Wild Honour

Needs, born from human nature and interaction, create morality. Needs determine the myriad of codes, values and customs through which a society seeks to instill an intuitive sense into a person how to act. Morality steers human nature, within the bounds of human nature. Therefor, within the bounds of the human environment. Add a new element to this environment, and the morality will die or adapt.

A safe, privileged society has few greater needs than making interaction pleasant. These are the needs of the human in the safe environment; this will feel moral not only via upbringing and general peer pressure, but even through personal experience. The environment creates the need, thus creates the morality. This environment relies on the rule of law. It relies on a Leviathan.

To create such a environment, you must persuade men to forfeit their Honour Morality. Before men will hand over the function of  honour; of retaliation as a deterrent, to a third party, the State, it does help to have a powerful moral code that is counter to honour morality. A religion urging meekness could very well be what convinces the hearts of men to let their “better” nature rule their nature overall. Christianity, then, is the womb for the Leviathan; its meek followers partake in a social contract, a common understanding that kindness to thy neighbor is kindness to thy own. But like man, this religion has roots in a different nature.


Recently, an anti-Islam attack has taken place. A real attack. Fabricated stories about hijab-pulling and cans of coke played no part. Shrouded by the predictable screeching of the far-left, ultra-liberals and Muslims, who finally have something more tangible than foreign policy for a narcissistic-victim complex, is something rather serious. Compare this recent attack to the fury Anders Behring Breivik unleashed in Norway.

We could consider the mindset both attacks betray. One was a meticulously planned. It came with a manifesto. It was aimed at the youth of those who sacrifice the youth of others. Such a motivation speaks of one consumed, one considering the root cause of leftist policies. An poetic justice, from Breivik’s perspective, perhaps: for once it was the young of the perpetrators; future perpetrators, that bore the brunt. The conclusion and follow through of a nihilist and a fanatic. One hoping to be a catalyst for more to follow. One should wonder, has he inspired any further attacks?

In this Finsbury Park mosque attack, who was the target? Members of a notorious mosque. How was the attack carried out? With the same every day implements recent Islamic attacks have been carried out. Hoping to be a catalyst? If he truly shouted “kill me”, perhaps, but with how much foresight? His actions will most likely reinvigorate the hollow moral front of leftist Islam-apologia. The lack of extensive planning, training, political scope and weapon of choice make it eerily similar to “lone wolf” attacks in the name of Islam. All that’s lacking is a strong motivation. Something in the way of religion? “Tooth for tooth”? But perhaps religion wasn’t needed, perhaps he felt the primal, moral code merely by observing the world. This attack smells like Honour Morality, manifesting itself in a wild attack.

The state of Western honour should be considered.

Consider the chivalrous spirit. The wild, often bloody spirit of the protector and local ruler, a role integral to human society itself, “the noble”, bowed it’s head to the gentle Christian spirit. The powerful moral mandate of religion did not extinguish, but tempered, the primal moral of honour. The knight, the cavalryman, the officer, the gentleman. Men of strength, bravery and intellect; men embodying the West. Even among these exemplary figures, the a wild lust for conflict would seek an outlet in duels. A dangerous game for the educated classes, one might wonder how much intellect, talent and innovation have been lost to satisfy the pride of this tempered warrior-class. In the best light, we could conclude that for this reason, duels were forbidden. And end to the waste of young, promising life by royal decree. A more cynical view would be that the Leviathan shall bite to death any teeth but its own. It is in the nature of power to desire more power still, to gain full control. The tempered warrior was made into a tool for the state and nothing more, their chivalrous spirit regulated to rules of war and ceremony.

Thus the tempered warrior ceased to be.

With honour forgotten as a unwholesome, at best unfashionable, relic of the past, and reduced to plastic Hollywood tropes, the western man has no means to grapple with its reality. Whereas honour morality does not merely allow, but encourage retaliation, the Western man finds himself faced with a moral and legal hurdle. Even worse yet, he will find himself with peer-pressure to kowtow:

“go upright amongst those on their knees…. Your reward will be what people have at hand; whip of laughter, murder, trash”.

The proud white man shames the self-effacing through his mere existence; the cowardly will invent any hollow, faux-moralism to bring down the proud, elevating themselves, soaring upwards on wings of lies and sneers. Who can blame them? Contemporary culture offers pre-packaged moral tropes of this nature, ingeniously twisting sense of duty, showing betrayal to be sacrifice, the frightful rictus a generous smile; even with the wings of a cockroach one might soar over those who merely stand.

The roaches have their own morality. Do nothing, be nothing; cherish the phantasm of the nanny in your heart: never strike back. Feel it slither and slide to the tip of thine tongue; it is the moral of the herd. How fearful we are of locking horns, of the bull’s charge. And what purpose serves the bull, for our herdsmen are benevolent. With prods and bows to keep order, and no interest but the law, men should forget their horns: this makes for a safe and a just society. These herders with prods and bows will surely protect the mother and the calf. And supreme in the moral mandate: do and be as others, this keeps the peace. This leads the herd to tranquility. Within the herd, the moral need is popularity. Lay down your horns, pull out your claws; take this shortcut towards the kingdom of the meek.

Opposed to this is the active encouragement of retaliation and sadism. A need not to be loved, but to be feared. All the more so with an absolute moral mandate, a religion, based on the schemes and delusions of a perverted psychopath. This  was brought in among these meek, these clawless, these people living for pleasure.

“We could feel we had been raised to be soft, to be pretty, to be easy. A human petting-zoo. Do a google search on petting-zoos and Muslims, and you will see an analogy of our past 30 years.”

The banalities with which we describe this clash of civilizations really don’t do justice to the cruelty of this venture.

Revenge is a human urge. Honour is a primal morality. With the veils of collective self-denial becoming threadbare, there is yet one substantial dynamic keeping this down. Opening the eyes to the state of affairs is painful. Realizing the implications are a scrourge to the soul. Because, for men to accept honour morality once more, men must face their dishonor. How many young girls were gang-raped and tortured? How many families destroyed? While we, as non-communities, could only hope the test would pass us by. “If it happens to my own, THEN I will seek revenge”. But it has been done to your own. To the Muslim rapists, the kuffar girl is your tribe, yet you don’t protect her. But then again, how could you, if you are not allowed to see her as your own, to not accept her as a precious member of your people?

The question is often raised: why won’t white Western European men protect their women? It is a dishonest question: in addition to the aforementioned loss of honour, this beaten breed was told to never, under any circumstance, acknowledge their racial identity. White men act accordingly. A default state of surrender.

With sadistic pleasure, white men are told white women they are not THEIR women. White men act accordingly. The implications have become consequences.

Simply put, in liberal society, it is the liberty of any adult to hook up with whoever they want. But this is not entirely true, for white men were not free to openly state: if you rejected our race in favour of another, I am free to reject you on that basis. Abhor the reality as liberals may, but the Alt-Right hit the mark in their use of the phrase “cuck”: ultra-liberal culture demands of every white man to emasculate himself. The noble front of personal choice and love was proved hollow by the cruel mirth in which the same “message of love” would be used to ridicule and deride the white male.

The shameful nature of the topic of sex, making it such an appealing instrument of psychological torture for the cruder class of sadist, made it harder to address openly. Because of this silence, the ultra-liberal ideal became ever more inconsistent in its presentation. The very absolute taboo on race (by whites) it relied on made it blind to its own folly: as in all racial matters, white men came to realise they will be branded sexist, racist and nazi, no matter what. Whatever spirit of chivalry might have been left in the white, Western men faded away. To put it more bluntly: Western white men are more likely to resent white women than to feel a need to come to their aid. Observing the contempt with which white women treat white men, some members in far-right circles, perhaps seeking to out-edge one another, have coined the term “white sharia”.


Whereas chivalry was the result of an almost organic moral process, akin to Moral Cultivation, “White Sharia”, taken beyond the jest, it is a clear attempt to construct a system of Honour Morality. The result of promiscuous, “unowned” white women appears to be attracting African and Islamic rapists, even justifying the rape in the rapists views. With Islam being the closest thing at hand to Honour Morality, something similar really might become its outlet.

Our lives have been ignoble; we are a ridiculed people who have excused their cowardice with the cowardice of others, and attacked those who would stand. But there is redemption:

“Our nation is like lava,

On the surface it is hard, hideous and debased.

But its inner fire,

Cannot be extinguished even in a hundred years of coldness.

So let us spit on the crust,

And go down, into the true core”

If we want to hand our children and their children something better, we have to learn to spit on the crust. We need to begin accepting the shame, and the pain it brings, to hand over a light to the next generation. We’d better:

“That it may be an inferno, casting a long, black shadow, if none come to their aid.”


A Bitter Pill


Original article: http://verenoflood.nu/een-rode-pil-een-bittere-pil/

Populism wins some parliamentary seats, but the Netherlands continues onwards on the same old course. I had expected more seat to be won. Is it the Trump-tactic, prioritizing social media over traditional media, in Geert Wilders’ campaign that is responsible?

 Could the PVV-campaign have worked, in a small nation like the Netherlands, without the Fortuyn-effect? The media has to be seen responding fearfully, their demonizing relentless and desperate. They should be unable to ignore Wilders. It should have been seen flailing and raving. It should have been allowed to display its hollow arrogance. In the traditional media, Geert Wilders’ PVV seemed oddly silent in the run-up to the elections. This lack of visibility has been considered to be co-responsible for the smaller than anticipated growth (the part has still won an extra 5 parliamentary seat. 20 in total, opposed to its 15 seats in the previous election, making it the second political part in the Netherlands, despite the stigma and silence).

Yet even taking the silence into account, the Dutch have forgotten a great deal about the past few years, about the preceding summer, with tangible explanation but some election-campaigns to cloud their memories.  Whatever the reason, the Dutch have decided – with a four year leap – to remain on the same course. More effort will have to be put into looking away, into getting accustomed to crime, anti-white racism, harassment, and the establishment kowtowing to the main source of it all. Another four years, time borrowed from their children, with a frightful interest rate…

To those staring reality in the face, the results are inexplicable. “How can anyone possibly want to continue on like this?”. But the left simply has a morality that isn’t suitable for the needs of our time. Hence, denial becomes its priority. It’s not so much a case of seeing the misery and choosing more of it, but choosing to not see the misery at all. Despite all the suffering they inflict on all of us, some of these people, especially the young, are only a red pill removed from defending Europe. But for us, these election results are a bitter pill.

The VVD lost eight parliamentary seats, but with 31 seats, it is still the major victor. “Better the VVD than the left”, is your first thought? Ask a Dutch friend or acquaintance whether VVD-voters are typically migration-effect denialists. Whether VVD-voters lean towards the opinion that we must become even more politically correct, to avoid causing offense[1]. The VVD lured populists away from Wilders with hollow promises and sounds before[2]; this has only cost them 8 seats.

The VVD’s victory indicates that a large portion of the Dutch, even those who are no longer in denial about mass migration, still wish for a VVD-led Netherlands, no matter what has already happened. When weighing their priorities, something urged them to stay on course. Perhaps it’s a cultural phenomenon. The philistinic urge to be “normal”. Populists are pariahs; the media machine has made sure of that. Thus they are rejected by the norm and conformity. Made into a caricature, the PVV-voter is looked down upon. It is not an identity the philistine or narcissist can possibly endure. “We need the VVD for the economy”, is stated with faux-pragmatism; I am happy to concede this point in the short term, but I expect a pragmatist to consider an economy with a large influx of low-IQ African and Middle-Eastern fortune seekers and the crime and chaos they repay the host with. Pragmatism as an ego-boost might venture far beyond sanitized thought simply for the sense of daring, but it’s not so easy to feed an ego with a ridiculed position; it becomes the opposite of what it purports to be. Besides, the Dutch prime minister is famous for putting on a fabricated laugh to forgo discourse altogether. Emoting the opposition is ludicrous without explanation; this is how you manipulate a population with an excess of conformity and little beyond vocational education. I would admire the purity of his approach if it didn’t rob the Dutch of what little dignity they have left.

This would indicate that self-image, according to the media image, is prioritized over averting the downfall of civilization we can already observe in Paris. Not a pleasant insight of the voting inhabitants. But it might indicate something worse. Short-term self-interest: people who acknowledge what is happening, but don’t expect it to affect them personally any time soon. Loss of culture means nothing to the philistine, and it’s easy to look away from the violence if you can afford yet another home-theater, or some new gadgets; a new car to flee the country you’ve sold for it. Either way, it seems to be the case that the problems aren’t considered real until they hit the own environment. A type of societal-solipsism.

This is what makes this pill so bitter. Imagine a community of solipsists. How could it ever be a community? There could be no sense of common purpose, common goals; no social contract, no sense of common law. Now imagine a society of solipsistic circles of friends; no bond but those you know. What relationship is there between government and the people? Is that still a nation?  And now imagine introducing a third party, one with a swift growth and strong cohesion.  These are the circumstances in which the Netherland casually strolls towards conflict.

[1] There’s a phrase in Dutch: “Links lullen, rechts vullen” (talk like a leftie, fill your pockets like a right-winger). In these globalist times, the VVD has managed to do the reverse; for all the right-wing noises it makes, it bows to the centralized EU.

[2] http://www.politalk.nl/2016/01/12/vvd-grossiert-in-loze-woorden-losse-flodders-en-niet-nagekomen-beloftes/

Confusion is the Priority of the Left. Enter Rhetorical-Nihilism.

Denial is the measurement of liberal morality. Confusion is the rationale of denial.







“A leftist is someone who, in the face of mass-rape, economic disaster, terror and animal cruelty prioritises the open borders that cause it”


This is the essence of the contemporary European Left in a single tweet. It’s open-border nihilism[1]. Halal-slaughter, hatred towards dogs, petting-zoo animals killed by Muslim children, these (ignored) problems will just have to increase because open-borders trumps all. The “rape-game”, child-rape and targeting women who don’t dress according to the dictate of a minority will just have to increase because open-borders uber alles. Terror attacks will just have to become more frequent because open-borders are here, and change would be difficult. Economic downfall will just have to happen because open-borders make commerce easier for now. The civil war this all will lead to just has to happen because the left and liberals feel queasy about reality.

To evade reality, liberals and the left will invoke “Nuance”. “Nuance” according to the left: the ability to conjure up a motivation or cause other than Islam. The ability to mistake a claim about societal and cultural matters for a claim about absolute logical certainty. It is deliberate misinterpretation. It is nitpicking in order to miss the point. It is weak deflections and red herrings. Mistaking closed borders for deportation. Often, it is used interchangeably with “polite”. It is the “politeness” of ignoring harassment, violence; the misery of others.

To display such a barrage of stupidity should be the cause of some embarrassment.  That it doesn’t indicates what I hereby dub rhetorical-nihilism: all stupidity and dishonesty is permissible if the noise drowns out the opponent. It betrays an unreflective contempt for the opposition: a blind belief that the opponents are such knuckle-dragging, amoral troglodytes that there is no shame about displaying a lack of basic comprehension and reasoning.

Striking is the attempt to dismiss Geert Wilders by stating he has no perfect solutions. I’m sorry, do we chase nirvana via politics now? Wilders is simply my choice because Islam and mass-migration are the greatest threats on each issue. It is the greatest threat to safety, our identity, our diminishing green; the unique beauty of European nature, which belongs to our children, which will have to be filled with flats to house new arrivals. They are the greatest threats to our education, our economy, animal rights, women’s rights and gay rights. It causes crime, no-go zones, terror, and eventually civil war.

Our youth is raised by people who grew up in an environment completely alien to that of the young baby-boomers. Young-adults having children today might already skip the liberal and leftwing dogmas of self-hate and pacifism. The circumstances are creating a new creed of European that will not shirk spilling blood when cornered. But considering the rising anger, it might happen long before those who forced it on us have died of old age.

“Human rights”: an absolute divine code that ensures the end of human rights.

“Freedom” and “justice”: lawlessness until dissent must be silenced.

“Fake news”: anything that dares to cover what traditional left-wing media tries to omit. The phenomenon precedes the term.

“European nature”: open space to build housing blocks for immigrants.

“Peaceful protest”: laying the foundation for a police-state.

“Animal rights”: Wishing Muslims a happy Eid Mubarak.

The farce human rights has become completely evaporates in a civil war. Kill-or-be-killed is a far cry from faux-ethics, where airheads wave a placard inviting the world into someone else’s home. Consumer-behaviour will focus less on luxury products or fine-dining, and more on sustenance. Those attacking Wilders risk creating the opposite of an environment they can flourish in. Their willful confusion has real life consequences that should outweigh their reluctance to admit they were wrong. Today, we live the decisions made decades ago. If we don’t change course now, if we wait until we feel the consequences of looking away today we might not just live a bloodbath, we may very well live an orgy of sadistic revenge. Populism is our last chance at a peaceful solution. Seize it!


[1] Consequences, lives and reality itself are subservient to a single ideal. Given the increasingly violent tendencies of the hard left in the US, and the disregard of suffering by the European left, a quick look into the revolutionary nihilists isn’t a bad idea.


Shock and Conduct: Geert Wilders Respects European Lives, not Merkel


Geert Wilders’ retweet of the apt photo, pictured above, has been described as “shocking” -Edit: even as “barbaric” (I would reserve this term for the Islamic violence). Personally, I found Merkel’s insane policy, despite the protests and warnings, that caused this latest attack to be truly “shocking”. It’s as if impoliteness (or perhaps honesty) is considered to be more “shocking” than causing real misery.

This seems very odd. It was yet another revolting (Islamic) deed, yet again by someone who came in with the migrant wave. The migrant wave which could have been easily averted with local safe havens. I’ve mentioned the full scope (without the grisly details that make the reality) before. Why do the media, and presumably some part of its audience, jump on a social(media) faux-pas with so much vigor, while yawning at the carnage? How do you get an entire profession to behave like a trained monkey?

The West, between Nazism and Islam, has been remarkable peaceful and prosperous. Hunger made way for want of luxury. Desperation made way for ennui. The moral need of survival made way for the moral need of civility. Politeness, pleasant behaviour, courtesy; if these aren’t the cornerstones of a healthy civilisation, they are the fruits by which you shall know them.  Politeness is the moral for when all is well; when there is no danger or want to overshadow its importance.

A code of conduct is a moral code which will fit the needs of the group. For the courtier a serious game of subtleties, a tool. To the peasant, a code of conduct simply meant the way to get along with his peers and neighbours. For both it serves to tell them their place. As status driven animals, humans have contrived of ways to force additional codes to those classes with less power. Once it was kneeling and bowing. “Vous” or “Tu”, “U” of “Jij”; these are remainders of social status denominators we hardly remember. It can just as easily denote respect as it can be empty form. Rules of an inter-personal bureaucracy; politeness to the letter while trampling over the spirit.

The spirit of status and dominance, on the other hand, has gone from strength to strength. One might think of the way in which to conduct oneself with royalty; such was royal status and power that it has become ceremony. Power-dynamics between people today, in the West, are more commonly seen between customer and retail. The Dutch phrase for “The customer is always right” is even “De klant is koning” (the customer is king). A code of conduct between two people will betray any difference in (situational) status or power.

Status and power aren’t necessarily in line with historical classes or castes. There is no greater example than the reaction to the word “nigger” in the English speaking world. The word “nigger” is distasteful, and should be treated as such. The reaction to use of the word however, especially by whites, just might trigger narcissistic anger. Narcissistic (hollow) outrage by which to virtue-signal, (what better way to tear down competition?), to narcissistic violence to reassert dominance. As a code of conduct, it must have started with the moral need to be courteous to those who were given few opportunities, and many burdens, for superficial reasons. What happened after it became a taboo, not-done because it is not-done? Did the courteous spirit become malnourished? Of course such a social dogma will be exploited, and who isn’t to blame? We all play along in the spectacle of our own society.

“Nigger” is the father of political correct taboos. You can’t expect people to notice such a strong, social rule and not crave one for their own. And when all is well, if everyone gets one, maybe it would help people get along just a bit better. It could have been very useful as a tool to create, if not unity , then at least mutual respect. This was made impossible by the default exclusion of whites. This was betrayed especially through the SJW fad of inventing slurs for heterosexual whites. White women (predominantly middle-class), even tried to join the appealing faux-victim class by redefining feminism. White heterosexual males, already prohibited from identifying as such for fear of liberal outrage, found themselves besieged even by invented genders.  The supposed civility became yet another burden; irksome for an insulated, white-collar liberal, but unbearable for poor whites, already struggling to make ends meet, and already demonised and ridiculed in pop-culture and media.

In Europe, the working and lower-middle classes have been subjected to increasing violence and harassment. It might occur to the language police that it’s not so easy to pay attention to arbitrary language rules and taboos, when you’ve been driven out of your neighbourhood by spitting, stealing and violent people. Civility was betrayed when foreign-in-spirit “youths” could express their contempt for their hosts (robberies, random abuse, all the usual enrichment) with hardly a slap on the wrist. Especially when people are faced with burglaries, muggers, racial violence, rape, and eventually terror, “politeness” tends to become of secondary importance. Political correctness as a code of conduct is the sneer of the elite and sheltered towards those they sacrifice for their ideal.

The reaction to Geert Wilders’ tweet indicates a divide between those whose circumstances dictate that “proper” conduct is the moral need, and those who have conduct dictated to them as yet another burden. The reaction to Geert Wilders has always been one of haughty socialites jumping on a social faux-pas. Wilders is just considered uncaught in some circles. It shows once again that Geert Wilders is a politician against the elite, for the people.

Thank you, Geert.

Open Closets: Ask for Our Ridicule; I Am Begging for Yours!

Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg copy

original article in Dutch: http://verenoflood.nu/vuile-was-buiten-ophangen/

Cowardly cheese-head! Thick Dutchman! Tut-tut-dictatorship!

We’ve had it a long time coming.  The Wall Street Journal published a piece on the second Wilders-trial. Our big, democratic friend across the ocean sees there’s “less, less” freedom of expression on the old continent, and they don’t like it one bit. This is good. The American public is vast and their language is understood across borders: what America sees, the world sees. After a wider American public caught wind of Tommy Robinson’s state-persecution, it became acceptable to support him. Result: a donation-campaign to pay for Mr. Robinson’s legal representation. Robinson was acquitted. The judge noted the case was “cagey”.

The shift in the international perception has been ongoing for quite some time. The Western Gutmensch has no message for nations in crisis except “tut-tut-tut, How dare you not commit suicide!” The formerly exemplary nations, lauded by the Gutmensch, says it all: it was once our own Netherlands. After Fortuyn, the reality of our nether regions became less enticing. Seemlessly, the praise shifted to “Scandinavia”, Sweden in particular. At this point, I assume it is the false ideal which is praised. Denial-of-truth is how the Gutmensch measures morality.  All the while it is the “xenophobes” who wish health, prosperity and safety to nations across the globe, and call to dethrone elites who are hostile towards the own nation, the own people. It is with the “xenophobes” you will find an international brotherhood of men.

To those who’s country is being ruined by the results of  PC madness: tell us your dirty secrets! Declare to the world how your establishment betrays you, humiliates you. Too proud to use English?  You’re being sold, beaten and raped; your country is given away to those that see you as cattle, and this is how you defend your pride? Beg for our ridicule; I am begging for yours! Rage at the Dutch public persecution service, condemn British authorities for facilitating sharia, despise Germany for its censorship while migrant-crime is rampant. Let Sweden know it is considered a sad joke.

Can you bear the shame? Have some self-respect!



Moral Cultivation

blocksGuilt Beyond the Pain, Understanding Slave Morality Matters

The obvious consequences of open-border nihilism are slowly, despite the best efforts of news outlets, beginning to make themselves clear.

The political machinations to make this a reality, with far worse yet to come, are being brought into the open thanks to hacktivists and all those digging through the revelations. But why were these the machinations that succeeded?

Corruption succeeds where it is allowed to succeed. It succeeds by being hidden. But what we have seen over the past years is how it can succeed even in the open. It has succeeded by a media allowing it to do so. A media allowed to do so by its public.

Which machinations succeed, which lies are given a free pass, depends on the morality of their environment. There will always be nihilists ready to burn the world for their ideal, and cynics looking to exploit the gullible and the current state of affairs. The shape and extent of their success will be determined by whichever morality is dominant.

It is vital we learn how this morality has shaped the Western reaction to Islamisation.

A concerned citizen, after bringing attention to the hostility of Islam, would find themselves condemned by the very culture they intended to save. The media-hemlock that led to the murder of Pim Fortuyn is most telling. Time after time, a person becomes aware of the threat and seeks to counter it, only to be demonised by, and dragged into battles with, the suicide-enforcing elements of the left (which today appears to be all of it.) Such xenophilia is simply hatred of the “self” (by proxy, as always).

This proxy-suicide persists in an environment of airhead slander-monkeys. The battlefield of ideas was traditionally, and still is to some extent, the media-machinery. As such, it is and was a battlefield shaped by the “convictions” of the media giants.  In this battle for the public, entertainers chip in by displaying their astounding lack of knowledge and their childish non-reasoning. Perhaps this kept their fans from thinking. In their endless virtue-signalling we discover a complete disregard for truth, aided by an astounding inability for basic reasoning.

A political hurdle appears in the form of the open-border nihilist.  Not only do we find a disregard for truth and honesty, we see an almost aggressive lack of care for the suffering already caused. This might fill the casual observer with confusion. Yet neither are surprising when we consider their alignment with an hitherto unopposed morality. Any action, any lie, any suffering caused is permissible to the nihilist. They believe their ideal, suicide by proxy in practice, to be an absolute moral cause. A reality filled with pain is not seen when rationality is superseded by morality. Well, we shall counter theirs with a moral core that needs no lie!

Which morality will form  the entertainment and media environment will be the morality to offer it profit: it must be wide-spread. Which “virtue” be signaled by narcissist will be whatever gets them applause. The audience will go along because their morality supersedes their rationality. The proxy-suicide is inspired and enforced by virtue-signaling, it IS virtue-signaling in itself. The virtue-signaling is inspired by narcissism, the narcissism appeals to what is virtuous:

What is virtuous follows from the dominant morality.

Even “our” side, convinced of its rationality, was unable to make a moral argument outside of the parameters of the Slave Morality. Look no further than the usual moral framing of the preceding paragraphs. Faced with the reality of genocidal hatred by non-Western agents, the taboo to confront the abuse, rape and murder was dubbed…

“The bigotry of low-expectations”

Don’t tell me you believe this limpwristed, moral cowardice. Europeans are raped and slaughtered, and the refusal to acknowledge this is bigotry against “the other”? Like the abuse itself, it is bigotry against the West that won’t tackle this! It is the belief the own state and order is the obstacle, the sheer inability to see “other” as the aggressor and oppressor. Not enough to see the Slave Morality? Look at the moronic implication of the phrase again: it not only twists xenophilic self-hate into bigotry by “us”, it absolves guilt through victimhood!

The Slave Morality, with its absolute monopoly on Western morality, and subsequently, the softer academic fields, has not just caused all the physical suffering we are facing and will face. Its incessant droning of self-hate has been telling the West that morality and intellectual thought are hostile. It is turning the West against the notions of morality and intellectual thought themselves!

So I  quote the great poet, Adam Mickiewicz:

Let us spit on the crust

and I reiterate:

We shall counter theirs with a moral core that needs no lie! 

We don’t have the luxury of time for the socialite liberal’s opinion-fashion to catch up with reality. They’re killing us for the sake of social niceties, for their position in polite society. We certainly can’t cope with the cultural death-wish of the left any longer. To not oppose the demands of these two with everything we’ve got is the evil of pacifism: it hands power to the cruel; it means being replaced by a morality of sadism. The slave morality, once a tool against oppression, now continually forces us to drag a decade or more behind those seeking to eradicate us and our history. We can die and sell our children into slavery for this morality, or we can abort morality altogether. Or, instead, we examine our needs today, think of the future we wish on our children and the world, and build a new morality of strength and compassion. A morality must grow naturally, according to needs; but have not learned enough to cultivate? A cultivated moral landscape. Isn’t that worth fighting for?

The Moral Whip

There’s a phrase I often use:


“Note how the whip of the self-flagellating always seeks the backs of others”


We all note the witch finder mentality of SJWs. We all note the proposed “virtue” of self-hatred. That these two merge together is of no surprise either. Any evil becomes permissible if you’re convinced of your absolute moral superiority. A moral free-pass to do harm will always be abused[2]. The whip isn’t the means to an end, it is the end in itself.

Today, we have the crybully phenomenon in the West. It is perfectly in line with the Slave Morality’s elevation of weakness. As witch finders go, they are preferable to the other kinds. They don’t have the power to send you to the stake, they’re not a gulag that can send you to an internment or “labour” camp. However, as the morality has outlived its use, it is no longer a morality that seeks to end suffering:

Again, I want to bring focus to its core: the use and origin of the Slave Morality resides in the needs of the Ancient slave. The need of the powerless, the need of they who experience suffering inflicted by the powerful in the own society. In this sense, for millennia, it has battled against suffering, because this has been a continuous source of suffering.

The constant need to create victims of society and its counter-productive effects are no mystery when we view it as a morality made for a past reality. From the hierarchy that follows from the oppression-Olympics, to the blind spot for transgression on their morality from “the other” (to the ancient slave, the enemy was the own state.)

Particular insidious is how, via these inventions of victim-hierarchies, self-hatred is presented to children. Especially white, Western children will hear: “WE should be ashamed, WE should hate ourselves”. A child’s mind does not have many defenses as it is. “WE” bypasses the fact that this is condemnation coming from an outside entity. This is how vile the self-flagellators are; it is not enough that children can’t possibly have the historical knowledge and vocabulary to articulate any objections, they want the child to be clueless what is being done.

Humans are a social species. The tactics of these witch finders exploit this to the fullest to cause harm: demonisation and slander, calls to have people fired, and increasingly the call for violence. But their true vice is their insistence we pave the way for the witch finders to replace them. It is the cultural suicide they insist on that leads to beheading, stoning and crucifixion.

The masochist seeking the sadist, the slave seeking the oppressor? It has a nice ring to it. Yet I don’t see any evidence of the SJW seeking these things, I only see evidence of denial. Their redundant morality supersedes whatever rationality they might possess.  A brief moment of pleasing this redundant morality; for this they will ensure the replacement of civilisation by a theism of sadism. Perpetual guilt.




[2] Similarly, we should be more worried about the groundwork being laid for politicised narcissistic violence.