Recently, in one of his typical videos, Millennial Woes reacted to the subject of admitting women in the movement. He has a point: the presence of female vloggers sweetens the redpill, there’s no question about that. But he goes farther and chastises those who want a boys-only club. Right after the hour Woes said: ‘We have to mature and develop beyond the male insecurity and paranoia that clearly is in abundance in our movement, in our community…’
Like many in the Alt-Right movement Woes is an ahistorical simpleton. He completely ignores that, say, women occupied prominent positions at the beginning of the Church. Hitler called Christianity the Bolshevism of the Ancient World, and we can imagine the female SJWs of the Early Church fighting for the inclusion of those nonwhites marginalised in the provinces of the Roman Empire.
I have not ended my translations of the series Apocalypse for whites, let alone the huge Kriminalgeschichte. For the moment a picture is worth a thousand words:
These are the type of mudbloods and sandniggers that composed the first Christians. The image is taken from funerary portraits of faithful resemblance to Greek-speaking people residing in Egypt. (The portraits survived thanks to the dryness of the Egyptian climate.) Although it is impossible to say who these men or women were, all were early Christians according to the book where I scanned the image.
Female vloggers sweeten the redpill, yes. But ultimately, and pace feminised western males like Woes, what we will need are natural-born killers. Women have their place in the movement lecturing other women. But only men ought to lecture men. If Alt-Right women are lecturing men that only means that the latter are avoiding a real fight in the real world. Moreover, women usually lack the IQ to see why the info provided by the authors of Apocalypse for whites and Kriminalgeschichte (think of the above pic) is so relevant for the survival of the race.
Yes: the women that Woes defends score much higher in YouTube hits than Woes himself. And Woes scores much higher than this humble WordPress blog of yours truly. But sooner of later men will have to make a choice: remain feminised like Woes or, awakened with the unsweetened redpill, fight to the death.
Categories
62 replies on “Unsweetened pill”
That’s true what you write about our race needing natural-born killers. WN/Alt Right envisions activism as ‘waking up’ the masses. But they conveniently never hint too much at what lies beyond that because it will be bloody and involve the use of physical force to remove the millions of non-whites occupying formerly white territory.
Because they see acitivism as ‘redpilling’ people, they see that women can be useful in this role more than men as they draw more views. But as you say, there is no way around it—sooner or later white men must kill their enemies and white women will have to have enough children again. The natural gender roles will have to return if our race is to survive.
Of course, for example Lauren Southern has more views than TWDH. And Millennal Woes has more views than TWDH. But the Republican Party has more support than Richard Spencer. Just because one is popular doesn’t mean someone is closest to the truth. Ultimately, the Truth that this blog speaks cannot be avoided—either white males will fight in the sense of using physical force to expel Jews and non-whites as their forefathers did or the white race is finished.
i go existential, here. this present state we NS’ers find ourselves in ain’t about winning a popularity contest. and perhaps it ain’t about our getting the ultimate win in the present timespace dimension.
i won’t resort to the strategy/ tactics of the enemies. rather, i choose to depart this tenure optimistic that a multidimensional reality exists. imposing begets more imposing. violence begets violence. (joo behaviors.) i won’t buy those fuking tickets. i hope i learned that lesson once & for all on this trip .
let the evolutionary time constant work its wonders to bear the fruit of the better human over a few more K or M years. it ain’t gonna happen within a span of decades.
what will happen in the next decades is pax judaica. the bolshevik revolution, revision 2. and a helluva brutal hit on a planet that can do without anymore stealing/ killing/ destroying. (ah, don’t you just luv the joo? what the joo hath wrought!)
Cesar, how on Earth do you sit and watch a one hour long video of some degenerated Scot saying things which are absolutely wrong from start to finish (except the women making red pills sweeter)? You must have a lot of patience… Thank you for taking the time to genuinely enlighten us of the problems from those who would consider themselves ‘woke’ and thus entrap the more right-leaning young men who think that the person they see talking is the true opposition.
When I say degenerated, I do mean degenerated. The chain smoking which has thus left its mark on his yellowed teeth (fucking disgusting), the dishevelled, ‘I-DON’T-GIVE-A-FUCK’ demeanour (an attitude so typical among westerners, particularly Americans), and an overall unclean, water shy appearance which is extended with his slow, monotonous voice. He is just someone who I could never comprehend even trying to take seriously, by his outward appearance alone.
In the WDHR podcast with Jez Turner, you mentioned the difference between the social behaviour of the meds compared to the whiter Europeans, saying that the muds are more ‘soulful’ when they talk about certain issues: what they say comes from their heart. The more feminised Europeans, however, Woes among them, are more effeminate, constantly pandering to non-whites, women ETC.
It is such a shame that the pussy panderers are in countries where the more ‘soulful’ types are needed. That is what is great about this blog, you are one of these people that we need, Cesar.
We did have these types before, though: George Lincoln Rockwell, William Luther Pierce (although he promoted Entartete Musik) and Revilo Oliver.
Thanks for your words.
Very simple. I exercise daily on a stationary bicycle and cannot tolerate a single of the 100+ Cable channels (when something big happens though occasionally I watch Fox News). So I need something to listen while exercising. But in YouTube (which can be seen on my plasma TV) there’s nothing either! But still it’s better to listen something.
Curiously, YouTube on TV offers you a menu of videos based upon your recent watches. Already sitting on the bike I usually click, with the remote control, on the first or second option offered by the software.
So yesterday I had to endure this guy for a while as I was warming up this winter!
And how successful were “George Lincoln Rockwell, William Luther Pierce…and Revilo Oliver” at promoting the cause of whites? You’ll have to fill me in on all their successes, because as far as I can see, their methods met with absolutely no success whatsoever.
I would put it to you that they were failures. I would also suggest that Pierce in particular would readily agree with me, that in political terms he was a failure. Among the men you list, he was the one with all the brutal honesty.
I’m not defending the Alt Right – my view on what needs to be done differs to theirs and also differs to this blog – but for the moment the point is that the methods we choose must be effective, not just intellectually coherent and emotionally-satisfying for the more fanatical elements. In other words, to get anywhere, we have to be pragmatists.
I have been reading this blog for years now, and I find myself agreeing with 99.99999% of what is said by the author, but theoretical insights, while important, are only 0.000001% of the struggle. The praxis will bear hardly any relationship to the pure theory. Our ideas have to be translated into reality, into the world as it is, communicated to people as they are, not to the world as we would wish it to be, or to people who are as we would like them to be. You have to start at the start. You can’t start a journey halfway there and skip the difficult beginning.
We haven’t even started yet, we’re still like little children.
You missed my point.
These three men being successful or not is irrelevant. Unlike Woes and the rest of the Alt Right, they did not pander to every Tom, Dick and Harry that walked in their general direction.
Do you get to decide what is relevant and what isn’t on here? I think you don’t. I think I can decide for myself what is and what isn’t pertinent.
And I think the point you’ve just made rather reinforces mine! Putting aside your characterisation of what the Alt Right does (which I don’t believe is accurate), you are comparing one methodology with another and you are doing so in favourable terms for the three men mentioned, so my point speaks for itself. In reality those three men that you draw favourable attention to were failures (in their political careers), and their failure is highly relevant to the point you are attempting to make. That’s not to detract from the contribution made by those men, by the way: they were better men than me, but facts are facts.
Side-stepping facts isn’t a very convincing way to argue. It’s just a form of smarminess.
‘Do you get to decide what is relevant and what isn’t on here?’
It is my comment… So yes, I think I do.
‘the point you’ve made rather reinforces mine!’
I have noticed this pattern so endemic among you, Tom. If someone disagrees, you say that their comment is ‘self evidently ridiculous’ or that they have argued against themselves. You think after arguing like this, that you have the right to call me smarmy?
Them being successful was not my point. What I said was is that they did not suck everybody’s dick like Woes does. I thought this was pretty obvious.
GLR was not a failure. This is the same man who inspired a huge percentage of the population of the US to march with swastikas against the negrification of their neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, soon after, he was assassinated. But that is irrelevant to the original comment about him and the other two I mentioned.
The way you debate is quite British.
None of this waffle is a reply to what I have said. The fact is they failed. That is fact, just as surely as if I fail then I must accept that as fact.
I live in a world of facts. Telling me I have not understood your point and other evasive tricks doesn’t change facts.
I can sit here all day doing this. Facts are facts are facts are facts are facts are facts.
Unless you’ve got an interest in wasting time, you should be concerned with tactics and strategies that work, not with tactics and strategies that don’t work. This of course is mere common-sense, but it bears repeating.
To be fairly honest, Tom-Zee, my question for you is: Why are you even talking to me?
What is your point Tom, except trying to accuse my of wasting time which you yourself have wasted by replying to something which wasn’t really open for debate. I have mentioned three men’s names and you think this lends you good credence to argue with me and insult me? I never insulted you, did I?
Pretty pathetic.
I was not talking of strategies at all, I was talking about behaviour. Then you seem to be arguing with me in another comment about Woes not being a coward… Don’t make me laugh.
‘I live in a world of facts’
GREAT STORY!! You are evading my points though, and making your own which are completely irrelevant. You are giving me brain damage, here, Tommy, for fucks sake.
Explain your last paragraph to me, and explain to me the relevance it has to ANYTHING.
I am ‘evading’ what you are saying because you aren’t really saying anything noteworthy. You just think you are… typical Englishman.
More irrelevant waffle. My point stands. Congratulations – you’ve lost the argument.
Just going back to the actual point, you’re talking about those men as examples of the type we need. I’m pointing out they were failures, which again, is just fact. They were great men, better men than me, but they were still failures. Facts are facts. That’s relevant to any consideration of their contribution and the contribution of people who supposedly you think are of the same type.
On that latter point, as far as I can see the author of this blog is just a blogger and an author/self-publisher. I simply don’t see the comparison between him and the men you mention.
Of course, all this depends on the validity of your typology. It’s just a type you’ve invented, and so inevitably when confronted by criticism such as mine you will be evasive. We could potentially put anybody in this ‘soulful’ category: you’ve already included a non-Aryan blogger who says he supports Breivik but whose only risk-taking in life involves incurring library fines. So your ‘type’ is arbitrary and meaningless and just another pretentious way of slagging off people who, unlike you, actually do something.
My prediction – you will carry respond with lots more defensive waffle.
@ Tom Rogers,
Woes is good as a stepping stone and the same can be said of Tara.
I am not saying, ‘Go directly to my blog!’ as it’s very strong meat for normies (I myself had to step on several stepping stones from 2008 to 2010 to reach the other side).
But once you cross the psychological Rubicon women are useless as intellectual leaders.
The crux of the above post is the image I scanned yesterday from a pious book for Christians. On the back cover the editors said, ‘Women occupied prominent positions at the beginning of the Church’. What I wrote above is, in fact, a Spanish-English translated quote from the back cover.
Just consider what those Christian women did in the Ancient Word: they empowered non-whites in the Church. It’s their nature to feel pity. It’s men’s fault to liberate their women.
However decent Tara and others may be, the One who has managed to cross the river listens only enlightened men. For their own nature, women fall into suicidal pity just as Greggy falls to it, as I showed in my post today (perhaps because, like women, Greg who’s not hetero is thinking with his emotions on this subject).
Yes, I entirely understand all that, but there you are answering your own question, are you not? The purpose of the Alt Right is to provide a metapolitical front for heterogeneous white nationalism. That being the case, what is the objection to Millennial Woes? I know what YOUR objection is, and I know that my objection will be closely similar (I suspect we are very close ideologically), but we’re fanatics so our objections are not germane.
Blah blah blah. When I see of hear about ONE White man attacking or killing a shitskin, I’ll believe all this crapola about men being “leaders”. White men are too afraid of the Jews to do a single thing about the destruction of the West. Aka Whitey World. White men are too busy worshipping niggers via niggerball, or fapping to Japanese anime.
Better a has-been than a never-been. Where’s all the notable, non-mythical, non-reigned in by males female leaders?
Here I am. Odinia.org. While you were busy attacking women, I was trying to fight the Jew. What are you doing to help?
Dylann Roof.
>Male Insecurity
Here we see Woes showing his inner feminist. Feminists have long deluded themselves that male bravery against the female’s cowardice is nothing more than a facade. No doubt a projection of the female’s conniving nature.
The whole garbage that White Men must act like cucks (supplicating themselves towards White Women for their approval) is nothing more than modern feminism. Any man who seriously claims that a White Man must prioriztize winning the approval of White Women instead of performing worthy deeds that happen to draw a worthwile White Women is a feminist.
I watched that video. Your mis-interpretation is either disingenuous, or tragically stupid. Woes detailed, essentially, how the concerted, organized foul campaign of insults against the handful of females publicly speaking out for White Nationalism is completely destructive and counter-productive. And very subversive.
You brain trusts can’t seem to comprehend things that the dimmest orcs grasp. .
So, Aldo, you are confirming that White males are has-beens? That’s the spirit! Women, until VERY, very recently, have had no legal or social authority to be leaders. Your reply is completely non-sensical. Tragic.
> Women, until VERY, very recently, have had no legal or social authority to be leaders.
And how did that happen? The incapability of women that stems from their biology?
Women were given legal and social authority on a large scale starting a 100 years ago by White Men, and what a century it’s been! Women’s liberation has resulted in our race breeding several generations of the most contemptible, cowardly, degenerate white males (and females) in history! As Cesar says, the worst generations of whites since prehistory. Coincidence? I think not. Granting women ‘rights’ is part of the White Man’s decay, not a good thing.
And by the way, what does legal authority matter to be a leader? If women were meant to be leaders they would seize the opportunity like Cleopatra, Boudica, Joan of Arc etc., not wait millenniums for white men to give them legal authority.
Do no forget that women were given voting rights mainly due to their work in the factories in the Great War between the last empires of Europe.
If my work is good enough to steal word for word without giving me credit, as it has been for a couple prominent WN males such as David Duke, then surely I am good enough to lecture using my own words, despite being female. Virtually ever bit of my work calls for war, not pacifism. You spend you time putting forward the views of homosexual men and fighting and blaming women,rather than fighitng Jews. To me, that makes you less than a man.
Whicho homos am I promoting? (And by the by, this post is not meant to attack Alt-Right women but Woes.)
Are you not aware that Millennial Woes is a homosexual, a homosexual who attacks women?
But you have heard of O’Meara who promotes the anti historical idea of a homosexual “Mannerbund” and says that boys should not date girls lest they become “girl crazy”.
This site promotes Michael O’Meara, not James O’Meara!
@ Tom Rogers (5:17 pm):
I don’t believe that they failed, and per your comment in the other thread (that you don’t believe that people are stupid) we are seeing whites in a completely different way.
What failed were the millions of whites: worst generation ever since prehistory.
Rockwell et al were just like the prophets of the desert that the stupid Hebrews did not listen.
I wish that my books in Spanish were thoroughly translated (not only the selection under the cover of Day of Wrath) to show you that humans are not only stupid, but evil.
For the moment the only book I’d recommend you is Hellstorm.
Humans are stupid and evil, that sounds correct Cesar. I will say more. Humans are hypocritical, conniving scum (and I’m not saying I’m any different). I’ve come to the point where I think the term ‘innocent human’ is an oxymoron. Sort of in line with the Christian belief that all human are sinners, but not because the first man and woman were tempted by evil but because it is inherent in us as a species genetically.
I don’t see animals in the same way. Animals live more in harmony with Nature, they don’t destroy the environment and are true to their instincts whereas humans are flawed (at the moment). Of course, humans are more evolved than the animals (if there were only Negroes on the earth they would be the most evolved creature) but where one reaches heights, the potential for a fall is greater. As Nietzsche said, “man is a rope tied between the animal and the superman, a rope over an abyss”. Evil is, as Revilo Oliver noted (and I’m sure others have noted the same thing) a uniquely human characteristic, like Good. Animals don’t have this inborn choice between right and wrong.
In some ways I see little to lament in human extinction. But I do see possibility in Aryans to create a perfect human type; as Savitri Devi worded it “a natural human aristocracy, as beautiful, on its own higher level, as the four-legged kings of the jungle”. If Aryans were to become extinct I couldn’t give a damn about what happens to a non-white/coloured Earth. But I would feel bad for the animals.
Which is why we must take enormous risks to save the race, and like in the Turner Diaries, not hesitate to use stolen nukes if necessary.
Yesterday by the way I watched the last couple of minutes of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Nice ending!
Kubrick is the only film director who has made three films where humans are gone or about to be wiped out: Dr Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey (as the Star-Child is about to metamorphose the earthlings) and Artificial Intelligence (that he died before it was filmed, though Spielberg picked up Kubrick’s script and filmed it).
So, don’t you support the idea of exterminating cruel animals?
Of course I support it. In fact, I disagree with Walsh that there are no cruel animals in Nature.
Now that we have secret cameras throughout the animal world, it’s easy to spot those little mammals (similar to the horrible animal of your avatar) that, according to zoologists, not only kill to eat but kill as a hobby—serial killers!
In the last pages of my last book that will appear next year (I won’t write more books in Spanish after it) I mention a sci-fi novel by Arthur C. Clarke: a future Earth where most species are gone, including the carnivores.
If I manage to end Julian in the future, on Sundays I’m tempted to start adding chapters of that novel.
I’ve read Hellstorm already. I’ve read thousands of books. What of it?
If you don’t believe they failed, you’ll have to tell me about the Senators and Congressmen representing the National Alliance or some other neo-Nazi party. Forgive my shocking ignorance, but what are their names? Do fill me in. Or the state legislators? Or even just boards of supervisors members and mayors? The country must have thousands of elected neo-Nazi representatives by now, yes? No doubt you can link me to a site that lists these winners. Presumably the election of Obama was just an unfortunate aberration, or was it part of a cunning plan?
When I say they failed, I am not being insulting. I have already made it plain that they were great men and better men than me. I am not stamping on their legacy and I appreciate that they at least kept the cause alive, and if it wasn’t for them, I might not be aware of things. But they still failed. To say otherwise, just puts you in fantasy land. We must face facts.
Blaming the public is just a cop-out. There is no obligation on people at large to support white nationalism, and if they don’t, that suggests there is something wrong with us or our message. It does not make the public stupid. The minute somebody starts saying that the public are stupid is when I switch off, because I know that I am dealing with somebody who wants to blame others for his own failings, a trait that ultimately recesses into uselessness. It is noted that the people who say this spend their time on blogs – in other words, in essentially useless activity. The obligation is on us to persuade the public to vote for our candidates and put us in power. If we can’t find a way to persuade them to do that, and if we can’t otherwise find a way to seize power, then we have failed. Pierce himself implicitly acknowledges this throughout his broadcasts when he argues that the message, its content and manner of delivery, has to be right.
You are extremely wrong there: the exact opposite is the truth. If Brits for example were not stupid and evil in the last decades, they’d have voted for the BNP. Did you miss what I told Jez Turner?: that I was extremely dismayed when watching beautiful Roses with Negroes in England, and asked if Brits were feeling the same level of hatred I felt.
That’s why I quoted Anglin’s ‘Fuck the British!’ because the main problem does not lie with real men like the late John Tyndall, but will the masses of evil and stupid Brits that didn’t follow him.
If the Hebrews didn’t listen Jeremiah it’s because the Hebrews were stupid and evil. Jeremiah didn’t ‘fail’: the Hebrew people failed and got what they deserved (conquest).
Exactly the same with today’s westerners, including Brits. I am not saying that Rockwell et al were perfect. Far from it. But if you read the final pages of The Turner Diaries you will see passages that hit the nail of white malaise as no other text that I a aware of.
@ C.T.
You haven’t answered my question, which to remind you was that you should demonstrate the success of the men you mentioned. This is just a basic demand that you should show integrity in your argument and not just confine what you say to your own feelings and opinions.
I don’t believe you can in this case, because you know full well that they were failures – and that has important implications. That’s not to dismiss them or insult their memory, it’s just to state fact.
Now, let me turn to your assertion that people are stupid. It’s difficult not to react emotionally to this because you are asking me to believe that the people who serve me at the supermarket, who fix my car, who clean the sewers, etc., etc. are “stupid”. It would be difficult to come up with a point-of-view more arrogant and ungrateful, and plain common-sense tells me that there’s no future in this. We can’t go to the people, on any basis (whether through cultural activity or elections or whatever) and say: ‘You’re stupid’.
But putting that aside, in my view the reason the public act in this way is because that is a normal evolved response (contingently-speaking), and as such, it can be seen as ‘smart’. Without wishing to make this too personal, I often wish to myself that I could be ‘normal’. I wish I could have a wife and children and be accepted by people and just be seen as a normal person. But I can’t. It will never happen. The reason I am the way I am is because I’m wired this way. It may even be a matter of Fate, that I am supposed to do something with my life. But the point I am making is that I am not a normal person in that my response to diversity/multi-culturalism is not the normal evolved response.
The ‘normal’ biological response is a variation of flight: keep your head below the parapet so that you can on your genes and live to fight another day (in the genetic sense), remain silent, if necessary move house (white flight), mouth all the platitudes at work and in more formal social situations, and so on.
Is this cowardly? Yes, but it isn’t stupid or evil. It’s just the way people are.
I have to bear this in mind when thinking about political methods. As I have said elsewhere in similar discussions, I am probably more extreme than almost anybody in this Movement, but what might seem acceptable or appealing to me is not going to be so among the mass of people. I therefore have to adopt this duality, which is just another way of saying that I have to be pragmatic in the sense in the understanding the animal I am dealing with (white people) and tailoring my views on methods accordingly, so that I am arguing for methods that are more likely than not to work.
There is much more to say on this, but I am up early for work and I am busy.
I think I have explained, Tom, about a thousand times, while they were ‘failures’, if you want to put it that way, they knew how to rouse a crowd. That was the point. I merely point this out to you, and, like a typical Englishman, your arrogance and inflated sense of self-worth causes you to insult me.
I can take heat, Tommy, no problem, but it isn’t very noble or honourable, is it?
So they were failures. OK, so I’m right. Thanks.
Are you seriously still replying to my comments?
That is pretty sad.
I did not even read your whole post this time, except the first couple of sentences.
That they were successful in an evil world has been argued by Andrew Hamilton:
https://westsdarkesthour.com/2013/12/11/rockwell-pierce-hitler/
And forget the supermarket rubbish you said: focus instead in my Day of Wrath and tell me if most humans are not evil / astronomically stupid.
Well, Cesar, then we come back to how you want to measure success! You’re now just being circular and disingenuous. Success for a politician is power. This is a nursery school-level stuff, Cesar.
If you can’t face facts, then we can’t have a sensible discussion. I want you to show me their successes, not give me a link to another essay.
Don’t you think the problem here might be that you’re an intellectual and you don’t really understand much about the practical world?
It doesn’t even look like you read Hamilton’s piece. But forget Hamilton. What I say in Day of Wrath about the prophets is germane: they were not failures even when nobody listened. The Hebrews failed: they had a chance to change their ways regarding ritual child sacrifice and didn’t do it.
You cannot measure success if a sane person tells the truth and everybody around has surrendered their will to Evil.
Was Julian a failure? The remaining whites of the Roman Empire failed him and their heritage, even Julian’s legit successor, who rejected the purple when Julian was assassinated.
Am I a failed writer as no publishing house accepts my stuff? No. The Spanish-speaking Neanderthals surrounding me are the failures.
It is not within my power to convince a publisher to house my books as it’s not even within Tom Sunic or Jared Taylor’s powers, with all their credentials in the US, to convince an editor (which is why they had to self-publish their last books).
You are seeing the world in photographic negative: blaming Rockwell et al when the real losers were the evil whites that will be extinct soon unless they change their ways.
You should focus on Evil (i.e., the degenerate souls of the common whites), not in the few sinless souls.
No, no no. You’re using false analogy, rather than addressing the point. They were failures, by their own objectives and measures. That’s not to say I’m rubbishing them. I’m really not. I think they were great men, but the best way to honour them is to acknowledge the truth and build on what they did in a constructive way rather than going over old ground and rehashing failed techniques.
@ Tom Rogers:
You cannot judge someone who was assassinated like Rockwell as ‘failure’ for the simple reason that we don’t know what would have happened if he was not murdered.
I’m convinced that a major part of female dysfunction that impairs society is that they haven’t evolved like men have.
The male is nature’s petri dish. Women have still overall only evolved to function in small tribal societies, and they can’t function so well higher levels (hence female hysteria, disorders, alcohol abuse, etc.). They haven’t evolved for advanced society in 12,000 years time. Men on the other hand have adapted for life under more advanced societies from the Neolithic Revolution onward. Males have had a much smaller shot at reproducing than females, no doubt affecting selection.
We just might be at a time when women are evolving, since feminist cunts only have cats. Or maybe one child. But this means that tribes who do more to controls their feral cunts have an edge.. What’s the choice? Let White Women evolve by letting feminist cunts die-off and letting the ones left get conquered by Islam or White Sharia? Or institute controls on feral White Women who have not even come close to evolving, and somehow getting White Knights to realize you have to keep women under control, tell them what to do, and make them do it?
@Tom Rogers
You strike me as a very insecure bloke. Just to break the news to you…
but you can’t just tell someone they have lost an argument and call it a day. You really don’t deserve to be on the internet, with that kind of reasoning. You berate me for being inactive, yet, tell me with the utmost seriousness that MW actually does anything. I never even heard of him until Cesar introduced one of his videos on this website. So, congratulations – you have lost the argument (see, ridiculous, isn’t it)
According to you, you are happy with a chain smoking, Scottish slob trying desperately not to offend his fan girls..
This was the original comment I made:
Now, tell me, TOM-TOM, what the fuck does that particular statement have anything to do with anything that you are trying to tell me? What part about that comment do you, the Great Tommeister, not understand?
Also, you label what I say ‘irrelevant’, very clearly thinking you are smart in using my words against me… How very English of you.
You don’t seem to have added anything in your latest waffle-filled rant, beyond the hilarious idea that I am insecure because I highlight your own insecurities. You’re the one who made this personal, not me. Look back over the thread. All I did was challenge what you say, and your response to me is to go down this tangent of gaslighting. It’s not fooling anybody.
That said, if I am an “insecure bloke” (whatever that means), I seem to be doing pretty well with you lot. I’m kicking you all over the shop here.
Any more? I’m enjoying myself. I can kick you around all day like a football.
On a more pertinent note, I do not accept that the Alt Right ‘do nothing’. That’s flatly not true. To have a sensible discussion about anything – whether it’s rugby, Jews, women with big tits, stamp collecting, social housing strategies in Kenya, the socio-economic problems of Cornwall, astronomy, or prize vegetable growing – we have to begin by acknowledging facts. The Alt Right do things, and much of it is of value. That’s a fact. I haven’t, so far as I can recall, specifically mentioned Millennial Woes, but he is of value to us. Of course, I base this on an assumption – that he is genuine. I can’t know if he really is, but in the absence of evidence, I tend to assume good faith.
Anyway, if you were familiar with my posts elsewhere, or even here, you’d know that I have been acidly critical of the Alt Right. In my view, whether intentionally or not, it’s largely just people talking and writing online and going round in circles. That’s not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself (if we assume good faith) – you do need talking, studying and writing. But it’s not action in the sense I would recognise it and it doesn’t keep us in touch with ordinary people, which for me is the important thing, as they’re the people who vote. To me, Nationalism should be the domain of ordinary people and reflect their concerns. That’s not to say I dismiss cultural activity altogether – that would be stupid – but I believe in a more direct approach.
More fundamentally, whereas the Alt Right think that political change can only happen after cultural change, I take an opposite view (though not diametrically-opposite): in my opinion, the starting-point for cultural change is political change. I believe the success of the Left bears this out. One mistake the mainstream conservative Right made was in thinking that the Left’s long-range strategy was non-political in nature, whereas in reality it was founded on the infiltration of normal society, including the capture of political power – especially at the local level, where ordinary mundane decisions could be made by their own people, creating a broad movement that reached down into people’s lives. Queers can get away with things now because they have people in power, at all levels, to support them.
To me, politics is the medium (the ‘meta’) through which needs, issues and concerns are expressed. That means, to my mind, a metapolitical strategy involves discussion and involvement in actual issues – housing, unemployment, etc. – rather than abstract culture. I acknowledge that some parts of the Alt Right do this already: for instance, The Occidental Observer does sometimes produce metapolitical articles according to my definition. Likewise, Chateau Heartiste, the pro-male/pro-white blog, is metapolitical in the proper sense and, in my view, the type of site that the Alt Right should emulate in some way. Counter Currents, by contrast, is NOT a metapolitical website: it’s just a website for discussion among intellectuals.
Your long-winded speech about how cool you are totally doesn’t reveal how insecure you are deep down at all..
Somebody will love you eventually.
Oh yes, I forget to add – I have already explained in a further comment above what my response earlier had to do with your original post. The point is that you are inventing archetypes based on nothing and it’s meaningless. You are attributing positive qualities to people you didn’t know, etc. ,etc….I’ve already explained it, but let me quote from the relevant post:
“Just going back to the actual point, you’re talking about those men as examples of the type we need. I’m pointing out they were failures, which again, is just fact. They were great men, better men than me, but they were still failures. Facts are facts. That’s relevant to any consideration of their contribution and the contribution of people who supposedly you think are of the same type.
“On that latter point, as far as I can see the author of this blog is just a blogger and an author/self-publisher. I simply don’t see the comparison between him and the men you mention.
Of course, all this depends on the validity of your typology. It’s just a type you’ve invented, and so inevitably when confronted by criticism such as mine you will be evasive. We could potentially put anybody in this ‘soulful’ category: you’ve already included a non-Aryan blogger who says he supports Breivik but whose only risk-taking in life involves incurring library fines. So your ‘type’ is arbitrary and meaningless and just another pretentious way of slagging off people who, unlike you, actually do something.”
Essentially, you are just somebody online posing as a ‘purist’. Anybody can do that. I can do it too. But where does it get us? It’s useless.
You are not even being honest here, as I have told you elsewhere that I hold a Mexican passport and that it makes no sense to sacrifice one’s life when the real Aryans seem to have a death wish everywhere (yes; including the Britons).
Only if there’s a civil war I’d join. Meanwhile the only thing I can do is show in this humble site that WN is fake (including WN Xtians) and NS the real thing.
And by the by, no real NS would ever criticise what happened to the Jews in WW2 when every country was ganging up on Germany. You are still lying us by telling that you are NS.
I don’t know which your motivations are but I very much doubt that your religion are the 14 words.
Come on Cesar! You know the score. You know full well that it’s one thing to say things online, an environment where we can all act purist, it’s another thing to put things into practice. The basic and central criticism of the Alt Right is its lack of (or insufficient) praxis. We should not have to say the same of National Socialism, except you distort it by telling us that it is ‘pure’. It isn’t. It’s a philosophy that has to be put to work in real conditions and the real Nazis didn’t concern themselves with this posing, which is the right-wing counterpart to virtue-signalling.
Marxists learned this lesson almost exactly a hundred years ago – what you do in practice to implement your ideas bears little or no relation to the abstract. The world isn’t a blank canvas – that’s just toddler-level thinking.
When you and the village idiot commenters on here parade around (or goose-step around, if you like) as if you’re above everybody else and purer than pure, you’re completely ignoring practical reality.
Get down off your high horse, Cesar, and join the rest of us ‘normal’ folk in the real world.
My question for you Tom-Tom, is: Why are you here?
You do nothing but insult anyone who disagrees with you and you have no respect for the author of this blog. It couldn’t be because you are desperate to feel welcome, could it?
Hi, who is this if you don’t mind my asking? If my work is good enough to steal, as it has been for several prominent WN, than I am good enough to lecture and every lecture I present argues for war.
Get Outlook for iOS ________________________________
Never heard of you.
@Tom Rogers Thing is that there is not a single party in the White world which would talk about forcefully marrying every healthy White female older than 25. Not a single one. Every “practical NS” dude of yours is as much the enemy as Trump, Merkel or Putin.
Older than 15, should be.
Actually, a 14-year old nymphet is ready to marry an older teenager.
Of course, the end goal would still be expelling all girls from primary schools, and making them wear burqas (as in ancient Rome).
But the deal is, even baby steps are incomprehensible to the best of the best among Aryans. It’s all a faggots’ world now. Even “nationalist” rallies in Charlottesville and Warsaw feature women.
What’s the point of women at all there? Just a tithe to the demons of the Aryan mind!
The masculinisation of western women has been directly proportional to the feminisation of western man.
With the exception of The Daily Stormer, WNsts don’t get it (see for example the latest article by feminised Irmin Vinson: here).
Really, a white girl should marry when she starts her bleeding cycles.
Though in the perfect Ethno state, the girl won’t be too much older than the boy she will marry, as was done in ancient Sparta. Unfortunately, this is not ancient Sparta, and so we can’t expect that perfection straight away. I can imagine grown men who have gone back to lycanthropy stealing young teenage Sabines after the music stops.
In KD rebel, Eric, who is 26, kidnapped a 16 year old girl to marry, which is realistically what would happen after the dollar collapses.
Yes: as stated even by degenerate Turd Flinging Monkey in the PDF of mis blog (I rephrase):
See the triangle in that PDF.