority relationship forces one group into a role as parasite, and the other as oblivious victim, sewing the seeds for future discontent.
What happens when a forest wakes up to find that a mushroom colony has spread like a cancer among it, killing off trees by the thousand? Probably nothing. If those trees could walk, talk and shoot? That might be a much bigger mess indeed.
01 01 11 - 06:42
From the increasingly poetic downfall of modern society, subset the decline of America to third-world status:
"What could I have done differently?" asked Jeffers, who along with the girl's mother, Leah Yang, has been keeping vigil in Palo Alto for nearly a month. He wonders, he said, whether he should have pushed harder to get his daughter care in the emergency room where the family waited for five hours to see a doctor. - Sacramento Bee
What makes third world status? Lack of clue as to how to run an organized society. You can speculate on the many reasons for that on your own, but let's just say that while diversity helps destroy a society, it's not the ONLY path to third world status. You can do it in Europe like Eastern Europe and much of Southern Europe has.
I wouldn't read more of the article, unless you like to read about horrible shit happening to little people. I don't, but there's two important things to think about:
- Socialized health care distributes resources evenly, not accurately. If you go into the emergency room, you get the same care as anyone else -- and that means that unless they immediately recognize your problem as serious, they're on to the next person because they have a lot of people waiting. And more will show up, since it's free, and you can't turn them away either.
- Genetics are a factor. We don't have pictures of the parents, but their last names are Jeffers and Yang. Confused much? Here's what the article says: One of Malyia's doctors at Stanford, Deborah Franzon, said a combination of the girl's genetics and an unusually virulent strain of Strep A probably combined to make her so sick.. Wish they'd elaborate but they probably can't. If you breed with people who are like your ancestors, however, you run the least risk of having genetic problems, at least until your breeding pool drops below 200 and you inbreed too much. The mainstream media would like you to believe the exact opposite but they don't get much right, do they?
Should be good watching the contortions that come from this. The painful maiming of a child always brings out the pandering that's implicit in Democracy.
01 01 11 - 06:13
Many of you now have tablets, smart phones, ebook readers or other portable devices that are optimized for you to read documents on them. To that end, one of our readers, Vivian C., decided to make you a PDF archive that we're calling The Portable ANUS
in mocking deference to Penguin Books
You can download it here:
The Portable ANUS, 5.8mb
Document created by Vivian C.