Commenting on Counter-Currents site

[Will Williams]

My comment above to Peter Quint did finally appear on C-C, properly formatted: https://counter-currents.com/2025/04/we ... e-we-suck/


Will Williams: April 21, 2025

Peter Quint: April 21, 2025 Was [Ebert] a white or a jew?
---


“Roger Ebert was not Jewish. The famous film critic was one-half of the movie reviewing team of Siskel and Ebert with the late Gene Siskel, who was Jewish.”

Though Ebert was Catholic, Siskel was Jewish, and just after Siskel died in 1999, Ebert eulogized him for the Chicago Sun-Times, recounting a conversation they had after a speaking appearance at the Harvard Law School Film Society:

…Gene said, “The importance of Judaism isn’t simply theological, or, in the minds of some Jews, necessarily theological at all. It is that we have stayed together and respected these things for thousands of years, and so it is important that we continue.” ...Source: The Jewish Journal: Roger Ebert’s religion

White Catholics do not think in terms of “staying together [as a race] for thousands of years, respecting these things, and continue…] In fact, they foolishly worship the Jews’ otherwordly tribal deity.

[Will Williams]

Kim is a regular commenter at C-C and closer to the NA POV than are others there: https://counter-currents.com/2025/04/we ... e-we-suck/



Will Williams:April 22, 2025

Kim: April 21, 2025 I’d describe Roger Ebert, the anti-White male Hollywood film critic, as not a Jew, but most definitely, Jew-ish…
---


You’ve got that right. The profession of film critic is heavy with Jews who give cover to their Tribe’s dominence of Hollywood. That Roger married the Negress “Chaz’ confirms that he lost any claim to be a White man.

[Edit: I couldn't post this image to C-C, but can post it here at WB where it says "a 1,000words."]


I don’t know if author Neal Gabler is a Jew, but he sure blew the cover off of the dirty little secret of Jews founding and running Hollywood with his 1989 book An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood


—
I do miss my personal experience in a moderate/conservative (at the time) strong White Catholic neighborhood. There are many dormant former Catholics out there who are principled, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-divorce, & just perhaps… pro-White European. Some, like me, have already ditched multi-culti Maryland for WV.
---


There certainly are many “dormant” Catholics, like the “dormant” Presbyterians I grew up around in our White neighborhood in the then racially segregated South. More White former Christians will become more intelligent as we have. ;o}

Smart decision to ditch multi-culti Maryland for still mostly White, salubrious WV.

[Will Williams]

Scott may be the most long-winded C-C commentator, but usually makes interesting ones, covering multiple topics. This one was so long and impossible to unpack so I cherry-picked a couple of things he'd said -- reposting this week;s ADV as well as today's Today in History.: https://counter-currents.com/2025/03/re ... oel-davis/


Will Williams: April 25, 2025

Scott: March 25, 2025 >> The first issue I want to address is National Socialist nordicism and chauvinism. Trying to deny or minimize the Third Reich’s treatment of the conquered Slavs is a lost cause. It was a stupid policy that made enemies of people who should have been friends. However, it was never sustainable. <<
---

Scott, I suppose you were quoting someone else there by placing those carets. Consider this from this week’s ADV broadcast: Month of the Leader 2025, part 1 | National Vanguard . Kevin Strom noted:

“As for pan-Aryanism, Hitler’s change in attitude from his earlier disparagement of Slavs and his focus on Germans only has been well-chronicled in James Harting’s excellent article: Hitler and the Slavs in Historical Perspective | National Vanguard. He says in part:”

…Historically, Hitler’s view of the Slavic peoples was contentious and adversarial. It is not difficult to find hostile and aggressive remarks concerning the Slavs in both Hitler’s formal writings as well as in his informal discussions. In Mein Kampf, he ascribes his youthful awakening as a folkish nationalist to the ethnic struggles that he himself experienced between the Slavic Czechs and the Germans within the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Hitler’s mature attitude towards the Slavs, however, especially after 1938 or 1939, evolved and became nuanced. He recognized, for example, that there were large segments of the Czech and Slovenian Slavic peoples that were racially valuable, and he eagerly anticipated incorporating them into his postwar Greater Germanic Reich. In other words, he felt that not all Slavs were created equal.

Contemporary National Socialists view Adolf Hitler as the symbolic leader of the whole of the Aryan race. I, personally, believe that this conception of Hitler is correct and I embrace it enthusiastically. In Mein Kampf and elsewhere, Hitler spoke repeatedly about the fundamental, trans-national unity of the Aryan race, and specifically about the pan-Aryan nature of the struggle against international Jewry.

. . . Increasingly as the War went on, Hitler found himself as the de facto head of all of the Aryan peoples of Europe, and not just of the Germans or of the Germanics. Indeed, from the historical perspective that we now enjoy, we can see that despite being at war with Great Britain, it was Hitler who had the best long term interests of the British people at heart, and not the drunken Jewish cat’s paw Winston Churchill, who proved to be the true gravedigger of the British Empire.

By the end of the War, Hitler had come to realize that his historical role had expanded far beyond that of simply being the chancellor of the German Reich. In his Political Testament, written immediately before his death, he spoke of himself in the role of the defender of the “European children of the Aryan nations.”

---

Now it is a Hate Crime just to use the term Holocaust in any other context beside the sacred drama of the Jews. That is what passes for History these days…
---

How true! In the racisl struggle Jewry has the big battalions with its control of mass media, academia, Madison Avenue, “our” political process, etc., etc. Fact.

I had the TV on a day or so ago on C-CPAN and caught this unbelievable love fest: Holocaust Days of Remembrance Ceremony | Video | C-SPAN.org One may view it there, and can read the text of Mr. Eisenstadt’s speeech — so full of lies!


—

I found Mr. Joel Davis to be highly intelligent and his case to be clearly and soberly stated.
---

Like here:

The essence of National Socialism is the good of the nation being elevated above any individual interest. It is this total reevaluation of every aspect of social and political life according to the racial purity, spiritual unity, moral health and military strength of the nation that makes National Socialism the taking of the nationalist idea to its (ideo)logical conclusion.

The core principles of National Socialism were derived by distinguishing the nationalist idea from everything in European thought philosophically incompatible with it. The foundations for the nationalist idea were discovered to be biological racialism, folkishness, social organicism, anti-egalitarianism, and the existential view of life as struggle. The implications of the nationalist idea were subsequently discovered to be the necessity for proactive programs of dictatorship, militarism, antisemitism, eugenics, cultural hygiene, “the abolition of the thraldom of interest”, nationalisation of finance, full employment and autarky.

National Socialists locate the foundational source for the spirit and culture of a people in race. They therefore located in the foundation of the German spirit and culture in the racial stock, in the blood of the German people. Hence the embrace of policies of racial exclusion and eugenics, to maximise the blood purity of the German people and with it their purity of spirit and coherence of culture. This foundation makes it utterly impervious to any and all subversions of national identity from what it most fundamentally is – a community of blood…

* * * * *

It might be a good time to remember William Joyce, born this day, 24 April, 1906 in Brooklyn, New York.:

American-born writer, orator, and racial patriot of Irish and English descent, who attained fame broadcasting as “Lord Haw Haw” over German shortwave radio transmitters during World War 2. After the war, in an outrageous miscarriage of justice, Joyce is hung by the British for “treason” despite the fact that he was not a British citizen. His last words:

“In death as in life, I defy the Jews who caused this last war, and I defy the power of darkness which they represent. I warn the British people against the crushing imperialism of the Soviet Union. May Britain be great once again and in the hour of the greatest danger in the West may the swastika be raised from the dust, crowned with the words – ‘You have conquered nevertheless.’ I am proud to die for my ideals and I am sorry for the sons of Britain who have died without knowing why.”

[Will Williams]

I continue to try to radicalize those at C-C, but most there are still mired in right-wing, conservative nonsense: https://counter-currents.com/2025/04/sh ... o-college/ Nothing can shake them off that fence better than the words of Dr. Pierce from 1976, if they will pay attention to his wisdom.



Will Williams: April 25, 2025

Morality Squad: April 24, 2025 …Right Wing guys have always been more likely to date non-White women than Leftist guys’… Also, let’s not forget that RW and WN are two different things that overlap somewhat.
---

So-called Right Wing guys who “date” non-White women are lost to serious racial separatists. So are so-called Leftist guys who would do the same. Dr. Pierce explained to his National Alliance members nearly 50 years ago why NA is neither right-wing nor left-wing, and still isn’t today, in his classic speech: Our Cause | National Vanguard

…I’m sure that one of the difficulties people have in trying to understand us is that they can’t figure out quite how to categorize us. They’re accustomed to putting everything they encounter in life into little, mental pigeonholes labeled right-wing, left-wing, communist, racist, and so on. And once they’ve done that, they think they understand the thing.

Now the trouble is that we don’t quite fit any of the customary pigeonholes. And that is because the doctrine of the National Alliance, the truth for which we stand, is not just a rehash of old and familiar ideas but is really something new to Americans.

Perhaps the best way to approach an understanding of the Alliance is to start by getting rid of some of the most troublesome pigeonholes altogether. That is, by pointing out what we are not. We are not, as many people tend to assume at first, either a conservative or a right-wing group. And I’m not just trying to be cute when I say that. I’m not just trying to emphasize that we are a special right-wing group or a better right-wing group. In fact, our truth has very little in common with most right-wing creeds. We’re not interested, for example, in restoring the Constitution. The Constitution, written 200 years ago, served a certain purpose well for a time. But that time is now passed. Nor was its purpose the same as our purpose today. We’re not interested in states’ rights, in restoring the former sovereignty of the individual states. We do not believe, as our conservative friends do, that a strong and centralized government is an evil in itself. It is, in fact, a necessity in overcoming many of the obstacles which lie ahead of us as a people.

What else is dear to the hearts of right-wingers? Do we want to restore prayer and Bible reading to the public schools? Hardly. Anti-fluoridation? Nonsense. Income tax? Abortion? Pornography? Well, we may sympathize more with the right-wing position on these issues than we do with the left-wing position, but they are still only peripheral issues for us. They are not the reason why we are here. They are not the things we are prepared to die for.

There are, in fact, several issues on which we are closer to what would ordinarily be considered the left-wing or liberal position than we are to the conservative or right-wing position. One of these issues is the ecology issue: the protection of our natural environment, the elimination of pollution, and the protection of wildlife. And there are also other issues in which we are closer to the liberals than to the conservatives, although I doubt that we agree with them completely on any issue; just as we seldom, if ever, agree completely with the right-wing on any issue.

The reason for the lack of complete agreement, when there seems to be approximate agreement, with either the right or the left is that our position on every issue is derived from an underlying view of the world which is fundamentally different from those of either the right or the left. That is, to the extent that they have any underlying philosophy at all. Often there is none, and a great many people who identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or moderates simply have an assortment of views on various issues which are not related to any common idea, purpose, or philosophy.

Before we turn to a positive look at the Alliance, let me inject just a few more negatives…

Read more about Our Cause at the link above. If you then consider yourself a right-winger, the National Alliance is probably not for you.