View Single Post
Old July 29th, 2011 #12
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
You said you want critical responses, so here's mine.
Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
It most certainly is news. When was that last time anyone did in literally dozens of White enemies in two fell swoops - expertly planned, competently carried out? I've never seen it in my lifetime - and if you're going to mistakenly refer to OKC, please remember that was a government sting operation, produced by our enemy, NOT by our guys. McVeigh didn't actuate the plan, and McVeigh was never, at any point in his life, a racialist. All ZOG lies.
No, I'm not. And I can't come up with another example--not one constrained by dozens.

But I can come up with The Order, which is the closest thing we have to this in the States, albeit by (a) a group, (b) from a different social class, and (c) by conscious racialists (which Breivik, apparently was not, and is largely beside the point).

I'm not against The Order, but do you consider their exploits to have been a success? I can spin them that way, but in my heart of hearts I do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Remember Solzhenitsyn's quote:

To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die. There is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time, and betrayal. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Breivik sacrificed his future to save his nation. He acted heroically. He had other choices, but chose the most difficult of them. He showed what is possible, not just technically but spiritually. He showed that despite everything we've learned from jewish sitcoms and public schools that sex, money and material goods are NOT what life is all about - at least not to some people. Because Breivik had it all - looks, money, youth, a shining future. Yet none of that mattered to him as much as the spiritual need to defend his own people. That is manly. That is heroic. That is Western. That is WHITE.
Yeah, he also had an over-active imagination where he was some sort of Templar Knight. If he had all those attributes (which I'm not arguing he did not), does it make sense for him to have spent himself killing a bunch of people who are going to be replaced when the next bus rolls around tomorrow? That's rhetorical. You think yes. I think no.

I mean, it's almost like a bloody (literally) version of Monty Python. The best plan he came up with was to dress up, go out in a blaze of glory, and then depend upon the good that resides in all men's hearts to validate him, to rise up in his stead? Good intentions. . .yeah, OK. That's not nuts, albeit well-intended?

You don't win a chess match by sacrificing your best pieces first.

Regarding OKC: Yes, that differed materially from this case up until the bomb went off. However, isn't it fundamentally the same result, albeit arrived at by a different path? Was OKC beneficial? Was it a net positive? There were (and perhaps still are) many who applauded what happened there and feel no sympathy whatsoever for those killed. They've got the story wrong, but still, why didn't/haven't they acted?

Ditto The Order. Was the aftermath of their activities a plus or minus? Did their activities ultimately matter, or was their strategy just a bump in the road? Whom did they inspire to similar action?

Maybe it's like starting a lawnmower: It'll catch, eventually, if you can hold-out to pull enough times.

Quote:
To use tactical violence with impunity mostly requires keeping your mouth shut. Watch "First 48." Very few niggers, even, could be convicted if they stopped talking. The real danger of the age to the political assassin is ubiquitous tracking devices - video cameras, computers in everything, GPS devices, etc.
I agree with all that. But we're not talking about random nigger violence or non-political crime, violent or otherwise. People who get pulled-in, after a point, are going to be out of the game whether they talk or not, whether they're proven guilty or not. You can't depend on kindled heroism in some sort of "lone wolf" scenario to sustain that effort. It has to be deeper than that.

Imagine if the D-Day invasion were plotted by one fisherman out in the Channel, with himself cast to storm the beach. That's not heroic, that's crazy.

I know the analogy isn't ideal--Breivik's message to the sell-outs is bound to make a bigger psychological dent. My contention is that the blow will be absorbed without fundamentally altering the trajectory of the sell-outs. If there were follow-up action--like a series of combinations in boxing--then maybe real change. But there won't be any follow-up action because there is no base from which to act. It is (or I suspect it to be) a one-off.

Isn't it like you're positing some sort of libertarian theory of insurgency, where "social actors" see the personal benefit (for their families, perhaps) of taking direct, independent action, which all somehow adds-up into a net huge effect--something from Adam Smith in the bizzaro world?

If so, that's just wishes and dreams. It's never happened. It doesn't matter if you're at the cave painting stage or streaming in 4G. It will never happen that way.

You can't win versus an organized, well-funded, etc, opponent based merely on vague support from the populace and a few mosquito bites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
You're talking about Mao's guerrilla war tactics. It makes no sense to judge Breivik by that standard because he wasn't part of a cell, to all appearances, no matter what he said.
No. To the extent they can be compared, it's because all insurgent strategies have to intersect at the same point, where the people are. Otherwise it's pie in the sky.

I'm not comparing him to Mao's (or another's) model. I'm simply asking, "Does Breivik's action substantially further his own stated cause?" At present (and I'm willing to come off this pending further info), I say it does not, and can not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
I would separate the discussion into two parts: 1) what was Breivik's intent, and what did he achieve, by that measure? 2) how would hypothetical 'hardists' be wise to act if they want to rid the west of the judeo-communist elite murdering our nations?
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by LR
First you establish your core. It's unassailable. Then, perhaps, one could use political violence--to establish among the fence sitters that you do in fact mean business. But you can't do that until you can't be quashed, until your core is large enough to withstand the blowback. Surviving that, you expand the core with the influx of fence-sitters who are now believers. It's a feedback loop to your favor.
Sure...but this is obvious, and you're discussing it at a level that's too abstract to be useful.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
"Establish your core." Yeah, ok. What does that mean? Not in theory, but in actuality. How are you going to do that in an age in which virtually all communications are collected and analyzed; and seemingly most actual physical movements are videotaped?

Forming a physical core seems a rather difficult thing to do, if there is any outward sign this core is bent on phyical fighting (or really, anything more than virtual whining). We know the history of the White movement in the 20th century. It's nothing but a history of being set up and infiltrated and destroyed. Do you know how to change this? Do you have the technical solution, or the organizational solution?
You're right. It is obvious, which is why it should be addressed and not recognized-then-ignored, and there's no time like the present to start since barring an asteroid impact we're stuck with this set of conditions for the duration.

Ignoring it is laziness. No, I don't have the pat answer, but I recognize a vital problem to be solved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Isn't it possible that all you need are people operating in the ways they see best, based on a common ideology, a common idea of what/who is good and bad, and what generally needs to be done?
No. This is mis-applied libertarian ideal. It's fantastic.

From whence does this wellspring of commonality arise? Yes, the masses are on "our" side. . .but in the vaguest of senses. It's way too fuzzy, way too out-of-focus at present to be depended upon. If it were as strong as you opine, we'd have no occasion to discuss it.

You're arguing for the basic goodness/wisdom/ability of the crowd. You're arguing that they can storm the beach of their own independent volition, borne of fuzzy thinking, in ones and twos with something other than a bloodbath resulting. In the recorded history of the planet, this has never happened. It would never even get to the bloodbath stage because there won't be any beach stormers in that scenario. It's nuts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Why need these individuals come together until such time as that makes logical sense - ie, they can actually protect themselves from infiltration and strike actual reprisal blows, as a team or party, against potential enemies -- and advertise what they are doing to bring in recruits and intimidate the opposition?
Getting to that point is the battle. It doesn't just happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by LR
And Breivik's target. . .

How was that helpful?
That's been answered. Apparently you don't agree with the answer, but if you have a better one, you haven't stated it.
Sure, but it's a stupid answer. And I have stated one, as you yourself quoted later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Norway is a country of 5 million. It is run by socialists bent on doing in the Nordic nature of the country and turning into another third-world shithole. A good portion of the rising generation of leaders of its main party has been taken out in a single calendar day. "How is that helpful?" I should think the answer is pretty obvious.
Yeah. I hate these types, too. No tears here.

You don't declare victory after a single incident like this. It's fireworks, not a fire. Maybe in Norway it can be parlayed into something else, but that something else--if it be substantive--isn't going to be a few merely heeding the call in their hearts to act independently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Ok, so you're driving off the usual "we have to appeal to people, we have to win them over." But that is wrong.
No, no. Not CofCC. Not the MacDonald strategy or *shiver* Taylor, et al.

There has to be something binding a portion of the populace together (perhaps a very small portion)--something more substantial than taxes or dislike of niggers--or the larger segment of Whites--the ones you're trying to help (the Tea Party types and the neutral types)--will crucify you for the "left" and their jewish handlers. It doesn't matter that they're nominally anti-immigrant. There has to be a sustained effort. One guy here and there doesn't pronounce "Hey, they mean business!" It pronounces there's no they.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
The way to look at it is what I said in my post above: assume the people are with us, based on the fact that, well, they are. The reason they don't FOLLOW us or VOTE for us is because they quite rationally FEAR the consequences of loss of status and livelihood. What will get rid of that fear? Eliminating the people who are causing it: the corrupt elite who will not allow their political monopoly on power to be voted out of office.
What "us"? That's my point. It's something that doesn't exist in the public mind, and it won't so long as one depends theoretically on "lone wolf" action saving the day. Lone wolves aren't revolutionaries in the public mind, they're just garden variety bandits. And their activities rarely amount to much precisely because they're acting alone.

I know that you must know how difficult it is for one person to do anything, other than maybe take a crap. It's as much a physical requirement of man's morphology that there be more than one if anything substantive is to be accomplished--other than a few one-off acts of violence.

As to the very real FEAR of the general public, you seem to think Breivik's action alleviates that. I do not. Guy kills a bunch of people to make a political point. Gets put under jailhouse. Life essentially over.

That--[i]by itself[/b]--doesn't alleviate the general public's fear, it confirms it.

Quote:
That's the whole argument, which you're simply avoiding, defaulting to the typical WN conservative view: that we're just another electoral option, who must gamely persevere in a rigged game until we finally somehow win at 3-card monte.
No. I'm saying Breivik shot his wad before he even got in the snatch. Premature ejaculation. Couldn't wait. I guess that's a money shot, of sorts.

Quote:
Breivik ain't playing the rigged game. He's not playing democratic politics, he's playing the same game the totalitarians-pretending-to-be-democrats are: he's playing ULTIMATE POLITICS. There are no rules. The battle goes to the winner, and no one asks how victory was achieved.
No winner has ever achieved victory from a one-off action. That's not ULTIMATE POLITICS, that's ULTIMATE STUPIDITY, no matter how well intended.

There's not going to be anyone asking how victory was achieved because there is no victory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
And all that is is life itself, which all operates on that principle, no matter what the religious fool, to be redundant, asserts out of his ignorant cowardice about god and morals.
Sure, agreed in principle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
How can "we" win if we're called haters, thrown in jail for making arguments, and denied access to the main media on the same basis as the people occupying the government? There is no way. We cannot win. Breivik shows there's a way that, potentially at least, we can win. Not one of those dead judeo-socialist nits will ever: admit a Somali into Oslo; lead a campaign to normalize sexual perversion in Trondheim public schools; order the bailiff to seize the children from the parents who have taught it that Norway belongs to light-eyed, flaxen-haired Scandinavians. That is victory. However small, it is victory.
OK, it's a small victory. I'll grant you that!

Quote:
Humans are a profoundly imitative species. Breivik knows that. It's why he did what he did. One reason anyway.
But nobody imitated The Order (at least not to any substantive degree). You can't depend upon the crowd, of its own volition, to send forth champions from the ether to further your cause. That's White Horse syndrome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
The facade of the System oppressing Whites is democratic. Deliberately is created the illusion that things-as-they-are be the result of neutral machinery, rather than a nasty dark tyranny inside a big-grinnin' Richard Nixon bankrobbing mask. But when you try to get a little o' that tasty democratic process (laws, courts, established procedures, mass media access) for your own White self... to create fundamental change in favor of your people...the gigantic MAJORITY... why, you find that the works are jammed, and your call isn't put through. No matter how many times you redial....
Agreed, agreed, agreed.

Quote:
Breivik called the System's bluff. He played not the game the oppressed are supposed to play, but the game the actual rulers of the country are playing: "Just win, baby!" as NFL jew Davis once put it. The System does not like that. It damages its facade, it shows it's not invincible, it puts ideas in the heads of onlookers who just maybe are tired of getting mugged and harassed by the mud monsters the leftists keep bringing into the city centers. All bad for the jewish-left trying to nation-wreck Norway.
Breivik's action, spectacular though it be, is equivalent to throwing a brick through a window. Let's work on cracking the foundation before we throw the victory party.

Quote:
The crowd understands exactly what it needs to: the reason Breivik did what he did. The fact that he killed a LOT of enemy.
So what? It's a one-off (I suspect). He hasn't won anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
This, as the economists say, exerts downward pressure on the number of jusos (young socialists) who might want to be part of next summer's fun-in-the-sun commie indoctrination camp, and it exerts upward pressure on any enheartened by the idea that, hey, maybe I could kill me a few punk-ass hate-communists too!
Agree, agree, agree.

But to continue the economics analogies, what is the opportunity cost that Breivik has incurred? Was that really the best use of his life? He picked up a bunch of pennies. Great. There isn't a gigantic pile of kroner he could have accessed?

He daytraded. He should have invested. That doesn't mean you never ring the register, just you max out when you do. He took the minimum and seems content.

But without continued action, what's the likelihood of Breivik's activity sustaining? It's slim-to-none. That's why you can't bank on the kind of lone wolf-ism you're positing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
If it were put to a vote whether Norway should open its borders to Africa and the rest of the Third World, would the majority vote to do that, or to retain Norway's boundaries and character? The majority would vote for the latter. So the argument breaks Breivik's way. The majority is made up of people who have to step lightly in THEIR biggest cities; who have daughters and sisters and friends who have been robbed, raped and harassed by the monkeys the socialists let in. They are intelligent enough to grasp what Breivik meant by his act, whether they agree with it or not. That's all that matters. Of course one act won't win the population over into active resistance, no more than the first pickaxe blow splits the boulder. But it does make the public opens its eyes, look around, sniff the wind, wonder just what might be going on here. Put the first little shiver of doubt in the ruling party, and make the herd nervous that maybe, just maybe, there's going to be a battle for authority.
Exactly. But there's nobody to continue the battle. Breivik is a one-off. I don't feel "shown the way." Maybe someone (and more than one) in Norway does. I hope so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Except the whole problem is how passive whites have become, especially in the Nordic countries. If Breivik killed a bunch of niggers or muslims, they would fight back with great vengeance, which would be blamed on him. Instead he went after the whiteskin leaders of the passives - and all THEY will ever do is hold a candlelight vigil. Which they already have. Yeah, they'll make noise about taking away butter knives and requiring a journalist license to use nouns and adjectives outside the Official Vocabulary List, but that means nothing. Norway already has no freedoms worth mentioning. Multiply zero as many times as you want, and the result is the same.
YES! This is the belly of the beast, the white traitors. They are in the worst possible position, as all traitors are, so long as they receive pushback from their own people whom they've sold-out. I don't question Breivik's tactic so much as its implementation, the fact there appears to be -0- follow-through, and cannot be in the manner it was carried-out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by LR
The hard part is building the core. You can't begin to think of anything serious on the macro scale before you've accomplished this. You must win hearts and minds. There's no equation (that I'm aware of). Maybe there will be after we're through. It's chaotic.
You're confusing two different things. The need to have a base for a guerrilla war, per Mao's doctrine, and the need for WN to spread their message. We can't win hearts and minds in the mass way you're talking about without control of tv, and that is the same thing as saying we've won the revolution. It simply doesn't have anything to do with violence; they're two separate considerations. We have to assume people are with us, which is biologically true, as we represent WHITE NORMALITY, and work to reduce the FEAR that prevents them from associating and working with us politically. Striking physical blows at the enemy reduces their fear of ZOG, since they see right before their eyes ZOG elitists being blown away.
OK, I'm with you finally in that I agree I've way overstated the necessary percentage. But you yourself use the plural in the passage above, talking about "we." You've also talked about what amounts to a series of similar, isolated one-offs that somehow, miraculously, are to a) transpire and b) light a fire. I'm saying that it's never happened that way and it's nuts, albeit well-intentioned.

There has to be a group. A core. Dare I say a vanguard that continues the action. Otherwise it's just rainbows and puppydog tails.

Quote:
You think some Norwegian journalists and bureacrats aren't going to think twice after this event? Or after it happens a few more times? Of course they will. It's human nature. If all the blows are struck by one side against the other, then who the heck wants to join the losing side? But if the blows begin to run BOTH ways, why, then it becomes a much more interesting question. Joining with the pro-Norway forces, if they prove they're serious, as Breivik has, begins to become a serious option in the eyes of the people. Who of course fall into the usual bell curve of cowardice/bravery. Bravery not only attracts the brave, it emboldens the less brave. It shifts the bravery curve to the right - it increases the amount of bravery, just as men literally generate more testosterone when they triumph at something. That's how men are.
Yes. But that's not going to happen because there will be no follow-up. And there will be no follow-up because no conscious infrastructure had been invested in. Breivik amounts to Don Quixote with a machine gun. That's nuts, no matter how well-intentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Our side is so bitchy and whiny BECAUSE all we do is take take take blows and never deliver them, except in our cutesy little typings. Well, this guy, altho not technically one of us, DID deliver a blow. ZOG/norway has indeed been hurt by Breivik's action.
They've been shelled for 60+ years. One guy, one time returning fire does not a counterattack make. That's my beef with Breivik.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Yes - it creates actual community, mental and physical. But it's entirely a different and smaller order than controlling tv, which is the only real way to effect mass mind change. That means, you're never going to build up a large enough community to get the support for violence through homeschooling, so it's not part of that discussion. WHS is just something that should be done for its own sake, as part of the soft agenda. The average white is with us in the sense I've said many times. That is a political fact. But that "with us" doesn't mean anything until we're in position to leverage it, which means we have a political force that speaks for it cogently (offers it defense, racial aid, and a plausible new system to counter/replace ZOG's). WHS is for growing a hard seedcore of people who aren't just white but WHITE - white not just racially but White politically, socially, consciously, organically and life-contextually. The parallel would be to conservative christians building HS networks and setting up HS colleges and law schools - they've created a full, if small, parallel culture to the ZOG mainstream culture, even if they've yielded (or never had opposed) the ZOG ideology on the central points (equalitarianism, loosely).
You're right on the WHS. Thank you. I listed it and the other stuff to support a contention that's off-point.

The heart of my argument, though, is that we must get into a position where we can apply political leverage. You can't do that with one-off, lone wolf acts. There must be some kind of group.

Quote:
All valid stuff - this is just ordinary networking. There isn't really anything that need be OVERTLY political about it. But this is not the same as the technical physical struggle we're discussing in the same breath. At least not until these hypothetical networks actually exist. And probably not until ZOG's infrastructure breaks down farther than it has.
Ditto. But ZOG's infrastructure isn't going to break down unless it meets an opponent that can muscle them off the court. My contention is that can't come from Breivik-style lone wolf-ism.

I mean, christ, that's why the feds are so hard up on infiltration. You can't do it alone, not sustainably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by LR
The hard part is building the core. You can't begin to think of anything serious on the macro scale before you've accomplished this. You must win hearts and minds. There's no equation (that I'm aware of). Maybe there will be after we're through. It's chaotic.
You're conflating two different things.
No, I'm just wrong on the breadth necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
There is a hell of a lot more than 5% of Norway that doesn't want muds let in to ruin the country.

You're saying that Norway can't begin to physically resist until 10% are hard-core, ideologically solid, professionally and personally networked racial nationalists...my counter to that is you're forgetting the size of the country, and the demographics. There's 5m people, and about 500k mud invaders, and more coming daily. There isn't enough time to do what you describe. The muds will overwhelm before any ideologically solid base can be built.
You're right. Spot-on. Thank you.

But Breivik's spray an' pray solution isn't the answer either. The implementation is botched. There is no follow-up. There can't be. It isn't possible because he has no base. You seem to think this solitary incident is going to light a fire in Lillehammer. I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Rather, resistance must base on never having control of mass media, but being on the side of the Norwegian majority, which does not want Oslo turned into Lagos.
Agreed, agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Based on that unchanging passive support, others following Breivik must through their deeds and organization convert passive feelings into positive action.
There is no organization. That's my beef. It is absolutely necessary, and it does not exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Taking out a bunch of the vile and murderous and nation-wrecking enemy seems to me a pretty darn good way to do that.

After all, as the Italians say, "eating makes appetite."
Let's not settle for a TV dinner. Let's have a four course fete.