The forum

We at Free Media Productions are impressed by our broad audience of viewers. We realize that forums are dominated by a small group of people who are used to using them. We understand that it can be difficult for a “forum virgin” to start posting. Signing up with an email (that has to be real) and a password can be intimidating.

To ease your intimidation, we are allowing guests to post and perform searches. You will not have the full privileges of membership, such as the ability to edit your profile. In order to have the ability to edit your profile, you must become a member. In order to send private messages and view who is online, you must become a trusted member.

But to make things easier for our virgin audience – the numerous people who google us and find us but never post – we have enabled you to post as a guest.

A loyal person of Jewish ancestry was a plus to Stalin. His opposition to Zionism was merely power politics, because Zionism became a very biblical movement in its extreme version and is tied to American imperialism in its more moderate version. Stalin supported Zionism before he later opposed it. Metal gear supported Zionism before he later opposed it.

Hitler did not want Jews to serve him, but to isolate them. Stalin and Hitler are polar opposites. The Nazis and Zionists approach the Jewish question wrongly, but Stalin and the Bolsheviks approached the Jewish issue correctly. They opposed aggressive Jewish power politics, but they did not become obsessed with Jews.

Too many nationalists do not blame capitalism. They blame Jews instead. War, immigration, imperialism and political correctness occur, but to these people, it is all about the Jew. A true national Bolshevik cannot totally oppose Marx. If one supports Stalin 100%, then one must support Lenin at least 70% and Marx at least 60%. Lindsay thinks the National Bolsheviks are skinheads, but in my opinion, the leaders are not. It would not make a difference anyways, because those of us who value the works of Marx and Lenin stick to our convictions. We are not like neo-nazis who infight over every issue, due to insecurity and the need to have the support of a crowd.

In my opinion Hitler and Mussolini were politicians. “The Jews,” “The liberals” and all that bullshit.

Politicians are less ethical than gangsters. Also less effective. Politicians to a greater degree exploit classes of society for their own benefit. Gangsters fight for their survival.

And who won? The gangsters won.

I’m so sick of petty political bourgeoisie bullshit.

I’m no politician. If you piss me off, you are going to get blowback, no matter what happens to both of our reputations. I do not participate in drama, I take your website down.

I don’t care about “a movement,” “my standing,” “making up,” “seeing the greater good,” or anything like that when it comes to what gangster rapper Dr. Dre described as “bitch niggaz.” If you piss me off by circle jerking, I am going to hurt you. Don’t care if it makes “us” look bad.

As Richard Kuklinski said, “it is better to give then receive.” Not saying murder is on my menu but you get the point.

But in general, I think a prejudice is growing inside of me against the South and Midwest. I have just realized that the majority of my sworn enemies come from that southwestern region and would like to emphasize that Free Media Productions and its forum, the Firezone/Lyceum, are largely northeastern projects. One exception is Hunter Wallace, but his role is very peripheral. If the lyceum was the founding fathers, he would have been the last one to sign the declaration of Independence and the first to leave for other projects. Berianidze moved to the West Coast, but has roots on the East Coast and the West Coasters have never mistreated me. I have had fights with northeasterners too (jtf), but they were not nearly as personal or bitter.

I think of all the problems I could have avoided, if I had stayed away from “free speech forums” which were dominated by people who are not very desirable. And many of those people just happen to come out of that region.

I’d venture to say that I’d trust a Black person from the North before I’d trust a White person from the South based on history and personal experience.

I do think capitalism and neo-conservatism aided the Iraq War, but if America did not include the Confederate states, then the Iraq War would not have happened. Yet clowns would have us ignore this and put the blame solely on the Jews.

Israel is Palestine, and not itself. Death to liberalism and religious fundamentalism! Judaism is not a necessary criteria for its own nationalism. The idea of “Jewish pride world wide,” uniting all socially constructed Jews into a single state is absurdly retarded. The Bolsheviks absolutely approached the Jewish issue correctly when compared to Nazis and Zionists. Lenin was 1/4 Jewish and I support his rule over Russia, likewise “real” Jews should rule over Europe and elsewhere.

I aspire to have large numbers of atheistic Jews supporting me just like atheistic Jews correctly supported the Russian revolution, but not working towards the cause of Judaism, but towards the cause of red fascism with their honorable Arab comrades.

There is no Western Civilization, but if there is one, Slavs are less a part of it then say Jews. Would these “pan-aryanists” get off the dick of Russians and Slavs? Go away, you are not wanted!

The more I think about it, Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all basically variations of the same Abrahamic religion. Judaism is a little more tribal, Christianity a little more weak, Catholicism a little more corrupt and Islam a little more imperialistic, feudal and further behind in economic development. But they are all basically the same degenerate and pathetic Abrahamic religion.

Not to mention the racial origins of Europe are near eastern. In both Paleolithic and Neolithic times, the racial origins of Europe were Mediterranean. A Nordic person is just a depigmented Mediterranean physically. Eastern Europeans are sexually selected for alipinization, but still basically Caucasians.

Europe has had its dark ages just like the Near East now has its dark age. It is all about the state. Worship the individual state. It isn’t about “western civilization” or “eastern civilization.”

Nazi “racialism” (or race gerrymandering) is dumb. Obsession with Jews is dumb. Christians, capitalists, Jews and patriotards all play a role in Zionism. It is not just the Jews.

The problem is the elites, not the Jews. Many Jews were good revolutionaries against the status quo for example under Mussolini and Stalin, but Zionists are not revolutionaries but slaves to a false version of biblical history and American imperialism in the face of the native population.

There are ways to do this that do not serve imperialism. We can stress that Saddam Hussein and even the Taliban did not cause 9/11. We can accuse America of hypocrisy, because America supported Bin Laden against the Soviet Afghan Regime during the era of USSR. These approaches are more logical than declaring 9/11 as some manifestation of class struggle, as it clearly is not. It is clearly motivated by religion and killing people of diverse class status. The Saudi oil families are pretty rich. I do not see Bin Laden attacking them. I realize that other important members do not like this approach (it is my hunch), but no two people can agree on everything, and i believe my position that the nature of 9/11 is classless is correct. I do agree with anyone who believes that Bin Laden was motivated to an extent by opposition to American imperialism. This does not change the fact that Bin Laden’s philosophy is “Islamic imperialism.” Does anyone seriously believe that Bin Laden only wants to preach to the converted, and is not willing to kill atheists?

In my opinion, 9/11 should be used as a poster example, just like Zionism, as what happens when actions are declared ethical based on primitive religion. Just like Zionism, just like George W. Bush and his invasions, religion is being used to justify an act. Can this really be denied?

I do not think 9/11 was “worth it,” but I do think the way it has weakened organized religion is good. I realize Bin Laden did not intend this, but I still believe in exploiting the pragmatic reality. I think when the crimes of Zionists become more widely known, it will become fashionable not just to bash Islam, but to bash ALL religion.

The holocaust, 9/11, the genocides between Serbs and Croats, Zionism – all are at least partially motivated by religion. Even though Hitler saw Jews as a race (he meant nationality, he also saw Poles as a race), there was also clearly something theological about his attitudes towards Jews, whether Pagan or Catholic.

My point is that the events between 1940 and 2004 have really harmed organized religion. 9/11 has, the holocaust has, zionism has, George W Bush “talking to God” has. These events can be tied together to trash the whole idea of religion. It is no longer my religion vs. your religion, but a rebellion against all religion. To do that, 9/11 is useful to my propaganda. Sorry if you disagree or think it is bad for anti-imperialist relations with religious people, but I think the correct approach is to exploit 9/11 more effectively than the opposition, as opposed to worrying about how this will effect reputation with Islamic regimes and fellow posters / associates who may in fact (in error) believe that only American imperialists talk about 9/11 negatively.

You have to guess the URL.

You have one to two days, or it is coming down and you will never get a chance to look into a dark corner of my mind again.

http://www.freemediaproductions.info/h___-_a_a_-m_-f__r_r.odp

Without FTP access, the only way to see it is to guess the URL. Can you do it?

My opinion of Ahmadinejad is that I approve of some of his foreign policy to an extent, but dislike his domestic policy.

He is correct to suggest that Israel should become Palestine – inclusive to both Jews and Muslims – and if Jews want a racial state, they can have it in Germany or somewhere else. Biblical Zionists should either integrate or leave. They have no “special right” to displace Palestinians.

He is incorrect to be against Saddam Hussein and he is incorrect to argue for the continuation of Sharia law, the Shia variety.

Any support of the Iranian regime should be merely an approval of military action, but not an approval of the Islamic system of Government. It is desirable for Ahmadinejad to destroy biblical Zionism, but it is undesirable for him to perpetuate clerical dictatorship and it is undesirable for him to oppose Iraq as it was under Saddam Hussein.

Overall I think the benefits are stronger than the costs. I accept the results of the election, though I cannot say for sure that the election of his opponent would not have been for the betterment of the country. His opponent was not a Western puppet as others allege.

I will note that Ahmadinejad is willing to meet with Obama, but Obama won’t reciprocate. This makes Ahmadinejad look like more of a man, but it doesn’t say much, because all American politicians are corrupt.

A few days ago someone impersonated the man on our forum, so I found out that it was an impersonation by emailing Jim Giles. I then changed the screename to “Jim Giles Impersonator.”

I think it is a fair policy that if someone links to us, and they don’t smear us, we should link back.

This month, Free Media Productions celebrates its 2-year anniversary online! We’d like to take this opportunity to thank our readers/visitors/commentators and contributors who have made this site a surprising success!

In the last year alone, our viewership and audience has increased more than 200% from our first year on the web! And we look forward to continuing to work to providing news, opinion, videos and commentary on a wide range of subjects  from an alternative perspective not enslaved to the interests of the capitalist bourgeoisie!

I believe race is real, inherited, and not irrelevant. I believe that political correctness and aggressive race denial is unscientific. This is race realism. Outside of that, I completely diverge away from ideologies which worship race or gerrymander race into unscientific groups such as the unscientific “aryan race.” The idea of “ethnic nepotism theory” is also wrong.

Mass immigration is a problem for many reasons – and race, strictly scientifically speaking, is not the only reason. It is also representative of the most extreme form of liberal capitalism, where people have to travel very far to get a job. There are many criticisms, but that is not the point of this topic.

When I really think about it, my views on race are very sensible. It is only in a very paranoid politically correct climate that my views seem abnormal.

On the other hand, my largely unrelated views on dictatorship and anti-democracy are not mainstream.

Secularism, modernism and nationalism must advance in the middle east independently of American imperialism. Aggressively, but independently. Death to both imperialism and theocracy.

It is not that Jews control the American Government (this is the nazi-tarded view), as much as it is that American imperialism finds Zionism useful. In the name of capitalism, imperialists spread their interests globally and see Zionism as a tool. Death to American imperialism. American capitalism is linked to internal demographic changes too, but that is a separate topic.

Unlike the capitalist imperialists, Biblical Zionists however fervently believe in their theological cause, which is unscientific and quite stupid. There exists no such thing as secular Zionism, as Zionism is tied to the lands of the bible, geographically. A weakened form of Zionism is supported by American imperialists, so that capitalism can be introduced into the region.

The bible is an unscientific book just like the Koran. Biblical Zionists (including Christians) are useful idiots. Judeo-Obsessives and anti-Semites are also useful idiots. The American imperialists laugh while foaming at the mouth idiots blame Judaism instead of capitalism for America’s foreign policy. Yes the Zionists are tools of the imperialists, but no, the Zionists do not control America. They are useful idiots. Most Arab nationalists would agree with me. I am sure the name the Jew freaks that populate the vbulletin forums on the internet (“white nationalists”) would disagree with me.

Liberal capitalism in the case of America is tied to imperialism. This is the logical conclusion of a totally free market. No boundaries. Therefore viewpoints which reject the left-right spectrum and argue for the containment or elimination of capitalism are necessary.

We are really for non-profit media and welcome sincere supporters, but if we had to build a crowd, the issue of libertarian capitalism would be the issue we would use to build a crowd.

In addition, most of the people who would troll anyone else do not troll me. They know about my tech skills, and they are intimidated by them. When other people ran websites I was associated with, there was high activity, but most of it was trolling. I am glad that the truth – which is that I am someone who doesn’t put up with petty bullshit – is realized and widely known. On another note, I’m very fair to people who mean well. I treat most people much nicer than alternative websites treat most people.

Being too tolerant to people who did not mean well has screwed me over so many times! Now everyone knows not to fuck with me.

I am happy to be viewed by thousands of people uniquely every month, and don’t care if people from vbulletins don’t make comments.

I don’t need a bunch of trailer park rednecks assuring me every post that I’m “right on” or that I’m part of a zog plot.

Here is a nice link to a discussion on Jews and Zionism (most of it old) that rejects the echo chamber mentality. It should be noted that this “F Braun” would probably disagree with the statements he made back then if he were posting now. He has even gone as far as to praise the JDL! EKommando certainly is a man of his word, as he was dead set against meeting me in person, because of his interpretation of the “Jewish Question.”

On a note, I really think I’ve through dedication, realized the correct position on Jews. I Laugh at neo-Hitlerites and Judeo-Obessives (and I really mean it), but I also laugh at Biblical Zionists and phony secularists who appease the Biblical Zionists.

All of this can be seen in greater detail by actually reading the comments in the thread.

I did it on my own and while I chose to involve other’s, I really didn’t need them.

I still to this day defend my actions and kindly ask you to fuck off if you disagree.

I however subject my views to constant scrutiny and am always looking for ways to perfect them. I sense that the average person does not possess this trait and I question why I even try to reason with the average person. The average person would prefer to believe in what is comfortable rather than to believe in what can be proven with evidence. And the average person does not know the difference between this fantasy and reality. Sometimes it may be comforting to pretend that the truth isn’t real, but a problem materializes when the person does not realize that they are pretending. It may be comforting to pretend I am the CEO of WWE or descended from ancient Dinosaurs, but if I did, I would know that I am pretending! I would not start to actually BELIEVE it, but know that I am setting up a false comfort zone! I would continue to separate reality from fantasy. The masses cannot separate reality from fantasy.

Expecting people to think rationally is like expecting people to peacefully give up their religion (in masses) or expecting people who speak Ebonics to in masses speak English correctly. It isn’t going to happen!

Mussolini would prefer fifty thousand rifles to fifty thousand votes. I think he was right!

The sad thing is that I know this is a result of the education system purposely not teaching people about anthropology. You learn about biology and white racism in high school, but not anthropology.

Liberalism is causing people to not know how to think!

I would think VNN and Stormfront are educated compared to some of the things I read.

It worked, but now I am cleaning things up because I feel it is important to deliver the correct message.

Some posts were moved to the Johnny Gulag account, and others were edited.

I learned when trying to discuss politics with Kahanists that people who merge politics with religion (often they are faking their religion) tend not to reciprocate support from secular people. There are many people who are essentially secular in their viewpoints, but they pretend to be religious to achieve some political gain. These people, being hypocrites, can never be trusted. For instance, the Croatian Ustaše leaders attempted to incorporate Catholic hierarchy into their ruling order as a political ideology. To them religion was political, not a natural belief system. To these people, religion is not just a philosophy or a conviction, but a cover for an ambitious rise to power which uses adherence to the religion in a discriminatory manner. Someone who openly advocates atheism strongly would have trouble gaining any influence, because the hypocrites monitor their own reputations and do not want to be questioned by the masses. If the hypocrites were shown to be liars, they fear they would lose their influence. To the extent such a thing as Islamo-Facism exists (vs. real Islam), it will never ally with openly secular people because to do so would cause status anxieties. These people fear being unmasked as illegitimate interlopers of a religion. It would be like Hitler allying with Jews. He would never do it because people would then question if he really was a Nazi.

Then there are people who believe their religion the same way the average person believes the sky is blue. These people are mystics as opposed to scholars usually and do not view themselves as being political. A true Muslim believes he is going to heaven, believes he is following the koran, and believes his views are right. But an Islamo-fascist uses religion as a means of separating “us” from “them” to gain power politically. Legitimate Muslims who believe their religion as a matter of truth and falsehood (as opposed to hypocrites who are pretending to be religious) can at least be taken at face value, but I think if Marxists are truly Marxists and not closet infiltrators, their secular view will ultimately make the alliance crumble among the masses of anything but extremely moderate Muslims.

Jared Taylor, current editor of the American Renaissance, denies the term “white nationalist” and explains why he is not a “white supremacist.” But, what this established journalist claims, is that he is a “race realist.” Taylor’s views have become an important piece of the race relations puzzle, and can often be found in studies, essays, newspapers (including the Washington Post) and books. Taylor has been called everything from a racist to a “true paragon of tolerance.” He takes a few moments to discuss with Jamie Hines what is a “race realist,” why there is no need for the civil rights battle, and what he thinks of President Barack Obama.

JH: I’ve read that you describe yourself as a “race realist.” What is a “race realist?”

JT: Race realism is rejection of the agreeable fantasies about race that have become orthodoxy since the 1960s. First, it is obvious that most people prefer the company of others of their own race. Forced integration therefore causes tension and resentment.

Second, race is an important element in individual and group identity, which means it is impossible to build a society in which race does not matter.

Third, people of different races build different societies. Blacks—wherever they are found in large numbers—establish communities with certain characteristics, and whites and others do the same.

Fourth, the combination of the first three factors means that racial diversity is a source of constant conflict. This is blindingly obvious, yet one of the requirements of respectability in this country is to pretend—and to repeat loudly at every opportunity—that diversity is a strength.

Fifth, the evidence is overwhelming that there is a substantial genetic contribution to well-established racial differences in average IQ. North East Asians living in America have higher incomes, better test scores, and more education than whites because they are, on average, smarter. Whites are smarter than Hispanics, who are smarter than blacks. It is vital to recognize this because otherwise “society” (meaning whites) is blamed for the failures of blacks and Hispanics.

Finally, race realism recognizes that whites have legitimate group interests just like everyone else.

JH: What are the legitimate group interests of whites?

JT: It is vital to eliminate the stark racial double standard that denies whites even have legitimate interests as a group. White pride or racial consciousness is considered “bigotry” or “hatred,” while any other kind of racial consciousness is considered to be a healthy form of ethnic self-esteem. This means every group in the country—except whites—is constantly pushing its collective interests, while whites are not allowed even to have interests as a group, much less work for them.

Some of the interests of whites are obvious. The first is not to be reduced to a minority. Most whites don’t want this but they dare not say so for fear of being accused of “hate.” Hispanics, on the other hand, are constantly rejoicing in their increased numbers and influence, and it is considered natural for them to look forward to eventually become a majority. Their gain is our loss, so why are they allowed to be happy about their gain but we are not allowed to resist our loss?

Whites have every right to prefer the kind of society that they create and to resist demographic shifts that are already changing their country in profound ways. Jews have a right to a Jewish state, and they keep it Jewish through selective immigration. Japanese have a right to a Japanese state and they keep it that way through restrictive immigration. Whites also, whether in North America or Europe, have the right to live in nations that reflect their culture and heritage.

Second, what is known as “affirmative action” is really discrimination against whites. If the kinds of preferences shown to blacks or Hispanics were shown to whites it would be a nation scandal, but because the victims are whites (and sometimes Asians) it is of no consequence. Whites must work to eliminate this while it is still possible to do so. When non-whites become majorities, they are likely to push for even more extensive racial preferences than the ones they enjoy today.

JH: Do you consider yourself a White Nationalist and/or a White Supremacist? Why or Why not?

JT: No. I don’t know what the term white nationalist is supposed to mean. White supremacists presumably want to rule other races, and race realists have no such desire. I believe people of every race should be free to pursue their own destinies, and this is impossible in societies in which they become minorities.

It should not be necessary to add that a concern for one’s own interests implies no hostility to others. Race realists understand that people of all races have the same rights: to preserve their culture and identity against any force that would dilute or replace it. One’s race is one’s extended family. Putting the interests of family before the interests of strangers is not hostility to strangers. One can become good friends with strangers but family comes first.

JH: After doing some research, I’ve found that your parents were “conventional liberals” who were missionaries in Japan. At what point, and why, did your views shift from what you seen at a younger age?

JT: I, too, was a conventional liberal until I was in my 30s. I preferred being a liberal. Liberals are happy to consider themselves morally superior to conservatives (and certainly to anyone who could be called a “racist,” whatever that means). Also, liberalism is the driving, majority ethos of the United States, and it is more comfortable to agree with the majority. I clung desperately to liberalism. It was the study of history and economics as well as extensive travel in Europe and Africa that finally ground away my liberal illusions.

JH: How do you feel about the election of the first black President?

JT: It was bound to happen eventually, given the collapse of the white majority. Until 1965, we had an immigration policy designed to keep the country majority white. Since that time, the white percentage has declined from about 88 percent to perhaps 62 percent. Do not forget: 55 percent of whites voted for Mr. Obama’s opponent. Twenty years ago, any candidate who got 55 percent of the white vote became president. Now, a majority of whites can vote for a candidate but his opponent may win. In this sense, because of demographic change, you could say that whites did not get the president they wanted. Why should whites encourage that kind of change?

As for Mr. Obama, he encourages the population shifts that are displacing whites. He has sued a state that simply wants to enforce the duly established immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce. He wants to give amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, most of whom are non-white. In these respects, he is probably not much different from his main Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. However, even she would not have ordered the Justice Department to drop its voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panthers. This sort of thing is alienating whites.

JH: Describe the current state of race relations in America.

JT: Race is, and always will be, a serious social fault line in this country. Relative peace is maintained because whites tolerate “affirmative action” and massive non-white immigration. They do this because they are browbeaten and bamboozled into thinking it is wrong for whites to act in their own interests. This will not always be the case, and race relations will get worse as more and more whites begin to resist dispossession.

JH: What are your thoughts about people who say, “race doesn’t matter?”

JT: They are fools. Race obviously matters. Ninety percent of the churches in the United States are at least 80 percent one race. Is that an accident? Residential segregation is not much different from patterns in the 1950s. Why is that? The NAACP, the Urban League, the Congressional Black Congress, the National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and literally thousands of other groups and associations are based deliberately and specifically on race. Try telling their members race doesn’t matter.

It is almost exclusively white people who say race doesn’t matter, and this is because they are the only people who are required at least to pretend that it doesn’t matter. This, in turn, is because they are not allowed to have explicit racial interests of their own, and must deliberately close their eyes to the racial chauvinism of others lest they acknowledge this anti-white double standard.

JH: Do you believe that there is a need to fight for civil rights in America?

JT: What do you mean by “civil rights”? People of all races have the same legal rights in the United States, so the “civil rights” struggle was won long ago. Many blacks and Hispanics seem to think racial preferences for themselves are “civil rights” but they are actually a power grab at the expense of whites

nah fuck you!

Long live the lyceum, the only true free speech forum to come out of the fight on the phora!

Long live the lyceum, the forum which was not responsible for starting the outing of personal identities. The forum which resorted to such measures as a response to abuses on the phora.

Long live the lyceum, the forum who’s support was truly multi-ideological and not simply a skinhead echo chamber.

Long live the lyceum! We are rough riders here and defend what is right, as opposed to being ashamed of it like “some other people.”

Lurking guest, if you, the reader, are too weak to agree with this, then long live not you.

*Kane is the analogous to the internet as Dennis Rodman is to the NBA. Everyone knows he’s good, but nobody wants to admit it.

But I see Satan as a symbol of great strength and think a good Satanist should be able to practice abstinence. In some ways one indulges in life but one must be able to maintain control.

Lavey preached radical individualism.

But I think the individual should also be judged based on how they enhance the collective.

Here is my topic about it.

If a person blames Jews for everything wrong in the world, it usually is a person of lower character, lower intelligence and poor social skills. It may be true that some people adopt anti-semitism as a political move to exploit the stupid. If a person fails to attack libertarian capitalism because they are busy attacking Jews instead, then that says something about that person’s ethics and intelligence. If a person divides people into races, does not include Jews into the White race and then argues that Jews are solely responsible for non-White immigration into White countries, then do not even go within a mile of that person.

If a person denies that Jews do anything wrong ever, that person is usually someone without the guts to tell it like it is. This is the kind of person who fears, sometimes irrationally, the consequences of speaking his/her mind. If a person starts talking about “the chosen people,” coming from a Christian or a follower of Judaism, that person is usually an idiot. If a person attempts to throw religion into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a justification for either side, whether a Jew or Muslim, that person is usually a profiteer or an idiot. It is probably true that Trotsky can be admired as a war leader, but if a person argues that Stalin was an anti-semite and Trotsky the correct replacement, then that raises red flags.

If a person does not think some Jews at least try and sometimes succeed in manipulating the American media, then that person does not understand how cowardly business leaders are. But if a person thinks that a media without Jewish influence would be radically different, then he/she does not understand that many business leaders are too bourgeois to really push a viewpoint that they view as potentially damaging to the company’s reputation. This mentality of “reputation anxiety” exists everywhere where people are weak – even on message forums that are looking for increased membership rather than profit.

Anyone who emphasizes the holocaust too much – whether denying it or politically using it to advance specific Jewish activist causes – has questionable motivations. The position one takes is not that important if one is not obsessed, but those who become obsessed usually have an agenda.

If a person pragmatically works with Jews for the purpose of reaching goals (not out of fear or political correctness), that person usually has higher social skill, a better sense of vision, and more intelligence. They get from point a to point b and are willing to involve Jews in the ride from point a to point b. They work WITH Jews in parallel, but do not get sidetracked by political correctness or fear. Good examples of leaders who worked with Jews, but were not undermined by Jews, would include the revolutionary American and later Confederate leaders. They may not have attacked capitalism but they understood pragmatism, it is fair to say. Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin and Mussolini are other examples of people who worked towards goals including Jews into their day to day projects, but were never undermined by Jews. Many Slav nationalists, when possible, undermined Hitler and worked with individual Jews during WWII.

I’m still offended by my mistreatment on the forum, but I’ll give Chaim credit where it is due.  Practically every word he said was right.  There is a Caucasian race but “white nationalism” is a bizarre ideology which exaggerates the extent Hitler was “generous” to “European gentiles.”  White nationalism wrongly believes Jews and Arabs are non-whites, and wrongly believes that whiteness can be socially constructed into a national ideology.  White nationalists like Hitler.  But Hitler liked Arabs and hated most European nationalities.   So white nationalists should hate Hitler because they disagree on who is good and who is bad.  The only thing agreed upon is Jews.

The problem with this approach is that it ignores class independent ideology. Let’s imagine we had a bunch of proletarian Nazis. And we gave them more wealth and power. There’s no guarantee that their views will shift as they gain the means to fight the bourgeois. They may very well become the bourgeois. One bourgeois exists, but another enters. Or they may become national enemies, even if not class enemies. It’s a very big risk to support ideological opponents under the guise that once they gain material wealth, they will cease their opposition and/or correct their viewpoints.

I believe in some cases, indoctrination and ideology are more important than class.

The way this entire project ties together is very impressive. It has carved a niche. All the various components have formed a very nice whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.

Crossing the Line (Korean: 푸른 눈의 평양시민, A Blue-Eyed Pyongyang Citizen in North Korea) is a 2006 British documentary film by Daniel Gordon and Nicholas Bonner.

The film is about a former U.S. Army soldier, James J. Dresnok, who defected to North Korea on August 15, 1962. The film was directed and produced by British filmmakers Daniel Gordon and Nicholas Bonner, and was shown at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival. The film, which was narrated by actor Christian Slater, was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at the festival.

In my opinion, the only people who would disagree with leaving and with integrating are the extremely religious. Racists would be willing to leave to live with their own perceived people, and most ordinary workers would be willing to integrate. I’m secular, and I do not care about the religious Jews, and for that matter, I do not care for the Sharia supporting Muslims either as a group. Even pragmatically, secular people cannot deal too much with religious extremists without the religion showing itself in the day to day action.

So that leaves us with two options.
1) accept integration
2) leave.

And I think that is what should happen. The Jews who are willing to integrate should integrate, the rest should leave and perhaps set up a state somewhere else, and the religious Jews should be told to shut their mouths as should anyone who wants to involve Islam in the territorial conflict.

It should be noted that Saddam took a similar approach to geopolitical conflict between Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. He repressed the religious and then he dealt carefully with issues of identity among the secular people. In addition, as a third positionist and not an anti-revisionist, I must say that Marx’s “opiate of the people” quote is relevant and accurate. The reason Israel is located in Palestine is because of religion. Besoshvilli/Berianidze made this point to me when we debated Zionism, and it was hard to disagree with. Arab resistance is sometimes secular but religion unfortunately plays a role at times too.

You are free to comment and suggest your own solution.

from google

Dear Podblanc Member, One of our server companies recently caved into Jewish and Israeli pressure and decided to unequally enforce their TOS policy and deny …

EXCELENT! FUCK YOU PODBLANC! Fuck you for defending the phora/vnn, and bringing up my real life info so you could attack another poster (“Hunter Wallace”) via his lyceum-era association with me. Fuck you.

If the Jews did this, then HAIL THE JEWS!

I find it interesting that the fan website takes the same position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I do. That position is that they would prefer secularism and do not like the rising influences of both Judaism and Islam.

The second article shows a great analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Satanism as Levay taught it. This article caused me to think critically in a way I have not since reading the Communist Manifesto.

I recommend reading these articles. They are good for your mind.

2) In order to ramrod globalization down the throats of concerned citizens, the liberal bourgeois capitalist class has pushed myths such as “race does not exist” and “immigration does not effect crime rates.” As a consequence of globalization, the study of human genetic variation is suppressed. The truth should replace the lies.

3) Race is genetic, therefore the racial materialist view has to agree that all true Caucasoids are a race, all true Negroids are a race, all true Mongoloids are a race and all true Australoids are a race. Groups like Cambodians and Ethiopians are clearly of mixed race (but can be categorized based on appearance). Certainly humanity does not fracture along the hodgepodge of races thrown by liberal groups and “white activist” groups. Perhaps an argument can be made that American Indians are not true Mongoloids, but Cavalli-Sforza disagrees.

4) White nationalist keyboard commandos and neo-nazi keyboard commandos are a joke and should be shunned. Anyone who argues that race is something more than physical material should be shunned. “White Nationalists” and neo-nazis should not even be on the radar screen or be seen as fighting a common enemy in any way, but be ridiculed just as harshly as liberals are. To their credit, Neo-nazis at least realize that Hitler hated Slavs, but the WNs haven’t figured that one out yet!

5) Jews are not the cause of mass immigration. The real cause is capitalism, and Catholicism provides a good “opiate of the masses” for the naive majority. Satanism and atheism should be supported over the bourgeois concept of religion which serves as a weapon in the class war. August Bebel stated that anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools, and Lenin that anti-Semitism is a diversion to re-target anger away from the ruling class. They are correct. Even if many Jews have embraced the bourgeoisie or made common cause out of pragmatism, the chief cause is not Jews, and every missile aimed at Jews is a missile that could have been aimed at the bourgeoisie. Not to mention, in some cases it is friendly fire.

6. Nothing will change until capitalism is altered or disposed of. Libertarians are of no use.

My results suggest that I would not have been a nazi.

Congratulations! You are not susceptible to brainwashing, your values and cares extend beyond the borders of your own country, and your Blind Patriotism does not reach unhealthy levels. If you had been German in the 30s, you would’ve left the country.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930’s, you would not have been a Nazi.

“Behind the Doric columns of the ‘Pyatlyetki,’ the Five Year Plans, behind the rows of figures of the ‘Gosplan,’ there stretches not Asia, but another Europe: ‘the’ other Europe (in the sense in which America too is another Europe). The steel cupola of Marxism + Leninism + Stalinism (the gigantic dynamo of the U.S.S.R. according to Lenin’s formula: Soviet + electrification = Bolshevism) is not the mausoleum of Genghis Khan but – in the very sense that bourgeois folk find so distasteful – the ‘other’ Parthenon of Europe. ‘The Volga,’ says Pilnyak, ‘flows into the Caspian Sea.’ Yes, but it does not rise in Asia: it rises in Europe. It is a European river. The Thames, the Seine, the Potomac are its tributaries.”
– Curzio Malaparte, THE VOLGA RISES IN EUROPE

Julius Evola is not a role model for people that are serious about preserving the White race. If one wants to save the White race, one needs to adopt a staunch materialist outlook. Only through the thorough application of materialist principles can Europe be saved. Materialism dictates that spirituality stems from matter. Both Evola’s and Francis Parker Yockey’s notion of a “spiritual race” is therefore a contradiction in itself since race is matter and not spirit. A race may possess a higher or lower degree of spirituality but this does not change its physical make-up. Spirituality is a direct result of the workings of the brain which in its turn is a part of an organism that varies according to the race it belongs to. What good does it do if various non-Europeans possess “Aryan attributes” (whatever that might be) but are incapable of passing these on through procreation without diluting the European gene pool? The notion of a “spiritual race” is an abstract and meaningless, if not downright hostile to European preservation efforts, concept. Therefore, Dr. HT Hansen (who wrote the introduction to Evola’s MEN AMONG THE RUINS) is right when he argues that Evola espouses a peculiar brand of anti-racism through his peculiar “racial” theories. Actually, Evola seems not interested in any kind of racist theories per se but more in formulating an unnecessarily obfuscating concept of aristocracy that uses race as a pretext but is really more concerned with essentially universalist matters of hierarchy. Evola is a universal humanist because his theories postulate that a “spiritual race” is open to all members of “humanity.” Lest we forget that this supposedly global community has already been discredited (because of its non-existence) by serious racist thinkers.

Finnish National Bolshevik (or maybe Racial Bolshevik would be more accurate) Kai Murros says, “One must understand the nation as a product of material forces in history – this is the cornerstone of the progressive nationalism and progressive socialism.” Murros is right when he argues that “progressive nationalism” (or racism) must be strictly materialist in its outlook. Only in this manner can any kind of historical success be achieved. After all, one has to remember that history itself is driven by the constant flux of dialectical materialism. Murros also argues that “[f]or practical reasons, metaphysics must always be subordinated to physics.” In a rude manner of speaking, mental masturbation should be secondary to real sex. One can theorize all one wants about the importance of “racial spirituality,” if the race does not produce children, then the race is doomed to die. Right now, fucking is more important than thinking. The luxury of metaphysics can only be afforded in a society that is content with itself and secure in its continuing existence.

Nature has no will. Man has will. Aryan man has the Faustian will. Paganism is a dead-end street. Being is the key, not believing and/or worshipping. The gods die when the race (that created them) dies. The gods are not eternal. Paganism was a temporary manifestation of the Race’s mood at a particular time. The Race willed Paganism into existence. It did not exist before it and is already dead while the Race still lives. The Race can be without ascribing its being to forces beyond itself. The solace of the Race today is science and not religion. Rockets will propel us to the place where the gods once lived. The gods will be replaced by us. Thor is dead, long live the Astronaut! While Thor once hurled lightning FROM the sky, we will propel like lightning INTO the sky.

I finally stepped up. Check out The link.

Interesting.

A new youtube video I created.