Archive for November, 2010

radio : subterranean-fire friend discusses “left hand path”

Sunday, November 28th, 2010

The link
The show discusses heavy metal, nazism, Marxism, anarchism, conservatism, satanism, rebellion against authority, capitalism, corporations, corruption and a few topics.

I will comment more later.

The guy who set this up got this info to me via social networking.

Public Service Announcement

Saturday, November 27th, 2010

Great Propaganda Moments of the 20th Century

Saturday, November 27th, 2010

Group Psychology and Idiots

Thursday, November 25th, 2010

I noticed that if you take a small group of dumb self-righteous people who support the same cause, and throw them together, they will actually start to think they are intelligent. They will actually start to believe they are popular. They become very pretentious, when to the rest of the world, they are laughed at.

They will rely on each other for support. Even though outside of their clique, it is obvious that they are idiots.

Anyone else notice this?

Comments temporarily deleted

Thursday, November 25th, 2010

edit : everything has been restored but the “human rights.” Read my comment here for information, it was approximately restored but I can improve that with your help.

original post : I will get them back as much as possible.

I ran a query to get rid of spam, typed the wrong syntax, and killed every comment.

I have a backup on 11/2.

For comments after 11/2, we have all the approved ones thanks to yahoo pipes. Can be re-entered manually.

DPRK attacked by “south” Korea

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

News reports from the Korean Peninsula indicated Tuesday that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was forced to retaliate against “south” Korean military provocations. Official reports pointed the blame squarely on Seoul.

Source: Xinhua News

On Tuesday afternoon, “south” Korean military forces fired dozens of shells towards DPRK waters around Yonphyong Islet at around 1:00 pm local time (click here).

The DPRK condemned the transgression as a “determined military measure,” and promptely responded

A statement from the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) explained its response to the “south’s” provocation as follows:

“It is a traditional mode of counter-action of the army of the DPRK to counter the firing of the provocateurs with merciless strikes.”

More troubling, however, was Washington’s response to the conflict – which reiterated US obligations to so-called “south” Korea…

“Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, stressed Tuesday that the United States would “honor our alliance obligations to the South” and ensure peace on the Korean peninsula.” (Click here).

The United States maintains roughly 30,000 soldiers on the Korean Peninsula — after being forced to retreat back into the south following its crushing defeat at the hands of the DPRK in the early 1950s. Since then, the US has been engaged in a hostile and nefarious campaign to undermine the DPRK and solidify its hegemony over the entire Peninsula. In recent years, the US has increased its provocative rhetoric towards the DPRK, and has encouraged its “south” Korean lackeys to take up a more belligerent attitude towards its neighbor.

Tuesday’s conflict is thus nothing less than the inevitable outcome of the contradictions that have plagued the Korean people as a result of Western intrigue and aspirations.

You have no “rights”

Sunday, November 21st, 2010

Any special interest group seeking to gain political, social or economic advantage in society  tend to rely on an argument referring to their own groups’ inherent “rights.” The bourgeoisie violently and persistently defends its “right” to own the means of production. Homosexuals demand the “right” to marry one another. Child pornographers defend their degeneracy as a “right” of freedom of speech. The list goes on, and on.

“Rights,” can be understood as having two principle components, summed up as:

  • Entitlements allowed, or permission to do X or Y (free speech rights, property rights, human rights)
  • Protections against X or Y (civil rights, rights against illegal search & seizure)

Rights are also subject to sub-categorization, which describe their origins, universality and how they impact/determine relationships between individuals and the state or other community at large or between individuals. These include, “natural rights,” “legal rights,” “moral rights,” “individual rights,” etc.

But properly speaking, the notion of universal, inherent and inalienable “rights” derived from nature or man’s possession of rational agency are extremely problematic. These include the “human rights,” as defined by the United Nations or the United States (which sees itself as the moral arbiter of the world’s population).

Claims to universal or natural rights necessarily depend on a reference to the unknowable, and in themselves are quite arrogant. To declare authoritatively that “human rights” exist is as dubious as claiming that “God exists.” Such claims easily fall victim to doubt when tested empirically. They rely not on our empirical observations of the natural world (which in itself is sub-par and excessively flawed); but instead, resolve to make unknowable, unmeasurable and unverifiable claims about a natural order or system.

Furthermore, “rights” have become a useful political weapon in the hands of the liberal bourgeois elite and imperialism. The prominence and rise of rights in the Western political discourse, particularly of the individual, came about as a result of the rise of the capitalist wage-labor system. Private ownership of the means of production, the cornerstone of the modern capitalist system, was the basis and determining factor for the codification and assumption that said ownership was vested in “rights.” Nowhere else has this so-called “right” assumed a quasi-religious standing than the United States of America. In the US, the right to ownership of private property is assumed as natural, and inalienable.

But despite the repeated and passionate claims of proponents, this cannot be said to be truly “natural.” Instead, it’s merely a right derived from experience and recognized by the bourgeois state.

Similar problem emerge in the realm of “human rights.” The United States, which dominates the United Nations Security Council,” has made “human rights” the grounds for justifying myriad international military actions and punitive measures against countries deemed “hostile” to US (read capitalist) interests.  NATO’s criminal campaign against Serbia and President Slobodan Milosevic was framed as a war against so-called human rights abuses. After it was discovered that there were indeed no “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq, the US couched its criminal invasion as a humanitarian effort to “relieve” the Iraqi people of the systemic “human rights abuses” and “tyranny” of the administration of President Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party.

The US, backed by hundreds of imperialist-apologist non-government organizations, used so-called “human rights” to call for an international military invasion of Sudan after perpetuating myths of a so-called “genocide” in the country’s Darfur region.

Thus, it becomes abundantly clear that “rights” have become nothing more than a useful political tool for the most powerful countries (the United States) to impose their will upon others and provide a causus belli for criminal military actions to pursue the most base economic interest.

Rights can thus be assumed to be of intrinsic, not inherent, value. In the end, rights themselves are defined not by nature, but only by the authority of the sovereign state capable of enforcing and dictating them. Liberals’ cynical attitude in the application of rights betrays their self-proclaimed commitment to upholding them.

In conclusion, rights don’t exist. Gays don’t have the “right” to marry one another unless the state defines said rights to exist in a legal fashion. The same can be said for the capitalist and the religious minority. At the international level, rights only exist insofar as there is a sovereign power capable of enforcing them. Unfortunately, the United States has assumed that role, though it’s quickly being eroded by the rise of a new power, the People’s Republic of China. These rights exist to serve US economic and geopolitical interests, but otherwise have little value beyond that.

Jewish Website Quotes Free Media Productions

Sunday, November 21st, 2010

The link
The website monitors opinions on Jewish people. It appears to monitor both positive and negative opinions.

I have no idea whether they like my post and view it as pro-Jewish, or hate my post and view it as anti-Jewish.

I would guess they view it as pro-Jewish. I basically argued that Jewishness used to be based on religion, and that Jews are not radically different from other Caucasians. That is pretty much a “friendly” position.

Jews, Race and Self-perception

Sunday, November 21st, 2010

questions :
1 ) Are Jews racialists?
2 ) If Jews are a race, does it matter if they are similar to other Caucasians?

answers (opinions, I don’t intend to quote figures):
1) For most of history, no. The sexual selection of Jews was more a result of social networking and religion then race. It is like the Amish. In other words, Jews did not actively participate in eugenics, but married other Jews for social reasons. Now some “racialist” have adopted Zionism, and some Zionists have adopted racialism, but such position is a minority position. Jews are intermarrying because the social network and religion is becoming less important. The religion discourages marrying people who were not “born Jewish” or “did not convert.”

2) Jews are not a pure race because intermarriage, now and then, in Europe, in America and in Egypt, has always occurred. Nevertheless if one looks at the statistical concepts of mean, median and mode, Jews do have some tendencies that differ from the central tendencies of the given population they reside in depending on the measuring stick (which I will not discuss here). But an average is not an absolute. However I do think it “matters” that to the extent Jews deviate from the central tendencies of their European and near eastern societies, they are within enough standard deviations to still be considered Caucasian. This matters for racial science purposes. In other words Jews are not “half white, half black,” but “half white version A, and half white version B.” I like racial science and it matters to me.

Why “Intense Forum Use” is dying

Friday, November 19th, 2010

I was just thinking about this.

The reason that anonymous bulletin boards are dying to “hardcore users,” or people who post massively on message forums, is that the “internet generation” is growing up. The kids who grew up with Nintendo and Ghost Busters and saw the internet start out are now growing up. It’s no longer a “new cool secret” but something that people have grown out of and moved away from. To the upcoming generation, it is like “so what? Who cares about the internet? It’s been there before I was born. I take it for granted just like I take the New York City subway system for granted.”

To the older generations, they never were naive enough to buy into anonymous vbulletin forums. Older people knew from the beginning that posting a lot on an anonymous bulletin could have cons that outweigh the pros.

My message to “hardcore users.” Start to view forums as entertainment and forget about the good old days. Start being more of a blogger and web developer. Target the casual person who types you into google and merely reads you, not the anonymous forum veteran who comments. They are moving on and they are not being replaced.

My other message. Start social networking. Leave the anonymous world and friend your previously anonymous friends if they really are your friends.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor