Good one. That seems to be your standard reply to anything less -- anything at all less -- than agreement with your entire program.
Isn't that true?
Isn't it true that you'll level the charge of "mendacious, sanctimonious bastard" at anyone who fails to agree 100% with you?
On the one hand you say, hmm, we're in a spot of bother here; we could sure do with some assistance from those who have likewise come to understand the spot of bother they're in. On the other hand, you simultaneously disparage anything and everything that those others say as sanctimonious mendacity.
Isn't that basically correct?
A straight answer, please. No more quotes, just a straight answer.
When WNs talk about allying with race-conscious moderates, their intention is to radicalize said moderates over time. Not to compromise their ideology or plans.
"Hunter, are you a supporter of inter-ethnic marriages between different European groups?
Because if you aren’t, it’s pretty damn hypocritical for you to be touting Christine O’Donnell’s victory like this."
Reginald Thompson is no doubt trying to shame and enforce others into supporting "inter-ethnic marriages between different European groups" as much as possible in order to justify his rapacious lust for Nordish women and to have as much access to Nordish women as possible.
"In this You Tube video, Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement—remarkable because she does not attribute anti-Jewish attitudes to irrational prejudices or even Muslims who hate Israel. Instead she says that it’s because of the “leading role” played by Jews in the movement toward multiculturalism:
I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."
Good lord. What's truly incredible is that there are still people out there willing to defend this dirtbag.
It wasn't bad enough that he took money from White Nationalists and used to go to the Bahamas, where he spent it on Black whores,
Really?!?!?
It was alleged by his former associate Matt Parrott that he did indeed use donation money to go to the Bahamas. Not sure about the Black whores bit. Anyway, Matt Parrott is probably no more trustworthy than Hunter himself, and their little public spat is probably no more than a PR stunt to allow Parrott to salvage some of his credibility after OD got exposed for the kosher front that it was.
Straight answer...sorry to disappoint but there is no program, dude. n/a's advice is sound...practise endogamy. Everything else is, well, just like Scrooby's says, connecting the dots.There are no delusions of grandeur. The potential for this writer to effect wide ranging change is infinitesimally small.
Sorry dude, the encyclopaedic doctrines of soteriology will have to be humped back to the car. ;)
Isn't it true that you'll level the charge of "mendacious, sanctimonious bastard" at anyone who fails to agree 100% with you?
I'm not that person, but objectively you have displayed mendacious and sanctimonious behavior. The bastard part is opinion but well deserved for many of your comments, especially those before your "change of heart."
Nords tend to be more honest in their insults whereas Meds and non-Whites are typically liars and exceedingly vulgar. Like women they take cheap shots because they are weak.
He promotes a very kosher version of WN. He occasionally says things mildly critical of Jews, but only as cover for strong condemnations of "anti-Semitism". He refers to WNs who focus on Jewish power as "cryptkeepers" and wants them excommunicated from the movement. He promotes a book that says Teddy Kennedy is responsible for the 1965 immigration act. Also, look at his blogroll - nothing that criticizes Jews. He recently wrote an article for The Occidental Observer (run by Kevin MacDonald), yet does not link to TOO. That's very telling.
Matt Parrott is fundamentally running the same scam as Hunter Wallace, Richard Hoste, Andrea Freiboden, and others. He writes some intelligent stuff as a means of gaining credibility, and then uses that credibility to attack and undermine WN discourse from within. In all of these cases, the methods they use to poison the well are very subtle, but nonetheless very real and harmful.
Isn't it true that you'll level the charge of "mendacious, sanctimonious bastard" at anyone who fails to agree 100% with you?
I'm not that person, but objectively you have displayed mendacious and sanctimonious behavior. The bastard part is opinion but well deserved for many of your comments, especially those before your "change of heart."
Nords tend to be more honest in their insults whereas Meds and non-Whites are typically liars and exceedingly vulgar. Like women they take cheap shots because they are weak.
Good lord. What's truly incredible is that there are still people out there willing to defend this dirtbag.
That is curious, not sure why he would use two pseudonyms simultaneously that are known to the public.
That doesn't make him a dirtbag though.
It wasn't bad enough that he took money from White Nationalists and used to go to the Bahamas
He could have at least picked a better location. Not sure why Whites enjoy going to third world populated resorts so much. He could have just stayed in Alabama if he wanted to be served by blacks.
It was alleged by his former associate Matt Parrott that he did indeed use donation money to go to the Bahamas. Not sure about the Black whores bit. Anyway, Matt Parrott is probably no more trustworthy than Hunter himself
Far less trustworthy, Matt has been caught in many lies and contradictions before. I'd trust Hunter before I do Matt and the weirdos he associates with.
He promotes a very kosher version of WN. He occasionally says things mildly critical of Jews, but only as cover for strong condemnations of "anti-Semitism". He refers to WNs who focus on Jewish power as "cryptkeepers" and wants them excommunicated from the movement.
I disagree. Parrott states clearly and frequently that Jews aren't part of the "White American tribe" to use his parlance. He has argued that Jews must be excluded because they will subvert Whites, gain oligarchic control, and steer Whites to serve Jewish interests.
Matt is far more kosher than Hunter. Matt believes that Jews are White, it's just their behavior and ethnocentrism that is the problem. If they would only become rootless and generic Whites like the majority of Americans and assimilate we'd be better off.
The problem with Parrott is he thinks Anglo-Saxons and Azoreans are both part of some undifferentiated "White American nation"
The problem with Matt, like most Whites, is he's weak, his convictions are controlled by his sympathies and friendships. He is codependent. If he befriends a Jew, Azorean, Armenian, Turk or mestizo, his ingroup expands to include those. Sorry, racial preservation is not compatible with that.
Like a beta male that lets women control him, he cannot be trusted, he is enslaved by their emotions and his need for approval.
I disagree. Parrott states clearly and frequently that Jews aren't part of the "White American tribe" to use his parlance. He has argued that Jews must be excluded because they will subvert Whites, gain oligarchic control, and steer Whites to serve Jewish interests.
He takes a position essentially the same as Hunter Wallace: "Yeah, Jews should not be included in a hypothetical White homeland, okay, so let's leave the issue at that and stop talking about Jews, and in fact let's condemn anyone who talks about Jews too much."
The fact is, this is not adequate. Before there is any "White homeland" (and whether that homeland is to include southern Europeans or not), we are going to need to retake control of our societies from Jews, and that isn't going to occur without a concerted effort on our part. So if we heed the advice of Hunter Wallace and Matt Parrott, not much of anything can even possibly be achieved, and that is the point.
And again, if you think Matt Parrott is reasonable on this subject, just look at his blogroll on "Fair and Delightsome" - NO links to Judeo-critical sites. Not even TOO, where he has published an article. That is NOT a coincidence.
Parrott states clearly and frequently that Jews aren't part of the "White American tribe"
Not based on race, but their allegiance to their ethnicity. Likewise he dislikes European ethnic allegiance and doesn't consider them in his Pan-European-North-African-West-Asian "White American tribe."
And again, if you think Matt Parrott is reasonable on this subject, just look at his blogroll
To know someone you must know their past, what has shaped them. Matt was for a long while philo-Semitic and worked with AmRen. He used to delete comments and ban people for criticizing Jews. While he has moved a bit to the right of that, he is still essentially the same person.
Silver: When WNs talk about allying with race-conscious moderates, their intention is to radicalize said moderates over time. Not to compromise their ideology or plans.
No shit.
It's precisely because I suspect those plans go way beyond a mere ethnostate that I consider it essential to expose the radical swine for what they are.
Thankfully, that's not difficult, since, as is abundantly clear to all but the most revulsion-ridden radicals, very few people have any interest in "living for race," per se, the way the radicals do, and certainly no interest in plunging the world into darkness the way you would, which is the only logical extension of your radical lunacy . In this sense, you're barely a blip on the radar.
You're problematic, however, in the sense that a link has been forged in people's minds between racialism and your radicalism that complicates the process of getting the average person on board with racialism in the first place.
I'm not that person, but objectively you have displayed mendacious and sanctimonious behavior. The bastard part is opinion but well deserved for many of your comments, especially those before your "change of heart."
Whether that's the case or not, it's completely beside the point.
The point is anyone who says anything insufficiently radical can be -- and routinely is -- similarly written off.
Lol, the entire radical approach is based on dishonesty and you want to talk "honorable"? What a joke.
For that matter, let's talk sanctimony. Objectively, the entire world (at least the caucasoidal parts of it) is in a process of phenotypic recessives being submerged by phenotypic dominants (with no outcries about "genocide" or overwrought depictions of the travails of the extant diversity, btw) yet the sanctimonious WN hate-monger a la Bob Mantra will look you in the eye and claim it's only his tribe subject to these forces. Again, what a fucking joke.
Not written off but there is criticism of those who prescribe positions that are insufficient to save our people.
That's fair enough, but you'd expect that to take the form of what is usually understood as (effective) criticism. Simply denouncing someone as "sanctimonious and mendacious" doesn't do that.
Cutting to the chase, what I have in mind is people like "Desmond Jones" who persist in viewing intergroup interaction through the prism of "expanding EGI." For them there is simply no possibility that one might set one's mind to thinking straight about race (which you should concede most consider a delicate matter) and come to conclusions conducive to racial cooperation. That thinking would be more credible if racial existence were a zero-sum game, wherein either your kind gets all the territory or it gets none at all. But the planet's easily large enough to hold all of us, so it's hardly beyond the bounds of believability that someone (me!) might say, you know, you're right, this isn't working out all that well; with a little bit of effort we could do a whole lot better; "they" (you) win, we win, most people win -- I like to believe that "everybody" can win, at least in theory,ie provided they take the time understand our position, which they don't feel any inclination to now, but might if events forced them.
I personally am interested in what is necessary not what is radical.
It matters not to me. Provided you acknowledge and accept that a "liberal wing" exists, or can exist, and are prepared to allow it to exist, even if only as a "front," you, personally, can be as radical as you like; but I think it'd be good for your own sanity if you envisioned a "reasonable end" (what-is-necessary) for all your racial striving.
It was alleged by his former associate Matt Parrott that he did indeed use donation money to go to the Bahamas. Not sure about the Black whores bit. Anyway, Matt Parrott is probably no more trustworthy than Hunter himself, and their little public spat is probably no more than a PR stunt to allow Parrott to salvage some of his credibility after OD got exposed for the kosher front that it was.
I don't have special access to Hunter's private financial affairs and was engaging in inappropriate speculation in those remarks.
He promotes a very kosher version of WN. He occasionally says things mildly critical of Jews, but only as cover for strong condemnations of "anti-Semitism".
I don't condemn anti-Semitism. What I get frustrated with are people who are so monomaniacally fixated on that dimension of our struggle that they rabidly attack fellow ethnopatriots. Like you.
He refers to WNs who focus on Jewish power as "cryptkeepers" and wants them excommunicated from the movement.
Cryptkeepers are those whose allegiances are to bygone oligarchies, like the NS Party or the Southern aristocrats. It has nothing to do with the JQ.
He promotes a book that says Teddy Kennedy is responsible for the 1965 immigration act.
He played a critical part. I also promote KMac's thorough and authoritative piece on that act.
Also, look at his blogroll - nothing that criticizes Jews. He recently wrote an article for The Occidental Observer (run by Kevin MacDonald), yet does not link to TOO. That's very telling.
Far less trustworthy, Matt has been caught in many lies and contradictions before. I'd trust Hunter before I do Matt and the weirdos he associates with.
When anonymously attacking me, the least you can do is be a bit more specific.
Matt is far more kosher than Hunter. Matt believes that Jews are White, it's just their behavior and ethnocentrism that is the problem. If they would only become rootless and generic Whites like the majority of Americans and assimilate we'd be better off.
As I've explained, I believe that the anthropological case for Jews being non-White is complex and sticky. They're definitely non-European. The ethnic case is a better one to use in daily discourse.
In some ways Matt is actually an anti.
ROFL
The problem with Matt, like most Whites, is he's weak, his convictions are controlled by his sympathies and friendships. He is codependent. If he befriends a Jew, Azorean, Armenian, Turk or mestizo, his ingroup expands to include those. Sorry, racial preservation is not compatible with that.
This is pure bullshit. My definition of "White American" has remained firm for years: "A person of overwhelmingly European descent who is seamlessly integrated into the Anglo-American sociocultural milieu".
He takes a position essentially the same as Hunter Wallace: "Yeah, Jews should not be included in a hypothetical White homeland, okay, so let's leave the issue at that and stop talking about Jews, and in fact let's condemn anyone who talks about Jews too much."
I don't condemn people who talk about Jews too much.
And again, if you think Matt Parrott is reasonable on this subject, just look at his blogroll on "Fair and Delightsome" - NO links to Judeo-critical sites. Not even TOO, where he has published an article. That is NOT a coincidence.
Look at my blogroll. Counter Currents is anti-Semitic. MindWeapon is anti-Semitic. Lena is anti-Semitic. S/W/B is anti-Semitic. My failure to add TOO was truly an oversight.
Not based on race, but their allegiance to their ethnicity. Likewise he dislikes European ethnic allegiance and doesn't consider them in his Pan-European-North-African-West-Asian "White American tribe."
Stop saying that I believe North Africans and West Asians can be defined as White Americans. Or support it.
To know someone you must know their past, what has shaped them. Matt was for a long while philo-Semitic and worked with AmRen. He used to delete comments and ban people for criticizing Jews. While he has moved a bit to the right of that, he is still essentially the same person.
I wasn't so much philo-Semitic as I was unfamiliar with the Jewish Question. AmRen does good work and they choose not to engage the JQ.
This guy is a Nordicist who is attempting some sort of character assassination because I happen to believe that Meds, Balts, and Slavs who are seamlessly integrated into the White American nation should be welcomed as equals.
I don't have special access to Hunter's private financial affairs and was engaging in inappropriate speculation in those remarks.
That didn't occur to you before you made those remarks?
That's much more than inappropriate speculation, that's outright defamation.
What I get frustrated with are people who are so monomaniacally fixated on that dimension of our struggle that they rabidly attack fellow ethnopatriots. Like you.
And you, per the above.
Cryptkeepers are those whose allegiances are to bygone oligarchies, like the NS Party or the Southern aristocrats.
Matt is a strange breed of WN, he has no appreciation for tradition and history.
Matt is a strange breed of WN, he has no appreciation for tradition and history.
I appreciate tradition and history. I don't care to actually live in the past and use the symbols and slogans of failed movements - even if I sympathize to a great extent with some of the goals of some of those movements.
I made a grave mistake when I attempted to engage you in a serious discussion about Nordicism. While everybody else was either laughing behind your back or ignoring you, I took you seriously. I gave a shit about what you had to say and respectfully engaged you.
I argued against censoring you and in favor of allowing the debate to play out. But all you see when a man doesn't either shut up or agree with your Nordicist belief is an enemy to be defeated. Now you're going around over here, anonymously, attacking me by my birth name as an untrustworthy philo-Semite. You even called me an antifa, FFS.
I did get very angry at Hunter, inappropriately angry, and made an accusation that I can't support. I recanted. There's really not much more I can do.
You're dealing with self-absorbed narcissists, they have no respect for others.
Jack Ryan is over there referring to himself in the third person. I bet he has long conversations with himself.
Yeah, I want advice and leadership from this f'n guy.
If they were smart they'd have the occasional open thread like NA does here, to allow people to express themselves the way they wish and manage some of the off-topic discussion. But they're not smart, and they're not gracious. They're self-centered, they want all the attention and you must conform to their demands.
I don't care to actually live in the past and use the symbols and slogans of failed movements - even if I sympathize to a great extent with some of the goals of some of those movements.
Spare us your pessimism.
NS doesn't work not because it is in the past but because it has no relevance for Americans. American traditions on the other hand do work, so again you have no idea what you're talking about.
Matt, you don't have any education or really interest in physical anthropology so you can't have a serious discussion about Nordicism and race.
Despite what you may believe, everything is not about you.
I dislike you not because of your lack of Nordicism but because you're a person of low character. You're a passive-aggressive wimp who engages in lying and manipulation. You're very underhanded, you pretend to have sympathy and then sucker punch someone. You're dishonest and a cliquish sycophant.
Trust me, I'm doing all the laughing at you and your pathetic ilk.
You know what's pathetic about you white nationalists? "Racism" is the greatest sin among whites and you keep talking about protecting and looking out for your own. But your "own" hate your guts and think you're the scum of the earth. If you got up among any group of white people and said "the Nordic race needs to survive" they would yell, scream, maybe even physically attack you. You're pathetic for loving those that hate you.
Does a mother not love her wayward son? Does her heart not ache for him to turn his life around? Is a father "pathetic" for loving his misguided teenage daughter who says she hates him?
I don't condemn anti-Semitism. What I get frustrated with are people who are so monomaniacally fixated on that dimension of our struggle that they rabidly attack fellow ethnopatriots. Like you.
As though "our struggle" has a dimension other than freeing ourselves from Jewish domination at this point.
You remind me of Abe Foxman with your constraints on how, when, where, and why Jews may be discussed by Whites.
He promotes a book that says Teddy Kennedy is responsible for the 1965 immigration act.
He played a critical part. I also promote KMac's thorough and authoritative piece on that act.
No, he didn't play a critical part. Jews were the primary force behind the act, and your promoting a book blaming it solely on Kennedy is obviously an attempt to take the heat off the Jews, as is 90% of what you write. That you may have mentioned MacDonald's writings on the subject of immigration once somewhere does not change that.
As though "our struggle" has a dimension other than freeing ourselves from Jewish domination at this point.
I would agree with this. Sure, without Jewish domination there'd still be White liberals and White degenerates remaining. But the vast majority of White liberals and degenerates are followers - they follow Jewish leadership and moral authority. Without this leadership much of the energy behind leftism would dissipate very quickly. The Right would face a much weaker opposition.
No, he didn't play a critical part. Jews were the primary force behind the act
I would agree with this as well. Ted Kennedy was just a dumb, corrupt, easily manipulated Irish drunk. He was a front man basically. It's hard to see how he was a "critical part." It's not as if all the other Senators at the time were like Henry Cabot Lodge or something. Had Ted Kennedy not done it they would have gotten some other Senator to.
That said I do think you're being a bit too hard on Parrott. I don't think he's as soft on these issues as you make him out to be. I think he's just going about it in a more subtle way.
I've very extensively reviewed my family history and have found nothing but Whites (almost entirely of English descent and the rest of Irish and Scottish descent). Being of Appalachian extraction, I've remarked offhandedly that I could potentially have some fractional Amerindian ancestry, but I certainly have no reason to believe so.
The fact that I look just like Abe Foxman is a coincidence.
Somehow they let this one slip through, though: "I can’t put my finger on it but it’s just a feeling that although the site says "Occidental Dissent" it feels like I’m reading RushLimbaugh.com."
Wallace doesn't even mention race anymore. It's all "Red America," "Blue America," "urban progressives," "rural conservatives," "Glenn Beck," "Sarah Palin," and "galvanize conservatives to punish the political class" now.
Fuck you. You're just a worthless Laptop Luftwaffe warrior. You need to join the Tea Party, cheer like a schoolgirl for Glenn Beck, and masturbate to Sarah Palin. There is no alternative to voting for Republicans. Ideas are irrelevant. I want an angry, pissed off mob committed to anti-racism to blindly thrash around. Deifying MLK and sanctifying the civil rights movement is a brilliant strategy.
I'm extremely bitter about wasting my life on white nationalism, and I'm going to keep wallowing in my bitterness and broadcasting it to everyone. I was talking to my aunt's horse Roger today, and he told me Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are our only hope. Pretty soon I'm going to be pimping for negro miscegenators like Clarence Thomas and Lloyd Marcus.
Wallace doesn't even mention race anymore. It's all "Red America," "Blue America," "urban progressives," "rural conservatives," "Glenn Beck," "Sarah Palin," and "galvanize conservatives to punish the political class" now.
They never really did, the only ones interested in race were the Nordicists, and since the split and the loss of Campbell, OD is more about feel-good conservatism.
Comments will now be like a letters to the editor section of a newspaper
In other words, based on the whim of half-wit narcissists, your comment may or may not go through depending on their mood and if you placate them enough.
What they need is a more strict guideline for authors.
Matt: I made a grave mistake when I attempted to engage you in a serious discussion about Nordicism.
You mean the hysterical ramblings you kept repeating. Robert Campbell knows all about that, we had a good laugh at you.
I corresponded with Hunter and Campbell, the only two worth reading at OD, the rest of you were just low-grade filler.
I couldn't care less what you and your band of homosexual misfits think.
Matt: I argued against censoring you and in favor of allowing the debate to play out.
But all you see when a man doesn't either shut up or agree with your Nordicist belief is an enemy to be defeated.
I'm wondering if you're that mendacious or you're senile. We had this conversation months ago.
Don't pretend like you were friendly or you did me some kind of favor, you have been hostile and disrespectful from the beginning, even after I was cordial to you.
That's how you operate though isn't it, like a snake in the grass. You use false sympathy just to get close enough to sucker punch someone.
Your character flaws go much deeper than opposing Nordicism.
Matt: I did get very angry at Hunter, inappropriately angry, and made an accusation that I can't support. I recanted. There's really not much more I can do.
How about apologizing to him for being such a douche.
You betrayed and defamed someone who considered you a friend. You sided with the mob out of cowardice and sycophancy. You have shown yourself to be a person of low character.
You mean the hysterical ramblings you kept repeating. Robert Campbell knows all about that, we had a good laugh at you.
I'm sure he would appreciate if you used a little discretion in repeating his private conversations in public forums.
That's how you operate though isn't it, like a snake in the grass. You use false sympathy just to get close enough to sucker punch someone.
You're trying to portray me as some sort of sucker punching evildoer based on your own limited and biased understanding of one single episode. I don't have some sort of "habit".
My goal in responding here isn't to persuade you. My goal here was to enable third parties to know from whom these accusations against me were from and what my position was on the accusations you're throwing out.
This is just the sort of self-contradiction that put me and the Fuhrer in such hysterics.
According to Mark, Hunter is too stupid to get more than one good writer out of dozens who is anything more than “low grade filter”, but at the same time Mark is so gay for Hunter that he took money out of his crack cocaine fund to give to Hunter.
The only possible explanation is that Mark has a gay crush on Hunter, and gave him the money out of his desperate desire to be the bottom to his top.
I'm actually laughing, your comments are so ridiculous it's funny.
Matt is the one that lets a homosexual lead him around by the nose. Is your wife just your beard, Matt?
Matt: I'm sure he would appreciate if you used a little discretion in repeating his private conversations in public forums.
I haven't repeated any private conversations. His disagreements with you were public.
Matt: You're trying to portray me as some sort of sucker punching evildoer based on your own limited and biased understanding of one single episode. I don't have some sort of "habit".
It's based on my observations of you since I encountered you and what others have said.
Your bipolar disorder explains some of your behavior.
Matt: My goal in responding here isn't to persuade you. My goal here was to enable third parties to know from whom these accusations against me were from and what my position was on the accusations you're throwing out.
These "accusations" are from Hunter and others. The record speaks for itself and you've already admitted to much of it.
I'm just responding to your attacks and misrepresentation of events.
263 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 263 of 263Re the Twain quote.
Good one. That seems to be your standard reply to anything less -- anything at all less -- than agreement with your entire program.
Isn't that true?
Isn't it true that you'll level the charge of "mendacious, sanctimonious bastard" at anyone who fails to agree 100% with you?
On the one hand you say, hmm, we're in a spot of bother here; we could sure do with some assistance from those who have likewise come to understand the spot of bother they're in. On the other hand, you simultaneously disparage anything and everything that those others say as sanctimonious mendacity.
Isn't that basically correct?
A straight answer, please. No more quotes, just a straight answer.
Silver:
When WNs talk about allying with race-conscious moderates, their intention is to radicalize said moderates over time. Not to compromise their ideology or plans.
It wasn't bad enough that he took money from White Nationalists and used to go to the Bahamas, where he spent it on Black whores,
Really?!?!?
Reginald Thompson writes:
"Hunter, are you a supporter of inter-ethnic marriages between different European groups?
Because if you aren’t, it’s pretty damn hypocritical for you to be touting Christine O’Donnell’s victory like this."
Reginald Thompson is no doubt trying to shame and enforce others into supporting "inter-ethnic marriages between different European groups" as much as possible in order to justify his rapacious lust for Nordish women and to have as much access to Nordish women as possible.
"Really?!?!? "
No Hunter did not spend any donated moneys on his vacation and did not purchase the services of any black prostitutes.
Kevin MacDonald:
"In this You Tube video, Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement—remarkable because she does not attribute anti-Jewish attitudes to irrational prejudices or even Muslims who hate Israel. Instead she says that it’s because of the “leading role” played by Jews in the movement toward multiculturalism:
I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."
Hunter Wallace's new name is "John Pelham"
Good lord. What's truly incredible is that there are still people out there willing to defend this dirtbag.
It wasn't bad enough that he took money from White Nationalists and used to go to the Bahamas, where he spent it on Black whores,
Really?!?!?
It was alleged by his former associate Matt Parrott that he did indeed use donation money to go to the Bahamas. Not sure about the Black whores bit. Anyway, Matt Parrott is probably no more trustworthy than Hunter himself, and their little public spat is probably no more than a PR stunt to allow Parrott to salvage some of his credibility after OD got exposed for the kosher front that it was.
Straight answer...sorry to disappoint but there is no program, dude. n/a's advice is sound...practise endogamy. Everything else is, well, just like Scrooby's says, connecting the dots.There are no delusions of grandeur. The potential for this writer to effect wide ranging change is infinitesimally small.
Sorry dude, the encyclopaedic doctrines of soteriology will have to be humped back to the car. ;)
What's wrong with Parrott? I believe in him.
Jews play a “leading role” in promoting multiculturalism in Europe including Sweden
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=3372
"In this You Tube video, Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement"
Isn't it true that you'll level the charge of "mendacious, sanctimonious bastard" at anyone who fails to agree 100% with you?
I'm not that person, but objectively you have displayed mendacious and sanctimonious behavior. The bastard part is opinion but well deserved for many of your comments, especially those before your "change of heart."
Nords tend to be more honest in their insults whereas Meds and non-Whites are typically liars and exceedingly vulgar. Like women they take cheap shots because they are weak.
What's wrong with Hunter's new name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pelham_%28officer%29
What's wrong with Parrott? I believe in him.
He promotes a very kosher version of WN. He occasionally says things mildly critical of Jews, but only as cover for strong condemnations of "anti-Semitism". He refers to WNs who focus on Jewish power as "cryptkeepers" and wants them excommunicated from the movement. He promotes a book that says Teddy Kennedy is responsible for the 1965 immigration act. Also, look at his blogroll - nothing that criticizes Jews. He recently wrote an article for The Occidental Observer (run by Kevin MacDonald), yet does not link to TOO. That's very telling.
Matt Parrott is fundamentally running the same scam as Hunter Wallace, Richard Hoste, Andrea Freiboden, and others. He writes some intelligent stuff as a means of gaining credibility, and then uses that credibility to attack and undermine WN discourse from within. In all of these cases, the methods they use to poison the well are very subtle, but nonetheless very real and harmful.
Isn't it true that you'll level the charge of "mendacious, sanctimonious bastard" at anyone who fails to agree 100% with you?
I'm not that person, but objectively you have displayed mendacious and sanctimonious behavior. The bastard part is opinion but well deserved for many of your comments, especially those before your "change of heart."
Nords tend to be more honest in their insults whereas Meds and non-Whites are typically liars and exceedingly vulgar. Like women they take cheap shots because they are weak.
Delete the double post above, thanks.
Hunter Wallace's new name is "John Pelham"
Good lord. What's truly incredible is that there are still people out there willing to defend this dirtbag.
That is curious, not sure why he would use two pseudonyms simultaneously that are known to the public.
That doesn't make him a dirtbag though.
It wasn't bad enough that he took money from White Nationalists and used to go to the Bahamas
He could have at least picked a better location. Not sure why Whites enjoy going to third world populated resorts so much. He could have just stayed in Alabama if he wanted to be served by blacks.
It was alleged by his former associate Matt Parrott that he did indeed use donation money to go to the Bahamas. Not sure about the Black whores bit. Anyway, Matt Parrott is probably no more trustworthy than Hunter himself
Far less trustworthy, Matt has been caught in many lies and contradictions before. I'd trust Hunter before I do Matt and the weirdos he associates with.
Reginald Thompson is no doubt trying to shame and enforce others into supporting "inter-ethnic marriages between different European groups"
Rather displaying his insecurity and paranoia. He's afraid genetic outliers like him won't be considered White, which is exactly what should happen.
If anyone is paying for hookers it's Reginald, LOL.
He promotes a very kosher version of WN. He occasionally says things mildly critical of Jews, but only as cover for strong condemnations of "anti-Semitism". He refers to WNs who focus on Jewish power as "cryptkeepers" and wants them excommunicated from the movement.
I disagree. Parrott states clearly and frequently that Jews aren't part of the "White American tribe" to use his parlance. He has argued that Jews must be excluded because they will subvert Whites, gain oligarchic control, and steer Whites to serve Jewish interests.
The Nordic race is finished in the US. Let's just move on and mix with one another.
The problem with Parrott is he thinks Anglo-Saxons and Azoreans are both part of some undifferentiated "White American nation"
The white race is finished in the US. Let's just move on and mix with one another.
What's wrong with Parrott? I believe in him.
He promotes a very kosher version of WN.
Matt is far more kosher than Hunter. Matt believes that Jews are White, it's just their behavior and ethnocentrism that is the problem. If they would only become rootless and generic Whites like the majority of Americans and assimilate we'd be better off.
In some ways Matt is actually an anti.
The Nordic race is finished in the US. Let's just move on and mix with one another.
No, this shall not pass.
The only thing worth fighting for is Nordish preservation.
The problem with Parrott is he thinks Anglo-Saxons and Azoreans are both part of some undifferentiated "White American nation"
The problem with Matt, like most Whites, is he's weak, his convictions are controlled by his sympathies and friendships. He is codependent. If he befriends a Jew, Azorean, Armenian, Turk or mestizo, his ingroup expands to include those. Sorry, racial preservation is not compatible with that.
Like a beta male that lets women control him, he cannot be trusted, he is enslaved by their emotions and his need for approval.
I disagree. Parrott states clearly and frequently that Jews aren't part of the "White American tribe" to use his parlance. He has argued that Jews must be excluded because they will subvert Whites, gain oligarchic control, and steer Whites to serve Jewish interests.
He takes a position essentially the same as Hunter Wallace: "Yeah, Jews should not be included in a hypothetical White homeland, okay, so let's leave the issue at that and stop talking about Jews, and in fact let's condemn anyone who talks about Jews too much."
The fact is, this is not adequate. Before there is any "White homeland" (and whether that homeland is to include southern Europeans or not), we are going to need to retake control of our societies from Jews, and that isn't going to occur without a concerted effort on our part. So if we heed the advice of Hunter Wallace and Matt Parrott, not much of anything can even possibly be achieved, and that is the point.
And again, if you think Matt Parrott is reasonable on this subject, just look at his blogroll on "Fair and Delightsome" - NO links to Judeo-critical sites. Not even TOO, where he has published an article. That is NOT a coincidence.
Parrott states clearly and frequently that Jews aren't part of the "White American tribe"
Not based on race, but their allegiance to their ethnicity. Likewise he dislikes European ethnic allegiance and doesn't consider them in his Pan-European-North-African-West-Asian "White American tribe."
And again, if you think Matt Parrott is reasonable on this subject, just look at his blogroll
To know someone you must know their past, what has shaped them. Matt was for a long while philo-Semitic and worked with AmRen. He used to delete comments and ban people for criticizing Jews. While he has moved a bit to the right of that, he is still essentially the same person.
Silver:
When WNs talk about allying with race-conscious moderates, their intention is to radicalize said moderates over time. Not to compromise their ideology or plans.
No shit.
It's precisely because I suspect those plans go way beyond a mere ethnostate that I consider it essential to expose the radical swine for what they are.
Thankfully, that's not difficult, since, as is abundantly clear to all but the most revulsion-ridden radicals, very few people have any interest in "living for race," per se, the way the radicals do, and certainly no interest in plunging the world into darkness the way you would, which is the only logical extension of your radical lunacy . In this sense, you're barely a blip on the radar.
You're problematic, however, in the sense that a link has been forged in people's minds between racialism and your radicalism that complicates the process of getting the average person on board with racialism in the first place.
I'm not that person, but objectively you have displayed mendacious and sanctimonious behavior. The bastard part is opinion but well deserved for many of your comments, especially those before your "change of heart."
Whether that's the case or not, it's completely beside the point.
The point is anyone who says anything insufficiently radical can be -- and routinely is -- similarly written off.
Lol, the entire radical approach is based on dishonesty and you want to talk "honorable"? What a joke.
For that matter, let's talk sanctimony. Objectively, the entire world (at least the caucasoidal parts of it) is in a process of phenotypic recessives being submerged by phenotypic dominants (with no outcries about "genocide" or overwrought depictions of the travails of the extant diversity, btw) yet the sanctimonious WN hate-monger a la Bob Mantra will look you in the eye and claim it's only his tribe subject to these forces. Again, what a fucking joke.
The point is anyone who says anything insufficiently radical can be -- and routinely is -- similarly written off.
Not written off but there is criticism of those who prescribe positions that are insufficient to save our people.
I personally am interested in what is necessary not what is radical.
What is radical is relative. From our current anti-White, multiracial norm any form of White racialism is radical.
Not written off but there is criticism of those who prescribe positions that are insufficient to save our people.
That's fair enough, but you'd expect that to take the form of what is usually understood as (effective) criticism. Simply denouncing someone as "sanctimonious and mendacious" doesn't do that.
Cutting to the chase, what I have in mind is people like "Desmond Jones" who persist in viewing intergroup interaction through the prism of "expanding EGI." For them there is simply no possibility that one might set one's mind to thinking straight about race (which you should concede most consider a delicate matter) and come to conclusions conducive to racial cooperation. That thinking would be more credible if racial existence were a zero-sum game, wherein either your kind gets all the territory or it gets none at all. But the planet's easily large enough to hold all of us, so it's hardly beyond the bounds of believability that someone (me!) might say, you know, you're right, this isn't working out all that well; with a little bit of effort we could do a whole lot better; "they" (you) win, we win, most people win -- I like to believe that "everybody" can win, at least in theory,ie provided they take the time understand our position, which they don't feel any inclination to now, but might if events forced them.
I personally am interested in what is necessary not what is radical.
It matters not to me. Provided you acknowledge and accept that a "liberal wing" exists, or can exist, and are prepared to allow it to exist, even if only as a "front," you, personally, can be as radical as you like; but I think it'd be good for your own sanity if you envisioned a "reasonable end" (what-is-necessary) for all your racial striving.
Recent statements by admins at OD
Jack Ryan: "I have deleted a few comments"
Andrew Yeoman: "Further comments will be deleted"
Hunter Wallace: "I'm closing this thread"
Jack Ryan: "Comments will be deleted"
N/A,
Although this is rather trivial, I was set to wondering what you think of the videogame "Bioshock Infinite by auteur videogame producer Ken Levine.
I'm sure you haven't heard of it, but the period in question that it "deals with" is in your primary area of interest.
It was alleged by his former associate Matt Parrott that he did indeed use donation money to go to the Bahamas. Not sure about the Black whores bit. Anyway, Matt Parrott is probably no more trustworthy than Hunter himself, and their little public spat is probably no more than a PR stunt to allow Parrott to salvage some of his credibility after OD got exposed for the kosher front that it was.
I don't have special access to Hunter's private financial affairs and was engaging in inappropriate speculation in those remarks.
He promotes a very kosher version of WN. He occasionally says things mildly critical of Jews, but only as cover for strong condemnations of "anti-Semitism".
I don't condemn anti-Semitism. What I get frustrated with are people who are so monomaniacally fixated on that dimension of our struggle that they rabidly attack fellow ethnopatriots. Like you.
He refers to WNs who focus on Jewish power as "cryptkeepers" and wants them excommunicated from the movement.
Cryptkeepers are those whose allegiances are to bygone oligarchies, like the NS Party or the Southern aristocrats. It has nothing to do with the JQ.
He promotes a book that says Teddy Kennedy is responsible for the 1965 immigration act.
He played a critical part. I also promote KMac's thorough and authoritative piece on that act.
Also, look at his blogroll - nothing that criticizes Jews. He recently wrote an article for The Occidental Observer (run by Kevin MacDonald), yet does not link to TOO. That's very telling.
Thanks for catching that. Fixed.
Far less trustworthy, Matt has been caught in many lies and contradictions before. I'd trust Hunter before I do Matt and the weirdos he associates with.
When anonymously attacking me, the least you can do is be a bit more specific.
Matt is far more kosher than Hunter. Matt believes that Jews are White, it's just their behavior and ethnocentrism that is the problem. If they would only become rootless and generic Whites like the majority of Americans and assimilate we'd be better off.
As I've explained, I believe that the anthropological case for Jews being non-White is complex and sticky. They're definitely non-European. The ethnic case is a better one to use in daily discourse.
In some ways Matt is actually an anti.
ROFL
The problem with Matt, like most Whites, is he's weak, his convictions are controlled by his sympathies and friendships. He is codependent. If he befriends a Jew, Azorean, Armenian, Turk or mestizo, his ingroup expands to include those. Sorry, racial preservation is not compatible with that.
This is pure bullshit. My definition of "White American" has remained firm for years: "A person of overwhelmingly European descent who is seamlessly integrated into the Anglo-American sociocultural milieu".
He takes a position essentially the same as Hunter Wallace: "Yeah, Jews should not be included in a hypothetical White homeland, okay, so let's leave the issue at that and stop talking about Jews, and in fact let's condemn anyone who talks about Jews too much."
I don't condemn people who talk about Jews too much.
And again, if you think Matt Parrott is reasonable on this subject, just look at his blogroll on "Fair and Delightsome" - NO links to Judeo-critical sites. Not even TOO, where he has published an article. That is NOT a coincidence.
Look at my blogroll. Counter Currents is anti-Semitic. MindWeapon is anti-Semitic. Lena is anti-Semitic. S/W/B is anti-Semitic. My failure to add TOO was truly an oversight.
Not based on race, but their allegiance to their ethnicity. Likewise he dislikes European ethnic allegiance and doesn't consider them in his Pan-European-North-African-West-Asian "White American tribe."
Stop saying that I believe North Africans and West Asians can be defined as White Americans. Or support it.
To know someone you must know their past, what has shaped them. Matt was for a long while philo-Semitic and worked with AmRen. He used to delete comments and ban people for criticizing Jews. While he has moved a bit to the right of that, he is still essentially the same person.
I wasn't so much philo-Semitic as I was unfamiliar with the Jewish Question. AmRen does good work and they choose not to engage the JQ.
This guy is a Nordicist who is attempting some sort of character assassination because I happen to believe that Meds, Balts, and Slavs who are seamlessly integrated into the White American nation should be welcomed as equals.
I don't have special access to Hunter's private financial affairs and was engaging in inappropriate speculation in those remarks.
That didn't occur to you before you made those remarks?
That's much more than inappropriate speculation, that's outright defamation.
What I get frustrated with are people who are so monomaniacally fixated on that dimension of our struggle that they rabidly attack fellow ethnopatriots. Like you.
And you, per the above.
Cryptkeepers are those whose allegiances are to bygone oligarchies, like the NS Party or the Southern aristocrats.
Matt is a strange breed of WN, he has no appreciation for tradition and history.
Matt is a strange breed of WN, he has no appreciation for tradition and history.
I appreciate tradition and history. I don't care to actually live in the past and use the symbols and slogans of failed movements - even if I sympathize to a great extent with some of the goals of some of those movements.
I made a grave mistake when I attempted to engage you in a serious discussion about Nordicism. While everybody else was either laughing behind your back or ignoring you, I took you seriously. I gave a shit about what you had to say and respectfully engaged you.
I argued against censoring you and in favor of allowing the debate to play out. But all you see when a man doesn't either shut up or agree with your Nordicist belief is an enemy to be defeated. Now you're going around over here, anonymously, attacking me by my birth name as an untrustworthy philo-Semite. You even called me an antifa, FFS.
I did get very angry at Hunter, inappropriately angry, and made an accusation that I can't support. I recanted. There's really not much more I can do.
Recent statements by admins at OD
Jack Ryan: "I have deleted a few comments"
Andrew Yeoman: "Further comments will be deleted"
Hunter Wallace: "I'm closing this thread"
Jack Ryan: "Comments will be deleted"
You're dealing with self-absorbed narcissists, they have no respect for others.
Jack Ryan is over there referring to himself in the third person. I bet he has long conversations with himself.
Yeah, I want advice and leadership from this f'n guy.
If they were smart they'd have the occasional open thread like NA does here, to allow people to express themselves the way they wish and manage some of the off-topic discussion. But they're not smart, and they're not gracious. They're self-centered, they want all the attention and you must conform to their demands.
I don't care to actually live in the past and use the symbols and slogans of failed movements - even if I sympathize to a great extent with some of the goals of some of those movements.
Spare us your pessimism.
NS doesn't work not because it is in the past but because it has no relevance for Americans. American traditions on the other hand do work, so again you have no idea what you're talking about.
Matt, you don't have any education or really interest in physical anthropology so you can't have a serious discussion about Nordicism and race.
Despite what you may believe, everything is not about you.
I dislike you not because of your lack of Nordicism but because you're a person of low character. You're a passive-aggressive wimp who engages in lying and manipulation. You're very underhanded, you pretend to have sympathy and then sucker punch someone. You're dishonest and a cliquish sycophant.
Trust me, I'm doing all the laughing at you and your pathetic ilk.
You know what's pathetic about you white nationalists? "Racism" is the greatest sin among whites and you keep talking about protecting and looking out for your own. But your "own" hate your guts and think you're the scum of the earth. If you got up among any group of white people and said "the Nordic race needs to survive" they would yell, scream, maybe even physically attack you. You're pathetic for loving those that hate you.
^ Did you forget to login in with your name, Silver?
Does a mother not love her wayward son? Does her heart not ache for him to turn his life around? Is a father "pathetic" for loving his misguided teenage daughter who says she hates him?
I don't condemn anti-Semitism. What I get frustrated with are people who are so monomaniacally fixated on that dimension of our struggle that they rabidly attack fellow ethnopatriots. Like you.
As though "our struggle" has a dimension other than freeing ourselves from Jewish domination at this point.
You remind me of Abe Foxman with your constraints on how, when, where, and why Jews may be discussed by Whites.
He promotes a book that says Teddy Kennedy is responsible for the 1965 immigration act.
He played a critical part. I also promote KMac's thorough and authoritative piece on that act.
No, he didn't play a critical part. Jews were the primary force behind the act, and your promoting a book blaming it solely on Kennedy is obviously an attempt to take the heat off the Jews, as is 90% of what you write. That you may have mentioned MacDonald's writings on the subject of immigration once somewhere does not change that.
As though "our struggle" has a dimension other than freeing ourselves from Jewish domination at this point.
I would agree with this. Sure, without Jewish domination there'd still be White liberals and White degenerates remaining. But the vast majority of White liberals and degenerates are followers - they follow Jewish leadership and moral authority. Without this leadership much of the energy behind leftism would dissipate very quickly. The Right would face a much weaker opposition.
No, he didn't play a critical part. Jews were the primary force behind the act
I would agree with this as well. Ted Kennedy was just a dumb, corrupt, easily manipulated Irish drunk. He was a front man basically. It's hard to see how he was a "critical part." It's not as if all the other Senators at the time were like Henry Cabot Lodge or something. Had Ted Kennedy not done it they would have gotten some other Senator to.
That said I do think you're being a bit too hard on Parrott. I don't think he's as soft on these issues as you make him out to be. I think he's just going about it in a more subtle way.
If you got up among any group of white people and said "the Nordic race needs to survive" they would yell, scream, maybe even physically attack you.
Not necessarily, most Whites I've encountered become uncomfortable with the conversation and rather not talk about it but they are not hostile.
Actually White nationalists are more like what you're describing when discussing Nordicism.
You remind me of Abe Foxman with your constraints on how, when, where, and why Jews may be discussed by Whites.
He looks like Abe Foxman too, pudgy and beady-eyed. Maybe Matt has a Jew in the woodpile.
Didn't you say you were part Amerindian, Matt? Are you a registered tribal member?
I've very extensively reviewed my family history and have found nothing but Whites (almost entirely of English descent and the rest of Irish and Scottish descent). Being of Appalachian extraction, I've remarked offhandedly that I could potentially have some fractional Amerindian ancestry, but I certainly have no reason to believe so.
The fact that I look just like Abe Foxman is a coincidence.
OD admins are deleting comments like crazy.
Somehow they let this one slip through, though: "I can’t put my finger on it but it’s just a feeling that although the site says "Occidental Dissent" it feels like I’m reading RushLimbaugh.com."
Wallace doesn't even mention race anymore. It's all "Red America," "Blue America," "urban progressives," "rural conservatives," "Glenn Beck," "Sarah Palin," and "galvanize conservatives to punish the political class" now.
Hunter Wallace is truly a piece of shit.
Fuck you. You're just a worthless Laptop Luftwaffe warrior. You need to join the Tea Party, cheer like a schoolgirl for Glenn Beck, and masturbate to Sarah Palin. There is no alternative to voting for Republicans. Ideas are irrelevant. I want an angry, pissed off mob committed to anti-racism to blindly thrash around. Deifying MLK and sanctifying the civil rights movement is a brilliant strategy.
I'm extremely bitter about wasting my life on white nationalism, and I'm going to keep wallowing in my bitterness and broadcasting it to everyone. I was talking to my aunt's horse Roger today, and he told me Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are our only hope. Pretty soon I'm going to be pimping for negro miscegenators like Clarence Thomas and Lloyd Marcus.
New policy at OD
Comments will now be like a letters to the editor section of a newspaper
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/09/18/hanging-out-with-white-mormons/comment-page-1/#comment-81101
New policy at OD
Comments will now be like a letters to the editor section of a newspaper
Hunter Wallace is emulating Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs
Wallace doesn't even mention race anymore. It's all "Red America," "Blue America," "urban progressives," "rural conservatives," "Glenn Beck," "Sarah Palin," and "galvanize conservatives to punish the political class" now.
They never really did, the only ones interested in race were the Nordicists, and since the split and the loss of Campbell, OD is more about feel-good conservatism.
Hunter Wallace is emulating Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs
Sounds more like Auster to me
New policy at OD
Comments will now be like a letters to the editor section of a newspaper
In other words, based on the whim of half-wit narcissists, your comment may or may not go through depending on their mood and if you placate them enough.
What they need is a more strict guideline for authors.
Swarthoid alert!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmie_%C3%85kesson
'Although this is rather trivial, I was set to wondering what you think of the videogame "Bioshock Infinite by auteur videogame producer Ken Levine.'
I had not heard of it. But reading the plot summary on Wikipedia I can't say the designer's ethnicity surprises me.
I had not heard of it. But reading the plot summary on Wikipedia I can't say the designer's ethnicity surprises me.
I just read the plot summary. LOL. The Jews won't let us alone even when we're on fucking hot air balloons.
Matt: I made a grave mistake when I attempted to engage you in a serious discussion about Nordicism.
You mean the hysterical ramblings you kept repeating. Robert Campbell knows all about that, we had a good laugh at you.
I corresponded with Hunter and Campbell, the only two worth reading at OD, the rest of you were just low-grade filler.
I couldn't care less what you and your band of homosexual misfits think.
Matt: I argued against censoring you and in favor of allowing the debate to play out.
But all you see when a man doesn't either shut up or agree with your Nordicist belief is an enemy to be defeated.
I'm wondering if you're that mendacious or you're senile. We had this conversation months ago.
Don't pretend like you were friendly or you did me some kind of favor, you have been hostile and disrespectful from the beginning, even after I was cordial to you.
That's how you operate though isn't it, like a snake in the grass. You use false sympathy just to get close enough to sucker punch someone.
Your character flaws go much deeper than opposing Nordicism.
Matt: I did get very angry at Hunter, inappropriately angry, and made an accusation that I can't support. I recanted. There's really not much more I can do.
How about apologizing to him for being such a douche.
You betrayed and defamed someone who considered you a friend. You sided with the mob out of cowardice and sycophancy. You have shown yourself to be a person of low character.
Mark,
You mean the hysterical ramblings you kept repeating. Robert Campbell knows all about that, we had a good laugh at you.
I'm sure he would appreciate if you used a little discretion in repeating his private conversations in public forums.
That's how you operate though isn't it, like a snake in the grass. You use false sympathy just to get close enough to sucker punch someone.
You're trying to portray me as some sort of sucker punching evildoer based on your own limited and biased understanding of one single episode. I don't have some sort of "habit".
My goal in responding here isn't to persuade you. My goal here was to enable third parties to know from whom these accusations against me were from and what my position was on the accusations you're throwing out.
I had a private conversation with Hitler about how Mark kept repeating the same stupid shit on OD.
We had a good laugh at the expense of that cunt.
"...the rest of you were just low-grade filler."
If you feel that way, why did you give Occidental Dissent money?
Was it, as Robert Campbell speculated in a private conversation, in exchange for sexual favors?
This is just the sort of self-contradiction that put me and the Fuhrer in such hysterics.
According to Mark, Hunter is too stupid to get more than one good writer out of dozens who is anything more than “low grade filter”, but at the same time Mark is so gay for Hunter that he took money out of his crack cocaine fund to give to Hunter.
The only possible explanation is that Mark has a gay crush on Hunter, and gave him the money out of his desperate desire to be the bottom to his top.
I see the trolls are coming out to play.
I'm actually laughing, your comments are so ridiculous it's funny.
Matt is the one that lets a homosexual lead him around by the nose. Is your wife just your beard, Matt?
Matt: I'm sure he would appreciate if you used a little discretion in repeating his private conversations in public forums.
I haven't repeated any private conversations. His disagreements with you were public.
Matt: You're trying to portray me as some sort of sucker punching evildoer based on your own limited and biased understanding of one single episode. I don't have some sort of "habit".
It's based on my observations of you since I encountered you and what others have said.
Your bipolar disorder explains some of your behavior.
Matt: My goal in responding here isn't to persuade you. My goal here was to enable third parties to know from whom these accusations against me were from and what my position was on the accusations you're throwing out.
These "accusations" are from Hunter and others. The record speaks for itself and you've already admitted to much of it.
I'm just responding to your attacks and misrepresentation of events.
Post a Comment