|
May 25th, 2010 | #41 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Quote:
Quote:
I love how this "legal" immigrant from Moldova put "Dr." in quotation marks.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
||
May 25th, 2010 | #42 |
Administrator
|
Taylor, among his other flaws, is a hypocrite. He claims he takes no position on jews, but in fact he is pro-jew. Whenever jewish and White interests collide, he takes the jewish side. You are not allowed to criticize jews, who he lies are White, but jews are allowed to attack WN. Taylor is running a White NAACP. All credit to E. Michael Jones for pointing that out.
|
May 25th, 2010 | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Quote:
How do we clearly distinguish ourselves from conservatives when most of us agree with them on everything except two issues?
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
|
May 25th, 2010 | #44 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
This begins verbally. We dictate terms, literal terms, whereas they accept terms. |
|
May 25th, 2010 | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Alex: Would it be fair to say that your differences with the paleocons are more tactical than they are ideological?
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
May 25th, 2010 | #46 |
Administrator
|
All this is theoretical at this stage. The difference between White and conservative is not so much in ideas, as both are reality-based philosophies, as in the difference between believing something and fighting it. We both believe the same things, but only the WN will literally fight for it.
As Hitler said, "It is not enough that you believe, you must fight." (I believe that is the accurate quotation, might be slightly off.) |
May 25th, 2010 | #48 |
Administrator
|
Paleoconservatives are Percy Pagewitties. The internet is their career-girls night out.
It's difficult exactly to trace the source of this, but it is a mix of personal-psychological and British/Christian cultural. It literally never occurs to this type that some people actually mean what they say. Hence, Vdare would always contact me and ask if I wanted to meet at AmRen. And I would respond, have you seen what I've written about Taylor and AmRen? It literally never occurs to British-Christian-paleocon types that someone actually means what he says and would act on it. Their world is self-promotion, charades and hypocrisy. That's why I really don't believe any WN coming out of an Anglo mold can change anything. I studied in Germany, and it's different over there. It's less PERSONAL, more ideological and committed. They will actually act on what they believe, whereas in British culture, it's just a bunch of bs, and at the end of the day, we're on the same side, and no one really believes anything he says when the red light (tv camera) is on. The only thing Anglo culture is serious about is MONEY. MONEY is the god of the Englishman, which is why he's so compatible with the jew. To grow WN into something real requires abandoning the British model of politics. It means making distinctions and holding to them. It requires verbal warfare. It requires not merely being accurate in analysis, but in defining the enemy, and being vicious, cold, hostile toward him, as much as he is to us. All these are but necessary precursors to actual physical animal fights to control territory. Without marrow-deep appeals to primitive emotion, it is impossible to gin up the fighting spirits to make a fight even possible, let alone winnable. Most of those who call themselves WN do not understand this. They think WN is just conservatism plus the missing element of race. I used to think this myself. It is not so. WN is an entirely different mental outlook and behavioral approach. That many of the intellectual arguments are similar is merely a testament to physical reality, not a sign that those making the arguments are birds of a feather. It's quite impersonal - that's the difference between the British approach and my approach, which is basically an American variation on the German approach. You can see in my critics that they cannot grasp the mindset. Bardamu can't even conceptualize that I don't feel any pain because some queer Brownskirt Johnson doesn't like me, or some jew-tool doesn't want me at his conference, or some oneline gathering of Fairyfolk sniffs at me. Last edited by Alex Linder; May 25th, 2010 at 02:00 PM. |
May 25th, 2010 | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
|
I.A. "I have nothing against radicalism"- radical simply means fundamental, as going to the root of things.
|
May 25th, 2010 | #50 |
Administrator
|
Labels are for enemies. WN isn't even a good term, it's just necessarily redundantish, to emphasize we think race is important and we're White. No point in getting caught up in whether we're radical, revolutionaries or whatever. We see the problems, we know the world we want to live in, we posit necessary changes.
|
May 25th, 2010 | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
I've been giving it some thought lately because I'm not sure how to present myself to others. Am I a real conservative as opposed to the "fake" ones in power? What am I supposed to say when someone calls me a conservative -- "no, I'm not a conservative because conservatives kiss brown and jewish ass and I'm against that"?
The irony is that every leftist/liberal I meet already assumes that every conservative/Republican is "racist" and anti-jewish. Conservatives get into power by implying that they share the concerns of the angry white males who vote for them but they do almost nothing to deal with those concerns once elected. Look at the conservative Harper government in Canada -- has it done anything since it came into power several years ago to get rid of gun control and hate speech laws as the Canadians who voted for it would've liked it to? Not that I can tell. About all it's done is kiss the asses of jewish voters using taxpayer funds to do it. And despite this, the left still calls them nazis! I guess people vote for these clowns because they're the only game in town. Today's right wing would've been considered centrist 60 years ago. So what are we, exactly? Are we a more honest or a radical form of conservatism, or a different animal altogether?
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
May 25th, 2010 | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
I disagree. The first step to distinguishing ourselves from others is by the name we give to ourselves. We don't exist if we don't have a name.
I guess WN will have to do.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
May 25th, 2010 | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Quote:
Whether this is a strictly British thing, I don't know. I don't know what Germans are like, but I know firsthand that the French are very much like this as well. One parent French and the other Franco-Swiss and I was raised to value money and public image more than principles. It seems like more of a feminized mindset to me than one that's particular to any nationality/culture.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
|
May 25th, 2010 | #54 | ||||
Administrator
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
None of these approaches - playing along with illiberal conceits, simply ignoring race, or modest, rational defense of 'racism' can bring about the changes we need. Only primitive emotional appeals can work. The real differences that matters is whether one is willing to try to win, or whether one is content to remonstrate and lose. The conservatives, in functional terms, are those who have made peace with losing. Those who have decided to win, to actually contest with the jews for power, could call themselves whatever they want - conservatives, racists, radicals, the essential thing is not the name but the willingness to fight for victory. |
||||
May 25th, 2010 | #55 |
Administrator
|
In actual practice what you see is that people try to have it both ways. Sam Francis is the perfect example. He tried to be both a revolutionary and a conservative. It is not possible, and he knew that. It is simply a marketing ploy.
You can't say that jews are the main problem, and then fraternize with them, and with those who don't even admit they're part of the problem. But that is just what the Francis school does. Then it's surprised when it reaps the same results it always has. |
May 25th, 2010 | #56 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
It's the Forrest Gump thing: White is as White does. If someone calls himself a white nationalist but sucks up to jews or their fronts, then it aint white, or us, or anything I would ever support in any way. This is such a basic thing that it amazes me that it has to be pointed out. But obviously, most so-called WN either do not understand what I'm saying, or disagree with it. Anyone truly serious about leading Whites to a different future than the rulers intend for us would begin by declaring jews enemy #1 and then ACTING LIKE HE MEANT IT. There is no real WN in America, just those styling themselves as such. Their behavior shows they are functional conservatives. Professional conservatism, as represented by Fox News, the radio blowhards, the Republican Party, and Pat Buchanan has much money and power. If they aren't doing the job, and if we need to attract the white men in their audience to a different and better way, then offering something truly different from what they offer is where to begin. Mixing with them, supporting them with money, attention, and praise, is not the way to do that. |
|
May 25th, 2010 | #57 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
|
|
May 25th, 2010 | #58 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
WN in America can't even draw a verbal line in the sand, let alone a real one. Simple friend/enemy distinctions are beyond it. Anyone who tries to maintain a party line, or a principle, is attacked as a purist obsessed with jews. They dress this failure of nerve up as pragmatism, and pat themselves for their cleverness. These holy Impuritans are taking the "high road" of making controlled rational appeals. God forbid they listen to someone's who's actually tried the thing and succeeded at it. He did it by appealing not to the masses reason, but to their primitive emotions. There is nothing these high-IQ fools fear and loath more than raw, marrow-based love and hate, which is the only thing that can move men to resist oppressors as entrenched as ours today. |
|
May 25th, 2010 | #59 |
Administrator
|
p. 185) [Hitler] "The mass, the people, to me is a woman" [...] "Someone who does not understand the intrinsically feminine character of the mass will never be an effective speaker. Ask yourself what does a woman expect from a man? Clearness, decision, power, action...
|
May 25th, 2010 | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
|
This matter of appeasement and being nice needs to be kept on the front burner. Example, going to church. The whole thing may be appeasement- ass kissing.
I was in a Home Depot and couldn't find what I wanted, so I asked the clerk if they have maps (The kind that say YOU ARE HERE). The clerk replied "what are you looking for?" I responded, icily "THAT'Z NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU". See what I did? I blocked him from controlling me. The price paid was a slight increase in social friction. Those increasing the social friction are expected to feel guilty! My 89 year old father is a typical conservative. He claims to be totally in favor of free enterprise. Yet, when my mother was dying in '92, he said "health care is a right." Now he screams about rotten Obama being a socialist. Conservatives believe in free enterprise and socialism, screw the contradiction. This is conservatism: The Titianic is sinking. Mr. Conservative puts on his best formal wear, gets a glass of brandy and a fine cigar, and exclaims "well, if this is inevitable let's make the most of it." |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|