by Gaedhal
I didn’t want to comment on the killing of Renée Nicole Good. First off, it has nothing to do with me. The only link Good has to Ireland, is that she was a missionary in Northern Ireland.
And the people who are shooting your ideological enemies in the face, today, are the same people who could very well be shooting you in the face tomorrow. Hence, the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis (R) actually came out against this shooting. As I said before: one probably has to have a personality disorder to join either the police or the army. Perhaps police forces and armies are necessary in this world; however, in my view they are necessary evils.
In Northern Ireland, we have an anomoly. We have a police force that is secret; we have a police force that is armed; we have a police force that allows its officers to carry weapons, whilst off duty.
Now the police service of Northern Ireland is not ICE, not by a long shot; however, there are parrallels. All of the other police forces in the British Isles are mostly unarmed.
However, the term “U.S. Citizen” has suffered from hyper-inflation, due, in large part to immigration. When the U.S. was a white racial republic, the term “US citizen” actually meant something. The founders were explicit: the republic was founded for their posterity. However, a citizenship that anyone can claim; well, that becomes sorta worthless. If anyone can become a U.S. citizen, then U.S. citizenship is sorta worthless.
Liberals—those to the right of Leftists, in this context—largely turned a blind eye to non-citizens being denied constitutional rights, even though the courts said that the norms of the U.S. constitution applied everywhere that the U.S. was the sovereign or de facto sovereign power. Obama never shut down the concentration camp at Guantanamo bay. Although he did attempt cosmetic changes in an attempt to bring some of what goes on there in line with constitutional norms.
Also, in a polarized society, one’s political opponents no longer inhabit the same moral universe. At the beginning, the Left and Right, in America, had a shared vision of what America is was and should be, however, they differed on the issue of federalism or antifederalism. Today, there is no agreement between Left and Right on just about anything. Thus appeals to Renée Good’s being a “U.S. citizen” from the Left are utterly worthless, given the polarisation of America.
I really only have an expressable opinion on this one aspect of this controversy: appeals by Liberals and Leftists to Renée Good’s being a U.S. citizen, and why they are likely to fall upon the radical right’s deaf ears.
In Ireland, “Irish citizen” is actually a sarcasm, describing some invader who was magically alchemised into his/her becoming Irish by way of a magical piece of paper, to wit, an Irish Passport.
And, of course, as my good friend Alex, who has since gone to be with the ground, “magic paper” such as passports are merely the secular version of “magic water”. Indeed, the idea of a birth certificate might have actually come from the Roman Catholic Baptismal certificate.
Catholics believed that magic water could turn the inhabitants of Africa into Christians—i.e. civilized white men, but with a different skin tone—and Liberals believe that the alchemy of magic documents, such as passports, can more or less accomplish the same thing. Catholics believed in the magic of catachesis, and, as Revilo P. Oliver points out: Liberals believe in the magic of education. Education, very often, to Liberals, is a snake oil that will cure whatever ails society.
Thus, we are still under the tyranny of Christian axiology; of Christian assumptions; or, as Oliver might have put it, the reformed Church of Marxianism has superceded the unreformed Catholic and Protestant Churches.
22 replies on “Renée”
When it comes to the British police I’m quite glad the majority aren’t armed (although I notice the trend of them utilizing their intimidating, trigger-happy SWAT teams for ever smaller infractions, sometimes seemingly at the drop of a hat).
Them not carrying guns on the whole is probably for the best in the long run – despite all the ‘non-lethal’ ways they can kill you, or just old fashioned brutality (with a modern twist awarded them by their upgrading of tech), as was first really exemplified during the lockdowns some years ago – considering that fairly recently (April 2025) there have been articles in The Telegraph and The Daily Mail among other sources, highlighting Chief Constable John Robins of West Yorkshire Police and his desire, seemingly in his own words, to ‘discriminate against white job applicants’ so he can hire more ethnic minority officers, ranking black and Asian candidates as ‘gold tier’ hires.
Also, I saw video footage of a gangly, afro-haired Somalian officer with the Met recently, and thought of the public furore in the UK over them no longer vetting their officers, primarily for the sake of DEI anti-racism policies, and thus establishing a workforce of rapists, sex offenders, drug dealers, and the thoroughly corrupt, often of a non-white nature, as proved time and again by exposures in the papers (and internal slaps on the wrists), and which I assume is the tip of the iceberg.
Much as I’m sure the sinister, personality-disordered native officers would be quite prepared to mow us down if only they could, I don’t really like the idea of being policed on the increasing whole by racial enemy foreigners, some of them fresh arrival illegal immigrants despite the piece of paper telling them they’re just like us (and who would, I feel some days, perform such in a heartbeat, and certainly if they could get away with it, which the anti-white laws here effectively allow them to do already), just as I don’t like them sitting as biased jurors with a chip on their shoulder against whites (perhaps an obsolete comment as David Lammy is set on removing jury trials altogether in this country). I shall hope they do not all become UK judges as well.
That the UK security and secret services, of all people, are, overall, staffed by either ‘woke’ women or racial minorities (to the point that they have a Muslim Staff Member of the Year award) is increasingly common knowledge, as further highlighted in a Connor Tomlinson YouTube presentation recently on the all-inclusive ‘longhouse’ metaphor.
Truly a nightmare.
And the saddest thing of all is that it was Englishmen who accepted their own destruction. This demonstrates that one must start from my particular use of psychohistory to understand this phenomenon: something that “white nationalists” completely ignore because they focus on Jewery (kike takeover has been the consequence of Xtianity and neo-Xtianity, not the original aetiology of the zeitgeist).
Yesterday I went to the chess club. The wealthiest member among us, a married man, has no children. Yesterday, he interrupted the tournament because his wife wanted him at a “co-ed baby shower.”
This young man has no children with his wife, and although he is completely white, his live shows the levels of degradation to which men have recently subjected themselves to conform to the ultra-liberal zeitgeist. I once had a heated argument with him about feminism, but he takes the values of the zeitgeist for granted.
What you see on your island I see with the men I know on the other side of the pond.
I agree, I’m more disappointed in the native citizens than I am in the political traitors actually (traitors of a different sort). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not expecting overnight revolution from the swiftest population-wide turn to hardcore radicalism, but they could at least discuss the baby step issues with a mite of seriousness, or even, as you say, be prepared to come out against feminism and the like, just for start – just something innocuous and obvious. But no. Traitors & the Weak, that’s this island. Appalling behaviour on your acquaintance’s part.
I suppose on the plus side (if there is one), at least the civnats here are being discouraged recently, but that just means more bog-standard ethnonationalists to fill up the impotent box. As I said before, ‘remigration’ is a nice idea, I suppose, but it sounds impractical in that by the time we could have the infrastructure and logistics in place to commence it, we wouldn’t have the numbers demographically (generationally – I think the closest plan is for this to occur in roughly 20 years), or at least, they’d be aged, and competing against a gross non-native population explosion – plus the international political traitors will put every hurdle possible in the way. It could also be a tremendous waste of precious money, especially if some popular fool insists on the further flawed plan of paying them a stipend for their return journey (and as if they, in general, wouldn’t riot themselves over anything like this mass deportation scheme, and from as soon as it became realistic). I’d still like to see the nationalists try it for a bit, and see how unsuccessful it is (beyond, as I say, being a lovely idea, in a world that isn’t this one).
At base, it feels like a long-term example – and a more cowardly one – of just kicking the can down the road. When you have a sizeable population of the enemy in your clutches, why let them go? Why let them regroup abroad?
‘Remigration’ is also a good public cover, just about within the right edge confines of the modern Overton Window, for what one may really think, and plan for. I just don’t see the problem with openly accepting they’re here, and instead working on building the numbers up (which does not have to be a majority, and won’t be by that point) to drive them into the sea to drown, or otherwise exterminate them from the heartlands utilizing the plethora of techniques one could achieve that by, which I won’t go into here.
Let’s remember that for the Xtian Nick Fuentes, expelling them isn’t even a “practical” option.
I wouldn’t expel them.
We would trick all coloureds by telling them to move to the most prosperous city, while simultaneously removing all the white people from there, and Kalki would nuke the city.
Problem solved.
Only those who obey the Jew (I’m referring to the commandments of the New Testament that atheists still follow) would consider such an action “sociopathic.”
In reality, Neanderthal extermination is the noblest thing not only for the suffering animals, but also for the beautiful Aryan nymphs whom we are programmed to save.
In Handmaid’s Tale they put all of the Africans and Jews on a massive ship, and sink it halfway to Africa. I do not recommend such a course of action—there is no 1st amendment in the slave-states of Europe—but I wished to make two observations: the show didn’t follow suit, which meant that it had a demographically racially mixed cast, and 2. I once saw this as a joke on a white Nationalist site, and I wonder did he get it from Margaret Atwood. In the book, not only is Gilead Christian Nationalist, it is also a White Ethnostate. In the TV series, Gilead is merely Christian Nationalist, i.e. Civic Nationalist. Indeed, one could argue that in the book, it is the white fertility crisis that causes the Sons of Jacob to take over the country, and abolish the 19th Amendment. It is amazing how far the Overton Window has shifted, such that the abolition of the 19th Amendment is an almost mainstream political opinion in America, nowadays. Friend of this blog, Joel Webbon openly advocates for this.
Thank you for sharing that, gaedhal. I haven’t read The Handmaid’s Tale. I’m left wondering personally – much as this is a fictitious example – if I’ve been misunderstanding the term ‘Civic Nationalist’. I kind of been working with it as a synonym in practice here (at least on the mainland) for ‘liberals who don’t like (parts of) Islam’. I think I’ve forgotten their overt Christianity, which I do think now is genuine in places, much as so much of it seems cynical, as if platitudes put on for show.
I wonder if, due to the Christian element (if they were to be practising it legitimately, as I don’t see how they could reconcile it with themselves if they weren’t – if they thought that at all), if any such group in reality would ever drive off Africans and Jews in a sabotaged vessel, and things like that.
I suppose I don’t really know any members of that set personally, so I couldn’t say. My only online experience is listening to Catholic Conservative Nick Fuentes and Protestant (?) Nationalist Joel Webbon expressing their colour-blindness, or indeed welcoming tolerance for non-whites.
When it came to the sort of ‘token crusaders’, as I see them, I was thinking of Tommy Robinson and Danny Tommo (though not Nick Griffin, who is certainly honest in his religious belief, even though he recommends us recently to embrace racial minority status, provided we establish some security and ‘fight for our rights’ subsequent to that, leading me to consider him a defeatist, as well as too generous to bloodthirsty enemy intentions after we reach that tipping stage.)
Perhaps, to the contained degree they can work to, I’m not doing them enough justice (I know what I think of the ‘ethnonationalist’ groups). I just sense that somehow, it could never happen in reality as it does in the book. Did Margaret Atwood overestimate their racist tendencies? Can one maintain a practical Christian Nationalist ethnostate and later develop them (and only then discard Christianity altogether)? I don’t know the full answers, but, vaguely, I wouldn’t risk it.
In the book there is a cynicism to the Christianity practised. Atwood did not want to make this book antichristian or antitheist per se, indeed some Christian denominations, like the Quakers, resist Gilead, and set up an underground railroad, so as to convey women to Canada. They start deleting verses of the Bible like: ‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.’ Gilead also has ‘Jezebels’ or Prostitutes for VIP guests of the state. A type of “Positive Christianity”—a ruse so as to fix the depleted/poisoned environment, and to improve the white birth rate—is practised. The racial question is settled: there are no more non-whites in Gilead. However, were the show to follow this, then they would have had to have had an all-white cast. Joel Webbon is a Reformed Baptist, and, so yes, Protestant.
P.S. as a last reply, just for my future reference (I wasn’t sure how or where to add this): I shouldn’t have put ‘even though’ for Nick Griffin, as much as ‘and on account of this’.
I like Danny Tommo the most, out of all of them.
I think it’s my own receding malware that lead me to worry more about the cynicism (i.e. the individual ‘stain’) than the practicality. After all, I should prefer cynical Christians to believers, surely! I’m imagine as excuse that I’m still not quite grasping Positive Christianity. I can understand it in Adolf Hitler’s day, that realistic choice. Today feels both too desperate/too late for that, and also a society when Christian belief has itself diminished suitably (in the UK).
Nowadays, I feel that, if they’re going to be thinking consistently at all in a racial fashion, they shouldn’t still try to keep Christianity. I acknowledge human frailty though, and it suggests to me that if they are it’s a private battle more than a public one. I think that’s a positive thing to recognise. I sense the genuine if fraught – if such is the case – would de-convert faster than the out and out atheist/neochristian frauds.
Thank you to both César, and also primarily gaedhal for your replies. It inspires me, seeing the example set in the fiction. I haven’t thought about this country accurately enough…
It is of course interesting to keep an eye on sky pilots––a nice old freethought term for the clerical hawkers of Christianity–– like Joel Webbon, but they are not allies; not even, really, co-belligerents.
Joel Webbon concedes that it is usually Christians who oppose the kind of society that Joel wants to create. As Linder put it: the kind of society that you want to create, Christianity makes impossible.
As Alex Linder points out: soul equality is the “most profound” form of equality. Political egalitarianism follows the doctrine of soul-equality as naturally as the night follows the day.
Joel wants a “new Christendom”, whereas it is the old Christendom that brought us to this pass.
Joel wants a “new Christian right”. I was reading David Quinn, a “Christian” “social conservative” as he describes himself in the Irish Catholic, the other day. He is pro-natalist, and he opposes abortion on these grounds. There aren’t enough anapterous bipeds being born, according to him, yea, he said that this is an issue that is more pressing than climate change! Promiscuous pro-natalism and pro-lifery favours non-whites. The old Christian right is doing us in. In Ireland, the Catholic Church is doing us in, which is why the term: “Catholic Nationalist” is an oxymoron, especially in Ireland.
If Heaven is our true country, as Christians believe, yea, a better one, then why ought we to care about racial demographics. The otherworldliness of Christianity is itself antiwhite.
And we have to address the stupidity of these people. These people believe in a 6000-year-old earth, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and Jews that respawn, and one of which who levitated into the sky after having done so. The stupidity of these men alone is sufficient to disqualify them as allies.
William Luther Pierce wrote in an age when Christianity needed to be pandered to, however even he said that whilst he did not trifle with Christians, so long as they kept their delusions private, nevertheless, in real terms, Christians are at best “useless” to the pro-white cause.
He also said that it is unmanly. Christianity is “a second childhood… minus its charm.”
I was listening to Wesley Todd, a cohost of Webbon’s fantasise about a post-mortem family meal in the New Jerusalem. Are we to be allies or co-belligerent with fantasists?
A sad thing about Rene’s death is that it is the non whites who are mourning her the most and feeling empathy for her, while the white population is further divided by this.
How stupid a race can be.
I didn’t know that (I too haven’t studied this case). I agree with you. That’s what I can never understand about the right… those who hate leftists with their utmost, as ‘traitors’ of the same calibre as traitor politicians, etc. I just see her primarily as a white woman slaughtered. I do see leftists as an irritating phenomenon, very much the ‘useful idiots’ sensation, but, as we know, the right isn’t really any better along different metrics (and some in common), and probably actually more irritating in a sense, as, as César pointed out some days back, it’s easier to turn a naïve communist to one’s worldview than a bourgeois conservative. At least the left are genuinely radical (and get rather more done).
Beyond all the left-right flippancies, I much prefer dealing with ideas like ‘neochristianity’ (or ‘pods’), and I think it ironic (and not funny) that the side that touts itself as being comprised of racialists – ‘racist’ being too strong a term for them – still bears no genuine solidarity with its own racial kind that is not grotesquely partisan, throwing them under the bus for knee-jerk ideological bonus points. I usually extend that to how cruelly the right treats the white child abuse victims that we refer to as ‘the mentally ill’, but this sad occurrence is just as telling an example (from my cursory overview at least).
The trick lies in what I say in “Self-stigma: courtesy of O’Brien,” pages 99-110 of my book How to Murder Your Child’s Soul: Never use psychiatric metaphors (cf. Tom Szasz)!
The problem with using them is that you divide people: mentally ill and healthy.
In reality, politicians who are in denial about how the Russians are winning in Ukraine are more seriously mentally “sick” than “schizophrenics,” since the latter only harm themselves with their delusions, while politicians harm the entire West.
Without semantic cleansing, it will never be possible to generate empathy for the victims of abusive parents.
When my book reaches your house next month, I hope you can reread that chapter (when correcting the syntax of that chapter, perhaps you focused too much on grammar at the expense of content?).
I should have rephrased it – I don’t include myself in that ‘we’ beyond trying to speak in general as an observer on other humans. I don’t ever personally use the term ‘mentally ill’. I was referring to the right as a block, which certainly does. I was hoping the frustration at its distorted usage would come across in my sentence. I’m well aware of its victims.
Of course, you’re not mentally ill. You’re a thousand times saner than the vast majority of ethno-suicidal whites who, moreover, give a shit about the human torment of animals! I would only use that metaphor—because it is a metaphor, not a biomedical entity—for people like Marco, with whom I actually spoke on the phone today.
Sorry for the off-topic ‘thread necromancy’. I had meant to ask you, how how do you feel about the term ‘mental health’? That’s one I do use, both as short form to describe the services, and also in general to describe the field as I think it covers the psychological also, and thus can be used legitimately (without causing stigma). I think the key is degrees of health, not either health or illness, in lazy binary. I like it as a more abstract term that encapsulates the metaphor without rendering (good) psychology pseudoscientific.
I re-read your latest link on ‘Missiles’ to the great confinement and the chemical gulag (parts 1 and 2) and saw one line. I myself wish the two distinct areas of thought could be regarded as other than a zero-sum game (thinking of ‘nature-nurture’ research broadly – we know psychiatry is a false science as always has been, and I don’t trust postmodern philosophy and the leftism and neochristianity that taints clinical psychology even when it is not pandering to psychiatry’s norms).
I’ve tended to say ‘psychiatric patients’ over the years to describe the sufferers, but I question that too sometimes, as that implies a certain consensual element, and in my experience everything in psychiatry is by force/involuntary, whether their initial fishing for you (by lying in wait for clueless parents in denial, when you are too young to have a voice) or via the range of toxic punitive measures they inflict on you once they do know you exist, and have you in a system you can’t really escape anymore, such as court ‘medication’ orders and community treatment programmes (let alone psychiatric prisons ‘units’). I don’t personally know of forced psychotherapy in the UK, but I’d expect as much.
I suppose to be fairest to reality I should just describe it as the traumas of any individual affected (when going into detail on their actual life experiences), and not utilize any of psychiatry’s frameworks and judgements (or society’s politer consensuses), as if they had anything official and scientific going for them at all.
I think I will re-read you book closely when I have a physical copy regardless actually (I was planning to go through it again, but I’ll take my time more), and then return and read Szasz, whom I haven’t encountered for a while (though I’ve been through most of his accessible canon in the past, maybe 4-5 years ago…). It needs regular review. As far as I recall from my initial reading, he didn’t seem quite sympathetic enough to the child parental victims. I can’t remember the exact segments, so pardon my ignorance. His closest contemporary parallel, to my eyes, is Peter C. Gotzsche, but he – Szasz – is of a more dissident character, seemingly lost (bar you, who are much better).
As you know, I’m still dealing with the matter I mentioned in the email, so I’ll only answer one of your questions.
Indeed: Szasz knows nothing about the trauma model of mental disorders. A few years ago, a Szasz fan challenged my criticisms of Szasz on this point and asked John Modrow for his opinion, who said that Szasz’s legacy wasn’t enough for me.
That’s true, but I still recommend Szasz’s books (e.g., Anti-Freud).
I am not much informed concerning this case may she rest in peace. However, I am informed about the origin of my name. Hi Jamie I, like C.T. am a native Spanish speaker though educated in the U.S.A. The name René has traditionally always been a man’s name. You will find this to be true in France, Italy and all Spanish speaking countries including Spain of course. Somebody in an English speaking country decided to change the spelling adding an extra e at the end effectively giving to Woman the name of a Man.
Hi René, I found that interesting to know.
It’s got me thinking about that blasted name my partner gave her dog: Skyler (I always put it with an ‘a’ but I just checked and, naturally, it’s ‘e’ in her case). As far as I can see the name was originally male, and Dutch, from the surname ‘Schuyler’ translating roughly as ‘learned’ or ‘intelligent’ (the latter not far off for that breed, not that she would have cared), but increasingly, especially in the Anglo-American world, it’s been adopted for females (such as the Breaking Bad character), lending it the thoroughly obnoxious designation these days of being ‘unisex’.
It strikes me as a very stereotypical (from my perspective) American trend to pollute European concepts, and render them crass. The latter name brings up the image of young Californian airheads in my mind when I say it back to myself. Stupid name for a dog. He deserves better.
‘Schüler’ in German.
Thanks for that. I took a brief scan on Wiktionary.
I think looking at it, -er (not -ar, regardless of my pronunciations, as that would seem feminine) probably would be more expected. I can’t work out if I’m ‘inspired’ by staring at too many Spanish verbs a few months back, or desperately hoping for an unavailable Old Norse resonance, something along the lines of ‘hundr’, just to claw back some sanity for him. On a side note, by visual coincidence, I see ‘Skylos’ is Greek for dog (and nowadays in the pejorative use), from ‘skúlax’ (or indeed ‘skin or hide’: ‘skŭ́los’).
I asked her how she named him. After one of my stepdaughter’s (female) playground friends, it seems. I’m glad at least it doesn’t make any discernible difference from his perspective.
I’m amazed that any of you actually think that this story is real. Have you never heard the phrase “if it’s on the news, it’s a ruse”?
Hi Benjamin, I have never even read or heard that name anywhere except for the female character of Breaking Bad…Skyler White. I grew up speaking Spanish at home and speaking English at school.