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

Old March 26th, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default Takimag

[A few posts from me on this article about Ukraine. It goes into just a bit of the history, taking the usual road of denouncing communists and nazis.]



Good and Evil in Lviv
Posted by Matthew Rarey on March 26, 2008

With memories still slick from the worst blood-letting in history, followed by the less dramatic horrors of the Soviet “peace,” the modern-day evil I witnessed wasn’t the worst thing ever to have happened in the city of Lviv, western Ukraine. But it surely was the offspring of the grossly satanic events of the preceding century.

The spectacle took place a brisk five-minute walk from the NKVD prison where the Soviets wreaked a frenzied slaughter before the German advance in ’41, murdering so many “dissidents” that the building became a charnel house with a mass grave in the courtyard. Victims included prominent Greek Catholic priests, martyred for the Faith and beatified by Pope John Paul II: for example, Blessed Fr. Zynovii Kovalyk, crucified against a wall; or Blessed Fr. Severian Baranyk, a cross carved into his chest.

Following the Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty, the Soviets devoured this part of western Ukraine (then eastern Poland). Love they did not engender, and so the Germans were welcomed as liberators. The Nazis among them, however, would prove equally evil. The old NKVD prison, slated to become a museum, is a pistol shot from the muddy park where a memorial marks the site of a synagogue blown up by the Nazis. The Jews comprised a third of Lviv’s pre-war population. The Nazis murdered all of those whom their righteous gentile neighbors could not manage to hide. One beneficiary of Christian love, the young Simon Wiesenthal, was rescued by a Ukrainian policeman.

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/..._evil_in_lviv/




Quotation from Donald Day, the Baltic correspondent for the Chicago Tribune and perhaps the only reporter to write factually about the operations of the communist gangster jews who set up the Soviet Union:

“If I have become pessimistic concerning the future of my own country, it is because I have watched for 22 years what the Jewish Bolsheviks were doing with Russia. If the Jews were unable to give Russia an improved standard of living, then how can they improve the living conditions in the United States? If they were unable to manage Russia’s economic development for the benefit of the inhabitants, then how are they going to manage America’s economic development any better? If their rule has proved degenerate and depraved in Russia, then what will it prove in America? If they have converted the nations within Russia into spiritless robots, then what are they going to do with the unassimilated nationals within the United States and with the Americans themselves? If they have succeeded in bringing the United States, a Christian nation, into an alliance with atheistic Asiatic despotism devoted to the promulgation of dialectical materialism, then what will happen to these American ideals?

“For 25 years in Russia the Jews had a free hand to do as they wished. They erected a system of government founded on terror. They officially defended and sanctioned terror as a means of governing. They sought to excuse their reign, which they officially called ‘The Red Terror,’ in their press and publications by saying their aim was to achieve a world revolution which would have enthroned the Jews in power all over the world. They found many willing dupes.”

[Onward Christian Soldiers, pg. 108-9]
 
Old March 28th, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Christians Held Hostage
Posted by John Zmirak on March 28, 2008

Geert Wilders, the patriotic Dutch politician who lives under 24/7 guard to protect him from retaliation from members of the “religion of peace,” has produced a 10-minute film critical of Islam. And you’ll probably never be able to see it. The EU and the Dutch government have conspired to make sure it can never be shown in theaters—and now American Internet providers are keeping it off the Web. All this reminds me of the campaigns conducted by the Church of Scientology to keep critics of that organization from airing their own complaints. The difference is that Scientology generally relies on the courts—rather than attempts at murder.

Anyway, my strong instinct is to see this film get as wide a distribution as possible, in the hope of waking Europeans up to the demographic and political viper growing in the bosom of my mother Continent. But there’s one consideration I never weighed. I was talking about this film to a friend of mine who’s a Lebanese Christian, with a large family still living near Beirut (their old home was blown to bits last year by Israeli bombs meant for Hezbollah). Hearing about this film, he almost exploded. “Is this man crazy? After the reaction to those stupid cartoons and Pope Benedict’s speech, does he have any idea what will happen to Christians in Moslem countries when this film comes out? Families like mine will be the scapegoats!” Nations where Christians still live in relative safety, such as Syria and Lebanon, might give way to pogroms, he suggested—while other countries already marked by persecution, such as Egypt, could explode in orgies of violence. Ancient Christian communities, their historic churches, their women and children, may well pay the price for Wilders’ candor. “I hope they ban that film,” my friend said. And if my family lived in Lebanon, I might very well agree with him.

But for all that, I can’t help but hope that Wilders’ film finds itself a safe niche on the Web—hosted, perhaps, in Russia or Serbia—so that its message can reach the world. Indeed, the most important part of the message may well consist in the violence it provokes. I don’t mean to be casual about the suffering which Islamists could inflict on my good friend’s cousins in Lebanon, or the Melkite communities in Damascus. (Since I attend an Arab Melkite church when I’m in the U.S., I don’t take such things lightly.) But the very fact that a short film on the Internet, produced in the Netherlands, could lead to the persecution of innocent third parties 2,000 miles away should prove a powerful wake-up call. What could better point up the danger of continuing to harbor members of a deeply intolerant religion in our midst than their answering rational criticism with vicious retaliation? Will this be enough to wake up the anti-Western elites who cater to terror-loving imams and sheikhs under the cover of “multiculturalism”? Perhaps it won’t. It may be that they hate the Faith of their fathers more than they care for the liberties of their daughters. But with each such outrage, it may be that such elites are further discredited… and the prospects of serious pro-Western parties throughout Europe are improved. I wouldn’t be so callous as to say that it’s worth provoking the burning of churches in Lebanon to save those of Europe from the same fate some day. But none of this, thank God, is up to me. And as the events of last week’s liturgies remind us, God has a way of bringing good from evil.

Comments

“Will this be enough to wake up the anti-Western elites who cater to terror-loving imams and sheikhs under the cover of ‘multiculturalism’?”

No. It will not.
Posted by San Fernando Curt on Mar 27, 2008.

Couldn’t let a week go by without taking a shot at them bad towelheads, eh John?

Yet again, you let your neocon roots show.

You lump “them” all together using the convenient catch-all “terror loving imams and sheiks” and don’t think for a moment to consider why they might be so upset with the film.

Have you considered that those same imams would raise far more objections to abortion, partial birth or otherwise, than ANY of the current crop of Bilderberg stooges that you have the “privilege” of choosing between?

Of course, you could still write in a vote for Ron Paul, eh, or the Constitution party candidate.

Once again, the real threat to catholicism/christianity in europe and elsewhere, lies not from Islam but from Hollywood, Brussels, and from within our own churches.
Posted by patrick on Mar 27, 2008.

Did Geert Wilders write this because of a true desire to write and show some objective criticism of Islam theology?

Or is it just possible who wrote this with the whole intention of tryign to piss off Muslims as a way of antagonizing them to the delight of neocons and continuing their divide and conquer strategy? would anyone else here be surprised if Wilder’s bank account had some donations from National Review, the AEI or the council of foreign relations?
Posted by jerry on Mar 28, 2008.

***Corrections of above post***

Did Geert Wilders write this because of a true desire to write and show some objective criticism of Islam theology?

Or is it just possible he wrote this with the whole intention of trying to piss off Muslims as a way of antagonizing them to the delight of neocons and continuing their divide and conquer strategy? would anyone else here be surprised if Wilder’s bank account had some “donations” from National Review, the AEI or the council of foreign relations?
Posted by jerry on Mar 28, 2008.

John posits valid points; after all, Wilders is merely holding up a mirror - what people see in FITNA is, as Robert Spencer says, “accurate”.

http://3massketeers.blogspot.com/200...questions.html
Posted by Athos on Mar 28, 2008.

Couldn’t let a week go by without taking a shot at them bad towelheads, eh John?

Yet again, you let your neocon roots show.

Couldn’t let a rational post pass without distorting it beyond recognition while imputing malign motives to a gentleman who is as far from being a neo con as you are from being able to comprehend reality.
Posted by I am not Spartacus on Mar 28, 2008.

All I know is that we must uphold the most sacred principle of the West: no jew criticized anywhere, ever, for any reason. I’m glad to see that policy is upheld in Takiville.

Thanks, Blow-Dry Zmirak!
Posted by C. Kelp on Mar 28, 2008.

The anti-Islam cartoons were commissioned by a “Danish” Jew named Flemming Rose, the child of Russian-born emigres, who looks like Steven Spielberg and who had recently been conferring with Daniel Pipes, one of the neocons’ arch-Muslim baiters. How do we know this Geert Wilders guy isn’t engaged in similar provocateurdom?
Posted by David L Nilsson on Mar 28, 2008.

no jew criticized anywhere, ever, for any reason

Let’s just make this offer: Any and all Muslims may have Israel—enjoy! Jews can have all Muslim nations. Fair trade. Everyone happy now?

I don’t recall the raison d’etre of Judaism to be to irradicate all Muslims. That may have something to do with lack of “criticism” of the Jews here.
Posted by Athos on Mar 28, 2008.

Not irradicate, iradiate. Can’t wait to see Smearhack mock “the Chosen People.” Will probably have to!

The absence of Jew-criticism is due to simple animal fear on the part of Taki and his underlings.

Otherwise, Takistas would be writing about Voigt, Zundel, Honsik, Stoltz, Varela, and dozens more who are in jail because of anti-’hate,’ anti-free speech laws put in place by Jews seeking a monopoly on the interpretation of history. These same people are the ones who opened the borders to the Muslims they now complain about. They opened the borders to the Mexicans invading the U.S. come to think about it. While sending our troops halfway around the world to succor their nation.

Jews should be worshipped as Gods among goyim. So keep worrying about potential dhimmitude and ignoring the fact that we already labor under Hymietude.
Posted by Tim Mead on Mar 28, 2008.

@Jerry

No Wilders is not a neocon. He is similar in the sense, that he’s also strongly anti-Islam—and a maverick.

Wilders is, in a sense, a populist conservative a la Buchanan, but from a distinct Dutch/European perspective. All similarities end there. For one thing, he’s not a paleo/ traditionalist at all. I wouldn’t know what to call him, but it isn’t neocon or paleo.

@David Nilsson

Congratulations! You have just made the most stupid comment, I’ve read all day. Who gives a flying f*** if these cartoons were spread around by some Jew? If cartoons can enrage people in this kind of way, there is something very wrong with the beliefs of these enraged peoples. They stormed embassies for Christsake. Embassies! For Cartoons! We should be glad that mr. Fleming Rose exposed the insanity. Don’t you think so?My, my..

Mr. Wilders, if you’d know him, is very much his own man. He isn’t on anyone’s payroll, that’s why he’s an outcast in Dutch politics. He even quit his VVD party for his strong stance towards Islam. Nobody seems to be able to influence him on anything. I highly doubt that the morally bankrupt AEI warroom could..
Posted by Maciano on Mar 28, 2008.

Here’s a hair-raising list of the victims of Jew-inspired anti-speech laws in Europe. Why are Takimag writers never mentioning these men and women, nor the Jews behind the laws that imprison them?

http://vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87
Posted by James Harper on Mar 28, 2008.

Give it up, Maciano. Jews don’t give a fig for free speech beyond using it to inflame White Christians to die for Israel. The proof is in the link above. Literally thousands of men and women have been fined, jailed, even physically attacked and killed, for attempting to speak freely in Europe. It wasn’t Muslims who wrote the laws forbidding free speech, it was Jews.

Whether you like it or not.

The issue is why the paleoconservatives who ought to bring you the facts don’t.
Posted by Mike Stoddard on Mar 28, 2008.

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article..._held_hostage/
 
Old March 28th, 2008 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The pseudo-concepts of ‘hate’ (ADL) and ‘racism’ (Magnus Hirschfeld) both come from jews, not Muslims or leftists. And what gives them effective power is jewish control of the media, which is every bit as real in Sweden (jewish Bonnier family owns most private media in Nordic countries) as in the U.S. and Canada. The ONLY reason we’re hearing any complaints about Muslims is because they, unlike sucker Whites, actually dare to fight back against Jewish oppression. If Muslims weren’t anti-jew, jews would love them for their destroying ancient White homelands as ‘enriching’ ‘diversity.’

The real problem is not and has never been Muslims, although we can agree they do not belong in Whites’ West. The real problem is jews. You can acknowledge that or pretend otherwise, but the truth will not go away. Jews are using diversity propaganda to destroy the Whites’ West. Part of that malicious campaign is to make it look like Muslims, rather than jews, are the real threat to free speech. Well, the Muslims don’t own squat for media in the West, whereas there is virtually no private media in the West that aren’t owned and operated by jews, or censored out of fear of them. And that certainly includes big bad Taki’s magazine too.
Posted by Mike Stoddard on Mar 28, 2008.
 
Old March 28th, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The jews routinely run material that bashes Christians. They promote Piss Christ, dung Mary, not just in their papers, they actually put on the displays in their art galleries. They also run cartoons attacking Muslims and their gods.

But one thing you never see in any papers is any mocking or criticism of jews as jews - their wacky belief in themselves as gods among dogs. That is anti-Semitism, and streng verboten.

It’s only free speech when it’s a jew mocking Christians or Muslims. It’s hate when Christians or Muslims criticize jews.
Posted by Tom DiPopolo on Mar 28, 2008.
 
Old March 28th, 2008 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[Above comments stood for approx 2.5 hours, then were deleted by Zmirak, who proceeded to attack their contents by way of strawman, and make the false claim that their authors were blaming jews for muslim crimes]


All the deleted comments above were substantial and factual. All comments complied with your editorial instructions. So why delete them?

It is interesting that you can’t make your case without suppressing those who argue against it.
Posted by Mike Stoddard on Mar 28, 2008.


Interesting thing about Zmirak. He’s a very oily character. He deletes comments and then misrepresents them, all the while claiming he supports free speech.

He’s also a master constructor of strawmen. I have never once seen him construe accurately the arguments of his opponent. Always he characterizes those against him as “obsessed,” “narciscisstic” or guilty of some other character defect.
Posted by C. Kelp on Mar 28, 2008.
 
Old March 28th, 2008 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

So, I guess the idea here at Takimag, is we can discuss free speech, but must never ever mention who actually owns the media, and how they operate them to their advantage, and which ethnic agenda they pursue. And if we do, Blow-Dry will delete our comments. When did Catholics become such cowards? How about addressing that in your next article, Zsmearact?

By your logic, why are you blaming Hitler for muslim crimes? Hitler chased the jews out of much of Europe and never let any Muslims in. He was the best friend the Europeans ever had, and it is only jewish media control that prevents you from acknowledging that fact.

We should be so lucky as to have another Hitler.

If the six million were really murdered, the jews wouldn't try to murder, jail and censor those who can prove they weren't.

Google Germar Rudolf - there's a real story for you. But it's one no Catholic coward like Blow-Dry will ever touch.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default Takimag and White Nationalism

The liberals called paleoconservatives at Takimag sort of and through channels address white nationalism yet again. They're still going months later after our modest kickings of them back in April.

Now, instead of acting like complete fags and paranoid Midol-needing bitches, what you here ought to be doing is taking wherever these guys touch our themes and ripping them up, showing them how to do it right. Showing the difference between our "take" on the world and theirs.

We have three stories today alone while these midgets are talking about giving society a new vision of order, how WN lack this and that. We have a wigger. Murdered by the real article. We have a daughter whose father was kicked unconscious when by niggers when he tried to protect her from their molestations. We have a retarded white male teen gang raped by niggers. And the fourth story is about some bottle blond crying about the use of the word nigger - which is treated as the big story of the day by our free and independent media.


Race and the Elites
Posted by Richard Spencer on July 16, 2008

The great Jim Kalb has responded to Paul’s recent post on ”Thinking about White Nationalism.” Kalb brings up the issue of whether things like white guilt or multiculturalism are the worldviews of the public at large or just the managerial elite.

The materials that white nationalists bring into play seem inadequate for any serious war for civilization. The most they may land up producing is a fiercely defended critical perspective. And while that perspective can be directed against leftist and neoconservative assumptions, it is not likely to carry our society toward a new vision of order.

In addition to that point, which I agree with, and which suggests a welcome concern with visions of order, he makes another point that in the past he’s emphasized in a variety of ways:

The majority in a multicultural society is encouraging others to trash its heritage and to practice discrimination against the majority. What is wrong ... is not oppression by others but the glorification of self-destructive behavior.

I think here he’s taking too seriously the idea of the majority as an actor that deliberates and makes decisions that are attributable to the people in general. In fact, the active part of the “majority” that’s doing the encouraging is our ruling class of experts, managers, and functionaries, the heritage they want trashed is not their heritage of social rationalization but the competing incompatible heritage of classical antiquity, Jerusalem, the European middle ages, and normal life in general, and the “majority” targeted for discrimination is not experts, managers, and functionaries but normal white men, who are not as such our dominant class. (White male managers and experts are powerful because they are managers and experts, not because they are white males.)

The entire post is worth reading.


http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/...nd_the_elites/
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

What I have said time and time again is the right way to go continues to be correct. We must simultaneously attack the 'respectable' right and the jew-left. Leaving only us and the jews in the field as viable options - first intellectually then physically. There is no other way to go. These conservatives maundering for money about presenting people with visions of order - this is so far afield from daily white experience as to be ridiculous. And through what medium are they going to reach the people? Not through tv. Not through any substantial newspaper or magazine. Through the internet, darkly. Judeo-corporate forces working around the clock to shut down that modest transmission belt too.

The way to destroy the blanch right is to laugh at it first, and to rebut it second.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

This is a piece by a Jim Kalb, who I'm not familiar with, in response to a piece by jew Paul Gottfried, who is, as you probably know, Big Jew's agent in the paleoconservative camp. His mission being to render conservatism and pseudo-white nationalism safe for jews.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Whiteness studies

Paul Gottfried makes some interesting points in a thinkpiece on white nationalists over at Takimag. His basic argument:

The rising generation cares even less than its parents about holding on to an inherited civilization. Most of my students in Western civ courses have only the vaguest idea of the figures in the Bible (including Jesus) and their knowledge of modern history is usually confined to such inanities as "Hitler was a bad man because he was intolerant."

That being the case, the advantage of the white nationalist Right under present circumstances is that "it promotes a sense of belonging and elitism that does not depend on sustaining past traditions" that no longer exist.

The basic problem with the approach, of course, is that "whiteness" doesn't have much to say about what life is about, so it can't serve as the basis of social order. That's why the extreme nationalists and racists of the last century relied so much on theatrics and on an ideology of infinite struggle for infinite dominion that made no sense and could only end in catastrophe. As Gottfried puts it in connection with the present situation:

The materials that white nationalists bring into play seem inadequate for any serious war for civilization. The most they may land up producing is a fiercely defended critical perspective. And while that perspective can be directed against leftist and neoconservative assumptions, it is not likely to carry our society toward a new vision of order.

In addition to that point, which I agree with, and which suggests a welcome concern with visions of order, he makes another point that in the past he's emphasized in a variety of ways:

The majority in a multicultural society is encouraging others to trash its heritage and to practice discrimination against the majority. What is wrong ... is not oppression by others but the glorification of self-destructive behavior.

I think here he's taking too seriously the idea of the majority as an actor that deliberates and makes decisions that are attributable to the people in general. In fact, the active part of the "majority" that's doing the encouraging is our ruling class of experts, managers, and functionaries, the heritage they want trashed is not their heritage of social rationalization but the competing incompatible heritage of classical antiquity, Jerusalem, the European middle ages, and normal life in general, and the "majority" targeted for discrimination is not experts, managers, and functionaries but normal white men, who are not as such our dominant class. (White male managers and experts are powerful because they are managers and experts, not because they are white males.)

"Public opinion" shouldn't be understood as if it were a direct outcome of whatever the views the individuals making up the public happen to be, with the way the views are aggregated a secondary matter. In a mass society of 300,000,000 people dominated by huge institutions and by specialists there's not much practical reason for any particular individual to put serious thought into political and social issues. It makes more sense for each to go with the flow, as the flow is represented to him by a system of public discussion and information dominated by expertise, large institutions, and money. If he comes up with a view at odds with the official view, people will call him names, he'll have to come up with his own Theory of Everything to defend it, and nobody will understand him anyway. Why bother? And if you're going to go along anyway, why not reduce friction and tell yourself it's all for the best?

Modern society has a remarkable ability to separate man from his fellows and from his own identity and heritage, so that the only available principles of order and functioning are the ones formally laid down. That's one reason modern society is able to combine tyranny with a manner of functioning that is usually comparatively nonviolent. Even when it turns to atrocity the atrocities are bureaucratic and orderly, with people standing quietly in line waiting to be murdered.

Modern inclusivist society represents that atomizing tendency on steroids. The tendency enables it to destroy whole peoples in a gentle and orderly manner. Under such circumstances, does it really make sense to represent that society and what it does as the people's own choice? How can a disconnected aggregate like the present American people think or make choices? To my mind, rather than blaming the victim it makes more sense to investigate how accepted views are defined and propagated, what contrary impulses there are that might be the basis of something better, and how to disrupt what's being propagated and give rationality and public presence to more hopeful principles now suppressed.

* By Jim Kalb at 07/16/2008 - 9:59am

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2730
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #11
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Default

Quote:
The materials that white nationalists bring into play seem inadequate for [sic] any serious war for civilization.
Facts are inadequate in a serious war for civilization. We need Theories! Specifically, we need Theories that do battle with or explain away Facts (like the fact that niggers are scum). We need to transcend facts, etc. etc. etc.

Order means some way niggers and Whites "can live in the same government," to paraphrase old Tom. Our "fiercely defended critical perspective" (say, isn't that a Theory?) is "not likely" to find that Way. No shit.

In their view, the greatest American philosopher of our time was Rodney King, who said "Can't we all just get along?" A new vision of order. Put Rodney up for a Nobel...or forward as a regular Taki contributor.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgruber View Post
Facts are inadequate in a serious war for civilization. We need Theories! Specifically, we need Theories that do battle with or explain away Facts (like the fact that niggers are scum). We need to transcend facts, etc. etc. etc.

Order means some way niggers and Whites "can live in the same government," to paraphrase old Tom. Our "fiercely defended critical perspective" (say, isn't that a Theory?) is "not likely" to find that Way. No shit.

In their view, the greatest American philosopher of our time was Rodney King, who said "Can't we all just get along?" A new vision of order. Put Rodney up for a Nobel...or as a regular Taki contributor.
Yes sir. You beat me. I'm going to rip this shit up in my next post. That's our job. Show where they are wrong. Show what they fear to say. It's not real hard to figure out. They always stick on the same couple points.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #13
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Default

Kalb's comment is just a word salad.

He's crying like that bitch on The View.

[EDIT: "To my mind, rather than blaming the victim it makes more sense to investigate how accepted views are defined and propagated, what contrary impulses there are that might be the basis of something better, and how to disrupt what's being propagated and give rationality and public presence to more hopeful principles now suppressed." WTF, man? This would make sense only to The View bitch, the kwan terrified by coon.]
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #14
diabloblanco92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The liberals called paleoconservatives at Takimag sort of and through channels address white nationalism yet again. They're still going months later after our modest kickings of them back in April.

Now, instead of acting like complete fags and paranoid Midol-needing bitches, what you here ought to be doing is taking wherever these guys touch our themes and ripping them up, showing them how to do it right. Showing the difference between our "take" on the world and theirs.

We have three stories today alone while these midgets are talking about giving society a new vision of order, how WN lack this and that. We have a wigger. Murdered by the real article. We have a daughter whose father was kicked unconscious when by niggers when he tried to protect her from their molestations. We have a retarded white male teen gang raped by niggers. And the fourth story is about some bottle blond crying about the use of the word nigger - which is treated as the big story of the day by our free and independent media.


Race and the Elites
Posted by Richard Spencer on July 16, 2008

The great Jim Kalb has responded to Paul’s recent post on ”Thinking about White Nationalism.” Kalb brings up the issue of whether things like white guilt or multiculturalism are the worldviews of the public at large or just the managerial elite.

The materials that white nationalists bring into play seem inadequate for any serious war for civilization. The most they may land up producing is a fiercely defended critical perspective. And while that perspective can be directed against leftist and neoconservative assumptions, it is not likely to carry our society toward a new vision of order.

In addition to that point, which I agree with, and which suggests a welcome concern with visions of order, he makes another point that in the past he’s emphasized in a variety of ways:

The majority in a multicultural society is encouraging others to trash its heritage and to practice discrimination against the majority. What is wrong ... is not oppression by others but the glorification of self-destructive behavior.

I think here he’s taking too seriously the idea of the majority as an actor that deliberates and makes decisions that are attributable to the people in general. In fact, the active part of the “majority” that’s doing the encouraging is our ruling class of experts, managers, and functionaries, the heritage they want trashed is not their heritage of social rationalization but the competing incompatible heritage of classical antiquity, Jerusalem, the European middle ages, and normal life in general, and the “majority” targeted for discrimination is not experts, managers, and functionaries but normal white men, who are not as such our dominant class. (White male managers and experts are powerful because they are managers and experts, not because they are white males.)

The entire post is worth reading.


http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/...nd_the_elites/


A people being exterminated by power elites does not seek "order". If anything it seeks chaos, because this obcession with "order" and passivity are part of the disease, not the cure. Defending ones race and family against vipers trying to destroy everything good and beautiful is not an orderly thing and surely not for the fainthearted. Its a messy, intense task..........and people that dont want to get their delicate little fingers dirty are not equal to it
__________________
"You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave"
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Whiteness studies

Paul Gottfried makes some interesting points in a thinkpiece on white nationalists over at Takimag. His basic argument:

The rising generation cares even less than its parents about holding on to an inherited civilization. Most of my students in Western civ courses have only the vaguest idea of the figures in the Bible (including Jesus) and their knowledge of modern history is usually confined to such inanities as "Hitler was a bad man because he was intolerant."
"
That being the case, the advantage of the white nationalist Right under present circumstances is that "it promotes a sense of belonging and elitism that does not depend on sustaining past traditions" that no longer exist.

More accurate: White Nationalism summons the people that made the West the conservatives pretend to defend to align themselves around the one point from which successful resistance to the jews' Multicultural Tyranny can be mounted - their race. Liberal individualism masquerading as traditional conservatism has nothing to offer those who don't like the current state of affairs except words and words and ever more words. Individualism is liberalism - and it is the flip side of communism: yet another way to rip the White race apart. White nationalists know what conservatives who are actually liberals do not: one can only be individual in a White society. A White man can as well be an individual in a sea of niggers or mexcrement as in a sea of tiger sharks.

The basic problem with the approach, of course, is that "whiteness" doesn't have much to say about what life is about, so it can't serve as the basis of social order.

This is good satire, except it isn't. He's serious. In a world in which the big story in the news is a scared white girl's tearful apology lest she be thought to have misused the 'N-word,' what Whiteness has to say and offer is the prospect of survival. White nationalism has very much to say about LIFE ITSELF. And that's no joke when the three real and unreported stories of the day concern:

- a white teen gang raped and tortured by a gang of niggers
- a white father gang attacked and kicked near death by a gang of niggers when he tried to protect his 12-year-old daughter from the molestation
- a white nigger faithfully follow jew-tv's prescribed cultural patterns being murdered by a real nigger.

Whiteness "can't serve as the basis of social order," you say? Then why do White families nearly always move to WHITER areas than the ones they leave? Why do White kids instinctively band together in school lunch rooms? Why does the federal government you conservatives hate force integration on us? Why does it overtly, routinely and consistently discriminate against Whites, and why does it deny free association, to ensure that Whites can never form neighborhoods, let alone states or nations of their own?

In fact, liberal-who-thinks-he's-conservative Kalb simply can't recognize that Whiteness is real. Whites are a breed of dog, different from the other breeds. We have our own ways. They are recognizable and identifiable. We know and prefer our own, just like the other races. Professional religion pumpers and jesus jumpers have sold their souls to ZOG in exchange for tax credits and tv time. They claim that race doesn't matter - we're all good liberals now in that regard, the conservatives more fervently than most. Yet how many Catholic families would rather live in a neighborhood full of Mexican Catholics rather than a neighborhood full of WASPs? You know the answer. Without race there is no basis for social order except for the gun. And that is a particularly unstable and unpleasant way to live, as we are coming to find out. With race in common, life is lived at a much higher common denominator. Race is not everything, but it does make almost everything possible. Or have the non-White Catholics (the majority of Catholics) managed a Bach cantata or a Chartres yet?


That's why the extreme nationalists and racists of the last century relied so much on theatrics and on an ideology of infinite struggle for infinite dominion that made no sense and could only end in catastrophe. As Gottfried puts it in connection with the present situation:

The nationalists in Germany nearly overthrew exactly the same tyranny the conservative pretends to fight today. It is only the conservative's cowardice that prevents his observing that the jews who own the US and control the media and law schools today are the blood and bone brothers of the b'nai who upset Russia and ushered in the worst and widest-scale mass of murders ever perpetrated on terra firma. Neocons = communists = jews. The jews and the 'nazis' are the only ones who acknowledge that. The jews in private, the nazis, as you call us, whether we are or not, in public. You conservatives are cowards playing make believe.

The materials that white nationalists bring into play seem inadequate for any serious war for civilization. The most they may land up producing is a fiercely defended critical perspective. And while that perspective can be directed against leftist and neoconservative assumptions, it is not likely to carry our society toward a new vision of order.

"War for civilization"? If Gottfried were a goy like I presume Kalb is, he'd be a fool. But Gottfried is a kike, which is a synonym for liar. Jew Gottfried well knows the war is not for civilization but for survival. White genes are the same thing as civilization. The form the civilization takes matters little. Whites can devise whatever they need. Whites have proved time and again they can thrive from Everest to Everglades. The blood beats the Book every time. Christianity isn't the West - even a nigger can be a Christian. What a nigger can't be is a White man, which is to say, a human. And no amount of Catholic hubris will change that fact. Side note: when did factophobia become conservative? Probably about the same time jewish liberals took over conservatism and made it wear the equality yoke. Once you've agreed to parrot the Giant Lie of Racial Equality, ignoring the smaller stuff is child's play. Catholics are good at playing with children, as their jewish bosses inform us near daily.

You know, if you stamp on an anthill, the ants don't sit there pondering theoretical visions of social order, they rush around saving their eggs. Figure it out, dullards. The attack waged on the White race through the mass media and the central state is genocidal. When they show attractive white girls next to niggers, they mean it. That's what they want. No white men, and white women producing nigger babies. It's a war, not, as the conservatives want to pretend, some grocery store contest to see which five year old can draw the cutest picture of a Halloween pumpkin.


In addition to that point, which I agree with, and which suggests a welcome concern with visions of order, he makes another point that in the past he's emphasized in a variety of ways:

"Visions of order"? But surely this is the rationalism the conservatives used to mock, back in the eighties when they produced smart stuff. The house is burning down while you're sitting in your study drawing up plans for gazebos. We don't need visions of order, we need White neighborhoods allowed by law to retain their character. Or having the firepower to keep their character through blunt, crude, barbarian bloodletting.

The majority in a multicultural society is encouraging others to trash its heritage and to practice discrimination against the majority. What is wrong ... is not oppression by others but the glorification of self-destructive behavior.

Really? The majority is doing that? The majority that moves to be with Whites? The majority that votes against affirmative action? That votes against foreign wars? That votes against open borders? The majority aint got nothing to say about anything in this country. If voting mattered, the government would advise against it, and if you persisted, it would outlaw it. As always, the conservative never gets close enough to look at the who. Safer to stick to the abstractions: visions of order. Much safer to write about those beautiful visions than the jews who own and operate our law schools, mass media and Congress. Are conservatives cowards or fools? Friend, why quibble? They are both.

I think here he's taking too seriously the idea of the majority as an actor that deliberates and makes decisions that are attributable to the people in general. In fact, the active part of the "majority" that's doing the encouraging is our ruling class of experts, managers, and functionaries, the heritage they want trashed is not their heritage of social rationalization but the competing incompatible heritage of classical antiquity, Jerusalem, the European middle ages, and normal life in general, and the "majority" targeted for discrimination is not experts, managers, and functionaries but normal white men, who are not as such our dominant class. (White male managers and experts are powerful because they are managers and experts, not because they are white males.)

"Public opinion" shouldn't be understood as if it were a direct outcome of whatever the views the individuals making up the public happen to be, with the way the views are aggregated a secondary matter. In a mass society of 300,000,000 people dominated by huge institutions and by specialists there's not much practical reason for any particular individual to put serious thought into political and social issues. It makes more sense for each to go with the flow, as the flow is represented to him by a system of public discussion and information dominated by expertise, large institutions, and money. If he comes up with a view at odds with the official view, people will call him names, he'll have to come up with his own Theory of Everything to defend it, and nobody will understand him anyway. Why bother? And if you're going to go along anyway, why not reduce friction and tell yourself it's all for the best?

Modern society has a remarkable ability to separate man from his fellows and from his own identity and heritage, so that the only available principles of order and functioning are the ones formally laid down. That's one reason modern society is able to combine tyranny with a manner of functioning that is usually comparatively nonviolent. Even when it turns to atrocity the atrocities are bureaucratic and orderly, with people standing quietly in line waiting to be murdered.

Modern inclusivist society represents that atomizing tendency on steroids. The tendency enables it to destroy whole peoples in a gentle and orderly manner. Under such circumstances, does it really make sense to represent that society and what it does as the people's own choice? How can a disconnected aggregate like the present American people think or make choices? To my mind, rather than blaming the victim it makes more sense to investigate how accepted views are defined and propagated, what contrary impulses there are that might be the basis of something better, and how to disrupt what's being propagated and give rationality and public presence to more hopeful principles now suppressed.

Yes - it does make sense to study and understand The System. But that is what conservatives never do. Because if they did, they would discover what White nationalists have found - that the System is based on the denial of White identity, precisely so that jews and the coloreds they use to wreck our nation can continue to eat us in peace. Conservatives dare not question the basis of the System that, no matter they are less handsomely rewarded than overt liberals, sustains their livelihoods. They remain liberals who dare not look in the mirror and see themselves for what they are: props of a System they ostensibly battle against.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #16
Live Free
Terry Phillips
 
Live Free's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Havana, FL
Posts: 792
Default

Never in all of Uhmerican history has a conservative ever conserved a goddamn thing. A conservative gets you to the exact same place a liberal does, it just takes them a little longer and they whine about it on the way. To paraphrase Rockwell, 'A conservative fights to save his money, a national socialist fights to save his race.' Of the two, I prefer blood to shekels.
__________________
Kith, kin, and kind. First, last, and always.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #17
Horseman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,705
Default

Damn Alex - Good stuff. On this "theory" - I believe in theory myself (used to be a physics major). Are you talking about a finite set of principles that you could point a brainwashed mind to, and have him understand it easily? Having the truth on our side - truth that goes right to the floor of reality, it makes theory possible, unlike all the the charlatans, who need to waive their hands and put on a show to get people to believe them.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #18
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horseman View Post
Damn Alex - Good stuff. On this "theory" - I believe in theory myself (used to be a physics major). Are you talking about a finite set of principles that you could point a brainwashed mind to, and have him understand it easily? Having the truth on our side - truth that goes right to the floor of reality, it makes theory possible, unlike all the the charlatans, who need to waive their hands and put on a show to get people to believe them.
What theory?

I'm not sure what you're saying. Spell it out and I'll respond.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

My point is these conservatives are fluffers. They stroke a lot but never fuck anything. They pretend to talk about race but truly they don't. They revert to liberalism - we are our brother's zookeeper and all that other failed socialist junk I denounce on the other thread.

These conservatives are actually liberal.

WN can gain from making our case against the Catholic case.

Their case is that our duty is to help our lowly brethren. This is a version of Kipling's white man's burden.

I deny whites have a burden; more than that, I deny whites CAN do anything to uplift blacks.

What whites owe blacks, and now you'll see the cats fly on their own petard, is that we owe our thoughts and duties to our white fellows who are fucked into paying for all the catholic/liberal craziness involved in extracting money at gunpoint from whites to subsidize black colonies in their white neighborhoods.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #20
Horseman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
What theory?

I'm not sure what you're saying. Spell it out and I'll respond.

what Sgruber was saying about needing theories as the basis for a movement.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 PM.
Page generated in 0.59411 seconds.