Comments posted

Page 1 of 3458 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

DanielS wrote:

David Duke keeps saying that “you don’t just re-define ‘racism’...

We are not re-defining racism, we are describing it as people use it, not by what the Jews say it means.


However, he says it means this, that and the other thing to the public…


What that this, that and the other thing to him is: supremacism, hate, exploitation..


No, that is what Jewish interests have tried to promote as corollaries to racism…and most people do believe these things can come about as a result of racism..

..a supremacism they (rightfully) fear in the scientism of the right’s mishandling of social classification (associations the Jews have been able to place upon the right, and which the right has bought into thanks to its hubris).

However, when you listen to the way ordinary people discuss ‘racism’ in the every day, they mean social classification and discrimination on its basis. Even the most innocuous discrimination is considered racism.

Which again, is what we need to be free to do. Whereas Duke suggests that the endeavor to pirate and take control of the meaning of racism in its benign sense is stupid. I disagree. I believe his playing into the Jewish demonization of what is designated by racism is stupid. Metzger is more correct in his analogy of the Quakers - originally a derisive term, they owned it and took it over. I would not deny being a racist myself - in fact, Paul Weston has done this to great effect (owned racism) - Duke is free to do as he pleases.

It isn’t necessarily stupid for him to do that (denounce Jewish racism) as a provisional strategy, which he does to good effect in order to get word out articulating Jewish power and influence - as he does very well.

What is “stupid” however, is to say that everyone should adopt this strategy, because “everyone sees racism as supremacism” - most people’s understanding of racism is much more subtle than that and is closer to the matter of discrimination.

At any rate, Duke is free to talk about it as he wishes.

I, for one, am not going to go around calling people racists, as if that is such a terrible thing.

I doubt that I am the only one who could not control his gag reflex at the idea of playing into the Jewish demonization of the very thing we need to do.

Moreover, to focus everything on the J.Q., deposing them, as Duke proposes, is perhaps not a goal that can be achieved on time; he is free to work on that in his project.

MR’s audience is better advised to keep that hermeneutic process turning: Yes, as problems for us go, Jewish power and influence should be prioratized and looked at as frequently as anything, but not beyond reconstructing our own health and ways, and not to the exclusion of looking at other problems.

To look upon other groups as harmless is another way of buying into Jewish language games. If you connect with your senses, you are going to be able to take care of yourself against their immediate threat, develop immunities to their particular dangers, and will naturally ask how is it that they are being imposed upon us? Thus, it is not necessarily a distraction from the JQ at all. On the contrary, not accepting Jewish language games of these people being harmless is part and parcel of being Jew-wise. But even incidental contact with the most benign blacks (for example) * in the longer term, will be harmful; whether imposed on us by Jews or not. Caring about our own interests and not being obsequiously concerned about non-Whites is the road to recovery. The moral high ground that European people’s rightfully insist upon is to be found in the Silver Rule.

It is fine and tactful to be concerned about atrocities against Palestinians, but we have to take care of ourselves and have other concerns as well. Yes, Jewish power and influence should be focus, but here, the hermeneutic process will be an ongoing survey of our full landscape of concerns, as we should.


* Though I strongly disapprove of his platform, it would be wrong to say that Andrew Anglin does not make a good point now and then: “I don’t know what the people who say blacks are going to help us bring the system down are talking about. Blacks are completely dependent upon it.”

This comment appeared in entry 'Definitions' on 07/24/14, 02:15 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Gordon McRobert wrote:

Lawrence Newman wrote:

And how do you propose dealing with the Islam/nigger problem?

By putting together a serious political party that acts in a professional manner as opposed to just tolerating the clownish Gri££in Family Business as the only alternative. If the British cannot buck their ideas up and get some principles then I guess we are fuxored.

This comment appeared in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/23/14, 07:17 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Mr Nill, Daniel,

The radio element of MR’s software has an automatic connection to audio files in the MR audio cache.  It cannot operate outside the MR cache, which is why files hosted elsewhere don’t appear on the page.

This comment appeared in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/23/14, 04:00 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

There are a couple of audio interviews not listed in the MR radio section that probably should be, Mr. Nill. It seems to me they should be in the radio section, though maybe there is a good or benign reason why they are not.

I don’t know if this is an accident, an oversight or deliberate.

I hadn’t thought of Bowery’s interview with Cobb, but now that you mention it..that should be there too; even though it was undertaken somewhat independently by Jim, it is MR enough.

Neither are the interviews with Tom Metzger or Tanstaafl listed in the radio archive - never were

In addition, when opportune, I will find out why Bowery’s interview with Kenneth Humphreys is not there at the moment. That interview had been there but isn’t right now. It’s an important resource.

These are all important resources that might be overlooked if not filed in their proper category.

There might be an accidental reason for these interviews not being on the radio page, or there may be a deliberate reason.

In the meantime, MR continues to take its new form free from the guff and rif raff its been saddled with. Isn’t it nice, by contrast, to have this discussion between GW and concerned English Nationalists? I am saying “wheew!, it’s refreshing!” and I think that normal people will feel much the same.

As this more sane direction crystallizes we can look into making it more convenient to re-connect with MR’s past: i.e. get those radio shows onto the radio page and get the pagination back at the bottom of the main page so that people can look more easily through MR’s history.

This comment appeared in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 11:22 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Mr Nill wrote:

Why is the radio interview between bowery/cobb not listed in the mr radio section?

http://www.majorityrights.com/audio/PaulCraigCobb.mp3

This comment appeared in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 09:34 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Lawrence Newman wrote:

Gordon McRobert,

And how do you propose dealing with the Islam/nigger problem?

This comment appeared in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 02:36 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Gordon McRobert wrote:

Lawrence Newman wrote:

There will be a time for a party like the BNP but it’s not now.

The BNP is a scam outfit masquerading as a political party. I don’t think we need another like that thank you.

This comment appeared in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 12:54 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Lawrence Newman wrote:

Guessedworker,

Okay, question answered.  It’s just that I keep hearing that his performance on Question Time made him look foolish.  That’s not the impression I got.  I thought he handled himself pretty well considering he was being attacked constantly for an hour by the audience and the panel. 

The British public are just too naive to understand what’s coming.  There will be a time for a party like the BNP but it’s not now.

This comment appeared in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 10:29 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Bill wrote:

From the moment I became interested in the BNP via its embryo website I felt Griffin’s strategy of anti Islam with no deviation was the wrong way to go.  To those voters who had no first hand experience of Muslim immigration, or for that matter no eyeball contact with much migration at all in their areas, these people could not relate to such an un-English state of affairs.

Later I became aware of the anti-jihad sites which MR (GW) soon put me right to be wary off, as these sites were not deemed to be against immigration per se, but rather keen not to embrace the Muslim variety.

To the uninitiated, Griffin could easily be tarred with the same brush, yet over a decade later his warnings have been vindicated, which in some small way lessens the charge of neglect.

My sympathies go out to those thousands who braved the front line leafleting, lions led by donkeys comes to mind.

In summary, I still think the main plank of anti Islam was the wrong strategy for that time and impeded the overall trajectory of nationalism, had Griffin’s thinking of future impact of mass immigration on our island been more clearly enunciated, the whole sad story of the BNP and Britain might have been very different.

This comment appeared in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 07:05 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Lawrence, the events and embarrassments which were set in train by the QT programme, including the PPB/marmite legal issue and the membership rules court case, resulted in the destruction of three-quarters of the activist base of the party.  It isn’t going to recover.  The long and difficult march from the disasters of the 1980s and 1990s (when nationalism missed the opportunity to moralise its discourse and, instead, pursued a policy of street politics, only to be beaten off the streets by the violent left) has come to nothing.

It is usual in politics to hold the leadership responsible for such a catastrophic failure.  One would expect it to make way for others to repair the breach and take the party forward again.  But not Griffin.  There was a widespread suspicion that he inflamed the internal crisis himself quite deliberately.  Various explanations, including interference by security services personnel and some form of psychopathology on Griffin’s part, have been advanced to explain this.  We will probably never know what really went on.  But we are left with various micro-parties, including the BNP (which has just two local councillors remaining).  It is deeply unsatisfactory. 

MR’s QT thread is here:

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

This comment appeared in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 05:44 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Lawrence Newman wrote:

“That was Griffin’s moment and he wrecked it by his own hand, most notably in his Question Time appearance.”


In what way do you think he wrecked it?  This might seem a silly question, but humour me.

This comment appeared in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 04:26 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Lurker wrote:

This is something I’ve posted umpteen times across Disqus:

Why would Putin/Russia/rebels want a Malaysian airline shot down?

Phase 1> Shoot down Malaysian Airliner.

Phase 2> Vilification in the world’s media.

Phase 3> ?

Phase 4> Russian success!

Would anyone care to explain what Phase 3 might be?

It’s based on this South Park joke.

This comment appeared in entry '"Opponents" to the New "Ukrainian" Regime' on 07/21/14, 09:07 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

daniel sienkiewicz: how’s it going? what do you think of the plane being downed?
иса: I think, we should wait for the rezults of experts
But I do not believe Ukraine
daniel sienkiewicz: what are they saying?
иса: that Russia is guilty in everything
daniel sienkiewicz: I don’t know a lot about it, but from what I do know, it may be an Israeli false flag.
they have done it before.
иса: Russian people say the same
I mean a false flag
daniel sienkiewicz: Did you ever hear the story of the USS Liberty?
иса: Yes, yesterday
daniel sienkiewicz: right.
in 1967 a clearly marked US battleship was attacked by Israel
иса: It was a special programme on Russian TV
daniel sienkiewicz: they wanted to sink it and blame it on Egypt
there is no doubt about it.
though at the time, President Johnson tried to cover it up.

nothing else besides an accident really makes sense of this event of the plane being downed.
and an accident does not make a great deal of sense if it is true that the plane was deliberately diverted into that air space
why would Ukraine do it?
why would Russia do it?
it makes no sense.
but for Israel to do it, does make sense.
иса: :(
but they blame Russia in everything
daniel sienkiewicz: that’s the idea.
“wage war by deception”
иса: yes
daniel sienkiewicz: and you still have these cold war dinosaurs in Brzezinski and John McCain
иса: :(
daniel sienkiewicz: Dick Cheney
these guys are not Jews, but they are perfect tools for the Jews.
Of course I am concerned about the sovereignty of the nations between Russia and Germany
but those concerns are being used in this case, by Israel/USA
..........
иса: the weather is not good
it rains every day
daniel sienkiewicz: lucky you
dog weather here
иса: we would like more sun
daniel sienkiewicz: (sun)
here you are smile
terrible anti Russian rhetoric on news coming out of the US
иса: yes
daniel sienkiewicz: one news reader said that Putin was not a part of the civilized world because he would not allow other investigators.
absurd
and then some stupid lady from American RT did another one of these phoney protests by quitting RT on the air.
that’s the third one to do that corny trick.
so “offended” by Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
иса: You cannot imagine what they say here about Russia and Putin
иса: I`m tired of everything
daniel sienkiewicz: this is ridiculous..just a year ago they were not saying anything like that
it is so obviously orchestrated propaganda
иса: It`s hard to see such things ...but we shall see
daniel sienkiewicz: some say that the Israelis are trying to distract from what they are doing in Gaza
..to the Palestinians
иса: I know
daniel sienkiewicz: you are great
риса: I watched about it on TV
daniel sienkiewicz: seems they are having good stuff on Russian TV
which channel talked about The US Liberty?
иса: YES
daniel sienkiewicz: that is a Very big development
иса: Russia 24 hours
daniel sienkiewicz: aha
иса: they broadcast about everything
daniel sienkiewicz: good
now, for that Putin deserves A LOT of credit.
he is the one who took Russian control of Russia
my hats off to him.
he is a cool customer
иса: I respect him very much
daniel sienkiewicz: smile
иса: smile
You know I`m so sorry of that plane
иса: they talk too much about those events
иса: Why don`t they talk about people who are killed everyday in Ukraine ?
daniel sienkiewicz: because they want attention on that which may create war
иса: I think so
daniel sienkiewicz: yes

This comment appeared in entry '"Opponents" to the New "Ukrainian" Regime' on 07/21/14, 12:42 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

In the David Harvey book that Dr. Lister recommended for the sake of orientation, some points jump out as important in the quoted passage below.

First, as a general perspective on economics he is articulating the capitalist motives of elites (those whom I would call disingenuous objectivists) for promoting neo-liberalism; i.e., to be consumed as naiive objectivism, taken for granted as such

While I do not lose sight of capitalist interests (normally referring to them as objectivists - disingenuous or naiive), I have tended to focus on Jewish power and influence in manipulation of trends. Harvey is helpful in articulating the capitalist side of the assault on native European interests, but also instructive in his conspicuous non-differentiation of the Jewish role - for example, as it were behind the movement of ‘68 or the Berkeley Free Speech Movement (as such, these Jewish movements are disingenuously lumped with hippies and their “generation of bad White men”); nor does Harvey emphasize the Jewishness of Austrian school economics, central though it/they were to Neo Liberalism being taken for granted as “the way it is.”

Nevertheless, the analysis is useful as Dr. Lister suggests: Neo liberalism used the promotion of freedom of choice, in consumerism as well, of course, to combat the state being used as a corrective for social justice; there had been a tension between values of social justice and freedom; they used the promotion of freedom to drive a wedge against state apparatus which might function to regulate social justice. This served the purpose of expanding markets, consumers and getting state intervention off the backs of capitalist elite (both Jewish and White objectivist) by playing into popular sentiments of its being the grand dragon in opposition to individual liberty.

What is more, the neoliberals are also shown to have a market motive for misrepresenting “post modernism” in the ‘dada’ hyper-liberal sense - to create more market choice. There again, showing a capitalist/objectivist motive, not only a Jewish one for misrepresentation to the naiive populace.

“For almost everyone involved in the movement of ’68, the intrusive state was the enemy and it had to be reformed. And on that, the neoliberals could easily agree. But capitalist corporations, business, and the market system were also seen as primary enemies requiring redress if not revolutionary transformation: hence the threat to capitalist class power. By capturing ideals of individual freedom and turning them against the interventionist and regulatory practices of the state, capitalist class interests could hope to protect and even restore their position. Neoliberalism was well suited to this ideological task. But it had to be backed up by a practical strategy that emphasized the liberty of consumer choice, not only with respect to particular products but also with respect to lifestyles, modes of expression, and a wide range of cultural practices. Neoliberalization required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism and individual libertarianism. As such it proved more than a little compatible with that cultural impulse called ‘post-modernism’ which had long been lurking in the wings but could now emerge full-blown as both a cultural and an intellectual dominant. This was the challenge that corporations and class elites set out to finesse in the 1980s”

This comment appeared in entry 'The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 1' on 07/21/14, 06:55 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Bob in DC wrote:

I sometimes use the cleaned contraction WARYAN (White Aryan),
which is both more explicit, and enhanced by implied militancy.

RESIST !!!

This comment appeared in entry 'Carolyn Yeager's Gas Chamber - a stink to politely ignore, while MOB's concerns are discussed' on 07/20/14, 07:37 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

neil vodavzny wrote:

I count “allies” as ethnic first and foremost - Amerindian tribes, Jewish artists say. In theory it might apply to Israel as a Zionist state. This is something explored in a further post.

This comment appeared in entry 'Friends & Enemies – Part 5' on 07/19/14, 08:39 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Neil V.
“The Right, unlike the Left, should not expect a universal constituency.”

The White Left is not universal. Just the opposite. It is a delimited social union of Native Europeans (which excludes Jews and other non Whites).

Neil V.
“Crumb’s wife, Aline, is beyond Jewish – perfect. These people are our natural allies”

You are saying that Jews are near perfect and Aline is beyond that even, but a perfect Jew? And a natural ally?

I won’t say that you don’t have some interesting things to say in a positive sense, Neil. But that certainly is interesting in a dubious sense.

I guess your essay helps to access other perspectives in being a little open minded but also in providing the cover of open mindedness.


Neil V.
“On the other hand, a society without epithets is an Orwellian tyranny, so you takes your choice.”


David Duke claims that what people mean by “racism” is hatred, supremacy and a will to inflict harm on others.

But that is not what people mean by it in general parlance.

What they mean by it normally, is social classification and discrimination accordingly.

He cites his “approval ratings” for denouncing racism and Jews as the biggest racists of all.

What Duke does not understand is that all he is doing is affirming the wishes of his constituency:

Women who want to incite genetic competition as opposed to group organization and defense.

Including White women who, if they have not already mudsharked, do not mind maintaining the proximal threat and blackmail over the heads of White men in order to control White men, use/abuse them at their will.

I.e., it gives rank and file White women more power - undue power.

Duke wants to say that we should NEVER use epithets because that would only play into the Jewish stereotype of White racists.

Here again, Duke is wrong for his premise. Nobody is saying, or should say, that epithets ought to be thrown around injudiciously, e.g., calling the poor and benign Uncle Tom an “N” and so forth.

It is just that there are times and places where epithets are effective and right. To say that they should never be used is like saying you should not have black among your artists’ palette.

It’s nonsense.

Overuse of black will ruin a painting, obviously. A bit, however, might be just the right thing.

Nor is it the advice that there should not be some individuals and platforms which do without epithets. Our “overall palette” of racial advocacy ought to display that discipline.

Similarly, those engaged in that discipline ought to be perceptive enough to know that there are different arts, different disciplines, and different abilities that need to be displayed to make a full advocacy. Some people and platforms need and should use epithets.

It may seem to Duke as if we should never use them because HIS constituency does not like them – and a power behind Duke’s constituency is White women who have jumped the mudshark or do not mind it as a weapon of power.


An epithet and social stereotyping provides important defense in classifying a people as one kind. Thus the Uncle Tom, who may not be harmful by himself, is prevented from bringing along the more overbearing kind of blacks by dint of his benign countenance.

This comment appeared in entry 'Friends & Enemies – Part 5' on 07/19/14, 06:04 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Thorn wrote:

deleted. Thorn is a troll

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/18/14, 06:32 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

J.Prentiss wrote:

If those girls are mixed they are definately not mixed with african because they don’t have the negroid features.

The one who are african can be seen to be what they are.

All those pictures have proved is that not mixing with africans makes for better looking people, as is visible there.

The argument against blacks has been made, and it would be interesting to know where the person who put those pictures up lives, bet it is not any where near blacks.

You never see those people who talk up negroes actually living with them.

And when negroes move in they are some of the first to leave.

The negroid pictures are horrible.

Only look at haiti andother blacks countries, funny how the people who talk up blacks would never move to haiti or other black places.

This comment appeared in entry 'Oh for G-d's sake: insane miscegenation propaganda' on 07/18/14, 10:04 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

иса: I was watching UKRAINIAN TV YESTERDAY evening

daniel sienkiewicz: tell me about it and I will read your message when I can

иса: and they told that Russia would start the war July 15

daniel sienkiewicz: (:|

иса: Crazy people

daniel sienkiewicz: indeed

there is a lot of money to be made with war.

It is a Jew harvest.

иса: They are prepareing for the war here

daniel sienkiewicz: It is almost too disgusting to believe

иса: It`s true

daniel sienkiewicz: maybe some cooperative business endeavors would help; surrounding food, water and energy sources

to give us independence from corrupt powers

иса: Daniel…they are crazy

I do not understand where they get such information

They try to scare people

daniel sienkiewicz: Its probably a Mossad disinformation campaign

remember their motto: “wage war by deception”

иса: They mobilize men in the army

daniel sienkiewicz: and…the Latin question, “cui bono?” ..who benefits?

иса: Daniel…it`s so hard to watch such things on TV

daniel sienkiewicz: :(

иса: My parents say that Ukrainians got crazy

daniel sienkiewicz: what changed?

иса: not all

but most of them

People do not understand the situation

They think that Russia wants their lands

their cities and towns

daniel sienkiewicz: But Russia probably will take the eastern provinces, won’t they?

иса: of course, no

if Ukraine will not start a war

Many of them say stupid things about Russia

daniel sienkiewicz: So, if a lot of Ukrainians have changed, it must be that some information (propaganda) has changed.

If Victoria Nuland is spending 5 billion dollars, a lot of that is going to go to anti Russian propaganda..

иса: Old people (side) for Russia

They say that jews and America did it in Ukraine

daniel sienkiewicz: and that’s true.

иса: but young people do not understand it

they blame Russia in all their problems

daniel sienkiewicz: Putin took the side of Syria..he took the side of Iran

The JewUSA wants to punish him.

their money, media, political control is powerful

иса: It`s clear but Ukrainians do not understand it

daniel sienkiewicz: Its unfortunate

I wonder what might be done

иса: I do not see people from Russia in the place where my parents live

daniel sienkiewicz: were they there before?

have they left in fear?

иса: They are afraid of coming there though their parents live there

daniel sienkiewicz: wow

иса: They live in Russia but their parents live in Ukraine

like my case

But this summer they do not come here

daniel sienkiewicz: I understand

and I guess they are right to be afraid.

иса: You cannot see the cars from Russia

It`s so sad to watch such situation here

daniel sienkiewicz: It’s all so Jewish.. such standard Jewish operating procedure: divide and conquer

иса: yes

daniel sienkiewicz: I think one thing that makes it hard
is that people who are closely related are not always more friendly to one another

sometimes they naturally fight more

if they do not have “parental” intervention.

иса: some are but some not

daniel sienkiewicz: yes..but.

but it is complicated

and it is a question that I want to take up here at Majority Rights.

to discuss it with Dr. Lister and maybe Frank Salter -

he is the one who is famous for “E.G.I”

иса: ????

daniel sienkiewicz: Ethnic genetic interests

иса: aha

daniel sienkiewicz: it is a scientific study of genetic interests

which proves, for example, that “diversity” does not make for a friendly nation..

but of course, a conflicted one.

иса: so, we`ll see

daniel sienkiewicz: but Jewish interests, of course, are always pushing “diversity”

as if it is good in itself.

иса: I hate Jews

daniel sienkiewicz: you are right to do so.

but try not to be too emotional about it.

try to stay rational.

That is one big advantage that I have with regard to Jews.

I don’t know why, but I don’t have strong emotions with regard to them.

.. only for moments, when I talk to them, and I realize vividly how screwed up they can be.

.. but it passes.

иса: good

daniel sienkiewicz: but when and if I talk to them, I find it follows a pattern

I can talk to them easily at first..then I find that I can’t stand them.

That is why I never dated a Jewish woman.

Maybe some of them are pretty, but..

talk to them and that is out the window.

I don’t really know what to do about providing alternative information, propaganda to counter the war mongering stuff that Ukrainians are now being fed.

but there should be efforts on that score.

Narratives emphasizing that Ukrainian and Russian conflict is not in their mutual interest (cui bono? war is a Jew harvest).

иса: I hope that everything will be ok

but to say such things on TV is so stupid

daniel sienkiewicz: you’ll feel better if you try and encourage people to try a little bit to put out the alternative narrative.

many people look to the Internet now, not TV

иса: no….It`s a bit dangerous for me to do it here

daniel sienkiewicz: I believe it.

I guess its almost like Belarus now.

иса: I do not want any complications here

daniel sienkiewicz: Belarus was/is very dangerous in that way

you must be careful what you say and how you are perceived

иса: I do not know about Belarus but here the situation is not good

daniel sienkiewicz: :(

иса: I want to go back to Russia

daniel sienkiewicz: I guess you mean sooner than you had planned..

but it was brave of you to go to Urkaine at all this year.

иса: Now I do not have any plans but I know one thing I will not travel in Ukraine this summer

daniel sienkiewicz: Its bad. But on the other hand, good to spend more time with your parents.

иса: my parents are ok

they are very brave people

daniel sienkiewicz: smile

иса: they say what they think

they say that Ukraine should manage all its problem itself

not to blame Russia

daniel sienkiewicz: good

иса: They were so surprised to hear the news about the war with Russia

daniel sienkiewicz: is the announcement official?

иса: they said that Russia was not going to do such things

they said about it yesterday evening on TV

daniel sienkiewicz: well, I am not too sure that Russia would not take the eastern provinces of Ukraine myself

as they took Crimea

I mean, not that I think it was unwarranted.

иса: There was no other variant for Russia

daniel sienkiewicz: of course, regarding Crimea there was no other variant.

As long as Ukraine can one day be a sovereign nation, being a little smaller is not the worst thing.


I do not think Russia taking the eastern provinces would be worth a war either..

even though that would be a bit unfair to Ukraine

at least in my understanding..

those provinces were emptied of Ukrainians by the “Holodomor”

and then Russians moved in.

but..

I see the Holodomor as a Jewish crime

not really a Russian one.

иса: Daniel…Russia do not need Ukrainian lands

daniel sienkiewicz: ok.

иса: it has itself enough

daniel sienkiewicz: but there might be some strategic industry and minerals there, or just that they want buffering..and for these industries not to fall into the hands of their enemies..

that is, it could be “geopolitical strategy” by Putin

and not necessarily wrong

as strategy on the grand chess board.

иса: Daniel…Russia doesn`t want any war

daniel sienkiewicz: because that is what Brzezinksi is doing.

Russia doesn’t want war

but Israel DOES

иса: I know it

daniel sienkiewicz: and they are engaging in brinksmanship strategies that Putin has been effectively countering.

that is why they are so angry with him and Russia

иса: They try to envolve Russia into the war

daniel sienkiewicz: yes.

war “makes sense” for Israel
they have so much money, so much munitions..

иса: but not for Russian people

daniel sienkiewicz: so many “enemies” who will die in war

иса: Putin is a normal man

daniel sienkiewicz: war makes sense for nobody but for Israel and Jews.

иса: HE DOES HIS BEST

daniel sienkiewicz: it is good for nobody but Jews and cut-throat international corporations

I think normal people in the west understand Putin.

they realize he is not the problem.

иса: I hope for it

So, today is July 15

daniel sienkiewicz: Among the normal White nationalist community its sure (he is a civic nationalist, not really a White nationalist, but not exactly against us either – proximately in our interests).

some Nazis do not like him. But they are Nazis. They are not normal.

иса: and there is no war between Russia and Ukraine

Shame on Ukrainian TV

daniel sienkiewicz: It is not Ukrainian TV

it is Jewish TV

иса: But Ukrainians should have their own point of view

daniel sienkiewicz: It is hard when they are a poor nation and they can be bribed by Jewish money.

Ukrainians should have their own point of view?

what about Americans?

Jews are 2 or 3 percent of the population there

and their point of view is ALL encompassing

иса: Americans like eating

daniel sienkiewicz: ..not all Americans are stupid, bad people.

иса: they are not good at many things

daniel sienkiewicz: it is not the point.

the point is

that Jewish interests have been able to take over America

why should it be surprising that they would wield power in Ukraine?

and in fact, they took over Russia for a time

with the Bolshevik Revolution

and still have a lot of power there.

They control London/England

why should they not be difficult for Ukrainians too?

The London Square Mile is the economic center of the world.

Its all Jewsh.

“Give me control over the money supply and I care not who makes the laws” - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

иса: :(

ok…

I`m a bit tired of it

daniel sienkiewicz: I understand. sorry

but the point is..I think its the safest and best way is to address the way people are talking, to avoid deadly Russian/Ukrainian conflict.

Ok, I’m going out now

talk to you later

say hi to your mum and dad..

bye for now (wave)

иса: bye for now
(wave)

This comment appeared in entry '"Opponents" to the New "Ukrainian" Regime' on 07/17/14, 02:41 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

More good George tunes:

Run of The Mill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEA2pI41YVg


Give Me Love
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLsKWWF94cw


And for those not looking for peace at all costs (as I certainly am not):

ELP, Knife’s Edge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPmpKhd3hXs


There is a Men’s advocate named Robert Bly, who wrote a book called “Iron John.”

Popular though it may have been, it contained a few good pieces of advice. One of the best bits, I thought, was this:

That our males cannot be “warriors” alone. You have to have “a king” (psychologically speaking), and let me add, “a kingdom” as well.

Without “a king/kingdom” you will be fighting arbitrarily, not clear about who you are fighting for, not able to gauge, measure, judge and balance your warrior acts.

Here is a good counter argument to the Goebbels propaganda that Renegade is regurgitating with the evil, inter European war mongering pile of bullshit called “The Greatest Story Never Told”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f8fyXkKJYk

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/16/14, 01:56 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Robert, don’t worry, don’t pout, there are still Hitler and Jesus sites for you.

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/15/14, 02:52 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Robert in Arabia wrote:

Posted by Rusty on July 09, 2014, 11:28 AM | #

Daniel, I was just wondering. Carolyn’s statement made me think of the question. We cannot help you reach your goals if we don’t know what they are.  I used to be welcome here. I don’t visit here very often, and the first thing back, I post a question and you attack me. WTF is going on here?

Dear Rusty,
DanielS likes to talk to himself. He is convinced that he can read your mind.

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/15/14, 02:29 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Posted by hefty on July 13, 2014, 09:09 PM | #

“Obviously, Daniel is scared of Christianity”

Obviously not scared of it. Enough of it already. There are already enough sites which take a view supportive of Christianity. This will not be another. We will exercise our prerogative to experiment with the hypothesis that we are better off without it.

”(not to mention the Jews).”

The same goes with Jews. They have their support groups. Here, they will Not be treated as a part of our group, Not as if they are on our side, Not as if they are one with us, sharing our interests at heart.

“Anything relevant to white issues should be open to discussion.”

It is not your prerogative to open the parameters of debate; in fact, they needed to be narrowed precisely because trolls such as you and Thorn would not stop flooding threads with your pro Christian, pro Jewish agendas.

“A vast portion of the white race is Christian; therefore, Christianity and the Christian perspective is relevant to MR,”

A vast portion is non-Christian, and they deserve representation as well. We have found that we cannot serve them effectively while allowing pro Christians here -  they will not allow for our world view and conversations of our interests to go on unharrassed.

Inasmuch as Christianity is relevant to MR, we will be taking a view largely negative and critical of it, not endorsing it.

There are Christian sites for Christians to go where their religion is supported and we do not go there and bother them.

They will be required to no longer bother us here.


“as are different perspectives on the Jewish issue.”

The same goes with Jews. We are not open to considering them as being a part of our interest group. We take the view that they are not one with us, not a part of us, not generally favorable to our interests. They have their support groups which exclude us, our views, our concerns. Here, our conversations are not about what is good for Jews, but what is good for us.

“Thorn and others have every moral right to be here.”

No they don’t. Especially not Thorn. He has no moral right to be here. He has harassed me and Majority Rights prerogatives for over a year and half. He has made his agenda abundantly clear as wishing for an agenda other than that of Majority Rights. He is advised to go elsewhere. Here he is a troll. His disruption of threads is the opposite of a moral right, it is a denial of ours.

“Majorityrights can choose its parameters, of course, but it should not then be claiming that it speaks for whites.”

We speak for and with Whites taking a certain perspective: not favorable of Christianity, of Jews and their inclusion, of Hitler. There are other limitations, but that is not your concern as you are out of bounds already in your insistence upon pro Christians and pro Jews being welcome here as a part of our interest classification.

“You speak for only some whites, Thorn for others.”

That’s right. And he is not welcome here. There are places where his views are endorsed. It won’t be here.

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/13/14, 10:41 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

hefty wrote:

Obviously, Daniel is scared of Christianity (not to mention the Jews). Anything relevant to white issues should be open to discussion. A vast portion of the white race is Christian; therefore, Christianity and the Christian perspective is relevant to MR, as are different perspectives on the Jewish issue.

Thorn and others have every moral right to be here. Majorityrights can choose its parameters, of course, but it should not then be claiming that it speaks for whites. You speak for only some whites, Thorn for others.

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/13/14, 09:09 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Katana says,

Again, WTF does this part mean?

” maintaining and fostering them in symbiotic, ecological, whole classification and discreet distinctions thereof.”

I could hazard a guess at what you mean, but surely the agenda of this site should be written in understandable English for normal educated people at the least?

Is this what you mean to say: “Our purpose at MR is no mystery; we are here to advocate for White people and for them remaining a unique people.”?


Katana, the term “White” is not especially problematic to me, I like it especially in combination to “The White Class.” However, there is a danger in being too simple with “White” as a blanket term. “White” can be too unsophisticated in particular as it is susceptible to include Jews while excluding authentic Europeans.

As we all know it is a more American term. It is better to ask Americans to be inconvenienced to drop it (especially since the country is going down in terms of our interests) than to ask native Europeans to drop the designation, “European.”

It is a better strategy to resurrect “European” as meaning, “of native European extraction.” It is more descriptive and provides better grounding all around than “White”. Even for Americans it should be the better term in the long-run. Though again, I do not have a big problem with “White.”

I will draw the line on the contention that I am speaking in tongues when I insist upon an ecological and classificatory view.

Classification represents the mediation between Cartesian extremes: assertion of social classifications is what has been deprived us (Whites/Europeans) and what we need to restore (as a matter of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, as I always say – lets add operational verifiability). 

More, the view of ecological classifications is particularly important as it directs attention to systemic depth, patterns, historical relations as naturally conservative aspects of our evolution and relation to natural environment.

This comment appeared in entry 'Carolyn Yeager's Gas Chamber - a stink to politely ignore, while MOB's concerns are discussed' on 07/13/14, 06:46 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Thorn wrote:

deleted

As usual, the blossom tries to say that the site is ruined if not a “conservative”, jewish friendly, Christian site.

Don’t worry blossom, we’ll be fine.

And there are places for you elsewhere. Go there.

In fact, Thorn has shown the reason why MR has had to become more explicit in its positions that is not endorsing Christianity and that Jews are not European, i.e., not a part of our interest group.

If MR is to serve the interests of the vast part of European peoples who do not have faith in Christianity and see it in fact as problematic to our interests, then in order to be able to talk about that unharassed by the likes of Thorn it is necessary to direct them elsewhere, making it clear that this site is not taking a pro-Christian, Jewish inclusive perspective.

There is a huge difference between that and saying that MR is unconcerned for morality. In fact, we see Christianity as dubious in a moral sense, particularly as it is a disservice to European defense - which, by the way, is why I suspect that Thorn has been so intent upon pushing it here; and why we have had to be more explicit that we do not classify Jews as being of European extraction and a part of our interest group - because the likes of Thorn will not allow us to talk about things in that way unharrassed. Having established the rule that we are not a pro-Christian site, that we do not see Jews as being within our interest group - people of European extraction - we may clearly direct the likes of Thorn elsewhere.

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/12/14, 09:01 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Thorn wrote:

deleted.

Note, Thorn is a troll

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/12/14, 08:43 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Thorn wrote:

Note, Thorn is a troll

Comment deleted. repetitious. Thorn’s opinion on MR’s editorial direction has been heard in abundance.

We are not trying to assimilate American Renaissance here.

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/12/14, 08:06 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Well, you wrote: “Our agenda at MR is no mystery: we are here to advocate people of native European descent, maintaining and fostering them in symbiotic, ecological, whole classification and discreet distinctions thereof.”

Again, WTF does this part mean?

Well, part of the problem is that I am trying to avoid being too repetitious. I have explained these things a number of times.

We are seeing social groupings as ecological wholes - European peoples, the nations within, such as German, French, etc.

Their relations are symbiotic, or should be - that is, mutually beneficial and supportive.

..whether they (people of European extraction) are in Europe or on other continents.

I’ve rewritten it this way, hopefully it is more clear:

Our agenda at MR is no mystery: we are here to advocate people of native European descent. As such, we would like to look upon native Europeans as a classificatory whole, with subdivisions. The whole and the subdivisions to be maintained and fostered as ecologies symbiotic within and between each other.

Moving on, something that I found interesting was this:

“For my part, when a person uses the N word in an intelligent way”..


The question is, should we use terms like “nigger”, “kike”, and so on? And in general I’ve concluded that we should use those forbidden terms and more, where appropriate for our cause. Even more we should use those forbidden terms in our thoughts.

Why? Because the kikes (jews) are our enemies, the enemies of humanity, and because the niggers are tools of our enemies, just like the “sand niggers”, invading Europe are.

Well, I basically agree, they are Other people and especially when they are our enemies or tools of our enemies there needs to be consciousness raising circulated about those facts.

I don’t mind if people use the word kike, but I find “jew” to be just as pointed.

But again, GW apparently does not want us to indulge in those words here because it could land people in jail. Otherwise I would say, feel free to Other the mothers.

...with that language.

With one other caveat: bear in mind sage advice that Metzger would give, that our right wing, disingenuous elites in particular, bear a great responsibility in selling us out (usually fooling people into naiive objectivism) - these elites are our enemies too, of course, and would probably not mind regular Whites to do their fighting, taking on the Jews or whomever, while they sit back in their treachery.

This comment appeared in entry 'Carolyn Yeager's Gas Chamber - a stink to politely ignore, while MOB's concerns are discussed' on 07/12/14, 10:35 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

katana wrote:

Posted by DanielS on July 11, 2014, 12:12 PM | #

Katana, besides the general advice, when and where you might be so inclined, if you will point out something that you would like clarified, I would be happy to do that.
——————

Well, you wrote: “Our agenda at MR is no mystery: we are here to advocate people of native European descent, maintaining and fostering them in symbiotic, ecological, whole classification and discreet distinctions thereof.”

Again, WTF does this part mean?

” maintaining and fostering them in symbiotic, ecological, whole classification and discreet distinctions thereof.”

I could hazard a guess at what you mean, but surely the agenda of this site should be written in understandable English for normal educated people at the least?

Is this what you mean to say: “Our purpose at MR is no mystery; we are here to advocate for White people and for them remaining a unique people.”?

Moving on, something that I found interesting was this:

“For my part, when a person uses the N word in an intelligent way, with proper context, it does not turn me off, but tells me clearly that this person has sense, knows what they are talking about, organizes matters properly. That will resonate for others as well.”

The question is, should we use terms like “nigger”, “kike”, and so on? And in general I’ve concluded that we should use those forbidden terms and more, where appropriate for our cause. Even more we should use those forbidden terms in our thoughts.

Why? Because the kikes (jews) are our enemies, the enemies of humanity, and because the niggers are tools of our enemies, just like the “sand niggers”, invading Europe are.

This comment appeared in entry 'Carolyn Yeager's Gas Chamber - a stink to politely ignore, while MOB's concerns are discussed' on 07/12/14, 09:45 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Thomas Johnson wrote:

Why is it that so many of the brightest young Indian and Chinese students want to leave their homelands behind and go off to North America or Western Europe to obtain their graduate educations and their first professional jobs?  Then many of these same students end up living the rest of their lives in what are essentially the world’s main European-founded and influenced nations and cultures, in many cases gradually loosing touch with their own nations and cultures?  The native lands giving up so many of their best young minds year after year have long been calling this widespread process the 3rd World “Brain Drain”.

This comment appeared in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 07/12/14, 04:16 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Ok, I have finally re-edited this part 2. One of the reasons why I was slow about it is because it is always daunting (for me) to critique Bowery’s work.

People criticizing my writing may not understand that engaging his work, by itself, can take me into some turgid and unfamiliar language (e.g. “eusociality”) but it also takes me into the necessity of unfamiliar language in response (e.g., “hermeneutics”). 

Another reason that it is a complicated task is that it is a tricky balance between being accessible enough versus being true to what MR’s audience is, ideally – those most serious and/or best equipped to solve problems and propose solutions of European sovereignty.

There are not only people such as Katana, who think MR should be more accessible for a popular audience, but people more familiar with MR’s history as one taking on the the most formidable intellectual challenges in concern of European peoples, therefore a willingness to use language in whatever form and extent necessary for comprehension of those challenges. MR is thus, for people who not only enjoy basic understanding, but value a bit more challenge in the reach of understanding.

Witness this criticism I received, which is quite the opposite of Katana’s

Posted by Mr. Nill on June 16, 2014, 11:15 PM | #
I used to visit mr for Bowery/Renner…...hard to believe it’s the same site.  DarnelS, your writing style is far too pithy. May Abraham bless you with prolixity.

The effort to be thorough in regard to MR’s pursuit beyond mere popular understanding can create the appearance of prolix in my writing - I would reject Katana’s contention that it is indeed prolix, an attempt to be showy and that it needs to be “dumbed down”. I believe rather that she is reading some typos and need for editorial revision as pomposity. I am sure of this because as I go in and re-edit, I find that I have not been far off, but having not seen that I accidentally, say, added or omitted a word, and it can give the appearance of being cavalier; in addition to making the writing less clear. I can justify my argument by being able to explain whatever might be unclear to someone.

I have found and corrected typos and errors in almost every paragraph. It is, or should be, much more clear now.

I have added the the following two paragraphs to the beginning which should also help clarify matters.

The third paragraph that I have added to this comment is an example of a paragraph the clarity of which was particularly helped by this editing.

Added introductory paragraphs:

“As I understand it, the model of “civilization” that James uses follows a linear logic - which is a modernist logic: this force causes that effect, almost like the forces and impacts of physics. It is to a view of events as occurring within the realm of what Aristotle called “Theoria” -  clear, unassailable logical distinctions and connections.

Whereas a Post Modern logic would try to take what Aristotle called “Praxis” (the socially engaged world) and “Phronesis” (the necessity of practical judgment therein) into account a bit more in dealing with any issue, but especially when dealing with social issues. That is to say, particularly when examining social phenomenon (Praxis), it would take into consideration that what is being examined is occurring between biological, agentive creatures (especially in the case of humans, of course), who can alter their responses; and therefore making sense is not so simple but is necessarily engaged and partial in its understanding, requiring practical judgement (Phronesis); a necessity that is ongoing, moreover, as it is subject to reflexive effects on that which is observed, such that the subject matter can be transformed.”

That is where a word like “topoi” or “heuristic” comes into play for all the jerks who would want to see value in Carolyn Yeager’s assessment of my “pomposity”.

Example of paragraph significantly improved:

This is a point where not only the Nordicst perspective, but the north western European perspective, especially in America, not warranted on the grounds of native interest as it is in Europe, could be instigated to the kind of stress and anxiety that would have one continue to seek solutions in transcendent, unassailably universal, i.e., Cartesian foundations –  in America, usually beginning with the Lockeatine U.S. Constitution (an empirical side of Cartesianism and more of that water in which we swim), arguing that its rights, freedom of association, liberal Cartesian though it is, and in the hands of Jewish courts and manipulation though it is, ought to apply to Whites as well. Indeed, arguing for that variant, viz., appeals to freedom from association for Whites too, is necessary in The U.S. - both a matter of tact (“freedom” being “their” sacrosanct rule that we have to call them on) and an expression of one important feature of authentic Europeanness to maintain; not harmful if it is understood as grounded in the sociality of European evolution in broader context.

This comment appeared in entry 'The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 2' on 07/12/14, 02:49 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Katana, besides the general advice, when and where you might be so inclined, if you will point out something that you would like clarified, I would be happy to do that.

This comment appeared in entry 'Carolyn Yeager's Gas Chamber - a stink to politely ignore, while MOB's concerns are discussed' on 07/11/14, 12:12 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

katana wrote:

Posted by DanielS on July 11, 2014, 10:17 AM | #

“Katana, I don’t “tack phrases on for the sake of decorative style.” I say what I mean.”
—————————

I know you know what you mean. But I don’t know what you mean in many cases. I think most of your readers also don’t know what you mean. It’s like untangling a difficult knot, decorative or not.


“I may have been engaged in conversations that are in a language and terminology that is somewhat unfamiliar to you, but I can assure you, it makes sense to me and it is coherent - not difficult to follow if one would care.”
—————————-

I do care.

And as I write above, I’m sure it’s coherent to you. But it’s unclear to us not privy to your language and terminology and general way of thinking.

Please write in the language of your target audience. That, I assume, are ordinary thinking people who are not lamenting that they missed out on getting a Phd.

“Dumb it down”, if you will, but please speak and write, in a plain and clear fashion. Don’t mimic the style of the vast majority of academics who speak with forked tongues.

This comment appeared in entry 'Carolyn Yeager's Gas Chamber - a stink to politely ignore, while MOB's concerns are discussed' on 07/11/14, 11:13 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Page 1 of 3458 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›