Alex Linder: Attack the Conservatives

Posted by Søren Renner on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 13:08.

The rise of nationalism is almost a mathematical function of the decline of conservatism.

I’ll now slightly expand that answer.

Ordinary people, not all that different from you, are not real swift. They can barely distinguish the ground from the sky. Pat Buchanan is enough like us that it confuses people. The same can be said for all conservatives: they favor some of the same things we do (basically, acting normally - respect for the respectable in everyday life), which makes them, the conservatives, a plausible opponent to the weirdos of the left. Do you understand the implications that flow, for our position, from the fact that tens of millions of people believe that by supporting ‘the right’ they can effect the kind of political change we need to get back to Normal White America? If they think the solution lies within the system, i.e., through supporting one or other of the people/parties they see on tv/in the papers, then why the heck would they ever bother about us? I want you to take ten or fifteen days, however much time you need, to digest this point:



Now, if the public doesn’t need Buchanan, because he can’t get the job done…then the next epiphany is that Buchanan is an obstacle to the public seeing us, and pondering our case, and realizing that we alone, we White Nationalists, have what is needed to get the job done. Buchanan and his ilk are…in the way. He is on tv and in the papers daily. Our people are not. He’s close enough to our position, plausible enough a representative of normal-white interests, that masses of people, dim by nature, tired by overwork, just might be fooled by him. God knows they always have been. And that’s how we’ve ended up where we are. Now, Buchanan has no reason to change: his shtik and spiel have made him rich. WE ARE THE ONES WHO MUST CHANGE. So I don’t want to hear any shit about how I’m wrong in attacking little Catholic Patsy. Attacking conservatives as cowards and weaklings is precisely what we need. It is tactically even more important than attacking liberals, because the people we want already hate them, and their power is merely a function of their support for the jews’ agenda. We can’t polarize the public between Whites and jews until conservatives, the have-it-both-ways people, are roadkilled and dragged off on the shoulder. Only then does the political Chicken, begin…

Knocking Pat off the air is like knocking the flowers off a Pasadena New Year’s float. It shows the ugly chicken wire cage of jewish totalitarianism beneath the pretty colors and designs and smiling waving chesties. It reveals to the public what’s actually going on: naked jewish tyranny. No one who disagrees with the jews in any way is allowed face or sheet time in AmeriKwa. That awakening is good for our side. It is necessary. Pat Buchanan and other seemingly rational conservative geldings on tv and in the papers hurts our side, because they make it look like the system is open. For the mass of people, none to bright to begin with, and tired from work, can’t make out the difference. They don’t spend all day on the Internet studying politics. They’re working. They need things gross and crude, otherwise they’re going to be fooled by polished professionals like Pat. But if he doesn’t have the answers we need as a race, then it is in our interest that he be knocked off tv, because he can only mislead people as to the cause of our decline.

I’m pleonasming my ass off, but I really don’t think you dimwits won’t benefit from overbludgeoning. So just read more and think a little, or wave your feelers, or whatever you do to receive sensory input.

To repeat:

Ordinary dimwits cannot distinguish the White Nationalist position from the conservative position, since our side is kept off tv by the jews.

In order to make our presence known, we have to KNOCK THE CONSERVATIVES OUT OF THE WAY. The fact that they somewhat look like us, and that some of our policies overlap (anti-queer, anti-feminist, pro-borders, etc.) does not mean they are on our side. They are in fact spittingly hostile to us. They call us kooks, loons, crazies, basement dwellers - in short, there is no term of abuse used by the commie-jew-left against us that is not also used by the commie-jew-controlled-right. That ought to be a lesson to you dimwits, but, being tepid namby-pambies like 99% of white males, you just smooth over the differences like a wife who doesn’t want to make trouble. We’ll find a way to muddle through somehow, just pretend that we all get along, that we’re all on the same side. Even though we’re not, and it only helps the already rich and cowardly pretenders called conservatives who look down on us and do all they can to destroy our school and reputations to preserve their status as the real outsiders and alternative to the judeo-System. Nah, just pretend. “It’s better that way,” as the wigger in the Offspring song sings. Better to be a big fat stupid undiscriminating barren pussy like Starr or her cat than to stand up for yourself, your school, your leaders, your principles, your race. If you think Pat Buchanan is a good guy, and helping our cause, you are not a White Nationalist.

White nationalists have nearly as much difficulty as the average joe in understanding what’s going on in politics because:

a) they are nearly as dim-witted as pro wrestling fans;

b) they have never seen professional conservatism from the inside, so they think it is something other than “a game; a way of making a living,” as Joe Sobran called it.

Wise up, idiots. Pat Buchanan is not interested in standing up for you, he’s interested in getting into your wallet. WN Buchanan fans are the exact equivalent of a chick who thinks a guy really likes her when in fact he just wants sex. Pat’s interested in you watching him on tv and thinking he stands for the change you want. He isn’t, but if he can put on a good enough show to fool you, he’s got your money. And he knows you’re stupid. He knows, as he would put it, hard-core WN have “nowhere else to go.” No one else on tv even pretends to be right wing. That makes him the it girl. And until WN scorn him and demand better, he’s right. Again, if you support Buchanan, you are a conservative, not a White nationalist.

What our White Nationalist cause needs to do to succeed is to polarize the nation between jews and White Nationalists. That means, in tardspeak, that the average dolt, let’s call him Special Mark, the guy who reads the paper for twenty minutes before dinner, must perceive that there are two competing visions out there, between which he can choose:

1) the judeo-System - the debt-sex-vice-sports-multicult vision

2) the White Nationalist system - a White nation without jews, blacks or neo-morals

Polarizing the public between these positions is a tall order. It means destroying the dominant conceptual framework as it exists now: with false option A (liberals/Democrats) and false option B (conservatives/Republicans). Ordinary people cannot make out, without help, that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between right and left, they are two puppets pulled over the claws of the usual suspect who actually runs things and makes all the decisions. It is our job to expose, reveal, destroy. Part of that revelation is beating the living hell out of the conservatives until ordinary people perceive them as the weaklings, laughing-stocks, and System tools they are.

In practical terms, polarization entails demonizing and attacking the RIGHT, THE CONSERVATIVES, the PALEOCONSERVATIVES even more than the left-liberal-PC-communists. We should not only attack the fake right, the false opposition, we should attack them with joy and relish. Laughter indicates the laugher is or feels superior to the target. That’s exactly the meta-message the winning politician must communicate - that he is stronger than his opponent. That he is the bull goose in the pen. That is a lesson the conservative never understands, which is why he is always fighting uphill. Footnoting is for cowards and folks who don’t get it. At best it’s fill-in stuff. No footnote ever won a political battle. A political battle is just the human version of that nature channel perennial: the battle between bulls for mating rights. Bluffing is involved, and laughing is essential to bluffing, as ridicule can destroy anything. Anyone preferring reasoned discourse over laughter, if not an actual academic, to whom footnoting is proper, is very likely a coward or a dullard. We beat the jews by laughing at them and fighting them. Laughter is the proper means of verbal warfare. Not “proving” things. Not footnoting. Not remonstrating. Not being polite and respectful. Not playing along with appearances. Not not doubting motives. All those are for weaklings, for losers, for conservatives. We are not they. “I’m not like you [Kwanservative] Charlie Brown [with your fulsome MLKommie praise, your love of diversity, your pathetic and ineffectual puling], I have to win sometimes.” We White Nationalists are lions. Well, we’re cubs who might become lions if we act right. The conservatives are dung beetles. After the jews have eaten the wildebeest and pooped out the remains, the Pat Buchanans of “It’s Pat” fame crinkle by on their six little feet, and roll up the salubrious balls of dung on which they subsist. Do you want to be a lion or a dung beetle, White man?

If you agree there are things a grown man, a political analyst, can’t say, you are giving your seal of approval to the cowardice that is putting our race in the ground. You hurt our cause and you are not welcome at VNNForum. White nationalism has a higher standard than you are able to meet.

The conservatives, including Pat Buchanan, must be destroyed, run off, hounded into irrelevancy, so that the people can see that we, not he and his febrile faileocons, are the REAL alternative to the evil jews producing The System Show.

I really have been impressed these last few months at the childlike cluelessness of so many who think they are WN. The typical WN thinks he is displaying his sophistication when he makes excuses for why this or that kahnster dung beetle can’t say this or that.

Let me tell you, men of gerbil: You’re not sophisticated. You’re stupid dupes and dullards. You think Buchanan is really putting one over on the dominant jews, and you’re right. He is putting one over. Not on the jews. On you.

I have worked in these offices. I have taken the calls from liberal talking head A asking if conservative talkie B wants to go out for drinks after work. These guys are all buddies. They live the good life by putting on a Punch and Judy show for the mass morons like you. Some of the leftists might be honest about what they believe, since they can say EVERYTHING they want, qualified only by tactical advisability. But none of the rightists are anything but tools, except for the jewish neocons, who root and jew about with freedom, as they are jews. As John Derbyshire at least had the courage to admit, everything he writes is conditioned by his fear of jews. If he displeases them, he has no job. Men who accept employment as political writers/analysts on terms that require them to relinquish their manhood and their independent judgment are unworthy of respect or subsidy. They are, rather, to be despised and spit on as weaklings. If you don’t agree with this statement, you are not a white nationalist. You are a conservative. Cowardice at no time in White history has been acceptable in a political leader. That is a horrid and disgusting innovation of the 20th century. Reject it.

Now is the first time in history that White men, almost across the board, willingly agreed to sacrifice their honor and their independence for a paycheck. Pat Buchanan and the rest of the paleocons are house eunuchs waving palm fronds for the Pet pashas who employ them. A white nationalist who praises Pat Buchanan and makes excuses for him is seen by me, and by Pat himself, as a fool. A man with no self respect has no respect for others too stupid to see him for what he is. Pat Buchanan knows how to wink and nod at WN in order to suck our money. And too many of you idiots think he’s helping us rather than helping himself by using us.

Pat Buchanan is dangerous to our cause because of his virtues - his learning and his political knowledge. He knows precisely how to affect that he is one of us. He know that hinting that he stands for all that is white and good is the way to fill his coffers. He also knows that that is his role within the jewish system. You have to give a little to get a little, the jewish tyrant knows. Pat is that giving a little. To maintain the fiction of an open system, there have to be at least a few people who appear, and appear plausibly, to oppose the powers that be. Pat Buchanan is precisely that man. As a good little Irish Catholic, PB always runs cringing and whimpering back to Authority, because that is his nature, and that is how he was raised and trained. Religious folks like PB have no problem with shitty, self-interested behavior as long as the dirt is done in private, and the facade kept up in public. The idea of saying the same thing in private as you do in public is foreign to the Christian, as is any ideal of manliness. Christianity is a shabby thing.

The White fool imagines that Buchanan aids our cause. The reality is that our cause aids Buchanan. Buchanan never says a word about White dispossession. He never says a word about jews controlling our government. He openly advised the Republicans to undercut the most successful White political candidate of the last 25 years, David Duke. Buchanan is a team player, and a System dolly all the way to the bank. WN is a cause that he can watch and steal the best arguments from, without crediting the men who thought them up - the revisionists now languishing in jail, for example. That way he can maximize his support base and shine up his radical veneer while staying safe with the jews. Most people, as I started and will end with, can’t make out a clever, well written conservative position coming from the pen of someone like Buchanan from a genuine white nationalist position. It is in our interest that we do everything possible to help them, and that surely and necessarily entails attacking and destroying Pat Buchanan. If you don’t agree with that position, you are not one of us. You are a conservative. Anything that obscures the difference between White nationalism and conservatism is detrimental to our cause.

Politics is a zero-sum game. Money and time that go to Pat Buchanan and the faileocons are money and attention that do not go to White nationalists. Any so-called WN who praises Buchanan and encourages us to support him is objectively damaging our cause - by aiding men who already possess tremendous material (money and tv access) advantages over us. Not to mention men who, whenver the question is put to them directly, denounce us.

Accept nothing but the real thing, White men.

Raise your standards.

Pat Buchanan is our competitor.

Pat Buchanan is our enemy.




Posted by Frank on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:15 | #

Pat Buchanan might not be a metrosexual, but he’s a white nationalist through and through. Read his latest books, including the one on WWII.

Pat’s not a competitor: he’s just better than most other WN and thus accomplishes more.


Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:15 | #

You must be perceived as the “adversaries” (designated in bold type in this quote from <a href=“>The Discourses</a> by Machiavelli) of the tyrant if you hope that “the people in general will judge… to have gotten that benefit from you”:



Although the Romans succeeded happily in being liberal to people, yet when danger came upon them from Porsenna coming to assault Rome in order to restore thy Tarquins, the Senate apprehensive of the plebs who might want to accept the Kings than to sustain a war, in order to assure themselves (of the plebs), relieved them of the salt gabelle and all other taxes, saying that the poor did much for the public benefit if they reared their children, and that because of this benefice that people should submit itself to endure siege, famine, and war: let no one who trusts in this example defer in gaming the people over to himself until the time of danger, for it will not succeed for him as it succeeded for the Romans; for the people in general will judge not to have gotten that benefit from you, but from your adversaries, and becoming afraid that once the necessity is past, you would take back from them that which by force you gave them, they will have no obligation to you. And the reason why this proceeding turned out well for the Romans was because the State was new, and not yet firm, and that the people had seen that other laws had been made before for their benefit, such as that of the appeal to the Plebs: so that they could persuade themselves that that good which was done, was not caused so much by the coming of the enemy as much as the disposition of the Senate to benefit them: In addition to this the memory of the Kings, by whom they had been ill-used and injured in many ways, was fresh. And as similar occasions rarely occur, so it rarely occurs that similar remedies do good. Therefore Republics as well as Princes ought to think ahead what adversities may befall them, and of which men in adverse times they may have need of, and then act toward them as they might judge necessary ((supposing some case)) to live. And he who governs himself otherwise, whether Prince or Republic, and especially a Prince, and then on this fact believes that if danger comes upon him, he may regain the people for himself by benefits, deceives himself, because he not only does not assure himself, but accelerates his ruin.

This is the strongest argument against tolerating what VDARE calls “triangulation”.  Basically, if you let someone represent your view, the political spoils will go to them when your common enemy’s untenable position collapses.  So the only question is whether you trust those who represented your view.  Do I trust Buchanan?


Although Alex is wrong when he says ” Buchanan never says a word about White dispossession.” Buchanan basically represents wealthy interests, who couldn’t really give a rats ass about working whites.  He’d never permit a net asset tax funded citizen’s dividend because the guys pulling his strings wouldn’t.

Do I trust Alex?

A lot more than I trust Buchanan. 

Hell, I trust GT more than I trust Buchanan.  At least GT seems to mean well.


Posted by Frank on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:22 | #

James Bowery, that’s an excellent reply - huge fan of Machiavelli. Triangulation is supposed to educate conservatives and turn them into WN at least, who then are supposed to pressure the GOP politicians into voting correctly and otherwise form a movement which is supposed to ultimately capture the GOP. James Edwards and cohosts (The Political Cesspool) might have a better strategy, but they don’t reach nearly as many as does Buchanan.

I don’t know the answer to triangulation v. alternative movement. Buchanan tried a 3rd party run (albeit not a WN run…) and was crushed, so even if he’s wrong it’s understandable where he’s coming from.

Interesting that Ann Coulter defended the CofCC in one of her latest books - she’s one I’m far more apt to view as a competitor.


Buchanan basically represents wealthy interests, who couldn’t really give a rats ass about working whites.  He’d never permit a net asset tax funded citizen’s dividend because the guys pulling his strings wouldn’t.

“Conservatives” are supposed to be middle/upper-middle class, and yea I guess they buy his books. However he does oppose immigration and free trade which are clearly working class white issues so far as wages go. He doesn’t like welfare because it makes people dependent and thus loyal to the government. I bet he’d shift with the wind were the “net asset tax funded citizen’s dividend” to pick up potential (to help whites), but right now welfare = white dispossession in America. He goes after Jews and Israel too, on occasion and within limits but the criticisms are there. Russell Kirk praised Robert Taft for shifting his stances as appropriate, and I suspect Buchanan feels the same way. Note: that’s not the same as selling out but rather adapting as the environment and thus best stance changes.

Do I trust Alex?

A lot more than I trust Buchanan.

Hell, I trust GT more than I trust Buchanan.  At least GT seems to mean well.

I trust Buchanan as much as I trust any of these media strangers. He legitimately appears to be triangulating in order to tear conservatives away from the distractions and towards WN.


Anyway, it’s vitally important to win over the right wing populism that’s up for grabs right now. We can all agree with that. Nevertheless, we could see some better politicians filling congress in 2010. 2012, I want Marion Barry for POTUS, but in 2010 a little GOP popularity might be alright.


Posted by Frank on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:12 | #

Buchanan has no children, so it’ll be interesting to see what he does with his money. I’ll have a time laughing if he gives it to an org Linder acknowledges as useful to whites.

This sounds like the best criticism against Buchanan:

He openly advised the Republicans to undercut the most successful White political candidate of the last 25 years, David Duke.


Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:14 | #

The degree to which a citizen’s dividend encourages balkanization is the degree to which it will be a success.


Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:24 | #

Frank, I’m sure you know of a half-witted store clerk who regards Duke as little better than the Manson Family.  What our mutual friend did to set him straight: precisely nil.  Btw, do you suppose he (our mutual friend) still buys into the Holocaust as purveyed by its, er, victims?


Posted by Frank on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:25 | #

Yea, good point CC. I don’t know about James Bowery, but you’ve got to keep me straight, haha (meaning I make mistakes when it comes to this politicking…)


Posted by Joe of the Mountain on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:27 | #

Dude.  You should actually read the Bible before trashing it.  You owe Christ an apology big time:

Matthew v:37 (for one example)

“Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”

The idea of saying the same thing in private as you do in public is foreign to the Christian, as is any ideal of manliness. Christianity is a shabby thing.


Posted by Frank on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:30 | #

My last comment was in reply to the 12:14AM comment.

I’m coming up blank on comment 12:24AM though… If you want to contact me, join kinism or originaldissent forums and PM “Frank”.


Posted by Frank on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:28 | #

Ohh, CC - he was from Armenia, an immigrant.


Posted by Fr. John on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:06 | #

“As a good little Irish Catholic, PB always runs cringing and whimpering back to Authority, because that is his nature, and that is how he was raised and trained. Religious folks like PB have no problem with shitty, self-interested behavior as long as the dirt is done in private, and the facade kept up in public. The idea of saying the same thing in private as you do in public is foreign to the Christian, as is any ideal of manliness. Christianity is a shabby thing.”

SR- Thanks for posting this, but You (and Alex Linder) are confusing Roman Catholi-‘schism’ with Christianity.
Now, I am pretty sure Alex is merely a Christophobe, but I don’t want to smear you with that tar, if it isn’t true….

Nevertheless, I’ve said it before, and I’ll continue to say it again. WHen Christianity removes her head from the *ss of “Judeo-Xianity” and comes back to the familial, ethnic, racial construct known as Christendom (i.e., White Europe) then we will win over the Talmudics, and the pagans. For it was only a virile, Manly, WHITE-conscious Trinitarian Christianity that served to keep back the Muslim, or the ‘Golden Horde’ from our gates.

For we cannot succeed unless that is the operational philosophy behind any WN movement. All else is doomed to fail, for we would be using the Enemy’s own presuppositions against them, and they already KNOW those!

Martyrdom for Christ, is the only sure measure of success for Christendom. It brought down Rome, it can bring down Talmudism.


Posted by Drifter on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:56 | #

Isn’t it reasonable to allow a counterpoint to a point given? If a discussion shouldn’t be derailed with religious assertions that are divisive, it should be nipped to stay on topic. The topic is trouncing the neoliberals calling themselves conservatives.

Else, I’d offer the kin-betrayed Frisians and the kin-betrayed Stedingers for counterpoint for starters. Do we ever learn?


Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:54 | #

793—the year the Norsemen learned from the Frisians what slavery awaited them if they continued their isolation.

Now there was a real draft protest!


Posted by Frank on Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:00 | #

We don’t want “Hal Turner”-type informants in “our” movement either.

Just because someone’s nuts or uber-extreme doesn’t mean he’s not working for the FBI. Say what one will about Buchanan, but it’s unlikely he’s working for the FBI at least.


Posted by itnw on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:36 | #

Frank: Your responses are typical of conservative-WNs who just don’t get it.


Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:39 | #

Hey Frank, check out this Linder quote:

What is it the Germans say?

A hard dick has no conscience?

Making political change is like that.

LOL!  Crude, simple, to the point, so the lemmings can understand.

In this thread Linder expands upon why the faileocons suck rotten eggs:


Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:56 | #

More from Linder:

Do you see a coward like Buchanan or Fleming or Paul Craig Roberts raising arms to oppose White Nationalists heading off to fight jews? Even though they’ve said repeatedly for decades that our cause is immoral? I don’t see one of these gits raising a pinky off anything but a tea cup. These curs yield to power. The jews threaten or bribe them. They comply.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:37 | #

Linder has no clue what he’s talking about. Fleming and Buchanan have been friendly with WN despite Fleming’s disagreement. And Roberts has taken an unpopular stand to defend Pinochet.

When I first went to Chronicles, I mentioned my racial views, and Fleming responded that paleos had a lot in common and similar interests, and I learned a great deal from them which I could integrate into my racial views - this was back before TOQ and before the Internet had such variety. And he ran Francis’s book and has also been friendly with others of a similar view despite his attacks on their views at times. Fleming was also prominent in going after libertarians and pointing out how stupid Americans were for falling for their arguments. He’s always on the verge of racial views, and some say he was there but backtracked in the 90s.

I’ve gotten angry at Roberts and Fleming many times, but they’re not as Linder describes. And this about Buchanan… Linder is totally deluded.

Someone ought to notify Linder of FOX News where most of his true competition is. The paleos don’t even have much influence and following. Linder is simply attacking his allies.

In another post a little German is calling for the death of all Brits. I’m sure you’ll like him eh? WWII seems to have driven you Germans bonkers - and yes the English too though in a different way. Nordics need to snap out of this insanity.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:47 | #

Linder has improved over time, but his lack of success is due to his own failures.

Since some of his posts have echoed some posts of mine (I comment frequently on others’ sites…), maybe I shouldn’t be too harsh since maybe he has a good bit of agreement with me. But I don’t like Linder’s style, and I disagree with him on just which conservatives are the danger.


What is it I don’t get? I doubt you’ve much idea of my stances…


Nick Griffin in his interview at TPC said Britain wouldn’t be safe unless Russia or America were won over by white nationalists. So, I wonder if he’d not like my Appalachia idea, haha.

You’d said previously on GT vs. Bowery you’re currently siding with Bowery, but keep in mind that both strategies can be pursued. It’s not an either or.

You misunderstood me somewhat though - I opposed your NS state because it seemed to transient and large in general. Productivity and thus power needs to be balanced against community and roots was my point there. It’s important that whites don’t fight each other and attempt to find a lasting, peaceful order among themselves, but I’d like to think that wouldn’t require a large managerial state.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:06 | #

Odd how Linder only targets the friendly paleos and not the ones who are truly competitors with WN… Part of me thinks he’s attempting to divide and conquer.

Blogger Faust has been very critical of E. Michael Jones, and I’ve found his criticisms of Jones legitimate.

The Constitution Party and Birchers would fit Linder’s criteria, but Linder doesn’t go after them. Why does he only go after friendly targets?


Posted by itnw on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:36 | #

How are the paleos friendly?


Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:43 | #

Not to divert from the discussion here, but I have a deep revulsion for Alex Linder.  Over time he’s become ever more overbearing and full of himself as his site has degenerated.  Has anyone here been to VNNF recently?  It’s a madhouse.  What’s more, Alex’s dictatorial and inflexible personality has driven off some of the best posters he had there (some of them who had him well eclipsed in terms of intellect).

Sorry for the personal attack on a fellow pro-white, but he is a case in point of what happens when self-referential egomaniacs are allowed to run amok in this “movement.”


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:52 | #

Fleming doesn’t want his movement to become WN, so he’s perhaps a legitimate target though only within a degree I think. And PCR wouldn’t be apt to be WN, but he’s not much of an obstacle. His focus is mostly on undermining free trade, federal police powers, and war which is fully within WN interests. The only negative of PCR is his overuse of “Nazi” slurs.

Fred Reed is one I don’t like because of whom he married. I find that unethical since they produced children. He had the audacity to show up at an AmRen meeting…

James Edwards once accused (on his blog) Fleming and Wilson of being Rainbow Confederates, so maybe they’ve done more than I know. Edwards though presented a legitimate case.

Jones goes after Jews, so perhaps that meets Linder’s standards though Jones goes after whites too and is essentially some sort of pro-Mexico Catholic nationalist.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:53 | #


it’s not a matter of “the paleos” but rather of individual paleos. Paleos are a diverse lot.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:03 | #


are you familiar with James Kalb? I’ve learned a lot just by going through the list of his reading recommendations as well as his site. He’s another Catholic, but he’s nearly a kinist.

If WN want to reject even men like Kalb, we’ve first got to master their multi-layered views, perhaps by each of us specializing. Anyway, I’ve overrun MR for long enough today - haha. I’ll chat with y’all later.


Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:07 | #

Can I please state again that Linder worked for Robert Novack, the JEWISH converso.

It is also rumored that he has Crohn’s disease.

My guess is that he is a modern Frank Collin.


Posted by itnw on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:24 | #

Linder does have Crohn’s, it’s not a rumor. I know he worked for some conservative magazine a long time ago. There’s no proof that he’s a Frank Collins(Jew posing as WN).

Frank, I’ve been to his site a couple of times but never read him very much. I know Jew Lawrence Auster is a fan of his.

The point Alex is making is that conservatism is not serious and they take their orders from Jews. This is clearly true. The way for a white future is by attacking conservatism, and getting them out of the way because they are a controlled opposition. Michael O’Meara(Occidental Quarterly) said in a recent piece that the majority of people who call themselves white nationalists in America are really racially conscious conservatives. White nationalism cannot be conservative if it wants to win.


Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:34 | #

getting them out of the way because they are a controlled opposition.

As are the BNP, Vlaams Belang, Front Nationale and their contemporaries in other Euro nations.  They divert energy and attention; they keep the real revolutionaries in check.

Can I please state again that Linder worked for Robert Novack, the JEWISH converso.

According to Alex:  Working for Jews hastened his awakening.

My guess is that he is a modern Frank Collin.

I don’t know.  But I neither trust him nor like his methods.


Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:37 | #

I’m not saying there is proof. Merely my suspicion.

The guy is waaaay over the top. I’d like to meet him in person and talk to him at a bar or coffee shop. Anybody that is like this 24-7 has some problems.


Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:38 | #

Crohn’s disease is kind of a Jewish disease.

He does make a good point regarding Buchannan though.


Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:57 | #


Conservatism is the destiny of all settled polities.  What do I mean by settled?  Polities that have achieved their founding objectives.  Where those objectives are unachievable - as radical individualism is, for example - then instinctive conservatives must trim to remain relevant, or they must leave the orthodoxy and begin working against it.  You would expect these conservatives, however, to operate under the principle of “once bitten twice shy”, and not to be wildly keen on getting involved with a second set of unachievable objectives outside the orthodox system.  Hence their suspicion of fascist ideology - a suspicion which, it seems, is returned with interest.


Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:06 | #

Buchanan obviously wants his people to survive, otherwise why would he bother writing all those books describing how they careening towards oblivion?  The problem is that he doesn’t say that he wants them to survive, and advocate for their survival.  He is over seventy year old, he doesn’t have much time left, we need more from him, the time is now.

I understand that Linder was once in the National Alliance.  I understand that Linder lives in relative poverty in a small town.  Linder’s commentary is too trenchant and articulate to be that of a false advocate.  GT, who is fluent is “non-movement” scuttlebutt, believes Linder is sincere, though partially in it for money and ego.  Linder consciously pursues the tactic of George Lincoln Rockwell in that he believes an over-the-top act will garner him the needed attention to get the message out as against the MSM response to our issues of “dynamic silence”.  Also Linder enjoys ridiculing our enemies, clearly hates them and sees no reason to pull his punches.  He wants to do it his own way.  I for one have benefited immensely from listening to his Radio Istina podcasts.


Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:33 | #

I’m not sure, although I have no problem deferring to the Cap’n on issues I haven’t thought too much about.

I’m gonna state that as of right now I think he is neither too harmful nor too beneficial and thus not much of a concern.


Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:34 | #

Linder that is.

Buchannan is spot on but I think Linder makes a valid point. The paleocon failure to make that last crucial step is telling.


Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:43 | #

Linder consciously pursues the tactic of George Lincoln Rockwell in that he believes an over-the-top act will garner him the needed attention to get the message out

The problem, Captain, is the vicious intolerance he harbors for anyone who disagrees with his Weltanschauung.  He is a puffed-up mini-martinet who thinks he’s the center of the universe and has an arsenal of invective and abuse to hurl at those who dissent.  In short, he’s an asshole.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:48 | #


it depends on what is meant by “conservative” - my concern is WN who wholly lack roots and foundation and thus become incapable of helping whites. There are details being overgeneralized. I’ll have to read O’Meara’s piece to know what’s being said.

Pierce is supposed to be radical, but he’s at heart New Age and in my mind thus in the enemy category. His religion was not pagan in the true sense of that word. Rockwell accomplished little. Radical doesn’t inherently signify one has the necessary will and sees the full picture - that’s only one possibility.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:01 | #

To be clear the Promethians and cosmotheists are more anti-white than than communists. They wish to replace whites with genetically engineering transhumans and are thus anti-white.

I know they’re associated with NS and everything NS is warm and lovely, but when the ideas are actually analysed its made clear they wish to transform whites into nonwhites…

I’ll take George Bush or Max Horkheimer over anyone in either of those movements. CC seems to misunderstand the significance of this issue since he mentions National Alliance, unless it’s not affiliated with cosmotheism. Eugenics is fully possible and was previously practiced without GE, and it’s not a given that man will evolve further even with eugenics.

Transhumanists would have you believe eugenics cannot be done without GE, and that a white who has been transformed via GE into a negro or other nonwhite (maybe a glowing green variety) is still somehow white.


Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:04 | #

If I didn’t believe that MR had the right approach I wouldn’t waste time here, nor plug this website, I want to be associated with the best.  However, like Linder, I do it my own way, and accept the consequences.  Linder is one of the best, however much one may dislike his style.


Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:10 | #

They wish to replace whites with genetically engineering transhumans

If that was Pierce’s position it is news to me.  GT was in the National Alliance, has great respect for the late Pierce, and is not a transhumanist.  Can you provide evidence Pierce was a transhumanist?

I want to preserve my race, that is it, and wish no harm, nor bear ill will, to non-White individuals and collectives given they do not obstruct that.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:22 | #

If I’m wrong, I’ll post an apology, and I’ve been wrong before. I’m glad to hear you say you’re not a transhumanism, though I’m wary this dynamic Heidegger being will blur this site into GE.

I’m actually relieved to hear you voice down on transhumanism - I’d be fearful you might go that route. That was the source of a lot of my badgering at you…

wikipedia page on cosmotheism and here on Pierce.

From the latter link:

his political ideas were centered on racial purity and eugenics as the means of advancing the white race first towards a superhuman state and then towards a personal godhood. In his view, the white race represented the pinnacle of human evolution thus far and therefore it should be kept genetically separate from all other races in order to achieve its destined perfection in a collective personal godhood.

For a smoking gun I’d need him to actually say he has little issue with GE, huh? That sort of thinking isn’t in sync with my own, but I can’t declare it my enemy if it does reject GE. That fine line is what divides friend from enemy for me there.

I’ll search cosmotheism church site for info.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:28 | #

Oh wow: google search refers back to majorityrights, lol.

Perhaps I should show more respect as a guest by not so openly condemning it then… Anyway I’m still searching.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:56 | #

There’s no way of finding out without buying a book because the National Alliance site is near broken, the cosmotheism site is near broken, and the youtube videos are marked as “private”...

I don’t like these progressives claiming my heritage though. They ought to stay away from the runes and develop their own symbols as the Promethians have done.

Google does bring up one worthwhile link: a stormfront thread where genetic engineering is proposed as a means to becoming God… That sort of thinking does certainly point towards genetic engineering. There’s not much holding a person back from just dropping the white race and embracing “progress”, so it doesn’t surprise me. Also, the vast majority of people don’t bother trying to understand what they’re embracing. If something is marketed to them, in this case whites who think they’re pro-white, then they’ll buy it with few questions. The only way to counter-market is to then portray the same as anti-white… Rational debate isn’t possible for most I think. I don’t speak as someone with an ego so much as just someone who doesn’t think highly of man in general, and I’m included within “man”.


Posted by Frank on Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:02 | #

I admittedly don’t see the need to be of the best race. I prefer my race, but the East Asians are also great and some of the mixed-white (not entirely white) races of Europe seem to be quite competent. What’s nice about being Nordic is simply the heritage and distinction. If the Indians breed out a new race that tops us in competitions, what then? Why should we even care? The arguments for whites being the best rulers of the world (if indeed some race must rule) is simply that we have better morals and thus could be trusted to not exploit such power. The ultimate goal is simply peace and security for whites to live among ourselves as we please.


Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:43 | #

For those MR folks who missed this particular attack on conservatives, here is wintermute in typically fine form :


Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:14 | #


WM is one of the very exclusive set of commentators whose missives I will not publicly attack if I disagree with them (Sunic is another).  He doesn’t make it easy to abide by that, coming out with remarks like “the conservative life is an elaboration of the principle, What will the neighbors think?”, for example.  But if we are to cohere into any sort of political force the principle No Enemy To The Right must mean something.


Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:23 | #

I understand, GW. I was a staunch Powellite conservative and this devotion dated back to my teenage years.

Of course, my admiration for Mr Powell remains undimmed.


Posted by Q on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:09 | #

wintermute: To review, the three laws of Conservatism:

1)Moneygetting: all values are subordinate to the acquisition of cash.

2)Status with Indistinction: After cash-acquisition is initiated, status should be pursued, though not in a way that draws attention to the status seeker.

3)The Law of Requisite Moderation: all human pursuits, including but not limited to: religion, painting, communion with nature, science, invention, poetry, sport, etc. are and must remain subordinate to A)Moneygetting and B)Status with Indistinction. The pursuit of these other goals, if they conflict with A or B, have exceeded what is moderate and must be discontinued or attenuated.

3a)The pursuit of physical and mental ease is intrinsically incapable of becoming immoderate, and is therefore exempt from the third Law.

Those three laws can be applied to just about anyone who wants to climb out of the lower socioeconomic classes into the upper middleclass; or into a class where they have limited contact with the ruling class regardless whether they’re liberal, conservative, or apolitical. In today’s social climate, one must play by the PC (Jew) rules in order to climb up the socioeconomic ladder.

So, the main problem we face, in my estimation, is NOT hoi polloi conservatives or liberals per se… rather it is the ruling class that imposes the oppression of ‘anti-racism’ (read anti-white) onto the white masses—AND ONLY ONTO THE WHITE MASSES.

James Kalb wrote an excellent essay on anti-racism:

January 28, 2009
From Jim Kalb’s article Anti-racism:

“Racism is the worst of sins, the gravest of public dangers, the most repellent of spiritual disorders. Any taint of racism soils and discredits in all respects.”

Some such view is fundamental to public life today. The emphatic opposition to racism that is now obligatory gives the “race card” extraordinary potency.[1] If you are not part of the solution then simply by living your life from day to day you are participating in “institutional racism.”

The nature of anti-racism is rarely discussed analytically, so it appears to be less a matter of doctrine than feeling and general orientation. Nonetheless, as a view that dominates public policy it has definite content. As such, it holds that there is a definite thing called “racism,” backed by power and constituted by contempt and hatred for those who differ, but for which race relations would be harmonious if indeed differences were noted at all.


Unparalleled evil though it is thought to be, racism is seen everywhere, whether there is evidence for it or not.[8] As long as some groups are collectively unequal to others, the world is racist, and the harder it is to find an explanation that can be publicly accepted, the more fundamental and pervasive racism must be. Accusations of racism always stick, at least a little, and no matter how reckless or even cynical never hurt the accuser. Even false accusations can be valuable, because they draw attention to important issues.[9]

In current practice, anti-racism is aimed at whites. In their case, racism includes not only hatred and abuse, but any distrust of others, any special concern or preference for whites, any recognition of whites as a people. Anti-racism also imposes on whites an obligation to sacrifice their interests to those of nonwhites. If a white does something at odds with black interests or desires, for example if he fails sufficiently to favor “affirmative action,” he is racist or at best insensitive.[10] In contrast, public statements by blacks can be revoltingly bigoted without consequence.[11]

Permitting to some what is forbidden others seems to relativize racism and thus deny that it is ultimate pathological evil. It also suggests that anti-racism draws support from anti-white bigotry. The suggestion is correct.

While many think “anti-white bigotry” a paradox, elite contempt for nonelite whites is simply the contempt of an ascendant group for a group it has superseded and intends to keep subordinate. Most members of our ruling elites are white, but they identify themselves by ideology and class rather than race, and their rejection of racial identification is fundamental to their claim to power. By attacking whites as a group they identify themselves with the principle of rule now ascendant. Whites are thus not immune to racial targeting. In the case of immigration and affirmative action governing elites routinely override lopsided popular majorities that would protect whites from adverse treatment as whites.[12]

Full essay can be found here:


Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:25 | #


Advanced liberalism nests within liberalism.  It is only the Jewish-occupied schwerpunckt of a three-century long European project of freedom.  It is an outrageous, criminal piece of political chutspah ... obvious lie grafted onto obvious lie.  Homosexual equality, for God’s sake!  RDNE!  But “going through the Jew” in not enough.  It will not change what liberal thought, and not merely Jewish intellectual ethno-aggression, has wrought upon us.  The historical dynamic is towards the denationed West, the atomised individual, the compliant and materialistic consumer, and so on, and that process must be cut off at the root if we are to redeem ourselves as European peoples.


Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:25 | #

It will not change what liberal thought, and not merely Jewish intellectual ethno-aggression, has wrought upon us.  The historical dynamic is towards the denationed West, the atomised individual, the compliant and materialistic consumer, and so on, and that process must be cut off at the root if we are to redeem ourselves as European peoples.

I’m definitely in the ‘anti-semite’ camp like Fred (or ‘pro-truth’ as he would say), but you’re right in this regard.  The fallout of the Enlightenment mixed with the Jewish culture-distortion has left our nations riddled with so many macro and micro pathologies that, even if Jews were to vanish into Dimension X tomorrow, we would be drowning in them.  For Europeans to survive there must be a new ontological paradigm else we will sink ourselves in seas of insane, unattainable ideals.

The good side of this?  There has been a definite shift in attitudes over the past few years and as the situation gets worse we will be provided with ample opportunities to broadcast our side of the argument.  Truly Aryan values can be re-instilled in the folk if we can convince people that the Zionist-capitalist-utopian path is a dead end road to extinction for us and worldwide barbarity for those who remain.

Since the current paradigm is now hundreds of years old and since the times are becoming increasingly rough there is no reason to think that another paradigm shift could not occur in our lifetime, or that of our children or grandchildren.


Posted by h.kalervo on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:00 | #

“the Zionist-capitalist-utopian path is a dead end road to extinction”

What do the real Zionists have to do with it though? I know that “Zionists” is often used as a code word for Jews (or politically active Jews who are anti-European), but shouldn’t we rather try to ally with the Zionists? 1) They are anti-globalists. Globalists are taking advantage of them, they are taking advantage of globalists, etc., but soon they will be the only real nationalists left anywhere on earth. 2) Labelling us as anti-semities would become more difficult. 3) A path would open to mainstream politics and academia, both of which we could then rework from within. 4) If we can’t assimilate or live together with the Jews, what alternative remains except sending them to a Jewish homeland where they are much more likely to stay?

“another paradigm shift”

The paradigm shift you are waiting for has already occured in the sciences, Darwin rules, but the public will never know, nor would anyone spell out the implications for them. As Pierce said, control of the media is everything, and he might have added that you need money to gain control of corporate media.


Posted by h.kalervo on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:56 | #

In terms of geopolitics, what needs to happen is for Europe to abandon the U.S., which can only happen through an alliance of some sort (covert or otherwise) with Russia/China. Germany is now constantly trying to accomplish this, I believe, and France and Italy may be, too. The U.K., like the U.S., is too badly in the hands of the bankers or whoever. Some may think that the highest non-alien, non-traitorous decision makers in Germany are cowards, and that may be. But you can also be sure that the U.S. is using every dirty trick in the book and off the book to keep Germany an U.S. satellite, including CIA assassinations. What Germany and as many of the other nations of the world as possible need is a wide arsenal of modern nuclear weapons, cruise & ballistic missiles, surface-to-air missile defence systems, etc etc…. After that, or more likely during the process, European nations will have to get rid of the U.S. bases in Europe and reassert their sovereignty. Again, this can only happen with some amount of collaboration with Russia. Then comes the part where we will have to challenge foreign powers in resource rich areas to secure the future of our nations as Hitler intended when he said Germany needs farm land and resources from the East. We no longer need those resources primarily, or at all, to feed our nations, but to keep our military forces up-to-date. Anyway, Russia and China will want to play Europe to weaken the U.S., but they don’t want European nations to become new serious competitors in the global arena. So the project for true independence will be a tricky business even for the biggest European nations (in the past, small nations could never be truly independent, but today they can if they have the right toys, since military power is no longer even roughly dependent on the number of soldiers).

If European nations don’t abandon the U.S., then that means they won’t be able to resist its cultural-economic influence either. If they do abandon it, they will have to be careful not to end up like Iraq. Saddam tried to bypass the US$-denominated trade settlement, if I’m not mistaken, so the globalists wanted to get rid of him as much as the zionists did, and so they did.

My point is that speaking of revolutions without taking into account international geopolitics is somewhat naive, and naive leaders are dangers to themselves and their nations.


Posted by Q on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:06 | #

Remember that quote of MacDonald’s or whoever’s, where the Jew said, “the reason Jews align themselves so strongly with the homosexualist agenda isn’t because they as Jews think it’s morally right, it’s because they know that that agenda will weaken the goy society, making it less likely to threaten them,” or words to that effect?


I agree with that. Anything that harms EuroChristians, Jews are right there in the center promoting it.

It wasn’t until the last 3 or 4 years I began to wake up to the havoc Jews were wreaking on the Eurosphere. My narrow understanding of the race conflict was confined to the White vs Black paradigm . What really puzzled me was WHY did prominent “white liberals” always side with blacks even though it became evident to all that whites were blatantly being discriminated against in the U.S.? What were the libs motivation?

Then Hark! I awoke (with the help of David Duke) and realized most (80+%) of those “white-liberals” that were promoting black interests over whites were/are in fact Jews. I thought they were just flaky-trendy white liberal do gooders - or sick ethnomasochists. How wrong I was. I was almost clueless. I had no idea Steinem, Potok, Morris Dees, Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Ignatov ad infinitum…. were Jews.

Too, I was operating under the false impression that anti-Semites were an anachronistic bunch.  I thought anti-Semites all suffered from some sort of cognative distortion. That they were magnifying Jewish perfidy all out of proportion. I didn’t know back then it was/is organized Jewry, i.e. Jewish Supremacism, that fuels virtually everything anti-white. I know now.


Posted by Frank on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:47 | #

Ohh, that O’Meara article. I’m not a conservative according to that.

The word conservative has different meanings depending on usage. It’s erroneous to associate one meaning with another in a case like this.

Francis’s article is what had kept me away from being a secessionist for a few years, but I changed my position a good while ago.

Funny that CC might be classified as a conservative now that he’s embracing the Citizen’s Dividend raspberry


Posted by Q on Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:45 | #

James Kalb has a readers’ poll up ( ; it’s in the right-hand margin of the home page):


Will the Catholic Church suffer severe legal repression in the EU?


—No:  the Church will get with the program.

—No:  the EU respects religious freedom.

—No:  it would be too difficult politically.

—No:  the EU will change its tendency.

—No:  Islam will shield it.

—Other (what?)


The correct answer is both—Yes. and—No: the Church will get with the program.

It doesn’t matter if the Church gets with the program or not, they are still going to be persecuted simply due to the fact they are the Church.


Posted by Frank on Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:29 | #

Dr. Fleming is going through Machiavelli’s Discourses over at Chronicles!

Fleming is wrong on race, though he could be much worse; but this is free knowledge which ought to be taken advantage of. I haven’t yet read his posts, but judging by his past work these will be good.

Machiavelli is the study of power politics. If folks do go there, keep in mind you’re guests and that the subject is Machiavelli and not where one disagrees with Dr. Fleming.

Linder wants to replace Fleming, but has he ever attempted grappling with Machiavelli, which is not difficult? Fleming might be wrong, but he’s in an entirely different league from little Linder. Popularity isn’t the issue: Linder couldn’t do what Fleming does, and all of us despite where we stand on race will benefit from studying the classics Fleming has discussed. Politics is politics - to an extent it’s a hard science like physics and can be studied.

If more folks learn to apply Machiavelli to today’s issues, we might start moving…


Posted by Frank on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:45 | #

Buchanan’s latest: Did Hitler Want War?

Many will read his piece too. This accusation that Buchanan is somehow harmful overall to WN when there’s no one to replace him is spurious. Were Buchanan to come out of the closet, he’d lose much of his influence. Maybe he’d have more of an impact that way, or maybe not. It’s his call, and he’s playing it. And we can at least see he’s having an overall positive impact.

This isn’t “the paleos” receiving credit for WN ideas. Rather this is Buchanan popularising an idea that would otherwise utterly fail to reach so many without him. No one but a few activists see Buchanan as a “member of the paleos” with “paleo” excluding WN.

And in truth, in actual truth not neo-truth, the old conservatives of America, that is the “paleos”, were largely racists. I’m an Olde South conservative, and guess where I stand on race. Guess where Southerners have always stood…

And the South hasn’t always been so friendly with the Union. We’re not so terribly conservative that we can’t swallow viewing the damned Yankees as foreign. And that’s just the sentiment needed: not hatred against white Yankees but rather a view of the federal government as foreign. The white Yankees are victims of the damned Yankees just the same as us. The rest of America I don’t think is as ready as the South to view the American federal government as foreign. I don’t know about the rest of y’all, but I and the folks I grew up around viewed this country as a foreign occupier - that’s a good thing.

My point: paleos aren’t exclusively pro-federal government loyalists, and they aren’t exclusively racially blind. Linder-zoids though are exclusively nuts or borderline nuts.

Post a comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me

Next entry: Winston Churchill: A liability or an asset for the West?
Previous entry: On English individualism

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


DanielS commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:16. (View)

Blue on Black commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:12. (View)

2016 commercials commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 06:27. (View)

Like a bad neighbor, State Farm is there commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:40. (View)

2018 Olympic Hockey Tournament commented in entry 'Winter Olympics not diverse enough for US media' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:38. (View)

Taken For Granted commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 02:42. (View)

Commercials: "resistance is futile" commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:10. (View)

The Mountain Between Us commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:27. (View)

Kristy Boden commented in entry 'Two more London attacks' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 15:54. (View)

JF interviews Todd Lewis commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:26. (View)

The Rooster commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:06. (View)

Uncomfortable Bear commented in entry '4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:23. (View)

Nikolas Cruz commented in entry '"What We Don't Know - Motive." Likely: revenge against societal incoherence, lack of accountability' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 02:09. (View)

Maccabees commented in entry 'The alternative right's big tent, already too inclusive - includes Jews as well' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:57. (View)

Max Musson article mapped commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:14. (View)

8,606 fake refugees so far in 2018 commented in entry 'More Than A Thousand Illegal Immigrants Reach Europe In First Week Of 2018' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:52. (View)

Orson commented in entry 'Serial killer white-out' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:58. (View)

Toba commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 11:02. (View)

Allman, Wetton, Coryell, Holdsworth commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 10:14. (View)

Invisible men commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 08:28. (View)

Uncomfortable Bear commented in entry '4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 07:23. (View)

Twins, one black, one White commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 02:02. (View)

Distributist vs JF commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 00:22. (View)

Reactionary Expat commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:54. (View)

On the Obama portrait artist commented in entry 'Obama portrait artist's past work depicted black women decapitating white women' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:39. (View)

KM on proprietory modules of mentation commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 07:32. (View)

Andrew Torba at RI commented in entry 'FCC doubles down on dead-wrong definition of how internet works' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 01:26. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 18:15. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Next-level TRS: Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich is actually Michael ‘Enoch’ ENOCKSON Peinovich-Sippel.' on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 18:04. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 18:03. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 17:15. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 17:10. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:17. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:38. (View)