About Hunter Wallace 12394 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  2. Kentucky

    “My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore uphold.”

    And far from worrying about repercussions for doing this, Peyman sees the gun control push as a sign of weakness that will crumble in the face of real opposition: “Just a few of us have to be willing to stand up to political opposition putting our people at risk. The other side will back down.”

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/01/kentucky-sheriff-to-obama-no-gun.html?m=1

  4. @ if Whites are disarmed they will incorporate themselves into armed private security corporations….”

    What whites reasonably fear is the confiscations of the coal miners— and being stuck up a hollow (again) with armed guards and “detectives” hulking over you, getting you to work. Not all lower class whites, either, as many work sites were manned by white immigrants from exactly the same political circumstances; same with other kinds of work sites, (factories). There were reasons the unions were able to organize.

    Always wanted to know the history of how Pinkertons and other such groups went from protecting figures s/a Lincoln —think Pinkertons were his SS or something?– then after they blew that (I guess, lol) they moved on to corralling workers and taking their weapons, so they’d work for no wages.

  5. on gun control, the left has a short memory—- as that’s how they got where they are, as well as unions, and more.

  6. The gun control issue IMO is where the white/jewish libtards are risking a boatload of political capital. Their darky compatriots openly scoff at gun control beyond taking guns out of whites’ hands. Go ahead troll thru the social media its non-whites brandishing guns. So gun control means disarming whites and destroying the gun culture, yeah lotsa luck with that, it thrives on libtard stupidity. I sure wish Mr. Ryan would join ISRA instead of trying to sound like the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board.

  7. A republican should call their bluff and come up with a plan that explicitly disarms urban blacks in massive door to door sweeps complete with battering rams and search dogs, curfews, block by block lock downs. Blacks disarmed first please.

  8. Swpl logic:
    Second Amendment was before cellphones. Now that we have 911, gun rights are obsolete.

    Truth is a lot of whites are happy with a jackboot on their neck. Being white today indicates little more than the fact that ancestors were kept in line by their betters throughout history. There’s a natural pattern of decay in society, the creep towards centralization, meaning people relinquish rights. What’s unnatural is for a society to cut down its tall poppies (Am. Revolution) then scorch (civil war) and salt (civil rights) the poppyfield. Now people are giving up their rights to a nigger charlatan crowned by multiculturcrats instead of nobles.

  9. The ultimate tragedy was losing the war against Yankees. Yanks have troubled minds because of the contradictions in their society. Tamer has a crazy Episcopalian yankee great grandmother bottle-smasher the family used to call “Nana Boozey”. She supported a strange idea known as prohibition. Sadly an even more utopian Yankee idea, the myth of Negro equality will never be repealed.

    God forgive my crazy nana boozey. God damn BRA.

  10. I just listened to a podcast by Bernard Cornwell…On BBC History Extra.

    He was asked why there are best selling historical novels these days. He answer by saying that he hopes to just write good stories.

    He ambled around the question then said this:

    “perhaps historical fiction is popular today because history in the classroom is just made to make people feel guilty about their ancestors.”

    BRILLIANT.

  11. TOS: You knocked it out of the ballpark. I just finished reading The Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith points out several times that the simple, readily apparent ranking of birth and fortune are by far more superior and less bloody that those of political and religious faction. He also points out the advantages of a sovereign over the “farmers of taxes”, namely the sovereign understands, even the worse ones, that his grandeur is linked to the opulence of his people. Adam Smith had a heap of criticism for the colonies.

    Overall though, the American system in the North began with an unhealthy hatred of authority. At first, hatred of human authority, claiming only authority to God. Later, hatred of authority to God as well.

  12. I base my argument that leftists hate God on the fact that they exert every effort to affront and insult Nature and Nature’s God. Example: gay “marriage”. If medical technology allowed it, leftists would transplant uterus to gay men so they could give birth (and probably fight for taxes to pay for the operation). All while totally supporting abortion. Tell me this isn’t shaking the first at Nature and Nature’s God.

  13. Ok, so you people are complaining about freedom getting taken away, while also complaining about why there is no aristocracy to extend authority over humans? Wow what a contradiction. And Wayne, not all of us globalists are crazy sexual revolution cultural leftists; a lot of us just want to take freedom away from parasitic white bankster billionaires.

  15. Ok, so you people are complaining about freedom getting taken away, while also complaining about why there is no aristocracy to extend authority over humans?

    When Prole-Pot goes to Washigton he doesn’t understand noblesse oblige, he’s just stealing the silverware to bring home to his voting bloc. There’s going to be authority of some sort. Better that it be in the landed houses of culture with a stake in the future rather than wandering nigger filth that will live out their days in Hawaii after the damage is done. Is it any surprise that the leadership is pitiful? Presidents spend half a term “on the job training” the other half, campaigning for re-election, two-years later they’re a lame duck and we have a new demagogue waiting in the wings. The other choice is the job goes to someone that spent their life training for it and has a CLASSICAL education as a basis. By classical I mean western education not the science of boiling a bone before wearing it through the septum.

  16. @Wayne

    Go move to Europe if you don’t like being a free man.

    I’m forever grateful that America was born out of hatred for monarchy and their so-called “authority”. And the very freedom of speech, which you now make use of in an attempt retrospectively illegitimize this country, would not even exist were it not for that hatred of authority.

    And P.S. — there is no “God”.

  18. And the very freedom of speech, which you now make use of in an attempt retrospectively illegitimize this country, would not even exist were it not for that hatred of authority.

    If we didn’t have freedom of speech people couldn’t say treasonous things like “hmmm maybe negroes should vote” with impunity in the first place. Wayne’s point is valid.

  19. there’s a buckskin map that shows the Wabash river valley in the 1740-1770s and the wider Ohio and Mississipi. It’s in the British Museum. This was at the time that the Wabash Land Company based in Philly was illegally buying land from Indians in contravention of various treaties. Much of the conflict was simply about western expansion and honoring commitments to various sovereign groups and competing interests. The French themselves were also on the lookout for regaining territory lost in the French Indian wars and were on the lookout for any trouble fermenting in the Misssipi and Ohio valley areas. Monarchy really doesn’t come into it. Washington himself would have been happy enough as a British Officer if his commission he been accepted. His main motivation appears to have been frustration with land he had claimed in Ohio and wished to develop. Development would abrogate treaties and probably bring the French back to sniff around and begin a new cycle of throat cutting on the frontier. Freedom essentially seems to have been a post hoc justification.

  20. Looking at the constitutional convention discussions I also get the sense that they gave away much more than they wished in the Constitution. The equality of religion must have been abhorent to most of the competing sectarians. But that’s all they could do given the circumstances.

  22. @Tamer

    And just what if one those inbred monarchs who you miss so much, decided that niggers out to be citizens and equal to white men in his majesty’s eyes? Because if I’m not mistaken, the British confiscated nigger slaves during Revolutionary War, conscripted them into the army, and gave them British citizenship.

  23. PGRT: What Adam Smith wrote was that there could be freedom with order, and the best way to attain this was via a hereditary monarchy. Of course, a man of character and virtue is better than a noble by birth and fortune, but the ignorant masses can’ t deduce those fine points of character, but they can understand and respect birth and fortune.
    Chris 313: The Founders regarded the Constitutional Monarchy of Great Britain as the government that had granted more freedom to more people than any other in history. Since there no bloodline of royalty here, it was not an option. Do you know what civil government is for, Chris? We say in America that it is to protect our liberty, but more precisely, it is to protect our private property from those who have none. In other eords, to protect the industrious haves from the have- nots. Democracy was created so that the stupid, perverse, sick, lame, deviant, demented, lazy, and hateful could take from the smart, strong, industrious, honorable and righteous.

  24. And just what if one those inbred monarchs who you miss so much, decided that niggers out to be citizens and equal to white men in his majesty’s eyes?

    Find out who has the strongest claim and support him against the mad king.

  25. Wayne is starting for Team Anglo. Jolly.

    It’s much easier to blow-up a a crazy monarch’s carriage and hold a pillow over the face of a few rotten kids than it is to clean out a Congress full of zealots. Blowing Kennedy away didn’t do anything to stop the Civil Rights act he demanded. A House of Lords wouldn’t wait til the King’s last breath to kill such a law.

  26. No Monarch after 1689 would have even conceivably had that power to deem blacks your equal or whomever. That sort of push toward equality is essentially the product of
    A robust civil service and a proposition nation.

    The only thing a British king appears to be able to do as the 1700s progress is to listen to his elected officials.

    parliament imposed all the tea, stamp and import taxes the Bostonians moaned about
    anyway. By the time 1776 rolled around the King was more of a
    Figurehead than a tyrant. Had he been King at all in the medieval sense he might have
    Favoured the colonials in their dispute over the differences.

  29. @Wayne

    What does that rant have to do with my comment? And BTW, under the rule of a king, even with a civil government, there is no private property. Everything belongs to the king and all the people his subjects. So spare me the lecture. I know damn well the difference between a civil government and a monarchy. And I wouldn’t trade life in so-called “BRA” for life in an all-white monarchy for anything.

  30. John, according to Adam Smith the whole dust up between the mother country and the colonies was the fact that Britain maintained a monopoly over the exports from America, their manufactures would then process and resell. Another issue was that the colonists were British citizens and provided nothing in the way of defense. When Britain tried to tax them for the difference, it blew up. Not quiet what we learn in history books.
    Chris: the more I read about “democracy” and the rising up of the people (ignorant masses) the more I hate it. The French Revolution overthrew a imbecile of a king who at least symbolized ancient authority and order and replaced him with Robespierre, mass disorder, and bloodshed– the ignorant fools got what they deserved. Fast forward 100 years for a repeat in Russia, this time the Romanovs traded for Lenin and Stalin. Well played, sheeple, well played.

    And there is a difference, in my opinion, between freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I’ m all for freedom of speech, but burning of the nations flag should be punished, as well as putting an image of Christ in a jug of urine. I tip my hat to Rusdia locking up those Pussy Riot dykes– that’ s how the shit starts and Russians know it.

  31. I would be in favour of a ban on burning the Stars and Stripes. It’s incredibly insulting. Even though I question what America is doing to its own core white population.

  32. Some democratic principles in a generally homogenous nation where all orders of the society have the best wishes for the society, and honest motives is good. That is not the situation here.

  35. And BTW, under the rule of a king, even with a civil government, there is no private property.

    If you’re a serf or a live-in servant.

    I wouldn’t trade life in so-called “BRA” for life in an all-white monarchy for anything.

    Try to open an Italo-Polish restaurant on your private property and don’t serve Niggers. Then you’ll see what private property means in your beloved country.

  36. Chris: you need a lecture– civil government and monarchy are not mutually exclusive.
    You write like a have-not and all your ra- ra hooray for freedom simply smacks of old fashioned envy. I’ m not wealthy by any stretch of the definition, but I would rally around those honest and loyal rich men who are loyal to my nation, expecting they would rally to my defense as well. This was the relationship, I believe, in the old South.

  38. @Tamer

    Italo-Polish? Those two culinary styles don’t go together. Growing up, my mother cooked coastal-style Mediterranean fare, probably for my father tastes, and despite being herself Polish. Polish food is terrible.

  39. Fine then Tamer and Wayne, let’s crown Biden as king. Then we’ll all be happy. Until he does something you don’t like and then you’ll beg for your freedom of speech back.

  40. This is a website, it’s not a nation, it’s called Occidental Dissent. Europe is very much the Occident. It’s not called Patriotards R US.

  41. The president has more arbitrary personal power than any British monarch since Charles II. Indeed one of the problems with a monarch from the point of view of the authoritarian is that he can be a weak man or a halfwit and thus lets the peasants get away with tax avoidance or rebellion. Presidents do seem to bring stability to civil services transitioning from one party to the next. Weak kings in the medieval period could be ignored. The arrangement was often a happy one.

  42. @Wayne

    “Chris — you need a lecture..”

    – No I don’t.

    “You write like a have-not..”

    – My ancestors came here with nothing, and by their own will they became something better than what they were. I will always be proud of that.

    “.. and all your ra-ra hooray for freedom simply smacks of old-fashioned envy.”

    – Envy who? Some inbred swine who would starve without “subjects” to feed off of? I envy no one — least of all any “royalty”.

    I don’t have any problem with wealthy people, whether that wealth was earned or inherited. I do have a problem the idea of royalty — this is the land of the free, and the notion royalty is an insult our Declaration of Indepence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights.

  43. Ennumerating freedoms, wanting more freedom for this or that, it’s all belching.

    “Freedom” is the rallying cry for war against foreign domination, not an obsession to anyone but a scoundrel or slave. Finding higher pursuits like faith, education, art, killing foreigners, sports, science, women, generating wealth etc. are what interest real western men.

    Not clamoring for another hit of freedom like a sweaty junkie.

    This country overdosed on freedom.

  46. Royalty is not an option in America. There are no ancient, ruling bloodlines. It would not surprise me if eventually there is not chosen a dictator, though. The Roman senate, in their most shameful behavior, elected Julius Caesar dictator, and later, in a new low of ass kissing, offered to make him a god, to which Caesar, tongue in cheek, replied “Jupiter is the god of the Romans”. The next Caesar was declared a god. We are approaching that level of shamelessness.

  47. Peerage is an option in North America especially after a civil war. It takes some gallantry and a respectable blood line, sometimes even less.

    Antony, the man that would have seen an Egyptian whore preside over Rome did deify Caesar and was actually his cult-leader.

  48. @John

    “This is a website, not a nation, it’s called Occidental Dissent. Europe is very much the Occident.”

    – OD’s focus has specified toward the cultural divide between the American North and South, as in, AMERICAN. Not foreign interlopers.

    “It’s not called Patriotards R US.”

    – FUCK you, limey squatter. Go post at Guardian UK if you my pride in and concern for MY country offends your British feelings.

  49. The US Presidency is almost purely about Charisma.

    One of the good things about the mechanism of the Presidential election is that it appears to favour men with the magnetism of leadership. The uncharismatic King
    is often a source of trouble. But we are now in a situation where a palpably foreign President (one who grew up in Indonesia, foreign dad, identifies with blacks and third world generally) sits on the Throne anyway.

Comments are closed.