Culture

Identitarian Ideas IX – Rising from the Ruins

On Saturday, 374 people gathered in the most leftist district in Stockholm, Sweden, for the World’s largest AltRight conference to this date.

On the afternoon of February 25th, 2017, the Identitarian Ideas IX Conference took place. The venue for the event was secured the evening before the event took place. In the six months leading up to this conference, several other venue locations canceled in order to deny a platform to our movement. Not only was the event put together in one day, it took place in the Stockholm neighborhood of Södermalm. For those who don’t know, Södermalm is home to many radical left-wing journalists and extremist anti-fascists (antifa). On Saturday, 374 people gathered in the most leftist district in Stockholm, Sweden, for the World’s largest AltRight conference to this date.

Daniel Friberg, CEO of Arktos and co-founder of AltRight.com, was the organizer of the Identitarian Ideas IX Conference. As mentioned earlier, he faced many obstacles in organizing this conference but was successful in creating one of the largest AltRight conferences to date. This conference went off without a hitch and was a new pinnacle for the movement. The conference featured an impressive roster of over 15 speakers of various nationalities. For the most part, the conference was conducted in English. Red Ice Radio conducted a livestream of the event and has uploaded many of the individual speeches for your viewing pleasure – which can be found here.

The event kicked off with a speech by Jason Reza Jorjani, Editor-in-Chief of Arktos, where he spoke about how “HailGate” pushed him to doubling down on his beliefs and deciding to work with Richard Spencer to form AltRight.com:

Isac Boman, author of Money Power, spoke about banking and money and its effects on European identity:

Paul Ramsey, the popular vlogger known as Ramzpaul, spoke about the history of leftist violence in the United States:

Constantin von Hoffmeister, a pan-European visionary from Germany who lived in the United States, makes the case for American identity:

Ruuben Kaalep, the leader of the Blue Awakening youth movement in Estonia, spoke about a concept he calls “Ethno-Futurism”, which channels a lot of the ideas of Guillaume Faye’s ‘Archeofuturism’:

Colin Robertson, the popular vlogger known as Millennial Woes, spoke about his doxxing and the future of the AltRight movement in Europe and the United States (this speech was my personal favorite of all the speeches that evening):

These are just a few of the most prominent speeches that took place at the Identitarian Ideas IX Conference. You will be able to find the rest of the speeches uploaded to the Red Ice Radio YouTube channel over the course of the next few days.

Another event that place at the conference was a Q&A panel discussion from the popular Swedish identitarian radio network, Motgift. I have heard Motgift described as the Swedish version of TheRightStuff Radio network. This panel discussion took place in their native tongue of Swedish. This panel discussion included Jonas De Geer, Björn Björkqvist, Magnus Söderman, and Dan Eriksson:

The event was a smashing success in spite of the issues in securing a venue. There were so many conference attendees that people could go off on their own and socialize with each other or stay and listen to one of the many speeches. As an American, I must say that I was extremely impressed by the quality of people who make up the resistance in Sweden. Coming from an outsider perspective, we often look at Sweden and see that it is extremely cucked… err progressive. However, after meeting the Swedes and other Europeans, I must say that I am extremely hopeful for the future of Sweden and the rest of Europe.

 

  • Constantin Von Hoffmeister

    Great article! I don’t live in the US anymore, though. I live in Moscow now.

  • Awesome post.. thanks .. meanwhile in America Tucker has a denialist about Sweden’s situation on to tell everyone that Swedes don’t yell [among other absurdities..] .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFPjEM0Izpc

  • Pingback: The Reunited States of America: Speech at Identitarian Ideas IX()

  • It was a very well organized event and I had the time to talk to a lot of inspiring people, even though I would have needed at least a week to be able to speak to all of them.

    For the record I want to add that also Björn Björkqvist was a part of our (Motgift) Q&A. See you all soon again!

    • Marcus

      How does one get involved? I didn’t realise there were conferences in Europe.

  • Joseph Curwen

    So Jorjani didn’t speak about Making Iran Great Again?

    • Zuma the Deplorable

      Well he did take a swipe at classical Greece. I think he’s still a bit bitter about Marathon. Otherwise very good though.

      • Joseph Curwen

        I’m tired of saying it over and over again: Jorjani is not one of us, and the reasons why Spencer and others tolerate him is a real mystery to me.

        • Zuma the Deplorable

          Yeah, I mean I think he’s interesting sometimes but all this stuff about a secular Greater Iran feels at best like a distraction. He’s also made some patently false claims like that the etymological root of Ireland is the same as Aryan, which has been debunked. So yeah, I take him with a massive block of salt, but he seems mostly harmless.

          • ThomasER916

            It has been “debunked” but the same people who believe Cleopatra was a Negress.

        • Marcus

          So what, he is an ally. We need all the allies we can get!

          • Joseph Curwen

            How a person interested only in Iran and Iran’s future is ‘an ally’? Is this person fighting for secure the existence of our people and a future for white children?

            He’s part swedish, part Iranian, and has already choose his side. His side is not my side, and neither should be yours if you really understand the struggle we are in.

          • Jason R.

            I understand your concern about Iran-ties and artificial attempts to conflate Aryan Iran with Aryan Europe, but Jason Jorjani is an Aryan ally. It’s not fair to say that he’s only interested in Iran and Iran’s future; Jason speaks on those issues because he happens to be an expert on that stuff. But he’s the senior editor of Arktos and has a lot of different interests along the identitarian/nationalist spectrum. Ultimately, I think we need to have our arms open to every ethno-nationalist, and Jason in particular is explicitly pro-White, pro-Aryan.

  • VictoryOrValhalla

    374 people and 15 speakers organized and accomplished in that short of a venue book? Holy hell guys, that’s amazing.
    It’ll take me a while to get through all the speeches but I’ve got a good chunk of time.

  • Jarod

    Fantastic event. Loved all the speeches. Even Hoffmeister’s “Hee Man” speech Aha

  • sphj

    Amazing turn out. Lots of great people and a broad spectrum of movements represented.

  • Laguna Beach Fogey

    Very impressive!

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    France & Sweden have No-Go Zones due to the fear of crime. Even the police and ambulances dread venturing into those areas overrun with Africans and Muslims].

    But the entire West have No-Go Zones(or Know-Go Zones or No-Know Zones) due to accusations of thought crime. So, entire subjects are either ignored, sugarcoated, or spun in accordance to PC dictates.

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    Nazis-by-brand would be ‘neo-nazis’ and the like.

    Nazis-by-action would be those who act like Nazis.

    In today’s world, Jewish globalists are Nazis-by-action. They seek racial domination over other groups. They have waged wars in the Middle East that killed or displaced millions. They use the media to dehumanize entire populations, especially white gentiles. They use globalism as hyper-imperialism to invade and destroy every gentile nation. Only Israel is spared or passover-ed because Jews are deemed special, superior, and unique.

    • Fiat is theft-end the Fed

      The use of it as a pejorative is worn out. It should be retired.

    • “Jews are the real nazis”
      We have endured 70 years of smearing German people as nazis. I think we need to stop doing that. Flipping the narrative and calling bad jewish people nazis only strengthens the globalist narrative that nazi=evil. It is the same thing as saying “Dems are the real racists”. We must stop buying into leftist narratives completely.
      Yes, many bad things happened in Europe 70 years ago. But there is only one group that is consistently demonized as evil and oppressive. Even today, media and academia push this narrative tirelessly. We are brainwashed to believe that nazis are the ultimate evil. But the terrifying reality is that anyone who disagrees with the leftists and globalists is now being labeled “nazi” and is considered to be a valid target for violence.
      So think twice before using the narratives & terminology of the left.

  • Pity of Peace

    Endangered Species Act selectively protects certain species(deemed ‘endangered’) from hunting and habitat destruction.

    There is something like the Ennobled Races Act in the West.

    It selectively favors certain races and groups from standards of Equal Treatment and Equal Justice. On grounds that they were denied equality or suffered some great trauma in the past, they are collectively compensated with special privileges. So, if they do something that would call for punishment under equal application of the law, they are spared the penalty on grounds that they are currently ‘ennobled’.

    The three groups favored for Ennobled Races Act or Ennobled Groups Act are blacks, Jews, and homos. Of late, Muslims are partly recognized because they are useful in attacking Trump as ‘xenophobe’ and ‘Islamophobe’. But the very people who profess to care about Muslims said and did nothing when Obama and Hillary were destroying the Muslim World and reducing Muslims into refugees. And they did precious little for Palestinians.

    But how long can this charade go on when so many black Africans are migrating in huge numbers into EU and US? At least US gets the ones with enough brains and money to buy airplane tickets. EU has to taken in boatloads of morons. When there were just a handful of black Africans in the EU, Europeans could take pride in some of these Africans partaking of superior European culture. Or, Europeans have had this view of Africans as poor helpless folks in need of handouts and sympathy, especially as so many news reports focus on poor African babies without enough food. It’s like Europeans see African as forever-child, ignoring the fact that babies eventually grow up. And African nations have been destroyed not by babies but by full-grown adults who were once babies. Europeans seem to be realizing only now that Africans aren’t so helpless and pitiable. If given the chance and freedom in the West, they have the agency to destroy and africanize entire areas. After all, that’s why Africans or Africaniziers do. They africanize.

    And given the great power and privilege of the Jewish Globalist elites who machinations have done so much damage to finance and foreign policy, for how much longer should they be protected by the Ennobled Races Act that say we must tolerate Jewish bad behavior since they are a special people deserving of special sympathy?

    Anyway, because of our culture centered around Ennobled Races Act, we have so much behavior like this:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/25/lawyer-racist-note-given-to-black-waitress-in-virginia-is-a-fake/

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    Is magnanimity dead in the West, especially America?

    It seems culture of magnanimity is only possible when the Power feels secure and confident.
    And there was a time when Anglo-American leaders felt that way. Unlike European nations and kingdoms that were crowded together and always watching for elbow-space and vying for power, Anglo-Americans had near-supreme power over all of North America.
    Also, due to limited supply of land and aristocratic legacy, there was also much class conflict. In contrast, the great availability of land made Americans more confident and free.

    So, magnanimity became a factor in American politics. Anglo-American elites(and Anglo-Americanized ethnics) felt confident in the future.

    But with the decline or even demise of Anglo-American power, what is there? We have angry blacks who only cause more problems. We have immigrant groups who have no connection to America’s past and only care about materialism. They just want ‘what is theirs’. And current PC teaches them it is their right to come to America. Americanism has become so globalized that Gaddafi, Admanidijad, and pregnant Chinese women are all convinced that the US exists as their honeypot(even when they denounce it as Satan). Immigrants now have an entitlement mentality, and they lack the character to be rulers. They lack heart and generosity. They think US should be generous to them. they are driven by greed and grievance only.
    As for Latin whites in the US, what a whiny bunch mired in resentment that Anglos achieved so much more than Latins. As for mestizon and meso-American masses, their minds are set in ‘servant mentality’. They may complain about power, but their main mode is to serve others.
    That leaves Jews and homos are new elites, but Jews, as 2% of population and steeped in Holocaust mindset, tend toward paranoia. And homos are just into self-worship and vanity.

    So, it means magnanimity is dead in American politics. There is only the politics of paranoia or paranimity. Even the most powerful elites in current America never think of the common or shared good. They just fear about losing ‘what is ours’. Call for more immigration is hyped as America being generous to the world, but it makes things less generous WITHIN the US that no longer has a secure and confident ruling elite. There is a dominant ruling elites in the Jews, but there is no magnanimity in them. Jews feign generosity with pro-immigration stance, but it’s just a way to increase distrust among gentiles in America to secure Jewish power. So, it is really driven by Jewish insecurity.

    There was a time when Anglo-Americans felt confident in their domination of the US.
    They felt sure that their values, vision, and idea of America would be adopted by newcomers.
    But that confidence is gone. With loss of confidence, there was also the loss of magnanimity. Today’s wasps just care about one thing: finding a way to marry into the Jewish elites to be part of the New Power. They will even suck up to homomania to get what is theirs.
    And since Jews are paranoid and tribal, this power doesn’t translate into confidence and magnanimity. More like maximinity, a way to maximize one’s own tribe’s power and wealth.

    Sure, there is this lame talk of ‘diversity’, but all it really does is lead to more division and the mentality of scrambling for ‘what is mine’.

    ===

  • Fiat is theft-end the Fed

    Is this turning into a global movement? That would tell me it has already been co-opted.

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/david-dying-white-america-brooks-shoves-his-id-back-in-the-closet/#comment-1782344

    Wait.

    If Brooks admits of a ‘dying white America’, it means White Privilege is a myth for large swath of Americans who are not only mired in economic stagnation but facing demise and death.

    That sounds serious.

    Shouldn’t a ‘dying’ people be helped, favored, protected?

    Imagine a black leader saying, “So many black folks be dyin’ and shi*. Dang, let them die. They is worthless. I’s gonna try to replace my dumbass folks with Mexicans and Asians. And Muslims too.”

    Black leaders may ACT like that, but they don’t talk like that. They feel they must, at least outwardly, look out for the interests of their own people.

    If Brooks admits that much of White America is ‘dying’, shouldn’t he tell white elites to take care of their own people? After all, this was the great theme of Progressivism since the French Revolution. French elites must take care of their people. Must lead them and guide them.

    And that is why Linda-Hunt-as-half-Chinese dwarf got pissed about Sukarno, whom he used to admire. He realized that Sukarno plays the symbol of ‘father of his people’ while living like a pampered and vain playboy. Instead of Brooks telling white elites to do something about sick and ‘dying’ white America, he tells them to just dump them(like Max dumped his friends in the Leone gangster movie).

    But if this is the Jewish attitude, why don’t Jews just forget about Roman Polanski? The fact is most powerful Jews still protect him. And Jews never gave up on Pollard even though he’s a lowlife scum. Because Pollard is Jewish and served Israel, they stuck with him to the very end, and he’s a free man making good money. Why don’t Brooks tell white elites to see white folks the same way? Consider how American Jews felt about Soviet Jews. They didn’t say, “They’re a bunch of losers who are prolly commies anyway. Let them just rot and die in the gulag that is the USSR.” No, American Jews did all they could to ‘save’ Soviet Jews. And ragtag Jewish refugees were migrating to Palestine, American Jews didn’t say, “What a bunch of worthless losers, totally hopeless and pathetic. Let em rot?” No, American Jews did everything they could for them, and now, Israel is hailed as the #1 friend of the US. Brooks’ son even served in IDF.

    But Brooks’ advice to white elites when it comes to white masses is this:

    David Brooks went Mel Brooks

    Of course, Jewish elites weren’t always so feeling toward other Jews. WWII sobered them up.

    There was a time when Western European Jews, especially German and French ones, turned up their nose at Eastern European Jews and Middle East Jews. Many aspired to be ‘white’ and respectable. Some even abandoned Jewish identity and converted to Christianity and did their best to blend in. And when they heard about the plight of Eastern European Jews, they had little interest. And when some Eastern Europeans showed up in the West, they felt embarrassed to be associated with such lowlifes and signaled to Western elites that they, the refined Western Jews, had almost nothing in common with those lowly dirty Jews from the East.

    Gertrude Stein’s attitude wasn’t atypical.

    http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/why-wont-the-met-tell-the-whole-truth-about-gertrude-stein

    And there were German-Jewish clubs that banned Eastern European Jews.

    And some Jews say SHAME on the Jewish-American community for not applied enough pressure on FDR to do more for Jews.

    So, after WWII, the Jewish elite mentality went from seeking approval & acceptance from Western elites to lending support to ALL Jews around the world, even Middle Eastern ones. So, Israel was open to ALL Jews: German, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Yemenese, Iranian, etc.

    So, why are Jews telling white elites to just dump the ‘dying’ white masses? Of course, the reason is obvious. Even though it seems hypocritical, there is a consistency to the extent that both Jewish elite’s concern for Jewish populism/nationalism and Jewish elite’s derision of white populism/nationalism are predicated on “Is it good for Jews?”

    It is good for Jews as a whole if Jewish elites care about the broader Jewish populace.

    It’s like what Pike to Tector in THE WILD BUNCH. They gotta stick together.

    If the unity of Jewish elites and Jewish populism/nationalism serves Jewish interests, the unity of white elites and white populism/nationalism may be counter to Jewish interests. So, Brooks tells white elites to dump the ‘dying white losers’. (It seems Jewish elites went from caring insufficiently about other Jews to caring too much about them, even to the extent of harming large numbers of Palestinians, Russians, and white Americans. The New Cold War with Russia premised on Jewish Americans’ main loyalty to Jewish Russian oligarchs is truly an insane development.) And so, Brooks tells white elites to go ‘Max’ on the white people.

    If Brooks had written RED BEARD, he would tell the Japanese doctors to just let the diseased losers to die. Maybe Brooks and Tom Vu can write a movie script together.

    Tom Vu’s three secret little words: “let losers die”

    Granted, much of the problem of White America is moral and spiritual corruption. It’s not just economic. But then, the elites deserve much blame for spreading degrading sounds & images and terrible ideas based on ideological fads. While lower IQ among poorer whites may be a problem, things have been made much worse by moral degradation, especially via Negro influence that wallows in hyper-sexuality and thuggery. And spread of homomania has made shameless vanity, narcissism, and nihilism the new standard in cultural expression. (The great irony of the New Deal and Great Society is that the very policies that were designed to help the people took something precious from them: the capacity for appreciation and gratitude. Read THE GRAPES OF WRATH, and things were truly miserable for many people back then. But, people understood that they had to be self-reliant and responsible; they had to keep the families together and be tough. But when things got so bad, especially when people were uprooted from the land, even self-reliance and toughness weren’t enough. So, there were state policies to offer relief to the people. People were genuinely appreciative of this help because things had been so bad and because they didn’t expect much. So, they knew the worth of a loaf of bread. So, when the State first offered help, it was much appreciated. Also, because of traditional values of family and self-reliance, it was understood that the offer of help was meant to provide relief, not dependence and livelihood. But as entire generations got used to statist support, they demanded the free stuff[and even more] without any sense of appreciation or gratitude. They no longer saw the value of what was being offered. They just felt entitled to it because they happen to be citizens. And the goodies were no longer seen as relief but as permanent feature of their livelihood. This is why socialism has to be on a fascist basis. People must be made to appreciate what is being given them as part of an organic community.)

    Still, no one is starving. And even poor whites on welfare have free medical care. In a way, part of their corruption is due to entitlement mentality, same thing plaguing so many blacks and later generations of Mexicans(and even Asians).

    As for Conservatives, they no longer have any real values. The ones who do, like Evangelicals, are dumb and ignorant. Their idea of righteousness is literal reading of the Bible and Israel, Israel, and Israel. As for Conservatism Inc., it’s lower taxes for the super-rich, Israel-Israel-Israel, and ‘Democrats are the real racists’.

    As for Constitutionalists, they are mostly about liberty and legal protections than righteousness and power of sanctity & taboos. The Constitution guarantees liberties and protections. It doesn’t tell us what is right or wrong. Constitution allows freedom of speech for Neo-Nazis, communists, anarchists, degenerates, and even pedophiles. So, as important as it is in guaranteeing freedoms for individuals, it has no role in emotionally shaping our collective sense of what is sacred and what is taboo. The real power rests with control of sanctity and taboos than guarantee of rights. Righteousness overrides mere rights. What is blessed has power over what is cursed. (In a nation where God and Jesus are sacred and revered, even those with legal rights to mock them will think twice since it will lead to shunning, mockery, and hostility, all leading to social destruction. So, rights are not enough for power.) The Constitution protects the right of both the blessed and the cursed. The blessed and the cursed both have freedom of speech. Constitution allows that much. But the power is decided by who-and-what-are-blessed and who-and-what-are-cursed. So, even though someone with ‘racist’ views has free speech protections, he hasn’t a chance to make the social climb since the prevailing rules of sanctity and taboos will shun, ignore, or insult him.

    This is why putting the negative rights of the Constitution at the center of one’s ideological conviction is a losing proposition. Constitution is about the right of free speech even if you’re wrong. It doesn’t guarantee that you are right, therefore blessed with righteousness.

    What is considered right(as opposed to ‘a right’) is shaped by media and academia.

    Today, the debate sounds like “We on the Right may be wrong, but we want the right to be wrong” vs “We on the Left are right, and that is why we deserve the power to enforce what is right.” Even though the Constitution is on the side of the Right(unless Supreme Court cooks up some excuse to ban ‘hate speech’, a real possibility since the Constitution is ultimately decided by Supreme Court that bent and twisted the Constitution to allow all sorts of perversions), the Moral Culture is on the side of the Left. Even if majority of Americans still believe that all speech should be protected, they feel that the Left has the sanctity associated with MLK, Diversity, Inclusion, and homomania, none of which has been opposed by the Right. The Right’s attitude is, “Maybe the Left is right about what is sacred and what is socially taboo, but we still want the freedom of speech to be wrong.”

    Because much of Conservatism Inc. surrendered to the Prog sacraments, the Right lacks the sense of rightness, therefore righteousness. Conzos argue for negative rights against the ‘left’ that pushes for positive righteousness. This is why the Left is currently less tolerant. Those who feel more righteous tend to be less tolerant, whereas those who feel guilty, defensive, and tainted feel more tolerant; it is actually self-serving since the defensive Right invokes tolerance as protection from the righteous ‘left’, i.e. when the Right preaches tolerance, it’s not about the virtue of tolerating their enemies but using tolerance against a shield against a much more powerful enemy what wields the sword of righteousness. Rights is a shield, righteousness is a sword. Righteousness can attack and kill, Rights can only defend and protect.

    This is why the Right used to be more intolerant in the past whereas the Liberals were more tolerant. Back then, much of society was agreed on the sanctity of God and tradition and community norms. Conservatives felt righteous in their judgementalism.

    In contrast, Liberals and secularists felt on the moral defensive and had to patiently plead their case. Today, Libs and progs feel more righteous, and that accounts for their lack of tolerance. It’s not that the left is naturally more intolerant than the right or vice verse. It’s just that those who feel more righteous — according to current rules of sacredness and taboos — tend to be less tolerant of those deemed deviant. To be sure, current PC is nuts because the so-called New Normal goes so against Natural Norms. So, even as progs feel more righteous and holy, on the subconscious level they may be panicking because the basis of their righteousness is really natural deviance forced into the position of normality by a crazy set of circumstances.

    Anyway, all this talk of Constitution isn’t enough. What the Right has to do is undermine and blow up the very rules of sacredness and taboos as instituted by PC.

    MLK-myth has to challenged. Sure, he played an important role in a great movement, BUT the premise of the movement was deeply flawed, and the other side had legitimate fears given the fact of racial differences. This has to be spelled out, but Conservatism Inc is too chicken. Even back then, they stupidly argued against the Movement on the abstract basis of ‘states rights’.

    So, instead of arguing to gain moral righteousness, they were merely arguing for legal rights or technicalities. If whites had honestly spelled out the dangers posed by blacks upon whites on the basis of racial differences, some of the righteousness could have been on the side of white southerners. It is a fact that blacks are physically tougher and more aggressive than whites. So, integration leads to black on white violence. Even though Northern Whites and Jews bitch about Southern ‘racism’, their own behavior in places like NY and SF belies their pompous crap about equality. NY Jews use stop-and-frisk and gentrification(euphemism for ethnically cleansing blacks with economic means) to make cities safe from black crime. Clinton locked up record number of blacks, but Jews supported him 100%, just like Jews support Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Today, Jews are the Nazis-by-action if not Nazis-by-brand. Nazis-by-brand would be those idiots going around with Swastika flags and shouting ‘heil hitler’. But such idiots got no power. If Nazism is understood as racial supremacism, imperialism, warmongering, paranoia, fear-mongering, and dehumanization of the Other, then Jews are the Nazis-by-action. Just ask the Palestinians. Just ask the Russians who were looted and raped by Jewish finance capitalists in the 90s. Just look how Hollywood spreads hatred of whites. The new movie called GET OUT features EVIL WHITES more sinister than anything in PROTOCOLS OF ELDERS OF ZION. (And even though Sweden is being torn apart by migration crisis encouraged by Jewish globalists, the crazy Jewish-dominated media would have us believe that Swedes should really fear crypto-Nazis featured in GIRL WITH DRAGON TATTOO, a paranoid fantasy that would make Joe McCarthy blush.) Even though current reality is about black thugs robbing, raping, and murdering whites, the Jews funded this movie(directed by black guy) that spreads anti-white vitriol. Surely, not even the Nazi film JEW SUSS was this hateful and dehumanizing, and paranoid. Also, Jews are now calling on the Deep State and the military to overthrow Trump. Jews also control porn and use white women as cumbucket pieces of meat to be thrown to black men. To Jews, white people are commodities, pieces of flesh to be bought and sold. And look at Wars for Israel in the Middle East cooked by Jews. Madeline Albright scoffs at 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Obama and HIllary, mere shills of Jews, don’t care about all the mayhem they caused in Libya and Syria. McCain and Graham, cuckservative stooges of Globalist Jews, push for New Cold War with Russia at the behest of Hyman Roths of the world who see the entire world as Cuba before Castro. Their oyster. Jews are Nazis-by-action.

    Recently, Conservatism Inc just went along with the crazy notion that ‘gay marriage’ makes sense. Their only counter-position offered by Con Inc was the Constitution, or religious liberty. So, ‘gay marriage’ is okay, and the real fight should be about protecting Christian bakers from not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’ by invoking the Constitution. So, the Right didn’t aim for sacredness and righteousness by condemning ‘gay marriage’ for associating a bio-moral institution with sexual deviance and immorality. It conceded the high ground to the homo agenda. So, ‘gay marriage’ is okay, even wonderful according to some like Brooks, Goldberg, and Murray.

    All that the Right can hope is to protect the ‘rights’ of Christian bakers. So, Douthat and Dreher don’t strike at the heart of the beast but merely beg for terms of surrender. “You progs are right. Gee, maybe gay marriage makes sense. But, some Americans are ignorant and benighted cuz of their religious conviction, and their rights should be protected under the Constitution.”

    Rights without righteousness doesn’t win over hearts and minds. By the way, why do Conservatives or even sane Liberals need religion to oppose the homo agenda? Any sane look at biology and morality should make it obvious that homo behavior is gross and goes against nature and morality based on truth.

    Mere rights don’t get people worked up and marching in the streets.

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    This is how Jews think:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/opinion/the-national-death-wish.html?_r=0

    Wait a minute.

    If Brooks admits of a ‘dying white America’, it means White Privilege is a myth for large swath of Americans who are not only mired in economic stagnation but facing demise and death.

    That sounds serious.

    Shouldn’t a ‘dying’ people be helped, favored, protected?

    Imagine a black leader saying, “So many black folks be dyin’ and shi*. Dang, let them die. They is worthless. I’s gonna try to replace my dumbass folks with Mexicans and Asians. And Muslims too.”

    Black leaders may ACT like that, but they don’t talk like that. They feel they must, at least outwardly, look out for the interests of their own people.

    If Brooks admits that much of White America is ‘dying’, shouldn’t he tell white elites to take care of their own people? After all, this was the great theme of Progressivism since the French Revolution. French elites must take care of their people. Must lead them and guide them.

    And that is why Linda-Hunt-as-half-Chinese dwarf got pissed about Sukarno, whom he used to admire. He realized that Sukarno plays the symbol of ‘father of his people’ while living like a pampered and vain playboy. Instead of Brooks telling white elites to do something about sick and ‘dying’ white America, he tells them to just dump them(like Max dumped his friends in the Leone gangster movie).

    But if this is the Jewish attitude, why don’t Jews just forget about Roman Polanski? The fact is most powerful Jews still protect him. And Jews never gave up on Pollard even though he’s a lowlife scum. Because Pollard is Jewish and served Israel, they stuck with him to the very end, and he’s a free man making good money. Why don’t Brooks tell white elites to see white folks the same way? Consider how American Jews felt about Soviet Jews. They didn’t say, “They’re a bunch of losers who are prolly commies anyway. Let them just rot and die in the gulag that is the USSR.” No, American Jews did all they could to ‘save’ Soviet Jews. And ragtag Jewish refugees were migrating to Palestine, American Jews didn’t say, “What a bunch of worthless losers, totally hopeless and pathetic. Let em rot?” No, American Jews did everything they could for them, and now, Israel is hailed as the #1 friend of the US. Brooks’ son even served in IDF.

    But Brooks’ advice to white elites when it comes to white masses is this:

    David Brooks went Mel Brooks

    Of course, Jewish elites weren’t always so feeling toward other Jews. WWII sobered them up.

    There was a time when Western European Jews, especially German and French ones, turned up their nose at Eastern European Jews and Middle East Jews. Many aspired to be ‘white’ and respectable. Some even abandoned Jewish identity and converted to Christianity and did their best to blend in. And when they heard about the plight of Eastern European Jews, they had little interest. And when some Eastern Europeans showed up in the West, they felt embarrassed to be associated with such lowlifes and signaled to Western elites that they, the refined Western Jews, had almost nothing in common with those lowly dirty Jews from the East.

    Gertrude Stein’s attitude wasn’t atypical.

    http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/why-wont-the-met-tell-the-whole-truth-about-gertrude-stein

    And there were German-Jewish clubs that banned Eastern European Jews.

    And some Jews say SHAME on the Jewish-American community for not applied enough pressure on FDR to do more for Jews.

    So, after WWII, the Jewish elite mentality went from seeking approval & acceptance from Western elites to lending support to ALL Jews around the world, even Middle Eastern ones. So, Israel was open to ALL Jews: German, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Yemenese, Iranian, etc.

    So, why are Jews telling white elites to just dump the ‘dying’ white masses? Of course, the reason is obvious. Even though it seems hypocritical, there is a consistency to the extent that both Jewish elite’s concern for Jewish populism/nationalism and Jewish elite’s derision of white populism/nationalism are predicated on “Is it good for Jews?”

    It is good for Jews as a whole if Jewish elites care about the broader Jewish populace.

    It’s like what Pike to Tector in THE WILD BUNCH. They gotta stick together.

    If the unity of Jewish elites and Jewish populism/nationalism serves Jewish interests, the unity of white elites and white populism/nationalism may be counter to Jewish interests. So, Brooks tells white elites to dump the ‘dying white losers’. (It seems Jewish elites went from caring insufficiently about other Jews to caring too much about them, even to the extent of harming large numbers of Palestinians, Russians, and white Americans. The New Cold War with Russia premised on Jewish Americans’ main loyalty to Jewish Russian oligarchs is truly an insane development.) And so, Brooks tells white elites to go ‘Max’ on the white people.

    If Brooks had written RED BEARD, he would tell the Japanese doctors to just let the diseased losers to die. Maybe Brooks and Tom Vu can write a movie script together.

    Tom Vu’s three secret little words: “let losers die”

    Granted, much of the problem of White America is moral and spiritual corruption. It’s not just economic. But then, the elites deserve much blame for spreading degrading sounds & images and terrible ideas based on ideological fads. While lower IQ among poorer whites may be a problem, things have been made much worse by moral degradation, especially via Negro influence that wallows in hyper-sexuality and thuggery. And spread of homomania has made shameless vanity, narcissism, and nihilism the new standard in cultural expression. (The great irony of the New Deal and Great Society is that the very policies that were designed to help the people took something precious from them: the capacity for appreciation and gratitude. Read THE GRAPES OF WRATH, and things were truly miserable for many people back then. But, people understood that they had to be self-reliant and responsible; they had to keep the families together and be tough. But when things got so bad, especially when people were uprooted from the land, even self-reliance and toughness weren’t enough. So, there were state policies to offer relief to the people. People were genuinely appreciative of this help because things had been so bad and because they didn’t expect much. So, they knew the worth of a loaf of bread. So, when the State first offered help, it was much appreciated. Also, because of traditional values of family and self-reliance, it was understood that the offer of help was meant to provide relief, not dependence and livelihood. But as entire generations got used to statist support, they demanded the free stuff[and even more] without any sense of appreciation or gratitude. They no longer saw the value of what was being offered. They just felt entitled to it because they happen to be citizens. And the goodies were no longer seen as relief but as permanent feature of their livelihood. This is why socialism has to be on a fascist basis. People must be made to appreciate what is being given them as part of an organic community.)

    Still, no one is starving. And even poor whites on welfare have free medical care. In a way, part of their corruption is due to entitlement mentality, same thing plaguing so many blacks and later generations of Mexicans(and even Asians).

    As for Conservatives, they no longer have any real values. The ones who do, like Evangelicals, are dumb and ignorant. Their idea of righteousness is literal reading of the Bible and Israel, Israel, and Israel. As for Conservatism Inc., it’s lower taxes for the super-rich, Israel-Israel-Israel, and ‘Democrats are the real racists’.

    As for Constitutionalists, they are mostly about liberty and legal protections than righteousness and power of sanctity & taboos. The Constitution guarantees liberties and protections. It doesn’t tell us what is right or wrong. Constitution allows freedom of speech for Neo-Nazis, communists, anarchists, degenerates, and even pedophiles. So, as important as it is in guaranteeing freedoms for individuals, it has no role in emotionally shaping our collective sense of what is sacred and what is taboo. The real power rests with control of sanctity and taboos than guarantee of rights. Righteousness overrides mere rights. What is blessed has power over what is cursed. (In a nation where God and Jesus are sacred and revered, even those with legal rights to mock them will think twice since it will lead to shunning, mockery, and hostility, all leading to social destruction. So, rights are not enough for power.) The Constitution protects the right of both the blessed and the cursed. The blessed and the cursed both have freedom of speech. Constitution allows that much. But the power is decided by who-and-what-are-blessed and who-and-what-are-cursed. So, even though someone with ‘racist’ views has free speech protections, he hasn’t a chance to make the social climb since the prevailing rules of sanctity and taboos will shun, ignore, or insult him.

    This is why putting the negative rights of the Constitution at the center of one’s ideological conviction is a losing proposition. Constitution is about the right of free speech even if you’re wrong. It doesn’t guarantee that you are right, therefore blessed with righteousness.

    What is considered right(as opposed to ‘a right’) is shaped by media and academia.

    Today, the debate sounds like “We on the Right may be wrong, but we want the right to be wrong” vs “We on the Left are right, and that is why we deserve the power to enforce what is right.” Even though the Constitution is on the side of the Right(unless Supreme Court cooks up some excuse to ban ‘hate speech’, a real possibility since the Constitution is ultimately decided by Supreme Court that bent and twisted the Constitution to allow all sorts of perversions), the Moral Culture is on the side of the Left. Even if majority of Americans still believe that all speech should be protected, they feel that the Left has the sanctity associated with MLK, Diversity, Inclusion, and homomania, none of which has been opposed by the Right. The Right’s attitude is, “Maybe the Left is right about what is sacred and what is socially taboo, but we still want the freedom of speech to be wrong.”

    Because much of Conservatism Inc. surrendered to the Prog sacraments, the Right lacks the sense of rightness, therefore righteousness. Conzos argue for negative rights against the ‘left’ that pushes for positive righteousness. This is why the Left is currently less tolerant. Those who feel more righteous tend to be less tolerant, whereas those who feel guilty, defensive, and tainted feel more tolerant; it is actually self-serving since the defensive Right invokes tolerance as protection from the righteous ‘left’, i.e. when the Right preaches tolerance, it’s not about the virtue of tolerating their enemies but using tolerance against a shield against a much more powerful enemy what wields the sword of righteousness. Rights is a shield, righteousness is a sword. Righteousness can attack and kill, Rights can only defend and protect.

    This is why the Right used to be more intolerant in the past whereas the Liberals were more tolerant. Back then, much of society was agreed on the sanctity of God and tradition and community norms. Conservatives felt righteous in their judgementalism.

    In contrast, Liberals and secularists felt on the moral defensive and had to patiently plead their case. Today, Libs and progs feel more righteous, and that accounts for their lack of tolerance. It’s not that the left is naturally more intolerant than the right or vice verse. It’s just that those who feel more righteous — according to current rules of sacredness and taboos — tend to be less tolerant of those deemed deviant. To be sure, current PC is nuts because the so-called New Normal goes so against Natural Norms. So, even as progs feel more righteous and holy, on the subconscious level they may be panicking because the basis of their righteousness is really natural deviance forced into the position of normality by a crazy set of circumstances.

    Anyway, all this talk of Constitution isn’t enough. What the Right has to do is undermine and blow up the very rules of sacredness and taboos as instituted by PC.

    MLK-myth has to challenged. Sure, he played an important role in a great movement, BUT the premise of the movement was deeply flawed, and the other side had legitimate fears given the fact of racial differences. This has to be spelled out, but Conservatism Inc is too chicken. Even back then, they stupidly argued against the Movement on the abstract basis of ‘states rights’.

    So, instead of arguing to gain moral righteousness, they were merely arguing for legal rights or technicalities. If whites had honestly spelled out the dangers posed by blacks upon whites on the basis of racial differences, some of the righteousness could have been on the side of white southerners. It is a fact that blacks are physically tougher and more aggressive than whites. So, integration leads to black on white violence. Even though Northern Whites and Jews bitch about Southern ‘racism’, their own behavior in places like NY and SF belies their pompous crap about equality. NY Jews use stop-and-frisk and gentrification(euphemism for ethnically cleansing blacks with economic means) to make cities safe from black crime. Clinton locked up record number of blacks, but Jews supported him 100%, just like Jews support Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Today, Jews are the Nazis-by-action if not Nazis-by-brand. Nazis-by-brand would be those idiots going around with Swastika flags and shouting ‘heil hitler’. But such idiots got no power. If Nazism is understood as racial supremacism, imperialism, warmongering, paranoia, fear-mongering, and dehumanization of the Other, then Jews are the Nazis-by-action. Just ask the Palestinians. Just ask the Russians who were looted and raped by Jewish finance capitalists in the 90s. Just look how Hollywood spreads hatred of whites. The new movie called GET OUT features EVIL WHITES more sinister than anything in PROTOCOLS OF ELDERS OF ZION. (And even though Sweden is being torn apart by migration crisis encouraged by Jewish globalists, the crazy Jewish-dominated media would have us believe that Swedes should really fear crypto-Nazis featured in GIRL WITH DRAGON TATTOO, a paranoid fantasy that would make Joe McCarthy blush.) Even though current reality is about black thugs robbing, raping, and murdering whites, the Jews funded this movie(directed by black guy) that spreads anti-white vitriol. Surely, not even the Nazi film JEW SUSS was this hateful and dehumanizing, and paranoid. Also, Jews are now calling on the Deep State and the military to overthrow Trump. Jews also control porn and use white women as cumbucket pieces of meat to be thrown to black men. To Jews, white people are commodities, pieces of flesh to be bought and sold. And look at Wars for Israel in the Middle East cooked by Jews. Madeline Albright scoffs at 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Obama and HIllary, mere shills of Jews, don’t care about all the mayhem they caused in Libya and Syria. McCain and Graham, cuckservative stooges of Globalist Jews, push for New Cold War with Russia at the behest of Hyman Roths of the world who see the entire world as Cuba before Castro. Their oyster. Jews are Nazis-by-action.

    Recently, Conservatism Inc just went along with the crazy notion that ‘gay marriage’ makes sense. Their only counter-position offered by Con Inc was the Constitution, or religious liberty. So, ‘gay marriage’ is okay, and the real fight should be about protecting Christian bakers from not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’ by invoking the Constitution. So, the Right didn’t aim for sacredness and righteousness by condemning ‘gay marriage’ for associating a bio-moral institution with sexual deviance and immorality. It conceded the high ground to the homo agenda. So, ‘gay marriage’ is okay, even wonderful according to some like Brooks, Goldberg, and Murray.

    All that the Right can hope is to protect the ‘rights’ of Christian bakers. So, Douthat and Dreher don’t strike at the heart of the beast but merely beg for terms of surrender. “You progs are right. Gee, maybe gay marriage makes sense. But, some Americans are ignorant and benighted cuz of their religious conviction, and their rights should be protected under the Constitution.”

    Rights without righteousness doesn’t win over hearts and minds. By the way, why do Conservatives or even sane Liberals need religion to oppose the homo agenda? Any sane look at biology and morality should make it obvious that homo behavior is gross and goes against nature and morality based on truth.

    Mere rights don’t get people worked up and marching in the streets.

  • Abcdedcba

    Lol good to see Colin found a collared shirt

  • Axoltol

    It’s a shame so much of the alt-right doesn’t like Jews, I’m a Jew but I agree with them on just about everything else.

    • Eis Augen

      If you could convince the remainder of Jews who are hostile to whites and white societies to not be so, this would not be an issue.

    • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

      Yeah, such a shame. The Alt Right really needs to change its entire game plan so as to take into account the one Jew in a million who thinks it’s actually okay for white people to live on rather than die off.

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    There is a great contradiction.

    Progs and Globalists see Trump as an embarrassment. He is a vulgar and boorish Ugly American. He is an embarrassment to the entire world. The man has no class. He has no manners.

    But we must ask.. in contrast to whom? Hillary has class? The drunkard? The ill-tempered wench? And her husband? Geez. Obama’s manners were all just an act. He was some pothead punk who cleaned up his act for Jewish elites because he figured on hitting the jackpot by toying with white psychology. He even got the Nobel Prize for what-he-might-do. What he really did was mess up MENA worse than Bush. As for Michelle Obama, I’ll be nice and just pass.

    But even if we were to assume Hillary and Obama are people of class and manners, what kind of cultural personalities did they attract and hang with? Rappers, trashy celebrities, the likes of Lena Dunham, madonna, and Miley Cyrus. All the vain vulgar trash in Hollywood. All the decadent and excessive homosexuals and trannies. That is culture? Looks like the flotsam in Fellini’s LA DOLCE VITA.

    And what has become of higher education in recent yrs? Even Ivy League colleges invite porn performers to give lectures. There are now tons of classes on Pop Culture. Even fancy colleges have kids with tattoos and blue-dyed hair. Even some professors dress and act like teens or children begging for attention. (When a 8 yr old girl puts funny things in her hair and says, “Mommy, Look”, that’s cute. When grown-ups dye their hair green and stick a piece of metal through their nose, it is PATHETIC!) So, if there’s any distinction between Trump and Liberals, it’s not no class vs class. It’s conventional no class vs bohemian no class. Even trashiness now comes in many shades. So, if you’re well-educated and have tattoos & a nose ring, maybe it’s a statement or radical gesture. But if you’re a deplorable and have tattoos and piercing, you’re just vulgar. Likewise, if you’re part of the globalist elite and wear nice suits, you have class. But if you’re Trump and wear nice suits, you’re just crass.

    Anyway, given the pervasiveness of pop culture and PC(with homomania and tranny excess) everywhere, it makes no sense for anyone to accuse anyone of vulgarity. It is all around. Maybe the Liberal elites think theirs is a kind of haute or ironic vulgarity, but trash is trash. Even the British Royal Family is immersed in celebrity trash culture. Even smart women who went to nice schools still read teen fiction and write about them in respectable journals. And full-grown men are devoted to video games and comic book movies across the political spectrum.

    Be that as it may, even if we were to agree that Trump is more vulgar than other politicians, why should this matter when he is for America First? He’s for nationalism, which means Americans should focus on America and leave the rest of the world alone. So, even if Trump is vulgar trash who represents a gross and vulgar America, his worldview won’t do much harm since he isn’t promoting Americanism as the template for all the world. America First is nationalism, and that means other nations should put their nations first also. So, it should be Germany First for Germans, Japan First for Japan, Turkey First for Turkey, France First for France, Russia First for Russians, and etc. Whatever one may say of Trump — vulgar, trashy, boorish, crude, etc — , he’s not foisting his brand of Americanism on the entire world. His nationalism and anti-globalism are respectful of the rest of the world. It means Americans should mind American interests and affairs, and let each people pursue their own national business and decide on their own values and culture. So, even if Trumpism is trashism, America First means Trumpian Trashiness will be confined within the walls of America. It will be not forced on the rest of the world. Globalism has sought to remake the entire world in the image of America. Its vision is America For All and All For America. In other words, America should use its great might — military, economic, cultural, and ‘intellectual’ — to spread its ideas, values, sights, and sounds all over the world. It would be Hollywood uber alles, rap music uber alles, Pentagon uber alles, Wall Street uber alles, Harvard uber alles.

    But Trump rejects globalism. His nationalism means that, good or bad, Americanism is for Americans in America. As for other nations, it is up to them to determine their own interests, ideas, icons, images, and values. So, what is the problem?

    Progs, who are globalist, deride Trumpean America as trashy but then complain that Trump isn’t committed to spreading Americanism all over the world(and opening America to all the world). This is a contradiction. If America that elected Trump is that trashy and stupid, why should America be ruling and dominating the world? If America is that horrible and bad, shouldn’t Americanism be limited to America as Trump says? And if Trump’s America is so horrible, why bring all those people to hell that is America?

    Now, progs might say they are for America exerting its vision, values, and will around the world under the decent leadership of someone like Obama or Hillary. But where do they get this notion that Obama-ism or Hillary-ism has anything to do with truth, decency, or morality? Creating conditions like post-Gaddafi Libya or Syria torn apart by civil war fomented by US and its allies? Trying to convert the entire world to the notion that Bruce Jenner is a ‘woman’ or that there should be massive parades in honor of what George Takei and Milo do in private?

    Rap music and its foul expressions are something the US should be proud of and spread all over? ‘Twerking’ as a dance? Open sewage porn even for kiddies? Stuff like GIRLS and other TV shows(which would have been X-rated even up to the 90s), the mania for tattoos, slut culture, and juvenilia? Are we to believe that Obama’s or Hillary’s America is any classier than Trump’s America? Where is the evidence? Miley Cyrus and Jay-Z?

    We can agree that there is something crude, vulgar, and boorish about Trump. But what in current ‘Liberalism’ or ‘Progressivism’ is noble, dignified, refined, intelligent, sane, rational, or decent? Even Liberal professors in colleges are saying they are sick of snowflake millennials throwing tantrums.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

    Should the US project Black Lives Matter all over the world? But BLM is premised on a lie. The real truth is blacks are killing blacks and peoples of other races in the US. But even if BLM were valid, what does it have to with other nations with totally different histories and realities? Why should an American political cause be foisted upon other nations? It’s just a form of Justice-Imperialism. If any place needs a lesson on treating black lives with more civility, it is black Africa.

    So, Proggism makes no sense on any level. Progs say Trump is terrible and represents the rot that is America. Okay. If the US is so rotten, let’s contain the American disease INSIDE America. Let’s not infect the entire world.

    BUT, progs are upset that Trump is quarantining Americanism in America while letting other nations do their own thing. Progs want the US to use its muscle to force its values and ways on all the world. Some progs might argue that Americanism would be good and sound but for the fact that Trump smeared it with his ‘hate’. (But then, why are all these Libs and Progs mostly silent about US support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians? Where were all these Libs and Progs when Obama invoked BS ‘human rights’ to invade and destroy Libya? Or when Obama worked with US puppets in Middle East to arm and fund terrorists to tear Syria apart? And if Libs and Progs are so balanced and rationale, why all this paranoid hysteria about Russia and why all this hateful call for ‘new cold war’? And if Libs and Progs are so full of love of ‘minorities’, why the silence when Bill Clinton was locking up record numbers of blacks? And if Progs and Libs love Muslims so much and care about refugees, why didn’t they oppose Obama and Hillary’s foreign policy that spread wars in MENA and forced so many Muslims to become refugees? And if we go by political violence, which side has been attacking which side? All throughout 2016, it’s been the Bernie-and-Hillary supporters who’ve been most violent, aggressive, hateful, and disruptive… with full blessing of Jewish-controlled Media, which also celebrated the sucker-punching of Richard Spencer.) Anyway, if it’s true that the new wave of social injustice was unleashed by Trumpenfuhrer, why did BLM happen under Obama? If Obama Era was so wonderful, why all this race tensions? And what has American Culture been like during the Obama era? Can any prog or Lib say with a straight face that Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, Bruce Jenner as girl, madonna, Ashley Judd, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Sarah Silverman, Seth Rogan, Kardashians, and so many others are people who make America proud? Really? Do Liberals and Progs really believe that morality and history are on their side because their vision of truth and beauty is embodied by Pussy Riot who desecrate churches? (Meanwhile, these sacrilegious lot wax poetic about protecting the Koran from desecration. How these Virtue Nazis love to signal about how they are so tolerant, even as they try to push homomania on Russia, something they wouldn’t do to Muslim world, at least not just yet).

    There’s another contradiction at the core of Proggism. When Progs feign sophistication, intelligence, and reason, they always mean Europe, Canada(more European than the US), and the most European parts of America. If it’s about Latin America, it’s always the whitest and most Europeanized parts. Some Western Libs and Progs have fascination with Japanese culture, but they don’t look to Japan as an example or model.

    So, the European Way is, for them, the real City on the Hill that stupid Americans should aspire to.

    Okay. But if Europe is the highest peak of human civilization, shouldn’t it be independent of vulgar and boorish America? Why should European civilization be so servile, slavish, dependent, and subordinate to American power and interests? Why shouldn’t Europeans defend themselves and say GOOD BYE to Ugly American Uncle Sam, especially since WWII is history and the Cold War has long been over?

    Now, one can understand why Progs and Europeans disliked Bush II. Bush II lacked style & manners AND promoted America-uber-alles(and allies). In contrast, Trump, though boor he may be, is telling Europe to be free and go its own way. He is saying Europe should forge its own destiny and stop looking to the US for guidance, orders, inspiration, money, and approval. Given how lowly he is regarded over there, Europeans should jump at the chance and regain their full independence and sovereignty from the US that has dominated Europe since end of WWII. Instead, their attitude is, “We can’t do nuttin’ without you, master.” What the hell is this? Ugly American Trump offers them a chance to be free, but they want to stay under his wing. They are like the son in SIXTEEN CANDLES who wants to be with his parents.

    https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/8c43f1c7-f4ad-4c7f-b3cc-73afad48e647

    So much for European pride, dignity, integrity, and honor. Even when the US is ruled by ‘literally hitler’, Europeans are unwilling to forge their own independent path. They would rather plead with the US to protect them, lead them, fund them, and give them orders.

    The contradictions are crazy. Europeans look down on America, especially Trumpean American, but they are in a panic that the US won’t tell them what to do and protect them(even though EU faces no military threats, not even from Russia that has no designs on invading anything; its moves in Ukraine were forced by the US-backed coup d’etat).

    And ‘Liberals’ and Progs believe that EVERYTHING is better in more civilized Europe and that the EU should be the model for America… BUT, they believe the US should continue to exert dominance over the EU. They are upset that Trump isn’t keen on maintaining the US-dominant status quo that took hold in Europe since the end of WWII.

    Another contradiction. If Europe is so great, it must be because it’s ruled by Europeans. And Trump seems to understand this. He’s been warning the EU that it is being overrun by migrants and invaders. So, even though Trump is perceived as representing everything that is anathema to Noble Europeanism, he is the one who is warning Europe to defend itself and preserve its great heritage, culture, and territorial integrity. Imagine that. Ugly American Trump is giving advice to Europeans to protect and keep what they got.

    In contrast, ‘Liberals’ and Progs, who profess to admire European nations as the highest achievements of mankind, are advising Europe to welcome invasion by countless Muslims and Africans(and Asians too, esp from Pakistan to UK). And these ‘Liberal’ and proggy Europhiles are livid with Trump for his concern about the safety, security, and viability of European civilization and project under increasing duress resulting form massive invasion. (On the issue of Europe, Trump correctly sees no threat from Russia and a lot of threat from Middle East & Africa, but globalists have turned it upside down. Europeans are to fear a military invasion from Russia while welcoming endless numbers of Africans and Muslims as future patriots and defenders of Europe!) It’s surreal. ‘Liberals’ and Europeans take Trump’s remarks about Sweden and France as insults when those were anything but. Trump, boor that he is, has genuine appreciation for European civilization. He may not have read many fancy books, but he has eyes. He can see that Europeans did something wonderful there and Europe should be preserved. So, when he warns Sweden or France, he isn’t insulting them. He is warning them to keep the great things they got. But the globo-media spun it as ‘insult’. Media turned it into Trump vs Europe when it is Trump FOR Europe. Trump is telling Europe to preserve what it has against the massive tides of invasion. In contrast, ‘Liberals’ and Progs, for all their Europhilia, are urging Europe to take in more and more invaders and turn into something like Latin America or North Africa. (If diversity in Latin America and North Africa is so great, why do people there flee diversity to come to white nations? Europeans are told to welcome most that which non-whites do most to flee from. If blacks and Muslims are so troublesome that even their own kind flee from them, what will Europeans gain by taking them in? If wolves are fleeing from other wolves, should sheep take in the fleeing wolves?)

    Another contradiction. If Europe is really the glory of the world, something that the US should aspire to, why are ‘Liberals’ and Progs urging Europe to become more like America by increasing diversity? And if European elites feel that they are so much more refined and dignified than vulgar Americans, why do they want to remake their nations to look more and more like America culturally and demographically?

    ‘Liberals’ and Progs say they admire the socialist-democratic model of Europe, but are they even aware that such a system has worked in some nations, esp Germanic/Scandinavian ones, due to homogeneity and work ethic that made a High-Trust Society possible? Did these ‘Liberals’ and progs ever notice that the most high-trust areas in the US have been states dominated largely by Germanics and Scandies? I thought Libs and Progs are supposed to be smart. But they cannot even connect the dots. (This is where PC makes people stupid. Since PC places a taboo on honest discussion of racial and cultural differences, we are supposed to overlook the demographic factors involved in the variances among societies and nations.) Japan is also a relatively high-trust society due to combination of homogeneity, culture, and racial characteristics of the Japanese. Who thinks such can be maintained if Japan were to become 1/4 Japanese, 1/4 Asian-Indian, 1/4 Kurdish, and 1/4 Nigerian? I mean seriously. Do people really believe ‘Japanese Values’ will magically pass onto non-Japanese in Japan in equal measure? The huge divergences in income and influence among various racial and ethnic groups in California have made clear that the ‘values’ and abilities of one culture do not magically pass onto other groups. Compare California’s Jews with California’s Mexicans or blacks.

    Anyway, on the one hand, ‘sophisticated’ Libs and Progs affect Europhilia and claim that Europeans do everything better, BUT their vision is for Europe to become more like the US with more diversity, consumer culture, and youth culture. And even though Europeans and Canandians turn up their noses at the US, they beg for US to lead NATO and offer protection and leadership. And in demography and culture, Europeans and Canadians try to imitate Americanism in every way. Since the US has had sizable racial minorities, Canada and European nations feel they must also be America-like in this regard.

    • Gubbler Chechenova

      If Libs and Progs love the European Way so much, why do they promote the very policies and agendas that are doing most to undermine, subvert, and destroy Europe? Should every church really be festooned with homo flags? Should Europe welcome tons of Africans and Muslims, as the pope says? Should Europeans have ugly and trashy black-American rap culture and its attitudes as their preferred cultural style? (Just sample today’s French pop music, and it’s mostly imitation of black rap trash attitudes. Same in UK.) For a people who profess to love and admire Europe, their main Europhile agenda seems to Africanize and Islamize Europe as much as possible and fast as possible. And of course, to homo-ize it. But, is it feasible to promote African-jungle-ization, Islamic sharia-ization, and decadent homo-ization at the same time? Are they compatible?

      Now, some Libs and Progs will argue that Europe is really just an Idea. It’s the idea that counts. And two of the ideas are Tolerance and Inclusion. So, if Europeans invoke Tolerance and Inclusion to welcome the world, they are upholding and practicing ‘European Values’. Libs and Progs say it is now atavistic to say there is a European race/people who belong to or have ownership of European lands. No, those people in Europe are merely people with European values and ideas, the only things that matter. So, if tons of non-Europeans arrive and take on those values and ideas, they are also ‘Europeans’.

      But this line of argument doesn’t make sense. If Europeanism is now just an idea, then why can’t it be spread around the world? After all, ideas are easier to spread than peoples. Why do non-Europeans have to come to Europe to partake of these great ideas? Why not have Africans take these ideas and ‘Europeanize’ Africa? Why not have Muslims ‘Europeanize’ the Middle East?

      But then, Progs and Libs might argue that Africa is so mired in African values and the Middle East is mired in Muslim ideas that they don’t give European ideas a chance to take root, grow, and spreads. So, for the time being, Africans and Muslims must come to the West to be ‘Europeanized’. But then, this means that European ideas and values are SUPERIOR to African ideas and Muslim ideas. Why else would non-Europeans be so eager to come to Europe? For sure, European ideas did more for Europe than African ideas did for Africa and Muslim ideas did for Middle East. But then, Libs and Progs say that it would be wrong to say some cultures are better than others — it might be ‘racist’ — , and if anything, the West must have ‘multi-culturalism’ so that non-white immigrants won’t be forced to adopt European culture. After all, assimilation might be construed as ‘cultural imperialism’ or ‘cultural genocide’, and we can’t have that.

      On the one hand, we are told that it would be ‘hateful’, ‘heartless’, ‘racist’, and ‘xenophobic’ if Europeans don’t welcome non-Europeans to become New Europeans. But then, we are also told that it would be cruel, oppressive, intolerant, and imperialist for Europeans to insist that the newcomers abandon their prior identities, heritages, and cultures to become ‘European’. Who is the ‘racist’ ‘Eurocentric’ white man to be telling a non-white person to give up his/her own identity to take on a white one? It’s damned if you, damned if you don’t for whitey.

      Europhiles are doing most to defile what is European. For one thing, there is no neat set of ‘European ideas’ or ‘Western values’ that could sum up the nations of Europe. European ideas have changed over time, and no people or civilization should be defined by ideas. If ideas are central, then communist Poland had more in common with communist China than with capitalist Germany. In truth, racially-historically-culturally, Poles are closer to Germans than to Chinese by a 1000 miles regardless of the reigning ideology. East Germany was communist and North Korea was communist. Does that mean East Germany should be bunched closer together with North Korea than with West Germany? If we go by idea-centrism, such would be true. But a nation is more than a set of ideas. After all, Germans were no less German under Nazism or communism than under democratic capitalism or Kaiserism. If Germans are defined by the current set of ‘western values’, then Germans in the past were not German since the prevailing ideologies were different then. Your real father is your real father regardless of his ideology. If he is atheist and if you’re religious, he is still your father. You can’t say another man is your real father since he too is religious, no more than your father can say another young man is his son cuz of his atheism. Ethnos, like family, runs deeper than ideas and ideology.

      Also, a people and culture are defined aesthetically as well, and different races have different aesthetics. If we are to prize Western Art, shouldn’t the people depicted in the art be prized more than the art itself? After all, art is merely a representation of a people.

      Greek sculptures depict certain human forms because there were Greeks who looked like that.

      So, even modern Greeks feel a connection to their art since there is a racial-historical connection between Greek folks and Greek art.

      Likewise, African art depict African aesthetics and Hindu art depict Asian-Indian aesthetics. Surely, the people count more than the stones and woods that were carved in their image. If a make a painting of a flower, what is more important? The painting or the flower? The painting exists only because the flower existed.

      So, all of Western Art has to be appreciated as the expression, reflection, and representation of Western peoples. Sure, other peoples can learn from Western art and draw inspiration in the creation of their own art. Non-West has copied Western methods in sculpture-making and painting and music-making. But Western Art cannot exist without Europeans since it is the expression of the European soul and representation of European physical forms. The Venus statue could not have existed if Europeans who looked like that hadn’t existed. If Europeans looked like Australian Aborigines, their artworks would have looked very different. So, there is a genetic and ‘spiritual’ connection between European arts and European races. And this can be said for any people and culture. Surely, Persian sculptures and paintings depict the peoples who lived there long ago. If another people were to take over Europe, they won’t feel the connection with European art and culture since they feel and look different. It’s like Europeans in Meso-America can study the artworks of indigenous peoples there and learn to appreciate Maya and Aztec stuff… but they can never feel as being part of that culture. It’s like a Hindu can go to Cameroon and study and appreciate African sculpture and art, but he cannot feel a racial or spiritual connection to those expressions and representations. Anyone can appreciate and ponder any culture around the world, but he can only lay claim to and feel direct connection to his own culture. Indeed, one might argue that every people have a duty to to their culture because, if they don’t preserve it, who will? If American Indians won’t preserve their heritage, no one is going to do it for them.

      Likewise, Europeans need to protect and preserve their own race, land, and culture. The idea that Europe should be Americanized as much as possible and then invite tons of ‘non-Europeans’ to become ‘new Europeans’ to sustain and preserve European culture is crazy. If Europeans themselves are in suicidal mode and not doing what is necessary to preserve their own civilization and culture, what makes them think others will do it for them, especially when so many of these newcomers are of low IQ, have zero appreciation for learning, and tend wallow in barbarism or savagery? (Also, due to PC and degradation of Pop Culture, Europeans lack the moral fiber, cultural confidence, and seriousness to apply on the newcomers to try harder to become civilized. But then, how can anyone become civilized in a Europe where the greatest thing is going wild at homo parades?) Also, if Europeans themselves embrace trashy and shallow Americanism, why wouldn’t the newcomers also do likewise and prefer easily digestible rap music, porn, cartoons, videogames, dumb TV shows, and Hollywood movies to European arts and culture that require time and patience to understand and appreciate?

      Globalism has turned everything generic, deracinated, bloodless, infantile, and trashy. Every people need nationalism to reconnect with race, heritage, and history. Instead of fleeing from their own nations for better material lives in the West, they need to try to make their own nations better. It’s too easy to run from problems.

      And Europeans need to face up to their own duties to their ancestor and heritages. Their main obligation must be to their own nations, not to the stupid god of ‘humanitarian super-power-ism’ or ‘virtue nazism’ that is making a total mess of Sweden, once a high-trust and low-crime society of homogeneity, history, social-democracy, and nationalism.

      Sweden as Idea and Ikea is doomed. No civilization can survive merely as an abstraction or consumer choice.

  • That must have been an awesome trip, Charles. Sounds like an incredible conference.

  • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

    Way too many trad larpers in this bunch, the very dumbest and most embarrassing of all alt right factions. (The dumbest and most embarrassing among this select bunch, are the anti-money crowd. I just don’t get how someone can think and talk about a subject so much and still remain fundamentally clueless about it.)