Debunking The Horseshoe Theory Once And For All

Submitted by James Lawrence

As I have argued in a recent article, there is no going back to classical liberalism, and the illusion that we can do so is a major factor preventing our people from defending themselves. Liberalism has opened the door to culture-destroying progressivism, masked its takeover of our countries by presenting a show of formal continuity, and lacks the means of purging it. Those who would save the West are thus forced to search outside liberalism for a political framework that can do the job.

To the Alt-Right, there is nothing new in the repression campaign being carried out today by the Left: the violent domestic terrorism of Antifa thugs, the corporate persecution of moderate dissent, the descent of “respectable” media and government organizations into Pravdaite ranting about Russian and Chinese conspiracies. Repression of non-leftist speech goes back a long way; so do Antifa attacks on Right-wing protesters under the euphemism of “counter-protesting”, as seen in the case of the EDL in Britain; and the Western media have never done a good impression of “impartiality” on any of this, which is why violent Antifa tactics only garnered serious media attention once they were directed against the administration of a US President. But today there is a difference of degree, if not of kind: never before have so many people been subjected to the stigmatization and harassment previously reserved for a small minority, and this gives us an unprecedented chance to wake our people up from the slumber of liberal “eternal vigilance”.

However, we cannot assume that mere exposure to leftist illiberalism will be a sufficient condition for this awakening. If this was the case, we would not see so many people who are highly informed on the progressivist cultural revolution — who may understand that it is promoted by entrenched elites, and buttressed by the importation of a non-liberal population from outside the West — and who yet insist on a return to classical liberalism while rejecting all other options. I am not referring to mainstream conservatives (from whom we can only expect spinelessness and senility); I mean the younger crowd fighting the illiberal Left outside the hard core of the Alt-Right, such as ‘Alt-Lite’ civic nationalists and cultural libertarians, and especially the ‘Skeptic’ classical liberals epitomised by the Youtuber Sargon of Akkad.

It does little good to simply pile up the facts of progressivist and non-white illiberalism before such people, and assume these facts can speak for themselves. Instead, we need to identify and refute certain ideas held by classical liberal restorationists. (And then mock the hell out of them in memes, of course, but that comes later.)

Up to 90% less thinking required

One of the most important of these ideas is the Horseshoe Theory, which asserts that the “far” Left and Right closely resemble each other in their collectivism, authoritarianism, and extremism while differing from the liberal political center. As incapacitating myths go, this is an ingenious one: however flagrantly the Left might trample liberal norms in its pursuit of power, any attempt to organize the sort of movement that could fight back against this entails “becoming just as bad”. The anger and reactive energy that might be directed outward at the Left swings back in the direction of moralistic self-policing – like a boomerang, or indeed, a horseshoe.

And yet there is a superficial truth to this. The Left and the Alt-Right are both concerned with the practical business of getting and holding power or at least preventing the political enemy from doing so. Both are ‘collectivist’ in the sense that they seek to organize racial groups: white Europeans in the case of the Alt-Right, a mongrel anti-white coalition in the case of the Left. While liberals might debate over tea – or, at most, shout a few slogans in a free speech protest — the Left and Alt-Right meet each other in the street armed with pepper spray and homemade shields. The accusation of “racist” from the Left is met by the similar accusation of “anti-white” from the Alt-Right. The Left metes out political repression to the Alt-Right, and many people on the Alt-Right wish to suppress the Left as a threat to the social and national cohesion of the West. And it is possible that there are certain types of people — not necessarily the more pleasant types — who are attracted to both the Left and Alt-Right and repelled by liberalism.

But let us look at this in another way. Recall that — as I have said — the Left has won hegemony for its illiberal programme by refusing to play by liberal rules, despite the fact that the wishes of most Western people incline towards liberal norms. Consider also that ethnic minorities, by organizing (or allowing themselves to be organized) on the basis of race, have reduced the majority population of whites to a state of abject passivity in which they constantly fear making the slightest “disrespectful” faux pas. Although there are powerful forces behind the shock troops of the Left, this outcome is just the typical result of an organized gang with weapons descending on a vast atomised crowd of strangers trained in Marquess of Queensberry boxing. Holding to liberal individualism and rules of political conduct does not mean preserving your freedom, but losing it to whichever ‘collectivist’ group decides to make you its tame little bitch.

It is no use throwing the “past victories” of liberal countries at me by way of refutation. Liberalism in its heyday could rely for social cohesion on the borrowed capital of religion, which is now all but exhausted. It also had a focal point of common loyalty in the form of the nation-state, which is being undermined and turned into a battleground for competing groups. Liberalism today, which has doubled down on all of its most anachronistic dogmas, can only manifest itself specifically in the type of “man” found in mainstream conservatism: a self-interested intellectual hustler, peddling ideas that require no more fidelity to realism than bestselling fantasy novels, and hiring himself out to vested interests while responding to every attack with a timid strategic retreat.

Two identical collectivist blobs meet at Tours 732, with negligible consequences for individual freedom.

Let us imagine a polity in which the legitimate ruler has died, and designate the three components of the Horseshoe Theory as follows: the Left as a band of usurpers leading a foreign army, the Alt-Right as a native militia forming up to defend its homeland, and liberalism as a long-irrelevant Senate reduced in practice to a gentleman’s debating club. Certainly, to the peaceable senators in their talking-shop, the two armies on the battlefield might look much the same as each other; and given that any sort of combat involves tactical imitation, tit-for-tat reprisals, and so on, they may also do many of the same things. This is where we get the idea that the Alt-Right and the Left, two political movements characterized by organization and militancy, are “the same thing”. But it is only the narrowness of the liberal view that equates subjugation to a foreign invader (which is, regardless of formalities, what is spelled out by the combination of replacement immigration and leftist anti-whitism) with organization for self-defense against it because both involve a “loss of individual freedom”. Liberalism in its current form is truly a sick and decadent ideology, a humanist immuno-deficiency virus that destroys the self-defense capabilities of any society infected by it.

(Of course, having said all this, I know that the Left uses similar arguments against liberals in the hope of converting them to “punching Nazis”. Where I have asked how anyone can equate an invading army with a home defense militia, they will ask how anyone can equate the side that is against oppression with the one that is in favor of it. This does not mean that both arguments are distortions of an infallible middle ground, but that one has to think about them and judge the truth without resorting to simplistic dogmas. And this can be difficult for “enlightened” types because human reason is a tool to be used, and rusts over when it is set on an altar and worshipped — which gives us a clue as to the reason for the Horseshoe Theory’s popularity. )

Let us move on to the issue of the similarity in rhetoric between the Left and the Alt-Right. As I have said, the Left accuses the Alt-Right of being “racist”, and the Alt-Right counters with the charge of “anti-white”. The Left attributes the heritage of colonialism to the Alt-Right, and the Alt-Right shoots back that the Left is colonizing Europe. This can give the appearance of a rhetorical bedlam dominated by childish tit-for-tat accusations, and at times this is indeed the case, at least wherever mere back-and-forth insults are concerned.

However, at the logical level, there is a principle that would justify this style of counter-accusation directed at the Left. We might call it the Projection Principle. Sean Gabb grasps the essence of it in the book Cultural Revolution, Culture War:

And this is what makes the various kinds of Marxist and neo-Marxist analysis so peculiarly appropriate to the actions of our new rulers. These analyses accurately describe how the minds of our rulers work. […] Because they believe that tolerance is repressive, they are repressive. Because they do not believe that objectivity is possible, they make no attempt at objectivity. […] Because they believe that liberal democracy is a facade behind which a ruling class hides its ruthless hold on power, they are making a sham of liberal democracy.

Although psychological explanations are far from implausible here, it makes for a tighter argument to leave them aside, and say only that this logic works because of the present-day moral need to frame every act of aggression as pre-emption or self-defense. Wherever we find the calculated use of an imaginary and baseless accusation, we can employ the Projection Principle to reverse the accusation, and thus make a basic stab at the aggressive motives behind it (although this method is not infallible and might be baffled by sophisticated accusations).

For example, taking the famously discredited “pre-emptive strike” on Iraq in 2003 for the sake of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, we would apply the principle as follows:

  • Original accusation: “Iraq has obtained WMDs and intends to aggress against other states”
  • Reversed accusation: “Those accusing Iraq have WMDs and intend to aggress against other states”

At first glance, this looks like a shallow tu quoque, but it crucially focuses the reason for the attack on Iraq upon the possession of WMDs by the aggressors. A little refinement of this would give us the following reason for the Iraq War: the power of Jewish neoconservatives as a driving force in the American government, their desire to maintain Israeli nuclear hegemony over the Arab world, and their willingness to attack and neutralise any Arab state that might challenge this hegemony at any time. This explanation has started to look very plausible indeed as the “war for oil” theory collapses under its own inaccuracies and contradictions, and a persuasive case for it is made by James Petras in The Power of Israel in the United States.

Reversing leftist rhetoric with the Projection Principle

By applying the Projection Principle to the accusations made by progressivists against whites, males, tradition, religion and so on, we can often gain insight into their true aggressive motives, which immediately blow away the usual liberal and conservative guff about “oversensitivity” and “misguided good intentions”. A few examples will serve to demonstrate this.

Progressivists state that Western society is a racial hierarchy in which whites have unearned “white privilege”, and should thus be subjected to appropriate redress. Reversing this would tell us that it is progressivists who are setting up a racial hierarchy and system of racial privilege, and that “redress” is merely a justification for this. And this is true: the word privilege (“private law”) does not apply to any of the real and imagined white advantages listed by progressivists, but it certainly applies to legalised anti-white employment preferences and informal exemption of non-whites from “hate speech” persecution, as well as to the concept of state-protected minorities in general.

Similarly, progressivists erect strong taboos against certain epithets (e.g. nigger, slut) likely to be used against their political allies, and seek to criminalize verbal abuse against themselves on the basis of unprovable dangers to subjective feelings. Reversing this yields the insight that it is the progressivists who wish to mete out verbal abuse, and that their hysteria over “offensive” words is just a means of silencing possible counterattacks. And indeed it is the stock progressivist epithets such as “racist”, “homophobe”, “transphobe” – and especially “Nazi”, now being openly promoted as a general epithet for a non-Cosmopolitan European – that not only strike at their targets’ subjective feelings, but also have objective repercussions on their reputations, which violates the ancient prohibition on slander accepted even by stringent free-speech advocates.

More generally, progressivists claim a moral imperative to suppress “hate speech”, implying that this kind of speech is inherently destructive of social harmony. The obvious rejoinder is that they are just trying to insulate their non-white, female and ‘LGBT’ coalition against criticism; but reversing the accusation also gives us the insight that it is progressivists who are spreading actual hate speech. And this is also true: not only do they create new foreign communities in Western countries and stir them up into an anti-white lather on the basis of the most petty excuses, they also stir up pointless and unresolvable bitterness between the two sexes, and even invent new social antagonisms like “trans” vs. “cis” in order to generate the hatred and social conflict from which they benefit. (In contrast, much of what progressivists call “hate speech” — such as opposition to Muslim immigration into Western countries — is aimed at reducing this conflict.)

A “pre-emptive strike” by Antifa against imminent Pinkshirt genocide.

Feminist dogma asserts that “rape is about power, not sex” — and according to the feminist movement, this desire to exert power over women is universal to “patriarchal” culture, so the crime of rape cannot be eliminated until this supposed root cause is changed. While feminists have used this to displace responsibility for rape onto men and society as a whole, reversing it tells us that it is a feminist desire for power that gives rise to this position on rape. The truth of this becomes clear once we envisage how society might combat rape envisaged as the product of a tendency towards male domination of women — the only option would be to give lots of jobs, power and status to feminists, so they can critique and theorise and legislate the “root cause” away, for in any case, their university qualifications have equipped them for nothing else. A young woman who chimes along with feminist criticism of the police (a rival for public funding in response to rape hysteria), or copies their outrage towards rape prevention through female prudence (an existential threat to feminist livelihoods), is making a Faustian pact with the only major group in society that has a vested interest in rape.

In a wider sense, progressivists are fond of the idea that all social structures represent arbitrary arrangments of power (this was originally applied by Michel Foucault to criticise mental wards and hospitals, although he had the decency to shut up about it after he was hospitalized for AIDS). The Alt-Right rejects this and insists on a social order geared to the common good; but we can reverse it to get the idea that organization of disadvantaged groups by progressivists is motivated by their own desire for power, as the history of leftist revolutions makes obvious. And when progressivists claim that Group A (e.g. “homosexuals who want to marry”) is being persecuted by Group B (e.g. religious and social traditionalists), we should reverse the moral picture to understand that they are not defending Group A but rather attacking Group B. Gay marriage in a church is to Christianity what bacon in a mosque is to Islam,  but only one of these “progressive reforms” can result in state-overseen death for those advocating it.

I could pile up examples like this almost indefinitely, but I’m sure you get the idea. To return to my original argument, in light of the Projection Principle, the use of near-identical accusatory rhetoric on the Left and the Alt-Right does not justify the Horseshoe Theory. Of course, my argument requires of liberals that they engage in that thinking thingamajig again, to discern baseless and projected accusations from legitimate ones — and this, as we have seen, may be too much to ask of them.

The “sinister” logo of Jacobin Magazine, depicting the decline from Right to Left.

By this point, I ought to say a long overdue word on how we should envisage the difference between Left and Right. My answer is that there is not really much wrong with the conventional idea of a spectrum, but that the placement of ideologies upon it is usually far too short-sighted. Taking a longer view, we can say that the Right shows the tendency to preserve a given organic social order and its founding principles, whereas the Left shows the tendency to dissolve that social order and replace its principles with the power of the central authority. Looking at the left-hand side of the spectrum, this clears up any misunderstanding about the relation of anarchism, libertinism, and anti-whitism on the one hand to totalitarianism, political correctness and globalist elitism on the other: as de Jouvenel’s work On Power makes clear, they are two sides of the same coin.

On the right-hand side, we must also employ nuance, as many older forms of the Western social order are lost to us for good, and Rightist defense or reaction against the Left requires us to balance the upholding of principles with the use of available possibilities. Libertarianism looks back to the early bourgeois order that inspired classical liberalism; but it cannot restore this order because its defense of property rights ignores the transition from capitalism to managerialism, and thus it has become little more than mental self-stimulation for those who are better suited to the autistic spectrum than the political one. Fascism does a better job of defending the social order but is compromised in its theory by several leftist elements, which may cause it to slide to the Left.

Those on the Right must thus:

  1. Envisage a basic line of degeneration from the beginning of the social order in the distant past to its eventual dissolution in the future
  2. Discern a ground on that line that can be defended by conservatism or captured by reaction, neither unattainable nor overly compromised
  3. Imbue or re-imbue that chosen ground as far as possible with the original principles of the traditional social order

According to this view, Right and Left are far removed from each other in principle, and their observed similarities are superficial ones of form and tactics. But in order to substantiate this, and finally put the Horseshoe Theory to rest, we must make a brief step into a controversial subject: the relation of Communism to National Socialism. Without wishing to defend Hitler’s regime or exonerate it for any of its bloodshed, I shall affirm from the start that it was fundamentally ‘of the Right’ according to my definition, while Communism was fundamentally ‘of the Left’.

The standard Western myth of these regimes goes something like this. Nazism was and is an unique and universal evil, the eternal shadow-self of Western civilization, which has its seeds in the centuries of our history and its spawn in the present day. Soviet Communism, however, was a heresy of misapplied Enlightenment ideals and good intentions, whose progenitors tweaked the levers of utopianism wrong and — whoops-a-daisy! — ended up with a bloody totalitarian state under the nominally Communist dictator Stalin. Although this regime used brutal terror and mass-murder methods similar to those of the Nazis, the moral significance of these crimes was not the same, and the positive result of Stalinism was to modernize the Soviet Union and defeat the Nazi regime that would otherwise have brought a new Dark Ages to Europe. This is an inverted view of history, in which Communism rescues the social order of the West by reacting against National Socialism.

Fortunately for us, the first crack in the fake scenery is quite obvious here. No amount of “interpretation” can change the chronological relation of the date 1917, year of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, to the dates 1922 and 1933, years of the Fascist and National Socialist seizures of power in Italy and Germany. So in order to avoid awkward conclusions about who was “defending” against whom — and whose tactics and methods inspired whom to imitate them — the first subtle distortion is to push back the appearance of the “bad” totalitarian Communism to the rise of Stalin in the 1920s, and to partially assimilate this dictator to Fascism by assuming him to have been a nominal Communist who betrayed the “good” legacy of Lenin and Trotsky.

Obviously, this is utter bullshit. Although the early Bolsheviks made a show of introducing populist legislation at the beginning of their rule (which mostly got thrown out of the window after the start of the Russian Civil War), they had taken power in a vanguardist coup d’etat and set up a centralized one-party state very soon after the Revolution. It was Lenin’s regime that instituted a reign of political terror, setting up the Cheka secret police that would later evolve into the Stalinist NKVD, and throwing people into concentration camps as early as 1919 for being “enemies of the people”. The “battle for grain” against the peasantry saw armed brigades occupy villages, requisition grain, and torture and kill those resisting peasants castigated by Lenin as kulaks. For all Lenin’s lip service paid to “self-determination”, his expansionism was shown in the attempts to start pro-Soviet revolutions in the Baltic states, and in the failed invasion of Poland in 1920. All of this clearly prefigures Stalinism — and conversely, the idea of Stalin’s “nominal Communism” is refuted in the essay collection Stalin: A New History, which states that he employed Marxist concepts in both public and private and that his non-fiction library consisted mostly of Marxist works.

Add to this picture the violent insurrectionism of Communist parties in the Western countries, and we get the main reason for the rise of nationalist movements in Europe that can be grouped under the term “fascism”, as well as the set of tactics and methods from which they felt they had to draw in order to defeat the Communist threat to Europe. National Socialism, which grew out of this, was heavily influenced by the threat of the Bolshevik revolution and its aftershocks in Germany, and the anti-Semitism of Hitler was further influenced by the overrepresentation of Jews in the Bolshevik party of Russia and the Communist movements in Europe. So to say, for example, that Soviet Russia played the role of rescuing Europe’s Jews from Nazi Germany, is nonsense; without the Bolshevik revolution, there would have been no Hitler regime and no war against the Jews in Germany. This is an important point to make because the so-called “Antifa”, whose very name contains a subtle lie, have inherited the myth that Communism defends the social order by reacting against National Socialism; divested of it, they revert to what they really are, leftist thugs carrying out their revolutionary politics by beating and intimidating dissenters.

On the subject of the atrocity record of these regimes, it is important for us to remember that Stalin’s regime slaughtered more innocent people than Hitler’s, and that the worldwide history of Communism amounts to a monumental human disaster totalling perhaps 100 million victims (the upper estimate given in the Black Book of Communism). Logically, then, the pinnacle of evil should surely belong to Communism — but the court-historians of the West, “writing with the bread before their eyes” as Schopenhauer said, will use any sophistry to get out of that conclusion.

“The Devil’s on my side, he’s a good Communist.”

“Hitler’s crimes were morally worse because he intended genocide” — but Stalin’s regime had already committed a peacetime genocide against the Ukrainians before Hitler’s regime had even got into the stirrups. “Hitler was worse because he intended foreign aggression and conquest” — but Stalin helped himself to much of Eastern Europe under the 1939 non-aggression pact with Germany, and recent research in Russia (summarised in the book Stalin’s Other War) suggests that the USSR would have invaded Germany had it not been invaded first. “The Nazi method of killing by poison gas was uniquely evil” — well, there are reports of “mobile gas vans” being used by the Soviet NKVD to murder people during the 1930s Great Purge. “The Communist project garners a certain sympathy because it was in line with Enlightenment ideals” — this is another case of killing human reason by worshipping it, as any truly open mind would want to put Enlightenment ideals on trial in light of their resultant butchery, not call the ideals into the witness-stand to plead clemency for the butchery.

However, no more need be said on this. As I have stated, I have no desire to defend the atrocities of National Socialism, and weighing up death tolls is, in any case, a distasteful business. More vital to my argument is the question of whether National Socialism was totalitarian in the same way as Communism undoubtedly was. Recall that I have described the Left as a symbiosis of social corrosion and centralized tyranny, and the Right as a tendency towards defending the traditional and organic social order. If National Socialism was totalitarian in the same way as Stalinism, then either it was ‘of the Left’, or it converged with the Left in much the same way as is suggested by the Horseshoe Theory.

Much of what we understand by the term “totalitarianism”, through Orwell and other writers, primarily evokes Stalinist Russia: social control by the central government, the crushing of any hint of dissent, the command economy in which private property is liquidated, the ever-present secret police, the terror campaigns by the state and the pervasive climate of fear among the people. Most people today imagine that Germany under Hitler was organised in a similar fashion — for this is the impression given by the heavily promoted accounts of those persecuted by it, i.e. Jews, and modern-day Germans mortified at their people’s enthusiastic support for the regime up to 1945 don’t exactly have a vested interest in dissenting from these accounts.

But the truth is quite different. While the NS regime forcefully bent key institutions like the state, army, and Reichstag to its will, it did not try to collectivize private property or conduct bloody purges against the majority of its population. The Gestapo employed fewer personnel for all of Germany than the Stasi employed just for East Germany (7000 in a population of 60 million, as opposed to 90,000 in a population of 17 million). Although the regime crushed all outright resistance and sometimes arrested people for minor non-conformity, it backed down more than once in the face of popular protest: the euthanasia programme was halted in 1941 after being openly denounced by a Catholic bishop, and a protest on the Berlin Rosenstrasse at the height of war in 1943 resulted in a halt on the deportation of Jews who had intermarried with German women. Even after proclaiming “total war” against the Soviet Union in the aftermath of Stalingrad, the NS regime did not manage to build its disorganized economy into anything like a totalitarian war machine, and this played a large part in its eventual defeat. And the regime’s diffidence towards women, much of it driven by Hitler himself, was extraordinary: far from conscripting them into the army as the Communists did, the National Socialists did not even conscript all eligible women into the labour force, for fear that this would “seriously affect the care of their husbands”.

Bear in mind that we are dealing with what is surely seen as the most tyrannical of modern Rightist regimes, one that was described by Mussolini as “savage barbarism … [in which] the chieftain is lord over life and death of his people”. Yet even on this strongest possible ground, not only the progressivist official myth but also the liberal Horseshoe Theory simply falls flat. What we see in National Socialism is not a twin of Communist tyranny, but a dependence on popular consent and remarkable unwillingness to violate the social order overlaid with a populist authoritarianism and a large array of Communist-derived tactics and methods. To be sure, concern for the social order stopped at the borders of ethnic Germany — in addition to terrorizing occupied peoples like the Poles, the National Socialists even promoted degeneracy among them — but this should not obscure the character of NS as a German regime.

To make the point clear, then, the defense of the social order by non-liberal means — even in the National Socialist regime, with its high authoritarianism and large admixture of leftist elements — did not lead to a tyranny in any way comparable to the Communist one. And the ideological reasons for NS ill-treatment non-Germans – e.g. the equation of Judaism with Bolshevism, and the plan to compete with the British Empire by colonising Eastern Europe — were highly contingent and relative to contemporary Germany, so much so that the sister ‘fascist’ regimes of the time did not necessarily share these elements (more importantly, they are not relevant to the distinction between Left and Right, the defence of the social order as opposed to its replacement by central power).

Having examined all of these distortions, we can take a clear look at the underlying message of the official myth. It is not just a matter of downplaying the vaster crimes of Communism while emphasizing those of National Socialism; refuting this, which is pretty easy for anyone capable of basic counting, shakes us out of progressivist belief only to land us in the incapacitated limbo of the Horseshoe Theory. At a more subtle level, it is a matter of taking the universal and archetypal evil represented by Communism — the symbiosis of social revolution and omnipotent tyranny — and transposing it onto a single example of a botched and truncated Rightist reaction. Once we have come to believe that this transposed evil is the “inevitable” result of all non-liberal resistance to the Left, we have truly handed our weapons and our balls to the enemy of our civilization, who still hides in plain sight while importing a new “revolutionary proletariat” into the West.

As Daryl Withycombe wrote some time ago in an enlightening article, the situation of Westerners at present is comparable to that of the Moriori tribe of New Zealand’s Chatham Islands, who chose to uphold their pacifist ‘Code of Nunuku’ and were duly exterminated by ferocious Maori invaders. I am convinced that liberalism is our Code of Nunuku — and that our arguments with senile cuckservatives and dogmatic liberals parallel the tribal councils of the Moriori, in which the young men warned against the policy of non-aggression and were talked down by the elders. If we can win this argument, we still have a chance of defending ourselves; if not, we are truly lost.

Originally published at

Guest Writer
the authorGuest Writer


  • Virtually everything in the Jew media is a deception to some degree. Similar to Vox Day’s obsession with trying to discredit NS Germany because it was “leftist and anti-white.”

    It’s not about left vs right, blue vs red. These are asinine arguments and miss the whole fundamental difference of societies created by different races.

    Take ANY policy, ideology, constitution, etc and have a pure white version and a pure nigger version. There will be vast differences of behavior and success between them. Such is why Liberia is an crime-infested open sewer and America is a super power.

    People who equate the Alt Right with BLM because they’re both “identity politics” are moronic liars.

  • “If this was the case, we would not see so many people who are highly informed on the progressivist cultural revolution … and who yet insist on a return to classical liberalism while rejecting all other options.I mean the younger crowd fighting the illiberal Left outside the hard
    core of the Alt-Right, such as ‘Alt-Lite’ civic nationalists and
    cultural libertarians, and especially the ‘Skeptic’ classical liberals
    epitomised by the Youtuber Sargon of Akkad.”

    People like Sargon are not nationalists. They are, generally, committed
    to a type of meritocratic race-blindness. For them, an educated,
    productive, rich black is always a better option than a lower class
    White. These people don’t want an ethnostate, they want a worldwide
    “western” culture, since they’re not loyal to a distinct people, but to a
    set of abstract ideas, many of which are incompatible with our goals.The classical liberalism they want to see implemented is basically libertarianism and libertarianism is completely incompatible with nationalism.

  • What crimes did the National Socialists actually commit? There was one unit under Dirlewanger that probably committed a few murders, but for the most part, the German military was the only military in that war that actually adhered to the Geneva Convention.

    • yeah guy. the Nazis invaded three continents to try to establish a 1000-jähriges Reich (ie: Empire) but were afraid of a little bit of mass murder. Makes sense. The bullshit that Hitler sackriders spew would be hilarious if i thought any of them actually believed it.

      • “the Nazis invaded three continents”

        lolwut. They invaded Africa to defeat the British there. What are the other two continents they invaded? Surely you’re not trying to claim they invaded the continent they were already in?

        “to try to establish a 1000-jähriges Reich (ie: Empire) but were afraid of a little bit of mass murder.”

        Reich means realm, not Empire. The German word for empire is Imperium. And there’s no proof the Germans committed any mass murder in WW2.

        “The bullshit that Hitler sackriders spew would be hilarious if i thought any of them actually believed it.”

        I’m not a Hitler sackrider. I blame him for not killing all the Jews when he had the chance.

        • yeah anyone that doesn’t worship Hitler and the Nazis and/or try to whitewash or outright reinvent major historical events in order to make said Nazis seem “less bad” can only be a Jew. any more brainwaves?

  • Serious suggestion here, but providing a audio link for many of these stories would be great.
    And who knows we may still have our eyesight which will be much needed for that thousand yard stare when SHTF.
    My Eyes,oh my eyes, too much reading.

    • Can you imagine the story of the French Revolutions were they left to oral narratives (videoed). True or false, print narratives exist until the next book burnings.

  • “And it is possible that there are certain types of people — not necessarily the more pleasant types — who are attracted to both the Left and Alt-Right and repelled by liberalism.”

    I came here last night to find out who the hell this neo-Nazi Richard Spencer was. I couldn’t believe I never heard of him. And I read all night long. I came to spew anti white hate and as you all would say, I was red pilled. However, it was only a half dose. I grew up being told I’m a democrat because I am a middle class white female. Told I am a liberal, despite never feeling that way. I just went with it. Then a couple of years of go I heard about the RoChild dynasty. I researched so much and became disgusted. But it was so hard to find real truths. People who speak the truth are deemed radical or insane. Anyways, all of that research led to a wormhole in my mind. I began to doubt what I was taught. I began to believe the possibility that what I learned about the holocaust was lies. It rocked my world. I started talking to people and promptly stopped. Everyone thought I fell off my rocker. But I just became open minded. I’m not sure where I belong. My beliefs and stances are all over the spectrum. I do know that I am sick of the shame I feel for my color. I am sick of seeing every other group form together and even form alliances. But as soon as a white person/group does the same thing they are racist. The scary part is I didn’t even realize how sick and tired I was until I began reading.
    I was brought up liberal. I began doubting that in high school/college. And now I am just confused. If anyone has any information that may help me please do share. Of course, I have an analytical mind and science based education, I would appreciate some sources. I will add that I am not capable of hating a person based on their color. I am more inclined to judge people based on how they act. If they are a bad actor they can gtfo. I don’t know that I have found the right place. Convince me?

  • At the risk of missing your point actresses are generalizing the blame for Jewish producers raping them to ALL White Men. And indeed the kerfuffle about Trump was evidence of this projection. They are doing this to protect the actual Jewish rapists who do provide them with acting gigs. The projection and transference is astonishing.

  • Regarding “the “sinister” logo of Jacobin Magazine, depicting the decline from Right to Left.”

    That logo represents more than the decline from Right to Left. It looks like it is intended to evoke the blade of the guilllotine – under which they would like to put all of us.

  • the world may have changed more the last 150 years than the previous 1500, especially the last 75. certainly something new is in order

  • I read the entire article and saw nothing that explained the difference between identity politics and Identitarianism. Maybe I am missing it, but that is what interested me to read it.

    • To cut a long argument short, it goes back to the distinction made between defending the social order against corrosion (the Right) and destroying it in order to raise up unrestricted central power (the Left). The “identitarianism” of the Alt-Right seeks to uphold the majority racial group in Western countries, subsume other identity conflicts into it, and maintain this community against the fragmentation caused by immigration as well as the tyrannical methods (e.g. hate-speech legislation, anti-terrorist measures) introduced in order to “manage” this fragmentation.

      The “identity politics” of the Left, on the other hand, is both a battering ram against the social order and a palanquin for managerial tyranny. Any amount of hatred may be sowed in order to stir up “subaltern” groups against the social order – even if these groups have just stepped off the boat from the Third World, or have been invented out of whole cloth as in the case of the transgendered – but any appeal to majority racial identity so as to preserve that order is denounced as “hate speech”. Favoured groups on the Left that want relatively little social destruction (e.g. white women) have to defer to groups that want a lot (e.g. blacks, transgendered), and groups no longer capable of attacking the social order (e.g. the white working class) are discarded mercilessly.

      According to this definition, classical liberalism is “of the Right” too, at least in view of the current position of the Left. But it is a kind of head-in-the-sand formalism that confuses all sorts of particular and concrete things with universal and abstract ones: a strong social order requiring little managerial direction with the abstract principle of freedom, the unique culture of Western peoples with the principle of individualism, and the defence of the social order with a timid and cowardly revulsion against “rocking the boat” or creating any short-term discord. And because it has allowed itself to be persuaded that rallying a tribe around an identity is against its “principles”, it has in practice abdicated from any viable means of dealing with the Left, forcing those who would preserve Western civilisation to revive the non-liberal tradition of the Right.

  • Proponents of that theory are anarchists. You can’t be part of a society without being at least a little bit collectivist. If you accept that you can then differentiate between two types of ‘collectivism’, equality on the left and commonality on the (true) right. Equality leads to instability and mediocrity, commonality leads to stability and true progress.

  • The author of this article needs to do some homework, the Nazi gas chambers were conclusively debunked about 30 years ago. And yes the lack of “Prussian Blue” cyanide staining on the walls of the supposed gas chambers is 100 percent conclusive in determining that no Zyklon B gas was ever used in those rooms.

    Plus, come on. Wooden doors ffs. Stop believing stupid Jew lies.

      • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleLegitimateKingJobsFromHomeJobs/computer/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!ka229lzzzz

      • Hitler getting the necessary support taking power was not pro-active, it was in reaction to (((something))). Heck, in 1912 the US elected Woodrow Wilson and the UK gov was already (((compromised))).

        It goes back a long time.

        • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDailyFindUpdateWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!ka162lzzzz

        • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleCashMediaCareerPartTimeJobs/get/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!ka231lzz

    • the prussian blue argument has been similarly debunked. Prussian blue isn’t the most reliable way to judge cyanide exposure, there’s a lot of things that can impact its formation, especially in structures demolished by the Nazis and exposed to the elements for years. It makes for good propaganda memes by comparing pics of the blue-stained (and intact) delousing chambers and the homicidal gas chambers. But using by using this argument deniers shoot themselves in the food because the Cracow study in 1990 found cyanide residues in ALL the Kremas (but more in the delousing chambers, as fits with the fact that you need more Zyklon B to fully disinfect clothes than to kill humans). According to deniers these were simple mortuaries, air raid shelters, or perhaps Irish pubs – cyanide residue shouldn’t be there AT ALL. so i guess that theory is gone. next?

      • The analysis by IFRC Markiewicz et al performed in 1990:

        In the name of Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn, Krakow
        Division of Forensic Toxicology
        Krakow, 24 Sept. 1990
        Westerplatte 9 / Code 31-033

        “Five samples were also taken from the ruins of the gas chamber of crematory
        [building] 2 in Birkenau, as well as one sample each from the ruins of crematory [building] 5 and the wall of crematory [building] 1 in Auschwitz [main camp]. No samples were taken from the ruins of crematory [building] 4, because the 30-40 centimeter high wall structure there was reconstructed after the war.”

        None of the samples taken from the gas chambers contained cyanid, except for the sample 15 :

        “Of the samples taken from crematories 1, 2, 3, and 5, only sample number
        15 showed almost undetectably small traces of cyanide compounds”

        The did found cyanide in the delousing chambers.

        • They found a *trace* amount in *only one* sample. The rest of the tests showed *no* cyanide. To say “they did find cyanide” in the samples is a crass misrepresentation of the facts.

          I think Leuchter was being generous when he said the results probably indicated the room had been deloused once. To me the results probably indicate a recently cleaned set of clothes brushed up against the wall at that location.

          In any case this report was buried because the results do not support the Holocaust story. The cyanide residue that would have been found in all of these samples, if the story were true, is simply not there.

          • No, you’re just repeating the IHRs blurb. Look at the actual fucking numbers

            Several positive samples from several Kremas. I don’t know what they consider “trace” but this Zyklon B residue has absolutely no business being in these buildings at all if they weren’t gas chambers. Saying that this was from clothes brushing up against walls is retarded. Even the report debunks a similar claim that this was from fumigation since the barracks etc that were actually fumigated with Zyklon tested negative

            I don’t know where/why they got this idea that the Cracow Institute for Forensic Research helps Luechter’s and deniers case – in fact it does the opposite. The fact that the IHR is deliberately writing such misleading bullshit is suspicious enough as well, and it’s something that’s quite common in the Denier echo chamber in general.

          • Look at the fucking pictures. Every place else in the world where HCN gas is used it stained everything having the least bit of iron a bright share of blue.

            You don’t need lab results to know these are hoax gas chambers.

            Plus, wooden doors with no special sealing lol.

          • You’re not a chemist. Of course, neither is Leuchter, he got a Bachelor of Arts.
            But apparently you’re too lazy to even research the subject any further than what you read in bite-sized denier holohoax memes. so i’ll help you out and just paste the relevant wikipedia talking about his report

            “The problem with Prussian blue is that it is by no means a categorical sign of cyanide exposure.[4] One factor necessary in its formation is a very high concentration of cyanide.[4] In terms of the difference between amounts measured in the delousing chambers and homicidal gas chambers, critics explain that the exact opposite of what deniers claim is true. Insects have a far higher resistance to cyanide than humans, with concentration levels up to 16,000ppm (parts per million) and an exposure time of more than 20 hours[5] (sometimes as long as 72 hours) being necessary for them to succumb. In contrast, a cyanide concentration of only 300ppm is fatal to humans in a matter of minutes.[6] This difference is one of the reasons behind the concentration disparity. Another exceedingly sensitive factor by which very small deviances could determine whether Prussian blue may form is pH. This element could be affected even by just the presence of human beings.[4] Also, while the delousing chambers were left intact, the ruins of the crematoria at Birkenau had been exposed to the elements for over forty years by the time Leuchter collected his samples. This would have severely affected his results, because unlike Prussian blue and other iron based cyanides, cyanide salts are highly soluble in water.[4]”

            I think we can at least understand what a “categorical” vs “non-categorical” consequence of an exposure to an element is. ie, no prussian blue doesn’t always mean no cyanide. But when they tested for ACTUAL CYANIDE IONS and found them in all the places the Deniers say they shouldn’t be is pretty clear. ie this argument is BULLSHIT.

            now you’re doing typical conspiritard denier “Shotgun” tactics ie when I debunk one claim, in this case a pretty important one (that your whole conspiracy theory kind of rests on, if you think about it), you won’t acknowledge it, but simply throw out one or two or three more – the wooden doors, the World Almanac numbers, the lampshades, the furnace capacity – all of which you can find were addressed if you did a simple internet search. The exact same shit people that believe in aliens or 9/11 inside job or other Alex Jones 1.0 shit. They just keep jumping from one thing to another, ignoring contradictions and rational explanations because they’ve already made up their mind (feels > reals)

            tldr: CN- ions in Kremas II-V destroy the entire basis of the dumbass conspiracy theory you got tricked into believing .. how does it feel

        • i dont know where the fuck you got that from, so i googled it, and its the IHRs “interpretation” of the Institute of Forensic Research’s report ie they’re lying. big surprise

          here’s the actual tables, cyanide residues found in several samples of EVERY KREMA. so deniers get BTFO once again, because if your supposedly innocent structures that totally weren’t gas chambers (that the Nazis nevertheless felt the need to blow up before the Russians got there) were exposed to Zyklon B then maybe they weren’t that innocent after all
          at that point you’ll probably do one of 2 things:
          1. try to make some convoluted explanation for the presence of cyanide residues in these buildings that won’t make any sense and make you look like a tool
          2. proclaim that this means that the Cracow Institute of Forensic Research is obviously part of the Global Jewish Conspiracy and the results were forged – despite previously using this report as evidence that the holocaust was a hoax, back when you didn’t understand what it actually said – and thus look like an even bigger tool

      • The reaction of cyanide with iron is a natural chemical process. To debunk that you must debunk the process of corossion which you did not even attempt to do, for obvious reasons.

        To debunk something, you must do more than simply claim that you have debunked it.

        I’ll also note that Leuchter also tested the supposed gas chamber walls for the presence of cyanide with none found. And that you are misrepresenting the results of the 1990 Krako study, which supported Leuchter’s findings.

        • No, you’re misinterpreting. Or you’re just a tool who copy pastas the same source every other holocaust denier conspiritard does without bothering to fact check it
          Here’s the entire Cracow report, and a link to the specific part with the Kremas and the samples tested

          Most of them tested positive for cyanide. So don’t give me that bullshit about Prussian blue – neither of us are chemists, but you don’t have to be in this case. Those cyanide residues automatically destroy this argument that deniers spam everywhere because they SHOULDN’T BE THERE – but they are. Cyanide means Zyklon B which means people were being gassed in Kremas II-V .. they weren’t just morgues or whatever deniers try to say they were. So another muh Holohoax argument goes in the garbage to join a couple of dozen others that I keep hearing.. An objective , intelligent person would eventually throw up their hands and admit that the Holocaust probably happened, or at least start to question the motivations of people who continue to push debunked theories like it’s a slam dunk. But unfortunately politics make people so retarded that they would literally argue that the earth is flat if it helps their pet narrative

          • Why? At least it lists it’s sources. You don’t like it cause it’s biased against Holocaust denial but you have no problem rehashing the bullshit you read on denier sites or watch on fashy YouTube channels

            If you or anyone else reading this still thinks they have some intellectual honesty then why not read the 66 common arguments people use and how they are debunked?

            If you see that some or several arguments that you keep using to try and convince people that the Holocaust was fake are actually bullshit this should give you some pause .. assuming you give a fuck about history and the truth and aren’t just repeating shit u heard just to be edgy

          • Your need to use words like fuck and shit impress the crap outta me. Normally I see it as a sign of a lack of an argument but in your case I think it’s just the natural result of loving Jews and their lies an awful lot.

            Next time try working in the occasion goddammit for some balance, and then the way you ignore the preponderance of the evidence but prefer to focus on biased sources of dubious quality would hardly even be noticeable.

          • LOL. WHAT DID I JUST SAY. The Cracow Institute’s report was a great source a couple of posts ago, back when you thought that it supported Leuchter’s bullshit revisionist study. Then I pointed out that wherever you copy-pasta’d that from is LYING to you because the actual report (which you didn’t even bother to click on, of course) says the complete opposite, that CN was in all the Kremas. Now its a “biased source” ROFL

          • I’m sorry Atlantian I wasn’t paying attention. That was very rude of me.

            Could you type all that out again for me?

          • haha.. option #3 I guess, after you get BTFO’d just pretend you never cared in the first place :D. That’s okay, I know you can’t admit you’re wrong when you’ve already invested so much in a theory and world view (although you could still be a literal Nazi and believe in the Holocaust, the two aren’t actually mutually exclusive, it’s just the current generation of kids). Just leave this for randoms to read I guess…

          • Your entire argument is to quote dubious test results from over 30 years ago while ignoring the mountains of irrefutable evidence available in the form of photographs taken of the hoax gas chambers. The lack of cyanide staining, the construction of the doors, the lack of suitable ventilation, etc. These rooms simply were not constructed like gas chambers.

            Like I said several posts ago Nizkor is absolute garbage. Your use of that source was my first clue not to take you seriously, fellow White Nationalist.

          • im sorry, did you suffer a concussion since your last post? Because this is the literally the 2nd time I’m repeating this:

            At the start of this discussion, the Cracow Institute’s for Forensic Research’s study into the Auschwitz Kremas was supported by you because you thought (because of revisionists lies and propaganda) that they supported the results of Leuchter. In fact, you thought that the results of this report were “buried” because of this!

            Here is your exact quote:
            >>>.They found a *trace* amount in *only one* sample. The rest of the tests showed *no* cyanide. To say “they did find cyanide” in the samples is a crass misrepresentation of the facts.

            >>>I think Leuchter was being generous when he said the results probably indicated the room had been deloused once. To me the results probably indicate a recently cleaned set of clothes brushed up against the wall at that location.

            >>>In any case this report was buried because the results do not support the Holocaust story. The cyanide residue that would have been found in all of these samples, if the story were true, is simply not there.

            Here’s another link to the complete report – don’t worry, not from “garbage” Nizkor that actually states factual information with sources unlike your shit tier Denier pages:
            Scroll down to Table 3. There’s your data right there. There’s nothing to argue with. Every Krema has cyanide in it. Yet NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN these test results are “dubious” (you love that word) because they actually contradict your original post and in fact destroy the entire foundation of your revisionist theories because CN=Zyklon B=gas chambers.

            You’re making a complete fool of yourself. And now you throw out another tired old gambit, ie speculation about the efficacy of ventilation chambers, essentially mental masturbation compared to the hard evidence (isn’t that what you deniers want?) of actual Zyklon B exposure in the gas chambers that aren’t supposed to be gas chambers. But you just hand-wave that shit, and go back to shotgunning – in typical conspiritard fashion. And I’m the one that shouldn’t be taken seriously? lol. what a joke. Get some huwhyte agency and google it yourself

          • Why you continue to write these essays that nobody, myself included, is even reading, is puzzling. Hopefully you get paid by word count.

          • LOL. literally lol’ing. its like you’re caught in a loop. twice now I have destroyed your argument when i pointed out your hypocritical double standards for the same evidence (you liked it when you were confused and thought it supported Holocaust denialism, you called it “dubious” when i show you that the actual Cracow study confirms the presence of gas chambers at Auschwitz), and after both instances your come-back is that I’m being tryhard and you actually don’t care about any of this, despite replying to me 7+ times. If this is your idea of a troll i think you’re doing it wrong , and it only makes your conspiracy theory look more retarded

          • It was real… In your mind.

            Like getting gassed to death in chambers built with wooden doors.

          • lol.. so you’re saying.. that the biggest ethnic genocide in history was a hoax and product of the largest conspiracy ever… and the thing that gave it away.. was some story about a wooden door. Nice. Who’s delusional again?

            Still dodging the fact that the Auschwitz Kremas were proved to be gas chambers (not morgues, not massage parlors).. due to physical testing of the materials.. which you completely got BTFOd on and have no rebuke to.. lol

    • Glass windows, delousing rooms, gas out of the shower heads LOL. Why didn’t they just shoot them would of been easier.

      • Right. Or even just stop feeding them. Ya know, *three to five days without water and most people are dead from dehydration.*

        But those wacky Germans just couldn’t stop feeding their prisoners and making sure they had plenty of water, for years, even as they were trying to kill them all lol.

      • History isn’t on it’s side either. Between 1869 and 1933 there are articles that describe 20 “holocausts” of precisely 6 Million Jews that have starved to death et al in various Eureopean countries. There are articles in newspapers that show the world population of Jews in 1933 at 15.2 Million and then in 1948 at 15.7 Million, meaning if the holocaust happened, every single fertile Jewish woman on the planet had around 5 children each in a 2 year period.

        • this is a shit tier and old holocaust denier technique, the Almanac did not have any updates to its numbers due to the war and the 1948 edition relied on estimates based to the 1938 figures, in 1949 the number was corrected to about 11 million. Instead of reflexively doubling down and claiming that this revision is obviously part of the “jewish conspiracy”, be objective and ask yourself why holocaust deniers are still circling this ancient and discredited argument. Perhaps they have their own agenda too? or you’re just listening to shit you wanna hear? Think about it.

Leave a Reply