Snyder’s lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism

Posted by DanielS on Friday, 12 January 2018 06:43.

Tim Snyder’s 20 lessons looked at from the reality of our present situation - ethno-national oppression by universalized liberal tyranny.

YouTube, “ON TYRANNY: 20 LESSONS FROM THE 20TH CENTURY”, Published by Arts & Ideas, 17 June 2017:

1. Tim Snyder (34:00): the first (lesson) is don’t obey in advance - if there’s anything that historians of Nazi Germany agree upon, and they don’t agree on everything…. but one of the things historians tend to agree upon is the significance of consent in 1933.

Now lets consider that from the perspective of the decades following World War II. The hegemonic liberalism and Cultural Marxist political correctness that only grew with each decade from 1945 - 2008, and still prevails, but culminates now in the newly promulgated controlled opposition: the controlled right-wing reaction. The forced reactive alignment of the Alternative Right with Jewish interests (not only right-wing Jewish, but right-wing Jewish led interests upon their attainment of fuller hegemony in the seven power niches) as the proposed “solution” to their Jewish created problem - a problem the solution to which is to be marketed in prevailing “anti-leftism”, a precarious objectivity of reactionaries (desperate for any acknowledgement of empirical reality after the boondoggles and abuses of post modern relativism, social constructionism and hermeneutics) leveraged on an “anti-PC” platform which they share with their kosher fellow travelers, whether they call themselves Alt-Lite, Alt-Right, Anti-PC, Paleocon, “true conservatives”, “Judeo-Christians”, etc.; together with their complicit and instrumental goyim, elitist right-wing sell-outs to Jewish aligned interests.

The World War II generation was indoctrinated with consent giving - “you can’t fight city hall.” Their children, the boomers, didn’t have to give consent, didn’t dare oppose anti-racist politics after Hitler did his thing. They were on the side of “the winners”, to be grateful and put their nose to the grindstone - work in compliance with signal command to keep the S.S. Mulatto Supremacist sailing on course, smoothly. Though it loomed ominously over the horizon, coming into purview of generation Xers’ who were given the same command - “go to work and keep the ship on course” - despite the fact that consent was making less and less sense - what the signal augured and its early manifestations were catastrophic but unspeakable by way of televitz - its one way channel to your head told you resistance was futile; indicating the seven Jewish controlled choke points growing in power to maintain your “consent” - and how they pandered to females, their inclination to incite genetic competition and derive short term power from the increasingly liberalized situation - how many times you were lambasted by feminists, or “traditional” western women, for that matter, that this (liberalism) was reality, to which you must acquiesce (because it served their short term convenience while they paranoically and brutally preempted imagined beta uprisings that they “saw coming” from afar). There were plenty of right wing dolts willing to “man-up” to the “reality” of liberalism if you didn’t (e.g. President Bill Clinton), willing to pander for a piece of ass, giving their tacit consent to liberal tyranny - and now the alt right girls find it convenient to sound this right-wing “reality call” to “man-up”, to rid them of the “dead wood” - none of these hippie low grumbles about “being” and “what’s in it for me?” in a draft to kill Asians. In this liberal tyranny you are supposed to be willing to die at the behest of their right wing liberal and Jewish sponsored interests.

Think of what the casual liberals, the feminists, the “trad women”, the anti racists, what the black advocates were trying to put across under the manufactured consent of the YKW and their right-wing liberal cohorts ..what they were doing to you - enlisting your ethnic genetic interests in servitude to the good ship Mulatto, gate-kept by the newly increased one-up position of young females (in partner selection), increased as it were in the disorder of modernity, their base inclination to incite genetic competition more prone than ever, pandered-to exponentially from all comers (but especially by the YKW) - they become articulate and authoritarian within the disorder of modernity, a disorder which their Jewish and brown sisters encouraged them to maintain for narrow and short term gain against the bogey White man - the amazing extremes of abuse they went in hyperbolic liberalism, “anti-racism” institutionalized and “normalized” against the EGI of White men - going beyond any reasonable law and human treatment, the lengths they went in order to compel “consent.”

“Consenting” to the rule-structures of America, such as they are, leading toward the destruction of the ethnic genetic interests of normal White men - their servitude to the reckless panmixia of universalized liberal tyranny. While betas would make for relationships and systemic homeostasis, the bastards of hypergamy leave chaos and systemic vulnerability.

Tim Snyder Ibid:

When we imagine a Hitler or a Stalin, we imagine that they come striding on stage as fully empowered super villains, capable of doing anything. That’s not how it happens at all. In the case of Hitler there was an election in the background, which his party won. There was a legal appointment to power and then there were other things but what was necessary for Hitler and what is almost always necessary, because there are almost never pure revolutions, is consent.

Consent doesn’t have to be by voting or by marching, consent can be just not doing anything. Looking away. Saying that its normal.  Saying that it can’t happen here. Saying that the institutions are going to save us ..and doing nothing. That’s consent. That’s the kind of consent that authoritarian regimes need.

They need some active participation, but mostly they need that kind of consent.

And so the hardest thing, and the crucial thing that enables all the other forms of disobedience, is Not to obey in advance. And it’s harder than it sounds. Its harder than it sounds, it sounds easy but it’s actually the hardest one. Why is it so hard? Because psychologically, this is what we do. We look around for cues as to who has authority and then we react.

I was introduced so I knew that I was supposed to give a talk, so here I am. You, as audience, know what you’re supposed to do. And you generally do it and 99 percent of the time that’s appropriate; and so it’s hard, it’s physically hard to say wait, this is not normal. The apparent rules do not apply. But that’s a precondition for being free, it’s a precondition for being a citizen, in fact. You have to feel that discomfort. You say wait, there’s something not right here. And now I’m just going to be a stick in the mud until I figure out what I can do myself - so that’s rule number one - don’t obey in advance.

Our audience may be gaining a clue as to why I do not consent to the “Alt-Right” and its right wing alignment with Jewish interests against, “the left.” They are effectively controlled and blindered (through objectivism) opposition to the universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism. Just as I am slowly gaining more sympathy for my younger permutation, as I spun my wheels unable to give consent to this universalized liberal tyranny, despite the vast hegemony, including our most precious “resources” largely arrayed against my dissent.

What was spooky is that White people really, honestly could not understand my dismay as I witnessed horrors unfolding all around me. They gave consent all over the place indeed. Why didn’t I just put my nose to the grindstone to keep the SS Mulatto Supreme running smoothly? Why don’t you just accept this, the imposition of men who have nothing you want and who take what is most important to you? - inflicting significant casualties and destroying its sustaining way of life in broad form before too long.

Tim Snyder Ibid:

The reason why number one (don’t obey in advance) is so important - if you don’t get that one right, then psychologically, you’re done for. Because if you don’t disobey in advance then you normalize. You normalize the world beyond you, which means normalizing yourself. It means adjusting to what’s coming from the outside world. Psychologically, that is extremely hard to un-do later.

And politically, to make matters worse, here comes the point about time, historians love points about time - if authoritarian regimes are to be resisted, they have to be resisted within the first 6 - 18 months. If they are not, then you lose the chance to do anything. The devastating psychological-political connection is when you say, well, it can’t happen here…or well, I’ll do something tomorrow, or well my friends aren’t doing anything yet. ...and then the time passes and the tragedy is, you have lost time that you cannot get back. So that’s why lesson number one is lesson number one.

2. Lesson number two is support institutions (basically, the state tends to provide some recourse against arbitrary abuse of power).

Snyder basically observes the social constructionist perspective, that institutions require social construction, people do not take stands alone and cannot succeed alone. This is the kind of knowledge (proper social constructionism, hermeneutics, post modernity and leftist social unionizing) that the YKW want to keep us away from in order to maintain their universalized liberal tyranny - “consent and be on side with the objective reality of the Alt-Right White man!” Join your kosher brethren against “the left”, for the hermeneutic circle would never circle to empirical verification, reality testing and pragmatic correction, would it, in its anti-Cartesianism, would it? (oops, that’s right, it would).

This next lesson lines up nicely with the right wing’s control over reaction to PC’s hyperbole. You don’t want any of that willing suspension of disbelief stuff, nah! None of that coherence, accountability, agency and warrant….  just the hard facts for a real (stupid and incoherent and socially irresponsible) man… we’ll do the thinking for ye, nose back to grindstone techno-slave…my daughter’s Mulatto child is getting cold in her house.

Tim Snyder Ibid:

10. Truth: “What is truth?” - I’m trained-up in philosophy, but… in politics the notion that there is some kind of factual world out there is pre-condition for everything that we take for granted… Who understands this, maybe we don’t. We can say hey, what is truth? Maybe Trump’s tweets are just as valid as the New England Journal of Medicine. Maybe you think that’s cool, that’s fine, that shows that you are cynical and great - like hey, doesn’t he have access to his own truth? Isn’t it just my narrative and your narrative, isn’t life just a story? My point is that in politics, that way lies doom.

And who understands that? The authoritarians understand that. The fascists denied every day empirical truth in order to affirm the myth of an organic unity of the people - not all, people but “the” people. The communists denied your every day experience in truth, or rather they sacrificed it, to what they saw as the one truth, the utopian future which justifies doing whatever in the present.

Modern authoritarians don’t have these visions, but they still go after the truth. and they go after it according to a three part scheme that is so widespread that it might as well literally be a handbook.

1) The first part is that you filled the public space without any conscience. You fill the public space with lies (Tomasz Marcin Pacocha) and contradictions and you don’t acknowledge that there is such a thing as a lie or contradiction. You don’t acknowledge truth standards at all - that’s step one.

2) Step two is that you say it’s the journalists who lie. They’re the professional liars. Not me, they’re the fake news peddlers, them.

3) And then step three is, if you win, then people say, ‘well, maybe he’s right, what is truth, who knows? You have your story, I have my story…...I’m just gonna watch Netflix’ ...and “I’m just gonna watch Netflix’ is basically what Putin has tattood on his thigh.

“I’m just gonna watch Netflix” is basically how Russian style authoritarianism works, Russian post modernism, our untruth is better than your untruth, create this state of doubt, and if you haven’t noticed it (happening also) in the United States, you’re not getting out enough.

...none of its true, the media, the media, and yet you prefer your own untruth. That’s what modern right wing authoritarianism looks like.

A nationalist will say that it can’t happen here, which is the first step toward disaster….a patriot says that it could happen here but we will stop it.

“What is truth?” -  who understands that creating an atmosphere of hyper relativism, hyper-skepticism spells doom for political opposition. The authoritarians understand that. 

The fascists denied every day empirical truth in order to affirm the myth of an organic unity of the people - not all, people but “the” people

A people doesn’t have to deny empirical reality, but they cannot be beholden to the arbitrary facticty of objectivism to steer their relative interests at all times - there must be at least a modicum of willing suspension of disbelief, taking for granted its narrative virtue - in the relative good of one’s people, if they are to cohere and have a chance to be maintained systemically in a protracted sense against antagonistic and oblivious forces.

A nationalist will say that it can’t happen here, which is the first step toward disaster….a patriot says that it could happen here but we will stop it.

One problem, difficult problem, is that it has been the matriots who’ve “pre-empted” correction of liberal runaway from a perspective of beta male interests…. because the matriots have been pandered to in their hypergamous aspirations and, as we were saying above, as if we were the bad and scary guys who wanted bad, unfair, “beta uprising”, unjust and unfree things, to take away their choices from them.

And who understands that? The authoritarians understand that - indeed they do, and what they understand and right wing reactionaries, Alternative Right, etc., don’t understand is that when considering post modernity, hermeneutics and social constructionism for themselves, in their high places and among people who know - for their interests (and should be for ours) - is that these conceptual tools do Not deny truth and reality, nor verification, scientific or otherwise; they provide for accountability and social systemic governance.

...saying that [this liberalism, imposed mixing] is normal, that it can’t happen here ...they need mostly consent, even if passive

it’s harder than it sounds; it’s actually the hardest one…psychologically, we look at who has authority and we react… most of the time that’s appropriate..’s hard to say this is not normal, the rules do not apply.

Conditioned as some of our women folk are, they might talk about how a black woman pulling a White woman’s hair is out of bounds, how manspreading should be allowed, but they will not discuss how being forced to live with blacks and under the same governance is inhumane for Whites and should not be given consent from any White person hoping to act responsibly and in broad self interest.

If you don’t disobey [Imposed “tolerance” of liberal, racial imposition] in advance then you normalize in advance.

Tim Snyder:

Then Lesson 18: Be calm when the unthinkable arrives. The sudden disaster that requires the ends of checks and balances, the dissolution of opposition parties. Suspension of freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book. Do not fall for it.

The Reichstag fire was the moment when Hitler’s goverment - which came to power mainly through democratic means - became the menacing and permanent Nazi regime. It is the archetype of terror management. What matters is that this spectacular act of terror enacted the politics of emergency. Whether or not the Nazis set the fire, Hitler saw the political opportunity - “there will be no mercy now” - anyone standing in our way will be cut down. Hitler’s claim was that the fire was the work of Gemany’s enemies…round up of left wing political parties and placement of them in improvised concentration camps.  ...the authoritarians of today are also terror managers, and if anything they are more creative.

For the Nazis the event that allowed them to take totalitarian control was the Reichstag fire. For our enemies - viz., universalizing liberal totalitarians, the enemies of ethnonationalism - the Reichstag event was the Nazis.

That event happened and allowed universalizing liberal tyrants to take control and smash ethnonationalism, manufacturing consent with hegemonic and near total control.

You might think that I am especially worried about Nazism. I am not at all worried about it as a direct threat. I am only “worried” about it in the sense of misdirecting our efforts into failure in the face of our enemies - their vigilance for a Reichstag event again, whether by way of right-wing reactionaries or false flag, to ostensibly legitimize the further clamp down that might ensue is not half as bad as the disorganization and diffusion of our efforts for rational blindness and the hyper relative upshot of objectivism and natural fallacy - on the moral low ground, in disdain of normal and humanitarian concerns, into the internecine among conflicts that will be instigated by overcoming “bad optics”, “equality”, “social justice.”



Posted by Heidi Przybyala et al. on Trump's shit hole on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:30 | #



Przybyala is a Polish name - no idea what else she might be, whether part Jewish or German - Heidi isn’t a normal Polish name. Bio says she’s 44, White and single. She did some studies at Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg in Breisgau.


The commentators at MSNBC have gone hyperbolic to display their anti-racism, calling Trump “evil” for the remarks.


Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 03:50 | #

Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you and your people if you fight for it.


Posted by She's not prejudice, she's postjudice on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:50 | #

Luke Ford, “What Happens To White Girls At A Majority Non-White School?”, 15 Jan 2015:

Skogsra writes: When you mentioned white girls in schools with a large non-white population, I had this experience and it was a nightmare. It was probably my first red pill actually. I went from a completely White little Island in the northwest to a central Californian high school and it was awful. I was constantly being sexually harassed by black and Hispanic guys and the females despised me, bullied me and were insanely violent.

I was suddenly looked at as a genius though, so that was interesting.

I was so quiet and afraid and stayed so much to myself that the other students believed I was a german exchange student.

I had to drop out and go back home, I couldn’t do it. Before this I thought all people were the same.
But it wasn’t even just the guys in school. I would walk home, 15 years old, and have Hispanic men drive past me and yell suggestive things as they drove by.

Then I moved to the city, where I began to notice that the only men who ever harassed me were non-white, and it was constant. I felt like a rabbit surrounded by wolves every time I had to walk through the city.

This is why it shocks me that more women aren’t alt right. It should be very obvious to us what our fate will be if our numbers dwindle, safety won’t exist for us at all.

I’m actually more red pilled then all of the men in my life simply because of this kind of exposure. I’m not prejudice, I am postjudice.


Posted by The ancient is the modern on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:19 | #

Tim Snyder, The Ancient is the Modern, Youtube, 2 June 2016: 9:40:


When a Russian president says something about the deep past - he says that the reason that we need to invade Crimea is that there was a conversion of a Russian king a thousand years ago, in a relativists mode, we might say, well, you have your myths and we have ours.

So then history then dissolves into our own various, random commitments about the past.

Or we go into memory determinism - whether or not it’s true, they think its true and they act accordingly. Again, there’s no history here, it’s all psychology.

And then another move, which is closest to my heart, is memory dismissal - you hear a story about a memory and you say, “that’s not true.” And I think that has a certain value but I want to get beyond that, the claim that these various myths and legends are not true.

Rather than relativism or dismissal, I want to look at these historical claims as an invitation to think about how the past works inside a political system or an intellectual system.

What do I mean?

First is the reference.

The justification that President Vladimir Putin gave for the Russian invasion of southern Ukraine; and the subsequent occupation and annexation of the Crimean peninsula - namely that there was once (a thousand years ago) a Russian leader there, he would not have said Wlodemir (at the time people would have said something closer to Wlodemir), he would have said Vladimir but, and therefore it make sense that Russian armies and Russian power would now be present roughly a thousand years on.

As analysts of politics we can look upon this statement and see how it solves a political problem in a fairly straight-forward way.

The first problem it solves is domestic. I would say that the most fundamental domestic problem that Russia has today is the lack of a succession principle.

How does Russia resolve the problem of a lack of successor principle? Not just in absence of a successor for Putin but the lack of a principle that would legitimate that successor? That’s the main issue, that’s the unspoken obsession. And how do you solve a problem like that?

One way to solve it is to refer to an endlessly coherent history, right - a thousand years of Russian history going back into the mists of time, to another leader who conveniently has the same first name as you do, what could be more convenient.

The second obvious problem in Russian foreign relations is why did it make sense to destroy the European order? That’s actually a fairly important question. If you’re the Russian Federation, and you have the longest land borders in the world, its not obvious why you would undermine the principle of territorial sovereignty.

If you are the Russian Federation and your most important political and economic partner is Europe, its not obvious why you would want to mess up the legal order that unites you with Europe.

If you’re a Russian real-politician, if you’re thinking in terms of interests it’s not obvious why you would want toward a more or less definite entanglement with China forever. It’s not obvious.

So, one way to solve this problem, as it were, is to think not in terms of interests or economics, or law, but think instead of nations and history, and to re-categorize all of this as a national problem that has to be solved.

Crimea is our national problem, it’s our national destiny, a thousand years of history and so on and so-forth. And the European order, in effect, be damned.

Now, at this level, anybody who knows anything about European history will recognize the flavor of this solution, will recognize the genre of the solution - it’s something called “Bonapartism.”

When you have domestic problems, when you’re kind of a democrat but not completely a democrat; when you’re kind of an emperor but not completely an emperor, when nationalism already exists but you don’t know quite what to do with it, what do you do? You invade some other country in the name of self determination.

This was a strategy that was invented by Bonaparte in the middle of the 19th century, and it works; and the Russians are not the only people who practice it; we practice it too, many countries still practice it.

I think that’s a fair enough explanation for what happens in 2014. It’s sufficient as an explanation at a certain level; but what it lacks is a kind of internal, Russian perspective.

You could say, isn’t this all just calculation, isn’t it just naked politics? Are you really sure that history and ideology matters?

I think in addition to the cynical Bonapartist perspective, it’s very good to have a Russian perspective. If you’re going to explain how this reference to the past overcomes the essential problems of Russian domestic and foreign policy, it makes sense to believe that there might be some intellectual and emotional commitments involved, that there’s something beyond just a simple calculation.

I’m now going to do the part where I talk about early East Slavic history…

...and to examine the history is not so much the matter of whether their history is right or wrong - the difference between Russian memory and history is a window into their ideology.

When Wlodimir ruled Kiev, Moscow did not exist…


While Putin would suggests that he is solving Russia’s succession problem, he is in fact merely underscoring it.

. ..where does he get his notion of historical Russian coherence?

From Ivan Ilyin. And how do we know that?

Because Putin says so.


Ilyin’s story is one of a “virgin birth” of the Eastern Slavic peoples (ignores vast tracts of history - Swedes, Lithuanians, Kagans, Kazars, etc.), to go on to make “justifications” for Russia being the largest state in history through a series of “defensive wars” and “only defensive” wars.

...Russia is a fraternity: which means that there can be no minorities. Everyone is immediately brought under the fraternal umbrella in Russia.

If you use the word, “Ukraine” or “Belarusian” you are revealing yourself straightforward to be an enemy, to be a European who doesn’t understand the goodness and fraternal character of Russia, its organic nature which cannot be divided, only dissected.

Russia was “too innocent in its non empirical essence and was subject to Europe’s microbe contaminants - Marxism, etc. Russia, “though perfect for fascism was too innocent for it.”

“Russia potentially is a land of totality without contingency, all an organic union.”

What does that mean for policy? How could you have policy recommendations from this?

How do you choose a leader? Remember the problem of a lack of succession principle.

In this world view that’s not a problem, succession, succession principle, these are all things that you are concerned about if you are living in empirical reality or if you are concerned with history.

What Ilyin says, is that the agent of change for Russia must come from outside of history - because history, remember, is spoiled. History is god’s failure to turn the world into totality. History is spoiled - so the Marxists are wrong, the liberals are wrong that you can expect anything good from history. History has nothing to offer.

If you are going to save Russia - and “save” is always the word he uses - you must be a figure who comes from outside of history, a living organ of Russia, the instrument of her self redemption. We will accept our freedom and our law from the Russian patriot who leads to our salvation.

There must be a special moment when some figure - perhaps a KGB agent - arrives from offstage for no apparent reason. So the problem of succession is solved. The successor will also appear from offstage.

What does this mean for foreign policy.

It is the art of identifying and neutralizing the enemy

... which makes perfect sense: if you are an organic whole, then you’re innocent (Russia is always ultimately innocent in its grand narrative, even if empirical evidence temporarily seems to point to guilt) and you’re a leader from outside of history, then you must protect your country from history. Ilyin says the leader should be a “national dictator who should be in charge of the military the judiciary, the executive and the parliament”. He’s writing all this after the second world war, so the notion that Europeans learn from war, Ilyin is an example of someone who didn’t change his views at all - he said the mistake that the totalitarians made was that they had a one party state when it should have been a zero party state.

Elections should only serve the purpose of ritualistically renewing the people’s faith in the leader. Sound familiar? Any resemblance to empirical reality is purely accidental.

All of society should be organized under a corporatism pyramid of state. The middle classes are at the bottom. There is a leader, the peasant classes and the middle classes are at bottom.

This is also a solution to foreign policy, because if this your idea of domestic policy, your idea of how the world works, then Europe is obviously the enemy, the European Union with its promotion civil society, civil rights, its middle class and so on…

Eurasianism is the resolution of an old problem in how to characterize Russian history:

On the one side 19the century Russia, Russians looking at the west, the westernizers, who say Russian history is like European history, same principles, same progress, just a few steps behind.

And then the Slavophiles, who say that our history is not like Russia, we are inherently and irreducibly a different culture following a different pattern and our own way of development.

Eurasianism is the solution to that problem.

What Eurasianism says is that, the west is not inherently democratic, pluralistic, and liberal. That is an artificial encrustation on the surface - which is brought by Jews.

Ilyin is very tactful in how he talks about that but that’s the basic idea.

Some unfortunate minorities have created a west which is artificial.

If you get rid of them, the west will naturally go fascist, it will flob-back to its natural state and that solves the problem.

So the move that Ilyin makes is to say that the west is actually not different from Russia; we should all be basically following god’s will and go fascist.

And if you strip away the artificial superstructure of western history you will see that. So there is not path of history, we’re all together in a total lack history.

Ilyn had a German mother and a Russian father.

He went to Vienna to undergo extended psychotherapy from (((Sigmund Freud)).

The person who taught him how to read Hegel was (((Husserl)))

So those are his influences - Husserl, Freud and Husserl.

He “shows how this Eurasianaism can be brought together”, not by Russia engaging the false principles of the west, “but by the west informing Russia, as Russia follows its true path,” which is fascism.

He was sponsored by the wife of American (((?))) millionaire.

Russian foreign policy make sense. There is a certain strategy. The strategy is to bring the European Union down.

We are not summoning the facts, we are summoning the narrative of our pure innocence - when you work to subvert the European history in favor of an organic whole which is to be Russia.

What the word “Ukrainian” (and he always puts the word in quotes) means is a signifyer that someone on the west is lying about Russia.

“Ukrainians”, “Muslims” and “Jews”...we can assume “Asian” peoples as well, within the Russian occupied territory, do not exist as a distinct and separate people from the non-contingent, non-emprical reality of “the organic whole of Russia”.




Post a comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

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

Remember me

Previous entry: A crisis in the custody suite – seventh (and final) part

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


15 and Pregnant commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 02:17. (View)

Mixed signal for Whitey, not for bloods commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 01:53. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'A crisis in the custody suite – seventh (and final) part' on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 00:58. (View)

Another question from Chris L. commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 23:47. (View)

Ahed Tamimi interviewed commented in entry '“Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom”: Norman Finkelstein on the Many Lies Perpetuated About Gaza' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 11:12. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:11. (View)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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