TRS founder Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich was exposed as being a Russian Jew.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 16 January 2017 03:42.

Look at that email address.

Viewing the source behind the web archive from 2014 reveals something amazing.

This article is Part 1 of an ongoing series about the TRS scandal.
See also: Part 2.

Order of Battle

As you all are aware, Mike Enoch, now revealed to be actually Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich, is the founder of the website The Right Stuff, which opened in 2012 and hosts the popular and dubiously overwrought podcasts Fash the Nation and The Daily Shoah.

The Right Stuff has spent the entirety of the past four years serving up piping-hot reactionary narratives all of which just so happen to serve the geostrategic agenda of the architects of Russian foreign policy by carrying out Active Measures, American domestic honeypot agenda of the FBI, and the Israeli security agenda.

But if anyone had pointed that out before today, such a person would have been called ‘paranoid’ and even ‘insane’. After today however, such a person would simply be called ‘well informed’.

Note: The name ‘Pejnovic’ has a diaspora in 20 countries worldwide and has its highest concentration in Zagreb, Gospic and Klenovac, Croatia. It is found in small numbers in Peru, in the United States, and in the Russian Federation. ‘Peinovich’ is a Russian-Jewish variant that found its way into the diaspora of the United States and in Argentina.

The whole saga leading up to the revelation of Enoch’s real identity, started after Red Ice Radio hosted a show on 26 December 2016 in which Reactionary Jew was invited on as a guest and Lana Lokteff asked the audience to give them feedback on whether right-wing Jews have a place in the supposedly ethno-nationalist political scene that has recently been emerging in the west.

This question was of course met with outrage from various quarters as would be expected. But what was truly interesting was that many of the users and even some global moderators at The Right Stuff began to respond to that provocative question in the affirmative. That was met with deep suspicion by everyone, because it is suspicious.

The controversy and trolling then moved to 4chan /pol/, which is basically the wild west. People from The Right Stuff orchestrated a two week long posting and sliding campaign in which non-stop wall-to-wall pro-Israel propaganda posts and threads were created by them. 4chan /pol/ moderators then began banning all of the TRS people who were doing that, and the details of the bans were then taken back to the TRS forums and presented there.

This is just an example of some of the things that the TRS people were putting up:

4chan post 106813204

4chan post 106807711

TRS then proceeded to deny everything. They claimed that other groups were impersonating them. Some claimed that Hillary Clinton’s CTR was conducting pseudo-operations against them. Some claimed that EU Stratcom was targeting them. Some claimed that British intelligence was targeting them. Some claimed that ‘SJWs’ and Chicago Antifa were trolling them. They claimed that somehow Stormfront was trying to make them look bad. The claims were feverish and frenetic, bold and brash, and all diversionary nonsense.

Somewhere along the way, the TRS people decided that since they were trapped in that situation, the ultimate distraction would be to initiate a miniature Cyberwar against 8chan for no apparent reason. TRS decided to attempt a DDoS against 8chan. It failed. At this point, 8chan /baphomet/ became interested in the feud and many of its denizens informed TRS that they must stop their behaviour immediately, and that they must also apologise for the DDoS attacks and that they must apologise for making the pro-Israel posts, on air, or it would be war.

TRS basically then told 8chan /baphomet/ to “bring it on”.

8chan is however, an anonymous message board that sits on the edge of the Darknet. So they brought it, but no one really will ever know who ‘they’ are. TRS found itself being DDoS’d and this forced them to take shelter under Cloudflare. While the TRS staff were attending to that, they also found themselves being doxxed and the process was being crowdsourced on 8chan /baphomet/.

TRS then tried to go back to 4chan /pol/ and play the two sites against each other by claiming that 8chan /baphomet/ were actually the Antifa. Of course, TRS had just previously bombastically accused 4chan /pol/ of being the Hillary campaign on one hand and of being western intelligence on the other, so no one at 4chan was really in the mood for yet another round of that nonsense again. Furthermore, TRS had misunderstood the nature of anonymous message boards, supposing that there was a real dividing line between the ‘communities’ at 8chan and at 4chan. There is no such dividing line in actuality, because no one is seriously loyal to an anonymous message board. It’s just a vehicle through which various actors can drape themselves in a cloak of trendy anonymity. There is no ‘community’.

The Right Stuff subsequently found itself being Blown The Fuck Out by all of its adversaries, and all of their adversaries were able to maintain anonymity during the process.

Isn’t that marvellous?

Outcomes

It turns out that Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich is a Javascript Developer and a Public Relations Professional who has worked as a Front End Developer at BurrellesLuce, Time Inc, and Vook. He’s from New York. Vook was later rebranded as Pronoun, and is now a subsidiary of Holtzbrink Publishing Group.

Oh, and Peinovich is a Russian Jew married to a Jewish woman named Ames Friedman.

In 2010 he ran an Anarcho-capitalist blog called ‘Emptiness’, at which his wife made several comments with her real name.

In the same year, Peinovich also wrote an article for the Mises Institute.

On 03 July 2015, Peinovich appeared on Red Ice Radio, and actually mentioned that article which he had written for the Mises Institute, when he was explaining to them that he ‘used to be a libertarian’. He cryptically commented after the 13 minutes 25 seconds timestamp, “if you find it, ask if it’s me, and if you get it right, maybe I’ll tell you.”

At this point I don’t think anyone will need to be making any guesses about that anymore. On top of that, Peinovich earlier admitted to everything on the TRS forums before basically transforming himself into the ‘shut it down’ meme and shutting everything down:

TRS 504ums post 722450

There is no more speculation, there is only fact. Mike ‘Enoch’ Peinovich in fact admitted to what he has done.

Datamining concerns

Assuming that the entire TRS entity either originated as or became a full spectrum Information Operation, it means that all the usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, access logs, security questions, and password hashes that were submitted by people who—against all good advice—chose to actually register on the ridiculous TRS forum have a not-insignificant probability of falling into the hands of any number of adversaries who Peinovich may have allegiance to. FBI? Mossad? Who even knows at this point?

Does anyone really think this story is over? For some people, the problems may only just have begun.

Questions Remain

The remaining question would be, who knew about Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich’s Jewish identity before it was exposed today, when did they know, and if anyone did know, why wasn’t it exposed via normal channels much earlier?

A lot of people were in a position to have noticed the fact that Peinovich was in fact a Russian Jew orchestrating a massive disinformation campaign against everyone, one which may have influenced the outcome of the American election and created significant disruption in other English-speaking countries.

This is a partial list of the people who have directly interacted with Peinovich in some way over the past few years, and who one would think ordinarily should have detected that something was very wrong:

  • Richard Spencer
  • Greg Johnson
  • Kevin MacDonald
  • Colin Liddell
  • Jared Taylor
  • Andrew Anglin
  • Lana Lokteff
  • Henrik Palmgren
  • David Duke
  • Colin ‘Millenial Woes’ Robertson
  • Kyle Bristow
  • James Edwards
  • John Friend
  • Sam Dickson
  • Jack Donovan
  • William Regnery
  • Andrew ‘Weev’ Auernheimer

It’s truly astounding that supposedly none of those people noticed anything, despite them having either worked with him and having been in interviews with him, or them having called in to TRS during its radio shows. At one point, Peinovich was even brought into a live podcast during the NPI 2015 conference.

Of particular significance is Peinovich’s relationship to Kyle Bristow. Bristow is the Executive Director of Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, Inc., an Alt-Right organisation that advocates on behalf of Alt-Right figures and coordinates legal services for them. Peinovich joined its board of directors on 11 December 2016, joining five lawyers, and law student, and a journalist who were already on the board of directors there. I presume they too might like everyone to believe that they didn’t notice anything?

Another one of key significance is Peinovich’s connection to Andrew ‘Weev’ Auerenheimer. Weev is the person who basically did a significant amount of work on the TRS website in order to ‘secure’ it. At some point between 2014 and 2017, the Paypal donations on that site were deactivated and only the Bitcoin donations remained. If Weev was the one who implemented that change, did he not notice the email address linked to their Paypal account was a glaring giveaway about who Mike Enoch really is? But if he did notice the disturbing truth, why did he not alert anyone? Many people could speculate.

Here are some examples of obvious clues that they could have picked up on:

Rebel Yell 145, at 19m55s

Rebel Yell 145, at 25m10s

Rebel Yell 145, at 28m00s

Just as large swathes of the American population were getting ready to give up on the system as it presently exists and to instead settle into total cynicism, along came the Trumpists and outlets like The Right Stuff, who managed to revitalise and rescue the ridiculous system yet again!

And also there was this extra incident here:

Mike Enoch basically admits he's Jewish!

Fucking incredible. All of the anti-semitic rhetoric that was going on there basically was a cover for the fact that a whole Jewish operation was being conducted right under the noses of the supposedly ‘red pilled’ and ‘savvy’ generation of new American right-wing activists.

Over the coming days and weeks, I’m sure that all kinds of explanations will be forthcoming from all of those people. The question that needs to be asked over and over again, is this: Who knew about Peinovich’s Jewish identity before today, and if any of them did know, when precisely did they know, and why did they not reveal it as soon as they became aware of it?


Related Articles:




Comments:


1

Posted by (((MikeEnoch Peinovich))) on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:41 | #

It is indeed, a supreme irony that the coiner of the (((bracket meme))), one setting himself above, as the ultimate expositor of bracketed interests, is bracket central: Nice email you got there ((Mike “Enoch”))) (((Peinovich))).


2

Posted by (((Weev))) on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:47 | #

       
Another article exposing (((Weev))), the master web-technician of TRS and the Daily Stormer.

Majorityrights article on (((Weev))) from April 2016.


3

Posted by Henry on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:31 | #

Conned again, girlies. 

From your September 14th posting:

Our very own Mike Enoch will be hosting an AMA on Reddit tomorrow at 9pm Eastern. There’ll probably be at least a hundred, maybe a hundred and twenty questions, and you want to get in there early so you’re not one of the two or three that goes unanswered in the morning.

I sure hope those 120 marks got their questions answered.


4

Posted by Matt Parrott on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:23 | #

You can take Heimbach right off that list.

TRS had a longstanding policy from its very beginning of banning Heimbach from its network, banning Heimbach from its forums, and helped spread the rumor that we’re shills. Only within the past few months, through sneaking in through the Confederate back door, was Heimbach allowed as a guest on secondary shows on the large network. They threw their weight behind National Youth Front, behind Identity Evropa, behind American Vanguard. They did everything they could to oppose us, up to and including Ghoul, the #2 guy, openly attacking and memeing against Heimbach and his wife.

Our hands are sparkling clean on this one, ma’am.


5

Posted by Mathematician on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:42 | #

Can I get a link proving that Peinovich is a name of jewish origin?


6

Posted by Dart on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:53 | #

The organizers of NPI would have to have known his identity. Richard Spencer and anyone else involved.


7

Posted by Dart on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:05 | #

It is also worth noting that Enoch was the man responsible for “heilgate” by throwing up the Roman salute for the MSM cameras at NPI. So we have the man largely responsible for rallying the “alt right” around the Trump campaign, and then the same man is responsible for giving justification for Trump disavowing them.


8

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:06 | #

Mike Enoch is indeed a fat kike.  The best thing I can say about him is that he doesn’t take it up the ass like that old sissy Winston Churchill used to.  Lulz


9

Posted by AutoSkorzeny on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:22 | #

How could Richard Spencer not know? Well, why does he refuse to take a DNA/ancestry test and make the results public? Why is his long tutelage under the Likudnik Jew Prof. Paul Gottfried so continually dismissed? How could people not spot how consistently cagey and POSTMODERN Spencer has been on the realities and empirical boundaries of race? Richard Spencer cannot take a DNA/ancestry test and let the results out. That is why.

Spencer and Gottfried:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/218712/spencer-gottfried-alt-right


10

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:24 | #

@Matt Parrot:
That seems correct, if they were deliberately shutting you guys out (which I can see they were), then actually you would not have been in a position to find out anything. You could not have known. As such, I’ll just remove Heimbach from the list. He really shouldn’t have been on there.

@Dart:
Pretty much. The NPI people had to know that something was going on.


11

Posted by Dart on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:58 | #

I also do not think Anglin knew. He only did radio with them a few times and probably did not meet any of the people in person (not that Anglin himself isn’t suspicious and compromised by self-admitted Jew and troll Andrew weev Auernheimer).


12

Posted by Jesse on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:40 | #

Wrong. Don’t spread lies. Mike is NOT a Jew but his wife who he married 10 years ago is a 1/4 Jewish. He only woke up to the JQ 2 years ago. TRS started off as a Libertarian focused talk show.

None of this started because of Lana’s interview with Reactionary Jew. That is gossip.


13

Posted by dsc on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:53 | #

What is it with the Alt-Right and Blonde Jewesses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_lwSQcIWVs


14

Posted by uh on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:55 | #

Oh who cares. Ninety percent of the alt-right are 20-something otaku who’d be ecstatic to get a wife at all, Jewish or otherwise.

That said, I always thought he was suspiciously light-handed on the subject, as though he were trying not to offend someone in the room with him. Nothing like the old Goyfire podcasts.


15

Posted by Phil on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:40 | #

Jesse burped:

“Wrong. Don’t spread lies. Mike is NOT a Jew”

Did you not read the article? Mike “Enoch” is a Russian Jew. Period. End of story. “He looks like a Jew” I said to myself first time I saw a photograph of him before more info became available. Now it’s confirmed.

Accept reality, don’t deny it…

P.S. He also has a mudshark mother and mulatto half-brother. Some ‘white’ nationalist.


16

Posted by TRUTH on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:21 | #

More on “weev” and Sven Longshanks, see comments,
if that is him, we do not know the accuracy of what is
being posted but if we could verify somehow that would
be amazing considering his history on Daily Stormer.

https://aryanskynet.wordpress.com/2017/01/14/all-the-best-nazis-are-jewish/


17

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:27 | #

Exactly, Phil.

Also I will say that there is even more of this story which is still remaining to be exposed (seriously, if you thought TRS was at the bottom of the barrel already, you will next find that there was a whole extra barrel beneath that barrel, which of course must be explored) which I will be collating into another neat and easy-to-read post in a few hours. Because broadcasting things in a staggered drip-drip-drip kind of way delivers maximum torture to TRS, and I’m definitely into torturing TRS.


18

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:36 | #

Greg Johnson supports Mike “Enoch” Peinovich.

But Why?

This is utterly ridiculous.

Greg Johnson says: My position about Mike’s marriage, which I shared with Mike at the time, is the following. The main problem with Jews is not their genes, it is their culture. Yes, genetics shapes culture, but it does not determine it in every detail. The 613 commandments, for instance, are not inscribed in Jewish DNA. Jews, like other Near Eastern peoples, are genetically predisposed to be much more ethnocentric than Europeans, and this predisposition serves as a foundation for the Jewish live-and-let-die ethos. But this ethos is still a cultural rather than a genetic product. Thus the Jewish mentality can be transplanted even to Europeans – the Puritans, for instance – who lack Jewish genetics. And Near Eastern peoples who share Jewish levels of ethnocentrism but lack their misanthropic culture – Armenians, for instance – are far less hostile to Europeans.

Thus a partly Jewish woman with weak ethnocentrism and little connection to Jewish culture doesn’t really threaten me.

That’s not just a very poor argument by Greg. It’s terrible misdirection for those who follow it.

We should no longer be ethno-nationalists, we should be cultural nationalists, because Mike Enoch Peinovich is so irreplaceable?

What makes Mike Enoch Peinovich so irreplaceable that we need no longer be ethnonationalists?

On the contrary, we do not only sort out people for their ideologies which run contrary to White ethno nationalism, but also for their genetics - which have marked patterns, even if not observable in a moment or even if not observable in a life span.

Why am I not concerned to “purity spiral” about genetics (particularly Jewish genetics) here at Majorityrights? Because there should be no great cause for concern among those who are being cast out - it is not our agenda to genocide them; defensive separatism is our goal.

Finally, nobody is irreplaceable. But a so-called leader who is constantly defending and making excuses for a (((Donald Trump White house))), who is responsible for misdirecting who knows how many Whites into becoming Republicans once again and reconstructing this whole Jewish and right-wing sell out yin-yang of the two party US political system, is in no way valuable to Whites - just the opposite. He is poison to ethnonationalism and always had been; he is trying to help take control of the opposition and direct it for Jewish and right wing sell out interests - I saw this long ago…he doesn’t even have to be Jewish or have a Jewish wife to be seen correctly that way.


19

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 09:32 | #

I’d like to respond to this comment that James made over at Counter-Currents:

James Bowery

Posted January 17, 2017 at 10:20 pm | Permalink - at Counter Currents

My response at The Sorta Shoah:

It’s war. It’s discipline time, fam. The only way most normies can be redpilled is to subject them to the consequences of the social theories to which they submit if not for which they larp.

Listen up NOW:

Peace is attained by sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them. Until we remove obstacles to that state of peace, we are in a state of war and all resources, strategies, tactics and objectives must be dedicated to removing those obstacles.

In the present context, Mike’s wife is a non-issue for our side because it is clear that Mike would never have imposed the presence of his wife on those of us who prefer a social environment free from those who posses significant Jewish ancestry. The fact that TDS had not previously adopted this declaration of war has caused unnecessary damage.

Under this formal declaration of war, Mike could have been open about his background and personal situation (whatever it is). Indeed, he may even have been doxed without disastrous consequences and those who held a hard line about associating with significant Jewish ancestry (a harder line than even Hitler BTW) could have redirected their association. Only if , then, he insisted on “inclusion” would he identify himself as an obstacle hence target.

But Mike “Enoch” Peinovich and his wife are an issue because they did impose themselves against our will and choice; and in a most egregious way - by deception and infiltration of an influential position...further, by perhaps bringing along and to bear the powerful influence and well financed liberal resources of not only his wife, but his mother, business and political associates.


20

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:38 | #

As usual, a race predisposed to individual moral agency that is confused, by lack of formal declaration, as to whether it is at peace or at war, leaves it in befuddled impotence against racially cohesive adversaries. 

The “present context” to which I referred above is a combination of the persons reference above and the formally declared war above. 

The “deception” is in in the _actual_ context: 

The confusion of war with peace due to the lack of the above declaration. 

If Peinovich really is a full-on Jew, as allowed by my parenthetic “(whatever it is)” in reference to “his background”, the only question is whether he would have admitted as much under the clear adoption of the declaration of war.  My judgement of this counterfactual is that he would have admitted it despite his not admitting it even now.  To get some insight into his the sequence of events that led everyone, including him, into this trap, listen to today’s interview with Rebel Yell.


21

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:52 | #

Um…er…I’m pretty sure anyone who isn’t a sperg doesn’t need a “formal declaration of war” (lulz) to oppose someone they realize is fucking with them.  All that is needed is the realization.

“Clever sillies” indeed.  Good grief.


22

Posted by Paula E. on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:47 | #

Paula Peinovich has been president at a few colleges.

To quote from her days as President of The National Labor College:

“We were honored to host the delegation of labor leaders from India,” said Dr. Paula Peinovich, President of the National Labor College. “We are proud to show how through our online degree programs and Bonnie Ladin Union Skills continuing education program, we’re educating and training workers and union leaders from around the United States.”

 


23

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:54 | #

Yo Yo Yo Nigga CC, what kinda sperg need a dem’o'wah to know its chimpout o’clock!?


24

Posted by AbstrakkktEntity on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:37 | #

http://forebears.io/surnames/pejnovic#nations2014

Wrong. Dead wrong. Pejnovic is a Croatian name.


25

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:07 | #

Would you say that even amongst other Jews?


26

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:16 | #

Mom sure seems comfy with (((tribal issues))):

She is shown here at a Labor function -


Note the campaign support button worn by her cohort in this photo: it is for the campaign of Benjamin Louis Cardin:

Benjamin Louis Cardin

Early life and career

Benjamin Louis Cardin was born in Baltimore, Maryland, the son of Dora (née Green) and Meyer M. Cardin (1907–2005).[1] The family name was originally “Kardonsky”, before it was changed to “Cardin”. Cardin’s grandparents were Russian Jewish immigrants. His grandfather operated a neighborhood grocery store that later turned into a wholesale food distribution company.[2] His father, Meyer Cardin, served in the Maryland House of Delegates from 1935 to 1937, and later sat on the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City from 1961 to 1977.[3]


27

Posted by Paula E. on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:31 | #

She presided over The National Labor College for its demise.

But of course, who needs unions and “the left” anymore now that Jews are on top of 1) Academia 2) Money and business 3) Law and Courts 4) Religion 5) Politics 6) Media - including TRS and The Alt-Right. No, no, no, we want to make the “left” into the enemy and keep it mis-defined as synonymous with liberalism - wouldn’t want those pesky White Leftists taking a look at these power niches and thinking maybe they should have some of that.


Paula has jumped The National Labor College host to now head “RightSourcing”

Paula Peinovich
Managing Partner, Right Sourcing Associates

Greater New York City Area

Current
Right Sourcing Associates

Previous
Excelsior College, The National Labor College, Walden University

Education
University of Pennsylvania


28

Posted by Nick on Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:39 | #

Enoch and TRS were socially liberal with respect to homosexuals and homosexuality, which was unusual in light of the rest of TRS’s attitudes and its general tone. Their strong opposition to Heimbach makes sense in light of this. Spencer and NPI have also banned Heimbach from their events and dissociated themselves from him because of their affiliations with homosexuals like Jack Donovan and others, and their relatively pro-homosexuality attitudes.

I imagine a significant aspect of Greg Johnson’s support is related to this.


29

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 19 Jan 2017 03:02 | #

All of this pissing in our faces and telling us it’s raining just to protect a network of faggots and Jews?  What the fuck is wrong with these people?


30

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 19 Jan 2017 04:30 | #

Not fair CC, they also protect and comfort those in the warm tinkle of our cherished traditions - the Bible and the Republican Party: “Our opponents had no respect for OUR traditions, Our choice for President”!

...it’s all just sour grapes because Trump won - we really wanted so badly for Hillary to have won! “Unimportant people” didn’t want Trump to be President, “important people wanted him to win”, especially important “white people” ((())).


31

Posted by PB on Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:56 | #

The name “Enoch” is an interesting choice.

“According to Jewish apocrypha, Metatron is the name Enoch received, after his transformation into an angel.”

“Metatron ... or Mattatron is an archangel in Judaism and known in Judaism as the Recording Angel.”

Bet he was recording a great deal, our “friend” Enoch.


32

Posted by Hipster Racist on Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:54 | #

“I will be collating into another neat and easy-to-read post in a few hours. “

KO - don’t leave us hanging! I’ve been hitting refresh for the last 24 hours waiting for the next shoe to drop ... Plenty of us are very much looking forward to it.


33

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:07 | #

It’s coming hipster…

In the meantime, they are piling up evidence against themselves for any one with sense.

The “Merchant Minute” of the latest (((Daily Shoah))) is particularly Jewy:

1:42:20 The Merchant Minute

After “boldly” criticizing Jews that Jews don’t like, Jews that Jews are willing to throw under the bus - George Soros (for his liberalism and anti-Zionism, and because he is old), Bernie Madoff (who ripped off other Jews and is in jail for it) and some doctor who defends trannies (because this is a marginal issue that nobody cares about)...

Transcript forthcoming


34

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 20 Jan 2017 02:10 | #

I was unexpectedly away for a while, but now that I’m back on the ground, I can certainly grant Hipster Racist’s wish.

Watch this space, an article will be added in about 14 hours!


35

Posted by uh on Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:48 | #

Commencing fourteen-hour pranayama.


36

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:25 | #

It took a while, but I finally got around to delivering that article which I had promised. It will hopefully be very thought-provoking, and even—dare I say—fun.


37

Posted by Ned Flanders on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 18:45 | #

more proof that Greg Johnson knew about Enoch.

Also, confusing that Johnson is promoting a jew’s book on his website:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2017/01/mindset-reconquest/

I knew these guys were all faggots and kikes from the beginning.


38

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:00 | #

I’m always mystified by the willingness of some people to group Jewish power with gay people, as though somehow magically there is a connection between the two. This should not have to be said, but Jews did not invent gays and lesbians, and homosexuality was not invented in modern America.

It is correct that Greg Johnson knew about Mike ‘Enoch’ Peinovich’s real identity from the start. From his article on the issue, he describes having known something was wrong all along:

Counter-Currents / Greg Johnson, 17 Jan 2017, wrote:

I met Mike Enoch in December of 2014 at an NRx gathering in Manhattan. I instantly recognized his voice and struck up a conversation. He gave me his normie email address [mpeinovich@gmail.com], and later that evening, on the long Metro North ride back to Westchester County, I did a Google search on his name and put together a pretty full picture of his life, including his wife’s Jewish surname. I leaned back on the uncomfortable bench, closed my eyes, and thought, “I wonder how long this star will streak across the firmament before burning out.” 

[…]

Given Mike’s opsec practices, I knew that the information about his wife would eventually leak out, and I knew it would create problems. In 2015 he tightened his opsec considerably, but by then quite a few people knew. […]

Greg Johnson should obviously be asked a lot of tough questions about why he would ever think that it could be a good idea to allow that so-called ‘star’ to streak across the firmament uninhibited for that long, given that it was even obvious to him that the more speed Enoch picked up the more devastating the impact would be once Enoch fell. Even by his own logic, it should have made more sense for Johnson to have just immediately raised the alarm, rather than allowing Enoch to wreak havoc for years unchecked.

So questions should be asked about Johnson’s judgement.

In this regard, it becomes almost inevitable that the lines that exist between:

a. propagating condemnations of the enemy,
b. event-oriented debriefing, and
c. evaluation of performance and criticisms,

all become blurred as people end up having to basically do all three of those different kinds of things simultaneously and publicly.

Carting random homophobia into the middle of it doesn’t do anything to enhance or help the process, instead it just serves as a weird distraction around a pet issue that has no connection to any of this.

There are plenty of questions which Johnson needs to be induced to answer, but none of them begin with his sexual orientation. The fact that Johnson is gay has nothing to do with the fact that he concealed Mike Enoch’s identity. Continually harping on the fact that Johnson is openly gay (and it’s perfectly within his right to be openly gay), just detracts from the ability to figure out what the actual reason for the coverup is, and merely makes everyone who is concerned about his weird decision-making look like a bunch of knuckle-dragging ‘social-conservatives’ with a boring axe to grind.


39

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 23:57 | #

Fags and Jews share a common interest in a general normalization of degeneracy.  Tolerance of degeneracy is a slippery slope that weakens the European host’s ability to cohesively fight Jewish parasitism.  That is the connection.


40

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 01:49 | #

Oh, the ‘degeneracy’, meme? If Europeans are so fragile that the presence of homosexuality within their societies makes them somehow susceptible to being systematically subverted and taken over by a collection of Levantine upstarts with gigantic noses, one has to wonder how Europeans ever managed to tie their own shoelaces in the morning to begin with.

By that logic, the future already belongs to East Asians and Central Asians and etc, who, despite having the presence of homosexuality in various permutations in the culture since antiquity, never ended up with Jews parasitically running the place. That could just be because these things are not associated with each other!

How does a people go from:
a. “There are some gay and lesbian people being all gay and lesbian around here and I don’t care about what they choose to do”,
to ending up at,
b.therefore obviously a bunch of Jews now need to be brought in and installed into the government and media because that somehow logically follows”?

It doesn’t follow at all, and if Europeans think that follows, then it means that Europeans have actually gone crazy and have abandoned all logic.

Either that, or you are saying that Europeans are basically no better than Ugandans, who, having a mean IQ of about 72, require every aspect of social interaction to be rigidly predictable through constant campaigns against ‘degeneracy’ (read: anyone thinking about or doing anything that anyone finds ‘abnormal’) in order for them to make any sense of the world at all.


41

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:13 | #

Jews recruit queers as allies to do their bidding.  Jewish parasitism could not function without co-opting morally corrupted European individuals.

The Jewish parasite is very specifically adapted to exploit the European host’s weaknesses, as is any parasite with respect to it’s given host.  Evolution 101.  It is ultimately incidental to that general process that Jews do indeed use carefully crafted intellectual sophistry to disarm the defenses if their relatively intelligent European host.


42

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:53 | #

Firstly, what is the definition of ‘morally corrupted’, and secondly, how would you explain the actual existence of the morality-policing philosemitic American Christian centre-right?

Thirdly, if you really believe your own talking point, how would you even resolve that? Would you be going around basically telling people, “be straight”, and expecting that is somehow going to change them?


43

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 03:05 | #

Moral corruption is the fostered propensity to engage in behavior which is, generally speaking, maladaptive, destructive to a given society.  If everyone went gay, there would be no children.  If everyone became a thief a refined divisions of labor, and hence civilization, would become impossible.

But moral reprobates can and do team up.  We call this organized crime.


44

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 03:41 | #

If everyone was gay, there would be no children, but by the same logic, if everyone were a soldier there would be no doctors. Does it then follow that in order to guarantee the presence of doctors there should be no soldiers allowed? No, obviously not.

You invoke the concept of division of labour, that is precisely what is occurring. Having a group of people who do not reproduce but who statistically tend to engage in risk-taking behaviour, and whose GDP/cap is slightly above that of the average, is an asset which can and should be leveraged by any ethnic group in ways that are obvious. The media in fact correctly identified the risk-taking trait, basically the ‘no children’ scenario creates a particular frame of mind. And before you tell me that the media is ‘Jewish’, this pattern of portrayal actually exists in places where Jews do not have power over the media you don’t really have to look far to find it, since it’s everywhere.

Furthermore, with an above-average GDP/cap, homosexuals form a cohort that is uniquely capable of spending its money on gifting wealth to their nephews and nieces. That is commonly what actually occurs, and should be perceived as actually beneficial, since it is merely a case where the population level of one’s extended family is constrained but with the upside of the amount of resources allocated per child having increased. The “gay auntie” or “gay uncle” phenomenon is something that has existed since antiquity and was only briefly interrupted at the onset of the industrial revolution which set up laws based on economic efficiency (of the sort that privileges the nuclear family over the extended family as the starting point for ‘household economics’ and liberal-industrial ‘self-help’ narratives) without taking into account the accommodationist realities of the clan-based extended-family orientated agrarian society which preceded it.

All that has now happened is that people have decided to stop wasting everyone’s time with trying to persecute people who aren’t actually harming anyone. Especially not for the sake of a civilisation which most people have now realised does not require that persecution to be going on in order to perpetuate itself.


45

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:12 | #

The Jewish parasite

CC, do you think you can possibly restrain yourself from functioning in quite such a grotesquely offensive way?  It’s fine to speak of evolutionary strategies that parallel the strategies of certain parasites.  But when you make the leap to where you stand terminologically right now you place yourself squarely in the Der Stürmer category.  OK, there is no shortage of sites where that is the norm.  But this isn’t one of them.  Let’s apply some intellectual rigour.


46

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:24 | #

All that has now happened is that people have decided to stop wasting everyone’s time with trying to persecute people who aren’t actually harming anyone.

The hegemonic warfare politics to which homosexuals have been signed up does hurt everybody, though.  Homosexualising marriage hurts everybody.

The deal should be tolerance in return for discretion.  Where discretion cannot be observed, tolerance cannot be extended.


47

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:12 | #

This is one of the many things that I hate about the right wing. They can’t help but make a big deal about this issue which should be way down in terms of critical priority; or they can’t help but get lured into it as a result of Jewish trolling and general PC hyperbole (which is a form of trolling). This Ned Flanders character came here with a flamboyant comment, #37, about ‘these guys (at Counter-Currents) being faggots and kikes.’.. Whether he is doing it deliberately or not, and he really could be a deliberate provocateur, what he is effectively doing is the same thing that Peinovich did when he started giving the Nazi salute at the NPI conference. He is trying to brand racial advocates with over the top stigma, make us seem like unreasonable right wingers in order to turn people off.

Most people come to an accurate understanding of the matter of homosexuality that it is, as Max Musson says, a normal abnormality, which will occur in a certain small percentage of the population. That is, it is fundamenally a biological issue, not a moral issue - though how it is dealt with, how it counts, is a moral issue. If it did not have survival value, if it did not have some homeosatic function (pardon the pun) for the human ecological system, it would not exist - but it always has existed and apparently always will, according to the science as I understand it.

Should we throw them off of buildings as the Muslims do? Speaking for myself, I say, heck, more women for me; they can go right ahead to their gay bars.

Ask them to be as discreet as possible, whoop it up primarily in their private places, I can agree. As I have said before, I don’t go to their clubs and they can’t make me go. I don’t notice them around and I’m not looking for them - not interested.

But as for what the Jews have done, it is the usual thing. They’ve taken a good position - which would be to relegate it as a relatively easy issue to be tolerant of as it effects a small percentage, to defend people who are born that way from persecution - and they instead exaggerate it beyond reason - into liberal hyperbole.

Whereas with reasonable treatment, we could have these people on our side - who would be more dedicated against Islam, for example?

I think that gay marriage is weird, but they are queers, you know, they’re weird to us. But I would not go so far as GW as to say that it hurts everyone - it probably doesn’t hurt everyone; for financial reasons, it might be important for some of them. Having said that, I really don’t give a shit. I’m irritated to have to address the issue in order to put it to bed for now… Kumiko has a really good follow-up article on TRS and we need to not get trolled and diverted onto the homo issue.


48

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:34 | #

If it did not have survival value, if it did not have some homeostatic function (pardon the pun) for the human ecological system, it would not exist

If that is what Larry (Max) says, he’s wrong.  Homosexuality is a reproductive disability.  It has various causes, no doubt; and there will be differences in that respect between male and female homoexualities.  But errors in genetic coding or switching will account for most in both cases.  None are selection-sensitive.  There is no fitness aspect.

I think the gay marriage is weird, but they are queers, you know, they’re weird to us. But I would not go so far as GW as to say that it hurts everyone

Hegemonic anti-male politics hurts us all, as intended.  No doubt you would consent to that proposition.  Homosexualising marriage hurts us all, and by us I mean our people as cold-climate evolved clade.  Let’s work the logic backwards.

For sound evolutionary reasons, homosexual acts are held in contempt or derision by the great mass of sexually normal people.  Indeed, anal rape is so repugnant to a sexually normal male, he will wound or kill his attacker if that is necessary to end the attack.  Naturally, associating homosexuals with marriage cannot produce a heightening of idealism in the image which marriage enjoys - and marriage must be held as a high ideal, especially by young women, for its social good to flow (that being the optimum, stable basis for raisin whole, healthy, children).

This goes back to the female demand for monogamy from her male, for total lifetime care, as the basis for devoting the necessary love and attention to child-raising.  It’s the high-K cold-climate strategy for encephalising populations.  It’s natural to European, Eurasian, and East Asian populations, and historically rare in the hyper-masculinised societies of the south.

When marriage is reduced to just a lifestyle choice ... when it is out of fashion, then there will be more children born and raised in sub-optimal circumstances ... in cohabiting and single-parent arrangements, with the known consequences for childhood well-being and the subsequent capacity for a maximally stable, productive life.


49

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:39 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 19:34 | #

  If it did not have survival value, if it did not have some homeostatic function (pardon the pun) for the human ecological system, it would not exist

If that is what Larry (Max) says, he’s wrong.

Larry didn’t say it, I did. If it doesn’t have some survival value, why has it always existed?

  Homosexuality is a reproductive disability.  It has various causes, no doubt; and there will be differences in that respect between male and female homoexualities.  But errors in genetic coding or switching will account for most in both cases.  None are selection-sensitive.  There is no fitness aspect.

I doubt that there is no fitness aspect to the system; but having to deal with the issue irritates me.

Hegemonic anti-male politics hurts us all, as intended.  No doubt you would consent to that proposition.  Homosexualising marriage hurts us all, and by us I mean our people as cold-climate evolved clade.  Let’s work the logic backwards.

No, Jewish politics and its hyperbolous liberal expression hurts us all.  Trying to play keep up with the hyper masculinity of Africa and to a lesser extent, of Arabs, is to get lured into R selection strategy by Jewish trolling; and to break apart our moral order, its systemic homeostasis (which maintains order largely through sacralizing monogamy, as you go on to indicate) It is less the problem that Jews are encouraging males to act like females than it is that they are pandering to females, instigating them to their more readily available capacity to conduct themselves like pigs - like males, if you will.

For sound evolutionary reasons, homosexual acts are held in contempt or derision by the great mass of sexually normal people.

Ok, and so it will be as well - but its not going to make the phenomenon go away.

Indeed, anal rape is so repugnant to a sexually normal male, he will wound or kill his attacker if that is necessary to end the attack.

Any rape is repugnant. That too.

Naturally, associating homosexuals with marriage cannot produce a heightening of idealism in the image which marriage enjoys - and marriage must be held as a high ideal, especially by young women, for its social good to flow (that being the optimum, stable basis for raisin whole, healthy, children).

I’m not willing to argue about this issue. I really don’t give a shit.

This goes back to the female demand for monogamy from her male, for total lifetime care, as the basis for devoting the necessary love and attention to child-raising.  It’s the high-K cold-climate strategy for encephalising populations.  It’s natural to European, Eurasian, and East Asian populations, and historically rare in the hyper-masculinised societies of the south.

When marriage is reduced to just a lifestyle choice ... when it is out of fashion, then there will be more children born and raised in sub-optimal circumstances ... in cohabiting and single-parent arrangements, with the known consequences for childhood well-being and the subsequent capacity for a maximally stable, productive life.

Well, here I absolutely agree with you and I think monogamy and marriage are a profound matter.  I am not sure that a few queers getting married would profane the matter, but again, you have to pick your fights and I’m not interested in that one.


50

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:16 | #

The argument seems to be thus: “C’mon, these fruit flies do have some uses.  Where else am I supposed to find a decent interior decorator?”  Fine.  Just so long Mr. fancy Pants otherwise confines his flamboyance to his own closet.


51

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:44 | #

Alan Turing could not have said it better


52

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:52 | #

Well, it just means that I am in irreconcilable disagreement on this particular issue. I’ve never believed that ethno-racial politics actually requires people to be ‘traditionalist’ on social issues. If that means that I’m supporting ‘anti-male’ politics then I guess that’s an interesting way of describing it, since from my perception it’s simply supporting what is clearly demonstrated to be good for growth.

But on that note anyway, why would anyone want to economically and socially privilege males over females, rather than simply allowing everyone to contribute to society in their own way?

Also, ethno-nationalists really should not be sounding like an echo of the social policies we’ve heard from outfits like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or Jemaah Islamiya, or whoever else. I think most people wanted to fight against this stuff, not become it.

To me it seems ridiculous that all it took for that fault-line to become manifest at Majorityrights, was for some guy named Ned Flanders (who hasn’t even returned to the thread), to come in and say the word “faggots”, get criticised for it, and suddenly there is controversy as to whether I am correct to criticise him or whether it is really Ned fucking Flanders who is correct.


53

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:35 | #

Kumiko #49, you know that your view absolutely is, reconciled at Majorityrights, because you are an ethno-nationalist.

Therefore, some people, probably most people, can treat sex as a celebration, so long as they predominantly do so within their ethnic group and so long as the group respects the institution of monogamy for those who would choose it; and there exists a capacity for banishment for those who violate those rules unreasonably.

When I talk about “pigs”, I am talking about people who do not conduct themselves with even that much discretion - and I criticize American females in particular, because their one-up position and base inclination to incite genetic competition is more susceptible than ever with the mix of demographics and prohibition against racism (ethno-nationalism) in America - hence, the pandering to them by YKW and liberals is more necessary to be countered with a critical platform of their inclinations/predilections lest it result, as I am sure it has with something like the hypergamy situation - e.g., 85% of females in pursuit of 15% of “alpha males” ...all the instability that goes along with that ... a situation that looks more like a few Imams with harums, rather than the western civilization that expects people to deal with nature - that non-monagamy and monogamy will be, that gays will be, and that our people are intelligent enough to reconcile social conflicts well enough to bring about the systemic homeostasis of our ethnonationalisms and their alliances against imposition from YKW and their objectivist side-kicks who impose Muslims, blacks and imperial supremacism generally, over ethnonationalists.


54

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 04:23 | #

I just think that in general things have gone way off course, because the general thrust of where the Alt-Right ‘movement’ has been going is toward the targeting of all the groups of people who have nothing to do with anything.

So for example, the Alt-Right through its association with the Christian right and the manosphere propagates the idea that ‘men’ as a general rule are somehow now the victims of everything, and the Alt-Right through Counter-Currents and the Alternative-Right blogspot site propagates the view that Asian manufacturing centres are ‘bad’ and that having a special relationship with Israel is somehow supposedly ‘good’, and through the Daily Stormer the Alt-Right claims that a Central Asian country such as Iran is ‘mud people’ because Donald Trump’s Jewish children dislike Iran, and the Alt-Right through VDARE decides that the ‘big problem’ with Atzlan is supposedly that antisemitic Hispanic Indios would be running it.

This leads to the absurdist result of the Alt-Right declaring this kind of person to be supposedly ‘good’ and that he supposedly should be ‘neither attacked nor defended’:


Click image for video.

Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich: Pro-Jew, male, rich, Trump-supporter, special-relationship advocate, anti-Asian, anti-Hispanic, pro-Russian, pro-Serbian, actual Jew, reactionary. He ticks all the Alt-Right absurdism checkboxes so of course they support him.

And the flipside?

These people being slandered as ‘bad’ and ‘thieving’:


Click image for video.

Larissa Contreras Martinez: Female, poor, Hispanic, child of single-parent, valedictorian, scholarship recipient, ‘illegal’ immigrant. She’s apparently supposed to be ‘’‘'an enemy’‘’’ according to ridiculous Alt-Right logic.

I can’t speak for others, but I never consented to support such a ridiculous framework that would actually deliver that ridiculous result, and that is a large part of why I’ve continually been against the Alt-Right. I saw all this coming from far off. People can say what they want, a lot of commentators at other blogs already hate me anyway, but in case it isn’t already clear, I would support Martinez any time over the Alt-Right which has now manifested in the US. Any time.

The US is never going to change now, the kind of America that is now being retrenched through Trumpism is basically the real problem (much like Russia is) and the real world-enemy, and I don’t see why anyone would want to make that absolute nest of exclusively-Jew-loving-Whites ‘great’ again. White America was never ‘great’. It was on a path to possibly become great after 1988, particularly as it was a wonderful tool for destroying the Soviet Union. There was a chance for America to become more than a mere hammer, but in the end it hasn’t worked out. Trumpism as it has actually manifested in reality, is the proof of it not working out.

What is desperately needed is balkanisation, so that all of the White American and Jewish garbage policies can finally be brought to an end.


55

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 05:13 | #

Kumiko, you really might consider rephrasing the part I have bolded:

What is desperately needed is balkanisation, so that all of the White American and Jewish garbage policies can finally be brought to an end.

It’s not as sheerly antagonistic to Whites as it first appeared to me, as you are talking about how White habits and traditions (the negative, universalistic ones anyway, garbage policies, as you say) have tended to work against ethno-nationalism, but it does come across in a way that might alienate Whites who are on our ethno nationalist side; nevertheless, you are talking about ethno-nationalism when you talk abut Balkanization, so, we’ll deal with the criticism.

Still, I would have preferred that you say “White supremacist” there and I could not necessarily object, because it would be more clear except for the PC sound of it.

Instead of White American, its better to criticize White supremacists or White American supremacists in this instance.

Supremcists are not for balkanization.

But White ethno nationalists are.

And this is well understood.

Its a distinction that’s been talked about a lot on Stormfront radio and elsewhere:

Separatists/ethno nationalists and supremacists are mutually contradictory.

But really, you might reconsider the phrasing, so that you can garner the support of those who are already on your side and not sound like you are antagonizing them just because they are White.


56

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 07:10 | #

Well, your argument on behalf of the Mexican girl is ok for me, because it problematizes the whole “Hispanic” thing - which should be problematized. There are many who should not be our enemies, if not being outright, “US.”

She’s supposed to be horrible because she has some Amerinidan in her?

...but Negroes, they’re ok. Ugh! The right-wing.

“Hispanic”, that’s a distinction that has to be teased apart, hopefully by you too

...or “she can go to the n****s, because she’s ‘Hispanic.”

....because to right wingers, the term “Hispanic” includes mulatto Puerto Ricans, etc.

Whereas this one looks fairly huWhite to me.

Nose

Skin color

Bone structure, lips..

Whatever she is, she’s ok with me - as a friendly nation, at very least.

After race, there is an issue of sheer carrying capacity and the necessity of borders, WHOMEVER might want to immigrate to WHATEVER country

I consider her pretty White

I think a lot of people would consider her Spanish

Her mother definitely has White in her; is more White than her daughter, I’d say.

There is some mixing, I agree

But its a matter of how much

Anyway, say what you will, it will be an instructive “bance” ?  ..or discussion, rather

Its not the kind of person you want to be the enemy, whatever she is.


57

Posted by (((The Sailer Strategy))) on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:08 | #

I (DanielS) must say that it was admirable anticipation to have foreseen the significance of (((“The Sailer Strategy”))) in the link that you provided. The (((Sailer Strategy))) is effectively a proposal, a quid pro quo, really, for a White-Jewish coalition doubling down on going after the White vote for Republicans, as opposed to the Rove strategy of going after Hispanics.

There are major problems with (((the Sailer strategy))) - chief among the problems is that it is bracketed as all get out.


58

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:28 | #

DanielS on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:13, wrote:
But really, you might reconsider the phrasing, so that you can garner the support of those who are already on your side and not sound like you are antagonizing them just because they are White.

I’m just criticising them based on the political choices that they made. One of the great distortions in ethno-nationalism as a whole, stems from the fact that a lot of the trends emanate out of the United States, and as such they come with a lot of policy preferences and preconceptions that are peculiar to themselves.

For example, why should people uniformly support the interests of Trump voters in United States over Hispanics/Chicanos from Mexico? No one has actually ever supplied an argument for that, other than to invoke a mixture of the following talking points:

1. Some kind of narrative about how Mexicans are a ‘lesser people’, or something.
2. Weird appeals to Nazi rhetoric, which is ironic given that NS Germany tried to support Mexico against the United States.
3. Alex Jones style ranting about how Aztecs are ‘evil’, how the British Empire tried to leverage Mexico against the United States, and how 1776 is ‘the answer to 1984’.
4. Recycled Lou Dobbs CNN talking points from 15 years ago.

In the case where those four ridiculous approaches fail, they then begin throwing themselves on the floor and calling people ‘anti-white’. All of that is because they don’t want to admit that after all the LARPing was said and done, they really were just confronted with a choice to be either ‘with the Jews and against Hispanics’, or ‘ambivalent about Hispanics and against the Jews’, and they decided to choose the former.

Trump voters, whether they were fully conscious of it or not, effectively chose to be ‘with the Jews and against Hispanics’. Any offence or antagonism which any of them might profess to feel after having that reality pointed out to them, is either just them being overly emotional, or them engaging in a squid-like attempt to cloud up the waters of debate so as to obscure the meaning of the choice that they made.

Ever since 09 November 2016, there has basically been squid-ink injected into every tributary and stream of debate at every venue imaginable, as they are attempting to somehow reconcile their professed antisemitism with the actual manifest philosemitism of the Trump administration.

All I’m doing is pointing it out.

DanielS on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 12:10, wrote:
Anyway, say what you will, it will be an instructive “bance” ?  ..or discussion, rather

Instructive bantz is what I’m all about. That’s why I don’t do rephrasing, because at this point people should be able to just accept the plain wording as it is.

DanielS on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 12:10, wrote:
Whereas this one looks fairly huWhite to me. [...] I consider her pretty White [...] I think a lot of people would consider her Spanish [...] Her mother definitely has White in her; is more White than her daughter, I’d say.

No, absolutely not. I reject the entire framework of those thoughts you are having there. That is literally the opposite of the direction that I’m trying to go in. My whole point is that the Mexicans shown there are not White and they are not even trying to be White, and they don’t even look White.

Frankly, it would also be flatly ridiculous to describe anyone in that video as ‘White’. The indigenous Mesoamerican phenotype is plainly visible in their faces, Martinez and her mother, and her sister. People, particularly Americans, need to stop trying to find ‘Whiteness’ in everything. Otherwise the term becomes meaningless and simply would become a semiotic weapon in the hands of assimilationist civic nationalists, and ‘post-Chicano’ Jewish-sponsored political puppets who are trying to erase all forms of identity.

Just let Mexicans be what they are and let the balkanisation of the Southwest of the United States happen as it will. The last thing that anyone needs is to have people running around creating confusion and ambiguity. Balkanisation can only happen if all racial ambiguity is erased from the language, or at least made completely irrelevant to the lived experience of the people on the ground.

Whatever small percentage of their makeup is White, is completely irrelevant to their lived experience and to highlight it as though it has a meaning, would only open the gate to assimilationist narratives that are highly corrosive to the political aims of ethno-nationalists on all sides.

DanielS on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 13:08, wrote:
I must say that it was admirable anticipation to have foreseen the significance of (((“The Sailer Strategy”))) in the link that you provided. The (((Sailer Strategy))) is effectively a proposal, a quid pro quo, really, for a White-Jewish coalition doubling down on going after the White vote for Republicans, as opposed to the Rove strategy of going after Hispanics.

Yes. If you look toward Jewish power in the United States and view it through the lens of ‘what is good for the Jews’, you come to the realisation that the Jewish lobby groups realised that Hispanics do not share a mythology or history that dovetails with that of the Jews, and they are largely indifferent to Jewish concerns. Furthermore, in Alta-California and large areas of the Southwest, the elites who Hispanics find themselves clashing with are basically Jewish elites, and so for the Jewish lobby the question would arise as to how to prevent their power from being diluted by this wave of Hispanics.

The answer which they came up with was basically the same as the content of the ‘Sailer Strategy’: they would create a civic nationalist, all English-speaking attempt to revitalise Americana, by drawing on the lessons of the Buchanan presidential run and having the GOP aggressively pursue the White vote and take actions to stem the flow of migration across the southern border of the United States.

The Trump administration and the ‘Make America Great Again’ concept matches it exactly. It is a White-Jewish coalition in effect, filled with inconsistencies among the subjective perceptions of the different players (for example, some self-deceiving elements both on the Alt-Right and amongst the low-information liberals, who continue to LARP amongst themselves under the impression that somehow Trumpism is ‘against Jews’ even though it plainly is not), but nevertheless, all the vectors combined have objectively yielded the White-Jewish coalition result. It’s basically a case of American Jewish power evolving its strategy to match the times.

I’ll be putting up an article exposing the ‘Sailer Strategy’ soon. It’s almost identical to the strategy of Ron Unz, and from an ethnic-struggle viewpoint, it was born in Alta-California out of the antagonistic class and ethnic contradictions between Jews and Hispanics, and the lessons that organised American Jews learned from those antagonistic contradictions.

Organised American Jews have realised that they have a big problem facing them. Hispanics are politically indifferent to Jews, and, thus far, organised American Jews have not been able to alter that trend. As a consequence, the Jews simply threw all the multicultural toys out of the pram and decided to instead try to cultivate an American White-Jewish coalition against Hispanic power.

My stance is that no one should support the Americans on that path, ever.


59

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:37 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:28 | #

  DanielS on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:13, wrote:
  But really, you might reconsider the phrasing, so that you can garner the support of those who are already on your side and not sound like you are antagonizing them just because they are White.

I’m just criticising them based on the political choices that they made.

There is a problem right there that I cannot pass-up before reading further - “they” needs to be specified further. “They”? If you were to say “White Trump voters” etc., it would be ok, but clearly when I say “people already on your side” I am not talking about Trump voters.


60

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:53 | #

  DanielS on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 12:10, wrote:
  Anyway, say what you will, it will be an instructive “bance” ?  ..or discussion, rather

Instructive bantz is what I’m all about. That’s why I don’t do rephrasing, because at this point people should be able to just accept the plain wording as it is.

Well, stand by it as you will but the category “Hispanic”, which is a language classification coined during the Nixon administration, is entirely inarticulate, disingenuous and a disservice to all as it clumps together all kinds of Whites, Amerindians and blacks.


61

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:59 | #

  DanielS on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 12:10, wrote:
  Whereas this one looks fairly huWhite to me. [...] I consider her pretty White [...] I think a lot of people would consider her Spanish [...] Her mother definitely has White in her; is more White than her daughter, I’d say.

No, absolutely not. I reject the entire framework of those thoughts you are having there. That is literally the opposite of the direction that I’m trying to go in. My whole point is that the Mexicans shown there are not White and they are not even trying to be White, and they don’t even look White.

A DNA test could decide as far as I am concerned. I could be wrong and if I am, if she and her mother are like 85% Amerindian, then fine. I am not trying to see them as more White than they are, I am telling you what my honest impression is. My motive, where there is one, is that they should not be classified with blacks: whether they have more White than you think or are more Amerindian than I think, I do not want them classified with blacks and thus vulnerable to mixing with them.


62

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:22 | #

why should people uniformly support the interests of Trump voters in United States over Hispanics/Chicanos from Mexico? No one has actually ever supplied an argument for that

First you must define “people” ethnically.  If you mean non Trump-voting white people the answer is clear enough.  If you mean non-whites the answer is: do you want to live in the political, economic and cultural world which Europeans generate or do you want to live in Mexico.


63

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:07 | #

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:37, wrote:
There is a problem right there that I cannot pass-up before reading further - “they” needs to be specified further. “They”? If you were to say “White Trump voters” etc., it would be ok, but clearly when I say “people already on your side” I am not talking about Trump voters.

Yes, I mean by ‘they’ in that context, ‘the people who vote for Donald Trump as well as those people from outside America who thought that it was a positive move for the America to do so’.

There’s being specific, and then there’s struggling to actually acknowledge categories. There is a trend in White America, particularly in the White Midwest, and the Rustbelt, in which this is a thing. The article above in fact has none other than Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich openly and gloatingly describing it.

To repeat:

I chose to quote those in the article for a particular reason, which I assume you are now seeing in a new light.

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:59, wrote:
Well, stand by it as you will but the category “Hispanic”, which is a language classification coined during the Nixon administration, is entirely inarticulate, disingenuous and a disservice to all as it clumps together all kinds of Whites, Amerindians and blacks.

It simply requires a modicum of knowing the context, rather than people attempting to disassemble everything. For the Southwest of the United States, in the context of this thread in which I already used the term ‘Indios’ earlier anyway, “Hispanic” obviously means “people whose ancestry is of the peoples of the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans.”

Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, also by extension would mean “prior to the arrival of the Europeans’ pet Jews and prior to the arrival of the Europeans’ pet Africans in the Americas”.

Given that I’m obviously writing from an ethno-nationalist perspective and an anti-assimilationist and pro-balkanisation political standpoint, it should not be difficult to see that I’m of course going to be against mass mestizaje and in favour of backcrossing to concentrate the indigenous Amerindian element of their population’s genetic structure. A political environment in which backcrossing toward the indigenous will occur (ie, one in which more White alleles do not intrude), is one in which borders are established through balkanisation and self-segregation, in which a clear line is drawn as to who is and is not White.

Given the demographic situation in the United States, that means that the Southwest of the United States needs to become a de facto separate district, and ultimately it needs to literally secede from the United States. The question merely is how to get the ‘normies’ to set that scenario up without the same ‘normies’ realising that they are being induced to set that scenario up.

In other words, my objective is always to ask, “How can we identify American attempts to create a civic nationalism, and successfully and systematically undermine and destroy those attempts?” I don’t want Hispanics to identify with being ‘America First’, and I don’t want people to be crafting narratives that try to encourage them to do so.

Given the geographical location of these events, what happens there will also have really interesting geostrategic ramifications in the Pacific Ocean, which I will talk about at some other time.

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:59, wrote:
A DNA test could decide as far as I am concerned. I could be wrong and if I am, if she and her mother are like 85% Amerindian, then fine.

To even bother administering a DNA test to Martinez would be just pointless anyway. Given everything that has transpired before in the history of the Americas, and given what the political situation is, and given that race is a socially constructed identity based on a phylogenetic reality: what difference, at this point, does it make?

If “15% of her alleles are White”, or “20% of her alleles are White”, it makes no difference at all, because in her lived experience, she is not White, and White people also do not view her as White, because she simply isn’t European.

At the end of the day, Martinez can only ever be understood as ‘Amerindian’ and ‘therefore not White’, and that is absolutely okay and fine in my view. The boundary must be drawn and in fact the boundary is already drawn politically, so it’s in a sense nice and convenient for all sides involved.

Martinez is likely from either of the two subclades, mtDNA Group C, or mtDNA Group Z, which are descended from mtDNA Group CZ (as many Hispanics in that geographic context are), which is in turn a descendant of mtDNA Group M. It hopped across the Bering Strait from Central Asia and Siberia eons ago. Or, maybe she is from mtDNA Group D, or even mtDNA Group X, same story. The social and political contradictions in the Americas happen to actually reflect the phylogenetic reality of a tension between those maternal lines which came out of Asia one the one hand, and those of the European population groups which entered later into the region on the other hand, and that tension between two actually different groups—‘Whites’ in tension against ‘Hispanics’—is clearly visible in the Southwest of the United States right now.


64

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:14 | #

I chose to quote those in the article for a particular reason, which I assume you are now seeing in a new light

I am not seeing these quotes in a new light, it is the same light: Enoch/Peinovich speaks with the pronouns “we” and “us” as in a deliberate marketing campaign to deceive White voters into thinking that his Jewish interests are one with theirs. Trump voters and supporters world-wide were deceived by it, but I wasn’t nor were many Whites who would not vote for him.


65

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:21 | #

It simply requires a modicum of knowing the context, rather than people attempting to disassemble everything. For the Southwest of the United States, in the context of this thread in which I already used the term ‘Indios’ earlier anyway, “Hispanic” obviously means “people whose ancestry is of the peoples of the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans.”

If you want to say “Indios” fine, I can agree to that term.

But as for “Hispanic”, I lived in The US for the first 34 years of my life and it is as least as often, probably more usually, applied to people who are part black.

You can hope that people will make the correct inference (that you don’t mean that) but the term is ripe for that exploitation and has been exploited that way in the context of The Americas to everyone’s detriment.


66

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:29 | #

Guessedworker on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:22, wrote:
First you must define “people” ethnically.  If you mean non Trump-voting white people the answer is clear enough.  If you mean non-whites the answer is: do you want to live in the political, economic and cultural world which Europeans generate or do you want to live in Mexico.

By ‘people’ in that context, I meant ‘any population group outside the United States’. So that would include you for example, in form of, “What do White Britons gain from supporting White Trump voters against Hispanics in the United States?” I contend that the answer is ‘basically nothing’. (And you can rinse and repeat the question for any other population group.)

The only countries outside the US which benefit from Trumpism, are literally Israel (and its diaspora) and Russia. That’s basically it.


67

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:33 | #

Given the demographic situation in the United States, that means that the Southwest of the United States needs to become a de facto separate district, and ultimately it needs to literally secede from the United States. The question merely is how to get the ‘normies’ to set that scenario up without the same ‘normies’ realising that they are being induced to set that scenario up.

Well, I don’t think the Southwest US should become a part of Mexico.  I would probably like to see the states and counties providing boundary lines for political division (like little nations); which would be a federation united in their mutual sovereignties, to protect their respective genotypes and against Jews, blacks and Arabs.

Maybe you are not going to agree and I don’t care to argue a whole lot about it right now. Atzlan not Atzlan, the world will keep spinning for me: your purpose is to stave off Jewish, black imposition and the White imposition of them and “universalisms” susceptible to pan mixia ....and actually, my purposes are quite the same. I just don’t think that Mexico needs to be any bigger than it is.


68

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:14 | #

In other words, my objective is always to ask, “How can we identify American attempts to create a civic nationalism, and systematically undermine and destroy those attempts?” I don’t want Hispanics to identify with being ‘America First’, and I don’t want people to be crafting narratives that try to encourage them to do so.

I am against civic nationalism as well.

To even bother administering a DNA test to Martinez would be just pointless anyway. Given everything that has transpired before in the history of the Americas, and given what the political situation is, and given that race is a socially constructed identity based on a phylogenetic reality: what difference, at this point, does it make? ™

It makes a very big difference. And to say that social constructionism discounts genetic verification would be a drastic misunderstanding of social constructionism.

If “15% of her alleles are White”, or “20% of her alleles are White”, it makes no difference at all, because in her lived experience, she is not White, and White people also do not view her as White, because she simply isn’t European.

Maybe she isn’t. It’s fine with me either way; but I just saw a European woman on the street who did not look all that different. Now, I gave you my impression of Martinez, a cursory opinion not expecting for you to see it as an occasion for a fight but to make fine distinctions. ....I was sketchy for a reason, because I see ambiguity… upon a second look, I can admit, her childhood pictures show a darkness of hair that is not characteristically White and the big white teeth that she has, I don’t associate with Europeans too much either… but there are other aspects which could show White admixture. ..it matters to me; but the purpose is not to “make her White”...

At the end of the day, Martinez can only ever be understood as ‘Amerindian’ and ‘therefore not White’, and that is absolutely okay and fine in my view. The boundary must be drawn and in fact the boundary is already drawn politically, so it’s in a sense nice and convenient for all sides involved.

I think there needs to be more clarity.

And if “California” became subsumed as a part of Mexico, where ethno-nationalists like myself could not buy land and live in ethno-communities..well, that’s not a plan that I would devise. It is already the case that non-Mexicans cannot buy land in Mexico.

Martinez is likely from either of the two subclades, mtDNA Group C, or mtDNA Group Z, which are descended from mtDNA Group CZ (as many Hispanics in that geographic context are), which is in turn a descendant of mtDNA Group M. It hopped across the Bering Strait from Central Asia and Siberia eons ago. Or, maybe she is from mtDNA Group D, or even mtDNA Group X, same story. The social and political contradictions in the Americas happen to actually reflect the phylogenetic reality of a tension between those maternal lines which came out of Asia one the one hand, and those of the European population groups on the other which entered later into the region on the other hand, and that tension between two actually different groups—‘Whites’ in tension against ‘Hispanics’—is clearly visible in the Southwest of the United States right now.

There is no tension with me. I want these kinds and whatever her kind proves to be, to be preserved. She and other Mexicans are not only engaged in retaking land that might have been taken from their ancestors, they are weaponized against Whites by Jewish and objectivist interests, who troll people into thinking all White people are like the Jews and White objectivists, into thinking that they represent White ethno nationalists. They don’t.


69

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:49 | #

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:33, wrote:
Well, I don’t think the Southwest US should become a part of Mexico.  I would probably like to see the states and counties providing boundary lines for political division (like little nations); which would be a federation united in their mutual sovereignties, to protect their respective genotypes and against Jews, blacks and Arabs.

That would certainly be interesting, but I just think that we are not a stage in the game where we can micro-design what the balkanisation ‘should look like’. Who knows, in the next few decades, White out-migration might actually occur and yeild the basic preconditions for a ‘Hispanic Quebec’, which would be something much more broad-brushed than what your preference is—and which could be a precursor for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence.

There is also no guessing what the time scale for all of this might be. On one hand, it might begin to accelerate by the time Donald Trump gets a second term (which he may well get), or it may take so long that it only begins to happen by the time Barron Trump is outrageously running for president in 2036 with vigorous gerrymandering (which they might call ‘redistricting’) all around.

There is simply no way to know at this point, anything said on how it might actually look would be pure speculation. One thing I can say is that in my view, the more complex the division, the more unlikely I think it to be that it would work out that way. I won’t say that having delicate divisions down to the county-level is an impossible things, or that federalism is impossible, rather I’m just saying that given the rhetoric and attitudes that are being fostered, I don’t think it’s incredibly likely that it would end up like that.

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:33, wrote:
Maybe you are not going to agree and I don’t care to argue a whole lot about it right now. Atzlan not Atzlan, the world will keep spinning for me: your purpose is to stave off Jewish, black imposition and the White imposition of them and “universalisms” susceptible to pan mixia ....and actually, my purposes are quite the same.

On that, we agree.

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
I am against civic nationalism as well.

Another point we agree on!

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
It makes a very big difference. And to say that social constructionism discounts genetic verification would be a drastic misunderstanding of social constructionism.

It makes a very big different to what, though? I am not saying that social constructionism discounts genetic verification, I’m saying that genetic verification has to be placed in a social context which is the only place where it can have meaning.

In other words, when I said “What difference, at this point, does it make?”, it was my way of saying that when it comes to asking ‘how does this count’ in terms of categorisation, the presence or non-presence of some amount of European admixture in Miss Martinez is basically socially (and thus politically) irrelevant.

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
Maybe she isn’t.

Well, I’m saying that this shouldn’t be a ‘maybe she is not’. It’s pretty obvious that she just isn’t European. It’s not useful to even open the question to consideration, because as soon as that questioned is even opened, there is a whole cadre of South American and Central American Jews who will immediately use that as leverage to to try to deconstruct the concept of ‘La Raza’ so that they can instead create a post-Chicano—which is to say post-racial—narrative for California, Texas, and etc.

The Jews have more or less signalled their intention to try to deconstruct the concept of racial belonging, aimed at the Mexican community in the United States for purposes which should not be at all surprising to you.

That is why I’m not happy about the questions that you are trying to introduce, as they have adversarial implications. I’m not being unreasonable, I’m just applying communications and being far-sighted.

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
It’s fine with me either way; but I just saw a European woman on the street who did not look all that different.

Well, if it was fine with you either way, then I wish that you hadn’t chosen to write the question out, since by writing it out, you basically forced me to counteract what you said, which is how we are now having this back and forth.

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
Now, I gave you my impression of Martinez, a cursory opinion not expecting for you to see it as an occasion for a fight but to make fine distinctions…

But I don’t want to make ‘fine distinctions’! I actually deliberately want to make broad-brushed categorisations on which political actions can be based, which is literally the purpose of why they even created the term “La Raza Cosmica” when it was coined on the eve of the Second World War to begin with.

To make ‘fine distinctions’ in Latin America on sliding a scale of arbitrary levels of possible White admixture with different ‘meanings’ allocated to them, would be to obliterate the very possibility of racial organisation at all, because the level of White admixture among Indios has a pretty wide band of variation at the present moment. It would be impossible for them to organise, if someone were to declare that, for instance, ‘the difference between 5% admixture versus 20% admixture is socially significant’, or something like that. That is exactly the kind of ‘fine distinction’ which would be kill all political organisation before it even gets off the ground.

I would never want to see them begin to engage in that level of fine granularity, or they’d be tearing each other to shreds or sinking in existential self-doubt and confusion constantly!

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
but there are other aspects which could show White admixture. ..it matters to me;

Why? And I ask this not to be antagonistic. I just think that while for you it may be some element of innocent curiosity that just makes you want to investigate that, you don’t seem to realise that if this were to made to ‘matter’ to everyone, it would indeed snowball into a case where our ideological adversaries use that ‘meaningfulness’ as the soil in which to grow yet another form of ‘post-racial’ politics as they will obviously declare “everything is mixed and you yourself are declaring it!”

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
I think there needs to be more clarity.

And I’m simply giving the warning that it’s a bad idea to want to have ‘more clarity’ on that. What will be found inside the La Raza Cosmica box if genetic testing became popularised among Hispanics as a form of self-validation (ie, having it be decisive), would be a devastating weapon which the presently-hegemonic Jewish media would use as a weapon against literally everyone including you.

Even the slightest presence of European alleles (which will be there in some amount in lots of the population) would be opportunistically used to bludgeon them and you over the head rhetorically, and it would be done so as to prevent the social formation of clearly demarcated and separate racial groups.

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
And if “California” became subsumed as a part of Mexico, where ethno-nationalists like myself could not buy land and live in ethno-communities..well, that’s not a plan that I would devise.

I don’t even know what to tell you on that one. Why would you, a White ethno-nationalist want to migrate into the middle of Alta-California to start buying up land, if you were not already there before?

Hypothetically, imagine a future in which ‘#Calexit’ happened. It wouldn’t be ‘part of Mexico’, at least, not formally. But that would only be like how Kosovo is technically not ‘part of Albania’. But a separatist California would be part of a conceptual ‘greater Mexico’ in the same sense that a separatist Kosovo is part of a conceptual ‘greater Albania’ (and I’ll hat tip to Benito Mussolini for that one).

The substance of your complaint in that hypothetical would be that they wouldn’t just allow a bunch of people to move into the same land and repeat once again the very sequence of economic actions that led to the United States annexing Alta-California in the first place?

In that hypothetical, prevent that from happening would actually be one of the top priorities for an Alta-California government. Not because they hate White people, but rather because it would be the first line of economic defence against Jews in Manhattan leveraging massive sums of money to try to undermine that independence.

The fact that it would also prevent you from just migrating to Alta-California on a whim, is a relatively minor concern compared to that.

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote (emphasis added):
She and other Mexicans are not only engaged in retaking land that might have been taken from their ancestors, they are weaponized against Whites by Jewish and objectivist interests, who troll people into thinking all White people are like the Jews and White objectivist, into thinking that they represent White ethno nationalists. They don’t.

Except I am diametrically arguing the exact opposite of that. It is not Mexicans who are being weaponised by Jews against Whites. Rather, it is Whites who have been weaponised by Jews against Mexicans.

You will get to see it in the upcoming article (which I will source assiduously at that time, to ensure that every claim is backed up), but basically the Jews do not have roots in the Mexican community in the United States at all. In 2001, the Jews were complaining that they couldn’t get a foothold in there, and that the Mexicans ranged between indifferent and antagonistic toward them. In September 2016, Jewish lobbies still were reporting among themselves that they had not been able to get in, and that all the ‘problems’ were still the same.

In desperation, the Jews are now trying to devise plans to leverage Latin-American Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, on the basis that they percieve that those Jews are ‘in both worlds’ and can be used to ‘build bridges’. That then ran onto a simple problem—Mexicans think that Jews are beneficiaries of white privilege, and additionally, Latin-American Jews look literally like enormous gangly Ashkenazis and Sephardis, and thus cannot leverage crypsis to blend in. They simply cannot blend. They complain of being politically ‘isolated’ among Hispanics.

Now constrast that state of affairs with the present state of affairs of Jews in the United States and their total and complete penetration of the White political system, and their positions of total dominance in the Trump administration which has just been inaugurated.

The point that I’m making over and over again from the start, is that the Jews are not with the Hispanics. The Jews are with the White Trump supporters. That is simply the horrible reality.

I’m not pointing this out because I want to be annoying, I’m just saying it because that’s the conclusion that I reach when I ask the Jewish Question and follow it to its logical conclusion. As such, I’m simply saying that it’s not wrong for me to prefer Mexicans over White Trump supporters.

You may say, “Well, Majorityrights is supposed to be about White interests”, so it’s inappropriate for me to say these things as straightforwardly as I have been saying them, but let’s not forget that there are lots of White people who live in places that are not America. White people outside of America will also be negatively affected by the policy preferences of Donald Trumpensteinergoldenburger, if Trumpism is allowed to go on unimpeded for 4 years, or 8 years, or 20 years.

If White people outside of America find that they have to give moral support to Mexicans as part of an array of measures that must be taken in order to try to undermine an America that has literally and almost unbelievably now become “ZOG” in the true meaning of the term, then surely that is a case of ‘so be it’, right? The situation dictates the response. Just make the play. The wonderful thing about this play is that if it were made, the adversaries would not even expect that White ethno-nationalists would seriously start giving moral support to Mexico; you would have an element of surprise on that one. If you (and the rest of the planet) are facing the literal and actually real manifestation of a Zionist Occupation Government, is it really so bad that I think that Mexicans should not be impeded if they should want to kick-start the process of shutting the whole octopus down (at least on the west coast), either inadvertently or deliberately?

I understand that you are concerned that some of our readers may be offended by the way I say these things because of an ‘empathy-deficit’ in the way that I say things, but I don’t see any indication so far that they are.

Controversial as it may be, I’m just saying this is a possible chess move on an actual chessboard. And that I recommend it.


70

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:42 | #

but I just think that we are not a stage in the game where we can micro-design what the balkanisation

The darkest line can still be the Mexican border, with the states being a second darkest line - that’s not too fine. For racial reasons, maybe it’s better becoming a part of Mexico, so they can remain a more solid block against blacks, Jews etc, uncoerced by the JSA… but a concept of smaller units would allow for the conception of a more just outcome as not all of the Whites in those areas are deserving of banishment and not all of the Mexicans are more deserving to be there.

  DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
  It makes a very big difference. And to say that social constructionism discounts genetic verification would be a drastic misunderstanding of social constructionism.

It makes a very big different to what, though? I am not saying that social constructionism discounts genetic verification, I’m saying that genetic verification has to be placed in a social context which is the only place where it can have meaning.
In other words, when I said “What difference, at this point, does it make?”, it was my way of saying that when it comes to asking ‘how does this count’ in terms of categorisation, the presence or non-presence of some amount of European admixture in Miss Martinez is basically socially (and thus politically) irrelevant.

I’ve answered this before and I’ll answer again - I would like to be allies with ethno nationalists of this kind and if she is genetically part White, that would add explanation and warrant to my sympathy for her ...to NOT be classified with blacks: as the “Hispanic” classification has always very much bothered me by doing.

It is an entirely friendly sentiment on my part; and genetics are not irrelevant to the maintenance of human ecologies.

It’s pretty obvious that she just isn’t European

You have been mistaken before.  She’s probably more indios than White, but she might have a significant percentage of White. All I said is that I’d be willing to let genetics contribute to the evidence. It would also be ok if she didn’t have a DNA test. My inquiry was innocent - though for some reason I was treated as if it was not.

because as soon as that questioned is even opened (of her being part White), there is a whole cadre of South American and Central American Jews who will immediately use that as leverage to to try to deconstruct the concept of ‘La Raza’ so that they can instead create a post-Chicano—which is to say post-racial—narrative for California, Texas, and etc.

Well sorry, but I oppose Jewish interpretations and influence.

The Jews have more or less signalled their intention to try to deconstruct the concept of racial belonging, aimed at the Mexican community in the United States for purposes which should not be at all surprising to you.

That is why I’m not happy about the questions that you are trying to introduce, as they have adversarial implications. I’m not being unreasonable, I’m just applying communications and being far-sighted

I am not on the side of Jews and what I am doing was not trying to break apart “la Raza.”... what I was dong was building sympatico…and I’m not going to accept any paranoid shit. I didn’t make her leave Mexico, I don’t tell her to marry out of her ethnicity. I don’t tell her to accept liberalism and Jewish taxonomies and direction. Tell her to come to Majorityrights why don’t you? Tell her all about it.

  DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
  It’s fine with me either way; but I just saw a European woman on the street who did not look all that different.

Well, if it was fine with you either way, then I wish that you hadn’t chosen to write the question out, since by writing it out, you basically forced me to counteract what you said, which is how we are now having this back and forth.

I just said that I saw a White woman that looked a lot like her. I will keep and use my senses how I like, thank you very much.

  DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
  Now, I gave you my impression of Martinez, a cursory opinion not expecting for you to see it as an occasion for a fight but to make fine distinctions…

But I don’t want to make ‘fine distinctions’! I actually deliberately want to make broad-brushed categorisations on which political actions can be based, which is literally the purpose of why they even created the term “La Raza Cosmica” when it was coined on the eve of the Second World War to begin with.

Well, I favor the broad categories too, for the same reason that you do - but my main point of “finer distinctions” is to distinguish them from being intermixed with blacks and Jews. I’d prefer that they NOT be mixed a great deal with Whites; a little is ok with me. Ted Williams had a Mexican mother, he turned out alright, I guess: last guy to bat .400 (.406).

 
He probably identified as White, so no complication there.
 

  DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:14, wrote:
  but there are other aspects which could show White admixture. ..it matters to me;

Why? And I ask this not to be antagonistic. I just think that while for you it may be some element of innocent curiosity that just makes you want to investigate that, you don’t seem to realise that if this were to made to ‘matter’ to everyone

Is this Chief Matt Parrott talking through you as a medium?

I understand your point, you don’t understand mine - I am not trying to break up racial solidarity, just the opposite, I’m trying to prevent YKW from using blacks and others to break it up.

I don’t even know what to tell you on that one. Why would you, a White ethno-nationalist want to migrate into the middle of Alta-California to start buying up land, if you were not already there before?

Because its a beautiful place to live; a couple hundred years there does comport some warrant; and others, like myself, are warranted as they can manage their place responsibly alongside other ethno nationalists.

The substance of your complaint in that hypothetical would be that they wouldn’t just allow a bunch of people to move into the same land and repeat once again the very sequence of economic actions that led to the United States annexing Alta-California in the first place?

Stop saying that I am going to do unreasonable things.

In that hypothetical, prevent that from happening would actually be one of the top priorities for an Alta-California government. Not because they hate White people, but rather because it would be the first line of economic defence against Jews in Manhattan leveraging massive sums of money to try to undermine that independence.

The fact that it would also prevent you from just migrating to Alta-California on a whim, is a relatively minor concern compared to that.

You are talking so self righteously about this that I have to watch myself to not lose all sympathy for Mexicans ....bluntly asserting that they should have it, without any concern for Whites and that no White should consider living there doesn’t work for me.

Except I am diametrically arguing the exact opposite of that. It is not Mexicans who are being weaponised by Jews against Whites. Rather, it is Whites who have been weaponised by Jews against Mexicans.

It’s probably working two ways. But it is definitely working against Whites as well.

You will get to see it in the upcoming article (which I will source assiduously at that time, to ensure that every claim is backed up), but basically the Jews do not have roots in the Mexican community in the United States at all. In 2001, the Jews were complaining that they couldn’t get a foothold in there, and that the Mexicans ranged between indifferent and antagonistic toward them. In September 2016, Jewish lobbies still were reporting among themselves that they had not been able to get in, and that all the ‘problems’ were still the same.

Well that’s very good, but neither I, nor the kind of White ethno nationalists which you seem determined to ignore, would want to undo that success of theirs. Kudos.

The point that I’m making over and over again from the start, is that the Jews are not with the Hispanics. The Jews are with the White Trump supporters. That is simply the horrible reality.

I agree and I am helping you to make that point.

I’m not pointing this out because I want to be annoying, I’m just saying it because that’s the conclusion that I reach when I ask the Jewish Question and follow it to its logical conclusion. As such, I’m simply saying that it’s not wrong for me to prefer Mexicans over White Trump supporters.

You may say, “Well, Majorityrights is supposed to be about White interests”, so it’s inappropriate for me to say these things as straightforwardly as I have been saying them

No, because you’ve started to make the minimally required specification - White Trump supporters - they are deracinated objectivists, who are manipulable by Jews. MR is not duty bound to advocate those who are not loyal to racial maintenance.

 


71

Posted by Compulsory Blend on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:09 | #

This is the kind of example which has me (DanieS) recoil… the kind of thing which can happen in America when White and racial lines are deemed “unimportant” or when “Hispanics” and “Mexicans” are roughshod classified along with “non-Whites” (even when they are White, largely enough, anyway).. i.e., some really fine women can be written off as chum for blacks.

       

Compulsory Diversity News, Monday, November 04, 2013

The world’s most-determined interracial sex practitioner.

Serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin is scheduled to be executed on November 20th, 2013. For those who may not know, Franklin was the inspiration for William Pierce’s book Hunter. During his criminal career, Franklin targeted interracial couples, and public figures who encouraged race mixing. Franklin is the man who shot and paralyzed Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler. But don’t bother shedding a tear, for after >30 years in prison, Franklin has had a change of heart, according to this article:

Franklin now regrets his actions, saying he was suffering from manic depression. “I felt like a cloud descended over me,” he said. “I was obviously mentally ill.” After going to jail in St. Louis in 1996, Franklin interacted with African Americans and realized the error of his racism, he said. He no longer believes “race mixing” is an abomination, saying God could have easily had the human race all one color, he said. “For some reason, he made us different colors.” As for his many crimes, “I feel like the Lord has forgiven me because I’ve repented,” he said.

This summer, a bystander linked to one of Joseph Paul Franklin’s shootings went public with her story. Terry Jackson-Mitchell was 15-years-old when her two male Negro friends were shot dead as the trio jogged in Liberty Park, Salt Lake City, Utah. Some media reports linked the girl to the shooter, while others simply laid the blame at her feet as a “White” woman who had been spared by the racist serial killer. She is in fact part Mexican, but having two of her black boy friends blown away in a racist shooting spree didn’t dampen her spirits for interracial sex. In fact, she went on to produce two half-black children. She credits art therapy for giving her the ability to overcome the trauma of the killings and move on with her life (and fornication).

And so today, CDN proudly names Terry Jackson-Mitchell the world’s most-determined interracial sex practitioner. Here she is proudly displaying some of her artwork at Art Access in Salt Lake City.

   

 


72

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:31 | #

Well, we are just going in circles at this point, I don’t think I can convince you to see it my way, and the fact that I cannot do that may be an indication that White ethno-nationalists might not be able to do this. From what you’re saying, you want there to be White centring, or at least, your entire view of this idea is like a battle for White centring, which seems to take precedence over the actual operational outcome.

I’ll break my response into two parts.

One: White centring

Also, again, the fact that you leverage the talking point that if you can determine that Martinez is ‘part White’ then it ‘warrants your sympathy’ for her position, creates a perverse incentive because it inverts the whole purpose of what is supposed to be accomplished there. It reinforces the view that the more White admixture a Hispanic can demonstrate, the nicer you’ll be to them. You didn’t literally say that word for word, but that’s logically where such a position would lead if that were the message you were to broadcast. That’s what it means, but despite my best attempts to illustrate why that has unintended consequences such as creating a harmful discourse that cuts against self-segregation (particularly in the psycho-sexual domain) and which will snowball into mass mestizaje championed by the usual Chads prancing around absurdly yelling “they look White to me”, you simply think my view is paranoid.

The fact that you invoked Ted Williams and then said, “he probably identified as White” when his mother is literally a Mexican, only cements my view that America’s weird conception of Whiteness is very dangerous and can be destructive to literally everyone. Unfortunately I can’t get you to agree with me.

It may be that it’s impossible for me to actually get you to accept why that is not what I wanted you to do, and that it is rational for me to not want you to do that. It may also be that what I’m asking of you is unreasonable in the sense that there may be some way in which what I’m asking of you cuts against your ethnic genetic interests in the medium term and that this causes you to simply not want to ‘buy-in’, since the prospective gains (ie, attenuating the global reach of organised Jews, by decreasing the ability of the US to project power globally) that are to be had do not immediately accrue to you, but rather are felt initially in Alta-California and in Asia-Pacific.

Two: African-Americans who I do not even care about

It’s also disappointing that you then followed that up by introducing the issue of black people, when you know full well that I am not arguing a pro-black position at all. I am not doing it, and it’s slightly insulting that you’d even insinuate that my stance could be interpreted that way. I thought I excluded that possibility at the very beginning of this arc of discussion, when I said this:

Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:07, wrote (emphasis added):
Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, also by extension would mean “prior to the arrival of the Europeans’ pet Jews and prior to the arrival of the Europeans’ pet Africans in the Americas”.

I literally said that as clearly as possible, I’m bolding it now to re-emphasise it again.

Now, you may say that this is my own view and that social reality does not actually play by that logic. But any visit to Bing or Google with the search term “Hispanics displace African-Americans”, is going to yield the result that Hispanics are not pro-black to begin with, so to even try to put that issue at the forefront is a misdirection and a big distraction in my view. White people do not need to tell Hispanics to self-segregate themselves away from African-Americans—Hispanics themselves are already actively doing that.

Really, I shouldn’t even have to be addressing that, the topic itself is disgusting to me. But this comment by you takes the cake:

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:09, wrote (emphasis added):
the kind of thing which can happen in America when White and racial lines are deemed “unimportant” or when “Hispanics” and “Mexicans” are roughshod classified along with “non-Whites” (even when they are White, largely enough, anyway).. i.e., some really fine women can be written off as chum for blacks.

What the fuck. Seriously, what the fuck? You know, it is possible for them to be non-white and non-black simultaneously, right? The fact that you even encountered this phenomenon of people crafting those pincer narratives, is a sign of just how fucked-up America’s conception of racial politics is.

Also, there is a blank space which is missing its content there, which I will now use the lessons of Foucault to unveil:

DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:09, wrote (square brackets filled in by Kumiko):
i.e., some really fine women [who some White American males might find sexually attractive and desire to counterproductively further the ongoing mestizaje disaster with] can be written off [by a more Nordicist and self-absorbed set of idiotic White American males who presume to tell non-white population groups that they are all identical as ‘worthless muds’ and that their reproductive choices do not matter anyway,] as chum for blacks.

You see that? You see where the actual problem there is, right? It’s like you are saying that in the United States it’s either:
1. get fucked by White men in White hegemony, or
2. get fucked by Black men in the same White hegemony.

The correct answer there is actually: NEITHER.

Hispanics in the Southwest of the United States need to secede from the hegemony that would even dare to present those such a ridiculous framework to start with. Secession on an ethic separatist basis solves everything.

Hispanic women can at the very least start by just ignoring the tug-of-war of the two camps of White American males and their centring, and also continue staying away from black men. And, if statistics are in any way correct, that is staying away is what they are already doing.

Again, I didn’t want to dive into all this, but you are basically forcing me to respond to all these things just so that I can maintain the public viability of what was initially a very general overview about the utility of Alta-California secession to ethno-nationalism as a whole.


73

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:28 | #

Apparently perverted faggot Greg Johnson is ready to throw Michael Ravioli of Eginotes under the bus for being an embittered swarthoid and tomato sauce fetishist.  After Ravioli gets done screaming for the millionth time “Read Salter’s book!” he is a spent force.  The only reason I tune in to his tiny blog is for the lulz his bitter rants give me.


74

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:45 | #

One: White centring

Also, again, the fact that you leverage the talking point that if you can determine that Martinez is ‘part White’ then it ‘warrants your sympathy’ for her position, creates a perverse incentive because it inverts the whole purpose of what is supposed to be accomplished there. It reinforces the view that the more White admixture a Hispanic can demonstrate, the nicer you’ll be to them. You didn’t literally say that word for word, but that’s logically where such a position would lead if that were the message you were to broadcast. That’s what it means, but despite my best attempts to illustrate why that has unintended consequences such as creating a harmful discourse that cuts against self-segregation (particularly in the psycho-sexual domain) and which will snowball into mass mestizaje championed by the usual Chads prancing around absurdly yelling “they look White to me”, you simply think my view is paranoid.

No, it establishes a little connection to the group so that we can side with each other better.

The “they look huWhite to me”  was a self deprecating joke, meant to open the door for correction of the classifications, so that the classifications are on sturdier, non-Jewish and non-black grounds i.e., discreet grounds which can guard against blending; including of Indios and Whites.

The fact that you invoked Ted Williams and then said, “he probably identified as White” when his mother is literally a Mexican, only cements my view that America’s weird conception of Whiteness is very dangerous and can be destructive to literally everyone. Unfortunately I can’t get you to agree with me.

Ted Williams’ mother was Mexican; and she probably had White in her too. Almost everyone, including himself, most certainly would identify himself as White. I should not have said “probably.”

It may be that it’s impossible for me to actually get you to accept why that is not what I wanted you to do, and that it is rational for me to not want you to do that

I don’t want to blend away the races either. You are not talking to liberals here.

Nor do I want to write them off as scum in favor of Jews and White traitors who want them as enemies rather than allies. You should not presume that you are talking to sheer Nordicists and those wanting to uphold Nurnberg laws (i.e., as if 1/4 Jewish is ok) and as if Southern Europeans are a lesser people who can be blended away with others…

It may be that it’s impossible for me to actually get you to accept why that is not what I wanted you to do, and that it is rational for me to not want you to do that. It may also be that what I’m asking of you is unreasonable in the sense that there may be some way in which what I’m asking of you cuts against your ethnic genetic interests in the medium term and that this causes you to simply not want to ‘buy-in’, since the prospective gains (ie, attenuating the global reach of organised Jews, by decreasing the ability of the US to project power globally) that are to be had do not immediately accrue to you, but rather are felt initially in Alta-California and in Asia-Pacific.

What I’m saying is that terms of alliance and objectives have to be built up slowly, you are dumping these things too fast on an audience (largely White men) that is oriented in a different direction, as they look for a platform which takes their side after having been lambasted non-stop for 50 years for being White men.

They are not necessarily going to see that you are working in their mutual ethno-nationalist interest either without a gradual and nuanced build up that displays a little more empathy for what they’ve been up against and frankly for some things which they might innocently not know, and need to be gradually introduced to.


75

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:46 | #

Two: African-Americans who I do not even care about

It’s also disappointing that you then followed that up by introducing the issue of black people, when you know full well that I am not arguing a pro-black position at all. I am not doing it, and it’s slightly insulting that you’d even insinuate that my stance could be interpreted that way. I thought I excluded that possibility at the very beginning of this arc of discussion, when I said this:

  Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:07, wrote (emphasis added):
  Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, also by extension would mean “prior to the arrival of the Europeans’ pet Jews and prior to the arrival of the Europeans’ pet Africans in the Americas”.

Yes, I know that’s your position and I tried to help you - did help you in fact, by calling attention to the fact that the category of “Hispanic” has been used to group these things together. I was augmenting your argument, not contradicting it.

I literally said that as clearly as possible, I’m bolding it now to re-emphasise it again.

and I literally understood you and was trying to help you, WAS helping you if you did not insist upon misconstruing my motives with the damn Jews and right wingers who troll you and try to convince you that they represent Whites.

Now, you may say that this is my own view and that social reality does not actually play by that logic. But any visit to Bing or Google with the search term “Hispanics displace African-Americans”, is going to yield the result that Hispanics are not pro-black to begin with, so to even try to put that issue at the forefront is a misdirection and a big distraction in my view. White people do not need to tell Hispanics to self-segregate themselves away from African-Americans—Hispanics themselves are already actively doing that.

The category “Hispanic” does not exclude people who are part black. Period, not comma.

Really, I shouldn’t even have to be addressing that, the topic itself is disgusting to me. But this comment by you takes the cake.

I should not have to belabor that point but I must, because the term “Hispanic"has been used egregioulsy to throw Europeans, particularly southern Europeans under the bus (in there with the blacks and pan mixia).

  DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:09, wrote (emphasis added):
  the kind of thing which can happen in America when White and racial lines are deemed “unimportant” or when “Hispanics” and “Mexicans” are roughshod classified along with “non-Whites” (even when they are White, largely enough, anyway).. i.e., some really fine women can be written off as chum for blacks.

Yes. There are occasions when White women are put into non-White categories and it facilitates a disposition that their being blended away with blacks is not important. This does not contradict your concerns whatsoever, because I am talking about instances where White people have been grouped with “Hispanics.”

What the fuck. Seriously, what the fuck? You know, it is possible for them to be non-white and non-black simultaneously, right?

Yes and I am very concerned to help you and them to maintain that.

The fact that you even encountered this phenomenon of people crafting those pincer narratives, is a sign of just how fucked-up America’s conception of racial politics is.

Yes, but the fuck up is a function of Jews and objectivists - and the US constitution is objectvist, hence a big reflexively reconstructing part of the problem.

Also, there is a blank space which is missing its content there, which I will now use the lessons of Foucault to unveil:

  DanielS on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:09, wrote (square brackets filled in by Kumiko):
  i.e., some really fine women [who some White American males might find sexually attractive and desire to counterproductively further the ongoing mestizaje disaster with]

On the contrary! Who we recognize as our co-evolutionaries and thus want to counter the race mixing-of by defending our natural partners, not letting them be classified as “Hispanic” and thus classified right along with blacks.

can be written off [by a more Nordicist and self-absorbed set of idiotic White American males who presume to tell non-white population groups that they are all identical as ‘worthless muds’ and that their reproductive choices do not matter anyway,]

You are talking about a position held by some objectivists, some Nordicists, a dispostiion with regard to Indios that I neither hold nor condone whatsoever.

as chum for blacks.

I don’t want Indians to be chum for blacks either.

You see that? You see where the actual problem there is, right? It’s like you are saying that in the United States it’s either:
1. get fucked by White men in White hegemony, or
2. get fucked by Black men in the same White hegemony.

Do you see the problem? Which is that I am NOT saying that.

The correct answer there is actually: NEITHER.

Well, if we are talking about an Indian or Asian, I can agree. But if we are talking about a White women, yes, I think that she can be fucked by White men.

Hispanics in the Southwest of the United States need to secede from the hegemony that would even dare to present those such a ridiculous framework to start with. Secession on an ethic separatist basis solves everything.

You’ve completely misconstrued what I am saying, so..

Hispanic women can at the very least start by just ignoring the tug-of-war of the two camps of White American males and their centring, and also continue staying away from black men. And, if statistics are in any way correct, that is staying away is what they are already doing.

This term “Hispanic” is unhelpful to ethno nationalism. So is accusing “White men” of doing things, like “White Centering”, sounding like it came out of the some cultural Marxist department the raison d’être of which is to criticize White men to death, even for a well meaning observation amenable to correction.

Again, I didn’t want to dive into all this, but you are basically forcing me to respond to all these things just so that I can maintain the public viability of what was initially a very general overview about the utility of Alta-California secession to ethno-nationalism as a whole.

Well, if the argument is to be made in a WN forum such as this, it has to be done gradually and take into account a little more empathy for the perspective of White interests. You are hearing and paying attention to the voices of the sociopath Whites, and White sheeple led under the guise of objectivism, you are not hearing the more innocent and thoughtful ones, they are silenced, they are dying.


76

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:20 | #

Well, I guess it’s just that we can’t always agree on everything, as we are coming from different experiences and different perspectives. We can’t drag this out indefinitely, but it’s something we may possibly have to return to later on.


77

Posted by More who should have known better on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:35 | #

Posted by DanielS: Adding to the list of those in a position to have know better:

Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas

To educate the public about the freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution and people who and organizations which strive to usurp said freedoms

FMI’s Board of Directors

Kyle J. Bristow, Esq.
Licensed Michigan and Ohio Attorney
Kyle Bristow of the Michigan-based Bristow Law, PLLC, practices law in the areas of civil litigation, criminal defense, family law, and appeals.

Jason L. Van Dyke, Esq.
Licensed Texas, Colorado, Georgia, and Washington, D.C., Attorney
Jason Van Dyke of the Texas-based Van Dyke Law Firm, PLLC, practices law in the areas of civil litigation, criminal defense, and appeals.

William D. Johnson, Esq.
Licensed California, Colorado, and Arizona Attorney
William Johnson of the California-based Johnson & Associates practices law in the areas of commercial litigation, real estate, franchising, intellectual property, estate planning, and land use.

Jason Robb, Esq.

Licensed Arkansas Attorney
Jason Robb of the Arkansas-based Robb Law Firm, PLLC, practices law in the areas of civil litigation, criminal defense, family law, and estate planning.

Brett A. Klimkowsky, Esq.
Licensed Ohio Attorney
Brett Klimkowsky of the Ohio-based Klimkowsky Law, LLC, practices law in the areas of civil litigation, criminal defense, family law, and appeals.

Bryan A. Reo
Law Student
Bryan Reo is a law student who clerks for the Michigan-based Bristow Law, PLLC, and is knowledgeable of and experienced with civil litigation in state and federal court.

Mike Enoch
Website Proprietor
Mike Enoch is the founder of The Right Stuff, which is a major Alt-Right “political and cultural” website established in December of 2012 that contains edgy podcasts, thought-provoking commentary, and a forum in which members can network to coordinate their activism.

James Edwards
Radio Personality and Author
James Edwards is the creator and host of The Political Cesspool radio program and the author of Racism Schmacism:  How Liberals Use The “R” Word To Push The Obama Agenda.

Ryan Sorba

Journalist
Ryan Sorba is an investigative journalist who has been featured on CNN for his accomplishments and who appears frequently on television as a guest of the Dr. Drew Show.


78

Posted by “Calexit” moves closer to vote on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:08 | #

TNO, ““Calexit” Moves One Step Closer to Actual Vote”, 30 Jan 2017:

The pipe-dream of a “Calexit”—the breaking away of the state of California from the rest of the United States—has come at least one step closer to reality with the news that the Yes California Independence movement has the approval of the California Secretary of State to begin gathering signatures to put the matter before voters in November 2018.

The pipe-dream of a “Calexit”—the breaking away of the state of California from the rest of the United States—has come at least one step closer to reality with the news that the Yes California Independence movement has the approval of the California Secretary of State to begin gathering signatures to put the matter before voters in November 2018.

According to an announcement on the California Secretary of State’s official website, the proposed “California Nationhood. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute” has been cleared to “begin collecting petition signatures.”

If the campaign collects 585,407 valid signatures, then a vote on whether to hold a secession referendum will be put on the ballot. Californians would be able to declare independence from the United States “if 50 percent of registered voters participate and 55 percent of those voting approve.”

The “California Nationhood. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute” seeks to repeal the provision in the State of California Constitution which states that “California is an inseparable part of the United States and that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land,” the statement continues.

The move “places [the] question of whether California should become a separate country on a future ballot,” and “treats result of such future vote as declaration of independence from the United States if 50 percent of registered voters participate and 55 percent of those voting approve.”

It also requires the Governor to request that California seek admission to the United Nations if voters approve the independence move.

The statement goes on to say that the “fiscal impact of this measure is dependent on various factors, including a vote by the people on this measure,” because it might face “legal challenges, and implementation issues.”

The proponent of the measure, Marcus Evans, must collect the signatures of 585,407 registered voters (8 percent of the total votes cast for Governor in the November 2014 general election) in order to qualify it for the ballot.

He has exactly 180 days to circulate petitions for the measure, meaning the signatures must be submitted to county elections officials by July 25, 2017. If they are successful in gathering the required number of signatures, then the initiative has to be placed on the 2018 California state ballot.

If that vote passes, then an independence plebiscite will be held in March 2019 on the question of California’s independence.
According to their “Blue Book” guide to the case for Californian independence, the major reasons why they seek to break away from the United States are all essentially major political differences with the rest of the country.

They claim that as the sixth largest economy in the world, “California is more economically powerful than France and has a population larger than Poland. Point by point, California compares and competes with countries, not just the 49 other states.”

Furthermore, they say, “In our view, the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values, and our continued statehood means California will continue subsidizing the other states to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our children.”

In this regard, the campaign says that “California’s electoral votes haven’t affected a presidential election since 1876.

“On top of that, presidential election results are often known before our votes are even counted. So, why should we keep subjecting ourselves to presidents we play no role in electing, to 382 representatives and 98 senators we can’t vote for, and all the government officials and federal judges appointed by those very same people we don’t elect.”

This fact played out heavily in the most recent U.S. Presidential election, when California gave Hillary Clinton 61.5 percent of the vote (8,753,788 votes) to Donald Trump’s 33.2 percent (4,483,810 votes). This means that the state of California alone provided all the votes which allowed Clinton to win the popular vote count.

Another reason listed for independence in the Yes! California’s Blue Book is immigration. They state:

“California is the most diverse state in the United States and that is something we are proud of. This diversity is a central part of our culture and an indispensable part of our economy.

“As a U.S. state, our immigration system was largely designed by the 49 other states thirty years ago. This immigration system has since neglected the needs of the California economy and has hurt too many California families. Independence means California will be able to decide what immigration policies make sense for our diverse and unique population, culture, and economy, and that we’ll be able to build an immigration system that is consistent with our values.”

While the campaign is still relatively small—as of January 30, it claimed to only have just over 19,000 signatures, over 31,000 likes on Facebook, and 20,000 followers n Twitter, the outcome of the Presidential election indicates that their potential is far higher.

The fact that the state is majority nonwhite will also play a factor in determining the eventual outcome of the initiative, particularly as opposition to President Trump’s immigration control policies start to kick in.


79

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:00 | #

Posted by Matt Parrott on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23 | # 4

You can take Heimbach right off that list.

TRS had a longstanding policy from its very beginning of banning Heimbach from its network, banning Heimbach from its forums, and helped spread the rumor that we’re shills. Only within the past few months, through sneaking in through the Confederate back door, was Heimbach allowed as a guest on secondary shows on the large network. They threw their weight behind National Youth Front, behind Identity Evropa, behind American Vanguard. They did everything they could to oppose us, up to and including Ghoul, the #2 guy, openly attacking and memeing against Heimbach and his wife.

Our hands are sparkling clean on this one, ma’am.


But you can put Heimbach right back on a list of people who participate with TRS:

Beyond The Wall Episode 9: Interview with Matt Heimbach. Free Range Meth Is Healthy.


80

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 Feb 2017 23:17 | #

Kumiko, to shore up the basic, kosher strategic outlook on the use of Muslims: Muslims are useful to attack non-Jews, divide and conquer them on the one hand and then as didactic cause to unite elitist sell-outs with Jews atop the conquered on the other.

.... would it be correct to say that the Chechen’s Muslim Disneyland represents a kind of end game expression of that?


81

Posted by The Wages of Snobbery on Sun, 05 Feb 2017 00:03 | #

Comment by DanielS:

On the American side, the elitist plan seems to be playing out with blacks, Amerindians and lumpen Whites:

At Counter-Currents, a remark that Greg Johnson made is commented upon as having betrayed a casual, elitist attitude toward the culling of the Malthusian die-off; and with that, right-wing elitist contempt for social accountability.

Yapius

Posted February 3, 2017 at 4:01 am | Permalink

Some people will not make it, say both interlocutors triumphantly. Ok, but if white Europeans adopt a market dominant minority type of stance, and the lower iq, less ethnocentric segment of our population dies away, would that not convergently evolve us toward the Ashkenazi Jews? Could this strategy plant seeds of our destruction by molding our surviving gene pool into something different from what we used to be and what might be lost in this transformation?


82

Posted by Monument to Cortez, a.k.a. "Monumento al Mestizaj" on Sun, 05 Feb 2017 00:15 | #

TRS is doing its part with the Americas version:

A Jewish elitist agenda to form a coalition with White elitist sell-outs is also evident in Lawrence Murray’s Castizo plan, echoing suspicions that you (Kumiko) have held and suggested could be playing out by their opportunistic casuistry.

The title of the monument to Cortez is telling in that regard.


Monument in Mexico City known as “Monumento al Mestizaje”

          - Comment by DanielS


83

Posted by "Keep Quiet" on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:45 | #

          TT Metzger says, “Actually, it’s quite common in the right wing.”


Comment, DanielS


84

Posted by M. Enoch Isaac Peinovich on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:24 | #

Luke Ford, “New Yorker: ‘Birth of a White Supremacist – Mike Enoch’s transformation from leftist contrarian to nationalist shock jock”, 9 Oct 2017 by Luke Ford

I have many Jewish friends who find gentile nationalisms, particularly white nationalism, terrifying.

Nationalism means that you are devoted to your people. Jews are devoted to their people. Why shouldn’t goyim be devoted to their people?

To me, it’s not scary that there are white supremacists. There’s no inherent connection between that ideology and violence, any more than there is an inherent connection between Christian supremacism, Jewish supremacism, Islamic supremacism, black supremacism, etc, and violence.

It’s not scary when people hate your group. At one time or another, I’ve felt fleeting hatred for almost every group I’ve known (though I do not remember feeling that way about Jews).

Genocide happens when there is a dramatic clash of interests. Just because someone hates Jews or blacks or Christians is not a reliable predictor that the person is going to become violent.

Negative feelings about Jews are called anti-Semitism yet the Jewish Bible is filled with negative sentiments about Jews and Jews still regard the book as holy.

Just as I don’t hate any particular group of people, I don’t hate the MSM. They’re probably my primary source of information about the world. I take into account their biases and read them anyway.

The New Yorker, for example, publishes this interesting and valuable profile of Mike Enoch:

This summer, after a loose coalition of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Confederate apologists announced that they would hold a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, promotional flyers began to circulate on the Internet. The flyers included a list of names: the self-proclaimed thought leaders who planned to speak at the rally, arranged, Coachella-like, in order of prominence. At the top of the list was Richard Spencer, who coined the term “alt-right” almost a decade ago, and who has been so successful at making himself the poster boy of the movement that he was once sucker punched while standing on a sidewalk in Washington, D.C. Farther down the list were Jason Kessler, the Charlottesville resident who organized the rally; Matthew Heimbach, who has been called “the affable, youthful face of hate in America”; and Christopher Cantwell, who would later star in a Vice documentary about Charlottesville, unpacking a small arsenal of guns and saying, among other things, “We’re not nonviolent—we’ll fucking kill these people if we have to.”

The second person listed on the flyers, immediately below Spencer, was a white-nationalist shock jock named Mike Enoch. The name might have been unfamiliar to most Americans, but, to an inner cadre of Web-fluent neo-fascists, Enoch is an influential and divisive figure. In May, David Duke, the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, tweeted, “Hate him or love him—Mike Enoch is someone to pay close attention to.” Just three years ago, Enoch could be heard mocking Spencer (“talks like a fag”) and Cantwell (“a dickhead turtle”), criticizing their ideologies as too extreme. But that was before his radicalization was complete. These days, Enoch routinely refers to African-Americans as “animals” and “savages,” and expresses “skepticism” about how many Jews died in the Holocaust. Apart from interviews with Spencer and Cantwell, who are now his close friends and ideological allies, he largely eschews attention from the media. He prefers to speak—voluminously, articulately, and with an uncanny lack of emotion—on his own podcast, “The Daily Shoah.” (The title, a pun about the Holocaust by way of Comedy Central, reflects the overall tone of the show.) “The Daily Shoah” is the most popular of more than two dozen podcasts on the Right Stuff, a Web site that Enoch founded in 2012. Once an obscure blog about “post-libertarian” politics, the site is now a breeding ground for some of the most florid racism on the Internet. One of its pages is set up to accept donations, in dollars or bitcoins; another is devoted to “fashy memes,” songs and images that extol fascism in an antic, joking-but-not-joking tone. The podcasts—meandering, amateurish talk shows hosted by bilious young men who make Rush Limbaugh sound like Mr. Rogers—are not available on iTunes, Spotify, or any other major platform, and yet collectively they draw tens of thousands of listeners a week.

The Charlottesville rally, on August 12th, immediately erupted in violence, and the police shut it down before any of the speakers could take the stage. A few of them reconvened in a park two miles away. Enoch, surrounded by small concentric circles of reporters, protesters, and counterprotesters, stood on a wooden riser in the shade of a dogwood tree. A tall, stout man with a husky voice and a grim, downturned mouth, he wore aviator sunglasses, a slight beard, and the unofficial uniform of the day: khakis and a white polo shirt. “We’re here to talk about white genocide, the deliberate and intentional displacement of the white race,” he said. “Have we heard this conspiracy theory of white privilege? This is a concept that was brought to us by Jewish intellectuals, to undermine our confidence in ourselves.” He finished his remarks and introduced the next speaker, David Duke. An hour later, James Alex Fields, Jr., wearing khakis and a white polo, drove a car into a crowd of people, killing Heather Heyer, a local counterprotester.

Enoch’s father, who is also named Mike, spent that Saturday at home. He lives in an upper-middle-class New Jersey suburb that is often listed among the most progressive towns in the country. “I made breakfast, and at some point I mowed the lawn,” he said recently. “Then, as I do every day, I sat down to read the New York Times.” He saw a photograph of a torch-wielding mob taken in Charlottesville the previous night. “I looked at the picture for a while, and I couldn’t find Mike anywhere,” he said. He scrutinized other photos online, and still didn’t see his son. “I said, ‘Thank God,’ and I went about my day.”

On Sunday, after he got home from church, he saw that a relative had e-mailed him a YouTube link. He clicked on it: his son and David Duke, standing shoulder to shoulder. “It turned my stomach,” he said. “Until that moment, I had imagined that, whatever had caused him to go down this path, it could somehow be reversed, and he could come home again.”

Most of the bloggers and commenters on the Right Stuff use pseudonyms—Sneering Imperialist, Toilet Law, Ebolamericana, Death. “Mike Enoch” is a pseudonym, too. Over the years, on “The Daily Shoah,” he occasionally dropped hints about his identity, though he was careful not to reveal too much. He said that he lived with his wife in New York City—“which narrows it down to me and eight million other people”—and that he worked at a “normie” day job, which he would surely lose if his employers ever learned about his alter ego. As a child, he had attended church camps and public schools, where he’d been “programmed” to believe in universalism and equality. Most members of his immediate family were still “shitlibs”—committed liberals who had not yet seen the error of their ways.

In January, a group of anti-fascist activists dug up his personal information and released it against his will—an Internet-specific form of retribution known as doxing. Mike Enoch was actually Michael Enoch Isaac Peinovich, a thirty-nine-year-old computer programmer who worked at an e-publishing company and lived on the Upper East Side. As predicted, he lost his job. Someone printed out color photographs of his face and pasted them to telephone poles on the corner of Eighty-second Street and York Avenue: “Say Hi to Your Neo-Nazi Neighbor, Mike Peinovich!” The dox revealed that he had an older sister, a social worker who treated traumatized children, and an adopted younger brother, who was biracial and cognitively impaired. Perhaps most baffling of all, Mike’s wife, who was also identified in the dox, turned out to be Jewish.

At first, Enoch tried to insist that he wasn’t Peinovich, but he soon put up a post on the Right Stuff confirming his identity: “I won’t even bother denying it.” On white-nationalist message boards, including the Right Stuff itself, a few commenters accused Enoch of being “controlled opposition,” or demanded that he divorce his wife. (“I can’t believe all you fags still support this Jew fucker!”) Some held out for more information (“How Jewish? Because if 1/4 or less, I don’t give a shit”); others changed the subject (“I’m more disappointed by how fat he is than anything”).

A few days later on “The Daily Shoah,” Enoch and his co-hosts read dozens of notes from listeners who were remaining loyal to the podcast, some of whom had donated money to Enoch in his time of need. “My heart goes out to his wife,” one fan, a long-distance trucker, wrote. “If she is married to Mike, she must be a good individual.”

“That is a really nice thing to say,” Enoch said. “I’m sure she’ll appreciate that.” He didn’t mention that his wife had gone to stay with her mother in the Midwest.

Also included in the dox were two e-mail addresses, both purportedly belonging to Enoch. In general, I am opposed to doxing—I worry about vigilante mobs, false positives, slippery slopes—but not opposed enough, apparently, to overcome my curiosity. I e-mailed both addresses.

Enoch responded right away. He said that he didn’t want to talk—“I have a platform to tell my story that is bigger than yours”—and yet, every time I sent another e-mail, he sent one back. I made no secret of the fact that I found his views repugnant, but I added, truthfully, that I wanted to know how he’d ended up in this predicament and what he planned to do next. At one point, I wrote him a long note trying to persuade him to talk to me. His entire response was “You seem kinda mad.” We went back and forth for a while, but I had no real success in drawing him out, and eventually we both lost interest.

He later read our full exchange on “The Daily Shoah.” To his credit, he didn’t edit his responses to make them sound smarter, but he didn’t have to. According to the rules of online debate in the Right Stuff’s “Essential T.R.S. Troll Guide,” which I hadn’t read at the time, Enoch had won our exchange by default, because he had written fewer words and maintained his ironic detachment, whereas I had committed the greatest possible faux pas: letting myself be “triggered” into displaying emotion. After the podcast aired, a few of Enoch’s fans sent me nasty messages on Twitter. I figured that was the end of it.

Then I heard back from the other e-mail address. “I am not the Mike Peinovich to whom you addressed this email, but I am his father,” it read. “Until two days ago, I was totally unaware of his ‘alt-right’ activities. . . . I am struggling to understand how Mike E. (which is what we call him to distinguish him from me and my father who was also Mike Peinovich) could have said, posted or tweeted the things that are attributed to him.”

I called Mike, Sr., and we talked for a long time. It was the week of Donald Trump’s Inauguration, and he spoke in the tone that a lot of liberals were using then—weary and a bit dazed, as if struggling to shake a bad dream. “We tried to give our kids good values,” he said. “Mike E. went to good schools, and he loved being part of his church youth group. We knew that he was an outspoken Trump supporter, and he was very much the only one in the family, so we agreed, at a certain point, not to talk about politics.” He had listened to the podcast for long enough to recognize his son’s voice and profane sense of humor, but lasted only a few minutes before turning it off.

Four days after the rally in Charlottesville, I went to meet Mike, Sr., and his wife, Billie, in New Jersey. They live in an Arts and Crafts house on a tree-lined block near the center of town. Mike, Sr., answered the door. He was taller and thinner than his son, with silver hair and rimless glasses, but I saw the resemblance right away: the square jaw, the downturned mouth.

Billie and Mike are retired, and they spend several months a year travelling. They gave me a tour of the house, pointing out items they’d collected: Persian rugs, Mexican pottery, a floor-mounted globe. Mike was once a professor of Old English at the University of Pennsylvania, and his study contains several dictionaries and translations of “Beowulf,” along with contemporary books such as Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “Between the World and Me.” We sat in armchairs in the living room, and he talked at length about his ancestors. “My grandfather helped drive the K.K.K. out of North Dakota,” he said. “My other grandfather came from Yugoslavia, fleeing religious persecution.”

I find less than 5% of the articled above unfair. Overall, it is an important read. It is a compelling read. It is a great read. My hats off to the author and to the people who participated in the profile. I sense that the author was generally fair and honest.

As an Orthodox Jew, I don’t lose any sleep over Mike Enoch and company. I don’t fear that they’re going to carry out mass violence. So far, the Alt Right has been a non-violent movement, as George Hawley notes in his new book. Rather than fearing the Alt Right, I think it is more important to understand the Alt Right and that requires not just articles about them by hostile parties such as the author above, but also by reading the best Alt Right intellectuals such as Richard Spencer, Kevin MacDonald, Gregory Hood, Greg Johnson, Andrew Joyce, etc.

I feel drawn to write about outlaws. In some ways, members of the Alt Right remind me of pornographers. Outwardly, most pornographers proclaim they have no interest in talking to the MSM and yet most yearn to talk for hours to reporters. They want to be listened to by people in prestigious positions and they want to be acknowledged in mainstream outlets. Most Alt Righters are the same way. Most proclaim they never talk to the press, but as the Mike Enoch example shows, once you get them going, they’ll talk to you for hours. They’ll spill their guts. They’ll even shed tears over broken family relationships.

If I were (((Luke Ford))) I would not be too worried about Mike Enoch (or those in his orbit) either.



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: Being in kind – part 2
Previous entry: Trump and his cyber ‘czar’ Giuliani want to outsource US cybersecurity. Can you guess where-to?

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

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

Heidegger and Descartes commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 02:35. (View)

The Sackler's commented in entry 'Big Pharma Pushes Opioid Epidemic on West Virginia, the Poorest and Whitest part of America' on Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:35. (View)

Critique of Football Lads Alliance organizers commented in entry 'Football lads of various clubs, families, joined by vets to march in London protest against terror' on Thu, 19 Oct 2017 21:54. (View)

Taintng Iranian Renaissance with "Alt-Rght" commented in entry 'Why I Left the Alt-Right by Jason Reza Jorjani' on Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:10. (View)

New Republic asks about role of White women in WN commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Thu, 19 Oct 2017 01:44. (View)

Jewish family making billions from opioid crisis commented in entry 'Big Pharma Pushes Opioid Epidemic on West Virginia, the Poorest and Whitest part of America' on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:09. (View)

Catalan secessionist leaders jailed commented in entry 'Catalan referendum, explained: What's behind the push to break from Spain?' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:07. (View)

Jordan Peterson on hygienic aspect of racism commented in entry ''White privilege' as a warrant for expropriation; Christianity as the executing jurisdiction.' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 06:53. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 05:20. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 05:01. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 04:56. (View)

(((Trump admin))) liking objectivism for the Fed commented in entry 'Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarianism and the “Alt-Right” (PFS 2017)' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 03:46. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:30. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Full speech of V. Orbán: Will Europe belong to Europeans?' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:28. (View)

Kurdish PKK at war with Iraq commented in entry 'Kurdish Female Sniper Dodges Headshot; laughs it off' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:16. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Worst mass shooting in US history as gunman opens fire from above killing 50+ Vegas concert goers' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:59. (View)

Support for those going to Court commented in entry 'Jez Turner - Honour our Heroes' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:49. (View)

Swarm at Hungarian border fence commented in entry 'Full speech of V. Orbán: Will Europe belong to Europeans?' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:26. (View)

thought captors kidding that Trump is president commented in entry 'US opens first permanent military base in Israel' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:19. (View)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn commented in entry 'Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together: Russia & the Jews - Obstructions Continue' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:55. (View)

(((LaurenSouthern))) antiracist anarcholibertarian commented in entry 'Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarianism and the “Alt-Right” (PFS 2017)' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:46. (View)

Orbán maintains a link with Hungarian diaspora commented in entry 'Full speech of V. Orbán: Will Europe belong to Europeans?' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:47. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:14. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:03. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:37. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:33. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:01. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:16. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:55. (View)

National-Satanist commented in entry 'Angela Nagle: they think voluntary outbreeding is genocide. Cultural Marxism, Jewish porn! lol.' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:40. (View)

National-Satanist commented in entry 'Angela Nagle: they think voluntary outbreeding is genocide. Cultural Marxism, Jewish porn! lol.' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:11. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 07:56. (View)

affection-tone