Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 03:58 | #

High time , GW, to cleanse the stables of Augean horseshit. Please.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 05:49 | #

Hey Al Ross, die and go to hell, you Hitler worshipping asshole.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 09:33 | #

Al’s comment is welcome.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 09:59 | #

Sieg Heil! Won’t Tanstaafl’s Jewish wife and kids be happy about that.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:01 | #

All expression of opinion, within the bounds of the law, is welcome here.  Using repressive measures does not defeat undesirable thinking.  Engagement does that.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:25 | #

My experience with Nazis, Christians and Jews (and some scientistic dolts) tells me otherwise, that they cannot be persuaded and that they move toward overwhelming opposition to their views ...as indeed they have been trying to put you up to, right along.

Anyway, this has been a place that provided the only haven from their misdirection. You don’t appreciate the fact that this was different (plenty to say, to comment on - plenty), and that their shit is old, in the way, right wing nonsense, to date singularly (mis)representing WN, spinning wheels in the attrition of the World Wars, chasing Jewish red capes, misdirecting time in having to fend off the retarded Christian antagonism, all this having held sway in WN for decades and still does: Their free speech is not inhibited; they block that of others: this was the only place in reprieve (until my new site comes); there are all kinds of sites that Al Ross, Nick Dean and Tanstaafl can go to worship Hitler

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:43 | #

Jews cannot be persuaded.  Obviously.  Christians may be persuaded but it is very, very tricky.  German-American WNs may perhaps be persuaded a little more easily - even Alex Linder admitted here that, politically, he isn’t actually a National Socialist.  Non-German American WNs can be persuaded.

Nobody is putting me up to anything.  I have no conversation with these creatures of your imagination, which you really should know without me telling you.

If Al or anyone else wants to argue for National Socialism, he can.  You will argue for the advantage such argument hands the ancient enemy of these guys.  I will argue positively for ethnic (or ethno-) nationalism.  You and I have always agreed that for nationalism to advance politically, and not just as a vessel for reactive impulses, WNs have to grow out of the Hitler fanboy thing and the holo-thing.  It’s just the method that we disagree on.  But this is my site, and it is a free speech site.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:02 | #

Jews cannot be persuaded.  Obviously.  Christians may be persuaded but it is very, very tricky.

Ridiculous. The experience of people like Thorn and Haller et al show that these people will waste time and gunk up threads to no end.

You can waste your time and facilitate the misdirection of people. I will not.

German-American WNs may perhaps be persuaded a little more easily

The few that might be persuaded are overwhelmed by those who will overwhelm threads with antagonism and instigation of inter-European conflict, which Jewry will sometimes participate in indirectly.

- even Alex Linder admitted here that, politically, he isn’t actually a National Socialist.

Alex Linder isn’t “a national socialist”...

But Alex Linder denies the holocaust, extolls Hitler,etc. irrespective of how that’s going to play out for European relations…

Nobody is putting me up to anything.

They are egging you on and encouraging your gasligthing and strawmanning of my positions.

In the end, its appeal to your ego has held sway, that’s all. It has triumphed over your better judgment.

  I have no conversation with these creatures of your imagination

I didn’t propose that you were in conversations and it is not my imagination when you consider the clear wishes expressed by a Daniel A., Al Ross, Nick Dean, Tanstaafl, Haller, Thorn, fr. What’s His Name, Hadding Scott, Carolyn Yeager…

which you really should know without me telling you.

Which you know without having to have direct conversations.

If Al or anyone else wants to argue for National Socialism, he can.

On your site, he can waste time in divide and conquer of Europeans. Not mine. Calling Nazism “National Socialism” alone is to kiss the ass of assholes.

You will argue for the advantage such argument hands the ancient enemy of these guys.

I will not argue in service of your ego project. Not going to waste any more time than necessary giving a platform for views that anyone with any judgment should see beyond.

I will argue positively for ethnic (or ethno-) nationalism. You and I have always agreed that for nationalism to advance politically, and not just as a vessel for reactive impulses, WNs have to grow out of the Hitler fanboy thing and the holo-thing.  It’s just the method that we disagree on.  But this is my site, and it is a free speech site.

I always argue for ethnonationalism, and if things go the way that you are now apparently taking them, I will not expend a great deal of detailed concern here where that project is being hideously obstructed and misdirected - a hammer not a scalpel is necessary in this event - as the utter disrespect that you have shown for the efforts and resources that I have brought for the last eight years does not merit subtlety and great respect ...respect and subtle consideration has not been extended my way (and should have been). Mine will be a free speech site as well. That’s why their presence will not be welcome by me, because where they are rife, the free speech of sane voices are drowned and misdirected.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:48 | #

Be less intolerant and find a sense of simple, transcending brotherhood.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:09 | #

Take that advice to the Nazis and Jesus freaks.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 16:00 | #

The advice is for you.  A different approach is required for German-American WNs and for Christians.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 16:19 | #

I don’t need the advice. The Nazis and Jesus Freaks do. I have a transcendent framework.

In terms of being tolerant to theory that is different (and better) than what you would acknowledge and come up with, I would no longer bother to offer you advice to suspend disbelief (“be more tolerant”) for a moment to realize that elegance.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 17:15 | #

You do a great job of giving everyone the impression that you suffer from a deal of easily wounded intellectual pride allied to a bombastic but paper-thin self-opinion.  Whilst I am sure this is not in any way you, I do think it would be a good idea to rise above any such fleeting tendencies and temptations, and connect to others in a true nationalist spirit of toleration for their weaknesses and errors.  These are your people, whatever they may currently believe or say.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 17:45 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 18:15 | #

You do a great job of giving everyone the impression that you suffer from a deal of easily wounded intellectual pride

I suffer no wounded intellectual pride, though in your narcissistic personality disorder, you’d like to believe that you’ve inflicted such wounding - you aren’t capable, despite your considerable self estimation.

GW: allied to a bombastic but paper-thin self-opinion.

Projection

GW: Whilst I am sure this is not in any way you, I do think it would be a good idea to rise above any such fleeting tendencies and temptations,

This is all you ever do - gaslight, strawman - “fleeting tendencies and temptations” - in desperate attempt to assert your autobiography, with me altercast as shallow, trivial foil in service of your autobiography as sole proprietor of worthy theory, “debunker of all academia and intellectual pretense.”

GW: and connect to others in a true nationalist spirit of toleration for their weaknesses and errors.  These are your people, whatever they may currently believe or say.

I have made it clear why people should not be Nazi redemptionists, Christians, nor want to include Jews in our advocacy group. It is not incumbent upon me to teach 101* forever, especially not to people who refuse to learn. I am in the true spirit of nationalism, they are not.

* Actually, it’s more like “Special Edu.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Sep 2020 10:36 | #

The question for you is this: Are you really an ethnic (or ethno-) nationalist in the full, loving sense of doing what, by Nature, we must for the one-ness that is kin?  Or are you someone with an idea of nationalism informed by commentaries drawn from the work of academics who were not just peripheral to our worldview but were, at best, indifferent to it?  Even Gadamer, who might actually have been cautiously supportive of NASDAP, is only of interest to you because he believed objectivity (ie, direct experience) to be impossible and plumped instead for a world of island-people constantly trying to overcome their isolation by broadcasting their own particular perceptions to one another.  He never escaped the dreary, sociologically ordinary.  But ethnic nationalism is not sociological or ordinary.  It is existential and normal.

Your entire wordview ... the communicationism and its interpretation method, its post-modern thesis, the notion of unifying what is already one ... seems to be predicated on this state of isolation, the suffering of which is somehow to be ameliorated by the dictates of a detached cadre of communicationism specialists.  Likewise, your anger at me and your scorn of my own scribblings arise because I plunge my hands, as best I am able, into the objective soil of kinship and the consciousness thereof, with no gauzy film, got through the slowness of the intellectual function of the human brain, of separating conceptual structures.  A politics which is not itself an idea but a life-process seems too material for you to really belong to.  You resile into the isolation of the thought.

The nearest you have come to my understanding of nationalism is the DNA Nation concept - which I have encouraged precisely because it is a gesture in the right direction.  You should have made much more of it and much less of the communicationism.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:04 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:36 | #

The question for you is this: Are you really an ethnic (or ethno-) nationalist in the full, loving sense of doing what, by Nature, we must for the one-ness that is kin?

Is that the question for me? Or is it the question for you, for what of your singular wish to criticize, trivialize, put aside and bury any resource that I bring to bear in favor of your ego (mania) project, supposedly has the best interests of ethnic-ethno-nationalism at heart, let alone in full concern, in natural concern, in oneness in anything but your conceited businessman’s project of being the only man with “the valuable product”.... let alone with a loving regard ...totally betrayed by eight years of sadistic gaslighting and strawmanning?

GW: Or are you someone with an idea of nationalism informed by commentaries drawn from the work of academics who were not just peripheral to our worldview but were, at best, indifferent to it?

I’ll give you credit for consistency - consistency to your autobiography, not to truth and honesty. Your puerile autobiography as ‘slayer of all academia, its being totally unnecessary’ as compared to nothing more than your ‘loving self, expressing zen master of its purely natural ethnic nationalism” requires that you try to strawman me as your foil without end (but fortunately, it will end):

Thus, you NEVER give me credit for original inferences, logical deductions and relevant application of “academic” material, let alone having done that against the designs of academics antagonistic to ethnonationalism, irrespective of academics and much, so much outside of academics and informed by life experience.

Thus, the vain requirement of your autobiography precludes your even considering this, which is true ...and we’re talking about eight yeas of this absurdity now, what a relief that I’ll be taking on a new website where I won’t have to put up with your bullshit.

GW: Even Gadamer, who might actually have been cautiously supportive of NASDAP,

First of all, as with Heidegger, or any other philosopher that I mention, you have this idea that if I find some part of their philosophy good and useful that I must subscribe to all of their philosophy, follow it and agree with it like an exact schematic or disregard it. Which is idiotic. I don’t do that and it is an absurd expectation. And not even for such a dramatic example that Gadamer might have been “cautiously supportive of NASDP.” ... taking the cake in that regard was when I found exactly one idea that Habermas floated to be useful (“if you don’t find subjective interest and application in something being taught, you will not learn”), had not read Habermas, and yet I had to address an accusation from you not once, but on two distinct occasions that I subscribe to Habermas’ philosophy and how bad that was of me. I know that Carolyn Yeager has a negative thing for Habermas, and for me, having the nerve to go by a Polish name and not loving Hitler, so I do suppose that the second round of this criticism may have been at her behest, with her being unaware that you’d already tried this accusation.

GW: Even Gadamer, who might actually have been cautiously supportive of NASDAP, is only of interest to you

You don’t know what my motives are, asshole, let alone what they ONLY are.

I am interested in Gadamer for a few different, important reasons, applications.

GW: because he believed objectivity (ie, direct experience) to be impossible

Unlike you, I have the luxury that being an honest man affords.

Thus, whether or not Gadamer believed objectivity to be impossible, didn’t believe it could be purely unmediated by subjective and relative concerns, while it can follow from a hermeneutic perspective, is not something I am greatly concerned about - I don’t consider it very important, let alone its being “the only” reason that he is of interest to me.

That is because even where there may be objective truths and pure, unmediated perception of them, it would disprove nothing of my world view, philosophy and platform. How do these facts come to count?

We might know how they might come to count for you…

Of course you proffer this strawman (that I am singularly drawn to Gadamer for his troubling of pure objectivity, free of interpretation, subjective and relative interests) in line with your autobiography, which desperately wants to discredit all academia - rather, to say that there is nothing but GW’s objective truth, purely intuited. That is all any of us need. His pure nature. How convenient that truth would be to his autobiography, as we certainly don’t need anything else, ever (lol), but his za zen, pure naturalism, let alone what (he wants to believe) came strictly by way of academia, passively received there and nothing of it more than crass, misleading chimera, trivia and artifice to be “entirely swept aside.”

GW: and plumped instead for a world of island-people constantly trying to overcome their isolation by broadcasting their own particular perceptions to one another.

Is that what he was trying to do? Besides maybe some quotes and excerpts, I (kind of) read “Philosophical Hermeneutics” a long time ago. Didn’t like it, found it unenjoyable to read - maybe it was a bad translation - so I don’t remember much of it.

But he did say a few things which are profoundly true and important (not especially the issue that you are talking about), and these things I take to heart.

However, where he might be addressing the issue of our atomization, you might want to pay attention. You might realize that he was ahead of the curve of you and your fellow boomer STEM obstructionist, Bowery (Bowery would do things like try to cast useful concepts that I bring to bear in pompous scholastic terms, “Augustinius” “Manichius”... “Cartesius”...and try to forbid me from discussing Caresianism or Modernity), for your generation’s destructive individualism made sacrosanct by fear that the collectivism of the Nazis and the Communists, stories of Orwell and Kafka, are the only (rather objectionable) alternative to STEM empiricism and the pure, sovereign, individual Euro Man.

GW: He never escaped the dreary, sociologically ordinary.

There is nothing more dreary than you and your inability to escape the chase of red caped sociology.

I don’t know how many times that I’ve made this point - many times - but I will do it again, with relief in sight that I will soon be unburdened of your dishonest strawmanning.

Now then…

Sociology is a discipline that takes as its unit of analysis the group.

We are fighting for our people against and under the rubric of anti-racism.

A race is a group.

Therefore, the sociological unit of analysis is highly relevant if not most relevant.

It is all the more relevant as our antagonists would weaponize this unit of analysis against us. In fact, that is why you don’t like it - because you think that abuse represents sociology per se and how it must be used, rather than being an abuse of a neutral instrument which could be applied to our interests as well.

Furthermore, as with your stupid thing that if you take one thing from a philosopher, you must take all from him, and that this position simply represents my world view, so it is when I may invoke the group unit of analysis - according to you, it must be all I do and I must be doing it only, fixed there, “unnatural” “top down”, doing it the Jewish way, antagonistic or, as you say, in keeping with “academics of a world view peripheral or at best indifferent” to ethnonationalism.

Let me repeat, that is idiotic. Jews and liberals are abusing sociology against our ethnonational interests, therefore, we should never use its instrument and the moment we try, we must be doing what they are doing (at least according to the kosher coloring book you’ve received - now cross out the term working hypotheses, and fill in the words “unnatural” and “socially affected”)?

Idiotic - one idea: that I am not freely using the sociological unit of analysis, I am beholden to it and its abuse against our interests.

But on the contrary, hermeneutic inquiry is not stuck, in fact is an engaged process of inquiry which encourages the fleshing out of enquiry with different units of analysis and instruments of inquiry. The findings of which, if not direct inquiry, I do avail myself and make use of. Philosophy and its examination of ways of life. The parameters of the biologist, the microscope of the geneticist, the rule structures and laws of the physicist; I don’t do much in the way of economics, but I recognize it is important. Nor do I attend much to normal politics (as opposed to meta politics /philosophy), but I don’t say that people should not look at our problems through these world views; and while I don’t find most relevant to ethnonational concerns the individual unit of analysis of psychology, at times I will use it as well - in fact, it has come in handy to stave off your narcissistic personality disorder.

Your strawman against the sociological, group unit of analysis, as artificial, is like saying one should use a microscope where a telescope is necessary (‘telescopes are bad because bad people have used them against ethnonational interests’).

But finally in the list of different units of analysis and instruments that I make use of and condone in others as not only valid, but necessary, to flesh out inquiry, is the closest thing that I have to a special discipline - Not sociology and its group unit of analysis, but communicology and its unit of analysis - social/interpersonal interaction. Again, despite your wishes that it is a fixed and negative world view that you can pin on me for your purpose of setting me up as a foil to your autobiography.

In fact, the discipline of communicology won’t allow for it as it claims the same turf as other disciplines. Thus it may deal in philosophical concerns, sociological concerns, psychological concerns, economics, the world of work, business, politics, the sciences, biology and physics. Indeed, it will engage the concerns of “ordinary folks” outside of academic disciplines; indeed it must if it is to be worth its salt. It respects and requires the inputs from these different perspectives, showing deference to them where it should.

Nevertheless, you will set about to affix me entirely to a rigid, communicological ideology, trying to hang stigmatizing neologisms of yours - “communicationist”, “communicationism” onto me in your asshole boomer world view as heeder of warnings against collectivist negative utopias…

GW: But ethnic nationalism is not sociological or ordinary.  It is existential and normal.

This is just one of your stupid strawmen - a strawman that I have just disproved, with you misrepresenting what I say as saying that “ethnic nationalism is strictly sociological and ordinary” in service of your desperate autobiography under threat of academic besting, the “existential” in this case meaning you, your autobiography as the knight in defense of the “normal” man (i.e. ordinary man who would not threaten GW with an academic term or perspective), under threat, as such. The prefigurative force of this autobiography of yours is so fixed, your unmerited ego so massive, that it requires you to fix whatever I might say as affectation and trivial opposition, and only that, while you remain as the mystic zen guru of the existential of the normal man and his natural ethnic nationalism ...and there is no need for anybody or anything but this mystic zen guru, GW.

GW: Your entire wordview ... the communicationism and its interpretation method, its post-modern thesis, the notion of unifying what is already one

You have got to be one of the biggest assholes that I have ever known.

“My entire world view” ..... that is your largest strawman by scope yet.

And Anti-Cartesianism is already attuned to artificial divides of what is already holistic.

Anyway, I have just explained that you cannot sum up my world view so simply as you might wish, let alone in the negative and strawman way that you do: first, like the asshole that you are, trying to affix your negative utiopian, ideological neologism, “communicationism” onto me…

Next, I don’t recall ever having said that I use “interpretive method” as if what is going on is up for grabs in arbitrary interpretation… but then, I certainly do see that you are misinterpreting me, and only doing that, while misinterpreting what you are doing as pure description and somehow uniquely valuable, making all else redundant.

GW: its post-modern thesis, the notion of unifying what is already one

This is where your narcissistic personality disorder gets plainly evil; and hatred for you becomes righteous.

You won’t stop it.

You take for granted that people will come here either anew, equipped with the cargo of (((misrepresented))) post modern ideas, or with some right wing misunderstanding as such that they are wedded to, i.e., red cape misrepresentations of post modern ideas, and that they will not be bothered to look at my setting out of post modern ideas, correctives that I have been at pains to make for application to White interests, disabused of (((red cape misrepresentations))); corrections of the concepts which I call White Post Modernity instead as opposed to the red cape misrepresentations that you hope that others will associate with me and the resource that I bring to bear.

If you had the honest and true rigor that you aspire to, you would recognize that the better efforts that you have made, critique of Christianity, critique of Nazism, holding fast to native nationalism, holding fast to emergentism, are all appreciated and accommodated and incorporated by the platform I set out - not made redundant, nor is your interest in close readings discouraged; even your ventures into “pure descriptions” can be entertained. I don’t need to exclude even your espoused zen-mystical holistic input.

The problem is you. You feel you must misrepresent, exclude, destroy and bury my input.

GW:... seems to be predicated on this state of isolation, the suffering of which is somehow to be ameliorated by the dictates of a detached cadre of communicationism specialists.

Nice try, with your stupid “communicationism” word that you try to affix to me in your threated thone, so well adjusted ensconced among the farts of your armchair.

GW: Likewise, your anger at me and your scorn of my own scribblings arise because I plunge my hands, as best I am able, into the objective soil of kinship and the consciousness thereof, with no gauzy film, got through the slowness of the intellectual function of the human brain, of separating conceptual structures.

Is that why I am angry with you? So humble and workman like as you plunge your hands into the objective soil of kinship and consciousness thereof? Oh, humble zen master! do tell how I might be freed of the gauzy film of slowness of the intellectual function of the human brain, separating conceptual structures!

Never mind that the “soil” of diaspora might, even more than that of England, require some “unnatural” instrumentation to recognize, gauge and manage against antagonism and misdirection.

Rather shut up and finally understand (you won’t but maybe the onlooker will) that my platform, as a social constructionist, and I repeat, not only does not exclude the perspectives and input of others, including “ordinary people” with no experience or taste for academic resource, but it cannot replace the experience and the value of other’s input.

Furthermore, where I bring analytic resource to bear and you or anybody else does not want to use it, then don’t use it. Understand fuck-head?

I am angry with you? - understatement. I hate you because what you are doing is evil.

In your narcissistic personality disorder you have gaslighted and strawmanned me for eight years.

This was not only profound disrespect for me, utterly sadistic, but a disservice to the interests of European peoples. I know from where my resource comes and why it is important. Your gaslighting can’t change that.

All for your sick ego and the Nazis, Christards, Jews and other right wing reactionaries, who have whatever reason against me to egg you on.

GW: A politics which is not itself an idea but a life-process seems too material for you to really belong to.  You resile into the isolation of the thought.

Again, as an honest man, I have the luxury of seeing you expose yourself as full of shit, as you doggedly try to say that I am.

GW: The nearest you have come to my understanding of nationalism is the DNA Nation concept - which I have encouraged precisely because it is a gesture in the right direction.  You should have made much more of it and much less of the communicationism.

I don’t need your understanding of nationalism because your idiocy is to the exclusion of other necessary concerns in its realization, only focused on the end where it naturally comes about - which I do understand and do not interfere with.

I am ongoing with the promotion of the DNA Nation project, and will continue. Other than being able to post here, which is significant, I have gotten very little help from you; and no matter, I will carry on.

As for your “communicationism” word and what you want to try to tell me that I should not do…. you can shut up as far as I’m concerned.

Yes, I do hate you for your strawman/gaslighting obstructions that you have put in the way for eight years, because what you are doing is evil in its sadistic treatment of me and irresponsibility to our people in favor of your ego (and “friends” - Nazis, Christards, Jews, scientistic reactionaries), the obfuscation, misrepresentation and misdirection of important resource brought to bear.

However, my hatred for you is mitigated by the fact that I now understand that you are sick. To an overwhelming extent, you cannot help your narcissistic personality disorder.

At this point, the only way for you to begin to make amends would be to pivot 180 against eight years of gaslighting and strawmanning on behalf of your autobiographical conceits.

I don’t imagine you’ll do that, but another way for you to avoid being a hideous obstruction wherever you might otherwise figure into the interests of European peoples and their ethnonational security, is for you just get out of the way. Boomers. Mostly selfish, egotistical, anti-social pigs (yours being an exaggerated case), who have enriched and embellished themselves, left subsequent generations in the funk; refuse to distinguish their dumb luck from “doing things the right way.” For the most part, they really need to get out of the way.

Fortunately for me, I did what I basically set out to do, and now I will be free from your obstruction as I begin shifting the brunt of my efforts to a new site, free from your sick personality, and the baggage here.

In the end, GW, I don’t have to hate you because I realize that you are sick. And like all people who get away with bad things, they get away with it by the deception of being a mixed bag - with talents and good turns as well.

And through these conflicts, I must remember the good. Indeed, how you would say we make a great interviewing team (even though I didn’t think so because we weren’t doing enough prep and care in editing afterward). How you gave me a platform where other American WN tried to shut me out. Asked me to take the helm when you got tired of it (as indeed, you had asked others to take over the site). Gave a little support to the DNA Nations project. Let me be a part of your website, and the several very good things that you do; along with many brilliant people that have passed this way.

Still, I’m satisfied that no amount of my trying to be decent with you would have worked. That’s why I gave up on that approach. ...those broken keys on your piano, on the theoretical side, far from the ones that you play with virtuosity.

....the situation here became like your private skeet shooting range, with you putting up strawmen that were supposed to represent my views, for you to take shots at…mainly for your private entertainment and that of a tiny cadre of marginalized reactionaries who cannot see the way forward presented… preferring instead to wrap yourselves in the comfort of tilting after red cape misrepresentations.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 09:38 | #

GW , in the face of unwarranted pseudo intellectual provocation , you remain the epitome of the infinitely laid back Englishman .

This article is quite aged but I suspect that you are not a neophiliac so you may enjoy (re) reading it.

http://www.spearhead.co.uk/0406-jt2.html

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:38 | #

Thanks, Al.  JT was blessed with a surfeit of honesty in all things, and of commonsense in most.  I say most because he did belong to the Nietzschean Tendency, being overthrown by Griffin who also belonged to that Tendency but affected to be an “ethnonationalist”.  Only now with PA do we have any prospect of a real ethnic nationalist politics - and even then only if Mark Collett undertakes the necessary reforms.