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

Old June 18th, 2010 #1
Northwest Reader
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 78
Default Conservative Kurtagic on "Failed" Strategies of the "Right"

Learning from the Right

Alex Kurtagic

June 18, 2010

I read with interest Greg Johnson’s recent article about Douglas Hyde’s Dedication and Leadership, a book where the author — who fed 20 years of his life to the meat-grinder of Communist activism — provided trenchant advise on how best to mobilize the idealism, and inspire the sacrifice, of those seeking to change the world. In bringing Hyde to readers’ attention, Johnson’s aim was to encourage activists on the Right to learn from the winners on the Left. The Right, he argued, has been fighting a losing battle since 1943, to the point where nowadays even so-called “conservatives” are defined by their political enemies. Understanding, therefore, how the Left achieved cultural hegemony during the twentieth century is indispensable if we are to end the Left’s tyranny during the twenty-first.

Learning from the successful strategies of the Left, however, is only part of the ‘homework’. The other part is learning from the failed strategies of the Right. Studying the latter is just as important, because the triumph of the Left is as much a consequence of how egalitarians built their credibility (or at least the illusion of credibility), as the defeat of the Right is a consequence of how elitists squandered theirs. The Left’s early victories were hard fought and hard won, but the Left’s recent victories have been largely by default, possible because they faced virtually no opposition.

And it is this lack of effectiveness that makes it difficult for the Right, and particularly those campaigning on behalf of White ethnic interests, to obtain adequate funding. The populace is for the most part ideologically neutral, so the tendency is for individuals to side with winners, or at least to avoid antagonizing them, because winners confer status and control resources, and it is, therefore, always better to side with the winners. Consciously inegalitarian White folk, on the other hand, largely hang on to their money, even when they would rather invest it in opposing the Left; this can only be because, deep down, they have zero confidence that any donations they make will be used effectively to achieve change. They are conscious of their advocates’ record of failure and sense that if others are withholding their altruism, it must be for good reason.

What are, then, the failed strategies of the Right? Below I enumerate some. And further down I propose alternatives.

Failed Strategies: Arcane or Unbelievable Arguments

Freedom of Speech. When confronted with the Left’s efforts to censor them, many White advocates protest by demanding respect for their freedom of speech. Of course, both the Left and the apolitical majority, see this as rank hypocrisy. Why? Because they have internalized two simple Leftist syllogisms:

White Nationalists are ethnonationalists.

The Nazis were ethnonationalists.

Therefore, White Nationalists are Nazis.

Nazis hate freedom of speech.

White Nationalists are Nazis.

Therefore, White Nationalists hate freedom of speech.

Result: no one listens.

In theory, freedom of speech is the quasi-sacred foundation of a free society. In practice, however, freedom of speech is but a fine-sounding platitude, an eighteenth-century abstraction that is taken seriously by the ruling order only until speech threatens that order’s power. When it does, the rules change.

This ought not to surprise. Deep down people know that it has been that way since before the invention of freedom of speech, and know also that it will remain that way, forever and everywhere, no matter who is in charge. The only difference is that some ruling elites are more candid than others when establishing the limits of acceptable speech, and that some limits are more comfortable than others. What is more, daily praxis suggests that most people think limits on speech are a good idea (no one enjoys criticism; banning it, therefore, affords peace of mind).

Another problem is that, as with other such abstractions, it is difficult to get excited about freedom of speech in general, even if censorship elicits immediate anger. I look at how Norman Rockwell illustrated the concept and can appreciate his technical skill; but I cannot imagine anyone being roused to heroic action and sacrifice by that image — not the way I can when I look at Konstantin Vasiliev’s paintings, for example. The latter extol manliness and raw power. This is something with which ordinary folk can identify. It also celebrates freedom of speech in a much more robust fashion: a feared and respected warrior has freedom of speech, for no one dares contradict him for fear of his life!

Communist Atrocities. Since the 1970s, the Holocaust has become a cultural icon in the West, amorally exploited by Leftists and Jewish activists and forgers seeking to suppress the expression of White ethnic interests. The Right has responded, rather feebly, by drawing attention to the far larger record of Communist atrocity. Communist evil must, of course, become and remain an intense focus of attention, and the Left’s efforts to rehabilitate Communist leaders and former Communists, as well as their efforts to whitewash Communist barbarity, must be subjected to vitriolic condemnation — relentlessly — until the term ‘Communist’ is dragged back into the cloacal depths of epithet, where it rightfully belongs.

The problem, however, is that the very monstrousness of the scale of Communist atrocities robs them of their power as a moral argument: the numbers are too vast to be comprehensible. Worse still: the Communist death machine operated in regions of the world that are too mysterious, too different, and too distant for Westerners to identify with them; and for most, the collapse of the Iron Curtain already made of Communism a museum relic over twenty years ago. Without an assault of TV mini-series, big-budget films, and best-selling memoirs to bring it to life in the popular imagination, the tale of Communist atrocities will remain eclipsed by the tale of the Nazi Holocaust, and thus will lack relevance in a twenty-first-century debate about White ethnic interests.

It’s the Jews! Kevin MacDonald’s study of twentieth-century Jewish intellectual movements provides a powerful explanation for the state of contemporary Western society. His monographs ought to be standard university textbooks in Cultural Studies departments. His subject ought to be a standard university module across the Western world.

Unfortunately, however, far too many lack Professor MacDonald’s nuanced, restrained, and carefully caveated approach when discussing Jewry. The tendency among a visible subset of White Nationalists is grossly to exaggerate and oversimplify, to the point where ‘the Jews’ become a universal explanation for the world’s ills: analysis of Jewish contributions to the humanities and Jewish involvement in finance and politics quickly lapse into an all-encompassing conspiracy theory, where sinister Jews are everywhere, behind everything, improbably omniscient and omnipotent, capable of playing a chess game of superhuman convolution.

Perhaps it is the Right winger’s need for order. Perhaps it is the human passion for a good story. Perhaps it is the need for an identifiable enemy. Whatever the explanation, for the apolitical observer out there, the grotesque conspiracy theories put forth by some are so baroque, so far removed from daily experience, so angrily focused on a tiny group of relatively successful people, that he cannot help but buy the far simpler Leftist explanation: “anti-Semitism”. It takes too long, too many words, to explain to a layman how Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, the New York intellectuals, Critical Theory and the radical Left, and the immigration reform movement of before 1965 comprised a concerted attack on Western culture by a clique of long dead, relatively obscure intellectuals who strongly self-identified as Jews, were deeply troubled by anti-Semitism, and sought to advance the Jewish cause. It takes too long, too many words, to explain to a layman that, no, it was not all Jews; that, yes, there was non-Jewish involvement too; that, no, it was not a conspiracy; that, yes, Whites also have ethnic interests; that, no, it is not racist to talk about it; that, yes, there are good Jews also; that, no, criticism of some Jews is not the slippery slope that leads to Auschwitz, and so on.

It is too complicated – too esoteric, too boring. Without a doubt, the complex role of Jews in modern Western society is one of the most important issues of modern times. But it is also incomprehensible outside a tiny circle of abnormally independent doctors and professors. This is why single-word explanations like “racism” and “anti-Semitism” thrive, even when deployed by smelly, tattooed, screeching, dreadlocked thugs: quick and easy to digest, they are politically far more efficient.

The Plight of the Palestinians. Many White advocates deem it important to highlight Jewish influence in Western governments, whose unconditional support for Israel has come at the cost of not just thousands of millions of dollars, but also of forcing the citizenry to live under constant threat of terrorist attacks by angry Muslims. The plight of Palestinians living under brutal Israeli occupation is reported on, often with expressions of outrage, in an effort to generate antipathy towards the Jewish lobby. Unfortunately, the outrage comes across not only as a cynical affectation motivated by anti-Semitism, but also as hypocritical, in as much as it appears to condemn the ethnostatist policies of Israel while desiring an ethnostate here.

Besides, Why on Earth would a White Nationalist give a damn about the Palestinians? It would be more credible to do away with the expressions of outrage and simply state that unconditional support for Israel has proven too costly for both European and North American citizens, and that Israel needs to be held to the same standards of behavior expected of other developed nations in accordance to international law.

Holocaust Revisionism. The aim of Holocaust Revisionism is to strip supremacist Jews and the Left of their most powerful moral weapon: firstly, by exposing falsehoods and inconsistencies in the standard historical narrative, and, secondly, by exposing that narrative’s protected status, the hope is that the event will lose its iconic qualities and that the standard narrative will be put in doubt, thus revealing the cynical manipulations of those who abuse it as a political tool in pursuit of an ethnic agenda.

Holocaust Revisionists view their task as the most important of modern times, but it has proven difficult for them to gain public sympathy because, notwithstanding the politics and the principle of historical accuracy, the Nazis are still perceived as cruel, inhuman, and criminal. Maybe there were no gas chambers in many of the prison camps; maybe there was no signed order from Adolf Hitler; maybe the six million figure had Biblical origins. But, when the perpetration of a crime on a massive scale is in little doubt, even among revisionists, none of this makes a difference to the ordinary man in the street: as far as he is concerned, even if all of these doubts are valid, still the Nazis were not good for the Jews.

In other words, from the point of view or practical politics, the issue is too arcane, and when the standard narrative enjoys the legitimacy conferred by prestigious publishing houses, eminent scholars, elite universities, and the global mainstream media of news and entertainment, the man in the street cannot help but dismiss the scabrous alternative put forth by what to him is a fringe minority of unaccredited researchers as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

The Holocaust Revisionist movement has indeed claimed a number of (uncredited) victories over the years, and it enjoys a small but growing audience. However, this has come at a frightful price for those involved, and the iconic status of the Holocaust has only grown since Paul Rassinier published The Drama of the European Jews in 1964. Against this background, the delirious paranoia of some conspiracy theorists inspired by Holocaust Revisionism has caused that movement to have the opposite of its intended effect, and motivated the apolitical citizenry to support Jewish-sponsored legal limits on speech and thought.

I have no doubt that the standard Holocaust narrative will be revised in future, but this will be a symptom, rather than a cause, of power shifting away from the present ruling order. The history studied in schools and universities is written by victorious rulers, not by vanquished dissidents.

‘I’m not Racist, but…’ Denials of racism on the part of White advocates, or Whites in general, are never taken seriously. On the contrary, they signal weakness and serve only further to stimulate the anti-racists’ blood thirst. The moment someone says ‘I’m not racist, but...,’ my eyes glaze over: like antagonists, observers, and sympathizers alike, I know that I have before me someone who allows his enemies to define him; who lacks the courage of his convictions; who will crumple under pressure; who will apologize on demand; who will appease, and grovel, and stammer, and beg on his knees to retain his perks; whose self-worth, in sum, depends on the system that hates him.

Such a person cannot be taken seriously: ‘I’m not racist, but...’ suggests empty space, a timid structure held together with cello-tape and chewing gum, instead of a solid core. By implication, such a person is a cowardly and hypocritical racist – even proud ones command more respect.

It may or may not be true that someone is racist, whatever that means. But, who cares? Whether or not a White person prefers the company of his extended kin is his prerogative and otherwise irrelevant in an argument about White ethnic interests. Accusations of racism are best met, not with denials or explanations, but with a ruthless counter-attack. And there are plenty of targets.

Prophets of the Apocalypse. I have written on this issue before: Rather than seeking to inspire with visions of a positive alternative to the present order, White advocates seek to terrorise with visions of an impending apocalypse. If you don’t listen to us, their argument goes, it will all end in economic collapse, race wars, and extinction; the planet will end up a “burnt out cinder in the vastness of space.”

This may well prove true, but an all-stick-and-no-carrot strategy is an ineffective method of achieving radical systemic change. Admittedly, it is easier to complain than to think of solutions. But simply complaining is not aiming high. Aiming high is being ambitious, conceiving a radical solution, and developing and pursuing a global plan of action.

Communists, and the Left in general, did all that. As Johnson pointed out, they may have sowed death on the planet, but this does not negate the fact that they demonstrated how radical systemic change is possible in the modern world, even when pitted against a seemingly unmovable ruling order. The proposition of a radical solution, and the active and organized pursuit of fundamental change suggests a vigorous movement likely eventually to achieve its goals — it inspires optimism, mobilizes idealism, and elicits sacrifice. By contrast, to the apolitical bystander all that prophets of the apocalypse suggest is exhaustion, cynicism, old age, and intellectual bankruptcy; the response is, accordingly, to don the blinkers, hoard the victuals, and hunker down. So long as activists on the radical Right cast themselves in the role of prophets of the apocalypse, they will cast themselves in the role of losers.

Voice of Reason. For most ordinary folk, the Right winger, and particularly the White advocate, is a party pooper. He is the gentleman who arrives at a party wanting to switch on the bright lights and turn off the music, to tell everyone to sober up and put out their cigarettes, to scold them for wasting food and electricity, and to inform them that the lawn needs mowing, the floors need scrubbing, the drains need clearing, the overdraft needs paying, the and garbage needs taking out. And when the lung cancer patient is dying, the White advocate is the gentleman who tells him, "See? I told you so! I told you smoking is bad for you, but no, you wouldn't listen! Now you've got what you deserved! And if you think you have it bad now, it will only get worse!"

Again, he may well be right, but his is hardly a recipe for popularity. No one wants to listen to the voice of reason. In times of crisis, when denial is no longer possible and the situation has hit rock bottom, maybe; but in times of real or apparent affluence, in the absence of an immediate and obvious threat, no one has time for the boring realists.

Humans are largely irrational; they hate unpleasantness; and they will dream and pretend for as long as they can before facing the brutal truth. We only need to see what happened to the American economy during the past three years to realise how this is true. There were those who were critical of the credit bubble and prophesied doom at the beginning of the noughties. When Peter Schiff prophesied a collapse in house prices in 2006, he was laughed at on national television (see also here). But when the credit crisis hit and the depression started to bite, at least some of those who laughed were suddenly listening.

And later still, when Washington and the Federal Reserve concocted the temporary illusion of a recovery, the likes of Schiff were again put out of mind, with a sigh of relief. Never mind that the credit time bomb that was ticking under the economic surface has not only not been deactivated, but has been, through bailouts and ill-conceived policies, turned into a thermonuclear warhead — it is easier to ignore the problem, pretend politicians are wise, and hope the economy will soon recover, than face reality and swallow the bitter medicine.

Besides the general unattractiveness of reason, there is a more fundamental problem: most of the citizenry is apolitical; most lack the education, the time, and the energy to arrive at a thoughtful worldview or political opinion, based on original research and personal reflection; most, accordingly, decide on their political and ideological affiliations instinctively, relying on emotional factors connected to their need for status, belonging, and self esteem — some of the main and universal human motivators. The ethnic campaigner on the Right who prides himself on being the voice of reason, and who openly scorns his fellow citizen’s ovine and parrot-like tendencies, has failed to understand basic human psychology. This is astonishing when one considers how much emphasis the Right places on the dumb, biological drivers of behavior. Yet, it is true. So long as he focuses on the frontal lobe, so long as he focuses on that small and relatively recent part of the brain while ignoring the rest of it, his message will fall on deaf ears.

Failed Strategies: Generic Ethnic Interest Organisations

In an earlier article, I stated that the era of the generic White advocacy organization was at an end. The reason is that they have proven not only useless, but, sometimes, also fraudulent, led by fractious micro-Führers and staffed by a creepy gang of undesirables. They leave anyone listening in no doubt of what they believe: they often maintain websites with strongly worded statements of principles. They also — constantly — solicit donations, grandiloquently claiming that the future of the White race depends on them, and that the revolution is indeed coming — maybe not now, but soon.

Yet one never knows what exactly it is that they do, or how they plan to achieve their goals, or even what these goals are, beyond going back to 1933 or 1776. What are they? Political parties? Lobbyists? Developers? Gun clubs? Often, one cannot be sure. Almost always, the only certainty is that through their peculiar mix of ignorance, incompetence, and criminality, they are a blessing to their enemies and a curse to the interests they set out to advance. Almost always, donors end up supporting unemployable, underachieving, and wholly unaccountable webmasters, who survive because those who sustain them know not what else they can do.

The operational practices of generic White advocacy organizations contrast with those of genuine organized activism. Genuine political parties, charities, and pressure groups that solicit donations are mission-specific, focus on solutions, set out achievable goals, have a concrete plan of action, are constantly active, and regularly subject themselves to financial scrutiny, publishing audited accounts on an annual basis in an effort to retain the goodwill of their donors. Accordingly, the millions flow in their direction.

It might be argued that when the system criminalizes an idea, it is unrealistic not to expect believers to adopt underground methods. It might be added that the Communists of old used such methods successfully.

The problem with this argument is that a campaign about ethnic interests is, by its nature — and unlike Communism — inegalitarian. One of the appeals of Communism is that it relieves the great mass of mediocre individuals of responsibility; that it tells them that the reason they are not doing well in life is not that they are less clever, less industrious, and less able, but that they have been held down by a conspiracy of fat, rich capitalists. This allows Communists to siphon from the lower social strata, which is also the most numerous globally, vast hordes of individuals who have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Underground methods go with the grain of who and what they are, so their idealism, dedication, and self-sacrifice confers them credibility.

A campaign for White ethnic interests, on the other hand, is elitist, and therefore loses legitimacy when is seen adopting the style and methods of the lumpen proletariat and common criminals.

Some Winning Strategies

So much for learning from the Right. Is it all hopeless, then? Should we just curl up and die? Should we just hoard the gold, stock up the bunker, and wait until the cannibals outside finish eating each other? No. We use what we have learnt to develop winning strategies.

Some of what follows has been either mentioned or been given more extensive treatment in earlier articles. My purpose here is to distil it all into digestible chunks of information.

The messenger is the message. People are interested in people, and it is the messenger that sells the message, not the message itself. If the average man in the street is comfortable with the messenger, he will be receptive to the message; if he is uncomfortable, he will avoid them both. Therefore, selling a message becomes a matter of style over substance. Substance is important, of course, but politically it is nothing without style, nothing without a personal style, nothing without personality and style. Making a message attractive begins by making the messenger attractive. An attractive messenger is one who makes the people he encounters feel good about themselves, and about being around, and being seen with, the messenger. If the messenger looks like a loser, then his message is for losers. A winning message is delivered by winners.

Be positive at all times. No one likes being around a misery guts. If the Left keeps winning it is in part because Leftists are incurable optimists. Optimism makes people feel good. It shows confidence, and inspires it in others. In a world gone wrong, being positive means focusing on solutions; focusing on solutions necessitates optimism (otherwise, why bother?)

Only optimists can mobilize idealism, dedication, and self-sacrifice. This is not to say that we ought to stop complaining. We must complain vigorously, noisily, systematically, and relentlessly. But we must never simply stop there; complaints must be followed by solutions. Complaints are synonymous with stasis; solutions with forward movement. Complaints followed by solutions means a change of direction, which implies a destination, which implies clarity, ambition, and vigor — all positive qualities that people like to associate with.

Laugh. The stereotypical White Rightist is serious and angry most of the time. He never laughs. He is a pessimist, a cynic, a brooding, fearful, bitter, complaining, nostalgic type. The Left loves this, because these are qualities associated with old age, senility, and death. To the Leftist they prove that Whiteness is on the way out, and that the future is his. Laughter, by contrast, is associated with youth, confidence, vitality, and relaxation. It is infectious and instantly generates an atmosphere of well-being and goodwill.

Leftists understand this, and thus often choose simply to mock rather than debate their opponents. As a result they look as if they are in control, and carry bystanders with them. Underneath, however, Leftists are stern, and do not suffer laughter gladly. In fact, they often do not know what to do when shrugged off and made objects of mockery. Laughter, and by extension humor, is a powerful weapon. Satirize, stereotype, mock, lampoon, caricature, deride, and cartoonify the Left without mercy, in articles, in fiction, in illustrations, in comic strips, in music, in videos, and in computer games. Public laughter will progressively erode the Left’s authority.

Act as if. The negativity, the pessimism, the paranoia, and the emotional masochism of the Right signal to apolitical observers that the Right represents a movement in retreat, a movement of losers, a movement with zero power. Apolitical observers do not need the Left to tell them so: Right-wingers do an excellent job showing it through their behavior. Therefore, apolitical observers treat the Right accordingly, and choose to appease the Left. If the Right is to inspire confidence, it has to act as if. Act as if it is winning; act as if it has millions in the bank; act as if it is going places; act as if it has the key to the future. People are attracted to success; they gravitate to winners; they follow the alpha male. Nothing succeeds like success. Successful salesmen act as if. Act as if.

Non-political organizations. Rather than a monolithic organization proposing to advance White ethnic interests in general, there needs to be a multitude of smaller, focused, mission-specific businesses, clubs, charities, pressure groups, political parties, and media outlets like this one. These do not need to be overtly political: they could take the form of a record label, a publisher, a retailer, a battle re-enactment society, a rambler’s club, or a conservation body. White ethnic interests encompass all areas of life; we need to preserve the quality of our countryside, the quality of our towns, the quality of our food, the quality of our entertainment, the quality of our consumer goods, as much as we need to preserve our culture, wealth, and political power. From an organizational point of view, it is preferable to be the best in one area than to be mediocre in all areas. By envisioning the struggle in terms of a battle for economic and cultural niches, by concentrating effort on winning one winnable battle at the time, and by working harder and smarter than the competition, results will soon mount up.

Parallel status system. Expelled, excluded, passed over, or ignored by clubs, societies, and award bodies because of non-conforming beliefs? Start a rival body, and build a parallel status system. Traditional status systems in the West are currently dominated by the Left, so there is a systematic, structural process whereby the ideologically amiable is noticed, included, rewarded, and promoted, while the ideologically non-amiable is ignored, excluded, punished, and suppressed. (For the Left, work that pays no tribute to egalitarianism — work that is not politically correct — is work without merit.)

There is already an award for those who will not be considered for the Pulitzer Prize: In 2004 Kevin MacDonald received the $10,000 Jack London Award. Let the prestigious awards, prizes, and exclusive societies proliferate, until being passed over for the Nobel Prize can be met with a placid shrug of the shoulders. Why is this important? Because an idea is taken more or less seriously depending on the status of those associated with it. The reason Kevin MacDonald is an especially irksome irritant for the Left is that he is a tenured professor. His professional status confers him academic authority. His academic authority confers credibility to his research. Hence, the $PLC’s efforts to have his tenure revoked.

The above is by no means a comprehensive list. It is also only a proposal. Others might want to contribute with their own ideas, or improve upon mine. The point is that the present situation is only as bad as we make it. The Left would like everyone to believe that the processes they set in motion are unstoppable, inevitable, and irreversible; that they represent the relentless march of progress. Their attitude is that those who cannot, or will not, join this march must fall by the wayside. One would expect that from a faction with a linear view of history. For us, however, history is cyclical. Old masters will fall as new ones rise.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...rom-Right.html
 
Old June 19th, 2010 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Confused and contradictory, perhaps purposefully so, as the only clear and consistent message in his piece is: don't blame jews, don't criticize Israel.
 
Old June 19th, 2010 #3
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northwest Reader View Post
Unfortunately, however, far too many lack Professor MacDonald’s nuanced, restrained, and carefully caveated approach when discussing Jewry.
I find nothing in MacDonald’s work that shows that nuance and restraint have ever been effective in opposing Jewish power. All of his caveats have only gotten him dismissed as a "fringe academic" teaching, by his own admission, at a "second rate institution." If MacDonald's approach works, we should see his "elite" audience, say, some white faculty at "R-1' universities, publicly supporting his work. But nothing's changed since he mentioned in the preface to one of his books that colleagues will only agree with him in private. The old WASP whispering campaign.

Quote:
His monographs ought to be standard university textbooks in Cultural Studies departments.
What an interesting comment. If it were up to me there would be no Cultural Studies departments.
 
Old June 20th, 2010 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
I find nothing in MacDonald’s work that shows that nuance and restraint have ever been effective in opposing Jewish power. All of his caveats have only gotten him dismissed as a "fringe academic" teaching, by his own admission, at a "second rate institution." If MacDonald's approach works, we should see his "elite" audience, say, some white faculty at "R-1' universities, publicly supporting his work. But nothing's changed since he mentioned in the preface to one of his books that colleagues will only agree with him in private. The old WASP whispering campaign.
Yeah. Nothing in the piece adds up, if you take the thing at face value.

The author's real message is: Don't you dare fight back against the jews with the weapons they use against you.
 
Old June 20th, 2010 #5
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Yeah. Nothing in the piece adds up, if you take the thing at face value.

The author's real message is: Don't you dare fight back against the jews with the weapons they use against you.
What I got from Kurtagic's article was that while he harps on about 'understanding the success of the left' what he doesn't seem to have done is try to actually understand it and combine that information with where the 'right' has been successful (let alone apply that information). Had he more things to say that might have proved interesting he would have looked at; for example, Goebbels' and Streicher's successes in mobilising anti-Semitic feelings among the various classes of German society by inculating anti-Semitic attitudes while entertaining them. I've read a bit of what Kurtagic has written now and I am convinced he's one of those pseudo-intellectual morons that proliferate on 'the left' who write large amounts of verbiage, which is just about as meaningful as the hilarious lack of insight and common sense displayed by your average poster on 'WhatReallyHappened.com'. For some reason there seems to have been this migration of morons from the 'left' to the 'right' over the last decade.

Nobody bloody listens to windbags writing long 'intellectual' essays for each other (which is precisely what the left has been doing since the early 20th century gradually leading to the complete alienation of the leftist intellectual from the 'working class' that they are supposed to be trying to help [this was identified by intelligent marxists way back in the 1960s but they've never done much about it, which says all you really need to know about 'the left' in general]): what they do listen to are those who make them laugh, make them smile, make them angry, make them cry, make them sad and don't ask them to think a whole lot. In essence titillate them.

In essence it comes down to the old Roman dictum (much repeated but little understood): 'bread and circuses' or as I like to put 'food, fucking and death'. As Denis Hill (himself a communist but one of the few who had daily contact with 'the masses') put it so well (I paraphrase): the working class are incrediably venal and don't give a damn about their fellow man as long as they get their pay check, their pints at the local boozer and their annual two-week booze up on the Spanish coast.

I am left wondering if Kurtagic has ever got out of his mother's basement and seen the world that he lives in let alone actually lived in it. People love to hate and while you have to give them a positive image as well as a negative one: you have to give them an enemy, which they can both conceive as being real and that they can see in their everyday lives. That enemy can both the jew and the arab and it is dead easy to explain this to most Americans: all you need do is be gentle and point them in the right direction. I never cease to be amazed that if you scratch the surface of most Americans gently and in the right way (what Kurtagic might call 'defying stereotypes') you find a closet 'racist' and 'anti-Semite'.

In essence I suppose the answer is: get out of the fucking basement, stop writing pseudo-intellectual rubbish for your friends to fellate you about and be of the people unreservedly (i.e. help them, care for them and be kind to them and show them what it means to be a racialist and how one acts). When you do that then you'll solve most of the problems that face 'the far right' and the rest comes easily enough as success breeds success. It really is that simple.
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; June 20th, 2010 at 06:58 AM.
 
Old June 21st, 2010 #6
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Default

Joe Webb: Thoughts on Alex Kurtagic’s “Learning from the Right”

Joe Webb: Re the recent TOO article by Alex Kurtagic: First, let me remark on Alex’s critical comments on folks on the racial right. I have sojourned on the left. (Greg Johnson made similar comments in another TOO article.) There are many more nutcases there than on the racial right. Among Liberals, of whom I have only casual experience, they may not be obvious foaming-at-the-mouth types. But push them a bit and you begin to see the spittle forming.

Still, Kurtagic’s general position is good. As the dog-trainer Caesar Milan puts it with regard to training dogs, we need to be “calm but assertive.” To which I would add, friendly and non-apologetic. A positive program or vision of the Future, a Myth if you will, is necessary as Kutragic states, not just gloom and doom, or as Spiro Agnew put it, the nattering nabobs of negativism ranting about Armageddon. (Of course, Armageddon promised a positive outcome.)

However, our post-modern myth is not a myth. It is science-based and psychologically true for anyone who cares to look carefully at his own drives and feelings, as well as objective observation of what is right in front of one every day. When I look at the image of Konstantin Vasilev’s warrior versus the Norman Rockwell painting celebrating free speech, my non-rational (not “irrational”) reaction is that of endearment and charm with regard to Rockwell’s painting. The Vasilev warrior strikes me as comic-bookish. Context is everything. Now call me a liberal, but following the psycho-logic of what the Times require, Rockwell’s “sentimentalized” vision, per the Jews and Modernists, of the early mid-century America is just what Americans need to remind them that there was, if not a heroic, a domestic peacetime of Whites that was beautiful. (I keep a desk-calendar of Rockwell’s paintings and love them. I lived my childhood in the 50s, a very good time to be a child — in fact the last good time to be a child in America.) That a Heroic time is ahead of us … I agree. So, Rockwell’s vision is for right now, and in a few more years….the warrior.

Kurtagic’s claim that Communism’s crimes are too “vast” to be “comprehended” is puzzling. The reason they are not comprehended is because of political suppression AND the genetically based White tendency to love everybody. This liberal tendency was expressed first by early Protestant Individualism, and late Protestant egalitarianism, a logical progression, if “God’s Children” is thrown into the mix. From there it is but a few steps into Revolution/Rights of Man; and don’t forget the Mob’s resentment.

Kurtagic’s remark that the Racial Right’s hammering of Israel is inconsistent because of our own racialism, is not quite correct. Nationalisms often conflict with each other, and there is no doubt that Israeli nationalism costs Whites dearly in blood and treasure. Our racialism is based on the principle of relative racial pluralism. That is, we agree to leave one-another alone, but separate. Jews stole Palestine, and that is the only logical objection, besides the small matter of World War Three. (Yes we stole the Americas, but that was a matter of Stone Age Indians.) Holocaust Revisionism is counter-productive. “Apocalyptic” emotionalism is not a good idea for political work. Agreed. All of Kurtagic’s discussion here is very good.

His view that people are fundamentally “irrational” is incomplete. It is true that people, including me, would prefer to make love, not war, as the 60s had it. While there was a “Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” behind that slogan, if reformulated along the lines of Norman Rockwell’s America, even including his naive painting of the little Black girls integrating the schools in the early 60s, it would provide irony for a today’s Whites who are not so stupid as to miss it. Yes , White people naturally prefer peace and quiet. That is Good. Jews do not prefer Peace and Quiet. Their hatred has continued unabated for at least 2,000 years —The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by E. Michael Jones.

The Times are running against the Jews. Israel is the best thing that ever happened for the cause of anti-Semitism. The non-rational, that is, the emotional, has been working against us for a half-century. The reasons for that are due to our susceptibility to Universal claims, Hitlerism, and Jewish propaganda. We Whites are natural-born welcomers of Others. However, witness Arizona Fever, etc. Times are changing. The Left talks about Objective Conditions, the Internal Contradictions of Capitalism. Now the Internal Contradictions of the Racial Equality Myth and the myth of the Suffering Jews (Palestine), are beginning to emerge in the implicit mental functioning of Whites. Thank Evolution for non-rational mental functioning. History, particularly lived history, tends to make explicit the implicit.

We are living in a fast-paced Change! of a non-Obamination type. Revolutions have caught revolutionaries flat-footed; the People feel it while the intellectuals think about it, usually incorrectly. Liberalism is in the early stages of decomposition because it is hyper-rational; there is a technocratic fix for everything.

Today’s liberal ideology (Liberalism was not always as it is now ) starts from a pseudo-philosophical positing of racial equality. This represents a rejection of genuine Thought and Reason. It is nihilistic because it denies discrimination and empirically based reasoning. It refuses distinctions of rank and grade. It is the last gasp of Humpty-Dumptyish (Jewish) Deconstructionism, and Desperation as to a Myth/Narrative of the Human Condition that can provide “Meaning”, now that God is in eclipse.

Equality and especially Racial Equality is the default end-game of Liberalism’s anti-intellectualism and economism. There is nothing but money, and we are all equal so let’s just all get along. If you dissent you are not fit to live. We are all equal, and that allows me to do what I want, end of discussion.

A racialist discourse will emerge which will represent a new Vision, a confidence and love of one’s race, one’s history and culture. Intellectuals will talk about it, but “ordinary” White folks will fill their hearts with it. We Whites are Good people, and will go to war against our enemies, our invaders, our culture-destroyers. “Meaning” itself is an intellectualized evasion of what is psychologically Real. What is psychologically Real is Emotion, not Meaning. The fundamental emotion is Love, love of family, community, race, nation, and Future. The lack of Love leads to conflict and War.

We are entering this stage, and that too is Good. There is no love between dissimilars. That is biological and evolutionary truth. The Liberal Agenda of mixture, leveling, Whatever, and money, in tandem with Jewish mocking of Christianity and the West, is the cultural/societal equivalent of diesel fuel mixed with fertilizer. The fuse is burning.

Joe Webb is a writer living in the San Francisco Bay area. Email him.

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2307
 
Old June 21st, 2010 #7
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Default

To Alex's point about conservatives, the faileo site AltRight posts the occasional mild piece on the Mideast or The Lobby. What's interesting is the push back they get in the comments by people who won't criticize Israel because the left criticizes Israel. Their alternative right looks a lot like the established right of Kristol and Hannity.
 
Old June 21st, 2010 #8
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
the working class are incrediably venal and don't give a damn about their fellow man as long as they get their pay check, their pints at the local boozer and their annual two-week booze up on the Spanish coast.
That's a conclusion that I've had to reluctantly reach as well. Most folks don't give a rat's ass about dignity, higher principles, or even their grandchildren's future, but they do care when something affects their pocketbooks.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Igor Alexander; June 21st, 2010 at 10:10 AM.
 
Old June 21st, 2010 #9
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
I keep a desk-calendar of Rockwell’s paintings and love them. I lived my childhood in the 50s, a very good time to be a child — in fact the last good time to be a child in America.
I take it the author hasn't seen Rockwell's other paintings which can only be described as unabashed propaganda for "civil rights" and multiracialism. Even in the idyllic 50s, the seeds of the white man's destruction were already sown.

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/...the_civil.html
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old June 21st, 2010 #10
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default "More word salad for the gentleman?" No thanx- I'm stuffed

"Liberalism is in the early stages of decomposition because it is hyper-rational"

"Racial Equality is the default end-game of Liberalism’s anti-intellectualism"
 
Old June 21st, 2010 #11
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Kurtagic’s remark that the Racial Right’s hammering of Israel is inconsistent because of our own racialism, is not quite correct. Nationalisms often conflict with each other, and there is no doubt that Israeli nationalism costs Whites dearly in blood and treasure.
Amen to that. I'm getting tired of hearing that childish, silly argument about how WN are being hypocritical for not supporting Israel.

If nationalists have a duty to support other nationalists, why shouldn't we support Palestinian nationalism instead? Funny how jews only call themselves white when it suits their purposes.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old June 21st, 2010 #12
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
That's a conclusion that I've had to reluctantly reach as well. Most folks don't give a rat's ass about dignity, higher principles, or even their grandchildren's future, but they do care when something affects their pocketbooks.
And that latter in the very near term. If their pocketbooks lose-out over time (even massively) in exchange for a near-term gain (or appearance of gain), that's OK.
 
Old June 21st, 2010 #13
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
His view that people are fundamentally “irrational” is incomplete. It is true that people, including me, would prefer to make love, not war, as the 60s had it. While there was a “Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” behind that slogan, if reformulated along the lines of Norman Rockwell’s America, even including his naive painting of the little Black girls integrating the schools in the early 60s, it would provide irony for a today’s Whites who are not so stupid as to miss it.
Oops. I guess he did know about those paintings (though I think he's being generous when he characterizes them as merely "naive").
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old June 21st, 2010 #14
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Amen to that. I'm getting tired of hearing that childish, silly argument about how WN are being hypocritical for not supporting Israel.

If nationalists have a duty to support other nationalists, why shouldn't we support Palestinian nationalism instead? Funny how jews only call themselves white when it suits their purposes.
Ironically I actually thought that was one of the few remarks that Kurtagic made that had a little bit of common sense behind it, but the problem is completely different to what he seems to have conceptualised it as.

The problem is not European racialists using Israel's treatment of Palestinians to attack jews, show jewish influence and/or educate people as to why jews must be regarded as a subversive force. All are good propaganda lines if done correctly (although they aren't usually).

The problem is uncritical support and a tendancy to fall in love with the Arabs [and to a lesser extent Islam], because the Arabs have killed and continue to kill some jews (by the same logic one would expect the same people to start cheerleading the niggers who the Israelis are now having an increasing problem with). Woo hoo the Arabs killed some jews, but we should remember that the Arabs are basically the same thing as the jew (look at the genetics) and although they are a few decades behind the jews in organising and influence they are getting better and learning (i.e. this is the kernal of truth behind the anti-Islamist position).

In essence one has to prevent the folk being abused from the 'right' by the Zionists and the 'left' by the Arabs. As all that tends to do is create two false positions for people to take based on a intra-racial conflict that shows little sign of abating (in essence it conceptualises European racialism through a racially alien conflict and in the interest of two different racial groups, which is the same thing as 'conservatives' and 'liberals' do).

If you start worshipping Islam; and you get like say Mark Glenn has [i.e. uncritical support for Islam and possibly being a crypto-Muslim], then you may as well pack your bags and join a Madrassa, because few Americans will ever support you. I.e. European racialists should be interested in what benefits their own people rather than merely being a reactionary peanut gallery for the battle between two racial enemies in the Middle East. By way of example I've encountered numerous responses from people in the past trying to claim that Norman Finkelstein et al are 'great men' and 'righteous jews' (the latter is an actual quote from a senior SF member a few years ago; which made me physically retch).

Basically the attitude needs to be 'fuck all the Semites' ergo being anti-Semitic in a truer sense as opposed to just the limited 'fuck the jews' (as that is basically doing the same thing as conservatives with their attitude of 'fuck the Arabs').

---------------------------------

Incidentally on 'Joe Webb's' responsum I noticed a rather stupid term that only an idiotic leftist with little to no actual brain could come up with: 'Hitlerism'. What the hell is 'Hitlerism'? It sounds like a socialist/communist 1930s/40s throw back. Webb should say what he means not wander around in vapid abstracts.

If Joe Webb means that defending Hitler and National Socialism is 'holding 'WN' back' the answer is a flat no it isn't. One can find that out by noting that defending Communism in the USSR, Germany etc hasn't held 'Die Linke' in Germany back or the Socialist parties in France... So it isn't about 'defending something' or 'being positive about something', but rather it is about a lack of outreach. In a more positive example it hasn't held the NPD/DVU back in Germany as they are well known to defend it: it also hasn't held LFN back in France. The difference is merely organisation, commitment and 'grass roots' work not what you do and do not promote (hell Joe Webb and Alex Kurtagic should go read some books on propaganda theory for heavens sake). If you don't have that you'll never even come close to succeeding.

As I said: people can piss about with definitions, responsa etc, but until they've been out there, devoted themselves to helping the folk and done something beyond sitting at home complaining on the internet then in all seriousness I don't think anyones going to take a blind bit of notice and well they shouldn't.

The 'radical right' seems to have acquired a bunch of 'intellectual' pansies from the 'left' as of late. I say fuck 'em.
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; June 21st, 2010 at 04:30 PM.
 
Old June 21st, 2010 #15
Gibson
.
 
Gibson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,718
Default

Well said KR, as always. Saying we should support israel or Palestine is a false dichotomy.

We humans seem to be programmed to see dichotomies where really there are none, or none that have any real importance to us. The false dichotomy is the reason why two sided sports are so popular among spectators - soccer, rugby, baseball etc - the two teams have no relation to us, but the game appeals to our inclination to take a side. Athletics, OTOH, doesn't get many spectators because there are too many competitors - only two sided competitions appeal to our need to find a dichotomy and take a side.

In the case of the Middle East, we should be morally on the side of the Palestinians, partly as a matter of justice - because they are being terrorised, killed and dispossessed by the jews - but mainly because it's a learning opportunity. See what the jews are doing to the Palestinians - that's what jews do - look and learn. Of course, just because the Palis are currently the underdogs doesn't mean they're the good guys - the jews are the bad guys, but that doesn't mean the Palis are good guys. Our dichotomy instinct makes us inclined to say that if one side is bad, the other side must be good, but that's the false dichotomy. And either way, we certainly don't want any of them in our country.

Now, having got false dichotomies off my mind, I should go back and read the Kurtagic article.
 
Old June 25th, 2010 #16
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Note that I wasn't saying WN should support Palestine.

What I am (rhetorically) asking is: if, as some jews who pose as WN like to argue, nationalists should support other nationalists, then why should we support Israeli nationalism over Palestinian nationalism?

If, for the sake of argument, we have to take a side in the conflict rather than be neutral, why should we take the Israeli side over the Palestinian?

The fact is, the U.S. already has taken a side -- the Israeli side. Israel would not exist and could not continue to exist without American support. If you are an American taxpayer, then you are, unwittingly or not, a supporter of Israel. If you approve of this support, then you are a neocon, not a white nationalist.

I don't "love" Arabs. I don't want to see more Arab and Muslim immigration to the West. But some WN seem to be incapable of distinguishing between immigration policy and foreign policy.

Just because you don't want to see Arabs landing on the shores of your homeland doesn't mean you have to support the killing of Palestinian children, does it?

Again, I repeat, I am not a leftist. I am not a leftist anti-Zionist. I am not in love with Arabs or Muslims. I am a non-interventionist, though I frankly do believe the U.S. owes something to the Palestinian people for its shameful support of Israel over the years. Not only should the U.S. cut off all support for Israel, but it should also give the Palestinians some aid -- recognize them, arm them, etc. Such a gesture would go a long way towards restoring the U.S.'s image in the world. I don't see who, other than jews and their minions, could possibly disagree with such a course of action. Any American who supports Israel is a traitor, not a patriot.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Igor Alexander; June 26th, 2010 at 01:02 AM.
 
Old June 25th, 2010 #17
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibson View Post
We humans seem to be programmed to see dichotomies where really there are none, or none that have any real importance to us. The false dichotomy is the reason why two sided sports are so popular among spectators - soccer, rugby, baseball etc - the two teams have no relation to us, but the game appeals to our inclination to take a side.
If you live in the U.S., in Canada, in Britain, or in several other Western nations, being a passive, neutral spectator is not an option for you; your tax money is funding the Israeli side, and therefore, you are supporting the Israeli side.

In politics, if you want to shift things to the middle, you're going to have to try to push them as far to the other side as possible. "Reasonable" doesn't work in politics. That's a principle a lot of people don't seem to get.

If "reasonable" could work, then conservatism would have saved us by now.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old June 25th, 2010 #18
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibson View Post
Of course, just because the Palis are currently the underdogs doesn't mean they're the good guys - the jews are the bad guys, but that doesn't mean the Palis are good guys. Our dichotomy instinct makes us inclined to say that if one side is bad, the other side must be good, but that's the false dichotomy. And either way, we certainly don't want any of them in our country.
It's not a question of good or evil. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in real life. When you're in a war, the enemy of your enemy is your ally. It's as simple as that.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old June 25th, 2010 #19
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
As all that tends to do is create two false positions for people to take based on a intra-racial conflict that shows little sign of abating...
I'll repeat again that if you are an American taxpayer, being "neutral" in this conflict is not an option for you; your country has been supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine since at least 1948, and supports it now more than ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
If you start worshipping Islam; and you get like say Mark Glenn has [i.e. uncritical support for Islam and possibly being a crypto-Muslim],
Is there a gray area between worshipping Muslims and wanting to exterminate them? The neocons don't think so, and you seem to be stuck in their way of thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
then you may as well pack your bags and join a Madrassa, because few Americans will ever support you.
But they don't mind supporting jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
I.e. European racialists should be interested in what benefits their own people rather than merely being a reactionary peanut gallery for the battle between two racial enemies in the Middle East.
My position is based purely on what's good for whites. Supporting Israel is not good for whites. Turning the Muslim world against you in order to support jewish nationalism is not good for whites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
By way of example I've encountered numerous responses from people in the past trying to claim that Norman Finkelstein et al are 'great men' and 'righteous jews' (the latter is an actual quote from a senior SF member a few years ago; which made me physically retch).
I think Finkelstein's role is to divert people away from holocaust revisionism; he makes it seem as though he's opposed to the holocaust industry, while omitting the most important part -- that there is not a bit of solid evidence that the "holocaust" ever happened, and in fact, that there is much evidence to suggest it didn't.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old June 26th, 2010 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Conservative logic:

"Racism" and "anti-semitism" succeed because they're simple. "It's the jews!" fails because it's not nuanced.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:51 AM.
Page generated in 0.40811 seconds.