My Thought on the Paris Attacks

The Moslem believe peace to be our weakness. If they picked up a history book, they would see peace is a weakness we have killed for. For millennia, in many vicious and fruitless wars, brother against brother. Civil war is a point of sarcasm and our gallows humour remains. We paid for our nation states, monarchies and democracies by the barrel of our ancestor’s blood. This is our flag and it cannot be unstaked. This is our birthright and claim. We have been in a continental stalemate since the bloodiest yet, thanks to newfangled death machines, our weapons stayed temporarily by the memory, now fading, of what a waste we made the last two times. How many died needlessly? We stopped from love, not cowardice. What were we defending, we asked ourselves, if not ourselves, with nobody left to answer.

This bolded section sprung to mind when I heard the news and saw the attentive impact on otherwise mundane people.

“The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, ‘This isn’t fair dealing,’ my son, leave the Saxon alone.”

If the enemies of the West were smart, they’d gather up their trophies and leave now. Peace is an accord between gentlefolk and the enemy sets the tone. It seems peace is no longer an option. White people made an artform of torture, for God or war or sport; Sade simply wrote parts of it down. The nature of men does not change with the centuries, we simply forget it awhile. They would be foolish to prod the nest when a fury has built.

“You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don’t try that game on the Saxon; you’ll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They’ll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.”

I predicted this year would be important. I’m sorry to report I was correct.

I do not know how long it will take to reply, and even less about the time until resolution, but these are dark days ahead. One thing is clear – we cannot go back. We cannot turn our face away from the danger and I hope this matter will be concluded swiftly.

Video: How to destroy the world

Stefan is knocking it outta the park recently. Highest quality redpill stuff.
Who turned him onto us? Anyone know?

wow omg likey

TLDW: Social engineers are child abusers.

In one word, it comes down to Legacy. The legacy is the future.

You either have one, or you don’t. You eat the cake, or you keep the cake.
But it doesn’t last forever. Never kick the pup because the pup grows up.
We are reaching that tipping point. I saw a comment, I think it was on Vox Day’s blog, pointing out that by recreating the conditions of Weimar Germany in every system, it’s predictable what would happen next. But neolibs don’t listen to history, they’re on the Right Side… *snicker*

I treat you as a sentient intelligent lifeform. Objections?

He’s right that the quality of men dropped before the quality of women. I feel the manosphere forgets there is another half to the equation. Post-WW, the few surviving men lived it up. Then the Sexual Revolution just happened on by shortly thereafter because women felt left out and wanted some of the attention. Men lost their motivation because sex is practically all they want from women and…. yup, that’s pretty much it. This causes the economy to tank eventually and we’ve been building up bubbles ever since (look at the time you went off the Gold Standard to cover for it, LOOK) because men buy most of the shit needed for a family from a position of surplus and women, while easier to sell to, must buy on credit.

The manosphere mocks women for saying “Where have all the good men gone“? Answer: They’re Peter Pans at home playing video games and watching porn, the Lost Boys, which hardly reflects well on men as they think it does, while all the time most of their discussions feature “Where have all the good women gone“? without a trace of self-awareness. Answer: Pump and dumps, pretty much. Not Asia. Not S. America. You chucked them, or some other guy did, and now they’re psychologically ruined by it.

n.b.

Maternal instinct isn’t a myth. It’s much like paternal drive in men. Some have it, some have it strongly and some do not have it at all. Women are dumb enough to freely admit where they lie there, oblivious to how it affects their long-term value: are you pro-choice? They can only answer for themselves and only the women who state the rape/cancer exception are permissible.

p.p.s.

Gold Standard in America: 1971. I’m sure that’s a maaaa-ssive coincidence.
UK: 1934. WW1 made us broke. However, we had similar problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt#1970s

The crisis was seen as a national humiliation.

Video: Islam in the West/ Wrath of the Awakened Saxon

I’m surprised he didn’t do one to the tune of Rains of Castamere, because that’s where this is going.
It would be more fitting.

And who are you, the proud lord said,
that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat,
that’s all the truth I know.
In a coat of gold or a coat of red,
a lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, my Lord,
as long and sharp as yours.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke,
that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o’er his hall,
with no one there to hear.
Yes, now the rains weep o’er his hall,
and not a soul to hear.
And who are you, the proud lord said,
that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat,
that’s all the truth I know.
In a coat of gold or a coat of red,
a lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, my lord,
as long and sharp as yours.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke,
that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o’er his hall,
with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o’er his hall,
and not a soul to hear.

If you don’t get the reference, look up The Lion on Trigger TV.

Or perhaps;

“The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, ‘This isn’t fair dealing,’ my son, leave the Saxon alone.

Sometimes it slips through, like BBC3 covering Luton.

Video: The smugness of delusional liberals

There is a game I learnt from a small village in the middle of nowhere. Here’s a description:

Collaborator:Partisan

In the event of an invasion, would X be enthusiastically co-operating (“Well, they are a bit harsh, admittedly, with their summary justice an’ all, but <sigh> we’ve got to have rules.” [BANG]) or out there sabotaging? It seems clear which side the ‘grasses’ would be on.”

Which one Guardian true-believers are on would be clear.
Let them lie in their own bed. They wanted XYZ, leave them be, even if they’re screaming for help. Remind them they had a choice …and they chose wrong.

Orwellian “Extremism Disruption Orders” on UK table

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/08/britain-poised-to-silence-extremist-spee

In Britain, if you have extreme views on anything from Western democracy to women’s role in public life, you might soon require a licence from the government before you can speak in public. Seriously.

It’s the brainchild of Theresa May, the Home Secretary in David Cameron’s government. May wants to introduce “extremism disruption orders”, which, yes, are as terrifyingly authoritarian as they sound.

Last month, May unveiled her ambition to “eliminate extremism in all its forms.” Whether you’re a neo-Nazi or an Islamist, or just someone who says things which betray, in May’s words, a lack of “respect for the rule of law” and “respect for minorities”, then you could be served with an extremism disruption order (EDO).

Strikingly, EDOs will target even individuals who do not espouse or promote violence, which is already a crime in the U.K. As May says, “The problem that we have had is this distinction of saying we will only go after you if you are an extremist that directly supports violence. [This] has left the field open for extremists who know how not to step over the line.” How telling that a leading British politician should be snotty about “this distinction” between speech and violence, between words and actions, which isn’t actually some glitch in the legal system, as she seems to think, but rather is the foundation stone on which every free, democratic society ought to be built.

Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a “requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print.” That is, you will effectively need a licence from the state to speak, to publish, even to tweet, just as writers and poets did in the 1600s before the licensing of the press was swept away and modern, enlightened Britain was born (or so we thought).

What sort of people might find themselves branded “extremists” and thus forbidden from speaking in public? Anyone, really. The definition of extremist being bandied about by May and her colleagues is so sweeping that pretty much all individuals with outré or edgy views could potentially find themselves served with an EDO and no longer allowed to make any public utterance without government approval.

…What the government is proposing is the punishment of thoughtcrimes, plain and simple. Its insistence that officialdom must now move beyond policing violence and incitements to violence and start clamping down on hotheaded, “harmful” speech that simply distresses people is about colonising the world of thought, of speech, of mere intellectual interaction between individuals—spheres officialdom has no business in policing….

These people aren’t liberal. They’re Communist fascists.
This is one step to lining up dissenters and putting a bullet in the back of their heads.

I happen to know for a fact Anonymous won’t stand for this.

Expect us.

Spectator, 1828: The ‘Genuine Briton’ and the ‘Liberal’

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/5th-july-1828/11/the-genuine-briton-and-tiie-liberal

I credit my love of the classics for being able to read this as easily as a modern broadsheet, but if you take it slow I promise it’s very funny.

” The disposition of a genuine Briton is to make

up his mind upon what he ought to do, and having once determined that, to adhere to his resolution with a fixedness of purpose, which more fre- quently proceeds to the length of obstinacy, than deviates into vacillation and uncertainty. Now this is a character quite opposite to that of the Liberals, and much to be preferred before it ; for while the Briton of the old school may possibly carry his principle to an extent which is not right, he of the new or Liberal school will most probably tumble through sheer weakness into what is wrong. In the Liberal there is a total absence of the sound healthy firmness, which is absolutely essential to eminent useful- ness – he yields this; he concedes that ; he compromises the other thing ; he

wi ‘nds, and twists, and hesitates ; and when he wants to accomplish a thing,

chooses rather to do it by a trick or stratagem, than by candour and plain dealing. You are never sure of him ; you are doubtful as to his object, and

quite uncertain as to the means he will adopt. Even his principles he yields

to circumstances, and lie is particularly deferential to a vague impalpable soMething, which he is pleased to call the spirit of the age,’ but which, on investigation, appears to be nothing more than the affected tone of the weak trash which the press pours forth in such quantity. Your Liberal has

no strong hold “f anything; he has cast away the anchors of the old law, and national feeling, and exclusive privileges of Britons, as mere prejudices, and useless shackles to his enlarged comprehension. He floats about upon the wide sea of the world’s opinion, and is blown hither and thither by every gust which may come from the various quarters of the globe. He neglects the interests of the people round about him, while he considers what may most promote the prosperity of the new kingdoms of the new world, and sacrifices the most important interests of his own country in a paroxysm of general philanthropy and universal benevolence. But in every thing he does, he is most anxious that he himself should appear ; he is not only of opinion that he knows better than all who have gone before him, but that the world should see that he is the person who has made the grand discovery that every one else was wrong ; and this he generally accomplishes, not in the ego hoe fe,,i fashion of Mr Cenning, but by getting some other disciple of the same schoe’ to beslobbei him with nauseous flattery, for which he on the next suitable occasion beslobbers his friend in return ; and thus, sickening effeminate praise: get forth into the newspapers, and these people get a name amongst the millmn. eta’, this time, however, no- thing solid is done ; your Lii.atral is the worst -tan of business in the world ; it is true. he seems busy, but it is in making speeches, and devising plans and complicated refinements upon what works well enedgh already. while the more arduous and important concerns of the State ate frequently neg- lected, because they afford no opportunity to display, or for shewing off the advantages of the new and improved system. To make amends. however, for the little he does, li^ is always ready to talk, or if you choose, to write you an essay, which is -nglish in nothing but its language, and not always even in that. His vanity is concerned in this, his name is in the mouths of men, as a speaker or an author, and his childish desire for popular at- .tention towards himself is gratified. * * * * The Liberals have sunk, we hope never to rise again…..’