David SimsEssays

Antifa versus “Supremacists”

“Antifa” aren’t shy about expressing their murderous intentions; they have little to fear when making such expressions, unlike racial-nationalists. “Antifa” have in-depth state and Establishment support, despite their occasional pretense of being “anarchists.”

by David Sims

THERE IS A double standard in the thinking of those who believe that the pro-Whites in Charlottesville, and the pro-Whites alone, are racial supremacists. If Blacks who chant “Black lives matter” are not Black racial supremacists, then Whites who chant “White lives matter” haven’t demonstrated that they are racial supremacists either. To think otherwise is to employ a double standard; i.e., two races are judged by different standards, and that’s practically the definition of racism.

The problem with the left’s definition of racism is that it is racist, itself. Yes, the way in which the left defines racism is racist. The way they define sexism is sexist. Practically every form of leftist thought contains this kind of built-in hypocrisy.

And, anyway, there aren’t many actual White supremacists today. Instead, most White racists today are nationalists. Supremacism and nationalism are, in a way, opposites. Although both racial supremacists and racial nationalists are both racists, they differ on how the races should relate to each other. A supremacist does want his country to be racially mixed, but he wants his own race to be the master race, to which other races are slaves. A nationalist does not want any race-mixing at all; in particular he does not want slaves of another race in his country.

If “racists” is the superset, then supremacists and nationalists are two non-overlapping subsets. It isn’t possible both to want members of another race in your race’s homeland and to want members of another race not to be in your race’s homeland. It is impossible for a White nationalist to be a White supremacist.

The media bosses, however, understand that the word “supremacist” carries uglier connotations than the word “nationalist” does, and to gain the emotional impact they desire (to stir people up) they use “supremacist” inaccurately, as a duplicitous propaganda word. They’ve been doing it for decades. They will keep on doing it. But the vast bulk of White racists in America today are nationalists, and they aren’t supremacists.

When a consistent narrative on the Web contradicts the narrative presented by the controlled media, you should trust the former, rather than the latter. The entirety of the Jew-controlled mainstream media can be regarded as if it were a single perjured witness.

As I said the other day, if you want to find supremacists, you’ll have better luck looking for them in Israel.

Now let’s look at the other, “innocent” (in the eyes of Mitt Romney and others) side: the knife-, bat-, acid-, and flamethrower-wielding “Antifa.”

Antifa don’t act as they do on principle. They merely pretend that acting on principle is what they are doing. I think someone rich is paying them a salary and providing them with transportation. If that rich sponsor were to have a heart attack or something, the Antifa might go away. If a foundation exists to continue Antifa’s funding, then it would have to be defunded by a legal action.

Otherwise, the only option is to fight fire with fire, which would escalate the fighting between the left and the right to real military conflict. This is the only other option because, as we have seen in Charlottesville, the police often don’t conduct themselves with professional impartiality. Instead they, or the politicians who give them their orders, act as extra pieces for the left on the chessboard, giving Antifa an unfair advantage.

Likewise, the mass media, being hostile to the right, and serving as the left’s propaganda auxiliary, will be considered legitimate military targets when the fighting intensifies.

* * *

Source: Author

For Further Reading

Previous post

The Charlottesville Death Trap

Next post

Robert Harrison and Confidential

14 Comments

  1. Thomas Plaster
    17 August, 2017 at 12:15 am — Reply

    I like the last two paragraphs of this article. Escalation to military conflict and making the propaganda arm of the opposition (MSM) a legit military target. YES!!!

    I would add that, due to the particular value of this propaganda arm and how it undergirds all else, it should be the first/primary target.

    • JimB
      17 August, 2017 at 10:33 am — Reply

      I agree. Makes good sense.

      • Anthony Collins
        19 August, 2017 at 3:56 am — Reply

        I also agree. I see no ethical reason why those working for the mass media should be exempt from a contemporary commissar order.

  2. JimB
    17 August, 2017 at 5:46 am — Reply

    I view the term “racist” in exactly the same way as Louis Farrakhan, the well-known pro-black leader, does. In his own words:

    “They call me a racist. What is a racist? Look at the word ‘race-ist’ The suffix, ‘ist’, tells you the degree of proficiency, and the degree of commitment and dedication of the person, to the main word “race” (-ist).
    [for example] ‘This man is a chemIST’. He’s become proficient and he’s dedicated his life to the study of chemistry, so you call him a chemist. A biologist. An artist. A violinist. A pianIST.
    Now they call me a racIST. What does it mean? That I’ve dedicated my life, and everything that I have, to see a rise of a people that have been destroyed by an alien power! Is that what I am?!…”

    After that he goes off into jewjew land, as “intellectual” Negroes will almost always do, with talk of “equality” and such. Still, what he said about the word ‘racist’ itself is one of those rare bright flashes of actual intelligence and comprehension that we can occasionally witness from members of the black race. Here’s a video of the talk: (youtube url) /watch?v=VHWVkaaMhyo.

    It’s telling that he has never been on the receiving end of hostile (((media))) coverage… although Dr. Pierce, Dr. Duke and so many others of OUR people have. My conclusion as to the reason: It’s perfectly fine for Negroes and any other race — EXCEPT WHITE PEOPLE — to be “racist”, in fact it is natural.

    • Thomas Plaster
      17 August, 2017 at 12:15 pm — Reply

      JimB: Excellent! I will add your explanation of “race-ist” to my use (or lack of it) of the term “supremacist”.

      I as a White have no interest whatsoever in ruling over other races. I don’t want to live near them (neighborhood, cities or countries/continents), go to school with them (easier said than done due to fed gov’t tampering), work with them, work for them, have them work for me (looking for the slightest excuse to scream racial discrimination against me and sue for it), pay taxes for the administration of their vast criminal activity (cause they sure as hell don’t create it), And many other things too numerous to mention here.

      Since I don’t want to live with other races that means necessarily I don’t want to be supreme over them. I have no interest in them. They are a net drag on western civilization. Unproductive (economically) and downright destructive (violent crime and public chimp outs). Every White person spending their time dealing with this non-White crap is a White person not doing something worthwhile for the White race (like breeding more Whites).

      Trying to get this cultural habit (no doubt induced by MSM) of calling Whites “supremacists” is like getting blood out the turnip. I’m like a lone voice in the wilderness.

  3. DICARLO
    17 August, 2017 at 1:19 pm — Reply

    Not too long ago, every culture on Earth was racially conscious, and most still remain so. Truth be told, no person who isn’t racially conscious can love his own race. To be racially conscious is to be racist. Racism is a political doctrine that rejects the liberal dogma of racial equality. Those who are racially conscious recognize and therefore embrace racial inequality, which is reality, which is simply to be aware that mankind falls into easily identified groups with many differences. The notion “we are all the same”, is patently ABSURD! I am racially conscious, so I must be a racist and so must you be, also. Embrace it! Run with it! There’s nothing negative about it. It’s common sense.

  4. anonymous
    17 August, 2017 at 2:54 pm — Reply

    I know I won’t get published, but this site is probably also in the sights of the leftist jew elites. I see a few realist sites are gone already this week. Hang tough.

  5. WHITE_WARRIOR
    18 August, 2017 at 11:31 pm — Reply

    It is time we all got to the point and take note the words of Dr. William Luther Pierce – the only solution is white revolution.

    These words should become a battle cry. Pierce like all perceptive white observers knew that the enemy – Jews and their Shabbat goys – will give no ground. The Jews are out to destroy us, and they will accept nothing less. In response we should accept nothing less. If you are not one of us, you are against us – it is that simple. Our future will not be secured through democracy, fair-play, good-manners or polite speech. We as white men and white women of the west must be prepared for some real wild work. What we saw in Charlottesville is just an appetiser for what is coming – and the sooner the better – I am battle ready.

  6. Benoit
    19 August, 2017 at 11:02 pm — Reply

    Though I certainly would like non-whites completely out of my life, I have lately come to understand that I despise equally, if not more, a big number of white people. All of these SJWs, antifas, gays, left-leaning people. And I believe they (these disgraceful whites) greatly outnumber us.

    • Thomas Plaster
      19 August, 2017 at 11:50 pm — Reply

      Benoit: Agreed. If there is to be a future race war, it will not be all White people versus non-Whites. Not so simple.

      It will not be Whites on the political Right (like me) … versus … all political LEFT Whites allied with non-Whites.

      It will be racially aware/loyal political Right Whites (like me) … versus … political LEFT Whites allied with non-Whites. Whites on the political Right but not racially aware/loyal will sit it out, on the fence, waiting to see how the chips fall.

      If it appears political Right and racially aware/loyal Whites are losing, political Right Whites sitting on the fence will leap up, point fingers (at us) and screech “raysis”. “Die raysis m&^%#rf#@*er!!!” Or some such.

      If non-Whites and LEFTIST Whites are losing, political Right Whites sitting on the fence will wait until the very last, possible moment to join our ranks. But they will have a look in their eyes like someone who is waiting for you to turn your back to them so they can cold cock you.

      They will always think you the trouble maker for disrupting (in their twisted view) their tranquil existence and robbing them of the few spare moments of calm before the storm of non-Whites overrunning every conceivable corner of this country and making it third world hell hole. In their minds they would not have gratitude for you who did the fighting to make the country all White again. Plus, you ruined and ended their various forms of negrophilia; NFL, NBA etc.

  7. Joseph G.
    20 August, 2017 at 9:00 am — Reply

    Thomas Plaster, you have expressed it very precisely!
    I sometimes wonder whether it would be a feasible solution to push for an apartheid-style solution where we, the good Whites, would have our own Lebensraum (given that we are a minority) and leave most of the territory to cucks and non-whites?

    • Thomas Plaster
      20 August, 2017 at 12:27 pm — Reply

      At this time, I think that would only last so long before the non-Whites start showing up again. And then we (Whites) would be right back where we are now.

      Plus, the non-Whites and allied LEFTIST Whites would hardly be expected to allow some kind of secession. They would be, economically speaking, up the creek without a paddle. Not much of them create any wealth to live on; they wait for the productive Whites to do it.

  8. This Shining Glory
    20 August, 2017 at 11:08 am — Reply

    Joseph G said: “I sometimes wonder whether it would be a feasible solution to push for an apartheid-style solution where we, the good Whites, would have our own Lebensraum (given that we are a minority) and leave most of the territory to cucks and non-whites?”

    Even if this happened, sooner or later one side would be forced to invade and annihilate the other. We simply cannot peacefully coexist on the same continent. And that’s the only reason why the former USSR (or Red China today) and the USA have kept the peace, because of that geographic separation. Had we shared a common border, however, we would’ve nuked each other long ago. Today, Mexico is a demographic threat to us; but were it in Africa instead of North America it would not be – but instead become a threat to Europe. So there cannot be “a white ethno-state” in North America until and unless the leftist threat is completely eradicated.

    For this reason I do not see Harold Covington’s Northwest Front to be a viable solution, either in his novels or in reality. He means well, I believe, but what is needed is a Second American Revolution (to quote Trump) of “fire and fury”. Furthermore, and this is crucial, we have yet to truly achieve what Richard Spencer attempted: to “unite the right”. As evidence of this, don’t think of all the white nationalist groups that attended his Charlottesville rally, but instead think of all those who did not – including the Northwest Front and the National Alliance, among many others. Their absence proves that unity does not yet exist even among our few numbers.

Leave a reply

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

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.