Fear of a Black Planet of the Apes

I shouldn’t write topically, being a serious procrastinator, but another “Planet of the Apes” movie came out this summer.

The original series came out on TV when I was in grade school. Kids love talking monkeys- a relic of my earlier childhood was the talking chimp show “Lancelot Link”- so everybody thought it was the coolest thing ever. The political message didn’t make an impression, beyond maybe a little the environmentalist/anti-nuclear angle.

I guess grownups like talking monkeys too, because they made another POTA movie in around 2002, with Mark Wahlberg as the astronaut, but I guess it didn’t do well enough to motivate another series. They tried again a few years ago, dropping the astronaut/time travel angle, making use of recent CGI technology, and using modern science as a plot motivator.

Progressives having gotten less subtle over the years, you could tell just from the advertising it was a black power movie. Apes on horseback in the forest with assault rifles! Real Third World revolutionaries! A TV ad had a couple of dumb blue-collar white guys with assault rifles approached by an ape. The ape engages in various antics to amuse them and get their guard down, then grabs a gun and wastes them.

That kind of sums up the whole attitude of progressives and their non-white goons. “You better watch out, whitey! Because we gonna rise up! You think we just yo clowns, we just be foos, but we gonna get our shit together and rise up!” (My apologies for the poor attempt at Ebonics.)

We are grimly assured that while the non-white masses may be poor, fat, slovenly, unlettered, childish, and mostly occupied with various foolishness now, that any day now they will develop consciousness, organize themselves and rise up against their evil oppressors, who as we can see are dumb blue-collar white guys. To prevent this we must give them education, and health care, and lots of other benefits so they won’t hate us and slit our throats while we sleep.

We’ve been waiting on the revolution for all the post-colonialist era, which could be said to start at the end of World War I, and we’re still waiting. Communist revolutions have been started by middle-class intellectuals and terrorists. Indigenous takeovers in Africa came when the colonial governments left of their own accord. In Rhodesia and South Africa whites resisted longer, with more violence from native blacks, but mostly surrendered due to shaming from other whites.

The closest the world actually came to this was in Central America, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The civil wars there are thought of as communist insurgencies, but I think are better thought of as Indian rebellions. The Guatemalan was a particularly bloody affair, lasting for decades and costing 300,000 lives. And yet even in this case it didn’t succeed, and the Guatemalan peasant mostly deals with his want by heading to the US.

What black leftists in the US call “revolution” is mostly at its worst a couple of nights of looting and burning. Immigrant shopkeepers suffer but the system is not threatened. And why should it be, and why should blacks threaten it? The Great White Father in Washington keeps the EBT card charged up.

The local system, primarily responsible for basic order and security, reacts flexibly. Speeches are made, police go to sensitivity training, and people who don’t like the chaos pick up and move a few miles. But the “black undertow”, as Paul Kersey calls it, is like Hawaiian lava. It moves very, very slowly, and while it will burn you to a crisp if you stay still, it is easy to avoid if you aren’t asleep.

And so nothing will ever change. Lower-class white people are aggravated by having to move when lower-class blacks show up in the neighborhood, but nobody important is ever put out. There is a certain socio-economic level of neighborhood where you can buy a house and be sure the black undertow will never arrive. (Middle-class blacks prefer these neighborhoods also, when they can afford them.)

The revolution that is always coming, but never arriving, seems to be a basic fixture of progressivism. Human nature seems to be a constant that does not change in the way progressives tell us it does.

There isn’t going to be any revolution, at least not the kind we are promised.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments


Denise wrote about James Woods challenging Eric Holder to come to Memphis to register disapproval of the Kroger black mob attack, and wonders if maybe there is some cracking in Hollywood.

It seems to me he is registering disgust, which is a simple biological reaction to things that are dirty, bad, or corrupting. It’s a basic defense that tells animals to avoid things like feces and dead bodies, contact with which can cause disease or death.

Destroying or suppressing this reaction renders the organism helpless against destruction. Why would anyone ever do this? I think this has occurred accidentally, in some situations, and deliberately in others. Deliberate destruction of the disgust reaction doesn’t simply dehumanize a person, since even animals have this reaction, it actually de-animalizes them.

In man’s primitive, or basic agricultural state, this was not a problem, as people had instinctual taboos against defecating close to dwellings, eating dead animals, homosexuality and incest. I believe that at some point, urbanization- which occurred as soon as there was a small agricultural surplus- led to the accidental loss of some of these taboos. In a city you can’t walk out to the designated corner of the field to relieve yourself, so sometimes people got used to doing it where they lived. “Don’t crap where you eat” is excellent advice but until the development of sanitary sewers, city dwellers had little choice.

As I talked about in my religion blog, city life made non-biological and socially inappropriate and exploitative sex possible. Here is where our split from modernity comes. Liberals don’t think you should take a dump on your kitchen floor, but they rage against any implication homosexuality or fornication is bad. And yet people have a strong, instinctual disgust to these things. Most people are cool with fornication, but still don’t like homosexuality. Liberals tolerate prostitution, don’t promote incest or bestiality, and are officially against pederasty- although I think not unofficially- but only because we haven’t “evolved” enough yet. Just wait a few years.

The Mosaic law in the Old Testament is largely a basic outline of laws of hygiene, where to defecate, how to handle dead bodies, what stuff not to eat, and what sex acts to avoid. I think the Hebrews lived in a high-density agricultural or semi-urban environment in Egypt, and had lost some basic sense of cleanliness, so it was reinstated. Liberals like to rage that it says you can’t eat shrimp, and we do that, so you should be able to have homosexuality too! In those days, eating a bad shrimp could kill you. Thanks to modern food safety practices, shrimp are probably safe, but homosexuality is still very dangerous. Being an active homosexual basically meant you were dead until massive scientific and medical intervention made it to it will only make you very sick, dependent on numerous debilitating drugs, and delay your death for some years. Plenty of homosexuals still acquire HIV, despite all the prevention efforts, and plenty still die of AIDS, despite all the medical research and spending.

Dismantling sexual morality is really, really bad. Antibiotics and birth control reduce the physical consequences, but the psychological and spiritual consequences remain. To destroy a people’s’ sexual morality is to destroy them.

Another level of disgust is racial. People really don’t like or feel comfortable around people of different races. Liberals claim they don’t, but they only spend time around small numbers of intelligent, well-enculturated members of other races, particularly blacks. Those who actually spend time around typical blacks, like Teach for America interns, tend to lose the feeling real quick. (My old New Deal liberal dad recently told me “I think riding the bus is making me a racist.”)

Whites don’t like blacks, have varying degrees of difficulty with Hispanics depending on how white they are, and are mostly OK with Asians. Asians don’t like whites that much. I think, honestly, blacks really don’t like whites and don’t like to be around them more than they have to. The races are differently adapted for different situations, and thus of limited compatibility. Whites, to blacks, I think are really weird and a little gross. We have ghostly pale skin and  don’t talk or move much. We seem to them physically weak and a little sickly. Biologically, black people are far more robust for their home environment, sub-Saharan Africa. Before modern medicine Europeans in Africa usually got sick and died quickly. Even today spending any time in Africa is pretty dangerous, not even counting Ebola. Conversely blacks are poorly suited for cold environments, and the main reason slavery didn’t catch on in the North is that before central heating and cheap warm clothing, blacks didn’t survive well in the North.

Forcing incompatible people together causes all kinds of problems but the people doing the forcing aren’t affected so it’s OK. Racial disgust is not completely taboo though. The racial disgust that Jews have for non-Jews is OK. Something that is similar and closely associated is also OK. The urban, commercial people who rule us- the Puritans and Quakers, along with the Jews- all have a kind of racial and ethnic disgust for non-elite whites, for country people and even suburbanites.

Another level of disgust, that is and is thought of as intellectual but I think is also biological, is disgust at lying. James Woods is experiencing visceral disgust with the dishonesty of those refusing to acknowledge black racial violence. Lying has varying levels of danger, and on the simplest level the need to avoid social friction overrides the harm. In general however lying, falsehood, failure to acknowledge or denying the truth is seriously harmful to individuals and society.

Christianity is, as far as I know, the only religion that demands truth. Judaism limits sanctions to making a formal false allegation of wrongdoing against a fellow citizen in a legal proceeding, which is the worst kind of lying, but that leaves a lot of room. Jesus proclaims himself, and thus God, the truth. And God’s enemy, Satan, is a liar and the father of lies.

Leftism is based on numerous lies, starting with a rearrangement of social hierarchy in which all are equal but some are more equal, the concept of equality in general, racial equality, gender equality except when women are superior, and an almost complete dismantling of sexual morality and hygiene. Sometimes this involves telling lies people want to hear, and sometimes it involves destroying or suppressing people’s natural disgust and aversion to bad things.

Leftists teach that most basic human instincts are evil and ignorant. In general your instincts are valid and there to protect you.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Eat the Rich; Or, the Cult of Capital

As I have mentioned I have peripheral dealings with rich people and/or their employees on occasion, and Ryu asked me to write something about them. I can’t say I know the most about the rich, but I know more than the typical person, so maybe my observations will provide some enlightenment.

For rich people it’s all about the money. Getting it and spending it, getting it and spending it. In more primitive societies power is money, but in America money is power- on top of being money, of course. Having money makes you an important person, and rich people like that. They get their asses kissed all the time, and they like that.

On my religion blog I wrote about hedonism versus epicureanism for the elite, and I concluded that the elite was more epicurean than hedonistic. The elite is in general upper middle-class or upper-upper middle class rather than rich, so I think this mostly holds true, but the rich are fairly hedonistic.

The trouble with this is that the rich tend to suffer the problem of hedonic limit, which is that there is a limit to how much a human being can experience pleasure, and furthermore that people become adapted to pleasure, and what was once novel and enjoyable becomes simply routine. New pleasures must be found, but at high levels they are hard to come by.

Another problem rich people have is that people only want money from them. I was talking to an exotic care salesman once about this. I said, no problem, just hang out with other rich people. He said that doesn’t work because other rich people want money too, they want you to invest in their business. This isn’t all bad either- rich people help other rich people make even more money. If you have been in the rich suburbs around New York you may have notices all the country clubs and private gold courses. More than anything I think these places provide private, discreet places to talk about insider trading and other dirty deals that of course never happen in America, a country of laws and not men. On the other hand, even if you are rich and looking to get richer, I think sometimes you want to just play golf and not talk about some scheme to cheat the rubes out of the dimes in their cookie jars.

Money being power, rich people tend to have very big heads. The money, they are convinced, makes them special, and special people don’t have to pay for things. So rich people on top of their other vices are often incredibly cheap, and expect to pay less for things, not more.

One idea of mainstream conservatism is that the rich, like hereditary landowners in old England, are a stabilizing force in society. Inasmuch as people with a lot of stuff don’t want radical social change that will cause them to lose it that may be true, but capitalism has always been a disruptive force, and always a politically progressive one. This was relatively more true in the Victorian era, relatively less true in the New Deal era when capitalists felt threatened by mass chaos, and much more relatively true now, when fortunes are mostly made on financial transactions and short-term bust-outs than by holding large tangible assets the mob can burn or steal.

Politically rich people are liberal to progressive. Every rich person I heard express an opinion on the matter hated George W. Bush, and every rich person I have heard express an opinion on the matter likes Obama.

Morally rich people range from libertines to perverts. They have sex with whoever they want, and use whatever drugs they want. The primary limitations on personal behavior in a Protestant society are supposed to be personal conscience helped by social reputation, and conscience does not trouble the rich. The upper classes have over the last 100 years or so redefined their vices as virtue, so reputation doesn’t have any control over them either. They aren’t all, or entirely, sociopathic, although many are completely or to an extent, they just rationalize whatever they want to do as right, and no one contradicts them.

These people are the primary enemies of decent human society today. Rich children used to be communist revolutionaries, and they were the worst enemy for some time, but that fad faded with the 1970’s.

I believe people have the right to private property, as much as they can accumulate, but not at the cost of destroying society.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Aryan Skynet Housekeeping


H/t Denise, a new blog. I will put it on the blogroll presently.

Originally posted on Aryan Skynet:

I started this blog for the former contributors to MindWeaponsInRagnarok. It’s not my blog, and I expect we will have many agreements and disagreements. As for me, I’m not going to be posting any of my sexist/manosphere type stuff here. I think of MW and Cly as the main contributors. I’ve also invited Harley, Denise, and will invite Maureen if she sends me her email. (hipsterracist@yahoo.com) If I know you, or if MW or Cly vouches for you, you’ll get an invite to be an author. If you know anyone else I should invite, let me know.

If you have your own blog, it will help to re-blog posts here to your personal blog, I’m going to re-blog pretty much everything posted here.

A personal note: I’ve been really busy getting set up in my new life in an undisclosed location outside of the legal jurisdiction of Soviet Amerikwa, and…

View original 113 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The 3 Keys To Anglo Success

Originally posted on FORWARD BASE B:

Anglo societies have succeeded tremendously over the last few centuries, but this success hasn’t meant good lives for individuals.  The secret to Anglo success has been squeezing individual men to work as hard as possible for even moderate levels of success, generating more wealth for the nation as a whole.  Getting the best wine grapes or the best hydroponic pot is about forcing the plants to respond to pressure by trying their hardest and producing their best.  Anglo society, likewise, is built on systematic sexual repression.

1. Picky Women

Through their natural sexual power, women are the de facto police force of culture.  What they desire, men clamor to give them.  Anglo women are among the pickiest on the planet.  Maybe it was the long winters combined with high population density, but whatever the reasons, we know Anglo society is intensely competitive.  If you want to get one plain Jane…

View original 1,087 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments

Amazing: A salute from the Swedish youth

Originally posted on Occam's Razor:

A salute from Swedish youth to their white European brothers and sisters:

View original

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Pursuit of Happiness

Happy freaking Fourth of July, a day late. Freedom! America! Yay America! Yay the Declaration! Yay the Constitution! For of course we know all men are created equal, and have inalienable rights including the right to pursue happiness!

Well, the equal part is obviously complete BS. Plenty of people would admit that, even if only in private with trusted friends. The pursuit of happiness part is a little harder. It’s very much in our heritage as Americans, and pretty much everybody believes they should be free to do what they want, and they should get what they want, facilitated by the government at the cost of others if necessary, so they can be happy. The conservatives are quick to say it’s only the pursuit of happiness that is a right, but who the hell wants the right to that? It’s something anybody can do anyway. What people really think is they have the right to be happy.

In my religion blog I talked about the functionality of different belief systems, and how most affluent people are functionally Epicureans. We are told the founders, particularly Jefferson, were deists, but that’s just a nicer way of saying Epicurean.

Epicureanism is a pretty radical philosophy because it changes the focus of life, of purpose of life, from duty to family, community, nation, and the gods to the cultivation of the self. The gravity of this can’t be underestimated. Almost all human beings, now and to the beginning of time, have lived for their families and the greater extensions of their families. Living for oneself has been and is impossible for most, and a frankly ridiculous idea for all but a few.

In America, though, the possibility was real. The option existed as it had for very few people before to go far from your family and community, start your own farm- almost everyone was a farmer then- and be far richer than you could be otherwise. If you were a tradesman, rather than smarting under the rule of a guild master for years, to middle age or older, you could go to a new community and open a shop and be independent and possibly affluent.

For later immigrants, you could go from being a farm laborer on the verge of starvation to being an industrial worker with adequate food. This didn’t always work too well, as there were more starving peasants than industrial jobs even in late 19th century America, and to avoid total social chaos immigration was ended after World War I. The industrialists didn’t really mind, as America had plenty of southern blacks who could move north and work cheap.

As long as America was a growth business, the pursuit of happiness seemed like a good way to live. When there were no more material goods to offer, personal freedom from traditional morality became the new good. Everybody had a car and a house, but now you could have sex with anybody you wanted, get a new spouse when the old one tired you, take any drugs you wanted.

I deal a lot with rich people, and I see the concept of hedonic limit in action. A person can only experience so much pleasure, and one becomes accustomed to the pleasure one has and it seems normal. Enjoyment requires even more, but there is only so much the body can feel. It’s more a matter of contrast. I’m sure there is a homeless guy eating a can of beans by his campfire, and he is enjoying his food a lot more than a rich guy in an expensive French restaurant.

Really the average American is more like the rich guy than the homeless guy. Almost everybody, including a lot of poor people, has a lot of stuff, more food than they can digest, gadgets, and unlimited entertainment. Uninhibited sex is only limited by your looks and social skills.

Are Americans- the proud heirs of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with a vast array of rights, including in the minds of most the right to be happy, happy? This is the very basis of our national existence, so it’s a big question.

It’s a basic psychological insight, and the basis of Buddhism, that the pursuit of pleasure is ultimately futile. Epicurus qualified this by saying the pursuit of pleasure should be careful and measured, but even so it has its limits. You can crash up against them like a rock star at a backstage party or creep up to them like a wealthy couple touring the wine country, but they are there.

It’s also a basic psychological insight, I think, that happiness is one of those things that can’t be obtained by being pursued, but must come incidentally from other things. I modestly propose it comes from working for and performing your duty to your family, community, nation, and God- your real family, community, and nation, and the real God, not the one Obama talks about.

For this reason, the entire American experiment is essentially false. It worked, or appeared to work, in the good times, but the good times don’t last.

We are defined not by our rights and our freedoms, and how we enjoy them, but our duties and obligations, and how we fulfill them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment