Comments posted

Page 1 of 3510 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

melvin polatnick wrote:

Sex between a highly talented single goyish male and a religious Ashkenazim married woman is perfect.
The child will inherit genes of the goy combined with genetics of the woman`s tribe.
The secret of the adulterous affair will be kept from her husband and the child will become a member of the local synagogue.
Financial success can almost be guaranteed with this biological advantage. The story has been generated millions of times and responsible for the evolution of the Ashkenazim tribe.

This comment appeared in entry 'Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct' on 05/29/15, 08:14 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

South African Whites seek return to Europe wrote:

Appeal for right of return to Europe for South Africans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o66cpmlneTQ

This comment appeared in entry 'None dare call it White genocide' on 05/29/15, 02:58 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Good questions, GW, and I imagine it goes to what you were getting at regarding the benign and healthy aspects of Hitler’s inspiration in organizing his people domestically (which I’d glossed over for attention to his foreign policies).

The questions also connect to our agency to invoke our system

This comment appeared in entry 'Computer-Nerd Tanstaafl confusing Praxis w "Jargon," psychopathologizing' on 05/29/15, 02:26 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

I had a sense that I took something essential for granted and forgot to mention it - I’m adding it to the post now:

The inquiry into our own responses, or lack thereof, WILL NECESSARILY BE connected with the inquiry of those who might obstruct and suppress them - hence it cannot distract from the J.Q. ultimately. Rightfully angered response and resistance to it would provoke inquiry as to who is resisting and promoting our dispossession.

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/29/15, 02:14 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Three “Laneian” questions.

1. What would the white American life actually be if Jewish power and influence was raised to the ground, and the first part of the 14 words was delivered?

2. Does “a white future” mean anything beyond on-going physical security?

3. If it does, what ambition does WN have to understand what that might be?

This comment appeared in entry 'Computer-Nerd Tanstaafl confusing Praxis w "Jargon," psychopathologizing' on 05/29/15, 01:59 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Caeser / Hitler analogy wrote:

CC, I agree that Caesar is an excellent analogy of how one should come to terms with Hitler; and it is how I believe that I would come to terms with Hitler if I were German. Because that is the way I look at Caesar:

That he had the capacity to take such enormously ambitious campaigns so far provides a certain amount of pride. However, I am not happy with his slaughter of the Gauls and others; or the destruction of ancient European cultures.

Nor am I happy about Rome’s slavery, brutality, overreach, its own losses and the demise of the better aspects of its civilization. However, these things are historically bound, therefore I, and my contemporaries, bear no guilt.

There were reasons instigating Hitler to over-reaction and, as you say, he was coming from what is now an anachronistic view - his enamored of Friedrich The Great and other German campaigners in the East.

It is excellent feedback to note that there were barbaric practices going-on under the Czar along with other practices going-on in east Europe which are abhorrent to present day standards, it is also abhorrent, shockingly condescending, to say that Hitler’s actions and plans were good and liberating for them.

As a matter of tact, to avoid the hubris of such condescension, I will continue to advocate that we not generally talk in terms of equality/inequality, nor would I tend to use the class ranking term of “bourgeois morality” for our current standard, seeing that as a bit anachronistic as well; but rather cast the effects of Hitler’s campaigns in terms our European human ecology.

It is a more tactful even if largely a diplomatic way of talking to make people feel better, but incommensurable complementarity will tend to be accurately descriptive.

Whereas Hitler’s master/slave view was going to cause conflict and did for its more Darwinistic and quantifying outlook, deterministic of “natural competition and superiority”, seeing boundaries as a matter of force and will as opposed to qualitative ecological disbursement of niches and social coordination, agreement. Quantification and its proneness to false comparison is not the best tact with regard to inter-European relations nor with our enemies.

The results of this “naturalism’ and “the necessity of war”, which were really below human social nature, were catastrophic for European population, species, relations and coordination in our defense.

It was a product of the prevailing 1920’s thinking. Of that era was also “The father of Polish nationalism”, Roman Dmowski - he was a rigid social Darwinist himself (in his defense, however, he was also a staunch anti-Semite). If he were able to pull-off something as Hitler did with regard to other European nations, I can’t imagine trying to tell other Europeans that this is just a personal preference of my friends and I - you say potAeto, I say potaato, can’t have all this bickering and gossip over a little thing like our choice for Hitler, tough nuts if you don’t like it. However, I can imagine expecting them to not burden me with guilt trips for historical anachronisms but to work to cooperate in our mutual defense.

I would look upon Hitler as I do Caesar, in the sense that he was an impressive and ambitious military campaigner, who moved some good ideas along - nothing wrong with taking a look at his good sides. But I would not be proud of his aggrandizement, warring and killing of fellow Europeans, destruction, the crippling effects on our population and ability to coordinate defense for his lack of respect for our full human ecology; lack of tact in coordination of our peoples and effective handling of our enemy(ies) in the end. This has devastated our population numbers, qualitative species, and for its lack of accountability, has made fearful and stigmatized our defense against our enemies, leaving us only more vulnerable.

Nevertheless, neither would I be personally ashamed, nor would I expect present day Germans to be ashamed. We all know what it is like to over-react and overcompensate; yes, we had our reasons, and we could have done better with our perspective as it is now.

I do agree with you that genetic heritage colors one’s outlook.

Carolyn Yeager thought that I was being arbitrarily antagonistic when I noted that Tan’s maternal grandmother was German. But this was actually meant to empathize and provide some explanation as to Tan’s initial perspective - scientific studies show an empathic connection with the opposite sex parent’s mother.

Caesar’s mother being my grandmother as she may, I shall use my cortex to relegate his campaigns to general history which had causes of which I had nothing to do; but noting the effects on our people (I like all European women, incl. Russian, don’t you?) I would not propose him, as a nigger might, as one to represent all. On the contrary, for its pejorative effects on European populations and European advocacy, I would reject on balance his worldview as one to hold-up for advocates of Europeans and European coordinated interests.

This comment appeared in entry 'Computer-Nerd Tanstaafl confusing Praxis w "Jargon," psychopathologizing' on 05/29/15, 12:57 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Captainchaos wrote:

Tan clearly has a positive opinion of Hitler which in the privacy of his own thoughts may well border on hero worship (yes, it’s possible that I’m “projecting” - oh fucking well).  Why so?

Two reasons:

1. Tan merely talks shit about Jews on the internet whereas Hitler had the stones and personal influence to round millions of Jews up and put them behind barbed wire.

2. He has not one drop of Slavic blood and indeed significant German ancestry.

I do agree that Hitler probably planned to settle Slavic land with millions of Germans and to reduce Slavs to serfdom.  From the perspective of contemporary “human rights”, bourgeois morality I concede that would be a really shitty thing to do.  But was Hitler worse than the Czars who ruled the vast majority of Russians as serfs for centuries; worse than men like Caesar and Alexander the Great who also sought to grab history by the throat and direct it according to their likewise implacable wills?  I think not.  Yet by the standards of contemporary “human rights”, bourgeois morality the latter would be deemed out-and-out monsters - though we rarely think of them in those terms.

This comment appeared in entry 'Computer-Nerd Tanstaafl confusing Praxis w "Jargon," psychopathologizing' on 05/28/15, 07:41 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

"organization" = boundaries of people and nation wrote:

* What I mean by organization, specifically and generally, is in regard to group identity and national boundaries of our people.

It has nothing to do with paying and card-carrying membership groups.

This comment appeared in entry 'Computer-Nerd Tanstaafl confusing Praxis w "Jargon," psychopathologizing' on 05/28/15, 08:48 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Rambling with Tan wrote:

I have added some transitional phrases since Tanstaafl tried to divert from the obvious sense that I was making, by saying I was “rambling” (taking a page right-out of Jewish-journalese psychobabble).

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/28/15, 03:51 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

monocausal proclivity of computer nerds wrote:

Adding the part in bold to the post above:


Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that he is taking too myopic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor.. 

For example, lets say KM wants to connect with Jarod Taylor and, to see if he can bring him along to achieve more alignment and coordination, shares empathically in Taylor’s way of talking, says “yes, it’s suicidal to do this..” (all the while KM has already argued conclusively for himself that what is going on is genocide not suicide). 

I have now experienced the kind of hair trigger reaction to a social meandering by computer nerds too many times now - sudden conclusive reactions to innocent zigs and zags and the merest theoretical ambiguity, even if a part of a process wholly intended to be corrected in fairly short order to alignment with what the nerd might wish as a result; but he will treat it (the slight zig zag meander) rather as unbearably pernicious because it does not fit into the false/either/or of their theoretical mindset (as misapplied to praxis - viz., the social, interactive, negotiated world corrected through human interactive agency).

Note that in this I am not saying Tan is crazy or applying psychoanalysis to him, I am suggesting, as per Aristotle, that he is over applying lineal, either/or theory (which Aristotle designated “Theoria”) to the more ambiguous social world - which Aristotle called “Praxis.” ...which Tan and Katana might, in turn, want to call “jargon”

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/28/15, 12:16 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Melvin take ur nepotism, usury, gene hijacking and wrote:

Melvin, thanks for your slow pitch. I might even suspect you are a troll, on the side of Whites actually, throwing me a fat pitch to knock out of the park.

Take your nepotistically acquired advantages, your usury, the evil mechanism of your illicit power and apply it to your own folks, along with whatever natural abilities that Ashkenazi stole by gene hijacking Europeans (because the orthodox and natives of Israel certainly don’t have such a high i.q.), go to Israel and stay there.

This comment appeared in entry 'Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct' on 05/27/15, 12:00 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Mature women, puerile females &"marginals" wrote:

Mature women,  puerile females & “marginals”

The short piece by Greg Johnson below corresponds pretty well with part 2 of the gender thing that I will probably be putting up tomorrow: in which I will talk about the importance of distinguishing the boundaries of race as upheld by mature men and women socialized into the delimitations of their social classification as European peoples in relational to feedback with marginals and immature of that systemic classification, yet still within the class. As opposed to rupture of systemic maintenance by the pandered to puerile (females especially), who are central in the disordered and disordering situation at hand as they promote liberalism for those outside of the class and introduce them as phoney “marginals”  i.e., non-Whites to be included in the White class as marginals according to Jewish academic twists, terms and pandering.


Forced to be Free: The Case for Paternalism


Full article at Counter-Currents
http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/05/forced-to-be-free/

..real paternalism has to be “for your own good,” i.e., in the actual interest of its object. People might claim to be abridging the liberty of others to help them, when in reality they are concerned to benefit only themselves. But that is fake rather than real paternalism. Real paternalism must be in the interest of its objects. Real paternalism is a kindness. Fake paternalism is merely a crime.

Second, there are true and false forms of freedom as well. Most people will agree that freedom is doing what you want to do. But what do we want to do? On this matter, I follow Plato and Aristotle, who argued that we all want basically one thing: the good life, happiness, self-actualization, or well-being (eudaimonia). That is the ultimate aim of every particular action. Every choice, whether we know it or not, is made in pursuit of the good life as we see it.

Thus if freedom is doing what we really want, and we all really want a good life, then living a good life is freedom. This implies that if we choose to do things that are not conducive to the good life, we are not acting freely, for doing things we don’t really want to do is unfreedom.

In other words, not every voluntary act is a free one. We are free when we pursue the good life (what we really want). We are unfree when we fail to pursue the good life (which we don’t really want to do).

There are two basic causes of unfreedom. First, there is ignorance of what is really conducive to happiness. We might think that smoking 20 cigarettes a day will make us happy, but it won’t. Second, there are occasions when we know perfectly well what will make us happy but we fail to do it because we are overcome by our emotions. We fear doing the right thing, or we find doing the wrong thing too pleasurable to resist.

We might choose to act out of ignorance or passion. We might even feel free when doing so. But if such actions are not conducive to the good life, they are not free, they are a form of bondage. Paternalism, therefore, can restore freedom by forcing us to stop throwing away our happiness out of ignorance or passion. Since freedom is doing what we really want, and we can be forced back onto that path, man can be forced to be free, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau put it so memorably.

This means that libertarianism, which claims that freedom is incompatible with paternalism, and that force is always the opposite of freedom, is simply wrong. If you really care about freedom, then the state should, in principle, have the power to paternalistically intervene when people are throwing away their freedom out of lack of knowledge or excess of feeling. One can debate the grounds and scope of such paternalistic interventions. But the principle is clear: paternalism is not an enemy of real freedom but one of its necessary guardians.

 

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Hermeneutics Circles Back to The Passions of Captain Chaos' on 05/27/15, 11:36 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

melvin polatnick wrote:

We all live in a Capitalist reality with little change in the rules. Parents hope their children will be shrewd enough to rise to the top of the wolf pack and have a prosperous future. But there are those with a slight advantage, the Ashkenazim. They have an innate shrewdness not because of training but because of some kind of evolutionary enablement.  Out of innocence the Ashkenazim are given great expectations and have no choice but to follow its bidding. It is never evil to be Mother Natures chosen profiteer and accumulate great fortunes, in spite of being badmouthed by the less fortunate.

This comment appeared in entry 'Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct' on 05/27/15, 11:14 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Hobbit House wrote:


Hobbit House

http://www.beingsomewhere.net/hobbit.htm

This comment appeared in entry 'Postmodernism and the New Right.' on 05/27/15, 08:44 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

talk about crypsis wrote:

Talk about Jewish crypsis, I didn’t even suspect Vikki Lamotta of being Jewish

Vikki Lamotta was born Beverly Thailer to a Jewish family in The Bronx, N.Y. in 1930

Jake’s mother was Jewish too: “LaMotta was born to an Italian father and Jewish mother in the Bronx, New York City in 1921.”

MacDonald has discussed the particular intensity of Jewish communicative styles. 

This comment appeared in entry 'Hermeneutics Circles Back to The Passions of Captain Chaos' on 05/27/15, 06:37 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Hero & Heretic in Western Literature wrote:

Tom Sunic: Hero and Heretic in Western Literature:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQYT-R53RVo

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Dr Tomislav Sunic returns to talk to GW and DanielS' on 05/27/15, 01:23 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Diatribe with Tan wrote:

Tanstaafl quotes me:

DanielS,

  when you try to suggest that someone like me is following the likes of Auster or trying to distract from the Jews or falling for their tricks that’s paranoid

Tan says:

I’m paranoid? Where did I suggest what you claim?

OK, you didn’t accuse me of following Auster or trying to distract from Jews, but implied that I was distracting from the significance of their influence, not using my brain and I guess KM too, for not seeing Jews as the ONLY thing we should focus on, Hitler as perfect, The Holo as a compete hoax and that maybe we should look at how we might defend oursevles a little better of our own accord.


  Because you don’t get it man, you see everyone as on just two sides – the Hitler/Nazi side or the Jew side and it isn’t that way.

Tan
I think I do get it.

The national socialists recognized the jews as mortal racial enemies. You imagine you’re somehow above or outside this conflict,

No, I recognize the Jews as a mortal enemy but the problem is that Hitler also made Slavs of nations to his east into enemies. He was not an advocate of all Whites in defense against Jews, as simple as that.

that you can finesse your way around reality and history by finding some different words or thinking to describe it.

I advocate all Europeans and the maintenance of their discreet kinds. Jews are no part of that.

Where is the finesse?

I get that in your mind Hitler “is a permanently divisive figure –

Its not only in my mind son, it is reality.


he is unnecessary to redeem”, perforce, anyone who disagrees is a “Hitler worshipper”.

No, not even for Germans. What did Germans of this generation have to do with any alleged crimes of Hitler or Nazi Germany? Nothing. 

They are perfectly warranted to defend themselves and I am perfectly willing to help.

These are your terms and they reflect your own binary thinking on the subject.

My thinking is not binary on the subject. Not even regarding Hitler. But I recognize that on balance, he is divisive and not a good idea to try to hold him up and redeem him as a unifying figure.

I get that the supposed iredeemability extends in your mind to national socialism generally, then, now or ever. Hitler is just the personification of the unecessary-to-explain-animus you feel. I don’t share it.

Again, it is not in my “mind” and who is doing the Jewy psychoanalytic thing? There were things that NS did right and things that they did wrong. I have nothing against people discussing some things that they did right; but some people can’t find it in themselves to be critical and recognize that AH and Nazi Germany were not things to show unanimity with if you are an advocate of all European peoples.

If you are not, if you want to antagonize huge tracts of Europeans, that’s your prerogative. I have registered my rejection of your position.

  don’t bullshit me like Duke tries, that Hitler was so perfect, didn’t do anything bad, that he was defending all Whites and we can’t live without him

Yes.

Tan says:
Thinkers who have a sensible argument to make don’t need to resort to strawmen or pull in other unrelated issues. I have no idea what your beef with (David?) Duke concerns.

It is an example of what is going on in right wing WN circles. Listen to his memorial day discussion and you would have an idea. You will never hear Duke say anything critical of Hitler.

It may have something to do with America’s demographics and the internet creating a self buffering system endorsing a pro-Hitler point of view that could stand some critique.

When you left Carolyn Yeager, I though you did so because you saw the obvious fact that his plans for Ukraine and Ukrainians were foul. 

I guess that you just bought back into the false either or of the self satisfied system of American demographics and right wing internet WN.

“What you’re doing here is projecting onto me the exact opposite of your “permanently divisive figure”/”unnecessary to redeem” thinking. I would offer you the friendly advice not to think and speak in such absolute and unequivocal terms unless you really mean it, but instead I take you at your word and accept that you really do mean it. So much so that you think I think that way too.

I’m not really sure what you mean here. But I can assure you that I am not the only one who sees Hitler as permanently divisive. It isn’t in my mind. I don’t know what YOU are thinking.

I would not have objected if you had said something like, and similar as what our friend over there at MR, DanielS is saying about Objectivism being a problem for us, I have been thinking as well, that it has yields but entails susceptibilities..

Tan
Let me be clear. I feel no obligation to credit you for thoughts (about Aryan objectivity or anything else) that I didn’t get from you.

OK, you are smart enough to come to ideas by yourself, but the fact is that I WAS TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS CLEARLY AT VOR BACK IN 2011 (BEFORE THE DATE YOU CITE as your initiation) AND MANY YEARS BEFORE. YOU SAID THAT I WAS NOT THINKING CLEARLY, NOT USING MY BRAIN, THEN YOU WENT AHEAD AND STARTED SPEAKING IN TERMS OF THE PARADIGM THAT I WAS USING - AT RENEGADE, A PLACE THAT SEES NOTHING WRONG WITH HITLER. BTW, I HAD OFFERED TO TALK TO THEM. THEY DECLINED TO DISCUSS MY DISSENTING VIEW, THUS I WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THESE IDEAS HAVE CURRENCY AMONG PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BUY THEIR HITLER PLATFORM.

Hitler is your bugbear, your litmus test. That’s your idea. Again, I don’t share it.

He is not my bugbear, he is the security blanket for some. And the Jewy unanimity for Hitler is a tedious bore. For me, he is just an irritant. But when I know that someone endorses him on balance or even uncritically, I can look upon them as having a serious flaw in their outlook.

Tanstaafl
25 May 2015 at 3:57 pm

DanielS, I do not think and have not argued that everyone who uses the word “suicide” is trying to excuse the jews – it is only the first and most insidious use of that term that I noticed and called “the suicide meme”.

OK.

Tan
Johnson clearly intends the word “monomania” as an insult, a bit harsher and more personal than your “monocausalism”

monocausalism is not my word. It is a term that has been used at MR. I have picked it up a bit recently as a stop gap. It has merit as a criticism when you are looking to help Europeans defend themselves as a system, as I am.

Tan

or “myopic”, but with the same basic thrust. He, like you, agree with some of what I say,

Probably more like MOST of what you say.

That is why it is disturbing when you reacted in a shrill way when I tried to explain why I consider it valid to have a more rounded look at our problems - emphasizing that it is not about taking eyes off of Jewish power and influence, not for me, and I don’t think for MacDonald either.


Tan
especially when it’s focused on the jews,


Wait a minute! I don’t criticize anything you say about the Jews!

For me its a little more both/and, that’s all.

Tan:
but you dislike some of what I say, who I say it to,

That’s a bit more true. I don’t like Nazi advocates. You say “tough” and that’s that. But I just wanted you to know, that I’m here and Hitler and Hitler advocates do not get credit for being the all of thinking.

Tan
or who I say it about. You want me to change/remove those parts, to stop thinking or saying what you don’t want thought or said.

Obviously I cannot control you or tell you what to do. But what I am saying is not unwarranted. You deserved feedback at least once.

Bizarrely, you both dress up this desire of yours as my problem, that I’m the one being too simplistic or narrow-minded.

It isn’t my problem, especially not now.

But I would say that you are being simplistic. Can anyone really be critical of Hitler, Nazi Germany or of “revisionism” etc, at Renegade?

No, they cannot. Apparently you have the same position - on the side of the Jews or the Nazis. That’s a simplistic, false and dangerous either/or.


That, by the way, is the same psychological trick the jews exploit when they scream “anti-semitism” at an intellectual.

I’m not playing any Jewish tricks with you. It’s clear, Hitler and the Nazis were not friends of all European peoples. If you try to say that they were, you would have to start resorting to tricks. Many WN try, in fact. They were representing “White” people. No they were not. They represented only a part of Euroepans and they were antagonistic to others.

It is quite possible to be against Jews, to look upon them as an entirely other people who are antagonistic and dangerous to Europeans in a way second to none, and recognize that Hitler is not on your side either.

The essense of psychoanalysis is: “You like what I don’t like, therefore you must be stupid or crazy”.

You certainly aren’t stupid, maybe a tad crazy from the hell of Jew-made America (it certainly made me a little crazy), but it is probably more the case that you are not familiar enough with Eastern European peoples and history. That you haven’t had time to see that there is a deeper history even of Germany, which can be drawn upon to cooperate in defense against Jews.

I know Germans. They are good people. We all have our bad apples, but on balance, all Europeans are good people. I know that we can cooperate. The fighting is history.


Tan
Just to be clear, I’m not accusing either of you of being jews. It’s just ironic that you are trying to use the same tactic they use. Perhaps you do so without even realizing it, though it’s hard for me to understand how, because this trick is what I have been trying to describe as a real White weakness, the one that most enables this “White pathology” rhetoric to fly.

I am not against your criticism of the Jews, even your focus on them. I am critical of a knee jerk reaction to looking at those who look at other problems and antagonists among a system of concerns, especially when I agree that Jews merit attention second to none in priority.

I am critical of Hitler and Nazi Germany as divisive. It should be obvious and is not “my psychological problem” because I cannot see what a great guy he was, the Nazi regime was. etc.

Tan:
To put it bluntly, some explicitly pro-White/jew-wise intellectuals have overcome their fear of the jews but still fear appearing too anti-jew.

Maybe they do. I am not afraid of appearing anti-Jew. but I would not want to tactlessly announce a wish to genocide them - that’s not fear, that’s discretion.


I think underestimating the jews is the problem, not overestimating.
Tanstaafl

I’m open to that, and I would tend to think that’s true.

I have always maintained that no Jews should be included in our advocacy group. Obviously some deserve a worse fate than being ostracized. 1/4 and 1/8 Jews do bear discussion.

But Hitler advocacy and attempts at his redemption are not going to unify and facilitate good coordination among Europeans

It is really very simple, Tan. If you were to say, NS Germany had their reasons, they had some things right, they had some things wrong, but if we, as Europeans (including Russians) are to work together as we should to defend ourselves, we have got to think as European advocates and care more about Europeans, including Germans, of course, more than Hitler.

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/26/15, 08:48 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

The Key to "Right and Left" wrote:

I took the way that I distinguish “left and right” so for granted that I did not render it sufficiently a day ago. It is fixed now:

The niches are generally treated as characteristically incommensurate to comparison. That, as opposed to vain and false comparisons which tend to instigate conflict rather than complementarity.

The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by The White Left.

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/26/15, 02:29 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Duke's Undying Commitment to Hitler wrote:

David Duke’s undying commitment to Adolf Hitler

On this show (David Duke Archives:Date: 05-25-15) the used-car salesman says that there is “no argument” that Hitler tried to offer peace.

Perhaps card-tricks are an even more clear analogy. The hand he plays:

Completely ignores, and asks you to ignore, the fact these “peace offers” were just words and that his war-like intentions, expansionist ambitions at the expense of peoples to the east, were evident before and after the ostensibly just proposals.

Duke ignores, and asks you to ignore, the fact that while the then German population of Gdansk may have voted on a referendum to become part of Germany, that it was not Hitler’s prerogative, let alone unilateral prerogative, to order that a referendum be held to undo the results of World War I and the Versailles committee’s decision to make Gdansk a neutral city again. Further, their decision was not groundless - it was a strategic city which if in exclusively hostile hands could threaten to eclipse Poland’s sea access. Moreover, it was a historically disputed city, at times a Polish city, with a Polish population that was violently displaced by Germanics, and at times a neutral city. However, Hitler’s taking all of Czechoslovakia after having been conceded the Sudetanland makes this a moot point. His expansionist ambitions and disrespect for nationals to his east were more than clear.

Perhaps worst of all, Duke tries to play-up Polish victimization at the hands of The Soviets and portray Nazi Germany as if it was on Poland’s side against the Soviets, when Polish nationalism had already shown its resolve and ability to fight the Soviets - in the end, with absolutely no thanks from Nazi-Berlin to Poland for turning away Soviet troops headed its way. On the contrary, Poland was subject to utter betrayal and destruction with the intent of ending its nationhood - that was the appreciation that Nazi Germany gave to Poland for its clear resistance to The Soviet. 


In the David Duke Archives:
Date: 05-25-15

Dr. Duke had a special Memorial Day program where he went into the history of the wars that we are memorializing and showed the critical Jewish roles in getting the U.S. into World War I and World War II, to say nothing of the more recent wars in the Middle East. He and Dr. Slattery also talked about how Jews twist the privilege they have historically benefited from into a narrative of perpetual victimhood.

And so Duke wants to install perpetual Nazi victimhood and portray them as perfectly virtuous. No thanks.

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/26/15, 01:13 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Word from Orania wrote:

ORANIA: OASIS OF SANITY IN A COUNTRY OF CHAOS


  by Sebastiaan Biehl

(Mr. Biehl is a man of German origin, who settled in South Africa and took up residence in Orania. You can

read more about his interesting story here)
The government of South Africa, which is dominated by the socialist and black-nationalistic African National Congress (ANC), is busy with the second phase of their so-called “transformation” of our country. The second phase of their planned “transformation” is much more profound and destructive than the first phase. The first, transitional phase—which involved dismantling Apartheid—still left some space for Afrikaners, but the next phase, the so-called “National Democratic Revolution”, aims to wipe out any traces of white, especially Afrikaner history.

http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/05/orania-oasis-of-sanity-in-country-of.html

This comment appeared in entry 'None dare call it White genocide' on 05/26/15, 12:00 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

This comment was from May 6th that seemed to have an instigating effect:

Tanstaafl’s paranoia:

Age of Treason Radio
Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 2

http://age-of-treason.com/category/age-of-treason-radio/

Tan says:

“Monocausalism” (like Johnson’s “monomania”) is just another way of saying craaazy “anti-semitism”. Use your brain and make an argument.”

Wrong, Tan. 

Think about what I am saying: we will do best to set about with two poles, one Jewish, the other our susceptibility for objectivism (objectivism as opposed to looking after our relative group interests as we should). From there, we may attend to Jewish power and influence and our systemic maintenance most often; and in process attend to other problems as well - other non-White imposers and traitors high and low.

You may not like the term monocuasalism* and it may be used by people who are trying to distract from the J.Q., but there is NO suggestion here that we are crazy and that Jews are not hostile, powerful antagonists requiring acute and priority focus (again, keeping ongoing and most frequent vigil with regard to 7 key niches, while perhaps not giving them ALL attention ALL of the time).

Next, you quote the feeble minded and dishonest Katana to concur where he is totally wrong:

“4 May 2015 at 12:57 pm

  I think your writings are unclear because your thinking is unclear, because your language is unclear, being filled with abstractions and jargon. An example of that…

I concur. And good example.”

Totally wrong.

I am clear in what I think**, and clear enough in how I say it for anyone, but perhaps those, like Katana, who want to believe in Hitler’s perfection (and for people to not hear what people like myself are saying).

Tan, the messiness, the less than perfectly clear causality of the multi-interactive social world must be why you prefer to cite John Friend (with his neat but absurd conspiracy theories to explain all) as a definitive authority.

What you do in focusing on Jews is a good thing, but you are taking it to paranoia when you suggest that someone (e.g. myself) is not using his brain and trying to obfuscate the Jewish role when he looks at our susceptibilities and philosophical corrections thereof.

I can hope for better from you, but if you are endorsing Katana’s BS and John Friend, then perhaps the William Pierce perspective has you held too captive to let go.
 
William Pierce was smart, but we can do better. Indeed, we must.


* Actually, I did not have Tan, or anyone in particular, in mind when chiding “computer nerds” as being susceptible to anti-social explanations, but come to think of it, I believe that Tan is a computer guy. Therefore, he may have an additional proclivity to “monocausality” because, as a computer person, one is involved with technology, looking at transmission circuits for THE place where the circuit is broken. Whereas the social world, of praxis, is multi-interactive, agentive and reflexive (factual terms which he would be inclined to look upon as “jargon” because they do not fit his computer training discipline).

Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that he is taking too myopic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor.. 


** And I can prove that I am clear in what I think by answering in clarification of any question that you could have for me about what I’ve said.

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/25/15, 12:42 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

comment on Tan from May 6th wrote:

This comment was from May 6th:

Tanstaafl’s paranoia:

Age of Treason Radio
Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 2

http://age-of-treason.com/category/age-of-treason-radio/

Tan says:

“Monocausalism” (like Johnson’s “monomania”) is just another way of saying craaazy “anti-semitism”. Use your brain and make an argument.”

Wrong, Tan. 

Think about what I am saying: we will do best to set about with two poles, one Jewish, the other our susceptibility for objectivism (objectivism as opposed to looking after our relative group interests as we should). From there, we may attend to Jewish power and influence and our systemic maintenance most often; and in process attend to other problems as well - other non-White imposers and traitors high and low.

You may not like the term monocuasalism* and it may be used by people who are trying to distract from the J.Q., but there is NO suggestion here that we are crazy and that Jews are not hostile, powerful antagonists requiring acute and priority focus (again, keeping ongoing and most frequent vigil with regard to 7 key niches, while perhaps not giving them ALL attention ALL of the time).

Next, you quote the feeble minded and dishonest Katana to concur where he is totally wrong:

“4 May 2015 at 12:57 pm

  I think your writings are unclear because your thinking is unclear, because your language is unclear, being filled with abstractions and jargon. An example of that…

I concur. And good example.”

Totally wrong.

I am clear in what I think**, and clear enough in how I say it for anyone, but perhaps those, like Katana, who want to believe in Hitler’s perfection (and for people to not hear what people like myself are saying).

Tan, the messiness, the less than perfectly clear causality of the multi-interactive social world must be why you prefer to cite John Friend (with his neat but absurd conspiracy theories to explain all) as a definitive authority.

What you do in focusing on Jews is a good thing, but you are taking it to paranoia when you suggest that someone (e.g. myself) is not using his brain and trying to obfuscate the Jewish role when he looks at our susceptibilities and philosophical corrections thereof.

I can hope for better from you, but if you are endorsing Katana’s BS and John Friend, then perhaps the William Pierce perspective has you held too captive to let go.
 
William Pierce was smart, but we can do better. Indeed, we must.


* Actually, I did not have Tan, or anyone in particular, in mind when chiding “computer nerds” as being susceptible to anti-social explanations, but come to think of it, I believe that Tan is a computer guy. Therefore, he may have an additional proclivity to “monocausality” because, as a computer person, one is involved with technology, looking at transmission circuits for THE place where the circuit is broken. Whereas the social world, of praxis, is multi-interactive, agentive and reflexive (factual terms which he would be inclined to look upon as “jargon” because they do not fit his computer training discipline).

Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that he is taking too myopoic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor.. 


** And I can prove that I am clear in what I think by answering in clarification of any question that you could have for me about what I’ve said.

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/25/15, 12:39 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Daniel response to Tanstaafl wrote:

“For the record, I don’t think you’re stupid Daniel. I just don’t share your overriding concern about “monocausalism”

Monocausalism is NOT the important term with me. The important issue is systemic maintenance and homeostasis in leverage against our enemies attacks. And we are not only attacked by Jews. For you to focus on them is fine. But when you try to suggest that someone like me is following the likes of Auster or trying to distract from the Jews or falling for their tricks that’s paranoid.

7 key points where Jews have overriding power: finance, religion, media, academia, politics, international business, law. Their use of these power positions against us is second to none in importance. That is what I say!

“and “Hitler worship”. That’s where it seems to me your brain shuts down.”

On the contrary, that is where the Hitler worshiper’s brains shut down. As if we need to resurrect him to think for us! He is a permanently divisive figure - he is unnecessary to redeem. That’s it.

“You see those terms as trump cards, argument enders, whereas to me they’re nothing more than another way of saying “anti-semitism” and “nazi”.

Because you don’t get it man, you see everyone as on just two sides - the Hitler/Nazi side or the Jew side and it isn’t that way.

“It may sting to hear it, but I often find the way you express yourself difficult to understand.:”

It doesn’t sting. You might try a little harder. Or not try, but don’t bullshit me like Duke tries, that Hitler was so perfect, didn’t do anything bad, that he was defending all Whites and we can’t live without him.

“I think that’s because you have tried to organize your thoughts”

I HAVE organized my thoughts.

“but neglect to consider that others haven’t followed the details of your philosophizing, aren’t familiar with your jargon, or simply disagree with you.”

It isn’t exotic or arbitrary jargon that I am using. It is based on Aristotle, biological philosophy and more recent post modern philosophy.

“Which brings me to the main thrust of your criticism of the interview, which amounts to “I’m incensed that Tan said things I disagree with in a venue I don’t like”.

My response: That’s too bad.

No, I am incensed that you are reconstructing the The Nazi/Jew diatribe, and the Nazi mirror of the Jews as the chosen people, pure light unto the world and eternal ex nihlo victims.

As I’ve already explained, I’ve been thinking and talking about objectivity for a while, independent of whatever you’ve said about it (of which I’m not even aware). It was in Race and Genetics – Part 5, late 2012,

And I have been talking about it since the 1990’s; have done so with Meztzger, on VoR and just recently in comments in criticism of you.

I would not have objected if you had said something like, and similar as what our friend over there at MR, DanielS is saying about Objectivism being a problem for us, I have been thinking as well, that it has yields but entails susceptibilities..

...if you had been talking to Friends who care more about European peoples than Hitler and the Nazis: You are not comforting friends when you are unanimity with Kyle who can see no wrong in Hitler, who is tight with this Markus guy who hates Poland and has a long list of reasons why he supposes war should be instigated with them Again! etc.

“I came to understand that the race scientists behind national socialism, specifically Fritz Lenz, had identified objectivity as a key Aryan mental trait. That’s also where I first mentioned how the jews use this tendency against us, how even Lenz was moved by the fear of appearing biased, of being seen as an “anti-semite” (or as a “Hitler worshipping monocausalist” as you might put it).

I don’t tend to use the word monocausalist, Tan. I have probably less than ten times in my life.

Citing reasons and things he had right is one thing. Making excuses, covering-up and lying for him, quite another.

When you try to bury what I am saying under the rubric of Hitler as the grand unifier, getting all cool with Hitler worshipers, I do have a problem with that. Go back and re-listen to some of table talk; and if you can’t find it in yourself, the way Duke et. al, can’t find it in himself to look at him critically and reject him as a proposed unifying figure, if you think he’s cool then you are the one who is screwed up.

I think you can understand this:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/suicide_genocide_and_rational_blindness

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/25/15, 11:29 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Tanstaafl wrote:

My response to Daniel: http://age-of-treason.com/2015/05/23/catching-up-with-kyle-hunt/#comment-14579

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/25/15, 11:05 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

African migration we should support wrote:

Michael McGregor · May 24, 2015

http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2015/5/24/immigration-we-should-support

A few White South Africans are making a bold move and demanding the right of return to Europe. We all know of the awful lot they face remaining in the country that once was theirs, so it is only natural for some Afrikaners to think—in the words of Charlize Theron—that there’s no future for a White South African.

And so now, there’s a petition that calls upon the European Commission to grant Afrikaners and other White South African the right to return to Mother Europe.

  Rodrigo de Campos, who started the campaign, is gaining support for his belief that the “white South African population currently faces ethnic cleansing and persecutions” at the hands of the ruling ANC government, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party and “various individual anti-white aggressors”.

  He also says: “Over 4000 white farmers have been brutally murdered, often including torture and rape and mutilation.”

  An increasing number of supporters believe the solution to this is for white South African’s - and white Zimbabweans and Namibians - to be allowed to “return” to whatever nation the majority of their ancestors are from - which in most cases is the Netherlands or the UK.

Quite rightly, de Campos uses Israel’s right of return to argue his case:

  The petition compares white South Africans to Jews being allowed citizenship in Israel.

  It says: “Based on the Israeli government’s policy of allowing all Jews the right to return to Israel, we believe it is not only advisable but morally obligatory that Europe should allow all white South Africans the right to return.”

The Express printed the reasons why White South Africans are signing the petition, and they’ll break your heart:

  Susan Mulder, who signed the petition from Cape Town, said: “My life and the lives of my children are at risk daily.

  “We love SA but are no longer welcome here in the country our ancestors built.

  “We have no option but to ask for your help.”

  Another supporter of the petition is Marischka Davies, living in Liverpool. She said: “I am a naturalised British citizen yet my mom is stuck on her own in South Africa.

  “She should be growing old with her daughter and granddaughter.

  “She has been attacked with an AK47 held to her head and is alone and traumatised. She deserves to be free from living in fear.”

  While Matty de Bruyn, in Cape Town, simply said: “There is no hope for the white man in South Africa.”

The petition has gained nearly 17,000 signees as of this moment and I urge all RADIX readers to support this measure. These are our people in need, and this is immigration that will actually benefit our lands—unlike the typical immigrants of today.

As support for this measure continues to grow, it will be interesting to see how the EC responds to this humanitarian plea for assistance.

This comment appeared in entry 'African Population Explosion - Augurs to Overwhelm Europe' on 05/25/15, 05:55 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

"the blitzkrieg was being so nice" wrote:

“The blitzkrieg was such a nice way to do things” Kyle unt

This comment appeared in entry 'Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness' on 05/25/15, 04:10 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Lindtner and Humphreys to appear wrote:

Lindtner + Humphreys

Christian Lindtner and Kenneth Humphreys to appear in international conference:

  FYI: There will be an important international conference on the New Testament in Roskilde, Denmark on June 21-24, 2015

  Gospel Interpretation and Q-Hypothesis.

This comment appeared in entry 'Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct' on 05/25/15, 01:27 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Genocide vs suicide - an informative discussion but a false either/or in the sense that it is not a distinction that I’m making and I don’t think MacDonald is either.


Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/641/show_7641145_2015_05_25_04_37_05.mp3


Tan quotes:

Le CRIF and La France LICRAtisée (literally “Licratized France”) are extremely rigorous works and, as well shall see, their conclusions are highly compatible with The Culture of Critique. In short, these Jewish groups have spearheaded efforts to delegitimize French ethnic identity and indeed the French nation itself, to destroy majority self-confidence with references to “racism,” colonialism and the Vichy Regime, to aggressively promote Afro-Muslim immigration and “multiculturalism,” to marginalize the Front National from any participation in politics, to censor speech found threatening to perceived Jewish interests, and raise the Holocaust as the supreme crime above all crimes that legitimizes their activism by placing Jews as the supreme victims. This activism, plainly, is based on ethnically-motivated hypocrisy and selfishness, evident in the LICRA and CRIF’s simultaneous support for Israel as an explicitly Jewish ethno-state.

“That’s not suicide”


While it is helpful to unfold the matter of genocide vs. suicide, I don’t think that MacDonald is letting the Jews off the hook while attempting to examine why our people are not responding better to obvious impositions.

I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews mixed in, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or even somehow impressive as a physical specimen.

I used as strategy of walking near them and speaking loudly while not looking at them directly, saying sarcastically, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, giving it to an ape!”

The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.

It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. It would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence.

I even hear Tan referring to my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.

Objectivism, which has appeal by providing powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - because one can “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments on even such obvious differences.

That’s called “radional blindness” and it is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism.

As GW would advocate with his ontology project, we have got to understand our own nature as well.

....................

This is not making excuses for Jews and letting them off the hook in any way shape or form.


I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.

I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat.


In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul.

But he doesn’t see how the Nazis and his sympathy for them are having him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, they didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization pure and removed from cause and interactive conflict.

This comment appeared in entry 'Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct' on 05/25/15, 01:05 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

genocide/suicide informative but false either/or wrote:

genocide/suicide informative discussion but.. its a false either/or in the sense that it is not a distinction that I am making and I don’t think MacDonald is either.


Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide


http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/641/show_7641145_2015_05_25_04_37_05.mp3


Tan quotes:

Le CRIF and La France LICRAtisée (literally “Licratized France”) are extremely rigorous works and, as well shall see, their conclusions are highly compatible with The Culture of Critique. In short, these Jewish groups have spearheaded efforts to delegitimize French ethnic identity and indeed the French nation itself, to destroy majority self-confidence with references to “racism,” colonialism and the Vichy Regime, to aggressively promote Afro-Muslim immigration and “multiculturalism,” to marginalize the Front National from any participation in politics, to censor speech found threatening to perceived Jewish interests, and raise the Holocaust as the supreme crime above all crimes that legitimizes their activism by placing Jews as the supreme victims. This activism, plainly, is based on ethnically-motivated hypocrisy and selfishness, evident in the LICRA and CRIF’s simultaneous support for Israel as an explicitly Jewish ethno-state.

“That’s not suicide”


While it is good to unfold the matter of genocide vs. suicide, I don’t think that MacDonald is letting the Jews of the hook while attempting to examine why our people are not responding better to obvious impositions.

I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews mixed in, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple. Lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes, with a Negro in no way handsome or even somehow impressive as a physical specimen.

I used as strategy of walking near them and speaking loudly while not looking at them directly, saying sarcastically, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, giving it to an ape!

The important point I want to make is that is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.

It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response is not there. It would be paranoid to suggest that MacDonald and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence.

I even hear Tanstaafl referring to my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.

Objectivism, which has appeal by providing powerful moral warrant and innocence of subjective concern, leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory perhaps especially of the obvious - because one can “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments on such and obvious differences.

As GW would advocate with his ontology project, we have got to understand our own nature as well.

....................

This is not making excuses for Jews and letting them off the hook in any way shape or form.


I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.

I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat.

 

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct' on 05/25/15, 01:02 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

ProWhite lawyer/White receiver wrote:

A pro-White attorney who defends Whites

“Sports are the opiate of the masses”

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/634/show_7634819_2015_05_22_03_30_27.mp3


...he talks about a treasured memory of seeing Archie Manning win a game for Ole Miss in 1969.

The first of my three times in the old Yankee stadium was a game between The New Orleans Saints and The New York Giants.


New Orleans Saints 21 at New York Giants 45
Sunday, October 8, 1972
1 2 3 4 Final
New Orleans Saints (2-11-1) 0 7 0 14 21
New York Giants (8-6-0) 17 14 14 0 45

Game Info
Stadium Yankee Stadium
Start Time (ET) 1:00pm
Roof outdoors
Surface grass
Weather 57 degrees relative humidity 66%, wind 19 mph


Scoring

1st Giants Charlie Evans 10 yard pass from Norm Snead (Pete Gogolak kick) 0 7
Giants Pete Gogolak 17 yard field goal 0 10
Giants Charlie Evans 24 yard rush (Pete Gogolak kick) 0 17
2nd Giants Ron Johnson 3 yard rush (Pete Gogolak kick) 0 24
Giants Charlie Evans 8 yard rush (Pete Gogolak kick) 0 31
Saints Dave Parks 66 yard pass from Archie Manning (Charlie Durkee kick) 7 31
3rd Giants Don Herrmann 14 yard pass from Norm Snead (Pete Gogolak kick) 7 38
Giants Bob Grim 15 yard pass from Norm Snead (Pete Gogolak kick) 7 45
4th Saints Dan Abramowicz 16 yard pass from Archie Manning (C. Durkee kick) 14 45
Saints Dave Parks 25 yard pass from Archie Manning (Charlie Durkee kick) 21 45

 


It was in 1972. I was seated in one end zone and had a perfect view of a fast receiver catching a bomb-pass over his head for a touch down.

....but I remembered the fast receiver as having been black. In fact, he was White.


 

This comment appeared in entry 'All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace' on 05/24/15, 08:31 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Jews seeking to reclaim Khazaria wrote:

Corresponding with the theory that GW favors, Lasha Darkmoon sees a motive to reclaim Khazaria for Jews behind this Ukrainian/Russian conflict

http://arabnyheter.info/sv/2014/06/01/ukraine-zionist-americas-new-jewish-colony-by-lasha-darkmoon/

http://www.darkmoon.me/2014/ukraine-zionist-americas-new-jewish-colony-by-lasha-darkmoon/

http://eurofolkradio.com/2014/08/08/new-dna-research-confirms-jews-not-descendants-of-abraham/

This comment appeared in entry 'We Are Their Slaves!' on 05/24/15, 10:22 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

We need a more radical separatism from Jews than that, unpc downunder.

However, for a politician to talk in those terms could be good tact as it is an evidently innocent way of calling attention to just who the powers-that-be are, the injustice of it, and to provide assurance to our people that we are fair mined. This can then lead to demonstrations that while we could be fair, the Jews never will be. Therefore, we need them to be separate from our system altogether, not just disingenuously agreeing to some correction of their over representation, while they tuck their influence and money in some other place. .

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Prof. MacDonald in conversation with GW and DanielS' on 05/24/15, 06:16 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

unpc downunder wrote:

With Jewish over-representation in the US reaching Weimar levels in some instances, a sensible affirmative action principle is “other things being equal, Gentiles should get hiring preference over Jews.”

This way Jews can only be selected if they are the best candidate for the job. Over time this principle would cut Jewish representation by at least 40 percent.

This affirmative action principle should also be applied in favour in men over women, particularly in culturally important fields where women (particularly upper middle class women) are increasingly over-represented (teaching, media, PR, government administration etc).

The other good things about this form of affirmative action, is that it doesn’t have to lower standards, it just shifts selection of similarly qualified candidates in favor of whites and white family formation.

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Prof. MacDonald in conversation with GW and DanielS' on 05/23/15, 10:45 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Hess report: South African correspondent wrote:

Hess correspondent in South Africa

It is interesting having been back in SA after 3 years. This country is an enigma I don’t think there is another country like this where literally a 1st world country is so closely on a par with a 3rd world country. On the surface it seems to be a very prospering country.  Never ending new buildings of magnificent office blocks and shopping centres.  All the shops full hundreds of excellent restuarants always full. Yet they have regularly up to 4 hours of load shedding, no electricity. Added to this is the ongoing collapsing of the infrastructure in other areas. High inflation especially the cost of food as it is getting very expensive despite the good exchange rate R17.00 to the pound as many items are the same if not higher than in the UK and Spain on a number of items.

Those who have business say that they are beginning to struggle now and are not doing as well as they did in the past because of never ending on going strikes by unions and are not optimistic that things will improve.  Also the affirmative action does not help as the job market is increasingly affected especially many smaller business as they struggle to get good employees.

They are also concerned about the influx of Chinese who are literally building mega new cities like on the Modderfontein site (use to be a very large site of a dynamite/chemical factory) and another one in between Vereeniging and Johannesburg and the impact it will have on the already struggling infrastructure such as the roads, water, electricity etc.

The ANC government is allowing thousands of Chinese into the country, as well as Pakistanis and of course, thousands of Africans from up north, which has resulted in the appearance of massive and small squatter camps of blacks all around Johannesburg.

According to a friend who went up to Namibia they were stunned by how many Chinese already live there. They are doing all the road works and needless to say, also work in management. The Chinese government has Southern Africa tied up in knots. I can only imagine how much money is changing hands over there. Mostly under the table of course.  The same is happening in Mozambique where apparently the Muslims are already in the northearn parts of Mozambique and growing rapidly as opposed to Christians in the south, many fear ultimately there could be a civil war for control of the country.

As much as I enjoyed being in SA seeing family and friends nevertheless despite the problems in Europe and Britain I prefer being here even if we are just buying time before these countries also collapse under the sheer weight of immigration.

We are certainly living in interesting times as we witness the beginning of the end of western civilisation as we knew it.

x

This comment appeared in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/23/15, 05:00 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

definition of sociopathology wrote:

Captain Chaos says:

“Sociopaths are the exception to the rule; they are around 1% of a given population if I am not mistaken.  Any sound philosophy cannot use as its driving example that which is decidedly atypical.

Sociopathy most likely has a strong genetic underpinning and keeps cropping up unto the generations despite the harsh punishments the morally normal visit upon such afflicted individuals.  (Said punishments could reasonably be expected to impinge on the reproductive fitness of sociopaths.)  Therefore, we can safely conclude that sociopaths are, more or less, what I’ve heard called a “genetically stable polymorphism.”


It is more than valid to focus and analyze the most acute aspect of sociopathology as you do, but it isn’t really the “language game” that I have been playing.

I am calling “socio-pathology” that which begins to work against the sociology of our EGI - that is to say, where lack of empathy, dupe delight and sense of superiority begin to hurt the homeostasis and advance of our European group interests.

Sociopathology (for us) would thus be a definition relative to the group interests of Europeans and our subgroups.

This comment appeared in entry 'Hermeneutics Circles Back to The Passions of Captain Chaos' on 05/23/15, 04:42 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Page 1 of 3510 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›