|
|
|
Alt-Right: Defining real White men for you… with negrophilia & a lisp However, the right-wing hasn’t yet gotten the significance of my argument. Where they do see merit, they want to put it in their own Cartesian terms. They miss a crucial hermeneutic point in history, that Friedan’s second wave of feminism had women acting through and in accordance of this paradigm - highlighting the vulgarity of its social disregard, self righteously pursuing “self actualization” while ignoring the “privilege” that men alone had of being required at the same time to go to Vietnam to die. But rather than seeing the valid gender aspect of the hippie protest of the draft as a male thing (a quest for midtdasein for males), the right-wing in their desperate, reactionary way, go along with the Jewish story that it was all about “free love”, “civil rights for blacks”, and “universal peace” or they cater to the right-wing story that hippies sought nothing that a real man should pursue - they were part and parcel of the downfall of Whites - our men, by reactionary contrast, have to learn how to be real men: and now the right-wing will be.. Defining real White men for you… with a lisp..
Ignore and talk past the White Left as defined at MR
Ignore our many discussions as to the drawbacks of black hyper-masculinity in comparison to terms of optimal White/European masculinity - which need to be confirmed and which only MR has confirmed… Instead toss the idea with a gay friend..
Appropriate Asian lands and resources, allow Jews and neo-liberals to parasitically trade on that.. ...learn, in fact, how to act like a Jew and without honor so that you can get-over over there. Puke. Upchuck. Comments:2
Posted by Vince on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:05 | # Jack Donovan writes: http://rooshvforum.com/thread-15208-page-2.html
3
Posted by Donovan & Spencer on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:35 | # Even though I’ve long believed that there are some gays who cannot help it, that they were virtually determined to be that way, I do agree with the general consensus that respect for the vast majority view should be maintained. Nevertheless, more recent scientific data, which shows that a certain percentage of homosexuality will occur in every population, confirms the obvious inference that it does have some survival value to human ecological patterns. So does being grossed-out by a statement like that of Donovan, as it would gross-out most of us. I agree further with the general consensus that male homosexuality ought to be discouraged more than female homosexuality. But while it should be discouraged, as Musson says, as a “natural abnormality,” it deserves a certain level of advocacy so that they are not persecuted and so that those who will be that way and are not harmful to others, can have their clubs, meet in discretion and contribute to society in a positive way as they might - including to WN. The problem that I have with Donovan is not that he writes and speaks to WN and as a WN advocate. The problem that I have with him is that he speaks as an advocate of what it means to be a White man. I could accept him talking about that a little bit; I’m sure that you can have insights into what it means to be a White man even if you are not straight. However, when you don’t have to take it upon yourself to deal with the challenge of dealing with women and heterosexuality in their natural rigors, then I am more than skeptical and am inclined to throw my attention elsewhere instead, at least on that topic. Nevertheless, I thought his article on Hillary - Why we need Hillary - was interesting and I’m sure that he has other worthwhile things to say and contribute to the struggle; but as a role model for straight men? Well, this straight man for one, doesn’t buy that he should present himself as such. Having said that, I generally like to be done with the issue personally, being honest that the male ones in particular give me the willies and the female ones, well they like girls; I’ve talked about queers - not all that much, but enough for my part as far as I’m concerned - in enough detail before so that I don’t generally want to belabor the arguments from my part again. I take a certain amount of pride in not being like the stereotypical over-the-top right-winger (e.g., Harold Covington, who will register “bugger-boys” and “white genocide” in the same sentence or Carolyn Yeager, who sees queers everywhere) who ranks homosexuality in negative importance along with White genocide or miscegenation. It is particularly ridiculous when these are the types more disposed to the kind of biologically deterministic arguments that would defend a modicum of acceptance toward homosexuality. Though I believe that it should be generally discouraged, particularly in its flamboyant advocacy and especially as it would persuade some people who could perhaps go either way, I do believe that it can have a place - including in WN. It is one place where we can be a little more liberal - especially since you are not going to make the phenomenon go away by trying to eliminate them altogether. In the world of praxis, even the more flamboyant displays and advocacy may, according to practical judgment, have occasion - we have an idea of weaponizing it and them as a wedge issue against Muslims, for example. I suppose that certain tolerance and decency on that issue is also a weapon against those who would stereotype White advocates as unreasonable, “extremists” who represent no option for reasonable people. Enough of that issue for now. While we’re discussing alt-righters, let me shift attention, as I should clarify some things about why I’ve been hard on Richard Spencer. First of all, because he is being presented and presenting himself as a leader in the struggle, more critical attention should be brought to bear on him - particularly on his theoretical underpinnings and on the backing he might be beholden-to. Gottfried seems to have been an influence and Regnery even more-so. Though I am getting a sense of the meaning of these relations, their implications are not fully crystallized to me; in either case, however, the implications are apparently not altogether good. These influences seem to be a large part of why he has upheld the identity of the right-winger and more descriptively, of a people determined to maintain “the left” as the enemy, with all the attendant perfidy that goes along with that position. Furthermore, it seems Regnery is a bit of a Germanophile snob; and it seems his ilk has had a significant role in creating the counter productive echo-chamber as such, that is WN heretofore. WN-to-date is prone to take us into reciprocal diatribe in perpetuity- a paradigm of Germans and Jews, a litmus test philo and anti thereof, and only that, to no end. The latest manifestation of that through Spencer seems to be a new angle that he spoke to Renegade about - “We have to move beyond ‘ethnonationalism.” I see both a crass Americanism and a disingenuous, American Germanophilic imperialist wish for a renewed Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiation behind that pretense of “good will.” Ethnostates can and should coordinate with one another, are the best basis to do so and can join in regional alliance. To try to do away with European national differences is almost as irresponsible and dangerous as it is to have them fight one another. On the other hand, in that same interview, he did show some signs of conceding to my view, “that we should become ‘the left.” It may seem like I hate Spencer but I don’t. I don’t even dislike him really, I just have serious concerns about theoretical matters among prominent White advocates, given that these are such important matters. I did notice snobbery in Spencer a bit when I was at VoR. OK, my essays should have been better edited, but I didn’t have access to do it myself there and Mike Conner didn’t always want to, sometimes could not. But Conner was kind enough to not only ask to publish thoughts of mine there but to actually do it - and though some of the essays went up in a less than perfect form, I was and am thankful to him and VoR for publishing them - and because he was good enough to do that, I allowed for them to be published insufficiently corrected though they were. At least the ideas got out and that’s always been what is most important for me; getting the theoretical substance correct. Surface grammar can come after. So, when I experience someone like Spencer trying to do things like ignoring, on what I believe to be superficial grounds, what I have to say and, e.g., re-defining “the left” in some ridiculous way, it annoys me; and I will look at what he says, and why, a little more critically. None of this should be taken to mean that I hate him. I don’t. But he, his backing, the Gottfried/Regnery circus (if that’s what it is) certainly bear critical attention.
...the addition of a little Molotov to their Ribbentrop cocktail - otherwise two ingredients only: Germans and Jews, Germans and Jews, Germans and Jews, Germans and Jews, Germans and Jews, Germans and Jews, Germans and Jews, Germans and Jews, Germans and.. ...and if its not everysing zi Jews, zen vhat justification mien fuhrer? 4
Posted by Tom on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:17 | # I really don’t see what the whole point of this critiquing is. Half those people a typical Pro-White would not know who or what they are about. Those 3 people in the Red Ice show are not the livng representations of a political grouping. They are three public faces involving themselves in a recorded discussion to provide media content for people to consume. Very few Pro-Whites really pay regular attention to Jack Donovan, the whole thing is over blown. Rather than implicitly framing these people you picture above as leaders of a political sphere it would be more accurate to recognise that it is more due to the lack of people who would go out of their way to put themselves in such positions. When you consider how stigmatised and maligned Pro-White politics is within the Anglosphere/Western Europe then you would probably have to be a little bit ‘crazy’ to put yourself in the position that they do. The most dedicated Pro-White/Patriotic activists in the real world are mostly not the types who want to do the whole conference speeches and podcasts. As a result the people who go out of their way to be pubicly part of such a political sphere are going to tend towards outliers or those with nothing to lose. Nobody went out of their way to get Jack Donovan to speak; it is more a case of their being a lack of someone else who is perpared to take the podium and talk about the same thing at a public event. I am sure in the Republicans, Trump campaign/supporters, Pro-White members of the population there are red pilled, jew-wise, traditional masculine types who would be more of an authority on the issue than Donovan but they are not there. 5
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:57 | #
There are very good reasons for critiquing those heading and being presented by the self proclaimed “alternative right” - they are mostly all very well known in realms of White advocacy. You immediately latched onto some lesser known figures who were presented by Red Ice and others (very well known themselves) who exemplify those who they would have explain to us how White men are the problems and how they can correct the problem by “manning-up”. But otherwise obscure figures? In the White advocacy sphere: Pat Buchanan, NPI (started by Sam Francis), sponsored by Regnery, headed by Richard Spencer and circulating now with a self identifying if not sundry group of the others that I talk about… who would be known in the White advocacy sphere, though it is true that most people would not know enough in regard to what they are about and what is behind them. That is what this post is about. What pushed me to take a critical look at them again were a few things: not only had this group of people continually ignored MR’s platform - including our advocacy of a White Left - solid arguments thereof - though they knew very well what was being said here, they began discussing among themselves, of a sudden, whether favorably or unfavorably, this “new thing” called “the alt left”. In other words they wanted to ignore what I was saying with a White left, talk over it and bury it. They’ve been doing that for a long time. They did the same thing with the DNA Nation. I suspect they buried and try to reconfigure other ideas of ours as well, but what irritated me to the point of saying something here was their ignoring what I had to say about transforming Maslow’s hierarchy (which I have been talking about since the 1980’s) but then, all of a sudden, here’s one of their cronies who doesn’t rock their boat too much - Andy Nowicky - with a book taking another look at Maslow’s hierarchy (he’s the latest interview at Red Ice now). Their reasons for trying to silence my voice on these three issues in particular, but not only, and recast these things in their own way, is dubious. I don’t believe their utmost concern is the best theoretical backing for Whites, but rather, different ideologies, their own positions, their right wing father figures, whether Jesus, Hitler, Nietzsche, Darwin, perhaps Hayek or even lesser uncles such as Buchanan or Regnery.
As such they are not merely “the only people” who will step forth, but they are trying to keep people out and are turning people off with their politics (Jesus, Hitler, Nietzsche, Darwin, Hayek etc) and by burying alternatives such as our platform at MR.
Well, I am not really interested in making a big thing about Jack Donovan but what I said doesn’t seem to have resonated with you - that I find the typical right wing line against gays to be a greatly exaggerated concern. However, that is not to say that queers should be beyond critique, especially when they are going to try to teach me what it means to be a White man for fuck sake.
On the other hand, he spoke at the NPI conference and wasn’t refused either. Not that he should have been refused, but that’s not an obscure event in WN spheres; and again, if he did not make “defining men” a central issue, I would not be inclined to say anything, but since he does, he is not helping the image of WN. But your focus on him is diverting my point, which is rather to have a critical look at these people, though you are apparently unfamiliar with the problem of the context and history, apparently coming from the same right wing perspective yourself. It is not just Jack Donovan (big complaints about him would be decidedly right wing), it is others, some whom I have named, some not, who have been a much larger obstruction to progress in the struggle.
I am sure that there are others who could help us more as well and part of how we should reach them is with a sounder platform, not one based on anachronistic litmus tests, such as acceptance of Jews, Christianity, Austrian school economics, Hitler, traditionalist or modernist perfidy…. bureaucratic gate keepers such as Matt Parrott and Richard Spencer… Elitism, Secrecy and Deception in a cronyism that continually reconstructs an echo chamber of counter-productive, if not destructive ideas, while thwarting better solutions. But hope springs eternal and that is why we stay at our platform, because we know that it is solid and with that, we hope that people like you, Tom, will step forward to be our next colleague in the struggle. As far as I am concerned, you don’t have to worry about being worse or better than us in certain ways, as long as our premises and goals are aligned sufficiently. 6
Posted by jock on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:58 | # I always found it funny that white nationalists project their thoughts on Israel saying that it is basically a white supremacist state although a quarter of the population is non-Jewish as something to secretly emulate. Every WN wants their own persecution complex of “white genocide” that seeing how the major issue facing western and eastern industrialised nations (Germany, Japan, Russia, etc) is that they do not want kids not some imaginary NWO anti-white threat. 7
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:20 | # What a Jewy word salad that was Jock. The managed and rule-structured ethnocentrism, absent some of the more extreme and virulent expressions allowed the Jewish classification of peoples, is something we seek for ourselves as Whites and White states. We don’t need a persecution complex and unfortunately don’t need to conjure one - though it does take some chutzpah on your part to deny what your people have done with religion, media, academia, law & courts, politics, banking & finance, business. What you are trying to do in saying that it is our fault for not assimilating R selection offspring strategy to try to play keep-up with Africa and other third world breeding strategies as such is evil nonsense - expressing your obliviousness to our nature as k selectors, the wish that we not understand this and the intent to genocide Whites indeed:
We’re supposed to play keep-up with Africans and other dark races, having children at that rate, while your Abrahamic rite, your interest pyramid, pours fuel on the raging fire with endless Aid to them and at the same time anti-discrimination laws and penalties against European peoples and would-be families. 8
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:31 | #
I can’t think of any sane nationalist who believes that Israel is a ‘white supremacist state’. Israel is the most concentrated collection of Jews on the planet, and Jews are Semites. Semites are non-European by definition and their interests are most frequently in direct antagonism with those of Europeans.
When people make rhetorical talking points about Israel, it’s only for the purpose of highlighting the hypocrisy which is bound up in the fact that Jewish leaders and talking heads have been repeatedly condemning everyone else’s desire to have an ethnic homeland on moralistic terms every day since forever, while they have also simultaneously been loudly and naggingly aspiring—not very successfully or consistently—for an ethnic homeland for themselves in Israel.
So wrong. Population reduction is not the problem, population reduction within the bounds of these nations is the solution to the structural unemployment (caused by automation, a structural unemployment which ought to be allowed to occur) that is coming in the year 2050 and the finite carrying capacity that these areas have. Population reduction in Europe and Asia is a trend that was pursued by enlightened populations and their far-sighted leaders after the 1960s. The influx of mass migration from the irresponsible areas of the globe such as the Middle East and Africa, is the problem. A mass breeding competition against the invaders is futile, because if you lose then you lose, and if you win then you still lose because you will run onto the limits of the area’s carry capacity and structural unemployment, and then mother nature will step in and indiscriminately put everyone out of their misery with starvation and pandemics. This can of course be averted, and it can averted by constructing a new order which recognises the existence of distinct peoples who should live in distinct civic spaces, and an economic programme which trends toward gradualist implementation of socialism, where nationalist and socialistic counter-institutions are created and whose hegemony is continually strengthened until it is irreversible. If the Middle East and Africa disagree, then medical assistance and pharmaceutical supplies ought to be withheld from them, and their food supply should be sabotaged until they die off en masse—and as shocking as that sounds, that may be the only way to keep the world governable in the future. It would be a brand new map. To put it frankly: We don’t need to increase the numbers of Europeans and Asians. We need to instead sharply reduce the number of Arabs and Africans in the world, through supporting economic warfare or through supporting all geopolitical tendencies that lead to outright going kinetic against the worst demographic offenders among them. 9
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:59 | # Oh, and I almost forgot:
The ‘new world order’ is not some spooky bogey-man term, it’s a pretty simple term that emerged in the United States, United Kingdom, Western European Union, China, and Japan, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the over-1000 miles retreat of the Russian borders and the re-unification of Germany. There’s nothing wrong with a ‘new world order’. The ‘new world order’ is not a set of codified ideas. George H. W. Bush famously said in his Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility speech in 1991, that it is simply a toolkit, a new way of looking at relationships between nations after the Cold War who had succeeded at containing the USSR and had emerged with a chance to make a new start. It’s about new ways of developing prosperity and achieving stability in a polycentric/emerging-multi-polar environment, while keeping the forces of disorder at bay. He said that “as old threats recede, new threats will emerge”, and those new threats were of course the reactionary non-state actors which are based in the Middle East and Africa, and which are an enemy of everyone. What is presently happening in Europe with the mass immivasion crisis is not ‘the new world order’ in play, but rather the reverse. The European crisis is, rather, a disorder, disorder was invited into the continent. If anyone in the political class in Europe had been trying to build or maintain order, ISIL and Boko Haram and the other subhumans would have been met in the spacial battlefield and annihilated by now, and the borders would have been locked down at least in 2013 or earlier. 10
Posted by Alt Right Tholidarity Thethion on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:04 | # Emergenthy thenthion of Alt Right luminareith to expreth their tholidarity ...for real menth, including Andy and hith Catholithicithm too. 11
Posted by Just Sayin' on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:58 | # So which pro-white figures do you guys actually like? 12
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 21:13 | # Rather than asking that question of Majorityrights, I think the question should be reversed for once. People in the Alt-Right should at some stage explain to us why it is that they can’t seem remain consistent between themselves even though they’re in constant communication with each other. I’ve been trying to find a consistent line on them, but it’s almost impossible. They have people who are in favour of Christianity and people who are against Christianity. They have people who are okay with the views of the ‘manosphere’ and people who are against it. They have people whose historical viewpoints rise and fall on Germany, but then also they have people who can’t stop finding nice things to say about Russia. They have people who are calling for boycotts of all candidates that are connected to Zionist shilling, but at the same time they have people who are supporting Donald Trump who is—in his own words—the most ardent supporter of aggressive and obnoxious Zionism in the entire presidential field. They have people who are libertarians, and then they also have people who think there needs to be more ‘economically leftist’ ideas, but then paradoxically those same people list their inspirations as Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. Would the real Alt-Right please stand up? 13
Posted by Just Sayin' on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 01:16 | # That *is* the real Alt-Right. It’s not a unified movement with an established ideological orthodoxy and/or hierarchy. It’s a loose collection of dissident thinkers who have been brought together by their opposition to the establishment and by certain Schelling Points* that they tend to agree on, although these aren’t unanimous. I’d argue that the “true alt right”, if it can be said to exist, is increasingly coming to agree on a few basic points a) pro-whitism and not that much else, aside from the aforementioned distaste for the political establishment. (Most but not all consider Trump anti-establishment) Even what I mentioned above is not unanimous, but a guy like Nowicki who doesn’t really care about any of that stuff is pretty clearly being slowly left behind by the direction that the alt-right is moving in. And Roosh flirts with the alt-right, but is pretty clearly more accurately placed in the manosphere. So now I’d be interested to hear a response to my question. I know you guys don’t like old school WN types and apparently you don’t like the alt-right either, so which pro-whites do you like?
14
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:54 | # Just Sayin’ You list some things that are common to most (but not all) of the people in the so called alternative right. a) pro-whitism I advocate all of that. The problem is with the means that the “alt-right” takes. Not only does their big tent include people who would propose means counter productive to those ends, it seems that the very reason for the alternative right big tent is to provide a place for people to hide in the infirmary of their views, people who adhere to means if not irrelevant to those ends, then counter productive to those ends, counter productive to those ultimately social ends, under the guise of a quasi-socialization - “We at the alternative right don’t fight over ‘little things:” such as with those who would propose or even insist upon Christianity as a means to our ends, those that believe that we should schmooze with Jews and blacks, those who defend Hitler chapter and verse and adhere to the epistemological blunders of scientism such as his. There are other epistemological errors that have people checking into the alt right infirmary, an infirmary for those lacking sound means to these ends, but those are the usual ones. Thus, when being queried by someone defending “the alternative right”, I should first ask which of these blundering epistemological means I must take into account - i.e., who am talking to? Here is the first comment that I have under your pseudonym, “Just Sayin”
The truth is, we’ll be fortunate that Hitler hasn’t spelled the death-knell of the White race from his having set into motion a vastly destructive inter European conflict and having made racialism didactic through his narrow, supremacist in-group conception and overcompensation toward enemies on that basis - including toward people and nations who should have been allies of Germany. Hitler’s was probably an overly scientistic model of human behavior; thus accountability and adjustment for the complexity of praxis may have come up short; and, of course, his Fredrick the Great fetish compounded his elitist chauvinism and over the top militarism. Now, the “alternative right”, stupidly, apparently gravitates automatically toward the opposite of proper social grounding which would be a White Left concern, and adopts reactionary positions instead. Some of this also has to do with a VoR type model (perhaps stemming from Regnery backing, I’m not perfectly sure), a model that goes like this - “we establish a big tent”: At one extreme are those who are not really us, say, anarchists or people in the manosphere, Christians, some sympathetic Jews or those who are cool with these sorts, but all of whom can tolerate “our views” which, at the other end lead ultimately to a view of how perfect but misunderstood that Hitler was. Of course, “the mainstream, they can’t understand that. We have to lead them there gently.” Unfortunately, this can play well and establish currency, an echo chamber really, among swaths of America’s demographics, perhaps Australia too, and holed-up in their tent, the infirmed and their epistemological diseases are highly resistant to healing and correction. That doesn’t answer your question yet, but it was necessary to start: The Alternative Right Big Tent is an infirmary and hiding place for epistemological diseases. 15
Posted by Wolfie on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:21 | # I think Kumiko is right. 16
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:23 | #
While I agree that going with focal points is usually a good idea if you haven’t actually communicated with the other persons before, the main element that I was highlighting is that they have indeed all communicated with each other, and yet the tent only seems to be getting wide and bigger rather than anyone settling on a narrative and maintaining it. I also disagree slightly with how DanielS characterises them, since there a lot of ‘Hitler-esque’ behaviours that the Alt-Right seems to reject, it’s just that they reject the Hitler-esque things that actually had some utility. For example, when I told Colin Liddell that his desire to accommodate Jews was absurd, what was his response? Liddell argued for hours on Disqus in favour of allowing Jews to enter the Alt-Right, and then perma-banned me from commenting at Alt-Right because I’m too anti-semitic for them to stomach. I made a whole article about that issue here when it happened, in which I basically transformed all of my talking points into an article, and as of now, not one single person from Alt-Right has ever got in touch with me to explain what is going on inside their heads. It’s not unreasonable that I’d be critical of them, if I literally go to Alt-Right’s website and repeatedly bash cymbals and drums to the tune of one of those focal points and then get attacked—without explanation—by them for having done so. 17
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:45 | # Kumiko, the problem with Hitler as far as coordinating White Nationalism is not that he was anti Jewish, it is that he was tactless in his means of dealing with Jews and that he was opposed to other European peoples who were, of necessity then, opposed to him as well. The Alt Right litmus test or high-sign is not so much anti-Jew, nor even that one approve of Hitler (whether with partial disagreement or in an unqualified way) so much as it is being tolerant of people who revere Hitler and seek to redeem his regime. 18
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 19:35 | # There are people whose positions I like on balance and those I don’t. Despite the fact that this will be a long comment, I will need additional comments because there are too many people that I like to remember them all at once..* What I like doesn’t appear to be always or even usually on a continuum and a matter of clear percentages of what I like or don’t like. They can do many things well on balance but hold a few views that I think are absolute poison - and therefore, on balance, I reject them because that aspect weighs too heavily. Although I will sometimes discuss, make use of and acknowledge the things that they’ve got right. There are some for whom one of those bad aspects, in my opinion, is their snobbery, crony-ism among a mandate flawed at best. In that case I would reject their platform for its flawed mandate. What troubles me about the “alt-right” is not its eclecticism, its willingness to tolerate a certain amount of ambiguity and contradiction. That can be to its advantage among praxis - one must make some concessions that some logics of meaning and action will be messed-with to some extent by the reality of the social world. Nevertheless, the Alt Right’s inclusion of certain positions - whether by bureaucratic enforcement, sheer force and power of ostracism if not accepted, by sloppiness, or perhaps because they have been schmoozed, sweet-talked or even been bought-off to make concessions in regard to their tent - is another matter: particularly when those positions will lead to the destruction of Whites, because those positions will keep us from being able to coordinate among ourselves to sufficient volume and effect and fail to defend us against others. That I do not accept. The part of the platform of the alt right which agrees to accept those things that I do not accept - because they would function negatively in that way, viz. against sufficiently coherent and coordinated WN, and agrees to reject things that are imperative to taking WN in a coherent and sufficiently coordinated direction - is the part that I do not accept and the reason I do not accept it on balance. It seems their problem is that they are mostly people who are reacting to unwanted social impositions, thus anti-social altogether (as opposed to White social) and so their way of dealing with that is to try to reach out to people outside of WN who act as surrogate social recruiters for them. Nevertheless, I do agree that there are some basic ideas among many (but not all) Alt Righters and I agree with these positions as well: a) pro-whitism But then Jared Taylor? Ramzpaul, Keith Preston, Andy Nowicky, Colin Liddell, Ann Sterzinger, Matt Forney, Robert Lindsay.. There are people among that group whose connection to Native European/White Nationalism seems tenuous - they seem to be more like liberal writers looking for a market, rather than White nationalists looking to express their ideas. Others don’t fit the bill because their religious or ideological views predominate over or severely hamper their commitment to Whites: The Political Cesspool, Pat Buchanan, Matt Heimbach, Matt Parrott, Andrew Anglin, the people at Renegade. In that group we shade from people who are predominantly Jesus freaks to Jesus and quasi Hitler freaks, to Hitler and conspiracy freaks. Perhaps there will be examples of people who are nothing special on balance, may even have some foibles which do not exactly contradict WN, but they do one thing that is very important and do it very well. There are WN people who I like on balance, but who mistakenly connect with others and other aspects which run counter to WN interests. Bearing in mind that I can have reservations, sometimes serious reservations about them, but in answer to who I like on balance, besides our people here at MR? On balance, some people I like, though they have some positions that I disagree with: Of the veterans I like Tom Metzger and Alex Linder I like Kevin MacDonald and Greg Johnson. But what are KM and Johnson doing with some of the people they associate with? Their associations are nonsensical - Greg Johnson/Colin Liddell/Andy Nowicki/Ann Sterzinger/Matt Parrott, Heimbach…. MacDonald, while largely good himself, does not always seem to be the greatest judge of character. Pat Buchanan? There are whole arrays of convoluted relations that make little sense. Greg Johnson is very good but clings to his right wing snobbish elitism and has been reluctant to let go of Hitler. That should not be hard. Just as his affinity for the right should not be hard to let go of, but somehow, it is for him. I tried to explain to Metzger that we should not be so four square behind nature because it doesn’t give a damn about our race; and that he should drop the “anti-equality” thing because that is a counter productive reaction. Both those errors probably stem from his non-academic background and some aversion to academics. However, he is always about race, White racial unity and he has the ability and understanding to stand up to and not get caught up in the perfidy of the right - alt or otherwise. That is why despite flaws, warts and off days, he is, on balance my favorite. Alex Linder is good too, but too right wing (anti social) too approving and uncritical of Hitler and too over the top and tactless in his “we should kill them all.” He should do better to facilitate more respect among fellow Europeans, yet he does advocate all Europeans and I respect him for that. I like Jez Turner: too bad he has not been able to shed a few right wing things, but on balance quite a good one. Max Musson seems largely good. People who are on the line of what I would reject or endorse: A somewhat younger pair who I still like but in a strictly qualified way - Truck Roy. even on the Hitler issue he doesn’t seem too bad - I’ve heard him say that he believed Hitler’s domestic policies were pretty good, his foreign policies more suspect. That’s reasonable. He has many good things to say, whether he structures his arguments by himself or with the help of the Bugsers, they are often quite good. There is the drawback of his being a Christian but he doesn’t thump his bible nor try to insist that people accept it and faith based arguments. What little he talks about it tends to be in regard to what he sees as its rational utility. A major drawback is the context of his platform - surrounded by the right wing Hitler apologists at Stormfront. Tanstaafl is of course a really smart guy but he makes some important mistakes which I have already discussed. When he said that he advocated all Whites at the time when Carolyn was reading the part of Table Talk when Hitler was talking about his plans for Ukraine and Ukrainians, I thought sure that he’d put Hitler in his past. It was disappointing, especially when he tried to say that being “anti-Hitler” was my fixation - when rather the problem was his fixation that he was unable to let go of. People who I reject on balance while recognizing that they have many good things to say: Don Black I am close to neutral about him but reject his and his close associate colleagues’ Hitler apologetics and his general right wingishness. David Duke I reject his Hitler apologetics and do not especially like Duke’s personality and character - his ego and aggrandizement, his theoretical ineptitude and usurpation. One may find better theory, or the sources of the theory that he butchers, elsewhere. They can also find facts and figures about Jews elsewhere, or from his sources, but one can get facts and figures about Jews readily from Duke. While his personality, character and platform is obnoxious to some of us, it does take certain aspects of character to stand up to the Jew as he has. William Pierce There is a similar thing going on with William Pierce. He is worth listening to. I probably like upwards of 90% of what he has to say. But for his scientistic rigidity, his right wingishness and for the fact that just about everyone who is now devoted to Hitler seems to have come through the William Pierce school, I reject him on balance as setting forth a destructive logic of meaning and action. Bob Whitaker Bob Whitaker is obviously intelligent, creates some memes that are more or less effective, but the Bugser entourage seems susceptible to some of the instability of the right. They are a part of the big tent thing, specializing in adding some nutty conspiracy theory along with highly rational advice; acceptance of Christians, Jews and Hitler - just don’t be too loud about any of that - “they wouldn’t understand.” Horus (Tim Murdoch) Is apparently his main protege. Some worthwhile things to say but too slick, too much conspiracy theory and too much of the right wing foibles I’ve mentioned among the The Bugsers and the Alt Right.. Richard Spencer Well, as I said above, I believe that Richard Spencer is something of a career girl. Because he is propped up and his White advocacy does not come out of a fully organic place, he is badly placed as a leader, thus well placed as the leader of a dubious big tent - the Alt Right. For most younger guys in the struggle, there’s a problem of their not having to go through a long learning process of what it means to be White/European and what we are up against. As as result of the Internet, they can just plug themselves into the echo chambers - whether Regney, Pierce, Alt Right, Stormfront, Renegade, etc, and presto! They just know that Hitler was perfect and lied about in every way - instant experts and leaders! Of course they are not, they are Angelo John Ganucci, Andrew Albino Ant Anglin, Matt Hamhock etc. ...look at the stuff Kyle Hunt was trafficking in (sheer conspiracy theory at Red Ice) back just in in 2009. Some guys coming up seem to have promise…Scott Roberts.. ..and if he and some of the English guys can get over the Hitler thing, they’d be doing even better - David Jones, Paul Hickman (shame he got caught up) Sven Longshanks (shame he gets caught up)... there are a few other English guys that I’ve heard recently who I like…I should remember their names, but don’t off hand. *I’ll look them up later and list them… Now, for Donald Trump.. Donald Trump..
Johnson Nixon Ford Carter Reagan Bush Clinton Bush Trump
Give me a break. I am focused on metapolitics. Some people should focus on mainstream politics in order to gain voice and whatever influence they can by electoral platforms but don’t ask me to be enthusiastic about Trump. He is a crass businessman, always has been. I never liked him and I also never hated him. He might be the best candidate, on balance, for Whites - fine; some of the arguments in that regard make some sense. And, I have always hated Hillary and her husband - so much so that I even voted the first and only time in my life for Bush senior, not because I liked Bush senior, but because I saw through that scumbag Bill Clinton from the start. But don’t expect me to give unmitigated support to any candidate. I never took Trump seriously and I still don’t - even if he becomes President I would not take him seriously. * I will add to the list of people that I like in subsequent comments because there are too many to easily reel off.. 19
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:12 | # I’ll respond to you, DanielS, after I quickly respond to Wolfie:
No, you’ve totally 180 degrees misunderstood me. Social welfare programmes did not require more human beings to sustain them. The extra profits gleaned by large companies and conglomerates due to the mechanisation and automation of production were more than enough to fund that system. All they would have needed to do is abandon the income tax and VAT ponzi scheme taxation approach, and instead get the tax money by taxing large companies and conglomerates. My stance is that everyone was correct to have less children. And that also, the Arabs and Africans are largely useless eaters, and that importing their surplus population into Europe has no economic benefit to Europe whatsoever. 20
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 22:45 | # I like Frank Salter ...Sam Dickson seems like a nice guy… Patrick Le Brun seems pretty good. Too bad he feels obligated to do the “it’s the left” thing… I like The Golden Dawn on balance.. I like Roger Devlin… The guy from “WIN” seems pretty good except for his Hitler thing and the “necessity of expansionism” idea which he has that seems to stem from that thing.. I like Robert Ransdell (for what I know about him; for what I don’t know, my jury is out). Oh! Matt Tate was one of the English guys that I liked and whose name I’d forgotten.. Fred Andersson, the Swedish guy, seems like a good one.. Kai Murros is pretty cool except for his “anti left” and blaming the hippies thing.. I tend to like Paul Craig Roberts.. 21
Posted by Just Sayin' on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 00:12 | # Kumiko said: “I made a whole article about that issue here when it happened, in which I basically transformed all of my talking points into an article, and as of now, not one single person from Alt-Right has ever got in touch with me to explain what is going on inside their heads.”“ I said: That would be an example of something that is liable to earn him a whole lot of pushback from his audience, and shouldn’t be taken as representative. DanielS said: I said: And so, while nobody is trying to “purge” hardcore anti-fascists, people who constantly talk about anti-fascism are liable to have smaller audiences and get a whole lot of pushback. And so, while very few of the prominent Alt-Right figures are serious Nazis or people who spend a lot of time praising Hitler, they also don’t spend a lot of time signalling hard against him like you do. In that way, they avoid having to constantly re-fight the Second World War in the comments. RamzPaul signaled against the 1488 crowd recently, but that crowd makes up a huge percentage of his audience, so doing so isn’t really rewarded and he’s kind of discouraged from talking about it too much. Obviously there are a few like Anglin who are more into 1488, but it’s a matter of debate whether you’d count him as Alt-Right or more traditional Neo-Nazi / WN, or some combination of both. DanielS said: I said: Preston isn’t pretending to be anything but an anarchist, but he gets posted at lots of WN websites because his ideas are vaguely friendly to WN, although IMHO not useful. Lindsay isn’t Alt-Right but some leftist crank who last I checked was into racial pseudo-science (not HBD) and bigfoot. A few other people like Forney might be borderline alt-right, borderline something else, hitting some of the same themes, with some of the same audience, but not really on the same page and barely doing more harm than good. But already he gets made fun of a lot for being what he is. I don’t see how the Alt-Right could “purge” someone like Forney, he has all his own media infrastructure, he has his own brand, he hangs out with the manosphere, he’s not well liked or widely promoted on “core alt-right” media, he just hits on some Alt-Right material because it is profitable. All they could really do is prevent him from paying for a ticket to an event. Similarly, half the guys you listed as negative examples of Alt-Righters, are more what I would consider traditional WNs. But there is a fair amount of overlap between the two and the “core Alt-Right” isn’t going around trying to “purge them” or start fights with any of them (although Renegade still hates the Alt-Right). Anyway, you seem to like a fair amount of the traditional WN guys so I guess you’re somewhat more tolerant of people who disagree with you than I thought. I encourage you to keep investigating the Alt-Right (the movement, not the specific blog), and you might find some material you like. I wouldn’t get too hung up on the idea of the Alt-Right as some movement, it’s basically just a new wave of pro-white writers defined by slightly different tactics than the previous wave. It has plenty of hangers on, opportunists, cranks, shills, losers, etc. But on the whole it’s probably more normal (and actually less Hitler obsessed) than the traditional WN movement and it is putting out a lot of good material. For starters, you might try listening to a few episodes of the Daily Shoah, especially some of the ones with Greg Johnson. 22
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 12:58 | # First, I need to respond to this part:
While GW may use the word “fascism” as a term of critical derision, I do not. I never have, because in my life the only persons that I have ever heard using that word were liberals and anti-fa’s, using it as a “smear” term. So, I cannot bring myself to use it but did use it experimentally only once in my life, on the thread with GW, when he was helping me to argue against Hitler advocates. I was immediately accused of being an “anti-fa.” I explained to the accusing Hitler-head that I never used the word “fascist” before but he refused to believe it - “you see! you are anti-fa! you say that you don’t use that word but it is not true!” Not worth it. I’ll never again experiment with using that as a term of derision, because it confirmed that it is too strongly correlated with liberals and anti-fa - as I knew from my experience and that is why it has made me cringe a bit even in the few times I’ve heard GW use it negatively. The bit about the smaller audiences and the pushback has more, much more to do with your situation of American, its particular kind of White demographics and those who would like to increase their popularity on its basis, than their being “concerned or cool with what Whites are really about and what they need”; the White demographics of America are such that they have not had to be too troubled with the complicating factor that there were many White Europeans for whom Hitler was not doing any favors. And because I threaten to pop the bubble that American WN are comfortably within, I get attacked and have had to devote 100% more attention to pushing Hitler and his advocates away than I would care to do. However, it is for the good of the site and the long term good of all WN as their bubble will pop when confronted with the reality outside of America’s demographics - which have provided thus far the engine and currency of pro Hitlerism to the detriment of White coherence and coordination. 23
Posted by Just Sayin' on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 15:31 | # Actually, I kind of agree with you that something about America’s demographic situation v.s. Europe may well make the WW2 topic play out differently here. Maybe it’s because the Jews have badly overplayed their hand by first convincing us that we won the war singlehandedly then trying to simultaneously bash us over the head with it because we didn’t do enough. Maybe it’s because we had it easy. Maybe it’s the ethnic composition. Who knows. But anyway, I didn’t come here to troll you about Hitler, I’m just saying, the Alt-Right isn’t particularly focused on WW2. The main figures talk about it significantly less than the the prior wave of White Nationalists did. The Alt-Right just exists under an (American) incentive structure that discourages going too far in the opposite direction. There are Hitler hating Pro-Whites that get along well with the Alt-Right and get promoted on their platforms. (For example the MyPostingCareer guy in a recent TDS). But to some extent they have to keep to their own platforms on that one particular subject because maintaining that anti-Nazi position in the U.S. market requires a lot of moderation and pruning of their audience. 24
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 21:52 | #
I know what its like to have all that stuff directly on top of your head. Nevertheless, the White demographic make-up of The U.S. is not that mysterious; nor is it hard to imagine the disposition that I would be inclined to myself, if I were among that White demographic.
Thank goodness to the extent that’s true, because I am sick and tired of it, contrary to those who think I am obsessed with it.
The problem is that when “NS” Germany is discussed, the discussion rarely considers its negative sides along with its positive sides - only its positive aspects and victimization. Again, I believe that has largely to do with a sheer rhetorical view convenient to the demographics.
Well, that’s what I mean. “The U.S. market” and its bias. If, in order to maintain a stance critical of Hitler you have to keep the platform separate, that only illustrates Hitler’s divisiveness and the inclinations of U.S. demographics, at least at this stage of informational development upon the Internet - i.e., when they are still not sated with the idea that Hitler was not all bad, still overcompensating with the notion that he was perfect and not to be questioned - by “requiring too much moderation and pruning otherwise” as they’re not yet able to put suggestions of his redemption critically in the past. The reality is that Hitler wasn’t perfect, he was divisive of Europeans and will remain so. Thus, it is the right thing to get rid of Hitler redemption and not make his resurrection more important than European cooperation. Otherwise, you are pandering to the ignorance of a) a demographic destructive to European alliance as it is still immature in its understanding or b) our enemies who want to promote divide and conquer, knowing good and well that associating our cause with Hitler will never fail to do that. I would encourage you to take your TDS audiences in the direction of European alliance. We have listened to a few of your shows and are enjoying them. You know quite a bit about Egypt - impressive. I appreciate your outreach and look forward to cooperating with you to whatever extent you can manage. 25
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 00:48 | # Daniel, what part of America did you come from originally? How is living in Poland different (and presumably better in your estimation) than living in America? Wanting to know if I should consider relocating… 26
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 13:10 | #
Hi CC, I am from Montclair, New Jersey. It runs South to North along the Watchung Mountains 30 minutes drive West of New York City. Its demographics are White on balance - from lower middle class to rich - but with a significant number of nasty blacks, mostly poor. In largest part, however, its sections and architecture reflect its demographics - from the lower middle/working class neighborhood of my family - to fabulous mansions along the mountain-top As if there were not enough blacks (to be “integrated with”) in Montclair, looming right next to it are the predominantly black hell holes of East Orange, Irvington and Newark (its North Ward being an Italian section where my father’s family was from). Long story short, America’s (Judeo-objectivist) rule structure and demographic make-up were driving me nuts and I had to get out. So, the first answer to your question is that yes, it is better for me in Poland - because it is White. Its being homogeneous and having strong warrant to defend its nationalism (despite liberal hegemony) after what its been up against, is a strategic advantage. However, its Whiteness is key for me - on the deepest levels that does heal what ails you as a White man, if being White, among Whites and defending Whites is your concern. Thus, it is worth considering, CC, whether you should move here or not. There are pros and cons, of course. Amazingly, it’s still very White. As you know, our enemies are at work all the time, but I went out yesterday, a whole day, among a city over 500,000 and didn’t see a single black. Truly amazing. That can happen for a week, still, i.e., that you go without seeing a black. However, that’s mostly in the Winter. During the Summer, you’ll see the occasional interracial couple, girls coming back from England and Holland, etc. with their Negroes. I’ve noticed a few of what seem to be the Syrians around. There have been a few Kebab places (Turks) for years. More than any, there seems to be more East Asian immigration recently, but not that much. I don’t know how long it will stay basically White - hopefully always - but I am not taking it for granted even though it has been this way, incredibly, since the first time I visited in 1996. The many (still empty) housing developments going up all around and Simon Peres’ statement that Israel is buying Poland (among other places) are ominous signs. Though many left in 1967, there are still some Jews here (wielding disproportionate power, as always) and you can see it in the faces of some. Though being critical of Jews is understood as an issue, and has never been quite the taboo in Poland that it was in The U.S., you must exercise judgment nevertheless - no, I would not recommend nor support putting a swastika on your chest. But if you do not brand yourself a literal Nazi (and lose the support of Polish nationalism thereby), to date, Jews may try to intimidate you, but if you are mainly normal and within the law, they basically have to suck it up when they get wind of your saying or representing anti-Jewish or racist things. I guess they have to suck it up if they want to hang in here and do business. Of course the YKW is always at work on the younger minds and has conditioned them some, more or less. It is disappointing to be confronted by PC and the same liberal litmus tests from girls about “racism” and “isn’t this, that or the other black celebrity so nice?” That is, you are confronted with the sad fact that these women can be conditioned to be the same way as American women if it is allowed to happen. And it might be allowed to happen more by Polish men looking to be alpha liberals, same as American men, if the circumstances of Polish nationhood did not fly in the face of that somewhere along the line. Still, they can leave Poland now, and I guess they do tend to be more liberal in diaspora as they are to some extent expressing liberalism by having left; and they may tend to bring that liberalism back with them - along with whatever else. I’ve mentioned another problem before for ex pats coming here. You are no longer a novelty. If Polish women are looking for something different, they can just go West. If they are here, that usually means that they prefer the local fare. Bear in mind, I am not thinking a great deal about economic factors and that is not to say that I shouldn’t. It is just not my focus. You have to have your house and a plan in order in that regard. Like anywhere, particularly Western nations, money forms a bottom line - Poland can be good if you have money and bad if you don’t. If you do have some means, do not be indiscreet, let alone brag about it. First of all, plenty of Polish men do too and whether they do have means or not, and whether they need to or not (very unlike American culture) the men and the women will take it as a threat and a challenge. Not reciprocating evenly, or “showing-off by being too generous” is a no no (even though it may not seem like a lot of money to you and it may have been planned well within your budget as a limited expenditure - to them, it can be seen as the gift that should keep on giving, to whom and when they see fit, astonishingly). Some women will be looking to guilt-trip you, and/or snap you up and they are not necessarily the ones you might like nor having designs to direct your resources as you might like. While you may feel it is obviously your prerogative to reject a woman and may in fact consider being selective an important reason for having left America, a Polish woman may not accept rejection too easily; especially if you don’t think you should have to be particularly deferential and make an insulting remark that she gets wind of. Though the men and women are not flamboyantly jealous the way, say, Italians are, they are jealous nevertheless. And particularly if you go to a smaller town, if you fall into disfavor of one of these sorts, who have respected parents and social capital to lend marginal elements, if they can find any way to smear you with gossip that will take hold among the marginals, they will - like nicking you in a pool of sharks to send off the smell of blood. That’s why a larger city, like Poznan, is good - because if gossip is not true or not important it will be mitigated in a pool too big for it and not take hold for the element to act upon. Thus, coming back to this jealousy/rejection thing… while I have seen some guys able to get away with boasting about having money and messing around with women in the bigger cities, if you are going to live in a smaller city, in particular, its better to either bring your woman with you or settle on one. Otherwise, Polish women have a special understanding among themselves, and it is especially potent among the ones who have respected mothers and social capital to spend - that if you cross them, even in their imagination, but especially if you give them good reason, they will set the organized criminal element upon you - an element that has learned quite well from communist times, how to make your life hell. In turn, the criminal element has a tacit agreement, seeking out respectable women to bait you with, for you to jilt and give them an excuse. Is Poland worth moving to? It depends upon how much you need the deepest level of healing, i.e., to be among Whites. On balance that is worth it to me, even though I paid too heavy a price for not knowing the ropes that I am teaching you. Its not enough to be among Whites but there is no basis for anything without that; and Poland does have that strong warrant to remain a Polish/White nation. I guess that for some idiotic liberals, it would have strong warrant to be liberal, “anti Nazi”, too. And that is another thing that you’d have to be careful of a jilted Polish girl being able to smear you with and hence setting the element after you. If you can mind your P’s and Q’s yes, it is a good place to live. I have found that simply being immersed in a White nation and being able to take it for granted matters tremendously in terms of radical well being. Not seeing blacks around and not being often confronted with the indignation of their interracial pairings matters enormously. If you can groove with the fact that it is threatened to not stay this way (how long will it remain homogeneous and White?), it is an excellent place to take a stand as a White nationalist. It is a good base of operations because it is still within Europe (i.e., functional and not prone to some of the craziness Eastward), yet ethnocentrism is understood and has heavy warrant (“You are going to take away Polish nationhood after all that?”), and thus its nationalism lends itself to our cause. The people are competent to make a high-tech civilization go and will not bother you if you exercise a modicum of discretion. Of course it helps significantly if you learn Polish, but don’t try to pretend to be Polish if you are not. Otherwise, that might be another strike against you, as they may be eager to show you that you are not Polish. Be a respectful ex pat, enjoy the White context, but don’t expect much of anything from the people. Polish culture looks and in many ways is like American culture. However, Poles can have a cartoonish idea of what it means to be an American and what it means to out-do them - which can seem like clownish and familiar rough play. But looking upon that as quaint and being lulled by some of the initial hospitality of the people can be deceptive: their individualism tends to be more a rebellion against communism and spiteful as a result of communism and its perspective on America; men are expected to be able to do things with their hands; and they generally are able to do things with their hands (whether its fixing computers, electricity, cars or plumbing) a bit more than American men; but if you are a qualified teacher, a professional or have some other gig going for you - and not in a small town - it won’t weigh too heavily against you. Poznan is optimal. Not too big, not too small. With its pedestrian zone in the center, its civic engineering is well done for White human psychology. It is nice, but gritty, merely functional and practical enough so as not to attract too many tourists and migrants. 27
Posted by IKantunderstand on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 05:17 | # First of all, allow me to warn you: I’m a girl. So, reading my comment will probably result in mind cooties. You’ve been warned. I have been reading this website sporadically over several years. Wow, you are extremely erudite, philosophically challenging, sometimes amusing, and, sadly, you accomplish NOTHING. I know you hold women in low regard. And, this, despite the fact that White women have a higher I.Q. than the colored hordes of men who are invading Europe. So, where do we go from total subjugation of women and feminism? I will fight to the death my right to vote. And, all you reprobates who advocate taking women’s right to vote away, why don’t you advocate taking the right to vote from sub I.Q. coloreds. Stop blaming women for your woes. You are the ones who capitulated. Why? Reclaim your damn balls. 28
Posted by il Padrino on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 14:17 | # As you have “sporadically” read this site over the years, you surely understand that what I propose is the transformation of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs into an optimal White socialization of individuation and gender differentiation such that both genders of Whites can have their needs met - from basic needs of being (midtdasein) to actualization - while maintaining the grounds of that possibility because these quests, as we re-conceive them to White socialization, would not rupture but would serve to reconstruct and reinforce the overall European classification and its systemic human ecologies; as they are necessary to sustain these quests. Or perhaps that has not registered, but rather you disingenuously impute motives onto me - such as a wish to take the vote away from you as a White woman - as a right winger would. On the contrary, your actualization and your basic comfort are what Abrahamcs and Africans cannot offer you but what we as European men and ways can offer you as a White woman and do offer you in respect, as a White woman. Now, you show me, il Padrino, respect - and hear what I say this time, for what I have been saying. Since you have been “sporadically” reading this site, you surely recall that I propose a fair negotiation of gender differentiation and individual development based on distinct European patterns. Both genders can potentially have access to fulfillment of all needs if social classification, racial bounds most saliently, are re-invoked. For obvious practical reason, females have generally been granted easier achievement of basic needs while access to farther reaches of actualization have been either reserved for or achieved by males for their harder tests on basic levels. That was a practical arrangement that went into runaway in later modernity and with Jewish provocation. To achieve systemic homeostasis by contrast, women needed an optimal amount actualization and White males needed more access to the basic needs. A fair negotiation could have been made if males were more articulate and the Jewish governed second wave of feminism had not buried the necessary male motive in incitement and the culture of critique. Articulation of what he sought - being - was difficult enough - subtle and perhaps even more taboo to tradition and modernity than was actualization for females. Being is a verb. More descriptively as a verb and a motive, Dasein - there-being - is non-Cartesian. More descriptively still, as a verb and a motive, Midtdasein - there-being-amidst the social classification - is not only a verb and non-Cartesian motive, but a non-universal verb that takes us back into social delimitation as the important criteria; as opposed to the infinite regress and universal criteria of modernity. The universal maturity you try to incite in me, by telling me to “man-up”, is a modernist wail - in the fall-out and confused performance requirements of modernity’s wake you do not quite know what to do; so you revert to the tried and true, as right-wingers do, doubling down in a traditional or modernist take on gender, depending upon whether it is coming through the prism of Anglin, TradYouth (Heimbach / Parrott), Roosh, Red Ice or Renegade (where I suspect you’re from, given your dishonest interpretation). There has been a problem, as you know, as a right winger - that racial bounds are prohibited. But in the role of a right-winger, one is precluded the tools to solve that problem, because in reaction to the Jewish trick, a quest for unassailable, universal warrant in “nature” or “purity of spirit” is sought; as opposed to seeking cultivation and accountability of our human nature, one tends to pursue universal criteria beyond the relative hypotheses of social classification that would otherwise turn attention to care of our relative, human and distinctly European systemic contours, norms of sublimation in responsibility thereof. Instead, you want to blame White men alone, you suggest that we should man-up according to universal maturity. That, as opposed to White/European men acting upon the more sublimated and protracted surveillance of systemic maintenance and impingement of interrelated European EGI, that is the authentic and optimal response framework for manning-up as a White man - that is not to say that he does not take action with regard to episodes of impingement, but as a K selector, episodes do not define his masculine concern, the pattern of Europeans do - to sheerly man up, according to universal maturity, otherwise, would have him act more on impulse and episode as blacks do and as Jews would have it, so as to take him/us out of authentic surveillance and capacity to man our patterns, guarding of our natural, mature range of functional autonomy. Rather, it is when, where and knowing how best to handle impingement upon the White pattern, that has a White man manning up - where his European people are threatened overall, and patterned qualities are threatened in an importantly indicative episode, not where some personal or universal notion of masculinity is questioned or incited. There is a problem, as you know, from your “sporadic” reading of this site: that modernity and Jewish prohibition of racial classification has created disorder and a large breach of accountability to inherited patterns. However, because people still need some accountability and categorization in order to make human sense, the classificatory criteria that they are least able to dispense with, i.e., gender, becomes the default universal category. And as this disorder and pandering from every direction has increased the one up position of females, they have gained more power, incentive, capability and capacity to maintain it. In her pandered-to puerile outlook, she can be articulate, confident and confirmed well beyond her true merit; and vis a versa - a White male can be pervasively disconfirmed of his true merit. Where he does achieve despite disconfirmation of basic needs, because he may receive little or no social confirmation otherwise, he can be, in perverse irony, lambasted as “arrogant” or needing to be brought down a peg for having achieved through “White male privilege.” ... typically a “privilege” coming through privation and sublimation of basic needs. But rather than hearing his low “grumbles”, you allow his nascent authentic European expression to be buried, believing what the Jews tell you, at your convenience, that what he was seeking was “fee love” as Marcuse told you, and black “civil rights” as Katzenbach told you - they pandered to the universal puerile tendency to incite genetic competition, and, until it caught up with your mature awakening of what this means for your children, you pretended, were inclined, and wanted to believe that this, what suited your puerile form, was truth - “that’s what they wanted”, these hippies, these “malingering” White males. So you quash and incite his low grumbles. After all, Freud said he has an unconscious wish to be cuckolded just as you have an unconscious wish to be raped - it must be true. Of course it isn’t true but, incite, incite, incite - same as ever, “nature is timeless”, a-historical… being is without time, without history. Actually, as the one-up position of females in mate selection has increased exponentially with modernist and Jewish prohibition of classification, she is pandered to by Jews and then others from all angles. She is told now, and wants to believe, that what is happening is all the fault of White men for not manning-up. Of course, we don’t pay attention to those “hippies”, we go back to the tried and true of tradition, or was it modernity - incite to universal maturity, incite to universal maturity, incite to universal maturity. Being isn’t static, intransigent, unreasonably recalcitrant, it’s a verb the authenticity of which is quashed and made didactic by incitement. Being, midtdasein, being amidst the group, is a verb that was drowned under the second wave of feminism as its Jewish agenda facilitated endless pandering to females and incitement of White males to no end. But midtdasein, being amidst the social classification is a verb that requires manning-up and defending one’s authentic developmental patterns when mature to the occasion; fighting is not undertaken according to universal maturity or the giddy episodic entertainment of a puerile female, but when one’s peoples’ systemic borders, when one’s authentic (in our case) European patterns are impinged upon. Understood in its authentic expression, European manhood is not only brute then. It is optimal brute - a brute when his EGI are impinged upon, but unlike the universal maturity that the Abrahamics would try to promote to subvert our pattern in its authentically protracted form - its authentic range of functional autonomy - it does not only act upon the criteria that suit the episodic abilities of African maturity. European maturity, rather, is more sublimated, taking its broader systemic patterns of thought and consequence into account - so he does not act only in accordance to puerile female incitement and he does not absolve her of responsibility. Do you have agency or do you not? Are you a European woman looking after European patterns or are you just a female? As a right-winger, you yield your Europeanness and agency to a quest after unassailable foundations in nature as opposed to the relative and accountable warrant of our European human nature. You blind yourself to your agency in accountability when you place all responsibility on males to “man-up”, hiding behind incitement and refusing to recognize that it is manning up to refuse the suggestion of your incitement. As opposed to hearing the call for accountability in which your agency is to be found, you seek to re instate tradtitional/modernist criteria that a real man accepts females who mix or incite the mixing with Abraham and Africa. They are incited to defend these females just the same as any. But it is manning-up to be sufficiently critical of female practices and predilections, to make sure that they are cultivated to respect and reconstruct European peoples and ways. I don’t recall saying that women should not have the vote (if I ever did, it was said jokingly), but there is a difference between a European woman who understands what it means to be a European man and woman and a universal female, puerile or otherwise. Because females have been so pandered-to within the disorder of modernity and the short sighted predilections of puerile females have held sway, we are at a point now where not only are female pursuit of career and actualization jeopardized, but even basic needs, traditionally fairly secure for females, and taboo to broach - viz., their safety and belonging - are threatened; thus, there has to be harder tests on females to make sure they understand what a European man, woman and pattern of maturity is, so that they are competent to make decisions of and for leadership, so as to correct the hyperbolic liberalism that they as much as any Whites have been prone to - a liberalism that runs rough shod over our borders; a liberal predilection that females are inclined to because it has served their short term needs. What males they’ve empowered have been liberal, “not threatened by female independence”, and they have dis-empowered males, as “weak”, socially dependent and threatening to tyrannize them inasmuch as they might enforce borders and accountability as such - in reality, it would take female and liberal male abuses to account, as it is not true liberty for either gender. To date, western females have been satisfied, because they can do just whatever they want; so they have wanted to maintain the power of their position, they have wanted to believe the Jewish inspired pandering, they have wanted to believe that their sometimes vast abuses are justified; they do not want to be called to agentive account - they would rather say “it’s nature” (universal) - and so quash and incite the low grumbles that are the nascent awakening of authentic White male being - viz., midtdasein - along with its call to duty to defend the borders of his European people when he comes to his authentically cultivated European maturity. But that will happen where European woman allow for it, where they are not themselves participating with Abraham in breaching our borders and insisting that what it means to be a real man is to be a universal man who accepts Abraham’s universal jurisdiction. A female who becomes a European woman will understand that she will have well being, safety, comfort, freedom in authentic range of functional autonomy and the possibility of self actualization - with European men, when recognized and allowed by her to be and act as European men, in optimal and sublimated intelligence as partner and warrior; not regularly incited and betrayed as a sheer brute at her puerile beck and call. Mutual responsibility is not to be invoked merely because she is a female and he a male, but inasmuch as neither have done any harm to and have been loyal to Europeans. That requires that she is protected and that he not be fought against when he fights to reivoke and assert authentic classificatory bounds. With those bounds, wherein European men are afforded the opportunity to be European and amidst their bounded peoples - without being desexed - she can have all of her needs met, from Being to Self Actualization. Abraham only pretends to offer you this, whereas I really do and we really do offer you this. Show il Padrino respect.
29
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 20:14 | # “I know you hold women in low regard.” Ball busting cunts like Merkel and Hillary should be kept on a chain, forced to walk on all fours and wear a dog collar. I’d bet good money that the lips of those dried up old bitches’ twats grind together like sandpaper. K-Y Jelly and estrogen applied with a fire hose couldn’t fix what’s wrong with those old dykes. 30
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:35 | # I have been tweaking the “Il Padrino” comment for whom it may concern. I had the very disconcerting experience this morning of having spent two hours writing the comment - it was a master piece. I had saved it on the clip board and looked at it in the preview a number of times… I went to add the final touch by uploading the image of Maslow’s hierarchy… and when I went to preview it with the image, the session had timed out and all I had on clip board was the image of Maslow’s hierarchy… not the text that had worked on for hours! So, I had to rewrite it from scratch. Of course I know the gist by heart and its contours follow a very satisfied logic, I am proud to say, but this version may not have the fresh style and may not come across quite the way the original did - perhaps a little snarky and more chauvinistic sounding for my frustration and fatigue - it was a pain to have to do it again; but necessary. It’s important. 31
Posted by Roosh V., Sand-Wigger on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 02:29 | # This is my first occasion of hearing Roosh V. speak. I must say that I am negatively impressed - his attitude, his mannerisms, his way of speaking - bopping, swaying and grooving - his motives and his way of arguing are either entire affectations of black people or his middle eastern background is more niggerish than I had realized. One thing is certain, he does not think and act like a European man and nobody should respect him a such. He is a sand-wigger. 32
Posted by 14/88 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 04:14 | # Tanstaafl and Kyle Hunt talk about the Jewish deception and ways, the “Alt-Right” and White naivete. A good discussion except for the same thing as ever among this circle, that they cannot get over the fact that Hitler was not completely right - Tan finishes the interview with the slogan, “Hitler was right”, shortly after saying that he was happy to see reports of the Polish nationalist celebration on November 11 and its camaraderie with other European nationalisms. But Tan won’t see the contradiction between that and saying, “Hitler was right.” Also, earlier-on in the show you will hear them saying, disingenuously, that it is faddish, taken as a cool thing to do to denounce the Nazis or the “14/88ers” in the struggle. No it isn’t. Not even particularly in the “alt right.” The faddish, pseudo cool guys are the 14/88, Hitler was perfect, operation Reinhardt was a “holohoax”, Nazis were total victims kind of guys. In fact, illustrative of their disingenuous participation in that faddish, sheer, one sided rhetoric, during the interview, you’ll hear a commercial for Hunt’s “Hellstorm” video about Dresden, but here, as anywhere among these faddish circles, you are not going to hear sympathy for Warsaw, Minsk, Kiev, Petersberg, Volgograd etc. Not that you should be confronted with sympathy with victims of Nazism, but if you going to talk about German victimization, that did not come from a vacuum, ex-nihilo, either - it was after millions were killed in pursuit of gaining and clearing “lebensraum” for Germans. No, Hitler was not right if what you care about is coordinating White/European interests. Too bad. The interview is worth listening to anyway. Perhaps other people will have better tact than me to help them get over their belief that Hitler redemption is necessary and see him more accurately as unnecessary and contradictory to the coordination of White advocacy, White Nationalism and regionalism. http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/shows/solar/Renegade-SolarStorm-2016-02-07.mp3 But is there any wonder about American WN - given the determination to hang onto Hitler’s tit and believe his program was flawless - that it is a fail? 33
Posted by European masculine maturity on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 06:19 | # Adding the paragraph below this first sentence to the “il Padrino” quote. It is important to distinguish what it means to act as a White/European man from what it means to act as a “universal man” in accordance with universal maturity. Our masculine maturity, as K selectors, and as evolved for long term planning, is more sublimated and is not as prone to sheerly assert itself upon episode - nor should it act so sheerly on that basis as Africans do. Instead, you want to blame White men alone, you suggest that we should man-up according to universal maturity. That, as opposed to White/European men acting upon the more sublimated and protracted surveillance of systemic maintenance and impingement of interrelated European EGI, that is the authentic and optimal response framework for manning-up as a White man - that is not to say that he does not take action with regard to episodes of impingement, but as a K selector, episodes do not define his masculine concern, the pattern of Europeans do - to sheerly man up, according to universal maturity, otherwise, would have him act more on impulse and episode as blacks do and as Jews would have it, so as to take him/us out of authentic surveillance and capacity to man our patterns, guarding of our natural, mature range of functional autonomy. Rather, it is when, where and knowing how best to handle impingement upon the White pattern, that has a White man manning up - where his European people are threatened overall, and patterned qualities are threatened in an importantly indicative episode, not where some personal or universal notion of masculinity is questioned or incited. 34
Posted by Responses to black crime then & now on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 21:03 | #
35
Posted by Return of Cucks on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:44 | # Article and discussion about Roosh at Counter-Currents. Johnson has written a good article condemning Roosh, but welcomes Anglin to the comments, where he proceeds to backpeddle in an attempt to cover his tracks after having defended where not endorsing Roosh for years now. 36
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:45 | # Andrew Anglin’s anti-female absurdity is continually one-upping itself. There will be an article about this issue, but it won’t address anything that he’s said, because Anglin’s viewpoint is like something from Africa and as such has no place in Europe. 37
Posted by Bang Roosh on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:52 | # I thought the most interesting comment was Greg Johnson’s in regard to the woman in Iceland (so drunk as to be incapacitated from consenting or not). Greg said that if she agreed to have sex with him the next morning then that made it only worse for the fact that it could promote the idea that such behavior would have happy endings (with enough repetitions, it would not have happy endings in the long run). I would like to add that I can well imagine that in a circumstance like that, a woman can agree to have sex with him the next morning and again in an attempt to reinterpret the relationship and her own agentive part in her mind, because it would be too painful to realize that she was violated in such a profound way and had no agency. Thus, she might try to go with the idea of superimposing a relational level and her agency retroactively to reframe what was an instance of non-consent if not rape in that episode - re-framed under “a dating relationship with a ‘bad boy’ whose wild side I should be able to handle, being an independent woman and all.” Long story short: she could have been raped even though she consented afterward, because she could not handle, for example, the idea of the best that she had having been taken by the person treating her the worst - a con-man rapist who cared nothing for her as a person or on a relational level. Speaking of which, that is what makes Roosh so disgusting. This sand nigger said it was his objective to have sex with as many beautiful woman as possible - and that he was teaching men to do that as well. Not that he, nor other males, are cultivating a way to pursue relationships with women that they care about, confirming and reconstructing views and European ways that are important, in fact vital to them. No, just the technique to go through their cautionary barriers and discard them. Who got the idea that it was OK for him to target White women with his Negroid mentality? To teach and pursue alpha nigger behavior? Would this sand wigger talk this way about his sister, Iranian and Armenian women?
“At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.” It would be nice if that happened - I could picture Roosh being held held down and fucked by a few giant Polish queers in jail: “It took four hours and at least thirty attempts to push into his ass: “no, Roosh cried, no!” until the large, very large penis was finally allowed to enter and stretch Roosh’s asshole to his great pain. Ooh the giant faggot sighed, you are the finest little bitch! I just know you’ll come back to give me some skull in the morning - I think your mouth IS big enough.
Better still, stay the fuck out of Poland and all of Europe, sand-nigger. Only a wigger could admire this guy. He has no place anywhere near WN. Quite the opposite. Post a comment:
Next entry: Awakening, monarchy, and the faith?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
”
Posted by Think of all We've achieved under Obama on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 00:35 | #
“Human Rights Campaign” Endorses Hillary
Chad Griffin of the “Human Rights Campaign” introduces Hillary in Iowa: