Category: That Question Again
It’s a shame that Tan would say that I’m “not using my brain”.. “don’t have my thoughts organized clearly” and then take an idea that I have clearly organized and advanced for some time, and promote it on the Hitler worshiping “Renegade Network”, saying that he has this idea that our objectivity has given us advantages but also susceptibilities.
On the topic of genocide vs suicide he has an informative discussion but it is a false either/or in that MacDonald is not taking his eye off of Jewish power and influence and arguing “suicide” by examining our own susceptibilities (nor am I arguing White suicide).
Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide
Tan quotes (from a post that KM put on TOO!):
“That’s not suicide”
I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews mixed in, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or even somehow impressive as a physical specimen.
I used a strategy of walking near them while not looking at them directly, saying loudly, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, giving it to an ape!”
The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.
It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. It would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence. He has insisted, and so do I insist, that Whites can be brainwashed by the Jews media and academia.... lets add religion, law, politics, business procedures and financing.
I hear Tan referring to my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.
Objectivism, which has appeal by yielding some spectacular practical results and insights, powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - because one can “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments on even such obvious differences.
That’s called “rational blindness” and this relative blindness to our subjective position and interests is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism.
Rational blindness can blind us to our involvement, indebtedness and accountability to our people’s interests and other people’s impositions. Scientists can famously be dupes to Manichean trickery for the habit of this Augustinian mindset. (* I remember a former MR regular who, rather than request an explanation which I would have readily provided, tried to suggest that I was being pompous and deliberately obscure with these terms: Manichean - human challenges which can change when solved in order to trick an adversary, Augustinian - natural challenges which do not change when solved just to trick you again; how does Kol Nidre versus science grab you?).
As GW would advocate with his ontology project, we have got to understand our own nature as well.
Or has KM fallen into disfavor because he does not think AH and revisionism are the royal road to White salvation?
I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.
I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat (as if we are not aware of the shenanigans of Lawrence Auster, et.al).
In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul.
But he doesn’t see how the Nazis, and his over-sympathy for them, have him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization is pure, removed from cause and interactive conflict.
Evidently, right-wing WN interest to make the Jews the “only problem”, to where they would even denounce MacDonald for looking at our role in the interaction, is a motivation of those who want desperately to redeem Uncle Adolf and completely disprove the holocaust, blind and oblivious to the fact that those tasks are unnecessary and largely counter-productive to pursue.
No, the key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right vs relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by The White Left.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 25, 2015 at 01:46 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Libertarianism, Linguistics, No particular place to go, That Question Again, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism
Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct.
Anti-Racism is Cartesian.
These are both sound aphorisms: either could be a “mantra”, with a caveat regarding mantras - that for best effect they will have to be used with discretion, changed sometimes and crafted on account of context and audience. Such is the judgement and deft rhetoric required of Praxis as opposed to the plodding imperviousness of scientism.
The two aphorisms can go well together:
Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is Not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people. Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.
The essential abstract of “race” is taxonomic classification of peoples. Locke’s Cartesian notion of civil individual rights took issue with discrimination based on social classifications. For their ethnocentric reasons, Jews weaponized this anti-classification and anti-discrimination by Whites on the basis of social classifications as “anti-racism.”
That is what it is in essence. It is true that the Jews have associated “racism” with supremacism, exploitation and genocide; but even taking away those elements, the common denominator of prohibition of discrimination based on social classifications, however benign, remains - as “racism.” Thus, David Duke is wrong (theory is not his strong suit) to campaign against “racism.” While that will gain popularity with the disingenuous and puerile, in so doing, he is reconstructing the liberal hegemony and its stigmatization of social classification for genetically conservative and discriminatory purposes. Moreover, classifications will happen whether they are acknowledged, deliberate or not, but we are much better-off rendering them consciously - as these classifications are essential to accountability and human ecological management.
Fat boy’s mantra is good too:
Whitaker’s, “Anti-racism” is a code-word for anti-White” will be effective in many instances, but in other cases will run into complications: in some cases, it will come across as a dead-ringer for subjective concern; a request for a definition of “White” can ruin the effect; it has also been criticized for having liberal underpinnings in its long form, which is true. Still, a good one if it takes into account context and audience.
Sometimes it is best to avoid the consternation of the J.Q. but rather undermine (as Cartesian disingenuousness) the underlying coup de grâce of “racism” and “anti-racism” by itself. At times, this will be even more problematic for Jews to contend with (why do you think I am so unpopular?).
Tanstaafl’s proposition of naming it a Jewish construct is important too and good to do where the audience is only slightly less primed. Because active anti-racism, as opposed to the mere “prejudice against prejudice” is, indeed, a Jewish construct. No argument.
You wouldn’t want to cut-down a rain forest would you? Then why would you want to cut-down ancient peoples of Europe?
This next one is somewhat harder to sell, but it has been a relief to me as a personal mantra and probably would be for other men as well:
To men, miscegenating women are as rapists are to women. They should be ostracized as a minimum punishment and in no way should their mixed offspring be able to participate in the resources of European men - as it makes our men servants to the worst betrayers of our 41,000 years of genetic evolution.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 04:46 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Free Speech, Journalism, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, That Question Again, White Nationalism
Jack Sen at The London Forum:
Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 18, 2015 at 03:41 PM in British Politics, European Union, Far Right, Global Elitism, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Libertarianism, Political analysis, That Question Again
The interview is quite a long one by our standards, but I believe it is entertaining and informative throughout.
Given that no-one seems to conceptually acknowledge the dark side (so to speak) of inclusive fitness theory it perhaps undermines the creditability of those that wish to make broad political points using inclusive fitness theory as to (1) do they actually fully understand the theory and (2) do they understand how excess competition effectively removes relatedness from the picture (siblings killing siblings is perfectly optimal within many animal species from the point of view of the victorious Sib).
Given that fitness within social evolution can be derived from both the individual level and the group level (note all evolutionary change concerns changes in alleles and their frequencies) as demonstrated by Hamilton and Price’s work (and Steve Frank etc) in hierarchical selection theory how do these insights relate to political economy?
For example, if we take Aristotle seriously than any polis must be a balance between the parts and the whole (individuals and the group) what mechanism can be used to discourage ‘free-riding’ and self-serving perfidy by our own indigenous elites? Accountability to the groups interests seems lacking in contemporary Western life.
If Europeans are so ‘individuated’ - uniquely so? - why is it that only a few centuries ago that Celts, Nordic people etc were so tribal and ultra-communitarian in their cultures. Why the stark difference in pre-modern pagan social ontology compared to the ontology of liberal modernity. Given the relatively short time frame any explanation based upon changes in gene frequency would seem analytically bankrupt. The Greeks also had a more communitarian social-ontology (Sparta anyone?, Aristotle and virtue ethics etc).
Given the social ontology of liberal modernity (massive ideological emphasis on individ- uals and individualism) what type of personalities and psychological traits succeed within such a environment? If all human interactions are viewed through the prism of individual competition is that healthy or wise for the long term sustainability of the group (one could speak here too of free-riding and the slow accumulation of toxic ‘externalities’ cultural, environmental, social etc generated by liberal modernity which in short term benefit certain individuals but at the longer term determent of everyone).
Given that all political societies are ultimately about power and power relationships (see Carl Schmidt), and that power is always open to abuse, a high degree of relatetedness/ homogeneity/ social capital is by itself not enough. What mechanism of elite accountability and social cohesion are possible and necessary?
If denied the siblicide point, then why are civil wars so vicious and nasty (often the worst)? Higher levels of relatedness (on average) didn’t stop Englishmen, or Irishmen from utterly hateful behaviour towards their brothers during civil wars…
By Lasha Darkmoon, April 18, 2015
It is now only too clear that Americans have lost their country. The Jews are our masters and we are their slaves. What can we do about it?
An abridged adaption by Lasha Darkmoon of a recent article by Video Rebel.
9/11 finally revealed to us the extraordinary chutzpah of our Jewish masters.
That the Israelis did 9/11 with the help of Jewish collaborators in PNAC and AIPAC has become all too apparent to the cognoscenti. The hidden criminality behind this event has been cleverly covered up by our Jewish owned media.
9/11 was a definite declaration of war against America by Israel.
The Israelis wired World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition. Tower 7 was never struck by a plane. Yet it fell down in 6.5 seconds.
The BBC was told by the Rothschild-owned Reuters news agency that WTC 7 had collapsed an hour before it did. America was still on Daylight Savings Time but Britain had just left Summer Time, so a confused BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 fully 24 minutes before it happened in New York.
Knowing that your government can kill the President and blow up buildings with Americans inside, as in Oklahoma City and in New York, helps to restrain hostile criticism of the government. People are nervous and say to themselves, “If they can kill 3000 innocent Americans for Israel and get away with it, what chance do I have?”
9/11 unleashed America’s “War on Terror” against various Muslim countries unable to accept direct invasion and conquest by Israel. This was America doing Israel’s dirty work for it. Israel claims all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. The War on Terror is simply a process allowing Jews to gain control of non-Jewish lands.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 12:17 PM in 9/11, Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Political analysis, Popular Culture, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, War on Terror, White Nationalism, World Affairs
In this third and penultimate part of my essay on the Rotherham Syndrome I am going to expand on the disconnection between philosophy (and philosophically-derived politics) and thinking that comes out of ethnic or racial conflict. In particular, I will focus on the dynamics of absolutism and its ascription of human value.
A petty history
A few years ago I came across the story, I think in a television history, of the last civilian to be hanged in the Third Reich. I don’t remember his name. I cannot find a link to the story on-line, so I hope I have it right. But my memory is that this unfortunate man was a resident of a small south-western German town which lay in the path of the advancing US Army. I suppose it must have been early- to mid-April 1945.
The war was already lost, of course. That knowledge had been building among the people since the defeat at Stalingrad and Goebbel’s Sportspalast Speech of 18 February 1943 (which changed the tone of the propaganda from a war of conquest to one of national survival). The general thrall to a military dictator and the whole mesmerising, deceitful dream of German greatness and glory was dissolving in the acid of the military reality. By April 1945, with the Allies fighting on German soil, the general will of German civilians would have been for the killing and destruction to be brought to an end, and for Germany to find its way into whatever future was available to it. But the Allies were only interested in complete and unconditional surrender. Every last German town would fall, this little one included. This was not going to be where the Allies would first be held and then pushed back.
Far from the purview of European / American men were two conceptual weapons which could be alternated arbitrarily, wielded in an instant by feminists (or wielded similarly and unwittingly by neo-traditional women, for that matter), as equipped with the cynicism of these memes to dismiss, in either case, recourse to two profoundly important European moral orderings.
Most significantly, one weapon was to deride Europe’s natural Aristotlean morality, its observation of optimality and relationships as central to human nature, and another to destroy the propositions and principles initiated by the likes of Kant to gird, e.g., against arbitrary vicissitudes of empirical philosophy being taken too far – but in either case, the weapons distinguish females (including White females, of course) as having a separate moral order not beholden to White men and thus not beholden to Europeans as a system with shared social, moral capital and human ecology of millennia.
Deep within the wallowing abyss of de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”, its talk of “sacred ministry of betrayal” feeding extant dissatisfactions in females, lurked these weapons - far out of the casual purview of White men to apprehend from whence came what hit them and what it was about.
Betty Friedan (1963), with the modernist, “she’s just like one of the boys and, if liberated to participate, may do-so as an equal” approach to feminism, was the preeminent figure in the second wave of feminism; she took as her point of departure this line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”
My hunch that was her source inspiration is borne-out through multiple connections.
Carol Gilligan (1982), with the neo-traditional angle focusing on qualitative differences of females, but still within the feminist framework, also took a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure - 1948, Page 681: “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”
My observation that this was the source for Gilligan was confirmed by Helen Haste, a colleague of Gilligan’s at Harvard.
While there are other significant non-Jewish feminists, forebears besides de Beauvoir, it is true that de Beauvoir’s feminist philosophy has roots in Marx’s notion that marriage and patriarchy are veritable slavery - women’s “liberation requires that these institutions be overturned, a revolutionary act corresponding to liberation of all.”
The situation was made ripe for exploitation and runaway by the logical extension of modernity, well-meaning at first as a liberation from mere, but harmful traditions and superstitions, it ran rough-shod and ruptured accountable social classification – their utility naivly or disingenuously pushed-aside in favor of the objectivist scientism of Lockeatine civil rights, objectivist neo-liberal capitalism, and seized upon in distortion by “neo-cons”, but not before these wielded “objectivist” rights were fundamentally weaponized and reversed in form against Whites, by Jews, Marxists re-deploying these ideas in the form of “anti-racism” and “civil rights” - discrimination against Whites and the prohibition of discrimination by White men.
Underpinning susceptibility to this all along was their saboteurs ticking time-bomb - liberal affectation planted into European culture and becoming more deeply embedded over 2,000 years; viz., in contrast to the exclusivity of Jews, (as GW notes) Judeo-Christianity’s propositional altercast as undifferentiated gentiles in the eyes of god, to include any race in its moral order, and the disordering effect of modernity to traditional European moral orders was virtually a necessary consequence.
With racial bounds broken but classification still necessary to human perceptual organ- ization, the least ignorable categories emerged in de facto high relief and resonance – gender being one of them. Within the disorder the female one-up position in partner selection (don’t think so? she’ll call upon the goon squad to show you who is boss) emerged with increased significance, whereupon they are pandered-to from males of every direction and most importantly, cynically and cunningly, by Jews, of course, to betray their co-evolutionary males. With White men vilified thus and White females pandered-to constantly, even puerile White females become articulate, over- confident, correspondingly under-empathetic, sometimes brazen with self righteous entitlement and prerogative.
Jewish interests can take advantage of this; demoralize their adversaries by pandering to their co-evolutionary females in this position and the atavistic denominator of the disorder; for marked example, by promoting the high contrast tropism of White/black mixing –blacks being the other category hardest to ignore despite prohibition on class- ifications –while the prohibition of discrimination leaves the more protracted rate of maturity of White men susceptible to the more episodic, atavistic assertion of blacks.
Professor Pearce (with Rossi) might add that within the paradoxic performance requirements of feminism there is nothing even a well-intentioned male can do if a feminist wishes to put him in the wrong: If he treats her as one of boys, then he may be construed as a male chauvinist pig, who does not respect the special quality of her gender. If he treats her with deference to the special qualities of her gender, he can be construed as a condescending patriarch and/or a wimp who does not respect her agency, autonomy and independence.
The situation is only going to be perpetuated by a paradoxic (really, “quaradoxic”) phenomenon that Whites are prone to be up against, what I call the charmed loop of didactic incitement: This does require that sufficient power is brought to bear against Whites, but it is a likely predicament given social injunctions against discriminatory social classifications rendered by White men and the heavily pandered-to one-up position of females within the disorder of modernity; along with its exponentially more powerfully positioned puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition.
In this essay I will re-tell the story of how I began to understand and organize gender relations at the intersection of race and individualism in order to diagnose attendant problems and prescribe corrections. I will make refinements with what I have learned since initial instantiations of this hypothesis. I feel compelled to make this case again as there are popular sites in WN which are taking on the issue and I do not trust them to handle it well. For very specific reasons I have long held that there should be a platform for White men/males that both advocates them and is critical of female predilections, inclinations, politics. This will start out with a critical tone, as it is necessary to get to critical parts right away, but there is a happy ending for both genders.
In my first renderings of this hypothesis, I took Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (which he also referred-to as a hierarchy of motives), as a preliminary framework in need of correction. That remains a particularly useful point of departure for a working hypothesis to address problems: of where and how individualism, peoples’ predica- ment within modernity and incommensurate gender relations may be exacerbated and pandered-to; whether by hostile interests (e.g., YKW) or indifferent interests (e.g. naive or disingenuous objectivist/relativists, neo-liberals); thereby rupturing racial bounds which could otherwise facilitate systemic homeostasis; instead runaway and reflexive reversals is perpetuated -e.g., “the dark side of self actualization.”
But rather than merely accept them, the proposition here is that we recognize them, take them to heart and work with them instead of against them.
For good reasons, I took Maslow as the preliminary framework against which to propose corrections (will explain momentarily). Neither is it necessary to discard the diagnosis of toxicity in this model of higher needs being founded in hierarchical succession upon maximal fulfillment of more fundamental needs, particularly as it has played-out in - and been an influence of - the pop-culture of European-American relations; nor is it necessary to alter its proposed general correction of taking attendance to needs and motives into a circulating process based on the Aristotlean recommendation of optimal levels of need satisfaction and the centrality of human concern for relations.
Unlike Maslow’s terms for the constituent needs, I have ever (since the early 90s) proposed four terms (the number of four terms are taken for reasons that I will explain) in place of the terms that he uses in this hierarchy –
Posted by DanielS on Friday, April 3, 2015 at 02:19 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Feminism, Marxism & Culture War, Military Matters, Popular Culture, Social liberalism, That Question Again, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics
- By Dr. Graham Lister
Look, I don’t have the time or inclination to point-out the half-baked thinking of MR’s commentators or interviewed guests (if I think them to be in error). Kevin MacDonald can defend himself can he not? After all, if his ideas are completely robust how can he be subject to a ‘humiliation’? All ideas, political, philosophical and scientific, have to be stress-tested in order to investigate their validity. Why anyone is so much of a ‘special snowflake’ that they get an apriori exemption from this process is beyond me.
Now, no-one that’s sane thinks the individual per se can or should be ‘abolished’, but people have very odd and damaging ideas about what ‘the individual’ is and what it represents - such that over the longer term the ideology of ‘individualism’ has extremely deleterious effects as its model of reality is not in alignment with the true social ontology. Human beings, including Europeans, evolved in small, highly social/group orientated bands. It’s really not rocket science to understand that variation in fitness is partitioned into a group element and an individual element (whilst obviously selecting for or against specific alleles and associated phenotypic traits). In fact, such an observation mathematically and logically flows from basic population genetics, which Hamilton went on to describe as ‘inclusive fitness’ and the importance of relatedness to the evolution of behaviour and life history traits (like female biased sex-ratios in the Hymenoptera etc). Price simplified inclusive fitness theory with his work. And it’s developed since. Steven Frank’s book on social evolution is still the best starting point for anyone seriously interested in the topic.
Returning to the politics and philosophy parts of the discussion, Aristotle is my favourite thinker in these areas. First of all, he would suggest that a proper balance between the ‘parts’ and the ‘whole’ (individuals and the group) is necessary for both to fully flourish. There is a mutual interdependence and reciprocity between the two levels of social reality. Secondly, Aristotle would suggest that there may be many ways to live (like being a Lockean liberal perhaps), but many ways to live are ultimately sub- optimal with the goal of full and genuine human flourishing. And this is true at both the individual level and the group level. And yes the interests of a given individual and a given group can be conflict (again this flows from very basic evolutionary biology and the game-theoretic issue of ‘free-riders’). Thus there must be mechanisms for maintaining the health of both individuals and the collective. It starts by the recognition of the fact that the individual is social and utterly dependent upon the collective in numerous ways that liberal ‘individualistic’ ideology willfully ignores.
Ultimately, I reject liberalism as a set of false ideas about the human world - it has the ontology of humans both as individuals and as communities wrong. Bad ideas eventually result in bad consequences and one hopes vice versa. Thus, I am broadly an Aristotelian communitarian. And I think that must incorporate the realities of human nature (groupishness) and our bio-cultural differential status regarding different groups of human beings. Note, it’s a political axis of differences (bio-cultural) that ultimately ends up in the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction, not some bullshit about equality vs inequalities except that I very naturally value my own well being and life more highly than a random stranger’s and I also value the life of my extended community both today and tomorrow (the idea of an intergenerational ‘moral economy’).
Being a non-liberal, I am against cheap all-encompassing forms of universalism or the moral plateau as philosophers call it. Rather I believe in a nested hierarchy of moral responsibility. I have much more moral duties to my own children than my next door neighbour’s kids, let alone some family in China (that of course does not imply I, by default, hate people in China or wish them harm just that I feel I have minimal moral responsibilities towards them). But I do have some properly warranted moral responsibilities to my neighbourhood and my community. Moral responsibility varies with proximity (properly understood).
Roger Scruton writes about a hierarchy of moral responsibility often. Here he speaks about in the context of the absurd (and liberal) idea of ‘animal rights.’
OK, I have previously attempted on many occasions to write about and explain my thoughts on topics such as societal homogeneity and social capital etc. I will not endlessly repeat myself.
As for the idiotic, paranoid reaction by some to my reappearance, it was simply a function of me taking a quick look at MR in a quite moment and seeing folks speculation about my death! And I posted some chucks from an essay I had been reading. I am starting to get to grips with using a tablet and MR as a site isn’t the easiest to use; so out of laziness I didn’t put the comments in quotation marks. Only when someone posted them to the front page as my own did I feel duty-bound to privately point out that fact. But they’re still good points that I agree with about 90%
No coordination with Danny or GW etc. Seeing a conspiracy at every turn is how Jews think - they project onto others their own deeply ingrained mindset. It’s both pathetic and undignified to follow that way of thinking quite so slavishly.
Speaking of slaves, can anyone seriously doubt the USA is a vassal state of Israel? The best superpower money can buy? And yet Americans still persist in their hurbris that they are the model Europeans ‘must’ follow? Look, if KM or indeed anyone else is pushing that as some sort of ‘idea’ they can go fuck themselves. Savvy?
If Mr. Bowery wishes to contribute to MR go for it. Who the fuck cares either way?
Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 07:19 AM in Anthropology, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Political Philosophy, Social liberalism, That Question Again, The American right, The Ontology Project, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Communities & Micro-Economies, White Nationalism
Dr Christian Lindtner, renowned Sanskrit scholar and author of standard reference works on Buddhism and comparative religion, talks to Daniel and GW about his acceptance of the Holocaust as an historical event, and about his latest book, Revelation of Bodhicittam, which uncovers the Pythagorean roots of the New Testament Gospels, and finds the story of Jesus Christ to have been transmitted from earlier Buddhist writings.
Despite The Guilt Trips of World War II (discussed below on the anniversary of Dresden)
Here is an interview request that I sent to Dr. Christian Lindtner on February 12th
Dear Dr. Lindtner,
As producer for Majorityrights.com, I am writing you to inquire as to the possibility of arranging for an interview.
Majority Rights takes a position (secular) regarding Christianity which very much respects your scholarly critique.
Nevertheless, while I am writing you at this email address, my inquiry actually has more to do with a hope to discuss appropriate response to the fall-out of World War II, facts and mythos.
Your videos discussing holocaust revisionism are the most credible on the topic that I have seen. I do not see it as necessary to go-over that same ground in exhaustive detail. My position is that subsequent generations of Germans and others are innocent and ought not have to continue to pay, irrespective of the facts of Nazi Germany.
I am not anti-German and I am assuming that neither are you, anti-German.
My question is, how do we assert our innocence, along with that of present day Germans, to warrant implementing our defense of our nations as the preserves of our native nationals? - particularly in light of, and despite, the holocaust?
I believe that despite the holocaust that Germany and Europe does not owe the world, Jews, or anybody, its destruction through immigration and assimilation.
This is different from what holocaust deniers, even revisionists, are saying. Committed revisionists and deniers seem to believe everything, all of our defensive warrant, hinges upon debunking the holocaust. It is perhaps easier for me to see that as not necessarily the case as my ancestors even, had even less in the way of historical responsibility. Nevertheless, revisionists seem to have an overwhelming desire to unburden us of guilt trips* for these events, for which no guilt ought to be assigned them - and as a result, it seems to me that they are making the cause for European national sovereignty more resisted and less trustworthy when, in fact, it is a fully legitimate cause and ought to be seen that way irrespective of the holocaust.
What I seek from you in an interview is to help build this case to establish the warrant of European nations to preserve their nations for their native kinds despite The World Wars, whatever the facts.
Please say that you will grant us the interview Dr. Lindtner. It can be very important to inter-European peace and survival.
For those of you who take exception to my deferential use of the word “holocaust”, understand that by it I mean a name given to mass deaths of Jews in the world war, however they came about, irrespective of any obnoxious elevation of importance of Jewish deaths over European deaths - which Dr. Lindtner recognizes in his characterizing it, holocaustianity, as a religion.
At the Yalta conference, just days before the Dresden firebombing..
And this comment on the article..
From a particularist/nationalist perspective it’s best to write it off as a painful learning experience and get on with nationalism 2.0.”
I keep hearing these retarded arguments that the Nazis shouldn’t have invaded Russia and that Britain should’ve let Nazi Germany do as it liked with Poland. If 20/20 hindsight is exercised, then it should be said that Hitler shouldn’t have invaded Poland.
The next argument, also retardedly Buchananesque, is that Poland was betrayed to the umpteenth degree anyway and therefore Germany invading was of no matter.
But even under Soviet control, Poland retained a semblance of national boundaries, more importantly from its point of view, its language and more importantly still, its native genetic homogeneity. Horrible as Soviet control was, neither Poland’s boundaries, language nor genetics were in Hitler’s plans.
The holocaust of the peoples of Dresden is horrible. It is an unspeakable loss of European genetic treasure. As were all the European deaths of World War II - a war unnecessarily fought as a 1) conventional military war and unnecessarily 2) inter-European as it largely was, pitting R1b against R1a - both frames, conventional militarism and anti-Polinism/anti-Slav, were Hitler’s/Friedrich The Great’s.
If you want to use 20/20 hindsight to re-frame World War II and what should not have been done, take it to herr E1B1B1 Hitler.
Don’t kid yourself.
Look at how sick and enraged that Europeans were of ANOTHER World War, which Hitler and his worldview had some small part in initiating, a worldview that had the thin pretense of warrant to take lands and displace peoples up to the Urals on the basis of three and a half small cites being given to Poland by Versailles, a world view that had the design of removing your nation newly established after a bitter ordeal and fight of 123 years, and the realization of his plans of smashing it, taking it away again, killing your father, wife, your daughter, your brother, and you too, charged with an imperson- al mission of bombing a precious German city, might just allow yourself to do that.
A habit, custom, and world view following the line of Friedrich the Great, based on inter-European militarism and a friend enemy distinction of Germanics/Slavs is what should be rejected with 20/20 hindsight - not that Roosevelt and Churchill shouldn’t have gotten into the war, but that Hitler shouldn’t have ordered it in that way.
And don’t kid yourself either - if you know that a European nation like his has plans to take your nation and eliminate you (that was basically known) and some Jew points a gun at that European guy looking to kill you, what are you going to say? No, Mr. Jew, don’t shoot at this guy looking to kill me?
If you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight, for all the European deaths, where it should not have started, the epistemological blunder was with herr E1B1B1 Hitler’s world view and actions thereupon. And if you want to keep Europeans hating and fighting each other, just keep promoting the “innocence” of his worldview and the “supreme and singular guilt” of the Allied leaders.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 12:38 AM in Anti-racism and white genocide, Far Right, History, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Revisionism, That Question Again, White Nationalism
In response to Jewish troll JamesUK on February 05, 2015
Wikipedia is censored to protect Jewish interests.
Proof of their influence on Wikipedia is to be found in videos which reveal Israeli boiler rooms - groups of people put up to spin wiki articles in a jewish way.
I heard of Jewish commentators on YouTube like to Israel but not Wikipedia.
Where are the videos?
In defense of Edgar Steele’s position in, “In defense of anti-Semitism” (excerpted at the bottom of the post), I said:
The i.q. factor has been adjusted for, to show that Jews are vastly overrepresented due to nepotism and other corrupt means.
JamesUK said in response:
I seriously doubt that seeing how the same pattern can be seen in other countries where they have less influence in state positions like in Russia.
But of necessity, I will offer this perfunctory summation: After factors of i.q. are taken into account, matters of Jewish nepotism, hyper-ethnocentrism, incommensurate ways of life and moral standards which do disservice to European interests and ways, Jewish coercion, bullying, bribery, brainwashing all have to be taken into account for what they should not be able to do at any rate - head European nations and peoples (which includes Russians), irrespective of the high i.q. of some Jews.
Regarding Duke and Black, we are not here to defend them, they can defend them- selves. We are here to defend Whites and White patterns that need defending.
They are the most high profile leaders of the WN movement in the US so they are the political representation of what WN believe in the US.
Other WN’s include Pierce and associates who are a mix of terrorists, mass shooters, a would be wife killer and a paedophile.
They are not the only ones who care about European people and not comprehensively representative.
Steele was not a would-be wife killer. That was a set-up.
What motive was there for Steele to kill his wife for non-existent insurance money? On the other hand, if you listen to, or read, Steele’s, “In defense of anti semitism” (an excerpt from the text is provided below, though the link to the site where the audio and text were is no longer available - I wonder why?), there was plenty of motive for Jewish interests to silence Steele.
What a jew you are
WN aren’t “complaining” ab. immigration and jews, we’re noting blockage to our sovereignty, destruction of our well being, deliberately imposed threat to our survival.
You think we should have gone to Hungary?
It must have been a good thing to Not do.
Go to hell.
Susan Lindauer, peace activist, 9/11 activist, former CIA asset, and true American patriot, talks to DanielS and GW about power, politics and corruption, immigration, and the future of America and the West. You cannot fail to learn something new from an hour’s conservation with this remarkable woman..
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 07:07 PM in 9/11, Activism, Awakenings, Free Speech, Global Elitism, Immigration and Politics, MR Radio, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, War on Terror
Its egregious intentions betray its egregious misnomer as “The Left” by the YKW media. Whereas a White Left would be a union of the entire nation of native peoples and thus organized in entirety against immigrant imposition - these workers and beneficiaries being the theoretical equivalent of scabs - and the consequences of elite betrayal. Accordingly, a true European Nationalist Left would not be of just one class, say the workers, let alone be in representation of scabs (foreigners) - as the latter in particular would be defined properly not as The Left but rather as a Neo-Liberal concern imposed on the classification of native national interests. The reason for the misnomer is plain, the YKW and the sell-outs, particularly of the international corporatist order, do not want us to be clear in the organizational concern of that union, which is a merging, in fact an overlap, of the class with native nationalism. Instead they want it associated with what is most repugnant to our interests.
The YKW and corporate elite sell-outs are aligned in this perversion of class interests - you can be even more afraid now as they obligingly ask:
The “Left Party” (wink), read “neo-liberal” and ask rather, what union of your interests do they represent - i.e., how are they a leftist union for you as a native European? Particularly when they advocate (hyerpbolic) neo-liberal policies as such?
Gysi pretends the leftist, denouncing the The EU for “pursuing ‘neo-liberal’ policy:”
But then his party pursues this policy on immigration -
You can’t get much more neo-liberal than that.
What does that have to do with the unionized representation of native European national interests?
We hear nothing representing the unionized interests of native European nationals in YKW media. Our interests are ignored and obfuscated beginning with the very terms, with the deliberately confusing mis-designation of neo-liberal policy - immigration and non-native imposition in particular - as “The Left.” By contrast, designating the proper representation of native European national interests as The White Left is to distinguish it from the liberal and Jewish affectations imposed on native European nationalist interests by The Red Left.
Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 01:11 AM in Anti-racism and white genocide, European Nationalism, European Union, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Journalism, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Political analysis, That Question Again
Paul Sperry, Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which exposes the racial politics behind the mortgage crisis - government attempt to increase minority home-ownership instigated the sub-prime housing crisis.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, November 15, 2014 at 04:04 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Immigration and Politics, Marxism & Culture War, No particular place to go, Popular Culture, Social liberalism, That Question Again, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Communities & Micro-Economies, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: America, White Nationalism
I’m waiting to hear or read what’s not to like about this guy. Though I reserve the right to change my mind, and admit that I am not disposed and have not been looking far and wide for what not to like about him, from what I have heard (some interviews and some text), so far he seems alright.
Greg Johnson criticizes him for wasting his time, but I don’t see where Ransdell has said that standard political channels were the only means that he would ever seek - and it is clearly only a strategy to get heard. Moreover, he is also explicit in not recommending or insisting upon this strategy for everyone and all places.
Ok, he is associated with VNN and Stormfront, inspired by Rockwell and to a lesser extent by Pierce, and there may be (probably is) some guilt by association with them and other opinions on those discussion forums, but so far, from what I have heard, he himself has not said anything that I find objectionable. It would be interesting to hear what MR readers think.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, October 16, 2014 at 09:38 PM in Activism, Media, Political analysis, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, White Nationalism
by Alexander Baron
There is a missing dimension to the Israel/Palestine question, not the elephant in the room, ie something nobody will mention for fear of ostracism - Jewish power for example – but one no one mentions because they literally do not see it. Here, that dimension can be summed up in one word: race.
In the UK, all mention of race except on liberal/socialist terms has long been taboo due both to the stranglehold our enemies have over the media and other institutions, and to their none-too-subtle but extremely successful brainwashing campaign that involved associating all opposition to non-white immigration and then to forced race-mixing with a particularly bizarre form of sex shop Nazism.
On the other hand, the liberal/socialist hate campaign against South Africa never did try to evoke that spectre, and with good reason, the South African government never had any sympathy with Nazism, nor indeed with “racism” as it is usually understood. This may sound a curious claim to make, but anyone who has studied the contemporaneous South African press will realise that was indeed the case. White newspapers regularly featured stories about blacks, who even appeared in advertisements. Ordinary white South Africans did not regard themselves as “racists”, and had no time for people who tried to stir animosity between the races; they believed simply that the two races should develop separately, as the short-lived South African National Front discovered when its two leading lights Jack Noble and Ray Hill attempted some stirring.
Fratricidal tendency, boding against race as a practical organizational concept, issues one of the most significant challenges to advocates of people of native European descent.
To intervene and ameliorate fraternal relations, perhaps, or to argue more thoroughly as to why race is not the proper group membership concern.
It is prima facie an acute issue to deal with and one that would require some of our top guns to handle properly - the likes of Dr. Lister and Frank Salter. Their help and more, of course, is needed in addressing this matter which we have all felt too closely to handle rationally by ourselves. What I mean by “fratricidal tendencies” is something quite general - antagonism of those closely related, ranging from irresponsible negligence to literal fratricide and war between our closely kindred people.
As we are so invested and investing in these people, the pursuit of remedy to these conflicts has created our most painful and destructive moments, where we did and gave our best to people who betrayed us - we became enemies to ourselves.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 8, 2014 at 03:51 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Australian Politics, Demographics, Economics & Finance, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Marxism & Culture War, Political Philosophy, Race realism, That Question Again, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
“Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.”
by William Hanna / July 22nd, 2014
On 26 November 1947, when it became apparent to Zionists and their supporters that the UN vote on the Partition of Palestine would be short of the required two thirds majority in the General Assembly, they filibustered for a postponement until after Thanksgiving thereby gaining time to threaten the loss of aid to nations such as Greece — which planned on voting against — into changing their votes. U.S. President Truman — also threatened with loss of Jewish support in the upcoming Presidential election — later noted that:
On 29 November 1947 the UN voted for a modified Partition Plan — despite Arab opposition on grounds that it violated UN charter principles of national self- determination — recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States with a Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The resolution’s adoption prompted the 1947–48 conflict including atrocities by Zionist terror gangs whose genocidal brutality was responsible for the murder of thousands of unarmed Palestinian civilians and the forced exodus of more than 700,000 others. At the time, the consensus of opinion was that Israel’s contentious creation had been permitted as a conscious and willful act of Holocaust compensation which included toleration of its crimes against humanity. Since then, Israel has steadfastly adhered to that successful tactic of blackmail, bribery, and bullying to suppress and silence — with accusations of anti-Semitism/Holocaust denial — any criticism of its blatant human rights violations and arrogant disregard for international Law.
The fear of being branded an anti-Semite is now a universal phobia which Zionist Apartheid Israel reinforces with Gestapo-style vigilance that has permeated through universities, corporate media outlets, and parliaments. This is most evident in the United States where the American Israel Public Affairs committee (AIPAC) is active on college campuses with a Political Leadership Development Program of pro-Israel activities including reports on faculty members, students, and college organisations critical of Israeli policies. The “miscreants” — exposed in AIPAC’s College Guide and the pro-Israel Campus Watch —are then subject to harassment, suspension, or even dismissal
I’m turning this into a main post as I’ve put some careful thought into it and it seems trolls will try to bury it:
Hi MOB, don’t worry about Carolyn being advertised here. She has her niche and we have our direction which is not competing. Therefore, it is not necessary to give her inadvertent advertising in a staple of critical attention to her efforts.
“Without respectful recognition of the uniquely remarkable role played by Hitler and the Germans in the seemingly insurmountable struggle against Jewish world domination, you lose considerable substance and credibility.”
I never said that Hitler and the Germans were not unique and remarkable, nor that their focus on the J.Q. did not merit assimilation - particularly in the sense of prioritizing Jews as a concern and seeing the necessity to separate from them.
I did not say that we should reject everything about Hitler and the Germans - especially not the Germans, of course (and congratulations, I suppose, on drubbing Brazil, even if you do have an N, a Turk, an Arab of some sort, and a half Pole on your team). It is rather that we are not going to ignore and pretend the negative side of Hitlerism did not exist. Nor will we say that he was unique in being wise to the J.Q. or that he handled it in a uniquely effective way. It is clear that is not nearly true enough. *
If people come to MR and say, hey, you know, Hitler had such and such an idea right, I would not turn them away if it is coming from one who is not trying to promote Hitler as correct and worthy of our loyalty across the board - as Carolyn does.
We would not exclude an idea simply because Hitler held the same, nor for that matter just because Jews or Christians may have had similar thoughts on a matter. It is that we cannot endorse these world views on the whole as their drawbacks are too great.
Our agenda at MR is no mystery: we are here to advocate people of native European descent. As such, we would like to look upon peoples of native Europeans as a classificatory whole with subdivisions. The whole and the subdivisions to be maintained and fostered as ecologies symbiotic within and between each other.
In response to Katana, I will add this:
The term “White” is not especially problematic and works especially well in combination as “The White Class.” However, there is a danger in being too simple with “White” as a blanket term. “White” can be too unsophisticated in particular as it is susceptible to include Jews while excluding authentic Europeans. As we all know White is a more American term. It is better to ask Americans to be inconvenienced to drop it (especially since the country is going down in terms of our interests) than to ask native Europeans to drop the designation, “European.” It is a better strategy to resurrect “European” as meaning, “of native European extraction.” It is more descriptive and provides better grounding all around than “White”. Even for Americans it should be the better term in the long-run. Though again, I do not have a big problem with “White”, particularly necessary to designate those of mixed European ancestry living outside of Europe.
I will draw the line on the contention that I am speaking in tongues when I insist upon an ecological and classificatory view.
Classification represents the mediation between Cartesian extremes: assertion of social classifications is what has been deprived us (Whites/Europeans) and what we need to restore (as a matter of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, as I always say – lets add operational verifiability).
More, the view of ecological classifications is particularly important as it directs attention to systemic depth, patterns, historical relations as naturally conservative aspects of our evolution and relation to natural environment.
This class of classifications of native Europeans, the White Class, classifies, primarily not hierarchically but horizontally, between peoples, and discriminates accordingly. With especial vigilance to the European/ non-European distinction. With that, unlike Hitler’s world view, the maintenance of all native European peoples and their distinct nations should fall within our interest group - we should not be fighting each other for territorial acquisition, to establish a master- slave relation, whatever.
We do not see Jews as a part of our interest group; but as a distinct pattern averse to our interests.
It is problematic that there are some who are not harmful to us, perhaps even helpful; nevertheless, they do not fall within our interest group. An individual Jew who may be different from the pattern is still classified as a Jew - a non-European.
Nevertheless, it is our agenda to separate and have sovereignty from Jews, and other non-Whites, not to exterminate them. That confers the moral high-ground upon us and theoretical innocence. Even as we know, in fact especially as we know, that they are not likely to simply leave us alone (note the trolling of Thorn, et. al - why don’t they go away? need to ask?); this position is particularly important to maintain in assertion of our will to peace, cooperation and warranted defense as it may come to declared war (instead of the undeclared war as it now is).
What to do about quarter Jews and one eighth Jews (as Lenin apparently was), is also problematic - not a simple concern.
However, MR is sufficiently nuanced to address these problems in our posts and commentary. That is among our merits - we are clear but not too simple.
We have a hermeneutic view, which circles between scientific rigor and comprehensive imagination as need be - particularly regarding our interests.
As for MacDonald endorsing Greg and Counter-Currents, I think that is proper on a couple levels. First, Greg is publishing some good and sincere work on our behalf. Second, that people not let anti-homosexuality override the good work that he has done and can do. Though coming from a more scientific perspective, MacDonald has a view regarding homosexuality that is largely aligned with what I see as reasonable - critical, discouraging, but not shrill, because it is not numerically sufficient a draw for our men to prioritize as a staple of concerned attention either.
Finally, they do have that kindred Nordic entering point that I’ve discussed, in addition to a bit of academic snobbery going on. KM and Johnson are PhD’s and scholars. Their drawing lines around that has valid and invalid points, good and bad sides.
As maintained, their scholarly and professional standards can always be pointed to against those who say that we do not have that on our side. More, it is not merely an artificial line. They are gifted and skilled to examine the literature and issues in an in-depth and competent manner.
However, it does have its drawbacks.
The mannerly protocol of professionalism binds them into logics that can be insensible.
For example, they will not use the “N” word because, they say, that would turn-off soccer moms among other “intelligent” and “educated” people.
But they will openly court those who fully endorse Hitler, as if that will not turn-off intelligent and educated people.
That is the kind of absurd and insensible contradiction that sheer logic and professional interface with the respectable public is susceptible to.
MacDonald and Sunic maintain that the only stereotype to avoid for White Nationalists is the vulgar skinhead. I have maintained that the wimpish (or yes, faggy) nerd, who will not say “N”, could be equally a turn-off. In advocating our group interest, they are insufficiently “othering” people who should be “othered” and over “othering” people who should not be “othered.”
There might be some susceptibility to that in Germanophiles or Nordicists as they may resort to their logical abilities in transcendence and to focus on themselves in relation to Jews (an over focus on the most intelligent and formidable adversary indeed, but conferring an undue measure of benign innocence on other non-Whites; while unduly pejoratizing other European peoples); as Germanics and Nordics have not evolved in interface with Africa, but in antagonisms with other Europeans and Jews; they escape there, take cover in not being “prejudiced” against blacks; allowing other Europeans to take the brunt of black reality. It can be a logical perspective which, for its insensibility, leads to an unmeasured narrowing of prejudice and overcompensating response. This might only be compounded by Christianity, Hitlerism and Jewish incitement.
For my part, when a person uses the N word in an intelligent way, with proper context, it does not turn me off, but tells me clearly that this person has sense, knows what they are talking about, organizes matters properly. That will resonate for others as well.
The largest reason why I do no use it here is because it is my understanding that it is literally illegal in some European nations. I am not an agent provocateur trying to lead people to jail, fines or other limitations on their effective advocacy.
I am not a “Professional.” That gives me some advantages and disadvantages. It does illustrate that I am not the all conquering world beater, who can succeed in just any circumstance - a man whose ability and will carried him to a PhD even in America’s multi-cult hell hole. It also means that I am not so insensible as to carry on by dint of sheer logic, “rise above” and ignore what I should not. I did embark upon a PhD, but I cannot say that I regret not contributing to America’s multicultural hell hole or not saying anything sufficiently critical of it - contributing to it or not saying anything critical of it having been two requirements to go ahead in American academia. Nevertheless, I did participate in the PhD program and audited it enough to get a good feel, if not understanding of things I need to know.
On the positive side, my “inability” to achieve a PhD reflects sensibility on my part, an unwillingness to ignore the destruction of our people that was imperviously entailed in the “hegemonic logics”, i.e. PC requirements, of a PhD.
A Philosophy PhD once said to me (even though not knowing me or much about me), that you cannot be a racist if you are going to be a PhD.
I responded, “that is why I do not want a PhD”
He smiled as he understood my reasoning automatically.
Nevertheless, admittedly, being unprofessional does have drawbacks. For example, over indulgence of vulgarity (in my defense, against people who were vulgar with me and having vulgar motives) because I don’t see the status to be lost in such association - which could cost us an interview, say, with Frank Salter, who in turn would not want to be associated with vulgarity. Still, those indulgences were before GW suggested that I might take over the wheel and steer MR’s direction.
In this case, I do have more responsibility to not drag GW’s project down, as it is a noble and beautiful one. Thus, I would try more to refrain from unnecessary vulgarity as it might send intelligent professionals away from helpful connection with us.
Even so, it has been my position and continues to be that Europeans need to be more assertive, not self transcendent and self censoring. I believe that there is an optimal balance between intellectualism and efficiently asserted prejudice - the N word, for example, can be very effective coming from a scholar or an intellectual on occasion. More, it will signal to people that one has sense, sense enough to see and organize the pattern for what it is - thus connecting to people who have to rely more on their senses, where they cannot figuratively escape in and through baroque logics; and where they cannot literally escape their inundated circumstances. It would confirm from high and authoritative places that indeed, these people are not to be intimately mingled with. They are not ok for your daughter.
But “no no no, musn’t refer to those people as N’s. We must care about their families and how Jews are misleading them.” Upchuck from up-in-the-head logical escape of “White Enterprises” that of all positions should know better and provide feedback protective of Whites. But no, “Newsome and Christian were in the wrong place, should have known better” - really?! (if you can believe it, “Father Francis” actually said that)
“What would constitute tasty and nutritious food to draw WNs into the MR parlor on a regular basis? What would affirm and strengthen their present White Nationalist orientation?”
I would submit the essay below, “The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 1” as a good start
Note, MOB, that I do not consider or treat you as a troll, even though you have some disagreement with our editorial direction, you are different in being sincerely concerned with all Europeans and their significant distinctions.
Now that we have begun to clear away what and who we are not representing, we can begin to elaborate more and reach more for what and who we are representing.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, July 10, 2014 at 07:20 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Christianity, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, That Question Again, Thread Wars, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
We expect to talk again to Anthony in a few weeks, this time on a more technical level.
Let’s start with acknowledged instances of the use of nuclear weapons and some officially unacknowledged ones.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, December 8, 2013 at 03:29 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, Science & Technology, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, War on Terror, World Affairs
According to Salvador Astucia, the singlemost important reason behind the assassination of JFK was JFK’s attempt to establish détente with the Soviet Union. Let’s see why this was a big issue.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 at 01:54 PM in Books, Economics & Finance, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
J.P. Mroz has written a three-part essay titled Will the Real Wikipedia Please Stand Up?: http://www.ctka.net/2010/wiki.html.
The essay is related to the futility of trying to correct blatant disinformation on Wikipedia pages regarding the JFK assassination. What is the “real Wikipedia” according to Mroz? It’s simply what Wikipedia claims to be: a wiki edited by the general public, and one that maintains a neutral viewpoint. Mroz’s problems at Wikipedia certainly haven’t stemmed from his being in the minority. In the U.S., surveys have shown that two-thirds to three-fourths of the population doesn’t buy the lone assassin/Oswald claim. So how does one explain Wikipedia “neutrality”?
Posted by R-news on Saturday, November 23, 2013 at 03:57 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
The previous parts established that JFK was killed by at least three hitmen: Lucien Sarti and the other two likely François Chiappe and Jean-Paul Angeletti. Hired guns are mercenaries, and have no personal stake in the matter. This part addresses the people who hired these hitmen.
The following factors would’ve motivated the murder of JFK:
Posted by R-news on Friday, November 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
White Genocide Project
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa