Mobility, Immigration, The Big Sort and Political Polarization Yields Sortocracy

The self-described “social conservative” Jonathan Last has published a book entitled What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster in which he makes the case for greater government support of fertility.  He says nothing about race replacement or the demographic landslide toward the Democratic Party that is a distraction for the former.  He doesn’t have to, of course:  Obama-type “leadership” will now route government support of fertility to the groups that vote for them. All Jonathan Last has to do is make the case for government intervention in falling birth rates. Politics will do the dirty work in mopping up the white population.  His lavish praise for immigration, claiming that we only have 10 more years to try to get people to immigrate to the US, was really quite gratuitous.

As this is all par for the course among the chattering classes, including “social conservative” Republicans, there is nothing of particular interest, except that he does toward the end of his C-SPAN interivew  bring up the geographic political polarization that is now occurring as a consequence of greater mobility—the same mobility that is enabling greater immigration and invasion of the heartland.  He cites The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart, which documents the increasing geographic polarization of politics in the US, with a rise in the number of “landslide counties”—counties that vote in one extreme or the other during Presidential elections.

Of the various proposals for a white preservationist revolution, Sortocracy is the only one that capitalizes on this established, and strong trend toward community assortation.

Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 06:24 PM in
Comments (30) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by daniels on February 07, 2013, 01:41 AM | #

I have decided that Jim can have Nebraska too (to square off his territory of Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas) as a reward for his notion of Sortocracy - I do believe it is a key notion. With the caveat, however, that it must be coordinated with the ancient human ecology/habitat units of Europe which are even far less a matter of negotiation.

2

Posted by daniels on February 07, 2013, 02:27 AM | #

I’d throw in Wisconsin as well, but figure he might not want to deal with the funk of Madison, Milwaukee and Chicago sprawl. Then again, the waterfront of Minnesota is a bit limited, strategically more vulnerable as such.

3

Posted by "For England, UKIP and King Harry!" on February 07, 2013, 03:38 AM | #

Of course, the perfect re-buff for all this worthless guff is merely one word long, namely “California”.

4

Posted by Only UKIP Can Save Us. on February 07, 2013, 03:59 AM | #

Furthermore, I remember reading somewhere one utterly insane little factoid.
Basically, in the state of California over the past few decades or so, millions of ‘new’ welfare beneficiaries have been added to the rolls, whilst only one hundred thousand or so new nett taxpayers are around to pay into the system.
Sorry, I haven’t got the source or exact numbers.

5

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2013, 12:38 PM | #

DanielS, thank you for the land-grant.  Your opinion will carry due weight.

However, since my preference is the particular kind of exile from civilization to be “imprisoned” by Nature according to the anti-eusocial laws governing prisoners in Nature described in part 2 of episode 1 of Sortocracy’s Compassion, my personal preference would start any territorial allocation in terms of Nature preserves.

Is there any chance of a North Sea nature preserve involving perhaps some of its islands?  I think that would be an exile more suitable for yours truly.

I would not expect any such placement if my DNA did not match relativey closely that of those long-buried there.

6

Posted by daniels on February 07, 2013, 02:19 PM | #

I’m searching for an island in the North Sea..give me a minute… several of them seem to be associated with Scotland and we need to keep you away from Graham.

... as I recall, you were also interested in some projects reclaiming land from the sea.

7

Posted by daniels on February 07, 2013, 02:37 PM | #

... as I recall, you were also interested in some projects reclaiming land from the sea, such as Flevopolder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flevopolder

I see that Groningen has designs on creating an island too:

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/12/groningen_province_may_create.php


However, The West Frisian Islands may have a place suitable prior to 2030

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Frisian_Islands

8

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2013, 06:13 PM | #

Artificially created land isn’t exactly what I had in mind for a “nature” preserve.  On the other hand, if I wanted to participate in civilization, Groningen’s island project would be a natural choice since my Y-Chromosome’s geography is Groningen (yes, the Y-Chromosome is that geographically concentrated)—although autosomal DNA should be considered in whole first.

Also the choice of where to place nature preserves should be based on the ecological requirements first and foremost.  I mentioned north sea islands because they seem a logical place for such preserves.  Once the decision has been made, exiled humans can be dumped there under the constraints of the anti-eusocial laws that prevent the social conquest of nature by humans.  Graham Lister, and others not subject to the anti-eusocial laws, would not be allowed into the nature preserve and, of course, I’m sure that whatever Graham Lister’s beliefs are about human ecology would exclude me.  No conflict.  See how Sortocracy would work?

9

Posted by Evan on February 07, 2013, 06:47 PM | #

What about people from mixed white backgrounds who aren’t accepted by any of their white ancestral groups?

Would they have to form their own communities or move to the nature reserve?

10

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2013, 10:04 PM | #

Evan, listen to part 1 of episode one of Sortocracy’s Compassion.

Where DaneilS’s concept of a “DNA nation” would fit into Sortocracy:

DanielS and all those who agree to the “DNA nation” hypothesis of human ecology would prefer that lands be occupied by their indigenous peoples to the greatest degree practical—where the preference for “indigenous” has stronger weight the longer the peeople’s DNA has been coevolving with the land.

In Europe, there is at least 40,000 years of coevolution.  In the Americas, it is clear that the oldest populations are either no longer in existence or they are so far removed from what we think of as “native Americans” or “Amerindians” that it would be a complex issue to resolve.  At this point, it is possible to get the entire DNA sequence of a Neanderthal but it is impossible to get a good fix on the DNA makeup of much more recent remains from the earliest inhabitants of the New World,  The relentless pattern of suppressing DNA evidence from the oldest human remains must lend credence to the idea that the Amerindians, in concert with the US government, are intent on keeping the true natural history of human ecologies of the New Wold suppressed.  Falsification of evidence is about as close as you can get to being “Satanic” within the Enlightenment paradigm that experimental evidence trumps theoretic argumentation.

But even if it were discovered that Europeans or “Caucasoid” peoples were the earliest inhabitants of the New World, their eradication means that their coadaptation stopped until very recent history—a few hundred years ago in contrast to 11,000 years ago. 

11

Posted by Evan on February 07, 2013, 11:35 PM | #

James, I don’t get your comment. I’m talking about people who have mixed European ancestries - someone who might be part Scottish, German, Russian, etc. and not be tied to a particular country.

Are you talking about the Solutrean hypothesis? How do we know the Solutreans were our ancestors? Greg Cochran writes that the Solutreans in Europe were wiped out in the Neolithic by invaders from the Middle East and the Russian steppes, who became the ancestors of contemporary Europeans:

http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/and-your-little-dog-too/

12

Posted by Robert Reis on February 08, 2013, 05:37 AM | #

Leftards, Leftoids, and Holocaust Chumps:

Liberals need to be in an echo-chamber. They can’t survive when exposed to other people’s opinions because it makes them wonder how legitimate their own are. They never hear opposing arguments because they pick and choose what they hear.

Don’t wait for any leftoids to shout “I am Spartacus”, Instead they’ll look befuddled and claim to be good slaves.

The inherent narcissism of the SWPL’s pseudo-moralistic posturing is so readily apparent in their inability to confront any truth that might take them out of their cozy hug box and into a stark reality that would force them to confront the self loathing that is the true motivation for their hatred of western culture.

Make no mistake, facts hurt the left like holy water on a vampire.

Never let a liberal change the subject until they first acknowledge you are right on the point in question. It will drive them insane.

Leftist men are effeminate for the most part. This is because modern leftist arguments have fallen into feminine disconnect: in the effort to defend the hamster/ego at all costs, any man who refuses to see the light reverts to a faggy, girly way of behaving.

Lacking the real financial or social status that they expected would separate them from the proles, they cling to their Liberal indoctrination and the imaginary status they think it gives them.

13

Posted by James Bowery on February 08, 2013, 12:31 PM | #

Evan, I was merely exploring the ramifications of the rule that “lands be occupied by their indigenous peoples to the greatest degree practical—where the preference for “indigenous” has stronger weight the longer the people’s DNA has been coevolving with the land”.

The way this actually works out in practical land allocation regarding various mixes of ancestry is one of the reasons that Sortocracy is applicable to DanielS’s “DNA nation”:

There are various hypotheses as to the importance of admixture in human ecology and people will differ, intractably, in their adherence to these various hypotheses. 

One of the nice things about the nature preserve approach is that if some people are squeezed out of all other human ecologies, for whatever reason, there is still a place for them—perhaps it is a place that will kill them but at least they’ll have a “fighting” (literally) chance.

14

Posted by PM on February 08, 2013, 11:00 PM | #

“Liberals need to be in an echo-chamber. They can’t survive when exposed to other people’s opinions because it makes them wonder how legitimate their own are. They never hear opposing arguments because they pick and choose what they hear”


I had an argument the other day with an ex-work colleague on facebook over his support for gay marriage that was absolutely typical of almost every argument I have had with such people over the years.

First of all they claim the moral high-ground by being outraged and disgusted by the fact that you dare to think such terrible things. Having assumed this elevated position they then do nothing more than throw ad hominem phrases and insults down on you—bigot! racist! ignorant!

In such a way they are able to frame the whole argument in terms of their moral authority, with them as righteous defenders of decency, and you as the squirming wretch reduced to ‘some of my best friends are black lesbians’ type of remarks (think Nick Griffin on Question Time) which make you seem weak and defensive. They constantly throw out questions to trap you—what do you think of blacks, do you hate gays, etc, because they have no position of their own and rely solely on attack, and shrug off and ignore any questions you throw at them. They can do this because they know they have political power on their side, peer pressure and the desire to conform and all the rest of it. They rely on our fear and inability to say the unsayable. Behind this façade they are incredibly weak and irrational.

I think it helps to constantly deconstruct and point out these tactics. Tell them you will fight as dirtily as they will. If they claim an insight into the way they say you feel about blacks or gays, tell them their views are really entirely driven by middle class status-seeking and a hatred of the white working class, which is often the truth (‘Poles are hard working and moral’ is really just middle class code for ‘English working classes are lazy and promiscuous’, is it not?)

15

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 09, 2013, 12:00 AM | #

I’m talking about people who have mixed European ancestries - someone who might be part Scottish, German, Russian, etc. and not be tied to a particular country.


This is a prime example of the dysfunctional nature of nationalism. Comparatively…Former NYC mayor Koch’s headstone: ‘My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish.’

16

Posted by Silver on February 10, 2013, 06:03 AM | #

This is a prime example of the dysfunctional nature of nationalism. Comparatively…Former NYC mayor Koch’s headstone: ‘My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish.’

“I am Jewish” isn’t entirely racial, and certainly not in a “purity” sense.  Look at Israel.  They’re all Jewish, but it’s racially heterogeneous.

17

Posted by Silver on February 10, 2013, 06:20 AM | #

First of all they claim the moral high-ground by being outraged and disgusted by the fact that you dare to think such terrible things. Having assumed this elevated position they then do nothing more than throw ad hominem phrases and insults down on you—bigot! racist! ignorant!

That’s the general pattern, true, but it’s not really necessary.  I can quite easily say yes, they are filthy, disgusting faggots and that someone being a fag is ample grounds for me to disqualify him from (genuine) friendship.  Nevertheless, homosexuality is permissible, homosexuals deserve to have their basic human dignity respected (even as we laugh behind their backs) and they ought to be allowed to “marry” (it wouldn’t be a real marriage, it’d be a “gay marriage,” but still).  I think there are a large number of reasonable fags out there who would accept this offering and, provided I don’t assault them personally, wouldn’t begrudge me a bit of harmless bigotry.

18

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2013, 08:20 AM | #

Queers should most certainly NOT be allowed to marry! That gay “marriage” is yet another assault on the moral/cultural/historical foundations of Western Civ ought to be obvious. What is your reasoning for supporting this outrage? Tell me, and then I’ll tell you why, even from a purely secular standpoint, marriage ought to remain the exclusive province of different-sex couples.

19

Posted by Silver on February 10, 2013, 09:44 AM | #

Gay marriage isn’t a particularly important issue to me.  I don’t campaign for it and given the opportunity would vote against it.  But if society is hell bent on bestowing on gay unions the term “marriage” then I think there’s little choice but to retreat to the safer ground of drawing a distinction (even if only a social distinction, lacking legal force) between a real marriage and a “gay marriage,” the entire time making the point that the real reason there’s any dispute is the cultural left’s all-out assault on human normalcy.  If we can beat them there then in time we could win back the lost ground.  Trying to hold the line when you’re so badly outgunned doesn’t seem like the smartest move to me.

Moreover, it’s case of focusing one’s attention on what is most important.  Race is vastly more important than marriage.  Far better to win on race and lose on marriage than vice versa. Even if you lose on marriage you can always win it back later.  Losing on race means losing for all time.  Marrying the marriage issue to race only risks losing them both.

20

Posted by daniels on February 10, 2013, 12:01 PM | #

Jim, a penny here and a penny there and we can set you up as nature warden of a North Sea island. We can even feed you prisoner exiles at a digestible pace. Name the type of game you’d prefer.

21

Posted by daniels on February 10, 2013, 12:11 PM | #

Posted by Silver on February 10, 2013, 06:03 AM | #

  This is a prime example of the dysfunctional nature of nationalism. Comparatively…Former NYC mayor Koch’s headstone: ‘My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish.’

“I am Jewish” isn’t entirely racial, and certainly not in a “purity” sense.  Look at Israel.  They’re all Jewish, but it’s racially heterogeneous.

What is this pilpul? We do our best and can identify Jews pretty well. Ed Koch is a dead-ringer.

22

Posted by Thorn on February 10, 2013, 12:29 PM | #

“I am Jewish” isn’t entirely racial, and certainly not in a “purity” sense.  Look at Israel.  They’re all Jewish, but it’s racially heterogeneous.


What is this pilpul? We do our best and can identify Jews pretty well. Ed Koch is a dead-ringer.

I see that more clarification is in order to clear up any misunderstandings about who or what a Jew actually is or isn’t. Maybe this will help:

“The feature of Jewish exceptionality is unassimilability ...
    In modernity the Jews again slip through the grasp of
    Gentile attempts to comprehend them. Are the Jews a
    race, a nation, or a religion, modern Gentiles and Jews
    asked. The answer depended upon the interest of who
    was asking.” 
                              —Adam Weisberger, discussing the works of Moses
                                  Hess, 1997, p. 128

WHO/WHAT IS A JEW?


    At this point, before we go any further, it is necessary to pose what one would think to be a relatively simple query: What, dare we ask, is a Jew anyway?  Who are they? Who qualifies for admission?  What are the criteria for inclusion as a bonafide member of the Chosen People, secularly, religiously, or any other way? And for the Jewish masses that endlessly wail, rage, and breast-beat about enemies who have allegedly assailed them relentlessly throughout history, and for all the heralded Jewish oppressors who thought they could clearly identify and persecute the people who they hatefully despised, it is bizarrely enigmatic that by the end of the twentieth century even Jews cannot—in consensus—decide exactly who and what they are. It is, strangely enough—as growth pains of modern Israel have borne witness—an in-house controversy of the most profound dimensions. For if the state of Israel was founded as refuge for world Jewry, and if any Jew in the world has the innate right to be admitted there as an Israeli citizen, who, then, EXACTLY are they?  “Jews live in a world,” says Michael Selzer, “in which, seemingly, no two Jews can agree on what a Jew really is ... [but] every Jew has his own reasons for knowing that he is a Jew.” [SELZER, p. 11] “It is a tragic irony,” notes Barnet Litvinoff, “that the only people who could decide with certainty who were Jews were the followers of the Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg.” [LITVINOFF, p. 6]

    Michael Selzer notes the bizarrely nebulous aspects of modern Jewish identity, making the issue sound like an excerpt from Alice in Wonderland:

    “Ironically, one may discover the characteristics of one’s own
    Jewishness in non-Jews, and all that one regards as most antithetical
    to it forming the essence of other Jews’ Jewishness ... The only
    description of Jewishness which would apply to both, is that they are
    not non-Jews.” [SELZER, his emphasis, p. 12-13]

    Or what on earth is one to make of this observation by another Jewish commentator, Robert Kamenetz:

    “I began to suspect that Jewish identity, as it has evolved in the West
    today, could be a real barrier to encountering the depths of Judaism. 
    In other words, being Jewish could keep you from being a Jew.”
    [KAMENETZ, R., 1994, p. 156]

read more>>

http://holywar.org/jewishtr/14who.htm

23

Posted by daniels on February 10, 2013, 02:16 PM | #

Region/Haplogroup I R1a R1b G J2 J1 E T L Q N

Ashkenazi I -4 R1a -10 R1b -9 G- 9.5 J1 -19 J2 - 19 E -20.5 T -2 L -0.5 Q-5 N-0 Other -1.5
Sephardic I -1 R1a -5 R1b -13 G -15 J2 -25 J2 -22 J1 -9 E -9 T -0 L -2   Q -0 N -2

Based on this chart there is a large proportion of J, E and G in Jews…

24

Posted by James Bowery on February 10, 2013, 02:34 PM | #

DanielS writes: “Jim, a penny here and a penny there and we can set you up as nature warden of a North Sea island. We can even feed you prisoner exiles at a digestible pace. Name the type of game you’d prefer.

Given the anti-eusocial The Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals cited as the law imposed on humans exiled in nature preserves, as described in Part 2 of Episode 1 of Sortocracy’s Compassion, there should be no need for the role of “warden”.  All are equal “as” sovereign individuals within the nature preserves.

Moreover, it seems reasonable to place exiles in the nature preserve of their preference.  While, for many, this may be seen as offering them their choice of manner of execution, it can also be seen as offering them the opportunity to return to their natural habitat.  For instance, I don’t see any particular reason that a man (or woman) of African origin who was rejected by all consensual human ecologies should be exiled to a North Sea nature preserve if they preferred to be exiled to a sub-Saharan Africa nature preserve.  However, the sub-Saharan Africa nature preserve would have the same anti-eusocial laws imposed on its human inhabitants just as they are imposed on the North Sea nature preserves’ inhabitants.  This is necessary to render such humans a non-threat to the natural ecology as well as a non-threat to civilization.

From time to time it may come to pass that gangs form in nature preserves that cannot be killed by the local inhabitants under the anti-eusocial laws that outlaw such gangs and, in so outlawing them, permit anyone, acting alone or collectively, to kill such gangs.  Under these circumstances I can imagine there being a need for some sort of external enforcement of those laws.  If that contingency creates the need for someone to take the role of “warden”, then I can imagine occupying such a position on behalf of civilization.  However, to avoid conflicts of interest, it would be essential that such a “warden” (or persons comprising an equivalent monitoring agency) not participate in the natural society—merely observe until such time as conditions require intervention to preserve the individual sovereignty of the anti-eusocial human ecology.

25

Posted by daniels on February 10, 2013, 11:20 PM | #

Jim, You’ve probably probably covered this before, but I haven’t seen your answer and must ask:

Perhaps Nordics are more individualistic. Though it is possible to exaggerate both the fact and the goodness of their being more individualistic than other Europeans, lets grant for a moment that they are a bit more.

More individualistic perhaps, but less war-like?


P.S.

While guerrilla style campaigns are preferable - lone-wolf even, if you can get them on the same page - not wanting to join group efforts in defense of Europeans might look like letting others do the dirty work, to be the infantry and the cannon fodder.

Or maybe that is your point, that you do not want to have a traditional style infantry. That would make sense.

26

Posted by Leon Haller on February 11, 2013, 05:59 AM | #

Silver@19

What to say? I agree. I would add - “and wrt race, the primary issue is stopping immigration”.

27

Posted by James Bowery on February 13, 2013, 12:41 PM | #

daniels, see my prior post at MR titled Civilization Takedown: The Revolt of the Vikings.

The idea that an individualistic culture is less war-like is true because such cultures offer the only real peace.  Collective-oriented cultures are in a state of perpetual war.

The invasions of the likes of the Aryans, Hittites, Dorians, Goths and Vikings are all seen as exceptionally warlike, even though their cultures were highly individualistic, precisely because they recognized the perpetual state of war represented by collective-oriented cultures—and responded with the only kind of war they understood how to wage:  violent force.  This is in contrast to the far more sophisticated techniques of war, including propaganda and mass manipulation, that evolve among collective-oriented cultures precisely because their culture is, of its essence, war.

And, yes, of course, I am very much against a repeat of the mistakes of the past as represented in the Aryans, Hittites, Dorians, Goths and Vikings—mistakes represented in your terms as “traditional style infantry”.

My recommended form of warfare against the culture of perpetual war is to capitalize on the strengths of the culture of individual integrity:

Communications toward agreement on an objective state of affairs as moral—a “plausible promise” to use the terminology of fifth generation warfare or a “declaration of war” to use more traditional terms—and actions taken by individuals without coordination or communication; actions that are taken virtually at their leisure that capitalize on their individual strengths to inflict maximum harm on the enemy in such a way that the individual remains economically, socially and evolutionarily viable to act again another day.

As money is the virtual life-blood of the enemy, my own contribution will likely be toward county currency.

28

Posted by DanielS on February 13, 2013, 12:57 PM | #

Communications toward agreement on an objective state of affairs as moral—a “plausible promise” to use the terminology of fifth generation warfare or a “declaration of war” to use more traditional terms—and actions taken by individuals without coordination or communication; actions that are taken virtually at their leisure that capitalize on their individual strengths to inflict maximum harm on the enemy in such a way that the individual remains economically, socially and evolutionarily viable to act again another day.

Well and good except that this statement needlessly goes to an outmoded notion of communication.

We live in communication.

One cannot not communicate.

Our evolution is a form of communication.

Coordination does not have to be a fettering notion either.

29

Posted by James Bowery on February 13, 2013, 01:09 PM | #

When I say “without coordination or communication” I am merely responding to the strategic reality that all communications are monitored and that the more people involved in a particular operation, the more likely that operation is to be neutralized.

PS:  I am open about county currency not because I want to communicate or coordinate with others who are consciously working toward the plausible promise of sortocracy, but because I wanted to provide an example that illustrates one may take entirely non-violent actions that are highly effective.

30

Posted by DanielS on February 13, 2013, 01:26 PM | #

Gotcha

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

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: Pervasive Ecology

Previous entry: Old but Not in the Way: The Geriatric White Army

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

Fuher-Blower commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 08:43 AM. (go) (view)

FB commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 08:34 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 12:58 AM. (go) (view)

voznich commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/21/14, 08:29 PM. (go) (view)

HeyHeyWe'reThe commented in entry 'Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored' on 10/21/14, 12:12 PM. (go) (view)

Ebolatalia commented in entry 'Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored' on 10/21/14, 12:00 PM. (go) (view)

neil vodavzny commented in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/21/14, 08:24 AM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/20/14, 08:01 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/20/14, 07:48 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/20/14, 07:19 PM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'A Fight at the Highest Level' on 10/20/14, 11:46 AM. (go) (view)

Norman Lowell commented in entry 'A Fight at the Highest Level' on 10/20/14, 02:52 AM. (go) (view)

Thorntroll commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 07:40 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 09:45 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 12:21 AM. (go) (view)

voznich commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 09:48 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 09:07 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 08:59 PM. (go) (view)

TD commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 08:18 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 05:51 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 04:01 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 03:50 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 03:20 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 02:58 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 01:19 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 01:09 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 12:46 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 12:14 PM. (go) (view)

mirror image commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 10:00 AM. (go) (view)

eyeofthestorm commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 07:43 AM. (go) (view)

National Socialist commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 08:46 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 07:11 PM. (go) (view)

NationalSocialist commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 05:41 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 04:37 PM. (go) (view)

NationalSocialist commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 12:39 PM. (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.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone