Chinese slur ‘White Left’ as Cultural Marxist shows Jewish power, influence, aversion to White Left

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 31 December 2017 01:30.

I’ve known for some time now that since about 2011 or 2012 that the Chinese have unfortunately adopted the “White Left” as a slur term for White (or what they perceive as White) cultural Marxists and corollary liberals.

However, I’m not really worried about the Chinese smear “White Left” for a couple important reasons.

White Left (ethno) Nationalism is internally consistent in its position. And in its rule structure, it is not only totally different from cultural Marxism and liberalism, it is in fact closer to the opposite in its disposition to White (European descent) boundaries and borders, regarding rather a serious concern to curate our history, to maintain our inheritance and lineage. This internal consistency of White Left definition is immediately verifiable as such and can be referred to at any time - the application of the term has been consistent in its call for an effective genetic unionization of our peoples - recognizing in and out groups - genetic group(s) called “our” people as opposed to genetic friends and enemies - this provides for accountability to human ecology, historical social capital; and crucially, among the important reasons to retain the moniker “left”, accountability against potential elite betrayal (as they are in key positions to do most damage from limited positions); along with safe guarding not only the interests of rank and file, it ensures criteria (“union rules”) that provide for their accountability as well, against any propensity which they, as rank and file, may have toward over-liberalization of national/group bounds, viz. significant transgressions of bounds and borders.

White Left (ethno) Nationalism is Nationalist - therefore it is not liberal, it speaks of ecological delimitations of peoples, not universal liberalism as the Chinese smear term would describe, or similarly, as our smear term “Red Left”, i.e., Jewish left, would be descriptive of - a “universal leftism” - i.e., a universal liberalism which the Chinese call White Left and what I call “Red” or “Jewish Left”, is prescribed by Jewish interests and their internationalist right wing cohorts, prescribed for others and instigated of them to participate in activism toward a withering away of the state in favor of an arbitrarily composed and controllable international proletariat.

Whereas our Class, the White Class, corresponds to the whole delimited ethno Nation, rich, poor, private property and business owners, whomever, innocent until proven guilty - as a rule, accounts requested should be kept to a minimum.

But because we are accountable as nationalists, of our rank and file while maintaining a vigilance on elite betrayal and liberal internationalism, we are therefore able to cooperate with our left nationalist friends, such as the Chinese and other left nationalists, against right wing / liberal imperialism as it would be imposed by Jewish interests along with their right wing/liberal White cohorts and their Muslim and black shock troop enforcers.

Finally, the Chinese term, White Left, that has been in vogue in China since about 2011 to label White/Jewish Cultural Marxists/liberals, is a word spoken in Chinese; while we speak English and take full advantage of our capacity to define White Left Nationalism as we see fit, and have done that, consistently.

It is entirely different from liberalism and cultural Marxism. Rather it is true security in what is most important and true liberation for our people, our sovereignty as such.

If anything, the Chinese use of the term “White Left” as a smear only confirms Jewish hegemony over prevailing and pervasive discourse - with cultural Marxism reaching its apex during the final days of television’s pre-eminence (a horrible situation where this TV box issued propaganda and you could not talk back, interact and correct what it was saying) in the early 1990’s after the fall of The Soviet Union and before the advent of the internet. The dialectic between Jewish left and Jewish right began a slow, controlled evolution away from the Marxist culture of critique following the fall of communism; and went into full swing in the other direction of Jewish controlled dialectic, with the sub-prime crisis of 2008, as Jewish consolidation of power niches made criticism of “the right” no longer to their advantage, now that they were on top of seven power niches -  critique of the right began to “intersect” against their interests - i.e., a continued critique of the right and popularization of a friendly disposition toward a left perspective would highlight their unjust power and influence; as such would call for unionized alliances against them. Hence, they have marshaled the hegemony of discourse more and more against “the left”, with the spearhead “Alternative Right.” At this point, they have so successfully hoodwinked the masses it seems the YKW have everybody constantly ranting against “the left” convenient, what a Cohencidence!

Of course they rattle on with a bunch of cliches - typically accusing us of trying to apply artificial concepts to nature, of being anti-nature, being on an impossible quest for “equality”; and they constantly interpose straw men as opposed to what we are really saying - saying cultural Marxism and liberalism are “the left” - when, in fact, these “movements” are the opposite of left activism, the opposite for White unionization, anyway - i.e., anything but a “White Left.”

But they carry on with these cliches and ridiculous distortions that cultural Marxism has promulgated, oblivious to the fact that we are not guilty of the theoretical errors, gross distortions of hermeneutics and social contructionism, the flagrant violation of scientific fact that they point to as examples of “our perfidy” in advance of their newly (((consecrated))) heroic bastion of truth and anti-PC, the “Right” and “Alt-Right.” 

And so I say to my Left Nationalist Chinese comrades, with a wink at that term, comrade, what you are calling “White Left” is not a White left at all, but cucked Whites and cucking Jews who are imposing liberalism and cultural Marxism upon the west, opening its bounds and boundaries with the aim now of aligning its right wing reaction against Muslim “extremists”, “Hispanics” and Asians.

The Left as liberalism is an oxymoron that the regular right and Alt Right slavishly partakes of, as their Jewish flank does and would have them do. A White Left (ethno) Nationalism observes the principle of unionization, its recognition and maintenance of in and out groups, which is the opposite of liberalism and its arbitrary doing away with any such provision for accountability to unionized bounds and borders.

To repeat in sum, the Chinese slur ‘White Left’ as a designator of Cultural Marxism and its liberal activism shows Jewish discourse hegemony and influence, its diversion from true White Left Nationalism. It is a testimony to Jewish hegemony in discourse heretofore and how much they don’t want a true White left.

It is a reflection really, of how much the YKW and their right wing cohorts, sell outs, loyalists to their elitist ilk, whatever, don’t want us to have a concept of a proper White Left, unionization of our peoples to provide for social accountability and vigilance on elite betrayal as such, in a way that right wing, objectivist and otherworldly criteria do not provide - they propose disingenuous and naive avoidance of social accountability.

It just goes to show how comprehensive that the Jews have been in denying a White left, in cucking the very notion, that they have the vast nation of China calling White liberals and cultural Marxists, “the White Left”

Maybe Black Pigeon Speaks isn’t Jewish, but I’d want to see a DNA test to prove that, both for reasons of what he says and for how he looks - seems quite Jewish on both counts. And yes, he fits well, even if ad hoc, with the Jewish marketing campaign of Jewish hegemonic interests against “the left” - particularly in this propaganda piece to promote the Chinese slur of liberalism and cultural Marixism as “White Left.”

Along with the deception of hegemonic Jewish discourse, one by which they are doing all they can to align White advocacy with their Jewish interests against “the left”, one must also take into account the fact that if Jewish crypsis can fool White people into not making a distinction between Whites and Jews, think how much more their crypsis would fool Chinese!

Kumiko Oumae: That (esteemed Red color) is non ironically what they’re growing up around

Kumiko Oumae: Also, the yellow stuff symbolises the ethnic groups.

daniel sienkiewicz: Anyway, for now, its most important for me to be internally consistent, which I am.

Kumiko Oumae: Eg, the big yellow star flanked by four little stars on the China flag, is Han Chinese plus ethnic minorities

daniel sienkiewicz: So they are claiming “left nationalism” for red and yellow?

daniel sienkiewicz: and not left internationalism in the Jewish sense?

daniel sienkiewicz: as in eradication or withering away of the state on behalf of the international workers union?

It just goes to show how comprehensive that the Jews have been in controlling the discourse so as to deny a White left, because they know how serviceable that a proper definition of the term would be - they’ve tried to cuck the very term and have the vast nation of China calling White liberals and Cultural Marxists, “the White left.”

However, adding the term “Nationalist”, and more specifically “ethnonationalist” to the term White Left, helps greatly to counter its being misunderstood as liberal or cultural Marxist. That helps, along with our internal consistence and its reliable heuristic utility indeed.

It is a reflection really, of how much the YKW and their right wing cohorts, sell outs to their nation/ loyalists to their elitist ilk, whatever, don’t want us to have a concept of a proper White left, unionization of our peoples to ensure accountability and vigilance on elite betrayal; how irresponsible they are to the nations which birthed them and to the means by which nationhood would provide for the human and pervasive ecology necessary for world maintenance. 

Some background on the Jewish hatred of the White working class:

Kevin MacDonald: on Jewish hatred of the White working class.

In Europe, the Jews saw the White working class turn to Hitler and “national socialism” as opposed to Marxist communism as they felt the White workers should do.

In America, the White workers were contented in making sufficient money, if not as “millionaires who’d not yet arrived.”

Hence the Frankfurt School’s Cultural Marxism.

With the “activist” supreme courts advancing school desegregation, ‘civil rights’, reverse housing discrimination, affirmative action, government work, welfare abuse and a pervasive rule structure of PC, i.e, cultural Marxism, it is more than legitimate to look at “institutional racism” - i.e., anti-social classification and unionization - as being against Whites, especially rank and file, the White class not in position nor inclined to sell out full class (i.e., racial/national) interests.



Posted by DanielS on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 03:23 | #

One difference that I’m seeing in this definition of White Left, as defined in our interests, as distinguished from classical liberalism, is that classical liberalism seemed to emphasize benevolent and rather blindly administered accountability from administrators of the state and institutions; whereas, in this concept of White Left Nationalism, there would be more emphasis on accountability working both ways - rank and file would be accountable to the ethno nation state, i.e., to the union of its people as well. And elite administration would be accountable to not be quite so altruistically benevolent and blind in its administration of help beyond ethno-national loyalty and interests.

Where it would help non-nationals, it would generally be there - in their nations - and it would be a matter of the silver rule (as opposed to the golden ruse, er, rule); i.e., it would be to our benefit as well.


Posted by DanielS on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 04:38 | #

There is eminently good reason to begin with a social outlook - as opposed to the right wing reaction against sociology, perhaps on theory of some magical “Calvinist”, as opposed to social sourcing, e.g. -

Daniel Antinora

whites have too much power = sociology / critical theory

Social constructionism sensitizes us to social interaction, accountability, agency and the conceptualization of the group; along with critical attention to those who might betray our group interests, membership and social capital.

Which is exactly the heuristic sensitization that we need and exactly what Jewish interests don’t want us to have.

Furthermore, with attention to the group unit of analysis, one is placing not only emphasis on that unit of analysis which Jewish interests are targeting for elimination (anti racism is anti group classification for Whites), but is maintaining the more speculative, delicate, difficult to maintain and precious historical, systemic bounds - aligning rather like one of Kant’s first principles - these are harder to maintain and harder to rebuild once violated. Therefore, most important to maintain, while empirical verification and testing can always be invoked. Thus, better to err in the direction of “principles”, i.e., with sensitization to the social group and its systemic bounds.

In viewing Tim Snyder’s discussions, I am proud to find confirmed my assessment of Hitler’s remiss, his runaway war mongering consisting in a kind of natural fallacy and disregard of praxis - its reconciliation and integration with theory all better philosophers sought in counter to the enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice.

For Hitler, “nation” and “peoplehood’ was supposed to be a purely “natural” struggle for survival. Any social or negotiated concern was “Jewish.”

In fact, to be against the social unit of analysis and its integration is not only dangerous, it is particularly stupid. It’s a bit like like saying “a telescope is bad” and “only a microscope is good.” Particularly stupid when what we need is “the telescope” in order to monitor our broader patterns, the destruction done and potentially yet to come. It is further stupidity to deny the telescope when the telescope user welcomes contributions from the microscope user.

We all know that the YKW have abused sociology, that is all the more reason to take hold of the group unit of analysis, not to deny it - god, how stupid to not see that!


Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 04:56 | #

I became aware of the term “baizuo” earlier this year after reading this article..

The author makes some interesting observations, for example most anti-baizou netizens live in the West and support Trump. 


Posted by DanielS on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 05:17 | #

..and again, a reason to maintain the term “left” is that it is closely related in ordinary language not only with group perspective, social unionization and accountability, but with a reasonable accountability to the normalcy of human imperfection, struggle, agency and compassion therefore. By contrast, the right wing is justifiably associated with an alarmingly oblivious lack of accountability and lack of reasonable compassion for its objectivism.

Given that European intelligence likely corresponds with a level of sublimation requisite of imperfection, high social trust and social accountability as opposed to the hyper assertiveness of black symmetry, it is particularly important that we take hold of this position - as “White left nationalists” -  as it is natural to ourselves, and sufficiently relativising of our interests, which we need as antidote to Jewish exploitation of our penchant for right wing objectivism; along with that, a susceptibility to react into head long, impervious, unaccountable right wing overcompensation, (as Hitler did) to the point of stupidity - a brutal stigma which the YKW are all too happy to altercast, hence their insistence on our identifying with the right, far right and alternative right.

...and to falsely equate the left and its accountability and compassion as if it is, or should be, primarily concerned with obsequious liberalism, jealousy of excellence, concerned for those without the group, as opposed to primarily focused within group and coordination broadly with other, friendly groups.


Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 14:33 | #

Chinese think spergs white knighting for jap pussy are retards.  But will not turn down offer of Siberia regardless. Thanks, suckers!  Lulz


Posted by DanielS on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 18:25 | #

I guess there’s a difference between “white knighting” and remaining aloof from fights over Siberia - particularly beyond Lake Baikal, it gets hard to defend as an ethno-state; even worse when it comes to Sakhalin island.

I don’t think my geopolitical position is based wholly on pussy, CC - in fact, like most White Americans, having been abused enough by American women, I’ve had a tendency to give Russia too much benefit of the doubt for that reason; and am probably ahead of a good percentage of WN in correcting for naivete about the Russian Federation.

Seriously now, and more to the point, I had not given Siberia a great deal of attention - it was sort of beyond the scope of something I could do anything about, even if there weren’t other matters that needed tending.

If ethno-nationals want allies then what they are seeking in alliance has to be reasonable.

Having said that, happy New Year CC, wishing you the best White pussy imaginable my friend!



Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 19:57 | #


Ethnic nationalism is not an imperialism.  Actually, up to the point when some enemy emerges with ideas about taking one’s own land for its empire, ethnic nationalism sits perfectly well with the core principle of humanitarianism (which I quoted in a post the other day).  That principle is formulated best in Matthew 7:12 which, in the KJV reads: whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them.  Certainly, nations who do not wish for the dysgenesis of perpetual warfare can operate on that basis.


Posted by New Right Network on Tue, 02 Jan 2018 05:08 | #



Posted by Lisping Richard Spencer goes for a big lie on Fri, 05 Jan 2018 07:51 | #

Richard Spencer: My name is Richard Spencer, I am the co-editor of…the President of the NPI and the editor of the recently re-launched Radix Jouranal…

I’ve launched a number of “intellectual” sites like this..

I’ve spoken at conferences, some libertarian conferences, some racialist conferences as well, I’ve hosted some of these conferences; I’ve been on more podcasts than I can remember..

I’ve been publicly punched by Anti-fa. I’m sure some people have heard about that one…


I’ve been in the news over the past year and half or so with this whole Trump phenomenon, and just this general Alt-Right phenomenon as well…and so its been a crazy ten years since I dropped out of graduate school in 2007…

Originally I started working in the American Conservative, which is anti-war, I can say, but conservative..

In 2010 I created a website called Alternative that was one of, if not the first time that that term was used in a serious manner….to describe a version of the right which is “coherently conservative” in a “deep” sense.. but is a real alternative, a totally different starting point than the mainstream right of the Unites States which derives from William F. Buckley and whose great progenitors are the Ted Cruz’s of the world, and Bill O’Reilly and George W. Bush’s and other people I passionately loath.

So, yeah, that’s my story in a nutshell.

Host: If you were to compare the starting point between traditional conservatism and your starting point, what would the difference be?

Richard Spencer: I think conservatives are wrong from the beginning….because their starting point as they articulated it, in the mid 1950’s, was the cold war, so it was an image of the United States as a counter Soviet Union, a capitalist global empire - their starting point was free market economics, capitalism, effectively, and their starting point was individual liberty.

(DanielS comment: That should signal for you, Richard, from the start, that this was liberalism, not conservatism and obviously not leftism)

So it was a liberal starting point, and a cold war starting point, you could say (DanielS: can still say that).

The starting point for the Alt Right….

ith identity.

There is another term, that I’ve adopted, that I did not invent, that comes from France, actually, which is identitarian (DanielS comment: but don’t the (((counter Jihadi types))) identify with that term).

And it is that notion that before one thinks about foreign policy, before one thinks about economics, before one thinks about anything else…

One has to answer that question - who am I and who are we?

What am I part of? What is this extended family that I am at home with? ...and that is identitarianism in a nutshell. You ask that question first.

American conservatism in the mid-50s, William F. Buckley and so on, didn’t ever ask that question. They never seriously inquired into race. They vaguely inquired into religion ...but they certainly never seriously inquired into who, what America is as a European nation, who they are as Europeans.

And I think that we’ve basically seen the end result of this, which is a conservative (DanielS: that’s right wing, Richard) movement, that slowly floated leftward (DanielS: translate into accurate language - liberal, Richard)

That was based in abstract values, like free market capitalism (DanielS: oh yeah, that’s a real “leftward” swing, Richard!)  ...(at most, you could argue that it is accelerationism of the capitalist phase of Marxist progress).

Which could be used to justify things like the Iraq war… or what have you…

It was just this free floating ideology (DanielS: that’s called arbitrary liberal/right wing Cartesian pursuit and basis of facticity or other worldly ideals, Richard)

..that floated leftward, that floated this way and that but floated over to Iraq…(DanielS: and the subprime crisis, Richard, where you emerged convenient for Jewish right wing casuistry)

and just became a total disaster and didn’t conserve anything (DanielS: the right wing never does, Richard).

A conservative has to conserve something (DanielS: that’s why we unionize against elitist, sell out liars like you, Richard, with your Gottfried, Meyer, your Enoch and ultra leaky Alternative Right)

A conservative is ultimately a collectivist (DanielS: in a sense, yes, Richard, but ad hoc assemblages of abstract Cartesian ideologies - “unite the right” and so - don’t work together as an organic, unionized collective - it is scatter brained right wing reactions, assemblages in ephemeral perfidy)

A conservative is someone who is conserving his class, his people, the state itself, he’s an institutionalist, in that sense.

It’s actually the left that is individualistic (DanielS: Gottfried taught you well in the art of the big lie. On the contrary, it is the left which is concerned for unionization of the ordinary people, appreciation of all parts as a collective, their systemic relation - the left is not predominantly “individualistic”, Richard, you lying sack of shit)

Even when the left (DanielS: this is called liberalism, Richard) attempts to use collectivist economic means, it’s still in the name of individualism, its still an attempt to reach a deracinated, pure individual (DanielS: no, that’s what the right and liberalism aspires to, Richard) who’s not weighed down in the leftist mind by community, by history by race, religion, by the past, one’s duty to the future etc.

So the left is fundamentally individualist (DanielS: is “the left” fundamentally individualist, Richard?). This is the problem with American conservatives, they get this fundamentally wrong. ‘Oh, we’re individualists’ ...the ISI is this stupid, fuddy-duddy group for closeted homosexual (you’d know, Richard) Catholics or, conservatives, I guess, and it used to be called the International individualists Society, some nonsense like that ....the society of individualists…they always wanted to base their belief system in the individual, in individualism - that is fundamentally wrong a political being, man as a political animal man is a social being, he’s part of a greater family, he’s part of a past and a future; he is part of an identity that is bigger than any individual.

And so the starting point for the Alt Right is that question - who are we? Who am I? Identity.

DanielS: You’ve got that entirely backwards Richard, it was the right which, at times, might’ve used collectivist means, war, etc., but it was still this free floating ideology that floated liberal-ward into dissolution of unionized interests.

The neo cons (neo Trotskyites) didn’t just float over Iraq, they were operating in the Jewish collective interests of operation clean break, same as your boy Trump is, when now floating over Iran.

So, the deal is that the proprietor of this hangout is apparently Jewish and some complicit French right winger concluded in this manner:

Warski (((?))): “It was a popular hangout and we made good money on it. Number one hangout attended world wide while it aired.”

Spencer said that he would agree to give Florida to blacks - Spencer: “sure, why not? Let’s do it.”

Warski (((?))) and Jean said that Roosh V. is White

They said that one quarter blacks are White (and that Spencer would agree to this, as well).

Frenchy concludes by adding that in his ethnostate he would not discriminate on the basis of race.

Spencer makes the correct argument that groups do have ‘rights’ in a sense that they are able to impose rules on the individual. He is wrong, however, in saying that Lockeatine rights are “irrelevant”...

They are highly relevant because they define what it means to be an American - i.e., a civic nationalist, having civic individual rights detached from group interests other than American law. That is, at least for Whites. Whites are not allowed to invoke and assert their collective interests over the civil rights of others. Blacks and some other groups designated as victim groups by cultural Marxism can invoke and assert their group interest in America to an extent.


Posted by Kate on Fri, 05 Jan 2018 09:57 | #

(((Warski))) and Jean said that Roosh Vis White

They said that one quarter blacks are White 
(and that Spencer would agree to this, as well).

Frenchy concludes by adding that in his ethnostate he would not discriminate on the basis of race

Jean is a mixed (native american ) canadian (probably jew, like most altright)


Posted by Warski name and face on Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:56 | #


In addition to Andy Warski looking the part, the Warski name certainly can be Jewish.

For example:

Poland, Jewish Records Indexing-Poland, Births, 1550-1993

Birth, Marriage & Death, including Parish
Name:  Sura Warski
Birth:  20 Apr 1846

Jewish Holocaust Register of survivors printed in Pinkas HaNitzolim I & II, 1945
Schools, Directories & Church Histories
Name:  Zysman Warski
Residence:  Lodz

Austria, Mauthausen/Gusen Concentration Camp Death Record Books , 1938-1945
Birth, Marriage & Death, including Parish
Name:  Zatona ? Warski
Birth:  10 May 1906 - Wzelonj
Death:  10 Apr 1945 - Solvay (Ebensee)
Residence:  Poland

Andy Warski

This guy even looks like Andy Warski:

Adolf Warski, born Jerzy Adolf Warszawski (April 20, 1868, Warsaw – August 21, 1937, Moscow[1]), was a Jewish leader and theoretician of the communist movement in Poland.




Posted by Frenchy on Fri, 05 Jan 2018 23:36 | #

Frenchy is from Quebec, Canada, and he says that he:

Does have a sentence from a Jewish philosopher and anthropologist, ‘I forget his name * - he was saying something on the lines of, ‘the greater moments in human civilization were those where people were separate enough to be different, but close enough to communicate these differences and exchange the knowledge that they had developed on their own.’ And that would be my view of civilization and the optimal point to reach ... it is not a biological point of view although it might have biological consequence because you’re right, biodiversity would allow us to survive environments that we cannot predict today.”

* 38:37 “Someone in my chat is specifying that the philosopher that I am quoting is CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS

Jean-Francois Gariépy is an author, academic, and YouTuber from Sainte-Sophie, Québec, Canada

He uses the word “extremists” a lot ..a rhetorical angle that one would hear from Bill Clinton’s Jewish spokesperson, Mandy Grunwald, back in the 90s.

Mandy Grunwald continuously expostulated “extremists” - implicating the “moderation” of racial blending once anti-discrimination laws forced populations together.

Jean-Francois also puts across a lot of the biological determinism, particularly ‘our fate is sealed’ kinds of arguments that you will hear from Jewish proponents of right wing perspectives - Illana Mercer, for example.

Ilana Mercer, when not promulgating Zionist Trump revolution, otherwise promotes theory of White genetic helplessness.

More, Jean-Francois displays kosher highlights with a rather counter-Jihadist point of view and talk of “western civilization.”

...which (((Lauren Southern))) does along with Black Pigeon Speaks.


Posted by Mandy Grunwald on Sat, 06 Jan 2018 00:46 | #

Mandy Grunwald continuously expostulated “extremists” - implicating the “moderation” of racial blending once anti-discrimination laws forced populations together.

            Anti-“extremist” Freak


Posted by Clinton's "War Room" on Sat, 06 Jan 2018 01:25 | #

While Grunwald (upper right) was excoriating “extremists” at a time in the 90s when correction for decades of liberal reverse discrimination was vastly overdue and instead, when PC was going into overdrive thanks to her kind of “moderation”... Carville (lower right) constantly lambasted as “sex crazed” the investigation into the Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky affair.

...normal people were grateful for any excuse that might rid us of Clinton (his pandering liberalism reaching a PC crescendo) even at the risk of being accused of being “sex crazed.”

Note the woman in the upper left. She seems to be looking at Mandy Grunwald with horror.


Posted by Nowicki gets it totally wrong on Mon, 08 Jan 2018 04:56 | #

Andy Nowicki gets an important matter absolutely wrong, as usual:

He looks at the same segment of discussion that I had in Spencer’s talk with Sargon, Warski et al (and if I - DanielS - were paranoid, I would suspect that he’s up to his usual tricks among his cadre tasked with diverting from and obfuscating the MR platform).

He says that Spencer was claiming that the state had “legitimacy” beyond critique in observing that the state has “the right” to enforce certain rules.

That is simply a fact about which Spencer was basically correct. The state is granted structural parameters of enforcement regarding obligations, prohibitions and legitimacy. That doesn’t mean it is all legitimate and beyond question, that it is all enforceable or that enforcement cannot get out of hand. Again, where Spencer was totally wrong was in his suggestion that Locke (viz. Lockeatine rights for individuals) are irrelevant to that fact.

While we’re Nowicki picking:

Andy gets this important matter totally wrong too

How to spot a shill

And he would get that matter wrong, because he is one.

He says the shill is one who makes everything about the Jews. Well, we don’t do that at MR anyway, but still, that’s not how to spot a shill.

How to spot a shill, like Andy, is by their determination to drive attention away from Jews, and direct it onto “the left” or “PC” and Cultural Marxism” alone, as Andy does, saying that there are good Jews on the right…


Posted by NPI director Evan McLaren interviewed on Mon, 08 Jan 2018 06:18 | #

Questions For NPI Executive Director Evan McLaren


Posted by Right wing observations on the controlled right on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:58 | #

Greg McCarron joins Our Interesting Times [10-28-2017] to discuss a variety of topics including Donald Trump, Zionism, the Alt Right and controlled opposition. Greg’s podcast is The Antedote which he co-hosts with Jeremy Rothe Kushel.

The problem with these guys, McCarraon and Kushel, like Renegade and Nick Spero which they took as inspiration, is that they are not grounded (in social praxis and hermeneutic correction), and so they wind up veering off into nutty conspiracy theories (e.g., Sandy Hook); and ultimately, back into right wing theory in order to try to anchor themselves.

However, they are seeing a similar thing as we are, and now and then have some pieces of the puzzle to contribute to critique of the right, whether Alternative Right or the variants before that re-branding.

I like the way that McCarron confidently sees a coherent line of Jewish control of the right, notably with Roy Cohn as an ally of Senator McCarthy and his investigations of communist infiltration of politics and Hollywood to Roy Cohn’s Cohencidentally going on to become the mentor of President Donald Trump.

Trump recently decried his lack of the now deceased attack dog lawyer upon special investigator Robert Mueller’s Russian probe: “Where’s my Roy Cohn?”.

Greg McCarron talking to Tim Kelly of “Our Interesting Times” (7:10):

“We’ve devoted a lot of our attention to what is going on in the right wing in America and in the west since the rise of Donald Trump. And our theory that we’ve outline over various programs of ours, that this movement that is rallied behind Donald Trump which is led by media sources such as Breitbart and a few others, Infowars increasingly, that this is pretty much a network that has been created by - a creation of right wing Zionism - literally in a lot of ways a creation of the state of Israel; and it is designed, I think, to bring in the right wing, the conservative Americans that are very uncomfortable with the way their country is headed and the way things are going; and the same goes in Europe as well. What you see with a lot of the European populist right-wing movements, its a way to corral them into the same established means of same business as usual but just under the umbrella and facade of populism and grassroots activism; it’s a facade of a grassroots movement.

We’ve focused a lot on that and a lot on the players involved in this alternative, in this right wing uh, movement which has taken place - it’s really, uh, it goes back to the 50s and 60s but it has re-established itself in a major way with the rise of Donald Trump. I’ll mention someone who’s done a lot of work in exposing this, that’s Nick Spero, he hosts a program called “Circus Maximus” and if you go to Youtube, you can find a lot of his programs; he had a program on the Renegade Broadcasting Network for a couple of years; you can go through their archives and find some of the programs that he did where he’s tied the pieces together, as far as the controlled right goes, going all they way back to The John Birch Society, even before that to people like Roy Cohn - Roy Cohn was of course McCarthy’s lawyer and the mentor of Donald Trump. Nick Spero’s done a ton of work in connecting these dots and I thought we’d give him a shout out while we’re at it; so that’s what we focus on, is the controlled right - how, all of what we’re seeing with the Trump movement going back to the Tea Party and going back before that, is a creation of the same system that it claims to oppose.



Posted by (((Ilana Mercer))) on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:51 | #

        (((Ilana Mercer))) - wouldn’t want to step on (((The Russian Federation’s Toes))).

Ludwig von Mises Center, “How President Trump Normalized Neoconservatism”, 11 Jan 2018:

By Ilana mercer

It’s fact: Neoconservatives are pleased with President Trump’s foreign policy.

A couple of months back, Bloomberg’s Eli Lake let it known that he was in neoconservative nirvana:

“… for Venezuela, [Donald Trump] came very close to calling for regime change. ‘The United States has taken important steps to hold the regime accountable,’ Trump said. ‘We are prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.’”

“For a moment,” swooned Lake, “I closed my eyes and thought I was listening to a Weekly Standard editorial meeting.”

Onward to Venezuela!

Mr. Lake, a neoconservative, was loving every moment. In error, he and his kind confuse an expansionist foreign policy with “American exceptionalism.”

It’s not.

As it happens, neocons are in luck. Most Americans know little of the ideas that animated their country’s founding. They’re more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the classical-liberal philosophy of the Founders, and, hence, wish to see the aggrandizement of the coercive, colossal, Warfare State.

That’s just the way things are.

So, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have enlisted the West in “a proxy Sunni-Shia religious war,” Riyadh’s ultimate aim. Donald Trump has been perfectly willing to partake.

After a campaign of “America First,” the president sided with Sunni Islam while demonizing Iran. Iranians have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks in the US between 1975-2015; Saudi Arabians murdered 2369!

Iranians recently reelected a reformer. Pray tell who elected the Gulf petrostate sheiks?

Moderates danced in the streets of Tehran when President Hassan Rouhani was reelected. Curiously, they’re currently rioting.

If past is prologue, Ron Paul is probably right when he says the CIA is likely meddling in Iranian politics.


Besides, “good” Americans know that only the Russians “meddle.”

In Saudi Arabia, a new, more-dangerous regime is consolidating regional power. Almost overnight has the kingdom shifted from rule by family dynasty (like that of the Clintons and the Bushes), to a more authoritarian style of one-man rule.

When it comes to the Saudi-Israeli-American-Axis-of-Angels, the Kushner-Trump Administration—is that another bloodline in-the-making?—has not broken with America’s ruling dynastic families (the Clintons and the Bushes, aforementioned).

It’s comforting to know Saudi Arabia plays a crucial role in the UN’s human rights affairs. In January of last year, the Kingdom executed 47 people in one day, including a rather benign Shiite cleric. Fear not, they went quickly, beheaded with a sword.

Then US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, a woman as dumb and dangerous as Nikki Haley, was cool with the carnage. (One almost misses Henry Kissinger’s realpolitik. At least the man was highly educated and deeply knowledgeable about history and world affairs. Second only to Jared Kushner, of course.)

Our bosom buddies, the Saudi’s, are currently barricading Yemeni ports. No aid gets through her hermetically sealed ports. Yemenis are dying. Some Twitter followers twittered with joy at the sight of starving Yemeni babies, like this one. Oh well, Yemeni babies can be sinister.

No one would deny the largely neoconservative nature of Trump’s National Security Strategy. Tucked in there somewhere is the Trumpian theme of “sovereignty,” but in watered-down words. The promised Wall has given way to “multilayered technology”; to the “deployment of additional personnel,” and to the tried-and-tested (not!) “vetting of prospective immigrants, refugees, and other foreign visitors.”

These are mouthfuls Barack Obama and Genghis Bush would hardly oppose.

“It’s often said that the Trump administration is ‘isolationist,’” wrote historian Andrew J. Bacevich, in the UK Spectator. Untrue. “In fact, we are now witnessing a dramatic escalation in the militarization of US foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan. This has not been announced, but it is happening, and much of it without … any debate in Congress or the media.”

Indeed, while outlining his “new” Afghanistan plan, POTUS had conceded that “the American people are weary of war without victory.” (Make that war, full-stop.) Depressingly, the president went on to promise an increase in American presence in Afghanistan. By sending 4000 additional soldiers there, President Trump alleged he was fighting terrorism, yet not undertaking nation building.

This is tantamount to talking out of both sides of one’s mouth.

Teasing apart these two elements is near-impossible. Send “4,000 additional soldiers to add to the 8,400 now deployed in Afghanistan,” and you’ve done what Obama and Bush before you did in that blighted and benighted region: muddle along; kill some civilians mixed in with some bad guys; break bread with tribal leaders (who hate your guts); mediate and bribe.

Above all, spend billions not your own to perfect the credo of a global fighting force that doesn’t know Shiite from Shinola.


With neoconservatism normalized, there is no debate, disagreement or daylight between our dangerously united political factions.

This is the gift President Trump has given mainstream neoconservatives—who now comfortably include neoliberals and all Conservatism Inc., with the exceptions of Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson.

How exactly did the president normalize neoconservatism: In 2016, liberals accused candidate Trump of isolationism. Neoconservatives—aka Conservatism Inc.—did the same.

Having consistently complained of his isolationism [...] we of the callused Old Right, who rejoiced at the prospects and promise of non-interventionism, were always right.

Not going to happen.

To some, the normalizing of neoconservatism by a president who ran against it is a stroke of genius; of a piece with Bill Clinton’s triangulation tactics. To others, it’s a cynical sleight of hand.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999.

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: Iran protest, organic grievances real, but tactless Trump endorsement abets reactionary entrenchment
Previous entry: A crisis in the custody suite – part five

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


49% Jewish, 44% European West commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:52. (View)

Virgin of the Rocks, London commented in entry 'Leonardo da Vinci, Salvator Mundi: Divine Proportion of The Golden Ratio & More' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:43. (View)

(((Ilana Mercer))) commented in entry 'Chinese slur 'White Left' as Cultural Marxist shows Jewish power, influence, aversion to White Left' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:51. (View)

Right wing observations on the controlled right commented in entry 'Chinese slur 'White Left' as Cultural Marxist shows Jewish power, influence, aversion to White Left' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:58. (View)

She's not prejudice, she's postjudice commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:50. (View)

Euromexmix + 2% Mali African commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:14. (View)

100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:56. (View)

30,000 shekels for Israeli deportation workers commented in entry 'Netanyahu: “It Is Time to Deport Africans”' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 02:23. (View)

Iranian Hijab Protest 1979 commented in entry 'Iran protest, organic grievances real, but tactless Trump endorsement abets reactionary entrenchment' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:13. (View)

Intel replacement commented in entry 'Who Is It That Is Instigating Techno-Genocide Against the American H-1b's?' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:08. (View)

Golden Ratio in Da Vinci's Salvator Mundi commented in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 17:06. (View)

Boyo commented in entry 'Mary Beard and the BBC's imaginary Roman Africans' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 04:52. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 03:50. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:58. (View)

The first flower commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:38. (View)

Spencer: on last chance for kosher immigration commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 09:10. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'A crisis in the custody suite – seventh (and final) part' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:52. (View)

This thug raped 64yr old in her home commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:32. (View)

Bringing untreatable forms of TB to Europe commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:55. (View)

TBB in Milan commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:48. (View)

Gurgaon, India, corporate-run city commented in entry 'Who Is It That Is Instigating Techno-Genocide Against the American H-1b's?' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:04. (View)

Melbourne: African street gang problem commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:02. (View)

Heidi Przybyala et al. on Trump's shit hole commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:30. (View)

Steven the virulent bracket commented in entry 'Showcase: Arguing WN against virulent bracketry & why 'Americanism', 'exceptionalism' is ineffective' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:43. (View)

Trump expands offshore oil assault on biodiversity commented in entry 'Paradise lost: Remote Henderson Island in the South Pacific is covered in 18 tons of our trash' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 04:45. (View)

Czech losses 30 Years War/ Versailles commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 04:09. (View)

Ahed Tamimi commented in entry '“Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom”: Norman Finkelstein on the Many Lies Perpetuated About Gaza' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:58. (View)

Susan (((Wojcicki))) commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 03:53. (View)

James LaFond on black hyper-assertiveness commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 03:24. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:24. (View)

Ryan Faulk 1/16th commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:27. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:05. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:52. (View)

DanielS commented in entry '200,000 Salvadorans May Be Forced to Leave the U.S. As Trump Ends Immigration Protection' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:42. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:52. (View)