Page 1 of 3487 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›
Edgar Steele on anti-semitism wrote:
Edgar Steele in defense of anti-semitism: Audio file -
Beneath Every Rock
Supposedly, Jews account for 2-1/2 per cent of the American population. Why, then, is half the student body at Harvard and most every Ivy League college Jewish? Statistics simply are not kept as to the percentage of Jews in this profession or that, but when was the last time you saw a doctor whose name did not end in “berg,” “man” or “stein?” I’m not sure I have ever met a psychiatrist who wasn’t Jewish. On the other hand, have you ever seen a Jewish farmer or mechanic?
Rarely do I appear in court, but what the guy on the other side of the courtroom - and often as not, the judge, too - is Jewish. And, it is incredible the deference paid by the bench to the Jewish DA, or whoever, sitting at the other counsel table. There has been more than one trial where I could have merely phoned in my participation, for all the good it mattered that I was even there.
So many complain about what bankers, especially the international and central bankers, are doing to our country. Yet, hardly anybody seems to have noticed that those people are almost exclusively Jewish.
Behind Every Tree
They are everywhere in the media, particularly Hollywood. Talking heads, movie stars and the like. Curly hair, hook nose and names that rhyme. Pay attention and you will be amazed. The names won’t always be a good guideline, however, given how many changed their names at the turn of last century, so as to meld into the American population of that time.
Jews seem to comprise about 50% of America’s population, based upon those in visible positions. Looks can be deceiving, though, because, like Harvard, they are drawn to those positions by their money, their intelligence and, most importantly, the indulgence of their kosher comrades.
People refuse to notice the Jewish hands on virtually ever power lever in the US federal government. Or at the helm of virtually every media organization that exists, and throughout the executive and editorial ranks. And, it’s not just Jews that control America - they are Zionists. Even Ariel Sharon, Israel’s current Prime Minister, has said openly, “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” (October 3, 2001). Problem is, most of us seem not to know it.
The Power Behind the Throne
Books have been written on the subject, but, essentially, a group of late 19th-century elites, comprised of Rockefeller, Morgan and others, mostly Jewish, established an organization designed to consolidate their control of America and, eventually, the entire world. It was called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Offshoots, such as the Bilderbergers, have formed since then, but the objective has never slipped from their sight.
One of the first acts of CFR’s members was to survey the newspaper field, the sole mass media of the time, and conclude that purchasing control of only 25 major newspapers would give them effective control of news dissemination. They bought those papers and, since then, many, many more. Today, members of these shadowy organizations literally run virtually all of the media, control the political structure in America, much of world business and are firmly in control of world banking.
That is why the two political parties in America have become identical, so as to provide us rubes with the illusion of throwing the rascals out come election time, yet with the same old agenda not missing a beat. Did you really see a difference from Bush to Clinton to Bush? They knew what NAFTA would do to America’s manufacturing base and job structure, yet both parties embraced it. We are firmly on a path to one-world government. America writ large, but the America now being molded without individual civil rights, not the America of the 20th Century. And it’s largely kosher.
Read “The Israeli Spy Ring Scandal” (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring2.html) for a particularly chilling look into the extent of the Israeli spy ring recently uncovered in America and Israel’s extensive US telephone network ownership.
It is not the purpose of this essay to prove Jewish control of America. There is ample material available on the internet for those who wish to prove it for themselves. Rather, it is my purpose to show that there are perfectly valid and understandable, even laudable, reasons for being anti-Semitic. Resenting those who manipulate us on a daily basis, against our own best interests, is primary among them.
Hate laws are a singularly Jewish invention being foisted upon an unsuspecting public, so as to preemptively remove the possibility of criticism of themselves. Often written by the ADL, the organization that lobbies for their adoption, state by state, the laws are designed to stifle dissent and speaking out.
This comment appeared in entry 'End Game: The Destruction of European Peoples' on 01/30/15, 01:27 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Today, there are millions of young white Men, who tomorrow could be turned to conquerors… but for what? George Soros and friends at least pay you off with zogbux and circuses. Can a better offer be made?
Absolutely we make them a better offer. We offer them their peaceful homelands, among their kin folk, people who share their basic, historical and long term interests. We offer them the meaning of participating and contributing measurably in their inherited social capital. We offer them a land free from imposition of aliens and their hostile, incommensurate ways - with that, freedom from alien exploitation of our resources and our people’s co-evolutionary birthright. We offer them loyal women; we offer them not having to be a slave to support non-Whites - something quite the opposite of what Soros’ open society offers.
We offer them the freedom to be who they are and associate with the people who care most about them. We offer them loyalty and concern for what is most important to them, as Soros never could. We offer them not only the prospect of prosperity for hard, diligent or outstanding work but also leverage of cooperation in meeting basic needs; and trumping Soros altogether as this contributes to a meaningful society and relationships, precisely because it is not pathologically “open.”... thus, as children we will come into a beautiful, competent, fair and friendly world of kindred people.
Unlike Viet Nam and the World Wars, our righteous warrior instincts will be directed in driving non-Europeans out of European lands; our superior intellects will be directed toward the protection and fair maintenance of native European nations.
This comment appeared in entry 'Beauty, Pride and Happiness: An Inspiring Vision of Native Europe as nominated by Chris' on 01/30/15, 12:08 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Son of Mars wrote:
The comments on Vietnam interest me. White men killed by the thousands, likewise WWI and WWII, deaths in the millions. Once more into the fray?
Show us what is profitable to us, and we will follow it: show us what is unprofitable, and we will turn away from it. Make us imitators of yourself, as Socrates made men imitators of himself. For he was like a governor of men, who made them subject to him their desires, their aversion, their movements towards an object and their turning away from it. - Do this: don to do this: if you do not obey, I will throw you into prison. - This is not governing men like rational animals.
Discourses of Epictetus
Today, there are millions of young white Men, who tomorrow could be turned to conquerors… but for what? George Soros and friends at least pay you off with zogbux and circuses. Can a better offer be made?
This comment appeared in entry 'Beauty, Pride and Happiness: An Inspiring Vision of Native Europe as nominated by Chris' on 01/30/15, 11:20 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
video productions wrote:
Chris #3: Considering the talent we Nationalists have, shouldn’t we consider a similar project? A project which glorifies us? A project that can reify your complicated philosophies? A project that can bring across our message through aesthetics and drama? A project that can show our victory?
Chris, thank you for your comments and contribution. That video was an outstanding recommendation. I’m sure Lurker’s advice is good too, the Gothic thing, since younger people sometimes want an edgier scene and one which is exclusively for their own relative age group. The trick is to not let it be pitted fundamentally against one’s own people, essential culture and well being; exaggerating generational conflict is usually a B.S. way of dividing a people against itself. Rebellion and experimentation, rather, should be in regard to matters of the fairly optional range among cultural practices; or against affectations partly introjected by older generations.
Rebelling into an organic, Bohemian culture (Tolkienish) against the Viet Nam Draft - legitimate and good. Imbibing Herbert Marcuse’s polymorphous perversion - an affectation, not something that belonged to European culture. Something for younger generations to rebel against.
As for the ambitious projects that you propose, it is a good idea. Though I have personally never been heavily into non-fiction, we all like at least some and I commend it of course.
The aesthetics of the movie clips that you provide seem quite good. It is interesting that you seek to illustrate fantasy tales, nevertheless depicting our travails and triumphs by these artistic means.
I have long held a contrasting reason for animating our reality and triumphs. Specifically, if it is not prohibitively expensive (and it might be for all I’ve looked into it) by using animation we might get our enemies to act and look exactly as we would like to depict them in a given project, without having to bribe anybody, pay-off anybody, gain the cooperation of the half-hearted etc.
However, regarding animation, for young adults, it would probably be better the closer it is to life-like.
Perhaps it could combine animation and live footage, again, if it is not prohibitively expensive. And it does not have to be animation; it just appears less complicated to gain cooperation that way.
I’ve had a few ideas for scripts and would be willing to cooperate and help in other ways where I might, as well.
This comment appeared in entry 'Beauty, Pride and Happiness: An Inspiring Vision of Native Europe as nominated by Chris' on 01/30/15, 08:55 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Mick Lately wrote:
They know that we know.
Why are we so sure that they won’t apply hot genocide?
This comment appeared in entry 'End Game: The Destruction of European Peoples' on 01/30/15, 07:06 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Lurker, thanks for the advice.
Born of Hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qINwCRM8acM a mov,ie created by a young, bright English women named Kate Madison, was made on a 25,000 pound budget and has been seen by over 30 million people around the world. She’s also starting a new eagerly anticipated project called Ren: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMVvVjj00bo and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IByYWqUrvM.
Hunt for Gollum, a movie created with a budget of $3,000 has been seen by over a million people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaakJk9vR7U
Both videos have been seen by more people than every nationalist video combined.
Considering the talent we Nationalists have, shouldn’t we consider a similar project? A project which glorifies us? A project that can reify your complicated philosophies? A project that can bring across our message through aesthetics and drama? A project that can show our victory?
This comment appeared in entry 'Beauty, Pride and Happiness: An Inspiring Vision of Native Europe as nominated by Chris' on 01/30/15, 06:11 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Ranking the Muslim problem wrote:
Greg Johnson on The Muslim problem and its relative place among problems:
Faye, however, wants us to believe that there are good and bad Jews. And he has never uttered a peep about sending either group away. My attitude toward Jews is exactly analogous to his views about Muslims: there are good and bad Jews, but such distinctions should not distract us from the overriding necessity of freeing European lands from Jewish power, and that means separating ourselves from the whole community. I want good and moderate Jews to flourish, but in Israel, with the rest of their people.
Faye won’t say it, because he is engaged in political maneuvering rather than truth-telling. That’s why I cleave to metapolitics: I want to speak the whole truth as I see it. And, in the longest World War of all — between the seed of Abraham and the rest of humanity — telling the truth is also the only practical thing to do, since, as Faye says, we must name the enemy. We cannot fight an enemy we cannot name.
Faye clearly does not want to be the enemy of the Jews. But what Faye wants does not matter, as his quote from Julien Freund implies: “Even if you do not choose the enemy, the enemy chooses you. . . . As long as he wants you to be the enemy, you are. And it will prevent you from tending your own garden.”
It takes two to make friends, only one to make enemies. And the Jewish community has marked Faye as the enemy, along with all the rest of us. Whites are slated for extermination by the kinds of genocidal policies that Jews refuse to accept in their own country while imposing them on ours. Since Jews are more aware of what promotes genocide than any other people, it is folly to think that they are unaware or ashamed of this double standard. They consciously intend to destroy us as a race, and all non-white immigrants, not just the most militant and obnoxious among them, are just Jewish biological weapons of mass destruction.
Agreed that Jews have to be separated from whether bad or relatively good. A more difficult problem comes in with quarter Jews, etc.
This comment appeared in entry 'End Game: The Destruction of European Peoples' on 01/30/15, 04:11 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Our Definition of Aliens wrote:
Our definition of Aliens
This comment appeared in entry 'End Game: The Destruction of European Peoples' on 01/30/15, 01:35 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
What is your take on the Nordic aliens theory?
This comment appeared in entry 'End Game: The Destruction of European Peoples' on 01/30/15, 12:40 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
I’ve never been in a public space which has been 100% English
Try going to a preserved steam railway, no diversity there! I was at the NYMR a couple of years ago, quite by chance this coincided with Whitby Goth Weekend. They pretty much took over the town. There may have been a few non-whites working in shops and restaurants but that was about it.
Preserved railways + Goths = 99.9% white.
This comment appeared in entry 'Beauty, Pride and Happiness: An Inspiring Vision of Native Europe as nominated by Chris' on 01/29/15, 11:19 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Israel for everyone wrote:
This comment appeared in entry 'Motivation to Fight: Humanitarian - Higher National Ideals - Booty' on 01/29/15, 09:54 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Power Terror Circuit wrote:
Patrick Le Brun analyses the circuitry of Islamic terror, Israeli and Western power interests through the Charlie Hebdo massacre
This comment appeared in entry 'French Re-Revolution, C'est la Guerre!' on 01/29/15, 08:34 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Nothing Against Golden Dawn wrote:
Nothing against the Golden Dawn and post all the visions of theirs that you like - this for example:
But this is Chris’s turn at bat for the main post.
This comment appeared in entry 'Beauty, Pride and Happiness: An Inspiring Vision of Native Europe as nominated by Chris' on 01/29/15, 03:36 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Eugenia Lieu wrote:
I know I am the most accepted person with Black People versus Mongolians. For me to be a coarse-face: I am vile to both Asians, and Caucasians. Mongolians are mostly accepted by both groups, and they belong to both groups. Caucasians have their society to a close. They have their privileged class secluded to me. Chinese only want to marginalize me. They don’t see the point of having a coarse-face in their society. They think anything unrefined is only uncivilized, and totally inferior. This is why I still hold the title of genetic segregation to other Chinese for owning my coarse-face.
This comment appeared in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 01/28/15, 11:54 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Early Christianity wrote:
TT Presents Bowery and Kenneth Humphreys discussing Jesus:
This comment appeared in entry 'MR Interview of Kenneth Humphreys by James Bowery Concerning the Syncretic Origin of Christianity' on 01/28/15, 11:31 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Genocide of Whites wrote:
Genocide of Whites
This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/28/15, 08:44 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
War intensifies in Ukraine wrote:
This comment appeared in entry 'Pensions and Basic Services Denied to People of Eastern Ukraine' on 01/28/15, 12:58 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
This comment appeared in entry 'Je ne suis pas Dieudonné - a Rejection of The Right's Negrophilia and Dividing Against Whites' on 01/28/15, 04:56 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Behavioral Genetics wrote:
Behavioral Genetics - Robert Plomin
Of particular interest is the finding that heritable intelligence is significantly more manifest in middle aged people.
Therefore, given the later maturity of Whites, their advantages and more admirable distinctions can be subverted by compelling what is for them premature competition with non-Whites.
This comment appeared in entry 'James Watson Doesn't Exist' on 01/28/15, 04:01 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Mulatto Supremacist Upshot wrote:
Mulatto Supremacist Upshot - a result of pandering to females and the proclivity of their puerile members uncritiqued
“If only women voted: Obama wins reelection in an even more convincing fashion than was actually the case, trouncing Romney.”
This comment appeared in entry 'Je ne suis pas Dieudonné - a Rejection of The Right's Negrophilia and Dividing Against Whites' on 01/28/15, 02:08 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Culture Becomes Cognitive wrote:
Effortful Control, Explicit Processing, and the Regulation of Human
Kevin B. MacDonald
California State University–Long Beach
This article analyzes the effortful control of automatic processing related to social and emotional behavior, including control over evolved modules designed to solve problems of survival and reproduction that were recurrent over evolutionary time. The inputs to effortful control mechanisms include a wide range of nonrecurrent information—information resulting not from evolutionary regularities but from explicit appraisals of costs and benefits. Effortful control mechanisms are associated with the ventro-medial prefrontal cortex and the ventral anterior cingulated cortex. These mechanisms are largely separate from mechanisms of cognitive control (termed executive function) and working memory, and they enable effortful control of behavior in the service of long range goals. Individual differences in effortful control are associated with measures of conscientiousness in the Five Factor Model of personality. Research in the areas of aggression, ethnocentrism, sexuality, reward seeking, and emotion regulation is reviewed indicating effortful control of automatic, implicit processing based on explicit appraisals of the context. Evidence is reviewed indicating that evolutionary pressure for cooperation may be a critical adaptive function accounting for the evolution of explicit processing.
Effortful control, explicit processing, evolutionary psychology, conscientiousness, prefrontal cortex
Converging evidence in cognitive psychology and neuroscience supports the existence of two quite different types of cognitive processing: implicit and explicit processing. Implicit and explicit mechanisms may be contrasted on a number of dimensions (e.g., Geary, 2005; Lieberman, 2007; Satpute & Lieberman, 2006; Stanovich, 1999, 2004). Implicit processing is automatic, effortless, relatively fast, and involves parallel processing of large amounts of information. Implicit processing is characteristic of what Stanovich (2004) terms the autonomous set of systems (TASS), which responds automatically to domain-relevant information. In this article, I use the term module to refer to mechanisms characterized by implicit processing.
Evolved cognitive modules form an important subset of TASS. A fundamental premise of evolutionary psychology is that evolutionary adaptations equip animals to meet recurrent challenges of the physical, biological, and social environment (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). When the environment presents long-standing problems and recurrent cues relevant to solving them, the best solution is to evolve modules specialized to handle specific inputs and generate particular solutions (Geary, 2005; Tooby & Cosmides). For example, the visual systems of monkeys and humans contain numerous areas specialized for different aspects of vision (e.g.,Zeki, 1993). Areas specialized for color and for motion are sensitive to different aspects of visual stimulation; processing in these different areas occurs in parallel and results in a unitary image. Other modules proposed in the cognitive literature include modules for social exchange (Cosmides, 1989), theory of mind (Baron Cohen, 1995), fear (Bowlby, 1969; Gray, 1987; LeDoux, 2000),
folk physics (Povinelli, 2000), and grammar acquisition (Pinker,1994).
Although implicit processing is characteristic of evolved modules, it is not restricted to evolved modules. It occurs in a wide range of circumstances, including skills and appraisals that have become automatic with practice or repetition, perceptual interpretations of behavior (e.g., stereotypes), and priming effects (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). Modules, as defined here, therefore need not be domain specific; they may also result from domain general processes of associative and implicit learning (Stanovich, 2004, p. 39).
This comment appeared in entry 'Je ne suis pas Dieudonné - a Rejection of The Right's Negrophilia and Dividing Against Whites' on 01/28/15, 01:27 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Eugenia Lieu wrote:
No. It’s not that I am a racist. I’m my Chinese self with a coarse-jaw. Otherwise, who cared what I could have been? even if golden-skinned, ruddy-face, or russian. I’m glad to live as a Chinese, and live to be myself. Swedish people with a similar trait still have it worse than me. And I still care to look Chinese because that’s both my parentage.
This comment appeared in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 01/28/15, 12:17 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Cromwell the destroyer wrote:
Thomas Cromwell was the Islamic State of his day
Forget Wolf Hall: this pathologically ambitious “ruffian” sent hundreds to the chopping block and destroyed England’s religious and artistic heritage
By Dominic Selwood
7:30AM GMT 22 Jan 2015
On July 24, 2014, worshippers in Mosul were asked to leave one of the city’s most historic and famous buildings — an ancient Nestorian-Assyrian church that had long ago been converted into the Mosque of the Prophet Younis (biblical Jonah). The Islamic State then rigged the entire building with explosives, and blew it into oblivion. Tragically, it was a Shia mosque - one of many that have suffered the same fate.
The UK’s current primetime TV fantasy blockbuster du jour is Wolf Hall. Everyone loves a costume drama, but there is a world of difference between fictional history and historical fiction. One dramatizes real people and events. The other is an entirely made-up story set in the past. The current tendency is to blur the two, which Wolf Hall does spectacularly.
Thomas Cromwell, whose life it chronicles, comes across as a plucky, self-made Englishman, whose quiet reserve suggests inner strength and personal nobility. Back in the real world, Cromwell was a “ruffian” (in his own words) turned sectarian extremist, whose religious vandalism bears striking comparison with the iconoclasm of Islamic State or the Afghani Taliban.
Thanks to Wolf Hall, more people have now heard of Thomas Cromwell, and this is a good thing. But underneath its fictionalized portrayal of Henry VIII’s chief enforcer, there is a historical man, and he is one whose record for murder, looting, and destruction ought to have us apoplectic with rage, not reaching for the popcorn.
Historians rarely agree on details, so a lot about Cromwell’s inner life is still up for debate. But it is a truly tough job finding anything heroic in the man’s legacy of brutality and naked ambition.
Against a backdrop of Henry VIII’s marital strife, the pathologically ambitious Cromwell single-handedly masterminded the break with Rome in order to hand Henry the Church, with its all-important control of divorce and marriage. There were, to be sure, small pockets of Protestantism in England at the time, but any attempt to cast Cromwell’s despotic actions as sincere theological reform are hopeless. Cromwell himself had minimal truck with religious belief. He loved politics, money, and power, and the reformers could give them to him.
Flushed with the success of engineering Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his marriage to Anne Boleyn, Cromwell moved on to confiscating the Church’s money. Before long, he was dissolving monasteries as fast as he could, which meant seizing anything that was not nailed down and keeping it for himself, for Henry, and for their circle of friends. It was the biggest land-grab and asset-strip in English history, and Cromwell sat at the centre of the operation, at the heart of a widely-loathed, absolutist, and tyrannical regime. When Anne Boleyn pointed out that the money should be going to charity or good works, he fitted her up on charges of adultery, and watched as she was beheaded.
As an adviser to Henry, Cromwell could have attempted to guide the hot-headed king, to tame his wilder ambitions, counsel him in patience, uphold the many freedoms enjoyed by his subjects. But Cromwell had no interest in moderation. He made all Henry’s dreams come true, riding roughshod over the law of the land and whoever got in his way. For instance, we are hearing a lot about Magna Carta this year, but Cromwell had no time for tedious trials and judgement by peers. With lazy strokes of his pen, he condemned royalty, nobles, peasants, nuns, and monks to horrific summary executions. We are not talking half a dozen. He dispatched hundreds under his highly politicised “treason” laws. (When his own time came and the tables had turned, he pleaded to Henry: “Most gracyous prynce I crye for mercye mercye mercye.” But he was given all the mercy he had shown others.)
And then there is his impact on this country’s artistic and intellectual heritage. No one can be sure of the exact figure, but it is estimated that the destruction started and legalised by Cromwell amounted to 97% of the English art then in existence. Statues were hacked down. Frescoes were smashed to bits. Mosaics were pulverized. Illuminated manuscripts were shredded. Wooden carvings were burned. Precious metalwork was melted down. Shrines were reduced to rubble. This vandalism went way beyond a religious reform. It was a frenzy, obliterating the artistic patrimony of centuries of indigenous craftsmanship with an intensity of hatred for imagery and depicting the divine that has strong and resonant parallels today.
It can only be a good thing that people are again thinking about Cromwell. Because as we look to the east, to the fanaticism that is sacking the cultural and artistic heritage of other ancient societies, we can all draw the same, inevitable conclusions about religious extremism in any age, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist. None of it is pretty. All of it is real. And we, in England, are not in some way removed from it. We only have to survey the smashed up medieval buildings the length and breadth of the country, or contemplate Cromwell’s record of public beheadings and other barbarous executions.
It is plain that extremists come in all shapes and sizes.
This comment appeared in entry 'James Watson Doesn't Exist' on 01/27/15, 08:46 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
I am a proud white man. I am normal. I take pride in the achievements of my people and prefer to associate with my own kind. I love white women who love white men. I detest white women who do not. I have no respect for white women who couple with non whites. I am a normal, proud, white man.
This comment appeared in entry 'Je ne suis pas Dieudonné - a Rejection of The Right's Negrophilia and Dividing Against Whites' on 01/27/15, 11:52 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
JamesUK may post on a site where the editorial position is in concert with his views.
This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Susan Lindauer talks with Daniel and GW' on 01/27/15, 10:36 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
The Other Cheek wrote:
A contradistinction of European nationalists as linked with liberalism as opposed to Christianity, of any denomination, which is said to not be linked to liberalism, is dubious.
It is apparent that Christianity must ignore if not relinquish its liberalism in order to fight on behalf of our EGI. Some have historically, and can still, invoke such inventive interpretations* in order to fight, but nevertheless it is they who abandon liberalism.
* An inventive interpretation of “turn the other cheek” that I have heard is that the first strike could have been out of blind passion, and you might forgive it as not entirely voluntary. By offering the cheek however, a second strike would reveal deliberate malice and unwillingness to reason - therefore warrant to fight.
This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Jez Turner talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/27/15, 03:49 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
kosher tax wrote:
At Red Ice, Henrik interviews Dennis Fetcho, who details the absurd and massive bilking by means of Kosher tax:
This comment appeared in entry 'Motivation to Fight: Humanitarian - Higher National Ideals - Booty' on 01/27/15, 03:18 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Aesthetics bridle functional runaway wrote:
This article is a bit hard on the fairer sex, but if there is to be a check on the power of their position within the disorder of modernity’s and Jewish prohibition of classificatory bounds, then a critical perspective is necessary to offset pandering from all angles. Buffalo Jenkins argues for masculine concern for aesthetics as a bridling of systemics from functional runaway.
AESTHETICS: NO LAUGHING MATTER
by Buffalo Jenkins
The prism of æsthetics is not just an aspect of the struggle for national self-overbecoming, it is the struggle rarefied. To the ancients, there was no way to divorce their art from their cultural vantage.
You would not publish a scientific treatise on species of weeds and not consider the art of the actual object: the lavish woodcut illustrations, for instance, or Euclidian layout and typography, as well as esoteric symbolism splashed lavishly throughout. The binding would be hand-tooled, decorated and gilded, so that even to such a stark and (to a modernist viewpoint) seemingly artless subject, Form would remain as important as Function. Amazingly, before the 20th century, there are virtually no examples of objects of any kind, no matter how commonplace or utilitarian (from housewares to clothing to tools) that did not have a consideration of the art or style, as well as a laborious crafting of traditional significance. Music and painting and architecture, in fact all disciplines. were thus meshed together in a cultural style that was solidly Roman or Imperial German or Napoleonic French or Tudor English, Baroque, Gothic Medieval, etc..
Today there is nothing but purposeful randomness, chaos, Abstract Expressionism, and the moronic Conceptualism. All is hidden narrative (almost always a liberal or egalitarian narrative at that) and beauty is not allowed to exist for its own sake. It is a snide ugliness that expresses eternally the democratic drive for homogeneity and equality by meeting at the base level. You can have no beauty or æsthetic hierarchy in the end-game of modernism.
Standing against modernism necessitates a resistant spirit, which must start with an insistence upon the absolute importance of everyday æsthetics. For example: the importance of dress. We must not simply follow conformist democratic trends (e.g., everyone just wearing jeans) which oppressively pervade the public space. I recently had a run-in with a prominent white nationalist who, while agreeing with me regarding aesthetics, laughed out loud at the idea of wearing a tweed suit or a tie.
This of course, is no laughing matter.
.... bearing attention is the boldened remark: we all must admit as a group they are credulously prone to liberalism.
... In fact, the moment you see a female involved at a judiciary or management level in any art-related institution, you can rest absolutely assured she is an utterly tasteless modernist who has moved up the ranks expressing nothing but pure relativism with a distant threat of entitled victimhood.
As Oswald Spengler writes: ‘Man makes history; woman is history. The reproduction of the species is feminine: it runs steadily and quietly through all species, animal or human, through all short-lived cultures. It is primary, unchanging, everlasting, maternal, plantlike, and cultureless.’
Plantlike. Natural, powerful, but inert.
Not to pick on women, but let us not be afraid to speak of group behaviour. Despite the valiant efforts of the very few Valkyries we have in our alternative midst, we all must admit as a group they are credulously prone to liberalism. Feminism itself being possibly the root problem of Western civilization, with its ever-expanding, emotion-based view of the world. The creative act is the same as a destructive one, and now as ever in the past, real art and culture are a man’s domain. Women by and large adhere to norms, to cultural pressure, to what they were told by parents and teachers and the television. They are overwhelmingly concerned with what they perceive the majority of other women thinking or doing, regardless of the rationality. In this sense of plantlike or inert cultural staidness, they have been until now the real keepers of tradition. While they often can feel they are concerned with beauty and æsthetics, their emotional thinking and compassionate inclusiveness, while sweet, comes with a hangover of total cultural blandness and egalitarian art-destruction (eg: high heel sneakers, narcissistic novels, The X Factor, and other tasteless oddities).
To speak plainly in visual terms, things either look good, or they look bad. They are inspiring or they are degenerate. Subjectivity and relativism exist, however they need to be repressed where they are seen to weaken or subvert manly or adroit aesthetic style or cultural foundations. You can blur certain divisive lines subjectively, but by no means does that make the whole business of art and style too relative to delineate.
Pay careful attention to what you like, from the music you listen to and advocate, to the art you enjoy or make, to how you dress and present yourself. Make things for your own sake and not popular acceptance. Do not think of monetary value; do not be afraid of decoration or detail. Above all, choose Form over Function. Opting for function alone leads oddly to functionlessness, as without attention to Form the object is soon valueless, a liability, like a crumbling modernist strip mall or a towering landfill of disposable plastic objects endlessly churned out by emotionless celestials. The struggle for æsthetics is the base struggle, many prominent people I needn’t mention in the past have understood this, and the modernist mindset of inclusiveness and abstraction in art is an invented weapon. A death knell.
Art is craft.
This latter bolded remark [“Opting for function alone leads oddly to functionlessness, as without attention to Form the object is soon valueless, a liability,”] is interesting as it points to where a preoccupation with function beyond form will eventually overtake its functionality as it becomes unguided.
This comment appeared in entry 'Je ne suis pas Dieudonné - a Rejection of The Right's Negrophilia and Dividing Against Whites' on 01/27/15, 03:11 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
“However, we might seek to coordinate on our mutual interests as European people, providing the Christians can fight on those grounds.
It should be possible. We have not forgotten the overwhelming sounds at noon of bells from churches saturating Agrigento, on the Southern coast of Sicily, obviously set against potential recurrence of Muslim incursion.”
In this case France will be interesting to watch. The question is “What benefit does it do them (Trad-Christian groups) to align with the secular White society of France? Who really needs who here?
In Southern Italy (and other places), they survived as Christian communities even under Muslim rule! I would guess that Muslims will be content with merely “taxing” them but heaven help the liberals and atheists that provoke them.
Understandably, the situation varies by region, but I just can’t see trad-European Christians conceding any more ground than they already have to liberalism. Reading some of the information about the hard Catholic right in France—they look like they are steeling for a fight and they too have long memories.
This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Jez Turner talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/27/15, 02:47 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
GW saved the point by asking Susan to come back to “the component” which was served by ignoring the benefits of peace negotiations. Specifically qualified by her as “the Haliburton-Military Industrial Complex.”
This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Susan Lindauer talks with Daniel and GW' on 01/27/15, 02:44 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Don Black’s accomplice, “Truck Roy,” normally comes to their weekday discussions equipped (perhaps with the help of “the bugs people”) with provocative analytical distinctions. On this day, however, his analysis appeared instructive for its being a little off the mark:
Date: 01-26-15 - Hr1
“Ideologies,” he says, have invariably led to disaster. I guess that he is talking about communism, multiculturalism and other such worldviews which are imposed unnaturally, forcibly upon a populace from without as opposed to having emerged from their nature.
I suspect that the Right is going to say that Nazism is an ideology based on nature and that they would not be inclined to criticize it as such. That goes to crucial matters of what and how nature really is, and if Nazism necessarily captured its essence and ways. It didn’t, but that’s not a matter to go into here.
Returning from that digression, Truck Roy contrasts “ideology” with “tradition” and “family” as the organic starting points which safeguard against the disasters of ideologies - erstwhile imposed affectations, having led by known example only to catastrophe and failure; while people invariably rebel in accordance with the tried and true of tradition and natural concern of family.
Here his argument gets interesting as it begins to fall apart with his examples.
“The tradition” of Christianity which is “tried and true.” I would suggest that it is a kind of hazy hoodwink of an ideology but more importantly, not sufficiently successful, not even provisionally, for anything but raising and corralling cattle for our enemies to consume - its tradition as a provisional “safe place” for the speculative event that a sufficient ideology does present itself. We must do better in assimilating an organic moral order.
But still I do not care to elaborate dispute with his argument, as getting away from that particular, endless dispute is a part of MR’s new direction.
What is more interesting is that in the service of organicism, and “the family” as its central model (one of Matt Parrott’s key contentions against the Euro-DNA Nation), Truck Roy cites “the lunchroom phenomonenon.”
Here is the point which shown interesting - you don’t sit next to your family in the lunchroom. You sit next to racial kin.
This phenomenon is organic, it is genetic, and it does not exclusively begin with “tradition” and not exclusively with family. That is not to diminish the significance of family and tradition, but to illustrate that there are limits to the idea of tradition and family being “The” foundation in some organic sense.
If you were to wipe-out all records of history and put Europeans on an island where they were starting out all over again, I do not believe that they would come up with something like Christianity, organically, to serve as their moral order. And lets state the obvious to say that if the family were so singularly important the result would be inbreeding. The normative factors of the social classification and its genetic basis are indispensable, essential, not speculative and dangerous “ideology.” To the contrary, to be without the relative and normative guidance of its framework is, and has been dangerous.
Not all of our traditions remain sufficient to the times and not all families are good and just to their members. They do not represent the sine qua non of organicism - their regulation with broader systems through proper hermeneutic process, is.
This comment appeared in entry '2015 of Indigenous European Creation' on 01/27/15, 12:55 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
de Craon's thoughtful take wrote:
Pierre de Craon has a thoughtful comment at counter-currents - http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/01/have-we-carefully-thought-of-the-consequences-of-absolute-free-speech/#comment-253139
January 26, 2015 - 12:45 pm
The comments by B.A., Maxi, and spiritsplice remind me why I soon came around to being glad when Professor MacDonald shut commenting down more than a year ago. Their comments are nothing so much as what dogs do to fire hydrants and telephone poles, and as such they do this site no credit.
Enza Ferreri’s commentary is thoughtful and sensible. In the present circumstances, it embodies ideas that require repeating. That there is nothing new, strictly speaking, in her commentary matters not at all. Very few people, including me, do not profit from being reminded, from time to time, of first principles, which have the unfortunate tendency to sink to lip-service status when we are not prompted to see that they underlie both how we ought to act and react and how we often fail to. After all, as one of my all-time-favorite Jews, a guy usually referred to as Qoheleth, famously wrote several millennia ago, “There is nothing new under the sun.”
What’s more, Ms. Ferreri’s frank exposition makes blazingly clear how wide and deep a gulf there is between (1) the complex, vexed interrelation of true first principles of speech, thought, action, and the greater societal good and (2) the adolescent, pseudointellectual hobbyhorse of “absolute” free speech, which inevitably entails a radical intolerance for anyone’s freedom to articulate the view that there is no such creature and that the entertainment of any such absolutism has always and everywhere had grave consequences for the society foolish enough to tolerate it.
As for the self-congratulation concretized in the sentence “More often than not I am called pedantic, but more importantly, the weaknesses of any argument are thus easily exposed,” charity counsels that the less said, the better. But since Emily Dickinson failed to hold her tongue on such pedantry masquerading as the antidote to pedantry, I yield to the temptation to close by quoting her.
How dreary – to be – Somebody!
How public – like a Frog –
To tell one’s name – the livelong June –
To an admiring Bog!
This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Jez Turner talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/26/15, 11:36 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Kantian speech wrote:
Interesting Kantian argument by Thora, from TOO
Before questioning “Freedom of Speech”, one should question the very idea of “Freedom”.
According to Kant, Freedom isn’t “doing what one wants”, rather, Freedom is man rising above his animal state. Man only becomes free when governing himself, controlling his impulses, approaching life rationally.
Kant’s definition of Freedom inverts what is commonly assumed to be the meaning of “Free”. Kant’s Free Man in essence becomes a sort of polar opposite of the characteristic negro; forward thinking, restrained, even tempered, controlled. Such a man is free even when in bondage. The Charlie Hebdo notion of Free, on the other hand, is what is carried in the hearts of the unthinking, slogan parroting dregs of Western society. Average obese Westerners in any local megamarket provide a near endless parade of examples; their misshapen bodies point to insatiable appetites, their crass t-shirts point to a blunt and overstated sense of aesthetics, and their bulging, charmless eyes point to a lazy mind unpracticed in manners and etiquette. Such a man or woman can crow about Freedom all their lives without ever realizing what slaves they are to their own vices.
If Freedom is the governing of man’s animal impulses, Free Speech is the governing of the animal in public discourse. For speech to be Free it needs to carry consequences, not in terms of prisons or repression–but far more seriously–in terms of a lasting and telling stain upon one’s character. Vulgarians, like Charlie Hebdo, are be judged by their words and summarily shunned in a society of truly free men. One’s speech convicts one’s character.
Free societies were disolved when freedom of association was outlawed throughout the West by advancing Jews. Societies, and the standards upon which they are predicated, have been in essence “busted”. Without standards there are no societies, without societies judging character there are no consequences to speech, and without consequences to speech there is no Free speech.
This comment appeared in entry 'Kant's Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant' on 01/26/15, 11:00 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Sallis misrepresents White Left wrote:
The System vs. Democratic Multiculturalism
I would like to further explore some aspects and implications of the idea of “democratic multiculturalism” — the idea supported by Frank Salter and Ricardo Duchesne that Whites need to play the multicultural game by demanding a “seat at the table” while resolutely demanding that White identity and interests be taken seriously by the regime
Sallis nicely organizes his argument in this paragraph:
Consider that multiculturalism is based on the “ideal” of minority collectivist mobilization and majority atomization and passivity. Minorities will continue to be mobilized; that is the first principle of multiculturalism, even more fundamental than majority passivity. Minority mobilization is a given (and we would wish it so, since minority passivity would lead to full assimilation and miscegenation even faster than currently, and would lull Whites to sleep even more than now). Therefore, the key to destabilize the System is majority mobilization. To mobilize Whites, one needs to give them something to get mobilized about. Like it or not, in today’s Last Man society, the White masses will not get mobilized to “honor their ancestors” or to “actualize a High Culture.” The far-Right pro-White elites may be so motivated today, and, in a future state run according to our principles, the masses would follow the path of honor and greatness. But today? Today, Whites need to be mobilized through grievance, through racial self-interest, through anger, through exposure of anti-White discrimination, through the entire immersion of Whites in a self-discovery of identity through the same paths followed by other groups in the morass of multiculturalism.
He views the incorporation of a sane, unashamedly, explicitly White middle class as a key metric to our success and homeostasis as a people:
The truth is far more mundane and less “heroic.” The “movement” won’t want to hear it. I’ll say it anyway. In my opinion, the real “turning point” will NOT be when “Whites storm the ramparts” or whatever other doomsday scenario whets the onanistic fantasies of the “movement” — instead, the turning point will be when overt pro-White activists can safely and securely live a comfortable middle-class existence while simultaneously being public..
And we can agree that gaining adherence from the middle class is a crucial difference from where the “movement” has been and failed to date…we can agree until he phrases it in these terms:
..“while simultaneously being public far-Right representatives of White interests.”
Of course we want to unify the concerns of the middle class and other classes into a union of classes, the native European nation - that is the idea of White Leftism..
But sadly, Sallis misrepresents what is presented here as a neologism - White Leftism - misrepresenting its nifty unifying function and vigil on perennial problem areas - areas for egregious opportunism but also amenable to incentive, motive and accountability.
Instead he represents the term in this way:
“Whites standing up for themselves as Whites is the ultimate blasphemy for Coloreds and ‘White Leftists’, the Original Sin”
Which is the exact opposite of what we mean by White Leftism, as an exclusively White union, which would not allow Coloreds - their scabbing entry to the union being forbidden.
It saddens me, irritates me and aggravates me that Ted would extend this disingenuous Jewish definition of the term “Left” to even our neo-logism, The White Left.
Ted, sorry, we are not going to let you define and misrepresent it that way. It has too much organizational utility.
The White Left is not the Red Left. The White prefix is a difference that makes a difference and we will fight for that distinction.
This comment appeared in entry '(What would have been) questions for Dr Frank Salter' on 01/26/15, 10:56 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Susan interviews Al Fatah–a prominent Libyan woman activist, who maps out the Failed State of Libya with full geo-political impact
This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Susan Lindauer talks with Daniel and GW' on 01/26/15, 07:35 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Page 1 of 3487 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›