New York Times Accuses Varg Vikernes of Being “Alt-Right”

varg-spear

Democratic Party shilling and identity politics peddling newspaper the New York Times labeled Varg Vikernes of Burzum as “alt-right” in yet another social justice warring piece whining about Donald Trump’s triumph. “Alt-right” has seemingly become a new scarlet letter for neoliberal propagandists to paint their conservative opponents who aren’t the Republican Party’s traditional Christian and business interest constituents. Modern leftists can never appeal to the competent, gainfully employed, and rational so they must constantly invent new slurs to slander those who see straight through the thin veneer of the liberal social narrative plastered over urban societal rot.

Varg Vikernes is dangerous to the left owing to his views as a survivalist, nationalist, and patriarch of a traditional European human family. Families like the Cachets reproducing represent an eventual electoral threat to political parties counting upon importing hordes of uneducated and unwashed third worlders, having them leach social services and steal the taxes paid by the state’s legal citizenry, and then eventually enfranchise them and their children.

The left does not want their bused-in barbarian immigrants to actually succeed in adopting enough aspects of the native culture to function within it and have their children assimilated into it. The left wishes to keep them in ghettos for generations to guarantee votes through providing social services they would not otherwise need if upwardly mobile, being forced to pay the price for failure, and demonizing their more conservative political opponents for daring toe speak the truth about insolent cultures and the universal failures of multiculturalism. Gulags, reservations, and public housing projects are all seen by the left as concentration camps of votes.

Men like Varg Vikernes speaking their mind are so poisonous to politicans’ fortunes as those men expose the lies and failures of the liberal social narrative of civil rights, liberation, and social justice used to preserve the leftist power. Stable family units raising children to be proud of their heritage threatens those pandering to societal degeneracy by appropriating funds from schools and infrastructure to treat the diseases of sexual deviants (who of course will never breed offspring into the pyramid scheme) paying nature’s price for their hundreds of unprotected sexual partners. Successful children from stable families threaten the fortunes of the Democratic Party and their lying shills.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

17 thoughts on “New York Times Accuses Varg Vikernes of Being “Alt-Right””

  1. GGALLIN1776 says:

    Norsk Arisk Black Metal Partridge Family.
    The NYT is subpar toilet paper, I’m not sure why anyone reads that swill.

  2. Necronomeconomist says:

    “The left wishes to keep them in ghettos for generations to guarantee votes through providing social services they would not otherwise need if upwardly mobile, being forced to pay the price for failure,”

    Daniel, your cynicism veers into absurdly conspiratorial paranoia. The ghettoised motherfuckers and your welfare-queen bogeywomen don’t vote.

    Vikernes is not dangerous to anything.
    If you disagree, just wait awhile and … “LET’S FIND OUT!”

    1. Skull Powder says:

      They do vote. At a lower rate, yes, but the ones who do will consistently overwhelmingly vote left for the free stuff.

    2. Maarat the beaner says:

      That bean-eating mongoloid Maarat is the funniest example of a guy who swallows every conspiracy theory as eagerly as his mom swallows her client’s semen.
      I bet in his tiny spic brain he even belives in reptilians ruling the world (together with Jews, communists and antifa of course)

  3. This man is mostly just dangerous TO OUR SOULS

  4. George Sanders says:

    So, alt-right is the new nazi?

  5. Rainer Weikusat says:

    Very cool picture.

    I’ve read the NYT article three times but still haven’t managed to figure what it’s actually trying to say. Minus being offensive, that is, eg, [paraphrase] “alt-right are frustrated, young white men who can’t get laid be because they’re socially awkward”.

  6. Anthony says:

    Varg has essentially converted to Marxism according to those last few anti-Molyneux spergouts he uploaded. You’d think the commies would welcome him with open arms.

    1. are you kidding? says:

      What a petty grain you have there.
      If it is not white it must be black.
      Doesn’t think capitalism is the solution, must be a Marxist.
      What an imbecile you are.
      He shuts on Marxism on that same breath as he shat on Capitalism.
      You’d know if you had actually paid attention to every word he said and wrote.

  7. Goat-Lord says:

    Fuck ALL sides of politics.
    Simple as that.

  8. Belisario says:

    You (Daniel and the site) seem to constantly relate (neo)liberalism with leftism as being essentially the same thing. That may be true in a way for the US political system, since both entities are contained in the same political party, but in the field of ideas they are quite far from each other. If, roughly speaking, (neo)liberalism is about “freedom” and leftism is about “equality”, that makes quite a difference in a number of contexts. Furthermore, there are many different political lefts, and political (neo)liberalism is actually rather located on the right side of the political spectrum.

    1. Penis says:

      Yeah, and feminism is only about women’s rights.
      We know what real definitions are, but we live in the real word and, as Wittgenstein would have it, speak to be efficient.

    2. Yeah, and feminism is about no more than women’s rights.
      We know what the definitions are, but we live in the real world, and as Wittgenstein would have it, we speak to be efficient in our communication.

    3. If, roughly speaking, (neo)liberalism is about “freedom” and leftism is about “equality”, that makes quite a difference in a number of contexts.

      Both of those things are substitutes for their natural equivalents in order to justify egalitarianism.

  9. Yeah, and feminism is about no more than women’s rights.
    We know what the definitions are, but we live in the real world, and as Wittgenstein would have it, we speak to be efficient in our communication.

Comments are closed.