Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts
Local Blogs
Miscellaneous

Old July 9th, 2012 #21
Angel Ramsey
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
Looks can be deceiving, particularly where women are concerned.
Steven, I love you. You crack me up, so much......but you can be the biggest asshole on the planet.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #22
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel Ramsey View Post
Steven, I love you. You crack me up, so much......but you can be the biggest asshole on the planet.
Every man is, some just hide it better than others.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #23
Angel Ramsey
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
Every man is, some just hide it better than others.
+1 to Akins. I'm married to the biggest. ( And he would take that as a compliment)
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #24
keifer
Senior Member
 
keifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hells Half Acre
Posts: 1,813
keifer
Default

Akins, how would you edit this link? Would you do it by adding your name to the list of notable individuals?


White_nationalism White_nationalism
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #25
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keifer View Post
Akins, how would you edit this link? Would you do it by adding your name to the list of notable individuals?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism
I would change or eliminate the parts that I have highlighted in bold italics:

Quote:
White nationalism is a political ideology which advocates a racial definition of national identity for white people. White separatism and white supremacism are subgroups within white nationalism.[1] The former seek a separate white nation state, while the latter add ideas from social Darwinism and National Socialism to their ideology.[1] Both schools of thought generally avoid the term supremacy, saying it has negative connotations.[2]

The contemporary white nationalist movement in the United States could be regarded as a reaction to what is perceived as a decline in white demographics, politics and culture.[3] According to Samuel P. Huntington, the contemporary white nationalist movement is increasingly cultured, intellectual and academically trained.[4] Some have suggested that rather than espousing violence, white nationalists tend to use statistics and social science data to argue for a self-conscious white identity.[5] By challenging established policies on immigration, civil rights and racial integration, white nationalists seek to build bridges with moderately conservative white citizens.[6]

History

According to one view, white nationalism is a product of the modern centralized state's emergence in the West, like all nationalisms.[16] The term originated as a self-description by some groups, primarily in the United States[citation needed], to describe their belief in a racially defined collective identity of white people.

In the 19th and early 20th century, racial definitions of the American nation were common, resulting in race-specific immigration restrictions, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act. The 1915 film Birth of a Nation is an example of an allegorical invocation of white nationalism during this time.[7]

A connection to the proto-Nazi Thule Society can be seen in its requirements for membership - the Thule-Society developed out of the "Germanic Order" in 1918, and those who wanted to join the Order in 1917 had to sign a special "blood declaration of faith" concerning the lineage: "The signer hereby swears to the best of his knowledge and belief that no Jewish or coloured blood flows in either his or in his wife's veins, and that among their ancestors are no members of the coloured races." [17] And the Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg said on the 29th of May 1938 on the Steckelburg in Schlüchtern: "It is however certain that all of us share the fate of Europe, and that we shall regard this common fate as an obligation, because in the end the very existence of White people depends on the unity of the European continent."[18]

The White Australia ideal was semi-official policy in Australia until 1975. In South Africa, white nationalism was championed by the National Party[19] starting in 1948, as opposition to apartheid heated up.[20]

Starting in the 1960s, white nationalism grew in the United States as the conservative movement developed in mainstream society.[21] Samuel P. Huntington argues that it developed as a reaction to a perceived decline in the essence of American identity as European, Anglo-Protestant and English-speaking.[22] The slogan "white power" was coined by American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell, who used the term in a debate with Stokely Carmichael of the Black Panther Party, after Carmichael issued a call for "black power".[citation needed]
In recent years, the Internet has provided an expansion of audiences for white nationalism.[23]

Criticism

Anti-racist organizations generally have argued that ideas such as white pride and white nationalism exist merely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy.[24] Kofi Buenor Hadjor argues that black nationalism is a response to racial discrimination, while white nationalism is the expression of white supremacy.[25] Other critics have described white nationalism as a "...somewhat paranoid ideology" based upon the publication of pseudo-academic studies.[26]

Carol M. Swain argues that the unstated goal of white nationalism is to appeal to a larger audience, and that most white nationalist groups promote white separatism and racial violence.[27] Opponents accuse white nationalists of hatred, racial bigotry and destructive identity politics.[3][28] White supremacist groups have a history of perpetrating hate crimes, particularly against people of Jewish or African descent.[29] Examples include the lynching of black people by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Some critics argue that white nationalists — while posturing as civil rights groups advocating the interests of their racial group — frequently draw on the nativist traditions of the KKK and the British National Front.[30] Critics have noted the anti-semitic rhetoric used by white nationalists, as highlighted by the promotion of conspiracy theories such as Zionist Occupation Government.[31]
I don't like the way those parts are worded or some of the statements that are made.

I see no reason to bring myself into such an article as I am not an activist figure nor do I have any sort of prominent standing in the movement. I'm just one of many voices out there that tries to focus more on ideas and improving methodology than on reactionary displays.

It is my view that if Wikipedia could be successfully infiltrated that our efforts would be better placed on exposing the opposition rather than a revision of material that pertains directly to WN, as going in and focusing on revisions of WN related articles would send up red flags immediately.

Last edited by Steven L. Akins; July 9th, 2012 at 11:11 PM.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #26
M.N. Dalvez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,459
M.N. Dalvez
Default

Quote:
The task requires someone with a greater deal of subtility than I possess.
And someone with the ability to spell, and write grammatical sentences, just to give that veneer of respectability that Wikipedia demands.

But really, you'd need teams of people to put to this task, if you wanted to do anything besides getting into petty 'edit wars' over the wording of obscure definitions of movement stuff that no-one outside the movement gives a shit about anyway.

Quote:
Would you do it by adding your name to the list of notable individuals?
It looks like someone already has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_n...le_individuals
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #27
M.N. Dalvez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,459
M.N. Dalvez
Default

LOL, Akins. I saw your attempts to edit the 'Akins' page on Wikipedia, which were rejected on the grounds that they were 'copy-pasted from a Geocities site'



I guess you just hold a grudge against Wikipedia because they wouldn't accept your brand of plagiarised 'scholarship', huh?
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #28
keifer
Senior Member
 
keifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hells Half Acre
Posts: 1,813
keifer
Default

Here they are down playing any indication that jews have a collective agenda; all the while pointing out multiple agendas of WN.
How would you rewrite this statement?

Some critics argue that white nationalists — while posturing as civil rights groups advocating the interests of their racial group — frequently draw on the nativist traditions of the KKK and the British National Front.[30] Critics have noted the anti-semitic rhetoric used by white nationalists, as highlighted by the promotion of conspiracy theories such as Zionist Occupation Government.[31]
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #29
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keifer View Post
Here they are down playing any indication that jews have a collective agenda; all the while pointing out multiple agendas of WN.
How would you rewrite this statement?

Some critics argue that white nationalists — while posturing as civil rights groups advocating the interests of their racial group — frequently draw on the nativist traditions of the KKK and the British National Front.[30] Critics have noted the anti-semitic rhetoric used by white nationalists, as highlighted by the promotion of conspiracy theories such as Zionist Occupation Government.[31]
I would suggest it would be in the best interest of WN to try to remove any suggestion of connections to groups like the KKK and the Nazis, as the opposition purposely tries to draw a connection to those groups because they know that words like KKK and Nazi are loaded words full of negative connotations in the perception of the general public. It's all spin, and they are using inferences like that to put a negative spin on WN - but again, editing artiles on WN should not be our main concern, our main concern should be employing the same tactics that the opposition uses to put a negative spin on articles dealing with the opposition.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #30
Paul Smith
Death Camp of Tolerance
 
Paul Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Europa
Posts: 528
Paul Smith
Default

Success of this would ultimately depend on the people running wikipedia, they can reverse any changes in a blink of the eye and ruin all your effort. The least you will be dragged into endless discussion about changes you have made. I think it's not bad idea but one should be aware that success of it is uncertain.

Meanwhile people can focus on the alternative sources like,

http://www.metapedia.org/
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Creating the knowledge base there and slowly incorporating it to main, mainstream wikipedia.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #31
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.N. Dalvez View Post
LOL, Akins. I saw your attempts to edit the 'Akins' page on Wikipedia, which were rejected on the grounds that they were 'copy-pasted from a Geocities site'



I guess you just hold a grudge against Wikipedia because they wouldn't accept your brand of plagiarised 'scholarship', huh?
You are a highly suspect character who is obviously antifa.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #32
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 35,972
Blog Entries: 4
Bev
Default

It's a good idea on the surface but as others have said, unless you have someone at the top, it''ll be an endless edit war. I've edited articles before and not even necessarily to spin them in our favour: just to present facts and correct misinformation, but they were edited back every time.

What might be an interesting idea is to register something like Wokipedia or Wikipodia and copy each entry but in the way we want the facts presented. It would take some time for people misspelling search engine queries to be redirected to ours, but it would eventually happen.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #33
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Smith View Post
Success of this would ultimately depend on the people running wikipedia, they can reverse any changes in a blink of the eye and ruin all your effort. The least you will be dragged into endless discussion about changes you have made. I think it's not bad idea but one should be aware that success of it is uncertain.

Meanwhile people can focus on the alternative sources like,

http://www.metapedia.org/
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Creating the knowledge base there and slowly incorporating it to main, mainstream wikipedia.
No one pays any attention to metapedia, apart from tinfoilers and assorted other disgruntled crackpots who are not our target of concern.

Conducting a coup d'etat of Wikipedia is the one thing that WN could potentially accomplish because anyone can get their foot in Wikipedia's door as an editor. It isn't like trying to take control of the New York Times, which would require millions of dollars; it wouldn't cost WN anything other than time and personal effort on the part of those who were doing the editing.

For those reasons, I see this as being the best idea to date where WN is concerned; because of the simply fact that so many people turn to and rely upon Wikipedia for their information.

If a guy like Jimmy Wales from Alabama of all places could make Wikipedia the sucess that it is, it is certainly not too much to ask that the best and the brightest in the WN community should put forth an effort to redirect the one aspect of the media that we could potentially gain control of.

If WN can't do that, then WN is worth nothing in terms of effectiveness as a movement,
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #34
Andrew
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 106
Andrew
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
If WN can't do that, then WN is worth nothing in terms of effectiveness as a movement
Yeah that pretty much sums it all up, right there....
__________________
Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe - Hilaire Belloc
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #35
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
It's a good idea on the surface but as others have said, unless you have someone at the top, it''ll be an endless edit war. I've edited articles before and not even necessarily to spin them in our favour: just to present facts and correct misinformation, but they were edited back every time.

What might be an interesting idea is to register something like Wokipedia or Wikipodia and copy each entry but in the way we want the facts presented. It would take some time for people misspelling search engine queries to be redirected to ours, but it would eventually happen.
"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."
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #36
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew View Post
Yeah that pretty much sums it all up, right there....
And it looks like that fact is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #37
keifer
Senior Member
 
keifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hells Half Acre
Posts: 1,813
keifer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
No one pays any attention to metapedia, apart from tinfoilers and assorted other disgruntled crackpots who are not our target of concern.

Conducting a coup d'etat of Wikipedia is the one thing that WN could potentially accomplish because anyone can get their foot in Wikipedia's door as an editor. It isn't like trying to take control of the New York Times, which would require millions of dollars; it wouldn't cost WN anything other than time and personal effort on the part of those who were doing the editing.

For those reasons, I see this as being the best idea to date where WN is concerned; because of the simply fact that so many people turn to and rely upon Wikipedia for their information.

If a guy like Jimmy Wales from Alabama of all places could make Wikipedia the sucess that it is, it is certainly not too much to ask that the best and the brightest in the WN community should put forth an effort to redirect the one aspect of the media that we could potentially gain control of.

If WN can't do that, then WN is worth nothing in terms of effectiveness as a movement,
Do you really mean to say that the only way forward is through wikipedia? Are you serious. The sum total of the White Race is funneled and filtered through wikipedia. We can know no reality forward or backward in history with out clicking on a link?
The only way to change wikipedia is to get your name on the list of Important Individuals as it relates to WN.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #38
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keifer View Post
Do you really mean to say that the only way forward is through wikipedia? Are you serious. The sum total of the White Race is funneled and filtered through wikipedia. We can know no reality forward or backward in history with out clicking on a link?
The only way to change wikipedia is to get your name on the list of Important Individuals as it relates to WN.
If WN cannot conduct a successful coup d'etat of a resource like Wikipedia - which would cost nothing, then WN has absolutely no hope of being in any way effective in gaining control of politics or the broader media which would require a great deal of money. The reason why the Jews are in control is because they both have the money (from their long history as merchants and money-lenders) and they effectively created much of the media from movies, to television, to newspapers and radio stations, right down to the music industry, porn and comic books.

By comparison, Whites of the past several generations have done very little compared to the Jews who only amount to 2% of the population but control probably 90% of the media and the retail industry, and with the money and influence acquired from that, the world of politics.

Last edited by Steven L. Akins; July 10th, 2012 at 08:49 AM.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #39
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,109
varg
Default

Apparently you don't know how Wikipedia works, but it's very easy to rollback modifications. Due to the size of the site you can probably guarantee there are probably thousands of moderators and ordinary people monitoring the articles history page ready to undo anything you wasted your time in writing. Undoing your changes only takes 3 clicks and a few seconds to do. Once they're on your article all they have to do is go to History -> Compare -> Undo. If you keep making the same modifications mods would probably block you out from making any more changes.

I don't understand how this is a litmus test. You're talking about making changes to a site that has hundreds of thousands of people monitoring and modifying every article, thus making it difficult to sway readers towards WN even if you're being as subtle as possible.

It would be interesting to see if we could pull anything off though. Even on less obvious articles. The problem though, is that you have to advertise the article you're making modifications on to get any sort of support, and since anyone can view this forum they'd know which articles to watch and undo.

On a similar note: I've noticed not many WNs are tech savvy (probably due to the age demographics), and even then, they lack any interest in anything other than whining about "the good ole days" to the choir. I set up the E-Activism forum and it barely gets used. Hell, I even discovered a YouTube exploit early on (probably before anyone else online noticed) a few years ago that allowed us to vote our comments up to the top page, even on videos with millions of views, and only a few people decided to take advantage of it. If there was more support, we could have wreaked havoc online and have reached more white people than all of jewish TV in the month or so that it was available to us.

Fact is, most successful activism is carried out by younger people with less to lose. In almost every political movement that's true. You don't reach young people by whining about jews from Happy Days, how much a can of coke used to cost, or about your AARP coverage to a forum of already converted whites. You reach them by targeting them through the things that are relevant to them and not 50 year olds.

That said, the Wikipedia idea is a thought in the right direction, but it's difficult because it's so heavily censored.

Last edited by varg; July 10th, 2012 at 09:12 AM. Reason: ..
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #40
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by varg View Post
Apparently you don't know how Wikipedia works, but it's very easy to rollback modifications. Due to the size of the site you can probably guarantee there are probably thousands of moderators and ordinary people monitoring the articles history page ready to undo anything you wasted your time in writing. Undoing your changes only takes 3 clicks and a few seconds to do. Once they're on your article all they have to do is go to History -> Compare -> Undo. If you keep making the same modifications mods would probably block you out from making any more changes.

I don't understand how this is a litmus test. You're talking about making changes to a site that has hundreds of thousands of people monitoring and modifying every article, thus making it difficult to sway readers towards WN even if you're being as subtle as possible.

It would be interesting to see if we could pull anything off though. Even on less obvious articles. The problem though, is that you have to advertise the article you're making modifications on to get any sort of support, and since anyone can view this forum they'd know which articles to watch and undo.

On a similar note: I've noticed not many WNs are tech savvy (probably due to the age demographics), and even then, they lack any interest in anything other than whining about "the good ole days" to the choir. I set up the E-Activism forum and it barely gets used. Hell, I even discovered a YouTube exploit early on (probably before anyone else online noticed) a few years ago that allowed us to vote our comments up to the top page, even on videos with millions of views, and only a few people decided to take advantage of it.

Fact is, most successful activism is carried out by younger people with less to lose. You don't reach young people by whining about jews from Happy Days and AARP coverage to a forum of already converted whites. You reach them by targeting them through the things that are relevant to them and not 50 year olds.
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?

Almost every example of WN activitism to date has backfired on us, making our cause a pariah in the eyes of the public.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 PM.
Page generated in 0.13913 seconds.

VNN on Twitter