Online sources that look professional that we can use.

[Crowe]

If you post info from what looks like some off the wall CT website, people are gonna discredit it immediately.

I like metapedia. Every article I read looked like it was professionally written and presented. And they do it without the jewish distortions and lies.

For example, take a look at their page about Adolf Hitler. I did a CTL+F and the word "Holocaust" is nowhere on the page.

[Pierre-Marc]

I think Metapedia is great but it is a pro-White source. WN who have the knowledge should help improving it, the English version has only 17'000 articles compared to the 147'000 for the Hungarian version.

I would also like to point to the Great White Desert, it has a lot of pro-White resources. (PDF, etc.)

http://www.greatwhitedesert.org/
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Desert

[Joe_Smith]

Metapedia is an incredible resource that has survived many attacks. The person who founded it is an Argentinian nationalist named Alejandro Biondini (who now runs a more "veiled right wing" party that doesn't talk about race), who gave control to his son because of a variety of legal issues. It's vast because it's an old source that came around the same time of Wikipedia's inception.

Now that wikipedia needs money, they're starting to become more and more partisan. For example, if you look up Cultural Marxist on wikipedia, they recently deleted the well-written entry and instead you get led to "Frankfurt School Conspiracy theory".

Wikipedia (Links)

Cultural_Marxism

For this reason, we should try to reject mainstream outlets as much as possible and instead work to strengthen our own.

I think Karl Radl's Semitic Controversies is pretty underrated. I don't agree with some of the conclusions he comes to, but it's very well-researched and academic. http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Metapedia is an incredible resource that has survived many attacks. The host and owner who founded it is an Argentinian nationalist named Alejandro Biondini, who gave control to his son because of a variety of legal issues.

Now that wikipedia needs money, they're starting to become more and more partisan. For example, if you look up Cultural Marxist on wikipedia, they recently deleted the well-written entry and instead you get led to "Frankfurt School Conspiracy theory". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

For this reason, we should try to reject mainstream outlets as much as possible and instead work to strengthen our own.

I think Karl Radl's Semitic Controversies is pretty underrated. I don't agree with some of the conclusions he comes to, but it's very well-researched and academic. http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/

Metapedia could conceivably hit a certain level, I absolutely loathe Wikipedia but often use it, as it comes up first.

The fact is, in all these industries - payments, search engine, encyclopedia, they're natural de facto monopolies, and it's very hard to avoid them because everyone uses them, even though others exist.

[Joe_Smith]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Metapedia could conceivably hit a certain level, I absolutely loathe Wikipedia but often use it, as it comes up first.

The fact is, in all these industries - payments, search engine, encyclopedia, they're natural de facto monopolies, and it's very hard to avoid them because everyone uses them, even though others exist.

That's true, wikipedia especially, but that's where collective discipline comes in. For example, I'll still click through Yahoo news articles that usually link to Huffington Post or some other cultural Marxist BS, but as soon as I'm done, I go out of my way to visit Daily Stormer or Daily Slave to see a take on an event from our point of view. The more visits DS gets, the higher it goes on google, the more peepers they get.

Wiki is still not bad enough to boycott completely. We'll take measures depending on future steps they take.

Another useful possible tool is when linking to a hostile website that we want to see destroyed, like Gawker, use http://www.donotlink.com/ so that they don't register traffic, thus get less sponsors, thus eventually go bankrupt. We go for the slow antelopes like Gawker first (who have already lost many sponsors and have lots of enemies thanks to GamerGate), then when enough of us hurt them, it'll galvanize our big tent (Nazis, MRA's, gamergaters etc) to go after bigger fish.

Not easy to remember to do it every time, but we should all make a vow for lent.