|
|
|
Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose
Robert Ransdell I’m waiting to hear or read what’s not to like about this guy. Though I reserve the right to change my mind, and admit that I am not disposed and have not been looking far and wide for what not to like about him, from what I have heard (some interviews and some text), so far he seems alright. Greg Johnson criticizes him for wasting his time, but I don’t see where Ransdell has said that standard political channels were the only means that he would ever seek - and it is clearly only a strategy to get heard. Moreover, he is also explicit in not recommending or insisting upon this strategy for everyone and all places. Ok, he is associated with VNN and Stormfront, inspired by Rockwell and to a lesser extent by Pierce; there may be (probably is) some guilt by association with them and other opinions on those discussion forums; but so far, from what I have heard, he himself has not said anything that I find objectionable. It would be interesting to hear what MR readers think.
Comments:2
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:21 | # Ransdell considers himself a National Socialist (though not of course mentioning it in this campaign), so there’s something you could not like about him. 3
Posted by NationalSocialist on Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:39 | # National Socialism is not necessarily the same thing as Hitler’s permutation. 4
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Fri, 17 Oct 2014 21:37 | # I think Ransdell would approve of Hitler’s permutation, and has all along. Ask him. By the way, you can’t even spell your name correctly. What kind of NationalSocalist(sic) are you? Not any kind, I’d bet. 5
Posted by NationalSocialist on Fri, 17 Oct 2014 22:41 | # Posted by Carolyn Yeager on October 17, 2014, 04:37 PM | # I think Ransdell would approve of Hitler’s permutation, and has all along. Ask him. Maybe. And even if so, maybe he would evolve to a better permutation with more info. If he would stick to Hitler’s permutation in fact, he would not really be a national socialist. But indications are that he is more friendly to other Whites than you are. I’ve also heard him say that he doesn’t see the need to belabor the holocaust (my sentiments exactly). I have a hunch that Europeans fighting one another is not his ideal and that excuses to create inter- European fighting are not what he seeks to promote. It was a typo. Nationalism and some degree of socialism, more or less, are only logical conclusions for anyone who cares about a group of people. It is disingenuous to insist that the idea is inextricably linked to Hitler. Or to associate the concept with Hitler’s imperialism, supremacism, murderous betrayal of the workers party in the night of the long knives and deals with the industrialists leading to militarism, war mongering, etc….stabbing the Slavics and their anti-Soviet nationals in the back in order to grab their land and try to lord over them. Or to try to leave hair-brained ideas such as libertarianism, etc., as the only alternative to Hitler. There are plenty of (better) alternatives to Hitler. 6
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:11 | # I’m quite sure you are DanielS, Mr. Typo ... not talented enough to hide your style and your liablities. LOL. 7
Posted by National Socialist on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 01:46 | # Obviously wasn’t trying to hide, not my style, nor my “liability” to disagree with Hitler - of which you are incapable. 8
Posted by eyeofthestorm on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:43 | # Not a site for advertising diversionary conspiracy theory 9
Posted by mirror image on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:00 | # As we go on, resonating more and more true is the theory that GW advances, viz. Nazism as a kind of inauthentic reaction, a mirror-image of Jewish Talmudic supremicism and enmity. Note how similar the Hitler advocates are to how Eustace Mullins characterizes Jews in “The Biological Jew” in this point:
It is uncanny how these people - viz., Nazi/Hilter advocates - rebuff and devalue amity among Europeans.
And, Franklin Ryckaert: Very good comments, thank you. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:14 | # Daniel, I am only noting the fact that NS’s ideological furniture was all second-hand. The palingenetic idealism, the totalitarian statism and the corporatism were taken from Italian Fascism. That is the base. But on to that was grafted a racialised Nietzschean morality; and then from Judiasm it borrowed racial supremacism, a millenarian view of the Reich, and the fuhrer principle (Mussolini was never messianic as Hitler was). Perhaps the term “borrowed” is too strong, but the similarities are too striking to be entirely coincidental. The final element was state terrorism, which was probably an inevitable consequence of all the rest, very slightly excused by the violent age into which NS was born. 11
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:46 | # Carolyn Yeager wrote to “National Socalist”: I’m quite sure you are DanielS, Mr. Typo ... not talented enough to hide your style and your liablities. LOL. At which “National Socalist” was corrected to “National Socialist” and a reply came to me from “National Socialist.” My assessment of this exchange is as follows: 1. The commenter could not have corrected his own name on a comment already sent. All the above shows that DanielS is not above all forms of dishonesty in his effort to try to “look good” and win people over to his personal views. But when he’s dealing with a German like me, he’s out of his class, gets overly emotional and makes stupid mistakes. Better luck next time, Daniel. 12
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:09 | # To Guessedworker: You are totally ignorant of that which you speak. You are the one who is getting your information and beliefs second-hand. There are those people who are circulating this idea who you apparently have listened to. Adolf Hitler joined the German Worker’s Party (which he shortly turned into the NSDAP) in 1919. The Italian Nationalist Party was not formed until 1921. Hitler was not even aware of what was going on in Italy until later than that. Eventually, it was Mussolini who was copying Hitler; Hitler never copied Italy because he was developing something that was peculiar to the German personality, with plenty of nationalist history in Germany to go by. Hitler met Dietrich Eckert in 1919 and much of the NSDAP ideology was worked out between these two men. 13
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:19 | # Posted by Carolyn Yeager on October 18, 2014, 12:46 PM | # Carolyn Yeager wrote to “National Socalist”: I’m quite sure you are DanielS, Mr. Typo ... not talented enough to hide your style and your liablities. LOL. At which “National Socalist” was corrected to “National Socialist” and a reply came to me from “National Socialist.”
1. The commenter could not have corrected his own name on a comment already sent.” I can correct typos on a comment already sent (and I do).
Who has the name “national socialist”?
I don’t claim to be a “national socialist” in the way that its generally understood, certainly not as understood by you. I adopted the moniker provisionally in order to act-into a role and demonstrate that Nationalism and socialism are terms that can go together in ways that may differ significantly from Hitler’s version, while seeing Jews as other, outsider people at the same time. “4. If National Socalism wrote his name that way, why should the owner of the site change it (correct it) when I pointed it out.” Because I like to correct my typos, thank you very much.
I have a vested interest in what I call myself for the purpose of making this point. Neither you nor Hitler have a patent on the tandem of words “national socialism” and what they mean. “5. Daniel is reduced to using sock puppets on his own website!! Wow, that’s a revelation.” I use other names in two events - a special instance like this, where I am trying to make a point by acting a role, or when its a generic post/comment, not having to do with any particularly personal information but rather a more general news item. “All the above shows that DanielS is not above all forms of dishonesty in his effort to try to “look good” and win people over to his personal views.”” As you and anyone else could see straight away that it was me who was the actor “national socialist” it is not really accurate to call it “dishonesty.” It is like saying Robert Deniro was being dishonest when he played the young godfather. Nice try dear, there are certainly people who can easily outclass me, but you aren’t one of them. It’s been proved on this very thread. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:58 | # Carolyn, You do not deal in the abstract, do you? You don’t comprehend the world as ideas but as imperatives. That has its place, for sure. For example, in Italian Fascism’s famous statement, “The Doctrine of Fascism”, the first section, dealing with theory, was ghosted by Gentile. The second section, dealing with practise, was written by Mussolini. So we see the familiar division between the intellectual and the political activist. This is fine in itself. But it is not the business of practical people, whose IQ does not attain the level (IQ 124) required for abstract thinking, to meddle in matters that they will not, by their constitution, understand. What occurs most commonly with them is obeisance to the emotions, which is no basis for the search for truth, is it? Just so here. You are defending what you perceive to be your own blood (which I understand and support). But you presume yourself to have something meaningful to say about the history of ideas. Well, what intellectualism informed the German Workers Party? Not much or none? You cannot sustain a claim that the Volkisch movement lent that entity (and the even more deeply unromantic NSDAP which succeeded it) the elements of racial supremacism, messianism, and millenarianism. Likewise there is no possibility whatever that (respectively) Rosenberg, Keyserling, and Hitler himself thought these three wheezes up all by their lonesome. The true authors were the Pharisees and all three must have known it. One would have to be a complete intellectual incompetent not to do so, and certainly Rosenberg and Keyserling were not that. I am saying that these three foul and unnatural ideas have nothing whatever to do with our race. They never did. Their incorporation within National Socialism opened the way to the vast errors made by Hitler and his cohort, bringing the destruction of millions of European lives and the Jewish angel of death to our door today. Defend that if you must. But the historical record will not change just to accommodate you. 15
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:20 | # To Guessedworker: My IQ has been measured professionally and competently at 128. I have always been an abstract thinker. However, here we are dealing with a very practical question and you try to move it into a philosophical realm so you can spin your jargon and try to impress. You fail. Si don’t pull your male and British chauvinism on me - it doesn’t work. You have a serious liability in your “heir” DanielS which you need to address. He seems to be here solely because of your hatred of Adolf Hitler. Just how abstract is that? You really disappoint me by this response to me. It is clear that you cannot defend your assertion that Hitler took his N-S from Italian fascism, so you resort to sneering. Maybe you should read a bit about German history. I realize you’d like to chase me away from here, but it’s your man DanielS who keeps mentioning my name and is really hung up on me. 16
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:50 | # To Daniel (comment #13) Wow, you are really nuts. You just proved me right on every point I made and then you claim you did it all on purpose and everybody could see that. Not so, and I’m sure everybody can see that. 17
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:01 | # I realize you’d like to chase me away from here, but it’s your man DanielS who keeps mentioning my name and is really hung up on me. I’m not hung up on Hitler or you, Carolyn. You bring me up on your shows and I need to address your distortions.
Regarding Hitler, I would rather not talk about him much. There are far more interesting and important matters to attend in service of European peoples. However, many popular sites representing themselves as representing Whites, European peoples, are now typically populated with Hitler and Nazi advocates/apologists. That is surely not representing European/White people but only a narrow, demented portion. It is doing the cause of defending our European people a terrible turn, therefore I must do what I can to correct its misrepresentations from time to time and where relevant, tedious though the topic is and the mode of argumentation that your cohorts deploy (very Jewish) is.
“Wow, you are really nuts. You just proved me right on every point I made and then you claim you did it all on purpose and everybody could see that. Not so, and I’m sure everybody can see that.” Carolyn, I was not making a particular effort to conceal my identity and everyone could see THAT, including you.
18
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:51 | # Regarding Hitler, I would rather not talk about him much. There are far more interesting and important matters to attend in service of European peoples. You never seem to come up with any that draw commenters to your site like Hitler does. You have not discovered what is more interesting.
I wonder why?
Well, it is you that is demented and most people do agree on that.
No one pays any attention to you so it doesn’t matter. Who are my “very Jewish” cohorts? Come on, man up and name them. They won’t be Jewish but you might be. How about a picture of you, my brave hero. 19
Posted by TD on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:18 | # DanielS, aka ‘‘National Socialist’‘. After all these months, still trying hard to discredit Hitler and misrepresenting National Socialism, i.e. being the eternal prisoner of the jewish narrative. Why all the repetitive effort to smear Hitler, if we are only a ‘‘narrow, demented portion’’ who are true NS and Hitler loyalists. Looks like you now also have been caught redhanded being your own shill. That doesn’t look cool does it? Look, so much for trying to ‘‘defend european/white people’‘. Have you already come up with a better ideology to move the european/white masses? Guide us please with your wisdom. For the sake of honest assessment: Alexa Rankings: Daily Stormer/Anglin full on pro-Hitler website: Global Rank 28,980 US Rank 12,130
20
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:59 | # Far be it from me to interfere with Daniel’s modus operandi but if one doesn’t want MR bogged down in the political cul de sac of discussing non-issues concerning certain historical regimes then perhaps one shouldn’t constantly invite comments on such matters by having an endless commentary on the regimes concerned or key personalities involved? Now I know Daniel’s response will be along the lines of ‘it’s important to educate such folks blah blah blah’ Well no it fucking well isn’t – why? One such individuals constitute a tiny group of people that are ideologically, culturally and politically irrelevant; and secondly it’s a fool’s errand. Such 4th rate lowlifes are of the psychological type that actively enjoy being part of a sociological ‘sub-culture’ – their antinomianism is part and parcel of who there are. They pro-actively wish to be marginalised and play the ‘beautiful soul’ come martyr role for evermore. Anyone that thinks putting on a costume – metaphorically or literally - is ‘doing politics’ is the meta-political equivalent of a retard. Finally, for these people their ideological proclivities are an idée fixe – it’s a political theology – a very cheap and unpleasant one to be sure but effectively their views are as dogmatic and immune for evidence as the worse red-neck fundamentalist Voodoo believer. In both cases (religious Voodoo proper or its political equivalents) the foundational premises are never to be questioned – that manoeuvre is verboten. So we are dealing in intellectual dishonesty wrapped up in dubious emotional/psychological processes aided by the intellectual vices of embracing unfalsifiability and a non-fallibilist epistemology. They simple thin they fundamentally cannot be wrong. It’s called dogmatism. In short one cannot argue an intellectually dishonest, logic-chopping idiot out of being an idiot. For one their whole psychology/ideology is set-up to never allow the falsification of their object of worship by a never ending series of half-truths, digressions, lies, obfuscations, ad hoc ‘get out’ clauses to always save the central premise or foundation of their world-view. So guess what? Don’t fucking bother – engagement with such people is a total waste of time. Leave them to their little online echo-chambers were they can all enjoy a metaphorical circle jerk about how great they all are for shouting nigger in the street that day or whatever these pathetic sad-sacks get up to on weekends. Arguing with an idiot only results in them bringing them down to your level - unless you’re willing to invest a lot of energy in comprehensively taking apart their position, step by step, and then humiliating them by ripping the piss out of them with severe mockery. You know who also share the generic intellectual & ideological vices I outlined above – the conspiracy theory nut-jobs. We had one or two of those at MR too. And it took quite a bit of effort (at least in frustration of dealing with such stubborn types rather than intellectually) to point out why their methodology of thought was so spectacularly maladroit. As well as politically useless (or worst pro-actively harmful). Again it would be rich and quite disingenuous of Daniel to complain that MR was full of conspiracy nutters in the comment sections if he insisted on having front page items about conspiracy whackos as ever other item. Stop discussing non-issues with irrecusably buffoonish delusional nobodies is the long and short of it. Liberalism too is a political theology with its adherent and true believers also displaying much of the same intellectual vices – but to be fair to the high priests of liberalism it is presented in a far more subtle and sophisticated form. People like Rawls, Nozick, Hayek et al., are objectively wrong about the world, about what really does constitutes social ontology etc., but they aren’t mouth-breathing cretins. I hate to blow my trumpet but really as far as MR goes hasn’t my essay on ‘radioactively toxic’ forms of nationalism really summed up all that needs to be said on the topic at hand (costume politics & the muppets that enjoy it)? http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_ghosts_of_the_past The F people are so moribund intellectually, ideologically, philosophically, conceptually - in every way imaginable risible and asinine that they offer nothing worthwhile. They simple don’t have the intellectual resources or mental acuity, let alone the political come philosophical tool-kit to understand the origins, developmental trajectory, nor contours of the longue durée of liberal modernity never mind the likely nature (causes and possible consequences) of the unfolding multifaceted and very complex crisis of hyper-modernity, late modernity, post-modernity, neo-liberalism, globalisation, or whatever term one wishes to use for our present epoch. As William Gibson suggest the future is already here it is just very unevenly distributed – well equally the all the problems of liberal modernity are here right now it is just they too are very unequally distributed in time and space. Some are very obvious and others incredibly subtle and insidious (the water we ALL swim in). It’s not as if the F people are simply not on the same page, it’s that they can’t even see these problems. The true map of the problématique isn’t on their agenda – its utterly invisible to them as their so-called ‘analysis’ is radically too shallow and superficial. As in GW’s pithy suggestion some people are like Dostoevskian peasants – it’s not so much they lack knowledge but are so profoundly unimaginative and ignorant they doubt the possibility of knowledge tout court. Historicity is ineludible – there are now no Gods and precious few heroes – and there is no return to the fantasy version of 7th century France, 18th Century America, 1930s Germany, 10000 years BC (or whatever - pick your own personal ‘golden age’) politically nor culturally possible. To think so is to be politically inept (at best) or simply very, very stupid. Yes human beings both individually and collectively make history – the future is open to different possibilities – there is always an alternative (contra Whiggish liberalism and/or the ideology of technological determinism) otherwise politics itself would be defunct and politics will never be defunct within the human condition; but those alternatives are always constrained by any number of factors. One of those factors is the historicity of human beings in the world. We simply cannot unlearn things nor erase experiences from our individual nor collective memories. A 90+ year old man pretending to be his teenage self is, at best, a pathetically deluded and very bad actor, at worst a complete and total madman to be locked up. Nostalgic invoking of the rose-tinted past might offer some form of comfort blanket but it’s politically useless in and of itself. History can inform what we must do but we cannot live in the past in some simple-minded way – life, including political life, is always lived in a forward looking manner. To sum up MR should be by grown-ups for grown-ups (if that’s possible) not for inviting dull and repulsively pointless arguments with political children. “Nationalism has no special relationship to political justice; but neither does it have a particular relationship to injustice. The most obvious thing about it is, after all, that it exists…and there are no objective criteria of what is a nation – but its subjective power is compelling. A nation, therefore, said Renan, is a great solidarity founded on a consciousness of sacrifice made in the past and on willingness to make further ones in the future”. Bernard Crick from his ‘In Defence of Politics’. Quite – so why give house room, for even a nano-second, to fuckwits that wish to fully embrace the most disastrous (and radioactively toxic) historical formation of nationalism ever known? Good grief I feel dirty sharing a planet with the F troglodytes, let alone (even by proxy) being in the same ‘virtual space’. Enough of this willful nonsense please Danny. And if Danny boy doesn’t ‘get it’ then GW have a word please! With Fascists we lose – every single time. 21
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 02:07 | # think not *thin* - typo on my part. But the F people deeply anger me - if not for their moral turpitude (the deaths of 55 million odd bona fide Europeans simply ignored) but far more for their utter political stupidity. 22
Posted by voznich on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 02:48 | # Good comment from Lister. But is there nothing of value to be had from considerations of fascism and Nazism? I am not an expert in these ideologies, so I can’t really interrogate them at the appropriate level. I tend to think Nazism is irredeemably morally compromised in the public “white mind”, and that trying to resuscitate it is a fool’s errand. But can we not reject the unpopular superficial forms - symbols and insignia, the fuhrerprinzip, the perhaps (but perhaps not - depends on the audience) unappealing will-to-power goosestepping antics, the ‘spoiling for a fight’ attitude - and yet still see value in the racially essential elements? These might include: 1. history as the struggle between races 2. in light of #1, the need to subordinate maximal individual autonomy in order to function most effectively as a collective unit 3. Jews as a unique tribe, whose presence in white societies has inevitably malign effects 4. white racial superiority as both an empirical fact, and a motivational and justificatory public myth 5. the need for white martiality to win the racial struggle. I don’t find any of these propositions (not meant to be exclusive, just what I think of in terms of German National Socialism) obviously incorrect. Moreover, neo-Nazi thinkers argue that we cannot reform The System, which now exists, either whole or in part, to dispossess whites of their civilization, and that accordingly we must shock whites out of their racially hallucinatory slumbers. The most effective means of doing so, it is alleged, is the “fist in the face” of an open, “loud and proud” Nazism. I’m not sure I agree with any of this (beyond white superiority, which seems obvious), but it is hardly immediately clear that such questions or tactics are unworthy of consideration. I think the Nazi approach ought to be debated, even if we finally reject it in favor of contemporarily more palatable strategies. 23
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 05:21 | # Graham, thanks for your comment - very good. But note one thing, I didn’t make this post to discuss Nazism but rather Ransdell’s take on matters, which has not been talking about Hitler and Nazim. Unfortunately, the Nazis came here. In fact, we’ve got the most loyal one on this thread, so it is an opportunity to put the matter to rest (for our purposes, anyway) as best we can. Nor for that matter is it my intent to try to change them but rather to distinguish MR for those who are receptive to a different view. Discussion of Randsdell provides an opportunity to state boldly that we can 1. Advocate Europeans, their nationalisms 2. View Jews as a distinct and other group of people, with different interests from Europeans 3. That we can re-claim certain ideas which the Nazis claim as the sole province of their identity - e.g. interest free banking - while rejecting the vast, egregious aspects of Hitler and Nazism at the same time.
“I think the Nazi approach ought to be debated, even if we finally reject it in favor of contemporarily more palatable strategies.” The matter has been discussed here - a bit much. Here, I can understand Dr. Lister’s frustration, but I am trying to provide a forum for European advocacy which rejects Hitler, as we should; I would expect that to be an obvious premise; I have sought to explain why it is not obvious to some and believe that I have done an admirable job: There are popular sites which are associating this stuff with European/White advocacy and therefore to distinguish MR as a haven from that, it has been necessary to go into some detail and to be loud in that regard. One note on your recommendation that we take the position of our superiority, I am sure that is a tactless position at best. Sure, we are better in some ways, some important ways, but we are not better in all ways. And all gloating over our merits will do is breed conceit, hubris, contempt, false comparisons, jealousy, revenge etc. At bottom, “superiority” is not necessary to warrant our defense as a people (although it is necessary as pseudo justification for screwing and lording over other people…which can lead not merely to the appearance of guilt, but to well-deserved guilt and revenge against one’s self and one’s people). I’ve tried to explain it here.
Regarding Hitler, I would rather not talk about him much. There are far more interesting and important matters to attend in service of European peoples. You never seem to come up with any that draw commenters to your site like Hitler does. You have not discovered what is more interesting. Garnering just any old comments is not my objective. Better no comments than bad ones. I’m not worried about MR, therefore perhaps you can finally take a cue and be happy to mind your own site and with your niche.
I wonder why? I have provided an explanation already as to why -
The Nazi advocates proclaim to be after truth, but they really aren’t as Graham notes - it is as a religion which is not subject to correction by the facts. Discussion with them enmeshes one in their endless hair-splitting and attacks as they defend the F no matter what. It is a kind of stupidity that I simply cannot relate to. The only other people that I’ve known to be like that argumentatively are Jews
Well, it is you that is demented and most people do agree on that.” You don’t know most people.
“No one pays any attention to you so it doesn’t matter.” Maybe true, maybe not, but I am sending to whom it may concern messages for those who care for the best interests of Europeans, not for the best interests of Hitler idolaters. Next, I said tedious though the topic is and the mode of argumentation that your cohorts deploy (very Jewish) is. And you said:
I didn’t say that you had Jewish cohorts. I said that you have cohorts who argue like Jews (so do you). “They won’t be Jewish but you might be. How about a picture of you, my brave hero.” I’m not Jewish, have said a thousand times now what I am. Moving on to TD’s comment:
DanielS, aka ‘‘National Socialist’‘. After all these months, still trying hard to discredit Hitler It’s not hard. That is part of the frustration, it is too damn easy, theoretically and practically. Frustrating because it should be easy for others as well to see that it is not the way to go and not necessary; we should be able to easily move on to other, better discussions with cooperative purposes. “and misrepresenting National Socialism” I don’t misrepresent National Socialism, I point out that National socialism is misrepresented by Hitler and his advocates and that they do not have absolute claim to define how the combination of these terms come to count. ”, i.e. being the eternal prisoner of the jewish narrative.” I am not a prisoner of it at all. But you are by getting caught up in this reaction to it.
Hitler smeared himself. I have explained my motives, I want to distinguish MR from the several WN sites which make Hitler commendation a part of their platform. But I hope and intend to have discussion of Hitler, Nazism and WWII take up less and less time and space here at MR.
I haven’t been caught red handed at anything, I was deliberate in speaking in my voice - but you will believe what you want and will find a place in your religiosity at Carolyn’s blog. I have in parts and wholes, but that is not saying much. Just about anybody could.
Alexa Rankings: Daily Stormer/Anglin full on pro-Hitler website: Global Rank 28,980 US Rank 12,130
24
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:45 | # Danny - another point. The Hitler loving wankstains are just like ideological Jewry in another important way. The big H, Nazis etc., are for official Jewish ideology the unique ‘A-Z’ of all of human history, pivotal in a way nothing else ever can be. The historical ‘event horizon’. The F cult retards agree and thus are their inverted opposite. They too agree on the centrality of one regime to the exclusion of all reason, rationality, facts, political logic etc., (if for superficially ‘different’ reasons). The big H the is contemporary object of worship for both these repulsive groups of dishonest ideologues. There is literally nothing useful to come from engaging such people (even negatively). Let them rot in their self-contrusted ghetto of irrelevance. 26
Posted by voznich on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:29 | # But whites ARE superior, Daniel. And it is not obviously a false path to announce this fact loudly, especially as EVERY people, as Jared Taylor repeatedly argues, trumpets its own superiority (talk to an Oriental sometime, especially Chinese or Japanese), while our white youth are continuously indoctrinated into a sense of totally undeserved inferiority. Finally, as Leon Haller and others used to write, white superiority is part of the ethical case for the forcible deportations of immigrants out of Europe. It’s not enough just to say we’re different and entitled to our own living spaces (though we are on both counts). You have to make the case, as Dr. William Pierce used to, that whites are the Master Race and the chief engine of human evolutionary progress, and that for that reason race mixture and the immigration which leads to it must be violently opposed. Too bad Lister didn’t address my comment. Perhaps he has nothing to add. One suspects that his understanding of NS ideology is even less developed than my own. Try to understand before criticizing, even though I agree that NS for tactical reasons is (probably) not the way to move forward. NS is not without value in the white struggle. 27
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 05:58 | # Unfortunately, I have to repeat myself with this guy, “voznich”, but I feel compelled to do so: “Posted by voznich on October 21, 2014, 08:29 PM | # But whites ARE superior, Daniel.” In some ways, Voznich. In some important ways. But these ways in which we are better are also qualities, marking a difference which makes a difference worth protecting To present it as superiority is tactless and frankly I do not trust your motives for wanting to encourage it. But what can be trusted of one who would cite Leon Haller and Jared Taylor? “And it is not obviously a false path to announce this fact loudly, especially as EVERY people, as Jared Taylor repeatedly argues, trumpets its own superiority (talk to an Oriental sometime, especially Chinese or Japanese), while our white youth are continuously indoctrinated into a sense of totally undeserved inferiority.” There is a way to promote our qualities and the things that we do better that is not obnoxious - that is not going to be repulsive to our organizing as a group by making our own people shy-away from over competitiveness with one another and false comparison to other races. I suspect the reason you want obnoxious talk here is because you want to disrupt our cooperative and organizational capacities as a people. Nonsense (but typical of him). As I have said, what might be called items of superiority can be promoted rather as qualities in need of protection. No need to be obnoxious. “It’s not enough just to say we’re different and entitled to our own living spaces (though we are on both counts). You have to make the case,” As I said, the case can be made without being obnoxious, creating a sense of anxiety, attendant rigidity and inappropriate competition. “as Dr. William Pierce used to, that whites are the Master Race and the chief engine of human evolutionary progress,” I never said that Pierce was the greatest philosopher. In fact, the drastic wrong turns of many WNs seem to be traceable to Pierce. Whatever mastery we have should be in service of directing our own evolutionary path and way of life. We are not responsible for others if they can avoid infringing upon our people and common habitat. It doesn’t have to be opposed violently if they will accept separation from our peoples and habitats. “Too bad Lister didn’t address my comment. Perhaps he has nothing to add. One suspects that his understanding of NS ideology is even less developed than my own.” I suspect there is plenty he could add but does not want to repeat himself. But I will again: Nationalism and Socialism are words not owned by Hitler and the Nazis. They do not necessarily get to say how the words count. That is important to note because these can be two important ingredients to organizing racial accountability and ecology in a reasonable, minimally conflictual way - just as leftism as unionization of a people and racism as classification and non-supremacist discrimination can be. “Try to understand before criticizing,” Thanks for your condescending advice. “even though I agree that NS for tactical reasons is (probably) not the way to move forward.” Not only for tactical reasons, if by what is meant by “NS” is the Nazi permutation; that’s not a matter of rejecting it for tactical reasons, but for deep epistemic errors. “NS is not without value in the white struggle.” Again, the terms nationalism and socialism need to be distinguished from the Nazi permutation but I don’t suspect your purpose here is to do anything but confound. GW # 10 has that number. Nazism is all too Jewish. 28
Posted by FB on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:34 | # A good example of why MR is completely irrelevant now. 29
Posted by Fuher-Blower on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:43 | # Irrelevant for those desperate to make Hitler relevant but not irrelevant to those who do not want crazy ignoramuses appointing themselves “the leading people.” FB, you are an idiot. Be gone with your psy-op, enemy troll. 31
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:00 | # Have you driven a kike crazy today? If not, vote up Robert Ransdell in this online poll: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/auburn-ky/TNLCJ0NESM3LPOUEN/ Thanks in advance:
32
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:15 | # Jimmy! I was hoping you might show up on this thread: I think we’ve done pretty well there but if you made a special guest appearance, your adoring liberal fans at the AATTP would be most appreciative. :-D 33
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 25 Oct 2014 00:14 | # Great job over there, Lurker. I really appreciate it, and I left a comment saying so. Thanks also for the suggestion that I comment. You may also find the video link I posted there of interest. I’ll post again here for others. It’s a video of the homecoming ceremony at Marysville-Pilchuk High School were that injun boy ran amok earlier today. Jaylen Fryberg, or whatever his name is was clearly being used for display in a diversity freak show. I’d be in a murderous rage as well if I had been used in such a shameless travesty. 34
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 10:20 | # FB’s knowledge of National Socialism and, indeed, of Herr Hitler’s life and work is surely unmatched here at MR and if, as seems likely, the German leader’s war record is deemed unhelpful to the WN cause then I’d go with the FB view. 36
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:25 | # It is vital that we should always make assay of proctologically parsimonious explanations such as that offered by Frunobulac. 37
Posted by Occam on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:37 | # This ought to be parsimonious enough for anyone, Al: http://carolynyeager.net/hitlers-table-talk-study-hour-episode-33 If you still admire Uncle Asshole after that and still expect people to rally behind Hitler after listening to that, then your best interests are served at Carolyn’s blog, or one of the other Hitler blogs. 38
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:48 | # If you understand enough English to discern the meaning of my original post on the subject of contemporary Hitlerian relevance, Occam, then you might moderate your proprietorial sharpshooting . 39
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:39 | # Al, it is not enough for you that Jews and non-Whites be recognized as Other. Jews in particular as antagonistic and occupying seven major power niches. It is not enough for you that we are advocating Germans along with all Europeans as a whole and in their discreet, distinct kinds. No, you have got to try to bring this asshole Hitler here, who can only generate conflict between Europeans. Al, Hitler is a piece of shit, and so is anybody who likes him. Get it through your skull or go to: Carolyn Yeager Daily Stormer Renegade American Nationalist Network VNN
OK? There are these places for stupid assholes. 40
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:36 | # Well DanielS, we Brits sometimes take heart from UKIP’s recent electoral exit poll. How splendid it would be to sit in a pub in Barcombe and learn that GW had announced an Exit Pole.. 41
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:03 | # Nothing but the best for you Brits and any other Europeans who aspire to maintain their native kinds….and anything that I can do do help. 43
Posted by voznich on Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:13 | # An article in the neoliberal Economist of last week, which I just read tonight in a local supermarket, says that most British reject UKIP in recent polling data, and that only a minority support what they call “immigrant bashing” (wasn’t aware that not wanting immigrant hordes to overrun a small island country was “bashing” them). I wonder if that is accurate or “spin”. How will UKIP/Farage do next year? I assume Farage will run for PM (can he? or must a PM candidate be an MP?). Might there have to be another coalition government, or will UKIP split the Right and let Labour run away with it? 44
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:02 | # Note that “Voznich” is another name for Leon Haller. It is useful to trace through his posts what our enemies really want associated with us: 1. the futility of mainstream, controlled politics - such as the libertarian safety-valve for Jewish oligarchic interests (in this last comment, Oct 29) 2. trying to push the tactlessness of “White superiority” (comment October 21rst, this same thread) to turn off would-be friends and alarm antagonists. 3. The “utility and reasonableness of Hitler” (Leon, er Voznich pleads for understanding about that - comment on this same thread October 18th). 4. The White suicide meme (this same thread October 17) 45
Posted by wobble on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:10 | # White youth being culturally disintegrated at school and in the media and looking for positive White role models won’t find any because they have all been destroyed in advance as part of the ongoing stealth genocide. The only models that they’ll find at all are the ones which are still allowed to exist for demonization purposes: NSDAP, to a lesser extent Dixie and to a lesser extent than that Crusaders / Templars for religious types. So those are the models they’ll drift to because that’s all that’s left in their poisoned history books. Arguing about it is pointless imo. NS, Redneck or Templar are the available iconic choices. Pick one and run with it. 46
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 03:35 | # Why does one have to pick one of these stereotypes Wobble? There has been a disingenuous argument circulating that we are going to be called Nazis anyway, therefore may as well be one. Think about that for three seconds and you realize that is absurd. There are many who cannot choose to be “NS” (not getting cute with the ‘here’s Hitler / here’s Strasser shell-game). Red Necks (esp. not southern, because they are not) Religious fanatics (in any conventional sense or even in the Creativity version, just don’t relate to it). To be a crusader treating our people as a religion is possible here without the stereotypes. And when an adequate religion develops then maybe we can assume it.. til then our crusade does not have an acceptable religious definition as consensus (though I personally would accept “Our race is Our religion.”). To be a knight crusading on behalf of Our people though, one must buck the stereotype of being called racist and ignore David Duke’s utterly stupid advice that We should go around wagging our finger at people that they are racists. Why should we buck the term? Because we need to advocate what is being undone with the term “racism” in reality, not in Duke’s assumed Jewish definition. Duke insists that the term means supremacism, harm and exploitation of others in all of its use. That is just the Jewish cover of how it has more broadly come into use. Its more every day use is the conceptual organization of peoples and discrimination accordingly. We need to be pirates enough WHEN ACCOUNTS ARE REQUESTED to give a better response than the one that Duke claims he used to say, when asked if he was a racist: “it depends upon how you define ‘racism’; if you mean by that I love my people well then, I guess I am.” But that is not what I would say. If I cannot correct the accusation by simply saying, “yes, I care about my people”, then I would take occasion to say what it means - not supremacism and antagonism but classification as a necessary means of accountability and human ecology. I know that Bronstein invented the word and I don’t care. I don’t hear this hiss that Don Black attributes to the word. I am not recommending that the word be adopted as an indefinite moniker (though it could be, as Metzger argues in the case of Quakers transforming and owning the word) for our people but as an occasion to undo and correct the single most important word weapon that Jews have deployed against us. Calling Jews the real racists only empowers the term of anti classification and liberalism, the two things that most importantly need to be undone. I, for one, would never be comfortable going around calling people racists and will not do it. If Duke wants to go around calling people “the real racists”, I guess he will. But I object most strongly to his using the royal “we”, that “We” ought to oppose “racism-Uh.” Doesn’t the “Uh” suffix just go to show that his audience is liberal females? Note that Duke never denounces Hitler and yet he says we shouldn’t defy the word racism because there is too much spin and we will not attract people. Well, Hitler doesn’t only have spin and propaganda going against him but Duke still does not denounce “Hitler-Uh.” And he is concerned with the normal mainstream? Or is he concerned with pandering to soccer moms of the broad White American demographic with a tendency for mudsharking? Accepting the Jewish proscription of what the term is doing and calling people the real racists only empowers the term in its anti-classification and liberalism, the two things that most importantly need to be undone in service of accountability and human ecology. I am not alone in having the testosterone to challenge the word when the occasion is right. Ok, I guess you could say, Wobble, that here we have Templars or pirates of our own sort. 48
Posted by Gawd on Sat, 01 Nov 2014 03:06 | # You have the same arguments, the same style, appeared only after Leon apparently left. 49
Posted by voznich on Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:54 | # I do not have the same arguments as Haller. I mentioned him once, because I agree with him that unless we shift the debate to stress the morality of our survival, we’re only going to remain a minority. I also completely agree with his repeated claim that white nats had better come to terms with Christians in America, or they’re not going to have any real world influence. I’m not Christian myself, however. I’m agnostic and think atheists are probably right, but keep an open mind. I’m also not an economic libertarian, whatever Daniel’s incoherent rant in #44 says to the contrary. I’m pro-capitalist, but I think the economic system has to serve racial survival first. I don’t like paying taxes to support blacks and immigrants. Whatever. 50
Posted by MotherOfGawd on Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:48 | # Ok, not Haller, but quite similarly behind the curve, with the same self-righteous kind of right-wing bullocks that Haller spews. Do yourself a favor, listen to some TT Metzger. Even the latest Etho-state with Kelso and William Johnson talking could bring you along some. General note - the right-wing notion of “coherence”, which expects you to follow a precisely, imperviously non-interactive straight-line rather than a contour of sensible concern. I suppose it would be coherent for me to steadfastly insist that you are Leon Haller even though now I see that you are not. Nevertheless, regarding comment 44, while you are not Haller, your arguments follow his exactly on these counter-productive points. 51
Posted by wobble on Sat, 01 Nov 2014 23:08 | #
You don’t have to. If anything ever starts to happen - and maybe it won’t - people won’t have any positive identity to latch onto as that is part of the ongoing stealth genocide. The only ones allowed by the media/schools will be the negative stereotypes. If something starts to happen then by definition people will be rejecting the anti-white culture and so will latch on to one portrayed as negative - probably the most negative. So if you don’t like the NS one then adopt one of the others. Or don’t, up to you.
52
Posted by voznich on Sat, 01 Nov 2014 23:50 | #
On what counterproductive points? That I think whites are a superior race? Is that controversial? That’s the position at most pro-white sites, I would imagine including Metzger’s. Certainly that was Dr. Pierce’s position. That doesn’t mean that we aren’t also different and entitled to our own living space for that reason alone, as I pointed out. As for the rest of what Daniel says, it is indeed incoherent. I specifically did not say I was “pro-Hitler”, I said the Nazis make some good points and ought to be debated. I don’t care if Daniel has some Polish beef with Nazis (that’s a funny phrase but you get my intent). I also clearly stated that I did not think Nazism was the way to move the pro-white cause forward. And as for “white suicide”, who would argue that whites are in fact committing suicide? This is obvious. We are allowing ourselves to be pushed out of our own living spaces by hostile aliens, exactly as though we were a defeated people, like the Germans/Nazis. But we aren’t. Therefore, if we haven’t been defeated and conquered, but are allowing ourselves to be overrun at the instigation democratically reelected race traitors, assholes who could be tossed out of office but never are, how is that not suicide? What else should it be called? Unless you believe that every election in the European world is in fact a sham, which is possible, but the burden of proof would be on you to show that (otherwise we’re in the “green aliens” territory, reptilians, etc), the fact is that people could have voted BNP, National Front, Republican instead of Obama, but didn’t. Thus, suicide. Most whites are perfectly OK with their own displacement. Sorry, but if white majorities were really awakened, politics would change overnight. 53
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 02 Nov 2014 05:26 | # Wobble, 51: Posted by wobble on November 01, 2014, 06:08 PM | # Why does one have to pick one of these stereotypes Wobble? “You don’t have to. If anything ever starts to happen - and maybe it won’t - people won’t have any positive identity to latch onto as that is part of the ongoing stealth genocide. The only ones allowed by the media/schools will be the negative stereotypes. If something starts to happen then by definition people will be rejecting the anti-white culture and so will latch on to one portrayed as negative - probably the most negative. So if you don’t like the NS one then adopt one of the others. Or don’t, up to you.” “The only ones allowed by the media/schools will be the negative stereotypes” That is why I advocate not shunning the term “racist”, but pirating the term where accused and bucking it, correcting its definition at every turn as something non-elitist but separatist - necessary for human ecology and accountability. “Racism” is the central social de-organizing concept of Whites; thus, re-organizing on the basis of its defiant apprehension and transformation is what we need. ......................................................................................
Posted by voznich on November 01, 2014, 06:50 PM | # regarding comment 44, while you are not Haller, your arguments follow his exactly on these counter-productive points. On what counterproductive points? The four points listed in 44 - ms-politics, superiority, hitler and the suicide meme
Yes. Because it depends upon what one values. We are not superior in all ways and some are not even better in those ways. It is tactless, liable to provoke false comparisons destructive to our qualitative differences, hostilities and conflict against our effective separation; moreover, it is unnecessary. That’s the position at most pro-white sites, I would imagine including Metzger’s. On the contrary, almost no pro Whites are taking the supremacist position, nor should they.
Pierce was far from perfect. A number of WN are reflecting misguidance as a result of him.
We are entitled to our own living space even if we are not better in all ways. As for the rest of what Daniel says, it is indeed incoherent. No it is not. I specifically did not say I was “pro-Hitler”, I said the Nazis make some good points and ought to be debated. Then make the good points and discuss them. Where they had good points, they are usually a matter of logic that do not need to drag us into endless debate about the worth of Hitler at the same time. You are not grasping that we have had enough of Hitler here. Useful concepts can be discussed without his rubric and getting us enmeshed all over again. Wow, buddy, now you are showing your colors. Its as simple as that huh? The only reason to not like Hitler, “to have a little beef with him” is because I am half Polish? And you say you don’t care? It is not that I do not want Europeans to fight? You wonder why I do not trust you and liken you to Haller? Yes, you seem to have some things in common. Yes, you said that and you are not getting it - we are beyond that. We can talk about programs and policies, ideas that are good for Whites irrespective of whether the Nazis did the same thing. But to initiate a debate about Nazi practices would bring a bunch of brain-washed people here (quite the same as religious fanatics), intransigents who simply cannot admit that Hitler could be wrong about anything. It degenerates into inter-European fighting, the opposite of what we want to promote here. We have been through this here and there are several other sites that just love discussing Hitler and Nazi ideas, as Hitler’s and Nazi ideas. To discuss ideas is obviously fine. Hitler didn’t invent the world of ideas.
Well, Ok. Maybe the problem is that you are coming in off the street not aware of MR’s history. I have discussed this as have others. There is an aspect of suicide to what Whites are doing and there is an aspect of homicide being done to them. Part of the homicide is done by stealth, and lately that in promotion of the suicide meme by Jews (part of why I have not trusted you) to obfuscate their homicide of Whites and instill a sense of hopelessness to would-be White activists. It is more murder than suicide. No doubt. Are Jews out there with their media screaming hey! What are you doing letting in non-White immigrants and not discriminating against them in employment, rent, selling, education and personal relationships? Don’t you realize that you are allowing 41,000 years of sublime evolution to be destroyed?
1. Media 2. Academia (and the promotion of idea movements) 3. Banking/Finance 4. Politics 5. Law/Courts 6. Religion 7. Business (especially as it transgresses borders and social bonds).
People are certainly welcome to try and I wish them the best. It can be a means to get the word out at very least, but I am in agreement with those who believe we need meta-political organization. The reason why we are not effective politically is because we are not organized meta-politically.
Here we go again. We have no enemies right? No enemies who would just love to portray us as supremacists and divide us against each other… “Most whites are perfectly OK with their own displacement.” Most are unaware that they are not ok with that on the deepest levels. They need consciousness-raising http://www.vdare.com/articles/white-ethnocentrism-can-americans-really-be-brainwashed “Sorry, but if white majorities were really awakened, politics would change overnight.” Irrespective of whether it would change over night, we can agree that they need to awaken for their own sake if nothing else. They can help us, and will help us, if they can see their subjective and relative interests served in doing so… eagerly if not scared-away, their consciousness shut-down by the anxiety provocation of right-wingers who do not have their relative concerns at heart, but rather cast them aside as a likely “necessary” casualty of their hubris. 54
Posted by Athelstan on Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:01 | # @Carolyn Yeager I am not defending Daniel, but some of you Yanks are a real pain. We used to have “Ex-Pro White Activist” (whose cousin’s daughter was raped by a black in New York, I hear) doing the same thing. Kevin MacDonald has also taken a petty very anti-English and WASP angle on his website that draws all sort of people with a chip on their shoulder. Leave us alone chaps. You save your house. We will save ours. Ms Yeager can better use her IQ to tackle the Jews who rule America. Thank you. 57
Posted by H.Res.707 on Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:25 | # https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/707
58
Posted by Robertalking on Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:40 | # Robert Ransdell talking (starts at 1:27:27): he certainly does put words to recent events and the reality of blacks. http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/139/show_7139093.mp3 59
Posted by Ransdell on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:56 | # Robert Ransdell continues to come across very well even if he does have some dubious associations.. Perhaps it is because he talks about issues, not so much of “and what X says”... Again, he does cite Rockwell as an influence and there seems to be a kind of natural good-will in Rockwell the one does not feel from some of the other influential WN figures: 60
Posted by Ransdell interviewed by Fetcho on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:20 | # Robert Ransdell interviewed by Dennis Fetchko, October 11, 2014 61
Posted by R.I.P. Robert Ransdell on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 17:33 | #
Ransdell on “The Might is Right Power Hour”
Post a comment:
Next entry: Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People’s Defense
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:59 | #
Directly and bluntly attacking Jewish power in America is a good strategy, but not the way Ransdell is doing it. First of all, his slogan “With Jews We Lose” is too vague and general, and secondly his antics will have no lasting effect beyond the time of his “election campaign”.
A better strategy would be to hold regular conferences about “Jewish Privilege”. In that way all Jewish power in America can be attacked, its ubiquity, its nepotism and its destructiveness.
An additional advantage is that fighting a form of “privilege” is entirely in accordance with the current spirit of the time which always sees victim groups exploited by elites.