Comments posted

Page 1 of 3428 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

Morgoth wrote:

New Paul Weston vid ‘‘How is this not treason’‘

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRpyZKC-iaw

This comment appeared in entry 'A Journey to The Hague – Chapter Two' on 04/19/14, 06:41 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Desmond,

The piece from which you are quoting is discussing European individualism not in relation to European collectivism but Chinese collectivism, as explicated by two female researchers, one Chinese and the other called Blivinsky.  It is a critique of their thinking.

Accordingly I wrote:

We definitely cannot “do” blind collectivism like the East Asians, and I don’t accept that the polar opposite to East Asian collectivism is our innate individualism.

Plus this:

It certainly seems to me that more racial space and a greater degree of subtle thinking is required of anyone seeking to split this psychological log.

The two positive statements I made are:

We Europeans can cooperate on the basis of our natural values, but it takes a certain effort.  It is not our default position.

... and:

We Europeans cannot and do not seek to collectivise, and lose ourselves [ie, after the Asiatic fashion]

Probably, I have no right to say this.  But I tend to the opinion that MacDonald and, indeed, all evolutionary psychologists have something wrong in the way they perceive individualism/collectivism (ie, through evolutionary cost/benefit).  Theirs is a conflict model, a polarised field.  As a stubborn-minded, self-interested, ethnocentric man, that just doesn’t feel right to me.  The mind of Man, at the individual level, is an evolved mechanism for knowing enough about what is to make good choices in the struggle for survival, genetic transmission, and trait selection.  It follows that, as the repository of distinctive genes, the collective is the natural and near means by and through which the whole endeavour is accomplished.  Foundationally, there has to be a non-conflictual relationship which precludes trait-conflict in the Mind.  The trait of individualism, which really means the sense of a distinctive self, must be the means by which we perceive, identify, understand, and value the collective.  We find it through its distinctions which are in us.  And we take a great deal from it besides that.  Its coherence, its energy and destining, its common goods, its sheer nearness all communicate to us and shape us.

I just feel that we have something terribly wrong with a conflict model which, essentially, deals in distance and disinterest where there is nearness and dependency.  We are estranged enough by the environmental circumstances in which we live and struggle without that psychologists’ own-goal.

This comment appeared in entry 'A Journey to The Hague – Chapter Two' on 04/17/14, 05:58 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Interesting discussion between Andre Anglin and Sven Longshank

http://www.dailystormer.com/radio-stormer-the-glenn-miller-fiasco/

This comment appeared in entry 'A Journey to The Hague – Chapter Two' on 04/17/14, 02:25 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Desmond Jones wrote:

Guessedworker,

Individualism appears to be more than just an American obsession…

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Individualism-Collectivism.html

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

In addition your opinion appears to have changed…

‘We Europeans cannot and do not seek to collectivise, and lose ourselves therein.  That is an affront to our nature.’

European individualism, as a trait, appears to be ecologically and culturally founded, with evidence of a distinct genetic relationship. It appears in ancient Greece as well as the Germanic people. For European people there is very evidently a conflict between the self and collective self.

It still remains that popular sovereignty arises from the individual ‘voluntarily giving up some of their natural freedom (however defined) in return for protection from dangers derived from the freedom of others’ even their own people.

The truth as men of the European kind is that ‘Europeans cannot and do not seek to collectivise, and lose ourselves therein.  That is an affront to our nature.’

 

This comment appeared in entry 'A Journey to The Hague – Chapter Two' on 04/16/14, 05:45 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Edward Snowden story

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/16/303733011/edward-snowden-from-geeky-drop-out-to-nsa-leaker

This comment appeared in entry 'Weev Speaks: Hypocrites and Pharisees' on 04/16/14, 04:39 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

neil vodavzny wrote:

Should have said gay culture is not the issue, I’m espoucing creative outsiders or the big C

This comment appeared in entry 'The politics of culture - Part 2' on 04/16/14, 10:30 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Mick Lately wrote:

All those white men watching the Champions League, midweek, their arses parked on the couch, their dinners on their lap, we fight for our race so that they won’t have to.

This comment appeared in entry 'Competition's Ontological Adjustment:' on 04/16/14, 05:33 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Mick Lately wrote:

The Sundance crowd have been cheerleading new levels of Sapphic salaciousness as we are ushered towards the End of History: Blue is the Warmest Colour and Concussion being two examples that come to mind.

By their pretentious titles shall you know their unlikelier and unlikelier, prurienter and prurienter pussy-on-pussy permutations.

Tomorrow’s torpedoes may be sleeker still.

This comment appeared in entry 'The politics of culture - Part 2' on 04/16/14, 04:54 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Desmond,

First, you have not discussed the legal sovereign.  You have merely claimed that the Boweryesque sovereign is true in itself and singular to us all.

My thoughts on why individualism is such an obsession of the (apparently, North American and not just) American mind are here:

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

Of course, such individualism produces some grand statements, such as that latest business in Nevada:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603026/Senator-speaks-favor-Nevada-rancher-militias-join-battle-federal-agents-accused-acting-like-theyre-Tienanmen-Square-fight-disputed-ranch-land.html

… but it has little to nothing to do with peoplehood in old Europe.

For me, there are two fundamental errors in your last comment.

1. The interests of the self and the interests of the collective self are not conflicted.  Perhaps you think the social energy here flows from the individual out to the group, ie, the individual identifies, authorizes, and exercises the latter.  It doesn’t.  It flows in the other psychological direction.

2. “Liberty” is a conceptual error. Freedom’s true expression is found in being not choosing.  To be precise, it is found in the detachment from what is not, which is also movement towards what is.

In essence, you are talking about liberalism and, possibly, Christianity.  You are not talking about our truth as men of the European kind.  The question I raised in that piece on individualism and America is whether you guys can ever do so.

This comment appeared in entry 'A Journey to The Hague – Chapter Two' on 04/16/14, 02:00 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Tanstaafl has announced that he is moving on from the White Network.

http://thewhitenetwork.com/2014/04/15/the-end/

I had always found it regrettable that he was there, as I found kindredness in his work, but not in his fellow travelers there.

I would like to invite Tan to MR, a site committed to the White Nationalisms and the 14 Words.

This comment appeared in entry 'White Post Modernity' on 04/15/14, 08:51 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/04/tell-mama-oy-vey.html#more


by Max Musson

While Muslim groups are widely regarded as antagonistic towards both Jews and homosexuals within our society, it is interesting to learn that there are in fact covert moves being made by organized Jewry to co-operate with and direct the activities of certain Muslim and homosexual groups in their efforts to publicise and make political capital out of alleged ‘hate crimes’ and discrimination ostensibly committed by the heterosexual White majority.

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/15/14, 01:27 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

....................
Hello !

[18:41:55]: How are you ?

[18:42:16]have you heard of the events in Ukraine ?

[19:25:07] daniel: hi lara, no, haven’t heard..what’s up? is Russia taking the eastern provinces?

[19:27:03]: no

[19:27:14]daniel: what’s happening?

[19:27:25]: Soldiers were sent there

[19:27:32]: from Kiev

[19:27:45]: there were some victims

[19:30:00] daniel: soldiers were sent to the east?

[19:30:59]: yes

[19:31:05]: from Kiev

[19:31:09]: tanks

[19:31:13] daniel: wow

[19:31:17] daniel: ..but..

[19:31:20] : it`s true

[19:31:28] daniel: what is Putin to do?

[19:31:34] : nothing

[19:31:42] : What can he do ?

[19:32:18 daniel: America’s Jews (Victoria Nuland) have said they’ve spent Billions to try to instigate Ukrinian nationalist unrest against Russia

[19:33:27]  :(

[19:34:12] : There are some soldiers who do not speak Ukrainian

[19:34:32] : they were paid

[19:35:47] daniel: well, I believe its important for Russians and Ukrainians both to keep in mind that it is Jewish interests that derive benefit from fomenting this kind of violence…

[19:35:54] daniel: and as usual, they play both sides.

[19:36:17] daniel: but it is European people who die and who lose.

[19:36:40] : :(

[19:36:54] daniel: Jews :(

[19:36:58] : yes

[19:37:21 | daniel: Khodorkovsky was interviewed by CNN..

[19:37:32]: ???????????

[19:37:36] daniel: they refered to him as a dissident

[19:38:40] daniel: “dissident”

[19:38:45] : as if he is.. alexander solzhenitsyn

[19:39:24] : situation is so dangerous there

[19:39:43] а: it can be the beginning of the war in Ukraine

[19:39:57] : but the ukrainian nationlalists are being used..

[19:40:10] : no good can come of fighting.

[19:40:45] daniel: the only thing to do is to let Russia break off the eastern provinces along with Crimea

[19:41:08] daniel: and give the rest of Ukraine more sovereignty…which means NOT entry into the EU

[19:42:20]: Russia cannot do it

[19:42:28] daniel: cannot do what?

[19:42:51]:  it`s Ukraine`s business

[19:42:57] daniel: right

[19:42:59] daniel: but

[19:43:56] daniel: the good Russian nationalists can support the good Ukrainian nationalists and the good other nationalist to ensure that Ukrainian nationalism is neither under the control of Russia or the EU.

[19:44:42 daniel: EU means mosques, Arabs, Africans, Jewish, corporate, international banker control.

[19:44:57] daniel ..turks..

[19:45:02] daniel: more gypsies..

[19:45:26] : yes

[19:45:35] daniel: more mongrelization with Jews..

[19:45:53 | daniel: as all the bastards of the Israeli’s White slave trade come back to Ukraine

[19:46:27] daniel: they have Jewish fathers, not mothers…

[19:46:34] : yes

[19:46:34] daniel: they are not welcome in Israel

[19:46:37] daniel: where do they go?

[19:46:46] : Ukraine

[19:46:48] daniel: yes

[19:47:01] daniel: and they are smart, good looking

[19:47:15] daniel: cunning and they hate European people.

[19:48:04] : I know it..

[19:48:15] daniel: I know you know

[19:48:32] daniel: just want to be confirming of what you know to let you know that I know as well..

[19:48:38] daniel: so that I can be supportive.

[19:49:16] daniel: its horrible Lara

[19:49:26] daniel: but there are a couple of encouraging things..

[19:49:44 | daniel: the world is becoming more aware of this..

[19:50:22] daniel: and…Jews are still a small population ..and the conservtative Jews who are having the most offspring are not as smart as the liberal ashkenazi, who are not having as many ..

[19:50:52] : We`ll see what will be in Ukraine

This comment appeared in entry 'Pravy Sektor, Ukraine's soldiers of the revolution' on 04/15/14, 01:18 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Leon Haller wrote:

Gudmund@12

This comment is confusing to me, combining as it does justifiable criticism of the essentially phony capitalism of the past half-century (all contemporary evils really either go back to or were dramatically accelerated in / exacerbated by the Sixties), with leftist-conspiracist propaganda about the so-called “global South” (a rhetorical staple of the the anti-Western globalist Left, btw).

Feel free to show, if you can, that these schemes are sustainable in the long term or are not calculated to enrich a few at the expense of the many.

The debt + inflation-driven nature of modern Western pseudo-capitalism is of course, from a real fee enterprise standpoint, totally unsustainable in the long term (which may not be very ‘long’ now). But I’d like to hear more about the precise mechanism by which it is alleged that the few are being enriched at the expense of the many. There may be truth there - esp wrt finance, which I mostly dislike and think is essentially parasitical as it operates today - but the whole purpose of contemporary Fed QE is to reduce US Fed Govt borrowing costs. Fed QE robs savers and creditors in order to benefit both the Govt (and all the parasites who in turn benefit from it) and Wall Street, which is artificially pumped up due to the hunt for yield by persons some of whom would otherwise - under market-set interest rates - prefer the safety of holding cash and earning a return on it.

My point is that it isn’t correct to say that this corrupt, profoundly anti-economic libertarian (let alone conservative) regime is “calculated to enrich the few”. Its point is to rob the productive in order to benefit the “robbers”. But the robbers in turn are “Robin Hoods” who redistribute a huge amount of the stolen loot (or, technically, extracted value) in order to buy the votes of economic parasites through various govt ‘programs’ and freebies.

If the regime only enriched the few, without the democratic/welfare vote buying, it wouldn’t last, at least not outside authoritarian countries.

I’ve lived in the ‘Global South’ and seen this happen with my own eyes.  Do you really think the IMF, WTO, UN, etc exist for the benefit of humanity?  This is a naivete I just can’t quite comprehend.  They’re organization for global governance that originated in the world centers of capitalism and are still HQed there to this day.

Quiz for you, how many multinationals (with GDPs the size of countries) are not Western?  Not many, and most of those are East Asian.  Large business conglomerates generate much of the world’s wealth and for the most part it is transferred into the coffers of the Big Three regions (Europe, North America, East Asia), or bought regimes in the third world.  Notice how much of the third world remains dirt poor despite ‘development’ for decades?  That’s not a coincidence, nor is it entirely because of racial difference in ability.  Regimes that don’t go along with the ‘global consensus’ are often removed from power.  Iraq was just such a story.  This is an old game of imperialism and it continues to this day.

These paragraphs are very confusing (or confused). The architecture of global governance (which as an Occidentalist, American nationalist, American Constitutionalist, and free-market capitalist, I totally oppose) is like that of modern nation states - it exists for different constituencies and to serve diverse functions. The WTO, the least indefensible of the transnational bodies (though I still oppose it and US membership in it), exists to facilitate global trade among its members, whether through promoting common legal standards, or providing a mechanism for dispute resolution. It isn’t intended as a charity operation. The UN is awful from an American rightist perspective, a dangerous entity which literally represents an existential threat to Western sovereignty and ultimate survival. But it certainly doesn’t have much of a record as an agent helping Western multinationals! The IMF may have an incestuous relationship with both international finance and various politically connected Western (esp American) exporters, but it has pumped billions (trillions?) of Western tax-monies into white racially harmful 3rd World ‘development’. The IMF is generally harmful to Western interests (at least of common-man taxpayers), but it has repeatedly attempted to inject economic rationality into the most ridiculous nonwhite regimes. The IMF certainly does exist to benefit nonwhite humanity at the expense of ordinary white citizens and taxpayers.

The Third World remains relatively poor (and even that statement needs heavy qualification: under the globalization of the past 40 years, several billion persons have been raised out of poverty; this is a fact of global economics; look at China, India, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico, even a huge swath of Africa, which now has a rapidly growing middle class, etc) because most of its peoples lack the ability to develop true ‘regimes of law’, and thus real rights of property and contract, the foundation of capitalism, which in turn is necessary to harness the latent, unused talents of backward peoples, this constituting the true method of ‘development’.

Western corporations have been an enormous boon to 3rd World countries. You’re barking up the wrong (leftwing) tree. The problem is that economic globalization has been a disaster for both Western working classes, and the longer term survival prospects of the West. I do not regard present day multinationals as allies in the racial struggle; if anything, their quest for ever cheaper labor, and willingness to destroy the white homelands in pursuit of it, render them a collective enemy. But they certainly can’t be accused of having harmed nonwhites. Such accusations are pure, untutored, socialist/multiculti propaganda.

The arguments against multinationals and globalization are political and racial (and for the white working class only, economic).

Gudmund@13

A short list:
Jason Manolopoulos - big finance insider
Zbigniew Brzezinski - THE US policy bigwig
David Calleo - Johns Hopkins academic
John Mearsheimer - U of Chicago and US policy man
Richard Heinberg - Peak Oil writer
David Rothkopf - Davos elite member, US policy man
Kishore Mahbubani - Singapore professor and diplomat
Joseph Wayne Smith - right-wing Australian writer/academic

I’m unfamiliar with a few of those names, but most are hardcore leftists (Calleo, Rothkopf, Mahbubani), or at least Left-Establismentarians (Brzezinski, Mearsheimer). I like Mearsheimer because he is anti-Ziocon, and I have (but have never read) his The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (this is from memory - book is back home in OC). But his essays from Foreign Affairs that I have read do not suggest a rightist.

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/15/14, 07:15 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Gudmund, I would encourage you to feel free to ignore Thorn. Information runs down hill into mainstream “conservatism” where he occurs.


http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/23077-the-global-banking-game-is-rigged-and-the-fdic-is-suing

 

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/15/14, 04:11 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Frazier Glenn Miller, comrade of VNN, but denounced in other WN circles as a snitch on “The Order”, provides more inexplicably hapless direction of WN venom:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603828/Three-dead-shootings-two-separate-Jewish-centers-Kansas-City.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/frazier-glenn-miller-radio_n_5149214.html?utm_hp_ref=media&ir=Media

This comment appeared in entry 'Joseph Paul Franklin: April 13, 1950 -' on 04/15/14, 01:54 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Desmond Jones wrote:

The individual may sacrifice for his children, because of the genetic link, but not necessarily for his people as the political record indicates kings are as likely to enslave as protect his own people. Thus popular sovereignty arises from the individual ‘voluntarily giving up some of their natural freedom in return for protection from dangers derived from the freedom of others’ even their own people. Association shows where liberty lies because some liberty, by definition, must be sacrificed for association.

Sovereignty is incremental, love is not.

 

This comment appeared in entry 'A Journey to The Hague – Chapter Two' on 04/15/14, 01:01 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

It is better to be a former carpet-muncher than a former mud-shark.

This comment appeared in entry 'The politics of culture - Part 2' on 04/14/14, 11:54 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Thorn wrote:

Dovetailing with what Gudmund said (h/t), we should toss the Petrodollar in the mix for good measure:

How The Petrodollar Trade Works For The U.S. Explained

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9ICWOYCNQ

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/14/14, 11:44 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

I for one, would like to register a positive response to this analysis, Gudmund. With just a little more elaboration, especially if you would extend the analysis to the deleterious effects that this internationalist ponzi scheme and pillage has on White/native European Nationalism as well, I believe it is worth a leading post.

It would also be useful to have identification of some of the leading culprits in the ponzi-scheme.

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/14/14, 11:38 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Gudmund wrote:

Postscript:

Might I add that what I am discussing here - the nature of international political economy - has attracted a wide range of interest, hardly limited to the ‘retard left’. 

A short list:
Jason Manolopoulos - big finance insider
Zbigniew Brzezinski - THE US policy bigwig
David Calleo - Johns Hopkins academic
John Mearsheimer - U of Chicago and US policy man
Richard Heinberg - Peak Oil writer
David Rothkopf - Davos elite member, US policy man
Kishore Mahbubani - Singapore professor and diplomat
Joseph Wayne Smith - right-wing Australian writer/academic
etc

In fact the only hardcore leftist I can think of who’s really talked about this is Samir Amin, who is an African Marxist, not a retard leftist from the West.

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/14/14, 11:28 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Gudmund wrote:

Describe these ponzi schemes and global pillage operations.  If you cannot, you should be very wary of using the retard left’s terminology.  If you do, you are playing into their hands.  The retard left doesn’t care about race.  Not a single one of the oddballs Graham Lister is so enthralled by gives a fig about positive white identity.

Well, if this is the sort of condescending reply I’m going to get for a good faith attempt at conversation, I don’t know that it’s really worth my time.

There is no shortage of examples if you go looking, and I’m not your research assistant.  But I guess I’ll bite; however, fair warning:  if you ignore, misrepresent or something like that, this is the last time I’ll respond.

US fiscal policy is just how I described, however.  Since the 1980s there has been a debt-fueled consumption boom that was never sustainable.  This is a fact, not a ‘leftist talking point’.  Many books have been written about this Silver.  Google US trade deficit, Reaganomics, etc if interested.  If the growth is fueled by debt that can never possibly be paid back and must keep growing to generate a return, that is a ponzi scheme by definition, and the fact that a government supports it does not somehow legitimize it.  If you disagree, tell me how it is the Uncle Sam will pay off multitrillions in debt when it can’t even pay it’s own bills without more debt?

We might also point out that the US economy has operated on the basis of inflation in other areas as well, namely the stock market.  The tech bubble, and the housing bubble, and the current quantitative easing policy are the same in overall outcome. 

And variations on this theme can be found worldwide, especially in the Big Three (see below) regions of high development.  Even China has operated on a variety of this model except that it is mainly not financed by foreign owned debt.

Feel free to show, if you can, that these schemes are sustainable in the long term or are not calculated to enrich a few at the expense of the many.  I have no doubt that this is 100% cloaked under high-handed rhetoric, fine, that’s what people do, they find ways to make their brigandage sound something more than what it is.

As for global pillage, I don’t really know what to say.  You must not have traveled much.  Being of old British colonial stock on my mother’s side, I’ve lived in the ‘Global South’ and seen this happen with my own eyes.  Do you really think the IMF, WTO, UN, etc exist for the benefit of humanity?  This is a naivete I just can’t quite comprehend.  They’re organization for global governance that originated in the world centers of capitalism and are still HQed there to this day. 

Quiz for you, how many multinationals (with GDPs the size of countries) are not Western?  Not many, and most of those are East Asian.  Large business conglomerates generate much of the world’s wealth and for the most part it is transferred into the coffers of the Big Three regions (Europe, North America, East Asia), or bought regimes in the third world.  Notice how much of the third world remains dirt poor despite ‘development’ for decades?  That’s not a coincidence, nor is it entirely because of racial difference in ability.  Regimes that don’t go along with the ‘global consensus’ are often removed from power.  Iraq was just such a story.  This is an old game of imperialism and it continues to this day.

You want specific instances, how about this upcoming Asia-Pacific trade deal?  It resurrects parts of the old MAI deal where LMCs can actually take internationally enforced legal action in countries where they are not getting what they deem sufficient profits.  Other recent examples:  AngloAmerican Platinum, the Freeport mines, or Chinese activities in Africa and the South Seas.

I’m happy to admit that part of the reason for this activity has to do with diminishing returns problems, i.e. it has gotten harder and harder to generate profits per unit invested for a number of reasons due to rising costs of energy inputs, among other reasons.  But it doesn’t change the deleterious nature of the activity.

As for the part about white identity, that’s something for another post.

There is enough material on this topic to fill many books and I’d be happy to write more on this when I have time, but that will hinge on whether or not it elicits good faith responses.  The ‘retard left’ may be wrong about much but the essentially predatory nature of modern capitalism is not one of them.  This actually illustrates a very good point that propositions stand on their merits not on their ideological sources.

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/14/14, 11:07 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

neil vodavzny wrote:

Here are the images..

http://lcart4.narod.ru/image/fantasy/patrick_woodroffe/mythopoeikon/06_Patrick_Woodroffe_Polka.jpg
http://lcart4.narod.ru/image/fantasy/patrick_woodroffe/mythopoeikon/34_Patrick_Woodroffe_DaisyandLily.jpg

This comment appeared in entry 'The politics of culture - Part 2' on 04/14/14, 09:56 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

You are welcome to hate Hitler, dani. It is well warranted. And the way so-called White Nationalists are looking upon him as a hero is beyond insane, it is utterly stupid.

Many prominent White Nationalists have been saying, even recently, that Hitler only had the modest wish to take back lands which were rightfully German, lands that had been “stolen” from them by Versailles.

First of all, of the land no longer under German jurisdiction after Versailles, there was sufficient claim that Germany itself had “stolen” most of this disputed land. More, that the relatively small amount of territory that they had been called upon to concede, in proportion to their still vast territory after WWI, would have been a reasonable concession for peace by reasonable national leaderships and post war terms at the time - as opposed to the reality of the economic terms; and as opposed to the reality of Hitler’s intentions, made abundantly clear now in his “Table Talk”, viz., that he was inspired by Friedrich The “Great’s” eastward imperialism, aims which extended to the Urals! Any Slavic person who didn’t like it and who was in the way, be damned.

So much for Hitler and Nazism representing White Nationalism. He was coming from a perspective of a German military man, a German chauvinist with an exponent. He was a massively violent, genocidal, German imperialist

Even so, we should caution against the “pure” evil attribution, as we might do better than to take Hitler out of context by making him “pure” anything. As such we lose sight of feedback loops by which we can create normal, good relations, as opposed to those that went into creating, through instigation, the vast over-compensations of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

With that, it is important to distinguish Hitler for what he was, a German imperialist, not a White nationalist, let alone a European communitarian - though he played footsie with these ideas, provided his breed, who automatically bark and attack at the sight of a Slavic, could be the dictators of their lot.

We need to defend nationalism and its subcultural divisions against imperialism, including the imperialism of international and globalist interests.

This comment appeared in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 04/14/14, 02:20 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Silver wrote:

Thorn,

Moreover, non-white countries—save Japan—are not experiencing a fertility rate less than replacement rate; nor are they being inundated with immigration from alien populations, thus they are in no danger of being “race-replaced.”

As a matter of fact, a large number of countries have fertility rates less than replacement, although some of them have only recently attained this level.  Some prominent examples are: Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, China, Vietnam, Iran.  The rest of the world is on course to do the same too, and I think it’s unlikely that this will change.

Other countries are not being inundated with immigrants at anywhere near the rate that white countries are, but immigration is nonetheless a fact in all of them.  It may be reasonable to think that at some point the governments of non-white countries may decide immigration is doing them no good and so cut off the flow altogether, despite its meager size, but that’s not the same thing as repatriation (or other racially preservative measures).  As long as immigration to these countries continues the process is not fundamentally different to what is occurring in white countries.  It’s still racial replacement; it’s just taking place at a much slower rate. 

Gudmund,

The current slide into chaos is a reflection of their inability to actually rule, and instead they go on running their giant ponzi schemes and global pillage operations.

Describe these ponzi schemes and global pillage operations.  If you cannot, you should be very wary of using the retard left’s terminology.  If you do, you are playing into their hands.  The retard left doesn’t care about race.  Not a single one of the oddballs Graham Lister is so enthralled by gives a fig about positive white identity.

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/14/14, 02:14 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

dani. wrote:

Hitler was pure evil. The holocaust did happen. I am not a Jew. My grandfather survived a war camp in Germany. My father was only a small boy when WW2 ended. Today my children, think this Hitler was some sort of hero, makes me feel ashamed. To say that the holocaust did not happen….is made up…is true bullshit. Young people today, do not understand how horrible World War 1 and World War 2…were. I pray to God, never again…..hating is not right. No matter how smart or intelligent this Hitler dude, was suppose to be, to me he is a monster. I am ashamed to be European….

This comment appeared in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 04/13/14, 08:49 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Well, that is self-evidently not right.  The individual will sacrifice anything up to and including his own life for the survival of his or her children, and his or her people - you know this.  So the individual is not the sovereign, whether or not he or she possesses the liberty of free association.  Further, free association is not that significant.  There is no liberty in love, and it is love which shows us where sovereignty lies.

This comment appeared in entry 'A Journey to The Hague – Chapter Two' on 04/13/14, 06:47 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Graham_Lister wrote:

@Gudmund

Good comment - all mass societies have multiple sources of potential fracture/cleavage often with devasting effects (Irish history anyone?). The ethno is but one. Not that shit from brains WNs can actually bare to acknowledge what anyone else with a functioning political IQ can see.

As you said:

“As the globalist/one-world corporatist is primarily interested in the power of the supranational oligarchies of mass wealth, the claims of the subject populace don’t warrant much more than passing notice.  And the statist of today is often too closely aligned with the former to actually implement some satisfactory policy to ameliorate the situation.  The current slide into chaos is a reflection of their inability to actually rule, and instead they go on running their giant ponzi schemes and global pillage operations.”

What the wonders of the global “free-market” not eniterly benign? Say it ain’t so Mister!

Whatever will out very own Hayekian globalist and lover of plutocracy - Mr. Hailer - have to say? He will be very upset.

@GW

Nice comment. Think if I have the time I might put together a few notes on Merleau-Ponty and ‘emergence’.

Your comments - I suggest - have some echo of Merleau-Ponty’s thoughts on the primacy of embodiment with the body per se (rather than one small part of it - our conscious reflection). The primacy of embodiment led him away from phenomenology towards what he was to call “indirect ontology” or the ontology of “the flesh of the world” (la chair du monde). Things are that upon which our body has a “grip” (prise), while the grip itself is a function of our co-naturality with the world’s things. The world and the sense of self are emergent phenomena in an ongoing “becoming”.

The essential partiality of our view of things, their being given only in a certain perspective and at a certain moment in time does not diminish their reality, but on the contrary establishes it, as there is no other way for things to be co-present with us and with other things than through such “Abschattungen” (sketches, faint outlines, adumbrations). The thing transcends our view, but is manifest precisely by presenting itself to a range of possible views. The object of perception is immanently tied to its background - to the nexus of meaningful relations among objects within the world. So of which also reminds me of Graham Harman’s reworking of Heidegger into his project of object orientated ontology (OOO).

But oh dear MR is discussing a French Marxist and ontology instead of signing hymns of praise to Popes, John Locke, the City of London, ‘The Economist’ and Robert Nozick et al., - can things really get any worse?

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/13/14, 06:40 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Desmond Jones wrote:

If I ask you what is the sovereign in the nationalist context, what will you answer?

The sovereignty of the individual to freely associate.

This comment appeared in entry 'A Journey to The Hague – Chapter Two' on 04/13/14, 06:21 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Gudmund wrote:

I’m not so sure that racially destructive behavior is unique to whites.  If you disagree, then name one country on earth whose government is working to secure a racial future for its people.  If you think about it you’ll see there really isn’t any.  The great difference between western countries and others is that the others don’t actively subject the majority group to endless critique.  This doesn’t mean they’re concerned with defending that majority group’s racial existence, however.

Exactly.

The truth of history is that once a state reaches a certain size the probability of it having ethnic homogeneity drops to 0.  This was the case in Europe’s history, and is ever so much more the case in an age of superstates where racial differences are even more obvious (think the difference between Anglo-Saxon and Norman, versus the difference between American whites and blacks).  What then becomes the main focus is to find some arrangement that will allow the disparate peoples to live with one another in peace.  Or for the state to break up.  The problem that we are now facing is that neither thing is an option.

As the globalist/one-world corporatist is primarily interested in the power of the supranational oligarchies of mass wealth, the claims of the subject populace don’t warrant much more than passing notice.  And the statist of today is often too closely aligned with the former to actually implement some satisfactory policy to ameliorate the situation.  The current slide into chaos is a reflection of their inability to actually rule, and instead they go on running their giant ponzi schemes and global pillage operations.

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/13/14, 01:09 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

From the age of one I was brought up in the borough of Croydon, on the southern edge of London.  In my years playing football for my district, I encountered one black player.  My school was 100% white.

Now this:

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/changing-face-Croydon-s-population-revealed-2011/story-17585214-detail/story.html

WHITE Brits now make up less than half of Croydon’s population, new figures show.

Data from the 2011 Census shows 47.3 per cent - 171,878 of the borough’s 363,378 population - described themselves as being “White British”. In 2001, the figure stood at 63.7 per cent.

The second-largest ethnic group in Croydon was Black Caribbeans who make up 8.6 per cent - 31,251 people. Indians were the third largest group at 6.8 per cent - 24,710.

A total of 18 ethnic categories make up Croydon’s population.

Croydon Central MP Gavin Barwell said he was “privileged” to represent a borough so culturally diverse, but called for a “two-way street” between cultures to ensure further integration remains successful.

He said: “People from different backgrounds make a huge contribution economically, setting up businesses and working in our public services, and culturally, to our cultural life. I’m privileged as MP to say that.

“I think it is about people living here being welcomed to communities and people that come here making an effort to learn the language among other things. It is a two-way street.

“There is an issue about the pace of change. I would argue that during the previous Government the scale of change was too high.

“What we need to do is to make sure that people integrate properly into our society and I think Croydon is much better at doing that than most parts of the country.”

One of the lasting images from the 2011 London riots was the bonfire of Reeves Corner:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01968/croydon-awesome_1968563i.jpg

... the offender was, of course, not an Englishman:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128146/London-riots-Gordon-Thompson-jailed-Reeves-furniture-store-arson-Croydon.html

And they say it’s wrong to describe it as genocide.

This comment appeared in entry 'Competition's Ontological Adjustment:' on 04/13/14, 11:12 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

The Trenton, New Jersey community

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Zj9F5dR1E

This comment appeared in entry 'White Post Modernity' on 04/13/14, 09:17 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Now here’s a soul in need of some Christian good-will. No doubt he will be redeemed when a Samaritan takes an interest in his condition -

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

This is in East Orange, just minutes away from Montclair, the mansion shown in the post, middle and lower middle class suburbia, etc.

This comment appeared in entry 'Competition's Ontological Adjustment:' on 04/13/14, 08:51 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Of course the problem is not that Whites do not have enough children, but that non-Whites have way too many, and we have the reality of the Christian golden rule, equivalence of souls before gawd to thank for that in large measure; as well as their extending their Christian good will, admonishment of birth control, to go along with international corporate and Jewish interests to impose these non-White masses on White countries.

 

This comment appeared in entry 'National Revolution - turn on, tune in, take over!' on 04/13/14, 08:16 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

ekirtstrike wrote:

There can be no peaceful solution when the enemy (not the Poles) is fundamentally evil.

This comment appeared in entry 'Belles Lettres' on 04/12/14, 09:13 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

To be accurate, Desmond, the character Peter Upton is using the concept of the sovereign because he is a constitutional historian.  There would be many strands of thought emerging through the principal characters in this novel, the nature of which is a journey of “the recondite and unobserved” into the light.

Your observation about equality is valid in its own rather narrow terms.  From my perspective democratism is not among the massifying ideologies of modernity if it is fashioned as an engine of emergent interests rather than egalitarianism.  The difference is that between a nationalist thought-system and a liberal one, of course.  If I ask you what is the sovereign in the nationalist context, what will you answer?  The Fuhrer?  I think not.  The aristocratic master?  Again, I think not.  These are prescriptions, as I noted in a piece a few months ago:

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

This comment appeared in entry 'A Journey to The Hague – Chapter Two' on 04/12/14, 05:38 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Page 1 of 3428 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›