VLC
November 28th, 2005, 11:16 PM
TAA #3: criticisms + suggestions
late review of TAA #3. It's probably the most negative one posted on VNNF and the longuest too. #2 is better than this one even though #3 covers many important topics.
note to the contributors: I'm not bashing anyone in particular, this is constructive criticism. I wouldn't have spent 3 hours reading #3 and typing this if I didn't care about the quality and the success of TAA.
Craig Cobb:
an important topic, a good article but there should be so much less 'jews this, jooz that' throughout the article. When WLP discusses hush crimes in his broadcasts he describes what happened and then explains the why.
example:
fashion for genocide
http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs9810a.html
you could have mentioned other cases and ask the reader to compare the jewish media coverage of these crimes to those white on non-w that were given so much attention
examples here:
http://www.eaif.org/chron24.htm
You shouldn't forget that you're not writing for people who already know what is going on but for people who have no clue. The reader should read about the murders of whites committed by niggers and mexcrements, then reminded that only the local media covered the story compared to say that nog murdered in Jasper TX and why these crimes are hushed up by the media and why they also don't alarm the population about all sorts of other threats to americans like the mexican invasion, etc. First tell them facts they don't know then explain why they're not being told what they should know. I don't think mixing up the two in each paragraph is a good idea.
"America was founded by whites for whites...", What if America was controlled by Americans?, "if the hush crimes colored commit...", these should be near or at the end of the article not in the middle. Generalizations and conclusions like that should go at the end.
Alex Linder - Katrina:
good. well written, simple. niggers are niggers, the less there are the better it is
Mexican diseases article:
good but at the end there's a mention of the jews and open borders. It's out of place and pointless because the next page mentions K.MacDonald's investigation of the immigration reforms. The disgusting mexican diseases were enough there was no need to insert a reference to jews right there.
The Line in the Sand:
good, very well written.
William Henry:
over the top, preaching to the choir. 600 million whites weren't murdered by jews. They've committed so many hate crimes against us that we don't need to invent fake ones.
ADL (p.9):
too few facts, too short. pointless. This one and the other article on the ADL should have been combined into a longer and more sober one.
News for Christians:
Jew-Jew-Jew! I don't think many christians will want more TAAs after reading page 9. It's a bit hypocritical also since Linder despises christianity - and he's right. The jews' obsession with christianity would make a good topic for a long article though (I recall reading an article about the American Jewish Committee's efforts to ban crosses in various federal buildings) which could have caught the attention of the open minded christian. The news of that jewish chapel built with federal money should have been in a news section along with other news for whites and not just for christians.
jews teaching in law schools:
not bad but again the editorial spin is in your face with no subtlety.
home schooling:
again jew-jew-jew, zog-zog-zog. The academic reasons for home schooling could have been the topic of one article, what kind of idiotic and self-loathing whites are churned out of public schools the topic of another, the jews' efforts against home schooling the topic of another. But that one is a borderline incoherent mix that can only be appreciated by those who are already WN.
Allington:
good. A long article with a beginning and an end and conclusions that follow an exposition of the problem. No Jew-Jew-Jew! but a transparent and coherent message to white men.
Fargo:
Pointless. I didn't feel any it was a "highly effective Hate Whitey" propaganda film when I watched it and I doubt many people will look at Fargo differently after reading that review. It's just a boring movie.
Roth:
very good. All the Jew VS Whites references are relevant here because Roth is a kike whose ideas are typically jewish.
NFL:
good. lots of facts and no zog-zog-zog
Of unknown origin:
preaching to the choir. pointless
page 16:
I like the Keep yourself white pic but the rest is kind of pointless. The short piece on the ADL should have been merged with the other
The layout:
good colors, good pictures, good cover. Minor point: sometimes the text is squeezed next to a picture. Perhaps instead of a thick black frame around an article there should simply be a line. On page 6 for example there's no need for frames, a vertical line would have been enough.
There shouldn't any or at most very few CAPS or underlined words or bold ones unless it's for names or numbers. Underlining a conclusion is like telling the reader he's too dumb to understand what he just read - at least that's how I feel every time I see those. There was very few of those in #2.
general comment:
There's too much of the content that is written as if the audience was already WN & antisemitic. ZOG, Amerikwa, jew this, jew that, jew here, jew there, teh jew behind the curtain, small jew, Big Jew, JeW-jEw-JeW, it's just too much. I mean it's not that it's false but that you can't throw everything you've got in the face of your target audience and hope that they'll 'get it'. It's a bit like reading christian propaganda, they throw these words at you, Our Lord!, Matthew 24:12!, John 14:55!, Apocalypse!, or those commie rags with all their symbols and words like Bourgeois!, Workers!, Exploitation!, Revolution!. They're like sealed packages that you either have to accept or reject completely. A "good" commie rag or a "good" christling rag would contain informations that the non-commie or the non-believer would find pertinent even if he doesn't necessarily agree with the editorial angle. That's what is lacking in TAA.
You're a competitor to the mainstream media and to get the customers to prefer your product you have to show more respect for their intelligence. Shred their illusions but replace them with clear counter-interpretations. Maybe it's the tabloid format I'm not fond of but I don't see how the current TAA content provides serious intellectual stepping stones for the white man of the street. Half of it is good but the other half isn't.
Being a curious white man after reading TAA #3 I would have probably bought a copy of TLITS and then after watching the movie and reading MacDonald afterwards I would have understood what is happening but then TAA itself would seem somewhat irrelevant after that.
What got me coming back to VNN even though I wasn't an antisemite at the time was not only that it was offensive and funny but that I could click on the links posted and read stuff I've never heard of and newsworthy news I wouldn't have noticed or cared for if I had seen them through a non-WN/antisemite angle. VNN offered an interpretation and I could accept it or not - and I did after a few months. That's the internet, the paper media is something else. You can't simply transpose VNN into paper without making changes and hope that the effect will be the same. On the internet having a 'presence' and a message is sufficient to attract people if your message is coherent and transparent and the facts your offer can be checked, you become a reference for the topics you cover. But on paper you got to have more depth because there's no content other than the content of the text. Very few people will bother going to the internet and check out a generic website unless the paper they read is a good advertisement for that website. Govnn.com will have value for the readers of the paper when they'll know they can find there the information they can't elsewhere but the problem is that the newsworthy informations in TAA are constantly mixed up with antisemitic comments and the jewish connection, the chain of causality isn't explained properly.
Going from a somewhat liberal to a WN as I did is sort of a step by step program. The paper should help whites make these steps.
Each piece in TAA should be focused on the particular topic it touches and have very few or no invective towards jews unless it's directly related to the topic. We know jews are the problem but the people you give TAAs to don't. To come to that conclusion they'll first have to realise that the TAA they're reading is an alternative to the jewish media and not solely an anti-jew paper with a message, because it tells the truths that they won't. Rather than being told what to conclude the reader should come to the conclusion by comparing the content of the MSM with the content of TAA and ask himself some questions afterwards. They have to feel uncomfortable the next time they watch TV or read the jewspaper because they'll know they're not being told the whole story or they're not being told it at all. That seed of doubt will enter their mind more easily with "objective" news articles without this deluge of 'jewz' and 'ZOG'. Keep that message on the editorial page and fill the other pages with transparent factual articles. So there should be at least a news only section, with little or no editorial spin. On AmRen.com every week there are news articles that would make millions of whites angry. The reader should end up asking himself why he/she hasn't heard of news X and Y, how come the cuntservative on the radio isn't talking about it, etc. I think this is much more important than the anti-jew message.
my suggestions:
1.
create a news sections with small facts-only articles, the kind you can read on AmRen.com. The news don't need to be very fresh only newsworthy for whites. After reading TAA they should feel that they won't miss anything of importance if they turn off their TV and stop reading the mainstream newspapers.
2.
be more sober, less tabloidistic. The separation of the facts from the interpretations you infer and deduct from the facts must be clear so that the curious reader could try to find another interpretation. If there's no space to build the factual bridge to lead the reader to a conclusion don't cut corners just leave it open. For example "mexicans invaders spread disgusting diseases" is better than "mexicans invaders spread disgusting diseases and it's because of the jew" because the bridge to that conclusion wasn't in that article.
3.
promote Goyfire and promote it again. At least a large ad in TAA #4. It's one of the best things VNN has done so far
late review of TAA #3. It's probably the most negative one posted on VNNF and the longuest too. #2 is better than this one even though #3 covers many important topics.
note to the contributors: I'm not bashing anyone in particular, this is constructive criticism. I wouldn't have spent 3 hours reading #3 and typing this if I didn't care about the quality and the success of TAA.
Craig Cobb:
an important topic, a good article but there should be so much less 'jews this, jooz that' throughout the article. When WLP discusses hush crimes in his broadcasts he describes what happened and then explains the why.
example:
fashion for genocide
http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs9810a.html
you could have mentioned other cases and ask the reader to compare the jewish media coverage of these crimes to those white on non-w that were given so much attention
examples here:
http://www.eaif.org/chron24.htm
You shouldn't forget that you're not writing for people who already know what is going on but for people who have no clue. The reader should read about the murders of whites committed by niggers and mexcrements, then reminded that only the local media covered the story compared to say that nog murdered in Jasper TX and why these crimes are hushed up by the media and why they also don't alarm the population about all sorts of other threats to americans like the mexican invasion, etc. First tell them facts they don't know then explain why they're not being told what they should know. I don't think mixing up the two in each paragraph is a good idea.
"America was founded by whites for whites...", What if America was controlled by Americans?, "if the hush crimes colored commit...", these should be near or at the end of the article not in the middle. Generalizations and conclusions like that should go at the end.
Alex Linder - Katrina:
good. well written, simple. niggers are niggers, the less there are the better it is
Mexican diseases article:
good but at the end there's a mention of the jews and open borders. It's out of place and pointless because the next page mentions K.MacDonald's investigation of the immigration reforms. The disgusting mexican diseases were enough there was no need to insert a reference to jews right there.
The Line in the Sand:
good, very well written.
William Henry:
over the top, preaching to the choir. 600 million whites weren't murdered by jews. They've committed so many hate crimes against us that we don't need to invent fake ones.
ADL (p.9):
too few facts, too short. pointless. This one and the other article on the ADL should have been combined into a longer and more sober one.
News for Christians:
Jew-Jew-Jew! I don't think many christians will want more TAAs after reading page 9. It's a bit hypocritical also since Linder despises christianity - and he's right. The jews' obsession with christianity would make a good topic for a long article though (I recall reading an article about the American Jewish Committee's efforts to ban crosses in various federal buildings) which could have caught the attention of the open minded christian. The news of that jewish chapel built with federal money should have been in a news section along with other news for whites and not just for christians.
jews teaching in law schools:
not bad but again the editorial spin is in your face with no subtlety.
home schooling:
again jew-jew-jew, zog-zog-zog. The academic reasons for home schooling could have been the topic of one article, what kind of idiotic and self-loathing whites are churned out of public schools the topic of another, the jews' efforts against home schooling the topic of another. But that one is a borderline incoherent mix that can only be appreciated by those who are already WN.
Allington:
good. A long article with a beginning and an end and conclusions that follow an exposition of the problem. No Jew-Jew-Jew! but a transparent and coherent message to white men.
Fargo:
Pointless. I didn't feel any it was a "highly effective Hate Whitey" propaganda film when I watched it and I doubt many people will look at Fargo differently after reading that review. It's just a boring movie.
Roth:
very good. All the Jew VS Whites references are relevant here because Roth is a kike whose ideas are typically jewish.
NFL:
good. lots of facts and no zog-zog-zog
Of unknown origin:
preaching to the choir. pointless
page 16:
I like the Keep yourself white pic but the rest is kind of pointless. The short piece on the ADL should have been merged with the other
The layout:
good colors, good pictures, good cover. Minor point: sometimes the text is squeezed next to a picture. Perhaps instead of a thick black frame around an article there should simply be a line. On page 6 for example there's no need for frames, a vertical line would have been enough.
There shouldn't any or at most very few CAPS or underlined words or bold ones unless it's for names or numbers. Underlining a conclusion is like telling the reader he's too dumb to understand what he just read - at least that's how I feel every time I see those. There was very few of those in #2.
general comment:
There's too much of the content that is written as if the audience was already WN & antisemitic. ZOG, Amerikwa, jew this, jew that, jew here, jew there, teh jew behind the curtain, small jew, Big Jew, JeW-jEw-JeW, it's just too much. I mean it's not that it's false but that you can't throw everything you've got in the face of your target audience and hope that they'll 'get it'. It's a bit like reading christian propaganda, they throw these words at you, Our Lord!, Matthew 24:12!, John 14:55!, Apocalypse!, or those commie rags with all their symbols and words like Bourgeois!, Workers!, Exploitation!, Revolution!. They're like sealed packages that you either have to accept or reject completely. A "good" commie rag or a "good" christling rag would contain informations that the non-commie or the non-believer would find pertinent even if he doesn't necessarily agree with the editorial angle. That's what is lacking in TAA.
You're a competitor to the mainstream media and to get the customers to prefer your product you have to show more respect for their intelligence. Shred their illusions but replace them with clear counter-interpretations. Maybe it's the tabloid format I'm not fond of but I don't see how the current TAA content provides serious intellectual stepping stones for the white man of the street. Half of it is good but the other half isn't.
Being a curious white man after reading TAA #3 I would have probably bought a copy of TLITS and then after watching the movie and reading MacDonald afterwards I would have understood what is happening but then TAA itself would seem somewhat irrelevant after that.
What got me coming back to VNN even though I wasn't an antisemite at the time was not only that it was offensive and funny but that I could click on the links posted and read stuff I've never heard of and newsworthy news I wouldn't have noticed or cared for if I had seen them through a non-WN/antisemite angle. VNN offered an interpretation and I could accept it or not - and I did after a few months. That's the internet, the paper media is something else. You can't simply transpose VNN into paper without making changes and hope that the effect will be the same. On the internet having a 'presence' and a message is sufficient to attract people if your message is coherent and transparent and the facts your offer can be checked, you become a reference for the topics you cover. But on paper you got to have more depth because there's no content other than the content of the text. Very few people will bother going to the internet and check out a generic website unless the paper they read is a good advertisement for that website. Govnn.com will have value for the readers of the paper when they'll know they can find there the information they can't elsewhere but the problem is that the newsworthy informations in TAA are constantly mixed up with antisemitic comments and the jewish connection, the chain of causality isn't explained properly.
Going from a somewhat liberal to a WN as I did is sort of a step by step program. The paper should help whites make these steps.
Each piece in TAA should be focused on the particular topic it touches and have very few or no invective towards jews unless it's directly related to the topic. We know jews are the problem but the people you give TAAs to don't. To come to that conclusion they'll first have to realise that the TAA they're reading is an alternative to the jewish media and not solely an anti-jew paper with a message, because it tells the truths that they won't. Rather than being told what to conclude the reader should come to the conclusion by comparing the content of the MSM with the content of TAA and ask himself some questions afterwards. They have to feel uncomfortable the next time they watch TV or read the jewspaper because they'll know they're not being told the whole story or they're not being told it at all. That seed of doubt will enter their mind more easily with "objective" news articles without this deluge of 'jewz' and 'ZOG'. Keep that message on the editorial page and fill the other pages with transparent factual articles. So there should be at least a news only section, with little or no editorial spin. On AmRen.com every week there are news articles that would make millions of whites angry. The reader should end up asking himself why he/she hasn't heard of news X and Y, how come the cuntservative on the radio isn't talking about it, etc. I think this is much more important than the anti-jew message.
my suggestions:
1.
create a news sections with small facts-only articles, the kind you can read on AmRen.com. The news don't need to be very fresh only newsworthy for whites. After reading TAA they should feel that they won't miss anything of importance if they turn off their TV and stop reading the mainstream newspapers.
2.
be more sober, less tabloidistic. The separation of the facts from the interpretations you infer and deduct from the facts must be clear so that the curious reader could try to find another interpretation. If there's no space to build the factual bridge to lead the reader to a conclusion don't cut corners just leave it open. For example "mexicans invaders spread disgusting diseases" is better than "mexicans invaders spread disgusting diseases and it's because of the jew" because the bridge to that conclusion wasn't in that article.
3.
promote Goyfire and promote it again. At least a large ad in TAA #4. It's one of the best things VNN has done so far