Reflections of an Aryan woman, 34

Note that I say nothing about the political regime in this world of living automatons. I’m not trying to ask what it might be, because that question is irrelevant.

The deeper one sinks into uniformity from below, created and maintained by dirigisme with no other ideal than that of ever-increasing production, with a view to the well-being of the greatest number—in other words, the more it moves away from the type of hierarchical social organism that ceases to be a living pyramid as it once was in all civilisations and becomes a nameless, grey porridge brewed not by artists, still less by sages, but by clever people devoid of any awareness of extra-human values working for the immediate, in the narrowest sense of the word—the more it is like this the less the form of government matters.

There is still, theoretically at least, a difference between the condition of an assembly line worker in the Cadillac factories and that of an assembly line worker in some industrial complex in the Marxist world; between a saleswoman in a supermarket in Western Europe or the USA and that of a food distributor in a canteen anywhere behind the iron curtain. And the list of parallels could go on and on.

In principle, the worker in the ‘free world’ is not obliged to accept conditioning. When the siren sounds, or when the monster shop closes, he can do what he wants, go where he wants, use his leisure time as he pleases. Nothing forces him physically to buy drinks for his mates at the local café, or in monthly instalments the indispensable TV set or the no less ‘indispensable’ car. There are no political, or semi-political, semi-cultural meetings which he is forced to attend, on pain of finding himself, the next day, without a job or, worse still, suspected of deviationism and incarcerated—whereas in the USSR or China there are some and how! (according to the echoes we have of it; I repeat, I don’t know, first hand, the Marxist world).

Nothing would prevent a worker or an office employee or a saleswoman in the free world from using her leisure time as I would use it in his place if, for whatever reason, I had to work in a factory, an office or a supermarket to pay my bills. Nothing would prevent him provided that he finds a home secluded enough or soundproofed not to be bothered by the neighbours’ radio or television, and a manager or building owner complaisant enough to allow him to keep some domestic animal around, should that be his pleasure. Then perhaps his leisure hours would be truly blessed, and his modest flat a haven of peace.

Then perhaps he (or she) could, after spending an hour or two in silence, completely free himself entirely from the persistent noise of machines (or the light music imposed in certain workshops or shops); or the blinding glare of lights, of the atmosphere of people, have a quiet supper, alone or amid his family, walking his dog under the trees of some not too busy boulevard, and absorb himself, before the hour of sleep, in some nice read.

Then perhaps, but only then, the progress of machinery would guarantee him leisure, which he would use to cultivate himself, the more he would become ‘man’ again, in the most honest sense of the word; and the more one could, to some extent, speak of a ‘liberating technology’—although I could never be persuaded that even two hours a day spent in the depressing atmosphere of the factory or the office, or the modern department stores, are not, on balance, more exhausting than ten or twelve hours employed in some interesting work—in some art, such as that of the potter or the weaver of bygone ages.

But for this to happen, the worker, the proletarian, in the countries of the ‘free world’, who, in principle, can do what he wants after his working hours, would have to want something other than what he is conditioned to want. His ‘freedom’ resembles that of a young man, brought up since childhood in the atmosphere of a Jesuit boarding school, to whom one would say: ‘You are now of age. You are free to practice whatever religion you like’.

One student in ten million will practice something other than the strictest Catholicism; and the very one who breaks away from it will, most of the time, retain its imprint for the rest of his life.

In the same way, even in the ‘free world’ where, in theory, all ideas, all faiths, all tastes are accepted, the man of the masses and, increasingly, that of the ‘free’ intelligentsia, is, from childhood, caught up in the atmosphere of technical civilisation, and stultified by it and by all its ‘progressive’, humanitarian or pseudo-humanitarian, and pseudo-scientific publicity—the propaganda of ‘universal happiness’ by material comfort and purchasable pleasures. And he no longer wishes to break free of it.

One individual in ten million violently disengages from it, and turns his back on it, with or without ostentation, as the painter Delvaux did; as a few anonymous people do every day without even bothering to leave the banal building where they have made their room the sanctuary of a life that is anachronistic without necessarily appearing to be.

The only thing that might be said in favour of the ‘free world’, as opposed to its enemy brother, the Marxist world, is that it doesn’t take police sanctions against this exceptional individual—unless, of course, we express our hostility to today’s mores in the form of Hitlerism. And even in this respect there is a little less constraint than among the Communists in power: one can, everywhere in the ‘free world’, except, no doubt, in the unfortunate Germany, whose soul the victors of 1945 killed, have a portrait of the Führer on one’s bedside table, without fear of indiscreet inspections followed by legal sanctions.

What could be said in favour of the Marxist world, however, is that the latter has, despite everything, a faith—based on false notions and real counter-values, that is undeniable if we take a stand from the viewpoint of the eternal, which is that of Tradition, but finally, a faith—whereas the so-called ‘free’ world has none at all. The militant of values other than those exalted by official communist propaganda is likely to find himself one day in some ‘correction camp’ only if he pushes his temerity to the point of forgetting that he is in the underground, and must remain there.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: This interview with a Serbian intellectual who lived in the Spanish island Gran Canaria (where I lived for ten months) woke me up ten years ago to the fact that today’s West is more totalitarian than Eastern Europe in the time of Breshnev. Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

But the mass of the indoctrinated, who form the majority of the population there, will have the impression that they are working—and working hard—for the advent of something that seems great to them and that they love, whether it be the world revolution of the proletarians, the union of all Slavs under the aegis of holy Russia (this ideal is, it seems, that of more than one Russian Communist), or the domination of the yellow race through universal Communism. Industrial or agricultural production—that in the name of which so much eminently dull work has to be done—leads, in the final analysis, to such grandiose goals. It’s more exciting than the safe and neat little life culminating in the Saturday or Friday night drive to Monday morning.

Both worlds are, in fact, abominable caricatures of the hierarchical societies that once claimed to be, or at least wanted to be, as faithful images as possible of the eternal order of which the cosmos is the visible manifestation. The technical civilisation of the ‘free world’ opposes the unity in diversity which these societies possessed with the despairing uniformity of the man who is mass-produced, without direction, without impetus—not that of the water in a river, but that of a heap of sand whose grains, all insignificant and all similar, would each believe themselves to be very interesting.

The dictatorship of an increasingly invasive proletariat, on the other hand, opposes it with a uniformity of marching robots, all driven by the same energy: robots whose absence of individuality is a wicked parody of the deliberate renunciation of the individual, conscious of his place and role, in favour of that which is beyond him. The zeal for work and the irresistible push forward of these same automatons who believe they are devoted to the ‘happiness of man’ counterfeits the ancient efficiency of the masses who built, under the direction of true masters, monuments of beauty and truth: the pyramids, with or without floors, of Egypt, Mesopotamia or Central America; the Great Wall of China; the temples of India and those of Angkor; the Colosseum; the Byzantine, Romanesque, or Gothic cathedrals…

Of the two caricatures, the second, the Marxist, is arguably more clever in its crudeness than the other. To see this, one need only look at the number of people of real human worth who have fallen for it and who, in all sincerity, convinced that they were guided by an ideal of liberation and disinterested service, have swelled the ranks of the militants of the most fanatical form of Anti-Tradition that has yet appeared. This can be seen in Europe as well as in other regions—in India, in particular, where the Communist leaders are recruited mainly from the Aryan castes, strange as that may be. There is something in the very rigour of Communism that attracts certain characters eager for both discipline and sacrifice; something which makes them see the worst kind of slavery under the disguise of self-sacrifice, and the most laughable narrow-mindedness under the guise of a sacred intolerance.

The caricature of the ‘free world’ is less dangerous in the sense that it is outwardly ‘less resembling’, and therefore less capable to appeal to elite characters. But it is more dangerous in that, being less outrageous, it is at first sight less shocking to those whom Marxism repels, precisely because they have discovered in it the features of a false religion.

Having none of the attributes of a ‘faith’ it reassures them, encouraging them to believe that thanks to democratic ‘tolerance’—a tolerance which, as I have said, extends to all but us Hitlerites—they will be able to continue to profess in peace all the cults (all the exoterisms) which are dear to them: Christianity or Judaism in the West; Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, elsewhere; even one of these in the historical domain of another—why not, when the individual believes himself to be everything, and arrogates to himself, therefore, the right to choose everything?

They don’t realise that the very mentality of the technocratic world, with all its emphasis on the immediately and materially useful, the ‘functional’, and therefore the increasingly extensive applications of the sciences and pseudo-sciences at the expense of any detachment, is the antithesis of any disinterested thirst for knowledge as well as of any love of works of art and also of beings because of their beauty alone. They don’t realise that it can only accelerate the severing of any exoteric religion or philosophy from esotericism, without which it has no eternal value, and thus precipitate the ruin of all culture.

They don’t realise this because they forget that disinterested knowledge, the blossoming of art worthy of the name and the protection of beings (including man insofar as he responds to what his noun, Anthropos, ‘he who looks or reaches upwards’ would lead one to expect) go hand in hand, beauty being inseparable from truth, and culture being nothing if it doesn’t express both.

They forget—or have never known—that, deprived of their connection with the great cosmic and ontological truths they should illustrate, exoteric religions very quickly become fables to which no one attaches credence anymore; degenerate philosophies become idle chatter and political doctrines, recipes for electoral success; and that the technocratic world, with its eminently utilitarian approach to all problems, with its anthropocentrism coupled with its obsession with quantity, diverts even the best minds from the search and contemplation of eternal truths.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 12

The question arises, however, as to the boundary between the two intolerances, or rather, between acts and gestures hostile to the order dreamed of by the legislator and ‘thoughts’, deep-seated convictions, attachment to values that contradict the basic propositions on which this order is based. It is certain that gestures, unless they are purely mechanical, presuppose thoughts, convictions and the acceptance of well-defined values. And it is also certain that any ardent attachment to given values will sooner or later be expressed in gestures—by creating ‘facts’. It will do so as soon as it can, that is, as soon as the pressure of the hostile forces which have hitherto prevented it, relaxes.

And in the meantime, if any public demonstration is prohibited for him—if he is, even as a feeling, considered ‘subversive’, even ‘criminal’, by those in power—he will express himself clandestinely: by word and deed, behind closed doors, among ‘brothers’. This is exactly how our attachment to the values of Aryan racism in its contemporary form, Hitlerism, has been expressed for a quarter of a century now. We are tolerated only insofar as we are invisible. And the immense hostile world in whose midst we are scattered, accustomed as it is to trust only its senses, believes us to be non-existent. Any clandestine thought is necessarily tolerated, or rather ignored, and for good reason!

Tolerance of the expression of another’s thought or faith, in a society based on norms which it seems to despise, is logically justified in only two cases.

Either one considers this thought or faith as not being likely to have any influence on the social life of the individual (and even less on that of his racial brothers), or one admits its harmfulness; its subversive character, its potential danger on the practical level—but, either we don’t esteem the representatives enough to judge them capable of sustained persistence, or we don’t believe in the efficacy of thought and faith, even when expressed, if the action they call for is impossible. We don’t admit the real danger.

The Hindu who has no objection to one of his sons worshipping Jesus, rather than the divine Incarnations known and worshipped by his fathers, has in view only one function of religion: leading the worshipper to the lived experience of ‘God’ to the realisation of the universal Self within himself. He presupposes that his son, while tending towards this supreme experience through his devotion to the Christ, will not break any of the ties that bind him to Brahmanical society. If he thought differently, if he suspected, for example, that the young man no longer had the same respect for the traditional laws concerning food and marriage; if he believed that he was now capable of eating flesh (and especially bovine flesh) or of procreating children outside his caste, and this because his new faith had given rise to a new mentality in him, he would be less tolerant.

The European who is refused entry to a Hindu temple is excluded not because of his metaphysics, which is held to be false, still less because of his race, if he is indeed an Aryan, but because of the culinary habits attributed to him, sometimes wrongly; but no regulation takes account, alas, of the exception! (Although Hindu society in general had long since accepted me, I was refused entry to one of the temples of Sringeri, the homeland of Sankaracharya, in South-West India, on the pretext that I had been, before embracing Hinduism, a beef-eater. And when I vehemently objected to this accusation, pointing out that I had always been a vegetarian, both before I came to India and afterwards, the priest told me that ‘my fathers, no doubt’ had not been vegetarians. I must confess, to be fair, that I was admitted to almost every other temple in India, including the one at Pandharpur in the Mahrat country.)

Hindu ‘intolerance’ being, like ours, essentially defensive, is understood that it manifest itself against any idea or belief, or metaphysical or moral attitude, seen as tending to undermine the traditional social order. But it will never be exercised in respect of a different traditional order, to change it by force or even by persuasion. This is, I repeat—and it cannot be repeated too often—the ‘intolerance’ of all the peoples of antiquity, minus the Jews. The judges who condemned Socrates to drink the hemlock because he ‘didn’t believe in the gods of the city’ would never have dreamt of imposing these same gods of Athens on an Egyptian or a Persian.

If they could have known in which direction ideas would evolve and history would unfold—Christian (or Muslim) proselytism, the Crusades, the Holy Inquisition, the suppression of indigenous religions in America—, they would have seemed as monstrous to them as they do to us, the much-hated ‘intolerants’ of today. And we, who would be ready to crack down with the utmost violence on all those who, by nature or choice, would oppose the resurgence of a social and political order based on Aryan racial values among Aryan peoples, would regard as absurd any attempt to preach our values to Negroes or, in general, to peoples of other blood than ours.

Even in Europe we distinguish between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’, the Germanic and the Mediterranean element even though the latter was already mixed with the blood of the Nordic conquerors in ancient times. After every conquest there is a gradual return to the race of the conquered, if no ‘caste system’ or at least no marriage laws guarantee the survival of the conquerors.

If Aryans with our mentality would have conquered the Americas instead of the Spaniards and Portuguese, they would have left the temples and the worship of the native gods intact. At most, seeing that they themselves were taken for gods from the start, they would have allowed themselves to be worshipped while trying, with all their might, to become and remain worthy of being so. And they would have punished, with exemplary severity, any intimacy between their own soldiers and the women of the country, or at least prevented the birth of children from mixed unions, thus preserving the purity of both races.


______ 卐 ______


Note of the Editor: The following passage from Breve Historia de México (A Brief History of Mexico) by José Vasconcelos portrays the Catholic ethos criticised by Savitri:

In sum, it is time to proclaim, without reservation, that both the Aztec and the [Mesoamerican] civilisations that preceded it formed a set of aborted cases of humanity. Neither the technical means at their disposal, nor the morality in use, nor the ideas, could have ever raised them, by themselves.

The only means of saving peoples thus decayed is the one used by the Spaniards: the miscegenation legalised by the Papal Bull that authorised the marriages of Spaniards and natives. And with miscegenation, the total replacement of the old soul by a new soul, through the miracle of Christianity. The fact that we have so many millions of Indians in Mexico should not demoralise us, as long as the traditional tendency subsists: that is, the effort to make the Indian a European by soul, a Christian, and not a pagan with the paganism of savages. On the contrary, the Indianism that they try to take back from the past, to return us to the Indian, is a betrayal of the homeland that, since the Colony, stopped being Indian.

That is why we have always talked about incorporating the Indian into civilisation, that is, into Christianity and Hispanism, so that all our children, united, enjoy a Mexico totally regenerated from its Aztec-ism, even the Indians and the children of the Indians!

Vasconcelos was pathetically wrong. It’s impossible to turn the Other into oneself. Vasconcelos died when I was one year old. He could never have imagined that the statue of Christopher Columbus would be vandalised by the slightly mesticized Indians that he idealised; removed from its pedestal by the government itself, and replaced by that of an Amerindian woman as I said in my post yesterday.

Incidentally, those who want to read a translation of mine from ten years ago of another passage from Vasconcelos’ book can do it at Counter-Currents.

Published in: on September 14, 2021 at 3:37 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 12  

Scientist censored

In my opinion, the best scientist on YouTube has been Chris Martenson. Thanks to him I realised that racialist Sebastian E. Ronin was right: energy devolution (peak oil) will make, later in the century, the forthcoming crash of the dollar look like a picnic. But last December YouTube censored Martenson’s video about the best Covid treatment by far, Ivermectin (a video that now can be seen in his webpage: here).

Yesterday, YouTube censored Martenson’s latest video, ‘Vaccine mandates are here’, and now it can be watched at Odysee (scroll down: here).

Since the end of the last century, when I was researching psychiatry full-time (I even took a mental health course at Manchester’s Open University), I learned that Big Pharma dominates medical science to such an extent that much of what passes as medicine is bad science (e.g., these vaccines) or even pseudoscience (psychiatric drugs).

The System’s game is obvious. They want to do big business and that’s why they censure Ivermectin, insofar as it is a generic drug proven for forty years as an antiviral drug but… it can no longer make anyone a millionaire (unlike the new Pfizer vaccines not duly tested, whose side effects are sometimes serious).

Yes: it is a question of money. And I suggest to those with a good sense of what real science is to watch at least these two Martenson videos linked above.

The System generally censures those who tell the truth, such as racialists for example. Yesterday I was talking about the great class that Jared Taylor gave on race realism while debating a Catholic. Let’s not forget that the guy who began to have millions of hits on YouTube on the subject of IQ, Stefan Molyneux, was censored on YouTube— vaporized, I would dare to say, as now there is not a single surviving video from Moly’s channel on that audiovisual platform.

Robert, Steve and Bret

‘The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it’. — George Orwell

Full livestream is now censored on YouTube.

Published in: on August 2, 2021 at 5:21 pm  Comments (11)  

The state of the movement

by Greg Johnson

Editor’s note: Johnson published it a couple of days ago on his webzine. I’m republishing it here because it bothers me that Greg uses that essay in his fundraising campaign. We can already imagine what would happen if those donations were sent to racially aware white people who were NS and not WN. Without the fundraiser section within that same article, Greg’s essay is more readable.

______ 卐 ______


Three readers have asked me to comment on the current state of “the movement.” As Counter-Currents enters our twelfth year, I think it is an appropriate time for such a discussion. In fact, I’ll make it an annual tradition, since I intend to be around for many years to come.

All three readers think the movement is in a malaise. I want to argue that this is not the case. Censorship and deplatforming can slow us down, but they can’t stop us. The Biden administration is dangerous, but it is also a golden opportunity for white identity politics. It is an opportunity in part because it is dangerous.

The first reader fears that social media censorship, particularly on Twitter, has interfered with “productive interactions between different people in the movement.” I don’t think that is true at all.

Twitter has been massively purging Rightist and populist accounts since the beginning of the year. This made Twitter quite boring, so I generally stopped visiting it. Recently, the Counter-Currents account was purged. But I paid so little attention to Twitter that I found out about it on Gab.

Here’s the thing: Losing Twitter and Facebook has not made it impossible for me to keep in touch with others and collaborate with them. Both platforms had some entertainment value. But that was always outweighed by drama, pointless infighting, and constant exposure to obnoxious and repulsive people. I don’t miss any of that. We will win through productive work, not online drama and goofing around. Frankly, some forms of deplatforming are doing us a favor.

The second reader who wrote in is worried that the movement is shrinking because various movement voices have gone silent or disappeared altogether, again due to censorship and deplatforming.

I think this impression is largely based on the reader’s point of view. He’s out in the audience, looking at the stage, and he sees fewer performers up here. Thus he concludes that the movement is shrinking. But the movement is not just the people on the stage, it is also you people out there in the audience. I’m on stage, looking out at the audience, and I can see it growing.

Recently, Frodi Midjord did a poll in his Telegram group. He asked when his followers became “red-pilled,” as we like to put it. Fully 70% became red-pilled after 2013, and 25% became red-pilled since 2018.

That is tremendously encouraging, because 2017 was the beginning of the end for the “Alt Right.” Due to doxing, deplatforming, censorship, legal harassment, and burnout, many leading voices of the Alt Right have gone silent. Others have retreated into inward-facing, cultlike groups. But the Alt Right wasn’t “the movement.” It was just a “brand.” The brand has failed. Some of its standard-bearers have failed. But the broader movement of white identity politics has continued to grow.

The third reader is also worried that censorship and deplatforming are working:

YouTube and Twitter channels with large followings have been banned. When their owners move to other platforms, they retain only a small slice of their former audiences. More alarming, though, is the complete disappearance of some voices. Is the establishment within reach of suppressing our movement and our message altogether?

The short answer is “No.” The system can slow down the spread of our ideas. They can wear down our morale. They can pick off the weak and vulnerable. But they can’t stop our message altogether, for three basic reasons.

First, the only way the system can prevent our ideas from spreading on the Internet is to shut the whole web down, which they can’t do because the system has become dependent upon the web for its own survival. But even if the web went offline tomorrow, we somehow managed without it for most of human history. Its absence did not prevent the rise of Rightist and populist social movements in the past. So we would muddle through.

Second, even if the system silences particular voices, ideas have lives of their own. Bob Whitaker is dead, but now normie Republicans are talking about how anti-racism is a code word for being anti-white. The system can silence me today, but they can’t undo the work that I’ve already done. The White Nationalist Manifesto is already out there. White Identity Politics is already out there. As the Norwegian secret police discovered to their chagrin by arresting me, open persecution just brings more attention to our ideas.

Third, our movement is not the primary cause of the rise of white identity politics. The system itself is driving people to white identity politics. Only a tiny fraction of the tens of millions of whites who voted for Donald Trump ever heard of Counter-Currents or American Renaissance. They voted for Trump because they see the results of multiculturalism, globalization, and out-of-control nonwhite immigration.

Now that the Democrats are in control in Washington, they are doubling down on these policies, which will only accelerate the rise of white identity politics. The Biden regime creates more White Nationalists in a day than I have in the last twenty years. The system can shut me up, but they can’t shut themselves up. They can’t control themselves at all. So white identity politics will continue to rise.

Although I am quite confident that our ideas are spreading and our movement is growing, I’d be a fool not to worry about my personal safety and the personal safety of other white advocates. America is now a lawless country in which blacks and Leftists are given full freedom to destroy. The US government is simply ignoring the fact that during the last year, the Left has been responsible for political violence that has cost dozens of lives and inflicted billions in property damage. Instead, they are promoting the idea that the number one threat of political violence comes from racially aware white people like you and me. Many innocent people will be harassed, entrapped, and framed by the system before this is all over.

But it will all be in vain, because our ideas are already out there, and with each passing day, the system provides new evidence that we speak the truth: multiracial societies are cauldrons of hatred and violence. The only solution is a racial divorce.

Unz’s scholarship

Editor’s note: The October 2020 article by Ron Unz is worth reading, ‘White Racialism in America, Then and Now: An Intellectual History of the Last One Hundred Years’ of which I’ll quote only a passage:

______ 卐 ______


The overwhelming majority of the world’s leading academics and intellectuals from one hundred years ago—whether left, right, or centre—held many views that would surely have gotten them branded as ‘White Nationalists’ in today’s severely constricted ideological climate.

But whereas today’s WNs are an extremely vilified and marginalised group, with their ranks therefore necessarily skewed towards eccentrics and misfits, the situation was entirely different back then. Their counterparts of the past included many of the foremost academic scholars and public intellectuals of that era, who openly discussed their views in leading opinion journals rather than by pseudonymous postings in dark corners of the Internet. Partly for this reason, such individuals tended to approach the same issues with far greater sophistication.

Until the early 2000s, nearly all these names would have been almost unknown to me, either rating a sentence or two in my introductory history textbooks, or else being entirely omitted. But I spent most of that decade building a content-archiving system that provided convenient access to over a million articles from more than 200 of our leading periodicals since the mid-19th century, and was stunned by the severe distortions and enormous lacunae in my knowledge which this revealed. As I wrote a couple of years ago on related matters:

I sometimes imagined myself a little like an earnest young Soviet researcher of the 1970s who began digging into the musty files of long-forgotten Kremlin archives and made some stunning discoveries. Trotsky was apparently not the notorious Nazi spy and traitor portrayed in all the textbooks, but instead had been the right-hand man of the sainted Lenin himself during the glorious days of the great Bolshevik Revolution, and for some years afterward had remained in the topmost ranks of the Party elite. And who were these other figures—Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov—who also spent those early years at the very top of the Communist hierarchy? In history courses, they had barely rated a few mentions, as minor Capitalist agents who were quickly unmasked and paid for their treachery with their lives…

As I gradually discovered, large portions of America’s entire intellectual past had been hidden or altered beyond recognition, and racial beliefs constituted a major portion of this transformation. The ongoing ‘cancel-culture’ of today’s elite-backed Black Lives Matter movement represents merely the latest iteration of this long process.

Published in: on April 27, 2021 at 5:19 pm  Comments (1)  

If this site…

is censored go: here

Published in: on March 30, 2021 at 2:00 pm  Comments (1)  

Wikipedia’s POV

Wikipedia is a far-left multilingual wiki project, censored by an internal bureaucracy of clans to conform to a largely anti-white point of view. Wikipedia’s administrators claim that they are governed by the NPOV principle, an acronym for ‘Neutral Point Of View’. But that’s hypocrisy, a lie.

As the screenshot captured in the years I was still editing it demonstrates, Wikipedia’s anti-white POV is explicit. See it with the original colours (here) and you’ll understand Andrew Hamilton’s comment on August 10, 2012 at the webzine Counter-Currents: ‘I have never contributed to Wikipedia, a viciously anti-white publication’.

They simply label even mild racialist commentators with ill-defined epithets such as ‘Neo-Nazis’. See, for example, how Wikipedia’s articles grossly distort personalities like Richard Spencer and Kevin MacDonald. Wikipedia’s lead paragraph this day about the former starts with these words:

Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978) is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist…

And the lead paragraph of Wikipedia’s article about KMD starts thus:

Kevin B. MacDonald (born January 24, 1944) is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and a retired professor…

So it is not surprising that today Wikipedia’s administrators deleted my user page. You can see how my user page looked like before it was deleted: here. The rationale about why Wikipedians deleted my page can be read: here. (Fortunately, I am an administrator of Metapedia: a multilingual wiki project that, unlike Wikipedia, doesn’t hate the white race.)

None of us should ever try to edit Wikipedia. When I used to edit there I noted that what they call ‘reliable sources’ was an editorial trick. I’ve exposed it on this site as it ensures that their editorial system remains rigged against the fair race.

But today the cancel culture has reached Wikipedia big time! They are banning users just for opining on the Wikipedia ‘talk page’ (i.e., not within the articles) that ADL and SPLC might be biased. This month they blocked a user for the sole sin of arguing on the talk page that the words in the lead paragraph about MacDonald were inappropriate. This is what one of the blocking admins responded to this guy:

I’m going to be as blunt as possible why you were blocked, since you haven’t been paying attention: You argued that the two greatest institutional authorities on antisemitism in the US [ADL and SPLC] are invalid in your attempt to defend the honor of someone who’s a member of a white nationalist organization [KMD]…

Wikipedia is really bad. Andrew Hamilton was right. Incidentally, the whole discussion thread of why earlier this month they banned this guy demonstrates that Wikipedians’ POV is truly gigantic. Their encyclopedia should be called POVpedia.

Published in: on March 29, 2021 at 7:27 pm  Comments (2)  

Solzhenitsyn’s book

Those who haven’t read Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together can at least read this recent review.

If Westerners knew why Germany rounded up all the Jews… the gig is over. The elites know this and this is why Solzhenitsyn’s second non-fiction book (2002) hasn’t been translated into English.

WDH in German

With the help of a comrade we will soon start Die schwärzeste Stunde des Westens: a section of The West’s Darkest Hour in German:

Remember that the above site is also a backup of the English entries in case WordPress decides to suspend our account here.

Published in: on February 13, 2021 at 12:01 am  Comments Off on WDH in German