Anime As Prophecy, the Case of Armitage III

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

I know many of you will be surprised by this, but someone on the Internet likes anime. Now there are several broad categories of anime. The broadest, of course is (1) “What I  Like”, and (2) Crap. However, that isn’t very useful for most discussions, so I will divide the “What I Like” category up a bit. I like anime that makes you think without being preachy. Anime that makes you think is further divided into two categories, Light and Dark. Light, thoughtful anime would include a large swathe of Studio Ghibli (notable exception is Grave of the Fireflies). The other category includes Akira, Ghost In the Shell, Jin-Roh, and Armitage III.

The thing about thoughtful anime is that it brings up questions that retain their relevance over time. The recurring idea of humanity’s relationship to nature, what does it mean to be human, etc, etc.

Armitage III Intro Clip

Armitage III was an OVA put out in 1995. Thankfully, a movie of hacked together scenes was dubbed and released to Americans. This is when I first saw it. This caused me to pick up The Complete Saga, which contains the Original OVA (far superior), the pieced together Poly-Matrix, and the sequel Dual-Matrix.

There are going to be some spoilers here, however, the anime is over two decades old. While I hope you will still watch it, most people won’t.

So, the set-up involves the Human Ross Syllibus and the Android Naomi Armitage. Whenever I see the name Naomi, I have to do a check to see if it's a reference to Jun'ichirō Tanizaki. In this case, it isn't, or at least I don't believe it is. Ross flees to Mars in hopes of dealing with various issues. His partner was killed by cyborgs (or androids) leaving him with a lingering prejudice against both. This is combined with his increasing reliance on various prosthetics as various body parts have a tendency to get blown up in his line of work. This is one of the questions asked by this movie, where is the line between human and non-human. Naomi is the titular character. She is a secret android of a previously unknown type, the Type III (or Thirds). There existence is revealed rather early in the series.

The type III is an android developed with the mental faculties of a human. Actually, from the examples in the Anime, they are actually better than most humans. Their bodies are (ala terminator) flesh and metal. The primary conflict of the series is that someone is killing off the type III androids. These androids had been embedded within society without anyone being the wiser. Those who knew the deceased were shocked to find out that they were androids.

As the story unfolds, we find that a shadowy cabal is doing the killing, Ross gets over his hangups. Armitage gets over hers (”If humans don’t want me, why did they create me?”). They fall in love and they change their names and go into hiding. This sets up things for the sequel.

The shadowy cabal is where it gets interesting. Mars, being a colony, was settled by (mostly) men. Earth had finally achieved the Feminist dream and Feminists were in control. This led to obvious friction between the two planets. Earth had the upper hand however, as without women, there would be no one to bear the next generation of Martians. Shades of "Mars Needs Women", perhaps. Thus the third was invented. Fully sentient gynoids capable of bearing children. It should be noted that they were not ‘enslaved’ nor ‘coerced’. Many were prominent in various artistic and social circles. It seems that none had found mates or produced children (though one of the murdered thirds was pregnant).

As happens with long term projects, things change before they come to fruition. The Martian government came to an accord with the Terran government. The requirement for this reconciliation was the elimination of the threat to the Terran Feminist, the III. The data dump of this is about midway through the fourth and final episode, in case you missed the foreshadowing in the prior three episodes.

Now, I really enjoy the Armitage III anime. As I said, I bought the DVD set. However, what really got me thinking about it was the various diatribes of Feminist anti-Sex Robot rhetoric. A simple Google search will find various opinions on Sexbots and their impact on feminism. MGTOW types view them as detrimental to (latter-stage) feminism, and, given their opposition, later-stage feminism seems to agree.

Now, it has long been recognized that sex is the primary weapon women have over men. It’s been true for centuries. It forms the premise of the Greek play Lysistrada, circa 411 BC. Frankly, men will put up with a lot if the end result is sex. A lot of selfish, self-destructive behavior has been tolerated purely because women decide who they will or will not have sex with. As is common with most socio-political activity, the extreme tends to mobilize the center. Even women who aren’t radical feminists like the idea of more power and authority, so they act in solidarity with the more extreme elements. This has led to an ever increasing set of laws and regulations designed to give more and more agency to women by regulating the one thing men really care about and which they cannot get from anyone else.

Enter the sexbot. Now I remember seeing Real Dolls in the mid/late-90s. I’ve also kept an eye on android research in East Asia. It is rather fascinating, and it was inevitable that these two things would meet. As long as it could be stigmatized as a pet project by low market males that confirms their undesirability, Sexbots could be ignored. However, dissatisfaction with the subjugation of men by women (often codified into law), certain movements (of varying levels of repute) have arisen that called into question whether the refusal to engage in the modern dating game was actually a signifier of low market value. Either way, it seems that, for many men, the limit of what they will put up with for decreasingly satisfying sexual activity has been reached.

"Sex is Boring" clip from Sid & Nancy

So yeah, I don’t really think that an Armitage III scenario will occur within my lifetime, and I doubt that androids capable of reproduction will occur, but I do think that, should the sexbot gain enough traction before the feminists can squash it, it will lead to a radical re-evaluation of male-female relationships. If all a woman offers is sex, sex which can be satisfactorily filled by sexbots, women will have to come up with something else in order to entice men. This may lead to a world where women revert to more traditional roles, or some new expression may be carved out. We may enter a world where high-value men have multiple high value women, and everyone else has sex robots to reduce tensions. Who knows?

To be fair I should probably mention the doomsday scenario. This is the current trend anyway, with sex often being an inadequate substitute for masturbation and the demands of Modernist society (which rates motherhood and children as undesirable) leading to lowered birth rates. There is a concern that sexbots (both male and female) will lead to a world were reproductive needs are sublimated and a viable population is no longer available, in which case, we would stop breeding and the human race will die out. I suppose the question here is how many people are really necessary for a viable population.

Second part of Armitage III intro clip

I Hope you enjoyed these musings.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will

Not really a citation, but this site came to my attention before recording this:
https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/

Armitage III

Sargon/Spencer/Styx Video and the Liberalist Movement (with unrelated montage of pretty women)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

This was originally in my Video Blog notes, but since it grew too long, I split it out.

Over on Minds, I’ve been commenting on the Sargon/Spencer/Styx video.

• I knew Sargon was popular, but I never realized how much.
• Let me preface by stating that, while I watched Sargon’s commentary on his performance, and some other related videos, I did not watch the original video which clocks in at about 4 and a half hours..
• I made it to 20 minutes before I had to stop
• I should mention that Sargon was late, so I only really watched about five minutes with him in it.
• Styx, Spencer, and Tara were having a discussion that might have become interesting.
• Now I should point out that Spencer was hostile and rude.
• However, Sargon has made a name for himself by being rude.
• And if he can’t handle people being rude back, he should stop 
• However, Sargon pretty much lost it.
• He descended into emotionalism
• He kept trying to parrot his talking points even though they weren’t relevant
• In short, he acted just like your typical SJW.
• Now, I am subscribed to Sargon and I will watch some of his shorter videos.
• I don’t find his longer videos to be a good return on my investment.
• In the 80s/90s, I spent a fair amount of time in coffee shops in and around various campuses.
• We spent a lot of time high as a kite theorizing about things.
• I often feel like I am at a table next to some people doing this when I listen to Sargon.
• To put it another way, I don’t feel that Sargon has a very deep understanding of the material he espouses.
• He can easily overcome your typical SJW, leftist, or progressive.
• However, anyone who has studied history, philosophy, etc, etc will beat him as handily as he beats the SJWs
• This was demonstrated in the video where he debated Spencer.
• Spencer is by no means the most informed member of the alt-right.
• However, he is rather informed in his area. People who I know, who are rather knowledgeable and who are on the alt-right, criticize Spencer’s capabilities as a debater.
• Now let me preface that I cringed at the usage of the term “Rights “ being used for the state.
• While a state may have certain rights granted to it by other states
• What they were discussing was power, the states power over the individual for the express purpose of maintaining the society.
• While we can quibble over the coercive nature of the “Social Contract” for subsequent generations, the idea is that the state protects its citizens and its citizens give it power over them.
• When Sargon trotted out Locke’s definition of a society, he was quoting an ideal.
• I.e., it doesn’t exist and is (likely) impossible to implement in its pure form.
• We can hold an ideal as a yardstick for evaluating the acceptability of the practice
• However, we should not conflate the two.
• When Spencer, admittedly rudely, pointed out the irrelevance of the quote as an answer to the question
• Sargon lost it
• This, to me, indicates that Sargon has not thought about the issue and its ramifications
• He should have considered how what he desires, the ideal, differs from what is.
• He should have thought about why this discrepancy is and whether it needs to be rectified or not, and how he would go about rectifying it.

What saddens me the most about this is that I really wanted to know what the various people thought on the issue(s).

• What do Spencer, Styx, and Sargon mean when they use the term “Race Realism”.
• I know what I mean, but what do they mean?
• Likewise, the nuances of State, ethnic or otherwise, economics, etc
• The only way to correctly counter an error (if such errors exist) is to accurately define the error
• Otherwise we fall into the fallacy of straw man.

I don’t really want to get to deeply into the whole “Liberalist” thing, but

• I think that Sargon is seriously underestimating the amount of work required to run a group &/or movement.
• As much as you may dislike Spencer or Falarca, you have to admit they spend a lot of time running their groups.
• People who have little organizational experience often underestimate the amount of work required.
• Take it from someone who has started four groups, co-founded another, and been an officer in several others
• Just as a side note, I ended two of the four groups as I was (as I feel Sargon is) unprepared to manage them
• The other two were passed onto others & I believe they are also no more.
• I am no longer affiliated with the group I co-founded.
• Trust me, it will either get taken over by someone who knows what they are doing or collapse.
• If it gets taken over by someone else it will probably go in a direction Sargon does not desire
• I expect even more drama if this even gets off the ground.

I really wish there was a transcript of the debate, so I could read the whole thing rather than suffering through 4 plus hours.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood

Love is the law, love under will

Citations and Notes

The Sargon/Spencer/Styx video

Sargon’s response video

Some articles on Counter Currents:

An Identitarian, a Civic Nationalist, & a Classical Liberal Walk into a Stream (the Third One Cucks)

The Skeptic War

Articles on Minds.Com

Sargon and the liberalist movement

The Problem with Sargon of Akkad and the Liberalists

Opening:

Kai Engel

Chant Of Night Blades

Deathless: The Renaissance

Download: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Kai_Engel/Deathless_The_Renaissance

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Ending:

Coil

The Hellbound Heart

Hellraiser Themes

https://www.discogs.com/Coil-Hellraiser-Themes/release/130646

What is Religion? [Video Script]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

Religion gets a bad rap, perhaps deservedly so. However, I find that most critiques are rather shallow. They focus on one aspect of a religion and act as if that one aspect is representative of the whole. Some of the better ones will focus on two of the aspects and compare them for inconsistencies.

Perhaps I should take a second to define religion as I use the term. Religion used to mean belief in god and the religious body devoted to that god (i.e., church, synagogue, mosque). As we came to understand non-European conceptions of spirituality, the term was broadened to include such things as Buddhism and Taoism.

Religion, as I tend to use it, is the conception of how the *I* perceives its relationship to the *not-I*. Typically, this has a supernatural component, as the not-I tends to take on an eternal quality. To put it another way, it is the conception of what is, what was, and what shall be, combined with the conception of the self’s relationship to what is, what was, and what shall be.

Technically speaking, this means that there are many secular religions. Humanism, Communism, Fascism, Atheism, etc. all posit a worldview (i.e., what was, is, and shall be) and the self’s relationship to that worldview.

So religion, the driving force for civilization (see my video “On Reality”). Religion is, at its core, the embodiment of a societies values, ideals, dreams, and aspirations. It provides guidance for what a given culture finds “good” and what it despises as “evil”. It dictates the roles and bounds of our interactions with other members of our culture and with the outsider.

However, religion, even within a given culture, is far from monolithic. Aside from differences in interpretations of myth and scripture, religion also differs by virtue of its practitioners. The three broad categories I find useful are Scriptural, Elite, and Folk. These three divisions map to the classic castes of Priest, Aristocrat, and Commoner. Note that some societies also have a merchant class, whose members align, religiously, with either the Folk or Elite customs (or are outsiders). Now these aren’t strictly delineated, and there is overlap. They are more akin to what Bourdieu describes as the interaction of habitus, fields, and doxa, which I view as analogous to a template.

When most people talk about a religion, other than their own, they tend to focus on the scriptural. The bible, the Tao Teh King, the Koran, the Torah, etc. They will often supplement this with commentary by the priesthood (or its equivalent), thus we get Augustine, Changtse, the Hadiths, and the Talmud. This is informative. It puts forth the official ideals held by that cultural group.

Pendant to the scriptural form of a religion, we have the elite interpretation. The elites used to be synonymous with the aristocracy, but in today’s modern world, this function is held by the affluent, educated class. Here we tend to find the esoteric, or occult, variations. Philosophy, other religions, and science are brought into, and incorporated into, the elites’ understanding of the scriptural religion. This is where the Hermetic disciplines grew and flourished.

In another branch from the scriptural form, we have the folk traditions. These are typically formed by what is now termed the working class, though of old they were the peasants and slaves. These practices are a combination of older religious traditions and outright superstitions. Sometimes the scriptural form is nothing more than a cloak for the continuation of the aboriginal practices, such as with the start of Santaria, or (more commonly) they are an incorporation of previous traditions that were too strong to be displaced (such as the Catholic Cult of the Saints). This is where your hedge-witch or kitchen-witch mythos arose.

Now a holistic understanding of a peoples’ culture must take into account all three aspects of a cultures’ religion. In the case of the Universalistic religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) it becomes even more complicated. Christianity shares a common scripture, but the Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and Calvinist derivatives (which are further subdivided) must take into account the various differentiations within each cultural group. The folk and elite customs of the Anglican Communion in Ethiopia are a far cry from those in the United States. With Buddhism, the differences are even more striking, as the different sects adopted different scriptures so that Nikāya and Mahayana Buddhism are barely related in the scriptural sense.

It should be pointed out that these three aspects are not isolated. They are in constant communion with each other. They inform and modify each other. Also, the priesthood, which is the guardian of the scriptural tradition, is often pulled from the other two groups, the thoughts and ideas of the elites and folk are constant influences on the interpretation of the scriptural tradition. Likewise, as the priesthood are the guides of the spiritual life of both the elites and folk, the scriptural interpretation is constantly being exposed to the other two groups. The village priest is quite likely to leave out a bowl of milk for the hobs, if not from belief then to express solidarity with his rural flock.

Essentially, what I am getting at is that Religion is a complex, multi-faceted phenomena. Most criticism, even when it manages to go beyond “Hur,hur, dey so stupid”, seldom takes in this complexity. In fact, they take this complexity and use it as if it supported their opposition. To say that some folk tradition is in conflict with a scriptural doctrine is about as logical as criticizing Buddhism as being false because Zen is at odds with Tibetian Buddhism.

To recap, Religion is the codification and inspiration for a culture’s values. It translates the metaphysics into a sensible form which instructs and informs the members of its culture. Depending on the circumstances of one’s position within said society, one’s relationship with the religious tradition will vary. The most useful major divisions of a religion are into its Scriptural, Elite, and Folk interpretations. These interpretations form a dynamic relationship constantly influencing and reinforcing each other. To decry the fact that a folk interpretation is at odds with an elite or scriptural one is as pointless as claiming that Priest A thinks X, but Priest B thinks Y, so obviously the whole religion is false. This is as silly as when the creationists argue that evolution is false because of the discrepancy between punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will

Antifa, it's ok to admit you don't know [Video Script]

— Initial Clip [Antifa doesn’t recognize flag]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

Antifa, I say this in all seriousness. It’s OK to just admit you don’t know something. Also, just because you don’t recognize something does not mean that it is automatically fascist, white supremacist, or nazi. Now, I admit that your perception of everything outside of what your finite mind knows as being white supremacist is indicative. However, I am not a psychotherapist.

When I first watched the news clip, that statement just struck me as wrong. Blue is not a common color for Nazis or White Supremacists. A quick Google search for “White Flag, blue square, red cross” brought up the proper entry.

—Image [Wikipedia]

Now some might claim that a religion founded by a Jew and of which the majority of adherents worldwide are not ethnically European (or Caucasian, or “white”) is inherently white supremacist, but that is just too stupid to be taken seriously.

Now I lived in Portland, Oregon for many years. Hawthorne Bridge is a rather busy thoroughfare and you aren’t supposed to cross it like that. Hell, cars aren’t even supposed to change lanes at that point. So, on the topic of stupidity…

— Second Clip [Hit by truck]

I may have mentioned, but I was a anarcho-punk in the 80s. Many things about antifa confuses me and makes me think that they are candy-assed wusses. We confronted Christians, Hicks, and Republicans all the time. However, we didn’t pretend otherwise. We hated Christians, so we harassed them. Likewise with the other groups. When the police came, we didn’t try to pretend that our virtue made us immune to the consequences. Their opposition merely confirmed our view that the system was corrupt.  They claim the system is corrupt (as it doesn’t conform to their worldview), but they act as if it isn’t. By their actions, they indicate that they know, subconsciously, that their words are a lie. I’ll try and work up a video on the difference between professed and actual values.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will

VLOG (171223) - OpenShot, Audacity, Toxic Masculinity [Script]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

Welcome to my first standalone video blog. I used to embed these into my content, but I think that Zarathrustra’s Serpent made a good point about keeping the video focused on the topic. I’ll try and keep all of these disparate elements separate and post them in a semi-regular video blog post. So…

• I have switched my video editing software. I Was using Lightworks, which is an undeniably powerful program, but I found it less than intuitive.
• I work full time and am a single parent, I don’t have time to fight with the software.
• I am now using Openshot. It has the added benefit of being an open-source project
• While I use Windows 10, I am also a fan of Linux (Currently running the latest Ubuntu)
• Stallman was one of the few Commies who did good, imo.
• You may have noticed the prior video was very simple as I am still learning the software
• This one will probably be simple as well, but I hope to gradually add elements and complexity
• For the first time, as I was putting together the video from its pieces, I did not feel frustrated and at war with my video editor.
• Now my main concern is learning how to use Audacity
• I’ve watched some tutorials and I think the sound is better now.
• The sequence of steps involves abusing the hell out of the effects menu.
• Get the noise profile off of the first few seconds of silence & apply it to the whole clip
• Run the compressor effect. I use a setting of -12, though you may need to set it higher or lower.
• From the Equalizer, give it a bass boost, then a treble boost.
• I found it necessary to redo the noise reduction at this point.
• Set a limiter, settings of hard limiter from -2 to -5. I use -2.
• Finally run normalize.
• Let me know if it sounds better. My last video was done with this sequence.
• It makes me think of make-up, a lot of work for that natural feel.
• On the reading front, I took a break with some mind candy.
• I am currently reading Barb Hendee’s Mist-Torn series, but I am kind of stuck on the third book.
• I also plan on re-reading Liber ABA part I (the yoga and meditation portion of Magick)

For some reason, I’ve been seeing a lot of videos on Toxic Masculinity

• A Common theme has been the ideal of men repressing their emotions.
• This is in error. Men who show no emotions are not respected. They are actually feared as being broken.
• Men are expected to be in control of their emotions, to not let their emotions get the better of them.
• The reasons for this are many, but the primary beneficiary of this is women.
• Men control their emotions so they can provide support for women.
• The classic and stereotypical image of the hero holding & supporting the sobbing heroine captures this
• Being stoic allows the woman to reach catharsis by getting it out of their system.

I’ve started watching both Tim Pool and Styxhexenhammer666

• I’ve found that I don’t really like “cringe”
• Most of the reaction videos are little better than “You’re dumb (hehehe)”, so I don’t enjoy most of those.
• Tim Pool tends to be more topical than I normally like, but he does it well and the videos tend to clock in at around 15m
• Styxhexenhammer666 seems to have a focus similar to my channel’s, but he is way more prolific. He also seems to have let the Socio-political and Topical content dominate over the occulture. We will see.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood

Love is the law, love under will

A seasonal prayer and ancient drama

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

About a decade and a half ago, I got into a spot of trouble for a seasonal prayer. I had posted it to a Thelemic Community Forum under a title like “Sol Invictus Benediction”. This being the solstice, I thought I would share it with you.

First we begin with the 

Dedication
For The Fatherland, cradle of civilization.
For the ancestors and their indomitable spirit
For the elders from whom we can learn much.
For our youth who represent the promise for tomorrow.
For our people, the original people.
For our struggle and in remembrance of those who have struggled on our behalf.
For Gott the principle of unity which should guide us in all that we do.
For the creator who provides all things great and small.

An Aside: “Gott” is German for “God” and has been chosen to symbolize the principle of striving for & maintaining unity in the family, community, nation, and race.

To this we add:

The Seven Principles:

1. Unity - to strive for and maintain unity in the family, community, nation and race.
2. Self-Determination - to define ourselves, name ourselves, create ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
3. Collective Work and Responsibility - to build and maintain our community together and make fellow European-American's problems our problems and to solve them together.
4. Cooperative Economics - to build and maintain European-American stores, shops and other businesses together.
5. Purpose - to make our collective vocation the building of our European-American community to restore our traditional greatness.
6. Creativity - making the world around us clean and beautiful and better than we inherited it.
7. Faith - to believe in ourselves, our family, our communities and our leaders and to believe the righteousness and victory of our struggle.

Now, before telling you the inspiration for this little piece, I will share what I recall of the drama.

I wrote it up and shared it to a Thelemic Community Forum. Initial reaction was slightly positive, with one girl saying how great it was. Then someone questioned some of the word choices. Then it was branded as racist. The girl who had waxed poetic quickly back-pedaled and condemned it.

This condemnation did not change when I revealed that it was the Kwanzaa dedication and their seven principles with only three changes.

1. I changed the word Motherland to Fatherland
2. I replaced the phrase “African-American” with “European-American”, and
3. I changed the African word “Umoja” to “Gott” while defining it in exactly the same way.

In fairness, the version I found at 123holiday.net does not use any racial language. Though the phrases can still be read in such a manner.

To be honest, I knew that I would get this reaction. Racist behavior is only deemed racist if a white person is doing it. Innocuous behavior is viewed as being racist if a white person does it.

When I first started publishing this kind of thing, I would take Christian screeds against pagans and invert the language. Mostly reversing the two phrases. The key was to keep as much intact as possible. The goal was to show hypocrisy. These works were applauded. Showing the “others” hypocrisy is always applauded. However, when I broadened the scope to include other sacred cows, the applause slowed. When I hit their sacred cows, they got out the pitchforks.

As it is said in Ecclesiastes 1:9 “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

May the Blessings of Gott be upon you this Season.

And remember, if you're at a social function and a benediction is said and the God invoked is not your own, it's a good idea to mutter, roll your eyes, and smirk, so your God will know that you're not taken in by some false God.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will

Citations and Notes
Kwanzaa Dedication
Kwanzaa Principles

Ecclesiastes 1:9

Opening:
Kai Engel
Chant Of Night Blades
Deathless: The Renaissance
Download
License

Ending:
Coil
The Hellbound Heart
Hellraiser Themes [CD]

SJWs, Alt-Right, & Priorities [Video Script]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

This video will compare and contrast the “alt-Left” and the “alt-Right” from a practical viewpoint.

By alt-left, I am lumping (perhaps unfairly) the SJWs, Anti-fa, and similar radical, leftists groups with communistic or neo-Marxist ideologies.

By alt-right, I am referring to the loose coalition of white nationalists, white supremacists, white separatists, neo-nazis, and similar groups.

I apologize for the delay. I had one script that I just didn’t feel was any good once I completed it, then I had a couple of bouts of illness. Then I kept revising this as new things popped onto my radar. Then I realized that it would never end. Then, but really these excuses are all somewhat lame. I will try to do better in the future.

VLOG

I am currently re-reading The Equinox.

• I  finished Volume I, issues 1 and 2.
• I admit to skipping the stuff on drugs, the fiction, and to glossing over the poetry.
• While I enjoy the poetry, I’ve read most of it several times already.
• Even though I have read the Libers multiple times, I am not glossing over those.
• Everyone should reread these periodically.

I am also preparing to systematically read the Complete Works of Plato.

• I’ve read some works, but in a more disjointed manner
• The Cooper edition was highly regarded, so I grabbed it.
• I plan on doing the same with Aristotle once I finish Plato.

I also grabbed the enhanced edition of Neverwinter Nights and spent most of Saturday playing it.

• However, it was a beta and I broke it, there is much sadness.

SJWs. the Alt-Right & Setting Priorities

For the sake of convenience, let’s create a continuum with the extremes on each side.

Again, for the sake of convenience, we will label one “alt-right” and lump into it the alt-right, fascists, white nationalists, nazis, etc.

On the other end we will put the label “alt-left” and place anti-fa, other ethnic nationalists, marxists such as BAMN, etc.

Let us fill the continuum with the fellow travelers, those sympathetic to each pole, but who refrain from overt activism.

I should point out that the activism doesn’t have to be violent, after all, most of the alt-righter’s do not descend to the violence of Nazi Skinheads or some such.

Where should you put yourself on the continuum?

Before answering that, I should present my own position. I get called a nazi by leftists and a commie by the right. To paraphrase the good Baron,

“In as much as the alt-right agrees with my position, I am, only to that degree, alt-right”.

Conversely, “In as much as the alt-left agrees with my position, I am, only to that degree, alt-left”.

My third son introduced me to a nice post-apocalyptic series by S.M.Stirling called “The Change”. I won’t give you a rundown of the series (link below), but an oft repeated refrain in the series is that “When a person comes to your land with a weapon & tries to inflict harm, they should not be surprised to lose their own life”.

In gauging the relative risks posed by each group, we need to consider both size and traction. While it seems to be true that the “right” is gaining in strength, it is also a fact that the “left” has dominated the Western world since the end of World War II, gaining a virtual hegemony in the 60s-70s. For a half century or more, the center has been steadily moving left. Antifa protests in the US gather numbers that seem to be in the hundreds, if not the thousands. The only numbers I can find for the alt-right indicates that they seem to be numbered in the tens, with Charlottesville actually gathering a couple hundred. If anyone has better numbers, please let me know.

So size-wise, it seems that the “alt-left” is far more numerous than the “alt-right”. What about traction? Whose ideas are presented sympathetically? Whose acts of violence are ignored or downplayed, and whose are fabricated or exaggerated? How does the media, or society in general, assuming there is a practical difference, present ten or so people of various ethnic heritages standing in a pagoda and calling for “Freedom of Speech”? How does it present the hundreds of black clad antifa and their fellow travelers surrounding them and trying to drown them out? I think it safe to say that, by any objective measure, the “alt-left” has far more traction in the US, and likely in Western Europe as well.

Now, for the sake of this argument let us just assume that both are violent and seek to rid the world of those who oppose them. The alt-left’s statement that “Liberals get the bullet, too” and the older neo-nazi slogan of “When you are swinging from a rope it doesn’t matter if you swing to the left or the right” convey the same attitude of ideological purity and democide.

Ask yourself which is the more immediate threat, the murderer in your house or the lynch mob on the other side of town? Modern society seems to have a real problem with false equivalence and prioritizing. It seems obvious to me that one must first deal with the murderer attempting to kill you who is right before you, rather than ignoring them because there is a lynch mob on the other side of town. Once threat ‘A’ is dealt with, you can deal with threat ‘B’.

Being as I subscribe to neither of the ideological positions typified by these poles of “alt-left” and “alt-right”, it would be safe to assume that I am on the “list” for both groups, when & if they are able to pursue democide in their crusade for ideological purity.

I would then have to ask, which list would I be on, the first list or the second list. If I were in a room with an antifa and a neo-nazi and they were aware of my lack of support for their cause, which would be more likely to kill me? Which one views me and my children as an affront to their cause? Given that the assault rate on bystanders for the alt-left is far higher than that of the alt-right, it is safe to assume that I am in more danger from the alt-left than the alt-right. 

Admittedly, I am not a black man with a white girlfriend, so each must make this decision for themselves. Just make sure that what you give up, what you sacrifice, is worth what you receive.

"The Idea and only the Idea can be the true Fatherland for them. Not the fact that they are of the same nationality, that they speak the same language, and that they are of the same blood, but the fact that they belong to the same idea, should be the deciding factor that unites or divides them." - Julius Evola

And wouldn’t you know, the NY Times just released an articles glorifying anti-fa. Amusing.

Another YouTuber, Matt Christiansen, released an interesting video on this topic, “Antifa Professor” Speaks at Berkeley, But Why Didn’t the Fascists Shut Him Down?

Thank you for listening to my thoughts on this matter. I should clarify that I am not calling for anyone to support either the alt-left or alt-right. This is meant as an aid to prioritize which group to oppose. As a Thelemite, I oppose all forms of collectivism, and, yes, I am aware of the irony of using a collective label for an individualistic system.

Evidently, one should exhort the listener to like and subscribe. I am bad at this, since I think it is self evident. So, if you liked this video, or any of my other videos, please click on the like button (which I assume does something besides giving me the warm fuzzies) and subscribe so you know when I post new content.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood

Love is the law, love under will

The Equinox, Vol. 1, No. 1: The Review of Scientific Illuminism (The Equinox: The Review of Scientific Illuminism) (Volume 1)

Plato: Complete Works 

Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. 1 

Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2

NeverWinter Nights

S.M. Stirling books

What to Wear to Smash the State

“Antifa Professor” Speaks at Berkeley, But Why Didn’t the Fascists Shut Him Down?

Opening: Kai Engel Chant Of Night Blades Deathless: The Renaissance 

Download

License

Ending: Keosz The Charon ENTITY EP 

Download 

License

Pedophilia (Response)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

On 27 July 2017, I uploaded what I thought was an amusing anecdote of a discussion I had with my third son regarding the pro-pedophilia site, Heart Progress. Despite what I consider to be the horrific nature of the site and its agenda — i.e., the normalization of sexual relations between adults and pre-pubescent children, I tried to keep it light in tone and focused more on my child’s reactions and our discussion. My third son is 17, and I have an open topic policy with all of my children. If they have heard about it, it needs to be discussed so that misinformation does not grow and fester.
The video touches upon the difference between Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and Ephebophilia (the interest in pre-pubescent, young teen, and older teens). It also discussed the history of the normalization of Pedophilia, particularly pederasty, via the person of Hakim Bey and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
The only responses to date are from Pedophile Apologists.
Now I have no way to know (& really no inclination to find out) if the responses are from one or more people. Since the anonymous postings are trivial, I have just rolled them into the same discussion.
It all started with some anonymous poster stating that “Pedosexuality is natural, its OK, and we shouldn't be ashamed of it.”
I wrote back that animals often engage in unsavory practices, google did not give me any hits to support intercourse with sexually immature members of the species, and that yes, if shame is necessary to keep one from hurting children, then one should feel shame.
I am going to interject here with some definitions. The vague terms were refined later in the thread, but one could interpret the exchange as my moving the goalposts. From the beginning, I meant intercourse to mean “penetrative sexual intercourse” and “sexually immature” as pre-pubescent. Fortunately, my “opponents” are as poor in reasoning and logic as they are fact deficient, so they did not capitalize on the vagueness to perform any equivocation, nor to accuse me of moving the goalposts. However, I do hope that some of the people listening are better versed in reasoning than the posters to this thread.
Anyway, this is where Otis Jenkins jumped in. I will admit that I did not recognize “Frans de waal” as a name. He claimed that the Bonobos were our closest relatives and that they were wanton pedophiles. After I demanded a citation, he gave me an article with page numbers and a claim that he had read the article. I then procured the article (and some others) and found three things. One, the page citation was the whole article, it matched the Wikipedia article citation, and the article did not support his assertion of penetrative sex with pre-pubescent members of their species. We will discuss the article later.
When I told him this and demanded a real citation (i.e. page) he responded with a video whose description (in Italian) indicated sex with a youth. When I pointed this out to him he told me it was obvious that it was a child. He then responded with another video showing a mother and child, where the mother rubbed the girl’s genitals to soothe it to sleep. Evidently, this was supposed to prove that the first video actually depicted a pre-pubescent since “they were the same size”. He got pissy when I pointed out that neither actually counted as proof and that I was not an expert on bonobos such that I could visibly identify age and sexual maturity.
After a weeks worth of exchanges, of which I have taken screen shots so even if he deletes his comments I have a record, he still hasn’t provided me with the actual citation from the article which he claims supports his position. He has also called me a Nazi repeatedly for disagreeing with him. Obviously, such a charge has duly chastised me and I am torn with agony. He has also failed to respond to my question of whether one should engage in other behaviors such as not giving food to women unless they put out, or whether one should kill the children of women who refuse to have sex with oneself.
You can read the thread for yourself, if you so choose. As these things go, it isn’t all that long.
As a result of this thread, I’ve learned far more about the bonobos that I could reasonably have wanted. They are perpetually caught in the 70s-80s hedonistic lifestyle. They do not seem to pair bond, and will engage in sex for any reason from boredom to food to apologize — and sometimes even for the purpose of procreating.
The article we will discuss is 1990 paper by Frans B.M. de Waal titled “Sociosexual Behavior Used for Tension Regulation in All Age and Sex Combinations Among Bonobos.” It was published in the book Pedophilia, pp.378-393.
The first thing to notice about the article is its age. This does not invalidate the research, but it does beg the question of what more recent research indicates — and why more recent research is not used to bolster the pro-pedophiliacs arguments. From the limited research I did on the topic, I found nothing to contradict de Waal’s findings, but I must stress that the amount of research I did was not at the level of what I would have engaged had I been writing a paper for instructor or peer review.
Next, It should be noted that this study was done on captive bonobos and might not be indicative of wild bonobo behavior. Again, other papers seem to indicate that the behavior is similar, but the fact of their captivity should be born in mind. After all, the Wolf hierarchy study received much criticism for this when people tried to discredit the the resulting idea of Alpha-Beta-Gamma-Omega roles (& which partially succeeded in collapsing the hierarchy to merely two levels, Alpha-Beta).
First off, it should be noted that in the entire 16 pages of the article, it does not support the assertion of penetrative sexual intercourse with pre-pubescent members of the species. In fact, while the article does indicate sexual play, it never involved penetration, and it was always initiated by the child. Essentially, the child would rub her genitals on the other members. I quote from page 382: “Mounts with the female infant never resulted in intromission or ejaculation”. Also from 382: “sociosexual contacts of adults and adolescents with the infant were initiated by the infant herself”.
Now while the article on bonobos does not support pedophilia, it does make a strong case for the normalization of prostitution. On page 387: “The interaction [food sharing] could even take place as an exchange, e.g., a female presents to a male who is holding a large bundle of branches and leaves and takes the entire bundle out of his hands immediately following sexual intercourse.” If we follow the bonobo way of life, women don’t get dinner until the men get the nookie.
Now Otis posited that bonobos were the “closest”, but in reality, that divergence was some 8 million years ago, as was that with the chimpanzees. Both can be accurately called humans closest relatives. However, both show different mating strategies and sexual “mores” (for want of a better term). You can read about that on page 387-389.
Now Otis seemed to be arguing that since bonobos were closely related to humans, we should emulate their behaviors. This is just stupid. First there is the logical fallacy of analogy going on here — or perhaps identity would be more accurate. Essentially, to say that because A is like B whatever qualities A has must also be present in B is wrong. This can only be the case if A=B and B=A. That is, if Humans are Bonobos and Bonobos are Humans. Since this is false, Otis’ argument fails logically.
However, let us look more deeply. Humans have a civilization and culture. We (arguably) have the ability to reason. We also have a greater intellect. Humans also have a longer maturation process. A Bonobo goes from infant to puberty in 6 years. Rather than forming family units through pair-bonding, they exist in a looser collective reminiscent of a free-love commune.
Humans are not suited for a social structure such as the bonobo displays. This can be seen in the wreckage of the 1960s were free love communes imploded. Simply put, if you want to live as a bonobo, you should go live with the bonobos. I will admit to an abstract curiosity as to how the bonobos would react if a pedophile actually penetrated one of their children. I am also curious as to how the pedophile would react to all of the necessary adult sexual interaction of both hetro & homosexual nature. Poor little pedophile would have to have sex with adults too.
Also, let us not pretend that “love” is a part of this. Love is a poetic description of the pair bonding process. There is no love in the sexual activity of the bonobos. One could argue that there is no love in any animal sexual activity, even those who pair bond, but that gets into a more philosophical realm.
So yeah, to anyone trying to normalize pedophilia: You need medical assistance before you harm a child and need to be removed from society. Your naturalist arguments do not appear to be correct. Evidence cited in favor of nurturing sexual relations with adults and pre-pubescent children fails to support your position.
Even were such evidence to be found, you would still need to demonstrate that such examples are applicable to a different species. Even among humans, the fact that Joe robbed a store does not mean that you should be allowed to rob a store. In a similar fashion, just because the simpler brain structures of one of our  primate relative that diverged from our common ancestor 8 million years ago (& not all of our primate relatives) allow some sexual play with immature members of their species, this does not indicate that it is proper or natural for human beings to engage in such play.
Hopefully, this will wrap up this rather stupid and disgusting exchange.
Truth is found in the Rubble of FalsehoodLove is the law, love under will
This is a video response to the rather inane thread by Otis Jenkins, who seems to be an advocate for having sex with children. If this is a mis-characterization, Otis, please let me know.
For legal reasons, please do not interpret this as a call to harass Otis for his views.
Original Video
Citations:
de Waal, Frans B.M. Sociosexual Behavior Used for Tension Regulation in All Age and Sex Combinations Among Bonobos.  (1990)
Primate Factsheet: Bonobos

Intro/Outro Music is from the Free Music Archive.

Borrowed without their knowledge for non-commercial purposes.

There opinions are their own and the use of their music should not be taken as agreeing with my positions or even as awareness that I even exist.

Opening:Kai EngelChant Of Night BladesDeathless: The RenaissanceDownloadLicense

Ending:KeoszThe CharonENTITY EPDownloadLicense

Antifa: A Lived Experience

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
This will be a “lived experience” — or as we used to call it, an anecdote. As such it is not “evidence”, but rather indicative. A break in the monolithic characterization by the mainstream that “Anti-fa” is somehow “good” or that their violence is just a few “bad apples”. To applaud anti-fa because they claim to oppose Nazism, is a bit like applauding the Nazis because they also rounded up Jehova Witnesses, or even better, if they had renamed themselves “Anti-Jehova Witnesses”. Liking something for what they oppose is suicidal. It is what something is for that matters.
I was a punk in the 1980s. Dead Kennedys, CRASS, Reagan Youth, False Prophets, TSOL, MDC, etc. A homeless street punk for a couple of years, followed by your typical spate of lower class jobs until about 1993 when I decided that getting a real job wasn’t selling out so much as enabling myself to indulge my passions. I sired my first child in 1995, which made all the other stuff moot. This was all in Portland, Oregon.
The reason I bored you with that little biography was to explain that I know a little bit about Anti-fa.
As an aside, the original slogan, as sung by MDC was “No War, No KKK, No Fascist USA”. Interesting what was changed, isn’t it? They could have made it four parts and kept the Rhyme, but instead they eliminated their opposition to War. I also want to point out that MDC has a song that illustrates the Antifa method for identifying Nazis (check out “John Wayne was a Nazi”). MDC was a great Homocore band, but the illusion broke when I realized that their meth addiction & tendency to steal cars might mean that the police’s attention on their behavior was not unjustified.
Back on topic, even back in the 1980s, Antifa was a violent collection of lame-ass losers. They have only become bolder and bolder as we continue to ignore them.
To be totally honest, I am unsure which came first to Portland, Anti-fa or the Neo-Nazi Skinheads. I do know that both were present in 1987.
Now, the primary representatives of the antifa, at that time, in Portland, were two groups, “Skins Committed Against Racism” and “Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice”. SCAR was in Portland prior to SHARP. As you might guess it was very hard to tell the difference between Antifa Skins and Neo-Nazi Skins. This was made even more difficult by the simple fact that the membership between the two groups kept revolving. Brutus Skinhead would get in a fight with his mates and go join the opposing side for a bit, then after getting in a fight with them, he would move back.
I vividly remember sitting outside the Multnomah Library one evening when a car rolled up. Five skinheads and one skin-bitch (that is what the females called themselves) rolled up looking to jump someone.
Fortunately, they were antifa and I was wearing my Dead Kennedys “Nazi Punks F*** Off” shirt. Even they couldn’t rationalize me as being a Nazi. Unfortunately, a friend of mind was not so lucky, and they pitched him through a plate glass window. Evidently, a skinny goth-punk street kid with a tri-fin just had to be a nazi (he wasn’t).
The Nazi’s and the Anti-Fa were, as was typical at the time, attacking third parties, mainly because both the Nazis and the Antifa travel in packs, and neither were too fond of anything less than 6-to-1 odds.
During the 1990s, both sides had started to broaden their base. You couldn’t avoid Nazis or Antifa just by avoiding people with shaved heads. However, something interesting did happen. The Nazis cut back on the random attacks. After the Mulugeta Seraw case, violence committed by Nazi skinheads in Portland started to decline.
However, Antifa continued. They would start riots against Republicans, call in bomb threats to venues daring to allow a gay brit to play guitar, threaten violence to the fans of those musicians (I admit that most of my information post-1995 is music related), and similar.
So, yeah, don’t tell me how Antifa are misunderstood. Don’t tell me that this is something new. Don’t tell me that they aren’t violent. Antifa has been engaging in this behavior for decades. It is just the modern mindset that emboldens them to be even more blatant.
Antifa are a cancerous, violent assortment of misfits that will be lined up and disposed of should their desired Communist utopia occur — just as has always happened to any anarchists who have ever worked with any communist revolution. Sure, they may be in the second list, but they will be rounded up and eliminated. Red Anarchism was one of the reasons why I stopped being an Anarchist.
Anyway, that is my story.
Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will
References/Citations
SCAR was probably a local independent group, I cannot find anything on them.SHARPMulugeta SerawNote, the article is incorrect, they were not officially affiliated with WAR, and as I recall they were friends with, but not members of, East Side White Pride
“No War, No KKK, No Fascist USA”: MDC - Born to DieThe 2016 version with the new lyrics
Attributions
SHARP & Anti-SHARP logos (from Wikipedia)Design by: Williamcaseyhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Intro/Outro Music is from the Free Music Archive.
Borrowed without their knowledge for non-commercial purposes.
There opinions are their own and the use of their music should not be taken as agreeing with my positions or even as awareness that I even exist.
Opening:Kai EngelChant Of Night BladesDeathless: The RenaissanceDownloadLicense
Ending:KeoszThe CharonENTITY EPDownloadLicense

Free Speech, Charlottesville, Antifa, Trump (+ Update) (Grab Bag #2) [Video Script]

DWTWSBTWOTL
Well, it looks like the planned video is taking longer than I thought.

• It is a look at ethics and rights within the Thelemic system
• It will focus on OZ, Libræ, and Duty
• I may need to break it up into multiple parts.

This is a little semi-ranty video on

• Free Speech
• Charlottesville
• Trump’s speech on Charlottesville
• I also pour some hate on antifa

First an update

• The actual Navy stuff I am in Japan to do will be starting tomorrow.
• This will undoubtedly impact my free time.
• Yesterday, Saturday, I went to Yokohama to try and find some CDs
  • Musashi (六三四): Japanese progressive/folk metal band
  • Fushitsusha (不失者): Experimental Japanese rock band
  • Zeni Geva (ゼニゲバ): prog-rock, hardcore, heavy metal and noise-rock
  • Yōsei Teikoku (妖精帝國): Heavy/Goth/Symphonic Metal + EBM, darkwave, neoclassical, ethereal + Goth
• Finding a CD for my son, who wanted something called “Bump of Chicken” was pretty straight forward.
• Three separate shops and I only found the Yōsei Teikoku
  • However, I did find an interesting CD with the Crass logo on it. Guso Drop (偶想Drop)
  • I snagged it because I wanted to see what they were doing to my precious childhood memories.
  • I also found a first pressing CD of Current 93’s Dawn. I wonder if it has the original version of Great Black Time.
  • The original made extensive use of a sample from Barry McGuire’s Eve of Destruction.
  • This was removed in subsequent releases, I assume for copyright reasons.
  • Then there are two Japanese psychedelic rock albums: Acid Mother’s Temple & Subvert Blaze
  • Finally, a Japanese Metal Album (it was under Death Metal): Onmyo-za (陰陽座)
• While looking up the links for these artists, I discovered that Zeni Geva has a Bandcamp. Of course it only has one album on it.
• Also, I’ve changed my Ending song. Despite it being “Free Music” under the Creative Commons, it kept getting flagged.
  • Sometimes they would release the claim after I submitted the proof, but sometimes not.
  • I am way to lazy to repeat the same actions over and over.
  • So, While I liked Ami Deng’s “A Strange Community”, I am tired of dealing with the hassle of using it.

Anyway, now that I’ve established my music nerd bonafides, Let us move on.
There has been a lot of talk about what is and what isn’t free speech.

• This is bullshit.
• People trying to limit anyone else’s ability to speak is against free speech.
• Those who say we should not tolerate intolerance are stupid.
• You are being intolerant. You aren’t protecting society, you are just a coward.
• The people censoring Nazis are less than Nazis.
• They are hypocrites afraid to admit their own little authoritarian urges
• The little black Hitlers and Stalins infesting their hearts.

This is one of the few absolutes. Either you support free speech, no matter what is being said, or you do not. There is no middle ground.
That being said, I am already tired of Charlottesville.
However, one of the interesting tidbits was how one of the antifa (or whatever) protesters described the accident

• He specifically stated that the car slowed down than accelerated into the crowd.
• Then there are the reports after the guy’s initial capture about it possibly not having been on purpose.
• Add to this the reports, with suggestive video evidence, that the guys car had been hit with a bat.
  • Suggestive because the actual strike is not shown. The camera dips right before the cracking sound.
• This would support a narrative that the guy slowed down for the protesters
  • Then his car was hit by antifa and he freaked trying to escape.
  • This reaction on his part makes sense given the events of the day and the history of antifa
• Not that I am saying that this is what happened, but it is important to keep an open mind.

This is where I put in the obligatory “I am not a racist” disclaimer.

• Trust me. I view racism as pure laziness. If I hate you, it is because of you, not your race, sex, or gender.
• I agree with Evola’s distaste for concepts of racial purity. An arbitrary line was drawn and all mixing after that point is deemed “bad”. That is just dumb
• I also agree with Evola’s concept that the idea is the true Fatherland. Those who share in the idea are the citizens of my state.
  • Trust me, most white people don’t make it either.

I am also going to point out that Antifa (and their related ilk) are some of the worst examples of troglodytes masquerading as humans on this planet.

• They are worthless for anything but bashing heads
• Even then, they have a distressing tendency to bash the wrong heads
• They are the Marxist Lumpen-proletariat: 
  • identifies the class of outcast, degenerated and submerged elements that make up a section of the population of industrial centers" which include "beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements."
• Stalin eventually had to purge them because they were too worthless for the communist society they thought they wanted
  • Not being suitable for work, they could not contribute to the state
  • Being prone to degeneracy and violence, they were a disruption to an ordered society
  • One of the few things I agree with Communism about is that the antifa need to be rounded up and shot.

Anyway, I want to say that I was truly shocked by Trump’s clear and nuanced speech regarding the violence. While it was amusing to hear “alt-Left” rather than Antifa, I do suppose it is more inclusive.
Also, the article criticizing the use of the term “Alt-Left” is bullshit. The ADL guy says it is inorganic, then goes on to specify its organic use and development.
Are people really so stupid that they cannot see this for what it is: obfuscation, lies, and propaganda?
So yeah, I hope this can tide you over until I finish working on the Thelemic Rights and Ethics script.

• Free Speech, you either support it or you don’t
• Don’t pretend you are censoring others to preserve our freedoms.
• You aren’t.
• Antifa are, and always have been, worthless cowards.
• It is almost worth having Communism imposed just so these (so-called) “people” would be rounded up and shot.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood
LITLLUW

Sources, Citations & Notes
Bands referenced:Musashi (六三四)
Fushitsusha (不失者)
Zeni Geva (ゼニゲバ)
Zeni Geva Bandcamp
Yōsei Teikoku (妖精帝國)
Bump of Chicken
Crass (best Punk Band ever)
Guso Drop (偶想Drop)
Current 93
Acid Mothers Temple
Subvert Blaze
Onmyo-za (陰陽座)

Non-Music:Lumpenproletariat
Antifa: Who Does Antifa Actually Attack?
Trump’s Speech
Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language

Attributions:Music is from the Free Music Archive.Borrowed without their knowledge for non-commercial purposes.There opinions are their own and the use of their music should not be taken as agreeing with my positions or even as awareness that I even exist.

Opening:Kai Engel
Chant Of Night Blades
Deathless: The Renaissance
Download
License

Ending:Keosz
The Charon
ENTITY EP
Download
License

Charlottesville, Reverse Racism, Privilege, Feelings over Facts (Grab Bag #1)

DWTWSBTWOTL
This is just a grab bag of thoughts and ideas that I have neither the inclination nor time to flesh into stand alone videos.

• I may do more of these. I keep a list of topics and some just never gain the momentum to become full videos
• I’ll try to cull them periodically.
• I’ll comment on 
  • Charlottesville, 
  • The use of violence in protests, 
  • “Reverse Racism” and the “Prejudice+Power” equation
  • Privilege
  • And, Feelings over fact

First, the update

• Still in Japan.
• It is overcast and rainy, so the temperature is tolerable.
• I am from Oregon, so I am content with rain and overcast skies.

• Went to Shinjuku yesterday and scored a Kannon statue
  • If I priced it correctly on the web, I got it for a great price 
  • About ⅖ of the listed prices on line.
  • Then again, it could be a cheap knock off and I was taken for a ride.
• This video will be on Vid.Me and YouTube.
• The script will be on Minds and Blogger.

I was going to let some music play in the background, but it seems that audacity and Google Play don’t play well together. Or the internet just decided to be cranky at that exact moment.

Also, let me apologize for the background noise, the dehydrator/aircon is noisier than I would wish. I tried to remove it with Audacity, but a little remains.

Hard to be sympathetic toward hurt Antifa. According to a CNN article, dated August 13th, the deceased was part of the demonstration (not a random bystander as initially stated). I am not saying she deserved to die, nor am I saying I support the person who drove a car into a crowd of people.

However, the antifa tactics seem to have worked better than normal. A technique that I have seen in action since the 80s, and which I understand to derive from classic Marxist strategy (vis-a-vis the use of violence). Essentially, any protest has three sides. The “Marxists”, the Enemies of the “Marxists”, and the peaceful protesters. Typically, the “Marxists” position themselves so that the peaceful protesters are between them and the enemy. They will then provoke their enemy who will have to go through the peaceful protesters. This radicalizes them into the “Marxist” camp.

Antifa seems to have gotten complacent over the years. After decades of being able to attack whomever they want without repercussion, people have started fighting back. Sadly, it seems to have been escalated by one individual far beyond what antifa expected.

To summarize the timeline

• Antifa swarms against people suspected of wrongthink, like the nazi skinheads, they tended to attack in groups against individuals.
• Recently, the people being targeted have started using techniques to defend themselves (shields, squad tactics)
• Then, antifa seemed to also have shields (though they were more a mob than a squad)
• Then a guy drives a car into a massed horde of antifa

I can only anticipate more violence.

On another topic, there is no such thing as “Reverse Racism”, “Reverse Sexism”, etc. The use of “reverse” serves no other purpose than to legitimize bigotry. Just call it what it is.

Likewise, the formulation of Racism/Sexism = Prejudice + Power, in addition to being a way for various power brokers to maintain relevancy, also serves to dismiss, discredit, and justify bigotry. Further, it serves as a warning. In no way should we allow these people to have power. They have as much as admitted that the only difference between them and a Klan lynch-mob is the fact that they are powerless.

It is stupid to expect people to accept, or work toward, their own destruction. If you are working toward your own destruction, then you are stupid. Any “white” person eagerly looking forward to the extinction of the “white” race is stupid.

And on a related topic, can someone explain to me what is wrong with privilege? The basic framing is that privilege is somehow “bad”. What we call privilege is the summation of people working hard to provide their children with a better future. I hope and pray that I have managed to give my children greater privilege compared to what I had. They only know what spam tastes like because I’ve mad Hawaiian food. We always had money for Xmas. I have never “whipped” them for misbehavior. I tried to emphasize learning, questioning, and self-reliance.

Now, to inject a little “Social Darwinism” (as technique, rather than justification), our society values certain traits. Those who conform to those traits succeed. Those who have a longer history of modeling those traits have greater privilege. Those who came later would obviously have less privilege, since they have had less time to amass the cultural capital which becomes privilege.

If you don’t like the values promoted by a society, you would need to change them. This would necessitate figuring out what those values actually are (see my earlier video “On Reality”). The SJW crowd wants to change the system — which is fair, so do I — but fail to analyze the values and thus waste their time in moral outrage and contradictory impulses. I believe it was Delsol who commented on how modern man is terrified of certainty.

However, and this is another thing the SJWs miss, you aren’t eliminating privilege, you are merely replacing the method by which one gains privilege. It should go without saying that they are actually trying to impose a system by which they amass privilege.

I don’t mean to rail against the SJWs so much, but it is like they were created to exemplify everything I despise about modern society.

So, I just want to tell all of them, “Your feelings are shit.”

Every atrocity, whether it be the Inquisition, the genocidal and treacherous dealings with the Native Americans, the Reign of Terror, the Holocaust, the Stalinist Purges, the Maoist purges, the Cambodian Killing fields, etc, etc — all of these came from listening to feelings rather than facts.
Or are you going to argue that these things are actions based on cold, logical, and dispassionate facts?
Bigotry is based on feelings. All your cries to prioritize feelings over facts do is render you incapable of critical examination. You become more easily manipulated toward atrocity.

I repeat, “Your feelings are shit”.

So yeah, I hope you enjoyed this. One interesting tidbit, the Google stuff has made me look at all of the alternatives out there. I was worried I would have to become a goat-herding mystic living in a cave just to avoid the pernicious encroachment of our liberties.

I suppose the takeaways would be:

• Charlottesville sucks, but shouldn’t have been a surprise
• The regressives are right when they say “Reverse Racism” isn’t a thing, but for all the wrong reasons
• Prejudice + Power is the clearest argument against granting equal rights that could be promoted
• Privilege is inevitable
• Your feelings are shit.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood
LITLLUW

On Hate Speech (Video & Script)

DWTWSBTWOTL

Update:

• This is probably the last video I will put up before I fly to Japan
• Two Channels I have been enjoying lately are:
• Dr Layman
• Zarathrustra’s Serpent
• The two of them have managed to cover various topics I was planning on taking on
• They have also done it as well, or better, than I would have.
• I am not saying I agree with all of their positions, but if I only interacted with those who agreed with me on everything,
• I would never grow
• And I would be very, very lonely… 

[Orwell.Hate Truthspeakers]
There is a trend, pushed by authoritarians, mostly from the left (currently anyway) to "deplatform" Hate Speech.

[Clip: Gate Rory : Are you stupid]

The steps to winning any battle are: [Yukio Mishima]
1) Know yourself
2) Know your Enemy

Why would you not want people with opposing viewpoints to freely express themselves?[Massey. Authority as Truth-Truth as Authority]

I want to know who my enemies are

I want to know who I can trust to have my back and who will step away (or worse thrust a dagger into my back)

The Regressive Left seems to feel that if they deplatform these people, their opinions will go away [Consensus = Bliss.jpg]

• This is so incredibly stupid that I barely know where to start.
• Obviously, if unchallenged the ideas will never change.
• Further, you cannot challenge their ideas if you do not know what they are
• The best you can do is straw man their arguments, which will never convince anyone
• The phrase “Preaching to the Choir” comes to mind
• The main way in which we can change or mold opinions is through Dialectic [McDonalds vs Sanders]
• I am not an expert on Hegel or Marx, so I will  explain what I mean by the term
• You have two ideas that are in opposition (either to a lesser or greater degree)
• These ideas meet in the glory of battle
• The Stronger idea will win
• Now I admit to some assumptions [Truth vs Lies.jpg]
• First is that ideas closer to Truth (ie, the actual nature of reality) are stronger than ideas in opposition to the truth.
• This can be expressed via the biblical parable of the house built on sand (Matthew 7:24-27)
•  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (KJV)
• The idea is that things in accordance with the fundamental nature of reality are “built upon a rock”. 
• My Second assumption is that both parties have similar logical and emotive capabilities. [If Someone doesn't Value Evidence]
• This one is actually harder for me to justify, but I hold that in aggregate, the groups should be roughly similar in their capability to use logic (whether they elect to do so or not)
• And that emotive arguments will be equally impassioned by each sides commitment to their ideals.
• The flaw in this is that the person holding the lesser truth is either missing facts or is not utilizing logic.
• In that case, their position deserves to die
• Anyway, If we accept these two premises, then it should be obvious that the dialectic process will move us closer to the truth

We should also point out that “deplatforming” will not stop them from spreading their ideas. [Orwell - Political Speech]

• Sure, it will allow you to indoctrinate those who feel security in adhering to what appears to be the dominant (or only) narrative
• However, you will cloak the alternative opinion in the aura of mystery, making it counter-cultural and rebellious
• Watson is right when he says “Conservatism is the NEW Counter-Culture”
• And, since they are deplatformed, there are no coherent arguments against what they are actually preaching.

So, we have to ask, why do some people try to deplatform other people? [O Sensei - Wise win before fighting]

• One reason could be the realization (if even on a subconscious level) of the divorce between their idea and reality
• They realize that they do not have any facts to support their position and do not wish to risk having their emotive arguments undermined
• This cognitive dissonance between what they believe and what reality is telling them is painful so they seek to avoid it.
• Whenever the Regressive Left tells you they are offended or that your words are violence, this is what they are referring to
• Ludovici, in his book The Child: An Adult’s Problem, discusses this as the conflict between the Pleasure Principle and the Principle of Reality.
• Essentially, their behavior is just a childish tantrum.
• Another reason could a general contempt for all other beings. [Hitler. People Don't think]
• The regressive left seems to feel that other people are generally incapable of thought
• They feel that they know the truth and that other people are just to primitive to grasp it
• Further, they feel that the opposing ideas are just to seductive
• They tell people that they are special and deserve to “oppress” other people.
• And that other people will fail to critically examine these ideas and be swayed to their service.
• Simply put, this is all projection on their part.
• In a rare bout of subconscious self-reflection, they realize that they are like this
• Since they feel they are more enlightened, they assume everyone else has their flaws but to a greater degree.

As you can see, the desire to deplatform of censor opposing opinions comes from feelings of Fear and Weakness [I am Friedrich Nietzsche und I approve of this message]

• If you disagree, please feel free to comment with logical alternative possibilities.
• The feelings of Fear and Weakness derive from the feelings of ressentiment (ala Nietzsche & Kierkegaard)
• People who believe they are right have no reason to fear opposing viewpoints
• Now some attempt to argue that the arguments have been made before and “resolved”
• This is funny to me
• Isn’t it a tenet of modern thought that we should re-examine and critique pre-existing convictions?
• They show their religious roots with their belief that it is good butcher everyone’s sacred cows but their own.

So, to all those who wish to censor,

[Rory Clip]

Yes, Rory, I think they are. Heaven help us all.

To sum up: [Voltaire. Who Rules - don't crit]

• Censorship, or “deplatforming”, is an ultimately self-defeating strategy
• It manifests the herd morality’s predilection for ressentiment
• This can be seen in its reactions based on fear and weakness
• It is also a way to hide from uncertainty & doubt by eliminating the cognitive dissonance which spurs us forward
• It is stagnating since new forms cannot arise from the process of dialectic
• Dialectic is the process of annihilating two opposing ideas to see a new idea arise
• An idea which is closer to the truth

As I have mentioned, I am about to fly off to Japan. [if i agreed with you]

• It is unlikely I will be able to post another video before I leave.
• My next planned video is on “Reality”
• You may have noticed that I referred to it repeatedly in this video
• Perhaps it would be a good idea to let you know what I mean by the term.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

LITLLUW

References:

Channels:

Dr. Layman: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheLaymanChronicles/featured

Zarathrustra’s Serpent: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0n9pcWWhf8BzJ9zFakcA0g/featured

Rory Mercury:

From Episode 8 of Gate: Jieitai Kanochi nite, Kaku Tatakaeri

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b3j7UqiQ9A

Actual Clip taken from

Gate: Rory Mercury amazing speech Episode 8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZzzYLV_HWA

Bible:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A24-27&version=KJV

Ludovici:

http://www.anthonymludovici.com/cap_05.htm

Conservatism is the NEW Counter-Culture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avb8cwOgVQ8

Analysis: To the Cis Person angrily sharing news of the Trump transgender military ban

Display “Fair Use” Screen

DWTWSBTWOTL

I have several streams of information.

• Many are news from various political perspectives
• Another is Medium, which is basically an unfiltered op-ed site.

For some reason, Medium decided that I would be interested in an article titled [IMG 1]

• To the cis person angrily sharing news of the Trump transgender military ban
• By Angela Dumlao
• While I will provide the link below
• Do not harass or otherwise attack this person
• It won’t do any good
• It will probably make things worse

The article starts out with

• Hi. If you’re a cisgender person angrily sharing the news about Trump’s ban of transgender people in the military, consider the following.  
• First off, note the audience. Why do the SJWs focus on other people rather than their own?
• Seldom, if ever, do they try to improve their own group
• Neither do they talk impartially about a topic and let the chips fall where they may
• Rather they take a classic in-group/out-group position of moral rectitude and certainty
• Everything my tribe does is good
• From my position as good, I have the right to preach to you on how to correct your “evil”.
• Second, note the assumptions of proper moral behavior
• It is implied that the virtue signaling of outrage is proper
• And that you should be (naturally ) outraged by the ban
• Finally, note that whatever you are doing, it isn’t enough
• This establishes the moral superiority of the writer’s in-group
• It is also an indicator of the post-Christian orientation of the SJW ideology
• The concept of original sin has been identified with being “cisgender”
• As an aside, you’ll find that “sinner” has been replaced with “racist”, “sexist”, or “*-phobic”.
• Christians classified everything they hated as “satanic influence”. The left categorizes it as mental illness.
• That was a lot of unpacking for one sentence
• It’s good to find that I can get some use from my Humanities degree.

Next:

• This is not a future hypothetical in which we need to protect people who want to be in the military.  
• Actually, unless something new has come out, it is a future hypothetical as no guidance or policy changes have actually been promulgated to the military.
• Even so, The first sentence is backwards. The purpose of the military is to protect us. 
• I get what they are saying, but it rubs me raw to imply that the military are weak, emotionally unstable people needing protection.
• There are trans military serving as we speak. 
• Yes there are. While it may be implemented in the same way that the homosexual ban was implemented during WWII, staffing problems will probably mitigate any mass discharges.
• There are trans veterans waking up to this news.
• This sentence is problematic. (heh)
• Of trans veterans, this only affects (possibly) those currently serving.
• I have seen nothing to indicate that their veteran status would be changed or denied.

Now that the author has set up the requisite fear mongering, we move on to the meat of the sermon. 

• Are you framing your posts with a call to protect trans people? Similar to #ProtectTransKids — while this means well, it also infantilizes the trans community. Stand with trans people. Support trans people who have been fighting for their rights. See the difference?
• Strangely enough, I actually agree with part of this. As I mentioned in my video on “Goose & Gander”, most SJW activity infantilizes their targets.
• De Benoist discusses the over use of the term “right” in his excellent little book, Beyond Human Rights.
• However, it should be pointed out that Military Service is not a right.
• Military service is an obligation and responsibility, not a right. It is something you give, not something given to you.
• What do you do to support trans people? 
• Note the implication that you should be supporting trans people
• Not that there is anything wrong with supporting trans people
• But I find the call for an in-group to demand out-group support of their in-group to the possible detriment of those out-group members own in-groups to be kind of insular and stupid

•  I don’t need answers, but I want you to think about whether you:
• Actively use peoples’ pronouns both when they’re around and not around. Do you correct other cis people when they misgender someone? Use their deadname?
• This actually touches on a pet peeve of mine. You do not have pronouns. The language has pronouns. They do not belong to you and demanding other people accommodate your whims is childish.
• Thelema tells me I am a God, Should I demand everyone refer to me as “my Lord”?
• Further, I neither know nor care about your gender. I can only recognize the biological sex that you present. If you look like a woman, I will call you her/she. If a man, he/him.
• I gave up on the TOPY-inspired E-Prime genderless pronouns back in the early 90s.
• Dead name is just stupid. Oh my god, I am using the name by which I know &/or are accustomed to using
• Oh my god, I am using the name on your birth certificate &/or Identification card.
• The horrors are nigh unimaginable.

• Do you intake media by trans people? TV? Books? Articles? Art? Music?
• How would I know? Believe it or not, I “intake” media because I like it, not for moral reasons
• What a sad world where you cannot enjoy something until after you’ve done research to verify that it meets a moral litmus test
• I can think of one, but generally, I don’t ask people since it isn’t normally relevant to my enjoyment of the media.

• Do you laugh at jokes like Trump being made up with makeup? 
• I haven’t seen that one, but I do admit to laughing at Hitler in make-up [IMG Pink Hitler]. 
• There is the man, all dolled up like Christ.

• Do you realize this is transphobic? 
• I think you are doing violence to the language. A phobia is a fear. This is called humor. It relies on the juxtaposition of incongruous ideas & images.
• This is not funny because trans people are funny, it is funny because we can imagine the discomfort that the person depicted, or those of their idolaters, would feel.
• With the Hitler image, we are laughing at the outrage neo-nazi’s feel at Hitler being depicted in such a way.
• It actually doesn’t have anything to do with trans people.
• Do you perpetuate the idea that trans women are really men, even in the most innocent, subtle way?
• What does the phrase “really men” even mean? Are you perpetuating the idea that there is only one way to be a man?
• If you mean “Do they biologically express the condition which is most similar to the male role in our sexually dimorphic species”? Well then yes.
• Not that I spend a lot of time with it. It only really matters if we are having sex (I need to know where to put it) or trying to make children.
• [IMG Hitler & Stalin] Yeah, just try to unsee this one.

• Do you know about the epidemic of trans women of color being murdered in the U.S. and beyond? Do you share these articles? Do you sad react them? Do you avoid them?
• Nope to all of them.
• However, I have google.
• There were 15 killed (HRC Website) this year
• 2016 statistics puts the number of (self-identifying) Transgendered persons at a little over 800,000.
• The CDC reports that there are 5 homicides per 100,000 people.
• For the save of expediency, lets just double the half-year rate to 30.
• That would put the number of deaths at under 4 per 100,000
• Your epidemic is below the national average.
• Your epidemic is actually a statement about how non trans people are being killed more than trans people.
• You’ll pardon me if I decline your call to rectify this imbalance.
• Realized that I ran the original numbers for the entire trans community, but I reran the numbers for and they show the same thing.

• Do you actively use your privilege as a cis person to make the world better for your trans siblings?
• My only sibling is no more.
• Sibling, brother, sister, these are all societal roles that incur an obligation on both parties.
• If you’ve treated me as a brother and I have treated you as family, then I will use any so-called privilege to our benefit.
• Sadly, I come from a prole background, so my privilege is lacking.
• I hope I have given my children some privilege by virtue of my accomplishments

The rest of the article goes on to say “Trump Sucks” but you can be better than him. With some more rhetorical flourishes that have been addressed already.

This came about because people seemed to like me talking about the pro-pedophilia site more than they like me talking about the factors causing such things

• I’ll try to include these from time to time

My son told me that the video about pro-pedophilia was more popular because of his keen sensibilities.

I told him to go back to his room and play with his waifu.

Anyway, this article was chosen as indicative

• When we encounter this crap, you need to analyze it like this
• You need to ask
• Who benefits
• Are they practicing what they preach?
• Are their facts correct?
• How are they trying to sway you?
• Is there really anything more than whining and guilt-tripping?

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood

LITLLUW

Original Article:

https://medium.com/@callmethey/to-the-cis-person-angrily-sharing-news-of-the-trump-transgender-military-ban-441862263bd8

De Benoist:

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Human-Rights-Alain-Benoist/dp/1907166203

TOPY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thee_Temple_ov_Psychick_Youth

E-Prime:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

TOPY’s practice replaced all pronouns with “E” 

Phobia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

Dimorphism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Murder:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2017

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/How-Many-Adults-Identify-as-Transgender-in-the-United-States.pdf