On Jew obeyers

Recently, a couple of friends retweeted my tweet:

Jews hate their enemies.

White nationalists obey (((Jesus))): they love them.

Who’s winning?

Umwertung aller Werte!

While referring to our street fighters, the recent use of phrases such as ‘heinous act’ among quite a few white nationalists and folks in the Alt-Right, motivates me to start using the epithet ‘Jew obeyers’ even on those who describe themselves as ‘anti-Semites’.

Published in: on October 31, 2018 at 5:37 pm  Comments (31)  


  1. Or Shabbos Goys. Jew-obeyers is better, though, as it’s clearer.

    • The best word would be Anglos

      • Idiots like you are a large part of why, in about 2014/15, I moved on from white nationalism and now consider myself to be a British Nationalist only. You are an idiotic minority, but your idiocy cannot be ignored because it suggests that there is a toxic jealously and hatred latent in all the classically Anglophobic groups. That is why I now only care about Britain, and it is also why I will not tolerate the presence of white immigrants in my country any more than non-whites. You must all leave.

        If your intention here is to sow division, then you have succeeded – but the consequences may not be what you think. It is not just non-whites whom we will be killing.

        Your efforts also leave you exposed. All we need to know is what is your white ethnicity, and there can be little doubt that I will then be able to reel off a sad catalogue of facts demonstrating that your own people are the True Shabbos Goys while the efforts of the ‘Anglos’ in that regard pale into insignificance. It’s a game we can all play, but it gets us nowhere.

      • What about ‘English nationalist’? English roses have always been the ultimate inspiration for this site. (That’s why it is a sin against the holy ghost what recently happened in the royal family…)

      • @C. T.

        I tend to favour British rather than English nationalism. I regard English nationalism as superfluous. Yes, you’re right that English women are among the best – it’s nice of you to say so.

    • The reason that people insult you repugnant Saxons is due to the fact that, behind the Americans, you are the most prolific race traitors in all of history You killed countless German civilians, Boer women and children, abandoned Rhodesia, even skinned Irish peasants alive. Once I thought that you people ought to be forgiven should you choose to at least accept that perhaps you’d fought on the wrong side of the second world war, but alas, as is typical of you people, you remain stubborn and brash when confronted with your countless atrocities against Aryans. I am thankful that your kind will no longer exist by the end of the century. It is a fitting end to such a vile and unapologetically cruel tribe.

      • My Father is like this exactly. He seems to want a return of the British Empire ruled under Christianity. Any evidence shone his way regarding British atrocities seems to make him more proud to be British and that the victims deserved their treatment as they had the audacity to turn their backs on Britain in the first place. What’s more, the descendants of the victims of Britain deserve to suffer for what their forefathers did. For example, all Germans are latent Nazis who want to take over Britain along with South Africans (just the White ones), Turks, and anyone else who fought for either Kaisar’s Germany and the Third Reich.

      • Saxons? You mean Anglo-Saxons? Or are we including two of the German Länder?

        You do realise that, in common with other Englishmen, I am mixed-race in that I am not just Anglo-Saxon, I am also definitely Celtic and Indigenous British (which is ancient Basque and Iberian – you’re welcome here any time, César, as we’re racial brothers), and probably also Viking too. As such, we British are not pure whites (not pure Nordics), but this is my nation, my family, my tribe. It is not just a modernist nation-state. So here you see where my hatred and my tribal morality begins.

        The English didn’t skin Irish peasants alive. I think that’s a myth. I consider most of what the Irish claim about the English and the Ulster-Scots to range from unreliable to outright lies. That includes the Potato Famine and the alleged misdeeds of Cromwell, most of which are unlikely to be true.

        And the Germans killed countless British civilians. It was a large-scale war, in which the belligerents sought to kill civilian populations. What of it? In point of fact, the German kill count against other white Europeans is immeasurable. You’re not seriously going to tell us the German National Socialists did no wrong? Furthermore, the Germans have either started, or been at the crucible of, every intra-European war of note, but you don’t hear me getting worked up about Germans as a class.

        On the other side of the equation, it is true that Britain started the Second World War. I am one of the rare few 0.00001% of British people who will admit this. The facts speak for themselves, but even British people who are confirmed nationalists or national socialists will usually deny it and become angry at you for pointing it out. This has happened to me many times. Ordinary British people are the very worst, but nationalists can be just as bad. I once had a very unpleasant exchange with a well-known British nationalist (I will not mention his name) and I explained to him that my researches had revealed that Hitler was not in breach of the Munich Agreement and that the aggressors were Poland and Czechoslovakia. I added that Britain’s conduct in starting the War was inexcusable. I just face facts, but he couldn’t and became very angry and accused me of betraying my own country. That, to me, is just the mark of a mindless patriot, which I am not. I admit that Britain got it wrong. We should have adopted neutrality or sided with the Axis. I repeat that my sympathy is with Hitler. That said, it is also the case that Hitler handled these affairs badly and was unnecessarily belligerent.

        It is also true that Britain’s conduct of the Boer War was questionable in some respects, but most of the tales of genocide and so on are just myths, like with the Irish claims. And just like with the Irish claims, it is Leftists in Britain and elsewhere who like to spread these dubious claims around as if they are facts. It is amusing to me – but not surprising – that people on the dissident Right should take up with this toxic Leftist agenda simply out of blind hate and spite for the British. I also seem to recall reading that it was the Boers who started the war, not Britain – a fact that needs to be weighed in the equation by enthusiastic Britophobes. You will try to claim is was the British who started the Boer War. It wasn’t. It definitely was the Boers – that fact is incontrovertible, it’s just that much like other historical matters, the myths take on a life of their own.

        Back to the Germans. As an aside, I speak German fluently and have lived in that country – I like Germany. This is despite the fact that my own grandfathers fought in the War, and it affected one of them badly. Come to mention it, his story would probably interest César as possibly an example of inter-generational psychosis. he was a navy gunner and one incident that deeply affected him was having to shoot down a German pilot, whom he saw burning in the plane as it came down. Previous to that, another ancestor of mine died as a teenager in the Great War – he drowned on the beach before he’d even fired a shot, a gruesome Fate shared by a lot of British soldiers. Again, you could say that’s thanks to the Germans (as well as thanks to the British elite). But I don’t make a meal of it viz. Germans.

        Germans do have their faults as a race, but I don’t go round blaming Germans. It’s dumb. It reflects an unevolved primordial mentality that the Left have, which is not just to blame the sins of the father on the son, but to invent or exaggerate the sins of the father before holding the son fully accountable. It’s way of waging war and supplanting a self-abnegating religion in the minds of the victims in place of life-affirming beliefs. That’s what the Holocaust Myth is: an outcrop of neo-Christian ethics and a religion that credulous whites are required to believe in order to punish themselves. Same with your Britophobia and Anglophobia. As such, your verbal attacks on my own nation are a personal declaration of war on me. We are mortal enemies.

        Comments like yours are why my heart is now closed to white nationalism. My ethno-racial loyalties are to the British, then possibly to the wider Nordic Race in regard to specific strategic issues that matter to Britain, and that’s it. And maybe that’s how it should be. Maybe white nationalism is just a North American spin-out of neo-Christian axiology. How can I love all white people? I love my tribe and my nation. At the same time, I admire César for his intellectual honesty and selflessness.

      • @ Jack Halliday

        Though I don’t mean anything against your father, you are right to criticise those Britons who have that attitude. And I accept there are many. But I do not fall into that category. My interest is in facts (so far as they can be ascertained, and allowing that history is selective). If and where Britain has done wrong, I admit it and deplore it, as I have done in my above comment.

        But there is a distinction between, on the one hand, holding a country accountable and on the other hand, blaming a nation of people, most of whom had little or no say in what their country did in their name. The other commenters here are adopting the latter approach, and as such, they fall into a similar category to your father.

    • Indeed, I would say that the Germans did no wrong.
      The end always justifies the means. Whether or not Hitler did indeed start the war is irrelevant to me, the future the National Socialists fought for was one in which the Aryan race would flourish. The British, Americans and other allies did not. Many of my fellow Americans fought for similar reasons as they do today- a religiously induced philosemitism.

      Also, you needn’t play semantics games with me. My use of ‘Saxon’ was obviously referring to Brits, not those Germans of the mainland. The term Anglo has become synonymous with Briton at this point- and while I may be feeding into some inaccurate, maybe misleading newspeak in using the term Saxon I had assumed that us all being racialists here that the context would be understood. It would appear that I was wrong.

      I never tried to claim that the British tried to start the Boer war, but Again, as for the Boer war, it matters little who “started” it. It is clear that the British motivations were Mammon alone, and that the Boers wanted autonomy. Also, really, the atrocities against the Boer were mere propaganda? Tell that to Lizzie van Zyl.

      Also, any ‘Iberian’ contributions to the British gene pool are negligent at best in this day and age, as it is common knowledge that the Indo-Europeans demographically replaced the native denizens of the British isles rather quickly. Really, it’s absurd to even suggest that the ‘Iberians’ of that day and age even remotely resemble the Iberians of today, as Iberia from then on saw the Gauls, Goths, Latins, Moors and Berbers contribute to her gene pool.

      If we are indeed mortal enemies, so be it. At least I have the decency to admit that my own stock is a group of reprehensible racial lumpenproles who are proud of their genocide of whites.

      • I’m glad you acknowledge my natural (tribal) morality, which I take to be the PoV of this site. You don’t expect me to side with Germans or Boers, do you? I’m not a German. I’m not a Boer. I’m not a Chinaman either.

        But my objection here is not to the criticism of Britain as a country, any more than I can object to criticism of other countries. if you want some criticism of the British Crown and the British state, I could go on for a very long time. I hate the British elite. Your criticism is not of the decision-makers, though. You are attacking the British, and in your case specifically the English, as a race, which is a bit like when Jews attack Germans on the basis of Hitler.

        The problem with people like you is that you want to treat history as a morality play in which you apply ex post facto whatever of your own sanctimonious rationalisations suit whatever is your latest agenda, ignoring facts, and ignoring the perspective of the actors and the realpolitical calculations of the time on both sides. Hitler was, in part, funded by Jews. These Jews (and non-Jews) also funded the British effort. They wanted both sides to go to war. A similar pattern emerges on examination of other wars, sometimes involving Jews, sometimes not. The English people only enter the picture as soldiers, workers, peasants and slaves, etc. Yet you want to hold us responsible at the genetic level, treating us as akin to Jews?

        I admit that Britain started the Second World War because that is fact, but I reject this idea that the Germans were clean of wrongdoing or that Hitler acted well. Hitler did NOT conduct himself well. He could have achieved his goals if he had gone about things differently.

        I deal in facts. If you want to tell me the English or British committed atrocities in this or that place, then point me to the evidence. I repeat that I find it very amusing that you Anglophobes have no compunction about quoting enemy sources – Jews, if you please, or Leftists – when it suits you in spreading your bile. I think that says a lot.

        Regarding the link between the British and the Iberians, I did not say that we resemble Iberians, I said we are part-descended from people in Iberia.

        Terminology does matter. First you say Anglos. Then you say Saxon. You’re the one who’s using the esoteric language. Be more precise when ranting about things you know little of, and at least then I can figure out who it is you’re referring to. If you say ‘Saxon’, that could include groups wider than the English. You will also know that British includes Scots, Welsh, Ulster-Scots and Irish, etc., some of whom have no significant English connections, so why use the term Saxon in the first place? Why refer to Anglos? Why not just say British and leave it at that?

        I’ll tell you why – because you simply hate the English. You are probably Irish, or from one of the other British nations, and you are a classic Anglophobe who wants to heap all the blame on us for the world’s ills and for your own national inadequacies.

    • To my knowledge, I’ve not a drop of Irish blood, though some of my ancestry does hail from Britain (England and Scotland specifically)

      I understand that you believe that it’s unfair to hold the underlings of a government accountable for the actions of one, but oftentimes these people make up the most dogmatic supporters of state efforts. In my Native Texas, the amount of Christian Zionists who ardently support middle eastern war efforts due to obscure religious reasoning is incredibly large. It is not unreasonable to assume that the average Briton may have supported the war effort against Germany, misinformed or otherwise. There comes a point where one cannot chock up every immoral decision a person or group of people make to socio-economic factors.

      I said Anglos and Saxons merely because I simply didn’t care to differentiate. It isn’t because I irrationally hate your countrymen. I know what using the term “British’ entails you pathetic troglodyte.

      Anyway, back to what I was saying- you’ve accused me of still subscribing to Neo-Christian ethics when you, yourself, fall victim to these very ethics. Your rhetoric is difficult to differentiate from that of Holocaust deniers in that you deny committing atrocities against people yet will provide a rationalization for the behavior if it did indeed occur.

      Also, please explain to me how Hitler could’ve achieved his goals? Should he have been more diplomatic whilst exterminating a group of people many Americans legitimately religiously revere? Do you actually believe that there was any other way in which Hitler could’ve achieved his goals outside of warfare? If so, you’re infinitely more gullible than I previously assumed. Like much the rest of your comments you’ve merely made outlandish claims or outright denied fact and then wrapped your own rage at those who dare criticize the British, English specifically, in an incredibly opaque prose in hopes that your wording will distract from the lack of substance presence in your arguments.

      • I was notified of this post and I can’t resist coming back to reply. Your witterings drip with disingenuousness and dishonesty.

        I make the following distinction that you refuse to acknowledge and which you refuse to recognise in my replies:

        First, I have no problem with criticisms of Britain as a country and the British state. I hate the British state. Want to criticise the British Crown or the British state? Join the queue! And it’s a bloody long queue because it consists of millions of Britons. Some of us would gladly slaughter our Establishment.

        Second, I also have no problem with criticisms of the British people, when warranted. I, too, have plenty of such criticisms up my sleeve.

        Third, I have no problem holding underlings responsible for the actions of governments, when this is warranted. Equally, I have a problem with it when it is not warranted.

        You seem to want to hold Tommy Atkins responsible for the actions of the British government. Maybe he was to a degree, but the Tommy Atkins who was my ancestor drowned in the mud on a French beach at the age of 19.

        What I also have a problem with is the following:

        1. Calling British people Jews (in any sense). We are not Jews. I am British and I hate Jews – and that attitude is not uncommon here, when you get down among ordinary people.

        2. Holding British people responsible for imagined or exaggerated grievances. The Irish Potato Famine is a perfect example of this. It reeks of ahistorical Holocaust-type propaganda.

        3. Suggesting that British people (or English people) are uniquely or specially evil due to the actions of governments.

        I also disdain the use of pseudo-intellectual categorisations, such as ‘Saxon’ or ‘Anglo’. You clearly have not the faintest clue of what you talk and this is reflected in your use of these terms. It’s always a give-away.

        You say that I deny atrocities, but I do NOT. You either can’t read or you are intentionally and dishonesty misrepresenting the way I responded. I have emphatically admitted British responsibility for some things, while downplaying others because they are based on myths and exaggerations. For instance, today’s understanding of the Irish Potato Famine is based on myths that are fuelled by the Left within Britain and its self-hatred, and by enemies of Britain without. That’s just one example.

        I will say, for the third time, that I find it deeply amusing that you rely on the sayings of Jews and Leftists for your dubious charges against the British. It’s also rather telling.

        Just because I refuse to accept British responsibility for things when there aren’t facts to support it doesn’t mean that I have a Christian axiology. For one thing, I could be lying out of loyalty to my own nation and people, and that would be natural. However, in this case I am not and it’s not necessary to be a neo-Christian in order to be a human being. I think, once again, you misunderstand the PoV of this blog – a lot of commenters, including some long-standing ones, seem to. A natural morality would still have an ethical regard for the Other if the Other is within the same or a similar race. Remember that you are suggesting British betrayal of other whites.

        But more to the point, even if it does suggest that I have some vestigial Christian ethic in me, so what? It is for you to prove that the British are responsible! In most cases, you simply can’t. Your evidence is a joke, or where there is a kernel of truth in the accusation, it is based on exaggerations or ex post facto ahistorical theoretical extrapolations. For instance, you accuse the English of skinning alive Irish peasants. That never happened. If it did and I am mistaken, then please post a link to the evidence. I can near-guarantee that either the accusation is an invention or, if it does turn out to have some truth to it, things have been heavily twisted or exaggerated in some material way.

        I don’t mind blaming Britain for things – I do so myself. But what I do mind is deranged people like you with your unbalanced understanding of things trying to make out that the moral responsibility is all one-sided. What that shows is that your judgement is clouded or you are a bad faith commenter trying to stir things up. If it’s the latter, then you’ve succeeded: I have no further time for other white ethnicities, my only interest now is in Britain. That wasn’t always the case – in fact, at one point I was very much a white nationalist. It’s largely people like you that turned me against it. Congratulations!

        To close, I also like the way you call me gullible for suggesting that Hitler could have acted differently. Hitler of course was Perfect, as we all know. A veritable unicorn. It’s clear that you treat history as a religion. I don’t. I admire Hitler and I would like to think that had I been around, I would have taken the side of Germany, but I will not bow down to him. Hitler had serious flaws and he could have gone about things differently. You ask me to explain how, but I didn’t claim to know exactly. If I were to have a go at the topic, I would say that he could have acted more rationally and played the long-game. He didn’t seem to understand very well the forces that were ranged against him, or maybe – like you – his judgement was blinded by his own hatred and narcissism. Hatred is a good and necessary thing, as this blog explains, but it needs to be focused and we need to be intelligent.

      • Yes: Hitler committed the same blunder that Napoleon committed: invade a ‘continent’ (Russia). He should not have tried to checkmate the Soviet Union in the very opening (unlike the Romantics of the 19th century, modern chess masters don’t attack the king at the very opening of a chess game).

        Like England, Spain has also been the object of lies, the so-called Black Legend, regarding the Spanish conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires, especially by omitting how the Amerindians behaved before the Conquest (‘lies of omission’ that I debunk in my Day of Wrath).

    • I’d love to know why you feel inclined to continue to refer to the Irish potato famine, to which I’ve not once referred to, and continually claim that I’ve compared the British to Jews- which I’ve also not done. You seem to be either misattributing the attacks of others to myself or are so enraged by my criticism of the British that you’re incapable of differentiating between my own statements and past exchanges you’ve had.

      Now that I’ve gotten your outright lies out of the way let me dig into the rest of your statement; Hitler did, indeed make mistakes however I seriously doubt we would agree on what those were. While I personally believe that the invasion of the Soviet Union was necessary I do realize that it was ultimately an unwinnable engagement due to a combination of American industry and Soviet manpower. However outside of the invasion of the USSR, and some questionable tactical decisions later on in the war (for which I personally would not begrudge Hitler) I do not think that he made many, if any, mistakes. You’ve said it yourself- he did not instigate the conflict with Britain.

      To address your claims that I’ve “relied on the sayings of the Jews”- whether or not a source is Jewish is not totally relevant and many Jews, albeit probably unintentionally, have substantiated claims that are ammunition for us racialists today (See Esau’s tears, Adamantio’s description of the true Hellenes for example) However, I have not once quoted a Jew in a single one of my comments, so I fail to see why or how this is relevant. If you’re referring to the claim of skinning Irish peasants it is actually one I read on an older entry of this blog, however I cannot remember who had made the claim I recall that the author was, indeed, a gentile. And the supposed skinning of these peasants was actually carried out by Cromwell and his republicans; wholly unrelated to the potato famine.

      As for my usage of the terms Anglo and Saxon- I’d love to know how those are “pseudo-intellectual categorizations”- I’ve spoken with many racially aware Englishmen who would refer to themselves by either name. It is common knowledge that the average Englishman is indeed indigenous Briton and Anglo/Jute/Saxon, possibly Norse, however the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is not an uncommon addition to anyone’s vocabulary when discussing England, or even all of Britain. And since I’ve demonstrated that I know that “British” may refer to anyone from a man in Cornwall to someone living in Ulster or the Outer Hebrides I don’t see why you’re so keen on repeatedly bringing it back up.

      As for me not “providing evidence” for any of my claims, with the exception of my remark in regards to the fantastical torture of Irish peasants, the rest still stand. Rhodesia was, indeed abandoned by the British empire. The British did commit what one could consider genocide against the Boer. To quote Horatio Herbert Kitchener

      “Flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organised like a sporting shoot, with success defined in a weekly ‘bag’ of killed, captured and wounded, and to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children … It was the clearance of civilians—uprooting a whole nation—that would come to dominate the last phase of the war”

      I would, again, refer you to the photo of Lizzie Van Zyl to show what fate befell many in British camps during the second boer war. Fatalities were common among the interned.
      Even Niall Ferguson admits
      “this was not a deliberately genocidal policy; rather it was the result of [a] disastrous lack of foresight and rank incompetence on [the] part of the [British] military”.

      You’ve also not conceded an inkling of British wrongdoing thus far. In fact, the closest you’ve gotten is claiming that the British empire handled the 2nd boer war “questionably”- and then going on to claim that claims of atrocities were exaggerated.

      As for your personal attacks on me, I am not “blinded” by my own “hatred and narcissism”
      I do not even hate the British people. I am simply saying that I can see why people feel reasonable frustration when confronted with their actions over the course of history, and I certainly dislike people such as yourself who while being racially aware go out of their way to deflect seemingly any criticism that could be levied at the British. Personally, I do not believe that Hitler could have succeeded even if he attempted to be more diplomatic, as you imply, since the United States would have almost definitely gone to war with Germany even if the Japanese had somehow not attacked her.

      To close, I don’t care that “people like me” have turned you from “white nationalism’. I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a national socialist, and even then I do not expect every man of every nation to dogmatically fight for the racially fit of every nation as people will by-and-large feel a significantly greater amount of loyalty to their home country than to “Aryans’ collectively. Disregarding that, even if you are a British nationalist exclusively- great! Should your people survive there will be hope for the race after all. Though personally I do not think that the British or Americans will survive as distinct groups myself.

      I would like to think I’ve got a rather thorough understanding of this site’s PoV, but each to his own.

      • Your evasion, dishonesty and disingenuousness is now comical. You started this exchange, and may I remind you that you initial post referred to my people – MY PEOPLE – as “repugnant Saxons”. You plainly hate us. It’s as clear as day.

        I’m sure I am confusing your particular brand of Anglophobia with that of others on here. That’s because all you unoriginal NPC-style Anglophobes seem to meld together. It’s understandable that I would not pay much attention to names, since you’re all much the same: you talk rubbish, you exaggerate and simplify complex issues, you draw on evidence invented by Jews while affecting to be Jew-aware (big laugh at that one), and you drive good British people away. (I think you do the latter intentionally and in bad faith).

        Maybe people in general should be more careful how they put things across, so as not to create poison and toxicity on blogs and forums. What we need is constructive discussion and practical action, not self-indulgent, narcissistic twaddle. So far we’ve had distortions and lies about British responsibility for things, we’ve had people calling all Britons Jews when they’re not, and we’ve even had some idiot calling me a Jew.

        I can’t be bothered to respond substantively to your latest missive, in which you try to parse the nth atom on the end of a needle from my nth atom and you try to incite me to disagree with you about that nth atom, implying that I have said things, drawing dubious conclusions from what I have said, and drawing me into another useless and pointless argument based on controversies that you raised and provocations that you made in the first place. You call us “repugnant Saxons”, but you expect from me Queensberry Rules. If you’re not already working for the intelligence services, might I suggest you apply for a situation? You should be well-suited to the work.

        Your screed popped up on my notifications, but I have to make a living and I have other (and better) things to do. The rest of the White Race can screw itself now. I would not have said that if you and your friends here and elsewhere were more fair-minded. But why should I assist my enemies? I have enough enemies as it is among white Britons – whose faults, I repeat (I am now tired of repeating this) I readily acknowledge, and are well-known and documented. But at least they are white Britons. At least they hate me in my own language. There again, I could pick on practically any white ethnicity and start levelling generalised accusations and saying that ‘These people are 10% Jews! I have proof! I read it on a blog!”.

        It’s dumb and stupid, but it’s also deliberate and intentional. I will not get further drawn into it further – except, as here, to express my exasperation at your brazen mendacity.

        I do like the way you ape my stylistic literalisms, though. Nice touch. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery – but then, we ‘Saxons’ (or is it ‘Anglos? Mega-LOL) are the world’s innovators. You’re free to copy and paste and imitate.

    • Referring to a group of people in a derogatory manner isn’t indicative of hatred- but again, I can see why many people would thoroughly detest the British.
      As for my supposed “dishonesty” and “disingenuousness” if you could provide an example, I’d be grateful, but seeing as you’ve failed to so despite my prior requests I’m beginning to think that asking you for any kind of remotely intelligent response is futile.

      I don’t really know if you think that I’m somehow offended by your so-called tribalism, but I’m not. You can shit talk every other group of Aryans to your heart’s content for all I care, it’s not as if most people like you share your hatred of the rest of the Aryan race, as is made clear by your wanting to expel them from your nation and unwillingness to concede British wrongdoing on any level, even in regards to the second world war.

      And if anything, you’ve done more to sow division than anyone else on this site by responding to every criticism of Britain with nothing but contempt for those who have the nerve to criticize her, and even going so far as to ignore objective truth when faced with evidence thereof.

      I might also add, whilst you criticize me for using the terms “Anglos” and “Saxons” you fail to abide by your own rules whenever you refer to those who detest Britain, her empire or even people as Anglophobes. While personally, I would not make such a big deal over mere semantics you seem to think that referring to Englishmen as Anglos is a sin against the holy ghost so I felt inclined to point out another one of your inconsistencies.

      “There again, I could pick on practically any white ethnicity and start levelling generalised accusations and saying that ‘These people are 10% Jews! I have proof! I read it on a blog!”.
      I haven’t leveled a single one of these accusations at you, nor have I implied that any facet of British culture or racial predisposition was the reasoning behind their conduct during the second world war or the Boer war.

      “You call us “repugnant Saxons”, but you expect from me Queensberry Rules”
      Yes, I realize that you seem to believe a single insult I’ve levied at you alleviates you of the obligation to provide a dignified response to anything I’ve said thus far.

      Please, continue on your quest to save your people. Should you succeed, I’m sure I’ll have a good time fucking one of your women in order to propagate the race.

      • “Repugnant Saxons” is quite enough to tell us what you think. That single insult DOES tell us everything about you.

        You now dishonestly try to walk it back in order to give the impression that you are not hateful after all.

        I have responded to everything you have just said already in previous comments. I’m not going round in circles with you.

  2. @Andrew Can an exclusively British nationalist be legitimately proud of the heritage of Ancient Rome and Greece? Shouldn’t you deny them provided you do not subscribe at least in part White racist outlook?

    I for one find ethnic nationalism impossibly short-sighted in modern age, and dangerously gullible at that. Every single Aryan nation has failed. None has had an answer. Only by salvaging the best from the history of Europe can there be hope for finally creating a non-suicidal culture.

    César is not a nationalist. He does not care one bit if any of our nations survive – the Western civilization has been dead as a historical entity anyway, and “The only thing that was left now was a gene pool.” This does not look like grounds for resurrecting a rotten nation. Far too much has been destroyed, and even more has yet to be eradicated and transvalued for us to remain faithful to some nationalistic belief. Denying it will only lead to a futile eclectic jumble of estranged and outlived ideologies – just look to Hungary or Ukraine for examples!

    And about the European borders issue, of course, there should not be race-mixing between Poles and English. But that is a race-based view just as much as a nationalist one Even further, you should always avoid mingling the utterly different segments of one population.

    • British nationalism is eternal servitude to Mammon and ((( Merchants ))).

      British national identity and perpetuation of empire has lead to destruction of countless peoples on earth.

      Any cooperation with perfidious albion will only lead to further destruction of european peoples.

      If any anglo has a sense of self respect and introspection he should commit seppuku , that is the only salvation at this point , but honor is an alien concept to nation of Shop keepers and merchants

    • First, I don’t understand your question about ancient civilisations. If I choose to be proud of other civilisations, I can be. If I choose not to be, then I won’t be. But of what significance is it either way? What matters (at least to me), is that I recognise that Greece and Rome were great civilisations and essential to white European cultural formation. British nationalism is a different question altogether. I don’t see the link or point you are trying to make. I can still appreciate other cultures and nations while being an ethno-nationalist.

      Turning to the advisability of ethno-nationalism, the first thing to say is that for me, ethnicity comes before race. That is because I posit healthy human social development in acausal and organic terms. My ethnicity, not my race, is the basis of my identity. If you stop and think about it, this makes sense. You don’t really hear anybody say, ‘My identity is white’. Yes, I know some American white nationalists and some European identitarians may possibly now speak in those terms, but they are activists with a pretext. For most of us, our identity is our ethnicity or some sub-ethnicity or variation thereof. Thus, in my view, ethnicity comes before race, and I regard that as a historical-political-biological point as much as anything else.

      I think people like you get things the wrong way round. I think YOU’RE the gullible one. On what possible basis can I have a love for the white race? It’s too vast and broad in scope. You are asking me to love tribes and cultures other than my own. Sure, I like Germany and its national and regional German cultures, but why should I love a people other than my own as if they are my own? I may casually remark, ‘I love the Belgians’, but in so far as I feel affection for them, it’s for them as a separate people, not as my own people. If I were to start saying, ‘I love Luxembourgers and will die for them to defend Luxembourg City from the Moslems’, that is not an authentic morality. It is not consistent with the PoV of this blog.

      That is not to deny the importance of race, of course. I am also a white European and part of a wider civilisation, and so there may well be circumstances in which I have to defend Berlin, Gothenburg or Vaduz, but that decision would be framed within the priorities of Britain and the British people, not within the priorities of Germans, Swedes or Liechtensteiners.

      I don’t particularly care what César is or isn’t. That’s a matter for him. My situation is a matter for me. I also have no care for ‘Western’ civilisation. The term ‘Western’ is erroneous. We’re white, and specifically in my case, British.

      I think what is at the bottom of this haranguing of ethno-nationalists is the conflation of nations with the old Westphalian settlement and the nation-states. What is being forgotten is that some of these states were based on actual nations. Britain is an actual nation as well as a nation-state. Britain is also, at one and the same time, a collection of kindred nations.

      Other nation-states on the Continent are not quite like that, hence the slight puzzlement on your part. For instance, France and Spain are both entirely civic constructions with on a very tenuous ethnic basis. The Dutch and the western Germans are very closely-related, and the Germanic Continents are in reality a fluid and micro-regionalist culture. Most Germans, Belgians and Dutchmen, when they think it over, wouldn’t care much if their particular locality was under the flag of a different one of Low Countries or a German Land.
      The borders have come down because it’s a culture that melds together.

      Britain is a special case. Not because Britons are special – I don’t use the term egocentrically – but because of Britain’s particular history and geopolitics. There are differences between, say, Scots and English, but they are also kindred ethnicities and are intermingled to the extent that there is a distinct and recognisable British identity that stands separately to the Continentals and is very different. This is what sets Britain apart, and it can be difficult for commenters from outside Britain to appreciate the point. There are also (including sadly on this blog) some commenters from Britain who are poorly educated and have turned against their own people.

      The only part of your post I agree with is the last paragraph. Poles and English are indeed different races, though we are also at one and same time part of the same race – it just depends on how you define ‘race’ and in what context the term is used. I have no problem with some non-Nordic white immigration to Britain where it is on the basis of natural interchange and is a tiny number, but when it becomes imposed mass immigration, it is then obnoxious and wrong, and bad for both nations.

      I think this will be my last comment. The blog is excellent, but the comment section is largely populated by annoying Anglophobes. It’s ruining what is otherwise a great blog and that’s sad. Plus I have a lot on my plate in the real world anyway. Thanks and farewell.

  3. Andrew, all you are doing is the “adult” equivalent of when a baby’s dummy falls out its mouth or when it doesn’t get candy when it asks. Esotericisms has addressed everything you have said and responded appropriately and, like a little baby, you throw a tantrum.

    You said “this is going to be my last comment”… about 4 comments ago because shock of all shocks, someone argued against your outmoded and immature forms of thought.

    Such outmoded and immature forms of thought being British Nationalism. This site is not a site for reactionaries and others who believe in imaginary lines on a map. That doesn’t mean you are not allowed here, but it does mean that you should show respect, put your pacifier back in your mouth and stop ranting that people are ruining a website that isn’t even intended for the likes of you.

    • At least Andrew is someone I could reason with. Arch Stanton, whom I never banned but who finally realized this is not a site for him, never stopped to hijack threads to preach us his theology of a good Jesus that should be as admired as Hitler.

      As to British nationalism, I could only say that in my most recent visit to England and Scotland I noticed that the former looked to me like White Nordids and the latter as Red Nordids (in Evropa Soberana’s classification). Since my loyalty lies with English roses, tentatively I’d say that the English should marry with themselves, but I have to do a more thorough trip to the island to corroborate my esthetical appreciation.

      Movies like the P&P filmed in this century should be the model of how the island’s inhabitants should look like after the transvaluation takes place together with my ‘Neanderthal extermination’.

      • Sure, but British Nationalism is ridiculous and even bourgeois if you will forgive the Marxist phrase. I know some real life examples of what you would see as English Roses. The British are not repugnant as a Race, and as a Brit, I would know this, but it is just ignorant and childish to say that Britain has done next to nothing wrong throughout history and to excuse all its atrocities against Aryans as a virtue or a necessary evil.

        The British people have made clear that they (I clearly mean the bulk of the population including the elite) are against all great creations of our Race. This is shown in WW1, as Kaisar’s Germany was a much more pure and beautiful place than the British Empire, and is shown in the industrial revolution which resulted in mass deforestation and why today London is essentially a garbage dump.

        Britain has always had a massive disdain for those who go against it and will seek to destroy those nations and the people in them. Britain, like America demands attention and submission and Allah help those who depreciate either of these two things.

      • You only have to read Dickens to see that the rot started long ago. Only the old poets saw that industrialization was like what Saruman did in Isengard and later in the Shire. Blake thought that mills were the work of Satan: “Oh Satan, my youngest born… thy work is Eternal death with Mills and Ovens and Cauldrons”.

        Dostoyeski said, after visiting London, that if there was a place called hell this would be London. Gustave Doré also nailed London in his engravings and when I visited it for the first time in 1982 I was taken aghast (even if, in that brief visit, I don’t remember having seen any non-white!).

        Surely 21st century Britons are harvesting in coloured London what they sowed for quite a long time…

    • @ Jack Halliday

      Again, you make the classic mistake of conflating British nationalism with adherence to the British state and other classical ideas.

      I won’t respond to the rest of what you say as it’s just an attack on me. Laughably you accuse me of being undignified. I need only point to the way you comment on this blog and remind everybody that almost every response you make to others amounts to a personal attack and the ‘post calling the kettle black’.

      • Andrew, grow a backbone. I am not your friend and I am not your mummy. I am not here to be nice and pleasant to everyone regardless of what crap they say. Go comment on the Occidental Observer or the Renegade Tribune where someone is banned for calling someone else an idiot.

        Andrew, you are most definitely undignified. Esotericisms has responded to every bit of Anglophilic rubbish you have come out with and you can’t take it, precisely because you are thin-skinned. How else do you have thin-skin? Because even after saying that you was going to stop commenting here, on account of the “annoying Anglophobes” (90% of this site including Cesar) you keep having childish tantrums with no substantial meaning other than to protect what is a fantastical and erroneous Britain where they dindu nuffin and anyone who disagrees with you is Irish or something. So, I am correct to call you a reactionary as you say in the other thread where you suck Ezra’s dick. You don’t like Jews and non-Whites? Am I supposed to be impressed?

        Even after you call the wrong people boomers which you admit was due to your goofy erraticism blinding youas to who was commenting, you say you was going to stop commenting finally but then you see my comment above where I correctly call you a man-baby… and this irritating game continues. What’s more, you can’t stand an attack against your character even if it is just a tiny part of the entire comment (referring to Esotericisms) because you are overly sensitive.

        Now you are saying “I need only point to the way you comment on this blog and remind everybody that almost every response you make to others amounts to a personal attack.”

        I have heard this nonsense a million times over from others. Usually it is from those who are too sensitive to handle a tiny insult pointed their way. No one has cared to give me an example of this happening despite me asking them to, which really gets on my nerves, as it shows that I am being confronted with mental weaklings who genuinely think that of they comment somewhere, that place becomes their own personal hug box.

        Andrew, leave. You are clearly not cut out to face the internet or anywhere where there is a divide in opinion. You need to grow a backbone and thicker skin and stop infesting The West’s Darkest Hour with comments that are full of grammatical errors and irrational hatred for those that have a disdain for a corrupt, dirty and anti-White Nation.

  4. Cesar. 10 years ago, I was a Bible litteralist. I despised Jews only to the extent that the preconciliar Catholic Faith would allow me. That is no longer so. I recognize that the Bible is a book of lies. I do not condemn this shooting. In the Old Testament, the Jews are constantly killing gentiles in their places of worship.

    You can take comfort that because of your efforts, exterminationism, as an abstract concept, is far more popular than what it used to be. Even Christians on Gab have absorbed your exterminationist leaven… even though this directly contradicts the Bible.

    • > “Even Christians on Gab have absorbed your exterminationist leaven.”

      Really??? Do you mean that this blog has influenced them??

      If so, I would feel most complimented…!

      • Yes. Pagans and atheists call Christians out on being soft on Jews; letting them live, and this forces them to nail their exterminationist colours to the mast. “Johnny Fash” and “Fash Mc Queen” and “Cruce Insignatus” are examples. We are forcing Christians to become heretics on the Jewish Question.

        A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. !

      • But that’s Linder-like exterminationism, not Tort-like (which is similar to Pierce’s).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: