Archive for November, 2012

Obama vs Romney

Peter Frost has posted on why Obama’s win wasn’t better for whites – but he’s thinking in the short term. In the long term, ‘worse’ is definitely better, or at least brings a more realistic hope of better. Because anything that leads to whites awakening and separating has to be good, everything else therefore has to be harmful because it holds back the desirable.

He also touches upon the problem of ‘implicit whiteness’, when he points out that the Republicans followed policies against (immediate) white interests, such as increasing legal immigration.

But whilst its gullible for anyone to believe the Republicans care about white people (or about anything else except money and Israel), is this really so bad for us over the long term? What else but increased ethnic tension will bring more whites to ethnic consciousness before we are killed softly?

And if voting is irrational anyway. Does it really matter who wins when both sides are controlled opposition?

Obama: White America’s bogeyman?

“Political choices aren’t always clear-cut. Yes, Romney is light-skinned, but that’s no guarantee that he cares about the future of White Americans. His interests coincide more with those of the corporate donors who keep the Republican Party afloat. Yes, Obama is dark-skinned, but he may still be a better choice for White folks worried about their future. To be sure, the Democratic Party is likewise influenced by corporate donors both directly and indirectly (via NPOs that are nonetheless corporate-funded), but it also has internal factions, like the union movement, that oppose the globalist project of outsourcing to low-wage countries and insourcing low-wage labor. Other factions, notably the environmentalists, are critical of unlimited growth. Finally, the different ethnic factions within the party don’t form a monolithic bloc; infighting will happen, and one faction or another will make appeals for support from White Americans.”

Read Full Post »

One of the best things about ‘alternative’ news sources, is that you can learn facts you wouldn’t know otherwise. ‘Tadzio308’ left this comment about the accusation that the Republicans deserve the title of the War Party.


“In the last hundred years the Democrats gave us WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. The GOP gave us two Gulf wars and Afghanistan. The casualty count has to be over 100 to 1 Democrats. The Ds gve us a draft in 1917 to 1918 and from 1941 throught the early 70s when Nixon managed its demisel. No one was drafted after 1972 and the moribund law was changed in 1979. The Rs have never been responsible for the draft of a single person during the past century.

The extent to which the MSM has tarred the Republicans with the War Party label is astounding as it is counterfactual. America for Americans is a concept natural to the base of the Republican party. A small number of Israel Lobbyists were parachuted into the GOP in the early 1970s and it can not get rid of them. The Isreal First money rents the Rs, but it owns the Ds and always has.”

Read Full Post »

The concept of libertarianism is nihilistic because, if you believe in tolerance for its own sake, then you believe in nothing. The good news is that for many people reading a nihilist such as Ayn Rand as she refutes all existing value systems, can purge the human mind of corruption like a strong laxative, and open it up to receive the possibility of alternative values. Many people have read Ayn Rand and become enlightened by her demolition of other people’s beliefs, but sadly some of these people actually take her ‘philosophy’ seriously.

What really happens isn’t that reading Objecivist philosophy in itself leads people to White Nationalism, but that Rand’s vicious assault on consensus values and priorities succeeds at creating cognitive dissonance in her readers even if they recognise Rand’s own philosophy to be silly.

But with that said, Rand’s concept of ‘a sense of life’ does prove that she really did have a strong grasp of human nature and I’m sure her understanding of people’s reactions is why her books make such an effective laxative.

A Sense of Life: Ayn Rand and White Nationalism
Gregory Hood


Read Full Post »

Here’s a slightly improved and corrected version of a lengthy comment that I left at AltRight in response to Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier’s The French New Right in the Year 2000, because the comment was already turning into an article-length review as I typed it on the fly.

The French New Right in the Year 2000
Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier


“People like Alain De Benoist and Charles Champetier are, like politicians such as Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, merely enemies who accept the language of the liberals, despite referring to liberalism as “the main enemy”, and use such terms to damn or dismiss everyone to the right of themselves – let alone people who are actually taking action or making a stand.

Yet only extremism and revolution could ever stand a chance of creating the kind of society they seek – how else could it be possible to get from the present French society to the principles they describes in ‘Against Gigantism’ or ‘Against Megalopolis’? (Benoist and Champetier actually dismiss the seizure of power as ‘leading to nothing’.)

Anyone who can spot the obvious will realise from the start that there’s more Enlightenment nonsense in their writing than they like to think – just as misty-eyed American paleoconservatives are drawn towards libertarian poisoning because of the Enlightenment roots of the USA and its odious ‘freedom’, so the post-revolutionary French are afflicted with a similar problem through those three deadly words – liberté! égalité! fraternité!.

Regardless of their political orientation, people like Benoist and Champetier are actually no different from the multitude of philanthropic leftists, lassez faire libertarians and religious utopians because they choose to inhabit a deluded world of abstract thought in which everything fits into some appealing web of logic or other, yet everything still manages to slip through the most basic reality check and their whole philosophy doesn’t even fit together consistently if you think about what they say or write – they’re just trying to use obtuse and verbose language as a superglue and praying that no one notices the cracks. Whenever such philosophically minded people do have a good point, which the authors actually do, they still manage to warp it and twist it into meaninglessness until agreeing with them on anything, such as immigration, actually feels embarrassing.

Anyone who knows the history of anthropology should look at what Benoist and Champetier write in ‘Against Racism’, in which they repeat the infamous straw man that was created by the Boasians to discredit inconvenient anthropological truths. What would be the point of going to all that effort refuting Jewish anti-science and promoting HBD awareness, just to take sides with two Frenchmen repeating the same attacks upon real anthropology as Boas and Montagu, for god knows what reason? Do they really know nothing about the history of anthropology, and how Boasians infamously smeared their opponents and the entire science? If Benoist and Champetier do know this, and I’m sure they do because most people on the right did by the year 2000, shouldn’t we ask why they still repeated such pseudo-anthropology? But if they deserve the benefit of the doubt and they honestly didn’t know this, then why were they writing about a subject they didn’t remotely understand and using it as a basis for their political argument? Wouldn’t this be a fair question to put to their faces?

Next after embracing the Newspeak term ‘racism’, which is a codeword for anything anti-white, the Frenchmen take aim ‘Against Sexism’ and immediately abase themselves before radicalised wymyn. Did you know that Christianity ‘considered women as incomplete men’? Whatever that means, though such a claim would nowadays be laughed at even by more moderate feminists. Although no one who is intelligent yet not brainwashed could ever take such an insane assertion seriously, Benoist and Champetier still chose to present it as a valid opinion, just because they don’t like Christianity. Do they really believe that western society ever “excluded women from the arena of public life”? This is just a rehash of hateful, misandric claims that women had no rights to own property before feminism, or that women used to be kept ‘barefoot and pregnant’ by force. A good read of websites like The Spearhead might do the authors some good, instead of swallowing the venomous feminist tracts they’ve obviously been internalising more than they let on before they pretend to refute them. They even mention the right to abortion as a ‘specifically feminine’ right – since this is in the context of differential rights, presumably, the man gets no say in what happens to his own child or even a right to know of the pregnancy because this would surely violate a ‘specifically feminine right’. I guess it’s too bad unfortunate fathers aren’t born with ennobling vaginas, and I can’t help but suspect that Benoist and Champetier support chasing honest men as ‘deadbeat dads’, although they might only refuse to pay child support because some bitch trapped him by lying about taking the contraceptive pill – after all, motherhood is a ‘specifically feminine right’ but its one that costs money which has to be sourced from somewhere. Of course, you might already have guessed no specifically masculine rights would be mentioned anywhere at all in ‘Against Sexism’.

Benoist and Champetier consistently take the side of the Cultural Marxists over positions they admit to be genuinely traditional, purely out of some childish, kneejerk anti-Christianity dressed up as real philosophy (and no, I’m not a Christian either). Still more pseudo-intellectual is their silly argument in ‘Against Productivism’ that contrasts work with freedom – this comes across as very childish and idealistic anarchist stuff (SmAsH ThE sYStEm!!!!!!). I’d like to know more about these pre-modern societies Benoist and Champetier think had no work ethic, as such claims are up there with the pseudo-history goddess worshippers and their feminist fictions about Old European matriarchies in the Neolithic. (And no, I’m not defending the modern work ethic either, its just that no real life society known to anthropology fits Benoist and Champetier’s idealised past which he uses to critique modern civilisation… its obviously just another version of the ‘noble savage’ myth that was created to critique the west, but no one calls them out on it.)

Shouldn’t we ask how nonsense like this passes itself off as a serious alternative to mainstream politics, when its obviously more of the same we’re used to and appeals only at the emotional level? What is the use of ideas even supposed to be, beyond their obvious usefulness as propaganda anyway? Why bother with think tanks?

Something about Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier’s arguments remind me of the think tank associated with Spiked/Living Marxism, the infamous British circlejerk of political writers who present themselves as radical free thinkers and claim to lay waste to the current sociopolitical system, but are ever so careful to present all their most valid criticisms of the present pig system within such a context as simultaneously validates its underlying beliefs and principles.


Read Full Post »

Regulus Seradly

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

Destroy Zionism!

Exposing the World Parasite