19 08 10 - 18:36Some time ago, our forum users asked interview questions of ANUS. We answer below. (Answers by Vijay Prozak, T.H. and K.S. with help from T.G.)
How exactly are the organizations ANUS, Corrupt, etc. working to better the world? Is it purely the spreading of information, so that educated people can be influenced, adhere to the worldview and start having children to go in jobs of power? I think that's a good choice, because that's what the jews do.
That is correct. Our goal is threefold:
(1) Achieve clarity about what ideals make sense, and what our plan would be for society, and publish it so that thinking people -- 5% of the population, maybe -- can read and understand.
(2) Unify as many people as possible around that ideal, probably about 2% of the population, as this group represents the "critical mass" required for vast change.
(3) Further our members and encourage them to take positions of power or entrepreneurial power in this society, so that they become "role models" and can communicate to others as well as taking action directly.
Ultimately, we believe in the local community (town/city under 100,000) as the defining unit of any society, and will support and foster candidacies in localities of our choosing.
Articles on the website seem to point out that there is some kind of "crash" coming, on which the author will "not spare the sword", the day when all the killing will occur. What is this situation, how is it expected to happen and why?
There's no crash coming. What's happening is a long, slow and steady decline into third world status. Third world status is not a geographical or racial designation, but describes the level of disorganization, corruption, oligarchy, filth and crime that afflicts dysfunctional civilizations. If you want to have a civilization, you need to be organized and have things like rule of law and values in common. When that falls apart, you no longer have consensus about what you want your civilization to be, and the result is anarchy. Anarchy favors criminals and perverts who create chaos, and the tyrants who pander to the normal citizens who want a strong leader to do away with these things. Over time, third world status dumbs your population down to having an average IQ in the 80-95 range, and at that point, so few people in the society can recognize an intelligent idea that any intelligent person is burned as a witch doctor.
As our society falls further into third world status, it will be time to take control of local areas and clean them up and start over. That's what we are ready to do, and in those circumstances, we cannot afford to spare anyone who is destructive to our objective. Perverts, criminals, idiots, retards and liars need to go the way of the compost heap. We derive this policy from the sensible idea of Genghis Khan, who when he invaded a city divided its population between those with trades or knowledge, and those who were unskilled labor simply because they were too incompetent to do anything else. He killed the unskilled, and kept the useful, and in many cases salvaged dying cities. We should do the same, especially since the real kicker on planet earth is overpopulation because overpopulation determines how much land we use or divide with fences, and each acre we use deprives a natural species of some of the land it needs to breed, hunt, frolic and nest. In addition, these lands (and seas) are responsible for regenerating our air and water, but they need to be relatively uninterrupted by our trash and presence to do that, and need their natural flora and fauna mostly intact. We have seven billion people on earth and most of them think nothing of throwing trash on the ground, committing slash and burn agriculture, or leaving huge mounds of toxic waste behind. That's what humanity needs to change, and it's why we cannot afford to be any more merciful than the Khan.
Most people like the idea of a crash because it's psychologically comforting. Things get bad, then worse, and suddenly everything blows up and it's over! How clean and tidy. The reality is that every third world nation out there today is the remains of a once-great civilization that couldn't get its act together, and decayed to the point of being little more than slightly educated chimpanzees.
I just read an interview on extremepolitics.org with a National Socialist who favors total extermination of all the races but caucasian. I want honesty: Does the organization support this kind of thinking? I know it doesn't right now (publicly) - but I don't feel it's too unreal that some day, out of nowhere, the organizations starts agreeing with the guy (or probably already agrees but doens't feel it's the time to say it yet) and feeling it is more realist that the caucasians will want to expand to other areas of the earth to conquer and reign.
We do not support this kind of thinking. We are Pan-Nationalists who believe in ethnic self-determination for every ethnic group. Further, we don't want to rule the world; we do want to bring it back from the point of decay into chaos, and that will require temporary totalitarian rule of enough of the earth to enact economic forces that achieve our desired results.
If ANUS somehow became dictator of Britain tomorrow would they ban burqas?
No, we'd separate ethnic populations from the indigenous Britons. They can wear burqas back in the middle east after they're deported.
Would ANUS ban McDonalds and Burger King?
Yes. Fast food would be banned for the following reasons:
- It employs, enriches and attracts idiots.
- Food quality is terrible at relatively high price.
- The raw amount of waste generated is insane.
- It's urban blight that makes city blocks ugly.
Same with nail salons, porno stores, pawn shops and other douchebag magnets.
And lastly name something typically British that ANUS would ban in the UK.
Probably the way they prepare meat by boiling it for 12 hours and then covering it in a "savory" sauce made from fermented fish testicles, or whatever that hideous gunk they call "food" is.
According to www.ANUS.com, what are the extended meanings of both AIDS and Goldfish? Are there any more colloquialisms often times used in the past or present?
AIDS: submission to the principle of taking it easy, instead of doing what is right and fixing situations that need fixing. You submit = you get sodomized by wild boars = you get the wild boar AIDS.
Goldfish: the average voter, of course. Open-mouthed gaping and vacant stare are essential!
ANUS has a rich language behind it, most of which is not my doing. We'd need to compile a dictionary to make sense of it.
What's the story behind "Pink Frothy AIDS"?
I believe it's a euphemism for Opeth, which is rock music pretending to be metal and appealing to the beta-male crowd with its pseudo-prog, pseudo-metal and all cheesy one-dimensional sentiment approach. It's for the kids in high school who had to feel "different" but weren't bright enough to get into hacking or theatre.
Does Prozak ever post here?
I do not. My time needs to go toward maintaining the site, and the forum is in capable hands (Kontinual and our Keepers).
What is he doing with in regards to ANUS and the DLA?
Currently writing reviews, with an eye toward publishing a full-length book on the origin of death metal.
WHAT'S HIS OBJECTIVE?
Clarity in the human experience, and also, offering a place for smart kids who don't get straight answers from society. We all grew up this way and wondered why adults didn't help out. Well, it's a tiny effort, but...
Is the site for the mass extermination of mentally retarded people (down's syndrome, etc.)?
I'm not sure the site cares about anything. It's a web site, and if you're a web site, you're pretty much free from existential questions and most likely, could care less.
ANUS as an organization recognizes that overpopulation is the greatest threat to our environment, and that low quality of individual humans is the greatest threat to humanity itself. Much as sickly trees in a forest fall prey to any wandering disease, and incubate it and make it stronger and then pass it on to other trees, or fall dead and provide timber for fire, stupid/dishonest/retarded/perverse/criminal people among us are a plague on all of humanity.
We support creation of localized "town councils" of wise elders to rule over each locality. As part of their job, they would eject problem people from the local area. This would take care of the ongoing problem.
As far as the crisis -- that we've bred seven billion people and very few of them are functional -- a culling is needed. If we don't do it, nature will, and much more randomly than we will. So it makes sense to take this opportunity and form a checklist for each person: is their IQ above 115? have they done positive things with their time so far? By about age 25 it's clear what people are about. The contributors stand out clearly, and people who have nothing to recommend themselves show a pattern of delusional thinking, a semi-sociopathic ethic of convenience and dedication to pleasing themselves, and because stupidity is required to have that as your only approach to life, are generally under 115 IQ points.
If we cull all such people, we will cut the human population down to under a half-billion; this provides a sustainable level of humanity. In addition, we will have ensured that the remaining people are of higher quality and so are unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the past, starting with breeding like rabbits which is the archetypal idiot response to environmental pressures -- a smart person response is to regulate one's own environment and/or organize with others to achieve a level of civilization so that you have political stability, low crime, soap, fresh water and food.
I've seen a lot of approval of mass murder, but you say a thing that brings national socialism down to you is the Holocaust. How so, if it was merely mass murder, and of an alien people to the germans?
The Holocaust is a horribly complex issue because almost no one is telling the truth. As far as I can ascertain, mostly from Albert Speer, the Holocaust began when Germany was frustrated with trying to export Jews fast enough.
Speer and others wanted to use them as slave labor; this was a stupid idea because if you're being used by slave labor as people who think you're subhuman, you sabotage them. German munitions failed at a higher rate than even the sloppy Allied bombs because the people making bombs, shells and rifle rounds hated their captors. I admire that resistance, but it was short-sighted, because when you're dealing with a totalitarian state that hates you, it's a bad idea to assume they won't start killing you.
It seems to me that very few German Jews perished, but in the lands Germany conquered, Jews faced two threats. First, in places like Poland or the Baltics, Jews were well known for their high representation in the Communist party, especially in Russia -- I think it was something like 38% of the Soviet high command were Jewish in that era -- and so were seen as a privileged, dictatorial, abusive minority (much the way the American left now sees Israel and by extension, Jews, for the treatment of Palestinians -- which is stupid because Palestinians, as a population lagging a standard deviation in average IQ behind their Jewish countrymen, are destined to become perpetual manual labor in Israel much the way Mexicans are in the USA; since Palestinians are a newer population than Jews and originate in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, it makes sense to repatriate them there). Because Jews were seen as a Communist elite, the locals couldn't wait to shoot them in front of open pits. Second, the Germans would bundle Jews up and ship them on to places like Auschwitz during the second half of the second world war. At this point, the veneer of tolerance had slipped and prisoners were worked nearly to death and then gassed and burned, or outright gassed and burned. Even worse, at that point Germany was being bombed to hell and so food and medicine were scarce. At this point the real tragedies happened.
I think the Holocaust was a stupid idea from start to finish. Speer, normally a genius in all things practical, seems to have forgotten that his slave labor would be resentful, and that Jews per their culture (and through that, genetics) have an abnormal capacity for resentment. Even more, they're smarter than average. Put those two things together and you have expert saboteurs! I admire the Jewish resistance during this period. Further, the Holocaust was an enterprise much like make-work jobs today. It was easier than going to fight on the Eastern Front, and became a sort of boilerplate under which a German officer could claim to be doing something important when really he was avoiding more important things. On a purely practical level, the Holocaust was a disaster for the German war effort, resulting in resources applied to dead ends and sabotaged munitions. Hitler is much to blame for this, as he was unwilling to mobilize the German population to work as hard and deprive themselves as much as populations under Allied rule, at least until it was so late in the war that deprivation became inevitable.
Finally, I think the Holocaust was a spiritual turd -- for both Germans and today's Jews. For Germans, it induced a sense of doing dirty work that was highly unpleasant and unrelated to a creative goal. You cannot approach life with the attitude that if you just destroy the bad, only the good will be left; you have to create the next level of evolution above the bad, and while you have to destroy some of it, when it becomes obsessive it makes you into a monster. Of course, when Germany lost the war things went really badly, and the world used the Holocaust to further their mythos of the evil, insane, megalomaniac Hitler and the delusional Germans worshiping him! For Jews, the Holocaust has replaced positive Jewish identity with passive aggression. It's no longer "hey, we converted the Hindu and Greek spiritual systems into the underpinning morality of the West for the last 2,000 years" but "don't yell at me, I'm Jewish and since we suffered in the Holocaust, I am beyond criticism." The left has picked up on this attitude and they smell blood, because when your only political issue is human equality, you make the same mistake the Nazis did and go crazy trying to beat down those who have risen above.
Instead of a Holocaust, I think people in WWII should have calmed down and approached the issue rationally. Hitler needed to employ German women, children and elderly more in the production of munitions. Speer needed to be able to demand that, and he couldn't reason with Hitler and upper staff, which was a failure of the artistic temperment of Hitler more than the Fuhrerprinzip itself. Jews and Germans needed to read Theodor Herzl's work and realize that Jews want a different type of society than Europe does; Jews would be happier in the multicultural, cosmopolitan, intensely artistic Israel that Herzl envisioned in his novels. Further, European Christian and Middle Eastern Jewish religions are heading in opposite directions although they have lots of common ground; Judaism is inherently reductionist, while European Paganism (and hence European Christianity) is inherently mystical and idealistic. Judaism itself needed time to sort itself out, since the religion is like Christianity a hodge-podge of Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Roman and Hindu thought. Jews as a population need time to self-define -- they are probably the world's first population to go thoroughly multicultural, and the resulting instability crushed them for centuries before the diaspora and still remains unresolved. Are they European? Eastern European? Asian? Middle Eastern? Jews are the only ones who can figure this out.
In addition to the Holocaust being stupid on its own, it creates a mess for us today. We have seven billion people on this planet and most of them are morons. If we even talk about thinning the herd, even by sterilizing people, we get compared to Auschwitz and Mengele (terrifyingly, some of our best early neurological research came from Nazi doctors who did unspeakable things including vivisection, but from it were able to observe the human organism much as we do with lab animals -- this, too, should be brought back with murderers and rapists, who can repay their debt to society through being medical research subjects). In summary, I think the Holocaust sucks, which is an even greater shame since Germans have invented 90% of everything worth doing or using in life, and Jews probably created the remaining 10%. Where would we be without Salk, Einstein, Feynman, Pinker, Herzl, and Scott Ian from Anthrax? This is why we will never support the Holocaust here at ANUS, and we'll oppose National Socialism until it gets over this fanaticism.
Now, I understand this site is pro-ethnic pride and anti-racism. Yet, I've noticed more than a few comments, usually from members in the upper hierarchy, about how Slavs are inferior, Slavs aren't real Europeans, Slavs should be exterminated, etc. While I'm half Polish, I understand these comments, and feel no bitterness: There is a historic struggle between Russia and Western Europe, and there's a fuckload of useless people who are Slavic. The real question is, why openly condone the massacre of Slavs (I recall a post from Conservationist saying Germany should reinvade Russia and kill them all off; then there's the user "Dinaric Leather"), and yet get butthurt towards someone assailing any other ethnic group, ie Africans or the Irish, despite the fact that a good many of them are also low-IQ and uncivilized by our standards. Why the double standard? Is this white guilt? Is there a grudge against the Slavs for not holding off the Mongols, or for catalyzing far-left sentiments?
I think our goal is to be realistic about all things, including all human biodiversity issues. However, the point is not to belabor it. I think the Slav bashing mostly came about when the far-right started to get this moony "the Russians are our future" attitude, most notably exemplified by Varg Vikernes. I believe you said:
"There is a historic struggle between Russia and Western Europe, and there's a fuckload of useless people who are Slavic."
There you have it. Poles are, by the way, not "Slavic" per se -- they are mostly Slavic with high amounts of Baltic and Germanic (Prussian) blood. Most are a hybrid of East Baltid and Slavic phenotypes. We have in the past been hard on the Irish. I tend to think the Africans already get enough flak for the obvious, which is that evolution branched and those who pushed themselves farthest (north European, north Asian) got a significant boost in intelligence. I guess my article "The African Superman" expresses my sentiments most clearly: in all racial groups, average IQs are averages; individuals will exceed. Take the smart individuals who are also healthy and moral and breed them into an aristocracy, and oppress/exterminate the rest.
There is antipathy at ANUS toward neo-Nazis and "white nationalists," most of whom are equal parts Slavic and Irish. We like to recognize reality wherever we see it, and clearly Southern and Eastern Europe are disaster populations compared to Western Europe, and the average IQ statistics back up this observation. Ireland and France are also outliers with average IQs in the middle 90s; in Ireland's case, it's very simple neolithic remnants making up much of the population, but in France's case, it is most likely a result of the extermination of their aristocrats, who were (as all aristocrats are) substantially smarter than their subjects.
I don't really like the white people patting themselves on the back and saying, "See, we're all white, that means we're all smart." Individuals vary among the white ethnies and many white people are dumb as bricks and I'd like to see them replaced with smart Asians, Africans or other Caucasians. Stupidity is the enemy of humanity, and it is the cause of most destruction in this world.
A little bird once told me that Prozak stole or otherwise appropriated his ideas about metal from other hessians in the early days of the internet. Is there any truth to this? Not that it would diminish the validity of his ideas.
Did I steal my ideas? Which ideas? I have been heavily influenced by every person or idea I have encountered that seems valid to me, but I was the ultimate arbiter of those ideas. The early years of my youth were spent discussing classical music with family members and various choir and music teachers, then during my college years I talked music extensively with people at the radio station where I worked, and my friends who were masterful musicians. After that, I got to know many death metal musicians and writers about death metal. All of these became influences where I felt they were correct; many ideas were also rejected (Primus is still garbage, jazz is for morons). I had to go through several learning stages, molting like a caterpillar each time I passed through one and leaving behind a detritus of ideas that were formerly good enough but eventually became not inclusive enough. There was also extensive reading about music, and playing of an instrument plus vocal performances. Overall, I'd say my attitude about music comes mostly from reading the literature of the past about classical music, and that has been my biggest influence. However, I am sure influence was taken from others, so I'd have to say there is "truth" to what you say, but extremely partial truth. I don't believe any of us have any truly original ideas; what I do is not to have ideas, so much as to hold the line about what is realistic and to point out the various attributes of things that most people deny or did not notice. Like that Opeth is pink frothy AIDS.