“Homo Sapiens? Really?”

One of my latest literary acquisitions has been both a source of extreme interest and extreme aggravation.

51-0hjqlw6l-_sl500_

Written sometime in the mid-eighties, Gerald B. Lorentz’s Homo, 99 and 44/100% Nonsapiens combines history, (mis)anthroplogy, Social (and biological) Darwinism, determinism, eugenics, and unabashed elitism in one contentiously compelling package.

Reading that last paragraph, one could be forgiven for thinking the book nothing more than a 20th Century rehash of Ragnar Redbeard’s Might is Right. Certainly, both books depict a pitiless world of force and struggle papered over with pious platitudes and highfaluting hypocrisy; yet, while Redbeard revels in the savagery of “nature, red in tooth and claw”, Lorentz’s attitude could best be described as ambivalent.

Lorentz views humanity as a herd—or rather herds—of fanged sheep, riddled with a combo of predatory, gregarious, and territorial impulses and ever susceptible to the call of some religious, moralistic, and/or ideological hoodwink:

“To the Russians, their cause in overthrowing the czars and establishing a socialist state was noble. To monarchs, their cause in suppressing democracy was noble because it was God’s will, a conclusion derived from belief in the divine right of kings. To Hitler, his cause was noble because of his belief in “the natural right of the master race to dominate.” To some religious fanatics, killing infidels is a noble cause because it glorifies God. The reality is that the human being, the most absurd of all animals, distills endless delusions in his cerebral tumor called his brain, and he has a compulsion to kill in service to his delusions.”

Unlike Redbeard, Lorentz’s ideal specimens of humanity are not rapacious warrior-tyrants but the men of the mind: those who can sublimate their predatory instincts for the ends of seeking out existential truths, rooting out bullshit, and/or advancing the species via outstanding feats of creation. These advanced strains of being, according to the author, constitute “a gifted 56/100 of 1 percent of human freaks”. Clearly, he would not identify with “the 99%”.

“George Washington Carver was instinctively and genetically driven to seek knowledge just as a predator is instinctively driven to seek prey. His environment dictated a life of crime or poverty, and especially ignorance, but his genes dictated a life of culture, learning and respectability. His genetic superiority drove him to the top in spite of vaulting racial prejudice and social pressures to keep him down. He could NOT be held down even in the heyday of discrimination. Cream rises to the top.”

Nevertheless, he states that to ignore the herdish, predatory, delusional nature of the “99 and 44/100 nonsapiens” is to court disaster; any grand social vision must take such unflattering tendencies into account in order to have any chance of long-term success.

“Capitalism is the ideal economic system for a territorial predator. It is based on the predatory acquisition of wealth, and the selfish, greedy exploitation of man by man. That is to say, it is based on man’s basic nature.”

“Capitalism utilizes the fundamental principle nature uses in her evolutionary process. No human being would exist today were it not for genetic drift, variation, and mutation acted upon by natural selection. The essence of natural selection is survival of the fittest. Fitness has nothing to do with morality. More often than not, the fit are completely unscrupulous. Man survived because lesser predators were selected out. This same principle is the essence of capitalism. Under the free enterprise system many businesses enter the arena of business competition. The inefficient are weeded out. Almost 85 percent of all new businesses go bankrupt, usually in the first year. Only the fit survive. This guarantees efficiency and maximum productivity. Communism protects the unfit which makes for inefficiency and minimum productivity. This is why capitalism is a howling success, and communism is a crying failure.”

Not that this stops him fulfilling his imperative as a “human freak” and putting paid to popular pieties:

“Good and evil are phantasmata. Hitler did not think of himself as evil. He, like all human beings, thought of his enemies as evil. When the Church burned heretics at the stake, it thought itself the epitome of goodness, and the heretics the abysm of depravity. Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin thought of capitalism as evil, and American presidents think of communism as evil. All think themselves supremely good. All want to propagate their political, economic, and religious faiths. The Hebrews thought they were divinely ordained to conquer Canaan and slaughter its inhabitants—it’s in the Bible. Is there really any hope for creatures who compulsively slaughter each other because of predatory greed and irrational will-o’-the-wisps’?”

“The implementation of the American Dream for Europeans by expropriating Indian homelands and exterminating native Indians was about as noble as the Holy Wars of the eleventh through the thirteenth century in which pious Crusaders slaughtered infidel Moslems for Christ, and God-intoxicated Moslems slaughtered infidel Christians for Allah.”

“Having engaged in many wars for the alleged purpose of winning freedom from tyranny for ourselves, what should be our attitude towards other people who desire freedom from tyranny for themselves’? Reason replies that we should favor them, but our predatory instincts forced us to favor our own predatory (national) interests. We invariably aided the enemies of freedom fighters. We performed exactly like nations all over the world and throughout history. As a nation, we were no longer a band of lawless revolutionaries, and it would not behoove us to link ourselves to revolutionaries. We wanted powerful foreign alliances because they would enhance our power—the natural concern of any predator. Pursuant to this policy, we aided and abetted the most vicious tyrants in history. The only stipulation was that they be OUR vicious tyrants. We sermonized about the evil ways of human rights violators, but at the same time we befriended any tyrant or despot who had power and was willing to become our ally.”

“Labor unions use PR very effectively. For themselves, they project an image of the downtrodden, exploited, overworked victims of the greed of their wealthy employers even though they may be unconscionable leeches on the GNP, and wealthier than their employers. When air traffic controllers and airline employees go on strike, for example, they promote the fiction of being the good guys who are interested in public safety and want to protect the lives of the airline passengers from “victimization by the avarice of greedy employers”-the bad guys. They are very careful to conceal the facts of their own greed which includes featherbedding wages that are several times higher than the national average, and generous fringe benefits all of which deprive poor people of the opportunity to fly because the consequent high fares make flying prohibitive for them.”

“To say, “We are a nation of laws and not of men,” is sheer nonsense. Human laws are creations of man. They are interpreted by man, and they are either enforced or not enforced by man…Human laws foster the same absurdities, cruelties, and irrationalities as man himself.”

“Man makes his gods in his own image. It is, therefore, natural that the god of a predator is the Supreme Predator.”

“People seem incapable of asking themselves simple, rational questions. For example, “Why does Almighty God reveal His Truths to illiterate rascals, and depend upon THEM to disseminate His Truths to the entire world’?” An Omnipotent Power should have the capability of revealing His Truths DIRECTLY to each of His creatures in unmistakable terms. With tens of thousands of messiahs, prophets, messengers of God, gods, holy men, goddesses, monks, priests, ministers, parsons, popes, bishops, and clergymen all of different faiths sweeping the Earth clamoring for acceptance as the ONLY AUTHENTIC voice of God, a rational God would expect His creatures to also be rational and demand rational proof of authenticity.”

“What passes as good science in the scientific community is frequently exactly the same as the most absurd nonsense of religious cults. Scientists form conclusions before they conduct experiments. Evidence which tends to disprove their preconceived conclusion is ignored, altered, swept under the rug, or distorted by rationalizations. One can find as much science in the Bible or in the Koran as in the textbooks of the inexact sciences.”

This one reminds me of Sam Francis’ concept of “anarcho-tyranny”:

“When police break the law by making illegal searches and seizures they become criminals, but they are not punished. The police commit the crime, but the public is punished because the courts declare open season on victims for marauding killers, rapists, and burglars when incontrovertible evidence of vicious crimes is thrown out of court.”

The segments I find most interesting are the final two chapters, where Lorentz tackles the bugaboos of race and free will. The race chapter (the major reason I suspect this out-of-print book has yet to see reprint) is especially notable for the author performing the triple feat of bashing bigotry, eviscerating equality, and endorsing eugenic breeding.

“The Nazi outrage against reason and humanity in the name of eugenics was identical to the Christian outrage against reason and humanity when infidels and heretics were killed in the name of the God of Love.”

“A very effective weapon of left wing bigots is to accuse their opponents of bigotry. If a study produces undesired results, simply accuse the study itself of having built-in prejudices. There is no fanatical religious cult that can match left wing racist bigots or egalitarian zealots when it comes to deception, prejudice, falsification, and outright lies…”

“The value of maintaining breed purity can be clearly seen in animals. The German shepherd, for example, is an intelligent, alert, and loyal dog which performs invaluable service to the blind, the police, and the military. To destroy this proven breed by mongrelizing it would be a major disaster. To destroy the superior Jewish subspecies by intermarriage would also be a major disaster.”

“”By their fruits ye shall know them,” and by the accomplishments of the Japanese we know them to be a superior people just as we know the Jews to be a superior people, not by revealed or intuitive truth, but by solid facts and hard evidence.”

“Ethnic egalitarian bigots have a religious hatred of facts. They are committed to the national gospel of equality which, in essence, is identical to the Nazi dogma of the inferiority of Jews and superiority of Aryans because both are national gospels sustained by religious faith and not by scientific evidence. Intelligence testing, contradictory evidence, and facts must be made taboo and suppressed in a nation that places a higher priority on racial appeasement, social harmony, and political expediency than on scientific truth.”

“All scientific data confirm the intellectual superiority of Jews and Japanese AS CLASSES. However, no Jew, Japanese, or European as an individual has the logical right to claim superiority over another individual of an inferior class, say an Australian aborigine, simply because he belongs to a superior class. Class comparisons are statistical, and they MUST NOT be confused with individual comparisons. For example, there are thousands of blacks who are superior to millions of Europeans, Jews, and Japanese. There are moronic Europeans, Jews, and Japanese, and there are extremely brilliant blacks. It is the STATISTICAL inferiority of blacks that has prevented them from producing superior societies.”

“There is no super-race, and if there were, every individual in it would not be a superindividual. We have spoken of the superior Jews, Orientals, and Europeans, and yet there is an extreme paucity of individuals even among superior races who could match the intelligence and ability of George Washington Carver. If one is tempted to think of the white race as a super-race of intellects, he had better review his history. White men slaughtered each other by the millions in the name of the God of Love, and they are still slaughtering each other. The white man made science a religious crime, a heresy, and burned scientists at the stake. The most nonsensical religious cults, healing cults, science cults, and ethnic egalitarian bigotry are products of the white man’s intellect. Less than 56/100 of I percent of white men gave the world true science. More than 99 and 44/ 100 percent of them gave the world absurd nonsense.

At one time, right wing racist bigots predominated in America. Blacks were denied dignity, jobs, education, advancement, and basic human and civil rights. In the 1920s, millions of the Ku Klux Klan…terrorized blacks, and even whipped and lynched them under any pretense to maintain white supremacy, but many of the lynched blacks were actually intellectually superior to their lynchers. With the decline of these dastardly and reprehensible right wing racists came the ascendancy of left wing racists. Bigotry merely turned its ugly head and presented society with its obverse face.”

“Repressive white society could not hold superior blacks down, and supportive white society cannot hold inferior blacks up. The black greats like George Washington Carver, Benjamin Banneker, Booker T. Washington, and Jan Mat[z]eliger rose, like cream, head and shoulders above millions of inferior whites. On the other hand, no amount of busing or open enrollment can improve the IQ of less gifted blacks.”

“Many American scientists, like Nazi scientists, prostitute their science because it is more profitable to peddle official state dogma than to defy it with heresy. The prostitutes of science sail to prosperity with the prevailing winds of racial bigotry rather than flounder on uncharted reefs in storms brewed by scientific inquiry. Human beings behave today as they have since the dawn of time. Now that left wing racism is in vogue, it, like the Ku Klux Klan, compensates for intellectual impotence with physical violence to the cheers of public approbation.”

“The horror of Hitler’s holocaust in the name of eugenics but in the practice of dysgenics was an outrage against reason and intelligence the world can never forget. But, in addition, the basic stupidity of even the most intelligent of human beings will immediately transform the theoretically rational science of eugenics into an irrational, inquisitorial, fanatically religious saturnalia of persecution. A superior race is vital to a superior society, but it cannot he planned even as a successful economy cannot be planned, a la communism. Man’s nature will not have it so.”

“Boxing and basketball, for example, sometimes approach a black monopoly. There are no racial nose-counters to demand affirmative action, and to demand a racial reapportionment to reflect the racial composition of our society in the world of sports. Affirmative action would mean that 85 percent of all athletes must be white, but it would also reduce the quality of the athletes and make America inferior in world competition. The superior performer would be denied his rightful place in the sun because of his race. This would constitute right wing racism. It would be deplorable and stupid, but its effects on national greatness would be negligible compared to left wing racism which denies the superior intellectual performer his rightful place in the sun, and it has the potential to eventually reduce superpower United States to just another banana republic.”

Even with the points of nuance and qualification, all this would be ill-received in a culture that tars folks like Martin Sewell as goose-stepping Einsatzgruppen for raising the topic (thereby proving Lorentz’s point). Little wonder modern publishers haven’t been eager to snap this one up!

For me, the last chapter proves the real bitter pill. In it, Lorentz goes from making Charles zi Britannia-style endorsements of “Darwinian” struggle to adopting a resigned fatalism that makes Schopenhauer sound like an optimist!

As the bloke on the Berserk intro puts it, “at least it is true that man has no control, even over his own will”:

“The delusion of free will is inevitable because of the limited nature of human consciousness. We are conscious of our urges, desires, wants, needs, and impulses which we experience as parts of our individual essence, but we are not conscious of how our urges, desires, wants, needs, and impulses were programmed into our consciousness. The robotized human being, whether he is robotized by post-hypnotic suggestion, electrical stimulation of his brain, instincts, drugs, or brainwashing, is aware of the urge to perform certain acts, but unaware that what he feels as an urge is really a command to act in a prescribed manner. He is actually a marionette, but he feels that he is a completely free being. For example, a ladies’ man seeking to seduce young ladies is fully aware of his sex urges, but he is totally unconscious of the mechanisms whereby his genetic programming creates his sex urges.”

“Mohammed taught that man’s every action was predestined by Allah’s will (Kismet), but this doctrine of Kismet prompted aggression, not passivity. Believing it was fated for him to conquer the world in the name of Allah, he and his followers fought for Islam with uncommon ferocity. Omar Khayyam also accepted the doctrine of Kismet, but he took the rational approach. He was more in tune with science than religion, and logic than fanaticism. The belief in Kismet (FATE) prompted him not to conquer, convert or kill in the name of Allah, but to accept the inevitable in serenity and tranquility…”

And, in keeping with the Cold War paranoia of the time…

“What does it profit a man to sweat and groan for a future that may terminate in the atomic rubble of the next moment? Why build a brave new world atop an active volcano? Power of nuclear destruction in the hands of politicians is like matches in the hands of children in a gunpowder factory. When the fantastically destructive power of modem science and technology which was created by men of some intelligence is transposed to the hands of men with little or no intelligence, the hour of doom cannot be far away. That the nuclear Armageddon will arrive is a certainty. Only the precise time is uncertain. It requires but the whimsical touch of a restive finger dangling from the arm of a misguided religious fanatic hastening to do God’s will to defeat the EVIL EMPIRE, or of a communist doctrinaire hastening to assure the inevitable dialectical victory of socialism over capitalism, or of a fascist dictator who believes it is his destiny to rule the world. Faith in Fate can precipitate the end to all human fate.”

Reading that final (!) chapter, I wondered if Lorentz had ever encountered the view of compatibilism, which allows for agency without needing to extricate man to some supernatural Platonic realm.

Taking the disagreements I have with Lorentz into account, the only thing that really marred my enjoyment of his book was a factor beyond his control…

photo03891

I mean, seriously, does that look like “very good” condition to you? Buying used, rare books can be something of a Russian roulette at times, especially when throwing down considerable coinage for such. I suppose you could call used book sales a magnet for many a pecuniary predator. Hopefully, the next copy I get (which I made sure to get a personal verification on) will be as blemish-free as described—with a damn dustjacket, to boot!

So, yes, lushes and reprobates: Homo, 99 and 44/100% Nonsapiens is a highly engrossing overview of this silly species you and I call our own. Pity it’s such a cunt to get hold of at this point in time.

Still, until some puckish publishing house sees fit to pick up this hot coal, feel free to let it kindle

~MRDA~

Posted in 80s, America, Atheism, History, Perspectivism, Politics, Psychology, Racial Issues, Religion, Society, Texts of Interest | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

“Taxpayer” Tragicomedy!! Carr Contra the Cuntservatives

Page09_01_1532820a

Last week saw comedian Jimmy Carr spotlighted and strung up under the media lamppost as something of a pecuniary piñata. For some reason, King Cameron of Cuntalot, the current British PM, saw fit to name and shame him as a protection fee tax-avoider in an ITV News interview

I think some of these schemes – and I think particularly of the Jimmy Carr scheme – I have had time to read about and I just think this is completely wrong.

People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of his shows. They buy the tickets. He is taking the money from those tickets and he, as far as I can see, is putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.

That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine.

But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong.

The Government is acting by looking at a general anti-avoidance law but we do need to make progress on this.

It is not fair on hard working people who do the right thing and pay their taxes to see these sorts of scams taking place.

In short, Cammy Boy, in a classic instance of deflection, appointed Carr as his—and the nation’s—whipping boy. With a spark of sanctimony, he ignited the intersubjective indignation of the British public, who saw fit to castigate Carr for “not paying his fair share”.

Actually, that’s not entirely true. Far from being the only one thinking Carr did nothing “morally wrong”, I read a considerable number of views, online and in print, sharing the same sentiment. It proved a pleasant surprise to see others talking about how they’d exploit the fuck out of tax loopholes without regret. Certainly better reading than Carr’s limo-Leftist contrition, and the bleating of ressentiment-ridden extortees talking up the virtue of tax-“paying” as if they had a choice in the matter.

One particular letter from Friday week’s Metro stood out for me…

metro-letters-jimmy-carr

Who says tax-avoidance can’t serve the public interest? As a Play.com regular, it’s certainly served mine!

Stress on that past tense. Seems as if someone failed to notify Fraser about that particular loophole being shut down by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, a bloke I want to punch in the face for this and other reasons.

Cammy and Ozzie’s selective shaming and claiming exemplifies the modus operandi of Slave Britannia’s Conservative Party. It’s not that they hate tax-avoiders and benefit claimants: just the ones who, by choice or circumstance, fail to align with the True Blue schematic. Compare Cameron’s treatment of Carr with that of boyband bellowing extortion-evader Gary Barlow; as Labour commons leader Angela Eagle points out

The prime minister rushed to the TV studios to condemn the tax avoidance scheme used by Jimmy Carr but he did not take the opportunity to condemn as morally repugnant the tax avoidance scheme used by Conservative supporter Gary Barlow, who’s given a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘Take That’.

If it’s all so morally repugnant, why has he just been given an OBE in the birthday honours list?

I’m guessing that if Cammy dared to apply his moral indignation across the board, Barlow might just think twice about relighting his fire at the next election.

Similarly, on a macro level, the phenomenon shows itself through the constant demonization of the underclasses. Witness Cammy Boy giving it the large against the long-term unemployed, and Osborne claiming, back in September 2010, that “welfare cheats” mug the “taxpayer” (Project much, Ozzie?). Of course, such rhetoric primes the public for their usual Two-Minutes Hate sessions against “scroungers” and “dole scum”, the “parasites” in their midst. Residing amongst the underclass, I’ll make no claim to them being paragons of virtue, but reports of their epic villainy in this drama have been greatly exaggerated, especially when compared to the corporate interests, shyster charities, bank bailouts, and MP luxuries sustained by “taxpayer” largesse. And, of course, let’s not forget how much of the public pelf gets spent on military bombervention holidays.

Mr “Taxpayer” must feel mighty proud, playing his part in our “Big Society”!

Yes, the “Big Society”, the biggest fucking bait ‘n’ switch since Thatcher’s so-called “free market”: taking Mr “Taxpayer” for all his worth, giving nothing in return, and labelling it laissez-faire. Apparently, from Cammy’s perspective, volunteerism and localism means making do without the public services one ostensibly “pays” for.

Underclassmen, hard-working “taxpayers”, and non-Tory celebrity tax-avoiders: we’re all in this together—the shit, that is.

Feeling left behind by Cameron, Mr “Taxpayer”? Now you know how little Nancy feels…

~MRDA~

Posted in Economic Issues, News, Slave Britannia | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Amoralic Acid of L.A. Rollins

l-a-rollins

This gem of a quote from L.A Rollins’ The Myth of Natural Rights serves as something of a companion piece to yesterday’s post

If there are no unconditional “musts” or “oughts,” then there are no “duties” or “moral obligations.” Which means there is no “morality,” no “system of the principles and duties of right and wrong conduct.” Morality (like natural law and natural rights, which are specific examples of “moral” ideas) is a myth invented to promote the interests/desires/purposes of the inventors.

Morality is a device for controlling the gullible with words. “You ‘must not’ commit murder!” Why not? “Because murder is ‘wrong!’ Murder is ‘immoral!'” Bunk! Murder may be impractical or excessively risky or just not worth the trouble. There are all sorts of reasons why I might refrain from committing murder, even when I would like to do it. But murder is not “wrong.” Murder is not “immoral.” And the same goes for rape, robbery, assault, battery, burglary, buggery, bestiality, incest, treason, torturing children, suicide, cannibalism, cannabisism, etc. Moralist Alan Wheelis says, “Morality is a wall. On it is written: Whatever passion impel you, whatever goal you pursue, beyond this limit you may not go…” But if morality is a wall, it is a metaphorical or fake wall, a wall built with words, not bricks, a wall that will not stop us amoralists. So if you want to be safe from us…you’d better build some real walls.

Hopefully, Nine-Banded Books’ll getting round to reprinting Rollins’ mini-masterpiece later in the decade. Whilst you await the day, feel free to give my earlier musings on “morality” the once-over.

I reckon both this and the Bundy quote serve as a fine pair of addenda to my previous piece; as they say here in the East End, you don’t get many of those to the pound!

~MRDA~

Posted in Amoralism, Personal, Perspectivism, Quotes, Texts of Interest | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

Ted Bundy: Philosophical Predator

I found this dialogue on a God-botherer site and I thought it worth sharing. Say what you will about Bundy’s deeds and desires, but I like his unflinching logic.

Following is a recorded conversation between serial killer Ted Bundy and one of his victims:

Laura: Where have you taken me, Ted?

Bundy: To a place where no one can follow us—or find you—at least not until long after I have disappeared—and you are dead.

Laura: What do you mean?

Bundy: What I mean is that I intend to rape and murder you.

Laura: Oh, my God, my God, why?

Bundy: Because, my dear, it will give me the greatest possible pleasure to do so.

Laura: Please, please, spare me. Send for ransom, ask anything. I know my parents and their families and friends will do anything to save my life.
Bundy: But you fail to understand me. I don’t want anything from anyone else. It is raping and murdering you that I want, and nothing can substitute for it. By the way, unless I have lost count, you will be the 89th young woman—person I should say—who has been good enough to gratify me in this way. Believe it or not, I am very grateful to my victims—although I do not think of them as victims, but rather as those making the sacrifices necessary for my freedom—the freedom to live my life the way I choose to live it. Nations praise those who sacrifice their lives for the freedom of others, as you will shortly be doing. I would be glad to erect a monument to your memory—and to that of all the others, past and future, who have made and will make the same sacrifice—although I do not think it is practicable for me to try to do so.

Laura: But Ted, how can you possibly call raping and murdering your “freedom”? What about my life and freedom?

Bundy: I recognize that your life and your freedom are very valuable to you, but you must recognize that they are not so valuable to me. And if I must sacrifice your life and freedom to mine, why should I not do so? The unexamined life was not worth living to Socrates. And a life without raping and murdering is not worth living to me. What right do you—or does anyone—have, to deny this to to me?

Laura: But rape and murder are wrong. The Bible says they are wrong, and the law says they are wrong.

Bundy: What do you mean by wrong? What you call wrong, I call attempts to limit my freedom. The Bible punished both sodomy and murder with death. Sodomy is no longer regarded as a crime, or even as immoral. Why then should murder—or rape? But, you say, rape and murder are against the law, and if the law catches me, it will punish me. Very well, and if it does not catch me, what then? After so many highly successful and immensely gratifying rapes and murders, I do not think the law has much to say to me. In any case, it can hardly punish me any more for what I am about to do, than for what I have already done. So I see little benefit for you in this argument.

Laura: But surely, surely, Ted, you must see that killing an innocent human being is wrong. Did you, or do you not have a mother and a father, or a sister or a brother, or friends, in whom you recognize a life like your own, that should be as precious to you as your own life? Is there not something within you—a conscience—that tells you that to be a human being is to recognize that everything is not permitted? And that your own happiness—indeed your own freedom—depends upon on living within the bounds prescribed either by God or the moral law?

Bundy: Well, Laura, I am glad we are having this talk. None of my other victims ever asked me to justify myself as you are doing. And so I must tell you—and hope it will afford you some satisfaction-that you are if possible increasing the pleasure I am having from our acquaintance, short as it must be.

I want you to know then that once upon a time I too believed that God and the moral law prescribed boundaries within which my life had to be lived. That was before I took my first college courses in philosophy. Then it was that I discovered how unsophisticated—nay, primitive—my earlier beliefs had been. Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong.” I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself—what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself—that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any “reason” to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring—the strength of character—to throw off its shackles. And I was assured, by what I regarded as the highest possible authority—a Harvard-trained philosophy professor—that, the root notion of [true] freedom is . . . the spontaneous, uninhibited expression of the integrated self . . . [and that] the absence of freedom means . . . the presence of blocks or limitations that prevent unfettered expressions of the self.

I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consisted in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is our life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasures more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham, and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.

Posted in Amoralism, Atheism, Egoism, Ethics, Perspectivism, Quotes, Religion, Texts of Interest | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments

Cannibal Holocaust & the Bestial Bukkakolypse

The last few weeks saw a rash of reportage centred around some particularly hungry customers, namely, those who possess a literal appetite for their fellow man. They certainly proved a colourful bunch: from Rudy “Face-Eater” Eugene; to “My Name is Luka” Magnotta, the todger-loving twink who supposedly made a meal of one of his conquests. For me, it all brought back memories of a case from my wretched neck of the woods: Peter “The Newham Cannibal” Bryan.

Of course, folk who fell asleep watching one Walking Dead episode too many waxed hyperbolically about the “zombie apocalypse”, jokingly (?) wondering if Hell had indeed exceeded its capacity.

All of this proved entertaining enough, before the weekend brought forth more phenomena for my amusement:

Continue reading

Posted in Entertainment, News, Personal, Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

“A Union of Egoists on the Printed Page”

spread-anarchy-dont-tell-me-what-to-do

Via an unexpected collaboration with Chip Smith of The Hoover Hog, Enemies of Society, the individualist-anarchist digest I mentioned in a previous post, is now available through his publishing house, Nine-Banded Books—with a sales pitch scribed by Yours Truly!

As an observant Teuton once remarked, “our atheists are pious people.” Some 167 years later, our most outspoken “freethinkers” continue to deify concepts in a manner befitting the religionists against whom they rail. Rather than slaying the Sacred, these ostensible infidels have merely transubstantiated it to suit their own psychological needs. And given the grab bag of idols they insist on subjecting themselves (and others) to, their needs must be legion! Such is the situation, when even the spirited souls who shake off this shackle or that end up enmeshing themselves within a thousand more: “Gaia,” “Democracy,” “Race,” “The Greater Good,” and “Humanity,” to name but a few. Even anarchists—mouthers of the mantra “no gods, no masters”— find themselves in thrall and worship to these conceptual chimeras. Under such sanctimonious skies, every breath becomes a blasphemy.

Fortunately, there are those who respire away such reifications with an unfettered gust of the lung. Not content to reject God and the State, anarchic egoists spit on the Social Contract, puke on Posterity, sodomize Society, and murder Morality. Why, they even pause to urinate on the Übermensch along the way!

Inspired by the work of the late, great Max Stirner (the reprobate earlier referenced), the likes of S.E. Parker, James L. Walker, and Renzo Novatore proudly affirm the primacy of their personal desires, slaughtering every sacred cow dumb enough to stand in their way. Their words, along with those of other individualist anarchists, can be found within Enemies of Society, an anthology best described as a union of egoists on the printed page. Forget those tiresome tomes preaching “social anarchism,” anarcho-communism, or some other uninspired utopianism; this is the beating heart behind the very notion of anarchy: Unbowed, unorthodox, untethered—unique.

Meet the beasts who shouted “I” at the heart of the world.

Especially great news for any non-Stateside readers, seeing as 9BB’s international postage isn’t quite as oppressive on the wallet as Little Black Cart’s.

Oh, and be sure to check out the other publications in Chip’s “recreational thoughtcrime” catalogue: you might just find something else to your taste…

UPDATE (9/6/12): It would appear the Hog has given me honourable mention, and I’ve learned a new Teutonism—querdenker.

~MRDA~

Posted in Amoralism, Anarchism, Egoism, Personal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Wielder of the Rod of Correction—RAPEMAN!!

The last fortnight has been something of a superhero double bill; prior to taking in the new Avengers movie (which comes very highly recommended, by the way), I finally got round to viewing this notorious piece of anime filth…

the-rapeman-ep01-02-cover_

Yes, lushes and reprobates, it’s The Rapeman! I’d tell you to lock up your daughters, but I suspect the dirty bastard has more than a few skeleton keys stashed up his prophylactic sleeve…

Continue reading

Posted in Animé, Gender Issues, Personal, Retinal Reprobation, Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Why, It’s An Anthology of Amoral Asocialites!

So, this plopped through my letterbox on Friday, courtesy of the speedy folk at Little Black Cart. Cheers to Rex Literati at Anti-Culture for alerting me to this tome’s existence…

enemies_cover_40011

Currently, I’m leafing through it it a haphazard way, but I thought I’d share a pair of choice excerpts with y’all:

I have no ancestors! For me the creation of the world dates from the day of my birth; for me the end of the world will be accomplished on the day when I shall restore to the elementary mass the apparatus and the afflatus which constitute my individuality. I am the first man, I shall be the last. My history is the complete result of humanity; I know no other, I care to know no other. When I suffer, what good do I get from another’s enjoyment? When I enjoy, in what do those who suffer detract from my pleasures? Of what consequence to me is that which happened before me? How am I concerned in what will happen after me? It is not for me to serve as a sacrifice to respect for extinct generations, or as an example to posterity. I confine myself within the circle of my existence, and the only problem that I have to solve is that of my welfare. I have but one doctrine, that doctrine has but one formula, that formula has but one word: ENJOY! Sincere is he who confesses it; an imposter is he who denies it.

-Anselme Bellegarigue

Anarchy is freedom, and this most assuredly includes the freedom not to be a socialist or to live like one, and the freedom not to limit one’s identity to any social role—especially that of worker. It’s the freedom not to participate in communal activities or to share communal goals, or to pray before the idol of Solidarity. It’s freedom not only from the rule of the State but also from that of the tribe, village, commune, or production syndicate. It’s the freedom to choose one’s own path to one’s own goals, to map out one’s own campaign against Authority, and, if desired, to go it alone.

-Meme , Myself and I

From the looks of things, there’s the promise of plenty more, with scribings from such incorrigibles as S.E. Parker, James L. Walker, Renzo Novatore, and John Henry Mackay. I look forward to giving it a more thorough read…

~MRDA~

Posted in Amoralism, Anarchism, Egoism, Personal, Perspectivism, Philosophy, Quotes, Texts of Interest | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Derb is the Word…or is He?

5l;

Who would’ve thought such a mild-mannered, bourgeois Englishman could ignite such a fibre-optic firestorm?

A few weekends back, all right-thinking Left-leaners united for a hyperextended Two Minutes Hate session against one John Derbyshire, a Brit expat and paleocon pundit who occupies a comfy niche amongst America’s “alternative Right”. Turns out that the round-goggled reprobate saw fit to scribe a rather un-PC survival guide for the melanin-deficient; and, judging from the resultant comments, and the rash of responses from various Lefty haunts, it appears to have left many a pissed-off Progressive in its wake.

Having previously clicked and leafed through Derbyshire’s output, including his musings on multiculturalism, immigration, and racial IQ, I registered little in the way of surprise when I read the article. It struck me as something of a synthesis of his scribblings, citing crime stats and group averages to concretize another slab of “conservative pessimism”.

I must admit that, whilst I’m not down with the paleocon paradigm for a number of reasons, I appreciate their often incisive criticisms of PC equalitarian conceits. Similarly, whatever misgivings I have with Derb’s Taki Mag piece, I admire his refusal to apologize to his detractors for speaking his mind, even in the face of a firing.

That said, “The Talk” left me feeling rather ambivalent upon “hearing” it…

I don’t see much of anything to contest in the first six points Derbyshire makes, seeing as they simply describe percentages, people, and phenomena that can be be observed or deduced sans value judgement (with the exception of the fourth point, a prescription of civic equity):

(1) Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.

(2) American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture. The overall average of non-African admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: “It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry.” (Same link.)

(3) Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white.

(4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety.

(5) As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among blacks in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as black). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are black geniuses and black morons. There are black saints and black psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no black Fields Medal winners. While this is civilizationally consequential, it will not likely ever be important to you personally. Most people live and die without ever meeting (or wishing to meet) a Fields Medal winner.

(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences.

The next three points take a detour down Anecdote Avenue, linking particular cases of black hostility to buttress his point. Though I’m not so sure about his percentages, he does make some universally applicable observations about the dynamics of identitarianism, the herd instinct, and intergenerational grudges:

(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.

(8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet.

(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

It’s with the tenth point that Derb drops the bombshell:

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

Now, if the amount of predatory crime committed by American blackfolk really is off the charts; if predominantly black areas really do amount to danger zones, then Derbyshire’s prescriptions (some of them, at least) make sense. I certainly read of enough cases of American black-on-nonblack violence to think his concerns not so easily dismissible. Between his trend analysis and his own near-death experience, I can understand his apprehension: pattern-recognition often proves a useful survival mechanism. I can imagine a raceflipped version of this convo taking place in many a black American household, some fifty years back.

Fuck it! I can hear an intraracial version of this convo taking place in many a present-day black household. I know the typical black parent doesn’t visualise “gangbanger”, “pimp”, or “corpse” as an ideal for their progeny.

Which brings me onto where I think Derb’s piece falls short. In his personal profiling, does he discern any other constants beyond phenotypes?  Does he factor in other aspects of appearance and behaviour, such as age, dress, and demeanour? From my experience, these elements often prove just as, if not more, important than race. For example, I generally avoid contact with groups of besuited, bag-touting blackfolk, as experience tells me they’re likely to be Jay-Dubyas; I make a point of ignoring eager-eyed clipboard-carriers of any hue (who tend to be just as irritatingly evangelistic as the aforementioned Jehovahs); I find youth, loudness, and multiplicity an obnoxious combination in any shade (especially with a ghetto/chav aesthetic thrown in); but I’m not inclined to hang out with socially conservative bourgeois types, like Derbyshire, either.

It’s not that Derb’s being too discriminating when he puts his focus on racial profiling but, rather, not discriminating enough. As a result, his race-über-alles outlook overrules or obscures other, often more important aspects, as is apparent in his special focus on black politicians. Though I’m no fan of Obama, my gripes with him have fuck-all to do with race and everything to do with him being, to all intents and purposes, Dubya 2.0. Similarly, the phenomenon of racial identity politics, exemplified by folk like Al Sharpton and Diane Abbott, is often exploited by vote-hungry white politicos, as well. Personally, were I to put weight on any one common factor in my judgement of the aforementioned, it’d be their allegiance to the self-selected predator class known as “politicians”.

Still, in fairness to Derb, he acknowledges the sweeping hastiness of some of his prescriptions in a follow-up article:

On one hand, I wish I had elaborated some on that, to the effect that in view of not-uncommon outcomes such as the one to which I linked, you just need to be a whole lot more wary about acting the Good Samaritan when the distressed traveler is black (even if you yourself are black). One can think of cases where you should act anyway, but in most situations, I’d still recommend double caution.

On the other hand, the context here is advice to kids. Deciding which situation says, “Stay out of this!” and which says, “Help the guy” requires an act of judgment. Kids don’t have very good judgment; so a blanket “Stay out of this!” is not bad advice in context.

Readers, even quite friendly and intelligent ones…emailed in to say things such as: “I live in a heavily black neighborhood, and things are just fine, never any trouble.”

I don’t doubt it. Of course there are nice black neighborhoods. That misses my point about statistical common sense. A white person who finds himself in a neighborhood about which he knows nothing except that it is heavily black is more likely to encounter trouble than he would in some strange neighborhood not heavily black.

Onto the eleventh and twelfth points, which touch on racial IQ statistics and Affirmative Action:

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”

(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.

At first, I questioned his mentioning of racial IQs in the article: whilst I find the subject rather intriguing, it reads like a detraction from the general “safety” angle the article takes. Whatever the underlying reasons for it, low IQ, per se, doesn’t register as an immediate existential threat (though it increases its possessor’s chances of winning a Darwin Award!). On reflection though, it plays into the twelfth point concerning the pervasiveness of Affirmative Action. If blackfolk who fall short of the mark are nevertheless being employed in the name of “proportional representation”, it highlights an insidious type of state-endorsed racial reductionism that does neither blacks nor nonblacks any favours in the long run.

Which brings me to my personal bugbears of the whole piece: the final three points:

(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

(14) Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSBs, especially in positions at the interface with the general public—corporate sales reps, TV news presenters, press officers for government agencies, etc.—with corresponding depletion in less visible positions. There is also strong private demand from middle- and upper-class whites for personal bonds with IWSBs, for reasons given in the previous paragraph and also (next paragraph) as status markers.

(15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13).

There are several reasons why the acronym “IWSB” annoys the fuck out of me.

Firstly, as a generally asocial, and somewhat antisocial, person, I fucking hate the term “well-socialized”: as if “socialization”—being cleaved to consensus by external forces—is something worth striving for! Sure, I can go through the pleasantries, help out strangers, and, if I like you, step outside for the odd pint; but all of it is, at root, self-interest and self-satisfaction. Socializing for its own sake just seems like misdirected time and effort; and the values and perspectives adopted by the “well-socialized” folk around me often strike me as laughable, inane, and often contemptible.

The second reason for my annoyance, more in line with Derb’s article, is this talk of IWSBs plays into a crude type of racial Manichaeism, pitting “the good blacks” against “the bad blacks”. Depending on your sympathies, one could assign the former position to the “real nigga”, the “credit to your race”, the “so well-spoken”, or the “positive black role model”, with the negative label serving to scourge those outside your chosen Platonic ideal. I know various parties have either tried to claim or shame me. Sometimes, both at once. When it comes down to it, Crip, Corporate, and Conscious all equate to constriction, in my eyes.

The concept of seeking out IWSBs as “amulets” (Gotta catch ‘em all!) also left a sour taste in my metaphorical mouth. Here, Derbyshire advises a rather mercenary attitude to “friendship”, motivated by petty point-scoring and social climbing rather than emergent affection. However, doesn’t this prescription to acquire one’s very own Designer Black Friend TM hold a mirror up to many a status-climbing limousine Lefty? Indeed, doesn’t the whole fucking article outline their mental schematics and general behaviour patterns? Perhaps a large part—or even most—of the backlash comes from those types, trying to supress the id Derb so unapologetically articulates in his piece. It wouldn’t surprise me…

All that said, the demand for IWSBs presents a sterling opportunity for intelligent blackfolk seeking to “climb the ladder” for whatever reason. As a friend put it,

The social leverage that belongs to what he calls the “intelligent well socialized black.” What he really means is “Black guys who are really polite and don’t scare me.” If you can be a black guy that doesn’t scare racist old shitbags, you have a lot of power.

I want all my non-white friends to read this. Seriously, there’s a lot of power in manipulating stuffy old white racists, and the first step to manipulation is knowledge. Here this guy is giving us a map to the gaps in his defenses.

Basically, it’s like something out of a Robert Greene book, or what a Satanist would call “Lesser Magic”: using one’s environment and appearance to one’s advantage. Perhaps, whilst Progressives parade pitchforks on his behalf, the status-hungry IWSB adept is congratulating Derb on handing him a How-To toward “felicity”.

I myself feel relatively detached from the whole drama, finding the reactions to Derbgate somewhat understandable, yet ultimately overblown. Whilst Mr Conservative Pessimism will never win prizes for Political Correctness, or pan-racial solidarity (his Sinophilia and marriage, notwithstanding), he’s hardly the second coming of the KKK. His negrophobic prejudice seems less animated by animus against blackfolk, and more grounded in the safety and survival of his bourgeois brood. Whilst the bourgeoisie aren’t my cup of tea, I can’t fault him for looking out for his own.

Thus, despite the aforementioned flaws, I find it hard to flare up in fury over the words of the Derb. If they amount to—to quote a friend of a friend—the “most absolutely-fucking-gonzo-racist thing…on the internet”, racism really has crumpled into something of a paper tiger.

~MRDA~

Posted in America, Egoism, Moral Panic, News, Personal, Perspectivism, Racial Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

April Fools Make Useful Tools

image1

The fourth month of Annus Apocalypsis opened with another atrocious, though not astonishing, panorama of the end times: namely, the ConDem coalition’s proposal to play peekaboo with the nation’s online interactions.

Others thought it a tragically unfunny April Fool prank; I knew better.

As much as I thought them to be worthless cunts from Day One, with their “Big Society” snake oil and scapegoating of the lower classes, I gave the ConDems credit for one thing: dismantling the biometric ID card system of the previous Labour government. If nothing else, they’d at least eradicated Labour’s creeping totalitarianism, right?

Two incidents led me to erase said credit: their attempts to block the nation’s access to filth in December of 2010; and reading of their plan to resurrect those draconian databases in a manner more to their liking last May…

A prototype of the new system is due to be in place as soon as October this year. It will aim to reliably identify users of government websites, as part of plans to deliver more public services via the web.

George Osborne believes the shift online will cut Whitehall administration costs and so help soften the blow of spending cuts over the next few years.

Several private companies that already hold personal data, including credit card providers, will be involved in the system.

Such firms have already verified their customers’ identities, so privacy campaigners hope government will not itself collect personal data, in contrast to the National Identity Register that was to be the basis of ID cards.

The Telegraph, 23 May 2011

I rolled my eyes, laughed at the typical bait ‘n’ switch, and utterly dismissed the delusion that these ConDem cunts gave a fuck about civil liberties. Further attempts at infringement served only to strengthen my dismissal.

So, when I heard about this panoptic proposal, it didn’t so much sound like a volte-face as it did an escalation.

At the apex of this proposed defecation loomed the ghoulish visage of Home Secretary Theresa May, who stepped up to defend her pet project with the reliable thought-killers of “security”, “paedophilia”, and “terrorism”; as the bitch received backlash—some of it from her fellow party members—she found herself flanked by King Cameron of Cuntalot and his (not-so) noble squire, the supposedly liberal Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke. Despite this, the ConDem cuntingent soon found itself on the backpedal, thanks to those few among their ranks who remembered the meaning of the word “liberal”.

Still, hard though it may be to believe, these parliamentary predators actually have fans amongst their potential prey. Ever fearful of the kiddy-fucking Islamist bogeymen beamed into their living rooms, said souls give an eager nod to every piece of liberty-limiting legislation whored out to them through the media, regardless of the cost. Worse, in between slurps on the gonads of government, they see fit to counter dissent with this slavish slice of law-abiding citizenship…

If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.

…which simply inspires me—depending on my mood—to either laugh, groan, or shake my head.

Whenever some Slave Britannian utters those words, or some variation thereof, I wonder why they wear clothes and live behind locked doors; I also wonder whether they bother drawing their curtains before treating themselves to a quick hand shandy or a spot of how’s-your-father with the missus.

Sometimes, my thoughts turn to one Jean Charles De Menezes: a man who also thought he had nothing to fear—until he actually did!

Perhaps these peons think that they’re signalling some kind of moral superiority from the signposted reprobates and “sympathizers” in their midst; what these fucking numpties certainly signal is their abject slavishness, and—more importantly in this instance—their myopic conceit, assuming the inoffensive activities they engage in today won’t become illegal tomorrow. What happens if the health Stasi decide that public smoking bans are only half-arsing it and declare smoking in any space verboten “for the sake of the children” and “the national wellbeing”?

I must admit that some part of me longs to find out; wishes for these complacent cocksuckers to get exactly the repression they crave: CCTV in their living rooms, toilets, bathrooms, bedrooms, watching to see if they indulge in the pastimes they currently enjoy without penalty.

That I’d be under the same scrutiny would be a small price to pay for the pleasure of shoving their smarmy little shibboleth back up their arses when they come a-crying.

132-79de6cac_91dc_6678

That said, given how readily they assume the position now, these April Fools might very well enjoy the buggery…

~MRDA~

Posted in Civil Liberties, News, Politics, Slave Britannia, The UK, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments