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

Old August 25th, 2011 #101
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Posted by Hunter Wallace on August 25, 2011, 08:40 AM | #

Greg,

(1) First, I was never “handed” any such records. You have made up a story here. In fact, if memory serves, you are the one who possesses those records, as you were the Editor of TOQ.

Why would I be interested in these “records” of yours? With one or two exceptions, I don’t even talk to these people on the telephone or through email. What is the basis of this stupid idea that I have records? You are the one who keeps and maintains databases of people in order to solicit them to support your little website.

(2) Second, I have never so much as asked a CMS member for their autograph or phone number. I genuinely don’t have the slightest interest in the goings on of that organization. Clearly, you are the one who is obsessed with CMS, not me.

(3) Third, I haven’t been a White Nationalist since August 2010. I haven’t been involved with CMS for over a year now. In all that time, I haven’t expressed the slightest interest in finding out what those people are up to.

After dealing with your pettiness and greed, I realized that I wanted no further involvement with the White Nationalist movement. I had seen enough to decide that it wasn’t my cup of tea.

(4) Fourth, you are the one who is financially motivated, not me. You are the one who has a thermometer on your website which you have used to raise $11,000. You are the one who is over here bitching about the money you are owed and the people who have done you wrong. You are the one who is over here attacking your former associates.

Who do you think is more likely to sell his story to the SPLC? Do you think Greg Johnson would do it for money? Do you think Greg Johnson would do it because he is butthurt over losing his job? Do you think Greg Johnson would do it because he hates Yggdrasil and Sam Dickson? Do you think Greg Johnson would do it to promote his own little project in the WN world? Do you think Greg Johnson would do it because he is motivated by the sins of pride and vanity?

Of course.

I mean ... Greg is clearly one pissed off cocksucker! He won’t be stopped until he all the money in the White Nationalist movement. How can you live like a Nietzschean aristocrat off $10,000?

Morris Dees has $250 million in the bank in Montgomery. Surely, Greg would be the first to help himself to some of that. He doesn’t have any inhibitions asking for it.

[Sorry, Griffin. Johnson is trustworthy, whereas you are a shape-shifting head case. The funny thing is you keep trying to sell yourself that you're this or that (nazi! conservative! Alabama old-tymey Protestant! Republican! communitarian! Vulcan! Roman!) but it's your inability to be ANYTHING that is your true identity, and you can't see it. I presume it comes from some chemical or physiological brain disturbance, but we wash our hands of you here, not because you're messed up, but because you are such a casual liar that no one can believe a damn thing you say. Unstable personalities mixed with infidelity to any political principle is a recipe for mess and subversion. Better to side with sane men with sound policies. Quit trying to be slick, people. Quit trying to be clever. It's as hard as it looks, and there's no getting around it. Either you're in or you're out, and if you want any kind of leadership, you're going to have use your real name. Not the million and one masks of Brad Griffin, nor the mythically pretentious 'Yggdrasil.' 'Donnie from Ohio' -- that's what you wanna shoot for, hosses.]

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 25th, 2011 at 01:11 PM.
 
Old August 25th, 2011 #102
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

He is also a 911 falser. (from TOO thread on 911)

César Córcoles (chechar) on Twitter
twitter.com/@chechar - Cached
César Córcoles (chechar) is on Twitter. Sign up for Twitter to follow César Córcoles (chechar) ... ragholmas G.W. Bush, 9/11: "We're gonna hunt you down. ...



Barcelona

Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; August 25th, 2011 at 02:12 PM.
 
Old August 25th, 2011 #103
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
That...is just dumb, Greg. And you know it's dumb.
No Alex, you're just not bright enough to keep up. The "And you know it's dumb" is what is called effrontery, brazenness, chuztpah. One of your more tiresome traits.
 
Old August 25th, 2011 #104
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[this is a gem of wrongness. it is what i wrote to refute above. it is perfectly articulate expression of a very common view - i would call it an immaculate misconception. i've interpolated comments to make clear where and why religious conservative racial nationalist haller is wrong. (first posting, then will make the corrections, will take a few minutes, but they'll be in THIS post)]

Posted by Leon Haller on August 25, 2011, 08:08 AM | #

Greg Johnson, Hunter Wallace, et al:

How is someone like me - a ‘lone wolf’ blogger for many years, sympathetic to anything pro-white, trying to get the message about white persecution and impending extinction out there among alleged conservatives (with a multitude of lengthy comments here at MR, too - one of the few places I haven’t been banned (thank you, GW)) - supposed to decipher the truth from all this “he said/she said” crap?

For example, I met Sam Dickson once at an AR conference many years ago. I don’t know him, but I do know of him - and that he has spent decades fighting for the white man’s cause. Here he’s disrespected. Whom ought I to believe?

What Hunter says about appealing to conservatives is what I have been saying just recently here at MR, as well as for years and years and years and ... I think it’s what Jared Taylor has believed, too.

Politics is about power. In democracies, that obviously means roping in the largest number of people. The primary strategic question is always, therefore, who is your base? The base of any movement to save the white race - the minimum of which in my view consists in stopping nonwhite immigration everywhere, followed by repatriating nonwhites from Europe, and, in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, 1) ending white judicial and legislative oppression, and 2) reestablishing white cultural hegemony - is going to be found among conservatives. Who else could it be? Occasional NS Euros think that some labourite working class somewhere will constitute it, but I think that view is decades out of date, if it was ever valid.

Note by “base” I don’t mean leadership, or “core”, or theorists. I simply refer to the conventionally recognizable class or group which is most likely to respond favorably to pro-white (whether open or implicit) initiatives. Obviously, it’s white people, but given the ideological, economic, cultural, religious and ‘lifestyles’ heterogeneity of whites, given, that is, that whites are variegated, and do not march in such lockstep as other races seem to, at least wrt ethnic and racial issues, white preservationists need to figure out the identifiable already existent group with which our message is most likely to resonate.

Speaking as an American, though on this issue I can’t believe matters would be much different in Canada or England (or perhaps any white nation today, given the postwar convergence of governing structures, economies and lifestyles), it is perfectly obvious to me that our base is among conservatives (I’m tempted to add, “duh"). The white Left today is very nearly defined by its commitment to ‘diversity’. How many racist white Democrat ("hard-hat") working class voters are there anymore? I would say, strictly empirically, very few. Of course, there may be a few whites who vote Democrat, that is, against their racial interests, because they somehow benefit from liberal largesse (perhaps they are government workers with generous pensions; I have a disgusting neighbor like that, a quite racially/culturally conservative middle aged-white man who voted for CA Governor Jerry Brown strictly to protect his bloated, CA taxpayer provided pension). But the vast bulk of liberal voters I have met in my life have not, I think, been secret racialists voting Democrat for reasons of greed, like my neighbor. Most seem to sincerely support one or another aspect of the liberal agenda, the contemporary foundation stone of which is commitment to racial diversity and equality.

These are not brainwashed persons, except in the most general sense. They are sincere race liberals, and they number in the millions (for Brits, recall my struggle on the English police blog: simply telling the racial truth about the recent riots triggered a groundswell of PC opposition - and this was a blog purportedly speaking for those on the ‘front lines’ of the racial attacks!!).

My point is that white preservationists will only find allies, if at all, among conventional, as yet ‘unawakened’, conservatives. So the real question, for those who actually want to do some racial good in the world, for those, that is, for whom intellectual work is not an end in itself, but a guide to desired social change, is, how can we best appeal to the broader world of conservatives?

As I have argued vociferously and ad nauseam, the answer to this question is “subtly” (not in terms of outspokenness, but intellectual content). In democracies whose (still) white majority populations are remarkably psychologically and thus politically stable, that which is seen as too far outside the mainstream will fail. But the “mainstream” comprises a number of different ‘streams’, so to speak. If we are going to challenge the racial status quo, which, if left unchallenged, will in the normal course of things destroy us, then we need to be as mainstream as possible in every other way apart from the foundational ideological challenge. People like David Duke and and especially Jared Taylor came to understand that unconventional grooming habits, wearing funny ‘uniforms’, indulging in strange gestures or forms of speech, or adhering to bizarre or repugnant (conspiracy) theories and/or ideologies, was simply less effective than appearing ‘clean-cut’ and as culturally and psychologically normal as possible.

This emphasis on conventionality ought to extend to ideology. Thus, in assessing how to get a hearing for WP concerns from conservatives, our only possible mass base, we need to understand conservatives, and try to show that WP (and the policies it requires: ending immigration, ending the anti-white racial spoils system, building white consciousness as an aspect of conservative consciousness) is a natural outgrowth of conservatism (which, in fact, it is). This means in part, especially in America, demonstrating the ethical compatibility between Christianity (the belief system of a clear majority of American conservatives, extending far beyond just the noisier and narrower Bible-thumping Christian “Right") and policies of white preservation. (Hence my personal attraction and commitment to intellectual theories which seek to unify classical conservatism, Christianity (Bible-based or natural law-based), and modern racial science.)

In much larger part, it means jettisoning (or at the very least muting) those aspects of WN which conservatives will find anathema. Insulting Christianity (especially in America), even if all forms of supernaturalism are in fact false (not my view, incidentally), is counterproductive in the extreme. (Force a conservative to choose between Christ and Hitler, and 99% of the time, he will choose the former. That is a fact that needs to be dealt with, even by atheist or NS WNs.) Excessive emphasis on genetic determinism is likewise not something conservatives, with their bedrock beliefs in free will as the necessary counterpart to moral responsibility, will find persuasive or appealing. Nazism, and even ‘naming the Jew’, simply will not get traction, at least for the foreseeable future.

In terms of rigorously dispassionate analysis, I think only some form of fascism will save Europe (I think something very different is needed in America, more of a libertarian separatism or freedom-of-associationism). But even if racial fascism is where the Euroright needs to get to, the present paradox is that it will not get there by advertising this fact openly. The key for all white nations is, as I’ve stated previously, gradual radicalization, the insinuation of white consciousness and pro-white policy advocacy into conservative discourse.

Of course, the nonwhite colonizers are pouring in, making ultimate victory ever more problematic, so we need to be aggressive about this gradualist process. We must all never relinquish any opportunity to spread the truth about race. But we must be as moderate as possible in our presentation, and limited in our agenda. For now, we want legal immigration terminated, illegals deported, and the anti-white spoils system dismantled (maybe also throw in ‘law and order’ and ‘concealed carry’). When we have built up a critical mass of whites adhering to this agenda - and have actually, legislatively accomplished it - we can move our ‘goal-posts’. But set those posts too far back initially, and you will find you can’t even muster a team.
 
Old August 25th, 2011 #105
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
... what is called effrontery, brazenness, chuztpah.
Like trying to create an appearance of knowledge about Hitler by quoting from pseudo-Hitler (François Genoud)?

I also think based on circumstances that you were lying about the conversation that you claimed you had with Dr. Pierce on the matter. That is "effrontery, brazenness, chutzpah."

Anybody that pushes Harold Covington obviously doesn't care much about facts anyway. CMS had the right idea when they fired you.

Last edited by Hadding; August 25th, 2011 at 01:58 PM.
 
Old August 25th, 2011 #106
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[this is a gem of wrongness. it's what i wrote to refute above. it is perfectly articulate expression of a very common view - i would call it an immaculate misconception. i've interpolated comments to make clear where and why religious conservative racial nationalist (haller) is wrong.]

Quote:
Posted by Leon Haller on August 25, 2011, 08:08 AM | #

Greg Johnson, Hunter Wallace, et al:

How is someone like me - a ‘lone wolf’ blogger for many years, sympathetic to anything pro-white, trying to get the message about white persecution and impending extinction out there among alleged conservatives (with a multitude of lengthy comments here at MR, too - one of the few places I haven’t been banned (thank you, GW)) - supposed to decipher the truth from all this “he said/she said” crap?
Compare what you read with what you know personally and also with the proven behavior over time of individuals in question.

Contrary to what is normally said, it is good to have these infights in public. To think otherwise is to kid ourselves we're farther along than we are, or that some organization out there has actually done something that represents genuine WN political progress. I don't see that, using NSDAP evolution as a rough measure.

Quote:
For example, I met Sam Dickson once at an AR conference many years ago. I don’t know him, but I do know of him - and that he has spent decades fighting for the white man’s cause. Here he’s disrespected. Whom ought I to believe?
Take it under advisement until you have enough to conclude.

Quote:
What Hunter says about appealing to conservatives is what I have been saying just recently here at MR, as well as for years and years and years and ... I think it’s what Jared Taylor has believed, too.
Yep. And you're all wrong.

Quote:
Politics is about power. In democracies, that obviously means roping in the largest number of people.
Then how do the jews run things, with such a tiny base? Muds, deviants, feminists, and a couple million of their own. They do it by intimidating honest men, by cheating, by letting in illegal aliens - by all manner of underhanded activities. You prefer to ignore this because it dirties the equation, but real political reality doesn't go away because you don't take it into account. Nor does reality give a damn about your religious should. Reality just is - you can make of use of it or ignore it. Reality doesn't care about that either.

Quote:
The primary strategic question is always, therefore, who is your base?
Wrong, quite wrong. First you must answer a pre-strategic question: who are "we"? Yeah. That basic. Once that is answered, and you know what you mean by 'we' and 'our' (the VNN answer is we are Whites, and jews are our enemy), then the strategic question becomes: how do we gain sovereignty from a System in which jews control the money, the mass media, and the military? The real meaning of Haller's 'primary strategic question' is his tacit assumption that the game is not rigged: that we, however we define ourselves, have a fair chance to win using the ordinary democratic machinery. It is not so. Not to acknowledge the game for what it is, is unserious politics. Fantasy politics. The politics we are encouraged in by the subverters. The people who tell us "we are doing it to ourselves" rather than having it done to us by our enemies. The wrong way is just to dive in and ASSUME that WN is just another political option that for some strange, but easily correctable reason is temporarily looked on with horror by public and powers that be.

Quote:
The base of any movement to save the white race - the minimum of which in my view consists in stopping nonwhite immigration everywhere, followed by repatriating nonwhites from Europe, and, in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, 1) ending white judicial and legislative oppression, and 2) reestablishing white cultural hegemony - is going to be found among conservatives. Who else could it be? Occasional NS Euros think that some labourite working class somewhere will constitute it, but I think that view is decades out of date, if it was ever valid.
Wrong on two levels. Wrong superficially because plenty of leftist whites could find racialism appealing - environmentalists, 'smallists,' 'localists,' even hippies, or libertarian types - even homosexuals and criminals (and they have valuable expertise in crooked networking, which, after all is a pretty fair definition of politics in general, and just the type of cunning we need to battle the jews). Wrong on a deeper level because Haller doesn't see that essentially we are 'white normalists.' Our cause isn't truly a political position but a species-representation - we are a biological party, not a political party. White society by default, on a far deeper level than mere petty politics, is what white nationalism represents. It's not a religious thing either, because whites were white before they were ever christians, and they'll continue to be white longer after that happy day when the sick cult passes out of existence. In the sense that matters, we can't NOT represent our race. So we hardly need to appeal to people because we are identical with the people and their true interests. We aren't representing or appealing, we are the thing itself - the thing itself defending itself, in the biosphere, of which the formal legal electoral system is but a subcircle. If you need evidence that whites are already with us Whites, it's that on the deep life decisions, who to marry, where to live, whites choose white the vast majority of the time. Their race does matter to them, no matter how they compress the air coming out of their throats. We don't need to appeal to anybody, we not only represent them already, we are them and cannot not be them. We're just open about it. THAT is the only real difference between us and the vast majority of fellow whites: we are open about it. But, back on the petty party political level, what Haller doesn't get is that the type of 'appeal' conservatives like him never even think to question as necessary is not where it's at at all. The reason people don't join their formal political behavior with their informal unspoken feelings and behavior is fear. The jews have divorced our external from our internal by means of fear. It is fear, above all else, that we must overcome, in ourselves and in our people, if we are to regain sovereignty.

Only bravery gets out fear. We don't need to appeal to people, Leon. We need to LEAD them. Lead them means not making arguments that people already believe in but, at this point, not showing fear, and striking back at the enemy, verbally and, if we have the guts, like Breivik did, physically. Haller, what you conservatives don't understand is what I wrote above. If we're just another set of whores and panderers, we haven't a hope. The System can always offer more carrots and sticks. We have to be about what our people need. We must attract them with our strength, not our wimpy sales pitch. What have we to offer in the brummagem democratic way? Not a fucking thing. I mean, of course we do, but that aint the fucking point. You're cheapening and superficializing our cause by acting like we're just another variation of Republicans or Democrats. "Vote for me and I'll steal you 5% more from Pete than Bill will." Hunh-uh. We're the whole thing. Not a party position or platform. People will only join us when they see 1) we are not afraid (like the cowardly conservatives and Republicans) and that 2) we strike real blows against the enemy, which indicates we have a chance to actually win. Not just lose, get beat up, and go ever backward. How do we demonstrate the strength that eventually our coracials will accept as leadership? It starts verbally by using slurs. This is where you and MacDonald and Parrott and Yggdrasil and the rest are 100% wrong. Slurs show we will not be intimidated by System verbal taboos. Which is the prerequisite for showing that, in time, we will get to where we can ignore their other rules for whitemice as well. Truly, the continental verbal-political-strategic divide is the use of the term nigger. If you won't use it under your real name, you are not involved in serious politics. You are merely a conservative. Either use 'nigger' or be a niggler, to make a phrase of it.

We gotta be gross large powerful and scary as all fuck, Haller, like a great white shark maw coming up out of the water at the slick black jewmud-seal. Not bending backward appealing to dicks in Dockers.

Quote:
Note by “base” I don’t mean leadership, or “core”, or theorists. I simply refer to the conventionally recognizable class or group which is most likely to respond favorably to pro-white (whether open or implicit) initiatives. Obviously, it’s white people, but given the ideological, economic, cultural, religious and ‘lifestyles’ heterogeneity of whites, given, that is, that whites are variegated, and do not march in such lockstep as other races seem to, at least wrt ethnic and racial issues, white preservationists need to figure out the identifiable already existent group with which our message is most likely to resonate.
Again, the words reveal the mindset. You think of our cause as just another option in ordinary democratic electoral system. It is not. But I can't help note again, even if it were, you fail to mention that we don't enjoy neutral access to the machinery that gets people elected, and that question would precede the other. If you're in a duel where your enemy gets an AK-47 and you a squirt gun, it makes no sense to talk about where to aim that gun until you've got your own AK-47.

Quote:
Speaking as an American, though on this issue I can’t believe matters would be much different in Canada or England (or perhaps any white nation today, given the postwar convergence of governing structures, economies and lifestyles), it is perfectly obvious to me that our base is among conservatives (I’m tempted to add, “duh").
It's a cliche, but think box. You are inside the box, Haller. You need to get out of the box. How do you know you're in the box? It makes sense to you to use the word 'appeal' in any relation to our cause. We don't need to appeal to voters, Leon, we need to attract White men. We don't do that by our silly positions, we do it by what we are. We only have one agenda item: whites living normally among whites in a white country under White control. If our cause isn't negotiable, if it isn't a matter of voting, because it's deeper than that (our existence is not up for debate) then talking about appeals and who and how we need to alter our position smorgasbord - is actually obscene, if you think about it. It reduces our cause to cheap trifling. It makes petty what is profound. Don't do that. Our cause is not conservative. Appealing to middle-class cowards never has and never will get racialism anywhere. Selfish, cowardly bourgeois won't fight for anything but lower taxes. They'll join us all right: when we're on the verge of winning. So it was with Hitler, and his Germans were a hell of a lot more serious, intelligent and less sketchy than AmeriKwans in 2011.

Quote:
The white Left today is very nearly defined by its commitment to ‘diversity’. How many racist white Democrat ("hard-hat") working class voters are there anymore? I would say, strictly empirically, very few. Of course, there may be a few whites who vote Democrat, that is, against their racial interests, because they somehow benefit from liberal largesse (perhaps they are government workers with generous pensions; I have a disgusting neighbor like that, a quite racially/culturally conservative middle aged-white man who voted for CA Governor Jerry Brown strictly to protect his bloated, CA taxpayer provided pension). But the vast bulk of liberal voters I have met in my life have not, I think, been secret racialists voting Democrat for reasons of greed, like my neighbor. Most seem to sincerely support one or another aspect of the liberal agenda, the contemporary foundation stone of which is commitment to racial diversity and equality.
True but irrelevant, for reasons already stated. Mere petty politics has nothing to do with our cause.

Quote:
These are not brainwashed persons, except in the most general sense. They are sincere race liberals, and they number in the millions (for Brits, recall my struggle on the English police blog: simply telling the racial truth about the recent riots triggered a groundswell of PC opposition - and this was a blog purportedly speaking for those on the ‘front lines’ of the racial attacks!!).

My point is that white preservationists will only find allies, if at all, among conventional, as yet ‘unawakened’, conservatives. So the real question, for those who actually want to do some racial good in the world, for those, that is, for whom intellectual work is not an end in itself, but a guide to desired social change, is, how can we best appeal to the broader world of conservatives?
If you use the word appeal, you don't get it. Your mindset is trapped in a petty political world that has nothing to do with deep, real politics -- where nothing is off the table. I mean, that's how we got here. The jews don't play fair. Our petty right-wing politics have faced the jews for 100 years and the jews have won every single time. Maybe we should try something different. Of course we should. What is new and different is using slurs, following a principled, IMPERSONAL political line, and attacking everyone not meeting our litmus test as the enemy. With the end goal of destroying the petty right, the stupid, cowardly, lazy conservatives, en route to polarizing the public for the real and final battle between Whites and jews. The conservative approach has been tried for decades. It has failed. Let's try a different route.

Quote:
As I have argued vociferously and ad nauseam, the answer to this question is “subtly” (not in terms of outspokenness, but intellectual content). In democracies whose (still) white majority populations are remarkably psychologically and thus politically stable, that which is seen as too far outside the mainstream will fail. But the “mainstream” comprises a number of different ‘streams’, so to speak. If we are going to challenge the racial status quo, which, if left unchallenged, will in the normal course of things destroy us, then we need to be as mainstream as possible in every other way apart from the foundational ideological challenge.
Wholly wrong. Indeed, comically wrong. You just don't get it, Haller: the enemy controls all the devices that determine what is normal and who has authority. That's tv, mostly. But also public schools, preachers, the presidency. A subtle, moderate appeal to cowardly conservatives is going to create an invincible racial radicalism? You can't be serious. It's easier to take this as satire, or subversion, than serious strategy. Have you ever looked at people in public? Do they look like they're up for a big serving of subtle? or super-sized? Yeah. Come on, Leon. You can think harder than that. Watch Idiocracy and you'll see what I'm driving at.

Loud, gross, unsubtle, clear, simple, but above all STRONG...is what is called for. Strong is the only thing whites understand. Peg our race to this guy, who personifies our average: Dog The Bounty Hunter. That's who we are, represent, appeal to, attract, speak for, defend. Think of everything we say in relation to someone on that level. If you do, you'll see it is LACK OF STRENGTH, not bad arguments, or ill-fitting suits, or poorly combed hair, that is the reason the public THAT WE KNOW IS "WHITE" BY THE WAY IT MARRIES AND MOVES isn't with us in formal democratic electoral politics. WN can run for office but it can't hide. If it's not got the courage, it's a non-starter with the mass public.

The masses are feminine, Leon. They respond to strength, like a woman. Not niggling weakness. They want to be bowled over, not reasoned with. If they're scared of ZOG's penalties for siding with the politics they really want, no rational argument will win them over - only showing there's a new sheriff in town, and he might just be on the way to kicking ZOG's ass. Elemental stuff. It always is. Who's the big dog in the room? Hint: itz NEVER a bunch of conservative faggots. Never. We're not in an argument. We're not in a debate. We're not playing a game. We're in a fight. And a fight with NO RULES. Humans are animals, and that is the bottom-line POLITICAL fact. Whites lost their countries through intimidation, and they will only get them back through bravery. That is the psychological truth of our situation, no matter our particular nation.

Quote:
People like David Duke and and especially Jared Taylor came to understand that unconventional grooming habits, wearing funny ‘uniforms’, indulging in strange gestures or forms of speech, or adhering to bizarre or repugnant (conspiracy) theories and/or ideologies, was simply less effective than appearing ‘clean-cut’ and as culturally and psychologically normal as possible.
Yeah, and I'm an average white guy watching Polished Turd get abused off his own paid-for podium by a bunch of teenage pussies. Yeah, I'm signing up with kosher racialism real quick. Looks like fun. We whine and niggle (what Jerry calls gentlemanliness), and get our ass kicked and go backward while the media laughs its ass off.

No strength? No power. Where's the strength in conservatism? Just some arguments. Arguments without heroes to champion them do nothing. As Hitler said -- and he was a winner, unlike conservatives -- "it is not enough that you believe - you must fight." Truth shall not prevail without a sword at her side.

Why did people follow Hitler, Haller? Was it his arguments? Or was it that they knew he meant what he said and would back it with his life? You can't even find among your cowardly conservatives a leader with the guts to use 'nigger' in public. And you're going fuck The People with that dick? Fuck you are. The people can find better pussy than conservative shemales.

Face it, Haller. No answer in church. No answers on right. Just a bunch of old women, pursing lips and waggling fingers.

Quote:
This emphasis on conventionality ought to extend to ideology. Thus, in assessing how to get a hearing for WP concerns from conservatives,
Real men lead. They don't 'appeal' or 'try to get a hearing.' Passive, passive, passive, wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, loser, loser, loser. Like most conservatives, you're tone deaf. You can't FEEL anything. If the jews took the attitude and approach you advise, they'd still be huddled up in their tenements on the Lower East Side. Brazen is beautiful. Only balls gives orders in this world, as Montana says in "Scarface," a movie that has attracted more fans -- of all types and races -- than anything conservatives have come up with in their entire history. I wonder why that is. No...I don't wonder at all.

I hate to use a niggerism, but either go big or don't go at all. This wimpy democratic-electoral appeal to lazy, cowardly, selfish middle-class khaki wearers is ridiculous. You can't take crap like that and escher it into revolutionary warriors. That ought to be obvious. What we need to do is BE the Conans, and by our sheer powerful awesomeness attract the barbarians. Then the lamenting women (than which an apter description of conservatives could hardly be devised) will follow us. 'Appealing' to the conformist middle-classes is the political equivalent of putting women on a pedestal. It doesn't work except to produce misery.

What we have here is a failure to perceive the paradox. The nice middle-class society, and the Southern culture, may be desirable to live in, but they do not produce the type capable of defending themselves. Only ideological racial fanatics can do that. Accept it. Help generate those fanatics.

Quote:
our only possible mass base, we need to understand conservatives, and try to show that WP (and the policies it requires: ending immigration, ending the anti-white racial spoils system, building white consciousness as an aspect of conservative consciousness) is a natural outgrowth of conservatism (which, in fact, it is).
Conservatism begins with racialism, intellectually. Race is the basis of what you're going to preserve, since culture springs from it. The culture comes from the race. Not the other way around. But the two have been forcibly divorced in the right-wing sheets by the neocon anti-White takeover artists. When I was an intern at The American Spectator, my task was cataloging old articles. And you could trace, over the years from inception to present (basically 1968-88) the abandoning of anything racial or even cultural as the neocons shaded into the far boringer but semitically safer anti-liberaling and policy-wonking. Intellectually racialism and conservatism are perfectly consistent; but that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about here. To ordinary people, conservatism is whatever comes out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth, or Rush Limbaughs. And that's liberalism on the most basic thing - race. People don't think, they parrot. You don't persuade them, you become the authority. To people, who are almost all women, authority IS the argument - the only persuasive argument. Authority is the only argument most people understand or pay any real attention to. It's not a thinking thing, it's a biological thing.

Quote:
This means in part, especially in America, demonstrating the ethical compatibility between Christianity (the belief system of a clear majority of American conservatives, extending far beyond just the noisier and narrower Bible-thumping Christian “Right") and policies of white preservation. (Hence my personal attraction and commitment to intellectual theories which seek to unify classical conservatism, Christianity (Bible-based or natural law-based), and modern racial science.)
"Demonstrating ethical compatibility" - yeah, that'll grab 'em.

Try this instead: "Niggers are flash mobbing our neighborhoods? Let's go flash mob some niggers."

Yeah. That crude. Necessarily. People are not intellectuals. People DO NOT think. The vast majority CANNOT think except in the narrowest instrumental sense. You cannot reach them with intellectual appeals. It's crude power display. If the other side can visibly kick our ass, we have to change that. Arguing will never win a physical fight. We don't need to argue, we need to bulk up. Verbally and physically - simultaneously. We are 98-lb weaklings right now, and that's why the beach blanket bunny public wants nothing to do with us and runs off with Ian Ziering.

How did Whites act when they were free and sovereign? They used racial epithets and lynched troublemakers - jew, mud and white. By degree jews stole to power, and made those healthy actions 'hate' crimes and enforced taboos against even noticing racial differences, let alone acting on them. We don't get back to where we were by playing along with the rules of the New Racial Order.

Quote:
In much larger part, it means jettisoning (or at the very least muting) those aspects of WN which conservatives will find anathema.
So crazy it beggars belief. We are to suck up to weaklings to gain political power. How is that possibly a winning strategy? The jews didn't get power by appealing to people but by kicking their ass, in every possible way. We will only get that power back by kicking THEIR kikey ass. Appealing to mouthbreathing Foxtards as a strategy is, again, so far past ridiculous it makes one question your motives in suggesting it.

Quote:
Insulting Christianity (especially in America), even if all forms of supernaturalism are in fact false (not my view, incidentally), is counterproductive in the extreme.
Yeah, that's certainly what the ruling jews have found. They mock jesus in every quarter, and really pay the price when christian retards won't show up to fight their endless wars. Or suck their dicks in public. Why don't you witless one-note christards every look at things from the opposite direction. Why in the world need anybody show jesus cultists any respect when they neither demand nor command it?

I'm taking my political tips from winners like the jews, not conservatives losers. The WINNERS bash the christians? Then we WN should bash the christians too. Evidence suggests they'll grovel before us, end up kissing our ass, and supporting our wars. Jesus Trekkies are no more worthy of respect than Trekkies proper. Just a bunch of freaks and nerds. Cultists babbling in delusion.

Quote:
(Force a conservative to choose between Christ and Hitler, and 99% of the time, he will choose the former. That is a fact that needs to be dealt with, even by atheist or NS WNs.)
Planted axiom: that it matters what christians or conservatives think. It does not. They're stupid, scared dogs, and will support who they're told to by their bought bosses, as all evidence shows. They are irrelevant to the struggle between Whites and jews UNTIL the Fox-faux-right, the controlled opposition, is destroyed and the real parties doing battle are seen by everybody, from the 10-watts to the 100-watts, to be WHITES and JEWS. And then the christian-conservative cuntlings will side with the White side because as bad as evil-nazis might be, jew commies are worse - as long as there's anything of even nearly equal strength to the two sides. Until that point, what the christ cultists think is irrelevant. They're just dumb tools and safely ignorable.

Quote:
Excessive emphasis on genetic determinism is likewise not something conservatives, with their bedrock beliefs in free will as the necessary counterpart to moral responsibility, will find persuasive or appealing. Nazism, and even ‘naming the Jew’, simply will not get traction, at least for the foreseeable future.
Only strength will get traction. Strength is a perception and reality, not a political position or party agenda. As I said posts above, the strong attract people; the weak appeal to people.

If you think, Leon, I truly believe you might be able to understand that very simple, yet kind of subtle, concept.

A supermodel doesn't need to pass out a stats sheet selling her awesome tits and juicy inlets - she just strips bare and lets the drool flow. Our cause is a supermodel. Let's fucking act like it. WE are the FOOTBALL CAPTAIN, and WE are the HEAD CHEERLEADER. Dig it, ponyboys.

Quote:
In terms of rigorously dispassionate analysis, I think only some form of fascism will save Europe (I think something very different is needed in America, more of a libertarian separatism or freedom-of-associationism).
The divide here is temporal: strongman through the struggle and refoundation; libertarian devolution afterward. No point in mixing the two prematurely in political discussions, it just confuses people. Just reassure them that AFTER we win, and clean up the racial problems, we are NOT going to be totalitarian tyrants. I do agree it is better when discussing with Americans to emphasize, IF YOU AGREE, as you and I probably do, that we WN respect markets (as Hitler did), and we do NOT like centralized power (so we're not truly nazis, altho always called that by enemies, which is not to distance ourselves from or to disrespect historical NS, just to explain our different position). I don't think anyone believes we can go straight from jewish tyranny today to white Constitutional freedom tomorrow. Too much has been lost or permanently messed up. We will have to fix up the ol' plantation before we get down to parceling things back out.

But ultimately, our vision for our people is DEVOLUTION - the only political form that is unique to our race. Because if white men can't run their own lives, we have no cause. We will live as white MEN in a WHITE context. Then and only then can we be all we can be, both as a race AND as individual men and women. Whites who don't want part of that can apply to Nigeria or China, or go under fighting us. We'll have a literal physical contract signed between the monofunctional Guardian-protected overstate and the citizen whereby they positively affirm they understand the state is racially based and will never change, and they accept that. Their kids, born with no consent, will be given equivalent of rumspringa from 18-21, say, but after that, they are either in or out. The compromisable stuff can be worked out via PRIVATE ASSOCIATION, not government coercion, through the people living in their microstates. They can be social democrats, Catholics, libertarians, whatever, but the central or over or federal goverment will NEVER allow challenge to the racial basis of the state. Since there won't be any jews or muds to contest it, the only danger can come from invasion or subversion within, but these will be as easy to prevent as they could conceivably be.

Quote:
But even if racial fascism is where the Euroright needs to get to, the present paradox is that it will not get there by advertising this fact openly. The key for all white nations is, as I’ve stated previously, gradual radicalization, the insinuation of white consciousness and pro-white policy advocacy into conservative discourse.
It's never a matter of right or left
It's always a matter of White or death.


'Gradual radicalization' - Haller, it just doesn't work like this. Imagine ANY successful revolutionary sayign the stuff you're saying. Imagine Hitler talking about subtly influencing people, gradually radicalizing them. Either you're leading and loud and laughing, or you're limping, lingering and lamenting. Nothing sneaky or superficial, shallow, subtle can work. It must be plain and strong. Again, this is so obvious it is hard to believe you actually believe what you're typing. You're going insinuate and gradually radicalize conservatives? Really? Maybe if you controlled Fox News. Otherwise, no. And even if you did control Fox, why would you go by degree? You'd just flip policy overnight, and your audience would follow cluelessly. There's not 1/100 Fox viewers who can define conservatism in a way Burke would recognize. They're intellectual niggers. Conservatism is simply whatever a publicly labeled conservative just said. Even if he said the opposite yesterday. And since you don't have any major media outlets, and every official vector is controlled by the enemy, a policy of insinuation is utterly impossible. Whites don't sneak up on people, particularly when theirs is the majority view, as it is in white countries. Sneaking insintuation is for filthy kikes with a genetic-cultural bent for it and a view that makes the majority puke in disgust.

Quote:
Of course, the nonwhite colonizers are pouring in, making ultimate victory ever more problematic, so we need to be aggressive about this gradualist process.
Subtly insinuate gradually but aggressively.

Where's that pic of the owl with the head tilted halfway around?

Quote:
We must all never relinquish any opportunity to spread the truth about race. But we must be as moderate as possible in our presentation, and limited in our agenda. For now, we want legal immigration terminated, illegals deported, and the anti-white spoils system dismantled (maybe also throw in ‘law and order’ and ‘concealed carry’). When we have built up a critical mass of whites adhering to this agenda - and have actually, legislatively accomplished it - we can move our ‘goal-posts’. But set those posts too far back initially, and you will find you can’t even muster a team.
"We must be as moderate as possible."

And with that, you're taking over my job. Good friggin' grief.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 25th, 2011 at 06:05 PM.
 
Old August 25th, 2011 #107
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default

Whew, your whole response to Haller is brilliant stuff. Particularly the stuff about deep politics. Moving the whole political spectrum whiteward. Compelling. Right up to where you conclude that the best use of your time is roasting other racialists who don't pass your litmus test of radicalness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
[Maybe we should try something different. Of course we should. What is new and different is using slurs, following a principled, IMPERSONAL political line, and attacking everyone not meeting our litmus test as the enemy. With the end goal of destroying the petty right, the stupid, cowardly, lazy conservatives, en route to polarizing the public for the real and final battle between Whites and jews. The conservative approach has been tried for decades. It has failed. Let's try a different route.
Hollering "coward" into cyberspace for 10 years has accomplished what, exactly? You need to take a step back and look at this website. It is a fucking madhouse. How does creating an online Bedlam, filled with vicious, aggressive, lying morons, freaks, trolls, government agents, and -- lowest of all -- toadies, advance our cause? How does occasionally throwing productive and decent people like Matt Parrott to the savages increase the chance that there will be white people on this planet 200 years from now?

What is wrong with you? Our recent discussion of your charge that Ed Connelly is a plagiarist made it clear to me that there is a huge streak of very touchy vanity in your character, and it skews your judgment, trumps your honesty, and makes you stupid whenever it takes control. It is a pity, because you can be a very lucid thinker and compelling writer.

This whole polarization strategy is just another version of the old, "First, we must unite everybody on the right behind one fearless leader by spending all our time and energy attacking other fearless leaders, smashing their organizations, and wooing their followers" approach. Well, it doesn't work. It is counter-productive. It is a criminal waste of time and energy. And it reeks of the petty and shallow politics that you so rightly deride in Haller.

What would a deep political approach dictate? Recognizing that a diversity of approaches is a given and will not go away. Allowing people to participate in this struggle at whatever level of explicitness and involvement they choose. Accepting their choices. Respecting their anonymity. Remaining true to one's own message. Attacking the enemy. Constructively engaging other whites. Networking with other groups. Working to radicalize the best people among them. Building a counter-elite. Establishing a core of people and a network of influence that will pull the whole culture and the whole political spectrum toward white racial consciousness.

I discuss this in my piece on "Hegemony" at Counter-Currents. I talk about some of the organizational implications in my followup, which I am working on now.

No, we can't include everyone. We can't include mentally ill and abnormal people, for instance. That is a very costly lesson I learned from my association with CMS.
 
Old August 25th, 2011 #108
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
No Alex, you're just not bright enough to keep up.
Damn. I hate when that happens. In my defense, I did have to postpone an IQ injection, so maybe some slippage is understandable.

Quote:
The "And you know it's dumb" is what is called effrontery, brazenness, chuztpah. One of your more tiresome traits.
Funny. It always seems so charming when I do it. I always get a big kick out of it. I guess we're gonna have to chalk it up as another on my smorgasbord of disagreeable personality traits.

Stupid and obnoxious? It's clear I'm one of those "double-threat" guys.
 
Old August 25th, 2011 #109
Joe Cooper
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 69
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
To Greg Johnson: Anybody that pushes Harold Covington obviously doesn't care much about facts anyway. CMS had the right idea when they fired you.
Seems to me that they-- meaning various WN "leaders"-- all talk shit about each other probably because they all are trying for the same group of people and their donations.

You've covered what Covington has said pretty well. I've visited your blog a few times.

-- he talked shit about Pierce and Klassen. Did Pierce and Klassen talk any shit about him?

Yes. So how does that work out in the honesty department with you? Covington lied about Klassen. Klassen lied about Covington. Do two wrongs make a right? The reality is they just were trying to get the same members.

-- he accused Will Williams of selling off the NA mailing list. I read somewhere that Will and Covington grew up together. Sounds like a personal issue that got turned into a political one. So these guys hate each other and went back and forth. What does that have to do with White Nationalism?

-- he's talked shit about Glenn Miller. A lot of people talk shit about Glenn Miller. I've always liked him and his approach to WN. He got his balls in a vice with the Order. He was otherwise a bad ass in his day, but none of these people are above criticism.



You know what I think the real problem is here? Alcohol.

I sometimes wonder how many of the people in WN are alcoholics. They are all some controlling motherfuckers that are at the same time super sensitive bitches.

We need an AA meeting for WN leaders and discuss the topic "principles before personalities."

And since I know you'll call me a "Covingtonista" or whatever, my opinion is that the Northwest migration is a good idea but Covington brings a bunch of baggage before it can even get off the ground. He made that mess and he knows it. He talks about the "goat dancers", but he's done plenty of goat dancing himself.

And if this post gets me banned, let me just say that I think we need to stop looking for leaders to follow. We need to quit joining political cults that make us feel like we are doing something and try being leaders ourselves. No one is going to save us.
 
Old August 25th, 2011 #110
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Whew, your whole response to Haller is brilliant stuff. Particularly the stuff about deep politics. Moving the whole political spectrum whiteward. Compelling. Right up to where you conclude that the best use of your time is roasting other racialists who don't pass your litmus test of radicalness.
Nuh nuh nuh, my test is not one of radical'r than thou. I don't do adjectives. My test is a simple political litmus. Anyone who comes out wrong is my enemy. I attack my enemies. I don't pretend they're my friends. That puts me at odds people like you who put the personal over the political. I don't care. You're wrong. Your approach is wrong. I'm right. My approach is the right one for our cause. VNN doesn't move. Over time, everything else moves VNNward - or else it disappears.

You see, Greg, and I apologize for, uh, getting out of your ken, shall we say, it's like a pregnancy test: You can't be a little bit pregnant. It's either pink or blue. When you try to pretend a thing and its opposite are the same, all you get is pue and blink.

Quote:
Hollering "coward" into cyberspace for 10 years has accomplished what, exactly? You need to take a step back and look at this website. It is a fucking madhouse. How does creating an online Bedlam, filled with vicious, aggressive, lying morons, freaks, trolls, government agents, and -- lowest of all -- toadies, advance our cause?
Um...erm...um...ug...argh...blurg...grumph..pelk...milg.

Does your description actually fit what's going on here? If so, why post your essays here? Unable to stifle that urge to posterior-decorate, so to spleak?

Quote:
How does occasionally throwing productive and decent people like Matt Parrott to the savages increase the chance that there will be white people on this planet 200 years from now?
Is Parrott decent? Is decency good? Are you smuggling any position I specifically argue against in under that 'decency'? What's Parrott's position on jews? Did he/does he work with/support Jared Taylor? These are questions that matter to me. You're happy if someone is smart and polite. For me, that's not enough. I stick rigidly to my party line, and anyone across it is my enemy. You might not like that, but what you and the conservapolitans can't seem to grasp is that I have put out a very square case for my side -- and your side has never rebutted it. You don't seem to grasp, Greg, that I've already thought my way through your position and come up with my own. You have not done that to mine. Of course, you might not want to do that for your own reasons, but when you continually chide me over matters that to me are neither manners nor trivial points but in fact essentials, I can only shake my head. Instead of clucking at me, address my argument. I don't care who's naughty or nice, I care if they're meeting WN standards and reliably fighting the good fight - at VNN or elsewhere. If you think I should have different principles than I do, then we can argue about that, because my position is 100% thought through, and will whip yours, which is half-baked and wrong.

Quote:
What is wrong with you? Our recent discussion of your charge that Ed Connelly is a plagiarist made it clear to me that there is a huge streak of very touchy vanity in your character, and it skews your judgment, trumps your honesty, and makes you stupid whenever it takes control. It is a pity, because you can be a very lucid thinker and compelling writer.
It's not vanity, Greg. Vain people don't act like I do. It was DISGUST. Not narcissism or vanity, DISGUST. Yeah, I seized on that one thing, and wrongly, or semi-wrongly attributed it to you. And apologized for that. But it seemed a perfect example of what generally is wrong with the soi-disant high-roaders' approach.

Quote:
This whole polarization strategy is just another version of the old, "First, we must unite everybody on the right behind one fearless leader by spending all our time and energy attacking other fearless leaders, smashing their organizations, and wooing their followers" approach. Well, it doesn't work. It is counter-productive. It is a criminal waste of time and energy. And it reeks of the petty and shallow politics that you so rightly deride in Haller.
Oh, great counter argument. Christ, a three-year-old could come up with better than that. It's not even accurate. It's not one LEADER, it's one tendency. One school of thought, strategy, approach that will dominate the rest obviously and compel by sheer impressive efficacy to fall in line. And yes, that very well might be as a result of one particularly charimastic leader, but not necessarily so.

I never get this petty, almost house-wifey mode you get into. "Waste of time and energy," "counter productive" -- wtf, it's like I'm dealing with Kevin Strom or something. What could possibly be LESS of a waste of time than arguing over the right political strategy for Whites to reclaim sovereignty? You just aren't thinking clearly. You're letting your taste for decency, getting along, friendliness, nice centerpieces, dinner parties, overwhelm your analytical capacity. We need the right strategy. It is worth infighting about. I will keep fighting until my strategy is seen as correct. I mean, heck, if you're right, all you have to do is ignore me. I'm the only one arguing we should biff in the solar-plexus rather than amplexus with the conservatives. All I see out of your side's love-n-tolerance-based ecru nationalism is a hazy mess. As for "smashing their organizations" - I don't do that. I attack people who use MY name (white nationalism) while advocating non-WN politics. And yes, I arrogate the definition of WN, and will battle anyone who disagrees. What you don't appear to realize, Greg, is the risks you run by associating people who are on an entirely different page than you are because you never cared enough to look, thinking it didn't matter. My strategy is at least unique: attack the conservatives and the christians. Make those attacks principled AND personal. Use epithets, not just arguments.

No one else, no other site, man, faction or party is taking my approach. You're all just overlooking and back-scratching and log-rolling. All you will end up doing is strengthening the controlled opposition - the professional conservatives. You aren't radicalizing the Buchanans, you're shoring them up. I, who can see farther and deeper than you, am doing you the service of pointing out exactly what you're ACTUALLY doing rather than feeding your illusions about the natural results of promiscuous conservative-racialist intermixing. Greg, I can already see it in your writing. I want Greg Johnson, white radical, not Greg Johnson, some fag sitting around joshing with Affable Dick Spencer. Yeah, I know. There goes my vanity and narcissm again. No doubt an egotistical rage is close behind.

They're putzes, Greg - the alt-right crowd. I can smell 'em a mile away. And odds are Parrott is a putz too. Don't be a fool.

Quote:
What would a deep political approach dictate? Recognizing that a diversity of approaches is a given and will not go away.
Yes and no - and it doesn't imply your position anyway. You're basically saying I should abandon my position, which is the same thing I'm telling you, except I don't pretend not to be. Are you smart enough to figure out what I'm saying? Your call for tolerance is hypocritical and self-contradictory. Whereas I'm openly intolerant. If someone doesn't follow my line, he's the enemy. Not like it's a hard standard to meet: openly White and openly anti-jew. That's all. Within that framework, we can do business. Outside it, we're enemies. Simple, clear, effective. Why do you whine about it when you have nothing better, just albino kumbaya, and you're afraid even to address the EXTREME dangers, political and often enough legal, that come from abandoning the dual litmus test? You just start hectoring me like an old woman. You ought to be listening and taking notes.

Yet again, as I'll point out for the 500th time, you and the high-roaders have never explained how we win by your strategy of playing fanboy to professional conservatives and never cursing or raising our voices, even, to the jews. I keep waiting. Only VNN/F has a clear identification of the problem, and a clear strategy to solve it.

Contrary to what you say, and one good reason FOR infighting, is that our forces are too small to scatter. You really think you're attracting some huge new crowd at Counter-Currents that VNN doesn't have? I doubt it. It's the same people, no matter where you go. There aren't enough we can split. So the urgency is to find the RIGHT WAY to go. The right strategy. The right tendency to back. I offer that way. But others disagree. I'm not giving up my position and following some way that can't work. In the end, my tendency will win out for objective reasons. What we need for truly massive growth is to defeat the professional conservatives. That can't happen when we mix with them. Please think about what I'm saying.

I'm just not wrong about this stuff, Greg. Review the record. The conservatives aren't racial radicals, they're fundraisers and career girls. Andy Nowicki? Mark Hackard? Richard Meh-Spencer? You think these are on your side? Hey, I enjoy reading their stuff too, they're fine writers, but their cause is personal, not political. Look in their eyes. They're a bunch of self-promoters (not wholly a bad thing) and o tempores/o mores types - basically religious emo-goth types transferred to politics. They won't shake their fist strongly to change things, they'll shake their heads sadly to lament things. They're in the wrong mode, and it's a biological predisposition, not a choice. When you try to have it both ways, as Sam Francis proved bodily, you rip yourself apart. You can see it in their eyes. Squirrel, squirm and squish as you like, at the end of the day, it's a long straight, slow slog, and there's no way around that. So face up to it. Be a man, not a conservative.

Quote:
Allowing people to participate in this struggle at whatever level of explicitness and involvement they choose. Accepting their choices. Respecting their anonymity. Remaining true to one's own message. Attacking the enemy. Constructively engaging other whites. Networking with other groups. Working to radicalize the best people among them. Building a counter-elite. Establishing a core of people and a network of influence that will pull the whole culture and the whole political spectrum toward white racial consciousness.
The verb is lead. If you're not going to lead, then you're reduced to wifely whispering and shirtsleeve tugging. I don't so much disagree with what you say above, but no serious leadership is coming out of conservatives or academics. It must come from fighters. The smarties' duty is to figure out the right strategy. Luckily for us, I've done that.

Quote:
I discuss this in my piece on "Hegemony" at Counter-Currents. I talk about some of the organizational implications in my followup, which I am working on now. No, we can't include everyone. We can't include mentally ill and abnormal people, for instance. That is a very costly lesson I learned from my association with CMS.
It's great that you're learning. Now your next lesson, which I'm teaching you on the cheap, is that associating with conservatives is only marginally less dangerous than associating with insanies, and just as ineffective. Don't fraternize, Greg. You don't know where these conmen have been. Attack them as the enemy, as I advise. Then you run only the risk of making real progress.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 25th, 2011 at 08:28 PM.
 
Old August 25th, 2011 #111
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Cooper View Post
Seems to me that they-- meaning various WN "leaders"-- all talk shit about each other probably because they all are trying for the same group of people and their donations.
No, they don't generally. You seem to put no value on the difference between honest criticism and lying. Ben Klassen and William Pierce never lied about Harold Covington, and mentioned him only rarely whereas Covington has been incessant with his assorted lies.

A few years ago it was generally understood that anybody that takes Harold Covington seriously is a horse's ass, but as the years since the death of Dr. Pierce have increased, so has the accretion of mental and moral defectives to the WN cause.

Keep defending Harold Covington so that everybody knows who the fucktards are. You and Greggy too. Say it loud and clear.

Come out of the closet too while you're at it. Covington and a number of his associates and prominent supporters for some reason just happen to be perverts. What's up with that?

Last edited by Hadding; August 25th, 2011 at 07:56 PM.
 
Old August 26th, 2011 #112
Joe Cooper
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 69
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
No, they don't generally. You seem to put no value on the difference between honest criticism and lying. Ben Klassen and William Pierce never lied about Harold Covington, and mentioned him only rarely whereas Covington has been incessant with his assorted lies.
Speaking of incessant, why is this person of such a huge concern to you? You can't go a couple posts without mentioning something about him. If someone says anything about Covington or NW Migration, you're there.



Quote:
A few years ago it was generally understood that anybody that takes Harold Covington seriously is a horse's ass, but as the years since the death of Dr. Pierce have increased, so has the accretion of mental and moral defectives to the WN cause.
I take secession seriously because I think in the long-run it is a more viable solution than attempting to take back this whole country.

The way I see it, whether we took back a portion of this country or the whole thing, the issue goes back to effective propaganda.

I don't think it can happen under the NW Front because of Covington and the way he has acted.

Quote:
Keep defending Harold Covington so that everybody knows who the fucktards are. You and Greggy too. Say it loud and clear.
I'm not defending Covington.

I'm actually trying to get around to the real problem in this movement, which you display nicely right here.

It's not "honest criticism versus lying" it's critiquing ideas versus character assassination. And you don't know the difference, let alone value it.

I really don't give a fuck what you think about me. The fact that you'll just skip over my ideas and attack me says it all.

Quote:
Come out of the closet too while you're at it. Covington and a number of his associates and prominent supporters for some reason just happen to be perverts. What's up with that?
I've got three kids and I live in the Midwest, dipshit. You've got a website dedicated to fat guy in Seattle. Which one of us is a fag?
 
Old August 26th, 2011 #113
Cesar Tort
Junior Member
 
Cesar Tort's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 88
Cesar Tort
Default

"Chechar is a Mexican lunatic (diagnosed with some disorder)" - Hadding
Jesus, Hadding! It’s the first time that someone calls me “lunatic” in the boards. Yes: I researched psychiatry and have a blog on anti-psychiatric issues (psychiatric labeling is mainly a Jew thing, you know?). And I have visited mental hospitals twice in my life—as a researcher, never as a patient.

That I was born in Mexico doesn’t erase the fact that I am an Iberian white, and that I have a very low opinion about Mexico.

Cf. what Joe Cooper said about character assassination just above. You are mad with me because, debating you, I sided Covington and the Northwest idea in a handful threads at TOO and CC. But I ignored that you also try to assassinate the character of Covington’s fans so vehemently...
"César Córcoles (chechar) on Twitter" - Rick
Nope! You perfectly know there are literally millions of “Cesars” in the Spanish-speaking world. You picked the wrong Chechar. FYI my full name is Cesar Tort… and I am not even the only “Cesar” with that last name in the world.
 
Old August 26th, 2011 #114
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Cooper View Post
I'm not defending Covington.
When you claim a moral equivalence between Covington and Pierce or Covington and Klassen, when you claim that they lied about him in their rare statements about him (here and here), you damned well are defending Covington, and attacking Klassen and Pierce to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Cooper
-- he talked shit about Pierce and Klassen. Did Pierce and Klassen talk any shit about him?

Yes. So how does that work out in the honesty department with you? Covington lied about Klassen. Klassen lied about Covington.
Obviously you are in the habit of addressing drunkards and delusional or stupid people who find this kind of rhetoric passable.

Last edited by Hadding; August 26th, 2011 at 09:09 AM.
 
Old August 26th, 2011 #115
Donnie in Ohio
Switching to glide
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Morrison Hotel
Posts: 9,396
Blog Entries: 11
Donnie in Ohio
Default No Jews-Just right

My thoughts on "Big Tent WN" from another thread:

"Including Jews as White is a non-starter. It misses the point entirely.

I believe we have a certain set of WN who think "OK, Americans can see the effects of Black & Mestizo integration with their own eyes. The effects are manifest in front of them daily, easily demonstrable by us. Those same Americans are clueless about Jews, so in order to tackle problem A, we will ignore problem B for now".

Nobody likes Jews but other Jews & White religious fanatics. They are an utterly offensive race.

Unfortunately, White religious fanatics have made up the bulk of American White Nationalism for quite a while, and there is still gold in them there hills, so to speak".
__________________
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder
 
Old August 26th, 2011 #116
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Greg Johnson:

Quote:
In fairness to Gardner, the first—and worst—breach of CMS security (handing all the organization’s records over to “Hunter Wallace") was not entirely his decision. It was co-authored by Sam Dickson, who was still president of CMS at the time.
What would possess Sam Dickson, Esq., veteran of decades of right-wing politics, to affiliate with a someone who’s been obviously and continually mentally unstable since his Fade the Butcher incarnation? Does Southern cultural commonality override judgment?
 
Old August 26th, 2011 #117
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
Greg Johnson:



What would possess Sam Dickson, Esq., veteran of decades of right-wing politics, to affiliate with a someone who’s been obviously and continually mentally unstable since his Fade the Butcher incarnation? Does Southern cultural commonality override judgment?
This is a question best asked of Johnson, I suppose, but what exactly is the disgrace that Dickson has supposedly encumbered?

There were allusions to it in a couple of earlier posts.
 
Old August 26th, 2011 #118
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
This is a question best asked of Johnson, I suppose, but what exactly is the disgrace that Dickson has supposedly encumbered?

There were allusions to it in a couple of earlier posts.
I believe the feeling on the part of some is that Dickson is quite vain, thinks he's the best speaker ever heard of. Beyond that I don't know. And that's not my opinion - I have never met Dickson or heard him except maybe a video of talk he gave one time.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 26th, 2011 at 12:54 PM.
 
Old August 26th, 2011 #119
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

I missed this earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Cooper View Post

-- he accused Will Williams of selling off the NA mailing list.
You repeat this accusation while giving no indication that it has been refuted.

Affidavit from John McLaughlin:
http://imageshack.us/f/545/hacmclaughlinaffidavit.jpg

Affidavit from Dr. William Pierce:
http://imageshack.us/f/862/hacwlpaffidavit.jpg/

Quote:
I read somewhere that Will and Covington grew up together.
Where do you read such bullshit? Will Williams went to school in Raleigh. Harold Covington went to school about 30 miles away in Chapel Hill. Will Williams is six years older than Harold Covington. They were not age-peers. They only came into contact in the late 1980s as a result of political interests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Cooper
You've covered what Covington has said pretty well. I've visited your blog a few times.
Really, if you have read my blog so much, unless you are a very bad reader, you cannot be this poorly informed. You know that Covington makes up stories out of whole cloth about people who, in some cases, just offended him by not letting him get away with his lies. There is something wrong with the motive in your comments.

Last edited by Hadding; August 26th, 2011 at 02:20 PM.
 
Old August 26th, 2011 #120
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I believe the feeling on the part of some is that Dickson is quite vain, thinks he's the best speaker ever heard of. Beyond that I don't know. And that's not my opinion - I have never met Dickson or heard him except maybe a video of talk he gave one time.
Thanks. That doesn't qualify as disgrace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson, reposted by Alex Linder
Now John Gardner, who took over CMS after Sam Dickson resigned in disgrace last year, as come on this board and confirmed that yes, indeed, the rumors are true. CMS has a membership. CMS is selective about its members, because they wish to exclude egomaniacs and kooks (this is laughable to anyone who has met Gardner, Dickson, or “Hunter Wallace,” all of whom are judged worthy CMS material), and because CMS has many members who have something to lose if their identities as supporters of White Nationalism should be revealed. Gardner, of course, denies that CMS is a “secret” society. It is merely “confidential.” (This dodge is borrowed straight from the Freemason playbook, by the way.)
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 AM.
Page generated in 0.21498 seconds.