To those who claim that I have to endure other peoples’ “opinion”, usually amounting to nothing more than defending vulgarity without thinking even once about it; to those who claim that I have no right to want people to be decent, which would include that they keep their mouths shut instead of making today’s sick and gross culture even worse by defending the filth — then what about this:
if I wrote or talked about how I’d really like to molest children, explaining in detail what I’d do to some poor four-year old child and people should simply “get with the times”, “stop whining” and accept my evil, deranged lifestyle — would this be okay, too? Most likely not, correct, you imbeciles?

Therefore, stop praising sexual promiscuous lifestyles, or do you want your daughter or a female relative to be used like that? I guess I’d even disinherit a son if he lived like some sex-obsessed beast.

In the end, it is a might makes right philosophy. If you want to live like that — good luck. The end result would be that the strongest one will dominate or kill everyone else. That people defend such a philosophy … what is there left to say? You cannot even reply anything here. Some people can’t be helped.

Great point by Samuel T. Francis:

Francis argued that society must regulate “sexual behavior, consensual or not” whether “through law or through socially enforced moral custom or both.” He condemned “normalized and unrestricted homosexuality” and believed that “a ‘society’ that makes no distinction between sex within marriage and sex outside it, that does not distinguish morally and socially between continence and debauchery, normality and perversion, love and lust, is not really a society but merely the chaos of a perpetual orgy. It is an invitation to just such an orgy that the proponents of normalized and unrestricted homosexuality invite America.
(Samuel T. Francis, “Sex and consequences”, The Washington Times, February 2, 1993.)

He also notes that chain bookstores “offer exactly the same stock in every city in the country, almost none of which would have complied with the conventional and moderate obscenity laws of the 1950s.” (“Beam Us Out”, Chronicles, April 1994).

Fitting quote by Wilmot Robertson from The Ethnostate:

Morality vs. Immorality.

One problem with obscenity is the difficulty of pinpointing it. What is obscene to some is perfectly acceptable to others. What offends a woman may not bother a man. Laws against obscenity, which come and go in cycles, vary with time and place. Once the floodgates of obscenity are open, they are hard to close. What occurs, naturally and normally, in a barnyard is obscene in a living room. Barnyard behavior and civilized behavior are at opposite poles. When they begin to converge, it’s back to the barnyard.

A few superior men have raised masses of lesser men to almost superhuman levels. But the strain is so great and the downward pull of our animal nature so strong that decline and degeneration quickly set in. From then on it is a march downhill, punctuated by intermittent eras of partial recovery. Measure the amount of obscenity, both subrosa and acceptable, at any milestone along this march, and you will have a fair idea of the society’s health.

Nearly everyone agrees that children should be protected from obscenity, but many intellectuals of a liberal bent insist that almost no limit should be set on what is seen, heard and read by adults. They reinforce their argument by reminding their critics it takes only minimal effort not to buy or read an “offensive” book, switch off the TV or remove their eyes from erotic or cloacal graffiti. The bitter truth is that huge, salaciously worded newspaper headlines on display in kiosks and sudden off-color intrusions in supposedly innocuous TV programs are visual insults that only the blind can avoid.

One commonly proposed way to regulate obscenity is to apply what are called community standards. But in a multi-racial state there are several communities; hence several standards. When it is a matter of defining the parameters of obscenity, a better and fairer job can be done by those who share a common culture than by a potpourri of heterogeneous groups, which are sure to have contradictory opinions of what does and what does not “go too far.”

The most troubling thing about obscenity is its power to coarsen young minds. The adolescent who views the animalistic cavortings in X-rated films may never have the same opinion of men and women again. He may never be able to believe in Beatrice, if he should read Dante, or relish the prim literary masterpieces of Jane Austen. He has seen men and women acting like beasts. Once shattered, his Panglossian view of his fellow human beings may never be recaptured.

Quite possibly the coarsening effect of obscenity gives an animalistic twist to the human psyche. If it does, then it follows that unlimited freedom of expression may have actually lowered the wattage of the idealism that over millennia has given a radiant glow to human thought. Obscenity is not a black eye that clears up with time. It is a permanent wound. Some may be nonchalant when exposed to it. So-called tough hombres may brush it off. But it leaves a lasting stain. Lurid exhibitions of every form of physical contact between members of the opposite sex, between members of the same sex, between old men and young boys — sexual encounters often spiced with sadism and masochism — have a sharp impact on human sensitivities. The artistic tastes of men and women assaulted by daily or weekly exhibitions of hardcore eroticism cannot help but be corroded. Persons fed highly seasoned food over a period of time find it hard to return to a bland diet. The widespread availability of pornographic films, literature and art tends to make them habit-forming. As we move back or are moved back closer to the ape, the fragile cocoon of civilization may come completely undone. Barely suppressed demons are always ready to fly out of the Pandora’s Box buried in every human being.

By setting high standards of conduct and morality and by outlawing most manifestations of obscenity, high civilizations can delay the moral degeneration that inevitably sets in when the tastemakers let down their guard. As the laws against obscenity fall in abeyance, there will always be some individuals who will push them to their farthest limits, just as the drug addict continually increases his dose to obtain his “high.”

Different races and cultures have different tolerances for obscenity. In a multiracial society, one or more population groups may indulge in what members of other population groups would consider impermissible behavior. Much of black rap is judged obscene by whites fearful of the outright calls for rape and murder contained in some of the doggerel. Some religious denominations tend to be more straitlaced than others. These varying interpretations of obscenity have produced severe and lasting disagreements, even armed confrontations, throughout human history.

Different ideas about obscenity have been known to exacerbate class and religious conflicts. The Puritans against the Stuart monarchs in the British Isles and the peasant revolts in medieval Europe are two examples. Obscenity was a burning issue in such conflicts because the rich had the means and the leisure to act more lasciviously and scandalously than the poor, whose dawn-to-dusk labor left little time for philandering, though much time for envy.

Obscenity, as might be expected, reaches lower depths in multiracial societies than in homogeneous ones. The contrast between the sexual mores of the early Roman Republic and the late Roman Empire offers a clear picture of the animalism that sets in as a society loses its racial core. Compare the moral standards of the United States in the last century to those in the last half of the 20th. The radical decline in moral behavior was highly correlated with the decline in the number and proportion of the British-descended population and the increasing presence and influence of minorities.

An ethnostate would help curb obscenity, for the simple reason that its moral standards would be those of one population group, not several. It is a far easier task to regulate the conduct of a monoracial than a multiracial society.

The Greeks had a word for pornography and devoted much attention to the subject, as have all higher civilizations. What varies over the ages is its quantity and availability. Those few who could afford to visit the bagnios of Shanghai at the turn of the century were able to find as much smut as the masses could find in the “everything goes” Weimar Republic of the 1920s. In the 1980s we could switch to an “adult” channel on cable TV or drive a half-mile or so to the nearest “adult” bookstore to rent or buy a videotape that would make a decadent Roman salivate. Today, pornography is everywhere. Yesterday, it was harder to find, but it was always there.

The current pattern of instant availability applies not just to pornography but to practically all manifestations of the new permissiveness. Drugs in Western countries used to be the vice of the rich. Now large numbers of addicts can be found in the middle and lower classes, including the criminal underclass.

The cliche that any amount of lubricity is acceptable provided it is presented or accomplished artistically does not hold water. When pornography shows up in some form of entertainment or “art” that supposedly has, as the Supreme Court would say, some redeeming social value, the persons exposed to it forget all about the “art” and focus exclusively on the scatological content.

The degree of pornography’s penetration into the collective conscience is a bellwether of decline. The youthful period of a culture generally allows no more than sporadic doses of healthy bawdiness. Perversion is scorned and perverts ridiculed. Signs of cultural aging are apparent in the transformation of poetic drama into prurient mimes, the fate of the theater in Rome. Today, in spite of the dialogue that seems to demand a prescribed number of four-letter words, films and television dramas are hardly more than mimes, with their obligatory nudity and bedroom gambols.

Pornography can never be totally eliminated, sex being the underpinning of all mammalian existence. But history demonstrates time and again that pornography can be contained and controlled, and many of its bad effects avoided, by keeping it out of easy reach. If it is costly, confined to special areas, and obscenity laws are enacted and enforced, it will find a much smaller audience.

A small homogeneous state is better able to control pornography than a large heterogeneous state with larger areas to monitor and a diverse citizenry that cannot agree on the boundaries of obscenity. Peer pressure, which would abound in ethnostates, is a very effective deterrent to aberrant social behavior.

The wave of pornography now flooding the West is only possible because the laws that legalize it and the permissiveness that feeds it have overridden Western cultural restraints and exposed hundreds of millions to the mind-rotting effects of obsessive sexuality. Perhaps obscenity can be best defined as a catalyst of social deterioration.

(Emphasis mine.)

I remember Vox Day saying—in a Darkstream back on Periscope—that were he an atheist, he would not marry. Yet, in newer streams he seems to suggest that one ought to marry and have children. Well, were I still an atheist, I’d kill myself immediately, but you know this already. Why, though, this inconsistency despite Vox Day claiming that he carefully watches what he says? Just as with his claim that white genocide does exist if you use the definition of genoicde the UN uses, only to later write—on his blog—that he does not care what globalists like the UN think.

This world is just horrible, I see absolutely no reason to go on living when even smart minds like Vox Day are that sloppy.

Would they actually die for their deranged, vulgar views? Most likely not, because death would put an end to their narcissistic, hedonistic and shallow lives. Unlike myself, who would readily take up a classic duell to defend decency and manners — even if I had to die, which would not be that bad, given how men of taste suffer in this Disney world of ours, this ball of fluff it has become.

Apart from the fact that Vox Day’s “pleasures” are trite and tacky. Being able to play a musical instrument or to read great works in the original: that would be pleasures I’d be jealous of, not sitting in a Porsche with a woman who, basically, is a hooker. And with whom you most likely have nothing in common except beastly lust.

Also, my father is a loser. Even if good-looking or so-called “high status men” are more attractive to the opposite sex in general, the losers often enough have children, too. Otherwise I would not have to live this horrible life I never asked for, this joke of an existence, with horrible genetics on top.