So, a comprehensive guide to how I view the world, as requested by a number of people, who's mental capabilities are below average. Heh. Kidding. Well what's a blog for if not to explain some shit?

My views on race, ethnicity and history

So, the correct lablel would be a white supremacist. While "white supremacy" is often associated with being an insane racist yelling "kill all the niggers, all the j00s", it's not exactly about that. Killing niggers and jews and whoever else is like the cherry on top of the whole idea, a last resort if you will.

No, when I'm saying that I'm a white supremacist, I mean a very specific thing - the reality of the modern world. This reality is the following: caucasian civilization owns and runs this shit. We're everywhere. Our white european technology, religion, methodology, philosophy and science outlasted and outdone everything else. We are the leaders and the cement. In the turmoils of the last 2 millenia we came on top and made everyone else follow our guidline. You can talk all you want about ancient asian, negroid and so on civilizations in the stone age - it doesn't matter. Successul asian civilizations that we have now are not asian - they're managed by white european guidelines and methodology. So are everyone else. We have brought electricity, cheap food, housing, computing, logistics and globalization to the world. Not attempted - but did. To deny that this world is a white world is useless. When you send a mail, when you pick up food in the grocery store, when you sit down in your car or brush your teeth, when you pay at a restaurant or go watch a movie - you're immersed into whitness.

This is the reality, and this is white supremacy. Acknowledging and upholding the high standards of modern living.

Now, considering race... Unlike many, I won't pretend I know how anthropolgy or genetics work, especially in times when research is kept under the carpet. I'm a race realist grunt - ie, looking back at white supremacy we can argue WHY it happened so that caucasians got ahead, but... I won't argue because I don't have the credentials. I can only derive conclusions from observation and history. And these two things say pretty much that non-whites are non-competitors and lagging behind. In simpler terms - if other races were as good, we'd be living in Blacktopia now. Because we don't, it means that not everyone is equal. And if people are unequal, then a) why pretend they are, and b) we have to use that to our advantage and safety.

I don't hate blacks when they are in their native african territories. I don't hate asians when they are in their homelands. I begin to dislike them when they carry their malpractice to the territory I inhabit and work on. I know that it IS malpractice, because if their homelands weren't bad, they wouldn't leave. Two and two, simply. I'm against mixing oil and water. If they don't like white supremacy that much, well I guess all these vibrant and diverse races with all their collective brilliance can go build a spacecraft and found their own awesome multicult haven with blackjack and underage hookers on Mars. No whitey to hold ems down.

Therefore, I believe that apartheid is the only solution to the world's problems. Not necessarily a draconian apartheid, but apartheid non the less. So, when people of ethnicities that had proved themselves for millenia to be failures, move in and start demanding shit, I feel completely justified in being a racist asshole, so they'd go away and not spoil my turf. Racism is the only normal reaction to the displacement and disadvantaged treatment of titular nations.

I believe that the non-white world should deal with it's issues itself or perish. And that any aggression, attitude or hostility in general against whites should be answered threefold.

I also think that genocide is desirable in a purely evolutionary sense. Animal sub-species do it all the time.

My views on politics and societal structure

Let me preface this with the following. A lot of people think that right-wing conservatism is uncompatible with National-socialism. And that socialism, in many of right-wingers and nationalists eyes is some horrid evil and CULTURAL MARXISM ERMAHGERD.
So, everyone seems to miss one vital thing - almost every modern society is socialist in it's core. That is, if we define socialism as an ideology that demands a state to take care of it's citizens and provide for their needs or safety via provision of jobs and taxes. Basically, even a capitalist society is a socialist one. Probably a truely un-socialist society would be one, where the political system is monarchism or feudalism, but in the developed world, no such are left.

Because we're living in 21st century, I see National-socialism as a form of state where the socialist preferences are targeted only towards the nations citizens. Simple as that. A nationalist state that provides for it's citizens when these citizens meet the requirements for well, citizenship. Ergo, the state protects local business, protects itself on the global arena and ensures that this state is strong, economically, demographically and so on. For the people, by the people, eagle. I think that free grade-school education, rudimentary, yet functioning, free medical care, limited censorship and caring for the elderly are good thigs. The question is, how much must be sacrificed for all that.

That's it, nothing more. Well, though, three more things. First, I am against the idea of a nanny state. In my opinion, a state must maintain a balance between taxation and social security. And second, I believe in the concept of "earned" citizenship, and that's possibly the most "radical" of my otherwise mild views on society. That is, I believe that only those people who were filtered through a set of milestones (military service, higher education, some barrier of income, etc) are getting the "citizen" status and all the associated social benefits. Or we could call them "first class citizens" or some other name. Only these people should be able to vote, and only these people and their families in such a state structure are granted protections. This system should also be mobile - crimes should strip the status off, and achievements - elevate towards it.

And the third thing - I strongly oppose egalitarism. I believe in a state that aknowledges the disparity between people, a state that rewards those who benefit the nation, and ignore and neglects those who mooch and parasitize. I think that the idea of equality of opportunity and even more so, the absolutely abhorrent idea of equality of result, must be abolished.

One more big point - I value a nation's sovereignity. For example - I don't particularly like middle eastern regimes, peoples and traditions. I outright DISLIKE them. But I feel that no nation should have a "carte blanche" on involving themselves with such countries affairs unless there's some direct shit going on between them.

My views on religion and science

I'm not a religious person and I don't belong to any denomination. I also firmly believe in secularism, ie the separation of church and state on a FORMAL level. However, and notice that I underlined the "formal" part, I understand that a nation and ethnicity are complex structures that have produced religion in accordance to the mass psychology of the nation, and are in return, formed by the resultant product.  Therefore, I somewhat reluctantly protect Christianity. A lot in Christianity I see as downright harmful to the white man - however, history showed that Christianity played a big role in our advancement, so there I am - a non-theist aknowledging it's integral importance.

Another thing I'm against is the ongoing attempt to put science and religion on polar ends of some proverbial stick. People who do that are total morons and should shut about both of those topics. Religion and belief play one role in the society. Science - a completely other role. I'm against dei-fying science and against religion being made into one, too.
Considering science, I do believe that some of it's branches are heavily politicized, and that blind belief in anything slightly science-like breeds pseudo-science crap and the same shitty religious fanaticism, only of a different color.

My views on social justice and current affairs

Personally, I think we're standing on the precipice of some great societal change. Our civilization, however great it is, has lost it's momentum and vector.

Instead of going to space, instead of evolving into something more refined, we're trying to figure out how to make homos feel better, "fight against racism and women rights", poor money in the black asshole called Africa and the growing numbers of worthless hungry mouths demanding shit from us because of some "privilege". Achievers get accused of success, talentless hacks got cuddled. Everyone's got a story to tell - we all heard about it, from the Queen of England to the hounds of hell.

The whole Apocalypse hysteria year after year, the fascination with zombies is the reflection of this subconcious worry - we desperately want a condition where this system that allows failure to grow and prosper, to finally crash. We want to get our hands on these hordes of human waste, and to act with real justice and fairness. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in the end. It's like a tightening screw - one day it will fly off from the tension. I feel it will happen soon, when inner and outer pressure builds up, and we won't be able to hide behind our comfort and feel-goods, when the ugly reality rears it's head up.

The ugly reality that the 1% can no longer feed 99% of human-shaped shit. Untill then, it will just get stronger, this public stench of misery, self-victimization and demands. Brace yourself - recess is coming. and clash of civilizations is inevitable.

What bother's me the most though is that we have lost the native to white people idea of constant self-improvement. This drive for Nietzche's ubermensch was replaced by a culture of suffering and complaint, of placid acceptance and wound-licking. No, I believe in hard work and betterment of man, of reaching limits and ideals, through blood and sweat. That's what makes better people and better future, not pandering to the lowest denominators.


Now, to answer some common questions:

"How can you be a Russian and a National-Socialist? Hitler hated slavic people!"

Easy. Let's look at this question in complex.
First off, National-socialism didn't contain "hate" against other ethnicities. What it did, was describe what an ideal Germany should be, from a social and economical point of view. This ideology-political system sought to put Germany and germanic ideology on top of all others, and the racialist talk was addendum to justify the cause. Therefore, National-socialsm in a sense is no different than liberalism (tried to describe an ideal France) or communism/marxism. These are pure ideologies. So, if we russians had first absorbed Christianity, then Monarchism (which was foreign to us too), marxism (German once again) and then capitalistic socialism (American), why can't the same be done with National-socialism or fascism?

Oh right. Because "Hitler hated slavic people". This is a two-fold story. A lot of people hated slavic people. First of, Germans from the beginning of all those Crusade thingies - great example of intra-Christian fighting. Then Swedes who tried to bite off land from us. Napoleon Bonaparte, who still is hailed in France, hated Russian People. Americans STILL hate slavic people, Cold war and Serbian war, remember those? It's natural. Nations fight for land and resource, leaders rally their men against others and find justifications for aggression. Meh. History's all about it. That would be if it was so...

But, the idea that Hitler wanted to exterminate all russians is skewed heavily. The racial purity leaders of the Third Reich were EDUCATED in Russia. Hitler called Russians a "great people", and though he stated that russians were historically overperforming only under Germanic rule (que our queens), the talk of subjugation only began to emerge after Wehrmacht's back was broken in the Eastern front and desperate propaganda rhetoric developed. Somehow, when you hear about the "Hitler wanted to genocide all Slavs", you never hear about ROA, the Russian Freedom Army that operated under Wehrmacht, or the more widely-known Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of friendship, and etc.

If wartime propaganda was integral to political ideologies, I guess then Vietnamese should blow up all american's on sight.

"So, I'm black/asian/jewish/transethnic, do you wanna kill me/how will you judge me?"

Yes, I do want to kill people that ask such questions.

"If you lived in Third Reich Germany, you'd be killed for making such degenerate art, who's clever now?"

Firstly, history doesn't know speculation. Secondly, if I lived in Third Reich Germany, chances are you wouldn't live at all. Thirdly - probably I'd be working happily in Der Sturmer.

"So, what's the difference between a National-Socialist and a Neo-Nazi?"

Neo-Nazis exist only in feel-good american movies about brave magical blacks and oppressed minorities. A national-socialist is a real person with a real occupation, life, and so on. A Neo-Nazi is an urban myth monster. Sometimes we National-socialists call each other Nazis, but hey - it's like the word "nigger", bahahaha. Only we can use it.

"You're not a real National-socialist. All you people wear gasmasks, listen to angry music, like Warhammer, and act all edgy. Real National-socialists attend super-sekrit meetings and hack ADL. You mad yet faggot?"

You're right. I never outgrew my rebellious phase. This urge to go out and paint a backwards swastika on the nearest trashcan is overpowering me right now.

"How can someone be so angry and stupid in our time! Omaigawsh, only what I believe is teh truf truf!"

I don't know how. I never pushed throught the agenda that I'm an all-knowing wise sage. What I always underlined is that I belive that every person's reality is warped by their experience, and I'm no exclusion. In my point of view, I'm not stupid, and I'm sure that's what EVERYONE thinks about themselves. However, I'm fairly certain that my experiences somewhat exceed the experiences of an average twenty-something white european middle-class person, hence why I open my mouth and type words on the internet.

"How can you be a member of the press and support National-Socialism! Totalitarian regimes were against free speech!"

There's a little paradox about free speech and freedom in particular that was disovered by the USSR and USA simultaneously after WW2. This paradox is almost Orweillan in nature. I call it "The Ship Paradox", and I'm very proud of it.

Firstly, why it's called "The Ship Paradox"? There's a saying in Russian - "How you call the ship is how it will float" (Как корабль назовешь, так он и поплывет). In translation it means, that how you name something influences the perception on what's being named. That's the inevitable working of human psyche.

In relation to the topic at hand, both these superpowers discovered, that through mass-media its very easy to deploy certain values and virtues as inarguable and "default", and by invoking them, anchor the rightness of the naming in people's names. Basically, the word "freedom" ("love", "liberty", "democracy") are anchored in our conciousness as inarguably good and desired concepts. And by attaching these concepts to ourselves, it makes us feel good and accomplished, as Maslow once pointed out.  We like to think about ourselves and our collectives in a positive manner, it's a human trait. And it's an exploitable trait.

Governments of democratic countries utilized this principle to the fullest. The american public, in particular, was hammered for decades with the memes that "we are the land of the free", "we are for freedom and world peace", "we are the good guys", "we are the free", over and over, through all means and mediums. This became a default. The USSR did the same. En masse - not on a level of a individual - people do believe that. They don't QUESTION it. The goverments attached the lable of the "freedom defender" to itself and floated with it proudly.

The biggest perk? You can do all kinds of shit in the name of such an abstract and positive concept.

However, that's just NAMING. Freedom, and freedom of speech, in these cases exist with a plethora of "if's". What is "freedom of speech" here in Russia, is "hate speech" in USA (and the notion of hate speech itself defies the idea of free speech), and what is "freedom of speech" in USA is a capital offence in North Korea. So, it's all meaningless constructs.

The ideas of freedom are as fluid as diarrhea. I don't believe in freedom. There are just cases when some thoughts might be transmitted because someone permitted so, and vice versa.

"You're hella wimpy, and all those guns you have mean you're weakass. I betcha you'd run away from big black guys, how did you even function in the army, did you do paperwork, hurr hurr?"

Yeah. This question/accustation. A lot of people who say this are american. If you don't know, from in the 50's a lot of US citizens began eating food, made out of animals injected with growth hormones. Farms sought for business effectiveness, enlarged animals for more meat. In any case, it's a well-documented fact that this accelerated US citizen growth, including the following generations. That's not the case in all other countries around the world.

In any case, in modern combat handling a gun is very important, even more important that raw physical strength. Yeah, carrying gear around means you have to be quite sturdy, but again - not in all armies you're required to lag around 20 kilos of gear.

"Why do you hate blacks and homosexuals? They can't help what they are and you shouldn't judge people on their skin color/sexual orientation!"

I can't help myself judging people. It's just how I am, ahahaha. But seriously, what CAN we judge people for? Noone seems to answer that one. In any case, I like statistic and big numbers theory. In the wild, when the ancient man saw a bigass wolf-pack, he didn't break out into musing "hmm, there's no clear indication that these wolves wanna rip me to shreds. Maybe they're just taking a walk? I shouldn't judge them all as a pack anyway, they're all free individuals. I'll just wait and see - ouch, one bit my leg - well doesn't matter, what if it's his pack way to greet a human?". No, the man fled or fought, because his glance judgment of the wolves said "you're most likely gonna be food, these fellas would rip you to bits".

Same with humans. Our passing judgement, coupled with our knowledge about people, both personal and impersonal from other sources, is usually correct. So - judge away.

---

That's all, folks!