web analytics
Eugenics Pederasty Racial right

Close the comments?

I may not close the comments section as I threatened recently. But I would like to say that, except for commenter Mauricio, the core of what I say here doesn’t resonate with what regular commenters post.

Years ago, for example, a certain Mister Deutsch was offended by my Nordicism and stopped commenting here. Despite his penname, the guy was an American Italian, and he once said that an Italian football player with brown skin was white. This intelligent commenter was not banned on this site: he was angered by my Nordicism and stopped commenting here.

I get the impression that commenter Stubbs, also one of the smartest who have commented here in the past, was disappointed when he found out that, like many southern Italians, my bloodline is also very compromised. But at least I am not saying, as many Mediterranean nationalists do, that ‘I am white too’ (although the colour of my skin is).

Others stopped commenting here when I criticised their admiration for Charles Manson, a subject that doesn’t horrify me, rather, I am sorry for the horrible way his mother and the American state treated him as a child. When I posted an ‘open thread on Manson’ for them to explain why he could be good for the 14 words, they didn’t comment and I closed the matter.

Regarding commenters that have been banned let’s remember Arch Stanton, who insisted on strict monocausalism (the Jews responsible for the alpha to the omega of the world’s ills), even in the threads that Jewry was not discussed. Also banned was a Christian Identitarian that wanted to sell us, in off-topic threads, the idea that the ancient Hebrews had actually been people of the Aryan race.

More recently I added Adunai to the banned list. Adunai recently mentioned me a lot on Unz Review, but as the provocative troll he is he was banned even from that tolerant webzine today. In addition to what I wrote about him in my recent post without naming him (about Stalin, etc.), this Russian liked Ramsay Bolton, who liked to skin men, women and children alive in Game of Thrones. Just imagine, my dear readers, the difference between Bran, which symbolises this site, and the Sadistic psycho Ramsay: perfect antipodes!

I just saw that Commandor, Adunai’s buddy, called Solzhenitsyn a liar a couple of days ago in Unz Review. Commandor is banned on this site because he has said similar things about Hitler and doesn’t give a damn about the suffering of the German people, that Goodrich portrayed so well in his books. From the IP today I saw that Commandor is SS Division Poltergeist and Ezra91. He also has used another sockpuppet in the comments section of this site. Like the Russian Adunai, this young Romanian seems to be my antipode as far as developing the most elemental empathy is concerned.

Now I would like to say something about a commenter that is not banned. Today I received several emails from Peter, who used to be a regular commenter on this site. As a typical anti-vaxxer he believes that covid-19 is just the flu, an international conspiracy. He has been sending me many links that, according to him, demonstrate the truth proclaimed by ‘vaccine hesitancy’ activists. I told him that I didn’t have time to read so many links and that he would better send me a link to a debate, the best way to figure out who’s wrong.

Peter sent me a linked debate where Leonard Horowitz spoke on the side of the anti-vaxxers. After listening to the debate on YouTube, I learned that Horowitz believes that AIDS and Ebola were intentionally created by the US government to manufacture vaccines, as part of a planned genocide against Muslims! Anti-racist Horowitz has even influenced black leaders to boycott vaccination programs! Peter didn’t realise what it would cause in my mind to send me a link to the debate in which Horowitz participated: the exact opposite of what he expected.

There are more cases of regular commenters who have visited this site and who maintain worldviews opposite to mine, but the cited examples provide the idea that we hold very different worldviews. (Now another man comes to mind who used to comment a lot here and even sent me money. He believes in reincarnation: a doctrine that, like all post-mortem survival doctrines, I believe is toxic for the 14 words.)

What I want to get to is that most commenters come here to dump what they believe, not to interact with what I write or quote from other writers. After ten years this dynamic of parallel universes becomes bothersome. An ideal way for the common visitor to find out about my worldview would be to read The Fair Race and Day of Wrath before commenting (the PDFs are available for free), but obviously most visitors are not going to do it.

Today I paraphrased Robert Morgan in my last tweet: ‘White Christians are spiritual Jews, minus the brains and racial pride’. It is truly a tragedy that, due to so much high IQ monk sperm ejaculated into the assholes of novices over the centuries (instead of ending up in Aryan women’s vaginas), the white race has lost the race intelligence with Jewry, who have been practicing excellent eugenics since the Middle Ages.

Now a scene from Fiddler on the Roof comes to mind in which a Jewish girl from a humble Russian town talked about the skinny son of the rabbi, with whom she fancied marrying. The equivalent in the Aryan world would be that white women were educated to admire the pundits of the alt-right to the degree of wanting to give them thousands of children. But no: in Christendom, the best sperm ended up mixed with faecal matter in the intestines of the ephebes.

It’s no wonder why high IQ whites rarely comment here…

20 replies on “Close the comments?”

I believe that Dr Pierce was right in his most controversial speech (now removed from National Vanguard)

A great deal of why we were going downhill is because of the feminine attitude in our society, nurtured by Christianity.

Had we preserved our masculinity and appreciation for principles over materialism, we could have had prevented all this mess.

I was skeptical by your praising for the destruction of America, but after witnessing today in my news app the image of young, beautiful blonde girls from Lithuania with signs of “BLM”, I think you are right.

The collapse of our country is the best thing that could happen to the white race now. The sooner it goes down, the better for everyone else.

Following the fable of Commander Rockwell, I think we’ve reached the part where the ducks are realizing is too late to save their town, and so they decide to fly somewhere else.

Far, far away.

this is my first comment on your blog.
I don’t care about the comment section, I only know that the content of your blog is amazing and we can’t find anywhere else.

Those who hate Germans in particular hate Whites in general; those who hate Whites in general hate Germans in particular. That is what I truly suspect. Besides, the US Media is not against Hate Speech in principle. After all what is the purpose of all those Holocaust movies? The purpose is to teach viewers to hate Germans, Germany, and all things German. Still, it is all a veiled attack on Whites in general!

Roman Catholic celibacy was really a bad idea. Heinrich Himmler, himself, spoke out against it.

I remember when I tried to tell the truth about the wretches that called themselves monks to a bunch of xtian “traditionalists”. Such a mistake even talking/writing to these people. Their warped sophistry and constant lying made me so pissed that I broke my own door’s surface paneling with my fists.
Real racists, men who reject ALL universalisms [Xtianity, Buddhism, Islam, Communism etc.] should simply deal with these scum as they dealt with the real wisemen and wisewomen of the past; annihilating them not only on the physical plane of existence but also in the memory of the whole world. All of the asinine, goofy nonsense written by scholastic parrots and plagiarizers like Tomas de Aquino [who xtian bitches worship like an infallible god] should be burned and eternally forgotten along with every pro-xtian book, film and folk story.
No Mary Magdalene, no Yeshua the Magic Kike, no Mary the Perpetual Virgin with six/seven kids, no giant cathedrals in the shape of the crucifix, nothing even remotely close to that old disease or even slightly dignifying it should ever continue.

I frequent a forum that manages to maintain a healthy discourse by rigorously enforcing a handful of rules. Violators have comments edited/removed, and in rare circumstances are banned. Enforced over a long enough timespan this policy weeds out undesirable behavior.

Requiring that comments be an interaction with the material presented would be a great rule to prominently display. TWDH has always been a university for me. Losing that interaction, that classroom atmosphere, would be a shame. Please keep comments open with strict posting rules.

With respect to the Vaccine issue:

I maintain that if you don’t have the time to comprehensively research this issue-as you presumably researched, say, 9/11 before deciding that Al-Qaeda were the culprits, or the JFK assassination before deciding that Oswald was the culprit (it wouldn’t be rational to assume that Oswald was the culprit if you were aware that there were other theories, and you weren’t able to adequately refute the arguments made for those theories as Bugliosi apparently did. Automatically assuming that the mainstream position is correct is just as irrational as automatically assuming that official versions of events must be lies, and/or compulsively seeking conspiracies as explanations for events, in my opinion); then the rational stance would a neutral position on the subject. Which I might add, should also apply to your coverage of the Covid-19 “pandemic”. Yet you’ve expressed prejudice in favour of the pro-vaccination position, which appears to stand currently. Previously, you’ve stipulated the litmus test for “real science”; falsifiability and adherence to Occam’s razor. Applying that paradigm to the Vaccine debate, since Vaccine skepticism doesn’t violate Occam’s razor in any obvious way (?), I can’t see how predudice can be justified. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the tenets of Vaccination do appear to violate falsifiablity in various ways, which should be very obvious (I believe that the “drip-feed of cultural slogans and expectations” (indoctrination) as to
the benefit of Vaccination that most people have received since childhood serves to override basic logical thought processes). For example, it’s frequently claimed that “Vaccines save lives/have saved millions of lives” etc. Or conversely, that not Vaccinating children causes them to develop diseases and possibly die. Or that diseases were eradicated due to Vaccination programs. Or whenever there’s a “Measles outbreak”, or a baby dies of Whooping cough, the MSM/medical spokespeople claim that this is attributable to inadequate and/or declining vaccination rates (“fuelled by Anti-vaxxers”). And yet all of these claims are tantamount to proof by assertion, and have easy logical rebuttals. It cannot be proven that Vaccines have saved a single life. Or that a single person who died of an infectious illness and didn’t receive the Vaccine for that disease would have survived if he had. That is something which is impossible to prove, and therefore purely hypothetical. It’s outright false because vaccine failure is well-documented. People can and do get illnesses and die “despite” Vaccination. There are well-documented disease outbreaks in highly or completely Vaccinated schools and communities.
Upticks in infectious illness rates are not necessarily commensurate with the rate of vaccine refusal, upticks often happen in areas which have had a non-fluctuating Vaccination rate (mass 3rd world immigration is a likely suspect for spikes of infectious illness), and so on. Naturopath Herbert Shelton (B. 1895) on Circular reasoning:
“You are vaccinated and have smallpox. The vaccine was of “insufficient potency,” although this was discovered too late—that is, after you have the smallpox. You are vaccinated and do not develop smallpox—it is assumed that the vaccine was potent. It is like the old test for mushrooms—eat them and live they are mushrooms; eat them and die, they are toad stools.”

Prejudice against skeptics puts the cart before the horse; the onus is on the promoters of vaccination to prove the validity of the practice. Bringing me to another point; the gold standard of scientific evidence in medicine is the double-blind placebo controlled study. Apparently, there are no independent, double-blind, inert placebo controlled studies which demonstrate the safety and/or efficacy of any vaccine. With regard to the first clause, it needs to be pointed out that studies which purport the safety and efficacy of vaccination are overwhelmingly conducted or funded by the companies which make the vaccines. There is also a documented history of massive fraud in vaccine research, entailing data falsification, ingenious statistical trickery, and so on. Why the need to resort to so much fraud to defend a practice based on solid science? And why are the voices of (qualified) vaccine critics so heavily censored, almost never allowed to state their case in the MSM (MSM actually has strong financial Tues with Big Pharma, this is discussed by Robert F Kennedy Jr in an interview (on YouTube) with Tucker Carlson)? I’ll add that the parallels with Biological Psychiatry should be obvious. I don’t know if it was you who made the point, that without the massive financial subsidy from the pharmaceutical industry, BS would have gone the way of phrenology; it wouldn’t survive on its own merits. Is it too difficult to believe that the same might apply to Vaccination? How respectable would it be if it was an optional modality, not subsidized and endorsed by the government (the “free market” decided?). I’ll posit that it would be deemed as just another bizarre alternative health practice.

Now to another litmus test: the origin of the practice. What you said in your article critiquing Buddhism comes to mind, following the words, “(…)may I remind my readers the most elementary rules of logic(…)”. If Edward Jenner was a fraud, then vaccination is based on a lie. A number of very eminent and accomplished Physicians and Scientists of the 19th century examined the life and works of Jenner-who paid a fee for and didn’t rightly earn his medical degree-and comprehensively debunked him as a charlatan. As with any statement made in this comment, if you ask me for a source on this I’ll present it to you. Also, the various historical antecedents of vaccination were based on gross superstitions. For more on that point, look up “Vaccine and serum evils” By Herbert Shelton, Chapter 1: Vaccinia, published on a website called Whale.to

The salient issue is that Vaccines contain substances which are avrse to our biological adaptation. That is the crux of the problem. The fundamental principle of valid pharmacology is that all medicines are toxic to a degree, and should only be used when the benefit-from removing some underlying disturbance, say- outweighs the damage. The vast majority of Medical procedures are employed as treatments for existing diseases, medical treatment is decided from case to case. Vaccination is a procedure that babies and toddlers are ritualitically subjected to as a supposed preventative of disease, causes verifiable damage throughout the population (specific injuries and general mitigation of overall health ) as the price to pay for a hypothetical, unverifiable benefit. This is simply wrong, and obviously promoted because it enriches vaccine manufacterers and furnishes rewards for compliant doctors, etc.

So to wrap up my case against Vaccination, my perception has been that the practice is predicated on the misguided notion that that we should manipulate biological processes, just because we can, and these two quotations I discovered articulate this very well, and encapsulate my stance on the whole issue:

“The fact is that we have been taught to accept vaccination as a kind of involuntary Communion, a sacrament of our participation in the unrestricted growth of scientific and industrial technology, utterly heedless of the long-term consequences to the health of our own species, let alone to the balance of Nature as a whole.” – Richard Moskowitz M.D

“Belief in artificially induced immunization is actually predicated on an assumed technological ability to annul the natural bio-system laws of cause and effect. It is in essence an imaginative belief that we can improve upon nature’s original design and purpose through deceitfully manipulating her to our own heedless benefit.” – Raymond Obomsawin PhD, M.Sc.

(Part 1.)

The lengthy comment summarising my stance on the Vaccination issue is just a preface to some more important points I wanted to make, but I’m not sure how long comments will stay open on this post so I’m posting my unfinished comment to be on the safe side. If it’s possible to extend the open comments I hope you’ll consider it so that I can expressing what I had in mind.


Won’t read what I just wrote, or upcoming comment?

On what grounds have you made up your mind (who do you posit as the most reliable source on the matter?). And isn’t that a violation of your principles (you appear to be refusing to listen to the prosecution, no?).

You had your chance.

I told you that I would listen to the other part only in discussion. You sent me a link to a discussion on YouTube and that day I was watching, on my own initiative, other debates between anti-vaxxers and their contradictors.

It was precisely the debate that you sent, and other debates that I saw on my own in which they invited the anti-vaxxers, that made me see that their position is a classic pseudoscience.

That day I used many hours of my life to listen to both positions and I even wrote my conclusions on several pages of my diary. I have no more time to listen.

Did you even read my first point; if you don’t have time to do adequate research into the matter you should postpone judgent until when/if you do?

Absent time-consuming research, it would only be rational to make up your mind based on a failed litmus test. And what might that be, in this case? If you answer it would be a useful learning opportunity for any reader, wouldn’t it?

I had planned to address the issues you raised concerning the source I provided you with. I miscommunicated, I should have put it into proper context. But for your part you seem to be invoking serious logical fallacies in defense of your position (e.g. genetic fallacy, proof by assertion, etc.), which is something you’ve attempted to make a fine point of trying to counsel your readers against over the years. I see a potential of your damaging your own credibility with your stance.

I just reviewed my April diary, where in ten pages I was writing about you. There is no point in translating them into English. Suffice it to say, I don’t think you have a good grasp of how real science works.

I understood the difference between science and pseudoscience thanks to the writers who published in The Skeptical Inquirer, and the sceptical books that fill my personal library. Also, I used to be a pseudo-scientist who believed in the Turin shroud and the paranormal. The process of un-alienation from that worlview, thanks to the authors of that society of sceptics, the CSICOP, led me to a degree of scepticism unusual in most racialists.

I am not neutral in the debate on vaccine hesitancy for the simple fact that by refusing to vaccinate, they undermine the herd’s immunity.

But as I said: I don’t have time to argue (these days I’ve been very busy fixing El Grial). I leave it to the visitors of this thread to see the debate you sent me a couple of months ago so that they form their own opinion:


If they want to discuss with you, I’ll add an open thread on vaccine hesitancy so that you may reply to them.

Personal communication (no need to pass)

I completed comment and now saw your second comment.

OK, thanks for clarifying you stance.

Open thread sounds good, if there are new comments.

Your stance seems to be based on an application of the precautionary principal. Your statement about me not understanding how real science works is intriguing, but of course in the absence of further clarification I’ll never know what I’m supposedly getting wrong. Oh well, we don’t have the time then.

But I’m always open to having my assumptions challenged, and changing my mind based on new information. So I’m intrigued to know which other videos you watched. Not to argue about it, but for my own education. If it was enough to convince you of the inherent superiority of the pro-vaccine position then it might give me some pause for thought. Though I’ll say, I’m guessing that the videos you found of your own volition entailed discussions pitting experts against non-experts. I wish you would have watched all the debate videos I sent you instead of random ones. I made an effort to cull the debates of higher quality.

As I mentioned in my lengthy comment, the overview of the vaccine issue was a preface for different issues I was going to raise, so I’ll try to complete my comment in the next couple of days.


From the Email I sent you before:

Senator/Paediatrician Richard Pan, questioned on Whooping Cough vaccines – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qkQEuPN3oc

Dr Dale Brown vs “Vaccine Expert” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDe-qNVtwYc

WHO caught lying under questioning – “W.H.O CHIEF SCIENTIST CAUGHT LYING TO THE PUBLIC – YouTube” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sPSpyEi01VI

Del Bigtree and Mark Blaxill vs Psychiatrist Allen Frances; “Fight over Autism:


Del Bigtree vs George Pardos – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwcXiU0c7e4 (About 2 Hours in length)

“The doctors” Debate footage – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oEtF8FdqpA

And finally, an Hours length debate hosted on the Phil Donahue show, featuring Dr Robert Mendelssohn – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEK-Q0OgYB8&feature=emb_title

I’m surprised that you made a big deal about Horowitz having kooky beliefs, it verges on “genetic fallacy) to dismiss his performance in the debate on account of it. I thought your proviso was, who seems to make more scientific arguments? I’m surprised that you considered the glib pro-vaxxers in that debate to have presented a more valid case.
Hopefully you could briefly summarise what they got right and the other side got wrong in that one.

Anyhow, my understanding of how science works is that the gold standard of scientific evidence in medicine is the the double-blind placebo, and vaccination has failed to meet that atandaetd; not a single independent, double-blind, inert plaebo controllee study has demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of a single vaccine.


Comments are closed.