[Majorityrights News] If this is an inflection point Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 03 April 2025 05:10. [Majorityrights News] Sikorski on point Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 28 March 2025 18:08. [Majorityrights Central] Piece by peace Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 19 March 2025 08:46. [Majorityrights News] Shame in the Oval Office Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 01 March 2025 00:23. [Majorityrights News] A father and a just cause Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 February 2025 23:21. [Majorityrights Central] Into the authoritarian future Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 21 February 2025 12:51. [Majorityrights Central] On an image now lost: Part 2 Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 15 February 2025 14:21. [Majorityrights News] Richard Williamson, 8th March 1940 - 29th January 2025 Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 03 February 2025 10:30. [Majorityrights Central] Freedom’s actualisation and a debased coin: Part 2 Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 11 January 2025 01:08. [Majorityrights News] KP interview with James Gilmore, former diplomat and insider from first Trump administration Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 05 January 2025 00:35. [Majorityrights Central] Aletheia shakes free her golden locks at The Telegraph Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 04 January 2025 23:06. [Majorityrights News] Former Putin economic advisor on Putin’s global strategy Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 30 December 2024 15:40. [Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20. [Majorityrights News] Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 02 November 2024 22:56. [Majorityrights News] What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve? Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 21 September 2024 22:55. [Majorityrights Central] An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. [Majorityrights Central] Slaying The Dragon Posted by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. [Majorityrights Central] The legacy of Southport Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. [Majorityrights News] Farage only goes down on one knee. Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. [Majorityrights News] An educated Russian man in the street says his piece Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 19 June 2024 17:27. [Majorityrights Central] Freedom’s actualisation and a debased coin: Part 1 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 07 June 2024 10:53. [Majorityrights News] Computer say no Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. [Majorityrights News] Be it enacted by the people of the state of Oklahoma Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 27 April 2024 09:35. [Majorityrights Central] Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. [Majorityrights News] Moscow’s Bataclan Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. [Majorityrights News] Soren Renner Is Dead Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. [Majorityrights News] Collett sets the record straight Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. [Majorityrights Central] Patriotic Alternative given the black spot Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. [Majorityrights Central] On Spengler and the inevitable Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. [Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43. [Majorityrights News] A Polish analysis of Moscow’s real geopolitical interests and intent Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 06 February 2024 16:36. [Majorityrights Central] Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 24 January 2024 10:49. [Majorityrights News] Savage Sage, a corrective to Moscow’s flood of lies Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 12 January 2024 14:44. [Majorityrights Central] Twilight for the gods of complacency? Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. Majorityrights Central > Category: GlobalisationIn the last part of Eugène Montsalvat‘s review of de Benoist, he is shown to give organizational advice, including moving beyond left and right with observations as to where they both went wrong. I don’t agree with how he is describing the left, and it is a good occasion to sort that out. However, I am in significant agreement with the tenor - that capitalism is among our major problems. With that, he confirms a suggestion from Kumiko to me, that I’ve already accepted. I would take to heart that in promoting the White Left platform that I have not emphasized enough the fact that there would be unions amidst the union that is the racial/national union. I have done that but not enough. Because I have been so focused on the re-legitimization of racial classification and the unification of people as one class, Kumiko alerts me to the fact that I would be accused of disingenuously wallpapering over bona fide working class concerns for not recognizing their distinct situation. She advises talking more in terms of syndicalism, and I can see where her advice in that regard, and as it turns out, also de Benoist’s advice in that regard is correct. My way of handling these differences could use that boost, though I have not exactly been remiss in that. In criticizing the insufficiently descriptive and ultimately dangerous paradigm of “equality / inequality”, I have consistently spoken in terms of qualitative differences within the White Class (and in relation to non-White groups). As opposed to “equality/inequality” and its false comparisons, I have tended to focus on niches, their paradigmatic incommensurability, qualitative symbiosis and the management of differences in respect of difference as opposed to inequality. Nevertheless, forms of syndicalism should correspond with systemic regulation of these differences.
As I have said in many places, and I am no less convinced than ever, that it is a mistake to relinquish the self designation as a left, a White Left. The Jews do not want us to adopt its powerfully organizing world view for that reason, because it does line things up correctly time and again.
Not a left as properly defined in White interests.
I do not idealize the working classes nor would a White Left. Benoist is correct and very articulate in citing the Enlightenment, its optimism (wow, never thought of that angle, but true) and the liberalism that came of it, but these are not elements of what we are calling the White Left. The White Left designates these products of the Enlightenmet and categorizes them as “objectivism”, one of the two great adversaries to White/Left/Class/National/Union/Racial (all the same) solidarity. The two great adversaries to the White Class/Left are Jewish interests and Objectivists/objectivism. de Benoist needs to recognize where adoption of Enlightenment ideas among ordinary and working class folks is coming from. Where it isn’t being promoted by Jewish interests it is being promoted by White elitist traitors disingenuously posing as “objectivists” (innocently great and not accountable) and naively accepted by the “lower classes” as “objectivism”, viz., the way it is. But it is Not leftism, definitely not White leftism as it does not recognize the union’s right to discriminate and hold people accountable to the union’s interests. Hence, we have not moved beyond right and left, we have merely not caught up to how Jews and White traitors have manipulated these terms to their interests, including not wanting us to have a “White Left” as its organizational capacities are dangerously powerful against them.
de Benoist is correct about that. No argument.
Here I disagree with de Benoist, not in the sense that issues like these can’t be used to distract from objectivist treachery and problems of their exploiting “lower classes”, but in the sense that he is going to the other extreme, and in ignoring race and religious organization of groups antagonistic to race, that he is buying into the same right wing Enlightenment objectivism (and perhaps Jewish manipulation) that he claims to be wise-to. He goes on to say..
First..
That can be said to be a product of Red (Marxist) Left skullduggery; that is to say, how Jews would apply all peoples in unionized alliance against White capitalists (While Jews themselves maintain their union and the facile unions of those who oppose their enemies). It is surely wrong to accept the Jewish definition and calibration of the terms. A union, a White Union, cannot be universal by definition. One is in the union or one is not. Jews do not want us to have this because it would organize our people in a humane way which is accountable to excellence and differences at the same time. Second:
It can err in this direction but only gets out of hand because the Jews exaggerate these possibilities in order to pander to their paying students. That is, Jewish academics are largely in the big business of selling talk to White female undergraduates: “possibilities” to create college courses and talk talk talk, criticize, criticize, criticize. Third:
Again, exaggeration and distortion of these capacities are the result of Jewish academics who have mixed in and preyed upon enlightenment distortions in order to both misrepresent the left and turn White people off to their organizational capacity in a Left while actually using the victim groups they do marshal as an attack force against Whites. Fourth:
Again, those are Jewish cultural Marxist perversions. How can a leftist union favor the scabbing of their union by an open borders policy? They cannot, it is a contradiction of terms.
That is what the Neo cons and other Jewish led interests are getting people to do. The White Left is guilty of none of these things.
True, a White Class, the White Left.
This is quite well said, and I will probably take de Benoist’s and Kumiko’s advice to incorporate more snydicalist type thinking ..
I am on the radical side, but taking skepticism to quite that level is what led to the radical skepticism of the enlightenment and subsequently to liberal modernity. The Christians are a bad example unqualified as such.
I would make it a dual entry, Jewish interests and Objectivism (which includes capitalist interests).
I agree that individualism is a large part of our problem, I understand its philosphical difficulties, but I do not want to summarily and uncritically dismiss it; but rather set it aside as a non-priority while we are under mortal threat as a group by groups.
The Jewish and Objectivist led U.S. is certainly a huge problem, but one must understand that it is Objectivism (admittedly written into its Constitution) and Jewish groups that marshal its forces against other group unionization of peoples. I believe that Kumiko would like a chance to show that there may be a way to ride the tiger of NATO and US forces toward ethno nationalist aims.
If Christians and Muslims are attacking our enemies that is fine but we cannot be so naive as to think that these universalist and race mixing religions are people we can form formally agreed upon alliances with. Their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against our interests and untrustworthy. Same with blacks and Jews. There might be times when they fight groups who are harmful to us, but their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against us and untrustworthy.
Castro is anti-racist. So, I cannot agree with de Benoist.
Not true. Very untrue.
And head-off the risk of ambiguity, old and new, becoming a tool of liberal contention. A few days ago Kumiko and I were contesting how this man - Zakirzhan Niyazov - should be designated. She felt that he should be considered “Asian” whereas he appears to me, on balance, to be more of a Caucasoid prototype - that is, he seems to me to be slightly more kindred of The Caucuses and Europe. He probably could fool me as kind of sort of Bulgarian or something like that, but he is actually of the direct genetic lineage which, after coming out of Africa, has been in an area around southern Kazakhstan and its Kyrgyzstan border for 40,000 years. That Spencer Wells (Niyazov’s genetic discoverer) would say that his people are closely related to Europeans does not help much in disambiguation - Wells also considers Europeans to be very closely related to Africans: “Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.” Nevertheless, we might proceed as if he provides operational verifiability enough in his genetic evidence to say that Niyazov’s is a proto-population of both Europeans and East Asians. If one hopes to investigate with rigorous disamiguation just who is European and who is not, Niyazov’s people are: a tight knot, gnarly lot, a gordian knot, or an important “white box” - an area where the details necessary to sort and name elements are unknown to us - choose your metaphor for the challenge. Wells found that following a first wave out of Africa which went down the western coast of India, another wave - specifically, Niyazov’s forebears - came out about 40,000 years ago and went not to Europe through Turkey, or even through the Caucuses, but went straight east, to central Asia where they evolved alone in situ (apparently southern Kazakhsan near Kryzykstan) for about 10,000 years - incubating a primeval population from which sprang Europeans, East Asians and some of India. Coming back to the contention over the ambiguity of this white box then, Kumiko argues that his people and nation belong clearly in “the Asian sphere of influence.” Russians, a White, viz. European people, play insufficient part of this man’s people’s history to assert their designation, how they should “count” as a nation and people. On the other hand, I look at him prima facie and see a tilt toward European. Especially when I look at his father, I see someone who at first blush looks like someone that I would guess to be “Russian.” I would guess that his grandfather was from somewhere around the Caucuses, South Russia or Ukraine (one of the guys in the old Dannon Yogurt commercials about Ukrainian men who live to be well over 100, supposedly because they eat yogurt): Granted that there is a slight epicanthic fold in Niyasov, his father and grandfather, but many Europeans have that degree of an epicanthic fold, including Germans, English and in fact, some people of most all European nations. Europeans seem less perturbed and more familiar with these ambiguites than White Americans, but I digress. How do we handle these ambiguties? When confronted with ambiguities of Europeans mixed with other Europeans and living in other European nations my first instinct is to look for means of damage control to native populations; conflict resolution to stave off overcompensation and destructive, incorrect puritanism in how they look at ambiguous Europeans. Therefore, in order to reduce anxiety as such, I seek to have their difference honestly recognized while recommending their right to abode being limited to safe, minimal numbers in porportion to the purer native stock. In native populations that have been more mixed for a while, I would imagine that is their “native type.” It would be a matter of arriving at a more complex formula of what range and ratios comprise the natives. Naturally, those populations which were ambiguous from the start, in the sense of being a “primordial stew”, phylogenetic forebears to different kinds, they too would have native status to their nation. My instinct thus, is to resolve matters of racial ambiguity by national designations and assignment. For those of us more serious minded, however, this is far from an arbitrary matter or flight of imagination. While these ambiguities do require at least a modicum of social constructing, real lives, ancient human and natural ecologies are at stake. If Niyazov’s people are a primeval type which has both European and Asian elements and particularly as they are evolved in that area then that is a very powerful warrant as to their sovereign nation in consradistinction to regional imperialism, whether European or Asian. Sorting out Niyazov’s people may not easily solve problems of the geopopolitical chessboard, but it should help greatly in clarifying just what and who is in dispute.
Freedom for Tibet! er, Kyrgyzstan, er Southern Kazakhstan, er proto- Europeans, er proto-Asians… Asians… East Asians.. ..there you have it, a problem for the would-be nationalist solution seems to arise within the framework of geopolitics. Our case in point, regarding the European sphere of influence, viz. what is a nation of European people and therefore under its allied interests as opposed to an Asian nation and arguably thus, under its allied interests, closer concern and protection. I confess to not being attuned to the need to fight on these lines of “Asian vs European” spheres of interest, but then I am not preoccupied with the relation of populations, their requirements and resource scarcity. Still, it is a practical concern and we are all pragmatists to some exent - because we have to be. Thus, despite mine and GW’s more idealistic view, interested as we are in populations in relation to territory and habitats, human ecology and warrant, trying to sort out nations on genetic lines that are ambigously tangled can still give rise to contention and thus the requirement for negotiation on radical pragmatic grounds of “how things count” - as in the case of Niyazov, which requires the negotiation and social construction of our alliances as native nationalists. The matter of negotiation that is contested here again: Kumiko sees Niyazov, his father and grandfather as “Asian” and a clear line between them and Europeans. Whereas I see them as in an ambiguous continuum with Europeans. While such ambiguites don’t really surprise me, I was a little surprised (because I was not looking for it) to see him looking (to me) slightly more European than oriental (Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian). But whatever is most characteristic of Niyazov’s type, I have a gut reaction to preserve him and his, with national sovereignty, the way that a zoologist would seek to preserve a precious species. I also believe that there is a kindredness in my visceral response - I sense Europeanness in this man that should be protected by necessary means, including national sovereignty. It seems that Kumiko has a similar kindredness and wish for nationalism as a means to protect native populations, including his; but perhaps we both have a confimation bias - hers moving through the pragmatics of geopolitics and Asian regionalism while mine is filtered through a Eurocentric perspective. From her perspective, because he has traditionaly been considered “Asian” means that his nation belongs in closer alliance with China, Japan, Korea, India etc. In the first clues of the genetic evidence, I am inclined to say, “not so fast”.... there may be more connection to Europe in Asia than is being given its due by the traditional designation of “Asia” bereft of genetic data. Not that a people’s co-evolution in a particular land is a thousand percent incontestable warrant, but it is strong. Even so, if ideally proposing the sovereignty of ambiguous nations to harbor primordial types, questions and contentions can arise to their hazard, questions conveniently at the disposal of regionalist, internationalist and neoliberal forces. These poltical contentions seem to me to require more, not less attention to sorting out issues of genetic, racial ambiguity and native national alliances in order to establish warranted assertabilty. Let us attend to sorting out and negotiating with peoples how it is that they count.
...Are Nothing New - Alain DeBenoist Translated from the French by Tom Sunic
A: The new law allows the installation of “black boxes” on internet networks and servers which operate with the technologies of “deep packet inspection” and which enable the monitoring of private conversations on the internet, as well as the interception and scanning of all communications the goal of which is to detect, by means of secretly kept algorithms, all “suspicious” words and every “unusual” behavior. This law also allows, without any need to seek court approval, the wiring up of homes, computer hacking in order to siphon off their contents, the use of portable “IMSI-catchers” (false antenna relays intercepting telephone calls in a specific perimeter), the “key loggers” (software for reading in real time what a person types on his keyboard), vehicle tagging, geolocation of people and objects, etc. The “black boxes” also allow the analyses of all the “metadata “, that is to say, to keep track of all traces left behind by a person using the phone or the internet. Any data value, being proportional to the square of the data number to which it is connected, the growing collection of the “metadata” thus enables not only how to predict the behavior of a group of individuals with their specific characteristics, but also to prod into every aspect of citizens’ lives: their relationship, their mail, their social networking habits, their banking transactions, their travels, purchases, subscriptions, lifestyle, age, political views, etc. Hence, this is no longer a matter of targeting someone; rather, it means crisscrossing the entire landscape. Despite the soothing assurances by the authorities, what we are witnessing is a massive surveillance of citizens, even though, the vast majority of them cannot be suspected of being linked with any offense. The emergency rule becomes the rule. Private life no longer exist and civil liberties are under threat of the law which set itself the objective to find out whether each of us knows people who know some people, who know some other people who are not “clean .” As the “republican” tradition demands we are now back at the Law of Suspects of 1793. With good reason citizens keep complaining about not being heard. Well, short of not being heard, they are now being listened to. Q: We’ve known for a long time that citizens are always ready to give up freedom in exchange for a semblance of security. Hence the birth of the US Patriot Act. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, in fact, uses the same argument: “it is the fight against terrorism.” Last year, Benoît Hamon, added to it: “if you have nothing to hide there is no problem with being listened to.” A: A historical reminder. On December 8, 1893, in order to avenge Ravachol [a “bomb-throwing anarchist”], who had been guillotined the previous year, the anarchist Auguste Vaillant detonated a bomb in the Chamber of Deputies, causing no casualties. A few days later, the deputies passed the anti-terrorism laws, soon to be known as the “villainous laws” (“lois scélérates”) “stipulating the suppression of the freedom of the press and prohibiting any anarchist gathering, even if held at a private place. The banker and the future French President Casimir Perier stated on that occasion that “freedom of speech does not apply to the enemies of civilization.” Sounds familiar? “Terrorism,” “civilization”, restriction of freedom, all of this can be found there. The “fight against terrorism” is only a pretext — albeit a very old one). None of the measures that were taken pursuant to these new laws would have prevented the attacks from occurring over the recent months. By the way, one does not need to set out a trawl to catch a handful of sardines. As to those who say it does not bother them because “they have nothing to hide”, they certainly deserve the “GPNC” (the Grand Prize of Citizens Naivety). These are the same idiots who watch televised games or who purchase lottery scratch cards at the tobacco store hoping to strike it rich. When uttering these words they give up, of their own volition, their freedom, without realizing that the reasons stipulated by this law (from “collective violence prevention” to that of “the reconstruction or maintenance of banned groups”) are extremely vague. Hence, under given circumstances these legal provisions can enable to place under police surveillance any joint action aimed at changing political, social and economic structure of the country, every social protest movement, all those having dissenting views, or those who took the liberty of challenging, one way or another, the established order, be they the Sivensdemonstrators, or the Notre-Dame-des-Landes protesters, or those taking part in the “Demonstration for All” (“Manif pour tous “). Q: Our rulers are eager to listen to everyone; yet it is themselves who are also being listened to, particularly by the Americans. How should have the Presidential palace reacted to the recent revelations made by Julian Assange about it? A: President François Hollande could have demanded that Washington immediately recall Jane D. Hartley, the US Ambassador to France. He could have granted asylum to Julian Assange and even to Edward Snowden. He could have announced that France would withdraw from all talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). He did nothing. He is the vassal of the USA on which he depends now in order to conduct operations in which the French Armed Forces are engaged. Ever since it joined NATO again, having lost all of it independence, France stripped itself of any autonomous decision-making. Alain de Benoist is a journalist and writer who, in 1968 founded the Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne, an ethnonationalist think-tank.
![]() Don’t worry, I’m the kind of foreigner that you’ll like. Hopefully. Majorityrights began with and has long been committed to freedom of speech, no matter how controversial the opinion, as I can clearly see from the archives. It has been published as an internet magazine with considerable bravery given the political environment and the risks that come from being misunderstood, and has had a pretty diverse set of contributors and viewers. On 14 October 2014, it marked its tenth year in operation, and I hope that its eleventh year coming in just a few months will be as illuminating as ever. As a newcomer, and as an East Asian woman, I feel privileged to be invited to submit articles from my perspective and experience. Here, on what could be described as freedom of speech’s front porch in its tenth year, we have a good place to talk frankly and honestly as neighbours and allies with common interests. What I’m about to provide is what I see as a necessary polemic against some positions that exist in Majorityrights’ archives and an invitation to conversation as such. It is said in warfare about the ‘turning manoeuvre’, that when you move into an opponent’s rear in order to cut them off from their support base, you are taking the risk of getting yourself cut off from your own. A similar manoeuvre has been attempted by many ethno-nationalists in Europe since 2001 on a political level with regards to the War on Terror, through their decision to advance negative attitudes toward it and their decision to develop talking points that reinforce those attitudes. They are refusing to endorse the War on Terror under the belief that this non-endorsement is somehow a ‘good’ angle to protest the political establishment from. It is not good. Those ethno-nationalists are getting themselves cut off because what they are doing actually undermines their own ability to address a severe demographic threat and also undermines their ability to address a persistent international security threat. It’s an unfortunate situation, because it is crucial for people to be able to square the thoughts that are going on their heads with the reality on the ground: The reality of the necessity of overseas contingency operations. To understand how things reached the stage that they have reached, first a person has to remember how things started out. The world was stunned to see the events that were taking place on television on 11 September 2001. Nineteen Arab men had hijacked airliners, and rather than putting the planes down at an airport and demanding a ransom, they chose to put the planes down by sending them into buildings in New York City. People seem to have struggled to understand how this could happen. Over time, a self-hating narrative built up in which the citizens of the North Atlantic were largely blaming their own governments for having allegedly ‘fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘supporting radical Islamists’, while simultaneously also allegedly ‘fanning the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘opposing Islamists and offending Muslims’. Both of these narratives cannot make sense at the same time, and I would argue that neither of those narratives are true. Furthermore, the apparent implication in both of those narratives is that the North Atlantic should refrain from pursuing its interests in the zone to the south. That is an idea that should be rejected on the basis that it leads only to paralysis in the political sphere, and a loss of initiative in the military sphere. Groups which argue that the North Atlantic should adopt a passive stance and not assert its interests, and those who place blame onto the wrong people, may mean well, but they do not realise that the narratives they are creating can lead to serious crises which may not have actually been intended by those dissenting groups.
Misguided Truck: http://renseradioarchives.com/stormfront/ Date: 04-27-15, Hr1: On the April 27th Stormtrooper radio, Truck Roy discusses his theory with Don Black that the reason why Whites are allowing for, and even promoting, their own dispossession is because they are “moralizing”... “We are too concerned with morals, of slave morality, etc, when we should care about power and survival.” What this is about: people, e.g. computer nerds, or Hitler (by de facto Nietzschean) worshipers want to believe or argue that they’re sheerly, objectively superior, not “racists” relatively dependent upon their people and neighboring White people. They take advice from Horace the Condescender as such. Now they are arguing “against morality, against ‘moralizing” as they call it. Why? Because Hitler loses his place as the go-to guy for a false either/or. And they cannot stand the twilight of their god. So we have Truck Roy saying that the reason why Africans are being helped to invade Europe and why Whites are allowing themselves to be displaced is because they’re “moralizing”, they’re of a slave morality, when they should seek power. Not coincidentally, Truck goes to church every Sunday to practice his slave morality of obedience to the Jew on a stick. So why has this happened, the about face? As I have been explaining, the Right is inherently unstable. “Objectivity” and purity loses its grasp of the relative situation, of social accountability, and they oscillate to another toxically narrow extreme - typically Nietzsche and Hitler. This false either / or - “morality” or “power and survival” - is one of the reasons why I reject Christianity and the Right’s proposed objectivism. Truck Roy says the problem is that our people sit around “moralizing” about how right it is to help African boat refugees when they should be saying enough of this moral business, and be asking rather how do we go about survival? What Horace the Condescender and misguided Truck are failing to recognize is that there is no avoiding morals - we live within them. Proper moral consideration is at one with power and survival. While moral rules are culturally contingent, there will nevertheless always be some things that are prohibited, some things that are obligatory and some things that are optional. Jews know this and that is why they have cleaned the clocks of dumb-assed right wingers such as those at Stormtrooper radio. Now, if people, White people especially, are truly thinking about morality, they do not reach the conclusion that they should be displaced by non-Whites. That is a perversion of morals that the Jewish trick of Christianity is second to none in putting across to the sheeple. Scientism can do it too. While some, techno nerds perhaps, wanting to believe in their objective superiority and warrant yet find themselves having been outwitted by the relative interests of Jews, drowning in the instigated multicultural hell of America, will desperately seek recourse, will promote a mindless killing and die-off, even of their own brothers and European neighbors, rather than admit their moral indebtedness to their kindred people as opposed to just an elite few or a Jewish god.
On the radio page now, the first of our planned conversations with the entertaining, authoritative and hugely passionate author and campaigner on global population, immigration, and quality of life, Frosty Wooldridge. As an inveterate traveller who has observed humanity in all its diversity at first hand, and as a politically-aware white American, Frosty talks as much sense as you will hear from anyone who has made it on to the mainstream radio show circuit.
In the first of two interviews Frosty Wooldridge, the passionate and articulate campaigner against overpopulation and advocate for the environment, sustainability, and the European life speaks to Daniel and GW about his background, his travels, and his work.
1 hour 11 min. 64.9 MB.
Page 15 of 20 | First Page | Previous Page | [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ] [ 16 ] [ 17 ] | Next Page | Last Page |
|
![]() Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Piece by peace by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 19 March 2025 08:46. (View) Into the authoritarian future by Guessedworker on Friday, 21 February 2025 12:51. (View) On an image now lost: Part 2 by Guessedworker on Saturday, 15 February 2025 14:21. (View) — NEWS — If this is an inflection point by Guessedworker on Thursday, 03 April 2025 05:10. (View) Sikorski on point by Guessedworker on Friday, 28 March 2025 18:08. (View) Shame in the Oval Office by Guessedworker on Saturday, 01 March 2025 00:23. (View) A father and a just cause by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 February 2025 23:21. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Tue, 04 Mar 2025 13:41. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Tue, 04 Mar 2025 11:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Tue, 04 Mar 2025 11:28. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Tue, 04 Mar 2025 09:30. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Tue, 04 Mar 2025 08:31. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:56. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Tue, 04 Mar 2025 01:43. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Mon, 03 Mar 2025 12:43. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Mon, 03 Mar 2025 12:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Mon, 03 Mar 2025 12:10. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Mon, 03 Mar 2025 01:40. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Mon, 03 Mar 2025 01:28. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Sun, 02 Mar 2025 23:38. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Sun, 02 Mar 2025 22:41. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Sun, 02 Mar 2025 22:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Sun, 02 Mar 2025 18:08. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Sun, 02 Mar 2025 16:20. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Shame in the Oval Office' on Sun, 02 Mar 2025 14:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Sun, 02 Mar 2025 00:14. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Sat, 01 Mar 2025 22:50. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Sat, 01 Mar 2025 20:49. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Sat, 01 Mar 2025 18:09. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Sat, 01 Mar 2025 11:45. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Fri, 28 Feb 2025 02:00. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:57. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Thu, 27 Feb 2025 23:42. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Thu, 27 Feb 2025 23:06. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:17. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Thu, 27 Feb 2025 12:39. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Wed, 26 Feb 2025 13:15. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Wed, 26 Feb 2025 10:40. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Wed, 26 Feb 2025 01:52. (View) ![]() ![]() |