View Single Post
Old August 30th, 2011 #231
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Cooper View Post
When I read your stuff, you sound like you support the basic NS model of things and understand that these guys are compromising from the get-go, but then you're not NS. That's what I was asking you to clarify.
You wouldn't have misconceptions if you didn't assume in the first place. Go read the strategy section. I have two main threads on my views, and have made comments on the other strategies.

Quote:
NS worldview: Aryan "culture bearer" versus Jew "culture parasite", with inferior races as fodder.
Dubious and irrelevant.

Quote:
WN worldview: White people who want the 1950's back and think the Jews are a superior ethnic group to whites.
That's your own private definition of WN. It doesn't fit me, for one, and I call myself WN. You're basically asserting that NS is the only truly radical revolutionary approach, whereas WN is just more conservatism. You're saying about all WN what I'm saying about a subset of them. While your description fits some WN, it does not fit all, and probably not even most, if you judge by this forum. Not that many actually call themselves NS, and NS is not the only radical option.

Quote:
The second worldview is full of compromise. What are "white people"?
People who look and act white and aren't jews. It's a functional definition, and all we need until we take power.

Quote:
How the hell are we going to get the 1950's back from this mess? And why do we think the Jews are superior to us? If a cancerous tumor kills it's host, we don't consider it to be a better host.
You've created a straw man and are now bashing it. I'm sure it's fun, but it's your private thing and has nothing to do with me or other WN who don't fit your definition. Better you should ask Jared Taylor and others who actually fit your definition.

Quote:
Can someone just a agree with you?
Depends. I prefer intelligent disagreement or compliments from enemies who grasp what I mean to praise from people who don't.

Quote:
My point earlier was how Catholics and Protestants differ in their approach to race. I'll put it a different way: no Catholic is going to join the Southerners on a racial basis because the KKK was anti-Catholic. Even an "ex-Catholic" isn't going to do that... certainly not this one.
What has that got to do with anything?

You still cannot grasp my basic point, which is that christianity, in any form, is intrinsically anti-White because of its spiritual universalism and its believe that all men are equal in the eyes of god, possessed of 'invaluable' individual souls of 'immeasurable' worth.

Quote:
Someone who takes their religion seriously and fights against the conformity to the age is going to be led to the source of the problem being the Jew.
But they can't do anything serious about it because their dogma forbids the only solution that works: physically exterminating the jew. Because Catholicism is dogmatically committed to the proposition that jews are fellow men requiring salvation, the only recognized duty toward them, the only 'solution' to the problem they pose, is converting them. How has that policy worked over 2000 years? It has left the jews in control the church, rewriting its policies to be even more pro-jew, ie Vatican II, which might as well be Vatican Jewed. Today the church doesn't even require jews to be converted, the christ-rejecters are fine just as they are. History has demonstrated amply and beyond question that it has no basis for resisting jews. The jews, by contrast, have ably demonstrated how to defeat the christians. I say WN take their tips from the winners, not the losers. That's the simple common sense the christ cult is notorious for fighting.

Quote:
I don't think they need to be outwardly racist in order to fight with us. We also don't need to be bashing them the same way the Marxists do. I hear the same arguments here that I've heard from the anti-racists, just with the word "Jew" mentioned more often here and in the opposite context.
We should bash them. They are competitors, not allies. They preach a worldview distinctly at odds from ours, and in fact they hate NS or WN more than marxism for reasons I've described elsewhere.

Quote:
Hitler was not only inspired by Christian antisemitism, he regularly used it to his political advantage. If he had denied Christianity openly like you are doing, he would have never made it in 1930's Germany.
That's a very debatable proposition, but in any case we are not in 1930s Germany; the church's overt politics are incredibly anti-White on everything but personal sexual morals. The church is our enemy. We can fight it, or we can pretend we're on the same side. Hitler, as history showed, was too soft on the church, and he paid for it. The christians undermined him his entire regime.

Quote:
It is part of what defined him as an anti-communist even though he was a socialist. Christianity has not always been such a weak link in the political chain. He took the racial point of view to avoid the Protestant/Catholic split in Germany because he saw the failure of Bismark's kulturkampf.
What's relevant is the christianity takes all comers, and its social-political-ideological-dogmatical basis has been cross-racial and multi-racial from day one. Not as a matter of changeable politics, but as a matter of ideology. Most WN are not intelligent enough to grasp the meaning of this, I've found. But it is meaningful, and what it means is that the jesus cult is intrinsically anti-White. You blast conservatives for wanting to go back to the '50s, but your making excuses for the church and saying we have a common cause are precisely what the failure called conservatism has always advocated. What's new and radical is my WN call to attack the church and the conservatives as the enemies they actually are. Any among them who place race over religion will join us. Any who place religion over race will attack us. Both are good for our cause. It makes for clarity, which makes for the polarization we need. When you mix our cause with the church or the conservatives, all you do is confuse people into thinking that people like Buchanan have the solution. But they don't. Only principled outside radicals can change things.

Quote:
Yea, I think using some more effective propaganda such as pussy sans negroes would be a good idea.
This is almost funny. This is about the third time you've tried and failed to understand my point, which really isn't very difficult.

I don't mean our cause is LITERALLY a supermodel, and we should put hot white women on our posters rather than nigger crime stats or victims of niggers crimes, I mean we should quite trying to "appeal" to stupid pew-goobers (religious folks) and cowardly-khaki wearers (bourgeois conservatives) by playing the white welcome wagon bringing them a fruit basket of crime statistics.

Our cause entails highest risk for highest reward. We sell not its benefits but its drawbacks. "Not because it is easy but because it is hard." Or, the ad Shackleton placed seeking men for his expedition to the South Pole. At this point, we're looking for heroes, not commoners. Of course, with unlimited free distribution over the internet, we can reach anyone who dares look, so the distinction is academic in a sense. But non-academic in the sense that in non-desperate times, only the heroes or winter patriots will embrace a cause that entails serious social consequences. So be it; it's not something we can do anything about at the moment.

Quote:
But, no, I don't think we should just write off anyone who has some moral sensibilities just because they are not unequivocally racial.
Arguing against a position that wasn't argued = strawman fallacy.

Quote:
I realize that this is a response to Aryan=Christian in the middle ages,
It isn't. Quit assuming. So far you've been wrong every time.

Quote:
but as an aside... if you take out the conversion and salvation part, then you have the policy of every institution in America. It's Microsoft's official position. Can a guy working at Microsoft be a radical racist?
This is confusion. Organizational form has nothing to do with race or politics and everything to do with the purpose the men creating the organization propose to achieve.

Quote:
What I don't get Linder is anyone who takes your position, unless they are at the forefront of racial politics,
You think the leaders are at less risk than the followers? That's your catholic coming out - wimpy passive-aggression.

Quote:
will lose everything they have just to meet your standards. Their families will disown them. Their wife and kids will disappear. No one will hire them. They'll probably find themselves in and out of jail. Who are we trying to recruit?
More strawman. We're talking about what people believe. It's a separate question what they should or can do, once they are 'correct' ideologically. And of course that will depend on a number of circumstantial factors.

Quote:
I think underneath it all, we are motivated by our instincts much more than our convictions. That's why I liked your idea. However, I'd just rather by-pass their hypocrisies rather than try to fix them by insult. Christians love persecution. It's in the Bible.
That's why they love communism but hate racialism. Communism merely kills and oppresses them (yay! I get to be martyred just like jebus!), whereas racialism makes them obsolete. We should attack the church, just as the winning jews do, but in a White way and for White reasons. Making common cause with the church, or papering over differences, will hurt our racial cause, as history shows.

Quote:
I'll do some searching. This is just a suggestion, but if it isn't in your "Solution" forum, could you put it there?
Read every sticky thread in the Strategy subforum, starting with my two.

Quote:
This was really disappointing when I first came to your site. You have the problem and the solution and the solution just looked like more shit about the problem.
It's under "The Strategy" where the solution can be contrasted with other approaches.

Quote:
I would probably add "swagger" to the list of words that white men shouldn't use.
Why? It's a valid word, conveys a clear meaning, isn't obviously replaceable by any other in making the same point. The opposition I see and describe is remonstrating vs swaggering. Conservatives remonstrate. Racialists should swagger.

Quote:
Well, how I understood you is that you think we should just say we are right because a white world is what we prefer. It's what we want and that's it. We don't need to give a long list of good reasons, even though there are plenty.
The reasons are all there, just as a guy trying to sell a pickup or a barbecue grill has a sheet listing all the statistics, but what sells the cause is the impressionistic stuff, the vision, the idea and idea. Not the details. They sign up because they think we can actually deliver something awesome, something any normal white man can see is worth having.

Quote:
I think it's an odd position for someone who owns a discussion forum to take. I mean, what's there to discuss?
What's to discuss is the most effective way for Whites to defend themselves and advance their cause, as we are here.

Quote:
And I don't see it as either/or. I think we need to be both badass and right.
Well, it's obvious we're right. But the need to be badass seems unmannerly to the ICs who've always defined us.

Quote:
I think a lot of this has to do with money or the lack thereof. How do we set up a revolution without money? Why would anyone want this revolution if it isn't to anyone's economic advantage? Not many think a white revolution would be to their economic advantage or we would see a lot more funds flowing into the movement. Even NS Germany was primarily motivated by economic stability and growth.
Too much to go into here. Radicals get money once they appear to have a real possibility to win. Before that, the money goes from the responsible middle class to the 501c3 conservative pretenders.

Quote:
I think it's the real reason Amren is the way it is. Money is involved. My experience with the a3p wasn't too different. I just think they are going for the wrong people and it's because they are essentially conservative. Soccer mom's and old men aren't going to revolt.
That's right. A3P, because of the guys running it, follows the conservative model. That model works for fundraising, but not for fundamental political change.

Quote:
As far as I feel out about it personally, I've been a writer for most of my life. I'm not great but I'm decent. These are my convictions, but writing has never afforded me a living. So I think it makes perfect sense to look for a way to put those things-- money, conviction and talent-- together.
You're conflating different things. WN isn't going to have the money to subsidize writers and politicians until it builds successful organizations. And it won't have successful organizations until it figures out how to prevent the government from smashing them.

Short of that, the only site-based orgs that will succeed will be things like Vdare - multi-racial, not anti-jew, not pro-White - in a nutshell, conservative organizations. WN will succeed, but only in spreading information and arguments, and that's what VNN and other men/sites do. It will change when men of superior organizational talent, bravery and determination make it change.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 30th, 2011 at 03:42 PM.