Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 10th, 2012 #41
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
"You slump-shouldered sack of nuts! Why, we'd look like a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies, bragging on our own midget, don't matter how stumpy."
Mock all you like, but you won't be able to change Wiki in any significant way. People have tried many times. But if you really want to try, why don't you set up a private usergroup (so Wiki editors don't know where you're going to edit), invite people who are interested to it and begin trying? Pick a fairly harmless article and just add something to it. See how long it lasts.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #42
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Quote:
I see this as basically admitting defeat without any desire or effort to engage in a struggle with our opposition. So are we to just continue to sit on our hands and bitch and moan, or are we to engage in a struggle in an area where we can at least get our foot in the door?
No, I edited the last sentence in before I saw your response.

I was just pointing out the logistics of it. You'd have to have a lot of people helping, not advertise what article you are modifying to the public, and be really subtle. I'm not sure how subtle you would have to be or if people would be able to come to the conclusion that we would want though. It's worth a try if there's enough interest.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #43
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by varg View Post
No, I edited the last sentence in before I saw your response.

I was just pointing out the logistics of it. You'd have to have a lot of people helping, not advertise what article you are modifying to the public, and be really subtle. I'm not sure how subtle you would have to be or if people would be able to come to the conclusion that we would want though. It's worth a try if there's enough interest.
I am well aware at what an excercise in frustration editing at Wikipedia can be; I personally don't have the patience or the subtility for it; but I have in the past managed to make long-standing changes to certain articles, even if it was a matter of compromise and all the changes I tried to make weren't permanent; at least some of them were retained. It is tremendously infuriating; but if WNs can't handle an editing war at Wikipedia, we stand a snowball's chance in hell at handling anything else.

If nothing else, we might unleash an epidemic of paranoia that would cause the current clique of Wikipedia editors to turn on each other and burn the place down.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #44
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Mock all you like, but you won't be able to change Wiki in any significant way. People have tried many times. But if you really want to try, why don't you set up a private usergroup (so Wiki editors don't know where you're going to edit), invite people who are interested to it and begin trying? Pick a fairly harmless article and just add something to it. See how long it lasts.
Sorry but your suggestion that we try to duplicate Wikipedia just put me in mind of a certain dialogue from the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou" when a politician's political advisors suggested to him that mimicing the opposition might be a potential strategy.

Imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, but it blows as a political strategy.

Last edited by Steven L. Akins; July 10th, 2012 at 09:36 AM.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #45
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Speaking on our 'own' wikis:

I think what WN needs more is a mocking/satire site like Encyclopedia Dramatica. Which would be the form a VNN Wiki would probably be best at.

I think mocking wikis have a lot more interest than stuffy wikipedia pages.

ex: http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Racism

Last edited by varg; July 10th, 2012 at 10:54 AM. Reason: zz
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #46
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

I personally see no point in trying to alter Wikipedia when the people running it obviously will not allow anyone to edit articles away from the conventional bias. Why waste hours that can be negated by our enemy making a simple mouse click?

I think the right thing to do is to pick a specific subset of information and make an alternative wiki. For example, a lexicon of all politically charged terminology. Translating leftspeak or jewspeak into ordinary White terms. If something like that were well done, it might attract eyeballs.

There's no point to calling whites who don't want to work to revise wikipedia defeatists until you have identified precisely who owns Wikipedia, how its top editorship is structured, and a plausible way of turning the tide through coordinated effort. As far as I'm concerned, it is self-evident that it impossible to do more than alter a few basically insignficant articles around the margin for a few hours; any more ambitious attempt will get shot down. So I think it's a waste of time. The idea that taking it over is possible by my experience is ridiculous, and if it's not, then you have to explain just where the opportunity is. It's just not there. Clearly the guy running has no problem with people forcing every single article touching politics even remotely (such as stuff about Solutreans, for example) to reflect the same leftist bias we see in every other 'mainstream' utility.

WN is doing just fine on the internet. Look around. There are more sites than ever. Look at the comment sections. You see our arguments almost everywhere you look. We're doing pretty well on the internet. I can think of a lot of better ways to expend energy than trying to assault a castle.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 10th, 2012 at 01:17 PM.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #47
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by varg View Post
Speaking on our 'own' wikis:

I think what WN needs more is a mocking/satire site like Encyclopedia Dramatica. Which would be the form a VNN Wiki would probably be best at.

I think mocking wikis have a lot more interest than stuffy wikipedia pages.
You might be right. Wiki is the big dog. There is no real way to compete with it as a general resource. Remember we had the guy Victor who came up with a white search engine? Nice thought and effort, but it's just a matter of scale. We can't compete on that level at this point.

There is nothing we can come up with that will be as comprehensive as Wikipedia, therefore even if people share our bias, they are going to use the known mainstream resource because ours won't be 1/1000th as comprehensive.

So instead of taking on something we can't do, we should focus on something we can do: a subset (like a political Wiki), or a different take (like satire, as Varg is saying). Become known as the place to go for something. That is how you become known and get a reputation. For example, when I started VNN, it was just me writing spintros daily. What set it apart? It was daily, it was funny, it was from a perspective you seldom see, and it was high quality. You can't get that many places. So it drew people quickly. And not by any advertising or attempt to promote it.

So I would say Encylopedia Dramatica or Urban Dictionary or Metapedia are better examples of what we can do successfully. But again, stuff like this only succeeds when you have 100% dedication by at least one person over an extended amount of time. Anything short of that, it will just buzz and bust like a firework.

Someone who was serious would see what's out there, would make a long-term plan, would work the plan. One person alone could probably do it. But if he had plans easily comprehensible to others, it could easily scale up with their participation. Especially for something that is incremental, like a dictionary or encyclopedia.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #48
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I personally see no point in trying to alter Wikipedia when the people running it obviously will not allow anyone to edit articles away from the conventional bias. Why waste hours that can be negated by our enemy making a simple mouse click?

I think the right thing to do is to pick a specific subset of information and make an alternative wiki. For example, a lexicon of all politically charged terminology. Translating leftspeak or jewspeak into ordinary White terms. If something like that were well done, it might attract eyeballs.

There's no point to calling whites who don't want to work to revise wikipedia defeatists until you have identified precisely who owns Wikipedia, how its top editorship is structured, and a plausible way of turning the tide through coordinated effort. As far as I'm concerned, it is self-evident that it impossible to do more than alter a few basically insignficant articles around the margin for a few hours; any more ambitious attempt will get shot down. So I think it's a waste of time. The idea that taking it over is possible by my experience is ridiculous, and if it's not, then you have to explain just where the opportunity is. It's just not there. Clearly the guy running has no problem with people forcing every single article touching politics even remotely (such as stuff about Solutreans, for example) to reflect the same leftist bias we see in every other 'mainstream' utility.

WN is doing just fine on the internet. Look around. There are more sights than ever. Look at the comment sections. You see our arguments almost everywhere you look. We're doing pretty well on the internet. I can think of a lot of better ways to expend energy than trying to assault a castle.
For all the "we are doing fine" results that you speak of, we are still just preaching to the choir.

The only people listening are those who are already at least partly thinking the way we think - maybe they haven't quite put all the pieces together, and sites like VNN may help them to do that; but we are still scaring off the same people we have always scared off instead of changing their minds.

To change people's minds, it is necessary to have control of the information that they use. This is why the Jews have been winning for decades, because of their control over the media, which shapes people's attitudes and how they think and behave.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #49
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
Sorry but your suggestion that we try to duplicate Wikipedia just put me in mind of a certain dialogue from the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou" when a politician's political advisors suggested to him that mimicing the opposition might be a potential strategy.

Imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, but it blows as a political strategy.
Oh, sorry. I'm not familiar with the film so I thought you were just being strangely and randomly sarcastic out of the blue.

As for "blows as a political strategy", it hasn't done the "big 3" parties in Britain any harm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by varg View Post
Speaking on our 'own' wikis:

I think what WN needs more is a mocking/satire site like Encyclopedia Dramatica. Which would be the form a VNN Wiki would probably be best at.

I think mocking wikis have a lot more interest than stuffy wikipedia pages.

ex: http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Racism
Win.

I can just imagine something like that if the likes of Steve B and/or Mike Todd were to be involved. In fact, old threads that they've participated in probably contain enough to make a fair start.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #50
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Just noticed this on their front page: http://encyclopediadramatica.se/The_..._of_Americunts

This could have been the same thing for the VNN "Kwan" though with more facts.

ED isn't even a WN site but you can see how they almost parrot us.

Last edited by varg; July 10th, 2012 at 11:27 AM. Reason: ..
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #51
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
For all the "we are doing fine" results that you speak of, we are still just preaching to the choir.
Not true. A multiple of the people posting on VNN are reading it. Look around at mainstream sites, if they allow comments, you will see stuff just like you'd read here. You see this over and over, particularly in anything touching on crime or Israel. People are becoming aware of our arguments.

Quote:
The only people listening are those who are already at least partly thinking the way we think - maybe they haven't quite put all the pieces together, and sites like VNN may help them to do that; but we are still scaring off the same people we have always scared off instead of changing their minds.

To change people's minds, it is necessary to have control of the information that they use. This is why the Jews have been winning for decades, because of their control over the media, which shapes people's attitudes and how they think and behave.
I'll say as I always do, it's not that people disagree with us half as much as simple animal fear of the consequences of openly being one of us. The mass mind is basically a function of the attitudes put out over cable tv, in my opinion. The internet mainstream utility sites just reinforce the tv agenda and memes.

All we have to do, so far as the internet is concerned, is keep doing more of what we are doing, particularly more video. We will never win over the masses at any point short of taking over cable tv. We will not take over cable tv through media efforts but only through having a massive national political vehicle on the verge of or already having taken power. The jews are no more going to allow WN an unmolested cable tv channel to go out over their cable satellites than they are going to allow WN to take over a mainstream internet utility like google or wikipedia.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #52
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The basic problem is that wikipedia says it allows anyone to edit its articles...but in fact it doesn't. It only allows you to edit if you accepts its basic editorial position, which we here all reject. Why pretend wikipedia is some neutral entity we WN have failed to use when we all know from experience that's not the case? This is a variant of the arument 'we're doing it to ourselves' - your own experience, and mine, and many others', shows that's not the case. I edited my own personal bio. They switched it back. I'm not going to waste hundreds of man-hours when they control the switches, that's foolish. I'm going to control and build and work on something that the enemy doesn't control. And trust that I can do something valuable enough to attract attention from others.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 10th, 2012 at 01:20 PM.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #53
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Oh, sorry. I'm not familiar with the film so I thought you were just being strangely and randomly sarcastic out of the blue.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #54
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AClan_Akins

Quote:
Note that only the Lord Lyon King of Arms can revive the Chieftancy of a Scottish clan. After investigation of Steven Lewis Akins' claims, he has not found grounds to do so. Therefore the following sentence is not a "verifiable fact of historic record" and has been removed from the article in accordance with the stated principles of The Clan Akins Association.
Today, after more than three centuries of dormancy, the chiefship of the Clan Akins has been revived by the clan's current Chief, Steven Lewis Akins of that Ilk, a direct hereditary descendant of the ancestral line, Akins assumed the heraldic achievement belonging to the original branch of the name of Akins of that Ilk in 1998.
As a result of the Lord Lyon's decision, it is illegal in Scotland to claim that anyone is Chief of Clan Akins (it's seen as a type of fraud) and people or organisations doing so risk prosecution in the Scottish courts. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:23, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #55
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by varg View Post
What you quoted from the Wikipedia editor is an excellent example of the sort of misinformation, outright lies and half-truths that Wikipedia engages in as part of its agenda.

Here is the actual truth where Scots law, the Lord Lyon, and clan chiefships are concerned; something I pointed out to the other Wikipedia editors to no avail:

Quote:
While the Lord Lyon is the foremost authority and arbiter in matters pertaining to the legal protection and use of coats of arms recorded in Scotland's Lyon Register, he has no power to determine the status of Clan Chiefship. This is made clear in the Introduction to the Law of Scotland, 9th edition, 1987, p. 25, where we read:
Quote:
The Lord Lyon King of Arms has jurisdiction, subject to appeal to the Court of Session and the House of Lords, in questions of heraldry, and the right to bear arms. (Hunter v. Weston (1882) 9 R 492, Mackenzie v. Mackenzie (1920) S.C. 764, affd. 1922 S.C. (H.L.) 39.) He has no jurisdiction to determine rights of precedence (Royal College of Surgeons v. Royal College of Physicians, 1911 S.C. 1054.), nor to decide a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship. (Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, 1938 S.L.T. 49; and see 1941 S.C. 613.)”
This was determined in part by the case of Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, in which Lord Wark stated:
Quote:
“I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan....The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law. It was decided in the case College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v. College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1911 S.C. 1054), that Lyon has no jurisdiction except as is conferred by statute, or is vouched by the authority of an Institutional writer, or by continuous and accepted practice of the Lyon Court....in my opinion, there is no practice or precedent which entitled Lyon to decide a question of disputed chiefship or chieftainship, either by itself or incidentally to a grant of arms....But it is a different thing altogether to say that in a case of dispute Lyon has jurisdiction to determine and declare who is chief. For that no precedent has been cited to us. In my opinion, it is outwith his jurisdiction to decide because (1) at best it is a question merely of social status or precedence; (2) this social status is not one recognised by law; and (3) and, most important of all, it depends, not upon any principle of law of succession which can be applied by a Court of Law, but upon recognition by the clan itself. Like your Lordship, I am at a loss to understand how any determination or decree of Lyon ever could impose upon a clan a head which it did not desire to acknowledge.”
Just out of curiousity, Varg, is there any way that you can interpret what Wikipedia Editor Derek Ross had to say out of the above cited Scottish legal statutes that I have quoted for you? Would you say that there is any sort of ambiguity in the matter where Scottish Law clearly states:

Quote:
"The Lord Lyon King of Arms has....no jurisdiction to determine rights of precedence, nor to decide a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship."
Yet, clearly the editors of Wikipedia have expressed a demonstrable intrest in promoting the fiction that Lord Lyon has the legal capacity to do so, even though it is denied to him by Scottish Law.

Last edited by Steven L. Akins; July 10th, 2012 at 12:57 PM.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #56
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

Wikipedia etc is just a diversionary tactic.

The vast majority of people don't read, they watch videos or TV.

Even those who do read, are affected far more by pictures than words.

A picture, especially a gif, paints a thousand words.



How many adverts consist of text, and how many consist of images. There's a reason for that.

With freely available poster/meme generators, they are far easier and more effective to put together than articles no-one who matters reads anyway.

How many people read something doesn't matter. What does matter is who reads it, and what actions they take thereafter.

Those few that do read who matter, certainly don't get their info from anonymous writers on Wikipedia.

They always use primary sources, read analysts they trust, and speak to those they know.

They make up their minds usually based on self-interest, on what their peer group thinks, and most important to them is what the people they know personally think.

They know all to well how easy it is to be led to conclusions




As V stated,

"And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."




And there, in a nutshell, is how Jews led Whites into this labyrinth of nightmares. Whites now wander about lost, as Jews pop their heads around various corners shouting "Here!" No! This way" " Follow me!" then shrieking and giggling insanely like maniacs as they waddle off, panting and squealing with excitement, as they lead Whites ever deeper into the labyrinth.

We can see here how they developed the labyrinth.






The action that stops a nightmare, is waking up.

As with all Jewish productions, the labyrinth is just an illusion. The moment you awaken and see the Jew as they are, the nightmare fades away, and the entire illusion Jews have spent so many millenia building, fades away like mist before the morning sun.

Once people understand the Jew and how they work, Jewish tricks, propaganda etc mean nothing.

If people don't understand the Jews, then no matter what we do, people will simply get confused.

The primary task we have before us is to awaken the critical mass of people to the Jew.

Nothing else we do can ever be of greater significance, and if people do nothing else but awaken others to the Jew, then they have done the most important thing they could possibly have done.


We each over the course of our lives know and come into contact with thousands of people personally, family, friends, colleagues etc. and thus we are already part of immense networks, where we have great influence.

We do not need to form networks, we each already have them. Over time, slowly, carefully, where we are, monitor and guide the people in our networks, select who is ready for awakening, and then awaken them.

It is always easier to awaken those we know, and those who know and trust us, than try to persuade absolute strangers to trust absolute strangers.

That's why its important WN join as mnay mainstream organisations as possible, not to speak about these issues to them at large, but so as to expand our networks, improve our appearance and abilities, and increase the number we can seek through to find those ready for awakening.

Appearance is everything. If you appear to be a pillar of the community, and appear to be a leader, then what you say will be taken seriously.
If you appear to be a lowlife, or appear to be a follower, then no-one will pay any attention to you. Dress, look and speak like other leaders do, and people will treat you like one. If you don't, they won't.

We can see this with the political leaders of today.

People support the person who looks like the person they always wanted to be, or who looks like father they always wanted to have.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf

Last edited by Hugh; July 10th, 2012 at 01:36 PM.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #57
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
What you quoted from the Wikipedia editor is an excellent example of the sort of misinformation, outright lies and half-truths that Wikipedia engages in as part of its agenda.

Here is the actual truth where Scots law, the Lord Lyon, and clan chiefships are concerned; something I pointed out to the other Wikipedia editors to no avail:
But if you can't prevail in a matter where you probably care about 1000x more than they do, why do think that anyone else or any other group is going to do any better?

It would probably take about $500 million in funding turned over to Jimmy Wales or whoever he is to even get in the door. And even if you did that and began to have influence, the jews would simply use their billions to create a new wikipedia that would supplant the old one.

Let's fight them where we can win. I don't see how we can build a better search engine than google, or massive online encyclopedia like Wikipedia, or video platform like youtube. These things have access to huge levels of funding and technical expertise we don't have among our own at this point.

What do we have that jews don't? We have lots of good writers. We have arguments that resound with the vast majority of the white population. We can create websites and forums and radio shows outside the mainstream that are easily accessible to anyone who wants to view or listen to them. So that's where our effort should be. The rest will have to wait on an overt political solution. As we make a party and attract adherents, we will have more money in our coffers, which will expand our options.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #58
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The jews have a synergy we don't. They control the big known platforms, and all these mutually support and refer and network. This is nothing that can be got around short of our controlling the entire political system. But that doesn't mean there isn't important work we can do on the margins, and we're doing it. But the margins will only become mainstream when we win. And our winning is not mainly a media problem but a political problem.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #59
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
What you quoted from the Wikipedia editor is an excellent example of the sort of misinformation, outright lies and half-truths that Wikipedia engages in as part of its agenda.

Here is the actual truth where Scots law, the Lord Lyon, and clan chiefships are concerned; something I pointed out to the other Wikipedia editors to no avail:
Was merely bringing it to your attention. Personally I don't care if you want to give yourself the title of grand poobah of clan Akins. I don't see the point though. Do you even have citizenship to Scotland? Upon being recognized, will you get the title to a castle, get your own plaid design, be able to change Scotch Tape's logo, or something cool like that?
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #60
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
What you quoted from the Wikipedia editor is an excellent example of the sort of misinformation, outright lies and half-truths that Wikipedia engages in as part of its agenda.

No, what we are seeing is a typical case of your disinformation.

What actually matters is the official response by the Lord Lyons to you regarding your claim.

Where is his official response to you in full regarding your claim?
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 AM.
Page generated in 0.20359 seconds.