Comments posted

Page 1 of 3486 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

Power Terror Circuit wrote:

Patrick Le Brun analyses the circuitry of Islamic terror, Israeli and Western power interests through the Charlie Hebdo massacre

This comment appeared in entry 'French Re-Revolution, C'est la Guerre!' on 01/29/15, 08:34 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Nothing Against Golden Dawn wrote:

Nothing against the Golden Dawn and post all the visions of theirs that you like - this for example:


But this is Chris’s turn at bat for the main post.

This comment appeared in entry 'Beauty, Pride and Happiness: An Inspiring Vision of Native Europe as nominated by Chris' on 01/29/15, 03:36 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Eugenia Lieu wrote:

        I know I am the most accepted person with Black People versus Mongolians.  For me to be a coarse-face: I am vile to both Asians, and Caucasians.  Mongolians are mostly accepted by both groups, and they belong to both groups.  Caucasians have their society to a close.  They have their privileged class secluded to me. Chinese only want to marginalize me.  They don’t see the point of having a coarse-face in their society.  They think anything unrefined is only uncivilized, and totally inferior.  This is why I still hold the title of genetic segregation to other Chinese for owning my coarse-face.

This comment appeared in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 01/28/15, 11:54 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Early Christianity wrote:

TT Presents Bowery and Kenneth Humphreys discussing Jesus:

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Interview of Kenneth Humphreys by James Bowery Concerning the Syncretic Origin of Christianity' on 01/28/15, 11:31 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Genocide of Whites wrote:

Genocide of Whites

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/28/15, 08:44 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

War intensifies in Ukraine wrote:

This comment appeared in entry 'Pensions and Basic Services Denied to People of Eastern Ukraine' on 01/28/15, 12:58 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

HBD wrote:

Caitlin Rules

This comment appeared in entry 'Je ne suis pas Dieudonné - a Rejection of The Right's Negrophilia and Dividing Against Whites' on 01/28/15, 04:56 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Behavioral Genetics wrote:

Behavioral Genetics - Robert Plomin

Of particular interest is the finding that heritable intelligence is significantly more manifest in middle aged people.

Therefore, given the later maturity of Whites, their advantages and more admirable distinctions can be subverted by compelling what is for them premature competition with non-Whites.

This comment appeared in entry 'James Watson Doesn't Exist' on 01/28/15, 04:01 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Mulatto Supremacist Upshot wrote:

Mulatto Supremacist Upshot - a result of pandering to females and the proclivity of their puerile members uncritiqued

“If only women voted: Obama wins reelection in an even more convincing fashion than was actually the case, trouncing Romney.”

This comment appeared in entry 'Je ne suis pas Dieudonné - a Rejection of The Right's Negrophilia and Dividing Against Whites' on 01/28/15, 02:08 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Culture Becomes Cognitive wrote:

Effortful Control, Explicit Processing, and the Regulation of Human

Evolved Predispositions

Kevin B. MacDonald

California State University–Long Beach

This article analyzes the effortful control of automatic processing related to social and emotional behavior, including control over evolved modules designed to solve problems of survival and reproduction that were recurrent over evolutionary time. The inputs to effortful control mechanisms include a wide range of nonrecurrent information—information resulting not from evolutionary regularities but from explicit appraisals of costs and benefits. Effortful control mechanisms are associated with the ventro-medial prefrontal cortex and the ventral anterior cingulated cortex. These mechanisms are largely separate from mechanisms of cognitive control (termed executive function) and working memory, and they enable effortful control of behavior in the service of long range goals. Individual differences in effortful control are associated with measures of conscientiousness in the Five Factor Model of personality. Research in the areas of aggression, ethnocentrism, sexuality, reward seeking, and emotion regulation is reviewed indicating effortful control of automatic, implicit processing based on explicit appraisals of the context. Evidence is reviewed indicating that evolutionary pressure for cooperation may be a critical adaptive function accounting for the evolution of explicit processing.


Effortful control, explicit processing, evolutionary psychology, conscientiousness, prefrontal cortex

Converging evidence in cognitive psychology and neuroscience supports the existence of two quite different types of cognitive processing: implicit and explicit processing. Implicit and explicit mechanisms may be contrasted on a number of dimensions (e.g., Geary, 2005; Lieberman, 2007; Satpute & Lieberman, 2006; Stanovich, 1999, 2004). Implicit processing is automatic, effortless, relatively fast, and involves parallel processing of large amounts of information. Implicit processing is characteristic of what Stanovich (2004) terms the autonomous set of systems (TASS), which responds automatically to domain-relevant information. In this article, I use the term module to refer to mechanisms characterized by implicit processing.

Evolved cognitive modules form an important subset of TASS. A fundamental premise of evolutionary psychology is that evolutionary adaptations equip animals to meet recurrent challenges of the physical, biological, and social environment (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). When the environment presents long-standing problems and recurrent cues relevant to solving them, the best solution is to evolve modules specialized to handle specific inputs and generate particular solutions (Geary, 2005; Tooby & Cosmides). For example, the visual systems of monkeys and humans contain numerous areas specialized for different aspects of vision (e.g.,Zeki, 1993). Areas specialized for color and for motion are sensitive to different aspects of visual stimulation; processing in these different areas occurs in parallel and results in a unitary image. Other modules proposed in the cognitive literature include modules for social exchange (Cosmides, 1989), theory of mind (Baron Cohen, 1995), fear (Bowlby, 1969; Gray, 1987; LeDoux, 2000),
folk physics (Povinelli, 2000), and grammar acquisition (Pinker,1994).

Although implicit processing is characteristic of evolved modules, it is not restricted to evolved modules. It occurs in a wide range of circumstances, including skills and appraisals that have become automatic with practice or repetition, perceptual interpretations of behavior (e.g., stereotypes), and priming effects (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). Modules, as defined here, therefore need not be domain specific; they may also result from domain general processes of associative and implicit learning (Stanovich, 2004, p. 39).


This comment appeared in entry 'Je ne suis pas Dieudonné - a Rejection of The Right's Negrophilia and Dividing Against Whites' on 01/28/15, 01:27 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Eugenia Lieu wrote:

        No. It’s not that I am a racist.  I’m my Chinese self with a coarse-jaw.  Otherwise, who cared what I could have been?  even if golden-skinned, ruddy-face, or russian.  I’m glad to live as a Chinese, and live to be myself.  Swedish people with a similar trait still have it worse than me.  And I still care to look Chinese because that’s both my parentage.

This comment appeared in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 01/28/15, 12:17 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Cromwell the destroyer wrote:

Thomas Cromwell was the Islamic State of his day

Forget Wolf Hall: this pathologically ambitious “ruffian” sent hundreds to the chopping block and destroyed England’s religious and artistic heritage

By Dominic Selwood

7:30AM GMT 22 Jan 2015

On July 24, 2014, worshippers in Mosul were asked to leave one of the city’s most historic and famous buildings — an ancient Nestorian-Assyrian church that had long ago been converted into the Mosque of the Prophet Younis (biblical Jonah). The Islamic State then rigged the entire building with explosives, and blew it into oblivion. Tragically, it was a Shia mosque - one of many that have suffered the same fate.

The UK’s current primetime TV fantasy blockbuster du jour is Wolf Hall. Everyone loves a costume drama, but there is a world of difference between fictional history and historical fiction. One dramatizes real people and events. The other is an entirely made-up story set in the past. The current tendency is to blur the two, which Wolf Hall does spectacularly.

Thomas Cromwell, whose life it chronicles, comes across as a plucky, self-made Englishman, whose quiet reserve suggests inner strength and personal nobility. Back in the real world, Cromwell was a “ruffian” (in his own words) turned sectarian extremist, whose religious vandalism bears striking comparison with the iconoclasm of Islamic State or the Afghani Taliban.

Thanks to Wolf Hall, more people have now heard of Thomas Cromwell, and this is a good thing. But underneath its fictionalized portrayal of Henry VIII’s chief enforcer, there is a historical man, and he is one whose record for murder, looting, and destruction ought to have us apoplectic with rage, not reaching for the popcorn.

Historians rarely agree on details, so a lot about Cromwell’s inner life is still up for debate. But it is a truly tough job finding anything heroic in the man’s legacy of brutality and naked ambition.

Against a backdrop of Henry VIII’s marital strife, the pathologically ambitious Cromwell single-handedly masterminded the break with Rome in order to hand Henry the Church, with its all-important control of divorce and marriage. There were, to be sure, small pockets of Protestantism in England at the time, but any attempt to cast Cromwell’s despotic actions as sincere theological reform are hopeless. Cromwell himself had minimal truck with religious belief. He loved politics, money, and power, and the reformers could give them to him.

Flushed with the success of engineering Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his marriage to Anne Boleyn, Cromwell moved on to confiscating the Church’s money. Before long, he was dissolving monasteries as fast as he could, which meant seizing anything that was not nailed down and keeping it for himself, for Henry, and for their circle of friends. It was the biggest land-grab and asset-strip in English history, and Cromwell sat at the centre of the operation, at the heart of a widely-loathed, absolutist, and tyrannical regime. When Anne Boleyn pointed out that the money should be going to charity or good works, he fitted her up on charges of adultery, and watched as she was beheaded.

As an adviser to Henry, Cromwell could have attempted to guide the hot-headed king, to tame his wilder ambitions, counsel him in patience, uphold the many freedoms enjoyed by his subjects. But Cromwell had no interest in moderation. He made all Henry’s dreams come true, riding roughshod over the law of the land and whoever got in his way. For instance, we are hearing a lot about Magna Carta this year, but Cromwell had no time for tedious trials and judgement by peers. With lazy strokes of his pen, he condemned royalty, nobles, peasants, nuns, and monks to horrific summary executions. We are not talking half a dozen. He dispatched hundreds under his highly politicised “treason” laws. (When his own time came and the tables had turned, he pleaded to Henry: “Most gracyous prynce I crye for mercye mercye mercye.” But he was given all the mercy he had shown others.)

And then there is his impact on this country’s artistic and intellectual heritage. No one can be sure of the exact figure, but it is estimated that the destruction started and legalised by Cromwell amounted to 97% of the English art then in existence. Statues were hacked down. Frescoes were smashed to bits. Mosaics were pulverized. Illuminated manuscripts were shredded. Wooden carvings were burned. Precious metalwork was melted down. Shrines were reduced to rubble. This vandalism went way beyond a religious reform. It was a frenzy, obliterating the artistic patrimony of centuries of indigenous craftsmanship with an intensity of hatred for imagery and depicting the divine that has strong and resonant parallels today.

It can only be a good thing that people are again thinking about Cromwell. Because as we look to the east, to the fanaticism that is sacking the cultural and artistic heritage of other ancient societies, we can all draw the same, inevitable conclusions about religious extremism in any age, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist. None of it is pretty. All of it is real. And we, in England, are not in some way removed from it. We only have to survey the smashed up medieval buildings the length and breadth of the country, or contemplate Cromwell’s record of public beheadings and other barbarous executions.

It is plain that extremists come in all shapes and sizes.

This comment appeared in entry 'James Watson Doesn't Exist' on 01/27/15, 08:46 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Thunder wrote:

I am a proud white man. I am normal. I take pride in the achievements of my people and prefer to associate with my own kind. I love white women who love white men. I detest white women who do not. I have no respect for white women who couple with non whites. I am a normal, proud, white man.

This comment appeared in entry 'Je ne suis pas Dieudonné - a Rejection of The Right's Negrophilia and Dividing Against Whites' on 01/27/15, 11:52 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

jamesUK wrote:

JamesUK may post on a site where the editorial position is in concert with his views.

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Susan Lindauer talks with Daniel and GW' on 01/27/15, 10:36 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

The Other Cheek wrote:

Reciprocal deliberation

A contradistinction of European nationalists as linked with liberalism as opposed to Christianity, of any denomination, which is said to not be linked to liberalism, is dubious.

It is apparent that Christianity must ignore if not relinquish its liberalism in order to fight on behalf of our EGI. Some have historically, and can still, invoke such inventive interpretations* in order to fight, but nevertheless it is they who abandon liberalism.

* An inventive interpretation of “turn the other cheek” that I have heard is that the first strike could have been out of blind passion, and you might forgive it as not entirely voluntary. By offering the cheek however, a second strike would reveal deliberate malice and unwillingness to reason - therefore warrant to fight.

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Jez Turner talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/27/15, 03:49 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

kosher tax wrote:

At Red Ice, Henrik interviews Dennis Fetcho, who details the absurd and massive bilking by means of Kosher tax:

This comment appeared in entry 'Motivation to Fight: Humanitarian - Higher National Ideals - Booty' on 01/27/15, 03:18 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Aesthetics bridle functional runaway wrote:

This article is a bit hard on the fairer sex, but if there is to be a check on the power of their position within the disorder of modernity’s and Jewish prohibition of classificatory bounds, then a critical perspective is necessary to offset pandering from all angles. Buffalo Jenkins argues for masculine concern for aesthetics as a bridling of systemics from functional runaway.


  by Buffalo Jenkins

The prism of æsthetics is not just an aspect of the struggle for national self-overbecoming, it is the struggle rarefied. To the ancients, there was no way to divorce their art from their cultural vantage.

You would not publish a scientific treatise on species of weeds and not consider the art of the actual object: the lavish woodcut illustrations, for instance, or Euclidian layout and typography, as well as esoteric symbolism splashed lavishly throughout. The binding would be hand-tooled, decorated and gilded, so that even to such a stark and (to a modernist viewpoint) seemingly artless subject, Form would remain as important as Function. Amazingly, before the 20th century, there are virtually no examples of objects of any kind, no matter how commonplace or utilitarian (from housewares to clothing to tools) that did not have a consideration of the art or style, as well as a laborious crafting of traditional significance. Music and painting and architecture, in fact all disciplines. were thus meshed together in a cultural style that was solidly Roman or Imperial German or Napoleonic French or Tudor English, Baroque, Gothic Medieval, etc..

Today there is nothing but purposeful randomness, chaos, Abstract Expressionism, and the moronic Conceptualism. All is hidden narrative (almost always a liberal or egalitarian narrative at that) and beauty is not allowed to exist for its own sake. It is a snide ugliness that expresses eternally the democratic drive for homogeneity and equality by meeting at the base level. You can have no beauty or æsthetic hierarchy in the end-game of modernism.

Standing against modernism necessitates a resistant spirit, which must start with an insistence upon the absolute importance of everyday æsthetics. For example: the importance of dress. We must not simply follow conformist democratic trends (e.g., everyone just wearing jeans) which oppressively pervade the public space. I recently had a run-in with a prominent white nationalist who, while agreeing with me regarding aesthetics, laughed out loud at the idea of wearing a tweed suit or a tie.

This of course, is no laughing matter.

.... bearing attention is the boldened remark: we all must admit as a group they are credulously prone to liberalism.

... In fact, the moment you see a female involved at a judiciary or management level in any art-related institution, you can rest absolutely assured she is an utterly tasteless modernist who has moved up the ranks expressing nothing but pure relativism with a distant threat of entitled victimhood.

As Oswald Spengler writes: ‘Man makes history; woman is history. The reproduction of the species is feminine: it runs steadily and quietly through all species, animal or human, through all short-lived cultures. It is primary, unchanging, everlasting, maternal, plantlike, and cultureless.’ 
Plantlike. Natural, powerful, but inert.

Not to pick on women, but let us not be afraid to speak of group behaviour. Despite the valiant efforts of the very few Valkyries we have in our alternative midst, we all must admit as a group they are credulously prone to liberalism. Feminism itself being possibly the root problem of Western civilization, with its ever-expanding, emotion-based view of the world. The creative act is the same as a destructive one, and now as ever in the past, real art and culture are a man’s domain. Women by and large adhere to norms, to cultural pressure, to what they were told by parents and teachers and the television. They are overwhelmingly concerned with what they perceive the majority of other women thinking or doing, regardless of the rationality. In this sense of plantlike or inert cultural staidness, they have been until now the real keepers of tradition. While they often can feel they are concerned with beauty and æsthetics, their emotional thinking and compassionate inclusiveness, while sweet, comes with a hangover of total cultural blandness and egalitarian art-destruction (eg: high heel sneakers, narcissistic novels, The X Factor, and other tasteless oddities).

To speak plainly in visual terms, things either look good, or they look bad. They are inspiring or they are degenerate. Subjectivity and relativism exist, however they need to be repressed where they are seen to weaken or subvert manly or adroit aesthetic style or cultural foundations. You can blur certain divisive lines subjectively, but by no means does that make the whole business of art and style too relative to delineate.

Pay careful attention to what you like, from the music you listen to and advocate, to the art you enjoy or make, to how you dress and present yourself. Make things for your own sake and not popular acceptance. Do not think of monetary value; do not be afraid of decoration or detail. Above all, choose Form over Function. Opting for function alone leads oddly to functionlessness, as without attention to Form the object is soon valueless, a liability, like a crumbling modernist strip mall or a towering landfill of disposable plastic objects endlessly churned out by emotionless celestials. The struggle for æsthetics is the base struggle, many prominent people I needn’t mention in the past have understood this, and the modernist mindset of inclusiveness and abstraction in art is an invented weapon. A death knell.
Art is craft.

This latter bolded remark [“Opting for function alone leads oddly to functionlessness, as without attention to Form the object is soon valueless, a liability,”] is interesting as it points to where a preoccupation with function beyond form will eventually overtake its functionality as it becomes unguided.

This comment appeared in entry 'Je ne suis pas Dieudonné - a Rejection of The Right's Negrophilia and Dividing Against Whites' on 01/27/15, 03:11 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Reciprocity wrote:

“However, we might seek to coordinate on our mutual interests as European people, providing the Christians can fight on those grounds.

It should be possible. We have not forgotten the overwhelming sounds at noon of bells from churches saturating Agrigento, on the Southern coast of Sicily, obviously set against potential recurrence of Muslim incursion.”

In this case France will be interesting to watch. The question is “What benefit does it do them (Trad-Christian groups) to align with the secular White society of France?  Who really needs who here?

In Southern Italy (and other places), they survived as Christian communities even under Muslim rule! I would guess that Muslims will be content with merely “taxing” them but heaven help the liberals and atheists that provoke them.

Understandably, the situation varies by region, but I just can’t see trad-European Christians conceding any more ground than they already have to liberalism.  Reading some of the information about the hard Catholic right in France—they look like they are steeling for a fight and they too have long memories.


This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Jez Turner talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/27/15, 02:47 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

GW saved the point by asking Susan to come back to “the component” which was served by ignoring the benefits of peace negotiations. Specifically qualified by her as “the Haliburton-Military Industrial Complex.”

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Susan Lindauer talks with Daniel and GW' on 01/27/15, 02:44 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Don Black’s accomplice, “Truck Roy,” normally comes to their weekday discussions equipped (perhaps with the help of “the bugs people”) with provocative analytical distinctions. On this day, however, his analysis appeared instructive for its being a little off the mark:

Date: 01-26-15 - Hr1

“Ideologies,” he says, have invariably led to disaster. I guess that he is talking about communism, multiculturalism and other such worldviews which are imposed unnaturally, forcibly upon a populace from without as opposed to having emerged from their nature.

I suspect that the Right is going to say that Nazism is an ideology based on nature and that they would not be inclined to criticize it as such. That goes to crucial matters of what and how nature really is, and if Nazism necessarily captured its essence and ways. It didn’t, but that’s not a matter to go into here.

Returning from that digression, Truck Roy contrasts “ideology” with “tradition” and “family” as the organic starting points which safeguard against the disasters of ideologies - erstwhile imposed affectations, having led by known example only to catastrophe and failure; while people invariably rebel in accordance with the tried and true of tradition and natural concern of family.

Here his argument gets interesting as it begins to fall apart with his examples.

“The tradition” of Christianity which is “tried and true.” I would suggest that it is a kind of hazy hoodwink of an ideology but more importantly, not sufficiently successful, not even provisionally, for anything but raising and corralling cattle for our enemies to consume - its tradition as a provisional “safe place” for the speculative event that a sufficient ideology does present itself. We must do better in assimilating an organic moral order.

But still I do not care to elaborate dispute with his argument, as getting away from that particular, endless dispute is a part of MR’s new direction.

What is more interesting is that in the service of organicism, and “the family” as its central model (one of Matt Parrott’s key contentions against the Euro-DNA Nation), Truck Roy cites “the lunchroom phenomonenon.”

Here is the point which shown interesting - you don’t sit next to your family in the lunchroom. You sit next to racial kin.

This phenomenon is organic, it is genetic, and it does not exclusively begin with “tradition” and not exclusively with family. That is not to diminish the significance of family and tradition, but to illustrate that there are limits to the idea of tradition and family being “The” foundation in some organic sense.

If you were to wipe-out all records of history and put Europeans on an island where they were starting out all over again, I do not believe that they would come up with something like Christianity, organically, to serve as their moral order. And lets state the obvious to say that if the family were so singularly important the result would be inbreeding. The normative factors of the social classification and its genetic basis are indispensable, essential, not speculative and dangerous “ideology.” To the contrary, to be without the relative and normative guidance of its framework is, and has been dangerous.

Not all of our traditions remain sufficient to the times and not all families are good and just to their members. They do not represent the sine qua non of organicism - their regulation with broader systems through proper hermeneutic process, is.



















This comment appeared in entry '2015 of Indigenous European Creation' on 01/27/15, 12:55 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

de Craon's thoughtful take wrote:

Pierre de Craon has a thoughtful comment at counter-currents -

January 26, 2015 - 12:45 pm

The comments by B.A., Maxi, and spiritsplice remind me why I soon came around to being glad when Professor MacDonald shut commenting down more than a year ago. Their comments are nothing so much as what dogs do to fire hydrants and telephone poles, and as such they do this site no credit.

Enza Ferreri’s commentary is thoughtful and sensible. In the present circumstances, it embodies ideas that require repeating. That there is nothing new, strictly speaking, in her commentary matters not at all. Very few people, including me, do not profit from being reminded, from time to time, of first principles, which have the unfortunate tendency to sink to lip-service status when we are not prompted to see that they underlie both how we ought to act and react and how we often fail to. After all, as one of my all-time-favorite Jews, a guy usually referred to as Qoheleth, famously wrote several millennia ago, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

What’s more, Ms. Ferreri’s frank exposition makes blazingly clear how wide and deep a gulf there is between (1) the complex, vexed interrelation of true first principles of speech, thought, action, and the greater societal good and (2) the adolescent, pseudointellectual hobbyhorse of “absolute” free speech, which inevitably entails a radical intolerance for anyone’s freedom to articulate the view that there is no such creature and that the entertainment of any such absolutism has always and everywhere had grave consequences for the society foolish enough to tolerate it.

As for the self-congratulation concretized in the sentence “More often than not I am called pedantic, but more importantly, the weaknesses of any argument are thus easily exposed,” charity counsels that the less said, the better. But since Emily Dickinson failed to hold her tongue on such pedantry masquerading as the antidote to pedantry, I yield to the temptation to close by quoting her.

  How dreary – to be – Somebody!
  How public – like a Frog –
  To tell one’s name – the livelong June –
  To an admiring Bog!

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Jez Turner talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/26/15, 11:36 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Kantian speech wrote:

Interesting Kantian argument by Thora, from TOO

Before questioning “Freedom of Speech”, one should question the very idea of “Freedom”.

According to Kant, Freedom isn’t “doing what one wants”, rather, Freedom is man rising above his animal state. Man only becomes free when governing himself, controlling his impulses, approaching life rationally.

Kant’s definition of Freedom inverts what is commonly assumed to be the meaning of “Free”. Kant’s Free Man in essence becomes a sort of polar opposite of the characteristic negro; forward thinking, restrained, even tempered, controlled. Such a man is free even when in bondage. The Charlie Hebdo notion of Free, on the other hand, is what is carried in the hearts of the unthinking, slogan parroting dregs of Western society. Average obese Westerners in any local megamarket provide a near endless parade of examples; their misshapen bodies point to insatiable appetites, their crass t-shirts point to a blunt and overstated sense of aesthetics, and their bulging, charmless eyes point to a lazy mind unpracticed in manners and etiquette. Such a man or woman can crow about Freedom all their lives without ever realizing what slaves they are to their own vices.

If Freedom is the governing of man’s animal impulses, Free Speech is the governing of the animal in public discourse. For speech to be Free it needs to carry consequences, not in terms of prisons or repression–but far more seriously–in terms of a lasting and telling stain upon one’s character. Vulgarians, like Charlie Hebdo, are be judged by their words and summarily shunned in a society of truly free men. One’s speech convicts one’s character.

Free societies were disolved when freedom of association was outlawed throughout the West by advancing Jews. Societies, and the standards upon which they are predicated, have been in essence “busted”. Without standards there are no societies, without societies judging character there are no consequences to speech, and without consequences to speech there is no Free speech.

This comment appeared in entry 'Kant's Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant' on 01/26/15, 11:00 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Sallis misrepresents White Left wrote:

The System vs. Democratic Multiculturalism

Ted Sallis

I would like to further explore some aspects and implications of the idea of “democratic multiculturalism” — the idea supported by Frank Salter and Ricardo Duchesne that Whites need to play the multicultural game by demanding a “seat at the table” while resolutely demanding that White identity and interests be taken seriously by the regime


Sallis nicely organizes his argument in this paragraph:

Consider that multiculturalism is based on the “ideal” of minority collectivist mobilization and majority atomization and passivity. Minorities will continue to be mobilized; that is the first principle of multiculturalism, even more fundamental than majority passivity. Minority mobilization is a given (and we would wish it so, since minority passivity would lead to full assimilation and miscegenation even faster than currently, and would lull Whites to sleep even more than now). Therefore, the key to destabilize the System is majority mobilization. To mobilize Whites, one needs to give them something to get mobilized about. Like it or not, in today’s Last Man society, the White masses will not get mobilized to “honor their ancestors” or to “actualize a High Culture.” The far-Right pro-White elites may be so motivated today, and, in a future state run according to our principles, the masses would follow the path of honor and greatness. But today? Today, Whites need to be mobilized through grievance, through racial self-interest, through anger, through exposure of anti-White discrimination, through the entire immersion of Whites in a self-discovery of identity through the same paths followed by other groups in the morass of multiculturalism.

He views the incorporation of a sane, unashamedly, explicitly White middle class as a key metric to our success and homeostasis as a people:

The truth is far more mundane and less “heroic.” The “movement” won’t want to hear it. I’ll say it anyway. In my opinion, the real “turning point” will NOT be when “Whites storm the ramparts” or whatever other doomsday scenario whets the onanistic fantasies of the “movement” — instead, the turning point will be when overt pro-White activists can safely and securely live a comfortable middle-class existence while simultaneously being public..

And we can agree that gaining adherence from the middle class is a crucial difference from where the “movement” has been and failed to date…we can agree until he phrases it in these terms:

..“while simultaneously being public far-Right representatives of White interests.”

Of course we want to unify the concerns of the middle class and other classes into a union of classes, the native European nation - that is the idea of White Leftism..

But sadly, Sallis misrepresents what is presented here as a neologism - White Leftism - misrepresenting its nifty unifying function and vigil on perennial problem areas - areas for egregious opportunism but also amenable to incentive, motive and accountability.

Instead he represents the term in this way:

“Whites standing up for themselves as Whites is the ultimate blasphemy for Coloreds and ‘White Leftists’, the Original Sin”

Which is the exact opposite of what we mean by White Leftism, as an exclusively White union, which would not allow Coloreds - their scabbing entry to the union being forbidden.

It saddens me, irritates me and aggravates me that Ted would extend this disingenuous Jewish definition of the term “Left” to even our neo-logism, The White Left.

Ted, sorry, we are not going to let you define and misrepresent it that way. It has too much organizational utility. 

The White Left is not the Red Left. The White prefix is a difference that makes a difference and we will fight for that distinction.

This comment appeared in entry '(What would have been) questions for Dr Frank Salter' on 01/26/15, 10:56 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Libya wrote:

Susan interviews Al Fatah–a prominent Libyan woman activist, who maps out the Failed State of Libya with full geo-political impact

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Susan Lindauer talks with Daniel and GW' on 01/26/15, 07:35 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Final Result: 6.3% of the total vote, 388,000 votes yielding 17 seats.

Three comments from the thread to the current post on the GDNY site, which pretty well express the nationalist view at this point.

First, the election itself:


I thought GD would do better

6.92% 426,000 in June 2012
9.4%. 536,000 in May 2014 for EU parliament

6.3% 376,000 Jan 25 2014

Third place is tremendous considering what you were up against, but the exit poll had 8%…and I think we were all hoping for a double showing that would really shock the system…voter intimidation/vote fraud? A possibility?


There was a large amount of ballot tampering at polling stations, intimidation also happened with physical attacks by anarchists but the actual extent is not known yet. The ballot mutilation is the biggest issue though.

And then the future:


Tsipras stated a few days ago that he will restore democracy in Greece again. My question is, will he release all the GD MP’s illegally held in prison and restore their status as a political party that is DEMOCRATICALLY elected as all the other parties incl his party or will his version of democracy only apply to those he agrees with like a typical marxist that promotes principles of democracy only when it suits them ???? My money is on the latter

This comment appeared in entry 'Golden Dawn fighting at the ballot box' on 01/26/15, 06:18 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Pigs wrote:

Regarding another matter, the pigs at the top, I rejected depression early-on as a poor, wasteful philosophy, a commercial of itself - more a prescription of haplessness for the disingenuous purposes of maintaining the position of the PTB than it is descriptive; and with that looked askance at significant tracts of Shakespear’s philosophy; but like his, some art (e.g., Pink Floyd, The Smiths) captures depression’s capture of the enormity of tragedy so well that it is worth wallowing-in the instruction of its pessimism before moving to an optimistic position, such as -

Prior to that, one worthy way station of wallowing was Pink Floyd’s “Pigs” - here dedicated for Naomi Sarna and other pigs who have been on top, homeostatic of the powers that be and their vast destruction.

Big man, pig man, ha ha, charade you are
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha, charade you are
And when your hand is on your heart
You’re nearly a good laugh
Almost a joker
With your head down in the pig bin
Saying “keep on digging”
Pig stain on your fat chin
What do you hope to find?
When you’re down in the pig mine
You’re nearly a laugh
You’re nearly a laugh
But you’re really a cry.
Bus stop rat bag, ha ha, charade you are
You fucked up old hag, ha ha, charade you are
You radiate cold shafts of broken glass
You’re nearly a good laugh
Almost worth a quick grin
You like the feel of steel
You’re hot stuff with a hat pin
And good fun with a hand gun
You’re nearly a laugh
You’re nearly a laugh
But you’re really a cry.
Hey you Whitehouse, ha ha, charade you are
You house proud town mouse, ha ha, charade you are
You’re trying to keep our feelings off the street
You’re nearly a real treat
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abused?
You gotta stem the evil tide
And keep it all on the inside
Mary you’re nearly a treat
Mary you’re nearly a treat
But you’re really a cry.

A cry before the last laugh, as it were.

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Susan Lindauer talks with Daniel and GW' on 01/26/15, 05:03 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

liberum esse wrote:

Have We Carefully Thought of the Consequences of Absolute Free Speech?

January 25, 2015 — Enza Ferreri

One “thought experiment” in the recent — but not yet concluded — debate on freedom of speech surrounding the Charlie Hebdo massacre particularly impressed me:

  Here is a thought experiment: Suppose that while the demonstrators stood solemnly at Place de la Republique the other night, …  a man stepped out in front …  carrying a placard with a cartoon depicting the editor of the magazine lying in a pool of blood, saying, “Well I’ll be a son of a gun!” or “You’ve really blown me away!” or some such witticism. How would the crowd have reacted? Would they have laughed? …  He would have been lucky to get away with his life.

  Masses of people have turned the victims of a horrific assassination … into heroes of France and free speech. The point of the thought experiment is not to show that such people are hypocrites. Rather, it is to suggest that they don’t know their own minds. They see themselves as committed to the proposition that there are no limits to freedom of expression… But they too have their limits. They just don’t know it.

Perhaps because he’s a philosopher and by profession he’s obliged to analyse the logical consistency and theoretical validity of statements, Brian Klug here encapsulates the problem with the default mainstream “Je Suis Charlie” position.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.

Even those who sincerely believe that they uphold this principle often don’t realise they wouldn’t be prepared to accept any word expressed in any circumstance.

Similarly, philosophers like Karl Popper maintain that in any debate you cannot question everything. The debaters must share some common assumptions, including the use of the same language and basic definitions of at least some of the main concepts relevant to the discussion.

This corresponds to relativity in the physical world. To establish if and at what speed a train is moving, you need something still to compare it with.

Questioning everything results in chaos, which ultimately means questioning nothing.

This is one of the fallacies often propounded by the so-called “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins: question everything — but at the end of the day, get in line with establishment views on race and immigration.

The prevailing ideology of relativism, wedded to the policy of multiculturalism, does something similar to questioning everything, by denying the idea that some doctrines are better than others and rejecting a shared set of beliefs as a sine qua non for a society.

The belief that everything can be publicly stated implies a belief in nothing.  Hence the current confusion about freedom of speech and in particular the failure to recognise exactly when this good is paid for too dearly at the expense of society.

Therefore the discussion shouldn’t be around ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to free speech but about what should limit free speech and why.

The best way to do that is to establish the principles and goals to guide our decision about what expressions shouldn’t be permitted by law as their effects are so deleterious that they outweigh the benefits of free speech.

The most cited examples of such expressions are falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded place and incitements to commit crime.

But, beyond obvious cases like these, we can immediately see that we cannot reach a consensus, since people in our fractured society have widely-different goals and principles.

Much of this diversity in the West is produced by the influx of large masses of people from countries with worldviews, religious doctrines, and ways of life profoundly diverging from ours.

The Hebdo attack tragically revealed one such irreducible conflict of ideas that makes it impossible for Westerners and devout Muslims to agree on when free expression should be limited.

Not even Charlie Hebdo (henceforth CH), the much-trumpeted supreme paragon and defender to the death of free speech, believed in absolute freedom of speech, as demonstrated by its sacking of the cartoonist Siné for a column considered anti-Jewish but, compared to the rag’s ordinary fare, too mild for words. Later Siné won a 40,000-euro court judgment against CH for wrongful termination.

CH wasn’t the paper of free speech, but of double standards.

Recently the rag’s long-standing lawyer Richard Malka made evident his opinion that people can be too free in their speech when he chastised Nouvel Obs magazine for publishing a criticism of CH’s slain editor “Charb” by its co-founder Henri Roussel.

I don’t consider Charb et al martyrs. You can be a martyr to a cause, but when your cause is nothing (that’s what nihilism, in the end, is) or evil (CH’s campaign against the National Front), you can’t be one.

The rest of this article is at TOO:

It always makes me sad to disagree with a Christian making an effort to invoke a unifying moral order of Christianity, especially when done in as intelligent a way as Enza has. But hopefully she, or people of similarly subtle thought, will help us to cultivate an expression of a unifying moral order of European interests, more authentically emergent and reliably reconstructive of our kind.

She concludes by saying:

It’s because of publications like CH and media figures like De Andre’ and their successful propagation of desecrations of what had kept us together and strong for centuries, that we have been left with absolutely nothing to fight Islam with.

By disarming us, the CH journalists who were victims of the recent attacks have indeed invited their own death — in a deeper sense than is commonly thought.

Indeed a unifying moral order is necessary, and while we do not get-off on mocking Christianity in the way that CH did, and Jews do, neither can we, in moral conscience, allow ourselves to be yoked to obsolete texts and their alien pretense to our moral interests as a specific people.

It is apparent that there will be European peoples who will not relinquish Christianity and those who will not partake in agreement to it. However, we might seek to coordinate on our mutual interests as European people, providing the Christians can fight on those grounds.

It should be possible. We have not forgotten the overwhelming sounds at noon of bells from churches saturating Agrigento, on the Southern coast of Sicily, obviously set against potential recurrence of Muslim incursion.


This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Jez Turner talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/26/15, 01:03 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Speak Content wrote:

Sebastien, it is precisely because MR has been more editorial of comments that commentary has slowed down for a time. After a long time policy of being quite a free for all, trolls inundated the threads along with those of perspectives that were divisive of European nationalist efforts (strong proponents of Hitler), those insisting upon imposing Christian affectation to the European moral order, or that we treat Jews as White and a part of our interest group.

We still have some trolls making their presence felt from time to time - Voznich and JamesUK. It was I who added the images to his comment from “compulsory diversity news” - of dubious taste perhaps, though I must say that I laughed. But my prime motive was to discourage him as he was otherwise attempting to contextualize MR in his way. It was the trolls who have been, until recently, largely responsible for much of the content among comments and also for discouraging more thoughtful participation.

We are still in the process of correcting that. If you are sincere, you might help by stepping down from your meta-critique of a process which, in fact, we’ve already undertaken, and rather contribute a comment of substance and content of your own. There is much of significance to discuss.

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Jez Turner talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/26/15, 12:03 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Sebastien Durant wrote:

Have you ever considered adopting a more stringent/judicious editorial policy regarding the comments section? I suspect the all too visible presence of trolls, disinformation agents and other ‘antis’ greatly hinder the potential of the website to serve as a forum for debate.

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Jez Turner talks to GW and DanielS' on 01/25/15, 07:34 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Dick Cheney wrote:

Dick Cheney

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Susan Lindauer talks with Daniel and GW' on 01/25/15, 05:58 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

james wrote:

Good interviews for future MR Radio would be Norman Lowell and John DeNugent.

John DeNugent you could ask him for

home decorating advice

and how much black lives matter Propaganda

This comment appeared in entry 'French Re-Revolution, C'est la Guerre!' on 01/25/15, 04:25 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

lips wrote:—News reports say 21-year-old Jori Franklin was prostituting his 18-year-old girlfriend and was giving their baby K2 “to get rid of it,”

Police were summoned to the couple’s home where they found the living room and baby’s play pen littered with dog feces.

The 10-month-old girl unresponsive.

This comment appeared in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on 01/25/15, 02:16 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Czolgosz and McKinley wrote:

The type of man who commits the crime of assassination is usually emotionally brittle and intellectually limited, an unfitting vessel for the higher ideals and notions of honour with which he associates himself, but yet proof that such things exist.

“Colin Liddell knows how to hurt a fella” - Czolgosz, pronounced ‘Chugosh’

This comment appeared in entry 'French Re-Revolution, C'est la Guerre!' on 01/25/15, 08:51 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

6th extinction wrote:

In The World’s ‘Sixth Extinction,’ Are Humans The Asteroid?

Scientists think an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. In today’s extinction, humans are the culprit.

The book begins with a history of the big five extinctions of the past and goes on to explain how human behavior is creating this sixth, including our use of fossil fuels which has led to climate change. Climate change was the subject of Kolbert’s previous book “Field Notes From A Catastrophe.” Her research for the new book took her around the world, to oceans, rain forests and mountains, as well as a place nearly in her backyard where scientists are studying disappearing plants and animals. She spoke to Terry last year when “The Sixth Extinction” was published in hardback.


Elizabeth Kolbert, welcome to FRESH AIR. So when we’re talking about the sixth extinction, what are we talking about? What are the species that are likely to become extinct or that have already become extinct? What is dying off?

ELIZABETH KOLBERT: Well, when you’re talking about an extinction event, the definition I suppose would be many, many organisms across many, many different groups. And, you know, that is really what we are seeing, and that is what makes scientists fear, I suppose you’d say the word, that we’re in a mass extinction. You’re seeing mammals, about a quarter of all mammals are considered endangered, for example; about 40 percent of all amphibians are considered endangered, but we’re also seeing organisms - invertebrates, for example, are endangered; for example, reef-building corals, many species of reef-building corals are now considered very, very endangered.

So you’re seeing extinctions across a wide variety of groups, and that I think would have to be, you know, one of the defining characteristics of a mass extinction.

GROSS: I think of carbon emissions as affecting the atmosphere. But you write about how it’s also affecting the oceans and life within oceans. How are greenhouse gases affecting the acidity of oceans?

KOLBERT: Well, that’s the thing, as I said, that I think is not as fully appreciated as it should be, and it’s sort of one of the reasons, even, you could say that I wrote the book. And that is people are pretty aware now of what CO2 emissions, you know, tailpipe emissions do to the atmosphere. They warm the atmosphere. The Earth is getting warmer. There’s, you know, no doubt about that.

But what happens when you put CO2 into the air is that you’re also effectively pumping it into the oceans because wherever the surface of the oceans and the atmosphere meet, there’s just an exchange of gases. So about a third of the CO2 that we put up every year, and that’s on the order of, you know, 10 billion metric tons, is making its way into the oceans.

And when CO2 dissolves in water, it forms an acid. It’s called carbonic acid. It’s a very weak acid, and you’re drinking it, for example, when you drink a Coke. And it’s that little bit of acidity that gives soft drinks what’s sometimes called their zest, you know, and it’s one of the reasons we don’t like to drink soft drinks that are flat, that they taste very treacly.

But you do that on a massive enough scale, and you are changing the chemistry of the ocean. You’re turning the water more and more acidic - for those who remember their high school chemistry, lowering the pH of the water. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. And if you’re a marine organism, and you think about it, you’re in the water, you’re completely - everything that - your whole environment is the water.

And then when you change the chemistry of the water, that can have very, very profound effects.

GROSS: Which is why you say ocean acidification is sometimes referred to as global warming’s evil twin.

KOLBERT: Yeah, global warming’s equally evil twin, exactly. And from the perspective of, you know, the broad expanse of life, there have been a few moments in time where the oceans have become acidified, not necessarily acidic but acidified, so more and more acidified, and they are associated with some of the major crises in the history of life.

GROSS: To help you understand the impact of the acidification of the oceans, you went to a tiny island that has naturally occurring gas bubbles, and there’s carbon dioxide in those gas bubbles. So what kinds of experiments are going on in this island?

KOLBERT: Well, that’s a really interesting story, and it involves a great guy whom I went out with named Jason Hall-Spencer, who’s a British marine biologist. And he came to this idea, just sort of almost by chance. He went swimming off of this tiny island, as you say, and it - which is in the Bay of Naples. It’s off of Ischia in Italy.

And there’s CO2 - this is an area of a lot of volcanic activity - and there’s CO2 just coming naturally out of the bottom of the water, just bubbling up. And people like to go swimming there because it’s very cool, and it’s like sort of swimming in fizzy water or champagne. And some people took him swimming there, and he realized wow, this is a natural experiment in ocean acidification. This is CO2 being pumped into the water from below, and it’s very similar to what we’re doing, sort of effectively pumping CO2 into the water from above.

And if I look at what’s happening around here, I will be able to look - effectively look into the future and see what’s going to happen if we continue to pump CO2 into the air. And so he did a census around this island of marine creatures as you were far away from these CO2 bubbles and as you got closer and closer. And what he found, and I went out with him, and we went swimming in this frigid water, and you see this amazing tableau where when you’re far away from the vents, you’re seeing a very vivid, you know, underwater world with sea urchins and barnacles and corals and all - fish and all sorts of things that you expect to see in the Mediterranean.

And then as you get closer and closer to the vents, you see less and less until you get to this landscape that looks really like a lunar landscape, where very, very little can survive. So this is sort of like this interesting underwater time machine where we can look into the future of the oceans.

GROSS: So if our oceans ended up looking like the area where there’s these naturally occurring gas vents are, what would our oceans end up looking like?

KOLBERT: Well, his experiments suggest that if we continue, you know, at our present rate of CO2 emissions, then by the end of this century, ocean pH, ocean - will have dropped, or ocean acidity will have increased, depending on how you want to say it, to the point where roughly a third, in his - in this particular ecosystem roughly a third of the organisms drop out when you get to that pH.

So you’re looking at eliminating a third of the creatures in the ocean for - as a very, very rough estimate. And then as you go on, as you get closer and closer to the vents, so even beyond, you know, what we expect at the end of this century if we just sort of continue beyond that point, then you’re getting to a point where, you know, your oceans really start to look sort of like the underwater equivalent of a vacant lot.

GROSS: So, you know, if we just want to look at it in a very selfish way, this is going to affect what we eat.

KOLBERT: Well, I think that, you know, already, obviously, long before you get to sort of the end of this century and the effects of ocean acidification that he saw, we’re already seeing tremendous effects to the ocean from a variety of causes, you know, overfishing, bottom trawling. Global warming is really changing where the oceans are warming very quickly. It’s really changing where things can live, what things can live.

So yeah, we’re definitely seeing changes to what we as people can eat, absolutely.

GROSS: Now, you also went to the Great Barrier Reef, off the coast of Australia. What were you looking for there?

KOLBERT: Well, that was an amazing place, perhaps the most amazing place I’ve ever been in my life, and I also went with a great group of scientists there. A scientist out of Stanford named Ken Caldeira was running a series of experiments off of this tiny, tiny little island that just sort of pokes up out of the reef. You’re essentially on the reef, and every 12 hours, basically at low tide, people would walk across the reef and just go to collect water samples, from which they were trying to tease out the question of how corals are responding to these changes in ocean chemistry.

And to walk across the Great Barrier Reef in the middle of the night is a wonderful, wonderful experience. So one of the sort of ironies of writing this whole book and of this whole project was I got to go to these amazing places and see the most amazing creatures in the process of looking at how humans are affecting the world.

So you’d sort of go to the ends of the Earth, and yet still what you were looking at was how humans are affecting this place.

GROSS: So how are humans affecting the Great Barrier Reef?

KOLBERT: Well, humans are affecting the Great Barrier Reef. In this particular case what they were looking at was how this input of CO2, so how the changes in ocean chemistry, people had measured the rate at which the reef was sort of you could say putting on weight, so growing, a couple decades ago, back in the ‘70s.

And they were looking at the rate at which the reef was growing now. And one of the impacts that’s predicted from ocean acidification, just due to sort of basic, you know, chemistry, you don’t even have to do any experiments really, is that it’s going to be harder and harder for any organism that makes a shell or an external skeleton like a coral out of the mineral calcium carbonate. It’s going to get harder and harder for them to do that.

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Frosty Wooldridge talks to DanielS and GW' on 01/25/15, 08:47 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Finn-relevance? wrote:

For all anyone knows (or cares), Finland might already be 100% White and have a Nazi party in power. Greece, while small, is in a key nexus point geographically, and what happens there, does have a potential flow on effect.

Having said that, I don’t think GD can accomplish a great deal with their tough guy image in a time when Europeans have become so liberal-consumerist orientated.  Also, given the size of Greece, it’s incredibly easy to just keep buying them off with financial loans (covering their pensions and government jobs).

This comment appeared in entry 'Golden Dawn fighting at the ballot box' on 01/25/15, 06:32 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Page 1 of 3486 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›