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

Old July 29th, 2012 #161
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson
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).
I don't blame you for thinking differently from Bowden. I blame you for pretending to walk in Bowden's footsteps when you are doing the opposite.

Last edited by Hadding; July 30th, 2012 at 11:48 AM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #162
Lew_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 146
Lew_
Default

Wow; thanks for linking that. Golden Dawn kicks ass. He handled those questions well. You can tell from his demeanor he hates the media. His attitude is as important as the message when it comes to getting a point across.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Hey, Hugh, stop your English girl-dog bullshit and watch how a real man and ELECTED OFFICIAL handles the shit we're talking about:

Greek neonazi leader denies the Holocaust (repulsive) - YouTube
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #163
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
Isn't it true that Will Williams pays you to cyber-stalk Covington? Who is paying you to cyber-stalk me?
I have had donations from half a dozen people for my blog, Setting the Record Straight, and Will Williams of course is one of them. This is no secret. I stated it in my interview with Carolyn Yeager.

"Cyber-Stalking" is of course an invidious term. I would not consider keeping track of somebody's public lying for the purpose of countering those lies to be any form of stalking, or anything nefarious. Only somebody whose statements can't withstand criticism would say such a thing. You, for example.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #164
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
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.
Um...what? I'm inferring from attitudes I've seen you express. You have a ridiculous view of legality/illegality, and this, couples with your self-righteous identification of your views and self and The Truth, could easily lead to problems for people associated with you. I have no problem with you, and respect and praise your work but I would keep you at arm's length because of your narrow outlook on the politics of legality.

Quote:
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.
I would tend to agree, but only tend. Politics aint beanbag. There's a lot of shitheads involved. The trick is to get whatever political benefit there is out of Covington's novels without associating with the character-assassinating liar in any way.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 29th, 2012 at 05:42 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #165
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
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?
Are you seriously kidding? I gave Covington a chance, knowing and accepting what Williams claimed. Covington blew it. He is nothing but a liar, and will assassinate anyone's character in order to promote himself. A bag egg. Should be ostracized, and always has been in these parts.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #166
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
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?

Setting the Record Straight
is the definitive site for information on what a scum bag federal informant that Covington is. I posted some of the material here on VNN before Hadding set up that website and can say that he did an excellent job. Anyone who has taken the time to look over the articles and documents on Setting the Record Straight and still thinks that they can still work with or promote Harold Covington will ruin what good reputation they had, if any.

Will Williams does not pay anyone to cyber-stalk anyone, you know and I know that that is not the way he does things. If he has anything to say, he will say it himself.

Last edited by SmokyMtn; July 29th, 2012 at 05:03 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #167
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
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.
Wow. The canting slogan of the anti-anti-semite. From you, of all people. The Jared-Taylorisms just keep coming. It's like I said: you've fallen in Lake Taylor and apparently drowned. You're listening to the wrong people, Greg.

I recognize at this point it is unlikely I and the dozens of others will change your mind. In my opinion, you lost the debate your essay inspired. I've never before seen you respond to arguments with mere characterization and personal attacks. That means you're hiding your real reasons for your position, and cover them with the political rationalizations most on our side reject.

Quote:
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).
Hadding is a factualist. He keeps the record straight. God, in the world of WN, there is surely room for at least one of those. He is invaluable to me, and I would think others, in offering accurate explanations of questions such as what Hitler meant when he said his revolution was not for export. Very useful stuff, and I appreciate it. I'm not going to become an expert on NS, but I know how to use the findings of men like Hadding. I don't really see that he's doing much different from what you're doing, with CC's postings of all the translations of obscure material. That's not crypt-keeping? It's not like we have a surfeit of people who keep professional standards.

Quote:
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.
People don't come to our side because they see we don't fight. We don't actually believe our bullshit. We don't use our real names.

If we are seen to actually defend what we claim we believe, in public, under our own names, then they will follow us. Has nothing to do with arguments. It's all about fear. We know the people are with us in the deepest stratum of their being. They want to live around and mate with and form societies with whites - only. But while there's a cost to this position, they won't support us publicly. The only way to change that is through courage.


Quote:
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.
No, that's in addition to refuting your position, which is so obviously a non-starter that I can't believe you would seriously put it forward. You can't win the way you're going. What I object to is you claim your position CAN win. If you just said, I don't want any part of the real struggle, I'm just going to publish intellectual essays of a neo-fascist cast, that would be fine. My objection is to your pretense that this leads somewhere politically.

Quote:
Then there is a strong element of macho posturing and shaming, which only works on people who are insecure in their masculinity.
Actually personal abuse works on pretty much everyone. Why do you think the left always smears people and never argues?

We should act like winners, not Dork Creek Debate Club.

If we're secure in our rationality, we already know we're right. We don't have to prove it. But that's all we ever do.

Think back to your review of Jim Goad's "Shit Magnet." That's you at your very best, not this Jared-Tayloresque nibs nibs maintain low tones rationality uber alles shit your pushing today. And oddly enough, you're defending the traditional conservative approach - moderate tones making rational arguments - through smears and abuse. But precisely where those don't fit is where there are honest questions about which way to go. Those were the questions your essay raised, by your answers, which failed to persuade. The right response there was to answer them honestly. But you resorted to abuse. Do you really believe the response to your essay came from people who hate you? They almost all are like me - on your side. Your fans. Your friends. Only a few have a personal beef with you. At least that's sure how it looked to me.

I guess you can retire thinking you won, but I sure don't think most will see it that way.


Quote:
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.
The battle will be won by those who engage in real politics, not just essay writing for neo-fascist boutiques.

Quote:
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.
Who said that? The whole debate is about 'the' 'holocaust.' Which has two props. Both of which have been knocked out. You can go deeper if you like, the revionists have provided a trove of facts we can use. But you don't have to. Just use the main two - no 6m + no gassing = no ho'cost. Instead you prefer to argue in the opposite direction: no proof is good enough that the holocaust didn't exist. So just play along with the jews' biggest and most profitable lie, and somehow things will all work out. That's not how it will work.

Quote:
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.
You can parry the blow more successfully by calling it by its proper name: blood libel. And then turning attention to the real atrocities, which were committed in the Kulakost. And tying the jew-leftists to their own ancestors.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #168
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[following are my comments on what I take as the main points from Greg Johnson's essay "New Right vs Old Right"]


We believe that these aims can come about by changing people’s consciousness, i.e., by persuading enough people in positions of influence that everyone has a stake in ethnonationalism.

The promotion of political change through the transformation of consciousness and culture is what we call metapolitics.

And you're going to do this purely through the power of your words.

Metapolitics refers to what must come before the foundation of a new political order. Metapolitics breaks down into two basic activities. First, there is education: articulating and communicating forms of white nationalism tailored to the interests and outlooks of the full array of white constituencies. This includes not just ivory tower theorizing but also artistic expression, topical cultural and political commentary, and the whole range of media by which they are communicated. Second, there is community organizing, meaning the cultivation of real-world communities that live according to our vision in the present and may serve as the seeds of a New Order to come.

How can they live by your vision under the current System, which does not allow them to exclude others based on race?

The primary metapolitical project of the North American New Right is to challenge and replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system. The entire cultural and political mainstream—including every shade of the “respectable” political spectrum—treats white racial consciousness and white self-assertion as evil.

Our goal is to critique and destroy this consensus and make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic instead, so that no matter what political party wins office, white interests will be secured. Our goal is a pluralistic white society in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.

And you're going to do this...how? Purely by your writing?

Likewise, the New Right represents the interests of all whites, but when it comes to social change, we need to adopt a resolutely elitist strategy. We need to recognize that, culturally and politically speaking, some whites matter more than others. History is
not made by the masses. It is made out of the masses. It is made by elites molding the masses. Thus we need to direct our message to the educated, urban middle and professional classes and above.

Now, wait. Are you trying to BE the elite that conditions the masses? Or are you merely trying to influence that elite?

Rhetorical questions, because we know from earlier writings your intent is simply to influence. I remember arguing with you about that.

Not only will your approach not work - imagine an Old Rightist, as you sillily denominate him, like Hitler getting up on the platform and declaring that he intended to INFLUENCE the elites. Have you lost your sense of the absurd, Greg?

Face it. You just want to write essays, publish books, hold salons, and raise funds. That's fine. Just drop the grandiloquence.


There is no shortage of Old Right-style groups with populist messages targeting working class and rural constituencies. But we need to go beyond them if we are going to win.

Just who do you have in mind as this elite you're going to influence? Hillary Clinton? Mitt Romney? George Bush the Brown?

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

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 29th, 2012 at 08:02 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #169
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,850
Hugh
Default

Quote:
Alex: You counsel cowardice when Golden Dawn's boldness brings success. Why? We have free speech here. No one gets thrown in jail for 'holocaust' 'denial.' They don't in England either, but the Snickengriff Party is on Sodden Winnie's side.

Hey, Hugh, stop your English girl-dog bullshit and watch how a real man and ELECTED OFFICIAL handles the shit we're talking about:

Procopius :
You then suggest that since W.N. don't want to talk about it in public, then we should keep on not doing that. So the thing that has proven not to work (Not talking about the Holocaust) is the very thing we should keep doing? Maybe we should try a different plan of attack.
Golden Dawn rose to power because they are pro Greek and anti EU, not because of the holocaust. Until we know who is funding them, we will not know who they actually are. Key to their rise to power was focusing their strength upon a few key cities. They have many years experience in mainstream politics, with solid political infrastructure, sponsors etc.
Logistics and organisation and funding are critical. WN generally do not have these, so fail irrespective of what we try to do. Often we fail simply because we have inadequate people, structures and money. Golden Dawn are picking up the protest vote. When the issue changes and people stop protesting, then they will have nothing unless they can also bring in mainstream political issues.

I was raised around the world, have lived around the world as an adult, and have had a kind of auditing function in the financial arm of a mining conglomerate for close to two decades. I have seen the power of these conglomerates, how they raise and bring down governments, and how their power vastly exceeds that of many governments. My perspective is thus quite different.

I am pragmatic about what we do. We need to be effective, relevant and practical, now, scattered as we are, where we are, with what people and resources we have.

WN should not be focused on opposing the system, but upon revolution within the form, on taking it over and becoming the system. There cannot be a WN government until WN can form that government and actually govern.

I posted here and in my sig block some resources on what actually works, and actually gets done to gain power in real life.

I've left out the bribery, violence etc as these tend to have a short term impact, and the people and structures they result in usually collapse after a brief while, and get replaced non-violently. What is always critical, and is the determining factor between which side wins and which side loses, is control of the police, and they are controlled via their budget officers/officers.

Jews did not rise to power advocating genocide in public, they rose by advocating human rights in public.
They always dress well/appropriately, and make themselves appear as the good guys.

They organise around thinktanks, NGO's, use religion as a cover, and use religious organisations to amass power that they can use to influence politics.

Above all, they are deeply involved in mainstream activities and organisations, and spend vast amounts of time and money on improving their public speaking etc. That's why Toastmasters, Rotary etc are so important.

The largest and most powerful corporations are governments and religious organisations, followed by the natural resource corporations.

The city state is the usual political structure and power base, as even national politicians all come from cities, and depend upon cities to put them into national power positions.

Within cities, business improvement districts are immensely powerful and influential, and they and churches are the primary movers or bases on which many politicians depend.

WN can act at city level, and it has immense impact, so that's where I'd say we need to start.

Within companies, the company secretary and board committees run the company internally, approving or denying the companies various departments, projects etc and funding or de-funding them.

Within the civil service the budget and programme directors and managers run the civil service in reality, as they allocate the funding.

Churches have a management committee under whatever name, and there too, the financial people determine what actually happens, and what doesn't.

The WN movement needs to put our people into such structures and positions, and we are not going to recruit the accountants, comptrollers, financial managers etc that we need the way so many act currently.

WN need to in effect begin our own long march through the institutions, and gradual, incremental steps, occupying key strategic posts are the best way.

We aren't in Greece, WN don't speak about the Holocaust etc in public generally. That is the current situation, and that is the framework and reality we need to work in now. If that framework and reality changes, then what we do can change to.

Greece is around 11 million people, across 130 000 km's, half of which are islands or port cities.
Athens has around 700 000 people in it.

The US governs around 200 million Whites, across 10 million sq kms, and is involved i corporations and mines etc across the world.

Britain governs Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, around 120 million people and around 18 million sq kms.
It also controls the mining, banking, trade and large portions of the economies of the Commonwealth of 54 nations, most of which are non-White.
The sheer size and scale and global activities just of these two areas necessitates a different approach to that in Greece, though actually, within Greece, all the action is in Athens at present, a sort of combination of New York and Washington in one city.
Add to that France, Germany, Russia etc, and we are dealing with far more than Greece is.

Politics in Britain and the US also requires an understanding that politicians and parties need to deal with non-Whites today in order to get the resources needed to maintain the current White standard of living.

To show how the holocaust is used against Whites can be done in a few moments.
To explain how Jews were hated because they started communism, can also be done in a few moments.

The holocaust can be disproved by simply looking at how long it takes a modern crematorium to cremate a body.
Not to mention the 20 to 30 so kgs of remains that still remain after cremation of the average adult.
Right there, in that one fact, the entire holocaust case, the witnesses, the ovens, the numbers claimed to have died, all fall apart.

I followed Irving's trial day by day, and it was clear from the transcripts that there had never been a holocaust.
Then looking at both of Zundel's trials, it was even more clear.

But who will listen?

No-one has till now, so whilst we need WN to know about it, its not practical to think that we can change their minds.
It would simply take more resources and people than we have available to change the public's minds.
At best, we can explain how slavery, the holocaust etc are used against us, and some in the public will accept that.

Communism and Israel and Jews current actions are as useful to us, so I advocate using those that we can use, with what we have, that we focus upon what we are doing, and not always be so concerned about Jews are doing, and that we move toward preparation for economic collapse and secession.

There's a difference between a movement and a political party.

One can envisage the movement as a series of concentric circles, strong at the centre, with clearly defined lines, getting ever weaker and more fuzzy as the circles get larger and move outward.

The centre circle is race, the next circle ethnonationalism, the next state nationalism, the next two conservatism and
classical liberalism, and then political parties/ideologies.
Within each are thinktanks, various religious groups, etc.

Political parties need to work within the system, and get elected, change legislation and control budgets and the civil service.

Take a look at the reaction to the Ron Paul movement, focusing on things as mild as obeying the law, balancing the budget, and not killing people.

Thousands of members, millions of zogbucks, yet RP's own son betrays him, the public don't support him, and he is viciously attacked. Politically it has begun to make inroads, but it will take years for them to work their way inside the main republican party.

If RP had added holocaust denial to his speeches, he would be forced out of office, and his movement would simply disappear.
Then add to that race, Jews, queers etc. He would not even feature.

So even though he is not a WN, some of his positions benefit WN, so he should be supported by WN.


In the UK, the National Front which have been around since 1967 do as you advocate. Hard core ultra radical, protests, marches, speeches that make you at to charge up the beaches of Normandy, anti-semitic, holocaust deniers, and as pro White as humanly possible.

Result : after 50 years, in the 2010 general election they received 11 000 votes, and have not won a seat in 50 years.

John Tyndall was a NF leader, who then formed the BNP.

You can see at 1:25 onwards how they have changed what it said in public, and backtracked away from saying what they really think, as it is not politically effective.




The BNP was created out of NF members who thought it's strategy was going nowhere. Language toned down, focus shifted to a nationalist one, and suits started being worn.
Result - in the 2010 general election results they received 563 000 votes, and received 943 000 votes for the MEP elections, making them, together with UKIP, into the top 5 parties in Britain.

Till the split, the BNP had around 50 councillors, and has 2 MEP seats.

UKIP, by no means a pro White party, wants out of the EU. It gets around a million votes.

The BNP are linked to a network of nationalist parties across the EU, and UKIP another similar group, but mostly the more conservative type.


The top three parties in the UK which march in lockstep get together around 24 million votes.

Thus a general election is not feasible, only local elections are.

It's much the same across Europe, with the Flemish Vlaams Belang, Austrias Freedom Party, Frances Front National etc all realising that they can operate at two levels, an outer circle of what is said in public, and an inner circle of what they actually think.

Companies work the same way. The shareholders have the full picture, the board of directors a more or less accurate picture, general management a less holistic view, and then the various departments each with a very narrow view

UKIP has the image I'd advocate WN project have in public, rather than costumes, fake military ranks and general weirdness.

__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf

Last edited by Hugh; July 29th, 2012 at 10:31 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #170
Lew_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 146
Lew_
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
Golden Dawn rose to power because they are pro Greek and anti EU, not because of the holocaust.
True. It certainly doesn't appear that GD rose to power because of the holocaust. This fact looks like solid evidence to me the holocaust is a peripheral issue when it comes to practical politics. The most successful NS-type party since the real NS party did not, it appears, make holocaust denial central to their platform. Obviously, what people care about most are things like jobs, good schools for their kids, and safe neighborhoods. This is basic.

That said, I agree with Alex Linder that the GD leader showed everyone how to handle this issue when it does come up. In his case, some dishonest journalist tried to tie GD to Hitler and "the holocaust." When it happened, the GD leader didn't run away from it. He threw it back in the guy's face. He questioned the numbers, raised doubts, questioned gas chambers and undercut the idea that Jewish lives are more precious than other peoples' lives. And he did it all while looking the guy dead in the eye. I think that's how it should be done.

Quote:
Until we know who is funding them, we will not know who they actually are.
Yes. An astute observation. Great analysis in that comment.Lots of food for thought there.

Last edited by Lew_; July 29th, 2012 at 10:39 PM. Reason: typos
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #171
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lew_ View Post
True. It certainly doesn't appear that GD rose to power because of the holocaust.
More retardation. No one said they took power BECAUSE of the holocaust, the point is the have power and their top guy "denies" the holocaust, which ass-clowns like many say is a deal-breaker.

Fucking shit, this place is wall-to-wall envelope-lickers today.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #172
Lew_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 146
Lew_
Default

Re: taking power "because" of the holocaust, I simply used the language of Hugh's comment. My point is that I don't see where dealing with the holocaust figured into GD taking power. If it didn't, again, that's evidence the subject is peripheral to practical politics. This goes to the topic of the thread. The takeaway for me from Greg Johnson's long TOO article is that holocaust is not essential to the WNist project the ultimate goal of which is power. The GD example would seem to support this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
More retardation. No one said they took power BECAUSE of the holocaust, the point is the have power and their top guy "denies" the holocaust, which ass-clowns like many say is a deal-breaker.

Fucking shit, this place is wall-to-wall envelope-lickers today.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #173
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lew_ View Post
Re: taking power "because" of the holocaust, I simply used the language of Hugh's comment.
I know that and Hugh deserves a boot in the ass, but I'm too tired to wade through 50,00 words at the moment, maybe tomorrow. So I seized on yours.

He's arguing against a strawman. I didnt say, no one says, GD won because they talked about the holocaust. The point is they have won seats, and their leader takes questions about the 'holocaust' and shoves them up the interviewers ass. No problem. Why can't we learn from that? Instead we're lectured by the Greg Johnsons of the world that we need to meekly accept this jewish balderdash as the truth, and run away from it.

Quote:
My point is that I don't see where dealing with the holocaust figured into GD taking power.
Who said it did? No one. The argument is that we must avoid it whenever the subject comes up. Well, here are guys who did the worst thing imaginable, according to KM and GJ and Jared Taylor - and got elected. These guys don't know what they're talking about. Michaloliakos does. That's the point. The way you step over the 'holocaust' is precisely that - to deny it. It didn't happen. It's made up jewish bullshit. Communist lies.

Quote:
If it didn't, again, that's evidence the subject is peripheral to practical politics. This goes to the topic of the thread. The takeaway for me from Greg Johnson's long TOO article is that holocaust is not essential to the WNist project the ultimate goal of which is power. The GD example would seem to support this.
Except he's trying to revive fascism, which means the question will always be thrown at him by the kikes trying to shut our movement down. And his only response? "We've stepped over that." WTF does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. It means "I don't want to talk about that." So the interviewer will keep pressing. And what's he going to say? The same stuff he said in his essay, which, as about 500 people pointed out, is cowardly, weak and evasive, and...worst of all, a real knife-twisting...it's counterfactual! He's running away when the facts are on our side! It's insane. Absolutely insane.
 
Old July 30th, 2012 #174
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Lew said "practical politics." That's a Bugster buzzword.

This whole Greg Johnson sidestepping of the Holohoax seems to have some relationship to Bugsterism. Both attempt to make use of the genocide-accusation instead of shooting it down with the truth.

Last edited by Hadding; July 30th, 2012 at 12:30 AM.
 
Old July 30th, 2012 #175
Lew_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 146
Lew_
Default

In my case, it is a coincidence I used phrasing that overlaps bugsterism. I don't follow the bugster guy. My weekly read is usually CC, OD, Sailer, TOO, VNN more and more lately. Unless I'm mistaken, and I might be mistaken, part of the bugster concept is avoiding the entire JQ not just holocaust. I definitely don't agree with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Lew said "practical politics." That's a Bugster buzzword.
 
Old July 30th, 2012 #176
Lars Redoubt
Thomsonist-Frenzian
 
Lars Redoubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Svithiod.
Posts: 2,142
Lars Redoubt
Default

After reading Johnson's article about the Holohoax I put him on my Suspect List.
__________________
Ek trui a matt minn ok megin.
DOWZ! ORION! 88!
Visit Robert Frenz' FAEM: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/faem/
 
Old July 30th, 2012 #177
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

"You may not be interested in the state, but the state is interested in you." --Lenin

That's how it is with the 'holocaust' too. The jews will keep browbeating us with terms like racist and and bundled accusations like 'holocaust' until we come up wtih the right answers.

The right answer to holocaust? BLOOD LIBEL. Spread by peole who actually did butcher millions.
 
Old July 30th, 2012 #178
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
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.
I see that Greg Johnson has the classic Holohoax-neutral Dr. William Luther Pierce essays at C-C, but has left out the one article where Dr. Pierce knocked one of the legs out of the Holohoax myth.......

"The Evidence of the Prussian Blue."
by Dr. William L. Pierce
From National Vanguard magazine issue No. 110, March-April 1989:

It was anticipated by the defense team that Leuchter's evidence would establish two essential points: First, the structures designated by the Jews as "gas chambers" were utterly inadequate for that function, and one would have to believe the Germans the world's most incompetent engineers if they had indeed constructed them for executing Jews with poison gas....


The second point to be made was that, even if the Germans had gassed and cremated Jews in the designated facilities in the concentration camps, they could not possibly have killed anything near the number of Jews claimed in the "Holocaust" propaganda; the facilities simply were not adequate for the task.



The clear implication of these tests is that, in complete contradiction of Jewish "Holocaust" claims, Jews were not gassed in the concentration camps which they assert were "death camps," where a massive, continuing program of executions of Jewish prisoners with Zyklon B is alleged to have occurred. And this contradiction, so stark and clear-cut, casts an even greater pall of doubt than existed before over the whole Jewish story of a deliberate German campaign of extermination which took six million Jewish lives.
 
Old July 30th, 2012 #179
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Greg Johnson the Christian

Last edited by Hadding; July 30th, 2012 at 09:25 PM.
 
Old July 30th, 2012 #180
Lew_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 146
Lew_
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
Golden Dawn rose to power because they are pro Greek and anti EU, not because of the holocaust. Until we know who is funding them, we will not know who they actually are.
Out of curiosity, are you intimating the parties funding Golden Dawn might have an agenda other than Golden Dawn's public agenda?
 
Reply

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

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 PM.
Page generated in 0.16663 seconds.