The English are also Taught to Hate their Flag

No people outside Europe is told by their elites to hate every symbol that reflects their identity.


‘Oxbridge white blokes’ like Monty Python have had their day, says BBC comedy boss

A young Monty Python would not get their big break on the BBC today because they are “six Oxbridge white blokes”, the corporation’s head of comedy has said as he launched a new drive for diversity.

Shane Allen said comedy on the BBC must represent the nation, with audiences discovering “the stories that haven’t been told and the voices we haven’t yet heard”.

In decades past, Cambridge Footlights was the breeding ground for BBC talent, from members of Monty Python to The Goodies, Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie.

via Telegraph, thanks to DerWaidler

Any Ideas How We can Safely Channel our Agressions?


We live in aggressive times and while many think that ramping up on testosterone and anger will do enough to change things for the better, I see the evidence that speaks against it. We don’t have too little antifa, but too much. Our cultural thought trail in the West usual leads to “we must become more cuddly.” I question the wisdom of any further feminisation and believe that this is a wrong answer. What is the third way between misguided aggression and dampening it down all together?

What helps me think about it is my (ever weakening) feminist background. I once read an excellent book by Barbara Ehrenreich, called bright-sighted. Ehrenreich had an unnecessary hormone therapy like many women in their menopause and she developed breast cancer (probably) as a consequence of it. Her struggle for life was accompanied by an eerily neutered womanhood. Ehrenreich joined an internet forum for breast cancer victims, seeking emotional support from the sisterhood. A thread was asking the question ‘What do you feel?’ Other patients gave verbose answers, but Ehrenreich typed only one word: anger. Soon the sisterhood was all over her and demanded that she changed her attitude to the spiritual, all-senses-awakening cancer in her, the baby replacement inside her female body.

I won’t go into details of this particular book, but she gives an overview about history, authoritarian regimes and the demands to be quiet and nice at all costs and all the time. She wonders how feminism that once opposed the smiley-girl-notion had changed into a no-pointy-things psycho ward. And I remember what made feminsim intellectually interesting when I picked it up. There was a bold empiricsm, an appreciation of manhood and the suggestions to women to learn from manly examples. I could see clearly what cool features men have and could connect that easily with my own identity. It is often suggested that feminism were guilty of Western emasculation. I maintain, though, that the overall emasculation rather creeped into feminism. Suffragettes were brawlers fighting against riot policemen. Emily Davison sacrificed herself, throwing her body under a racing horse to raise awareness to the voting rights issue. They were my heroes then and they are my heroes now.

But today feminism is washed up and out, and is deprived of “toxic” masculinity. Entire emotions like ‘hate’ and ‘fear’ have become cardinal sins (One red pill realisation of mine was that the superficial cardinal sins concept of the medieval times seems to have a return.). And as anger is mostly associated with the male sex, I tried to suggest as a first step that men who want to embrace their identity should try to learn how to harness aggression with strong moral values.

The reason why men have to deal with their aggression more than women has to do with the sex hormone testosterone as such. Two independent meta-studies [1] [2] have shown that men act more aggressively when the testosterone-to-cortisol ratio is high. Since cortisol rises in fight-or-flight situations it is likely that receptors of one and the same hormone spark also a process to determine the options. Does the cortisol level get locked (sudden feeling of getting calm and focussed) while testosterone keeps ramping up, the decision against escape is made and the individual becomes aggressive. Subjective levels of anger, independent of the behavior, is solely linked to testosterone. The same study shows that testosterone does not only make you aggressive, anger rises your level of testosterone, as well.

Feminists often fawn over a study that shows that mixed teams of men and women perform better than single-sex teams (BTW the opposite is true for combat units). The likely reason is that men compete harder when women pay attention. Women don’t even have to participate at all because competing for women always causes spikes in testosterone production. The drive of males to behave aggressively when there is a chance for mating was developed in tandrum with the female drive to reward it. A study has shown that no other factor (individually or combined), not the looks, not the voice or the health, determines male mating success as much as the level of testosterone. When competition becomes physical, like in athletic games, a woman does not even have to be in sight. During a sport competition, testosterone goes up and while the loser sees his level drop to normal levels again shortly after the game/race/match/fight, the winner has a heightened level for many hours.

This is, of course, not only restricted to sports, but also to real fights. There are no scientists taking blood probes during the heat of the battles, but it is so palpable that soldiers often report it.

In short, aggression is at the core of manly identity and boosts high levels of testosterone. Testosterone is in turn shown to boost serotonine which makes it a strong precursor of happiness in men. To maintain mental and physical health we must engage in aggressive thoughts and actions instead of pelting it up unresolved like a madman. One way we can do it safely is to find objects of hate that are worthwhile.

It doesn’t even need to be targeted at other humans. Hate and obsession are the same thing. Everybody who has ever played video games knows that. They work because they suck. They must suck so men can get really angry with the pixel monster and slay it. With the hightened level of testosterone (and other hormones) that his deadly fight against the bits produced, he becomes a happy camper again. The lack of female gamers is a mystery unresolved in feminist circles and so is the lack of female mathematicians. This goddamn travelling-salesman-problem…argh…kill it!

This does not mean that there are other people that need some aggressive attention. And on a social level we must find a way to identify the men worth fighting. This is still the most peculiar problem of our times. We don’t know who ‘ours’ are and who is attacking us. The aggression that is still there is completely wasted on conservatives while Islamists raise only an eyebrow when their bombs go up. Another fair outlet is mock fighting, sports and martial arts.

And as much as I begin to understand how we can build up aggression again, I wonder how we can focus it like an Asperger on a problem that we want to solve. Are there tricks to calm down in situations when it is too much to be sensibly controlled? How do we know that a situation requires more or less anger? Is a strong moral system enough to guide aggression to a good end? Are there other means to effectively channel aggression outside the mere resolve to do this inside a moral framework? Specific tips? Let me know your thoughts in the comments!

Can We Just Enjoy Soccer? No!

The photo on her article. I don’t know what she was thnking.

We all hate how the left is politicizing every aspect of our lives. The soccer team does not even wear national colors and the national animal, the eagle, is hidden unerasable within the logo of the German Football Association. It is the only national sign. This is how far the left has invaded this year’s world cup.

Today ZEIT publishes an article by complaining about the fact that the game has been politicised. She is right. Her teaser reads, “Among leftists it is scorned upon to be a fan. For the reactionaries the National Team is not German enough.” Left or reactionary. She calls the players the National Team, they call themselves The Team.

“Leftists are annoyed by German flags, black-red-yellow sausages and other products of an unleashed patriotism-capitalism”. Marx is lurking. ZEIT is still running articles about Marx and Engels. Currently they praise how prophetic they were in predicting international trade. Fawn. Wordwide trade is scientifically recorded since at least the neolithicum. Marx, swoon, Marx…

She complains that showing support for the German team is seen in her internet circles as “tolerance for capitalism, nationalism, and racism.” One breath. “Even though the team is the best Germany has to offer at the moment.”  Their qualities are diversity and  youth. Gone are the days when “agism” was the new racism. Young and diverse are the reasons why it can make fun. Why? “It makes reactionaries really angry.” This woman breathes hatred.

Those who are not on the left criticized soccer players Özil and Gündoğan because of their meeting with Erdogan. She finds this “hypocritical,” displaying once again that leftists don’t understand the very words they use when accusing others of something. When she criticizes the right-wing criticism of the team she sees herself confronted with an overemphasis on the “supposed German values.” She insists that we have not become world cup winner last time because of black, red and yellow sausages, and “even much less so” because Germany outside of soccer deserved it. We won because of the players.

Today, Germany will play against Sweden and the only reason why I don’t want them to lose is because I hate Sweden. I’m also breathing hate like the Marxist lady. We are happy to see the men playing. Otherwise we would perhabs witness rapes with so many Germans and Swedes in one place.


The Time Magazine Propaganda Photo

Youtuber Free to Speak can be found here. She is responsive to comments. Not very edgy, but she keeps her videos short and some are quite informative.

In-Group and out-Group Communication

I’m obviously not a know-it-all when it comes to building a large platform. So this is a bit of a brainstorming article.

There are multiple ways to engage politically and everybody must find his or her loopholes to make a difference. Our situations are very different. While one person has more time and resources, the other has less reputation to lose and can dare more. While one person may have useful talents, the other has a short drive to the local protest march. When it comes to persuasion, I’m not disqualifying any measures outside needless violence. Political changes happen through communication and I will focus on that.

I understand that many of you are frustrated. German-Czech Blogger Dushan Wegner had a recent article on the necessity of spreading information, titled “Inform Your Neighbour like Yourself.” Re-published on the fairly popular aggregate blog Achgut, it drew 31 comments, all of which gave personal accounts on how futile their efforts have been so far. So let’s have a realistic view.

There is a benefit for communicating with your ideological in-group as well as with the out-group. You can go into greater depths with your in-group debates. And this is essential. The in-group is less homogenous than you think and you will only find out where you stand when you pit your views against some of your friends. Be careful with your tone. Debates are more like martial arts than like brawls. Agree to disagree in minor things and be civil afterwards. As a general rule, let others cut ties with you and never do that to others!

As things are, the major communication channels are controlled by others and many of those that seem to superficially agree with you might be delusional with far-fetched conspiracy theories or may have an authoritarian stroke. The first ones are at best a strategic liability and they can at worst be manipulated to turn against you. The second ones are the people you don’t want to succeed. There is no point in replacing a tsar with a Lenin. Checking these things out, giving tips for fact checking, plausibility testing (Occam’s razor) and clean communication is worthwhile for some time. Still, don’t turn in-group communication into some self-absorbing social endeavor. People get impatient.

You want to win. And while you start with the like-minded, you ultimately want to change minds. Even this starts at the in-group level. We are social animals and facilitate an impulse through our larger social spheres, through families, acquaintances and even strangers like taxi drivers or hairdressers. One of my favorite anecdote about Margarete Thatcher is that people often did not know where she got all the extra information and intellectual impulses from. Eventually her cabinet found out that she had a very knowledgable hairdresser. Your voice matters.

The in-group can also turn into a production site for ideas and tools. The weird forum 4chan/pol/ once produced a large amount of jokey pictures (“memes”) that would later circle through the wider public. And besides pure communication, art is important. If you see a way to utilize your skill set, go for it! The left does it, too. Hollywood is populated with people on the left because they sing better, look hotter, cry on command and are overtly perfect. At least this is what the left believes. The reality is that they promote each other on the basis of ideological alliance. Most people only learn on an emotional basis and spreading information is not enough to touch them. You convince with music, captivating stories, interactive (mobile phone?) games, dances, comic books, novels, theater plays and movies. And some of it might even slip through major channels before people notice your heretic messages. Just choose the largest outlets that is available to you, an outlet that accommodates your level of anonymity and is bearable in terms of censorship frustrations.

Last weekend I jumped on the ZEIT online comment section. It is probably the widest read comment section in the German-speaking world that also reaches lefties, although I should add mostly hardcore lefties. I have noticed a recent transformation that gives me hope. More and more conservative voices pierced through and I assumed that a critical mass of frustrated readers overwhelmed the censors and the paid propagandists.

Still many comments disappear and for whatever reason ZEIT leaves an “explanation” as to why so they can educate commenters about what they should say. Because of the sheer size of the platform, there seems to be at least five censorship boards dealing with the comments. One section of articles that is targeting the youth and has a separate orange style, can only be commented on when you log in with a Facebook account. So I had four left.

Because each of the censorship boards are over-challenged there are denunciation buttons. I am a free speech absolutist, but this does not work in a place where everybody but yourself is against freedom. You have to go down into the mud pit for a while. The first thing I did was reporting people who trivialize the Nazis to trash the opposition. To my surprise some of the comments eventually disappeared. I realized that the vast team of censors are low-paid students and not professional ideologues.

So I dropped short comments. ZEIT online checks new contributors for a volley of comments until they let you into the wilderness where the others will control you with the denunciation feature. Once you get denounced, you are back in the one-by-one monitoring mode. I think I was out of the mode on the four separate boards for a total of maybe 5 comments until some ass got me back.

I knew before that only a fraction of my comments will go through. So I opened the comment pages on separate tabs and browsed through them, leaving short, quippy remarks. Two reasons: 1. You don’t want to lose too much text to the censors and 2. you convince people by making them laugh or really, really angry (Ann Coulter wisdom). I noticed that I was blocked on some levels of the censorship structure because the comments on some articles would not go through anymore. Once all comments seemed to go nowhere I realized that I’m still writing to an audience: the censors.

I mean, you have all these kids deleting comments and I made them delete innocent comments complaining about antisemitism. Their boss may have said so, but …hm…deep down Germans know that there is something wrong with stifling discussion on Jew hatred. Actually, one passed and was then removed with the message that it were off-topic. The article was about “everyday racism.” I noticed that a first step would be not to give the antisemites in Merkel’s government a pass as they refuse to classify Hezbollah as a racist terror organization. After they declared the comment “off-topic,” I wrote that antisemitism apparently does not count as racism and repeated it. It did not go through and I was blocked on this board immediately, but I’m sure that was a traumatising student job for some censors. Once no comments on any articles went through, I went for short jokes that did not necessarily have a political intent. So I tried to make the censors laugh. That caused a bit of a problem apparently because people cannot hide laughter and yet it is forbidden when it’s “racist”. So I got the complete treat.

Other bloggers tried to play the ZEIT platform, too. Luisman says that we was out after only three comments. I assume they were rather angry comments, but he also did it two years back. And I remember that I was on with a different user name for less than 20 comments and I did not get blocked then (I actually deleted my password for the sheer anger), but I noticed the short fuse of the censor who engaged with me over email at the time. American Viewer had a long comment history on ZEIT online until they wanted him to provide evidence that the Neo Nazi serial murder trial “NSU case” was more expensive than the actual Nuremberg Trials. He quoted their own articles, linked to a website tool to calculate the adjustment for the inflation, and even penned down the calculation itself. Faced with the facts, they shut his account down.

Of course, I had a small range and a short time. I was not expecting more. I’m actually surprised that I did last as long as I did. For whatever outlets you have, embrace them. If they are big enough make sure that you have some control over what reaches the wider public. If you are able to give newspaper interviews, make sure you are guaranteed to read and approve or deny the final text. Audio and video interactions with the media should be live. Of course, the precautions are lesser when you deal with trustworthy people. Rebecca Hargreaves adds some of her views in the video on top (although I think she made the wrong decision because she is articulate enough to give unfair editing a chance).

Ultimately, changing the platforms to nice conservative corners is not an alternative to interacting with the left. As stated above you can further some goals within your in-group, but you should be aware of the shifting texture of the audience as you move. Nevertheless, every platform is only temporary. Don’t put your heart into one!

If possible use multiple outlets, from your dinner table over Facebook to Telegram. WordPress allows you to upload your content on various internet places at once. You cannot and should not attend all these places. Let the computer do it for you. Just register and flush it out in hope that people find it.

I spent some time on the comment section of blogger Juergen Fritz until he closed it because of the EU data protection directive panic. But while I was there, I tried to hint to other bloggers and youtubers, to connect readers with each other. Whatever your ideas are to get the word out, let me know…by getting your word out.

Don’t panic!