View Single Post
Old November 28th, 2013 #2155
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,670
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelley View Post
I don't want to sing kum bay ya with them either. That isn't about what not taking over is about.

Most people in North Dakota are not against us. They were all against Cobb, no matter their politics.

PLE is not about taking over by hostility. It is about becoming a part of the community, bringing more people in. Eventually, you take over by default.
Commentary on Craig Cobb in Leith

by Alex Linder [index]

Correct. But you're looking at things rationally. You can't put Cobb in that camp, only partly. Craig is acting as a crazy, mystic, visionary, zealot, prophet, inspiring example, nut - that's his other half.

This doesn't reduce to a binary, that's what's frustrating people.

Craig's actions showed PLE does work. He moved somewhere. He got a good job. He ginned up five-figures savings. He bought a bunch of property. He disposed of the property as he saw fit.

Pure win, these things. Pure win.

Any able-bodied, determined man, or woman, can do what Craig did. But how many will? Very few. His detractors -- and I'm not saying their complaints aren't legitimate; there's a reason I've banned Cobb here multiple times -- need to keep that in mind. Old man Cobb shows what can be done by his actions, no matter how inadvisable, unfair, or VNN-rule-breaking his words and subsequent associations.

Things are not all or nothing. White sovereignty requires independence, ultimately. Short of that, it requires the restoration of free association - otherwise jews will retain the legal basis for preventing us from protecting our kind by excluding violent, hostile, alien others from our communities. They will, rather, continue using the Department of Justice under color of 'civil rights' laws to racially tyrannize any White community they feel hasn't gotten its fair share of abuse. Short of the restoration of the Constitutional right of free association, which is the legal basis of communal self protection, white men have only the de facto domination of sheer numbers: if they arrange to live thickly enough among their own kind, they can, without legal backing, nevertheless create a communal cocoon of near-safety and whiter-than-other-areas culture.

If there are only 40 properties in a community, let's say in a small town in North Dakota, and White-mindeds own 30 of them, there's not much the feds can do. Unless those Whites break laws regarding guns or harass the other ten. That kind of property acquisition is the legal option we're left with. It's not against the law for whites to buy property, after all. It's not against the law for them to sell it to other whites on the cheap. It's not against the law for them to encourage others who think the same way to come live in the same area, and subsidize their doing so. All of that is perfectly legal and good, yet seems to get lost in the discussion here. The jews at the State Department are going to inject Somalis into Leith? Where are they going to put them? In some barn last used in 1925?

On some level Craig realizes that his desire to make a media splash and his desire for a white-dominated town are at odds - as he chose to go about it. His media statements and actions worked against the most rational way to carry out his plans for Leith. I think he knows that. He chose to act the way he did, which was pretty much in line with is past behavior in other places, for his own reasons.

The rest of us can see that if we wanted to pursue the doable dream of a White-dominated town, we would act rather differently than Craig did. We'd simply do it - the work, and saving money, and reaching out to others to join us, and helping them in the various ways we could -- without publicizing it, let alone phrasing it in hostile terms like 'taking over.' There's no need to rile up defunct farmers and generally friendly, conservative, modest country people you find in places like Leith with talk like that. Craig's from the Midwest. On some level he knows this. But he's playing the 10,000-year game. He's not going for the immediate and rational. You can say he's wrong, and point out where, which any rational person can easily see for himself, but you'd have to agree Craig Cobb has pretty much always acted this way.

The marching with the guns - that's no crime. Not when the 'victim' of this 'crime' says you didn't point your gun at him and didn't say anything to him. The real danger is precisely what happened - the System complex can use the gray area of threats/intimidation to sell to the average people on a jury you're a criminal, even though they well know you broke no law. This is why, as I've warned people repeatedly, threats -- even the mere appearance of threats -- even any action that can be presented to a (cowardly, brainwashed) jury member as a threat -- is actually more dangerous to you than an overtly felonious deed. It's easier to get away with murdering someone than making verbal or electronically recorded or paper-documentable threats. Again, I have to think on some level Craig is well aware of this. I do believe there is an element of martyrdom here, and that it is chosen willfully. Let me be clear: Cobb did not break the law. But in reality, it is not wise to go around talking about us living under a dictatorship yet acting like the laws will be fairly enforced.

Ultimately White politics can only be solved at the national level, not at the local level. Because the legal basis of our suppression is located there. That's the problem with centralization. Short of that national solution, we can do whatever seems likely to increase our de facto local control wherever we happen to reside or come together.

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 25th, 2014 at 11:15 PM.