Matt Parrott, AmRen Censorship, CMS Gatekeeping

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Maxfield Parrish

There's nothing "deep" (profound) about a "diversity of approaches", for in the marketplace of WN strategies, all approaches are neither equal, correct, mutually supporting, or advisable. That is fundamental.

Furthermore, the claim that this state of white nationalism "will not go away" is possibly true, but contrary to your belief, it is not a strength. I do not here even say that Mr. Linder's strategy is the "true path", though it could be. On the other hand, I do agree that a more cogent advance of WN will entail brutal forthrightness on our part, as well as demonstrating the offensive with uncompromising valor and determination.

Well, you seem to get it. So far I've had two reactions: the usual cow-hearing-a-noise and the misinterpretation that I'm saying we need to unite behind a maximum lider.

No. We need to agree on a strategy. As many people as we can get pushing in the same direction, coordinated from above, with everybody on the same page and completely clear about what's going on. That's how serious people do it. Not this tra-la-la everybody do his own thing and we'll come together in the land of rainbows and unicorns when we win.

The first thing is to decide who we are. Are we catholics who want back the middle ages? Is our default mode bemoaning this poor sad world going to shit because people don't love jesus and listen to priestophiles? Are we CI who believe Whites are the jews mentioned in the bibble? Are we whites who believe jews are whites too, and welcome their working with us?

I don't think we're any of those things. I think we are, or should be, a group of men who want society reconstituted on the basis of race, rather than mere religion or politics.

Of course, no one tendency can prevail by force; all must go their various ways, or try to persuade others to join them. If one tendency is seen to make progress, the others might fall in line. I just don't think hazy references to a we including all these groups makes much sense. Do they really have anything in common, other than a recognition our countries have racial problems?

In many ways, the man is the argument, but it was just such unprincipled politics that led to the problems we have today. Our cause needs to be as thought-out as possible, not vague. Even or especially before we have the party, the agenda, the leadership, and the plan, we who support my view can and must attack all the kooky tendencies above in order to weaken them until our vision takes hold. The conservatives are mere weaklings. The CI are idiots and liars. The jew-helpers are vile clowns.

My job is to continue to put these things front and center, and to flesh out a vision of our society AFTER we take power. We promise no utopia, merely that racial problems caused by jews using blacks and mexicans and sex deviants will be erased as a problem in our new order. While the racial basis of the new state will be absolute - no one will be allowed to question it or resist it, all the other stuff will be matters for compromise. Inside the sphere of the White-reconstituted nation, White men may divide themselves as they see fit, territorially and ideologically. In this way, perhaps, many of their different ideas about ideal arrangements can be satisifed with minimum fuss.

[Alex Linder]

A man is both a man, an individual, and a member of a larger group, perhaps a number of them. What the jews have done is see to it that the white man has no loyalty to either, so far as jews can enforce it. They have done all they could to reduce his power over his own family, and his ability to define his community. All that's left to him is promiscuous sex, sports fanage, and voting for one of the two wings of the governing party. If he's bothered by this, he can sit in a jail cell, or attend a church whose priestophile agrees with the government on the essentials - it's sort of a third political party to the Republicans and Democrats, catering to spiritual needs.

This isn't good enough. Our cause must be not abstractions and universals like the traditional christ cultist and neo-christians known as secular humanists favor, but a world and nation in which the white man can be and live as a man, individually, and a White, socially. So both his individual and his communal beings are satisfied. Then his material and spiritual needs are met in a way that fits and satisfies his nature.

What needs to be done to make our cause more attractive to our people is to stimulate their imagination in relation to race. Satisfy their spiritual needs by showing them their place in the race called Qwest. The thrilling, ongoing adventure story of the development of our race, involving chance, heroism, luck, and all the rest is more thrilling than the lugubrious lies around the semitic science-fiction character jesus. A White focus on strength, I believe will spiritually defeat christ-insanity - THIS is the main takeaway of the NS experience. Nearly all the top NS were ex-Catholics. That shows you that they knew in their bones and brains and found through experience that Catholicism does not have what it takes, and is not enough - not enough to protect, create or even imagine a society worth living in. They eclipsed it. The NS eclipsed Catholic society - and the priests know it. The E. Michael Joneses know it. That is why they fear it, and that is why they lie about it. For example, EMJ repeating lies out of the Pink Swastika he had to know were false. A serious man like Jones wouldn't do that except for a very deep reason. Jones breaks his own commandment when it comes to the NS. Out of fear. He knows NS has something better than his church has. He also knows that if Whites get back in control of society as briefly happened in '30s Germany, his church will fade like the dodo.

You know what's the most unChristian creature on god's green earth?

A white baby.

A masculine society focused on strength, justice and independence will make the church, with its focus on love, mercy, and weakness, considerably less attractive, especially as people observe its undeniable well-orderedness.

Those protecting the racial basis of the state, the Guardians, will, as part of their job, maintain an Aryan Academy, where all the high virtues, techniques, knowledge relating to racial science are mastered and passed on. It bears thinking on the scope and form of these groups - and I'm open to suggestions. How do we, institutionally, protect a racially based state? The racial protection of the state will be the only function of the over-government. Do we have any systematic thinkers on VNNForum? How would you define and divide up and institutionalize the Guardians as the over-government? What is racial defense of the state? Does it touch as widely as economics and public health? Or not?

Much as I detest speculative writing about things-to-be, since it's so easily wrong, people have said it should be done, and I think they're right. It helps people imagine something other than what is. A very large part of what we deride as lemminghood is simply lack of imagination. People think what is must be. Because they don't know anything else, and they can't imagine anything else. Someone else must put ideas in their minds; they won't spontaneously generate otherwise. Once they can see, it begins to become real to them.

[Hadding]

Parrott is pretty good so long as he is talking about immigration. "America has become the cat-lady of the world," he says. That's a great metaphor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Jv9UuNtmQ

In some sense though I am not sure that it's accurate. He said that 70% of Hoosiers wanted something done about illegal immigration, which means that 70% are not cat-ladies. That's an overwhelming majority that opposes indulgence of illegal aliens.

Parrott focuses on the 30% who don't support the bill as the source of trouble, but that's very much a minority of the electorate. As voters, they are not the problem, because they will not get their way by voting. It's somebody at the top that wants to compel America to be the world's cat-lady.

When you start to examine the cause of the problem more closely, I think you get into matters that Parrott might prefer not to discuss. It's really not a matter of short-sighted people with good intentions as Parrott portrays with his cat-lady metaphor.

[Zeth O. Grady]

Are we catholics who want back the middle ages?

Kevin MacDonald and some of the TOO posters are.

[Greg Johnson]

Originally Posted by Mike Parker

How have previous white-jew alliances worked out for whites?

I disagree with Matt about alliances with Jews, for reasons explained in my article "White Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism":

Why, then, do some Jews seek to join European nationalist groups, as well as White Nationalist groups in America? A variety of motives are possible, including sincere conviction, insanity, hedging, spying, and sabotage. Unfortunately, there is no foolproof way of determining what a given person’s real motives are. I’m betting that most of them are up to no good.

Since we are fighting for nothing less than the biological survival of our race, and since the vast bulk of Jews oppose us, we need to err on the side of caution and have no association with Jews whatsoever. Any genuine Jewish well-wishers will understand, since they know what their people are like better than we ever can.

Saving our race is something that we will have to do ourselves alone.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011...h-nationalism/

And:

I don’t hold out any hope of alliances between racially conscious whites and Jews, even if there are situations in which we have common interests. First, because we can’t trust them. Second, because they hate us more than anyone else, and sometimes even more than they love themselves. Third, because we are powerless and have nothing to offer them. Fourth, because if we really deserve to survive, we will have to do so ourselves.

But beyond that, one cannot entertain the idea of amicable relations with an invader who is still within one’s borders. Once they go to Israel, then maybe we can talk.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011.../#comment-9507

Matt joined "JewAmongYou" in holding up signs protesting the expulsion of AmRen from their hotel in North Carolina earlier this year. I wouldn't have done even that.

[Maxfield Parrish]

Greg Johnson: "...and since the vast bulk of Jews oppose us, we need to err on the side of caution and have no association with Jews whatsoever."

Which begs the question - should we then have "no association" with those white-advocates who associate with Jews - as Jared Taylor does? Should Counter-Currents, which promotes Jared Taylor on its website, stop doing so? Or will it squirm its way out of recognizing the fact that Jared Taylor has Jews in his camp - which means - by extension - that they are now in our camp?

And what about David Duke, who publicly claims to support a multi-racial American society provided non-whites are no longer given "special rights"? Should WNs still cheer and support him even as we turn a blind eye to his ever more compromising stance on restoring a white America?

[procopius]

You know what's the most unChristian creature on god's green earth?

A white baby.

Well, if that's so, then we would have seen less fertility in Whites when they were all Christians and increased fertility in the post Christian world we live in now. Yet we know that is not the case, the less Christian White societies have become the less they are motivated to make White babies. It was not too long ago that people made fun of traditional Christians for having large families. The Catholic church, it seems, is the only Christian entity left that is against birth control and abortion.

You can say that Christianity is universal, and you can accuse it of abetting egalitarianism, but you can't say that it is against making babies.

[Leonard Rouse]

Originally Posted by procopius

Well, if that's so, then we would have seen less fertility in Whites when they were all Christians and increased fertility in the post Christian world we live in now. Yet we know that is not the case, the less Christian White societies have become the less they are motivated to make White babies. It was not too long ago that people made fun of traditional Christians for having large families. The Catholic church, it seems, is the only Christian entity left that is against birth control and abortion.

You can say that Christianity is universal, and you can accuse it of abetting egalitarianism, but you can't say that it is against making babies.

You missed his point entirely.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by procopius

Well, if that's so, then we would have seen less fertility in Whites when they were all Christians and increased fertility in the post Christian world we live in now. Yet we know that is not the case, the less Christian White societies have become the less they are motivated to make White babies. It was not too long ago that people made fun of traditional Christians for having large families. The Catholic church, it seems, is the only Christian entity left that is against birth control and abortion.

You can say that Christianity is universal, and you can accuse it of abetting egalitarianism, but you can't say that it is against making babies.

Whites are still not having babies when they're christ cultists today. You're trying to have it both ways. The christ losers have succumbed to jews, so whites see no future and aren't breeding. The right place to look for the correct answer to what breeds is Whites before christianity, and whites under NS. The white tribes grew hugely and spread across Europe. Whites under NS outbred Catholic Germany - and if Whites were to gain power in the US, they would also begin breeding again, because they'd see a good future for their children.

But that wasn't, of course, what I was aiming at in making my point.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse

You missed his point entirely.

Missing the main point is the christian way.

But of course, he's semi-cleverly making own. It's just wrong. And we don't want to get into the quality of christian children either, do we?

[Greg Johnson]

Originally Posted by Maxfield Parrish

Which begs the question - should we then have "no association" with those white-advocates who associate with Jews - as Jared Taylor does? Should Counter-Currents, which promotes Jared Taylor on its website, stop doing so? Or will it squirm its way out of recognizing the fact that Jared Taylor has Jews in his camp - which means - by extension - that they are now in our camp?

You are misusing the term "beg the question." But I will answer your question: You need to read by review of Jared Taylor's WHITE IDENTITY and tell me if you have any real objections to how I deal with Taylor:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011...hite-identity/

Organizationally, Taylor mixes with Jews, but I exclude them from all my functions and publications. There are firewalls and airlocks within our network to prevent Jewish penetration to any space where serious thinking and discussions take place.

Originally Posted by Maxfield Parrish

And what about David Duke, who publicly claims to support a multi-racial American society provided non-whites are no longer given "special rights"? Should WNs still cheer and support him even as we turn a blind eye to his ever more compromising stance on restoring a white America?

If you are into "restoring" white America, then that is precisely what "white" America was: a multiracial society dominated by whites. That would be better than what we have now, but whites can do much better than the status quo before desegregation, Civil Rights, and so forth. We can create a homogeneously white society. That is my goal.

[procopius]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Missing the main point is the christian way.

But of course, he's semi-cleverly making own. It's just wrong. And we don't want to get into the quality of christian children either, do we?

I wasn't missing the point. I just didn't have any real qualms with the rest of what Alex said. His idea that Christianity is against making White babies is ludicrous, and he knows it. So he resorts to saying the equivalent of "White Christian babies are low quality anyway."

[Alex Linder]

I disagree with Matt about alliances with Jews, for reasons explained in my article "White Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism":

Why, then, do some Jews seek to join European nationalist groups, as well as White Nationalist groups in America? A variety of motives are possible, including sincere conviction, insanity, hedging, spying, and sabotage. Unfortunately, there is no foolproof way of determining what a given person’s real motives are. I’m betting that most of them are up to no good.

Examining their behavior is pretty close to foolproof. If you look at the behavior of jews who claim they're pro-White what you find is they care about one thing mainly, not to say only: ridding White Nationalism of 'anti-semitism.' Which should cause you to emit a sick laugh. A jew who really was pro-White would do one of two things: 1) quit judaism and assimilate into the white population forever; 2) go to war with his fellow jews to rid them of their loxism. How can a pro-White (jew) complain about 'anti-semitism' among Whites when it's a reaction to jewish behavior, and about 1 million times weaker than anti-Whiteism among jews? So these jews claiming to be pro-White are simply subverters. They're trying, openly because they're allowed to, and simultaneously through anonymous or pseudonymous comments on the handful of message boards and websites that matter, to steer genuine Whites into thinking jews aren't a problem at all, aren't the main problem, or are just a minor problem that can be turned around fairly easily. One of their more typical tactics lately, which even you Greg are guilty of, though you're no jew, is denouncing WN hypocrisy for denouncing poower li'l Israel's valiant nationalism. THIS, and not anything I say, is the effrontery you ought to be denouncing rather than parroting. It's these very jew fucks who have made WHITE nationalism in the US disgraced, discredited, and practically criminal. We should take millimetric measure in our denunciations of their vicious and shitty little land? I think not.

Since we are fighting for nothing less than the biological survival of our race, and since the vast bulk of Jews oppose us, we need to err on the side of caution and have no association with Jews whatsoever. Any genuine Jewish well-wishers will understand, since they know what their people are like better than we ever can.

Saving our race is something that we will have to do ourselves alone.

Quite right.

Matt joined "JewAmongYou" in holding up signs protesting the expulsion of AmRen from their hotel in North Carolina earlier this year. I wouldn't have done even that.

Yeah, and this peppy budger just got done denying my claim that enemy action far more than any other faction explains White failure to organize in last 100 years - yet he's reduced to standing in impotent appeal against a bunch of teenagers shutting down a philosemite's wimpy lecture.

The real issue with you, Herr Johnson, is what the guy says above: your willingness to work with and lend your reputation to people who pretend jews are Whites. It is, as I've said, both wrong, and a good example of the tendency in right-wing politics, to put personality and personal relations over political principles. It's the wrong way to go. It sends the wrong signal to onlookers (that our cause is in any way associated with traditional failed conservatism), and if you had an actual political organization, it would very likely be a vital mistake.

We must, I insist, because it's right, polarize. Smash the weak right, the non-white right, smash it, smash it, smash it. Don't buy it drinks and try to fuck it.

What you subsidize you get more of. The last thing the White cause needs is any association with jew-tools, yet how many otherwise clear-thinking men make just that mistake.

Jared has good manners, you say? I rejoin, Yes. Yes, he does. And that matters...how?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by procopius

I wasn't missing the point. I just didn't have any real qualms with the rest of what Alex said. His idea that Christianity is against making White babies is ludicrous, and he knows it. So he resorts to saying the equivalent of "White Christian babies are low quality anyway."

Wait a minute. Perhaps you truly don't understand, altho I doubt it. My original point was NOT that christians don't want to have babies. It's that white babies are born as unchristian in mind and soul as it is possible to be. Yes, christians do generally support families. But, after all, it's under white christianity that, even in America where people are more religious, there's not much breeding. You're doing the equivalent of a Hillary Clinton cattle trade: assigning all the winners into the jesus account, and the losers to someone else. If Italy has the lowest birth rate in Europe, are you also going to tell me Italians aren't christians?

I'm not even implying the argument you think I was making or meant. My problem with christianity is not that it doesn't encourage breeding. On that front, I don't see but a modest difference. Tribesmen or christians, whites would increase their numbers. It's not really attributable to anything but running out of room that whites don't have 8 kids per family today in Europe. Something like NS is really pro-family, and pro-quality family too. Christ-insanity spends all it's time worrying about the lowest-quality whites getting abortion, whereas the Nazis created Lebensborn, which I'm pretty sure the church denounced as immoral.

Yeah, god forbid we have lots of beautiful high-IQ White kids running around. But I sure see how the possibility threatens the jesus ringleaders.

It's a nasty piece of work, the jesus cult. It's basically a way to justify the lower half of the bell curve's inferiority as something good. To justify their resentment, and give them the strength of fantasy that one day the worst shall be first. That is the psychology of the thing, and don't tell me it isn't. Yeah, you can find rich christians, intelligent christians, and cultured christians. But it's never the church making them that way, and they are not who the church represents. And often enough, they simply move off in another sick direction. Basically christ cult is sop for the underclass, just as it was in Rome, which the most thorough observer considered destroyed by it.

But my point, to get back to it, since you apparently missed it, or choose not to deal with it, is that white babies are born aggressive and strong as they can be. That is why christianity seeks to get them when they're young, and make them fearful and passive, and concerned with a non-existent thing called 'goodness' that basically just amounts to passivity and obeying authority.

Christ-insanity blanches the White out of White men.

[Alex Linder]

If men could think, quotations wouldn't come with attributions.

(what that means for ye of minute brain): even the profoundest observations, the brilliantly-puts and the epiphanies, require a suit so we know how to judge their worth. we're all NIGGERS - brainless judge-by-exteriors.

[Joe Cooper]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

A White focus on strength, I believe will spiritually defeat christ-insanity - THIS is the main takeaway of the NS experience. Nearly all the top NS were ex-Catholics. That shows you that they knew in their bones and brains and found through experience that Catholicism does not have what it takes, and is not enough - not enough to protect, create or even imagine a society worth living in. They eclipsed it. The NS eclipsed Catholic society - and the priests know it. The E. Michael Joneses know it. That is why they fear it, and that is why they lie about it. For example, EMJ repeating lies out of the Pink Swastika he had to know were false. A serious man like Jones wouldn't do that except for a very deep reason. Jones breaks his own commandment when it comes to the NS. Out of fear. He knows NS has something better than his church has. He also knows that if Whites get back in control of society as briefly happened in '30s Germany, his church will fade like the dodo.

Another takeaway on NS being ex-Catholics: The Catholic accepts a greater authority than himself and sees wisdom in obedience to that authority. This is why NS has a similar ideological structure, but based on the application of evolutionary science to humanity rather than faith in a self-contained logical doctrine.

I agree that NS replaces Catholicism, but it was not by a frontal attack upon Catholicism. Rather, it was by the NS putting a greater demand on the Catholic to his race and nation than to his universalist faith. The NS kept the better part of Catholicism, which is it's organizational/ideological structure without pissing off the people they were trying to recruit.

There is another problem here, which is that Protestantism does not share the same quality of obedience to external authority. They consider faith to be an individual (and therefore subjective) matter and take no higher authority than their own interpretation of religion. The Protestants make up the vast majority of Christianity in America.

The Protestant approaches racial politics in the same way he approaches religion. This is why we have a hodge-podge of ideas and movements and leaders that all claim to have the answer and we all debate with each other about who is right. It is an unconsciously liberal method of coming to the truth: whoever has the best rhetoric must be right. The whole thing is subjective. It's why, as you point out Linder, there is a tendency to appeal rather than attract.

It would be better to assume a purely evolutionary approach and quit using culture or tradition as an argument for an all-White nation. Not all white people share the same culture/traditions and some of those cultures do not stick to any form of racial purity. The whole justification brings in a lot of gray area that none of us could solve in a million years of debate.

If the Aryan is a superior being to non-whites and Jews, then the evolutionary scenario of humanity will play itself out to show that. If Aryans choose to debase themselves by fraternizing with non-whites and Jews and sexual deviants, they do so at their own genetic detriment. Those who don't will succeed in the long-term. No government or mass media can ultimately change that, however much the current versions play a part in propagating miscegenation and white self-hate.


I don't see the government becoming WN any time in the future and I think that governments overall will have less and less influence as populations increase and multinational corporations gain more control. That's not how I want it, but that's where I see it going. That being the case, we are better off advocating an ultra-libertarian anti-statist anti-corporate approach while educating our people to make positive eugenic choices. I can't stop whites from mating with non-whites, but I do know that those who chose to mate with other whites produce better off-spring on the whole. That choice is natural for them... my children re-iterate that fact all the time.

None of us can force white people to accept something "for their own good" either by brow-beating or violence. We can however counter the dysgenic propaganda and social engineering by pointing out the conspirators (the Anglo-Jew establishment) and providing a reasonable, dispassionate alternative.

[procopius]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Wait a minute. Perhaps you truly don't understand, altho I doubt it. My original point was NOT that christians don't want to have babies. It's that white babies are born as unchristian in mind and soul as it is possible to be. Yes, christians do generally support families. But, after all, it's under white christianity that, even in America where people are more religious, there's not much breeding. You're doing the equivalent of a Hillary Clinton cattle trade: assigning all the winners into the jesus account, and the losers to someone else. If Italy has the lowest birth rate in Europe, are you also going to tell me Italians aren't christians?

I'm not even implying the argument you think I was making or meant. My problem with christianity is not that it doesn't encourage breeding. On that front, I don't see but a modest difference. Tribesmen or christians, whites would increase their numbers. It's not really attributable to anything but running out of room that whites don't have 8 kids per family today in Europe. Something like NS is really pro-family, and pro-quality family too. Christ-insanity spends all it's time worrying about the lowest-quality whites getting abortion, whereas the Nazis created Lebensborn, which I'm pretty sure the church denounced as immoral.

Yeah, god forbid we have lots of beautiful high-IQ White kids running around. But I sure see how the possibility threatens the jesus ringleaders.

It's a nasty piece of work, the jesus cult. It's basically a way to justify the lower half of the bell curve's inferiority as something good. To justify their resentment, and give them the strength of fantasy that one day the worst shall be first. That is the psychology of the thing, and don't tell me it isn't. Yeah, you can find rich christians, intelligent christians, and cultured christians. But it's never the church making them that way, and they are not who the church represents. And often enough, they simply move off in another sick direction. Basically christ cult is sop for the underclass, just as it was in Rome, which the most thorough observer considered destroyed by it.

But my point, to get back to it, since you apparently missed it, or choose not to deal with it, is that white babies are born aggressive and strong as they can be. That is why christianity seeks to get them when they're young, and make them fearful and passive, and concerned with a non-existent thing called 'goodness' that basically just amounts to passivity and obeying authority.

Christ-insanity blanches the White out of White men.

To be honest Alex, we are not living in the Christian era anymore. That era officially ended (this is my opinion) during the great world wars of the last century with the rise of (new) Israel. When the Pope gave up his tiara in 1963 it was more than just symbolism. It was the announcement of the end of the Old World Order and the beginning of the new.

So claiming that that modern secular Italians don't have many babies but are Christians does not mean much since Christianity itself just isn't taken seriously anymore, we now live the post-Christian world. You should be ecstatic. Now White Nationalism should take hold easily without the burden of devoted Christianity.

[Joe Cooper]

Originally Posted by Greg Johnson

Is Matt Parrott a “Holocaust” Affirmer?

This is pretty much true. While I know that it has been exaggerated and exploited for political and cultural gain I do believe that Jewish non-combatants were systematically persecuted and killed in a manner that meets the UN’s definition of genocide. I believe it was both morally and tactically wrong to do so, and I believe it’s tactically misguided to actively engage this issue in contemporary outreach efforts through “historical revisionist” efforts.

I’ve more completely elaborated on my position in this old piece at OD: Holocaust Denial as Strategic Buffoonery.

Of course, this doesn’t mean we should abide the brainwashing and blood libel which comes shrink-wrapped with the “Holocaust”. There were plenty of other genocides in the 20th century, and the Jewish people can and should be held accountable for the genocides they helped orchestrate. Their lies and exaggerations should be thrown back in their faces. Holding the very people who defeated NS accountable for exaggerated parodies of the crimes they committed is the height of chutzpah, and shouldn’t be tolerated.

Critically evaluating the “Holocaust” is poor strategy when it comes to reaching persuadables, but historians have every right to study whatever they want and arrive at whatever conclusions they come to. They should be defended from physical and legal threats against them when they do so. Those who are angry at me for being “soft” on the “Holohoax” should note that I hosted David Irving in my apartment because anti-White thugs were throwing bricks through the windows of his venues and making physical threats against him. While I continue to refrain from dredging up WWII trivia, I will also continue to defend the rights of those who choose to do so—and not only with mere words.

This sort of pussy-footing is wrong. Denying the Holocaust has the same implications of denying Christ in the Middle Ages. It was that denial that formed the Jews in the cloistered group that they are today. What was seen as their greatest weakness in those times has become their greatest strength.

The same is true for us. The simple fact is that there were no gas chambers or roaming vehicles poisoning innocent Jews with carbon monoxide. That means there was no systematic murder of Jews for being Jewish. The death of innocent Jews in WWII had more to do with the Germans losing the war than their antisemitism. If we had started to lose the war to the Japanese, would our first priority have been taking care of the Japs in concentration camps? I don't think so.

Convince any white person of that and you'll see the light bulb come on. They will see that they have been believing in a myth with far greater impact in modern times than belief in a resurrected savior.

For someone to go mushy on this subject and then claim to be Jew-wise is shooting himself in the proverbial foot. It's like saying, "I'm aware that the Jews are systematically destroying us, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-Jew." What sense does that make?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Joe Cooper

Another takeaway on NS being ex-Catholics: The Catholic accepts a greater authority than himself and sees wisdom in obedience to that authority. This is why NS has a similar ideological structure, but based on the application of evolutionary science to humanity rather than faith in a self-contained logical doctrine.

I know the SS was modeled on the Jesuits organizationally, but I don't think the party as a whole was modeled on the Catholic church. There's not really a whole lot of options for organization as a party in something the size of Germany - not real huge. The difference is what sticks out, not the similarity. The Catholics don't have any provision for moving up, whereas NS do. If you demonstrate quality, you become the head of your group, and can move up through the expanding circles. In Catholicism, you get a leader appointed from Rome, and if you don't like it, there's not a lot you can do but complain. There's almost no movement upwards. You're just supposed to trust authority. NS was about authority not as authority but as responsibility. It demanded complete loyalty from subordinates, but it also 'gave them their heads' - both on the martial battlefield and on the streets.

I agree that NS replaces Catholicism, but it was not by a frontal attack upon Catholicism.

Replaces is the wrong verb because it makes it sound like that's the direct intent, and there will be supplied counterpositions for everything the church offers. I'd say NS is offering a better alternative than the church. And if so, given equal footing, will attract people away from the church. Because it emphasizes the good things - strength, beauty and health. Whereas the church emphasizes pity, weakness, and what it calls love.

Rather, it was by the NS putting a greater demand on the Catholic to his race and nation than to his universalist faith. The NS kept the better part of Catholicism, which is it's organizational/ideological structure without pissing off the people they were trying to recruit.

The NS didn't mess with Catholics beyond telling their priests to keep out of politics. I think in retrospect it did not go far enough. But NS neither took over nor reorganized churches, altho there were limited attempts to fuse Aryanism with jesusism. That was a longer-range project I don't think Hitler put much stock in, but Rosenberg did. If NS had been around for 200 years, we'd see more clearly what the NS actually intended, and how the competing systems would have played out. As it is, we can only guess.

There is another problem here, which is that Protestantism does not share the same quality of obedience to external authority. They consider faith to be an individual (and therefore subjective) matter and take no higher authority than their own interpretation of religion. The Protestants make up the vast majority of Christianity in America.

Some do, some don't. You don't have private interpretations of Mormonism or Christian Science, for two examples. It's among the fundamentalist and pentacostals where you've got the free-range amateur popes.

The Protestant approaches racial politics in the same way he approaches religion. This is why we have a hodge-podge of ideas and movements and leaders that all claim to have the answer and we all debate with each other about who is right.

I don't think so. How could it not be that way? What's the alternative to struggling over how to achieve a goal that many different types want, not all for the exact same reason? So it was in Germany too. It's not a Protestant thing. Until one tendency, or one leader, demonstrates clear superiority, there's no incentive to overlook differences, and every incentive to harp on them. 'Catholicism' is just another sect, the one that happened to be first. All christ-insanity is based on revelation, and objectively revelation is nothing but opinion - opinion taking on airs. Opinions and churches are like assholes; almost everyone has them and they all suck, as they say. 'Revelation' is thinking for people who can't think. That's why it's so popular. Anyone can do it, and there's no wrong answer. Imagine how fun and easy math would be if it were like that.

It is an unconsciously liberal method of coming to the truth: whoever has the best rhetoric must be right. The whole thing is subjective.

Only among the lowest of the low in our cause - the equivalent of snake shakers. What you're saying is valid for the CI retards, but not for the rest.
It's not rhetoric, it's demonstrated organizational ability that will unify men. And it's not really subjective, altho not completely nail-downable either.

If you show an ability to put out quality propaganda, demonstrate activism in the field, prove you can attract soldiers and writers and speakers, demonstrate you can withstand legal challenges, provably attract large numbers of supporters and make waves in the controlled media - then people of every WN stripe will begin to make their way toward you. That's how it was with Hitler, and it would be here. I don't see anything subjective about it. No group in America can do what I describe, but if one could, it would probably bring most of the sectarian squabbling to a standstill.

It's why, as you point out Linder, there is a tendency to appeal rather than attract.

The 'appeal' comes from conservatism. Conservatives have the evidence on their side in the social debates, therefore they prefer to seek converts by way of rational debate (over black crime, say) whereas illiberals, not having the facts on their side, must gird around their fantasy with taboos and imprecations - they must seek and destroy anyone who even grins at their asinine claims.

The problem is that people in politics who are unreasonable get farther than people who are reasonable. They're born or grow angry and aggressive because the world is continually at odds with their utopianism, so they grow hard and mean -- if they don't come to their senses and begin to use their feelers like they ought to. This is why the left runs through the right - they're religious or secular fanatics. Hardened against evidence, hardened into haters of all those with evidence on their lips. The right wins every debate, because it's right. But it loses every political battle because only its brain is involved.

That's why if we treat our cause as an 'argument' and make our main approach 'proofs,' we will garner the same result conservatives always do: we'll be right, and we'll lose.

Of course there are prudential reasons to want a white nation, but they are not the reasons people will actually be moved to put themselves on the line to get that white nation. Only our supermodel cause will do that. Just as a beautiful woman fills you with lust to fuck her, so the awesome idea of a supermodel world without polluting niggers, graffiting mexicans, and swindling jews makes us horny with political lust. Sell the sizzle, not the steak. Conservative Hefners keep using X-rays for centerfolds and wondering why their mags never move off the newsstand.

Our cause? Despite the dreary repetitions of Strom and Duke, is not a beautiful, holy, or noble thing. God couldn't give a shit. Nature is just as shit bereft. Our cause is a FUCKING PREFERENCE. And what WN leaders don't grasp is THAT is precisely it's strength. They always imagine it's a weakness, because christ-insanity has put in all of us that we must never have the audacity to consult our merest velleity for guidance, but must always defer and refer to some higher authority.

We want a White world. Yes. All of us. But why? Because we do. There is no finer argument. If we have to 'argue' why a why white world is better...we've already lost. It's either self-evident or nothing.

And everybody knows that. It's purely a matter of overcoming the fear to fight for the preferred existence. If there's enough brave leadership, I believe there will prove to be sufficient and sufficiently brave followership to accomplish the goal.

It would be better to assume a purely evolutionary approach and quit using culture or tradition as an argument for an all-White nation. Not all white people share the same culture/traditions and some of those cultures do not stick to any form of racial purity. The whole justification brings in a lot of gray area that none of us could solve in a million years of debate.

Still of the realm of making arguments, and evolution is even weaker than crime data. Who cares? No one, really. It's interesting, but it's not going to move anybody.

If the Aryan is a superior being to non-whites and Jews, then the evolutionary scenario of humanity will play itself out to show that. If Aryans choose to debase themselves by fraternizing with non-whites and Jews and sexual deviants, they do so at their own genetic detriment. Those who don't will succeed in the long-term. No government or mass media can ultimately change that, however much the current versions play a part in propagating miscegenation and white self-hate.

Winners don't think like that. It's fatalism, and its for Catholic quietists, not potential Aryan activists. What you're saying is true to limited extent, but it makes a great deal of difference whether there are 10m hardcore Whites in a cramped, unsovereign corner, or there are 150m hardcores spread out sovereign over a rewon North American continent. The difference could well be political leadership. Take a cue from the winners: the jews. Do they sit back and let nature take its course? Hell no. They push the mixing propaganda around the clock. We should fight back around the clock, with every means at our disposal.

None of us can force white people to accept something "for their own good" either by brow-beating or violence. We can however counter the dysgenic propaganda and social engineering by pointing out the conspirators (the Anglo-Jew establishment) and providing a reasonable, dispassionate alternative.

We ought to be thinking as big as possible, while of course acting as small as possible as well. Doing whatever we can in our personal lives while also keeping the biggest picture in mind, and planning out a White future, and looking to bring it about politically. Of course we can't change everything right now, but some point in the future what we do today could turn out to have mattered hugely.

[Maxfield Parrish]

Maxfield Parrish: "...should we then have "no association" with those white-advocates who associate with Jews - as Jared Taylor does? Should Counter-Currents, which promotes Jared Taylor on its website, stop doing so?"

Greg Johnson: "Organizationally, Taylor mixes with Jews, but I exclude them from all my functions and publications. There are firewalls and airlocks within our network to prevent Jewish penetration to any space where serious thinking and discussions take place."

Mr. Johnson: You have smoothly attempted to evade my question. I'll ask it for a second time - Should WN's break-off their association with other white-advocates who ally themselves with Jews (i.e. Jared Taylor)?

In the quote above, you disingenuously state that you "exclude them" (Jews) but that does not answer my question; do you exclude those who associate and ally themselves with Jews? In short, do you exclude Jared Taylor, who knowingly fraternizes with Jews?

As far as your methaphorical "firewalls" and "airlocks" are concerned, they are useless if individuals like Jared Taylor are permitted free entrance through them, and then allowed to return to their Jewish compatriots where nothing exists to stop them from telling about everything they have seen and heard.

And if you associate with Jew-allied white-advocates like Jared Taylor (which appears to be the case) then what other breaches of WN protocol do you possibly violate?