Regarding what the racial right is doing, among other things Benjamin observed yesterday:
…a kind of interesting academic matter to be debated, where people can have ‘opinions’.
One of the sites that shocks me most is Counter-Currents. Both the writers and commenters talk as if the whole thing were academic because the water hasn’t reached up to their necks.
It’s incredible the feeling I get reading that site (and the other white nationalist forums). It’s something like: “These guys aren’t doing anything and they think they’re doing something.”
I think they recently held a meeting in Rome, but it never occurs to them that what they’re doing only makes sense by forming a Nazi party that wants to seize power.
What can be done with these “men” who only complain about what the jews and the niggers and the spics do without lifting a finger in the real world?
If there’s anything that depresses me immensely, it’s the mere existence of these people. But the saddest thing is that the true Aryan man, symbolised by his sword, no longer exists.
You can’t find him anywhere! It is truly the darkest hour for the fair race, and were it not for what comes after the collapse of the dollar—and perhaps peak oil—I would say that this entire website, to quote David Lane, is an “open letter to a dead race”.
10 replies on “No sword”
If white nationalists were real men, they would try to refute me in these discussion threads.
But they don’t. And if I’m wrong, how am I supposed to know if no one wants to argue with me?
If I’m wrong, they should have the courtesy to tell me, “You’re wrong because of this and that.” But they leave me talking to myself.
I suspect I’m not wrong, but rather that they have nothing to say…
As for the chosen image, Andúril, also called the Flame of the West, was the sword that would eventually be reforged from the fragments of Narsil in Rivendell in Tolkien’s novel.
You are left talking to yourself because you censor anyone with a different view.
See, you’re right in a sense. It’s just I get the idea César likes to argue to resolution (i.e. not for the sake of it).
After all, we’re under time pressures here as a race (and us as the vanguard of that, especially so), and someone is right and someone is wrong, granted, but for the moment it’s what’s more reasonable.
No one likes to be wrong, just as some people don’t like disagreements. You’ve proved yourself incompatible here (so he banned you in the end, as with Adunai – and a few others, much as he is kinder than me).
But it’s not just that you’re incompatible, it’s that you argue in a bitchy, feminine, snarky way, always looking for sadistic ad hominem remarks, typical low-IQ fare (like the thing with my arm on TOO, or laughing in hysteria at a woman’s dog-name choice) whilst blanking anything you don’t like (like a number of the questions I’ve asked you on veganism – and a number of the sub-responses I’ve given).
Your evidence is not as strong as your opinions (and they don’t seem to change). What will you do next, cram on ChatGPT or make up a truly desperate autist’s pet-theory augmentation? Or just release bile, like a little spoilt brat whose Dad couldn’t be there to teach him to like his banana slice?
For example a good question would be: hypothetically, what *would* it take on any of these discrete matters for you to change your mind? If you couldn’t, you’d be certain, we can say that at least.
But is it really that ‘certain = correct’? It’s just if you’re not responding to the sub-points, and at the time, you do seem to be dogmatic. We don’t need a dogmatist if we’re in a hurry. If you don’t really look into the evidence you’re presented, and won’t read anyone that disagrees with you (and won’t answer on Unz when asked if you ever do that – for scientific rigour!), then why, by an objective standard, should anyone else take you seriously?
What’s the chance that by ‘anyone’ you’re really meaning yourself (and people very like you)? I think if he’s asking for conversation still, and you’re usually banned, he’s not asking for it from you (do you get that?!).
Yeah, they could be banned in future if they become like you (diametrically opposed, i.e. who needs their enemies on their doorstep?). But hopefully not. Hopefully people have that, again, reasonable air to them, and can come to sense. Sense isn’t relative – there’s something right and something wrong, and your evidence is weak and picked by lazy minds with a perennial confirmation bias that ‘compensates’ for that laziness. Even my own webpage reflected on that recently (and by the way, you’re not banned there).
I could be wrong. César could be wrong (and since we agree, we can synonymise those positions for the moment). But again, your evidence presented is nowhere near as bountiful as your dogmatism. Your site’s crap compared to this one.
I’d be interested in a run-down of those answers I requested at some point – but not here. I want to hear from you as little as he does.
Because he has empathy. I have empathy. You? You have no empathy. So what’s the point?
Ultimately, if you kept at this, you just *want* to be right. You’d stall him and ruin the site. Keep your ‘rightness’ to yourself all you like, but we are ideally – and it shames me to have to type that – men here (not selfish, cold-hearted, developmentally-retarded assholes beyond repair), and we do want resolution. We do not believe in Athenian democracy – democracy at all – or communism. Your word is not valid by our judgement. (Ultimately, we would kill you).
So what does the enemy say now, in your quest to subvert down to ‘me, me, me…’? Do you think you could just… get the idea? I don’t think you could. I’d like to know what you think, though, this once. But I do anticipate you (just you here; now) being banned again. I think it’ll be the last time. If you ignore what I’ve written here, that’s my final point to confirm it (from my perspective – and I damn well don’t need it from yours).
I have answered them, but the tyrant of this blog has seen fit to block those responses, so don’t blame me for not answering. I have. Take it up with him.
It doesn’t surprise me that you would beat your veganism into a child. Yes, we are so spoilt and unreasonable for sticking to the diet we evolved over millennia to subsist on. Your beloved Vikings were infamous for their carnivorous appetite.
I don’t have a website. I don’t know where you got that idea.
I was referring to that Substack meeting place you all seem to pile into (maybe there are other sites you might use? who knows…). I think Adunai runs it, technically. I tend to interchange you at times as you seem to have that sort of lockstep ‘blob’ mindset.
Beat? What on earth are you talking about? It’s figurative. You don’t need to answer that, it’s okay. It probably should surprise you if you took it that literal way (it should surprise you to analyse your entire put-out perception of it, whether literal or figurative): I find your regular hyperbole grim – it’s borderline homosexual (I always imagine you flapping your little arms about in a strop, or banging a spoon – oh the horror, the gall of it!). Do you not see daddy could have made eating quite fun for you with regard to this vegetable matter?
You’re spoilt because you are anyway (it comes out in most of you words, on any topic, but I take it you don’t notice). You didn’t need the convenient strawman tacked on to the ending of your sentence.
It’s like telling the stupid person they’re stupid, and seeing if the penny drops for them. An exercise in futility. Yup, I’d say you’re unreasonable.
Infamous in general. It didn’t do them any harm, but they may not have been right on this tiny facet though, taken by this current standard. I can’t see their cultural conditions allowing them to think that back then. It’s odd so few can think it now.
You’re acting as your own defence lawyer here justifying that you answered me soundly, just as you always do. I think he probably didn’t pass on the words though for reasons of brute disagreement (plus you never just get the hint and fuck off).
One does need external evaluations over that, and especially on the moral/kindness front (and you miss the aesthetic drive-to-life impulse of it automatically by your psychological defect – i.e. you’re cruel). I can’t call a spade a spade in your case on account of this divide.
You’re lying, AS: I let many of your comments against vegetarianism/veganism slide in this thread (and in this other comment from last year).
Goodbye…
For the record, dozens of comments like these are what prompted me to ban the AS from this site. I’m including screenshots because I didn’t allow those comments to go through this year:
For years, the AS has believed I’m obligated to answer his questions about his perspective on female aesthetics: a topic that doesn’t interest me, but this autist has been incapable of generating the slightest empathy: “C.T. isn’t interested in my philosophy about women with large breasts being the only beautiful ones”, etc.
No, he vehemently believes that I am obligated to respond to his tastes and opinions (i.e., like Marco, AS lacks psychological walls).
In addition to Autisticus Spasticus (AS), banned here because of what Ben said (“you argue in a bitchy, feminine, snarky way…”), and Adunai because he likes the Chinese to torture animals, I’ve banned those who have insulted me in my discussion threads.
But I wish the main promoters of white nationalism, like Greg Johnson, whose moral compass is diametrically opposed to mine, would come here to discuss their reasons. But they don’t.
There isn’t even an article on any of the white nationalist forums that tries to refute our POV, clearly explained in the featured article: they simply ignore me.
And when I visit their forums playing my main card—that, since I live in a Latin American country, it’s clear from here that the miscegenation that destroyed the Iberian white wasn’t due to Jewish subversion (there was an Inquisition in New Spain to keep kikes at bay) but to Christian ethics—they still ignore me.
What AS says isn’t true: I seek direct confrontation in those racialist forums but they just ignore me.
You are spot on correct about your assessment of white nationalism Cesar. You talk about the need to form a new NS party and that is correct. I also think a new sacred order of men who understand truly what is happening in the world is needed as well. The SS had that potential before it was destroyed by the Judeo-Christian forces in WW2. Both a physical and spiritual revolution are needed.
The key is that, for the moment, without soldiers we can’t fight yet. We can only fight an internal jihad against our family and social programming (questioning Christian ethics, etc.): something these racialists are absolutely incapable of doing.