Category: Liberalism & the Left

Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..


That Hitler and the Nazis were not White/European nationalists, nor can they represent the interests of White/European peoples.

I would like to clear the way further for Majority Rights as a place of sanity for White interests.

Indeed, if a former head of state where I am from had the attitude toward Germans and Germany that Hitler had, for example, toward Slavs and Eastern Europe, frankly, I would not boast of this man, but would be eager to leave him in the past as an embarrassing expression of overcompensation. I am frankly surprised that this is not the default position of every self-identifying White nationalist.

Hitler’s was a position which could only have led to inter-European fighting and diversion from our proper organization.

On the other hand, the Germans I meet in my travels, by sharp contrast, are very fine people; I am eager to help them, as I might, to ensure the flourishing of their particular native European form and ways; as well as to unburden them of undue guilt and foreign impositions. This generation had nothing to do with World War II, for better or worse. I am sure that there are sufficient many of them who see fit to participate in our mutual and discreet survivals as European nations and peoples.

I was ready to dive right-in with this frame of mind years, in fact decades, ago. One of the crucial issues obstructing this has been, and is, the absurd position of some self-proclaimed White Nationalists that we somehow need Hitler or to redeem Hitler. We need nothing of the kind. We need Europeans deeper and wiser. Let there be no mistake, those who insist upon Hitler and Nazism are Not White Nationalists.


Posted by DanielS on Sunday, April 20, 2014 at 01:37 AM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideEuropean NationalismFar RightLiberalism & the LeftMarxism & Culture WarNational Socialism
Comments (38) | Tell-a-Friend

Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration

Today, we learnt exactly what it can mean for non-Moslem pupils when schools in England are dominated by Moslems.  In a word, Islamicisation:

Schools in Birmingham are illegally segregating pupils, discriminating against non-Muslim students and restricting the GCSE syllabus to “comply with conservative Islamic teaching”, an official report leaked to The Telegraph discloses.

Department for Education inspectors said that girls in a school at the centre of the so-called “Trojan Horse” plot were forced to sit at the back of the class, some Christian pupils were left to “teach themselves” and an extremist preacher was invited to speak to children.

The report, into three schools in the city, follows weeks of controversy over the alleged plot to “Islamise” secular schools in Birmingham and will lead to calls for intervention. The report focuses on Park View School and its sister schools, Golden Hillock and Nansen, the only primary of the three. Inspectors found that Park View practised forced and discriminatory sex segregation and has “restricted” GCSE subjects “to comply with conservative Islamic teaching”.

Core elements of the GCSE syllabus were missed out as “un-Islamic” and an extremist preacher with known al-Qaeda sympathies and anti-Semitic views was invited to speak with children. At Golden Hillock, there was discrimination against non-Muslims, the report found. Its handful of Christian students “have to teach themselves” in one GCSE subject after the teacher “concentrated on the students who were doing the Islamic course”.

At Nansen, Year 6 children, aged 10 and 11, received no teaching at all in the arts, humanities or music.

It’s all rather reminiscent of those far-off days when a constituent of Enoch Powell was talking about the black man having the whip hand over the white man.  Indeed, on the second of those two Telegraph pieces (both with comments open, which was odd) somebody helpfully posted the video of David Frost’s hour-long interview - cross-examination, really - of the great man in which that very matter is explored.  Frost considered it risible that Powell could consider such an event remotely possible.  Now we know better.  But in 1969 the liberal classes were only just learning how to impose their value system on the rest of us:

Their great fear was that speaking too truly and, certainly, too plainly might “stir up racial hatred” among the English.  The African and Asian colonisations must not be thought about too much because “hate” would be worse by orders of magnitude than anything else that could possibly happen.

Things haven’t changed much.  The same shallow attitudes prevail.  The liberal-left still thinks that “immigration” takes place in a consequential vacuum while dissent among the natives indicates the presence of “hate” - obviously, an irredeemably shocking and just not liberal state of affairs.  This, of course, is a deeply irrational point of view.  It is emotionally rooted.  It is faux-moralistic.  It does not respond in any way to facts or to reasoned argument.  I know from personal experience in the thread-war that it does not respond to proofs of liberal guilt or even total humiliation.  Nothing seems to touch it.  What, then, will?  What, if anything, are we missing?

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, April 19, 2014 at 07:31 PM in Anti-racism and white genocideImmigrationLiberalism & the LeftThread Wars
Comments (12) | Tell-a-Friend

Yes, The White Race IS ..A Social Construct (Contrary To Jewish And Right-Wing Denial)

Along with White Leftism, The White Class and other useful theoretical tools that Jews abuse and obfuscate as they direct White identity into the foibles of the Right.

This discussion will have a fringe benefit of provoking and flushing-out those who are not truly concerned with our people.

Social Constructionism is a European, anti-Cartesian discipline: When conducted properly, Not Jewish

This essay is to be something of a summing-up and clarification:

“You alone are uncontingent my friend. I would counsel epistemic humility” 

Say what?

Thus, in background to this essay:


Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 07:42 PM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideAwakeningsEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsEuropean cultureFar RightGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityImmigration and PoliticsJournalismLiberalism & the LeftRace realismSocial SciencesThe American rightThe Proposition Nation
Comments (104) | Tell-a-Friend

“Child Sexual Abuse Lunacy” Part 2: the Melissa Bittner case

by Michael Kuehl

Lamentably, what happened to Cassandra was not a one-time travesty much less an aberration. Only five years later, another young white teacher, Melissa Bittner, was charged with “sexually assaulting” a black predator who sexually assaulted her. As with Cassandra, her “victim” was the aggressor. And, in some ways, this case is even more sickening, more execrable, more appalling, more iniquitous than Sorenson-Grohall. Unlike Cassandra, Melissa wasn’t raped by her de jure “victim” and de facto victimizer. But, also unlike Cassandra, she was totally innocent, a victim of false accusations, and she never assented, willingly, to coitus or fellatio or any other sex-acts with her tormentor. 

And on June 25, 2002, also in Milwaukee, the 22-year-old ex-music teacher was sentenced to a year in prison for allegedly initiating and/or consenting to 15-20 acts of “sexual contact” with the 16-year-old delinquent who assaulted her. First, let’s quote the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the same reporter who covered the Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall case:

A former Messmer High School music teacher who had repeated sexual contact with a 16-year-old student after school was sentenced Tuesday to one year in prison followed by three years of community supervision…The student…indicated that the teacher encouraged his behavior and after one escapade ‘seemed to be very happy and thanked him for doing that to her,’ a criminal complaint says….The boy told police the sexual encounters began sometime in September when he stayed after school for special instructions on playing the drum. The student estimated the number of encounters at 15 to 20…“Each time, it (the sexual contact) would get a little more progressive,” Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Patti Wabitsch told DiMotto on Tuesday. “I think there was more to this relationship than Ms. Bittner was willing to admit.”
David Doege, “Messmer teacher sentenced in sex case,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 26, 2002, p. 3B.

The specific crime for which she was convicted and imprisoned was “sexual assault of a student by school staff.” Under Wisconsin law, in punishing sex between adults and teenage “children,” violent and/or recidivist male criminals who have sex 50-100 times with 16-year-old girls in non-criminally abusive and coercive relationships are guilty of misdemeanors, but women teachers who engage in even one act of “sexual contact” with 17-year-old male students are guilty of felonies.


Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, October 21, 2013 at 06:08 PM in LawLiberalism & the Left
Comments (5) | Tell-a-Friend

“Child Sexual Abuse” Lunacy, “Black-Run America,” and “Anarcho-Tyranny” in Milwaukee

by Michael Kuehl

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man….What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.
Lawrence Auster, “The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States,”, 5-3-2007.

Even if roughly half of these sexual assaults are not violent penile-vaginal rapes, or penile-anal rapes, that still means that black males rape over 40-50 white females a day, on average, and have raped some 700-800 thousand white females since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Conversely, white-on-black rapes are rare by comparison. And, moreover, it’s possible that most of these crimes are in fact committed by nonwhite “Hispanics” who, surreally, are classified as “white” when they commit rapes and other felonies but as “Hispanic” when they’re the victims of serious crimes. So when “Hispanics” who are wholly to partly Amerindian rape or sexually assault black-mulatto and Mestizo-Amerindian females, such crimes are defined as white-on black or white-on-“Hispanic” rapes and sexual assaults. Most absurdly, when “Hispanics” who are purely to partly black rape or sexually assault black females, such offenses are classified as white-on-black rapes or “sexual assaults.” *

As for gang-rapes: the peremptory hysteria and outrage of blacks and white leftists over the Duke rape hoax and their urgency to believe the unbelievable, to exploit this hoax as symbol and evidence of white “racism” and malevolence, is explained by the paucity of such enormities. Lamentably, for purposes of activism and propaganda, white-on-black gang-rapes are exceedingly rare. And, statistically, virtually nonexistent. And what percentage of these “white-on-black” gang-rapes were in fact committed by nonwhite “Hispanics,” including those who are wholly or partly African, who are classified as “white”?

White-on-black sex crimes are so rare, comparatively, that from 1996 to 2002, in Milwaukee, it’s conceivable that the only white-on-black sex crimes were in fact black-on-white sex crimes; it’s possible that over a span of 5-6 years only two whites were convicted of “sexually assaulting” blacks and, as incredibly as ironically, both were women teachers, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall and Melissa Bittner, who were raped and/or molested by their definitional “victims.”

From the editors of National Review, a dire warning to women who visit the Islamic world:


Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 06:37 PM in LawLiberalism & the Left
Comments (18) | Tell-a-Friend

First anniversary of the Norway commemoration of the King David Hotel bombing

On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.

At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.

Anders Breivik beard
Source of these pictures. You know it’s not lighting. Breivik was all smiles for the cameras, in sharp contrast to his being camera shy on 22 July, 2011, when he evaded being filmed on CCTV all the way through his hours-long drive to the seat of the government and then to Utøya Island, and he also managed to avoid being captured on any of the hundreds of cell phones on Utøya Island.


Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European NationalismFar RightGlobal ElitismLiberalism & the LeftMarxism & Culture WarMediaNew RightPolitical analysisPopular CulturePsychologySocial liberalismThat Question AgainWhite NationalismWorld Affairs
Comments (18) | Tell-a-Friend

Leftism as a Code Word (Part 1): The White Left

by Daniel Sienkiewicz

14-words shirt

When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]

Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; ie, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.


Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 06:14 PM in Liberalism & the LeftThat Question Again
Comments (61) | Tell-a-Friend

The shaping of European altruism in left political form, part 1

Last November Daniel Sienkiewicz published an article at VoR criticising the tendency, prevalent in much WN intellectualism, to target “the left” rather than Jewish activism.  We agreed that I would reproduce the article with some minor revisions at MR and I would offer a commentary on it.  Daniel’s article will be published separately on our page immediately after this first part of my essay.  Here, I am going to put forward my own, no doubt idiosyncratic and shamelessly provocative view of the central problem here, which is the foundation of Jewish thought in the Western religious and secular intellectual canon, and the open doorway that offers Jewish ethnocentric activism.

I am English.  My beautiful, brave, precious people are, today, suffering a vast and shocking physical colonisation by, to my northern eyes, unbeautiful and utterly alien peoples.  These peoples are unadmired, unwanted and unloved by the overwhelming majority of us.  Our will in the matter is clear and is known, and is, on all historical evidential bases, perfectly justified.  But because the power of choice in the matter has been taken from us, and our dissent delegitimised, we can do absolutely nothing in our own defence.  As things stand, the colonisers will minoritise us within the normal lifespan of anyone in his or her early forties today, and beyond that tipping point lies only one foreseeable outcome for us: an increasingly dark and vertiginous descent to the hell of a despised and threatened rump minority.  My child will see the first, my unborn grandchildren the second.

By any reckoning, and notwithstanding the extended temporality of the process, this is a genocide event.  But it is a genocide that nobody is interested in talking about, which is odd because we are given to believe that the decent, educated liberal abhors genocide above all crimes, and strives mightily to eradicate it from the life of Man.  As a creature much given to moral crusades, to non-aggression and opposition to colonisations, to sniffing out any injustice, to empathising with victims, to human rights, and to peace in perpetuity you might think he would have some sympathy for the English, and for all Europe’s children who face this same terrible and final existential disaster.  But he cannot.  He just can’t do it.  Prior considerations exercise too much, in fact, vastly too much control over him.


Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, June 25, 2012 at 06:39 AM in Liberalism & the LeftThat Question Again
Comments (25) | Tell-a-Friend


Right on cue this morning Mary Riddell, one of a clique of left-liberal journalists working at the DT, has produced an article titled, Now the stage is set for some sensible immigration policies.  “Sensible” for Mary means more - in whatever form the masses will accommodate - because Mary is a moralist par excellence of the universalist persuasion.

I might not contribute much to the thread myself.  The postings have started to sky-rocket, and it is always tiresomely difficult with DISQUS to maintain contact when that happens.  However, I did get an early swipe in against Mary’s universalism, for which she references Shakespeare, no less, and the influential Oxford academic Marc Stears ...

It appears from Mary’s description of Marc Stears’ influence and thoughts in respect to the English genocide by race-replacement, the euphemism for which is “immigration”, that the guiding political principle on the left is “the common good”.  So let us brefly examine the meaning of the words “common” and “good”.

Universalism, as one of the four principles of classical liberalism, is derived from the Paulian dispensation.  Paul simply reprocessed and re-focussed the Judaic notion of a chosen tribe distinct from, and superior to, the mass of humanity - a humanity fit only, indeed living only, for service to Jews.  This is the anti-universalism of Judaism, and in it the Jewish supremacy is delivered not through an evolutionary process of Jewish goodness, since Jews already have perfect souls, but through the “perfection” of the gentiles.

Perfection means pacification, which in turn means the destruction of all borders, boundaries, difference ... all cause of conflict with Jewry.  Gentile ethnicity is one such difference, and anything that leads towards its loss is “good” and anything that leads away from its loss is “bad”.

The Christian ethic of love never escaped this paradigm, and today we Europeans still suffer from the obviously false idea that “good” and “virtue” are somehow wrapped up in self-sacrifice, ie, the loss of ethnicity, which, in truth, is the loss of existence ... genocide.

Of course, this argument is compressed ... just skin and bones.  But you should be able to see that the loss of European ethnicity - our genocide - is not at all a good, not virtuous, and the whole of humanity, gentile and Jewish, has no claim on us in that regard.  We are not morally obligated to submerge ourselves in the bottomless seas of the Third World.  It is, equally obviously, also a lie that this is “good” for the greater number.  No genocide is ever good for humanity.  “Good” in respect to ethnicity is always the polar opposite - self-preservation.

In sum, the moral truth is that our good, in respect to immigration, resides in our self-preservation.  The very idea that we do good by admitting racial aliens who, in a matter of decades, will minoritise us and very rapidly marginalise us thereafter, is an evil contrivance from which our forefathers would have instinctually recoiled.  All those who moralise to the contrary today, whether as liberals or Christians or Jews, are doing evil.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 02:56 AM in Liberalism & the LeftThread Wars
Comments (8) | Tell-a-Friend

A reasoned reply to Ronald Bailey

I received a mail this morning from one Friendrick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey.  Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science.  But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one.

It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history.  Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos).  Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion.  But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel.  One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments.

Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance.  It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant.  Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race.  In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments.

I have responded to Friendrick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument.  Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know.  But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position.

I doubt it somehow.

My reply is reproduced below the fold.


Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 07:42 AM in ImmigrationLiberalism & the LeftThread Wars
Comments (71) | Tell-a-Friend

The Birth of the ‘New-Man’ under Liberalism

by Graham Lister

In the Anglophone world, in particular where it has been picked up by cultural studies, the term ‘body’ is a fairly reliable warning of hot air to come: a flashing sign for the sensible and time-poor to stay well away. But there are exceptions. One of which might well be The Coming of the Body by Hervé Juvin, in which premonitions of a new and radical regime of individualism under the aegis of the human body, as life distends and capital mutates to meet it, emerge (somewhat incongruously) from the French insurance industry.

Social agendas in the West are in flux, as new kinds of issues gain salience - pension provision, immigration policies, reproductive rights, marital arrangements. Juvin’s contribution belongs to the genre concerned with such issues; illustrated with an abundance of striking data, and delivered with an intellectual mordancy and crisp literary style that remain, even today, peculiarly French. The author might also be regarded as a very particular and local phenomenon. In the Anglophone world business and culture are typically strangers, yielding at best, earnest middle-brow apologetics at the level of Adair Turner’s “Just Capital”; but in France the intellectual executive is a not unfamiliar or strange figure. Operating within the insurance world, Juvin writes without any overt political attachments.

“The Coming of the Body” announces a time when the human body has started to pre-empt all other measures of value in the West, separating the experience of contemporary generations from that of all predecessors, and the rest of the world. The basis of this sea change lies in the spectacular transformation of life expectancy. When the Revolution broke out in 1789, the average span of life in France was 22. By 1900 it was just under 45. Today, it is 75 for men, and over 83 for women, and continually increasing. Quoting Juvin; “We have every reason to hope that one girl out of two born in France since 2000 will live to be a hundred years old”. This prolongation of life is “the present that a century of blood and iron has left us - the present of a life that has doubled”. It amounts to “the invention of a new body, against need, against suffering and against time; against the world too - the world of nature, which was destiny”. The gift is restricted to the rich. “An entire generation will soon separate Europe from its neighbours to the south, when the median age of its population passes 50 (towards 2050), while that of the Maghreb remains under 30”. If we were from the developing world we too would be desperately doing everything within our powers to make it to the West.


Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM in BooksLiberalism & the Left
Comments (86) | Tell-a-Friend

Why we will win

… against the pathological left, anyway.

I have spent a few days discussing golf and football with a dozen or so folk at the Telegraph online.  They were hardly committed sports fans, unless you count screaming “racist” at every slightly “incorrect” white man a sport.  Perhaps they do.

They are certainly not very sporting themselves.  They never answer questions.  With the more capable anti-racists who gather at British Democracy Forum to plague BNP members I always felt that the wriggling was at least partly strategic.  But now I think the lot of them are probably constitutionally incapable of answering anything.  The answers just aren’t there.

The same feeling that the multiracialist ideology can’t answer the questions of the present-day runs through this article in the Guardian today:

Far right on rise in Europe, says report

Study by Demos thinktank reveals thousands of self-declared followers of hardline nationalist parties and groups

The far right is on the rise across Europe as a new generation of young, web-based supporters embrace hardline nationalist and anti-immigrant groups, a study has revealed ahead of a meeting of politicians and academics in Brussels to examine the phenomenon.

Research by the British thinktank Demos for the first time examines attitudes among supporters of the far right online. Using advertisements on Facebook group pages, they persuaded more than 10,000 followers of 14 parties and street organisations in 11 countries to fill in detailed questionnaires.

The study reveals a continent-wide spread of hardline nationalist sentiment among the young, mainly men. Deeply cynical about their own governments and the EU, their generalised fear about the future is focused on cultural identity, with immigration – particularly a perceived spread of Islamic influence – a concern. ...

The rest of the article is worth a browse.  The original Demos report, which is less lurid in tone than the article above, is here.


Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 08:37 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (217) | Tell-a-Friend

Blair’s New Britain

Angry face

Next stop Cool Britannia?

This piece in Saturday’s Daily Mail could not be allowed to pass without comment here, even at the very real risk of re-igniting the Cock-up or Conspiracy debate that inflamed passions around these parts not so long ago. Has there been a single confirmed Scrooby sighting since?

Blair defends opening the door to mass migration

Tony Blair has defended Labour’s controversial mass immigration policy by claiming that Britain cannot succeed unless it opens its borders to more people from different backgrounds.

The former prime minister said it was ‘right’ that the country was made up of different cultures and faiths mixing together.
Mr. Blair added that migrants had made Britain ‘stronger’ and said those calling for greater curbs on foreigners entering the country were wrong.

His comments come just days after official figures revealed that the population is expected to soar by the equivalent of a city the size of Leeds every year for the next decade.

A defiant Mr. Blair insisted his party’s policy on immigration was the right one. He said: ‘It’s been a very positive thing and there is no way for a country like Britain to succeed in the future unless it is open to people of different colours, faiths and cultures.’

While the Mail article succeeds in its obvious aim of getting the readers stoked up (almost 600 overwhelmingly hostile comments so far) it fails to add any real context or search for greater meaning, taking the opportunity to slag off Tony Blair being apparently an end in itself.

But, we perhaps we need to probe a little deeper ...


Posted by Dan Dare on Sunday, October 30, 2011 at 03:51 PM in ImmigrationLiberalism & the Left
Comments (17) | Tell-a-Friend

Mid-nineteenth-century German racial moralism

Der Struwwelpeter is one of the most famous German children’s books.  Written in 1844 by Heinrich Hoffmann, it consists of 10 illustrated rhyming stories, most of which depict children being subjected to fantastic punishment for misbehaviour.  One such story is “Die Geschichte von den schwarzen Buben” (The Story of the Black Boys).  In it, 3 boys are punished by St. Nicholas for teasing a negro kid passing the city gates.  What follows is my translation of the German.  It might sound a bit awkward, but I wanted to keep as much of the original meaning as possible (the English translation changes the story somewhat).


Posted by Dasein on Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 01:07 PM in Anti-racism and white genocideHistoryLiberalism & the Left
Comments (21) | Tell-a-Friend

Violence of the Left

by Christian Miller ©

Most violence and violent rhetoric is leftist in origin.  As the left has a firm grip on the reins of mainstream media, it should come as no surprise that the right is the scapegoat for the sins of the left.  The irony is that the left is guilty of what its favorite leftist psychologist, Sigmund Freud, coined “projection.”  The left denies its own violent actions and rhetoric and instead ascribes it to its chief political opposition - the right.  The left projects its own violent tendencies upon the right through extensive use of media propaganda.  “Right-wingers” are immediately blamed for any outburst of random violence perpetrated by isolated and disturbed individuals, yet the entire history of leftist aggression, angry rhetoric, and physical violence is swept into the dustbin of history.  Leftist riots, leftist terrorists, leftist serial bombers, leftist calls for genocide - all of these sink down the memory hole, purposefully eclipsed by a barrage of stories about right-wing violence.  Reality is quite different.

Worldwide, the left-wing forces of communism are responsible for more than 100 million civilian deaths in the Twentieth Century.  Russia, Romania, Yugoslavia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and other communist-controlled nations became killing fields in the name of social progress - a favorite term of the left.  America mistakenly believes that Marxism and leftism largely died with the fall of the Soviet Union, but the parasite merely changed hosts.

In the dawn of the new century, the American left and incognito left - neoconservatives who infiltrated the Republican Party to subvert it toward leftist ideas - pounded war drums that led to the second invasion of Iraq.  The mainstream media conveniently places the blame for this war upon the right, covering up the fact that neoconservative ideology is merely leftism in strategic disguise.  The neoconservative infiltrators of the Republican Party were the catalyst for the second invasion of Iraq and these leftists-in-disguise were aided and abetted by most mainstream leftists in government and media.  The elite leftist press and Democratic Party politicians were firmly in favor of invading Iraq.  Combined with their neoconservative compatriots at the spear’s point, there seemed to be a “consensus” regarding Iraq - but few understood that it was a leftist consensus.  Nation-building, foreign intervention, and pre-emptive war are not genuine conservative values.  They are the hallmarks of a leftist, a person who wishes to impose ideologies upon the rest of the population by force, all in the name of “progress.


Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 at 06:08 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

Liberals and obedience - Updated 08.01.11

The two dominant racial stories currently on the Daily Mail website are the pursuit and stabbing of Nicholas Pearton in South London by six negro gang-members and the lift from The Times about the “tidal wave” of Muslim grooming of white girls in the North.  They are both very emotive stories.  They are both completely ignored by the left-wing press and the BBC.  Google has removed all links to the original Times story and the Daily Mail version.  It is completely clear that white lives do not mean anything to the people involved in those decisions.  What does matter is the progress of the MultiCult.  At all human costs, if those humans are white.

Now, I think it unlikely that all or even very many of the journalists and editors involved are Chosen.  They are white liberals.  The political malice and detachment from reality, the evident unwillingness to comprehend that but for honesty and responsibility among journalists like themselves these terrible events and thousands of others like them might never have happened ... all that belongs to the liberal mind.  My question is: how did that mind come to this vile and complicitous estate?  How did it arrive not just at the point where it is content that the lives of hundreds of young girls and their families be ruined and young boys be murdered, but where it actually chooses it as a preferred outcome?  Consistently, over a period of years?

I don’t have a real answer.  But here are what seem to me to be a few clues.

1. Psychologically, the willingness to submit strangers to harm is associated with an exaggerated respect for authority.  The Milgram experiments of the early 1960s demonstrated exactly this.  Liberalism in its philosophical conception was a retort to the power of the Catholic Church, and it retains the teleological essentials of religion.  Indeed, its ultimate meaning is the replacement of God with Man the Creator.  The liberal is a religious.  Would he not, then, invest his politics with religious authority, and find therein the need for a religious obedience?

2. The very essence of obedience is the objectification of one’s own role as an instrument of authority, rather than as a fully human being responsible for his own choices.  The liberal no doubt believes he is only “following orders” to do good, and if one day he is brought before due process that is exactly what he will plead.

3. We observe liberals projecting loathing onto others on a daily basis.  Projection is obviously a significant factor in the psychology of the liberal.  It is also very apparent to us that liberals, in their desire to demonstrate their doctrinal purity, can be extravagant in their denial of humanity to their own people, as well as their approbation of it in others.  How difficult can it be, then, for these people to view white children as objects of no account?

4. Not every person has the right psychological profile to inflict harm in this mechanical way upon other people.  It seems likely to me that part of that profile must involve a strong capacity for self-delusion.  We, of course, are well aware that the radical, self-authorial individualism which energises liberal politics is a fiction.  Yet I have encountered scores of ordinary, little liberalistic people who insist on their own peerless sovereign individualism.  They are fooling themselves, every one.

By contrast, nationalists have to hack their own truths out of the political rocks, and withstand the gale of ideological hatred while they do it.  They are genuinely independent of mind (as well as often quite eccentric).  They tend to argue a great deal with one another too - something liberals are not noted for.

That’s about it.  It aggravates my soul that there are people in this world who would conspire to remove news about negro youths and Pakistani males for the sake of white dispossession.  That they have the power to do it, too, is almost too much.  Sometime someone is going to have to pay.



Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 08:40 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (277) | Tell-a-Friend

An unexpected email from the BBC Moderation Team

Dear Have Your Say contributor,

Thank you for contributing to a Have Your Say debate. Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your content below.

Posts to the BBC website may be removed if they are considered abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, disablist, homophobic or racially offensive, or disruptive to discussion. For more information, please visit

You can read the House Rules in full here:

Please do not reply to this email. For information on appeals visit

Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.


The BBC Moderation Team

URL of content (now removed):

Subject: Should schools teach pupils about the dangers of weapons?

Posting: If we cannot even be honest enough with ourselves to acknowledge on the BBC that gun and knife crime is substantially a pathology of black youths, how on earth can we do anything about it?

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, November 1, 2010 at 07:59 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (16) | Tell-a-Friend

Why the left is finished, in microcosm

In short, it is no longer even capable of honestly confronting the massive problems that it’s creating nor can it make due on its many promises.  It is characterized by cowardice, exhaustion, and fear.  The Sword of Damocles is starting to wobble a bit.

But we’re only going to consider this in microcosm right now, which means - yes - another clip from

Comes now Mr. Adam Serwer who is a young and up-and-coming lefty that writes for The American Prospect, I believe he is Jewish with a shade of Black blood - a real man for our time.  His interlocutor is Mrs. Amy Wax who is here to discuss with Adam her new book, “Race, Wrongs, and Remedies”.  And here is where things get interesting, Mrs. Wax happens to be a liberal who is really concerned about the hopelessly dysfunctional state of the American underclass (both Black and Hispanic), she is worried that their situation is quickly going from bad to worse and that we - the collective liberal elite - have abandoned these people.  Of course, she is right; the liberal elite have abandoned these people because they don’t give a damn about them, the colored underclass is just a voting farm and an object to be manipulated for the left’s benefit.

But they are a growing problem, and I think Mrs. Wax senses that we can’t continue to ignore their dysfunctionality forever because, well, eventually we won’t be able to.

Mr. Serwer - the future of the left and a man for our time - is having none of this, with his gaze always shifted to the side he spits out the standard retorts and the mindless babble that passes for conventional thinking.  Mrs. Wax won’t have any of it in return, which means an entertaining spectacle for the likes of us is about to take place.  Enjoy.

Mr. Serwer is, for me, just another piece of evidence for why the left is finished and exhausted.

Posted by Notus Wind on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 12:42 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (90) | Tell-a-Friend

Religion of the end of suffering: no fucking brownie points!

by PF

Nietzsche said that after euroman lost Christianity, he would go searching for other things.  Big N propounded the Overman as a conduit for his effort, dreaming, and aspirations.

In the West we had less teleological furore to become an archetype of greatness and accomplishment, I think it was Germany’s scatteredness, comparative powerlessness and unsuccessful self-assertion that kept these fires burning so brightly there.  But in the west we had the beginnings of a different kind of cult: the religion of the end of suffering.  Its a kind of noblesse oblige which, as best I can imagine, began to form in western Europe after it had become clear that we had ‘beaten the game’ - i.e. enjoyed centuries of technological and cultural flowering.

It coincides with man turning inward, and a forward development in sensibility. The question is posed if a society can concentrate on these things without losing its ability to weaponize, etc.  Its an open and many-sided question.

But there is no doubt that we have an incipient religion which is the religion of the end of suffering.  According to this religion, the bounty of white sociobiology and technological progress should be not just used but used up, if required, to heal the ills of everyone.

The belief is that suffering is unnecessary and has no place in the world, that it has no lesson to teach us.  Suffering is “a wrong outcome” and is just that: simply wrong.  Starving in Africa?  Wrong.  People not able to afford things which you view as being prerequisites of human existence?  Wrong.  People living with a lower living standard than you could tolerate?  Wrong.  Disease?  So wrong.  Dying children?  Utterly wrong.

To me the arrogance of it is pretty breathtaking since, to my mind, suffering is a part of life that is as meaningful and has as much to teach us as happiness does.  Potentially much more.  Suffering is a lesson for man.

But rather than critique, I just want to hold up for your perusal one of the most beautiful expressions of this religion.  It is Pink Floyd’s song On the Turning Away:


Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, October 5, 2010 at 07:17 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (37) | Tell-a-Friend

The Struggle for Struggle-Cred

by PF

White Nerd: You know, I really like rap music, because the singer is talking about his struggle. And I really identify with that. Like, I have my own struggle, you know, each of us has our own struggle.

Black security guard: Struggle? What do you know about struggle?

White Nerd: Like my struggle to fit in with my peers, find out what I want to do with my life, find companionship, get out of my parent’s control, etc.

Black security guard: You call that a struggle? How can you call that a struggle?

White Nerd: What do you mean?

Black security guard: You know what a struggle is, not having enough money to have a new pair of shoes.

White Nerd: um ...

Black: Finding out your baby sister just got knocked-up by a crack head!

White: uh ...

Black: Growing up not knowing who you’re daddy is! Thats a struggle!

White: ull ...

Black: Havin’ your mom killed by a drug dealer when you was two! Thats what a struggle is!

White: uff ...

Black: Every day hearing shots and not being sure, if your friends is out there dyin’! Thats a struggle!

White: utt ...

Black: What’choo want to tell me about a struggle? What’choo know about a struggle?

White: udd ...

Black: You means to tell me, when you’se in your pretty white house, that you sometimes ride around in your nice car, and feel sad about yourself, because you’ daddy didn’t understand you? Is you sad because your friends don’t understand you? Is that your struggle?

White: urr ...

Black: Cuz let me tell ya somethin’ son, that aint’ nothin’.

- End of fake discussion -


Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, August 2, 2010 at 06:18 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (26) | Tell-a-Friend

Imprinting, upbringing, and genes for child-raising

by PF

This is a question, open-ended, for your consideration, stemming from debates with liberal friends ...

A recurring picture-argument is that of the possibility of a universal Renaissance, conditioned on the possibility that all people everywhere get a middle-class white upbringing. Essentially this scheme would graft onto the private lives of numberless ghetto-dwellers the kind of nurturing, loving, book-reading childhood enjoyed by upwardly-mobile middle class whites. This is justified because the liberal formulating the argument understands that patterns of behavior are given their first impetus by parents when the child is young. That component of non-genetic variation which is formed by imprinting in childhood is the wiggle-room they need to make everyone theoretically conformable to European standards of behavior.

A person adept at truth search would have to detect in themselves, were they to find themselves arguing in this way, the existence of a cherished hypothesis beating a hasty retreat into a shadowy corner of plausibility where its premises can evade inspection ... for the moment. Realizing that one cherished a hypothesis, which is a sin in the truth search, one would have to take steps to remedy it. But since our liberal friends might not be tainted by that degree of enthusiasm, we have to encounter this argument on its own terms and not point out how suspiciously it resembles certain things you might have learned to recognize from elsewhere ...

Its not clear which entity would ‘reach in’ at the appropriate time to prevent the inappropriate behavior while the non-whites are being upbring-ated. Who would shop for them, and choose healthy groceries? Who would prevent the Dad from drinking? Who would prevent the mother from spending 20+ hours watching television? Who would allocate the spending of money which resulted in enough money being left over for cultural events such as attending art museums? Who would attend to the thousand little details (time allotted? car keys? everyone present? enough gas? directions?) which in the absence of real motivation to go to the art museum, give birth to myriad rationalizations about why it need not happen. In the absence of the DNA-sprung desire to see art, explore and understand the world, who would explain to the children the context of what was being seen, and tie it into a larger narrative emerging from adult experience and knowledge? Who would prompt the natively-uninterested person to bring up the same issues later at the dinner table, sustaining a living interest in what had been experienced? Are government entities going to do this? Individual concerned citizens?


Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 08:13 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

Moral matrix expansion

by Potential Frolic

Perhaps morality consists in individual rules or Sententiae stored somewhere in the mind. These would be abstract image-calculation algorithms, where one plugs in the images of other people and things to get the result. Then again perhaps morality consists in matrices containing perspectives of other people with whom one is close. We could imagine a matrix like this:

father, mother, sister, brother, friend1, friend2, teacher, neighbor1, neighbor2, neighbor3 ... etc, etc.

Each item in the matrix represents a perspective that one has acquired or modeled; the word ‘modeling’ reflects accurately the action but implies more consciousness than the matrix-former actually possesses. A more accurate term might be “absorbing other people’s evaluations”. Each perspective contains a list of weighted evaluations of things. Father’s evaluations of doing drugs may be -5, but friend1’s evaluation of doing drugs is +0.5 and friend2’s is 2.5, so friends may prevail with a young person to try drugs. When the young person inhabiting this matrix makes a decision about whether to try drugs, they cross-check each perspective in the matrix for evaluations and arrive at some form of weighted average, which guides their behavior.


Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 05:12 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

Linda Carty, the Reprieve lie machine, and the bleeding heart of Clive Stafford Smith

by Alexander Baron

An obscure if somewhat bizarre murder case from the State of Texas is back in the news, and the bleeding heart liberals are banging the drum again, this time for a convicted murderess who is facing execution by lethal injection.

Surprisingly, though Linda Carty is black, her principal supporters haven’t quite played the race card; they have though overplayed their hand with an endless stream of half-truths and bland acceptance of demonstrable lies. Carty’s case has garnered a great deal of unwarranted publicity in the UK and has been endorsed uncritically by the mass media because she is said to be a British citizen, a claim that is true only in a purely technical sense. Her supporters have played a tape of her begging for her life, and a cardboard cut out of her was erected on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square during the recent innovative living artwork exhibition. Those like the current writer who have longer memories, suspicious minds and a reluctance to take the top fifty Google listings at face value, will be less than impressed.

According to an article on Reprieve’s website, to which its director, campaigning lawyer Clive Stafford Smith contributed, it’s all down to her incompetent lawyer, a flawed trial and a frame-up, if not by the authorities then by the actual perpetrators. Carty was convicted of the murder of a young mother who was bound, gagged, and stuffed in the boot of a car (that’s the trunk to US readers). The evidence shows clearly that the death of Joana Rodriguez was not an unfortunate accident – which might just have reduced it to second degree murder or even manslaughter - it was an intentional and cruel act. Unlike her, Carty’s co-defendants – whom she had tricked into the kidnapping – were interested only in stealing drugs and money from the apartment the victim shared with her common law husband and his cousin.

Sally Rowan of Reprieve wrote:

If Texas go ahead with her execution, Linda will die because she had a bad lawyer, and because the British Government was not given the chance to help her at a time when it could have made a difference.

Yes, that bad lawyer again, but why should the State of Texas allow the British Government to dictate to it how it should run its criminal justice system - even if the British Government were so minded?

So what exactly are Carty and her supporters claiming?


Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, March 7, 2010 at 06:39 PM in Liberalism & the Left

A reply to Ozy

My reply on the liberal mind thread to our Guardianista OZKT29B - henceforth called Ozy courtesy of Captainchaos - grew rather long.  There is a 5,000 character limit on comments, so I thought I would make a new post of it instead.  Ozy’s last comment, to which I was responding, is here.


I was happy to follow Lord Arlen’s example and allow you to strike the very first blow.  The meat of the conversation, though, will now be on the worth of the beliefs you hold.

You write:

You are perpetuating the narrative that any thought that isn’t extremely marginal is, in fact, sheep-like and unconscious.

Our racial thoughts and instincts are the racial thoughts and instincts of the people.  They are no more marginal than is human nature itself.  But there is a powerful conflict between human nature and liberalism in the West.  Liberalism, in the broadest sense, is the controlling idea of our age.  Every person of European descent is enculturated in it, and enculturated thereby in conflict with their own racial thoughts and instincts.

Nationalist philosophy is not at all a formative factor on the psychological landscape.  To come to nationalism, then, you must, at some level, realise that your entire understanding of not just politics or even ideas, but life in general, including the acquired part of the Self, has been unconsciously absorbed, and all life long you have defended the result quite unconsciously too - just as you are defending it today.

We are not born with the power to choose the influences we absorb.  We walk out in the rain, that is all.  Freedom - the real thing, not the liberal confection - consists in recognising this unconsciousness, this power of the acquired, and turning instead towards that which is true in us.  Many of us here know this.  I think it highly unlikely that you know it.

So ... I am not “perpetuating” any narratives.  I am trying to bring you, as quickly as possible, to the beginnings of the understanding that, so far in your life, you have not owned the formative processes of your own mind.  Not only, then, are you not free but you cannot be free, regardless of the “liberty” in the liberalism you espouse.

We can discuss in detail what passes for freedom in the liberal canon later.


Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 08:30 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (122) | Tell-a-Friend

The closing of the liberal mind

These days my relationship with the moderators of Comment is Free - Matt Seaton’s censorious defenders of the Guardian faithful - is in a bad way.  They know someone who means to cause their poor lambs ideological pain is out there.  They don’t like it, and they have their knives out.

Of course they are right.  I don’t log-on to engage with their flock in the spirit of fraternal Semitism and peace to all men and man-hating dykes that they intend.  Originally, CiF provided an opportunity to test our arguments against the little clutch of undeniably good minds that frequented it.  And one or two profitable and educational exchanges were had, for sure.  But the good minds grew weary and the moderators wary.  The immoderation began with a noticeable narrowing of the discourse perhaps a year ago.  References to the meaning for the English of miscegenation were excised more swiftly.  The meaning of minoritisation followed.  Lately the notion of ultimate and proximate values has gone too.  That and the terms “race-replacement” and “left-racism” are no more than invitations to the trigger-happy guardians of ideological purity.  The notion that the English have the same natural right as any other people to pass their ancestral land onto their own children seems to be too unimpeachable to delete.  For now.  But just this afternoon the perfectly respectable idea that violence in society enters at the most formative level of the common conception of the human, if that conception is partial, was deemed too offensive for the ba-bas.  Fifteen minutes of my writer’s life was wasted for nothing.

Give them their due, Matt’s boys have become ever more creative in interpreting the house rules to fit their agenda.  There are threads on which they memory-hole comments by the dozen, as often as not where the lead article has been ghosted for a government minister.  From my experience, the great majority of deletions also result in the ultimate sanction in red just about the comment box: “oh yea, further offence shall ne’er stain this temple of false middle-class virtues.  Thou art modded.”


Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, January 25, 2010 at 09:18 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (117) | Tell-a-Friend

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

SunShine commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 04/22/14, 11:02 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 06:18 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 06:12 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 05:43 PM. (go) (view)

Desmond Jones commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 04:26 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Elitism, secrecy, deception … the way to save white America?' on 04/22/14, 03:45 PM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 02:53 PM. (go) (view)

Carolus commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 02:07 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 02:00 PM. (go) (view)

Thorn commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 12:32 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 09:58 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 08:04 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 04:08 AM. (go) (view)

Carolus commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 08:44 PM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 08:36 PM. (go) (view)

Arch Hades commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 08:12 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 07:56 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 07:38 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 07:14 PM. (go) (view)

Simo Häyhä commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 06:28 PM. (go) (view)

Simo Häyhä commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 06:23 PM. (go) (view)

Septimius Severus commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 06:02 PM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 05:53 PM. (go) (view)

Goybbels commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 05:44 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 04:59 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 04:39 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 04:11 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 04:04 PM. (go) (view)

Ereignis commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 03:34 PM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 03:28 PM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 03:02 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 02:06 PM. (go) (view)

Ereignis commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 01:47 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 11:46 AM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 10:52 AM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.


Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media


Controlled Opposition






Nationalist Political Parties


Whites in Africa