Sports, Homosexuals, and Liberals

As you all probably know, there was a homosexual NBA player, Jason Collins, who “came out” in the past month. And just as if cued, the liberal mainstream media is heaping up the praise to this “courageous” man so high, that they begin to lose sight of reality. Now, this post isn’t going to debate whether or not it was right of him to do that(I am firmly against homosexuality, as I believe it is unnatural, possibly even a genetic or mental disorder), but I do plan on addressing the left’s response to people with slightly different opinions.

Just last night, after defeating the Miami Heat in Game Six of the NBA Eastern Conference Championships, Pacers player Roy Hibbert, and I quote from ESPN, “went on a rant” when he used one gay slur as well as made a derogatory remark against journalists. The media was furious over this man speaking his mind, much in the same way Collins did about himself. But what was this slur which he stated? “No homo”. Wow… After perusing through the comments section on bleacher report as well as ESPN, many fans seem to be getting outraged over this political correctness being forced down everyone’s throats. One comment, made by Jkooistr on ESPN.com, gave me a good laugh:

Rudy Gay wears homosexual slur on his jersey during game.”

-ESPN headline is 2014

I could definitely picture that happening.

But why are these players being punished for exercising their first amendment rights? Nowhere in the United States Constitution does it state that we have the freedom from being picked on or the freedom from verbal abuse.

Another great example from the sports world:

Minnesota Vikings star halfback Adrian Peterson recently stated that he was “not with” gay marriage, which is an apparently more controversial statement since his team formerly employed a punter, Chris Kluwe, who is very outspoken about “homosexual rights”. However, the very same people that praised Collins for revealing his “true self” are the exact same ones criticizing Peterson for revealing his feelings.

Neither Peterson’s nor Hibbert’s comments could come even remotely close to being classified as hate speech; even if they were, “hate speech” is not illegal according to the Constitution as well, as it is protected under the First Amendment.

One last example of our media’s homosexual agenda, again from the sports world, a domain previously left for those men of the greatest strength, skill, and virtue.

This comes from ESPN.com and is an article that will be published in the June 10th ESPN the Magazine issue. Titled, Out on the Edge, it discusses Kwame Harris, a former NFL player who unwillingly came out after attempting to take the pants off his ex-lover in front of a Chinese restaurant in Menlo Park. These are the actual first three paragraphs of the story:

KWAME HARRIS walked toward the showers the first day of freshman football camp at Stanford anxious and intimidated. He’d never showered with his high school team. Except for his brothers, he’d never seen another man naked, and he was about to be surrounded by them. He didn’t know where to look, how to look, how long to let his gaze linger. He was 18 years old. A breeze could give him a hard-on. If that happened, he’d have to flee

He approached the crowded tiled room with columns housing several showerheads where men clustered soaping down. “They looked like Greek statues,” he recalls. “I think everybody was looking at everybody else’s penis, but it was more curiosity. Like that’s a medium-size penis, that’s a small one, that one looks like mine.”

A player paused beside him. Kwame was 6-foot-7, 320 pounds, and the teammate, blue-eyed and blond, was about the same height but had a sexual swagger Kwame envied. “Dude, this would be a gay guy’s dream,” the teammate said. “Imagine how much fun you could have here.”

Why in the world is an article on ESPN talking about “hard-ons” and a gay man discussing other men’s penises in a high school locker room? It appears as if the author and the publishers have no problem with children who frequent this site, looking for news on their favorite teams and athletes, reading about this perversion.

It sickens me that topics like this are becoming mainstream. Unfortunately, this is an ominous sign that the liberals, progressives, communists, and social reformers of the world are winning. As much as I hate it when Liberals blindly say “in 50 years, everyone will see the gay rights movement as nearly identical to the civil rights movement of the ’60s”, two movements which I loathe entirely, it may be coming true.  That doesn’t mean we can’t fix the world first though.

Advertisements

Long needed update

Oh wow, how the time has passed…

First off, I would like to apologize for missing the featured articles and videos, as well as being essentially silent for the past two weeks. I’ve been very busy, finishing up my school work and exams.

I have also been thinking lately about my ideology, specifically as related to others in this growing pool of reactionary dissidents. I tend to disagree with many different groups, especially those in favor of secularism, capitalism, and to some extent monarchy as well. I would actually be interested in hearing from people who identify as from those parts of the reactionary blogosphere, in an effort to get various different points of view about those topics. So please, if you have the time, describe why you believe in those points in the comments below.

Just because I have taken a hiatus from blogging does not mean that I’ve taken a break from my enlightenment. I’ve been simultaneously reading de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America as well as Carlyle’s Shooting Niagra: and After, the later of which I discovered on accident when I first checked out Radish Mag not too long ago. Very interesting reading on both ends!

I promise that I will be back up and running soon!

Till then, keep up the Good Fight.

Scipio Germanicus

Reactionary Consensus II: Deep Heritage

The Reactivity Place

…better grab a cup of coffee…

In the previous installment, I discussed how reactionaries view the development of hierarchy as a natural human phenomenon that promotes the common good, and adaptive group fitness thereby. Natural hierarchy is foundational to the development and maintenance of civilization. This view is in stark contrast to the Cathedralist (Progressivist) view which cast a Marxian hermeneutic of suspicion on most phenomena that interfere with their hold on power.

In this, the second volume of the planned ten part series on the Reactionary Consensus, I cover something Nick Land dubbed “Deep Heritage”. And while I’m not entirely certain that I mean by the phrase precisely the same thing Land means by it, I will attempt to define it here for my purposes, and explain how it is part of the coalescent reactionary consensus. Deep Heritage is not as easy to define as hierarchy, which…

View original post 2,684 more words

Reactionary Consensus I: Hierarchy

The Reactivity Place

In a post a couple days ago, I asked what can Catholic Traditionalists, Ethno-Nationalists, and Techno-Commercialists, assorted Particularists and non-brain-dead PUAs agree on? In answer to that question, I identified key ideas in what might coalesce into a Neoreactionary Consensus. This is Part One of what I hope to be a ten part series expanding upon that bulleted list.

The first broad area of agreement is hierarchy — a system of rank (formal or informal) within a social group under which the rights and duties of each member are (at least broadly) understood (explicitly or implicitly) by all group members.

:
Reactionaries affirm that hierarchy is not only natural, but almost purely beneficial to group success. Hierarchy is not merely not evil, but an enabling trait of civilization. Since hierarchy is adaptively advantageous, it is easy to see why reactionaries believe it to be part of the law of…

View original post 1,179 more words

Friday Featured Article: May 10th, 2013

This article is from a British Nationalist named Sean Allan, who goes under the username MarmiteMan4. In this article, he discusses the Golden Dawn’s recent “takeover” of Greek toll booths in an effort to allow the suffering native Grecian people to pass.

However, instead of trying to change and manipulate the story, the MSM is simply ignoring it. There is no possible way they could spin this event to make it seem like the good men and women of the Golden Dawn are “Neo-Nazis” or anything of the like. And like Alduos Huxley said in his introduction to Brave New World, the best form of propaganda is silence about the truth. I mean the real truth, not the sugar-coated version spoon fed to you by the news.

Now, I really want to feature this article for two reasons: One, to highlight the achievements of a young and accomplished Nationalist from across the pond; and two, to highlight how the Golden Dawn wins over the hearts and minds of the Greek people. They don’t do it through fear, like they are portrayed as doing: they help their neighbors. They give them food, water, medicine and shelter. And they do it because they love their homeland, their heritage, their culture, and their people.

You can’t win over a populace who thinks you are some psychopathic group through simple methods such as advertising your cause, or spamming your little slogans (I’m speaking to you, “Anti-Rascist is codeword for Anti-White” people). What seems like a good idea to you and your organization may not win over any supporters, and may in fact deter a larger percentage of the populace. Help them. Be the good men and women you continually label yourselves as.

Check out Mr. Allan’s article here!

Also, for first-hand news from the Golden Dawn themselves, check out this and this!

Science is a Religion

Religion and Science, in today’s world

Let us take a look at Science. You know, the institution that brought the marvels of flight to Mankind; the club that peers into the depth of what we are constructed of; the system that offers up a model of Nature’s creation with the Big Bang Theory. It is just great stuff, isn’t it?

But why is it taught in schools? What happened to the whole notion of Separation of Church and State?

For those of you that are completely clueless of what I’m getting at, listen up. Science is a Religion! 

Not only is Science a religion, science is THE religion of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Sure we still have Christianity, Mohammedism, Mormonism, Sikhism, and a plethora of other religions that I am too lazy to name, but Science has trumped them all. And you probably don’t even know it yet. But don’t worry, you will.

To make the association between Science and religion, one must first define what religion is. According to the good ol’ folk who edit Wikipedia:

Religion is an organized collection of belief systemscultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values

They also go on to state that:

Many religions have narrativessymbols,traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their ideas about the cosmos and human nature, they tend to derive moralityethics,religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.

However, since Wikipedia can’t always be trusted, let us look at the official definition of religion from Merriam-Webster:

The service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

As well as:

A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Now, taking base ideas from both definitions, we can begin to understand the idea of religion is essentially a collection of beliefs that give meaning to life, explain its mysteries (where we come from, where we go when we die, why are we here, etc.), and are sometimes used as a basis for laws, ethics, and morals. Since the idea of a God, Gods, or any divine being varies from culture to culture, as well as differs across time, we cannot safely give any distinct reference to a deity in this definition. It would simply not be justifiable for some corners of the world and their own practices and beliefs.

We can also add to our definition of religion that they usually contain some sacred texts(the Bible, the Quran, etc), are guided by some form of standard bearer(priests, rabbi, etc.), and require Faith in what is being delivered to its adherents. After all, how are we supposed to know that some higher authority exists if we have never seen him/her/it? Better yet, if we HAVE seen this power, how do we know what we’ve seen is legitimate?

Let us look at what Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster say about Science though. As per Wikipedia, Science is:

A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2] In an older and closely related meaning, “science” also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.

So, according to this definition, Science gives us a body of knowledge that rationally explains and predicts our surroundings. Let’s look at the official Merriam Webster definition now, just to double check our information.

The state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

It goes on to add:

Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Now let us compare how both of these institutions are similar:

1) Both of these give Mankind an answer to our own origin, as well as a response to the origin and creation of the Universe/Multiverse and all of Nature that surrounds us.

  • Judeo-Christian religions say: God created all that existed in six days, then rested on the seventh. We are created in his own image. After we depart from our Earthly confines, we will ascend into Heaven or be grasped by the clutches of Lucifer from Hell. 
  • The Modern Science religion says: The Universe and all that was in it was created in an event that occurred approximately 14 billion years ago now known as the Big Bang. Following the rapid outward expansion, things began to coalesce into Stars, Planetary bodies, and the like.
  • Why Science is a Religion in this case: In this case, Science gives Mankind an alternate answer to the Deity-created Universe located in many cultures. However, we can never know which one is the correct interpretation of Creation. We were not present to see either sources of our origin; just as more ancient peoples had to take faith that God created them and everything else, modern Man is taking faith that the Universe began after the Big Bang. The material evidence behind the beginning located on Team Science is just that, material evidence. Can we always trust our senses? How do we know that our theory won’t change down the road? What about the Steady State theory? We will never know the real truth. But this materialistic religion of Science greatly contradicts with the spiritualistic religion of.. well… pretty much all religions. Not only that, but Science has not given us an answer to what happens when we die or before we are born to the same extent as all religions have.

2) Both of these cast out those labelled ‘Heretics’

  • Judeo-Christian religions do: Well, they do cast out heretics, non-believers, and the like. Remember the Inquisition? Not only that, but these supposed ‘Heretics’ have gone on to cause great schisms in what began as the Catholic Church in Christianity; I would discuss all of these splits, but this graphic essentially sums up the majority of Christian ‘branches’ or varieties:
  • The Modern Science religion does: First of all, to see the persecution of non-conformist scientists, just look at Kurt Gödel and the reaction from Princeton after he began publishing his ‘proof of the existence of God’. To be involved in the cult of modern science, one must completely shun the calling of other organized religions, or at least they must suppress their faith. We must also view it from a standpoint of different views within the science realm. In example, the current accepted theory of the Universe’s creation is the Big Bang; anyone that is opposed to this theory is pushed under the rug by pretty much any publishing agency and their views are laughed off. But all of this does change frequently, which brings me to our next point…

3) Both of these change with the times

  • Judeo-Christian religions do: One of the major areas of recent change in many Christian churches is on the issue of homosexual marriage. As public opinion begins to inch upward towards allowing this degenerate ‘union’ to occur, many religious institutions such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church, and Episcopal Church have begun accepting homosexuality and disregarding the bible’s teachings that it is a sin. Why has this happened? Because as the men and women of the West began to lose their moral compass due to the perversions of a Liberal society, they pressure these congregations to not be “backwards” and instead act as if it were the future where homosexual marriage “will be seen as the second Civil Rights Movement.”
  • The Modern Science religion does: I will use the same example with science: the issue of Homosexuality. Up until the early 1970s, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. Why was it removed? Did science prove in fact that it is not a disease? Nope. In the early 1970s, the removal of Homosexuality from the DSM began to pick up steam, not because of scientific findings, but due to protests by groups like the Gay Liberation Front. In fact, most people today accept the idea that being a homosexual is perfectly in tune with nature, which is poured into their malleable little heads by the Jewish controlled Mainstream Media. There has still been very little real evidence to refute the claim that Homosexuality is a disorder; just a bunch of pseudo-scientific ‘findings’ that perpetrate the current world order’s belief that it should be accepted, without any real factual support.

4) Both of these institutions have their own ‘Saints’

  • Judeo-Christian religions have: People such as St. Luke, St. Nicholas, St. Patrick, St. Veronica, St. Stephen and St. Boniface.
  • The Modern Science religion has: People such as Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Galileo Galilei, Marie Curie, James Clark Maxwell, and Isaac Newton.

5) Both of these require Faith in the teachings, laws, codes, ethics, and morals of the system

  • Judeo-Christian religions: How do we know that an all-powerful God that created us in his image existed if we cannot see him or feel his presence? Faith. How do we know that when we die, we there is either a Heaven or Hell awaiting our soul? Faith. How do we know that our lives are not meaningless? Faith.
  • The Modern Science religion: How do we know that Evolution is in fact correct, regardless of any evidence to support it or refute it? Faith. How do we know that we are made up of tiny particles called atoms and even tinier quarks, regardless of any evidence to support or refute it? Faith. How do we know that the Universe had an instant of creation and has not just always kind of been here, regardless of any evidence to support or refute it? Faith.

So as you can see, science is essentially some form of a very modernized religion when you take into the account of the definition of both entities, as well as the striking similarities between the two. However, I am not saying that we disregard science completely. I prefer something quite similar to this model of the Unification of Science, Spirituality, and Philosophy (notice I use the word spirituality and not religion. This is because spirituality is more of an individual relationship with a deity, as well as the ‘mysteries of the Universe’, while religion is more of a method for controlling that relationship.)

Unification of Science, Spirituality, and Philosophy

If we can completely cast off the burdening shackles of just one or two of these pillars of individual and societal formation to accept all three equally, we can create a better society and a better man that is more in tune with Mankind, Nature, and God.

Shout out to Matt Heimbach

Mr. Heimbach (right)

I would like to give a shout out to Towson University Senior and President of the Towson White Student Union, Mr. Matt Heimbach. Due to your brave actions against the menacing horde of degenerate Marxists, Liberals, Anti-Rascists, and Druggies during a Washington D.C. May Day festival, you have helped expose the Far-Left for who they really are: perverse, vile, hate-filled, and ignorant.

I’m sure all of us in this corner of the Reactionary/Far-Right Blogosphere have already come to this realization about our leftist antagonists. However, for all of those out there that are unsure about this ideology, this view point, this way of life, I urge you to watch the intolerant actions of these hordes of hate filled scum. The only thing that the eight members of Heimbach’s organization did was peacefully protest; they did not deserve any hate-stricken rhetoric, nor the URINE being dumped on them by the leftist crowd. The actions of the mob were truly sick and inhumane.

Here’s a passage from the WSU’s after action report:

To those on the other side of the fence who despise us and what we stand for, we urge you, from the bottom of our hearts to consider this: Take a good, hard gander at the young faces amongst that crowd. Harness for but a moment your political convictions, clear your minds and forget what your professors and media czars have said. Can you truly, honestly look at these misguided young men and women and say you see decent, civilized, PEACEFUL youths fighting for human rights? Does truth and spirit glimmer in their damning eyes and obscene tongues as they shout vile, hateful rhetoric to our police who lay their very lives on the line every day for us? And bear in mind, I’m not sure how many of you know this, but some of these people were not just “fringe leftists” and your usual run-of-the-mill anarcho creeps who’ve heard one too many Kathleen Hanna records, either. Some of them among the crowd were in more of the well-known anti-war women’s groups like Code Pink, whose members can be seen in a couple of other videos on YouTube debating us. This is what the future is if you don’t wipe the sleep out of your eyes and accept the fact that the last two generations have FAILED, royally and miserably, I might add, in keeping ungrateful, uncivilized, foul, bratty, little upstarts of the lowest common denominator like this OUT of your lives, OUT of your schools and universities, OUT of your communities, OUT of your families and your homes, OUT of your streets, OUT of your country, and OUT of your beloved hemisphere that your forebears’ carved for YOU out of the Occidental wilderness. We urge you, our brave fellows and countrymen, our bold and graceful ladies of the West, to join us. If not for your people’s sake, then, in the name of all that is sacred and holy, for your families’.

You are not going to get the full truth from the news media. So expand your sources, expand your mind, and expand your heart; do this so you can really and truly understand why we believe what we believe. Maybe, just maybe, this circle is for you.

Check out more news from the Towson University White Student Union here!

Weekend Featured Video: May 4th, 2013

Ryan Anderson, The Marriage Debate: by ColsonCenter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0kCAvxF1mFA#!

I stumbled upon this video while browsing through the Christian Blog The Wintery Knight, and I decided that it would be a good fit for a weekend featured video. In this little discussion given by Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, he hits upon these four points, which most liberals tend to make when arguing for the right for homosexuals to marry freely:

  • Don’t gay couples have a right to express their love in marriage like everyone else?
  • How would legalizing gay marriage hurt your marriage?
  • Marriage is already in such bad shape, how could it hurt marriage to allow more people to marry?
  • Aren’t natural marriage proponents on the “wrong side of history”?

This is a great video about the traditionalist(not conservative) side of the same-sex marriage debate. For all traditionalist reactionaries out there, definitely watch this video to learn many significant arguments to make while debating the left on this topic.

If you like this video, check out other news and information related to Christianity at The Wintery Knight.

Friday Featured Article: May 3rd, 2013

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

I selected this article after deliberating throughout the previous week over a few other ones which I had identified as worthy of being featured. I wanted to choose one that highlighted certain downfalls of the unnatural democratic system, which we sadly live in, and I eventually stumbled upon this one. This article really stuck out to me, and I consider it a MUST READ for all reactionaries for a few reasons:

(Note: This is not really an article, but an excerpt from Corneliu Zelea Codreanu’s To My Legionaires)

  1. He portrays the perils of democracy specifically to the Romanian people, which offers you a different perspective than from the eyes of, say, an American or English Reactionary.
  2. He gives a very effective and detailed argument stating why the people cannot effectively rule over themselves, so they must be governed by a ruling elite.
  3. He describes the election of politicians over rulers / leaders.
  4. Codreanu then goes on to explain the process of choosing the elite through social selection

Here are a few quotes from the excerpt:

“Human rights” are not limited only by the rights of other humans but also by other rights. There are three distinct entities:
1. The individual.
2. The present national collectivity, that is, the totality of all the individuals of the same nation, living in a state at a given moment.
3. The nation, that historical entity whose life extends over centuries, its roots imbedded deep in the mists of time, and with an infinite future.

A new great error of democracy based on “human rights” is that of recognizing and showing an interest in only one of these three entities, the individual; it neglects the second or ridicules it, and denies the third

The nation possesses:
1. A physical, biological patrimony – her flesh and blood.
2. A material patrimony – the soil of her country and its riches.
3. A spiritual patrimony which contains:
a) Her concept of God, the world and life. This concept forms a domain, a spiritual property. The frontiers of this domain are determined by the horizons to which the brightness of her concept reaches. There exists a country of the national spirit, a country of its visions obtained by revelation or by her own efforts.
b) Her honor which shines to the extent that the nation has conformed during her history to the norms stemming from her concept of God, the world and life.
c) Her culture, the yield of her existence resulting from her own efforts in the domain of arts and thought. This culture is not intemational. It is the expression of national genius, of the blood. Culture is international as far as its luminescence may reach, but national in origin. Someone made a beautiful comparison: both bread and wheat can be international as consumption items, but they carry everywhere the stamp of the earth in which they grew.

Read the entire article here.

I would like to thank the amazing bloggers at Rise of the West for this truly remarkable excerpt. Their blog is at the top of my list for information and philosophy regardingthe Once and Future West’. Bravo to you all over there!

The Destruction of Occidental Nations (Part One)

This will be a series consisting of many short posts in which I discuss the crumbling foundation of the West.

All across the Occident, numerous nations, cultures, and peoples are being thrown under the rug due to the guise of fairness and equality. “What’s the problem with that?” very many duped and beguiled people would ask. After all, why should predominantly and traditionally white nations have all the spoils? Give some to those poor, starving Africans! Shouldn’t they have an equal opportunity to make a living in whichever country they so desire?

No. They shouldn’t.

Immigrants in America

The problem with the incredibly lax, and even welcoming immigration policies employed by a vast majority of European nations is that they bring in droves of immigrants to be used as cheap labor, which then help contribute to the decline of that nation’s native culture through a sudden and extreme attempt at a diffusion process. But again, one may ask, “These people need our help though! We’re giving them a chance at prosperity and a new life in their new homeland!” To that I would respond, yes, you are correct. Giving those “poor” souls an opportunity to start anew in one of the more “modern” and “civilized” nations of the world does help them. But that is the problem. It only helps those workers. Not the whole of society and the native populace.

Citizens of these nations need to start questioning what is a greater priority: the survival of a poor immigrant family, or the survival of an entire nation constructed on hundreds to thousands of years of blood, brotherhood, and hard work.

By giving these masses of foreign people endless amounts of aid, nations are playing Russian Roulette with their future as they gamble on whether or not these immigrants are going to pull their fair share of work in society. However, many of these immigrants are lured to white nations not because of the chance for work, but because of the opportunity for money.

Notice the difference in the two words. Work can provide you with a steady stream of money. But acquiring money does not take work. Anyone can make money by, say, robbing a bank (even though this task may be difficult). Therefore, many immigrants are lured to a life of crime, in an effort to easily make even more money than they could have while laboring in a menial and low-paying job.

Looking at data from the Department of Homeland Security, 11% to 15% of the prison population is filled with illegal immigrants. This is juxtaposed with only 8.6% that make up the whole United States.  This data also does not take into account the large masses of legal immigrants.

So, essentially, there is a high chance(as compared to a native citizen) that an immigrant is going to do two things:

  1. Steal your job
  2. Steal your stuff

I personally believe that each country should have a closed border policy. Greece for the Greeks, Russia for the Russians, Brazil for the Brazilians, China for the Chinese, and so on. If you don’t like your current home, don’t just pack up and move on to leach off another one. Try to change the system.