Category: Twitter

Topic For Spencer’s Book

Twitter.

On Twitter, Spencer asks what should be a topic for his book.

How about this: a full-blasted, no apologies defense of Big Europe pan-Europeanism as opposed to petty nationalist ethnonationalism.

Make a comprehensive statement on the matter.  Future generations of the peoples of Europe will thank you.

Advertisements

Reynolds Has The Bunker Syndrome

Big talk, little action.

Now, I have sympathy for Reynold’s tweet.  In a sane and just world, protesters blocking highways would be dealt with, legally and justly, like this.  But we do not live in such a world. Just talking about running down precious pavement apes, much less actually doing it, brings down the fury of the System.  It is just Blowhard Bunkerism, folks letting off steam without actually doing anything politically useful.

Hey Reynolds, are you a White nationalist?  Have you read On Genetic Interests?  Do you promote Salter’s work?  Are you working behind the scenes to get pro-White candidates elected? Are you actually doing something to actualize a reality in which the simians will be swept away like trash they are, or are you just doing the equivalent of Archie throwing things at Walter Cronkite on the TV?

These Bunkers who always have to apologize or resign because of ill-advised tweets have it all backwards.

They mistakenly believe that they need to use their (non-existent) freedom of speech to gain power and change society.  In reality, they need to gain power and change society in order to have true freedom of speech.

Do they really need a dumb swarthoid to tell them something as obvious as that?

HBD in the News, 5/23/16

Two items of interest.

A wonderfully succinct and accurate take-down of the HBD nerds by “agnostic.”

Really now, look who represents the HBD worldview: a miscegenating apologist for child porn, a White-hating Jamaican mongrel, an inbred cunt, a senile pseudoscientist, and a boring superficial loser.  Is that ad hominem? Yes it is, but nevertheless a reasonable sampling of the bizarre HBD cult.

Is this a friend of Derbyfogle. or just another Jew?

Twitter and Free Speech

Hypocrisy of democracy.

The crazed leftist view on free speech issues is here:


Twitter has discovered what many proponents of democratic society already knew: censorship is not the opposite of free speech. In fact, so-called free speech can actually be used as a weapon to silence the vulnerable and dispossessed. Ironically, to maintain its position as a platform for free discourse, Twitter must censor its users. 

My first riposte to that stupidity is to state that the “vulnerable and dispossessed” are precisely those people who are having their speech silenced through Twitter censorship. 
And that’s not just an abstract and logical objection, and it is not merely specific to the Twitter case. In the “West” those groups alleged to be “vulnerable and disposed” – minorities of various kinds for example – are allowed to say and do whatever they please, they are allowed to organize in an identitarian fashion to pursue group interests, and their relative proportion of the population is increasing. Those groups – the majority for example, particularly heterosexual men – who are considered “privileged” and “powerful” are those whose speech is censored and in some cases criminalized, who are not allowed to organize on a group basis, and whose proportion of the population is, not surprisingly, declining.  Indeed, for the latter group, complaints about these issues are themselves censored, leading to a negative spiral of disempowerment.
That sort of puts into perspective “vulnerable and dispossessed” doesn’t it?
A commentator at that article expresses the following view (spelling corrected):

I am sorry, but that’s one of the most idiotic claims ever made in ars Technica. 

By definition, censorship is the suppression of speech, which makes speech less free.  

The so-called “hate speech” criteria are one of the reasons why the German and international media engaged in self-censorship about the Cologne sexual attacks resulting in unwillingness to properly report the events. 

In reality, the world isn’t one big liberal-arts college campus, you know?

And my own “free speech primer” is here.
Question: Should a White ethnostate allow free speech to its ideological opponents?  The answer is: no.  Yes, as I outline above, free speech is extremely important. But:

1. Those who deny free speech to others to facilitate the genocide of those others cannot expect the courtesy of free speech extended to them.  Their ACTIONS – not speech – have criminalized them. 
2. In a White ethnostate, any such people would either be no longer under the jurisdiction of the state or they would be put on trial and the slowly tortured to death as punishment for the crimes committed under the present regime. So, the entire question is irrelevant.
3. The sort of White ethnostate I envision and promote would not be a democracy and would not make a pretense of being one, or of hypocritically speaking of “freedom” while denying such freedom to its majority citizens.  It is the current regime – that bases its legitimacy on “freedom” – that has the obligation to free speech.  An openly national socialist regime has no obligation.

4. The only thing that trumps free speech is freedom of association, championed by a White ethnostate.  The current System denies its majority freedom of association, and uses censorship of speech as a weapon to silence opposition to that policy.

Global Warming: a Chinese Invention?

Trump.
Hey!  Trump is criticizing the Chinese here and his immigration plan stands to question the mass import of Chinese and Indian “cognitive elitists” to take over American STEM fields.  For shame!  I wonder if some of Trumps’s support in HBD circles will begin to dry up, if he dares to blaspheme against the Holy Orientals, and if he fails to sacrifice American interests on the Altar of Asia.
After all, any slowing down of the Asian influx means fewer live-action China doll sex toys for semi-autistic White nerd types, and we certainly can’t have that.
As far as “global warming” goes – in the end, it doesn’t matter what it is and what is causing it, we need to switch to a non-fossil fuel energy economy anyway. Instead of giving endless social welfare handouts to chimps and other apes, and instead of endless wars for Israel, a prudent investment in alternative energy research can make a large impact on the human future. And IF man-made global warming is real, this approach would help, and if global warming is a hoax, then this is something we need to do anyway. Does Trump support a strong investment in the American research enterprise?