Alex Linder on Jim Giles radio 12/12/09 [Archive]

jimmy smith

December 13th, 2009, 08:53 AM

Hunter Wallace responds to Linder's interview:

Interview: Alex Linder III

Dec 13th, 2009 by Hunter Wallace

Jim Giles has a two hour long interview with Alex Linder. Yesterday evening, I listened to the whole thing and have been mulling over writing a response. The first hour is given over to discussing the Bill White legal saga. The second is concerned mostly with the subject of White leadership. I found this latter segment to be of particular interest.

I like Alex Linder. In this struggle, I consider him an ally. We agree on fundamentals: raising the Jewish Question, a White ethnostate, the futility of conservatism. I’m willing to grant that Linder has an important role to play in the pro-White movement. Aside from Kevin MacDonald, I can’t think of anyone who has done more to raise awareness of the Jewish Question over the past ten years. He has created an institutional discursive space on the internet that has put out a consistent anti-Semitic product over a considerable period of time.

That said, I found myself disagreeing with Linder on a number of points made in the second half of the broadcast. This will be a critical review.

1.) Linder repeated his malicious attack on Greg Johnson. He reminded his listeners that he took pride in contributing to the death of Sam Francis. Linder danced on his grave. He revisited ridiculing Francis for his appearance. This is consistent with his ad hominem attacks on Jared Taylor as a “polished turd” and tool of the Jews. In Linder’s mind, this relates back to making a conscious choice to be either a radical or respectable.

I don’t see what trash talk of this sort accomplishes. It is not radical; It is dishonorable, adolescent, and counterproductive. In the eyes of his audience, it actually militates against the substantial point that Linder is trying to make. As a strategem, it recalls to mind the time Linder posted interracial pornography on the VNN frontpage. It completely backfired.

Abandoning any pretense of Jewish respectability, that is, speaking openly and honestly about race and the Jewish Question, mocking PC and multiculturalism; that should not be confused with disavowing White respectability per se, which is acting in an honorable fashion, conducting yourself as a gentleman.

2.) Linder attacked the whole stable of TOQ/TOO writers. His position is essentially this: MacDonald is taking us down the same misguided Sam Francis faileocon path; we don’t want to lead; we don’t want to get out in the street in engage in activism; we’re merely kibbitzing with our essays; we already have plenty of this material; these “dinner parties” accomplish nothing; we’re not infiltrating the elite; we’re academics who over-intellectualize what is simple; we want to be safe and respectable; we engage in fundraising and divert scarce capital from more worthy causes. That’s a fairly accurate summary.

My response:

- Linder is being mendacious. He knows the Sam Francis criticism is unfair. TOQ and TOO openly address the Jewish Question. He knows we endorse a White ethnostate. He knows very well that Greg Johnson, Kevin MacDonald, Ted Sallis and others reject conservatism. He has said so himself. There is no substance to this charge. It is just more radical-than-thou posturing.

- Linder has a weakness for race-blind libertarianism. In fact, rhetorical attacks on “conservatism” aside, in substance he is a rightwing conservative/libertarian on most issues, especially economics and the relative size of government.

- Different people have varying talents. The intellectuals who write for TOQ/TOO (who are mostly academics) tend to be highly educated introverts. They don’t have the personality type that would make them effective political organizers. This is not cowardice on their part. It is realism. They are making use of their strengths to contribute in their own way, which is all that can be asked, and far more than what most are doing.

- White Americans don’t have the requisite racial consciousness that would allow street level activism to succeed. The U.S. in 2009 isn’t Weimar Germany in 1931. A White ADL is a good idea, but a premature one. We have to change the culture first. That is mostly a war of ideas. Jews were fighting this war of ideas in the 1920’s (Boas & Co.) and the 1930’s (ex. Partisan Review) before they began influence public policy (1940’s and 1950’s). Aside from the TOQ/TOO community, can you point to anyone else on our side who is doing this, and by that I mean in a presentable way?

- We’re pushing at the margins of respectable discourse. These essays contain memes which can take on a life of their own. Memes that originate in the White Nationalist community have found their way (via discourse poisoning) into the national political conversation before. The discursive milieu that an individual is immersed has a strong influence on his/her identity.

For example, Americans who attend church on a regular basis tend to have attitudes and opinions that atheists/agnostics do not. Linder himself has stressed the importance of Jewish control of the media in socializing Whites into anti-racist mores. The WN media operates in the same way.

- We don’t have enough of this material. Occidental Dissent is one of the few blogs on the internet that publishes material about White Nationalism on a daily basis. We have a handful of people doing radio. Aside from Craig Bodeker, no one exploiting film. Aside from the skinhead and folk metal scene, no one doing music. White Nationalism has one huge forum, a regular newsletter, and a handful of other sites. That’s it. Our limited reach reflects the limits of the WN media.

- White Nationalism is almost exclusively a cyberspace phenomena. Internet relationships are fragile and tend to correlate with social withdrawl. We need more real life meetups, not less. These “dinner parties” are a good thing.

- The conspiracy we are engaged in has been reasonably effective, but Linder is not in a position to be privy to that information and consequently to judge its results.

- As numerous posts have shown, the Single Jewish Cause theory is indefensible. Northern Whites embarked on the suicidal path in the Civil War era.

- Kevin MacDonald has experienced considerable harassment and social ostracism. The Whites who write for TOO/TOQ are also subject to ritual shaming, but most of them are clever enough to avoid it by using pseudonyms.

- As a supporter of free market capitalism, I am surprised that Linder is so critical of White entrepreneurs like Peter Brimelow and the successful enterprise he has created. Is it really a bad thing to make money off being pro-White? Pot calling the kettle black. I’ve seen Linder solicit donations on his own site. His neglect of the VNN front page is a contrast from the daily updated VDARE site.

I would like to end on a positive note. Linder has influenced my thinking on the Jewish Question. His constant hammering away at the issue stuck in mind. Jewish influence is a major problem in our society. I don’t think we should shy away from the Jewish role. That was the essence of Linder’s criticism. To this laudatory end, I have started a new website that focuses exclusively on the JQ and fighting philo-Semitism, but in a measured way that avoids hyperbole and exaggeration.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/12/13/interview-alex-linder-iii/

Bardamu

December 13th, 2009, 10:26 AM

I detest it when White Nationalists spend their time attacking other White Nationalists, unless in the rare instances where there is some indication that the person under attack is a mole, which isn't the case with the Occidental Quarterly or Kevin MacDonald. As a matter of fact, WN who routinely attack other leaders in the movement place themselves under suspicion of being deep cover moles. What other reason is there for firing cannonballs within one's own lines, other than personality disorder and immaturity? Linder's great fault is that he picks a quarrel with every movement leader there happens to be, which makes coordinated efforts impossible. Not that it particularly matters. The movement is so marginal what real difference does marginalizing activity like attacking the OQ really have? None. It is a hopeless cause anyway. It is our own little buffalo dance.

jackumup

December 13th, 2009, 11:09 AM

Jim giles is turning into the larry King of white talk, except he doesn't remind you of a lizard and he's not a sleazy kikester

He needs our support and promotion

America First

December 13th, 2009, 11:36 AM

- White Nationalism is almost exclusively a cyberspace phenomena. Internet relationships are fragile and tend to correlate with social withdrawl. We need more real life meetups, not less. These “dinner parties” are a good thing.

- The conspiracy we are engaged in has been reasonably effective, but Linder is not in a position to be privy to that information and consequently to judge its results.

- As numerous posts have shown, the Single Jewish Cause theory is indefensible. Northern Whites embarked on the suicidal path in the Civil War era.

- Kevin MacDonald has experienced considerable harassment and social ostracism. The Whites who write for TOO/TOQ are also subject to ritual shaming, but most of them are clever enough to avoid it by using pseudonyms.

- As a supporter of free market capitalism, I am surprised that Linder is so critical of White entrepreneurs like Peter Brimelow and the successful enterprise he has created. Is it really a bad thing to make money off being pro-White? Pot calling the kettle black. I’ve seen Linder solicit donations on his own site. His neglect of the VNN front page is a contrast from the daily updated VDARE site.

I would like to end on a positive note. Linder has influenced my thinking on the Jewish Question. His constant hammering away at the issue stuck in mind. Jewish influence is a major problem in our society. I don’t think we should shy away from the Jewish role. That was the essence of Linder’s criticism. To this laudatory end, I have started a new website that focuses exclusively on the JQ and fighting philo-Semitism, but in a measured way that avoids hyperbole and exaggeration.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...ex-linder-iii/

Un-Quote

====================================================

Thank you for the thoughtful review Mr. Wallace.

Yes, the so called Civil war was a flat out crime by Northern folk lead by Bank elite's who stirred it up for years proceding that horrible tragedy. Also remember Northerner's were jailed and arrested by the thousands and NY State was never for it, though many of its natural born son's died on Southern soil, and the insurrection in NYC of 1864 killed thousands, but is erronously known as the draft riots.

As for jooish power they had alot of it in the U.S. with the hold on media prior to Dec. 7, 1941, but it was that crime of high Treason IMO that has allowed the boot to be put on our necks today and bent US over at airports with homoland insecurity savages handling US and our loved ones.

The White men and majority of Congress were steadfastly against going to war in Europe on the side of Joseph Stalin and his killers who controlled Russia with Terror calling it the USSR, for two plus years prior to Dec. 7,1941 hence the Cabal's need for the set up with the crime of murder and treason to get Japan to attack US With Pearl Harbor. The enemy alien media could then scream war with head lines of Sneak Attack b.s. Most of US then had no idea Where Pearl Harbor was.

As for Linder, I agree the attacks on Francis and Taylor are in the end not worthy at all. Any one who accepts money or gifts, should not yell about others who do so.

Insults and infighting with Straight Whites who are trying to awaken others too like Original Dissent Forum by some VNN posters is IMO the work of a sophist at best.

I do not listen to the radio show.

Sean Gruber

December 13th, 2009, 02:52 PM

Wallace said

" - As numerous posts have shown, the Single Jewish Cause theory is indefensible. Northern Whites embarked on the suicidal path in the Civil War era."

Newsflash: Jews existed prior to the Civil War. They have undermined all the people of the earth with whom they've come into contact. There were jews behind the French Revolution, and behind the American Revolution. Read E. Michael Jones's _The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit_, and get his magazine "Culture Wars."

Wallace's position is either

a. I can't see the forest for the trees. After all, not everything can be blamed on disease theory; flu is a bad thing, too!

b. He's a crypto jew, infiltrating WN to blame White people for getting cancer instead of blaming the cancer.

JEWS ARE THE PROBLEM. Not Lincoln, not the estate tax, not the removal of the Stars 'N' Bars by "liberals," not even niggers. Those are merely heads of the hydra. The hydra is the jew.

Everybody has problems. Drink and divorce, perhaps, or being overweight, or not making enough money. Every people has problems. *But there is no problem like being genocided.* There is no problem like disappearing as a people. That the *THE* problem. And the root cause of that problem is that jews have wounded us, like a dog wounding a bear. The solution to the problem is NOT for the bear to blame himself. To wonder what internal weakness he has that caused his flesh to be susceptible to being wounded by the teeth of a dog. To fret that he is not as quick and agile as the dog. To wallow in morose soul-searching and naval-gazing. No, the solution is for him to KILL THAT DOG (and any others in the vicinity).

Jews are not the cause of all the problems that humans face; they are, however, the cause of THE problem (i.e., the fundamental problem) that our people faces. They are a predator that wounds us and is killing us. They must be beaten and exterminated before we die. They are not a COMPETITOR in the honorable sense, and we have not been bested in a fair fight. They're demons who have poisoned us, dogs who have ripped out the throats of our loved ones. You don't respond to that by blaming yourself and declaring: "The problem isn't them. It's ME...! Boo hoo, boo hoo!!!" You respond to that by KILLING THE JEWS.

Wallace should try reading a little more about jews and a little less about Civil War arcana.

Anyone who says jews aren't Problem #1 is stone-cold ignorant about most of history - or a jew himself.

Wallace continues:

"- Is it really a bad thing to make money off being pro-White? Pot calling the kettle black. I’ve seen Linder solicit donations on his own site."

You're a liar. Linder solicited money once for a legal defense fund for someone else. He has never solicited money for himself. (New America used to do that, in the comments section of the main site. Remember his "Send Alex $50" mantra? But that wasn't Linder.)

Wallace, you liar, direct us to any online appeal for money that Linder has made for himself or for VNN.

I'm getting sick of these Stormfart types popping up with their little suspicious comments to the effect that "Linder is okay, but we need to take the focus off the jews." "Let's not blame the jews for this." "We need to de-emphasize all the anti-jewish stuff." "Don't look at the jews - look over here, instead! Look over there! Look anywhere but at the kike!" "It just isn't nice or rational to talk against the jewish faith," etc. etc.

Seems there are a lot of these suspicious types popping up lately.

H.T.R.

December 13th, 2009, 03:49 PM

His neglect of the VNN front page is a contrast from the daily updated VDARE site.

Say what you want about VNN, but to me (a non-intellectual, average white guy), VDARE and OccObserver are both confusing, cluttered eyesores.

Plus, we don't need any more eggheadery. Alex is totally right on this point. Not to mention that Alex could out-egghead 95% of the so-called White Nationalist intellectual elite.

Alex is very smart, and he's very composed when he speaks in a way that is reminiscent (even superseding) Matt Hale. His way of putting his thoughts into clear, concise, inspiring speech is unmatched in the so-called movement right now. Listening to David Duke is like listening to Kermit the Frog.

I think if Alex got his health back, he would be a very effective leader for the proposal he made last night. The great thing about him is that he makes excellent, irrefutable points, AND NEVER MILQUETOASTS IT UP like some of these other so-called intellectual eggheads running their mouths (or keyboards as it were).

If it takes a change of scenery, then so be it. I know that it's difficult to uproot and move to an area that you may or may not have any support/family/friends in, but the old adage is true; if you haven't got your health, you haven't got anything.

Move to Utah or Arizona and fire it up.

Signe

December 13th, 2009, 03:58 PM

Quite the line-up indeed. I'm looking forward to all those guests.

Eilert

December 13th, 2009, 03:59 PM

Alex is very smart . . .

Relax, nut hugger. Linder also says Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries is crap. He's no Charles Lindbergh.

Move to Utah or Arizona and fire it up.

I lived in Utah for over five years, and in two different cities. It's both cold and snowy as hell there in the winter. Salt Lake also has serious smog problems. And yeah, Arizona's nice - if you like ovens.

H.T.R.

December 13th, 2009, 04:07 PM

Whatever works. Dryer climate. If the Missouri air is literally fucking killing him, he needs to get to the southwest.

I'm no Linder nut-hugger. I accidentally called him a catfish once. The thing is, Linder fucking inspires me when he speaks. When I listen to the Arthur Kemps, David Dukes, and Jared Taylors of the world, the only thing that goes through my mind is how much I'd like to punch them in the nose.

vladmir

December 13th, 2009, 04:17 PM

Relax, nut hugger. Linder also says Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries is crap. He's no Charles Lindbergh.

I lived in Utah for over five years, and in two different cities. It's both cold and snowy as hell there in the winter. Salt Lake also has serious smog problems. And yeah, Arizona's nice - if you like ovens.

And jews,...lots and lots of jews,...I would say Arizona is the Florida of the west at this point.

I like Linder's views on many subjects, however I think he is wrong believing that protesting niggers, spics and jews is going to accomplish a single thing, the time for petty protest is over my friends, it only gets your face out to be identified by the enemy, I agree with Tom Metzger on this 100%.

Rick Ronsavelle

December 13th, 2009, 04:54 PM

S. Gruber- nice post. Yes, there are folks all over trying to soften the blow. Does MacDonald discuss the "bankers?" Is 911 or Silverstein or Madoff discussed on OD? Etc.

Hunter Wallace called himself a "Communitarian" several weeks ago. It is purely establishment.

"The modern communitarian movement was first articulated by the Responsive Communitarian Platform, written in the United States by a group of ethicists, activists, and social scientists including Amitai Etzioni, Mary Ann Glendon, and William Galston.

The Communitarian Network, founded in 1993 by (JEW) Amitai Etzioni, is the best-known group advocating communitarianism. One of the network's many initiatives to reach out to a broader public is the transnational project Diversity within Unity, which advocates a communitarian approach towards immigration and minority rights in today's diversifying societies. The project is endorsed by a diverse and international group of supporters, including current Dutch prime-minister Jan-Peter Balkenende from the Christian Democratic Appeal; Rita Süssmuth from the Christian Democratic Union; the Hungarian dissident and philosopher György Bence; British political scholar David Miller; and others.[6]

A think tank called the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies is also directed by Etzioni. Other voices of communitarianism include Don Eberly, director of the Civil Society Project and Robert Putnam.

Influence in the United States

Reflecting the dominance of liberal and conservative politics in the United States, no major party and few elected officials advocate communitarianism. Thus there is no consensus on individual policies, but some that most communitarians endorse have been enacted.

President Bill Clinton was open about his support for much of Amitai Etzioni's philosophy, though whether this reflected on his actual policy program is debatable. It has also been suggested that the "compassionate conservatism" espoused by President Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign was a form of conservative communitarian thinking, though he too did not implement it in his policy program. Cited policies have included economic and rhetorical support for education, volunteerism, and community programs, as well as a social emphasis on promoting families, character education, traditional values, and faith-based projects.

Dana Milbank, writing in the Washington Post, remarked of modern communitarians, "There is still no such thing as a card-carrying communitarian, and therefore no consensus on policies. Some, such as John DiIulio and outside Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, favor religious solutions for communities, while others, like Etzioni and Galston, prefer secular approaches."[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

TommyJ

December 13th, 2009, 04:56 PM

"Everybody has problems. Drink and divorce, perhaps, or being overweight, or not making enough money. Every people has problems. *But there is no problem like being genocided.* There is no problem like disappearing as a people. That the *THE* problem. And the root cause of that problem is that jews have wounded us, like a dog wounding a bear. The solution to the problem is NOT for the bear to blame himself. To wonder what internal weakness he has that caused his flesh to be susceptible to being wounded by the teeth of a dog. To fret that he is not as quick and agile as the dog. To wallow in morose soul-searching and naval-gazing. No, the solution is for him to KILL THAT DOG (and any others in the vicinity).

Jews are not the cause of all the problems that humans face; they are, however, the cause of THE problem (i.e., the fundamental problem) that our people faces. They are a predator that wounds us and is killing us. They must be beaten and exterminated before we die. They are not a COMPETITOR in the honorable sense, and we have not been bested in a fair fight. They're demons who have poisoned us, dogs who have ripped out the throats of our loved ones. You don't respond to that by blaming yourself and declaring: "The problem isn't them. It's ME...! Boo hoo, boo hoo!!!" You respond to that by KILLING THE JEWS.

Couldn't have put it plainer myself.

Alex Linder

December 13th, 2009, 05:21 PM

Relax, nut hugger. Linder also says Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries is crap. He's no Charles Lindbergh.

You're right about that. Lindbergh made only one mild mention of the jews operating the republic. And after FDR engineered Pearl Harbor, he flipped right over to the jew side.

Ride of the Valkyries is crap. The only reason you or anybody else likes it is because you think Hitler did and you associate it with Nazism. If you had never heard it, and someone played it, and told you it was written by a jew composer, you would say it sucked.

I lived in Utah for over five years, and in two different cities. It's both cold and snowy as hell there in the winter. Salt Lake also has serious smog problems. And yeah, Arizona's nice - if you like ovens.

The advantage to the west, healthwise, lies in its dryness. The air is without the terrible humidity of the east and south.

Alex Linder

December 13th, 2009, 06:08 PM

1.) Linder repeated his malicious attack on Greg Johnson.

How is calling him a homosexual a malicious attack?

He has never denied it. I'm not known a liar. I've never called anyone a jew/homo/informant when it couldn't be backed up. You know Johnson. Do you dare to ask him straight up whether he is a queer?

Greg Johnson is in fact a homosexual. And it is certainly relevant to know that someone in an important WN position is a homosexual.

He reminded his listeners that he took pride in contributing to the death of Sam Francis. Linder danced on his grave.

True. I was absolutely consistent in my attacks on Francis while he was alive and after he died. My attacks were completely correct, completely vindicated by all history. I have nothing to apologize for, and I will continue to attack the obese loser and any self-styled WN who makes excuses for him or encourage others down his cowardly path of failure. He is the poster boy for trying to have it both ways, and nothing you or anyone writes can change that fact. Sam Francis never called himself a WN in any public column, but he blamed WN for not backing him up when he was fired. That shows you his character.

This is consistent with his ad hominem attacks on Jared Taylor as a “polished turd” and tool of the Jews.

Polished turd is the best possible term to describe Jared Taylor. It fits him exactly. Apparently you and TOQ and MacDonald are unable to separate your politics from your personal friendships. I am. I see exactly what PT is doing, and I will continue to call him what he is, and encourage others to reject him.

In Linder’s mind, this relates back to making a conscious choice to be either a radical or respectable.

Yes. Another way of putting it, as I advised in my long piece on Buchanan (here) is that the right way for us to go, who want what you call an ethnostate free of jews is to draw an indelible line between WN and conservatives. That means rejecting and treating as jew-liberals people like Jared Taylor and Pat Buchanan. You don't agree with this position, apparently. You, and many others, while saying you are not conservatives, have truck with them, and in practice write and seem to think as though we are all part of the same movement. What I have been trying to get across, for years, is that we are not. Buchanan, Vdare, Jared Taylor, have nothing to do with our cause. They are our enemies, not our friends.

I don’t see what trash talk of this sort accomplishes. It is not radical; It is dishonorable, adolescent, and counterproductive.

Are you sure?

Here are things I find dishonorable.

- Sam Francis refusing to call himself WN, but demanding WN support.

- Greg Johnson refusing to admit he is a homosexual, nor to detail just what kind of a homo-network he is part of, or buliding inside TOQ.

- Greg Johnson allowing his writer 'Edmund Connolly' to plagiarize my concept of loxism, while pretending he conceived the need for such a concept/term on his own.

- Kevin MacDonald publicly praising public conservatives like Pat Buchanan who never even mention him, let alone praise him, while saying that people at VNN "aren't helping" when we come to his defense when he's under attack by the SPLC.

Those are not honorable. They are the actions of men who are character conservatives. Yes, they criticize jews. Which is good and necessary. But it's not sufficient to change things. If they don't follow the correct line, which I have laid down, then I can hardly be blamed for blaming them. This idea we should go our own way, and not criticize others who might be on our side for the way they do things - in practice, that leads to problems. And it's also self-refuting. When you or Johnson say VNN and I should go our own way and not worry about others, you're denying us our way. I criticize anyone who needs critism, on my side or not. That's our way.

Abandoning any pretense of Jewish respectability, that is, speaking openly and honestly about race and the Jewish Question, mocking PC and multiculturalism; that should not be confused with disavowing White respectability per se, which is acting in an honorable fashion, conducting yourself as a gentleman.

Who is on whose side? People who call themselves WN but fawn after Buchanan and Jared Taylor and jew Paul Gottfried are the ones acting dishonorably and, more than that, stupidly. They aren't Aryan in the least. They plagiarize and fawn after those with more money or public fame than they have. This is not WN. It is the conservatism you say you reject.

- Linder is being mendacious. He knows the Sam Francis criticism is unfair. TOQ and TOO openly address the Jewish Question. He knows we endorse a White ethnostate. He knows very well that Greg Johnson, Kevin MacDonald, Ted Sallis and others reject conservatism. He has said so himself. There is no substance to this charge. It is just more radical-than-thou posturing.

I've already answered this above. Here, my point is, why use an absolutely silly term like 'ethnostate' - it's as dumb and misconceived as 'ethnic genetic interests.'

- Linder has a weakness for race-blind libertarianism. In fact, rhetorical attacks on “conservatism” aside, in substance he is a rightwing conservative/libertarian on most issues, especially economics and the relative size of government.

True. We don't need government, not even a Nazi government, once we get the racial situation cleaned up. My position echoes with a lot more people than your big-government leftist academic view in which evil corporations are the real problem. Not only that, but you're completely missing what is unfolding right in front of your eyes. We don't need these government regulatory bodies. No matter where you look they are creating or exacerbating problems.

- White Americans don’t have the requisite racial consciousness that would allow street level activism to succeed. The U.S. in 2009 isn’t Weimar Germany in 1931. A White ADL is a good idea, but a premature one. We have to change the culture first. That is mostly a war of ideas. Jews were fighting this war of ideas in the 1920’s (Boas & Co.) and the 1930’s (ex. Partisan Review) before they began influence public policy (1940’s and 1950’s). Aside from the TOQ/TOO community, can you point to anyone else on our side who is doing this, and by that I mean in a presentable way?

If TOQ or Vdare were serious about changing culture, they would be developing a HS curriculum, not writing high-level academic essays that are a long trudge, even for the educated.

...

- As a supporter of free market capitalism, I am surprised that Linder is so critical of White entrepreneurs like Peter Brimelow and the successful enterprise he has created. Is it really a bad thing to make money off being pro-White?

Brimelow isn't pro-White. Ask him.

This is where you and I disagree most strongly. You think everyone out there who sort of agrees on some of the problems is on the same side. I think they are not. Brimelow is business to raise money. He is not a pro-White, and would never describe himself that way. He runs a government approved foundation and employs non-white writers, including jews.

Pot calling the kettle black. I’ve seen Linder solicit donations on his own site. His neglect of the VNN front page is a contrast from the daily updated VDARE site.

VNN is updated daily, thanks to Socrates, and I have put out far more ideas, and better ideas, than anybody else on the Net. No one, by contrast, associates a single idea or expression with Brimelow - or anybody at Vdare. I haven't read that site in years, it's just there to draw money from the middle class, not to make change that helps Whites.

exclusively on the JQ and fighting philo-Semitism, but in a measured way that avoids hyperbole and exaggeration.

Here's the truth about yourself, which you don't realize. Your value, which is great, lies in your knowledge of American racial history. That's where you are close to unique when it comes to 'net commentary. On the rest of the stuff, you'll come around to my position, as you already have in many ways. Sometimes you are echoing me without even seeming to know it.

I like your writing, and you. I get a little irritated at your straw man 'Single Jewish Cause,' but whatever, no big deal.

In conclusion:

- direct, vicious, even vulgar personal and political attacks are the right way to go, and we'll continue that here
- NOT crediting people, plagiarizing them, displaying a back-dog spirit of fawning after rich, successful conservatives, naming and citing them, but not naming and citing people on your own side - continues to be the wrong way to go, and TOQ and Johnson, and even MacDonald, should be ashamed of their actions in this regard
- altho personal attacks are good, specific claims should be backed by evidence. No one should be accused of being a jew, or a fed, unless there is evidence put out. Those who make false accusations should be and will continue to be shunned at VNN. I say our ethics are not lower than TOQs and the other jew-criticizing conservatives, they are higher. We have put out more and better ideas than they have, and our behavior has been stronger and purer.
- it IS the time for more activism. The woman down in StL can't get the school board to release the video of her daughter being attacked by a nigger. KM and TOQ and "Hunter Wallace" can write another 1000 essays, and that won't change. You can't change the culture except in very limited ways without controlling the government and the mass media. That means politics, and that means activism.

Alex Linder

December 13th, 2009, 06:22 PM

America First

December 13th, 2009, 08:07 PM

No doubt in my mind that Alex Linder's struggle to keep the VNN Web Site up for almost ten years. Ten Years! Is a monument in its self of courage and he stayed out various traps I would Guess too.

I would presume with out VNN or some one else to have done it, there might not be half of us White folks awake today to the truths about jooo's and their history of back stabbing Western Nations with their folk.

As for Jerry Taylor and his A.R. which I have not read for five years now, but I do make use of their past articles and add to it What the joos role was in making a certain problem worse or creating it to begin with. For as every thing Alex Linder and others have critized Taylor have been the truth told about him which he deseve's, but I believe that A.R. has caused alot of White men to find/read VNNF.

A.R. and other coward's have helped plow the fields for VNNF to plant robust seeds.

With out a doubt joos read VNNF every day too and post too is my bet.

As for the spelling of jooo's that all they deserve.

One note on David Duke His Book "My Awakening" did reach what 300,000 copies, and he made such a great lecture on C-SPAN that the Congoids, joos and race traitors at CSPAN never let him on again as far as I know.

Alex Linder

December 13th, 2009, 08:53 PM

As for Jerry Taylor and his A.R. which I have not read for five years now, but I do make use of their past articles and add to it What the joos role was in making a certain problem worse or creating it to begin with. For as every thing Alex Linder and others have critized Taylor have been the truth told about him which he deseve's, but I believe that A.R. has caused alot of White men to find/read VNNF.

If so, then against PTurd's policy, because he never linked to us once, except when a certain someone wrote a review of one of his conferences. And then the link was in the tiniest font size possible. It truly was funny.

Too many of you people are far too generous in assessing motives. Politics is dirty stuff. You have to be very careful who is your real friend and who isn't. Who is actually on your side, and who is only pretending to be. AmRen has nothing to do with VNN, and Samuel Jared "Polished Turd" Taylor is our enemy. We are white nationalists. He is a kosher nationalist.

One note on David Duke His Book "My Awakening" did reach what 300,000 copies, and he made such a great lecture on C-SPAN that the Congoids, joos and race traitors at CSPAN never let him on again as far as I know.

I don't criticize Duke because he names the jew and truly has fought the fight for Whites. Not to say I like him or support him, but he is truly a WN, despite his flaws. PT Taylor is not.

Eilert

December 13th, 2009, 09:00 PM

Ride of the Valkyries is crap.

No it's not.

The only reason you or anybody else likes it is because you think Hitler did and you associate it with Nazism.

Once again you're wrong, although you'll never admit it. I've liked Ride of the Valkyries since I first saw Apocalypse Now when I was in high school. And I wasn't a racialist at the time. Stop second-guessing my motives, Linder. You don't know me.

If you had never heard it, and someone played it, and told you it was written by a jew composer, you would say it sucked.

Oh, would I? Do you own a crystal ball, Linder? I happen to like Mendelssohn's music, and he was a Jew. I also think Joel and Ethan Coen have made some great films, and they're Jews. What do you have to say about that, smart guy?

Bardamu

December 13th, 2009, 09:24 PM

How is calling him a homosexual a malicious attack?

He has never denied it. I'm not known a liar. I've never called anyone a jew/homo/informant when it couldn't be backed up. You know Johnson. Do you dare to ask him straight up whether he is a queer?

Greg Johnson is in fact a homosexual. And it is certainly relevant to know that someone in an important WN position is a homosexual.

Lets say this accusation is born out by the facts. What then? What if people choose to overlook the fact because a man is brilliant, tireless, committed, and as dedicated as anyone on VNN. Hitler worked with not only known homosexuals but ones that slummed and a carried on publicly. Homosexuality is a fact of human existence. It has been around forever, and it will continue to be around. It is concievable that a person could be both homosexual and a great benefit to our cause. Would you turn away a homosexual billionaire if he offered to contribute to the cause?

KM and TOQ and "Hunter Wallace" can write another 1000 essays, and that won't change. You can't change the culture except in very limited ways without controlling the government and the mass media. That means politics, and that means activism.

Your attack on writers is hilarious in light of the fact that you are a writer yourself, a kind of WN H.L. Mencken. You have all the usual literary pretensions, which is okay but ridiculous when you start criticizing the same qualities in others.

Can anyone here imagine our enemies attacking one another the way we attack one another? Ever read the Jews mount an attack on that homosexual Jew that has partial control of Disney? It is ludicrous the way we attack each other.

Hadding

December 13th, 2009, 10:39 PM

Hunter Wallace

December 13th, 2009, 11:55 PM

How is calling him a homosexual a malicious attack?

It is a personal attack, a low blow, a cheap shot. It is the verbal equivilant of a kick in the groin or an eye gouge.

He has never denied it. I'm not known a liar. I've never called anyone a jew/homo/informant when it couldn't be backed up. You know Johnson. Do you dare to ask him straight up whether he is a queer?

Yes, I know Greg Johnson. We've met several times. We talk on the phone all the time. I don't know many people who are more valuable assets to the movement. I've heard you say that he wrote some of the best articles ever published by VNN. As for his sexuality, I have never asked him about the matter. Like your Chron's disease, I don't consider it relevant to the struggle we are engaged in.

Greg Johnson is in fact a homosexual. And it is certainly relevant to know that someone in an important WN position is a homosexual.

If I am not in a position to know this, then I am certain you are not either. Even if it were true, it is nowhere near as much of a concern as the flaws of people like Bill White, Rounder, or Hal Turner, not to mention Todd in FL, the amateur bombmaker who used to post here.

True. I was absolutely consistent in my attacks on Francis while he was alive and after he died. My attacks were completely correct, completely vindicated by all history. I have nothing to apologize for, and I will continue to attack the obese loser and any self-styled WN who makes excuses for him or encourage others down his cowardly path of failure. He is the poster boy for trying to have it both ways, and nothing you or anyone writes can change that fact. Sam Francis never called himself a WN in any public column, but he blamed WN for not backing him up when he was fired. That shows you his character.

There are substantial criticisms of Sam Francis to be made. He was too soft on the Jews. He was too critical of anti-Semites. He tried to keep a foot in both words, conservative and racialist. To a point, I agree with you.

The personal attacks on Francis - he was an obese homosexual loser - detract from your case. They create sympathy for Francis.

Polished turd is the best possible term to describe Jared Taylor. It fits him exactly.

Taylor is the most courtly, regal person I know. He conducts himself as a gentleman. This is one of his greatest assets. He doesn't come across as a stereotypical racist. People who would instantly dismiss a Rounder or ANSWP Commander Bill White pay attention to Taylor when he speaks.

Apparently you and TOQ and MacDonald are unable to separate your politics from your personal friendships. I am. I see exactly what PT is doing, and I will continue to call him what he is, and encourage others to reject him.

This is untrue. I believe Taylor is an asset. He is like a racialist high school teacher. He introduces implicit whites to the basics of racial consciousness. He's good at doing that and I support his work.

Yes. Another way of putting it, as I advised in my long piece on Buchanan (here) is that the right way for us to go, who want what you call an ethnostate free of jews is to draw an indelible line between WN and conservatives. That means rejecting and treating as jew-liberals people like Jared Taylor and Pat Buchanan. You don't agree with this position, apparently.

I have a different standard. While I loathe conservatism, I see incrementalism as unavoidable. I define victory as pulling the national discourse on race and Jews in our direction. Taylor and Buchanan are gateways to White Nationalism.

They bring aspects of our message to a larger audience. I myself followed that path into the movement. How can I condemn Buchanan when it was one of his books that led me to White Nationalism?

You, and many others, while saying you are not conservatives, have truck with them, and in practice write and seem to think as though we are all part of the same movement.

You're more of a conservative than I am. You know this, Alex.

What I have been trying to get across, for years, is that we are not. Buchanan, Vdare, Jared Taylor, have nothing to do with our cause. They are our enemies, not our friends.

You have a lot of substantial criticisms of all of the above (Francis included). Once again, I agree with you to a point. Your conclusion, however, is vanguardist purism. It is myopic to believe that everyone can start out as radical as you are. To newbies, you sound like you are from Neptune.

Are you sure?

Yes. I'm not the only one who had this reaction.

Here are things I find dishonorable.

- Sam Francis refusing to call himself WN, but demanding WN support.

Granted, a fair point.

- Greg Johnson refusing to admit he is a homosexual, nor to detail just what kind of a homo-network he is part of, or buliding inside TOQ.

I don't know of any homosexuals inside TOQ. Do you have any hard evidence of this?

- Greg Johnson allowing his writer 'Edmund Connolly' to plagiarize my concept of loxism, while pretending he conceived the need for such a concept/term on his own.

Where did Edmund Connolly use the term?

- Kevin MacDonald publicly praising public conservatives like Pat Buchanan who never even mention him, let alone praise him, while saying that people at VNN "aren't helping" when we come to his defense when he's under attack by the SPLC.

MacDonald probably has the same perspective I do: it is easier for us to reach and influence Buchanan's readers than other conservatives. Buchanan is a key player in popularizing our ideas on the far end of the conservative spectrium. He is a gateway to the mainstream. Buchanan and Taylor generally don't attack us. An enemy would return fire.

Those are not honorable. They are the actions of men who are character conservatives. Yes, they criticize jews. Which is good and necessary. But it's not sufficient to change things. If they don't follow the correct line, which I have laid down, then I can hardly be blamed for blaming them.

As a practical matter, what would you have us do? How would you reach into the mainstream? How would you overcome the Neptune Effect?

This idea we should go our own way, and not criticize others who might be on our side for the way they do things - in practice, that leads to problems.

Of course we should criticize others in the movement. I've criticized Brimelow, Taylor, Buchanan and Francis myself. The question is how we should go about doing it.

And it's also self-refuting. When you or Johnson say VNN and I should go our own way and not worry about others, you're denying us our way. I criticize anyone who needs critism, on my side or not. That's our way.

I don't think anyone minds you making fair and reasonable criticisms of TOO/TOQ. That's not the issue.

Who is on whose side? People who call themselves WN but fawn after Buchanan and Jared Taylor and jew Paul Gottfried are the ones acting dishonorably and, more than that, stupidly. They aren't Aryan in the least. They plagiarize and fawn after those with more money or public fame than they have. This is not WN. It is the conservatism you say you reject.

Addressing the Jewish Question, endorsing a White ethnostate, embracing White racial consciousness ... this is not conservatism by a long shot. On the other hand, calling for the abolition of all financial regulation and popular social programs, well, that sounds very much like conservatism to me.

I've already answered this above. Here, my point is, why use an absolutely silly term like 'ethnostate' - it's as dumb and misconceived as 'ethnic genetic interests.'

We're trying to reach people who are scientifically literate, intelligent, and well educated. Unlike the man on the street, these people typically have money and influence.

True. We don't need government, not even a Nazi government, once we get the racial situation cleaned up. My position echoes with a lot more people than your big-government leftist academic view in which evil corporations are the real problem. Not only that, but you're completely missing what is unfolding right in front of your eyes. We don't need these government regulatory bodies. No matter where you look they are creating or exacerbating problems.

I will save this for my upcoming plunge into conservatism/libertarianism. In the meantime, I will hold this up as an excellent example of what I call "discourse poisoning"; in this case, the penetration of libertarian memes into White Nationalism.

If TOQ or Vdare were serious about changing culture, they would be developing a HS curriculum, not writing high-level academic essays that are a long trudge, even for the educated.

A HS curriculum is a good idea. It is a worthy project. Rusty Mason had expressed interest in doing it. You should speak with him.

Brimelow isn't pro-White. Ask him. This is where you and I disagree most strongly. You think everyone out there who sort of agrees on some of the problems is on the same side. I think they are not. Brimelow is business to raise money. He is not a pro-White, and would never describe himself that way. He runs a government approved foundation and employs non-white writers, including jews.

I've seen Brimelow deny being a White Nationalist before. Again, there are substantial criticisms of Brimelow to be made, but they don't have to be teethered to the albatross of personal attacks or abusive language.

Hunter Wallace

December 14th, 2009, 12:09 AM

VNN is updated daily, thanks to Socrates, and I have put out far more ideas, and better ideas, than anybody else on the Net.

Socrates is nowhere near as talented a writer as you are. Your output has declined and the VNN frontpage has suffered. I've seen countless VNN readers complain of this.

No one, by contrast, associates a single idea or expression with Brimelow - or anybody at Vdare. I haven't read that site in years, it's just there to draw money from the middle class, not to make change that helps Whites.

Could you shed some light on your falling out with Dietrich? I've heard some disturbing rumors flying around.

Here's the truth about yourself, which you don't realize. Your value, which is great, lies in your knowledge of American racial history. That's where you are close to unique when it comes to 'net commentary.

Thank you. I've said before that your constant hammering away at the Jewish Question has influenced my development. For a long time, I was quite dismissive of you, but I eventually recognized there was much truth in what you were saying.

On the rest of the stuff, you'll come around to my position, as you already have in many ways. Sometimes you are echoing me without even seeming to know it. I like your writing, and you. I get a little irritated at your straw man 'Single Jewish Cause,' but whatever, no big deal.

We agree on the most important issues. I take a lot of your themes, translate them into a different language, and reach a different audience. White people are divided along class and religious lines. In order to reach them, we need to broadcast our message on different wavelengths.

In conclusion:

- direct, vicious, even vulgar personal and political attacks are the right way to go, and we'll continue that here

As should be obvious, I disagree on this point.

- NOT crediting people, plagiarizing them, displaying a back-dog spirit of fawning after rich, successful conservatives, naming and citing them, but not naming and citing people on your own side - continues to be the wrong way to go, and TOQ and Johnson, and even MacDonald, should be ashamed of their actions in this regard

This is unfair. Greg Johnson has long admired your work. He tried to engage you, but you responded with personal attacks. There are lots of VNN graduates in the TOO/TOQ network.

- altho personal attacks are good, specific claims should be backed by evidence. No one should be accused of being a jew, or a fed, unless there is evidence put out. Those who make false accusations should be and will continue to be shunned at VNN. I say our ethics are not lower than TOQs and the other jew-criticizing conservatives, they are higher. We have put out more and better ideas than they have, and our behavior has been stronger and purer.

This is a policy that has evolved over the yeras. I remember the days when VNN was a free for all.

- it IS the time for more activism. The woman down in StL can't get the school board to release the video of her daughter being attacked by a nigger. KM and TOQ and "Hunter Wallace" can write another 1000 essays, and that won't change. You can't change the culture except in very limited ways without controlling the government and the mass media. That means politics, and that means activism.

Activism is fine. In parts of the country (ex. Mississippi or Alabama), it is doable. In other parts (ex. Vermont or Massachusetts), it is not. We should be realistic about this. Instead of wasting $30 million on a fruitless political campaign, as Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan have done, we should focus our efforts on trying to change the culture. Without a cultural foundation, political victories will be fleeting and won't produce any substantial change in public policy.

Hunter Wallace

December 14th, 2009, 12:11 AM

b. He's a crypto jew, infiltrating WN to blame White people for getting cancer instead of blaming the cancer.

This is what friedrich braun was referring to when he mentioned the hysterical anti-Semitism at VNN.

America First

December 14th, 2009, 12:29 AM

Since the forum opened there was IMO perhaps 50% defectives, jooos, and NKVD types, some with 10,000 posts of nothing b.s. and fighting with White Working men, who just left, or/and just never joined. I did not join at first because the scum POS's that were allowed to post day and night seven days a week!

Excellent men were disgusted enought to pack it in.

As for Charles A. Lindbergh, folding like a house of Cards after Dec. 7, 1941, so did the business men, Senator's and House Representative's that Knew FDR Was a POS criminal, and they were very much against helping the conpsiracy bastards front regime called the USSR IMO. Charles A Lindbergh, could do nothing, the GodFather had made his move with the Dec. 7, 1941 set up. Notice nary a Word of Pearl Harbor this year, all was quiet on the enemy alien regime media.

Douglas MacArthur knew the truth of all the b.s. of WW 1 and 11 I believe.

The general wanted to make Lindbergh a one star on his staff in the Pacific, but he refused as he did NOT want to hurt MacArthurs chances to become president in the future. Remember the enemy Aliens wanted to tri Lindbergh !

The Korean war was launched IMO to keep Douglas OUT of the Whore House in 1952 as it was known in the fall of 1949 that the general was going to resign and prepare for 1952 starting in 1950 and he would have won. Then I honestly believe a Major clean and arrests would have come about along with many deportations!

Douglas MacArthur let FDR have his way and left the Flip Islands FUBARED as Ordered.

Raymond

December 14th, 2009, 02:41 AM

Cant wait to hear the Interview with Kevin MacDonald, should be really good.
Great guy, he really lays down the Jew bare in The Culture of Critique.
Even Alex Linder sounded rather excited.

Alex Linder

December 14th, 2009, 04:47 AM

Whatever works. Dryer climate. If the Missouri air is literally fucking killing him, he needs to get to the southwest.

No, it's not that, I was just expressing a preference. Now, when I was young, yes, it really did bother me. I would get sick within 24 hours of getting to my grandparents. But when I grew older, I stopped having the breathing problems I had as a kid. The problems I have now are not related to weather. I just prefer the west for its dryness, and hot weather to cold. Missouri is great six months out of the year. Even the humidity, at least up here, is overrated. The winter mostly sucks because it's drab. It's cold, but not as cold and snowy as Minnesota or Wisconsin, to be sure.

I'm no Linder nut-hugger. I accidentally called him a catfish once.

That wasn't a compliment?

It's true, I have thick lips and a big nose. I'm largely of German peasant background. But a smart streak of peasant, and mixed with the worst sort of English, the moral-crusading Puritan type. Luckily my inner asshole is channeled in the right direction.

Alex Linder

December 14th, 2009, 04:56 AM

Once again you're wrong, although you'll never admit it. I've liked Ride of the Valkyries since I first saw Apocalypse Now when I was in high school. And I wasn't a racialist at the time. Stop second-guessing my motives, Linder. You don't know me.

Oh, would I? Do you own a crystal ball, Linder? I happen to like Mendelssohn's music, and he was a Jew. I also think Joel and Ethan Coen have made some great films, and they're Jews. What do you have to say about that, smart guy?

Sure. Could be. But the creature I describe does exist, whether or not you are he.

I have to fight until people admit that it is legitimate not to like Ride of the Valkyries. Actually, I don't hate it in the way I hate some stuff, I just find it unremarkable and mildly irritating.

Alex Linder

December 14th, 2009, 05:04 AM

Lets say this accusation is born out by the facts. What then? What if people choose to overlook the fact because a man is brilliant, tireless, committed, and as dedicated as anyone on VNN. Hitler worked with not only known homosexuals but ones that slummed and a carried on publicly. Homosexuality is a fact of human existence. It has been around forever, and it will continue to be around. It is concievable that a person could be both homosexual and a great benefit to our cause. Would you turn away a homosexual billionaire if he offered to contribute to the cause?

I have said he is brilliant. As far as I know, VNN published his first work, and perhaps his best work.

Having homos as leaders is considerably more problematic than having them as pseudonymous writers or donors.

Your attack on writers is hilarious in light of the fact that you are a writer yourself, a kind of WN H.L. Mencken. You have all the usual literary pretensions, which is okay but ridiculous when you start criticizing the same qualities in others.

Can anyone here imagine our enemies attacking one another the way we attack one another? Ever read the Jews mount an attack on that homosexual Jew that has partial control of Disney? It is ludicrous the way we attack each other.

Nah, it doesn't matter, really. I could say Johnson is attacking me by allowing plagiarism rather than doing the Aryan thing and crediting me with the concept of loxism. And I hate that I even have to say that, because it sounds like I'm whining for credit when what I'm actually doing is expressing spitting disgust at conservative-fawning idea-thieves. It is low and unAryan in the extreme to plagiarize.

I will continue to chastize these implicit conservatives wherever I find them in the WN community. Heheheh, oh I will. If they can't meet or beat me, how they gonna handle the jews?

Of course I'm not against writing, I'm merely making the point that the cutting edge today, if it existed, wouldn't be writing but would be acting. Agitating and advocating in public.

We with the fundamental problem with things must be pushing the boundaries to create the change we seek, and writing essays isn't doing that. It's just more of the same. That's the sum of what I'm saying. That and don't steal others' ideas without crediting them, it is unAryan.

Mike Parker

December 14th, 2009, 07:55 AM

Great job, Alex (and Jim). If Alex is still calling in to MacDonald, two suggestions:

(1) Here (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/742MacDonaldWhyWeWrite.pdf) is MacDonald's approach:

We are trying to raise the status of this sort of discourse, and this is inevitably a top-down sort of thing. Notice that Derbyshire is not concerned about what the average person thinks, but what the cultural establishment thinks.

Why should I care what John Derbyshire thinks?

(2) How does a sociobiologist view faggotry? Is it a "lifestyle" consistent with general trustworthiness, or total degeneracy? Are fags a group with their own interests that differ from the interests of normals? Does the universal condemnation of faggotry by religions and cultures throughout history suggest there's something adaptive in shunning fags?

Mike Parker

December 14th, 2009, 08:20 AM

This is untrue. I believe Taylor is an asset. He is like a racialist high school teacher. He introduces implicit whites to the basics of racial consciousness.

Any white racial consciousness that includes the Jews is suicidal. Jim Crow, apartheid and white Australia were all strong forms of racial consciousness (far more racist than German NS), but they all included the Jews as white, and the Jews used their insider status to destroy them all.

Hunter Wallace

December 14th, 2009, 10:34 AM

Any white racial consciousness that includes the Jews is suicidal. Jim Crow, apartheid and white Australia were all strong forms of racial consciousness (far more racist than German NS), but they all included the Jews as white, and the Jews used their insider status to destroy them all.

American Renaissance is a newsletter. There is nothing that can be done to prevent Jews from reading it. They also read VNN and OD. You make it sound like Taylor is running an organization like the National Alliance.

Rounder

December 14th, 2009, 04:22 PM

Alex Linder

December 14th, 2009, 05:29 PM

I disagree with the claim that Bill White has "a genuine intellectual understanding of national-socialism." When I read what he had to say about it, what he was saying was more like Italian Fascism. White really doesn't like the racial idea, especially in regard to the Jews, which is one reason why I have always suspected that he was a Jew.

Did you read any copies of his magazine? He had a better understanding of it than pretty much anyone I've seen posting here. Not saying I agreed with him, as he bought into that Ebola, I mean Evulva, I mean Evola garbage. His mag was poorly edited, but the articles were quite good. I didn't subscribe to it either, he just comped me.

I happened to be working in the NA offices when Kevin Strom did the COINTELPRO broadcast and I told him at the time that I thought it was ridiculous. One problem that I had with it was that he was using a National Alliance broadcast to address an issue that was really entirely about him. I felt that this was completely inappropriate even apart from the fact that what he was saying was dubious.

Yeah. His weenie-ish deceitfulness and backstabbing came back to bite him on the ass when his estranged wife came to VNN with seemingly plausible proof of his sexual interest in children. I would have had a harder time believing her evidence if I hadn't experienced his vindictive pussiness first-hand myself, more than once.

I wonder to what extent White exacerbated that conflict between Strom and Linder.

He didn't, really. I already disliked Kevin for my own reasons, per above - ie, his actions, not because I inherently disliked him. He's one of those guys who is not really mentally equipped to handle criticism. He interprets anything outside his taste sphere with immorality or danger or threat to himself. I was never any of those to him. He has abilities I don't, and what I am and do was intended to mesh with his efforts, never to supplant him. But I think he did feel threatened.

BW was talking to Streed and then others about the future of the NA. I was never more than peripherally involved, and it didn't matter anyway once the board backed down from getting rid of Gliebe. All I ever tried to do was help NA, but once I became familiar with its cultic culture and the low caliber of too many of its top people, I lost interest. Unlike most of its critics, I blame Pierce for this more than anyone. I believe what Griffin says in "Fame" - that he knew and intended NA to fall apart after his demise.

Alex Linder

December 14th, 2009, 05:48 PM

Hey Alex, Fade said this about rectum-loving, defecate eating, corn-holing faggots:

" As for his sexuality, I have never asked him about the matter. I don't consider it relevant to the struggle we are engaged in." (unquote)

NOTE: I think we're wasting our time trying to make a real WN man outa him.

Fade-Prozium-Hunter Wallace writes ably and daily, there is value to him and what he does. He is wrong about certain things, but, as he came around on jews, he will come around on the other stuff we VNNers are right on. They always do. Because they're Aryans, and they can only hold out against the truth for so long, and then it becomes undeniable. It will be the same with Johnson. I am not their enemy.

I will respond to Ebbe's many responses in this thread later, have been responding to posts at his site today.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/12/13/interview-alex-linder-iii/#comment-27141

Hadding

December 14th, 2009, 06:54 PM

Did you read any copies of his magazine? He had a better understanding of it than pretty much anyone I've seen posting here. Not saying I agreed with him, as he bought into that Ebola, I mean Evulva, I mean Evola garbage. That's precisely my point. Evola has nothing to do with N-S. I didn't see his magazine. I read his ideological declaration on Overthrow back around 2003 and I noticed that he danced around the question of race, especially in regard to Jews.

Yeah. His weenie-ish deceitfulness and backstabbing came back to bite him on the ass when his estranged wife came to VNN with seemingly plausible proof of his sexual interest in children. I would have had a harder time believing her evidence if I hadn't experienced his vindictive pussiness first-hand myself, more than once. I can't say that Kevin doesn't have character flaws -- I was quite annoyed with him for standing by Gliebe as long as he did -- but of the things that you mention, the one has nothing to do with the other. Whatever the content of his fantasy life may have been, he seemed to have it under control when I knew him.

He didn't, really. I already disliked Kevin for my own reasons, per above - ie, his actions, not because I inherently disliked him. He's one of those guys who is not really mentally equipped to handle criticism. He interprets anything outside his taste sphere with immorality or danger or threat to himself. I was never any of those to him. He has abilities I don't, and what I am and do was intended to mesh with his efforts, never to supplant him. But I think he did feel threatened. Yes, as irrational as that COINTELPRO broadcast was, I would say he was frantic.

BW was talking to Streed and then others about the future of the NA. I was never more than peripherally involved, and it didn't matter anyway once the board backed down from getting rid of Gliebe. All I ever tried to do was help NA, but once I became familiar with its cultic culture and the low caliber of too many of its top people, I lost interest. Unlike most of its critics, I blame Pierce for this more than anyone. I believe what Griffin says in "Fame" - that he knew and intended NA to fall apart after his demise.I was aware that Bill White was talking to Fred Streed. Fred thought he was a sincere convert to our worldview, but I have never been entirely convinced of that. Bill White is a good candidate for the Ideology of the Month Club, because he seems to have tried most of them. Was he ever really sincere about any of them, or is each one just a new vehicle for his attention-seeking?

What I recall hearing at the time is that you wanted to do media for the NA and Strom lobbied against this, evidently because he wanted to keep all the reins in his own hands. I personally didn't think it was good for Kevin to have that monopoly. Even the radio show, I thought, should be cut down to about 50% Kevin, because we had other people (e.g. Jerry Abbot and me) that could do some writing, and Kevin was clearly overloaded, to the point that a lot of his programs were sub par. It seemed to me that he could probably do a really good program about every other week. I knew that a lot of people didn't like his persona, a problem which obviously would have been meliorated if half the broadcasts featured other people.

I fully admit that there were problems with Kevin's performance but at the same time, he was also a great asset. He created that radio program, which more than anything else was responsible for the growth in NA membership.

The conflict between you and Kevin was a bad thing for the organization and our cause, and I frankly don't believe you when you say that Bill White's participation didn't exacerbate the situation. White's presence tended to increase the irreconcilability of both sides, on one side because you had an ally who was loving the drama and encouraging you to dig in your heels, and on the other side because you had aligned yourself with somebody so disreputable.

I see many things from that period, when everybody was disoriented after Dr. Pierce's death, that should have been done differently, and one of the most important is that a screwball like Bill White should not have been allowed to have any influence on the situation, and problems that were publicized on internet should have been settled privately.

If we'd had somebody with gravitas as chairman, I think these problems would have been solved. A good chairman might have said, Kevin, do what you can do well and let Linder do what he does well, and stay out of each other's way, and whatever you do, do not present your intra-organizational grievances to the general public. Without this kind of order imposed from the top, personality conflicts went completely out of control.

Rounder

December 15th, 2009, 05:04 AM

Fade-Prozium-Hunter Wallace writes ably and daily, there is value to him and what he does. He is wrong about certain things, but, as he came around on jews, he will come around on the other stuff we VNNers are right on. They always do. Because they're Aryans, and they can only hold out against the truth for so long, and then it becomes undeniable. It will be the same with Johnson. I am not their enemy.

I will respond to Ebbe's many responses in this thread later, have been responding to posts at his site today.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/12/13/interview-alex-linder-iii/#comment-27141

Yeah, I just spent 20-30 minutes reading posts on that thread. Lots of anti-VNN comments there. One even stated I'm a federal informant and that I've been paying all VNN's bills since 2004 with money provided by the federal government. Meaning, if true, that VNN is a FBI front group.

How bout it Fade ?? Do you think there's a chance it's true ??

As for Fade "coming around", good luck. You're not only gonna need good luck, but some divine intervention to boot. His head is harder than Krupp steele.

So Hadding used to live with and work with Dr Pierce, huh ?? I didn't know that. I wonder why he doesn't post under his real name.

Mike Parker

December 15th, 2009, 05:28 AM

American Renaissance is a newsletter. There is nothing that can be done to prevent Jews from reading it. They also read VNN and OD. You make it sound like Taylor is running an organization like the National Alliance.

Surely you jest. Is there nothing that AmRen can do to prevent Jews (including a rabbi) from speaking at AmRen conferences? Haven't they served kosher food in the past? Is there nothing Taylor can do to avoid the impression that "Jews look white" to him? You can't have it both ways, Hunter. If essays are important and ideas matter, then Jared Taylor's effort to include Jews in WN and his insistence we treat them as individuals are destructive.

Mike Parker

December 15th, 2009, 05:49 AM

If nothing else, this is a telling test of the TOQ approach. Hunter and the denizens of his blog are exactly the smart, educated, inquisitive audience TOQ’s essays are pitched at. Now Alex exposes a mentally ill sexual degenerate in a position of responsibility in the movement. Their reaction is to rush to the defense of the pervert and to snipe at Alex over some lack of propriety. It seems knowledge and intellectual understanding of some problems aren’t enough to overcome warped, maladaptive liberal values. If it’s important to reach this audience, it needs to be reached on a much deeper level.

Alex Linder

December 15th, 2009, 06:44 AM

That's precisely my point. Evola has nothing to do with N-S. I didn't see his magazine. I read his ideological declaration on Overthrow back around 2003 and I noticed that he danced around the question of race, especially in regard to Jews.

No, he's anti-jew and it's real. That's my best judgment. Not just from reading him, but from meeting him and listening to him talk - and believe me, you don't talk much when you're around him. He is in his own world and other living creatures figure very peripherally. I am good at sensing people who are out for money or status, and he is not one of these in the sense we in the movement are well familiar with.

He's a gray area. Parts of him are horrible, parts of him are solid. I wish White were all white but he's not. What I saw in him is a little something of what our cause needs to win. Very similar to Elisha Strom who also had a soupcon of sterling, but alloyed with the temperament of a coachwhip.

I can't say that Kevin doesn't have character flaws -- I was quite annoyed with him for standing by Gliebe as long as he did -- but of the things that you mention, the one has nothing to do with the other. Whatever the content of his fantasy life may have been, he seemed to have it under control when I knew him.

It is telling that no one accused him of physically molesting anyone. I would assume that's why he pretty much got off.

Yes, as irrational as that COINTELPRO broadcast was, I would say he was frantic.

I barely remember it except, geez Kev, do you really have to atom-bomb me? Can't you just call me a useless sihthead? Do you really have to try to kill me off with the ultimate sanction? I felt sorry for him, in a way. There has to be a better way to fight than that, and him with all those brains and can't figure it out.

I was aware that Bill White was talking to Fred Streed. Fred thought he was a sincere convert to our worldview, but I have never been entirely convinced of that. Bill White is a good candidate for the Ideology of the Month Club, because he seems to have tried most of them. Was he ever really sincere about any of them, or is each one just a new vehicle for his attention-seeking?

No, I believe his evolution was real. People who are fake or looking to sell out don't act the way he did. At every stage of his evolution he took real risks, and was involved in real activity - none of it was just virtual, safe and indoors.

What I recall hearing at the time is that you wanted to do media for the NA and Strom lobbied against this, evidently because he wanted to keep all the reins in his own hands.

Well, that makes it sounds like I was pursuing it, but I really wasn't. I was doing VNN, which I had started as an idea after Pierce said he didn't want to hire anyone to do the magazine right then. When he finally did, years later, Kevin came back to do it. No skin off my balls, I love the internet, and after 10 years of trade publishing was heartily sick of the print process. Not to mention I don't have the graphics skills the Stroms do, and those figure heavily in print. But, when Pierce died and it looked like reasonble people might be going to take over NA, I was certainly interested in helping. Not displacing Strom, but working with people who could at least simulate intelligence and rationality. I had no urge to run all their media or do anything but fit in and help pick the best course for everybody.

I personally didn't think it was good for Kevin to have that monopoly. Even the radio show, I thought, should be cut down to about 50% Kevin, because we had other people (e.g. Jerry Abbot and me) that could do some writing, and Kevin was clearly overloaded, to the point that a lot of his programs were sub par. It seemed to me that he could probably do a really good program about every other week. I knew that a lot of people didn't like his persona, a problem which obviously would have been meliorated if half the broadcasts featured other people.

I liked his work, I just didn't like his voice.

I fully admit that there were problems with Kevin's performance but at the same time, he was also a great asset. He created that radio program, which more than anything else was responsible for the growth in NA membership.

It was a good show. In the early years of VNN, when I traveled to meet people during summer, I was always surprised how many of them really liked listening to ADV rather than read it as I did.

The conflict between you and Kevin was a bad thing for the organization and our cause, and I frankly don't believe you when you say that Bill White's participation didn't exacerbate the situation.

Well, I don't think it's humanly possible for Bill not to exacerbate a situation, but really, he and Streed and whoever else were the parties concerned. I may have made one or two calls max to discuss stuff, I wasn't really involved at all, just waiting to see who ended up in control. I have no idea in what way Strom was involved, nor did I care really. Bill went above and beyond in criticizing Strom, but at the same time, the dude did bad stuff, and he clearly could not accept any criticism. Once he showed that, how could I resist piling on some, knowing he couldn't handle it AND deserved it, at least a little.

White's presence tended to increase the irreconcilability of both sides, on one side because you had an ally who was loving the drama and encouraging you to dig in your heels, and on the other side because you had aligned yourself with somebody so disreputable.

I wasn't aligned with anybody. I simply told Bill and Fred Streed I would help figure how to run the media if there were a change. I was never an NA insider or really cared much. I just let people know I would help.

I see many things from that period, when everybody was disoriented after Dr. Pierce's death, that should have been done differently, and one of the most important is that a screwball like Bill White should not have been allowed to have any influence on the situation, and problems that were publicized on internet should have been settled privately.

You're missing the big picture. Pretty easy to see from the outside.

If we'd had somebody with gravitas as chairman, I think these problems would have been solved. A good chairman might have said, Kevin, do what you can do well and let Linder do what he does well, and stay out of each other's way, and whatever you do, do not present your intra-organizational grievances to the general public. Without this kind of order imposed from the top, personality conflicts went completely out of control.

If Pierce had hired a competent manager and let him run the shop, none of these problems would have cropped up in the first place.

Hunter Wallace

December 15th, 2009, 07:35 AM

How bout it Fade ?? Do you think there's a chance it's true ??

No, I don't. I chalk it up to Lindstedt's usual hyperbole. I've grown accustomed to it.

As for Fade "coming around", good luck. You're not only gonna need good luck, but some divine intervention to boot. His head is harder than Krupp steele.

I changed my mind on the Jewish Question. I'm sure everyone remembers that brief phase when I was singing the praises of FDR. In hindsight, it looks quite silly. Looking further back, I can see how much I have grown over the past decade. My earliest posts were embarrassingly unreadable.

Note: For the record, I also changed my opinion of you.

Alex Linder

December 15th, 2009, 08:01 AM

It is a personal attack, a low blow, a cheap shot. It is the verbal equivilant of a kick in the groin or an eye gouge.

Mmm...I'm not persuaded. Read up on homosexuality. It's not a light thing. There's a reason he didn't disclose it...to me...knowing I don't like it...when he first showed up at VNN. Not really that honorable behavior you're talking about, is it?

Yes, I know Greg Johnson. We've met several times. We talk on the phone all the time. I don't know many people who are more valuable assets to the movement. I've heard you say that he wrote some of the best articles ever published by VNN. As for his sexuality, I have never asked him about the matter. Like your Chron's disease, I don't consider it relevant to the struggle we are engaged in.

Ulcerative colitis is not a deviant sexual behavior reflecting mental perversion. If I'd acquired UC by chronically sodomizing duct-taped field mice, you'd be irresponsible not to raise questions. How many queers can you high-roaders draft into your ranks before your righteous wholesomeness starts to stink up your pitch to the whites mesmerized by MTV?

If I am not in a position to know this, then I am certain you are not either. Even if it were true, it is nowhere near as much of a concern as the flaws of people like Bill White, Rounder, or Hal Turner, not to mention Todd in FL, the amateur bombmaker who used to post here.

Yeah...comparing apples and oranges, rather obviously. Posting on a web forum is hardly the same as occupying a prominent WN post.

There are substantial criticisms of Sam Francis to be made. He was too soft on the Jews. He was too critical of anti-Semites. He tried to keep a foot in both words, conservative and racialist. To a point, I agree with you.

The personal attacks on Francis - he was an obese homosexual loser - detract from your case. They create sympathy for Francis.

I called him an obese loser, which he was. I only speculated he was a queer. I never accused because I don't know it for a fact. With Johnson, I accused. And so far, neither Johnson nor any of his defenders has denied the charge.

Taylor is the most courtly, regal person I know.

Yes. That would be the polish in the 'Polished.'

He conducts himself as a gentleman.

Not in his argumentation. He is dirty as hell in his intellectualizing, his stock in trade.

You started making by excuses for homosexuals; now you're making excuses for jew-exculpaters. I'm afraid this trail will end in the mouth of an alligator!

This is one of his greatest assets. He doesn't come across as a stereotypical racist. People who would instantly dismiss a Rounder or ANSWP Commander Bill White pay attention to Taylor when he speaks.

Would you agree the Nazis are winners? Would you agree the jews are winners? Find me Taylor's equivalent in either of those two camps. Even if Taylor were 100% successful in getting people to hate niggers - that's like trying to persuade people to like ice cream. You've even said this yourself, in your rational moments. Regardless of your admiration for his leonine carriage, you should be able to see that no one as smart as Taylor would act the way he does - unless he were running a deeper game. EMJones has figured it out. I've figured it out. Michael Piper has figured it out. Why can't you? Are you really that bedazzled by manners? Funny thing is, you hate conservatives, but you are one. You value custom, propriety and bearing like a good Southerner. You are a functional conservative, just as MacDonald and the high-road crew are implicit conservatives.

This is untrue. I believe Taylor is an asset. He is like a racialist high school teacher. He introduces implicit whites to the basics of racial consciousness. He's good at doing that and I support his work.

We've been over this and over this. You know that whites already know the truth about race. You've said it. You know the stats about relocating whites moving to whiter areas, whites voting against affirmative action and open borders.

I have a different standard. While I loathe conservatism, I see incrementalism as unavoidable. I define victory as pulling the national discourse on race and Jews in our direction. Taylor and Buchanan are gateways to White Nationalism.

Was the Catholic Center Party a gateway to Nazism? There are no gateways. Especially not in the age of the Internet.

They bring aspects of our message to a larger audience. I myself followed that path into the movement. How can I condemn Buchanan when it was one of his books that led me to White Nationalism?

Uh, to be unmannerly, I don't really believe you. You've been on the internet for ten years and surely have seen harder stuff than you ever got in his books.

You're more of a conservative than I am. You know this, Alex.

Yes and no. Yes in that I have a small businessman's respect for the market, whereas you have an academic's respect for the government. And yes in the sense I read Burke and Kirk and some libertarians whereas you read some leftists and communitarians. No in the sense I do not share your respect for manners and propriety when they come at the expensive of effective terms and tactics. Another big functional difference between us is that my entire being is hypersensitively, almost neurasthenically, attuned to the use of terms to pre-win arguments. You by contrast are very, very functionally conservative in using the terms as they are conventionally used. Not saying you don't occasionally coin or appreciate neologism, but to say your default standard is conventional usage. It's parallel to your respect for manners. (I'm all for conventional manners at the dinner table, but not in political warfare, which is in most times carried out in term-struggles and only sometimes on the field.) So it's not so simple to say who is the real conservative.

You have a lot of substantial criticisms of all of the above (Francis included). Once again, I agree with you to a point. Your conclusion, however, is vanguardist purism. It is myopic to believe that everyone can start out as radical as you are. To newbies, you sound like you are from Neptune.

Terms like vanguardist, mainstream, extremist, purist - they don't mean anything to me, they're just adjectives applied to make the user feel good and the labeled feel weird. As for style, the humor and emotion the MacDonald's throw overboard so they can say they're taking the high road are what allow people to stick with the VNN view until the truth of what we're saying sinks in. It takes no more than two weeks in the vast majority of cases. I'm not speculating, I'm reporting what many, many people initially shocked by my spintros told me. They were repulsed, then converted. Quickly. Analogous to diving into swimming pool. Shocked briefly, then swimming happily.

I don't know of any homosexuals inside TOQ. Do you have any hard evidence of this?

No, sir, I do not. I speculate. Based on the established fact that tiny, perverse minorities feel best among their own, and actively network to that end.

Where did Edmund Connolly use the term?

He didn't. As I have said more than once, he, uh, borrowed the concept of needing a mirror term to racism and made it the basis of his essay. He certainly had read what I have written on this subject multiple times over the years - that is why he deliberately refrained from using my coinage loxism, while fretting over the lack of terms. The dog that didn't bark. Not Aryan behavior. But neither is sodomy. I guess taking the high road means overlooking sodomy and plagiarism while distancing ourself from that dirty VNN and their nasty vulgarities.

MacDonald probably has the same perspective I do: it is easier for us to reach and influence Buchanan's readers than other conservatives. Buchanan is a key player in popularizing our ideas on the far end of the conservative spectrum. He is a gateway to the mainstream. Buchanan and Taylor generally don't attack us. An enemy would return fire.

Taylor doesn't attack VNN, for example, because he has no arguments. Anything he said would look stupid - if his intent were what he claims it is. As it is not, he must stay far, far away from anyone who sees what he's up to. Which he does.

Buchanan doesn't acknowledge us because we don't threaten his income. We exist to him as something he can steal occasional ideas from to preserve his position as the farthest right you can be while remaining respectable. What you and MacDonald can't figure out is that you'd make more inroads with his readers by attacking him, as I do, than defending him, or mentioning him with respect, as MacDonald does. That's an advanced lesson, and neither you nor he are to that level yet. But, and the reason i'm wasting time responding to you, is that you have indicated willingness to adjust your view based on facts, as you came around on the jew thing. In time you will see what I am saying. it might take five years. It might take ten. The reason i tell you is that a whole shark herd of us attacking him simultaneously would be a great force multiplier. It would polarize the spectrum in the public mind between whites and jews rather than conservagives and liberals, the two-party charade the Buchanans you think you should respect help maintain. As I say, this is an advanced lesson. Its truth will not be apparent to you for a few years. MacDonald will never grasp it.

As a practical matter, what would you have us do? How would you reach into the mainstream? How would you overcome the Neptune Effect?

I got VNN up to 10k on Alexa using humor and emotion, with rich creamy white fact-nougaty goodness in the middle. But you go follow Kevin. I'm sure he can do the same, employing queers and judiciously, high-mindedly throwing humor and emotion to the wind - with the hilarious exception of $PLC.

To turn straight-serious, since you seem to prefer that, the way you win is to polarize. You polarize by vicious funny factual - whatever you got, use it, use it all and make more and throw it hard as you can - attacks on jews and liberals and conservatives including Buchanan and Taylor. You do this over and over and over and over, for years. You couple it with a white activist group. Not essay writers - hush crime spotlighters. They force their way into the mainstream, being utterly uncompromising. At the bottom of their agitation materials you promote your uncompromising hub website. Out of this a party grows. Vicious, complete hostility and nasty humor (and all the other good shit you can gin up), totally towing a racially correct line that We are Whites and Jews are the Enemy. Above all what must be done is make the public see first that the two sides doing battle are WHITES and jews. And second, that whites, sooner or later, are going to win - and they'd better get their ass on the winining side of it will go hard for them.

That's how you do it.

Of course we should criticize others in the movement. I've criticized Brimelow, Taylor, Buchanan and Francis myself. The question is how we should go about doing it.

How do the winners do it? How do the jews do it? Politely? Or with vicious smears backed by the FBI?

Now, how do the MacDonalds recommend fighting back? Trick question. They don't. They recommend being polite. Overlooking homosexuality. Eschewing all humor save the limpdickiest like $PLC. These babes in the woods have no flipping idea what they're doing. Not the slightest. It's because they have pleasant, ingratiating, middle-class morals and manners, and don't want to consider that these aren't the things that can beat the enemy. Even when they analyze correctly, their implicit conservatism - desire for tastefullness and respectability - overwhelm the analytical conclusions they know to be right. That's the secret to the hold VNN has over them, why everything they do seems in response to a meme we've generated here. It's the cognitive dissonance generated by their knowing we, I, am right, but being unable to overcome their instinctual, emotional, limbic tropism to propriety. To say the least, the jews aren't burdened by this. They go for the jugular. They are the ones to watch, learn from, and emulate.

I don't think anyone minds you making fair and reasonable criticisms of TOO/TOQ. That's not the issue.

As if to prove my point - what have fair and reasonable got to do with anything? More functional conservatism. I don't want to be fair and reasonable, I want to win. I know how. I don't think the Buchanan tribute band featuring lead singer Fairy and backup band The Reasonables do.

We're trying to reach people who are scientifically literate, intelligent, and well educated. Unlike the man on the street, these people typically have money and influence.

Yes, this is the crux of the problem here, which neither you, nor the fairy, nor MacDonald understand. Even if you persuade the rich smart guy you're right, it doesn't make him one whit more inclined to risk his body and booty. I mean, it's not like you're offering leadership, are you? No, you're writing essays. Is anybody in the TOQ crew intending to actually lead us to the promised land? Hell, no. They don't even pretend that. They're just interested in duplicating Vdare's fundraising success, is my guess. More essays, more books, more arguments - like we don't already have all we need.

Verbiage, save it is vicious and polarizing, is utterly worthless to us at this point.

I will save this for my upcoming plunge into conservatism/libertarianism. In the meantime, I will hold this up as an excellent example of what I call "discourse poisoning"; in this case, the penetration of libertarian memes into White Nationalism.

Do that, I will certainly respond to whatever you write. Penetration of the idea that a White Man doesn't have to work fifty percent of his time as a slave for ZOG or even AOG doesn't seem that horrible to me.

A HS curriculum is a good idea. It is a worthy project. Rusty Mason had expressed interest in doing it. You should speak with him.

Never heard of him. If you can find someone who actually is serious about this, and knows how to do it, I would certainly be interested in helping, especially by raising money to pay for its development.

I've seen Brimelow deny being a White Nationalist before. Again, there are substantial criticisms of Brimelow to be made, but they don't have to be teethered to the albatross of personal attacks or abusive language.

Don't have to be, should be. Personal attacks are good. Brimelow practically blew a gasket when E. Michael Jones criticized jews. But people think he's on our side. He's not. A black and indelible line must be drawn between our side and right-wingism. That's the only way we can raise our profile in the public eye, the only way we can succeed. As I've said for years.

Hadding

December 15th, 2009, 09:24 AM

No, he's anti-jew and it's real. His criticism seemed to be more of Judaism than of Jews as biological entities. You get the same sociological anti-Judaism from H.G. Wells and some other leftists. It's very convenient for people who are themselves of Jewish extraction.

He's a gray area. Parts of him are horrible, parts of him are solid. Everybody has faults that have to be overlooked sometimes, but in White's case you are talking about somebody who is compulsively dishonest and manipulative, and does whatever he has to do, says whatever he has to say, to force the center of attention onto himself. Dishonesty is the worst character flaw, and it's especially hard to overlook that in somebody who insists on dominating.

I barely remember it except, geez Kev, do you really have to atom-bomb me? Can't you just call me a useless sihthead? Do you really have to try to kill me off with the ultimate sanction? I felt sorry for him, in a way. There has to be a better way to fight than that, and him with all those brains and can't figure it out. I agree that the whole matter was ridiculous on both sides, but the dispute would have been easier to resolve if it weren't being played out as an internet drama, and of course Bill White is the King of Internet Drama. I wasn't paying enough attention to internet at the time to say that White was responsible for the way events proceeded, but it seems likely that he encouraged it.

No, I believe his evolution was real. People who are fake or looking to sell out don't act the way he did. At every stage of his evolution he took real risks, and was involved in real activity - none of it was just virtual, safe and indoors. Frank Collin took real risks too. You can suppose that he was sincere on some level too, but he was a Jewish screwball. Bill White now is saying that his activities were "satire"; I think that undermines your sincerity argument.

Well, that makes it sounds like I was pursuing it, but I really wasn't. I think it was Fred's idea, and it was a good idea. Bill White's involvement I am pretty sure set off alarms for others.

Well, I don't think it's humanly possible for Bill not to exacerbate a situation.... You are conceding my point, and you are saying is that to some extent it doesn't even matter if Bill White is sincere, because the tendency to generate strife is rooted in his personality.

Hunter Wallace

December 16th, 2009, 06:40 AM

Mmm...I'm not persuaded.

Instead of responding to Greg's substantial points, you made a personal attack. I suppose this would be consistent with your idea that civility and decency should be thrown out the window. You believe in winning, right? That involves hitting back at others with everything you got ... dirt included. Is this not your positon?

Read up on homosexuality. It's not a light thing. There's a reason he didn't disclose it...to me...knowing I don't like it...when he first showed up at VNN. Not really that honorable behavior you're talking about, is it?

1.) Honestly, I am not really bothered by homosexuality unless it is aggressively thrown in my face. For a racialist, I am pretty tolerant.

2.) I'm assuming Greg didn't consider his sexuality relevant to writing anonymous essays for someone on the internet.

3.) I will note that your aversion to homosexuality puts you far closer to the conservative camp. You come on strong against conservatism in your rhetoric, but in substance your actual positions are identical to theirs on any number of issues. You sound like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on homosexuals.

Ulcerative colitis is not a deviant sexual behavior reflecting mental perversion.

To my knowledge, the APA doesn't consider homosexuality a form of mental perversion. Homosexuals are found in every known society.

If I'd acquired UC by chronically sodomizing duct-taped field mice, you'd be irresponsible not to raise questions. How many queers can you high-roaders draft into your ranks before your righteous wholesomeness starts to stink up your pitch to the whites mesmerized by MTV?

We're trying to reach a narrow audience: intelligent, well educated, openminded middle class White professionals. These are people with money and influence. Taking a Jerry Falwell position on homosexuality is an albatross in trying to reach this demographic. It is hard enough already to reach them with our positions on race and Jews.

Yeah...comparing apples and oranges, rather obviously. Posting on a web forum is hardly the same as occupying a prominent WN post.

How so? I heard you say (on the Giles show, I think) that Hal Turner probably turned over the IP addresses of VNN users to the Feds. What about the Shop White fiasco with Bill White and the credit card numbers?

Todd in FL was posting on VNN and making bombs. He was a real domestic terrorist. He attracted the attention of law enforcement agences to everyone who posts here by association. Then you have Rounder who is in the FBI domestic terrorism database.

So, you have at least four individuals associated with domestic terrorism posting on VNN Forum including two known government informants, but you are worried about Greg Johnson writing essays. Hmm, apples and oranges, itz.

I called him an obese loser, which he was. I only speculated he was a queer. I never accused because I don't know it for a fact. With Johnson, I accused. And so far, neither Johnson nor any of his defenders has denied the charge.

And this is a strategy on your part? Who are you trying to influence? Sam Francis readers? Greg Johnson readers? These people admire Sam and Greg because of their erudition. They're not going to respond well to abusive personal attacks on champions of their issues. In fact, that is likely to have the opposite effect, and from what I can tell, it has.

Yes. That would be the polish in the 'Polished.'

Intelligent and educated people like polish. They like to think of themselves as sophisticated. Hence, the constrast in their reaction to Jared Taylor and RAHOWA skinheads.

Not in his argumentation. He is dirty as hell in his intellectualizing, his stock in trade.

I wrote a review of the Giles interview with Jared Taylor. I pointed out where I think he is error, but I didn't use personal attacks. Taylor's readers are far more likely to listen to that type of criticism.

You started making by excuses for homosexuals; now you're making excuses for jew-exculpaters. I'm afraid this trail will end in the mouth of an alligator!

I really try to get along with everyone. I'm probably the only person in the whole movement who has a positive view of you, Rounder, Lindstedt, and Taylor. The only people I have really feuded with are the philo-Semites like Guy White and Ian Jobling.

Would you agree the Nazis are winners? Would you agree the jews are winners?

Yes, I would grant the point.

Find me Taylor's equivalent in either of those two camps. Even if Taylor were 100% successful in getting people to hate niggers - that's like trying to persuade people to like ice cream. You've even said this yourself, in your rational moments.

As Greg and others have noted, the Jews have a harmony amongst themselves. You don't see them wailing into each other. Their attacks are almost universally directed at those they perceive to be their enemies.

Not so on the American Right. This is especially true on the far right. We have individualists fighting like piranhas to be the big fish in the small pool. The best example that comes to mind is the legal feud between Willis Carto and Mark Weber that destroyed Liberty Lobby and sapped IHR of needed funds.

Regardless of your admiration for his leonine carriage, you should be able to see that no one as smart as Taylor would act the way he does - unless he were running a deeper game. EMJones has figured it out. I've figured it out. Michael Piper has figured it out.

To my knowledge, EMJones and Michael Piper don't know Jared Taylor. They are not in a position to know if he is running a deep game. I want to say that Piper is an underling of Willis Carto who has been attacking Taylor for years. From what I have read of Piper and Jones, I am not all that impressed with their work.

Why can't you? Are you really that bedazzled by manners? Funny thing is, you hate conservatives, but you are one. You value custom, propriety and bearing like a good Southerner. You are a functional conservative, just as MacDonald and the high-road crew are implicit conservatives.

Well, you got me here. I do believe in manners. I value custom, propriety, decency, and honesty. I try not to hit others with lowblows. If I have dirt on someone, I generally don't use it. I believe in acting like a gentleman. I don't object to you making your points, but I think you should do it in a fair way. You should have some respect for your opponents. This is Gentile respectability.

Mike Parker

December 16th, 2009, 07:06 AM

To my knowledge, the APA doesn't consider homosexuality a form of mental perversion.

There's a reason for that:

Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php)

What Really Happened?

Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA for political gain.

Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud and Healthy."

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.

According to Satinover, "How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer's apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth."

Dr. Socarides Speaks Out

Dr. Satinover shows how APA's policies were influcenced by closeted homosexual APA leaders.

Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.

Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: "To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years…"

Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.

Reminds me of Vatican II.

Hunter Wallace

December 16th, 2009, 07:12 AM

We've been over this and over this. You know that whites already know the truth about race. You've said it. You know the stats about relocating whites moving to whiter areas, whites voting against affirmative action and open borders.

Where I live, Whites know the truth about race, sure. Unfortunately, few White Americans live in areas that are 50% black! The opinion polls clearly show that Whites believe racial differences are environmental, not hereditary. There is probably a taboo effect at work here, but clearly a huge percentage of Whites are really and truly racially naive. This is where Jared Taylor and HBD come in handy.

Was the Catholic Center Party a gateway to Nazism? There are no gateways. Especially not in the age of the Internet.

In some ways. There was a strong sentiment that Germany had been treated unfairly by the Western Allies. German nationalism was still held in high esteem in the political mainstream. These attitudes undoubtedly paved the way for Hitler.

Uh, to be unmannerly, I don't really believe you. You've been on the internet for ten years and surely have seen harder stuff than you ever got in his books.

I've always told the same story. Buchanan's book The Death of the West hit me like a ton of bricks. It was a shock to learn that I would one day be a minority in my own country. I became extremely interested in immigration and started searching the net for discussions groups.

That's how I stumbled upon Stormfront. I was exposed to White Nationalism and the Jewish Question there in late 2001. I stayed around long enough to solidify my identity as a racialist. At first, I disputed the Jewish Question, but I was reasonable enough to research the matter on my own. My own research led me to where I am today.

Yes and no. Yes in that I have a small businessman's respect for the market, whereas you have an academic's respect for the government. And yes in the sense I read Burke and Kirk and some libertarians whereas you read some leftists and communitarians.

You are pro-market, anti-government, pro-individualism, anti-gay, anti-environmentalism, anti-space exploration, etc. You're a classical liberal with an authoritarian streak on race and Jews. You are indisputably a rightwinger and have said so yourself.

I come from a leftwing background. I'm very critical of free market capitalism. I support many popular government social problems. I believe government can be a force for good. I think Americans are too individualistic; too absorbed in their own lives. I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I'm strongly pro-conservation and pro-environment. I'm strongly in favor of space exploration.

I believe in reason, tolerance, and openmindedness. If non-Whites were eliminated from the equation, I would support "social justice." I'm also in favor of a more equitable distribution of wealth.

No in the sense I do not share your respect for manners and propriety when they come at the expensive of effective terms and tactics. Another big functional difference between us is that my entire being is hypersensitively, almost neurasthenically, attuned to the use of terms to pre-win arguments. You by contrast are very, very functionally conservative in using the terms as they are conventionally used. Not saying you don't occasionally coin or appreciate neologism, but to say your default standard is conventional usage. It's parallel to your respect for manners. (I'm all for conventional manners at the dinner table, but not in political warfare, which is in most times carried out in term-struggles and only sometimes on the field.) So it's not so simple to say who is the real conservative.

Yes, I am in favor of manners and propriety. From what I gather, you believe that Jews are winners and that we should imitate the them. In political warfare, we should be as nasty as possible.

You forget to factor into the equation the fact that you are a rightwing individualist. It would be more accurate to describe you as a loose cannon firing at others who carry our flag.

Terms like vanguardist, mainstream, extremist, purist - they don't mean anything to me, they're just adjectives applied to make the user feel good and the labeled feel weird.

I would say these are important and real divisions within our social movement.

As for style, the humor and emotion the MacDonald's throw overboard so they can say they're taking the high road are what allow people to stick with the VNN view until the truth of what we're saying sinks in. It takes no more than two weeks in the vast majority of cases. I'm not speculating, I'm reporting what many, many people initially shocked by my spintros told me. They were repulsed, then converted. Quickly. Analogous to diving into swimming pool. Shocked briefly, then swimming happily.

MacDonald has never said that humor and emotion should be thrown overboard. He is an academic trying to reach an academic audience. He would not be opposed to others taking his ideas and using humor and emotion to reach other demographics.

That's not the issue. It is hitching the Jewish Question to eliminationism, vulgarity and crudity that he dislikes. Even within VNN, I doubt the majority of your supporters are willing to endorse genocide with their real names.

No, sir, I do not. I speculate. Based on the established fact that tiny, perverse minorities feel best among their own, and actively network to that end.

In other words, you are spreading unsubstantiated rumors. This is what Bill White used to do on Overthrow.com.

He didn't. As I have said more than once, he, uh, borrowed the concept of needing a mirror term to racism and made it the basis of his essay. He certainly had read what I have written on this subject multiple times over the years - that is why he deliberately refrained from using my coinage loxism, while fretting over the lack of terms. The dog that didn't bark. Not Aryan behavior. But neither is sodomy. I guess taking the high road means overlooking sodomy and plagiarism while distancing ourself from that dirty VNN and their nasty vulgarities.

1.) You seem to believe that you are the first person to realize that we need a term to describe the Jewish pathological hatred of Gentiles.

2.) I don't understand why you are so upset. If I had coined the term, I would want it to catch on. I would be trying to get others to use it. The more it circulates the better. Isn't that the whole point?

Taylor doesn't attack VNN, for example, because he has no arguments. Anything he said would look stupid - if his intent were what he claims it is. As it is not, he must stay far, far away from anyone who sees what he's up to. Which he does.

Taylor probably thinks he has better things to do than to come here and get in a no holds barred verbal cage match with you.

Hunter Wallace

December 16th, 2009, 07:42 AM

Buchanan doesn't acknowledge us because we don't threaten his income. We exist to him as something he can steal occasional ideas from to preserve his position as the farthest right you can be while remaining respectable. What you and MacDonald can't figure out is that you'd make more inroads with his readers by attacking him, as I do, than defending him, or mentioning him with respect, as MacDonald does.

I have no objection to criticizing Buchanan, but shouldn't he be criticized in such a way that would prove most effective at winning over his sympathizers? I haven't seen any evidence that your abusive personal attacks are working.

On the contrary, most people seem to get defensive and react with hostility. It looks to me like you have only succeeded in isolating yourself from everyone else in the movement, which is a shame, because you are genuinely talented.

That's an advanced lesson, and neither you nor he are to that level yet. But, and the reason i'm wasting time responding to you, is that you have indicated willingness to adjust your view based on facts, as you came around on the jew thing. In time you will see what I am saying. it might take five years. It might take ten. The reason i tell you is that a whole shark herd of us attacking him simultaneously would be a great force multiplier. It would polarize the spectrum in the public mind between whites and jews rather than conservagives and liberals, the two-party charade the Buchanans you think you should respect help maintain. As I say, this is an advanced lesson. Its truth will not be apparent to you for a few years. MacDonald will never grasp it.

Perhaps you are right. I consider myself a rational person. I won't hesitate to change my view in light of new evidence. If I ever find reason to believe you are right about Buchanan, I will share it with you.

I got VNN up to 10k on Alexa using humor and emotion, with rich creamy white fact-nougaty goodness in the middle. But you go follow Kevin. I'm sure he can do the same, employing queers and judiciously, high-mindedly throwing humor and emotion to the wind - with the hilarious exception of $PLC.

Alexa generates its rating by collecting data from users who have installed their toolbar which tracks their web movements. Only 2% of internet users have Alexa. This is why my Alexa rating is all over the map while the Quantcast data (which directly measures traffic) shows little or no change.

To turn straight-serious, since you seem to prefer that, the way you win is to polarize. You polarize by vicious funny factual - whatever you got, use it, use it all and make more and throw it hard as you can - attacks on jews and liberals and conservatives including Buchanan and Taylor. You do this over and over and over and over, for years. You couple it with a white activist group. Not essay writers - hush crime spotlighters. They force their way into the mainstream, being utterly uncompromising. At the bottom of their agitation materials you promote your uncompromising hub website. Out of this a party grows. Vicious, complete hostility and nasty humor (and all the other good shit you can gin up), totally towing a racially correct line that We are Whites and Jews are the Enemy. Above all what must be done is make the public see first that the two sides doing battle are WHITES and jews. And second, that whites, sooner or later, are going to win - and they'd better get their ass on the winining side of it will go hard for them.

That's how you do it.

I disagree.

1.) We can only win through incrementalism (gradually pushing our ideas into the mainstream). The Left has exploited the Overton Window with great success.

2.) In order to push our ideas into the mainstream, we need a chain of discursive spaces that are progressively more moderate, or more radical, depending on which way you look at it.

3.) We need sympathizers (cryptos) in key positions along this chain who constantly hint at a more radical position.

4.) This creates a path from the mainstream to the fringe down which sympathizers can travel. Case in point, the path I took to White Nationalism through Pat Buchanan, a mainstream political figure.

That's how we do it.

1.) Saddling yourself with extreme positions - for instance, exterminating the Jews - is guaranteed to backfire. The overwhelming majority of Whites will recoil in moral disgust. Within the WN movement, you have only made yourself radioactive. No one wants to be associated with someone who openly promotes genocide. You are doing nothing but isolating yourself.

2.) In taking such extreme positions, you attract a lot of mentally unstable individuals, people like Todd in FL. You are inviting law enforcement agencies to get on your case. You are running the risk of going to prison. We have already seen Bill White and Hal Turner get in trouble for pushing the boundries of free speech.

3.) Attacking Sam Francis, Greg Johnson, and Jared Taylor with smears and personal attacks hasn't won you any sympathy with their audience. Again, it has backfired. You have only succeeded in highlighting the qualities that people find admirable in them. As a strategy, it just doesn't work.

4.) You have a record of attacking all sorts of people in the movement. This has created an enormous amount of animus towards you. Within the WN movement, you have isolated yourself. If you can't build a coalition within the racialist community itself, how do you expect to reach out to non-racialists?

Your valid insights:

1.) It is a great idea to use humor and emotion to reach a wider audience. The average White isn't going to read texts as dry or intellectual as the Kevin MacDonald trilogy. You have a genuine talent in this regard.

2.) You have a sharp mind. Many of your criticisms of Buchanan and Francis are on target. Unfortunately, your style of presentation often causes people to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

3.) You are right that conservatives are too nice. Jews fight nasty. We should be as nasty to them as they are to us.

4.) You are right about creating a polarization between WN and the mainstream.

Hunter Wallace

December 16th, 2009, 08:20 AM

How do the winners do it? How do the jews do it? Politely? Or with vicious smears backed by the FBI?

Jews are vicious towards out-groups, but practice in-group altruism. In contrast, Whites often viciously fight amongst themselves, as we are seeing here.

Now, how do the MacDonalds recommend fighting back?

1.) We believe in influencing elites: rational, intelligent, educated, sophisticated people with money and influence. We're not trying to reach mental defectives like Todd in FL or kooks like jimbo.

2.) Towards this end, we believe in creating a new type of racialist and anti-Semitic discourse, one that is fact based, rational, and informed by science.

3.) We're busily creating a real vanguard to spearhead a social movement with mainstream aspirations.

Trick question. They don't. They recommend being polite.

In other words, we don't shoot people who carry our banner. That would be counterproductive.

Overlooking homosexuality.

For starters, we don't want to be stereotyped and dismissed as mindless haters. We reject the Fred Phelps strategy of outreach. The audience we are trying to influence are not the people who follow Jerry Falwell.

Eschewing all humor save the limpdickiest like $PLC.

This is nonsense. We don't have any objection to using humor and emotion, but cracking jokes about genocide get us nowhere. Believe it or not, we are not all academics. We have all sorts of people reaching out to Whites in various ways.

These babes in the woods have no flipping idea what they're doing. Not the slightest. It's because they have pleasant, ingratiating, middle-class morals and manners, and don't want to consider that these aren't the things that can beat the enemy.

We're trying to reach middle class people who have those pleasant, middle class morals and manners. We plan on competing with conservatives for their support. Naturally, we have to show some deference to their status concerns. That's realism on our part.

Even when they analyze correctly, their implicit conservatism - desire for tastefullness and respectability - overwhelm the analytical conclusions they know to be right.

I have to question this strategic stroke of genius: what is sowing as much division, animosity, and discord within our own ranks supposed to accomplish?

That's the secret to the hold VNN has over them, why everything they do seems in response to a meme we've generated here.

Is that really the case? Does anyone truly believe that VNN with its Tard Corral is reaching a better audience than we are?

It's the cognitive dissonance generated by their knowing we, I, am right, but being unable to overcome their instinctual, emotional, limbic tropism to propriety. To say the least, the jews aren't burdened by this. They go for the jugular. They are the ones to watch, learn from, and emulate.

We're willing to grant that Alex makes a lot of good points. We grant that Alex is extremely talented. Otherwise, we wouldn't bother him. Unfortunately, Alex is one of those people who is constitutionally incapable of working with others. The same individualist streak that led him out of the mainstream has isolated him within the movement. He will always be the perennial outsider.

As if to prove my point - what have fair and reasonable got to do with anything? More functional conservatism.

1.) It is the right thing to do.
2.) It is a better strategy.

I don't want to be fair and reasonable, I want to win. I know how. I don't think the Buchanan tribute band featuring lead singer Fairy and backup band The Reasonables do.

What have you won? You've set a course for the fringe.

Yes, this is the crux of the problem here, which neither you, nor the fairy, nor MacDonald understand. Even if you persuade the rich smart guy you're right, it doesn't make him one whit more inclined to risk his body and booty. I mean, it's not like you're offering leadership, are you?

It matters a great deal if, say, a multimillionaire were leave us an endowment.

No, you're writing essays.

In the 1920's and 1930's, Jews were writing essays. A has to come before B.

Is anybody in the TOQ crew intending to actually lead us to the promised land? Hell, no. They don't even pretend that. They're just interested in duplicating Vdare's fundraising success, is my guess. More essays, more books, more arguments - like we don't already have all we need.

You never answered my question. What happened to Dietrich? He was at VNN for years. It is my understanding that he left to start his own little project.

Verbiage, save it is vicious and polarizing, is utterly worthless to us at this point.

Observation: Linder is trying to polarize White Nationalists with vicious smears, not Jews and Whites.

Do that, I will certainly respond to whatever you write. Penetration of the idea that a White Man doesn't have to work fifty percent of his time as a slave for ZOG or even AOG doesn't seem that horrible to me.

Looking forward to it. I've written far too much about White Nationalism and the Jewish Question lately. I plan on getting more engaged with popular culture, the political mainstream, and other movements that compete with us.

Never heard of him. If you can find someone who actually is serious about this, and knows how to do it, I would certainly be interested in helping, especially by raising money to pay for its development.

Note: I found Rusty Mason through daily blogging.

Don't have to be, should be. Personal attacks are good. Brimelow practically blew a gasket when E. Michael Jones criticized jews. But people think he's on our side. He's not. A black and indelible line must be drawn between our side and right-wingism. That's the only way we can raise our profile in the public eye, the only way we can succeed. As I've said for years.

I've been reading VDARE for almost eight years now. It is one of the best resources on the net. They publish Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor. I wish VDARE were more radical, but instead of criticizing them, I think our time is better spent creating a viable alternative.

OTPTT

December 16th, 2009, 08:45 AM

Are my posts being edited or deleted? In one thread several days ago I made a post and included an image. The image was removed shortly thereafter.

I also made a post regarding Giles interpretation of the call and interaction he had with Dan Jones and that post seems to have been deleted. At least I can't find it in the several Giles threads that I've searched.

Mike Parker

December 16th, 2009, 08:51 AM

In the 1920's and 1930's, Jews were writing essays.

That’s exactly the wrong analogy, and it shows why all the essays are just cloning themselves and generating more essays, not inspiring practical action in the real world such as Alex proposes. The essay can inform, but can it convey courage? When those Jews were writing essays, other Jews were doing political agitation, running civil rights and labor orgs and litigating at every level. They didn’t face the risks WN do today: the authorities didn’t terrorize them and, as E. Michael Jones has shown, much of the WASP establishment actually supported them for their own misguided reasons. If there’s an apt Jewish analogy to WN it’s the Bolsheviks in Russia, who were in a real fight. The one guy at TOQ who gets this is VNN alum O’Meara, who understands something more than intellect needs to be engaged.

Rounder

December 16th, 2009, 09:03 AM

Fade-Prozium-Hunter Wallace writes ably and daily, there is value to him and what he does. He is wrong about certain things, but, as he came around on jews, he will come around on the other stuff we VNNers are right on. They always do. Because they're Aryans, and they can only hold out against the truth for so long, and then it becomes undeniable. It will be the same with Johnson. I am not their enemy.

I will respond to Ebbe's many responses in this thread later, have been responding to posts at his site today.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/12/13/interview-alex-linder-iii/#comment-27141

After almost 6 years on here I've learned to trust your judgment. You were right all along about Bill White, for example. Maybe Fade does mean well, at times, after all, terribly misguided though he be, and thus, as you say, has value. He's a smart fellow. No doubt about that.

Hey Fade, regarding you not having the right personality to become a WN politician or public spokesman, let me tell you something. I was an introvert all my life and absolutely terrified of public speaking UNTIL I became jew wise. Understanding the GD jew menace tormented me day and nite and spurred me not only to run my mouth publicly every chance I got, but to action, as well. Like Hitler said: "Triumph of the will". So try and triumph over your's.

As for "Rounder being on the FBI's domestic terrorism database", I'd be a mighty unhappy "trooper" if I wasn't. Truth be known, we're all on there, at least the one classified Top-Secret-For-Jew-Eyes-Only.

Hunter Wallace

December 16th, 2009, 09:19 AM

That’s exactly the wrong analogy, and it shows why all the essays are just cloning themselves and generating more essays, not inspiring practical action in the real world such as Alex proposes.

1.) Did you listen to the Kevin MacDonald interview? He supports practical action in the real world. In fact, MacDonald attended an actual protest quite recently. He was out there carrying a sign.

2.) I support practical action. In the Deep South, I think an activist organization could work. It could get the attention of explicit Whites who have never heard of White Nationalism. In other parts of the country, activism will just result in more ritual shaming. It will drive sympathizers deeper into the closet.

3.) If Alex wants to engage in practical action, why doesn't he take his own advice? I haven't seen any follow up to the Knoxville rally. What about Rounder? Why isn't he organizing street level protests in Missouri? It is one thing to say we need more real world activism. It is another to get out there and actually do it.

4.) I'm willing to participate in any street level protest in my local area.

5.) We also need those essays. They change minds. In the MacDonald interview, a caller said his view of the Jewish Question had been changed by reading a MacDonald essay.

6.) Alex is a writer. That's his strength. Unfortunately, I don't see him writing much either. He has abandoned the VNN frontpage to Socrates. I'm running two daily blogs. I'm getting published by TOQ Online and Amren. I even find the time to post here and respond to you guys.

7.) Did you know that Greg Johnson has close ties to the BANA people who protest out in California?

The essay can inform, but can it convey courage?

Essays can definitely reach people who have courage. William Pierce wrote The Turner Diaries. He inspired Tim McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. He inspired Bob Mathews and The Order.

When those Jews were writing essays, other Jews were doing political agitation, running civil rights and labor orgs and litigating at every level.

That's true. The Jews did it the smart way though. They didn't have their best scholars out there organizing street protests. They didn't have their best writers holding up signs and going to jail. Instead, the Jews contributed in their own way: the rich Jews donated money, the academics wrote destructive texts, the journalists pumped out destructive memes, the producers made popular films, etc.

This much is clear: Alex is a better writer than a speaker. He is better at writing than fundraising or organizing protests. He should stick to doing what he does best. Unfortunately, he seems to have lost interest in even doing that.

They didn’t face the risks WN do today: the authorities didn’t terrorize them and, as E. Michael Jones has shown, much of the WASP establishment actually supported them for their own misguided reasons.

Not true. Jews were thrown in prison under both Red Scares. They were prosecuted under the Smith Act.

If there’s an apt Jewish analogy to WN it’s the Bolsheviks in Russia, who were in a real fight. The one guy at TOQ who gets this is VNN alum O’Meara, who understands something more than intellect needs to be engaged.

Michael O'Meara writes books and essays. I've met him in person before. I wonder what he thinks of Linder's attacks on Greg Johnson.

Hadding

December 16th, 2009, 10:36 AM

German nationalism was still held in high esteem in the political mainstream. These attitudes undoubtedly paved the way for Hitler.Almost everything about national-socialism represented some longstanding trend coming to fruition. It was an organic development from the German political and intellectual tradition.

Rounder

December 16th, 2009, 01:26 PM

1.)

What about Rounder? Why isn't he organizing street level protests in Missouri? It is one thing to say we need more real world activism. It is another to get out there and actually do it.

Wait just a cotton pickin minute there, Fade. I'm 69 freakin years old. You're what ?? 33 ?? I was Ku Kluckin and Storm-troopin before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye.

So experience that "triumph of the will" I told you about, and do your duty. Alex stated many times that VNN'ers are welcome to use this forum to recruit and organize for activisms. So hop to it.

Hunter Wallace

December 16th, 2009, 02:06 PM

Wait just a cotton pickin minute there, Fade. I'm 69 freakin years old. You're what ?? 33 ?? I was Ku Kluckin and Storm-troopin before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye.

29. I see nothing stopping you from organizing street protests. You have been gung ho about it. Why not follow your own advice? If you are successful, others will take notice. You might inspire them to, ah, get off their asses and do something.

So experience that "triumph of the will" I told you about, and do your duty.

I've done far more than most. I founded one of the most popular racialist forums on the internet. That forum spawned countless others that appealed to niche audiences. Outside of Stormfront and VNN Forum, I have had a massive impact on the WN cyber scene, and WN is almost exclusively an online movement.

I'm now running the most active and popular White Nationalist blog on the internet. I just started a second blog that deals exclusively with the Jewish Question.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/
http://antisemitica.wordpress.com/

My work has been published in TOQ Online and Amren. I'm stirring up an enormous dust cloud with my writing. I might have even knocked some sense into Linder: I notice he has returned to his perch on the VNN homepage.

Alex stated many times that VNN'ers are welcome to use this forum to recruit and organize for activisms. So hop to it.

In my offline time, I am creating a racialist social network in Southeast Alabama, on top of everything else that I do.

H.T.R.

December 16th, 2009, 02:17 PM

Wait just a cotton pickin minute there, Fade. I'm 69 freakin years old. You're what ?? 33 ?? I was Ku Kluckin and Storm-troopin before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye.

LOL! That was awesome! :D

Hunter Wallace

December 16th, 2009, 02:25 PM

More:

1.) The success of my blog might may have encouraged Kevin MacDonald and friends to create one of their own. It is quickly shaping up to be an invaluable online resource.

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/

2.) I've been fighting back the philo-Semitic horde for months. I put a lot of effort into refuting Guy White's nonsense about Jewish power.

3.) I have sent traffic to Jim Giles new radio show and other worthy projects.

4.) I have pushed a lot of people in a more radical direction.

5.) I have done a lot to clean up White Nationalism and discussion of the Jewish Question.

Rounder

December 16th, 2009, 04:04 PM

29. I see nothing stopping you from organizing street protests. You have been gung ho about it. Why not follow your own advice? If you are successful, others will take notice. You might inspire them to, ah, get off their asses and do something.

You don't see it from your computer stool, but if you come take one look at this old, worn-out redneck, you'll damn sure see it. I've got wrinkles criss-crossing wrinkles. I have no energy at all except after coffee, and my pecker doesn't stir even after viagra. The gals used to smile at me, now they laugh at me - even the old ones.

I was 55 when released from 5-year parole in 95. Too old even then to found another activist, political, membership organization - the only kind I'd devote myself to. The leader of such a group needs 15-20 years to build it up while having a good degree of confidence in success.

I've done far more than most. I founded one of the most popular racialist forums on the internet. That forum spawned countless others that appealed to niche audiences. Outside of Stormfront and VNN Forum, I have had a massive impact on the WN cyber scene, and WN is almost exclusively an online movement.

I'm now running the most active and popular White Nationalist blog on the internet. I just started a second blog that deals exclusively with the Jewish Question.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/
http://antisemitica.wordpress.com/

My work has been published in TOQ Online and Amren. I'm stirring up an enormous dust cloud with my writing. I might have even knocked some sense into Linder: I notice he has returned to his perch on the VNN homepage.

In my offline time, I am creating a racialist social network in Southeast Alabama, on top of everything else that I do.

Well, Alex says you have "value" so I'll take his word for it. I like your article entitled: "Iran Sanctions", and the fact you admit being an anti-semite. I'll brouse your blogs from time to time. Some good stuff there.
And I'll wish you much success if you'll promise to keep in mind: "Triumph of the will".

Mike Parker

December 17th, 2009, 06:51 AM

1.) Did you listen to the Kevin MacDonald interview?

Disappointing. MacDonald offers up the weasel words “different strokes,” and then proceeds to attack Alex. The high road gets lower by the day. And whose permission does MacDonald need to talk to Alex?

Did he really say Alex doesn’t make any points that MacDonald doesn’t? Alex developed the zero-sum model of racialist politics, which shows that conservatives are the enemies of WN. For such a crude guy, that’s a sophisticated, original analysis.

5.) We also need those essays. They change minds. In the MacDonald interview, a caller said his view of the Jewish Question had been changed by reading a MacDonald essay.

I'd say the same thing, and not just about the Jews. But that doesn't validate it as political strategy. If the goal is to influence "elites," how do we know when/if it's having that effect? Some suggestions: EO Wilson, founder of sociobiology and no stranger to controversy, says MacDonald is right about the Jews. A Fortune 500 CEO is moved by a TOQ essay to drop all optional diversity efforts and decides merely to comply with the letter of the law. A Wall Street law firm offers to litigate for the white ADL. If these people are open to intellectual persuasion, they should respond to TOQ since real science handily beats the Jews' pseudo-science. But if they act out of short-term self-interest, they'll be along for the ride only when they're more afraid of WN than of the Jews. That suggests Alex's Sam Francis strategy.

Did you know that Greg Johnson has close ties to the BANA people who protest out in California?

I'm afraid to google "BANA." Sorry.

Donnie in Ohio

December 17th, 2009, 07:09 AM

I'm afraid to google "BANA." Sorry.

BANA = Bay Area National Anarchist

www.tribalanarchist.com

Rounder

December 17th, 2009, 07:28 AM

100 million white men on this continent, but not one with the guts and capabilities to start up an activist, political party for white folks.

Why not ?? It's perfectly legal. We still have free speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom to unite and organize to seek redress of our grievances.

Those who say it's impossible also admit in the same breath that violence is our only way out. So what's holding you back from that ??

White Europeans have activist political parties even though their JOG governments are far more repressive than our's.

And forget all that crap about gathering up signatures on petitions or trying to get your WN party on election ballots. All that will come later after you've become sufficiently numerous. For now, WN party members can run as democrats or republicans or as write-in candidates, but on WN principles and platforms.

The 2010 congressional election is an excellent time to found the WN party. File to run as a write-in candidate for either the US senate or congress. Doesn't cost one cent. Then purchase 1-minute radio ads for only $5-$15 each to advertise your new WN party and your contact information and solicit members, all on each separate radio ad. VNN'ers will provide finances for hundreds of such radio ads. And get this, all commercial radio stations are required, by federal laws, to broadcast your ads and they cannot censor or change one word in them. For only $15.00, your messages will be heard by tens-of-thousands of white people. After several dozen have been broadcasted on a dozen or more stations, fed-up white people will have flooded into your WN party as party members and/or financial supporters. Then, it's just a matter of organizing, recruiting more and more, and building stronger and stronger.

If not you, then who ?? If not now, then when ??

Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of the idea whose time has come. That idea is THE WHITE FREEDOM PARTY !!!

Sieg Heil !!!

Hunter Wallace

December 17th, 2009, 08:28 AM

Disappointing. MacDonald offers up the weasel words “different strokes,” and then proceeds to attack Alex. The high road gets lower by the day. And whose permission does MacDonald need to talk to Alex?

I didn't hear MacDonald attack Alex. He made some reasonable criticisms. VNN Forum was infested for the longest time by retards, kooks, nutbars, unstable individuals, clownish Neo-Nazis, and agent provocateurs. I clearly remember those days. There has always been a lot of vulgarity and crudity here. It is only recently that Alex finally got tired of these people and systematically purged them.

Did he really say Alex doesn’t make any points that MacDonald doesn’t? Alex developed the zero-sum model of racialist politics, which shows that conservatives are the enemies of WN. For such a crude guy, that’s a sophisticated, original analysis.

I don't recall MacDonald making that criticism of Linder. I'm sure he would acknowledge that Alex often makes valid insights.

I'd say the same thing, and not just about the Jews. But that doesn't validate it as political strategy.

It is based on the observation that political victories are expensive and fleeting. For all their political victories, the conservatives have decisively lost the culture war. For all their street level protests, nothing has changed. If we change the culture, political victories will naturally follow. If we win at the ballox box, our culture won't necessarily change.

If the goal is to influence "elites," how do we know when/if it's having that effect?

This goes on largely behind the scenes.

Some suggestions: EO Wilson, founder of sociobiology and no stranger to controversy, says MacDonald is right about the Jews. A Fortune 500 CEO is moved by a TOQ essay to drop all optional diversity efforts and decides merely to comply with the letter of the law. A Wall Street law firm offers to litigate for the white ADL. If these people are open to intellectual persuasion, they should respond to TOQ since real science handily beats the Jews' pseudo-science. But if they act out of short-term self-interest, they'll be along for the ride only when they're more afraid of WN than of the Jews. That suggests Alex's Sam Francis strategy.

I don't see anyone at TOQ advocating paleoconservatism.

I'm afraid to google "BANA." Sorry.

BANA (Bay Area National Anarchists) is an activist group out in California. They hold steet level protests. Their material is often posted on Majority Rights.

Hadding

December 17th, 2009, 08:49 AM

100 million white men on this continent, but not one with the guts and capabilities to start up an activist, political party for white folks. It's been done many times. Unfortunately White people are under the impression that the Republicans are their party. It would take a large sum of money, e.g. the fortune of a Ross Perot, to convince them that there is a viable alternative. The rhetoric of the party would also have to be very cautiously stated for them to feel comfortable with it.

George Witzgall

December 17th, 2009, 08:54 AM

VNN Forum was infested for the longest time by retards, kooks, nutbars, unstable individuals, clownish Neo-Nazis, and agent provocateurs.

those were the glory days. why else come to the forum?

MikeTodd

December 17th, 2009, 09:14 AM

Unfortunately White people are under the impression that the Republicans are their party.True that!:(

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 09:45 AM

Regardless of your admiration for his leonine carriage...

"Leonine carriage." You know, dictionary.com ought to be paying you a salary for all the hits you've sent them from me. :)

Alex Linder

December 17th, 2009, 09:55 AM

This goes on largely behind the scenes.

That's what those who can't point to any real influence always say. Sam Francis made the same empty claim for years. It's just a pose to impress supporters.

Paleocon Francis didn't influence the power elite, the power elite kicked his ass. Causing him to break down blubbering about how we WN outsiders didn't support him but jews did! My term faileocon has already, in its short life, had more real influence on politics than SF's entire career.

KM has value when he's digging up quotations from jews. Less value when he's analyzing jewish strategy. And no value when he moves into activism down the same path as every other right-winger since WWII.

Kevin MacDonald is a conservative. I wonder how long it will take you to grasp this. You seem to think that placing money and status ahead of racial politics = effective radicalism, but I suggest it is just more of the same old failed conservatism. It may raise money from donors, as conservative Vdare has done, but it won't produce the change we seek.

The premise of your lengthy responses on earlier posts in this thread, which I just read and will respond to later, is that there's a way to work the situation. It is clear you believe this Overton process will somehow get our ideas into the mainstream. It's dim to me how this is to be achieved, though - in practice, if not in theory. The fundamental problem here, which you don't seem to realize, nor does MacDonald, is that you don't have anybody sympathetic to you who owns anything substantial. Where has the exact same approach gotten Jared Taylor in ten years? I went over there for the first time in a long time to read the responses to your article he printed. It appears to me that AmRen has already reached the point of diminishing returns. Which makes sense. It's just gerbil-wheel. Whine about black crime, but never do anything about it, not even discuss the "why." And you're defending this guy while claiming you're not conservative. I don't understand that. I don't think it meets the test of simple logic.

But to get back on track, I don't see how your Overton theory can work in practice because, unlike the communist parallel you draw, you and I and KM and Johnson - we don't have sympathetic relatives owning/advertising in the relevant outlets. That right there kills the idea, far as I can see.

What I can also see, and what you should be able to see, is that Kevin MacDonald actually cares, deeply, about his cavalier treatment at the hands of John Derbyshire, a race-mixing conservative alien who admits he's scared shitless of the jews who sign his paychecks. He has actually written that, and practically in those very same words. Derbyshire may be scared of jews, but he's not scared in the least of shitting on MacDonald. No repercussions there. Yet MacDonald is concerned about how to curry favor with this Chinese-marrying, miscegenating cunt, per the quotation provided by Parker.

I will repeat this so the full measure of it sinks in. A guy who claims he wants to lead the way to save the White race has in the front of his mind the importance of currying the favor of a neocon race-mixer.

If this isn't conservatism, what the hell is it?

How is KM ever going to influence Derbyshire? Buying him? KM hasn't the pockets. Persuading him? What? That his jew bosses are a genocidal thread to his half-chink children?

For your Overton window theory to work in practice, you're going to have to move up the food chain through neocon publications all the way along. Why are they going to promote your ideas when they are owned by and staffed by only two kinds of people: jews and those afraid of them. It just doesn't make any sense. The commies could do it because their relatives owned all the media. And owned the retail companies that advertised in the media. They had a natural network in place. Do you really think you're going to turn gentiles like Derbyshire to boost and borrow your memes, when they've already bought in to the extent of marrying outside the race, and in any case their paycheck depends on supporting the anti-White status quo?

I appreciate your first-rodeo enthusiasm, your energy, but I don't see that KM's deal is anything other than the same old Sam Francis paleocon cowpath. I'm sure it will raise some donor money, and produce some good essays, but I sure don't see any political change coming from it.

Alex Linder

December 17th, 2009, 09:58 AM

"Leonine carriage." You know, dictionary.com ought to be paying you a salary for all the hits you've sent them from me. :)

I despise flattery. You can't tell me in a thousand years you didn't know leonine or carriage.

Yes, when I was a teen, I wanted to know more words than anybody. Kind of like the cow at the top of the hill who wanted to run down and fuck 'em all. Except cows have no cocks. So it must have been a bull. Not a red bull. A white bull. And a young bull.

Eventually I learned its not the size of your dic, it's how you swing it.

George Witzgall

December 17th, 2009, 09:59 AM

"Leonine carriage." You know, dictionary.com ought to be paying you a salary for all the hits you've sent them from me. :)

hey nuthanger, go post something on my exterminate the queers thread.

Alex Linder

December 17th, 2009, 10:02 AM

I follow Mencken - play you should with words, but always with rules. The words have meaning. If you look up any word he uses you don't know, you find he used it correctly, and to express a shade, or because he needed its sounds as opposed to synonym's sounds. At best, writing is not only musical, it is better than music, in the sense a female orgasm is better than male, because if not quite as high a top peak, a higher and sustainabler average.

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 10:28 AM

To my knowledge, the APA doesn't consider homosexuality a form of mental perversion.

It used to, until said perverts starting using the tactics Linder advocates we use against our enemies on the APA.

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 10:33 AM

I despise flattery.

Was I flattering you?

You can't tell me in a thousand years you didn't know leonine or carriage.

Carriage I could have inferred from the context; leonine I didn't know, though now that I do, I suppose it's fairly obvious.

And yes, you deliberately use words that are not in common use and which constantly have me reaching for the dictionary. Not a compliment, just an observation.

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 10:50 AM

We're trying to reach a narrow audience: intelligent, well educated, openminded middle class White professionals. These are people with money and influence. Taking a Jerry Falwell position on homosexuality is an albatross in trying to reach this demographic. It is hard enough already to reach them with our positions on race and Jews.

Woaa, slow down... since when is tolerance for queer buttsex a middle class value? You think these white professionals you're targeting want their kids being indoctrinated by militant faggots at the elementary school level any more than Bible-thumpers do? The people whom you refer to as "open minded" are liberals, and there is no way you're going to convert true liberals to our way of thinking on race and the JQ regardless of what your position is on homosexuality.

Hunter Wallace

December 17th, 2009, 10:55 AM

That's what those who can't point to any real influence always say. Sam Francis made the same empty claim for years. It's just a pose to impress supporters.

If I really wanted to, I could spill the beans. You don't know a fraction of what goes on offline. We do have people engaged in real world activism. In contrast, you talk about doing it. Greg Johnson is working with people right now who have been real world activists for quite some time. I have them on speed dial.

Paleocon Francis didn't influence the power elite, the power elite kicked his ass. Causing him to break down blubbering about how we WN outsiders didn't support him but jews did! My term faileocon has already, in its short life, had more real influence on politics than SF's entire career.

In the 1990's, Sam Francis had Pat Buchanan's ear. In 1992 and 1996, Buchanan was a serious contender for the Republican nomination. Buchanan still commanded a huge base within the GOP at the time. Francis remained an influential figure within the conservative movement until his death. His influence continued to extend far into the political mainstream. While he lost his job at The Washingon Times, other conservative media outlets continued to publish him.

KM has value when he's digging up quotations from jews. Less value when he's analyzing jewish strategy. And no value when he moves into activism down the same path as every other right-winger since WWII.

1.) MacDonald and others have observed that Jews have a certain harmony amongst themselves. They don't wail into each other like we see here.

2.) What is your strategy?

- Marginalize yourself within the movement. Check.
- Make yourself radioactive by advocating genocide. Check.
- Abandon what you are actually good at (writing). Check.
- Create as much division within the movement as possible. Check.

Kevin MacDonald is a conservative. I wonder how long it will take you to grasp this. You seem to think that placing money and status ahead of racial politics = effective radicalism, but I suggest it is just more of the same old failed conservatism. It may raise money from donors, as conservative Vdare has done, but it won't produce the change we seek.

You would have us abandon civility, decency, propriety, manners, and morality. With this grand strategy of yours, who do you expect to reach? Honestly, who is going to listen to someone who advocates murdering little girls because they are Jewish? No one but kooks, sociopaths, and mental defectives.

The premise of your lengthy responses on earlier posts in this thread, which I just read and will respond to later, is that there's a way to work the situation. It is clear you believe this Overton process will somehow get our ideas into the mainstream.

Yes, I do.

When you advocate genocide, I think you make Kevin MacDonald look more reasonable. Your position is unthinkable. By comparison, MacDonald merely sounds radical.

It's dim to me how this is to be achieved, though - in practice, if not in theory.

Simple. We create discursive spaces that stretch from the margins to the mainstream. These are conduits that enable sympathizers to find White Nationalism. We have sympathizers in key positions along this ladder who draw attention to a more radical position.

The fundamental problem here, which you don't seem to realize, nor does MacDonald, is that you don't have anybody sympathetic to you who owns anything substantial.

This is false. I know this for a fact.

Where has the exact same approach gotten Jared Taylor in ten years? I went over there for the first time in a long time to read the responses to your article he printed. It appears to me that AmRen has already reached the point of diminishing returns. Which makes sense. It's just gerbil-wheel. Whine about black crime, but never do anything about it, not even discuss the "why." And you're defending this guy while claiming you're not conservative. I don't understand that. I don't think it meets the test of simple logic.

Amren is an excellent example. Taylor has created a discursive space that is less radical than my own. He teaches people the basics of racial consciousness. That's his assignment. This is the essential precondition of getting them to care about other more radical issues. We need a chain of these spaces that are progressively more moderate and stretch into the mainstream.

But to get back on track, I don't see how your Overton theory can work in practice because, unlike the communist parallel you draw, you and I and KM and Johnson - we don't have sympathetic relatives owning/advertising in the relevant outlets. That right there kills the idea, far as I can see.

I would attribute that to the stupidity and individualism that prevails on the Right. This is a serious obstacle, but a tractable one.

What I can also see, and what you should be able to see, is that Kevin MacDonald actually cares, deeply, about his cavalier treatment at the hands of John Derbyshire, a race-mixing conservative alien who admits he's scared shitless of the jews who sign his paychecks. He has actually written that, and practically in those very same words. Derbyshire may be scared of jews, but he's not scared in the least of shitting on MacDonald. No repercussions there. Yet MacDonald is concerned about how to curry favor with this Chinese-marrying, miscegenating cunt, per the quotation provided by Parker.

Derbyshire gave publicity to MacDonald's work. That is far more important than his review. It created a path from conservatism to White Nationalism that sympathizers can travel down.

I will repeat this so the full measure of it sinks in. A guy who claims he wants to lead the way to save the White race has in the front of his mind the importance of currying the favor of a neocon race-mixer.

Derbyshire can be useful to us.

If this isn't conservatism, what the hell is it?

What is your strategy? How do you plan to get publicity for VNN? In my review, I mentioned a whole host of names, including your own. I got the name "Alex Linder" and "Goyfire" and "VNN" all mentioned ... at Amren. That puts you a Google click away from getting discovered by Amren readers. I created a path from Amren to VNN.

How is KM ever going to influence Derbyshire? Buying him? KM hasn't the pockets. Persuading him? What? That his jew bosses are a genocidal thread to his half-chink children?

Derbyshire has drawn attention to HBD and MacDonald's work within the mainstream. Would you prefer he had not?

For your Overton window theory to work in practice, you're going to have to move up the food chain through neocon publications all the way along. Why are they going to promote your ideas when they are owned by and staffed by only two kinds of people: jews and those afraid of them.

They don't have to promote our ideas. If they attack us, they give us free publicity. The biggest obstacle in our way is the "dynamic silence" policy that the MSM uses to keep us isolated on the fringe.

It just doesn't make any sense. The commies could do it because their relatives owned all the media. And owned the retail companies that advertised in the media. They had a natural network in place. Do you really think you're going to turn gentiles like Derbyshire to boost and borrow your memes, when they've already bought in to the extent of marrying outside the race, and in any case their paycheck depends on supporting the anti-White status quo?

Derbyshire and Buchanan spread out memes inside the conservative mainstream all the time. Sailer has a huge following in the mainstream. Don't think that so called "respectable conservatives" aren't reading our material.

I appreciate your first-rodeo enthusiasm, your energy, but I don't see that KM's deal is anything other than the same old Sam Francis paleocon cowpath. I'm sure it will raise some donor money, and produce some good essays, but I sure don't see any political change coming from it.

Speaking of donor money, and your lack of concern for it, maybe you can explain to everyone what happened to Dietrich.

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 10:57 AM

hey nuthanger, go post something on my exterminate the queers thread.

A queer calling me a nuthanger. This is going to be a long day.

Hunter Wallace

December 17th, 2009, 11:01 AM

Woaa, slow down... since when is tolerance for queer buttsex a middle class value? You think these white professionals you're targeting want their kids being indoctrinated by militant faggots at the elementary school level any more than Bible-thumpers do?

Personally, I don't know anyone who is above average intelligence, college educated, and an upper middle class White professional that has the Bible thumping Fred Phelps position on homosexuality. It is hard enough to get these people to discuss race and Jews. Ranting about homosexuals is probably the surest way to get labeled and dismissed as just another rightwing conservative bigot.

The people whom you refer to as "open minded" are liberals, and there is no way you're going to convert true liberals to our way of thinking on race and the JQ regardless of what your position is on homosexuality.

It is a myth that racialists hatch out of the conservative right, but not the progressive left.

steven clark

December 17th, 2009, 11:13 AM

I enjoyed hearing Alex, and especially his use of language. 'To insinuate with the elite', esp. describing Francis as making 'young fogeys.'

I met Sam Francis when I went to a CCC dinner. I liked him, but I suspected I was out of place. The group was mostly men in suits, very stuffed shirt types, and since I wasn't a lawyer or businessman I felt I didn't count. But there were ordinary people who were much easier to talk with and relate to.

When I mentioned the NA to Francis and William Pierce, he claimed he had never heard of either, which struck me as remarkable. Then an older man in a suit came up with a manila folder 'with information that Mr. Francis MUST know,' and my three minutes were up.

Some woman demanded Francis talk about Jews controlling America. He froze and wouldn't reply. Really, just shut down. She was a bit drunk, and was escorted out. Either for the Jew bit, or maybe she was a provacateur.

I went to some CCC groups, but it seems to be the gerbil in the cage mentality spoken of. It was all immigration, Confederate flag...but no one went on to the next level. I also went to NA meetings, and the leader there was energetic, clever, and I enjoyed his company, but I felt the NA didn't want another older white guy...they want young guys with families.

In both cases Frank Weltner was in these groups, and I knew him as articulate and a good organizer.

I do want to see us get out of the internet and do more face to face organizing, but right now it seems tough. I also agree too many whites still see the GOP as some kind of hope. You hear all the talk 'come next election, we'll get the country back, you'll see, and then, boy-oh-boy...REAL CONSERVATISM!'

I like Gile's program, and really enjoy Alex. I think his idea of a homeschoo curriculum makes sense.

The one thing in our favor is now, the government really isagainst whites. They make no bones about it, and Obama and his handlers are incompetant in covering it up. People, I think are wising up.

But Sarah Palin ain't wisdom.

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 11:25 AM

There's a reason for that:

Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php)

Reminds me of Vatican II.

For all their merry rainbows and clever euphemisms like "gay," the faggots have no way to defend themselves from someone graphically pointing out the physical reality of what it is they actually do, of what it actually, literally means to be a homosexual. It's their Achilles' heel.

I have not met a single queer who could offer an intelligent counterargument to the CDCs statistics concerning queers and disease. All he can do is call me a "homophobe" and try to shut down the debate, much like the kikesters with their "anti-Semite" smear.

The queers are so used to dealing with looney, ineffectual conservative Bible-thumpers that they have no recourse when someone confronts them with rational, fact-based (rather than religious) arguments.

George Witzgall

December 17th, 2009, 11:32 AM

For all their merry rainbows and clever euphemisms like "gay," the faggots have no way to defend themselves from someone graphically pointing out the physical reality of what it is they actually do, of what it actually, literally means to be a homosexual. It's their Achilles' heel.

I have not met a single queer who could offer an intelligent counterargument to the CDCs statistics concerning queers and disease. All he can do is call me a "homophobe" and try to shut down the debate, much like the kikesters with their "anti-Semite" smear.

The queers are so used to dealing with looney, ineffectual conservative Bible-thumpers that they have no recourse when someone confronts them with rational, fact-based (rather than religious) arguments.

what does it actually, literally mean to be a homosexual?

btw, let's take this to the exterminaate the queers thread.

Rounder

December 17th, 2009, 11:41 AM

For all their merry rainbows and clever euphemisms like "gay," the faggots have no way to defend themselves from someone graphically pointing out the physical reality of what it is they actually do, of what it actually, literally means to be a homosexual. It's their Achilles' heel.

I have not met a single queer who could offer an intelligent counterargument to the CDCs statistics concerning queers and disease. All he can do is call me a "homophobe" and try to shut down the debate, much like the kikesters with their "anti-Semite" smear.

The queers are so used to dealing with looney, ineffectual conservative Bible-thumpers that they have no recourse when someone confronts them with rational, fact-based (rather than religious) arguments.

Well said. Faggots lick hairy ass-holes and eat human man-shit in the process, after sticking their peckers in shit holes or each other's mouths and emptying their slimy semen. Those not sickened just thinking about it, are just as sick as the GD filthy faggots.

George Witzgall

December 17th, 2009, 11:44 AM

Well said. Faggots lick hairy ass-holes and eat human man-shit in the process, after sticking their peckers in shit holes or each other's mouths and emptying their slimy semen. Those not sickened just thinking about it, are just as sick as the GD filthy faggots.

hey, take it to the other thread.

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 12:04 PM

Personally, I don't know anyone who is above average intelligence, college educated, and an upper middle class White professional that has the Bible thumping Fred Phelps position on homosexuality.

Well allow me to introduce myself then (though I resent being lumped in with Phelps, as I am not religious).

It is hard enough to get these people to discuss race and Jews.

Let me repeat myself: anyone who thinks that gay marriage is OK is not going to be responsive to anything you have to say about race or the jews. Period.

There aren't as many Robert Lindsays out there as you think there are. Robert Lindsay is a freak, a teenager in his 50s; why does it even matter what guys like him think?

Ranting about homosexuals is probably the surest way to get labeled and dismissed as just another rightwing conservative bigot.

What does it matter what you get labeled as by your opponents? In case you hadn't noticed, we already get called all sorts of names, some of which carry a far heavier penalty than "homophobe." I don't care what I get called because I'm not trying to reach the people who would pay attention to such labels.

Linder's right -- you're too preoccupied with respectability. You don't control what is "respectable"; your enemies do. Try to be respectable and you're allowing yourself to be controlled by your enemies.

50 years ago, buggery most certainly was not considered respectable in all but the fringes of society. What has changed since then? Think about that. Who determines what is respectable?

It is a myth that racialists hatch out of the conservative right, but not the progressive left.

My use of the term liberal has nothing to do with "liberals vs conservatives." To me a liberal is simply a reality-denier. Many conservatives are reality-deniers as well, and I would call them liberals too. I mean, honestly, what's the difference between the conservative and the liberal view of homosexuality these days anyhow? This, and not Fred Phelps, is the typical conservative view of homosexuality nowadays:
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/conservatives-are-pathetic/

I happen to be a good example of the demographic you claim to be trying to reach: I have a college education. My IQ is higher than the norm. I come from a nominally middle- to upper-middle class family. My family is extremely liberal, particularly on my mother's side. My mother, an artsy bohemian euroliberal type, had many homosexual friends while I was growing up. So it's just a bit amusing that you're coming at me with this strawman argument (a favorite of the queers themselves) that I must be some backwards Bible-thumping hick because I don't approve of their obnoxious, underhanded, socially-destructive political movement.

To put it bluntly, everything that I see the so-called "gay rights" movement do is consistent with trying to increase the sexual access of queer men to underage boys. And I mean that literally. Any parent who doesn't care about that after learning the facts is downright negligent.

If the people you're trying to reach are truly intelligent, then honesty is your best course. Crude or manipulative propaganda is for the morons.

Of course, it sounds to me like you've swallowed a lot of the propaganda of the homosexual movement yourself.

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 12:24 PM

btw, let's take this to the exterminaate the queers thread.

You really want to be exterminated, don't you?

George Witzgall

December 17th, 2009, 12:29 PM

You really want to be exterminated, don't you?

naw, I'd like for you to see me as a fellow white man.

Hunter Wallace

December 17th, 2009, 12:38 PM

Well allow me to introduce myself then (though I resent being lumped in with Phelps, as I am not religious).

You share the same point of view. I don't see why you resent the association. Phelps is out there in the streets fomenting hate against homosexuals. Perhaps you should build bridges to that wing of Christianity. Good luck trying to find sympathy for your perspective in the atheist community. You won't find it.

Let me repeat myself: anyone who thinks that gay marriage is OK is not going to be responsive to anything you have to say about race or the jews. Period. There aren't as many Robert Lindsays out there as you think there are. Robert Lindsay is a freak, a teenager in his 50s; why does it even matter what guys like him think?

That hasn't been my experience. Many of these people pride themselves on their tolerance and openmindedness. I have found that some of them are willing to give me a hearing.

What does it matter what you get labeled as by your opponents?

It matters a great deal. We are trying to reach out to these people and get them interested in racialism. Why attach racialism to albatross like hatred of gay people?

In case you hadn't noticed, we already get called all sorts of names, some of which carry a far heavier penalty than "homophobe." I don't care what I get called because I'm not trying to reach the people who would pay attention to such labels.

We're trying to reach a demographic that thinks of itself as enlightened and sophisticated. Their position on homosexuality is considered a huge status marker.

Linder's right -- you're too preoccupied with respectability. You don't control what is "respectable"; your enemies do. Try to be respectable and you're allowing yourself to be controlled by your enemies.

I haven't sacrificed our core beliefs while chasing after respectablity. As for my attitude on homosexuals, it is not a strategic gambit on my part. I honestly don't have a problem with them. I'm content to let them live their lives provided they don't throw their sexuality in my face.

50 years ago, buggery most certainly was not considered respectable in all but the fringes of society. What has changed since then? Think about that. Who determines what is respectable?

Americans became more tolerant.

I happen to be a good example of the demographic you claim to be trying to reach: I have a college education. My IQ is higher than the norm. I come from a nominally middle- to upper-middle class family. My family is extremely liberal, particularly on my mother's side. My mother, an artsy bohemian euroliberal type, had many homosexual friends while I was growing up. So it's just a bit amusing that you're coming at me with this strawman argument (a favorite of the queers themselves) that I must be some backwards Bible-thumping hick because I don't approve of their obnoxious, underhanded, socially-destructive political movement.

The vast majority of people who share your attitude fit that description in some ways.

To put it bluntly, everything that I see the so-called "gay rights" movement do is consistent with trying to increase the sexual access of queer men to underage boys. And I mean that literally. Any parent who doesn't care about that is downright negligent.

Well, I don't believe in "rights" of any sort, gay or otherwise.

If the people you're trying to reach are truly intelligent, then honesty is your best course. Crude propaganda is for the morons.

I am being honest with you.

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 01:02 PM

When you advocate genocide, I think you make Kevin MacDonald look more reasonable. Your position is unthinkable. By comparison, MacDonald merely sounds radical.

And maybe that's the point of going to extremes?

Have you anything to say about the prominent kikes who have openly called for the extermination of the white race? Are they "radioactive"?

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 01:32 PM

You share the same point of view. I don't see why you resent the association. Phelps is out there in the streets fomenting hate against homosexuals. Perhaps you should build bridges to that wing of Christianity. Good luck trying to find sympathy for your perspective in the atheist community. You won't find it.

And you share the same point of view as militant homosexuals. Good luck finding much sympathy from normal white people with that.

That hasn't been my experience. Many of these people pride themselves on their tolerance and openmindedness. I have found that some of them are willing to give me a hearing.

So you're trying to convert people who pride themselves on "tolerance and openmindedness" to your hateful and intolerant views towards other races and jews? Makes a lot of sense.

Why attach racialism to albatross like hatred of gay people?

Why do militant "gay" people consistently ally their movement with movements that are openly anti-white?

We're trying to reach a demographic that thinks of itself as enlightened and sophisticated. Their position on homosexuality is considered a huge status marker.

You're trying to appeal to a bunch of trendy lemmings who will never buck the status quo and move to your side. What you are trying to do will never happen in a million years.

I haven't sacrificed our core beliefs while chasing after respectablity. As for my attitude on homosexuals, it is not a strategic gambit on my part. I honestly don't have a problem with them. I'm content to let them live their lives provided they don't throw their sexuality in my face.

Homosexuals have been free to "live their lives" for decades now. That's not what the homosexual movement is about. The homosexual movement is about queers throwing their sexuality in your face.

Americans became more tolerant.

No, Americans became more intimidated and brainwashed.

Do you realize that your arguments in regards to faggots are identical in every way to those of the civil rights movement?

The vast majority of people who share your attitude fit that description in some ways.

Perhaps so. And the vast majority of those who don't aren't interested in what a racist neo-nazi piece of trash like you has to say about jews and niggers.

Well, I don't believe in "rights" of any sort, gay or otherwise.

Sure you do. Your "tolerance" is a tacit endorsement of the homosexual movement.

I am being honest with you.

Maybe you are, maybe not, but that wasn't the point. The point was, you obviously don't think your target demographic (of which I am a part) is as intelligent as you claim you think it is if you have to candycoat your message and avoid certain issues merely to be heard by it.

TowardWewelsburg

December 17th, 2009, 01:56 PM

Have you anything to say about the prominent kikes who have openly called for the extermination of the white race? Are they "radioactive"?

This is something of a Straw Man.

Even Susan "the White race is the cancer of human history" Sontag does not publicly affirm support for our physical genocide. If pushed to explain their position, these anti-White radicals will say that they are opposed to "White privilege" and "the notion of Whiteness itself," but they will not call for us to actually be slain to the last man, woman and child. That is certainly what they would like to see happen, but they won't state that in public.

Just about the only people out there publicly calling for our extermination are negro supremacists, such as Black Israelites, and such people are just as marginalised, if not more so, than we are.

Linder tells us that in terms of strategy, we should look to the Jews, look to the Nazis -- look to those who WIN! Well, those who desire our destruction are simply carrying it out, without loudly and publicly stating their intentions to do so.

Igor Alexander

December 17th, 2009, 02:23 PM

This is something of a Straw Man.

Even Susan "the White race is the cancer of human history" Sontag does not publicly affirm support for our physical genocide. If pushed to explain their position, these anti-White radicals will say that they are opposed to "White privilege" and "the notion of Whiteness itself," but they will not call for us to actually be slain to the last man, woman and child. That is certainly what they would like to see happen, but they won't state that in public.

I am aware of that, but if you don't read the fine print, their statements aren't any different than Linder's; and yet their tribe doesn't treat them as lepers. Besides, where's the ambiguity in a statement like "the white race is the cancer of history"? Substitute any other race in that sentence and have a white man saying it and suddenly, no one would buy that he wasn't implying physical extermination. I think my point remains valid.

I'll also point out that I have on more than one occassion had jews tell me, passionately and in all seriousness, that they would like to exterminate the Arabs. Again, why are jews able to get away with such statements but not whites? Years ago some dickhead accused me of wanting to exterminate the jews just for making some mild, inoffensively-phrased remarks about them.

If you even criticize jews, it means you want to exterminate them. Meanwhile, jews threaten and actually carry out genocide and hey, that's just business as usual.

TowardWewelsburg

December 17th, 2009, 03:06 PM

Sontag and her ilk render statements with deliberate ambiguity by addressing "the concept of Whiteness" as something socially constructed and scientifically invalid. By framing race as an abstraction and not a reality, self-hating liberals may simply proclaim that they disavow "white privilege" in order to divest themselves of "white cancer" baggage. Thus, the "fine print" is what matters when dealing with thinking, bourgeois people.

Yes, our enemies will always distort what we say, but I don't think we should make their job easier by allowing ourselves to be pigeon-holed into caricatures that the Jew media has drawn of us.

Iran's Ahmadinejad is often quoted in the controlled media as saying that he wishes to see "Israel wiped off the map." However, what he actually said is that he wishes to see the aggressive, Zionist Occupation Government [of Palestine] come to an end ("ehtelal bayad az bayn berad"). I have pointed this out to a number of people on campus, both liberal and conservative, who found this distinction very important. In fact, some wondered aloud questions like, "Why would our media collectively distort an already inflammatory geopolitical statement?" and "If they are willing to distort the words of a Statesman, what else are they lying about?"

I am aware of that, but if you don't read the fine print, their statements aren't any different than Linder's; and yet their tribe doesn't treat them as lepers. Besides, where's the ambiguity in a statement like "the white race is the cancer of history"? Substitute any other race in that sentence and have a white man saying it and suddenly, no one would buy that he wasn't implying physical extermination. I think my point remains valid.

Rounder

December 17th, 2009, 03:09 PM

TowardWewelsburg

December 17th, 2009, 03:17 PM

With all due respect, and not to make light of all this VIP back-and-forth haggling about trivial matters, the bottom line fact is that we need a Hitler-like dictator to make all important decisions about tactics and principles and plenty of fanatical "stormtroopers" to ram them down our squabbling throats.

I do what I can to assist worthwhile projects. What else should I be doing, Glenn? I am not leadership material.

I have noticed you using this term "VIP" for a long time, and I'm still not sure exactly what you mean by it. Did you begin using this label, or was someone actually pretentious enough to refer to himself in that manner?

On the other matter, I concur.

"At the end of time, our Volk Leader will return for the Wild Hunt (Wildes Heer), with his Final Battalion, astride a White Horse, Sleipnir, his eight-legged steed. He will be the Last Avatar, also known as Wotan and Vishnu-Kalki. This time, He will come to conquer and to judge." - Miguel Serrano

Rounder

December 17th, 2009, 04:08 PM

I do what I can to assist worthwhile projects. What else should I be doing, Glenn? I am not leadership material.

I have noticed you using this term "VIP" for a long time, and I'm still not sure exactly what you mean by it. Did you begin using this label, or was someone actually pretentious enough to refer to himself in that manner?

On the other matter, I concur.

"At the end of time, our Volk Leader will return for the Wild Hunt (Wildes Heer), with his Final Battalion, astride a White Horse, Sleipnir, his eight-legged steed. He will be the Last Avatar, also known as Wotan and Vishnu-Kalki. This time, He will come to conquer and to judge." - Miguel Serrano

I picked up the term on here somewhere used in a different context. And I decided to use it against the do-nothing-but-talk intellectuals who flat refused to support VNN's newspaper project either by passing out copies or by contributing financially, or by refusing to help Alex pay VNN's bills.

I tried to shame them into contributing. And in many cases, it worked. PMs flooded my in-box assuring me money was on the way. How else could I have convinced 500 or so WNs to contribute ??

Coincidentally, have you by chance read my article: "Cowardice is the White Man's Survival Strategy" at www.whty.org (http://www.whty.org) ?? That too, has been tangibly effective.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 01:47 AM

And yes, you deliberately use words that are not in common use and which constantly have me reaching for the dictionary. Not a compliment, just an observation.

Hmm. Not sure what to say. I deliberately choose words, but not based on their being unusual. There are many ways to say anything. I particularly enjoy in the mock gravitas mode - think Leslie Nielsen. This humorous pretentiousness can call for extra syllables or unusual words. More often than not, though, I'm choosing one term over another because it futhers the sound sequence I'm trying to make, the music. My sentences should provide musical pleasure, if written and read correctly. In addition they are jam-packed with valuable wisdom. Icing and cake...I'm one of those DOUBLE-THREAT bakers! :D

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 03:13 AM

If I really wanted to, I could spill the beans. You don't know a fraction of what goes on offline. We do have people engaged in real world activism. In contrast, you talk about doing it. Greg Johnson is working with people right now who have been real world activists for quite some time. I have them on speed dial.

I'll just bite my tongue on this one.

In the 1990's, Sam Francis had Pat Buchanan's ear. In 1992 and 1996, Buchanan was a serious contender for the Republican nomination. Buchanan still commanded a huge base within the GOP at the time. Francis remained an influential figure within the conservative movement until his death. His influence continued to extend far into the political mainstream. While he lost his job at The Washingon Times, other conservative media outlets continued to publish him.

Facepalm closing in. Here's what I see, Hunter. A young guy, who says he's not a conservative, hates conservatism, being sucked into the big professional conservative machine, funneling his time and effort to someone who picked a black running mate...all in the name of white nationalism. "It was all a game; a way of making a living" - Joe Sobran on professional conservatism.

1.) MacDonald and others have observed that Jews have a certain harmony amongst themselves. They don't wail into each other like we see here.

Jews hate each other. But they present a united front against the enemy, because they know that's the only way they can win. They also know who exactly the enemy is. Our side does not. Your call for no-criticism among the Whites is premature. KM criticized me and my approach. But of course, you are ignoring that and criticizing me. From your perspective, KM was wrong to do that. From mine he was right, if he thinks I/VNN are wrong. But in fact, the VNN strategy is better than his.

2.) What is your strategy?

Didn't I lay that out up above, in one paragraph? I did. And you didn't respond to it.

- Marginalize yourself within the movement. Check.

There is no movement. Yet. There will never be one until who we are and who the enemy is, is agreed on. I have been absolutely consistent on that point for ten years. KM and you favor a hazy, undefined anyone-who-sorta-sees-the-same-problem is on our side. That doesn't work. What is does is perpetrate the Anglo-cultural failure pattern that allowed the jews to take over in the first place. It's fundamenally Anglo-conservative. What's funny is that you don't see that

1) KM's approach is conservative
2) Y'all ain't doing nothing except allowing yourself to be coopted by the professionals. You should be attacking those you are sucking up to. Like I said before, you'll probably be about my age when you finally figure this out. I know it's excitintg that you have intelligent men listening to you, and publishing your articles, but it's blinding you to the professional conservatism you're being drawn into.

The entire point of our "thing" ought to be to establish a new and radical approach. Not to be coopted by professional seducers and marketers like Team Buchanan.

- Make yourself radioactive by advocating genocide. Check.

Meh. You need to figure out whether you believe your Overton bs or not. If you really do, then you ought to be glad for me saying it. Perhaps you don't understand why I say it, but it's for the same reason I say anything: I believe it is correct.

[quote]
- Abandon what you are actually good at (writing). Check.

I write plenty. Speak plenty too.

- Create as much division within the movement as possible. Check.

We don't agree on who "we" are. There can be no movement, hence, no division between it, until that is settled. MacDonald wants a nation with blacks in it, has no problem associating, praising and working with jews like Gottfried - that's nothing I am part of, or anyone around here wants, to be sure. I support KM the jew-critic, the quote-digger. I give him credit for the work in his trilogy. I don't support anybody who sucks up to PC conserva-liberals like Buchanan and the various paleocons. MacDonald sees as friends and helpmates those I see as enemies. There's no way to gloss over this difference in approach. It's not division on either of our parts, it's two very different conceptions.

You would have us abandon civility, decency, propriety, manners, and morality.

Not toward the in-group. And the proof is that I don't allow here 1/10th of the garbage you allow in every thread on OD. You can't come here as an anonymite or child molester and accuse others of being federal agents. You can do that at OD.

With this grand strategy of yours, who do you expect to reach? Honestly, who is going to listen to someone who advocates murdering little girls because they are Jewish? No one but kooks, sociopaths, and mental defectives.

Who advocates murdering jewish girls? When I look around, all I see is White girls getting murdered, and jewish girls and boys putting in the policies that lead to it. I think the actions and advocacy of these jewish girls and boys merits a response. You go on being civil, though.

When you advocate genocide, I think you make Kevin MacDonald look more reasonable. Your position is unthinkable. By comparison, MacDonald merely sounds radical.

So why complain then. I'm helping you, even if against my will, it must be to you. My position is not unthinkable to jews in relation to us, nor is it unthinkable to the tens of million of Americans who want to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass. All depends on who controls the satellite uplinks. My job is to put the idea out there, whether or not I can execute it. As I proved by posting the argument, there is no intelligent opposition to it - just a bunch of shock-adjectives.

Simple. We create discursive spaces that stretch from the margins to the mainstream. These are conduits that enable sympathizers to find White Nationalism. We have sympathizers in key positions along this ladder who draw attention to a more radical position.

This is cute, and really kind of funny, if it weren't for the stakes. Do you think the left isn't aware of what we'd like to do? Do you think the jews are fools?

This is false. I know this for a fact.

Meh. What, does one of Brown Johnson's buddies own some tv station out in the sticks?

Amren is an excellent example. Taylor has created a discursive space that is less radical than my own. He teaches people the basics of racial consciousness. That's his assignment. This is the essential precondition of getting them to care about other more radical issues. We need a chain of these spaces that are progressively more moderate and stretch into the mainstream.

This quaint idea that people need to be "taught" about race, where does it come from? If Whites need to be taught, surely niggers will do all the teaching. The only formal ed required concerns jews, which is precisely the class Jared Taylor doesn't teach, and forbids being taught. You don't have to teach 'white flight'; whites naturally move away from niggers. The reason they have to points up the real problem - they have no political leadership. That's not a problem that education and essays are going to solve.

I would attribute that to the stupidity and individualism that prevails on the Right. This is a serious obstacle, but a tractable one.

Would it be impolite were I to emit a small laugh? It's a good deal more than a "serious obstacle." It crushes the theory you're operating on to death.

Derbyshire gave publicity to MacDonald's work. That is far more important than his review. It created a path from conservatism to White Nationalism that sympathizers can travel down.

Nah, not really. The kikes used one of their shabbies to shit on a jew critic. Interesting for a few moments, but nothing comes of it. The status quo is reinforced in that anybody, even a PhD with manners, who criticizes the jews, is mentally and morally defective. So go back to sleep, children. It doesn't help because the victim is unwilling to fight back. And the victim's, uh, not to say fanboys, uh, young supporters, proclaim his beshitting a great victory. Silly. The victory would be if KM took back his leg and power-booted Derbyshire in the nuts. Maybe that would teach the race-mixing Anglo cunt, who admits he's a coward, some respect. It would also win KM some fans. It would show that he really believes what he's saying, is not going to take shit from cheapjack shabbes goyim like brown Derbyshire.

Politics is in many ways about perception. I don't see how any outsider could interpret the KM-D review exchange as anything but confirmation of status quo. Jews on top. Anyone, even PhD, who crits them is evil.

What is your strategy? How do you plan to get publicity for VNN? In my review, I mentioned a whole host of names, including your own. I got the name "Alex Linder" and "Goyfire" and "VNN" all mentioned ... at Amren. That puts you a Google click away from getting discovered by Amren readers. I created a path from Amren to VNN.

AmRen's readers, ten years into its game, are useless saps. Anyone interested in getting past Taylor's boring repetitious whining long since would have found us. Not saying the mention hurt, just saying it's not really a big deal.

Derbyshire has drawn attention to HBD and MacDonald's work within the mainstream. Would you prefer he had not?

No. Just saying in the overall scheme it is meaningless.

They don't have to promote our ideas. If they attack us, they give us free publicity. The biggest obstacle in our way is the "dynamic silence" policy that the MSM uses to keep us isolated on the fringe.

But you're going to work through this by...writing essays and making phone calls to shadowy figures with more power than I think.

Derbyshire and Buchanan spread out memes inside the conservative mainstream all the time. Sailer has a huge following in the mainstream. Don't think that so called "respectable conservatives" aren't reading our material.

Yeah, so. I read Buchanan. It still doesn't change the power equation.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 04:10 AM

Newsflash: Jews existed prior to the Civil War. They have undermined all the people of the earth with whom they've come into contact. There were jews behind the French Revolution, and behind the American Revolution. Read E. Michael Jones's _The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit_, and get his magazine "Culture Wars."

This is true - there was a lot more jewish influence a lot earlier than people think. It is also true that professional jew-exculpators & bolthole providers, by which I refer directly to Jared Taylor, deliberately lie about this fact in order to encourage their suckers to blame Whites rather than jews. Taylor does the same thing with regard to Nordic counties. He ignores the fact that the media in those countries are owned by jews, just as they are here. Taylor deliberately deceives his readers and listeners, and he does it in routine and predictable ways, revealing the pattern and indicating the motive. His entire mission and purpose is to prevent Whites from seeing that jews are responsible for America's racial problems. To that end there is no fact he will not cover up, and no post he will not suppress if the facts about the jews threaten to escape to his readers. Which is why, as time goes by, his readers are fewer. It's harder to keep up bs poses and cover stories when people are one click from a site telling the truth.

b. He's a crypto jew, infiltrating WN to blame White people for getting cancer instead of blaming the cancer.

Don't call him a jew, or even a crypto-jew, unless you have proof. That's against the rules here. If you have actual EVIDENCE he's a jew, then post it.

They are not a COMPETITOR in the honorable sense, and we have not been bested in a fair fight. They're demons who have poisoned us, dogs who have ripped out the throats of our loved ones. You don't respond to that by blaming yourself and declaring: "The problem isn't them. It's ME...! Boo hoo, boo hoo!!!" You respond to that by KILLING THE JEWS.

Exactly. But the conservatives want to pretend we can win by being fair and reasonable.

You're a liar. Linder solicited money once for a legal defense fund for someone else. He has never solicited money for himself. (New America used to do that, in the comments section of the main site. Remember his "Send Alex $50" mantra? But that wasn't Linder.)

We do solicit donations. Sometimes for general things, sometimes for specific things, like the paper or the Doles fund you allude to. I only EMPHASIZE donations when I am writing daily and doing full editorial functions. That has not been the case the last couple years as I was sick and often gone. I only mention them occasionally in order to pay for our server bills, which are about $1k a year.

I'm getting sick of these Stormfart types popping up with their little suspicious comments to the effect that "Linder is okay, but we need to take the focus off the jews." "Let's not blame the jews for this." "We need to de-emphasize all the anti-jewish stuff." "Don't look at the jews - look over here, instead! Look over there! Look anywhere but at the kike!" "It just isn't nice or rational to talk against the jewish faith," etc. etc.

Seems there are a lot of these suspicious types popping up lately.

HW is willing to criticize jews. Where we disagree is on the correct strategy for WN to take power.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 04:14 AM

Relax, nut hugger.

An etymological question - did this term 'nut-hugger' begin among the MMA crowd? I saw it somewhere else in that context, and now I see it popping up here. Where did it originate, if you know?

Hunter Wallace

December 18th, 2009, 04:22 AM

HW is willing to criticize jews. Where we disagree is on the correct strategy for WN to take power.

Indeed. I have an entire website dedicated to this. No one can accuse me of ignoring the Jewish Question.

http://antisemitica.wordpress.com/

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 04:37 AM

No, I don't. I chalk it up to Lindstedt's usual hyperbole. I've grown accustomed to it.

It's not hyperbole at all. It's attempted character assassination, which he posts wherever lets him. Few things are more damaging of community, even virtual community, than giving free rein to congenital liars and character assassins.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 04:49 AM

His criticism seemed to be more of Judaism than of Jews as biological entities. You get the same sociological anti-Judaism from H.G. Wells and some other leftists. It's very convenient for people who are themselves of Jewish extraction.

Actually, and I would think you would know this, the NS themselves were very much against spiritual jews within us all, as well as the biological entity. I have no doubt whatsoever that White is anti-jew.

Everybody has faults that have to be overlooked sometimes, but in White's case you are talking about somebody who is compulsively dishonest and manipulative, and does whatever he has to do, says whatever he has to say, to force the center of attention onto himself. Dishonesty is the worst character flaw, and it's especially hard to overlook that in somebody who insists on dominating.

Dishonesty often works in politics, which is a very, very dirty business and cannot be otherwise because the stakes are the highest, and the "bad" stuff works. We can acknowledge that or play make-believe.

I agree that the whole matter was ridiculous on both sides, but the dispute would have been easier to resolve if it weren't being played out as an internet drama, and of course Bill White is the King of Internet Drama. I wasn't paying enough attention to internet at the time to say that White was responsible for the way events proceeded, but it seems likely that he encouraged it.

Little can be done when men won't conduct themselves honorably. If they'd booted out Gliebe, who knows how things would have worked out? The whole thing was never in my hands to decide, so I can't worry about it. For all I know, it worked out for the best. NA's culture might well not have been reformable by anybody.

Frank Collin took real risks too. You can suppose that he was sincere on some level too, but he was a Jewish screwball. Bill White now is saying that his activities were "satire"; I think that undermines your sincerity argument.

What he did outweighs his legally conditioned characterization of a small subset of his words.

I think it was Fred's idea, and it was a good idea. Bill White's involvement I am pretty sure set off alarms for others.

I appreciate Fred's thinking of me. I had the right intentions. It's quite possible we could have made something of it, had it worked out that way.

You are conceding my point, and you are saying is that to some extent it doesn't even matter if Bill White is sincere, because the tendency to generate strife is rooted in his personality.

Ok, Hadding. I'm going to give you a point. That makes it 2-1 me, or 3-1, I can't remember. The larger point that matters is that Bill's personality was not the deciding factor in all this. But my saying that is not to detract from you victory celebration. Hadding is on the board, biotches!

Hunter Wallace

December 18th, 2009, 04:57 AM

Facepalm closing in. Here's what I see, Hunter. A young guy, who says he's not a conservative, hates conservatism, being sucked into the big professional conservative machine, funneling his time and effort to someone who picked a black running mate...all in the name of white nationalism. "It was all a game; a way of making a living" - Joe Sobran on professional conservatism.

1.) I advocate explicit White racial consciousness.
2.) I try to write something every day about the Jewish Question.
3.) I haven't moderated my message in the slightest way.
4.) I don't advocate watering down White Nationalism into paleoconservatism or libertarianism.
5.) I've only said that Buchanan is useful. He injects our memes into the mainstream. He creates a path from the mainstream to White Nationalism. I followed that path myself.

Jews hate each other. But they present a united front against the enemy, because they know that's the only way they can win. They also know who exactly the enemy is. Our side does not.

We have a lot of bright, quarrelsome individualists on our side engaging in friendly fire. In the past, I was once one of these people, but I have tried to overcome that aspect of my personality.

Your call for no-criticism among the Whites is premature. KM criticized me and my approach. But of course, you are ignoring that and criticizing me. From your perspective, KM was wrong to do that. From mine he was right, if he thinks I/VNN are wrong. But in fact, the VNN strategy is better than his.

I have never objected to criticism per se. Please note that I also reviewed the Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor interviews. I criticized both of them. Criticism plays an essential role in the system I am proposing.

The crucial difference is that I did it in a civil and reasonable way. I didn't wail into them. I didn't sling dirt and mud at them. I've earned their respect.

Didn't I lay that out up above, in one paragraph? I did. And you didn't respond to it.

You want to create as much polarization as possible. I think you took this idea from JW Holliday/Ted Sallis. I don't have any objection to polarizing Jews and Whites. That's not the same thing as fomenting division within the WN community.

There is no movement. Yet. There will never be one until who we are and who the enemy is, is agreed on. I have been absolutely consistent on that point for ten years. KM and you favor a hazy, undefined anyone-who-sorta-sees-the-same-problem is on our side.

This isn't true. We know where Taylor and Buchanan stand.

That doesn't work. What is does is perpetrate the Anglo-cultural failure pattern that allowed the jews to take over in the first place. It's fundamenally Anglo-conservative. What's funny is that you don't see that

We've been over this issue several times. I pointed out to you that it was the liberal democratic capitalist system that allowed the Jews to take over. They have done nothing more than make intelligent use of their rights and liberties. You want to preserve that system. I have said that it is a serious problem.

1) KM's approach is conservative

It is worth noting here that "naming the Jew," the White homeland, and being explicitly racial used to be your litmus test.

2) Y'all ain't doing nothing except allowing yourself to be coopted by the professionals. You should be attacking those you are sucking up to. Like I said before, you'll probably be about my age when you finally figure this out.

I don't have any objection to criticizing Pat Buchanan. He should be criticized. That's how we convince people to move from his positions to ours.

I know it's excitintg that you have intelligent men listening to you, and publishing your articles, but it's blinding you to the professional conservatism you're being drawn into.

When I abandon my core beliefs, as friedrich braun has done, I will grant your point. I haven't changed my message in the slightest. The merit of my work got me published at Amren.

The entire point of our "thing" ought to be to establish a new and radical approach. Not to be coopted by professional seducers and marketers like Team Buchanan.

I'm carving out a discursive space for White Nationalism, not for paleoconservatism or libertarianism.

Meh. You need to figure out whether you believe your Overton bs or not. If you really do, then you ought to be glad for me saying it. Perhaps you don't understand why I say it, but it's for the same reason I say anything: I believe it is correct.

See above.

I write plenty. Speak plenty too.

You have only recently return to the VNN homepage. Perhaps our exchanges and constructive criticism has had a positive impact here.

We don't agree on who "we" are. There can be no movement, hence, no division between it, until that is settled. MacDonald wants a nation with blacks in it, has no problem associating, praising and working with jews like Gottfried - that's nothing I am part of, or anyone around here wants, to be sure. I support KM the jew-critic, the quote-digger. I give him credit for the work in his trilogy. I don't support anybody who sucks up to PC conserva-liberals like Buchanan and the various paleocons. MacDonald sees as friends and helpmates those I see as enemies. There's no way to gloss over this difference in approach. It's not division on either of our parts, it's two very different conceptions.

A good example of vanguardist purism. There is merit to the vanguard approach, but it always trends toward creating small cults of the elect few who reject the mainstream instead of trying to influence it.

Not toward the in-group. And the proof is that I don't allow here 1/10th of the garbage you allow in every thread on OD. You can't come here as an anonymite or child molester and accuse others of being federal agents. You can do that at OD.

1.) Taylor, MacDonald, and Johnson are part of the in-group.
2.) See my comment about rumor and innuendo. I'm willing to cut it out provided everyone is held to the same standard.

Who advocates murdering jewish girls? When I look around, all I see is White girls getting murdered, and jewish girls and boys putting in the policies that lead to it. I think the actions and advocacy of these jewish girls and boys merits a response. You go on being civil, though.

You're advocating the mass murder of Jewish children. Tim Wise is as pleased as punch to see you advocating such an extreme rhetorical position.

So why complain then. I'm helping you, even if against my will, it must be to you. My position is not unthinkable to jews in relation to us, nor is it unthinkable to the tens of million of Americans who want to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass. All depends on who controls the satellite uplinks. My job is to put the idea out there, whether or not I can execute it. As I proved by posting the argument, there is no intelligent opposition to it - just a bunch of shock-adjectives.

It's a wash.

1.) You do make us look more reasonable.
2.) At the same time, you're creating hostility towards the movement as a whole, and making our job harder.

This is cute, and really kind of funny, if it weren't for the stakes. Do you think the left isn't aware of what we'd like to do? Do you think the jews are fools?

They have been fooled. At least for now. Let's keep it that way.

Meh. What, does one of Brown Johnson's buddies own some tv station out in the sticks?

No.

This quaint idea that people need to be "taught" about race, where does it come from?

The opinion polls.

If Whites need to be taught, surely niggers will do all the teaching. The only formal ed required concerns jews, which is precisely the class Jared Taylor doesn't teach, and forbids being taught. You don't have to teach 'white flight'; whites naturally move away from niggers. The reason they have to points up the real problem - they have no political leadership. That's not a problem that education and essays are going to solve.

You should read the polling data more closely.

Would it be impolite were I to emit a small laugh? It's a good deal more than a "serious obstacle." It crushes the theory you're operating on to death.

I disagree. A limited version of what I am advocating already exists.

Nah, not really. The kikes used one of their shabbies to shit on a jew critic. Interesting for a few moments, but nothing comes of it. The status quo is reinforced in that anybody, even a PhD with manners, who criticizes the jews, is mentally and morally defective.

1.) Derbyshire drew a lot of attention to Kevin MacDonald. I can't fault him for that.

2.) It is our job to project a different image. This is difficult when we have WNs out there confirming stereotypes.

So go back to sleep, children. It doesn't help because the victim is unwilling to fight back. And the victim's, uh, not to say fanboys, uh, young supporters, proclaim his beshitting a great victory. Silly. The victory would be if KM took back his leg and power-booted Derbyshire in the nuts. Maybe that would teach the race-mixing Anglo cunt, who admits he's a coward, some respect. It would also win KM some fans. It would show that he really believes what he's saying, is not going to take shit from cheapjack shabbes goyim like brown Derbyshire.

This is a good example of the purism I have been talking about. It is admirable on a certain level, but hopelessly impractical. We need a few talons piercing the mainstream.

Politics is in many ways about perception. I don't see how any outsider could interpret the KM-D review exchange as anything but confirmation of status quo. Jews on top. Anyone, even PhD, who crits them is evil.

I read the exchange at Jewcy. Derbyshire was playing softball with MacDonald. He granted many of his points. He drew a ton of attention to MacDonald and the Jewish Question. He injected all sorts of useful memes into the conservative mainstream.

AmRen's readers, ten years into its game, are useless saps. Anyone interested in getting past Taylor's boring repetitious whining long since would have found us. Not saying the mention hurt, just saying it's not really a big deal.

In the future, I won't mention you in anything I get published at Amren. If you want to stew in purity and isolation, that's your choice.

No. Just saying in the overall scheme it is meaningless.

Aha! A concession.

But you're going to work through this by...writing essays and making phone calls to shadowy figures with more power than I think.

I think we can gradually breakdown the "dynamic silence" policy and get our message out in the mainstream.

Yeah, so. I read Buchanan. It still doesn't change the power equation.

Why bother reading someone who is so obviously worthless?

Rounder

December 18th, 2009, 05:14 AM

Some excellent exchanges on here between Alex and Hunter. Mighty interesting reading, well worth the time.

Hunter, your natural reaction to Alex's bashing of your ideas is to take it personally and then respond with anger. But you oughta appreciate Alex taking the time, and his patience with you. He's not bashing you, just your misguided ideas. Remember that, and learn. Wise men admit when they're proven wrong and move on to even deeper, more correct, insights.

Hunter Wallace

December 18th, 2009, 05:21 AM

Hunter, your natural reaction to Alex's bashing of your ideas is to take it personally and then respond with anger. But you oughta appreciate Alex taking the time, and his patience with you. He's not bashing you, just your misguided ideas. Remember that, and learn. Wise men admit when they're proven wrong and move on to even deeper, more correct, insights.

I haven't responded in anger. I'm actually quite bemused by these exchanges. I don't have a problem with Alex and only wish him the best. I think there is too much infighting in the movement. I also think there is a tendency of some writers to bash and pronounce anathema on those to their right. I'm not going to engage in that. It gets us nowhere.

P.S. I'm doing an interview with Jim Giles at 9:00 AM CST.

Hadding

December 18th, 2009, 05:51 AM

Actually, and I would think you would know this, the NS themselves were very much against spiritual jews within us all, as well as the biological entity. I have no doubt whatsoever that White is anti-jew. So was Bobby Fischer. He was nonetheless a crazy Jew himself because of his genes.

Dishonesty often works in politics, which is a very, very dirty business and cannot be otherwise because the stakes are the highest, and the "bad" stuff works. We can acknowledge that or play make-believe.

People exercising political power sometimes find it expedient to be dishonest, and they can get away with it if they have the propaganda machine on their side, but even for them it often ends in embarrassment when word gets out.

I think that dishonesty is generally a very bad idea for somebody with no power whose only hope is to be taken seriously by rational people. Truth and credibility are by far the most powerful weapons that we have.

Truth is also what makes us the moral people. Two of the men that I respect the most, Dr. William Pierce and Professor Robert Faurisson, both were brought to the stands that they took and the sacrifices that they made because of the traditional Western value of truth.

If we cease to revere the truth then our cause loses its idealism, as well as its persuasive force.

Little can be done when men won't conduct themselves honorably.
I found it strange that in your next utterance, right after advocating dishonesty, you complained about men not conducting themselves honorably. Do you understand that honor and honesty are different forms of the same Latin word? I don't believe that you can have one without the other.

The larger point that matters is that Bill's personality was not the deciding factor in all this. I disagree. What has happened to Bill White is a direct consequence of his manipulative attention-seeking. He calculated that creating the superficial appearance of posing a threat to Obama was a way to force maximum attention on himself, and he got it.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 06:03 AM

Where I live, Whites know the truth about race, sure. Unfortunately, few White Americans live in areas that are 50% black!

Don't have to be 50% before whites start moving out, so they know.

The opinion polls clearly show that Whites believe racial differences are environmental, not hereditary.

Really? I would be interested in seeing these polls next time you come across them. Of course, you'd have to wonder how many are simply spouting the PC line, as opposed to actually believing it.

There is probably a taboo effect at work here, but clearly a huge percentage of Whites are really and truly racially naive. This is where Jared Taylor and HBD come in handy.

I don't see it this way. The education is needed on the jew front, because, unlike niggers, many whites might not come across them, just the problems we know they cause. Whereas with nigs and mexes, THEY are the best teachers. No other is needed, really. If teachers were needed, white flight wouldn't exist. Whites would sit there and wonder WTF was going on. whites don't do that. the dumbest whites know nigs = trouble.

In some ways. There was a strong sentiment that Germany had been treated unfairly by the Western Allies. German nationalism was still held in high esteem in the political mainstream. These attitudes undoubtedly paved the way for Hitler.

I don't see a Hitler smacked down in the circumstances we see before us in America today following the KM influence-the-conservatives strategy. I think AH and Goebbels would see it as weak and indirect, with no hope of success.

I've always told the same story. Buchanan's book The Death of the West hit me like a ton of bricks. It was a shock to learn that I would one day be a minority in my own country.

Even though 50% of your state is black, you found it a shock that one day you'd be a minority in your country?

You are pro-market, anti-government, pro-individualism, anti-gay, anti-environmentalism, anti-space exploration, etc. You're a classical liberal with an authoritarian streak on race and Jews. You are indisputably a rightwinger and have said so yourself.

Reasonably fair characterization, with a couple niggles.

I come from a leftwing background. I'm very critical of free market capitalism. I support many popular government social problems. I believe government can be a force for good. I think Americans are too individualistic; too absorbed in their own lives. I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I'm strongly pro-conservation and pro-environment. I'm strongly in favor of space exploration.

There is more difference between us than I had thought when I first read your stuff. Which is ok - I just think that your left-wingism is blinding you to certain general trends that offer "our" movement success openings far beyond KM's suck-up-to-the-conservatives/influence-the-elite strategy. Those trends are written about most pointedly by the evil libertarians at LRC. The most shocking, to me, or eye-opening things you've said that I have seen is that you don't see public schools as a fundamental tool of white oppression, as I do. Your position is more like you don't have a problem with ZOG, you just want to cut off the Z and install an A for Aryan. I think rather the whole tenor of the times is across the board govt failure, which offers big opportunities for us.

I believe in reason, tolerance, and openmindedness. If non-Whites were eliminated from the equation, I would support "social justice." I'm also in favor of a more equitable distribution of wealth.

Yeah, we're miles apart on this. Many think like you, and many think like me. One country is not enough for both of our schools. Hence microstates. We could probably work something out on the defensive umbrella.

Interesting question to me is, why do you believe everything the ZOG-liberals do but differ on race?

Yes, I am in favor of manners and propriety. From what I gather, you believe that Jews are winners and that we should imitate the them. In political warfare, we should be as nasty as possible.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in table manners. I once yelled in disgust at my jew friend to eat with his damn mouth closed, chomping like a horse. Jews and table manners are like niggers. They think if you don't act like a slob, you're not keeping it (commie) real. But yes, on the other stuff, I orient to what I perceive effective.

That's a bigger difference between us than it seems. I perceive you and the KM crowd as defining what they do by their own tastes or interests, when they ought to be looking at things from the other standpoint: what does the problem we face, as objectively as we can make it out, demand that we
do/say/act?

That's why I've critted Sam Francis and the career girls many times. Our thing is a crusade, not a career option.

You forget to factor into the equation the fact that you are a rightwing individualist. It would be more accurate to describe you as a loose cannon firing at others who carry our flag.

I'm only a loose cannon if we're on the same ship. Unlike you, I define "us" very specifically and carefully. I do not lump in people with somewhat similar outlooks, or simply people I like or whose essays I like to read.

I would say these are important and real divisions within our social movement.

No, they're political warfare terms which appear to the not-thinking-hard-enough to be objective analystical terms.

What matters is not whether you're mainstream or vanguard, which means nothing. What matters is who "we" are and what "our" goals are. And who is our enemy and why. That stuff has to be defined precisely or "we" is meaningless. What you call purism is principle. As Eric Thompson says, "Principles protect people." When you start lumping in Buchanan and Vdare and Jared Taylor, I just shake my head. There's no "we" there. Not really. Your Overton theory is causing you to see linkages and relationships and movements that flat aren't there. VNN knows what it is and who 'we' are. KM and the faileocons do not. They're a friendly collection of careerists. Not a political movement.

MacDonald has never said that humor and emotion should be thrown overboard. He is an academic trying to reach an academic audience. He would not be opposed to others taking his ideas and using humor and emotion to reach other demographics.

You ever read GLRockwell's famous essay on propaganda? The crits he makes of the Birch Society are directly applicable to this new thing you think you're part of - it offers one-level material. Aimed at the upper middle class. What you need is multi-level propaganda, as VNN offers. The people TOQ is aimed at are not the type that produces revolution. To effect actual political change as TOQ says it wants, you have to aim at everybody, not just the smart and rich. You also have to lead by speaking and acting, in a word, <i>fighting</i>. Not me saying that, Hitler saying that. Now, Hitler was no MacDonald, but he knew something about writing AND orating and fighting and strategizing and winning. Just try to imagine Hitler talking, per Greg Johnson's old argument with me, about influencing the elite. Hitler would say, no. We NS are the new elite. And we prove it by our actions. But you are simply abdicating any responsibility to act, saying you're not fit for it. Well who do you think is? Hitler was just a soldier. What if he just said, I'm not fit for speaking and leading. The impression left, which is reinforced by behavior, is that you guys are just more Sad Sam Francises. We Whites have to gin up a force that is respected, even feared. Sucking up to conservatives, and trying to influence the people John Derbyshire fears is - pathetic? beside the point? silly? waste of time unless your goal is to make just another conservative blog? You tell me. I sure don't see how you plan to get from here to there. I don't think you guys have any firm idea what "there" is.

That's not the issue. It is hitching the Jewish Question to eliminationism, vulgarity and crudity that he dislikes.

What have KM's taste to do with anything? He ought to be reaching out to anyone who can put his jew-facts into popular form, not avoiding them because he doesn't like how they do it. If it works, it should be used. VNN and my approach have borne themselves out. More memes are traceable to VNN than any other site or person, and if you disagree, name the person or site. PhDs just write for PhDs, unless they're really unusual. Goebbels was as PhD. He didn't act anything like the TOQ crowd. He did describe that type accurately, though. They're writing for each other, and trying to one-up each other, and prove themselves cleverer than the rest. NS, even their PhDs, were willing to put not just their names and reputations and careers on the line, but their very lives. Because that's the stakes the solution to the problem demands. But to you, and to the TOQ crowd, it's more like a video game or a career option than a life-and-death struggle.

In other words, you are spreading unsubstantiated rumors. This is what Bill White used to do on Overthrow.com.

Except nobody has denied my charge, that Brown Johnson is a homo. I didn't say he was building a queer network inside TOQ. I said homosexuals tend to build networks of their own, so it's quite possible he is doing that. That's not at all the same thing as concocting stories out of thin air.

1.) You seem to believe that you are the first person to realize that we need a term to describe the Jewish pathological hatred of Gentiles.

No. But, until Connelly's article appeared, I was the only one who had actually thought about the thing, and written about the thing, multiple times, in depth. He was aware of what I wrote and ignored it. He pretended that he was the first, ever to think about the subject (in depth) or call for a term. Even though loxism had been around for years before he wrote his article, he just flat ignored it. That's typical of the kind of disloyalty that we see from the TOQ crowd: sucking up to monied conservatives, running from real WN. Again, the funny thing is that you can't see, for all your leftist dislike of conservatism, you ARE a conservative - functionally. KM, and his followers at TOQ, do not act the way revolutionaries act when they want to win. KM and TOQ act exactly like every other conservative site and blog out there.

2.) I don't understand why you are so upset. If I had coined the term, I would want it to catch on. I would be trying to get others to use it. The more it circulates the better. Isn't that the whole point?

Sure. What he should have done, if "we" are "we," is give a hat tip to me and VNN for addressing this issue in depth. Then he should have mentioned my coinage, loxism. And analyzed its merits, and either rejected it and called for a better one, or said it would do for the time being. But his type, the TOQ type, doesn't do that. I don't have a PhD, so he can safely ignore what I have written. Same thing even with Johnson and faileocon. He and his jew pal Gottfried use my term, but never nod to the person who came up with it. I don't expect Gottfried to act Aryan, as he's a jew, but I do expect Johnson to act Aryan, even though he's queer. But they don't.

The point is, there's no loyalty there. There's no Aryan behavior. There's just sucking up to the conservatives, and shitting on White nationalists. And that fundamental disloyalty is why, altho I will happily use and cite and credit TOQ writers, in the echt Aryan, noble, way, I will never view them as our own, because I think they are constitutionally incapble of both loyalty and genuine revolutionary radicalism. They're conservatives.

Taylor probably thinks he has better things to do than to come here and get in a no holds barred verbal cage match with you.

Don't agree. I'm sure Taylor would love to take shots back at me. The problem is he has no argument, and if he talked with me, that fact would emerge in the first three seconds, and he knows it.

Jews are white.

Whites should blame themselves, not jews.

Whites can't blame jews, even tho jews are white.

Gee, I don't see a truckload of contradictions there, and I'm sure no one else does either.

Rounder

December 18th, 2009, 06:07 AM

I haven't responded in anger. I'm actually quite bemused by these exchanges. I don't have a problem with Alex and only wish him the best. I think there is too much infighting in the movement. I also think there is a tendency of some writers to bash and pronounce anathema on those to their right. I'm not going to engage in that. It gets us nowhere.

P.S. I'm doing an interview with Jim Giles at 9:00 AM CST.

Well, you did respond in anger when you booted me off Phora coupla years ago. Course, I ain't the diplomat Alex is.

I'll listen to the archived interview, if my computer cooperates. I've never heard your actual voice. Don't forget to hit on the kikes. . . heavy.

Hunter Wallace

December 18th, 2009, 06:48 AM

Well, you did respond in anger when you booted me off Phora coupla years ago. Course, I ain't the diplomat Alex is.

That was many light years ago. I haven't been associated with The Phora since 2007.

Hadding

December 18th, 2009, 06:52 AM

That was many light years ago.

The light-year of course is a measure of distance.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 07:21 AM

Instead of responding to Greg's substantial points, you made a personal attack. I suppose this would be consistent with your idea that civility and decency should be thrown out the window. You believe in winning, right? That involves hitting back at others with everything you got ... dirt included. Is this not your positon?

Not sure which substantial points I didn't respond to. Johnson's advocating one-level propaganda aimed at the upper-middle class. What did GLR say?

Surely we need the truth and facts and arguments -- but only to win over the officers and noncoms of our counter-revolutionary forces and then to educate and train them for intellectual combat with the well-trained forces of the enemy, not to convert the masses. To try to use the "facts and arguments" method with the masses of the people is the eternal stumbling block of the right wing. By insisting on only this method, in its pure (and dull) form, not only the right wing, but any movement of national regeneration, insures that its material is read only by itself and the few Jews whose professional job it is to study and neutralize its material.

Hitler's National Socialist movement not only did not make that stupid mistake, but brilliantly exploited every field of propaganda with inspired material, scientifically designed not only to appeal to a few stuffy professors -- but to move people, to move millions of people in the direction desired. Hitler had Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer, full of the wildest and wooliest sensationalism, designed to smash its way into the consciousness of the masses, as it did. He also had the regular party press, designed to reach and convince the great middle class. And, for the university community, he had the esoteric material of Alfred Rosenberg, Gottfried Feder, et al.

How does KM/TOQ's approach stack up against Rockwell's analysis?

1.) Honestly, I am not really bothered by homosexuality unless it is aggressively thrown in my face. For a racialist, I am pretty tolerant.

Yes, that is clear. Bu the first question is, should his readers and coworkers and others in the WN community know about his sexual perversion - so they can draw their own conclusions? Since many don't share your tolerance. :) A large percentage of homosexuals are sexually interested in teenagers. I'm not saying Johnson is or isn't. I'm just alluding to what the statistics show. :) It would sure suck if he were, wouldn't it? Might blow up TOQ at an inopportune moment. Didn't he live out in the Bay Area once? Did he ever attend the Folsom Street Fair? I hope there were no pictures taken if he did.

Point is, homosexuality is not a light thing. There are a number of implications to allowing one not merely into a movement or organization, but into it as the hub. Bear in mind, Johnson has not admitted to his behavior. He's lying to cover it up, and gives no sign of stopping. Apparently, Greg Johnson doesn't believe, as you do, that his homosexuality is no big deal, or he wouldn't try so hard to deny it. :)

Come to Jesus, Greg. Your soul will feel better. :)

I've given you a great gift, actually. Don't refuse it. Admitting the truth only hurts once. :) Then it feels really, really good. :)

2.) I'm assuming Greg didn't consider his sexuality relevant to writing anonymous essays for someone on the internet.

Well, that's cool. As long as it works for him. Fuck everyone else. How modern and liberal and free-choicy.

3.) I will note that your aversion to homosexuality puts you far closer to the conservative camp. You come on strong against conservatism in your rhetoric, but in substance your actual positions are identical to theirs on any number of issues. You sound like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on homosexuals.

You've settled me. I'm going to write a few words on varieties of conservative. I'm some kinds, you're some kinds too. For me to sound like PR or Falwell, I'd have to be shrieking about homoism being a sin. I dont care about that. I'm just not willing to dimiss the possibilities that always, ALWAYS, attend queerism - the queer is probably a chickenhawk, and very possibly a pedophile. Boy, if you think i'm radioactive for wanting to happen to jews what they want for us, you ought to see how less peope like pedophiles. There I go again, being intolerant and judgmental. Using known facts and rational generalization to envision scenarios before they happen, hence avoid them. I'm sure it's better just to don't ask and don't tell.

To my knowledge, the APA doesn't consider homosexuality a form of mental perversion. Homosexuals are found in every known society.

It was considered so until 1973, when jews and queers contrived to get it removed from that status.

We're trying to reach a narrow audience: intelligent, well educated, openminded middle class White professionals. These are people with money and influence. Taking a Jerry Falwell position on homosexuality is an albatross in trying to reach this demographic. It is hard enough already to reach them with our positions on race and Jews.

You're going where the money is because you want money. That makes sense. What it doesn't make is revolutionary political change. To do that you have to lead, and none of the TOQ crowd has any taste for that. The most you'll do is what the pales already do, hold conferences in hotels. Fun stuff, but nothing to do with white nationalism or serious change.

How so? I heard you say (on the Giles show, I think) that Hal Turner probably turned over the IP addresses of VNN users to the Feds. What about the Shop White fiasco with Bill White and the credit card numbers?

It was very unfortunate stuff, and certainly not something we did not intend to happen. We were on HT's network because we got kicked off a bunch of other servers. That's what happens when you write stuff that hits center. I don't think TOQ ever has or will experience that, as they pose no threat to the System. The government isn't worried about people who are fair and reasonable and make only polite and footnoted arguments.

Todd in FL was posting on VNN and making bombs. He was a real domestic terrorist. He attracted the attention of law enforcement agences to everyone who posts here by association. Then you have Rounder who is in the FBI domestic terrorism database.

Todd's stuff was a long time ago and had nothing to do with VNN, from which he was banned, for other reasons, years ago. You seem to believe that serious political change can be accomplished by a mix of queers, PhDs and librarians, without ever attracting the attention of jew-indoctrinated political police. You also exhibit a pronounced bias against men of action. Writers and intellectuals alone can't get the job done.

So, you have at least four individuals associated with domestic terrorism posting on VNN Forum including two known government informants, but you are worried about Greg Johnson writing essays. Hmm, apples and oranges, itz.

I see no relation. Posters on a forum aren't forum employees. They don't set policies or control checkpoints. Editors do, and queers very often have their own undisclosed private agendas. If Johnson's homosex behavior doesn't matter, why is he still trying to conceal it? His persistence in pretending, long after his supporters have given up the game, shows you just how neurotic and worried he is. If he's this hinky under comparatively little pressure, what happens when the enemy or the authorities put the screws to him?

And this is a strategy on your part? Who are you trying to influence? Sam Francis readers? Greg Johnson readers? These people admire Sam and Greg because of their erudition. They're not going to respond well to abusive personal attacks on champions of their issues. In fact, that is likely to have the opposite effect, and from what I can tell, it has.

I don't ever try to influence anyone. I make fun of what's stupid, and I reveal and analyze relevant facts. It has the effect I seek. It will in the case of Johnson too. Sam Francis fans are like AmRen readers - useless for all practical purposes. We need a revolution. Not the kind of folks who look up to Jared Taylor and Sam Francis.

Intelligent and educated people like polish. They like to think of themselves as sophisticated. Hence, the constrast in their reaction to Jared Taylor and RAHOWA skinheads.

You ought to examine your obviously unconsidered assumption that the kind of change you want can be brought about by the kind of men and writing and behavior you prefer. Perhaps it has its own demands and has nothing to do with what you like or what's in your interest. Believe it or not, there's a whole school that thinks revolution takes street fighters and not just polished sophisticates. And if that's so, maybe some of the agitprop to appeal to them is worth producing. And maybe those who can produce it should be associated with, rather than dumped. VNN does a better job selling KM's ideas than he does. The last ten years proves that. By his ideas, I mean his valid ideas. We are the ones who translate his academic stylings into vernacular, which is to say useful slogans. He doesnt' understand that, but PhDs seldom do. Goebbels was truly unusual. MacDonald is the norm.

I wrote a review of the Giles interview with Jared Taylor. I pointed out where I think he is error, but I didn't use personal attacks. Taylor's readers are far more likely to listen to that type of criticism.

Your criticism of JT is superficial because it takes his motives at face value. JT should not be criticized, he should be destroyed.

I really try to get along with everyone. I'm probably the only person in the whole movement who has a positive view of you, Rounder, Lindstedt, and Taylor.

Of those, only one is on our side. Lindstedt is a proven liar, and would-be character assassin. And you give him free rein to attempt to destroy others at OD. That is insane. Blank tolerance is nothing good. Proven liars and character defectives must be rooted out and shunned. As I do here at VNN.

The only people I have really feuded with are the philo-Semites like Guy White and Ian Jobling.

Those are fools not even worth noticing. Your battles with them are amusing reading, I'll grant you, but as political players they are beneath notice, as their arguments and motives don't add up.

As Greg and others have noted, the Jews have a harmony amongst themselves. You don't see them wailing into each other. Their attacks are almost universally directed at those they perceive to be their enemies.

They are a hive, and they attack all outsiders as the enemy. Whites are instinctively more individualist. So our 'we' is more of an intellectual decision than instinctive feeling. So we must be very careful about who is us and who is not. I define "us" much more narrowly than you do.

Not so on the American Right. This is especially true on the far right. We have individualists fighting like piranhas to be the big fish in the small pool. The best example that comes to mind is the legal feud between Willis Carto and Mark Weber that destroyed Liberty Lobby and sapped IHR of needed funds.

Jews do plenty of that themselves. Our problem is "we" don't know who "we" are because every time "we" try to define ourselves, someone else dismisses it as "purism" and calls for kumbaya kingism, Rodney not Michael. We are not in the "we" stage yet, we're in the stage where different approaches struggle for dominance. So it is appropriate that we fight, since it's not settled who's right. Or who's dominant, which is about the same thing.

To my knowledge, EMJones and Michael Piper don't know Jared Taylor. They are not in a position to know if he is running a deep game.

Don't have to. You can infer it from the evidence.

I want to say that Piper is an underling of Willis Carto who has been attacking Taylor for years. From what I have read of Piper and Jones, I am not all that impressed with their work.

I am. They're not WN, but their works is fantastic.

Well, you got me here. I do believe in manners. I value custom, propriety, decency, and honesty. I try not to hit others with lowblows. If I have dirt on someone, I generally don't use it. I believe in acting like a gentleman. I don't object to you making your points, but I think you should do it in a fair way. You should have some respect for your opponents. This is Gentile respectability.

Anglo-gentile "respectability" fetish is what created the problem in the first place. It's not respectable, and never will be to that mindset, to deal with the jews their collective behavior shows they need to be dealt with. I'm not too proud to say we should stomp every last jew into a mudhole, and then piss on their corpses. I guess that makes me unclubbable. Oh noes!

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 08:08 AM

I have no objection to criticizing Buchanan, but shouldn't he be criticized in such a way that would prove most effective at winning over his sympathizers? I haven't seen any evidence that your abusive personal attacks are working.

Have you seen evidence that sucking up to them works? It's partly a matter of numbers and noise. The more people saying the same thing, the more effect it will have. Buchanan's readers are more likely to be impressed by a display of dominance over their hero -- a mocking -- than by a respectful approach. You know who the #1 figure admired by these conservative nitwits is? It's Churchill. Why? Because he slaughtered a whole bunch of people. These are mass men, they are awed by straight power and nothing else. You win them over by swagger, not by namby-pamby evidence and manners. Think also which attitude will win the respect of Buchanan? Kicking him in the nuts (pointing out his pecuniary motives) will have a far greater effect than reason and politeness. He picked a nigger for his running mate, but you, a so-called white nationalist, want to treat him respectfully. That doesn't make emotional sense. You should be joining VNN in mocking and attacking Buchanan. If anything will bring him around to our side, it is us showing not where he dserves respect, but condemning him and evne moreso ridiculing him for showing weakness. That's where you bring people around. VNN singlehandled brought PCRoberts around by that technique: shaming him into speaking at least some of the truth about jews. Treat hi mwith respect, he would have stayed the same old jew-fawning shithead he started out as. If you want to influence the readers of these conservatives, there's only one way to do it: dominate their heroes, and make that dominance undeniable. MacDonald's polite, friendly, smiling way is a guaranteed loser. Yeah, they'll give him a nod once or twice a year, as they do Jared Taylor, but it will amount to nothing. A radical group doesn't reach out to others, it rises to dominance from a field of smaller, weaker players, and becomes a star in the sky that none can deny. The correct policy toward Buchanan is to attack him and ridicule his weakness. But only if you think you're right and that you can do better and that you're in this whole hog and all the way. If you're not, then, yes, KM's way is better. Better for YOU PERSONALLY. and YOUR career. That's the Sam Francis way. I thought you wanted more than that. Are you a careerist or a crusader?

On the contrary, most people seem to get defensive and react with hostility. It looks to me like you have only succeeded in isolating yourself from everyone else in the movement, which is a shame, because you are genuinely talented.

What movement? Who's leading this movement? Where is it moving to?

I'm not isolated from the paleoconservatives, whether at Takimag or TOQ, I have no interest in hobnobbing with other career girls because I'm not a career girl. They are what they are, VNN is what VNN is. The only thing of interest to me is whether I can regain enough physical health to lead on the activist front, which is where the real progress is to made. The only advance left on the intellectual front is on the White HS curriculum. Another 100 years of TOQ essays won't change a thing. I'm only interested in leading or following a leader. TOQ isn't offering any more leadership than Sam Francis did. It's just another gaggle of careerist essay writers. Been there, done that. Already came up with better terms and arguments and slogans than TOQ crew could in 1000 years. The cutting edge now is creating real political leadership outdoors. More online essayists, yawn. VNN is for pioneers, not settlers.

Perhaps you are right. I consider myself a rational person. I won't hesitate to change my view in light of new evidence. If I ever find reason to believe you are right about Buchanan, I will share it with you.

Fair enough.

Alexa generates its rating by collecting data from users who have installed their toolbar which tracks their web movements. Only 2% of internet users have Alexa. This is why my Alexa rating is all over the map while the Quantcast data (which directly measures traffic) shows little or no change.

Fair enough. But back in the day, it was the standard everybody used. I followed it very closely until Wolzek left. My point was to give you something other than siply my word that we got more readers, starting from absolute zero, than any other WN site ever has or probably will. Stormfront is higher now, but that's not really directly comparable, as it is a forum. But I havent looked at ratings in years, don't care. I see very few succint, valuable concepts that did NOT originate from VNN, no matter who doesn't link or credit us, and in any case I am long past caring about that, save for the single aspect I mention - I consider it the height of ignoble to steal from fellow Aryans, and I lose all respect for those who do.

I disagree.

Ok, you disagree. But please don't say I have never outlined or advised a strategy. I have many times, and the above is just one of them.

1.) We can only win through incrementalism (gradually pushing our ideas into the mainstream). The Left has exploited the Overton Window with great success.

2.) In order to push our ideas into the mainstream, we need a chain of discursive spaces that are progressively more moderate, or more radical, depending on which way you look at it.

Ok, I've commented on this in other posts. Just for my own curiosity, what's the origin of this 'discursive space'? Why do you like that term so much? What precisely do you mean by it?

3.) We need sympathizers (cryptos) in key positions along this chain who constantly hint at a more radical position.

4.) This creates a path from the mainstream to the fringe down which sympathizers can travel. Case in point, the path I took to White Nationalism through Pat Buchanan, a mainstream political figure.

I don't think your way can work.

You're trying to infiltrate master infiltrators. I'd rather play to Aryan strengths - lead and face the wind, and make no bones about who we are
and what we represent and what change we demand.

1.) Saddling yourself with extreme positions - for instance, exterminating the Jews - is guaranteed to backfire. The overwhelming majority of Whites will recoil in moral disgust. Within the WN movement, you have only made yourself radioactive. No one wants to be associated with someone who openly promotes genocide. You are doing nothing but isolating yourself.

Well you ought to approve if it will make your ideas more moderate by contrast. I remember the glee with which Americans back in 92 watched green tracers destroy Iraq. Americans love kiling innocent people, as long as you provide a fig leaf of justification. And of course the jews aren't innocent people.

2.) In taking such extreme positions, you attract a lot of mentally unstable individuals, people like Todd in FL. You are inviting law enforcement agencies to get on your case. You are running the risk of going to prison. We have already seen Bill White and Hal Turner get in trouble for pushing the boundries of free speech.

Todd was banned years ago, and his bombings were years before that. But anyway, so what? The cops and spies will track anything and everything. You can stay legal and still get thrown in jail. If avoiding risk is the standard, why not stay out of the cause altogether. VNN has higher posting standards than most sites, as we don't allow anonymous troublemakers to spread lies and assassinate character. Most sites do.

3.) Attacking Sam Francis, Greg Johnson, and Jared Taylor with smears and personal attacks hasn't won you any sympathy with their audience. Again, it has backfired. You have only succeeded in highlighting the qualities that people find admirable in them. As a strategy, it just doesn't work.

My words only bother the tepid and timid. Those aren't the ones who can bring about the change we need.

4.) You have a record of attacking all sorts of people in the movement. This has created an enormous amount of animus towards you. Within the WN movement, you have isolated yourself. If you can't build a coalition within the racialist community itself, how do you expect to reach out to non-racialists?

If they don't meet my litmus test, they aren't WN, and definitely aren't in any community I'm part of. Kumbaya coalitions don't work in racialism or anywhere else. More people than you think appreciate my pointing out Brown Johnson's sodomitical tendencies.

Fake unity only retards real unity until there's agreement on who we are and what we want. Until that point, better to fight it out and let the best WN win.

Mike Parker

December 18th, 2009, 08:28 AM

I don't recall MacDonald making that criticism of Linder. I'm sure he would acknowledge that Alex often makes valid insights.

I'm glad I kept the clip. Please see 1:15:39: "I don't know what he's saying that I'm not saying."

To repeat, Alex says racialist politics is a zero sum game. MacDonald says Sammy and Patsy are "great Americans." Alex insists on No Jews Just Right. MacDonald talks about "Jews as allies (http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/CollectiveEditorial-JewishAllies.html)" and praises Paul Gottfried as a "force for relative good (http://theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Gottfried.html)." These are important points that are available to the educated people MacDonald is so concerned about at VNN, not TOQ or TOO. If he won't engage Alex's points because he "cringes" at some bad words, then he's stuck in his own "ordeal of civility." But I'm not sure that's the real reason.

If we change the culture, political victories will naturally follow. If we win at the ballox box, our culture won't necessarily change.

You're still saddled with the wrong analogy. MacDonald together with Jones (http://www.culturewars.com/Slaughter%20of%20Cities%20flyer.pdf) provides a richer model than MacDonald alone. The Jews who advocated the culture of critique opposed the dominant culture but were supported by the dominant political and economic class. Today's WN oppose and are opposed by both. Entirely different situation.

This goes on largely behind the scenes.

Fair enough. Let's just say for the purposes of this discussion, there's no reason to believe the "elites" you're trying to persuade can be persuaded to take action by the power of intellectual argument, and for all your scientism you won't lay out any objective tests of that proposition. The "default position" based on the relevant history should be that prior white "elites" acted in their perceived short-term interests, and the few around today will do the same.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 08:47 AM

Jews are vicious towards out-groups, but practice in-group altruism. In contrast, Whites often viciously fight amongst themselves, as we are seeing here.

We are viciously fighting here? You and me? Aren't we hashing out something that is absolutely essential? I think jews do exactly what we're doing, probably not in public, but that doesn't really matter as it's not in their interest to speak openly, as they are trying to fool people, whereas we are trying to teach them the cold facts of the matter and lead them out of the morass.

1.) We believe in influencing elites: rational, intelligent, educated, sophisticated people with money and influence. We're not trying to reach mental defectives like Todd in FL or kooks like jimbo.

I get it. You want donors, not doers. You write essays. They send checks. Somehow this leads to change.

2.) Towards this end, we believe in creating a new type of racialist and anti-Semitic discourse, one that is fact based, rational, and informed by science.

Why do you think this is new? People have made logical cases against jews for thousands of years. You can create all the discourse you want, but unless you control the tv, it's going to remain in the ghetto.

3.) We're busily creating a real vanguard to spearhead a social movement with mainstream aspirations.

Paleocons like the Francis KM follows said the same thing for decades. The jew-controlled MSM will of course play along because you all have advanced degrees, fresh-scrubbed faces, and properly footnoted essays. And you're pretty and polite in public, eminently ready for prime time.

In other words, we don't shoot people who carry our banner. That would be counterproductive.

What's on that banner? "We are an impressive collection of essay writers and academics who earnestly desire serious change against the interests of those owning the mass media and Congress, but because our facts are in order and we washed behind our ears and we say pretty please we fully expect you to treat us fairly and give us air time to make our case."

For starters, we don't want to be stereotyped and dismissed as mindless haters.

If you try to reach people through the MSM, you will be. Regardless of how you dress or what you say.

This is nonsense. We don't have any objection to using humor and emotion, but cracking jokes about genocide get us nowhere. Believe it or not, we are not all academics. We have all sorts of people reaching out to Whites in various ways.

We're trying to reach middle class people who have those pleasant, middle class morals and manners. We plan on competing with conservatives for their support. Naturally, we have to show some deference to their status concerns. That's realism on our part.

Brimelow's income's got MacDonald's nose open. That's realism on my part.

I have to question this strategic stroke of genius: what is sowing as much division, animosity, and discord within our own ranks supposed to accomplish?

What is "our own ranks"?

Is that really the case? Does anyone truly believe that VNN with its Tard Corral is reaching a better audience than we are?

Who is we? I'm sure people are reading TOQ, but it offers no leadership, and generates no lasting ideas. It's basically a conservative site that allows some jew criticism.

We're willing to grant that Alex makes a lot of good points. We grant that Alex is extremely talented. Otherwise, we wouldn't bother him. Unfortunately, Alex is one of those people who is constitutionally incapable of working with others. The same individualist streak that led him out of the mainstream has isolated him within the movement. He will always be the perennial outsider.

You can't have outsiders unless there's an inside. There isn't. At most TOQ/KM has created another conservative hub, more or less the same as Vdare, most likely aimed at tapping some of the donations Vdare brings in.

No leadership is offered, just an essay now and then.

1.) It is the right thing to do.
2.) It is a better strategy.

Heh. I'll try to remember that you're doing the "right thing" next time I visit OD and see ten or fifteen peole claiming, with no evidence, VNN is a federal front, I'm dying of ass cancer, I'm an FBI informant, and on and on and on.

What have you won? You've set a course for the fringe.

Fringe only means something to people trying to be mainstream, and that means you and KM, and you're not. You will always be juged exactly as they judge me and VNN, that's the reality of the situation. You're just kidding yourself that it's otherwise.

It matters a great deal if, say, a multimillionaire were leave us an endowment.

It matters to the recipient of the check's banking account, not to our cause.

In the 1920's and 1930's, Jews were writing essays. A has to come before B.

Yeah, except they owned the print journals in which those essays were actually published. Sometimes I think you actually believe the things you say, and then I just shake my head in wonder. You really believe you, with your just-the-facts-ma'am and your Overton window are going to do what the jews did. It boggles the mind.

You never answered my question. What happened to Dietrich? He was at VNN for years. It is my understanding that he left to start his own little project.

I have no idea where he is or what he is doing.

Observation: Linder is trying to polarize White Nationalists with vicious smears, not Jews and Whites.

VNN is white nationalism. The stuff you're talking about is faileoconservatism.

Looking forward to it. I've written far too much about White Nationalism and the Jewish Question lately. I plan on getting more engaged with popular culture, the political mainstream, and other movements that compete with us.

Note: I found Rusty Mason through daily blogging.

Well, good.

I've been reading VDARE for almost eight years now. It is one of the best resources on the net. They publish Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor. I wish VDARE were more radical, but instead of criticizing them, I think our time is better spent creating a viable alternative.

I never read it. There's no there there. Like Michelle Malkin's nose.

Mike Parker

December 18th, 2009, 08:54 AM

One more point for Hunter (or others). Speaking of emulating Jews, has anyone in the TOQ family advocated a white boycott of Jewish-controlled businesses? Economic pressure has been one of the Jews' most effective weapons, and even the mild pro-Palestinian movement pushes "BDS" (http://www.bdsmovement.net/) against Israel. Should WN hand our money over to our enemies to fund our destruction?

If TOQ pushes such an idea, that would lead to some interesting tests. Next time MacDonald submits an essay to VDARE it should be about the Jew boycott, or at least link to it. Whether Brimelow carries it will indicate whether he's really on our side in exercising power, or just carries occasional MacDonald thought pieces to prod worried Jews into funding the Sailer-Steinlight immigration reform axis. Of course it would also test MacDonald: is he willing to impose on Brimelow that way? You, Hunter, have an in with AmRen. If they're pro-white, they should allow whites to push for white economic power. If Jared opposes white economic power, surely he should face some consequences.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 09:06 AM

3.) If Alex wants to engage in practical action, why doesn't he take his own advice? I haven't seen any follow up to the Knoxville rally. What about Rounder? Why isn't he organizing street level protests in Missouri? It is one thing to say we need more real world activism. It is another to get out there and actually do it.

Fair point. The reason is purely health related.

6.) Alex is a writer. That's his strength. Unfortunately, I don't see him writing much either. He has abandoned the VNN frontpage to Socrates. I'm running two daily blogs. I'm getting published by TOQ Online and Amren. I even find the time to post here and respond to you guys.

That's impressive and good. Keep it up. We enjoy reading your stuff.

Essays can definitely reach people who have courage. William Pierce wrote The Turner Diaries. He inspired Tim McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. He inspired Bob Mathews and The Order.

Those weren't essays but fiction!

Hitler said if you want real change, writing is a distant second to oratory. Writing is just fill-in documentation. There's no getting around real politics in the streets.

The fact is that literally nobody is offering Whites any political leadership as of December 18, 2009.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 09:14 AM

I'm glad I kept the clip. Please see 1:15:39: "I don't know what he's saying that I'm not saying."

To repeat, Alex says racialist politics is a zero sum game. MacDonald says Sammy and Patsy are "great Americans." Alex insists on No Jews Just Right. MacDonald talks about "Jews as allies (http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/CollectiveEditorial-JewishAllies.html)" and praises Paul Gottfried as a "force for relative good (http://theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Gottfried.html)." These are important points that are available to the educated people MacDonald is so concerned about at VNN, not TOQ or TOO. If he won't engage Alex's points because he "cringes" at some bad words, then he's stuck in his own "ordeal of civility." But I'm not sure that's the real reason.

Yep. KM is a paleoconservative with a minor in criticizing jews, but not disrespectfully, and certain not by excluding them from his tea parties. This policy will lead where it has always led.

What do you think is the real reason, Mike?

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 10:24 AM

In the future, I won't mention you in anything I get published at Amren. If you want to stew in purity and isolation, that's your choice.

This is funny, because I can tell you really mean it. It's as though you imagine 1) AmRen has some huge mass of readers; 2) they're a valuble type we seek; and 3) they haven't heard of VNN. I doubt any of those is true. AmRen's a medium-volume site. The people on it are jewish controllers, some idiots with a hush crime fetish, and ordinary conservatives. No one with a brain or drive would linger there. It took Pierce and Rockwell less than a month apiece to pierce the no-jews veil at JBS, realize the truth, and get booted out. So it is with anyone worth their salt arriving first at AmRen. If they don't have the brains to ask "why," the question you're not allowed to ask there, what good are they to our cause? I'm not saying they don't have the occasional good article or thread, it's just...meh. Same old circular, pointless collection of headlines.

I think we can gradually breakdown the "dynamic silence" policy and get our message out in the mainstream.

You do remember that dynamic silence is just one of their techniques. I sure don't see where you're going to make serious inroads into mass media.

Why bother reading someone who is so obviously worthless?

Who says he's worthless? I can use him for my purposes, same as with Salon liberals or any other group. He's only worthless if you take him as someone it's worthy of respeting and seeing as a 'great American' who can and will help us liberate our race. That's where he is worthless. We should treat him exactly as he treats us - steal from him anything good he comes up with while never showing him any public respect.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 10:40 AM

So was Bobby Fischer. He was nonetheless a crazy Jew himself because of his genes.

I confess a soft spot for him. I just loved the way his mind shot directly to the relevant points. Zero regard for PC or diplomacy, just straight and blunt to jew-blame. Frookin' awesome, 'twas.

People exercising political power sometimes find it expedient to be dishonest, and they can get away with it if they have the propaganda machine on their side, but even for them it often ends in embarrassment when word gets out.

Read a bio of Clinton. People in politics are pretty shameless, most of them. The perfect democratic politician can sit down at a picnic table with two people on opposite sides of an issue, and walk away with both of them thinking he's on their side. Clinton was that good. Taking a position in democratic politics HURTS people. That's why virtually all elected politicians are very skillful deceivers. Very, very few democratic politicians dare lecture people. Bobby Kennedy did, but very few others. 99.9% are attached to audience ass like natural-born remoras.

I think that dishonesty is generally a very bad idea for somebody with no power whose only hope is to be taken seriously by rational people. Truth and credibility are by far the most powerful weapons that we have.

Alone they don't get us very far, though. Liars and murderers always seem to occupy the top positions.

Truth is also what makes us the moral people. Two of the men that I respect the most, Dr. William Pierce and Professor Robert Faurisson, both were brought to the stands that they took and the sacrifices that they made because of the traditional Western value of truth.

If we cease to revere the truth then our cause loses its idealism, as well as its persuasive force.

Wanting to live in a White nation is a preference, not a truth.

I found it strange that in your next utterance, right after advocating dishonesty, you complained about men not conducting themselves honorably. Do you understand that honor and honesty are different forms of the same Latin word? I don't believe that you can have one without the other.

Did I advocate dishonesty or did I observe that those in power are almost always liars, thieves and murderers? You drew the conclusion, I never stated it.

I disagree. What has happened to Bill White is a direct consequence of his manipulative attention-seeking. He calculated that creating the superficial appearance of posing a threat to Obama was a way to force maximum attention on himself, and he got it.

You're a smart guy, Hadding, but I wouldn't have you as part of my inner circle at any cost. You would flip under pressure, because you basically see everybody in the world as morally corrupt, and yourself as pure. Thus, you think everybody else basically deserves the bad that happens to them, and with that mentality, you would turn very quickly under pressure. People don't come in good, and you're still in the childish state where that surprises and disappoints you. Your moralism even overcomes your legalism in this post. You overlook that there was absolutely nothing illegal about the magazine cover or the article itself. To your normal, lawyerball-playing self, that would be the signal point. But because your moral side wants to see Bill White punished, you turn into a puritan.

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 11:02 AM

For any who have never read this, here is the Victor Gerhard - Sam Francis exchange, from 2003. Remember that MacDonald had Francis write the foreward to his book, and is pushing his crew down the same faileocon cowpath:

http://vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/2005/CantSayThat.htm

Alex Linder

December 18th, 2009, 11:05 AM

[Here's the text]

Sam Francis - Vic Gerhard Exchange, Documenting Sammy's Great Fear

22 February 2005

http://vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/2005/CannySammy.jpg

VNN Reader: I had doubted what Linder said about Francis months ago on how believing one thing and saying another causes health problems. But now it makes sense. This picture from last year looks like a 77- or 87-year-old, not a 57-year-old.

To those who think Linder is too harsh, maybe you should think further. If he speaks his mind and doesn't give a damn, so much the better. After all, that's what free speech means. His example can teach as much as his content. If Francis was a coward, then so are many others (including me) and it's up to us to gain courage. Until we do, our fear should make it clear that, to put it mildly, what Linder is doing is not nearly as easy as he makes it look.

Here's an e-mail exchange between Sam Francis and Victor Gerhard from 2003.

----------

Original Link: Here.

Victor Gerhard-Sam Francis Exchanges

by Gerhard & Francis

Loaded: 4/12/2003

(Ed. Note: this is raw email, so don't hold anybody overly responsible for spelling mistakes, etc.)

Here is correspondence with Sammy. I won't put in comments, cause you don't need them, but note how he first argues that he can't get published, then next he doesn't agree with me about Jews -- which makes the first point moot, all the while ignoring the damning questions, like why he criticizes Hispanics so fiercely, but never Jews. Really, the guy is a nut. Either that or they have some dirt on him, or he is just a scared shit, I don't know. I could have ripped him a new asshole because he was 1) hysterical, and 2) illogical, but I let him off easy. Maybe someday he will do something good, I don't know. He can't write a paragraph without 3 contradictions and one twisting of his opponent's argument. I'd love to debate him and drive him into the dirt.

Vic G

[Me to Francis, responding to Moran column]

Anti-Semitism is saying or doing anything a Jew does not like; whether the statement was true, or the act perfectly justified. That is the real de finition. How can you even pretend otherwise when Jews call someone who defends Arabs (Semites) against Jewish tyranny an 'anti-Semite'?

It's great that you are pecking around the edges of the problem. I'm just not sure what more proof you need to see that Jews are directing American foreign policy; that Culture of Critique and its mind-boggling account of facts is completely true; that to rail against blacks and hispanics without mentioning Jews is like complaining about symptoms but not the disease.

Maybe this sounds cruel and racist; and yet it is true isn't it? Personally, I've read enough of your writings, heard you speak enough times, and even talked to you on occasion, so that I am convinced you recognize the Jewish problem. It would be an immense help if you could now take off the gloves and let the Jews have it. They have it coming. They are the true enemy of Middle Americans. "Oil" is not the justification for this war but a laughably transparent Jewish hedge, nor are the Christian fundamentalists to blame; if they were not supporting Israel we would barely, as before 9/11, realize they existed.

My friends are going to jail for speaking their minds; every day another one is arrested or visited by the FBI, or raided by the Terrorism Task Force. Now is the time, name the Jew, put THEM on the defensive for once. Otherwise, Middle America is doomed; its sons' dying in Central Asia, its jobs moving out of the US, its population increasingly non-White and hostile. We need you to act now; a few months from now may be too late.

Your columns could make an immense difference at this crucial moment. We are watching history, and if the Jews triumph here there may be no stopping them, ever. Goodbye White race.

Vic Gerhard
Wilmington, N.C.

************************************

[Francis back to me]

I just wrote a column on Moran in which I was fairly explicit about this matter. I have another today that is also pretty explicit about the role of neo-cons (not all Jews) in getting us into the war. What more do you want? Peter Brimelow at Vdare told me the first column probably would not be published by any newspaper in this country (we'll see; my columnn last year supporting what Billy Graham said to Nixon was not published by my three best outlets), and without my authority or knowledge he changed a key line that altered my meaning. You simply cannot go much further than I have already gone and expect to be published at all in anythng like mainstream media, and anyway, aside from the current war, I think there are other problems besides the Jewish role in stirring up blacks and pushing immigration. Both blacks and hispanics have now acquired their own racial consciousness and are not necessarily under Jewish control.

********************************

[Me back to Sammy]

I agree, you possibly could not go further and expect to be published mainstream, as of today. This is a reasonable argument for using this tactic. I feel (perhaps incorrectly but I doubt it) that the time is past for this tactic. If you did publish a column going further, USA Today would not print it, but plenty of people would read it on the ever growing alternative White media (overthrow.com, antiwar.com, Vanguard News Network, Stormfront, and many more), and it just may put the bar lower for the next guy who dares. As things look today, your tactic, which you have followed for the 15 years I have been reading you, has gotten a good but watered-down message to Middle America, but our situation is FAR worse than 15 years ago.

Much of Middle America is flying an American flag and 'supporting the troops;' reasonable if you never had another way of thinking offered to you. Your columns are scathing at the beginning and middle, but never offer a realistic answer at the end because you do not name the Jews as the prime movers in the destruction of Middle America. How can someone organize against an amorphous 'Elite'? You rarely name names, except as examples. You talk of the Frankfurt School and other groups, never saying they are almost 100% Jewish and Jewish-funded and based on Jewish tactics and ideals.

You told me you were reading 'The Culture of Critique.' How anyone can read that book and not immediately come to important conclusions based on the Jewish role in the Boasian School, the Left, the Psychoanalytic movement, the Frankfurt School, critique of gentile cultural, immigration policy and more, I do not know. Jewish power is the most important and relevant fact in America today. Yet you do not acknowledge that power. That is a derelection of duty; you are hated by the left and neo-cons regardless of what you do - but do you expect the White right, your true home, to appreciate your half-measures? You are literally a man without a nation.

Precisely how bad must the situation get before you tell the whole truth? Now, how would you have answered that question 2 years ago? Two years ago you would have agreed to open fire if the Government ever did something as tyrannical and insane as the Patriot Act(s), the mass arrests, threats of government torture, Guantanamo detention, the B-52 strikes, the complete control of the Executive Branch by Jews, if not Israeli Jews, hideous airport searches, the Department of Homeland Security, phone taps, and spies controlled by Israel. All on top of a war against 1.1 Billion Muslims that we can never win.

You are being disingenuous when you say you were tough on the Moran critics; not all neo-cons are Jews; and blacks and hispanics are not under Jewish control. You were tough on Moran by the relatively tepid standards of the paleo-cons a la the Rockford institute. Not all neo-cons are Jews, but those that are not Jewish know the score and never deviate from the editorial line DEVISED wholly by Jews. Blacks and hispanics may have thrown off a bit of the Jewish yoke, but the Jewish strategy and mindset lives on and they would have little power to intimidate Whites without Jewish judges, lawyers, financing and media pressure. You know this. As far as Brimelow, he needs a kick in the ass also.

What is it you want? To be published mainstream? To be rich? To be on TV? These I can not help you with. But if you want to save Whites and their culture, get off the fence and attack the enemy. At this point, you are actually furnishing disinformation, confusing the very public who soon will be looking for answers as the situation in their country grows worse. And hey, Sobran gets published. I gave him a thousand dollars of my money because of his honest stance; a thousand dollars I had to make in payments because I'm his poorest charter subscriber.

What more can I expect of you? I want you to finally and forever cast off the chains of Jewish fear, Jewish money, and Jewish influence. I want you to write columns that will stir the public to rise up and change this nation. Join those on the radical right who are not afraid to tell the whole truth. I am not asking you to do ANYTHING I have not done. I lost my job as an Attorney, I have friends going to jail on made up charges, I've had my phone tapped, I get the super search at every airport, but I am a FREE MAN! I also write columns - they don't get published mainstream, but thousands of people read them. You could do a hundred times better.

I realize this is a lot to ask, but screw the money and respectability. What do I want? White Power!

Victor J. Gerhard, Esq.
Wilmington, NC

*************************************

[Sammy back to me]

Well, I'm sorry I'm such a disappointment to you. The fact is that I have read the Culture of Critique, as well as the other two volumes, know MacDInald personally, and agree with much though not all of what he says. My entore body of writings over the last 20-25 years is an explanation of how I sidagree and and have a somewhat dofferent view of the world than what is frankly a monomanical obsession with an omnipotent Jew. There are reasons why neo-conservatism exists other than Jewish power, and these should be obvious to any one actually involved in politics. I was a witness to many of them. Just one, for example, is the greed and amition and shalloweness of many orthodox non-Jewish conservatives fro the "respectability" they thought Jews could give them. You and critics like you always assume that because others don't say what you demand they say, they must be afraid to say it. The fact is, as I just told you, I have just written two columns that will probably harm me more than they help me, so it is not fear on my part. Can you even imagine that maybe I don't agree with your view of the Jews, that the Jews and the Jews alone are solely responsible for everthing bad that has happened and is going on? I really don't think you can. Moreover, as I was trying to tell you indirectly, I depend on outlets like Vdrae and Rockford; if they don't publish me, I don't get piublished, and they would not publish me if I write what you want me to write (which I do not agree with anyway). Sobran does not get published outside of his own newsletter and maybe the Wanderer. The American Cisnervatuve won't publish him. Chronicles won't publish him. His syndicate dropped him. So don't tell me about things I know about more than you. It's fine to piublish on sites like VNN., but no one -- non one --reads them or takes them seriously outside a handful of people. Sure I'd like to be rich, but do you imagine I thought I would ever get rich writing what I write? I really just don't know how to explain to people like you what the real world is like, because the truth is -- take it form someone who went through graduate school, worked in a think tank, in the US Senate, and at a nationally distrubuted newspaper for 9 years -- you and your pals do not have a fucking clue.

************************************

[Me to Sammy]

Oooookay....now why will the columns harm you, why won't Vdare and Rockford publish such a column, why can't Sobran get published? Oh, and what is this war stuff on the T.V.? Come on, I wasn't rude to you, nor did I say Jews were every single problem, but that they are far, far more of the problem than recognized by your columns. (By the way, if non-Jewish neo-conservatives want the 'respectablity' they feel Jews can give them, that is not ANOTHER reason neo-cons exist, but rather the very one I stated - Jewish Power.) I don't have a CLUE? You say you agree with most of MacDonald, then when I base my arguments on him, I don't have a clue? Tell me what part of MacDonald you agree with, can you buck up and do that? Agreeing with even one chapter would put in serious question the honesty of your writing, would it not; as that agreement is never acknowledged by you in your writings. And tell me what you disagree with. I get the managerial elite argument, I've read and re-read what you have written over the years, but your very email here implies you won't get published for criticizing Jews as an ethnic group, though you HAVE criticized black's and hispanic's as ethnic groups, and then attacks me with an anger I did nothing to merit.

You are in the same bag as Jared Taylor, who in person admitted he chose not to attack Jews because he had enough of a problem attacking blacks, et al. You fit right in at American Renaissance, I'd say. For all your 'think tank' work, did you ever stand on a street with demonstrators as Jews rained bricks down on you for daring to speak out against them, as the police turned their heads? You write about Middle America, I am Middle America. I'm not sure precisely what sentence got you riled. I'd wish you'd tell me so I can use it again. Hey, if people read this exchange, who will they think has a clue, you or me? I'll wager on me.

Plus, the idea that 'no one' takes VNN seriously is ridiculous. The ever-growing numbers of people that do take it seriously are true activists, each worth 100 brandy-sniffing Chronicle's readers. People that will put their financial and physical well being on the line for the ideals you somewhat endorse. Another point, what is the ENTIRE Muslim world yelling about if not many of the same beliefs about Jews showcased on VNN? Add in much of Europe and Asia and South America, and much of the US population of blacks and hispanics, and, well, that's not really 'a handful of people' is it?

I truly do respect you and your writing had a great effect on my life. Actually, you brought me a long way to the beliefs I have. Yet you, Dr. Frankenstein, feel I don't have a clue. What is that line about the guilty man fleeing where no one pursues? Sorry, should know it, just too Middle American.

Your entire body of work does little to counter an anti-Jewish explanation of American Politics. I believe almost all you have written; yet it contradicts most of MacDonald not at all. Your writings try to explain why and how this managerial elite became so alienated and hostile to traditional America. It partially explains the alienation, but does little to explain the hostility, the outright hatred, that these elites have for people who are basically members of their family. Only a non-White group could have such hatred for Whites, and such an obsession with their destruction. Only by understanding that the most influential part of the managerial elite is Jewish can one finally understand this contradiction in your work.

Anyway, have to get back to the T.V. and see which of my friends Michael Chertoff has arrested, listen to Alan Dershowitz talk about torturing them, and hear Ari Fleisher's take on the whole thing, per Richard Pearle. One last thing; you do realize that Jews as an ethnic group are 3% of the American population? A smaller percentage than Austrian Americans? That fact has made it to you right? But since they are not omnipotent, it's just a minor fact of American politics; voila, the exception proves the rule. Well, as for our discussion, res ipsa loquitur, as we clueless say.

Vic Gerhard
Counsel, White Revolution

************************************

[Sammy to me]

I had thought that you, unlike several of the others who like to rant about my "cowardice," "treachery," "phil-Semitism," etc., had a little more sense, but appraently I was misguided. Let me try to explain once more in some detail what I am trying to tell you.

1. What you said in your last communication was insulting because it at least indirectly and perhaps directly questioned my integrity, acusing me of cowardice or ignorance or dishonesty or greed or ambition as the only plausible reaons I do not write what you want me to write as you want it written. I have to say that I have received many criticisms as a columnist but this -- from the professional (and usualy anonymous) anti-Semites -- takes the cake. No one else presumes ot tell a writer what to write or how to write, even as they insult his character and intelligence -- not religious nuts, not racial nuts, not libertarian nuts -- except maybe the Jews themselves. But leave all that aside.

2. Vdare, Rockford, etc won't publish openly anti-Semitic pieces because (a) they like most gentiles are irrationally afraid of Jewish power and (b) they also have rational concerns over Jewish power. Both have Jewish "friends" who give them money, publicity, support, etc. and they are afraid -- I believe not entirely withgoiut cause but in an exaggerated way -- of losing that. Also, like most peopole they would like to do something else besides attack Jews and sometimes there are Jews with whim they need to work in order th do those things. (Rockford just held a conference in the Middle East on a prospects for peace there; it wasnlt my idea and I don't see the point, except that some donors (non-Jewish ) gave them money to do it.) Therefore, they are veyr careful about antaginizing Jewish supporters. As you may know, they were virtually destroyed in the late 1980s by neo-con defunding because of positive remarks they made about Gore Vidal and because of their opposition to immigration. Nevertheless, they have consistently published pieces critical of Zionism, including several of my recent columns on the Iraq war and Jewish neo-con- Israeli power, and of foreign entanglements, perpetual wars, etc. Chronicles also published a review of MacDonald by Paul Gottfried which I strongly dsagree with but they allowed MacDonald to write a long response, more than the American Conservative allowed. I do not control either RI or Vdare and foten disagree withbhiw they are run, but essentially they do not attack the Jews because they are more interested in other problems.

2. Unless you really do believe that Jews are the causes of all problems, which you deny, you have to admit there are other problems. You ask what I disagree with in MacDonald. I can't really comment on the general evolutionary theory since I'm not an expert, but I have no problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with his characterization of Jews in general, though some people tell me it's less true of some Jewish groups (Sephardic) than others (Ashkenazic) or at some periods of history than at others. What I do not agree with Kevin on is that while he's right about the way Jews are, that doesn't mean they are always successful. They may have pushed open borders as a means of underminig what they saw as a hostile hist society, but that doesn't mean their efforts were the reason we have open borders opr that other groups didn't wnat open borders for their own reasons. I dealt with immigration partly when I was in the Senate and frankly the role of the Jews was not at all apparent, as it was in foreign policy, and many social issues. The main enemies of immigration control on the right are (1) libertarians and (2) Catholics; the same was true at the Wash. Times, and I knew Jews who were opposed to more immigration at both places.Libertarianism tends to be Jewish-led, but it exists as an idnependent force in its own right amoing gentiles. I recall in 1995 or 95 Bill Gates visited Sen. Alan Simpson to lobby him on H1-B visas; Simpson caved. Neither is Jewish and neither did what he did becaise of Jewish power or influence but because of business and political interests. Business interests have been the main reason we have immigrant workers pushing out American workers in meat packing, textiles, poultry processing, etc. The Jews may serve as lawyers or lobbyists for these groups but Jewish groups per se have had little to do with immigration policy in recent years.

3. I don't deny that Jews have power -- certainly in the media and cultural centers generally and in politics through funding, staffing etc. But Jews are not the ruling class in this country (at least not yet). As in many other societies they form a subelite that provides services for the ruling class (tax collecting in Poland, e.g.), but I think they have little interest in becoming theactual ruling class because they have no interest in that as loing as their interests are secured.

4. Your line about standing on street corners getting attacked by Jews is frankly childish. No I didn't. I just lost my job and my career for what I wrote about race (and I can tell you Jews appear to have had something to do with that and have certainly used it against me ever since). I'll bet Kevin MacDOnald never did either. I have a clue for you: Standing on street corners and yelling anti-Semitic slogans isn't a very effectuve way to challeneg much of anything. Hyde Park is full of characters like that. What I have tried to do -- explicitly at the Times and later as well -- has been to make explicit and serious discussion of race respectable. That means picking your shots and not saying everything you'd like to say because you know it will simply baffle or alarm many readers, but it does mean that you can tell many, many people a lot fo things they didn't know or hadn't thought about. I think I was beginning to succeed when I was fired, and that may have been the real reason I was fired. Last summer when the National Alliance had its march on the Israeli Embassy I asked a friend who was planning to attend why and what good it would do? I told him all you will accomplish is give the Post the chance to portray all of you as a bunch of Nazi goons at a time when some opinion sectors were startiung to turn on Israel. Thatls exactly what happened -- pictures of swastika flags, jack boots, etc. that understandably frighten and alienate most Americans and allow the Jews to say, "See, we told you what all those critics of Israel were like!" The idea that people like Linder and VNN accomplish much of anything outside of mutual masturbation is ludcrous. Frankly, I had never heard of Linder until he started attacking me and some people told me about it. With all due respect, I had never heard of your column until you told me you write one.

Finally, I have been gratified (one of the few gratifictaions I ever get in my profession) by being told by doxens of yuong people that I had taught them something they would not have known otherwise. No one but you and your friends have ver denounced me for being a hypocrite, a coward, a liar, a traitor, etc. I would have thiught that you would have epxressed some appreciation for what I have done, but the fact the you don't and can find only the most hateful things to say about me tells me all I need to know. As I told one of your colleagues recently, from now on I can only regard the whole bunch of you as my enemies and as enemies of the cause for which I am working.

********************************

[Me to Sammy, biting my tongue]

I have though about this a lot, and there is much more that could be said, but I don't think we are going to agree no matter what is said.

I do have to say that if your foremost cause is the continuation of the White Race, then there is no possible way we can be enemies as you described.

Though it sounds fawning, no one has structured my political awareness like you in your writings. I learned more reading your Chronicles columns, especially Revolution from the Middle, than in four years of undergraduate study.

Yours,

Vic Gerhard