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

Old September 7th, 2009 #1
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default Greg Johnson's Strategy: Influence and Insinuate Existing Elites

I posted this as a reply to Alex's VNN article on Buchanan, but it never appeared, so I am posting it here.

I always love it when Alex writes an essay. I don’t have time to sift through the discussion forum looking for his little gems. That said, I strongly disagree with his attitude here.

Pat Buchanan will not save us. Nor will Ron Paul. Nor will any politician. Nor will we be saved by race realist policy wonkery. I see no salvation for our race short of creating a new political system, either by replacing the US system as a whole or by seceding from it.

But Buchanan the writer and commentator has his virtues and his uses.

1. Linder constructs his argument about strategy in terms of crafting a message that gets to dim ordinary people. I am not sure that is the right audience. Historically speaking, dim masses don’t count for much, because they are easily controlled by elites with access to political power and the power to shape attitudes through education, religion, and the press. How would Linder’s strategy change if white nationalists focused on changing white elite opinion?

2. The white elites in the US are not dim. If dim is the average, the elites are above dim. Some of them are fiendishly intelligent. The white elites in the US can, however, be characterized by high degrees of individualism, conformism (the two actually go hand in hand), materialism, and insecurity about their status. The richer they are, the more insecure they are, because the more they have to lose.

3. They can lose status, of course, because in the US, status depends more on achievement than birth. In more traditional societies, one has status through birth, whether one is a street sweeper or an aristocrat. Here, one’s status is “earned.”

4. Now, in both kinds of society, it is other people who “grant” one’s status. If nobody will treat an aristocrat like an aristocrat, then he has no status. But for whatever reason, in a country like England, an aristocrat like Sir Oswald Mosley might take very radical political positions, and even go to jail for them, but enough people still recognized him as an aristocrat that his social standing was never destroyed. In the US, we are much more individualistic. We grant or withhold status based on what each person does or says, not who his parents were.

5. At first glance, that seems like a great system. There are certainly fewer barriers to upward mobility. In the United States, money buys anything.

6. Unfortunately, money also guarantees nothing. Thus the people who fight hard for upward social mobility are also haunted by downward mobility. They know that the very individualism that allowed them to rise also allows them to fall back. For if their business partners, social contacts, and others turn their backs on them, they can easily be ruined, and whether this happens is merely a matter of individual choice, based upon nothing more stable than calculations of self-interest.

7. Tocqueville long ago observed that American individualism goes hand in hand with a high degree of social conformity. Why is this? Here is my theory: human beings are social animals, with a need for social approval and recognition. In individualist societies, however, the extension of social approval and recognition is highly conditional and constantly re-evaluated. Therefore, one has to be more attentive to gauging and conforming to public opinion in individualistic societies. Thus a high degree of individualism and social mobility promotes a high degree of social conformism, because people also value social approval and social stability. (The ambitious love upward mobility, but once they get theirs, they want to hold onto it.)

8. This is why social mobility in individualist societies is most available to people who combine intelligence and ambition with a shallow, extraverted, conformist personality type. Frat boys with MBAs.

9. Furthermore, the more ambitious one is, the more one needs social approval and recognition, because one needs to secure the cooperation of more people to do bigger things. Thus as one approaches the pinnacles of the white money and power elites, one finds individuals who have higher and higher levels of ambition, aggressiveness, narrow cunning intelligence, extroversion, social conformism, and a pathetic, childlike insecurity.

10. No sane society should be ruled by people like this. But we were far better off when we controlled our own “symbolic realm” — the realm of ideas, ideals, honors, and opinion that governs the granting and withholding of social status.

11. Unfortunately, that realm has now been captured by an alien, hostile elite, the Jews, who have rigged a new status system to reward whites who betray their own kind and promote and engage in race-destructive behavior. The segment of society most controlled by this hostile elite is the entertainment industry, which is thus on the cutting edge of race destructive white behavior. Whites in Hollywood attain status through anti-natalism, feminism, homosexuality, miscegenation, adopting non-white babies, and the like. Where Hollywood goes, there goes America, if the Jews who are scripting our dispossession and extinction have their way.

12. The strategic question of White Nationalism, therefore, is: How do White Nationalists change elite opinion when our plutocrats tend to be shallow, extroverted, and insecure about their status, which happens to be determined by our polar opposites, the Jews?

13. The problem is compounded when White Nationalists themselves aspire to attain or hold onto elite status. Aside from the personal benefits of such status to White Nationalists, such status is also beneficial to the movement, since elite members have greater access to the elite.

14. I believe that this is the context in which one has to understand the strategies of such people as Samuel Francis, Patrick Buchanan, and Jared Taylor. If I wanted to (a) promote white nationalism to status-conscious, insecure elites, and (b) maintain my own status and thus access to these elites, I would give a wide berth to the Jewish Question, since the Jews now control the status system in our society, and if they felt sufficiently threatened by people like Francis, Buchanan, et al., they would shut them down and destroy any access they might have to their preferred audience.

15. If I were Francis, Buchanan, etc., I imagine I would play the following dangerous game with the Jews. Because they would work to shut down and marginalize anyone who was openly impervious to the Jews, one would have to signal a certain porousness to them, specifically by cooperating with whatever marginal Jews will associate with White Nationalism, e.g., Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Marcus Epstein, Paul Gottfried, etc. These Jews obviously think they are getting something by cooperating with White Nationalists, if only the chance to spy on our gatherings.

16. But we have to give White Nationalists some credit too, for they might think they are using these Jews to advance White Nationalism. Maybe they are foolish or naive to think this, but that is probably what they think.

17. If Francis et al. were merely working as fronts for the Jews, in order to mislead and sabotage White Nationalism, then why would they have any public affiliation with Jews? Wouldn’t that blow their cover? Wouldn’t that make their task more difficult?

18. The mere fact that at people like Buchanan, Francis, and Taylor interact in a collegial fashion with certain marginal Jews does not constitute evidence that they are working for the Jews. It does not follow simply as a matter of logic. In fact, it would make more sense for them not to associate with Jews.

19. It is certainly reasonable and prudent to be suspicious of the judgment of White Nationalists who think they can manipulate Jewish opinion to advance our cause. It is certainly reasonable to be cautious in dealing with such people. But suspicion is not proof, and using such people cautiously does not mean that they cannot be used at all.

20. As an introvert, I have little patience for extroverts, and highly extroverted, status-insecure elite members like George W. Bush strike me as especially soulless and contemptible. Frankly, I wish we could save our race without dealing with such people. In my darker moods, I wonder if a race that allows itself to be led by people who put trivial issues of personal status ahead of collective survival can be saved, or even if it deserves to be saved. There is something disgusting about people who have all the money in the world and permit themselves less freedom to speak their minds than a truck driver or short order cook. As N. B. Forrest once asked on VNN about Mel Gibson: How much money does one need to give the Jews the finger? I wish I could shame these people, but I cannot, for their sense of shame is held captive by our enemies. Thus I have little patience for efforts to soft sell these people on their own race’s survival. What kind of people need to be soft-sold their own survival?

21. That said, Pat Buchanan has his uses. I recommend his books to skittish, insecure, status-conscious mainstream conservatives to nudge them in the right direction. If they like Buchanan and become comfortable advocating his take on the world, then perhaps they can be brought further still, by reading Sam Francis’ Essential Writings on Race, then American Renaissance, then maybe Kevin MacDonald.

22. Even if Alex’s worst suspicions about Buchanan are true, that would in no way lessen the value of his books. Even if the Jews are using him to mislead, we can still use him to wean people away from mainstream Republicanism in the direction of White Nationalism. To think that such attempts would be doomed to failure is to underestimate our own power and to ascribe to the Jews some sort of occult force of invincibility that they simply do not have. That is how losers think.

23. I do not think Pat Buchanan is our competitor. I do not think he is our enemy. And even if he were, we are strong and clever enough to use him for our own ends.

An afterthought: The depressing truth I am struggling to come to grips with is that our race must be saved IN SPITE OF ITSELF, and AGAINST ITS WILL. No healthy organism needs to be provided with a moral justification for its survival. But white people do. From a biological point of view, this is morbid and decadent. But since we are not in a position to simply remove this weakness, we have to deal with it. That is the most important strategic question.
 
Old September 7th, 2009 #2
Eric Blair
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 74
Eric Blair
Default Support Pat

Why would you attack this man? Support him.




MSNBC reacts after NJDC attack on Buchanan
By Eric Fingerhut · September 3, 2009
The National Jewish Democratic Council attacked MSNBC, the cable darling of the left -- and got results.

MSNBC.com has taken down a column by Pat Buchanan entitled "Did Hitler Want War?" from its Web site (here's the page with the column no longer posted) in which the MSNBC commentator argues that "Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps" and blames World War II on Poland and Great Britain.

"Buchanan has a long history of insensitivity when it comes to issues surrounding the Holocaust, and he has taken the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II as an opportunity to voice these opinions once again," said NJDC president David Harris before the column was taken down.

In a statement after MSNBC removed it, Harris noted, as he did in his first statement, that MSNBC should reconsider the platform it gives Buchanan on its network.

"MSNBC took the responsible action and removed Pat Buchanan's column defending Adolf Hitler from their website, but no worthy news organization should employ and promote a commentator who engages in such vile fiction," said Harris.

Aaron Keyak of NJDC has some background on Buchanan's long history here in the Huffington Post.
 
Old September 8th, 2009 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
I posted this as a reply to Alex's VNN article on Buchanan, but it never appeared, so I am posting it here.

I always love it when Alex writes an essay. I don’t have time to sift through the discussion forum looking for his little gems. That said, I strongly disagree with his attitude here.

Pat Buchanan will not save us. Nor will Ron Paul. Nor will any politician. Nor will we be saved by race realist policy wonkery. I see no salvation for our race short of creating a new political system, either by replacing the US system as a whole or by seceding from it.

But Buchanan the writer and commentator has his virtues and his uses.

1. Linder constructs his argument about strategy in terms of crafting a message that gets to dim ordinary people. I am not sure that is the right audience. Historically speaking, dim masses don’t count for much, because they are easily controlled by elites with access to political power and the power to shape attitudes through education, religion, and the press. How would Linder’s strategy change if white nationalists focused on changing white elite opinion?
False dichotomy. We can't reach the masses without controlling tv, so that is out of the question. We go after whoever we can get - elite or average or dummies. We put out the message in multiple forms, which VNN has always done. Most WN is, as Rockwell said, aimed exclusively at the upper middle class. There's a place for that, but in many ways those are the people who have the most to lose, even in a multicultural jew-owned system.

Quote:
2. The white elites in the US are not dim. If dim is the average, the elites are above dim. Some of them are fiendishly intelligent. The white elites in the US can, however, be characterized by high degrees of individualism, conformism (the two actually go hand in hand), materialism, and insecurity about their status. The richer they are, the more insecure they are, because the more they have to lose.

3. They can lose status, of course, because in the US, status depends more on achievement than birth. In more traditional societies, one has status through birth, whether one is a street sweeper or an aristocrat. Here, one’s status is “earned.”

4. Now, in both kinds of society, it is other people who “grant” one’s status. If nobody will treat an aristocrat like an aristocrat, then he has no status. But for whatever reason, in a country like England, an aristocrat like Sir Oswald Mosley might take very radical political positions, and even go to jail for them, but enough people still recognized him as an aristocrat that his social standing was never destroyed. In the US, we are much more individualistic. We grant or withhold status based on what each person does or says, not who his parents were.

5. At first glance, that seems like a great system. There are certainly fewer barriers to upward mobility. In the United States, money buys anything.

6. Unfortunately, money also guarantees nothing. Thus the people who fight hard for upward social mobility are also haunted by downward mobility. They know that the very individualism that allowed them to rise also allows them to fall back. For if their business partners, social contacts, and others turn their backs on them, they can easily be ruined, and whether this happens is merely a matter of individual choice, based upon nothing more stable than calculations of self-interest.

7. Tocqueville long ago observed that American individualism goes hand in hand with a high degree of social conformity. Why is this? Here is my theory: human beings are social animals, with a need for social approval and recognition. In individualist societies, however, the extension of social approval and recognition is highly conditional and constantly re-evaluated. Therefore, one has to be more attentive to gauging and conforming to public opinion in individualistic societies. Thus a high degree of individualism and social mobility promotes a high degree of social conformism, because people also value social approval and social stability. (The ambitious love upward mobility, but once they get theirs, they want to hold onto it.)

8. This is why social mobility in individualist societies is most available to people who combine intelligence and ambition with a shallow, extraverted, conformist personality type. Frat boys with MBAs.

9. Furthermore, the more ambitious one is, the more one needs social approval and recognition, because one needs to secure the cooperation of more people to do bigger things. Thus as one approaches the pinnacles of the white money and power elites, one finds individuals who have higher and higher levels of ambition, aggressiveness, narrow cunning intelligence, extroversion, social conformism, and a pathetic, childlike insecurity.
Good analysis, these are indeed the ones who get ahead, as anyone who has worked in the corporate world can see. But I don't think you're drawing the right conclusions. If the elite in the Kwa today are conformists driven by money and status concerns, they won't join us until we've won or are on the verge of winning. Then they'll lie to themselves that they were winter patriots. And if the nazis start losing, they'll be the first to jump ship. Making a direct appeal to the upper middle class or even the rich is rather beside the point. The tiny minority who agrees with us or is principled will find us anyway. The rest will just scoff because they are philistine: all that matters i what kind of car we're driving, how much money we have in the bank, how many others genuflect before us. "If you were right, you'd be running things." The masses are women and animals in their fundamental attitude toward authority.

Quote:
10. No sane society should be ruled by people like this. But we were far better off when we controlled our own “symbolic realm” — the realm of ideas, ideals, honors, and opinion that governs the granting and withholding of social status.

11. Unfortunately, that realm has now been captured by an alien, hostile elite, the Jews, who have rigged a new status system to reward whites who betray their own kind and promote and engage in race-destructive behavior. The segment of society most controlled by this hostile elite is the entertainment industry, which is thus on the cutting edge of race destructive white behavior. Whites in Hollywood attain status through anti-natalism, feminism, homosexuality, miscegenation, adopting non-white babies, and the like. Where Hollywood goes, there goes America, if the Jews who are scripting our dispossession and extinction have their way.
And they have been quite successful - the average person acts like a movie star. He never wants to criticize anybody or take a position on anything unless he's 100% confident everyone will agree. Until we control tv, this will be the default position of the average person, who watches 8 hours of tv a day.

Quote:
12. The strategic question of White Nationalism, therefore, is: How do White Nationalists change elite opinion when our plutocrats tend to be shallow, extroverted, and insecure about their status, which happens to be determined by our polar opposites, the Jews?
You've answered your own question by your description of these elites. They'll join us AFTER we win. Hence, they are insignificant save as a subset of the main problem, the jews. We don't change the minds of the existing elite, we form a new elite. That's how the German-nationalist winners did it. Fundamental lesson: don't look to losers (conservative like Buchanan, Francis, Brimelow) for clues, look to winners - Nazis and jews.

Quote:
13. The problem is compounded when White Nationalists themselves aspire to attain or hold onto elite status. Aside from the personal benefits of such status to White Nationalists, such status is also beneficial to the movement, since elite members have greater access to the elite.
I could cite dozens of examples that prove this isn't the case. Lindbergh would be the best. No one could have more public respect, fame or money, yet he got nowhere speaking against the jew. The challenge is not to join the existing elite but to form a new one. A new elite based on honor and blood, rather than status and money. That's how the Nazis did it. That's the true alternative to the System. NOT being a whore. What a kooky fresh idea. NOT selling out? Unthinkable - yet strangely attractive.

If we don't even respect our own, how are we ever going to change things? If you're trying to fit into an existing elite, you're going to have to adopt their ways and value. That will reflect in reaching out to respectable, responsible people, and tailoring your political critiques until you're salonfaehig. That's the very definition of selling out.

Quote:
14. I believe that this is the context in which one has to understand the strategies of such people as Samuel Francis, Patrick Buchanan, and Jared Taylor. If I wanted to (a) promote white nationalism to status-conscious, insecure elites, and (b) maintain my own status and thus access to these elites, I would give a wide berth to the Jewish Question, since the Jews now control the status system in our society, and if they felt sufficiently threatened by people like Francis, Buchanan, et al., they would shut them down and destroy any access they might have to their preferred audience.
How has it worked?

It has failed.

My strategy could work. But it would threaten TOO's and Vdare's income, so you'll keep doing the same old thing: encouraging young rising WNs like James Edwards to take the 'jew' out of his post and replace it with 'liberal.' That's the wise move...if your consideration is your personal interests. Politically it's the wrong move.

As I say, ours is a quest, a cause, it is not a career. You should see that Sam Francis tried to have it both ways - that is exactly why I advocate forcing people like him to come down on one side or the other. Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan are and were career girls, and that's what they will always be. The type of change we seek does not come from career girls, it come from essentially religious crusaders.

As Eric Thomson says, "principles protect people." The principle that protects WN is excluding jews and publicly declaring ourselves pro-White. Not conservatives, and praising clowns like Gottfried and career-girl Catholics like Buchanan.

Quote:
15. If I were Francis, Buchanan, etc., I imagine I would play the following dangerous game with the Jews. Because they would work to shut down and marginalize anyone who was openly impervious to the Jews, one would have to signal a certain porousness to them, specifically by cooperating with whatever marginal Jews will associate with White Nationalism, e.g., Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Marcus Epstein, Paul Gottfried, etc. These Jews obviously think they are getting something by cooperating with White Nationalists, if only the chance to spy on our gatherings.
Come on, Greg. Where has this cleverness ever gotten us? Where did it ever get fat boy? He got EXACTLY what he would have gotten if he had openly declared for White Nationalism. Except he sacrificed all manliness, pride and integrity by trying to play both sides down the middle. How can you give any respect to the sowy old queer when there were people like William Pierce in the world?

Where has Buchanan or Francis ever cited Pierce?

The real problem here is that too many of the high-end WN are WN only intellectually. In their soul, they are cringing, hat-doffing, money-and-property-respecting conservatives. They write good stuff, I enjoy reading it, it probably serves some purpose...but it cannot produce the change we need. I urge you to read the NS stuff. You can learn an awful lot reading about the NS movement and the decisions it made, the different paths it could have taken. Do you not think that Hitler couldn't have sold out and taken a leading position with an established party? Of course he could have. Why didn't he? Because he wasn't a career girl. He actually meant it. And meaning it meant devoting his life to replacing a system he knew was bent on Germany's downfall. One thing the Nazis said that really struck me, I think Goebbels said it, was that the masses may be stupid, but they are acute in perceiving whether someone really means it. I like to put it, they know when someone believes his own bullshit. And if the person does not, they won't follow him. They might listen and laugh, but they won't follow him. And that's where all the Canny cleverness you seem to be advising comes a-cropper. Sam didn't mean it. Nor do any of his copycats. He was willing to call himself a White in public. He always kept the cause at arm's length. We might damage his career if he were seen with us in public.

Sam didn't mean it. And that's why I say that no one who takes his failed tack will succeed. You can't sneak up on the jews. Attracting conformist, status-and-money-driven whites is a mug's game. They will come when we win, until then they have nothing to offer. We need religious crusaders. We need people with nothing to lose. We need people with actual ability.

The question you should ask yourself, Greg, is whether you want to encourage more people to be like Sam Francis or like William Pierce. All the pretty writing in the world won't change anything. You have to speak out in public under your real name, and more than that you have to believe, and have the audience believe that you believe, the vital change you say is needed.

Our thing is a cause and a quest - it is not a career. When you praise cowards like Buchanan, who removed Hadden's Holo-refutation from his site, you're subsidizing cowardice. You're going to get more punch pullers. More Edwards worrying first about the effects on his career of naming the jew, and less about the truth, and what his people need to hear. Isn't it self-evident that cowardice is a bad thing?

Quote:
16. But we have to give White Nationalists some credit too, for they might think they are using these Jews to advance White Nationalism. Maybe they are foolish or naive to think this, but that is probably what they think.
Does Sam Francis seem clever enough to use jews? One laughs to type it. There's no way to beat jews except to stand up to them. Attack them. Laugh at them. Name them. Beat them down. Those are the proven ways to defeat them - not to act all cagey and sneaky and pretend you're outwitting them.

Quote:
17. If Francis et al. were merely working as fronts for the Jews, in order to mislead and sabotage White Nationalism, then why would they have any public affiliation with Jews? Wouldn’t that blow their cover? Wouldn’t that make their task more difficult?
Hold on. I have never accused Francis of being a front for the jews. Francis was simply a coward - a career girl trying to have it both ways. Francis, I believe, truly was a WN, he was just too cowardly to write what he knew, felt and believed openly. He can be dismissed as as gutless whiner. He wouldn't stand up for WN cause publicly, but he lambasted WN for not defending him when he was fired by the neocon Washington Times. That shows you his character.

Quote:
18. The mere fact that at people like Buchanan, Francis, and Taylor interact in a collegial fashion with certain marginal Jews does not constitute evidence that they are working for the Jews. It does not follow simply as a matter of logic. In fact, it would make more sense for them not to associate with Jews.
P.T. Taylor, yes. He is a front for the jews. He refused to take a PAID ad for The Line in the Sand. He takes the anti-White pro-jew position that jews can NEVER be mentioned as the cause of the laws he seeks changed - the laws ending free association and opening our borders. Jared Taylor's claimed position and his actual actions are irreconcilable and indefensible. He is not a WN, he is the jew's attempt to set up a storefront to attract whites disenchanted with Republicanism and drown them in the whirlpool of endless whining about nigger crime.

Buchanan is not a front for the jews, he is an anti-racist Catholic who believes white nationalism is immoral. He functions, with his knowledge, as a safety outlet for a corrupt and genocidal System. Buchanan justifies this because he holds to the fifties Catholic doctrine that a man's duty is to earn as much as he possibly can, and anything else is immoral. Even though Buchanan has no family and has millions in the bank. What Buchanan does, as a professional technique, is take the best arguments of the WN, geld them, and serve them to the masses, as a way to slay their hunger for real politics. But nothing ever comes from it. Praising him only means you'll get more people acting like him.

Quote:
19. It is certainly reasonable and prudent to be suspicious of the judgment of White Nationalists who think they can manipulate Jewish opinion to advance our cause. It is certainly reasonable to be cautious in dealing with such people. But suspicion is not proof, and using such people cautiously does not mean that they cannot be used at all.
You're not using them, they're using you. The right policy is to attack clowns like Gottfried, not suck up to them.

Quote:
20. As an introvert, I have little patience for extroverts, and highly extroverted, status-insecure elite members like George W. Bush strike me as especially soulless and contemptible. Frankly, I wish we could save our race without dealing with such people. In my darker moods, I wonder if a race that allows itself to be led by people who put trivial issues of personal status ahead of collective survival can be saved, or even if it deserves to be saved. There is something disgusting about people who have all the money in the world and permit themselves less freedom to speak their minds than a truck driver or short order cook. As N. B. Forrest once asked on VNN about Mel Gibson: How much money does one need to give the Jews the finger? I wish I could shame these people, but I cannot, for their sense of shame is held captive by our enemies. Thus I have little patience for efforts to soft sell these people on their own race’s survival. What kind of people need to be soft-sold their own survival?
The only one who could be shamed was Paul Craig Roberts. I cannot prove it, but I know that it was my shaming him for years that radicalized him. That's why I advocate the same treatment for the others. Even though it won't work in their cases, it will keep them and - more important - youngsters looking on in mind of the right politics and the right way to act. The fact is the urge to conform and obey authority is built in humans like dogs. Not much can be done about it. We simply have to form a new racial head, and attach it to the body of the people. But the body won't follow a head that doesn't believe it's own bullshit. The idea of Fat Sam slicking his way to success is about as plausible as him going down the chimney to deliver presents on Christmas eve.

If we want change, we have to get our hands wet.

Quote:
21. That said, Pat Buchanan has his uses. I recommend his books to skittish, insecure, status-conscious mainstream conservatives to nudge them in the right direction. If they like Buchanan and become comfortable advocating his take on the world, then perhaps they can be brought further still, by reading Sam Francis’ Essential Writings on Race, then American Renaissance, then maybe Kevin MacDonald.
But you can get all that without praising and sucking up to Buchanan.

What do you think is likelier to radicalize Buchanan? Praising him or mocking him as a coward? The answer ought to be obvious. The bolder we are, the wimpier he appears. If we WN don't do the pushing, no one does. We should be shouting to the world that we are not those worthless pathetic gutless cringing remonstrating eternal-loser conservatives. Not praising them and recommending them.

Quote:
22. Even if Alex’s worst suspicions about Buchanan are true
It's not a suspicion. I'm saying he's part of a System that is anti-White. I'm saying he is well aware of the fact that the System is anti-White. I'm saying he fully appreciates his own value to the anti-White system as a safety valve. I'm saying as a good little Catholic, he knows that the amount of money he can earn by filling his role in the anti-White media/political System outweighs all other considerations. Race is an abstraction - Pat Buchanan's, Peter Brimelow's bank account is a reality! $PLC - pathetic. How 'bout Vdonate? Peter Brimelow isn't concerned with saving the White race, he's concerned with ahering to ZOG's 501c guidelines.

Quote:
, that would in no way lessen the value of his books. Even if the Jews are using him to mislead, we can still use him to wean people away from mainstream Republicanism in the direction of White Nationalism. To think that such attempts would be doomed to failure is to underestimate our own power and to ascribe to the Jews some sort of occult force of invincibility that they simply do not have. That is how losers think.
Yeah, but they don't lead people our way. Buchanan does the same thing conservatives always do. He starts with a seemingly radical proposition and then works his way back to the party line. Yawn.

Quote:
23. I do not think Pat Buchanan is our competitor. I do not think he is our enemy. And even if he were, we are strong and clever enough to use him for our own ends.
If your idea of using him involves praising him then you don't get it. The minute you praise Pat Buchanan, who always pulls punches, you undermine our cause and shit on men who went the whole way in far more compelling prose than Patsy Decline ever put to paper. If you praise Pat Buchanan, he is using you.

Quote:
An afterthought: The depressing truth I am struggling to come to grips with is that our race must be saved IN SPITE OF ITSELF, and AGAINST ITS WILL. No healthy organism needs to be provided with a moral justification for its survival. But white people do. From a biological point of view, this is morbid and decadent. But since we are not in a position to simply remove this weakness, we have to deal with it. That is the most important strategic question.
No, not against its will. The people show in many ways they believe what we do. But being conformist animals, as we all are to good degree, they will not follow those who will not lead. You're angry at people who won't follow when you won't lead. That's precisely the Sam Francis position. You expect the ditch diggers to be better men than you are. That's not how Hitler and Goebbels operated. That's not how the jews operate. They are winners. Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis are losers. Stop looking to losers for tips. Otherwise you're fundamentally the same as the money- and status-driven conformists you began by deriding, because those are the only advantages the Buchanans and Francises have over the Pierces and VNNers.

The fundamental question is whether we believe our own bullshit - and give proof of it by our actions. There's no getting around that question. The people we seek will never follow anyone who talks life-and-death but won't use his real name in public, won't defend our race in explict terms, won't name the jew our main enemy.
 
Old September 8th, 2009 #4
Rab4
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,692
Default

Excellent discussion! You all are getting to the heart of it. Skipping the distractions and going right to the point.
You're right on target about the professional types in this individualistic society. They go for whatever is popular, for the betterment of their careers. If burning niggers and kikes were the most popular opinion, they'd be all for it. I've seen it first hand with my brother. Now, he has never been a die-hard white nationalist like me, but he seemed to have some common sense in the matter. That is, when Bush was in office. Now that obama is there, Democrats and their ideology can do no wrong. He thinks it's wonderful to have mexcrements flooding our country, and niggers get all the affirmative action positions they can because they've only held positions of power since the 60's. Total turnaround in a few shorts months. His career is being a financial consultant, so that explains it. He drives his BMW and has his granite countertops and the like installed in his house, while he and his bitch wife lament racists like me. It's really sad to watch it happen to a family member.
Anyway, keep up the good dialogue here. You're bringing up some really good points. Thanks!
 
Old September 8th, 2009 #5
Mike in Denver
Enkidu
 
Mike in Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,133
Mike in Denver
Default

An absolutely great discussion...maybe the best I've seen on any forum. I think Alex ought to lock it, and only allow himself and Greg Johnson in the thread.

I can't add anything, but I may be able to confirm a few points.

Among the upper middle class and those with pretensions to the upper middle class, there are only two spots along the political spectrum that are acceptable. You can define yourself as middle Democrat liberal or as middle Republican conservative. If you are one of these, you can move with freedom, even among those who take the other fake position. Anything else and you are dead meat.

A friend of mine from Paris made this distinction between Americans and French. It may explain why the French have had a revolution and the Americans have not. The supposed American revolution was just a dispute among bankers and rich land owners, fought by peasants. It was not a revolution.

The French have, according to my friend, three classes...Aristocrats, Petit Bourgeois, and Peasants. Americans do as well, we just don't admit it.

In France the Petit Bourgeois identify with, or at least pretend to identify with, the Peasants. In the United States the Petit Bourgeois identify with the Aristocrats.

This explains why in Paris, if workers kidnap their plant owners over some perceived outrage, a million Parisians will take to the streets in support of the workers. If plant workers in the United States picket a plant that has reneged on pensions, a million TV viewers will cheer the police who club the workers to the ground.

And my own observation...every American believes that someday he will win the lottery. It may not be the buy-a-ticket at the Quickie Mart lottery. It may be a scheme for riches on the web, or any other unrealistic thing, but he too will be rich. This is the worst trait of Americans. It takes their focus off themselves and their fellow peasants, which we truly are, and replaces the focus on the totally unrealistic thought that they should support the Aristocrats and shun the losers, the peasants.

You are not going to win the lottery. If you are poor or working class now, you will likely die poor or working class. I'm 64; I've lived on three continents, and traveled about. I'm very sociable and I have known a whole lot of people in a whole lot of places. I've known exactly four people who when I first knew them were of modest means, but later were rich. Each one of these inherited his new riches from rich families whose money had been made centuries before. They didn't win the lottery,they didn't build a great business or come up with a clever web scheme, and neither will you. They inherited their money from their rich families. If you don't have a rich family, you will almost certainly end up in the same class into which you were born.

All this may seem somewhat off-topic, but I think it isn't. Above I'm only writing about white Americans. I don't give a fig about others. If white Americans can't even support their fellow middle class or working class whites, and if the upper middle class aspire to only support their material position and aspirations to even higher material position...then, what will it take for the middle class or working class to support something as far on the fringe and dangerous as WN?

I don't know. That's why I think Alex should only allow himself and GJ to participate in the thread. I think I'll go buy a lottery ticket.

Mike
__________________
You have to remember I live in Denver and some things are perfectly legal here that aren't where you live.
 
Old September 8th, 2009 #6
Stronza
Senior Member
 
Stronza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,307
Stronza
Default

Alex Linder said:

Quote:
My strategy could work. But it would threaten TOO's and Vdare's income, so you'll keep doing the same old thing: encouraging young rising WNs like James Edwards to take the 'jew' out of his post and replace it with 'liberal.' That's the wise move...if your consideration is your personal interests. Politically it's the wrong move.
I subscribe to Edwards' emails, and I can assure you he has used that word, recently, in a harsh and negative way.
__________________
Your god died nailed to a tree.
 
Old September 8th, 2009 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stronza View Post
Alex Linder said:



I subscribe to Edwards' emails, and I can assure you he has used that word, recently, in a harsh and negative way.
Well, it's a difficult line the grinners and trimmers have to walk. If he leaves the word in, he gets shit from the Buchananite cowards. If he takes it out, he gets shit from WN. That's the fundamental problem with the type that tries to have it both ways. These mugwumps need to figure out whether they're fish or fowl.
 
Old September 8th, 2009 #8
Anne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760
Anne
Default

People are not yet really comfortable with their darker emotions. There is rising anger, but it will be a while yet before people will tell themselves it's ok to hate and then act on that hatred.

Moving from conservative nationalism to revolutionary nationalism is a process. Starting off with Buchanan doesn't mean you have to end with him.
__________________
Momma tried to raise me better.
 
Old September 8th, 2009 #9
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default

Alex,

1. I think that you are mistaking plausible stories for truths, e.g., that Jared Taylor runs a front operation, that Sam Francis was a secret WN but was just too much of a coward to go public, that Buchanan is merely in it for the system, money, etc., etc. But To say that your stories are plausible means simply that they conform to what is publicly observable.

2. What I have tried to offer is an alternative theory of why these people do what they do, a theory that is consistent with believing that these people might be sincere in their WN convictions (or near-WN convictions in the case of Buchanan), and chose their strategy based on their understanding of (1) the importance of elites in social change in general, and (2) their understanding of the particular character of American elites.

3. Now, lest I be misunderstood, I should state that my alternative account is just another likely story. I would bet money that my story is more likely than yours. But I am not claiming to have inside information on what these people are up to. I have never met Patrick Buchanan, much less talked with him at length. I have met Francis and Taylor, and I have both observed them and talked to them at length. I also have close friends who have been their friends and collaborators for decades.

But I do not pretend to know these men's souls. I am just offering an alternative theory that explains their actions without ascribing the base motives you do. This is not because I am too "nice" to ascribe base motives to people. I am pretty far from being nice and charitable. I am just concerned with accuracy. Not accuracy for its own sake, but accuracy for the purposes of thinking about strategies for saving our people.

4. I don't personally advocate or follow the strategy I was outlining in my post. Everyone in our cause needs to determine his own level of explicitness and involvement. So I understand why people might adopt such a strategy. But it is not mine.

These are some points where I am in agreement with you:

1. People who hesitate to take radical stands always calculate in terms of the "friends" and access the might lose, but they never wonder if they might gain better friends -- friends who admire them for their courage rather than condemn them for it.

2. You are right about sincerity: white people who can perceive nothing else can perceive sincerity. White people require it of their leaders and respect it even in their enemies.

3. At TOQ we name the Jew. We also declare ourselves explicitly pro-white. I never would have gotten involved with the journal in the first place if it did not do both things.

4. I agree that we need to build a counter-elite that aims at displacing our Jewish elite just as Jews displaced our WASP elite. The way to do that is to attract the best people possible from all levels of society. If we attract members of the current elite, only the most honest and courageous will come, and they will have to associate with us on our terms, rather than the reverse. If we try to associate with existing elites on their terms, then, yes, the only way to do that is through preaching half- and quarter-truths and sending mixed messages.

5. Conservatism is a losing strategy. Unfortunately, most WNs come out of conservatism, and even if they consciously reject it, their instincts and unconscious presuppositions are still overwhelmingly conservative. Even worse, American conservatism is just an old-fashioned form of liberalism.

There are bona fide WNs who actually think that we will beat our enemies with superior arguments. Arguments have their uses, but when it comes to Realpolitik, they are epiphenomena. I think TOQ's greatest value is as a tool of attracting highly intelligent white people into a social network. It is the social network, a concrete human community, that will actually change the world.
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #10
Hunter Wallace
Member
 
Hunter Wallace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 251
Hunter Wallace
Default

Greg is very much on target in his description of our extraverted, materialistic, status conscious elites. I also find his account of Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, and Jared Taylor to be the more plausible one. Personally, I don't think Amren is a Jewish front. It is more likely that Taylor is trying to tackle one taboo at a time. If he was a true anti-anti-Semite, he wouldn't hesitate to attack us like Lawrence Auster or Ian Jobling. It is telling that he hasn't done so.

Alex makes a great point when he says that the status conscious, upper middle class White professionals (the pathetic SWPL's) will only jump on our bandwagon when our victory appears inevitable or white racialism becomes fashionable. I agree with his argument that a vanguardist WN counter-elite (one driven by an almost religious conviction) must be created. Nothing will ever come of the HBD/RR policy wonks. We're also of the same mind with regards to 'conservatism'. There is a substantial amount of agreement here.

As for Buchanan, I don't like his cowardice either, but admittedly he has his uses. It was his book The Death of the West that indirectly led me to stumble upon White Nationalism in 2001. I've read most his columns and all of his books since that time. I learned a lot in the process; enough to clearly see beyond paleoconservatism. His most valuable contribution to date was his recent book on the Second World War.
__________________
Occidental Dissent

"A functioning police state needs no police."
—William Borroughs
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #11
Hunter Wallace
Member
 
Hunter Wallace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 251
Hunter Wallace
Default

As in Germany, the American working class and lower middle class has the most potential for mass political mobilization. White Nationalism doesn't seem to have any problem attracting highly educated introverts either. It is a matter of combining the two.
__________________
Occidental Dissent

"A functioning police state needs no police."
—William Borroughs
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #12
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

I don't see this so much in terms of "truth", it's more like a clash of religions or mindsets. white racism happens to be the most demonized religion right now.

I know you all don't like to see it as a religion, but truly it is when it reaches the level of the people on this forum who place the white race above all else. (I am excluding myself here, sorry guys. my loyalties to loved ones - some of whom are non-white - will always take precedence to my loyalties to the white race. however, the mere fact that I even care at all about whites is amazing to me, as I never even gave it much thought before a couple years ago.)

if a white man would honestly prefer to live in a world where (outside of perhaps israel) the forces of globalization have created a monolithic race of muds who live in paleolithic conditions, he is quite sensible to support the status quo.

his opposition to us is not based on any falsehoods or on him being stupid or imperceptive, but simply based on the fact that he fundamentally believes living like a mud caveman is "right" (that is his religion, in a sense). we would have to convince him that living like a mud caveman is "wrong" (that is our religion).

how to do this is a good question, but certainly calling him (intellectually) stupid or trying to logically prove to him he is wrong with your brilliant, airtight arguments is the wrong way to go about it.

probably the only way to sway him in your direction is to earn his respect or love, and then make your views known to him. if you think about it, this is ultimately how every one of us became racist.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #13
Orazio
Junior Member
 
Orazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 151
Orazio
Default

"My strategy could work. But it would threaten TOO's and Vdare's income"

What is TOO?
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Alex,

1. I think that you are mistaking plausible stories for truths, e.g., that Jared Taylor runs a front operation, that Sam Francis was a secret WN but was just too much of a coward to go public, that Buchanan is merely in it for the system, money, etc., etc. But To say that your stories are plausible means simply that they conform to what is publicly observable.
Use history. Look at the John Birch Society. RP Oliver learned it was a false front. Rockwell, Pierce and Oliver were all kicked out when they started asking questions about the jewish basis of communism. Oliver researched the matter and discovered that Robert Welch was paid by jews to run the JBS as a false front to drain off anti-communist sentiment. The feds and jews also set up William F. Buckley's magazine, gave him every award (and his son says he was even on his deathbed concerned about awards) and promotion in exchange for his ridding conservatism of anti-semites and racists, making it safe for jews, coopting the American right. Now consider these:

FACT: Jared Taylor has stated he wants to be the William F. Buckley of racialism.

FACT: Jared Taylor comes from exactly the same class of WASP traitors that gave us the Abolitionist and the Christian missionary. In fact his parents were missionaries. They spent their lives trying to infect Japan with Christianity.

FACT: Jared Taylor refuses paid ads for products criticizing jews.

FACT: Jared Taylor accepts money from jewish backers, and forbids commenters from discussing jewish motives in creating the types of problems the site is ostensibly devoted to alleviating.

FACT: Jared Taylor tells whites to blame their own ancestors, even though 99.9% of these had no power and didn't want the changes the jews forced through, and demonstrated that fact in every opinion poll ever taken.

Logic, anyone? It amazes me that you and Prozium swallow Taylor's intellectual fraudulence without a blink. I don't have canceled checks to Taylor from the ADL, but Occam's razor - all logic and history - show you that Taylor and Amren exist and have as their intended function the protection of jews from blame for America's racial problems, and the safety-valving of Whites grown increasingly disgusted with what our country has become.

Jared Taylor is precisely what I say: a polished turd. Just like William F. Buckley. He is not what he appears to be. You are allowing the fact that you and Macdonald like him personally, Greg, to blind you to his function. This is a very serious problem among the White right - and in Anglo culture in general - the inability to separate politics from personality. Jared Taylor is our enemy.

And in general, you could have saved time in your response simply by saying you take everything Buchanan/Francis/Taylor says at face value. Like they, you insist they're all working some strategy. Funny this strategy has never been written out. Things are generally not written out because they can't survive the light of day, or the making-light of laughter. That is why I revamped this forum and added subforums specifically dealing with these issues: strategy, verbal war, violence. I have laid out the right strategy to follow. You insist that P.T. and Canny and Mrs Decline have a strategy, well, lay it out. What is this clever strategy?

I'll tell you what it is - all these strategies are personal, not political. They are aimed to ensure that what is best for Francis, Buchanan and Taylor is what happens. But prove me wrong. Give me just a soupcon of the strategy that any of these have so I can compare it with the one I advise. I don't think you can do this because there is no strategy. The cover stories you so willingly accept from Francis and the rest are personal strategies, they have nothing to do with what's best for the race. That's my main contention here - none of these people are taking any thought whatsoever for what is best for the White race and how to bring it about.

But I'm willing to listen. Give me CCC, LOSer, MARshmallow, Amrent - give me any overt declaration of strategy for making things better for our race. How do they propose to do that? I have never seen word one of any kind of strategy.

Quote:
2. What I have tried to offer is an alternative theory of why these people do what they do, a theory that is consistent with believing that these people might be sincere in their WN convictions (or near-WN convictions in the case of Buchanan), and chose their strategy based on their understanding of (1) the importance of elites in social change in general, and (2) their understanding of the particular character of American elites.
What you're saying is you've bought Canny's Burnham bullshit. I will politely refrain from laughing at someone who conjures "Middle American Revolutionaries" as a solution to our problem. My only question is, was he grazing a bag of marshmallows when it occurred to him?

Why would you look to a loser like Francis anyway if you were trying to effect a revolution? Do revolutions come out of tepid folk who throw away their most powerful weapon, race, to grab the marshmallow bag of geography as the basis for the change they seek? Why can't you see the self-interested cowardice of Canny Sammy for what it is? You're looking in the wrong area: read the old NS stuff. Men bent on serious political change look nothing like Taylor, Francis or Buchanan. Not a single person on this site believes any of those men would risk a pinky in defense of the white race. Men who won't even defend their cause publicly and verbally are hardly going to do it physically.

Face the facts, Greg. Canny had no strategy other than self-preservation, and he sucked at that too. Jared Taylor is in this to protect the jews. Pat Buchanan is a good writer, a good speaker, but for the change we need, he's a dog whose entire history shows he will run back whimpering to ZOG every time the question of loyalty is raised. Patrick Buchanan is loyal to the Catholic church, to the commentariat, and to ZOG's emoluments, not to the white race.

Quote:
3. Now, lest I be misunderstood, I should state that my alternative account is just another likely story. I would bet money that my story is more likely than yours.
It's not a question of more likely. You're simply repeating the line put out by the late Francis. You're simply taking their words and intentions at face value. I'm saying you're wrong to do that. They have no strategy, and you cannot name it. Their strategic concerns were for their own personal advancement, their careers.

Quote:
But I am not claiming to have inside information on what these people are up to. I have never met Patrick Buchanan, much less talked with him at length. I have met Francis and Taylor, and I have both observed them and talked to them at length. I also have close friends who have been their friends and collaborators for decades.
I know the personal connections. What you can't see is that the fact that you and Macdonald personally like Jared Taylor is blinding you to the blindingly obvious facts of his function.

Quote:
But I do not pretend to know these men's souls. I am just offering an alternative theory that explains their actions without ascribing the base motives you do.
You gauge their souls by their actions. I correctly summed Sam Francis' character in 'Canny Sammy,' and every single person, you included, knows exactly what I mean. He was a career girl. Career girls have to do what's best for their careers. Yeah, they always have some explanation, some cover story for why they "can't" do this or that. And, being highly intelligent folks, they can make a persuasive case. When you throw in their social inferiors' desires to mix and mingle with the powerful, why, it can even become a compelling and accepted case. (I recall reading once that the average homosexual's life dream was to host dinner parties, salons, for the rich, educated and tasteful.) Don't let the personal trump the objective politics, Greg. And keep in mind, I am judging Canny and Pat and The Turd by a standard I can meet myself. I'm not asking these slicksters to do anything I have not done. That is how winners like Hitler and Goebbels and the jews do it. The losers, like Pat and Sam and The Turd, always have a reason they "can't" do the objectively necessary thing.

Quote:
This is not because I am too "nice" to ascribe base motives to people. I am pretty far from being nice and charitable. I am just concerned with accuracy. Not accuracy for its own sake, but accuracy for the purposes of thinking about strategies for saving our people.
So lay it out then. Lay out Francis', Buchanan's or The Turd's strategy. I say there is none. I say none of you have seriously thought about it for ten seconds. My strategy is the only one that has been made public and so it stands until someone refutes it. My strategy is based not on copycatting generations of conservatives losers, shills, fronts and idiots, but on a realistic reading of jews and how they act, they being the real power in this society, and what it takes to defeat them, based on knowledge of their history in Germany in the 20th century and their history in Europe vs the Catholic church for 2,000 years.

Quote:
4. I don't personally advocate or follow the strategy I was outlining in my post. Everyone in our cause needs to determine his own level of explicitness and involvement. So I understand why people might adopt such a strategy. But it is not mine.
Nah, you're describing menu-liberalism. That will never defeat the jews. We have to comply with reality. Reality is that we will get smeared, tortured and killed if we stand up to the jews. You and the boys can pretend otherwise, but that just makes you conservatives, which is another word for excuse-makers.

Quote:
These are some points where I am in agreement with you:

1. People who hesitate to take radical stands always calculate in terms of the "friends" and access the might lose, but they never wonder if they might gain better friends -- friends who admire them for their courage rather than condemn them for it.
Adopting our cause makes for mental health because we no longer follow the path of the cult in denying gigantic subsets of reality.

Quote:
2. You are right about sincerity: white people who can perceive nothing else can perceive sincerity. White people require it of their leaders and respect it even in their enemies.
Quote:
3. At TOQ we name the Jew. We also declare ourselves explicitly pro-white. I never would have gotten involved with the journal in the first place if it did not do both things.
Good. You guys are putting out a lot of solid material, no doubt about it, and great credit to you for running the show. You are a great writer and a great editor too.

Quote:
4. I agree that we need to build a counter-elite that aims at displacing our Jewish elite just as Jews displaced our WASP elite. The way to do that is to attract the best people possible from all levels of society. If we attract members of the current elite, only the most honest and courageous will come, and they will have to associate with us on our terms, rather than the reverse. If we try to associate with existing elites on their terms, then, yes, the only way to do that is through preaching half- and quarter-truths and sending mixed messages.
My point above is that these insinuation strategies pursued by Francis et al, which in my view are merely cover stories for personal-interests advancement, have never worked and never will work. Beat the jews by being stronger and better in every way than they are. That is a tall order. But that's the point - there is no easy way. And that's the subtext of the Francis approach's claims - that there is an easy way out. All we have to do is talk in codes, wink at the right people. All you have to do is study the nationalists in Germany to see what actually works compared to the claims of managerial bullshitters. You beat jews and quash their revolutions by beating them in the head with gun stocks and throwing them in canals. You beat them by speaking their name and pointing out their doings. You do not beat them by intrigue, that is their specialty. Tactical intrigues, of course, all parties need them. But strategic intrigue - no. You do not beat the jew that way. You beat the jew by political art showing him being mucked out of society on the end of a pitchfork.

Quote:
5. Conservatism is a losing strategy. Unfortunately, most WNs come out of conservatism, and even if they consciously reject it, their instincts and unconscious presuppositions are still overwhelmingly conservative. Even worse, American conservatism is just an old-fashioned form of liberalism.
True. But we in America at least can't help that we don't have an aristocracy. We will have to create one. I don't think we need a monarch, and I think liberal economics works just fine provided it is restrained in a racial state.

My entire point to you, and to Macdonald, is that I see you genuflecting before status and money, and that is the real conservative instinct that must be uprooted. The urge to grovel before your money-masters. Your respect is due to real WN, not to half-assed conservative clowns, career girls and ZOG curs like Buchanan. "The fool you flatter is the fool you become." Macdonald needs to keep that mind next time it occurs to him to fawn on Buchanan. And you, Greg, should not allow your writers to plagiarize me while fawning over some weakling like Francis.

As you know from your essay contest, we need myths and inspiration. I think just as the moment makes the man, the moment makes the myth. That's what the German nationalists found, I believe history shows. So I wouldn't get too exorcised over it. But, in my own unhumble way, this is what I have tried to do lo these past ten years - create, through mocking and neologisms a different mental environment, in which a new elite can recognize itself, and build itself up into a force. Now, I only have certain skills and getting along with others is not high among them. Those of you better suited to that task must make sure you do not relapse into conservatism.

Americans respect money. If you have money in America, you are respectable. What that leave to us is the creation of a new conception in which honor, duty, nobility and aesthetics take higher rank. This new conception can never take hold if our leaders are perpetually CONFUSING people by referring to the same old conservative-liberal-ZOGians as though they are part of us or in some way admirable and exemplary.

All that leads to is the though of poor young Jimmy Edwards sitting there, rereading his post bashing jews for jewing the whites out of NCAA football coaching, and pondering whether he should, as the LOSers, Council of Cohen Cocksuckers, and MARshmallows have advised, delete the jews and replace them with safe-'n'-profitable liberals.

Your every action, Greg, as mine, should be pushing the Young Jimmys in the right direction. That direction is strength. Strength, not weakness. Courage not cowardice. Bravery not calculation. Refuse to pretend that the conservatism of cowards like Buchanan has anything whatsoever to do with our cause, creating a new White nation.

Quote:
There are bona fide WNs who actually think that we will beat our enemies with superior arguments.
We already have. Turns out being right has nothing to do with winning.

Quote:
Arguments have their uses, but when it comes to Realpolitik, they are epiphenomena. I think TOQ's greatest value is as a tool of attracting highly intelligent white people into a social network. It is the social network, a concrete human community, that will actually change the world.
I agree.

But I also keep in mind Metzger's gibe about eat, meet and retreat.

The cutting edge of the White revolution is no longer writing. I think it was the cutting edge ten years ago because that was when the Internet became mass available, and people finally had a way to get through the jewish screens to confront our ideas directly.

Now, without for a minute cutting back on the great and thought-filled articles we get from TOQ and Prozium and other fine sites and writers, indeed expanding our editorial output as hugely as possible, we need to bust out again, and pioneer with

- White HS curriculum

We need to focus, like the German nationalists, on the young. We need to chase the cortex of the young, not the checkbooks of the old. Or at least both. HS is exploding. If there is one cause I will put VNN fully behind, it is developing such a curriculum. It is 100x more important than writing another book.

- White public advocacy.

Now is the time for a group. An advocacy group that can routinize the White case before the mass audience. It wouldn't take even six months to get our people on tv regularly. This would also be a front end to mass financial support. I mean this case in deliberate opposition to the Vdares (and the path I FEAR TOO is or will travel) which is taking donations and doing nothing but producing unilevel editorial. Our cause is past that. The oil is hot, time to throw in the meat. We have all thru our writing these last ten years laid the base, it's time to get going.
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Hey, Herr Johnson:

"How you gonna keep on the Francis Fat Farm after they read Goebbels?"

Honest to god. Read the calvin.edu archive, as I'm sure you have. I don't know how anyone could ever take a Francis or a Buchanan seriously after reading German nationalists. Their writings and speeches show the distance between a man and a conservative.
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #16
Stronza
Senior Member
 
Stronza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,307
Stronza
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post

- White HS curriculum

We need to focus, like the German nationalists, on the young. We need to chase the cortex of the young, not the checkbooks of the aged. Or at least both. HS is exploding. If there is one cause I will put VNN fully behind, it is developing such a curriculum. It is 100x more important than writing another book.
A couple o' things:

1. Hitler outlawed homeschooling. To my knowledge, the only western industrial country that bans homeschooling today is, yes, Germany. Homeschoolers are persecuted & prosecuted mercilessly, with children being seized, parents dragged into court, etc.


2. From cluborlov: "But in the summer of 1992 President Yeltsin issued a historic decree which announced that henceforth any child (independent of medical condition) has the right to study at home! Furthermore, the local schools must pay to the parents of such children, because they are spending the government’s education funds not on teachers and not on school buildings, but independently and at home!" That's the same Boris Yeltsin some WNs hate so much. I don't know what his motivations were, but I'm glad he did it.

3. Anti-homeschooling propaganda is on the rise in North America. For one interesting example, last year homeschoolers were on the Dr. Phil Show. I know of someone who was in the audience as part of a homeschooling group. She says that what we saw on the screen at home didn't remotely resemble what happened there, with all the preshow manipulation and reconfiguration of the audience members. I know that talk shows are always shrewdly controlled and tampered with, but this was something to behold, according to my informant. The homeschoolers representatives were made to look like fools etc. The California teachers assn. tore a strip off h/s as you can imagine.
__________________
Your god died nailed to a tree.
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stronza View Post
A couple o' things:

1. Hitler outlawed homeschooling. To my knowledge, the only western industrial country that bans homeschooling today is, yes, Germany. Homeschoolers are persecuted & prosecuted mercilessly, with children being seized, parents dragged into court, etc.
True, but irrelevant. I'm not a nazi, remember. A dictatorial state is a nasty necessity until the jewspill in aisle 1-30 is cleaned up. After that, in America, we will devolve into microstates. The losers can have their 50% taxes and cradle-to-grave socialism. I opt to live free. I don't want or need a white boss man any more than I need a jew.

Quote:
3. Anti-homeschooling propaganda is on the rise in North America. For one interesting example, last year homeschoolers were on the Dr. Phil Show. I know of someone who was in the audience as part of a homeschooling group. She says that what we saw on the screen at home didn't remotely resemble what happened there, with all the preshow manipulation and reconfiguration of the audience members. I know that talk shows are always shrewdly controlled and tampered with, but this was something to behold, according to my informant. The homeschoolers representatives were made to look like fools etc. The California teachers assn. tore a strip off h/s as you can imagine.
Of course it is. It's a very direct threat to the NEA, one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, and a big indirect threat to ZOG itself.
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #18
Julian Lüchow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 888
Julian Lüchow
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
A dictatorial state is a nasty necessity until the jewspill in aisle 1-30 is cleaned up. After that, in America, we will devolve into microstates.
How does one go from dictatorship to no gov't at all? It sounds too much like the Marxist fantasy of "after the dictatorship of the proletariat the old system will just fade away to be replaced with anarcho-syndicalism." Big bad rulers like power a bit too much for that, eh?

Quote:
The losers can have their 50% taxes and cradle-to-grave socialism. I opt to live free. I don't want or need a white boss man any more than I need a jew.
In a NS state taxes would be different anyhow - i.e. replace taxes on economic activity with taxes on the syndicates which control the major sectors of the economy. Plus in an NS system, those who don't work and have no good reason for not working are dealt with in a variety of ways. And some safety net is necessary unless you want loads of, for instance, industrial workers (who we'll need a lot of) peeved at you.

The capitalist system itself is not, I believe, one to keep around in light of superior options. Fascism allows all decent citizens a decent standard of living as long as they are willing to work for it. Capitalism makes no such guarantee and is always subject to the caprice of the jerks who run it. Really, I don't want to be ruled by short-sighted money-grubbing peasants (as in parliamentarian capitalism) whether they're Jewish or not.
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #19
Stronza
Senior Member
 
Stronza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,307
Stronza
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krystian Kowalczyk View Post
... Fascism allows all decent citizens a decent standard of living as long as they are willing to work for it...
Gulp. This sounds like the Soviet Union, where it was illegal "to live without visible means of support".
__________________
Your god died nailed to a tree.
 
Old September 9th, 2009 #20
steven clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,690
steven clark
Default

Alex, I agree with you and your arguments. When I first became a WN, I liked Pat and also the CCC, but it's like Strom wrote some years ago when he
joined the Birchers...they just kept going in circles, always yabbering ' restore the Constitution...' and that's a blind alley.

I went to a CCC meeting to meet Sam Francis. I was struck by the CCC as being a lot of guys in suits who barely said hello to me. Francis had a good
speech, but when I asked him about Pierce, he said he'd never heard of him and quickly excused himself.

However, I was impressed with the ordinary people at the meeting.

At least the National Alliance, once you crack their caution, were friendly and open. But you are right: we have to organize. The problem with approaching kids is they are underage, and the law could be set on you.

There are too many false fronts and blind alleys. I listened to Savage, and he had a funny free-form essay on Obama and the left, but, as always, it fell back on Hitler, the Nazis, 'blonde little German children in meadows...'
with Jews, it's always back to Hitler. Like Macdonald said, Nazism was an example of a racially exclusive movement fighting the Jews with their own
medicine.

What's happening now, and it is good for us, is that the Jews are dropping their mask. They're really coming out and saying whitey has to go. They robbed Wall Street, and there was no cover-up.
 
Reply

Tags
faileoconservative, whino

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.
Page generated in 0.20817 seconds.