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

Old May 4th, 2012 #21
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

I think the more pertinent view, in relation to our cause, is that spiral of silence, I think they call it, where a true majority view can be suppressed by and dominated by a minority view because the people holding the majority view falsely believe they are the minority, and are scared to voice it. I believe MacDonald mentions this spiral in Culture of Critique.

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 4th, 2012 at 08:26 AM.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #22
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Egalitarians (‘the Left’) campaigned for equality with religious fervour, even terroristically, from day one. They never tried to pass as anything else. Many disagreed, but they feared and eventually respected their conviction.
More like they grew tired of being beaten up in the media and they feared federal bayonets. No one, literally no one, not niggers themselves, nor the abolitionists yesterday nor the jews today, believes blacks are equal to whites. That was just the cover story used in the media, along with the pictures of dogs and firehoses.

Morality is almost purely a function of who controls the tv cameras, where he points them, and what the voice guy tells the viewer it means.

Quote:
For us the good is difference (or Quality), not equality.

Everything must flow from that.
No. Too abstract. For us the good is...us: our people. We are Whites. Not Republicans, conservatives, christians or any of the other things taken as proxy by us or our enemies. We cut it racially so the divide works in our favor. The last thing we need is to get embroiled in some incomprehensible philosophical debate.

We are White. The System screws us. It screws us because the jews running it hate us Whites and are trying to genocide us. We must create a new System run by us for us.

Quote:
If a dissident political party’s mission is to translate the counter-cultural idea into policy, our political parties must formulate policy on the premise that difference, including human difference, is morally good, productive, and desirable, and equality, including human equality, is morally evil, destructive, and repugnant.
No, all that is simply true and assumed. It's just a long-winded way of saying that our way is morally right, which -- who cares? Things moral can't be proved. It's defensive if we're to sit around questioning whether we're morally right in not wanting to be genocided out of existence. It goes without saying. We must simply focus on saying: We are Whites. The System means to genocide us. The System is run by jews. We must change things and create a System by Whites for Whites. No way out but through the jews.

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 4th, 2012 at 08:27 AM.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #23
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

I love how these thinksters get these ideas that we're going to get in some kind of prolonged, involved moral or philosophical debate with people who run cable tv. Not going to happen. We must focus all our representational energy on an extremely short, extremely clear, extremely memorable message. Anything less will be drowned in the daily deluge of bilgewater pouring out of the electric sewer in everybody's living room.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #24
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Egalitarians have used a proven method of campaigning that works irrespective of ideology: pick a winnable issue; campaign intensely on it; push for a ‘reasonable’ concession; and, once secured, start all over again. Make them run, and keep them running.
Really? That works irrespective of ideology? No, it doesn't. That only works when the media is on your side. This is the dumb old 'all we have to do is copy the civil-rights strategy.' But that only works if the media are on your side, portraying you as the angels and those who prefer the old ways the devils.

We can't even win with a large-majority view, yet the judeo-left can win with a tiny-minority view. There's only one factor that can explain that, and it's not morality or appeals to it, it's control of television. With that control, you can make even something crazy and destructive like homosexuality or animal liberation (civil rights) the dominant view over time. Without that control, your normal view, held by 95% of the population gets nothing and likes it.

Quote:
The above is adapted from guerrilla warfare, but it is still used by egalitarians because they still see themselves as fighting a conservative establishment, even though they are the establishment.
They do indeed see themselves that way. They are not fighting the establishment, which they have taken over. What they are fighting today, having taken institutional power, are residual attitudes in the benighted public: opposition to gay marriage, pedophile rights, open borders, and the rest of the agenda. Just as they have normalized queerness and niggery sex behavior with the majority, they can take any other atavistic attitudes and lead the public to the right view by degree through their media over time.

Blather about morality is one thing; controlling the mass media, which means tv, is another. If you have control of tv, what you say is moral becomes the dominant social view over time.

WN will never be seen as the moral option until ordinary people are seeing and listening to WN speakers coming to them over the tv like Chris Berman, Dan Patrick, Peter Jennings, Brian Williams, David Letterman or any other commonly known shtickster.

Quote:
When egalitarians campaign successfully their tone is always moral. This works because White folk fear being thought of as bad people (e.g. ‘racists’), which generates internal pressure to yield even if they personally dislike the goals of the campaign.
No, no, no, no, no. Whites who resisted the forced disintegration of Brown vs. Board never thought of themselves as bad people. They were portrayed as bad people in the controlled media. The 'freedom riders' (sic) and such were doing all sorts of disgusting things down South, copulating on private lawns, for instance, but the media carefully covered their behavior up, just as today it falsifies audiotape to make Zimmerman appear evil and covers up pictures of Trayvon Martin showing him as a typical criminal nigger gangster wannabe to make him seem angelic.

Kurtagic's bogus theory is the left won because its tone was moral. No. It won because it had the media and the central government (the same thing) on its side. And they portrayed resistance as immoral. Kurtagic is deliberately or undeliberately portraying political success in these matters as a matter of our choice to adopt this tone or that when that is not even 1% of the battle compared to controlling the mass media that portray these struggles, that frame the debate and tell the viewer who the good guys and bad guys are. And this after Kurtagic has said up top that style matters more than truth. He seems to have forgotten this here. When we rally in Knoxville, the media are quick to brand us as outsiders stirring up trouble. Yet when jews go down to the South, they are portrayed as noble bringers of light to a benighted region of moral darkness. It's all in who controls the media, not in some vague tone in which a political party perfumes its motives. It's not about how we portray ourselves, it's about who controls tv. He who controls tv frames debate, and that framing includes identifying those opposed to any particular item on The Agenda(tm) as immoral.

Kurtagic is simply feeding the ordinary conservative delusion that the machinery of System politics is fundamentally fair, and our success a mere matter of learning how to manipulate it properly. But our failure is not mechanical, it is Systemic. Our cause, if it is racial, will always be portrayed as immoral so long as jews control television. There's nothing we can do about that until we take that control away. Rather, as opposed to Kurtagic's view, the right thing to do is notice real-world white behavior, understand that the majority already is with us, and sees our cause as moral, but is afraid to say so overtly because of the penalities it can bring in employment and social status. Thus our cause seeks bold champions, since they are precisely those who will not be put off by such disincentives but will, knowing the glory and value of victory, press on. Despite being hailed as not merely immoral but overtly hate-driven in the controlled media.

The morality of a political position, to repeat, is almost entirely a function of how it is portrayed on tv. There is no way to break through that tv ether to persuade people; that requires our taking over the medium itself, and indeed that must be one of our top goals.

Quote:
And since the egalitarian morality is the dominant morality, resistance is inevitably ineffective and the result is victory for egalitarians followed by some form of White flight.
No, the dominant morality isn't egalitarian at all. The dominant morality is that whites belong to an immoral race that must be controlled and subordinated by muds operated by jews behind the scenes. There's nothing egalitarian about it at all.

Takeaway: the perceived morality of any political cause is a function of how it is portrayed on tv. With control of tv, or with the aid of those who do, a tiny cause virtually without public support (the normalization of homosexual behavior being the perfect example) can triumph, whereas without that control or aid, a 98% majority view can be stifled. "[T]here is nothing either good or bad, but tv makes it so," as Hamlet might say today. Morality is whatever the powers that be say it is, and the powers that be, in 2012, are those who speak to us through our cable tv.

Last edited by Alex Linder; June 19th, 2012 at 01:08 PM.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

If it is a mistake to think that we can simply vote ourselves out of the present system (if only we get the right Republican or Conservative candidate), it is also a mistake to think that, because of that, party politics is a complete waste of time.

That's true, but you have to be semi-intelligent to grasp that not everything is black or white, and that leaves out about 50% of White Nationalists.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #26
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[begin analyzing points made in comments]

Quote:
Every one of the functions of a Counter-Cultural party listed above could also be performed by a popular Counter-Cultural media, even costing establishment parties votes (simply by persuading people to unplug from the system). And if that is true, then wouldn’t all the money spent on the particulars of futile political campaigning — yard signs, ballot registration drives, advertisements, etc. — be better spent getting our message out through alternative popular media? If the purpose of an alternative political party is to get the message our there, rather than merely get candidates elected, then why not focus on the message and drop the candidates as superfluous? Are there any specifically political skills that are not also developed by successful media personalities? After all, political campaigning is not the only alternative to ivory tower theorizing. [Greg Johnson]
These guys are talking about the political part of a suppositional national WN party, but fun as that debate is, the real problem on that front is technical: getting a core kernel of people with professional intelligence background who are loyal to the party's mission to the point of being willing to die before being disloyal. Only a party with the ability to protect itself against infiltration will be able to compete with the jews. The debate over political tactics is endless and not important until you have an inner core of loyal and technically competent intelligence and military experts.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #27
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

How did the Nazis begin? There was a small party of a handful of men, and army man Adolf Hitler was sent to investigate it, as yet another radical right-wing groupuscule of potential interest to authorities. Hitler had professional military background - he knew what he needed to have to protect his budding group against infiltration and subversion.

The FBI, to take another example, began with a nucleus of ex-criminals, ex-gangsters - men who with professional skill in identifying criminal activity, subversion, disloyalty.

WN need the same. Without these, starting a national party is pointless. It will simply be infiltrated and, when the time is right, laid low by the sleepers.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #28
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
And the principle reasons for this fear have little to do with the specific content of far-distant “media”. The sources of the fear are more immediate. The primary ones are: 1) fear of local economic sanctions and 2) fear of Jewish provoked antifa terrorism that selective police-legal enforcement that permits to reign unchecked. [Ex-Pro White Activist]
Dumb comment. It's precisely the national context-setting by the jewish powers that be (media coverage and legal backing from Dept. of Justice, if need be) who run cable that gives local cops and economic discriminators the moral strength (inaccurate for: legal-media backing) they need to cut the 'evil racist' off at the knees. Without the national contexting by the jewed mass media, the locals wouldn't give a damn that they employed a 'racist' or 'nazi,' they would judge the man by his job performance, not his private political views.

Last edited by Alex Linder; June 19th, 2012 at 01:13 PM.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #29
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Essentially what needs to develop is a parallel economic and professional network. [Kurtagic]
Wow. And I thought Pierce was over the top with the idea of parallel media. There's no way in hell any such network could be developed.

What will happen is Whites will develop increasing strength in online media, and, if they can create a party with enough people willing to put their lives on the line, force their views into the controlled media, thereby at least semi-validating them as at least acknowledged and existing, if evil. Eventually, if Whites gets strong enough, they will simply kick out the jews and take over existing television.

It would be a useful exercise to imagine what programming a White power would run in the first 24 hours after taking over cable tv, using the existing jewish template. Ie, the channels remain the same, but the content is White. This is a useful thought-exercise.

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 4th, 2012 at 09:12 AM.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #30
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Of course a white political party is possible. The discourse would have to be in a white voice and in a white-centric way, and it could start very easily in local politics around local events, and grow to higher issues. Can’t start with globe-shattering claims, must start locally.

There’s a tendency in these precincts to overstate the dangers of white liberation activity, and a tendency to think that pro-white efforts have to be stated in a voice against others. Keep it in the white voice and in a white-centric context, and you literally cannot be stopped. [caryn]
Every point she makes is demonstrably factually wrong.

Our racial problems are not local, that's just where they manifest, i.e., street crime. Our problems begin, almost all of them at the national level, and that is the level at which they must be fought. Our enemies centralized power, from the Civil War on. Today they dictate out of Washington who we hire, fire, rent to, and serve in our establishments. They dictate what is taught in our local schools. They have essentially canceled the 10th Amendment, which reserved all powers not specifically mentioned to the States. They just ignore it. Everything is a federal issue - education, health care, agriculture and on and on, almost literally everything.

The Ron Paul campaign shows how rapidly a national base can be built for views that truly are outside the conventional framework.

A White party at the local level barely makes sense except to grow support for a national party that can reverse the national laws and national policies that created the local problems in the first place.

Quote:
There’s a tendency in these precincts to overstate the dangers of white liberation activity, and a tendency to think that pro-white efforts have to be stated in a voice against others. Keep it in the white voice and in a white-centric context, and you literally cannot be stopped.
This is purest fantasy; surely this woman has picked up this delusionality from some "stay positive, stay safe, stay legal" source. Women are particularly susceptible to the foolishness that bids us believe it is all about what we do and the enemy doesn't exist, doesn't have any real effect, or is actually us doing the wrong thing. This childish delusionality is absurd given what we've seen over the course of the 20th century, which is the government infiltrating and destroying all organized groups that might potentially contest its power.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #31
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
We need to frame the game in such a way as to convey this idea: that whites are being cheated. [MrRennick]
That works. Add to it that whites are being played for fools, being taken for saps and suckers. Everybody else gets the party the night before; we get the cleanup the morning after.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #32
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
1. Elections are extremely infrequent events. They are biennial at best. It is nearly impossible to keep a group cohered in between elections. Even the “Democrats” and “Republicans” make no attempt to do so. Those “parties” are really virtual entities that are used by groups with more a permanent daily existence. Public employee unions, hyper rich Jewish oligarchs, corporations, organized ethnic groups, churches, etc.

2. A “political party” is an entity that ceases to exist at the whim of any state level Secretary of State. Sure, you can ‘fight’ this decision in “court”, and thereby pour still more of your resources into energizing the existing system. This looks to me just like supplying the enemy. And so does the other frequent idea of collecting large amounts of money from white people and giving it to Jewish dominated commercial media to run political ads.

We have got to develop alternative local group structures that are far more organic, self-renewing and even addictive. This doesn’t mean these groups can’t back independent candidates at election time and thus contest keep the political ground contested. They can. But the partisan election certainly can’t be the primary focus.

I think at present partisan political activity will be best used as an excuse to recruit adherents for the more enduring Local Group. [Ex-Pro White Activist]
A national party is needed, even a global congress of national parties, since we face coordinated, global opposition.

Although elections are only every so often, hush crimes occur all the time, and these are where a national party could put its emphasis: drawing attention to them as a way to dramatize the cost of continuing to go along with the status quo, and offering a genuine alternative. I have outlined ideas for a White ADL elsewhere, based on this idea. A white nationally activist group that could evolve into running candidates and offer local groups clear and strong ideological leadership...

2. Good points. To some extent these things are inevitable costs of doing business as a party grows to become a genuine force. As ranks swell, all of a sudden you have the money to buy the media and do the other seemingly wasteful one-offs. At the start, a lot can be done with a little.

We have got to develop alternative local group structures that are far more organic, self-renewing and even addictive. This doesn’t mean these groups can’t back independent candidates at election time and thus contest keep the political ground contested. They can. But the partisan election certainly can’t be the primary focus.

The ways to do this are as many as the imagination can come up with, but in general they will turn on providing help to local white people. That will make the recipients loyal to our local teams, and open to their ideological instruction. Who helps them now? ZOG gives them benefits in various forms. Salvation army offers them cheap household goods. The jesus cult offers them couseling and material help for their various physical problems and character failings. We are in competition with the christians and ZOG/schoolteachers on the local level, because we all know what kind of ideological garbage comes along with the free pantry food or kitchen soup. But there's no reason in the world WN can't do what the NS did with Winterhilfe and Hamas does with muslims who need help. I've heard Matt Parrott, for one, is doing good work on this local front.

Look around: you would be surprised how many white people live in trailers. Without heat in the winter. Maybe their water heater needs replacement. Maybe they have five kids and actually work a job. All these people are open to help, even if it comes from a politically interested source. If we, simultaneously, build up from helping these folks (the deserving ones, not the shitbags who will fail in any system), and down from the national force spotlighting hush crimes and explaining in the most emotionally fraught terms possible that they are the result of allowing jews to dictate our laws, thereby exposing our sons and daughters to rape and murder and our people to genocide -- then we begin to have something that resounds at all levels. Then candidates will make sense. They will have a base and a ideological pole to support their campaign and hang their personal ornaments on.

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 4th, 2012 at 10:15 AM.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #33
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
The fundamental mistake some of you are making is thinking that White people are going to come to any of us looking for a Sacred Creed to believe in or ask us to give meaning to their lives. They won’t. What, may I ask, are you all puffing on? Put the bong down, step away from the pipe.

This is going to be a much more practical affair.[jason speaks]
That's true, but they might accept one from us. Particularly if it's coupled with real-world help and if the circumstances are such (economic disaster, pending attacks from wilding negroes) that it calls the most basic mental constructs into question.

Longer term who doesn't believe that a White-specific spiritual institution couldn't outcompete a one-size-fits all generic spirituality like catholicism? Isn't something mass-produced generally less desirable than something custom tailored? Why wouldn't that apply to matters spiritual as well as material?

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 4th, 2012 at 10:16 AM.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #34
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Here I must agree with a poster named Hadding Scott, who says Truth is our greatest weapon. I agree with him as I know that you don’t. Even so, it is this dichotomy that has to be resolved, or at least leavened with tactical compromise, before the WN Cause can progress effectively. [MrRennick]
We've had the truth on our side from day one - where has it gotten us? The jews have been the people of the lie for their entire existence - where has it gotten them? That doesn't necessarily mean we should seek to become people of the lie after the jews, but it does mean that the truth doesn't have much to do with determining political outcomes, which is the modest thing we're ostensibly concerned about.

As always, concern with truth or morality or any other abstraction will always yield to real-world advocacy of and pursuit of direct racial advantage. You don't bring a philosophy professor to a gunfight, you bring a gun. Truth and morality are for kiddies to debate; what ought to concern us is what's good for Whites.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #35
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
With regards to truth, what I am saying is that when it comes to persuading people, (1) truth matters less for them than being liked by those they care to be liked by, and (2) style of presentation plays a bigger role in their decision to buy than the fact that something is true. We may not like it, and I certainly don’t, but that’s the reality. So we must keep that in mind if we wish to persuade others to defy convention. Simply telling the truth is not enough, because the truth doesn’t sell itself—it is often difficult to sell because many find it inconvenient; you have to know how to sell it so that people choose to buy it. [Kurtagic]
This isn't wrong but it's not really right either. Here's how to look at it. It matters less that our position is true, and genuinely advances the interest of the white man we're trying to 'sell,' than that our would-be customer can see the huge costs of adopting our position publicly. And we can't deny that those costs are real. Neither can we point to our cause having any immediate potential for success, or really ever even striking a solid blow against our enemy. So why would he join us if he's not an idealist or hero? Life is not a debate. You don't win anything for being right, and there's a lot you could lose - your job, family and reputation. That's how the average man looks at our cause. And we can't say he's wrong. His position is, your position entail very serious risks, with no clear benefits in the short or medium term. So why should I join you? Because it's in your long term interests and the interests of your children is not that persuasive to most people. And what makes it even less plausible or attractive is that so many of us WN appear not even to believe our bullshit, as proved by our actions. Our talk is all Sturm and Drang, that our people are being genocided. Yet we don't kill the enemy. How can the average guy respect us when:

1) our actions don't back our words;
2) we never deliver any blows to the enemy.

This is why what Breivik did is such a powerful good for our cause: it shows we can and will fight back, at least some of us.

Only when the average guy sees our cause can fight and has an actual chance of winning will the undeniable logic of our system kick in. We simply have to believe in our own bullshit and prove that by the way we live our lives and fight our enemies. At present we aren't real impressive on that front. We don't have our act together.

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 4th, 2012 at 10:18 AM.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #36
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Hasn’t anyone seen videos and pictures of the rallies for Ron Paul? His thousands of supporters are young, white males! They are enthusiastic and determined to take over the Republican Party and defeat the Democrats. It is an uprising, a readymade white nationalist movement. [S Fowler]
A bit of an exaggeration, but right idea. Paul excites precisely the segment we need for our movement.

Quote:
You can ritually condemn Hitler, the KKK, and the Confederacy all you want, but as soon as you present a credible challenge to the existing system, you will be labelled “just like” Hitler and the rest of them. That’s an unintended compliment. And of course, in terms of all essentials, it is correct. [Greg Johnson]
Yep. Have said this a million times myself. It is a middle-class illusion, fed by trolls like jason speaks most likely is, that there is some name we can come up with for our positions, parties or politics that won't end up smeared like all the rest have. To believe that is frankly pretty dumb, given history. The people who control tv will determine how parties and individuals are named and framed. Not those people themselves. Is there anything about that point that isn't obvious? Then why never goes away this delusion that we can somehow stay clean of jewish smears by picking the right name, wearing the right clothes, speaking the right words? It is utter folly. It is based on the premise we have no enemy, or if we do, he has no real power. Both are absurdly wrong.

The closer you get to doing something about the powers that be, the more heatedly and repeatedly they will shriek Hitler at you. That's actually, as Johnson points out, code for "you're doing it right." Hitler beat the jews in a time and space. That's why conservatives are horrified by him. Gentleman lose. Politely. But they lose. Every time. Winning is immoral. Winning is caddish. Only louts and churls win. Gentlemen always lose. But they are very respectful in their losses. No hair is disturbed. Their hats stay in place. Their manners are perfect. Their reputations are intact. Those are the things that matter, because this world is but snare and delusion; the real world is the world to come - god's special place. Just repeat to yourselves this mantra: only losers win. Only the gauche and the gutternsnipes stoop to doing what's necessary to obtain victory. Never gentlemen. They lose. Always. Amen.

Last edited by Alex Linder; June 19th, 2012 at 01:23 PM.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #37
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Mike Polignano gave a really good answer to that kind of smear in one of his essays in TAKING OUR OWN SIDE. In essence, he said: Our position is the only moral and enlightened one, and if Nazis and the KKK agree with us, that is to their credit. [Greg Johnson
Quite right, that is a good approach. The judeo-left, and the conservatives masquerading as WN, or deluded, or simply trolls, beg the question with their Hitler hate. Just what exactly was wrong with Hitler? We don't need to take any position on Hitler at all, if we don't want to. But we do need to privately observe that he and the NS figured out how to defeat a jew-controlled mass media. That makes them unique - and uniquely qualified to instruct us. But the professional Anglo-Saxons, and the lying bigots purporting to be on our side, reject Hitler not even so much because he was a Nazi but because he was a German. The NS drew hard and fast ideological lines, and that is not the lying, grinning, perfidious, treacherous way history associates with Anglo-Saxon cultures. It is in the ideological approach, with rigid boundaries, that our cause will find success - something new in Angloland. The old grin and overlook doesn't cut it. So Jared Taylor sups with jews, and excuses their transgressions against WN, and invites them to keynote his conferences. So what? What does that matter? This is the traditional way, and it doesn't work. Let's try the other way. The way that has worked: a hard-core, principled ideological approach that makes the strongest possible distinction between friend and enemy. That's how the jews do it - the jews and the only people who defeated them for a time and space in the 20th century.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #38
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Or they are mere “concern trolls” trying to keep our people in mind-forged manacles so we will never be able to resist our genocide. [Greg Johnson]
This is a very interesting topic; indeed the reason I started this thread. These people, jason speakes and Alice Teller, appear to be trolls, to someone who doesn't routinely read TOO. Their type appears wherever WN do, especially WN who I've called functional conservatives. Those who embrace WN political positions, but focus on what they call "positive messages" and "staying safe and legal" and the rest of the usual boilerplate. Wherever this kind of WN appear, immediately also appear 'concern trolls' who seem to have as their sole purpose the keeping of these WN between jew-safe lines by playing on their social fears. Don't use the wrong word! Don't dress wrong! Don't say anything positive about historical figures routinely shit on in controlled media! If we do all these things, then just maybe we have a chance! These are their constant refrains. Always their planted but false axiom is that, as I've said a million times, our cause's failure to date is mechanical rather than Systemic, or intentional. This is wrong. Our cause has failed because of enemy activity, not because "you're doing it wrong," as the humor meme has it. Of course in the deeper sense we are doing it wrong, but in the superficial sense, no, we're not. We know how to organize. We're not idiots. It's attacks, lies and suppression from ZOG that have kept white men from organizing, not white men's curious failures to organize politically when they can organize everything else on earth. It's strange and funny that people have to be persuaded of this. These people affect to believe we are a great race, with infinite creative potential and proven historical ability, yet somehow we just can't seem to get our act together in this most important, this uniquely important areas: protecting ourselves from genocide.

How likely does that seem?

It's not likely at all. It's the opposite of likely. Yet we are told over and over by folks like Jared Taylor that we must blame ourselves.

I'm not sure how much greater a clue someone like Taylor could give than

- telling us to blame ourselves
- forbidding us, wherever he has the power to, from criticzing the powers that be (jews), or holding their government responsible for preventing us from organizing

Jared Taylor is our enemy. And he deliberately fosters a mindset that prevents our people from understanding what is actually happening. And yet even bright brains like Johnson that fully understand what is going on refuse to hold him responsible for his deliberate lying in this regard.

We are not doing it to ourselves. The enemy is doing it to us.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #39
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
The Ron Paul voters are primarily white, but they are ideologically opposed to White Nationalism. They are color-blind individualists, not racial collectivists.

Given that White Nationalism is broken down and up on blocks, I get the desire to be part of a movement that is going somewhere. But the only trouble is: the Ron Paul movement is not going where we want to be. [Greg Johson]
Here Johnson is astonishingly short-sighted.

Look. Paul has exactly the sector we need to reach - young white men - stirred up, excited, angry, impassioned. Who among WN can do that? Has done that?

He's doing it for a different cause?

Really?

Paul supports free association.

It is the ending of free association that is the main legal prop for the anti-White, genocidal jewish policy of forced societal (sic) disintegration.

And again: Paul is against it. Paul is against the main legal perversion preventing our folk from defending themselves. That has to count for something. In Paul's world, you can hire, fire, employ, discriminate against whoever you like, for whatever reason. The white world was able to thrive, for a time, when that policy was in place. He would restore it.

So he is on our side, implicitly if you like. But all the same on our side in the most real practical sense, on a number of topics: free association, sound money, end to foreign warmongering..

It's true Paul doesn't emphasize his position on free association. He has limited time and must focus. He has chosen to focus on our queered money supply and our warmongering. Two areas where jews are highly conspicuous criminal nogoodniks. He is doing much of our political education task for us - on a national stage. Best of all, he takes the heat. We now have people actively questioning the fed and its role in messing up our economy. There is not a single thing not good about this.

There is nothing not to like about Paul, and what is cited as bad about him is actually good - his boilerplate, every-other-lying-pol bending the knee before MLK and the other judeo-lefist pantheon apes. This shows on the deepest stuff, he is just another politician: weak precisely where it is most important to be strong.

So even where Paul is wrong he is right - for our cause. He does much of our education work for us, explicitly, on the fed and foreign policy, and where he goes weak, he does the rest of our work implicitly - showing that none of that good old-fashioned liberty is possible save you begin from a white racial basis.

Ron Paul helps us in every way. Whether he means to or not. Since he doesn't call himself us, and explicitly rejects our support, we are perfectly positioned to supply what he lacks, and what will ultimately undermine him. We have nothing left to do but point out where he's pulling punches and thank him for the prep work, we'll take it from here.

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 4th, 2012 at 11:25 AM.
 
Old May 4th, 2012 #40
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Greg Johnson
April 29, 2012 - 5:07 am | Permalink

@Alice Teller:

Every particular? No, the libertarians just disagree with White Nationalism on every fundamental.
Ridiculous. Almost all libertarians are white. The individuation and individual freedom they favor are found and favored by whites almost exclusively, if a minority of whites.

We should remember that race is a very small part of life. The other part, once race is cleared up, is how Whites live among themselves. The libertarians have a lot of good answers in that regard. There's no reason we can't combine a racial state with white individualist freedom as the nougat inside the white-chocolate shell. Then we have a system that serves both the White and the Man. And we are both, let's not forget that.

Libertarianism is basically the interior decorator the WN hires after he has built the mansion on the uncrackable foundation with the leakproof roof.

Johnson is correct about nearly everything, but wrong about Jared Taylor and Ron Paul/libertarianism. It's the ones calling themselves by the same name we do but advocating bad policies we need to worry about, not the ones who aren't us and don't call themselves by our name yet help us regardless of their intentions.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 PM.
Page generated in 0.16333 seconds.