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

Old November 14th, 2010 #41
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRoberts View Post
I see a bunch of cowardly people who won't even show themselves ONLINE, due to fear of "losing their job", being "visited by the FBI", or having one of their neighbors recognize them.
So what's the binding constraint, fear of job loss or our use of kike and nigger? The people discussed in this thread, Yggdrasil and Kevin MacDonald, have spent two decades choosing precisely the right words, eschewing epithets, filling their work with lawyer-like disclaimers and using fact and logic, all to appeal to average people (maybe better than average in MacDonald's case). Where's the groundswell of average people persuaded by any of it to risk their jobs and join even a milquetoast group like MacDonald's A3P?
 
Old November 14th, 2010 #42
ScottRoberts
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 243
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
So what's the binding constraint, fear of job loss or our use of kike and nigger?
I don't "fear" saying the words, because of any personal consequence I might face. I CHOOSE not to use them, because doing so clearly undermines my own agenda (reaching out to as many people as possible). It is a tactical decision, not one that is born out of "fear".

Quote:
The people discussed in this thread, Yggdrasil and Kevin MacDonald, have spent two decades choosing precisely the right words, eschewing epithets, filling their work with lawyer-like disclaimers and using fact and logic, all to appeal to average people (maybe better than average in MacDonald's case). Where's the groundswell of average people persuaded by any of it to risk their jobs and join even a milquetoast group like MacDonald's A3P?
I never suggested that this would be easy or that we could simply show someone a 10 minute video and have the light bulb come on. It will take a concerted effort by ALL of us to get the message across. Not just a "Kevin MacDonald" or two. We ALL need to do our part and see it through to the end.

If we put a half ass effort into it, then we should NOT expect to get very far. And we should expect about the same disappointing result if we rely on a few people to get the job done FOR us. WE need to do it! It is up to ALL of us and we need to take it upon ourselves, as individuals, to simply do OUR part. That is ALL a man can do, but he should certainly not do anything less than give 100%.

Effective leaders try to motive their followers, they don't lull them to sleep with false promises. They kick them in the ass and insist that they get out there and do their part as well. Setting an example is the primary responsibility that a "leader" has, but he can't do it all alone.

And if you believe that cursing and screaming is the way to get across to the masses, then you are sadly mistaken. I say that respectfully, I am not trying to condemn anyone for trying, but we simply must recognize that such an approach will never work and we need to accept the fact that the task ahead will take a great deal of sacrifice from ALL of us.

As for reasons to be hopeful and encouraged.. Well, I bet Mr. MacDonald saw some encouraging signs along the way. You wouldn't know about all the success stories, unless you were matching his efforts. Why point to the "Kevin MacDonalds" of the world when you should be pointing to yourself? As we all should be.

On a personal note, I KNOW I have literally reached THOUSANDS of people. In many instances I have taken the time to painstakingly inform them ONE by ONE. I am no different and no better than you are, I am only trying harder. So I KNOW it can be done and I have personally seen a great deal of success and progress, but more of us have to take it upon OURSELVES to see it THROUGH to the end, step by painstaking step. "Kevin MacDonald" simply can't do it all FOR us, sorry to inform you of the bad news. And Jesus won't be coming along to save us either, WE will have to save ourselves.

Again, not meaning to be cold, but I will be direct, until YOU have put forth maximum effort and tried your very best for a good long while, you are in NO position to suggest that we are not gaining ground. Worry about the man in the mirror 1st, and IF enough of us take that approach, WE will be well on our way.
 
Old November 15th, 2010 #43
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

[This is a much better essay than Yggdrasil's, but Johnson's first sentence could be the most moronic thing I've ever read.]

Implicit Whiteness and the Republicans

November 11, 2010
Greg Johnson

Kevin MacDonald’s work on the concept of “implicit whiteness” in his essay “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism” (acacdemic version) is a major breakthrough for White Nationalism. Ethnocentrism—usually stigmatized as “xenophobia” and “racism”— is a preference to be around genetically similar people. Anti-ethnocentrism—a preference for people unlike ourselves—is sold today as “diversity,” the secret ingredient that adds “strength” wherever it is found.

According to MacDonald, ethnocentrism is a natural phenomenon, hard-wired into the oldest and deepest levels of the brain. Anti-ethnocentrism, however, exists as a conscious moral conviction. From a psychological point of view, therefore, anti-ethnocentrism is relatively superficial, even though it currently dominates our culture and politics.

Anti-ethnocentrism is dominant because its advocates control the forces that shape our explicit consciousness: education, the arts, the news and entertainment media. But unconscious ethnocentrism persists and can never be extirpated because it is hard-wired into the brain.

Thus when leftists accuse Whites of “unconscious” racism, they are correct. Unconscious White ethnocentrism manifests itself in affiliation patterns. In particular, MacDonald cites country music, NASCAR, and the Republican Party as foci of implicitly White affiliation.

But because ethnocentrism is hard-wired, anti-racists can’t really do anything about it. At best, anti-racist “consciousness raising” can only institute a permanent state of inner psychological conflict.

The leftists thought that by controlling the explicit culture, they could eliminate ethnocentrism once and for all. But they can’t. They can only create a psychologically draining conflict between our conscious convictions and our conscious instincts. And they can never rest, because if they let up on the conditioning for just a minute, they may see all their gains—and all their power—swept away.

Contrary to enemy propaganda, ethnocentrism is a perfectly normal and healthy psychological trait. A racially aware individual who consciously believes that his ethnocentric instincts are morally right, enjoys inner psychological harmony, the peace of mind that is denied to anti-racists, who exist in a constant state of inner conflict between their natural instincts and their unnatural moral convictions.

Anti-racists are, in a real sense, mentally ill, whereas those of us who are self-consciously and proudly ethnocentric are mentally healthy (at least in that respect). And, because so much of the mental energy of anti-racists is drained away in internal conflict, other things being equal, we “racists” are stronger, happier, and more capable of transforming the world.

Thus MacDonald’s research is cause for hope:

1. The left cannot win, because they can only control our conscious convictions but not our unconscious instincts.

2. Nature is on our side, because in their hearts, people want what we want.

3. Time is on our side, because anti-racism introduces internal psychological conflicts that are bound to be debilitating over the long run.

What is the path to racial salvation? Ultimately, it is a metapolitical struggle to gain control of the forces that shape people’s conscious convictions about what is right. Once we can bring people’s conscious convictions in line with their deepest instincts, the resistance to the political changes we seek will fall as a matter of course.

Unfortunately, the import of MacDonald’s research is often misunderstood when applied to party politics. The euphoric reaction of some White Nationalists to the Republican gains in the recent midterm elections is a case in point. White Nationalists are claiming that “we” have taken control of the House, that “we” have made significant progress toward immigration restriction, that “Whites” are taking our country back.

White Nationalists were, of course, mostly spectators in the last election. “We” White Nationalists did not take control of the House, the Republicans did. So this talk about what “we” won is based on the power of make believe, in exactly the same way that a Giants fan says that “we” won the World Series. Fans form an imaginative identification with “their” team and vicariously experience their triumphs and tragedies as their own.

I have seen obese couch potatoes pantomiming touchdowns and toddling around beer-sodden rec rooms in victory laps, pumping their fists in the air as if they were star athletes. I have seen rock concerts where countless teenage boys, bombed out of their minds, play air guitar and feel like the crowd is cheering for them. In men, testosterone production actually rises and falls based on the performance of their sports teams. It may be good, clean fun. But it is not the foundation of sober political analysis.

The misuse of the idea of “implicit Whiteness” is another factor contributing to giddiness about the Republicans and the Tea Party. Yes, the Republicans may be benefitting from implicit ethnocentrism on the part of Whites, but that is a far cry from explicit White Nationalists enjoying any sort of political power or influence.

First of all, the fact that Republican voters may be motivated by unconscious ethnocentrism does not imply that they are receptive to explicit White Nationalism. Most Republicans would vehemently reject the “accusation” that they have any racial fellow-feeling at all. Yes, this resistance to White racial consciousness is waning, partly because it is just tiring to fight against one’s natural instincts, and partly because White Nationalists are slowly getting our message out through the internet and through personal interactions. But we have a long metapolitical educational process ahead of us before we can turn implicit Whiteness into widespread explicit Whiteness.

Second, the fact that Republican voters may be motivated by implicit racial consciousness does not mean that Republican politicians will serve White interests. Quite the contrary, they would be the first to deny any hint of racism. They would deny it strenuously.

Republicans have a long history of taking the money, efforts, and votes of explicitly conservative and pro-life voters . . . and then betraying them. Why, then, would one expect them to be responsive to the merely implicit racial consciousness of White voters—many of whom would deny they are racially conscious altogether?

The sad truth is that Republicans will not cater to the interests of Whites even out of the “base” motive of self-preservation. In their hearts, Republicans know that their party is doomed by the rising tide of color. But they will doanything rather than admit this fact and work to preserve the White majority.

Just as their corporate masters are committed to the racial replacement of White workers, Republicans are committed to the racial replacement of White voters by winning the votes of responsible, hard-working blacks and browns. Sure, most of them know it is a pipe dream. But they are more afraid of being called racists today than of their party disappearing in a generation.

Other Republicans are committed to staving off political death through racial gerrymandering and ever more intense exploitation of the shrinking White voter base. They are praying for the left to rile up Republican voters by promoting further “progress” toward insanity: socialized medicine for pets, tax-funded sex change operations, the right to marry one’s pet, and the like. Republicans will do just about anything but speak the dreaded “w” word.

The barriers to moving the Republicans toward explicit Whiteness can be appreciated with an analogy. Imagine an organization consisting largely of unmarried men that has an explicitly anti-homosexual culture yet a pattern of recruiting and promoting young men based largely on sex appeal. Such an organization could accurately be described as “implicitly” or “latently” homosexual. Would such an organization, therefore, be a likely ally for the homosexual lobby?

Of course not. Its members would frantically rebuff any proffered alliance. Individually, many of the members might be sympathetic. But any sympathies would be cancelled by fear of the disapproval of their peers, because status in the organization depends on conformity to the explicit culture, and those who dissent from the party line will be replaced by those who toe it.

The same is true of explicitly White Nationalists trying to reach out to latently White Republicans. Status in Republican circles depends on adherence to anti-racism (except, of course, in the case of Zionism, which must be subsidized with tax dollars). Even if every leading Republican felt, in the privacy of his or her own mind, that anti-racism is nonsense, what are the chances that they would all level with one another at the same time? Because if a courageous individual stuck his neck out on his own, he might find his honesty turned against him by somebody who believes the exact same thing but is more concerned with gaining advantage over him in a struggle for personal advancement.

In fact, I believe that White Nationalists are more likely to find allies on some issues among Black and Hispanic nationalist groups, since members of these organizations don’t need to constantly prove their anti-White credentials like Republicans do. And that is the full measure of Republican depravity.

As I have argued elsewhere, the 2010 Midterm elections turned out about as well as could be expected for White Nationalists, given that racially conscious Whites are a tiny, despised, and almost voiceless minority. Let’s not forget that of the hundreds of candidates who ran, only Jim Russell in New York’s 18th district is an explicit advocate for White interests, and he lost by a landslide.

Kevin MacDonald’s work on implicit Whiteness is a conceptual breakthrough for White Nationalism, a source of hope for the long run viability of our cause. But let’s not get carried away by elections. But there is still a vast gulf between implicit and explicit Whiteness, a gulf that politics alone cannot bridge.

Greg Johnson is the Editor-in-Chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd. He can be reached at [email protected].

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ans/#more-4982
 
Old November 18th, 2010 #44
ScottRoberts
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 243
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
....

Last edited by Alex Linder; 5 Days Ago at 02:51 PM.
So nothing to say Mr. Linder? Just going to call me out like that and not even bother to respond and let me know that it was simply a misunderstanding, a mistake of judgment, or to offer a simple admission that you just didn't know the person you assumed so much about? If you made the effort to edit your original comment, then you certainly could have found the time to acknowledge my response to it.

I am not trying to make a fuss over it, but I would expect you to at least acknowledge my response to your comments, where you were essentially calling me out (nearly a week has passed). Perhaps I expect too much, but I am merely asking a question here (one that I believe to be quite reasonable).

Cheers
 
Old November 18th, 2010 #45
N. Wolf
Legionary of Truth
 
N. Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Within the Soul of Europe
Posts: 151
Blog Entries: 3
N. Wolf
Default

I agree with most of what Alex Linder said, but I have need to comment on something. Robert Jay Mathews already tried that sort of thing before, but failed miserably. He couldn't get many "patriots" to actually join his revolution. You need economic poverty in order to have the right conditions to succeed. It's the condition that made the "extremist" movements of Hitler, Codreanu, Mussolini, etc. have the opportunity to get mass support. Even Jews know that, it's how their Communist movements had a chance at really spreading. It's also the reason the more "extreme" movements are growing in Russia (which is in a very bad economic situation for most of its people) today more than in most other European nations. I think the best thing to do now, besides using various methods to spread racialism, is to wait until the economy finally reaches a real depression and then take advantage of that situation (before the Jews do what they want with it, which is to recreate Communism).
 
Old November 19th, 2010 #46
Susan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,388
Susan
Default

This is the first time I've been back to the internet since I last posted my comment, to explain why I haven't responded (if anyone even cares).

Alex, I agree with most of what you say. My suggestions earlier were suggestions to be tried before anyone resorts to violence. Sort of like giving it the ole college try one last time before one just starts slugging away.

I, too, am sick to death of internet chatter which is one of the main reasons I stopped getting internet into my home. Enough talk already. If no one is interested in actually meeting in person and attempting to network and plan, then fuck it. I'll just live my life like everyone else. I'll concentrate on making a living, and pursuing my own interests.......while watching and waiting for the shit to hit the fan. Maybe.

But, what if the shit never really hits the fan? What if everything just continues to deteriorate slowly--crime increases with Whites getting raped and murdered, Whites losing jobs and homes, then eventually when our numbers aren't enough to win elections any longer, the country being finally fucked by muds. All the while Whites simply sit by clueless. And all the while those of us who could do something, get too old to do anything.....or care.

Ultimately, I know that Whites won't win until blood is drawn from our enemies......and in huge amounts. But, if Whites are never willing to fight, then we won't win. I don't believe that younger Whites have what it takes to fight physically for their race. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.

But, what if I'm not? What if after the baby boom generation is all dead, there's no one left who has any idea of racial identity or of the need to preserve it, or of its importance in continuing any first world country?

There's a lot of talk on the internet about in the future kicking jew and nigger ass, but by whom? and when exactly? This talk makes everything we hold sacred seem like a joke.

I live in north Georgia, about forty miles north of Atlanta, and I'm ready to start networking in person with other serious minded Whites, but there are none. There's only silly internet chatter, trolling, and time wasters. Enough already.

I was thinking the other day about exactly what is needed right now--all over the country. We need people who are willing to come out of the shadows and meet each other and start talking. We need to start Pro White groups that proclaim the groups for White people and their specific interests. We need to simply state that we hate no one, take up physical action against no one, that we are simply here for other Whites to have some place to meet other like minded Whites.

And, then, we need to make it clear that our main position, for the benefit of both Whites and other races, particularly blacks, is the racial re-segregation of America. The crime stats alone would be enough for this argument, but there are plenty of other reasons, of course.

Things would be difficult at first, but if we persisted, Whites would begin to come to us, because they would see that we are right, because we use facts, not emotion or hysteria or hate.

We point out that every other single racial and ethnic group in America has the above. It is only Whites who cannot come together based on race.

What the fuck have we got to lose? Is your life so goddamned important that you are not willing to sacrifice something for the future of White children in this country?

If we could organize a tight group of Whites (carefully screened) to come together for a weekend somewhere in middle America and network and discuss, we could begin to move forward. If we can't do something that way, then we all say we enjoyed meeting each other and go home.

Alex, nobody is willing to engage in violence right now. I see this as the only logical alternative.

I am 56 years old. How many more really good years do I have left? Most of the good minds on this website are people who are older than, say, forty.

One person cannot do this. It must be the work of a group of dedicated Whites who can support each other, when needed. We could enlist a good White lawyer to help us, too.

Again, I say, no one is ready for violence, not on a grand scale, how about giving this idea a try?
 
Old November 19th, 2010 #47
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,037
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

What's going on in Zimbabwe and South Africa should give White's fair warning what is coming to them in the Kwa.

 
Old November 19th, 2010 #48
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRoberts View Post
So nothing to say Mr. Linder? Just going to call me out like that and not even bother to respond and let me know that it was simply a misunderstanding, a mistake of judgment, or to offer a simple admission that you just didn't know the person you assumed so much about? If you made the effort to edit your original comment, then you certainly could have found the time to acknowledge my response to it.

I am not trying to make a fuss over it, but I would expect you to at least acknowledge my response to your comments, where you were essentially calling me out (nearly a week has passed). Perhaps I expect too much, but I am merely asking a question here (one that I believe to be quite reasonable).

Cheers
No, I intend to answer again. Posting stuff on the internet is not my chief concern, believe it or not. The short answer is you're wrong, the longer answer will go farther into why. What I see from reading your posts around here is you've got a huge ego and love the sound of your own voice. Not wholly bad things, I'm no great believer in humility, but they can easily make one sure of things he were wiser to doubt. Which is what I'll go over in my longer answer.
 
Old November 19th, 2010 #49
ScottRoberts
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 243
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
No, I intend to answer again. Posting stuff on the internet is not my chief concern, believe it or not. The short answer is you're wrong, the longer answer will go farther into why. What I see from reading your posts around here is you've got a huge ego and love the sound of your own voice. Not wholly bad things, I'm no great believer in humility, but they can easily make one sure of things he were wiser to doubt. Which is what I'll go over in my longer answer.
Fair enough, I know what it means to be busy myself, so I was never expecting an immediate response.

However, I will ask that you leave my "ego" out of it and simply prove how I am "wrong". If you truly believe I am here to "hear my own voice", then the last thing you should want to do is make it all about me, so why not just stick to the facts and things I have actually said or done? On the other hand, if you decide to psychologically profile me, then no need to suggest that I am an "egomaniac" on the back end when I respond. I don't WANT to talk about me, but I WILL defend myself when the need arises.

For the record, I am more than humble. Just because I am direct with the points I make does not mean I am closed minded or feel that I am somehow above questioning or criticism. I have admitted to being wrong several times before and I will gladly and very humbly consider your every word or suggestion.

cheers
 
Old December 30th, 2010 #50
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default Greg Johnson on "Why Conservatives STILL Can’t Win"

My contribution to this discussion:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2010...till-cant-win/

Some selections RE Ygg:

Well, conservatives STILL can’t win. But neither can they learn, so they continue to promote their folly to new generations. Recently, two White Nationalist publications that once showed real promise have been lost to conservatism: Occidental Dissent and The Occidental Quarterly, which I edited for two and a half years, along with its sister publication, TOQ Online, which I created and edited for a year. I have already dealt with Occidental Dissent in “White Nationalism and the Political ‘Mainstream.’” Here I wish to deal with TOQ.

On November 6, 2010, John Gardner (“Yggdrasil”), the new publisher of TOQ, published “Why The Occidental Quarterly Exists” in which he explains the aims of TOQ under his watch. This article contains sound advice to whites to become as independent as possible from the consumerist system and its values and to create mutual aid networks.

But when it comes to the political system, Gardner is still very much a conservative, a Republican even. He thinks that White Nationalists—a tiny, voiceless, despised, poorly funded, and poorly led movement—should aim at lobbying and “conditioning” Republicans to represent white interests. Gardner actually thinks that whites can vote and lobby and game ourselves out of this mess, as if our people have not been slated for slow and systematic genocide but are merely having a run of bad luck at the polls.

I think it is too early for White Nationalists to get involved in electoral politics and lobbying. We need to become a much bigger, richer, and more politically threatening group before we can make a difference in that realm. (And if we become powerful enough, we can dispense with electoral politics altogether.) But for any of that to happen, we need to invest our time, money, brains, and talent in community building and outreach. We need to win people over to our way of thinking, by packaging and delivering our message to every white group through every medium available. We need to build up our community so it has something more to offer prospective converts than ignominy and the company of the insane.

The John Gardner I knew was a race-wise, Jew-wise White Nationalist who believed in the goal of a white ethnostate. The Occidental Quarterly I knew was founded to be explicitly white and to deal explicitly with the Jewish question. But you would never know that from Gardner’s TOQ 2.0 agenda. The most he says about race is that white Americans are being demonized and discriminated against because of our “skin color.” (Which is the language of biological race deniers and minimizers.) And as for the Jewish question, all we get is this:

Effective political motivation demands an identifiable “them.”

Our competing racial groups have an identifiable “them” in their stereotype of the evil and undeserving White man.

We need our own identifiable “them” which is, of course, those who benefit from the current repression of Whites under the regime of “multiculturalism.”

Then the trick is to make the “them” apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents.

We should not name “them” explicitly. Rather, we advance policies that directly thwart the extractions and benefits “they” get from “us,” thus generating the kind of policy-oriented anger that will motivate and unify “us.”

If this is taken seriously as TOQ policy, then every back issue of the journal will have to be pulped and reprinted, with references to Jews replaced by euphemisms like “liberals” and “cultural Marxists.” Furthermore, Kevin MacDonald now seems like an odd choice for Editor. And in the end, it will never work, because the SPLC will always be around to remind people of the truth about White Nationalists who scuttle crabwise toward the mainstream, begin speaking in riddles and euphemisms, and try to reinvent themselves as conservatives.

We few who know the most important truth in the world—that organized Jewry (not “liberals,” not “cultural Marxists”) have set the white race (not “conservatives,” not “Christians,” not “Western Civilization”) on the path to extinction—have an absolute duty to get this message out and wake our people up. Because if we don’t do it, nobody else will. Those who know the truth but can’t shout it from the rooftops have the duty to support those who can spread the word.

Gardner’s claim that “the trick is to make the ‘them’ apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents” is just a version of the old idea that we can “sneak up on the Jews” and catch them napping. But the enemy has millions of lidless, unsleeping eyes. And the idea that the enemy is not already inflamed and motivated and working against us at 99% capacity is laughable.

Gardner’s “trick” is not to name “them” but to support policies that negatively impact the interests of the enemy, so they rise from their slumbers and attack us, which will then motivate us to fight back.

Where to start?

(1) Aren’t the Jews attacking us enough already? And if decades of Jewish attacks have not motivated whites to unite and fight back, then why does Gardner think that ratcheting up the Jewish pressure will produce a different result this time?

Our people have suffered enough. The role of White Nationalists should be to explain who has been attacking us, and why, and how to fight back. That is the leadership our race needs.

(2) When and how are White Nationalists going to gain enough power to credibly threaten Jewish interests? How, exactly, is White Nationalism going to grow without first talking about race or Jewish power? If we don’t say anything to set us apart from conservatives, if we don’t act any more honest than system politicians, then why would we expect any growth? Gardner’s strategy for gaining political power begins: First, gain sufficient power to threaten the interests of the enemy. It doesn’t work that way.

(3) It is a tried and true method of political agitation to present a moderate petition to an arrogant power and hope that it is denied. There is nothing wrong with using this technique from time to time, when it is appropriate. But to depend on this technique alone—because one has adopted a policy of never speaking the enemy’s name—is an abdication of leadership. White Nationalists should be the primary educators and agitators of our people. Again, if we don’t argue our case, nobody else will.

(4) What exactly is the advantage to our people of being kept in the dark about our real enemies? The mainstream right has been doing that for decades, and what has that gotten us? Richard Nixon knew the score, but he spoke the truth only in private. In public, he made a foreign-born Jew Secretary of State and created Affirmative Action. The enemy operates under no such self-imposed handicaps.

(5) Gardner’s strategy is obviously based on the experience of the Tea Party, a piously color-blind, universalistic movement promoting fiscal conservatism and constitutional government which was nevertheless viciously attacked as “racist” by the left. These attacks have prompted ever-angrier denials of “racism” but not much more. Perhaps White Nationalists can reap some benefits from this polarization, but it is not a phenomenon that we need to imitate or encourage. It is doing quite well without us. Furthermore, leftist attacks on the Tea Party might move some people in our direction, but we will not move them any further unless we stay true to our own message rather than blending in with conservatives.
 
Old December 30th, 2010 #51
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Good stuff. Don't see much to disagree with, if anything. No surprise that men who operate under fantasy names are easily tempted into fantasy politics.

"Don't name the jew"

"Blend with the conservatimids"

"People who say they're not racist and love MLK are really on our side"

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong? Wrong.
 
Old December 31st, 2010 #52
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
The John Gardner I knew was a race-wise, Jew-wise White Nationalist who believed in the goal of a white ethnostate..
Once a neocon...

Quote:
Neoconservative Jews are defenders of Western Civilization and would be welcome in a European-American nation.

Howard Stern, the redneck Jew, is emblematic of an even more significant movement of Jews out of the psychological ghetto of fear, and into mainstream European-American popular culture. When Howard Stern berates blacks, he is not overcome by fear that turning his goyish audience against blacks might lead to discrimination against Jews as well. Forty years ago that would have been an automatic reaction among all Jews. Today, that fear seems as implausible to most Jews as would a fear that stirring up anti-black sentiment would lead inexorably to discrimination against the Irish.

Jews in the Howard Stern/Andrew Dice Clay mold do not consider themselves threatened by other whites. Psychologically they feel that they _are_ whites, and I see no reason to try to change their minds.
 
Old January 1st, 2011 #53
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Johnson, referring to John Gardner
Then the trick is to make the “them” apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents.

We should not name “them” explicitly. Rather, we advance policies that directly thwart the extractions and benefits “they” get from “us,” thus generating the kind of policy-oriented anger that will motivate and unify “us.”

If this is taken seriously as TOQ policy, then every back issue of the journal will have to be pulped and reprinted, with references to Jews replaced by euphemisms like “liberals” and “cultural Marxists.” Furthermore, Kevin MacDonald now seems like an odd choice for Editor. And in the end, it will never work, because the SPLC will always be around to remind people of the truth about White Nationalists who scuttle crabwise toward the mainstream, begin speaking in riddles and euphemisms, and try to reinvent themselves as conservatives.

We few who know the most important truth in the world—that organized Jewry (not “liberals,” not “cultural Marxists”) have set the white race (not “conservatives,” not “Christians,” not “Western Civilization”) on the path to extinction—have an absolute duty to get this message out and wake our people up. Because if we don’t do it, nobody else will. Those who know the truth but can’t shout it from the rooftops have the duty to support those who can spread the word.

Gardner’s claim that “the trick is to make the ‘them’ apparent to our own people without inflaming and motivating our opponents” is just a version of the old idea that we can “sneak up on the Jews” and catch them napping. But the enemy has millions of lidless, unsleeping eyes. And the idea that the enemy is not already inflamed and motivated and working against us at 99% capacity is laughable.

Gardner’s “trick” is not to name “them” but to support policies that negatively impact the interests of the enemy, so they rise from their slumbers and attack us, which will then motivate us to fight back.
More "Inner-Party/Outer-Party" mumbo-jumbo from Gardner/Yggdrasil.

Yggdrasil/Gardner in the past claimed to have been a big supporter of Stormfront. Look where SF is now.

Now he's involved with a de-nutting of the TOQ universe. Well, maybe universe is too grandiose a term by a factor of 10^12 or so. And maybe de-nut implies something that was lacking from the outset. The point is that whatever failings SF (and now TOQ) had at their respective beginnings, they were demonstrably more on-point than now.

Sam Francis, iirc, was central in the early TOQ. He had some great attributes and some painfully obvious failings, namely his inability to come fully to grips with jewish reality, of which he was definitely aware, having taken several Judaic forced enemas up his ample backside. It's a form of self-sabotage, and it's tough enough trying to fight the real enemies without undermining oneself. What Gardner (etc.?) is doing, effectively, is playing-up the failings of Canny Sammy, et al., and repressing the substantive stuff. For a stunted plant that's struggling to live in partial darkness, Gardner's solution is to take away all the light. It's insane if success is the intent.

It pisses me off because when I first became aware of WN, I read all of Ygg's stuff. There's a lot of good stuff there. But these guys are losers, regardless of any good intentions, and I wasted a lot of time and energy on their punch-pulling.

The only "good" thing in this is that TOQ is so inconsequential, none of this really matters.
 
Old January 1st, 2011 #54
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
More "Inner-Party/Outer-Party" mumbo-jumbo from Gardner/Yggdrasil.

Yggdrasil/Gardner in the past claimed to have been a big supporter of Stormfront. Look where SF is now.
He was also a friend of JJT, but I don't know how much that was/is true given JJT's interesting habits. As I recall Ygg was central to the 'WN Position Statements', which are hilariously vapid and general.

Quote:
Now he's involved with a de-nutting of the TOQ universe.
Perhaps he should start by castrating himself? As to be frank TOQ has never been a nutters paradise as far as I can see, but to a mediocre moderate like Ygg it might seem like TOQ was a bunch of tin-foil hat-wearing nut jobs waving their guns periodically.

Quote:
It pisses me off because when I first became aware of WN, I read all of Ygg's stuff. There's a lot of good stuff there.
I've read Ygg's work; although I must confess it was some time ago, but I never thought much of it particularly other than it was somewhat well-written and at times does show the unfulfilled promise of deeper thought. That said Ygg does get read and praised by many of the wet-behind-the-ears types who have as much grasp of racialism as I do the principles of quantum mechanics.

Quote:
But these guys are losers, regardless of any good intentions, and I wasted a lot of time and energy on their punch-pulling.
Well you could tell that from the fact that Ygg has never even managed to break onto the Don Black-esque scene of 'WN' mediocrity and has; despite some claims to the contrary, never established himself as either an intellectual or a 'WN' authority unlike for example the equally mediocre Arthur Kemp (of 'March of the Titans' fame).

Quote:
The only "good" thing in this is that TOQ is so inconsequential, none of this really matters.
That's true: I did once try to subscribe to TOQ for the sake of generally helping a counter-current outlet but they took my money, didn't bother to send me the copies and didn't seem to read their emails either.

I guess they might view it as odd that I don't like people taking my money and then offering customer service that even a jew would think was taking the piss.
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; January 1st, 2011 at 03:57 PM.
 
Reply

Tags
backsliding, charles martel society, the occidental quarterly, wn lite= fail, yggdrasil

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 PM.
Page generated in 0.18317 seconds.