Comments posted

Page 1 of 3472 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

Al Ross wrote:

Soren, we all must adjust to changing demographics, even in the hallowed field of your beloved literature.

For example, a rewrite of Harper Lee’s classic, guilt - ridden tearjerker has been optioned by Random House, with an Hispanic lawyer doing duty as the Gregory Peck character:  -  so, do watch out for “Tequila Mockingbird.”

This comment appeared in entry 'Thank You, Ebola-chan!' on 10/24/14, 05:55 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Greg Johnson on Vico

http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/Johnson on Vico.mp3

This comment appeared in entry 'Comments On Vico by Enza Ferreri, Greg Johnson, et al.?' on 10/24/14, 05:47 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Al Ross wrote:

The New Zealand Prime Minister, John Keys is a Jew.

This comment appeared in entry 'A Labour of ... well, not hate exactly, but certainly scorn' on 10/24/14, 05:41 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Lurker wrote:

Jimmy!

I was hoping you might show up on this thread:

http://aattp.org/oregon-white-supremecist-who-handed-out-anti-diversity-flyers-faces-huge-backlash-from-community-video/

I think we’ve done pretty well there but if you made a special guest appearance, your adoring liberal fans at the AATTP would be most appreciative. :-D

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/24/14, 12:15 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

I strongly suspect Graham is right to move what he calls “the F people” out of the conversation. But the following node allows for a summing-up and for them to be put-aside for a time.


You can include the F politics of Renegade, American Nationalist Network, needless to say Carolyn, as covered by this example, but the discussed example focused from Storm-Fronters to Daily Stormer (the two most popular WN-Fuher mongers now).


Some interesting indirect feedback has come of this and recent threads at MR.


Don Advo has said that WN’s should not criticize the F worshiping Daily Stormer “for using a more direct approach” ..in other words he believes that they are saying the same European-friendly thing as any good WN, only louder.


Don Black “totally agreed” with Don Advo that we shouldn’t criticize the DS. Fromm agreed too, citing the “New Orleans Protocol” - this thing David Duke made up which I guess is supposed to say that you should treat Hitler like your buddy.

Well, a used car salesman can fool some of the people some of the time but can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

And here’s an example of what the DS is putting out that’ll fool some of the people, http://www.dailystormer.com/polish-pimps-tattooed-their-own-names-in-huge-letters-on-their-hoes/- appearing on a discussion thread (where Anglin uses “Ebonic language to ‘speak for the Poles”) was

ELSE LÖSER’s protracted smear of Poles and Poland. Naturally Carolyn Yeager picked-it-up and ran with it, “oh, I was looking for this.”..  “This” http://www.danzigfreestate.org/loeser.html is a hit piece which I first saw at Renegade and when people there like blutenboden, Markus et al., tried to uphold it as truth, I realized that I could not agree and get along with them.

Coming back to the aptly named MS Loser, Carolyn is now busily discussing her “truthfulness” http://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-hitler-and-slavs-2  with Markus, along with some supposedly Polish guy who dutifully swears to its truth, Hadding (naturally) and (don’t laugh) Thorn - ha ha ha! Carolyn trusts Thorn’s word!

As she does Else’s

Hers is one of a few protracted diatribes against Poland (Czech etc.) that Nazis circulate. When I locate the other, I’ll include it here, but the other one cites absurdly exaggerated statistics of alleged atrocities against German civilians and other excuses for war. Sad, alarming, but some believe this stuff, and worse, believe it is relevant and somehow characteristic now. As they do Ms. Loser’s diatribe.

Because its so long, I’ll keep my response terse; hopefully more won’t be necessary. Just a sample shows the speed of their “objectivity and concern for truth.”


It takes a perspective as Carolyn does, that “Polish people do this, they all do”

http://www.danzigfreestate.org/loeser.html

The first thing to note about Else Loser is that she grew up in that one most hot area of contention between Polish and German nationhood as I had mentioned: Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) and Thorn (Torun).

This was the spearhead of both Polish and German collective historical grievance against the other. The people in these areas were most threatened and subject to folk propaganda, inherited grudges, resentments embellished lest they be forgotten - the place where it was necessary to maintain the most anti-other narrative.

And she grew up and wrote in post-war Poland under communist control.

She begins her diatribe by fore-fronting her strongest argument, they got ‘em now!

- Kopernikus was German.

One of the first discussions that I ever had with Carolyn was to tell her to take the crypt of this man to Germany and keep him.  He is not Polish, fine. I don’t care, don’t need him, wasn’t meditating on it in my life. Poles do not need him.

But in thinking about why some would have (wrongly) claimed his Polishness historically, note again where Kopernikus was born - that same area of hot contention. He was born in Thorn (the adjacent town to Bromberg/Bydgoszcz). Not only was he born in Thorn/Torun, but politically, Kopernikus took the side of Poland and Polish nationhood against the brutality of The Teutonic Knights (another regime admired by the F god. The Teutonic Knights in fact took Gdansk from the Poles after the Poles held it for a time; the Teutonic Knights conducting themselves treacherously, brutally, gruesomely in the take-over there as they had elsewhere). Kopernikus recognized this, took the side of the Poles and he was associated with the spear point of Torun. Thus, it may have seemed politically expedient to shore up Polish nationhood at that spear point against it; and with that, enfranchise a prominent figure taking their (Polish side).

Knowing Poles, Poland, I can confidently say that Loser’s is a colossal smear that only people who really want to believe it, like Carolyn and Markus, would fall-for. But what can you expect from people who admire a regime that burned Polish libraries?

They characterize Poland as this, that, and the other way unable and unworthy of nationhood - how convenient and how interesting that this was written in 1982, when Lech Walesa was being jailed for protesting in an effort to achieve Polish sovereignty from the Soviet Union.

But Ms. Loser says, see? Poland can’t run a nation. It was 1982, the Soviet Union is in control, Poland is leading the way among nations under its control to bring it down, but she and Carolyn say never mind.

And now, after 20 years of nationhood, Poland having the largest growth in GNP in the world from 1994 - 2004, her kind are still wanting to remove Polish nationhood.

Like Ms. Loser, Carolyn is sure its always been true that Poland doesn’t deserve a nation…as Hitler was sure after just 20 years in 1939..

As Friedrich the “Great” was sure just after a newly reborn Poland established the world’s second Constitutional Republic after the US. Never mind, F the G needed to remove Poland’s nationhood.

And so Poland had their language not their nation. Ms Loser and fellows will make a big deal then about Poland valuing its language and historical narratives as a means to keep its people and nation together despite its political absence; as a means to preserve collective memory and aim to restore their geographical nation.

..in fact, they will try to say that Poland was never a nation…the Polans were never there, the Pomeranians, the Silesians, the Mazurians the Vistulans…all a product of that “Polish imagination.”

It is a very nasty strategy that the Nazis deploy to try to erase the history of peoples. I can’t imagine doing that. But..

...that is the Nazi propaganda put forth by Ms. Loser, consumed wholesale by Carolyn, Markus and the other Nazi freaks.

New Orleans Protocol, Dave? We shouldn’t disparage the DS and others speaking the same way, only louder, Don Advo?

Don’t get me wrong Don Advo, you do many things very well, that is why I address you. Because I expect better.

This comment appeared in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/23/14, 11:12 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

REIKS TERVINGIVISOGOTH wrote:

Indeed Traficante’s toupe was unbecoming, but no need to be shrill.

....here’s Jez Turner interviewed on Voice of Albion

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/voice-albion-jez-turner-10-22-14/

This comment appeared in entry 'Mexicans versus Blacks.' on 10/23/14, 01:22 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Tom, You are shit.

My father fought against the Japs in Saipan and though a conservative, realized how evil the Viet Nam draft was, what a stupid and evil war that Viet Nam was.

It is you who is falling for the Jewish media’s spin and false attributions as to the hippie motives.

Ridiculous huh? You should be drafted into a war like that to designate your value.

I wouldn’t expect you to be able to read, so never mind.

Agree.

As a VN vet, I can attest to most of what you say. The effects of the VN-era conscription – that is, having been forced into slave-soldiering in a non-White country’s civil war orchestrated by bankers and corporations, having absolutely nothing to do with the actual defense of a White homeland, and calculatingly prosecuted by LBJ and his Ivy League YKW intelligentsia with absolutely no intent of military victory – reverberate to this day among the White guys who were in our late teens and early twenties during the 60’s, more than 50 thousand of whom died in combat, many of whom were captured and tortured, and hundreds of thousands of whom returned maimed, grossly disfigured, and/or dysfunctional only to be vilified, upon their return, by many elements of the society which sent them.

When I returned from overseas, my drop-out from family and society into the flower-child milieu had little to do with civil rights or free love. BTW I do not begrudge those who emigrated to Canada to avoid the draft. And, for those interested, the works of author Tim O’Brien, who “served” an extended “tour of duty” as an infantryman in SVN, are richly descriptive, compelling, and well written IMO.

Commenters on this site (Alt Right) in other threads who incessantly demand the boomers to go fuck or shoot themselves, while they themselves consider employment with the Navy, CIA, SS, or some other corrupt, terrorist, anti-White ZOG organ of the NWO agenda – as though such employment would be nothing more than a convenient way to escape a tough job market – do, I confess, grate. Why on earth would they willingly collaborate with evil, when alternatives, difficult though they be, are available?

My 2-bit rant.

Thank You Lonejack

This comment appeared in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/22/14, 09:50 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Jimmy Marr wrote:

Have you driven a kike crazy today?

If not, vote up Robert Ransdell in this online poll:

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/auburn-ky/TNLCJ0NESM3LPOUEN/

Thanks in advance:

http://s30.postimg.org/b1fnewmr5/JIDF_TROLL_SOILS_KOSHER_DIAPER.gif

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 09:00 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Tom wrote:

Hippies were shit. They were a jewish media fabrication which paved the way for multiculturalism in America and by extension the world. My grandfather, who fought against the Japs on Iwojima resented them and called them what they are: Dirty degenerates, idiots, and tools. The ridiculous hippy movement would have been utterly impotent and unimaginable without jew control of TV.

This comment appeared in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/22/14, 08:22 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

VanSpyke wrote:

Troll elsewhere VanSpyke

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 12:17 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

David Dupe wrote:

David Duke is constantly defending blacks as if any serious person is recommending tactless behavior with regard to them - but it is he who is tactless, as he persists in soft peddling them to the unsuspecting as if any characterization of their pejorative patterns, their destructive effects on Whites could only be a Jewish divide and conquer strategy.

Ironically, Duke never says anything about the Nazi advocates smears of other European peoples.

He purports to be concerned for divide and conquer while at the same time he wants to say that you shouldn’t call a spade a spade (but rather stand for the Jewish misrepresentation of them as benign) because he wrongly assumes that recognition of a spade as a spade is an endorsement of counter productive violent acts.

We don’t want to be divided from blacks, we want to be together with them - just as the Jews would have it: thanks David Dupe.

This comment appeared in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/22/14, 11:37 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Fuher-Blower wrote:

Irrelevant for those desperate to make Hitler relevant but not irrelevant to those who do not want crazy ignoramuses appointing themselves “the leading people.”

FB, you are an idiot.

Be gone with your psy-op, enemy troll.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 08:43 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

FB wrote:

A good example of why MR is completely irrelevant now.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 08:34 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Unfortunately, I have to repeat myself with this guy, “voznich”, but I feel compelled to do so:

“Posted by voznich on October 21, 2014, 08:29 PM | #

But whites ARE superior, Daniel.”

In some ways, Voznich. In some important ways. But these ways in which we are better are also qualities, marking a difference which makes a difference worth protecting

To present it as superiority is tactless and frankly I do not trust your motives for wanting to encourage it. But what can be trusted of one who would cite Leon Haller and Jared Taylor?

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

There is a way to promote our qualities and the things that we do better that is not obnoxious - that is not going to be repulsive to our organizing as a group by making our own people shy-away from over competitiveness with one another and false comparison to other races.

I suspect the reason you want obnoxious talk here is because you want to disrupt our cooperative and organizational capacities as a people.

“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.”

Nonsense (but typical of him). As I have said, what might be called items of superiority can be promoted rather as qualities in need of protection. No need to be obnoxious.

“It’s not enough just to say we’re different and entitled to our own living spaces (though we are on both counts). You have to make the case,”

As I said, the case can be made without being obnoxious, creating a sense of anxiety, attendant rigidity and inappropriate competition.

“as Dr. William Pierce used to, that whites are the Master Race and the chief engine of human evolutionary progress,”

I never said that Pierce was the greatest philosopher. In fact, the drastic wrong turns of many WNs seem to be traceable to Pierce.

Whatever mastery we have should be in service of directing our own evolutionary path and way of life. We are not responsible for others if they can avoid infringing upon our people and common habitat.

“and that for that reason race mixture and the immigration which leads to it must be violently opposed.”

It doesn’t have to be opposed violently if they will accept separation from our peoples and habitats.

“Too bad Lister didn’t address my comment. Perhaps he has nothing to add. One suspects that his understanding of NS ideology is even less developed than my own.”

I suspect there is plenty he could add but does not want to repeat himself.

But I will again: Nationalism and Socialism are words not owned by Hitler and the Nazis. They do not necessarily get to say how the words count. That is important to note because these can be two important ingredients to organizing racial accountability and ecology in a reasonable, minimally conflictual way - just as leftism as unionization of a people and racism as classification and non-supremacist discrimination can be.

“Try to understand before criticizing,”

Thanks for your condescending advice.

“even though I agree that NS for tactical reasons is (probably) not the way to move forward.”

Not only for tactical reasons, if by what is meant by “NS” is the Nazi permutation; that’s not a matter of rejecting it for tactical reasons, but for deep epistemic errors.

“NS is not without value in the white struggle.”

Again, the terms nationalism and socialism need to be distinguished from the Nazi permutation but I don’t suspect your purpose here is to do anything but confound.

GW # 10 has that number. Nazism is all too Jewish.

This comment appeared in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 12:58 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

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)

Page 1 of 3472 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›