I don’t know whether I’m banned from AltRight or not because I can’t post there anymore, however someone named ‘ConantheContrarian’ has personally asked me a question so here’s my response in case they want a reply from me. I’ve also replied to someone else named ‘stormrung e’ who raised dome interesting points as a reply to me. Incidentally I have an anonymous mailbox if you have any questions to ask that you think might deserve my time replying, I won’t mind.

“Skadhi, if I read your comments correctly, you are not an American. Whatever the case, who would be your ideal candidate for president of the USA? Just curious.”

I’m British and I don’t follow American politics all that closely in the first place, besides all that I oppose electoral democracy on principle. However none of the big four American parties – Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green – actually appeal to me that much. Economically I’m a leftist because I support socially minded economic policies such as restrictions on banks and corporations, as well as state support for the most vulnerable in society. But on several social issues I’m closer to conservatives, especially as regards the family and reproduction. Out of the four I’m maybe closest to the Greens, but I still doubt I’m that close to them.

My perception of the UK and America is that lassez faire social liberalism has undermined the procreative and humanistic basis of our society whilst lassez faire ‘conservatives’ have undermined its economic basis simultaneously through their own parallel ideologies. Furthermore I see the social conservatism of Republicans/Tories and the social justice of the Democrats/Labour to be obviously insincere judging from their past records of empty promises. You could just say I’m not gullible.

Someone else named ‘stormrung e’ also replied to me about my ‘participating in what has become a line of thought dominated by agenda-driven unreality’. So I had a think about that.

stormrung e:
“First, refer to what Roman Bernard has written above.

But let me answer your question: Because by joining in a critique of European colonialism, you are participating in what has become a line of thought dominated by agenda-driven unreality.

For European civilization, the Age of Empire was a golden age.The United States realized this and when they became strong enough and defeated the weakening Spanish, embarked upon influencing Asian countries for their national good. This decision by a majority white U.S. had long-lasting influence on the region, and may be the primary reason why many Asian countries are booming today. (Source: The Hungry World-America’s Cold War Battle Against Hunger in Asia.)

So, if you join in the shallow leftist critique of European colonialism you deny, like leftists, the many good things it brought to the colonized peoples. You also miss the fact that the Bolivarian Revolution, like its Soviet father, is an imperialist project itself.

And you completely miss the fact, which nationalists should intimately understand, that the Bolivarian Revolution and International Socialism funds, supports, and invigorates its brother movements for indigenous rights and anti-white ethnic nationalism in the guise as anti-colonialism. (Source: Frenchness and the African Diaspora and From Toussaint To Tupac-The Black International Since the Age of Revolution.)

This is a plague of vision, as there are even some pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin nationalists who hate Jews to the point they will defend Stalin’s empire even though it enslaved the white countries surrounding Russia. White countries who were more than happy to be rid of the Soviet mess.

But this is endemic in left-wing thinking, which white nationalism seems to be dominated by today. I am wondering if Greg Johnson will be defending the ANC next. He should, because Chavez is a protege of Castro and old Fidel (along with the KGB) threw a lot of support to the ANC and their intellectual and strategic vanguard, the South African Communist Party (SACP). I don’t think any of these left-wing nationalists want to make the argument that the ANC and the South Africa they have created is worthy of our alliance and sympathies, do they?

They may! But if they do, let me end with a quote by Joe Slovo, the head of the SACP, whose name is on a lot of buildings and housing projects in South Africa today.

From a 1986 interview with the BBC:

BBC: But, can I ask what is a legitimate target?

Slovo – I think a legitimate target is the enemy and enemy is basically in uniform, but not all in Uniform. For example in the rural areas, our judgement is that virtually the whole farming community is part of the South African Defence Force.

White – Is it the white farming community?

Slovo – The white farming community… They live with their wives, they live with their children, but I believe in that case it is not acting (against) civilian targets when one acts against those people who are part of the enemy’s military machine in the countryside.”

Besides the fact my ancestors were subject to European colonialism (against other white Europeans), and our liberation was supported by the Axis and also by Mosley, I don’t agree that the age of the European empires was a Golden Age for the peoples that supposedly benefited. In Victorian Britain, this was the age of child chimney sweeps, the Highland Clearances, and various other kinds of one-sided exploitation that hardly constitute a golden age for whites in my mind.

I don’t think that anyone fair would wish to deny that colonialism helped the colonised in many ways, or that the native people in vast parts of the world (especially Africa) were better off under imperialism than they have been under dictatorship since. Nonetheless, those same societies are now being contaminated by ideas from the west that arrived thanks to the introduction into their lands of a western culture that was becoming debased – the Age of Empires was an age of capitalism and the time of Marx and Engels. Clearly Devi’s observation that ‘their fight is also our fight’ if foreigners share our ideals has never been more true, precisely because of the political effects of globalism upon formerly unconnected societies.

In the white homelands and even in the former ‘white dominions’, ethnic conflicts and disputes with indigenous minorities are naturally very rare and, when they actually do occur, are about ‘whites vs. whites’ rather than of ‘us vs. them’. For example in Sweden, a fuss is made over the rights of Sami reindeer herders as a means to stir up the dog-whistle kind of ethnocentrism, creating a red herring to detract public anger from the more deserving target of race replacement and rape by far more recent arrivals than themselves.

I do however agree with ‘stormrung e’ mind you about the kneejerk anti-Semitic Stalinists and I concur that anyone who supports someone like Slovo is not someone who shares our fight in the way Savitri Devi would have approved of.

Incidentally, if anyone is curious, what Roman Bernard wrote and that ‘stormrung e’ refers to (and that I pretty much approve of) was that we shouldn’t dwell on victimhood and that any non-western ethnies who see our people as racial enemies of kind are not worth supporting.


Mircea Eliade, although he was a brilliant scholar of comparative religion, was quite an odious individual in his private life. People like to present him as some kind of revolutionary right wing thinker, either to claim him as ‘one of ours’ or to denounce him as a fascist, as though any kind of involvement in right wing European circles during the 1930s or 1940s is tantamount to someone personally going round gassing six million Jews or something.

Yes, Eliade did have well known links to the Iron Guard both through his personal connections and political pragmatism but he was never a hardcore rightist or a great political thinker, and much his genuine thought was actually contrary to a lot of what the mainstream Romanian nationalist movements were saying at the time. People nowadays look back at Eliade with rose tinted spectacles to reclaim him as a nice respectable nationalist they can show to people, but because those rose tinted spectacles are unreliable lenses they form the subject of this piece.

In truthfulness, the source of Eliade’s borderline acceptability as a thinker is that he denounced racism and anti-Semitism, and was also a huge fan of Mohandas Gandhi, to whom we shall return later. Outside the political sphere, Eliade collaborated with known Marxist figures only to be accused and mauled by them later on as you might expect – they only sought to use him for entryism, you see. There is a lesson in here somewhere, but its only one we’re already familiar with a million times over. Politically, far from being a great thinker, Eliade was pretty damned naive and clues explaining Eliade’s present semi-respectability relative to well known but demonised figures (such as Devi or Evola) have to be found elsewhere than within his political insights.

Despite preaching Orthodox Christianity and all of its mores to he Kingdom of Romania, Saint Mircea knocked up his future wife Nina whilst they were still courting and he suggested that she ‘get rid of it’, which she did, following his advice – later causing her to die of uterine cancer as she deserved. In case anyone is wondering why Eliade suggested such a thing to a woman he would later marry, the pregnancy was actually inconvenient to him because he was fucking someone better looking at the same time. Would you want your own daughter to be dating a good Christian patriot like Mircea?

Of course its because Eliade talked a lot about ‘love’ that no one ever dwells upon what a jerk he actually was, it is simply acknowledged as a matter of mere biographical trivia that his selfishness and immaturity actually caused his own wife’s death. Such handwavium is quite unlike the readiness of people to judge his unsentimental friend Julius Evola who is merely alleged to have refused to support an illegitimate boy who was born to an Argentinian woman he once knew, and who was possibly his (but, the story goes, possibly not), this being purely on the allegations of Gelli’s very dubious biography that no one takes seriously as a source on Evola’s life regarding anything else.

Actually this brings up the subject of ‘Great Soul’ Gandhi again, because when Gandhi’s own wife was dying he refused on religious grounds to let her take the medicine that could have saved her life. Yet years later when it was Gandhi’s own turn to lie dying, he quaffed some quinine himself on the reasoning of ‘that’s different’. This completely odious bit of hypocrisy usually gets send down into the memory hole to present Gandhi in the best possible light, and the reasoning behind such a selective cultural memory seems to be because he spoke about nonviolence a lot.

A similar interpretation would explain why Eliade has a semi-respectability today that many of his contemporaries on the political right aren’t allowed to share in. Mohandas Gandhi was lovable because he said nice things, but the non-pacifist revolutionary Sunhas Chandra Bose didn’t. Baron Julius Evola wasn’t very lovable either, unlike Mircea Eliade who did say the kind of things that can earn one a pass from our leftist masters. The rule is that whenever someone is weak and sentimental in character and says only unthreatening things, all the shit in their life is guaranteed to get whitewashed after their death should anyone remember them, not unlike the way piss might run from a duck’s back.

But the facts speak for themselves. At the risk of sounding like a feminist, both Eliade and Gandhi controlled the lives of the women round them in ways that quite literally left them dead. And this is not spirituality but evil. And, at at the risk of sounding callous or sociopathic, their self-righteous messages of ‘love’ were nothing but sentimental and disgusting tools created to achieve a selfish end, as is any other such message for all morality, whether we wish it to be so or not, is ultimately a means of control.

Apart from Mircea Eliade’s contribution to the study of religion, as a character he had very few redeeming characteristics, making him indeed the Gandhi of the right.

Looking into a mirror can bring you out of your cave, and for Marxists and Libertarians their caves are their preferred secular cults of lies that opportunists created to fill the fill the hole left in society by the death of God.

Mussolini said that every anarchist is a baffled dictator.

Mussolini created briefly a Fascist empire, but for the ringleaders of the world’s sectarian kooks the power they seek is within their own guarded gate circlejerks rather in creating empires, revolutions or social change. To people with such a mentality their own irrelevance to the wider world even at the local level is no problem for their egos.

In A Mirror Darkly: Marxism and Libertarianism
Michael Enoch

“This may surprise some people, but it really should not. Just because the two ideologies seem to be polar opposites in terms of doctrine and goals does not mean they do not attract essentially the same personality types.”

“Marxism and Libertarianism are essentially perverted mirror images of each other. Both are uncompromising, totalitarian, utopian and reject the status quo as morally intolerable according to their own esoteric philosophical constructs. These qualities are more likely to be attractive to a certain type of person than any particular point of dogma. Utopian idealogues are going to be attracted to revolutionary ideologies regardless of what turn out to be in reality rather minor differences in doctrine. It’s really just a matter of who gets to them first. Given the leftist nature of our culture, it will likely be the Marxists that make first contact.”

“I felt compelled to ragequit this leftist bizarro world when one Saturday afternoon I found myself in a run down YMCA in Brooklyn with a group of middle-aged Jewish public school teachers. They were discussing what the party line should be on radical Islam. On the one hand they found it to be a repugnant ideology, but on the other hand the Muslims were more effective at fighting US imperialism than any current socialist alternatives. And they were all taking it dead seriously as if it was anything other than a circle fap of epic proportions. I realized I had gone beyond full retard. An overwhelming sense of loathing washed over me like an awesome wave. The people I was around suddenly seemed twisted and horrible.”

“I started meeting the exact same kinds of people in the libertarian milieu that I encountered in the Marxist world. They tended to be younger and were therefore slightly less depressing, but many of them were well on their way to being the guy that holds meetings in the run down YMCA in Brooklyn and wears an out of style tweed jacket that smells vaguely of mothballs.”

“The same old narratives of oppression came back, just with the cast of characters shifted around a bit to suit a slightly different set of prejudices. The world really was the same dreary place after all. Oppression really was everywhere, it was just coming from a different direction. In this new world the workers are exploiting the capitalists rather than vice versa. Everyone really is equal, but in this narrative equality is never realized because of the state rather than corporations. Or maybe it really is corporations after all. Eh, whatever works. The evil rich unfairly rely on government protection and subsidy, unlike in the Marxist world where of course the evil rich unfairly rely on government protection and subsidy.

I don’t really follow American White Nationalism, but this piece from CounterCurrents (a site where I’m a persona non grata BTW) documents how what were once mainstream conservative positions became marginalised into ‘political extremism’ and the cowardice and sentimental moralism of Conservatives is outright complicit. In fact the whole piece of Hood’s demonstrates this so perfectly that there seems little point in selecting paragraphs or sentences from it to highlight his points.

And I don’t know what to think about Rockwell, as he was obviously a genius in his understanding of America’s cowardly ‘conservatism’ and in the nature of the Jewish Question as arising from secularised rather than religious Jews (the last part is confirmed as true by reading Kevin MacDonald), but made stupid mistakes. His use of Nazi imagery as a kind of ‘crazy wisdom’ was an ingenious way to get attention, but the association of a hated and recently defeated enemy with authentic American patriotism, merely made him an easier target for the cowards than were subversives like the Black Panthers.

Hood castigates Rockwell for thinking that the majority of Americans were secretly supportive of his own positions. Now I’m not an American and nor was I there at the time (I’m 21), but surely more Americans then were supportive of opposition to integration than were supportive of it. Sure most people are politically apathetic until a social issue comes and hits ’em in the face, but still, there are more nonelite whites than there are white elitists, and Rockwell’s intuition about public opinion was therefore broadly correct. However I suspect Hood was referring to Conservative pundit opinion. And on this he’s right, the great distinction between then as now was between elite and nonelite whites not people’s professed political parties. Metropolitan conservatives feel closer to liberals than they do to the interests of working class whites who have lost out the most from multiculturalism – besides that, they’re safe in their own ivory towers.

And yet despite the fact his support was grassroots, and despite his support for programs such as medicare, Rockwell – who associated fascism with state monopoly of the economy – never pushed for a socialistic policy as did the National Socialists in Germany, who successfully poached support from the ‘Mosaic German’ Communists this way. Even though most Americans at that time and now are averse to the word socialism, intelligent people will realise this to be simple Cold War conditioning along the lines of Pavlov’s Dogs. Understandably, most Americans at the grassroots level will desire socialistic policies as were provided by the NSDAP in Germany and the Fascists in Italy. Were American racialists more vocally social-minded – “We’re more concerned than corporate puppet Obama!” – they’d have more support from disadvantaged whites. And had Rockwell had less of a hangup about economic collectivism himself, who knows what America might be like today?

Rockwell as Conservative
Gregory Hood

“While Rockwell (accurately) saw the white race as the necessary root of America’s achievements, conservatives identified the secondhand products of Constitutionalism or limited government as paramount. The idea that these values were doomed to destruction in a non-white America simply did not register. Though Rockwell recognized the stupidity and impotence of the conservative approach, he didn’t have an effective response other than calling them stupid or cowards.

Commander Rockwell missed two critical opportunities. First, though he recognized the need for racial and class unity, Rockwell never presented a concrete program that outlined an economic and governmental alternative to American conservatism or progressivism. His National Socialism was almost exclusively focused on race, and his campaign for Governor in 1965 did not offer anything besides a promise to defeat the Civil Rights Movement. Though the later NSWPP program made a nod towards an “honest economy,” George Lincoln Rockwell never gave white workers a reason to support him besides opposition to integration. Attacks on financiers, corporate fraud, and capitalist sponsorship of the Civil Rights Movement were largely missing from his propaganda, which made it easier to paint the party as a publicity student, rather than a serious ideological movement.”

I don’t usually frequent forums but today by chance I encountered a great post in a thread on My Posting Career, that I thought illustrates the present fusion of Red State and Blue State values in America and elsewhere, for similar changes in attitudes are also taking place in the UK right now. I can’t tell the difference between a self described leftist in Parliament and a member of our ‘Conservative’ party such as David Cameron or Boris Jonsson.

Besides my own social background and distaste for the effects individualism has upon society at large, this kind of observation is why I’m a ‘right wing socialist’. Though I don’t believe in the abstract class war theories of thinkers like Marx and Engels, I find it impossible not to think in terms of class. There is a good reason for doing so, as the same parts of the brain are involved when we judge others by class as by race because Social Identity Theory (SIT) applies not only to race or ethnicity, but also to things like social class and religion.

When elite whites see nonelite whites as the ‘other’, whether it is the demonisation of the hillbillies and rednecks or the condescending attitude described below, it would be disastrous not to treat them likewise. As with any outsiders we need clear thinking and game theory when dealing with them.

“Exactly like the left’s romanticization of vibrants and poors. Lots of leftists know that, according to their own story, they’re the bad guys: white, well off, intelligent and privileged, so they project all sort of noble attributes on the others and even engage in self-loathing, e.g. checking their privilege and praising niggers for their dicks.

Likewise, many conservatives are aware that their lives are not that different from those of nihilistic, deracinated urban dwellers. Thus, dysfunctional meth addicted hicks somehow become country gentlemen.”

I don’t really approve of the short-sighted ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ way of thinking, but when someone pisses off so many of my own opponents without treading on my toes, then I don’t see him as an enemy at all. And, if we’re honest, supposing the UK was under the government of someone like Hugo Chavez most people would actually be better off than we are at present.

If you think about what Hugo Chavez actually did and stood up for, the liberal hypocrites pretending to mourn him in mainstream media like The Guardian would disapprove of some patriotic Chavez figure acting in favour of disadvantaged British whites. Their double standard when it comes to patriotic socialism only proves their morality is rooted in a hatred of the people on their own doorstep.

Two Cheers for Chávez
Gregory Hood

One of the weird and perhaps orchestrated things about the outrage over Moslem paedophiles is that it internalises feminist arguments first created against white men, and excuses worthless females from criticisms of their own behaviours.

If we can name and shame the Pakis as ‘rapists’ before they’re convicted, why can’t we name and shame the little bitch crying rape after regretting sex?

Remember this could, and really does, happen to any man.

When you read the following remember the girls are supposed to be innocent ‘victims’ of ‘rape’ gangs. Butter wouldn’t melt.

Oxford exploitation trial: Girl was ‘off her head’ on drugs

A 14-year-old girl woke up naked in a bed with two men but cannot remember what happened, a court heard.

The witness, now 16, was giving evidence at the trial of nine men accused of grooming children and exploiting them for sex in Oxford.

She told the Old Bailey she was “off her head” on drugs and alcohol during the incident, in December 2011.

The men, from Oxford and Berkshire, deny 51 offences including rape and trafficking from 2004 to 2012.”

She told jurors she was “disgusted” with herself for having sex with men but felt she could not refuse.”

Though its considered OK to criticise the Moslems, and though many would present this as rebellious or as right of centre, all criticism of Jews is kept completely off the table so that kneejerk ethnocentric sentiments are easily and conveniently redirected into a form of controlled opposition. But if anti-Islam is really so politically incorrect where is the equivalent outcry when the Jews behave as a minority in the same way? And doesn’t the second story sound familiar?

British MP was not pro-Israel enough

Paris rabbi arrested for not reporting sexual abuse of young boys

Have you ever thought of applying critical thinking to the entirety of society as people take for granted, instead of ‘acceptable targets’ such as religion or something?

Like religions, secular belief systems like ‘equality’ and ‘democracy’ are simply abstractions involving claims that may not stand up to rigorous questioning.

Not a Mystery
Brett Stevens

Our society in the industrialized West is caught on snags of our own cogitation. We have rationalized ourselves into impossible positions, and refuse to do what is necessary. It doesn’t take much to fix our problems. We have to stop thinking in the exact same ruts we have been thinking in, however.

The solutions are in fact obvious. Especially if we read through history, and see what worked, and what didn’t. Our elites will pooh-pooh that because in school, they were taught that humans are different now. They forget that the same rules will apply to any group of intelligent creatures at any time in history. Like gravity, they don’t change.

This is because once they have completed their arc of ascent, societies turn into self-parasitizing agencies. Suddenly you have all of these people who are assumed to be part of the society. You can’t kick them out, they say. These people need to be employed, entertained, represented, etc.

But since there’s no longer a sense of membership as a privilege, these people abuse. You get lots of people who are good at mystifying everyday things, whether by incompetence or guile, such that they have “necessary” roles that are the exact opposite of necessary.

Under that weight, society snaps like a yearling branch covered in snow.”

“And yet fixing it all would be so easy; that’s the greatest secret. They don’t enslave you, you enslave yourselves, because you believed the convenient lie that it is just too difficult to change it all, so we might as well “mature” and rage full-speed-ahead into our doom.”

Unless Greg Cochran is guilty of grossly and unfairly misrepresenting his fellow anthropologist John Shea, this is one of the most absurd claims I have ever seen coming out of academia. Of course there are cognitive differences between humans and fossil hominins because the size and structure of hominin brains can be observed to have changed over time. naturally, from this it is possible to infer that differences in cognition and also behaviour existed, despite the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Of course evolution is a fluid and ongoing process, therefore there cannot be a single point at which ‘non-modern’ became ‘modern’ nor where ‘non-human’ became ‘human’. All of the genetic mutations and phenotypic characters shared by all people today to the exclusion of chimps or extinct neanderthals, no more ‘made us human’ than those we share with lemurs to the exclusion of tree shrews, or with reptiles to the exclusion of amphibians. There simply exists no cut off point where human essence or nature begins, ergo people asking ‘What makes us human?’ is simply their desire to create an origins myth to fill the gaps after the death of god. (Hence words like ‘African Eve’.)

And yet, we are still expected to sideline our actual best interests on moral grounds such as ‘human rights’ rooted in the ideal of ‘one human race’.

Unchanging Essence
Greg Cochran

“Shea seems to think that a species – in particular, anatomically modern humans – is some kind of Platonic type and has an unchanging essence. So if all humans are ‘behaviorally modern’ today (they have to be, whether they are or not), surely they were 200,000 years ago as well. Those Australians are just pretending to have 15% smaller brains, while the Ashkenazi Jews are just pretending to be smart.”

“If the inner nature of a species stays always the same, where did anatomically modern humans come from in the first place? Were they found under a cabbage leaf?

Does Shea think that canines have an unchanging essence, so that Pekingese and border collies and timber wolves are all really the same? They really are different. I will stick my hand into a Labrador’s mouth if Shea puts his hand into a pit bull’s mouth.”

“Shea says that no anthropologist in his right mind would think that existing cultural variation among humans had anything to do with genetic differences between existing populations. It will be interesting to discover the alleles that made him say that.”

Meta Lane Blog

facts are good

Regulus Seradly

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

Destroy Zionism!

Exposing the World Parasite

Counter-Revolutionary Traditionalism

This blog is run by a reclusive bachelor in his late 20's who spouts political incorrect rhetoric