Category: The American right
26 May 2015 at 10:32 am
It isn’t my bugbear. I advocate all Europeans and recognize the obvious fact that he cannot be a unifying figure, but will be divisive and unnecessarily so - those people who think we need him are tediously oblivious to the obvious (you call my irritation with their idiocy my “bugbear”). It is rather their teddy bear, their security blanket, their pacifier and surrogate daddy. It is not too much to expect White advocates to have the respect to recognize him as having made bad us/them distinctions, to relegate him to history as pejorative on balance as such, not to be held up in sought-for redemption.
Daniel Antinora, as he would, agrees with Tan’s psychologizing and slips in a plug for Jesus:“yep, Too bad he ruined Majority Rights over that and Christian metaphysics instead of starting his own website.”
To which I say, Daniel A, Bullshit. It is an infinitely better site without Jesus freaks and those who insist upon trying to redeem Hitler.
Good riddance to you.
He quotes me: the problem is that Hitler also made Slavs of nations to his east into enemies. He wasn’t an advocate of all Whites in defense against Jews, simple as that.
Then Tan says:
You may think that you can read my mind but I have forgotten nothing of the kind. You are far from a mind reader.
Further, you say, “You think Hitler was bad for the Slavs. Again, that’s not how I see it?” Was he being good to Slavs? Sure. He was being good to the Greeks too. So good for everybody he turned-out to be.
No it doesn’t. Perhaps you aren’t as smart or as honest as I had thought. “All the rest stems from”...do you see his computer training as it causes him to try to trace a single cause…to a thing, by the way, which I never said: “judeo-boshevism came before Hitler.”, let alone maintain over and against seeing Jews as an antagonistic group, not in part, but on the whole.
I’m over it man. Associate with all the right-wing asses that you want; just wanted to say my bit as you are a part of a struggle that pretends to advocate all Europeans, and you cannot in that way.
Now calm your your psychoanalytic babbling Tan, and read what I say:
Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that you are taking too myopic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor..
For example, lets say KM wants to connect with Jarod Taylor (something I would not bother to do, but that’s not the point), let’s say KM wants to see if he can bring Taylor along to achieve more alignment and coordination, shares empathically in Taylor’s way of talking, says “yes, it’s suicidal to do this..” (all the while KM has already argued conclusively for himself that what is going on is genocide not suicide).
I’ve experienced the hair-trigger reaction by computer nerds to a social meandering too many times now, sudden conclusive reactions to innocent zig-zags and the merest theoretical ambiguity, even if a part of a process wholly intended to be corrected in fairly short order to alignment with what the nerd might wish as a result; but he will treat it (the slight zig-zag meander) rather as unbearably pernicious because it does not fit into the false either/or of his theoretical mindset (misapplied to praxis - viz., the social, interactive, negotiated world corrected through human interactive agency).
In this I am not saying Tan is crazy or applying psychoanalysis to him, I am suggesting, as per Aristotle, that he is over- or mis-applying lineal, either/or theory (which Aristotle designated “Theoria”) to the more ambiguous, interactive social world, which Aristotle called “Praxis;” which Tan and Katana might, in turn, want to call “jargon”..
or Daniel A might smear as “rationalism” bereft the salvation of Jesus “metaphysics.”
* What I mean by organization, specifically and generally, is in regard to an understanding of group and national boundaries of our people which is shared enough to be accounted-for and acted-upon.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 01:32 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Far Right, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, That Question Again, The American right, The Proposition Nation, White Nationalism
Misguided Truck: http://renseradioarchives.com/stormfront/ Date: 04-27-15, Hr1:
On the April 27th Stormtrooper radio, Truck Roy discusses his theory with Don Black that the reason why Whites are allowing for, and even promoting, their own dispossession is because they are “moralizing”...
“We are too concerned with morals, of slave morality, etc, when we should care about power and survival.”
What this is about: people, e.g. computer nerds, or Hitler (by de facto Nietzschean) worshipers want to believe or argue that they’re sheerly, objectively superior, not “racists” relatively dependent upon their people and neighboring White people.
They take advice from Horace the Condescender as such.
Now they are arguing “against morality, against ‘moralizing” as they call it.
Why? Because Hitler loses his place as the go-to guy for a false either/or. And they cannot stand the twilight of their god.
So we have Truck Roy saying that the reason why Africans are being helped to invade Europe and why Whites are allowing themselves to be displaced is because they’re “moralizing”, they’re of a slave morality, when they should seek power.
Not coincidentally, Truck goes to church every Sunday to practice his slave morality of obedience to the Jew on a stick.
So why has this happened, the about face?
As I have been explaining, the Right is inherently unstable. “Objectivity” and purity loses its grasp of the relative situation, of social accountability, and they oscillate to another toxically narrow extreme - typically Nietzsche and Hitler.
This false either / or - “morality” or “power and survival” - is one of the reasons why I reject Christianity and the Right’s proposed objectivism.
Truck Roy says the problem is that our people sit around “moralizing” about how right it is to help African boat refugees when they should be saying enough of this moral business, and be asking rather how do we go about survival?
What Horace the Condescender and misguided Truck are failing to recognize is that there is no avoiding morals - we live within them. Proper moral consideration is at one with power and survival. While moral rules are culturally contingent, there will nevertheless always be some things that are prohibited, some things that are obligatory and some things that are optional.
Jews know this and that is why they have cleaned the clocks of dumb-assed right wingers such as those at Stormtrooper radio.
Now, if people, White people especially, are truly thinking about morality, they do not reach the conclusion that they should be displaced by non-Whites.
That is a perversion of morals that the Jewish trick of Christianity is second to none in putting across to the sheeple.
Scientism can do it too.
While some, techno nerds perhaps, wanting to believe in their objective superiority and warrant yet find themselves having been outwitted by the relative interests of Jews, drowning in the instigated multicultural hell of America, will desperately seek recourse, will promote a mindless killing and die-off, even of their own brothers and European neighbors, rather than admit their moral indebtedness to their kindred people as opposed to just an elite few or a Jewish god.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 02:52 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, European Nationalism, European Union, Far Right, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Jewish Diaspora, Marxism & Culture War, Popular Culture, The American right, White Nationalism
- 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
I think this is rather pithy - A Word in the Ear of the Future-Seekers — Modernity is not the bridge; it is the abyss.
Fine Persecution — Every society has before it an ideal of the kind of society it ought to be, and every society, in order to uphold that ideal, needs to persecute those within it who are at odds with that ideal. Once again, however, the deep mendacity of liberalistic society manifests itself in that it denies the persecution which it carries out against its hated enemies, namely, those at odds with its ideal. This denial of the persecuted status of its enemies — along with the ridicule of them when they claim it — are additional elements for the intensifying of their persecution.
Specify, or Be Damned — Individualism does not specify itself to be in keeping with any particular society, or even with the existence of society at all, but rather it addresses itself only to an unspecified individuality. Such unspecification about what an individual should be is precisely at the heart of individualism’s boast about its being the friend and not the foe of the individual’s freely seeking to be and to do whatever he chooses. “Do what thou wilt”, it says, whereto it may add the black-box phrase, “so long as it harms none”. Now, given a teaching which says that everyone may do as he pleases, irrespective of all truth, reason, goodness, morality, tradition, authority, obedience, bonds, and so forth, “so long as it harms none”, and which, by its boasted lights, does not specify the kind of society which should be upheld, or even that any should be upheld, how is it that anyone could then come to the belief that it might after all stand as a pillar of any society, let alone a particular one, rather than being, as in truth it is, the rot upon all? One might say that here we are at the brink of sheer madness, inbequeathed through many years of listening to silly tales. But leaving aside an understanding of the teaching itself, which might conceivably have taken any name, the very name which it does carry gives us a clue to its drift, namely, that it seeks to uphold the unspecified individual, not any society, specified or unspecified.
But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. 
The liberal concept of man as selfstanding being, free to set his own moral ends, is one of the biggest untruths ever told — and yet folk swallow it whole, whereat we might take it that they are greedy for something.
The conformity that is forged today through the atomized individualism that strips men of their personhood has little to do with the collective identity for which men have always yearned. The conformity today is stopgap and takeover of this natural yearning. The atomised individual is stripped bare of his humanity —which has hitherto been actualised in society —and left adrift with his “freely-formed” and “chosen” opinions, which are in truth nothing of the kind. He cannot think for himself, only of himself, as he is suffering a loss. He rebels against conformity in conformity with everyone else.
As the subversive mind is essentially individualistic and isolationistic, so is it essentially collectivistic and identitarian: on the view inherent in it, the curse of division and of being ‘set against one another’ cannot be surmounted except by a ‘fusion into one’; an actual identification of consciousness, of qualities and of interest. In fact, individualism (tending towards egalitarianism) prefigures collectivism from the outset, and again, collectivism is only individualism raised to the high power of an absolute monism centered in ‘all and every one’. 
Individualism foreshadows mass-collectivism and the herd of ersatz ‘individuals’. With authorities and societies broken down, nothing stands between pressing individual units of alienated humanity, hitherto existing as persons, into mass, each homogenised unit shaped to fit and imprinted with a set of political ideas and economic desires.
1] Aristotle, Politica, Bk.I: 1253a:28-9, tr. B. Jowett, in The Works of Aristotle, Vol.X (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921).
Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 01:32 AM in Conservatism, Libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Social liberalism, The American right, U.S. Politics
As European(White) Nationalists, we all know that the wake of the World Wars has not birthed favorable circumstances for our people. Thus, we are decidedly less satisfied than Max Hastings that a marked separatism from Jewish power and influence was not achieved, its necessity not even understood; and along with that that a pervasive liberalism should have won-out as consequence, potentially auguring the final chapter for Europeans in entirety.
Was it “hubris” for Poland to want its nation back? I rather think not. It’s called ethno-nationalism and it is that which we should support as opposed to internationalism. Germany was still huge after Versailles. On the Polish border, all it had lost were Posen, Bromberg and Thorn. Danzig became neutral. The Max Hastings account introduces yet more discussion of Versailles to make it more understandable as an effort at justice, as it always appeared when looking at the territorial divisions. However, there have been a couple of parties who want me to run strong anti-Polish propaganda.
The large problem with that is that for those of us who view White Nationalist media as our veritable news source now (finding other, anti-White media wholly intolerable), a hypotrophied unanimity with Nazism and its antecedent regime’s military campaigns is what we get: for whatever reasons, but probably because America is so German- American that a “by-golly, Hitler was absolutely right!” perspective is all too convenient (and the most popular and economically supported of any WN perspective) in the wake of Jewish and Neo-liberal destruction; and all the more motivated with guilt trips of World War II being most pressing upon them; their having least perspective on anything but a direct desire to throw guilt trips off as entire fabrication: nuances of perspective and history are cast aside, and ultimately, the unfortunate difficulty they have in seeing our family relations and the more relative and complex justice of the circumstance seeds potential inter-European conflict, if not war. Seeds sown oblivious to the fact that we do not care to lay guilt trips upon them, certainly not subsequent generations, they go ahead and try to lay guilt trips upon us for events before our fathers lives even. Just as they want it understood that they and their forefathers were not ex-nihilo evil, but had reasons for their wars, so too those of “Allied” descent wish to claim the same.
Yes, there were corrupt forces manipulating the circumstances, but there were also justly reasoned motives. The circumstances were a great deal more complicated and justified from an Allied perspective than The Hitler contingent of WN will ever admit. That’s a problem if you want to treat WN as your media. Because Nazi Germany and Kaiser Germany were not pure and sheer victims, as the salient contingent of WN wish to claim. But so long as their childish and Jewish style of argumentation is what is being served in WN discourse, I am left no choice but to balance things off in the service of truth. There are several sites out there for those who want to take a “Hitler only good everyone else bad” perspective. You will not hear that the German regimes did have choices: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and other Nationalisms, even the British, of course, could have been aligned, willing and able to fight Soviet incursions (had done so already in some instances).
Until there are other, or more, WN sites which care for the truth and represent events in the context of their nuance and balance, I must continue to highlight discussions such as that from Max Hastings. In fact, there is much there that one would never hear and learn about if the now standard WN position on several sites - “Germany’s war efforts only good, their people only victims” - were the only perspective heard; and there is a great deal of intimidation that it be the only perspective heard in WN, to the point where the opposite of PC is in effect, to where it is a veritable taboo to say anything negative about Nazi Germany and its predecessors and anything good about the Allies and their predecessors. In truth, of course, there are many things for Germans to be proud of, and some things to not be so proud of. For some reason, that is too complex a fact for some to cope with. Those of us who are sick of that childish unanimity might find Max Hastings discussion refreshing and informative.
There are thoughts on responsibility in World War I which echo very much that of WWII. Thoughts on Versailles foreign to WN discourse. And of course the great taboo in WN, to suggest that a German military could have done anything worth resisting. It was of course noble to burn the library of Leuven (they just had to do that, didn’t they?); to do whatever I am not allowed to speak about to Belgian civilians there, in Dinant and elsewhere, to French and other civilians; in Kalisz as well. No, Germany was always a perfect nation, nobody can say otherwise; if you want to blame anybody, conveniently blame Poland as Hitler and Goebbels suggested, or as Friedrich the Great might have proposed of his then vanquished neighbor.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at 03:57 AM in British Politics, Education, European Nationalism, Political analysis, Revisionism, The American right, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism
Black Lies in White Nationalism: Hitler didn’t instigate war, modestly sought appropriated territory
Black Lies are being circulated in White Nationalism -
“He only modestly sought territory ‘wrongly’ appropriated”
Those claims are demonstrably false from the beginning of Mein Kampf:
“People of the same blood should be in the same Reich. The German people will have no right to engage in a colonial policy until they shall have brought all their children together in one state. When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise from the need of the people to acquire foreign territory. The plow is then the sword and the tears of war shall produce the daily bread for the generations to come.”
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, October 11, 2014 at 08:45 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Far Right, History, National Socialism, Popular Culture, The American right, Thread Wars, White Nationalism
“Attorney of the damned”, author of “Defensive Racism” dies imprisoned by ZOG
“Get the story out folks” - Stan Hess
From: Cyndi Steele, Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 8:35 PM
“The past 4 years Ed and my family have been living in a nightmare. Today, my greatest fear has come to life or maybe I should say death. Please read the message below that is being posted on the Free Edgar Steele website and sent to all of his supporters as I type this. It is with great heartbreak and devastation that I send you this news.”
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 11:25 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Demographics, Far Right, Global Elitism, Law, Law & Order, Libertarianism, Marxism & Culture War, Obituaries, Race realism, The American right, U.S. Politics, White Communities & Micro-Economies, White Nationalism
What does this implicate for separatists from centralized government?
Some White Nationalists note training programs for US Police conducted in Israel.
While we are (in 299 words) addressing David Duke and his single greatest cause issue - Jewish power and influence - with his admonition against their strategy of divide-and-conquer, we should ask..
Is it not possible that our traitorous White plutocrats would be happy to have us fight a war against that which is also their greatest enemy - Jewish power and biocultural patterns - and use us as cannon fodder?
What, after all, have they done for us?
What have they done to merit our loyalty?
What have they done to fight Jewish power and influence? mass non-White immigration into European peoples’ habitats? the destruction of European cultures and people?
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 15, 2014 at 06:04 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Business & Industry, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, European Union, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, New Right, No particular place to go, Political Philosophy, The American right, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism, World Affairs
On Hitler and those who worship this betrayer of Strasser, etc.
Subtitled: don’t send a boy or other fools to do a man’s job.
TT, Terrible Tommy Metzger:
Lets compare and contrast what the man, Metzger, is saying, not only to what Carolyn or Rodney Martin might say, but to the kids at Renegade:
In this episode, Kyle Hunt interviews a young Russian American woman living in Sweden and working for Red Ice Radio:
For some background, what always struck me as curious about Kyle Hunt was how cool he thought Hitler and the Third Reich were (he’s now re-running Goebbels propaganda with “The Greatest Story Never Told”; and isn’t it good to incite inter-European war on the basis of a disingenuous claim to be concerned for truth?); with him in charge over there, so too would be the sentiments of anyone he would allow to have prominent voice at Renegade. At first I thought he might be dissuaded without too much difficulty and I tried. I realized that I was wasting my time when he treated the pro Hitler zealot, Marcus, as if he was way cool, level headed and spot on accurate in what he was saying. With that, I lost a great deal of respect for Hunt. It is not that he cannot change, but it may take a while, i.e., he is pretty young - a boy trying to do a man’s job.
Here’s the problem with these Hitler-heads over at Renegade. They’re young and don’t have the breadth and depth of experience and knowledge to provide sage guidance.
Where these sorts get their view and confidence seems often to have the common denominator of William Pierce (or the like) – smart man, no doubt, but with a philosophical and historical view that was insufficient to the task.
Nevertheless, Pierce provides cookie-cutter confidence to these kids, or chews their cud, for another analogy. Without a lot of experience, these kids can just move right into a world view that organizes things in a coherent way, just follow its pre-cut forms and drink its cud – easy, no doubt, “Hitler was right. Simple as that.” We just have to get past all this Jewish propaganda.
Indeed, a Jewish marshaled modernist world is a confusing and decadent world - it calls for a return to moral coherence. But is Nazism the right “moral” coherence? Of course not. Don’t send a boy or a fool to do a man’s job. That is a lesson that I have learned the hard way, but I did learn, after trying to enlist people too young or ill-suited to participate on a fairly level basis.
Now you’ve got The Renegade youths, as we might call them, appealing to young girls with Hitlerism - “It’s OK, so long as you don’t wave swastikas around, because the Jews have stigmatized this great Aryan symbol, have effectively but merely defamed NS Germany, while also corrupting our pre-Christian paganism…that older generation that didn’t see all this like we do, they gotta die.”
..Odimism, very smart religion, go to die in battle…just because, or rather because you are a coward and won’t get a maiden in valhalla if you don’t go and die in battle..even though Odin knows and you know that you are going to lose and die, just because, not because your people need defending (brilliant religion, Islam, its race mixing universalism, dysgenesis on behalf of virgins in heaven, is duly challenged).
The old generation gotta die, those cowards ain’t gettin’ no poontang in valhalla.
Well, not until you get old enough to be worthy, which you ain’t.
They’ve got young girls over there believing that Hitler was darn ok all over again, one getting pregnant by a heroin addict - who is now set to ask for money – but that’s ok, you can even be a heroin addict and ask for money, get a fair “Aryan” maiden pregnant, so long as you are cool with Hitler, don’t believe in something like the holocaust or other Nazi wrong-doings.
You don’t even have to be fully European, you can be a one quarter Syran heroin addict, so long as you are committed to Hitler. Overcompensating for not being perfectly European, with that anti-Jewish perspective, you can promote Africans as really OK (wouldn’t want to be distracted and lose sight of the J.Q.), you can promote the most cataclysmic killing of Europeans by Europeans just because you are committed to Hitler and because you are an anti-Jew – after all, some of those Jew broads are prettier than some White women, while black women…not too much of a threat. ..Slavic women? Hmm, yeah, that’s a threat, competition too, Hitler must have been right.
I guess maybe even a Russian woman can see the “logic” in that.
What does a woman want? Confidence!
Aha. What a revelation.
...Not to the average White American male: Who also sees that there is nothing more confident than a young Negro male (it may be argued that the Negro’s confidence is helped-along by his having nothing to lose and everything to gain).
Aren’t we so glad and inspired that women just love CONFIDENCE! Above all, above race, confidence uber alles! It’s Nature’s way! And we know that nature unmediated by culture corresponds perfectly with E.G.I. ...doesn’t it?
In fact, in a multi-cultural hell-hole orchestrated by Jewish and corrupt capitalist/ objectivist interests, to be sheerly confident is about as ignorant as it gets. Women (females, I should say) getting-off on confidence in that context is about as stupid and corrupt as it gets.
And it gets to the heart of one of our most serious problems, in how Jews pander and corrupt some base instincts in our co-evolutionary females: incitement to genetic competition, appeal to narrow (ignorant), anti-social, alpha male confidence, etc.
The proper and authentic White response in this situation is not perfect confidence at all, but a sufficient measure of its counter-measure - taking a wary, analytical step back and taking into account the necessary factors of our long term interests - i.e. sufficient intellectual assessment. If that does not turn the girls on, well too bad, but their instincts pandered to and uncritiqued have shown what they lead to - puerile girls walking around with primates – oooh, so confident! And to correct the effect of these primates on society? Where they might not leave enough cute guys around, we’ll have a night of the long knives – ooh so confident! Let’s get rid of those guys who aren’t cute enough anyway…the one’s capable of confidence’s counterpart - empathy. Yeah! A world of sociopaths!...er, isn’t that what we have?
Speaking of the irony of that, Rodney Martin has actually called for a night of the long knives. Can you imagine? This fool is chomping at the bit for a resurrection of the Third Reich and its agenda verbatim. Rodney is another coming-up through the William Pierce school of “history”. But in Rodney’s case, a pet peeve of his is being enraged because Germany lost Breslau after World War II. Even though they had it even according to The Versailles Treaty prior to World War II, and would have kept it if not for Hitler’s war- mongering (but Rodney will blame everyone else, not Hitler). You know, Breslau, now Polish Wroclaw, started-out as a Bohemian city, then after going back and forth between Bohemian and Polish control a few times, a Mongol invasion wiped-out the Poles there. Rodney says his family is from there. Maybe it is not a coincidence that he looks the way he does – kind of puts some truth to the World War I stereotype of “the Hun.”
Rodney doesn’t have much good to say about Poland, but follows William Pierce’s cookie cutter (the Nazis were really being good to Poland). In fact, the first Rodney addressed me was to smear me as to how bad I was for challenging Marcus’ crap heap of anti- Polish propaganda - including saying that Germany was entitled to the western third of Poland and that World War II had never ended. Kyle Hunt continued to speak with the Nazi Marcus after that episode as if he is just the coolest, most reasonable guy.
Now where was that “White man March” again? When? How???
Its so well organized. But? Why? Because the “organizer” believes in Hitler.
Rather, don’t send a boy or a fool to do a man’s job.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, July 14, 2014 at 11:35 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Blogs & Blogging, Islam & Islamification, Myth and modernity, National Socialism, New Right, The American right, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 3
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, July 6, 2014 at 03:31 PM in Activism, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, European Nationalism, The American right, White Nationalism
The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 2
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, July 6, 2014 at 03:17 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Eugenics, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Marxism & Culture War, The American right, The Proposition Nation, White Nationalism
Calabritto, where Samnites holed-up after pilfering the Roman legions, the valley below where Spartacus led his uprising of slave forces against Rome.
As such, Post Modernity puts a halt to the impervious linearity of Modernity, which has a propensity to run rough-shod and rupture our biological systems, ways and boundaries; but as Post Modernity prompts the employment of judgment in the hermeneutic turn - with engaged, circular process of inquiry from larger to smaller units of analysis - it can use that judgment to reconstruct traditional European forms and ways; and it can also make use of the positive aspects of Modernity’s logics of meaning and action (also characteristically European), as well.
Modernity having good and bad properties for the reconstruction and growth of a people and Post Modernity as a way of managing its two sides are thus important conceptual tools for us to maintain. Nevertheless, and although Modernity has a good and a bad side, it is the bad side that is especially important for us to maintain sight-of, for its propensities to wreck us in impervious liberalization and unaccountably obliterate our “borders” - the concept of Modernity unchecked in that regard is one of our greatest concerns.
Modernity is a quest and world view stemming from western traditions of objectivity and pursuit of universal, foundational truths. It has been the most determinedly evangelical and far reaching world view that the world has ever known. While continually putting ethnic resources at risk, its pursuit has nevertheless gained consensus by yielding fantastic results of technology, scientific insight and more; translating politically in the unburdening, simplifying belief that freedom, liberalism and universal rights will progress toward foundational truths; casualties and destruction on the way are cast aside as an experimentally necessary hazard.
Given its pervasive influence and its taken for grantedness by people in general, as facticitous, “the way it is”, it is especially important to understand its logics of meaning and action correctly, including how Jewish interests, and others unconcerned for European interests, would play Modernity’s “objectivity” and other properties (e.g., passivity, as in “the suicide” meme) against us.
It is also important thus to understand how Jewish interests in particular, would distort the concept of Post Modernity, to where most people would apprehend its concern to be some sort of obfuscating Marxist ruse, a shallow “dada” movement for varieties of trivial indulgence, if not hyper-relative, polymorphous decadence.
On the contrary, Post Modernity as a project is one which corresponds with the most serious issues of reconstructing our people, literally, and maintaining them.
Moreover, because Post Modernity can view both sides of Modernity, it can allow us to not only foster but to further our people, using its positive side, where we should, without losing our characteristic forms.
The negotiative logics of Post Modernity, properly understood and managed, can allow peoples to manage and reconstruct traditional practices and time immemorial forms while availing themselves of Modernity where its “change”, “progress”, “innovation” etc., is advisable.
However, it is for its enormous power, its propensity for vast and universal reach, its impervious objectivity, its non-accountability, its obliviousness to boundaries and borders, its destruction as opposed to maintenance and reconstruction of our cultures /peoples, that accurate understanding of the pejorative side inherent in the logics of meaning and action of Modernity is most important to maintain a conceptual bead-on.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, July 6, 2014 at 02:47 PM in Activism, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, European Nationalism, Political Philosophy, Social liberalism, The American right, White Nationalism
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.
This essay is to be something of a summing-up and clarification:
“You alone are uncontingent my friend. I would counsel epistemic humility”
Thus, in background to this essay:
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 07:42 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Immigration and Politics, Journalism, Liberalism & the Left, Race realism, Social Sciences, The American right, The Proposition Nation
It shows the perils of scientism: being used by scientific concepts rather than using them. With that, how our enemies can use scientism against us.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 at 02:18 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Race realism, Science & Technology, The American right, White Nationalism
Working hypotheses will be advanced
as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness;
how they are mistaken;
and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism.
Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses - i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format.
* Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, October 25, 2013 at 05:22 AM in Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, History, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, That Question Again, The American right, White Nationalism
I did not expect to find it necessary to discuss Hannah Arendt at this point. However, from even a cursory inspection of theoretical and historical issues relevant to White separatism and nationalism, one finds her person and views interjected to influence pivotal turns.
1. She was a student and intimate of Heidegger, highly familiar with his concerns as they would bear upon White nationalism and separatism.
2. She was a prominent and articulate Jewess, providing keen insight into the formulation of views in advocacy of those antagonistic to White nationalism and separatism.
For these two reasons, she is of high relevance theoretically.
3. She also managed to impose herself and her views concretely, at pivotal turns for White Nationalism: from her relationship with Heidegger and commentary on the Nazis to her other high profile commentary; on U.S. racial strife, particularly school desegregation, civil rights and her cause célèbre, anti-miscegenation laws – concrete issues which had the eyes of the world, including Marxist antagonists of American Whites, upon them.
Warning: this is a longish essay, 5,500 words. However, it is usefully read in 2 parts - the first part, dealing with theoretical background as it concerns White separatism, is about 2,600 words. The second part deals primarily with her application to issues of segregation as aroused by the Little Rock crisis; it contains some encouragement for the reader to contribute comments by way of their private taste and opinion: that is why I kept these parts together, because I would like the comments to be as one.
“I am unhappy that The Supreme Court which gave us Brown has thrown what I believe to be unnecessary roadblocks on speeding up the process of racial integration and finally getting to the color blind society we would (want) but the direction we are moving in is clear, even if the pace is slower than it should be and in final analysis we owe that to the Court which had the courage and unaninimity to decide Brown.” - Nicholas Katzenbach
I have already critiqued Steve Sailer’s idea of “citizenism” but, although I do not wish to start blogging again on a regular basis, I note that Sailer once again has been promoting this viciously destructive idea - this time in The American Conservative. Therefore, I have a few more things to say on this issue.
Sailer is illogical or he is mendacious. He states that Taylor’s white nationalism is doomed because white Americans are non-tribalistic individualists, and then he himself recommends his own form of tribalism - a collective group identity as “American citizens”. Very well, but if white Americans are so individualistic that a collective group identity based on actual biological kinship is doomed to fail, then why should a collective tribal identity based on the legalistic fiction of citizenship succeed?
Further, Sailer asserts that “citizenism” would entail a degree of personal self-sacrifice (see below). White individualists will sacrifice for the American tribe - which includes guys like Sharpton - but not for their own white tribe. In other words, tribalism for whites is bad or “impossible”, except for the type of tribalism promoted by Sailer.
I’ll begin with an apology to Geoff, who was off the starting line a lot quicker than me with a response to Steve Sailer’s second instalment of his answer to Jared Taylor. But I found a great deal in the Sailer argument that merited detailed attention, and a dedicated post was the only way to do it justice.
As we shall see, Sailer’s argument is, unfortunately, pretty lame. The more salient quotes follow as indents, with my responses beneath.
Does anyone know the history of the 1965 law? I just can’t figure out why anyone would be in favor of such a law. Who were the backers for this sort of thing? Who lobbied for such a bill and why?
A comment on this Amren post, which somehow slipped past Ian Jobling’s eagle eye.
Is there anyone out there who is still so innocent ... even at Amren? Or is this Alex Linder in playful mood?
The National Policy Institute (NPI) has a preliminary website here.
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