TO ZOOM PAGE: Hold Ctrl and press+/- or use Mouse wheel
YOU CAN COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY by clicking "Comments" under each post, and then, chose "anonimac" (anonymous). Write your comment, chose a nickname (Vaš nadimak), and send the comment (POŠALJI)
Who was Captain Nemo?
Scroll down the post.
Beautiful Melodious Music
Some changes in the forum's software made the videos in the posts from pp1-16 disappear. Just open the links visible in the posts in new tabs.

Topic about substances that could inhibit the Coronavirus infection
Sunburns: how to treat and prevent
Istria is the world's best region for extra virgin olive oils six years in a row (Well it had to be said ;-))
Instructive YouTube channel about what modern women in the US and the West have become. Probably fairly representative. But rather than the conclusions presented by the author, my own take is that it underlines the need for men to retake assertive leadership, and reestablish Patriarchy.

"Real women vs feminists" playlist. Something all modern women should watch!

Former Russian psychologist talks about female nature, psychology, dating, relationship.

Although I do not agree with certain things at all, like the acceptance of casual sex and casual dating, the channel is well worth watching if one filters these aspects out.

All four YouTube channels make me cringe for various reasons, because they do not represent levels o humanity high enough, but still, as someone said, a wise man can learn something from everyone.

Captain's Blog

16.05.2021., nedjelja

- 00:01 - Comments (0) - Print - #

15.05.2021., subota

Why Men Must Demand Virginity From Women

There are two or even three reasons why Men must demand virginity from women.

The first is that most women can have sex whenever they want. They can walk to some guy on the street and propose sex, and in most cases they will get it.
For men it is far more difficult, unless they are exceptionally attractive, and even in that case they would probably be rejected unless they invent some nice story.

This is a very significant difference and asymmetry between the sexes, and because of that, a Man who wants to invest his life in marriage with a woman must know that she is worth it, that she is high value for him, and that for her, intimacy with a Man is something exceptional, individual and unique, not something she does casually, otherwise there is nothing exceptional and precious in that woman for a Man to invest his life, love and soul into. Otherwise there is nothing unique about that woman to be invested in, she is just good for getting sex from her.
(See "Addition 4 - Another Asymmetry" below, for the expansion of that argument of asymmetry)

The second reason is humanity. A Man who wants to invest his soul into life with a woman must be sure that she is fully a human being, not just a reactive sensual animal without a human core. To live one's life with a reactive sensual animal instead of a self aware human with a self activated life core is a recipe for catastrophe and failure.

And a woman who practices casual sex is a reactive sensual animal, not a self aware human being with an aware human core.
She will be volatile and act according to her whims and various sensory stimuli coming along the way.

The third reason is female beauty.
Many men, mostly the simpletons, believe that female beauty is a reflection of her soul, which is extremely naive.
Many women use that masculine naivete, to fascinate men and entrap them psychologically, so that they provide for them and serve them as some kind of goddesses.
Those naive men will move mountains for these women, but when those women meet the super alpha male, they will often abandon or cheat on the provider simpleton without the shadow of a remorse.

That means that a Man must know that the looks of a woman are not a lie in her flesh, that her flesh, her meat is not a lie in itself.

I's like when you buy a product and there is a beautiful picture of it on the box, but if the quality of the product doesn't match the picture, then it is false advertisement.
If a woman fascinates with her look, suggesting exceptional quality, she better be of that quality, or the picture on the box is a lie.
Some men will be "pragmatic" and will compromise because they think that they cannot demand a product matching the picture, but actually they should demand it, otherwise why should they buy it and treat it as if it was a high quality product, care for it as something precious etc. when it is really a cheap product.

If a woman attracts men with her looks of purity, and she is not pure, then her very flesh is a lie, a manipulation, and she is a walking lie.
Women know that, and when they want to marry they lie that they just had one or two unhappy relationships, when they might had dozens and dozens of instances of casual sex. They know that only purity is worth a man's love and protection.
Men must demand that purity, and not marry the liars.

Let's be frank, these cute girls are, more often than not, just cute little reactive animals and not complete human individuals . Or their looks are the expression of their ego and of their cunningness in attracting men. It is not the expression of their souls, or more exactly it is, but you have to know how to look and see through the first level of appearances.This you can do only if you understand how women function when not framed by patriarchy.

Without the human personality forming by patriarchy, women left to their own devices tend to regress to cute little sensual animals levels. Only with the cultural factor of patriarchy can women truly develop in the direction of integrated human individuals, not just reactive automatons.

For a Man to love a woman, he must feel that she is high value, and a girl who screwed around is of no value. What is there to love in such a woman? What is there a Man would want to protect and cherish in such a woman? What is there in such a woman he would want to be devoted to?
She degraded the sexual act to animality, and then should be respected and cherished as a human being?

Now the classic question of why men should be allowed one type of behavior and women not.

From the human point of view, for two real humans, there is absolutely no difference, and they should both act like true humans and not reactive sensual automatons - animals.

However, there is a difference in a woman practicing casual sex and the reason a man often had sex with multiple women.

For most men, for whom it is incomparably more difficult to get sex than for most women, because of the way women are attracted to men, and most are not attracted by weak men, but men who will basically "take" them, they are practically obliged to conquer a woman, or they will be relegated in the "friend zone". There are of course exceptions for everything, but exceptions don't help us to understand how the dynamics between the sexes generally works.

There where times when things were different, but these times have passed... particularly with the disastrous appearance of social media, dating and hookup apps.

Only exceptionally strong Men with a very pronounced male force can make demands on women before having any sex with them, and demand that a woman proves her worth to them before accepting to have anything with them.

For most men, they must first conquer the girl and then determine if she is worth of more. Besides, the way a woman reacts is also a sign about her quality. (When she is young and not when she hits the wall and is not that attractive anymore, not being very fertile anymore, and then fakes virtue.)
This is or can be part of the wetting process for men to select the right woman. Although I do not advocate it, in some cases it may seem practically necessary, unless the woman/girl is truly exceptional and is not just searching for a male, but for a Man. If you meet such a woman still truly framed by patriarchy, you must take it into account.

Women do not practice (casual) sex for that reason, but as part of animal sensual or emotional reactivity, and therefore a woman who practices casual sex is of low value for a Man, for all the aforementioned reasons.

Of course there are men-sluts out there, and men are also often reactive animals, however, the value of women for a man still depends on her sexual behavior, because of the easiness a woman can get sex, while a man who can "get women" does not lose value in the same way, precisely because of the comparative difficulty he has to get women.

For women who say that it is a double standard for men to expect virginity or at least a low "body count" (the horrible expression used these days) one has to respond that, among other things, the fact that women can (and these days often do) have a body count in the triple digits, does not mean that they are of high value, just the opposite, because they didn't have to demonstrate value for getting that many men to sleep with them, while most men have to work hard to be valuable to women and get them to bed (with the exception of very attractive, very masculine or very popular men).
So for a man it's the opposite than for a woman, it's the woman/girl who has a low body count, or is virgin, even though she could have a high body count, that displays human value and is perhaps worth of life investment. The others are not, and definitely not the ones who indulged in the c*ck carousel like animals in their youth and suddenly discover that they are out of time and want "true love" and stability, aka a man to serve and provide for them, or at least provide an ego validation that they cannot get from the c*ck carousel anymore.

Because for these women, "true love" is what they can get from a man, not about giving.
Remarquably, even though they demonstrated no value, they think that they "deserve" anything they want, that they are "worth" it by default.
No you don't, you don't deserve or are worth anything by default.

There are young women out there who do understand love as this kind of life union both sides give themselves to, to create life together, but they seem more and more rare these days, (particularly because of the number of those infected by the feminist ideology focused on external and animal demands by women, not what both partners can give to the couple and create together).
Those are women who don't perceive life as a perpetual string of external stimuli that they got to get, like feminist culture teaches them to, but see life as giving and creating something together.
And those are the women who will chose a real Man who also wants the same thing, not a fake man just giving cheap thrills/stimuli to their ego. And if a woman chooses such a fake man, that means that she is fake value too and deserves what she gets.

Of course on a purely human level, the one that I advocate, men would also lose their value if they do not behave in a completely human, non-animal manner, but reality being what it is, women, except the ones of really exceptional quality, do not see a diminished value in a man who had a number of sexual partners, because of the same asymmetry mentioned at the beginning of this post.
In reality women are often attracted by such men, because it means that their masculinity has been corroborated by other women.
It is the opposite for women who had multiple sexual partners, their feminine value is not enhanced but diminished or nullified.

Patriarchy is the only healthy moral order, in which Men demand virginity from women, and create a culture valuing virginity.

Patriarchy also improves the moral quality of men who must prove their true Manhood (not just animal maleness).
In a culture not valuing virginity, people sink into animality, women lose their value for men, who are not interested in marriage anymore, just sex, and society deteriorates in all kinds of ways, as can be seen in many Western countries, particularly the USA.

This all is not just an individual issue, but a question of general frame: i.e. Patriarchy or not.

The demand for virginity makes complete sense only if it inscribed inside the general awareness of the imperative need for Men to reestablish a patriarchal moral order, which would apply also to men themselves as moral responsibility and leadership.

It obviously makes no sense for men to make such demands on women if they are not ready to reestablish a patriarchal moral order by taking responsibility for the morality of society (including themselves), and patriarchal moral leadership.

The key idea behind all this patriarchy thing is that it is the natural role of Men to take responsibility for the moral order of a society, and then women can follow. Women cannot lead in that direction, and it is the role of Men to lead.

In this article I explained two things.
Why female virginity is important from the point of view of men, and what that demand for virginity implies for men themselves, i.e. the reestablishment of Patriarchy by Men taking responsibility and moral leadership for the moral order of their society.


Addition 1

Someone asked:
Do you agree that the one expecting a virgin should also be a virgin?

I replied:
Yes I do.
But as I suggested in my Blog and also here, this is not just an individual issue, but a question of general frame: i.e. Patriarchy or not.

The demand for virginity makes complete sense only if it inscribed inside the general awareness of the imperative need for Men to reestablish a patriarchal moral order, which would apply also to men themselves as moral responsibility and leadership.

It obviously makes no sense for men to make such demands on women if they are not ready to reestablish a patriarchal moral order by taking responsibility for the morality of society (including themselves), and patriarchal moral leadership.

The key idea behind all this patriarchy thing is that it is the natural role of Men to take responsibility for the moral order of a society, and then women can follow. Women cannot lead in that direction, and it is the role of Men to lead.

But this I already stated, and now I made it even more explicit.
Actually I will add this reply to my Blog, to make it completely clear, thanks.

Addition 2

Someone said:
That’s good. I had to ask because whenever the staying a virgin until marriage topic comes up, it’s almost always about women, with not a care about men being held to the same standard.

I replied:
This is what I think from a human point of view, as I consider that "sex" as mere (animal) sex should not exist between two human beings.
What should exist is intimacy, which is different.
There is also the issue of modern Patriarchy having to be moral responsibility and leadership rather than an imposition by force, as it perhaps was in the past.

However, I clearly explained in my Blog's article that the female and male virginity cannot be equated from the point of view of their value for the opposite sex.
Because of the sexual asymmetry I also explained at the beginning of the article, female virginity is far more important for men, than male virginity for women.

This is simply effectively so, and is not affected by any ideology of justice or equality. The two are objectively not equally important for the opposite sex, and my article aims among other things to explain to men that they should not be fooled by that discourse of equality into believing that they should renounce the demand of virginity from women, because for them it is an objectively important one, while for women that demand on men is not of equal objective importance in the context of the sexes objective sexual asymmetry.

However, in the present civilizational context, that demand by men on women cannot be enforced in the same way as it was in the past. It has to do be done by taking full responsibility and leadership, rather than force, which implies that a renewed Patriarchy, a "Neo-Patriarchy" demands a higher level of humanity on men in general.
It demands from them to be complete Men, and not just physically men with some male animal properties, and demands from them to impose real complete Manhood as the main defining frame for society, as it is the role of Men to create that social moral frame.
Real Manhood is and must actually be that frame itself.

Men must reimpose patriarchy, not by force but by taking full leadership in the moral order of society, by being Men, and then woman can follow their lead.

Addition 3

Someone reacted:

Female virginity maybe important for men but hypocrisy/double standards are important for women , no one has the right to demand of others they don't of themselves and still claim integrity that's where men fail and that's why feminism came about ...as they said "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

I replied:
Hypocrisy is important for everyone, and from a historical point of view previous forms of patriarchy had many flaws.

One can discus what made feminism appear and one must quickly note that it also spread because men allowed it. If they didn't, it wouldn't have. There were also various ideological factors that created a deficit in the awareness for a need for Patriarchy (the part in one of my previous posts where I talk about Patriarchy not having been explicited fundamentally, but being in the collective unconscious), which prevented further evolution of Patriarchy.

Feminism is a complex issue, but not directly relevant for my discourse, because from my point of view Patriarchy is essential for society and whatever its flaws in the past, it is imperative to be reestablished in a new form, a Neo-Patriarchy, in the way I sketched in my previous post.

Basically Neo-Patriarchy is a process of humanization, in which men must become Men, and women must become Women.

PS: for the superficial reader I must clarify that the humanization I am talking about has NOTHING to do with the ideological code lefties call "humanism", which is actually a dehumanization.

Addition 4 - Another Asymmetry

Another important thing is that for a man to dedicate his life and provide for a woman, he must know that she is worth it.

And a girl/woman who practices casual sex may be worth some casual sex, but not providing for her, protecting her, caring for her, devoting one's life to life with her, as she does not provide the feminine quality that would made her worth it.

I'm sure that some will reply that women don't want providers, but the reality is that they do.
Even women who objectively don't need a provider usually search for men more financially secure than themselves and want men who look like they can physically protect them etc.

This is another answer to the "hypocrisy" argument about men demanding virginity without them being virgins.

The thing is that if women want men to bring something to the table, they also have to bring something to the table, and since something is expected from men, men also have the right to expect something from women, and that exchange doesn't have to be of the same thing and it isn't.

This of course doesn't invalidate anything that I said about moral responsibility, leadership, humanization and real Manhood. Those things are necessary for Neo-Patriarchy, but it contextualizes the fallacy of the claim that if men expect one thing from women, then women have the right to expect the same thing from men, because the exchange between men and women in most cases is not symmetric, but asymmetric again.
There are no double standards in this, because while the value of what is exchanged must be the same, what is exchanged is not the same.

Ideally, and prospectively, humanity should move to a higher level, but the way things are, the existing exchange of values between the sexes is asymmetrical. What is exchanged is not the same thing, but it has to be of the same reciprocal value.

These days that reciprocity is broken by feminism, which gives the idea to young women that it is OK for women to sleep around, and then expect men to respect them, love them, cherish them and provide for them.

Some naive simps might do just that, but Men won't, and many of the marriages established under such conditions will end up in divorce, simply because women in the USA and the West have learned that they do not have to provide themselves something important to men in that marriage, reciprocal to what they expect from men .
They have learned to expect, but not having to bring something of equal value to the table.
And then they get "unsatisfied", "bored", "unhappy", cheat and divorce, because they are focusing on their expectations, what is done for them, not what they do for the man.

PS: Those who have read the article about morality on my Blog, will recognize in this issue the same morality's principle of reciprocity of exchange identified there.

Addition 5 - Blaming Women?

Someone suggested that women might be to blame. I replied:

Whatever the responsibility of women, and all that women did and do, men allowed it, directly and by relinquishing their leadership, the only important point is that there is no purpose at all for men in blaming women, but to take responsibility for themselves and society again.
The moment (neo)patriarchal awareness gets sufficiently established and realized among men, the problems caused by feminism (and lack of patriarchy) will dissolve, not by any violence or coercion but by natural leadership.

Nothing will ever happen by blaming women, because if men don't get back on their leadership position by themselves, women will not put them there just because they would whine about it. It would be a complete contradiction to expect that.

But Neo-Patriarchy implies a significantly higher level of maturity, and therefore active self aware and self responsible Manhood among the male population than in previous patriarchal periods.

Leadership is not given, it is actively created and must be deserved.

But while blaming women has no purpose, revealing to men the real situation in the World vis a vis the relation of the sexes is very important, so that they realize the consequences of their abandonment of Patriarchy.

Addition 6 - Diagnosis of the Demise

The most important thing is for men to realize that something must be done, and that something is a rethink of what men are and of their role in society, which leads to the realization of the necessity for a new patriarchal moral order to be established.
Can the White race survive without offering a new societal model? I sincerely doubt it. One cannot go back, one has to move forwards and offer new models that will replace the false paradigms that are pervading the World now.
It is not just about creating an awareness of saving the race as biological entity, but awakening the race to the fact that its demise came from the generation of a false moral order.

This diagnosis is critical. What caused the demise of the White race was the creation of a false moral order, a false moral order that destroyed the old moral order of the White race which was its backbone and was preserving it.

A correct moral order is a holistic thing. One cannot say that we will just correct the issue of the white race not caring for its survival, because this issue of survival, its moral dimension of being good is inscribed in the issue of a larger moral frame that must be defined, a complete moral frame which also defines the correct relation of men and women inside that moral frame. This relation being essentially important for obvious reasons of biological survival.
It must all be treated as a whole, which is something I have been trying to do in various posts on SF and also on my Blog.

The practical point now is that we cannot go back, and it is the character of the White race, not to go back but to go a step forward further.
One must find new paradigms and redefine the basis of society in a more fundamental way, offering a new and better model than the one that has been destroyed and than the false moral order that destroyed it.

Addition 7 - Statistical Considerations - Yet another asymmetry

Statistics have shown that if a woman is promiscuous and lost her virginity early, the chances that she will be material for a stable marriage decreases dramatically.
On the other hand this does not apply to men.

This is a statistical asymmetry that is objectively quantifiable, so even if none of the arguments I used so far did convince you, this one should.

Of course, for me it is just pragmatic stuff, and one should be able to realize that Men must demand virginity for deeper reasons mentioned above, and a true Man, a truly human, integrated, self aware individualized man does not need to know those statistics for him to be obvious that Men must demand virginity from women.
But Men also must demand women to be Women, true individualized human beings with a self activated human core, not reactive animals, slave to some animal programmings.

We humans have those animal programs in us, but those programs are not us.
Unfortunately, for the true biological human potential beyond these animal programs to be actualized, culture is necessary, the right form of culture that will develop and actualize these potentials for becoming a true human.
Make no mistake, the human potential is also a biological thing, just like the animal programs, but it needs the right cultural frame to develop and actualize in a person.

And that humanizing culture should frame children from the earliest age.
If the young are constantly submitted to influences encouraging animality, and there's nothing or very little to make them realize and actualize their humanity - their human biological potential, they will basically actualize animality in the way their brains are wired, and the more they actualize animality, the more difficult it is to expect real humanity from them.

This is particularly true of girls, because a man is a creature of performance and success, that's a man's metrics in society and with women. Men are forced to think about what a successful life means in a broader picture, while women are creatures of external attention, and the extent many of them think about life is how to get attention in the short term.

And generating true humanity in girls is not just making them behave like "good girls" without having the stimulation to develop into truly individualized humans with their own causal core.
Because just framing them to be "good girls" will not do the trick, as it makes them just automatons for external approval, not self aware human beings.

This humanizing moral order must be a patriarchy, because women cannot create it, but not any form of patriarchy from the past, but a Neo-Patriarchy that represents an evolution to what Patriarchy fundamentally is and must be.

- 20:11 - Comments (0) - Print - #

12.04.2021., ponedjeljak

The Fundamental Objective Basis of Morality and why it Implies Patriarchy

My post on Stormfront, that triggered this article:

If there is no death penalty, there is no reciprocity in value between the crime and the punishment at the worst level of crime.
It creates a disbalance in society's values, and undermines the only real sense of morality which is reciprocity.

Morality is exchange. It started with the exchange of goods and services, but also the exchange of rights and obligations.
It is a moral contract.

Rights do not exist in nature, and there is no natural right to live, as some philosophers imagine. Rights exist only as a systemic function of that system of exchanges we call society.

Morality is a systemic function of the system of exchanges called society.

If that system is disrupted at its highest level of exchange of rights: the exchange of the mutual recognition of the right to live for the members of a society, then the sense of morality at its most essential level of reciprocal valorization of life itself is deeply compromised.
And if the moral system of exchanges is compromised on that level, then all kinds of other deformations and degradations of the system ensue.

If one considers culture as software, and values as software instructions, then one could say that a bug is introduced at the highest level of that software, making the idea of a software full of bugs acceptable - a system where the basic moral principle of reciprocity of exchange would be relativized and ultimately completely diluted.

This is what is happening in modern societies right now. The basis for good and bad became totally arbitrary, as it is believed that there is no fundamental basis for morality. That it is just some kind of emotional thing that can change as emotional whims through time.
But there is a fundamental principle: reciprocity of exchange.

To digress a little, I will just add that this exchange has two dimensions: the horizontal one, which includes exchanges between discrete elements of a society (mostly individuals, but also groups of various kinds), and the vertical one, which is the exchange between the discrete elements and the whole of society itself.
This vertical dimension is the most compromised in modern society, as one can hear that if some action doesn't affect directly some other person (horizontal interaction), then it is nobody else's business. But that logic is fallacious, because some action and behavior can affect the quality of the whole itself, improve it or degrade it, and therefore moral responsibility extends beyond mere direct effects on other individuals.

Because of that vertical dimension of exchanges, one could theoretically envision the question if it would not be better to drop the death sentence for reasons concerning the quality of the whole: make it more "human".
But humanity is not weak sentimentality, and the fundamental sense of the reciprocity of value of life must be maintained at that core level, no matter how unpleasant the death penalty might seem, particularly in a more and more infantile civilization.

Civilization and humanity are not synonyms of infantilization, and a civilization which keeps preciously its core exchange moral sense of value is not "barbaric", as it is claimed, but is keeping the core of morality intact.

Life is not a game for children. Morality is therefore not a game for children. It is extremely serious. It is about life itself inside a common system of life.

Having said that, if the legal system of a country is a joke, then many punishments become problematic, not only the capital one.


(The following article was the object of a Stormfront topic. Alas it was deleted because some religious fanatics and one troll sabotaged it, leading to an exchange of "compliments" between a religious fanatic and some materialists. Eventually, a senior moderator deemed the topic too divisive and deleted it.)


Now, it is not my purpose here to talk again about capital punishment but about the objective theory of morality I sketched there.

The idea being that the real objective nature of morality derives from the fundamental nature of human society, and which makes it human and different from animal societies: I am talking about reciprocal exchange.

Human society, or the "Human system" as I call it, is specifically human in being based on the principle of reciprocity of exchange, which I call the "Human principle".

Human societies also incorporate previous animal principles, like the predatory principle, as people still predate on people in various ways, mostly economic, and also elements of prehuman cooperation of implicit, non-reciprocal exchange, like in a pack of wolves who cooperate to hunt a deer, but where every wolf doesn't get a part of the meat in reciprocity to his role in the hunt.

Still, despite animal principles being present, what makes human societies human, and what is new about them, is the specific "Human principle" of reciprocity of exchange.

And this is, I posit, the real, objective basis for morality.
It is the basis for our sense of justice, for our sense of rights and having or not having a right, but also for the other side of the coin, which is moral duty and obligations.

To put it in simple terms, morality is basically a social contract based on the principle of reciprocity of exchange.
(Interestingly, the God of the Bible seems to understand this principle, because his "testaments" are in fact moral contracts, "covenants" or agreements)

Morality is a systemic function of the system of exchanges called society.

That principle of reciprocity has more than probably been integrated in our biological being as a biological potential and impulse, although probably to various degrees in the genetic structure of various individuals.
And I would argue, that having it in our genetic structure is what makes us human - more or less human, depending on how completely that moral tendency has been embedded in the genes of each individual (or race).

But as for every biologic potential, humans need culture to really actualize that potential, similarly to the fact that we have to learn to walk and talk, despite being biologically predetermined for those abilities.

And this is the reason why the correct cultural articulation of morality is essential. Biology and culture walk hand in hand, as far as human beings are concerned.
Each one relies on the other, and they develop together in a feedback relationship.

Errors in the cultural articulation of morality can therefore be catastrophic for the healthy and correct development of human society (and this is what is going on these days in the Western civilization).

So far morality (the Human principle) has not been fundamentally and objectively articulated in human societies.
Existing definitions, either abstractly philosophical (and there are almost thirty in ethics), or those practically applied in real life by various societies, are non-fundamental, non-objective and non-scientific.
All are very partial, incomplete, and those in application are very idiosyncratic, mostly based on idiosyncratic and often mixed human-animal principles articulated through religious idiosyncrasies dating back to the bronze and iron ages.

Without a real, objective and complete articulation of morality, we will continue to sink, because we lack the conceptual infrastructure to stop that sinking, as the existing idiosyncratic articulations from a distant past, do not respond efficiently anymore to the new challenges of modern society.


So the real, objective foundation of morality is reciprocity of exchange.

Exchange of what, you might ask.

There is of course the exchange of goods and services: I give you a stone axe I made, and you give me a clay pot that you made. We spit on our palms, shake hands, and the deal is sealed.
But we also live in a society, and have duties towards our tribe and some reciprocal rights coming from that membership, that cooperation where we put certain things and functions in common, in order to more easily fulfill our needs, than just as isolated individuals.

One of the basic things we exchange is the mutual recognition of the right to live.
It doesn't exist in nature, and every lion, tiger, wolf, bear or leopard can kill us, without it being a crime, because there is no contract, implicit or explicit, of mutual recognition between us.

Now, these moral contracts existing in society about rights and obligations are mostly implicit, but become explicit when articulated in laws.
Obviously a new member of society, a child, doesn't sign an explicit contract with society, but if a human continues to live in a society, and uses its common infrastructure, it can be implicitly considered that he accepts the contract.
(There are obviously problems here, because if society too imperfectly respects its side of the deal, then the implicit belonging to that deal becomes questionable).

So, what we exchange are goods and work, but also rights and obligations.
But how does that exchange take place?

There are two essential dimensions of that exchange.

One that I call horizontal, which contains all the exchanges between the discrete elements of a society, meaning individuals and various groups of individuals, biologic or economic or whatever, between each other.

The other is the vertical dimension of exchange, the one where the various discrete elements of a society exchange with the whole of that society.
It is the holistic dimension of exchange.

The reciprocity in the first dimension is relatively easier to understand, but the second one is more tricky, particularly because its historical articulations were strongly idiosyncratic in the way they defined the relationship between the individuals and society as a whole.

This is the reason why everything tends to be reduced to individuals these days. Society is conceived as a bunch of individuals, having individual rights, but the relationship to the whole barely exists as the whole is not understood as a side in the deal and as an entity transcending its individual components and being a reality in itself having specific needs related to its level of existence above its individual components. Similarly to the way an organism is not just the sum of its cells, and the needs of an organism cannot just be reduced to the needs of the cells, but represent another level of existence, with its specific functions and demands, in order to function correctly.

The whole, the collectivity is an entity in itself.

For example the whole must adapt or respond to new situations as a whole, not on the level of individual components of that whole.

Also, as a whole, it has functions specific to that whole, and performed by the whole, not by the individual components at their individual levels.
For example external functions of survival and protection of the whole, but also internal functions of interaction of the whole with its components or groups of components, assigning them duties and obligations vis a vis that whole, and giving them rights derived from their exchanges with the hole, not just between themselves at their individual levels.

One essential basic function, is the self reproduction of the whole, at the biological and cultural levels, and the assignment of rights to promote that function.

I will repeat the simple example I gave in the quote in the first post.

These days it is popular to consider that if some activity or behavior doesn't directly affect other individuals, then that behavior is nobody else's business other than the one individual acting that way, or those who mutually consent to those behaviors.
But this is a fallacy, because a behavior can degrade the properties of society as a whole. make it less able to fulfill its systemic functions in relation to the challenges it faces as a hole, or its duties towards individuals.
It can degrade (or improve) the quality of the whole, and make a society worse or better, for the functions of the whole or for its individuals indirectly.
Pornography or the promotion of promiscuous behaviors are such an example, degrading the substrate of society for its healthy reproduction of quality humans in a quality society. It degrades the "human" at all of its holistic and evolutionary levels, individual and social, taking it back to the animal level.

(The issue of "quality humans" can be precisely discussed, both from a moral point of view concerning their moral interactions between each other and also interactions with the whole, but also on the level of an even higher holism in relation to how society develops higher human forms, pushing the human far beyond the animal level - but this will be a special subject, if time permits.)
(PS: it has to do with what is the best quality human for human society, and developing that human. Is it a social insect, a sheep, or a fully individualized individual, taking full holistic responsibility for himself and society, on all levels, and where developing such a totally individualized holistic human actually leads.)

As said, one of the essential aspects of these functions of the whole is the self reproduction of society, which cannot be reduced to the mere biological reproduction of individuals as the responsibility of individuals, but, particularly modern society must insure certain conditions so that such reproduction can take place at a statistically satisfactory rate, and take measures for that.

Society must also care for its cultural reproduction and transformation as it changes.This is the reproduction and transformation of cultural "software instructions" in order to create a healthy functional society.

And in that sense the exchanges between society and the individuals must be defined correctly.
For example the question of what is marriage as recognized by society; is it an union of a man and a woman, or can it be something else.

It can be determined with precision that from the point of view of exchanges between society and a couple, the union of a man and a woman represents a distinct fundamental value for society, for its biological and cultural reproduction, and therefore nothing else other than a community of a man and a woman can have that same status for society and cannot be recognized of having the same (enormous) value for society. And therefore society must grant to that special community of a man and a woman a special and unique status, and special care, because its exchange with that particular form of union is unique.

As I said in my quote above, if fundamental errors (bugs) are introduced in the cultural software concerning the morality of the exchange between the individuals and the whole, what follows is a complete degradation of the whole, where the reciprocity of exchange between those two levels is increasingly disrupted, and self-destruction ensues.


Attempts have been made in the past to define the correct relationship between the individuals and society. The pendulum has shifted from the collective principle to the individual principle and back and forth, again and again, and the failure to understand the true relationship between the individual and collective levels is what ultimately leads to the demise of civilizations.

However, the situation we are facing is unique, because the movements of the pendulum in the past were not made in the context of a society more and more based on science.
They existed in a context of beliefs and philosophical subjectivism, but that will not do anymore.

One must go beyond beliefs and philosophy, and try to articulate that relationship scientifically.

What is that science that can go beyond beliefs and beyond philosophical subjectivism?

It is Systemics - the science of systems.

Only by studying the human phenomenon from the perspective of systems, can we understand what it is in nature and what it should be in form, as systems always contain a system specific purpose in their systemic nature, derived from that nature.

Religions are the idiosyncratic repositories of systemic thought, trying to define a healthy relationship between the individual and collective levels.
They were intuitive articulations, attempts to shape an intuitive feeling of unity between the individual and the collective principle.

Philosophies are more a feeble attempt to define things intellectually, but generally lack the intuitive core of religions about the need for a deep holistic systemic health of a human system.

I am generalizing too much, but it will have to do for now, in this context.

What is important is that this intuitive sense of unity has been lost and modern society is now completely turned towards its reduction to the individual principle.
The pendulum cannot really go back on its own, because the whole context has changed through the development of science, and one cannot rely on systems of beliefs anymore.

The pendulum will go back however, in the sense that a civilization relying on the individual principle alone, destroys itself, and this is what is happening.
That civilization is then replaced by more primitive ones, relying on the collective principle.

The solution is not just to find the "right balance", it is beyond "balance".
The solution is to understand (not just to feel) the holistic interpenetrating nature of the individual and collective principles inside the human system, and realize that union in practice as an implementation in social structures and culture.

The understanding of society (human system) as a system of exchanges, horizontal and vertical, gives the correct frame, from which practical issues can be resolved.

How does that holism work in practice?

A hologram is a picture where all points of that picture contain the whole image, from the point of view of that point (more or less).

Where is the collective principle situated in practice? It is situated in the individuals, and for the holistic system to function the collective principle must be completely embodied in its individuals.

Does it mean that I advocate a society of ants, of robots submitted to the collective principle, or of sheep, following "enlightened leaders", and remaining themselves sheep?

No, precisely because the individual and the collective principles are not contradictory, and the full individualization of individuals also represents the full embodiment of the collective principle in individuals.

It is about taking full responsibility for oneself and for the society, as one is an individual living in a society.

What is the best human form for society, and for the individuals themselves?
It is the one that is fully individualized, and takes responsibility for itself and the collectivity. That responsibility itself is exchange in nature.

The human principle of morality implies a development in that direction, because reciprocity of exchange implies both the affirmation of the individual principle, individuals who exchange, and implies the collective principle through the vertical exchange humans are participating in and must take responsibility for as individuals.

Morality, the human principle, therefore develops the individual, his individuality and responsibility, leading to the evolution of higher forms of humans, capable of full individualization inside a collective context.
Not individual predators lurking in the dark, but full responsible individuals living in the light of the sun.

The more an individual is really individualized, the more he takes responsibility in a holistic way.

The implications of this holistic individualization go far beyond the frame of this subforum, and this topic could best be continued in the theology subforum,

I'm joking, best not go that far, at least for now, but the implicit antique ideals of the God-man, the development of the truly human archetype (which is in danger of destruction, right now) are to be reached through complete human individualization, the holistic interpenetration of the individual and collective principle.

So, where is the place of race in all this?

The white race is the highest and most complete form of development and advancement of the human archetype, the principle of full individualization and holistic responsibility, and it is not just a question of degree, but also of direction.
The White race is the one best aligned with the direction towards the realization of that archetype.
Some other races even seem to go backwards and always pull things down, wherever they appear in larger numbers.

Holistic responsibility implies the care for our race, and a fully individualized White is one who acts to preserve and improve the human holism his race represents.



The subject of morality would not be complete without explaining the implication of a correctly understood morality, for the order a society (and a race) must adopt in order to survive, and that order is Patriarchy, or the Patriarchal moral order.

The Patriarchal moral order is the only order which will allow the White race to survive, because societies that have abandoned the Patriarchal moral order, fall into decadence, degenerate and are replaced by other groups based on patriarchy.

What is the Patriarchal moral order?

It is not about the enslavement of women, as feminists believe, it is about the creation of a society where men and women take their natural places inside the holism of a group, a society and collectivity, and only in this way can be the life, survival and advancement of that group be assured.

In a previous post, I talked about individualization as the complete taking of responsibility for himself and for society, by the individual -complete interpenetration of the individual and collective levels.

But that understanding would be very incomplete, and basically useless if it didn't take into account a reality of human life, and that is that the human species is not composed of abstract individuals but of two kinds of individuals: men and women.
Those real individuals, men and women, are the ones having the relationship with the whole, not some abstract imaginary individuals.

In the holism linking individuals with the collectivity, men and women have different roles, and disregarding that natural functional dichotomy, which is not a division, but a complementarity, leads to the demise and the disintegration of the whole.

More than two years ago, I was watching the cultural show "Interdit, d'interdire" (Forbidden to Forbid) on the French channel of RT, and there was this woman, Bénédicte Martin, of French Asian mix, who wrote a book about masculinity: "l'homme necessaire"" (The necessary man), as it was called, and was about how men today are less masculine.
The female author was complaining how men today are less inclined to die for their country, or for a woman.
In the discussion that ensued, it became apparent though that the woman was a slut, who had numerous sexual partners and didn't see any problems with that.

Perhaps not so unsurprisingly, despite having written a book about how it is necessary for men to be men and take responsibility as men and warriors, she failed to see the connection between that decline of masculinity, and the behavior of women like herself.
She failed to see that for men to be ready to die for "a woman and a country", women must be worth it.

If women are sluts, men don't see a value in them to protect, and fight for, nor do they see the value in fighting for their collectivity, building it and protecting it, because for them, the fundamental unit of stable social life, the couple, loses its sense, as women, the other part of that unit of life lose their value for them, and therefore, the construction and protection of the social whole loses sense too. And if women engage in sex and mixing with other races, then the value to protect of women or of the tribe becomes even lower.

Men then revert to more primitive biological programs, and metaphorically become "pillagers", individually or in small groups, and one of the paradoxical results of an anti-Patriarchal, feminism infected society, it the progressive loss of interest of men for a holistic life, where they defend women and society as a whole (both have lost their value). The more a society becomes anti-patriarchal, the more men, and particularly warrior men (the others whine), revert to be "pillagers", for whom women are just to be used sexually, and not a value to protect inside a social whole to build and protect.

But this is not what warrior men should do, as it is their individual and collective failure to do so...


One could think that in my previous post, I blame women or feminism for the deliquescence and demise of the White race.

I don't, because in the sexual dichotomy of the human species, it is the role of men to build and protect, and create a moral and social infrastructure and order, conductive to the holistic, healthy life and survival of the collectivity.

Men are the leaders, and if they relinquish that role, everything goes to hell eventually.
Women can be excellent in nurturing that order, but if men fail in their role as leaders, then women tend to cease to play their part and revert to more primitive biological animal programs.

Many men tend to put women on a pedestal. Why?

Because women are the goal of their protection, and of the protection of a collective social order.
Women must be perceived as high value, in order to be worthy of protection.

This is a spiritual thing for men, in the sense I defined spirituality previously, as aware holistic life, and the advancement and integration of life, both at an individual and collective level - the full integration of these levels of life in the individual.

When that spiritual, holistic perception of women disappears in men, then women are seen as low value sluts, not worth building a life with or building a society with.
But they, men are responsible for women to be that way. Women cannot do it by themselves, and the women who are that way, are the ones who were strongly shaped and framed by patriarchal holism in their childhood, probably through the example of their benevolent and enlightened patriarch father.

Women, without the living example of the correct holism of the patriarchal order, cannot take their role fully, because their role is in relation to men as leaders in the couple and in life.
Women on their own, therefore do not perceive men at the same spiritual level (of holistic life), like most men perceive and desire women, because they need men to lead in the creation of that moral order. Women cannot create the correct patriarchal order on their own, precisely because it IS patriarchal.

Some women, even here on Stormfront, will say that women don't need men, just for sex, etc. But for the construction, maintenance, advancement and protection of a society, the leading role of men is essential, or they stop to care, and when they stop to care, society degenerates and crumbles as it loses its holistic life structure and reverts to gangs of pillagers.

Again, who cares what these women say. It is the role of men to take charge and impose a patriarchal moral order, and not listen to these women to tell them what to do, because these women are just the mere female-reversion-to-animality result of men relinquishing their role as leaders in a human society.

Women can perceive men spiritually only if men are "worth it", if they lead.

This is the other side of the coin. Men perceive women spiritually, because they intuitively understand the importance of women's value for them to be motivated to create higher forms of life in personal life, society, civilization etc.

Women, on the other side perceive men spiritually (holistically) only if they lead and impose the correct moral order for themselves first (!), and then for women to fit in and play their role in the creation of a higher holistic life.
Without the leading role of men, women cannot lead in that direction.

Otherwise women tend to become party girls, just searching for studs for sex and power, etc. The spiritual model of the male patriarch is erased from their minds, or never existed as they have not seen it.

There are exceptions of course. but they are just that, exceptions. And those women are precisely those who understand the absolute necessity of a patriarchal moral order.

Without patriarchy and male leadership, men revert to pillagers and women to egotistic sluts, and if they happen to realize their error, it is often too late to create a harmonious life together, have children etc. and the whole of society is also damaged because it is composed of dysfunctional individuals (often trying to compensate for their life-spiritual vacuity with hate filled "Social Justice Warrior" leftist engagement, as an expression of their personal dissatisfaction and emptiness of their own lives).

(As a small digression, it is interesting to note how younger women can quickly adopt correct patterns if given the right male patriarchal leadership example.
Some years ago, I took a teaching position for a few months, replacing a professor who was on sick leave. It was interesting to notice how quickly girls who were smoking for example, stopped smoking and how the bad girls sought redemption in my approval, and started to be receptive to higher meanings.

These days when I meet these girls on the street, now women with children, they always have big smiles... wave to me, and are happy when I recognize them.
One recently told me that even though I was her professor for only a relatively short time, I was the only professor she thinks of, now and then, and another even thanked me profusely... I was a bit taken by surprise, and it took me some time to figure out why she thanked me. I finally realized that it was because of the model I was giving, which perhaps helped her to find the right man, and adopt a correct meaningful way of life.)

Now, some people might say that I am babbling, because there were "successful" matriarchal societies in the past. Actually there weren't, and the myth of matriarchy has been debunked by science.

But the truth is that it doesn't even matter, because in a context of competition between various groups. The group that loses the patriarchal order, strong morality for men and women alike, where men are motivated to build an ever better and stronger society, and do not fall into egotistic decadence, gets eventually overrun by patriarchy based groups.
Some anomalous little groups can exist here and there, but none of them has the potential of creation of an ever growing holistic human life, a civilization. And the White race, because of it's, let's say... "Aryan" originated, warrior patriarchal morality, is the best archetype for the building of an integrated holistic life of ever-increasing level, unless there is a historical "bug" in the software, that destroys that patriarchal model, like there is now...

I already hear those who will say that everything was not great in the past, etc... Of course not, and by the way, there were "bugs" in the past too, for various socio-economic reasons, but however imperfect the articulation of patriarchy was in any given period, this is not a reason for abandoning patriarchy, because it leads to a complete catastrophe, but to reestablish it in full force, but at an enlightened, fundamental level, where both men and women understand their respective holistic roles at their core levels, not on the level of enslavement of women, and similar.
Then they become the "two sides of God in action", like I metaphorically said in my blog, as two sides of the holistic human life in action and ever higher progression.

So... for those who say that anything goes, when survival is concerned: NO anything goes not!
Only a strong, self perfecting patriarchy goes, where men and women take their respective places and responsibilities in the building of an ever increasing and improving individual, marital and collective holistic life.

And for this to happen, men must retake their leading role and reestablish a patriarchy at a new, enlightened, aware and holistic level.

For WNs, it is absolutely imperative to understand that patriarchy is essential for the survival of the White race.

All levels of life are imbricated one in the other, and for that holism to exist and to function correctly, patriarchy is the only viable model.

Patriarchal morality is also a warrior morality, meaning that it approaches life the way life really is: something serious, something adult, where one has to fight for life and in that fight, nothing is arbitrary - it is not a game, it is a life or death battle.

The relativist concept of "morality" promoted these days is not a warrior morality, it is a weaklings' morality, an infantile morality, a morality for little children, incapable of creating, sustaining and protecting life, because it pushes under the carpet the reality of life and replaces it with child play, with arbitrary fantasies not connected to real life.

An adult male morality, a man's morality looks at the reality of life in the eyes and takes responsibility for it and demands responsibility from others, as this is also an exchange of responsibility, demanded from all members of society, while the weaklings', childish morality relativizes everything, as if life was something arbitrary, completely diluting the responsibility for life that is morality. And when the life software becomes arbitrary and alienated from life, it doesn't serve life, it serves its destruction.

The "wokes" are so afraid of reality that they call "barbarism" any social order asking for true objective responsibility for life, while they proclaim that their infantile, relativist, weaklings' model IS what civilization is.

It is not, it is the degeneracy and the destruction of civilization.


Someone said:

Nature has only one moral law, and that is the law of survival. Scientific knowledge can certainly be used to help us determine the best way to survive.

I responded:

We don't live in mere nature anymore, we live in society, and the "survival", or more exactly the healthy, complete life (because life cannot be just reduced to survival, a too narrow concept for human life that went far beyond mere dependence on nature's givens) of the human system (society) goes now through the right systemic structuring of that system, and ultimately only the systemically healthy and complete life of a human system insures its survival.

One can argue that it is mere semantics. It is not, because the difference is between a reductionist narrow paradigm or mind frame adapted to animals, and a more complete paradigm, adapted to the "quantum jump" represented by the human reality.
From conceptual reductionism and simplicism, to a complete systemic understanding, it is of of practical importance how we think about this.

When one thinks "survival", one has a tendency to think in simplistic naturalistic terms, not adapted to the complex holistic level of life a human system represents.

The science giving answers about morality is called Systemics, the study of systems, and it brings us beyond naturalist simplistic conceptual frames for morality, and beyond emotional frames.
Systemics is what can bring humanity beyond philosophy.



- 15:17 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Replies to questions by forum members and ex-forum members

You don't have any a priori "legitimate" right to live, outside of an agreement inside society representing the exchange of that right (mutual recognition) between the members of society.

Legitimacy doesn't simply float in the air. It is a question of mutual recognition of a right inside the system of exchanges we call society.

And for the exchange with the whole, the implicit moral exchange is that an individual has no right to do what harms the whole.

Can the whole always a priori recognize or not if something is harmful to it, is a different question. This thing is done a posteriori, by analyzing the consequences for the whole, but in the context of a preexisting moral frame of exchanges between the individuals and the whole.
And it is the whole that decides (by whatever social mechanism it establishes), not just individuals directly affected, like you claim.

Btw. the issue of practical decisions has to be partially discriminated from essential moral issues.

For example, even if it is established that a behavior is harmful for the whole, a society might not have the resources to weed it out efficiently, and then must, at least temporarily, weight if its forceful efforts to do so are productive or counterproductive in the sense that they can do even more harm, and adopt other ways to progressively curb such behavior.

But such activity by the whole is also the consequence of an agreement or lack of agreement about giving the right to the whole to decide if some behaviors are acceptable for the whole or not. This is a practical issue concerning the question of members of a society giving or not giving that right to society for everything/something, or not, and can they collectively live with the consequences of that decision.
(If they decide wrong, that can even lead to the destruction of society.)

All those things are implicit and often poorly defined, but a correct theory of morality should precisely make it all explicit, or more exactly, give a correct frame for the moral explicitness in any kind of situation, so that things can be weighted correctly inside a frame defining the relations of exchange involved.

The reason why it is important to understand morality as exchange based, is precisely in areas concerning the exchange with the whole, where some ideologies claim that some rights exist by themselves, and that the "natural" rights of some people are infringed if one does not allow them to do something.

Without the correct frame of understanding, it is sometimes hard to find the right fundamental arguments why it is not so.

A correct theory of morality allows moving from ideological arbitrariness and subjectivism, to an objective analysis of moral situations.

It doesn't mean that in some cases even such analysis cannot result in a dilemma, it can, but there are other cases that are far more clear cut morally, but are muddied by purely ideological false beliefs and choices.

- 15:16 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Survival is not moral or immoral per se, since the motivation for life doesn't come from morality, but from life itself.

And life per se is not determined by any kind of right or lack of right. The right to live comes into play, as I explained, only vis a vis other members of a system of exchanges.
So for you, another person has the right to live, if you are part of a social contract recognizing the life of others, and for them it is the same: you have the right to live from their perspective.

But for life in itself, outside the context of a social contract, there is no right or not-right to live. It is something outside the domain of definition of rights and morality, as it is not defined by any exchange or contract.

(I know that this may be difficult to intuitively understand, because of the interpersonal nature of our identities and the way we are aware of ourselves as selves. We project the "others" from our interpersonal identity, and the reciprocity of exchange with them, into the non-human and even into the non-living universe, as some kind of absolute, but this is a psychological illusion coming from the structure of the interpersonal self.)

What is moral or immoral is our relationship as individual lives with the life goal of survival of our collectivity. And in that relationship of vertical exchange of contributions to life, individuals have with the collective, one of the moral duties they get in that exchange is to preserve and advance the life of that collectivity, in this case, their race.

It is also connected to the holistic interpenetration of the collective and individual levels I talked about, as the collective is actually manifested in the individual.

And since the biological collective, its life, evolution and evolutionary "archetype", is also manifested in the individual, the individual has a duty towards his biological collective.
Those who negate that biologically founded duty are indeed traitors.

- 15:15 - Comments (0) - Print - #


I realized that in my posts I seem to claim that being human is reduced to morality and the holistic interaction between the individual and the collectivity and that individualization is reduced to responsibility.
I don't, and in some of my other posts I talked about individualization as the activation of the inner causality of life within. Individualized life, not as reactivity, but as causality and creation.

The full individual cannot be reduced to its relationship with the social whole and morality, he is causal life. But life also existing in the context of social life, and the full individual becomes causal also in that dimension of life, taking full responsibility for it from his inner causality.

A property of holism is that if one does live correctly in one dimension of life, it tends to spread in the other dimensions, as life is a whole, and a well understood and integrated morality also develops the individual in his other dimensions of (individual) life, and vice versa.

I also want to clarify that even though the theory of morality above seems materialist, I am not a materialist, far from it, and this theory of morality is inscribed into a much larger spiritual concept, which would alas be too problematic to elaborate here.

- 15:14 - Comments (0) - Print - #

17.03.2021., srijeda


The posts before this one were written a long time ago, have been erased and now reloaded.
Some are a bit outdated, some even quite outdated, and my views may have evolved since then in different ways. I don't have the time to review and modify their contents for now, and they will have to do, as they are probably good enough. A couple of details have already been changed though.

The posts about "Biosemantics" and my biosemantic definition of race are the core.
You should start with these. Scroll way down.

- 12:33 - Comments (0) - Print - #

16.03.2021., utorak

Man and Woman are the two Sides of God in Action

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

The reason why gender roles are messed up (in certain countries) is a very complex one involving a lot of factors not mentioned in this thread. It would certainly be interesting to start a real comprehensive discussion about this issue some day. Causalities in this matter are complex and deserve a complex approach.

However, a few general notes on genders:

A woman is not an idol, a goddess. The relationship is not of subservience and superiority. A complete woman is a woman in a complementary holistic relationship with a man, as it is true of the opposite.
A complete woman is not this kind of de-feminized quasi-man proposed by feminists, her completeness comes in the form of her femininity.
Men and women have complementary interdependent roles that are not defined only in relation to each other, but in relation of what they both represent as a whole.

It is only from this holistic point that unites and transcends them both that man and woman can be understood.

Man and woman are the two sides of God in action, so to speak.

For us, God is Life and Life is God.
Man and woman both serve life by their complementary and interdependent roles.
When a man loves and serves his wife, he serves the feminine aspect of life, but also life that they form and create in common. He does so by being a full man, not "subservient" but creator, leader and patriarch.
This has nothing to do with domination.
When a woman serves and loves her husband, she serves the masculine aspect of life and also the whole that they form together.
When she gives herself in her feminine way, this is not enslavement, this is her way to give herself to the life they both represent.
A man gives himself in his masculine way by fully taking charge.

The problem with genders (in certain countries) is that they have lost the sense of what they both represent as a whole.
The couple is the unit of life, not the individual.

There is no "goddess", nor other similar insecure phantasmagoria coming from the view of the other being something remote and unreachable leading to such ideas of dominator and dominated from both sides, which are the reactions to fear.

When both genders realize their respective complementary roles in their full complete maturity, they realize that they are the two sides of God walking hand in hand serving the same sacred fire of life.

The Couple is the Divine reality. It is life created by its two complementary parts who are united in it and transcended in it.

God is holistic and life is holistic. Life is a meaning that unites its parts without dissolving them. It unites them into a higher meaning that becomes the meaning of each one of them. It is the meaning that they serve. It is who they really are.

Someone said almost correctly: "to love is not to look at each other, but to look in the same direction".

I would rephrase it a bit, and say that when a man and a woman look at each other, they see that common life they are and create together.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 21:00 - Comments (0) - Print - #

The Meaning of Life

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

A Stormfront member asked:

"If God does not exist, then does this mean that life has no meaning?"

Here is what I replied:

OK, but even with a God, what would be life's meaning?
Would it be just the perpetuation of one's existence?
Would it be being "good"?

What meaning would one like life to have anyway? And what is meaning to you or me anyway?

Perhaps before trying to answer the question if life has a meaning, should we ask ourselves what "meaning" is for us, what is its structure in our psyche.

Is it something that is part of our structure as beings? To what is it connected? To external things?
Or is this connection an illusion, the illusion that our reactions are conditioned by the exterior?
Could it be that the external conditioning is like a parasitic wedge planted in a feedback process that has its own inner causality?
Could it be that our "meaning" is ourselves, not the images that we have of ourselves or our lives, but the very process of conscious life that we are, and that this process has its own causality that is not conditioned by anything exterior?
Could it be that your meaning is you in this instant, the inner life causality that you are now, independent of any external conditions?

If it was so, the "feeling" of meaning could be in fact the tendency of your system, of your true inner unconditioned causality, to complete itself, to integrate life IN ITSELF, not to be integrated into something exterior.

That would mean that a system would reach its full "meaning" when it realizes the full circle between the inner causality of the system and the external actions that are integrated as the act of creation of the free inner causality.

What I am saying is that what we call meaning "could" well be the very structure of life that we are, the full completion, not of something exterior, but of our own structure, of the inner causal life process that we are.
The idea is that it is not (exterior) life that gives us meaning. It is us who give meaning to life in its specific external forms, because the source of meaning is the very structure of life that we are.
Meaning is ourselves, when we realize our inner causality, the causality of the system that is us.
Meaning is the full circle of realization of that causality, the full implementation of the principle of the system. Then, what you get as feedback from the exterior is not something that conditions YOU, it is something that gets integrated in the logic of your inner causality, of the creative life process that you are, not something defining that process.
Meaning is the freedom that you are, as a Human.

The trick is to turn things around, or more exactly to turn them straight up again, as they are generally turned up side down in most people.

Meaning is a function of the system, a structural property of what humans are as systems.

Meaning is not a function of the external. It is the full integration of life's contents in the process of inner causality that we are. It is the full circle that starts from the inner causality and returns to it, never defining that causality trough the contents that this causality processes.

Meaning is life itself, as the fully realized system that we are.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:51 - Comments (0) - Print - #

From the Stormfront Topic "Major Problems"

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

One issue that I noticed is that beyond the question of legitimacy that I emphasized before, there is a psychological obstacle that poses serious problem.

The thing is that one can use excellent rational arguments, unbeatable arguments for the legitimacy of what I call legitimate racism (or racialism, like some people on this forum seem to call it), unbeatable arguments for the legitimacy of the preservation and preferential care for one's own White race, but there are people out there who simply can't be touched by such arguments.

Why? because they have purely irrational psychological reasons to prefer to care for other races.
They feel noble, they feel that they are breaking some evil obstacle to universal goodness and humanity. Even when they see some Black who is obviously an individual of the worst category, they don't see that, they see some image in their head about poor good Blacks, always persecuted, always misunderstood etc, etc...
Such people feel that they are good if they feel that way, and if you want to take that from them, they will perceive you as their worst personal enemy, because you are trying to take from them the patterns that they use to feel self-worthy, the basis of their self-worth.

So, for those people, very subtle psychological strategies are needed.
One must deconstruct for them, how their feelings function, the semantic and emotional frames involved in the hierarchy of meanings that leads to the self-worth feeling must be made clear for them.
Then, one must reconstruct, showing how their particular pattern is misguided, how their self-worth is not dependent of the patterns of meanings that they used, but that, on the contrary, there are better ways to self-worth, involving the meaning that to care about the world you must first care for your own, that self-destruction and racial suicide are in fact the wrong way, etc, etc...

Another post in the same topic:

One must understand that if someone has linked certain beliefs to his sense of self-worth or to any core values of that person, one can't change these beliefs by purely attacking them, because this is perceived as an attack on those core values and the self-worth of that person.

One must take the deeper layers linked to those beliefs. One must address the link between the belief and the core values.

It is not realistic to expect to change someone's mind by telling them that they are dirty pieces of race traitors, when in fact they feel that their beliefs are representative of core positive values.

The thing is that the beliefs you want to change are not the only layer involved. There is at least one other layer involved, perhaps more. Attacking the surface layer without addressing the deeper ones is a loss of time and effort, and could be in fact reinforcing those very beliefs you are trying to change.

The semantic relationship between layers must be uncovered first, then deconstructed and de-linked. Only then can you reconstruct another way using the very same core values that you de-linked from unwanted beliefs as a starting point.

People versed in such things don't even always do these steps sequentially. It is possible to design messages that cover the full semantic depth at once, and not even explicitly but implicitly, so that the message is reinforced by the subjects own reflections and efforts to fill the gaps.
Different reinforcing messages from various angles are also a good tactic.

But This sounds more complicated than it really is. This is just fancy vocabulary for the need to understand why people chose to believe what they believe, what are their real reasons, they are sometimes even unaware of themselves.
Sometimes, clarifying those motivations to them can do half the work. Clarifying how they were manipulated to link their values to certain beliefs can help too.

Core values are important.
If one person wants to be "good" (or any value) and has linked this value of goodness to certain beliefs, you can't just attack those beliefs, you must make that person realize that what he or she believes does not determine his or her goodness. You must send the message that you too share the same value of "goodness" and that it is this very same goodness that leads you to another vision of reality.
One must make clear that the core values are in no way threatened by the change of beliefs, but rather elevated to an even higher level of these values.

Yes I know how it must sound to some of you... When the war erupted in my country a little more than a decade ago, I mail ordered all kinds of military manuals, some from the United States.
Having no clue about military affairs at the time, I was baffled by the zillions of things that I was supposed to remember. Things like checking for booby traps ALL the time etc. seemed like just too much for me. This wasn't the simplistic war seen on the movies where the hero kills a hundred men with thirty rounds of ammo and without checking once if he was under fire...
But, when your life depends on it, you learn some things quick.

Fortunately, I don't think that there is a necessity to address these semantic beliefs and values issues on an individual base. I think that there are mass frames out there with very similar standard structures of belief-values links, and very similar semantic paths that lead to certain beliefs.
I believe that we can find standard layers of meaning connected in similar ways. A strategy must be designed having these collective frames in mind.

I would even potentially propose to those who are interested in the design of such semantic strategies to engage in discussions with the members or people under the influence of organizations that promote multiethnicism and multiculturalism. Not to try to convince them, but to figure out how their minds work.

It is important to distinguish the enemy from those who are simply manipulated. The minds of these manipulated ones are the ones that interest us. It would be unrealistic to expect to convince the enemy, even if sometimes...

Of course, I am not saying that the aspects I am talking about here cover it all, not by a long shot.
There are people who have strong beliefs, strongly connected to values that are important to them.
Other people live in an more loosely connected personal universe. But even in those people certain belief-values connection exist as a "background music". For addressing the issue of legitimacy, that I was talking about before, this "background sound" must be taken into account and can in fact be a leverage more than a hindrance if people are made comfortable that a new orientation is not disrupting their sense of values and sense of relationship with the world.
Of course, on the other hand, at a certain level, this is exactly what you want, but the trick is to make those inner revolutions compatible with the vision people have of themselves in relation to the world. :D

Besides values, there are also questions of interests etc.

One last thing.
I emphasized the link of beliefs and values, but even if there is a direct hierarchic path between them, there are other semantic paths that either reinforce that link or inhibit the change of that link. Those frames can be of a totally different nature than the main path.

For example, the main path can be a sense of value and goodness if one is loving all races equally, if "we are all the same" etc.
A parallel path could be of a totally different nature. It could be fear for example. People would be afraid to change their beliefs because they are afraid of conflicts, they feel that it would lead to conflict, racial conflict etc.
These reinforcing or inhibiting paths must be addressed too by convincing them for example that change doesn't lead to chaos but to more security (the value in question in the example).
I must add here, and it will not please some people, that a "Nazi" projection is not exactly what is needed (and an advice in general: forget Nazism and the Nazis).

What I am saying is that there are main hierarchies of meaning linking certain beliefs and values, but there are parallel secondary ones that either reinforce these links or block other links from other angles.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:45 - Comments (0) - Print - #

You Can't Dance if You don't Learn the Steps - The Relationship Between Goals and Strategy

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

If your car broke down, you may want to repair it. Your goal is to make it run again.
But having that goal won't make your car run. You have to have a strategy for realizing that goal.

You must first run some diagnostics and try to figure out what is wrong.
When you think that you got it, if there are parts that must be removed, replaced or repaired, very often you can't reach them immediately, you got to disassemble many other parts before you can reach the faulty one. Then there is the question of the replacement part - do you have it, or should you contact someone to get it.
Then you must replace the part and reassemble everything in the right order. You must follow that order, the structure of the engine imposes a certain sequence, you simply can't do certain things before some others.
You will probably have to do many other things, tune or re-tune parts that you have disassembled etc...

You see, having goals is not much in itself, particularly if those goals might not correspond to what is needed in reality.
You can jump around your car as much as you want. You can scream at the defective part as much as you want, your car won't budge an inch.

And if you think that you did everything needed and the engine still doesn't want to start, you must ask yourself if you didn't do something wrong, if you didn't miss some necessary preconditions, some things that you should have done and the car won't simply run without, no matter how much you want it to.

I will not enter the various goals various people have mentioned in this thread or what I think about some of these goals, but I will emphasize that for any goal one must think strategically. That applies for things as banal as repairing a car and much more so for political goals.

Certain things must be done before some others, there are necessary sequences. There are also things to be done in parallel. There are necessary preconditions that must be met too.
Otherwise, whatever you want will simply not cut it.

And of course... in order to do all those things the right way, you got to know the structure of what you are working on, exactly like you got to know the mechanics of your car before even dreaming of repairing it.

One necessary condition for any White goals is to win the mainstream. One must figure out how to do that, what is the structure one deals with, the mechanisms involved. One must figure out what is blocked, how. One must run diagnostics, make suppositions, deconstruct, reconstruct and be damn sure that one has something to replace what one plans to remove.

And if you do certain things and it doesn't work, you got to ask yourself if it is really all the fault of that bad, bad boogie man "Zog" who is always blocking your brave efforts with his perfidious methods, or could it be that you are doing something wrong. Could it be that you do certain things in the wrong sequence? Could it be that you do certain things plain wrong? Could it be that you project the wrong image for example... the image that simply can't be integrated in the mainstream? Could it be that there are necessary preconditions that you simply ignore while you do your "rain dance" around your car?

If we are to achieve anything, we got to start thinking strategically and realistically.

And... lets go back to the goals themselves...

For goal designing, daydreaming desires are not the best strategy.

Because... YES! There is also a goal designing strategy!

That strategy implies a constant dialogue between the general level of goals with the specific level of realities involved.
You can't simply say: " Yeah, here's the goal, let's realize it". It doesn't go that one way path.
There must always be feedback loops between the general and specific, "real" level, a constant dialogue between the two.
Its not just the general goal that determines the specific ones, it is also the other way around.
You must start fuzzy, and then define and refine both general and specific levels in a constant feedback process.

And above all things, when you want to do anything, the key question you GOT to ask yourself is: "Do I really want to succeed, do I really want to win?".

If the answer is yes, then you know that there are certain things you simply have to do, and there is no way around them.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:43 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Selfishness, Altruism, Benevolence and the Core Strategic Issue of Winning the Mainstream White Opinion

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

I believe that one must distinguish something that I would call "ideological altruism" from natural benevolence.

Ideological altruism is something artificial, like all ideologies. One could even say that it has a pathological basis or at least expresses immature psychological need for approval - an immature need to be approved as "good" by abstract internalized "others".

Natural benevolence, or natural goodness is something different. It is the natural state of the mature human being.
Benevolence is not a blind ideology connected to psychological immaturity. Benevolence, not being ideological reductionist blindness, doesn't exclude rationality or common sense.

Being benevolent does not mean the kind of indiscriminativeness that leads to blind unquestioning acceptance of the destruction of one's own house in the name of ideological principles.

Benevolence is simply the natural human tendency for cooperation. It is a natural human mature psychological trait that is proactive. But such tendency exists without being indiscriminate.

Personally I am a priori benevolent towards everyone and anything. To grass and trees, to bees and birds, cats and dogs, Whites, Blacks, Reds and Yellow, and even (oh horror :D ) to Jews.

But that benevolence does not mean that I would like my own race to disappear, that I would like Blacks, Asians or Muslims to fill my continent or my country. My benevolence does not mean that I think that everyone is equal or that I should equally care for all.
Benevolence as a non ideological attitude, does not imply that the truth should be pushed under the carpet.

I am benevolent and racist! How about that?

One does not need to develop the opposite of the ideology of altruism in order to fight liberals. One does not need an ideology of egoism.

Egoism is not the human model of life (nor is some ideological altruism).
The human model is holistic cooperation and exchange in the boundaries of rationality and common sense (humans often still practice the predatory model too, but that one is not human, it is a relict).

The natural human state is of cooperative benevolence, but one that is not indiscriminate and blind, but included in a hierarchy of common sense priorities, where one first cares for one's own house.

One should not look at these things through exclusive alternatives. That's what the liberals would like us to believe:

Either you have to be indiscriminately "good" to the level of self-destruction, and would have no right to preferentially care for the preservation of your own race or nation, either you are "bad".

We must take great care not to fall into that trap, in the dichotomous frame in which they have imprisoned the issue.

We must propose another common sense model where benevolence naturally coexists with discriminating common sense.
Not only does it coexist, it is part of a natural whole.

One can even be benevolent on a global scale and still be aware of one's own race, aware of the importance and LEGITIMACY of caring for its preservation and affirmation.

Personally I think that in order to win the mainstream White opinion for the cause of White self-preservation, one MUST reconcile general benevolence, - the need of most people to be "good", with the realization that it is also good and legitimate to care about one's own.
We must be able to pass on the realization that BOTH ARE GOOD. That caring about one's own is good and does not diminish in ANY way general benevolence.
We must be able to pass on the realization that being self destructive is not good for anybody and that you can only be good to the world if you value what you are, and care and preserve it.

THE VERY ESSENCE of what needs to be achieved in the minds of mainstream people is to separate the notion of benevolence from nondiscrimination.

Liberal ideologists try precisely to manipulate people into believing that the two are inseparable, that one cannot be good and still have the common sense to care for one's own heritage, biologic and cultural, put value in it and preserve it.

What we must do is to deconstruct this manipulation, to decouple the things that liberals have somehow glued together in the minds of too many people, and to reinstate common sense priorities and common sense differential approach.

We must completely debunk the manipulation that one cannot be good and care for one's own.

It is ESSENTIAL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND that NO ONE can take away the need to feel that one is "good" from the mainstream !!!

To try to do that is a complete waste of efforts and is absolutely counterproductive to our cause.

On the contrary, one must reconcile benevolence with discriminativeness and eventually racism - racism in the sense of legitimate preferential care for one's own heritage.
We absolutely must change the connotation of racism as something "bad" into something good and legitimate. But in order to do that, we cannot separate racism from benevolence. We must pass the realization that benevolence and racism are not in contradiction.

I cannot stress enough how important these points are.
Those who would dismiss them would really, really make a cardinal error.

For the mainstream people, White self-preservationists must NOT be associated with ANY negativism, even implicit.
They must be associated with life - a harmonious, mature, common sense life. a life benevolent in nature, confident in itself, but also associated with the common sense to discriminate between the truth and what is not the truth, the common sense to care for one's own and not be blindly ideologically suicidal.
It must be a life with clear common sense natural priorities, as opposed to immature and blind liberal ideologies.

Life is structured, stratified, selective and differentiated.
What we must convince people of, is that they will not be any less good if they keep being capable of common sense differentiated approach to reality. We must make them realize that such blind ideological "goodness" is a FALSE GOODNESS.

We must present our own model of goodness, a better one, and NOT LET THE LIBERALS DEFINE GOODNESS.
This cannot be done with ideologies of egoism, but with the realization that natural benevolence is in perfect harmony with the care for our own race.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:41 - Comments (0) - Print - #

About a Core Anti-racist Argument (Biosemantics 4)

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

The way I see it, the main, or one of the main anti-racist arguments in the scientific sphere is that diversity inside races is so big that that there can be a bigger difference between two Whites than between a White and a Black, for example.

Following that logic, anti-racists claim that there are in fact no races, just individuals.

This anti-racist argument is very important in my view, because it may sound convincing to many. Therefore it must be put in its right place...

Let's first start with the easy stuff and then move to more subtle dimensions.

One weak point of the anti's argument lies in the relationship between quantity and quality.
The "diversity" argument usually addresses the issue of having or not having certain variety/alleles of genes. But theoretically, even if a White and a Black would have all the same alleles, that would not mean a thing because it is not just a question of having or not having them, it is also a question of how many. The same genes may have multiple occurrences in the genome and the number of those copies can be different.

Difference in quantity can also mean a difference in quality, because more or less products of a gene can shift the balance of various biochemical processes, and such differences can lead to different chains of biochemical events. Quantitative differences can affect the activation of other genes differently and lead to different outcomes.

One could call this the "Quantity amplification" counterargument to the "diversity" argument of the anti-racists.

Another weakness of the "diversity" argument is the issue of key genes. Research about genetic diversity targets genetic markers regardless of their function and importance. Data about similarities or differences of genome between members of different races or groups does not take into account the relative importance of particular genes, and it doesn't discriminate between "brick and mortar" genes and key regulatory genes.
For racial differences, what is important are not the "brick and mortar" genes, but some key genes that discriminate between cellular processes and the way these processes will go. Such key genes may be few and still make a big difference, a far bigger functional difference than all the inconsequential genes that any two members of different races might have in common.

We could call this the "key genes amplification" counterargument.

In the case of the Lewontin's fallacy, the truth is that not even "brick and mortar" genes are taken into account, but every variation in non coding structural DNA, which is pure nonsense in terms of the properties of the organism.

I would like now to come to a much more subtle area, the reason why I started this thread in the first place, and which will give a clearer meaning to the previously mentioned factors.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that there can be a greater apparent significant similarity between certain members of different races than between some members of the same race.

There could still be a small common racial factor in those very different members of the same race that far outweighs everything else in the sense that it indeed determines racial differences far more important than the similarities of a member of one race with the member of another.
This is obviously linked to the two previous factors, but let's see what it could really mean.

That small difference may not be apparent when individuals are compared, because it may appear insignificant and undetectable at the level of individual comparison.

But that may not be so on the collective level. The importance of that factor might manifest itself only trough collective interactions.

An apparently small difference in character between individual members of different races might appear irrelevant at the individual level, but it might be very important on a collective level and as far as collective dynamics are concerned.

Apparently small differences in character, that may not seem significant when individuals are compared, can be hugely amplified in a collective context, if they are racially specific.

Those meaningful small racial differences, apparently inconsequential at the individual level could be central to group dynamics, group interactions and the shaping of society and its dynamics.

An essential thing to understand is that this "common factor" doesn't even have to be genetically identical in all members of the same race!
The important thing would be that these racial factors would be part of a common logic, a common system. They fit together into one.

Like in a hologram where all points of the image contain information about the whole image, but different informations from their own points of view, this racial "common factor" might not be a simplistic one - something that is the same in everyone.
It can be something different in each individual, but containing information about a larger whole, a larger picture. The information in each individual might be different but still make sense only in relation to a whole forming a system. That whole would be defined precisely by difference, not by uniformity.

So there we have it. Diversity inside a race can mean racial unity when we look at factors defining collective dynamics. The AGGREGATIVE PROPERTIES (how they aggregate together in a whole) of individuals don't have to be the same to make a very specific collective system that has inner coherence and a distinct individuality - a race.

The common factor might not be readily recognized at the individual level, because individuals are so different, but that common factor might not exist at the simplistic level of uniformity. The important thing is that the aggregative, collectively oriented properties of each individual are part of a same logic, a system, even if they are different for each individual.

What it means becomes clear if we consider a race as a semantic system, a collective system based on semantics.

Individuals might be different, but their individual meanings are a part of a larger system of meanings. Basically race is a biological language and individual differences of meaning (what the individual means to others in the interpersonal and collective sense) get their full meaning in the meta-context of the language itself and its logic.

In fact, this is a feedback relationship. Individuals form the whole, the semantic logic of the whole, but the whole also select individuals that are adapted to it, its language, to its system of exchange and grouping of meanings.

Races are biologic languages, or more precisely bio-cultural languages, as there is a feedback relationship between biology and culture.

When one looks at races as such semantic collective systems, the anti-racist "diversity argument" crumbles completely because this new systemic approach does not focus on the individual, but on collective systems based on diversity and still making distinct individualized and separated semantic wholes/systems.

This is not to say that these collective racial factors are not recognizable in the individual. They are indeed, but only if one looks for them trough their meaning in relation to the logic of collective and interpersonal semantic interactions (relations of meaning between individuals in the collective system). They are intuitively and implicitly understood by all members of a race, because this is their language, their system of meanings that they use to interact at interpersonal and collective levels.

I have discussed other aspects of this theory in a number of posts. You can find them here.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:40 - Comments (0) - Print - #

A Problem of Race - My Answers in a Stormfront Topic (Biosemantics 3)

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront


I think that too many people try to define race at the individual level with concepts of IQ's, criminality etc.
While those aspects are real, they are always opposed with the counterargument of "generalization", and examples of intelligent and honest blacks.

Arguments about IQ's, criminal tendencies etc. are right but insufficient because they focus on the individual, and in fact put the whole issue in the individual frame.

What is needed is a collective perspective of races - races as collective systems.

I already wrote something about how I view those systems, as holistic bio-cultural languages, as holistic bio-cultural semantic systems.

Races are semantic wholes and they are differentiated by the feedback systems of meanings that are embedded in their biology and cultures, and in fact in the feedback system between their biology and cultures.

This difference of races as semantic systems is even physically visible in the meanings conveyed by the facial physiognomies selected by those races. Those physiognomies are a biological non verbal language used as feedback between the units/individuals and defining the spirit of their relationships, and therefore the natural spirit of their societies in their traditional cultures or cultures that contain their traditional values to a large degree.

The White race is the semantically most subtle and rich bio-cultural language. It contains a system of meanings unparalleled by other races.


I would also just like to add that societies should be looked as cybernetic self-regulating, self reproductive systems.

Race, as a biological semantic category, enters into the logic of that cybernetic system. The meanings that are embedded in the biological tissue of the race are a part of the cybernetics system, they are a part of the logic of how certain goals and issues are solved by the societies these races belong.
These biological meanings are a natural tendency inside the natural feedback system between biology and the traditional cultures that were part of the selective biological processes in races.

However, if the link between the traditional values and biology is broken, there is a resulting chaos, and the more subtle the system, the more fragile can it be, if it is not explicitly aware of itself.

Unfortunately, the traditional values that have a feedback relationship with our biology are not scientifically explicit. They are idiosyncratic systems of beliefs, often conveyed by religions.
This kind of vector for the cultural software needed for the formation of a working bio-cultural whole are problematic in modern times when science has challenged the old beliefs, which were prescientific vectors for an important set of software instructions, vital for the health of the cybernetic system as a whole.


When we talk about meanings, I would say that the White race represents (also biologically) higher meanings - meanings that have a more pronounced vertical dimension. It possesses a more pronounced tendency towards the search of higher, encompassing meanings.

Vertical meanings are those that try to encompass the wholeness of life, at the individual and social levels. They are generally manifested in what we call values and ideals. Ideals are a manifestation of that tendency towards higher levels of meaning in the structure of life.
The tendency towards the vertical meanings leads to a hierarchy of abstract levels ordering the different dimensions of life, from the purely individual to the social and even to the purely transcendent abstractions that distill the essence of humanity.

Transcendence in meaning, this is what it means to be human. The more this tendency is present in a human group, the more human it is.

These meanings are also manifested in human archetypes. Those archetypes are collective, racial models of what a man and a woman should be. The ideal true man, the ideal true woman. Those ideals are not just cultural, they are embedded in biology. They don't represent mere physical ideals, but racial ideals of completeness of meaning of what it means to be human.
But physiognomy is important too in a semantic sense. Where the Black physiognomy archetype expresses mostly lower horizontal meanings of life (strength, aggressiveness etc), the White archetype expresses a much higher level of life where the lower more animal meanings are integrated in higher meanings, higher more integrated perspectives.
The White archetype exists at a human meta-level compared to the Black archetype, for example.
The White archetype is a model of a more fully integrated human who extracts higher abstract meanings from life and directs and shapes life according to those higher meanings and values. This is the archetype of a more fully human being integrating the horizontal concrete aspects of life into vertical higher meanings and values and shapes life according to those principles.

BUT, it is IMPORTANT to realize two things about racial human archetypes:

Firstly, it is like a holographic image. Individuals contain an image of that archetype from their own position, but they don't necessarily express the full image in themselves. Every individual may not understand the fullness of the archetype or express it, but they have a tendency towards it, they are attracted to it.
Those archetypes are like attractors, magnets that attract the representatives of a race and make them orbit around them and to try to approach them.

The second important thing to understand is that those archetypes are just POTENTIALS. Our tendency towards a certain human model of life is just a biologic potential that doesn't realize itself by itself. It needs culture, like all human potentials.

We have the biologic potential for speech, but it needs culture to be realized.
We don't even walk without culture. We are anatomically made for bipedal walk, but as the evidence of "wild children" has shown (children raised by animals), humans cannot even start to walk bipedally by their own. Culture is necessary even for that most basic potential.

There is an organic feedback link between biology and culture in humans.
We are biologically shaped for culture. We have certain biologic potentials, but they need culture to develop and express themselves.
Human biology has shaped culture, but culture has shaped human biology. They form an indivisible whole.

This is not to say that culture is all. On the contrary, the archetypes I was talking about represent different potentials in different races, and they need their culture to realize themselves.

The full White biologic potential needs the cultural context in which it has evolved to express itself. It needs a society of meanings, ideals, higher values, higher order of life.

Unfortunately, the cultural elements (software) needed for the full development of the biologic human potential are carried by idiosyncratic vectors like beliefs, religions etc.
This is not a bad thing in itself, but it makes them fragile as they are not explicitly understood, but implicitly hidden if traditional forms.
In modern times, the fundamental values of the White race needed for the full development of its biologic potential are under enormous pressure. We are witnessing the destruction of the idea of a society of meaning, and particularly of higher fundamental meaning.

Liberal relativist ideologies attack that essential cultural idea from all sides.

The very human archetype of the White race is under attack, as it needs its natural cultural context to flourish and realize the full White human model.

That's why there are "Whiggers" these days.

They are those who cannot find the full cultural contextual support for the development of their potential. That cultural support has become very thin in modern societies. It exists more in pockets of meaning than in a strongly meaningful society.
So many young people get absorbed by inferior racial systems of meanings - systems of lower, more horizontal human archetypes, more primitive and animal.

Without the needed higher semantic cultural context, even higher biological forms represented by Whites cannot develop to the level of their potential, they slide to the lower available levels to them.

What does it all mean?

The human archetype of the White race is more complete. It is more vertical, more "meta".
It represents a much more pronounced tendency towards meta-levels of life - the organization of life trough a vertical hierarchy of meanings.
The White race is more the "universal man". It represents a more complete and higher meaningful organizing human tendency.
But unless the White race finds a way to maintain a culture of meaning in society, unless it doesn't retake the reigns of the creation and shaping of meaning in society and culture, unless it doesn't defeat liberal relativists and finds a way to integrate fundamental meaning in a new explicit way into social structure, its perspective is bleak.

The battle for the White race will be at the level of meaning.
Not only in some universal sense, but the battle for the White race to understand what it is as a potential, and to understand what it needs in terms of cultural context.

It is the battle for the White race to understand what it really represents and what are the two legs it walks on (biology and culture).

It is the battle for the White race to understand that IT is the values that it needs (in the sense of bio-cultural interpenetration explained above), and that the White race must be preserved if those values are to be preserved.

We must understand who we are and what we are, in order to want to preserve ourselves

So, this topic started by maxhmeu is excellent, because it touches the very core of the battle for the white race, the very thing that must be won if we want our race to survive.


When I mention meanings and values, I am not talking about values that get alienated from their true cybernetic function.

I will explain what I mean.

Values are part of the cultural software - they serve a role in the cybernetic principle of society, which is basically self-regulation and self-reproduction, and all that it implies.
Values serve that purpose, they serve the creation of a better more fully human and meaningful life and the preservation of that life.
Values are human life software.

But as I underlined it previously, culture and biology go hand in hand.
So, the values of the White man are the White man - they are reflected in his biological potential in the same way that potential is reflected in the culture.
They form a whole.

Values exist, not to preserve only themselves, they preserve the humans that are their counterparts. Values exist to preserve the human potential existing in our biological structure and without which, they would not have any meaning or purpose, as they are precisely the software needed for the development of those potentials.
Values exist for US, the way we are as humans, biologically adapted to ideas of vertical values, principles and meanings.

But certain values like "brotherhood" or "love" can be easily misunderstood.
Many people think that they should apply them indiscriminately to all humans and all human races.
Those do not understand that these values have only a meaning if they preserve their biologic foundation, only if they perform their cybernetic function explained above.

It is not a bad thing in itself to wish well to the rest of the world. I myself wish all the best to Africans in Africa, Asians in Asia, Middle Easterners in the Middle East, etc. But one must not lose from sight that values of "goodness" have a specific structural role in human society. They have a feedback link with their biological base, and serve the purpose of preserving it, making it better, fuller, making it express itself, not negate itself.

It serves no purpose to be "good2 if that means destroying or net preserving the very biological basis of that "goodness".

To caricature it: it would have no meaning to be good to dogs if it meant to chose dogs over humans. One can be good to them, but it doesn't mean that one should lose the ability to distinguish between a human and a dog.

The highest human values have only a meaning if they preserve us, their biological foundation biological potentials for those values that are embedded in our biology.
These values only have a meaning if they preserve their other indivisible half - those who have the biological potential for those values and the biologic semantic systems - biosemantic systems of meaning which are what we call races.

("Biosemantic" not in Ruth Millikan's sense, which means "biological purpose/meaning", but in the sense of "biological language" - a language embedded in the biological structure)

Simply put, to preserve values, ve must preserve ourselves, because we, as biological beings, are the other half of the equation.

The cultural software of meaning has precisely no meaning without the biological potential for which that meaning exists.
And that biologic potential has no meaning without the cultural context of meaning in which it can only develop and realise itself.

This an indivisible holistic relationship.

In a society of meaning where the cultural meaningful atmosphere would be all pervading, individuals would naturally mix only with those in whom they recognize that biological potential for meaning. They would also naturally recognize, even in the visible facial semantic features, the biologic semantic system (race) that has those meanings biologically embedded in it.

There would be no "whiggers" in such society, because people would return to their natural holistic feedback relationship between culture and biology, and would never think of mixing with those who belong to racial semantic systems of lower biological meaning potential, even visible on their faces. They would naturally feel the importance od preserving the racial biological basis for meaning, the biologic semantic system carrying that potential.

But of course. it doesn't mean that things should not be made explicit even before such society of meaning is reached.
People of our race long for meaning, clearing things up in their minds would make a big difference in their awareness of the importance of preservation of our race. The other reason is that time is short and certain tendencies catastrophic.

So, it is important for people of our race to understand this organic link between culture and biology - between meaning in culture and the potential for meaning in biology. It is important because if they understand that, they will understand that the meaning they are naturally drawn to is in the end linked to the preservation of themselves as a race.

With the explicit understanding of that relationship, people will understand the full biological meaning of meaning itself.
They will understand the importance of preserving the race that literally embodies these meanings.

There is no worse fallacy than to believe that the highest human values make the preservation of the White race redundant.

The correct understanding of the relationship between biology and culture, and the effort and program for the establishment of a society of meaning are the two ways to prevent the belief in that fallacy and instill the belief in the essential importance of the preservation of our race.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:36 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Race as a Holographic Language (Biosemantics 2)

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

I would like to clear a possible misunderstanding from the previous post "Race and Collective Dynamics - Races as Collective Phenomena (Biosemantics 1)"

I said that races can only be fully understood at the collective level - the level of frame of humanity that they represent - their collective spirit.

It doesn't mean that that these collective racial qualities cannot be seen on the individual level, quite the opposite.

It's a bit like a hologram.
A hologram is a picture where every part of the picture contains an image of the whole picture from the point of view of that part.
In a hologram, every part reflects the whole.

The fullness of the hologram - the fullness of the spirit of a race is not always apparent in every individual, but once it is perceived as a whole, one can see its aspects in individuals, and how individuals are part of it.

The best among Blacks still exist in relation to their hologram - their model of humanity embedded in their biology. They exist inside their frame of humanity, inside the spirit of their race.

The worst representatives of the White race also exist in relation to the frame of humanity of their race.
Each individual, even the worse ones, reflects the whole he belongs to, in a specific way.
Even those who negate that spirit, negate it in relation to that spirit. Even the negation exists in relation to the frame.

Even the best among Blacks are defined inside their racial human frame, inside the aspirations of that frame, and I would even say - inside the level of transcendence of their model of humanity.
That level of transcendence is the tendency of a race to transcend itself, the tendency visible among the individuals of that race to transcend the status quo.

This is not just something very abstract and intellectual. No, this is something everybody automatically feels if unimpeded by liberal leftist ideologies.

We all feel such things. We feel that even the best representatives of the Black race represent a different sort of humanity, a narrower, more limited one, whose shape is less in a form of an arrow aiming for the sky.
They represent a frame of lower level of transcendence and of lesser value.

Yes, there are plenty of Whites who are not worthy of their human frame, not worthy of the spirit of their race. They are deformations and malformations inside that frame, but they don't diminish the spirit of the frame itself, they don't diminish its collective logic and aspiration.

That's why the individualistic approach to races is insufficient. It could lead to the erroneous conclusion that races don't matter, only the relative qualities of individuals would.

This is wrong because the individual qualities exist also and in a very essential way, in relation to racial human frames. An individual doesn't represent only himself biologically, he represents a wider collective order, a way the whole is arranged and organised on the basis of individuals.

Each individual contains collective properties projecting a model of humanity inside the society.

Ignoring that dimension is totally wrong, because even if we would accept quality individuals from other races, we would also dilute the collective shape of humanity that our race represents. We would sabotage the collective spirit, the whole collective dynamics that we reflect as individuals.

Individual abilities are secondary to the preservation of a superior holistic model of humanity - a superior collective biologic substance or spirit reflecting itself in the individuals. That spirit exists in itself and is more than just the sum of individual abilities.

The arrow of the White race, as a whole larger than the sum of its parts, aims higher. It is an entity, a system by itself, and it aims higher - this is the simple truth.
Replacing it by a lesser one, which aims much lower, would be a catastrophe.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:34 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Race and Collective Dynamics - Races as Collective Phenomena (Biosemantics 1)

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

I come from a country where there are almost no Blacks. And still, Blacks are the racial issue that preoccupies me the most.
In the context of demographic catastrophe of the White race, Africanization threatens the European continent, and will reach my country as well, sooner or later.

Some people (not from this forum) would ask me if I hate Blacks. I don't.
I even believe that some individual Blacks can be decent and productive individuals.

I Explained in another topic treating the justification for the preservation of the White race (which can be found in my Blog) some of my views on the subject. I would like to expand a little here.

For me, the issue of race cannot be observed at the individual level but at the collective one.
It is an issue far more subtle than IQs and things like that.

I believe (actually, this is a theory in an advanced stage) that races are primarily a semantic phenomenon and a phenomenon of collective dynamics where people's individual characteristics are integrated by others into a system of collective complementary interpersonal meanings.
Such system creates an embedded collective dynamics - a biologically driven tendency in society to certain types of interpersonal interactions leading to a certain direction of the society itself.

If one observes a molecule of water alone, it has certain attributes in itself, but it is difficult to extrapolate from these individual characteristics, what will be the properties of water as an aggregate of billions of molecules.
These individual characteristics are important, not only for the single molecule, but mostly for the way these molecules interact together and the collective properties that result.

I believe that this principle also applies to humans.

Individual properties can be observed for themselves, but they get their true meaning in the way they interact inside the social tissue.
In fact I believe that individual properties and the dynamics of the collective represent a whole, a holistic system. It is not just a one way street like in molecules, it is a two way street, where the collectivity also select certain types of individuals that are consistent with its dynamics.

Those aggregating characteristics of the individuals are semantic in nature. They represent meanings - meanings of one individual within the group, meanings of the individual inside the group dynamics.

These meanings are best seen in the facial physiognomies, which express certain meanings of the individual in relation to others. They represent meanings about ways individuals interact and aggregate. They represent certain interpersonal goals and aspirations, certain social orders.
Faces are a subtle biological social language and are part of a semantic collective system, not a random stack of individual properties.

There are also other factors participating in the embedded aggregative processes of collective dynamics. They may be more subtle than faces. I call them "psycho-physical energies" and are embedded in some rhythms that punctuate activities and interactions. But this is too complex for this topic.

What I am saying is that races cannot be primarily be observed as just a random collection of individuals. They constitute a semantic whole, a holistic biological language - a biosemantic system ("Biosemantic" not in Ruth Millikan's sense, which means "biological purpose/meaning", but in the sense of "biological language" - a language embedded in the biological structure), and must be observed at the level of collective dynamics sustained by the aggregative properties of the individuals. These aggregative properties being themselves selected by the whole, which creates a two-way, feedback holistic system.

The opponents, but also the proponents of racism use arguments that target the individual level, comparing individual performances.
I believe that this is an insufficient way of looking at the issue. Races cannot be understood at the level of the individual components alone, but at the level of the whole, the collective dynamics that they represent.
Individuals do not exist by themselves, they are part of a semantic biological network having its own collective properties.

Individual aggregative properties may not always be apparent or manifested.

For example, if a Black is isolated among whites, he will adapt to the prevalent collective dynamics. This is also the case when there are small numbers of blacks in a large White majority.
Some Black individuals can function very well in a White environment and be very productive, but when the social proportion changes and Black become a significant factor, their innate aggregative properties take over, They tend to create the collective dynamics corresponding to their own biological collective language, creating a different collective dynamics.

Unfortunately, that dynamics soon interferes with the dynamics embedded in the White biology.

This evolution can be seen in Music for example. When Black culture was still framed by the White culture, it expressed itself in forms like Jazz, but as the Black collective emancipates itself more and more, it returns to more primitive basic forms like Rap.
This is just a symptom, but it illustrates how, when the collective dynamics of Blacks takes over, they fall on their natural level, a more primitive collective level.

I believe that the augmentation of the number of Blacks in a white society is a big problem because their natural collective dynamics takes over and drags down the White collective dynamics, as it is always easier to go down than up.
If a significant collective factor drags culture down, it will go down. The balance of the civilizational and anti-civilizational factors is delicate in the White race, even if it is left to itself, but if a significant source of disruption exists in the same social tissue, civilization goes down to more primitive levels.

It is no coincidence that culture takes a plunge to basic more animal levels of social interaction, wherever Blacks pass a certain aggregating threshold.

I believe that racial theory used by WN should rise to a new level of understanding, from the individual atomized view to a higher perspective that encompasses the collective holistic meaning of what races are.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:32 - Comments (0) - Print - #

The real "justification" for the preservation of the White Race - Holistic view

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

These days we seem to be reduced to the need to justify the perpetuation of the white race, We are expected to find some "good" reason, as if there was a need for that.

The only good reason we need is the existence of the white race itself. From that existence comes its right to exist and perpetuate itself.
Having that right, the only good reason we, as members of the white race would need, is that we would want to.
The only good reason that we need is our will to continue to exist, prosper and affirm ourselves.

There are other reasons, civilizational etc. We could say that the world would lose if the white race would disappear. I would certainly agree with that, but this is not about the "world", this is not about some abstract idea of "civilization", this is about us. If it is about a civilization, it is precisely about "us" having that civilization, not the "world".

Do we exist then?
Some say that races don't even exist, "there is no proof of their existence" they say.
All human populations have the same genes and alleles of these genes, but in different proportions, they say.

First at all, they can't know that, because the Human Genome Project made the inventory of the genes of just a few people, and another similar private project also studied the genes of just a few people, so no conclusion about wider populations can be scientifically made. The funniest thing is that the results of the two studies are in contradiction in many places.
Besides, there is something called the Lewontin' fallacy (try Google for that one...), and it has been demonstrated that what the leftie media parrot about smaller differences between two individuals of different races than two individuals of the same race is utter nonsense.

But even if that was true, it wouldn't matter because even if Blacks, as a whole race, would have all the genes variations, all the alleles Whites have, even if Whites would have all the alleles existing in the Black population, that wouldn't mean that those are not two groups with distinct subjectivities.
You can use the same type of bricks and mortar to make a shed or a palace, a shed is not a palace and a palace is not a shed, regardless of the bricks and the mortar.

A race is not defined by its components, but by a recognizable result of those components with its own recognizable subjectivity that allows people to subjectively recognize themselves as Whites or Blacks or whatever.
If there is such subjectivity, such sense of identity, if it exists, it has the right to perpetuate itself and needs no better reason than its own will to be, exist and perpetuate its existence, identity and life.
To live, you need no better reason than your will to live. You don't have to justify it.

Yes, but the multiethnicists, the multiculturalists will say that you are not your race.
They will try to convince us that the individual is all that matters.
Why would you care for your race, you are not your race, you are you, the individual. It makes no sense to identify yourself to some racial group, they would say.

Is that so?

This is a disastrous fallacy. The individual and the collectivity form a holistic whole, a biologic and cultural complex, a holistic form of complex exchanges. In many ways, an individual exists in a complementary relation with its collectivity and vice versa.
In a race, that relation is the "spirit" of that race, a complex web of relationships and exchanges in which even purely physical characteristics play a major role.
For example facial physiognomies are part of non-verbal communication, they were selected by evolution as vectors of nonverbal meaning, expression of character, forms of communication.
Is it really a coincidence that facial shapes in the Black race are closer to our simian ancestors or relatives? Doesn't it indicate a subtly different spirit of nonverbal communication, a different structure of meanings conveyed in the bio-cultural matrix of the Black race, a different spirit of the "whole thing"?

We may have difficulties to scientifically define that spirit of a race, not everybody has the same elements of that spirit, but what matters is that it constitutes a distinct subjective whole that is recognizable by its members and by others. It is like an attractor, various elements turn around, a common center of gravity that defines the subjectivity.
All elements, all individuals in that whole are not the same, they don't have all the same characteristics, but even their own specificities exist in relation to the characteristics of the whole - the spirit of the whole.
If one individual has such and such specific characteristics, specific meanings of oneself, these characteristics get their full meaning only in relation to the whole matrix of relationships constituting the whole. Elements get their meaning in relation to the whole and the whole is projected into the elements in relation to the specific characteristics of each elements in the network of relations of the whole.

This bidirectional interpenetration of the elements and the whole constitutes what is called a holistic system. A race represents one.

So what does it mean for you, the individual?

It means that in the social sense, "you" with your individual characteristics exist and get your true meaning only trough the complex network of relationships of the whole of your race. In a holistic sense, your race is you, who you are in relation to the whole.

The spirit of a race is not easily formally defined, but it is felt and recognized, as identity, as a feeling of better fitting into the whole of what that that race represents, as a feeling of correspondence of the meanings of oneself to other individuals in the collectivity and vice versa.
Races exist principally at a semantic level, at a level of meaning and communication in a system of meanings.
It is that "spirit" that in fact maintains the biological identity of the race, that selects certain biologically defined facial and psychological profiles for example (archetypes), to support the communication and exchange logic of that system of exchange of meanings which is the race itself.

You are your race in the holistic sense.

So, what does the preservation of your race mean to you?

It means the preservation of your own spirit, the preservation of the meaning you have personally and individually inside that holistic spirit.
Defending you race, you defend yourself, the full meaning of who you are in relation to the whole that gives you a full sense of that meaning.
Other attractors cannot be as good for you, you can function inside them, but there is a loss of information, a loss of meaning and you don't feel the complete you in relation to those other racial attractors, you don't feel that you belong to that spirit. Something is missing, the complete set and logic of relations and meanings is missing (even the faces, with their nonverbal meanings are an important part of it).

There are differences of meanings in the same race, subsystems, nations, but the common attractor is still very strong inside one race.
Faces physiognomy, as the most visible immediate meanings inside the system, are the best sign for it.

Those who, among whites, say that it doesn't matter to preserve the white race, in fact deny the very core value of themselves, they deny the value of themselves and the perpetuation of that value. They basically say that they are worth nothing and that there is no meaning to perpetuate themselves.

But if you feel that you have a meaning, If you feel that you have a value, then the natural choice is to try to perpetuate it and develop it.
If you don't, you don't respect yourself and the thousands of generations of your ancestors who have struggled and fought to make you who you are, in the complete holistic sense.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront


Here is my reply to an "anti" who claimed that the preservation of the White race is "irrational":

Here is what he said:

"Stumbled across this site by accident, and I always find it interesting to examine extreme points of view. I have some questions: Why do you want to preserve the white race? It is very possible to preserve culture whilst racial identity slowly changes, as has been the case in the UK for centuries until recently. So is this a matter of wanting to preserve culture (fairly rational) or preserving race (irrational)?"

Here is what I answered:

Well, it is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

All life forms seek their own preservation trough themselves and their progeny.
This is neither rational nor irrational, this is natural, this is what life does - this IS LIFE.

To deny that is what is irrational.

As for culture - culture does not represent a value worth preserving in itself or for itself.
Culture is a software - the software a human system uses to preserve and enrich its life.

Culture serves a purpose.
Culture serves the life that created it. It is why it exists. It doesn't exist for itself.

Again, not anybody's life, but the life form that created that software for itself and its life preservation.
Culture has a biological function, and to disassociate that function from culture is the summum of irrationality.
It is not only irrational, it is anti-life.

Your beliefs are the consequence of an alienated, irrational ideology, which effectively disintegrates the bio-cultural holism of human life.

The proof is that wherever that ideology dominates, human systems lose the ability to reproduce themselves biologically, and start relying exclusively on immigration - which is the sign of a sick, incomplete living system in cybernetic terms.
This is a living system whose software has been infected with instructions making it unable to fulfill the basic function of its own live (life as a biologic phenomenon in its functional completeness) preservation and reproduction.

The cultural software that your ideology represents is like a SOFTWARE VIRUS - it represents irrational ANTI-LIFE instructions introduced in the cultural software.
The nature of that virus is destructive in the very core of the holistic life principle of a human living system, and destroys all human systems that are infected by it.

What you advocate is a holistic aberration, an illness of the most pernicious kind.

While you may think that you represent the "good", what you actually represent is "pure evil" in holistic life terms.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:22 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Topic on Forum.hr - Tema na Forumu.hr-u

Je li svaki rasizam loš? Nije! (Is all racism bad? No it isn't!)

A topic in Croatian where I demonstrate how to completely dismantle all the liberal arguments against legitimate racism.

In fact I demonstrate that there is indeed a legitimate racism, which is the idea that must be imposed in the mainstream.

- 20:16 - Comments (0) - Print - #

<< Arhiva >>

< svibanj, 2021  
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30