First debate - click image above or here.

Update - Second debate here:

Update - Third and final debate here:

Trump in the USA, Hofer in Austria, the rise of the AfD in Germany and that of the Swedish Democrats, Le Pen and Wilders both leading in the polls, the Brexit triumph in Britain, and talk of Nexit and Frexit on the horizon … all across the West these are days of hope, even expectation if one is a patriot, and of definite glimmers of opportunity if one is a nationalist.

The worldly power of the liberal elites, of the political internationalists, and of the corporate players might not be waning just yet.  They are, for the greater part, still in government or forming government agenda across the West.  They still populate the global fora.  They still have the media class to sell their economic and social values, and shape the public perception of any opposition.  But despite all this they don’t have quite the control they once did over public discourse and, increasingly, over the electoral process.  From the ever-widening political margins they are under sustained and successful ideological attack.  Where this attack comes from the anti-austerity left, with its Achilles heel of anti-racism and open borders, it has proved possible for the Establishment to absorb it.  But where it comes from the populist right, with its anti-Islam and anti-immigration elements, that’s just not possible.  People start thinking the unthinkable, namely that these elites, who act like gods and dispose of the European life as they please, are nothing better than base criminals and deserve only our total contempt and, in the worst cases, perhaps a prison cell.

The most painfully and visibly destructive of the elite’s actions over the years since 1945 – the politically generated multiracialisation of the West, without consent - is especially corrosive of the public trust.  That this terrible deed should also involve pouring a cold and haughty contempt on our natural rights in the matter, as if we are not peoples of the land at all but some form of disease, simply beggars the imagination.  What healthy mind could even conceive of such a thing?  Yet examples abound at every level, like this from the liberal ideological end of the spectrum:

READ MORE...

Breitbart is a medium much visited by members of the tribe of Snarks.  Indeed, it is owned by Snarks, and the stance it takes on the Great Issue is typically Snarkish: Snarkish interests are a non-Snark interest; Israel is “special”; Islamic extremism is very, very bad for Snarks and non-Snarks alike; likewise, untrammelled immigration from Muslim lands is very, very bad; civic values for non-Snark “nationalists” are quite alright, but real nationalism is “far right”, etc, etc.  And, of course, there is no Snarkish Question.  All that’s anti-Semitism, of course ...  just Nazi-talk.

It can be difficult to execute an attack on this prescription.  Crypsis does not help.  But attacks will usually result in deleted comments and, at times, the capital punishment of a Disqus identity ban.  Sometimes, though, it can be done.

Apologies for the shocking doggerel.

verbatim • 11 hours ago

But ... but ... the Jewish Director of Social Media at Sweden’s Bonnier Publishing - a huge Jewish multi-media owner - wrote an article titled “Our Whiteness – a democracy problem”.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/director_of_social_media_at_swedens_bonnier_publishing_says_sweden_and_euro

Why would she do that? Does she say the same thing about Israel, I wonder? Do Jews seek the debilitation and genetic dissolution of the European host, or does it just seem that way?

Well, I expect it’s “anti-Semitic” even to ask this question, and it would be just awful to be “anti-Semitic”. So let’s not think about it at all, hey?

Dexy  verbatim • 10 hours ago

The nazis once conquered through purity.
Now Kalergi’s their path to security.
And amidst all the rape,
They’ve a goat for their scape.
The kapo’s their patsy and surety.

verbatim  Dexy • 10 hours ago

There is a tribe which must conquer through debilitation,
This Kalergi’s a cover for their abomination,
And amidst all the rape,
The Swedish male is the scape.
While useful idiots shouting “Nazi” speed on the death of the nation.

Dexy  verbatim • 10 hours ago

As die Bilderbergs bungled and bumbled,
Their Nazi World Order we rumbled.
Their Viertereich Global
Was evil, not noble.
And to Hades the hellions tumbled.

verbatim  Dexy • 10 hours ago

The ‘berg was built upon high finance
And that on a group with a stance
For the supremacy, see
For all eternity
Of just one ancient allegiance.

Dexy  verbatim • 10 hours ago

Ain’t ye heard of the prince called Bernhard?
He took the thirdreich’s defeat hard.
His Bilderberg Group
Were all in the loop,
And vowed the Free West to retard.

verbatim  Dexy • 9 hours ago

Uncle Julian heard Bernhard’s news
And rang David in New York for his views
“We must use it”, he cried
“What a great place to hide
While we realise the destiny of the Jews.”

Dexy  verbatim • 9 hours ago

The Jews are not whom to be feared,
They are used as the globalists’ beard.
Nor ought they be hated,
For they are still fated
To save us from our pitches qu€€red.

verbatim  Dexy • 9 hours ago
What you say has one fatal flaw
Global capital knows the IQ score
But it’s not East Asians they bring to our land
But African, South Asian, Arab contraband
So not profit but another motive matters more.

Dexy  verbatim • 9 hours ago
Indeed this is not about cash.
The economy’s destined to crash.
The kraut plot eugenic?
They would call it eirenic:
A chimaera to rise from the ash.

verbatim  Dexy • 9 hours ago
So you think the American’s border
Has been opened by Germany’s order
To dissolve away
White America, but hey
The Germans, too
Are going down the existential loo
So what’s that, some kind of mental disorder?

Dexy  verbatim • 9 hours ago

To understand Christendom’s dip,
You should read up on Op Paperclip.
The beasts of Berlin
Have a new way to win,
But the scales we shall very soon tip.

verbatim  Dexy • 9 hours ago

Your switch to religion is noted
But it’s our genes which Power has voted
Shall have no instrumentality
in their coming Globality
Yet Israel is strangely immune
These globalists all dance to one tune.

Dexy  verbatim • 9 hours ago

You are woefully, wilfully blind
To the struggles of the Hebrew kind.
The nazis all boasted,
As the mozlems they hosted,
That Israel’s death warrant was signed.

verbatim  Dexy • 8 hours ago

Sight is called blindness and love is called hate
Precisely so Europe will join with the Caliphate
For that holds no fear
For those who adhere
To the faith which Adolf planned to annihilate.

Dexy  verbatim • 8 hours ago
That makes absolutely no sense.
Are you bonkers or just a bit dense?
I’ve no wish to be terse,
But defeatism’s worse.
Now bugger off back home to Rense.

verbatim  Dexy • 8 hours ago

The sense which makes you so tense
Is a genetic not cultural defence
They can’t help what flows in the vein
Even when retributions predictably bring pain
The cycle always starts up again
In the end, to answer this Question
Requires a geographic concession.

Dexy  verbatim • 8 hours ago

This has been a lot of fun.
It could still run and run.
But your lies are overspun.
Guess that makes you a Hun.

microlight  verbatim • 8 hours ago

Agreed.

Celtic Saint  Dexy • 8 hours ago

Brilliant ‘Verse-off’!!

Jane  Dexy • 9 hours ago

Wow what a fab poetic battle this morning guys. I feel I need to up vote verbatim for keeping it going, but must agree with Dexy when it comes to the NWO plan.

verbatim  Jane • 9 hours ago

He’s wrong, babe; for the reasons given. Globalism is an instrument - a very powerful one indeed, but an instrument nevertheless. The goals of those whom it serves are crucially different to the goals of global Capital as such, and it is in that difference that the identity of true power can be ascertained.

Of course, there are those who are desperate not to ascertain this identity; and they are not only Jews but weak and suggestible Europeans also. I don’t know which Dexy is, but his notion of German “Nazi” supremacy would suggest a Jewish or part-Jewish origin.

This essay must serve as my reply to Daniel’s recent critique.  Down the years I have been attacked for word or deed by a fair few here.  Generally I will not respond.  We have all observed how pulling apart instead of pulling together seems to be a characteristic, perhaps the defining characteristic, of the renegade kind which, because it alone can withstand the relentless moral attack from every direction, is left to uphold the true interests of our race and peoples today.  There is quite enough ideological schism and personal in-fighting in our movement without creating more.

So in this case, rather than respond directly to Daniel’s comments I will respond to some criticism levelled against the Ontology Project by James Bowery four long years ago in an unresolved thread discussion about the mathematician Gian Carlo Rota’s conclusion that, ultimately, all ontological investigation is made folly by the sheer indeterminacy of being.  It might not seem a very fair or logical way to respond to the criticisms of my friend Daniel.  But dig a little, and the logic might become clearer.

James’s own summation of his argument was stated thus:

Just as measurement is the raw material of science—its “ground” if you will, so philosophy’s “ground” is in the ineffability of Being—ineffability giving rise to necessary precision in the expressions and even thoughts.  Just as the rigor of science is to ruthlessly dethrone theory with measurement, so the rigor of philosophy is to ruthlessly dethrone mere expression and even mere thought with ineffable Being.

Ostensibly, James was demanding that this ineffable slipperiness be dispelled by an unremitting (but, in the event, not bowreyesque) intellectual rigour.  It is, of course, disappointing that he did not hurl himself into the creative fray and resolve the matter for us.  But I don’t think his interest in it extended beyond criticism.  What he was really saying was: In its lack of a properly expressible, qualitatively certain foundation, none of this (ie, the pursuit of an existentialist and identitarian philosophy of Man and nation) has enough solidity to stand in the world.

READ MORE...

    Fail: on this one, your erudition yields an F-

In minute 2:18 - 2:21:18 of a discussion with TRS, Greg Johnson proposes to do away with the idea that John Locke’s notion of civil individual rights is a key fundament of U.S. politics and suggests that it is only portrayed as such by Jewish interests.

First and foremost, Greg is ignoring the fact that it is in the group interests of Whites to criticize this notion for basically the same reasons that Jews have - especially for its bias against their capacity for group discrimination.

Johnson argues that Calvinism and Republicanism, in the latter case in particular, by way of reading Montesquieu, were exponentially more important to the founders. Maybe they were, but that doesn’t translate to what became important in the life of ordinary everyday Americans for over 100 years.

Are people concerned with The Republic? Well, of course not very much in any practical sense. You can set aside the bit about Montesquieu being more influential by a factor of a hundred. This is a case of an erudite man pulling rank to the detriment not only of the truth, but of important utility.

The second matter is of Calvinism and its inherent means to exclude Jews. The separation of Church and State is integral to The U.S. Constitution, so any such notion of this being more relevant than Lockeatine rights in the every day lives of Americans - or even for those who set the agendas - is way off the mark. Again, it displays a wish for some of that unused erudition to come in handy in a place where it does not really help.

To look at Locke’s notion of individual rights as set against and problematizing group organization is the best way to critique the foundations of America in terms of what has left racial defense susceptible. This is what makes racial defense extremely difficult, because it de-legitimizes group organization.

Given individual rights as the characteristic and definitive law of the land, when people raise concerns about how borders and boundaries are to be maintained, i.e., when people do try to tarry with these strictures, at best they tend to render crazy propositions (disingenuous or naive) that not only will the markets take care of themselves by the magic hand, but boundaries and borders around groups will be taken care of by the magic hand as well. In a word, Locke’s empirical objectivism is a force of liberalism that is available for easy exploitation - by Jewish interests, liberals and other later day objectivists, be they Austrian School or other form of objectivist.

Nobody around here is saying that Jewish interests would not have taken advantage of The Constitution’s empirical basis. Nobody should be naive enough, however, to believe that just because Jews reject it for its troubling of group organization and discrimination, that we should not problematize it on that basis as well, in order to discriminate on behalf of ourselves.

Greg is being that naive and asking us to be that naive when he tries to pull rank and suggest that Montesquieu is more influential by a factor of a hundred. Well, maybe he was to the founders. But ask Americans, including politicians, what matters to them when push comes to shove - for the past hundred years or so, what matters to them? Montesquieu, Calvin or their Lockeatine rights?

  Hillard Clump

The conventions reveal a “Hillard Clump” as the candidates pursue the same fundamental paradigm shift in domestic and foreign relations - which is ultimately anti-White.

The Republican and Democratic conventions show a common paradigm behind both parties in terms of domestic and foreign agendas: both sides were superficial in presenting themselves as the nationalist champions, concerned to protect the economic interests of classes below Jewish and other oligarch interests. Their policies a) hearken back to older industrial methods - production methods by which America cannot compete and which are obsolete compared to the robotic methods a first world nation should pursue in self interest; and b) policies of tariffing, which will not only hurt the Asian economy, but raise the price of goods, and thereby offset wage increases domestically. Thus, the ostensible nationalism of Hillard Clump is not going to improve the economic prospects of underclass Americans. In fact, both sides are just pursuing policies which retain America’s liberal, de-White unionizing basis - the Republicans have revitalized their party by placating Whites with the hope that they may find their way through the proposition nation with dog whistles to “anti-PC”, etc.; hence, maintaining the party as good sport in the mutual foil game. By following suit, Whites are being roped-in to its racial mixing bowl; while the Democrats pursue their more flagrant pro-non-Whites agenda to make the “choice” seem more dramatic and important than ever - there isn’t a dramatic choice: It’s Hillard Clump.

Both sides are working for the same overall paradigmatic shift in foreign policy as well, configuring foreign relations to secure Jewish and oligarch interests. Hillard Clump are in favor of subduing Iran and its deal at the behest of Israel. Even more significantly, they are both shifting toward a policy of containment of Asia, and China in particular: Trump will present Israel’s Russian option against China and the rest of Asia, while Hillary will favor Saudi; but the primary outlook in either case is against Asian development - also against the rest of the third world development for those who care - however, the anti-Asian angle is significantly in Israel’s particular interests and NOT in White interests. That is because it will suppress Asian development in order to keep their ethnonational powers from growing, while Jewish and other oligarch interests keep comprador contacts (typically Muslim Imams) in place to exploit them. This policy of containing and suppressing Asia will not only hamper any projection and threat of Asian ethnonationalism against Jewish and oligarch exploitation, it will hamper Asian ethnostates from cooperating with European ethnonationalism against Jewish and oligarch power. At the same time Jewish and oligarch interests will continue to disrupt the projection of European/ White ethnonationalism through the ongoing promotion of race mixing civic nationalism in Europe and in America - in America, under the guise of “mutual economic class interest” (“protectionism” of America’s propositional underclasses); and in Europe, under the guise of needed labor and youthful diversity to break-up stayed nationalistic, racist, xenophobia. This foreign policy of Hillard Clump is thereby designed to head-off the possibility of European/ White ethnonational cooperation with Asian ethnonationalism because Jewish and other oligarch classes recognize that cooperation to be the greatest threat to their power and sources of power.

Examples of the common domestic/foreign paradigm shift from the conventions:

Republican: Ben Carson dog whistles a quote from The Book of Esther - “In such a time as this” (when war against Iran is called-for)

Democrat: Elijah Cummings expresses his true belief that the Democrats are opposed to oligarch interests, while he is forced to talk over the chants of fellow true believers, shouting, “stop the TPP.”

Washington Post: For three-full hours, they objected nearly every time a motion was brought up for a voice vote, calling instead for a roll call; they chanted against the TPP trade deal; they waved signs and banners.

Part two of Kumiko Oumae’s critical examination of Matt Parrott’s Christian traditionalism.

Subjects covered included: Global baptism, Christian universalism, homosexuality, Africa and the population question, Syria.

58 mins, 52.6 MB

Matt Parrott at NPI.

Summary: A two-part critical examination, conducted by Kumiko Oumae, of many areas of Matt Parrott’s Christian traditionalism, from Matt’s faith fundamentals as an Orthodox Christian traditionalist and nationalist - in that order - to Matt’s views on freemasonry, the relationship of Judaism to Christianity, the pagan past, how religion renews, global baptism, Christian universalism, homosexuality, Africa and the population question, and Syria.

Can I just say, from a personal perspective, that I thought the interview was a success, notwithstanding any hostilities which may have existed prior to it (and since). Kumiko was very well prepped and she did a great job of maintaining a high tempo of relevant and close questioning, to which Matt responded generously.

My thanks to you both.

This is part one: The fundamentals of Matt’s Orthodox Christian traditionalism examined, Freemasonry, Judaism and Christianity, the making of religions.

1 hr 22 mins, 75 MB.