Tag Archives: anti-whites

The Mistake Of Identifying As “Right” Instead Of “Pro-White”

Whether “right wing” or “alt right” or “conservative” or even such right-associated terms as “libertarian,” all the label does is create a ready made excuse to:

a) Exclude Whites from the ingroup.

b) Include non-Whites in the ingroup.

c) Argue over whether an otherwise pro-White person or policy is truly “right wing” or “alt-right” or “conservative” or “libertarian.”

Fortunately, this dynamic helps to clarify things quickly. A Jew like Ben Shapiro can be “conservative” and “anti-left” and “anti-progressive” – he can even be a nationalist (which he is, he’s an Israeli nationalist, a Zionist.)

But Ben Shapiro will never be “White” and he’ll never be a “White Nationalist.” A figure like Ben Shapiro will always, 100% of the time, support Jewish nationalism while attacking White nationalism – any nationalism for Whites. Shapiro will attack immigration restriction in Ireland, Poland, Canada, Italy, and Hungary, but will always support immigration restriction in Israel.

This double standard makes it easy to see exactly what Ben Shapiro is. In theory, there could be an Ashkenazi White Nationalist, there could even be a Zionist Jew that supports White Nationalism, but what’s the point of chasing unicorns?

There are many Blacks and Asians and Arabs that are conservative, right wing, and even nationalist, but they will never be citizens – one of the in-group – in a White nation.

So all being a “conservative” or “right winger” does is to offer up ready made excuses for not being pro-White. To put “conservative principles” or “right wing ideology” above the survival of your race, your people, your family is autism in the extreme, an anti-adaptive trait.

You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms, and you can’t hug a White child with conservative ideology. Ideologies are merely words, a construct of language. People are living beings, flesh and blood. Why should words and ideals take precedence over your own flesh and blood, your own family, your own children?

Commenter Curmudgeon at TOO makes a related point:

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/11/14/pittsburgh/

On another note, I have long thought the term Alt-Right was a recipe for disaster. The old Left/Right paradigm is long dead, and the sooner nationalists own that label, the better. The majority of people know someone who has a family member or friend that is struggling with economic issues. It is much easier to answer the nonsensical globalist gibberish directly, by answering every statement in terms of ‘why do you care more about the well-being of someone living in a foreign country, whom you have never met, than the well-being of family, friends and neighbours’, and ‘How does immigration make your unemployed neighbour’s life better?’ The truth is, the globalists have no logical answers to these hard questions. Exposing them to folly of their own shallow answers will not turn all of them, I personally have made several unsure of the globalist rant, and turned a few.

“Alt Right” simply became a way to add “right wing” baggage into a promising pro-White movement and led to its destruction. “Neo-reaction” seems to have been created precisely to keep Whites arguing over an ideology and never make racial distinctions – especially, to prevent any mention of the anti-Whiteness of Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, NRx goes to hysterical extremes to include anti-White Ashkenazi Jews as “neo-reactionaries” while anathematizing pro-Whites who object to anti-White Jews or won’t subscribe to various hypothetical intellectual obsessions.

It’s putting the cart before the horse. Without Whites, there aren’t going to be any conservative Whites, nor libertarian Whites. So like a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it, no Whites are going to hear you signalling how principled you are about private property rights and the non-aggression principle.

Do you think any non-Whites will care what some conservative, “right wing” libertarian ideologue White thinks about anything?

I’m not White supremacist enough to think they would, or should.

Vice Media Attacks Mormons – While Masturbating to Pornography Featuring Mormons

If I was creating a religion from scratch, it would probably look a lot like Mormonism. They get all the key features right:

1. Early marriage of young couples.

2. Patriarchy.

3. Just-this-side of explicitly White.

4. The right amoung of mystery and ritual and a hierarchy that is kind of secret.

Interesting line, the interviewee suggests that religion makes people slutty, and the interviewer agrees and says “it worked for me.” This is a post-hoc rationalization of what actually happens – what actually happens if the early sex drive is not steered into marriage, it will go crazy.

Since anecdotes are evidence to these people, my own. One girlfriend and I actually staged a “wedding” after we had been together for a year. It was very paganish. She had her bridesmaids and I had my grooms, it was in an amazing part of nature. It was utterly sweet and extremely erotic.

Neither of us had the experience of the traditional build up to a young marriage – we were both sluts at that point and were living together and decided to do it on the spur of the moment. Our sex life was uber-fantastic but both of us – apparently – were yearning for something a bit more. Some ritual, some commitment, some “magic” in the antropological sense.

Like a bunch of pagans, we immediately retired to a tent and consummated the marriage with just the slightest hint of privacy.

She wasn’t religious at all, and I had abandoned religion years before. It wasn’t religion that made us slutty, it was in fact the lack of it.

I find it interesting how HATED the Mormons are by the secular culture. The Vice interviewer even mocks a Mormon anti-porn conference as “a thousand white people who claim to not masturbate.” (NOTE how the attacks on Whites are paired with the anti-sex attitudes of replacing sex with masturbation.) Just watch how hostile Vice is to the Mormons while in another video they absolutely fawn over the Sascha Gray porn star.

Vice lies and conflates “anti-porn” with “anti-sex” which obviously just isn’t true. Porn does not equal sex. In fact, as porn has become mainstream – teenagers are having LESS sex than ever.

(Also note the appeals to authority, “the psychiatric community finds no harm in porn” – which is not true. Scientific studies have shown that porn IS addictive by the same mechanisms that various other drugs and vices are addictive. It just shows how fragile the anti-sex, anti-monogamy left’s consensus really is.)

Interestingly too that the pornographer they interview:

1) Literally finds the Mormon marriage rituals to be highly erotic. There goes the idea that they are “anti-sex!” Do leftists even TRY to make sense?

2) The pornographer is a dyke, and I’d bet is extremely masculine looking/presenting. So it’s pretty obvious that all those pretty blonde girls in white dresses she is filming is just her making up for all those pretty blonde – and straight – Mormon girls that wouldn’t dyke out with her in high school. Porn is her way of getting back at all the normal people. Pure resentment. If she was a man, the rad feminists would call what she is doing “misogyny.” She’s the lesbian version of the Asian manosphere “Supreme Gentleman” that murdered all those people in California.

3) She tries to imply something sinister about Mormon male authority figures – OF COURSE.

I think it’s pretty obvious who has a healthy sexuality and who does not. Mormons marry young, are extremely PRO-SEX, and have big families.

Vice Media employees watch porn, masturbate, have OBVIOUS hang ups about sex, and have a TINY fertility rate. They probably have more abortions than live children.

Mormons are Pro-Sex, while Vice Media – and the anti-white left – are ANTI-SEX. They are like something out of 1984’s Junior Anti-Sex League.

This is an aspect of the culture war that the pro-whites and “the right” (whatever that means) could WIN. But they don’t have a rhetoric about sex in the modern era. Partially, because before the sexual revolution, they didn’t need one. The sexual revolution hit and they just did what conservatives do, tried to ignore it, then made some concession, then ran and hid.

That’s why you need Hipster Racist, who knows how to take on the anti-sex forces of the sexual revolution. The pro-white “right” needs to explain how utterly PRO-SEX we are, and how the entire purpose of the Politically Correct, anti-White left is to spoil healthy fun sex for everyone.