Nashville Memories

William Rome records Heritage Connection at the 2010 CofCC National Conference in Nashville:

Hunter Wallace, Matt Parrott, Mike Capatano and two other friends enjoy some Nashville nightlife. We meet several drunk English girls touring the United States. That’s them on stage at the end of the video.

Note: I’m uploading the videos of the conference speakers now. These are much larger files, but they should be on the OD YouTube Channel tonight.

About Hunter Wallace 12367 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

17 Comments

  1. The questions you asked to be answered are a perfect example of your own twisting and distorings.

    Who on this thread had said anything about extamarital sex? Who has said anything about pornography? No one has, excpet you.

    Like I stated above about you, you take something that people say, and then you distort it and extend it to what you need it to be in order for it to seem like we are promoting a degenerate and multiracial lifestyle.

    If someone made the simple statement they are not a multimillionaire, you would twist that into saying they said they were dead broke and living under a bridge and never worked a day in their life.

    Really, mgls, what is up with you with this? Damn you put words into people’s mouths that they never even remotely came close to saying or meaning.

  2. You are the only one here who got the utter bullshit you just wrote above out of my original post.

    You stated: “I’m not for sure I don’t dislike this Puritanical faction worse than the jewish multiracial hell we are currently experiencing. It is at best a toss up.”

    Hence you stated the you disliked the “Puritanical faction” at least as much if not more than “the jewish multiracial hell we are currently experiencing.” The “toss up” statement is a throwaway line at the end, and the clear implication is that you dislike the “Puritanical faction” more than “the jewish multiracial hell we are currently experiencing.”

    Thus a reasonable inference to make is that you would prefer the present “multiracial hell” to a “Puritanical” white ethnostate. I commented that you would prefer “a degenerate, repulsive multiracial stew” to a Puritanical “white ethnostate with (gasp!) decency and sexual restraint.”

    you to try to make it sound like I like Woody Allen and want a mixed race society instead of a white one.

    You said you dislike the “Puritanical faction” at least as much if not more than “the jewish multiracial hell we are currently experiencing.”

    If you would like to clarify or amend your comments, answer this question: Would you prefer the present “multiracial hell” or a “Puritanical” white ethnostate?

    I’ll tell you what I don’t like, and that is you.

    I hope for your sake that you are only about a 15 year old boy and not an adult. If you are only a child yet, then I can overlook your idiocracy.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/06/03/ask-an-ordinary-american-housewife/comment-page-1/#comments

    Anyone who reads that thread, in which you lied and insisted, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Jan Brewer is a Jew based on a vandalized Wikipedia edit, will see that you are either stupid or mendacious.

  3. The questions you asked to be answered are a perfect example of your own twisting and distorings.

    My questions do not twist or distort anything. I want the “everything goes” faction to clarify their views. The libertines keep throwing around the words “Puritan” and “Puritanical,” and I want to know what they consider “Puritanical.”

    Like I stated above about you, you take something that people say, and then you distort it and extend it to what you need it to be in order for it to seem like we are promoting a degenerate and multiracial lifestyle.

    If you would like to clarify your opinions, directly answer this question: Would you prefer the present “multiracial hell” or a “Puritanical” white ethnostate?

    If you would prefer the present “multiracial hell,” then you have proved my point that degeneracy is more important to you than racial preservation.

    If you would prefer a “Puritanical” white ethnostate, then please tell us why you said you dislike the “Puritanical faction” at least as much if not more than “the jewish multiracial hell we are currently experiencing.”

  4. If you say that you consider it a toss up between the present “multiracial hell” and a “Puritanical” white ethnostate, then you have established that you place just as high a value on continued degeneracy as you do on racial preservation.

  5. “If you say that you consider it a toss up between the present “multiracial hell” and a “Puritanical” white ethnostate, then you have established that you place just as high a value on continued degeneracy as you do on racial preservation.”

    Bullshit.

    It is only you and other Puritanical types who try to set the definition of racial preservation as being uptight sexual prudes and teetotalers. It is only control freaks who assert that the survival of the white race depends upon us all embracing this kind of philosophy.

    You have conclusively proved that you are just as I stated you are: You try to use your own definition of what constitutes a white nationalist and whenever anyone disagrees, you then try to brand them as a degenerate and wanting a race mixed society.

    I have news for you, MGLS, normal and healthy men like sex, and we like it on a regular basis. And if a man is not married or in a steady relationship with a woman, then he will seek out women to fulfill this overwhelming biological need.

    Moreover, there are many reasons, including good reasons, why a man may not be married or have a steady girlfriend at the time. So seeking out a sex partner when not married or having a girlfriend does not automatically mean a guy is a degenerate. Nor does it mean that we are engaging in or advocating the most extreme kinds of perversions. It is only you and your type who try to equate every normal desire into a perversion, and every form of pleasure into a sin.

    Also, the vast majority of white people like to drink alcohol and even get drunk on occasion, and they often like doing so in bars with women and music. This, too, does not automatically mean they are degenerates or are against racial preservation.

    And more than a few white people even like to smoke a joint. Furthermore, there are many people who smoke marijuana, and even do so on a regular basis, who are productive, able to keep and maintain a home, a job, a family and even provide well for them. Sure, it would be better if people spent their free time studying physics or something, but we are talking about reality and how people really are. And yes, many drug users are pieces of shit. But not all of them. It is like everything else, some people over do things and it redounds to their detriment, like what are are doing with virtues and the like when you come here demanding sexual and pleasure abstinance and condemning everyone as a degenerate race mixer for not following you down this path of extreme prudery and teetotalism.

    Nobody died and left you in charge of setting the standard or definition of what it takes and requires to bring about a resurgence of the white race and our civilization. You are only a control freak who wants to force others to conform to YOUR idea of what a White Nationalist is. And just because I or anyone else does not subscribe to or adhere to YOUR definition does not mean we are degenerates.

    You have taken my statements and twisted them into having a meaning that I do not have. Period. And you have done so repeatedly. Moreover, I have seen that you do this same thing on all the other threads and to everyone else too.

    And yes, to answer your question, I would just as soon chose the present multiracial cesspool we are living in than a quasi-theocratic Puritanical one, even if it was all white. I want no part of any theocracy or Puritanical society where all natural human desires and pleasure are condemned and suppressed. And it is obvious that the vast majority of white people are as turned off by that as I am.

    Fortunately, you and those like you are never going to be politically or even socially viable.

  6. The Puritanical White ethnostate does not exist.

    If someone behaves as if it does (and they’re not in some religous group that allows them to marry) they will die childless and unmarried.

    If a WN man does what he needs to do in order to get White women in the Real World where he lives, he has the opportunity to have White children.

  7. “If you say that you consider it a toss up between the present “multiracial hell” and a “Puritanical” white ethnostate, then you have established that you place just as high a value on continued degeneracy as you do on racial preservation.”

    Bullshit.

    No, it is not bullshit. The point of the question is to clarify your priorities, specifically whether degeneracy or racial preservation is more important to you. A white nationalist who would prefer the present “multiracial hell” values degeneracy more than racial preservation. A white nationalist who is indifferent between the two choices values degeneracy and racial preservation equally. A white nationalist who would prefer the “Puritanical” white ethnostate values racial preservation more than degeneracy.

    It is only control freaks who assert that the survival of the white race depends upon us all embracing this kind of philosophy.

    I did not assert “the survival of the white race depends upon us all embracing this kind of philosophy.”

    You have conclusively proved that you are just as I stated you are: You try to use your own definition of what constitutes a white nationalist and whenever anyone disagrees, you then try to brand them as a degenerate and wanting a race mixed society.

    You are an imbecile. I did not say anyone who disagrees with me is a “degenerate [who wants] a race mixed society.” I said that to you degeneracy is more important than racial preservation and that you would prefer the current “multiracial hell” to a “Puritanical” white ethnostate. Such a statement is an accurate representation of your opinions.

    You are only a control freak who wants to force others to conform to YOUR idea of what a White Nationalist is.

    Incorrect. I am simply attempting to get you to clarify which is more important to you: degeneracy and permissiveness or racial preservation.

    And just because I or anyone else does not subscribe to or adhere to YOUR definition does not mean we are degenerates.

    Your reading comprehension is awful. What I said is that you place a higher value on continued degeneracy than racial preservation. That is unquestionably true if you would prefer the present “multiracial hell” to a “Puritanical” white ethnostate.

    You have taken my statements and twisted them into having a meaning that I do not have. Period. And you have done so repeatedly.

    False. I carefully went over your statements and demonstrated that I did not twist them.

    Either quit accusing me of doing so or specifically show what I “twisted.”

    And yes, to answer your question, I would just as soon chose the present multiracial cesspool we are living in than a quasi-theocratic Puritanical one, even if it was all white.

    Then you have shown that I was right all along. I did not distort what you said. Here you say that you would prefer “the present multiracial cesspool” to a “Puritanical” white ethnostate, or at the very least consider them equal.

    I originally stated that you would prefer a “a degenerate, repulsive multiracial stew” to “a white ethnostate with (gasp!) decency and sexual restraint.” You and Yobbo went ballistic and accused me of twisting what you said, despite the fact that my comment was true. You have again expressed the same preference.

  8. Those who are calling me “theocratic” and think I am part of idiotic Christian Identity, or that I am even a Christian, are confused and way off the mark.

    One need not be religious to recognize the destructiveness and harmfulness of obscenity, drug abuse, pornography, and sexual immorality and permissiveness.

    To repeat a few quotes by Wilmot Robertson:

    “If overindulgence in premarital and extramarital sex is a contributing cause of the decline of civilization, then tolerance of sexual permissiveness should be reconsidered.”

    “Barnyard behavior and civilized behavior are at opposite poles. When they begin to converge, it’s back to the barnyard.”

    “The contrast between the sexual mores of the early Roman Republic and the late Roman Empire offers a clear picture of the animalism that sets in as a society that loses its racial core. Compare the moral standards of the United States in the last century to those in the last half of the 20th. The radical decline in moral behavior was highly correlated with the decline in the number and proportion of the British-descended population and the increasing presence and influence of minorities.”

  9. I think there was so much support for the ‘sexual revolution’ amongst the young people, because things were so repressive. It was thus, rather easy for the jewbag activists and hippies to hijack these young people’s sentiments for their own ends.
    We can also redirect these natural urges to fun, freedom, music and sexuality into healthy avenues, imbued with proper values, and with the ultimate goals of finding worthy mates for our children… my wife and I are developing a system of new tribalism and within that small community, establishing what we call ‘facilitated marriage’. Ensuring that there will be a pool of worthy and tested potential mates from which our children can choose.

  10. MGLS is so stupid he is still trying to force white racial preservation into being a Puritanical prude and then asserting that I and any others who do not follow that line of thought are against White Nationalism.

    How many times are you going to quote what I said about rejecting your damned Puratanical and sexually frustrating dream world?

    It is YOUR reading comprehension that sucks, MGLS. It is ONLY your version of White Preservation that is being outright rejected, not white racial preservation. As I stated, your ideas are neither needed nor desired in order to have a white ethnostate, and no matter how many times you try to twist this, it is not going to be so.

    Sex does not automatically equal degeneracy and a pro race mixing attitude.

    Drinking a few beers and having a good time does not automatically equal degeneracy and a pro race mixing attitude.

    It is ONLY in your mind where all of these are equal.

  11. MGLS is so stupid he is still trying to force white racial preservation into being a Puritanical prude and then asserting that I and any others who do not follow that line of thought are against White Nationalism.

    False, as usual. I have not claimed and I do not claim that anyone who is not “a Puritanical prude” is “against White Nationalism.”

    I will reiterate this yet again since you are slow on the uptake. What I said is that to you degeneracy is more important than racial preservation and that you would prefer the present “multiracial hell” to a “Puritanical” white ethnostate. That is an accurate statement about your priorities and opinions.

    You have not specifically or substantively disputed anything I stated. Do you dispute that you would prefer the current “multiracial hell” to a “Puritanical” white ethnostate? If you do not dispute that, then you have no grounds on which to accuse me of “twisting” and “distorting” your views. If you prefer the current “multiracial hell” to a “Puritanical” white ethnostate, then you indisputably place a higher value on degeneracy and permissiveness than racial preservation.

    How many times are you going to quote what I said about rejecting your damned Puratanical and sexually frustrating dream world?

    I’ll keep quoting your comments until you stop falsely accusing me of “twisting” what you said.

    Why don’t you like having your own comments quoted? You don’t like it because your own words reveal your priorities.

    To clarify my own priorities, I place a higher value on racial preservation than “Puritanism.” I would prefer a permissive white ethnostate to a “Puritanical” multiracial society.

    If you place a higher value on permissiveness and degeneracy than racial preservation, fine. Just admit it and be clear about your priorities, and don’t rant and rave when I make accurate statements about your priorities.

  12. Sex does not automatically equal degeneracy and a pro race mixing attitude.

    It is ONLY in your mind where all of these are equal.

    You are the one who is distorting views here. I never said sex “automatically equal[s] degeneracy.” Contrary to your feverish assumptions, being against sexual permissiveness and immorality is not the same as being against sex. Far from it.

    It is true that sexual permissiveness and an “everything goes” environment encourage racial mixing. That is not saying that sex “automatically equal[s]” a “pro race mixing attitude.”

    You are confusing sex with sexual permissiveness and degeneracy. Contrary to what you may think, they are not the same.

  13. We can also redirect these natural urges to fun, freedom, music and sexuality into healthy avenues, imbued with proper values, and with the ultimate goals of finding worthy mates for our children… my wife and I are developing a system of new tribalism and within that small community, establishing what we call ‘facilitated marriage’. Ensuring that there will be a pool of worthy and tested potential mates from which our children can choose.

    Contrary to Brutus’s hyperventilating about “Puritanism,” all I am really hoping for is just the sort of thing Vlad Katonic says in this comment. How can the “everything goes” brigade object to building a healthy culture for our children, encouraging self-restraint, and redirecting focus from baseness and obscenity to a drive for cultural and scientific advancement? Is that really so bad? Does that vision really deserve to be ridiculed and derided as “Puritanical”?

  14. “You are the one who is distorting views here. I never said sex “automatically equal[s] degeneracy.” Contrary to your feverish assumptions, ”

    Uh-huh, that is why you have made about 15 posts now clearly equating the two. But a better question would be, who said anything at all about an “anything goes” mentality? Who has said anything about advocating degeneracy and sexual immorality?

    Answer: MGLS, and only MGLS.

    Another good question would be to cite the post of yours where you are making plain that you are not clearly equating sex with degeneracy and immorality. Go ahead and quote us that post, MGLS.

    “False, as usual. I have not claimed and I do not claim that anyone who is not “a Puritanical prude” is “against White Nationalism.””

    Yes, you have several times now implied just that. And everyone here knows it.

    And you are one stupid individual. I have stated several times now that I reject your version of a Puritanical white ethnostate, and yet you keep coming back saying I am evading this. There is no need for you to quote my statement anymore since I have now answered and “owned it” several times.

    Now I am sure you will come right back and say I am advocating and prefer an “anything goes” society and sexual immorality. Go ahead, come right back and assert that for the 15th time, MGLS.

    And after you do that, why don’t you go back to playing with your toy fire truck.

  15. Here are MGLS’s opening posts on this thread in reply to mine and anothers posts:

    “To any of these Puritans, if White men neglect pick up skills they are basically handing an entire generation of White girls to Blacks and Asians without a fight, how is that White nationalism?

    How is promoting degeneracy, filth, and pornography white nationalism? How is promoting promiscuity and “game” white nationalism? How is trivializing drug abuse white nationalism? How is pursuing casual sex and engaging in wanton behavior white nationalism?

    Degenerates love to dishonestly defend their immorality by falsely and maliciously portraying those who criticize such degeneracy as advocating the surrender of white women to non-whites. Nothing could be further from the truth. What the opponents of degeneracy desire and advocate is marriage, children, families, and sexual morality. It is in a sexually permissive, degenerate, “everything goes” environment that racial mixing and miscegenation are encouraged.

    That someone who promotes sexual restraint and decency is derided as a Puritan and considered abnormal shows just how far we have fallen.”

    “Brutus says:

    I’m not for sure I don’t dislike this Puritanical faction worse than the jewish multiracial hell we are currently experiencing.

    It’s nice to know that degeneracy, filth, and depravity are more important to you than racial preservation. You would prefer a degenerate, repulsive multiracial stew to a white ethnostate with (gasp!) decency and sexual restraint.”

    So yes, you have automatically equated sex and having a good time with degeneracy and immorality. No one else was even remotely talking about or implying they were in favor of such.

  16. Uh-huh, that is why you have made about 15 posts now clearly equating the two.

    No, I have not equated them. I have criticized sexual permissiveness and immorality. I have not equated sex in general with sexual degeneracy. You are the one who equates the two.

    But a better question would be, who said anything at all about an “anything goes” mentality? Who has said anything about advocating degeneracy and sexual immorality?

    Answer: MGLS, and only MGLS.

    You have characterized my views as “Puritanical,” despite the fact that I have not said anything about being “Puritanical.” You strongly desire and advocate permissiveness and what can reasonably be characterized as degeneracy, and it is fair to say that you have an “everything goes” type of mentality.

    Yes, you have several times now implied just that.

    No, I have not said that anyone who is not “a Puritanical prude” is “against White Nationalism.” What I keep saying is that you place a higher value on sexual permissiveness and degeneracy than racial preservation.

    And you are one stupid individual. I have stated several times now that I reject your version of a Puritanical white ethnostate, and yet you keep coming back saying I am evading this. There is no need for you to quote my statement anymore since I have now answered and “owned it” several times.

    Yes, you are “evading this,” because you keep incorrectly claiming that I am saying that you are against racial racial preservation, which is not my claim. I will repeat this once again since you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend what I am saying. I keep emphasizing that I am talking about your relative priorities: you place a higher value on degeneracy and sexual permissiveness than racial preservation. I, on the other hand, value racial preservation more than what you deride as my “Puritanism.” I would prefer a permissive white ethnostate to a “Puritanical” multiracial society, while you would prefer the present “multiracial hell” to a “Puritanical” white ethnostate.

    So yes, you have automatically equated sex and having a good time with degeneracy and immorality. No one else was even remotely talking about or implying they were in favor of such.

    Incorrect. I do not equate sex with degeneracy and immorality. I specifically criticize sexual permissiveness and immorality. If I equated sex with degeneracy and immorality and considered sex intrinsically immoral, it would be redundant of me to criticize sexual degeneracy and immorality. It is plain as day that I do not equate sex in general with degeneracy and immorality. I am not against sex; I am against sexual permissiveness and degeneracy. Favoring sexual restraint does not mean someone is anti-sex. You have no understanding of context, nuances, and distinctions.

Comments are closed.