Perspective

The Banality Of Evil

Most Western nations had no Thomas Jefferson and no James Madison, and do not enjoy the wonderful constitutional protections we do.

Without such minds and such rights to protect them from both themselves and powerful bad actors, many Western peoples have more or less been unable to mount a forceful, effective defense against the Cultural Marxist Western oligarchy’s continual assaults on their essential rights and liberties. The Cultural Marxist Western oligarchy’s monopoly over speech has always served as the legitimating force to its own criminality.

In nations and regions where free speech is not protected by law absolutely or near-absolutely, the oligarchy takes some evil action and then seeks to spin it, bury it, or muffle it via thought, speech, and information control. Where speech and information are free, this is a lot more difficult. Sure, the Cultural Marxist power class can pay the press to lie or simply own the presses themselves, as it is wont to do, but it can’t control the internet or public fora or free associations of people. In nations like Sweden and the UK, however, speech and information are not free. Thus, illegitimate and totalitarian laws fill the gaps they can not here in America. The only information widely available to people in much of Europe is information that legitimates the power and the wrongs of their illegitimate Cultural Marxist hegemons. Much of Europe is where America was two decades ago. The only information many Western Europeans receive is through the MSM, which is to say it is controlled information, adulterated information, bad information.

The stuff going on in Sweden, Germany and the UK (and also South Africa, though South Africa is a somewhat different case in a different region) is really shocking, and yet the Western World seems conspicuously indifferent to it all. The UK Government is arresting anti-Islamic dissidents, detaining right-leaning social critics visiting the country and even prosecuting comedians over offensive jokes, and yet the media is deafeningly silent! This should not be all that surprising, and yet it kind of is. I actually encounter many British citizens online who defend these fundamentally totalitarian “hate speech” laws and inherently illegitimate government actions. Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” is here folks, and it is all around us.

Western governments are facilitating the Islamic conquest of Europe. They are not just allowing it to happen, they are encouraging it, justifying it, financing it, supporting it. The UK Government is enforcing Sharia law when it comes to blasphemy. That is not hyperbole. It claims to be doing so under another banner, namely “combating hate”, but it is the functional equivalent of enforcing blasphemy laws. The Swedish Government systematically conceals the reality of migrant crime and the scale of the migrant problem from its citizens. Sweden and England are not slipping into totalitarian mindsets or modes of government. These nations are there. They have descended. Even the most trivially heretical acts against the state religion of diversity are zealously disciplined. These governments are not even remotely legitimate. Yet almost nobody seems to see what is really going on, and among those that do, few are brave enough to acknowledge it. Most people are in denial, and most of the remainder don’t want to bear the personal and professional costs of speaking the truth.

One of the interesting things about totalitarian societies is that the people within them generally see the unconscionable depravity of their fellow citizens and corrupt governments as in some sense normal. They adjust as it were, to the new, often stifling, sheerly outrageous social and governmental conditions. Ordinary people are often eking out a living in such societies. Totalitarian societies are often troubled ones, economically, morally, socially, etc. even if below the surface. Ordinary people don’t dare to speak out, given the potential repercussions, which have become magnified by the precarious social conditions. And those repercussions are all too real. The political left is unapologetic about its desire to fire, blacklist, shame, assault, and otherwise punish right-leaning individuals, simply on account of their ideas and associations. They’d like to see us all eating out of dumpsters, or better yet, in a Gulag, or lying dead in a hole somewhere. In such societies, remaining silent and docile to the evil going on about you often seems rational to ordinary folk, paradoxical as it may seem to an objective observer viewing such societies from without.

And we are there. Many outright absurdities can no longer be rejected or resisted in much of the Western World. Diversity is not “our greatest strength” and everybody with an IQ over 68 knows it, yet few speak up. Islam is not a “religion of peace”, and yet our insane Cultural Marxist overlords repeat this phrase over and over and over. We witness daily, vicious, tyrannical power structures enforcing orthodoxies with no basis in reality, a reign of soundless terror, like children under the roof of an abusive, drunkard patriarch, and we bear the costs of those insidious illusions as well. We do this all with pursed lips. Free societies just do not countenance, let alone celebrate, risible fictions and outright absurdities. It takes the routine, systematic abuse of power for them to do so. I have always said that the way in which whites deny their own racial existence, is itself indirect evidence of at least a soft totalitarianism in play here in America. Solzhenitsyn once said about the Soviet Union, “In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State”. Is this brilliantly compressed insight any less true of the modern, Cultural Marxist West? I think not.

The egalitarian fictions, especially those concerning race, which served as the foundation for the last sixty years or so of Western public policy, are crumbling before our eyes. The rainbow utopia in South Africa is the canary in the coal mine. Changing the South African Constitution so that the government can strip white farmers of their land without compensation, and terrorizing white farmers all over the country via terror attacks and gruesome displays of violence, was not supposed to be the future of South Africa, but it is the present, make no mistake about it. In a certain way, the media must ignore, downplay or deny these shameful developments and atrocities. To acknowledge reality would force them to come to terms with the failures of their own policies, and even with the clutter of falsities in their own minds.

In the aftermath of Count Dankula being charged and convicted of teaching his dog to salute Hitler with his paw (I kid you not, that is a punishable offense in the UK), one prominent comedian had finally been pushed beyond his limit. Ricky Gervais tweeted his outrage and came out in defense of free speech shortly after the verdict was made public. This is not the first time, however, that innocent Brits and even non-Brits have been detained, fined, or even imprisoned for mere speech and association in the UK. In fact, it is becoming increasingly common on that island asylum known as Britain. This is a free, democratic country? Ha! That’s the real joke. So, while I don’t know where Ricky was the prior thousand times these travesties of justice occurred, his newfound courage is more than welcome. That said, one famous man speaking out is not nearly enough. The British people should be in the streets rioting, they should be demanding his release under threat of mass-scale unrest, they should be taking up arms, they should be at the government’s doorstep.

The banality of evil is an all-too-real phenomenon. As our governments abuse us and terrorize us, the masses keep their heads down, addicted to their iPhones and petty amusements, while a zealous minority of brainwashed dullards cheers the government on: “Get those Nazis!” Some even go out in public to show their support for their government’s ethnic cleansing campaign against them: “Refugees welcome!” Nevertheless, imprisoning people for jokes and words and ideas is not a mere error in governance, it is morally indefensible, a crime against humanity. And yet nary a whimper from most. The British Government and the Swedish Government are not ashamed of what they are doing though, they are quite proud of it, they think totalitarianism is a small price to pay for nobly combating “hate”. Truth be told, our leaders should be hanged and our dissidents, comedians, and intellectuals set free. Only the former are criminals. Thus the question arises: How much longer will white, Western people remain passive under the yoke of Cultural Marxist tyrants waging a war against their essential liberties and their very existence? How much longer will we casually tolerate evil? When will we actually confront it?

88 Comments

  • Seventy-five million people have been added to the census since 1995. This is a traumatic, cataclysmic event. Congress has dropped a nuclear bomb on the American people Where the hell were the open-space loving treehuggers?

    • 75 mil. in 23 years – all non-White (essentially), anti-White colonizers and genociders (ultimately/shortly). I heard a speech by JFK (´62 or 3) in which he mentioned the pop. of America standing at 178 mi. – 90% White, which portion had complete political, social, and cultural hegemony. It was a very short time ago…I remember it quite well. No time or place has seen such treason. As for Europe, is their fall not the result of the conspiring of those same American rulers?

  • All immigration depresses wages.

    The immigration of third world peoples to first world countries raises the crime rates in those countries, while burdening the welfare and criminal justice systems.

    Third world peoples escape the dysfunctions of their countries, and bring those dysfunctions with them everywhere they move.

  • My only quibble with this otherwise excellent essay is with the use of the term “Cultural Marxist.”

    A detailed knowledge of Marxism is evidence of a misspent youth. I misspent enough of my youth to have read a lot by and about Karl Marx, and to know what a Marxist is and is not.

    Marxism is a dying ideology. There are hardly any Marxists left. I do not know anyone who classifies himself as a “Cultural Marxist.’

    “Cultural Marxism” is nothing more than a derogatory term for “social liberal,” or “globalist.” .

    • Marxism gave me a coherent scaffolding to predict events in a chaotic world. It was not misspent.
      However you are right. Nothing marxist about these anti white jerks. Lenin would have slapped these sjws for the petite capitalists they are.

  • Thinking about Speaker RYAN, that inveterate cuck, and how wonderful it would’ve been if he took the GOP to the hard right e.g. With the president’s signature, we’re not going to build a wall, we’re going to station 400k troops on the Mex border (Selective service, if needed – delete your browser history before reporting to Fort Dix, NEETs) and if anyone attempts to cross illegally, he will be shot as potential terrorist while midway across the border. Ryan would budget $4 billion for this annually – the amount he would otherwise have given to Israel (“for what in return”, he would boom to Congress). From that hard line, he could negotiate a more centrist position – a wall – from the Democrats. Schumer’s aged and ignorant constituents may bleat “itz a holocust of da Mexican pippul” while he vows lawsuit, but with a true show of force – placement of troops
    on direct orders of the president – out of the mouth of ideologues would come Americanism – a wall, tall long and strong, to keep out illegals. But, then my far-right high was disturbed by my reality of dependence on a global economy, and what hard right *economics* might mean to me, not my race. When just mention of tariffs on steel sharply lower the values of stocks of companies that don’t rely on material amounts of steel in their products – I begin to worry. It’s not higher steel prices that are scaring Wall St., it’s the potential trade-war with the people who make our stuff, so good and cheaply, from the $30 Roku kit to the hedge trimmer that keeps going after 5 years and cost less than most Yankee tickets. Or about what would happen if we had kept out the people who so efficiently and carefully programmed e-commerce, so that on Ebay I can find a side panel to my 20 year old motorcycle for 1/3rd the price of the OEM new. Or what would happen to public lakes and streams if we squashed the EPA due to its unconstitutional stranglehold on private property that happens to be in proximity of such places; the hard right loves the property rights that might let us shoo away jews and negroids – don’t we? Without global trade, numerous jewbs in the financial sector would evaporate like Fantastik on cubicle glass. That means me. And what about the Constitution, If we suspend parts of it to ensure the 11 million illegals can be quickly and efficiently evicted before it creates yet another generation of dreamers? That threatens the 2nd Amendment, lack of which would then threaten the First. People and laws are linked in ways that we don’t see historically. The answer to Weimerica – NSDAP Germany – ironically had freedoms we don’t – it was not tied to a global economy (except when it took resources it needed), it did not have a Constitutional tradition and laws, it didn’t exist as a unified nation a 100 years earlier so had no prior wrangle with ultra-nationalism like the US had with the Remember-the-Maine! era, and it needed no immigration policy. I think a lot more thinking is needed, on the economic and Constitutional fronts especially.

  • A simple children’s game can demonstrate what is better for world peace. Homogeneous nations or diverse nations.

    The game is played thus.

    Take Europe. Erase all national borders and redraw borders to either (1) Maximize homogeneity or (2) Maximize diversity.

    So, you can draw borders around Poland to maximize Polish Homogeneity OR you can draw maps so that Poland breaks up into 5 parts, each of which is included with OTHER nations.

    So, in Maximizing Homogeneity, Poland is mostly Polish.
    But in Maximizing Diversity, a map is drawn so that a nation includes a part of Poland, part of Germany, part of Hungary, part of Czech Rep, part of Ukraine. Likewise, there is no single Germany but Germany is divided among five other diverse nations.

    Now, which will be more peaceful? Max-Hom Poland or Max-Diver Poland?

    We can do this game in the Middle East too, where much of the problem today stems from maps that maximized diversity than homogeneity. Just ask the Kurds who cause problems for every nation and for whom every nation causes problems because they don’t have a nation of their own.

    Anyway, let’s suppose we erase all current maps in the Middle East and can draw fresh new ones to either (1) Maximize Homogeneity or (2) Maximize Diversity.

    Which would be wiser? To draw a map so as to give Kurds their own nation or to break up Kurdish areas to be included into other nations that are made up of excessive diversity?

    Or what would be better? To draw borders to maximize Jewish homogeneity in Israel or to break up Israel into 3 parts and include each of the three parts with other diverse entities. So, northern 1/3 is joined with Lebanon and parts of Syria.
    Middle Israel is joined with Jordan and part of Saudi Arabia. And Southern Israel is joined with part of Egypt and part of Libya. Would it be better to draw maps to maximize the Homogeneity of Jews within a nation or to divide up Jews(like Kurds) and place them in other diverse nations? Isn’t the main problem facing Israel due to diversity caused by Occupation of West Bank?

    Or, we can play this game in crazy-quilt region of SE Asia. Suppose we erase the current map and draw new borders to either (1) Maximize Homogeneity or (2) Maximize Diversity.

    Would it be better to draw maps to create Vietnam for Vietnamese, Cambodia for Cambodians, Laos for Laotians, Thailand for Thais, Burma for Burmese, OR would it be better to draw arbitrary borders so that one nation(shaped like a longitudinal snake) is formed that is 1/5 Vietnamese, 1/5 Cambodia, 1/5 Thai, 1/5 Burmese, etc.

    What does history tell us? I think even a child would figure this out.

    • Nice thought experiment.
      I always tell people: “Grab a globe, count all the different countries on it, that’s how many times multiculturalism has failed.”

  • >When will we actually confront it?

    I don’t know. We’re starting to.

    Something I’ve been thinking of – Richard Spencer and others refer to prior White nationalist movements as WN1.0. And, I’ve thought about that phrase, (“WN1.0’ers” I’ve talked to hate that phrase ). I will say that I don’t think that WN1.0 was really a true first version. In software jargon 1.0 refers to the first public or consumer version. I don’t think it ever made it that far back then. It was in the formative beta stage – but never broke out to a first consumer version.

    I see that as WN0.9, you could say, and with the advent of the internet – luck of having Trump run, (etc etc) and the seriousness of our situation in the West, I think NOW it is WN1.0.

    It is a true first public consumable version.

    This is the FIRST mainstream American political movement of White Nationalism. Not the second. With ALL due respect to the leaders of the past, they never made it out from the shadows for very long, and were little more than a side show on talk shows. Even though they were CRUCIAL to the current movement, their videos and philosophies and books are required reading, for sure. Many of them are the literal fathers (grandfathers) of the young men and women in today’s movement. So, to say it was WN0.9 is to say it was the true pre-cursor and necessary pre-cursor to today’s movements. A tip of the hat.

    …before people argue about OTHER movements existing around the world, I presume this is a discussion of the American versions of WN.

  • Wonderfully written and a great read, thank you! The woman in the 3rd picture started the Altright podcast called ‘Unapologetic.’ It triggered the left in a way I haven’t seem them triggered in very long time. Any trace of the podcasts has been basically deleted from the internet, but you can find all of the episodes below. She was recently doxxed and fired from her job as a grade-school teacher.

    Ep. 0 – Pilot Episode:
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/y7scot6o716td4c/Unapologetic_Pilot.mp3

    Ep. 1 – Growth of Islam
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/wwvo9n6wymz97do/Unapologetic_Episode__1.mp3

    Ep. 2 – Genetic Roots of Culture – Part 1:
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/vvam7wm77t7xqww/Unapologetic_Episode__2_.mp3

    Ep. 3 – Genetic Roots of Culture – Part 2:
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/zf1t702ld7xgysa/Unapologetic_Episode__3.mp3

    Ep. 4 – Discussion with Lara Lokteff of Red Ice mostly Feminism, Educations, and other topics:
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/nwdococi061a22w/Unapologetic_Episode__4.mp3

  • Wonderfully written and a great read, thank you! The only thing of value I can add is this….The third picture in this article is the woman who made international news by starting one of the very few American, female-hosted Altright podcasts. It was called ‘Unapologetic.’ Any trace of the podcasts themselves have almost been completely deleted from the internet, but I saved them before they were (if you don’t know already I am a podcast fiend). It was hosted at RemsoRepublic, which is interesting because RR seems to me a mostly alt-lite news/podcast operation.

    Anyways, she was also a teacher at either the grade-school or middle-school level, and she suggested that far-right teachers infiltrate the education system “in the same way that Marxists have done.” She was doxxed, fired from her job, and I’d bet she’s essentially unemployable at this point. I hope Spencer and friends will at least entertain the idea of giving this woman a podcast platform on this website.

    Ep. 0 – Pilot Episode:
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/y7scot6o716td4c/Unapologetic_Pilot.mp3

    Ep. 1 – Growth of Islam
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/wwvo9n6wymz97do/Unapologetic_Episode__1.mp3

    Ep. 2 – Genetic Roots of Culture – Part 1:
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/vvam7wm77t7xqww/Unapologetic_Episode__2_.mp3

    Ep. 3 – Genetic Roots of Culture – Part 2:
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/zf1t702ld7xgysa/Unapologetic_Episode__3.mp3

    Ep. 4 – Discussion with Lara Lokteff of Red Ice mostly Feminism, Educations, and other topics:
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/nwdococi061a22w/Unapologetic_Episode__4.mp3

  • Unrestricted third world mass migration into European countries is unleashing horrors the likes of which the majority of white westerners can barely even begin to imagine or understand. However, the ruling elite well understands the ramifications of their open border policies and are doing everything in their power to silence and disarm the rascal multitudes.

  • Good Questions……..

    Everybody in the White Identitarian/American Nationalist/White Nationalist Umbrella Movement……

    Has a Different Answer……..

    I imagine a deep pit full of desperate and starving people……..

    One straggly root snakes along the side teasing just beyond the fingertips…….

    A hand finally grasps it and begins climbing……..

    Hordes of human beasts tear at his body and gouge eyes for a leg up…….

    He falls…….

    Blood spills………

    The root grows lower………

    A hand finally grasps it and begins climbing……..

    Hordes of human beasts tear at his body and gouge eyes for a leg up…….

    He falls…….

    Blood spills………

    • Finally they’re listening to our concerns.
      Children shouldn’t have to fear being offended while using a computer, It is the company’s duty to provide them with a safe environment.

        • Honestly, no. I loathe Microsoft products. I use Linux.
          And on my browser, Google is literally banned! LOL. Goolag.
          I boycott so many companies I can’t even keep track of ’em all anymore.

          • Great advice, – I think red ice has an article on alternate technologies/software, and if anyone wants to ask on /g/ I’m sure they’ll (eventually) get some serious replies.

            Maybe time to rethink privacy issues – even operating systems (for those that arent already).

  • Excellent text. I’ve developed an appreciate for Mr. Spraguer’s writings. Here’s the contradiction though. Spencer has been calling for people to speak out and stop using pseudonyms. But then a guy like Vincent Law comes along and ridicules people for coming out in the Alt-Right without pseudonyms. So there doesn’t seem to be a consensus among the Spencerites on whether to encourage people to speak out or not. I think more and more are ready to risk everything — career, health, security, family — to speak out. Yet there are numerous people in the Alt-Right (including a few editors I know) who discourage them from doing so (perhaps as to absolve themselves of the responsibility for ruining someone’s comfort).

    • Yeah, I think the problem is that it’s too personal a decision. No one wants to be responsible for ruining someone else’s life. Thus why there is no real consensus. I don’t think consensus is possible on this issue. It’s just too touchy/sensitive/personal. We all know it’s good for the movement to get people out of the closet, but putting the movement above the people in it, & their own lives & livelihoods, is just troubling. It almost has to be an individual decision. Why I don’t even try to meddle in that personal decision.

      • “get people out of the closet” thank you for confirming my theory regarding your readership.

        • That expression, “the closet”, predates its application to the homosexuality issue by many decades.
          All your interpretation of the metaphor reveals is your own weird sexual insecurities.

          • Exactly.
            Sure, it was a joke, but it was also a barb.
            He wants to run around altright.com all day long talking crazy sh*t & then he expects to get the benefit of the doubt from all of us when he’s just being jovial/playful.
            No worries M81, I never took your barb/joke too seriously. It slid off me like water off your camel’s back.

      • Agreed, it is very personal – and it depends entirely on how much you have to lose. That is why I argue the young play a consequential role in creating breathing room for the older more powerful (better financed, more powerful, and in many cases smarter) to enter in.

        It doesn’t have to be 100% safe, it just has to be SAFER than it is now. Gentlemen of value will take risks, but not for nothing – not to lose so much, for no apparent gain.

        I think there’s a phase 1 that is the youth brigades, and the overton window moves, and then the (sorry youth!) the serious men walk in and take the reigns.

        We have to be ready for that. For every “Richard Spencer” there are a dozens at least as smart and competent waiting in the wings for a window of opportunity.

        I guarantee it.

    • How darest thou nost recognize her Majesty as an Ally ?! Now begone Neville or I shall smite thy with my iron sword !

    • Same studies show high IQ been linked to mental illnesses it was proven that liberals are overrepresented in mental illness diagnostics.
      In my opinion there biggest disease is self destruction.

      • I’ve also heard high IQ people are more likely to be mentally ill. A lot of liberal activitists today ave OCD or/and anxiety illnesses.

      • This argument doesn’t really work with criticizing the Altright, for at least the two following reasons…

        (1) An argument isn’t made true or false based on the IQ of the person saying it. A low-IQ person can make a true statement and a high-IQ person can make an untrue statement. The quote from the article was a joke not an argument to debunk.

        (2) Most of the Altright is young people who initially started off as libertarians, hence the left’s description of a “libertarian to Altright pipeline”. Interestingly enough, libertarians on average score as higher IQ than both liberals and conservatives so your whole point is moot (https://notesonliberty.com/2014/05/15/are-libertarians-more-intelligent-than-conservatives-and-liberals/).

        • Technically Libertarians are Liberals and so are modern day Conservatives. Liberal/Conservative =/= Left wing/Right wing.

          IQ is overrated tbh. I know plenty of 130+ IQ people who are ignorant dumb fucks, and plenty of -130 people who are full of useful skills and information. The real question is if there is a correlation between high IQ and smug jerk offs with punchable faces… I think there is.

          • I consider basically anyone to the Left of Monarchy to be a liberal… “muh taxes” conservatives included.
            Like you basically said, “Left” and “Right” don’t really have any consistent meaning anymore.

          • Yeah, the Left/Right paradigm is long past expiration date and needs to be hung up for good. To me all estabishment politics is “left” wing. Joseph de Maistre and Juan Donoso Cortes were the last of the “right wing” and they lost. Fascism isn’t left wing or right wing, it’s the third position.

          • They generally make better company than bougie snobs who are way too impressed with themselves.

    • 1) I’m assuming you are defining “liberal” the way political scientists define it:
      general respect for free markets, deep commitment to free speech & free association, significant regard for the well-being of the poor & less fortunate, etc.
      Problem, is modern “liberals” reject most of these values outright, & thus aren’t really “liberal” at all. Modern “liberals” don’t seem to be open to new ideas either. Some scientists have defined “liberal” in this way, as being open to novel ideas. If this is the definition, & I do think this may be a good one, modern “liberals” are frequently the consummate bigots.
      Also, the way this particular author defines liberalism is absurd. It is also the height of maladaptive thinking.I guess your argument is that “liberals” are so smart they can overcome their evolved traits & modes of behavior to such a degree that they can eradicate themselves. Yeah, maybe. They’re clearly all geniuses.
      2) You’ve misread the study, though I’m not surprised you have. Firstly, the study does not measure the intelligence of conservatives & liberals. It measures the intelligence of those who describe themselves as “very liberal” & “very conservative”. So that’s a bait & switch there. This study measures the intelligence of radicals, not ordinary folks who are representative of liberalism & conservatism. Also, it measures the intelligence of such folks who describe themselves that way *in early adulthood*. So, there’s another bait & switch. Problem is, people tend to drift right as they age & gain more knowledge & life experience. Thus, we don’t know at all where intelligent people stand politically once they’ve actually grown up a bit. Lastly, it depends entirely upon the definitions & classifications of the participants in evaluating what “very liberal” & “very conservative” actually mean. Since ordinary people generally have no idea what these words actually mean, I am quite skeptical of these kinds of self-classifications. You’re going to need a more rigorous study than this to make your case.
      3) The young are particularly susceptible to peer pressure & social incentives. They are “plugged in” as it were. The Cultural Marxist left has dominated Western politics, power structures & culture for the last 60 years. The young know this. There is every reason to believe that young people are essentially self-selecting politically to get ahead in life. The powerful have a lot of perks to dole out to know-nothing twenty-somethings willing to do really stupid things in the name of social justice. That’s another problem with this study. Political affiliation can thus be seen as sensitivity to unfortunate social conditions. We should expect the intelligent to be better adapted in this way.
      All in all, you’ve gotten pretty much nowhere.
      If openness to new ideas is the quintessential liberal trait, I’m about the most “liberal” person you’ve ever met. I always evaluate arguments on their own merits. Can’t say I meet many leftists like that however. Indeed, someone who describes themselves as “very liberal” is most likely a confused, radical leftist, & thus extremely illiberal by definition.

      • Never refer to them as “liberals.” The term should be forbidden in the Alt-Right. Acceptable terms are any combination of Leftists, Marxists, globalist, nihilists, SJWs, Social Justice Fascists, Antifa Fascists, present-day Bolsheviks, reality deniers, and of course, children of the Lie (posting Jesse Peterson).

    • You guys are confusing socio-political brainwashing by evil leftists with IQ. Anyone paying attention can see plain as day that leftist (liberal) policies are destroying the white Western world.

    • What is High IQ White Liberalism??

      The Cognitive Realization of the Contingent Emptiness of All Things…….

      And the Apathetic Cowardice to Fight for your and your Ancestors Survival…….

      Because those Fighting the Hardest for it…….

      Are a Deplorable Low Optics Class below…….

    • This is a very outdated study. A lot of people have switched sides since 2010. For example, a large portion of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016. Back in 2010, almost every conservative was an evangelicon.

    • 1)You don’t have to have a high IQ to know it, the minimum is 68.
      2)Most high IQ liberals are racists but don’t know it
      3)Go to hell

    • That is only because they can afford to live away from diversity and come to think that they are above discomfort with diversity.

  • The peasants always lap up whatever the powerful impose. We need our people in power – by whatever means necessary.

  • Good Thursday.

    Still men, here in the South, to defend Christianity.

    Today, in Málaga, the Legion singing the anthem “Novio de la muerte” (“Boyfriend of Death”).

    Spengler: “In times of trouble, just a platoon of MEN is enough to save civilization”.

    RIP Colonel Arnaud Beltrame.

        • No, I’ll just restate it – it’s not intended to destroy myths either. In fact ethnic nationalism can support variances among nations that includes mythology. White ethnic nations have myths and just-so understandings of historical events. That’s true with every people.

          I don’t speak for the alt right, but I identify that way and I don’t see this as a method to deconstruct myth in so much as myth doesn’t detract from the goals of white nationalism.

          If there is a component of a religion or mythology that defiles white European nationalism, it needs to be minimized or openly addressed in that context. A belief system, myth, religion, whatever, that makes your people weaker in important ways is not healthy and needs to be rethought.

          There is a sense of a new beginning for white people in this movement, maybe is just my sense, that seems to suppose all structures and beliefs need to make an adjustment for the future of our people.

          I’m invigorated by that idea because I think it is an opportunity to platform to greater heights, unencumbered by chains of old ideals and institutions that led us to where we are. Borrowing from them, but also changing them.

          What’s really fascinating to me is how much of the old is becoming new. We’re starting to see the wisdom in much of what was discarded hundreds or even a thousand years ago and mixing it with our new global scientific understanding and approach to nature and ourselves as a species.

          Isn’t this not how it should be? Anti myth? Politically I see it as a movement to be as grounded in reality as possible to reach our natural intrinsic goal – thrive as a race.

      • Christianity, at least a cold read of the Gospel indicates that the Jews are a troublesome disputatious people prone to scheming, manipulation and oppressive practices.

        The character of Christ seen in the story was written by Greek speaking and writing peoples who had an intimate and hostile understanding of Jews They were making fun of Jews during the writing of it. I grow more certain of this every time I review the outline of the story of Acts and the four gospels.

        A MANUAL laborer, killed by a concealed heirarchy manipulating a goy Governor, for chasing bankers out of a Tenple. After he dies he is resurrected and becomes a God incarnate.

        Sounds like an altright parody.

    • Defending a Heritage and Culture is not defending Christianity……

      There are Arab, African, Asian, and Hispanic Christians…….

      In total, FAR more than White Christians……

  • There will be no reaction as long as people are fed mentally and physically, but if the system breaks down, people will react with a vengeance.

  • Superb, I really like ” I have always said that the way in which whites deny their own racial existence, is itself indirect evidence of at least a soft totalitarianism in play here in America”

    I am seeing this every single day, yet I don’t know where to begin to combat it….

    • If that’s the case, then I believe the soft totalitarianism began to be imposed in America in the 1960s when the (((mainstream media))) broadcast video of police beating down blacks in the South. I think these images were so powerful that they created a gigantic white guilt complex among the Baby Boomers that is deeply ingrained in their collective unconscience. The Holocaust propaganda was also intense, but I think it had more of an effect in Europe than in America.

      • 100%. Indeed, the entire Civil Rights Movement was a vivid demonstration of the power of MSM propaganda.
        Without MSM propaganda, the Civil Rights Movement would have gone nowhere. The MSM gave that vile movement cover every step of the way. The anti-white Cultural Marxists, especially (((those anti-white Cultural Marxists))), have been manipulating Westerners a long, long time.

      • Your statement is illogical. Let’s say you don’t accept death. Can you do anything about it ? No of course.
        If it’s natural then nothing can be done about it because it was meant to be. ( thanks Yahweh ! )

        • 1) Nothing illogical about what I’ve said. Are you familiar with the naturalistic fallacy?
          As to “customary” claim: Again, that something is customary is no reason whatsoever to defend it. Shoot, murder, theft & mayhem are customary to Sub-Saharan Africa. They are all quite common. Are you going to defend those things now?
          2) As to the “natural” claim: Death is a necessary element of biological existence. It is insurmountable. Thus death is different in kind than many other natural phenomena like “rape” or “incest” or “evil”. You can basically put an end to these things or at least reduce their frequency drastically. Death is basically a different matter. At the very least, evil can be drastically reduced via ethics, social controls, proper governance, right thinking, etc. If it can’t be, there is no reason debating any of this. Death is not practically or theoretically eradicable, although we do sort of battle/reduce it in a way, in the sense that we have various means (psychologically, also via medicine) to extend life.
          3) Saying something is “natural” is just to say that it occurs naturally or is found in nature at some frequency. This doesn’t mean that it can’t be minimized by technology and/or social/governmental structures. A lot of very natural phenomena (consider “famine”) we have been able to minimize or neutralize through various types of advances. Evil need not be tolerated. It probably always will exist in some form or to some degree, but that is no reason to not rail against it at every opportunity.

Leave a Reply to TexanMike Cancel reply