“Ethnic Bleachers of the World, Unite!”: On Vacant Minds and Internet Censorship

You may also like...

19 Responses

  1. Karloff says:

    A problem in advocating for government backed censorship is that, thanks to the internet, we have access to video evidence and witness testimony of deceptions perpetrated by governments and disseminated by mainstream media and institutions.

    It is the exposure of these things that gives the alternative media value. For example how many academics are discussing the nature of simulated terrorism and the creeping police statism introduced in response to it? Not many and some that do lose their jobs.

    Would you argue that these deceptions are also in support of civilisation and therefore should be concealed too?

    As for counter-currents it reads like CIA pulp fiction for boys.

    • Han Fei says:

      I agree, and I don’t think Branco is being serious when he says that. Remember that by the running definition of it, the predominant social ideology today, you and I, and this website IS FASCIST. The fact that Branco is a traditionalist Catholic, is enough to flag him as a homophobic, reactionary, counter-revolutionary, antisemitic, racist, deplorable human being (in so far as this ideology even considers Eastern Europeans as humans). So you have to be very careful considering the only few possibilities of the kind of authorities responsible for the censorship.

      Interestingly enough there are talks in Russia to create their very own Eurasian sphere of internet, presumably with solely Eurasian porn. So for all you latina lovers in the East, tough luck, looks like you’ll have to make do with the lovely sirens of the Caucasus.

    • Malić says:

      Are you sure those exposures are real exposures or products of fancy? What consequences are drawn from them? That America is an absolute, world ruling, Empire and that CIA is behind every major political upheaval? But this is not true. Most of the “video evidence” calling events “false flags” are bogus and they’re one of the main dangers brought about by alt media. Similar things were attempted in the early days of internet, also. There’s nothing new about that. Do you know about any conclusive “narrative” brought about those “citizen journalists” other than muddling what is already muddled? Do you believe that any kind of action can come from this, save from the cynical attitude towards politics? The mentality “everything is false flag” is a mentality of intelligence services employee, more specifically, a communist one. For all, supposedly, it “never happened” stories about false flags, where I happened to be in contact with someone who was present, they affirmed to me that it really, in no uncertain terms, did happen.

      Counter Currents reads like German Conservative Revolution journal from 30-es of the previous century, when CIA did not exist. Those ideas existed long before, not only CIA, but before any kind of British or American hegemony over Europe.

      • Karloff says:

        You are right ‘most’ of the false flag/hoax narratives are bullshit, but ‘most’ is not the same as all. One should not conclude that because a field of inquiry contains a great deal of false information that therefore all contentius information about it is false. This is also a technique of the intelligence agencies to dissuade rational curiosity.

        For example look at the way the narrative of the sexual abuse of children by politicians, celebrities and other powerful figures in the UK has played out over the last 20 years. Do you know who first openly discussed that Edward Heath was a serial child rapist? David Icke! Now the fact that the world is not governed by interdimensional reptilians has not precluded the British police from assembly a body evidence in support of these claims.

        Did the revelation of this material 20 years ago by David Icke help or hinder this investigation? Who gave him this information and much of the other material he discusses? For what reason?

        Moreover I do not conclude from these deceptions that America or Nato are the root of all evil. One need only look at the extremely fishy ‘assassination’ of the Russian ambassador to Turkey to know that all sides play these games.

        These ideas and techniques have indeed existed long before the CIA. In fact I believe they are as old as civilisation. All cultures are to some extent energised and unified by deception. However, German Conservatives would not have written asking ‘What would the Dulles brothers do?’

        • Malić says:

          I don’t take Icke seriously as any kind of source, but, since you brought him up in this context, I think you’ll find this article interesting.

          • Karloff says:

            Yes the point I am making is that you should not take him seriously, but despite that he has written some things that are (partly) true. He wrote about Edward Heath being a child rapist in 1998, but then he goes on to say that he transforms into a 10 foot inter dimensional lizard.

    • Mihai says:


      Let’s start to the point.
      In principle, I have absolutely nothing against censorship. The idea that everyone should have the right to say anything springs from a very faulty anthropology, having its roots, I believe, in enlightenment rationalism. The underlying premise is that through debating various ideas in a “free” conversation which imposes no boundaries on its participants the best ideas will always come out winning, in a sort of natural selection in the intellectual arena. As history has repeatedly shown that is completely false and the inverse is usually true: the one who shouts loudest and who spreads mindless slogans which are just a collection of sophisms, but which appeal to the lowermost passions of the masses, always wins (oh, and when he does that he will never make the mistake of leaving any room for the free speech of dissenting voices).

      That is in theory. In practice, I do side with the rest of the comments because the ones who would actually implement censorship are exactly the former slogan spreaders, so censorship can only work in their favor. Or would it?
      I actually have not the slightest idea of how something like this can be done, nor what or who should do it.

      Regarding alternative media: there are no doubt a few benefits derived from these pursuits, but in the end it is a complete failure and was destined to be so from the start, for the reasons which I talked about in the past and I will not repeat today.
      I will add something I have not said, though: alternative media is not only inseparably tied to but even dependent upon mainstream media, revealing itself to be a self-contradiction. Why do I say this? Well, what “independent researchers” research is that which is given to them by the mainstream media, isn’t it? If there were suddenly (hypothetically speaking) no mainstream narrative, they would have nothing left to deconstruct and so they will lack any reason for existing. The false flags they analyze, the faulty narratives, the conspiracies, everything, all the materials, are gathered from what the mainstream media published. So this makes extremely questionable the pretense that you are divining the truth out of that which has been offered at first by the very thing you want to prove false. Of course, this does not apply to the extremely few who actually risk their physical integrity by making some on the field research. But the majority of alternative media “researchers” are just couch potatoes who spend their time “researching” online.

      Speaking of false flags and videos related to them: this I think is one of the few beneficial points I mentioned above. I do believe that there is some hard evidence of deliberate counterfeits published in the mainstream (I have in mind the whole Charile Hebdo charade for example), but even the more soft or circumstantial evidence brought to light do at least indicate that there is enough reason to doubt what the TV hand feeds you. Though most people draw the wrong conclusion from this and go on to dig ever more deeper into the swamp thinking that they will some day “connect the dots”. For my part, the only good practical conclusion I’ve reached from this is to turn off the TV and do something worthwhile with my time.

      Also on false flags and such, the downside is (and I’ve experienced this personally) that too much interest in these murky fields leads one to an extremely paranoid state of mind where even the most banal and neutral political action is viewed in a sort of sinister ambient light. Even something seemingly beneficial promoted by the local government “MUST” have ultimately sinister ulterior motives directed by the globalists. As if politics were populated literally by incarnate devils.
      This also creates a further problem: if the conspiracies are so tight that not even a fly can break out of the net, how come you- a mere individual- has managed to figure it out so neatly? Aren’t your thoughts also directed by the conspirators? And so you start to descent the slope towards insanity.

      I will end with a general remark regarding the Internet: though for me it has provided- here and there- some useful starting points, I believe that if you are to have some worthwhile intellectual pursuits they must come out of the web and into real life where they are to be nurtured and assimilated. Whatever remains on the internet can only be superficial in the end, depthless, nurturing only self-absorbtion, imagination and megalomania and atrophying that which it claims to develop- namely the higher faculties. I believe that by dedicating ourselves to what truly matters in our lives, all this concern about Internet-related issues will be relegated to its proper place, which is one of minimal importance. For example: worried too much about false flags, apocalyptic scenarios and so on? Just take a walk outside and you’ll see that there is still life out there.

      • Mihai says:

        And after finishing a long comment there must also be a Post-Scriptum, since the longer the comment the more the things left unsaid:

        This is especially of interest to those who are interested in metaphysics, philosophy, theology and so on: actually participating in the day to day media narratives is inimical to the above mentioned interests. Media (be it alternative or mainstream of whatever) is something completely closed in the realm of becoming. Day to day there is always something new to talk about and analyze. That which yesterday was on everyone’s mind and lips is today “ancient history”. So you spend your time in continuous mental agitation, turmoil, anger, heated debates which lead nowhere except a darkened state of mind.

        Philosophy, theology and any kind of genuine spirituality is, on the other hand, dependent upon stillness.
        So the two can never be combined.

        This is why I am even more skeptical about those few bloggers who mix these two and claim to speak with authority on both of these so opposite directions than I am about the regular Joe “independent researcher”.
        Actually, when this mentality creeps into conversations about religion I see quite convoluted and dangerous tendencies. If it is not already, I think in the near future “schism” will be considered something very cool, even among traditional churches. I see this among some “orthodox” bloggers.

        • Malić says:

          According to 1054. decrees of both Romes respectively, and in all likelihood in the eyes of the Third Rome, Kali Tribune is the only absolutely schismatic website in history, for obvious reasons. So let those jerks know that we were in schism before it was cool. (btw. I haven’t forgotten what you’ve asked, I’ll email you one of these days).

  2. Han Fei says:

    My (final) break with CC came with the publication of an article (likely written by a very, very young person with ahem, limited mental capacity) which likened Chinese people to “insects”. Now this may as well be quite true, as I don’t find it contentious to note that the CCP is quite an aberrant institution. Ah but then the article gets to the point.

    Since the Chinese “vermin” are biologically predisposed to a life and death struggle against the glorious sons of Yamato and their racial equivalents in the West, then in order to guarantee our survival, the article proposed some kind of glorious union between alt-right and net-uyo, in order to presumably help rid the world of this ever imminent threat. In a dog eat dog world man, the first dog to go into heat wins.

    What amuses me about this is the sheer inconsistency. What is it that you want Mr. White Nationalist? Do you want to create a society by whites and for whites, or do you want some sort of Internationale of Irredentist Teenage Maximalists? Why do you presume that if one gook country somehow aligns with you and another does not, it is then marked for either alliance or extermination? How in the fuck would you find the cause of the Japanese nationalists to be somehow preferable, as far as you’re concerned, to that of the Chinese nationalists?

    • Elias Queen says:

      The Chinese have a different culture to the Japanese and one that has its own beauty, strengths, and expressions. Just like the Europeans. What we are fighting against is no less than the destruction of the whole world of beauty that is result of the flowerings of the different people’s.

    • Ante says:

      Are you referring to articles by Riki Rei? Those always crack me up, I don’t so much mind his attitude toward China and Chinese people because the whole thing reads too much like Command&Conquer storyline to be taken overly seriously. But his tendency to throw 3-4 adjective on a single noun and overal kitsch in writing is downright hilarious. Then there’s the Chinese Nationalist Maiden, although that’s just a commenter. But she seems to be quite literally insane.

      • Malić says:

        Evo, osevapiše se, pa opevaše i nas, Prečane:“Poem: Slobodan Praljak”

        • Ante says:

          Hahah ajde da se i nama nešto lepo u životu desi!

        • Mihai says:

          This guy completely lacks the sense of proportions- he actually puts Socrates next to Herman Goering…
          I see that the criterion for being a hero these days is to be officially convicted of warcrimes by an international tribunal. Here is a thought for reflection: if, hypothetically, CNN announces that George Sörös will be put on trial for war crimes will the CC/ alt-right websites be enriched with a new lyrical masterpiece?

          • Malić says:

            Well, since Soros is behind everything and, therefore, behind himself too, he would probably finance some kind of lyrical outburst on CC in order to divide the white nationalist movement.

          • Ante says:

            Victims of the said war crimes would have to be Muslims, but other than that, yeah.

            Then again Praljak’s case is substantially different and at least in popular mind hinges completely on the destruction of a particular bridge in Mostar which is literally mentioned by supposed witnesses next to deaths of their own family members as at least equally horrible and traumatic which makes me wonder about their genuiness. I’ve literally concluded the other day that if there’ll be another war in Bosnia we have to destroy that bloody bridge, this time for good. Effin bridge, man!

            What is common between the two cases is the incredible lack of understanding of the events in question by the westerners who are so keen to comment and sing songs about them, the idea that somehow any of these events included “invading hordes” and that they are in any way related to what is happening in Europe nowadays is… retarded.

  3. Cartman says:

    Nick Griffin released a pdf about the alt-right called ‘alt-right not right’ which comes to similar conclusions regarding the sinister aspects permeating the movement. Worth a read.

    • Malić says:

      I’d say Griffin is a rather disappointed ultra right winger. That booklet reminds me of Strasser’s denunciations of Hitler. As with Griffin, Strasser was right on most accounts, save that, as Griffing remained right identitarian, he remained a Nazi, too. It’s typical for those fringe groups, when they surface into mainstream, to splinter into grouplets and individuals, while realistic core pushes onward into acceptability.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *