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

Old August 7th, 2012 #241
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
1. Hadding Scott claims that my views on revisionism are influenced by Guillaume Faye's THE NEW JEWISH QUESTION and presents quotes to prove it. As further evidence, he mentions the fact that I published Michael O'Meara's review of Faye's THE NEW JEWISH QUESTION.

Hadding does not mention that the review is extremely critical of Faye.
I didn't say that you were influenced by O'Meara. I only relied on O'Meara for his summary of Faye, and the fact that you published the review shows that you are somewhat familiar with Faye. Faye (among others) is "New Right" and now you call yourself "New Right." The passages that I quoted show that some of your ideas relating to revisionism are Faye's ideas. You don't go as far as Faye in every respect but that's consistent with your usual superficial eclecticism.

I thought it was more reasonable to conclude that you were influenced by Faye than to make Jared Taylor the root of all evil, since Taylor never expresses any opinion about revisionism whereas Faye is notorious for it. Maybe Taylor picked up the rhetoric about ethnomasochism from Faye.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson
3. Mark Weber's article on the relevance of revisionism did influence my thinking on this matter. So did Jonathan Bowden.
You didn't learn anything from Bowden except a couple of verbal expressions that you found nifty. Bowden's thinking about revisionism and about what you like to call "Old Right" is opposed to yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson
I am putting this out here because it is illustrative of how Alex, Carolyn, and Hadding think: they come up with a story and then make the facts fit, or make up facts to fit, because deep down they are indifferent to the truth, even if they could learn it. Indifference to the truth is not the same thing as healthy skepticism about matters one just cannot know about for sure. These are matters of easily verified fact. But they are not interested in that. If they were, they would behave differently. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that they have different agendas than just the truth.
This makes me laugh. It's another example of how you copy other people's rhetoric. You hear Jonathan Bowden say "step over" and you start saying it. You see me use the expression "man up" and you start using it. There are other examples. You copy the words that others use but you don't get the substance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson
Now, when people who reason like this defend a field like holocaust revisionism, doesn't that constitute grounds for skepticism about revisionism itself? Revisionsts really need to police their publicists and fanboys. With friends like these . . .
Nigga please. This is such faggy posturing.

Last edited by Hadding; August 7th, 2012 at 11:12 PM.
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #242
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,490
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
2. Alex and Carolyn Yeager are all aflutter about the fact that we have created a non-profit Counter-Currents Foundation, for which we have applied for 501c3 status. That much is true. But then they got busy embroidering it with conspiratorial junk.
How could I be aflutter about a fact I wasn't aware of? The first I ever heard whiff of such a thing was from Yeager's writing, and I didnt know if she actually knew anything. My attitude was derived from your very evident shift in tone over the last year or so, and perfectly displayed in the TOO revisionist article, which is a conservative-typical attempt to have something two ways. Your acknowledging your attempt to get 501c3 status confirms my motive questioning. And I do appreciate your confirming the facts, it's always good to know where people really stand. You can state your motives, and we can judge them for ourselves. And of course you can do the same to us, with the silly "conspiracy" theorizing, which is just another example of your attempt to move back toward professional conservatism. I questioned your motives and your influences, I never posited any "conspiracy." A conpiracy is a crime, by definition. Oops. I forgot definitions don't matter to you where serious questions are involved. But even so. All I said was I think you're getting bad advice, and I think it's coming from Jared Taylor and Mark Weber, and possibly others. I still believe that.

Quote:
Alex attributes my article on "Dealing with the Holocaust" and other recent writings to the quest for the "holy grail" of tax deductibility, as if the low-level bureaucrats at the IRS actually would be influenced by such things. He thinks I am just lying to gain tax deductibility so I can go after large donations from squeamish mainstreamers.
That's more or less correct, except you are far too smart to lie, what you're doing is, as I said, trimming. And it factually untrue to say I knew about your 501c3 quest before I made the charges. In fact, I saw the change in your tone, the increasing amount of inexplicable double-talk, and it led me to speculate about why that would be. My impulse was that you were listening to Taylor. Then others pointed out Weber. And then Yeager brought up the 501c3. Which made sense. If you don't think the IRS can mess with you for political reasons, including deny your organization status, you're ignoring known history - William Pierce's.

Quote:
That's not true: my position in that article is what I have basically always believed since I encountered revisionism. I never thought it was enough to get the Holocaust off our people's back. And as for donors: we have plenty of loyal supporters who are quite radical. They deserve a break on their taxes, and if we get 501c3 status, they will be in a position to give more.
A government-approved, government-chartered radical organization, eh? If you say so. I say you just want to write essays and collect money, which is the very definition of conservatism.

Quote:
Carolyn claims that Mark Weber is advising us on how to get 501c3 status, presumably by advising us to ditch revisionism. Now there is a kernel of truth here. I asked Mark if he would be willing to look at our paperwork if we had any technical questions, and he agreed, but we never needed to take him up on it. But revisionism never entered the discussion. And Carolyn did not even know that much. She was just making it up to fit her conspiracy narrative.
How can it be a conspiracy narrative when no one is suggesting you are planning anything illegal? You are using the term the way the conservatives do. All anyone is saying is: 1) you're wrong about 'the' 'holocaust' and revisionism; 2) you're taking bad advice from men you shouldn't be listening to.

Quote:
3. Mark Weber's article on the relevance of revisionism did influence my thinking on this matter. So did Jonathan Bowden. So did a learned gentlemen whom I did not name because he is not a public figure and I respect people's privacy. Beyond that, though, the idea being floated about that Weber, Taylor, MacDonald, and I sit down in a smoke-filled room and plot about revisionism and the Jewish question is false. And it is false not because we don't smoke, or for some other pickwickian reason. It is wholly false. In fact, I don't think all four of us have ever been in the same room, period.
That's fine. I believe you. But the bottom line is you have grown increasingly Jared-Taylorish in your approach to...everything. That is the wrong way to go. You say you listen to me. That's what I'm telling you. At this point I really don't have much more to say, as your mind seems made up.

Quote:
Maybe our movement would benefit from some focused, Elders of White Nationalism plotting.
Sure, it would. But it will never happen. The only thing that will unify our movement is someone proving it in the field. Until then it's just a bunch of cooperating/competing egos and fundraising efforts.

Quote:
I know I have tried to get that going. But it just doesn't happen. We're all pretty much "in this together on our own." We don't even share drafts of our writings, unless I send something to MacDonald for publication or vice-versa. Aside from that, we learn what each other is thinking the same time everybody else does, and the same way everybody else does: when a new article or podcast appears online. In short, our conspiracy, such as it is, is as open as the Jewish conspiracy, which is there on every front page.
Well, keep plugging away at it. You're doing more than anybody, from what I know, at least in terms of getting people physically together. That's certainly one aspect of it.

Quote:
4. Mark Weber is a person I do business with. Just as I do business with Willis Carto. I like them both, and neither of them has done me wrong. Regarding Weber: I did some editing for him, he has sold our books, I have sold his books, we have spoken at one another's events, etc. Our conversations deal with publishing, bookselling, the Jewish question, movement politics and personalities, and the Third Reich. (I might have discussed revisionism proper with Weber ONCE, in 2002. I think I did, but I honestly can't remember any details, so maybe it was somebody else at the same AmRen meeting.) Aside from speaking at one another's events, I can say pretty much the same about my dealings with the Cartos. I can hardly wait for the conspiracy theory that wraps all that up.
Ok. My reaction to your revisionism essay is not premised on your echoing Weber or anyone else, it's that I honestly think you're wrong. Hadding may have a slightly different view. I don't follow Weber or any of the revisionists beyond picking up their proved points and making them into political weapons WN can use.

Quote:
I am putting this out here because it is illustrative of how Alex, Carolyn, and Hadding think: they come up with a story and then make the facts fit, or make up facts to fit, because deep down they are indifferent to the truth, even if they could learn it.
The way I see it, and I can't speak for Yeager or Hadding, I speculated on your motives, and I was pretty much right. You can say you're not influenced by this or that person, but it really doesn't matter if you're friends with that person, work with him, and suddenly begin making the same bad arguments.

Quote:
Indifference to the truth is not the same thing as healthy skepticism about matters one just cannot know about for sure.
That's true. Just as speculation about motives is not the same as conspiracy theorizing. I think you need to look up conspiracy and refresh your memory. It's two or more people plotting an ILLEGAL act. No illegality, no conspiracy. If it's legal act, they're plotting, then we English users call it planning.

Quote:
These are matters of easily verified fact. But they are not interested in that. If they were, they would behave differently. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that they have different agendas than just the truth.
Not really. You're the only one who is open about this stuff. MacDonald certainly isn't. I do appreciate your openness, and I think others should too. It breeds confidence that even if you're going the wrong way, it's an honest mistake.

Quote:
Now, when people who reason like this defend a field like holocaust revisionism, doesn't that constitute grounds for skepticism about revisionism itself? Revisionsts really need to police their publicists and fanboys. With friends like these . . .
You know I don't like Hadding much personally. I'm on his side in this dispute because I think he's right. You surely must have noticed that most people on your own home court at TOO disagreed with you. Are they all fanboys and publicists too? I really believe, Greg, you wait six months and go back and read your responses in that thread, and you'll see that you started the ad hominems.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 7th, 2012 at 05:22 PM.
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #243
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default may or may not involve illegality

I think you need to look up conspiracy and refresh your memory. It's two or more people plotting an ILLEGAL act. No illegality, no conspiracy

con新pir戢搾y/kənˈspirəsē/
Noun:
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
The action of plotting or conspiring.
Synonyms:
plot - cabal - scheme - intrigue - collusion


con新pir戢搾y   [kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural con新pir戢搾ies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

con新pir戢搾y (kn-sp褳-s)
n. pl. con新pir戢搾ies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design:
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #244
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,490
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
I think you need to look up conspiracy and refresh your memory. It's two or more people plotting an ILLEGAL act. No illegality, no conspiracy

con新pir戢搾y/kənˈspirəsē/
Noun:
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
The action of plotting or conspiring.
Synonyms:
plot - cabal - scheme - intrigue - collusion


con新pir戢搾y   [kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural con新pir戢搾ies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Yeah, and you can find 'enormity' defined as something enormous, but that's not what it means.

Most likely the fifth definition is to accommodate the misuse of the world by people who can't have their feelings hurt by being wrong about anything, as that is the standard practice with dictionaries these days.
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #245
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,490
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

And if you think I'm wrong, Rick, you find a single example where that fifth definition is used. I can't think of one.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 7th, 2012 at 07:10 PM.
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #246
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

If Mark Weber was a woman, I'd call him a cunt.
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #247
Eric-Hunt
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13
Eric-Hunt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric-Hunt View Post
Along with some other revisionists, I was interested in forming a non-profit, tax deductible group. A revisionist lawyer said that I wouldn't be able to be on the board and effectively would have to hide behind the scenes because there is a review board, etc., that can deny a group non-profit status.
The revisionist lawyer I mentioned - Andrew Allen, told me that he set up the non-profit status for the IHR.

So if Weber is giving Johnson advice about setting up a non-profit, it's likely similar to the advice Mr. Allen gave me.

He said that we would have to soften everything, essentially. We couldn't do anything that could be construed as "hate". It would have to be softer, emotion-less, and that's not what Fritz Berg (of nazigassings.com) or I do.

So, we decided against having our principles compromised and castrated by the government in order to fund our projects. And look at the results -
on a video segment someone else cut out from my documentary.

See what the uploader called it? Holohoax Survivors Who Tell The Truth. The people who viewed it (mostly straight men) are interested in logic and the truth, not emotional appeals.

They understand that if The Holocaust is the greatest hoax in modern history, used to genocide whites and destroy Western Civilization, there's no reason at all to mourn Jews who died in camps mostly due to the actions of the Allies (as Johnson suggests we do).

Our people are sheep. Do sheep mourn dead wolves? Whites do now, but that's because the Jews need to be exposed as wolves in sheep's clothing. Mostly via the Holohoax.

There's no reason for whites to mourn the Jews any more than the Japanese civilians of Hiroshoma and Nagasaki. That's about the right amount of mourning this event should have - even the death toll is similar, according to we lie deniers. In fact, Americans don't mourn those Japanese at all, for a variety of reasons.

I think if Carolyn, Alex, and Hadding want to bring up Johnson's alleged homosexuality, it absolutely does come into account here.

Homosexual brains have been proven to be similar to straight female brains. Therefore, a homosexual man is likely more receptive to emotional appeals, as are women, and Anne Frank's story is so sad that he'd let the Jews have their "Holocaust", because it's really sad that she and many other poor Jews died...

There's another thing, Johnson's residual former Christianity. Johnson was a semi-preacher, too?

"GOD" killed Anne Frank, not Germans. Typhus, not gas chambers.

God made Typhus! Or Satan? "God" didn't stop her death either, but rather than blame the non-existence of God for Anne Frank's death due to disease, it's much easier to blame the krauts for a former Christian preacher. Which is easier for a Christian to accept? That a loving God made Typhus, and let innocent little girls die from infection? Or that the Germans, with their red and black devil colors had a satanic program to exterminate Jews with gas chambers?

I think everything I allege has been proven true and more. Since Taylor, Weber, plus guys who marry Asians (some consider this the definition of a race traitor) and types like that are involved in their elite "circle", articles such as Greg's appear through osmosis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Astonishing. Even after stating that innocent people of ALL nations died, Johnson believes kikes are entitled to a special term for their unspecial suffering? Is he insane? Does he not know how the kikes use an admission like that? And couple this with his fingers-in-ears, la-la-la I-can't-hear-you when a factualist says, actually Greg, we don't need to run from 'the' 'holocaust' at all, because the claims it's based on are big lies. Pure insanity.
I asked multiple times for him to answer four easy questions, yes or no.

Greg Johnson's response - fingers-in-ears, la-la-la I-can't-hear-you
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #248
VikingWarrior
Kill The 'Kwa
 
VikingWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vinland
Posts: 1,473
Blog Entries: 1
VikingWarrior
Default

John McGhee
August 6, 2012 at 11:31 pm

Mark Weber is a lazy, indolent do nothing scam artist. Revisionist publishing titan Germar Rudolf called Weber a parasite. Willis Carto was about to fire Weber from the Journal of Historical Review (JHR) and the IHR, because he just could not get the JHR published on time and regularly.

Weber is a sponger, who waits like a leech for the next death bequest to fund his salary and to pay his child support. Weber spends his day reading news articles, watching You Tube videos and giving his employees two hour lectures. He accomplishes nothing during the day.

Mark Weber must resign from the Institute for Historical Review
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/...institute.html

He is very proud of the amount of donors money he has sent to pay the IHR lawyers bills. Leon Degrelles book Campaign in Russia reprint sits on Webers desk because he is too lazy to proof read the new edition.

Interesting thread on the Vanguard News Network Forum on the Weber/Johnson situation.
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144074

The IHR is a DBA for the Legion for the Survival of Freedom (LSF), which was bought by Willis Carto in the seventies just before he started the IHR. The LSF has a 501c(3) status which the IHR uses.

Mark Weber has NEVER written a single book. Weber uses the IHR and its donors to supply him his $49,000 per year salary. He uses the IHR as a sinecure, an employment that offers a salary but has little work. The Board of Directors are stooges and yes men. They have been told time and time again about Webers indolence, nothing was done. Weber is on the IHR Board himself conflict of interest?

http://markwebermustgo.blogspot.com/

LSF/IHR 2010 Tax REturns
http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/orgs/pr...?popup=1#forms

http://thewhitenetwork.com/2012/08/0...k/#comment-819
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #249
VikingWarrior
Kill The 'Kwa
 
VikingWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vinland
Posts: 1,473
Blog Entries: 1
VikingWarrior
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
And if you think I'm wrong, Rick, you find a single example where that fifth definition is used. I can't think of one.
Taylor knows about the jews. Taylor is being disingenuous about the "jewish question".

Taylor is best friends with Mark Weber, Taylor calls Weber at the slowly dying IHR at least twice a week.
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #250
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,400
Henry.
Default

To see Alex Linder ping Jared Taylor as the Jew loving cunt he really is in almost the same breath as he says how much he relies on Hadding Scott's opinion/judgment/integrity (whatever it was) is almost too much to stomach given Hadding's longstanding defense of Taylor and his philosemitic tendencies.

Apart from his Christian missionary parents; I don't think Jared Taylor saw a white man until he was sixteen....and boy does it show!

Quote:
Born to missionary parents in Japan,[7] Taylor lived in that country until he was 16 years old. His parents were conventional liberals, and so was he until the age of 30. He graduated from Yale University in 1973 with a BA in Philosophy, and did graduate coursework at Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po). He has also worked in west Africa, and has traveled the area extensively.[7] Taylor speaks fluent English, Japanese and French. In the 1980s, Taylor was West Coast editor of PC Magazine and a consultant before founding the American Renaissance periodical in 1990. Taylor has taught Japanese to summer school students at Harvard University.
He sure loves those Japs and Jews with their big IQs 'n' all...
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #251
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,490
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VikingWarrior View Post
Taylor knows about the jews. Taylor is being disingenuous about the "jewish question".

Taylor is best friends with Mark Weber, Taylor calls Weber at the slowly dying IHR at least twice a week.
Yes, I know this. I attack Taylor every chance I get. I don't follow Weber, so I don't comment on him.

What disturbs me is to see Johnson making arguments that I know from long experience are either created or most prominently promoted by Taylor and AmRen.

As for Hadding, we disagree on legal/illegal question. I don't know what he's said about Taylor. I do trust him on fine factual matter related to Covington or WWII.
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #252
VikingWarrior
Kill The 'Kwa
 
VikingWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vinland
Posts: 1,473
Blog Entries: 1
VikingWarrior
Default

Quote:
Yes, I know this. I attack Taylor every chance I get. I don't follow Weber, so I don't comment on him.
What people don't understand is that Taylor/Weber are inter changeable.

Weber got Taylor involved in the "racialist movement" in the first instance.

Weber was editor of Dr. Pierce's old National Vanguard magazine.
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #253
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,490
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric-Hunt View Post
The revisionist lawyer I mentioned - Andrew Allen, told me that he set up the non-profit status for the IHR.

So if Weber is giving Johnson advice about setting up a non-profit, it's likely similar to the advice Mr. Allen gave me.

He said that we would have to soften everything, essentially. We couldn't do anything that could be construed as "hate". It would have to be softer, emotion-less, and that's not what Fritz Berg (of nazigassings.com) or I do.
Yeah. That's what I suspected. Johnson is trimming, but won't admit it.

V-dont-dare, ho!

His initial backing off:

1) 'the' 'holocaust'

- Johnson's trimming: concede it exists, treat pillar big lies of 6m and gassing as details, claim we're moving on as new, improved "universal nationalists"

- right position: call it blood libel, point out 6m and gas chambers are Big Lies, like already conceded soap and lampshades, bring up real atrocities called Kulakost or Holodomor

2) white race committing suicide or being murdered?

- Johnson's trimming: blaming white decline on inherent biological/genetic moral flaws in our race that cause us to feel guilt for no reason

- right position: we're being murdered by jews who have thwarted the will of our majority for nearly 100 years through the power they exercise from owning our academy, media and political system

I observed Johnson's shift before I ever knew he was going for tax-deductibility, but he writes as though it were the other way around. Once you prostitute your beliefs for money, you just get slipperier and slipperier. I'm starting to wonder what's real in what Johnson says anymore.

And what is this argument, even if we got rid of 'holocaust' jews would still try to guilt us with other bits of (false) history. That's like saying, even if we took out the biggest guy in their gang, the betas would still be coming after us. By that logic, why fight them on anything? They've chosen the grounds. They are teaching the Holodrek in every single classroom in the country. How can you not fight that fight? It makes no sense any way you look at it except one: Johnson is making a strategic withdrawal from winnable political positions to try to enhance fundraising. I think that's the wrong decision. We already have all the gelded conservatives we need. What we need are uncompromising radicals. Not another No-Fight Right Foundation.

Quote:
Our people are sheep. Do sheep mourn dead wolves? Whites do now, but that's because the Jews need to be exposed as wolves in sheep's clothing. Mostly via the Holohoax.
Yeah - where's the moral guilt our people feel over the incredible injustices visited on innocent Iraqis and Afghans as a direct result of a Mossad deception and jewish WMD lies? There is not an ounce of it. If we have these racial flaws that lead us to feel guilty all the time, it's sure interesting that they turn on and off 100% in line with the jew finger on the light switch.

Quote:
I think if Carolyn, Alex, and Hadding want to bring up Johnson's alleged homosexuality, it absolutely does come into account here.

Homosexual brains have been proven to be similar to straight female brains. Therefore, a homosexual man is likely more receptive to emotional appeals, as are women, and Anne Frank's story is so sad that he'd let the Jews have their "Holocaust", because it's really sad that she and many other poor Jews died...
That's an excellent point. To the extent New Johnson can't be explained by 501c3 trimming, he can be explained by his love of salons. 'The' 'holocaust' is so . . . icky. You know? It's not something nice people talk about or want to talk about. Just concede it to our worst enemy and move on.

Quote:
God made Typhus! Or Satan? "God" didn't stop her death either, but rather than blame the non-existence of God for Anne Frank's death due to disease, it's much easier to blame the krauts for a former Christian preacher. Which is easier for a Christian to accept? That a loving God made Typhus, and let innocent little girls die from infection? Or that the Germans, with their red and black devil colors had a satanic program to exterminate Jews with gas chambers?
Just seems like Johnson is trying to be too many things at once to too many people, resulting in these increasingly lengthy essays that are nothing but trying to have it both ways.

Quote:
I think everything I allege has been proven true and more. Since Taylor, Weber, plus guys who marry Asians (some consider this the definition of a race traitor) and types like that are involved in their elite "circle", articles such as Greg's appear through osmosis.
They can't answer the question: how can you be a white racialist and work with someone who claims jews are whites? And reject those who reject that guy? MacDonald is an implicit conservative, or, better put, a functional conservative. So are all those associated with TOO, which is more like an association of self-marketers than a real political crew like NS or Golden Dawn.

Quote:
I asked multiple times for him to answer four easy questions, yes or no.

Greg Johnson's response - fingers-in-ears, la-la-la I-can't-hear-you
What you can see but Greg cannot is that he misstepped. And did himself more damage than he realizes. He thought he could dip into something that he doesn't understand, admits he has no interest in, and yet is smart enough that he can just flick away something vitally important to others, and to our race, with some glib remarks. But all he achieved was to put his own character on display. And sure enough, not only did he get beaten to death on the facts, his own motives quickly came under the spotlight and...ah...ok...now we get it.

We need more principled radicals, Johnson, not tergiversating, vacillating, compromising conservatives.
 
Old August 7th, 2012 #254
Lew_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 146
Lew_
Default

Well said. That's a great point. I've never seen any person who takes some variation on the "we're doing it to ourselves" position address it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Yeah - where's the moral guilt our people feel over the incredible injustices visited on innocent Iraqis and Afghans as a direct result of a Mossad deception and jewish WMD lies? There is not an ounce of it. If we have these racial flaws that lead us to feel guilty all the time, it's sure interesting that they turn on and off 100% in line with the jew finger on the light switch.
 
Old August 8th, 2012 #255
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,490
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lew_ View Post
Well said. That's a great point. I've never seen any person who takes some variation on the "we're doing it to ourselves" position address it.
What do you mean? I don't understand your point. I've bashed that faggot Jerry Taylor on this 100x. You must be new to VNN.

These guys are all spiritual queers, as well as flesh queers in certain cases.

Here is REAL politics while the implicit conservative write one more winning essay:


This is Golden Dawn men going after the van with the Paki who brained the Greek girl on the island the other day.

ITZ COMING. But not from the No-Fight Right.
 
Old August 8th, 2012 #256
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric-Hunt
The revisionist lawyer I mentioned - Andrew Allen, told me that he set up the non-profit status for the IHR.

So if Weber is giving Johnson advice about setting up a non-profit, it's likely similar to the advice Mr. Allen gave me.

He said that we would have to soften everything, essentially. We couldn't do anything that could be construed as "hate". It would have to be softer, emotion-less, and that's not what Fritz Berg (of nazigassings.com) or I do.
This is not true. Willis Carto in the early seventies bought the Texas based Legion of the Survival of Freedom (LSF) which had a 501c(3) not-for-profit status. It is a corporation and the IHR and Nontide Press are DBA to LSF.

Unlike what Michael Collins Piper is saying, Andrew Allen left Weber and the IHR because of his indolence and abject laziness. Not anything to do with so called "Mossad" and conspiracy tales as MCP would have you all believe.
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old August 8th, 2012 #257
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

I pointed out the resemblance between Greggy's wheedling and Bugster rhetoric earlier. Now it's official: Greggy is a Bugster-Booster:

The Left lost the Cold War but won the peace through the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony. We can beat them the same way, and we don’t have to all be rocket scientists to do it, since anyone of even moderate intelligence can make real progress by simply repeating Bob Whitaker’s talking points. [Greg Johnson, 7 August 2012]


I pointed out in my essay "Our Weapon, The Truth" that methods that will work for corrupting and destroying are not altogether well suited for the opposite purpose. You can't clear the air and win idealists for your cause by being sneaky. And as Rockwell said (approximately), How do you think you are going to out-sneak the Jews, the sneakiest people on Earth?

Last edited by Hadding; August 8th, 2012 at 04:51 PM.
 
Old August 8th, 2012 #258
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Now, when people who reason like this defend a field like holocaust revisionism, doesn't that constitute grounds for skepticism about revisionism itself?
Ehrm... alright so therefore if you have followers (as I am fairly sure you do) who are Apollo-hoaxers or believe in weather control machines: does that constitute grounds for skepticism about what you argue? If you promote opinions also shared by liberals does that also constitute skepticism?

Holocaust revisionism is more a method that tends to lead to a general series of conclusions than a movement as you should know considering the; sometimes wide, differences of opinion between Revisionists themselves.
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; August 8th, 2012 at 05:00 PM.
 
Old August 8th, 2012 #259
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Here's something that touches on Greggy's complaint that my concern with definitions is "morally obtuse quibbling." This is Joseph Sobran, from his essay, "For Fear of the Jews":
Not long ago the only label more lethal to one's reputation was that of child molester, but, as many men of the cloth are now discovering, there is this difference: a child molester may hope for a second chance.

There is also another difference. We have a pretty clear idea what child molestation is. Nobody really knows what "anti-Semitism" is. My old boss Bill Buckley wrote an entire book called In Search of Anti-Semitism without bothering to define anti-Semitism.

At the time I thought this was an oversight. I was wrong. The word would lose its utility if it were defined.
As I observed in my own small contribution to the book, an "anti-Semite" used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.
Now, who is perpetuating "flim-flam"? Could it be somebody that tosses around an incendiary term without defining it?

Last edited by Hadding; August 8th, 2012 at 05:47 PM.
 
Old August 8th, 2012 #260
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,490
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

It really isn't even worth debating any longer. It's just self-interested gutlessness on Johnson's and MacDonald's part. It's not even truly a political decision, they just don't have the stomach to fight. They're conservatives posing as radicals.

Once you accept the validity of the term 'the' 'holocaust,' you have lost the debate. KM and GJ have never once questioned the validity of the term, only the sanity and character of those who confute it. They're not enemies, but in practice they might as well be. KM is valuable for historical documentation of jewish lobbying; beyond that, his political instincts, uh, suck. Johnson is clever and entertaining, but increasingly given to self-interested double talk, which would be ok, but he combines it with character smears of others.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, holocaust fairytales, holocaust mythology, jared taylor, revisionism

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 PM.
Page generated in 0.18358 seconds.