An Example Of Why We Advocate Free Speech and White Nationalism

South Africa proposes a law that would put you in prison for ten years for racist speech.

Those convicted of hate speech, vaguely defined in the bill as the advocacy of hatred “by means of any communication whatsoever,” could be fined or face up to three years in prison for a first-time offense. Repeat offenders could be jailed for up to 10 years.

Meanwhile, many Whites in South Africa live in squatter camps:


(c) James Cheadle / Solent News

Europeans are not a passive people. Following the fall of Apartheid and the ensuing savagery against Boer farmers, South Africans have founded the successful Afrikaners-only town Orania. Others, pictured below, seek to build their own Whites/Christians-only “Eden” communities on remote edges of the desert. If you click on that previous link, you will note that Daily Mail calls the initiative to protect these kids a “chilling” project:


Image source:

Barbarism wins when truth cedes ground to lies, the good cede ground to the evil, the intelligent to the stupid, the humane to the bestial. We on the Alt-Right, who advocate the existence of our people and a future for White children, understand the stakes. We embrace free speech for its own sake and as an infallible weapon against the chilling project that would eradicate all nations and plunge the world into darkness.


19 thoughts on “An Example Of Why We Advocate Free Speech and White Nationalism

  1. The Boers are some of the hardiest people on the planet. Long may they prosper.

    As an aside, I just watched a Louis Theroux doc from 2000 about Boer nationalism and it’s incredible how wet and useless Louis sounds and how reasonable and modest the desires of the Boer separatists are. The doco shows self-described Boer racists speaking Sesotho and other African languages and palling around with Africans and helping them out and Louis is clearly blown away by this “paradox”.

    If you don’t know and take pride in your own culture, as so many modern liberal whites do not, you will not be able to appreciate, understand or help any other culture. Blacks and others have no respect for self-hating whites. This is a hard lesson for shitlibs to learn.

  2. The link at the Daily Mail has an impressive array of pictures.

    In spite of their slant, their copious infotainment-mation might could be considered subversive purple-grey-pilling cud to the milling livestock.

    But the comments at the article are a lot of clueless. The Daily Mail is the NY Post of England (with a worse commenter base), then?

  3. Free speech = freedom of conscience = conscious of freedom = right to bear arms = sanctity of the pre-emptive attack on Evil…

    This ^^^ is why “we” love the white fathers of our created nation. They FORMalized the most basic mechanism to a white nation’s creation.

    Now add wS.

  4. To my above statement…

    Europe doesn’t have this… South Afrika doesn’t have this… Canada doesn’t have this… Australia doesn’t have this… Russia doesn’t have this…


    NONE of the white race above THINK IT IS EVER SO IMPORTANT…

    This is a CRITICAL DIFFERENCE between white America and the rest of the global white race AND ALSO A SOURCE OF INTERNECINE EMNITY!

  5. Pingback: An Example Of Why We Advocate Free Speech and White Nationalism | Reaction Times

  6. “The Daily Mail is the NY Post of England (with a worse commenter base), then?”

    There are dailies in Britain that make the The Daily Mail seem outright statesman-like.

  7. — The link at the Daily Mail has an impressive array of pictures. // In spite of their slant, their copious infotainment-mation might could be considered subversive purple-grey-pilling cud to the milling livestock. (Elk)

    That is true.

  8. Will there not be, overtime, and with potentially more exposure of these white South Afrikaners squatter camps, the impulse to egalitarious mantra laced with a “blank slate” origin and sprinkled with all the inequalities of “society…” And in such working reality A RENEWED EFFORT to “right”all the “wrongs” of “white supremacy?”

    In other words, the USUALNESS AND NORMALITY of white squatter camps WILL JUST BE given the increased exposure to white squatter camps.

    And now “we” turn our more pressing concern back to the mino.

  9. In other words, the USUALNESS AND NORMALITY of white squatter camps WILL JUST BE given the increased exposure to white squatter camps.

    Under current rule, corporate media will always bend their narrative in a false direction. We’ve been ahead of the general public in reading with a filter for their bias.

  10. From the Daily Mail article:

    He is convinced that the current level of violence will soon bring the ‘Rainbow Nation’ to the brink of civil war.

    Yeah, well, see we’re not supposed to talk about that, are we? As you know, I moved to South Africa in the late 1990s in large part to kill black terrorists in a racial civil war. In hindsight, as usual, I was probably 25-30 years ahead of the curve.

  11. This is a fantastic post.
    It was with this post in mind that I waded into the political waters at dinner with my extended cuckservative family, which went over like a ton of bricks. I mentioned that in light of the FBI reopening of the email inquiry, I was considering voting for Trump. I advanced the Camlost argument that all we need Trump to do is close the borders, and that unchecked immigration is the most serious threat to our nation. I was met with the usual cuck protestations that “this is a nation of immigrants!” or “immigrants are only taking the jobs Americans won’t do!” or simply “that’s xenophobic!” One of them even conceded that we will probably have to endure more terrorist attacks as a result of Islamic immigration, but that is no reason to curtail immigration from the Muslim world, “it would be against our values and we have to show we are better than them.”

    I keep running into this same rhetorical wall when discussing the immigration question with conservatives who are thoroughly blue pilled. White people such as this are so deracinated that they are literally incapable of considering their ethnic interest in any political policy. I simply don’t know how to get through to them.

  12. Thanks a lot MGE. It’s not easy for me to relate to having lib/cuck older relatives, as many people of my parents’ generation, origin, education, and circumstances are very alert to the perfidy and mind-control ways of leftism. As far back as early 1980s with our very arrival in the US, I heard (at home) critiques of American proto-Political Correctness as a mutation of the Marxism they were very familiar with. But today, one has younger, highly SWPL, thoroughly Americanized younger female relatives… and then I can relate to your situation.

  13. I occasionally get the “how can you be anti-immigration given your immigrant background?” Depending on the nature of the conversation, I pick from these rhetorical sleighs-of-hand: (1) “I came here as a European; those are third worlders we’re speaking of now;” (2) “If Americans knew what’s good for them, they’d deport me too; it’s not like I want them in Poland;” (3) “a guest’s obligation is to his hosts, not to the party crashers who want to follow him in;” or (4) “I didn’t come here to see this great country turn into a muddy shithole.”

  14. European immigration is not the issue, clearly. We need more European immigration into this country. But how do you make that case to people who are incapable of seeing any difference between a German and and Ethiopian? I mean, all of your above points, except for maybe #3, would go off like a nuclear bomb in the polite company of cuckservatives.

    My dad is a Boomer era conservative Catholic who is probably aligned with Pat Buchanan on just about every issue except immigration, and to a lesser extent trade. He really believes that we will be able to assimilate waves of Mexicans or Muslim Syrians just as we have assimilated Germans and Irish, and that over time they will become fiscally conservative, anti-abortion, tax paying citizens who will vote Republican because it is in their vested economic interest to do so. He really believes this.

  15. — He really believes this.

    As to that generation’s mindset in general, do you think this is what one can call an informed opinion? Otherwise-conservative Boomers, as I’ve noticed, cling to the sepia-toned Ellis Island experience or mythology of their childhood. Do they go into a grocery store in a fancy zip code and feel revulsion at seeing East African cashiers everywhere? My guess is they don’t. I see them joshing around with toothy Abdullah like he’s Joey. Except that unlike Joey, Abdullah looks at the kindhearted Boomer with contempt. Unlike Joey, Abdullah trips a normal White man’s guard-dog nerves.

    Maybe we’re talking about willful ignorance in those Boomers, an unwillingness to upend their entire life’s point of view about America at this point in their lives. What if asked “would you be OK with your granddaugher marrying dark Abdullah?”

  16. The Boomers enjoyed unprecedented economic prosperity by dint of growing up in the post war era in which nearly every other industrial economy was leveled, making them the only game in town… On top of that, middle class educated men like my father never had to seriously compete with immigrants for jobs, or women for that matter. And they were not brought up in the toxic anti-white stew of political correctness. I think that vantage point explains a lot of their pollyannish attitudes towards immigration and race. They can preach multiculturalism without angst because it never caused them any.

  17. PA, I ran across a Moldbug post relevant to this one.

    How to defeat the US government: a summary

    A select quote:

    “At present, most Plainlanders feel that Washcorp is a productive institution which serves their interests, and whose occasional errors are correctable. They believe this not because they have thought the question through themselves, but because they have (quite sensibly) delegated it to credible information sources, whom they trust.

    Their error is that these organs – press, universities, etc – are not in fact independent of Washcorp. Indeed, they are arguably the most influential power structures within it. At least if we define influence as control over policy, and we define “within” according to reality rather than symbolism.

    If this analysis is accurate, Washcorp can be defeated by the following steps:

    One: construct an information source more accurate than Washcorp’s official organs.

    Two: there is no two. If the argument above is correct, the rest will happen on its own.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s