Comments posted

Page 1 of 3471 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

voznich wrote:

But whites ARE superior, Daniel. And it is not obviously a false path to announce this fact loudly, especially as EVERY people, as Jared Taylor repeatedly argues, trumpets its own superiority (talk to an Oriental sometime, especially Chinese or Japanese), while our white youth are continuously indoctrinated into a sense of totally undeserved inferiority.

Finally, as Leon Haller and others used to write, white superiority is part of the ethical case for the forcible deportations of immigrants out of Europe. It’s not enough just to say we’re different and entitled to our own living spaces (though we are on both counts). You have to make the case, as Dr. William Pierce used to, that whites are the Master Race and the chief engine of human evolutionary progress, and that for that reason race mixture and the immigration which leads to it must be violently opposed.

Too bad Lister didn’t address my comment. Perhaps he has nothing to add. One suspects that his understanding of NS ideology is even less developed than my own. Try to understand before criticizing, even though I agree that NS for tactical reasons is (probably) not the way to move forward. NS is not without value in the white struggle.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/21/14, 08:29 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

HeyHeyWe'reThe wrote:

Here we come, floatin’ ‘cross the Med. We get the funniest looks from, everywhere we spread. Hey! Hey! we’re the Vectors! And people say we spread virus ‘round. But we’re too busy singin’ ta put anybody down!

- song lyrics by friend of MR

This comment appeared in entry 'Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored' on 10/21/14, 12:12 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Ebolatalia wrote:

http://yottafire.com/2014/04/23/ebola-virus-likely-to-have-spread-to-italy-officially-unconfirmed-news/

Ebola Virus Likely to Have Spread to Italy: Officially Unconfirmed News

The latest statements on the World Health Organization’s websites, states that the Ebola outbreak in West Africa has killed 142 so far. Further it stated that over 230 suspected or confirmed cases have been recorded in Liberia and Guinea put together Guinea having the highest numbers. 129 deaths have been reported in Guinea and 13 in Liberia…


World Health Organization officials announced that in spite of their desperate attempts to control the pandemic it is spreading quickly in Africa and most likely to Europe too. Ceuter’s reports stated that the officials have decided to stop issuing death toll information so as to avoid unnecessary panic.

Further, it states that the disease has spread to 7 countries in Africa, with WHO health officials, doctors without Borders and many other Christian relief groups working to contain the infection and treat the affected. Those identified with infection or suspected of infection have been quarantined to avoid further spread. However, an unofficial Christian group confirmed that in the past 24 hours infection cases have increased by 15%. Further, Over 48 migrants from the western parts of Africa have illegally reached the shores of Pisa, Italy. All of them have been contained and quarantined, specifically those showing symptoms associated with Ebola virus. Some have been reported to have fever, conjunctivitis and blood around the eye area, which are also symptoms of Ebola virus infection. However, test results are awaited upon to confirm the same. This news appeared on news wires, but was recalled by the government officials stating national security reasons to avoid unnecessary panic.

This comment appeared in entry 'Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored' on 10/21/14, 12:00 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

neil vodavzny wrote:

How you gonna get ethics without a root-&-branch change in lifestyle? Race is only part of the explosive cocktail. Humans are no longer responsible for their own wellbeing http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/laura-donnelly/11175697/Heart-attack-risks-rest-on-lifestyle-researchers-say.html

The slob era is on us. The idea of male and female is blurred. This relates to a piece I’m posting (or at least sending) referring to female tennis players. Just the fact that classical grace and sublime racket skills are a thing of the past, women being vastly more manlike (and ugly).

Ethics springs out of society, so one can say wouldn’t it be nice. Then comes the hard work of breeding in traits of behaviour, civilized manners etc. That actually isn’t a negative critique but something that gets results.

This comment appeared in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/21/14, 08:24 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Graham_Lister wrote:

Just one thought - that liberal or modern approaches to ethics seem to be deeply flawed to say the least.

These concepts are of a great deal of importance in how people understand politics, morals and the ‘right thing do to’ etc. But much of the intellectual ground work or heavy lifting has already been done.

For example Alasdair MacIntyre has already gave the world a devasting critique of liberal ‘moral thought’ and a defence of an alternative - an Aristotelian derived form of virtue ethics (After Virtue). Which thankfully doesn’t need to be a theistic account.

Why reinvent the wheel, when non-liberal communitarianism just needs a little twist of the old implicit ethno into the mix?

This comment appeared in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/20/14, 08:01 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Graham_Lister wrote:

Perhaps the task is different - a wholly negative one in so far as to totally discredit and destroy the deflationary ‘flat’ liberal ontology of both the individual and the social? Not a minor task at all. A negative account of why unconstrained liberalism ultimately fails.

So we can say account X (liberal ontology) is wrong for reasons 1, 2, 3, and our alternative account Z is only a work in progress but it would differ in these important ways 4, 5, 6 etc., even if it’s not fully developed.

Let me tell you getting to grips with say the ontology of emergence is OK in the broad ‘macro’ picture but the fine details are very subtle and encompasses some very difficult material/concepts.

Perhaps ‘good enough’ politically and philosophically rather than perfection is a good basis to work on? An incomplete, but importantly working model, that captures some important features of the issues at hand that however isn’t the final word. I’m really not sure final words really exist within philosophical or political thought. It might be a fool’s errand to look for them for too long or too deeply.

After all no liberal could really give damn that, at base, their ontology is preposterous. It didn’t stop Locke, Hayek, Rawls et al.?

This comment appeared in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/20/14, 07:48 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Daniel,

To my mind, the first task that confronts anyone trying to think anew about the life and continuity of our race is to do the ontology, and arrive at a model of Man which is as faithful to the organic reality as possible.  Only then, with that phase complete, and the model in place, can one move foward to the next.  This, it seems to me, is not yet the stage of ends and means.  In any case, the emphasis on these ought to be unnecessary if the ontology has been done right, since the whole structure and development of the Idea will possess a certain dynamic quality, arising out of the dynamic of consciousness itself.

The logical extension of the ontology is into the primary human motivations, which are only two in number, and are freedom and love, both in relation to being.  These bridge the gap to the Hegelian pairing which interest you at this point.  Possibly there is some additional guiding detail to emerge from the intellectual process, and the final product might not end precisely where Hegel had it.  So, personally, I would council against rushing to the sharp end.  This sort of thing can’t be hurried.

This comment appeared in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/20/14, 07:19 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

jamesUK wrote:

@Norman Lowell

Will you be planning to do a MR Radio again in the future?

What about a Q&A post somewhere to ask you questions?

This comment appeared in entry 'A Fight at the Highest Level' on 10/20/14, 11:46 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Norman Lowell wrote:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/american-nationalist-network/2014/10/17/world-view-conversations


Rodney Martin of ANA/ANN interviews Norman Lowell

This comment appeared in entry 'A Fight at the Highest Level' on 10/20/14, 02:52 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Thorntroll wrote:

Thorn may take his trolling elsewhere

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 07:40 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Graham_Lister wrote:

Danny - another point.

The Hitler loving wankstains are just like ideological Jewry in another important way.

The big H, Nazis etc., are for official Jewish ideology the unique ‘A-Z’ of all of human history, pivotal in a way nothing else ever can be. The historical ‘event horizon’.

The F cult retards agree and thus are their inverted opposite. They too agree on the centrality of one regime to the exclusion of all reason, rationality, facts, political logic etc., (if for superficially ‘different’ reasons).

The big H the is contemporary object of worship for both these repulsive groups of dishonest ideologues.

There is literally nothing useful to come from engaging such people (even negatively).

Let them rot in their self-contrusted ghetto of irrelevance.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 09:45 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Graham, thanks for your comment - very good. But note one thing, I didn’t make this post to discuss Nazism but rather Ransdell’s take on matters, which has not been talking about Hitler and Nazim. Unfortunately, the Nazis came here. In fact, we’ve got the most loyal one on this thread, so it is an opportunity to put the matter to rest (for our purposes, anyway) as best we can. Nor for that matter is it my intent to try to change them but rather to distinguish MR for those who are receptive to a different view.

Discussion of Randsdell provides an opportunity to state boldly that we can 1. Advocate Europeans, their nationalisms 2. View Jews as a distinct and other group of people, with different interests from Europeans 3. That we can re-claim certain ideas which the Nazis claim as the sole province of their identity - e.g. interest free banking - while rejecting the vast, egregious aspects of Hitler and Nazism at the same time.


Yes, GW’s comments are excellent as well, of course.


voznich says

“I think the Nazi approach ought to be debated, even if we finally reject it in favor of contemporarily more palatable strategies.”

The matter has been discussed here - a bit much. Here, I can understand Dr. Lister’s frustration, but I am trying to provide a forum for European advocacy which rejects Hitler, as we should; I would expect that to be an obvious premise; I have sought to explain why it is not obvious to some and believe that I have done an admirable job:

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

There are popular sites which are associating this stuff with European/White advocacy and therefore to distinguish MR as a haven from that, it has been necessary to go into some detail and to be loud in that regard.

One note on your recommendation that we take the position of our superiority, I am sure that is a tactless position at best. Sure, we are better in some ways, some important ways, but we are not better in all ways. And all gloating over our merits will do is breed conceit, hubris, contempt, false comparisons, jealousy, revenge etc.

At bottom, “superiority” is not necessary to warrant our defense as a people (although it is necessary as pseudo justification for screwing and lording over other people…which can lead not merely to the appearance of guilt, but to well-deserved guilt and revenge against one’s self and one’s people).

I’ve tried to explain it here.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/incommensurability_and_ecological_niche_theory_vs._non_equality


Carolyn says:


Posted by Carolyn Yeager on October 18, 2014, 05:51 PM | #

Regarding Hitler, I would rather not talk about him much. There are far more interesting and important matters to attend in service of European peoples.

You never seem to come up with any that draw commenters to your site like Hitler does. You have not discovered what is more interesting.

Garnering just any old comments is not my objective. Better no comments than bad ones.

I’m not worried about MR, therefore perhaps you can finally take a cue and be happy to mind your own site and with your niche.


However, many popular sites representing themselves as representing Whites, European peoples, are now typically populated with Hitler and Nazi advocates/apologists.

I wonder why?

I have provided an explanation already as to why -

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


A large reason has to do with the fact of America’s demographic make-up, which is largely German, but also largely composed of other groups, such as the Irish, who were not historically in the path and wrath of the Nazi juggernaut; and therefore, initial reaction to the destruction of Jewish influence would have them all too easily, without sufficient complication, move to a conclusion that by-golly, “Hitler was right.” For the same demographics, the pro-Hitler narrative would gain currency as it can circulate among the largest numbers of Whites, uncomplicating and unburdening them of any suggestion that their historical people could have been capable of and associated with significant misdeeds.

The Nazi advocates proclaim to be after truth, but they really aren’t as Graham notes - it is as a religion which is not subject to correction by the facts. Discussion with them enmeshes one in their endless hair-splitting and attacks as they defend the F no matter what. It is a kind of stupidity that I simply cannot relate to. The only other people that I’ve known to be like that argumentatively are Jews


“That is surely not representing European/White people but only a narrow, demented portion.

Well, it is you that is demented and most people do agree on that.”

You don’t know most people.


It is doing the cause of defending our European people a terrible turn, therefore I must do what I can to correct its misrepresentations from time to time and where relevant,

“No one pays any attention to you so it doesn’t matter.”

Maybe true, maybe not, but I am sending to whom it may concern messages for those who care for the best interests of Europeans, not for the best interests of Hitler idolaters.

Next, I said

tedious though the topic is and the mode of argumentation that your cohorts deploy (very Jewish) is.

And you said:


“Who are my “very Jewish” cohorts? Come on, man up and name them. “

I didn’t say that you had Jewish cohorts. I said that you have cohorts who argue like Jews (so do you).

“They won’t be Jewish but you might be. How about a picture of you, my brave hero.”

I’m not Jewish, have said a thousand times now what I am.

Moving on to TD’s comment:


Posted by TD on October 18, 2014, 08:18 PM | #

DanielS,  aka ‘‘National Socialist’‘.  After all these months, still trying hard to discredit Hitler

It’s not hard. That is part of the frustration, it is too damn easy, theoretically and practically. Frustrating because it should be easy for others as well to see that it is not the way to go and not necessary; we should be able to easily move on to other, better discussions with cooperative purposes.

“and misrepresenting National Socialism”

I don’t misrepresent National Socialism, I point out that National socialism is misrepresented by Hitler and his advocates and that they do not have absolute claim to define how the combination of these terms come to count.

”, i.e. being the eternal prisoner of the jewish narrative.”

I am not a prisoner of it at all. But you are by getting caught up in this reaction to it.


“Why all the repetitive effort to smear Hitler if we are only a ‘‘narrow, demented portion’’ who are true NS and Hitler loyalists.”

Hitler smeared himself.

I have explained my motives, I want to distinguish MR from the several WN sites which make Hitler commendation a part of their platform. But I hope and intend to have discussion of Hitler, Nazism and WWII take up less and less time and space here at MR.


“Looks like you now also have been caught redhanded being your own shill. That doesn’t look cool does it?”

I haven’t been caught red handed at anything, I was deliberate in speaking in my voice - but you will believe what you want and will find a place in your religiosity at Carolyn’s blog.

“Look, so much for trying to ‘‘defend european/white people’‘.  Have you already come up with a better ideology to move the european/white masses?  Guide us please with your wisdom.”

I have in parts and wholes, but that is not saying much. Just about anybody could.


For the sake of honest assessment:

Alexa Rankings:

Daily Stormer/Anglin full on pro-Hitler website: Global Rank 28,980 US Rank 12,130
source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/http://www.dailystormer.com


Majority Rights anti-Hitler website: Global Rank 519,242,  US rank 446, 677
source http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/http://majorityrights.com


Well, I think that “Porn Hub” is one of the most popular sites out there. We are not after popularity per se. And if being titillating but irrelevant and giving people a bum steer is what it takes to be popular, we are not going to do it.


We are about building a stable platform to serve the interests of our people in the short term but in the long term as well, which necessitates sufficiently cooperative relations between Europeans, not the vicious and gratuitous antagonisms of Hitler/Nazi advocates.


Now, coming back to what was meant to be the point of this post and thread, Ransdell has done another interview. Beyond quibbling that would not take into account his age, and other forgivable lack of information, I still have not heard something overtly objectionable in what he has to say:


http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/aristocracy-blood-robert-ransdell/


Until, Dana brought him back to Nazism by the end of the interview. I do wish that Hitler worshiping heroin addict would shut-up. I do suspect his being genetically one quarter Syrian makes him overly sympathetic to Hitler and recklessly under sympathetic to European cooperation. Unfortunately, Ransdell does seem to agree that “bringing back Nazism would be good”, and he does confirm the hypothesis of Pierce’s limited view providing the misguidance.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 12:21 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

voznich wrote:

Good comment from Lister.

But is there nothing of value to be had from considerations of fascism and Nazism? I am not an expert in these ideologies, so I can’t really interrogate them at the appropriate level. I tend to think Nazism is irredeemably morally compromised in the public “white mind”, and that trying to resuscitate it is a fool’s errand.

But can we not reject the unpopular superficial forms - symbols and insignia, the fuhrerprinzip, the perhaps (but perhaps not - depends on the audience) unappealing will-to-power goosestepping antics, the ‘spoiling for a fight’ attitude - and yet still see value in the racially essential elements? These might include:

1. history as the struggle between races

2. in light of #1, the need to subordinate maximal individual autonomy in order to function most effectively as a collective unit

3. Jews as a unique tribe, whose presence in white societies has inevitably malign effects

4. white racial superiority as both an empirical fact, and a motivational and justificatory public myth

5. the need for white martiality to win the racial struggle.

I don’t find any of these propositions (not meant to be exclusive, just what I think of in terms of German National Socialism) obviously incorrect. Moreover, neo-Nazi thinkers argue that we cannot reform The System, which now exists, either whole or in part, to dispossess whites of their civilization, and that accordingly we must shock whites out of their racially hallucinatory slumbers. The most effective means of doing so, it is alleged, is the “fist in the face” of an open, “loud and proud” Nazism.

I’m not sure I agree with any of this (beyond white superiority, which seems obvious), but it is hardly immediately clear that such questions or tactics are unworthy of consideration. I think the Nazi approach ought to be debated, even if we finally reject it in favor of contemporarily more palatable strategies.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 09:48 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Graham_Lister wrote:

think not *thin* - typo on my part.

But the F people deeply anger me - if not for their moral turpitude (the deaths of 55 million odd bona fide Europeans simply ignored) but far more for their utter political stupidity.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 09:07 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Graham_Lister wrote:

Far be it from me to interfere with Daniel’s modus operandi but if one doesn’t want MR bogged down in the political cul de sac of discussing non-issues concerning certain historical regimes then perhaps one shouldn’t constantly invite comments on such matters by having an endless commentary on the regimes concerned or key personalities involved?

Now I know Daniel’s response will be along the lines of ‘it’s important to educate such folks blah blah blah’

Well no it fucking well isn’t – why?

One such individuals constitute a tiny group of people that are ideologically, culturally and politically irrelevant; and secondly it’s a fool’s errand. Such 4th rate lowlifes are of the psychological type that actively enjoy being part of a sociological ‘sub-culture’ – their antinomianism is part and parcel of who there are. They pro-actively wish to be marginalised and play the ‘beautiful soul’ come martyr role for evermore. Anyone that thinks putting on a costume – metaphorically or literally - is ‘doing politics’ is the meta-political equivalent of a retard.

Finally, for these people their ideological proclivities are an idée fixe – it’s a political theology – a very cheap and unpleasant one to be sure but effectively their views are as dogmatic and immune for evidence as the worse red-neck fundamentalist Voodoo believer.  In both cases (religious Voodoo proper or its political equivalents) the foundational premises are never to be questioned – that manoeuvre is verboten.

So we are dealing in intellectual dishonesty wrapped up in dubious emotional/psychological processes aided by the intellectual vices of embracing unfalsifiability and a non-fallibilist epistemology. They simple thin they fundamentally cannot be wrong. It’s called dogmatism.

In short one cannot argue an intellectually dishonest, logic-chopping idiot out of being an idiot. For one their whole psychology/ideology is set-up to never allow the falsification of their object of worship by a never ending series of half-truths, digressions, lies, obfuscations, ad hoc ‘get out’ clauses to always save the central premise or foundation of their world-view.

So guess what? Don’t fucking bother – engagement with such people is a total waste of time. Leave them to their little online echo-chambers were they can all enjoy a metaphorical circle jerk about how great they all are for shouting nigger in the street that day or whatever these pathetic sad-sacks get up to on weekends.

Arguing with an idiot only results in them bringing them down to your level - unless you’re willing to invest a lot of energy in comprehensively taking apart their position, step by step, and then humiliating them by ripping the piss out of them with severe mockery.

You know who also share the generic intellectual & ideological vices I outlined above – the conspiracy theory nut-jobs. We had one or two of those at MR too. And it took quite a bit of effort (at least in frustration of dealing with such stubborn types rather than intellectually) to point out why their methodology of thought was so spectacularly maladroit. As well as politically useless (or worst pro-actively harmful). Again it would be rich and quite disingenuous of Daniel to complain that MR was full of conspiracy nutters in the comment sections if he insisted on having front page items about conspiracy whackos as ever other item. Stop discussing non-issues with irrecusably buffoonish delusional nobodies is the long and short of it.

Liberalism too is a political theology with its adherent and true believers also displaying much of the same intellectual vices – but to be fair to the high priests of liberalism it is presented in a far more subtle and sophisticated form. People like Rawls, Nozick, Hayek et al., are objectively wrong about the world, about what really does constitutes social ontology etc., but they aren’t mouth-breathing cretins.

I hate to blow my trumpet but really as far as MR goes hasn’t my essay on ‘radioactively toxic’ forms of nationalism really summed up all that needs to be said on the topic at hand (costume politics & the muppets that enjoy it)?

http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_ghosts_of_the_past

The F people are so moribund intellectually, ideologically, philosophically, conceptually - in every way imaginable risible and asinine that they offer nothing worthwhile. They simple don’t have the intellectual resources or mental acuity, let alone the political come philosophical tool-kit to understand the origins, developmental trajectory, nor contours of the longue durée of liberal modernity never mind the likely nature (causes and possible consequences) of the unfolding multifaceted and very complex crisis of hyper-modernity, late modernity, post-modernity, neo-liberalism, globalisation, or whatever term one wishes to use for our present epoch. 

As William Gibson suggest the future is already here it is just very unevenly distributed – well equally the all the problems of liberal modernity are here right now it is just they too are very unequally distributed in time and space.  Some are very obvious and others incredibly subtle and insidious (the water we ALL swim in).  It’s not as if the F people are simply not on the same page, it’s that they can’t even see these problems.  The true map of the problématique isn’t on their agenda – its utterly invisible to them as their so-called ‘analysis’ is radically too shallow and superficial.  As in GW’s pithy suggestion some people are like Dostoevskian peasants – it’s not so much they lack knowledge but are so profoundly unimaginative and ignorant they doubt the possibility of knowledge tout court.

Historicity is ineludible – there are now no Gods and precious few heroes – and there is no return to the fantasy version of 7th century France, 18th Century America, 1930s Germany, 10000 years BC (or whatever - pick your own personal ‘golden age’) politically nor culturally possible. To think so is to be politically inept (at best) or simply very, very stupid.  Yes human beings both individually and collectively make history – the future is open to different possibilities – there is always an alternative (contra Whiggish liberalism and/or the ideology of technological determinism) otherwise politics itself would be defunct and politics will never be defunct within the human condition; but those alternatives are always constrained by any number of factors.

One of those factors is the historicity of human beings in the world.  We simply cannot unlearn things nor erase experiences from our individual nor collective memories.  A 90+ year old man pretending to be his teenage self is, at best, a pathetically deluded and very bad actor, at worst a complete and total madman to be locked up.  Nostalgic invoking of the rose-tinted past might offer some form of comfort blanket but it’s politically useless in and of itself.  History can inform what we must do but we cannot live in the past in some simple-minded way – life, including political life, is always lived in a forward looking manner.

To sum up MR should be by grown-ups for grown-ups (if that’s possible) not for inviting dull and repulsively pointless arguments with political children.

“Nationalism has no special relationship to political justice; but neither does it have a particular relationship to injustice.  The most obvious thing about it is, after all, that it exists…and there are no objective criteria of what is a nation – but its subjective power is compelling.  A nation, therefore, said Renan, is a great solidarity founded on a consciousness of sacrifice made in the past and on willingness to make further ones in the future”.

Bernard Crick from his ‘In Defence of Politics’.

Quite – so why give house room, for even a nano-second, to fuckwits that wish to fully embrace the most disastrous (and radioactively toxic) historical formation of nationalism ever known?

Good grief I feel dirty sharing a planet with the F troglodytes, let alone (even by proxy) being in the same ‘virtual space’.  Enough of this willful nonsense please Danny.  And if Danny boy doesn’t ‘get it’ then GW have a word please!

With Fascists we lose – every single time.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 08:59 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

TD wrote:

DanielS,  aka ‘‘National Socialist’‘.  After all these months, still trying hard to discredit Hitler and misrepresenting National Socialism, i.e. being the eternal prisoner of the jewish narrative.  Why all the repetitive effort to smear Hitler, if we are only a ‘‘narrow, demented portion’’ who are true NS and Hitler loyalists.

Looks like you now also have been caught redhanded being your own shill. That doesn’t look cool does it?

Look, so much for trying to ‘‘defend european/white people’‘.  Have you already come up with a better ideology to move the european/white masses?  Guide us please with your wisdom.

For the sake of honest assessment:

Alexa Rankings:

Daily Stormer/Anglin full on pro-Hitler website: Global Rank 28,980 US Rank 12,130
source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/http://www.dailystormer.com


Majority Rights anti-Hitler website: Global Rank 519,242,  US rank 446, 677
source http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/http://majorityrights.com

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 08:18 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Carolyn Yeager wrote:

Regarding Hitler, I would rather not talk about him much. There are far more interesting and important matters to attend in service of European peoples.

You never seem to come up with any that draw commenters to your site like Hitler does. You have not discovered what is more interesting.


However, many popular sites representing themselves as representing Whites, European peoples, are now typically populated with Hitler and Nazi advocates/apologists.

I wonder why?


That is surely not representing European/White people but only a narrow, demented portion.

Well, it is you that is demented and most people do agree on that.


It is doing the cause of defending our European people a terrible turn, therefore I must do what I can to correct its misrepresentations from time to time and where relevant, tedious though the topic is and the mode of argumentation that your cohorts deploy (very Jewish) is.

No one pays any attention to you so it doesn’t matter. Who are my “very Jewish” cohorts? Come on, man up and name them. They won’t be Jewish but you might be. How about a picture of you, my brave hero.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 05:51 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

I realize you’d like to chase me away from here, but it’s your man DanielS who keeps mentioning my name and is really hung up on me.

I’m not hung up on Hitler or you, Carolyn.

You bring me up on your shows and I need to address your distortions.


You devoted a whole episode to me in fact because you thought my inviting Tanstaafl for an interview, after he’d broke with you, to be evidence of my malevolence and conspiring with him. In fact, I had hoped he would not discuss you. In the back of my mind, I probably wanted to avoid wasting time such as this having to extricate myself from your gossip-mill.

Regarding Hitler, I would rather not talk about him much. There are far more interesting and important matters to attend in service of European peoples. However, many popular sites representing themselves as representing Whites, European peoples, are now typically populated with Hitler and Nazi advocates/apologists. That is surely not representing European/White people but only a narrow, demented portion. It is doing the cause of defending our European people a terrible turn, therefore I must do what I can to correct its misrepresentations from time to time and where relevant, tedious though the topic is and the mode of argumentation that your cohorts deploy (very Jewish) is.


Carolyn says:

“Wow, you are really nuts. You just proved me right on every point I made and then you claim you did it all on purpose and everybody could see that. Not so, and I’m sure everybody can see that.”

Carolyn, I was not making a particular effort to conceal my identity and everyone could see THAT, including you.

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 04:01 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Carolyn Yeager wrote:

To Daniel (comment #13)

Wow, you are really nuts. You just proved me right on every point I made and then you claim you did it all on purpose and everybody could see that. Not so, and I’m sure everybody can see that.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 03:50 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Carolyn Yeager wrote:

To Guessedworker:

My IQ has been measured professionally and competently at 128. I have always been an abstract thinker. However, here we are dealing with a very practical question and you try to move it into a philosophical realm so you can spin your jargon and try to impress. You fail.

Si don’t pull your male and British chauvinism on me - it doesn’t work. You have a serious liability in your “heir” DanielS which you need to address. He seems to be here solely because of your hatred of Adolf Hitler. Just how abstract is that?

You really disappoint me by this response to me. It is clear that you cannot defend your assertion that Hitler took his N-S from Italian fascism, so you resort to sneering. Maybe you should read a bit about German history.

I realize you’d like to chase me away from here, but it’s your man DanielS who keeps mentioning my name and is really hung up on me.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 03:20 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Carolyn,

You do not deal in the abstract, do you?  You don’t comprehend the world as ideas but as imperatives.  That has its place, for sure.  For example, in Italian Fascism’s famous statement, “The Doctrine of Fascism”, the first section, dealing with theory, was ghosted by Gentile.  The second section, dealing with practise, was written by Mussolini.  So we see the familiar division between the intellectual and the political activist.  This is fine in itself.  But it is not the business of practical people, whose IQ does not attain the level (IQ 124) required for abstract thinking, to meddle in matters that they will not, by their constitution, understand.  What occurs most commonly with them is obeisance to the emotions, which is no basis for the search for truth, is it?

Just so here.  You are defending what you perceive to be your own blood (which I understand and support).  But you presume yourself to have something meaningful to say about the history of ideas.  Well, what intellectualism informed the German Workers Party?  Not much or none?  You cannot sustain a claim that the Volkisch movement lent that entity (and the even more deeply unromantic NSDAP which succeeded it) the elements of racial supremacism, messianism, and millenarianism.  Likewise there is no possibility whatever that (respectively) Rosenberg, Keyserling, and Hitler himself thought these three wheezes up all by their lonesome.  The true authors were the Pharisees and all three must have known it.  One would have to be a complete intellectual incompetent not to do so, and certainly Rosenberg and Keyserling were not that.

I am saying that these three foul and unnatural ideas have nothing whatever to do with our race.  They never did.  Their incorporation within National Socialism opened the way to the vast errors made by Hitler and his cohort, bringing the destruction of millions of European lives and the Jewish angel of death to our door today.  Defend that if you must.  But the historical record will not change just to accommodate you.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 02:58 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Posted by Carolyn Yeager on October 18, 2014, 12:46 PM | #

Carolyn Yeager wrote to “National Socalist”:

I’m quite sure you are DanielS, Mr. Typo ... not talented enough to hide your style and your liablities. LOL.

At which “National Socalist” was corrected to “National Socialist” and a reply came to me from “National Socialist.”


Yes, I corrected the typo, so what?


“My assessment of this exchange is as follows:

1.  The commenter could not have corrected his own name on a comment already sent.”

I can correct typos on a comment already sent (and I do).


“2.  It’s most unusual for someone to misspell their own name!”

Who has the name “national socialist”?


“3.  Someone who is really a National Socialist is unlikely to misspell it, especially since to write a comment you must type your name into a special window, thus it stands out to you.”

I don’t claim to be a “national socialist” in the way that its generally understood, certainly not as understood by you.

I adopted the moniker provisionally in order to act-into a role and demonstrate that Nationalism and socialism are terms that can go together in ways that may differ significantly from Hitler’s version, while seeing Jews as other, outsider people at the same time.

“4.  If National Socalism wrote his name that way, why should the owner of the site change it (correct it) when I pointed it out.”

Because I like to correct my typos, thank you very much.


“Why does the owner of the site have a vested interest in what another commenter calls himself. In fact, I don’t think the site owner even has the capability of doing that.”

I have a vested interest in what I call myself for the purpose of making this point. Neither you nor Hitler have a patent on the tandem of words “national socialism” and what they mean.

“5.  Daniel is reduced to using sock puppets on his own website!! Wow, that’s a revelation.”

I use other names in two events - a special instance like this, where I am trying to make a point by acting a role, or when its a generic post/comment, not having to do with any particularly personal information but rather a more general news item.

“All the above shows that DanielS is not above all forms of dishonesty in his effort to try to “look good” and win people over to his personal views.””

As you and anyone else could see straight away that it was me who was the actor “national socialist” it is not really accurate to call it “dishonesty.”

It is like saying Robert Deniro was being dishonest when he played the young godfather.

“But when he’s dealing with a German like me, he’s out of his class, gets overly emotional and makes stupid mistakes. Better luck next time, Daniel.”

Nice try dear, there are certainly people who can easily outclass me, but you aren’t one of them. It’s been proved on this very thread.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 01:19 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Carolyn Yeager wrote:

To Guessedworker:

You are totally ignorant of that which you speak. You are the one who is getting your information and beliefs second-hand. There are those people who are circulating this idea who you apparently have listened to.

Adolf Hitler joined the German Worker’s Party (which he shortly turned into the NSDAP) in 1919. The Italian Nationalist Party was not formed until 1921. Hitler was not even aware of what was going on in Italy until later than that.

Eventually, it was Mussolini who was copying Hitler; Hitler never copied Italy because he was developing something that was peculiar to the German personality, with plenty of nationalist history in Germany to go by. Hitler met Dietrich Eckert in 1919 and much of the NSDAP ideology was worked out between these two men.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 01:09 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Carolyn Yeager wrote:

Carolyn Yeager wrote to “National Socalist”:

I’m quite sure you are DanielS, Mr. Typo ... not talented enough to hide your style and your liablities. LOL.

At which “National Socalist” was corrected to “National Socialist” and a reply came to me from “National Socialist.” My assessment of this exchange is as follows:

1.  The commenter could not have corrected his own name on a comment already sent.
2.  It’s most unusual for someone to misspell their own name!
3.  Someone who is really a National Socialist is unlikely to misspell it, especially since to write a comment you must type your name into a special window, thus it stands out to you.
4.  If National Socalism wrote his name that way, why should the owner of the site change it (correct it) when I pointed it out. Why does the owner of the site have a vested interest in what another commenter calls himself. In fact, I don’t think the site owner even has the capability of doing that.
5.  Daniel is reduced to using sock puppets on his own website!! Wow, that’s a revelation.

All the above shows that DanielS is not above all forms of dishonesty in his effort to try to “look good” and win people over to his personal views. But when he’s dealing with a German like me, he’s out of his class, gets overly emotional and makes stupid mistakes. Better luck next time, Daniel.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 12:46 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Daniel,

I am only noting the fact that NS’s ideological furniture was all second-hand.  The palingenetic idealism, the totalitarian statism and the corporatism were taken from Italian Fascism.  That is the base.  But on to that was grafted a racialised Nietzschean morality; and then from Judiasm it borrowed racial supremacism, a millenarian view of the Reich, and the fuhrer principle (Mussolini was never messianic as Hitler was).  Perhaps the term “borrowed” is too strong, but the similarities are too striking to be entirely coincidental.  The final element was state terrorism, which was probably an inevitable consequence of all the rest, very slightly excused by the violent age into which NS was born.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 12:14 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

mirror image wrote:

As we go on, resonating more and more true is the theory that GW advances, viz. Nazism as a kind of inauthentic reaction, a mirror-image of Jewish Talmudic supremicism and enmity.

Note how similar the Hitler advocates are to how Eustace Mullins characterizes Jews in “The Biological Jew” in this point:

Herbert Spencer may have been focusing upon the Jewish parasitic phenomenon when he wrote,

“If a group places a premium on the quality of enmity, in contrast with that of amity, a criminal type evolves.”

It is uncanny how these people (Nazi/Hilter) advocates rebuff and devalue amity among Europeans.


Well done GW! That is a significant diagnosis of Nazism.

 

 

And, Franklin Ryckaert: Very good comments, thank you.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 10:00 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

eyeofthestorm wrote:

Not a site for advertising diversionary conspiracy theory

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 07:43 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

National Socialist wrote:

Obviously wasn’t trying to hide, not my style, nor my “liability” to disagree with Hitler - of which you are incapable.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 08:46 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Carolyn Yeager wrote:

I’m quite sure you are DanielS, Mr. Typo ... not talented enough to hide your style and your liablities. LOL.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 07:11 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

NationalSocialist wrote:

Posted by Carolyn Yeager on October 17, 2014, 04:37 PM | #

I think Ransdell would approve of Hitler’s permutation, and has all along. Ask him.

Maybe.

And even if so, maybe he would evolve to a better permutation with more info.

If he would stick to Hitler’s permutation in fact, he would not really be a national socialist.

But indications are that he is more friendly to other Whites than you are. I’ve also heard him say that he doesn’t see the need to belabor the holocaust (my sentiments exactly).

I have a hunch that Europeans fighting one another is not his ideal and that excuses to create inter- European fighting are not what he seeks to promote.

“By the way, you can’t even spell your name correctly. What kind of NationalSocalist(sic) are you? Not any kind, I’d bet.”

It was a typo.

Nationalism and some degree of socialism, more or less, are only logical conclusions for anyone who cares about a group of people.

It is disingenuous to insist that the idea is inextricably linked to Hitler. 

Or to associate the concept with Hitler’s imperialism, supremacism, murderous betrayal of the workers party in the night of the long knives and deals with the industrialists leading to militarism, war mongering, etc….stabbing the Slavics and their anti-Soviet nationals in the back in order to grab their land and try to lord over them.

Or to try to leave hair-brained ideas such as libertarianism, etc., as the only alternative to Hitler.

There are plenty of (better) alternatives to Hitler.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 05:41 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Carolyn Yeager wrote:

I think Ransdell would approve of Hitler’s permutation, and has all along. Ask him.

By the way, you can’t even spell your name correctly. What kind of NationalSocalist(sic) are you? Not any kind, I’d bet.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 04:37 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

NationalSocialist wrote:

National Socialism is not necessarily the same thing as Hitler’s permutation.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 12:39 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Carolyn Yeager wrote:

Ransdell considers himself a National Socialist (though not of course mentioning it in this campaign), so there’s something you could not like about him.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 12:21 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Franklin Ryckaert wrote:

Directly and bluntly attacking Jewish power in America is a good strategy, but not the way Ransdell is doing it. First of all, his slogan “With Jews We Lose” is too vague and general, and secondly his antics will have no lasting effect beyond the time of his “election campaign”.

A better strategy would be to hold regular conferences about “Jewish Privilege”. In that way all Jewish power in America can be attacked, its ubiquity, its nepotism and its destructiveness.

An additional advantage is that fighting a form of “privilege” is entirely in accordance with the current spirit of the time which always sees victim groups exploited by elites.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/17/14, 04:59 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

voznich wrote:

You have to wonder if certain globalist interests might have played a part in such a sweeping defeat.

Such interests always play a part. But unless we think that there is elite-instigated voter fraud, as there was in the old USSR and any number of Third World dictatorships, what could such globalist interests actually do that could be considered sinister? If not stuffing ballot boxes (or manipulating voter software), what’s the problem? That they poured a bunch of money into anti-populist advertising? And who’s really to blame, the elitists or the white sheeple morons led around by them?

This comment appeared in entry 'A Labour of ... well, not hate exactly, but certainly scorn' on 10/17/14, 03:58 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Page 1 of 3471 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›