On banning commenters

I am sorry, but when a commenter calls ‘Jew’ another commenter on this site with no proof of his Jewish background, he or she has to be banned. (Usually, this happens when he who cries ‘Jew!’ is losing an argument in the comments section.)

Published in: on October 31, 2018 at 12:45 pm  Comments (11)  

11 Comments

  1. Yet I didn’t call you, Cesar, a Jew, did I? Because I’m not here trolling and my comments regarding Andrew was serious and not used from the standpoint of defeat. Andrew has an absolutely atrocious Negative personality, a very nasty attitude… I’d like to challenge you to a debate over what Andrew said and also about why you deleted my comments… Make an appointment with me on Skype.

    • No. You assumed he’s jew with no evidence. That’s enough in my book.

  2. Who did that?

    • This guy.

  3. I must apologise to all concerned, especially the owner of this site, Mr Tort, but what got me started with rhnegatives was not so much his slander of Churchill – I am not a defender of Churchill really – but more his attack on the British people. What many people in nationalism, especially in the United States, do not realise is that unlike most of the other ‘Western’ countries, Britain is a nation in its own right, not just a state. The British are my people, my extended family. It’s everything.

    Thus, when white nationalist Americans, especially the ones with Irish or German ancestry, start blowing off about how the British or English or so-called ‘Anglos’ are this, that or the other negative thing, it is offensive and it is only natural that I will stand up for my own people. That is not to say that I am uncritical of my own people. For instance, I have pointed out elsewhere myself the parallels between the English and the Jews – both have strong commercial and legal cultures that have become entwined. There’s lots to discuss on the topic. But all white ethno-nations and tribes have erred. The obsessive Anglophobia that rears its head is unhelpful and toxic, not to mention that it also usually has an inaccurate basis due to the complex and fragmented nature of history.

    The reputation of Churchill is a good example of this problem. I hold no brief for him. To be clear, I am on Hitler’s side in this controversy, and given the chance, I would have fought on the Eastern Front for the Waffen-SS. However, the legacy of Churchill and the British and Allied case in that War is not so simple. On the one hand, it is probably true that Churchill was working for the interests of elite commercial-financial and industrial interests (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in Britain, the USA and on the Continent (including in Germany itself). On the other hand, Britain has always had a strategic interest that rubs up against German geopolitical interests. Furthermore, Hitler too was working on behalf of politico-industrial interests in Germany – including Jews.

    In the matter of Jews specifically, I have been a nationalist for many years and I have come across many people like rhnegatives, both online and in the real world. They are NOT Jew-aware, but they think they are. Of course, I’m not a Jew, and furthermore, I have no Jewish ancestry. My ancestry is entirely from the British Isles. If I were a Jew or had any Jew in me, it’s unlikely I would be posting here.

    What started this is that rhnegatives claimed in one comment that Churchill was part-Jew. When I asked for evidence (and there should be ample, if it’s true), rhnegatives then changed tack and claimed that Churchill’s ancestry was Jewish – a slightly different thing. rhnegatives also patronised me at this point, telling me I ‘need to read [my] history’.

    I pointed out to rhnegatives how he had changed the goalposts, first claiming Churchill was part-Jew and then that he had Jewish ancestry.
    I asked for evidence. No evidence has been forthcoming. That is because there is no evidence.

    To be clear, the rumour that Churchill was part-Jew comes from an infamous newspaper article written by a Jew in which the claim is made without any substantiation whatever. It is the height of irony and very humorous that people like rhnegatives rely on the word of a Jew.

    The separate belief that Churchill must have had some Jewish ancestry presumably is just part of the more general suspicion about the English aristocracy that their bloodlines were tainted. I cannot comment, beyond saying that of course it is possible that this is true of Churchill, but nobody has been able to establish that it is.

    • You don’t need to apologize, only those who cry ‘jew’ while they’re losing an argument.

    • Even if Anglos are not biological Jews, they are spiritual Jews.

      • TRUE

      • @Devan

        We English can be individualistic and commercially-minded, though the generalisation isn’t always apt. The English are a vast and heterogeneous people with many different types. We’re the mainstays of Protestantism, secularism and liberalism, the result of an insular mentality, but there is also a strong dislike of Jews among ordinary people.

        We are certainly not ‘spiritual Jews’. That’s nonsense and is immediately disproved through a cursory examination of history. The English have always had a Teutonic drive that Jews lack. True, Jews took advantage of, and probably helped to fund, the British Empire, but Jews didn’t built that Empire. They didn’t sweat, bleed and die for it. I will concede that we willingly took Jewish gold and financial expertise, but then, so did other white nations I could mention.

        Moreover, the liberalism that we English are known for and have spread everywhere is not the result of Jews but of our island situation and the influence of our settler ancestors and their acausal values. If you’re safely on an island, in effect protected by a giant moat, and if you’re stuck there with other racially-similar tribes, in time you will want to put down your arms and start trading, and you will also want to develop the political-economic framework for trade and commerce: including free speech, rule of law, jury trials, and so on. The point is that this liberalism made us more pliant and vulnerable to alien influence, but at the same time it helps to define what we are. We’re a unique and eccentric people – but we’re not Jews, that’s for sure.

  4. White race is dying and at “the west’s darkest hour” people insult each other in the worst possible way, relegating comrades to the worst life form that ever appeared on earth. Ain’t life grand?

  5. From Christa Schroeder’s memoirs:

    (I have added capitalization for emphasis)

    “The things he talked about became gradually more flat and uninteresting. He no longer discussed the Church, racial problems, economic and political questions, about being Nordic and German, Ancient Greece or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. He, who had always been so passionately interested in all matters of science, zoology, botany and human development spoke out in the latter months only on dog-training, nutrition and the STUPIDITY and DEGENERATION of the world.”

    Gentlemen, I shudder with disgust at the thought that the greatest man – OUR FÜHRER – who ever walked on Earth was brought in such a state by the end of his unparalleled life; and only because he loved his people. What are we here for? What is this sick species that so torments the ever-diminishing noble souls of this earthly world? A quote from Marlowe’s most famous play comes to mind …


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: