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 - as one can readily demonstrate if not “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments upon 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?).
This isn’t making excuses for Jews or letting them off the hook in any way or form.
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.
The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by a White Left.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 25, 2015 at 01:45 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
“You fucked my brother? Yeah, I did and”... scene from Raging Bull:
I must say in defense of my father that he was never physically violent (aside from knocking-over the occasional sofa or hamster cage). But in display of rage, anger and hatred, Raging Bull was mellow by comparison, no comparison to my father, in fact.
Captain Chaos said: “Daniel, before you wedge your head any further up your own keister with all this talk of “hermeneutics” you should pay heed to this quote from the philosopher Hume”:
Perhaps by “passion” CC was in fact suggesting something in line with what Ramzpaul was discussing with Stark - that “you should follow and work on what you feel most strongly about, even if you can only manage it as a hobby… that way, even if you don’t make much money at it, you will still be spending your life in a way that you find meaningful and enjoyable.” GW’s ontology project might be concerned to note that “passions” are speaking from our authentic nature and therefore provide an essential impetus in guiding an authentic narrative that mere rationalism cannot.
However, since CC posed empiricism in contrast to hermeneutics, I thought I’d draw upon an extreme example of “passion” to illustrate not only how passions might, but probably should, be ameliorated, crafted and channeled better with hermeneutics.
There is no reason why hermeneutics cannot take heed of the passions, if not follow them - if I were being cute, I’d say that following them would be another narrative (say, like the story of “raging bull”), with its own logic of meaning and action, but particularly as we are talking Hume, I’d tend to look at this as an observation to take under consideration at the empirical end, a part of the “circular” process of inquiry.
It’s good feedback though and that is why CC has been missed here.
He must be right that rationalism can be exaggerated. Even so, passions will be mitigated and subject to some rational consideration by socialization. If proposed as an alternative narrative by which to guide one’s life, the passions unbridled by the rational cultivation of hermeneutic process and its testing by social concerns would emerge quite speculative; life would be short and/or brutish.
Having been a very temperamental person (still am, some times), and not having had recourse to much rational discourse - being surrounded by people who gave free reign to their passions (temper) and wish to be expediently done with annoyances - I used to use my anger (which was intense, often a rage bigger than I was) as maps to show the way to social critique. It did seem to work to uncover some mysteries, but eventually it was used against me by those who know how to manipulate emotionalism - (as Truck Roy explains that sociopaths skillfully do; they are not moved by empathy with emotional appeals) - especially where I was not in Italy and sociopaths could stereotype me, “other” me and vilify me as a “crazy Italian.”
The problem with this evolutionary strategy for me was that I was in America, not an Italian village. Therefore, there was not a community of kindred people around who could be bothered to talk; in fact the rule of individuality, particularly for males, would tend to look upon any such request to talk as manipulative or weakly borrowing against sovereign individuality; thus, you were likely to get a very angry rebuke rather than finding one who could understand and help pick up the pieces in an efficient way. Taking for granted the level of emotionality as the Italian village did may have served in a common population, as Christianity may have served there as well, but not in the antagonistic heterogeneity of The U.S.
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
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 02:53 AM in Activism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Union, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Social liberalism, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: Europe, World Affairs
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
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
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.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:59 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, No particular place to go, Popular Culture, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: Africa, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Being born and bred in London and knowing nothing else but ubiquitous multi- culturalism, it’s very difficult for people of my generation and younger to envisage an all English London, or Britain for that matter. Using myself as an example, I’ve never been in a public space which has been 100% English. Always does the spectre of multi- culturalism reveal itself, even in the most remote towns of England.
Most of you have had a palpable taste of what a homogeneous White country is like, but we haven’t! Therefore we desperately need to create this image of what a future, homogeneous White country would look like.
This has to be done, I think, through the culture. We need poetry, art, music and festivals (and fun) to hit those primal, emotive, tribal nerves.
On my streets I see minority White kids speaking like Jamaican gangsters. Why? Because they’ve had to adapt themselves culturally to the demographic reality in order to survive. Why isn’t there a cultural well from which they can gain strength and pride to overcome this imposition?
I’m not suggesting we become more liberally trendy, or neglect the hardcore topics, but we need to inject some life into this thing. To inject pride into our people, of the beauty of our people especially in homogeneity, and happiness (smiles and laughter) - because we’ve got enough tears and misery.
There is nothing particularly enlightening or original about my post, nevertheless as you know there is a complete absence of positivity in being English et al. I thought I could shed some light on why, perhaps, younger people aren’t being attracted to nationalism - or more importantly, being what they’re naturally supposed to be.
Although this is not an example from England, I think this is the kind of thing we should be doing and the kind of image we want to exhibit to all our people (especially the young) in our own unique authentic forms: Beauty, pride and happiness.
A vision nominated by Chris
Note: The last 30 seconds of the video are muted and nothing can be done about it. Sorry for that.
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
Jez Turner is under no illusions as to the powers-that-be: capitalist-marxist-liberal, they are heads of the same beast and not going to grant us our autonomy without a fight.
However, they are experts, of course, in exploiting our weaknesses, providing diversions, disempowering and demoralizing our people. Consequently, motivating our people to fight as a group, in our group interests, is problematic.
Bearing in mind that what is meant by “fight” in this post is not necessarily literal combat but all aspects of fighting for our interests..
On the topic of organizing the motivation* of our fighters then, we might refer to war historian, Prof., Sir Hew Strachan’s thoughts on the matter.
He observes that some motivations of fighters are not recognized because they are out of fashion and not cool to tell the public.
Of course a state sanctioned excuse for exercising blood-lust and revenge among the particularly violent is just a mask and direction of already existing motivation - which requires to be directed appropriately therefore. To gain cooperation from a balance of the population requires a normalizing if not ennobling of incentive/motivation.
Humanitarian concern - higher national ideals - booty.
Humanitarian concern is considered a legitimate public reason nowadays. And it can be one reason why fighters are legitimately motivated.
Higher national ideals can be and have been traditionally a reason why people fight - they still are, but it is not so cool to state as a motivation nowadays (largely as a result of vast over-compensations in that regard in the World Wars).
Booty is even more stigmatic nowadays to cite as your motivation. Yet, Strachan observes, this has been the primary reason for most fighting though the ages. He notes that this motivation initially became problematic and remains problematic as wars have emerged more often a liability than a profit - hence, no profit to be shared.
But particularly when the matter is taking back resources that are our co-evolutionary birthright, there might be reward to motivate and allocate to our peoples for fighting. Humanitarian concern would work there as well, as there are clear matters of inhumaneness to our peoples, injustice - justice to be had. While we work on the meta-national** narratives that GW advises as necessary inspiration..
The question becomes the formulation, the proportion and the content:
Humanitarianism, Nationalist Ideals and Booty
** GW would probably not approve of the word “meta” in this context but I used it deliberately, to make a point that meta-communication is neither wholly nor necessarily disconnected from the essential.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 12:51 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Demographics, European culture, European Nationalism, Immigration and Politics, Military Matters, Popular Culture, Psychology, White Nationalism
Some Mulatto with a White French mother (and White French girlfriend) intimates a stiff-arm salute and right-wing revisionism and he’s one of us? I think not.
Jews are bad for us. Ok, enough evidence. But from there the right goes on to stretch the inference, to where blacks are ok. ? Some are wise to the J.Q., some are separatists who need guidance to help the rest understand that we only want separation as well, not their exploitation, but to kiss their ass and act like they are in our interest group? Give us a break. To make matters worse, the right not only typically panders to blacks, but condemns Southern and Eastern Europeans as not being in our interest group.
The right has the hallmarks of a lack of courage and a general policy of pandering.
Among that, the right pander to negrophilic inclinations and diversions coming from females (the problem is only the “Muslims” or only the “Jews”) to mask their cowardice of standing up for our European people. They admire Dieudonné.
This perspective is allowed by female gate-keepers to Jewish and corporate power, and their divide and conquer as it augurs to have Europeans fighting one another; pandering to the basest puerile female inclination of incitement to competition - “don’t worry about those pretty mudsharks, or those rabid blacks getting over”, it doesn’t bother some White woman, whose fat-ass is in a powerful control point and can drive a hard bargain as a result.
And they (right-wingers) don’t wonder why Atzmon thinks Dieudonné is wonderful?
Je ne suis pas Dieudonné
They might be able to get through female gate-keepers some, get on one side of a divide and conquer in their incitement - e.g., as favored by a particular group of European females.
That is a dubious strategy, let alone of merit as a battle plan. The troops, the people in full, as it were, must be grounded in their cause and authentically motivated as they will not be sufficiently, only focused on Jews. When you tell a young man that the tossing aside of what he is born to see as his ultimate treasure is not an important problem, or that some Mulatto with a lovely French wife is OK, simply because he coddles Faurisson’s focus on gas chambers and memes some covert intimation of a stiff-arm salute, how is that supposed to help his morale and address his concrete, fundamental concerns? And how is it supposed to gain her respect? Never mind an appropriate White woman for him. We hate Jews! Now that’s inspiration!
We can see who these self described elite don’t like. Who do they care about? Not White women, obviously, apparently not White men. Perhaps one other guy, one with E1b1b, if not the Jew on a stick ..besides perhaps advancement of their own position.
The last time I was in Paris, I had planned to stay five days but could only manage two. I was so absolutely disgusted, outraged to see the kind of women whom I might dream of, only to see them with blacks. I had to get out, retreat to save my sanity.
Some right-wingers are saying we have to drop everything, basically adopt blacks and others as a part of our interest group and focus only on Jews. Blacks are OK, mudsharks are just genetically defective. Talk about someone whose balls have shriveled-up.
This is a woman of German descent, I care that she not do this and believe that she is not genetically defective – don’t you believe she has been corrupted?
Until fairly recently, I wondered to myself what were the genetic components among European women that made them most resistant to out-breeding. It was an intriguing question to me. It still is, to a limited extent. To my surprise, I found myself changing - upon a more complete survey of what is going on. I do believe that corruption of the culture and rule structure is the deeper concern. There are just too many Europeans who were perfectly good for centuries who are suddenly doing this, rupturing their ancient lines – it cannot all be written-off as genetic defects. It is a second black plague, but coming from different rats and using cultural auspices as its vector. This is not time for the medieval medicine of Christianity nor of scientism for that matter.
While being against the Jew is absolutely necessary and a primary concern, an antagonist of ours second to none, that is not a full culture, not even a grounding of an army to fight. The hermeneutic perspective implied by Majority Rights would be, as it premises our outlook on the full genus and species of our European peoples, the reconstruction of the ecologies of our cultures and people, addresses problems of our own making and ranks, problems and antagonists in due course.
The two world views that the right puts forth are Christianity and Hitler.
Some may foolishly wish to ignore the Trojan horse that is Christianity. Most people cannot play with its obvious absurdity, do not like the games that charlatans play “to make sense of” and dupe us with those tarot cards; others readily see the Trojan horse for what it is, implications of its texts and what it leads to being all too obvious.
Matt Parrott says that he has “given up on the generation 68ers,” but that appears to be just more of his bureaucratic straw-manning for the right – brushing aside competition with false attributions of people who might know better and not let people put one over on younger folks. Perhaps he has a wish to see everyone who opposes Hitler and Jesus as “sixty eighters” whereas the hip kids “get it.” “ We are generation Identitaire!” - it is not the fault of the Jews or the right-wing White elitists and plutocratic traitors, it is the fault of older White people - older than Matt, anyway. It appears to be just an attempt to push-aside competition for the position of spokesman who might maintain that position by blowing smoke up the ass of the young and naive with Jesus stuff or pander to women with Hitler shit.
The well motivated idea is not to abandon “teaching” 68er’s, as his straw man suggests, but to allow the experience and abilities among those whom it may concern, though a bit older than Matt, to contribute to European interests where they might. And if they do not believe in Hitler and Jesus that does not mean that they need to be shamed, but rather that their experience has them honestly looking at these darlings of the right for their inadequacies and that they are prepared to forge a new, more authentic European way of life, unlike the young fogies made incredibly self righteous by the mixed fortune of growing up with the Internet.
Andrew Anglin says his eyes watered when he saw the clip of Nazi girls doing exercises in unison, he gushes over the rallies for Hitler, expresses admiration for the assimilation of the lock-step eusocial behavior of animal species such as birds, ants and bees. I find this sort of thing and the rallies, a whole nation beholden to one ranting inter-European war-monger, Hitler, repugnant; and I do not think that I am alone of any generation. Nor am I a baby boomer or a generation 68er, but an Xer – I will cop to that; I recognize a great deal of selfish destruction among the baby boomers (like a swarm of locusts); more, that the world war 2 generation were bamboozled by the context of the war into accepting radically anti-White changes, much commenced in The 1950’s. But to blame hippies, i.e. White men, is a convenient diversion for the Right to pander to feminist bitches and take the Jewish and corporate deflect at once.
No, I will not accept blame for things that happened before I was born or when I was a small child. I will not see myself as a failure because my attempts to do something about it were not facilitated by the Internet.
As I have mentioned previously, I can tell you from that perspective that the Internet provides huge advantages. Life is so much easier, everything from word processing to information acquisition, confirmation and comraderie is possible in a way that was impossible before. There is not much good to be said for years of isolation. However, it did not allow one to easily bypass lived experience and plug into what is mistakenly, sometimes badly mistakenly, presented as a fully considered system such as Hitler’s. One was forced to live through and see plainly the fact of its philosophical failures (along with the failures of liberalism).
As it stands and amidst the vast destruction of European peoples, the right reacts with renewed conviction in “the tried and true” - really, the tried and failed - Jesus and Hitler, rather than a genuine holistic concern for our peoples, which these views certainly are not. It pretends that we must put all aside in order to focus on the Jew. By ignoring our concern as a people with a complete, authentic set of concerns, they can engraft HItler worship as a pseudo-justification, as the Jew is presented as an all encompassing concern. Thus, taking comfort for their disastrous war plan as put forth by their savior, Hitler; failing that, they might fall back on Jesus as savior, rather than a concern for our people.
If sheer faith in Jesus or natural competition resulted in appropriate genetic pairings and justice then what is happening with miscegenation would not happen. The attitude of “just let it happen, the defective will be weeded out”, is very poorly considered.
Seeing that our people are not the true concern and that White men are not able to hold up to Jews and blacks because they are not organized by these “leading voices”, by anything other than Jesus and Hitler, females will allow for the Jesus guys to beguile people from their hypergamy; and allow for the Hitler guys to prevent the ethnocentric from coming up with a better solution, better cultural guidelines to supersede the horrific injustice and destruction as a result of stupor and exploitation; they will revert to scientism, “nature’s competition, the way it is”, so say our god, Adolf. One of their hopes is to add females to the ranks by pandering to their most puerile inclination to incite competition. “Blacks are ok, they were no problem before the Jews manipulated them.” Talk about weak White men. And how does that hold up to EGI? Do we really need them so badly that we can ennoble them and their White women because they might think they are wise to the J.Q.? Will not people, our own included, respect us more if we do not pretend that we care so much about them, as much as ourselves, even to where their fucking us, literally, is no problem?
Hitler was great, he targeted millions of Slavics for elimination – pretty White women and all. Get rid of that competition. Seems to be a pattern among the right.
Again, some take the tack that we should not worry about these White women going to blacks, they are genetically defective and being weeded-out. That is small consolation and when one views, even by happenstance, the White women that non-Whites are getting it finally becomes apparent that genetics cannot be all of the problem.
There is something to be said for the men who will not try to rationalize it; and a wariness that should be applied to the kind who do rationalize it, as the ones with bad instincts for our people, who contributed to getting us into this mess in the first place. The idea that one who hates miscegenation is being distracted from the J.Q. is nonsense, as I have said all along, as it inexorably leads to the J.Q. through investigation of its various causes.
President Sarkozy, in 2008, obligating the native French to interbreed with non-Whites
While I used to be more curious about what sort of women would be least disposed to this, now I do see the culture and its rules as more fundamental an issue. As humans, we are born very incomplete, and it is incumbent upon those looking after the social rule-structures of our culture to assimilate the proper guidance of our behaviors, even to our own best interests. We could say, like Uncle Adolf, that it is all about competition and struggle at bottom, denying human agency and the corrective guidance of culturally mediating rules, parenting, stewarding and cooperation between European groups. We can allow his e1b1b and all is struggle at bottom perspective to work its wonders, pandering to those who would just as soon see Europeans kill one another for all it really cares about Europeans.
But if we are to be true to ourselves, yes, we must be vigilant against Jews and the Israel Lobby as they operate against European interests from seven choke points and their genetic/cultural pattern; we must be vigilant against their liberal Marxist lackeys - Je ne suis pas Charlie. But neither are we Dieudonné. It is also undoubtedly a part of female nature to get-off on acquiescing to the victorious bully. We must be vigilant against the Right’s pandering - including pandering to the increased one-up position of females within he disorder of modernity, where they are more powerful gate-keepers than ever - with the rupture of social classificatory bounds through anti-racism their base propensity to incite genetic competition more arbitrary than ever, where there will be guys coming from every direction, looking to show how tough they are by pandering to females as to how “objective”, rational, above it and liberal that they are.
Je ne suis pas Dieudonné
“Unlike its predecessor Hara Kiri, Charlie Hebdo, the liberal-libertarian newspaper, has become one of the organs of the dominant ideology. They can recognize their own.”
They recognize their own..
As such, Tanstaafl’s account is even more descriptively accurate of those behind the policies of Charlie Hebdo - they’re an organ of “neoconservatism” (a Jewish platform):
And they recognize their own under attack..
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 10:25 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Journalism, Law & Order, Media, Military Matters, White Nationalism
We are separatists, seeking the sovereignty of our peoples, not supremacists seeking to impose-upon, the exploitation or the destruction of others.
We will continue our course of being unfettered by traditional religions and their ill-fit to European interests.
We will continue to hold the position that Jews are not European and are not a part of our interest group.
We will continue with our quest for homeostasis in European peoples, moving from the more comprehensive social systemic and historical view of our peoples to the deep and close readings that GW gives.
We will be unfettered by Nutzism and any absurd claim that it had the best interests of all Europeans at heart. It can only be dangerously divisive and it is not too much intellectual work to utilize similar ideas as theirs for whatever good they might have been doing while rejecting the obviously destructive ones.
We will be having more interviews and podcasts. In fact, we have three or four on the near horizon:
One featuring GW and Jez Turner promises to be fascinating - two men with long and intimate understanding of the nationalist struggle in Britain.
James Bowery will be having a discussion with Frosty Wooldridge - that will not only be interesting, but important.
Greg Johnson will be talking to us about Heidegger, maybe more. I certainly look forward to that; every nationalist should.
Paul Weston will be talking to us again prior to the elections. GW hopes to support his efforts and we look forward to all going well as Paul has the potential to be an outstanding spokesman for our cause - natives of European nations; and in his case, of course, native Britain in particular.
Those are just a few of the exciting interviews and podcasts on the horizon.
We will be looking to add a few new writers to our staff.
We will also be looking to cooperate with a DNA lab to begin the efforts of “curating” our peoples so to speak. We look for suggestions, which geneticists to use and more.
Let us know how Majority Rights can serve your interests as a person of indigenous European descent. If your suggestion is in good faith and fits within our rather broad parameters we would love to hear from you. It is an honor to serve this cause.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, December 31, 2014 at 07:19 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Business & Industry, Economics & Finance, Education, European culture, Homeschooling & Adult Education, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Sciences, White Nationalism
For those intelligent minds inquiring without the better of academia’s time tested structures in the humanities, but only proceeding of their will to make their way through erudition from their standpoint, their penchant in Western advocacy would have us return to modernity (were it possible) and objectivism.
To the academically inexperienced and untrained advocate of Western interests there are two grand disadvantages.
First, he is not appraised of the sublime workings and analyses of these scholarly apparati as they might be applied in our interests; and secondly, what he does know and hear about them tends to be vast perversions of the notions as passed through Jewish academia and media.
The well meaning Westerner thus sets about to cure us of all this hogwash, and would unbeknownst return us to obsolete tenets of modernity and objectivism - precursors to the very afflictions to our homeostasis that he seeks to cure, such as liberalism.
To him, “objectivism” is good. “Relativism” is bad.
He does not sufficiently appreciate that the analytic framework of objectivism, relativism and subjectivism is not inherently antagonistic to Western interests. The same would apply to a myriad of terms and concepts that have been misapplied against European interests and rather stupidly taken by White Nationalists as such - inherently bad or wrong. It is a temptation and an easy mistake, but a bad mistake – as these are deliberate traps set against European interests unbeknownst to those without a privileged vantage on the working of Jewish academics over these scholarly apparati.
Let me address just objectivism and relativism briefly.
Critique of objectivism ranges from what would correctly be seen as the most brazen and vulgar Jewish sophistry to the most sublime calculations of Heisenberg or Gödel.
However, when I critique objectivism it will tend to be heard by those outside of the academic humanities as if I am disposing of the framework which has yielded such fantastic scientific advances in its entirety, as if I am a Jew looking to make rhetorical tropes the king.
The truth is that there are limits and very real problems for us as a people in the pursuit of mere objectivism. It is among the central elements of our problems.
Plato being granted some permission by Christianity, thus having gravity in our traditions, will incline many to see in this argument a stupid straw man that all is relative. That I am promoting sheer sophistry and relativism. Not. In fact, hyper-relativism is an upshot of objectivism.
On the other hand, there is an aspect of rhetoric called casuistry which has also gotten a bad name from Jewish misuse. However, casuistry proper would take into account the sublime limitation of objectivism, taking the facts yielded by its experience and inquiry indeed BUT then making the best argument that it can on the basis of those facts in conjunction with one’s interests inherently social as they are. There is no denial of facts but a prioritizing of them as they accord to human concern. That is right.
On the radio page now, Paul Weston, the man who managed to get himself arrested for reading from Winston Churchill’s The River War, talks to GW and DanielS about himself, his party, nationalism and the political climate, the nature of UKIP, blogging on the DT, that adventure in Winchester, and (even) the JQ. He’s a good guy. You should listen.
Upon Winchester Guildhall, Paul Weston quoted the following passage from Churchill’s “The River War”:
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, December 22, 2014 at 02:29 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, European Nationalism, European Union, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Journalism, Law & Order, Media, MR Radio, Political analysis
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, December 18, 2014 at 03:10 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, White Communities & Micro-Economies, White Genocide: Europe, World Affairs
In Richard’s case, fate had him stuck next to one Randy Scheunemann. Despite the discomfort, it was instructive (for me, anyway) to learn who this man was - an insider neo-con, influential during the W. Bush Administration and in fact, a member of Project For A New American Century, a.k.a., Operation Clean Break (to secure the ‘realm’ around Israel). Scheunmann was one of its loud voices advocating all of its wars and military operations going on behalf of Israel, using The U.S. and any other nation it could press into its service. But once out of a job with the “neo-cons” out of office, there he was, helplessly hovering, captive with an enemy.
My own experience in the fate of helplessly hovering did not have me placed in the company of an enemy, but with a man who was on amicable terms, could have been a good friend. Instead I ruined his day and caused a very uncomfortable, seemingly endless ski-lift ride to the top of Aspen Mountain. As this particular episode did not highlight the large fall of a once prominent man, but the pathetic bungling of normal relations, I intend to examine rather what I believe to be a non-trivial aspect – and that is the connection of fate. It is not my purpose to state that I have anything like a sufficient explanation yet for the meaning of fate. Rather, that I am compelled to believe in its more or less possibility – whereas I had not, and would not take the notion of fate seriously prior to experiences which I will recount.
Unlike Richard Spencer, I have been skiing exactly twice in my life. The first time was in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Having taken my ski lessons and mastered what was called “the intermediate slope” quite handily, I developed a bit of hubris in my ability – at least for the intermediate slope. I tried the advanced slope once and could not even stand before falling and being jettisoned downward. Nevertheless, even little kids were whisking down past me and I could not believe how they did it – I only realized that I could not handle the advanced slope.
Satisfied nevertheless, I returned to my hostel that evening (but did of course I see an interracial couple on the way, in case anyone believes New Hampshire is immune). One of the townies was there talking about how he advocated Pat Buchanan, who was running for Presidency (was that the year he had a Negro running mate? Perhaps); it struck me as strange for a kid that young to be promoting Pat (whom I never thought to be very good - “rather than ‘the sewer of multiculturalism’ all Americans should integrate as English speaking Christians” - good thinking, Pat. No wonder the mainstream media kept you around as a convenient foil all those years), but I appreciated his defiant conservatism. New Hampshire was one of the few places where Buchanan could win. Fate was kicking in, the trance recollections before and during my recent trip to Europe from which I’d just returned were prompting me..
There were some English skiers there at the hostel. A couple of young lads and an older English gent there solo. I could not forget his name, as it was Hamilton. We talked candidly about race. He expressed his admiration at how Germany had built their country right back up after World War II. When discussing the problems of our respective European nationalities, he gritted his teeth and said, “Jews!” I was not ready to go there. I still needed to hold breadth that this may be in some part, if not primarily a distraction from deeper issues. It was probably not in that moment but somewhere in that evening that I felt myself being aware that I was outside of my normal consciousness, castigating (laced with the vilest profanity) the girls running the hostel, one from France in particular, for being a nation of feminist bitches. They apparently understood that this was a trance as they calmly instructed me the next morning that I had to visit North Hampton - as I had told them that they were going to tell me to go to North Hampton in the next few days to meet my fate among the greatest concentration of lesbians in The U.S., North Hampton being the proximity of two of America’s most prestigious women’s colleges – Smith and Mount Holyoke.
The parting with Mr. Hamilton did not go as I might have liked. It was clear that we were both dearly committed to defending Europe against liberalism and non-Europeans. I had told him in the trance state the evening before that you can trust a man if you can look him dead in the eye and he does not look away. The next morning Mr. Hamilton had a big smile on his face as he saw me (my trances always seemed to have a healing effect on people); we shook hands in parting, he looked me dead in the eye; but I turned my eyes away and a puzzled frown came across his face. Though I regret making myself didactically untrustworthy in that instant, I know now that I did that because I did not yet know enough to express full enough agreement with him. That day, Hamilton, a Thomas Hamilton rather, massacred school children in Dunblane, Scotland. So it must have been the 13th of March 1996.
Hubris meets Nemesis
My hubris in prevailing over the intermediate slope of the White Mountains is humbled by the Nemesis of Aspen’s “intermediate” slope.
The next and last time I went skiing was in March again, four years later, in 2000, a few weeks after my father passed away. I had to drive his car from New Jersey to my brother in Arizona. On the way I decided to try skiing again – this time in Aspen, Colorado, on Aspen Mountain precisely. I must have made an awkward sight in my Carhartt pants amidst all other people equipped in proper skiing attire. But such was my hubris, I had mastered the intermediate slopes in The White Mountains. I could do this, just as I am. I rented my skis, took a day pass and hopped on the ski-lift next to a guy maybe around my age, late 30’s, obviously a nice guy – as one who clearly had experience, he nevertheless told me not to worry about my pants; and gave me some tips; to watch what other people were doing and encouraged me to have fun. We proceeded to talk and he said that he enjoyed hot air balloon racing.
I quickly chimed in with the story of the two balloonists who had accidentally drifted over Belarus the prior September, only to be shot as helpless sitting ducks. As I recounted the story to him, I did what many of you would do - I laughed, because it was so ridiculous and pathetic: the thought of these two sitting ducks, helplessly hovering there, American passports in hand, pathetically shot down as they dangled above the doltish force of nature that is a neo-Soviet mentality.
My raucous, cynical humor was not well placed. A sudden pained expression came over his face. “These were my friends” he said..
Posted by DanielS on Monday, December 15, 2014 at 03:37 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, European culture, European Nationalism, Journalism, Linguistics, Media, Popular Culture, Psychology, Race realism, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: America
- Bob in D.C.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, November 25, 2014 at 07:45 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Blogs & Blogging, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Law & Order, Marxism & Culture War, Popular Culture, The Proposition Nation
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
Jan The White Uniter has initiated a new website and will be talking to MR soon..
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Feminism, Health, History, Marxism & Culture War, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social Sciences
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