Matt Parrott, AmRen Censorship, CMS Gatekeeping

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Hadding

I know about you Jimmy Marr. You're a drinking man who converted to Islam and then didn't give up drinking. I don't believe that your commitment to Covington has been any more serious than that.

As a matter of fact, you even compared Covington to Islam (here). You have tried to make use of both of them without really believing in either.

"I don’t care if Covington is a liar."
- Jimmy Marr (Majority Rights, 16 December 2010)

With people that support Harold Covington, unless they are neophytes and very poorly informed, it always comes down to that. A Covingtonista can only be somebody that is not troubled by rampant lying.

I will grant that you distinguish yourself among the Covingtonistas, Jimmy Marr, by saying that Covington's lying about other racialists has not been a good thing. (Other Covingtonistas like Robertek think that Covington's lying about Klassen, Pierce, et al. was just fine, and we saw Joe Cooper here also insinuating that it was justified.) But I don't think that lying about the Jews or non-Whites is really a good idea either. The truth is our friend. Our credibility is our best weapon. Our own conviction that we represent truth is the basis of our morale. All of that evaporates if we accept the notion that lying is a good strategy, or that a noteworthy liar can be one of us.

Hadding, you are like a tool with one specialized use.

The point you can't seem to see is that when it comes to liars like Covington, there's no such thing as bad publicity. In other words, all mention helps them. By that standard, you are not merely the biggest HAC promoter on VNNF, you are basically the only HAC promoter.

Which is not to disaparage your fine and effortful work documenting the liar's multitudinous lines.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Hadding, you are like a tool with one specialized use.

The point you can't seem to see is that when it comes to liars like Covington, there's no such thing as bad publicity. In other words, all mention helps them. By that standard, you are not merely the biggest HAC promoter on VNNF, you are basically the only HAC promoter.

Which is not to disaparage your fine and effortful work documenting the liar's multitudinous lines.

Had Jimmy Marr not said "Harold Covington" and "Hadding" in the same post, there would have been no response from me about Jimmy Marr's relationship to Covington.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr

Excellent. We're still very much on topic with the original post.

The topic of the swastika's utility was the initial point of contention, a year or two ago, between Matt Parrott and me. While it wasn't justifiable to classify him as a philo-Semite merely because he objected to the association of the swastika with White Nationalism, I think that has proven to be largely true over the long term, and I am pleased to have made a note of that tendency for future reference when similar situations develop with other activists.

The swastika can't be falsified into pro-jew, but it can be worn falsely by jews (see Frank Collins), and it is also associated with Nazism. I don't wear a swastika because I'm not a Nazi. There's also the problem that most people, including most declared Nazis, do not understand what Nazism is. I'd include myself among that number. The reason for this is that a very good deal of bad or misleading information out there hides what NS actually is. I've tried to clear this up lower down on the forum.

It's complicated by the fact that the junkmedia call anyone who criticizes jews, much less those, like me, who make a main point of it, "Nazis," even if those people, like me, aren't Nazis.

I don't agree with an all-powerful central state. I support, as I've written lower on forum, in a monofunctional overstate focused on defending the race, defined as broadly as needed. Beneath that racial umbrella, I believe in decentralization. Hitler did most emphatically NOT believe in decentralization.

Just as jews routinely mislabel me a Nazi, WN enemies routinely mislabel me a libertarian.

I don't know what to do other than simply continue to make the case for the arrangment I think best. I don't have a cool symbol. Personally I don't like jewelry and symbols of any sort. Of course one is needed at some point, but that point is not now. What is needed, so far as WN put forward a positive vision, rather than a critique of AmeriKwa, a ZOG production, is, in my opinion, is to stress that our solution is the only one in which you have the independence that befits a white MAN, and you can exercise your whitemaniacal creativity and intelligence in the WHITE context most suited to its flourishing. Imagine a country in which you could be both WHITE and a MAN. Under ZOG, you can be neither WHITE nor a MAN. Under NS you can be WHITE but not a man. Under libertarianism you can be a MAN but not WHITE. I want to be both WHITE and a MAN, and I think about half of WN feel the same way I do; the rest are either outright NS or social-democrats (European type) or welfare-statists (American type). Men can agree that we need all-White nations without agreeing on the scope and role of the government within that all-White nation. This is fairly obvious, that there's no agreement on the deeper how-we-live-together stuff, that there's a basic split, but it gets confused because so many WN come from conservatism and essentially just add race to their politics. Leading outsiders and insiders alike to think that WN is just another petty party political option on the democratic-electoral menu rather than a fundamentally different and all-orienting worldview. Which is why I've insisted against all others, basically, that our practical political goal in this period ought to be attacking conservatives and replacing them in the eyes of the people rather than mixing with them and trying to influence them as MacDonald and James Edwards do. My view is that altho KM and Edwards call themselves (as far as I know) White Nationalists, or at least don't mind being called that, they are better viewed as implicit conservatives (IC). Because functionally that's just what they are - conservatives. Their mindset is defending/appealing, not attacking and attracting. While many of the ICs' positions overlap with WN/NS, the mindset is completely different. I see them as simply repeating failure patterns of the past without ever putting any conscious thought to why the Lindbergh on their party actually failed.

Back to my own view, WhiteMania, WhiteManistand, whatever you want to call it... In the setup I describe, no one is free to question or undermine the racial basis of the state - if they don't agree to it, they leave. If they feel they can only be men by living amud third worlders, they have either fought to prevent the birth of our new state, been killed, or fled abroad. If any of these are left after Whites take power, they will be dealt with in one way or another, but in no way will anyone ideologically opposed to the racial basis of the new states be allowed to remain within it. Race is NOT a matter that can be compromised, but it IS a matter worth killing over. The same goes for Catholics, or other goddists. If their religious weltanschauung demands race mixing, or race-neutralism at all levels, and they are actively going to teach and incite on that demand, then they too will be forced out of the new state. If they can live within the confines of the new founding on an explicit racial basis, then perhaps they can set up a neo-Maryland microstate for their type beneath the umbrella. But it must be absolutely clear that absolutely no political opposition to the basis of the new state will be tolerated. And if it is discovered, the leaders will be executed and the followers expelled or executed. Call it sicut catholicus non.

Beneath that federal level -- the collective racial defense umbrella -- white MEN may group themselves as they like, and build such subcommunities as they see fit. They could be welfare-statists, they could be libertarians. They could be 1001 other things I can't imagine. But they will be responsible for building their own intermediate institutions if they feel they need them. In this way their freedom, honor, need to assume responsibility and manliness are preserved. The central state provides the drainage - keeping anti-White shit on the other side of the borders and out of the streets. The dreams are the responsibility of the men themselves.

To me, what I describe is both possible and desirable. I fancy it is hard where needs hard, and loose where needs freedom. It takes into account both racial laws AND economic laws. For the great truth of our time, which has not yet been realized in minds and matter, is that the state is outmoded for nearly all, if not all, purposes. That means the state is the worst way of accomplishing almost any given task. I recommend WN take some time to educate themselves in the LIMITS of politics (read Burke, Kirk, and other classic conservative thinkers) and get up to speed on the latest triumphs made through private, voluntary arrangements (read lewrockwell.com). And then you've got VNNF for tying it all together through the insights of the best racialists on the 'net. Or at least a few dozen good smart white men on the same page seeking the same basic thing.

One counter view to mine is that genuine National Socialism has all the answers any white men need (adapted to their particular nation and circumstances), and we should simply don the swastika with pride and make our way forward.

I don't agree with that view, which I take to be the view of NSM, but it is psychologically right and strong, whereas the whining, remonstrating, complaining approach of, for example, the A3P ICs is psychologically wrong and weak - mere conservatism with a racial veneer.

That sums up my position. I don't wear swastika because I'm not a National Socialist. If I were a NS, I would wear it. I'm not NS because I don't believe the government should be running White men like children. I don't believe White men need public schools, socialized health care, or anything but collective racial defense out of their central government.

[Joe Cooper]

Originally Posted by Hadding

How about you just die. Your comments are unworthy of being addressed.

I have no idea why you take this shit so seriously.

Aha, you were too good for this forum but you were able to remember your password for 3½ years without logging in, most likely because it's same password as for your 20 other usernames. Covington tells his minions to make up usernames and passwords that are easy to remember. You done good.

I'm no one's follower. I wasn't 'too good' for this forum, I just didn't want to put up with people like you just so I could speak my mind.

When I went to sign up this time, the site said I already had an account.

There was a link that sent me an email giving me my user name and, if I remember correctly, led me to another link that allowed me to set up a new password.

So I didn't remember my password or username from 3 and half years ago.

Why is this fork-tongued Covington-defender tolerated here while Will Williams is banned?

I haven't lied about anything and I've made it clear that I'm not defending Covington.

This is a fucking forum on the internet, for Crissake. Get a life.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Hadding

Had Jimmy Marr not said "Harold Covington" and "Hadding" in the same post, there would have been no response from me about Jimmy Marr's relationship to Covington.

Do what you gotta do. I'm just telling you how I see it.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

It's complicated by the fact that the junkmedia call anyone who criticizes jews, much less those, like me, who make a main point of it, "Nazis," even if those people, like me, aren't Nazis.

The ideas associated most strongly with national-socialism today (other than the Holohoax) are American ideas. Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, eugenic sterilization. (Actually though, gassing people is also an American idea. No European state did that.) National-Socialists were not the only people in the world that believed in racial inequality before 1945. The idea of relocating an entire population to solve a racial conflict may have been pioneered by Andrew Jackson.

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

I don't wear swastika because I'm not a National Socialist. If I were a NS, I would wear it.

You think that if somebody like Hitler appeared in the 21st century USA he would use the swastika? I seriously doubt it.

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

I'm not NS because I don't believe the government should be running White men like children. I don't believe White men need public schools, socialized health care, or anything but collective racial defense out of their central government.

This is economic naiveté combined with the residue of a kneejerk reaction to the fact that social programs in the USA disproportionately benefit non-Whites.

The Northern European nations today all take care of their populations. If you combine that caretaking with racial hygiene and compulsory military service it makes a strong nation.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Joe Cooper

I haven't lied about anything and I've made it clear that I'm not defending Covington.

You never "made it clear" but you did claim it repeatedly, then proceeded to make excuses for the man that you claimed you were "not defending."

Everybody does it was your principal argument.

It's really boring that you keep claiming that you don't do what you obviously do do.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Hadding

The ideas associated most strongly with national-socialism today (other than the Holohoax) are American ideas. Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, eugenic sterilization. (Actually though, gassing people is also an American idea. No European state did that.) Germans were not the only people in the world that believed in racial equality before 1945. The idea of relocating an entire population to solve a racial conflict may have been pioneered by Andrew Jackson.

'Nazi' as used in the big media means one thing: evil. It means race and terror directed against jews, but bad for all concerned. It's no more precise than a bomb, and used the same way: to destroy anyone the judeo-left considers an enemy.

You think that if somebody like Hitler appeared in the 21st century USA he would use the swastika? I seriously doubt it.

Certainly he would, if he were National Socialist. Hitler would laugh at the weakness and the dullness of those who imagine you can evade jewry's arrows by clothing yourself in the latest new name. He would recognize that no matter what you call yourself, the media will blast you as racist Nazis. So why not go with an ancient honorable Aryan symbol unless you have something better, which you don't? Symbols should be chosen for positive reasons, not for defensive, calculating reasons. Deception, lying and the black stuff is for tactics, not basic strategy and symbols. Those go right down the center of the street. Would the jews throw away the Star of David, or the Christian the cross? Hell, no. Neither would the National Socialist the swastika.

This is economic naiveté combined with the residue of a kneejerk reaction to the fact that social programs in the USA disproportionately benefit non-Whites.

Quite wrong. This is an area in which I actually do have quite a bit of knowledge, unlike most 'NS,' ICs and WN.

The Northern European nations today all take care of their populations. If you combine that caretaking with racial hygiene and compulsory military service it makes a strong nation.

I'll not be bossed around by the likes of you or any Nazi, Hadding, any more than I will by jews, Anglomaniacs or Catholics. I am willing to kill your kind to prevent you from recreating a high-tax state of subsidized defectives - white niggers. Either you accept the deal that you have a substate for people who think like you do, or you will have to find a way to defeat the people who think like I do. And that's the beauty of my system. Welfare-statists like you are free to go your own way beneath the racial umbrella.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

I'll not be bossed around by the likes of you or any Nazi, Hadding, any more than I will by jews Anglomaniacs or Catholics. I am willing to kill your kind to prevent you from recreating a high-tax state of subsidized defectives - white niggers. Either you accept the deal that you have a substate for people who think like you do, or you will have to find a way to defeat the people who think like I do. And that's the beauty of my system. Welfare-statists like you are free to go your own way beneath the racial umbrella.

Yeah right, you and Mel Gibson. They can't take your freedom.

Get a copy of The Dynamics of War and Revolution by Lawrence Dennis and read it, or The Coming American Fascism which is free online but less concise.

The welfare state is a sine qua non of National-Socialism. It's an inevitable adjustment, the alternative being class-conflict and instability within your all-White society. Class-conflict means a fault-line within the race.

The political faction that rejects economic regulation and the welfare state must inevitably lose, because they will not be offering a workable system.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Greg Johnson

Surely this is why it is the graffito of choice of Rabbis and other hate crime hoaxers.

Well then adopt the copyright symbol. Jews are physically unable to make it, so people will know it's us. Or maybe the smiley face. It says, "Hey! I'm your friend!" Jews can spray a hair-hang and toothbrush stache on it, to be sure, but I think our fundamental friendly supportiveness will come through to the whiteskins we're trying to reach.

No symbol more reliably rallies and unifies anti-whites against us.

Planted axioms:
1) that our cause must sneak through under radar
2) that our cause can sneak through under radar
3) that any symbol we used wouldn't come under fire as intense as that directed at swastika if we made any substantial progress.

It is a pity that it produces no such unity among the whites we hope to rally to our side.

Nor does any other symbol. The swastika is for NS, not Whites, necessarily. The swastika is the only White symbol associated with power and defeat of the jews, even if it was a partial and limited victory. The potential of the swastika bears consideration, since in the past it has rallied men to do something akin to today's task.

But by all means, if you are most concerned with establishing your anti-Jew credentials, then "Die Fahne hoch"!

NS use the swastika because it's their symbol. What the jews make of it can't be helped. I don't use the swastika for one reason: I'm not NS. If I were NS, I would certainly use it. What jews think about it would be the last consideration. You're thinking like the cowardly conservatives your more and more associate with these days, and it's coloring your thought.

"What new punch should I pull to increase my market share another percent?"

Real National Socialism is the gold standard of racial loyalty.

No, it isn't.

But any fool can wear a swastika, so it hardly functions as a reliable "anti-kosher" certification symbol.

Any fool can wear anything. We're presuming quality people making a serious decision. Whether those today wearing the swastika in public are worthy is a different subject. I say anyone who's NS should wear the symbol, but anyone who isn't should not.

I'm open to any arguments someone puts forward:

a) Whites/WN don't need a symbol
b) swastika is only symbol Whites can rally behind

For me, I have my own view, which is not NS, and I'll stick to advocating that.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Joe Cooper

When I read your stuff, you sound like you support the basic NS model of things and understand that these guys are compromising from the get-go, but then you're not NS. That's what I was asking you to clarify.

You wouldn't have misconceptions if you didn't assume in the first place. Go read the strategy section. I have two main threads on my views, and have made comments on the other strategies.

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

Dubious and irrelevant.

WN worldview: White people who want the 1950's back and think the Jews are a superior ethnic group to whites.

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

The second worldview is full of compromise. What are "white people"?

People who look and act white and aren't jews. It's a functional definition, and all we need until we take power.

How the hell are we going to get the 1950's back from this mess? And why do we think the Jews are superior to us? If a cancerous tumor kills it's host, we don't consider it to be a better host.

You've created a straw man and are now bashing it. I'm sure it's fun, but it's your private thing and has nothing to do with me or other WN who don't fit your definition. Better you should ask Jared Taylor and others who actually fit your definition.

Can someone just a agree with you?

Depends. I prefer intelligent disagreement or compliments from enemies who grasp what I mean to praise from people who don't.

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

What has that got to do with anything?

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

Someone who takes their religion seriously and fights against the conformity to the age is going to be led to the source of the problem being the Jew.

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

I don't think they need to be outwardly racist in order to fight with us. We also don't need to be bashing them the same way the Marxists do. I hear the same arguments here that I've heard from the anti-racists, just with the word "Jew" mentioned more often here and in the opposite context.

We should bash them. They are competitors, not allies. They preach a worldview distinctly at odds from ours, and in fact they hate NS or WN more than marxism for reasons I've described elsewhere.

Hitler was not only inspired by Christian antisemitism, he regularly used it to his political advantage. If he had denied Christianity openly like you are doing, he would have never made it in 1930's Germany.

That's a very debatable proposition, but in any case we are not in 1930s Germany; the church's overt politics are incredibly anti-White on everything but personal sexual morals. The church is our enemy. We can fight it, or we can pretend we're on the same side. Hitler, as history showed, was too soft on the church, and he paid for it. The christians undermined him his entire regime.

It is part of what defined him as an anti-communist even though he was a socialist. Christianity has not always been such a weak link in the political chain. He took the racial point of view to avoid the Protestant/Catholic split in Germany because he saw the failure of Bismark's kulturkampf.

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

Yea, I think using some more effective propaganda such as pussy sans negroes would be a good idea.

This is almost funny. This is about the third time you've tried and failed to understand my point, which really isn't very difficult.

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

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

But, no, I don't think we should just write off anyone who has some moral sensibilities just because they are not unequivocally racial.

Arguing against a position that wasn't argued = strawman fallacy.

I realize that this is a response to Aryan=Christian in the middle ages,

It isn't. Quit assuming. So far you've been wrong every time.

but as an aside... if you take out the conversion and salvation part, then you have the policy of every institution in America. It's Microsoft's official position. Can a guy working at Microsoft be a radical racist?

This is confusion. Organizational form has nothing to do with race or politics and everything to do with the purpose the men creating the organization propose to achieve.

What I don't get Linder is anyone who takes your position, unless they are at the forefront of racial politics,

You think the leaders are at less risk than the followers? That's your catholic coming out - wimpy passive-aggression.

will lose everything they have just to meet your standards. Their families will disown them. Their wife and kids will disappear. No one will hire them. They'll probably find themselves in and out of jail. Who are we trying to recruit?

More strawman. We're talking about what people believe. It's a separate question what they should or can do, once they are 'correct' ideologically. And of course that will depend on a number of circumstantial factors.

I think underneath it all, we are motivated by our instincts much more than our convictions. That's why I liked your idea. However, I'd just rather by-pass their hypocrisies rather than try to fix them by insult. Christians love persecution. It's in the Bible.

That's why they love communism but hate racialism. Communism merely kills and oppresses them (yay! I get to be martyred just like jebus!), whereas racialism makes them obsolete. We should attack the church, just as the winning jews do, but in a White way and for White reasons. Making common cause with the church, or papering over differences, will hurt our racial cause, as history shows.

I'll do some searching. This is just a suggestion, but if it isn't in your "Solution" forum, could you put it there?

Read every sticky thread in the Strategy subforum, starting with my two.

This was really disappointing when I first came to your site. You have the problem and the solution and the solution just looked like more shit about the problem.

It's under "The Strategy" where the solution can be contrasted with other approaches.

I would probably add "swagger" to the list of words that white men shouldn't use.

Why? It's a valid word, conveys a clear meaning, isn't obviously replaceable by any other in making the same point. The opposition I see and describe is remonstrating vs swaggering. Conservatives remonstrate. Racialists should swagger.

Well, how I understood you is that you think we should just say we are right because a white world is what we prefer. It's what we want and that's it. We don't need to give a long list of good reasons, even though there are plenty.

The reasons are all there, just as a guy trying to sell a pickup or a barbecue grill has a sheet listing all the statistics, but what sells the cause is the impressionistic stuff, the vision, the idea and idea. Not the details. They sign up because they think we can actually deliver something awesome, something any normal white man can see is worth having.

I think it's an odd position for someone who owns a discussion forum to take. I mean, what's there to discuss?

What's to discuss is the most effective way for Whites to defend themselves and advance their cause, as we are here.

And I don't see it as either/or. I think we need to be both badass and right.

Well, it's obvious we're right. But the need to be badass seems unmannerly to the ICs who've always defined us.

I think a lot of this has to do with money or the lack thereof. How do we set up a revolution without money? Why would anyone want this revolution if it isn't to anyone's economic advantage? Not many think a white revolution would be to their economic advantage or we would see a lot more funds flowing into the movement. Even NS Germany was primarily motivated by economic stability and growth.

Too much to go into here. Radicals get money once they appear to have a real possibility to win. Before that, the money goes from the responsible middle class to the 501c3 conservative pretenders.

I think it's the real reason Amren is the way it is. Money is involved. My experience with the a3p wasn't too different. I just think they are going for the wrong people and it's because they are essentially conservative. Soccer mom's and old men aren't going to revolt.

That's right. A3P, because of the guys running it, follows the conservative model. That model works for fundraising, but not for fundamental political change.

As far as I feel out about it personally, I've been a writer for most of my life. I'm not great but I'm decent. These are my convictions, but writing has never afforded me a living. So I think it makes perfect sense to look for a way to put those things-- money, conviction and talent-- together.

You're conflating different things. WN isn't going to have the money to subsidize writers and politicians until it builds successful organizations. And it won't have successful organizations until it figures out how to prevent the government from smashing them.

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

[Alex Linder]

Christianity says it's immoral to treat men categorically rather than individually, but treating men categorically is the only way to defend the white race.

That's the fundamental opposition that never goes away, despite the political views of the christian. It is why the christ cult is intrinsically anti-White and cannot change.

Exterminating the jews will always be immoral by christian doctrine, yet merely warning jews or expelling them don't work. In time they always come back and start up the same old thing. They can no more change their nature than cockroaches. After 2,000 years of readmitting jews to Christian countries, they now control every single white western nation and the catholic church as well. With that in mind, when you hear any man say that the church is our friend, can be our friend, or that religious views don't matter, you are listening to an idiot whose claims are objectively wrong.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Hadding

Yeah right, you and Mel Gibson. They can't take your freedom.

Get a copy of The Dynamics of War and Revolution by Lawrence Dennis and read it, or The Coming American Fascism which is free online but less concise.

The welfare state is a sine qua non of National-Socialism. It's an inevitable adjustment, the alternative being class-conflict and instability within your all-White society. Class-conflict means a fault-line within the race.

That may be or that may not be, but it doesn't concern me because I'm not an NS.

The political faction that rejects economic regulation and the welfare state must inevitably lose, because they will not be offering a workable system.

Your view is limited, to say the least. White men don't need taking care of, they need left alone. American history proves that. It was the rise of the state, and its noxious 'public education' that killed off what was good here.

As for class conflict, there's always some, but that's merely because men fall into different classes naturally, and no political system can change that. It's ironic that a nazi can't see that. And that conflict isn't necessarily society-crushing either. For the most part it resolves in people sticking with their own and sniffing at their inferiors or superiors, as working-class and upper-middle-class do today. As long as there's movement for talent, there's no real problem.

I can see the appeal of Nazism to you, but more and better White men will agree with me, at least in America.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle

He brags about reading 10,000 books in college (I think he said that). About seven a day over four years.

And who would believe that?

10,000 opinions, all equal. Some eggheads think "studying reality" means "reading books". One can observe and think. Reality exists independent of books. There is only one reality. If one understands that, one does not change one's views at the drop of a hat.

Go back and forth from observation, reading, experience. It's not too hard to perceive what's going on, in most cases.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

As for class conflict, there's always some, but that's merely because men fall into different classes naturally, and no political system can change that. It's ironic that a nazi can't see that.

I think your view of real N-S ideology is rather distorted. It was not a dog-eat-dog attitude toward one's folk-comrade. That attitude belongs to conservatism (so called).

Class-conflict fueled by massive unemployment to the point that it poses a danger to the social order is not a constant throughout history. This is a phenomenon of late capitalism.

I guess you don't know this, but capitalism has a self-destructive tendency inherent in it. The self-destruction is based on the fact that capitalism finds ways to produce more and more goods with less and less money spent on workers. The final result is lots of cheap goods concurrent with lots of unemployed people (Great Depression, and today).

If you read Dennis you would learn that this tendency has been exacerbated since the end of the 19th century by the loss of new territories for exploration and colonization. The circumstances under which free market economics seemed to work just fine for 300 years don't exist anymore.

The faction that understands this and can offer appropriate solutions (e.g. public works projects, protective tariffs) will have a huge advantage in gaining public support over the faction that wants to keep doing Reaganomics while millions of people are unemployed.

[Rick Ronsavelle]

[Alex Linder]

Posted by Greg Johnson on August 29, 2011, 06:43 PM | #

MOB,

I take it you don’t like me. I don’t like you either. Never have. There is something jaundiced, non-objective, and pushy about your personality. Life is too short, and our work is too long, for me to suffer you. So be it. Let’s just accept all that as read, and move on.

Do you realize how ridiculous you look to say that you have stopped writing, donating, promoting etc. because you heard that our movement contains CMS, a would-be elite membership group? How does that follow? What is your beef, exactly? That they are elitist? That they are not elitist enough? That they are secretive? That you are excluded? (You dodged a bullet there, as I have explained.)

Let’s just set aside CMS: It is being run into the ground by clowns. Imagine a secret society that confides its secrets to “Hunter Wallace.” Now that Gardner has hung a bull’s eye on it for the anti-fa hackers of the world, the smart people are leaving anyway. Eventually it will dwindle down to five people in an Atlanta restaurant humoring Sam Dickson as he repeats the same old stories for the umpteenth time.

You seem to think that CMS was about telling the little people to shut up, sit still, and let the professionals handle this. That was certainly never my attitude. I wanted to use CMS to find talented people doing real work for our cause, learn from them, and introduce them to other such people, in the hope that we might foster creative collaboration. I also hoped that we could establish a network, and lines of influence. I hoped that through that influence, we would serve as a counter-weight to the suck of the “mainstream” to soft-pedal race and the Jewish question. The mainstream always pulls to the left. We need a counter-current to pull the other way. We still do.

May I be so bold as to suggest that you do something that will help our case and stick a finger in the eye of the elitists? Help out Michael O’Meara. O’Meara is a brilliant man. He has a Ph.D. in history. He was run out of academia for defending revisionist views. He has supported himself as a blue-collar worker ever since. Even so, he was still quite productive, producing many articles for TOQ, National Vanguard, VNN, etc. as well as his book New Culture, New Right. When I was editor of TOQ, I arranged for CMS to pay him a stipend of $1,000/month so that he could cut back on his blue collar work and devote more time to our cause. The stipend was approved in the Fall of 2008. O’Meara’s productivity was dramatically increased. In the Fall of 2009, the stipend was renewed.

I was fired from TOQ and bounced out of CMS in April of 2010. The reasons were entirely personal. I could no longer work with Sam Dickson. Before I worked with him, he was one of my best friends. When I began working with him, I gradually came to view him with contempt for his calamitous decisions, his calamitous indecision and laziness, and his increasingly unstable, kooky personality. He repaid my contempt with hatred. I suggested that for the good of the cause he step down, and he responded by firing me. But I can live with that. I gave him plenty of cause to hate me. I still am.

The greatest moral obscenity of the whole CMS fiasco was the decision of Sam Dickson and John Gardner to cut off Michael O’Meara’s stipend, without cause, explanation, or notice. They simply stopped sending the checks. O’Meara’s only “crime” was to be my friend. He was entirely unaware of the behind the scenes machinations at CMS.

The loss of his stipend was a catastrophe for O’Meara. He had cut back his hours at his job in the Fall of 2008. In the Spring of 2010, when he asked for them back, they were no longer there: the depression had set in. Since then, O’Meara has been treading water. I also think that the stress and feelings of betrayal have depressed him greatly. He still manages to produce, but on a much-reduced scale. It is tragic. One of our best voices has been almost silenced. And not by our enemies, but by John Gardner and Sam Dickson.

But it gets even worse. At the same time that Gardner and Dickson tossed O’Meara into the gutter, they started paying $1,000/month to “Hunter Wallace” and delivered the secrets of their super-secret elite into his tiny, pudgy hands. The rest is hysteria.

[Alex Linder]

Posted by Greg Johnson on August 29, 2011, 06:47 PM | #

If MOB or anyone else would like to help Michael O’Meara with moral support or a donation, please contact me at [email protected] I will put you in touch with him directly. Rest assured, my dirty rent-seeking hands will not touch one dime.

[Alex Linder]

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on August 29, 2011, 02:04 PM | #

I think the most important strategic question for people who long for glory might be, how can we prevent the productive Whites trapped between the fun and games (writing, broadcasting, publishing, secretmeeting, self-hyping) elites “above” them and the fun and games (eating, drinking, TVing, and f__king) white trash “beneath” them from drifting beyond reach out of sheer boredom?

I don’t think it’s boredom per se. Eventually the “productive” white has to return to really being “productive” and leave the “fun and games” for the next weekend. The strong currents of the Federal Reserve economy sweep them out of reach. The existence of a stable marriage with children accelerates this process rather than retarding it.

My own wife is a good example. She’s instinctively national socialist in outlook. Genetic considerations are second nature to her. But she’s also interested in propagating our own genetic line. Since the reproductive “and f__king” part has been accomplished (except for frequent historical reenactments) this means engaging in other forms of productive activity to sustain the little mouths.

This requires local economic resource. Therefore her patience with non-productive online activities has sharp limits. She is far from an isolated example.

Very quickly the field is abandoned by default to the aged old geezer, the childless homo and the can’t-get-any-girlfriend dweeb. These characters like to consider this event as a “victory” of some kind that indicates their innate intellectual superiority. But in reality this event constitutes a physical rejection by the “productive white people” whose existence is supposedly their entire purpose. And this is before adding the ADL/SPLC/antifa provocateurs, police informers and Aryan Brotherhood members in between incarcerations.

[Alex Linder]

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on August 29, 2011, 10:28 PM | #

Today’s prize for thread surrealism:

May I be so bold as to suggest that you do something that will help our case and stick a finger in the eye of the elitists?

i.e. pay what Greg Johnson claims are Gardner & Dickson’s defaulted moral obligations.

He has supported himself as a blue-collar worker ever since.

The ultimate horror.

Those responding to Greg’s call have an historic opportunity to cover any moral deficiencies of buy ‘n flip speculators Gardner & Dickson. And for the same money they can also help perpetuate the regime deceit that a modern liberal arts Ph.d is something other than the worthless academic bubble diploma mill certificate that it is in reality.

Paper diplomas, stipends, grants, speculative paper money profits from flipping tax deeds and commodities contracts, denigration of manual work… Who the hell needs this pale imitation of the Judeo regime? Seriously. The existing system already does all this. And it does it better.

The non-Movement is stuck in the mud, spinning its wheels and digging itself in deeper every minute.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. --- Friedrich Nietzsche

Posted by Greg Johnson on August 29, 2011, 10:46 PM | #

Dickson was a real-estate speculator, but he is now ruined.

Gardner is a day trader. Not that that makes a moral difference!

Nothing I wrote implied denigration of blue collar work per se. But every hour that O’Meara does that sort of work is an hour stolen from our cause.

Helping O’Meara does nothing to raise the moral standing of Gardner and Dickson.

Nor does it support the regime deceit about the value of higher education.

But XPWA knows all that. He is just dishonest. That is why he goes directly to the spam bucket at Counter-Currents. Elitism begins at home.