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

Old May 25th, 2010 #61
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
This matter of appeasement and being nice needs to be kept on the front burner. Example, going to church. The whole thing may be appeasement- ass kissing.

I was in a Home Depot and couldn't find what I wanted, so I asked the clerk if they have maps (The kind that say YOU ARE HERE). The clerk replied "what are you looking for?" I responded, icily "THAT'Z NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU". See what I did? I blocked him from controlling me. The price paid was a slight increase in social friction. Those increasing the social friction are expected to feel guilty!

My 89 year old father is a typical conservative. He claims to be totally in favor of free enterprise. Yet, when my mother was dying in '92, he said "health care is a right." Now he screams about rotten Obama being a socialist. Conservatives believe in free enterprise and socialism, screw the contradiction.
Conservatives are bourgeois. They are morally regular people, but they are also anti-intellectual, selfish and cowardly. They never have a problem abandoning their principles if they get in the way of their personal interest. Appealing to them is a waste of time, yet, as Rockwell observed, almost all the appeals WN make are to that slice of the population. As Hitler observed, this type will join the revolution after it succeeds, and then claim it was with them all along.
 
Old May 25th, 2010 #62
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Good party names under jew dictatorship/media control are

White Party

or

Racist Party

Either neutral, or indicating willingness to fight. Anyone who makes jew crit a prominent feature of his appeal will be called a neo-nazi, whether he supports NS policies or not. In jew-controlled spheres, everything is defined in relation to the jew.
 
Old May 25th, 2010 #63
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

The White Party is the name of a number of circuit parties held annually, catering to the LGBT communities. Its name comes from the requirement that party-goers dress in all or almost all white. White Parties have taken place in New York City, Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Palm Springs, California; and Montreal, Quebec, Canada, although the events are independent of each other. AIDS fund raiser

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...=&oq=&gs_rfai=

YouTube- White Party 2006

Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; May 25th, 2010 at 04:45 PM.
 
Old May 25th, 2010 #64
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
The White Party is the name of a number of circuit parties held annually, catering to the LGBT communities. Its name comes from the requirement that party-goers dress in all or almost all white. White Parties have taken place in New York City, Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Palm Springs, California; and Montreal, Quebec, Canada, although the events are independent of each other. AIDS fund raiser

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...=&oq=&gs_rfai=

YouTube- White Party 2006
Hmm, never heard of such. I think the midget poof Capote used to throw Black and White Party(ies) back in the sixties.
 
Old May 25th, 2010 #65
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
I was in a Home Depot and couldn't find what I wanted, so I asked the clerk if they have maps (The kind that say YOU ARE HERE). The clerk replied "what are you looking for?"
I see I'm not the only one who has to go through this. You ask a clear, straightforward question and instead of making life simple and just answering it, the person tries to read your mind and almost always gets it wrong.

I'd say about 50% of the people I deal with equate directness with rudeness and get their backs up if you don't try to sweet talk them. I refuse to change the way I interact with people, though. If they don't like my honesty -- tough.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
My 89 year old father is a typical conservative. He claims to be totally in favor of free enterprise. Yet, when my mother was dying in '92, he said "health care is a right." Now he screams about rotten Obama being a socialist. Conservatives believe in free enterprise and socialism, screw the contradiction.
Sounds like hypocrisy and a "go, team, go!" mentality more than anything.

Most of the criticisms I've seen here of conservatism are more of the hypocrisy and corruption in conservative ranks than of conservative ideals per se.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old May 25th, 2010 #66
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Appealing to them is a waste of time, yet, as Rockwell observed, almost all the appeals WN make are to that slice of the population. As Hitler observed, this type will join the revolution after it succeeds, and then claim it was with them all along.
So who should we be trying to appeal to? Democrats, Marxist-Leninists, and Green Party supporters?
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old May 25th, 2010 #67
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Good party names under jew dictatorship/media control are

White Party

or

Racist Party
White Party is better. I'd prefer to define myself positively by affirming what I am rather than negatively in relation to what I don't like.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old May 25th, 2010 #68
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Yeah, that's the problem. You're already defending, making distinctions, rather than attacking.
There's a difference between defending and making distinctions.

You want to go to war; well, under what banner? That's the question I'm asking.

I don't see a huge difference between what WN profess to believe and what conservatives do, other than that conservatives talk the talk but don't walk the walk. So how do we distinguish ourselves from them in the public's mind? It's a practical, not a theoretical, question.

This has nothing to do with being on the defensive; I know perfectly well how to win a fight.

You bring up the NS a lot; well, NS can legitimately claim that they are not conservatives. They may be social conservatives, but in every other respect, they are true revolutionaries. Their rhetoric is often hard to distinguish from that of communists.

It seems like you want to embrace revolutionary rhetoric but ideologically, you're more of a reactionary.

Again, these questions aren't merely theoretical. I started asking myself these questions as a result of wondering exactly how, in concrete terms, I should behave in real-life situations. You give a lot of theory but not much in the way of application.

When the conservatives in Arizona pass anti-immigration bills, and threaten to shut off power to the shitskins of L.A., should we support them or attack them? If we truly aren't conservatives, then we should attack them, just like the leftists do, no? But that doesn't make any sense, since we're ultimately after the same thing.

A true revolutionary would be doing everything in his power to sink the system, to make things as bad for white people as possible, even if that meant taking counterintuitive positions like attacking immigration reformers in Arizona.

I'm not sure that even you fit into the category of a true revolutionary. Saying that we need to use force to keep the system working as it should isn't a revolutionary position, but that of a reformer. Revolutionaries want to destroy the system, not rescue it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
That's why I say choosing a label for ourselves isn't that important.
You're not seeing where I'm coming from.

My point is: how on earth do you expect Joe Sixpack to distinguish us from conservatives (which is, as you yourself have often stated, the objective of attacking conservatives) when we ourselves have trouble doing it? What do we stand for? How are we different from the conservatives? If we're not conservatives, what are we?

Every movement needs a name, it needs to articulate its goals and beliefs, it needs to make itself stand out from its rivals, and that's not just me talking; it's Hitler, and Lenin, and Mussolini, and anyone else who has ever been at the helm of a successful political movement. You think Hitler would've replied "I refuse to label myself" if he was asked how he differed from conservatives?

You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to "distinguish" us from conservatives but without having to use labels; you want people to stand by their principles but you don't want to articulate what those principles are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
From an intellectual standpoint, we are ungelded conservatives.
That's what I thought. I'd say that makes the job of differentiating ourselves from conservatives tougher. Maybe the goal should be to radicalize the conservative movement rather than to sink it.

Sinking conservatism makes perfect sense if you're NS, but not when you're a conservative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Only primitive emotional appeals can work.
And those are only likely to work under certain societal conditions that don't currently exist. Hitler didn't just get to where he did by being smart; he got there because Germany was an absolute wreck after 1918 and people were receptive to his message in a way they wouldn't have been before.

Similar societal conditions are on their way, but what do we do in the meantime?

Maybe attacking conservatism (as distinguished from attacking/criticizing conservatives) is the wrong approach. Maybe we should be doing our best to radicalize conservatism. Maybe we should be presenting ourselves as "ungelded conservatives," as the only real conservatives, as the only ones that really mean it, rather than as revolutionaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Most of those fling around "we" promiscuously, per Bardamu, have never given the first thought to who this "we" actually is.
Well, I have been giving it some thought. What "we" are is ungelded conservatives, at least those of us who aren't genuine NS (which I am not).

Bill White is a real NS; Rockwell was a conservative in NS trappings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Mixing with them, supporting them with money, attention, and praise, is not the way to do that.
You've made that point abundantly clear many times and I agree with it. But the terms you use are confusing. We're not going to distinguish ourselves from conservatives if we don't have anything substantially different to offer. And we don't. We ARE conservatives. Just not of the sell-out, neocohen variety.

The main distinction between us and them is that we name the jew and talk about race. That doesn't make us revolutionaries; it just means we're honest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
If you haven't seen the thread I posted in Strategy featuring quotes from Toland's Adolf Hitler, check it out.
I've been reading it and I get your points. It was that thread that in part got me to thinking about these issues.

But for these reasons I don't think it applies to us:

1) We are not NS and unlike the NS, we have nothing substantially different to offer the masses from conservatism. We ARE conservatives, just not corrupt ones.

2) We haven't been through the cataclysms that Germany had gone through.

There's nothing wrong with looking to the historical NS for inspiration and strategy, but let's not go deluding ourselves into thinking we're them or that our situations are identical.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Igor Alexander; May 25th, 2010 at 08:16 PM.
 
Old May 25th, 2010 #69
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

On the subject of using force: Of course it's wise to prepare for the worst and hope for the best, but what I've consistently found is that it takes far less to put a crimp in enemy plans than I assume it will beforehand. Oftentimes all you have to do is show some resistance, and they will back off. Jews and leftists are so used to always having their way that they are completely unprepared when someone tells them to fuck off and refuses to back down.

The problem right now is that no one that matters has the balls to take a stand, no matter how faint. Rand Paul says something that most of his supporters agree with, and then the jews snap their fingers and he takes it all back with sugar on top. The problem isn't that whites refuse to use violence; the problem is that they refuse to take any kind of a firm, principled stance at all.

Violence will inevitably come once whites start taking a firm stance; we don't have to go running after it. When both sides refuse to compromise, conflict will ensue as surely as night follows day. Jews, by their own behavior, will insure that people will want to kill them; I don't think there's any need to keep repeating that we should exterminate them, making ourselves look like the bad guys in the process. Our job is simply to make the jews come out of their hiding place, to force their hand, to expose them for what they are. Once you pull the curtain back and people see the jews for what they are, their natural instinct will be homicidal.

This is why jews can't tolerate any criticism of their activities; they know that if they allow even the slightest criticism, it will create a chain reaction which will lead to their expulsion or extermination. The jews know that they've been very, very bad and that if their crimes are ever widely discovered, they will receive the death sentence.

Regarding democratic politics, I don't think it really matters whether WN can win at the ballot box or not. What matters is that WN participation in democratic politics forces the jews' hand, exposing the system for the sham that it is. Anything that leads to frustration and disillusionment with the system is good.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old May 25th, 2010 #70
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default from O. D.

Veni Vidi Dixi says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:39 pm

I give up. You people actually would rather discuss whether or not Columbus was a Jew than Mossad, a foreign intelligence service, staging 911 and getting us to carry out their 1992 “Defense of the Realm” plan by invading Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (renamed in the US to Project for a New American Century, including calls for a “new Pearl Harbor”)

Hunter Wallace says:
May 26, 2010 at 1:45 am

Jupiter,

I’ve looked into this. You’re not banned from Amren. I know the moderator. Improve your spelling and grammar. Don’t use ALL CAPS. Don’t beat the same drum. Mix up your message.
 
Old May 26th, 2010 #71
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Sounds like hypocrisy and a "go, team, go!" mentality more than anything.
No, this is a very known, recognizable, common type. The minority that can think logically does not realize that most people do NOT feel embarrassed by contradictory beliefs, indeed they are usually oblivious to them. These people feel you put on one face in public, and another in private. They love property rights, until their neighbor does something they don't like, at which point they make anonymous calls to the police or petition the zoners. These are the rote bleaters about the value of "education," the people with prominent bookshelves full of books they don't read. The only real value these people will speak up for is protecting their own money. They are very resentful that others are behaving immorally and sponging off their taxes. This is the outrage that fuels the Nancy Graces and Becks and Savages and such. Because these people feel a very strong urge to conform, they will not join a cause until it is popular, at least among a large minority. Taxes and money are the last things they have enough courage to protest, since they can't be called racist. But of course they can and have been! Over time, the left reduces every argument to racism, hence wins, since the right has never found an effective response. Not even most WN understand what is actually going on, judging by the fact that PhDs uniformly use conventional (ie, jew-commie created or popularized terms) to make their arguments. And of course, they are careful always to appeal modestly and rationally to reason, and never try to stir their audience. That might work. They might win. Winning isn't done. Winning is anathema to conservatives, who derive metaphysical pleasure, from seeing themselves as the proud few remnants of a superior age. That is where I despise them and their pathetic o times! o mores! whining. Although their arguments are the same as ours in certain cases, that is purely a function of logic operating on evidence in the context of normal preferences. Our mentality must be the opposite of theirs if we think to win. All NS historical evidence shows this.

Quote:
Most of the criticisms I've seen here of conservatism are more of the hypocrisy and corruption in conservative ranks than of conservative ideals per se.
Most conservatives are not intellectuals. Many conservatives confuse liberalism with conservatism. I remember correcting one who believed that human perfectibility was a conservative tenet. Um, no, that would be pure liberalism. Looks at me in disbelief. Conservatism to most conservatives is whatever PEOPLE PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS CONSERVATIVES say it is. If Rush Limbaugh says it is conservative to chop off your baby's dick, to send half your kids to die for Israel, and to write a check to support your local MLK nigger group, then 90% of his listeners will accept it. People take things at face value. They have no internal ability to discern a thing's true nature and meaning.

As con writers have said, conservatism is inherently anti-ideological. It's more of a disposition than anything. It's a good disposition in times of peace and plenty, but it's a disposition that works against the fanaticism and action that are required to upend jewish communism.

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 26th, 2010 at 12:17 AM.
 
Old May 26th, 2010 #72
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
There's a difference between defending and making distinctions.

You want to go to war; well, under what banner? That's the question I'm asking.
I don't think that's an intelligent question. The answer from a broadest perspective is obvious; from a practical perspective premature.

Quote:
I don't see a huge difference between what WN profess to believe and what conservatives do, other than that conservatives talk the talk but don't walk the walk. So how do we distinguish ourselves from them in the public's mind? It's a practical, not a theoretical, question.
Conservatives talk what talk? They support MLK, just ask them. They support Israel, civil rights, big government. They aren't anything like we are with the possible exception of supporting cultural dejewing, except of course they will only bitch about symptoms but never state the disease.

Quote:
You bring up the NS a lot; well, NS can legitimately claim that they are not conservatives. They may be social conservatives, but in every other respect, they are true revolutionaries. Their rhetoric is often hard to distinguish from that of communists.
They combined elements and rhetoric from all schools. The difference between them and conservatives was that they beat up the communists - killed their jewish heads, and converted many of their Aryan bodies. The essential thing about NS from "our" perspective (pretending for a moment that there is an our) is that they recognized jews were the real bosses in Germany, and accepted the need to fight them physically and through propaganda until they driven out of power. That's what we need here. But we don't need to follow their policies, which ultimately failed, we need to study their example, and try to discern what they did wrong and right. The crucial difference between conservatives in America in 2010 and NS Germans last century was that NS contested for power, whereas conservatives simply give in to the jew-led illiberals on the underlying issue - race. NS Germans fought jews verbally and physically - openly. Today's American conservatives ARE liberals-jews-communists. I don't think the difference is hard to make out. I don't see anything easier than distinguishing Whites from conservatives. We're the ones who fight. IF we actually fought. The debate is purely theoretical at this point.

Quote:
It seems like you want to embrace revolutionary rhetoric but ideologically, you're more of a reactionary.
I'm atheist; most reactionaries are God-fearin', king-lovin' go-backsters. I'm not. I have my own philosophy, white-man-ism. I recognize dictatorship is necessary to clean up the problems jews have made, but over time it must devolve into decentralized micro-states, albeit with a nuclear shield, as long as hostile races and Israel exist. Mine is the only system that fits the White man's need for the right context, and the freedom within that context and truly use his adult faculties. Of course, I'm just like every other thinker in that I think my system is best. True conservatism loathes speculation and systems; never generalize unless it is unavoidable, more or less says Burke. But this bias against thinking has led us where we are now. The Christian foolishness about love, and the British preference to muddle through, have combined to leave us unable to see where we are heading, and sapped of the will to do anything about it. The NS Germans show how to get around that. Not by their policies, which were often wrong, but by their practical politics. When their speakers were shouted down or confronted, they kicked the jews' asses. WN won't get anywhere until it can do the same. Of course, it's easy to say and harder to do, because the political circumstances are much worse for Whites today than they were for Germans yesteryear. But the fact remains. If 200m whites can save themselves from jews + tools, then really, we probably deserve what we get.

Quote:
Again, these questions aren't merely theoretical. I started asking myself these questions as a result of wondering exactly how, in concrete terms, I should behave in real-life situations. You give a lot of theory but not much in the way of application.
One person alone can't do anything, except for his own personal situation. It requires a team. But not such teams as we've seen in America. Chester Doles developed a network closer to what is objectively required than anyone else I can think of.

Quote:
When the conservatives in Arizona pass anti-immigration bills, and threaten to shut off power to the shitskins of L.A., should we support them or attack them? If we truly aren't conservatives, then we should attack them, just like the leftists do, no? But that doesn't make any sense, since we're ultimately after the same thing.
We are? I don't give a fuck if Mexes are legal or illegal, they're shitskins either way. They don't belong here. The conservatives would never say that. Once in a great while they get some modest race-neutral measure passed, which serves only to send the left into a frenzy, which ultimately neutralizes the measure. What's missing is physical enforcement. Conservatives don't have the will because they have been indoctrinated with excessive respect for law and order and authority, even when these are demonstrably criminal and anti-White.

Quote:
A true revolutionary would be doing everything in his power to sink the system, to make things as bad for white people as possible, even if that meant taking counterintuitive positions like attacking immigration reformers in Arizona.
Not necessarily, that's just one school of thought. It's impossible to say for certainty which developments are likeliest to give Whites an opening to take power.

Quote:
I'm not sure that even you fit into the category of a true revolutionary. Saying that we need to use force to keep the system working as it should isn't a revolutionary position, but that of a reformer. Revolutionaries want to destroy the system, not rescue it.
These are just verbal manipulations. The NS used the existing System. Yet they utterly changed it. Revolution within the form is possible, theoretically and in practice. Both the NS in Germany and the jews in America proved it.

Quote:
My point is: how on earth do you expect Joe Sixpack to distinguish us from conservatives (which is, as you yourself have often stated, the objective of attacking conservatives) when we ourselves have trouble doing it?
We do? Maybe you do, I don't.

Quote:
What do we stand for? How are we different from the conservatives? If we're not conservatives, what are we?
Are you implying conservatism is different from whatever publicly declared/labeled conservatives say and do? If so, then make the case. If not, then the differences are obvious. Labeling ourselves is immaterial until we have a core of men ready to act. I have some ideas, but I certainly wouldn't put them out there. The only effect would be to allow the usual suspects to cop them.

Quote:
Every movement needs a name, it needs to articulate its goals and beliefs, it needs to make itself stand out from its rivals, and that's not just me talking; it's Hitler, and Lenin, and Mussolini, and anyone else who has ever been at the helm of a successful political movement. You think Hitler would've replied "I refuse to label myself" if he was asked how he differed from conservatives?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you not perceive the difference between whining in codes about cultural decline vs naming the jew in public AND FIGHTING IT? Finding men who will fight is the problem. Only the usual Francis-level fools would reduce it to a matter of marketing.

Quote:
You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to "distinguish" us from conservatives but without having to use labels; you want people to stand by their principles but you don't want to articulate what those principles are.
Yeah, that's why I have a whole section dedicated to strategy, and another to which terms to use. I pay more attention than anybody else even pretending to be on our side to which terms advance our cause, and which retard it.

Quote:
That's what I thought. I'd say that makes the job of differentiating ourselves from conservatives tougher. Maybe the goal should be to radicalize the conservative movement rather than to sink it.
Go read Hitler. The conservatives are bourgeois cowards. They will only join a movement when it is on the verge of winning, or after it has won. Before that point, a radical movement scares them because it threatens their status and their income.

Quote:
Sinking conservatism makes perfect sense if you're NS, but not when you're a conservative.
Uh, yeah, by definition. That's circular - a tautology. Conservatism is a type, or a handful of types, probably genetic in origin. It can't be wiped out. If you mean conservatives, ie the public entities, they are IDENTICAL to illiberals on the real issues. They vary on the superficial stuff for marketing purposes.

Quote:
And those are only likely to work under certain societal conditions that don't currently exist. Hitler didn't just get to where he did by being smart; he got there because Germany was an absolute wreck after 1918 and people were receptive to his message in a way they wouldn't have been before.

Similar societal conditions are on their way, but what do we do in the meantime?
You don't know what's on the way.

Quote:
Maybe attacking conservatism (as distinguished from attacking/criticizing conservatives) is the wrong approach. Maybe we should be doing our best to radicalize conservatism. Maybe we should be presenting ourselves as "ungelded conservatives," as the only real conservatives, as the only ones that really mean it, rather than as revolutionaries.
Like most people, you don't grasp how little power you have to define yourself. You don't own the mass media. If you mean to avoid criticizing jews, you will never change things. If you mean to criticize them, you will be a neo-nazi no matter what you do or believe. So getting worked up about what you or we are is not really important. Listeners to Hitler's speeches came away not remembering the trivia, but only that they should and must join his crusade to save Germany. And he was credible because he had a chestful of medals attesting to his personal bravery, and clear guileless blue eyes through which poured his manifest sincerity. Until "we" produce someone like that, blather about radicalizing proven anti-racist conservative-illiberals like Buchanan or "revolutionaries" who shriek when they're called racist like Ron Paul is beneath ridiculous.

Quote:
Well, I have been giving it some thought. What "we" are is ungelded conservatives, at least those of us who aren't genuine NS (which I am not).
It doesn't matter what you call yourself, it only matters how you define the problem and what you're willing to do about it.

Quote:
Bill White is a real NS; Rockwell was a conservative in NS trappings.
Quite wrong. Name me a single conservative who would put his money and status on the line as Rockwell did. Not a single one would do it. Rush Limbaugh quit criticizing queers after a handful showed up in his studio and screamed at him. As Joe Sobran said of pro conservatism, "it was all a game; a way of making a living."

Quote:
You've made that point abundantly clear many times and I agree with it. But the terms you use are confusing. We're not going to distinguish ourselves from conservatives if we don't have anything substantially different to offer. And we don't. We ARE conservatives. Just not of the sell-out, neocohen variety.
Conservative is just a euphemism for loser. It refers to a disposition that is genetic in origin, and not found in those who initiate action to effect changes in established authority. Now, individual conservatives can be coopted into the better cause, but they are not the type to create its organizations or lead it, they are cogs, cannon fodder or at best advisers.

Quote:
There's nothing wrong with looking to the historical NS for inspiration and strategy, but let's not go deluding ourselves into thinking we're them or that our situations are identical.
Many here do believe in NS. Not me. But I would not call myself a conservative, even though intellectual conservatism has grounds for accepting the biological facts we respect, and taking them into account in devising policies. I'm not NS or conservative.
 
Old May 26th, 2010 #73
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Maybe the goal should be to radicalize the conservative movement rather than to sink it.
The incentives are all in the other direction. Witness the neoconning of TAC. Hunter sees this as a departure from Buchananism but it really follows logically from it, and could have been predicted when TAC trashed MacDonald years ago.

Quote:
When the conservatives in Arizona pass anti-immigration bills, and threaten to shut off power to the shitskins of L.A., should we support them or attack them?
How about keep a healthy, critical distance? If that law stands, the message will be that working within the system and adhering to PC works. If it's overturned, the message will be that further moderation and compromise are needed. The movement cons accept the rigged game the way they would any other nonnegotiable term of their employment contract.
 
Old July 17th, 2010 #74
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

BTW TOQ Online is now basically dead under the control of him who shall not be named. Under Johnson they posted maybe a dozen articles a week, now it's one every week or two, and mostly cross-posts at that. One thing we can say for fags is they can be hard workers. It's not like they need to invest much time in their relationships.
 
Old April 12th, 2011 #75
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Question



Quote:
Confessions of a Reluctant Hater is an accessible and challenging introduction to White Nationalism, written by one of the leading voices of the North American New Right.

Confessions of a Reluctant Hater contains 28 short essays, reviews, and opinion pieces that chronicle the author’s discovery of a white worldview and a white voice to defend it. Greg Johnson discusses multiculturalism, immigration, economic policy, the Tea Party, and the 2008 and 2010 elections, as well as Craig Bodeker’s A Conversation About Race films, Christian Lander’s Whiter Shades of Pale, and even the controversies surrounding the “Ground Zero” mosque and the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

Greg Johnson also shows that White Nationalism is not a rigid, right-wing orthodoxy, by including searching and controversial essays on drug legalization, race-mixing, homosexuality, “West Coast White Nationalism,” and counter-culture guru Alan Watts. He also argues that White Nationalism will not triumph until white racial consciousness leaves its right-wing ghetto and becomes the common sense of the whole political spectrum.

Greg Johnson is a master of defending radical and uncompromising views with wit, clarity, seductive logic, and brutal frankness.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2011...luctant-hater/
 
Old April 15th, 2011 #76
T.J. McAllister
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 225
T.J. McAllister
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
This begins verbally. We dictate terms, literal terms, whereas they accept terms.
Good point.

Everyone here should familiarize themselves with basic semantics by reading SI Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action. The author, an American-Japanese politician and academic in the '60s, was predictably 'anti-racist' and I think this was part of the motivation for writing the book, but the tools and ideas inside are just as effective at defending WN as they were for demolishing the strawman racialism described in this and other works. Like most of the best books it is short (but dense).
 
Old July 31st, 2012 #77
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

2012 debate over revisionism and Old Right vs New Right
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144074
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...the-holocaust/
 
Old August 9th, 2012 #78
Martin Simard
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 545
Post Re: Johnson and Anne Frank

I'm a new forum member who has been holding back for a few days on how I feel about this Greg Johnson person. I can't find the thread where we discovered his teary affection for Anne Frank but that was simply disgusting. I'm shocked that a so-called WN theorist (I won't call him a leader) would lower himself to accepting a Jewish created icon. Any WN worth his salt should have the insight to know that the western world only knows of Anne Frank because we are meant to know her by the Jews who seek to control our minds and brainwash our children to love Jews and hate the White race. Why don't we know the name of a 15 year old Aryan German girl who was killed in the Allied bombings of Dresden in 1945? Because the purpose of being given a name is itself a form of mental control. We are denied an individual name from the Dresden bombing because that wouldn't serve the greater Jewish agenda. How skilled is a WN theorist if he isn't capable of dismantling the Anne Frank cult? He states quite clearly that WN have an obligation to answer for the loss of Anne Frank's life. Johnson's apparent strategy is that WN must embrace establishment Jewish propaganda thereby putting us into retreat mode when we should be on the attack.
 
Old August 9th, 2012 #79
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Simard View Post
I'm a new forum member who has been holding back for a few days on how I feel about this Greg Johnson person. I can't find the thread where we discovered his teary affection for Anne Frank but that was simply disgusting. I'm shocked that a so-called WN theorist (I won't call him a leader) would lower himself to accepting a Jewish created icon. Any WN worth his salt should have the insight to know that the western world only knows of Anne Frank because we are meant to know her by the Jews who seek to control our minds and brainwash our children to love Jews and hate the White race. Why don't we know the name of a 15 year old Aryan German girl who was killed in the Allied bombings of Dresden in 1945? Because the purpose of being given a name is itself a form of mental control. We are denied an individual name from the Dresden bombing because that wouldn't serve the greater Jewish agenda. How skilled is a WN theorist if he isn't capable of dismantling the Anne Frank cult? He states quite clearly that WN have an obligation to answer for the loss of Anne Frank's life. Johnson's apparent strategy is that WN must embrace establishment Jewish propaganda thereby putting us into retreat mode when we should be on the attack.
He's chasing money. That's all it is. Of course he can't admit that. Hence the wordiness.
 
Old May 14th, 2014 #80
Alexander M.
Senior Member
 
Alexander M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,236
Alexander M.
Default Changes Afoot at Counter-Currents

Since mid-March, major changes have been afoot at Counter-Currents and in my life more broadly. I have been trying to keep these hidden to outside eyes, but our more perceptive readers have noticed certain signs, e.g., a slight decrease in the number of articles at Counter-Currents, a specific decrease in my own articles, a worsening of my already spotty correspondence skills, slower comment moderation, some site outages and glitches, and the like.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2014...-2/#more-47008
__________________
Experience molds perception.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 PM.
Page generated in 0.16766 seconds.