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

Old January 24th, 2011 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default ZOG vs WN

[will post thoughts from different writers and commenters, as i find them]

On Violence
Greg Johnson

2,375 words

The recent attempt to smear American Renaissance by “linking” it to Arizona spree-killer Jared Lee Loughner was rapidly refuted. On closer examination, the sources were bogus, the liars who concocted the claim scuttled for the wainscoting, and Loughner turned out to be a left-wing nutcase.

But the mere fact that the charge was false does not undo all the damage. (One might argue, however, that the damage will at least be mitigated by the free publicity, some of which will draw new readers to American Renaissance.)

Now Harold Covington’s Northwest Front is being smeared with ominous mutterings that he might be linked to the bomb recently found in Spokane Washington along the route of the MLK Day parade.

Of course anybody could have planted that bomb, and there are far more likely suspects than White Nationalists, for example: (1) the same sort of jihadists who planned to blow up Christmas shoppers in Portland, (2) local minorities trying to draw attention and sympathy by manufacturing a fake hate crime directed at them (which is also a real hate crime directed at whites, who are falsely blamed), or (3) the feds themselves, who have a history of false flags and frame-jobs directed at racially conscious whites.

I expect the smears against Covington will eventually be refuted, but the damage will still have been done. (Again, the damage might be mitigated somewhat by the free publicity.)

It’s all very frightening, judging from the repudiations and condemnations of violence issuing from some White Nationalists. These White Nationalists condemn violence, of course, because they are aware of the state’s awesome power to inflict violence on us. They desire to deflect this violence by telling the state: “You’ve got nothing to fear from us. We’re harmless little fuzzballs. We’re chumps who will scrupulously obey the laws concocted and enforced by the people who seek to exterminate us. We don’t think violence will ever be necessary to get our people off the path toward extinction. We think that genocidal anti-white policies are all just a hideous misunderstanding. We’re all men of good will here, our rulers included. We think that the people who put these policies in place will yield power someday if we just get our act together and vote them out. And of course if we ever got power, we would not dream of making them answer for their crimes. We’ll just shake their hands, like the good sports we are, and say ‘Good show old boy. Better luck at the polls next time.’”

Why is violence a bad idea for White Nationalists?

(1) Is violence immoral in itself?

Obviously not. Most people recognize circumstances where violence is legitimate, and self-defense against genocide is the best justification of all. Just look at the state of Israel and Jews around the world. Jews pretty much have a moral blank check for bullying and aggression, all in the name of self-defense. Meanwhile, mere verbal advocacy of white interests is automatically branded hate. Why is that? Because Jews have power, which comes down to violence or a credible threat thereof, and we have none.

People may have some sort of innate moral sense, but the moral sense of the public is not independent of power. The people always pretty much adopt the moral judgments preferred by the people who hold the whip. If the power relations were reversed, people’s moral sensibilities could be changed as well.

(2) Is violence bad because we stand for “the rule of law” against the “barbarism” of power politics?

That is naïve. The people are ruled by law, but the government obviously is not. We are ruled by men, not laws. The men who rule make laws for the rest of us. And the people who rule us now have legislated conditions inimical to the long-term survival of our race.

Law is not independent of power, and power just means violence or the credible threat of violence. Law is merely a product of power. The people who have power make the laws. The people who don’t have power obey them. If White Nationalists gain power, we will make different laws. Until then, we obey their laws because they have more power than we do.

(3) Is violence bad because it will turn people against whoever uses it?

Again, this is naïve. Like I said, people may have some innate moral sense, but most of the moral judgments that come out of their mouths and guide their actions are shaped by the people in power.

People are not innately “anti-violence.” People condemn violence against non-whites because the television and the newspapers tell them to. They do not lose any sleep over that fact that on an average day in America, 100 white women are being raped by black men, because they are kept unaware of that fact, and if they were aware of it, they would keep their mouths shut and not “go there” for fear of being branded racists.

The moral sensibilities of the public are manufactured by people in power, and power reduces to violence or the credible threat of violence. If White Nationalists had power, we could spin the propaganda dial the other way and people’s moral sensibilities would follow.

(4) Is violence a bad idea because it might bring bad publicity?

This is just a variation of point (3) above. Jared Taylor has never advocated violence, publicly or privately. I know this, because I have discussed it with him. Yet that did not stop him from being “linked” by liars to Jared Lee Loughner. Harold Covington writes books filled with revolutionary violence. But publicly and privately, he does not advocate violence under present conditions, and those conditions are likely to attain for a very long time to come. Yet that did not stop him from being “linked” by liars to the Spokane backpack bomb.

Do I really need to spell this out? No matter what we do, no matter how nice we are, we are never going to get good publicity from a media and government controlled by our enemies. Again, good publicity is not independent of power, and we all know what power is. The people in power are capable of telling lies about us and making them stick. Yes, the internet has weakened the control of the establishment somewhat. But do you really think, when push comes to shove, that they are going to allow themselves to be “tweeted” off the stage of history?

Whites will only get good publicity when we have the power to control the media. And we all know what power is.

(5) Is violence a bad idea because the state might arrest or kill those who use it?


Should we never use violence because we might get hurt? People who think that way are natural slaves. The people who rule us are of course willing to use violence, even if they might get hurt (or, more often, their underlings might get hurt), because that is how people gain and keep power.

If White Nationalists are serious about gaining and keeping power, then the people who rule us naturally conclude that we too are willing to risk using violence. Our rulers are not going to be fooled by putting legalistic disclaimers on White Nationalist websites.

Furthermore, the government arrests and imprisons dissidents who have not advocated or committed violence. Matt Hale will spend the rest of his life in prison, even though he did not advocate or commit violence. (It was a federal agent who did that.) Edgar Steele did not advocate or commit violence, but he will probably die in jail, even though it is increasingly clear that he was framed by federal agents and informants.

Folks, if this is getting too scary for you, you need to bail out now.

The Lesson so Far

We are pacified by pious illusions about limited government, the rule of law, and fair play. We are doped with religion, sex, and TV. But ultimately we are ruled by violence and the treat of violence.

If you believe that the system needs to be replaced or radically overhauled, or if you merely believe that we need to throw the bastards who are running things out, our rulers will try to stop you, because they know that none of these things will happen except over their dead bodies. They believe that your very thoughts and aspirations, even if entertained merely in the privacy of your own skull, bear the seeds of violence against them.

They will begin with soft measures: mockery, shunning, job discrimination, and the like. But if you persist, and if you constitute a credible threat, then they will work their way up to harsher measures. This has always been the case. America was founded by violence, expanded by violence, held together by violence, ruled by violence, and exports its violence all over the globe (it is about the only thing we export nowadays).

Being naïve, or merely pretending to be naïve, about the nature of politics and the people who rule us will not save you. Naïveté will probably just get you in more trouble.

A Credible Repudiation of Violence

Merely verbal disclaimers of violence are silly and pointless. If White Nationalist groups and individuals wish to repudiate violence in a credible way, then they should purge their ranks of mentally ill people, the kind of people who flip out and go on shooting sprees.

White Nationalists, despite our professed elitism, tend to be very, very indulgent of mental illness. Perhaps that is because we know that the establishment paints us all as crazy, so we are loath to make distinctions. But we can and must make distinctions. White Nationalists would be crazy not to get depressed from time to time, given how genuinely depressing our situation is. But no serious movement can afford to depend on people with serious mental illnesses and personality disorders like schizophrenia, manic depression, paranoia, narcissism, etc.

We may feel compassion or affection for such people. They may have talents and money. They may want to do their part for the cause. There is no need to be mean to them. But we can’t afford to depend on them, much less place them in positions of trust and responsibility. In 2010, I learned at great cost the folly of associating with manic depressive types and histrionic narcissists, and I have distanced myself from all such people.

Why violence is a bad idea for White Nationalists.

My friends will no doubt interpret the following as a mere rationalization for the pathological squeamishness of a grown man who still covers his eyes when something violent happens on the screen. But attend to my arguments. I think they are sound.

(1) Violence is futile.

Setting aside all considerations of morality and legality and calculating merely in terms of forces and potential outcomes, violence against the system is completely futile. Yes, free men take risks. But only fools pick fights that they can never win.

As I never tire of reminding you, White Nationalists are a tiny, voiceless, powerless, despised minority. We are poorly funded, poorly organized, and poorly led. Our enemies control the greatest instruments of propaganda and coercion in history. We cannot beat them with violence. In fact, they need us to commit violence. They feed on violence, which is why they manufacture violence to blame on us.

Violence is futile, not merely because the enemy can catch and punish the perpetrators, but even more so because they can control how people perceive and react to it. The enemy has the power to assign the meaning and morality to our acts. We will never be seen as freedom fighters or romantic outlaws or heroic martyrs. We will be seen as kooks, sadists, nihilists, terrorists—and with some justice, unfortunately.

We already have enough martyrs. We do not need any more. And martyrdom accomplishes nothing when the enemy determines its meaning. Yukio Mishima’s death meant something in Japan, where the Samurai tradition is still strong. Here, he would be branded a kook and a loser, and it would stick.

(2) Fortunately, violence is unnecessary.

We can’t beat the system now. But I know with absolute metaphysical certainty that the system is going to break down. Nothing lasts forever, especially a society that violates all the laws of nature. I don’t know when the system will fail, but it will almost certainly be within the lifetimes of most of the people reading this.

Thus White Nationalists need to focus our energy and resources on propaganda and community building. We must become a large, resilient, wealthy, powerful community, a state within a state, the core of the next political system in North America: the White Republic.

But that requires discipline, realism, and long-term thinking, including the discipline not to waste our lives and resources in premature and futile confrontations with the system at full strength.

(3) Power isn’t everything.

Throughout this essay, I have stressed the importance of power. In politics, power is more important than legality, public opinion, or moral sensibilities, because those in power create laws and shape people’s opinions, including their moral opinions. They have power and we don’t. As long as this condition persists, they will be able to do what they like with us.

But power isn’t everything. Truth also matters. There are moral opinions, and there is moral truth. There are the laws of men, and there are the laws of nature. (Although Machiavelli was right to observe that unarmed prophets always fail; only the armed prophets succeed.)

As a Traditionalist, I believe that truth is ultimately the source of power, that truth empowers and lies weaken. A civilization rises when it is in harmony with truth, reality, nature, and the life force. A civilization declines as it strays from them. As Spengler points out, a society, like an individual, gains the greatest external wealth and power once it is over the hill and the life force is dying within it.

We have truth, but no power. They have power, but no truth. But the life force surges in us as it ebbs in them, for they have strayed from nature’s way. Our power will wax as their power wanes. Then a day will come when we can revisit the question of violence. But today, that question is closed.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/01/on-violence/
 
Old January 24th, 2011 #2
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default Some good commentary at this link

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/01/on-violence/
 
Old January 25th, 2011 #3
Donnie in Ohio
Switching to glide
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Morrison Hotel
Posts: 9,396
Blog Entries: 11
Donnie in Ohio
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post

I enjoyed reading that. I found the following particularly relevant:


"White Nationalists, despite our professed elitism, tend to be very, very indulgent of mental illness. Perhaps that is because we know that the establishment paints us all as crazy, so we are loath to make distinctions. But we can and must make distinctions. White Nationalists would be crazy not to get depressed from time to time, given how genuinely depressing our situation is. But no serious movement can afford to depend on people with serious mental illnesses and personality disorders like schizophrenia, manic depression, paranoia, narcissism, etc.

We may feel compassion or affection for such people. They may have talents and money. They may want to do their part for the cause. There is no need to be mean to them. But we can’t afford to depend on them, much less place them in positions of trust and responsibility. In 2010, I learned at great cost the folly of associating with manic depressive types and histrionic narcissists, and I have distanced myself from all such people".


I spent a decade in organizational White Nationalism (pre-Internet), and the nutbar ratio, at least at that time, was always far too high. Any one of a hundred stories I could tell would leave you shaking your head.

Nothing I have seen online makes that seem any less true today.
__________________
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder
 
Old January 26th, 2011 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio View Post
I enjoyed reading that. I found the following particularly relevant:


"White Nationalists, despite our professed elitism, tend to be very, very indulgent of mental illness. Perhaps that is because we know that the establishment paints us all as crazy, so we are loath to make distinctions. But we can and must make distinctions. White Nationalists would be crazy not to get depressed from time to time, given how genuinely depressing our situation is. But no serious movement can afford to depend on people with serious mental illnesses and personality disorders like schizophrenia, manic depression, paranoia, narcissism, etc.

We may feel compassion or affection for such people. They may have talents and money. They may want to do their part for the cause. There is no need to be mean to them. But we can’t afford to depend on them, much less place them in positions of trust and responsibility. In 2010, I learned at great cost the folly of associating with manic depressive types and histrionic narcissists, and I have distanced myself from all such people".


I spent a decade in organizational White Nationalism (pre-Internet), and the nutbar ratio, at least at that time, was always far too high. Any one of a hundred stories I could tell would leave you shaking your head.

Nothing I have seen online makes that seem any less true today.
It seems likely there is a growing body of people who truly hate what this country has become under the jew. Organization up till now has not been serious. Serious means killing anyone who consorts with the enemy. It also means doing serious background checks of any who want to get involved with a party or group. WN has not reached that stage yet. It's still building up consciousness of itself over the internet. Such hesitant starts as have been made toward physical organizing have been nipped in the bud by ZOG. It is actually a genuine weak point in WN that this fact is never acknowledged, rather the failure is attributed to some defect in WN rather than in the active efforts of the enemy, which is the real cause.

A very good example is Chester Doles. He built a real world network of dozens of local people, including some authorities, from what I understand. The feds spent literally millions of dollars to infiltrate his group and ultimately bring him down on a technicality.

So don't tell me how WN are the problem. Bullshit. The problem is 99% enemy activity, not WN dress, speech, thoughts, or behavior. The only people who say otherwise are conservatives in WN clothing. People who offer intellectual analysis on the internet, but have never actually tried to much as running a single website with any popular reach on their own. Because if they had, they wouldn't speak so freely about how we are the problem.

Who encourages this attitude most of all? Why, it's the WHINOs. Jared Taylor, more than any other figure, encourages Whites to blame themselves, and their ancestors, while simultaneously FORBIDDING whites from posting documented evidence about the jew-led enemy. No coincidence that JT's organization is funded and directed by jews, who have set him up as the head of the new (white) NAACP, to turn awakening White sentiment into jew-safe channels. You will notice that Jared Taylor's actions are never, ever interrupted or thwarted or talked down by any of the usual anti-White sources. That is because Jared Taylor serves the enemy.

It's examples like the Doles one that are the reason that I continually refer to the Solzhenitsyn quote: until you're prepared to kill and die, there's no genuine self-defense. Because the enemy is simply too well positioned to infiltrate and shut down, by one means or another, any legal effort.

But this brings up the one area I disagree with Johnson: that physical resistance to ZOG is utterly unthinkable and impossible. I really doubt that. I think if you had even a few dozen men of military background, with genuine loyalty, operating in small, separated groups, I think you could frighten the living shit out ZOG and gum up the works fairly easily. Is that worth doing? Do those men exist? Would it help things along? Hard to say. I'd be interested in hearing what Donnie and others with military background think about those questions.

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 26th, 2011 at 11:06 AM.
 
Old January 26th, 2011 #5
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

One dividing line between the conservative and the revolutionary is the prospect MacDonald's correspondent refers to of a government crackdown. The conservative fears a crackdown while the revolutionary welcomes it, the more massive, the more indiscriminate, the better. The revolutionary cycle is: resistance→retaliation→recruitment→resistance. That's how this eventually changes:

Quote:
As I never tire of reminding you, White Nationalists are a tiny, voiceless, powerless, despised minority.
 
Old January 26th, 2011 #6
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson
The recent attempt to smear American Renaissance by “linking” it to Arizona spree-killer Jared Lee Loughner was rapidly refuted. On closer examination, the sources were bogus, the liars who concocted the claim scuttled for the wainscoting, and Loughner turned out to be a left-wing nutcase.

But the mere fact that the charge was false does not undo all the damage. (One might argue, however, that the damage will at least be mitigated by the free publicity, some of which will draw new readers to American Renaissance.)

Now Harold Covington’s Northwest Front is being smeared with ominous mutterings that he might be linked to the bomb recently found in Spokane Washington along the route of the MLK Day parade.
I doubt the local authorities in Arizona had ever heard of Jared Taylor or AmRen. There was no reason to pin anything on them, as they had nothing to do with it. Taylor/AmRen is being publicized precisely to channel disgruntled Whites into this particular jewish false flag, the would-be White NAACP.

Probably the same scenario regarding Covington.

You would think that KMac with all his brainpower could figure this out.
 
Old January 26th, 2011 #7
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson
As I never tire of reminding you, White Nationalists are a tiny, voiceless, powerless, despised minority. We are poorly funded, poorly organized, and poorly led. Our enemies control the greatest instruments of propaganda and coercion in history. We cannot beat them with violence. In fact, they need us to commit violence. They feed on violence, which is why they manufacture violence to blame on us.
Huh?

Then they don't need us to commit violence. If they manufacture blame anyway, there's no safety in abstention. You undercut your own argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Johnson
My friends will no doubt interpret the following as a mere rationalization for the pathological squeamishness of a grown man who still covers his eyes when something violent happens on the screen. But attend to my arguments. I think they are sound.
You make a lot of good observations, but then you interlace it with some really goofy shit. Tell the truth. . .was it Shrek the Third?
 
Old January 27th, 2011 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Further Thoughts on Violence
Greg Johnson

946 words

What should White Nationalists expect from our leaders on the question of violence? I am writing this not as a leader, or a would-be leader, but as someone who would like to see some honest and credible leadership in the White Nationalist movement.

(1) The Illegitimate Question of Violence

In my previous article on this topic, I argued that real leadership on this issue requires intellectual honesty, political realism, and the adoption of a no kooks policy.

We will never attract intelligent and accomplished people to our cause if we expose them and their work to destruction by coddling kooks who might melt down and then go over to the enemy or simply go on a killing spree.

Here I want to argue that we should also expect moral strength and certainty from our leaders.

The recent discussions of violence have been provoked by the wholly manufactured attempt to link Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner to American Renaissance, followed by attempts—based upon no evidence whatsoever—to link Harold Covington’s Northwest Front to the bomb placed along the MLK Day parade route in Spokane, Washington (a bomb that was safely defused).

Jared Taylor’s response to the attack on American Renaissance was entirely appropriate. He pointed out that it had no basis in fact and that the characterizations of American Renaissance were incorrect. It was also appropriate for Harold Covington to respond to the attempts to smear him.

But I do not think it is appropriate for other White Nationalists to respond to such smears by protesting their own innocence and posting legalistic disclaimers of violence on their websites.

When people in our movement are falsely smeared as linked to terrorism, our first instinct should be to defend those who are attacked by pointing out the speciousness or groundlessness of the claims and the blatant anti-white bias in the media and law enforcement.

If, however, one’s first instinct is to say “I am against all violence,” that smacks of throwing the accused under the bus and covering one’s own ass. Protesting your innocence when you have not been accused of anything also smacks of a guilty conscience, which subtly concedes the legitimacy of the attack. That’s not leadership.

Rather than getting defensive, leaders should counter-attack.

One should never allow the enemy to control how an event is framed. If you allow the question “Do White Nationalists advocate violence?” to be posed by the enemy, it does not matter what your answer is. We lose either way.

The proper response is to change the question, to reframe the issue, and to put the enemy on trial: “Why do the media and law enforcement have a bias against racially conscious white people, such that they will run unsubstantiated smears linking us to violence committed by leftists like Loughner or unknown parties like the Spokane bomber?”

Anything less smacks of moral weakness and uncertainty.

(2) The Legitimate Question of Violence

The issue is complicated by the fact that violence is a legitimate topic for political theory and strategy, no matter who raises the question. But in the context of a hostile society, we should be the ones who raise the question and determine the parameters of debate, not axe-grinding middlebrow media demagogues.

As I see it, politics is about power, and power always reduces to violence or the credible threat of violence. Therefore, no credible political movement can renounce violence, for the renunciation of violence is tantamount to the renunciation of politics itself.

This is true even if one aspires merely to participate in a political system that seeks to govern force with law and provides legal procedures like election or impeachment to challenge and replace people in power. The law may provide for the orderly transfer of power, but what ensures that the people in power will respect the law rather than void elections they do not like and tear up constitutions they find too restrictive? Ultimately, it is fear of legal or extralegal retribution, i.e., violence.

There is, however, a politically realistic and intellectually honest argument against violence by White Nationalists. Yes, politics is about power, and power reduces to violence or the threat thereof. But what if it is too early for politics? Specifically, what if it is too late to reform the system and too early to replace it?

Then White Nationalists need to focus on metapolitics, specifically (1) the intellectual development and cultural propagation of our worldview and (2) building a White Nationalist community—a community that is wealthy, powerful, resilient, and dedicated to the perfection and empowerment of its members; a community that can aspire to be the foundation of a future White Republic.

This approach is valid even if the present system could be expected to remain strong for the foreseeable future. In that case, our community would simply have to become very big and very strong to mount a political challenge to the system.

But fortunately there is every reason to believe that the system is in steep and irreversible decline. Honestly, is there anything that White Nationalists could do to destroy the system better than its currents masters?

Well, I am sure that someone out there could think of something. But I am not sure I want to hasten the end of the United States. My greatest fear is that the system will collapse too soon, long before our community is powerful enough to create a white homeland.

We are few, scattered, voiceless, and powerless. The system is vast and powerful, but it is destroying itself. Time may be short, e.g., we may have only a few decades. So we need to focus our time, energy, and resources not on destroying the system but on creating an alternative.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011...s-on-violence/
 
Old January 27th, 2011 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Johnson makes a rhetorical and political mistake in continuing to insist that we are few and powerless. The correct position is that we, not the jews, speak for the White community, and the minute their control mechanisms fail, they will taste the other side of the sword.
 
Old January 27th, 2011 #10
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson
When people in our movement are falsely smeared as linked to terrorism, our first instinct should be to defend those who are attacked by pointing out the speciousness or groundlessness of the claims and the blatant anti-white bias in the media and law enforcement.
No. Our first instinct should be to ask why those "attacked" are being given the free advertising. Always the first question is, "Cui bono?"

It's blatantly, absurdly, grotesquely obvious why jew-fallating goy frontman Jared Taylor and his would-be White NAACP is being pumped by kikery.
 
Old January 27th, 2011 #11
Thomas de Aynesworth
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,752
Default

Why go on the defensive? Why ever be defensive? We should always be on the offence, not cawing and trying to pick apart every insult hurled our way.
 
Old January 27th, 2011 #12
Donnie in Ohio
Switching to glide
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Morrison Hotel
Posts: 9,396
Blog Entries: 11
Donnie in Ohio
Default

Generally, I see things headed in the right direction for our cause.

The changing financial/economic realities and undeniably shifting racial demographics have more than a few White people (of all classes) existing in a constant state of apprehension. These are those bright enough to play out the next 50 years in their heads if current observable trends continue.

It remains to be seen if the future face of White Nationalism will be conservative in nature or revolutionary.

White conservatives accept Jews, the White revolutionaries don't. In a very real way, that question is being answered on the Internet, in discussion forums like this one.

As for violence, all governments throughout history have feared popular uprisings.

We have been engaged in two wars for over a decade. That means millions of Whites (and non-Whites) under the age of 50 have military training.

I'm sure there are some sleepless nights over the fact.

I've long thought that our best hope for true leadership will emerge from the White veterans of the "Israel First" wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.
__________________
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder
 
Old January 28th, 2011 #13
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default We're both right

Linder writes:
Johnson makes a rhetorical and political mistake in continuing to insist that we are few and powerless. The correct position is that we, not the jews, speak for the White community, and the minute their control mechanisms fail, they will taste the other side of the sword.
I don't see how these two positions are incompatible. We are few and powerless, and yet we do represent the objective interests of whites, and this will become apparent when when (not if) the existing control mechanisms break down.

Kevin Strom made a very valuable point in one of his talks: whites have only realized maybe a faction of a percent of our potential for racial consciousness. Jews, however, are operating at 99 percent of their capacity to keep that fraction from growing. It follows, therefore, that we might only need to see small gains on our side before their capacity to control us is overwhelmed, and then things could get out of their hands (and into our hands) very quickly.

I used to think the enemy paranoid and prone to over-reaction, but now I don't: they know just how tenuous their grip on power is, which is why they react so stridently to every little provocation, lest it be the spark that reaches the powder keg.
 
Old January 28th, 2011 #14
Armstrong
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,414
Default

Sure, a well trained group could access and hammer a few rpgs into an appropriate group to make a point that would set them aflap. But would that win the war?

With violence, we're constrained by laws of physics that say for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. And certainly anyone or any group will who commits violence will be faced with greater violence and retribution from the status quo.

Mass actions have more power, as they indicate the mood of the public. I'm watching what's happening in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East for what we can learn about overthrowing oppressive dictators, such as we have in our Jewish masters.

Even without the internet or phones now, they're still going on battling their governments which are mostly propped up puppets for the globalist elite who rob nations of their wealth and leave little if anything for the actual population of the land.

As the wise Warrior Sun Tzu said, "The best wars are won without fighting". So using non violent, or limited violence tactics seems wise in my view.

We need to face we're few in numbers, and there's millions who have been and are being conditioned to hate anything that can be tied to White power or White privilege.

I'd recommend keeping the AK in the closet and improve one's debating skills.

If one notices how the Jews are perpetuating violence against us, they do not commit physical violence, they do their violence through non violent and political means, to the point they nearly have the whole thing sewn up. When they do violence, they set one group against another, while they sit or stand on the sidelines, making commentary and money from both sides.
 
Old January 28th, 2011 #15
Brad
Anti-semite Pro-human
 
Brad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Penal colony 37-144
Posts: 2,167
Brad
Default

I advocate total divorce from the system. Using freeman on the land knowledge, put ourselves under common-law only, get off the grid, form communities & train/be ready for total insurgent action should they decide they won't leave us alone & want to fuck with us.
__________________
Words hold power, for words influence thought, and thought shapes reality.

B.B. aka Arbiter of all truth.
 
Old January 28th, 2011 #16
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Quote:
It remains to be seen if the future face of White Nationalism will be conservative in nature or revolutionary.

White conservatives accept Jews, the White revolutionaries don't. In a very real way, that question is being answered on the Internet, in discussion forums like this one.
Revolutionary.

As JOG resorts increasingly on police state tactics and making it harder to make a living by playing by their rules, you will begin to see more Whites resist in small ways that may not seem all that important at first. But once these people step over the line, between recognizing or denying the legitimacy of their JOG-led government, they just made a profound decision, whether they see themselves as White Nationalists or not.

Most WN conservatives are nothing more than arm-chair intellectuals, whereas many WN revolutionaries are dreamers. They both, however, have one thing in common, the illusion that they, and those that agree with them, will come to the rescue of the White Race when the time is "right". Thankfully, the internet will keep them both occupied while the real work of taking back our White nations will be done by practical people, face to face, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood.

No grand battle plan is needed, nor any lengthy discourse on where White Nationalism stands on any given issue. Just remind those around you that White Racial Loyalty, and its Golden Rule,

"What is good for the White Race is the highest virtue; what is the bad for the White Race is the ultimate sin",

is our road back to sanity.

We can only speculate as to how each White locality will resolve the everyday issues facing them as they start taking back their lives, just let them deal with their situation as they see fit. I have seen some areas where community efforts, like suppling the local children with school supplies bring Whites together for bigger and better things; and I have also seen areas where a local JOG collaborator is disappeared, as a lesson to others, who dare to go down that road.

Remember, all politics is local, and that is where the battle will be won.
 
Old January 28th, 2011 #17
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Linder writes:
Johnson makes a rhetorical and political mistake in continuing to insist that we are few and powerless. The correct position is that we, not the jews, speak for the White community, and the minute their control mechanisms fail, they will taste the other side of the sword.
I don't see how these two positions are incompatible. We are few and powerless, and yet we do represent the objective interests of whites, and this will become apparent when when (not if) the existing control mechanisms break down.

Kevin Strom made a very valuable point in one of his talks: whites have only realized maybe a faction of a percent of our potential for racial consciousness. Jews, however, are operating at 99 percent of their capacity to keep that fraction from growing. It follows, therefore, that we might only need to see small gains on our side before their capacity to control us is overwhelmed, and then things could get out of their hands (and into our hands) very quickly.

I used to think the enemy paranoid and prone to over-reaction, but now I don't: they know just how tenuous their grip on power is, which is why they react so stridently to every little provocation, lest it be the spark that reaches the powder keg.
An excellent observation. It's a reworking of the more general observation that revolutions happen in a split-second--the day before, everyone deeming it impossible, the day after, all proclaiming it to have been a certainty all along.

But this isn't a digital world, with but two states of being. The result of such revolutionary change can be a re-working of the old conditions with the same bunch in charge and the people even worse-off, see Russia for a modern example.

Last night, I dusted-off my copy of The Solzhenitsyn Reader and read his brief missive "Russia in Collapse" from the late-90s. It's fascinating reading for an American, as his description of the general state of Russian society and top-down pressure upon everyday Russians parallels today's American condition almost exactly.

There's a great danger in this notion of "We're on the right side; this will be borne out in time." It's the "conservative" magic sky-judge conceit. While the former may be true, the latter never, ever works out that way absent positive action.

Or to put it another way, if you don't stand up to a bully, you get everything you deserve.
 
Old January 28th, 2011 #18
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Linder writes:
Johnson makes a rhetorical and political mistake in continuing to insist that we are few and powerless. The correct position is that we, not the jews, speak for the White community, and the minute their control mechanisms fail, they will taste the other side of the sword.
I don't see how these two positions are incompatible. We are few and powerless, and yet we do represent the objective interests of whites, and this will become apparent when when (not if) the existing control mechanisms break down.
Sure, but when you keep saying how weak and few and powerless we are...you start running the risk someone's going to believe you. We ain't that few, and we ain't that weak. And that's not the way to play it, anyway. We have a lot of latent strength and support, which is Strom's point, as you're saying. As Ron from Virginia likes to say, in the most significant ways Whites are already WN - they never left. In their most intimate decisions, who to marry, where to live, they show they are WN at heart, if not in their votes or public speech. So I think the right way to play it is not that we are few and weak but that we are many and growing, and all Whites should join us because only we represent their interests - and their behavior shows they already know this.

Quote:
I used to think the enemy paranoid and prone to over-reaction, but now I don't: they know just how tenuous their grip on power is, which is why they react so stridently to every little provocation, lest it be the spark that reaches the powder keg.
There have been two mainstream political events in my lifetime that showed just how close to the surface their fear is: Duke's near election to senate, and the reaction to Pat Buchanan's culture wars speech. The amount of condensed, repeated lying about the latter was a 24-hour PhD program in the actual workings of democracy - the way the actual happenings of the world are consistenly and reliably and deliberately misrepresented and misinterpreted to serve the jewish agenda. And that with PB being nowhere near an open WN position, merely hinting at some kind of cultural cleave! The real thing would have the media going absolutely bonkers with hysteria.

They know damn well anyone pitching our program who was treated anywhere remotely close to fairly would win going away, and that is why they are so spittingly hostile to anyone who even hints in our direction. That's also why they routinely set our people up, Matt Hale, Chester Doles and Edgar Steele for examples. That's also why I insist we need more than anything a core of fighters; army veterans who have the technics of physical defense down that could form an American SA to protect the real White leaders that will naturally evolve. The moment makes the man - there are plenty of Whites out there now who could provide everything our race needs in the way of leadership, and not a few of them, a lot of them. But what is not there is physical protection. The very existence of that force has a far more dramatic effect on the White population than any kind of media or vote - it attracts the women and awes the young men, and they are the ones who ultimately make our thing real. This is what these flatass PhDs never grasp, because they have spent their entire lives depressing a chair and their readers with their boring useless passivity. Our thing is not a vote, our thing is a fight. When we begin fighting back, all the unseen forces will rush in our favor. For once we will actually WIN, and it is the absence of winning that makes joining our cause a hard sell to people we've persuaded intellectually (a key point). Fortune favoring the bold is no myth, it is very real, whether you're starting a business, a website, or a political campaign. There is no need to precipitate violence today, which is how the enemy in our own ranks always misrepresent our serious discussions about violence, rather there is a need to deliberately build up a core of people with professional fighting skills who are committed to our doctrines.

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 28th, 2011 at 01:48 PM.
 
Old January 28th, 2011 #19
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default The Implicit Whiteness Fallacy

Yes, most whites are implicitly ethnocentric. Yes, we White Nationalists represent the objective interests of white people.

But that does not mean you can count the majority of whites on our side, because there is a huge gap between implicit ethnocentrism and explicit ethnocentrism--and between objective white interests and consciousness of those interests. And then there is a big gap between being conscious of one's interests and feeling morally right and entitled to pursue them.

The enemy is working overtime to prevent whites from crossing those gaps, but still, we are waking up more and more people all the time.

I emphasize just how few real, explicit WNs there are because it is true. The numbers grow still smaller when you subtract the people who really should not be among us: the crazies, those who are hopelessly locked into nostalgic racial conservatism, etc.

We need to be very realistic about this, because although we do have enormous potential for growth, the white majority is not on our side yet.

Counting WNs before they hatch is one of the errors that allows Hunter Wallace to peddle his retarded mainstreaming fantasies.

I deal HWs irrational assumptions--which are widely shared--in a couple of articles:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2010...al-mainstream/

http://www.counter-currents.com/2010...al-mainstream/

We just don't have enough people and resources to diffuse our energy into the political process. We need to pull together and concentrate our people and resources like a fist, rather that spread them out and diffuse them, like a child waving bye bye.
 
Old January 28th, 2011 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Good points, but here's what I'm driving at.

If you had a SHTF situation, where all is chaos and noise and confusion, and you have one solid White man rise up and say, this is what we're gonna do. They will all follow him. In that sense, the bulk of whites can't not be on our side - i believe. I could be wrong. But I honestly don't believe in a pinch any of that multicultural gibbish will have any residual power whatsoever. It's purely superficial.

That said, I agree on the implicitness - it's a neat concept but it doesn't really mean anything. In a day to day political scenario it's useless. "It is not enough that you believe, you must fight." So right there is a level even between implicit and explicit - persuaded. Persuaded but unwilling to act, out of fear, apathy, calculation.

I would say there are two things: turning whites (racial white people) into Whites - people who understand and agree with our cause, and are ready to be organized to fight for it. Right now the best we are able to do is to persuade people we are right, or at least move them down the curve of becoming familiar with and then accepting most or all of our arguments. We do that stuff well, judging by the growing number of sites and writers and open names pushing our positions.

As for organizing, we don't do that well, BUT, as i pretty much alone argue, that is not due to US, that is due to the enemy. The enemy is very well positioned, has the intelligence and the technical tools, to sniff out whatever we even think about doing and quash it often enough before it even gets going and always if it has got going. That is the fact, but the more dangerous fact is that this fact-the-first is not acknowledged by our side, whose "leaders" keep blaming us for things we didn't do but were done to us. Fear leads men to play make believe, but our cause cannot afford that, it must remain clear eyed and nose to the north wind at all costs.

Right now is the ideal time for a man with the background to start assembling veterans and cops and military people. I am not that man, for a number of reasons (background and shitty health). But I know in my bones as an analyst, now IS the time that such a group can begin to come together, with the right foresight, planning and system of checks. We have not spent the last ten years for naught, it has put us in position to make the next move, using us in the most general sense. It can be done, I am absolutely sure of that, and it can be today, now.

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 28th, 2011 at 05:01 PM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 PM.
Page generated in 0.19224 seconds.