Commentary

Your Own Private Hitler

Your Own Private HitlerMy calling and quest from the beginning has been defined by simple advocacy for and autonomy for White folks, my own White American folks in particular. It’s a positive goal, and a patently moral one. My opponents rarely challenge it, since to do so would be to stand in opposition to a people thriving and expressing themselves. For all the classical Left’s talk of rights and freedom, they necessarily deny our right to free ourselves from their social engineering project. They instinctively grasp that oppressing our identity group and its free expression contradicts their own stated ideals, and rhetorically pivot accordingly.

When opposing a man who’s standing on something right and righteous, your first prerogative is picking him up and standing him elsewhere. My supposed “real” position varies by context. When chatting with Daryl Lamont Jenkins and his minions shortly before he dispatched his minions on me, the conversation was about why I was fixated on targeting and oppressing non-Whites. When speaking with Jews and their lackeys, the conversation was about why I was fixated on targeting and oppressing Jews. While engaging a student forum at Indiana University, my fixation on oppressing women’s rights and my “telling” fixation on oppressing homosexuals were questioned.

I’m your own private Hitler (the villainous bogeyman, not the controversial German chancellor). Behind all my slick and smiling advocacy “for my people” is a nefarious agenda to oppress, attack, or even kill you, in particular. Heimbach recounts that at last year’s May Day protest, a man jubilantly exclaimed from the opposing crowd, “Nazis! Real Nazis!”

That precious moment sums up the eagerness our opponents have for an oppressor in this latter-day victory garden of theirs where even conservative demagogue Glen Beck is fighting “hetero-fascist” Christians abroad, the conservative Republican challenger is eagerly touting his mixed-race family while championing open borders, and our national policy defends systematic indoctrination of children with pro-homosexual propaganda as a human rights matter. How does their integrally reactionary worldview deal with having routed every villain? They imagine them, twisting the words of myself and other critics accordingly.

Whether it’s lying on a hotel room floor with colored markers and drawing up pro-White banners alongside Jewish friends, collaborating with Black Panther radicals, promoting my “white knight” agenda in men’s rights circles, or getting along just fine with numerous homosexuals, I’ve made it vividly clear with both my rhetoric and my actions that I’m not motivated by reflexive hatred or “bigotry”. None of those acts were posturing or compromising in nature, and none of those compromise or conflict with my message and motive from the beginning: being a voice and an advocate for my people.

I used to bristle about that, but allowing our opponents to suck us into arguments about whether or not we’re evil is unwise. Even if you completely win the argument, you’ve merely brought yourself to square zero with the audience and at the cost of your time and platform. I don’t follow the logic as far as George Lincoln Rockwell followed it, to openly masquerading as “evil nazis” for attention and impact, but I no longer allow the fear of being depicted as such influence my work. Some of our most gifted and effective advocates have “baggage” of some sort, and the activists without baggage aren’t that active. What use would a man who never travels have for baggage?

Our opponents are notoriously neurotic and obsessive, and their theory of mind for their opponents reflects that. Our elites have no spirit of stewardship toward their folk, and struggle to imagine why any White American could possibly look to its working class and its welfare with anything other than fear and loathing. Their own “charity” is a duplicitous and posturing farce, and they naturally assume our sacrifices have motives as dark and self-serving as their own. They can’t wrap their minds around the possibility that I am what I claim to be: a friendly and reasonable man who’s looking out for my extended family.

Up until recently, we have (somewhat accurately) been defined as the paranoid and insecure faction, constantly fearful of infiltration, infestation, and subversion. The institutional triumph of the Left and our own steady transition from paleoconservative to more radical future-oriented prerogatives have flipped the script. Now the institutions dominated by Leftists, minorities, and Jews are fearful that “evil nazis” could be lurking among them.

A recent strategy document published by Political Research Associates–“The Right Hand of Occupy Wall Street: From Libertarians to Nazis, the Fact and Fiction of Right-Wing Involvement“–shows precisely how McCarthyite the folks Joe McCarthy warned us about have become. It explains how “a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists” thwarted and subverted the nationwide Occupy protests. Among the villains? Yours, truly.

White nationalists also participated in some of the movement’s less high-profile iterations, such as Occupy Indianapolis (OI). Matt Parrott of Hoosier Nation—the local branch of the White nationalist American Third Position Party, now called the American Freedom Party—attended OI, and made a video interviewing participants. He wrote: “Our experience was peaceful and positive, affirming my suspicion that the majority of the Occupy Indianapolis attendees were fed up with the same corporate and federal abuses the majority of the Tea Party protesters are fed up with.”23 His colleague “Tristania” posted a comment on Stormfront saying that “it was a very good opportunity for outreach” and that “it’s about cherry picking people from those audiences and recruiting them to our side.”24

Parrott posted his video on the OI Facebook page, which the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement (HARM) took issue with. Although the video was removed, HARM eventually split from OI, claiming that it had “become a safe place for conspiracy-theories, antisemitism, racism, anti-worker sentiment, pro-sweatshop propaganda, and religious intolerance.” Other OI activists contacted HARM to complain of racial harassment at the Occupation itself.25 (A representative from the OI Facebook page denied that the administrators were racists or antisemites, and said that because of splits in OI, the Facebook page had no connection to the physical occupation by the time of the racial incidents.)

To be clear, we didn’t post our video to the Occupy Indianapolis page. HARM (Hoosiers Attacking Racist Matt) most likely did that, as part of their effort to steer the Occupy project from focusing on economic and monetary injustice to focusing exclusively on racial politics. HARM succeeded in destroying Indiana’s Occupy movement, leveraging paranoia about myself and my allies infiltrating them to tear the group into hostile factions. I didn’t participate, but I watched. It got nasty.

I don’t know what “racial harassment” actually occurred at the Occupation itself, but I’m skeptical that “racism” actually presented itself at the most concentrated collection of Leftist radicals in the state’s two hundred year history. It didn’t have to. The madness of crowds guarantees that a large enough mob which shares a delusion will experience their desired illusion.

We’re witnessing the last stage in the life-cycle of their Progressive movement: senility. Incapable of developing new thoughts, this movement whose prime was in the middle of the 20th Century can’t help but think of all threats and challenges in terms of Hitler and Nazis. While Jews have a special fixation on and hatred of “evil nazis”, this phenomenon reliably applies to white gentile and minority ideologues as well.

All of the contemporary political flash points centrally involve ethnic identity, religious zeal, and resisting Jewish influence to one degree or another. The American Left has absolutely no paradigm or vocabulary to digest the direction the world’s heading in. And that’s okay. They’re not breeding. They’re not reaching the youth. Their institutions are weakening and crumbling. If anything going on in contemporary politics is actually reminiscent of Hitler, it’s the Left being as defeated as Hitler in his bunker during the final days of WWII.

  • steve

    A very good article on Counter-Currents that compares the Olympic opening and closing ceremonies at the Winter Olympics in Russia and the British Olympic ceremonies from 2 years ago. Particularly the opening ceremony for the Anti-White British Olympics.

  • No-one is innately superior because of the colour of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation. Preoccupation with a sense of one’s own superiority is the embodiment of conceit, and doesn’t go down well with the majority. What resonates more, and is better for peace and prosperity, is to strive to be the most ethical person you can be, the kindest and friendliest person you can be, and to assert your own strengths through personal aspiration to achieve your own potential and your own goals, so long as those goals don’t involve trampling all over others striving to achieve theirs.

    No-one is fully white, nor fully black, nor fully mongoloid, nor fully semite, no matter how you want to separate humanity into warring species. Only a minority are fully gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Nor is there a single authoritative religion with a single spokesperson who can prove all the others apostate, or even that there is a god at all. Religion however is a personal choice, whereas one’s gender, race and sexual orientation are bestowed by Nature at birth. Since these cannot be changed by the individual, who never gave his or consent to be conceived in the first place, it makes no sense to mistreat people on the basis of their gender, race or sexual orientation. Even though religion is a choice, and one that reflects the character of the person making it, I don’t believe people should be persecuted for their religious belief either, so long as that belief doesn’t involve trampling all over my civil rights. If they do that, then it’s gloves off, because then I am fighting for my rights.

    • Stubbs

      No-one is fully white, nor fully black, nor fully mongoloid, nor fully semite, no matter how you want to separate humanity into warring species.

      It’s far more likely that I have DNA from another species of hominid – Homo Neanderthalensis – than I do from the Negroids or Mongoloids. “Species” is no more inviolate than race is; the difference is a Nazist like myself is already accustomed to biological inequality, whereas someone like you is emotionally invested in “human” homogeneity.

      Religion however is a personal choice, whereas one’s gender, race and sexual orientation are bestowed by Nature at birth. Since these cannot be changed by the individual, who never gave his or consent to be conceived in the first place, it makes no sense to mistreat people on the basis of their gender, race or sexual orientation.

      “Mistreatment” is always wrong; otherwise it would just be “treatment”.

      Unless you’re either a tree or a cannibal you have little ground to talk. You kill and eat organisms because Nature bestowed non-humanity upon them; lobsters and eggplants never consented to their conception as crustaceans and squashes, but you gobble them up just the same.

      (Hell, if anything it should be the reverse from your model; a person who chooses worthlessness might be shown their error and redeemed, a person who is intrinsically worthless will always be so.)

    • Orthodox Mike

      What in God’s name are you constantly on here? Do you have some sort of sick queer crush on the Matts? I get tired of your inane sheepish blathering on and on with all your liberal nonsensical ramblings of egalitarian utopian falsehoods. Sexual orientation as being predetermined is NOT a proven thing, and even if it was, we, as Christians, believe we live in a Fallen World and are part of a Fallen Humanity. God did not create these things such as Sodomites. These are the sick perversions within the evil fallen heart. Spare me your ill diatribes that come from an unrepentant fallen mind.

    • Unless you are gay, you cannot know whether it’s a decision or not. You have no practical experience of being gay. Therefore, you must accept the testimony of those of us who are gay, and what we feel. I was attracted to males well before I knew what sex was and I have never had romantic notions for females.

      I would have more respect for you, if you simply admitted you don’t know what it’s like to be gay and cease judging us. Leave it to your God to fix me up if I need fixing. If you don’t think he’s up to the job, then you’re certainly not in charge of me. If there is a god, and that god is all powerful, knows everything and created everything, then he knew in advance he was going to create Gays. It is counter-intuitive to suppose he would make upwards of 350 million Gays (5% of 7 billion) alive in the world today, just so we could be converted into Straights. Therefore, God is OK with Gays.

      Who are you to “believe” anything about the reality of my life? It isn’t your place, and you’re out of line. The problem with you “christians” is you think your right to free speech and to evangelise your religion supersedes anyone else’s right to exist free from prejudice and discrimination. You don’t know when to step off. I didn’t “choose” to be a homosexual. This is how I am, and I can’t change it. Your opinion about it is irrelevant.

      Speaking of god, which god?

      There are over 41,000 denominations of Christianity alone, to say nothing of the over 70 sects of Islam, Orthodox and Reform Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism.

      As an example, let’s take just two denominations of Christianity, Catholic and Anglican. The Catholic God condemns Birth Control, Women’s Ordination and Divorce, whereas the Anglican God was created by divorcee King Henry VIII and has no problem at all with female clergy or family planning. There is no rational way these two diametrically oppositional gods can be one and the same entity.

      Moreover, I can name over 35 denominations of Christianity who welcome LGBT with open arms, hearts and minds, with full sacraments including communion, ordination to the clergy and same sex marriage. For example, Quakers and Episcopalians. Why should THEIR religious belief not be respected too?

      Then there’s the Bible, translated into over 450 conflicting versions in English alone, never mind the over 590 in other languages. The word ‘homosexual’ did not exist in either the Ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Ancient Greek of the new, as it was not invented until the 19th Century by the Austrian novelist Karl Maria Von Kertbeny and was defined along with heterosexuality by the German psychiatrist, Krafft-Ebbing. If it’s in your bible, it’s a false translation. Jesus Christ never mentioned homosexuality, nor is it listed in Moses Ten Commandments.

      Religion is designer product. You can just choose one that fits your animus against gay people. Religion invades people’s lives and spreads unhappiness. Religion is the scourge of the homosexual, looking at the damage done in its name in religious wars in Ireland, Iraq and Africa, I consider it is the scourge of humanity itself.

    • Orthodox Mike

      Once again I ask, Then why are you here? We are Christians, we believe that humanity is fallen. Mankind brought that about by listening to the devil, not God. God doesn’t create people that cannot naturally reproduce. You obviously not being a Christian do not believe that we are in a fallen state, therefore you can justify any old thing, as most people do. I do not have that luxury. I am commanded to struggle to conform my mind to the mind of the Church – which is the Orthodox Church- the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We do not hate anyone, but we DO hate Evil and the Evil One. Homosexuality is considered an abomination. The Old Testament said so, and St Paul confirmed it in his Epistle to the Romans. All the Church Fathers and Saints corroborate. Period. End of story. If all the schismatics and heterodox wish to distort this truth and create a myriad of rebellious “churches”, then the onus is on them. I would hate to be in those “pastors’” shoes on the Day of the Great White Throne Judgment for teaching lies. Lying to sinners, of whom I am one myself, is not love but the most insidious and deceptive form of hate that there can be. To make you “feel good” they send your soul straight to hell. Some “love” that is. So what if the word “homosexual” wasn’t use; it is still quite apparent what the Ancients were speaking of. You are playing that same little “word game” that all Progressives play.. I wish you would go find an Islamic/Sharia site to play these games with, or a Haredi Jewish site, and see how well you are tolerated there. But your types do not ever go bother them, do you? Always have to criticize European heritage and Christendom. Take advantage of our altruistic and forgiving nature, whereas a Muslim or Orthodox Jew wouldn’t think twice about disemboweling you or whatever else barbaric act . Some of us still have a backbone. Some of us still know Right from Wrong, Good from Evil, and don’t let the Hollywood Nexus define these things for us, but rather let the God of the Universe decide it as He is the Ultimate Judge and defines Right and Wrong. I will pray that you turn from your ungodly, unrepentant ways before you stand before the Throne and have to account for your life.

    • Your post is full of logical errors.

      You do not speak for all Christians. You speak for yourself. There are many Christian religions who believe differently and who welcome people born gay, like me. You base your belief on “the Bible: but which one? The Bible has many conflicting translations. The Catholic God believes different things to the Anglican God. So, which of those two is correct?

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “Preoccupation with a sense of one’s own superiority is the embodiment of conceit, and doesn’t go down well with the majority.”

      How could any sane, remotely mentally competent individual, read Parrott’s piece and conclude that he was doing this? Derek, as is usual, your lunacy is showing.

      Derek: “No-one is fully white, nor fully black, nor fully mongoloid, nor fully semite, no matter how you want to separate humanity into warring species.”

      Ah, that didn’t take long. Back to justifying white genocide again, I see. Anti-whites know exactly who whites are when it is time to discriminate against them, mock them, or gloat over their demographic decline. But when those whites start to advocate for their people, suddenly “no-one is fully white…” blah blah blah.

      You really don’t see it, do you? Cultists normally don’t.

      Now, when are you going to provide proof for your astonishing claim in an earlier thread that homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual relationships?

    • Quote with a link, the exact place where you claim I said “homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual relationships.”

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “Quote with a link, the exact place where you claim I said “homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual relationships.”

      Are you denying that you claimed this, or strongly implied it? Is it true or not? (and by the way, why did you put it in quotes? I didn’t)

    • The thread is there, find my words and quote back to me.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “The thread is there, find my words and quote back to me”

      LOL! The idea that I’m going to read through all of your voluminous drivel is insane. It’s really simple: are you claiming that homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual relationships, or not? If that’s in fact not your position, then just say so. Being honest just kills you, doesn’t it?

      Nobody is doing your bidding, Derek. You can’t hide behind games here. It’s really simple: what is your position? Assuming you aren’t insane, you know what you own position is, don’t you? So is it your position that homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual relationships, or not?

    • Orthodox Mike

      Romans 1:

      20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

      21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

      22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

      23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

      24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

      25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

      26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

      27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

      28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

      29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

      30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

      31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

      32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

      Pay attention, unrepentant sodomite, to verses 26-28 in particular.

    • You made the claim. It’s up to you to substantiate it with evidence.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “You made the claim. It’s up to you to substantiate it with evidence.”

      If my memory is in error, why don’t you just clear that up right now? Is it or is it not your position that, on average, homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual relationships? My memory is that you at least strongly implied that, but hey, I’m far from perfect. If I’m misremembering, you can clear that up right now.

      You don’t need a link to state that such was not your position, and that my memory is in error. You don’t have to live your entire life as a lying sneak who hides behind silly games. Just be honest: is my memory mistaken, or not?

    • Since you resorted to quoting the Bible at me, allow me to quote some back. I note you find it easy to obey any commandments you perceive relate to homosexuality (which is much contested in theological academia), since you’re not homosexual. And you believe every word of the Bible was written by God and is the literal truth, and must be obeyed word for word. But how many of the below commandments from the list below do you obey?

      Killing ok:
      DEUTERONOMY 13:13-17 A town that allows the practice of more than one religion must be burned to the ground and its citizens slaughtered.
      DEUTERONOMY 21:18-21 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother… then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones.”
      DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 A woman not a virgin on her wedding night must be executed.
      DEUTERONOMY 22:22 If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, both adulterers be stoned to death.
      DEUTERONOMY 22:28-29 A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist.
      DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
      LEVITICUS 18:19 A married couple who have sexual intercourse during a woman’s period shall both be executed.
      LEVITICUS 20:9 “Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
      NUMBERS 15:32,35 Anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath must be killed.

      Marriage:
      • No marriage will be sanctioned between people who have been divorced. (Matthew 5:32)
      • No marriage shall be sanctioned between Christians & non-Christians. (2 John 1:9-11, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
      • No marriage shall be sanctioned in which the wedding ceremony shall occur during the women’s menstrual cycle (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18, & Ezekiel 18:5-6)
      • No marriage shall be sanctioned of people of different races. (Deuteronomy 7:3, Numbers 25:6-8, 36:6-8, 1 Kings 11:2)
      • No marriage shall be sanctioned involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passwed away shall refrain from intimacy & pleasure for the remainder of their lives. (1 Timothy 5:5-15)
      • No marriage shall be sanctioned for any man who has had sexual thoughts of any woman other than his intended (Matthew 5:28)
      • A woman not a virgin on her wedding night must be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
      • If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, both adulterers be stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 22:22)
      • A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
      • If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. (Mark 12:18-2)
      Polygamy OK:
      • Solomon … had 700 wives … and 300 concubines. (1 Kings 11:2-3)
      • Rehoboam … took 18 wives, and 60 concubines. (2 Chronicles 11:21)
      • But Abijah waxed mighty, and married 14 wives…. (2 Chronicles 13:21)

      OLD TESTAMENT
      DEUTERONOMY 7:3 No marriage shall be sanctioned of people of different races.
      DEUTERONOMY
      13:13-17 A town that allows the practice of more than one religion must be burned to the ground and its citizens slaughtered.
      DEUTERONOMY 21:18-21 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother… then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones.”
      DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 A woman not a virgin on her wedding night must be executed.
      DEUTERONOMY 22:22 If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, both adulterers be stoned to death.
      DEUTERONOMY 22:28-29 A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist.
      DEUTERONOMY
      25:11-12 If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
      EXODUS 4:11 “The LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?”
      EZEKIEL 18:5-6 No marriage shall be sanctioned in which the wedding ceremony shall occur during the women’s menstrual cycle.
      KINGS 11:2 No marriage shall be sanctioned of people of different races.
      LEVITICUS 11:6-8 Outlaws the playing of football (touching the skin of a dead pig).
      LEVITICUS 11:9-12 Eating shellfish or pork strictly forbidden.
      LEVITICUS 18:19 A married couple who have sexual intercourse during a woman’s period shall both be executed.
      LEVITICUS 19:19 May not wear polyester cotton shirts (wearing garments of mixed fabrics forbidden)
      LEVITICUS 20:9 “Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
      LEVITICUS 20:18 No marriage shall be sanctioned in which the wedding ceremony shall occur during the women’s menstrual cycle.
      LEVITICUS 21:17-21 “Speak to Aaron, saying, ‘No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the food of his God. | ‘For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, | or a
      man who has a broken foot or broken hand, | or a unchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. | ‘No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the LORD’S offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God.”
      LEVITICUS 25:45 Says it’s OK for a foreigner in your country to sell you their child, and equally OK for you to buy them and treat them as chattel.
      LEVITICUS 26:14-30 “Then if you walk contrary to me …you shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.”
      NUMBERS 15:32,35 Anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath must be killed.
      NUMBERS 25:6-8 No marriage shall be sanctioned of people of different races.
      PROVERBS 19:2 “…and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.” (running and therefore all athletic sports are a sin)

      NEW TESTAMENT
      COLOSSIANS 3:22 “Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.”
      CORINTHIANS 6:14-17 No marriage shall be sanctioned between Christians & non-Christians.
      CORINTHIANS 14:34 Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.
      JOHN 1:9-11 No marriage shall be sanctioned between Christians & non-Christians.
      MARK 10:1-12 Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced
      MARK 12:18-27 If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.”
      MATTHEW 5:28 No marriage shall be sanctioned for any man who has had sexual thoughts of any woman other than his intended.
      MATTHEW 5:32 No marriage will be sanctioned between people who have been divorced.
      TIMOTHY 2:12 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”
      TIMOTHY 5:5-15 No marriage shall be sanctioned involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passed away shall refrain from intimacy & pleasure for the remainder of their lives.

      Jesus said the Old Testament must be obeyed – every word of it:

      1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
      2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)
      3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
      4) “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

  • Robert Pinkerton

    On the subject of “baggage,” you and your colleagues should read http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/no_author/hitler-was-a-leftist%e2%80%a8/

  • Trainspotter

    Orthodox Mike: “What in God’s name are you [Derek] constantly on here? Do you have some sort of sick queer crush on the Matts?”

    Mike, he is here because he is a pervert. I don’t refer to his homosexuality, which I couldn’t care less about. It’s his mind and his spirit that are twisted.

    In all of my debates with anti-white liberals, Derek is the finest specimen that I can recall in terms of an almost zombie-like recitation of canards and low level, after school special propaganda lines. He is utterly incapable of meaningful intellectual discourse, preferring smears, misrepresentations, false quotations and outright lying.

    So, in the way of the perverted voyeur, he is both fascinated and repulsed by those who can actually think. But given that he himself is not capable of meaningful thought, he has to desperately fight against this “evil.” For Derek, opposition to a twisted System that mirrors his twisted soul, is an attack on him personally. He’s just a pervert defending perversity. He loves Big Brother, because Big Brothers loves disgusting perverts such as himself.

    That’s one theory, anyway. It’s entirely possible that he’s just a low grade wannabe who imagines that he is doing “research” on white nationalism (or some variant) in the hopes of getting published. If that’s the case, whatever he writes is guaranteed to be hopelessly awful, utterly inaccurate, and patently false. Which means it’s got a decent chance of success with the anti-white establishment that he owes fealty to. LOL!

    Basically, he’s either a perverted moron, or just a garden variety self-seeking moron. Take your pick.

    • Quote me examples (with links) of my “smears, misrepresentations, false quotations and outright lying,” to substantiate your allegation. At least two examples of each please, since you’ve used the plural for each, listed in enumerated form.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “Quote me examples (with links) of my “smears, misrepresentations, false quotations and outright lying,” to substantiate your allegation. At least two examples of each please, since you’ve used the plural for each, listed in enumerated form.”

      LOL! Does anyone EVER do what you demand of them? Anyone who is interested in reading the earlier thread under the piece “Letters from White America: Apple Trees and White History” is welcome to do so. They can read your lunacy there, if they have the stomach for it, and they can read numerous posts of mine where I exposed your dishonesty, falsely quoting people, gross errors of logic, smears, and other assorted lunacy that you exhibited.

      Including, unless my memory fails me, at least a strong implication on your part that homosexual relationships were more stable than heterosexual relationships. That’s a pretty bold claim (or implication, take your pick). So is that your position, or not? Tell me whether I’m in error, Derek. You don’t need a link for that. Just tell me. LOL!

    • You made the claim, you back it up with evidence.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “You made the claim, you back it up with evidence.”

      Ha! Honestly, I’ve never seen someone so pathetically try to evade, duck and dodge as you. If it’s not your position, if my memory is in error, why not just tell me? You can put this to bed right now. If my memory is in error, if in fact you never suggested, implied, or claimed that homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual relationships, I’d like to know.

      So I ask again: is it your position that homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual relationships? You don’t need a link. You can clear it up right now. Come on, Derek! Is my memory in error, or not?

    • No I never said that. You just made it up. Now please cite evidence of my “smears, misrepresentations, false quotations and outright lying.” Two of each will do.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “You just made it up.”

      Hardly. See post below.

    • Trainspotter

      The funny thing is that it really wouldn’t have hurt Derek that much to just be honest on this issue…but as with everything else, he just can’t do it.

      He prefers instead to tell an utter whopper, claiming that I just “made it up.” I have a rather lengthy post below putting the lie to that (and giving the money quote), but the takeaway point is this: how do you know an anti-white is lying? His lips are moving. Derek is Exhibit A. It really is amazing, but I guess being anti-reality for decades takes its toll.

    • To be credible you need to tone down your language, which is the exaggerated and emotive rhetoric of a child. This sort of language: “perverted moron, or just a garden variety self-seeking moron”, is not the language of a rational adult, nor of informed scholarship. Read any scientific journal and you will come to understand the value of the use of measured, moderate language. The more off-the-wall your language, the less credible you become.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “Read any scientific journal and you will come to understand the value of the use of measured, moderate language. The more off-the-wall your language, the less credible you become.”

      LOL! Given that this is a discussion thread and not a scientific journal…

      In any event, you really don’t want to go that route, Derek. I’ll be both frank and blunt: your writing is awful. If in fact, as you claim, you work at a university, it truly is an affront to civilization itself, not to mention all that is holy.

      I’m not just saying that because I don’t like you (I don’t), but really, it’s pitiful. Worry less about the harsh and unflattering language of others, and more about flattering the God of Halfway Decent Writing.

      Honor it, uplift it, make it ring….don’t just puke all over the place like you do. Show us something, for the love of all that isn’t hopelessly mediocre. But let’s be perfectly honest – you ain’t got it in you. I’m not even sure if Parrott has a college degree – you claim to work at a university – and he can write circles around you. How shameful is that? Are you so far gone that you don’t even feel the sting?

    • My part in this juvenile discourse will now cease because it consists of nothing but childish “he said/I said/you said” unsubstantiated, uncorroborated abuse and dilatory invective from you. I will give you the last word, knowing that you will be unable to resist another childish riposte.

      No-one of scholarship is reading this delusional thread anyway. After this you can post what you like and waste your time doing so.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “No-one of scholarship is reading this delusional thread anyway.”

      Of “scholarship?” Sigh, the ironies are so rich here.

  • Trainspotter

    Derek: “No I never said that.”

    You’re trying to weasel. I didn’t put words in your mouth, I didn’t ask whether you said a particular and exact quote. I asked you a question: is it your position that homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual relationships? I asked whether you implied, suggested or claimed such a thing, and if so, whether you have proof for such an astonishing claim.

    But we’ll just have to work with your weaselly answer: “No I never said that. You just made it up.”

    Out of thin air? My memory failed me entirely? Doubtful, but let’s see.

    I offer a direct quote of yours from the thread in question. Here is what you said, in an exchange with someone else, as my insults with you have nothing to do with your homosexuality:

    Derek: “I know large numbers of gay people. Not one of us fits your sneering and contemptuous portrayal of degenerates or cesspool. Most are in long term relationships, some as long as 40 years, while you heterosexuals are busy dismantling your “marriages” at 1 in every 2.”

    Now, in my opinion, while partially anecdotal, that statement strongly implies that homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual ones. It certainly is enough to give rise to my questions to you. I think it’s obvious why you said it at the time, but I’ve given numerous opportunities for you to clarify, to correct my interpretation, all of which you have desperately avoided.

    So yeah, I made it all up. You never claimed, implied or suggested any such thing. I had no basis to question you on this issue. Ha!

    You are now on record as backing down from any such claim. I doubt your homosexual buddies are going to be very happy with you, but hey, it’s an imperfect world.

    Readers can decide whether you’re playing fast and loose with the truth, implying things on the one hand, then using the other to evade and deny. One thing is certain in my mind: you are allergic to honest discourse. Smears and weaseling are all you know.

    Derek: “Two of each will do.”

    There are plenty of examples of your dishonesty, smearing and general misrepresentation on the thread at “Letters from White America: Apple Trees and White History,” which any reader with the stomach for it can view. But frankly we have a shining example right here: you clearly imply something, then when questioned, you deny, hide and run from it – claim the other guy made it up out of thin air. Derek and honesty just don’t mix.

    But mostly, Derek, I’m pleased that you do not believe that homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual ones. Thank you for conceding the point, though again, I doubt your buddies will care very much for what you did. But then, you were in a bind. You clearly implied something so astonishing that even you, who cares little for honesty or truth, had to run.

    • Niemca

      I actually have read studies supporting the notion that gay relationships are less contentious generally than straight people’s. But I attribute that to a couple of factors: 1) the comparative lack of children in gay relationships takes away the incredible emotional, logistical and financial drains and burdens which child-raising brings with it, hence the couple has far fewer pressures on them 2) with no kids to stay in bad relationships for, gays don’t stay in them and therefore don’t fight as much 3) many gays who aren’t serious about a ‘relationship’ don’t bother pretending to be and so simply engage in more casual sex, and since gays aren’t as socially encouraged or even forced into relationships they tend to maintain them for better reasons 4) there may be less gender role stereotyping in gays, which softens tensions between partners.

      All that said, I’ve known gay people who serially engaged in unstable and troubled relationship. And I’ve known tons of straight people that don’t. It would be hard to place which group’s trends dominate more.

    • Niemca

      I also don’t get the need to engage the issue of gay relationships so much that many pro-Whites seem to feel. Gay people in my world view have the right to exist in peace, but not to impose their agenda on others. When they are anti-White, which easily sums up Organized Gayness’ basic posture, they need to be called out on it.

      But I don’t get caring too much what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, even as anal sex grosses me out frankly (I hear not all gay men engage in it, and of course, some straights or I suppose lesbians do). I really don’t believe that 97-99% of the population is in danger of somehow ‘going gay.’ The topic just doesn’t seem to warrant such focus.

    • Trainspotter

      Neimca, I’m not particularly interested in the issue of homosexuality, and am not attacking Derek on that basis. If a homosexual can assist our cause, I’m fine with that. I’ve known homosexuals that I consider to be good people. What they do with other consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is not my concern, though such lifestyles should not be encouraged by the broader culture.

      We need to clean up the public square, but if we’re going to do that, I think we need to strengthen the concept of privacy. In other words, worry less about what people do in private, but insist that they hold to healthy standards in public. There needs to be a balance, unlike today where the public square is being converted into a cesspool, a celebration of the ugly and disgusting.

      As to the stability of homosexual relationships, I’m certainly no expert on that, and am not interested in debating it, but it has always been my understanding that those relationships tend to be highly unstable, with the typical homosexual male having far, far more sexual partners than the typical heterosexual. As in not even close. I think it is absurd, utterly ridiculous, to claim that homosexual relationships are as stable as hetero, much less more stable, but as always, I’m open to evidence, and don’t really have a dog in this fight either way.

      I only called Derek out on this issue for one reason and one reason only: I KNEW he’d end up lying about it. He didn’t even need to lie, but he just can’t help himself. So in the end, he had to tell a whopper, that I was making the whole thing up, that there was no basis for my questioning. What a clown he is.

    • Kindly provide evidence to contradict my statements which you claim are “smears, misrepresentations, false quotations and outright lying,”
      1. That heterosexual marriages are failing at 1 in 2 – prove this is false
      2. That I know gay people in long term relationships, some as long as 40 years – prove that is false

      My above points are rebuttal to the claim that homosexual relationships are short lived and unstable. Prove that this is not so.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “My above points are rebuttal to the claim that homosexual relationships are short lived and unstable. Prove that this is not so.”

      I made it absolutely clear that I’m not making any claims on homosexual relationships, that I’m not an expert, don’t care, and am not interested in debating the matter. I have a certain understanding of the issue just based on being alive and hearing this or that over the years, but am open to evidence that my understanding is incorrect.

      So what do you do? Demand that I debate the matter! LOL!

      The issue here is your basic dishonesty; your proclivity to lie constantly.

      I asked you, repeatedly, if it was your position that homosexual relationships were more stable than heterosexual relationships. I said that my memory was that you had at least strongly implied such, but that I could be wrong. I thought it astonishing that you would make such a claim without providing evidence, while demanding “links” from others about basic information on the level of 2+2=4.

      Making astonishing claims that are not widely understood requires supporting proof. Saying that the sky is blue or that 2+2=4 does not.

      Naturally, even though you could have answered me honestly, you instead choose to tell the utter whopper that I “made it up.” I just pulled it out of the ether! lol

      Actually, my memory didn’t fail me at all. Here is the money quote, your exact words in the earlier thread, again:

      Derek: “I know large numbers of gay people. Not one of us fits your sneering and contemptuous portrayal of degenerates or cesspool. Most are in long term relationships, some as long as 40 years, while you heterosexuals are busy dismantling your “marriages” at 1 in every 2.”

      I think that at least implies that homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual relationships, and certainly is enough to give rise to my question to you. But, liar that you are, you claim that I “made it up.” Out of thin air!

      Do you have a medical condition that requires you to be constantly dishonest? How bizarre you are.

    • You have failed to prove that I lied. You have therefore defamed me. I never said that homosexual relationships are more stable then heterosexual relationships when I quoted facts from my own experience, and easy to find information on the fail rate of heterosexual marriages.

      Since men are more promiscuous by nature than women, the most stable relationships are female homosexuals, and the least stable are male homosexuals with heterosexuals somewhere in between. Women demand monogamy of males in Western society where they have equal rights, but in patriarchal societies they have no chance. You only need to look at the polygamous biblical marriages, all polygynous, and NONE polyandrous, a practice continued by Mormonism until recently, and to this day in much of the Middle East.

      I stand by my statement that you quoted, and it’s completely consistent with the above. You don’t know whom I know, and your claims of lying, smearing et al are flailing paranoia.

    • Niemca

      Well I only read one study but don’t invest much in random studies in general. Derek, you all over the place. If there’s no such thing as an essence of Whiteness, then surely there’s no such thing as an essence of Maleness, either, is there? There used to be an expression in the lesbians that’s still bandied about occasionally: ‘U-Hauling it.’ That was the tendency in lesbians during a period to simply go out on a date once and then move in with one another. There has always been the opposite stereotype of gay men being very promiscuous. I have found in the arty circles in the Big City that the latter still holds a lot of truth in it, while the former seems to happen much less frequently, at least among the younger lesbians. Women without male providers were traditionally poorer and so had to pool their resources, and may have sought out more emotional support given that they were so anathematized.

      Mostly I’ve noticed in gay people that there is a broad range of attitudes towards relationships in both men and women. It just seems odd that Derek doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as Whiteness while he’s throwing around stereotypical essentializations of gender.

      Since I tend toward the tribalist/culturalist model of expressing my racial identification, there is no big inconsistency in my skepticism towards what seems to be a somewhat hardcore rigidity on gender roles on here (more hardcore in the pro-White movement generally, TradYouth is maybe softcore). There are biological differences in both males and females and in Whites and other races that are scientifically irrefutable. What’s up for grabs is the dimension and degree of these differences.

      Men and women seem very similar deep down to me, in their basic motivations anyway. It’s also fundamentally natural that they co-exist obviously. I don’t see the same natural order in the forced integration of the different races.

      I’d like to know how Derek you can claim there are such innate differences between men and women but none between Whites and other races. I’d say when it comes to IQ there appear significant differences between Whites and Blacks, for instance. Women aren’t that much less innately promiscuous than men in my observation. I could be wrong, but my sense is that women just hide or differently channel their libidos more. But there might be some differences in innate tendencies in how they channel their drives, etc. I don’t have all the answers.

      But I would like to know how Derek explains his inconsistency. You sound like the typical gay men who hates women but luuuuuuvs Diversity…

    • Niemca

      I meant to add that Trainspotter’s paraphrasing of Derek’s quote seems very accurate.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “You have failed to prove that I lied.”

      I most certainly did. I asked you a question about your position, and whether you had supporting proof. I explained that, based on memory at least, you had at least strongly implied that homosexual relationships were more stable than heterosexual relationships. I asked if that was indeed your position, or if I had misremembered. Predictably, instead of answering honestly, you then said I “made it up.”

      I didn’t make it up. I’ve given you your exact words (unlike the false quotes that you have attributed to me in the earlier thread), which clearly gave rise to my question of you. And, in my opinion, you were in fact implying something that you now admit to be untrue.

      You were extolling the stability of homosexual relationships in contrast to heterosexual relationships, and now you admit that the reverse is true. That’s how you operate. You took something possibly true (maybe you do know plenty of people in stable homosexual relationships), and used that to imply a falsehood: that somehow homosexual relationships are more stable than hetero.

      While not an outright lie, I consider that dishonest and cheap, it’s the way of the weasel. You then tell an outright lie when you say I “made it up,” when you knew perfectly well what my question was based on. A simple, honest clarification from the beginning would have solved the problem, but a weasel doesn’t think in those terms. He’s gotta weasel instead.

      Derek: “I never said that homosexual relationships are more stable then heterosexual relationships when I quoted facts from my own experience, and easy to find information on the fail rate of heterosexual marriages.”

      The quote is above for anyone who is interested. It is my belief that you said it to imply that homosexual relationships were more stable than heterosexual relationships, though you are wisely backing off of that now, but only because you were called out.

      Derek: “… and the least stable are male homosexuals with heterosexuals somewhere in between.”

      Well, not so sure about the female homosexuals, but I’m glad that you admit that the least stable are male homosexuals. You clearly didn’t want to acknowledge that, and dodged and dodged and dodged. It’s like pulling teeth with you. Truth hurts, I guess, especially when you’re anti-reality.

      Derek: “You don’t know whom I know, and your claims of lying, smearing et al are flailing paranoia.”

      Not only that, I couldn’t care less who you know. Anyone that would accept your company is of no interest to me. And you most certainly are a liar. Anyone with the stomach for it can look at the earlier thread to see your smears, your false attribution of quotes, game playing in lieu of honest discourse, and dishonesty. They can form whatever opinion of you that they care to, but my opinion of you is clear: liar.

    • I don’t “hate women”. My late mother was a woman, and I have friends and colleagues who are women.

      Re your comments on IQ, East Asians score higher than Whites in IQ tests, so your point about Whites being higher than some other races is moot. A lot depends on the format of the IQ, whether it is mathematically based, or literary. Whatever someone’s IQ is should not be a basis for mistreating that person. As soon as you say that it should then you open yourself up for mistreatment because there will always be someone with an IQ higher than yours.

      Neither race nor IQ should determine the worth of a person, nor should their gender or sexual orientation. If you really must go round finding reasons to judge people, then credit should be accorded more upon kindness, empathy and achievement. As to why you are more worthy to judge others then they are to judge you, well if you are religious, then your Bible commands you not to do that:

      “Do not judge others, or you yourself will be judged. You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” MATTHEW 7:5

    • I don’t lie.

    • Niemca

      Nice dodge of my question about your inconsistency on gender and race. Since you are so profligate with your judgments of both men and women, I’d have to point out that perhaps you might heed your own advice.

      Separation isn’t a form of judgment and that is what I advocate for the races. Every gay man I’ve known who hated women also had a mother. Duh.

    • My part in this juvenile discourse will now cease because it consists of nothing but childish “he said/I said/you said” unsubstantiated, uncorroborated abuse and dilatory invective from you. I will give you the last word, knowing that you will be unable to resist another childish riposte.

      No-one of scholarship is reading this delusional thread anyway. After this you can post what you like and waste your time doing so.

    • Niemca

      Dilatory invective, if it were, would be preferable to totally inconsistent emoting.

      Bye.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “I don’t lie.”

      You’re really too much, Derek.

    • Trainspotter

      Derek: “Whatever someone’s IQ is should not be a basis for mistreating that person.”

      Who here is advocating the mistreatment of people based on IQ? Nobody. But of course, Lil D implies otherwise. Such an honest man, he is. Not a disingenuous bone in his body.

      So, Derek, when did you stop beating your wife? Oh, er, “wife.” Whatever.

    • Trainspotter

      I’ve tried to make it clear that I am not interested in debating the issue of homosexuality per se, and understand that there are homosexuals who are doing their best for our cause. I’m not interested in what they do behind closed doors, nor do I seek a society that is so oppressive of them that they are required to pretend that they are heterosexual, and marry opposite sex partners that they are not interested in. To do so strikes me as absurd farce. Instead, they are a part of our folk, and should be free to live their lives as they choose, so long as they do not degrade the public square, or demand the right to raise the status of their predilection to the level of marriage between a man and a woman.

      I have engaged Derek on this issue for one reason only: to clearly establish that he is a liar. Derek absurdly implied that homosexual relationships are MORE stable than heterosexual relationships, which is a shocking, and of course self-serving, claim.

      Shocking and self-serving claims require proof, stating well known information on the level of 2+2=4 or the sky is blue does not. But that’s precisely Derek’s game: demand links from others for well known and established facts, while asserting absurd and ridiculous claims as truth, without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

      Anyway, after much dodging and avoidance on his part, I finally got Derek to admit that male homosexual relationships were less stable than hetero, which is the exact opposite of what he had implied (his exact words are quoted above, I won’t repeat here).

      Turns out, even in his admission, Derek smuggled in yet another lie. Here is the relevant quote from him: “Since men are more promiscuous by nature than women, the most stable relationships are female homosexuals, and the least stable are male homosexuals with heterosexuals somewhere in between.”

      See what he does here? He smuggles in the claim that female homosexual relationships are the most stable of all, yet of course he offers no proof (while demanding proof from others about facts that are well known and commonly accepted).

      In fact, it is at least doubtful that female homosexual relationships are the most stable, and certainly such a claim requires proof that Derek doesn’t provide.

      I thought this was interesting (spaces put in link, so adjust accordingly):

      ht tp://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/female-homosexual-behavior/

      This line, and at the link you can find footnotes, is especially interesting:

      “Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Consequently, the lesbians’ median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women. Lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men.”

      That’s pretty damning stuff, and indicates highly risky and destructive sexual behavior on the part of female homosexuals. It doesn’t deal directly with female homosexual relationships, but it suggests that lesbians themselves are not exactly a model of stability. At the very least, it raises serious, serious questions. The sorts of questions that Derek doesn’t want people asking. Yet Lil D, who demands links from others as whether the sky is blue, just tries to slip this one in.

      The takeaway from all of this is that, based on his comments on this site, Derek is fundamentally dishonest, as his anti-white ilk tend to be. When he is not lying outright, he is distorting, twisting, and implying things that are the exact opposite of the truth.

  • KO

    Great article, Matt. Good anecdotes. This seems like a good place to raise this question: should traditionalist youth get involved in Democrat and Republican political organizations, and stand up for whites (with common-sense policy positions) in those organizations at the grass roots level? If you build up allies within the parties, the parties start to need you and accommodate you. The Ron Paulites have succeeded impressively in leveraging their power in the GOP, not that it will not always be a tough struggle. But it occurs to me that a minority party is doomed to permanent insignificance in our two-party system. You can’t take European parliamentary politics as a model. What you want to do is exert power in the major parties and hold them to their true responsibilities. This can be done in either party, preferably both. The thing is, both parties are chock full of white people who can be appealed to to help white people, even if such help is cast in Democratic or Republican terms. The things that will help white people most will also help white Democrats and white Republicans: ending affirmative action, ending immigration, bringing back manufacturing, ending foreign aid, ending speculative foreign wars. Incidently, these things will help the majority of all other people too.

    • Niemca

      I think the remedy is just the opposite – we need a single issue for Whites party. It is the only way we can have any impact whatsoever on the next election. Both parties are completely controlled and run by anti-Whites. Have you heard about the governor of Wyoming…he was almost certainly bribed or blackmailed into inviting an army of conglese ‘refugees’ to his state.

      There is only The Party, and the sooner Whites understand this the better off we’ll be. Shed the ingrained reflex to work within the system. Most Whites actually know that neither party represents us. Most of my White friends simply didn’t vote in the last election.

      If we were able to harness the frustration and disaffection of the vast majority of Whites into one even semi-cohesive platform, we could leverage the election in a way we’ll never manage if we work under The Party. This would require pro-Whites to ease their rigidity on social issues. Simply take the issues you mention and add ones like black on white crime, etc., and coalesce them under a banner of pro-White. I think people in this movement spend too much time in it and with one another. It’s a bit of a hothouse in it’s own way. I come from the left and know White people on both sides of the spectrum.

      If someone had the nuts to simply go pro-White who was clean – articulate, accomplished (meaning through education or employment or military or some combo), authentic and even semi-charsimatic we could swing the next election in at least some direction that’s much better than the one we’re heading.

      I am utterly serious about this. I don’t know if people within this movement realize the degree of disgust that permeates the only semi-aware. With half the energy we spend babbling to each other channeled into a grassroots poltical movement, we’d win *something* fairly easily. But someone has to lead it. I worked for a presidential campaign in 2004. I’ve done political activism on and off for most of my life. This is our chance to achieve some critical mass, now or never.

      But pro-Whites need to drop the social issues as a main focus, for at least some time. Besides that they’re way too divisive (by partial jewish design), they’re battles that must wait till we still have a civilization and future to fight within.

    • KO

      Thanks for your reply, Niemca. Which of our plans is the most unrealistic? But they’re not mutually exclusive. The big parties need to have their feet held to the fire as much as possible to curtail their abuse of their white constituents. Then let them compete for the pro-white vote! A movement not congealed in a dismissible third party may sway both parties in the right direction.

      We might say that social issues can be resolved democratically, but we can’t resolve anything democratically until we get control of our borders, our immigration policy, our property (now manipulated by the bankers), and our livelihoods (bring back all feasible levels of production). We are not a people capable of making democratic decisions with those attacks on our collective life ongoing.

    • Niemca

      The thing is, if we ‘congealed’ at all, both parties would then be forced to answer to us. If we separate from the zionist-controlled parties, we can make demands. To win and seem at all legitimate one or both would have to concede something. I agree with you about social issues if it’s not clear.

      What I don’t agree with you or TradYouth is on time. We don’t have much at all so the 2016 presidential may not matter (I have several friends who think we will not have another even semi-democratically elected president). As we type, Wyoming has evicted white citizens from their land and is now preparing to flood the state with Conglese ‘refugees.’ In Connecticut the State is going door to door and repossessing guns from Whites. The Supreme Court just handed down a decision further eroding out constitutional rights; now an owner of a home has no rights against warrantless seizures if another resident allows the police in while the other isn’t ‘home.’ In NJ there’s a bill in the state congress which calls for taking away any onus on police to prove they had a reason to stop a driver. The surveillance state has given drivers some evidence to challenge police’s gestapo tactics; NJ is the home of Big Pharma, where anyone is just a random cop stop away from being interned and drugged. But increasingly even our homes are no longer safe at least if we have family members or roommates who can be easily swayed or harbor their own illicit agendas towards us, or both.

      Civil war is breaking out in Europe. One could say the same about the US without much exaggeration. When does TradYouth quit being so stodgy, intellectual and doctrinaire?

    • KO

      Niemca, you describe the situation we are in where government authority has no democratic authority and must be dealt with on a purly prudential basis. I.e., we do not believe in their rule of law, but we pretend to and meanwhile equip ourselves and if possible organize for armed resistance. In addition to setting aside social agendas, it may be we need to set aside racial agendas to prepare the widest possible resistance to the status quo state. Meanwhile, traditionalist activism can continue on all fronts, advocating for historic white American culture in both majority and minority parties, as well as churches and bowling teams.

  • Well done Trainspotter. Just about the same when you exposed the lies of YKW a few years ago… Taking into account how you beat also YKW then, I believe you must be credited as the champion of duels in the WN blogosphere. Cheers.

  • By the way, Trains and Parrott: I have been starting biographical articles at Metapedia. See for example:

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Tom_Goodrich

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Ward_Kendall

    If you are interested in an article describing any of you, send me an email with your autobiographical data, a pic if possible, etc.

Your Own Private Hitler

By: Matt Parrott


Matt is a founding member of TradYouth and is currently the project's Chief Information Officer. He's been active in the White Identity cause for years, primarily as a blogger but also as a street activist and regional organizer.
%d bloggers like this: