Liberal Modernity and Nihilism - Alain Badiou on Evil

Alain Badiou’s thoughts on evil and associated matters in an interview from 2001.

Some snippets.

Today we see liberal capitalism and its political system, parliamentarism, as the only natural and acceptable solutions. Every revolutionary idea is considered utopian and ultimately criminal. We are made to believe that the global spread of capitalism and what gets called “democracy” is the dream of all humanity. And also that the whole world wants the authority of the American Empire, and its military police, NATO.

In truth, our leaders and propagandists know very well that liberal capitalism is an inegalitarian regime, unjust, and unacceptable for the vast majority of humanity. And they know too that our “democracy” is an illusion: Where is the power of the people?

We live in a contradiction: a brutal state of affairs, profoundly inegalitarian — where all existence is evaluated in terms of money alone – is presented to us as ideal. To justify their conservatism, the partisans of the established order cannot really call it ideal or wonderful. So instead, they have decided to say that all the rest is horrible. Sure, they say, we may not live in a condition of perfect goodness. But we’re lucky that we don’t live in a condition of evil. Our democracy is not perfect. But it’s better than the bloody dictatorships. Capitalism is unjust. But it’s not criminal like Stalinism. We let millions of Africans die of AIDS, but we don’t make racist nationalist declarations like Milosevic. We kill Iraqis with our airplanes, but we don’t cut their throats with machetes like they do in Rwanda, etc.

The refrain of “human rights” is nothing other than the ideology of modern liberal capitalism: We won’t massacre you, we won’t torture you in caves, so keep quiet and worship the golden calf. As for those who don’t want to worship it, or who don’t believe in our superiority, there’s always the American army and its European minions to make them be quiet.

There is no contradiction between the affirmation that liberal capitalism and democracy are the good and the affirmation that evil is a permanent possibility for any individual. The second thesis (evil inside of each of us) is simply the moral and religious complement to the first thesis, which is political (parliamentary capitalism as the good). There is even a “logical” connection between the two affirmations, as follows:

1. History shows that democratic liberal capitalism is the only economic, political, and social regime that is truly humane, that truly conforms to the good of humanity.

2. Every other political regime is a monstrous and bloody dictatorship, completely irrational.

Liberal capitalism is not at all the good of humanity. Quite the contrary; it is the vehicle of savage, destructive nihilism.

The full interview can be found here

Is evil a useful philosophical and political concept? And in what ideological ways is the notion of evil used within the narratives of liberal modernity? What conceptual obfuscation, mystification or indeed clarification can the idea of evil be used for?

At the core of liberal modernity, and present in all of it’s forms and expressions, is a radical form of nihilism at work?

Why does liberal modernity seem to be a phenomenon in which “All that is solid melts into air”?

I don’t have the answers to those questions, but half-witted responses about ‘cultural-Marxism’ - mostly from fans of Glenn Beck - would seem somewhat historically and analytically inadequate to the task of answering them.


Posted by Graham Lister on Saturday, May 4, 2013 at 06:38 AM in Political Philosophy
Comments (28) | Tell a friend



Posted by DanielS on May 04, 2013, 08:40 AM | #

Thanks Graham.

Brilliant observation by Alain Badiou:

There is no contradiction between the affirmation that liberal capitalism and democracy are the good and the affirmation that evil is a permanent possibility for any individual. The second thesis (evil inside of each of us) is simply the moral and religious complement to the first thesis.

And brilliant questions on evil and nihilism, Graham.


Posted by Nietzsche is Right on May 04, 2013, 09:31 AM | #

Question, express, affirm, realize, destroy, censor, oscillate, and dissipate.

I do not contest Hitler, entirely.


Posted by DanielS on May 04, 2013, 09:45 AM | #

The issue with Hitler goes even beyond an improperly drawn paradigm and his doing way more harm than good. Holding the torch for him simply isn’t necessary. The Counter-Queers can’t get it through their heads that premature populism is not their problem, but premature and rather inappropriate elitism.


Posted by Nietzsche is Right on May 04, 2013, 12:11 PM | #

I am firstly a Nietzschean, secondly a fascist, and thirdly a republican. You should be it, likewise. This is, if you’re a principled man.


Posted by DanielS on May 04, 2013, 12:54 PM | #

Definitely not a Nietzschean. That is not a principled position. In fact, Dr. Lister gave an excellent critique of how it is that Nietzsche was espousing a kind of liberalism at the bottom of the prior thread.

A fascist, well, I don’t know what you mean by it, but there is no need to be bound by prior circumstances and formulas - they were applying logic to their needs and requirements and so do I apply logic to our needs and requirements now; we, who see the needs of the circumstances as they are now are not bound to failed formulas which were, in addition, applied to wholly different contexts.

A Republican? Are you joking?


Posted by DanielS on May 04, 2013, 12:59 PM | #

I guess you mean a White republic, yes?


Posted by Nietzsche is Right on May 04, 2013, 01:55 PM | #

The day shall come when you’ll figure that fascism is wholly Socratic, and Nietzschean.

God bless Heidegger!


Posted by DanielS on May 04, 2013, 02:48 PM | #

Posted by Nietzsche is Right on May 04, 2013, 01:55 PM | #

The day shall come when you’ll figure that fascism is wholly Socratic, and Nietzschean.

Maybe for you it is, and maybe you’ll figure out that we’ve got a better way, particularly better than the Nietzschean.



Posted by James Bowery on May 04, 2013, 04:33 PM | #

WD Hamilton’s “Innate social aptitudes of man” concludes with this sentence:

One hears that game theorists, trying to persuade people to play even two-person games like ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’, often encounter exasperated remarks like:  ‘There ought to be a law against such games!’  Some of the main points of this paper can be summarized as an answer to this comment:  that often, in real life, there is a law, and we can see why, and that sadly we also see the protean nature of this Dilemma which, when suppressed at one level, gathers its strength at another.

WD Hamilton is referring, of course, to the levels dividing cell from individual from social group in Price’s equations of multi-level selection.  In other words, “good” and “evil” are relative to the level of selection.

Astounding achievements of creation such as sex, with its meiotic lottery, are merely hinted at by the most advanced social organizations among humans, such as the Hutterite process of dividing one colony into two by, first, building a new colony and then holding a lottery to see which of the Hutterites of the original colony will move to occupy the new colony.


Posted by DanielS on May 04, 2013, 06:18 PM | #

Ye betrayed me.


Posted by James Bowery on May 04, 2013, 07:25 PM | #

You think you’re being betrayed by another person is bad, DanielS, imagine what a victim of cancer has to say to his own cells.  It might to something like:  “Ye betrayed We.”  That puts a whole new spin on the Imperial We, doesn’t it?


Posted by Leon Haller on May 04, 2013, 10:18 PM | #

Before deciding whether to read this full interview from more than a decade ago, I note that it was published in something called “Cabinet” (where do you find these things? google searches?), whose funding was described as follows:

Cabinet is a non-profit organization supported by the Lambent Foundation, the Orphiflamme Foundation, the New York Council on the Arts, the NYC Department of Cultural Affairs, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, the Katchadourian Family Foundation, Goldman Sachs Gives, the Danielson Foundation, and many generous individuals. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation by visiting here.

Am I a dreaded “libertarian” because I resent my tax-dollars being devoted to this type of “cultural enrichment”? And how ironic, but oh so typical: capitalism supporting its own critics.

The one and only one area (besides no longer relevant anticommunism) in which I strongly agreed with the historical neocons (unlike the present variety, who rarely talk anymore about “defunding the Left”) is their critique of the stupidity of capitalist enterprises supporting leftist (and especially anticapitalist) persons and organizations. At least in the US (though I suspect everywhere in the West), the government never supports rightist groups, but it gives billions to our ideological enemies. This must end.



Posted by Silver on May 04, 2013, 11:53 PM | #

Haller, surely that’s a case of defeating the opposition by leading it. 

Lister, your refusal to spell out just what you think should occur politically and economically makes you an annoying, gutless faggot.  For example, when you insist that financial derivatives are a “ponzi scheme”, you’re a faggot.  When you complain that investment banking is a “near criminal” enterprise, you’re a faggot.  And when you moan ceaselessly about “liberal modernity” and “individualism”—absurdly confident that you speak for the entire world—while never daring to even hint at what any alternative would actually imply “on the ground” you’re a tremendous faggot.


Posted by DanielS on May 05, 2013, 12:59 AM | #

Posted by James Bowery on May 04, 2013, 07:25 PM | #

You think you’re being betrayed by another person is bad, DanielS, imagine what a victim of cancer has to say to his own cells.  It might to something like:  “Ye betrayed We.”  That puts a whole new spin on the Imperial We, doesn’t it?

That takes feedback to the higher order of judgment and calibration - which is interesting.


Posted by Leon Haller on May 05, 2013, 05:22 AM | #

Read the essay in its entirety. NOT an enjoyable or enlightening experience.

Here’s a Google-derived excerpt from another article by this Marxist enemy of the West:

The political problem, then, has to be reversed. We cannot start from an analytic agreement on the existence of the world and proceed to normative action with regard to its characteristics. The disagreement is not over qualities but over existence. Confronted with the artificial and murderous division of the world into two—a disjunction named by the very term, ‘the West’—we must affirm the existence of the single world right from the start, as axiom and principle. The simple phrase, ‘there is only one world’, is not an objective conclusion. It is performative: we are deciding that this is how it is for us. Faithful to this point, it is then a question of elucidating the consequences that follow from this simple declaration.

A first consequence is the recognition that all belong to the same world as myself: the African worker I see in the restaurant kitchen, the Moroccan I see digging a hole in the road, the veiled woman looking after children in a park. That is where we reverse the dominant idea of the world united by objects and signs, to make a unity in terms of living, acting beings, here and now. These people, different from me in terms of language, clothes, religion, food, education, exist exactly as I do myself; since they exist like me, I can discuss with them—and, as with anyone else, we can agree and disagree about things. But on the precondition that they and I exist in the same world.

At this point, the objection about cultural difference will be raised: ‘our’ world is made up of those who accept ‘our’ values—democracy, respect for women, human rights. Those whose culture is contrary to this are not really part of the same world; if they want to join it they have to share our values, to ‘integrate’. As Sarkozy put it: ‘If foreigners want to remain in France, they have to love France; otherwise, they should leave.’ But to place conditions is already to have abandoned the principle, ‘there is only one world of living men and women’. It may be said that we need to take the laws of each country into account. Indeed; but a law does not set a precondition for belonging to the world. It is simply a provisional rule that exists in a particular region of the single world. And no one is asked to love a law, simply to obey it. The single world of living women and men may well have laws; what it cannot have is subjective or ‘cultural’ preconditions for existence within it—to demand that you have to be like everyone else. The single world is precisely the place where an unlimited set of differences exist. Philosophically, far from casting doubt on the unity of the world, these differences are its principle of existence.

The question then arises whether anything governs these unlimited differences. There may well be only one world, but does that mean that being French, or a Moroccan living in France, or Muslim in a country of Christian traditions, is nothing? Or should we see the persistence of such identities as an obstacle? The simplest definition of ‘identity’ is the series of characteristics and properties by which an individual or a group recognizes itself as its ‘self’. But what is this ‘self’? It is that which, across all the characteristic properties of identity, remains more or less invariant. It is possible, then, to say that an identity is the ensemble of properties that support an invariance. For example, the identity of an artist is that by which the invariance of his or her style can be recognized; homosexual identity is composed of everything bound up with the invariance of the possible object of desire; the identity of a foreign community in a country is that by which membership of this community can be recognized: language, gestures, dress, dietary habits, etc.

Defined in this way, by invariants, identity is doubly related to difference: on the one hand, identity is that which is different from the rest; on the other, it is that which does not become different, which is invariant. The affirmation of identity has two further aspects. The first form is negative. It consists of desperately maintaining that I am not the other. This is often indispensable, in the face of authoritarian demands for integration, for example. The Moroccan worker will forcefully affirm that his traditions and customs are not those of the petty-bourgeois European; he will even reinforce the characteristics of his religious or customary identity. The second involves the immanent development of identity within a new situation—rather like Nietzsche’s famous maxim, ‘become what you are’. The Moroccan worker does not abandon that which constitutes his individual identity, whether socially or in the family; but he will gradually adapt all this, in a creative fashion, to the place in which he finds himself. He will thus invent what he is—a Moroccan worker in Paris—not through any internal rupture, but by an expansion of identity.

The political consequences of the axiom, ‘there is only one world’, will work to consolidate what is universal in identities. An example—a local experiment—would be a meeting held recently in Paris, where undocumented workers and French nationals came together to demand the abolition of persecutory laws, police raids and expulsions; to demand that foreign workers be recognized simply in terms of their presence: that no one is illegal; all demands that are very natural for people who are basically in the same existential situation—people of the same world. (Alain Badiou)

I have bolded the most important sentence, the ‘fly in the ointment’, so to speak.

Leftisms of all types always fail as political projects; that is, while they often achieve power, they never realize their stated aspirations, those which motivated their voters in the first place. This is finally due to the Left’s unwillingness to accept that social and political and economic inequality (of which the alleged requirement to mitigate is a preference or at best moral hypothesis, not a given fact, as leftists assume) is always based in physical reality. People are individual creatures, unequally made, and as such, simply not interchangeable. No ‘radical equality’ will ever be realized, except that of imprisonment.

In the bolded sentences above, Badiou is admitting that radical equality, or, in this case, that delegitimation of inherited, particular identities embodied by his phrase “there is only one world”, is not a description of the world, but rather an aspiration, and ‘emancipatory’ political goal to works towards. “We are deciding that this is how it is for us”. But can we decide on our own reality? The world can be incrementally redesigned, and that is what, wrt its objects of study and invention, science does. But the world cannot be fundamentally remade; at least, not by merely passing laws or rearranging political and social and economic relations.

Multiculturalism is radically utopian, and thus wholly leftist. It proclaims that the innate human tendency to tribalism, and the attendant social disharmonies brought about by geographic racial integration, can be ‘overcome’ (leftists always speak the language of ‘overcoming’ inherited particularities, instead of respecting them and aligning public policies with them) by education (propaganda), laws and public ‘commitment’ to egalitarianism. If we all redouble our efforts on behalf of ‘tolerance’, then frictions caused by ‘diversity’ can be successfully ‘negotiated’ (whereas the authentic conservative, the true realist, prefers to prevent these racial tensions arising in the first place - “good fences make good neighbors”).

Badiou would seem to be a perfect example of an anti-liberalism which is wholly compatible with a particularly vicious racial universalism. Dr. Lister apparently needs to be informed that anti-liberalism is not per se conservatism. His ‘reasoning’ seems to run as follows:

1. Liberal individualism denies the ontological realities of both socially constructed selfhood, and that particular social communities are greater than mere collections of wholly autonomous parts.

[Note this is a ridiculous characterization of any liberalism, especially including right-liberalism. Who would deny that a fully assembled car is something different from all of the its constituent parts - tires, engine, chassis, steering wheel, seats, axles, etc - lying separately on the ground? The car fulfills its ‘nature’ as a system; disassembled, its constituents are nearly useless.

The market economy is not a collectivity of autonomous parts. It is highly integrated and ‘systemic’; its system is not rationally constructed, however, but arises spontaneously (as Hayek demonstrated) from the infinite interactions of market participants. This is one of several key ‘praxeological’ insights of the Austrian School.]

2. Because liberalism is ontologically inadequate, there is no truth in any aspect of the liberal tradition. 

3. Any critique of liberalism must be more (‘ontologically’) truthful than liberalism itself, and is, furthermore, worthy of consideration by WPs.

I agree with #1, but strongly dissent from #2 and 3.


Posted by Leon Haller on May 05, 2013, 05:42 AM | #

Let me elaborate on what may be unclear in my preceding comment.

I agree that liberalism’s emphasis on so-called ‘self-authorship’ renders it ontologically inadequate. I also agree that there is such a thing as society; that is, a collection of humans who together constitute something greater and different from what they would merely considered individually and summed. A people or nation is not a mere mob, but an entity which is and which abides through time.

My point is that capitalism is not equivalent to an anarchic mob. The products of capitalism are unplanned, but a market order exists. Moreover, this order is not philosophically liberal per se, and can (and does) exist under non-liberal individualist conditions. Indeed, what I myself favor is a non-liberal, Christian/WP authoritarian market order. That, along with appropriate levels of military spending, is what leads to national power and perpetuity.


Posted by Dasein on May 05, 2013, 03:52 PM | #

We live in a contradiction: a brutal state of affairs, profoundly inegalitarian — where all existence is evaluated in terms of money alone – is presented to us as ideal.

The problem is too much egalitarianism.  Is the existence of negroes and the transgendered evaluated in terms of their money?  Does freedom of association (and exclusion) exist?  This fellow lives in a Marxian dreamworld.


Posted by James Bowery on May 05, 2013, 09:37 PM | #

Let me clarify just how interesting, DanielS:

The notion of “self authorship” is, of course, garbage from one perspective but it is absolute sovereignty from another perspective. 

The “me” that says “Thee betrayed We” to his cancerous cells is speaking authentically—with sovereign authority that is not “self authorship” in the way critics of liberalism want me to mean when I say “individual sovereignty”.  They want me to mean it the way they do because they don’t want to face the fact that an individual may, indeed, be viewed as an authentic society and an individual’s consciousness may indeed be an authentic expression of that society.

Now, clearly, in the world that denies biology—that in fact demands an individual consciously and judiciously betray his own body (because it represents his biology—his cells) while claiming “self authorship”— such critics may luxuriate in their prejudice.

However, one must in all intellectual honesty ask why is it that they don’t want to face facts?  A general answer may be that they want others to be extended phenotypes of other bodies.  If the critics are, themselves, extended phenotypes of other bodies then they, themselves, may, indeed, proclaim that glorious estate in which they are not guilty of the mortal sin of “self authorship” and may work toward the “good” of rooting out the “evil” of the “self authorship” of others who do not yet serve their extended phenotypic masters.

An exemplary cricket demonstrates his rejection of liberal self-authorship by being “good”:


Posted by DanielS on May 07, 2013, 12:11 PM | #

What conceptual obfuscation, mystification or indeed clarification can the idea of evil be used for?

One candidate for evil, roughly speaking, would be quantity riding rough-shod over quality.

James, I’ve read your comment. I don’t see any need to disagree with it.

There is no reason why we cannot or should not use self authorship, to the extent it is possible, to confirm our authentic nature, or to confirm quality and range of functional autonomy as individual and society.

At the same time, there is every reason to acknowledge parasitic and alien organism’s attempts to feed on our healthy organism or any susceptibility it may have in degeneration.

..or to acknowledge, in the example that you have, that the natural wish for agency can be exploited by those proposing the wonder of self construction.

I believe it is one problem that anorexics, for example, may be having. As they are infamous for their incredibly stubborn willpower.

They may be subject to so much familial obligation and prohibition that they cannot find their agency, their authentic autonomy. Though she does want to be loyal to the family, she can seek her agency only in rebellion. Yet, if she rebels against the strong obligation, she is merely reacting, not agentive. Hence, the only way she feels she can demonstrate her authentic agency is through starvation. It is the only control she can register.

That’s a simplification; in reality, anorexia is probably more complex and compound in its causes, but this is is to provide an analogy of the problem of authenticity and self authorship.

There need be little doubt that Jewish interests are playing with mechanisms of our agency. It is an interesting problem, yes.

Coming back to the cancer metaphor, I suppose you are problematizing the failure of an organism’s own side in its ability to fight off the attack.


Posted by DanielS. on May 07, 2013, 12:22 PM | #

A remedial course suggested then, would be confirmation of legitimate range of self authorship (as opposed to being physically caused or socially mandated) on the one hand, complemented with what you, in the case you mention, might be looking for, confirmation/verification of a very precise, rigorous, tight (etc.) range of legitimacy and illegitimacy in a close reading.


Posted by James Bowery on May 07, 2013, 01:06 PM | #

DanielS writes: or to acknowledge, in the example that you have, that the natural wish for agency can be exploited by those proposing the wonder of self construction.

The example of the cricket as extended phenotype is the polar opposite.

The cricket has no “wish for agency”.  The cricket is the ideal of the anti-liberal:  Not only has the cricket no “wish for agency”, it has no self at all.  It is entirely the creature of the anti-liberal parasite spawning to its next stage of life.  It is so perfect a slave to the anti-liberal’s self-interest that it may be seen as a disposable body part.


Posted by DanielS on May 07, 2013, 01:36 PM | #

Yes, sure. And its a cool analogy. I did not mean the example of the cricket though, I meant in the example of self authorship which reads its own nature very closely.


Posted by James Bowery on May 07, 2013, 02:32 PM | #

DanielS writes: “ self authorship which reads its own nature very closely.

Such is the moral agency of Man—and in the ultimate expression of this self authorship, one recognizes one’s being as a thought expressed in larger ultimate Being.

If there is a universal “evil” it is the interposition of other beings, such as a priest, “civilization”, church, race, species or the entirety of life.


Posted by DanielS on May 08, 2013, 01:41 AM | #


In this case, if you were to replace the term “ultimate Being” with authentic pattern, it would be a little more clear to me; and, as I have said, I prefer the term modernity where you employ the word “civilization”. Though I understand that you mean civilization as E.O. Wilson might define it, and have good reason to do so; while I prefer Plato’s definition, finding it ameliorative.

..particularly as you use the word “interposition”, that would imply force over persuasion as per Plato’s meaning of “uncivilized”..

..a trick to deprive another of their agency and authenticity or to exploit them by pretending they are merely suited for a subservient role is not persuasion but a kind of force, or interposition.

The pattern of race and species might function as the patterned Being as far as I can tell. Although imposition of these, their being forced upon individual qualities or other patterns, would be a dubious and likely a pejorative matter.


Posted by James Bowery on May 08, 2013, 04:33 PM | #

Yes, basically correct.  For instance, in the archetype of Judaism as group evolutionary strategy, Moses goes up to a mountain, carves the code of Hammurabi into some stones, comes back down to find he might not enjoy the position as intermediary mass manipulator and has those who believe him to be the intermediary (and/or simply realize what he is about to do in rallying “believers” to him) form a gang (in ancient language, a “serpent”) to sneak attack slaughter all those who do not “comply”.  This is a form of artificial selection—a culture of mass manipulation—that interposes between the individual and ultimate Being.

This is not qualitatively different than two guys ganging up on one guy to, say, enforce “the law” to which the two agreed and from which the third dissented—which is the foundation of “civilization”.  Obviously, an individual person who is “wise as a serpent” will not oppose the serpent unless there is some reason to believe martyrdom will serve a purpose.  Jews are simply quantitatively more “civilized”.

However I did make an error in expressing my views.  There is a self-discipline aspect to some interpositions, such as upholding the self-discipline of individual moral agency within upholding the self-discipline of sex within upholding the self-discipline of life—etc.  When I speak of ultimate Being, I am speaking of that which is prior to the first such self-discipline—that of time itself.


Posted by Attila on May 12, 2013, 10:22 PM | #

The last name sounds Jewish (Sephardic)—- might have been Badawi or something like that.  My J-dar says Sephardic.


Posted by DanielS on May 20, 2013, 01:15 PM | #

Graham, if you listen to the first hour of last Saturday’s Political Cesspool, you will hear an informative discussion by Keith Alexander of The Brown vs. Board of Education Decision’s (May 1954) significance in violation of freedom of association by federally forced school integration: Jewish agents Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, his Jewish law clerk and the Jewish head of the N.A.A.C.P.  were behind the decision’s first, precedent setting means of overturning popular and - it should interest your concerns in particular - local will by means of a court ruling.

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)


You must prefix to links...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: The SNPs of Primitive Man

Previous entry: UKIP after Eastleigh

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

Guessedworker commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/19/14, 06:49 AM. (go) (view)

SouthernNationalism commented in entry 'Forced Integration of remaining White flight neighborhoods by Obama Administration' on 12/19/14, 01:25 AM. (go) (view)

FrankDesilvaAtRI commented in entry 'MR Radio - Tom Metzger, Jimmy Marr, Daniel ... and me' on 12/18/14, 02:35 PM. (go) (view)

BlackImpulse commented in entry 'Officer Wilson Interview' on 12/18/14, 12:42 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/17/14, 10:11 PM. (go) (view)

Mummy commented in entry 'An Exhortation From Stanistan' on 12/17/14, 09:38 PM. (go) (view)

MarkH commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/17/14, 09:20 PM. (go) (view)

Max Hastings commented in entry '100th Anniversary of World War I' on 12/16/14, 05:12 PM. (go) (view)

Question Time commented in entry 'Hyperbolic Neo-Liberal Immigration Policy Misnamed "Leftist" By YKW Media (Be Even More Afraid)' on 12/16/14, 04:06 PM. (go) (view)

SnowManDreaming commented in entry 'Ferguson Burns' on 12/16/14, 07:45 AM. (go) (view)

Italian"FarRight" commented in entry 'Comments On Vico by Enza Ferreri, Greg Johnson, et al.?' on 12/16/14, 07:06 AM. (go) (view)

Ashlea Harris commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on 12/16/14, 06:05 AM. (go) (view)

Saul commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 12/16/14, 05:56 AM. (go) (view)

ItaliansWarOnImmigrants commented in entry 'Comments On Vico by Enza Ferreri, Greg Johnson, et al.?' on 12/16/14, 04:45 AM. (go) (view)

Yes, it happened. commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 11:28 PM. (go) (view)

Peter commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 10:25 PM. (go) (view)

AnthonyOnBasicIncome commented in entry 'MR Radio: Migchels, Bowery Address Malign Economics' on 12/15/14, 02:07 PM. (go) (view)

? commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 11:31 AM. (go) (view)

Firepower commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 09:48 AM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry '(What would have been) questions for Dr Frank Salter' on 12/15/14, 06:27 AM. (go) (view)

Stan'sExhortation commented in entry 'Poland' on 12/14/14, 11:55 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 12/14/14, 04:36 PM. (go) (view)

Stan Hess Alert commented in entry 'Ferguson Burns' on 12/13/14, 10:50 PM. (go) (view)

UkrainianNationalism commented in entry 'Pensions and Basic Services Denied to People of Eastern Ukraine' on 12/13/14, 01:05 PM. (go) (view)

Bob in DC commented in entry 'James Watson Doesn't Exist' on 12/13/14, 11:59 AM. (go) (view)

MakingSenseOfHeidegger commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 12/13/14, 08:56 AM. (go) (view)

Ricardo commented in entry '(What would have been) questions for Dr Frank Salter' on 12/13/14, 02:36 AM. (go) (view)

Radix commented in entry 'Are Jews White?' on 12/13/14, 01:59 AM. (go) (view)

Patricia commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on 12/12/14, 03:59 PM. (go) (view)

PI commented in entry 'Poland' on 12/12/14, 01:03 PM. (go) (view)

Stan Hess Alert commented in entry 'Ferguson Burns' on 12/12/14, 12:44 PM. (go) (view)

namedroid commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 12/12/14, 12:29 PM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Poland' on 12/11/14, 10:18 PM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Officer Wilson Interview' on 12/11/14, 01:41 PM. (go) (view)

Stan Hess Alert commented in entry 'Officer Wilson Interview' on 12/11/14, 06:20 AM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

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


Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media


Controlled Opposition





Historical Re-Evaluation




Nationalist Political Parties


Whites in Africa