Stormfront is a honeypot

Stormfront uses Google Analytics. Google Analytics runs an alarmingly large pile of obfuscated javascript code on your browser that if you visit Stormfront, can very likely uniquely identify your browser, even if you are accessing Stromfront through Tor to anonymize your IP.

Thus, you visit Stormfront, carefully using a fake name and an anonymized IP. And then you visit Youtube with the same browser, and Youtube says that you cannot watch this video unless you sign in with your Google account, which Google goes to alarmingly great lengths to link to your true name, thereby linking your browser fingerprint to your true name.

Tags:

43 Responses to “Stormfront is a honeypot”

  1. Candide III says:

    That’s why Tor comes with its own browser that has a standardized fingerprint. As for Google search, a private window suffices to prevent it from linking searches to your account that’s open in the regular window. Same goes for Youtube history. At any rate I’ve never observed it making recommendations in the regular window based on videos I’d watched in the private window.

    Not that I think google is good (it’s not), nor do I endorse visiting Stormfront with any browser. There are better ways to waste your time, even if it’s just meeting with your local joo-hating friends for a beer in meatspace.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      >meeting with your local joo-hating friends… in meatspace.

      Sure thing, officer.

      https://overthrowdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/attachment-1.png

      (It’s a joke, prompted by the title of this post)

      Btw Jim, what do you make of World Socialist Web Site’s (WSWS.org) claim that google is ruthlessly censoring them? I tend to think that they are not lying about it; after all, they are consistently critical of the Clintons and of the deepshit state, and provide alternative views (“discredited conspiracy theories”) about current events – as Moldbug would say, Trotskyism is now out-of-date, as Cthulhu has swum further left.

      Seeing the left voraciously devouring its own is amusing, but they are going to kill — by way of censorship — the alt-right, sooner or later. That’s what I predict. I have a strong feeling about it.

      The left first polices itself, then it polices the right. If Trotskyists are being censored now by progressives, it’s a sign that, after they are done with such internal opposition, they will go on the offensive against external opposition.

  2. Seamus says:

    I know a little about Google Analytics.

    Most of the clear information passed is not that particular, it would be things like screen size, device, geo data(down to about the city address of your ISP) and what version of web browser you are using.

    If you are in Cork Ireland you will most like appear in geodata from Dublin as most ISPs are based there.

    Personally identifiable data breaches by companies are being supposedly dealt with by the GDPR act coming onstream next year in the EU. There will be fines for organisation leaking data on users by accident or not. There seems to be things about this act that may give exemptions to journalists(if in the public interest) and certainly for government snooping,. I have to look into this more.

    What else is in Google analytics however is broad category commwecial Intender categories (are you looking at car sites) and demographic data that is not ip identifiable to GA end users. There is no category for “right wing dissidents” or Stormfag users. That would creep out the customers as fuck knows what sites they are visiting.

    Google in their dark data vaults gets this information from unknown algorithms parsing user browsing history and their ability to scan gmail emails for ‘legitimate’ purposes.

    The vast, vast majority of internet users use a gmail, hotmail and lesserly a yahoo account.

    We basically are trusting Googles internal governance and their own compartmentalisation of databases. But there would be people within google who could determine a disgusting level of detail on what an individual person knows.

    If the Prism project is real and all the data from the multinats is pulled into a central US intelligence database, likely, it doesn’t matter anyway unless you are really careful.

    I personally have become fatalistic about it all.

    Yarvins Urbit project might help somewhat(everybody has a personal server and controls their own data) but they could be threatened and brought into prism also, I don’t know what an ultimate solution looks like. Dunno if this is a problem Decentralised Autonomous Organisations can help with, maybe.

    • jim says:

      Personally identifiable data breaches by companies are being supposedly dealt with by the GDPR act coming onstream next year in the EU. There will be fines for organisation leaking data on users by accident or not.

      There will also be fines for failing to leak data of users on demand by those who are in a strong position to inflict harm on those users.

      We can be pretty sure that Google told Obama about Petraeus’ mistress.

      What else is in Google analytics however is broad category commercial Intender categories (are you looking at car sites) and demographic data that is not ip identifiable to GA end users. There is no category for “right wing dissidents” or Stormfag users.

      A recent stream of targeted google ads was based on my visit to a website belonging to one specific business, not a “broad commercial category”, but an excruciatingly specific and narrow commercial category, one so narrow as to be functionally equivalent to “gimme my main competitor’s customer list”.

      If they can target me for visiting one particular business, engaged in an extremely specific and very narrow activity, they can target me for visiting one particular political faction.

      I did not use any Google services, nor Google software, nor was I logged in to my google account, in relation to this business, but they used Google Analytics.

      The rule applied was functionally equivalent to the rule “Show this ad for X to any browser with the same fingerprint as a browser that logged in on the website of X’s major direct competitor”

      I got these ads, targeting the customers of a business that used Google Analytics, when visiting other websites using Google Analytics. They stopped when I re-disabled Google Analytics and cleared Google’s cookies.

    • pdimov says:

      “… their own compartmentalisation of databases…”

      I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Privacy fatalism begins with the erroneous sentiment that useful privacy is total privacy.

      (In fact, a great deal of maladaptive thinking begins with such categorically imperative modes of thought. Id est, ‘if even one exception to a rule exists, the rule is no good’. [How many times has one heard someone deliver this line in a discussion, as if it were a devastating rebuttal, even {or especially} if they are otherwise historically uninitiated as to the provenance of this sort of thinking?]

      Modern epistemological philosophy started in the 1600s, the unfortunately named ‘enlightenment project’, from Descartes on, naturally begets post-modern schizophrenia; for all that many post-moderns claimed to be overturning the enlightenment project, they ironically maintained enlightenment standards of evidence, which when followed consistently would basically imply that knowledge is impossible [so of course noone follows them consistently].)

      It’s not about making it impossible to find, it’s about making it *more difficult* to find.

      The more effort it takes to find someone, the less likely someone will go through the trouble to bust them for something trivial, and the fewer classes of someones who will have the *capability* of doing so, in any case.

      You will probably not be able to hide from tentacular deep state actors like the NSA if you use the internet at all in any fashion (if they are really interested in finding you for whatever reason); but twitter dwelling sjws? would-be journalist toadies? companies infested *by* sjws? looking to dox an out-caste for bennies, status, and validation? Those are much more realistic concerns.

      • j says:

        Only a lunatic would stand in the main street and shout out his secrets and demand privacy. The internet, in fact all electronic communication, is the main street. Secrecy is feasible: one can even cheat on his jealous wife.

  3. JohnB says:

    Yes, the big internet companies all seem to be under firm baizuo control and you should assume that everything you do on the public internet is being tracked to at least some extent, probably in detail.

    As Candide III said above, tor is one way to evade it; i2p is another. I think it would be prudent to prepare a fallback site for this blog on at least one of these ‘darknets’ and publish the address here. Even if “They” can’t get at your server, they can still seize the jim.com domain.

  4. Garr says:

    Suppose that the author of the interesting parts of the Iliad was female and identified herself with Helen. So, Helen’s excuse for running away with Paris, “Aphrodite warped my mind,” is just the excuse, “I fell in love with him; I couldn’t help it!” But Paris is a pretty-boy — Hector affectionately despises him and Menelaus simply despises him and actually kicks his ass in front of the wall of Troy. Menelaus is the redneck ass-kicking king of the small backcountry town called “Sparta”. Paris is the effete prince of the sophisticated urban center called “Troy”. Please comment on the erotic dynamics here — explain why female-Homer would imagine herself leaving Menelaus for Paris.

    • jim says:

      Homer is male.

      Homer depicts the Greek heroes as alpha and Paris as not alpha, because they won, and because the remaining Trojans were in no position to hire poets, not because this makes much sense from the point of view of Helen.

      Helen is not an insert character. She is a prize. Women have been complaining about this. Meaning that they do not find the character of Helen makes sense.

      If written to appeal to the females in his audience, Paris would start out alpha, and then reveal his soft inner core to Helen, and, weakened and betaized by love, would then by killed, and Helen’s husband would forcefully take her back.

      • Garr says:

        I think that the writer of all of the interesting parts of the Iliad is female, because everything’s presented in terms of inter-personal interaction; it’s all “how I feel about you and how I think you feel about me and how I feel about your feeling that way about me.”

        Even the cartoony battle-sequences with super-gore and lists of dead are like a smart girl making fun of dumb boys. Athena’s humiliation of Ares is exactly what one would expect from a smart woman affectionately mocking the tough dumb boys.

        Note Hera’s interactions with Zeus — this is domestic comedy from a female point of view. Note the Achilles-Thetis, Hector-Andromache, and Paris-Helen interactions. Helen is a fully developed character with a subjective point of view and extensive monologues.

        The Achilles-Agamemnon confrontation sounds like a amused grade-school teacher’s description of a confrontation between two of the silly boys in her class.

        Maybe Helen going for Paris is like the wife of a successful, tough, but vulgar small businessman going for a flashy hipster. This seems conceivable.

        I’m sure that the writer of the plays and sonnets attributed to “Shakespeare” was also female. Note that in those plays all ideas become expressions of personal character. It’s all about the personality-type; the ideas don’t really matter to the writer, and are treated as shiny toys.

        The uncanniness of “Homer” and “Shakespeare”, which makes us feel that these are geniuses on a level immeasurably beyond everyone else, is simply due to the fact that extraordinary FEMALE minds are behind these works. Once you see this (and once you see it you can’t unsee it) you will realize that Ovid and Spenser (both very masculine) are as great as “Homer” and “Shakespeare”, respectively.

        • peppermint says:

          What the fuck are you on about, first you redefine femininity as a 20c feminist would, then you mock men as a 20c feminist would. Acting like a 20c feminist isn’t going to magically restore the 20c and the 20c was a garbage century with garbage people. Trump is Boomer Jesus, free of the sins of his generation and held personally responsible for all of them. If the 20c people take him down, they are all damned, as are we.

          PS it’s true that women like gore more than men, except for faggots, who try to mimic women in certain behavioral patterns in order to get them alone. That was, of course, at one time generally understood. Now you need to explain to men that your woman wants you to forcefully take control in bed. My woman said that the scariest thing was realizing that she’s actually in control.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            >My woman said that the scariest thing was realizing that she’s actually in control.

            No offense, but your woman grew up with, and deeply internalized, the Jewish BDSMization of society. The Jews and the puritans told her that she needs to be “in control” 100% of the time; and the Jews, being more egalitarian than the puritans, applied that to the bedroom. They then promulgated various perverted, degenerate outlets (“chains and whips excite me”), and here you are. Now she literally needs you to physically restrain her, otherwise her indoctrination gets the best of her and she becomes nasty, as she was programmed to become.

            Your response to what they did to women should be anger, channelled against those institutions which enlightened whites invented and enlightened kikes subverted. No, not because women had been pure angels or anything like that before the Cathedral sprang forth to the world stage; but because the vilest aspects of their nature have been amplified to the fullest by the Anglos in the 19th century and by the (((Americans))) in the 20th century.

            The problem you complain about is men not being redpilled enough about how to make vaginas wet. What you should complain about — and closely reading your comment, you do touch upon the issue — is first wave feminism and (((second wave feminism))) telling women that they should be in control. If you cut out this brainwashing, your problem is instantly solved. Strike at the root and Make Vaginas Wet Again.

            • peppermint says:

              No, female humans, like virtually all female animals, want a physical display of dominance during sex. Even salmon females want to watch the males fight over and guard egg piles. Some female bugs even want to be stabbed and will eat the sperm if they aren’t stabbed, but other female bugs, presumably because they lay so many eggs the difference between male and female is less pronounced, will eat the male.

              For all of history, the idea that the man fucks and the woman is held down under his massive arms was unquestioned, but now it’s Jewish BDSMization.

              The idea that a woman would sing intentionally badly to dare her man to stuff his dick in her mouth would have been regarded as too pornographic for comment at earlier points in history, but if you look, you see references to this behavior of women, but, of course, if you intentionally don’t look, you can avoid seeing it.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >For all of history, the idea that the man fucks and the woman is held down under his massive arms was unquestioned, but now it’s Jewish BDSMization.

                Being held down is not the issue, though. The issue is the psychology behind modern women’s desire to either have full control of every situation, or to be physically incapable of being in control, such being the only valid excuse for femininity. Hence, “it just happened” and “I was raped,” which often have the exact same meaning.

                The meaning being that the woman did not have full control of the situation, was not in charge, therefore it was either a horrible experience (you’re a rapist) or she needs to invent some excuse or rationalization for losing control (here comes in handy the BDSMization promoted by yids). These are bad options all around.

                Since women back in the day were not impelled to always be in control of every situation by puritans who are doubtlessly holier-than-thou and by subhuman Jews who seek to reduce white TFR to 0, they could relax and rest and let the us men do the job, without accusing us of rape and without unnecessary recourse to absurd kike perversions like “you need whips to enjoy sex, goyim.”

                There is BDSMization, exactly because women resist too strongly being dominated by men. When resistance was either non-existent, as even right now it is among the practitioners of sharia, or merely token, as among the faggy courtly lovers, there indeed was no debate about holding women down tightly during sex. Today there is such debate, and there is insane sick disgusting fetishistic BDSMization everywhere you look, because of first wave and (((second wave))) feminisms.

                The red pill you promote, the Heartistian brand from 2008, wants society to go back 100 years. But society should go back 1,000 years.

                • peppermint says:

                  The woman doesn’t want partial control, she wants no control. She wants to be given what she wants but she wants you to tell her that you’re doing it because you want to.

                  Women are supposed to be passive aggressive and snide, not direct. They feel alive when they are heavily constrained by what their men are up to and have to reconcile their interests or play them against each other the way we feel alive when we can ditch the pussyfooting and say what we really mean, mean what we say, and back it up with our fists that may not be the strongest but would he troublesome to fight.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Just to be clear: when I say that there was “no debate” about holding women down during sex, it was because that practice was pretty much ubiquitous, not because it did not exist.

                Also to be clear: 1,000 years ago, single room occupancy was fairly normal, indeed some of my family members lived in single room occupancy 20 years ago; also, the “age of consent” did not exist; also, non-Christians worshiped the fertility goddess – which worship must have been overall positively correlated with fertility.

                If paganism ever makes a return, the worship of the fertility goddess will take center within the revitalized religion, and her dictates shall be: “old enough to bleed is old enough to breed,” and “your sense of privacy is irrelevant because you must not be sterile.” The second one does rhyme, but is still obligatory.

                Condoms and other forms of contraception will be banned, and some cases — but not all cases — of abortion will be banned, because abortion (also known as infanticide), like all the various modern notions of “consent” and “rape,” is a sin against the fertility goddess. The fertility goddess doesn’t care about your age or about your “quality of life,” she wants you to maximize fertility and minimize sterility.

                As a devotee of the fertility goddess I must be principally opposed to homosexuality and to boylove pedosex, I must also frown upon zoophilia, because these can’t lead to fertility, though maybe I can relax my stance against zoophilia, because the future *may* be full of grotesque and fiendish monsters the result of human-animal hybridization. I recall that my favorite mischling, Michael “картошка” Anissimov, proposed just that back in the day. (he’s not really my favorite mischling)

                But pedophilia of the “girls are horny, deal with it already you stupid faggot” variety will be totally legal, indeed Mohammed who had married the 6-year-old Aisha and fucked her 3 years afterwards did nothing wrong and furthermore was a supreme gentleman and I’d invite him over for beer were it not ḥarām according to him, and although the new religion will not be Mohammed-focused because we need a large plurality of divinities and semi-divine heroes, the Prophet will serve as inspiration for the whole world, much like Jesus Christ and Sakyamuni.

                You may ask: “but who needs paganism anyway?” and my answer is the following: monotheistic religions are essentially intolerant and divisive, and because Jim is correct and in the future the white race will interbreed with the yellow race even though the white race is much superior, we need to find some natural common ground between Europeans and Chinese, and that can’t be some exclusive Semitic religion, it has to be something broader, thus paganism with Christian and Islamic elements. (but without Judaic elements, because fuck the Jews, that’s why)

                In particular, the fertility goddess is a very useful construct and it’s a shame that the monotheists have murdered her; when she’s brought back to life people will sigh with relief because such form of worship is so natural as to count as second nature to hominids, whereas “God as an abstracted field of formless energy” is a kooky idea and doesn’t occur naturally to people.

                Philoso-fags can go to Hell; people need concrete and human-shaped or animal-shaped deities to instruct them to marry off their daughters at 10 without there eventually emerging, like an all-consuming black hole, an escalating holiness-spiral rendering such practices as “primitive taboos,” and to tell them to throw Jews down wells like Borat suggested; muh-divine-energy-field doesn’t work in the long term, which is why common Buddhism as practiced by indigenous peoples doesn’t break down into endless purity struggles and as such doesn’t subsequently fall apart due to excessive purity, unlike cuckianity and talmudism.

                “But why would people be drawn to paganism?” you ask, and the answer is that civilization is collapsing, and that means only one thing: all the demons that we have buried deep underground for a millennium are coming back to haunt us in full force, the Kek-meme is only a forerunner of things to come, people going without electricity and food and water and heat and sleep will believe the wildest things, and that’s where things are headed AND YOU KNOW IT.

                You can discount all that I have said here as “deranged ramblings,” indeed I encourage the faintest of heart and lowest of IQ among you to do so, but if you can feel where the wind is blowing, you should be able to tell that my propositions are way more realistic than initially appears, and since the world is weird, you need a weirdo like me to make sense of it, rather than expecting some clueless normie with only Slave Morality to guide him to fit the pieces of the puzzle together.

                • peppermint says:

                  God wasn’t an energy being to Aquinas or Socrates, and no one actually believes in God anymore.

                  People will return to ratheism, holding their nation andnrace as sacred and the symbols thereof. For Americans, that means a cult of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. That is why progressives are so eager to destroy their monuments.

                  Humans do not have sex in front of each other, not Whites, and not the mud tribes with little White contact. The one room house was not where the White family cooked their meals or stored their picked vegetables and salted meat. City dwelling Romans did not cook in their insulae. White families did not spend all day together watching each other. If you could get yourself a gf, you would begin to notice that your desire to engage in sexual activity is suppressed when you’re traveling with other people around all the time until you find yourselves alone together. Either that or your gf would eventually conclude that your PDAs are too much to handle and dump you. Women like some PDA to demonstrate your commitment, and other people accept seeing some PDA as evidence of commitment if they can tell you’re a new couple..

                • j says:

                  As a devotee of the fertility goddess

                  Well, well, well… our resurrected Jacob Frank has made a big circle is back to the origins. Who are the most fanatically fertile people of humanity if not the Yerushalmi Faction? Go and visit my cousins in Batey Ungarin, who will not look at a female, and see that the Female Goddess is unnecessary and idiotic. We had Anat the wife of HaShem, and discarded her as superfluous. Anat exists and she is a fat girl in the coffee shop downstairs. We need no Goddess, no Temple in Jerusalem and not even HaShem himself.

                • j says:

                  No need for “картошка”. No need for fertility goddess. We have the true and proven religion, the Torah.

                • Rape says:

                  >Just to be clear: when I say that there was “no debate” about holding women down during sex, it was because that practice was pretty much ubiquitous, not because it did not exist.
                  >also, the “age of consent” did not exist; also, non-Christians worshiped the fertility goddess – which worship must have been overall positively correlated with fertility.
                  >“old enough to bleed is old enough to breed,” and “your sense of privacy is irrelevant because you must not be sterile.”
                  >Condoms and other forms of contraception will be banned, and some cases — but not all cases — of abortion will be banned
                  >As a devotee of the fertility goddess I must be principally opposed to homosexuality and to boylove pedosex, I must also frown upon zoophilia, because these can’t lead to fertility, though maybe I can relax my stance against zoophilia, because the future *may* be full of grotesque and fiendish monsters the result of human-animal hybridization.
                  >But pedophilia of the “girls are horny, deal with it already you stupid faggot” variety will be totally legal
                  >we need to find some natural common ground between Europeans and Chinese, and that can’t be some exclusive Semitic religion, it has to be something broader, thus paganism with Christian and Islamic elements. (but without Judaic elements, because fuck the Jews, that’s why)
                  >In particular, the fertility goddess is a very useful construct and it’s a shame that the monotheists have murdered her; when she’s brought back to life people will sigh with relief because such form of worship is so natural as to count as second nature to hominids
                  >Philoso-fags can go to Hell; people need concrete and human-shaped or animal-shaped deities to instruct them to marry off their daughters at 10
                  >“But why would people be drawn to paganism?” you ask, and the answer is that civilization is collapsing, and that means only one thing: all the demons that we have buried deep underground for a millennium are coming back to haunt us in full force, the Kek-meme is only a forerunner of things to come, people going without electricity and food and water and heat and sleep will believe the wildest things, and that’s where things are headed AND YOU KNOW IT.

                  Praise Ammit. Praise Reitia. I fucking love monstergirls.

                • BWV says:

                  What a long-winded pack of nonsense. Do yourself – and everyone else – a favor and keep your silly fantasies to yourself.

            • Garr says:

              You think the Chofetz Chaim would tie up his wife (who ran the grocery store while he studied in the back room) and tickle her, saying things like, “Ah ha, my little bit of chulent-beef, here come the red hot needles!” (Not on Friday night, I guess, unless double bows are okay instead of knots — how does he posken on this?)

              • j says:

                Disagree. The Chofetz Hayim would fulfill his marital mitzvot because he was a good Jew, but would tickle some rose-cheeked yeshive boy.

          • Garr says:

            “What the fuck are you on about” — you’re English! That’s a surprise.

            “First you redefine femininity …” — no, I’m stating the obvious: women don’t take ideas seriously, and aren’t interested in them for their own sake; if you share an idea with a woman she’ll be interested in it only as an expression of your personality.

            “Then you mock men …” — no, I’m saying that she’s mocking men. But men who behave in this way (e.g. the Achilles-Agamemnon confrontation) are in fact kind of silly. Blacks behave in this way.

            “Acting like a 20c feminist …” — What are you on about?

            “Trump is Boomer Jesus …” — he’s boring but not evil, and your love for him is endearing

            “If the 20c people take him down …” — eh, you’ll be old too someday

          • Will says:

            “Trump is Boomer Jesus, free of the sins of his generation and held personally responsible for all of them”

            Brilliant

        • jim says:

          Pretty sure the author of the Iliad is not female. Females cannot write like that.

          And not only female, but written by someone with a markedly higher testosterone level than is usual among twenty first century white males.

          The male distribution in certain areas does not overlap significantly with the female distribution. And the author of the Iliad is at the far end of the male distribution.

          • Garr says:

            Well if the author of the Iliad is female, then females can write like that.

            The Iliad is half domestic comedy, and even the hero-interactions are mainly affectionately comical.

            Some women write extremely well. Some women are extremely
            intelligent. They don’t take ideas seriously as ideas — they see them as expressions of personality. But since they’re extremely intelligent they are able to manipulate ideas in an entertaining way for short periods of time. I’m sure you’ve experienced this personally, in several conversations with very intelligent women.

            • peppermint says:

              > I think the author of the Iliad is a female
              > if the author of the Iliad is a female, then females can write like that

              This is a forward-thinking argument for a progressive conclusion.

              • Garr says:

                Not a progressive conclusion at all.

                I was just flipping Jim’s non-argument (“Females can’t write like that, therefore a female didn’t write it”).

                “Homer” and “Shakespeare” are feminine, Ovid and Spenser are masculine.

                There are intelligent women in the world; if there weren’t, you wouldn’t exist.

                • peppermint says:

                  Right, but those of us who live in a world populated by men and women in various stages of life and mud “people” in various stages of life can understand what can be written by them, while those who live in transhuman ubitopia are wilfully blind.

                  Boomer.

                • pdimov says:

                  Jim’s statement is easy to disprove. Just name three women who can write like that.

                  Your statement is trivial, hence impossible to disprove.

                • Garr says:

                  Peppermint, what’s “transhuman ubitopia”?
                  You think I don’t live among people? I practically wade through them. I live in Brooklyn. It’s strange how 25 year olds always think they know twice as much as 50 years do about people and things in general. Do you think that you’ll be forgetting things and getting stupider over the next 25 years?
                  “Boomer” – someone who has read books? (I was born in 1966.)

                  Pdimov: You mean three women that we know are women? Well, Homer and Shakespeare the best female writers ever, just as Ovid and Spenser are the best male writers ever, so no women can exactly “write like” the former pair, just as no men can exactly write like” the latter pair, but Dickinson’s as good as Whitman, Eliot’s as good as Trollope, and Murdoch’s as good as Amis.

                  Jim: It’s silly of you to call me “silly.” It is distinctively female writing, and I told you why: women see the world as made up of interpersonal relationships, and see ideas merely as expressions of personality, and that’s exactly how “Homer” and “Shakespeare” see the world. The Iliad is mostly domestic comedy and the fighting (which may have impressed you when you read it as a kid) is slapstick vaudeville.

                • peppermint says:

                  You pick specific passages out of a war story in which certain people, who are heroes in the grand scheme of things, behave unheroically, then you insult both the heroes and the author of the story with them. Because you are a boomer feminist.

            • jim says:

              You are just being silly. It is as obvious that the author of the Iliad is male as it is obvious that I am male and Sunshine Mary is female.

              It is distinctively male writing.

  5. John Sterne says:

    -“women see the world as made up of interpersonal relationships, and see ideas merely as expressions of personality”

    Awarded Reactionary Order of Nicolás Gómez Dávila

  6. TBeholder says:

    Good grief. It’s not obvious without this?
    I don’t know why anyone would bother to visit it either way (except the usual screechy crowd), but there’s anyone who didn’t put 2 and 2 together? Even after the years of false flags spinning so fast they looked more like a slow kaleidoscope? Even after VoxDay spelled out the 3rd law of SJW? And yes, after Jim’s article on the related subject (https://blog.jim.com/politics/the-overclass-hates-you/)?

    See also: duckduckgo.com/?q=”kkk”+”blm”+”same+bus”

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      Okay, sir. StormFront sucked, but it was not because of its content per se. Separation from muds, and raging antisemitism (did you hear Moonman’s latest “JQ” track? Fucken’ awesome) are perfectly justified. Where SF failed was in the delivery department. They were correct, but boring. Sure – you can criticize them for not being hardcore enough on many issues, but it doesn’t matter, because their purpose was giving voice to white nationalism, and that’s exactly what they did. Then, the alt-right happened.

      • TBeholder says:

        This describes straw puppets.
        And “raging antisemitism” fits right in – between “everyone who is not with us is ZOMGHITLAR!” and hate-boner for Israel.

        What’s more, look at who mentions it and when. Compare to how after the blow-up various pozzed sources began to mention 4chan a lot more… and 8chan never (except as “unnamed evil pr0n site”, much like Snopes refers to Peoples Cube).
        Or even NRA.
        This happens when something is convenient as an enemy (witch-hunts are a subset of this).

        Conversely, do they ever refer to inconvenient enemies cry something like “you took that from wattsupwiththat.com!” or something like this?

        The only exception are cases it’s utterly impossible to ignore or dismiss, and none of the abovenamed fall under this. Compare to the chimp-outs over GG or Trump. That’s how screech fests run when they are “for realsies”. It’s just not the same, or anywhere close.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      Then, however, the alt-right happened. What distinguishes the alt-right from old school white nationalism is that it has a sense of humor. Alt-righters can lighten up, and — knowingly or unknowingly — are inspired by the shock culture of Encyclopedia Dramatica. I discovered DailyStormer via a link on KMac’s site, and what attracted me there was Anglin’s comedy. Likewise, I read MPC because they are funny. SF’s primary problem was that it was unfunny. The AR solved the problem.

      That said, I would say that only among NRx can *all* the subjects be discussed freely, rather than only some of them. Because most of us here are not “natural conservatives.” Shitlords, yes – I had been drawing swastikas when I was 6, before I even knew exactly what they stand for. Hitlerism is cool, because all the “srs bznss” adults are shocked by it so much.

      But those who’ve been born into conservatism can’t rationally evaluate their own blind spots. Reality is always more red pilled than any single individual is willing to admit, and therefore, the lowest common denominator is perforce a huge blue pill. Strong social bonds are a good thing when your culture is healthy; in a sick society, strong social bonds breed masses of sheeple. These are the normies. Right-wing normies are still normies, still plugged into the matrix to a large extent. In order to “think” outside the box, one has to “be” outside the box.

      SF served its purpose, but it could not do more what it was meant to do, because its frame of reference was all too mainstream. Grievance politics for whites, modelled after the POCKs’ (people of color + kikes) strategy. But kikes and shitskins lack empathy, and shitlibs are pathologically incapable of taking their own side against others. Hence, need to go beyond grievance politics; need to — dare I say it — subvert the entire Overton Window. Shatter it all, perhaps. SF couldn’t do that. SF told you that it’s okay to criticize the Jews; but it did not go all the way towards exposing the whole host of skeletons within modern society’s closet.

      The AR is subversive, and NRx is possibly the most subversive branch of it. NRx’s primary blind spot was the JQ, which is why I went absolute madman with my antisemitic trolling campaign, and in fact I still do that, because the red pill has not been fully digested yet. Ultimately, time will bring about greater realism about this issue. The trend has to be towards more open debate, rather than (((shutting it down))).

      The hallmark of Jews and people who, for whatever reason, serve a Jewish agenda, is that they try to extinguish realtalk. One of their chief methods when dealing with members of the AR is accusing everyone who criticizes the Jews as being a Jew himself, or using other kinds of ad hominems to destroy reputations. Notice that when you make accusatory remarks about Jews, their defenders instantly rush to tell you that your personality is flawed, and so your voice must not be heard. SF gave a voice to all those censored and maligned by the kikes.

      The AR, as opposed to its predecessors, is more than a platform – it coordinates meta-level memetic subversion. SF couldn’t do that, libertarians couldn’t do that, paleoconservatives couldn’t do that. You need a different mentality. The proper, indeed indispensable, mentality to possess is one of “I will slaughter ALL of the sacred cows.” If Jews are your sacred cow, the AR must slaughter the Jews for you. Humor is the weapon of choice. That’s the big picture behind Anglin’s endeavor. The AR is outside SF’s comfort zone, and NRx should ideally be the most uncomfortable section of it, where all the cows are dead. That did not materialize, alas.

      It is *unfortunate* that Anglin is more relevant than Moldbug. But it is true, because Moldbug wanted you to shut your goy mouth about Jewish influence. Really, if there is one adjective to describe Anglin, it is “relevant.” He uses shocking humor to generate discussion about subjects hitherto undiscussed; like /pol/, basically. He once was a shitlib himself, and similarly, Jim was a communist; almost everyone in NRx was a leftist at some point, and as of today, some of us hold positions that others would consider left-wing or even pozzed. MPC’s Uecker does not consider himself a right-winger.

      We are superior to SF, because the lowest common denominator in our realtalk is way more red pilled than theirs. Criticism of Jews should be part of that common denominator, part of a “consensus” if you will.

      I’m not sure where I’m going with this rambling, so I’ll just stop it here.

Leave a Reply