ABSOLUTE LEGEND: New Video Emerges of Russian Pilot’s Last Moments

Roy Batty

Daily Stormer
February 6, 2018

There are good wars and there are bad wars. The war against terrorism in Syria is a good war. It is a just war. 

I’ve got nothing but good vibes and best wishes to send the way of Assad and the bro-tier nations that have come out to make a stand against ZOG.

The last moments of the Russian pilot shot down over Syria have come out.

He took down two Jihadis before he detonated a grenade rather than be taken alive.

His last words are perhaps better translated as, “this one’s for the lads.”

Fam. A moment of silence please.

Now, I don’t want to fanboy too hard, but this is the second time this has happened.

The Russian pilots are 2/2.

There is…something about the Russkies that is hard to put into words. They have this world-weariness that manifests itself in the strangest ways.

The sheer amount of deaths in Russia of young men attest to this. Most of it is pointless and misdirected, doing stupid stunts and going out of the way to prove that you don’t care about death.

It’s sad.

But if marshaled and channeled – these men turn into serious hardcore Berserkers.

There is a lot of good still left in Russia and in the Russian man.

This was the pilot who called in an airstrike on his downed position. He wasn’t a muscleman. He wasn’t a hulking McBain.

It was just some regular, kind of skinny almost-kid who just got married and who had a kid on the way. He proved that not all superheroes wear capes.

And there was another guy worth mentioning from the Chechen wars.

He was taken into captivity by the Jihadists in Chechnya. They forced their prisoners to convert to Islam. But Rodionov refused and they brutally killed him for it. The Orthodox church canonized him as a Martyr.

If you want to watch a movie about the Chechen war, I highly recommend “War” – a Russian film that pulls no PC punches. The brutality of the subhuman savages is portrayed accurately and the quiet heroism of the Russian soldier is as well. But be warned, its pretty intense and rage-inducing. It’s sitting at the top as my fav film of all time atm.

This link doesn’t have subs, unfortunately

Right behind is another film about a Russian that comes to America and shoots up Jews, degenerates and niggers.

This is all to say that there is a lot of heroism still left in the White man. However, in the modern Jewified society that we live in, there are few outlets for our warrior instincts.

Many American kids sign up for ZOG wars. They think this will give them the outlet for their feelings of heroism and patriotism and martial instinct. Most end up deeply disillusioned and some even kill themselves when they come back. And worse, they come back to their quiet ethnic replacement.

Others just lash out, like St. Dylann or Luca the Fascist Avenger.

All of it is another Jewish subversion of our warrior instincts.

I am sure that all of us would be warriors and statesmen in our societies if we lived in healthier times. There would be stories about our heroism and self-sacrifice  and society would recognize our valor.

But we do not live in such times. The wars in Chechnia and in Syria are perhaps the only war in the last 100 years that have been fought for morally righteous reasons. And this resonates with red-pilled people.

These pilots may not have realized it at the time, but they are being cheered for and lionized by millions of young White men the world over who know that their cause is just and that they were absolute legends for doing what they did.

I don’t know about you guys, but I was fucking inspired by these Russian pilots. I’d give my left nut to fight for a cause that motivated me to such heights of self-sacrifice.

It’s not the same thing by a long shot, but it’s the reason I joined the Alt-Right. Our cause is the most just cause that our people has ever had to fight for since the time of the Crusades.

And I know that when the time comes, we too will show the world our valor.

Time to Drop the Jew Taboo: It’s Making Discussion of Russian History Impossible

Source: russia-insider.com

Charles Bausman, Russia Insider, 15 January 2018

Most people know about, but few are willing to condemn, the strict taboo in the media, of criticizing Jews as a group, using that term. One cannot even criticize a small subsection of Jews, a miniscule percentage of the Jewish population, even when they richly deserve it.

Obviously, this is a ridiculous way to run a publication whose object is to get to the truth, so I am writing this to explain why, from now on, the pages of Russia Insider will be open to articles which fairly and honestly address the influence of Jewish elites, including pointing out when it is malevolent, which it often is, and try to understand it and explain it, with malice towards none.

I have become convinced that unless we break this taboo, nothing will improve in the human catastrophe unfolding in geopolitics. Millions have died over the past 30 years, and if we want it to stop, and to avoid a cataclysm which seems to approach inexorably, we have to have the freedom to criticize those responsible. It is very clear to me, as it is to many others, that much of the guilt for this comes from Jewish pressure groups, particularly in the media.

I can see as an editor, that much of what is written about geopolitics in the ‘public square’, admirable though it may be in other respects, makes itself irrelevant by tiptoeing around this crucial issue.

I am a newcomer to the media world, unexpectedly thrust three years ago into the role of owner, publisher and editor of this fairly widely read publication. We get about 10 million visits per month across all of our platforms from a sophisticated audience, and we are widely followed by so-called ‘influencers’. We’ve made a big mark in a short time, and we did it by saying what others were not willing to say. Many subjects which we were the first to speak about on a major platform have now entered the mainstream.

Russia Insider is a grassroots phenomenon, and sometimes resembles a political movement as much as it does a publication. We exist solely because of small donations from readers. We get no funding from major donors, not to mention governments, foundations, or other organized groups. It is all private individuals. Our single largest donation over the past year was $5000, and the median gift is $30. We raised about $80,000 last year. This gives us the freedom to pretty much say what we want, something that can be said of very few publications, even in the alternative media space, most of whom are beholden to large donors.

I see everyday how one can influence the public agenda by addressing or ignoring certain topics. One really can make a difference, and I have tried to make a positive impact, as I understand it. It has been a remarkable education in the power of the media, including our relatively small publication, Russia Insider.

This taboo is the great exception. It really is quite extraordinary to realize that you can publish just about anything, except that. Almost everyone knows about the taboo, just as I did in my previous career in business, but it is another thing altogether to enforce it. I felt, until recently, compelled to do so. I felt that I was having my nose rubbed in it as I tried to make sense of world events.

Read the rest at Russia Insider.

 

Race Is Just Your Extended Family

Submitted by Henry Armitage.

I want to share what I think is the number one, knock-down argument that we should be using when we present our ideas. And by “our ideas,” of course, I mean the essential one of the necessity of the White ethnostate.

First, let me list the arguments that guys on our side often do use. I think these are all great arguments. The problem with them is that they all shift focus from the primary issue and onto secondary ones, thereby giving our opponents wiggle-room in the form of NAXALT-type arguments which often succeed in their objective of twisting the debate into something convoluted enough for the anti-alt-righter to declare a draw in bad faith.

The case I am making is that we should do the opposite of what I am doing here, and put first things first, and second things second.

The Secondary Arguments

  1. Crime
    We all know that blacks and non-Whites commit multiple times more than their fair share of crime. Get rid of the non-Whites, get rid of the crime, right? The normie rebuttal is, you guessed it, NAXALT. Lots of non-Whites are law-abiding, lots of Whites aren’t, so why does it have to be about race? etc.
  2. IQ
    Basically, the same as for crime. Plus, this one is just too technical, too complicated to be a debate-stopper. And who could forget, “But Asians and Jews are smarter than we are, so…?”
  3. Culture
    Anders Breivik said, when asked why he shot a bunch of Marxists, that he did it for “everything in Norway, ranging from door handles, patterns, beer brands…” This made him seem like a crazy man. Who would commit a mass murder to secure the existence of home décor and a future for Hansa-Borg Pilsner?
  4. Collectivism vs. Individualism
    It’s obviously true that groups working together do better than individuals thwarting one another. Of course, you have people who will try to problematize White identity and White nationalism, as distinct from more particular national identities, but they’re just selectively playing dumb.
  5. General Differences
    It’s about time preference and impulsivity, parental investment levels, and so on. It’s about whether civility and rationality constitute microaggressions. It’s about customer service standards, whether spitting in the street, or worse, is socially acceptable. All great points, but still deflecting from causes to effects.

So how do you do it? How do you reach the normie or the erring ideologue and get them to say that we need to secure a future for White children?

Here is the argument I always use. It will only work on someone who has the following psychological attributes:

  1. They care about commitment and consistency more than about the other principles in marketing psychologist Robert Cialdini’s list. They want their beliefs and values to make sense and not contradict one another.
  2. They have normal attitudes towards family, children and the blood ties that make human societies possible. (“Normal” here does not mean ideal; just not wildly degenerate).

That’s it.

The Primary Argument

It’s really an elaboration upon the “your race is your extended family” talking point, which is commonly brought up, but not often spelled out in its implications. Here’s one of its two premises in graphic form:

In dialogue form, it goes like this:

You: So, do you have any kids?

Normie: Not yet. But the wife’s 35 now and she’s starting to realise, you know, it’s now or never…

You: But you could adopt at any age, within reason.

Normie: Adopt?

You: Yeah. Look, we were just talking about race and all that, and you said it doesn’t matter to you. You don’t care about blood, about DNA, or the fact that this biological family called the White race exists, that you’re a part of it, and that it might go extinct.

Normie: Well I don’t!I care about the people who are in my life, who I know; I don’t care about strangers anymore or less just because they might be more genetically similar to me. What if they’re bad people?

You: Ok, back up a second. What I want to know is, if that’s true, why do you feel the need to be actually related to your own children. It never occurred to you to adopt, just like it never occurs to most people unless they have fertility issues. And even then, they’re more likely to adopt a kid who’s of the same race as them, if they can get access to one.

Normie: (splutters incoherently)

You: So it looks to me like you do care about that stuff after all.

Normie: Well, a family isn’t a race exactly. What you said before was just, like, a metaphor, right?

You: No, no. I meant it literally. An extended family is just exactly what a race is. You can have families that are separated, where people grow up apart and never know one another, but they are still, objectively, families. And what was that you were telling me about your cousin Steve?

Normie: That he was conceived with donor sperm?

You: Yeah, and didn’t you say that when he found out he tracked down his biological father? How did that go, again?

Normie: It was very emotional for both of them. He said they had a lot in common…

You: And what was that other thing you told me? Oh yeah, “I could never be a White nationalist because I’m 2% Pacific Islander. My 23&Me said so!”

Normie: Oh, that? I just did it for fun!It doesn’t mean anything!

You: Why would you and plenty of other people pay, like, $200 for something that means nothing? It’s almost like we’re not just individuals after all; like however hard we try to repress it, we still see ourselves as part of a genetic continuum…

The guy who makes this argument in its most sophisticated form is probably Frank Salter in his book Ethnic Genetic Interests. It should be the keynote in any debate we have with non-racialists, though, because, first, it gets to the heart of the issue: Some things are valuable because they get us things we want for their own sake. Money is good because we can use it to buy stuff. White nationalism is good because, if successful, it gives us a high IQ, high trust society where people mostly get along. But, more than that, it’s good because we love our race, our people, and want to preserve it for its own sake.

Notice that I don’t say “their sake.” You don’t have to love every single White person in order to love your race. This confusion is at the heart of the argument that nations are “imagined communities” –as if the only way of being a part of a collective, and devoted to its interests, is to be on first-name terms with every member of it! These fools might as well say that you can’t look out for your health without getting to know every cell that makes up your body. It’s also a great rebuttal to the (((argument))) about how Whiteness isn’t a real identity: You can be English, Norwegian, Italian, etc…. Just take another look at that graphic above. Are they saying that the existence of a branch refutes the existence of a trunk?

Hopefully, I’ve convinced you to add this argument to your arsenal, or if it’s already in there, to use it for an opening volley when next you engage with the enemy, or in friendly fire with the Eternal Normie.

FROM: https://altright.com/2018/01/24/race-is-just-your-extended-family/

Greece Fights Back: Antifa Buildings Torched Amid Europe’s Largest Ever Nationalist Rally

Source: squawker.org

Jack Kenrick, Squawker, 22 January 2018

Over four hundred thousand flag waving patriots joined together yesterday. In a display of purely Nationalistic based pride that seemed almost out of place in today’s modern diversity first Europe. Taking to the streets in protest of neighboring country Macedonia, a nation they feel has stolen an important part of their heritage and culture. Here below is some drone footage of the rally, which provides a proper sense of just how large this crowd truly was.

Not everyone was thrilled by the huge turnout. Including Greece’s Progressive government, who made their disapproval of the entire event quite clear before it even began. With multiple senior lawmakers today calling the event an irresponsible act, that only fanned the flames of the over 25-year-long feud with neighboring Macedonia.

The political disapproval for the rally is likely why despite a purported 68% of Greeks backing the protests overall goals, the crowd yesterday was met with an incredibly large militarized police presence. A presence that sadly and almost inevitably led to numerous reports of violence and the crowd clashing with authorities.

The Greek government even attempted to use its control of the media to limit the influence and reach of the protest. With the state controlled national broadcaster ERT, purposely not mentioning the largest demonstration in Greek history on their nightly news broadcast.

Beyond even these blatant examples of Government censorship, the real story however might just be the fact that the Greek people appear to have seemingly run out of patience for the Alt-Left extremists living among them. With witnesses claiming to have seen a handful of protesters break away from the crowd and throw a Molotov cocktail into a building widely known to be used by a local Antifa chapter operating in the city. While no damage was done to neighboring houses, nor anyone injured in the attack as the house was empty at the time. The Antifa occupied house was in fact completely destroyed in the ensuing blaze.

Government opposition leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis called the rally a demonstration of “the indignation of Greek citizens towards a government that acts secretly and, with its acts and omissions, shows that it is incapable of serving national interests.” This declaration in support of the rally was met with an official government spokesperson quickly calling Mitsotakis “unreliable, irresponsible and populist.” Proving once again that anyone who has his own people’s interests at heart, is considered unacceptable by the Leftist ruling political class.

Despite the blow back from their own Government, the people of Greece don’t appear to be backing down. With the rally this weekend revealing just how many were still willing to take to the streets and openly display their love of country and national heritage. Some even, whether right or wrong, even dared to back up those words with actions against those who might otherwise want to quiet them. It’s uncertain for now if this violence was merely a one off or signs of continued conflict to come, but we do know for sure that the peaceful protests at least will be continuing. With another demonstration set for February 4th, this time located in the capital city of Athens itself.

Right-Wing Extremists are the Happiest People in America – 1488 is the most potent anti-depressant there is.

Adrian Sol
Daily Stormer
December 24, 2017

It doesn’t get any happier than this, folks.

If there’s one thing I’ve noticed about liberals, it’s that they tend to be miserable people wracked with guilt and anger at the world, and they have no real means to do anything about it.

Personally, I’ve felt a lot better about myself and the world as I moved from the liberal “conspiracy theory” mindset towards nationalism, fascism and masculinism.

But as it turns out, it’s been proven that not only are conservatives much happier than liberals, but hard-core extremists are the happiest of them all.

New York Times:

WHO is happier about life — liberals or conservatives? The answer might seem straightforward. After all, there is an entire academic literature in the social sciences dedicated to showing conservatives as naturally authoritarian, dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity, fearful of threat and loss, low in self-esteem and uncomfortable with complex modes of thinking. And it was the candidate Barack Obama in 2008 who infamously labeled blue-collar voters “bitter,” as they “cling to guns or religion.” Obviously, liberals must be happier, right?

Wrong. Scholars on both the left and right have studied this question extensively, and have reached a consensus that it is conservatives who possess the happiness edge. Many data sets show this. For example, the Pew Research Center in 2006 reported that conservative Republicans were 68 percent more likely than liberal Democrats to say they were “very happy” about their lives. This pattern has persisted for decades. The question isn’t whether this is true, but why.

The answer is actually quite simple.

Liberals don’t accept the world as it is, and so their gripes are about things which can never be changed or improve. People will never be equal. This means that their whole lives are lived as a slow accumulation of frustrations and anxieties, about which they can do nothing of significance. They feel responsible for the world, and simultaneously powerless to change it.

Right-wingers in general tend to accept things as they are, at least in terms of the fundamental laws of reality. This makes their goals much more easily attained. They accept that some people are poor, and even that they’re poor themselves, as long as they get just rewards for their efforts and aren’t denied opportunities unfairly.

That’s a much more stoic, and thus healthy, way to look at the world.

Many conservatives favor an explanation focusing on lifestyle differences, such as marriage and faith. They note that most conservatives are married; most liberals are not. (The percentages are 53 percent to 33 percent, according to my calculations using data from the 2004 General Social Survey, and almost none of the gap is due to the fact that liberals tend to be younger than conservatives.) Marriage and happiness go together. If two people are demographically the same but one is married and the other is not, the married person will be 18 percentage points more likely to say he or she is very happy than the unmarried person.

Until the broad divorces your ass, takes all your money, the house and the kids, that is.

But that’s a different issue.

The story on religion is much the same. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, conservatives who practice a faith outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one. And the link to happiness? You guessed it. Religious participants are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy about their lives as are secularists (43 percent to 23 percent). The differences don’t depend on education, race, sex or age; the happiness difference exists even when you account for income.

It’s not that liberals don’t have a religion. Their religion is liberalism.

The problem is that liberalism is a religion in which salvation can only be attained through self-destruction and sterility, which goes against the basic instincts of man. So it’s a religion that can only make you miserable, either because you follow it and destroy your life, or because you don’t and thus are a bad person.

Oh no, I’m perpetuating White supremacy… I’m such a terrible person.

Political moderates must be happier than extremists, it always seemed to me. After all, extremists actually advertise their misery with strident bumper stickers that say things like, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention!”

But it turns out that’s wrong. People at the extremes are happier than political moderates. Correcting for income, education, age, race, family situation and religion, the happiest Americans are those who say they are either “extremely conservative” (48 percent very happy) or “extremely liberal” (35 percent). Everyone else is less happy, with the nadir at dead-center “moderate” (26 percent).

Moderates are unhappy because they either don’t believe in anything worthwhile, or don’t have the courage and integrity to put their beliefs into application. Moderates don’t have any frame of reference to understand the events around them, and thus live in a perpetual state of confusion and bewilderment.

Liberals are wrong about damn near everything, but at least they feel as though they know what’s going on. And even though their beliefs are self-destructive, at least they feel like there’s a path to salvation. Even that’s better than being a direction-less moderate.

But of course, the happiest people of them all are right-wing extremists. We’re the only people who actually know what’s going on – which can easily be demonstrated by the fact that our predictions are generally accurate, unlike those of the liberals which are usually disastrously wrong. And our goals are clear and achievable, even if difficult, unlike Jew pipe-dreams like “equality” and multi-culturalism.

So put away your prozak, depressed people of the world, and learn to love Hitler.

1488 is the most potent anti-depressant there is.

Differences Between Abrahamism and Heathenism

1. The Judeo-Christian/ Islamic (Abrahamic) god teaches you: if you don’t believe and serve him, you will end up in a place forever separate from him. You will burn forever in a lake of fire after judgement (Revelations 20:4-15), and you are judged by him. In the Heathen view, the afterlife is action based. You are judged by your honour and the legacy you leave in life. You are not judged by some deity, but by your kinsmen and the generations after you. Instead of eternal bliss or damnation, you stand with your ancestors, and become part of their legacy.

2. The Abrahamic god teaches you need salvation. As soon as you are born, you are a “sinner”. And salvation through sin is only through him, the god who made you a sinner. Heathenism teaches that you are great. Your ancestors, family and folk are great. Heathenism brings you upwards and encourages you to be stronger and greater.

3. The Abrahamic god demands that you serve and submit to him. Your life means nothing without him. Heathen gods do not demand such a thing. To you they are like kinsmen.

4. The Abrahamic god commands you to hate the world, your family, and your folk, especially if they do not serve and submit to him (Matthew 10:31-42 and 1 John 2:15-17). There is a list of over 600 laws you must follow (first five books of the bible, or the Torah), and forgiveness for breaking any of these laws is only through him (Matthew 5:17). You are separate from nature, and he is separate from you.

Heathenism teaches you to love nature, your family, folk and the world. Because you are part of it. And the greatest “sin” is to hate and dishonour them. The only “law” is to honour the legacy of your forefathers and pass it to your descedants. No meaningless laws on what kind of clothes you wear, or when and how you eat, etc. The gods live within you, your folk, family, and nature. You are not separate from them, but they are a part of you.

5. Heathenry is nature based. Whereas Judeo-Christianity /Islam is “supreme deity” based. The Heathen gods are your people’s gods, while the Abrahamic god is a foreign, a non-European god.