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

Old August 22nd, 2012 #441
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

What I find odd, drawing the discussion back to Johnson, is that his TOO revisionism essay has never been posted on his own site. Can anyone explain that?

I really haven't followed CC until the last couple months - does it publish anything related to revisionism?
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #442
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default Pussy Riot imitates Pussy Right

Quote:
From Ernst Blofeld on Pussy Riot thread:

In French there is the term "Succès de scandale"
or success from a scandal.
It's been a tactic to achieve notoriety since Stravinsky first performed
The Rite of Spring and then was taken up by the surrealists.
The notoriety and publicity Pussy Riot generated have instantly catapulted 3 obscure untalented women onto the forefront of the world's media. Even if they serve the full duration of their sentence, which is highly doubtful, they have succeeded in obtaining a lucrative career for years to come.
This is also the strategy of the Pussy Right.

Mark Weber draws off the notoriety attributed to him for being an editor at National Alliance.

David Irving is famous for a trial in which he denied being a holohoax denier.
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #443
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
What I find odd, drawing the discussion back to Johnson, is that his TOO revisionism essay has never been posted on his own site. Can anyone explain that?

I really haven't followed CC until the last couple months - does it publish anything related to revisionism?
I raised this very question somewhere else asking: does this mean that MacDonald commissioned it and if so does he (KM) have the sole right to publish it?

It seems Johnson first mentioned his determination to write his screed in a reply to a comment on C-C last May. IIRC he said he'd been meaning to do it for a while and thought the time was now right.

If I find it I'll post it here.
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #444
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
Default

Carolyn suspects everything Greg Johnson wrote about the 'holocaust ' he learned from Mark Weber.

http://thewhitenetwork.com/2012/08/0...om-mark-weber/
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #445
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
It seems Johnson first mentioned his determination to write his screed in a reply to a comment on C-C last May. IIRC he said he'd been meaning to do it for a while and thought the time was now right.

If I find it I'll post it here.
Here is the article New Right vs Old Right, 12 May, 2012.

I stopped reading his stuff following this essay.

Scroll down to the comments and you'll find this in reply #7.

Quote:
Greg Johnson
Posted May 11, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Permalink


When I was around 16, I decided I was a right-winger because I did not believe in human equality. (Then I was pretty much a libertarian.) And I am certainly not the first person to think that way. That really is the essential issue, to my mind. But listening to Jonathan’s lectures and working on the transcripts have definitely been an inspiration.

I am working next on an essay on revisionism,
because Jonathan’s piece is the closest statement so far of what I think is right, and he has helped me close in on and articulate my own intuitions on the matter.

Stay tuned.

 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #446
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
I raised this very question somewhere else asking: does this mean that MacDonald commissioned it and if so does he (KM) have the sole right to publish it?
I don't know about that; altho why in the world would KM care if Johnson published his own essay on his own site? I have heard that MacDonald hates revisionism generally and Irving in partricular.

Quote:
It seems Johnson first mentioned his determination to write his screed in a reply to a comment on C-C last May. IIRC he said he'd been meaning to do it for a while and thought the time was now right.

If I find it I'll post it here.
Great, I see you found it.

I will later tonight posts some calm speculation on what Johnson might be trying to do with C-C generally. His motives are not at all clear to me, as his essay on revisionism makes neither logical nor political sense in relation to CC's scope and his 'New Right' cultural project.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 22nd, 2012 at 02:46 PM.
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #447
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know about that; altho why in the world would KM care if Johnson published his own essay on his own site? I have heard that MacDonald hates revisionism generally and Irving in partricular.
When I got round to wading through those 750 comments I came across one where Hadding mentions the guy (not Dalton) who'd had his essay rejected losing out on a $100 or so fee if he went and posted his essay as a comment. If Johnson chose to give his piece to MacDonald to obtain a mere $100 to help his drive for $20k then he made a big mistake as it's affected his funding badly, Not to mention his standing.

Quote:
I have heard that MacDonald hates revisionism generally and Irving in partricular.
That was barely disguised when MacDonald wrote of his reason(s) for being a witness for Irving when the latter sued Lipstadt and Penguin Books.

I imagine a few choice comments were directed MacDonald's way outside the courtroom and I think he was made to feel a bit unclean when being questioned in court.

See below:
Quote:
My Decision to Testify for Irving

By Kevin MacDonald

The decision to testify for David Irving was an agonizing one for me and I want to make clear exactly why I did so........
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #448
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
When I got round to wading through those 750 comments I came across one where Hadding mentions the guy (not Dalton) who'd had his essay rejected losing out on a $100 or so fee if he went and posted his essay as a comment. If Johnson chose to give his piece to MacDonald to obtain a mere $100 to help his drive for $20k then he made a big mistake as it's affected his funding badly, Not to mention his standing.

That was barely disguised when MacDonald wrote of his reason(s) for being a witness for Irving when the latter sued Lipstadt and Penguin Books.

I imagine a few choice comments were directed MacDonald's way outside the courtroom and I think he was made to feel a bit unclean when being questioned in court.

See below:
Ph.D.s aren't made for politics; they won't go low enough to win. Jews will. "Our" WN high-ends basically want to collect praise and checks from the bourgeois. Hitler specifically went against this strategy, as pointed out in CC's Hamilton's article:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...ler-as-orator/
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #449
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Ph.D.s aren't made for politics; they won't go low enough to win. Jews will. "Our" WN high-ends basically want to collect praise and checks from the bourgeois.
I invited Dr. MacDonald to speak at U.O. on two separate occasions. Once in 2006, when Pacifica Forum's focus was primarily on Jewish media distortion vis-à-vis U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and once again in the fall of 2008 after the SPLC had begun attacking us as a hate group.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...goes-to-school

In both instances, Dr. MacDonald's polite rejection was attributed to lack of time, which would have been more believable if my wife hadn't reported sitting behind him on an airline flight from LA to Eugene for the purpose of spectating a U.C. vs. U.O. football game.

If Dr. MacDonald been able to find the time to speak at U.O., his travel itinerary would have required taking the identical flight he apparently found time to take for the purpose of spectating a ball game.

Ouch!
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #450
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Ph.D.s aren't made for politics; they won't go low enough to win. Jews will. "Our" WN high-ends basically want to collect praise and checks from the bourgeois. Hitler specifically went against this strategy, as pointed out in CC's Hamilton's article:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...ler-as-orator/
Just posting a quote from Norman Finklestein's fawning eulogy Remembering Raul Hilberg written in 2007.

Here even the old Hoaxer himself, Raul Hilberg, appears to have been more generous in his opinion re the value of revisionists than either Johnson or MacDonald:

Finkelstein writes:
Quote:
Mention of Irving’s name didn’t evoke howls of indignation or torrents of abuse from Hilberg. Instead he recognized Irving’s impressive apprehension of some of the subject matter, although qualifying it – with a touch of snobbery – as “self-taught,” and speculated that his preposterous statements sprung less from anti-Semitism than love of the spotlight. Of Holocaust denial in the Arab world Hilberg observed that “they are as confused about the West as we are about them,” while he casually dismissed the Holocaust denial conference in Teheran as “needless difficulty and trouble,” and said he was “not terribly worried about it.” Echoing John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, Hilberg even declared that Holocaust deniers served the useful purpose of posing questions that everyone else assumed were already settled.
I think Hilberg was overly generous to Irving who, IMO, is plagued by not just a ''love of the spotlight'' as he put it.
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #451
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I will later tonight posts some calm speculation on what Johnson might be trying to do...
I hope I'm not stealing your thunder, but I can't wait any longer:

http://www.docjohnson.com/school-of-doc.html
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #452
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
Default

Here's an excellent example of Jews tearing each other apart over just two aspects of the Holocaust fraud i.e., money and wars for Israel, but without any input from revisionist opinion re this historic fiction, nor any mention of how the West is being destroyed by use of the Hoax as a sociological WMD against the white race.

This is where it's at. Everything has been built on this yet it only needs a huff 'n 'puff to blow it all down

Go to the last minute where Finkelstein reveals that there's a report which shows '' nearly half of Europeans believe that Jews use the Holocaust for financial gain''....Yet the Ph.D.s claim that taking on the Holocaust and attacking it is not relevant and is counter-productive for the cause....BULLSHIT!


Last edited by Henry.; August 22nd, 2012 at 06:50 PM.
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #453
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Henry: This is where it's at. Everything has been built on this [holohoax] yet it only needs a huff 'n 'puff to blow it all down.
Yes. It's a house of cards.

I think we should be very aggressive in exposing the hoax, so JOGGER will be forced to resort to martial suppression of free speech sooner rather than later.
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #454
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
Here is the article New Right vs Old Right, 12 May, 2012.

I stopped reading his stuff following this essay.

Scroll down to the comments and you'll find this in reply #7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson
I am working next on an essay on revisionism, because Jonathan’s piece is the closest statement so far of what I think is right, and he has helped me close in on and articulate my own intuitions on the matter.
It baffles me that Johnson claims that Bowden influenced him and then uses some of Bowden's words to say the opposite of what Bowden meant. I don't believe that Greggy grasped altogether what Bowden was saying.

I've made that point a few times and Johnson never denied it. Instead he recast it as Hadding giving him a hard time for not agreeing with Jonathan Bowden. Well goddamn, if you ostentatiously use a man's expressions and claim that he influenced you, your gist ought not to be the opposite of his.

Last edited by Hadding; August 22nd, 2012 at 07:28 PM.
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #455
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
It baffles me that Johnson claims that Bowden influenced him and then uses some of Bowden's words to say the opposite of what Bowden meant. I don't believe that Greggy grasped altogether what Bowden was saying.
Johnson claims he was close-ish to Bowden. I believe Bowden stayed with him on at least one occasion and if I'm not mistaken was commissioned by Johnson to paint the picture shown here:



He keeps repeating the ''stepping over'' remark from Bowden possibly coz it allows him to produce something useful from a dead man that other people can hear with their own ears. It's as though he draws Bowden from the ether as a special witness in support of his own ideas.

But having said that, it was Johnson who shared Bowden's thoughts into the small hours and who knows (other than Johnson) how the fat looked once they were through chewing on it.

The fact still remains, Johnson is wrong.
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #456
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
Johnson claims he was close-ish to Bowden.[...]

He keeps repeating the ''stepping over'' remark from Bowden possibly coz it allows him to produce something useful from a dead man that other people can hear with their own ears. It's as though he draws Bowden from the ether as a special witness in support of his own ideas.

But having said that, it was Johnson who shared Bowden's thoughts into the small hours and who knows (other than Johnson) how the fat looked once they were through chewing on it.
Oh bullshit. What Johnson says is not what Bowden said. Even when he uses Bowden's words he is saying something very different from what Bowden meant.

Johnson hasn't tried to dispute that since I pointed it out; rather he admits it while denying that it is anything to be criticized.
 
Old August 22nd, 2012 #457
Lew_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Ph.D.s aren't made for politics; they won't go low enough to win. Jews will. "Our" WN high-ends basically want to collect praise and checks from the bourgeois. Hitler specifically went against this strategy, as pointed out in CC's Hamilton's article:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...ler-as-orator/
I read CC but missed that one. That essay makes clear Andrew Hamilton kicks some serious ass on the intellectual front, and the war has many fronts. His point that Hitler had men standing by to beat down the Jews and communists is worth its weight in gold for people unfamiliar with NS tactics. He writes with insight on a vast range of issues and hits Jews as hard as anyone. He dealt with Jewish ritual murder a while back, a practice that I have no trouble believing Jews would engage in despite murky evidence. Andrew Hamilton, in my view, is an under-appreciated contributor in the WNist-sphere relative to more prominent names like Edwards, MacDonald, Sunic, Kurtagic (not taking anything away from those men). But, for good or ill, in my experience, three of those people hit Jews either infrequently or not at all.

But, don't you think it's a bit of a contradiction to disparage intellectuals and then link to an intellectual, or at least a writer with intellectual bent, to make your point about Hitler's approach, and one published by Greg Johnson no less?

I agree with you something like what Hitler did, or what Golden Dawn does, is necessary. I share your frustration it doesn't exist.

I don't agree PhD intellectuals are the ones to do it, if this is what you're suggesting. It seems to be implied in your repeated remarks "all PhDs want to do is this or that... and so on," that carry the implication they add little real value to the effort. But, again, they have a different skill set. I mean, how would it help, if, say, KMD stepped forward tomorrow and announced the founding of an American equivalent of Golden Dawn? How far would it go? He's not the right man for that job in terms of temperament and leadership qualities.

I haven't read every comment in this long thread. I've skimmed most of them, skipped many, and I'm new to VNN so maybe there is some aspect of your strategic theory I'm overlooking.

Serous questions though. It's not my intent to start an unpleasant exchange with you or invite one of your whithering retorts, though I have this sense I'm going to get one....
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #458
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
But, don't you think it's a bit of a contradiction to disparage intellectuals and then link to an intellectual, or at least a writer with intellectual bent, to make your point about Hitler's approach, and one published by Greg Johnson no less?
I made one specific point about Ph.D.s. Something I've noticed in them. They don't know how to fight. Their idea of fighting is taken from cats hissing. They try to out-snooty one another. That works among their set -- being more condescending than the other guy, but outside that hothouse environment, it doesn't get the job done.

I said Johnson is worth fighting over, and I meant it. There are occasional good things in what CC has published. I mean, it's all good, what they do, but most of it isn't really that relevant to our struggle. Johnson overtly advises withdrawing from politics, not fighting, ceding the opponent's centralmost propaganda claim ('holocaust') yet also runs a video of Golden Dawn, and a long piece promoting what basically only me and VNN have EMPHASIZED before when it comes to political strategy. The contradiction is not mine; mine is the consistency. The contradiction is Johnson's.

Just look at what Golden Dawn is doing, see the lovingly maintained thread we've built. There is no denying that by Johnson's definition, Golden Dawn is "Old Right." Johnson is against "Old Right." He is the foremost if not the only proponent of "New Right." He advocates withdrawing from direct politics to attempt broader and deeper cultural change through influential essay writing. It is not unfair at all to sum up his approach in the seemingly satirical way I did, which is not actually satirical. It is not satirical to say that Johnson believes the Greeks should stop fighting to defend Athenians from invader violence, and feeding the poor with watermelons and onions they have hand picked; yeah, verily, they should retire from the field and write 5,000-word essay-reviews of Batman movies. Johnson won't allow this criticism to stand at his site, yet it is a fair summation of what he's calling for.

Johnson is allowing one of one hundred pieces to be about how-Hitler-actually-did-it, whereas Golden Dawn is doing what Hitler did daily. Gee...I wonder which example is likelier to lead to real political change?

Quote:
I don't agree PhD intellectuals are the ones to do it, if this is what you're suggesting. It seems to be implied in your repeated remarks "all PhDs want to do is this or that... and so on," that carry the implication they add little real value to the effort. But, again, they have a different skill set. I mean, how would it help, if, say, KMD stepped forward tomorrow and announced the founding of an American equivalent of Golden Dawn? How far would it go? He's not the right man for that job in terms of temperament and leadership qualities.
Ph.D.s can occasionally be useful in real politics. Goebbels was a Ph.D. who could actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Most of them cannot because they are professionally deformed. They become womanlike in their feeling that everybody is looking at them to see if a footnote is out of place.

Their instincts are naturally conservative because that fits the kind of man who can stand to be in academia, no matter his particular politics, which are usually leftist, obviously. When Ph.D.s get into politics, they naturally support something like A3P, which is tasteful rather than radical. They instinctively go for the honorable approach. They hit all the middle-class buzzwords: tasteful, respectable, appropriate. But these are precisely the terms used by and the mentality of those who will not fight. They have no answer for an opponent who does not play fair. Who cheats. Who lies and murders. How do you deal 'tastefully' with such an opponent? There is no way. Either you get down on his level and grapple, or you lose to him. The right in this country has always chosen to lose to the illegabrals. And it always will. It simply will not give up its self-pride in thinking "I am the kind of man who acts this way," no matter if every one of its stated political goals goes by the wayside.

You can only win, in a no-rules game like politics, if you make every other goal subordinate to winning. Conservatives will do not do this. They cannot do this, by reason of character. Mindset and personality bent are more determinative of this conservatism than head-chosen political position. That's why I call WN like MacDonald implicit conservatives. Well, I call them ICs to twit him with his own term, but a better term is functional conservatives.

You can't beat jews by acting honorably. Jews aren't honorable. They could care less what some goofy Aryan considers honorable behavior, all they care about is what is effective in obtaining their ends. Until one assimilates that fact and devises a politics based on it, one is wasting time.

Re Johnson, the point would be that instead of having one essay like Hamilton's for every 100 on H.P. Lovecraft or some other tangential discussion, it ought to be 99 on the right way to do things, and 1-2 on cultural stuff. Greg's cultural-change ideas are unpersuasive as a serious political-change philosophy. They are better seen as his unwillingness to go outside his personal comfort zone. At some level I believe he knows this, but as with his proclivity for homosexual behavior, he cannot admit it freely. My objection is he advises others to follow his model instead of admitting he wants to be a boutique book publisher, which is the actual case.

Quote:
Serous questions though. It's not my intent to start an unpleasant exchange with you or invite one of your whithering retorts, though I have this sense I'm going to get one....
Nah, been a rough day, you actually got me inspired to get going on what I said about Johnson, so I thank you. Believe me - I praised the Hamilton essay to the sky, and posted it on Facebook. He is literally the only one other than myself who seems to grasp what I've been saying for years, but the stupid Anglo Saxons ignore or for some reason fail to perceive:

- everything we're trying to do has already been done.

Why do we insist on perpetuating patterns of cultural/political failure? Just read Rockwell if you're sick of me, if you want to find out what conservatives are, and why they always lose. Just read the translated German at calvin.edu if you want to find out why groups like the National Socialists, and, buddingly, the Golden Dawn in Greece, are able to achieve victories.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 23rd, 2012 at 07:23 AM.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #459
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Ph.D.s could be useful where their credentials matter. Greg Johnson agrees that 'holocaust' so-called education is child abuse. He agrees parents should be angry about it. But he has no interest in the subject, avoids it, and counsels others to avoid it.

Where if not in education do Ph.D. credentials matter? This is why I said it is precisely here that a committee of WN Ph.D.s could use its credentials for good. They could convene a committee, give it an august name, and sign off on a call to generate the funding to create an academically valid counter-curriculum that inculcatse the truth about the 'holocaust'/holodomor, and inculcates white pride rather than genocidal white guilt.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #460
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

My purpose in this post is to speculate on Johnson's intentions, with regard to his 'holocaust' essay and his vision for Counter-Currents.

Why would Johnson come out against revisionism? Offending most of his readers, or at least half, and losing a major donor in the process? (Despite his bizarre pretense that he might have lost the donor because he wasn't anti-revisionist enough -- a position not a single public critic at TOO or here took -- it is obvious that, if he's telling the truth about the donor, the person left because he didn't like Johnson's position on 'the' 'holocaust.' Why would Johnson piss off and jettison people and cede to our people's most dangerous enemy the basis of their genocidal campaign against us? I can't think of any valid reason, but I can think of some invalid ones.

Johnson just isn't interested in the 'holocaust.' It's icky. There was fighting and violence. Not much time for essaying Batman and other fun projects. Just let it go.

Johnson has a giant moneybags in the wings such that he can throw away his number two donor. The new moneybags insists as a precondition for his help that Johnson jettison the H and any talk of genocide.

Johnson knows Kevin MacDonald hates revisionism and wants to stay in good with KM and through him his connections to the monied folks at Charles Martel Society. Johnson used to edit The Occidental Quarterly. He was hired and subsequently fired by John Gardner (Yggdrasil) and sam Dickson. It is possible that he used his time with TOQ to build up friends among a faction that might have preferred his vision to that of Gardner and Dickson. These people may be willing to back Johnson in a new 501c3 venture so long as he abandons 'holocaust' revisionism and genocidal talk.

Apart from some financial motive, it is difficult to understand Johnson's position. The scope of Counter-Currents certainly includes World War II. There seems no objective intellectual reason to reject articles discussing various aspects of that time period. There is no reason to believe his readers would be bothered by such discussion, and much evidence they appreciate it.

Johnson attempts to create a 'New Right' distinct from an 'Old Right.' Literally no one else but him uses these designations, which in itself is bizarre. Also bizarre is his inability to see that the distinction isn't workable. The enemy won't accept it. The friends don't see the need for it. It's fruity and weak. It communicates only "We aren't like those icky fascists of old - we won't fight."

Notice that Johnson's distinction between OR and NR is lost if the OR weren't genocidal. Which is precisely what the revionists contend. Is that why he rejects them? They threaten his bogus distinction? Why couldn't he just as easily rejoice in the findings of the revisionists? Since they've obviated the need he evidently feels to distance himself from the people his writers spend most of their time writing about? Shouldn't he rejoice that he can take pride now in his intellectual roots?

The contradictions flow and flow. Johnson's position makes no sense unlesss it is driven by either 1) money; or 2) his flower-fag distaste for the ickiness of actual political combat, whether rhetorical or physical, and his womanish attempt to rationalize his irrational position. It were manlier simply to concede he aspires to nothing more than being a boutique book publisher. Dreams of cultural sea change being little more than a fat dream perhaps of some use in marketing.

WN needs more people of intellectual quality who fight the jew, not cede its most viciously anti-White lies. Johnson should accept whatever facts the revisionists unearth, and use them to attack the enemy. Revisionists and WN can and should work together, while retaining their independence. Instead of helping our worst enemy spread lies about men who showed how to defeat them, we ought to be defending their honor against jewish defamation and learning from their tactics.
 
Reply

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

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 PM.
Page generated in 0.20577 seconds.