Being in kind – part 2

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 19 January 2017 17:49.

Before returning (in Part 3) to the compound structure of Being on which I concluded Part 1, I am going to introduce the beginnings of the identitarian exegesis to an otherwise ethnic nationalist essay.

Broadly, ethnic nationalism belongs to being and, therefore, to an ontological analysis.  Its cry of the heart is for “The Being of my people”, and it is therefore a cry for the freedom to subsist.  It is already a general organising principle of sorts, a pulse in the background of the life of all peoples.  But other than in times of extremis (Heidegger’s “Being towards death”), it is not a straightforward matter to bring it into the foreground as a positive, life-affirming force.  That was never more true than in our time, when the material comforts and alienations of our age, together with the gradual, indeed, generational unfolding of extremis, counsel for action another day … always another day … and make ethnic nationalism a less than reliable organising principle.

Add to that the ease with which our people’s many enemies, within and without, can de-legitimise any form of engagement with the race issue which is reactive and, therefore, negative, and the limitations of ethnic nationalist discourse become all too apparent.

Identitarianism, on the other hand, belongs to consciousness and, therefore, to a psychological analysis.  Its cry of the heart is or should be “This people is mine”, and it is a cry of a much more open kind, leading easily to the positive demand that, as “mine”, the people must freely and jointly destine.  Identitarianism, as they say, has legs in a way that ethnic nationalism does not.  Of course, we need both, to which end we shouldn’t be defeated by the idea that Being and Mind are contrary and exclusive ... or, indeed, that, notwithstanding Heidegger’s rejection of Descartes and Kant, ontology and psychology are such.  There is a coherence and compatibility, even if there is no perfect synthesis; and one of my basic aims in all these scribblings is to try to bring this out in a methodical way.

From “Being there” to “I am”

If, for some reason, one wished to draw a distinguishing line between ontology and phenomenology it would surely have to be in the tending of the former to the nature and, perhaps, even the origin of the Being of beings while the latter tends to the meaning of the being of things, as it appears in the consciousness.  Accordingly, when ontologists speak of Dasein (but let’s stick to Being there, which avoids an English-speaker’s confusion about whether it is a person or a thing or a mystery of the German imagination) they do so in consideration more of the human estate than the eternal problem of epistemology: how do we know what, if anything, is real?  Phenomenologists, however, will happily concern themselves with such matters as the uniform perception of a particular colour, or how we cannot will the perception of, say, blue instead of red.  They have constructed an impressively detailed set of narratives along these lines (the great preponderance of which will one day surely be rendered obsolete, or substantially so, by neurology and emergentist thinking).

Heidegger resolved for a Being there which, as ontology, does not address the sensory perception of things and non-human beings, but, as a human issue, discloses and channels human Being-as-fact both within and without the subject … the Being within and the beings without.  As anti-traditionalist metaphysics rejecting a Kantian approach to consciousness, his interpretation allows the necessary claim on objectivity and universal truth while reclaiming for Western thought, with its focus on beings, the subject matter of Being itself.

In consequence of these things, a certain literalism in the categorisaton of Being there prevails: it is firmly said to be a site (there) of disclosure (being) of the meaning of beings.

In fairness , in this same sense even the word presence has a locative implication … present where taking precedence over present to.  But the real turn (a much abused word) to identity, in the practik of consciousness, is not like that.  There is no truck with a locative ordering, not even something closer to the personal such as Being here.  The relevant descriptive was articulated long, long ago, and is, and will always be, simply and directly I am - not a site for meaning’s disclosure at all, but a piercing, ecstatic statement of self-being … a positive state of self-witness.  The locative, while satisfying the requirement for objectivity, bleeds away the vitality and directness of this formulation.  Perhaps an analytic address of human Being cannot be purged of consciousness and psychology after all, for in those alone resides some kind of agency in the physical world.

That said, any attempt to found a line of general (ie, exoteric) philosophical thinking on a definitionally subjective and emotionally-grounded or “qualiatic” experience immediately runs into two separate but related challenges, namely:

(i) the challenge of making truths disclosed in this state of human presence relevant to, and tractable in, the broad perceptual norms of human experience, and amid all the deceptions of our ordinary waking consciousness;

(ii) the challenge of scale ... of generalising from the personal to the group.

These are, basically, problems of ordering rather than of logic, and in this Part 2 essay we shall take the first of them and resolve it.

The turn from the ordinary to the normal

Even at this preliminary level of abstraction a commonplace term like “the self”, as in “self-being”, is already insufficient.  Questions abound, some of them rather large.  For example, what is it in this self which witnesses, and what is it of the self which it witnesses?  What happens in the act of witness?  Is it the same witness within the self and without?

So we find ourselves excavating for other mechanisms and other, more exact terms of reference.  At the very beginning of his essay Ontology: the Hermeneutics of Facticity, which is assembled from his lecture course of 1923, Heidegger sets out his terms including the following:

”Facticity” is the designation we will use for the character of “our” “own” Dasein

He then launches into a series of definitional statements, one tripping over another until this:

“Our own” is rather a how of being, an indication which points to a possible path of being-wakeful.”

This is different to Heidegger’s handling of consciousness in Being and Time.  It is less phenomenological, and more focussed on how human Being may become manifest in a broader existential context in which it otherwise appears as in some way reduced.  This is practik, and it has energy.  The thirty-four year-old Heidegger is indicating that this lit moment of realisation, in which “I” suddenly abides as Fact, is not only in possession of its own self but stands upright in a state of wakefulness and on a path which stretches back into the dark of the self lost and unknown to itself.  This is the path I have tried to represent in whole under the title of the Ontological Transit.

Readers may tire of seeing again the following scheme of the range of consciousness, to which I have referred several times over the years.  But it remains an evolving idea; and, if nothing else, it has the virtue of attempting, at least, to synthesise something of the Eastern and Western metaphysical traditions, the religious beatific experience, and the psychology of consciousness – something in which the Heidegger of 1923, freed from his Catholic upbringing, might have had some interest, but which was firmly excluded four years later in the sixty-three page introduction (in my paperback edition) to Being and Time.

(Such a synthesis, in my view, is perfectly legitimate subject of intellectual enquiry.  For we are in the business of radical renewal, and we do not place boundaries upon its extent.  Our European kind needs not just a new and nationalist political dispensation or even a new whole system of philosophically nationalist thought, but a new expression for our trait of faith.  The way has to be open to that … to the founding by hitherto unknown means of a faith which is not a gentile cult of death masquerading as ever-lasting life.  We can say with certitude that for centuries - arguably a thousand years and more in the case of Christianity - the ideational foundation of our life has not contained the truth of our being.  We are dying of many causes, but the corrective for all of them is the uncovering of a life true to our nature, which is also a sovereign and free life.  Without that we can never be whole even if we avoid the Maori-style genetic obliteration which awaits us now.  In the present day, reaction colours the edges of politics, and that is encouraging.  But on the historical scale, political reaction, and reaction generally, is just not enough.  Matters have come to such a pass now that one curative alone - a vast, uncontainable process of regenerative change – will impact on the scale requisite to light a new dawn in the long life of the European kind.)

So to continue ... the present version of my small scheme for Heidegger’s “possible path” is:

ABSENCE ◄ habituality (mechanicity) ◄ immersion ◄ negation ◄ reverie ◄ sloth ◄ passive attention ◄INTENT► active attention ► stillness ► detachment ► affirmation ► appropriation ► PRESENCE ► non-ascription of identity ► self-annihilation ► unalloyed Being

This is not really a path (“path” is locative, again) or a 17-note scale, or anything so abstract, but a sequence of practical events in the mind, each with its own character, via which consciousness is qualitatively ordered.  There is a layering effect to the downward shift from intent to absence and another upwards from intent to presence, whereby each event becomes contained in the next and does not cease to give its meaning.

For the very great part of our waking lives (or our “everydayness”, to use Heidegger’s phrase), absence is our general condition, and is such irrespective of intelligence or character or mental well-being.  It is manifestly not the entirety of Man’s natural estate.  But it is the inevitable and universal existential fate of us all, as if it is decreed by the Norns.

Yet there can be this seminal, practical form of the Heideggerian turn.  A life in the real is possible, if only for fleeting moments.  The events of the Transit from intent to presence constitute a process of building towards the burning declaration “I am”.  It is rarely undertaken and requires decision, real psychological effort and knowledge.  The effort always burns out, and what was built quickly collapses.  It might be weeks or months or more before the next decision to turn away from the ordinary and re-kindle the acquaintance with a consciousness we can properly term “normal”.

This quality of waking consciousness is intentional in that usual sense of the word, and not only in the sense which phenomenology dictates, ie, as a constant mechanical directed-ness towards its object – for example, when Mr Ordinary happens upon a dime dropped on the platform of a railway station.  The intention of which I speak is the decision for an active mode of attention (classically, active in the sense of a willed focus on some part of Mind or some event within the organism).  It is a change-agent.  It consumes energy sufficient to overcome the gravitational pull of absence, at least for as long as energy is available.  It seeds stillness, quelling the mechanistic operations of the three perceptual systems (intellect, emotion, motor) which constitute ordinary waking consciousness … and with that comes detachment from same, creating the opening (Heidegger’s Lichtung) to the affirmation of the sovereign self or identity, and its possession of the kingdom.

Of course, you may not know what presence is, in which case you will not know what absence is either.  You will not know that absence is the optimum condition for suggestibility and confusion, out of which our existential difficulties proliferate.  You will not know your own general cognitive state for what it is.  You will be living by your received wisdom, and you will certainly think that’s the whole of it.  But that is the common belief, about which we should be not at all surprised.  Our existential condition … the human condition ... is ordinarily, habitually unseen.  None of us are ordinarily self-aware in any whole sense, yet all of us unfailingly consider ourselves so.  The view we carry within ourselves, which is that we are singular beings, self-conscious and agentive, is illusory (as all who have studied the great religions should know).

Beyond telling you that … telling you that there is a sub-optimal state of wakefulness which is not being present, and it is yours and mine and everybody’s, I cannot help you - though in the longer run philosophy can.  By its world-making power, it can lift us all, and leave none behind.

If, of course, you are comfortable with my (perfectly standard) analysis, we can progress in an unforced way to the further understanding that our illusion, in all its comfortable, persuasive habituality, is the meaning of that Being disclosed or mediated by Heidegger’s False Dasein … by Being not “there”, as it were … by Being absent.  It is a meaning I have endeavoured to explicate as the generic of personality.  In an earlier essay I defined it thus:

personality is the expression of neurological data generated by influences external to the organism, and laid down associatively in the three perceptual systems (intellectual, emotional, motor).  This data constitutes every acquired principle, ideal, belief, value, taste, attitude, ambition, prejudice, vanity, presumption, impression, impulse, accent and inflexion, action and reaction, fad and fashion … everything behavioural that is nurtured, everything that is habituated, everything that is prescribed, everything that is not native.

This, which is neither singular nor self-conscious nor agentive, is illusion.  But it is illusion over which the brain automatically pronounces the word “I”, a primordial and wholesale appropriation done quite without consideration for authenticity.  The appropriation includes that of memory.  Indeed, I would say that it goes back into memory after the initial event, papering over the cracks.  It reifies the most fundamental and the most brilliantly convincing of all our lies: that that which does not belong to us but to the world distinguishes us from that world.

On this note, and with a hat-tip to James Bowery for his alarmingly literal but helpful comment to my Part 1 of this essay, I reproduce here a couple of short paragraphs from Wikipedia’s entry on the psychiatric condition of confabulation:

Confabulation is distinguished from lying as there is no intent to deceive and the person is unaware the information is false.[4] Although individuals can present blatantly false information, confabulation can also seem to be coherent, internally consistent, and relatively normal.[4]

Most known cases of confabulation are symptomatic of brain damage or dementias, such as aneurysm, Alzheimer’s disease, or Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome (a common manifestation of thiamine deficiency caused by alcoholism).[5] Additionally confabulation often occurs in people who are suffering from anticholinergic toxidrome when interrogated about bizarre or irrational behaviour.[6][7]

Confabulated memories of all types most often occur in autobiographical memory and are indicative of a complicated and intricate process that can be led astray at any point during encoding, storage, or recall of a memory.

… On rare occasions, confabulation can also be seen in normal subjects.[19] It is currently unclear how completely healthy individuals produce confabulations. It is possible that these individuals are in the process of developing some type of organic condition that is causing their confabulation symptoms. It is not uncommon, however, for the general population to display some very mild symptoms of provoked confabulations. Subtle distortions and intrusions in memory are commonly produced by normal subjects when they remember something poorly.

The first and last paragraphs are particularly apt to the condition, though I would take issue with the direction of events.  We are Confabulating Man, but, to repeat, first Mind quite mechanically ascribes self-hood to whatever action in the perceptual systems happens to be in focus, and only then carries it across memory, ascribing relentlessly, confabulating and laying claim to everything.  This is how the mind continues to operate in sub-optimal conditions.  This is a very different process to the affirmatory, appropriating action that gives of that sense of “I am” (and, indeed, “we are”).  But that is in the positive life, while this is the life of absence.  As such, it collectivises as Heidegger’s “the They”.  So what we are saying here, really, is that “the They” is also all of us.  It is how we ordinarily see ourselves in others.  It is the most eloquent commentary on personality.  Still, we - or “They” - can function as a living organism called a kin-group well enough in our ordinary, passive state until some external influence – usually large and sociological - impacts upon us negatively.  Then our passivity and confusion make servants of us.  To live at the turn is to banish even the possibility of such servitude, and to hold to oneself the power of decision (as is only “normal” for human beings).

Just to give one example: as a sociological force, modernity’s tendency to alienation perspectivises the close, particular ethnic “us” as a universal and other “They”.  “My people” fades to “people”.  It isn’t good.  But the debilitation of natural characteristics such as ethnic identity and ethnic self-preference does not necessarily show up until “the They” is multiracialised.  Certainly, the European sense of kind survived urbanisation and industrialisation for 250 years, buttressed by the proxies of patriotism, national culture, Christian belief, and perhaps even by the Romantic idea of nation.  But in the second half of the 20th century, in the wake of two brother wars of incalculable detriment, additional modernist elements were brought to bear upon European peoples alongside the phenomenon of mass immigration, some of these passably philosophical, some not even that, some simply commercial.  Very soon the proxies’ power to bind was found wanting.

The disease has since rapidly advanced, atomising, alienating, and always perspectivising for a “They” of a crowd in whom it will one day no longer be possible to acknowledge or even see a shared identity and know belonging, and towards whom it will no longer be possible to feel empathy, love, and responsibility.  It will be the age of anti-identity.  Accordingly, the expression of a “normal” and authentic group consciousness is, in methodological terms, the gold standard for every nationalist in the West, even if he or she has no current understanding of that fact.

It follows that if modernity’s trend to anti-identity, to name but one of the maladies afflicting our race, is collective in its impact, then the turn to a normal consciousness and to identity has a powerful collective aspect also.  In the third and final part of this essay I will examine the prompts and proxies which arise in the life of absence and work through the relational qualities of Being which can give those prompts energy and direction.  For readers who have struggled through this technical intermediate offering I can promise a slightly more stylish and accessible finale.



Posted by Bill on Fri, 20 Jan 2017 03:27 | #

MR meets Joe Owens.


Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 21 Jan 2017 03:09 | #

“a slightly more stylish and accessible finale.”

Perhaps James Bowery will have the good grace to refrain from accusing those who offer minor disagreements as being “niggers”.


Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 21 Jan 2017 05:49 | #

GW, do you support your Germanic Northern European blood maintaining the upper Midwest exclusively for their own propagation in the form of an ethnostate?  If not, why not?  What go-weak-the-knees, all-too-British reason would you concoct to the contrary?


Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:06 | #


These days I live quite close to the place where the Battle of Hastings took place (although the exact site is contested).  My father’s family name is from the Germanic and means opening to a path, and apparently my mother’s arises from a village in Normandy.  My mother’s family has a myth of lost wealth, and indeed the name turns up among knighted gentry in Elizabethan times who, despite backing the wrong side in the Civil Wars several decades later, and for sure suffering accordingly, actually retained title and land in Buckinghamshire long after.  In origin, my maternal grandparents’ family names were, respectively, pre-7th century English and Middle English.  It is entirely possible that just down the road from where I now live a certain Saxon bore his shield and broadsword into battle not more than an arrow’s flight from a certain waiting chevalier normand, and both survived, their seed intertwining down the generations to come; and contributing to the creation of the distinct ethnic type which now holds this England sacred in a way no other people ever could.

The point is that, like England today, white America is already not an ethnically stranded land, so that one can say this family is Germanic, that English, that Irish, that Italian, that Swedish.  It is simply European.  OK, those parts of it which are favoured genetically by typical Nordic or Slavic or Celtic or Mediterranean genes, or whatever, have a natural interest in preserving that distinctiveness.  But I cannot see this as more than a matter of personal choice, perhaps creating areas of similarity.  Ethnic Europe cannot now be re-created on the North American continent.  A (supposedly) Germanic rejection of other white Americans won’t create a genuinely German enclave on the North American continent.  It would, though, create an entirely debilitating and self-harming fissure.

It is enough that white America finds the means to champion its survival and continuity by the only way possible, which is to create a living space free of the rest of humanity (excepting native Americans).  To my mind that means, ultimately, not a north-western homeland, which cuts off white America from the North Atlantic and the mother continent, but a western homeland - all of the American land mass west of the eastern state borders from Texas up to North Dakota.  In the long term, it should be the aim to combine with all of Canada.

We are a very great people in terms of our creativity and daring.  This is entirely possible for us.  Think ... dream ... in terms which reflect that and do justice to it.


Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:47 | #

GW’s advice to the overwhelmingly Nordic denizens of the upper Midwest: turn over your land to muds and go breed with swarthoids.  Lulz.  What a crock of shit.


Posted by uh on Sun, 22 Jan 2017 17:00 | #

*gets in line to breed with a snow bunny*


Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 22 Jan 2017 17:33 | #

Are Austrians and southern Germans “swarthoids”?


Posted by uh on Sun, 22 Jan 2017 17:33 | #



Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:56 | #

It’s just an innocent enquiry.  I mean, if the same principle of separation as in Europe was applied, wouldn’t the very Nordic-looking northern Germans in America have to separate themselves from their “swarthoid” southern German countrymen, if what CC is saying is right?  And, obviously, Swiss Germans would be a definite no-no.  Back in Blighty, those dark Welshmen would have to be prevented from crossing over Offa’s Dyke.

The point is, I think, that separation at the micro-European level would be problematic when no such genetic groupings actually survive in America, and when a macro-European separation from the other races is the only basis on which a new nation could be carved out of the American multicult.


Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:32 | #

I’d bet the farm that there are tens of millions of Americans that are of unalloyed Northern European descent.  This is the racial upper crust of European America.  Only a fool would seek to dilute that.


Posted by uh on Mon, 23 Jan 2017 01:16 | #

Well, as you all know, I don’t believe any sort of reconstruction is even remotely possible, and not even logically coherent given certain variables always conveniently left out of the imagining.

I have a friend at work who is from Wisconsin. He is of Bavarian and Jewish descent (3:1), but looks and acts totally Nordic,  apart from being bohemian in his personal habits. (Truth is, his mother might even have made up the Jewish part: you know how women love to do that.)

He also says the same thing as Captainchaos about the Germans and Northern Europeans of his part of the country, and deeply rues the passing of their unique German-American culture. If I had to vote for any group as the “racial upper crust of America”, it would be those people, if he is representative. And he would find the suggestion that Austrians, southern Germans, and Swiss should be excluded from the fantasy Reich too absurd to be laughable.

Then again, they are descendants of the Achtundvierziger who created cities like Madison and men like Paul Ryan: too orderly and freedom-loving for their own ultimate good.

So what you’re asking is whether Captainchaos, whose precise ancestry I don’t even know, would accept my uber-industrious and highly intelligent Catholic German buddy as a member of his new American Reich. And I believe not even Captainchaos would be so obtuse as to turn such stock down. Thus, while I agree with Captainchaos that that is or was a real culture unto itself, I also agree with you that trying to parse it, and not keep on mixing, would be - if anything were possible - would of course be the worse strategy. We’re not in age where we have the luxury of choosing who’s “really white” or not.

Which is why I like Jews who are pro-white and feel they ought to be welcome and encouraged. Here the litmus test for me isn’t racial but ideological: Can they handle skepticism about the Holocaust? If not, they’re useless. If they retain the Holocaust dogma, they’ve retained Jewish tribal neuroticism, and obviously that is what we are truly struggling against.


Posted by uh on Mon, 23 Jan 2017 01:26 | #

I found Austrians to be some of the best people I’d ever met, by the way. Apart from the greater prevalence of Dinaric and Alpinoid phenotypes, they define whiteness in my mind as much as, say, Norwegians and the English. Utterly bourgeois, uptight, highly intelligent, albeit with the usual bizarre sexual tastes of the Continentals.


Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Jan 2017 01:57 | #

CC, you are commenting under an article about identity, and the making of an authentic identitarian life.  You cannot invent authenticity. You cannot coerce authenticity.  It is from Nature alone.  It has to be felt and understood among millions who are already living as a people.

As I said, the best that Nordics like you, seeking some degree of separation, could hope for would be a gradual, spontaneously arising, informal demographic assortation of the European kind, probably arrayed north-south in a single new polity for all white Americans.  You could not prescribe such assortation.  But by prioritising and propagandising for anti-Italian or anti-Polish feeling you could confuse to hell any chance white Americans have of racial separation.


Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 02:10 | #

Identitarianism, on the other hand, belongs to consciousness and, therefore, to a psychological analysis.

Identitarianism belongs to consciousness and psychological analysis?

I think rather the truly sane person, not blindly deluded by Cartesian quest, is going to view identitarianism as a shared experience, a matter of consensus.

Perhaps the Jew “Uh” and also Bowery told you “sociology”, i.e., group analysis is bad, so it must be true:

Still, we - or “They” - can function as a living organism called a kin-group well enough in our ordinary, passive state until some external influence – usually large and sociological - impacts upon us negatively.  Then our passivity and confusion make servants of us.  To live at the turn is to banish even the possibility of such servitude, and to hold to oneself the power of decision (as is only “normal” for human beings).

Just to give one example: as a sociological force, modernity’s tendency to alienation perspectivises the close, particular ethnic “us” as a universal and other “They”.  “My people” fades to “people”.  It isn’t good.

Identitarianism, on the other hand, belongs to consciousness and, therefore, to a psychological analysis.

Two people can look at each other and say, there is something that we can do together which we cannot do each as individuals. There are infinite examples of this. You can take that to a larger group of people as well. It is a kind of joint agency.

There can be dangers to de-emphasizing individuality, as we all know, that is a centerpiece of the liberal, anti-collectivist rubric under which we meet, but there are dangers in being left on our own in our psychology as well, without social critique and leverage, so that all responsibility lies with the individual alone. It is so obvious that I should not have to argue the matter.

While we want to encourage and allow for whatever extent that we can, for individuals to ascribe and recognize any agency in themselves, at least you seem to be finally recognizing that it is not a thousand percent pure, and should not be conceived as such.

Your attempt to deny the interactive component is a backward, lame and destructive contention, ranking up there with your obstruction of the concept of “White” Post Modernity.

Another of the lamest and most destructive contentions that you’ve rendered is your thing against looking at social rules, or your desire to look upon them as only bad. It’s flabbergasting, really.

Clearly psychologies will act into and be acted upon by social rules as well as groups and any aspired maintenance thereof. The matter of rules is an exceedingly important consideration, therefore; to trivialize the consideration is modernist insanity and apparently an expression of a will to misunderstand me so that what I say remains absolutely a matter in the “foil” camp to your ontology project.

It galls me when I perceive (perhaps mis-perceive, exaggerate to some extent) someone like Millennial Woes setting about to scavenge ideas neglected here, ideas that should have been developed 5 years ago for our behalf, in our ethno-nationalist interests, and ascribes it to his doings while he goes ahead and ruins it by re-tooling it to fit the narrative of the (((Alternative Right))). Or just as bad, when outright Jews continue to misconstrue ideas that have been here for years because here they are simply neglected, if not disparaged, diminished and obstructed in their understanding and utility.

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: Next-level TRS: Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich is actually Michael ‘Enoch’ ENOCKSON Peinovich-Sippel.
Previous entry: TRS founder Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich was exposed as being a Russian Jew.

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


Putinism commented in entry 'Putin's Revenge' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 08:12. (View)

Jewish occupy, demonstrate for open borders USA commented in entry 'Africans Deported from Israel “Appear” in Rome' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:08. (View)

question commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:15. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:43. (View)

Crazy Over You commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:22. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:24. (View)

I'm a Man commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:41. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Carolyn Emerick talks pagan folk culture and ethnonationalism with Tara's alt-right panel' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:15. (View)

uh commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:07. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Carolyn Emerick talks pagan folk culture and ethnonationalism with Tara's alt-right panel' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 07:18. (View)

100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 06:39. (View)

The ancient is the modern commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:19. (View)

100% European but you might not guess commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:45. (View)

Near 100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:18. (View)

95% Native American (Central) commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:11. (View)

20% sub-Saharan commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:53. (View)

We knew these things commented in entry 'Hermeneutic construction of Putin and Trump's character, positions and relation:' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:13. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:18. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:09. (View)

henry m commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:51. (View)

This is the Day commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:17. (View)

Emerald City commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:46. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'America: Making The World Safe for Hypocrisy' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:41. (View)

Anything, Anything commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:26. (View)

The Allman Brothers commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:04. (View)

Nobody to Depend on commented in entry 'America: Making The World Safe for Hypocrisy' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:56. (View)

Pearl Jam commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:09. (View)

John McLaughlin commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:55. (View)

Hatfield & the North: Mumps commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:29. (View)

My Love is Alive commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:23. (View)

Wild Swans Love Will Tear Us Apart commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:39. (View)

Happy commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:18. (View)

Wild Horses best version commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:13. (View)

Hangout, Johnson, Lewis, JF et al commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:44. (View)