Between ice and fire

In the comments section where you can ask me anything before the end of the year, this morning I learned about a philosophical position. By following the links I came across a video by an ‘efilist’ that inspires the deepest nihilism. I also read ‘On efilism’ on the site The antinatalist, which explains it better:

Efilism addresses the objective fact that all lifeforms are a byproduct of a needless chemical reaction that occurred around a billion years ago.

Through unintelligent design, we evolved nervous systems some 500 million years ago; enabling us to feel pain. In turn, we became addicted to the burdens of chasing wants and needs in order to escape suffering.

Our nervous systems are hardwired to experience suffering far more than pleasure; both in intensity and duration. This brutal functionality of nature motivates all species to stay alive long enough to pass their DNA to the next generation. This would also explain why sex is so pleasurable.

Life evolved to torture and to be tortured. We are all victims and predators. There is no justification for nature’s cruel design. It’s wasteful, needless, and causes suffering. As Gary put it, ‘life is more friction than function’.

Efilists hold a sentiocentrist worldview. We recognise that the welfare of all living creatures (be it a frog or human) are of equal importance. This is juxtaposed to speciesism; which values one animal over another, which is irrational. We were all born to be slaughtered. No sentient being is immune. Without humans, other animals will continue to suffer just like they have been for millions of years.

The main difference between human and non-human species is our capacity to understand the futility of existence and right from wrong. We have the intellectual ability to see the meat grinder for what it really is. We are all in this rat maze together.

With knowledge comes responsibility. We must be janitorial, not wasteful in our endeavour to eliminate harm. As far as the red button scenario goes, I wouldn’t press it unless it painlessly and instantaneously evaporated all life on Earth—from men to microbes; including myself. And only if pressing that button had a guaranteed fail-safe that would prevent life from re-emerging.

I do have an idea on how we could end all life on Earth peacefully without dropping some mega bomb. In 100 years, we could have the technology to produce self-replicating nanobots. Each microscopic machine would be programmed to enter, then euthanize all lifeforms on Earth. After all life is erased, the nanobots would keep self-replicating with the goal of preventing the re-occurrence of life.

Efilism is a truly atheistic way of viewing reality. We don’t justify nature by believing in fairy tales nor do we worship nature and our own genetic codes.

This is the most extreme form of anti-life philosophy that we can imagine. It is true that I am an exterminationist, but only in the sense of ‘eliminating all unnecessary suffering’ (the four words) by dispatching the vast majority of humans due to their ‘Neanderthalism’, and a large number of animal species: the theme of my last two books in the eleven-book series From Jesus to Hitler.

Using the word I learned today, the Night King of Game of Thrones was apparently an efilist. HBO’s interpretation failed to honour George R.R. Martin as in The Song of Ice and Fire there is no arch-villain, not an absolutely evil Sauron as even in the evilest man there’s always a corner of good. And in the most benign man there is always a corner of evil. The HBO series failed to show the benign side of the Night King, falling precisely into the infantile Manichaeism that Martin criticised so much about The Lord of the Rings. The benign side of the Night King would be the noble goal of trying to forbid all suffering, however deluded he might be in my eyes.

Before the last season some Game of Thrones fans speculated on their YouTube channels that Bran the Broken was the Night King. But they were wrong: in the end it was revealed that they were two different entities. But on this website and in my last book I took up those speculations when trying to convey my idea: between efilism and a Nietzschean ‘Yes to life’ there is an Aristotelian golden mean.

Since this is the theme that for decades led me to come up with my philosophy of what I call ‘the extermination of Neanderthals’, presently I’m experiencing a flow of ideas that I can’t do justice to in a simple post. Those interested could start reading my texts that have been translated into English, especially Day of Wrath (see sidebar). But I’ll try to approach the subject in such a way that at least a slight taste in the mouth remains about what I have written in a more formal way.

Years ago I began to translate for this site several texts by the Spaniard Manu Rodríguez, who in more recent times abandoned all racism to dedicate himself to an idea that he already harboured since 1976: the New Age philosophy that revolves around the Gaia hypothesis. I mention Rodríguez because I was shocked by his abandonment of what I had been translating from his site. But it must be recognised that it is not easy to transvalue values: the magnet that Normieland exerts on those who are stunned in the middle of the Rubicon is formidable.

But the mention of Rodríguez is spot on. After his conversion to Gaia I wrote to him some time ago asking if he had read my exterminationist essays and he replied that it was surely a joke of mine (it is not). That was the end of our correspondence.

Now, the fact is that Rodríguez’s Gaia philosophy, which he writes in Spanish, is the perfect antithesis of efilism (‘nor do we worship Nature’ says the efilist in the long quotation above). My philosophy of the four words represents the moderate position between the two extremes, as Rodríguez naively accepts all earthly life, without considering the astronomical magnitudes of suffering that many living creatures experience (In my opinion, this contributed to Nietzsche losing his sanity. As he suffered greatly in his solitude, his ‘Yes’ to life short-circuited his mind.)

I said that ideas come to me in droves on a topic that is impossible to do justice to in a post, but rather it takes a series of entire books to convey the main idea. For the moment, the interested visitor could read the article ‘A postscript to my prolegomena’ that appears on pages 104-106 of my Daybreak (PDF on the sidebar).

But not even if someone read my eleven books means that we would agree, as what makes someone say a resounding ‘Yes’ to life (Bran the Broken); a resounding ‘No’ (the Night King), or somewhere in between depends on how you were treated in your childhood. In other words, this is a psychogenic problem, not an ideological one. The only thing that occurs to me at the moment, when most of my books are untranslated, is to recommend the first novel by Arthur Clarke, Against the Fall of Night, which takes us to a utopia in a very distant future where unnecessary sufferings have already been eliminated on Earth (although Clarke never uses the four words).

The dialectic of the song of ice and fire in the universe is the dilemma of whether the universe is to cool down eternally due to unnecessary suffering, or whether it is worth returning to the primal fire that makes Being explode again in countless stars…

15 Comments

  1. The fundamental flaw of efilism is that there is not only life on Earth. If we eliminate all Earth life there are still billions of planets where there can potentially be unnecessary sufferings, especially those with so-called ‘intelligent’ life.

    The superiority of my philosophy is that a race whose religion was the four words would begin to conquer the galaxy to eliminate unnecessary sufferings in other solar systems. That cannot happen if we all commit suicide here and let the ‘Neanderthals’ from other planets continue to live and multiply.

    Again, an amalgam between the NK and Bran (like Himmler’s SS) is the only way to go.

  2. Is The antinatalist blog authored by Simon Elliot? I would be interested to talk to him, but have no means of contact.

    I’m sorry for writing here again, but a good argument against your ideology would be the case if interstellar travel were impossible for some reason (a solution to the Fermi’s Paradox). Or more tragic – if the immense light lag would lead to the inevitable cultural mutation of the emigrants – and they would all necessarily be molded into ruthless Nietzschean Darwinians, who would be killers of xenos nonetheless, but only to take their place.

    • Xenos? Another Clarke novel that impressed me was Childhood’s End, where the Overmind seemed to be worried about the welfare of other forms of life. But this is getting too metaphysical, like the black monolith of 2001: A Space Odyssey (cf. also the entity Vanamonde in Clarke’s The City and the Stars).

  3. You might say it’s a matter of aesthetic taste. […] My consciousness is really just an ancillary feature of my current phenotype that exists because it happened to increase the odds that the real “me” would survive. I find the thought that my consciousness might “malfunction” and break the chain disturbing.

    link

    On another note, you are incredibly right, C.T., in comparing the issues of schizophrenia and Christianity as both software-related. Technically, the brain is shaped by biology, and biology by chemistry in an unbroken chain of cause and effect (so biological psychiatry is correct inasmuch as a husk of dead meat is free from mental disorders, like a scratched CD from viruses), but effectively, culture based on the sufficiently-advanced brains exists virtually independently of biology, and free will is thus real, and Aryans may worship a Jewish god, and the Orientals build steel ships.

    • But that’s not exactly what biological psychiatrists say. What psychiatrists say is that mental illnesses do not come from the software of the mind, but are the hardware: something like if a computer technician who wants to fix your equipment messes only with the motherboard because he doesn’t believe that the software, computer viruses or malware exist.

  4. Cesar, It took me over an hour to type these replies, and it’s the last chance I’ll ever have to speak here, so please allow it to appear.

    My reply to adunaii:

    My email is simonelliot777 [at] yahoo.co.uk

    Oh no, a link to Helian’s blog. He and I don’t get along. He is unwilling to broach the subject of the Jewish Question, even marginally. He rails against the blank slate, but I consider him to have been ensnared by postmodernism in any case, as he always toes the line to Hume’s is/ought distinction, which I consider to be the foundation stone of postmodern alethic relativism.

    Benatar himself is an exception to the Jew rule. I see nothing subversive in any of his work, and he isn’t of a left-wing bent. The only time Benatar makes any reference to his heritage is in his first book, where in the introduction he reflects on an old Jewish proverb about the misfortune of being born. Benatar is not the only person who has come to deeply pessimistic/realistic conclusions about the poor quality and ultimate futility of existence. Every Cradle is a Grave by Sarah Perry, Keeping Ourselves in the Dark by Colin Feltham, and The Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Thomas Ligotti are other such tomes.

    Benatar highlights an empirical asymmetry (one of several asymmetries that favour negativity over positivity in life) between pleasure and pain, that the worst suffering is more intense than the best pleasure. Some have opposed his empirical asymmetry argument because it doesn’t explain exactly how the measurements are being done. “What metrics does Benatar use? He starts with the conclusion that pain is more intense and overwhelmingly more prevalent than pleasure, but even if that is true, it does not follow that a being would prefer non-existence to suffering.” I tell these people to consider the following wager: would you endure an hour of the worst torture imaginable in exchange for a whole day, or even a whole week, of the most sublime pleasures imaginable? People reject the offer, indicating that suffering is indeed more intense than happiness, even of shorter duration. Now, one might say that pain only seems more intense than pleasure because avoidance of injury is a higher priority for an organism than acquiring benefit. I doubt this, because why would the qualia of pain, at least the physical experience of it, be contingent upon one’s priorities? I see no connection between the two. Furthermore, if we specify in the wager that you will survive the torture, that you will only experience the pain but will not be permanently disfigured, people still decline Benatar’s wager.

    Helian has said that anti-natalism is built on an inverted morality, in that it takes evolutionary mechanisms that we use to survive (compassion, empathy, and aversion to suffering), both as individuals and as a species, and uses them as the basis to advocate for our self-imposed extinction, which is what these mechanisms evolved to prevent in the first place. My response to this is that the focus of anti-natalism is on the *qualia* of pain, which is inherently negative, rather than the instrumental value it has in some circumstances. The function of pain is communicative in some sense, telling you that something is wrong and encouraging you to desist from whatever harmful behaviour, or escape from whatever thing, is causing the pain stimuli, thereby preserving your life and potential lineage. But does the fact that I recoil when I put my hand on a hot radiator mean that I am life-affirming? Of course not. It’s a reflexive response, one which I have no choice in. Pain will always be bad, with or without instrumental value, since even when it has instrumental value, the intensity of it is often horrendously disproportionate. Its fundamental essence is negative, regardless of what the mentally defective masochists among us might say.

    Also consider that, since the positive experiences in life only have value in ameliorating the default negativity, a satisfied preference is equivalent to the desire having never existed in the first place, as illustrated by the anti-frustrationist axiology developed by Christoph Fehige and Peter Singer. Many pleasures also come at great cost, either to oneself or to others. Schopenhauer famously juxtaposed the pleasure of a feasting lion with the suffering of its prey being eaten alive. There can be no transcending the duality of negativity and positivity, as they are fundamentally irreconcilable. Our absurd predicament is born of these two incongruent forces existing simultaneously.

    Benatar has also written a book about misandry and opposes affirmative action. He has made no overt mention of race in any of his work, at least not that I’ve come across. He has described his position on abortion as being pro-death, believing that it is a moral imperative to prevent new lives, but that it should be done at the earlier stages of gestation, as the developing cells are not a person in the morally relevant sense. He has debated other Jewish intellectuals who oppose him. His debate with Sam Harris has been the best, by far. Sam is very soft spoken and although he may be a liberal, I applaud his efforts to defeat postmodernist relativism in his book The Moral Landscape. I believe he is correct and that his book represents a truly noble effort, despite whatever flaws it may have. As you can imagine, most people have a reflexive response of indignation when they encounter anti-natalism, as their primitive hindbrain enters defence mode. They will come out with all sorts of flippant remarks which are not rationally informed, by far the most common being “why don’t you just kill yourself?” Harris coined the phrase “pro-mortalism” to describe the dilemma of whether Benatar’s thesis implies that we should all commit suicide. It was a very invigorating discussion, and as I say, I think it’s the best interview out of all the interviews he has given so far.

    In his book, Benatar uses the following analogy to help people understand the major distinction between coming into existence and ceasing to exist. Suppose you buy a ticket to a movie, you spend a good deal of money and have invested a lot in the experience, but after a relatively short time in the theater, it becomes apparent that the film is a huge disappointment. It might not be so terrible that you choose to leave, given that you have invested a lot in this (the problem of sunk costs), but if you had known that it was going to fall so short of your expectations, you never would have bought a ticket in the first place.

    Positive self-testimony about the quality of one’s life is tainted by the optimism bias, which is evolutionarily hardwired. Benatar goes into a lot of detail about this phenomenon. A rose-tinted worldview is evolutionarily selected for, but it remains a deception. We value the truth for its own sake, or at least I do. I wouldn’t want to be under an illusion, even if the illusion gave me a sense of meaning and purpose, as the illusion of God does for billions of people around the world. I value authenticity and honesty, even if it shines the light on an unbearable truth. As such, somebody’s testimony that they enjoy their own life has no bearing on the creation of new life. People who already exist usually have an interest in continuing that existence, but a potential person has not yet acquired any such interest, and therefore the good things in life (which are merely palliatives) do not have the same value for the pre-exister as they do for the exister. For this reason, positive self-assessments cannot serve as a justification for creating new lives. It’s really not that difficult to understand, but so many people struggle to grasp that there is a fundamental distinction between *before* existence and *after* coming into it. The criteria shifts fundamentally between scenarios, and what counts as good for something in the existence scenario counts for nothing in the pre-existence scenario. Many people, even when they claim to have finally understood, will often relapse and have to be reminded. The grasp they manage to get on this is ephemeral, so repetition is warranted.

    Non-existence is not scary as a starting point, because we are never there to be aware of it. Our suffering arises in being woken from it and knowing we must inevitably go back to it. “Nothingness” itself is a paradox, as it is a word to describe a “something” which is in fact not a thing at all. We are constrained, not just by our linguistic limitations, but by the nomological boundaries of the mind. We cannot conceive of nothingness, any more than we can conceive of a new colour. We are all inevitably destined to go back to the void of nothingness, and our awareness of this is the source of all horror. As such, it would have been better to never have been brought out of the nothingness, as we are ultimately fated to return to it. Contrary to what some say, the finality of death does indeed nullify any purpose we might otherwise convince ourselves that our lives have. It is a very grim state of affairs, and our curse is to know it.

    An article that appeared about a year ago in Quillette presented the following critique of the anti-natalist position:

    “So, it is worth pausing to ponder one question Benatar fails to address. What would the transitional period between the decision to end human procreation and human extinction actually look like? How would the inevitable societal collapse—crumbling infrastructure, lawlessness, resource scarcity, social decay, and so forth—be managed? And, perhaps most importantly, who would bear the brunt of this collapse?”

    It was basically saying that his thesis collapses under its own weight because the suffering brought about by its practical implementation would be worse than any suffering that exists already. My response would be that our suffering doesn’t entitle us to rope more people into our hellish world, who will then in turn have to rope in yet more people. In many ways this “road to hell is paved with good intentions” type objection is similar to the claim that the adoption of anti-natalism among the most compassionate and intelligent people will result in said traits being self-selected out of the gene pool, leading to the kind of dystopian future depicted in the 2006 film Idiocracy.

    Benatar is aware that the philosophy will never be adopted on a large scale, but he has said that if even one person encounters his arguments and is convinced by them, he counts that as a victory, as do I. Regarding its practical application, the scenario for the final generation is going to be bleak no matter what, but as Benatar says, it would be better if our end were to come sooner rather than later. If everyone were to peacefully drift into a deep sleep and never wake up, that would seemingly be an ideal solution, or at least as ideal as we could achieve under our horrendous circumstances. It is unlikely that everyone on earth will ever have the means or the will to accomplish this simultaneously, however.

    My reply to Cesar:

    I consider it extremely unlikely that any other life exists in the universe. It has been speculated that anti-natalism could be an explanation for the Fermi paradox. If intelligent life exists out there, it might be considerably more rational than us and therefore may have consciously pursued a path to peaceful self-extinction after reaching the same anti-natalist conclusions as Schopenhauer, Zapffe, Ligotti and Benatar.

    Hellstorm was decisive in my ideological shift away from ethno-nationalism and towards anti-natalism. This is ironic, of course, as the book is arguably intended to have the opposite effect on readers. The book contains accounts of human suffering that defy comprehension in their scope and severity, and it just put into perspective for me the horror of it all. White children deserve a better world than this awful place, and any attempt to perfect this world only ever results in tragedy on a horrific scale. A perfect world is one that is perfect from its inception; there would be no need for any intermediary process of improvement.

    I will give you three scenarios for existence. In scenario one, the world exists in a state of continuous perfection. This state cannot be altered or degraded in any way, nor can it be improved, as all of the attributes of this creation are intrinsically positive and are calibrated to their maximal possible degree. In scenario two, the world is built on the opposing forces of negativity and positivity, which are locked in an eternal struggle. The balance of power constantly changes; sometimes things get worse, and then they may improve. Sometimes things may go very well, but inevitably fall victim to entropy. This power struggle continues indefinitely. In scenario three, existence begins at the worst possible level in every respect. Arbitrary suffering is the norm, but gradually, over an infinite amount of time, the state of affairs becomes less bad until eventually the duality of scenario two is reached, but it keeps going until eventually reaching a state of bliss somewhat similar to scenario one. Now, which of these scenarios would you say is the best, the least wasteful, and the least painful? Obviously it’s the first proposed scenario, in which there are no intermediary negative states, which were never necessary in the first place. A problem solved is a problem caused, as solutions invariably create new dilemmas. What is better than a problem overcome? The problem never having existed in the first place, of course. So, if a God were to create a world, I would argue that he would be logically and ethically obliged to generate scenario number one. I think it’s obvious that the world in which we are currently living is a hybrid of scenarios two and three. Ergo, God does not exist and the world is both imperfect and incapable of being perfected.

    Many people confuse the question of a life worth continuing, of which there are many, with that of a life worth starting, of which there are none. It’s a very important distinction to understand. The central premise is that there’s no net benefit to being born, as encapsulated in the maxim “there is no need to create need.” Even if life were as perfect as is possibly conceivable, the question of whether a given life would be worth starting would merit an indifferent response, as it would be neutral in either direction. Nothing would be gained or lost in not existing, and nothing would be gained or lost in being born. However, since the world as it exists is not optimally calibrated for our wellbeing, creating a new life can only ever entail degradation. To have an adequate appreciation of this, it is essential to also understand the Problem of Non-God Objects, which is the best argument that atheism has against the existence of a benevolent deity. Both arguments draw upon the same perfectionist expectations, and I believe perfectionism is a prerequisite for being drawn to anti-natalism.

    What I use anti-natalism to demonstrate is that, contrary to what they always say, ethno-nationalists don’t genuinely care about the welfare of white children. On the contrary, they view them as expendable. They are seen as a means to an end, that end being ego fulfilment, albeit in a racialist sense more than a personal sense. But, as fate would have it, the “final generation” scenario mentioned in the Quillette article actually affords white nationalists a golden opportunity, and a chance to prove that their compassion for white children is genuine and not a means for extending their trans-generational ego. We could achieve this peaceful extinction for ourselves, and leave the non-white hordes to inherit the misery and destruction that will undoubtedly befall the penultimate crop of humans in our absence. It’s not a loss for us at all. Quite the contrary, in fact, provided we can overcome our egotistical desire to be the last race standing and recognise that this wretched world is not worth the suffering of even one of our precious people. Benatar would not endorse what I’m saying to you here, of course, as I am talking from the perspective of my old ethno-nationalist self, which does still exist within me, at least in part. My sympathies are still with our people. This is why I still support an informed eugenics policy, as I recognise that it is the second best option to anti-natalism for us, albeit a distant second.

    • Regarding your first paragraph after your words ‘My reply to Cesar’, it is more likely that the fledgling civilisations of the Milky Way have destroyed themselves (as human imbeciles self-destruct today) than they have come, independently, to develop the Efilist religion by themselves. Academic discussions aside, I cannot in any way agree with your words about leaving the Earth to non-Aryan Neanderthals:

      We could achieve this peaceful extinction for ourselves, and leave the non-white hordes to inherit the misery and destruction that…

      That would mean horrendous, lifelong suffering for farm animals, slaughterhouses and lab animals, pets and the things that happen to animals in the fur factories and even the streets of China. Our absolute obligation is to wipe out the nerdels (as I abbreviate the metaphor ‘neanderthals’ in my soliloquies) with the same zeal that the NK wanted to raze Westeros. Only after that we would ponder about what we do with ourselves.

      By the way, since you live in the UK, I suggest you read the Clarke novella I mention in the article, which he wrote in England seventy-five years ago around your age.

      • I have no objection to you wanting to exterminate the rest of humanity, although it would be nice if it could be achieved in as relatively painless a manner as possible under the circumstances. But having said that, if we whites were the last race standing, then that would mean that the final generation, the one that would suffer terribly, would be white. I guess you would have to choose who’s suffering you are more concerned with, that of our people or that of the animals left behind in the custody of non-whites and the merciless forces of nature. Ultimately there seems to be no way to avoid catastrophe. There will be suffering, one way or another.

        Will you be answering emails sent to you in the future, after you disable comments? And will all the comments made on all your blog posts up until 31st December still be visible after the change? Because I often put put a lot of effort into my comments. I don’t know if I can say the same for anyone else, but still, the comments section is an accumulation of many years worth of correspondence which I don’t think you should obliterate.

        I will look into the book. In turn, consider looking into Benatar’s books. I did send him a lengthy email last month but he replied saying that he couldn’t respond to everything I said point by point, as it would take a long time and he is extraordinarily busy. I was disappointed, but that’s all life has ever been for me. Just one big disappointment.

      • Of course, the comments will always continue on this blog until WordPress decides to take me down, which I hope doesn’t happen (see the backup of this site though).

        If someone is not a priest of the 14 words (or the 4 words), in order for his comment to be considered in one of the discussion threads as of Friday, they will have to send it to me by ordinary mail, taking into account that it takes a long time to reach my house once it arrives in Mexico City (postal mail here is a disgrace: sometimes it collapses at the P.O. headquarters).

        By the way, the comment that you sent me on December 11 and I didn’t let it pass, contains this sentence: ‘As I say, you will be in Tikhar’s position, and I will be in yours. It will no doubt be an interesting experience for you, should you be open to it’.

        It seems to me that it would be the other way around: young Bran is you, on the other side of the Wall, in the dark cave beside the old three-eyed raven. That’s why I suggest that Bran reads Day of Wrath. If we kill all the non-whites, the orcas among many other species, and a good number of bad whites, we will reach the worlds of Lys: an archipelago of small towns in Clarke’s novella.

    • I am truly thankful for this discussion! I’m going to continue it via e-mails, but for any visitors reading this in an archive a decade from now, I’ll leave a few points.

      1. This focus on emotions, feelings, suffering strikes me as idealist and Christian. Ironically, I will consider Elliot closer to Checharism than I, a materialist mammal with too big a brain, am (the only morality is racial survival).

      2. The argument that can break your point is the case if death does not exist. That the subjective experience is immortal. That non-existence is truly impossible. Either by reincarnation, or the experience of dying stretching into eternity (cf. The Jaunt, although I got the idea from elsewhere). I called it an anti-world, the unimaginable world when I was 13.

      3. You still strike me as an individualist in your language. It is not having children that is true suicide, whereas sacrificing yourself for your brothers is literally procreation, mathematically speaking.

      4. The White children are merely the pawn of the Race, the instrument of the Nation’s immortal and indomitable Will. The leaves of a tree… Ego is an incorrect word. A loaded term. The eternal spirit of matter is better.

      (I also suggest using CherryPlayer for watching YouTube to reduce the suffering of the horrendous UI.)

      P.S. Armide (1686 CE) – Jean-Baptiste Lully, Philippe Quinault.
      Si l’amour ne causait que des peines,
      les oiseaux amoureux ne chanteraient pas tant.

    • I have looked at many of your comments all over this site and I can’t believe the tripe coming out of your mouth, You claim to care about the welfare of our race, and as a result of such you want to give our enemies what they desire with, no fight, no struggle. Advocating primarily that we live out what lives we do have in comfort and look not to the future, and never to procreating, because you supposedly care so much about our race that you would rather it die, than continue to suffer the “unbearable” suffering of life in this universe.

      I just had to comment to tell you that what you feel isn’t caring for our race, it is a selfish desire, a warped form of compassion, you do not care for our Race. To care for something you have to want it to live, to thrive, even, not want it dead. My only question for you is, why have you not killed yourself yet? because, all you do is demoralize other people and try to draw them into the pathetic existence and beliefs that you have. That we should die for what our own selfish freedom from existence? Is this because somehow death, which we neither know, nor can confirm, anything about, is better than life? No, your pathetic cry for freedom is not for me and not for anyone who actually cares for the White/Aryan race. It also speaks volume that you get most of this viewpoint from a jew whose only mention of his heritage is an old jewish proverb about the misery of living at all, it sounds like he mentioned that because it is the very foundation of his entire outlook on life, making your viewpoint jewish, much like C.T.’s 4 words, and the 14 words. I urge you to quicken yourself to your suicide as quickly as possible don’t bother writing a tract on this worthless Nihilist ideology known as Efilism.

      • Are you addressing Simon Elliot (aka, Autisticus Spasticus) or Adunai?

        …much like C.T.’s 4 words, and the 14 words.

        And why are you comparing my philosophy with either of them? In which sense the 4/14 words are jewish-like?

      • To C.T:
        I was responding to Simon Elliot, and I should have been a little clearer with my wording. What I meant to convey is not that the 4 and 14 words are Jewish, they are not at all at, but that they are the center of your worldview, like the jew he mentioned whose ideology/philosophy he follows quite closely and the old jewish proverb he used.

  5. Well as I said before, I have never watched Game of Thrones, since it’s not the sort of show that would appeal to me. I was always more of an X Files kinda guy, so any analogies you make using Game of Thrones will be lost on me. So many people say we’re living in the golden age of television, but I think it’s pitiful. I much prefer 90’s and early 2000’s TV shows and movies. The current Netflix streaming era of corporate conglomerates represents the worst of television, not the best, as far as I’m concerned. It’s all dull as dishwater to my palette. Also, the amount of shitty CGI and atrocious colour grading (teal and orange, ugh!) that has been forced on us for over a decade just makes my eyeballs want to vomit. It wouldn’t surprise me if it was a deliberate attempt to induce a depressed mood in the viewer, much like modernist architecture and abstract art.

    Why rely on regular mail when you have email? I do hope adunaii sees my reply to him/her before the comments are closed.

    • TV has indeed reached its nadir including GoT’s subversive messages, but Martin’s novels are not too bad.

      The purpose of using regular mail is to handicap the flow of comments on this site. I have no time to read them all and less to reply when I don’t agree with the POV of a commenter.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: