The Satanic Alliance: You really are ‘either with us or against us’.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 04 December 2015 22:43.

Satanic Alliance image loads here. Meaning of the image: In cartomancy, the Ace of Hearts symbolises prosperity and love interests in the material world. The Seven of Clubs symbolises the attainment of knowledge of the spiritual world.

Introduction

This article is just a very condensed version of some observations that have been burning on my mind this week and which came up over tea and biscuits during conversations with some of my work colleagues. It may be edifying for European nationalists and regionalists, so I’ve chosen to make a short article about the subjects covered. People should feel free to ask me any questions they like in the comments section, if anyone would like a more expansive explanation about the concepts I’m trying—humorously but with serious intent—to illuminate here.

The somewhat provocative phraseology I’m using here is quite deliberate and is used for a reason that will be explained later on in the article.

Twilight of the Westphalian Model

We are living a world that has progressed and changed significantly since the advent of industrial warfare. In the early 1900s, everything about warfare tended to be the resolution of international disputes through a state actor’s military personnel and machinery clashing in the spacial battlefield until someone was decisively defeated.

Now, this is no longer the case, after the late 1900s and early 2000s, war increasingly has become a matter of non-state actors waging war against other non-state actors, and in the case where states of a Westphalian inspiration came into contradiction with these non-state actors, the Westphalian states’ objective usually was to find a settlement of the conflict that would satisfy the commercial and geostrategic needs of those nations. The battle also takes place in ‘hearts and minds’, getting hearts and minds on one’s side has become not just an optional extra, but in many cases can be a crucial and decisive element of strategy.

The battle of ‘hearts and minds’ is happening in the case where you have to influence a ‘foreign’ population to co-operate with and support military operations that you are conducting inside their territory, or the case where you have to convince a ‘foreign’ population that your occupation of their territory is capable of providing safety and stability through effective counter-terrorism operations.

Increasingly, these same needs apply within the North Atlantic states as well, because we are actually now in a new generation of warfare. This is 5th generation warfare, not 4th generation warfare now. The events which took place in France on 13 November 2015 were a stark sign of that transition between generations having taken place.

ISIL’s attack on Paris was not just an attack against state infrastructure in an attempt to affect the French government’s policy preferences. It was not an attack that could be understood within the context of the Westphalian state model, or the world order that this model had given rise to. Instead, it was an attack against the Westphalian state model itself, and that is why the attackers chose the targets that they chose. They selected places that French people and the foreign residents of other culturally advanced populations would go to enjoy themselves. They chose to deliberately have amongst the assailants a mixture of people carrying Syrian passports alongside people who were second or third generation Muslim residents of European countries such as Belgium.

By selecting the targets in the way that they did, they were announcing that it was a fight of one population against another, one social group against another, in their view, and their intent was to make this fact clear to everyone. We on the other side should not shy away from acknowledging that this is really how it is. They believe that there is a ‘global Ummah’, a community of Muslims unconstrained by national borders, who are trying to uphold and enforce the rules of the Abrahamic monotheistic god over ‘the Kaffir’ who are pagans (this includes people who adhere closely to bonds of blood, which Islamic doctrine considers to be part of ‘Jahiliyyah’), polytheists, atheists, and apostates.

The rise of this kind of view, represents a rise of what is best described as ‘armed social movements’. Social movements have qualities that are distinct from that of traditional Westphalian state structures, even when they come to occupy the seats of power in a state. Armed social movements tend to have a cleanly defined ‘us vs. them’ world view, and the manifestation of state power which is filled by such movements, tends to be an outcome of battles fought in and against civil society, in the terrain of popular culture or through street battles or asymmetrical warfare. The manifestation of state power is not imposed from above, but rather, the manifestation of state power is a sign that the armed social movement has already triumphed among the population itself. The process is ‘bottom up’, rather than ‘top down’.

Armed social movements fight against each other in the terrain of civil society and through popular culture, to determine who will ultimately capture state power in the long term future.

We are an international ‘Satanic Alliance’?

In light of all of the above, the epithet which the jihadists have labelled us with, the epithet ‘Satanic Alliance’ comes into play and is a gateway to understanding the fundamental issue presently facing western civilisation, as well as a method for coming to terms with it.

On 01 November 2015, Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri published a sixteen minute video which spread across the Islamic world on social media and jihadist websites, calling for a unified Islamic front against the coalition of groups who are fighting against the imposition of Sharia law, which he described as forming a front against “the Satanic Alliance that attacks Islam”. In his video, he takes a tone toward ISIL which is one of coalition-building, as he is seeking to caution them on the dangers that come from infighting among the various jihadist groups. He doesn’t want ISIL, Jahbat Al-Nusra, and Ahrar Al-Sham to keep fighting against each other over their differences, rather he wants them to suspend their disagreements on who commands the jihadists (ie, Ayman Al-Zawahiri or Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi?) and how it should be expressed (ie, Islam faithful to the 8th century, or Islam adapted to the 21st century?) and to instead unite against “the Satanic Alliance”, and to “hone” their conduct so that they can convince the other Muslims that they “want to be ruled over by Sharia”.

Whenever I hear these things, I always smile a little, because by saying things like that, they are drawing the lines very cleanly and obviously.

However, within the west there is still a muddled feeling amongst the general population about this, which needs to be ironed out. We are and have been and hopefully will continue to be—objectively speaking—living in an increasingly ‘Satanic’ society, if you take the definition of what ‘Satanic’ means from the religious texts of the three Abrahamic religions.

Look at what those three religions stand for, and then look at what we stand for and what we would like to see manifest, and you discover immediately that—as I’ve said before—we are a threat to the Abrahamic religions, we are their adversary. What does ‘Satan’ mean? It literally means ‘the adversary’.

There are many important distinctions between the two sides, but the most important one in the context of the interests of the readers of Majorityrights is this one:

THEM: Islam—much like Christianity and Judaism—is a religion that actively and aggressively promotes mass race-mixing. It promotes submission to a single god which asserts that it ‘created everything’ and also asserts that this material world is of no real consequence because ‘a test’ of loyalty and submission to the monotheistic god is all that matters.

US: We as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists are opposed to mass race-mixing, because we believe instead in the crucial importance of preserving ties of blood and proximity. Without preserving those ties, it would be impossible for a human being to truly find themselves, without which it would be impossible for human societies to ascend Maslow’s hierarchy with the willpower, the intellectual liberty, and a culture advanced enough to promote the flourishing of the social processes that lead to an understanding of the pure and pristine true reality that existed in the time of the primordial era. Our will is projected into the material world, to shape it to our own form of ‘justice’, not the dictates of some Semitic desert god.

These two views are irreconcilably and diametrically opposed, and always will be.

Two camps: Make a decision, make a choice

Although some find it to be unsettling, the arrival of this amazing narrative brings clarity and doctrinal purity to a situation that previously seemed to lack it. Since 11 September 2001, the middle ground ought to have become entirely vulnerable to erosion. When the planes crashed into the World Trade Centre buildings in 2001, and when the bombs exploded on the trains in Madrid in 2003, and when the bombs exploded on the buses in London in 2005, and now in the wake of the migration crisis and the Paris attacks of 2015, all of these have painted and highlighted—in blood—the existence of two camps before humankind that everyone would have to choose between.

On one hand, there would be ‘the camp of Islam’, a global Ummah which was disjointed and did not have a Caliphate to represent it at the time. They would be the forthright defenders of monotheism and transcendental values in a world where such a defence had been sliding out of fashion. This camp would also include their fellow travellers, and some opportunists.

On the other hand, there would be ‘the Satanic Alliance’, a coalition of people who reject the philosophical basis of Abrahamic monotheism, and form a coalition to defend their material and intellectual interests. These people would struggle against Abrahamic monotheism for diverse reasons. This alliance would underpin the preservation of the beauty and freedom of native peoples everywhere and their ability to determine their own futures (ie, coinciding with the concept of a ‘DNA Nation’) in accordance with the tools—both genetic and memetic—handed down to them by their ancestors on the earth.

Sometimes, unexpected mouths utter statements that are true. George W. Bush actually stumbled partially onto the truth of the existence of this paradigm when he said, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. Osama bin Laden also once said, “The world today is divided into two camps.”

Both Bush and Bin Laden were essentially correct about that basic reality, although neither of them understood just how correct they were.

All the different operations by the two camps have since served to expose the people who claimed to be ‘in the middle ground’ as being actually through their actions on one side or on the other side, whether they are conscious of it or not.

The shrinking middle ground

Many people on the so-called centre-right, and many so-called radical traditionalists and court ‘historians’ and court ‘scholars’ were immediately exposed by the terrorist attacks and by the wars, and by the mass migration crisis.

All of those who rushed to make apologetics, excuses, and justifications for the Islamists prancing around in their midst, or else, made mealy-mouthed statements about how they ‘respected’ Islam or ‘shared traditional values with them’ and so ‘are internally conflicted on how to react’, or alternately, sought to allocate blame and condemnation onto the victims of Islamic terrorist attacks rather than onto the perpetrators, were all exposed. Some, such as the Jews and the Christians who are milling around among the ruling class in every western state, went so far as to actively campaign for more migrants when the mass migration and infiltration crisis began.

By these actions, they revealed themselves to everyone. Even the most naive observer of political affairs can now be convinced that there really are only two camps.

It is also worth mentioning that in fact, many conservatives of the traditionalist and civic nationalist sort, and almost all social democrats of every stripe, had always been in ‘the camp of Islam’ insofar as they refused to oppose mass migration from the Middle East and Africa, and they refused to criticise the fundamental basis of monotheism itself, restricting themselves only to criticising the methods of the so-called ‘radicals’. Those who walked in ignorance were simply unaware of this, because court ‘historians’ and court ‘scholars’ and the mainstream media had all portrayed them as being opposed, and as a result, their actual complicity with ‘the camp of Islam’ went unrecognised. As a result of this confusion, such persons and groups only appeared to be in the middle ground in the eyes of the ignorant and the uninformed. So it is only in the sense of the perception of the people, that the events since 11 September 2001 have ‘driven’ those people out of the middle ground. In reality they were never in it. It only appeared to be so. A prime example of this would be Angela Merkel and most of the Christian Democratic Union party in Germany. The CDU is firmly in ‘the camp of Islam’, and always has been, it was only in the eyes of the ignorant that it has appeared otherwise (eg, those who were fooled by the false dichotomy of ‘multiculturalism vs. integration’), until recently when it became openly apparent for all to see.

And so the middle ground, and even the perception of there being a middle ground, can now begin to wither. Rather than whining about methods, such as who kills who in what kind of brutal way, we should begin talking about the purpose behind the conflict and what its philosophical and spiritual basis is, and then offer a choice. In other words, we need to get down to the fundamentals.

Be confident

If we, the apparent ‘Satanic Alliance’ can stand together and remain completely and ruthlessly consistent in our narrative and defend the attractiveness and beauty of our Promethean goals, then we can gently—when and where we can—push the dialogue which encourages people to make the choice to join such an ‘alliance’.

In that sense, everything which has happened since 11 September 2001, should be seen not as a disorganised series of tragedies and inconveniences, but rather, as an opportunity, a springboard from which we as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists can jump forward and present—truthfully and with sincerity—the narratives and views of things like ‘the Satanic Alliance’ or ‘the DNA Nation’, ‘the dark side of the Enlightenment’, ‘post-modernity proper’, or ‘taking the kingdom of heaven by force’, or any other thought-form that is grounded in an absolute earthlyness of thought that we care to elucidate.



Comments:


1

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 11:57 | #

First, I would like to stay that I think that this is an amazing piece: it is Promethean in its manifestation - a correct, though shocking, prescription of the Promethean task at hand; not analytic whimpering over our problem, but rather with that giant spirit erupting from its chthonic lurking under the labyrinth of Abrahamic filth that has buried us, sparkled with brilliance and cutting through with a gleaming, unifying sword that will vanquish our enemies and take our kingdom of heaven by force.

Nevertheless, for the meta-level upon which it speaks, it will be prone to misunderstandings by some of those who remain functioning in the under level of the Abrahamic purview. Therefore, I would like to ask some of the questions immediately raised from that perspective…


2

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 13:38 | #

First questions:

1) The anti-Abrahamic:

Satan? That strikes a secular person as awfully silly. You expect to build an alliance with a silly mythological figure conjured-up by the very Abrahamic religion you denounce?  And the image you selected only adds to the apprehension of puerile if not childish caprice. What normal person can take it seriously?

2) The Abrahamic religious or those respectful to the extent of not wanting to antagonize them:

Aren’t you confessing to evil or, perhaps, too unsophisticated to play-along with the west’s long cultural tradition of Abrahamic religions?

This second kind of apprehension would take invocation of “Satan” as an “aha” moment - by religious folks or those who respect them on cultural grounds as relatively harmless and as fellow travelers, or who fancy their maturity is above antagonizing them, that this is, again, “too unsophisticated to play-out in the real world”, too disrespectful of thousands of years of careful moral consideration intermeshed with necessary moral ordering, if not a confession of evil that the true believers would apprehend it as being.


3

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:56 | #

Great questions, ones which I’ve been asked before and which I’m more than happy to get a chance to answer.

With regards to secularists:

When the Abrahamic religions manifested in the world, they immediately drew an absolute dichotomy between themselves and everyone else, by saying that anyone who wasn’t on their side, was ‘with Satan’, and that ‘Satan’ was ‘evil’. That’s why in the article the list of people who I say that Abrahamics believe to be in ‘the Satanic Alliance’, includes secularists and atheists, polytheists, pagans, etc.

Choosing not to shy away from being associated with the concept of ‘Satan’—who is really the fallen angel Lucifer who chose to sacrifice himself to bring the power of intellect and imagination to humankind—actually requires a very sophisticated understanding of religious history, but also requires a certain amount of willingness to defy authority which should be valued among movements that seek to rise against the established order.

To address secularism directly, I should ask, what was the original purpose of secularism? The purpose was to weaken the preponderance of the ecclesiastical power over the state by introducing the idea that ‘what religion you are following should not be dictated by arbitrary state violence’ (the state is, after all, force). Objectively speaking, the secular order in its purest form comprises what the Abrahamics would correctly perceive as ‘a Satanic agenda’.

For anyone who doubts this, watch a few episodes of John Hagee Today, or the Rod Parsely Show, or better yet, you could even literally just ask a Christian directly, as their churches are open every Sunday and you can just walk in. I also had the opportunity to pose stern questions to an Islamist who went to fight in Syria (before the government had made it illegal for them to do so, it was not too hard to find them), and the answers given by that person also yet again re-confirmed all of my views on this issue.

The word ‘Satanic’ is usually not preferred by me. I tend to prefer the word ‘Luciferian’. However, I use the word ‘Satanic’ in this article because Al-Qaeda used it first, and because the shock-value allows for the point to be made a lot better.

To be called ‘Satanic’, is the spiritual version of what it is to be called ‘Racist’ in the material world. You are expected to immediately recoil and think to yourself, “What can I do to make them stop calling me this word?”, until they’ve eventually henpecked you into holding policy preferences that run entirely contrary to your interests.

Choosing not to be henpecked, and choosing to in fact assert that since ‘Satan’ is opposed to Jehovah, you are quite happy to ‘stand with Satan’ against Jehovah, doing that disarms the critics entirely, and most importantly it also allows you to leverage the difference in values that comes along with it. The difference in values of course has been described by me before, and so needs no further explanation.

With regards to Abrahamics and their hyperventilating:

Universal evil doesn’t even exist. What is defined as ‘evil’ depends what clique of thinkers has hegemony at the time. 100% of everything that I stand for is regarded as ‘evil’ by liberals and by Abrahamics. I’ll ‘confess’ and boast of that fact every time without shame, because in ideological war, a person has to lay their cards on the table.

Rather than responding with “no, you are!”, every time the Christians, Muslims, or Jews, decide to accuse us of being ‘Satanic’, we should indeed embrace the obvious fact that it is what it is. I’m going to basically be called Satanic anyway, even if I decided to tell lies and deny it.

This has particular relevance with regards to ISIL and the conflict with them now. We’ve seen a whole cavalcade of social democrats, Christians, and Jews, prancing around saying that ISIL ‘is not really Muslim’, and ‘is more like the Order of Satan’. No, they are not. ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They are Islamic. They worship the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They slaughter all those who disbelieve in Jehovah, who they call ‘Allah’, and they rape people’s children just like Moses himself did during his campaigns chronicled in the books of Leviticus and Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

When they try to flip the script, its because they are confused and they can’t recognise or call a spade a spade.

The ideas that produce a society that is nice for people to live in, and in which people can find self-fulfilment and prosperity, is in fact a society that is created by moving away from Jehovah and toward the values that are ‘Satanic’. Western civilisation in particular, has only progressed insofar as it has defied Abrahamic teachings, never due to following them.

What they would like to call ‘thousands of years of careful moral consideration’ is in fact the same system of morals—with its attendant petty-morality aphorisms—which is menacing us all today after it gradually elevated the pace and tempo of its attacks to the point of establishing what is known as ‘political correctness’.

Things are now literally at the stage where legions of anti-racist and violent Muslims are swarming into Europe with the assistance and assent of various groups of Christians and the Jews. Abrahamics in Europe have no legs to stand on, they are literally an overt and manifest enemy of the people.

When I appeal to ‘do as thou wilt is the whole of the law’, I say this because the idea of doing what we need to do is something that has been placed outside of consideration by the established moralisers, and the best way to break down their moral order is to boldly declare that we want no part of their whiny morality.

With regards to imagery and tone of voice:

The imagery and light-hearted approach I took with this article was because we should be joyful and not so downbeat all the time, and because I’m really tired of seeing people using medieval imagery of a man with bat-wings looking angrily up at the sky or whatever. It’s old. It also plays into old and ridiculous stereotypes. There are other ways to depict and communicate the message, and to make it so much more approachable and nice. And not just as a tactic, but genuinely approachable and nice.

There is also the fact that sometimes an illustration is better than a real photo. An illustrator can often capture something that a photographer cannot.

Speaking of swords, by the way, this image with the ‘dollmaker of Bucharest’ and a rapier was the first candidate image for use as the banner image of this article:

It’s okay, but it was superseded by the one presently being used, because the present image has even more relevant symbolism contained within it, and fit the atmosphere better.

A person who understands Cartomancy and Hermeticism will see that there is more going on in the presently-used banner image than meets the eye. If you right-click on the image and view its properties, you’ll see that the ‘alt text’ field inside it actually explains the meaning of the image. “Meaning of the image: In cartomancy, the Ace of Hearts symbolises prosperity and love interests in the material world. The Seven of Clubs symbolises the attainment of knowledge of the spiritual world.” The illustrator would have chosen those cards to put the daggers through on purpose, and the fact that she has grasped the lower one first is of real significance.

On a meta-level, what makes my occasional usage of illustrations significant, is that unlike say, the Daily Stormer, or 4chan, or wherever else, I select images quite deliberately and with an intent to create a particular mood, and so in essence I’m taking myself seriously while doing it, since I believe that popular culture has a power to draw people in, and that being too aloof can be extremely detrimental to the message. No images can make it onto the short-list without justification, whether they be photo or illustration. I never choose randomly.


4

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 15:34 | #

Ok, good answers.

I have a problem with this, however:

The ideas that produce a society that is nice for people to live in, and in which people can find self-fulfillment and prosperity

It seems awfully crass and superficial to be concerned with “prosperity and self fulfillment” when European peoples are being subject to invasion, exploitation, rape and violence.

This next statement goes far into answering the next question that I had in mind, but needs more discussion…

When I appeal to ‘do as thou wilt is the whole of the law’, I say this because the idea of doing what we need to do is something that has been placed outside of consideration by the established moralisers, and the best way to break down their moral order is to boldly declare that we want no part of it.

....but not until after you first answer why it is that you place “self fulfillment and prosperity” as a concern, apparently ranking above EGI of Europeans and the onslaught thereupon. Quite out of register, it seems.


5

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 16:20 | #

The reason I’m always concerned with self-fulfilment and prosperity is because the preservation of ethnic genetic interests is intrinsically linked with prosperity and I’ve always believed that it’s important to point that out.

Unified narratives:

From both angles, the first worldist perspective would lead people to ask whether they would have to sacrifice their immediate material interests and struggles in order to care about these things, they are asking ‘what is in it for me?’ From the third worldist perspective, people are led to ask ‘what is in it for me?’, which is to say, what does ethno-nationalism offer them personally in the case where it is advocated and defended? The same question appears in both worlds, because it’s a fundamental question.

To create a mass line and show people that it is in their rational best interest to support ethnic preservation, you have to able to make it visible to them that you are joining their short-term economic interests to the long-term strategic interests of your movement, so that they will begin to realise that these are one and the same thing. This is a crucial part of revolutionary praxis, creating these narratives—and having them be true of course—is what builds a support base for the future.

Alleles are a productive force:

In a given mode of production, the relations of production articulate the dialectical relationship between the tools and methods of social organisation that are used to manufacture goods in society on the one hand, and on the other hand the effect that the act of this development has on the trajectory of the social organisation and the honing and development of the tools.

But one of the tools is in fact the alleles that have been selected for and deselected for over millennia as different forms of social organisation in dialectical relationship with climate events and geographical demands, push against and influence each other’s trajectory in what is known as ‘gene-culture co-evolution’.

In other words: Race is an economic factor in development!

Mass migration stalls development and protects ‘dead capital’:

The present system of late capitalism has as one of its features, a sharpening vision of dead capital exploiting living capital. Business owners that refuse to innovate and that refuse to mechanise and automate their production methods, want to ‘get by’ through the strategy of importing masses of Arabs and Africans to do all the drudge work for them, and thus keep their ridiculous backward businesses afloat.

This is of course a strategy that is doomed to failure even in the event that they get the 20 million migrants that they want. Why? Because a lesser mode of production only seems to triumph at first, but is always eventually overcome by a more advanced form of production.

Those nations which do not accept mass migration (eg, the Asian Tigers, and most of Eastern Europe, and perhaps also the UK), and which decide to continue with mechanisation and automation, will be in a position to actually destroy the German and Swedish companies in the international market through comparative advantage, and at that stage, German and Swedish businesses would collapse, and Arabs, Africans, and Germans and Swedes, would all end up on the unemployment registers destroying the state budgets, as riots sweep the streets.

It is possible to use figures from the Office of National Statistics in the UK, and the story of how the textile industry in the UK was destroyed, to see a microcosm of what is coming in the future of the entire German and Swedish economies if they keep up doing what they are doing.

Showing people these things can be a powerful motivator and can get them to see the reality immediately. Appealing to prosperity is like appealing to food. Almost no-one other than the most insane petty-moralists will make deliberate arguments against their own prosperity for the sake of protecting Arab and North African migrants who hate them anyway.

Unless they are Christians or liberal-humanitarians, but then, they are the most insane petty-moralists by definition. The Jews will also disagree with these analyses, but that’s not because they are petty-moralists, it’s instead because the Jews actually hate Europe and want it to be destroyed.

Managing the effects of mass migration:

Managing a multi-ethnic land of conflict costs extra money.

What sane person seriously wants to spend that money? You could just not invite mass migration in the first place.

‘What stuff do I get?’:

I once had a conversation with a guy who asked me ‘what stuff do I get?’, in response to my suggestion that he should assign a large subjective value to the integrity of his population group’s alleles and its dominance over its own civic space. This may seem like a horrendous question for someone to ask, but it’s one that we ought to have an instant-answer for.

When a person asks essentially ‘What is in it for me?’, it shows that they are already considering your agenda and would like to endorse it if it can be shown to be beneficial for them personally in the near and medium term. Rather than being repulsed by such a question, we should in fact all be happy to hear those kinds of reactions, because that kind of reaction could only come from someone who was not seeded with the petty-moralist liberal-humanitarian knee-jerk objections to ethno-nationalist politics.

Such persons also tend to be unburdened by the moral systems of so-called ‘traditionalism’, and it then allows you to impart to that person the direct truth without having to navigate through a whole minefield of reactionary rubbish set up by them.


6

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 20:58 | #

If you phrased this one sentence differently, I would say nothing. As it stands, I think it needs work to display sufficient empathy with a White perspective, particularly a White male perspective..

From both angles, the first worldist perspective would lead people to ask whether they would have to sacrifice their immediate material interests and struggles in order to care about these things, they are asking ‘what is in it for me?’

The rest of the comment was fine if not excellent. Sadly, the whole thread is being diverted for that one sentence.

Here is an example of phrasing that I would have accepted without complaint.

From the perspective of European peoples, their individual perspectives anyway would reasonably have them asking how their interests and struggles would be improved if they care about these things (EGI) - i.e., it can easily be anticipated that many of them are going ask ‘what is in that for me in terms of economic security?’ ...unfortunate though that question is, given the obvious fact that they should care about their genetic heritage without needing an economic carrot.


But really, what are WN’s (males, mostly) doing attending to issues of race, black on White crime, “manosphere” issues, etc, if their big concern is maintaining their “privileged” economic situation?


7

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 21:57 | #

In America, White men cannot form voluntary associations and dis-associations with other races. They cannot voluntary decline contract with other races. That puts them on the level of slave to these peoples.

They have been forced to pay for them, and their offspring, associate with them, teach them with hard acquired (sometimes precious) knowledge, and ultimately, yield everything to them, including their genetic heritage to them - e.g., in the abject form of miscegantion.

That is to say nothing of the sci-fi nightmare that is the psychological world that they must inhabit under the Marxist conception of their “first world privilege.”


8

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 07 Dec 2015 03:34 | #

You say that you would have wanted me to write that “they should care about their genetic heritage without needing an economic carrot”. But I’m saying that these things are not separate, that was the point that I was trying to emphasise in the first place. Economics is not like some kind of extra thing that is tacked on to ethno-nationalist concerns. Economics is the material world and so everything is intrinsically linked to that.

On thinking about the issue of the first world and the third world, I think that’s one of the contentious issues which probably cannot be resolved between us, since my view of the world—seeing as I am a third worldist—would be that when you asked me that economic question it would only lead to me casually saying that the first world and the third world (by which I mean much of East Asia, South East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, and Central and South America) are in fact on different trajectories.

They really are different.

So when I said that the first world and the third world despite their different trajectories would both be able to agree that economic factors are part of the base concerns, that was obviously not a moral judgement of any sort, but merely an illustration that was supposed to enable me to build my main point which is that economics is foundational in both zones. I was only saying that the same logic applies in both zones despite their obvious differences, which should illustrate to everyone that it is foundational everywhere.

When I wrote that, I wasn’t expecting that there would be any disagreement on that at all, so I was surprised to see that it’s apparently extremely offensive because in order to make that point I had to state that the first world and third world have a wide economic and developmental disparity between them. Apparently WNs don’t want me to even mention that disparity in any context.

Regarding the economic privileges that the first world has, or as I would have rendered it, ‘the nice things that the first world has been able to previously accumulate’, that is a red-button issue and I now understand (from what you’ve said to me privately) that 99.9% of WNs will automatically hate me for even mentioning it in any context because they don’t believe that they are a part of that accumulation drive and so they don’t believe that they ever had anything to defend. I don’t know what I can say about that. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a fact that they had things that they would want to defend and that it would logically be in their best interest to try to defend them.

If they want to disregard my entire point just because they don’t want me to casually point out that the first world is wealthier than the third world and has preponderance over it, I actually have no idea what to tell them about that. Initially I thought I knew what I’d say, but on thinking about it more, there is nothing that I can say other than, “I believe that to be true”. If they hate me then they hate me.

Within regions there is obviously economic stratification because the class system exists and because there are political and psychological pressures that are applied to different groups of people within the two economic zones. However, it’s clear to me that taken as a whole, the first world is clearly more developed and more economically prosperous than the third world, so the two zones are approaching the issue from a different direction. The first world would be trying to not lose its development, and the third world would be pursuing developmentalist models to try to become developed.

From my perspective it’s a pretty pedestrian observation, but it seems to have a lot of psychological baggage among WNs, for reasons that I can’t understand.


9

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 07 Dec 2015 05:19 | #

I have not read your comment yet, but I will say this to begin:

Though it is important and the right thing to do to protect the simplifyng aspect of the argument - I strongly endorse that - I would propose that you could do that if that one sentence reflected better understanding of the true predicament of White men - rank and file White men especially, but even a few who have better circumstances.

The fundamental problem is that you are casting rank and file White men as being in the enemy camp.

Which is the domain of Jewish elites, their patterns and deracinated oligarchic and corporate elites.

I am not going to say that men who identify as White are privileged.

They are not.

Those who profit are ones who use the word “racism”

It is mistaken to expect the class of this audience to identify as “the first world” when the “first world” does not identify as White.

Those in “the first world” are not better off in very important ways.

In fact, they have been turned into slaves by the Marxist use of this notion of their “first world privilege.”

The immigration crisis is a result of prerogative for which they should have no concern? Not.

And this is not “slave morality”, this is a slave revolt.


10

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 07 Dec 2015 10:49 | #

You say that you would have wanted me to write that “they should care about their genetic heritage without needing an economic carrot”.

I should have phrased that more clearly: they should care about their genetic heritage without economic incentives being the more fundamental reason; the concerns do go together necessarily to some extent, but race, for one thing, should weigh more heavily.

One aspect of that sentence is true and good - we want to incentivize White men who are productive, competent and economically successful to participate: and it can be expected for them to ask: “What’s in it for me? I don’t want to sacrifice my wealth.”

Yes, ok, but there would have to be another phrase in there (beyond the word struggle), to connote positive incentives for the have-not, rank and file White men, who have some of the greatest motivation to fight.

And, in terms of “booty” [which Sir Hugh Srachan cites as the most common reason for fighting throughout history] if you are to look at the full motivation of White men who come to WN sites, it is not going to be narrowly economic… it is going to range well into other spheres of concern - viz., racial, gender/relational justice - from the get-go; not as an afterthought of economics and material satisfaction.


11

Posted by Their Satanic Majesties Request on Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:51 | #


Their Satanic Majesties Request


12

Posted by a key alienation of today on Mon, 07 Dec 2015 15:09 | #

Abigail James argues that a key alienation of today stems from separation of people (presumably Western people) from their heritage.


13

Posted by Islam stuffing the ballot boxes in UK on Tue, 08 Dec 2015 10:32 | #

democracy breaking down still further..

TOO, Muslims stuffing ballot boxes in UK, winning...

Those who say that the electoral road is finished for White advocates in heavily Muslim populated areas of the UK, have had their argument boosted by a perverse by-election result in one of the Labour Party’s safest seats. Indications were that Oldham West and Royton near Manchester would be close, with the anti-immigration UKIP breathing down Labour’s necks. Completely against normal mid-term by-election patterns, the Labour vote effectively defied gravity and went up 7.49% and the party romped home with a greatly increased majority.

The election appears to have been stolen by massive organised postal vote fraud within the Muslim community which comprises more than a third of the electorate in Oldham. The crucial factor seems to be bundles of postal votes delivered in the last days by “senior Muslim representatives of the Labour Party.” Oldham, which has a long history of racial tension, is notorious for this type of rigging.

It is a travesty so blatant that the only way the establishment can deal with it is to sneer and collectively turn a blind eye. The media is restricting itself to reporting how UKIP leader Nigel Farage immediately came under fire for suggesting the vote was “bent.” Indeed, Farage sees the end of British democracy..


14

Posted by Bob Mathews commemoration by TT on Tue, 08 Dec 2015 18:31 | #

       
Speech by TT Metzger on the anniversary of Bob Mathews assassination.

Topics include:

1) Relation of race and economics.

2) Corruption of the right-wing in its relation to the racial struggle.


[Download Audio] [SHA1 Checksum]


15

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 01:27 | #

Tom Metzger is fantastic. I haven’t listened to the audio yet, but I’ll comment on it when I have. What I can say is that the opening song he chose was very good. It’s ‘The Unknown Soldier’ by Carl Klang, every line of it is truly inspired, I think.

Regarding your earlier comments though, I seriously just cannot agree with you on the idea of portraying white men as ‘slaves’ who are engaged in a ‘slave revolt’, not only because it cannot be demonstrated to be the case, but also because it looks like a hyperbole that no one would want to identify with. Also, it lacks a narrative for white women and the conspicuous lack in that area could lead to problems.

Overall, I think that your criticisms of me do in some way stem from an aversion to seeing resources and money as being crucially important to people even, but I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want people to say it honestly. A refusal to say it, means that later on you will be met with resistance from your own side when you ask them to do something for materialistic reasons and they won’t understand why you are asking that of them, because you’d have inculcated them into viewing the conflict as being one solely about ideas in abstract.


16

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:34 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:27 | #

Tom Metzger is fantastic. I haven’t listened to the audio yet, but I’ll comment on it when I have. What I can say is that the opening song he chose was very good. It’s ‘The Unknown Soldier’ by Carl Klang, every line of it is truly inspired, I think.

Yes, Metzger is a goodie. And he demonstrates his agreement with me that while economics are integral from the start, that race is the more fundamental issue. However, just because the interests of rank and file White men do not always conform to a prioritization of economic concerns, does not mean that their concerns are necessarily mutually exclusive to the concerns of those Whites and Asians for whom that is the priority. The task is to show just a little better how these things line up, by displaying just a little better understanding of those who are motivated more by race/ethnie than by economics.

Regarding your earlier comments though, I seriously just cannot agree with you on the idea of portraying white men as ‘slaves’ who are engaged in a ‘slave revolt’,

There may be a problem in responding to the slave revolt analogy in too digital a manner (true or not, full identity as slaves or not) rather than understanding that it is not a designation for identifying with weakness, but for consciousness raising for the fact that White American men have been denied freedom from association and freedom from contract.

They have been subject to a kind of false consciousness by enforcement of these Jewish imposed rules.

If they cannot discriminate against blacks, for example, then critically, that is highly analogous to slavery.

They might be forgiven for having been obligated to accept it for a time while its fuller implications had not taken effect and while they were not fully conscious of what it was and were it came from. But now, once conscious of how analogous that it is, if they are worth their salt, the will not accept a slave circumstance and a “slave morality.”

Trillions of dollars of welfare to pay for blacks to have babies, etc, it is not privilege.

Being threatened with jail or loss of livelihood if you challenge a black who is after your co-evolutionary females, is not privilege.

not only because it cannot be demonstrated to be the case

The prohibition of White men’s freedom from association and freedom from involuntary contract can be proven a thousand times over.

but also because it looks like a hyperbole that no one would want to identify with.

It is not an argument for all places and all times. To the extent that involuntary “servitude” partly (though significantly) characterizes the circumstances of White men, it does not characterize their essential identity. Again, those who are worth their salt will react indignantly.

Also, it lacks a narrative for white women and the conspicuous lack in that area could lead to problems.

There are ways that make perfect sense for women to enter into this fight - and your invocation of Maslow is a paradigm that with tweaking can address their aspirations and problems in a full, fair and thoughtful manner.

Overall, I think that your criticisms of me do in some way stem from an aversion to seeing resources and money as being crucially important to people even, but I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want people to say it honestly.

That isn’t exactly the case. Yes, it can be vulgar and inappropriate to forefront these issues in light of the circumstances and the audience at hand - who are concerned about the cataclysmic migration invasion, Paris massacres, legal prohibition of defense of themselves and their EGI.

Economic conditions of non-Europeans are clearly relevant, but can and should be introduced with the understanding that some of the more motivated to fight among our audience do not have these priorities in mind…they do not have a slave morality. They have a fighting morality that could be connected with in few broadly symbolic words and terms (like booty, borders and rules), a transitional phrase or two..and really, it was only a half a sentence that I had a problem with.

Yes, we should address and incentivize the people who have things and are are not subject to material privation. But we should also show recognition for the reality that not all White men are motivated first and foremost by maintaining their “stuff” and their ...privilege???

Many are motivated by wanting to live in a country with borders so that their “alpha patters” can be recognized as unfolding in a more circumspect way, as they do for most White men. And not have to be subject to the importunate and episodic vying from Arabs, Negroes, etc, upon their circumstances.

These concerns, matters of secure borders, safety, ethnic felicity, the possibility of a relaxed discovery of an appropriate mate within an unharried context, are a part of material, of “booty”, that can provide incentive to fight.

As is the enjoyment of the fruits of a society unburdened, not having to suffer the indignity of paying for blacks to have babies, let alone your co-evolutionary females to have babies with them..

On the other hand, for those who are motivated more sheerly by money, so long as that pursuit coincides with our EGI, that is fine.

I have no problem with wealthy people provided they are accountable to race and ethno-nationalism.

Even mercenary fighters motivated by money are quite fine provided they are in racial alignment.

A refusal to say it, means that later on you will be met with resistance from your own side when you ask them to do something for materialistic reasons and they won’t understand why you are asking that of them, because you’d have inculcated them into viewing the conflict as being one solely about ideas in abstract.

I just did say it. These are all material concerns. A half a sentence in your otherwise fantastic thesis shows that you may not yet have a perfect understanding of White men in America and their full range of motives. That you’d react as if there is a necessary conflict of interests only goes to show that, but I am positive that you will see that there is no conflict of interests.

We can and should get back to advancing your thesis because it is that important that we do.


17

Posted by Victor on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 17:09 | #

First of all, I agree with the commentator above (DanielS) that we cannot call ourselves as supporters of Satan, because of its intensively negative meaning.  To attack the Abrahamic cults, we have to be on a higher ground and use more positive terms.  Those who believe in God directly would call themselves Deists, for example. 

But the mad Jew of the day is Joseph Ripp, CEO of the rag Time mag.

The Jewish rag Time magazine has called the biggest Jewish whore/slut of the year, Angela Merkel, “Person of the Year.”  This was done as a way for the Jewish masters to reward the whore Angela Merkel for destroying her own country and people by flooding it with 3rd world aliens.  Time’s CEO is a madman named Joseph A. Ripp, who is probably Jewish and heads a Jewish charity.

I would understand if people call this whore “An animal in human form”, to paraphrase the Talmud.

It is obvious that the Judaists, the animals they are, most of whom mother are raped in the mikvah by Rabbis (see Ted Pike”s article on the raping rabbis), reward their dogs

One good way to rebel would be to cancel the subscription to Time (if you have one), take the subscription postage prepaid cards and write on them “Joseph A Ripp’s mother was raped often by the Rabbis in the mikvah, and that is why he has become a mentally deranged animal” or “Mad Jew of the Year: Joseph Ripp, mother raped by Rabbis” or whatever else you feel is the best way to express your disgust and revulsion to civilize this “animal in human form” Ripp.


18

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:06 | #

DanielS on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:34 wrote:

The task is to show just a little better how these things line up, by displaying just a little better understanding of those who are motivated more by race/ethnie than by economics.

DanielS, I think that this argument we’re having is just a matter of a difference in approach, but in the end the result would be the same anyway. You’re reminding me to include a number of issues that I already have talked about, but the reason why my answer was so specifically about the economic issue was only because you had zoomed in on that specifically, to ask me to explain what I meant by that.

So it’s like you plucked those words out of the main article and asked me to explain them, but then you also criticised me for focussing on that issue after you had asked me to focus on that issue.

After all, it was you who said that you wouldn’t address the rest of my post until I had addressed the issue of economics and prosperity in general. All I have been saying the whole time, is that you have to be able and willing to offer people a narrative that allows them to unify their near term material interests with the long term strategy and ideas of a movement, whatever those near term material interests might be. Whether those interests involving holding onto what they have had, or gaining what they have never had, the same template would still apply.

That’s all I was saying, I don’t think it should be so controversial.


19

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:44 | #

Victor on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 17:09 wrote:

First of all, I agree with the commentator above (DanielS) that we cannot call ourselves as supporters of Satan, because of its intensively negative meaning.

DanielS never actually said that, though.

In fact, because it has an ‘intensively negative’ meaning in the eyes of Abrahamics, and because that is—conveniently—precisely the thing that we are being accused of being anyway, that is precisely why it makes sense to stop denying it and just embrace it.

I once had the privilege of being in a debate with two Muslims, in which near the end of the debate one of the Muslims tried to grandstand by saying that all of my ideas were ‘essentially Satanic’, and ‘if you really look at it, you would find that there is no fundamental difference between her views and those of Satanists’.

At that point I simply responded with a spirited, sincere, and jaunty defence of the story of Lucifer, which left everyone both awed and dumbfounded at the same time.

Why? Because no one, perhaps not even the Muslims, had anticipated that I was going to just come out and cop to ‘Satanism’ the very millisecond that I was accused of it. And by describing the story of Lucifer in such a way that it makes Lucifer into a very sympathetic figure, is a ‘curve-ball’ that stuns the listeners into actually listening to and processing what is a radically counter-cultural view.

A view that deconstructs the whole of Abrahamic monotheism, particularly once I explain to people that all the pagan ideas that are grouped as ‘Satanic’ are really just the old traditions and ideas of the ancestors before Christianisation or Islamisation or whatever occurred.

There is also a strength that comes in not being afraid of what people think. To say these things in a calm voice and with a sense of command and purpose, turns heads and makes people want the kind of confidence that you have.

People will be thinking, “They called her a ‘Satanist’ and she didn’t even bat an eyelid. They called her a racist and she didn’t even care.” And so on. If you act like you are afraid of their epithets all the time, then they won’t follow you because you’ll appear weak. But if you just roll with whatever, then you actually appear strong, and what we are doing then starts to appear normalised, and perhaps even trendy.

I’ve been asked on numerous occasions for ‘more information’ by curious people, because they saw me doing something like that and wanted to know where I was getting my strength and resolve from.

In all cases, I would give them the socio-economic facts about the validity of ethno-nationalism as a world view, and on top of that I’d give them the idea that the Abrahamic god is a lie and that no one should have to pander to the ‘one god’ or even to the concept of a ‘one god’.

Victor on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 17:09 wrote:

To attack the Abrahamic cults, we have to be on a higher ground and use more positive terms.  Those who believe in God directly would call themselves Deists, for example.

In other words, taking them right back into the exact same problem again? The belief in the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, single monotheistic personal god, is the foundational lie of the Abrahamic religions. ‘Deism’ does not solve that fundamental problem.

The truth is that there is no creator of the earth. This world is not something that could have been created by anyone. It came from the bottom up, and those who were unscrupulous liars decided to allocate the credit for its creation to one regional desert god from the Levant. The lie has continued ever since.

Once you acknowledge that Jehovah is merely a regional deity, and that there is no ‘personal one god’ anywhere to be found, then you’ll understand everything.

The reason that the Abrahamics wanted to pretend that their god was ‘the only’, was because it was a naked and transparent bid for power over the minds of all humans. The Abrahamic god carries the authority that it carries only on the basis of a lie.

Victor on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 17:09 wrote:

The Jewish rag Time magazine has called the biggest Jewish whore/slut of the year, Angela Merkel, “Person of the Year.”  This was done as a way for the Jewish masters to reward the whore Angela Merkel for destroying her own country and people by flooding it with 3rd world aliens.

This I agree with you on. No one should be taking Time Magazine seriously anymore.


20

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 19:21 | #

As a follow-up to everything that I’ve been saying, I’ll also present the video that was produced by ISIL, called ‘Bring it On’ No Respite.

In this video, ISIL affirms the existence of only two camps, much like I described in my main article, and paints the fundamental contradiction between the camps as being one of ‘Shirk (idolatry/polytheism) and nationalism’, on one hand, and ‘Abrahamic monotheism’ on the other.

And it is the truth. In the world today, Islamic radicals are the most sincere and consistent proponents of Abrahamic monotheism. Everyone else is either lukewarm or in open opposition.

As a person who is in open opposition to monotheism, it is with great satisfaction that I present—for the sake of analysis—the ISIL video that Al-Hayat Media Centre put out:


[Youtube: ISIL: No Respite “Bring It On”]

ISIL seems pretty excited!

The fact that the coalition against ISIL is styled as ‘Operation Inherent Resolve’, is good, because that actually plays into ISIL’s views about the prophetic situation that is currently playing out in Mesopotamia.

ISIL invites us to meet them in Dabiq. I’d love to, we could cut the little throats of their pious Islamist children and crush them into the dirt, and then capture Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, their caliph, and put him in a detention centre where he can experience rectal feeding and other forms of anal rape, and then see what the Islamists will do next. How would they feel, I wonder?

One of the most powerful weapons that we can hope to wield against the Islamists, is to visibly crush all of their prophecies into the dirt without shame and without equivocation. We should completely humiliate them, so that they will grudgingly concede that their god does not run this world, and that in fact, we run this world, because we own it.


21

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:01 | #

Kumiko, how would you categorise the Moscow theatre hostage crisis of 2002 and the Beslan outrage of 2004, within the context of 4th/5th generation warfare?


22

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 02:38 | #

In order to understand that ball of yarn, you have to first understand that within Chechnya there are, roughly speaking, three blocks which do not agree with each other and which have different goals.

1. The present government of Chechnya under Kadyrov. That is essentially a government of race-treason, whose security forces act openly as the gendarmes of the Russian Federation. I won’t talk about them here because they are pretty straightforward.

2. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria under Dudayev, Yandarbiyev, and Maskhadov from 1991 to 2005, which was trending in a secular ethno-nationalist and separatist direction.

3. The so-called ‘Chechen Republic of Ichkeria’ after 2005, when Sadulayev and Umarov were able to drag it down the path of Islamism and toward the concept of delcaring the ‘Caucasus Emirate’, which most of the population of Chechnya had no interest in and which ended in disaster.

Then

The theatre crisis and the school crisis in both instances were cases of early 5th generation warfare presenting themselves as being 4th generation warfare, because of the contradictions between groups 2 and 3 that I enumerated above.

Maskhadov started trying to play triangulation games (unsuccessfully) with the Islamists, an action he felt he was forced to take because he thought it would be a good strategy for confusing and weakening the Islamist groups’ support in civil society. Most of the Chechen public was not interested in Islamism, and was interested in separatism and secularism.

People like Sadulayev—Islamist preachers—were more interested in Islam for its own sake, and so Sadulayev regarded Maskhadov as an enemy. Using the rubric of the Ichkerian independence rationale, people like Movsar Barayev carried out numerous terrorist attacks with a distinctly Islamist message behind them, but he also would tack on ‘independence for Chechnya’ as one of his demands. But the kind of independent Chechnya that the Islamists wanted was one that they wanted to be part of a ‘Caucasus Emirate’.

So it was a case of 4th generation which would eventually grow into 5th generation warfare at the same time as it was splitting into two different expressions, because within that society a power struggle for the future of the independence movement itself was going on at the same time.

Now

That’s why you may have noticed that this bifurcation continues even today.

For example, the Islamist anti-racist Chechens gravitated toward an ever-more ethnically diverse composition of fighters within their ranks, and eventually ended up throwing in their lot with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, some of them even travelling to ISIL’s territory to take up residency there.

On the flip-side, the ethno-nationalist Chechens gravitated toward Europe, many of them relocated to safe havens in places like Denmark, Poland, Georgia, and of course Western Ukraine. They would comprise people like the now unforgettable fighter Isa Akhyadovich Munayev, whose fight against the Russian Slavs seems to be entirely based on a blood-feud. It was people like him who brought the world the wonderful quotes like, “I will fight against Jews and Russians until I die”, and “Any enemy of the Russian Federation is without any preconditions, a friend of mine”.

Understanding that wide gap, enables you to also see echoes of this in the Western European ethno-nationalist movements as well. There are on one hand the Christian traditionalists who place Abrahamic tradition ahead of ethnic preservation, and then there are on the other hand the ethno-nationalists who keep secularist and non-traditionalist ethno-nationalism as a core element of the platform at all times. I would anticipate that if the Chechen pattern manifests here too, we’ll see that over time these two groups (and I say ‘groups’ because they are indeed separate groupings, the word ‘wings’ does not accurately portray it) will widen until they in fact are outright enemies of each other which grow in totally different directions because they are actually different tendencies altogether.

I’ve answered more than that question you’ve asked, but it was on my mind so I thought I’d just put it out there. I might cover this in more detail in a separate article one day, if needed.


23

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 05:24 | #

Victor, you scumbag troll. I know you and removed your comment originally for a reason, because this, what you say here was an attempt to put words into my mouth that I did not say (and to derail the thread into nonsense):

First of all, I agree with the commentator above (DanielS) that we cannot call ourselves as supporters of Satan, because of its intensively negative meaning.  To attack the Abrahamic cults, we have to be on a higher ground and use more positive terms.  Those who believe in God directly would call themselves Deists, for example.

I agree with nothing of the kind because I did not say that.

Kumiko is unfamiliar with your trolling games, and wanted the opportunity to use you as a foil (which is about all you are good for when you are not confusing and diverting threads, as you hope to do).

Next, I have to address a nuance that Kumko is not seeing about what I mean, when she says:

After all, it was you who said that you wouldn’t address the rest of my post until I had addressed the issue of economics and prosperity in general. All I have been saying the whole time, is that you have to be able and willing to offer people a narrative that allows them to unify their near term material interests with the long term strategy and ideas of a movement, whatever those near term material interests might be. Whether those interests involving holding onto what they have had, or gaining what they have never had, the same template would still apply.

That’s all I was saying, I don’t think it should be so controversial.

Kumiko, you misunderstand me still. For wont of a few words and transitional phrases in that half sentence… it can be said to be a matter of nuance, emphasis and the first perspective appropriated given the audience.

But there is a more fundamental misunderstanding of the question which stemmed from lack of that emphasis and perspective: I did not ask you to elaborate an economic view of motivation, I asked you to express understanding of the non-economic motivations of European peoples in Europe and diaspora. This is not a matter of weakness nor arguing from a position of weakness - so it does not compromise your argument.

Their material concerns are not only nor necessarily most radically economic.

The material concerns that they want to hold-onto often are about the “material” of their genetics, their people and boundaries.

These are very real concerns (of White power, so to speak) that the power brokers of the elite are going to have to recognize and concede to if they want organic White nationalist compliance.


24

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:16 | #

Terrific reply, Kumiko.  I really was not expecting that.

It does seem that the search among certain violent groups for the ultimate form of low-tech warfare against a militarily conventional power reached its logical point of realisation in Beslan, then for whatever reason took a step back, and has only now thrown over the moral traces sufficiently, with its public crucifixions and beheadings, and its attacks on public venues in the West, to venture forward again.  I can quite foresee the day when these monsters will commit episodic slaughters of nursery school children in the name of Allah the Great, Allah the Merciful.


25

Posted by Poll: Americans more concerned ab terrorism on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:36 | #

Breitbart, CBS Poll: ‘Terrorism Beats Economy as Top Concern for First Time in a Decade’, 10 Dec. 2015:

For the first time since 2006, terrorism ranks higher than the economy as a concern for voters, according to a new CBS News poll.

Terrorism was the top concern for 14 percent of voters in the poll, while the economy was number one for 12 percent.

Even more dramatically, 44 percent of Americans thought another terrorist attack within the next few months is very likely.  CBS notes that represents a 16 point increase from two weeks ago–i.e. a result of the San Bernardino terrorist attack–and the highest concern level they have recorded since 9/11.  Poll respondents thought such an attack was more likely to come from people already living in the United States than overseas terrorist operatives


26

Posted by Rotherham victim used to settle debts on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 06:03 | #

Rotherham grooming victim was used to settle debts

DAILYKENN.com—A 14-year-old girl was raped up to three times per day during her enslavement by an Islamic grooming ring based in Rotherham, England. She was also used to settle debts, a court in Rotherham heard.

The plight of the girl was made public during a court hearing. She is one of twelve victims of the ring.

Muslims in Rotherham, called “people” by the media, target vulnerable young girls for sexualization. Islamic predictors target young victims with unstable family backgrounds.


27

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:12 | #

Coming back then, with what long ago in this thread was supposed to be my next question.

You answered it in part very well, here:

When I appeal to ‘do as thou wilt is the whole of the law’, I say this because the idea of doing what we need to do is something that has been placed outside of consideration by the established moralisers, and the best way to break down their moral order is to boldly declare that we want no part of it.

Though I sill have more questions about this idea of “do as thou wilt as the whole of the law”

That sounds to me like the philosophy of morals version of what “the invisible hand” is to the free market; i.e., just as there is a dubious notion that the market will simply take care of and merely correct itself, that individual prerogatives will accrue to the best ends overall without some guidance from, say, learned places or well placed and circulated social prescriptions to be adopted by consensus and obligation where necessary…[?]


28

Posted by Solstice Greetings from TT on Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:23 | #

          Solistice Greetings from Terrible Tommy Metzger


29

Posted by Globalization vs The White Left on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 23:22 | #

Greg Johnson describes market forces impervious to racial ethnic, ethno-national, cultural and religious maintenance.

It was a significant concession that he’d recognize “the left” as a positive force here:

Globalization means a reversal of the progress and living standards since the industrial revolution, specifically, globalization means a reversal of the genuine progress made by the left.

Our hope is for ethno-nationalism girded by the White Left in opposition to the globalizing forces of Neo-Liberalism and Money for nothing


30

Posted by UK: male suicide rate ignored on Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:25 | #

Guardian, ‘Let’s reach out to men to halt shocking suicide rate’ 31 Oct 2015:

New campaign targets ‘gender-blindness’ over deaths of under-45s

A provocative campaign to highlight awareness of male suicide is to be launched amid concerns that it remains the UK’s single biggest cause of death among men under the age of 45, while the number of women taking their lives has fallen significantly.

Figures collated by the Campaign Against Living Miserably (Calm) show there were 4,623 male suicides in the UK in 2014, the second highest number in 15 years and the equivalent of 12 deaths a day. Three-quarters of suicides in the UK are by men, but Jane Powell, chief executive of Calm, said there was “no effort to get a handle on the scale of the issue, no support for the suicidal”.

She added: “The figures stay the same because nationally we don’t do anything about it. We don’t look at the position of men in society – we might know that more men take their lives, but this isn’t taken into consideration. When it comes to suicide prevention, we are almost gender-blind.”


31

Posted by Compulsory Diversity News: Jebus Sabus on Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:02 | #

From Compulsory Diversity News: Happy Jebus’s Birfday!

Jebus’s birfday is a confusing time for we White non-Jebusists, even more so if we are racially aware. Who is this Jebus? Why is he different? Those kikes produced messiahs by the sack-full. At any rate, I have decided that for this December 25th, I shall share with you my favorite Jebus memes from the interwebs.

   


32

Posted by Mortality rates up dramatically for young Whites on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:19 | #

Mortality rates for young Whites has risen dramatically, particularly for young White women.

NYTimes, ‘Drug Overdoses Propel Rise in Mortality Rates of Young Whites’ 16 Jan 2016:

Drug overdoses are driving up the death rate of young white adults in the United States to levels not seen since the end of the AIDS epidemic more than two decades ago — a turn of fortune that stands in sharp contrast to falling death rates for young blacks, a New York Times analysis of death certificates has found.

The rising death rates for those young white adults, ages 25 to 34, make them the first generation since the Vietnam War years of the mid-1960s to experience higher death rates in early adulthood than the generation that preceded it.

The Times analyzed nearly 60 million death certificates collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1990 to 2014. It found death rates for non-Hispanic whites either rising or flattening for all the adult age groups under 65 — a trend that was particularly pronounced in women — even as medical advances sharply reduce deaths from traditional killers like heart disease. Death rates for blacks and most Hispanic groups continued to fall.

The analysis shows that the rise in white mortality extends well beyond the 45- to 54-year-old age group documented by a pair of Princeton economists in a research paper that startled policy makers and politicians two months ago.

While the death rate among young whites rose for every age group over the five years before 2014, it rose faster by any measure for the less educated, by 23 percent for those without a high school education, compared with only 4 percent for those with a college degree or more.

The drug overdose numbers were stark. In 2014, the overdose death rate for whites ages 25 to 34 was five times its level in 1999, and the rate for 35- to 44-year-old whites tripled during that period. The numbers cover both illegal and prescription drugs.

“That is startling,” said Dr. Wilson Compton, the deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Those are tremendous increases.”

Rising rates of overdose deaths and suicide appear to have erased the benefits from advances in medical treatment for most age groups of whites. Death rates for drug overdoses and suicides “are running counter to those of chronic diseases,” like heart disease, said Ian Rockett, an epidemiologist at West Virginia University.


33

Posted by We are "like Pilate" - almost on Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:01 | #

We are like Pilate - almost - the difference being that we are not indifferent.

Breitbart, Pope Francis: Those Who Are Indifferent to Migrants Are Like Pontius Pilate, 21 March 2016:

In his homily at Palm Sunday Mass, Pope Francis compared Jesus’ sufferings in his Passion to the treatment of outcasts, asylum-seekers and refugees in our own day, saying that Pontius Pilate exhibited the same sort of indifference that migrants face today.

The readings of the day emphasize Jesus’ radical humility, Francis said, who lived among us in “the condition of a servant” rather than that of a king or a prince, and the abyss of his humiliation “seems to be bottomless.”

He bent down to wash the feet of his disciples, laying aside his role as “Lord and Master” and preferring the position of a servant. He is “sold for thirty pieces of silver and betrayed by the kiss of a disciple whom he had chosen and called his friend.” His friends flee and abandon him, and “Peter denies him three times in the courtyard of the temple,” Francis reminded the tens of thousands of faithful gathered in Saint Peter’s Square for the Mass.

The Pope said that Jesus experiences shame and disgraceful condemnation by religious and political authorities, being shuffled around as nobody’s problem. “Pilate then sends him to Herod, who in turn sends him to the Roman governor,” Francis said, and “even as every form of justice is denied to him, Jesus also experiences in his own flesh indifference, since no one wishes to take responsibility for his fate.”

It was the Roman procurator Pilate, in fact, who famously washed his hands in full view of the crowds, refusing to be held accountable for the fate of Jesus. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

“And I think of the many people, so many outcasts, so many asylum seekers, so many refugees, all of those for whose fate no one wishes to take responsibility,” he said.

The crowds are very fickle, Francis continued, and those who acclaimed him on Palm Sunday change their praise “into a cry of accusation” on Good Friday, even to the point of preferring that a murderer be released in his place.

“To be totally in solidarity with us,” the Pope said, “he also experiences on the Cross the mysterious abandonment of the Father. In his abandonment, however, he prays and entrusts himself: ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.’”

Jesus refuses to react with force, however, but instead “reveals the true face of God, which is mercy,” Francis said.

“He forgives those who are crucifying him, he opens the gates of paradise to the repentant thief and he touches the heart of the centurion,” he said. Jesus pours himself out; he “takes upon himself all our pain that he may redeem it, bringing light to darkness, life to death, love to hatred.”

By humbling himself, “Jesus invites us to walk on his path,” Francis concluded. “Let us turn our faces to him, let us ask for the grace to understand at least something of the mystery of his obliteration for our sake.”


34

Posted by Satan vs Dzerzhinsky on Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:04 | #

Joy of Satan, Exposing the Jewish Criminal Felix Dzerzhinsky, 6 Oct 2015:

TelocVovim666 User avatar

 
Click image for clip

Exposing the Jewish Criminal Felix Dzerzhinsky

“We stand for organized terror – this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity” - Felix Dzerzhinsky


Felix Dzerzhinsky (1877 – 1926) was a jew and an infamous drug-addict and sadist, known for the mass terror he caused as head of the jewish cheka. Dzerzhinsky was born on the territory of the Republic of Belarus, Dzerzhinsky father was Jewish and his mother was of Polish origin. His family also spoke Polish and Yiddish. Most sources claim Dzerzhinsky and his family were Catholic due to his father falsifying nobility, trying to hide the fact he was jewish. His father’s last name was Rubin (Other variations from different sources include Rutin, Rufin) which is a jewish last name.

Before he became an infamous fiend, Dzerzhinsky was considering becoming a Jesuit priest. He later began to take to marxist ideology and joined a Marxist group, the Union of Workers (Socjaldemokracja Królestwa Polskiego “SDKP”), in 1895. Dzerzhinsky became fluent in four languages: Polish, Russian, Yiddish, and Latin. Dzerzhinsky had worked in a book-binding factory, where he set up an illegal press. Dzerzhinsky was also a follower of Rosa Luxemburg (jew).

Dzerzhinsky organized a shoemaker’s strike, where he was arrested for “criminal agitation among the Kaunas workers” and the police files from this time state that: “Felix Dzerzhinsky, considering his views, convictions and personal character, will be very dangerous in the future, capable of any crime.”

Dzerzhinsky subsequently became one of the founders of Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL) in 1899. In February of 1900, he was arrested again and served his time at first in the Alexander Citadel in Warsaw and later at the Siedlce prison.

In 1902, Dzerzhinsky was sent deep into Siberia for the next five years in a remote town of Vilyuysk, while en route being temporarily held at the Alexandrovsk Transitional Prison near Irkutsk. To the place of exile he escaped on a boat and later emigrated out of the country.

He then traveled to Berlin where at the SDKPiL conference Dzerzhinsky was elected a secretary of its party committee abroad (KZ) and met with several prominent leaders of the Polish Social Democratic movement Rosa Luxemburg (jew) and Leo Jogiches (jew).

Dzerzhinsky was a Soviet statesman and was a member of several revolutionary committees such as the Polish Revkom, as well as several Russian and Soviet official positions.
Revkom, was a revolutionary committee created under the patronage of Soviet Russia with the goal to establish a Polish Soviet Socialist Republic.


Dzerzhinsky and other jews gained control of the party organization through the creation of a committee called the Komitet Zagraniczny or KZ. As secretary of the KZ, Dzerzhinsky was able to dominate the SDKPiL. In Berlin, he organized publishing of “Czerwony Sztandar” and transportation of illegal literature from Kraków to the Congress of Poland.

Later Dzerzhinsky went to Switzerland where his fiancée Julia Goldman (jew) was undergoing treatment for tuberculosis. She died on June 4, 1904, his father also died of tuberculosis. After a failed revolution, Dzerzhinsky was again jailed in July of 1905, this time by the Okhrana. In October, he was released on amnesty.

As a delegate to the 4th Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, Dzerzhinsky entered the central body of the party. From July through September 1906, he stayed in Saint Petersburg and then returned to Warsaw where he was arrested again in December of the same year.

In June 1907, Dzerzhinsky was released on bail. At the 5th Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, he was elected in absentia as a member of the Central Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. In April 1908, Dzerzhinsky was arrested once again in Warsaw and in 1909 he was exiled to Siberia again. As before Dzerzhinsky managed to escape by November 1909 and then back to Poland in 1910.

Dzerzhinsky remained to direct the Social Democratic Party, while considering his continued freedom “only a game of the Okhrana”. The Okhrana, however, was not playing a game; Dzerzhinsky simply like most jews, was a liar and was extremely difficult to find.The police however were unable to arrest Dzerzhinsky until the end of 1912, when they found the apartment where he lived, by the name of Władysław Ptasiński. Dzerzhinsky would spend the next four and one-half years in tsarist prisons.

Felix Dzerzhinsky was freed from Butyrka after the February Revolution of 1917. Soon after his release, Dzerzhinsky’s goal was to organize Polish refugees in Russia and then go back to Poland and fight for the revolution there.

In Moscow he joined the Bolshevik party, writing to his comrades that “the Bolshevik party organization is the only Social Democratic organization of the proletariat, and if we were to stay outside of it, then we would find ourselves outside of the proletarian revolutionary struggle”.

April he entered the Moscow Committee of the Bolsheviks and soon thereafter was elected to the Executive Committee of the Moscow Soviet. Dzerzhinsky endorsed Lenin’s April Theses—demanding uncompromising opposition to the Russian Provisional Government, the transfer of all political authority to the Soviets, and the immediate withdrawal of Russia from the war. Ironically, Dzerzhinsky’s brother, Stanislaw, was murdered on the Dzerzhinsky estate by deserting Russian soldiers that same year.

Dzerzhinsky was elected to the Bolshevik Central Committee at the Sixth Party Congress in late July. He then moved from Moscow to Petrograd to begin his new responsibilities. In Petrograd, Dzerzhinsky participated in the crucial session of the Central Committee in October and he strongly endorsed Lenin’s demands for the immediate preparation of a rebellion, after which Felix Dzerzhinsky had an active role with the Military Revolutionary Committee during the October Revolution. With the acquisition of power by the Bolsheviks, Dzerzhinsky eagerly assumed responsibility for making security arrangements at the Smolny Institute where the Bolsheviks had their headquarters.

Lenin(jew) regarded Felix Dzerzhinsky as a revolutionary hero and appointed him to organize a force to combat internal threats. On December 20, 1917, the Council of People’s Commissars officially established the All-Russia Extraordinary Commission to Combat Counter-revolution and Sabotage, known as the Cheka. The word “Cheka” is not only an acronym in Russian for “Special Commission for Fighting Counter-Revolution,” but also is a Yiddish expression for animal slaughter.

Dzerzhinsky oversaw the “first camp of the Gulag,” the Solovetsky. Where, according to Anne Applebaum’s Gulag: A History, “the Cheka learned how to use slave labor for profit.” Records show how brutal, and corrupt Dzerzhinsky’s Cheka was. Stalin had said, “He[Dzerzhinsky] didn’t shirk from dirty work.”

As the Russian Civil War expanded, Dzerzhinsky also began organizing internal security troops to enforce the Cheka’s authority. Tens of thousands of political opponents were shot without trial in the basements of prisons and in public places. Dzerzhinsky said: “We represent in ourselves organized terror—this must be said very clearly.” and “the terrorization, arrests and extermination of enemies of the revolution on the basis of their class affiliation or of their pre-revolutionary roles.”

The Cheka rounded up all those who were under suspicion of not supporting the Jewish Bolshevik government; including Civil or military servicemen suspected of working for Imperial Russia; families of officers-volunteers (including children); all clergy; workers, peasants and any other person whose private property was valued at over 10,000 rubles. The Cheka practiced torture and methods included being skinned alive, scalped, “crowned” with barbed wire, impaled, crucified, hanged, stoned to death, tied to planks and pushed slowly into furnaces or tanks of boiling water, or rolled around naked in internally nail-studded barrels. Women and children were also victims of Cheka terror. Women would sometimes be tortured and raped before being shot. Children between the ages of 8 and 13 were imprisoned and executed. Cheka was actively and openly utilizing kidnapping methods and with it was able to extinguish numerous people especially among the rural population. Villages were also bombarded to complete annihilation.

When ordered to their work they were told: “You are digging your own grave. You must be happy that tomorrow your own kind will be picking up the pieces of your cadavers.” People had their eyes gouged out, their tongues severed, and their ears sliced off. People were also buried alive.

The German Army discovered a chamber full of torture devices, including a testicle-cracker, in an underground chamber in Ukraine in 1941. Adapted dentist drills were used to drill deep into the brain. The cheka sawed off the top of people’s skulls and forced others to eat their brains. The Jews were free to indulge their most fervent fantasies of mass murder of helpless victims. Gentiles were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed.

Some were actually sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain. Others were placed in boxes with only their heads, hands and legs sticking out. Then hungry rats were placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their fingers or by their feet, and left hanging until they died of exhaustion.

“The whole cement floor of the execution hall of the Jewish Cheka of Kiev was flooded with blood; it formed a level of several inches. It was a horrible mixture of blood, brains and pieces of skull. All the walls was bespattered with blood. Pieces of brains and of scalps were sticking to them. A gutter of 25 centimeters wide by 25 centimeters deep and about 10 meters long was along its length full to the top with blood.

The Jewish Communist Chekists took pleasure in brutally torturing their victims and “The more one studies the revolution the more one is convinced that Bolshevism is a Jewish movement which can be explained by the special conditions in which the Jewish people were placed in Russia.”

Here follows a list of jewish members of the leadership of the Cheka when the mass terror began in 1918:
Felix Dzerzhinsky (chairman)
Yakov Peters (Vice-Chairman and chief of the Revolutionary Tribunals)
Viktor Shklovsky
Kneifis
Zeistin
Krenberg
Maria Khaikina
Sachs
Stepan Shaumyan
Seizyan
Delafabr
Blumkin
Alexandrovich
Zitkin
Zalman Ryvkin
Reintenberg
Fines
Yakov Goldin
Golperstein
Knigessen
Deibkin
Schillenckus
Yelena Rozmirovich
G. Sverdlov
I. Model
Deibol
Zaks
Yanson
Leontievich
Libert
Antonov
Yakov Agranov (Sorenson), who became especially feared.

In 1922, at the end of the Civil War, the Cheka was renamed as the GPU (State Political Directorate), a section of the NKVD. This did not diminish Dzerzhinsky’s power; he was Minister of the Interior, director of the Cheka/GPU/OGPU, Minister for Communications, and director of the Vesenkha (Supreme Council of National Economy) 1921–24.
Dzerzhinsky died suddenly under mysterious circumstances on July, 20 1926, but the official report says he died of a heart attack . Before his death, Dzerzhinsky began to express his desire to have as much power as Stalin(jew). Stalin was interested in “inheriting” the money Dzerzhinsky had put into foreign bank accounts. Upon hearing of his death, Joseph Stalin(jew) eulogized Dzerzhinsky as “...a devout knight of the proletariat.” [My note, Two faced murdering jews]

Dzerzhinsky name and image were used widely throughout the KGB and the Soviet Union and other socialist countries: there were six towns named after him. He was nicknamed Iron Felix but this can also refer to a 15-ton iron monument of Dzerzhinsky, which once dominated the Lubyanka Square in Moscow, near the KGB headquarters. Mass murderer, terrorist, and jewish beast Felix Dzerzhinsky has been made out to be a hero…

In 2005, the Government of Belarus rebuilt the manor house of Dzerzhinovo, where Dzerzhinsky was born, and established a museum. In 1943, the manor had been destroyed and family members (including Dzerzhinsky’s brother Kazimierz) were killed.

Also President Vladimir Putin(jew) signed a decree restoring the title “Dzerzhinsky Division” to an elite police unit that was previously named after communist mass murderer, Felix Dzerzhinsky. The Dzerzhinsky Division ensured security at the Potsdam Conference of 1945 and the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics. - http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... 07588.html

Jewish poet/author Heinrich Heine wrote, “The deeds of the Jews are as little known to the world as their true nature.” Very true statement, until now. We are beginning to scratch the surface of the jewish crimes committed against humanity. Many truths will come out in the age of Satan, and people will see the vile truth about the jews. Everyone should do their own research and try and reach as many people as possible (Anti Tracks, Online Warfare etc..). The reverse torah rituals are very important, they are making quite an impact. A lot of information, especially about jewish crimes and or communist crimes, are withheld from the public and from historians. They CAN’T
hide their crimes forever!

 

Resources*
The Black Book of Communism
http://holodomorinfo.com/glossery/jewis ... erzhinsky/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky
Through the labyrinth of Murder - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... pion07.htm
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog ... zerzhinsky
http://deathofcommunism.weebly.com/jewi ... chine.html
” Truth will ultimately prevail where there are pains to bring it to light ” - George Washington

Image

http://joyofsatan.org/
http://spiritualwarfare666.webs.com/Satans_Library.htm
http://satanic-beauty.weebly.com/


35

Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:13 | #

Paula White, described as Donald Trump’s “God Whisperer”, says that Trump “Whether people like it or not - has been raised up by God” and that “When you fight against the plan of God, you are fighting against the hand of God”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STcgXcxOhNc&t=112s
Hmm. “The key of joy is disobedience” - Aleister Crowley.
Hail Lucifer…


36

Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:28 | #

Oh, I forgot là-bas grin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQpZv2r8fb4


37

Posted by Trobar De Morte on Sat, 20 Oct 2018 06:57 | #

Mancinblack: Trobar De Morte from Barcelona at Rognard Rockfest (2016). Better in the studio, I reckon but I like @1.37. Forget that Roman thing, it’s sooo last Century #KoolKids

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i35lDP6ITE0&t=106s


Thanks Mancinblack, I see what you mean - a sight for sore eyes.


38

Posted by Light in the Darkness... Saint Lucia on Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:09 | #



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

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

Remember me


Next entry: Counter-cultural ruminations – Part 1
Previous entry: Hitler as Caesar - i.e., a historical lesson

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement 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

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:32. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:47. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:15. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:02. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:38. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:36. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:50. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

affection-tone