Saturday, 11 June 2016


A couple of weeks ago Passer-by published his analysis of the role women have played in the European Genocide (link), arguing that they were more xenophilic than men and disproportionately supportive of pro-immigration policies and parties. This theme has also been explored on other so-called "Alt Right" sites, some explicitly referencing Passer-by's analysis.

Discussion of the issue provoked a counterblast from the "New Observer Online" (link), a site I only discovered recently but felt some respect for as it seem to be exploring similar terrain, and not shying away from mentioning the Jewish role in what is happening to us. The riposte makes no attempt to engage with the serious, evidence-based arguments that have been advanced. It is simply a long list of "moderate Muslims" aka patriotic women, together with a series of ad hominem attacks, impugning the motivation of those who raise this issue for discussion, insisting that they are homosexuals or heterosexuals incapable of forming relationships with women. In other words, it employees exactly the style of anathematising discourse with which we "racists", "antisemites" and "Islamophobes" are by now all too wearily familiar.

I posted a reasoned reply in a comment to this article and was amazed to see the next day that it had been censored out by the site moderators, not even allowed to appear. In the comment, I observed that although you would expect that people who had themselves been victims of this kind of exclusionary discourse, based on attacking their motivation for saying what they say, rather than addressing what it is they actually say - would be more chary of employing this style of cheap invective against others; but experience shows that, unfortunately, it isn't so. The "Counterjihadists" who styled themselves daring thought criminals defying establishment thinkers who refused to look unflinchingly at the real truth about Muslims showed exactly the same moral failings themselves when asked to look unflinchingly at the real truth about Jews, proving they were no better than their enemies. Now the operators of this website exhibit exactly the same deficiencies.

For me, support for free speech is the ultimate moral measure. Having absolute power to suppress criticism of yourself or the things you hold dear is the purest ethical test there is. Unfortunately, it is a test that almost everyone fails. Once you have that power, the temptation to use it is just too great to resist. Repression of free speech gets to me like no other issue. It was this that sparked my original transition from left to right when I saw draconian censorship on the Guardian website of anything related to brown-skinned people; it was this that first led me to explore the Jewish issue; and it was this occasioned my break with the Counterjewhad movement when I saw they were uninterested in pursuing anything inconsistent with a Jewish tribal agenda; and it is this that, still today, continually fires my determination to explore the Jewish issue further as I see how successfully this alien, Oriental people is able to harmfully control public discourse within our civilisation, preventing us from discussing the problems that confront us and therefore finding solutions to them.

I was going to remove the New Observer Online from the list of websites linked to in the Resistance section below. But I've changed my mind about that. I'll let it stay. Here is my reasoning. At a high level of abstraction, it is clear that Europeans are incapable of uniting to defend their own interests because of their tendency to anathematise one another; that is to start and fight what are, in effect, moral civil wars against one another. So someone might recognise that there is a threat from Mohammedanism, but be unwilling to explore other issues related to negroes, immigration or loss of genetic identity; and not only be unwilling to explore these issues himself, but determined to shun anyone who does. Another might concede that brown-skinned people are a problem but be unwilling to talk about the Jewish issue, immediately excommunicating anyone who crosses this red line. Equally clearly, non-Europeans have grasped the fact that this tendency towards "moral civil war" exists in Europeans and have done everything possible to encourage and accentuate it, the better to advance their ethnic interests and harm ours. Unless we can overcome this tendency in our nature, and shield ourselves from these manipulations, we are not going to be around for much longer. For that reason, I will let the link to this website remain, having pointed out the moral deficiencies of its operators.

I will end by saying this: the greatness of European civilisation was founded on our ancestors' respect for freedom. The freedom they fought for and won allowed the circulation of knowledge and ideas that ultimately allowed them to dominate the earth, while other peoples remained clutching their superstitions in their madrassas and yeshivas. Europeans unable to meet the challenge of free speech have debased themselves to the level of these lesser breeds. http://newobserveronline.com/women-haters-alt-right/

7 comments:

  1. Gracias Dios Mío !

    Diversity, me ha ocurrido igual.

    En realidad, de acuerdo en todo, yo ubiqué sitios de Counter-yihad ( contra-yihad ) investigué el motivo de no haber críticas al Sionismo o los grupos de poder en el mundo : resumen sitios muy buenos aparentemente eran pro causa judía.

    Con New Observer, posteriormente he publicado algunos comentarios, pero no se si trata de las medidas de seguridad por bloquear determinadas IP´s que pueden ser consideradas malware, son cosas de los Administradores.

    Pero, como español, todavía me causa sorpresa que sitios de habla inglesa utilicen los términos del lenguaje viciados creados por los Sionistas y La Famosa Propaganda contra el Imperio Español, por ejemplo :

    Latinos.

    Aparecen noticias con dicha palabra, desde Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, para referirse a otra palabra igualmente manipulada por judío anglosajón ; por ejemplo : hispanos.

    Latinos son casi todos los países en la Historia donde hubo presencia romana, que son todos excepto parte de Irlanda, Escocia y la península escandinava. Casi toda Europa de hoy fue romanizada, de ahí el latín.

    Con el término hispano ocurre otro tanto de lo mismo ; es decir, hispanos son también históricamente casi todo el territorio de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica y parte de Canadá ( los españoles llegaron hasta Alaska ), por no decir ciudades y regiones históricas de habla hispana : San Francisco, Los Angeles, Texas, California, San Antonio...

    Además son latinos e hispanos todos los países de histórica presencia hispana :
    Holanda, Bélgica, La mitad de Francia, casi toda Italia, parte de Dalmacia, parte de algunas islas griegas, parte de Alemania, parte de Austria, parte de Suiza, hasta incluso en algunas décadas Hungría, ésto sólo en Europa. También son hispanos los filipinos, y parte del Vietnam, que fueron durante años colonizados por españoles durante el reinado de sucesivos monarcas.

    Decía una exclamación de gratitud y similitud con asuntos que parecen ser exclusivos en algunas personas occidentales y veo que hay más personas que lo padecen. Por eso tengo que felicitarle por éste artículo informativo de opinión personal. También he de decir, que, no he quitado dicho lugar occidental porque como bien dice usted la gente padece la gran enfermedad de La Tierra desde el fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial : la ignorancia.

    Grande Diversity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm with you. Sadly, there are a lot of white knights, femcunts, and supplicating beta-boys in Alt-Right and WN ranks. It's a real problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They are just cowards, during their whole life they were programmed to be afraid of being called a racist or a sexist, so what do you expect? And they don't want to discuss the problem, i see mostly Ad Hominem attacks about gay influence, and things like that. (and btw, i'm straight). They do not care about knowing what the truth is, they care about peer approval, thats it. Having unpopular opinions in public will not grant you a date. But for me, knowing the truth, knowing what is causing the destruction of my people, is more important than other things. I don't care if someone will not like it, or not. I have my priorities straight. And for me, the fate of my people (white europeans) is more important than the hurt feelings of women. If they are causing problems for my people, then i'm going to call them out.

    This is my comment, i'm not sure if they will post it or not. But if they are censoring comments, then that gives me an unpleasant reminder of the mainsream media. And thanks again to Cheradenine Zakalwe for giving me a platform to express my concerns, and for allowing a free discussion about the issues that i raised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This isn't about hating, its about saying the truth. And i don't care if you like that or not. If women, as a whole, are causing problems for my people (white european people), then i'm going to call them out. I don't give a flying fuck if they will like it or not.

      Feminism and large amounts of female influence are having negative impact on society, leading to its decline, and the destruction of the feminised group. You are free to continue with feminism, dear westerners, but you should know that it will destroy you. It leads to the spread of low IQ people, and barbarism is the last stage of it.

      How feminism destroys itself and society:
      1. By negative birth rates, leading to the destruction of the feminised group.
      2. By dysgenics, (the highest educated women an those in managerial occupations are the group most likely to be childless, leading to IQ drop of the feminised group).
      3. By the fact that women behave like minorities ("i'm victim, give me, give me, down with the 1950s"), ally with minorities (to advance quotas and affirmitive action), and according to various studies: care less about their own people, compared to men, and are more foreigner friendly, compared to men.

      So i'm sorry, but this isn't about hate, its about the fact that women, according to various studies, have deficiencies in their behavior (just like children have some deficiencies), have different behavior than men, and people should be aware about those differences. Women will always be more left-wing than men, because they pay only 30 percent of taxes, but consume the majority of welfare. Its quite simple - the alt right being more "open" to women will simply lead to the alt right becoming more liberal and more left wing, due to structural differences between men and women. Studies show that women are more likely to believe in "equality" ideologies, compared to men, are more liberal and left-wing than men, contributed to the rise of government in the US, and are more foreigner friendly, compared to men.

      Here we are not talking about the fact that there are some (not many) nationalist women, we are talking about male influence as whole vs female inluence as a whole. And as a whole, more female inluence leads to more liberal and "tolerant" society, while more male influence leads to more nationalist society.

      So white women are not going to fix the islamization/third-worldization problems that the West faces, since, in many ways, they caused those problems in the first place, via “child-free” behavior causing negative birth rates (below population the replacement rate), political support for “tolerance”, “multiculturalism”, the welfare state, dysgenic behavior (highly educated women are more likely to be childless compared to less educated women), and due to the fact that they often ally with ethnic minorities against their own men.

      So ultimately, i have my priorities straight, and i care more about the fate of my people as a whole (this also includes men, children, and the elderly, not only women) than the hurt feelings of women. And for me, the fate of my people (white europeans) is more important than the hurt feelings of women. And if they are causing problems for my people, then i'm going to call them out.


      For more information:
      The problem with Feminism. Why Feminisation leads to Third-Worldization.
      http://diversitymachtfrei.blogspot.bg/2016/05/the-problem-with-feminism-why.html "

      Delete
  4. Here's a news item from this morning:

    German schoolgirls covering up sex attacks by migrant-invaders

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/11/schoolgirls-cover-migrant-sex-assaults-political-correctness/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Indeed it was a terrible article, many people on other alt-right sites said their comments debunking that TNO article were censored too!

    Allowing women to vote wasn't even considered for the entirety of human history, this last 90 or so year experiment which is failing miserably does not trump all of human history.

    DMF is one of the best sites on the net, keep up the great work!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I miss your site thenewobserver.com. What happened to it.

    ReplyDelete