Tag Archives: oppression

Freedom, discrimination, rights and liberalism

Freedom is a concept I’ve struggled with since I was a teenager. Even back then I understood freedom is not something given to you by legal document, a government or really even another person. They make take it away, or prevent others from taking it away from you, but you have to discover freedom yourself.

The best definition for freedom I can offer is: following your nature. For that to be possible, you have to know yourself. Rabbits, I imagine, are free when they can run around in the wild, eat grass and copulate with other bunnies. Birds are free living like birds, dogs are free living like dogs, you get the picture. There’s little any animal rights organization can do to make animals free by giving them imaginary rights. They can, however, reduce the amount of harm people do to their freedom via pollution and others unnatural activities.

Human beings are more complex. While no two dogs are the same, I guess they’d still be more similar compared to the potential of humans to differ from each other. There’s just so much variety to what human beings are passionate about, be it the countless different sciences and arts, sports, religious and spiritual ideas, conspiracies and mysteries. For example, I’m going to assume part of Wayne Gretzky’s nature was to play ice hockey. He was very good at it, and probably liked it. Even though he’s retired he’s probably fond the sport. I think part of what makes David Icke happy is to lecture about conspiracies. Of course, few people are happy doing just one thing. Part of what is inherent to most men is to need to have a woman, and most women want  a man.

For a human being to be free, you have to discover what makes you happy, and then fulfill those conditions. Unfortunately there are nasty forces afoot that want to inhibit people from being free, and that has to be fought against in order to be free, but that’s another story.



Yesterday, I listened to Alexander Dugin’s interview on Red Ice Creations. He understands quite well that modern liberalism isn’t about freedom. It’s about oppression wearing the mask of freedom. The ultra-leftist nuts who have infiltrated the higher levels of society in most Western countries don’t care at all about what makes you happy and free. They have a pre-determined formula, which doesn’t really function in the first place, that they want to impose on everyone. Usually it means imposing something on everyone that most people are not natural doing, such as homosexuality.

I don’t think homosexuality is particularly sinful or wrong, but there is the simple fact that the vast majority of human beings are not homosexual. Therefore, I would say, most people have a natural aversion to it. Only in the last few decades due to the constant propaganda has there been drastic change in the attitudes of people on homosexuality. I’m not saying the change in attitudes is entirely negative, I don’t think homosexuals should be treated like criminals or mental patients, but pro-LGBT propaganda has been excessive to say the least. In some cases it has been to harmful extents, since I do think many people inherently find homosexuality distasteful, but due to social norms are not in touch with their true sentiment. Then there are bound to be many heterosexuals who do find homosexuality intriguing, because it is different. There’s nothing wrong with those who like gays, or those who dislike them (as long as they don’t do anything excessive based on their feelings). Different people are naturally drawn to certain things, while others retract from them. Tastes differ as in music and food, also in more controversial matters like this.

The problem with liberalism is it imposes one view on others. Alexander Dugin said it’s like imperialism. European imperialists thought they knew what is good for the other races, and imposed their ideas onto them without asking. Many imperialists probably believed they were doing the right thing. Now the British empire does not rule half the world openly, but the neo-liberal capitalist system that believes that everyone should be bound to each other like an old-fashioned chain gang. They are all somewhat equal in their bondage. Liberalism is about equality, not freedom.



Another disturbing thing regarding liberalism is that it confuses freedom with defiance and rebellion. Sometimes you have to defy others and rebel against oppressors to find freedom, but it can work the other way around too. People who are spiritually enslaved, or B, want to rebel against people who are free, A, since to these rebels the fact that A is free is oppressive, although B’s enslavement is not the fault of A. This behaviour is obvious in the most common cultural marxist ideas of today where everyone who is not a black transsexual lesbian woman is an oppressor, and believes in social constructs such as race, sex and so on. Why these people feel enslaved is because of the social constructs in their heads, not because of other people’s attitudes.

Liberalism is the political progression from the most vulgar practices of the Marquis de Sade and Aleister Crowley. They were all about defying anything and everything the general public finds disgusting, such a sodomy, corpophagia and blasphemy. I do find both these men somewhat fascinating, although I don’t want engage in many of their activities, so I’m not claiming they were utterly evil. Rather from the viewpoint of the average person, what Sade and Crowley stood for was utterly reprehensible. Various kinds of aberrant behaviour do have their place in this world, but they are not to be brought to the dinner table. Liberalism in effect views freedom as making everyone view the world as Sade and Crowley did.



Just few days ago there was this media hullabaloo in Indiana where a pizzeria refused to cater a gay wedding, because they’re Christian. I haven’t followed the story in depth, so I don’t know all of the developments, but sounds rather stupid. Of course Christians should be free to refuse to promote gay marriage. Others are free to think this bit of Christian dogma is stupid. But it’s borderline insane to make big deal about it. If they don’t wanna serve your wedding, give your money to someone else.

Somebody called FaithGardner commented on the pizzeria’s refusal on Daily Kos website: “You’re hateful. And guess what happens when you take to the media to trumpet your right to discriminate?” Apparently the place is closing down after the people said they have some principles.

Anyways FaithGardner used two keywords: hate and discrimination. First of all, what is so horrible about hate? Hate is a normal human emotion. It is something everyone should feel every now and then. That’s why we have various different emotions. Some of them “positive” and others “negative”. Excessive hate can be destructive, but so can excessive love be. Liberals ironically hate hate. They have laws against hate speech, and I guess soon against feeling the emotion too. It only serves to render people into robots, or pod-people from the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. (On a side note, I must recommend Simon Pegg’s interpretation on the theme, The World’s End.)

Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Creations has said on a couple of occasions how we practice discrimination every day. We discriminate what shirt or shoes we wear. I sometimes have to discriminate between the kind of milk I have in my fridge, if it’s been there several days. I have to make the distinction if the milk has gone bad or is still drinkable. If I don’t discriminate, I might get sick.

Merriam-Webster dictionary gives the following definitions on “discrimination”:

“: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing”

I guess I have to concede to the liberals that there are harmful forms of discrimination, however, I would say the original meaning of the word is reflected in the two bottom definitions. Online Etymology Dictionary defines discrimination as: “the making of distinctions”. Also it has the sentence: “It especially annoys me when racists are accused of ‘discrimination.’ The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one ‘race’ to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination. [Christopher Hitchens]”

So I cannot say that it is in any way hateful or reprehensible if a Christian does not want serve at a gay wedding, a woman is attracted to men instead of other women, or even if a black man prefers to marry a black woman, a white woman or a blue woman. You might argue that it is acceptable to discriminate between shoes and food products, but not when it comes to people. That can be answered simply by noting that we discriminate between people all the time. I only invite friends or relatives to my apartment (or somebody who has been hired to fix something). I don’t invite random strangers or Jehova’s witnesses to my place. Most men discriminate between women by only having sex with their girlfriend/wife. We either recognize the difference between things of good quality from bad ones and accurately distinguish one thing from another. We discriminate all the time, and so we should. It is not hateful to make the distinction between apples and oranges. I don’t like tomatoes, and my sentiment toward them may be hateful, yet I’m not gonna apologize for it either.



Alexandr Dugin – Hour 1 – The Fourth Political Theory & Blind Western Liberalism: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/03/RIR-150327.php

Indiana pizzeria that said they’d discriminate against gays now closing due to backlash: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/02/1375078/-Indiana-pizzeria-that-said-they-d-discriminate-against-gays-now-closing-due-to-backlash

Discrimination: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

Discrimination: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=discrimination&searchmode=none


Suppression by Government and Conspiracy is at the Heart of the Western Civilization

Europeans generally view our identity as Westerners dating back to ancient Greece and Rome. The philosophical tradition of the Greek city states combined with the Roman political might and all that. That is the background for our collective identity, although individual nations certainly have their individual histories, but overall we’ve all been affected by Greek and Roman tradition in one way or another. Simple enough, I assume. Then let’s look at two well-known men from ancient Europe, Socrates and Julius Caesar. Or in particular, their deaths.

Socrates is regarded as the father of European philosophy. He liked to make people question the things they thought they know, and he was put to death by the government for “corrupting the youth” with his ideas. Suppression of ideas and free speech isn’t just some anomaly that happened to happen by co-incidence because of the Patriot act or whatever. It has always been there in Europe from ancient Greece, to medieval Catholic church’s control of thought and speech to modern censorship and forbidding the questioning of the Holocaust etc.

Julius Caesar was arguably the most famous person ever to live in the Roman Empire, and very possibly the most famous political figure ever in the history of Europe. Do you know how he died? He was conspired against and assassinated by a bunch of Roman senators. If you think conspiracy theories are just some modern thing coined by delusional minds I’d recommend looking in the mirror and seeing who really is delusional. The next time you try to brush off information which disturbs your world view as a “conspiracy theory” and laugh, think again. Conspiracy and assassination have always been, and still are, at the heart of European politics.

If you don’t know who these two men were, you’re not a Westerner. It’s as simple as that. And if you’re a Westerner who thinks the government engages in censorship and violation of human rights only in places like China and Iran, I suggest you grow up. And if you’re a Westerner and you proudly “never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories” I suggest you get back to your child-like fantasy garden of Eden with a benevolent computer God where you can be free and innocent in your happy state, and not soiling yourself with knowledge of evil, as the omniscient computer God will take care of you. Not recognizing evil empowers it, so keep your ignorance and your evil in your Utopia.

Oppression, conspiracy and other nasty stuff have always been present in our culture. I cannot fathom how some people can convince themselves this is not the case. I am not saying this means we should throw our hands up in the air and say it’s hopeless, because evil exists. No. I’m saying evil exists, so we must be aware of it and prepared for it. Always.

Intellectual Feudalism

In our society there are institutions for explaining what you should believe. There is someone on top, be it a person or a group or something more abstract, and they tell you what is true. If you don’t believe it you are either stupid or crazy. I call this Intellectual Feudalism. We have lords who tell us what to believe, and if we do so without independent thought and investigation, we are intellectual serfs.

In the past our lord was the church. You believed what they said or burned at the stake. Nowadays the church isn’t as powerful as before, although it does wield a lot of influence in some places and among certain types of people. Yet the practice hasn’t changed. Now we have countless “official” sources, be they government or academic, or corporate that has the appearance of being government or academia. You have to believe what the government says or you are a conspiracy theorist. You have to believe what academia says or you believe in superstition and pseudo-science. This, of course, is simply mind control. On some levels it is done deliberately to control people. Yet a lot of people sincerily believe in the intellectual authority of an abstract authority figure and attack you if you do not comply. They would be intellectual serfs (an alternative for sheeple?).

Everything about this Intellectual Feudalism isn’t necessarily bad. Sometimes governments do know better (or rather the people working for the government) about some issues, whereas the general public does not, and acts appropriately in those situations in the best interest of everyone. Academics too have a lot of actual knowledge in some issues, whereas in others they blindly follow dogma. So the problem is not inherent in having these intellectual authority figures, but rather when people blindly accept them. It is a way of evading responsibility. “I don’t know how humanity came to be, but since they say Creationism/ Evolution is the answer I believe them. I don’t want to face this difficult issue myself.”

The fact that we have institutions that oppress us is not really the fault of the institution, even though I’d gladly get rid of them, but of the people who want them to oppress them. Since the intellectual feudal master gives the serf intellectual security, the serf is happy to sell his soul for it. So say no to Intellectual Feudalism. Don’t be a serf!