web analytics
Christendom Homosexuality

WN trolls

In his most recent article, “Mens arya in corpore arya” Manu Rodríguez writes (my translation):

We should consider Aryan blog contents as sacred spaces; as places for consensus and not for dissent. Let’s say you come here for addition and multiplication, not to subtract and divide. The comments to the posts must be constructive or positive; they should increase, supplement, enrich the text or proposal.

But in the next paragraph he adds:

There should therefore be excluded all comments not specifically Aryan: be them pro-Jewish, pro-Christian, pro-Muslim, pro-Hindu or pro-Buddhist (or any other religious tradition or non-Aryan culture), and also the destructive or demoralizing critiques. They only foster division and sterile discussions in our ranks, and are the joy of the enemy.

There’s the rub. The second paragraph contradicts the first one, because in the American scene most white nationalists are also Christians. In such blogsites it is simply impossible to “exclude all Christian comments” and at the same time demand that “comments must be constructive.”

I am not quoting Manu to criticize him. Rather, I would like to say that nowadays it is impossible to pursue comradeship when the factions do not agree, and won’t agree, on pivotal subjects. For example:

• These days Greg Johnson has been entertaining his readers with homo apologetics, and apparently his blog does not let pass serious criticism on the subject. Since I consider the promotion of homosexualism as both culturally and racially destructive, does it mean that I must shut my mouth up?

• These days some well-known voices in the white movement have been labeling as “crank” the peak oil studies that, in my opinion, will represent the most important data later in the century—insofar as the death of billions in the Third World due to energy devolution will open a big window of opportunity for white racialists. Does it mean that when I listen the word “crank” to refer to serious scientific studies I must shut my mouth up?

Those are just a couple of subjects of what I have been discussing in the last week. But I could fill a page with other subjects that awake similar emotions among white nationalists, like the extent to which Jews are responsible for our darkest hour; whether or not Christianity is involved in the etiology of that hour; whether Hitler should be a figure of admiration or vituperation; whether or not 9/11 was orchestrated by Mossad; whether popular music, TV sports or Hollywood are toxic, etc.

Recently in one of those Aryan blogs, to use Manu’s term, a commenter stated that in other times I would have been burned at the stake for blasphemer (even though I did not blaspheme against Christianity in that blog), and another nationalist assented cheerfully.


Trolls… And I am afraid that we will have to wait until the balloon goes up to see under which banner survivors will start to organize.

Meanwhile the “white nationalist” scene will continue to be a trolling arena beyond belief, and we can do nothing about it except continue to write down the reasons for our differences.

33 replies on “WN trolls”

I’m not convinced of peak oil because I feel that I’m a non-expert who would be influenced by data presentation one way or the other. So I’m skeptical that I could know how to form an opinion one way or another.

But to say that Peak Oil is ‘crazy’ is insane. I’m not sure its true, but its obviously very reasonable and a lot of intelligent people subscribe to the idea.

In fairness I think Parott said Seb himself was a crank, not that only a crank would believe in Peak Oil (which he doesn’t believe in but considers it plausible). Parott and Seb look like they have a lot of bad blood between them.

Peak Oil might be legit, overpopulation, and monetary collapse could also be legit, but they do nothing for WNs trying to spread their cause.

People can only handle so much trauma to their worldview; race is a big enough pill to swallow, let alone revisionist history.

That’s the only good reason I can see for avoiding above issues … and if that’s why Parrot and Johnson avoid Peak Oil and the economy, I think its a good idea.

Yes, but you are missing the most critical point which is that the current population is not going to wake up to Peak Oil, race reality, economic doom, or anything else … until tragedy happens.

These are pod people as you say; 5% care, the rest are out to lunch and will party on the Titanic until they are actually wet.

I’m sorry, I misstated that. I meant to say that if you want to instill one crisis meme specifically to a zombie population, it should be race. No? You should focus that which empowers the average person the most right?

The other issues prepping the masses for will do nothing when the crisis occurs, because only the experts can fix the economy or resource planning, while race is intuitively felt by all and all contribute to the racial solidarity and genetic outcome of the future.

That’s probably why WNs avoid the dollar and oil problem.

only the experts can fix the economy or resource planning

Had you taken Martenson’s 45-minute course and watched Schiff’s videos (see e.g., this one), you’d know by now that while theoretically it’s possible that experts fix the economy by going back to the gold standard, it is altogether impossible to fix the energy problem. Problems (fiat currencies) have solutions; predicaments (energy supply) only have outcomes.

If energy devolution is like a small asteroid that will hit the Earth and change everything, I don’t understand why WNsts are not putting this on the front table. After all, many of them will die as the result of the convergence. If they were not sleeping in the matrix they would have united forces in distant farms that the city niggers won’t be able to invade after famine starts.

“here should therefore be excluded all comments not specifically Aryan: be them pro-Jewish, pro-Christian, pro-Muslim, pro-Hindu or pro-Buddhist (or any other religious tradition or non-Aryan culture),”

This is confusing considering Hindu culture has a strong Aryan pedigree and Gautama Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism, was himself an Aryan of the warrior caste. Even Christianity at the time of the Holy Roman Empire, the Crusades, the Templars, and the age of chivalry generally had a moderate Aryan element. Unfortunately all gone now of course.

I’ve been thinking: has “religious tolerance” ever been worth a damn? I mean both in societies historically and in our own campaign.

The heights of “religious tolerance” seem to be multicultural Rome before it collapsed and Christianity took it over, the multicultural Middle East where every race became blended together and Islam eventually conquered, and modern secular Europe where more people go to mosque than church. It seems heavily associated with decadent societies and decaying social ties; I don’t see any long-term successes. I have a hard time taking a society’s social mores seriously when the most basic questions about life and morality are left a free-for-all. How is a pedophile supposed to be “evil” in a society that refuses to assert that “evil” even exists, much less that there is some definite way of determining it?

I’m not talking about putting an end to some stupid fight over how the trinity is supposed to work, or Catholic/Protestant bickering. A party, a government, or even a church can tell people that they’re fighting over nonsense and they should quit it, without turning secularism per se into a social virtue. Rejecting pacifism doesn’t mean fighting over every possible point of contention, but accepting it does mean rejecting fighting entirely.

Ultimately an explicitly atheistic society makes more sense to me than a “secular” one, because at least the explicitly atheist society can make definite statements. An agnostic society is incapable of making one because God may or may not veto it, depending on if and how he exists. Not that Soviet-style state atheism is a good idea, just that it at least allows for a level of self-assertion that “secular” democracies can’t have. Secular societies need to be continually dumbed-down and infantilized with regards to spiritual matters because if left alone they might all pick incompatible faiths and start fighting over them. Every religion is equally correct, and every form of “fundamentalism” and “extremism” is equally wrong.

Now, we still have a Christian problem. Christian doctrine itself doesn’t know what it’s doing on the racial front, and no amount of uncompromising zealotry can fix something like that. The Falangist thing Heimbach’s thinking about can’t work for that reason, in my view. If pre-monotheistic faiths wanted a shot at the title the only way that would happen is if they adopted the same “hateful intolerance” that they cry about the monotheists having. (This is inherently more difficult when you accept the existence of many deities.)

Imagine if the United States government existed exactly as it does now, only nobody could agree on who the President was or who sat in Congress or on the Supreme Court. That would be nuts, even by Murkin standards, but that’s the legal version of what a secular society is morally.

And how about us? We more or less have a group of people who agree with a statement (the 14 words), but a third of them think it was an order from God recorded in scripture, a third of them think it can be logically derived from evolutionary theory, and a third of them think they can hear “the words of their ancestors calling through their blood”. Can we really build a worldview when we can’t even agree on the methodology we need to use to come up with anything? Can we rally around an imperative while completely disagreeing on where it came from and why it matters?

We can’t afford to make the wrong decision here because the Muslims are jumping at the bit and we don’t have a system defending our genes regardless. We have hordes of Jews and Marxists and banker think-tanks who will try to drown our ideas in sophistry if they ever start to gain currency. Any inconsistencies, logical or thematic, will cost us during that period.

As for the “14 words”, Hitler already said it:

“For me and all true National Socialists there is but one doctrine: people and fatherland.

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted to it by the creator of the universe.

Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility.

Then no theory will stiffen into a dead doctrine, since it is life alone that all things must serve.”

I do not think “… creator of the universe” refers to the Christian version of Yahweh, as Hitler privately was anti-Christian, but probably not atheist.

It would do nationalists good to read Hitler (his books, table talks and speeches) and the other German National Socialists, and other nationalist leaders of that time period too, like Codreanu.

I’ve read Hitler on the subject, though not Codreanu. But Hitler himself seems conflicted to me, as he has definite spiritual goals he wants to pursue but doesn’t know how to do it when almost every German is a Christian. He basically hoped to tie things down on the political end and let someone else deal with religion, but it was already too late for that; he was thrown into a war over the spiritual future of our race. Even the degree of consensus and tradition that Hitler had to work with has all but disappeared.

I think Pierce’s piece on religion (“God and White Nationalism” on the sidebar) really captures the problem here:

But the thing which bothered me even more than the phony collective racial guilt which had been pumped into those boys and girls, was my inability to answer the White kid’s question. Why should we survive? That’s one of those questions like, why is good better than evil? Or, nowadays, why is heterosexuality any better than homosexuality? If two people want to have sex together, who are we to say that it’s better that they be a man and a woman than that they be two men or two women? A related question concerns racial mixing: why shouldn’t a Black man and a White woman, or vice versa, live together if they can be happy? These are questions which most White people, even normal healthy White people, cannot answer satisfactorily today.

A hundred years ago, before the Jews came flooding into our country and taking over our mass media and our educational system, we might not have really needed answers. We just knew that it was important for our race to survive and to make progress. We knew that homosexuality and interracial sex were wrong. Our intuition told us this. The answers were in our souls even if we couldn’t express them in words. But then the Jews—who are clever people, very clever people—came along, and they began asking these very questions. And when we couldn’t answer them, they began providing their own answers.

Our race has no sense of a collective destiny, most of us don’t even have a sense of an individual destiny, and that makes it hard to argue for even basic survival. I mean, why bother surviving at all? “Living” sounds good on paper but it’s a pain in practice, and supporting it can actually make you very unpopular.

Even in Hitler’s lifetime our race’s “will to live” had decayed further than he thought. He was always baffled by the British Empire destroying itself for the sake of defending liberal degeneracy, and even the German people didn’t fight with the same level of tenacity the Japanese had. I do think religion was a part of it; the Germans who tried to assassinate Hitler were church-going reactionaries, not radical ex-Marxists.

I don’t know if material conditions will be as cataclysmic as Sebastian and Chechar think, but the axiomatic status of our race will be radically altered or we’ll be utterly destroyed, that I’ve become sure of.

I don’t know if material conditions will be as cataclysmic as Sebastian and Chechar think…

This is why it’s high time to listen the debates of Martenson vs. skeptics and also Peter Schiff’s discussions vs. skeptics of the coming currency Armageddon.

When I commented at Gates of Vienna, I started as a complete, absolute skeptic of the latter and gradually started to understand Schiff’s arguments: that all fiat currencies have collapsed with time (this is factual, not an opinion), especially when a nation starts printing like crazy, and that it is reasonable to suppose that this will happen too in the US.

White nihilism is the result of what happened after WW2. It killed the white spirit throughout the West. Once you start grasping the argument behind the currency collapse and the energy devolution (Martenson explains both; Schiff, only the currency issue), your worldview naturally starts to gravitate around that gravity field. (In this sense Sebas has a point.)

Let’s put it this way. The most pessimistic scenario for whites is Kendall’s Hold Back This Day. IMHO that simply can’t happen if the world devolves energetically. China is one of the most voracious buyers of international oil, which means that even though her currency is sound, they will collapse as well.

It’s like the One Ring of Wagner and Tolkien: economic gluttony always carries a built-in curse. I find it bothersome that so few WNsts pay attention to these voices (Mindweapons, the honorable exception) because it’s a matter of survival in the near future. I myself don’t know how could I possibly survive in this town after the currency crash, which will happen before energy devolution starts causing havoc.

People should stop reading Evola et al at CC and start considering the possibility that doomsayers may be right. Even a 1% of possibilities would be enough to stop business as usual and start studying the debate.

Well I do understand exponential population growth. That, coupled with the inferiority of the average human when compared to other points in history, seems to be the core issue. Even if oil production continued to expand at a linear pace indefinitely, giving us no “peak” in gross production, the oil available per capita would begin to plummet once the population begins to skyrocket. Voluntary non-reproduction would select against itself genetically and culturally, there’s no “liberal” way of dealing with the issue.

Will billions dying even change our outlook so dramatically, though? By some accounts more have died in the (quasi-) civil war still going on in the Congo than in WW1, and no one cares in the slightest. They care more about the pandas going extinct (as do I). Does anyone get teary-eyed at Great Leap Forward survivors telling their harrowing tales of a Marxist famine that killed 50 million?

The White race will either go full racist or cease to exist, that much is self-evident and true even with perpetual wealth. Mindweapon’s theory (as I understand it) is that poverty and self-employment (and state bankruptcy) will act as a catalyst, causing the transformation to occur faster and leaving us with more racists and less dead (or mongrelized) people. In this manner economic collapse increases our chance for long-term survival. I do think you two are right about that.

But necessity alone doesn’t solve anything. No matter how many mice you have in your house, and how desperate you are to get rid of them, you still have so sit down and build your mousetrap.

I simply cannot imagine how the Western world will continue to be liberal and Christian once the population bubble pops. As soon as it approaches 1 billion deaths worldwide, the silly liberal chip in many of the whites’ little skulls will start to burn.

Do you remember that passage in Asimov’s I Robot where Speedy’s chip was failing and the robot had to make a decision when a man exposed himself to a certain death so that the 1st Law within Speedy’s mind trumped the broken chip?

It is similar with whites. Presently all of them (including Greg) are infected with the suicidal cult of liberalism. But once whites start to die like flies in the First World (not only non-whites in Congo); once the images of blacks killing a white toddler go viral during the famine in the big cities, the diseased white liberal mind will start to make a choice, as Speedy did when he saw that his owner, a human, was dying.

Well if you want to see how bad things can get without it seriously changing how people think just look at South Africa. That was an utter disaster.

And let’s not forget that Good Ole Boy racial chauvinism won’t be enough here, I’m sure the Spaniards thought they were better than the Aztecs and 20% of the American Negro’s DNA comes from “racist” southerners. We need fanaticism, for every machete-wielding Muslim screaming that he’ll kill us they’ll be a well-groomed Mestizo telling us that he wants to help “defend the constitution” or whatever.

Look at the “anti-Jihad” movement for an example of a racial cataclysm being spun as a religious or cultural issue. Rallying behind “freedom” against “The New World Order” or something isn’t going to save us, neither will rallying behind Christianity, “Western Culture”, or discriminatory individualism. There will be disillusionment but that doesn’t guarantee that it will be focused where it needs to be.

I think the difference between South Africa and Europe is that whites have been in Europe for thousands of years even before history, and it will be easier to destroy the suicidal chip there, in Europe (even in the US), when whites are completely and unmercifully mugged by reality:

“Eventually, when the Wall of Reality is so close, all but the chief priests of the Pod cult will want to bail out from the speeding vehicle. There is nothing like imminent pulverization to reprogram a chip in a hurry. But by then, the velocity will be such that staying or jumping will make no difference.”

Well I hope so. This one’s for all the marbles, so if it doesn’t shake us out of it we’re done.

I’m actually pretty optimistic about our chances, but in any case our race is going to need new leaders and new ways of thinking. Maybe nothing will come of our ideas, but in that case somebody else will have to address the same issues, and I’d like to help them if I could.

Well, if you didn’t believe any of our ideas might matter during Oilageddon I guess you wouldn’t bother having a blog would you? And Seb wouldn’t bother with a party. So I must just be talking in circles now…

I do think I’m right regarding “religious tolerance” though. It’s just asking to be undermined.

Since I consider the promotion of homosexualism as both culturally and racially destructive, does it mean that I must shut my mouth up?

No. You can stridently and boldly disagree. Avoiding “infighting” doesn’t mean one must avoid speaking up when one or the other side is way out of line.

This goes back to Seb’s false dichotomy between a big stupid “group hug” and a big stupid “street fight”. We can have strong disagreements and speak our minds without instigating full-on character assassination and harassment campaigns.

These days some well-known voices in the white movement have been labeling as “crank” the peak oil studies that, in my opinion, will represent the most important data later in the century

Once again, you’re missing nuance. Seb’s a crank because he’s a crank, and this manifests itself in his insistence that Peak Oil must trump, preclude, and attack all other concerns. I was respectfully disagreeing with Peak Oil theorists for years, without insulting them. Peak Oil could and should be part of a mature adult discussion, which necessarily precludes the presence of Seb Ronin.

whether Hitler should be a figure of admiration or vituperation

Do you see the pattern here? Should we absolute extreme this or should be absolute extreme that? Where’s the room for tactical nuance? For gentlemen’s disagreements? For evolving positions? For friendly parallel projects?

I am only pointing out to what I see in the movement: most either admire or vituperate the H man. And I forgot to add the Holocaust subject in my above list… Here in my blog I have been called naïve and worse only because I say that both sides must be listened. Apparently, deniers are as intolerant as the holo affirmers in power, who put you in jail in Europe if you disagree with the official narrative.

In Linder’s VNN forum for instance a commenter signs all his posts with something to the effect of, “those who don’t believe that Mossad did 9/11 are either lying or fools”: an altogether intolerant, black-and-white stance I have seen a lot in the WN movement.

Remember Johnson’s Holocaust article at TOO? In the comments section I challenged Carolyn Yeager to read literature from our ranks, like David Irving’s forthcoming book on Himmler, that says that millions of kikes were probably murdered in WW2. For Carolyn—as for many WNsts—you got to read only one side of the debate, not even Irving! They call that “research”.

When I protested by saying that even if you disagree with the prosecutor you have to listen to his case, one of them responded that that was unnecessary: the prosecutor’s case was already contained and rebutted in the attorney’s case!

In other words: you leave the courtroom every time that the wrong attorney speaks and you call that “research” and a “fair Jury verdict” (holo affirmers who put people in jail do the same of course).

Either black or white: no grays.

Another case of black-and-white mindset even here, at WDH. You know I have been called “jew” quite a few times: the worst insult in WN. Reason? Thinking between the shades of gray. This is Wolf’s latest comment here when I complained that he called me kike:

Well, If you write on every paragraph it is not the jews fault (in your words “our demise is not ‘only’ because of the jews”…)

In other words, jews are 100% guilty of our demise. Whites are 0% to blame. Black and white: the good boys and the bad guys of the film! How many WNsts according to your estimate think in such puerile, Hollywoodesque terms?

How many WNsts according to your estimate think in such puerile, Hollywoodesque terms?

The overwhelming majority of people are incapable of authentic critical thought, a process which requires a certain disposition, aptitude, and education. Fine. C’est la vie.

The question isn’t whether or not we’re going to continue having strong differences which are aired publicly. The question is whether we’re going to allow Seb and others to translate those from mere arguments into a circular firing squad of character assassination, petty rumor-mongering, and idle threats.

I like Carolyn Yeager and I think she does a fantastic job; what she lacks in intellectual openness she makes up for in enthusiasm.

Anyway WW 2 is a dead issue, only good for us to sort out on a personal level … there’s no point in having arguments about what did or did not happen for the purpose of politics; the time for that went by decades ago.

Peak oil is real, but peak energy is not. Etheric energy is slowly mainstreamed by “safe” people like David Icke and Benjamin Fulford.

I do agree we need a fanatic religion, if only an atheist one like Creativity, to pursue our ends. If the ARA can fight us without being hypocritical, Heathens can root out Abrahamism without being hypocritical. No tolerance for the intolerant?

Did Europeans have the right to have large families during the Middle-Ages? If yes, they had the right to invade America and Africa. If not, Americans, Africans and others don’t have the right to large families now, and can be culled.

Surely Peak Oil is moot, considering that the EBT card system will stop working at a much earlier date, and the resultant rioting by starving niggers will be the same in either case?

Comments are closed.