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

Old July 28th, 2012 #141
Bardamu
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Sigh...so much ignorance. And always belligerent and insinuating. Listen, dope. 501c orgs have reporting requirements. It's not a question of secrecy. And I wasn't talking about that anyway. I was talking about a simple visual of how all these orgs and people et al. interrelate. A graphic. Like you see at other sites. Showing the 6 big mass media companies and all their subsidiaries. Something like that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate you were data mining for the Splc, (you are about the last public persona I would suspect) just that the Jews and their minions also would like to view such info on WN money structures, but like I say I don't think there is much big money, like the Hunt brothers during the 60's, in this movement today.
 
Old July 28th, 2012 #142
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

Vast majority of public school White graduates are hostile to any self preservation and being media headed they are malleable to the regimes will.

Perhaps the only reason any web site exists allowing opposition to the creaking wall of lies for the last 100 years, is because Western usurpers are so giddy with power they thrive just to view the frustration and cries of crushed Western dispossessed/robbed White's.

When the enemy aliens were able to mobilize Whites of N.America to gather to go to Europe and violently war on their own race for nothing what so ever in 1917, but 100% lie's this proved to the enemy aliens that they had us in the bag to be destroyed.

A pack of media lies with the insane criminal puppet Woodrow Wilson regime/Cabal had planted enemy aliens working in the central regime who waited to blossom under the arrival of FDR to seal our fate.
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old July 28th, 2012 #143
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Should White Nationalists leave the Holocaust alone?
Published on July 28, 2012 by Carolyn in Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn Yeager

July 28, 2012

White Nationalists Charles Krafft, Hadding Scott and Carolyn Yeager discuss the controversy aroused by Greg Johnson‘s article at The Occidental Observer website: “Dealing with the Holocaust.” Some people are calling it (Not) Dealing with the Holocaust.

While Johnson recommends that White Nationalism does not need to deal with the holocaust at all, some who strongly oppose that idea say WN should not deal with homosexuals, or, in other words, should discourage their high profile activity as movers and shakers in the White Nationalist community. This idea came up in the 750 comments to the article, and we bring it up candidly in this program too, along with some other offshoots from the main topic.

Photo at right is from the ‘Leave Brittany Alone” video.
 
Old July 28th, 2012 #144
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardamu View Post
Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate you were data mining for the Splc, (you are about the last public persona I would suspect) just that the Jews and their minions also would like to view such info on WN money structures, but like I say I don't think there is much big money, like the Hunt brothers during the 60's, in this movement today.
That depends on how you define it. WN bleeds into conservatism, and there's plenty of big money in conservatism. Olin, Scaife, Bradley foundations are three traditional big funders. Like I tried to say, whenever there's big money, it's usually funneled into politics through the setting up of some foundation, and if a foundation is set up under the 501 regulations, then it has to file papers on its income. So the money it is collecting and disbursing is not a secret, it is a public record.

If you look at the oldsters MacDonald associates with, on his elist and in and around Charles Martel Society, they are mostly conservatives, often single-issue types.

[from an anti-White source]

The Charles Martel Society was founded in 2001 by William Regnery II, who "has made his mark as a major fundraiser in radical right circles. ... The society publishes The Occidental Quarterly: A Journal of Western Thought and Opinion, 'an academic-looking journal filled with articles by white supremacist luminaries such as Samuel Francis, editor for the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens and Wayne Lutton of the hate group The Social Contract Press.'"

Regnery, Francis and Lutton are conservatives, not racialists. They are hooking the elite, or at least degreed, WN intellectuals back into professional conservatism, which as I argue keeps our movement stillborn. We should be founding our own groups and foundations, and they should be wholly free of conservative taint.

"A September 2003 posting at the Stormfront.org forum by TominTX, a 'Friend of Stormfront' and a 'sustaining member,' pointed out that the Charles Martel Society is a non-profit 501c3 group. TominTX advised the white nationalist community that 'it would be wise to split our donations for educational purposes into tax-deductible entities -- this maximizes the donation we can make and directly defunds'" ZOG, the Zionist Occupied Government (or Zionist Occupation Government).

The main benefit of 501c3, which is what most charitable foundations, and most political magazines are set up as - educational foundations - is that you can then accept TAX-DEDUCTIBLE donations. But you have to report your income and file other data and papers with the feds, and you are subject to any legal changes the feds see fit to enact.

"The Charles Martel Society also organizes conferences, summer schools and has a speaker's bureau -- 'all designed to push Regnery's view that the white race is veering toward extinction,'" the Southern Poverty Law Center's 2004 Intelligence Report stated.[1]

Where has Regnery stated this pubicly for the record? Is he even still involved in any of these groups?

Mark Potok wrote in Southern Poverty Law Center's 2002 Intelligence Report, "The Year in Hate," that:

"Academic racists also added a new and important organization to their ranks. The Charles Martel Society, with its journal Occidental Quarterly, has an editorial board stacked with leaders of anti-immigrant organizations and hate groups like Samuel Jared Taylor's New Century Foundation and the Council of Conservative Citizens. The society, which plans research on how government programs negatively affect white families, is partly funded by William Regnery II, heir to a publishing fortune."


Same old story. Somehow a guy who puts jews ahead of whites is mixed into a supposedly racialist organization, and evidently no one has a problem with it. This is not serious stuff, this is clown-show stuff. It's the same old trying to have it both ways business, like the involvement of Sam Francis didn't tell you that.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...Martel_Society

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 28th, 2012 at 05:45 PM.
 
Old July 28th, 2012 #145
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Should White Nationalists leave the Holocaust alone?
Published on July 28, 2012 by Carolyn in Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn Yeager

July 28, 2012

White Nationalists Charles Krafft, Hadding Scott and Carolyn Yeager discuss the controversy aroused by Greg Johnson‘s article at The Occidental Observer website: “Dealing with the Holocaust.” Some people are calling it (Not) Dealing with the Holocaust.

While Johnson recommends that White Nationalism does not need to deal with the holocaust at all, some who strongly oppose that idea say WN should not deal with homosexuals, or, in other words, should discourage their high profile activity as movers and shakers in the White Nationalist community. This idea came up in the 750 comments to the article, and we bring it up candidly in this program too, along with some other offshoots from the main topic.

Photo at right is from the ‘Leave Brittany Alone” video.
Listening to it now, hoping you show up at some point.

Here's the thing re Johnson: his whole shtick is that his 'New Right' is different from the 'Old Right' because it's not genocidal. So he basically has to acknowledge the validity and reality of 'the' 'holocaust' because if he 'denies' it, then there's nothing for his rebranding to differentiate itself from.

But in his essay, he tries to have it both ways. He, to my eye, basically acknowledges there was no plan to genocide the jews, but as soon as he concedes that, he turns around and talks about how his New Right is different from the Old Right because it's not genocidal. So, WTF Johnson? Is it gonna be Fat Oprah or Thin Oprah?

But surely the larger piont is that, fat or thin,

1) Counter-Currents runs endless articles celebrating the old 'genocidalists,' which will hardly strike anyone as rejecting the OR, and,

2) he (and CC) get called neo-nazis, haters and the rest of the terms just like every other old or new racialist does.

Johnson's approach doesn't make sense any way you look at it. We'd all like to be called what we are, rather than what we're not, but as long as the enemy controls the mass media, that won't be happening. That must dealt with, but Johnson, like so many others, thinks he can just run away with it, or as he puts it, step over it. He can't. That's make-believe, not real-world politics.

Our forerunners should be looked at with love and understanding, because they faced a very serious problem, and made great efforts to solve it. Cutting ties with them symbolically is more or less what jews insist that we do: reject our own people because they had th gall to treat jews as hostile alien enemies rather than as bosom friends. Johnson goes along with that by rejecting the 'Old Right' in any form. He doesn't need to say anything. If he wants to found a new tendency, all he has to do is give it a good name, and shut up about the past. Just carry on the thinking and traditions you find valuable and disregard what didn't work. But never deracinate modern racialists from their most intelligent and successful forerunners.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 28th, 2012 at 06:35 PM.
 
Old July 28th, 2012 #146
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Hadding is on show in second hour. He makes the excellent point:

- the jews started promoting 'holocaust' bullshit as a way to scotch nationalism, such as the British arguing against mud immigration

- this in tern led to revisionist efforts to debunk the big lies that make up the big H

Remember, no one heard of 'the' 'holocaust' until it started being bruited in the '70s. That's when it started becoming promoted into an international religion.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 29th, 2012 at 10:04 AM.
 
Old July 28th, 2012 #147
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Hadding says the problem with WN is it has been flooded with too many weasels in recent years. They don't have the moral example of William Pierce in front of them.

Johnson changes meaning of Bowden's "stepping over," inspired by Nietzsche's bring-it-on attitude toward life and struggle. He changes it to sidestepping.

Johnson condemns Pierce as Old Right, but uses his work all over his blog. He found Turner Diaries "repulsive." Quotes GJ calling Pierce a "monster," based on his reaction to TD.

For the most part the good stuff at CC is recycled material, says Hadding's friend who used to contribute. Hadding agrees.

Krafft makes point it's a publishing house, not a political party. But, Yeager says, it's pushing a political line.

[Problem is conflating H discussion with queer discussion. They aren't related. Discussing them together as if they're linked does not make sense.]

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 28th, 2012 at 07:20 PM.
 
Old July 28th, 2012 #148
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The right way to deal with 'the' 'holocaust' is to object vociferously whenever anyone raises it by denouncing it as a blood libel.

'Holocaust' as historical claims that need unpacking - fact-finders' business.

'Holocaust' as politics - WNs' business.

Of course the two are related, but they are not the same thing.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 28th, 2012 at 07:30 PM.
 
Old July 28th, 2012 #149
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

Quote:
Maybe Johnson needs to go to Auschwitz and walk into Crematorium 1, with its wooden doors, glass windows, Soviet built chimney floating out of the ground and let's see if he still doesn't want us to let the Jews claim their "Holocaust" lie.
It's easy to destroy the kikes' Ultimate Lie if one simply points out the facts to people you're trying to awaken:

"The jews say that Zyklon B was dropped into the Auschwitz 'gas chamber' through a hole in the roof - but there WAS NO hole in the roof until the Soviets put one in it when they rebuilt the thing after the war to demonize their German enemy."

"The ordinary wooden door on the 'gas chamber' has no rubber gasket to seal in the gas, and yet the jews say the prisoners were sent in - without gas masks - almost immediately to drag the dead jews out to make room for the next batch."

"The gas chamber the Germans used to disinfect mattresses & clothes has a deep Prussian Blue stain on the walls from the cyanide gas - but the alleged 'homocidal gas chamber' in which the jews say millions were killed doesn't."

"Oranienburg camp in Germany received the same amount of Zyklon B as Auschwitz - and not even the jews claim it was a 'death camp'. What were they doing with all the extra poison? Eating it?"


Of course I realize that in making these factual arguments, you have to overcome the bogus aura of "authority" the kikes' media/Hollywitz control confers - but I believe it CAN be overcome because I myself was convinced.

Besides, we have something else on our side to bolster the facts: whatever they might say, people don't really like or trust jews, not even the Christers, who support them mostly because they think they must; all sense on at least a atavistic level that zhids are liars & crooks.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #150
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
For the most part the good stuff at CC is recycled material, says Hadding's friend who used to contribute. Hadding agrees.
We have published 1,894 pieces at CC.

I made a point of tagging original articles and translations "originals."

http://www.counter-currents.com/tag/originals/


739 items are so tagged.

I tagged reprint articles "reprints":


http://www.counter-currents.com/tag/reprints/


663 items are so tagged. These items include:

1. reprints of translations of Counter-Currents original material into other languages
2. reprints of materials I wrote for other websites which I have brought "home"
3. reprints of materials that I translated for other websites and that I have brought "home"
4. reprints of original materials that I edited at TOQ and TOQ Online. These are pieces that I invested a lot of myself into, and I want them here as well.
5. reprints of pieces by CC writers from other sites, which contribute to our project
6. a few outright reprints of pieces to which I want to draw our readers' attention, which is a service to our readers as well

The rest of the material at CC includes News Items (news about CC), Videos of the Day, Podcasts (which are original content, such as interviews, or readings of original articles).

The claim that "most" of the material (it is all "good") on CC is reprinted is untrue and provably so. But the worst of it is that such claims are advanced without even bothering to ascertain their truth, IN COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE TO TRUTH, simply to smear. And these are the sorts of scum who defend the intellectual integrity of Holocaust revisionism.

Forgive me for not stooping to respond to the sort of crap. Smearmongers can generate lies ten times faster than I can refute them, and I have better things to do with my time.

Let's have another debate: Are Carolyn Yeager and Hadding Scott paid by our enemies to smear their betters and create a madhouse atmosphere that guarantees that our cause remains marginal? Or are they doing it for free because they have personality disorders?
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #151
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
The claim that "most" of the material (it is all "good") on CC is reprinted is untrue and provably so.
I don't think anybody said that most of the material on your blog was secondhand. Most of the good material. You may think it's all good but that's your opinion. You probably would still maintain that "Dealing with the Holocaust" was a good essay even though it got you pelted with tomatoes.

Here is the exact text of what my friend, a former financial supporter of your blog, said to me yesterday:
I realized shortly after I started donating [to Counter-Currents] that really all of the good content was coming from old NA materials. Occasionally something interesting pops out of one of Greggy's writers, but most of the material I liked in the first year was rehash. A lot of it was TOQ as well. He just basically stole a bunch of crap and started trying to hijack the movement in some passive intellectual way that doesn't go anywhere. It's kind of bizarre.
That's my friend's opinion. I don't look at Counter-Currents enough to make such an assessment, but my friend is a smart guy and I find his view credible. I have seen a number of essays by Dr. Pierce presented on Counter-Currents with requests for donations through PayPal underneath, which looks like a cynical move on your part, since you are clearly ambivalent about Dr. Pierce. You didn't agree with him enough to join his organization while he was alive, and there are things about you that we both know he would strongly disapprove.

Last edited by Hadding; July 29th, 2012 at 02:31 AM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #152
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
We have published 1,894 pieces at CC.

I made a point of tagging original articles and translations "originals."

http://www.counter-currents.com/tag/originals/


739 items are so tagged.

I tagged reprint articles "reprints":


http://www.counter-currents.com/tag/reprints/


663 items are so tagged. These items include:

1. reprints of translations of Counter-Currents original material into other languages
2. reprints of materials I wrote for other websites which I have brought "home"
3. reprints of materials that I translated for other websites and that I have brought "home"
4. reprints of original materials that I edited at TOQ and TOQ Online. These are pieces that I invested a lot of myself into, and I want them here as well.
5. reprints of pieces by CC writers from other sites, which contribute to our project
6. a few outright reprints of pieces to which I want to draw our readers' attention, which is a service to our readers as well

The rest of the material at CC includes News Items (news about CC), Videos of the Day, Podcasts (which are original content, such as interviews, or readings of original articles).

The claim that "most" of the material (it is all "good") on CC is reprinted is untrue and provably so. But the worst of it is that such claims are advanced without even bothering to ascertain their truth, IN COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE TO TRUTH, simply to smear. And these are the sorts of scum who defend the intellectual integrity of Holocaust revisionism.
I think it's fair to say that a lot of material on CC is recycled. BUT, it is all good material, and I don't think that matters. I was just getting down some stuff Hadding was saying, I don't necessarily agree with all of it.

I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with repetition and recycling, many people will be introduced to the old stuff for the first time.

Quote:
Forgive me for not stooping to respond to the sort of crap. Smearmongers can generate lies ten times faster than I can refute them, and I have better things to do with my time.
Well, I think you picked the weakest charge to respond to, and I think you won the point.

But really, it's the larger points that you ought to respond to, but you're not. You probably think you already have, but you haven't persuaded anybody, and in fact have been shown wrong pretty persuasively:

- you can't separate OR from NR logically or politically. They have always been entwined, and so long as you venture on the slightest jew-crit or race-talk, the enemy will call you a Nazi, just as they do Rush Limbaugh and everybody else who's not a leftist

Quote:
Let's have another debate: Are Carolyn Yeager and Hadding Scott paid by our enemies to smear their betters and create a madhouse atmosphere that guarantees that our cause remains marginal? Or are they doing it for free because they have personality disorders?
Now this is just silly. Yeager obviously doesn't like queers. And yoked the question of queers in WN with the H discussion in an illogical way. The two questions aren't related, except she wants to say we should get rid of open queers in WN and keep H discussion.

But honestly, Herr Johnson, suggesting that Hadding is paid? Maybe it's become personal between you two, I don't know. As far as I can tell, everyone disagrees with you on this stuff because they think you're wrong. It doesn't change anything else. But when you start saying that refuting the H with the facts "guarantees our cause remains marginal," you sound like a typical old-woman conservative. I just can't believe, or don't want to believe, this is Greg Johnson's opinion, I very much want to believe GJ is listening to the wrong guy.

It sure looks to me like the younger, radical set, like Hunt, doesn't see your dropping the H truth as any kind of intelligent, strategic move, but rather as cowardly evasion. I think at the least you ought to lay out your strategic victory plan, as I have done. Maybe you already have, but all I get is this nebulous notion of massive cultural change coming from a website and books and...I don't know what else.

Sorry, but I don't know how to read your words as anything other than CC's desire to crack the 501c3 Vdare marked for middle-class tax-deductible donors. Those, and jew apologists like Jared Taylor, are the only ones I've heard make the argument that the truth about WWII will marginalize our cause. As much as you discuss Hitler and Mussolini and the lesser known fascist thinkers, which is certainly more than any other sites on the net (and to your credit), I sure as hell don't see how you are going to escape being tarred with the 'holocaust' and 'neo-nazi' brush. If so, then what have you possibly to gain by not fighting back?

If there weren't any gas chambers, then there was no 'holocaust.' And if there was no 'holocaust,' then your distinction between Old Right and New Right disappears. The thing I don't get is - this should all be good news to you. You're carrying on a proud, maligned tradition, and restoring it to even greater strength.

Frankly, I think you're going against your own deepest beliefs, and listening to the wrong men, and this accounts for your overreaction above and in the TOO thread.

Either lay out an extremely compelling case for what trying to avoid 'holocaust'-related argument will allow you to do, and how we get from here to victory, or admit that your critics in the TOO thread were right. All I see from you avoiding/conceding the big H is:

- your enemies hit you with the charge even harder
- your friends, particularly the young radicals, think you cowardly

What's good about either of those? What great benefits are you reaping? And most of all, who is feeding you this shit, and in which closet have they locked the real Greg Johnson?

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 29th, 2012 at 10:33 AM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #153
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default

Here's my essay "New Right vs. Old Right":

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...-vs-old-right/

Of all people, the coiner of "loxism," should understand that it is possible to coin new words and redefine old ones. I make it very clear how I am defining my terms in this essay, so what is the point of bringing up other senses of terms like Old Right and New Right? The real question of substance is: Does the distinction make sense as I have defined it? I believe that it does.

The template of the New Right/Old Right distinction is the New Left/Old Left distinction. The Old Left and the New Left share the same values and goals. But their means differ. The Old Left employed one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide. The New Left pursued cultural hegemony. The Old Left model is virtually dead, but the New Left has created an almost complete cultural hegemony.

The European New Right was born in the late 1960s, when the New Left was riding high. Although the term "New Right" was invented by the press, not Alain de Benoist himself, the fact is that it is apposite, because the New Right like the New Left employs a strategy of cultural hegemony. What this amounts to, therefore, is a repudiation of the Old Right's characteristic means: one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, genocide, etc. And by Old Right, I mean the NS and fascist tradition that the New Right obviously emerges from.

So the New Right has the same basic values, goals, and intellectual framework of the Old Right. But we repudiate their characteristic means in favor of the transformation of culture and consciousness.

It is beside the point to claim that "But they'll still call you fascists!" Of course they will. But we are fascists with a difference, which I have spelled out. We are not tied to the past, as much as both our enemies and our would-be friends, the NS cultists and crypt-keepers like Hadding, would like us to be. We take what is good, reject what is bad, and move forward.

As for the genocide charge: Even if you believe that no Old Rightists ever committed or tried to commit or wanted to commit genocide against Jews, the fact is that Old Rightists like you and William Pierce DO want to commit genocide against Jews (and no doubt other groups as well).

I think it is worth debating whether Hadding trolls for pay or for free because he gets some twisted psychological satisfaction from this. The same goes for Carolyn.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #154
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I think it's fair to say that a lot of material on CC is recycled. BUT, it is all good material, and I don't think that matters. I was just getting down some stuff Hadding was saying, I don't necessarily agree with all of it.

I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with repetition and recycling, many people will be introduced to the old stuff for the first time.



Well, I think you picked the weakest charge to respond to, and I think you won the point.
It's strictly a matter of opinion as to whether most of the material on Counter-Currents, recycled or otherwise, is good or not.

However, it is noteworthy that Greg Johnson resorted to constructing a strawman to attack, replacing the claim that most of the good material on his blog was recycled, with the claim that most of the material was recycled.

I can't really say that he won that point, since what my friend said is a matter of opinion, and Greg Johnson didn't address it honestly.

Last edited by Hadding; July 29th, 2012 at 02:09 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #155
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
It's strictly a matter of opinion as to whether most of the material on Counter-Currents, recycled or otherwise, is good or not.
Sure. I say it is good stuff, all of it. New or old. And printing stuff doesn't mean one agrees with it 100%, necessarily.

Quote:
However, it is noteworthy that Greg Johnson resorted to constructing a strawman to attack, replacing the claim that most of the good material on his blog was recycled, with the claim that most of the material was recycled.
Well, that might be my fault. I didn't make the distinction, I don't think. I was just typing notes as you were speaking, so don't hold me to 100% accuracy.

You can both blame that one on me, I missed the distinction.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #156
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Well, that might be my fault. I didn't make the distinction, I don't think. I was just typing notes as you were speaking, so don't hold me to 100% accuracy.
You noted essentially correctly what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
For the most part the good stuff at CC is recycled material, says Hadding's friend who used to contribute. Hadding agrees.
The only quibble that I have is that "Hadding agrees" is an overstatement. Since I almost never look at Counter-Currents, Hadding accepts his friend's statement would be more accurate.

My friend says that he stopped donating to Counter-Currents because he noticed that the content that he considered valuable was mostly not original. I think he is telling the truth! I have never known him to lie.

Last edited by Hadding; July 29th, 2012 at 03:43 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #157
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Here's my essay "New Right vs. Old Right":

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...-vs-old-right/

Of all people, the coiner of "loxism," should understand that it is possible to coin new words and redefine old ones.
Of course, but, uh, how do i put this indelicately...it's a very delicate art...like anal sex. Oh my. That won't do at all. I am so bad. No, I'm just joshing you. But seriously there are name and content problems with OR/NR. Which I've pointed out.

Quote:
I make it very clear how I am defining my terms in this essay, so what is the point of bringing up other senses of terms like Old Right and New Right? The real question of substance is: Does the distinction make sense as I have defined it? I believe that it does.
The point of bringing it up is that you're talking about a 'New Right' in America where that term already exists, and refers to conservatives. Not to fascists in Europe. That right there ought to have pushed you off it in the first place. But the main problem is whether you truly can separate from the old fascists. You want to escape blame for atrocities they are associated with but didn't actually commit. 1) you can't do that. 2) you shouldn't want to do it. You should want to defend their honor against malicious liars. Who just happen to be the blood-brothers of Old Enemy who slew our people by the tens of millions yesteryear. To me this is self-evident, which is why there must be some incredible prize you think you think you're doing to reap from this attempted separation.

Quote:
The template of the New Right/Old Right distinction is the New Left/Old Left distinction. The Old Left and the New Left share the same values and goals. But their means differ. The Old Left employed one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide. The New Left pursued cultural hegemony. The Old Left model is virtually dead, but the New Left has created an almost complete cultural hegemony.
Ok...you can say that. To me, the similarities matter more than the differences. The jews have shifted emphasis, but have the same goals and generally the same tactics, but adjusted for America and the west rather than the Soviet Union, that's all. I don't see it as any serious change in MO. It's merely an adapting to circumstance. But pursuing the same end. And ultimately, perhaps, if they can get rid of our guns, just as ruthlessly.

Quote:
The European New Right was born in the late 1960s, when the New Left was riding high. Although the term "New Right" was invented by the press, not Alain de Benoist himself, the fact is that it is apposite, because the New Right like the New Left employs a strategy of cultural hegemony. What this amounts to, therefore, is a repudiation of the Old Right's characteristic means: one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, genocide, etc. And by Old Right, I mean the NS and fascist tradition that the New Right obviously emerges from.
Except again it's NORTH AMERICAN new right, not European. New Right already is a used term, and it dates from nearly the same period. That right there causes confusion. Also cultural hegemony is not something you can bring about without controlling the mass media, academia and the formal political structures. The stuff you're repudiating, apart from whether the OR really did those things, was AFTER they had political power (for the most), not while they were getting it. You want to do something that's not even possible - Gleichschaltung is another way to say cultural hegemony - until after your kind has bought up the papers, taken over the law schools, and paid off the politicians. Otherwise, how the hell are you going to exercise cultural hegemony through a handful of websites, men and salon meetings? Maybe it's in your essay. To me, is just sounds like you're rejecting ordinary politics because it involves screaming and fighting and other ickiness.

Quote:
So the New Right has the same basic values, goals, and intellectual framework of the Old Right.
So you have the "same basic values, goals" as the Old Right, which includes the Nazis. But you reject their (big list of bad things). In what world is this even possible or does it make sense? Read your own article by Andrew Hamilton. Hitler IMMEDIATELY made the decsion, upon joining the NSDAP, to turn it from a debating society to an activist political group. You would change it back. We're just going to discuss our ideas. And somehow thereby change the culture. Until we have hegemoney. And then I guess all the Romneys and Baracks will be kissing your ring and sounding like Nazis when they campaign. Is that unfair? Is it?

Quote:
But we repudiate their characteristic means in favor of the transformation of culture and consciousness.
Per the kid in National Lampoon's Vacation, "Sure, dad. You think mom'll buy it?" I mean, come on, Greg. Get serious.

Quote:
It is beside the point to claim that "But they'll still call you fascists!" Of course they will. But we are fascists with a difference, which I have spelled out.
Yeah, cuz you control how you're portrayed. More Jared-Taylorism as far as I'm concerned. "We're not like those other Nazis! They're evil! We're good! We're the good Nazis!" I would hate to be the mexican selling those oranges by the freeway.

Quote:
We are not tied to the past, as much as both our enemies and our would-be friends, the NS cultists and crypt-keepers like Hadding, would like us to be. We take what is good, reject what is bad, and move forward.
You'll be tied to the past whether you like it or not. It's not something you can control, which obviously is the part you don't understand or for some reason won't accept.

Quote:
As for the genocide charge: Even if you believe that no Old Rightists ever committed or tried to commit or wanted to commit genocide against Jews, the fact is that Old Rightists like you and William Pierce DO want to commit genocide against Jews (and no doubt other groups as well).
That's true, although it is not a matter of belief that Hitler and NS did not try to genocide the jews, it is a matter of fact. I wish they had, and I wish they had succeeded, but they did not. And my opinion has nothing to do with it.

Quote:
I think it is worth debating whether Hadding trolls for pay or for free because he gets some twisted psychological satisfaction from this. The same goes for Carolyn.
Hadding is a serious man. He has put in the work. You guys ought to be working together, even if you disagree on some things. He has evinced a degree of feeling that he's underappreciated, from time to time. And I could see his self-righteous belief that he is the embodiment of the Truth lead him to report on a fellow WN he felt was breaking the law, but his intellectual work, so far as I have seen, is unimpeachable and of very high quality. I trust what he says about matters NS. He's good at that stuff. I use what he says, and I'm glad he's doing it. I wish he were rewarded more handsomely for doing it, or that I was in position to employ people of his ability.

But I don't doubt his bona fides any more than I doubt yours. I just think you're getting some real bad advice from Taylor, Weber or somebody, but your way looks to me like simply the abandonment of politics in favor of multiplying essays.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 29th, 2012 at 03:39 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #158
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
And I could see his self-righteous belief that he is the embodiment of the Truth lead him to report on a fellow WN he felt was breaking the law, but his intellectual work, so far as I have seen, is unimpeachable and of very high quality.
Pure speculation on your part, Lindy. Let's see what kinds of nefarious things we can imagine Alex Linder doing and then watch him look guilty while he explains how he would never do that. No, I am not going to play that game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
You guys ought to be working together, even if you disagree on some things.
I am not going to work with anybody that promotes Harold Covington. I stopped looking at C-C entirely after Greggy staged his pro-Covington "Debate on the Northwest Imperative." Anybody that knows the score about Covington and promotes him anyway has some kind of serious defect. Johnson shows himself more and more as a man of weak character and dishonesty.

Last edited by Hadding; July 29th, 2012 at 04:04 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #159
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default

Alex, I already have laid out a compelling case for why I think that Holocaust revisionism is not an effective way of dealing with the Holocaust problem. I don't think that case has been refuted. I think it has stood up quite well, and most of the criticisms that have been offered are off topic and question-begging.

I was a bit taken aback by the emotional vehemence and creepiness and muddle-headedness of a lot of reactions.

I am pretty far from having a handle on this phenomenon. I suspect that part of this is another case of people who hate Jews more than they love their own people.

Another part is antiquarianism and crypt-keeping by people who can't think for themselves or think originally (e.g. Hadding, who blames me for thinking differently from Bowden, or Hitler, or Benoist, or Pierce -- without ever addressing the question of whether I might have good reasons for doing so).

Yet another factor is a kind of implicit, psychological "scene" in which people imagine themselves arguing with Jews. That is a mistake, because one should never argue with Jews, who cannot be convinced. One should argue with whites who can be convinced.

Alex, I think you are especially corrupted this, since a lot of what you say basically boils down to fighting Jews like Jews, complete with hysteria and ad hominem smears and psychologizing, including your mantra of "So and so is sucking up to conservatives." "So and so is after money." Etc. It is tiresome, and in this particular thread, it has effectively blocked you from getting my main argument.

Then there is a strong element of macho posturing and shaming, which only works on people who are insecure in their masculinity. The last thing I am concerned with is the opinions of people who bluster about "courage" behind fake names on the internet. In the end, this battle is going to be won by people who are more smart than macho. So there is no point in playing to the people who are more concerned with playing macho than thinking clearly.

There is a pervasive assumption here that one need answer every bully and playground taunt. Another version of this is the assumption that one has to answer every "Yo mama" about Hitler and the Third Reich tossed out by Jews. That just lets them frame the debate from the very beginning.

One needs to stop falling for that and start framing things our way, so we can move toward our conclusions. So yes, one needs to "evade" these arguments, just as a boxer evades a blow or a warrior evades a spear thrust. Then one needs to go on the offensive. Part of that is moral: the belief that we do not answer to our enemies. We are going to make them answer to us.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #160
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
I am not going to work with anybody that promotes Harold Covington. I stopped looking at C-C entirely after Greggy staged his pro-Covington "Debate on the Northwest Imperative." Anybody that knows the score about Covington and promotes him anyway has some kind of serious defect. Johnson shows himself more and more as a man of weak character and dishonesty.
Hadding, if your material on Covington is as poorly argued and as in bad faith as your conduct of this discussion, then everything you say about Covington has to be taken with a shaker of salt as well.

Isn't it true that Will Williams pays you to cyber-stalk Covington? Who is paying you to cyber-stalk me?
 
Reply

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

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 AM.
Page generated in 0.19359 seconds.