Tuesday, January 27, 2015

The Forced, Posthumous Conversion of Charlie Chaplin, Racial Socialism (aka Cultural Marxism), and Other Fun at Alternative Right, the False Flag Jewish Blog

I am Not “Duns Scotus”—at Least, I Don’t Think I am—but He Must be a Jew!
By Nicholas Stix

You’d think that anyone who knew me, would know that the surest way to get me to talk your ear off is to order me to shut up. In fact, if not for all the mooks and mopes who’ve issued me such orders over the years, I might have taken a vow of silence years ago!

Take the blog Alternative Right. Please. It ran an essay under the handle “Duns Scotus,” saying things I’ve been saying about the Frankfurt School for years on the occasional comment thread.

I’m not saying Duns ripped me off, and I don’t recall writing under that nom de guerre. It’s more a case of great minds think alike. And what would one expect form a blog published and frequented by a bunch of closet Jews.

I praised Duns accordingly:
nicholasstix • 11 hours ago
This Duns Scotus is a brilliant fellow. He reminds me … of me. Must be a member of The Tribe. Ahoy, brother!

• 1

I was also going to respond to one or two other comments, e.g.,

“Morgoth Morgoth • 20 hours ago

“Why you have a picture of a Jew impersonating Hitler I can only guess at, this would be more apt”


By asking, “Who’s the Jew?”

However, someone was unappreciative of my first remark.

Alternative_Right Mod to nicholasstix • an hour ago
Shut it down!

Well, the only thing to do was to move the discussion here!


[Thirty-Seven years after his death, Charlie Chaplin has been forcibly converted to Judaism]

Ideology is Not a Thing
By Duns Scotus
Monday, 26 January 2015
Alternative Right

Recently there has been some discussion about this thing called "Cultural Marxism," and whether–or how–it exists or not. The discussion began with an article by Jason Wilson in Britain's premier left-wing broadsheet the Guardian, titled “Cultural Marxism: a uniting theory for right wingers who love to play the victim,” to which Michael Enoch at The Right Stuff responded with “I Acknowledge That Cultural Marxism Exists,” with which alt-right stalwarts Keith Preston and Greg Johnson then seemingly concurred.

First, here is Wilson setting out his stall:
"The conspiracy theorists claim that these 'cultural Marxists' began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation."
Enoch, perhaps taking inspiration from his recent reading of Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique, states that Cultural Marxism doesn't need to be an actual conscious conspiracy. Here is the summing up of his argument:
“In the end the argument is just a semantic shell game used by leftists to avoid any discussion or criticism of actual ideas and policies and keep the debate focused on word games and obfuscation. Cultural Marxism is a useful and coherent label for a body of easily recognizable leftist theories and ideas concerning identity politics and oppression. We could just as easily call it Flying Spaghetti Marxism for all it matters though. What is important is the substance, which people like Wilson never actually want to discuss.”
Preston's view, expressed in an article commenting on Enoch's article, stresses the abandonment of Economic Marxism implicit in the term Cultural Marxism and explicit in the various causes that Cultural Marxism promotes:
“Lastly, PC and capitalism are not necessarily in conflict. Capitalism wants workers, consumers, investors, and new markets. This means operating among an ever greater number of demographics. It is therefore perfectly logical that capitalism would embrace anti-racism, feminism, gay rights, etc. They want to sell products to minorities, women, and gays, and hire them as workers and managers, not discriminate against them. (See Noam Chomsky’s comments on how big business supports anti-racism). I suspect the serious thinkers among the cultural Left realize this, which is part of the reason why they have softened their anti-capitalism in their old age. This also explains why the corporate class has mostly rolled over in the face of PC. Remember that Singapore (which the Left considers to be fascist, and which free market conservatives often hold up as a model) also has strict “hate speech” laws.”
Johnson, in a comment on Enoch’s article, follows a similar tack:
“Cultural Marxism (another term for it is the New Left) is completely consistent with capitalism. Cultural Marxism does not champion the working class against capital. National Socialism taught the Jewish Left that the working class could turn against them. Stalinism taught the Jewish Left that the totalitarian state can turn against them. Thus the Jewish Left began to abandon the Old Left and replace it with the New Left, which champions "inclusion" and upward mobility within the capitalist system of previously excluded groups. Most of these groups are mere proxies and avatars for the group that pushes this agenda and benefits from it most, namely Jews. Cultural Marxism has expanded and cemented Jewish hegemony in the West. The result is, as Jonathan Bowden pointed out, something previously thought to be impossible: a hyper-oligarchical form of capitalism with a reigning Left-wing value system. (It is Left wing, at least, until the Left conflicts with Jewish interests.)”
From his other writings and podcasts, Enoch could be fairly described as a race realist, gender traditionalist, American nationalist, cultural Christian, and believer in the market, in other words, not too distant from an old school Republican. Cultural Marxism, with its race denying, gender confounding, universalist, atheist, and socialist tendencies, is therefore an extremely convenient label for all the ideas and tendencies he is diametrically opposed to. Cultural Marxism is a greater convenience for Enoch as a catch-all bugbear than it would be for almost anyone else.


Those who do, do; those who can't, teach;
those who can't teach, teach Cultural Marxism.


Preston and Johnson's views, however, emphasize the sinister synergies between Capitalism and the Left, with Johnson giving this his usual Jewish spin – and not without reason in the light of the news that the Ferguson protests had largely been kept going by the generosity of George Soros. Rather than agreeing with Enoch, the views of Preston and Johnson significantly differ.

Both Preston and Johnson have ideas and attitudes that would be more comfortably placed on the Left. Johnson is much more socially liberal and has a keen interest in various economic theories like social credit that are truly anti-capitalist. Preston, of course, is well-known as an anti-state anarchist. I suspect that Enoch, in his troll-channeling humorous style, would describe some of Preston and Johnson's positions as "dildo" or even "autistic right," two phrases often employed on Enoch's excellent if irreverent Daily Shoah radio show. But cheap jibes aside, there is a real problem with ideological explanations of ideology and believing in "Cultural Marxism" just because it is personally convenient.

Preston, in his article, points the way by digging up some ideological history, something he is well versed in. Here he is on the surprising beliefs of the twin fountainheads of Marxism:
“Marx and Engels were essentially Germanic or at least Nordic supremacists, viewed indigenous peoples as non-historical, and regarded Western imperialism as a historically progressive force (they had the same view of capitalism).”
Preston would also be able to tell you that Marx was a rather sincere anti-Semite despite his own Jewish origins (self-loathing has perhaps always been germane to Leftism). What Preston's historical perspective reveals is that Marxism has greatly mutated and changed in its comparatively short history. Furthermore it has also developed remarkably diverse and contradictory regional variants.

This suggests that Marxism's actual essence is weak, or that it is merely a protean entity, ever ready to bend with the times. But such shape-shifting is not just limited to Marxism. We have seen it with Christianity and various political parties, such as the US Democratic Party, once the citadel of Ku Klux Klan power.


Takes one to hate one.

A particularly striking example of "ideological ambidexterity" is the way in which the West and the East (the Soviet Union and now Russia) have ideologically switched places since the Cold War, with America now being all about "equality," while Russia shelters behind a Christian-infused form of Conservatism.

Far from the "insidious forms of psychological manipulation" of supposedly omnipotent academics (an oxymoron, in case you're wondering), what changed America was geopolitical expediency. In the 1950s with the threat posed by a particularly cunning and fascistic version of Communism, America was forced to reformulate its quintessential and, of course, ineradicable racism in such a way that it would not be a geopolitical drag on it in its struggle with the Soviet Union for the hearts, minds, oil, and markets of the non-aligned world.

Jim Crow might even have been around today if the balance of power had not tilted so dangerously against the West with the fall of China to Mao's Communists in 1949. Later still the liberal, secular West found an alliance with militant Islam to be particularly useful, as it sought to stem the spread of Communism by stirring up the Afghans.

History is full of such ideological backtracking, going all the way back to the Romans and their adoption of Christianity as a system for imposing a totalitarian system on their weakening empire – a move alas that did not pay off. Ideology, as it exists in the world, is nothing more than a protean form of convenience for particular political alignments and group interests, which are sure to shift from time to time. All ideological formations are prone to this plasticizing effect, which, over time, turns each one into a mockery of itself. What exactly is the point of any ideology besides putting a gloss on underlying factors?

But the clincher when it comes to considering Cultural Marxism and the absurd notion that an ideology can be a causal factor, rather than just a weird form of PR, is the Frankfurt School. This group of German-Jewish academics and its corpus of writings is cited as the engine of the Cultural Marxist Revolution that has supposedly conquered the West with its legendary "march through the institutions." But the Frankfurt School was essentially just a small group of ugly, uprooted academics with funny accents who couldn't write to save themselves, or anybody else for that matter. Just try reading their works – I dare you!

After being unceremoniously kicked out of Europe, they were horrified at ending up in a country that had no need for their Marxist claptrap. That Cultural Marxism then supposedly became such a big success is only explicable by the fact that it didn’t.


Adorno: not fond of short, clear sentences.

How can anyone claim that Cultural Marxism is an effective ideological force when its key texts, the major works of the Frankfurt School have hardly been read by any of today’s Leftists – and even if they have, it's a fair bet that they haven't been understood at all well. For an ideology to have any validity it has to have a clear cut message that can be communicated, and which can then move people. The Frankfurt school lacks these attributes.

Peoples and societies may be changing in many puzzling and aberrant ways, but none of this would ever take place if it were not for the consent of certain powerful economic and cultural elites, and the forces and interests that they channel. Ideology is just the wrapping paper for that particular package, not its substance.

The value system of something as large, complex, and powerful as the West or any other empire will never come from musty books and cloistered academics, but instead from trade systems, consumption patterns, and geopolitical power balances. If sticking a label on aspects of this is temporarily expedient, then names like "Liberalism," "Marxism," "Cultural Marxism," or even "Islam" may be appended, but, underneath, quite mechanisms do their work.

Islam is a good example of the protean aspects of ideology. It essentially got its start not as "the faith of the true believers," but as a rather sleazy device for uniting the desert tribes to take full advantage of the massive mutual weakening that the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires had been inflicting on each other for decades beforehand. The faith or ideology of Islam would have had no traction otherwise, and in the face of two healthy empires able to repel them, the tribes would have cheerfully returned to slitting each other's throats. It was plunder that built Islam, and when the plunder ran out, it went into a protracted period of abeyance. It's recent revival since 1967 as a supposed "ideological force" has much to do with the expediences of asymmetrical warfare for which its tribal origins give it some utility and its convenience as a channeling device for second-generation immigrant ressentiment in Europe.

So, how about Cultural Marxism? If it is not the real world manifestation of the world-changing brains of Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and their modern-day followers, what exactly is it? One thing is for sure: it is not a coherent set of ideas that is shaping the world in its image. The power flows the other way. Cultural Marxism is simply the gloss that a post-Christian West, caught in the habit of seeking moral justification, places on the decadent proclivities made possible by its unprecedented affluence. To kill it, you have to kill the post-Christian reflex, or else kill the affluence. Nothing else will do. Talking about it won't have the slightest effect.


January 26, 2015, 15:31

• Morgoth • 21 hours ago

''what exactly is it?''

It is the Jewish solution to the Gentile problem and though sitting on the Left of the political spectrum its reductionist view of European man sits nicely with the ruling money power, also Jewish.

You could take the Frankfurt School entirely out of the equation and we would still be where we are having permitted Jews to run riot in our lands. Whether it be Trotsky or Freud, Mel Brooks or Sarah Silverman, Saul Alinsky or George Soros, the nature of the Jew is obvious and should be well known to us all, it certainly was to Europeans in the past.

Writing in 1850 Wagner wrote:

"According to the present constitution of the world, the Jew in truth ... rules and will rule, so long as Money remains the power before which all our doings and dealings lose their force. That [historical circumstance]..has brought this power within the hands of Israel's sons - this needs no argument of ours to prove..."/Judaism in Music 1850

The point is with or without the Frankfurt School or Cultural Marxism we would still be watching cocksuckers on Television and our kids would still be going to School with wogs because Jews have a free hand in our lands.
• 18

Morgoth Morgoth • 20 hours ago

Why you have a picture of a Jew impersonating Hitler I can only guess at, this would be more apt
o 21

Peter Blood to Morgoth • 20 hours ago

I just can't stop laughing at that.
 5

Emblematic to Morgoth • 6 hours ago

Spot on.

Jewish media control and Jewish money = dispossession of white people.
o 1

eiszeit • 21 hours ago

Cultural Marxism isn't race-denying, it's White race-denying. It denies Whites their identity while promoting the identities and perspective of non-Whites.

Secondly, all modern leftist ideas are rooted in anti-White/European hatred. There is no egalitarian or secular position that leftists will not abandon if it means harming Whites and strengthening non-Whites.

Witness the left's response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre: a lot of them openly sided with the Muslims. As Islam gains strength in the West, you're going to see a huge number of leftists openly supporting Islamic rule and converting to Islam because they see Muslims as their allies against the evil of White culture and civilization.

Cultural Marxism has no interest in race-blind politics, equality, or social justice, it's one and only goal is to destroy Whites and the civilization they built. Jews popularized the term 'anti-Semitism.' We need to start popularizing the term 'anti-Aryanism.'

When the primary villains in Hollywood movies are blond-haired, blue-eyed men and women regardless of the genre, when White students are constantly being singled out and reminded of their historical guilt, when entire school courses are devoted to the conspiracy theory of "White privilege," when Whites are subjected to psychological tests to determine how "racist" they are, when people are thrown in jail for opposing the non-White invasions of their ancestral homelands, and when, during all of that, Whites are simultaneously told that their own race doesn't even exist, that is anti-Aryanism. Is there a better term for any of this?
• 15

Arturo Pendriago to eiszeit • 19 hours ago

I cannot see how the argument of consumerism plays into the Cultural Marxism debate. And here is why: Corporatism is global. There is nowhere on this planet that is not run by corporations. They extract all the natural resources, build and populate factories to make products from those resources, then sell those products globally. The banks behind the corporations are also global and the banks can change the currency markets of countries anytime they want.

So my question is, how is it that moving the third world into the first world is somehow going to 'open up more markets'? They already have all of the markets covered!

And how does constantly denigrating and dispossessing white people, who are still the majority in Europe and America, help corporate markets? It doesn't make any sense.

The only explanation from the current societal environment that I can see, is to get rid of Whites. THis is what I see as the endgame, not to line the pockets of the oligarchs.
o 5
o Terd Ferguson to Arturo Pendriago • 5 hours ago

Taking advantage of the wage disparity between white nations and a 3rd world nation makes big $$$$. The only way to continue to make big $$$$ is to weaken whites politically.

Cheap foreign labor has always made big $$$$ for the wealthy, right League of the South dudes? Back me up here.
 2

Emblematic to eiszeit • 6 hours ago

Anti-Aryanism is exactly what it is.

The best way to respond to an accusation of 'anti-Semitism' is to never be defensive or try to qualify or explain. Always reply with an assertion.

If they say "You're an anti-Semite", say back: "I'm pro-truth".
o 1
Terd Ferguson to eiszeit • 5 hours ago

Aryan is a word borrowed from Indian Sanskrit, and it's too narrow a definition of whites.

The civilizing power of whites has gone back tens of thousands of years and encompasses everything from the Nile to Mesopotamia, to "Northern India", to Japan.

Every single thing I've read about archeology, science, or human development in general has an arrow pointing directly towards Europe. There isn't a single instance of an arrow pointing away from Europe like, "the first tannery was found in central India or eastern India or southern India," which would have implied that industrial process was first invented in India. No the first tannery was found at the very western edge of the Indus Valley. An arrow pointing from a quite habitable Indus Valley across a most inhospitable desert and mountain range in southern Iran, the same Iranian hellhole that killed more of Alexander the Great's army than any human enemy; pointing directly at Europe and the tannery was dated to around the exact same time the Indo-Europeans would have arrived there.
Pick anything, pick anything off your head, and just look up it's history.

J.j. Cintia • 20 hours ago

The real reason is the Big Lie of jewish intellectual superiority. It isn't true at all. That 115 number they keep trotting out is just one part of a three part I.Q. test. 115 is the verbal score, but there are also a numerical and spatial parts not told. The numerical is mathematical skill which they score at an average of mid 80s. The spatial is a mechanical aptitude score which is in the 70s or retarded. That is why you never see jews as mechanics or engineers, because they don't understand machines. You're supposed to add all three up and divide by three. Which gets a number in the high 80s, or slightly higher on average than their Mexican gardeners and nannies.

Both Whites and Asians are smarter than they are, but the dark-skinned races are dumber. That is why they want dark skinned employees. Because they are dumber than they are. We are smarter, so we are a threat. So are far eastern Asians. Expect them to be attacked too.
• 9

Terd Ferguson to J.j. Cintia • 6 hours ago

The continued harping of the cult of Einstein by the media for the last 50+ years is proof enough they have an inferiority complex when it comes to intelligence. It's like how the media blows out of proportion the "accomplishments of the blacks," which everyone knows is non-existent.
o 1
OBEY, CONSUME, SLEEP to J.j. Cintia • 18 hours ago

looking all over Jewgle for a link, do you have one to support your claim?
o 1
Arturo Pendriago to J.j. Cintia • 19 hours ago

They are already talking about opening up Japan to third world immigration.

Lawrence Murray to Arturo Pendriago • 19 hours ago

If the Japanese automate enough jobs they'll survive population decline and come out better off than most. With immigration they'd be replaced rather than just shrink naturally in response to overcrowding, less demand for labor, and cultural stupidity.

Touchstone, King of Fools • 20 hours ago

"For an ideology to have any validity it has to have a clear cut message that can be communicated, and which can then move people."

I'm not sure that's true, or if true, relevant. The New Left (a term I like better than "Cultural Marxism") has very successfully moved quite a lot of people over the last 50-100 years, by smoothly shifting from one message to another, from "progress" to "peace" to "liberation" to "equality" to "rights", and so forth, as circumstances dictate.

"Cultural Marxism" such as it is, is a catch-all term for the postmodern version of the time-honored practice of producing ideology out of vice. The one unifying element of all of New Leftism, from turn-of-the-century Progressivism on up, is that it appeals directly to the baser emotions, mostly greed, jealousy, and lust, but occasionally also pride, schadenfreude and fear. It's lizard-brain politics, dressed up in a succession of colorful period costumes.
• 8


Alexandros to HoMegas • 18 hours ago

Secret Reports on Nazi Germany:
The Frankfurt School Contribution to the War Effort
Franz Neumann, Herbert Marcuse & Otto Kirchheimer
Edited by Raffaele Laudani
With a foreword by Raymond Geuss


"During the Second World War, three prominent members of the Frankfurt School--Franz Neumann, Herbert Marcuse, and Otto Kirchheimer--worked as intelligence analysts for the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime forerunner of the CIA. This book brings together their most important intelligence reports on Nazi Germany, most of them published here for the first time."

"These reports provide a fresh perspective on Hitler's regime and the Second World War, and a fascinating window on Frankfurt School critical theory. They develop a detailed analysis of Nazism as a social and economic system and the role of anti-Semitism in Nazism, as well as a coherent plan for the reconstruction of postwar Germany as a democratic political system with a socialist economy. These reports played a significant role in the development of postwar Allied policy, including denazification and the preparation of the Nuremberg Trials. They also reveal how wartime intelligence analysis shaped the intellectual agendas of these three important German-Jewish scholars who fled Nazi persecution prior to the war."

The Frankfurt School was real and they had the full support of the US Government.
• 6

Peter Blood • 18 hours ago

Cultural Marxism goes back to Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist who concluded that, having failed to capture the proletariat via violent revolution, due to the comforts the proles in the West enjoyed due to capitalist success (and capitalist cultural hegemony), Marxism would have to win via cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony being the way that capitalists maintained control in the West, it would have to be replaced with a different cultural hegemony... a Marxist cultural hegemony. Hence, Cultural Marxism.
• 5


curri • 20 hours ago

"After being unceremoniously kicked out of Europe, they were horrified at ending up in a country that had no need for their Marxist claptrap. That Cultural Marxism then supposedly became such a big success is only explicable by the fact that it didn’t."
Frankfurt School's The Authoritarian Personality was very successful:


Paul Gottfried writes:

You should read my last three books, all of which stress that The Authoritarian Personality profoundly affected American political thinking. It was essential to the postwar reconstruction of German “civic culture’ and the work was deeply admired by SM Lipset, the sponsors of Commentary, and scads of Cold War liberals. It was not necessarily viewed as the post-Marxist leftist source of moral corruption that I suggest it was in The Strange Death of Marxism. What made The Authoritarian Personality particularly insidious is that it was widely seen as a blueprint for non-totalitarian democracy both here and in Europe; and leaders in government and in universities read the book in that way. The fact that Adorno and Horkheimer (who later backed away from the implications of the work he had co-edited) were at the time Soviet sympathizers did not dampen the enthusiasm of the anti-Stalinist secularist intellectuals who tried to defend the study. Although the Jewish identity of the Frankfurt School may not have been the only factor leading to their anti-Christian, anti-fascist pseudo-science, denying its influence on the formation of Frankfort School ideas is simply silly. Adorno was only half-Jewish and raised as a Catholic but nonetheless paraded his Jewish genes in explaining how he had arrived at his critique of bourgeois, Christian society. It is furthermore is silly to pretend that Jews have not played a DISPROPORTIONATE role in greasing the skids for our moral and social disintegration. To recognize this is to recognize reality. What is more dubious is that Jews have caused this ruin, without the enthusiastic support or at least cowardly acquiescence of the white Christian majority. Although it is correct to note the significant Jewish contribution to the present decadence, it is naive to think that Jews are the only culprits in what you and I deplore...Christopher Lash’s True and Only Heaven includes a long section detailing the mainstream liberal support forThe Authoritarian Personality in the 1950s and 1960s. Lipset, Hook, Daniel Bell, Arthur Schlesinger, Richard Hofstadter and the members of American Jewish Committe, who sponsored Adorno and Commentary magazine, were among the anti-Communist liberals who admired TAP and who thought that it had relevance for our country. Although you and I may be to the right of these celebrants, it would be hard to argue that no anti-Communist had any use for Adorno’s ideas.
• 5


barzun to curri • 10 hours ago

It's much too, too difficult to read the literature and check footnotes and verify with primary sources, and to consider counter arguments. It's much better, and seemingly now accepted, to simply toss ad homs (johnson is a lib, preston is lib, enoch a troll), and base your arguments on strange assumptions only you make.
o 1
Lawrence Murray • 19 hours ago

It matters very little what the intentions of the Frankfurt school were. The modern intrepretation of their ideas is Cultural Marxism, which is a useful word (for us at least) to describe how an ideology nominally related to Marx is destroying national unity to create a population of atomized and deracinized wage slaves susceptible to leftism. The left would deny this because it makes them look insincere. We don't have to buy their explanation any more than they have to buy our harping about how diversity is not our greatest strength. To do so would discredit them and no one is going to willfully discredit their own cherished ideology.
• 3

conchobar • 20 hours ago

excellent article good job, please ignore the monomaniacal ramblings below, "MUH JEWS MUH ETERNAL JEW!"

"To kill it, you have to kill the post-Christian reflex, or else kill the affluence."
• 4

Lawrence Murray to conchobar • 19 hours ago

Salt the earth that bore the New English


curri • 19 hours ago

I think Auster is probably right (from the VFR thread on the Frankfurt School):


It is the liberal belief in non-discrimination, not the the leftist belief in anti-whiteness, that is the key to the suicide of America, and it is the abandonment of the liberal belief in non-discrimination that is the key to the salvation of America.

I’ll add that the same applies to Europe, or at least to Britain. As became clear to me for the first time from listening to the British responses to the July 2005 bombing in London, the ruling principle in Britain is “tolerance.” It is not anti-whiteness. It is in the name of tolerance that they’ve allowed the creation of Londonistan. It is in the name of tolerance that they’ve continued to allow unprecedented numbers of immigrants from Eastern Europe to enter Britain, despite the catastrophic social effects of this immigration, a fact acknowledged by the whole British establishment. It is the British government’s position that to limit the number of immigration at all would be “racist.” It is thus the belief in tolerance as the ruling and defining principle of society that is undoing the British, and it is only the renunciation of that belief that can save them.
• 2


oberdan • 12 hours ago

Cultural Marxism is just a catch-all term for all the groups currently aligned against the historical white (mostly) hetero-males that built civilization. Whether materialist-capitalism, egalitarian-leveling, or the historic-grievance industry--they all rally against that idealistic/noble spirit of European men... perhaps no longer fully Christian, but still with a vision that encompasses eternity.
Is there a better term to describe them? Anti-White doesn't cut it because they love White women, as well as White-traitors and last men. It is simply a war against that Classical and Faustian spirit and their alliances are legion.
• 1

nicholasstix • 11 hours ago

This Duns Scotus is a brilliant fellow. He reminds me … of me. Must be a member of The Tribe. Ahoy, brother!
• 1

Alternative_Right Mod to nicholasstix • an hour ago

Shut it down!

curri • 23 minutes ago

"After being unceremoniously kicked out of Europe, they were horrified at ending up in a country that had no need for their Marxist claptrap. That Cultural Marxism then supposedly became such a big success is only explicable by the fact that it didn’t."

Wikipedia agrees with Paul Gottfried that the Authoritarian Personality was a great success:


Though strongly criticized for bias and methodology,[4][5] the book was highly influential in American social sciences, particularly in the first decade after its publication: “No volume published since the war in the field of social psychology has had a greater impact on the direction of the actual empirical work being carried on in the universities today.”[6]...The Authoritarian Personality remains widely cited in the social sciences and continues to inspire research interest today.[27]

But then the author seems to be claiming that academics are impotent and thus universities are unimportant.

Terd Ferguson • 6 hours ago

Fucking mega dittos.

Donar Van Holland • 7 hours ago

The author touches upon an old controversy: is culture/ideology driving the political and economical, or is it the other way round? The changes in 'marxism' can indeed have been caused by a change in the ruling political/economical factors. But it can also be that the driving ideology of our society lies deeper, and that 'marxism' in all its different forms is just a symptom of this ideology. I would say this deep seated ideology is egalitarianism, as derived from christianity, and especially protestantism.

Terd Ferguson to Donar Van Holland • 6 hours ago

Anti-Egalitarianism can be used just as much of an anti-white tool as Egalitarianism.

Anti-Egalitarianism is Meritocracy, after all, and guess which political party promotes that? The covertly anti-white Republican Party. Here's a few examples:

"Mexicans are doing jobs whites won't do. Bring em in!"

"We need qualified Indian computer programmers and engineers. Bring em in!"

Donar Van Holland to Terd Ferguson • 2 hours ago

Egalitarianism has a horizontal and a vertical aspect. Vertically, it opposes hierarchy, such as classes or meritocracy, horizontally it opposes race, identity, tribe. You might say that Democrats and Republicans only differ, if at all, about the aspects of egalitarianism they stress.

I must admit though, that the deep ideological drive might also be hate of whiteness. For Jews this is natural, for whites it is inherited from so many centuries of christian self-hate, also known as "original sin".

Terd Ferguson to Donar Van Holland • an hour ago

I mean the literal definition of the word not some horizontal or vertical or diagonal thing.


Unknown said...

People claim that the climate is not Anti-White. Really? How do you even deny this anymore? There are articles in fishwrap saying we should shut up and die for being racist enough to defend ourselves from people who hate us by the color of our skin. There are "skits" on shows like SNL that say White peoples' time is over and now others are going to take over our lands. Seriously?
Well you know what those are, dummy? Famous last words. Listen to Admiral Yamamoto a man a real man, a thosand times smarter than you! "I fear all we have done is awaken an Angry Sleeping Giant and filled him with a terrible resolve!"
Sayanora suckers!

Anonymous said...

Rush Limbaugh a few weeks back talked about how New York Republicans aka RINOs had as their most important issue "GUN CONTROL"; that if Rush wanted to make it big time with the Cosmopolitans he should tell NRA convention goers they should give in to the communists.

That Jews ARE the modern gun control movement, from origination in their university professors, to the shepherding of legislation through their legislators, the constant gun control shill articles and editorializing via their MSM, and the all-gun-control-is-legal-the-Second-Amendment-don't-mean-shit-to-us judiciary, is without doubt.

This was recognized by fellow Jew Aron Zelman, who founded JPFO.org, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms. JPFO has an interesting book, ""Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny" where a side-by-side comparison of the 1968 Gun Control Act is made against 1930s German gun control laws, arguing that the German laws were the blueprint used by the cosmopolitans in America.


Anonymous said...

How come when I say one little negative thing about Jews, I'm told I'm "jew-baiting" ?

Anyway, excellent article.

Jew IQ is not as high as the Jews want us to think. Check out the IQ scores in Israel where all the IQ scores of all the Jews are tabulated. Not very impressive. Jews call it the "The Flynn Effect".

Outside of Israel, the Jews throw out the results of their low IQ Jews. In Israel, ALL the IQ scores of ALL Jews are calculated to find the mean. And the mean score is NOT very high, not by a long shot. The mean score is actually very low. Check out "The Flynn Effect".

I'm not being repetitive, for this is the first time I ever mentioned "The Flynn Effect" and low Jew IQ.

From : Salvatore

Nicholas said...

“How come when I say one little negative thing about Jews, I'm told I'm ‘jew-baiting’ ?”

Is that a direct quote from me? In any event, I believe you confused the number “one” with the number 1,000,000,000.

“Jew IQ is not as high as the Jews want us to think.”

Wrong again, in at least two different ways. First, Jews in general never publicly brag about high Jewish IQ. I brag about high Ashkenazi IQ (112-115), but I’m an exception. But everyone apparently, except for you knows that the Ashkenazim are the world’s smartest group. No one ever brags about high Sephardic IQ. Second, average Ashkenazi IQ is every bit as high as advertised—the highest of any recognizable religious, ethnic, or racial group on the face of the Earth.

“Check out the IQ scores in Israel where all the IQ scores of all the Jews are tabulated. Not very impressive. Jews call it the ‘The Flynn Effect’.”

Wrong again, on two counts. First of all, even averaging in the much lower Sephardim (91 vs. 103 for the Ashkenazim, the latter of which sounds improperly low), the Jews of Israel are still close to 100. Second, the “Flynn Effect” has absolutely nothing to do with what you’re talking about, and is not referred to by Jews in any such fashion.

Anonymous said...

Their "high" Ashkenazi IQ scores are bullshit and the population figure ZOG pumps out that Jews make up 2% of the population is more total bullshit. The Jews make-up a hell of a lot more than 2% of the population. The Jew population of the ante-bellum South was a lot more that 2%, and that was before the massive immigration of Jews at the turn of the 19th/20th century,and the massive immigration of Jews into the US in the 1930s and the 1940s, the very large number of Jews who poured into the US after the fall of the Soviet Union
[ yet more Commie Jews].

Every where one goes in the USA one finds Jews, and lots of 'em. Even in the most rural areas. More Jew lies that they only comprise 2% of the population.

Both Einstein and Salk were plagiarizers, by the way. More Jew thieves even.

If Jews are so intelligent, how come they can't maintain and keep their own country without massive help and constant never-ending assistance from the USA and Germany? How come Jew Israel can't stand on its own two feet? Jews are like niggers that way, they need massive support and assistance to keep a country, to have a country. No wonder Jews love the niggers so much, the two have so very much in common.

From : Salvatore