Defining the alt right

According to Saboteur, the core uniting principle of the alt right is that we reject equality. Which is true.

Alternative right tells us that the alt right is those that apply the scientific method to society and human affairs. Which is true, and which not only implies that humans are unequal, but also that global warming is bullshit, and lots more along those lines.

Vox Day has issued a lengthy definition, which for all its length leaves out the absolutely vital principle of “no enemies to the right” and includes the distinctly left wing proposition that all peoples are entitled to independence. I rather think that Rhodesia and the Belgian Congo demonstrated that some people need to be ruled by outsiders. We don’t support all nationalisms. We support some nationalisms, including those of Japanese, of Chinese in China, of Israeli nationalism by Jews in Israel or intending to move there, and so on and so forth. Most of us don’t support black nationalism. We support all nationalisms of peoples competent to have a functional nation.

Red Ice adds to Vox Day’s points awareness of the Jewish Question, awareness of Jewish bad behavior in exile. The alt right totally supports the right of Jews to a Jewish nation. Non Jews in Israel should not get to vote, get government jobs, nor go to the most prestigious Israeli universities. Jews should dominate Israel. But Jews should not, however, dominate the image of ourselves that Hollywood presents, nor Washington’s revolving door between regulators and regulated. Jews demonize European history, in particular the crusades, and hold up to us a distorted twisted lying mirror of our past that makes us look ugly and crazy, that seeks to make us despise ourselves.

1. No enemies to the right. No one gets denounced or disowned or read out of the movement for being too far right. Criticisms of other alt rightists should be friendly or brotherly, or should criticize them for being too far left (Milo is gay, nazis are socialist) If you criticize someone for excessive rightism, criticize him as you would criticize your brother in front of non family and police. No enemies to the left works great for leftists. No one asks President Obama to disown his terrorist mentor Bill Ayers. If someone twits you about a fellow alt rightist who is calling for alarmingly large categories of people to be given helicopter rides to the Pacific ocean, ask him what was the position of the New York Times during Mao’s Great Leap Forward.

2. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

3. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it. You can call us racists, anti semites, and sexists all you like.

4. America is not a proposition nation, there are no proposition nations. The Alt Right rejects the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution too. All men were not created equal, and the hundreds of millions of non whites coming to the USA do not give a damn about any of the other principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and are unlikely to be persuaded to care. Mass migration has rendered those propositions dead in the water.

5. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

6. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Neocons are not Alt Right.

7. Conservatives conserve, meaning they conserve yesterday’s left wing political, military, and moral victories. The Alt Right believes in its own victory and intends to re-impose the lessons of science, reality, ancient cultural tradition, and history. We intend to roll back two hundred years of progress, and in some cases four hundred years of progress.

8. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. Christendom has a disturbing tendency to go left, which was corrected by such barbarian founders of Europe as Charles the Hammer. These corrections need to be kept in place.

9. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms of superior people and the right of all nations competent to rule themselves to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

10. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

11. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

12. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

13. The Alt Right rejects the free movement of peoples.

14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children. It is a specifically non Jewish white movement. But that whites should exist does not imply that Jews should not exist. Israel should exist. And Japan should exist. And China should exist. And Thailand should exist, and so on and so forth.

15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Whites should not rule the world. The American empire, aka “the Ïnternational Community” rules the world except for China and its satellites, and Russia and its satellites. It should not do so. In particular, it should not rule Japan.

16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation, such as efforts by “the International Community” to overthrow the ruler of Syria and genocide his ethnic group. We do not accept the Nazi theory that the natural state of relations between nations is war. On the contrary, we accept Xenophon’s argument that it is usually cheaper to pay in gold than in steel, that one should only obtain resources by force if one cannot obtain them by purchase at market prices. We believe that good fences make good neighbors. War is generally a consequence of insufficiently secure walls and property rights. To substitute conquest of resources for international trade is seldom profitable.

17. The Alt Right observes that men and women are not equal, that in relationships between them, the man should take the superior position. We endorse Pauline marriage – that divorce should only be for grave fault, that the husband should have authority over the wife, and the father authority over the children. We recollect that for nearly two millenia, the Church, and the Christian state, backed the authority of the husband over the wife, and backed the husband against adulterers, by the most drastic means.

155 Responses to “Defining the alt right”

  1. […] z nedávných pokusů definovat hlavní principy alt-right se objevil na Jimově blogu. Shodou okolností výše uvedené Trumpovo prohlášení popřelo hned první z jeho 17 bodů, […]

  2. JRM says:

    “The Alt Right rejects the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution too.”

    Yes, and I know why: b/c the FFs didn’t commit to writing the assumptions they already “knew” any reasonable man would also “know” at the time… a cautionary tale for those who would write such foundational documents.

    But wait….don’t we have to provisionally (in a spirit of pragmatism) hold on tight to the First and Second Amendments ’till such a time as we get to write our new and improved foundational documents?

    I know it’s not a foolproof plan with John Roberts on the SCOTUS, but isn’t it all we’ve really got? Maybe we should downplay the rejection of the Constitution for now, eh?

  3. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Basically, the only issue I would have against this write-up is the conflation of Alt. Right with Neoreaction. Overall, pretty good.

    My take on the Alt. Right itself is that they haven’t yet sussed out the issue with Trentian heresy. Mr Land, at least, is aware that Humanist philosophy is a problem, though I do say that it is time to start looking at ways aliens as well as traitors use such infantilising doctrine to subvert.

    Ref.: Trentian heresy, a pseudo-religion established at the 16th Century council of the same name.


  4. Tony says:

    “No enemies on the right’

    Forney should be purged for his ‘do the Philippines book’..

    You shoot the Traitor before you shoot your enemy.

    • jim says:

      Doing the Philippines is a realistic and reasonable response to the lack of stateside talent. Going poolside is not treason. What is treason is the social conditions that force men to go poolside.

      My son, who is a good man, would up finding a wife in the backwaters of Canada, but who could find a wife in San Francisco?

      • Tony says:

        Forney is making money encouraging white males to get their cummies in the holes of third worlders. Many will create deracinated poor craturs for short term puss.

        He has a pod cast called ‘this alt-right’ life. He cannot be insulted enough until he recants.

        • peppermint says:

          they would be better off with Ashkenazi Jews who are like 50% White, so their children’s children’s children can pass the Anglin standard of 88%.

          They’ll need to go to the Phillipines with their children.

        • Cavalier says:

          A deracinated person is a rootless cosmopolitan, not a brown bastard baby.

          • peppermint says:

            Rootless cosmopolitans mostly leave brown bastards, and to NS a person’s children is not always but usually the most important thing about them (to cuck weltanschauungen, something totally gay could be construed as more important), certainly it is usually the most important thing about demographic groups, and, in a very real sense, is those demographic groups.

            Many rootless cosmopolitans look like they have blue eyes and red hair. Since they will not have children, or if they do, their children will have brown eyes and black hair, in a very real sense, they actually don’t have those features. Evolution is a continuous process, and in it you play for the team you play for, then disappear while the team you played for continues to exist.

            Even the Jews – they have Jew children who continue the family tradition of Jewing through the ages, from the days of ancient Rome whose records they and their christ-cucked supporters have corrupted in key areas the eyes of most of today’s Whites.

            • Cavalier says:

              Intelligent white progs are the group that keeps most to itself. There’s a bit of White-Chinese intermarriage, but almost none else.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      America abandoned men long before men abandoned America. Loyalty is earned, not merely given. It is like respect in that. It also has to link people. Each link in the chain has to be connected, or it does not work.

      Learn from GamerGate. Stupid leftists pushed autists into a corner, and in response, the autists have been raising he’ll ever since. You are trying to pick a fight with autists and the left at the same time. Good fucking luck.

      The Shadowed Knight

  5. Oliver Cromwell says:

    In this post you try to define a movement that encompasses Vox Day and his readers, and you and your readers. I don’t think this is possible. The represent two different groups that differ on foundational points; more problematically, Vox Day differs on key foundational points from reality.

    1. Vox Day believes in group inequality, whereas people are really unequal on an individual level. The white nationalist is just as outraged at being told that the white truck driver is inferior to white physicist, and becomes deranged on this point in much the same way, as the progressive is at being told that the average black is inferior to the average white. To the white nationalist, all whites are equal. This does not stop dysgenia, it leads to dysgenia on the installment plan.

    2. Vox Day is a populist, you are an elitist. Vox Day claims to believe that mass movements can overthrow entrenched elites. In reality, only elites can overthrow other elites. A successful counter-revolution will be elitist, not populist.

    3. Vox Day claims to be a Christian, but Christianity embodies most Progressive values. Christianity can be made functional if no one can read the Bible, as in the Medieval church, or if everyone is forced for status reasons to pretend to believe in doctrines that are plainly contradicted by the Bible, as in Georgian England, but neither of these arrangements proved very stable. Christianity is dead, Progressivism is wearing its skin, and Progressivism needs to die. There is no place for Christianity in the new order.

    Vox Day is an attempt to revive the New Deal: equality for all whites under a populist dictator and the dying embers of an idolatrous faux-Christianity. We were there already, it was stable for perhaps twenty years, and we cannot get back.

    • jim says:

      Vox Day is a populist, you are an elitist.

      Probably not possible, but no enemies to the right.

      Vox Day throws me a bone on evolution. I will throw him, and the 1488ers, a few bones also.

      if everyone is forced for status reasons to pretend to believe in doctrines that are plainly contradicted by the Bible, as in Georgian England,

      It worked for a while:

      The rich man in his castle,
      The poor man at his gate,
      God made them high and lowly,
      And ordered their estate.

      And after the Puritans unfortunate experiment with socialism, American Puritans came to the conclusion that God ordained capitalism in the fall, and their memetic descendents have remained relatively resistant to socialism.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        I’ve got no problem with Vox Day, who is making the world better, but he’s not to the right of me or you, he is to the left, as is the “alt right” movement as a whole. The alt right is an improvement, and hopefully a gateway to other ideas, but if you deposited the alt right in 1935 you would just call it the Democratic Party.

        Vox anyway probably doesn’t believe a lot of what he is saying. I doubt he’s a Christian, a White Nationalist (at least in the sense he presents WN) or a populist. He’s a book salesman and that means he has to pander to his audience.

        • Hostem Populi says:

          “I’ve got not problem with Vox Day,” he states, and then proceeds in the following paragraph to outline his problem with Vox Day.

        • jim says:

          The alt right is an improvement, and hopefully a gateway to other ideas, but if you deposited the alt right in 1935 you would just call it the Democratic Party.


          The Dark Enlightenment is “Let us turn the clock back to before the Enlightenment”. The Alt Right is “Let us turn the clock back to 1935”

          I love Milo, but come the restoration, if I get to be grand inquisitor, he is going back in the closet and faking adequate levels of manliness, or else he gets the high jump.

        • pdimov says:

          “… but if you deposited the alt right in 1935 you would just call it the Democratic Party.”

          The alt right is reactive. It’s basically “the official narrative is a lie in this and that point”. You can’t deposit it in another year because it’s context dependent.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            It looks more like a coherent ideological movement: old style social democracy.

            It cares a lot about redistributing money to poor whites, for instance through trade restrictions. Looking at Trump’s old videos, this is a perennial obsession of his. Trade restrictions are probably a stupid idea, but even if they’re not are irrelevant to our real problems.

            It is not very openly racist. Milo violently denies it. Trump seems to honestly not be. It certainly does not make the point that class differences are also mostly biological. This would be the key point where you can say that Cathedral belief is contradicted by the Cathedral’s own official science, even if not the official interpretation of that science. They don’t do it.

            The Alt Right favours a welfare state for whites, with half-hypocritical suppression of the worst black excesses, and protectionism that is supposed to favour poor whites. Which is the left wing programme of the 1930s.

            • jim says:

              Yeah, sure, the alt right wants rollback to the 1930s, I want rollback to the 1790s.

              But from the point of view of the Cathedral, well, the Cathedral cannot tell the difference between rollback to 2008, rollback to the 1930s, and rollback to the 1790s.

              Milo just wants a rollback to 2008 or so, but when I watch him in action, I cannot help liking him, even though come the restoration he is going to be a threat to public order and morals, and he will have to go back into the closet or take the high jump.

              I plan to have both white and black undeserving welfare dependents picking cotton, but I expect that when faced with the choice of getting off welfare or slavery, those who wind up picking cotton are going to be 98% black.

              Even though Milo just wants return to 2008, and I want 1790 and the death penalty for a men who lie with men as with a woman (but only enforced on gays who stubbornly persist in getting in people’s faces) politically he is way closer to me than to a cuckservative.

              • Anon says:

                Milo has said he feels hypocritical about being gay and feels wrong about it, and that he’s pretending it’s ok because of the other things he do that are good. He’s said many times that at the end of the day he’d be happy to go into the closet and marry a woman because that would be natural and right.

                Obviously his current act is designed to be as flamboyant as possible, not only in the gay sense but including. I hope he really will go back into the closet and stop acting like a faggot.

                • jim says:

                  I am fine with him acting like a faggot until the time comes.

                • Anon says:

                  Yes, I am as well. He seems sincere about really being able to man up and have children when the time comes, and I hope my perception is right.

        • Zach says:

          Seems to me the AltRight is not defining itself. So Jim attempts to define it.

          Seems to me the AltRight is nebulous and wants to get the most important thing correct first. This perhaps leaves too many doors open.

    • Hostem Populi says:

      Autism speaks.

  6. […] a good article up on Jim’s Blog, giving his take on recent attempts to define the Alt-Right.  I don’t think there was […]

  7. bro says:

    “human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.”

    and yet when you say this to normal people they always disagree. vehemently, usually.

    when you press them: “in what way *are* people equal?” No one can ever give a concrete answer. It usually boils down to… feelz

    “I just feel like we are equal in some way”
    No. You just don’t want to admit to inferiority in *any* way.
    This is the sin of Pride. It’s not new.

    • Robert says:

      It is hard for people to swallow in one piece. You have to cut it up for them. All men are equal in some ways, like they all have a head, like they all have a soul, but that isn’t what we are normally talking about, but it helps to bring this up for them.

      I bring up down syndrome people, everyone will usually agree that they are not equal to everybody else, but they are still equal to us in a sense that a dog or a monkey is not.

      Blacks and whites are equal in that they are both human, and are on a different level than animals.

      I find that it’s not really people not wanting to admit that people are not equal, it’s more of people not wanting to be considered a bad or mean person. They have been told their whole life that racism is the worst evil possible.

  8. It seems to me that another, central tenet is always left out. De Maistre, Evola, Carlyle, the Supreme Pontiffs and the Catholic Reaction/Counter-Revolution generally, etc., have all opposed a core error of the Left.

    The Left, or Liberalism, according to Justice Kennedy’s accurate condensation of its essence, involves “the right to define one’s own concept of existence.” I.e., “non serviam.” But putting one’s whole existence in necessary service to the Good, and the natural hierarchy which exists to serve and propagate it, is the truest form of authentic Freedom – a term which initially involved such semantic connotations as “nobility of character; master of one’s own affairs, because one has led the life of virtue and good fame, striving to attain such independence.”

    Leftism’s “right to one’s own concept of existence,” or “non serviam,” is based precisely in the opposite principle – license, based either in the idea that there is no absolute Truth, or in a despair of ever knowing the Truth, or in the refusal to be bound by Truth, even if it could be known. This is incoherent, because the very concept of “rights” requires the prerequisite logical premises, of some transcendent moral standard. If there is no truth, no actual right and wrong, then by what rationale could we say that a man was owed something, was entitled to something, by “right?”

    Leftism/Liberalism wants to eat its cake, and have it, too: it wants to abuse the concept of moral truths while denying moral truths. It insists that the individual must have his “rights,” but it frames these rights in abstract terms, claiming an entitlement to certain actions (speech, religion, abortion, etc.) without regard to their moral content, or, at the very least, by claiming that it doesn’t trust YOU to impose YOUR idea of rights upon them and THEIR idea of rights. But if we have no transcendent standard by which to know what is right, then how can we claim that it is “right” so to invest people with “rights?” Or that people must yield their own views and actions to others’ “rights?” That is equally an imposition of a moral view. But Liberalism, in its incoherence, affirms both at the same time: we impose that it is wrong to impose; it is absolutely right that you can’t know what is absolutely right, and therefore we all must agree that we mustn’t must do anything… except this, which we must do, because it’s right, because, you don’t get to decide what’s right. Free Speech, bitches! LOL YOLO

    Having our cake, and eating it, too…

    The problem with “the Right,” in this country, is that it is Classically Liberal, and therefore already affirms this Liberal bedrock principle of “rights to decide reality for myself because that’s right even though we don’t know what’s right, or at least, I’ve/We’ve decided that you don’t get do decide what’s right, and we all know that that’s only right.” This produces the “Leftist Singularity,” in whose Event Horizon Cuckservatives are caught. Since “conservatives” (cucks) agree with Leftist principles, whatever new horror emerges, eventually gets sanctified by the Leftist principle: “I have the right, not to have your idea of what’s right, imposed on me. Which means, LOL, that my idea of what’s right will be imposed upon all of society, in order to defend my new freak show from previously and unfairly, established norms.” It is literal madness, but Western Civilization has been marked by God for chastisement until it repents. Quos vult perdere, Deus prius dementat.”

    Thus, in my view, the Alt-Right must be the actual alternative to this version of the “right.” Authentic Western Civilization, before Protestantism introduced the principle of “the right to one’s own, private conception of reality,” had the strength of its convictions and affirmed the Natural Law, as masterfully developed from Plato and Aristotle, on down through St Thomas and others, as normative upon society. There is ample room for toleration, and even for adopting policies that tolerate a great deal of free speech and free exercise in society; but they never made the fatal mistake of vesting dissent from reality with rights. It’s not so much Free Speech, the policy, that is the problem; it’s Free Speech, the metaphysical right. And likewise with other things that may be very good policies of toleration, but which are incoherent and nonsensical as rights.

    I used to labor under the delusion that Medieval Catholicism was some sort of barbaric freak show. Of course, the reason I’m now a Catholic monk, is because I learned that most of the complaints were false (the Inquisition, far from being a superstitious which hunt, actually condemned the idea that witches existed and gave us the exacting processes of modern jurisprudence). Even the complaints than can be made, are simply the kinds of absurdities that happen in every age, but which, because they do not happen in ours, seem stranger to us than our own. Is Trial by Ordeal or the accidental veneration of ox bones really any more freakish than Victorian vibrators to prevent female insanity? Than Honey-Boo-Boo? Than Slutwalks?

    So, in my view the Alt-Right must, in addition to the things mentioned above, reject the idea of abstract “rights.” It must find the strength of its convictions, affirm the Natural Law as normative again, and not hesitate to punish those who claim the right to dissent from Nature and society, imposing their idiosyncratic concepts upon others via the passive-aggressive mechanisms of a Liberal, “rights”-based culture.

    Today is the Day of the Dead; be mindful of your own, inevitable appointment with death, and on this day at least, do not neglect the souls of your forebears.

    • Robert says:

      I think what we are trying to do is declare what exactly is the natural law, the way, the will of God, in regards to the different types of men. Jim doesn’t have a point that says, “The alt right believes that it is wrong to cheat at cards” because we are trying to deal with certain lies in our society, and we all know, without
      speaking it, that you shouldn’t cheat at cards.

      I do agree with you that at some point we are going to have to more broadly define what is right, but much of this has already been done by very wise men.

      • Oh, I agree. In fact, I think we should simply say: “The tradition of Natural Law, which reached its highest zenith yet under the Thomism of the Church, is the treasury of Western Civilization’s normative morality.” Done.

        I’m just saying that often, people who call themselves Alt-Right will make frequent references to Free Speech, etc., and I think we should be more clear about the fact, that such a concept is the very, beating heart of Leftism. Until we throw that out, we continue to be held in the Left’s gravitational field.

        • Cavalier says:

          If we are virtuous and very, very lucky, the “Alt-Right” will turn out to be a low-church heresy of Progressivism with holiness spirals that cut right instead of left.

  9. Robert says:

    I am Alt right, if this is Alt right, but we are going to have to better define what exactly we mean when we say right at some point. What does someone who is as far right as you can go look like? Who is the ideal right man? Some would say Hitler, some Jesus. Maybe we can’t really do that, maybe we need a canon. I think we should add a point speaking directly to male female relations. “The Alt Right believes that men and women are not equal, that in relationships between them, the man should take the superior position.”

  10. Glenfilthie says:


    Science/nationalism/Vox Day: Yeah, I’ll go along with that, Jim. Just as long as you understand that if cannon fodder like Vox Day aren’t killed in the skirmishes ahead – we will have to cull any surviving useful fools ourselves afterward. We will have no enemies to the right if the loons are dead, HAR HAR HAR!

    Yadda yadda yadda…No.4. Oh boy, I have problems with that. America is full of proposition Americans, and many of them have Alt Right values. There are immigrants out there we want and need too. As for rejecting the Constitution? Over your dead body, maybe…

    No. 5 – I reject the idea of a ‘classical’ class society. The nation does not owe you a living, but to succeed, this nation must allow you be able to make a living for yourself. I will oppose any efforts to undermine that value with every means at my disposal, up to and including violence and rebellion. Just sayin’…

    No. 7. You’ll need to expand on that.

    Blah blah blah – yup! Make it so!

    No 15 – Japs are like Huns. They are at your feet or at your throat. But I might be convinced otherwise if you can make a case for it.

    No. 16. Sounds nice an pretty, Jim. How do you propose to deal with rogue nations that are run by shit skins that would rather trade in steel and lead rather than gold? How do we handle them when they attack our allies?

    Don’t get me wrong – if I have to side with shit bags like Vox Day (or turds like P-Mint) to put a stake through Hillary’s black heart – I will do it! But afterwards those boys’ll want to keep their hands where I can see ’em.

    • Hostem Populi says:

      Glenfilthie reminds me of Jeff Goldblum when he was mostly transformed into the fly. Not human, not a fly, but a frightful abomination. He’s a combination of alt right bombast and basic bitch conservative neo-cuckery, but with all the delusions of grandeur from both.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        He talks a lot, in that peculiar, bombastic manner common to men who do little and make up for it with the volume and quantity of their words. Men who fight, fight; they do not talk. If he had made a tenth of the contributions Vox has made, he might have more weight to his words. As it is, he is long on talk and short on do.

        The Shadowed Knight

        • Glenfilthie says:

          Hey! Be nice!!!

          Jim said ‘no enemies to the right’!!! You’re hurting my feelings! I’m OFFENDED!!!

          Our gracious host made a lot of good points, some bad to which I take exception. You boys are playing with fire and haven’t the slightest clue. It’s not me ya gotta worry about… it’s your friends ya need to keep an eye on…

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            >Against authoritarianism
            >Punching right
            >One of these things is not like the others

            Playing with fire? Fire does not make empty threats. Fire crackles, because it is quietly dangerous. Everyone here is playing with fire. It comes with the territory.

            The Shadowed Knight

            • Glenfilthie says:

              Whose punching right? I refuse to be afraid of eeeeeeeevil joooos because some of ’em are as conservative as I am. They kill moslems and I’m always good with that. You want to stop punching right? Well – you first!

              Vox Day’s enemies aren’t my enemies. By his own definitions he is a gamma male that thinks his problems should be your problems. He lies, he projects, he doubles down. Want to see some high comedy about ‘scientody’ (What kind of intellectual derelict even uses words like that?) – get him talking about vaccination. If the balloon goes up that idiot will almost certainly die first and probably take a few suckers with him.

              Mind you – I don’t have a problem with that, I’m just sayin’.

              • jim says:

                The effect of injected aluminum salts has not been adequately tested for. Some anti vaxers, many anti vaxers, are crazy, but being anti vax is not crazy.

                The science that supposedly says aluminum salts are relatively harmless is comparing oral aluminum with injected aluminum, when we have good reason to believe that the body handles them very differently. (And also good reason to believe we are consuming far to much oral aluminum)

                On injected mercury salts: The environmental protection agency always wants to raise environmental standards, so it sponsored some crackpot lying science that found that the slightest amount of mercury was terribly terribly harmful, and proceeded to unleash the wrath of god against eeeviiil capitalists polluting the environment with mercury. To which the evil capitalists replied that the amount of mercury they were putting in the environment was nothing compared to the amount of mercury vaccines were putting in small children.

                So either the EPA science on mercury pollution is crackpot lies, or the medical profession science on mercury in vaccines is crackpot lies.

                My judgment is that the EPA science on mercury is crackpot lies, the medical profession science on mercury in vaccines is OK, and the medical profession science on aluminum salts in vaccines is crackpot lies.

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  I dunno Jim. If the Alt Right is going to revive formerly extinct plagues, poxes and polio – then maybe it is time to punch some dummies out on the right. In your scholarly screed above you note that the left wins because they don’t reign in their dummies and nutters. Consider this, though: if you don’t reign them in – they can run away with the party or the gubbiment as they have for the last decade or more. Or like they did with the EPA. Or the Cathedral.

                  Again, I don’t have problems with stupid people culling themselves by refusing vaccination on emotional grounds. But shit house science will not work for the Alt Right any more than the left. Either we embrace the scientific method or we don’t. Anti-vaxxers are loathe to admit it but they make a mockery of it and it shows in their arguments.

                • jim says:

                  Scientific method would be to inject alumina salts in immature apes and observe the consequences. If you are more scientific than the anti vaxxers, can you direct me to the relevant research?

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  The science is settled, bigot. The races are equal, women are just as capable, global warming is going to kill us all, fat is bad for you, and vaccines work. What are you, a science denier?

                  On a serious note, vaccines are a chemical, just like everything else. Would you put any other drug in your child without knowing the risks? Vaccine is a category of drugs, not a single thing. Each one will have risks, unless you are alright with jabbing your daughter with Gardasil so you can watch her seize up and wind up crippled.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • glenfilthie says:

                  Errrr… No, Jim. They would be injected into humans with the results noted and recorded. It’s been done. Exhaustively. how much more scientodly do Ya wanna get?

                  And as for our knightly courtesan – hey, don’t vax your kid. If you are fine watching that child die from polio or small pox or some other easily preventable disease I am just fine with it too. As I’ve said, though, you either suck or you blow. You can’t claim to be an adherent of the scientific method and then flout it when it doesn’t support some idiot’s agenda or narrative.

                  The ahistorical morons are reminded that this science was settled decades before the rise of today’s intellectual poseurs and imposters. I won’t tolerate that ass hattery from the left or the right.

                • jim says:



                  Sources? Cites?

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Using ♡*SCIENCE*♡ as an argument would be valid if you actually used scientific results to judge the validity of your statements. Instead, you are acting like the rest of the dumbfuck leftists and shouting that you ♡*FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE*♡ instead of actually producing any. This is further complicated by the fact that so many practitioners of ♡*SCIENCE*♡ will falsify results to get what they want.

                  Drugs are bad, mmkay? Until you need some antibiotics. I would give my children penicillin. I would not give them cocaine. Both are drugs. If I have daughters, they are not getting Gardasil because it has such terrible side effects. They might get other vaccines, but on a more responsible schedule than the current one. Each will be evaluated on its own merits, not as vaccines because ♡*SCIENCE*♡.

                  As far as boomers tolerating anything, you mother fuckers are the ones that are going to be tolerated. Besides Jews, no other demographic has done more damage to this country as the fucking Baby Boomers. You are lucky the 1488ers do not want to put you in the camps right next to the Jews. Your best bet is to shut the fuck up and let the rest of us handle this, because you fuck ups were the ones that broke it.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Jim, I’m not gonna do your homework for ya. I know enough about immunology to be dangerous and I know you know less than I do.

                  I assume you are reasonably fluent in statistical analysis as I am – and that any conflicting studies we post are only as good as their methodology.

                  Having won this idiotic argument with imbiciles like Vox Day I know better than to argue with them and will happily concede this one to them in the interests of peace.

                  (I won’t concede it to you, though) 😉 Start your reading with Louis Pasteur and keep going until you hit about 1975 ~1980.

                • jim says:

                  Jim, I’m not gonna do your homework for ya. I know enough about immunology to be dangerous and I know you know less than I do.

                  You are ignorant fool who trusts authority, not science, for the first thing about the scientific method is to ask the supposed expert “How do you know that?”

                  If you knew anything about immunology you would know that the issue is not the antigens, which are different in each shot, but metal toxins, which are the same in each shot and tend to add up – so what one would need to know to address the anti vax objections is not immunology, but toxicology.

                  Are you even aware that alumina salts are a potent toxin implicated in a variety of degenerative diseases? We can orally consume alumina salts safely because they usually not absorbed when taken orally, but are excreted. The amount of alumina salts in any one immunization is a significant fraction of the amount likely to cause a violent short term reaction. We therefore need research on the long term effects of injected alumina salts, and we are not getting it, largely for fear of what might be revealed.

                  We also have contradictory research on mercury in vaccines, with the EPA research (mercury is supposedly extremely dangerous and the amounts in vaccines significant) contradicting the medical research, (mercury is supposedly moderately dangerous, and the amounts in vaccines insignificant)

                  Two known toxins in vaccines: mercury salts and alumina salts, both in amounts that that could potentially be harmful. We have contradictory and inconsistent research on mercury, which on the whole tends to suggest safety, and no relevant research on alumina, which on the whole tends to suggest mens rea.

                • peppermint says:

                  People have been using mercury amalgam teeth for a long time. Mercury in the GI tract isn’t the same as organomercury compounds in the bloodstream. Aluminum is everywhere in the environment, not in the plants, but in the clay, so I don’t think it’s a problem to eat spaghetti sauce cooked in aluminum pans if it’s okay to use clay pots.

                  Iron is also a problem if it’s injected. You can eat as much spinach as you want, because the body is supposed to not absorb iron if it doesn’t want it.

                  Also, those Boomers who aren’t traitors needing to be shot mostly need to be enslaved for the rest of their lives to pay for the damage they have done.

                • glenfilthie says:

                  LOL. I am no fool Jim. I question authority. I’ll question you. Same way I did with Vox. I’ll tell Ya how this goes:

                  The anti-vax crowd will reference obscure ‘scientists’ nobody has heard of. They will have done ‘studies’ which are either extremely controversial or outright fraudulent. The reasoning they use is that because warble gloaming and climate science is consensus science fraud, vaccination science is too. Then the howler monkeys and fan boys come out to shreik about slavery and concentration camps, LOL. Shit like this is why the Donks can run a corrupt cnut like Hillary Clinton and even Republicans will vote for her, and THEIR howler monkeys start throwing feces at yours and screaming about Hitler.

                  i’ll pass on your brand of science if it’s all the same to you, and remind your visiting dignitaries that I am well stocked with beer, ammo and popcorn.

                  Don’t vax your kid, don’t bother with car, life or home insurance or education. It’s all a scam by cucks and jooos and if somebody would only make them into soap for you, America could be great again.

                  I think it’s time to let it burn. or be wiped out by easily preventable pandemics…

                • jim says:

                  The anti-vax crowd will reference obscure ‘scientists’ nobody has heard of.

                  You are arguing from authority. You should argue from evidence. Where is the evidence on injected aluminum salts and mercury?

                • Glenfilthie says:


                  My evidence is on the internet and in the library. As I said, I can’t be bothered producing it because you won’t accept it. Doesn’t bother me because I know damned well you do not have the authority to reject it anyways – so why bother?

                  I have no ego in this so, for the third time – don’t vax your kid. Just don’t expect any sympathy or assistance from me when your actions have the consequences that are all too easy to predict.

                  Last word is yours, somebody wake me up when the pandemic starts. I want to watch! 🙂

                • pdimov says:

                  “My evidence is on the internet and in the library. As I said, I can’t be bothered producing it because you won’t accept it.”

                  You don’t seem to be having a clue.

                  Here, a crash course:

                  – Aluminium is a proven neurotoxin. When it gets into the brain, Very Bad Things happen.

                  – It’s suspected of causing Parkinson’s and autism, but this is unproven.

                  – All the sites tell you how aluminium is naturally occurring, but they don’t tell you that only about 0.3% of it, when taken orally, makes it into the bloodstream.

                  – Vaccines contain about 1mg of aluminium (0.85 – 1.125)

                  – It’s present because it enhances the immune reaction, but nobody knows why.

                  – Aluminium accumulates. 17 shots, even across a few year span, at 1 mg each – 17 mg.

                  – The body clears aluminium, but very slowly. The half life of aluminium in the brain is 7 years.

                  – As if all that weren’t bad enough, one of the effects of aluminium is to enhance mercury toxicity.

                  I learned all that in about 10 minutes of reading reliable medical sources (not crackpot anti-vaxx sites.)

                • pdimov says:

                  “somebody wake me up when the pandemic starts.”

                  No clue here either. The number one defense against pandemics is border control. Next time a measles incident occurs, pay attention to the cause. It’s always, always, that someone went to Bangladesh or Kenya and caught the disease there. The media of course would blame those unvaccinated Christian Republicans.

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Well then!

                  I stand corrected! Clearly you boys know more than me and the entire medical industry and vaccination is a fraud!

                  Don’t vax your kids! I will round up all the evil jooos and corporations and we shall report for extermination first thing Monday morning!

                  If it’s all the same to you I prefer death by vaccination rather than Zyklon B. And please don’t let P-Mint defile my corpse!

                  Have a great weekend boys.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Don’t vax your kids!”

                  This, in fact, in no way follows from what we’ve been telling you.

                  And generally, putting it in terms of just “vax” or “no vax” betrays stupidity. Not all vaccines are the same, and there do exist numbers between 0 and 17.

              • Glenfilthie says:


                I wasn’t gonna do this, BUT:

                ELEMENTAL aluminum is toxic. So is mercury. When compounded with other elements they become inert in the body and harmless. Whatever vectors you come up with for your vaccines, it is inevitable that some people will react to them differently than the vast majority of us. Allergies, metabolic functions and other issues come into play. So until you can produce accurate information on the compounds of aluminum – you don’t have a leg to stand on.

                As for controlling your borders as a defense against pandemics – just so ya know, the disease vectors include rodents, insects and other means of communication. I suppose you intend to put all your ports and airports in bubbles?

                This is what happens when you spend 10 minutes researching a topic that requires 4 years of education just to begin to understand. You end up trusting idiots like Vox Day and slagging reputable doctors, immunologists, and countless specialists that actually know what they’re doing.

                This is a huge problem for the alternative right just as it is for the looney left. At some point we have to trust SOME ONE to be an authority on stuff like this. I will stick with the establishment myself – for now. Your mileage may vary.

                • jim says:

                  ELEMENTAL aluminum is toxic. So is mercury. When compounded with other elements they become inert in the body and harmless.

                  Actually it is the other way around. Aluminum in vaccines is in its most toxic form, in order to provoke an immune response by causing local cell death. Mercury in vaccines is in one of its most toxic forms, in order to protect the vaccine from decay.

                  No doubt the amount in any one shot is harmless. The question is the cumulative effect of these long lasting and long acting poisons over many shots. And that question needs study. The studies for mercury have given inconsistent and mutually contradictory results. The necessary studies for aluminum salts just have not been done.

                  Mercury preservatives have been largely phased out for vaccines, because some studies suggest that they are dangerous, even though most studies suggest that they are safe. Replacing aluminum salts is harder, which may explain the resistance to studying the effects of aluminum salts.

                • pdimov says:

                  “ELEMENTAL aluminum is toxic.”

                  There’s no elemental aluminium in nature. Aluminium is highly reactive and doesn’t remain elemental.

                  Even if exposed just to air, elemental aluminium oxidates and covers itself with a thin film of Al2O3, which is inert (unless exposed to acid.)

                  Aluminium salts are toxic.

                  This is basic chemistry.

                • pdimov says:

                  And, even if you could by some unfathomable reason swallow elemental aluminium, it will immediately react with the HCl in your stomach and produce AlCl3.

                  Again, basic chemistry.

                • jim says:

                  AlCl3 is highly toxic, but is safely handled by your digestive system, which neutralizes it with bile salts, then excretes it.

                  But try putting a little bit on your tongue.

                • pdimov says:

                  “As for controlling your borders as a defense against pandemics – just so ya know, the disease vectors include rodents, insects and other means of communication.”

                  And what specific rodent- and insect-carried diseases are you going to stop by vaccination?

                  “I suppose you intend to put all your ports and airports in bubbles?”

                  This is not speculation. This is how the world ACTUALLY WORKED and how these diseases were eradicated in first world countries. Without border control, vaccines will not save you. As you are about to see, by the way.


                • pdimov says:

                  In fact, elemental aluminium is so reactive that it can split water and produce hydrogen, which you can then use to power a car.

                  Not many metals can do that.

        • viking says:

          nah guys that talk fight its how they find most fights just not all talkers are fighters or versa

          • peppermint says:

            this division of the world into talkers and fighters is autistic in the same way as so much of the intellectual discourse.

            There is the kernel of truth that if you do something illegal, you do it alone and don’t talk about it. Arguably a revolution is a cascade of illegal actions until what people recognize as law changes, but it needs to be organized – by talkers, who are pretty much the same people as fighters.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              The really dangerous fighters that I knew did not talk a whole lot about fighting. Some did talk a lot, but it was not about how much of an ass kicker they were. They would insult you, talk about fucking women, or whatever else. Fight talk was about talking shop. How to properly fight, not how great they were.

              The men who talked about how they were badasses were not. If you have to tell someone you are a badass, you are probably not a badass. Actual badasses let their accomplishments speak for themselves.

              Glenfilthie is a mouthy fucking idiot that talks like a cuck. The average autist is more clued in to the way society works today than he is. When he tries to talk tough, it sounds like a parody of action movies, not the actual trained killers I knew. The bar for being tough is pitifully low these days, and he still does not clear it. The reasons he is trying to talk tough are retarded, so he comes of as even more fucking useless than the average hipster.

              So, no, not every man who talks a lot of shit is useless, but a tough guy is not walking around, saying, “I’m a big tough guy. Watch out, I can beat you up.” He says shit like, “Get out of my fucking way,” or, “I ever tell you I fucked your girl?”

              The Shadowed Knight

  11. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    A good starting point–and litmus test for would-be allies–is Greg Johnson’s definition:

    “The Alt Right Means White Nationalism . . . or Nothing at All

  12. Cavalier says:

    “It supports all nationalisms of superior people and the right of all nations competent to rule themselves to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.”

    This sounds suspiciously like Wilsonian right to self-determination.

    The reason the media kikes are always asking Whites if they “support” this or that is because it is the subordinate position. Imagine a slave “supporting” his Egyptian master’s litter. _That_ is support. When you say “I support Chinese nationalism”, you are saying “the Chinese are superior to me”. When you say “I support South Brazilians’ right to have a country, you are saying “South (white-ish) Brazilians need my help and I’m going to give it all to them for nothing in return.” Whitey, superior in ability but inferior in status—fit to be the eternal beast of burden while lorded over by his natural inferiors.

    Fuck that shit. I want world domination and I want conquest and I want shameless territorial expansion based on nothing but the right of strength given to us by Darwin Our Lord, natural selection, may His name be forever praised. If they cannot defend themselves militarily, they will be doomed for we will doom them, and we will re-enact the Aryan invasions, except we will not just rule, but also replace.

    “The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species.”

    Speak for yourself.

    “Whites should not rule the world.”

    You forgot a word: unitary. In a unitary fashion. Rather, we should have a British Empire, and an American Empire, and a French Empire, and a German Empire, and the sum of all the empires together should equal the entire world, and as we rule the entire world, most notably the dark-skinned inferior races, we should execute a policy of slow replacement repopulation. That is, we should have a surplus of people in our own White countries, and that surplus should be “exported” to nonwhite countries and gradually “whiten” those countries, in addition to the superior fertility differential of White people and white-ish people in those countries.

    And territorial competition between rival Great Powers will happen for the most part not on Earth, but in space.

    • Wilbur Hassenfus says:

      Wilson would want to go to war to preserve the the Assbangi’s right of self determination against Outer Bungholia.

      I would ignore both gangs of assholes until they threaten us, and then kill enough of them to render them harmless for a generation. I would not bother to exterminate the brutes, and ruling them is a classic exercise in pissing upwind.

      Natural resources are a problem though. Maybe Gnon put all those minerals underneath their Stygian sphincters just to teach us a lesson in humility, or to test our wisdom.

      Or maybe He meant to bribe us to exterminate the brutes.

      • Cavalier says:

        Wilson would go to war to save the inferior from being ruled by the superior.

        Jim would have us go to war to save the superior from the inferior. Which doesn’t make any logical sense, firstly because the superior do not need to be saved from the inferior, secondly because there is by definition only one ultimately superior group, and in practice we know which group that is, thirdly because it sounds a lot like “a nation competent to rule itself” will rule itself without need of outside “support”, and fourthly because “homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration” sounds a lot like “a nation competent to rule itself” will be by definition a nation capable of repelling foreign invaders, or perhaps more accurately a ruling class both stationary and capable of marshaling force enough to repel foreign invaders, in which case the definition can simply be reduced to “survival of the fittest”.

        And so we’re back to Darwin, back to British, American, French, and German Empires, and back to Anglo-style colonization, meaning the process of making Mexico, Central America, South America, Africa, India, South East Asia, and the Middle East great the same way England made America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand great.

        • Wilbur Hassenfus says:

          “Jim would have us go to war to save the superior from the inferior”

          Where does he say that?

          • Cavalier says:

            “We don’t support all nationalisms. We support some nationalisms, including those of Japanese, of Chinese in China, of Israeli nationalism by Jews in Israel or intending to move there, and so on and so forth. Most of us don’t support black nationalism. We support all nationalisms of peoples competent to have a functional nation.”

            What exactly is the definition of competence to have a functional nation, and why should I support any nationalism of any foreign people?

            I say we have the right to exist because WE ARE, because that is what affirms our life collectively, our lives individually, and through the lives of White children, the biological continuity of our people, but we must EARN it by our indefatigable struggle in the great Darwinian game, and just as we must earn the security of our people and a future for White children, so too must the other peoples in this world earn THEIR security and THEIR future, lest we take for ourselves that which they failed to protect for themselves.

            Exhibit A: Amerindians. European settlers. “The land our forefathers conquered.”

            • jim says:

              why should I support any nationalism of any foreign people?

              First move in prisoner’s dilemma should always be cooperation. “The Ïnternational Community” aka the blue empire is currently attempting to genocide Alawites, which is making lots of peoples nervous.

              Jews are trying to destroy all whites in substantial part because they reasonably and plausibly suspect that whites want to destroy all Jews. This leaves everyone worse off.

              To rationalize their destructive and self destructive behavior, Jews demonize the history of Christianity, and celebrate the history of Islam, even though Muslims have always sought to destroy them and Christians have seldom sought to destroy them, even though over the centuries they have prospered under Christian rule, and suffered greatly under Islamic rule. They remember one brief period in what is now Spain where one could argue that Muslims were not too bad to Jews, and celebrate it as if it was typical of Islam, while conversely remembering Nazi Germany as if that was typical of Jews in Christian lands. They think the Crusades happened yesterday and tell the story entirely from the totally unreasonable and hateful Muslim point of view, and tell it so passionately, insistently, and repetitiously that many Europeans have come to believe the Jewish/Muslim version of the Crusades. This paranoid, spiteful, and hateful behavior of Jews makes everyone worse off, and it is far from being entirely the fault of Jews. The 1488ers give them rational reason to fear. We really need to reassure Jews that we support the right of every reasonably competent race and culture to be themselves in their own land.

              I don’t believe that any regime, including Hitler’s, has ever produced a movie that demonizes Jews as savagely as the “The Kingdom of Heaven” demonizes Christians and Christendom. There is something terribly wrong with Jews that they should produce such a movie, and something terribly wrong with us that we would allow it.

              Jews are irritatingly paranoid and deluded (Jews for the most part support the Islamification of Europe, which is mighty deluded of them), but it is hardly surprising that they are paranoid and we need to understand and sympathize. Exile, persecution, and all that is psychologically destabilizing. Jews tend to behave badly in substantial part because they have been traumatized.

              The Jewish conspiracies are not powerful, competent, and efficient, rather they are typified by the Old Bolsheviks, who proceeded to murder each other until the Soviet ruling elite was damn near Judenfrei. Jews are not competently carrying out a parasitic strategy. Rather they are acting self destructively out of fear.

              • pdimov says:

                “… even though Muslims have always sought to destroy them…”

                That’s actually not true. Muslims trying to destroy Jews is recent (post-Wahhabi, I think.)

                Jews were given preferential treatment in Muslim countries such as the Ottoman empire. Lower than the host Muslim population, higher than everyone else. This is actually a stable arrangement, better than your preferred equal treatment.

                • jim says:

                  Muslim massacres of Jews have been happening on and off for a very long time. Starting with Mohammed.

                  For example the 1066 massacre during the supposed Andalusian golden age when muslims and Jews supposedly got on so well.

                  During the Andalusian golden age, Muslims were not all that better to Jews than Christians, and throughout most of history, they have been markedly worse.

                • pdimov says:

                  Supposed hypothetical golden ages aside, Jewish populations in Muslim countries did exist until relatively recently (there are still Jews in Iran, the supposed world center of anti-Semitism.)

                  So no, Muslims did not always sought to destroy them. Or they would have succeeded long ago.

                  I said in a comment under one of your previous posts when we were talking about Christians in Muslim lands that when you have oil, you no longer need Christians. Well, you no longer need Jews either.

              • Cavalier says:

                I actually was less referring to the Jews than I was to the billions-strong seething dusky hordes brought in existence by the largesse of stupid naïve Whitey in Mexico, Central America, South America, Africa, India, South East Asia, and the Middle East excluding Israel, but let’s talk about the Jews.

                Let’s suppose that as you claim, the Jews are trying to genocide all Whites, the Jews in typical über-neurotic paranoid fashion suspect all Whites of wanting to genocide them, Hitler was right, and the Holocaust should have been real.

                You once said that as women love a man with a firm hand, so too do subjects love a king with a firm hand, and even more do subject nations love a ruling nation with a firm hand. You said that the National Socialists and the catastrophe of WWII were not created by sticking Germany with entirely unpayable Versailles debts, but the failure of Britain and France to take action when Hitler scrambled together the piddly remnants of Germany’s military and rushed a hilariously underpowered force into the Ruhr.

                Now you counsel a kind and generous treatment of the Jews. Never mind that Judea declared unprovoked war on Germany in 1933, that International Jewry had the incompetent drunk Churchill in their pocket and their payroll, and got their way in 1939 when Britain and France declared war on Germany, when the U.S. supplied Britain and Russia, the only reason they survived the Blitzkrieg, and when the U.S. finally entered the war to crush Germany, and increasingly apparently, the White race itself.

                Now you say the Jews are trying to genocide all Whites, and you counsel peace and reconciliation. Are you insane? This is war, but not just war, it is total war, a war more total than any other in history. Our countries are being immivaded, our women are feral, and our civilization and our race are in existential crisis. Hitler himself sent two dozen peace offers to Britain trying to avoid and avert the catastrophe of WWII, and you think that we, we who have no divisions, are going to avert the catastrophe of the death of our civilization and of our people? Hah.

                There is only one response to aggression, and it is righteous anger. It is not to grovel, “yes, almighty Juden, we’re really truly not antisemitic and see those 1488ers over there? we’re going to throw them under the bus for you to prove we’re not like them”. That has worked out _SO_ well for us. How about no.

                Righteous anger, full retribution, and if need be a fight to the death, all these are on the menu. Total war. You say the Jews are trying to genocide us, all of us, for no reason besides of our race. No, that’s not quite it, you mention traumatization and paranoid delusions, but you fail to mention that the Jews that perpetrated the most inhuman act in history, namely the Soviet mass killings, and of those killings namely the one in Poland, and those Jews had not been traumatized as little children, or whatever. They had lived under Russia for 150 years, and they had been playing money games on the poor Russian and Ukrainian peasants that entire time. Traumatization? No, they were motivated by pure race-hatred of Christians, a hatred well-documented, which cohencidentally you also fail to mention.

                I don’t happen to think the Jews are all that powerful, but I do nevertheless think it rather suspicious that they _are_ Hollywood, that Congressmen regularly travel to Israel upon re-election, that AIPAC is well-known for being the most powerful lobby in Washington, that the Jews see antisemitism in words and phrases like “international finance”, and that nearly every White country with any notable Jewish presence and every White country under the sway of a country with notable Jewish precedence are finding their borders porous at the same time that the Jews are rather prominently leading and funding most, if not all, the borders organizations, at the same time that the Jews lord it over the Palestinians, issue Israeli citizenship by results of DNA test, and have perhaps the most well-defended border in the world. Sometimes, more times than I believe myself, it is the SAME Jews supporting open borders for White countries and real borders for Israel. So if making the countries of your enemies drop their borders, territorial control being almost the most fundamental state function, second only to taxation, while at the same time keeping the borders of your country secure, then if that is not competence, what is?

                The only sane response to an attempted genocide is to respond in kind.

                • jim says:

                  Now you say the Jews are trying to genocide all Whites, and you counsel peace and reconciliation. Are you insane? This is war,

                  No this is not war. Jews are not blowing themselves up in pizza parlors,not launching rockets, but, in stereotypical passive aggressive Jewish fashion, producing bad manipulative movies. Our response should be to censor and denigrate the movies, or to simply recognize the movies for what they are, hostile propaganda, not to kill the Jews.

                  Sometimes it is actual war, as when Soros buses in black rioters. But in such case, Soros, not all Jews, should be charged with the crimes of those he paid to commit crimes. It is uncommon for Jewish aggression to rise to the level of actual violence, and only ever happens when they are acting on behalf of our white ruling class and the Obama justice department, making it a police and justice issue, rather than a war issue. To stop blacks from rioting, we need to get the Obama Justice Department, not the Jews, and not even Soros. Nailing Soros and not the Justice Department will not stop the rioting. Nailing the Obama Justice Department and not Soros will stop the rioting.

                  In actual war, you need actual bullets to stop the enemy from doing violence. In the case of Soros, all you need to do is to tear up the permission the Justice Department gives him..

                • pdimov says:

                  The most efficient counter to subversion is extreme prejudice. If whites assume that all Jews are up to no good and cannot be trusted, Jews can’t subvert. This is why anti-Semitism exists – because it works.

                  And the moral dilemma is that it’s unjust, because many Jews, perhaps even the majority, aren’t up to no good and can be trusted.

                  Such is life.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “but, in stereotypical passive aggressive Jewish fashion, producing bad manipulative movies”

                  You make it sound so innocent. How about “emancipating women, destroying Christianity, inverting morality, and subverting the state”.

                  Just suppressing hostile peoples isn’t enough. Sooner or later they will cause major problems in one way or another. Perhaps with weaponized cameras they will destroy your national culture and substitute “the American Dream” in its place, or perhaps they will merely wage a low-grade street war and make your inner cities, the prime-time real estate where the rich and famous should live (and once did), into derelict African colonies populated by primitive savages. Hostile subject peoples must be assimilated or expelled. The Jews are a civilized, high-IQ, creative people and can be assimilated; the Africans are a feral, low-IQ, profoundly uncreative people and cannot be assimilated, so must be expelled.

                  Mind war is far more dangerous to us than shooting war. The past 60 years of mind war have either prematurely terminated, or prevented altogether, 200,000,000 White lives in America alone.

                • jim says:

                  “but, in stereotypical passive aggressive Jewish fashion, producing bad manipulative movies”

                  You make it sound so innocent. How about “emancipating women, destroying Christianity, inverting morality, and subverting the state”.

                  It really was not the Jews that did that. This is pretty obvious when you look at events like the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline, prohibition, the war of Northern Aggression, and so forth. It really was the memetic descendants of the puritans, and to a considerable extent the biological descendents of the Puritans, such as Margaret Mead.

                  And coming back to the present, the cause of blacks rioting is not Soros paying them and busing them in, it is Obama’s Department of Justice. if you want to stop the blacks from rioting, you have fix Obama’s Department of Justice, not Soros. Soros is being paid to pay them.

                  And Obama himself is fifty percent biologically descended from Black African slavers (that is slavers, not slaves, he is descended from the superior races of Africans) and fifty percent biologically descended from the Puritans.

                • jim says:

                  Hostile subject peoples must be assimilated or expelled. The Jews are a civilized, high-IQ, creative people and can be assimilated; the Africans are a feral, low-IQ, profoundly uncreative people and cannot be assimilated, so must be expelled.

                  Agreed. We need to assimilate the Jews, and encourage those that reject assimilation to move to Israel by denying them access to participation in the elite. And in fact I favor an inquisition checking up members of the ruling elite and making sure they really are assimilated.

                  But 1488 talk about the ovens is excessive, as is blaming the Jews for the entire problem. It is seldom a good idea to turn metaphorical war into actual war.

                  Because we are barraged with anti white propaganda, it is politically useful to blame it all on people who look white, but inwardly do not regard themselves as white. However although this is useful as a political tactic, it is not going to work as an actual solution because it is not in fact the actual problem.

                  Further, blaming the entire problem on Jews is less useful now, when we are seeing anti male propaganda coming from Hillary, for example her world series ad, in which case the correct thing is to call her a carpet muncher, not blame the Jews.

                  Blaming the Jews for anti white propaganda works. But does not work for anti male propaganda. For anti male propaganda, blame the lesbians.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “It really was not the Jews”

                  And yet it all kicked into high gear the moment the Jews took the reins. Within a ten-year span, every limitation on Hollywood dissipated, the Immigration Act of 1965, JFK’s assassination, the Apollo Affair, the Sexual Degeneration, Snivel Rights, they completely changed the way the elite colleges selected students (from social-based WASP-y selection to “merit-based” Jew-y mandarinate selection), the whole domestic abuse thing, the divorce thing, and as you note the end of corporal punishment in Hollywood. All in less than ten years! (So what if there were some woman laws on the books, they were never used.)

                  “I favor an inquisition”

                  No need for an inquisition. One need only look at the marriage certificates. If a Jew is married to a goy, he is assimilated. If not, he is not assimilated. Assimilation means biological absorption.

                  In any case, it was once “the Jews”—during the time of Hitler, for instance—but no longer. Now it is very much less Jews than it is rootless cosmopolitans. It is a Jew/White hybrid class, hence the 71% intermarriage rate, but it is fundamentally Jewish in essence, in everything from its urbanity to its nerdishness to its effeminacy to its shysterishness and (lack of) morality to its cognitive characteristics and its employment norms. In this sense, the Jews have assimilated Whites much more completely than the other way around. Now it’s just identifiable as SWPLs, Bourgeois Bohemians, Brahmins, etc. etc. In many ways, it is far worse than the Jews ever were.

                  It is far more successful at parasitism, for instance.

                  And far, far more successful at neutralizing opposition. Since it vacuums up all the talent, no one is left to lead the soldiers to victory. I guess it gets less of the talent now, though, what with mass affirmative action and deliberate policies of excluding capable Whites. It missed me, for instance. And nowadays it seems to be having a hard time of acquiring for acquiring for itself marriageable women. That more than anything will probably be its downfall.

                • jim says:

                  And yet it all kicked into high gear the moment the Jews took the reins

                  No it did not. The rot started to get serious around 1820. The further back you go, the less significant the role of the Jews. Any Jew centric theory winds up as “1930s leftism is just fine”. It is not just fine.

                  We have to undo female emancipation, and any Jew centric theory is going to leave females emancipated.

                • Cavalier says:

                  You: “The rot started to get serious around 1820.”

                  Me: “Suppose a city separated perfectly down the middle by a railroad…”

                  You: “Late 1950s were pretty close to that – down to the railway running from north to South. Late 1700s were pretty much exactly that”

                  Don’t you dare now try telling me females were emancipated in 1950 _in practice_.

                  1950 would have been perfectly sustainable if we could have kept it. 1960 would have been perfectly sustainable. 1930 would have been perfectly sustainable, as would have 1910, 1900, 1880, 1850, etc. In fact any decade before the decade preceding 1970. 1970, not sustainable at all.

                  1930s leftism would have been just fine, if we could have frozen it at 1940. The reason 1930s leftism isn’t fine is because it rapidly leads to 1940s leftism (which is also fine), which leads to 1950s leftism (which is also fine), which leads to 1960s leftism, which is when all hell breaks loose. And by 1969 you have the college-educated descendants of the upper-middle class wallowing in the mud of Woodstock like hippos and fucking in the mud of Woodstock like rabbits.

                  Fine doesn’t mean great, but it means a perfectly healthy civilization, even if it isn’t producing great men like Bach or Beethoven or Newton or Darwin or Socrates or Carlyle. Fine means your population is growing at a healthy rate, fine means your borders are defended, fine means your women are chaste the majority of the time, fine means your fathers are fathers—not castrated beta-wimp cuck eunuchs, and so on and so forth. That was 1950 through 1960. The rot started to get serious in the 1960s.

                • jim says:

                  You: “Late 1950s were pretty close to that – down to the railway running from north to South. Late 1700s were pretty much exactly that”

                  Don’t you dare now try telling me females were emancipated in 1950 _in practice_.

                  I want, and we need, the late 1700s.

                  The 1950s worked by means of an unprincipled exception, burning the social capital inherited from 1800.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I understand an American looking upon 1950 as a golden time. As an Englishman, 1950 was a year of national disaster, presaging years of worse national disasters, coming on the tail of a series of national disasters. I see monotonic decay from a country that colonised the world (in the literal sense, moving their people out and ours in), to a country that dominated much of the world for extractive purposes, to a country that dominated much of the world for charitable purposes, to a country that more or less willingly surrendered its dignity, its honour, and its power; that if it did this under any coercion, that coercion came from the United States which was apparently perfectly tolerable.

                  And I see increasing failure at every stage. Colonialism (really colonialism) gave us Canada and Australia. Imperialism gave us India. White Man’s Burden colonialism gave us South Africa. Forced decolonisation gave us Zimbabwe.

                  “The White Man’s Burden” is an intolerably left wing poem, and yet far to the right of the consensus of 1950. The consensus of 1950 was that our enemies should own most of the world, but we should still be allowed a small corner of it.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “I want, and we need, the late 1700s.”

                  True. I’d rather live then than in 1950, but it doesn’t change the fact that 1950 was more or less sustainable, if leftism could have been frozen at that exact point. Whites would still be a proud people with a proud country, though of course we wouldn’t be making the world great as England made America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand great. The trouble with 1950s leftism is not with 1950s leftism itself but that it is the quiet moment before the tornado empties the nearest lake onto your house.

                  “And I see increasing failure at every stage. Colonialism (really colonialism) gave us Canada and Australia.”

                  Indeed. And we must return to the order which gave us America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and in so doing, we must recognize that we are returning to that order in large part to produce more Americas, Canadas, Australias, and New Zealands.

                  “”””The White Man’s Burden” is an intolerably left wing poem”””

                  Indeed it is. We cannot support the world on our shoulders, neither in an insane quest to enforce “the right to self-determination” nor in a blanket support of the nationalisms “of all competent peoples”, nor do we have that moral obligation. And make no mistake, Jim, there is little difference. Our obligation is to support ourselves and our people, and simultaneously improve the state and stock of our people by deliberate, systematic process.

                • jim says:

                  True. I’d rather live then than in 1950, but it doesn’t change the fact that 1950 was more or less sustainable

                  The 1950s were not ideologically sustainable. Families were an unprincipled exception to rules that made wives formally equal to men and gave wives far more legal power than husbands. Any functional family was an example of hypocrisy, then as now.

                  In the early 1800s, society and state had already conceded that feminists of the Society for Cutting Up Men type were morally in the right, and had granted them the legal upper hand. The 1960s were just putting what had already been conceded in principle into practice. Family with Fatherhood is as morally unsustainable as segregation and is a shocking crime of similar gravity.

                  When Queen Caroline got away with attending a ball naked from the waist up, and returning from the ball to her hotel room with a man she picked up at the ball, neither being divorced and left only the clothes she stood up in, nor whipped with a stick no bigger than her thumb, we had already conceded the sexual revolution in principle.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “The 1950s were not ideologically sustainable.”

                  You read my sentence, but apparently not all the way through:

                  “True. I’d rather live then than in 1950, but it doesn’t change the fact that 1950 was more or less sustainable, if leftism could have been frozen at that exact point.”

                  I am more concerned with power in practice than power in theory. You are obviously correct that women were equal to men in theory for a substantially long time. But until about 1960 it was about 99% theory and about 1% practice, that 1% percent being your oft-cited Queen Caroline incident.

                  I hold that power in practice is much more important than power in theory. Examples include monarchy, in which the monarch is the ultimate power in theory but rarely so in practice, democracy, in which “the people” rules in theory but the opinion-makers rule in practice, and religion, which you yourself have said is a polite fiction, a social technology on which to base a synthetic tribe and the order of society.

                  Occasionally power in theory will become power in practice, but only if that power in theory stands to benefit those with the talent and the will to power to seize more power in practice. The reason women turned feral in 1960 is because a large collection of (((conversos))) found feminism to be much more useful as a thing in practice than as a polite fiction. They had the talent in spades and the will to power in bigger, chutzpah-enhanced spades, and they had Optimate-turned-proto-Brahmin class traitors, namely Nathan Pusey and McGeorge Bundy, opening the WASP stronghold’s city gates from the inside.

            • Wilbur Hassenfus says:

              I didn’t take “support” to mean “going to war in defense of”, not when he insists that we not rule the world. I wish them all well, even the Assbangi in their mud huts. But if we’re not running the world, we would hardly go to war for them.

              I #SupportAssbangiSelfDetermination, you might say. Exactly that and no more. Or as our preposterous president would say, “I stand with the Assbangi”, which entails doing precisely nothing.

  13. Wilbur Hassenfus says:

    When Rhodesia and the Congo are ruled by others, peace and prosperity ensue, followed by population increase beyond what their natural way of living can cope with. They become dependent on the white man, who needs to be needed. Next thing you know, massive overpopulation, famine, war, and boats full of Stygian retards crossing the Mediterranean, angrily demanding white pussy and welfare.

    No, it is best to leave them in their natural state, where they can retain whatever measure of dignity and limited local competence their creator granted them, and trouble nobody but each other.

    • viking says:

      make it illegal to help aboriginal people take away all western product restore them to bush life

  14. Wagner says:

    Even if Jews have their own nation they’re still going to shoot tons of prog-propaganda movies which the dumb goyim is going to lap up like dogs.

  15. Greg says:

    > You can call us racists and sexists all you like.

    Maybe you just forgot to include the loudest shriek: “anti-semites!”

    Then again, as soon as I saw the title, I kind-of-expected another episode of Not The Jew. And it kind-of-was.

    • jim says:

      Oh come on.

      You are a hard man to please.

      A lot of Jews do a lot of bad stuff, but whites making the Jew responsible for everything is like blacks making whitey responsible for everything. You are giving them super mind control powers.

      Hillary and Merkle are not Jews.

      • Greg says:

        If your blog had a similar emphasis on “Not the Clintons! Never touch a Clinton’s stuff!” … I’d be no less confused.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          The Greeks made plays mocking leftist ideas thousands of years before Jews spread over Europe. It is not the Jews. Jews are but one vector for leftism, not the cause. Leftism is hiding in the hearts of man, waiting to be expressed. If not by Jews, by Christian heretics. If not Christian heretics, atheists. If not atheists, something else.

          Jews are a convenient excuse for the intellectually lazy or inferior to explain concepts that are beyond them. Killing all the Jews is not going to fix a thing. Jews are not the problem, leftism is. Jews are a symptom. Killing all of the leftists kills a good number of Jews, while not neglecting all of the whites that need to be killed, as well.

          In summary, an obsession with the JQ shows either an incapable or indolent mindset, and is a signal that the opinion should be ignored.

          The Shadowed Knight

          • pdimov says:

            Leftism is one thing, wishing for the white race to disappear is another. Is there any evidence for the latter phenomenon before WW2?

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              The Passing of the Great Race, 1916

              The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, 1920

              • pdimov says:

                Those two books do not express a wish for the white race to disappear though, they express fear of said.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Who today explicitly expresses a wish for the white race to disappear? Even an open genocide-baited like Noel Ignatiev, hired by Harvard for the sole reason of being the most white-hating man they could find who could string sentences together in Academese, writes with plausible deniability.

                  The trends we worry about today, people were worrying about in 1920.

                • jim says:

                  Who today explicitly expresses a wish for the white race to disappear?

                  Depends on how you define “ëxplicit”. Similarly “”Liquidation of the kulaks” Did “liquidation of the kulaks” mean they became happy collective farm workers, or did it mean killing them?

                  The left never uses phrases that explicitly refer to violent genocide or slow breeding out, but regularly uses phrases that hint at violent genocide.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I am not saying no one today wants to kill all whites, I am saying that the fact I cannot cite left wing sources from 1920 explicitly saying they want to kill all whites does not mean that there was no movement in that direction in 1920.

                  The first time leftists perpetrated white genocide was 1804 in Haiti.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Who today explicitly expresses a wish for the white race to disappear?”

                  I can’t give you specific references at the moment, but many people in fact do, on Twitter and otherwise. Tim Wise is famous for his rant, for one.


                  And many left-wing articles on whites becoming a minority in the US have a distinct cheerful tone.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Oh come on Pdimov.

                  The Cathedral already had one of its AA writers pen a book talking about how the massacre of whites in haiti was a good thing in 1938.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Specifically, wishing for the white race to disappear is a result of status and virtue signalling. The Spartans had a little too much leftism when they allowed women political power, and it destroyed them. As far as the Spartans are concerned, the Spartan race is all but extinct because of leftism. Who knows what other wonderful directions leftism can go? Regardless, whites usually die in large numbers whenever it happens. Sparta, Rome, Reformation Germany, Russia, Nazi Germany.

              Point is, perfidious Jews were not responsible for the Spartan’s ill advised decision to emancipate women. Now were they responsible for the Roman’s ill advised decision to open their borders to Germania barbarians, or to liberate their women. The pattern is evident long before Jews spread out onto the world stage. Blaming it on Jews is therefore the result of historical ignorance, which is in itself a result of intellectual laziness or incapability. Fighting leftism by fighting Jews is like fighting Islam by killing all the Moros in the Philippines–while leaving the Arabs and Africans alone.

              The Shadowed Knight

              • pdimov says:

                “Specifically, wishing for the white race to disappear is a result of status and virtue signalling.”

                And sometimes, it’s a result of just hating whites.

              • pdimov says:

                “Fighting leftism by fighting Jews…”

                Fighting Jews is obviously not a very good way to fight leftism, but fighting leftism while carefully ignoring Jews isn’t any better. And this is probably not specific to Jews – any cohesive group that wields significant influence would distort your nice white left against white right divide.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  No, but we are not carefully ignoring Jews, we are recognizing that blaming Jews, all Jews, and only Jews so help me Hitler is not useful. Jews are a foreign people prone to leftism, and that is a problem. The larger and more salient problem is that once we have answered the Jewish Question by either Repatriation or Extermination, we have a larger, native people prone to leftism left. The WN Jooooo Hunters solve this with the Church of Hitler of Latter Day Socialists. They worship the kite in the bunker to avoid having to think past the end if the fight.

                  The most egregious examples of perfidious, treacherous Jews are going to find themselves hung and their wealth taken by the Crown. The rest can be bundled off to Israel, along with enough arms to make the fight between them and the Arabs interesting. The enemy of my enemy should fight each other.

                  Jim, would you be so kind as delete my previous post and edit this out?

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • pdimov says:

                  “No, but we are not carefully ignoring Jews, we are recognizing that blaming Jews, all Jews, and only Jews so help me Hitler is not useful.”

                  I don’t think that this statement is supported by the empirical evidence. The people who blame the Jews are winning the memetic war with the left, and those who don’t aren’t and weren’t.

                  Blaming Jews may be _unjust_, but not useful it is not.

                • jim says:

                  Yeah, we are dealing with an enemy that hates whites and males, so accusing them of not inwardly identifying as white is super effective.

                  But reality is that most of them do identify as white.

        • viking says:

          you know I think those that come to the jew question late in life or through indoctrination rather than through decades of first hand experience like say native new yorkers, really miss a lot of nuance. its possible to know all about the reality of the jew question in a hell of of a lot more detail than some redneck from alabama whose never met an actual jew let alone lived among them forever [not that theres anything wrong with redneck crackers who talk a lot of shit they know little about except from the interweb conspiracy sites] know them intimately the question is way more complex than you imagine, read up on the nazis issues had trying to sort them and deport them that eventually led to the camps etc. But its more 99% of whites will fight to stop another holocaust youre not going to change that with frog cartoons.

    • peppermint says:

      …and now we have to have this conversation again, in which Jim will point out that anti-Whiteism and feminism were already observed in 19c England and the US, during Jewish infestation of England but before Jewish infestation of US, and therefore feminism and anti-Whiteism aren’t caused by Jews.

      Maybe it wasn’t the presence of “White like me” Jews like Tim Wise that made the process happen faster. Maybe cuckoldry is Christianity plus power, and Christian societies can be redeemed in the way the US currently is, by destroying their power.

      • jim says:

        I have never heard of white-like-me-Tim-Wise. Looks to me that the most anti white person in the entire world is Angela Merkel. If you are worried about Tim Wise, while Hillary goes on television with black arsonists who are ethnically cleansing whites out of suburbs, your obsession with Jews is causing you to miss the elephant in the living room.

        • pdimov says:

          The most anti-white person in the entire world (in deeds) is of course Soros.

          Tim Wise is more anti-white, but he lacks the means to actually do something.

          • jim says:

            Soros is a servant of those who pay him.

            His business model is that he buys worthless debt, has the US taxpayer make it worth something, then sells it. He then applies part of the money thus obtained to the political purposes of those that gave it to him.

            We need to take out the rulers, not the employees.

            If we were being ruled by Jews, the Cathedral might actually be competent.

            • pdimov says:

              “Soros is a servant of those who pay him.”

              I find this utterly implausible.

              In both your examples, it’s Soros who is actually the driving force. He is the architect of the “refugee” “crisis”, he is also BLM and the architect and actual organizer of the riots. He came up with the schemes, he transported the migrants to Europe, he transported the black rioters to Ferguson etc.

              You’re telling me that he did this because Hillary and Merkel paid him.

              Do you really believe that? That these two women are the puppeteers, and that Soros, with his international reach, is the puppet?

              • jim says:

                We have the Clinton emails. (John Podesta was spearfished) It is obvious that Clinton is in charge, and the rest are servants begging for her attention and the attention of those close to her. People like George Soros grovel to people like John Podesta for the opportunity to grovel to Hillary Clinton.

                We know it is simply not a Jewish conspiracy because we have the internal emails of that conspiracy. Yes, the conspiracy is full of progressive Jews, but they are all kissing the boots of John Podesta for a chance to kiss the boots of Hillary Clinton.

                Yes, the conspiracy is full of Jews, but they are servants, not masters. It is the classic Jewish job. Hired by the rulers to do the ruler’s dirty work. Thus, for example, the rulers would hire Jews as tax farmers, and when there was a tax revolt, would cheerfully throw the Jews to wolves.

                It is an old trick, and you, and progressive Jews, are falling for it again. Hey, Soros, the reason Clinton is so happy to give you the job of getting whites ethnically cleansed from the homes that they built is that this job is apt to have unpleasant consequences.

                • pdimov says:

                  Please point me to the specific e-mail that shows that it’s Clinton that is the architect of BLM/Ferguson and not Soros.

                  And, by the way, your repeated references to Jews are out of place here. In this subthread we’re talking about Soros, not Jews.

                  The chances that both Clinton and Merkel will give an anti-white assignment to the same person are somewhat slim.

                • jim says:

                  Specifically, it is the DOJ that is the author of BLM/ferguson.

                  They keep suing police departments, which then sign consent agreements that amount to “let google people rape, loot and burn”, and with those agreements in place, google people do not need evil Jewish mind rays to get on with raping, looting, and burning.

                  The Clinton campaign is cashing in on the raping and looting to juice black voter turnout, and Soros is similarly cashing in on BLM/Ferguson to juice black voter turnout. Watch him totally lose interest on November 9.

                • pdimov says:

                  So we’re back to the theory that Clinton came up with an anti-white scheme and tasked Soros with implementing it, and Merkel came up with another anti-white scheme and also tasked Soros with implementing it. What a coincidence.

                  Plus, Soros also created Occupy Wall Street, which Wikipedia tells me spread to 30 countries (I only knew of Spain.) Who was the mastermind behind _that_, and why?

                  Before that, Soros, through his OSF, created thousands of NGOs all over Europe. Why did he do that? Was that Clinton and Merkel still? No, Merkel was nobody yet at this point.

                  “google people do not need evil Jewish mind rays to get on with raping, looting, and burning”

                  The looters were bused in.

                • jim says:

                  So we’re back to the theory that Clinton came up with an anti-white scheme and tasked Soros with implementing it, and Merkel came up with another anti-white scheme and also tasked Soros

                  He who pays the piper.

                  If I want a ditch dug, and my neighbor wants a ditch dug, we are likely to hire the same contractor.

                  Plus Soros is not all that central to Black Lives Matter. Obama and the Justice Department are central.

                • pdimov says:

                  > The looters were bused in.

                  Rather, the rioters were bused in, the locals used the opportunity to loot once the riot was underway.

                • pdimov says:

                  Soros’s actions do not look like those of a contractor. It looks like he has a plan. A long-term plan.

                  “Soros has been active as a philanthropist since the 1970s, when he began providing funds to help black students attend the University of Cape Town in apartheid South Africa,[70] and began funding dissident movements behind the Iron Curtain.”

                  But you could be right, I suppose. I still think that Merkel is incidental, but I can accept the possibility that the Center for American Progress outranks Soros.

                • pdimov says:


                  “On November 11, 2003, in an interview with The Washington Post, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the “central focus of my life” and “a matter of life and death”. He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat Bush “if someone guaranteed it”.[78][79]”


                  “His campaign began last summer with the help of Mort Halpern, a liberal think tank veteran. Soros invited Democratic strategists to his house in Southampton, including John Podesta, Jeremy Rosner, Bob Boorstin and Carl Pope. They discussed the coming election. Soros took aside Steve Rosenthal and Ellen Malcolm, CEO and president of America Coming Together (ACT). They were proposing to mobilize voters in 17 battleground states. Soros told them he would give them $10 million.

                  Rosenthal deadpanned: “We were disappointed. We thought a guy like George Soros could do more.” Then he laughed. “No, kidding! It was thrilling.”

                  Malcolm: “It was like getting his Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.”

                  “They were ready to kiss me,” Soros quipped.”

                  “Soros also promised up to $3 million to Podesta’s new think tank, the Center for American Progress.”

                  Amazing what does Wikipedia link those days.

                • peppermint says:

                  ((Soros)) grovels to Podesta who grovels to Hillary who got tongue syphillis from a 13 year old girl who got it from Bill.

                  The Jews own Bill and Hillary through Epstein’s loli express. The FBI just found more child porn in the possession of ((Anthony Weiner)) than they were expecting.

                  The Jews aren’t just a market-dominant minority. They exist to create corruption and then hide in it.

                  ((Weiner)) is the Jew pervert who accidentally saved Western civilization.

      • viking says:

        I would say the truth is somewhere between whites are constantly trying to improve injustice and then jews weaponized thatt about the turn of the last century.The whites really have to take the blame for anti slavery and emancipation of women.I would add that christianity has mostly been the cause and it is a jewish heresy but jews didnt infect us with their religion on purpose I disagree the alt right or reaction should make the cuckservative mistake of incorporating christianity because it looks like easy acolytes its an inherently cucked religion it can not be separated from that its its essence also religion is irrational the foundation of alt reaction is rationality you cant have it both ways again the enlightenment made that mistake

    • Alfred says:

      The Jew obsession makes me think that post leftist singularity we’ll just have a rightist holiness spiral. Sanity is a tough balance.

      • pdimov says:

        This strikes me as wrong on two counts. One, the assumption that since leftist holiness spirals exist, rightist ones should exist too, reminds me of the Keynesian theory that since inflationary spirals exist, deflationary spirals must exist too, even though none have ever been observed.

        And two, how could obsession with Jews lead to a spiral? Spirals feed on an endless supply of unholy persons, but there’s no endless supply of Jews. Once they’re gone, they’re gone.

        • Wilbur Hassenfus says:

          Pretty hard to get rid of them all. You know they make new ones all the time, right? Cheaply, too, with minimal facilities and unskilled labor.

        • Alfred says:

          I’m copying from Spandrell who argues that rightist holiness spirals are tribalistic holiness spirals, e.g. ‘we must exterminate all who are a threat to our tribe’ in which both threat and tribe will be continually redefined.

          Once the Jews are gone they’re gone, that is true, but I imagine that soon enough those that are 1/2 Jewish will be hunted, then 1/4 Jewish then 1/8 Jewish etc.

          • Cavalier says:

            The fractional Jews are the descendants of the assimilated jews, the _good_ jews.

            • viking says:

              I observe the opposite, mixed jews tend to have met at university they are from liberal non religious homes and therefore are more likely to marry out, religious jews tend to be more conservative and less likely to marry.
              the religious jews would actually be ok with a status as guests with no political rights if they were not threatened.
              the liberal jews mostly mixed are losing there identity its true a 1/4 jew is more likely to ascribe significance to that than a 1/4 greek but never the less its happening and they cant stop it part of their liberal religion forbids jew preferance so I think having alt right jews start a campaign to make jews go on the record as 1] guest jews jews who are jews first and foremost but wish to live as guest in western lands with the understanding they are excluded from sensetive occupations but will be unmolested.
              2] white jews, jews who declare they are part of the european diaspora like a southern european , that to the extent they are religious at all its they recognize western civilization is a Christian civilization with judaic influence, they are 60% genetically Italian and have contributed substantially to the western civilization, and wish to continue to vigorously help support western civilization including christianity, they admit and recognize the jewish question and either repent or declare they have nothing to repent always being loyal whites.
              3} bad jews jews that refuse to assimilate, refuse to declare themselves white, refuse to recognize the jewish question, refuse to vigorously support western civilization including christianity and the right of white homelands, they understand that in the event of a change in power they must make arrangements to emmigrate .
              spies jews who seek to hide their anti western efforts and jewish identity and who are not signing and are now on notice if a change in power happens they are subject to criminal prosecution

              • Cavalier says:

                Good because they gave up their Jewishness and converted to the bastard spawn of Christianity and Judaism, Progressivism.

                Good is, of course, relative.

          • pdimov says:

            Another hypothetical is that supposed philosemites will be hunted, as you can always fail to be sufficiently anti-Semitic.

            But again, this has never been observed. Once Jews are expelled, anti-Semitism just ceases to be a topic, it doesn’t spiral.

            Nazi Germany, for instance, didn’t proceed to continuously expand the definition of Jew. Although it’s admittedly hard to say what would’ve happened without the war (or had they won).

          • Alfred says:

            I don’t trust the 1488’ers to not outholy sane rightists. If you have a Jew extermination team that team has incentive to keep the Jew threat alive, otherwise they’re out of work and status. So you need to stop a sane genocide from turning into an insane genocide, like what happens in the murdoch murdoch video-

            … Which generally I think is impossible, unless you are blessed with very capable rulers.

            • pdimov says:

              Sure, it’s a plausible theory, it’s just that it doesn’t seem to actually happen in practice.

      • jim says:

        If I am grand Inquisitor, not thinking about politics, other than to parrot the Archbishop’s bland and uncontroversial list of pieties, will be the safest course.

        Anyone holier than the Archbishop will be executed. If he rises after three days, then he really was holier.

    • jackmcg says:

      well Jim is part Jewish… not your best source if you are looking for anti-Jew material

      • jim says:

        You see Jews everywhere.

        Here is my genetic ancestry as evaluated by 23 and me:

        Northwestern European 94.1%

        British & Irish 78.6%
        French & German 1.2%
        Broadly Northwestern European 14.3%

        Southern European 3.8%

        Iberian 2.9%
        Broadly Southern European 0.9%
        Ashkenazi 0.1%

        Broadly European 1.7%

        Plus I simply look a lot more Aryan than Hitler.

        • Cavalier says:

          I would be amazed if Hitler did not have Jewish ancestry. He looks nothing like any German I’ve ever seen, his nose was nearly as wide as his mouth, his skin tone and very dark blue eyes were characteristic of a mischling, he had some strikingly jewish hand gestures, apparently his haplogroup was E1b1b, and just now I came across a man named William Fox, founder of the Fox Film Corporation, whose countenance sent a shiver down my spine.

          Go ahead, tell me you don’t feel a little shiver, too:

          • CavalierisaSTUPIDGOY says:

            Lmao whites can’t even run a clown show without jews to lead them! Oy vey, the stupid goyim trusted one of us to lead them against The Jews!!! Hahahha

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Oh come on. This is a silly discussion but Hitler’s skull anyway looks nothing like that of the other man in this image.

            • Cavalier says:

              Eyes, nose, mouth, ears, jaw and chin, hairline.

              Hitler resembled William Fox more than he did his own father.

Leave a Reply